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

Articles, news, and reviews that celebrate God's truth.

Get Articles Delivered!

Articles, news, and reviews that celebrate God's truth. delivered direct to your Inbox!



Interview with an artist

Joanne Stoffels is on a treasure hunt

Kleanza Creek
18” x 36"
Acrylic on canvas
Clear, cool, shade and light; Kleanza Creek near Terrace, BC is a spectacular stop along the highway. The lighting in this scene challenged me.

Interview with an artist

*****

Smithers, BC artist Joanne Stoffels believes life is a treasure hunt for beauty. And she finds an endless source of inspiration right outside her window in ever-changing mountains, dramatic cloudscapes, tiny blue forget-me-not blooming in her garden, and in the fragile, fleeting beauty of the cherry blossom. Scanning for compositions and framing scenes through windows has become a way of life for Joanne: “My six children, all grown now, and my patient husband humor me as they are called once again to observe the magnificence and share the joy.”

Stoffels “sees” paintings while singing the Psalms, or reading Scripture. She often feels as though a painting is just “waiting to burst forth from the edges of my imagination – abstract colours and shapes moving across the page.” The term gloryscope (something she picked up from pastor and author Paul Tripp) resonates deeply with Joanne and she hopes that her artistic creations will draw others closer to the wonders of the true Creator.

Stoffels started to paint about 10 years ago, sticking mostly to subjects which she has personally experienced. Mountains, forests and the alpine feature prominently. “Many of my paintings are of places that hold a special memory. Some work is more representational, some leans more to ‘abstract landscape.’”

Stoffels is curious about other artists’ experiences too. Especially in her first years of art, she explored the work of Emily Carr and the Group of Seven. “The writings of Emily Carr gave me a feeling of kinship, ‘trying to get that joyous worshipping into the woods and mountains, the works of the Lord.’” She admires the way the Group of Seven in particular have captured our immense, glorious country in a “bold and raw new kind of art.”

Currently Joanne works when she can in her dining room/studio whenever inspiration strikes.

“Our home has quite a creative, relaxed vibe to it. An easel might be up and the table littered with supplies for several weeks before we tidy it all up again, scrape paint from the table, and use it for guests or family dinner.”

She sells her work privately and through a thriving artisan shop in Smithers, called Out of Hand. You can follow Joanne on Instagram @paintingsbyjoannestoffels. You can also connect with the artist by email at [email protected]. Also, some of her work has been transformed into stickers, available on her daughter Montana’s blueskyartshop.square.site store.

Late Summer 12” x 36" Acrylic on canvas - This bright piece captures a late summer sunset from our driveway. In the evening the world melts into blocks of colour.

If you have a suggestion for an artist you’d like to see profiled in RP please email Jason Bouwman at [email protected]. You can also follow Jason on Instagram: @jaybouwman.

Science - Creation/Evolution

Is creation worth fighting about?

Billions of years, or just six days, do we need to care?   ***** Does it matter? Of all the questions in the creation vs. theistic evolution debate, whether the debate even matters may be the biggest, and more important than how long it took, what method God used, or how to understand the opening chapters of Genesis. Christians understand we shouldn’t bicker with our brothers and sisters over minor matters – Jesus told us: “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God” (Matt. 5:9). God doesn’t want us to make big out of little. He doesn’t want us to be quarrelsome, nitpicking all sorts of fights. However, God also warns against making little of big. There is a time and place for fighting, and we mustn’t be like the watchman on the wall who saw the danger coming and stayed quiet (Ezek. 33:6-8). It is a con to say “peace, peace” when war is at the door (Ezek. 13:10-16, Jer. 6:14). Now, in the creation vs. theistic evolution debate, there are a lot of Christians who aren’t prepared to pick a side. They aren’t loyal to 6 days or billions of years, perhaps believing they need a theology or science degree to be qualified to take a stand. They don’t want to be forced to pick one team over the other. However, when the question is “Does this matter?” then not picking a side is still picking a side. Refusing to choose is only legitimate if this is no big thing. So is it really no big thing… or is it huge? To answer that question, let’s look at both sides. Side 1: Who matters more than how Among the “can’t we all get along” folks, the focus is on just how much agreement there is between 6-day creationists and theistic evolutionists. Both acknowledge the God of the Bible as our Creator. We all agree He made us, and that His creative genius is evident in the whole of the astonishing universe around us. Whether we’re looking at the Sun that warms us from 150 million kilometers away, or the chubby toes of our newest grandbaby, we’re all in awe of what He hath wrought. And isn’t that basis enough for fellowship? The argument here is that Who did it matters much more than how He did it, or how long He took. Who matters more than how. As long as Christians all give God the credit, then isn’t everything else incidental? Side 2: How tells us all about Who On the other side there is a ready concession that Who does indeed matter more than how. After all, God matters more than His creation. But how He started it all isn’t incidental. It matters too, because how God chose to create reveals God’s character. How He created tells us about Who God is. So yes, both sides agree it is the God of the Bible who created, but that isn’t as significant as it might first seem. Consider the Muslims, who also declare that the God of the Bible created. And they say their Allah has no Son. That means their biblical creator god, isn’t actually God. Orthodox Jews worship the God who created, but deny Jesus is God. Mormons worship a biblical god who created and even has a son…but he also has a wife. And his son is said to be the brother of Satan. Their creator god is not our Creator God either. It is possible, then, to worship such a distorted image of the biblical Creator that you aren’t actually worshiping God at all. This issue is that big. The argument here is that how God created is an issue worth investigating because, in His chosen means, God is teaching us about Himself – God reveals Himself not only in His Word but also in His creation (Ps. 19:1-4). As Paul puts it in Romans 1:20: “…His invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made.” The how matters because it tells us all about Who. What do the two creation accounts tell us about God? What then, do the two different creation accounts teach us about God? Creationists worship a God whose power was such that He spoke into existence something from nothing, and made a universe appear in just 6 days. Thus the famed chicken and egg dilemma is no dilemma at all for creationists, who know the chicken sprung into being fully formed on Day 5. And while pagans worship the Sun, God showed His great power by creating light (Day 1) before even creating a light source (the Sun on Day 4). Both marriage and the two sexes, male and female, were created in this 6-day period. God affirmed again and again that what He made was “good” and, upon completion on Day 6, even “very good.” What is good? The perfect sinless world was good. And it was good, not only as it was on Day 6, but even as it was being made through Days 1-5 – God found the process good too. Creationists know that death appeared as a result of Man’s disobedience – we broke the world. But there is hope; this enemy, death, has been conquered by Christ’s perfect obedience. And it is through Jesus that the world will be made good once again. The god of theistic evolution took billions of years to form the universe. During that process neither the chicken nor the egg was first: they were preceded by millions of years of incremental evolution that necessarily involved a red-in-tooth-and-claw, survival-of-the-fittest, where the weak were killed off and the strong went on to breed. Death didn’t simply precede Man’s fall into sin, it preceded Man by millions of years. And rather than being the enemy, death was a key tool in God’s creative work. Marriage and gender weren’t always so, but evolved at some point, and who knows but that they may be evolving still. And it is this eons-long process of constant change – with its refining diseases, innumerable mutations, repeated disasters, and, yes, death, death, and more death – that God was calling good and very good in the opening chapters of Genesis. The implications extend to the present, where creationists can turn to Scripture for guidance on issues like homosexuality, marriage, and gender confusion. We can learn what is best for men and women by seeing how God made us at the beginning. But if we evolved, and that process was good, why couldn’t we be evolving still? Our forebearers, when once they were single-celled, weren’t divvied into two genders – that only came later. So if we could go from none to two genders, why can’t we evolve new additions like ze and zir? And why would we presume that marriage has to be between just the first two genders? What answer does theistic evolution have to the craziness of our age? Does theistic evolution present a false god? Thus the god of theistic evolution bears little resemblance to God of the Bible. But does that mean theistic evolutionists are without hope? Are they worshipping a false god? Thankfully, it is not our brilliance that saves us, but God’s grace. And that’s why, even as some theistic evolutionists worship a god of their own invention, we can hope and pray and expect that many others still worship the true God, though in their inconsistency. They might say they believe in billions of years of death, but their faith is still in the God who declared death an enemy and conquered it. They may doubt the accuracy of some of Jesus’s words – how he spoke of a literal Adam and Eve created in the beginning (Mark 10:6, Matt. 19:4) – and yet cling to His promise that there are many rooms in His Father’s house (John 14:2). They may mangle the first few chapters of Genesis, but then take God at His Word for the whole of the rest of the Bible. That doesn’t make this any less of a big deal. Over a lifetime people do work out their inconsistencies. Many theistic evolutionists will either come to acknowledge God’s Word as authoritative from beginning to end, or they’ll subject the rest of God’s Word to further review and revision by outside authorities. It’s no slippery slope fallacy to say that if you scratch a professing Christian who’s pro-choice or LGBT-affirming, underneath you’ll find an evolutionist. Conclusion Like Allah, without a son, the god of theistic evolution offers no hope. In seeing billions of years of death as good and very good, what need would such a god even have to send his son to die for us? Thankfully, the one true God did send His Son, so we can have not only hope but an assurance that our sins are paid for, death is defeated, sickness will end, and all of creation will be redeemed. The creation debate isn’t one any Christian can avoid – it is of the first importance, because it is about Who God is....

News

Saturday Selections – Nov. 25, 2023

Refuting Mormonism – is there only one God? (9 min) It can be a bit confusing to nail down whether Mormons teach that we can become gods, and whether, consequently, there were gods before God. Official materials will seemingly deny it on the one hand, and on the other share how founder Joseph Smith taught his followers that God "was once as one of us," and how the fifth LDS President Lorenzo Snow crafted this couplet: "As man now is, God once was: As God now is, man may be." But as Jeff Durbin shows in this clip, that is not what the Bible teaches in Is. 43:10-11 and elsewhere. Turning cow poop into gas to run the tractors Some environmental sorts still see overpopulation as a threat to the planet. But God's people know He gave us a brain to problem-solve with, and two hands to put to work. So we can be creative like our Maker, and come up with intriguing energy-producing, pollution-reducing ideas like turning poop into fuel. Daddy has to work now... If your kids think work is the place that takes daddy from them, then they'll view it quite negatively. So how can we instill a biblical view of work in our kids? The insanity of denying free will To justify their rebellion against God, smart people can believe the craziest things... Potty humor from Old Testament times In 2 Kings 10:27 we read of Israel's King Jehu cleaning house by killing Baal's priests and tearing down his temple. But we get one more detail thrown in - the temple wasn't just destroyed, it was desecrated: "...people have used it for a latrine to this day." An archeological find shows that Judah's King Hezekiah may have done something similar, though more symbolically, one hundred years later. A "symbolic toilet" was found in a dig at Tel Lachish in what some archeologists believed to be a small shrine. They think the purpose was simply to desecrate the unknown false god's place of worship. Or as Newsweek's Kastalia Medrano put it: "Hezekiah's behavior basically stemmed from his belief that his ancestors hadn't worshipped piously enough by turning to other gods, a lapse he apparently intended to remedy by both literally and figuratively defecating on holy places set up to worship those gods." Does earth have methods to regulate climate? Here's an account of climate regulators that the climate models either haven't taken into account at all, or to the right extent. Billions of ways to die (2 min) The authors of Your Designed Body want us to understand while there are billions of ways to die, everything has to go just right for us to be alive. ...

Sexuality

Make it up as you go: Alfred Kinsey’s sex research

“Research” that opposes God’s law will be exposed…. eventually ***** When an immoral agenda is being advocated on the basis of “scientific” evidence, there is good reason to be suspicious. Science has a certain aura to it in Western societies, so promoting a particular view as being the “scientific” one is a clever strategy. However, sometimes the scientific veneer is just a Trojan Horse. This has been the case with some of the most influential social science of the twentieth century. Perhaps more than any other single individual, Professor Alfred C. Kinsey of Indiana University could be blamed (or credited) with the breakdown of traditional morality in the USA and other major English-speaking countries. Kinsey was a pioneer “sex researcher” who published two ground-breaking studies, one on male sexual behavior (1948) and the other on female sexual behavior (1953), which rocked the Western world and led to the liberalization of laws regulating sexual conduct in the USA and other countries. That’s a notable accomplishment for one man. During much of the twentieth century science was seen as providing the answers to many of humanity’s problems, so any perspective couched in the language of science received instant respect and credibility. Kinsey was able to take advantage of this prevailing attitude to push his own personal political agenda of sexual freedom. He correctly figured that scientific data “proving” that most people were secretly promiscuous in one way or another would provide a powerful impetus to overthrow traditional conservative views. Kinsey thus conducted his “research” in such a way that it would produce the results he wanted. Judith Reisman unmasks Kinsey Beginning in the 1980s another American researcher, Dr. Judith Reisman, began uncovering the real truth behind Kinsey’s work. She discovered the deliberately fraudulent basis of Kinsey’s influential studies and began to actively alert people to the fact that many changes in American law and culture had been initiated on the basis of this fraud. Dr. Reisman’s work is very important but she is yet to receive the attention and credit that she is due for her efforts. This work  has been summarized in a small book – just 84 pages – by Susan Brinkmann, called The Kinsey Corruption: An Expose on the Most Influential “Scientist” of Our Time. There are many reasons to be outraged over Kinsey’s research, but we will touch on just two of them here. 1) He skewed his data Social science research often involves surveys of the general public. A large group of people is given a set of particular questions, then the answers to those questions are compiled and the survey results are considered to be empirical evidence regarding the issue being studied. Presumably the group of people surveyed is representative of the wider population. With this in mind it’s not too difficult for an unethical researcher to produce research that will give him the specific results he wants. If he knows beforehand that certain people are likely to give him particular answers to his questions, he can target those people for his survey so that he deliberately gets a larger proportion of them in his survey sample. Thus the results of his “scientific” study will be heavily weighted in favor of the results he wants. This is basically what Kinsey did. Kinsey’s research was based on survey data which he claimed represented the American population. But it did not represent the American population, and he knew it. His data included a disproportionately large percentage of people who engaged in sexually immoral behavior. "In an outrageous example, Kinsey classified 1,400 criminals and sex offenders as 'normal' on the grounds that such miscreants were essentially the same as other men – except that these had gotten caught." So the information about sexual behavior provided by these 1,400 degenerate men was considered to represent the sexual behavior of average American males. When it’s understood how Kinsey undertook much of his research, it’s not surprising that according to his, "skewed data, 95 per cent of the American male population regularly indulged in deviant sexual activities such as extra-marital affairs, homosexuality, pedophilia, etc.” 2) He relied on rapists’ “data” More outrageous, however, is the way Kinsey obtained data about children’s sexual behavior. In short, children were sexually abused and the abusers would then provide information to Kinsey. One of the chief sources of information about children “was later discovered to be Rex King, the serial child rapist responsible for the rapes of more than 800 children.” Kinsey in Canada Reisman’s research focuses primarily on the USA where Kinsey worked and had the most obvious impact. However, Kinsey’s influence spread throughout the English-speaking world. Here in Canada, Kinsey’s studies have been used to justify cultural and legal changes as well. In 1969 Canada’s law was changed to legalize homosexuality. In the debates over this change, Kinsey was cited as an authority. For example, in the House of Commons on January 23, 1969, one MP read from an article stating that, “Homosexuality is now known to be much more widespread than was thought in the past, as the researches of Dr. Kinsey and others have shown.” He goes on to say that, Dr. Kinsey concluded “that 37 per cent of the male population of the United States had had some homosexual experience between the beginning of adolescence and old age.” This MP then refers to Kinsey further. One of the documents cited most commonly in favor of legalizing homosexuality in Canada was the Wolfenden Report. This report was an official document produced in the 1950s for the British government recommending liberalization of laws relating to prostitution and homosexuality. In England, the recommendations on prostitution were implemented in 1959 and the recommendations for homosexuality were implemented in 1967. The Wolfenden Report was widely seen as very authoritative and it was unquestionably influential in the changes made to Canada’s law on homosexuality. In the House of Commons on January 24, 1969, one Liberal MP pointed out that the government’s proposals for legalizing homosexuality were based on the “recommendations of the Wolfenden committee.” He goes on to point out that the government’s perspective is “very close to the philosophy of the Wolfenden Report.” Throughout the Parliamentary debate, the Wolfenden Report is cited over and over again. Why is this relevant? Because Alfred Kinsey’s “research” on homosexuality was a source for the Wolfenden Report itself. The committee that produced the Wolfenden Report considered Kinsey to be an authority on homosexuality and freely referred to his work. In this respect, Kinsey indirectly influenced the change in Canadian law through his impact on the Wolfenden Report. In 1982 Canada adopted the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, the federal and provincial governments were given three years to bring their laws into conformity to the Charter’s provisions on equality rights before they came into effect. A Parliamentary committee on equality rights traveled the country in 1985 to get citizen feedback on how the Charter’s equality provisions should be interpreted. Numerous homosexual activists made presentations to this committee advocating their perspective. It was common during these presentations for the activists to refer to Kinsey’s research as a justification for homosexual rights. For example, during a presentation to the committee in Vancouver on May 27, 1985, an activist claimed, “Approximately 10% of the population in Canada is gay.” Subsequently, MP Svend Robinson asked the presenter, “You made reference to 10%. I assume this is based on the studies by Kinsey and a number of others.” The activist replied, “That was the Kinsey Report, the 1948 studies, yes.” Another activist testified before the committee in Winnipeg on May 30, 1985, stating that "Our individual and collective experience has provided us with every reason to think that the statistics deduced by the Kinsey Institute in the 1940s were correct: that about 10% of the population is homosexual." On that same day another activist said, “Statistically, the invisible homosexual minority makes up approximately 10% of the population of this country.” And in yet another presentation, a United Church minister remarked, “We point out that about 10% of the population, according to sociological figures, are of homosexual orientation.” The point here is that Kinsey’s studies were viewed as pertinent and relevant to the advancement of homosexual rights here in Canada. His data provided an apparent scientific authority for arguments in favor of homosexual rights. But Kinsey had deliberately skewed his research to get the kind of figures that would support the changes in law and culture that he desired. Kinsey: the movie Some liberals have been concerned about the erosion of Kinsey’s credibility that has resulted from Reisman’s efforts. A Hollywood movie (appropriately entitled Kinsey) was made in 2004 to bolster Kinsey’s reputation. It starred Liam Neeson as Kinsey himself. You won’t learn about his fraud in this movie, though. Brinkmann writes that this movie “presents the life and work of Alfred C. Kinsey in the most glowing terms. Instead of presenting the facts, it glorifies him as a persecuted hero who found himself trapped in a world of sexual repression.” Conclusion Brinkmann notes in the conclusion of her book that the “legacy of Alfred C. Kinsey’s twisted life and work can be read daily in the ever-worsening moral condition of our country.” Of course, Kinsey alone cannot be blamed for the moral decline of the Western countries, but he certainly deserves more blame than just about anybody else. Kinsey is still widely recognized as an authority on sexual behavior despite the fact that the truth has begun to come out – his research is not reliable. This provides good grounds to be suspicious of “studies” promoting various aspects of modern sexual promiscuity, whether homosexual or heterosexual. When viewed carefully, many studies purporting to support various trendy views will be found to be faulty. Most researchers aren’t unethical like Kinsey. But all researchers (whether left-wing or right-wing) are influenced by their worldview – their studies will likely confirm their preconceived views. Social science is not like physical science where you can get precise measurements that are repeatable, giving exactly the same results every time. Social science is much more subjective than that. In other words, the rule “don’t believe everything you read” should be doubly applicable whenever the media reports a new study allegedly demonstrating that monogamy among human beings is unnatural, or that homosexual couples are better parents than heterosexuals, and other such things. Sure, that’s what the study concluded. But you have good grounds for being skeptical about the study itself. These kinds of studies have been flawed or “fixed” before, so the rational response is skepticism. This was first published in the March 2015 issue....

News

Saturday Selections – Nov. 18, 2023

Why Jeff Bezos isn't as wealthy as you think This is not a Christian video, but in explaining why covetous plans for Amazon founder Jeff Bezos' wealth might well cause more harm than good, we see here another illustration of how God's 10th Commandment is an example of not simply His righteousness, but also His love - obeying His Law is better for us. Ayaan Hirsi Ali: Why I am now a Christian Hirsi, a former Muslim who bravely spoke out about Islam, is now calling herself a Christian. However, if the reasons she gives in this essay are the total of her profession of faith (Christ warrants one mention, and repentance none) then she may not yet be, though we can hope and pray God will continue to move her. Her profession does make a compelling practical case for Christianity. She is sharing that the world needs Christianity to be free. Problems with preferred pronouns "All we’re being asked to do is change one word. It’s a simple request. Just use a different pronoun. It might seem like a no-brainer for a believer to comply. Why cause unnecessary tension by refusing a request to be courteous?" Alan Shlemon explains why it really matters. Creationists are exploring new territory. When a fish gets trapped in a lightless cave, and its future progeny lose their eyes, creationists have noted that this was a loss of, and not a gain of, function. Or, in other words, this sort of "evolutionary evidence" didn't prove evolution at all, since, at best, it might have indicated that a man could eventually devolve into a molecule but it gave no insight into how a molecule could ever evolve into a man. Creationists are now testing whether even such a devolution might be the result of brilliant design. Could it be the result of a built-in ability to adapt to changed environmental circumstances? Creationists are setting out to answer that question... and the preliminary results are in. James Tour calls evolutionists' bluff YouTube "experts" often tout supposed advances in origin-of-life theory. But Intelligent Design proponent Dr. James Tour exposed that for the lie it is, challenging leading experts to show that they've solved any of five fundamental problems origin-of-life theory faces. And no one could. Lots of technical language in this one, but to explain by way of analogy, if scientists claimed that evolution could build a rocket to the moon, Tour is willing to pretend that evolution has indeed built the rocket and then is asking evolutionists to explain only how their theory accounts for the refined rocket fuel. And the fact they can't explain the origin of the smaller thing highlights how they certainly haven't made any progress on the more fundamental issues. Even with living things all around to offer examples and blueprints, and even with supercomputers to aid their theorizing, scientists still can't offer even the basics of how life could have come about by unguided evolution. And let's not forget that these same scientists still can't create life on purpose, even with intelligence, blueprints, supercomputers, and refined chemicals. Wind power on the grand scale envisioned is still an unproven technology Germany is one of the world's leading wind power producers, and they are having troubles. The iron law of woke projection At the risk of belaboring the joke below, I'm going to harp on how it is funny because it is true. Christians are often attacked for the very things our attackers are doing to us. "You're just trying to force your morals on everyone," says the atheist trying to force his morals on us. So, when you are attacked, don't get defensive. Recognize their attack for what it really is: an attempt to deflect from their own behavior. Point them back to God. Let them know that even if their accusations were true  – even if we're horrible hypocrites – our wickedness isn't going to be any sort of defense for them before their Maker. The only "excuse" available to them is through turning to Jesus, and begging Him to cover their sins with His blood. ...

Amazing stories from times past

The Parable of Ryker and Samwell

“As water reflects the face, so one’s heart reflects the man.” Prov. 27:1 ***** Luke rightly says that out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. That is to say, the heart is the core of one’s most basic beliefs, and words provide a glimpse into Man's heart. It does not matter who a person is – butcher, baker or undertaker – words reveal his soul. CHAPTER 1 – A baby at last My birthplace of Harston in East Lincolnshire did not have a large number of inhabitants – neither before or after I was born. Hidden in rolling hill country, it was even considered backwater by some. But we always reckoned our burg, with its one to two thousand residents, as a decent size. This number did not even take into account the souls who lived in outlying areas, tenant farmers and scattered cottagers, all of whom had a certain predilection for country living. Our town proper boasted a doctor, a lawyer, a banker, teachers, and a preacher. Housewives, clerks, carpenters, grooms and saddlers either paced or ambled the packed-down dirt sidewalks and children visited the local park to feed the ducks. There was even a railway station on Station Road and a small but well-stocked library straight across from it. Mercer Street had textile shops, an inn, and a bakery. Harston's roads, although not paved, were well-traveled. Days prior to the bi-weekly market held just outside its east limits, were alive with bellowing and bleating during the summer months – audible signs of life as farmers drove their four-legged produce through the streets to the local butcher shop for slaughter. The day of the market itself was noisy as well, roads abuzz with clamant vendors and townsfolk eager to bargain for good deals. Although certain protocols were associated with living in our community, such as the few wealthier families having calling cards, the truth was that most of the citizenry were just common folk. A number resided in plain brick houses along the main avenues of Crown Street and Rudwall Lane. The balance of Harston's inhabitants, however, lived in modest thatched homes on lanes akin to alleyways, and they lived without the benefit of butlers, maids, or cooks. Households were a decent size, with four or five children in each home. The homes, mind you, were small, often only consisting of two or three rooms. We, my father, mother, and myself, lived on Hillbrook Street, a middle-class street, considered neither rich nor poor, and we had a small garden in the back of our two-story house. My father, who was a self-appointed teacher of sorts, greatly admired the writings of the Anglican bishop, J.C. Ryle. Thus when I was born in 1889, I was named and baptized Ryle – Ryle Harrison to be exact. My mother later told me that I had cried lustily when the water dribbled down my forehead and that my father had been somewhat embarrassed by these wails. Nevertheless, she told me, her eyes growing soft as she spoke, he had cradled me in his arms with great tenderness and love during the ceremony. Hearing this as a young boy prone to admire Goliath figures, I was a trifle embarrassed, feeling quite keenly one should not use soppy words like “tenderness” and “love” with regard to men. But inside my heart I was warmed by the thought that my father, a rather stern but just man to be sure, felt more than a modicum of affection for me. I was not a sturdy boy to look at. Rather skinny, fair-haired and prone to sniffles and coughs, there often rose within me a covetousness to be more strapping and robust. But I run ahead of myself. When my mother was expecting me, there was rejoicing in our home on Hillbrook Street – indeed, there was a very great thankfulness. A baby coming at last after my mother and father had hoped and prayed for years and years. We were, as I said, middle class and had the faithful, domestic help of a woman who had known Mother since she was a child. Plump, good-natured Cora, born and raised in Harston, was both our cook and maid, and she confidentially passed on to me many interesting paragraphs out of my parents' diary – details of past events which had happened before I was born or when I had been but a little tacker. "Master Ryle," she would say, often expressing an opinion in double negatives, "Your mother was quite sure she would rock no cradle, never. And seeing as to how she'd been married to your father for more than fifteen years, I was quite sure she was right. But then many's the time the stork's visited them thought to be barren. And isn't that the way of it?" Cora told me this while she was letting me lick out the bowl of pudding she had made for dessert that evening. With my mouth full of sweetness, it was difficult for me to respond. Not that Cora ever needed much of a response to what she was saying. She was as full of words as my mouth was of custard. My father often raised his eyebrows as she prattled on and I, ever trying to be like him even as I swallowed the pudding, raised mine. "Yes, sir!" she went on, oblivious to my apparent surprise, "and your mother cried tears of happiness. It's a good thing I was here to see to things – to cook and clean proper, mind you, because she wasn't up to doing nothing." "Yes, Cora," I mumbled, lowering my eyebrows again while I was licking the spoon clean, but she wasn't listening. "And that was the time, strangely enough, that the Sparrows moved into town. Not into Harston proper, mind you, but into the farmstead down Furrow Lane, to the south of here." I nodded again, scraping the bowl with the spoon for what was left. "And wouldn't Providence have it, but that Sarah Sparrow was expecting too. And wouldn't Providence have it as well, but that she and Sam had also been praying and hoping for a little one for many, many years." Here Cora stopped yattering, quite out of breath. I sighed, sorry that the pudding bowl was shining and clean. "And that's how," Cora ended her communication, "there was a friendship begun between Sarah Sparrow and your mother, Master Ryle." She lifted me off the counter where I had been sitting, patted my backside and shooed me out of the kitchen. “Now off with you, young Sir,” she called, “for I have work to do and surely you want dinner tonight." ***** It was true about the friendship between my parents and the Sparrows beginning at this time. Sam and Sarah Sparrow had freshly moved in from London during the time when both my mother and Sarah Sparrow were expecting their first baby. Sam, a burly, big fellow, was a farming tenant of one of the wealthiest farmers in Harston – Ryker Bitter. Ryker Bitter was the owner of one of the largest estates on the outskirts of Harston. He had lots of money, but possessed neither capacity nor willingness to share. As a tenant farmer, Sam Sparrow was better off than many farm laborers who occupied the very small and dank cottages of their employers. Although Sam did have to sign off a significant portion of his proceeds to Bitter, if he managed the rented property well, he could become fairly affluent. Sam and Sarah lived in a good-sized farmhouse and I loved visiting them. Sarah Sparrow was adept at weaving, spinning and quilting, and had come by Hillbrook Street one day to show Mother a comforter she had made. Sarah had heard from other townsfolk that Mother might be interested in purchasing one. As the two women interacted in the front room, they naturally began to speak of the coming births of their babies. A common bond was kindled because both had been forced to wait for more than a decade for their first child. Mother was due a month before Sarah Sparrow was expected to give birth. They promised one another that they would visit back and forth. They laughed with one another as visible kicks poked bumps into their aprons, and they discussed myriad names for their unborn progeny. CHAPTER 2 – The birth of Samwell When Mother began labor it was a week or two before her time, so Cora told me, and it was a misty and rainy night. Unhappily, the Harston midwife was visiting a daughter in London and the doctor was late in coming. To all appearances it seemed that I would be born without medical assistance. My father, Cora said, was in such a nervous state that he was ready to go and carry the man to Hillbrook Street on his back, but he did not want to leave my mother alone. "I thought a teacher and an educated man like your father," she spouted philosophically, "wouldn't have been so fretful." I stared at her. Cora then added matter-of-factly, "He didn't place no confidence in me delivering you neither." I nodded sympathetically, rather liking the fact that my birth had been the focus of such attention, and sat up straighter. Cora was polishing the silverware, allowing me to hand her the forks and spoons as she worked. "Did the doctor finally come?" I asked, even though I knew the answer. "Yes, he did," she sighed, even as she rubbed a cloth over a butter dish, "but he was a sorry case, he was. Wet with rain, he dripped all over the hall carpet, he did." "And then what happened?" I prodded her, even though I knew perfectly well what she would say next. "Well, your father yanked off the doctor's coat so fearfully hard that the man almost fell over, and then he proceeded to pull him up the stairs." "And he forgot his bag," I added, for Cora had forgotten that part. "Yes, indeed! And once he was up, didn't he have to go down and fetch it a minute later?" I smiled. Dr. Pillblight was a sour man, to say the least, one who rarely gave patients a smile. It was a game with me to try and make him do so, but his lips seemed permanently frozen to scowl. Yet he had been forced to walk down our stairs to get his black bag when I was about to be born. That was something which made me smile. "And then coming down the stairs, he tripped," I went on, "tripped and sprained his ankle." "Yes," Cora affirmed, her round cheeks quivering busily as she nodded her head, "and this was just when there was a knock at the door and when I went to answer, there was Sarah Sparrow standing on the doorstep." "And she livered me," I proudly went on. "Delivered, Master Ryle," Cora corrected, shaking her buxom jowls this time, "the word is 'delivered.' And she herself as big as a volcano about to erupt." So it came about that Sarah Sparrow helped Mother during the last part of her labor and she it was whose hands first lifted me up and laid me on my mother's belly so that she could see me. A skinny youngling, puling and oblivious to the people about me, Mother says I kept my eyes shut for two days. ***** Mother never let Sarah's act of kindness nor her expertise at midwifery slip from her memory. Father remembered it as well, and in this way a true friendship was forged between our two families – the families of Harrison and Sparrow – and, consequently, between myself and Sarah's baby. ***** It was during the month after I was born that Sarah's time of confinement also came. When Mother heard, via Cora and other townsfolk, that Sarah was in labor, she walked down to the farmstead where the Sparrows lived. Mother pushed me, a six-week-old baby, along in a pram. With big wheels and a wooden handlebar, it bounced me up and down, up and down, but it did not deter Mother's determination to go to her friend. A container of broth for Cora was positioned precariously on the blanket by my feet, and mother carefully avoided large potholes and mud puddles. Arriving at the Sparrows’ home, she gingerly lifted the soup out of the carriage and carried the pan to the back door. Met by Ruby, the midwife, she asked if there was anything she might do to help. Ruby took the soup from her hands, smiled and was about to send her home when a voice from the bedroom cried out. "Is that Maudie? Please, I want to see her." The midwife shrugged and stood back. Mother, however, did not walk in straightaway. She first returned to the carriage, and lifted me out. Then, with me in her arms, we both entered the farmhouse. I was sleeping soundly, drooling milk bubbles on my chin, so Mother later informed me, and thus do not recall a word of the conversation that ensued between mother and Sarah. Cora, who was close with Ruby, later told me that Sarah had been greatly distressed, distressed to the point of tears. "Something's wrong, Maudie," she had burst out while the midwife was bringing the soup to the kitchen, "I know something's wrong." "Hush," Mother replied, dandling me, "Hush, dear. I know things are difficult right now, but just wait. Before you know it, you'll be holding a little one just as I am holding Ryle." "No, I am afraid. Please pray with me, Maudie. Please!!" So Mother prayed. With me in her arms, she prayed for a well baby, a healthy life, and a healthy mother. "Pray it again, Maudie. Pray that the baby will be well." So Mother prayed the same words again. Years later, years after little Sam was born, my mother still vividly remembered that she had been sure that Sarah's instincts about her child had been right. At that moment she would, without fail, add these words: "But there is no sin in asking God for wellness, is there?" Ruby, who had been listening in the doorway as Mother prayed, was all ears, and it was mainly her blurting out that prayer to Cora and others in town that caused Sam's name tag to become Samwell. ***** Sheep farming and the wool trade brought profitable business to our area. I mention this only because Sam Sparrow raised sheep and he was good at it. Ryker Bitter rented out farmland to Sam Sparrow. He used that land, called in-bye land, for pasturing heads of sheep. As well, Sam hunted grouse and other wildlife on that land, and often sold produce at the market. The wool from his sheep, Lincoln Longwool, was much in demand and he did rather well in bartering with certain textile manufacturers. His sheep produced the heaviest, longest and most lustrous fleece and it made hard wearing cloth. Although a great deal of his earnings disappeared into Ryker Bitter's pocket, Sam himself also gained financial standing. The eastern port of Boston, not too far off, was a place of economic interaction. Centuries before, the merchants of the Hanseatic League had established their guild in Boston and many ships came to its port. There had been issues with water diversion to neighboring fens, but a canal had been cut, and a sluice constructed. The result of these endeavors was a navigable communication, of a lucrative nature, with a number of shires, our shire included. Boston was a major trading center for wool and Sam Sparrow had been born to raise sheep. My father sometimes joked that instead of herding children, he ought to herd sheep. But then mother would remind him that the children in his study were also sheep and he would laugh and pat her on the cheek. Samuel Sparrow was born later that same day – that day my mother had visited Sarah, pushing me in the pram. Baby Sam was born with a short neck, a flattened facial profile and his almond eyes seemed slanted. Ruby, the midwife, was a bit disconcerted by the way the neonate felt somewhat floppy in her arms; by the fact that he made no effort to squeeze her hands. Consequently, on the third day after his birth she sent for Dr. Pillblight who arrived carrying his black bag. After he had examined the baby thoroughly, testing reflexes, and peering at his toes and fingers, he took off his glasses. "Well," he finally slowly asserted, as Ruby laid the baby back down in his cradle, "Well, I may as well tell you straight off that the boy is going to be slow." Sam was sitting on the edge of the bed and holding Sarah's hand. Ruby retreated to the doorway. "Slow?" Sarah repeated, a worried look on her face, as she pushed her head back into the pillow, "What do you mean 'slow'?" Sam said nothing, but let go of Sarah's hand. Then he stood up and deliberately walked over to the cradle. There he remained, studying his placid child. "I mean," the doctor continued, and later Sarah told Mother that he had actually been quite kind and sympathetic, "I mean that this boy ...." He stopped and searched for words before he continued. "This boy has all the characteristics of babies in a study I have been reading by a Dr. Down, a Dr. John Langdon Down to be precise. He fully describes some things in this study which I see in young Samuel here." "What do you mean?" Sarah reiterated, "What do you mean 'slow'?" Dr. Pillblight settled himself in a chair opposite the bed. "I mean," he continued, "that Samuel will probably be slower in learning how to walk. He has poor muscle tone. He will also very likely be slower in his mental ability." Sam and Sarah stared at one another and Sarah's eyes filled with tears. "Although," Dr. Pillblight continued cautiously, "it has been recorded that some children with these characteristics ...." He could not finish because Sam interrupted him. "What characteristics?" "Well," Dr. Pillblight rose and walked over to the cradle and stood next to Sam as he discoursed, "characteristics such as the wide space between his big toes and the other toes. Also, note that he has a very short neck and that his hands are very short." As he spoke, he uncovered the child to demonstrate what he had just said, and Sam again stared down at his unperturbed and sleeping son. "Note also," the doctor went on, "the baby's slanted eyes." "I had noticed that his eyes were unusual," Sarah later recounted to my mother, "and suddenly, looking at the baby's face as the doctor spoke, I knew that what the man said was true. Also, Samuel's tongue often came out of his mouth, almost as if it was too big for him to hold in." Sam Sparrow broke the ensuing silence, albeit fumbling for words. "What .... What can we do?" The doctor shrugged. "Just take care of him," he answered, "the study shows that children with this ... this abnormality, are susceptible to ailments. Some die in infancy; others live longer. It's in the hands of God and you will just have to take good care of him." He stooped over, picked up his black bag, and then, after a greeting, was gone. ***** Once she had finished grieving over and contemplating the fact that Samuel was a delicate and different sort of baby, Sarah proved to be an excellent mother. For one thing, she was very innovative. She devised ways to help the baby sit up. Talking to him continually, she coaxed sweet smiles from the flat, little face, crinkling the almond-shaped eyes. Wrapped up warmly, Samuel was taken for countless strolls. There was no place in Harston which did not recognize Sarah and her son. Most importantly, when people stopped her to have a look inside the carriage, she would not be ashamed. She bragged on him as if he were the most important, delightful and charming baby in the world. And because this baby was so beloved, he never stinted in giving spectators beaming smiles. Sarah often took Samuel, or Samwell, as he was beginning to be called by everyone, to Hillbrook Street where we lived. CHAPTER 3 – A beginning of books As I said before, my father was a teacher of sorts. (Although I hasten to add that he actually had no need of employment because he was a gentleman. That is to say, he had a good personal income from his mother's side of the family.) But he loved reading, studying various kinds of books, and took much pleasure in passing on his knowledge. I cannot recall a single evening when he did not peruse a book or a magazine of some sort with me. It was not until much later that I realized the enormous benefits I had reaped from having such a father. The 1800s had been a time period of much academic poverty in England and Wales. Out of the four plus million children of primary school age, two million received no schooling at all. Religious institutions had been set up by the church to teach children reading, writing, arithmetic and religion, but they did not meet the needs of the growing population. In 1870, about twenty years before I was born, the Elementary Education Act had been passed in Parliament to address the issue of poor children who were not being taught. The Act specified that school places were to be given to all children between the ages of five and twelve in schools run by qualified teachers. A fee was required though – a varying fee of between one and four pence a week. If a family could not afford such a fee, children could attend classes for free. But not many did. Before father had begun to transform our very large back room into a classroom, there had been a school of sorts on the outskirts of town. It had been run by a Mr. Dauper, a man who, as my mother said, was as addicted to a bottle of wine as he was to caning children. Supposed to be overseen by board members, this establishment was not well-run. Father visited the school once in the second year he and Mother moved to Harston and he came home much incensed. After speaking with several local officials, Father eventually became the new teacher and our back room was transformed into a classroom. It was an unusual situation, but my father was an unusual man. (There was a school in a neighboring shire, and a number of local children did attend that school.) When I was little, Mother and I often visited the Sparrow farmstead and they, in turn, visited us. Consequently, Samwell and I became compadres, brothers almost. In the beginning, both in nappies, we just slept side by side in front of the hearth. Later we played together, with me usually being the leader and Samwell agreeing, smiling, and a willing partner to most of the things I invented for us to do. When Father read to me, as he did most days, and Samwell was present, both of us would sit on his lap. I usually fidgeted at Father's stiff, starched collar which he would eventually take off and drop on the floor. At first he read us A,B,C books, Mother Goose, Jack and the Bean Stalk and the like; later we graduated to Robinson Crusoe, Rip Van Winkle, Alice's Adventures in Wonderland and Children's Stories from Dickens. When we were at the Sparrows’ farmstead, however, it was Sam Sparrow who read to us and not Father. Sam, although he did not shun A,B,C books and such, tended to stick to Bible stories. I did like the timber of his well-modulated, heavy voice and I will never forget how he related the way in which God created Adam from the dust of the ground. Sam stood up for this story, and picked up some imaginary dirt from the ground. After this he straightened his position, held the dirt in his arms like a baby while he rocked back and forth, gazing on the imagined dirt tenderly. Then Sam Sparrow bent his head and breathed the breath of life into this earthen baby. Samwell listened intently. He always did. I can still see him leaning his large head back against the cushion of the rattan chair, almond eyes steadily fixed on his father. So we grew – grew out of our nappies and were breeched, although I was breeched a full year before Samwell. He did not get his first pair of pants until he was four. We grew on, Samwell and I, into bigger and bigger lads. It is true that many things, things such as the breeching, took longer for Samwell. Indeed, it sometimes took him years longer to attain a level that I had achieved in a few months. It did not impact our fondness for one another. Samwell was never scanty with his smiles and affection. Though he did not speak quickly as a young lad, he babbled on so incessantly and gestured so amiably to all who would pay attention that he was a favorite of many folks in town. Sarah, as well, often read to him during the day, and with the help of my father, she obtained picture books. When Samwell saw things illustrated, he learned much quicker. Sam Sparrow, when he was able, always came in for the noon hour meal, frequently bringing men with him who were helping him with the sheep, because such was his success with the sheep raising that he was able to hire others. On one such day, when Mother and I were visiting the Sparrows, and Samwell and I were about four years of age, Sam and two of his men were seated at the table. Sarah and my mother were serving them fresh bread and some soup. Before eating, Sam Sparrow took off his hat and motioned that his men should do the same. "Let's say grace, lads," he announced, his voice pleasant and sure. Then he began. "Our Father in heaven, we thank You for this fine food. Bless it we pray and we thank You for ...." He did not finish. The side door opened as he spoke and it opened with an intrusive creak. The noise trespassed into Sam's prayer and was followed by its architect, Ryker Bitter. The man strode in boisterously, blatantly ignoring those sitting quietly around the table. We boys, Samwell and I, standing next to the table, watched him enter with our eyes wide open. Ryker was a large man and he had to bend his head so as not to bump it on the low door lintel. "Well, praying are we," he began, "and what are we praying about?" Sam Sparrow scraped back his chair – a wooden upright one with a woven seat – and stood up. "We are thanking God for our meal," he answered simply and clearly. "And what are you eating today, Sam?" Ryker mocked, "Is it a meal worthy of thanks? Well, will you look at that! Some plain bread and some watery soup." He laughed and cracked his knuckles at the same time. "When God provides food," Sam Sparrow countered, "then it is a fine meal. And we ought to thank Him for it." "Has He blessed you with a fine son too, Sam? Has He given you a fine child as well? I hear tell he's a bit slow. It would be a long time before I would thank God for a child like that!" The truth was that Ryker and Alice, his wife, had no children. Mother and Sarah stood silently at the board as Ryker was speaking. Both were motionless. I was closest to the door and could feel the vibration of Ryker's boot as it tapped the wooden floor. His boots were made of black leather. "Now that's a frail-looking tyke as well," Ryker boomed on, inspecting my person, "But well, I've not come to discuss food or children. I've come for the payment due on the farmstead, Sam." Mother walked over and reached for my hand. Then she walked me back to the board and resumed her position next to Sarah. Samwell had said not a word, but stood dreadfully still, his hand grasping the back of his father's chair. After Sam Sparrow and Ryker Bitter had left the room, it was as if an audible sigh of relief swept through the room. Mother walked over to the table and ladled soup into the bowls of the men. Talk resumed. Samwell laughed and was lifted into his special chair by Sarah, and I climbed into mine right next to him. The truth was that Ryker Bitter was easily the wealthiest man in the area. There were very few who dared to contradict him; very few who would consider disagreeing with him over even such a small matter as the weather. If Ryker Bitter complained that the sun was too hot, many would nod even though it might be a mild day; and if the man suggested that it would rain, umbrellas were taken out even though the sky overhead was blue. CHAPTER 4 – Growing in wisdom My father, and here I repeat myself again, was a self-appointed teacher. He loved reading and writing and did much of both. He had transformed our back room into a classroom and it was a classroom free of charge. For many of the fathers and mothers in Harston's poorer section, however, sending a child to school, even a school free of charge, meant the loss of a much-needed income, for often a child would be working at a job. Attendance at the school which had been run by Mr. Dauper had been poor at best, especially at times of harvest. Father made it known, I don't know how, perhaps by word of mouth, that he was willing to teach at any time to anyone disposed to learn. And so a steady stream of local boys passed through our home at odd times. Sometimes they would come an hour or so in the early morning, and sometimes evenings were convenient. They would knock and Cora let them in. She would instruct them to take off their shoes in the hallway and to hang their coats on one of the many wooden nogs that father had attached to the wall in the corridor. After thus being properly introduced to the house, they were ushered into Father's study. When I grew older, I was usually seated at a small wooden desk, hard at work when they came in (provided they came in the morning). For me there was reading, writing and arithmetic. Later Father added grammar, geography and history, being most insistent on that last subject. And gradually I advanced to other subjects – Latin, French, algebra and geometry. The local boys, however, were taught mostly to read and write, add and subtract. They were a serious lot, these boys who came. From time to time, Samwell also came to school. When Sarah visited with Mother, Samwell would inevitably find his way into the study. Father never forbade him. Samwell was rarely distracting to those who were learning and the other boys tolerated him with rather good humor. At first Samwell would simply sit on the floor of the study and watch me and the others. Whether we were reading, writing, or attempting to work out a mathematical problem, he was fascinated. After a while he would stand up and peer over someone's shoulder. If I, or anyone else looked at him, he would tilt his head and flash such a huge smile that no one had the heart to send him back to the floor. Standing behind me, he would often count the fingers of his right hand. It had taken Sarah a very long time to teach him this, and he himself was very pleased with this accomplishment. Laboriously and slowly, he was able to say the numbers one to five with as much conviction as if they were the breath of life to him. The action pleased him to no end and he would do it over and over, proudly and loudly. Father would eventually shush him and he would sit down on the floor again, his voice dropping down to an almost inaudible whisper, his hand held up in front of him as if it were a slate on which to draw. There was another subject which drew Samwell like no other. That subject was religion, or Bible stories. Doubtless because Sam Sparrow read to him most evenings out of the Bible, the boy was replete with the commandments, the prophets and all the stories of the New Testament. Actually, to say that Sam read to his son is a bit of an untruth. The truth is that Sam chanted or sang the stories to his son. Samwell could retell, or re-sing them in his own fashion, the favorite-by-far story being that of the good Shepherd. Samwell’s rather large, and sometimes protruding tongue, sometimes made his speech less than clear. At times it caused some of the village children to make fun of him, especially if he was singing one of his favorite songs while walking down the street. But woe to these children if one of the boys who frequented Father's study was close by. Quick punishment awaited them and Samwell, hardly aware of the mocking to which he had been subject, generally smiled his way through town. Singing in his low-pitched voice, although he could barely carry a tune, did not deter him from interacting with other folks, many other folks. Samwell was good friends with Mrs. Dalfry, who lived just outside Harston on the east side. She kept a rabbit warren in an enclosed field by her cottage. She farmed the rabbits for food and fur. The dry and rather sandy meadow tract by her home was enclosed with water-filled ditches to stop the coneys from escaping and she had fences to keep out the predators. Her husband, long dead, had been a warrener, someone who kept rabbits. He had built several oblong “pillow” mounds with stone-lined tunnels for the rabbits to live in. His was a rare occupation but rabbit meat was a delicacy and the price of rabbit meat and fur made it a rather lucrative business. Being that she was close to the market, Mrs. Dalfry often ran a rabbit booth. Samwell loved visiting Mrs. Dalfry and her warrens and she was fond of the child, often inviting him in for a chat of sorts. They would stroll in the field and she would show him the rabbits. Affectionate and happy, it was obvious that he loved her as well as the rabbits. Mrs. Dalfry was not Samwell's only friend. I believe he visited more people in Harston on a regular basis than our pastor, John Solls, who lived but a few houses down the street from us. Samwell also frequented Mistress Toynder, the baker's wife, who often gave him a cookie as he passed by; as well there was Joe Cobb the chimney sweep, who betimes let Samwell follow him and watch him work as he climbed some of the wealthier chimneys in town; and there were the countless grooms, housekeepers, clerks, carpenters and maids, all of whom developed a fondness for the child, or, as the years went by, for the kind and simple-hearted man Samwell was on the way to becoming. There was one person, however, who truly harbored no love for Samwell. That person was Ryker Bitter. Ryker actually had no great liking for me either and it could probably be surmised that he had no great liking for anyone besides himself. Still, for the young lad Samwell had grown into, the wealthy landowner showed an especial aversion. I believe that Samwell himself was aware of the animosity exerted towards himself by Ryker. When street-children mocked him, or laughed at something he did, he laughed right along with them. On the other hand, when Ryker Bitter stopped him on a path, or singled him out in the farmyard by his house and made degrading remarks, Samwell was puzzled. His almond eyes furrowed and he did not smile. He did not understand. He could not fathom that someone might not like him as he himself liked others. It pained him somewhat to see Ryker Bitter deride him. Not for his own sake, but for the man's sake. There was this singular characteristic about Samwell in that he was uniquely loving. That is to say, he understood much more with his heart and mind that most people gave him credit for. He could not always express with his mouth what his heart thought, but he felt, oh, he felt much and he sensed that Ryker Bitter was unhappy. ***** School-leaving age was generally around the age of fourteen. When I was a year and a few months past that age, my father tested me and judged me ready and qualified to write an entrance examination into a higher school of learning. There were two examinations for the University of Cambridge: the Junior (for students under sixteen years of age, into which category I fit), and the Senior (for students under the age of eighteen). These examinations took place in local “centers” – places like schools or church halls. The subjects the students were tested on were many and sundry. They included such topics as English language and literature, history, geography, geology, Greek, Latin, French, and so on. School exams took place over a period of six consecutive days and were set in the morning, afternoon, and evening. My presiding examiner arrived by train at the Station Street station. He wore a black, high hat and appeared very impressive. Upon seeing him, Samwell immediately asked his mother for a similar headpiece. She laughed and told him to ask Joe Cobb, the chimney sweep who wore a stovepipe hat. My heart was in my throat as I walked towards the church hall the first day. Both my father and Samwell accompanied me to the door. Father shook my hand. "I know you'll do well, Son." Samwell beamed a grand smile of affection and followed Father's example of handshaking. "Do well, Ryle." ***** Much to my relief, I did do well. The questions were easier than I had anticipated. For example, one of the questions in History was: Name in order the Queens and the children of Henry VIII. On what grounds was he divorced from his first wife? In Religion one of the questions read: In what three ways was our Lord tempted in the wilderness? ***** These, and other questions posed, did not present much difficulty and I passed the examinations with flying colors in those particular subjects, as well as in some others, much to Father's gratification. The only discipline in which I needed help was French, and Father was to tutor me in that during the next few months. Samwell was pleased also. He had not understood much of why I had to be at the church hall and stay there for a length of time each day during the week that I was examined. But he did know that it was important for me and was always waiting when I came out the side door. "Do well, Ryle?" he would ask me with his guttural tongue. I would nod and he would clap his hands in glee and follow up by thickly shouting, "Good, Ryle! Very good." CHAPTER 5 – A good shepherd We hadn't seen much of one another that summer, Samwell and I, as I had been busy studying with Father preparing me for the examinations. But Samwell had been training with his Father as well, who was grooming him to become more self-sufficient. It seemed only logical that Sam Sparrow, the sheep owner, should prep his son to take care of his own little flock of sheep. Sheep can be kept in a barn or some other enclosure fairly easily. There was a small barn near the Sparrow farm. It stood on one and a half acres of land in which Samwell was now keeping ten sheep. He was inordinately proud of his little flock and spent much of his time counting the sheep on the fingers of his hand. He knew that if he counted his hand twice, then that was the number of sheep he had. Samwell was also meticulous in storing bedding and feed inside his barn. "Sheep don't get very cold, Ryle," he confided in me. "They are warm animals." I nodded. "Food for sheep has to be dry, Ryle." I nodded again. Truthfully, I did not know these things and was happy Samwell was learning a trade of sorts. "Sheep need room to move, Ryle. In the barn and outside." "You know a lot about sheep, Samwell." He grinned broadly, all teeth showing. Then he proudly went on to tell me that his sheep had to be careful. "Foxes kill lambs, Ryle." "Foxes?" "Yes, Ryle, red foxes. And," he added suddenly remembering, “badgers too, Ryle. They hunt lambs too." "You do know a lot about sheep, Samwell," I repeated, clapping him on the back, "and they are so happy, I think, to have you to look after them." "Mother likes wool, Ryle. When sheep stay outside, they have clean wool." "Will your sheep stay on this piece of land, Samwell? Won't they wander off?" "No, Ryle. I fixed fence with Father. See, I will show you." He did show me, and the stone wall that enclosed the section of land Sam Sparrow had given his son was in good shape, measuring some three feet high. "That's a sturdy wall, Samwell." "Father fixed most of it," he modestly replied, but then grinned, adding, "but I carried stones too." I believed it for Samwell's hands, though short, were strong. "Where do your sheep drink, Samwell?" "Trough in the barn, Ryle. I change water every day." "Samwell, I think you will become a teacher in sheep-raising and you can give lessons to all the children in Harston." Samwell chortled so hard that he almost fell over. ***** Father and Mother and I had a long talk about whether or not I was ready to leave Harston and go to Cambridge. "I waited for you so long," Mother complained, without looking at Father, "and now before you are sixteen you plan to leave us." "The boy will be home for holidays," Father interspaced, as Mother was gearing up to say a lot more. "Well, it wouldn't hurt him to study with you for another year, or at least a half a year," she pleaded. "He will probably learn much more from you than he would from all those strangers who don't really know him." "Maudie," Father tried again, "the boy needs to leave sooner or later. And the sooner he leaves, the sooner he'll be home again." "That's not true," she countered, adding with a sober face, "Sometimes I wish that Ryle was like Samwell. Then he'd stay home." Father and I looked at one another in astonishment. "Maudie," Father whispered, "you don't really mean that. God has given each boy talents – Samwell as well as Ryle – and each must use his natural ability as best he can." And in my mind, I could see Samwell standing by the sheep pen, hugging the lambs and leading the animals to a salt lick. And I could hear him speak with his hands, with his five fingers. Often his sentences had just five words. "My name is Samwell Sparrow" and "He said: 'Feed my lambs’" and, most telling of all, "Bring good news of happiness." They all fit on his fingers, those words. "What good news of happiness, Samwell?" I asked. "Jesus, Ryle. Don't you know? The good news of Jesus." He raised the fingers of his right hand as he repeated the last five words. And then he smiled. ***** The upshot of the matter was that I did stay home for another six months. It was a compromise of sorts between Father and Mother. Father did continue to teach me half-days with a strong emphasis on the French I had fallen short in. I was, truth be told, happy as a lark to put off leaving. Change was not my venue. I was not adventurous and often I spent part of these my reprieve-from-Cambridge-days roaming the woodlands with Samwell. He was a good walker and we saw bitterns, red kites, kingfishers, foxes, and hedgehogs. Samwell loved animals. One such day in the late fall, he stopped. " I show you something, Ryle?" We were walking down a path and had just stopped to eat a sandwich. "Sure, Samwell." Samwell held up his left hand and counted the fingers with his right. "The Lord is my Shepherd." Again, the words numbered five and fit on his hands like a glove. "That's good, Samwell," I praised. "Did your mother show you that?" He shook his head. "No, Ryle. I showed myself." "Well, that's very clever and true." "Can you do it too, Ryle?" "Yes, I suppose I can." I lifted my left hand and counted fingers with my right saying as I did so, "The Lord is my Shepherd." "Good, Ryle," Samwell approved. Then, aping my Father's often used words for himself, he added, "You are a good student." ***** A few weeks later we were out again. It was a day with a steady drizzle, every now and then upgrading into a firm rain. Walking proved mucky and difficult on the country paths. Stone walls guarding the side of the lanes were wet and shiny. Following along in ruts made by wagon tracks, Samwell stomped through puddles and cheerfully sang songs. He loved mizzling weather and, as he was frequently subject to colds, Sarah always made sure he wore a thick coat when he went out. Around one particularly steep bend, we suddenly stopped. Among the small copse of apple trees we were just skirting, there was a pitiful, bleating sound. Distressful and whiny, it crept past the Kirton Pippins with their yellowish-green skins and dull red flush, slid over the wagon ruts and halted by our boots. Samwell immediately began scouting the sides of the road. "That is a lamb, Ryle," he told me, and I nodded. We found the creature fairly quickly. Almost in the ditch, it was lying in a clump of wet grass. The apples suspended above the pathetic, whining sound, looked ready to be picked. Perhaps some farmer driving a flock to market and hungry for the sweet bite these apples offered, had stopped for a snack and perhaps because he was inattentive at this point, one of the lambs of his herd had been able to wander away from his protective custody. But I was wrong in my conjecture, for it was the very smallest of lambs which Samwell scooped up in his arms, a lamb still covered in wet amniotic fluid, a lamb that had its umbilical cord still attached. "Oh, Ryle," he called out, even as his round face coughed into the dankness of the place, "Oh, Ryle, this is a newborn baby. But no mother!" Samwell was almost weeping with concern. Unbuttoning his great coat, he cradled the lamb within its folds and informed me that this pretty, little ball of fleece ought not to get cold, because then it would die. ***** We set off at breakneck pace back towards Harston with Samwell breathing noisily and having a difficult time catching his breath. As we half-walked, half-ran, taking this path and that as we headed home, the thin shower of rain became almost negligible. A blue sky and a bright sun materialized. The lamb had stopped its mournful cries and appeared to be dozing peacefully against Samwell's chest. "We have to find mother, Ryle," Samwell kept repeating as he wheezed. "We have to find her." Fifteen minutes into our rush back, we had wandered onto the deer park adjacent to Bitter Hall, the home of Ryker and Alice Bitter. When Samwell turned towards it, I was a little hesitant and, voicing my objections, told him of my hesitancy about walking onto their property. Samwell, still sheltering the lamb, paid no heed. We were on the Servant's Trail, the trail used by those employed on the estate, those who helped keep the place running. Although a section of the trail was a short-cut back to Harston, Samwell seemed intent on heading towards the estate itself. "Ryker Bitter has ewes, Ryle. Ryker Bitter will have mother. Mother will have milk," he panted as we headed towards the large, thatched manor house. "But Samwell," I pleaded with him, "Ryker Bitter may not let you into his barn. He might not like it that you are here on his property." We could now see the stone and timber barn that belonged to the Bitter estate and that is exactly the place towards which Samwell's feet moved. "I've visited with Father. This way, Ryle!" he called out over his shoulder. "This way!" It was at this point that we met Jacob Crew and Daniel Shutter, two of my Father's old pupils, and big fellows they were. Both were efficient gardeners and thatchers. Indeed, there were many in Harston who hired the pair to repair their roofs. "Hey, there, Samwell and Ryle," they called out in a jovial manner, carrying shovels and rakes and pushing barrows, "what brings you down here?" Samwell stopped, coughed, smiled for a brief moment, and I explained to Jacob and Daniel what his mission was. Jacob was a little dubious and eyed the lamb reclining beneath Samwell's coat with a certain amount of disbelief. Daniel just shook his head. "I don't know," Jacob slowly worded, rubbing his chin, "I can take you into the barn and I'm quite sure there are a number of ewes who have recently lambed. Perhaps ...." He left off speaking, waved his hand, turned around and guided us towards the barn. "Ryker's not the easiest fellow for whom to work," Daniel confided as he too turned and walked along with us, "but I don't see why you can't check the ewes. Where's the harm in that? Nowhere, to be sure." With its thatched, hip roof and its white-washed stone walls, the barn was rather massive and overwhelming. As soon as we walked in through the large, double doors, a strong, musky odor hit our nostrils. Several casement windows let in a little light – only a little though, because they were dirty. Jacob maneuvered us through an initial half-dark section towards one of the wooden barricaded areas and peered over the edge. "Well, here we are then," Daniel said, following close at his heels and scrutinizing the pen as well, "and look at all the lambs." At this point Samwell breathed a huge sigh. It touched the wainscoting and landed on all the bewildered sheep huddled together in a corner. "They are a silly-looking bunch," Jacob commented, "and which do you suppose might suckle your little ewe lamb?" "Not silly, Jacob," Samwell countered. "Bright eyes and white wool. Beautiful." We were now, all four of us, standing next to one of the several sheep folds. It was dull in the large shed. Hay lay strewn about and we could hear pigeons cooing somewhere in the distance. At this juncture one of the mother ewes stood up and curiously approached us. "Maybe that's the mother," Samwell whispered. "Maybe she's ...." The barn door opened and shut behind us with a bang, all within the space of a second. Samwell's murmur dropped into the straw. Even as he stopped talking, two rough hands gripped his shoulders, turning him one hundred and eighty degrees. "And what would you be doing in my barn, young scallywag!" It was not so much a question as it was an accusation. Remembering this, I am still amazed that the enmity of the tone had not phased Samwell's resolve to help the little being snuggling within his coat. "I ask for help, Ryker." The words fell thick and Samwell's tongue threatened to leave the confines of his mouth. It appeared that Ryker was somewhat taken aback by this reply, for he did not immediately strike the boy as I had thought he was about to do. But then, both Jacob and Daniel were imposingly present and both, I am proud and relieved to say, stayed by the boy's side. "I ask for help, Ryker," Samwell repeated, rather louder this time, his arms caressing the lamb. " I have a new lamb. It needs milk. You have ...." "I have nothing which you can have, Boy," Ryker retorted. Then he suddenly reached down into Samwell's coat. Drawing out the small, white body hidden within that coat, he cruelly mounted it hard on the wooden gate post. The diminutive, woolly bit of lamb blatted softly. Then it piteously gasped, expiring before our eyes. Samwell fell down to his knees. "God loves all His lambs," he said, holding up his right hand. Fixing his gaze on the crucified lamb, he wept. He cried as the lamb had cried, and his round head lolled on his chest. Jacob touched my shoulder and indicated that we should leave. "The lamb's dead anyhow," he whispered, "and you can't do any good here any longer. Take the lad and go." I bent over and took Samwell by his right upheld hand. He gazed up at me, but did not see me as his eyes were filled with tears. "Come on, Samwell," I urged, "let's go home." And so we did. We trudged through the now foggy early evening and made for the Sparrow farm, Samwell coughing wretchedly all the way. CHAPTER 6 – The richest man in Harston After I had entrusted Samwell to the care of Sarah, who was quite anxious as to his shortness of breath, I set out for my own home hoping that Cora would have some hot soup and fresh bread ready, for I was cold and hungry. About an hour had transpired since Samwell's encounter with Ryker Bitter. As I neared Hillbrook Street, a man passed me riding a horse at breakneck speed, galloping past as if his life depended on it. I was home shortly thereafter, and had my mind fixed to speak to my mother and father about what had happened. However, I found Mr. Solls, our pastor, in the living room and did not think it proper to relate the incident in front of him. My mother served me bread and soup in front of the warmth of the hearth and I half-listened to Father and Mr. Solls discuss doctrine. I confess I almost fell asleep after I ate, so pleasantly warm was I and so worn out with the afternoon were it not for a sudden loud knocking at the door. "Open up. I must speak with Mr. Solls." We could all hear the voice, an insistent voice, abrasive and intruding. Cora answered the door. Not easily put out, she nevertheless looked out of sorts and rather shaken when she announced that Ryker Bitter was insistent upon seeing Mr. Solls. "Well, let the man in," Father said, "for Mr. Solls is here and our guest." Cora did not have to walk back into the hallway to issue the invitation, for Ryker Bitter had pushed his way through the study doorway and was standing larger than life in front of all four of us - Father, Mother, myself and Mr. Solls. "I need to ...." he began, stuttering and stammering, while wobbling on his feet, black riding boots encrusted with mud. "What need you to do?" Father mildly remarked, ignoring Ryker's obvious confusion and agitation. "I need to speak with Mr. Solls, but," Ryker jabbered, "I can speak freely in front of you all, I think. Yes, I think that I can." "Well, Man," Father said, "out with it. What is it that has you so riled up?" "I will die tonight," Ryker babbled, drooling somewhat out of the corners of his mouth, and I wondered that the man was presently so obviously inattentive to his person, as he had so often made fun of Samwell's outward appearance. "Die?" Mr. Solls and Mother spoke simultaneously. "Yes, I will die." "How do you know that?" This time it was Father who questioned. "I heard God speak. Indeed, He spoke directly to me saying that I would die. And I must prepare." "Ryker," this time Father spoke a little more gently, "sit down, Man! Sit down. I think you have had a dream or perhaps you've been drinking?" He got up and guided Ryker towards one of the cushioned armchairs, pushing him down forcibly. Appearing distracted, looking at us but not really seeing us, Ryker sat down shakily. His leather riding boots left soiled imprints on Mother's carpet. She did not appear to notice but was staring at Ryker with great eyes. "There was a voice," Ryker rasped out, "and it came to me from the roof of the barn. It was a great voice, a hollow voice, and it said, 'Ryker, tonight the richest person in Harston will die.'" "What ...?" Mother began, only to stop for she did not know what to say. Indeed, I wouldn’t have known how to reply to such a statement either. "I must know," Ryker's hoarse voice went on, "I must know how to die. You see, I don't know how to do that." Mr. Solls eyed Father who raised his eyebrows and shrugged slightly. "Mr. Bitter," Mr. Solls began, "it's a strange tale you tell, and I must confess I rather doubt ...." "Doubt!" Ryker wailed, and surely wailing was the correct description of the eerie sound he brought forth, "I heard the voice, Man, I heard it. It surely was meant for me." There was quiet for a moment, aside from the fact that Ryker was breathing hard and was hitting the knuckles of his hands on the supporting wooden sides of the chair in which he was sitting. "Well," Mother said purposefully, standing up suddenly, "I think I will go and get you a hot toddy, Ryker. It will relax you some." She was out of the room in an eyeblink. Ryker made no comment. Father coughed and Mr. Solls seemed rather uncomfortable. This seemed rather strange to me as Mr. Solls, being the pastor of our church, of all people should be comfortable with talking about God and about death. As I was thinking this, he got up, walked over to Ryker's chair and knelt down on the carpet by his feet. "Ryker," he began, leaving off the Mister he had used previously, and repeating, "Ryker, you must tell us a little more. We'd like to help you but perhaps it would be beneficial if you told us exactly what happened." Mr. Solls was in possession of a liquid voice, a fluid voice as it were, and it was soothing. Ryker sighed deeply. "Very well," he conceded, "I will tell you. I was in the barn, you see. That young scallywag, Samwell, he'd been by together with ... well, together with your son, Mr. Harrison ...." I exhaled rather noisily at this point although I hadn't notice that I had been holding my breath. Ryker looked over. "Yes, I see you Ryle, and you were there." I nodded, not knowing what to say. The fact is that I dearly wanted to alert Father to the truth, to the fact that Ryker had been cruel to Samwell and had killed a little lamb. But I could not formulate the words. "Well, the young boy irritated me. Always pushy that one, with his big smiles and ...." "I don't think I want to hear any sort of blather about Samwell," Father interrupted. "He is as dear to me as my own son." Ryker went on, almost as if he had not heard Father. "Well, after Samwell and young Harrison here left, I checked around the barn. Wanted to make sure that there was nothing missing, nothing broken and that everything was in place.... Well, it was then that I heard a breathing, a loud sort of breathing. It seemed to be coming from the center of the barn roof ¬– thereabouts anyway. I looked up to see if there were pigeons flying about or if there was a thatching problem, but there's dim lighting in the place and it's been a dull day, you understand, and I could see nothing amiss. And then," and here Ryker's voice changed, "then a voice began. 'Ryker' it said, and very loudly too, 'Ryker, tonight the richest person in Harston will die.'" Mr. Solls, who was still kneeling by the armchair, took Ryker's right hand between his own hands. "Suppose it were true, Ryker," he posed, "suppose that you were to die tonight. What then would happen to your soul? It's not a bad thing for you, and for all of us, to think on. That is the truth." He got no further. Ryker pulled his hand away and held it up in the air even as Samwell had held his hand up. I reflected on how strange that was. Two hands and two thoughts. For even as Ryker's eyes bulged with fear and panic, he also blurted out five words. "And what is truth exactly?" His words hung in the air even as the lamb had hung on the wooden gate post. "Well," Mr. Solls responded, not exactly answering Ryker's question directly, but raising a good point nevertheless, "to think on death is healthy because it reminds us that sooner or later we shall all meet our Maker, Ryker." Ryker's hand fell down and he slumped over. "There is no cure for it. I am undoubtedly the richest person in town. So I shall die. I know it." Mother slipped into the room again. She carried a cup which, as she told us later, contained a sleeping draught. She passed it to Mr. Solls, who gently, with the assistance of Father, helped Ryker sit up. He drank the liquid almost greedily and then leaned his head against the back of the chair and closed his eyes. Within minutes he was asleep. ***** It was only an hour or so later that the doorbell rang again. Ryker was still sleeping. The lamp lights had been turned off around him and there was darkness where his chair stood. This time Cora let Sam Sparrow into the room – Sam, the father of Samwell and husband of Sarah. "I came to tell you," he grieved, and his voice fell onto the soiled imprints that Ryker's boots had left on the carpet, "that our Samwell's years have come to an end like a sigh. The favor of the Lord rested upon him. His wheel has broken at the cistern and his spirit has returned to God Who gave it." All three pictures are by Havilah Farenhorst, a granddaughter of the author. ...

Media bias

Dear Mainstream Media: 4 strikes and you’re out!

Like many of you, I grew up with the mainstream media being a part of our household. We got the Globe and Mail delivered daily; when they displayed too obvious a bias in favor of same-sex “marriage,” my dad switched to the National Post. We got TIME magazine weekly. When I moved out on my own for the first time – from Chilliwack to Calgary, Alberta – the first thing I did was get a subscription to a newspaper. But as the years went on, my “take it with a grain of salt” attitude to the mainstream media evolved into overt distrust. The feeble attempts at fairness largely disappeared, and brazen cheerleading for the movements destroying our society took its place. Strike 1: Hating babies One of the first breakdowns of trust between Christians and the press came with the issue of abortion. Christians view abortion for precisely what it is: an act of violence that ends the life of a developing human being. With only a few notable exceptions, the mainstream media in North America backed the abortion rights movement and opposed the pro-life movement. Dehumanizing language was deliberately used when referring to pre-born children. The issue, in most cases, was presented as a political struggle between the “pro-choice” movement and the pro-life movement, with the main characters – the pre-born babies at the center of the struggle – left entirely out. This bias has only grown exponentially, especially in the wake of Roe v. Wade’s overturn. The media deliberately misrepresents pro-lifers; it seeks to portray the movement in as negative a light as possible, and it actively ignores malfeasance on the pro-abortion side. I have read stories about people I know, in which I am quoted, that are obviously false. To read a story in the mainstream press about abortion is to see journalists assert, with complete confidence, that the baby in the womb is not, in fact, a baby. It is to read “fact-checkers” debunk objectively true claims on behalf of the abortion industry, and to see the pro-life movement portrayed as misogynists, religious fanatics, and, frequently, white supremacists. The mainstream media’s rule is “if it bleeds, it leads” – except when it comes to abortion. In fact, when David Daleiden and the Center for Medical Progress released bombshell videos in 2015, proving that the abortion industry was trafficking in baby body parts, the media promptly launched a massive investigation…into the Center for Medical Progress. The reality is that when you read a story about abortion in the media, it is almost certainly packed with disinformation and outright lies. Strike 2: Hyping hedonism It isn’t just abortion, of course. On virtually every issue, the mainstream press takes the side of the sexual revolutionaries – and when churches are covered by the media, it is almost always a story about a conflict between Christianity and the sexual revolution. It is not news that Christian institutions generally adhere to a Biblical view of sexuality, for example, but Canada’s state broadcaster and major newspapers treat us to an endless stream of breathless coverage reminding us of the fact. You have probably never heard about the community service work done by staff and students at Redeemer University. You probably have heard the stunning revelation that, as one CBC headline put it, this “private Christian university says no sex outside heterosexual marriage.” Progressive politicians and their media allies have put a lot of elbow grease into stereotyping conservative Christians, and it has been effective. While Christians are condemned for opposing an increasingly radical LGBT agenda, the press – especially Canada’s taxpayer-funded state broadcaster – has bent over backward to condemn parental rights, defend drag shows targeted at children, and justify a pornographic sex ed curriculum. Strike 3: Doubling down on death The same is true for the issue of euthanasia. With one exception – Andrew Coyne, who was then a columnist for the National Post and now writes for the Globe and Mail – the media was entirely in favor of legalization, and treated dissent as unworthy of coverage. I remember tuning into the CBC for a debate on euthanasia, only to discover that the debate was not between someone who opposed it and someone who supported it – it was between an advocate of the incoming law and a fellow who didn’t think it went far enough. In short order, the media wasn’t even calling it euthanasia or assisted suicide anymore – they’d switched the terminology to the sterile, soothing-sounding “medical aid in dying,” conveniently shortened to “MAID.” Only when the horror stories pro-lifers predicted began surfacing in rapid succession did some media outlets begin asking if we had perhaps “gone too far” – and none admitted that perhaps the pro-life advocates they’d ignored were correct. Strike 4: Celebrating castration But the nail in the coffin of the media’s credibility – not only amongst Christians, but in the broader public, as well – was their whole-hearted embrace of the transgender agenda. Prestigious media organizations with Pulitzer Prizes and foreign correspondents in a dozen countries began to publish articles with phrases such as “her penis” and “his breasts.” Scores of “human interest” stories about “pregnant men” – I’m not making that up – were (and are) published with full photo essays. The claims of the transgender movement on everything from suicidal ideation to the acceptability of subjecting gender dysphoric minors to double mastectomies and castration were accepted at face value, regardless of how ludicrous they were or how much contradictory evidence existed. Most damning were the countless stories about allegedly female criminals featuring photographs of ugly, snaggle-toothed men guilty of often horrifying violence against real women. Nearly all of them went viral, and the universality of the mockery was devastating for the media’s credibility. Trust in the press can survive mistakes – even catastrophic ones. But it is a different scenario entirely when the press consistently challenges its viewers and readers with obvious lies and asks them: “Who are you going to believe, us or your lying eyes?” I’ve even seen mainstream journalists such as Jonathan Kay (of Quillette and the National Post) make the observation on Twitter – the reason transgenderism is so toxic, he noted, is that “ isn’t just destroying trust in the educational/political elites when it comes to gender. It’s destroying trust, full stop. If elites…think waving a fairy wand turns boys into girls, what other crap do they believe?” Precisely. Over the past several decades, the mainstream press has revealed that it serves as the propaganda arm of the Sexual Revolution – and in the last ten years, it has abandoned reality entirely. You’re outta here This is undoubtedly a serious issue, because in the vacuum left behind, many people merely hunt for sources that back their preferred narrative on a given issue and independent platforms deliberately cater to this. I agree with the mainstream journalists who worry that the collapse of trust in the Fifth Estate is a huge problem. It just happens to be a problem of their own making. Jonathon Van Maren has written for the National Post, National Review, First Things, LifeSiteNews, and many other publications. He blogs at TheBridgehead.ca....

News

Saturday Selections – Oct. 28, 2023

Should Christian participate in Halloween? (2 min) A very short take, offered for your consideration... Economics for beginners: 5 articles to get you started Economics is the science of human action, and if you want to get a good introduction to it, the Institute for Faith, Works & Economics has 5 articles to suggest. Why I no longer use Transgender pronouns... and why you shouldn't either Former lesbian (and English professor) Rosaria Butterfield weighs in... More studies show the harm of recreational marijuana use Marijuana use comes with high costs, whether it's emergency room visits for pregnant mothers, children born prematurely, or mental health issues among young men. Comets show how secular science is assumptions built on assumptions Comets melt each time they pass by our Sun. So if they were to do so for millions of years, then they'd all be gone by now, right? And yet Halley's Comet is still scheduled for a 2061 return, and others keep flying by as well. So what's up? Might comets still being around be evidence of a universe that is very young rather than millions of years old? No, say secular scientists, certainly not! They instead see comets as evidence of a cloud of icy objects – the Oort Cloud – far beyond the outskirts of the solar system that hasn't actually been observed, but must be there, because, well, we need something to explain why we still get comets. The idea is that every now and again the icy chunks way out there bump into each other and send a new comet flying inward toward the sun. But not only is the Oort Cloud theoretical, so too is the way the ice chunks form. Two snowballs thrown at each other don't generally cohere into one – as this article explores, what we see is disintegration, not formation. Which leaves us wondering once again, how do we still have comets? Building an alternative economy Don't share your pronouns? Won't apologize for your privilege? Aren't putting a pride flag on your desk for the month of June? Can't work on Sunday? Then maybe you aren't welcome at this company anymore! As mainstream businesses bow to the idol of wokeness, some Christians are trying to create an alternative economy where Christians can buy from, or work at, companies that aren't spending their Monday morning team meetings trying to figure out how best to shake their fist at God throughout the upcoming week. The commercial below is brilliant and funny and tears down the idols of woke culture, but it's worth asking, what do we replace it all with? At just a minute long, it doesn't have time for anything more than idol toppling, so we can be thankful for what the folks at Red Balloon accomplish here, even as we recognize the need to pick up the baton and carry it forward. More does need to be done – the Church needs to present the alternative to the false gods: our Lord, and His Truth, proudly proclaimed as such. Christians have gotten really good at blowing up the other side's hypocrisy, and we've gotten a lot of help even from non-Christians like Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson, and sometimes from the most unlikely of allies like J.K. Rowling and atheist Richard Dawkins, who've both taken on transgenderism. However, there is a problem with just dismantling the other side's arguments and leaving it at that. If we're not proposing Christianity as the solution, we are acting – whether we mean to or not – as if there is some other choice that could be made. We've become very good at exposing the idiot ideas of the Left for the unworkable nonsense that they are. But by not proudly and loudly sharing God's better way, we are actually acting as if it must be unworkable too... or why else wouldn't we share it? In our reluctance, in our silence, in our embarrassment, we are implicitly arguing for some middle ground, some neutral place, that is neither crazy nor Christian. But the choice has always been between Christ and chaos (Matt. 12:30, James 4:4). Isn't that plain enough to us by now? As the great Will Rogers once said, "You can't beat something with nothing." Yet God's people seem to keep trying. It's time we shared the good news with the world that there really is an alternative to the craziness. They need Jesus. And they need to hear about Him from us (Romans 10:14-15). ...

News, Pro-life - Abortion

Pro-life flag proposal gets town talking about worldviews

A proposal by the Smithers Pro-Life Society for their community to fly a pro-life flag was unanimously rejected by their town council, but not without exposing their worldviews and getting the entire community talking about life and freedom and what to do when worldviews conflict.  An unlikely catalyst Along with many other communities located towards BC’s west coast, the town of Smithers has embraced a very secular ideology, which it understands to be “progressive.” As a part of its recent “Pride” celebrations, the town welcomed a drag queen story reading for children at the public library. Not impressed, over 800 members of the community signed a petition to express their concerns. Jessica Vandergaag, a board member of Smithers Pro-Life, was in attendance when the town council responded to this petition. “The councillors reiterated over and over how inclusive and diverse our community is and that the public square was for ‘everyone.’ Their words rang through my head all evening.  A thought came to mind – why not ask for the pro-life flag now when we can hold them to their words of inclusion and diversity? While they still remember the words they said!” Since the town flies rainbow flags on its main street, Smithers Pro-Life was planning to request next year that a pro-life flag be hung as well. But with the town council’s declaration that the public square is for everyone, now seemed the time to act. In the same month Vandergaag, along with board member Betty Bandstra, stood before Smithers council, backed by a crowd of supporters in the gallery. They requested that the town hang the pro-life flag or paint it on a crosswalk in the same intersection as the rainbow crosswalk. Vandergaag proceeded to give an impassioned speech to Council, explaining that “the pre-born remain the group that is most ignored, even though it has the highest death rate, 100,000 killed per year in Canada.” After quoting the mayor’s and councillors recent comments about welcoming different perspectives and worldviews, Vandergaag had the pro-life flag held up, and she made the case that the most vulnerable deserve public recognition “because it is through the awareness of human rights abuses that empathy is developed and public opinion is changed.” A confused response What was the town council going to do? How could they turn down a request for a symbol that shows inclusiveness for vulnerable citizens, with so many in the community demonstrating their support? The local newspaper gave the story its front page, providing coverage that was surprisingly fair to Smithers Pro-Life. Council put the request on their next meeting agenda, and the pro-life community showed up once again, filling the gallery to show their support for the initiative. Each council member spoke, and their words exposed the impact this proposal had on their hearts and souls. They were emotional and passionate… and also confused. One council member, Genevieve Patterson, who identified herself as both pro-choice and Christian, was in tears as she shared her story of multiple miscarriages. She explained how she had three pregnancies where the baby had died after the first trimester, requiring her to have a D&C procedure, to remove the baby. She went on to call the D&C her “abortion” and said that “I am grateful for my right to choose. It saved my life.” She added “As a Christian woman, and a leader in my community, I will never use my relationship with God to rationalize my political beliefs, as I believe my relationship with God is just that – my own.” Although everyone should sympathize with her experience, it is a fallacy to compare what she went through with abortion, as an abortion involves purposeful action to end the life of a preborn child. The pro-life perspective would adamantly support her in her D&C. And although she professes to keep her faith separate from her political beliefs, her pro-choice stance made it very clear that her beliefs dictated her political beliefs. The one member of Council who is known as a Christian and a member of a local Reformed church also voted against the flag. He explained that the feedback he read about the proposal included the concern that: “there will be women in our town, who might have had an abortion, not because they wanted to but because life circumstances forced them to such a decision. The presence of a pro-life flag or crosswalk could be very triggering.” He could understand why they would conclude that. His other comments made it evident that his main concern was about how people from both sides of these issues talked about the other side. Somewhat ironically, the only Council member who showed support for the proposal explained that he was an atheist, and had opposed the original rainbow crosswalk proposal on the grounds that it would raise one ideology or group over others. He sees this current proposal as proof that he was correct, and voted against it for the same reason as the rainbow crosswalk. He said he wanted to see a new proposal to not allow the town to make any more symbolic statements like the rainbow crosswalk, though he wouldn’t remove that crosswalk now because he isn’t in favour of removing symbols. Gladys Atrill, the town’s mayor, started her speech by reflecting that “residents of Smithers have challenged council in the past two weeks with big issues: issues about who we are, what we believe, our worldviews, what is OK in public, what symbols we should consider.” She proceeded to contrast the rainbow flag, and its alignment with the Canadian Human Rights Act, with the pro-life flag, which contradicts the reality that abortion is legal in Canada. “As such, I’m not in favor of placing symbols in public places that relate to health procedures since there are many that are viewed as controversial….. Miss Vandergaag linked her strong faith in God to her pro-life belief. Others hold different views, that abortion is a medically-necessary procedure and that women have the right to self-determination.” Mayor Atrill failed to recognize that the right to life is foundational to all other rights and is included in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which the town is bound to uphold. She also failed to recognize that many things were legal and even celebrated in the past which we are ashamed of today (including how women were not recognized as persons under the law). The fact that something is recognized by law doesn’t make it right. To add to this, the mayor had no issue imposing her worldview (the right to abortion), over Vandergaag’s and others who are pro-life, within the same minute that she claimed that “The debate over abortion belongs at other tables than this one.” From town hall to town square After the town’s unanimous decision against the pro-life flag, the local media covered the story again. And this sparked a conversation that has carried on in the following weeks. In July, a local radio station invited Vandergaag and Bandstra, along with the drag queen story hour host, to an hour-long discussion about the pro-life flag proposal. Although she was nervous about taking part, she reflected after that “the conversation went well and I really felt at the end that God gave me words and guided me through quite the monologue.” She added that the others who took part expressed thanks to her and Bandstra for the civil conversation and the councillor in particular seemed “quite moved” by it. “I really pray and believe that even if it is not aired, that God did some planting there between the six of us.” Reflecting on the whole ordeal, she commented “while the result was not as we hoped, we do believe it to be a positive experience in the grand scheme.” She proceeded to give one example. “I was contacted by a former co-worker, whom I had no idea was pro-life, wondering what the result from Town Council was. Her family was visiting from Ireland and it was a topic of their conversation. I shared that it had been voted down and she expressed her sadness. I was touched that she contacted me and that conversations about it were still happening over a month later!” Not only do these conversations bring attention to our preborn neighbours, they also break through the veneer of “inclusivity” and “equality” that our secular leaders often champion, without having to defend. It was rather obvious that the council members only welcomed some perspectives, and these were ones that aligned with their own worldviews. The antithesis is as real in 2023 as it was in the Garden of Eden. Vandergaag “absolutely recommends” others to do this in their communities, both because of the conversation it creates and as a voice for the preborn who are otherwise not heard. But she also advised that it be done as a “delegation request” rather than simply a letter request. This is a request to address town council in person about a matter that important to a citizen or group, before a decision is made. “Letters can get passed by but a delegation request gets you extra time to present your request and the town council has to act on it with a motion in the following meeting.”...

Politics

Being in the room at the Conservative Convention

There’s a line from the musical Hamilton that’s been on repeat in my head: “I wanna be in the room where it happens.” That’s why I attended the Conservative Policy Convention this past September: I wanted to be where the decisions are made that change history.  Now, it turns out, Canadian history isn’t changed in one room; it starts in 338 rooms across the country. Ridings, rather. In each of these ridings, there is a local Conservative board called the Electoral District Association, or EDA. Each EDA is made up of a group of about 15-30 locals. The EDA hosts local Conservative events and they represent the party to the riding. They also create policies and policy amendments that are voted on at the bi-annual Conservative Policy Convention. And last but not least, they send delegates to the Convention. In other words, the EDA is the voice of the Conservative Party to the riding and also the voice of the riding to the Party.  Attending the latest Convention as a delegate, I was struck by just how much impact you have when you're willing to show up. So here I am, typing. Day one was speeches and mingling. On the second day, delegates split into three different breakout sessions: one on social issues, one on economic issues, and one on foreign policy. Here, delegates are deciding what policies will make it to final voting: only 10 out of 20 policies in each session will move forward. Social issues were the last on the agenda for the plenary voting. The ten that had made it through were voted on by all the delegates. The “for” and “against” sides advocated back and forth until we were ready for a vote.  A new friend had 30 seconds to advocate a policy against child pornography. We cheered so loud we never heard his finish.  A 15-year-old girl spoke against men using women’s spaces. We clapped so emphatically my hands hurt. Finally, my trip was made worth it when we voted against expanding doctor-assisted suicide to youth and the mentally ill. That passed with flying colors. Now, it’s important to note that party leader Pierre Poilievre isn’t bound to these party policies. Policy Conventions tell leaders what their EDA’s and members care about, and they give principles for decisions made in Parliament – you know, that other important room. But just because policies aren’t binding, doesn’t mean they don’t offer some form of accountability – it doesn’t look great for a leader to ignore their grassroots. Some of what happened was less encouraging.  A policy that would've removed the current abortion policy was short three EDA's votes in order to make it to convention. The policy it would've removed states, "A Conservative government will not support legislation to regulate abortion." Throughout the Convention, one name kept coming up: Gerrit Van Dorland was a Reformed Christian nominee seeking the Conservative candidacy in Oxford, ON. The former MP had stepped down and the seat was open. Van Dorland was disqualified by an EDA committee from the race, and a fly-in candidate (someone not from the riding) won the nomination. Van Dorland appealed to National Council, and the majority wouldn’t overturn his disqualification. Three members voted in favor of the appeal and 11 voted against. Why? The party said that he failed to disclose something in his application. Nobody in the room will/is allowed to say exactly what. Some people have speculated that Van Dorland was disqualified on a technicality because some of the party leaders had a preferred candidate. Others take it further, saying that Van Dorland was disqualified for his Christian values – but we see other candidates who share those values remain in the party. One policy voted down in the preliminaries was on the transparency of National Council – that policy would’ve made the whole situation… well, transparent. Delegates from each province vote in members of National Council. This situation made me realize that National Council can have a big impact on disqualification. Funny enough, a familiar name – former ARPA Canada Lighthouse News anchor Al Siebring – was a name on the Alberta ballot. He lost by less than 30 votes. In two years, at the next Convention, we will have a chance to vote again – a chance to bring new policies to the table, and to vote again on National Council. With just a few hundred delegates from each province, our votes have a loud voice. In B.C., there was a four-vote difference on two National Council members. In two years, we could also pass that policy on the transparency of council. More than that, we may yet have the chance to give some anti-abortion policy a standing ovation.  What we’re told is true – Poilievre doesn’t call himself pro-life, and the Conservative party won’t yet touch abortion. But when you are in the Conservative party, you have the opportunity to shape the Conservative party. What the party looks like in ten years is, in some ways, up to us....

Human Rights

The biblical and historical basis for parental rights

With the onset of parenthood, couples suddenly find that this new role is now dominating their lives. Children have become a central factor in how time and money are spent, and these same children also become a source of anxiety. Are they okay? Are they alright? The well-being of their children becomes an overwhelming feature of parents’ lives. Parents want what’s best for their children so the decisions they make are with this objective in mind. Christian parents will want their children to be instructed about God and his Word because they understand that spiritual matters are of the greatest concern. This normally includes education in a Christian school or homeschooling. Historically, in the English-speaking democracies, parents’ ability to choose Christian education for their children has frequently received widespread support. Of course, parents can choose what education their children are to receive! Who else could make that kind of decision? Sadly, there are threats on the horizon. Powerful forces in the media and various governments are increasingly suspicious about parental influence in education. These kinds of threats make it imperative for Christian parents to understand the basis of their rights in making authoritative decisions for their children. One excellent source of information is American lawyer John Whitehead’s 1985 book entitled Parents' Rights. Many of the matters he discusses in the book are dated because it was written thirty years ago. But the biblical and historical information he provides about parental rights are still valid and useful to know today. The Bible In the Bible, God has ordained three key institutions: the family, the church, and the state. Each one has specific roles and responsibilities. Each one also has specific powers and authority. However, the power and authority are not inherent in the institutions themselves but are delegated by God. Family, church and state have “derivative” authority from God – it comes from Him. Therefore the authority they exercise must always be used in accordance with God’s revealed will. There is no just authority that can be exercised in opposition to God’s truth. To which of the three institutions did God give the oversight and care of children? Clearly, it is the family. Already in the first chapter of Genesis, Adam and Eve are told to be fruitful and multiply. Whitehead notes: "Not only is there a command to have children, but there is the teaching that children are from God. When Eve had borne a child, she recognized that she had not done this alone and understood that the Creator was the ultimate source of the child. She said: “I have gotten a man from the Lord.” In Genesis 33:5, Genesis 48:9 and Joshua 24:3-4, it is explicitly stated that children are given by God. As Whitehead explains: "These verses indicate that children are given by God to families and not inanimate institutions or governments. Not only are children given, but they are also called gifts and blessings: “Behold, children are a gift of the Lord; the fruit of the womb is a reward.” As such, children are not just given to any family. The implication is that specific children are given to particular parents as a gift from God." The centrality of the family in the raising of children is further buttressed by the primacy of the family as an institution: "The family was the first institution created by God, even before the state. Because it was the first, it can be considered to be the foundational institution upon which all others are built." History John Whitehead is American, so the historical discussion he provides about parental rights is primarily about the United States. Nevertheless, the USA is part of the broader Anglo-American culture (“Anglosphere”) that shares legal precepts descended from Britain. The other Anglosphere countries have operated under the same basic principles. During the first half of the seventeenth century, Puritan settlers from England began arriving in the North American colonies. This area became known as New England. Later in the century the colonies adopted laws requiring children to learn to read and to be catechized. It was clearly recognized that teaching children was the responsibility of parents and these laws reinforced that fact. As Whitehead points out, "All of these enactments were concerned simply with the basic education of children, and should not, therefore, be confused with modern compulsory education laws which require classroom attendance at state-approved schools." Parents in the colonies did, in fact, take their responsibility seriously and children learned to read on a wide scale. “At the time of the Revolution, literacy rates had reached unprecedented heights, and by 1800 literacy was virtually universal.” That is, decades before the public school system was created in the USA, almost everyone (excluding slaves, unfortunately) could read and write in that country. Universal literacy was not the result of public education. John Locke John Locke (1632-1704) has been one of the most influential political philosophers in the history of the English-speaking world. He was the key philosopher behind the founding of the United States, and his thought underlays many early American documents and institutions. Although there is a debate over the degree to which Locke reflects a genuine Christian perspective, there are some clear biblical ideas in his work. Locke understood that God had created the world and everything in it. As Whitehead explains, Locke saw children as being the creation of God: "Therefore, instead of belonging to their parents, children belong to the Creator. Parents, then, hold children in trust for God. This means that parents, as stewards, are to take care of their children for God. The child must be raised to live the sort of life which is pleasing to the Creator." Children, of course, are born without the ability to take care of themselves or make decisions for their lives. They will eventually develop those capacities and become independent adults. But in the meantime, it is necessary for the parents to care for them and take steps to see that they grow morally and mentally into responsible individuals. As Locke saw things: "the child’s weakness is a source of parental authority, which in turn is a source of parental obligation. Thus, parents are under a God-mandated obligation to “preserve, nourish, and educate” their children. This is not a choice parents have. The obligation is not to the child, but to God." In other words, parents are accountable to God, first and foremost, for how they raise their children. The children are really God’s children entrusted to the parents, so those parents must answer to Him for their child-rearing efforts. The courts Locke’s perspective on the position of parents reflects the Christian thought that dominated the US during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Whitehead states that, “it was this parental authority and obligation that was embedded in the law and protected by the courts.” Whitehead discusses particular American court cases from the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries that demonstrate how strongly parental rights were upheld in common law. He summarizes the situation thusly: "Parental power, the early court decisions indicate, is essentially plenary. This means it should prevail over the claims of the state, other outsiders, and the children themselves 'unless there is some compelling justification for interference.'" It is important to note that the erosion of parental rights that has occurred in recent decades is strongly related to the decline of Christianity in the USA and in the other Western countries as well. This is reflected in American court decisions: "The older cases specifically noted that they were relying on Christian principles. However, the modern phobia over the separation of church and state prevents any reference to the Christian principles in terms of them being truth." Parental rights were historically based on Christian ideals. As the Christian basis of the West has deteriorated, the foundation for parental rights has weakened as a result. There is still some support for parental rights in the USA and other countries like Canada. But Whitehead thinks that continuing support is best explained as being part of “the cultural memory” of the past “when the Christian idea that children are gifts from God was an assumed principle.” Conclusion Whitehead suggests that there are two key commitments Christians must make if they are to secure parental rights. “The first is, of course, the commitment to be good parents.” Parents must raise their children in accordance with God’s loving commands and expectations. In other words, parents must take their responsibilities and obligations seriously if they want their parental rights to be recognized. “Second, as Christians, we must be committed to stand strong for the truth.” Parental rights are ultimately rooted in Christianity, so it is especially incumbent upon Christians to advocate for them. The purpose and rationale for parental rights need to be explained. In the end, parental rights are not primarily for the benefit of parents, but for the benefit of children. Children need the loving care of their parents. No institution can take the place of the family in the lives of children. As Whitehead puts it, “The state is simply, and will always be, a poor and ineffective parental substitute.” This first appeared in the June 2015 issue....

News

Saturday Selections – Oct. 7, 2023

The challenges and reality of climate modeling (5 min) Steven Koonin is a scientist whose experiences include time as undersecretary of science at the Department of Energy in the Obama administration. He's also written Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters and the point he's arguing here is that scientists need to speak with a lot more humility in acknowledging the uncertainty about the conclusions their climate models come to, since they are built on assumptions upon assumptions. For his 1-hour-long interview on the same topic, click here. What makes a man manly? (10-min read) Evolution and God have two very different answers to that question, as Nancy Pearcey explains. Evolution leads to bad science example #6819: human tails Once every few hundred million times or so, a child will be born with what looks somewhat like a tail. Charles Darwin pointed to these instances as examples of our evolutionary origins - throwbacks to tailed ancestors we once had. Then: "In the 1980s, scientists took this theory and ran with it. They argued that a genetic mutation, evolved by humans to erase our tails, could sometimes revert back to its ancestral state." It took a long time, but the facts finally overwhelmed the evolutionary assumptions - these are not evidence of our origins, and not tails at all, but major mishaps, typically associated with an improper fusing of the spinal column. Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) Though I myself am a fan of Ranked Choice Voting – where you rank all the candidates from your first preference down to your last – it does have its downsides, which are explored in the article above. While there is no perfect electoral system, some are better and others worse. For example, electronic voting machines are touted for their convenience, but their coding is most often a proprietary secret, which is just one reason they don't allow for the accountability and transparency that pen on paper ballots can offer. And of course, the problem with all democratic systems is that voters can be very wicked and they may just get what they voted for. COVID-19, hygiene theatre, masks, and lockdowns: “solid science” or science veneer? (15 min read) "In an ideal world, there would be some process by which our public health agencies, at least, could come to recognize and admit how badly they managed to 'follow the science' on COVID-19, and how vast was the gulf between their expressions of absolute certainty and what the scientific literature showed at the time was, in fact, a sea of uncertainty. Until such a 'truth and reconciliation' process takes place, it is hard to see how public trust in public health institutions might be restored." Unintended consequences: a reason for restrained government Chesterton is said to have quipped "If men will not be governed by the Ten Commandments, they shall be governed by the ten thousand commandments," his point being that if men won't be restrained by God, then the government will have to step in, and they'll do a hodge podge of it. As opposed to God's divine law, governmental rules and regulations are a clumsy tool, devised as they are by fallible men and often at a great distance from the problems they are trying to address. So it is then, that governmental "solutions" often cause bigger problems – unintended consequences. Understanding this reality, lawmakers should, in humility, use the tool of lawmaking only when they absolutely must. ...

News

Saturday Selections – Sept. 30, 2023

Click on the titles below to go to the linked articles. Everything has to be working just right, right from the start (2 min) For a baby to grow, all sorts of systems have to be working just right, and have to have been developed all at the same time. So how could evolution ever get over such a "hurdle"? Overcome your enemies by dying Peter Krol has a rather unexpected strategy for effective Christian engagement – he wants us to "overcome enemies by dying." "God does not ask his people to live as idiotic simpletons or punching bags. God wants his people to overcome strife and evil (Rom. 12:21). But the way you overcome it matters. To win the fight in the wrong way is to lose." Just as you can win badly, there is also a way to lose gloriously. Krol's point is that the outcomes are up to God, and the methods are up to us, so, win or lose, do so with His glory in mind. Krol also lays out five strategies on how best to do so. How to lose your pastor in 365 days There always seems to be a pastor shortage. Might it be worth asking ourselves, how do we in the pews make their job attractive or unattractive? Here are 11 ways to show some appreciation. Why we can't trust the science journals - a climate scientist explains "...a climate scientist has written that he pulled his punches in a climate-change article in order to be published by the prestigious journal Nature." Samuel Sey: Why I am not a "Christian Nationalist" If you support a Christian think tank or lobby like ARPA Canada or the Colson Center that advocates for laws that abide with God's commandments, then by the way some define the term, you are a "Christian Nationalist." But as Samuel Sey notes here, there are a lot of folks fighting for this term, bringing different definitions to it, and the way some others define it, you most certainly aren't a "Christian Nationalist." Unmasking "Christian nationalism" (90 minutes) John Stonestreet, Rusty Reno, and Hunter Baker debate the usefulness of the term "Christian nationalism" and debate also whether Christians should even be trying to bring in Christian laws. Isn't that top-down "Christianization"? That's a good point, and a reason why, in our efforts to bring in laws that align with God's commandments, we should do so as Christians, seeing the public square as just one more opportunity to glorify God. Then, when a Christian law is adopted, it won't be forced from the top down but will have been adopted because we've convinced the country that God's ways are best. This is a long listen – an hour and a half – but worth the time for the sort of discourse happening here: some disagreement but done in the spirit of digging down to the truth together. More on Christian nationalism: legislating morality (2 min) While there's reason to question the usefulness of the term "Christian nationalism," all Christians should want and pray for their nations to be governed by God's Word. While apologist Frank Turek is Arminian, in the video above he makes a good, concise point that all legislation is moral in nature. If it isn't justified as being about right and wrong, then it is simply capricious, based on the whims of whoever happens to be in charge. Is that what anyone is after? No, we want our laws based on the only real standard: God's. Where Turek gets it wrong is that he thinks this law is self-evident. There is a sense in which that is true: God tells us His law is written on our hearts (Romans 2:15). But we also know that with work and effort, we are quite capable of blinding ourselves to what is true. Shucks, we have people who believe it is all right to murder a baby so long as one foot is still inside its mother's body, or that the government should fund the mutilation of children who are confused about their gender. So, the law isn't always self-evident; it is often very much in need of proclamation. Thankfully, God has given the world His Church to do that!...

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14