• Home
    Home This is where you can find all the blog posts throughout the site.
  • Categories
    Categories Displays a list of categories from this blog.
  • Tags
    Tags Displays a list of tags that have been used in the blog.
  • Bloggers
    Bloggers Search for your favorite blogger from this site.
  • Team Blogs
    Team Blogs Find your favorite team blogs here.
  • Login
    Login Login form
Recent blog posts

Posted by on in Uncategorized

b2ap3_thumbnail_Unjust-judge.jpgDuring the election campaign it wasn’t always clear who our next prime minister was going to be. What was clear was that no matter who won, the unborn were going to lose. We had a pro-choice prime minister going in, and we have one still. And the situation we face is that before we next go to the polls another half million children will be dead.

This is wickedness on a grand scale, but it’s also a routine sort of evil. It happens to one baby at a time, every couple of minutes or so, and during regular business hours. A boy, then maybe a girl, one after another, ripped from their mother’s womb, torn apart and the pieces collected. Just another profitable murder, efficiently executed, done at the insistence of the child’s parents and with the approval of this government and this prime minister.

We could see this result coming, but now that we’re here what’s to be done? Parliament is decidedly pro-choice, so does that mean we can’t do anything for the unborn legislatively? 

No. Jesus told the Parable of the Persistent Widow (Luke 18:1-8) during a very different time, and while He didn’t intend it first and foremost to serve as a guide to how best to engage in effective pro-life political action, it is that too. There once was a judge, Jesus tells us, “who neither feared God nor cared what people thought.” Living in the same town there was a widow in need of help, and her only means of getting justice was to turn to this judge. So what to do when faced with an unjust judge? 

“[She] kept coming to him with the plea, ‘Grant me justice against my adversary.’ For some time he refused. But finally he said to himself, ‘Even though I don’t fear God or care what people think, yet because this widow keeps bothering me, I will see that she gets justice, so that she won’t eventually come and attack me!’”


At the start of 2015 the Reformed Churches of the Netherlands-Libeb2ap3_thumbnail_FRCA-2.jpgrated (RCN) had a sister-church relationship with both the Canadian Reformed Churches (CanRC) and the Free Reformed Churches of Australia (FRCA). That’s only half true now: at the FRCA’s synod this year the denomination decided to suspend their relationship with the RCN. 

What is the reason for this suspension? Well, at the FRCA’s previous synod in 2012 they decided to express to the RCN that they had serious concerns that the Dutch denomination was evidencing “a liberal way of interpreting Scripture.” Examples given included how the RCN was allowing one of their seminary lecturers to assert “creation to be a myth, along with much of Genesis 1-11.” Another related to how the RCN had adopted regulations that allowed for the amalgamation of RCN congregations with those of the Netherlands Reformed Churches (NGK). This was objectionable since the NGK have, since 2004, allowed women to be ministers, and they have also mandated a study as to whether practicing homosexuals may fill the offices of elder and deacon. 

The RCN didn’t heed this warning. Since there was no change the FRCA felt they had no choice but to suspend their relationship and warn the RCN that “if the next synod of the RCN in 2017 does not express and demonstrate evidence of repentance” then this sister relationship “will become untenable.” In other words, it will end.

In the meantime this suspension means that FRCA congregations will no longer automatically accept attestations from the RCN, and the denomination’s pulpits will no longer be open to RCN ministers.

While the CanRC has expressed its own concerns, at this point they are continuing on with their sister-church relationship with RCN. 


b2ap3_thumbnail_Glenn-Beck.jpgI know some people who called themselves freedom-loving capitalists. But when the Oregon shooting occurred, they called for more gun control legislation. They also supported the Wall Street bailout. And they think that Obamacare is simply what a compassionate America must do. They want me to call them freedom-loving capitalists, but I can’t. It’s not a matter of me being unloving. It’s just that words have meanings so I can’t call them capitalist since they aren’t.

Glenn, you call yourself a Christian, saying you hold Christ in common with me. And in a recent Facebook posting you shared how hurt you felt when someone asked you to stop calling yourself a Christian and you wondered at the "arrogance of anyone who thinks their doctrine is enough to kick people out of the tent of Christ." 

But your prophet Joseph Smith did just that when he claimed long ago that he was told all other churches were wrong and “all their creeds were an abomination in [God’s} sight.” Your prophet thought there was a divide between your beliefs and mine, and that one of us is right and one of us is damnably wrong. Now, I don’t believe Joseph Smith was right about which religion was wrong, but I agree with him that Mormons are not like any of the Christian churches. Just consider some of these differences:

  • Christians believe that Jesus was never created but Satan was; Mormons believe both Jesus and Satan are created beings.
  • Christians believe that Christians are adopted children of God and in that sense are brothers and sisters of Christ; Mormons believe all created (sentient) beings are spirit children of the Father and thus not only are we brothers and sisters to Christ but so is Satan.
  • Christians believe that the first sin involved trying to become like God; Mormons believe that we can become gods.
  • Christians believe that God the Father does not have a bodily form; Mormons believe that God the Father had a physical body and continues to have one.
  • Christians believe that God is eternal and without any beginning; Mormons believe that God had a beginning – the Father had a father.
  • Christians believe that we have one Heavenly Parent, God the Father; Mormons believe that we have a Heavenly Father and Mother.

So this isn’t primarily about doctrine (though it is that too) but about who Jesus really is. When someone claims to know me, but tells my buddy that I’m short, hate basketball, and like soap operas, my friend can confidentially say, “No, you don’t know Jon – that isn’t Jon.” When you say you are a Christian, but you say Christ is the brother of Lucifer, had a beginning, has a mother, and his Heavenly Father has a physical body, then I can confidently say, “No, that isn’t Christ – you don’t know Christ.” It isn’t an insult; it is simply that words need to have meaning and that such important differences – about who Christ really is! – should not be muddied.

Clearly we don't worship the same God, so rather than pretending we do, we should be trying to help each other figure out Who God really is. You should be saying to me that you don’t think I’m a Christian because the Jesus I describe – eternal, not the brother of Lucifer, no mother – isn’t the person you know as Christ. That would be the straight-forward approach, rather than taking any sort of “I’m offended” defense. There is no more important issue – not even Planned Parenthood or ISIS compare – than for us to seek after and learn who God really is. And to do that we first have to be clear about the fact that the God you describe as your Lord is very different from my Lord. Can't we agree that we have a disagreement about who Christ is?

Picture by Gage Skidmore and licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license

Hits: 269


Someone asked me why abortion should be the only issue that determines how we vote. It seemed silly to them that in an election when so many issues are on the table that we would decide things based on just this one issue.

But is it silly? Consider that there are many other “single issues” that would be enough to disqualify a candidate from our consideration. If a candidate agreed with us on free trade but wanted to bring in Sharia law, we wouldn’t vote for them. This one issue would be enough to rule them out. And we couldn’t vote for them even if all the other candidates were worse.

We also wouldn’t vote for someone who approved of slavery. We wouldn’t vote for a Communist, an anti-Semite, or a homosexual activist. So there are many “single issues” that, by themselves, would be enough to disqualify a politician from our vote.

The reason it might seem silly to let the single issue of abortion disqualify a candidate is because abortion happens outside of our view, and because it has been with us for so long. It's understandable that we will have lost sight of the horror.


A secretly-recorded conversation has exposed an NDP candidate’s privately-held pro-life and pro-traditional marriage beliefs. On September 8, a political activist phoned Rev. K.M. Shanthikumar and pretended to be pro-life, and a member of the candidate’s riding, though he was actually neither. Their conversation was conducted in Tamil, and the recording later handed over to the Toronto Star, which published a translated excerpt.

b2ap3_thumbnail_two-way.jpgCaller: Why don’t you bring this up with Thomas Mulcair? That from our religious rights point of view, conducting abortions and gay marriages shouldn’t be done.
Shanthikumar: Yes, yes, it can be done.
Caller: Have you talked to him, sir?
Shanthikumar: No, they won’t notice it much now. The focus is on the election. Once the election is over, we have meetings with them.
Caller: If you win, it will be more helpful
Shanthikumar: If I win, it will be easier. As a group when we tell them, they definitely have to listen.
Caller: So, for abortion, you are against?
Shanthikumar: Yes, I am against that.
Caller: Gay marriage, abortion?
Shanthikumar: All that. What is not in the Bible, what the Bible is against, I am against.

After the phone call was made public the pro-gay marriage and pro-abortion NDP continued to support their candidate. Spokesman Brad Lavigne noted that Shanthikumar had previously signed a declaration in which he said he accepts the party position on abortion and marriage. Shanthikumar also offered reassurances that despite the phone call, he would support the current party policies:

[What was in the phone call] is my personal life. My personal life is different from [the] party line, because when I stand by the party I have to stand by the party….All I said was whatever the party [position] I will stand by that.

It’s hard not to sympathize with the pastor, who was clearly set up. However, no matter how hard we might try, there is no positive way to spin his actions. 


Posted by on in Contending for Creation

Why we need to clarify Article 14 of the Belgic Confessionb2ap3_thumbnail_Adam.jpg

In the fourth century a big battle was fought over a one-letter difference. The Church professed that Christ was homoousios – “of the same substance” – as God the Father, while the Arians argued that Christ was homoiousios, or merely “of a similar substance.” The two Greek terms used differed by only a single iota (the Greek “i”) but what was at stake couldn’t have been bigger: the Arians said Christ was like God but was actually a creature.

Today we’re contending with an issue that seems quiet small: our battle is over a belly button. On the side are those that profess Adam had no belly button, because he had no mother and because he was never born. As the Belgic Confession Article 14 puts it, 

...God created man of the dust from the ground…

On the other side or those who say Adam may well have had a belly button and a mom, and ancestors, and may have shared one of those ancestors with the chimpanzees. 

So this belly button battle quickly shows itself to be about matters much more important. It comes down to whether Adam brought death into the world through the Fall into sin, or whether God used death – millions of years of creatures evolving up from the primordial slime – to bring about Adam. The issue here is every bit as big as Christ’s nature: it’s about the character of God.

That’s why Hamilton’s Providence Canadian Reformed Church has proposed amending Article 14 of the Belgic Confession to clarify that Adam has no ancestors. They propose that the Article begin with these two new lines: 

We believe that God created the human race by making and forming Adam from dust (Gen. 2:7) and Eve from Adam’s side (Gen. 2:21-22).  They were created as the first two humans and the biological ancestors of all other humans.  There were no pre-Adamites, whether human or hominid.

Their addition would add about 40 words to the confession, and remove any doubt as to what should be believed.

But is the change needed? Is there really anyone in our church circles that’s confused about Adam’s origins? Yes, and yes. Not only is there confusion in our churches, this same confusion exists in other Reformed churches including the OPC. 

Canadian Reformed confusion

One prominent member of the Canadian Reformed Churches, Jitse Van Der Meer, was asked how he could square man and chimpanzees having a common ancestor with what we confess in the beginning of Belgic Confession Article 14 about man being made from the dust. Prof. Van Der Meer answered:

  • Cheap trick

    Thrift seems to be a lost art. When Reformed Perspective asked its readers to send in their cheap tricks – the different ways they’ve used the resources God has given them in a particularly inventive and stewardly way - the response rate was rather sad. But it seems a genuine Dutchman or two do still exist. Here’s a true (but anonymous) tale that will hopefully serve as an inspiration to others:

    “It was Sunday afternoon just before the service. Our minister looked for his equipment to amplify his voice. Everything was in the box except the clip to tie his tiny mic in place. It was near starting time for the service. A desperate search yielded nothing. It was then that I remembered finding a paperclip a few days earlier beside my parked car and putting it in my coat pocket. This 'found' paperclip did the trick to hold the mic in its place. Only a born Dutchman would stoop for such a lowly find. Providential? I believe so.”

    Incidentally, though this story is some months old already, that “tie clip” is still in use.