In twelve concise pages, Williamson presents a brief but precise working definition of the RPW based on Scripture, the writings of Calvin and the way it has been understood by the Presbyterian and Reformed Churches.  He rightfully bemoans the fact, that much of what constitutes worship today is simply an application of human preference over and against the clear teachings of Scripture. Williamson also closes with a modest proposal for churches to implement some minor course adjustments to steer the Church back towards its fidelity to its Lord and Savior.

It is by no means the final word, but it does serve to introduce the topic in an easily digestible format. For those who might be wondering exactly what is meant by the Regulative Principle of Worship, this would be a good starting point for further study.

The Regulative Principle of Worship: A paper presented at the 2001 International Conference of Reformed Churches - By G.Williamson

We are closing at Noon on December 24, 2009 and will reopen on Monday January 4, 2010. Should you have any questions or concerns, you can leave a voice mail message by calling 1-800-563-3529 and press ext. 22 or 23 or drop us an email info@sola-scriptura.ca

This morning is the first morning that we could access our blog roll to inform you of the glitch. We apologize for the inconvenience and assure all of you that the site is 80% repaired. We should be completely up and running by close of business today.

Gone to the dogs: LA church starts pet service

We also had the privilege of Roger Bergs orchestrating our music program once again. Many of you will recognize Roger as the one who usually helps us in Toronto. He has graciously given of his time to round out London with his expertise in hymnody.

We thank all who helped out, especially Doug McGuire and family. Doug has recently moved to St. Thomas and is pastoring in a local congregation. He and his family were wonderful and tireless servants. They offered to step in and handle our break times. Thank you Doug for helping out.

President Obama’s desire is to control individual liberty under the guise of a modified health care system. We have a health care system in Canada that is seriously flawed but the overall ethos is at least noble. It does have the best intentions of Canadians at heart but is mired by a malaise that comes with anything that is driven by beauracrats rather than the free market. After having seen some key portions of Obama’s plan, the dignity of being an image bearer of God has been reduced to that of a factor of production. Everyone knows that individual cost of health care escalates during the latter years of life. That is where the bulk of expense comes into play. At least two items of Obama’s plan merit our attention as Christians.

First, after individuals reach their senior years and require expensive surgical care, Obama proposes that a cost benefit analysis be done to see if the money spent to prolong life or improve quality of life best serves the common good. If you are unfortunate enough to be deemed not worthy of saving, then low cost pain management measure may be one’s only method of recourse regardless of ability to pay. You may not be able to opt for private treatment.

Second, and closely related to the first point, is that in addition to controlling the health choices of individuals, there is a  horrific spectre of mandatory  end of life counselling feature in his plan. According to the bill before Congress, individuals would be required to meet with a counselor every five years in order to discuss end of life options. The details of what this counselling would entail has not been published, but it would be safe to assume that at least, the State has a vehicle to explain and justify to individuals why needed but costly treatment is being denied. At worst, it would an indoctrination session to persuade the elderly that they have an obligation to the State to end their lives and eliminate their health care costs from the public coffers. Either way it infringes on individual liberty and places the State in  a godlike status.

Normally, this is not the kind of issue we discuss at Sola Scriptura. Our goal is to promote the Doctrines of Grace and the grand themes of Scripture. However, this issue hilites the stark contrast of worldviews that are at play here. Capitalism has always been vilified as the financial bully that reduces human worth to a line item on a balance sheet. This criticism has not been totally undeserved, but generally western capitalism, through financial prosperity, has given people the freedom and liberty to make their own choices of lifestyle with no reference to any government agency. What this bill does, is reduce human beings to a factor of production that brutalizes human dignity on a national scale by the very government that claims to have the best interests of its citizens at heart. Not since the days of slavery has imageo dei been under such tyrannical assault.

Historically, the Church has always run counter culture in the face of State brutality. It was the early Church that developed the first operation rescue in the Roman Empire. Our early brothers and sisters retrieved abandoned infants that had been placed on road sides to die by their Roman parents. It has been Christians that developed the first hospitals to care for the sick regardless of religious or ethnic stripe. It has been the Church that has been the haven of education and learning developing the University as a place to cultivate the mind.

As ominous as Obama’s plan sounds, this strikes me as an opportunity for the modern Church to take its place in history to run intentionally counter culture in the care of the elderly and the marginalized. As salt and light bearers it will be our privilege and challenge to present some kind of practical alternative that says, all people are created in the likeness of their creator and as such deserve the dignity and respect accorded to us by God almighty. What that alternative will look like should be a subject of much prayer and thoughtful planning.

May the God of all Glory use His Church powerfully in the days ahead as we seek to bring the message of the Gospel to our land.

We are currently working on a booklet that addresses some of the concerns raised in Paul Young’s book.
The Shack: A Critical Review

Bethany CRC hosts conference on addictions featuring Ed Welch October 30-31, 2009

Here is an amazing fact — over 35 years after the legalization of abortion this nation is still deeply divided over the issue.  America has an unsettled conscience on abortion, and this most contentious of moral issues may be further from resolution than at any moment since the Roe v. Wade decision was handed down in 1973.A new Gallup poll tells the story.  The headline of the report from Gallup should encourage pro-life Americans:  “More Americans ‘Pro-Life’ Than ‘Pro-Choice’ for First Time.”  Indeed, 51% of those polled indicated that they are “pro-life” on the issue of abortion.  Prior to this poll, the highest percentage identifying as pro-life was 46%, and that was in August 2001 and May 2002.

Only 42% of respondents identified themselves as “pro-choice.”  And, even as the percentage of those identifying as pro-life grew, the number of Americans who believe that abortion should be legal under all circumstances fell to 23%.  According to the data, 53% of Americans believe that abortion should be legal under some circumstances and 22% believe that abortion should be illegal under all circumstances.  That means that fully 60% of Americans are opposed to removing all legal restriction to abortion — a stunningly large majority.

As the Gallup organization noted, this means that most Americans fall into some middle position on abortion.  As other surveys and polls have made clear, a majority of Americans want some access to legal abortion, but want some forms of abortion and abortions under some circumstances to be illegal.  They also want some abortions to be illegal but they do not want women arrested for seeking or securing an abortion.  They are opposed to the claim that women should have access to abortion for any reason at all, but they are also unclear about what circumstances should make an abortion legal.

In other words, Americans are confused.

The Gallup organization confirmed its findings through additional polling and research.  It is clear that many Americans are rethinking the abortion question, and it is also clear that many Americans hold confused, contradictory, or inconsistent positions on issues related to abortion.

All this points to an unsettled conscience on abortion, and this confusion is perhaps deeper now than at any point since 1973.

Responding to the new data, Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America told The Los Angeles Times:  “I am pretty confident that Americans really don’t want Roe v. Wade overturned.”  Keenan also pointed to recent elections in which pro-choice candidates achieved electoral success, starting with President Barack Obama.

In this context, Kennan’s statement looks quite defensive and pained.  The best she can do is to offer her assurance that “Americans really don’t want Roe v. Wade overturned.”  That is hardly a ringing defense of abortion as a basic right — an argument central to American feminism and to the pro-choice movement throughout recent decades.

On the other hand, Charmaine Yoest, president of Americans United for Life, told the paper: “People are generally pro-life depending on how you ask the question.”  This new poll from Gallup seems to confirm her confidence.  At the same time, her qualification of “depending on how you ask the question” is huge.  Kennan can rightly point to recent elections as evidence for her claim that Americans must not be as pro-life as they think themselves to be.

The elections do seem to demonstrate that the pro-life convictions of many Americans are not well grounded or considered.  While the pro-life movement can take real hope from this new headline, there is clearly much ground yet to be won.  Americans may be squeamish about abortion and, thanks to modern ultrasound technology, they have a genuine concern for the unborn child, but this has not yet translated into a firm and convictional determination to bring the scourge of abortion on demand to an end.

The pro-choice movement can point to the election of President Obama and many other pro-choice candidates, but the movement must be biting its nails over the trend evident in this new poll and similar surveys.  The most ominous trend for the pro-choice movement is the increasingly pro-life character of younger Americans.  As some observers have pointed out, a generation that can see ultrasound images of themselves in their own baby books tends to see abortion for what it is — the killing of a child.

Here is the great quandary for the pro-choice movement:  More than 35 years after Roe v. Wade, they find that abortion is anything but the “settled issue” that some abortion proponents were certain would be the fate of the abortion question soon after 1973.  To the contrary, the pro-choice movement is losing ground, not gaining.  The frustration of pro-choice leaders is starting to show.  They have little reason to be confident.

Abortion remains the greatest scandal confronting the American conscience.  Those of us who yearn for America to return to its senses on this issue can take hope, even as we have much to do.  Rebuilding a Culture of Life is no easy or quick task.  This is one of the greatest civilizational challenges faced by this generation.

America has an unsettled conscience about abortion.  We should be thankful for this fact, but not satisfied.  An unsettled conscience is far better than a conscience settled on the killing of unborn children.

© 2009, All rights reserved, www.AlbertMohler.com