Our first sermon series kicks off in the gospel according to John, and the first instalment is now available for listening on Spotify or on our Sermon page!
Celebrate this milestone with us by having a listen, and stay tuned as we continue to release our weekly sermon for free.
R.C. Sproul covering what it was all about:
https://www.ligonier.org/learn/series/luther-and-the-reformation
Protestants around the world today celebrate their distinction from the Roman Catholic Church proudly and regularly. Yet, how many actually know the history behind their separation? The old adage “you can’t know where you are going until you know from where you came” may not ring true in every situation, but the sorrowful state of biblical orthodoxy in Protestant churches today demonstrates the value of this old proverb. The events culminating in the Reformation of the sixteenth century occurred in response to the dilapidated treatment and understanding of God’s Word extant in the Roman Catholic Church. In the first lecture of this series, Dr. Sproul introduces the man who challenged the errant status quo and sparked a flame of change that still burns today: Martin Luther.
Douglas Wilson kicks off his annual No Quarter November today with a long discussion on the status of StickerGate, their dust-up with local Moscow authorities over mandate protest stickers.
As an added bonus:
“This month there will be multiple free book giveaways, both from the Mablog Shoppe and from Canon Press. This first one today is from the Mablog emporium. If the giveaway is from Mablog, the free item will be available at no charge for a week, unless I forget to switch it back to the regular price of one dollar. If that happens, then help yourselves as long as my dotage continues. When the giveaway is a Canon title, I will let you know what the terms and conditions are at the time.”
You’re encouraged to tune in, debate, make observations, and think wisely about how to engage Canadian culture this month.
The inaugural full article may be read here.
A lengthy but helpful thought experiment:
Even the most faithful believer in the prevailing system has likely heard rumblings of rumored objections to the prevailing narrative. Some examples include the claim that the covid vaccines don’t prevent infection or transmission—Or that natural immunity provides much stronger protection than the vaccines (in addition to actually preventing infection and transmission)—Or that the protection the vaccines do provide wear off in only a few months—Or that tens of thousands of people have been killed by the vaccines, with hundreds of thousands injured (often seriously injured)—Or that effective early treatments such as ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, zinc, and vitamins C and D3 are being suppressed—Or that the risk and deadliness of covid has been greatly exaggerated, and would furthermore be greatly reduced by the widespread use of the suppressed early treatment protocols—Or that mask-wearing does nothing to stop the spread of covid—Or that covid almost never spreads through asymptomatic transmission—Or that covid testing protocols produce a high rate of false positives—Or that the death counts from covid are inflated by counting anyone who dies from any cause after a recent positive covid test as having died from covid—Or that the spread of the Delta Variant, and other covid variants, were actually caused by immune escape due to mass vaccination—Or that the same governments and public figures ordering mandates and lockdowns are themselves responsible for creating SarsCov2 as a bioweapon in contravention of international law.
You may have heard some or all of these things, and you may have heard them described as misinformation, or conspiracy theories, or fake news. You may have heard this from the corporate media or public officials. But what if some of the things listed above were true? How would you know? Who would tell you?
“The media would tell me,” may be an automatic response. Or perhaps, “The government would tell me,” or “public health officials would tell me.” And they would tell you. If you weren’t living in a corrupt system—they would tell you. But what if you were living in a corrupt system and you didn’t know it? How would you find out? Who would tell you?
That podcast or documentary you’re not supposed to look at would tell you. That friend you stopped talking to because they won’t take the jab would tell you. I would tell you. But you’re not supposed to talk to or listen to any of us. The government/media/public health complex has told you not to. Here’s an interesting question to ask: Who would be more likely to forbid you from listening to someone warning you of encroaching totalitarianism? A totalitarian? Or an honest actor only interested in faithfully reporting the truth?
But why listen to me? Or the friend or family member you canceled? Or the forbidden news source or podcast? We’re just people. We don’t have any special claim to truth. We might be able to provide you with facts, evidence, and reasoning. CNN and Dr. Fauci have facts, evidence, and reasoning too. You would have to compare and contrast what you were being told and see what lines up and what doesn’t. You would have to consider the possibility that you might be living in a totalitarian system. You would have to trust yourself and check in with your own intuition and reasoning. You would have to decide for yourself…
from Raelle Kaia. Oct. 19, 2021: https://raellekaia.substack.com/p/how-would-you-know
TL;DR: skip to the end for recommended reads & links deconstructing totalitarianism (as well as the author’s own articles).
From Pastor Douglas Wilson, 10.6.2021
Each form of idolatry must be repudiated, of course, but these two kinds of idolatry must be dealt with differently. If you have a Baal set up in your back yard, then the only appropriate thing to do is pull it down. But if you have the god of mammon enshrined in your heart, treating that heart as mammon’s holy of holies, then you must re-prioritize everything in your heart and life—but you will still be handling money this time next week. True repentance will affect how you handle that money, not whether you do. In one instance the idol itself must go away, and in the second instance, the idol remains, but is dethroned. And when that kind of idol is dethroned—get this—it is made stronger.
Say that a man has made an idol out of the traditional family. It is some kind of fetish with him. If he gets things right with God, and dethrones that idol, his traditional family is going to have a much better chance at thriving.
But this next point is crucial. There is a vast difference between dethroning these false gods, and restoring them to health, over against toppling them all in order to make room for the savage gods. We have been exhorted to do the latter as though we were doing to the former, and we are paying for it now. This is why the cold water that Spurgeon spoke of is getting splashed in our faces now.
There is a vast difference between a Christian community where Christ is everything, and the families are consequently vibrant and strong, and a place where nobody is quite sure what a family even is exactly, so why not two lesbians and a tranny? Now if you have a case where the families are vibrant and strong, precisely because the family is not an idol, and yet there are other folks admonishing them about their idolizing of the family, then what is happening—on purpose or not—is preparation for the grotesque forms of idolatry.
If you doubt what I say, just look at what has happened to American culture over the last few decades. While monstrous idols are being erected in the public square, Christians are being told not to “idolize” their customs, nation, suburban life, family and so on. We are being told to beware the petty idols that might not even be idols, and also told to leave the monstrous idols alone because the gospel is “apolitical.”
Read the full article here.
Where do those human rights come from, anyway?
If you or someone you know is facing an unplanned pregnancy and feels stuck, Choice42 can help provide everything you need.
From Carl Trueman, 2.8.21:
The legislation also demonstrates one of the oddest results of the modern emphasis on the radical freedom of the individual. In such a world, all must theoretically be allowed to have their own narratives of identity. But because some narratives of identity inevitably stand in opposition to others, some identities must therefore be privileged with legitimate status and others treated as cultural cancers. And that means that, in an ironic twist, the individual ceases to be sovereign and the government has to step in as enforcer. The lobby group of the day then decides who is in and who is out, with the result that, in this instance, the gay or trans person who wants to become straight or “cis” (to use the pretentious jargon), cannot be tolerated. His narrative calls into question that of others. We might say that his very existence is a threat. To grant any degree of legitimacy to his desire is to challenge the normative status of the desires of others.
And so prayer for such heretics must be prohibited, even if they specifically ask for it. This is not so much because it harms the people for whom it is being offered, but simply because it witnesses to the fact that not all people—not even all gay and trans people—buy into the current confections of the politics of sexual identity.
Perhaps that is encouraging. Perhaps at long last Western societies are beginning to wake up to the fact that Christianity at its very core witnesses to the fact that the world is not as it should be. But it is also an ominous sign when such a basic religious practice as prayer—so often decried by the irreligious as pointless hokum—is now the target of hostile legislation in a democratic country. We may not yet be at the point where thought is a crime, but we seem to be at the point where the expression of certain thoughts, even in prayer, could be considered criminal behavior. At the risk of encouraging people to commit high crimes and misdemeanors, I would urge everyone to pray that other countries do not follow Victoria’s example, for if they do, it might be illegal to pray for almost anything of which our lords and masters disapprove in a few years’ time.
Carl R. Trueman is a professor of biblical and religious studies at Grove City College. Read the full article here.
From author Scott Klusendorf, April 2020
Pro-life advocates argue that it’s wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings, and policies permitting it are scandalous. That core principle is non-negotiable, even when suspending it might profit us in a pandemic. To cite an example, when congressional Democrats called on the Trump administration to lift federal funding restrictions on destructive fetal tissue research on grounds it might cure COVID-19, pro-life advocates — acting on their core principle — universally opposed the Democratic proposal.31 Their argument was clear and to the point: We must never intentionally kill innocent human beings so others can profit. We must pursue the cure of disease in morally acceptable ways.
While we must never intentionally kill innocent human beings, in practice we allow for tradeoffs where the risk of death is foreseen but not intended. These tradeoffs are unavoidable in the pursuit of other intrinsic goods. For example, electricity saves lives and powers our appliances, but each year 400 people die from electrocution and thousands more are injured. 32 Worldwide, car wrecks kill 1.5 million people a year, many of them in poor countries. That’s 3,700 deaths each day!33We could save hundreds of thousands of lives if we enforced a 25-mph speed limit, but we don’t. Is that because we’re playing a game of “Lifeboat” where we arbitrarily decide who lives and dies based on economic worth? No, we recognize that speedy and efficient transportation leads to a higher standard of living for everyone. We accept these tradeoffs all the time.
“Pro-life” means we will never sanction the intentional killing of innocent human beings. It does not mean that the preservation of life is the only intrinsic good we should pursue. If it were, our decisions would be much simpler: just do what contributes to length of life and eschew anything that doesn’t. But that may not lead to the best, or even a good, outcome.
Suppose I’m an impoverished 35-year-old farmer with six kids and a wife living in rural Georgia. My kids are poorly educated and will never attend college or travel. We scrape by selling peanuts and sweet corn. On the plus side, life expectancy in our county is 83 years. There is almost no crime and we are healthy, thanks to remarkably clean air and the non-processed foods we produce. Then, out of the blue, Morgan Stanley offers me a consulting job in Manhattan. It seems the company wants to reach farmers with investment strategies and needs insider help. My starting salary will be $250,000 annually and the company will secure housing in a nice Long Island neighborhood with excellent schools. My family will flourish in a local church with excellent Bible teaching and a large youth group. On weekends, I can take my wife out to dinner, something I haven’t done for years. We can travel! And my kids can go to college! There’s only one problem: physicians report that life expectancy on Long Island averages two years less than rural Georgia due to air quality. All other things being equal, if I move my family, have I wrongly traded lives for profits? No. Although I foresee shorter life spans, I do not intend them. I accept the potential tradeoff on my life expectancy for the sake of other intrinsic goods, such as educating my kids, providing for my family, and Christian fellowship.
Absent important qualifiers, “life over profits” is moralistic reductionism masquerading as biblical ethics. Seen holistically, “profits” are not just about money. Rather, wrapped up in our economic considerations are clusters of intrinsic goods, such as educating our children, providing for our families, giving to charity, building up our marriages, and pursuing Christian fellowship — all of which contribute to the common good.
Read the full article here.
My main concern is that a number of Christians have begun to point the finger at churches which have opened. They are being called childish, dangerous, and rebellious. Their leaders’ character is attacked. Some believers point at Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2, and demand unconditional obedience to government. It is simple, they say. Even if there is low risk to health, we must obey the government. To do otherwise is a bad example, and a poor witness. It does not show love.
This attitude is not, and never has been, taken for granted in Reformed churches. We deny that God has given the government the authority to either call or to unilaterally prohibit worship. Worship is called by God himself.
Throughout the Bible, there are many examples of believers refusing to listen to government edicts when it comes to worship. Daniel’s three friends defied the emperor, and refused to worship the statue, and the Lord defended them. Daniel himself defied the emperor, and insisted on publicly worshipping the Lord, and the Lord defended him. The temptation of the Lord Jesus Christ involved a call to bow to Satan. At that time, Satan was the ruler of the kingdoms of the earth. The Lord Jesus refused to worship him, and would worship God only. The examples of the apostles, especially Peter and Paul, show that they preached and worshipped often against the will of governments.
Throughout history, believers and their worship were unjustly blamed for all manner of social ills and problems. Fingers were pointed at them for rejecting the gods, and refusing to bow to superstitions. Their lack of fear was seen as foolish. During plagues, many Christians stayed in the cities with the sick, while the others fled…
It is in times like these that this article [85: No church shall in any way lord it over other churches, no minister over other ministers, no elder or deacon over other elders or deacons.] becomes vitally important. Churches are in different regions and under different jurisdictions. Each consistory must wrestle with a unique hodge-podge of factors. There are, undoubtedly, varying views within some consistories. In one area, there may be zero cases for weeks on end. In another, a church may be next door to an overwhelmed hospital, and have had recent COVID deaths. Some consistories may have nurses or doctors sitting at the table with strong opinions, or even have lost an elder or deacon to COVID. We are human, these factors make some cautious. There are good biblical and historic reasons we do not have popes or archbishops, we prefer a multitude of counselors. (Prov. 11:14) That is why things in Reformed churches sometimes move slowly, but we trust with a little more wisdom. It is also why many of us do not agree with letting just the medical experts steer the ship, and why many Ontario folks think that voices like the Honourable Roman’s should be heard out and not cancelled. Knee jerk reactions abound in our day, and they do not actually help with either unity or a comprehensive approach to health.
Christians should be aware that some municipal governments, local police forces, and health units have been veryrespectful to churches as well. Other government agencies have been dismissive and even cruel. Some churches can legally divide into small groups. Members of the churches must understand that few churches are in identical circumstances. We ought to be slow to judge, and quick to think the best of others. We ought to pray that wisdom is given to each consistory.
Due to article 85, we are bound to say that whatever happens in another congregation is not ours to judge in circumstances like these. Despite our own convictions, it is not my place to unilaterally call on all of the churches in Canada to open. Some of us may wish that many of the churches would open. But to “call” them to open would be a step too far. It may even be impossible for an entire denomination or synod to rule on whether churches should be open or closed, as circumstances constantly change in each locality. Perhaps in the future. But for now, beating up our brothers is not going to move the needle forward, in fact it may bring it back. If they are going to stand, their convictions need to be well-held first. Without conviction, a stand is not going to be steady. Still, no matter where a church is, the need to return to living and breathing worship of the Lord is growing.
From True. North. Read the full article here.
Posted on by Douglas Wilson
To bring it back to this issue of masking and vaccines, I believe that a lot of ministers have sinfully disgraced themselves by simply accepting the chains. I also believe that there have been many others who were foolish, but not rebellious. Some ministers have revealed that they were themselves wolves. They think the slavery is good for us. Other ministers foolishly failed in their calling by not recognizing the wolves in sheep’s clothing. They do not see (yet) that it is slavery, and that the slavery is really bad. They ought to see it, but they don’t….
The secular mind has a dark totalitarian streak that runs right down the middle of it. The idea of a genuinely free people, with every man under his own fig tree, is an idea which gives them the jimjams. It is misguided to assume that we all share a common commitment to liberty. Some people actually detest it. They don’t want it. They want their idea of an orderly society. They don’t like freedom. They want you to learn how to live according to their dictatorial whims. Now of course they don’t call it slavery. They don’t call it prison. It is sort of dry terrarium, well-lit, with white sand on the bottom, and you are the lizard.
Given that we have been comparatively free in the past, these secularists of the ruling class, in their positions of influence and power, want to get us from where we were to where they want us to be. In short, according to my lexicon, they want to enslave us. They would not put it that way, of course. They would say they simply want us to become more cooperative, civilized, and urbane, by which they mean far more docile.
They really do want a great reset. They are not appalled at all by what is going down in Australia, and the only negative thing about all of that for them is that they think they might not be able to get away with the same kind of thing here. But if they could, they would. They want the emergency powers that they have seized in the name of this pandemic to remain in their hands forever so that they can shut down or steer whatever they want to whenever they want to….
In our community of believers here at Christ Church, our elders do not mandate or require anything with regard to masks or vaccines. Believers are free to come to worship God in a mask if their conscience permits or requires it. Our members are free to get vaccinated, and they are free to refrain. Nobody bothers anybody….
So we believe in liberty of conscience and we practice liberty of conscience.
Read the full article here.
Covenant Presbyterian Church