It is Possible

It seems that sides are being taken up, but I’m refusing to be a part of it.

It is possible to think this: that to bring refugees who are adherents of Islam (which is by design a violent religion) into Canada is a very bad idea. I think it is a very bad idea.

It is also possible to believe: that it is a cynical political ploy of of leaders in government to mask this immigration as “compassion.” I have no reason to think otherwise.

It is also possible, probably necessary, to know: that violence and terror will get into Canada, and be carried out here. I am afraid this will happen–this is the direction of history.

Again, it is also possible, while holding all of the above, to know: a number (small or large, majority or minority, I don’t know) of refugees are truly in need and escaping for their lives.

It is possible to be fully conscious of these things, and even to disapprove of our government’s actions, and yet also accept that nothing happens outside the will of God, and that He has written the end of this story. Whether or not we approve of it, the mission has arrived in Canada.

It is possible, at the same time and in the same head, to be skeptical of motives, cynical, fearful, concerned, realistic, angry, sympathetic, welcoming, loving, and Gospel-preaching. For this is the mind of the Christian.

I see no need to sign petitions welcoming or refusing refugees. Just be Christian, no matter what comes.

Libertarian Dogma: How Liberalism Became Intolerant

“From the dawn of the modern age, religious thinkers have warned that, strictly speaking, secular politics is impossible — that without the transcendent foundation of Judeo-Christian monotheism to limit the political sphere, ostensibly secular citizens would begin to invest political ideas and ideologies with transcendent, theological meaning.
Put somewhat differently: Human beings will be religious one way or another. Either they will be religious about religious things, or they will be religious about political things.
With traditional faith in rapid retreat over the past decade, liberals have begun to grow increasingly religious about their own liberalism, which they are treating as a comprehensive view of reality and the human good.
But liberalism’s leading theoreticians (Locke, Montesquieu, Jefferson, Madison, Tocqueville, Mill) never intended it to serve as a comprehensive view of reality and the human good. On the contrary, liberalism was supposed to act as a narrowly political strategy for living peacefully in a world of inexorably clashing comprehensive views of reality and the human good.”

Clear thinking from

Damon Linker is a senior correspondent at He is also a consulting editor at the University of Pennsylvania Press, a contributing editor at The New Republic, and the author of The Theocons and The Religious Test.

The whole article here.

A Fast Way to Fall in the Drink

dock - boat

It’s been said that “he who marries the spirit of the age soon finds himself a widower.” Good point. There are a lot of theological widowers, divorcees, and remarriages among the post-Christian Christendom lately. I can barely keep up.

I think of it another way: one of the fastest and surest ways to get wet is to step off the dock into an untethered boat.

Last year, the Presbyterian Church (USA) rejected a popular contemporary hymn because it included a line about the wrath of God. Can’t have a wrathful God! Whomever he/she/it/xe/xer/xem might be, that being(s) is/are not angry. Removing the idea of an angry God also paved the way, with smoothness and comfort, for the decisions made this year. The fearful prospect that God might not approve needn’t trouble the PCUSA, as their Deity is never upset about anything (except, of course, all things not Marxist or Green).

Having the fear of God out of the way, 2014 followed was a breeze. Not being known (at least in recent memory) of being overly concerned about Scripture’s word on most matters, the same church assembly voted to embrace and conduct same-sex marriages. Less covered in the news, but just as pitiful, is the denomination’s desire to “endorse Kermit Gosnell,” in its resolution to not assist children born alive after failed abortions. So all that stuff (murder and sodomy)  that brings judgement (recorded in the Bible) is no longer a big deal, since the Bible is not a big deal.

I could ask, “who are these people, who do they think they are?” but the answer is clear that it is the story of all shrinking mainline denominations, when they are commandeered (stolen, really) by theological liberals (to get a grasp of this phenomenon, read up on the life of J. Gresham Machen here). This was planted well over a hundred years ago, and is bearling bitter fruit in our generation. For his resistance, Machen was defrocked by the Presbyterians in 1935. His crime was that he was a believer. Read his seminal, Christianity and Liberalism (1926). It reads like a book written yesterday.

There is a race to the bottom, Biblically, theologically, spiritually, ethically, and politically among the mainline denominations and many evangelicals. But unbelief, and its assured consequences, faithlessness and apostasy, surely follow.

Like stepping into an untethered boat from a dock: push away from Scripture, and at the same time, reach toward an ever-changing spirit of the age, and you’re all wet.

I Have a Dictionary . . .

. . . and I can use it!


■ noun the use of artificial methods or other techniques to prevent pregnancy.


■ adjective serving to prevent pregnancy.
▶ relating to contraception.
■ noun a contraceptive device or drug.

abortifacient /əˌbɔːtɪˈfeɪʃ(ə)nt/ Medicine

adjective (of a drug) causing abortion.

noun an abortifacient drug.



1 the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy.

Catherine Soanes and Angus Stevenson, Concise Oxford English Dictionary (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004).

There, that wasn’t so hard!

It can easily been understood from the above that contraception is not abortion. The former prevents pregnancy, the latter terminates it.

So, in light of all the furor over the Hobby Lobby victory in the US Supreme Court, one must wonder if those who protest do not have dictionaries, or choose to ignore what they define.

Could it be, that the professionally shrill cannot fathom the loss of a government-mandated entitlement, even if that entitlement required the violation of a business owners’ religious beliefs and consciences?

Could it be, that no one else is aware of Hobby Lobby’s continuation of providing contraceptive coverage to employees?

Could it be, to inflate the indignation of the imaginary oppressed,  that misinformation is circulated about this court decision by deliberately conflating these two very different words?

Or could it be there is a shortage of dictionaries, or just a shortage of honesty?

In Just 20 Minutes, You Can Watch Religious Freedom Evaporate

Nanaimo City Council bans Christianity. Video of meeting here. According to one councillor, Christian thought is “criminal.”

Update! The Christian Response:

You can watch it here.

I could not help but notice the measured tone of the responses, and the total lack of vitriol and threat.

Perhaps There's a Pattern . . .


I don’t need to comment on the absurdity of this situation, but does this indicate a pattern of micro-control in the name of “safety?” In almost all of these cases, children are humiliated, embarrassed, and shamed by those who should (after family) care for them the most. Then the perpetrators (and that’s what they are) hide behind the excuse that they are protecting the privacy of their victims.