I was pleased to see the following quote in the introduction for an anthology of Canadian political thought.
"Another reason for Canadians’ more muted sense of individualism is the impact of Methodism on Canadian political thought. J.S. Woodsworth, Nellie McClung, and Tommy Douglas were all very much a part of the ‘social gospel’ movement of the early twentieth century. Pearson’s foreign policy was not immune to the influence of Methodism, and even George Grant’s grandfather was a strong Methodist. The ‘progressivism” of the Canadian Methodists would likely shock young self-identified ‘progressive’ activists today, as the former also believed strongly in temperance, the sanctity of motherhood, and the clear superiority of British-Canadian culture.
A thread that runs concurrently with, but through its political aspirations is fairly self-evident, both through its political aspirations and the Thomist philosophy that emerged from the Roman Catholic political culture."
So few people today understand, or indeed appreciate, the influence Christianity had in shaping public policy in our great country.
Source:
“Introduction” Katherine Fieflbeck ed., The Development of Political Thought in Canada: An Anthology. Peterborough: Broadview Press, 2005, pp. 4-5.
Monday, April 30, 2007
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Obtaining Faith
The Lord used His word to convert me. That’s why I love this statement by John Owen:
“For those who, by the gospel, have obtained faith (though such, I fear, are but few), there is no occasion for doubt at all; for ‘what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? And what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord that Christ with Belial? Or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?” (2 Corinthians 6:14-16).
Source:
John Owen, Biblical Theology: The History of Theology from Adam to Christ. Morgan, Penn: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, (1661) 2002, p. 617.
“For those who, by the gospel, have obtained faith (though such, I fear, are but few), there is no occasion for doubt at all; for ‘what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? And what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord that Christ with Belial? Or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?” (2 Corinthians 6:14-16).
Source:
John Owen, Biblical Theology: The History of Theology from Adam to Christ. Morgan, Penn: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, (1661) 2002, p. 617.
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Idol Disconnect
I watched a part of American Idol last night, intrigued by their humanitarian development and aid theme.
Simon Cowell, the British judge, went to a food bank. He said that prior to his visit, he had know idea such places existed! What an amazing statement – and a fascinating insight into his lifestyle.
That someone would be so disconnected with the reality of the world (and indeed the viewing audience, and the contestants) is surprising.
He was moved; stunned that the volunteers were, well, volunteers.
It’s also sad.
Mr. Cowell said he had never met such nice people before asked for a hug. Perhaps that’s why he’s always (real or image-conceived) grumpy.
As for the show, I was pleased one of the contestants chose a gospel song, but cringed when one of them sang John Lenon’s terrible, anti-Christian song ‘Imagine’.
Simon Cowell, the British judge, went to a food bank. He said that prior to his visit, he had know idea such places existed! What an amazing statement – and a fascinating insight into his lifestyle.
That someone would be so disconnected with the reality of the world (and indeed the viewing audience, and the contestants) is surprising.
He was moved; stunned that the volunteers were, well, volunteers.
It’s also sad.
Mr. Cowell said he had never met such nice people before asked for a hug. Perhaps that’s why he’s always (real or image-conceived) grumpy.
As for the show, I was pleased one of the contestants chose a gospel song, but cringed when one of them sang John Lenon’s terrible, anti-Christian song ‘Imagine’.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
VT Videos
I have chosen not to watch the videos, but I have been following the controversy. My thoughts are below.
I think it is unfortunate NBC aired the videos, but I don’t think they realistically had any option but to show them.
Here’s why.
I think that the point of no return happened when the public learned that Cho Seung-Hui
had sent a package of videos to NBC.
The nature of the media certainly factors in here. NBC had exclusive access (at least initially) to these videos. That’s a ‘privilege’ or ‘scoop’ no media outlet would willingly surrender.
The National Review’s Jack Dunphy put it this way, “None of them will ever admit this publicly, of course, but in the safety of their corner offices at Rockefeller Center sit men and women who are privately gleeful at the ratings boost they were given in the form of the box that landed in their mail room Wednesday morning. That the box was sent by a man who had just killed two people and would within the hour kill 30 more, well, that's unfortunate, but business is business so let's get this stuff on television. Proof of this is in the way the NBC News logo is displayed on the tape and in the still photos that accompanied it. Rather than appearing unobtrusively in a lower corner of the frame as is customary, the logo appears in bold letters very near the center of the screen. This was done ostensibly for copyright protection, but it also informs viewers who chance to see the images on other networks that the real scoop is over on NBC, so why not pick up the remote and join us?"
I’ve worked as a journalist, and so I asked myself: ‘Had I been in NBC’s position to air these videos, would I?’ I shudder at the prospect, because I know I would have. To have such exclusive access to footage and to give that up would be tantamount to a betrayal of all that journalists believe in.
I like what Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz wrote. “In the minds of many Americans, this was a horribly offensive act, and no amount of explanation about the obligations of journalism is going to change that view.”
Journalists and the public do not generally see eye-to-eye on what journalism’s role should be. As a journalism student I was often fed the mantra that the journalist’s role may be unpopular at times, but it’s an incredibly high and powerful calling. The public may disagree with us; but that’s just because they don’t get it.
NBC (and later the other stations) restricted what they aired, and eventually reduced the airtime devoted to the videos. So they clearly understood that their decision was bound to be controversial. I think this also shows that they wanted to appear somewhat responsible.
I mentioned earlier that the point of no return happened when the media (and public) learned that these tapes existed.
Had NBC chosen not to air the video, then speculation and mystery would have undoubtedly ensued, which in turn may have contributed to an aura of mystique attached to the killer. That’s exactly what he wanted.
Once one station aired the video, the competitors also had to broadcast the footage. And so the videos spread. Again, that’s just the reality of a very competitive industry.
Another important reality is how the media landscape has rapidly changed in the last few years. In a world of youtube and facebook and blogs and citizen journalists, the videos would have certainly eventually been leaked.
As a side note, I’ve been fascinated to see how extensively the media (even large outlets like the New York Times and the Washington Post) have used information gleaned from myspace pages and facebook profiles (including photos) in their coverage. That leads to intriguing discussions about who, for example, retains legal ownership of photos posted on facebook. Does the picture become facebook property? The user’s property? Or is it in the public domain?
Journalism ethics is an interesting topic because of its complexities.
There have always been some unwritten rules nearly all Western journalists and media outlets have adhered to.
No dead bodies in pictures or footage, for instance (unless the deceased were in a far away country, then that was more acceptable.) Many media outlets are still reluctant to show dead people, but the self-imposed censorship is weakening under pressures from the Internet and (sadly) desensitization to graphic material among the public.
Most will still not cover suicides, unless other people are involved (A person jumping off a bridge onto a highway leading to an accident will probably be covered, for example).
Another issue that’s hotly debated among journalists, and relates to the Virginia Tech shooting, is whether reporters should adhere to the victims’ families’ demands.
Many people will tell the media not to release the name of a family member who died in a car accident. This is especially true if the accident was alcohol-related.
But most journalists argue that NOT publishing the name of the victim is more harmful.
A car accident this weekend near Peterborough illustrates this well. The names of the deceased have yet to be made public. And so, the police have fielded hundreds of phone calls from people across the province worried that their relatives or friends were involved in the car accident.
Now, back to the videos.
Some have argued that it’s wrong to air the videos because it gives the murderer the notoriety that he sought.
That may be so, but this happens all the time.
Last week’s rail blockage near Deseronto illustrates this. The protestors blocked the tracks to bring attention to their cause. They even had a media spokesman! And they got what they wanted - national media coverage. Had no journalist covered their event, their protest would have faded from memory. But that of course is an unrealistic expectation. For news of the protest would have obviously spread, and the media would have been questioned as to why they ignored such an important news story.
I am perplexed as to how intense the public condemnation of the media has been from a culture so accustomed to viewing violence in their television and movie consumption.
The top-grossing movie of 2007 so far as been ‘300’ while ‘24’ remains one of the top TV shows.
That brings me to my final point. A culture that glorifies violence, as long as it’s ‘fake’ and no one actually is harmed, is unequipped to deal with the realities of evil and violence.
Dr. Al Mohler, president of a Southern Baptist seminary in Kentucky, talked about this on his radio show last week. And it’s not refreshingly just conservatives who make this point. Scott Holleran, a frequent contributor to boxofficemojo.com, wonders when referring to violent films, “There may not be a causal connection—many people see this sniveling trash and don't kill people and not every mass murderer watches violent movies—but there is a link. Both have total contempt for life.”
A relativist culture that insists right and wrong are always circumstantial cannot possibly deal with Monday’s horror effectively. And so they desperately look for someone or something to blame; someone to channel their confusion and anger toward. And this time, it was, along with the police, university administration and gun laws, the media.
The Virginia Tech shootings highlight important ethical issues the media grapples with, and I’m sure that the Virginia Tech media coverage will serve as a future case study as the media struggles to discern their roles and responsibilities in a rapidly changing media landscape.
I think it is unfortunate NBC aired the videos, but I don’t think they realistically had any option but to show them.
Here’s why.
I think that the point of no return happened when the public learned that Cho Seung-Hui
had sent a package of videos to NBC.
The nature of the media certainly factors in here. NBC had exclusive access (at least initially) to these videos. That’s a ‘privilege’ or ‘scoop’ no media outlet would willingly surrender.
The National Review’s Jack Dunphy put it this way, “None of them will ever admit this publicly, of course, but in the safety of their corner offices at Rockefeller Center sit men and women who are privately gleeful at the ratings boost they were given in the form of the box that landed in their mail room Wednesday morning. That the box was sent by a man who had just killed two people and would within the hour kill 30 more, well, that's unfortunate, but business is business so let's get this stuff on television. Proof of this is in the way the NBC News logo is displayed on the tape and in the still photos that accompanied it. Rather than appearing unobtrusively in a lower corner of the frame as is customary, the logo appears in bold letters very near the center of the screen. This was done ostensibly for copyright protection, but it also informs viewers who chance to see the images on other networks that the real scoop is over on NBC, so why not pick up the remote and join us?"
I’ve worked as a journalist, and so I asked myself: ‘Had I been in NBC’s position to air these videos, would I?’ I shudder at the prospect, because I know I would have. To have such exclusive access to footage and to give that up would be tantamount to a betrayal of all that journalists believe in.
I like what Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz wrote. “In the minds of many Americans, this was a horribly offensive act, and no amount of explanation about the obligations of journalism is going to change that view.”
Journalists and the public do not generally see eye-to-eye on what journalism’s role should be. As a journalism student I was often fed the mantra that the journalist’s role may be unpopular at times, but it’s an incredibly high and powerful calling. The public may disagree with us; but that’s just because they don’t get it.
NBC (and later the other stations) restricted what they aired, and eventually reduced the airtime devoted to the videos. So they clearly understood that their decision was bound to be controversial. I think this also shows that they wanted to appear somewhat responsible.
I mentioned earlier that the point of no return happened when the media (and public) learned that these tapes existed.
Had NBC chosen not to air the video, then speculation and mystery would have undoubtedly ensued, which in turn may have contributed to an aura of mystique attached to the killer. That’s exactly what he wanted.
Once one station aired the video, the competitors also had to broadcast the footage. And so the videos spread. Again, that’s just the reality of a very competitive industry.
Another important reality is how the media landscape has rapidly changed in the last few years. In a world of youtube and facebook and blogs and citizen journalists, the videos would have certainly eventually been leaked.
As a side note, I’ve been fascinated to see how extensively the media (even large outlets like the New York Times and the Washington Post) have used information gleaned from myspace pages and facebook profiles (including photos) in their coverage. That leads to intriguing discussions about who, for example, retains legal ownership of photos posted on facebook. Does the picture become facebook property? The user’s property? Or is it in the public domain?
Journalism ethics is an interesting topic because of its complexities.
There have always been some unwritten rules nearly all Western journalists and media outlets have adhered to.
No dead bodies in pictures or footage, for instance (unless the deceased were in a far away country, then that was more acceptable.) Many media outlets are still reluctant to show dead people, but the self-imposed censorship is weakening under pressures from the Internet and (sadly) desensitization to graphic material among the public.
Most will still not cover suicides, unless other people are involved (A person jumping off a bridge onto a highway leading to an accident will probably be covered, for example).
Another issue that’s hotly debated among journalists, and relates to the Virginia Tech shooting, is whether reporters should adhere to the victims’ families’ demands.
Many people will tell the media not to release the name of a family member who died in a car accident. This is especially true if the accident was alcohol-related.
But most journalists argue that NOT publishing the name of the victim is more harmful.
A car accident this weekend near Peterborough illustrates this well. The names of the deceased have yet to be made public. And so, the police have fielded hundreds of phone calls from people across the province worried that their relatives or friends were involved in the car accident.
Now, back to the videos.
Some have argued that it’s wrong to air the videos because it gives the murderer the notoriety that he sought.
That may be so, but this happens all the time.
Last week’s rail blockage near Deseronto illustrates this. The protestors blocked the tracks to bring attention to their cause. They even had a media spokesman! And they got what they wanted - national media coverage. Had no journalist covered their event, their protest would have faded from memory. But that of course is an unrealistic expectation. For news of the protest would have obviously spread, and the media would have been questioned as to why they ignored such an important news story.
I am perplexed as to how intense the public condemnation of the media has been from a culture so accustomed to viewing violence in their television and movie consumption.
The top-grossing movie of 2007 so far as been ‘300’ while ‘24’ remains one of the top TV shows.
That brings me to my final point. A culture that glorifies violence, as long as it’s ‘fake’ and no one actually is harmed, is unequipped to deal with the realities of evil and violence.
Dr. Al Mohler, president of a Southern Baptist seminary in Kentucky, talked about this on his radio show last week. And it’s not refreshingly just conservatives who make this point. Scott Holleran, a frequent contributor to boxofficemojo.com, wonders when referring to violent films, “There may not be a causal connection—many people see this sniveling trash and don't kill people and not every mass murderer watches violent movies—but there is a link. Both have total contempt for life.”
A relativist culture that insists right and wrong are always circumstantial cannot possibly deal with Monday’s horror effectively. And so they desperately look for someone or something to blame; someone to channel their confusion and anger toward. And this time, it was, along with the police, university administration and gun laws, the media.
The Virginia Tech shootings highlight important ethical issues the media grapples with, and I’m sure that the Virginia Tech media coverage will serve as a future case study as the media struggles to discern their roles and responsibilities in a rapidly changing media landscape.
Monday, April 23, 2007
Pilgrim Radio
I have a new homepage – and a new favourite radio station (www.pilgrimradio.com)
Pilgrim Radio plays commercial-free contemporary music (and not just the fad-of-the-week music, but many classic God-centered songs). They also air Scripture-saturated expository sermons preached by well-known pastors such as Albert Mohler, John Piper, Mark Dever and Peter Masters (pastor at the Metropolitan Tabernacle in London).
I praise God for this radio station.
Pilgrim Radio plays commercial-free contemporary music (and not just the fad-of-the-week music, but many classic God-centered songs). They also air Scripture-saturated expository sermons preached by well-known pastors such as Albert Mohler, John Piper, Mark Dever and Peter Masters (pastor at the Metropolitan Tabernacle in London).
I praise God for this radio station.
Sunday, April 22, 2007
Psalm 25:14
The friendship of the LORD is for those who fear Him, and He makes known to them His covenant. (Psalm 25:14 ESV)
This verse is a wonderful reminder for our subculture that loves to tell ourselves that God is our friend. Indeed He is. But it’s for those who fear Him.
This verse is a wonderful reminder for our subculture that loves to tell ourselves that God is our friend. Indeed He is. But it’s for those who fear Him.
Saturday, April 21, 2007
Our Obstinate Nature
The rail blockage in Deseronto yesterday was a fascinating and unfortunate affair driven by the obstinate nature and sense of entitlement buried deep within us all that boiled to the surface to override reason and patience.
Thousands of people’s travel plans were distributed and millions of dollars of freight was delayed.
But that was the short-term consequences. Most of the people are now where they want to be. Same with the goods (or they will be soon).
But the long-term consequences are unknown. More protests are planned. And if, like this time, the police are bound by history (the Ipperwash incident) and the fear of violent resistance (which isn’t an unreasonable expectation) then the protests will happen.
It’s a complicated issue involving Aboriginal treaty rights, history, politics and money, and I recognize that I don’t fully understand it.
The Mohawk protesters, may in fact be in the right.
But what I found so incredibly fascinating was their brazenness.
CN Rail had an injunction ordering them to leave.
They ignored it.
“There comes a point in people’s lives when you have to stand and you have to fight, and there are bigger things for us to consider,” Shawn Brant, a spokesman for the protestors said. “If (police) want a disaster on the Deseronto boundary road, then they should consider enforcing (the court order).”[i]
I thought that perhaps once they had publicised their message, they would apologize to those whom they annoyed (passagners, CN, VIA), who have nothing to do with their dispute over the quary.
Not so.
“I don’t think they should expect an apology,” said Mr. Brant.[ii]
And why not?
Because they insist that the blockade was prompted by government inaction on their land claim.
In other words: Don’t blame us. We were forced to do this by your government, which you (the public) has failed to lobby to help our cause.
The blame game, of course, wasn’t limited to the protestors.
CN issued a statement saying it was “concerned that the Ontario government has not ensured enforcement of the court order to allow train traffic to resume in this very important corridor.”[iii]
The Ontario government, in turn, looked to the federal government to hold them accountable for the protest.
Premier Dalton McGuinty said, “The best thing that the federal government could do to protect the interest of all Ontario citizens is to address this outstanding issue in a way that takes the protest action off the table, sets up a good negotiating table, and resolves this at the earliest possible opportunity.”[iv]
The federal government, in turn, looked to the protestors.
Jim Prentice, the federal Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, said the protesters should “abandon” their blockade.[v]
A full circle of blame.
And then there’s the sense of entitlement and impatience.
The protest actually began with a month-long shutdown by the natives of a gravel quarry on Deseronto Road in an effort to have the provincial government revoke the licence of the quarry’s operator.
Since taking over the Thurlow Aggregates site, the demonstrators have been taking gravel out of the site to use on private driveways on the Tyendinaga reserve. The quarry is part of a land claim and the protesters maintain the Culbertson land tract was illegally taken from them in 1832.
And perhaps it was. That’s why there have been ongoing negotiations.
Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte Chief R. Donald Maracle worried that the protest
“significantly compromised” ongoing land claim negotiations. [vi]
Mr. Maracle told the Belleville Intelligencer, “Our purpose is to get the land returned to the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte through a process. There has been an enormous amount of time spent on research, legal review and political lobby ... and it would be a huge injustice to our community that after 20 years of hard work and determination if our land claim was jeopardized by this action.”[vii]
He continued, “The issue is about the legal obligations of the Crown to address our long outstanding grievance with the Mohawk people. And the real issue is being overshadowed by the protests and blockades, instead of raising awareness of the legitimate interests of our people in the land.”[viii]
Indeed.
[i] Canadian Press. “Mohawks defy injunction,” The Toronto Star. 20 April 2007. Accessed 20 April 2007. Available: http://www.thestar.com/article/205451
[ii] Allison Jones, “Next target chosen: Mohawks” The Toronto Star. 21 April 2007. Accessed 21 April 2007. Available: http://www.thestar.com/News/article/205777
[iii] Canadian Press.
[iv] Ibid.
[v] Ibid.
[vi] Jeremy Ashley, Barry Ellsworth. “Mohawks derail train service.” The Belleville Intelligencer. 21 April 2007. Accessed 21 April 2007. Available:
http://www.intelligencer.ca/webapp/sitepages/content.asp?contentid=495727&catname=Local+News&classif=News+%2D+Local
[vii] Ibid.
[viii] Ibid.
Thousands of people’s travel plans were distributed and millions of dollars of freight was delayed.
But that was the short-term consequences. Most of the people are now where they want to be. Same with the goods (or they will be soon).
But the long-term consequences are unknown. More protests are planned. And if, like this time, the police are bound by history (the Ipperwash incident) and the fear of violent resistance (which isn’t an unreasonable expectation) then the protests will happen.
It’s a complicated issue involving Aboriginal treaty rights, history, politics and money, and I recognize that I don’t fully understand it.
The Mohawk protesters, may in fact be in the right.
But what I found so incredibly fascinating was their brazenness.
CN Rail had an injunction ordering them to leave.
They ignored it.
“There comes a point in people’s lives when you have to stand and you have to fight, and there are bigger things for us to consider,” Shawn Brant, a spokesman for the protestors said. “If (police) want a disaster on the Deseronto boundary road, then they should consider enforcing (the court order).”[i]
I thought that perhaps once they had publicised their message, they would apologize to those whom they annoyed (passagners, CN, VIA), who have nothing to do with their dispute over the quary.
Not so.
“I don’t think they should expect an apology,” said Mr. Brant.[ii]
And why not?
Because they insist that the blockade was prompted by government inaction on their land claim.
In other words: Don’t blame us. We were forced to do this by your government, which you (the public) has failed to lobby to help our cause.
The blame game, of course, wasn’t limited to the protestors.
CN issued a statement saying it was “concerned that the Ontario government has not ensured enforcement of the court order to allow train traffic to resume in this very important corridor.”[iii]
The Ontario government, in turn, looked to the federal government to hold them accountable for the protest.
Premier Dalton McGuinty said, “The best thing that the federal government could do to protect the interest of all Ontario citizens is to address this outstanding issue in a way that takes the protest action off the table, sets up a good negotiating table, and resolves this at the earliest possible opportunity.”[iv]
The federal government, in turn, looked to the protestors.
Jim Prentice, the federal Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, said the protesters should “abandon” their blockade.[v]
A full circle of blame.
And then there’s the sense of entitlement and impatience.
The protest actually began with a month-long shutdown by the natives of a gravel quarry on Deseronto Road in an effort to have the provincial government revoke the licence of the quarry’s operator.
Since taking over the Thurlow Aggregates site, the demonstrators have been taking gravel out of the site to use on private driveways on the Tyendinaga reserve. The quarry is part of a land claim and the protesters maintain the Culbertson land tract was illegally taken from them in 1832.
And perhaps it was. That’s why there have been ongoing negotiations.
Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte Chief R. Donald Maracle worried that the protest
“significantly compromised” ongoing land claim negotiations. [vi]
Mr. Maracle told the Belleville Intelligencer, “Our purpose is to get the land returned to the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte through a process. There has been an enormous amount of time spent on research, legal review and political lobby ... and it would be a huge injustice to our community that after 20 years of hard work and determination if our land claim was jeopardized by this action.”[vii]
He continued, “The issue is about the legal obligations of the Crown to address our long outstanding grievance with the Mohawk people. And the real issue is being overshadowed by the protests and blockades, instead of raising awareness of the legitimate interests of our people in the land.”[viii]
Indeed.
[i] Canadian Press. “Mohawks defy injunction,” The Toronto Star. 20 April 2007. Accessed 20 April 2007. Available: http://www.thestar.com/article/205451
[ii] Allison Jones, “Next target chosen: Mohawks” The Toronto Star. 21 April 2007. Accessed 21 April 2007. Available: http://www.thestar.com/News/article/205777
[iii] Canadian Press.
[iv] Ibid.
[v] Ibid.
[vi] Jeremy Ashley, Barry Ellsworth. “Mohawks derail train service.” The Belleville Intelligencer. 21 April 2007. Accessed 21 April 2007. Available:
http://www.intelligencer.ca/webapp/sitepages/content.asp?contentid=495727&catname=Local+News&classif=News+%2D+Local
[vii] Ibid.
[viii] Ibid.
Friday, April 20, 2007
Suzuki’s Sin
David Suzuki is annoyed that the government and corporations are not doing what he wants them to in his campaign to combat climate change.
Their refusal, is, as Suzuki sees it a ‘sin’.
Perhaps it is.
He told reporters yesterday, “If our so-called leaders ignore the warnings, I would think that this is a crime against future generations and I'm wondering if there's a legal basis for taking action against people who run corporations or who run government, for their inaction on global warming.”[i]
He continued.
“I happen to think it's a crime, or perhaps we can call it a sin.”[ii]
Very well.
Never mind that Mr. Suzuki, in the same press conference, commited one of the most grevious sins. (He took the Lord’s name in vain). In his eyes, he’s a crusader for all that is good and true and right.
Perhaps this is correct.
He sounds like a prophet, a secular counterpart to the faithful group of men God used to convict the Israelitites and warn them of God’s impending wrath.
Urging us to ignore the economists, Suzuki’s warnings of climate change present an
unhappy sceniario.
"Twenty per cent of the economy will disappear. It will cost more than World War I and World War II put together. We'll go into a kind of depression we've never, ever had in all of history," he said.[iii]
That sounds almost apocolitypic, doesn’t it?
Boris Johnson, a historian and journalist, who is also a British Member of Parliament, has also been struck by the religious-doomsday warnings of the climate change movement.
“This is partly a religious phenomenon,” he wrote. “Humanity has largely lost its fear of hellfire, and yet we still hunger for a structure, a point, an eschatology, a moral counterbalance to our growing prosperity.”[iv]
He continues, “All that is brilliantly supplied by climate change. And the fear of climate change is like a religion in this vital sense, that it is veiled in mystery.”[v]
Joseph Brean wrote an article in The National Post in February attempting to answer an interesting question: is environmentalism the new religion?
His argument is convincing.
“It can be seen in the public ritual of cycling to work, in the veneer of saintliness on David Suzuki and Al Gore…in the high-profile conversion (honest or craven) of George W. Bush, and in the sinful guilt of throwing a plastic bottle in the garbage,” he writes.[vi]
John Kay of The Financial Times wrote last month about the emerging religiosity of the movement. “Environmentalism offers an alternative account of the natural world to the religious and an alternative anti-capitalist account of the political world to the Marxist. The rise of environmentalism parallels in time and place the decline of religion and of socialism.”[vii]
He continues, “Christians look to the Second Coming, Marxists to the collapse of capitalism, with the same mixture of fear and longing. Environmentalism at first lacked a persuasive Apocalypse myth. The litany of environmental degradation had to confront the manifest fact that many aspects of the environment were steadily improving, with cleaner air, rivers and seashores. The discovery of global warming filled a gap in the canon. That is why environmentalists attach so much importance to the assertion not just that the world is warming up, which is plainly true, but that this warming is our fault, which is less plainly true.”[viii]
He concludes, “The danger of environmental evangelism is that ritual, gesture and rhetoric take the place of substance.”[ix]
Indeed.
And that thought brings me back to Mr. Suzuki.
I admire his enthusiasm, but not his rhetoric.
To suggest that climate change (which really is a euphemism for a large and ever growing litany of environmental concerns. Case in point, I just heard that cell phones may be adversely affecting the environment which in turn has lead to the death of bees) will cost more than the two world wars combined is a bold statement.
And it’s also unsubstantiated.
Dr. David Orrell, who received his doctorate in mathematics from the University of Oxford, said that while such projections are useful to “provoke ideas and aid thinking about the future…they should not be taken literally.”[x]
He wrote a book deliciously entitled Apollo’s Arrow: The Science of Prediction and the Future of Everything. He set out to explain why the mathematical models scientists used to predict the weather, the climate and the economy are not getting any better, just more refined in their uncertainty.
What about growing intensity of doom and gloom tales posited by folks like Mr. Suziki? “Maybe I’m wrong, but I think all this is wrapped up in our belief that we can predict the future,” writes Dr. Orrell. “What we need is more of a sense that we’re out of our depth, and that’s more likely to promote a lasting change in behaviour.”[xi]
Amen to that!
Christians should be concerned about the environment. God, after all, has ordained humans to be good stewards of His creation (Genesis 1:28).
Yet, we also must be cautious and inquisitive when expensive policies are demanded, especially when their benefits are unclear.
To engage with environmentalists to preserve our planet is important. But to take all that they say as gospel is dangerous.
Indeed, Christians should approach this issue as they would with every other one; with a worldview informed and framed by the Word of God.
As The Evangelical Environmental Network points out, Biblical faith is essential to the solution of our ecological problems.[xii]
Why?
Because “the earth is the LORD’s and the fullness thereof.” (Psalm 24:1).
So, to return to Mr. Susuki’s comment. Is inaction on environmental degradation a sin?
I think it is probably is.
[i] CBC News. ‘Suzuki to deliver environmental petition to Baird’ CBC. 20 April 2007. Accessed 20 April 2007. Available: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/04/20/suzuki-baird.html
[ii] Ibid.
[iii] Ibid.
[iv] Boris Johnson, Climate Change as a religion? 2 Feb. 2006. Accessed 20 April 2007. Available:http://www.boris-johnson.com/archives/2006/02/climate_change_as_a_religion.php
[v] Ibid.
[vi] Joseph Brean, “The Green Fervour,” The National Post. Feb. 2007. Accessed 20 April 2007. Available: http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=07407be3-1f9f-4f41-a16a-5a286a5b374c>
[vii] John Kay, “Green Lobby Must be treated as religion.” The Financial Times. 9 Jan. 2007. Accessed 20 April 2007. Available http://www.johnkay.com/political/479
[viii] Ibid.
[ix] Ibid.
[x] Joseph Brean
[xi] Ibid.
[xii] Evangelical Enviromental Network. On the Care of Creation. EEN. Accessed 20 April 2007. Available: <http://www.creationcare.org/resources/declaration.php>
Their refusal, is, as Suzuki sees it a ‘sin’.
Perhaps it is.
He told reporters yesterday, “If our so-called leaders ignore the warnings, I would think that this is a crime against future generations and I'm wondering if there's a legal basis for taking action against people who run corporations or who run government, for their inaction on global warming.”[i]
He continued.
“I happen to think it's a crime, or perhaps we can call it a sin.”[ii]
Very well.
Never mind that Mr. Suzuki, in the same press conference, commited one of the most grevious sins. (He took the Lord’s name in vain). In his eyes, he’s a crusader for all that is good and true and right.
Perhaps this is correct.
He sounds like a prophet, a secular counterpart to the faithful group of men God used to convict the Israelitites and warn them of God’s impending wrath.
Urging us to ignore the economists, Suzuki’s warnings of climate change present an
unhappy sceniario.
"Twenty per cent of the economy will disappear. It will cost more than World War I and World War II put together. We'll go into a kind of depression we've never, ever had in all of history," he said.[iii]
That sounds almost apocolitypic, doesn’t it?
Boris Johnson, a historian and journalist, who is also a British Member of Parliament, has also been struck by the religious-doomsday warnings of the climate change movement.
“This is partly a religious phenomenon,” he wrote. “Humanity has largely lost its fear of hellfire, and yet we still hunger for a structure, a point, an eschatology, a moral counterbalance to our growing prosperity.”[iv]
He continues, “All that is brilliantly supplied by climate change. And the fear of climate change is like a religion in this vital sense, that it is veiled in mystery.”[v]
Joseph Brean wrote an article in The National Post in February attempting to answer an interesting question: is environmentalism the new religion?
His argument is convincing.
“It can be seen in the public ritual of cycling to work, in the veneer of saintliness on David Suzuki and Al Gore…in the high-profile conversion (honest or craven) of George W. Bush, and in the sinful guilt of throwing a plastic bottle in the garbage,” he writes.[vi]
John Kay of The Financial Times wrote last month about the emerging religiosity of the movement. “Environmentalism offers an alternative account of the natural world to the religious and an alternative anti-capitalist account of the political world to the Marxist. The rise of environmentalism parallels in time and place the decline of religion and of socialism.”[vii]
He continues, “Christians look to the Second Coming, Marxists to the collapse of capitalism, with the same mixture of fear and longing. Environmentalism at first lacked a persuasive Apocalypse myth. The litany of environmental degradation had to confront the manifest fact that many aspects of the environment were steadily improving, with cleaner air, rivers and seashores. The discovery of global warming filled a gap in the canon. That is why environmentalists attach so much importance to the assertion not just that the world is warming up, which is plainly true, but that this warming is our fault, which is less plainly true.”[viii]
He concludes, “The danger of environmental evangelism is that ritual, gesture and rhetoric take the place of substance.”[ix]
Indeed.
And that thought brings me back to Mr. Suzuki.
I admire his enthusiasm, but not his rhetoric.
To suggest that climate change (which really is a euphemism for a large and ever growing litany of environmental concerns. Case in point, I just heard that cell phones may be adversely affecting the environment which in turn has lead to the death of bees) will cost more than the two world wars combined is a bold statement.
And it’s also unsubstantiated.
Dr. David Orrell, who received his doctorate in mathematics from the University of Oxford, said that while such projections are useful to “provoke ideas and aid thinking about the future…they should not be taken literally.”[x]
He wrote a book deliciously entitled Apollo’s Arrow: The Science of Prediction and the Future of Everything. He set out to explain why the mathematical models scientists used to predict the weather, the climate and the economy are not getting any better, just more refined in their uncertainty.
What about growing intensity of doom and gloom tales posited by folks like Mr. Suziki? “Maybe I’m wrong, but I think all this is wrapped up in our belief that we can predict the future,” writes Dr. Orrell. “What we need is more of a sense that we’re out of our depth, and that’s more likely to promote a lasting change in behaviour.”[xi]
Amen to that!
Christians should be concerned about the environment. God, after all, has ordained humans to be good stewards of His creation (Genesis 1:28).
Yet, we also must be cautious and inquisitive when expensive policies are demanded, especially when their benefits are unclear.
To engage with environmentalists to preserve our planet is important. But to take all that they say as gospel is dangerous.
Indeed, Christians should approach this issue as they would with every other one; with a worldview informed and framed by the Word of God.
As The Evangelical Environmental Network points out, Biblical faith is essential to the solution of our ecological problems.[xii]
Why?
Because “the earth is the LORD’s and the fullness thereof.” (Psalm 24:1).
So, to return to Mr. Susuki’s comment. Is inaction on environmental degradation a sin?
I think it is probably is.
[i] CBC News. ‘Suzuki to deliver environmental petition to Baird’ CBC. 20 April 2007. Accessed 20 April 2007. Available: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/04/20/suzuki-baird.html
[ii] Ibid.
[iii] Ibid.
[iv] Boris Johnson, Climate Change as a religion? 2 Feb. 2006. Accessed 20 April 2007. Available:http://www.boris-johnson.com/archives/2006/02/climate_change_as_a_religion.php
[v] Ibid.
[vi] Joseph Brean, “The Green Fervour,” The National Post. Feb. 2007. Accessed 20 April 2007. Available: http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=07407be3-1f9f-4f41-a16a-5a286a5b374c>
[vii] John Kay, “Green Lobby Must be treated as religion.” The Financial Times. 9 Jan. 2007. Accessed 20 April 2007. Available http://www.johnkay.com/political/479
[viii] Ibid.
[ix] Ibid.
[x] Joseph Brean
[xi] Ibid.
[xii] Evangelical Enviromental Network. On the Care of Creation. EEN. Accessed 20 April 2007. Available: <http://www.creationcare.org/resources/declaration.php>
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Acts 2:36
Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.
- Acts 2:36
Peter notes that Jesus is God’s Messiah of the Old Testament (Acts 3:18, 20; 4:26; 5:42; Is. 11:1; Luke 4:18-21), but that He is the exalted Lord (Rom. 10:9;Phil.2: 9-11), and the conquering King (1 Cor.15:24, 25; Rev.19:16).
- Acts 2:36
Peter notes that Jesus is God’s Messiah of the Old Testament (Acts 3:18, 20; 4:26; 5:42; Is. 11:1; Luke 4:18-21), but that He is the exalted Lord (Rom. 10:9;Phil.2: 9-11), and the conquering King (1 Cor.15:24, 25; Rev.19:16).
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Death Row, Insanity & Theology
The American Supreme Court was asked today to define insanity.
The case involves Scott Panetti, a man convicted of murdering his wife’s parents in 1992.
Mr. Panetti, once planted his furniture in the ground and watered it, believing it to be possessed. During his trial he wore a purple cowboy outfit and tried to subpoena everyone from President Kennedy to Jesus Christ.
Yet, the jury rejected his insanity defence and sentenced him to death.
His lawyer asked the Supreme Court to determine whether Panetti is so insane that he should be spared execution because he cannot grasp the fact that his punishment is the result of his crime.
A newspaper article explains, “Because, while Panetti, 49, understands that his estranged wife's parents — Amanda and Joe Alvarado, of Fredericksburg — were killed and that the state says he is to be executed for that crime, he doesn't believe it. Panetti, known as the "preacher" of Texas' death row, insists the real reason he is to be put to death is that the state, in league with the devil, is trying to silence him from delivering the Gospel to fellow inmates.”[i]
Some American states permit the execution of mentally ill inmates so long as they are aware that the execution is the result of being convicted of capital murder and that it actually will cause their death. Other states require that an inmate must "rationally understand" that he is to be executed and why.
"There should be a meaningful connection between crime and punishment," said Andrea Keilen, executive director of the Texas Defender Service, which is helping represent Panetti. "It doesn't make any sense to execute someone who doesn't understand why they are being executed. It's not fitting for a civilized society to impose a punishment that way."[ii]
Interestingly, this perspective is deeply theological.
Historian Thomas Woods Jr. writes, “Only if the man is sane can he make a good confession, receive forgiveness for his sons and hope to save his soul.” [iii]
Cases like this one have led legal scholar Harold Berman to observe that modern Western legal systems “are a secular residue of religious attitudes and assumptions which historically found expression first in the liturgy and rituals and doctrine of the church and thereafter in the institutions and concepts and values of the law.”[iv]
[i] Patty Reinhert, Mike Tolson. “What if killer can’t grasp meaning of execution?” The Houston Chronicle. 16 April 2007. Accessed 16 April 2007. Available: <http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4717408.html>
[ii] Ibid.
[iii] Thomas Woods, How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization. (Washington DC Regnery Publishing, 2005), p. 187.
[iv] Harold Berman, Law and Revolution: The Formation of the Western Legal Tradition (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1983), p. 166.
Glorifying the Trinity
Glorifying God has respect to all the persons of the Trinity; it respects God the Father who gave us life; God the Son, who lost His life for us; and God the Holy Ghost, who produces a new life in us; we must bring glory to the whole Trinity.
Source: Thomas Watson, A Body of Divinity. Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, (1692) 2003, p.6.
Source: Thomas Watson, A Body of Divinity. Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, (1692) 2003, p.6.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Kevin Potvin
Kevin Potvin has been the centre of a recent controversy, and Elizabeth May, the leader of the Green Party, has decided not to sign his nomination papers.
Good.
His editorial in an independent far-left wing newspaper after the September 11 attacks was ridiculous.
But this isn’t the first time he’s been embroiled in controversy.
He ran for councillor in the Vancouver municipal election in 2005 and lied about his journalistic experience in his wikipedia biography.
An article in the Globe and Mail noted, “The entry says that "some hail Potvin as the latest and best resource for fair investigative reporting and independent media campaigns for truth and accountability." It also reports that his "work has appeared in Harper's and The Atlantic Monthly." Now for a fact check. According to Harper's magazine, Mr. Potvin had a letter to the editor printed once, in November of 1992. The Atlantic could find no record of Mr. Potvin -- he says he wrote "a substantial letter to the editor" in 1987, but the magazine does not archive letters.”[i]
When he was questioned about the inaccuracy of the information, he said he didn’t believe that the information was misleading.
"But I have my readers," he added, "and I think there are people who would say that. It's not a thing which you can be factually wrong or right about. I think I am an investigative journalist. I investigate. I write. But I think facts are just what people say they are."[ii]
For his part, Mr. Potvin dismissed professional journalists' views of his tabloid. "I have a problem with the whole philosophy of journalism as it is practised," he said. "I have my style. You [journalists] have your style." ”[iii]
As a former journalist, I’m glad he disassociates himself from mainstream journalism.
[i] Shannon Rupp, “Working through Wikipedia’s vanity fair,” The Globe and Mail. 6 May 2006. Accessed 16 April 2007. Available:
<http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/
RTGAM.20060506.gtwiki08/BNStory/Technology/home>
[ii] Ibid.
[iii] Kevin Potvin, “To be brutally honest’ The Republic of East Vancouver. 12 April 2007. Accessed 14 April 2007.
Good.
His editorial in an independent far-left wing newspaper after the September 11 attacks was ridiculous.
But this isn’t the first time he’s been embroiled in controversy.
He ran for councillor in the Vancouver municipal election in 2005 and lied about his journalistic experience in his wikipedia biography.
An article in the Globe and Mail noted, “The entry says that "some hail Potvin as the latest and best resource for fair investigative reporting and independent media campaigns for truth and accountability." It also reports that his "work has appeared in Harper's and The Atlantic Monthly." Now for a fact check. According to Harper's magazine, Mr. Potvin had a letter to the editor printed once, in November of 1992. The Atlantic could find no record of Mr. Potvin -- he says he wrote "a substantial letter to the editor" in 1987, but the magazine does not archive letters.”[i]
When he was questioned about the inaccuracy of the information, he said he didn’t believe that the information was misleading.
"But I have my readers," he added, "and I think there are people who would say that. It's not a thing which you can be factually wrong or right about. I think I am an investigative journalist. I investigate. I write. But I think facts are just what people say they are."[ii]
For his part, Mr. Potvin dismissed professional journalists' views of his tabloid. "I have a problem with the whole philosophy of journalism as it is practised," he said. "I have my style. You [journalists] have your style." ”[iii]
As a former journalist, I’m glad he disassociates himself from mainstream journalism.
[i] Shannon Rupp, “Working through Wikipedia’s vanity fair,” The Globe and Mail. 6 May 2006. Accessed 16 April 2007. Available:
<http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/
RTGAM.20060506.gtwiki08/BNStory/Technology/home>
[ii] Ibid.
[iii] Kevin Potvin, “To be brutally honest’ The Republic of East Vancouver. 12 April 2007. Accessed 14 April 2007.
Sunday, April 15, 2007
June Callwood
June Callwood
The Canadian media has been fawning over the death of June Callwood. This is not unmerited. She was involved in many important causes. She was also involved in some evil ones too.
The attention is also not unexpected. She was a journalist – and journalists have a penchant for honouring and elevating their own.
The media has labelled her ‘Canada’s Social Conscience’, and a ‘Secular Saint’, among other celebratory titles.
That she was a committed secularist and a humanitarian excites many. Well, at least the secular, anyways.
Certainly all, including Christians, can admire her good works and appreciate her compassion for the downtrodden.
Yet, despite her desire to help others, her worldview was deeply flawed.
Asked about what she may find in the hereafter, Callwood dismissed the idea of heaven. ‘There's nothing next," she said in a recent CBC interview. "That's alright. What you get is a life. A baby is a miracle. You open a baby's fist and they'll close their hand on your hand and hold on. What they've got is a life to live as best as they can. That's what you get. You don't need anything else if you've got that."[i]
She also did not believe in God. Rather, she told CBC, ‘I believe in kindness. I believe it's very communicable just as meanness is. Strangers hold doors for one another. Sometimes they say thank you, sometimes they don't. Something in us says: `If I hold this door it helps this person, and that person is slightly changed. Great consideration for one another - that's what's going to save the world.’"[ii]
What a revealing statement!
I have often maintained that the political divide among liberals and conservatives is rooted in their conflicting understanding of human nature. For liberals, we are innately good; for conservatives, we are innately evil.
Mrs. Callwood was a liberal. And so that’s why in her worldview, the world will be saved by ‘great consideration’ by holding the door for others and other good works.
“I am missing a formal religion, but I am not without a theology, and my theology is that kindness is a divinity in motion," she said in a 2005 speech delivered as the first lecture in the June Callwood Professorship in Social Justice at the University of Toronto.[iii]
Her views, like so many people, contradicted each other. She loved babies and yet was an abortion activist. She acquired tremendous professional success; yet still saw herself as a victim of her circumstances. She prided herself as a journalist; yet never one to deny she had an agenda, saw no contradiction between her ‘objective’ profession and advocacy. She was a strong-willed and independent woman who did not care what others thought of her, yet she withdrew from public life because she was so devastated at being called a racist. And despite her commitment to secular humanism she spoke in decidedly Christian terms. “Dust to dust is the way it ought to be,” she said referring to death.[iv]
She often told reporters she wasn’t afraid to die, because she supposed she had nothing to fear. And that is the true tragedy of her death. For she was unaware of the horrors of hell. While election is secret and known only to God, her comments suggest that she was reprobate. And that means, of course, that now she has died, she has entered the horrible reality that awaits those who die apart from Christ.
[i] Cathy Dunphy, Debra Black. "Activist Callwood dies at 82." The Toronto Star. 14 April, 2007. Accessed 14 April 2007. Available: <http://www.thestar.com/News/article/203138>
[ii] Ibid.
[iii] "June Callwood Biography." Casey House. March 2007. Accessed 14 April 2007. Available:
<http://www.caseyhouse.com/en/june_callwood/biography/march_2007/>
[iv] Cathy Dunphy, Debra Black.
The Canadian media has been fawning over the death of June Callwood. This is not unmerited. She was involved in many important causes. She was also involved in some evil ones too.
The attention is also not unexpected. She was a journalist – and journalists have a penchant for honouring and elevating their own.
The media has labelled her ‘Canada’s Social Conscience’, and a ‘Secular Saint’, among other celebratory titles.
That she was a committed secularist and a humanitarian excites many. Well, at least the secular, anyways.
Certainly all, including Christians, can admire her good works and appreciate her compassion for the downtrodden.
Yet, despite her desire to help others, her worldview was deeply flawed.
Asked about what she may find in the hereafter, Callwood dismissed the idea of heaven. ‘There's nothing next," she said in a recent CBC interview. "That's alright. What you get is a life. A baby is a miracle. You open a baby's fist and they'll close their hand on your hand and hold on. What they've got is a life to live as best as they can. That's what you get. You don't need anything else if you've got that."[i]
She also did not believe in God. Rather, she told CBC, ‘I believe in kindness. I believe it's very communicable just as meanness is. Strangers hold doors for one another. Sometimes they say thank you, sometimes they don't. Something in us says: `If I hold this door it helps this person, and that person is slightly changed. Great consideration for one another - that's what's going to save the world.’"[ii]
What a revealing statement!
I have often maintained that the political divide among liberals and conservatives is rooted in their conflicting understanding of human nature. For liberals, we are innately good; for conservatives, we are innately evil.
Mrs. Callwood was a liberal. And so that’s why in her worldview, the world will be saved by ‘great consideration’ by holding the door for others and other good works.
“I am missing a formal religion, but I am not without a theology, and my theology is that kindness is a divinity in motion," she said in a 2005 speech delivered as the first lecture in the June Callwood Professorship in Social Justice at the University of Toronto.[iii]
Her views, like so many people, contradicted each other. She loved babies and yet was an abortion activist. She acquired tremendous professional success; yet still saw herself as a victim of her circumstances. She prided herself as a journalist; yet never one to deny she had an agenda, saw no contradiction between her ‘objective’ profession and advocacy. She was a strong-willed and independent woman who did not care what others thought of her, yet she withdrew from public life because she was so devastated at being called a racist. And despite her commitment to secular humanism she spoke in decidedly Christian terms. “Dust to dust is the way it ought to be,” she said referring to death.[iv]
She often told reporters she wasn’t afraid to die, because she supposed she had nothing to fear. And that is the true tragedy of her death. For she was unaware of the horrors of hell. While election is secret and known only to God, her comments suggest that she was reprobate. And that means, of course, that now she has died, she has entered the horrible reality that awaits those who die apart from Christ.
[i] Cathy Dunphy, Debra Black. "Activist Callwood dies at 82." The Toronto Star. 14 April, 2007. Accessed 14 April 2007. Available: <http://www.thestar.com/News/article/203138>
[ii] Ibid.
[iii] "June Callwood Biography." Casey House. March 2007. Accessed 14 April 2007. Available:
<http://www.caseyhouse.com/en/june_callwood/biography/march_2007/>
[iv] Cathy Dunphy, Debra Black.
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
First Gentile Missionary
The first Gentile missionary was once a demon-possessed man. Although Jesus usually demanded silence of those who He healed, he allows the preparation for the future mission of the church to begin at the healing of this man.
“Go home to your friends,” Jesus told the man after he had been healed, “and tell them how much the Lord has done for you, and how He has had mercy on you.” (Mark 5:19)
This was the man who used to live among the tombs – who couldn’t be bound by chains and spent his time crying out and bruising himself with stones.
“And he went away and began to proclaim in the Decapolis how much Jesus had done for Him, and everyone marvelled.” (Mark 5:20).
“Go home to your friends,” Jesus told the man after he had been healed, “and tell them how much the Lord has done for you, and how He has had mercy on you.” (Mark 5:19)
This was the man who used to live among the tombs – who couldn’t be bound by chains and spent his time crying out and bruising himself with stones.
“And he went away and began to proclaim in the Decapolis how much Jesus had done for Him, and everyone marvelled.” (Mark 5:20).
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Daniel Kirkley
I have just become acquainted with the music of Daniel Kirkley. He has a beautiful voice, reminiscent of Josh Groban. He's been active behind the scenes in the CCM culture for many years, but it's only been very recently that he has gained widespread recognition of his vocal talent. His new CD is slated to be released next month.
Monday, April 09, 2007
Remembering Vimy Ridge
Ninety-years ago today Canadian forces captured Vimy Ridge, an accomplishment thought by Allied Forces to be impossible.
My great-grandfather, James Sinker, was at the Vimy Ridge battle. He served as a signalman (sapper) in the First Word War. He escaped unscathed, although his brother was injured.
My great-grandfather, James Sinker, was at the Vimy Ridge battle. He served as a signalman (sapper) in the First Word War. He escaped unscathed, although his brother was injured.
Sunday, April 08, 2007
He is Risen!
Happy Easter! Christ is Risen! Today is the day we mark the joyous feat where death was defeated! Praise God!!
Friday, April 06, 2007
A Good Friday Meditation
What did God achieve for sinners like us in sending His Son Jesus Christ to die?
Puritan Thomas Watson wrote, "It procures justification of our persons, acceptance of our service, access to God with boldness, and entrance into the holy place of heaven." Guilt is remitted and righteousness imputed. For truly, "There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus" (Romans 8:1).
God sent His own Son to absorb the wrath and bear the curse for His elect. "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us" (Galatians 3:13). The substitute, Jesus Christ, does not just cancel the wrath - He absorbs it and diverts it from us to Himself. "In this is love, not that we have loved God but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins" (1 John 4:10).
His suffering was a stunning act of submission and obedience to the will of the Father. Pastor John Piper wrote, "God did the impossible: He poured out His wrath on His own Son – the one whose submission made Him infinitely unworthy to receive it. Yet, the Son's very willingness to receive it was precious in God's sight.
The wrath-bearer was infinitely loved." The wrath of God was satisfied with the suffering and death of Jesus.
The price of forgiveness was totally paid. The righteousness of God was completely vindicated. "In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace" (Ephesians 1:7). Further, "And you, who were dead in your trespasses..God made alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This He set aside, nailing to the cross" (Colossians 2:13-14). The death of Christ paid the debt of our unrighteousness and the obedience of Christ provided the righteousness we needed to be justified before God. The demands of God for inheriting eternal life are not merely that our unrighteousness be cancelled, but that our perfect righteousness be established. Therefore, Christ's death became the basis of our pardon and our perfection. "For our sake (God) made Him to be sin who knew no sin, that in Him we might become the righteousness of God" (2 Corinthians 5:21).
Without Good Friday there would be no Easter Sunday. The resurrection of Jesus reveals that His death was completely successful in blotting out the sins of His people and removing the wrath of God. As such, those who believe in Christ will not be consigned to everlasting death, but will "be raised imperishable…then shall come to pass the saying that is written: 'Death is swallowed up in victory'" (1 Corinthians 15:52, 54).
Puritan Thomas Watson wrote, "It procures justification of our persons, acceptance of our service, access to God with boldness, and entrance into the holy place of heaven." Guilt is remitted and righteousness imputed. For truly, "There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus" (Romans 8:1).
God sent His own Son to absorb the wrath and bear the curse for His elect. "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us" (Galatians 3:13). The substitute, Jesus Christ, does not just cancel the wrath - He absorbs it and diverts it from us to Himself. "In this is love, not that we have loved God but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins" (1 John 4:10).
His suffering was a stunning act of submission and obedience to the will of the Father. Pastor John Piper wrote, "God did the impossible: He poured out His wrath on His own Son – the one whose submission made Him infinitely unworthy to receive it. Yet, the Son's very willingness to receive it was precious in God's sight.
The wrath-bearer was infinitely loved." The wrath of God was satisfied with the suffering and death of Jesus.
The price of forgiveness was totally paid. The righteousness of God was completely vindicated. "In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace" (Ephesians 1:7). Further, "And you, who were dead in your trespasses..God made alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This He set aside, nailing to the cross" (Colossians 2:13-14). The death of Christ paid the debt of our unrighteousness and the obedience of Christ provided the righteousness we needed to be justified before God. The demands of God for inheriting eternal life are not merely that our unrighteousness be cancelled, but that our perfect righteousness be established. Therefore, Christ's death became the basis of our pardon and our perfection. "For our sake (God) made Him to be sin who knew no sin, that in Him we might become the righteousness of God" (2 Corinthians 5:21).
Without Good Friday there would be no Easter Sunday. The resurrection of Jesus reveals that His death was completely successful in blotting out the sins of His people and removing the wrath of God. As such, those who believe in Christ will not be consigned to everlasting death, but will "be raised imperishable…then shall come to pass the saying that is written: 'Death is swallowed up in victory'" (1 Corinthians 15:52, 54).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
