Written by R.C. Sproul |
Friday, September 17, 2021
The Bible is a divine book—but it’s also a very human book, not in that it is filled with human errors but in that it reflects how human beings tell stories. No two people write in exactly the same way, and no two human beings report their perspectives on the same event identically. Two people can accurately represent the same event without covering all the same details. That’s the kind of thing we find in Scripture.

We live in a day when consistency of thought is demeaned by many people, and individuals maintain that contradiction is the hallmark of truth, particularly in religious matters. Yet, in practice, human beings seek consistency. Consider liberal Protestantism. Decades ago, most of the mainline denominations abandoned the infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture. Originally, these denominations thought they could continue affirming the other core tenets of Christianity. As the years passed, however, it became clear that the rejection of the infallibility and inerrancy of the Scriptures leads to the denial of Christian orthodoxy on other matters. Most churches that abandoned biblical inerrancy and infallibility eventually rejected the atonement, biblical sexual ethics, and other teachings. Those denominations had to do that for consistency’s sake. To deny that God’s Word is without error is to deny that we have a trustworthy revelation from Him. Thus, it doesn’t ultimately matter what the Bible says about anything.
When it comes to studying the actual consistency of Scripture, it’s not long before we have to deal with allegations that the Bible is full of contradictions. This can be devastating to the Christian faith, because we know that if the Bible has real contradictions, it’s not a consistent account, and if it’s not a consistent account, it can’t be divinely inspired.
The main thing I want to say about this issue is that most alleged contradictions turn out not to be contradictions at all. When I was a seminary student, my professors frequently taught the theories of “higher” critics who refused to affirm the infallibility of Scripture. One of my fellow seminarians, a brilliant fellow, struggled with these theories. He had come to seminary believing in Scripture’s consistency, but by the time he was a senior, he was one of the casualties of the exposure to this relentless skepticism about the Bible. I remember one discussion in the hallway of the seminary where he said: “R.C., how can you still believe in the inerrancy of Scripture after all we’ve gone through here? Don’t you see that the Bible is full of contradictions?”
At the time, he couldn’t list even ten examples of contradictions in the Bible.
Read More

COVID-19 shouldn’t make us forget what this nation is supposed to stand for. COVID-19 shouldn’t make us forget our history. COVID shouldn’t make us forget our fundamental freedoms. If our freedoms aren’t fundamental in difficult times, then they aren’t fundamental at all.

One of my friends sent me a text earlier this week saying:
It’s interesting: in all my 29 years of living in this country, I’ve never once felt that I was a minority—until now.
I feel the same way.
My friend and I are what the Canadian government officially labels as “visible minorities”. But we’ve never accepted that term. We are not minorities. We’ve never felt outnumbered in this country. We’ve never felt like outsiders in our home.
Until now.
We’ve never felt like minorities—until now. We had the same rights as everybody else—until now. We’ve never felt like minorities in a two-tier system—until now. We’ve never felt like second-class citizens—until now. We were not marginalized or segregated—until now.
I wasn’t a minority—until today.
Yesterday, Ontario Premier Doug Ford announced that vaccine passports will be enforced in our province starting September 22nd.
Because of Doug Ford’s provincial vaccine passport and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s federal vaccine mandate, I will no longer be allowed in restaurants, movie theatres, concerts, gyms, some trains, and planes.
Justin Trudeau recently said:
[unvaccinated people] are putting at risk their own kids, and they’re putting at risk our kids as well. That’s why we’ve been unequivocal: if you want to get on a train or a plane in the coming months, you’re going to have to be fully vaccinated so families with their kids don’t have to worry that someone is going to put them in danger in the seat next to them or across the aisle…those people are putting us all at risk.
Read More

Written by James E. Hanley |
Friday, September 17, 2021
CRT is just a sophisticated legal theory taught only in law schools and graduate schools. Others say that CRT is the simple factual truth about the history of race and politics in the U.S. and conservative opponents are trying to block teaching that in public schools. These two claims cannot both be true. A complexly sophisticated idea taught only in graduate school cannot simultaneously be a simple idea taught in elementary and high schools. One need not even critique CRT to agree to this. So why do its defenders contradict themselves?

In recent months defenders of Critical Race Theory have given two conflicting stories. Some tell us that the flap over critical race theory (CRT) in K-12 education is a strawman because CRT is just a sophisticated legal theory taught only in law schools and graduate schools. Others say that CRT is the simple factual truth about the history of race and politics in the U.S. and conservative opponents are trying to block teaching that in public schools. These two claims cannot both be true. A complexly sophisticated idea taught only in graduate school cannot simultaneously be a simple idea taught in elementary and high schools. One need not even critique CRT to agree to this. So why do its defenders contradict themselves?
In our search for a reason, we should look for an explanation that is both charitable and grounded. By charitable, I mean we assume CRT’s defenders are not consciously trying to deceive. By grounded, I mean one that easily fits known facts and theories, without need for special pleading. Collectively, these two principles are the foundation of Hanlon’s razor, which warns us to never assume malice when ignorance is an adequate explanation.
In the case of CRT, I believe we can explain its defenders’ confusion through the simple lens of costs and benefits. Put simply, acquiring knowledge is costly, and thinking logically is costly, but feeling morally righteous or smugly superior is psychologically valuable and attained at low cost. Just as any of us prefer a good meal we don’t have to pay for, we face a temptation to latch on to the feelings of moral or intellectual superiority without paying the costs of gaining real knowledge and engaging in careful thinking.
Let’s begin with those who say critical race theory is just a high-level academic theory. They clearly err, because no influential academic theory remains only at the law school and graduate school level for decades. Although CRT originated in law schools, legal scholarship is not hermetically sealed off from the rest of academia. Some social science and humanities scholars found the ideas of CRT useful for their scholarly pursuits and adopted them. Blossoming scholars then learned these ideas in graduate school and applied them in their own scholarly thinking, and then, when they got academic jobs, in their undergraduate courses.
That sophisticated scholarly ideas sometimes get watered down in undergrad courses is no secret. So the CRT a student learns in an undergraduate Sociology or African-American Studies course may be incomplete in the same way that undergrads get an incomplete version of Plato or Marx. That doesn’t make it not critical theory. And if some of these undergrads go on to teach in elementary or high schools, some likely will introduce some of these ideas, likely in an even more watered-down way.
Read More

The number of kids going to school at home nationwide has doubled over the past two years. In 2019, there were about 2.5 million students learning at home. Today there are nearly 5 million. That means more than 11 percent of American households are educating their children outside of traditional schools.

In March 2020, as the coronavirus engulfed America, Kristen Wrobel got the news: “We heard on Friday that there would be no school for two weeks. Which just turned into no school.”
That was the last time her children — one in third grade, one in first —  were in a classroom.
In the beginning, they did the remote-school thing. Wrobel, a 42-year-old stay-at-home mom with a bachelor’s degree in software engineering, called it a “nightmare.” The Zoom sessions, the Italian lessons on Duolingo, the stuff she had to print out, the isolation, the tears, the nagging, the shuttling the kids between her house, near Burlington, Vermont, and their dad’s, a half-hour away.
“Everyone was freaking out all the time,” she said.
By May, at the risk of violating state truancy laws, Wrobel had stopped fighting and let her kids log on (or not) whenever they felt like it. It was, she said, “the darkest hour before dawn.”
That September, she started homeschooling. She didn’t like all the restrictions her kids’ private school had implemented: Students seated six feet apart. Masked. In wedding tents. Outside.
She figured she’d send her kids back to the school in 2021, after everything had gone back to normal.
That was then. Now? “There’d have to be a revolution in schooling.”
She’s hardly alone. Wrobel is one of hundreds of thousands of moms and dads across the nation who have decided to become the principals of their very own, very small elementary schools.
The number of kids going to school at home nationwide has doubled over the past two years. In 2019, there were about 2.5 million students learning at home. Today there are nearly 5 million. That means more than 11 percent of American households are educating their children outside of traditional schools.
In Wrobel’s state of Vermont, homeschool applications are up 75 percent. And that’s in the northeast, where regulations are strictest. The phenomenon is exploding across the country. In North Carolina, the site for registering homeschools crashed last summer. In California, applications for homeschooling tripled from 2020 to 2021. In Alaska, more than a quarter of students in the state are now homeschooled.
In Texas and Florida, parents are not required to notify the state, so it’s hard to know exactly how many kids are learning at home. But just one South Florida school, Jupiter Farms Elementary, saw 10 percent of its student population withdraw for this school year. Almost all of them are being taught at home.
The American Schoolhouse was in serious disrepair before 2020 — about that no one would disagree. But the events of last year tore the whole thing down to the studs. First, the pandemic. Then, the lockdowns. Then the summer of unrest: George Floyd, the protests, the riots, the mea culpas. Many local school boards seemed more concerned about teaching critical race theory and renaming schools than reopening them. Parents didn’t know what to do — what was safe, what was right, whom to trust. It was like being inside a tornado.
These were changes that rocked every American family.  So perhaps it’s no surprise that the homeschooling trend cuts across geographic, political, and racial lines: Black, Latino and Asian families are even likelier than white ones to educate their children at home.
All of this is undermining the old, Democratic-educational complex — the powerful teacher unions and the office-holders beholden to those unions —  that has long maintained an iron-clad grip on tens of thousands of schools and the fate of tens of millions of American students. And it is forcing a long overdue reimagining of the way we educate children: the subjects they study, the values instilled in them, and the economy for which they are being prepared.
In the beginning, the homeschoolers fell into two camps: hippies and evangelicals. The people who thought the corporate-military-industrial state existed to create cookie-cutter yes-men, and those who didn’t want government employees poisoning their kids with talk of evolution and sex education.
But they had one thing in common: Both groups distrusted the establishment and felt they could do a far better job educating their children.
It was the late 1970s. Vietnam had just come to an end, and a long-fomenting conservative movement spearheaded by Ronald Reagan was on the verge of toppling the old political elites and taking the White House. It was a moment of great discontent.
Out of this discontent emerged a cadre of parents frustrated with the mediocrity and bureaucratization of the public-school system.
That group included Roy and Diane Speed, of Bethel, Connecticut. They were unusual: He’d spent high school in Beirut and Paris, and done a Peace Corps stint in Mali; she was a management consultant who had studied chemistry. When their two kids were still young, they started teaching them at home.
“It was a lifestyle choice,” Diane Speed told me. They immersed themselves in the writings of the patron saints of the modern homeschooling movement like John Holt, a product of Philips Exeter Academy and Yale who had taught elementary school and had come around to the view that children should not be forced to learn. “It can get pretty radical,” Roy Speed said.
Read More

God’s people, notice that what makes John Bunyan so attractive as a minister is his love for the Lord and his love for fellow brothers and sisters. Make certain that your affections are set on Christ. Love the people of your local church too, knowing that the Lord is producing within you all an eternal weight of glory together. And, should you find that you have a pastor like Bunyan, then here is what you must do: Pray for him, praise the Lord for him, and boast in Jesus Christ, who is the true Shepherd and overseer of all His elect.

The life of John Bunyan proves, perhaps more than any other, that God indeed does not call the equipped, but rather equips the called. Bunyan understood the great grace he had been gifted in Christ, and he was eager to use every moment and every ounce of strength to preach this same gospel to others.
Learning to Love the Communion of the Saints
While one may find many pastors who love the Lord, it is an unusual blessedness to find a pastor who loves his congregation as well. It was just as difficult in Bunyan’s day to find true worshipers of God who loved the Lord and the people of God, likewise.
Bunyan, however, was a man who loved both the Lord and His Church. This love for Christ’s Bride allowed him to be effective in communicating Gospel truths. Since he truly loved the people he spoke to and wrote to, his great desire was to be plainly understood, rather than to be thought a great orator.[1]
This love for God’s people was taught to him in some profound ways, as he relates within his autobiography about one day being encountered by women speaking of spiritual matters who belonged to the Bedford congregation he would soon join:
But upon a day, the good providence of God called me to Bedford, to work on my calling; and in one of the streets of that town, I came where there were three or four poor women sitting at a door, in the sun, talking about the things of God; and being now willing to hear them discourse, I drew near to hear what they said, for I was now a brisk talker also myself, in the matters of religion; but I may say, I heard but understood not; for they were far above, out of my reach.  Their talk was about a new birth, the work of God on their hearts, also how they were convinced of their miserable state by nature; they talked how God had visited their souls with His love in the Lord Jesus, and with what words and promises they had been refreshed, comforted, and supported, against the temptations of the devil: moreover, they reasoned of the suggestions and temptations of Satan  in  particular;  and  told  to  each  other,  by  which  they  had been afflicted  and  how  they  were  borne  up  under  his assaults. They also discoursed of their own wretchedness of heart, and of their unbelief; and did contemn, slight and abhor their own righteousness, as filthy, and insufficient to do them any good.
… And, methought, they spake as if joy did make them speak; they spake with such pleasantness of scripture language, and with such appearance of grace in all they said, that they were to me, as if they had found a new world; as if they were people that dwelt alone, and were not to be reckoned among their neighbours.  Numb. xxiii. 9.[2]
Bunyan recognized within those women something he had been missing: joy. He also recognized where the source of the joy he found within these women originated: Christ. These ladies had been drawn to Christ in salvation and had come to find their own wretched, miserable condition, and the perfect blessedness of Christ. It was from this river of joy that their words rushed forth.
The impact of this encounter upon Bunyan was striking. As he would soon discover, these women were members of the Bedford Free Church, which he would eventually join. A few years later, persecution would come against both himself and the church, but it was this first encounter with these women that would cause him to fall in love, not only with theology, but with the Lord and the fellowship of His people.
It has been often stated that doxology will never rise higher than theology. The two are always intrinsically linked. But, let it also be said that a pastor’s success in pastoring the flock entrusted to his care will never rise higher than the love, devotion, and care that he shows to that flock.
Read More

Our problem is not a lack of resources. But one other thing is clear: we must make time to pray and praise God. If we cannot make and keep appointments with our Triune God, our relationship with the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, like any other, will suffer. The invitation is this: have a plan and follow it, pray spontaneously as well, and let all your time be lived out in the presence of our gracious God.

In the early days of his Christian walk, someone said, “I just don’t seem to have time to pray!” A mentor responded in a gentle tone with a stubborn and convicting principle: “you make time for your priorities.” Yet, the question of when to pray is a potent one in the distractedness and business of modern life with its constant connectivity, appointments, virtual appointments, pings, and notifications. Even if we know better than to make excuses for ourselves, the believer who claims a relationship with the living God is commendably concerned about both the quantity and quality of time spent in prayer. While we should clearly pray whenever moved by some external or internal prompting, anything worthy of our attention deserves a dedicated time, no less so the life of prayer.
Seeming to undermine our subject, the Apostle Paul writes these challenging words: “Pray without ceasing.” (1Th 5:17)[1] Assigning a time to prayer would seem too limiting for so grand an activity if we ourselves were not constrained to live one moment after another with a restricted band of attention. Paul’s meaning in the context and in comparison with other texts seems to be that we should not stop praying through changing circumstances that may tempt us to give up (cf. Luke 18:1), in which case it’s the persistence rather than the frequency of our prayers that he has in view. He may also be thinking of maintaining a posture of prayerfulness at all times. But again: anything worthy of our attention deserves time devoted to it.
The Psalmist exclaims, “Seven times a day I praise you for your righteous rules.” (Psalm 119:164)
Read More

Pro-abortionists want to distract everyone from the central issue. They want to keep everyone in the dark about what the abortionists are doing in their death chambers. They aren’t merely removing a clump of impersonal cells during an abortion. They are killing living human beings. They want to hide this central truth, but we must not let them do that.

The left is apoplectic about the shutdown of death-dealing abortion mills in Texas. Nothing is more catastrophic to them than that babies would no longer be subject to legal execution. And there is hardly anything they won’t say or do to get the abortionists back to the important business of killing the unborn.
For that reason, you can expect to hear some crazy, wild claims in days ahead. You are going to hear downright asinine allegations about pro-lifers and their “sinister” motivations. Here is a case in point. Jeff Greenfield claims in Politico that evangelical opposition to abortion was merely a pretext for racial discrimination:
It turns out that abortion was not really an instant trigger for conservative evangelical political engagement… The evangelical community was by and large supportive of abortion rights for years after Roe v. Wade was decided. It was only when powerful figures on the right saw abortion as a way to build support for their real agenda — private segregated schools — that Jerry Falwell embraced the cause.
So yes, you read that right. Evangelical opposition to abortion was never really about the sanctity of human life. It was about keeping black children out of white schools. I can hardly imagine a more cynical, dismissive allegation about evangelical pro-lifers. But there it is. It just goes to show that when the left can’t engage the substance of the arguments against abortion, they go straight for the specious ad hominem trope: “Hey, can you believe those pro-life rubes over there? They are just a bunch of racists. I’m so glad I’m pro-choice and not racist like them.”
If that seems absurd to you, that’s because it is. Nevertheless, that is the stock-in-trade of pro-choice polemics. Avoid the substance of the issue—the humanity of the unborn—and make unfounded and illogical attacks on the character of pro-lifers. Nevermind the fact that in New York “thousands more black babies are aborted than born alive each year, and the abortion rate among black mothers is more than three times higher than it is for white mothers” (source). Generations of black children have been exterminated in New York, but no biggie. It’s actually pro-lifers who are racist.
And if you think this kind of radical pro-abortion cynicism is a one-off, just watch. It won’t be. The baseless attacks against pro-lifers will continue apace without being fact-checked.
Read More

Like David in Psalm 133, we should celebrate unity in our churches and in our elder boards. And as Paul instructs in Ephesians 4:3, we should be “eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.” So we should pray for unity. We should work to preserve the unity God’s Spirit has given us. Insisting on unanimity, however, can actually damage unity. Instead, let’s value trust more highly than agreement.

Unity is a wonderful thing, especially in leadership. How I pray that David’s description of unity would be true of the elders in my church and in your church. Unity that’s good and pleasant is the blessing of God!
But this raises an important question. In the interest of unity, should an eldership insist on unanimity before it acts? Wouldn’t it be a wonderful boost of confidence to your congregation to know that the elders only ever speak when they are of one mind?
Five Reasons to Not Insist on Unanimity
Let me give you five reasons why I’d discourage the rule of unanimity, and then finish with one brief caveat.
1. Unanimity isn’t the biblical pattern.
In 2 Corinthians 2:6, the church appears to have exercised church discipline by a “majority.” In Acts 1:26, the apostles determine Judas’ successor by casting lots. Does this settle the matter? Certainly not. However, if there were a strong biblical pattern of unanimity, we should pay it close attention. But no such pattern exists.
2. Unanimity can stifle dissent.
I remember in the years before I became a pastor, I worked with one company who insisted on unanimity in their product development decisions. One night over dinner with a group of R&D heads at large companies, I asked them what they thought of that practice. Did requiring unanimity protect the all-important minority viewpoint? Ironically, every one of them disagreed, insisting quite the opposite. When everyone in a group knows unanimity is required, people who disagree with the majority are actually less likely to speak up because they don’t want to get in the way. That can be true especially when the group trusts one another. Insisting on unanimity can lead to group-think.
3. Unanimity can discourage trust.
When I lose a vote on our elder board, I must then turn around and represent our decision to the congregation as my decision as well. Is that my conformist, people-pleasing tendency at work? No, it’s because I trust my fellow elders. On the other hand, insisting on unanimity removes the need for such trust.
Read More