rootleweb

The Great Debate

2014-09-04T20:36:00.001-04:00

This article was originally written for the Christian Renewal. It appeared in the April 16th issue of the magazine.

On February 4th, 2014, Bill Nye and Ken Ham met to debate whether or not the Biblical Creation account is still a viable model of origins. The debate was well advertised, and at the time of writing the YouTube clip has garnered over 1.5 million views.1
Many atheists were quick to decry Nye's choice to debate Ham, fearing that he would lend credence to the Creationist view. Once the debate was over, many of these same individuals then affirmed his triumph. Christian response was mixed, from declaring the night an evangelical success to consternation over Ham's weak performance. That both men are celebrities rather than experienced debaters was obvious. Neither man was well prepared and both of them lacked focus. This resulted in the debate derailing several times. Ham's off-topic of choice was morality and for Nye it was odd things like top minnow reproduction.
In the post-debate question period, Ken Ham was asked the following question: “Hypothetically, if evidence existed that caused you to have to admit that the earth was older than 10,000 years and creation did not occur over six days, would you still believe in God, and the historical Jesus of Nazareth and that Jesus was the Son of God?” (2:18:01)1 His response was to dodge the question and say there was no hypothetical. One cannot prove the age of the universe. He did not answer the central point of the question: would he still believe in God and the person of Jesus Christ?
Should a change in our finite understanding of the world alter our belief about God or the person of Jesus Christ? We confess that faith is gift given to us by God. It is not something we create in ourselves. Atheists intuitively know this and that's why the question was posed to Ham. The question was essentially looking for the basis of his faith: does it lie in his understanding of the world or does it lie in God? Ham's lack of an answer presents a problem for every Christian: how should we prioritize our beliefs?
At the Ligonier 2012 National Conference on The Christian Mind, notable men such as R.C. Sproul, Albert Mohler, and others, gathered to discuss such topics as the role of science, education, and God's natural revelation. The panel was asked whether or not the age of the earth should be considered a first order issue. In his answer, R.C. Sproul wisely said that he did not know the age of the earth. He agreed that there were hints and inclinations in Scripture, but he also admitted that there was no specific date given for Creation. All revelation given by God is infallible and this includes both special and natural revelation. He went on to say that “historically, the Church's understanding of special revelation, or the Bible, has been corrected by students of natural revelation.”2
It is simply not the case that the Church has held to a single interpretation of Genesis 1 thoughout its history. While Basil understood Genesis 1 to take place in a literal twenty-four hour, six day time period, Origen held the view that Genesis was intended as allegory. Augustine simultaneously held to both a young Earth view and an allegorical Creation story, a view which now almost totally unheard of despite the fact it was the dominant view of the Church until Calvin's time. Charles Hodge held to the Day-Age view of creation. Bavinck rejected the idea that the creation event could even be the object of scientific investigation, since the event itself is outside the scope of human knowledge. Plantinga, of course, is well-known for being a theistic evolutionist.3,4
As Christians, we cannot impose our understanding of the world on God. Our inadequacy is all too apparent. One is reminded of God's question to Job in chapter 38 “Were you there?” If the age of the earth and the methods God employed in Creation are not first order issues, indeed, they may not even be any of our business, then we must be quick to admit where our understanding fails us. We must admit with Job that we were not there. We must also approach those Christians who hold other views of Creation with a measure of humility. Most of all, if the question is ever put to us “Would a change in your understanding of the world alter your belief in God?” then we must humbly but firmly answer “No.”
It is God who hold us firm, and not ourselves.

1. Bill Nye vs Ken Ham Debate on Youtube
2. The Christian Mind: 2012 National Conference
3.Bavinck and Kuyper on Creation and Miracle by Chris Gousmett quoting from Bavinck's "Philosophy of Revelation"
4. Report of the Creation Study Committee at the PCA Historical Center

Bitter Cups that Bring the Glory of God

2013-05-23T09:16:00.000-04:00

I have been reflecting on the tragic death of Tim Bosma. A young man, only 32 with a wife and small child, was taken from his home and brutally murdered. The media coverage has been constant. I have never met him but, I married into Dutch and, as it turns out I know a lot of people who knew him and some who were related to him. For days, my Facebook feed was flooded with nothing but stories, pictures, prayers and thoughts of Tim. The Facebook page dedicated to the search was very active. It still is. People send in their prayers and well wished to the family. Others want to donate.

Yesterday's memorial was a testimony to the power of God and the blessing of Christian fellowship. The message of the gospel and the need for our deliverance from sin was heard by many. God's Name was publicly glorified, and it was beautiful to behold.

However, the cup which glorified God was a bitter one for Sharlene Bosma. No doubt, if she had been given the option, she might have chosen to pass. The death of one's spouse is a bitter cup indeed. It is difficult to say whether it is a harder cup to drink from early in the marriage when the honeymoon is not yet over, or later in the marriage when a spouse has become more familiar than one's own right hand. All of us who are married know that we will one day have to drink from that cup and we fear it. Or at least, I do.

There are other cups too, which might come our way. Some are forced to drink from the cup of infertility. The bitterness of that one, unfortunately, takes a long time to pass. It is especially difficult if one is in a community where there are many babies. The aftertaste returns with each family get together. I will not taste this cup but I know those who have. There is no advice I can give to make the experience sweeter. I can only stand silently by, offering a shoulder or an ear.

Others drink the cup of a degenerate spouse or wandering child. Those to whom this cup is given often have to drink it alone, yet still somehow in full view of their brothers and sisters. Help is rare and so this cup frequently has a partner: the judgment of the ignorant. What many need is someone to shield them from that second cup, someone to take the brutal blows of well-intentioned friends so they can drink in peace.

I am sure I could think of other trials, big and small, to illustrate the point. As Christians, we readily agree that all of these bitter cups are intended to shape our character, to purge us of sin, to bring us closer to God. We rejoice when we see God glorified. We look at the pain of another and are able to objectively see when good is being done. However, it is crucial to keep in mind that we are only objective because, at that moment, it is not our pain. When we have to drink our own bitter cup, it is much harder to say "Thy will be done, Lord." We'd all rather let the cup pass. We all flinch.

And it is hard not to.

To be willing to be purged is a hard thing. It takes many years of sanctification and even at the end of one's life I have no doubt that many of us will wish we could have passed on this cup or that one. It won't be until we stand before God that we see what purpose those trials truly served.

Motion 312 and Rona Ambrose

2012-09-28T13:30:00.000-04:00

It has recently been suggested by some groups that Conservative MP Rona Ambrose ought to resign from her position as the Minister of State for Status of Women Canada. Ostensibly, the reason for this suggestion is that her vote in support of Motion 312 is necessarily "anti-woman." This post is not really about abortion, but about the sentiment expressed above. Should Minister Ambrose really resign? Was her vote necessarily "anti-woman?" Did her position as he Minister of State for Status of Women require that she vote against Motion 312? I'd like to look at Motion 312:

That a special committee of the House be appointed and directed to review the declaration in Subsection 223(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada which states that a child becomes a human being only at the moment of complete birth and to answer the questions hereinafter set forth; that the membership of the special committee consist of twelve members which shall include seven members from the government party, four members from the Official Opposition and one member from the Liberal Party, provided that the Chair shall be from the government party; that the members to serve on the said committee be appointed by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and the membership report of the special committee be presented to the House no later than 20 sitting days after the adoption of this motion; that substitutions to the membership of the special committee be allowed, if required, in the manner provided by Standing Order 114(2); that the special committee have all the powers of a Standing Committee as provided in the Standing Orders; and that the special committee present its final report to the House of Commons within 10 months after the adoption of this motion with answers to the following questions, (i) what medical evidence exists to demonstrate that a child is or is not a human being before the moment of complete birth?, (ii) is the preponderance of medical evidence consistent with the declaration in Subsection 223(1) that a child is only a human being at the moment of complete birth?, (iii)what are the legal impact and consequences of Subsection 223(1) on the fundamental human rights of a child before the moment of complete birth?, (iv)what are the options available to Parliament in the exercise of its legislative authority in accordance with the Constitution and decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada to affirm, amend, or replace Subsection 223(1)?

Notice what Motion 312 sets forth. It requests that a special committee be appointed to examine the question of whether or not an unborn child is, in fact, a human being. It requests that medical evidence be examined, that any legal ramifications be examined and discussed and that Parliament consider what its options are with respect to Subsection 223(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada. Notice what Motion 312 does not say. It does not call into question the rights of women. It does not even bring up the question of abortion, though certainly that question would come up if the motion had passed. And yet, we are expected to accept the argument that a support of the motion is necessarily "anti-woman" and therefore something to be ashamed of.

I am curious, when did the discussion of difficult topics become "anti-women?" The discussion surrounding abortion is quite complex, dealing with the intersecting rights of both women and their infants, and there are many positions which ought to be considered. Framing the discussion as merely a "anti-choice/pro-life versus pro-abortion/pro-choice" is simply flawed. The issues of sexuality and abuse (especially violence during pregnancy) also run in tandem with the issue of abortion. If, as a nation, we want to take women's issues seriously, then I do not see how we can possibly fail to discuss something as deeply relevant to women as abortion.
To be sure, the discussion will be difficult. However, I am of the opinion that there is no need to fear a difficult conversation. Indeed, I would argue that strong-minded women desire such conversations. They are not afraid of medical facts or of having their opinions examined. An argument, if it is true, will withstand any battering a lie might give it. As Churchill said "The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is."

I would suggest that the demand that Minister Ambrose resign is problematic for feminists. On a more personal level, I find the suggestion insulting. Canadians, be they male or female, vote for those individuals we think will best represent us. We do that by considering both the individual's personal views and also the party's position. If someone is voted into a particular office, then Canadians expect them to act on the principles that they were voted in on. We do not tell our politicians, regardless of the party they run for, that they must for some unthinkable reason, leave their principles at the door. (And, in case you are wondering, this is also why I do not approve of the party whip. I understand why it exists, but I believe it to be wrong.) One cannot embrace democracy and stifle it at the same time. How can women on the one hand desire greater representation in Parliament, while at the same time insisting that the views these elected women espouse should conform to their own opinions? Do you require men to hold your opinions? Do you insist that they resign when they do not? Is this not hypocritical? Women do not all hold the same views on any subject and more women in Parliament will necessarily mean a greater diversity of opinion. This is something to be embraced, not feared.

Declaring the glory of God

2012-06-22T09:57:00.003-04:00

"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they reveal knowledge.
They have no speech, they use no words; no sound is heard from them.
Yet their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world. "
Psalm 19:1-4

On Friday, June 15th, Nik Wallenda made world history by crossing the Niagara Falls on a tight rope wire. I had the good fortune to watch the event on tv. A crowd of over 100,000 people were gathered on the Canadian side of the Falls and, according to Niagara this Week, an estimated 18 million people tuned in to watch it on television. According to the same paper the "coverage of his watch featured snippets of the back and forth between father and son, including Wallenda thanking Jesus several times."
Consider that, for a moment.
One night, 18 million people watched a man do what he was created to do, praising God every step of the way.
A more perfect testimony to the power of the Holy Spirit, I cannot think of.
It was, in so many respects, a total body experience of the power and presence of God.
As a child I had the opportunity to see Tino Wallenda and his family at a church outreach. Yes, it really was a sort of highwire evangelism. My understanding is that Tino is now involved in a prison ministry. Without a doubt, this is a different approach to evangelism, but God doesn't call everyone to be a preacher.
He does, however, call all of us to give glory to Him and spread the Gospel through whatever means we have available to us. He also calls us to live with a heart if thanksgiving... all the time.
And so, because of one family's commitment to obey Him, 18 million people saw a man thanking God publicly for an experience like no other. To experience something like walking over the Falls is a great gift. But, to experience it knowing Who made the Falls, Who is giving you this experience, and Who deserves your praise and thanks is even greater.
I am thankful that God places people like the Wallenda's in this world. Much like Eric Liddle, Nik Wallenda feels God's pleasure when he does what he has been created to do, and he responds out of that sense.
If 18 million people had a window into my life for half an hour, would they see the same thankfulness? Would they see me glorifying God? Sometimes, I am not so sure. There are many days where I can barely squeeze out a drop of contentment from my soul, much less thankfulness. Thankfulness becomes not so much the immediate, heartfelt reaction I would like it to be, but a mental discipline. It is difficult to give thanks while cleaning out a not-quite-three-year old's underwear. It certainly doesn't rank with crossing Niagara Falls.
But, this is my life. I am at home with four children, not necessarily doing what I would like but instead doing what I am called. This too brings glory to God.

It's a beautiful day!

2012-05-11T09:46:00.001-04:00

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.... And God saw that it was good. " Genesis 1

"He alone stretches out the heavens
and treads on the waves of the sea.
He is the Maker of the Bear[a] and Orion,
the Pleiades and the constellations of the south.
He performs wonders that cannot be fathomed,
miracles that cannot be counted. " Job 9

Today is a beautiful day. Spring is arguably my favorite season. It is so refreshing, especially after being inside for most of the winter... even when a winter is relatively mild. Everything about it makes me feel refreshed and blessed. Gratitude comes easily on days like today.

Returning from a long hiatus

2012-05-10T08:56:00.003-04:00

As you can see, I am once again making a concerted effort to revive my blog. Once upon a time, it was a great outlet for all of my thoughts. Bear with me as I take some time to update the look. It would seem I am limited to background images of only 300K.

Why now?
Well, this is why.
I came across this a few days ago, as a result of the Desiring God feed on Facebook. I was incredibly moved by this couple's story. I was humbled by the realization of my own selfishness, by my own tendency to wallow in negativity despite the fact my life really is not all that difficult. I have so many opportunities to give glory to God, and I sadly admit that I have too often let them pass me by.

It's a girl!

2011-03-15T19:40:00.001-04:00

Timea Elizabeth vanHooydonk was born on Tuesday, March 2, 2011.
My smallest, she weighed 7lbs 15oz, and was 20" long.
God has greatly blessed our family.

Liberal/NDP merger?

2010-06-09T10:36:00.003-04:00

This just in from the CBC:

Senior insiders with the federal Liberals and New Democrats have been holding secret talks about the possibility of merging their parties to form a new entity to take on the Conservatives, CBC News has learned...
The new party would possibly be named the Liberal Democrats...

So, who thinks it will actually happen?
Not I, said the fly.
On the upside, the Liberals must be concerned about their ability to win the next election if they are trying to absorb the NDP's voters.

LabourAndRest.com

2010-04-27T13:53:00.003-04:00

LabourAndRest.com is a new internet directory serving the Christian community. Our goal is to bring Christians together where we can support each other, readily and cheerfully employing our gifts for the advantage of our fellow believers. Use this directory to hire a fellow Christian, or to find services that you require. We also have a section in the directory devoted to Christian education.
In addition to listing businesses, we also offer Books, Music and Movies.
Find us on Facebook!

Catching up... and the Boissoin case

2009-12-18T08:41:00.003-05:00

I am so far behind, it's almost laughable!
I have been having a fascinating conversation on Facebook about global warming. I hope to post it here sometime in the near future.

As most are aware by now, the ruling against Stephen Boissoin was over-turned a short time ago. Although this is something of a victory for free speech, I wasn't going to post about it due to time constraints.
We all know it was over-turned.
Great.
Life goes on.
And then I received the following letter in my email this morning.
Stephen Boissoin challenges Michael Coren to public debate
Really?
The text of the letter follows:

Michael Coren has crossed the line and I challenge him to a public debate on the many ways that Christians can and should interact with their post-modern post-church culture (both believer and non) without compromising the ethic as outlined within scripture.
CTSTV
Over the last year I have listened to Michael Coren subtly and now forthrightly discredit me on the air. His recent comments were over the top and outright disrespectful for one Christian to say about another, especially during such a sensitive time for practising Christians within our culture.
Throughout the last seven-plus years I have had amazing opportunities in both Canada and the United States to explain the context of my letter and God’s love for all, including homosexuals. Coren’s comments were attacking and outright arrogant and are a clear abuse of the fact that he has his own show.
I respectfully request an opportunity to defend myself and my opinion in front of Michael Coren perhaps on a show that discusses ways that a Christian can/should interact/communicate with our post-modern/post-church culture. I would love to do so with a respectful host such as Richard Landau. That is unless Coren is too cowardly to do so with the likes of us, and instead chooses to continue his cowardly shots a me while hiding behind his personal pulpit. If you are going to attack a person or their position, then have the integrity to do it face to face.
Listen to his recent comments and ask yourself how you would feel.
I am available for Calgary or Ontario (I am in Ontario from Dec 26 to Jan 4).
My email to Michael reads as follows:
Michael,
I too have analyzed many of the comments that you have made over the last year in regards to my case and, in general, on your opinion about how a Christian should communicate. Personally, I believe that you come across as an arrogant a** who has very little understanding of what does and does not damage Christianity. Your OVER (key word) intellectualization about how one is to communicate certain biblical truths is inconsistent with biblical teaching, the context of my letter and me as a Christian. I have bit my tongue until now because I had thought we were on the same team but I see now that your version of Christianity is border-lining on being so seeker-sensitive that is does a disservice to Christendom.
It is truly people like you within Christendom who assume they accomplish much for the Lord - strike that - for Christians, but actually contribute to keeping the masses stagnant. Like it or not, you do more to encourage secular humanism than the true faith and life we are called to, brother. Although causing offense is not our mandate, Jesus Himself said many would hate us because of Him (He and what he stood for - all inclusively.) Offense is at times what drives many to consider and investigate "The Why," even while in a state of rebellion. Offense is often the instigator that begins the process that leads to change and repentance. I have seen this over and over while evangelizing to thousands of youth and young adults.
Keeping my letter in context…it was partly in response to a teacher (the actual complainant) bringing a gay minister into my son’s school to teach the pro-homosexual interpretation of the Bible without inviting any other viewpoint for balance. Plus, the Alberta Human Rights Commission was funding an Alberta gay organization that had a youth-focused initiative that had the following as a foundational statement, "Homosexuality is normal, necessary, acceptable and productive and has been for thousands of years."
I have received thousands of emails from Christians (in tune with scripture and the Spirit) who understood the context of my letter and have shared how this situation has educated them and encouraged their faith. I have also had a chance to speak to hundreds of homosexuals who email or call me to discuss the letter. We have even met in person on more occassions than I can recall. In each instance, I have shared the immense love of God for them and His salvation wrought on their behalf. In every situation they have left considering me a new friend.
When one weighs the damage that the gay agenda has contributed to the demise of youth culture against the wording in my letter, only then can the true intent and perspective of my opinion be understood. When were you last involved with youth/young adult ministry in a hyper pro-gay culture Michael or have seen first-hand the damage it causes?
I request that you and I meet in person on a taped show where we can have a real (respectful) debate on this very issue. I think that you will discover that I am a little more in tune with what is going on than the average youth pastor (which I was not) and yourself. Not to do so proves one thing, that you choose to remain a coward behind your personal pulpit while taking shots at a brother in Christ who cannot defend himself.
Sincerely,
Stephen Boissoin

Interesting that he calls his request "respectful" while also calling Coren a coward.

I hope there is a debate.
Let me remind you of Boissoin's position on the use of Scripture:
My open letter and comments
The answer Ruth is that not in all cases does a Christian have to, or benefit from, quoting scripture. Though scripture is the basis of our lives as Christians, it is not in every case some magic ingredient that alone convicts or instructs the target audience when spoken or read. ... That letter intentionally did not include scripture.
That's right.
In his own words.
Intentionally
did NOT
include Scripture.

So, for all those who bend over backwards to argue that Boissoin faced some sort of horrible persecution on account of his beliefs as a Christian, I have a question.
How can that possibly be true if he DELIBERATELY excluded the very source and authority for our beliefs?

It's a Boy!

2009-07-21T19:35:00.000-04:00

Micah Joel vanHooydonk was born July 18, 2009 at 12:11am. Weighing 9lbs 1oz, measuring 21.5" long, his labour was equal to my previous two combined! Having spent a mere 6 hours in labour with Eden and about 4 hours in labour with Isaac, both I and the midwives expected another quick labour. In fact, we had even made back up plans for a home birth.
How wrong we were! It's almost laughable now!
Instead of a quick delivery, my labour was just over 10 hours long. Already hooked up to an IV full of antibiotics for GBS (my first time with GBS by the way), inefficient contractions produced almost no result after about 6 hours and I was hooked up to an oxytocin drip. At the advice of both the midwife and doctor, I was also given an epidural to help me manage the amplified contractions. Generally speaking, I am not in favour of an epidural. However, as the epidural started to wear off, I began to feel the contractions, and I am glad I followed the advice of the midwife and doctor.
Pushing still hurt.
On the upside, I pushed for less than 3 minutes.
It would seem once he was ready to come, out he flew.
As a result of everything, instead of going home after my usual three hours, I had to stay for a full 12 hours.
I have come to the conclusion that up until Saturday, I have obviously been spoiled.
On the upside, I had virtually no post-partum. Not even a little bit. Given all the stress leading up to the birth, I laughed with my midwife that I must have had my baby blues before Micah was born, instead of after.

Grieving for Saints

2009-02-23T15:34:00.000-05:00

Precious in the sight of the LORD is the death of his saints.
- Psalm 116:15

The past month or two has given me a great deal to think about. About a month ago, Oma Vyuk passed away. Then last week, a young lady named Katelyn Muir departed, after battling cancer for many years. Despite the great difference in their ages, both of these women were a testimony to the power of God in the lives of believers and I had enormous respect for them. Both left this world glorifying God, and even their funerals bore witness to God's never-ending love and grace.
As I said to my husband, as a Christian that is how you want to go. I long for my own funeral to be just as God-centered, that the words "Repent and believe for the Kingdom of God is at hand. (Mark 1:15)" may be heard by all, just as they have been in recent months. Like many others, "I eagerly expect and hope that I will in no way be ashamed, but will have sufficient courage so that now as always Christ will be exalted in my body, whether by life or by death." (Phil. 1:20) I long to stand before God and hear those words "Well done, good and faithful servant."(Matt. 25:21)
Still, what about those who are left behind?
Unlike the scene in Pilgrim's Progress, most Christians do not get to journey across the Jordan side by side with their good friend Hopeful. In fact, that experience is exceedingly rare. Instead, Hopeful must stand at the edge of the water, crying out to his friend "Be of good cheer.. the bottom is good... these troubles and distresses that you go through in these waters are no sign that God hath forsaken you but are sent to try you whether you will call to mind that which heretofore you have received of His goodness and live upon Him in your distresses." Furthermore, Hopeful is often the one left behind to comfort those who must also watch Christian depart, and this is not always an easy task. However, we are reminded of the words of Paul who says "...We do not want you to grieve like the rest of men, who have no hope. (1 Thess. 4:13)"
Notice he does not say we don't grieve at all. We do grieve. We just do it differently.
St. Augustine wrote the following words when he was reflecting on the death of his mother Monica, a woman he considered to be most Godly. I read this passage long before either funeral, and was immediately moved both by the beautiful language employed and by Augustine's frank description of his own sorrow and how he turned to the Lord in his grief. This passage is perhaps one of the most beautiful examples of a Christian grieving in hope that I have ever had the pleasure of reading.

I closed her eyes and an overwhelming grief welled into my heart and was about to flow forth in a flood of tears. But at the same time under a powerful act of mental control my eyes held back the flood and it dried up. The inward struggle put me into great agony. Then when she breathed her last [my son] cried out in sorrow... We did not think it right to celebrate the funeral with tearful dirges and lamentations... My mother's dying meant neither that her state was miserable, nor that she was suffering extinction. We were confident of this because of the evidence of her virtuous life, her faith unfeigned, and reasons of which we felt certain.
Why then did I suffer sharp pangs of inward grief? It must have been the fresh wound cause by the break in habit formed by our living together, a very affectionate and precious bond suddenly torn apart. I was glad indeed to have her testimony when in that last sickness she responded to my attentions... And yet, my God our Maker, what comparison can there be between the respect with which I deferred to her and the service she rendered me? Now that I had lost the immense support she gave, my soul was wounded, and my life as it were torn to pieces, since my life and hers had become a single thing.
After [my son's] tears had been checked [a friend] took up the Psalter and began to chant a Psalm. The entire household responded to him "I will sing of your mercy and judgment, Lord..."
I was glad to weep before You about her and for her, about myself and for myself. Now I let flow the tears which I had held back so they ran as freely as they wished. My heart rested upon them, and it reclined upon them because it was Your ears that were there..."

Rest in Peace Katelyn Muir

2009-02-23T12:16:00.001-05:00

MUIR, Katelyn - In the early hours of the morning of February 18th, 2009, Katelyn Joyce Jacqueline Muir was called from this life into the hands of her Father in heaven after a long struggle against cancer. She died peacefully surrounded by her family. She will be dearly missed by her loving mother Carolyn Muir (nee Smink) and her father Bill Muir. She leaves behind her devoted brother and sisters, Adam, Bethany and Janelle Muir and her grandparents William and Joyce Muir and Geurt and Florence Smink. She will be mourned by her extended family and many friends. The visitation is scheduled for Thursday, February 19th 2-4 and 7-9 pm at the Trinity Orthodox Reformed Church, 99 Scott St. St. Catharines, with the memorial service to be held at 11:00 am Friday, February 20th at the Trinity church. In lieu of flowers donations can be made to the Heritage Christian High School (cheques to be made out to the N.R.C.E.A.) and may be done through the offices of HULSE & ENGLISH FUNERAL HOME & CHAPEL

Federal Budget Passes

2009-02-03T21:10:00.002-05:00

From CTV:

The federal budget introduced late last month by Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservative government passed in the House of Commons on Tuesday night, by a vote of 211 to 91.

Was there ever any doubt?

Rest in Peace Oma Vuyk

2009-02-02T17:12:00.005-05:00

On Friday morning, January 16, 2009, Neeltje Vuyk, aged 85 years, passed away peacefully at the St. Catharines General Hospital. The family takes comfort in knowing that she is with her Heavenly Father. Wife of the late Johannes Vuyk. The family received friends at Immanuel Orthodox Reformed Church in Jordan on Monday, January 19th at2-4 and 7-9 pm. Funeral Service was held at the same location on Tuesday, January 20th at 11 am. If desired memorial donations may be made to Heritage Christian School or the charity of choice.

The "Conservative" Budget

2009-01-27T16:43:00.005-05:00

Hmm.
Lots of spending.
Is such a massive deficit necessary? My feeling is no, but only time will tell. On the upside, we'll be getting a tax cut this year.
CTV has the full text of Flaherty's budget speech.
From the Globe & Mail
Canada.com
The National Post also has in depth coverage.

A few thoughts:
I expect the Liberals to support the budget. If they don't, then at the very least I expect them to race as far away from the coalition as they possibly can before election day.
I am not at all surprised that Layton vowed to vote against the budget regardless of what it contained.
According to the Globe, Ignatieff will formally announce his decision on whether or not to support the budget tomorrow morning. A media briefing has been scheduled for 5:15PM today in the House of Commons foyer. No doubt there will be much speculation as to what tomorrow will bring. But, as I have previously said, my money is on a support of the budget, or at least a total disavowal of the coalition.

The Prime Minister As First Servant

2008-12-08T21:34:00.001-05:00

Like most Canadians, this weekend I spent a great deal of time reflecting on what happened in Ottawa last week. Pick any poll you like. The result of the coalition has been nothing short of a disaster for the Liberals. The most forgiving poll I saw pegged them at 22% popularity, a 2% drop from election day. Others put them at only 20%. The NDP suffered even worse, showing between a 4-8% drop in support. The Conservatives are largely up, showing anywhere between 44% to a staggering 51% of the population supporting them.
But, truth be told, I have spent less time thinking about polls and more time reflecting on a comment my mom made. The Prime Minister of Canada is literally the "First Servant." He is a servant first to God, then to Queen, then to country, that is we the people.
How much of what has happened this past week really makes one think of servanthood?
Now, let me be clear. I do actually think Harper had the right idea when he proposed to cut the $1.95 per vote tax subsidy. But, in terms of the entire situation, is one really able to look at Parliament and say "Yes, these people serve us?"
I suspect most people would say no.
There are, of course, individual MP's who work very hard for their constituents. They are people of good, upstanding moral character who want to do what is right. But let's be honest, these people are few and far between. Certainly, as a whole, there is no party which truly puts the concept of servanthood into practice. There is no one who esteems all others better than themselves. There is no one who will give way, for the good of the whole.
Certainly, the concept of servanthood was nowhere to be found in Dion's disgraceful address to the nation, which was late, of poor quality and quite literally featured "Hot Air."
This week past, not one person offered a soft answer to turn away anger. (Proverbs 15:1) Instead, everyone preferred to quarrel, showing their love for sin (Proverbs 17:19). Not one person had the wits, or rather the Spirit, to recognize that it is a man's honour to avoid arguments and only fools stir up dissent. (Proverbs 20:3)
After his meeting with the Governor General, Harper invited the Opposition parties to meet with him and submit their suggestions for the upcoming budget. My hope is that this offer is sincere, and that the leaders of the Opposition Parties will take it as such. My hope is that they will drop their argument and get back to work for the good of those they govern.
There is no authority except that which God establishes (Romans 13:1). Those in authority must remember, however, that they are also under authority. Not only that, but they will one day be called to account for what they have done with what God has given them. Of anyone who has ever lived, Christ undoubtedly had the most authority of all.
And yet, look at how different His behaviour was.

Parliament Prorogued

2008-12-04T11:46:00.001-05:00

The Governor General has agreed to prorogue Parliament until January.
Let's see if the coalition can hold it together until then.
I have my doubts.

An Open Letter to Her Excellency, the Right Hon. Michaëlle Jean

2008-12-02T19:58:00.000-05:00

December 2, 2008

Her Excellency the Right Honourable Michaëlle Jean, C.C., C.M.M., C.O.M., C.D.
Governor General of Canada

Your Excellency:

I am writing to you today to express my concerns regarding the impending attempt by the Opposition parties to override the results of the 40th General Election, which occurred on October 14th.

In that election, I exercised my democratic right and elected a Conservative Member of Parliament, and in so doing, expressed my opinion that The Right Honourable Stephen Harper was the best person to lead this country. Over 5,000,000 of my fellow countrymen agreed, and on election day we said that Mr. Harper deserved a stronger mandate to govern. Granted, he was only given a minority, but it was a stronger minority nonetheless.

Since that election however, it has become clear that the Opposition Parties never had any intention of co-operating with the government, neither did they have any intention of respecting the will of the Canadian people. Despite the assertions of Mr. Layton today in Question Period, the Canadian people did not give the Opposition Parties a mandate to govern as a combined force. Indeed, the Canadian people gave the Opposition parties no mandate whatsoever. That is why they make up the Opposition.

If the Liberals and NDP combined had more seats then the Conservatives, then perhaps we could make an argument in favour of their coalition. As it stands, there is simply no historical precedent for any Commonwealth government to form a coalition with less seats than the standing government. Their coalition can only survive with the support of the Bloc on all confidence matters. While it is true that the Bloc have agreed to give them this support for the period of 18 months, it must be noted that the Bloc exists to facilitate the sovereigntist movement in Quebec. When making decisions, their sole consideration is what will benefit Quebec. Therefore they cannot be expected to make decisions that will benefit the entire country.

I respectfully ask you either to prorogue this session of Parliament or call an immediate election. It is not up to elected and non-elected individuals to make backroom deals. While the accord may be legal and constitutional, it is also completely anti-democractic. On a matter of this importance, the voice of the Canadian people must be heard.

Sincerely,

Mrs. Ruth vanHooydonk

(h/t to Sandy for giving me the idea. The only email addresses I have are info@gg.ca and smcook@gg.ca (the Governor General's assistant). If anyone is interested, there is also the option to call the Secretary to the Governor General (Shelia-Marie Cook): 613-993-0259, although I am sure their phones have been ringing off the hook.)

Canadians Against a Liberal/NDP Coalition Gov't

2008-12-02T16:24:00.000-05:00

There is a new group on Facebook dedicated to fighting the coalition: Canadians Against a Liberal/NDP Coalition Gov't. At the time of this post, there were about 16,000 members.
If you are a Canadian with strong feelings against this coalition, I invite you to join.

What Others are Saying

2008-12-02T10:36:00.002-05:00

Darryl Wolk has this excellent summary of the media reaction to the coalition. There are a lot of links here to a variety of articles, so I recommend checking it out.

Letter to Coalition Leaders from a Canadian

2008-12-01T17:42:00.001-05:00

My House

Monday, December 1, 2008

To those presuming to be my fellows, although admittedly you are citizens of my country,

Canada is doing very well in the midst of a global economic crisis. Since the recent federal election, it has become clear that the Opposition Parties never had any intention of co-operating with the government that was legally elected by the Canadian people. Therefore, a select few erroneously believe they have the right to seize power, form a new Government and implement a plan that the majority of Canadians did not vote for.

The contrast between the behaviour of the Opposition party leaders and the common action practices of all other Western democracies is striking. I will not accept this.

A majority of Canadians did not vote for the Liberals. Neither did they vote for the NDP or the Bloc. Indeed, not a single Canadian voted for a coalition on October 14, 2008.

In light of the critical situation facing our citizens, and the Oppositions unwillingness to get back to work, and work towards the true interests of Canadians, I am resolved to protest this new coalition.

Today I respectfully request that the Governor General, as soon as the appropriate opportunity arises, should force the Opposition to get back to work and stop playing games.

Respectfully,

Mrs. R. vanHooydonk

Voter

Letter to Canadians from coalition leaders

2008-12-01T17:31:00.001-05:00

Liberal Party Press Office

New Democratic Party Press Office

Bloc Québécois Press Office

Monday, December 1, 2008

To our fellow citizens,

Canada is facing a global economic crisis. Since the recent federal election, it has become clear that the government headed by Stephen Harper has no plan, no competence and, no will to effectively address this crisis. Therefore, the majority of Parliament has lost confidence in Mr. Harper's government, and believes that the formation of a new Government that will effectively, prudently, promptly and competently address these critical economic times is necessary.

The contrast between the inaction of Mr. Harper's government and the common action taken by all other Western democracies is striking. We cannot accept this.

A majority of Canadians and Quebecers voted for our parties on October 14, 2008. Our Members of Parliament make up 55 per cent of the House of Commons.

In light of the critical situation facing our citizens, and the Harper government's unwillingness and inability to address the crisis, we are resolved to support a new government that will address the interests of the people.

Today we respectfully inform the Governor General that, as soon as the appropriate opportunity arises, she should call on the Leader of the Official Opposition to form a new government, supported as set out in the accompanying accords by all three of our parties.

Respectfully,

Hon. Stéphane Dion Leader,

the Liberal Party of Canada

Hon. Jack Layton Leader,

the New Democratic Party of Canada

Gilles Duceppe Leader,

the Bloc Québécois

Coalition of the Willing... to Take Power, that is...

2008-12-01T12:03:00.004-05:00

Some time ago, there was talk of a coalition government, should the Conservatives fail. I didn't really take those stories seriously. After all, the Canadian people returned the Conservatives to power with a strengthened mandate. It was still a minority, but it was a strengthened minority nonetheless. The Conservatives had successfully governed the smallest minority in history for the longest period of time, and since the Liberals will be electing a new leader in May, threats of a coalition didn't seem plausible.
At least not until last night.
A recently recorded conference call clearly shows the NDP never had any intention of respecting the will of the Canadian people. They never had any intention of working with the government to achieve what is best for the Canadian people. Everything Layton has ever said about the importance of "getting back to work" and working hard for the Canadian people is a lie. They have only ever been concerned with achieving power, even if it takes the separatist Bloc to do it.
No doubt Duceppe is laughing all the way to the bank.
Now it seems the Liberals are in bed with this sordid plan, though admittedly not everyone is comfortable with the idea of the separatists being the ones to sustain their bid for power. Let's face it; any Liberal-NDP coalition will be smaller than the current Conservative government which consists of 143 seats. Together, the Liberals and NDP will only have 114 seats. And yet, in their arrogance, they think they represent more of the Canadian people than the government we actually elected!
Any member of the Liberal or NDP parties ought to be ashamed of this latest development. As this article rightly points out, if this matter is so urgent, then call another election and let the voters decide. To simply seize power when you were not elected and can't even form a government larger than the current one is unacceptable.
If you are a Liberal or NDP MP and you do not approve of this plan, then may I suggest that now is the time for action. Cross the floor. Refuse to sit with these people who warp the meaning of democracy. Don't show up for the confidence vote on December 8th. Do whatever it takes to get the point across. Respect the wishes of Canadians. Do not participate in this plot.
If you are a part of this plan, shame on you! Govern by the mandate the people gave you... which is none... or get out! This is a democracy, and you are to respect the people who pay your salaries!

Conservative Policy Convention

2008-11-17T21:15:00.003-05:00

I haven't seen a copy of the new Conservative Party Policy. I suspect it will be a few days before it is released on their website.
Just a few notes on important policies that were passed:
Policy P-119, the resolution on Human Trafficking unanimously passed. It is now official Conservative Party policy to support legislation that would work to combat human trafficking. The proposal is worded as follows: The Conservative Party believes the government should take strong action to combat human trafficking and should take a lead in developing international agreements and protocols against human trafficking.
Policy P-203, on the Human Rights Commission passed. It is now official Conservative Party policy to support legislation that would remove authority from Human Rights Commissions to use Section 13.1 of the Canadian Human Rights Act to persecute free speech. This is an excellent resolution. The HRC's have long over-stepped their bounds. We already have laws governing hate speech and the HRC's have a record of punishing individuals for expressing legitimate, albeit controversial and sometimes unpleasant, views. The proposal is worded as follows: The Conservative Party supports legislation to remove authority from the Canadian Human Rights Commission and Tribunal to regulate, receive, investigate or adjudicate complaints related to Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.
Policy P-207 the resolution on protecting pregnant women and their unborn children, passed. This resolution was hotly debated, as some wrongly feel it could open a debate on abortion. Nevertheless, it is now official Conservative Party policy to support legislation that would increase penalties against those that harm an unborn child while attacking its mother. The resolution is worded as: The Conservative Party supports legislation to ensure that individuals who commit violence against a pregnant woman would face additional charges if her unborn child was killed or injured during the commission of a crime against the mother.
Policy P-211, a policy regarding the rights of religious institutions with respect to marriage, passed. The policy is worded as follows: The Conservative Party believes that Parliament, through a free vote, and not the courts should determine the definition of marriage. The Conservative Party believes that religious organizations should not be forced to perform marriages which are against their beliefs. The Conservative Party opposes polygamy.
Policy P-305, a resolution promoting income splitting for families of children under seven, passed. This is an important step forward for single income families, where one parent chooses to stay at home. The proposal is worded as follows: The Conservative Party believes the government should amend the Income Tax Act to eliminate all tax disadvantages to families including those who care for children at home and to recognize the economic value of stay at home parents by introducing tax fairness measures such as income splitting for couples with children.
A number of policies on crime were also passed.

List of votes on policy resolutions (ht: Stephen Taylor)
Dr. Roy's thoughts on the Convention
View from the Right
The Trusty Tory
Canadian Press
CTV
Macleans
National Newswatch