Apparently a law was just passed in Britain which restricts funding to any school that teaches creation as a viable explanation for the existence of the earth. It really does baffle me how people can claim evolution as being proven by scientific fact, over and above creation theory. Evolution is a theory-science has to be observable in order for it to be science, and evolution has never been observed. I honestly don’t know what methods God used to create this earth, and to be honest, I don’t really care, even if it was some form of evolution until he created mankind. But to claim evolution as fact is beyond ridiculous, and it corrupts the use of the word science. It’s worth reading the article, the language is ridiculous-Richard Dawkins is a key player (of course).



Christian orthodoxy is anything but a simple, easy-to-handle package: it is very risky business. Orthodoxy is a pearl that must be sought after with great zeal and safe-guarded. The risk is due to the nature of what is being investigated. The truths being maintained do not pertain to ordinary matters, but to extraordinary ones of the highest magnitude. Due to this fact, the possibility of falling into error is much greater and the consequences for doing so more dire. However, with greater risk comes greater reward.

There is a tendency among Christians today to pick up an idea and want to run with it. Thus, we see a plethora of material on but a few subjects. Many Christians tend to promote one particular theme and stress that over others. While it is sometimes necessary to highlight one aspect of the faith over others, we must be careful that we do not lose the overall balance. This overemphasis on one theme is where the danger of developing certain ideas as reactionary to others is all too real.

The Christian faith is full of paradoxes and, depending on the mindset with which we view it, seeming contradictions. Because the Christian faith was not designed by men, it is beyond the faculties of men to attain. In fact, it breaks the mould in which man-made ideologies are devised, because such ideologies are constrained to the limits of reason and thus need to be rationalized. Great trouble arises when people try to view the Christian faith using the same tools which are employed in the investigation of other ideologies. Unfortunately, this danger is something to which even Christians themselves are not immune.

The Christian faith cannot be fully rationalized and systematized, nor is it meant to be. To borrow an illustration from a former professor of mine, studying the faith is like trying to study frogs. There are two methods one can take: either watching the frogs in their natural state, full of activity and life, or dissecting them for further examination. The former method takes longer, but is very rewarding, preserving the natural state of the frogs. The latter method provides a much more controlled, efficient way of obtaining information; however, the frogs never jump again afterward. Orthodoxy is maintained by acknowledging and promoting the central role of mystery, which is necessary in order to properly uphold the paradoxical truths of the faith. Orthodoxy provides a context in which one is free to hold two truths that seem to be completely contradictory to one another, such as the truths of divine sovereignty and human responsibility. Mystery is central to orthodoxy, because it provides a method of interpretation which acknowledges that faith is not determined by perfect understanding, and that belief in something does not have to be contingent on the comprehension of it. When faith is treated as though it were a science, paradoxes cause a lot of discomfort. In this regard, great effort is made to try and describe a way in which conflicts between truths can be reasoned away. The danger of taking such an approach is that greater problems usually occur as a result.

Orthodoxy is not a safe science, but rather is a risky adventure. Maintaining orthodoxy is like trying to navigate a ship along stormy waters. It is a wild ride and one has to be very careful to avoid being slammed into the rocks. It is by no means the easy course, but is the difficult way which few find (Matt 7:13-14). Praise God, therefore, that he has given us both his Word, which communicates to us “what man is to believe concerning God, and what duty God requires of man” (Westminster Shorter Catechism, Q&A # 3), and also the Holy Spirit, who produces within us the faith necessary to believe those truths which God has communicated to us.



TORONTO — Ontario’s Liberal government says it is not prepared to abandon the sex-ed component of a pending anti-bullying law, despite criticism by some religious leaders Tuesday that it is an affront to traditional family values.

Christian, Jewish and Muslim representatives say they agree school bullies must be stopped, but they can’t condone a requirement under the legislation proposed to deal with it that schools promote sexual tolerance through gay clubs.

“To force, especially Christian classrooms or schools, to have homosexual clubs would of course be an affront to their family values,” Charles McVety, of the Institute for Canadian Values, told a joint news conference.

“And what does this have to do with bullying? Nothing.”

McVety, who led the fight against the Liberals’ last attempt to update the province’s sex-ed curriculum, says Premier Dalton McGuinty is using the problem of bullying to advance “his radical sex education agenda.”

The religious leaders say that agenda is driven by gay activists.

“When you are forcing teachers, Christian teachers, Jewish teachers, Muslim teachers, to teach things that are contrary to the values that they hold, to teach that there are six genders and that you are not attached to the gender of your anatomy, do you not find that that may be an offence to a lot of Ontarians?” asked McVety.

Rabbi Mendel Kaplan of Chabad Flamingo Synagogue in Toronto said he also believes that parts of the anti-bullying bill aimed at making schools inclusive and tolerant of gay lifestyles are offensive to many families.

“This legislation proposes that children be indoctrinated to reject their parents’ faith and their parents’ family values, and that’s an affront,” said Kaplan.

“What nobody here in good conscience can support is a law that calls on people of faith to abandon the beliefs that we consider sacred, all in the name of political correctness.”

Continue Reading »


Apparently there has been a committee that has been evaluating for the last two years whether euthanasia is ok or not, and they came to the decision that it should be legal in Canada. I’m not really sure what to think about this. I mean, generally I would say it’s wrong if it is as a result of depression or escape. However, I’ve been thinking a lot lately about people who’s lives are extended unnaturally through medicinal intervention. Is pulling the plug that different from providing a way out to people who already have lost basically all functions? Isn’t the justification the same? I’m not saying I’m jumping on board of the euthanasia ship, I’m just saying that it’s more complicated than I had previously thought. There may be times when it is justified.

As I was standing at the bus stop today waiting for my bus to come, I noticed a poppy lying on thePoppy in the Mud ground. That reminded me that Remembrance Day was fast approaching, and I should probably be wearing a poppy, especially since I am in a political science MA program, and it is highly likely that the majority of my colleagues would have already donned theirs. Not wanting to be the one who seemed unpatriotic and supportive of those who gave their lives for various causes throughout Canadian history, I discretely picked up the poppy and pinned it to my jacket. The bus arrived, and I proudly mounted the stairs with the knowledge that I would not be seen as forgetting the important time of remembrance (and yes, I do note the irony). As I moved to a seat, I noticed that I need not have worried about my immediate vicinity, since I could not see a single other individual with the red symbol pinned on their attire. Still, I assumed that I would see more of the red flowers upon arriving at my University, and still more among my political science colleagues. However, as I walked to my class after arriving at the institution, I noticed that I could not see ANY poppies. In fact, I was not able to find a single poppy aside from my own. I still held out hope however, that I would see some among those who are dedicated to studying the institutions that were being defended by those that we remember. I arrived in class and was relieved to see another poppy pinned onto a coat. Then I realized that it was the only poppy in sight, aside from my own.

Continue Reading »

Something Deeper

I am currently in an MA Political Science program, with a focus specifically on Political Theory. Last week, in my cosmopolitanism class, we were discussing Rawlsian theories, specifically his book the Law of Peoples, and a specific criticism arose, being that Rawls does not have any real base for his morality. Basically, Rawls claims that what he argues is right is right, and that’s all. Thus, there is no basis for morality, it is an abstract and unfounded concept. Another student mentioned how this was the case with all political theorists, and how it is unavoidable that a point will be reached where political theorists will simply place their faith in some form of morality.

I am a Christian, so I found this last statement rather peculiar, since I can offer a firm foundation for morality-God. When I mentioned that there are some theorists who have found a firm foundation for morality, being God, the response was simply that God is not seen as a valid hypothesis in political theory. I mentioned that I disagreed with this supposition, but the conversation moved forwards, and my idea was not developed further.

It has really gotten me thinking, however-why is it that God, not even necessarily the Christian God, but any god, is denied in philosophy? After all, as Voltaire pointed out, if there was not a God, “it would be necessary to invent him”. There is a great deal of hostility towards any form of mysticism, but as a result, philosophy can only reach a certain level. To draw a parallel, it would be as if atomic scientists would deny any smaller composites beyond atoms-how much less would we know as a result! The science community would charge atomic scientists with being irresponsible. And yet, we allow philosophers to stop at a certain point, and say…that’s it, there’s nothing deeper.


Friends, Romans, Canadians: Lend me your study time!


Whether ’tis nobler to while away a while, say in studying books and writing notes,

To “B” but not to “C” thus we in final exams will place our hopes.

I hope but simply, having now no need for neural taxing near

That we should not abandon yet the friends, nay family, known these years

So, then, post boldly, blather, boast! Speak swiftly, often, shout and bluster,

Blog your thoughts here, comment, toast! And treasure friends like doughnut custard

-Poetic thoughts from an old alumni  🙂