Transparent heart icon with white outline and + sign.

Life's busy, read it when you're ready!

Create a free account to save articles for later, keep track of past articles you’ve read, and receive exclusive access to all RP resources.

White magnifying glass.

Search thousands of RP articles

Equipping Christians to think, speak, and act

Open envelope icon with @ symbol

Get Articles Delivered!

Equipping Christians to think, speak, and act delivered direct to your Inbox!



News, Transgenderism

Parents disrobe to make their point

In what seems to be a bit of a trend, parents have gone to school board meetings and, while presenting to the board, proceeded to disrobe to their underwear or bathing suit. Why? To protest school policies that tell girls they need to be okay with boys in girls’ locker rooms – changing in front of them, and watching them change – when those boys say they are girls.

On September 18, 55-year-old mother Beth Bourne wanted her Davis, California school board to feel some of the discomfort they were forcing on the girls in their schools. So, during the public comment section of the school board meeting she spoke while disrobing to a bikini swimsuit. As the LA Times’ Nathan Solis reported it:

“‘Right now we require our students to undress for PE class, and I’m just going to give you an idea of what that looks like while I undress,’ Bourne said while she stood behind the lectern and removed her shirt…. ‘So right now, this school district is saying that depending on a child’s transgender identity, they could pick which bathroom they want. Right now we have children self-identifying into different bathrooms,’ she said as she removed her pants…”

At that point the board’s vice president gaveled the meeting to recess, making Bourne’s point for her: if the board can’t deal with this discomfort, why are they subjecting girls to it?

Then, in October, a man and two women did the same, undressing to their underwear before changing into other outfits. This time it was in Maine, and the spokesman for the group, Nick Blanchard made sure their point was understood:

“You feel uncomfortable? Because that’s what these young girls feel like when a boy walks into their locker room and starts unchanging in front of them.”

Awkward? Certainly.

But is it a sinful way to make a point? After all, God calls us to modesty (1 Tim. 2:9-10). But God has also used immodesty to make a point, having Isaiah walk around naked (or, like these folk, in no more than his underwear) for three years (Is. 20:2-4). God also calls on us to defend our children and take the hit for them (2 Cor. 12:14, 1 Thess. 2:7-9, John 10:11). The school was set on humiliating children, and these parents were willing to be humiliated instead. That’s admirable, and while neither school seems to have listened, these educators’ lack of concern for their girl athletes was now exposed for all to see. Hopefully these brave parents, and the many more they alerted, took matters even further and pulled their kids out.

Red heart icon with + sign.
Internet, News

Australia and Denmark restrict social media use by children

In at least two western countries, children under the age of 16 will soon be barred from using many social media sites and apps. The Australian government passed the “Online Safety Amendment Act” back in 2024 to raise the age requirement for many popular social media sites from 13 to 16 – that change is scheduled to take effect December 10 of this year. The Australian ban includes nine of the popular, time-wasting and culturally-influential apps: Facebook, X, Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, Threads, Reddit, and Kick. The government can fine companies up to $50 million (Australian) that don’t take “reasonable steps” to remove current accounts and prohibit new ones for children under 16. That’s a hefty penalty, even for these extremely profitable companies. In Denmark, Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen announced similar restrictions in her opening speech to parliament in October of this year. Caroline Stage Olsen, Denmark’s Minister for Digital Affairs, said that 94% of Danish children under the age of 13 have profiles on at least one social medial platform. The legislation still has a few hurdles to cross before becoming law, but indicates a clear turning away from unregulated use of social media by children. The Bible tells us that the primary responsibility for raising children is given to their parents, not to kings or princes or governments. No doubt then, that Christian parents are already seeking to guide and guard their children’s access to internet resources that can be damaging to young hearts and minds. But just like the government bans on liquor, tobacco, and pornography access for children, it does seem appropriate for the State to restrict social media use by youngsters, since, along with the very little good, there can be very much harm that comes from exposure too early to matters inappropriate for children....

Red heart icon with + sign.
News

Peanut allergies plunge … and they could plunge even more

Not that long ago it was thought that young children shouldn’t be exposed to peanuts, to prevent a dangerous reaction. But, as Prov. 18:17 notes, “The first to put forth his case seems right, until someone else steps forward and cross-examines him.” That cross-examination first began in 2015, when a ground-breaking study found that introducing peanuts to young children actually reduced the risk of getting food allergies by about 70 percent or more. In response, many doctors started changing their advice. An Associated Press piece noted that “About 60,000 children have avoided developing peanut allergies after guidance first issued in 2015 upended medical practice by recommending that caregivers introduce the allergen to infants starting as early as four months.” Now a 2025 study has reviewed the data. According to the AP account, peanut allergies in children aged zero to three decreased by more than 40 percent since the recommendations were expanded in 2017. In spite of the findings from the 2015 study, the AP reported that only about 29 per cent of pediatricians and 65 per cent of allergists say they follow the newer guidelines, suggesting that there could have been far fewer allergy cases still if more children were introduced to potential allergens at a younger age. Dr. Derek Chu, Canadian Institutes of Health Research chair in allergy noted to the AP that this guidance extends to all common allergens, including dairy, soy, wheat, egg, shellfish, and nuts....

Red heart icon with + sign.
News

Saturday Selections – Nov. 8, 2025

The baptism rap battle you never knew you needed This is the best of what A.I. can give us. Here's a rapping, axe-playing, Jonathan Edwards rebutting Charles Spurgeon’s case for adult baptism. Hilarious, and downright insightful too. Old earth vs. young: what are the differences between these two views? (10 min. read) Is the earth less than 10,000 years, or older than 4 billion? This comparison and contrast highlights where young earth creationism, old earth theistic evolution, and progressive creationism land on things like: was there death before the Fall? how was Man created? was the Flood global? If  you ask A.I. for marriage advice, it'll probably tell you to get divorced It's vital we understand A.I.'s limitations. What we are getting back from it is oftentimes simply an average of all the answers it finds across the Internet, so if the 'net, as a whole, is wrong about something, that's what you are going to get back. And when it comes to marriage advice, there is a lot of the bad sort. Crime linked to missing dads J. Warner Wallace details here, what can happen when dad disappears: "During my years working the gang detail in Los Angeles County, I met countless young men and women caught up in the world of gangs. Over time, a single theme emerged – one that cut across backgrounds, neighborhoods, and stories. Nearly every gang member I encountered suffered from the same affliction: a profound lack of dad." Stranger things of the OT: Giants "The term 'giant' appears only seven times in most modern translations of these two passages (2 Sam. 21:15–22; 1 Chron. 20:4–8), but in the King James Version it appears over 20 times." (Real Talk recently did an episode that touched on some of the stranger things of the OT too.) Style vs. substance Here's a fantastic musical debate about whether it's most important to say things with flair, or say something important. Or, to let the two combatants frame it: GIRL 1: Who cares if the whole world's watching If you aren't saying something of meaning GIRL 2: Who cares what the crap you're saying If nobody's watching, nobody's hearing I've been involved in 10+ political campaigns, and this struck a chord – I was involved in a Christian Heritage Party campaign where the candidate seemed content to put out important but blandly-presented materials – stuff that got filed into the recycle bin immediately – and I've been part of campaigns where all the candidate was offering was graphically appealing signs and brochures and even swell sounding speeches, but all of which didn't say much of anything at all. They shied away from the real issues our culture is contending with – they refused to talk about God. So, what's the answer then to the style versus substance debate? It's about pairing, not contrasting, the two. God crafted His temple (Ex. 31:1–5), His world (Ps. 19:1), and us too (Ps. 139:13–14) – He is all about style. But what does He use His style to declare? His glory! How's that for substance! ...

Red heart icon with + sign.
News

Government leaves religious and pro-life organizations alone in 2025 budget

Pro-life Christians can breathe a sigh of relief. Actually, you can take two. The 2025 federal budget unveiled on Tuesday leaves the charitable status of religious organizations and pregnancy care centers alone. 2024 – the threat Both of these concerns were raised late in 2024 when the Standing Committee on Finance reported on its pre-budget consultations. This is a standard practice, where the government gives Canadians the opportunity to share what they want to see in the upcoming federal budget. The report made a whopping 462 recommendations, but two caught the eye of pro-life Christians: • Recommendation 429 suggested removing the charitable status of “anti-abortion organizations.” • Recommendation 430 proposed removing charitable status for religious organizations. The latter recommendation came out of left field. Organizations like the BC Humanist Association have long lobbied for the government to give religious activities less time, less money, and less recognition. But no mainstream political party or figure had seriously entertained the idea until this federal finance committee recommendation. Even after this recommendation was made, Karina Gould, the new chair of the Finance Committee, wrote the following to the Canadian Executive Director of the Christian Reformed Church “Charitable status for religious organizations is not under review, and this government has no plans to change that. Any suggestion otherwise is false. We respect the role faith-based organizations play in communities across the country, and religious organizations continue to enjoy charitable status under the same rules that apply to all charities in Canada. There have been no policy or legislative changes proposed that would revoke charitable status from religious groups including churches.” Roots in 2021 The idea of revoking the charitable status of pregnancy care centers, however, has a longer history. In their 2021 election platform, the Liberals explicitly promised to remove the charitable status of “anti-abortion organizations (for example, Crisis Pregnancy Centres).” This recommendation not only betrayed their pro-abortion stance but also accused pro-life organizations of providing: “…dishonest counselling to women about their rights and about the options available to them at all stages of the pregnancy.” Of course, they entirely ignored the material, emotional, and relational assistance these pregnancy care centers provide. Then last fall, the federal government announced its intention to introduce legislation to require pregnancy care centers to either disclose that they do not provide abortions or else lose their charitable tax status. Thankfully, gridlock in Parliament, the resignation of Justin Trudeau as prime minister, and the spring federal election prevented such a bill from being introduced. 2025 and onward These attacks on pregnancy care centers were dropped from the Liberals’ 2025 election platform. Though there is no mention of the revocation of charitable status for religious organizations or “anti-abortion” organizations in the federal budget, and though the current government seems to have different priorities than the last one, this isn’t necessarily the end of the story. Given that tens of millions of Canadians identify as religious and that revoking the charitable status of religious organizations would be a massive departure from four hundred years of charitable status tradition, this change seems unlikely to be implemented in the near future. Not only would this be bad policy, it would also be bad electoral politics for the government. However, the Liberal Party has firmly set its face against the pro-life cause. They’ve done so in every recent vote on abortion legislation, and in the change they made in 2017 to the Canada Summer Jobs program which required applicants to declare support for abortion, and in their continued funding for abortion. So the government may well set pregnancy care centers in their sights again in the coming years. A good test of the government’s intentions will be whether this recommendation reappears in the final consultation report before next year’s budget. We need to continue to remind our Members of Parliament of the benefits that both religious organizations and pregnancy care centers provide, so as to fend off attacks on their charitable status. Levi Minderhoud is a policy analyst for ARPA Canada (ARPACanada.ca)....

Red heart icon with + sign.
News

ARPA condemned in BC legislature

On the very first day of the fall legislative session, British Columbia MLAs debated the “views and policies of Association for Reformed Political Action” for almost an hour. The debate was over a motion tabled by the NDP: “That this House condemns the intolerant views of the Association for Reformed Political Action (ARPA), including its harmful discrimination against transgender people, its belief that homosexuality is ‘immoral’ and its explicit policy goal of restricting abortion access in British Columbia.” The NDP’s motive for the motion seemed to be to condemn the Conservative opposition for attending ARPA’s MLA reception at the BC legislature back in April. However, the debate never talked about the two issues that ARPA specifically raised at that reception: medical gender transitioning for minors, and euthanasia. By what standard? Several NDP, Green, and independent MLAs rose to condemn ARPA’s positions on gender identity, sexual orientation, same-sex marriage, conversion therapy, abortion, IVF, and surrogacy. They argued that ARPA’s views violate various rights and freedoms and run counter to principles of diversity, equity, inclusion, and tolerance. Now, it goes without saying that ARPA – and all Christians – are in favor of all of these things when viewed in a proper way. In fact, a recognition of rights and the practice of tolerance only really arose in the Christian West. What this debate exposed is what happens when these things are unmoored from their Christian anchors and made our ultimate political goals. If the expansion of freedom becomes the most important aim of politics, then medical transitioning for minors makes sense. If diversity is the legislature’s most sacred value, then opposition to gay marriage is indeed out of place. But orthodox Christians know all of these values – rights and freedoms, equity and tolerance – are not the ultimate basis for morality or justice. Rather, the ultimate basis for just laws is God’s revelation to us in His Word and creation. MLAs spent a whole lot of time talking about rights in this hour of debate. But they spent virtually no time talking about what is right. They refused to acknowledge how removing the breasts of a fourteen-year-old girl in the name of “gender-affirming care” is not in her best interest. They refused to consider whether providing euthanasia to the mentally ill might be a step too far even for them. They refused to contemplate whether pre-born children at 35 weeks of age deserve any protections in law. Calling good evil (Is. 5:20) Instead, MLAs voted 48-3 to condemn ARPA’s “intolerant” views. (The text of the motion uses “intolerant,” but the word “hateful” was bandied about the most.) Here’s how the vote broke down: The entire NDP and Green caucuses, along with independent Elenore Sturko, voted to condemn ARPA. The two MLAs from OneBC, and another independent, Jordan Kealy, voted against the motion and spoke up to defend ARPA. None of the Conservative MLAs opted to be present for the vote. The lone Conservative speaker to the motion accused the motion of being a “political trap.” All of this might remind us of the words of Jesus in John 15:18-21: “If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they kept my word, they will also keep yours. But all these things they will do to you on account of my name, because they do not know him who sent me.” If Reformed Christians were of the world – if we supported medical gender transitioning, same-sex marriage, or abortion on demand, or kept silent about them all – these MLAs would not have condemned ARPA. Reformed Christians strive to stand publicly for what God reveals to be true. God says that He created two sexes? That’s how it is. He designed marriage to be between one man and one woman for life? That’s our definition too. God created human life to begin at conception and commands us not to murder? Then abortion is wrong. Recognizing and honoring these truths is good for everyone. What true love looks like Our motivation, then, for raising these issues is one of love. Earlier in John 15, Christ says: “This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends. You are my friends if you do what I command you. No longer do I call you servants, for the servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all that I have heard from my Father I have made known to you. You did not choose Me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my Name, He may give it to you. These things I command you, so that you will love one another.” And that’s what ARPA and all Reformed Christians should intend to do. We endeavor to love our fellow citizens. This includes not just the fellow brothers and sisters in Christ that Jesus has in mind here, but all people, as Jesus taught in the Parable of the Good Samaritan. We call for a law against abortion because we love pre-born children. We love children who are confused about their gender. We love the same-sex couple next door. And yes, we ought to love the MLAs who voted yesterday to condemn ARPA. For, as John wrote later, “we love because He first loved us” (1 John 4:19). And so, in this condemnation of ARPA in the BC legislature, as Reformed Christians we might feel “afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not driven to despair; persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed” (2 Cor. 4:8-9). For we know that “we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us” (Rom. 8:37). But in light of the fact that few MLAs stood up to defend ARPA – much less defend the bodily integrity of gender dysphoric children or the lives of those threatened by euthanasia or abortion – our provincial representatives need to hear from us. Encourage them not to be afraid to discuss the issues that desperately need our government’s attention, but to boldly hold the government to account. A version of this article was first posted to ARPACanada.ca...

Red heart icon with + sign.
News

90,000 legal homicides in Canada since 2016

According to calculations from the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC), as of September this year approximately 90,000 Canadians have been euthanized since this form of homicide was legalized by the federal government in 2016. Homicide is defined under Section 222 of Canada’s Criminal Code as an act causing the death of a human being. The staggering number of euthanasia deaths have been steadily increasing, from 1,018 in 2016, to 15,343 confirmed cases in 2023. Based on the reports available for 2024, the EPC projects there were 16,500 euthanasia deaths that year, an increase of 7.5 percent. EPC drilled in on BC’s 2024 data and found that 35 percent of the 2,767 euthanasia deaths were approved based on “other conditions.” Of these, 65.9 percent were related to “frailty.” They noted that “frailty” isn’t defined and can encompass euthanasia for a “completed life” – in other words, an elderly person is not sick or dying but simply wants to die. The increasing numbers, and broad standards for qualifying, are a far cry from what the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in Carter v. Canada (2015), when it allowed euthanasia for a competent adult who “has a grievous and irremediable medical condition (including an illness, disease, or disability) that causes enduring suffering that is intolerable to the individual in the circumstances of his or her condition.” Behind each of these statistics is a human being made in the image of God, many of whom left this earth without hope. As ARPA Canada and others communicated to Parliament and to the courts prior to the legalization of euthanasia, as soon as we remove the sacred line of the Sixth Commandment to not murder, it becomes impossible to maintain any other line. Sure enough, Parliament is now considering further expansions of euthanasia for those whose suffering is solely psychological, as well as for children....

Red heart icon with + sign.
News

Saturday Selections – Oct. 4, 2025

Bahnsen vs. Hitchens, the Rap Battle Here's AI put to its weirdest and most wonderful –the late Reformed apologist Greg Bahnsen taking on the late atheist apologist Christopher Hitchens. Were dragon stories really dinosaur encounters? Short answer: it sure would seem so! Where do human rights come from, senator? A US senator thought that it was akin to being a fundamentalist Muslim to think that human rights come from God. They come from the state, he insisted. But if they come from the state, how could the state ever violate them? How could we ever complain about any state abusing human rights? Health-care costs for typical Canadian family will reach over $19,000 this year That we don't pay for healthcare directly doesn't mean we don't pay for healthcare. It means, at the very least, that tax dollars that go for that care aren't used for anything else. And the hidden costs of our socialized healthcare system also mean it is really hard for us to tell if we're getting value for our money. Canadian government pushing hate speech law again "Hatred is a real sin. But government and law enforcement cannot discern the degree of hatred in one’s heart, though they can judge and punish the things they do. "That’s why existing prohibitions in the Criminal Code focus on prohibiting particular actions, not emotions or motivations. While Christians should condemn hateful thoughts, words, and gestures, the government cannot regulate the heart." The dangerous logic of Moral Subjectivism "If right and wrong are things outside of ourselves which we can't change, we need to align our behavior with what's right. But if it's the other way around, and morality is just a thing I get to make up, well, I can act however I want." "Huh... that's basically the same as not having a moral system..." **** This video is worth watching for what it gets right, like the above. But where it falls short is in what it settles for – that agreeing there is some sort of objective moral standard outside ourselves is all that's really important. The problem is, ideologies and religions can hold to an objective truth that includes the notion that "conversion by the sword" is a legitimate means of persuasion. So, for example, it isn't enough that an ISIS jihadist thinks a moral standard exists outside himself, he isn't about debate and dialogue. This sort of short-sightedness is what happens when we appeal to the fruits of Christianity without actually holding to the Root of it, Christ Himself. Civil discourse is a fruit of the only real objective standard that exists, God's morality, which teaches us: God has no interest in merely outward observance (Is. 1:13), discouraging any attempts at compelled belief. to treat others as we would like to be treated (Matt. 7:12), prompting civil discourse. to love our enemies (Matthew 5:43-4), prompting civil discourse. it is good to hear both sides (Prov. 18:17), which encourages hearing out things you might disagree with. we are all made in the Image of God (Gen. 9:6), and that hate is the equivalent of murder (Matt. 5:21-22), which both, again, encourage civil discourse. So not just any objective moral standard will do. Civil discourse is a fruit of Christianity, and as we are seeing, a nation that turns from Him will slowly but surely start losing the fruit of the Christian faith, including civility. ...

Red heart icon with + sign.
News

Saturday Selections – Sept 27, 2025

Voddie Baucham (1969-2025) spoke to Christian Nationalism shortly before his passing This past week, Voddie Baucham passed away at the age of 56. A Reformed Baptist pastor, he was known for his powerful preaching, and his willingness to speak to cultural hot button topics. In one of his last public events he appeared on the Founders podcast to advocate for a form of "discipleship of the nations" that he knew would make some Christians nervous. He never used the term "Christian Nationalism" – probably because the term has so many conflicting definitions – but could have, speaking to the need for government to submit to God. Some Christians (and unbelievers too) mistakenly presume that a call for such submission is a call for the government to be ruled by the Church. But no one (not even Douglas Wilson) is advocating for an ecclesiocracy. Starting at the 24-minute mark in the video below, Baucham explained why these nervous Christian have made that mistake – it's because they've adopted the world's understanding of government as the holder of all power. They then presume that when any Christians talk about transforming culture they must be after the governmental levers of power. Not so, Baucham explains. What he was advocating for instead is akin to the public Christian witness ARPA Canada helps us offer in the political square, and the discipleship we receive via our Christian families, our Christian schools, and via the Bible studies and regular preaching in our churches. We can see the Holy Spirit already working through these means, and we should pray that His work will continue to be transformative, not just for us, but for millions and billions more in both our nation and our world! Click the link for WORLD magazine's Baucham obituary. Take the tech exit: it's not too late to get your kids off their smartphones "...nearly one-third of parents regret giving their child a smartphone or access to social media when they did. Only 1% say they wished had provided these devices sooner. Take the tech exit. Your kids may not thank you now, but they probably will later on." Is this a Turning Point for the West? "Sunday’s memorial service for Charlie Kirk may have been the largest evangelistic event in human history. Not every speaker at the event was in tune with the Gospel, but those who were stated it clearly and boldly...." What the reaction of Canadian leftists to Charlie Kirk’s murder tells us "...there is something different knowing that these journalists, professors, teachers, and others saw an incredibly graphic video of a young father getting shot in the neck and collapsing as blood gushed from the wound, and that their first reaction was glee – because he believed and said the very things that we believe and say. There is something jarring about knowing that if this happened to a Canadian pastor, or pro-life activist, or parental rights advocate, they would also rejoice..." Jordan Peterson’s Achilles Heel "The latest viral video of Peterson was not a video of him standing up to insanity but faltering over his faith. A live debate by YouTube channel, Jubilee, where Peterson took on more than 20 atheists was called, "1 Christian vs 20 Atheists," but only a few hours later it was retitled "Peterson vs 20 Atheists." Why? Because Peterson refused to be called a Christian by one of his interlocutors..." Thousands of Methodist churches reject sexual license Over 4,600 congregations worldwide have departed the United Methodist Church (UMC), most of them joining the Global Methodist Church, over the UMC embracing same-sex marriage and LGBTQ clergy, and the UMC questioning biblical authority. I didn't know anything about this, but how wonderful it is to hear what God is stirring up here. What's curious is the Christian reporter's refusal to pick a side, sharing the story as if this is all just a matter of a difference of opinion over what kind of ice cream flavor they prefer. ...

Red heart icon with + sign.
News

The assassination of Charlie Kirk

A new era has been marked; Christians must tell the truth. Unsurprisingly, on September 11, 2001, I wept. I also wept, unexpectedly, on September 11, 2011. Perhaps it was delayed grief, but mostly, it was a delayed realization. Sitting that Sunday morning with my young daughters, only 6, 4, and 2 at the time, it struck me how different their world was from the one I wanted for them. The same sense struck this week, on September 10. The assassination of Charlie Kirk seems to mark a new era, a world no one wants but may very well be here. Calling the murder a “tragedy for all of us,” U.K. comedian and commentator Konstantin Kisin wrote: "I hope I’m wrong. But tonight feels like some sort of invisible line has been crossed that we didn’t even know was there. … o murder a young father simply for doing debates and mobilising young people to vote for a party that represents half of America? This is something else. "Charlie’s death is a tragedy for his wife, his children and his family. I don’t pray often. I am praying for them tonight. But I fear his murder will be a tragedy for all of us in ways we will only understand as time unfolds. "I hope I’m wrong. I fear I’m not." Kisin is not wrong about lines being crossed, though the Christian must not fear. We must, however, squarely face the sober realities of this moment. Kirk’s murder followed another this week, in Charlotte, of a young woman from Ukraine riding a public train. Iryna Zarutska was stabbed by a man who should have been in prison or at least institutionalized, and she was then left to die by people too engrossed in their screens to notice or too jaded to care. Together, these atrocities reveal realities about our culture and how it has shaped those within it that many will find unthinkable. But we had better think about it anyway. Zarutska’s killer is a terrible example of the mental and social brokenness that permeates modern life. The bystanders who did not come to her defense or to her aid are, like the social media commenters and media personalities who callously commented on Kirk’s assassination, examples of the rabid and pervasive dehumanization that infects the Western world. In a recent Breakpoint commentary, released prior to the atrocities of this week, Abdu Murray argued that this “post-truth world that elevates feelings and preferences above facts and truth has collapsed the distinction between a person’s ideas and their identity. And so, the social erasure of cancel culture has calcified into something darker.” That something darker, he argued, is “assassination culture.” He continued, “Unmoored from that objective standard for human value, we have made gods of ourselves and therefore justify eradicating any who dare to have other gods before us.” This is precisely what Os Guinness warned of in the new film Truth Rising, that the West is squandering a unique heritage. A civilization built upon the ideal of human dignity, with a mixed and troubled history of working out that ideal, has now replaced it with something else. But racialized, sexualized, and politicized conceptions of human dignity only produce victims. George Orwell is often credited as saying, “In a time of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” Charlie Kirk was a committed truth teller, with a remarkable gift for exposing and answering deceit. And yet, as he did this, he treated the deceived with the dignity they had as image bearers of their Creator, recognizing that they too were victims of their own bad ideas. There is a cost to telling the truth. Our Lord has told us to count this cost. If Kisin is indeed correct, that cost is higher than we have imagined. This is indeed a civilizational moment. It is to this moment that we have been called as His people. As His people, we know that this moment is not some fatalistic inevitability, nor does it determine or define the Story of which we are part. In a video circulating on social media, Charlie is asked why he went on campuses to talk with and try to persuade those who disagree with him. Charlie responded, “Because when people stop talking, that’s when violence happens.” It was a prophetic moment, but Kirk also demonstrated that we need not accept that. He showed that the conversation can be had; that it must be had. He showed that the truth still wins hearts and minds, and that lies can be opposed. And that it can all be done with a big smile. It takes courage to tell the truth and to, as Paul wrote, “regard no one from a worldly point of view.” As Murray wrote, only the “ancient biblical truth about what it means to be human can heal our contemporary malady.” It can be healed. This is not wishful thinking. This is the hope Christ secured for us all. As the banner on the Turning Point USA website proclaims, Charlie Kirk has been “received into the merciful arms of our loving Savior, who suffered and died for Charlie.” For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, go to Breakpoint.org. This is reprinted with permission from the Colson Center. Picture by Gage Skidmore and used under a CC BY-SA 2.0 license....

Red heart icon with + sign.
News

Quebec to ban public prayer and advance secularism

The government of Quebec announced in August that it intends to introduce a law this fall to outlaw public prayer in the province. As Jean‑François Roberge, Quebec’s “Secularism Minister” explained in a statement on X: “The proliferation of street prayers is a serious and sensitive issue in Quebec. Last December, our government expressed its unease with this phenomenon, which is becoming increasingly common, especially in Montreal. The Premier of Quebec has given me the mandate to strengthen secularism, and I firmly intend to fulfill this mandate diligently…. This fall, we will, therefore, introduce a bill to reinforce secularism in Quebec, notably by prohibiting street prayers.” Roberge was indirectly referring to how Muslims have been gathering in prayer for months outside the Notre Dame Basilica in Montreal, leading to a growing counter-protest. “In recent months, Islamic prayers have also spilled into parks and downtown streets, with worshippers rolling out mats outside shopping districts and public offices,” explained Leslie Roberts, writing for the National Post. “What began occasionally has become a regular source of tension.” All government laws in Canada are required to align with Canada’s highest law, our constitution, which enshrines the freedoms of religion, expression, and assembly as “fundamental freedoms” in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As such, it is expected that Quebec will make use of Section 33 of the Charter, also known as the “notwithstanding clause,” which allows a legislature to override some of the rights in the Charter, though for only five years at a time. However, this override can be renewed indefinitely. Quebec already made use of this clause in 2019, when it banned public employees from wearing religious symbols while on duty. Roberge's announcement came on the heels of a report from a Quebec government committee tasked with providing advice on how to strengthen secularism. The committee gave 50 recommendations, including to phase out funding of private religious schools, eliminate religion as a charitable purpose, prohibit religious symbols in government advertising and create a National Day of Secularism. The definition of secularism is that the state is neutral in matters of religion. The Quebec government isn’t actually interested in neutrality. It is interested in using the power of the state to undermine religions that it disagrees with. This is simply another example of one religion (secularism) opposing other religions. As the Preamble of the Charter reveals, our rights and freedoms are based on “the supremacy of God and the rule of law.” Quebec, and Western society in general, is experiencing tension in the streets because the religions of secularism and Islam both fail to respect this. The constitution doesn’t work so well when the foundations beneath it are ignored or denied. The inevitable result is conflict, with one religion warring against another. The very concept of rights and freedoms did not, and could not, originate from a Muslim or secular worldview. Our "rights" come largely from God's prohibitions – we have a rights to property and life because God forbids theft and murder. Freedom of conscience finds a foundation in God's hatred for hypocritical worship (Amos 5:21-24) making legislated, compelled worship not just pointless but blasphemous. A biblical understanding of freedoms brings with it, however, a corresponding set of responsibilities. So, in this case, we ought to be able to pray both publicly and privately, but that also means that our praying shouldn’t cause a public disturbance that prevents others from exercising their rights and freedoms....

Red heart icon with + sign.
News

Were the 215 soil abnormalities actually graves? 37% of Canadians think we should just presume so.

Allegations of mass graves outside of Canadian residential schools was one of the top news stories in the world in 2021. Ground-penetrating radar was said to have found evidence of the remains of as many as 215 children on the grounds of the former Kamloops Indian Residential School. But these soil anomalies have not been investigated since, and no exhumation has been done, and consequently, no actual bodies have been found. And today, for many Canadians, the lack of proof is seen as irrelevant. The results from a survey released by Angus Reid this summer revealed that 63% of respondents would only accept the initial claim if further information from exhumation was made available. However, more than a third of respondents will accept these are unmarked graves, even if nothing is done to verify whether these are actually graves. Among indigenous respondents, 44 per cent accepted the claim without more evidence. The numbers who don’t need evidence increases to 56% of young women, aged 18-34. A few years ago, Christian apologist Abdu Murray argued that we have transitioned from a post-modern world to a post-truth world. “Post-Modernism says there’s no such thing as truth, but Post-Truth mindsets say, ‘Truth is important, but only in so far as it feeds and satisfies my feelings and my preferences. So truth exists, but I don’t care unless it happens to conform with what I like.’” How do we engage with a world that acknowledges that truth exists but is happy to ignore it? In his book Saving Truth: Finding Meaning & Clarity in a Post-Truth World, Abdu Murray concludes that “the answer is Jesus – the truth who is personal. He is the Saving Truth.” In other words, Christians must communicate truth, but we must also introduce our neighbours to the person of Jesus – the “way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6). Christ alone speaks to the head and the heart....

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30