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!



Dying Well

Moth and rust resolutions

Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust consume and where thieves break in and steal, but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust consumes and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. (Matt. 6:19-21)

I'll wait to have a child, she said,
Until this year, next year,
Is past. The winters whiled away.
But when she craved a son,
The day was gone. The day was done.
And when the evening stole
Across the sky. She heard God say,
I need your soul. Your time's passed by.
You cannot stay.

I'll marry me a farm, he said,
And insulate it well
With rustic country charm, he said.
But when he'd drawn his plans,
Borrowed the money, read the banns,
The evening sunset stole
Across the sky. He heard God say,
I need your soul. Your time's passed by.
You cannot stay.

I'll juggle with my tax, he said,
No need to call it cheat,
For everyone is lax, he said.
He filed his neat return,
But did not get it back. The burn
Of sunset evening stole
Across the sky. He heard God say,
I need your soul. Your time's passed by.
You cannot stay.

Tomorrow I will play, he said,
But father's busy now,
I have no time today, he said.
His child walked out the door.
A glance, a twinge of guilt, no more,
And soon the darkness stole
Across the sky. He heard God say,
I need your soul. Your time's passed by.
You cannot stay.

 

Please hold your twilight, Lord, for I
Am not quite ready yet to

***

The Bible tells us in Deuteronomy 23:21-23 that we should be careful to do what we say and do what we believe. We demonstrate our reverence, respect, and love for God by a daily walking in His path. However, the sad truth is that promises are often broken, not just by our neighbors who might not attend church, but also by Christians who have made a public profession of faith.

Our lifespan is short and we do not know how many days are left in which we may serve God; we do not know how many days will be given to us to acknowledge openly the love we say we have.

Lincoln’s mom

There is an anecdote about Abraham Lincoln and a vow. Lincoln, who was the 16th president of the U.S. (1861-1865), once drove a lengthy distance in a carriage with one of his colonels. During the drive, this colonel took a bottle out of his pocket and offered the president a drink of whiskey. Lincoln politely refused. Reaching into his shirt pocket, the officer then offered Lincoln a whopping, beautiful cigar.

Smiling, Lincoln responded by telling a story. “When I was nine years old,” he began, “my mother was extremely ill. She was on her deathbed and called me to her side. Some of her last words asked me to promise that I would never drink or smoke. I said that I would not and I have kept that promise. Would you advise me to break it at this time in my life?”

Abraham Lincoln’s response was a godly one. At that time, he had no idea that he would be assassinated soon and that his soul would be required of him by his heavenly Father. Had he broken his word to his earthly mother, it would also have been a broken word to his heavenly Father.

To turn to our patient God, and to do His will, is a requirement for all those endowed with the breath of life. It should be a daily prerogative. God gives to everyone on earth many chances to turn from earthly ways to heavenly ones.

Sinatra’s way

Frank Sinatra (1915-1998) was a popular American singer and actor. Humanly speaking, he was quite famous. Many people hummed along to his signature song, a song by which he was known and a song which claimed that he was in charge of his own life, his own decisions. Entitled “My Way,” the song appealed to the self-assertive. Some of its words were:

Regrets, I’ve had a few,
But then again, too few to mention.
I did what I had to do and saw it through without exemption.
I planned each charted course,
each careful step along the byway,
And more, much more than this,
I did it my way.

Frank Sinatra’s life, his moth-and-rust way, by the grace of God, lasted a little longer than eight decades. He’d been married four times, had three children, and had an adoring public before God spoke and said, “This is now the end of your way, Frank. I need your soul.”

Frank died of complications associated with dementia, heart and kidney disease and bladder cancer. Before he died, he summed up his way, his personal faith, in these words:

“First: I believe in you and me … I believe in nature, in the birds, the sea, the sky, in everything I can see or that there is real evidence for. If these things are what you mean by God, then I believe in God. But I don’t believe in a personal God to whom I look for comfort or for a natural on the next roll of the dice. I’m not unmindful of man’s seeming need for faith; I’m for anything that gets you through the night, be it prayer, tranquilizers or a bottle of Jack Daniel’s … Well, I believe that God knows what each of us wants and needs. It’s not necessary for us to make it to church on Sunday to reach Him. You can find Him anyplace. And if that sounds heretical, my source is pretty good: Matthew, Five to Seven, The Sermon on the Mount.”

Frank Sinatra’s last words, spoken to his wife, were: “I’m losing.”

God, in His love, gave Frank Sinatra plenty of opportunities to turn to Him for salvation during his long, four-score plus, earthly travel. Not being God, we cannot judge the final moments of the singer’s life. But this truth is sure, once he died, blue-eyed Frank, ready or not, faced God in final judgment and God rendered a verdict on him, as He will render it to each human being. He will render each judgment with holiness and justice. But there are no second chances and there are no other ways than God’s way.

Jesus in 2026

Although it is appointed for man to die once, and after that face judgment, as it says in Hebrews 9:27, it is also good to remember the comfort of John 5:24.

“Very truly I tell you, whoever hears My word and believes Him who sent Me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life.”

Perhaps this coming year of 2026 will be the year in which we will hear God say to some of us, “I need your soul. Your time’s passed by. You cannot stay.” It is good to reflect on this and to contemplate seriously whether or not our daily resolutions will pass muster; whether or not they are infused with love for and faith in Jesus.

Red heart icon with + sign.
Articles, Articles, Book Reviews, Entertainment, Movie Reviews

We are not trashcans: how to analyze stories

Why is it important for Christians to understand stories? Obviously, God loves to tell them. Our world is saturated with His stories and the stories of those who emulate Him, stories that teach, inspire, entertain, and more. However, Christians aren’t the only ones with access to this tool. The secular world pumps out hundreds of movies every year, and millions of books. Modern men and women sit with slack jaws, swallowing as much as can be shoved down their throats, without any active discrimination or discernment. But, just as stories can be edifying and beautiful, they can even more easily be toxic and destructive. The fallen world has all sorts of corrupt messages it would like to slip you, like a pill wrapped in cheese for a dog. With enough explosions and drama scenes, the lies often pass by unnoticed. Worldview workout Let the unbelievers be duped if they insist, but Christians should not be such an easy audience. We don’t need to exclusively consume explicitly Christian content, but we should not be caught unawares or slowly marinated in lies we not only fail to resist, but fail to even notice. We need to watch and read with open eyes and active, and even cynical, minds. We are not called by God to serve as the world’s trash cans taking in whatever’s pitched at us. However, the ability to intelligently analyze stories isn’t a light switch you can just flip on. I can’t give you three simple steps that, if followed exactly, will instantly turn you into the perfect movie critic. This is something that takes practice. We do brain pushups. We change the way we look at stories; and then, over time, it becomes second nature. Can’t spit out what you swallow whole To start us off, it’s important to be a participant, not just a consumer. Every story has a message, even if only in its worldview assumptions. This message isn’t always deep and philosophical. You will find children’s movies with the simple message of, “we don’t really care about quality and are just here to provide vapid stories in the hopes of getting your money.” But even that is a disrespectful statement about beauty and children. To be a discriminating consumer means being engaged. When you open your novel, when your audiobook starts playing, when the TV turns on, don't let your brain switch off. Regardless of the depth of the message, there is always a message. A story is always insinuating judgements of one kind or another, and those judgements are true or false, wise or foolish, edifying or unedifying, engaging or a waste of your time. And when it comes to analyzing a book or movie, you can’t participate in a discussion that you don’t know is happening or that you can’t follow. Once you learn to pay active attention to what stories are actually doing, you can join the conversation. You can agree or disagree with another Christian about the value of a story, but the most important step has been made. You are no longer a passive consumer. Sneaky one is what matters A big note to remember is that stories often have both explicit and implicit messages. It will tell you what it’s saying, and then it will show you what it really thinks (and what it really wants you to think) as the story plays out. In a good story, the explicit “tell” and the implicit “show” will match. But in a poorly done, incoherent, or problematic story, they often do not. And in those cases, the implicit message should be treated as the real one. After all, monkey see, monkey do; not monkey hear overt instruction, monkey do. Hunger Games One such example of explicit-implicit messaging tension is The Hunger Games novels. There is a stated morality: it’s bad to kill. But our heroine Katniss’s situation is claimed as an exception. Katniss steps into her position in the deadly games sacrificially, taking her sister’s place. That initial ethical move is explicit messaging that any Christian could appreciate. However, Katniss then kills other children, some in self-defense, some not. And the readers/viewers are meant to treat her behavior as noble. However, the self-sacrifice is just tacked on to make the audience sympathetic to the murders Katniss commits. What is demonstrated by the series is that Katniss actively chooses to kill when there are other options. Several other characters only hurt people in cases of self-defense; and in the second book, a group teams up against the real enemy and breaks out of the games. The implicit messaging of the books contradicts the explicit moral messaging, which keeps readers feeling guilt-free and loyal to Katniss as they vicariously enjoy the violence of a truly selfish character. And that loyalty to Katniss is so strong that people who disagree with my take tend to have very strong emotional reactions to my criticism. Encanto and Barbie Another example of implicit vs. explicit messaging is Pixar’s Encanto. The movie very clearly discusses heroine Mirabel’s problems and her need for growth; however, the action of the finale is purely affirmation that she was always great, and it shifts all blame to others. Turns out, all Mirabel was missing was confidence, and the movie ends by cosplaying self-affirmation as self-improvement. In the Barbie movie, there are lines in the conclusion that affirm true equality, which are then immediately followed up by mocking the Kens (the stand-ins for all men) and banning them from holding any political power in Barbieland. Just like with people, when in doubt, believe the actions in a film, not the words. God’s Not Dead This goes for Christian movies, too. Faith films love to front-load positive explicit messaging, as if it can somehow redeem all the sentimentality, saccharine action, and clumsy filmmaking that follows. Bad news, kids. A movie that sets out to emphasize the importance of forgiveness on the most shallow level, without truly bringing God into it, might actually just convince viewers that Christianity is hollow and ugly. And yes, that should be treated as its real (even if unintended) message. We should care less about what you were aiming at, and more about what your bullet actually hit. What a film does and shows you will always be a better representation of its impact on viewers than what it might tell you. Even the author can miss it A downstream effect of all this is that, funnily enough, authors can be wrong about their own works. Stories are slippery things. They can grow and move on their own. A petty example is Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling’s understanding of her own character, Draco Malfoy. As she sees him, this pain in Potter’s side is just a flat and unredeemed bully. Rowling has admitted to being unnerved by Draco fans and has even claimed people only like him because of the actor, Tom Felton, who played Draco in the movies. However, is it possible some audiences saw something in the character that she, the author, missed? Of course it is. Her idea that an 11-year-old who was rude and used slurs can’t ever be sympathetic is silly. Draco Malfoy is a child with a horrible family situation, both his parents being elitist and racist murderers and Death Eaters. Draco also had no real friends and was unsupported by teachers. Later on, he is fully isolated, with the biggest, baddest villain in the story, Voldemort, holding Draco’s parents hostage and threatening to torture and kill them if the boy doesn’t completely destroy himself for Voldemort’s cause and commit murder. This child is so broken at that point, he’s crying in the bathroom when Harry walks in and goes, “ew, Draco” and almost kills him with a curse. Worse, the supposedly wisest and best adult figure in the story, Dumbledore, knows all about it, and allows it to continue for the greater good (and the good of Harry). Is it all that surprising that Draco’s character inspires pity and hope for redemption in so many fans? J.K. Rowling is surprised. I am not. Consumer questions There are many more such examples, but let’s get into some specific questions you can ask as you consume, and things to look out for in a story. First up, the theme. What’s the theme statement? It normally happens in the first five minutes of a movie. It’s stated, and then contested in some ways, it is debated by the rest of the film, and it is the question the story will attempt to answer. This is a discussion you should be joining. A pristine example is in the movie Gladiator. In the first scenes, the Roman soldier Quintus looks over the battlefield and the final barbarian horde as these Germanic tribes ready themselves to fight on to their inevitable doom. He then says, “Men should know when they’re conquered.” Should they? Really? Men should become submissive when up against overwhelming odds? Maximus answers, “Would you, Quintus? Would I?” As everyone should know who has seen it, the movie answers Quintus’ statement with a resounding “NO.” If you’re on the right side, you should not know when you’re conquered. Fight until the bitter end. Do not allow yourself to be steered by a fear of death. So, watch for overtly stated themes and questions early in a film – that’s what the film is going to be about. After the action of the plot, the second major progression of a story is often the movement within the main character. Having identified the theme, character growth is the next thing to pay attention to. The key questions here are, where do they start and where do they end? In stories with a strong character progression, there will be gradual change leading to a true pivotal moment, often at the beginning of the third act, sometimes right before the finale. Disney’s animated Mulan is about a young woman who disguises herself as a man so as to take her elderly father’s place in the conscripted army. She starts out with a good heart but is caught up in her own insecurities and foolishness. Through the movie, Mulan is getting smarter and better, all leading to a big moment just after she’s busted for being a woman. Then, she looks at her reflection, admits to her foolishness and self-absorption, and casts aside her reflection. The next time she stands up, she does so in true selflessness. Compare that to the more recent live-action version, and you’ll encounter an entirely different worldview. The older one actually has something healthy to offer. The new one… not so much. What makes a book or movie good? Of course, maybe the biggest question is whether a story is worth consuming at all. The three categories I use to determine the worth of a story are technical value, response value, and objective value. These are categories used around our own dinner table at home. Objective value is easy. Does God like this story? If He asked you what you were watching or reading, would you be embarrassed to answer? Response value is a little more subjective. What is the effect this has on you and on others? Watch your own emotional reactions. What does this make me feel? Why? Should I be feeling that? Maybe I felt moved because it was a well done and emotionally compelling story, or maybe I felt moved because it was sucking up to my temptations. Just because something felt good at first blush, doesn’t mean it is good. The road to hell is a primrose path and all that. Or, even if it’s a good story, is it feeding my mind some darkness that I don’t want in there? If you’re a parent, this means watching your kids’ reactions as well. The young will respond differently than you do. The final category is technical value. How well executed is this movie? All the questions I’ve covered up until now are enough to be wise in consuming stories. But if you enjoy thinking about movies and books, and if you want to be involved in storytelling, you can dig into this category as well. Ask the questions, “Why does this movie feel fast?” or “Why do I not care about the main character?” “How was that shot so effective?” “Why do I like someone so unlikable?” For people looking to dive into this, I recommend the book, Save the Cat as a great resource on the story side of things. Here’s a last tip if you’re trying to build these muscles in your kids. I always use these basic questions after every book and movie: • Did you like it? Why or why not? (The words boring, stupid, or dumb are not allowed answers.) • What was your favorite part or character? (Even if you disliked the movie.) • What was your least favorite part or character? (Even if you liked it.) Engage, wrestle, consider… All in all, analyzing stories is pretty simple. I can distill it down to one simple instruction: ask questions. Don’t be passive and mindless. Question it. Poke at it. Wrestle with it. If you’re a Christian, pursuing holiness in your life, and you become intentional and intellectually active in your consumption, you’re most of the way there. I hope you all enjoy stories as much as I do. Not as trash cans, but as active participants....

Red heart icon with + sign.
News

Bible labelled as hateful by government MP

Liberal MP Marc Miller serves as the chair of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. On October 30, 2025, he made these comments about the Bible during a committee meeting: “In Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Romans – there’s other passages – there is clear hatred towards, for example, homosexuals… I mean, clearly there are situations in these texts where these statements are hateful. They should not be used to invoke or be a defense.” The committee was studying Bill C-9, which the Liberal government is calling the Combatting Hate Act. When a government leader publicly calls passages of Scripture clearly hateful, it reveals something far deeper than a policy debate. It shows a government forgetting its duty before God. Civil authority is not ultimate. Scripture teaches that those in power are ministers of God, called to uphold justice and protect truth. From the very book Minister Miller referenced, Romans 13:1 reads, "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.” And in Psalm 2:10-11, we are told, “Now therefore, O kings, be wise; be warned, O rulers of the earth. Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling.” John Sikkema, Legal Counsel and Director of Law and Policy for ARPA Canada, had the opportunity to present to the same committee a few hours after Miller’s comments. As Mr. Sikkema said in his statement before the committee: “….today in Canada, people are being accused, often by government officials, of promoting hatred simply for expressing moral or political views. Earlier this month, the British Columbia Legislature condemned ARPA as hateful... A B.C. government MLA even told a story… defamed and vilified Reformed Christians as criminal harassers, which seems like a way, frankly, to stir up hatred against this group, while at the same time accusing these Christians of promoting hatred for the views that they hold.” When leaders begin labelling parts of the Bible as dangerous or hateful, they place themselves above the very law that gives their authority any meaning. Our concern is not merely for Christians, but for Canada itself. A nation cannot claim to pursue justice while rejecting the standard of the One who defines it. Government serves under God’s authority, and it has a duty to ensure that His Word and those who live by it remain free to speak. This gets to the heart of Christian concerns about Bill C-9....

Red heart icon with + sign.

The "Can You Build it Better?" contest

Last year, in our first ever LEGO/brick building contest, hundreds joined in. So of course we wanted to do it again! This time the theme is “things that aren’t but should be” – we want you to improve on whatever you want. Would your alarm clock be better if it had a coffee pot on top? Should your car have 6 wheels instead of 4? Would your cat run faster if he had rollerblades on? Our God is the Grand Inventor, and as His Image-bearers, we can echo His creativity! Theme: Things that aren’t but should be Create something entirely new. It can be functional, fun, or out-of-this-world. RP plans to share as many of the entries as we can online – maybe even all of them! – with some also appearing in our March/April issue, along with links to the videos. Categories 1. Age 0-92. Ages 10-133. Ages 14-174. Ages 18+ Prizes $200 gift certificate towards Lego for each category Rules One entry per person. Entries must be 100% original: not from kits or copying examples from books or online. Entries must be designed and built entirely by the person entering the contest. Deadline: January 20, 2026 How to enter 1. Have someone take a picture of you with your creation. 2. Have someone also take a video where you explain your creation. a. Say your first name only. b. Show us what you built. c. No need for editing the video or making it look professional; Just hit record on a phone or tablet. d. Maximum 2 minute video. 3. Under 18? Have a parent give permission to RP to share your video/photo (we will only post first names of youth online). 4. Submit your picture and video via the form below. Send it to us!   {{Form-1763489818}} ...

Red heart icon with + sign.
Theology

When God goes to war: holiness, judgment and hope

“Will not the Judge of all the earth do what is just?” – Gen. 18:25 We don’t deny God’s wrath. We just don’t talk about it. In Reformed churches, we still hear faithful preaching and clear teaching about sin. But if we listen closely, we might notice something missing: the weight of divine judgment. Grace is front and center – as it should be. But grace without judgment turns sentimental. If we never tremble before God’s justice, how can we truly stand in awe of His mercy? Even in Reformed worship services, one can notice unease – or even embarrassment – when the congregation is asked to focus on the flood in the days of Noah, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, the plagues on Egypt, or the conquest of Canaan. At Bible studies, it’s common to steer around the “hard parts” of the Old Testament and gravitate instead toward the Gospels. And even there, we prefer the tenderness of Jesus – His compassion, His welcome, His healing – while downplaying His rebukes and His holy severity. The Jesus who weeps is familiar. The Jesus who judges is quietly set aside. This discomfort isn’t new. But it is deepening. We live in a culture at ease with sin and increasingly hostile to judgment. And when the world forgets God’s wrath, the Church often grows shy about declaring it. In some circles, it’s simply assumed that most people already feel guilty and only need comfort. But what if that’s not true? What if the deeper need is not reassurance, but repentance? Few topics unsettle modern readers – especially younger believers and those exploring the faith – like the violence found in the Old Testament. Why did God command Israel to destroy entire cities like Jericho? Was this true justice – or religious brutality? We must approach these questions with care. Scripture never portrays God as the one on trial – we are. The Judge of all the earth is holy, just, and astonishingly patient. He does not owe us an explanation. Yet in His Word, He reveals enough of His character and purposes that we may speak of Him with reverence, and defend His ways with confidence – even when we cannot fully comprehend them. Before we begin to talk about God's judgments in history, it is wise to bow our heads in worship. The story that troubles many Nothing in the Old Testament provokes modern objections like Israel’s conquest of Canaan. The books of Deuteronomy and Joshua tell of entire cities “devoted to destruction,” of swords raised not only against warriors but against entire populations. Jericho, Ai, Hazor – the battles pile up – and so does the bloodshed. To many ears today, it sounds merciless. Unjust. Even barbaric. But we must not read these accounts in isolation. They are not about ethnic hatred or military conquest. Nor were they Israel’s idea. The command came from the LORD – the covenant God who had rescued His people from Egypt and was now bringing them to the land He had long promised. The conquest was part of God’s own design – not just to give Israel a homeland, but to cleanse a land steeped in corruption. If we want to make sense of these difficult texts, we must begin where the Bible itself begins – not at Jericho, but in the promises and warnings spoken hundreds of years earlier. Only then can we understand the justice, the gravity, and the long patience of God. A long patience before judgment The story begins in Genesis 15. God tells Abram that his descendants will live as strangers in a land not their own for four hundred years. Why such a delay? “Because the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete” (Gen. 15:16). God does not rush to judgment. He gives time – generations of time – for repentance. Yet while He waits, sin accumulates. The wickedness of Canaan grows darker, not lighter. Leviticus 18 lays bare the moral degradation that had taken root in the land: incest, adultery, homosexual acts, child sacrifice, and even bestiality. God declares, “By all these the nations I am driving out before you have become unclean” (Lev. 18:24). These were not minor cultural quirks. They were systematic, institutionalized violations of God’s created order – acts of defilement practiced and celebrated on a societal scale. Deuteronomy 12:31 adds, “They even burn their sons and their daughters in the fire to their gods.” The cult of Molech demanded child sacrifice. The shrines of Baal and Asherah were built on ritual prostitution and sexual exploitation (Deut. 23:17–18). Deuteronomy 18:9–12 catalogs even more: sorcery, divination, necromancy, and attempts to summon the dead. This was not an innocent land. God’s judgment was not arbitrary or reactive. It was measured, deliberate, and just. And still, He waited. Four centuries passed while the sin of the Amorites ripened. When judgment finally fell, it was not a sudden outburst of wrath – but a long-deferred reckoning from the God who is “slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love” (Ex. 34:6), yet who “will by no means clear the guilty” (Ex. 34:7). Judgment that anticipates the end The reckoning that fell on Canaan was never only about Canaan. It was not merely the clearing of one territory for one nation. It was a signpost – a concentrated preview of something far larger. Jericho, Hazor, and Ai were early eruptions of the judgment that will one day encompass the whole world. In those historical events, God allowed the final verdict to break backward into history. What normally waits for the last day – when every nation will stand before His throne – was, for a time, enacted on the ground. This was not genocide, nor personal vengeance; it was holiness revealed, justice enforced, and a warning sounded to every generation, as we read in Nahum 1:3: “The LORD is slow to anger and great in power; the LORD will by no means leave the guilty unpunished.” “Even in Reformed worship services, one can notice unease – or even embarrassment – when the congregation is asked to focus on the flood in the days of Noah, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, the plagues on Egypt, or the conquest of Canaan…” Reformed theologians Meredith Kline and Michael Horton call episodes like this “intrusion ethics.” At rare points the future Day of the Lord intrudes into the present: the flood (Gen. 6–9), the fire on Sodom (Gen. 19), the plagues on Egypt (Ex. 7–12), and the fall of Jericho all follow this pattern. Each is real judgment in history, and each foreshadows the greater judgment still to come. These events are sobering. They are meant to wake us up. God does not always wait until the end; sometimes He judges now so that the world will tremble – and perhaps repent – before it is too late. Yet even in judgment, mercy shines. Rahab proves it. As her city braced for destruction, she placed her hope not in walls or weapons but in the God of Israel: “I know that the LORD has given you the land” (Josh. 2:9–11). She tied a scarlet cord in her window, and when Jericho fell, she and her family were spared. Scripture later honors her in Christ’s genealogy (Matt. 1:5) and lists her among the heroes of faith (Heb. 11:31). Her story reminds us that the door of mercy is never shut to those who call on the Lord. The conquest, then, points in two directions: forward to the final judgment and forward to the gospel. Judgment and salvation stand side by side. The God who brings down walls also opens the way of life – and that way is still open today. God judges His people by the same standard The judgment that fell on Canaan was not an isolated case – it was a warning. And that warning echoed forward into Israel’s own future. From the outset, God made it unmistakably clear: if His own people defiled the land with the same evils, they would face the same fate. “You shall keep My statutes and My rules and do none of these abominations… lest the land vomit you out when you make it unclean, as it vomited out the nation that was before you.” – Lev. 18:26,28 This was no metaphor. The land was holy because the Lord Himself dwelled there (Lev. 25:23). It had been entrusted to Israel not as a birthright, but as a gift of grace – a sacred space conditioned on covenant faithfulness. But holiness cannot coexist with moral rot. The very sins that condemned the Canaanites – sexual immorality, idolatry, child sacrifice, and occult practices – were explicitly condemned in Israel. Leviticus 20 drives the point home with even more urgency, spelling out specific punishments and warnings. Belonging to the covenant did not exempt Israel from judgment. On the contrary, it intensified the call to holiness. As Amos would later declare, “You only have I known of all the families of the earth; therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities” (Amos 3:2). Being God’s chosen people does not mean immunity. It means accountability. And so God waited again. Just as He had waited for the sin of the Amorites to reach its fullness, He waited while Israel wandered. But He would not wait forever. When corruption set in, the land responded just as it had before: it “vomited out” the unfaithful – this time not Canaanites, but the covenant people themselves. The prophets echo the covenant curses The warning in Leviticus 18 is no isolated threat. It belongs to an entire covenant framework spelled out in Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28–32. These chapters list blessings for obedience and curses for rebellion: prosperity if Israel walks with God; famine, disease, invasion, and finally exile if they do not. “If you will not listen … I will set my face against you … lay the land desolate … and scatter you among the nations.” Lev. 26:14,17,32-33 “If you do not obey the voice of the LORD your God … you shall be plucked off the land … and the LORD will scatter you among all peoples.” Deut. 28:15,63-64 The prophets did not invent fresh threats; they applied these covenant curses to their own generation. When Hosea, Jeremiah, Isaiah, and Ezekiel announce judgment, they are activating the very sanctions Moses described. Listen to their words: Hosea 8:1 – “Sound the trumpet! An eagle hovers over the house of the LORD, for they have broken my covenant.” Jeremiah 11:8,11 – “They would not listen … therefore I am bringing upon them all the words of this covenant.” Isaiah 24:5-6 – “The earth is defiled by its people; they have violated the laws … therefore a curse consumes the earth.” Ezekiel 5:5-8 – “This is Jerusalem … she has rebelled more than the nations … I will execute judgments in her sight.” These are not poetic exaggerations; they are covenant enforcement. The same holiness that expelled the Canaanites now rises against Israel – on identical grounds. The land that once “vomited out” its former inhabitants is about to do so again. The lesson is unmistakable: God shows no partiality (Rom. 2:11). His covenant is never a license to sin; it raises the bar. “You only have I known of all the families of the earth; therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities” (Amos 3:2). Exile: a reverse conquest The conquest began with walls falling and cities burning; the land changed hands under God’s command. Yet, generations later, the story ran in reverse. Israel – the nation that once expelled the Canaanites – was itself driven out. The sword that had cleared the land now turned against the covenant people, exactly as the Lord had warned: “Just as the LORD once rejoiced to make you prosper, so He will now rejoice to ruin and destroy you. You will be plucked off the land you are entering to possess.” – Deut. 28:63 That warning came true. 722 BC: Assyria erased the northern kingdom. 586 BC: Babylon leveled Jerusalem and burned the temple. The exile was no tragic mishap; it was the covenant curses in motion. Israel had filled the land with idolatry, bloodshed, and injustice. God’s patience, as in the days of the Amorites, finally reached its limit. The biblical record is blunt: 2 Kings 17:7-8, 18 – Israel adopted “the customs of the nations… therefore the LORD removed them from His sight.” 2 Chronicles 36:14-17 – They mocked God’s messengers “until there was no remedy.” Lamentations 1:8 – “Jerusalem sinned grievously; therefore she became filthy.” Ezekiel 36:17-19 – “They defiled the land… so I poured out My wrath upon them.” Israel had become indistinguishable from the nations it replaced, and the land “vomited them out” just as Leviticus had warned. In that sense, exile is a mirror image of conquest. What Jericho tasted, Jerusalem tasted. The covenant verdict had been on the books for centuries; the sentence was finally executed. God’s holiness shows no favoritism: what was true for Canaan was true for Israel – and what was true for Israel is true for every nation on earth today. The nations are not exempt One of the most striking features of the Old Testament prophets is how much attention they give to the fate of foreign nations. These are not passing mentions or political footnotes. They are extended oracles – whole chapters – declaring that the God of Israel is also the Judge of every nation. Babylon, Tyre, Egypt, Edom – the prophetic message is clear: no kingdom is above God’s moral law. This was revolutionary in its own time. In a world that believed in tribal gods and local deities, Israel’s prophets proclaimed something astonishing: Yahweh reigns over all. His authority is universal. His holiness is not a private code for His covenant people – it is the moral fabric of creation. Every people, every government, every culture is accountable to Him. The scope and weight of these oracles is remarkable: Amos 1-2 opens with judgment not on Israel but on six surrounding nations – Damascus, Gaza, Tyre, Edom, Ammon, and Moab – condemned for brutality, betrayal, and injustice. Isaiah 13-23 includes a sweeping sequence of prophecies against Babylon, Assyria, Philistia, Moab, Damascus, Egypt, Cush, Arabia, and Tyre. Jeremiah 46-51 announces God's sentence on Egypt, Philistia, Moab, Ammon, Edom, Damascus, Kedar, Elam, and Babylon. Ezekiel 25-32 warns Ammon, Moab, Edom, Philistia, Tyre, Sidon, and Egypt in vivid, terrifying detail. Obadiah, Nahum, and Jonah are wholly focused on foreign nations: Edom, Nineveh, and Assyria. What sins are condemned? Not ceremonial infractions – but moral evils: violence, greed, pride, idolatry, cruelty, exploitation, and the shedding of innocent blood. These are not violations of Israel’s covenant – they are violations of God’s image in humanity. As Paul later affirms in Romans 2:14-15, even those without the written law are accountable to the law written on the conscience. In other words, God’s justice is not narrow. It is global. His concern is not confined to His covenant people – it extends to all peoples. When the strong crush the weak, when kings exalt themselves as gods, when nations corrupt His good creation, He sees, He warns and He judges. This truth helps us understand not only the judgment on Canaan but every judgment throughout redemptive history. It is not about divine favoritism. It is about divine holiness. And when we read of God’s acts of judgment in Scripture, we should respond not with suspicion or defiance – but with reverence and awe. As we read in Isaiah 33:5 & 22: “The LORD is exalted, for he dwells on high; he will fill Zion with justice and righteousness… For the LORD is our judge; the LORD is our lawgiver; the LORD is our king; he will save us.” He is the Holy One of Israel. And the Holy One of all the earth. Judgment fell on Him The covenant story does not end in ruin. Judgment is never God’s final word. The exile to Babylon, devastating though it was, pointed beyond itself. Like the conquest, it foreshadowed something greater. The curse of the covenant would not only fall on a rebellious people – it would one day fall on the faithful Son. Jesus Christ did not come to avoid the curse but to bear it. He, too, was “cut off from the land of the living” (Is. 53:8). He suffered “outside the camp” (Heb. 13:12). He was handed over to the Gentiles and condemned under Roman power. In Him, the fire of Jericho and the desolation of Jerusalem converged. The judgment that Israel had earned and that all humanity deserves, fell on the sinless one. And yet death could not hold the Holy One. His resurrection was the true return from exile – the beginning of a new covenant, a new creation, and a new land. “He has caused us to be born again to a living hope… to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading” (1 Pet. 1:3-4). All who belong to Christ are welcomed back from exile and secured in a kingdom that cannot be shaken. But the warning remains. God’s holiness has not changed. His judgment is not a thing of the past. To the church in Ephesus, Jesus says, “If you do not repent, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place” (Rev. 2:5). The lesson is as urgent now as it was then: God is patient – but He is not indifferent. And judgment still begins at His house....

Red heart icon with + sign.
News

Arctic sea ice remains steady for past two decades

If you’ve ever fallen for the “Heads I win, tails you lose” trick, the mainstream media’s climate change reporting might strike you as familiar. Whatever the latest news might be, the spin is in just one direction: the planet is in crisis. It happened again, just recently, with what should have been good news for all. Based on data from the US National Snow and Ice Data Center, Arctic ice decreased to 4.602 million square kilometers on September 10th, the low point for the year, corresponding with the warmer temperatures of summer. The number is 1.2 million square kilometers greater than where it was at in 2012, and close to half a million more than 2007 levels. In general, the ice trend has been close to flat over the past two decades. Hurrah, right? Where the mainstream media did cover the story, the data didn’t change their long-standing climate alarmism. As EuroNews.com reported it: “Scientists say this is a temporary slowdown that may continue for a further five to 10 years. When it ends, it is likely to be followed by faster-than-average sea ice decline.” The spin goes beyond the media. “While this year’s Arctic sea ice area did not set a record low, it’s consistent with the downward trend” reported NASA. And the World Wildlife Federation still warns: “Polar ice caps are melting as global warming causes climate change. We lose Arctic sea ice at a rate of almost 13% per decade…. If emissions continue to rise unchecked, the Arctic could be ice-free in the summer by 2040.” What isn’t being publicly acknowledged is that the projections of the leading scientists and their spokesmen have often been wrong. One example: the former US vice president Al Gore, while accepting a Nobel Prize for his climate advocacy back in 2007, spoke of a study saying the North Polar ice cap could be gone during summer months just 22 years from then (or 2029). He went on to add, “Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years” (i.e., 2014). This doesn’t mean that the Arctic ice won’t decrease further, or that the climate isn’t changing (it has been changing since creation). But it does mean that we need to humbly acknowledge our finite and limited understanding of this world, in contrast to God’s sovereign hand over His creation, including Arctic sea ice....

Red heart icon with + sign.
News

Saturday Selections – Nov. 15, 2025

Women don't belong in combat (5 min) That world won't acknowledge that it is Who made us, and in Whose Image we are made (Gen. 9:6), that makes us valuable. So, instead, the world evaluates people on the basis of what a person might have, or how they look, or what they can do. All of these other evaluations cause troubles, especially the last. An abilities-based assessment is what's behind both dehumanizing the unborn, because they can't yet do many of the things the already born can do, and dehumanizing the elderly and disabled because they can't do what the young and more able-bodied can. Valuing people on the basis of what they can do is also what's been behind the push for women in combat roles. If you are what you can do, then we would be forced to conclude that women aren't the equal of men if there is anything men can do that women can't. So, in rejecting God, the world also has to reject the reality that men are stronger and make more capable soldiers. The world puts on blinders, because the only alternatives are equally unattractive to them: either to believe that men are better than women, or to believe that our worth is found in God and not in ourselves or anything we can do. Another problem with the minimum wage It's said a person will judge himself by his intent – "It doesn't matter how it went, after all, I meant well" – and judge others by their actions... or, in other words, by whether it actually went well. The minimum wage is an example, implemented in the name of helping the poor, and therefore judged by its implementers to be a success, no matter what results. But with the newly elected New York mayor having campaigned on a push for a $30 minimum wage, it doesn't take much imagination to see the harm that could result, with all sorts of businesses closing because they can't afford to pay those wages. Then, instead of the poorest getting paid more, you have the poorest getting fired. Now a new study finds that the harm the minimum wage causes hurts blacks more. This is a US study, and the racial aspect doesn't translate directly to Canada. But the fact that the minimum wage hurts the most vulnerable certainly does. The woke mob doesn't forgive, but God does Malcolm Gladwell became one of the first big names to admit peer pressure cowed him into saying guys in dresses should be able to compete against women. His admission – both to being cowed, and owning up to it now – are remarkable in a culture in which forgiveness is in low supply. A whole list of reasons to consider marrying younger Tim Challies with a bunch of benefits that come with marrying younger. On marital nakedness What the world cheapens, God's people can enjoy as He intended. Nick Fuentes: a name your kids may know (15 min). Nick Fuentes is big in the US, and probably leaking across the border, so if your kids don't know about him yet, they may soon. Whether or not you've heard of him, there's a reason to watch this video – Fuentes' rise is an object lesson in how taking a strong stand against what's wrong can be both attractive and still really, really evil. Too many think we can find the the truth simply by pushing back against the lies of the Left. But that forgets that there is another side of the horse to fall off of. So, for example, feminists who say motherhood is slavery are calling good evil, but when Fuentes hits back at feminists by degrading women, he's just turning his followers in a different evil direction. So Truth isn't found by rejecting error but by turning towards Christ. While Fuentes says he is Christian, he wears his "faith" like an outfit, to be put on or taken off whenever it suits. Maybe we can use this video with our kids to show how being loud while professing "Lord, Lord" (Matt. 7:21-23) can be a very different thing than being bold in our submission to the LORD (Matt. 10:32-33). The one concern I'll offer with the video below, is that it includes, near the end, depictions of Christ as He has been portrayed by actors through the years, including some quite bloody, graphic portrayals.. I'd have loved if they'd steered clear of visually depicting Jesus (my concern is the 2nd Commandment), but share this anyways because of the insight offered. ...

Red heart icon with + sign.
Conferences

“We believe…” 1,700 years ago

Redeemer University conference celebrates the Council of Nicaea and the Nicene Creed ***** In times past, scholars and theologians may have found themselves travelling across countries and continents to attend meetings about doctrines of particular importance to the Christian faith. One of the most famous of these occasions was the Council of Nicaea in AD 325, when bishops from all over the Mediterranean gathered to address heresies about the nature of Christ. More recently, theologians met once again in discussion of these same issues – not to write new creeds, but to affirm and celebrate the council and the creed which it produced. They met at Redeemer University, a Reformed Christian university in Southern Ontario, which hosted the conference: “Defending Christ: Celebrating 1700 Years of Nicaea.” Historians, theologians, pastors, and laypeople attended this conference to glean knowledge from one another and re-immerse themselves in the rich theology of Nicaea. What follows are a few of the highlights. On the history of the council The council was called by Emperor Constantine, not primarily to address doctrine, explained Dr. Stefana Liang, but to find solutions for a divided church and empire. The result of the council, however, is evidence of the providential work of the Holy Spirit, and even Constantine recognized it as such. He referred to the council as “great and holy” and “a complete blessing from divine providence.” “It cannot be other than the doctrine of God,” he said. The women of Nicaea A presentation by Reanna Lingley investigated the women behind the Council of Nicaea. While no women were in attendance, figures like Macrina the Elder and Macrina the Younger (respectively the grandmother and sister of brothers Basil the Great and Gregory of Nyssa) and Nonna (wife of Gregory the Elder) embodied the vision of the Christian life and were active shapers of the theological tradition that raised up the men who participated in the council. Macrina the Elder survived in hiding for seven years during Emperor Diocletian’s persecution and was described as a vessel of theological continuity. Nonna’s persistent faith led to the conversion of her husband, and she spurred her husband and sons on to holiness and service. Instead of regretting the absence of women at the council, Lingley argued, we ought to recognize the tremendous but quiet influence that women did have on the theological landscape of the Early Church. A Nicene AI? Another interesting presentation evaluated the most theologically sound large language models (LLMs). If that’s an unfamiliar term, it’s what makes AI chatbots go, and you can think of the term as almost a synonym for the chatbots. Studies show that increasingly more young people are turning to AI for important questions, so an organization called ChristianBench tested the biggest AI chatbots on their theological stances. Commonly these bots will refrain from giving a pointed answer – they will present all the options as equally valid. But, of course, that sort of relativization of the truth is a strong stance of its own. However, depending on how a question to the chatbot is framed, the LLM can anticipate what kind of answer the prompter is looking for and give an individualized response. (For example, a question about the “natures of Christ” will generate a theological answer that could be solidly in line with the Nicene Creed, whereas a more general question about “Who is Jesus?” will usually result in a more all-options-on-the-table response that provides the user with a variety of answers to consider.) The only chatbot that scored exceptionally high for adherence to the Nicene Creed was a Catholic LLM called Magisterium AI, an AI chatbot that aims to provide answers to questions about the Catholic faith. Art as theological testimony The conference’s main presentation was by Dr. Megan DeVore, and was centered on Christian art during the time of Nicaea. Early Christian artists used pagan motifs which they adapted and redefined to reflect the gospel story. After the Council of Nicaea, depictions of Jesus began to showcase the artists’ understanding of His divinity. Jesus also started being portrayed in Old Testament scenes, like the story of creation, reflecting a trinitarian understanding of God’s work throughout all of Scripture. Christian art in catacombs show something noteworthy about the Christian faith and the doctrines of Nicaea: Jesus’s divine nature provided early Christians with eschatological hope. The depictions of the deceased in Christian catacombs were of hopeful and prayerful believers, in stark contrast with the mournful depictions in pagan catacombs. The art shows that Christians found real, impactful, and lasting hope through the doctrines they believed. Dr. DeVore outlined how early Christian art was characterized by theological declarations rooted in intricate Christological hermeneutics. She asked whether modern Christians are perhaps missing out on a key aspect of theological understanding by overlooking the value of faithful creative expressions through the arts. The use of the creed The Nicene Creed formalized for the church the doctrine of Christ’s divinity. Written in Greek, almost all of the words in the creed are found in the New Testament. The handful that are extrabiblical nevertheless convey strongly biblical ideas and were necessary to clarify the biblical concepts that were debated at that time The Nicene Creed is especially helpful for interfaith conversations today. It lays out a “mere Christianity” that distinguishes orthodox Christians from Muslims, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Latter-day Saints. The classical trinitarianism expounded in the creed, argued a paper presented by Matthew Waddell, is the only trinitarian view that can provide proper responses to scrutiny from Islamic apologists. But while encountering Christianity may begin with the Nicene Creed, it cannot end there. Interestingly, as passionate as these scholars at the conference were about the Nicene Creed, all of them agreed that it cannot even be compared to the riches of Scripture. The formal doctrine laid out by the creed is meant to lead us toward biblical doxology (see Jude 24-25). The creed can be seen as a CliffsNotes summary of biblical doctrine; it was never meant to be a substitute for the original text and cannot match its force and power. One scholar likened the creed to a beautiful doorway with magnificent engravings. It may be wonderful, but it is merely meant to provide access to something much greater: the full extent of the biblical witness. THE NICENE CREED We believe in one God, the Father almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages; God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God; begotten, not made, of one substance with the Father; through whom all things were made. Who, for us men and our salvation, came down from heaven and became incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary and was made man. He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate; he suffered and was buried; and the third day he arose, according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father, and he will come again with glory to judge the living and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end. And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son; who with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified; who spoke through the prophets. And we believe one holy catholic and apostolic church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins; and we look forward to the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen. *** Picture at the top (as generated for ChatGPT) is of Athanasius taking it to Arius. Emperor Constantine I (272-337 AD) called the Council of Nicaea so the Church could deal with the dispute these two were having over the nature of Christ. Athanasius proclaimed Christ as coeternal and of the same essence as God the Father, while Arius claimed Jesus was created by the Father and therefore not fully divine. While the Nicene Creed we have today probably wasn’t completed at the Council of Nicaea (and not for another 50 years) it is named after that council, because it professes the truth defended there....

Red heart icon with + sign.
Parenting

The importance of risky play

“Make sure you're home by suppertime... and don't get your feet wet!” Mom called out as my brother and I hurried to our bikes. We were about 9 and 11 years old at the time. “Have you got the matches?” I asked. “Yes,” he said, patting his pocket and jumping on his hand-me-down bike. Our plan was to use the matches to light birch-bark torches so we could see properly inside the cave we wanted to explore. It was pitch black in there, and last time the battery in our old flashlight had died right away. To get to Kelly's Cave we first had to cross the multiple sets of train tracks that were two blocks from our house. But this time out, a long train of coal cars blocked the way. Thankfully they were just coming to a halt, so we waited until they stopped, then glanced up and down the tracks looking for any adults, and quickly crawled under the middle of one of the cars, dragging our bikes behind us. We knew that it took a long time for railcars to start moving after coming to a standstill, and we’d have plenty of time to scramble out if they did begin going again. Biking briskly down the service road, then veering off onto the old trail at the base of the mountain, we soon arrived at the bottom of a pile of loose rocks that had been carved out about 70 years earlier to form the cave. Before we scrambled 100 feet up the steep slope that led to the entrance, we first found a nearby birch tree and stripped off several sections of bark, then broke off some branches. Arriving at the cave’s mouth we wrapped the bark around the end of our sticks and pulled out the matches. When the bark was lit it curled tightly, allowing it to burn slowly and steadily, while giving off a wonderful aroma. Quickly, we moved to the end of the first 25-foot stretch of tunnel, where the daylight still reached. Then we turned right, keeping our heads down, looking at the ground ahead of us; soon we came to the pack rat’s nest of shredded paper and random objects we’d seen last time. I’d spotted a ball-peen hammer in the mess and really wanted it, but I was convinced that, should there be an angry and cornered rat in there too, he was liable to jump for, and bite at, my throat. So, I worked up my courage, shielded my neck with my hand, and then lunged for the hammer – thankfully this time the nest seemed empty, so I came away with a great prize which I could proudly take home! Then we continued on, shuffling along deeper into the mountain. It was very cold and damp, and the only sound was the crackle of our torches and the steady dripping of water hitting the cave floor. We were very careful not to brush the walls since we'd once seen a large clump of spiders clinging onto them. Our dad, who’d been in the cave with us before, had warned us about a water-filled pit further in, so we moved slowly and carefully, and we soon saw some logs and branches which spanned an ominous pool, which was who knew how deep? After testing the strength of this wooden span, we slowly crept across, imagining a bottomless crevice filled with icy water. A few years later I learned that it was only about two or three feet deep, but at the time we assumed it was bottomless – better to be safe than sorry! Our torches were burning down, so we pushed ahead, promising ourselves we’d turn around shortly, since we didn't want to end up stranded in the pitch dark! Soon enough, there it was – the end of the tunnel. We’d made it! Somewhat disappointed that there wasn't a treasure chest or other artifact (I was reading The Hardy Boys and The Three Investigators books at the time!), we shuffled quickly, but carefully, back the way we’d come... over the bridge, around the corner, past the nest, one more 90° turn, and then we could see daylight. We emerged just as our torches were flickering out – we’d finally made it out again! Thrilled at our conquest, we slid down the scree slope (this is why we always changed into play clothes after school), discarded our torches (making sure they were completely out so, as not to start a forest fire), and pedaled down along the trail, elated and ready for another adventure. So much to explore The author zipping around in his younger years. We knew this forested area well, having spent many hours exploring and playing in the bush, and near the tracks. Over here was where we’d spent many days chopping small trees down with a hatchet, attempting to make a log cabin. We learned that this was harder than Farley Mowat’s books made it seem, and we often came home tired, and with scrapes or bruises. Once, when we were pushing over dead trees, a top snapped off and smashed to the ground right beside us – a close call! Farther down the trail was the site of the old ski jump where you could still see some outdoor lights attached to trees. In the winter many hours were spent climbing up this hill, and sliding down on inner tubes, toboggans, and even a homemade sled. A few hundred yards off in another direction was an old dump site where we had explored and found many rusty objects, and well down the other way was a railway siding where we could clamber into boxcars and pretend we were hobos. Halfway between, under that one spruce tree, was where our dad had shot a grouse with his old .410 shotgun. His catch motivated us to try to go after grouse too, or rabbits, using our homemade bows and arrows or slingshots, but without any success (although my Boy Scout manual did explain how to snare rabbits, so that was a plan for later in the fall). During those childhood years we spent many hours roaming, playing, and trying not to get hurt or get wet feet in those forests, trails, and caves. On other days we biked around town, explored the alleys and dumpsters behind businesses, looking for treasures, and collecting cans and bottles to exchange for quarters which we quickly spent in the arcade games in the back of the seedier stores. We rubbed shoulders with the local youth in these places and even had to turn down the offer of drugs because we knew that they were bad for us. But what about… Maybe you’re wondering, “What about the risks and dangers?” Yes, we got plenty of minor injuries and had some close calls and moments of genuine fear, but these became excellent learning opportunities and helped us grow in confidence and wisdom. Also, we were very aware of the consequences of foolish actions, and knew that recklessness, and endangering ourselves, was wrong. However, there is a big difference between fun adventures and recklessness, and a kid can do some exciting and even foolish things without crossing this line. Kids learn from the direct instructions of their parents, by watching others, and from reading about or experiencing the consequences of dangerous or reckless choices. They learn quickly from their own mistakes and accidents, and will develop a strong sense of self-preservation. Thankfully, rarely do minor childhood mishaps have serious consequences (and let’s not forget that “safe” and sedentary lifestyles comes with their own health hazards!). By learning to manage the risks and cope with the results, our kids can increasingly be empowered to make good decisions, and to take care of themselves. The reality is, Mom and Dad only vaguely knew where we were when we went out on our adventures, but they trusted and prayed that we wouldn't do anything foolish, dangerous, or illegal. Besides, they were very busy working, and looking after the younger siblings, and they didn’t live in constant fear of the world or other people. They also modeled an outdoor playful lifestyle (including taking risks), and encouraged us to get outside and entertain ourselves. Over time, these factors fostered confidence and bravery in us, while still showing us that recklessness was both wrong and foolish. For example, my dad was actively involved in my late-November childhood birthday parties, taking my classmates and me on hikes, exploring and making fires, and crafting equipment like slingshots or bows and arrows, and doing all of this despite the snow and the darkness that came early in northern BC. When the climate or other factors discouraged outdoor play and adventure, we would busy ourselves with indoor forts, Meccano, electronics kits, and reading. Oh, the books we devoured by the hundreds! We were going on adventures with the Bobbsey Twins, Tom Swift, Wambu, Scout, and many others. Their exploits were recreated in our imaginations, as we pictured ourselves with them in the jungle, desert, tundra, or under the sea. Our knowledge and understanding of the world, and of people, broadened, and our worldview solidified as we incorporated these stories and experiences with the Christian perspective with which we were raised. Many lessons were also learned about safety, and taking risks, as we experienced, vicariously, the exciting exploits of the books’ characters – lessons that were often useful and realistic, thus also helping to prepare us for life in the real world. Tech takeover Screens and technology were lurking on the horizon though, already way back then in the 1980s. As the decade progressed, more and more parents would rent a VCR and videos to entertain the kids at birthday parties. It was so much easier, less messy and tiring, and sure kept the partygoers happy. Within a few years we had a Commodore 64 computer in our home, and by the time we were adolescents many hours had been spent on Test Drive (1!), Winter Olympics, and other games. Our play-based childhood was being affected by screens, and in the next decades this transition only accelerated for others in my age group. Thankfully we all had a solid grounding in the outdoors, and TV and technology were still regarded with suspicion by the older generation. However, as the years and decades have passed, the temptation to spend time on screens has only increased. There are other dangers… Three of the Penninga boys – from left to right, Tim, Jeremy and Dave – up on Hudson Bay Mountain. So, how much do these childhood experiences matter? And what’s been the cost for the children who are not allowed to explore and have adventures, and who spend way more time on screens than reading? No doubt these kids are a lot safer physically (and cleaner!), and parents probably worry less, as their children are shuffled between adult-supervised activities like after-school programs and sports, or are quietly gaming, or scrolling through social media on their phones. Does this trend towards supervision and screens have significance? According to lots of careful research it has become very clear that the cost of replacing a play-based childhood with a screens-based one has been enormous, especially on kids’ mental and emotional well-being. In his book, The Anxious Generation - How the Great Rewiring of Childhood is Causing an Epidemic of Mental Illness, Jonathan Haidt makes just that case. Its first section outlines the impact smartphones and social media have had on children and adolescents in the last 15 years. Data conclusively shows that rates of anxiety and depression have greatly increased (depression for girls rose 145% between 2010 and 2020; for boys 161%), as have suicide rates and visits to ERs for self-harm. These destructive trends occurred across many different countries around the world, and correlate directly to growing up with smartphones. Haidt’s theses are backed up by data that is both scholarly and current. While the author has evolutionary, atheist presuppositions, his book is still an excellent research-based overview of the damage that Internet-enabled devices (especially smartphones) have done to the Millennial and Gen Z generations. Thankfully, Haidt also addresses what can be done about it all. He points to play, the sort that is unsupervised and unstructured and has elements of genuine risk – the kind of play that most kids all around the world naturally engaged in prior to the recent explosion of fears and screens. According to Haidt: “Unsupervised outdoor play teaches children how to handle risks and challenges of many kinds. By building physical, psychological and social competence, it gives kids confidence that they can face new situations, which is an inoculation against anxiety... a healthy human childhood with a lot of autonomy and unsupervised play in the real world sets children's brains to operate mostly in ‘discovery’ mode with a well-developed attachment system and an ability to handle the risks of daily life. Conversely, when there is society-wide pressure on parents to adopt modern overprotective parenting, it sets children's brains to operate mostly in ‘defend’ mode with less secure attachment and reduced ability to evaluate or handle risk.” He goes on to explain how being in discovery mode means you are curious and excited about life, and eager to explore and move ahead. Those who operate in defend mode are careful and suspicious, and “tend to see new situations, people and ideas as potential threats, rather than as opportunities... being stuck in defend mode is an obstacle to learning and growth in the physically safe environments that surround most children today.” A play-based childhood, Haidt argues, encourages the positive discovery mode while a screen-based one promotes a more fragile and restrictive defend mode. Overprotective parents, trying to guard their children from risks and conflicts, actually harm their kids who need to experience thrills, fear, and conflict to learn how to manage it in the real world. Children are thrill-seekers who need adventures and risks to overcome their fears and develop resilience. How does Haidt stack up against the Bible? This rings true because it lines up with Biblical principles. For example, in Proverbs 28:1 it says, “The wicked flee when no one pursues, but the righteous are bold as a lion.” King David trusted in God to protect him, and, consequently, took on bears and giants with confidence. Meanwhile, in the list of curses for covenant disobedience God says “…those who hate you will rule over you, and you will flee even when no one is pursuing you” (Lev. 26:17b). Godly leaders need to be brave to stand up against threats and deal with challenges. For example, God tells Joshua, “Be strong and courageous. Do not be terrified: do not be discouraged, for the LORD your God will be with you wherever you go” (Joshua 1:9). In the knowledge of God’s providence, we can face life and the future without fear and can be confident that nothing will separate us from His love since nothing happens by chance (Lord’s Day 10). Since our eternal future is secure, and we can trust that God will be with us, we do not need to live in fear of catastrophe or death like the unbelievers do. Yes, bad things do happen in a fallen world, and we need to accept that sometimes, even with abundant caution and care, people will get hurt or even die in accidents. But this should not scare us or make us elevate safety to the status of an idol, thinking that somehow we can control everything. If we love the Lord and live according to His will, we can trust that He will provide and care for us, and gives us what we need to face life’s challenges and dangers with confidence. As those who live with a view to eternity, our spiritual health should be our main concern (1 Tim. 4:8). We must live in fear of God, who controls our eternal destiny, and not of man (Luke 12:4-5). Recklessness and foolish behavior is an evil on one end of the spectrum, but living in constant fear of injury or death, and thinking we can control everything also is sinful. The balanced Christian life lies somewhere in the middle. What does this sort of play look like? So, what does this beneficial play look like? It usually happens outdoors when there is free choice, and not when supervised or structured by adults. Researchers have found that play needs to be thrilling and exciting with a real risk of physical injury and an element of uncertainty (think merry-go-rounds, exploring forests, and bike jumps!). Six factors characterize this kind of play: 1. heights (climbing, trampolines, haylofts); 2. high speeds (sledding, swings, racing down hills); 3. dangerous tools (axes, saws, knives); 4. dangerous elements (waves, fire, ice); 5. rough and tumble play (wrestling, tackling, “king-of-the-hill”); and 6. disappearing (hiding, exploring and wandering, not fully knowing where you are). Roller coasters, zip lines, and other thrill rides are a good example of combinations of these things. Kids need, and seek out, these factors but too often parents, teachers, and other adults try to deter them. The adults are overly afraid of injuries, abductions, or lawsuits, and treat even minor scrapes and bruises as akin to serious harm. Many adults have an unrealistic sense of danger and are too overprotective, and they don't trust other adults to intervene, or don’t trust their kids to know their own limits. A growing culture of litigation, insurance, and well-meaning but harmful “safety police” work together to counter these important parts of childhood play. In the August 11, 2025 entry on the After Babel Substack, Haidt and his two co-authors of “What Kids Told Us About How to Get Them Off Their Phones” wrote: “Since the 1980s, parents have grown more and more afraid that unsupervised time will expose their kids to physical or emotional harm. In another recent Harris Poll, we asked parents what they thought would happen if two 10-year-olds played in a local park without adults around. Sixty percent thought the children would likely get injured. Half thought they would likely get abducted. These intuitions don’t even begin to resemble reality. According to Warwick Cairns, the author of How to Live Dangerously, kidnapping in the United States is so rare that a child would have to be outside unsupervised for, on average, 750,000 years before being snatched by a stranger. Parents know their neighborhoods best, of course, and should assess them carefully. But the tendency to overestimate risk comes with its own danger. Without real-world freedom, children don’t get the chance to develop competence, confidence, and the ability to solve everyday problems. Indeed, independence and unsupervised play are associated with positive mental-health outcomes.” Children who were raised on screens need more freedom out in the real world. Organized sports have their own dangers Unstructured and risky outdoor play is actually safer for kids, with fewer injuries per hour, than participating in adult-guided sports teams, according to play researcher Mariana Brussoni of the University of BC. Unstructured and unsupervised physical play also has more developmental benefits for the children since these kids “must make all the choices, set and enforce rules, and resolve all disputes. Brussoni is on a campaign to encourage risky outdoor play because in the long run it produces the healthiest children” (Haidt, writing in The Anxious Generation). In their paper “What is the Relationship between Risky Outdoor Play and Health in Children? A Systematic Review” published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, Brussoni and her co-authors found that risky play had overall health benefits for children aged 3-12. “Specifically, play where children can disappear/get lost and risky play supportive environments were positively associated with physical activity and social health, and negatively associated with sedentary behaviour… There was also an indication that risky play supportive environments promoted increased play time, social interactions, creativity and resilience. These positive results reflect the importance of supporting children’s risky outdoor play opportunities as a means of promoting children’s health and active lifestyles.” As an example, despite my adventurous childhood, I only ended up in the local hospital once for an injury, and that was a broken foot I got in an indoor-soccer PE class at school! One of the main messages of these books? Put away the screens and kick your kids outdoors! A sudden shift In general, children born before 1980 were much more likely to grow up engaging in risky play and were allowed and encouraged to roam out and about, away from parents, by age 7 or so. Kids had more freedom to walk to school, play with neighbor children, get into and resolve conflicts, and generally have a more exploratory lifestyle. But, as Haidt details, in the following decades parenting became more intensive, protective, and fearful, resulting in kids who were more sheltered, coddled, and unable to roam freely until much older (age 10 or 12). Safety became paramount, as a fear of strangers, abductions, injuries, and death, skyrocketed. At the same time, technologies like computer games, DVDs, and phones made it much easier to keep kids from playing and exploring. Haidt goes on to provide other reasons why this change occurred, including more intensive parenting, more supervised and structured sports and programs for kids, and a renewed focus on academics. When it rains in the world, drips are felt in the Church As is often the case, Christian parents are swept up in these changes and can too easily accept them without thinking critically about the disadvantages. After all, isn’t it better to be safer? To provide more structured and supervised activities for the kids? To supply a tablet or phone to keep them quiet? And do we speak out when the merry-go-rounds disappear from the playground and are replaced by much safer (and more boring) equipment? Do we read books or articles that feature research about factors that affect our children? For example, a very good book that addresses many current challenges to parenting came out in 2019 entitled Gist: The Essence of Raising Life-Ready Kids. It was by child psychologist Michael W. Anderson and pediatrician, and the book was featured as a Focus on the Family Resource. This very practical manual discourages parents from always trying to protect and control everything, and it encourages them to back off and let their kids sort out way more of their own problems. In this sin-tainted world life is full of challenges, difficulties, and disappointments, and children need to learn how to face and overcome these to prepare them for managing in adulthood. Although the book is not overtly Christian, Gist is clearly grounded in Scriptural principles and displays a nice balance between truth and grace. It’s the kind of book I wish would have been available sooner, so I could have read it when my children were small! What’s to be done? The final section of Haidt’s book provides many more examples of what schools, parents, and governments can do to promote a return to a play-based childhood, and a turn away from a screen-based one. Several of these ideas are already being implemented, such as more rugged playgrounds, and banning phones in schools. It seems that the pendulum is swinging back towards a healthier balance again, from the safety paranoia, and excessive screen time, back to how it was more in previous decades. Conclusion God’s people do not need to live in fear, since we know we have a Father in heaven who watches over us and protects us. As it says in Proverbs 1:33, “whoever listens to me will dwell secure and will be at ease, without dread of disaster.” We must also heed what the Bible teaches about this topic, as it is found in the Sixth Commandment where we are told “you shall not murder.” In Lord’s Day 40 of the Heidelberg Catechism, it explains that this commandment means we are not to “injure my neighbor, personally or through another… or harm or recklessly endanger myself” and we must “protect our neighbor from harm as much as we can.” To takes risks is different than being reckless. Also, Proverbs 27:12 tells us, “The prudent sees danger and hides himself, but the simple go on and suffer for it.” We need to use or heads. Since his childhood adventures, Kelly’s Cave has been all boarded up. And let’s consider also the Fifth Commandment, where we are taught that authority needs to be obeyed, like wearing seat belts and bike helmets, and not trespassing (including on railways!). But we also need to speak out against and resist the multiplication of safety rules imposed by overly-zealous authorities and companies. As an example, the entrance to Kelly’s Cave was blocked by a thick cement wall in the late 1980’s (as were other caves around here), closing another door to adventure. Of course, many children do not live near forests, caves, or railway tracks, or attend schools that have any forest or brush land. Families are smaller and there don’t tend to be packs of kids roaming around outside together. Still, there are many things that can be done to encourage healthy play: parents need to model fun and adventurous behaviour, screens need to be avoided or severely limited, and it’s helpful to have spaces where kids can explore and which contain materials they can use. It can start small with pillow and blanket forts inside, wooden blocks and other basic items for toys, trips to nearby parks or bush areas. But then parents need to be brave and begin to pull back from constant supervision and intervention and let the children explore and figure things out for themselves. It’s also important to understand that the world is not nearly as dangerous a place as the media suggests (yet another reason to avoid too much media), and that disallowing adventurous and risky play comes with very serious negative consequences (anxious teens and young people who struggle to cope with the demands of adulthood). So set a good example by confidently getting out into the yard or neighborhood and finding adventure and fun! It takes more effort but is far better for you and makes better memories, too! Be wise and discerning but not fearful, and remember that we have a Father in heaven who watches over us and blesses us, also as we seek to do what is best for our children....

Red heart icon with + sign.
Assorted

Learning

“It was good for me to be afflicted so that I might learn your decrees.” – Psalm 119:71 Is it possible that something bad can be good for you? Can it be that God purposes adversity for our benefit? Perhaps it is only after the fact that we see the Almighty’s intent. Perhaps it is only later that we recognize blessings. *** The boy’s teddy bear was a friendly yellow-brown. It was not yellow like a dandelion, nor brown like a garden snail, but yellow-brown like straw. The pads on the bear’s feet and hands were blue – the kind of blue that the feathers of an indigo bunting display. The bear’s eyes were two, small beads. His brown irises glistened and blinked like black maple bark after a rainfall. The teddy’s nose had been sewn onto his face to resemble an inky cross. And below the nose, his solemn mouth was merely an ebony line. But the mouth was inconsequential. It was unimportant. It was unimportant because the bear never talked. He only listened. And there were many things the boy told him. The boy, whose name was Joseph John, was very fond of his teddy. He did not openly share this affection for the teddy bear with anyone. But his siblings knew, and so did his father. Joseph John was the youngest of six. His two older brothers did not live at home any longer. Harvey, the firstborn, had been hired by a farmer in a neighboring district and boarded with that family. William, the second oldest, was apprenticed to a local apothecary in a nearby town. Although both the boys often came home on weekends, they were more like uncles than brothers. In age, they were many years ahead of Joseph John. His three sisters were all married and only dropped in on birthdays and holidays. Jane, Joanne, and Mary, all endowed with solid names and strong maternal instincts, loved their younger brother but had their own families now. “Your birth was a total surprise to Mother and Father,” Jane once told him during one of her visits as he sat on her lap. “I like surprises,” Joseph John had rejoined and had not understood why his sister had laughed and hugged him. *** Michael Phillips, Joseph John’s Father, was a rather solid man in his late forties. Robust-looking and chipper, he liked to think of himself as well-conditioned. His piercing blue eyes usually twinkled as he regarded people over the top of his golden-rimmed spectacles. If someone suggested adiposity, he had been heard to speak candidly: “I’m able-bodied not stout. Stoutness betokens laziness and no one can ever accuse me of being lazy.” It was true. Michael Phillips was as active a person as you could find anywhere in town. Principal of the local school in Rainsville, Ontario, there was not one child or adult living in that little burg who did not know or respect Mr. Phillips’ vigorous attitude and lifestyle. If he said you should do something, you automatically did it; and if he said you should not do something, then you absolutely did not do it. Mr. Phillips taught the higher grades in school. Miss MacKechnie, a new teacher and a thirty plus something spinster, taught grades three and four, while Miss Potts, a pretty young woman fresh out of college, had the grade one and two students under her wing. There was another aspect of Michael Phillips which did not manifest itself that often, but which trait was embedded firmly in his ample figure. That trait was jocosity – a sense of humor which came to the fore when something suddenly struck him as farcical or ludicrous. *** “You are older now,” Michael Phillips informed Joseph John, as the boy walked next to him. They were on their way to school on one of the first Wednesday mornings of the autumn. “I think,” Michael continued slowly and placidly, “that being that you are older now and attending school, you ought to get rid of your teddy bear.” It was raining. The sound of the droplets spattered comfortably on the rounded top of the black umbrella held up over Michael Phillips’ head. Next to him, Joseph John half-walked under it as well. His father’s sturdy frame, however, easily overlapped the middle section of the umbrella and, consequently, denied the boy protection for his right side. Joseph John considered the possibility for a moment that he had been divided into two boys – a dry one and a wet one. But he knew that this was not possible. “Perhaps,” his father went on, even as he navigated over a puddle, “perhaps we might get you a bicycle.” Joseph John looked up in astonishment at his father. Taking his eyes off the road for a moment, he promptly stepped into that puddle. Now he had both a wet left side and a right wet foot. “A bicycle?” he repeated somewhat slowly. “Yes,” his father’s voice was strong, as strong as the gust of wind that suddenly pulled at the umbrella. “The truth is,” his father went on, placing both his hands on the umbrella shaft to hold it straight, “that William is getting rid of his bicycle. The pharmacist is giving him a new one and William is kindly thinking that you might like to have his old one.” “Oh.” Joseph John’s answer was almost lost in the brief wind bluster. There were many things to consider. For one thing, he knew as sure as raindrops were wet, that once his father made up his mind about something, there was not much you could do to change it. Another thing was that he did not really want William’s old bicycle and neither did he want to get rid of his straw-colored teddy. “Well,” his father’s voice bellowed above him, “that’s settled then. You’re almost six years old now and growing up quite sensibly. Your Mother would be proud of you, Joseph John.” Joseph John thought of the black and white photo on the dresser in the living room. Mother had sewn teddy and wouldn’t it be a little like getting rid of Mother if he got rid of his teddy? Mother had never said much, but she, like teddy, had listened to everything he said. “You’re not saying much, son,” Michael Phillips commented, even as he strode along, “But I’m glad this problem’s been cleared up. I expect you’ll want to throw that bear out with the trash. I’ll burn it tonight.” These last words left Joseph John aghast. He rarely concluded anything quickly, but rather tossed an idea over and over in his mind before deciding upon it. Glancing at his father’s hands gripping the handle of the umbrella, he remembered his mother’s hands – small and fine hands they had been. They were not like his sisters’ hands. Their hands were raw-boned and reddish. No, mother’s hands had been…. His recollections stopped. “Oh, yes,” his father continued, “I think I neglected to tell you that I’ve invited Miss MacKechnie over for supper tonight.” For the second time during their walk, Joseph John looked up at his father in amazement. Miss MacKechnie was his teacher. That is to say, she was his teacher some of the time. She taught art to the first and second graders every Tuesday. He was a little afraid of her. She rarely praised a child, but she often criticized, criticized and made fun of students. A ridiculous scene presented itself in his mind – the scene of Miss MacKechnie sitting at the kitchen table with himself and his father. It was almost more than he could conjure up. No colored chalk in her right hand, but a knife; no wooden pointer in her left hand, but a fork. And what would she do if the food did not please her? “Why?” he asked, even as the rain kept pattering on the umbrella and as his right foot began to feel soggy and cold. “Why?” his father repeated, as they neared the schoolyard and as the noise of children’s shouting and squabbling met them, “Because I say so.” He stopped at the gate of the iron enclosure encompassing the playground and so spiritedly shook the umbrella that spatters flew into Joseph John’s face. Then he undid the latch and lumbered through. Joseph John shuffled in behind his father, immediately blending in with the noisy crowd. The boy sighed. It was hard to sigh in a crowd. The small puff of it evaporated in the throng surrounding him. His right foot was thoroughly cold by now and he wondered if he could go inside before the bell rang and take off his shoe and sock. Miss Potts was nice and she might have an extra sock somewhere in her closet. She had given Miranda, who sat in front of him in class, an extra pair of mittens only yesterday. Walking towards the entrance, he contemplated what he might be able to do or say to change his father’s mind about the teddy bear. But his mind, like his right foot, seemed soggy and was not able to function properly. Swinging open the door, he began to dawdle down the long corridor heading towards his classroom. Through the corridor windows, a pool of light fell beautifully on the hall floor ahead and, consequently, he could discern that the door to his classroom was open. He could hear Miss Potts’ voice long before he reached it. “Helen, you are devious.” Helen was Miss MacKechnie. Joseph John knew this to be true. He halted underneath one of the wooden coat-pegs not too far from the door. “Why shouldn’t I be? Michael is a handsome man and I’ve got such a hankering to go out with him. His wife has been gone now, let’s see, it must be upward of some two years now, and all his children are out of the house…” She stopped. Joseph John had frozen in position, had become completely immobile. “Aren’t you rather forgetting his youngest?” Miss Potts’ voice had turned sharp. “That boy’s a trifling consideration. What sort of real conversation could ….” She stopped talking and left the sentence dangling. Joseph John leaned against the wall, his heart beating rapidly. Miss MacKechnie was coming for supper. And it became clear to him, although he would not have been able to put it into words, that she intended to take Mother’s place. Miss Potts’ voice began again. “I still think that you ought not to have supper with Michael, Helen. The man is quite a bit older than you are. At least fifteen years, I believe. You’re going there under wrong pretenses. You’re ingratiating yourself. And he actually believes that you need his help in keeping your students under control? “He was… He was flattered, Ann. And, the truth is that I could actually stand a few pointers in that department. That’s the truth.” “No, you are lying to him, Helen. You’re making him think you… that you need his help. And that’s just plain dishonest.” “You’re such a goody-two-shoes, Ann. No fun to talk to at all.” Joseph John looked down at his shoes. His right shoe was shiny with wetness. He bent over and began to undo the laces. Pressed against the wall, small and unobtrusive, Helen MacKechnie didn’t even see the child as she stormed past him back to her room. *** Later, after school, Joseph John ran home. The first thing he did upon reaching the red, brick path leading to the backdoor, was to close his eyes and smile with relief. The house was still standing. It was still intact. Regardless of what the day had brought, the path wordlessly welcomed his feet and the white curtains with the red geraniums behind them, smiled at him. He smiled back. “Hi, home,” he said softly. *** Mrs. Marjorie, the part-time housekeeper, was puttering about in the kitchen. “How was your day, Joseph John?” “Fine, Mrs. Marjorie, how was yours?” “Fair to middling, child, fair to middling.” Having said that, she poured Joseph John some tea into a green mug and the green of the mug and the red of the tea imbued peace and security to the boy. He sat down by the kitchen table, coat hung over the back of his chair, feet dangling comfortably. This routine occurred every day and it sheltered him from the unusual, from the abnormalities of life. His hands soaked in the warmth of the mug even as his mouth carefully sipped the hot liquid. Mrs. Marjorie had been Mother’s friend and she lived only two doors down. Every day she was there when he came home from school and she stayed until six, until Father came home. Setting the table for supper, cleaning and tidying up, she could always be counted on for a hug. Mrs. Marjorie had loved Mother. “Did you,” he began, but then stopped. “Did I what?” she answered as she sliced him a fresh piece of bread and slathered it with butter. “Did you ever have …? “Have a what?” she smiled. “Well,” he continued, “have a doll, or a … a something that you loved. You know like a toy.” Mrs. Marjorie searched his face for a small moment before she said, “Well now, and if that isn’t a good question, Joseph John.” Jacob John took a bite of the bread, expectantly chewing as he studied her face. “I did have a doll. I believe it was one my mother made for me.” “You did?” “Yes.” Mrs. Marjorie was grinning now and continued. “And a fine doll it was. But you needn’t look so surprised, young fellow, because you see, everyone has something they treasure, something they cherish. And that’s a fact.” “Do they?” She nodded and sat down opposite him. “Yes, indeed, and that’s the truth.” “My brothers?” he ventured on into the conversation. “Well, let’s see. I believe Harvey had a little dog on wheels that he pulled around everywhere he went. It eventually broke and I don’t remember what happened to it. And William, now let me see. Oh yes, William at one point had a pet frog which he took to bed. He almost killed the poor animal because he didn’t put him back in the place where frogs belong – in the pond.” Joseph John was fascinated. “Did Father make him get rid of it, Mrs. Marjorie?” “I can’t recall. But eat up your bread, Joseph John. I’ve got to leave soon. Nathan is coming home early tonight and I want to be there when he arrives.” Nathan was her son. He was a traveling salesman and sometimes dropped in for a visit. “Miss MacKechnie is coming for supper.” The sentence flew out of his mouth before Joseph John could catch it. “I know,” Mrs. Marjorie nodded, a shadow passing across her face, “and you’ll have to be on good behavior, child, and that’s a fact.” “Why is she coming, Mrs. Marjorie?” “I expect she likes my cooking.” Mrs. Marjorie grinned as she spoke. “But you won’t even be here.” “But my food will be here and your father is right handy at heating food up.” “Yes,” Joseph John conceded as he chewed his last bite, disappointed that Mrs. Marjorie did not seem to understand that he was not at all looking forward to Miss MacKechnie’s visit. “Now go and feed Bobby, or your father will be cross.” Joseph John scraped his chair back and stood up. “Can I just go up and … and take care of something?” Mrs. Marjorie nodded and Joseph John raced out of the kitchen. He sped up the stairs to his bedroom, grabbed his teddy and hid him in the clothes closet. Then he grabbed a pillow case from the hall closet and stuffed it into his pocket. He could fill it with dirt or something else soft and bulgy and give it to his father before he went to burn the trash tonight. He wouldn’t say anything, would just give it to his father, and then disappear before questions were asked. Surely that wouldn’t be lying. Then he went downstairs again, grabbing his coat from the back of the chair as he passed through the kitchen, and went out to feed the dog. *** It was Joseph John’s job to give Father’s dog dinner every day after he came home from school. Bobby was a little terrier who had been left by the side of the road by someone two years ago. It had been right after Mother had died. Father had been out for a walk when a white puppy had crawled out of some juniper bushes and had followed him home. It’s strange, Joseph John thought even as he filled the dish with food, that Father had so taken to Bobby. The small dog had been in dire need of bathing, his right eye had oozed with pus and he had limped. Father, who never cuddled or hugged, who rarely played games because he considered that a waste of time, had suddenly lavished affection, care and playfulness on a stray, wee mutt. Jacob John, who had been all of four years old at the time, had been a trifle afraid of the dog’s sharp, pointy teeth and spiky claws. He had also been worried, truth be told, that Father would love the dog more than he loved himself. The feeling had covertly crept up in his heart after Bobby had lived with them only a few days. He had felt guilty about this envy welling up within himself. Father rarely hugged him, played with him, or tucked him into bed the way that he hugged, played with, or settled Bobby into his basket. Although he would not have been able to put it into words, "jealousy and envy" were clouds that began to plague his conscience. Rev. Morse read the law each Sunday and he knew it by heart. Although the pastor had habitually leaned over the pulpit intently staring at the congregation, it seemed to Joseph John during this particular time that he was especially staring at himself. “Is there any time,” the reverend had said one Sunday, “in which you think that God is not there? Is there any time you feel that God does not see what you do?" As he had continued, his words appeared to eat into Joseph John’s heart: “Well, then you are wrong. God sees and hears everything you say, think or do.” The dog whined and Joseph John was startled back into the present, into the fact that he was holding the dog’s feeding dish in his hand. But no matter, the pastor’s words went on in his head and sprinkled over onto the dog food. “You know if you choose to be truthful and faithful in your work, God’s love is there for you. It is there for you every day. Remember that! It is most important!” And Joseph John did not know whether or not these words had anything to do with the teddy hidden in his closet. Bobby was overjoyed to see him. The pet was in the backyard, enclosed in a fenced-in run. When he saw the boy coming, he began hurtling himself around in small circles, stopping only when Joseph John had unlatched the gate and had come in. Then he stood on his hind legs. His front legs hugged the boy, pulled at his coat with his sharp teeth, even as his nose tried to reach the bowl he was holding up high. “I know,” Joseph John told the dog, “I know that you’re hungry. I am too, but I did have a snack. Tonight though, I have to eat with Miss Mackechnie and that makes my stomach feel funny.” He put the bowl down and stood back, smiling a little as Bobby devoured his food – devoured it quickly, licking the bowl with his red tongue until its inside was shiny with saliva. When the bowl was absolutely spotless, he began to lick the edge, knocking it over in his eagerness for more food. “Father sure likes you,” the boy murmured, and it came to him that the dog might be as dear to his father, as the teddy was dear to himself. And it came to him as well that perhaps he, Joseph John, loved the teddy bear more than he loved his father. Was it possible that his father was jealous? Such a thing had never occurred to him before and he scuffed the idea into the grass with his brown shoe. Giving up on the dish, Bobby was eager for playing and jumped up on the boy. Usually Joseph John left quickly, holding the empty bowl high in the air, making sure that Bobby stayed in his run when he quit the cage. But today, as he stood outside the enclosure, he studied the terrier. Perhaps tonight he should remain for a while and entertain the wagging animal. It abruptly dawned on him that Bobby was alone all day and had nothing much to do except bark at overhead birds or stand on his hind legs trying to catch sight of passers-by. Father was away at school all day. And although Father undoubtedly loved the dog, there were many times when he had no moments to spare for Bobby. And tonight, well, tonight there was Miss MacKechnie and Joseph John didn’t have much hope for the little mutt. He put down the bowl on the grass, and re-opened the gate. “Come on, Bobby,” he called out, “let’s go for a walk, you and I.” Exuberantly agreeable, the dog came racing out. Zipping past Joseph John, he sped down the lawn and darted off down the country road leading towards the town. In spite of his good intentions, Joseph John began to feel a trifle apprehensive. After all, Bobby was not really used to going for walks with him, and he could clearly hear his father’s voice whispering to his subconscious, "Don’t do things with the dog, Joseph John, until you have consulted with me." Swallowing audibly before he also forced his legs to bolt, Joseph John broke into action, taking off after what now seemed only a speck on the horizon. They lived on a country road, and there were many fields into which Bobby could possibly turn and disappear. “Wait, Bobby!!’ As he yelled the words, the boy accelerated his sprint, gravel flying under his feet. Presently, after running for close to five minutes, he could see two figures approaching on the horizon of the road. Slowing down, he discerned that they walked arm-in-arm, the way Father used to walk with Mother. Joseph John stopped dead and considered. If Bobby had passed them at breakneck speed, they surely would not be strolling along as calmly as they were doing. His remorse increased by the minute. Having a run-away dog, was an indictment on him. He had not been faithful in the work his father had given him and was found wanting. No doubt there would be much anger. Anxious to get out of sight before the couple reached him, he turned and walked quickly into the undergrowth at the side of the road. There was a bench stationed at this precise spot. Bushes sheltered its back and it seemed to Joseph John a perfect spot for cover. Perhaps Bobby had galloped this way as well. Perhaps the dog would soon nuzzle his arm and willingly be carried home. Joseph John sighed deeply before he sat down on the ground behind the bench. The earth was still wet from the morning’s downpour. He knew straightaway that his breeches would soon be damp and uncomfortable. He took off his coat and sat on it. Cedar branches sheltered him from view. He waited quietly, his heart slowing down as he rested. Presently he could hear footsteps on the gravel road. The plodding of a heavy-set person contrasted with the lively crunch of someone much lighter and quicker. Carefully peeking out, Joseph John could see that the couple, now only some fifty feet away, were none other than his father and Miss MacKechnie. Their conversation, faint at first, became clearer as they approached his spot. “… it surely,” he heard Miss MacKechnie enunciate in her rather high-pitched and animated voice, ‘was evident that your extended invitation for supper was due only to the fact that you felt sorry for me.” Michael Phillips’ rejoinder was not long in coming. “Absolutely not” he boomed out, “I asked you to come to supper solely, Miss MacKechnie to build up the school. For the fact is, if you have problems with discipline, the school suffers. And I am in charge of the school.” “Yes,” Miss MacKechnie answered, “and I appreciate your saying that. But remember that I am an independent woman and that it is humiliating for me, in a sense, to ask for help. Secondly, this is my first year here. These are two counts against me. I just want you to know that I am so very thankful that you are taking the time to help me.” “And why should I not help you?” His father’s tone, although milder now, was slightly annoyed. “Perhaps, ….” To Joseph John’s dismay, Miss MacKecknie stopped in front of the bench. She leaned heavily on her companion’s arm, panting a little. Peeking between the branches, Joseph John could tell by the look on his father’s face, that the man was not pleased. The why of it was Greek to him, but he felt sorry for his father. Instinctively he grasped that Miss MacKechnie was trying to lead him along, was interposing things which would …? He didn’t actually know what Miss MacKechnie was doing but it became clearer and cleared to him that his father didn’t like it. “Perhaps,” Miss MacKechnie continued, suddenly thinning out her voice to almost imperceptible, “we could sit down for a moment? Frankly, I’m quite exhausted - quite tired and ….” “Sit down?” Michael Phillip’s voice was sceptical and unwillingness hung heavily on his two words. “Yes, Mr. Phillips, would that be too much to ask.” She was speaking very softly now and although Joseph John, head down behind the bushes, strained the ears of his mind, he still could not comprehend what exactly she intended. But he could ascertain that the couple was making straight for the bench behind which he was hiding. Instinctively he crawled towards the right so that they might not see him. It took a few minutes for Miss MacKechnie to install herself on the bench. It was a wooden bench, a sturdy bench, and Joseph John remembered vaguely that he had sat in that very spot with his mother. “It’s very beautiful here,” Miss MacKechnie began, as she ran a gloved hand over the lap of her skirt. “Yes,” Michael Phillips answered, “that it is.” There was quiet for some time and Joseph John felt such a strong urge to sneeze come over him, that he buried his nose into his right arm. “How has it been for you,” Miss MacKechnie went on, “bringing up a child on your own now that your dear wife has passed on?” Instantly Joseph John perceived that his father’s back stiffened at this question, and the boy slowly raised his head up from his arm. “It has been well,” the answer came grudgingly, and seemingly without emotion, “God has been good to me.” “Nevertheless, it must be difficult. You are to be applauded, sir. Not many men could manage as I see that you do.” Without speaking, Michael Phillips nodded and she went on. “Do you ever think, if it is not too bold for me to mention it, of remarrying?” “No.” The answer was quick and short and had Helen MacKechnie been a woman of some insight and sensitivity, she would not have pursued the point. But she was not such a woman. “But why ever not? Such a handsome man as yourself, one so helpful and knowledgeable.” Totally ignoring the compliment, Michael Phillips half-stood up, signaling an end to the conversation. “I presume you are rested at this point, Miss MacKechnie? If so, I would suggest we walk on.” Joseph John listened and inwardly applauded his father’s suggestion. “Oh, but I am still quite fatigued, and would be most happy with just a few more minutes of just sitting here.” Michael Phillips sighed. Leaning back once more, he exuded frustration and began tapping his fingers on the bench’s armrest. Sitting some two feet to the left of Helen MacKechnie, his whole frame suggested extreme dissatisfaction. Helen shifted her form to the right, moving her body slightly towards him. “Sir, I hope you will forgive my forthrightness, but I would like to be completely honest with you. I would like to tell you that I am very attracted to your outspoken, if somewhat blunt, character. I know this is not a thing for a woman to confess to a man, but since I judge you to be a person of some bashfulness where women are concerned ….” She left off speaking for a small moment before continuing. “I feel I must impart this to you. Truthfully, I do not think, brash though you are, that you would have the confidence to tell me, a much younger woman, that you also feel attracted to me.” A bird sang in the bushes. Perhaps it was laughing along with Michael Phillips who, at the close of Helen’s words, had burst out into such a roar of laughter that his belly shook. Joseph John felt giggles welling up inside his own belly at the sound, but knew that he could not let his whereabouts be made known. Helen MacKechnie, at first merely astounded at the howling, stood up. She shook out her dark blue skirt. “You, sir,” she then managed in a loud voice, “are mocking me. And I do not take kindly to that.” “Mocking you?” Michael Phillips stopped in the midst of a loud chortle, and regarded her in amazement. “Yes.” “Surely, madam, you were bantering. Your speech was ridiculous to the point of absurd and preposterous. Having never given you any indication whatsoever that I was in the slightest manner drawn to you, I must conclude you are joking. Consider this, ma’am. Whoever might, and this is dubious, perhaps marry you, has a great deal of weariness ahead of him.” Helen MacKechnie stamped her right foot. “Do not think, sir, that I will let this go. You have insulted me.” “It is true, Helen,” and Joseph noted that his father left the Miss part of her name off at this point, “I am perhaps a little rash with my words, but hopefully this will be for your good. The truth of the matter is that what you have said is unbecoming for a woman to say. And you should remember that you speak and act before an All-seeing Eye. Please reflect on this. If you need help, rely on God. He will give you what you stand in need of.” Perhaps her anger gave her extra strength, but at this juncture Helen MacKechnie bent over, pulled at her skirt and ripped the rather flimsy material – ripped it so that a strip of fabric hung loose and a gaping tear exposed a great deal of her leg. Michael Phillips stood up as well. Joseph John almost stood up as well, but then remembered that he was hiding. And when you hide, you do not show yourself. “I think that you had better leave.” His father’s voice was austere, his figure was ramrod straight, and authoritarian. “I think, sir,” Helen MacKechnie weighed in breathlessly, while she faced him boldly as she held on to her skirt, “that the school board will want an accounting of this ripped skirt.” It seemed to Joseph John at this precise moment that he was sitting in church. He could literally feel the solid, wooden kneeling bench on which his small feet always rested. It was a spot his Sunday shoes could just reach from the height of the pew. He was leaning against his father. The organ had just finished, grand and majestic, and there was an echo of the last psalm hanging over the congregation. Pastor Morse was presiding on the pulpit ready to begin his sermon. “Please read the Genesis passage with me once more,” he intoned, “so that you will better recall what it is we will be reflecting on tonight.” Father had put his finger under the words the minister was reading, and Joseph, for all his five years, had followed father’s finger. Mother had taught him to read when he was four, and he had ever loved words. “We will begin at the latter part of verse 6 in chapter 39.” Father’s patiently pointing out every word, Joseph John reflected even now as he sat on the moist ground behind the bench, had shown love. He pointed them out every Sunday, and every Sunday he leaned against his father as he sat in the bench. How strange that was, but he knew of a surety at this very moment, that Father loved him even though he might not show it in games and such. “Now Joseph was handsome in form and appearance. And after a time, his master's wife cast her eyes on Joseph and said, “Lie with me.” But he refused and said to his master's wife, “Behold, because of me my master has no concern about anything in the house, and he has put everything that he has in my charge. He is not greater in this house than I am, nor has he kept back anything from me except you, because you are his wife. How then can I do this great wickedness and sin against God?” And as she spoke to Joseph, day after day, he would not listen to her, to lie beside her or to be with her.” Father was handsome even as Joseph in the story was handsome. It was a handsomeness inside him. Miss MacKechnie wanted to take that handsomeness. She had told Miss Potts that she had a hankering for him. Joseph John wasn’t sure about that word. Perhaps it had to do with blowing your nose. But Miss MacKechnie had a way of teaching, a way of saying things which … which helped her get her own way. “Michael is a handsome man and I’ve got such a hankering to go out with him. His wife has been gone now, let’s see, it must be upward of some two years now, and all his children are out of the house…” Miss MacKechnie had said something that wasn’t true. She had lied. She had said all of father’s children were out of the house. Miss MacKechnie was erasing him, Joseph John, like a picture or a sentence she didn’t like, out of father’s life. That was stealing, a taking away something that did not belong to you. But he knew that father would not let her take him out. And a great love for his father welled up inside Joseph John, even as he brushed aside the cedar branches that were hiding him from the road. And he saw that Miss MacKechnie had sat down again. “Won’t you reconsider now, Michael,” she said, “surely your career as the principal of the school is important to you? Why risk a scandal?” Pastor Morse had said: Some innocent questions can be dangerous. We have to learn to recognize them. Spending time answering questions which might lead to sin, is wrong. Was Miss MacKechnie’s question wrong? At this moment Bobby came from behind and nuzzled Joseph John’s hand. It made him glad. He had hoped this would happen when he first sat down. “Hi, Bobby,” he whispered, “How are you?” The dog whimpered slightly. He’d likely been off in the fields and woods, chasing grouse or rabbits or birds. “You have to be quiet, Bobby,” Joseph John continued whispering, “because Father is in trouble on the road.” It was then that Michael Phillips’s voice reached behind the bench making the dog’s ears perk up, perk up straight like two antennas. Joseph John had to hold and hug him to make him stay in place. “A scandal?” Michael’s voice repeated Helen’s words quizzically, and again, “A scandal?” The dog began to squirm terribly in the boy’s arms. “Yes,” Helen MacKechnie smiled, unaware of the twisting, wriggling dog straight behind her in the bushes. “Helen,” Michael Phillips urged, “you are walking down an improper and immoral path here.” Bobby, hearing his master’s voice speak again, could not be contained by Joseph John any longer. Breaking free of Joseph John’s hold, he leapt through the cedar bushes, ran around the bench and hurled himself at Michael Phillips. “Bobby!?” “Your dog!?” Bobby, excitedly licked his master’s hands. Satisfied that it was really him, the creature suddenly turned and faced Helen. Helen did not like dogs and seeing one this close by caused her breath to come faster. She let go of the torn skirt and a strip of blue cloth hung quivering down her leg in the slight, late afternoon breeze. Bobby, game for anything moving, anything at all he might tug, jumped for it and pulled. She screamed. The material, fairly flimsy to begin with, easily gave way to the dog’s teeth. Triumphantly, the little animal ran away with it – ran away down the road. Helen stood frozen, immobile – a look of fear and disbelief on her face. “Are you alright?” Michael Phillips asked. She did not answer and he tried again, joking this time. “There goes a piece of vital evidence in your case.” Shaking herself, Helen MacKechnie’s voice returned. “Are you reconsidering my question, Michael?” “Some questions don’t need an answer.” “Well, then, I guess I’ll go and see if I can contact some board members.” Helen’s voice was cold. “Father?” Joseph John stepped out from behind the cedar bushes. “Son? What are you doing here?” “I was out … out, sort of walking with Bobby. He ran ahead of me and we ended up here.” “Were you here,” Helen queried, “the whole time that we …?” She stopped and Joseph John answered. “You mean did I see you rip your own skirt?” To his surprise, he heard his father break out into laughter again, stopping only to say between chuckles, “Do you still want to come for supper, Helen, or have you had enough to chew on for the evening.” *** There were only two of them for supper that night – just Joseph John and his father. And, afterwards, when it was time to burn the trash, Joseph John told him that he did not really want to burn the teddy bear that his mother had made. To his surprise, his father nodded and did not at all appear annoyed or rankled. “You did well today, son,” he remarked as they stood by the fire in the backyard, “and I was proud of you.” “Why?” “Why was I proud of you?” Joseph John nodded. “Because you chose to tell the truth and were not afraid of the consequences.” “Oh, father,” Joseph John blurted out, “I just remembered that I forgot my coat behind the bench. I sat on it because the ground was wet. I hope we can find it tomorrow.” “It is better to lose a good coat than a good conscience,” his father replied, “and tomorrow night, let’s play a game of checkers after supper, son.” And although Joseph John didn’t quite understand, he leaned against his father, the way he had leaned against his father in church when father’s finger underlined the words of Scripture for him. And together they watched the fire devour the trash. *** God visits His children with troublesome matters so that they will learn about Him. Affliction can produce knowledge, empathy, patience and heart....

Red heart icon with + sign.
News

Saturday Selections – Nov. 1, 2025

Luther vs. the Roman Catholic church In light of Reformation Day this week: Luther's stand, as a rock opera. A theology of bed Many of us go to bed plugged into our smartphone and then fade into sleep all the while never free from distraction. But, as Rev. Ian Wildeboer shares, the Bible points us to a different sort of bed time. "You can tell cause a da bones!" Viral dinosaur skit perfectly exposes “Trust the Science” culture It took quite a while for me to realize that much of what I was learning in university wasn't actual, but only theoretical. I wasn't the only student confused, because our profs weren't presenting their theories as educated guesses – they were presenting them as facts. And their guesses were based on assumptions, and sometimes, as this video highlights and mocks, there was an awful lot of guesswork and assumptions stacked atop a scant amount of actual, factual information. Canada is turning its assisted suicide regime into an organ donation supply chain Canadian doctors are now murdering their patients and then harvesting their organs – it's happened at least 155 times so far. And under the euthanasia regime, it's all legal. The idea of giving your organs away to those in need will now become one more enticement to encourage desperate, confused, lonely, ailing, or abandoned people to sign up for MAiD murders. This has implications for Christians, even though we'd never agree to euthanasia. Why? Because Christians are going to require transplants. Do we need to create a parallel organ donation system that is free from any encouragements to murder? How could we even go about doing that? Manage your time better... ...with these 4 quick tips. Creationist on why you shouldn't be worried about climate change In this conversation, atmospheric scientist Dr. Larry Vardiman starts talking about the Ice Age and its causes, but about 5 minutes in continues on to talk about climate change, and how today's concerns "are the result of a deep confusion about earth history." This is 20 minutes, but worth it for Christians concerned about climate change or curious about a creationist perspective on ice cores. ...

Red heart icon with + sign.
Articles, Entertainment, Movie Reviews

Reading films: are Christians as discerning as they used to be?

"Moving pictures" have only the briefest of histories, spreading throughout North America early in the twentieth century. The first movie theatres were converted stores with hard wooden benches and a bedsheet for a screen, and they came to be known as "nickelodeons" because the admission price was five cents. Films were short – in 1906 the average length was five to ten minutes. In 1911 the earliest cinema music was played on tinkling pianos. During the silent film era, slapstick comedy – which depends on broad physical actions and pantomime for its effect rather than dialogue – was widely prevalent. With the advent of the "talkies" in the 1930s, screwball comedy became widely popular. It was laced with hyper action, was highly verbal, and noted for its wisecracks. In 1939 the first drive-in theatre was opened on a ten-acre site in Camden, New Jersey. A brief history of the Church and movies  When movies first because a form of widespread public entertainment, Christians were frequently warned against movie-going. Many "fundamentalist" pastors forcefully exhorted, "When the Lord suddenly returns, would you want to meet Him in a theatre watching a worldly movie?" In Reformed Churches too, Christians were also exhorted not to attend movie theatres. 1. The Christian Reformed Church (CRC) As early as 1908 the editor of the CRC denominational magazine, The Banner, complained: "Theatre going supports a class of people that frequently caters to the lowest taste of depraved humanity, actors and actresses and their employers." A general objection was that the movie industry as a whole tended to be "of the world," and thus against Christian values and the church… and ultimately against God's Kingdom. The CRC 1928 Report of the Committee on Worldly Amusements paid close attention to the question of worldliness in relation to the movies. The Report stopped short of calling the whole movie industry anti-Christian, but still issued severe warnings against attending movies. CRC Synod 1928 judged: "We do not hesitate to say that those who make a practice of attending the theatre and who therefore cannot avoid witnessing lewdness which it exhibits or suggests are transgressors of the seventh commandment." In 1964 the CRC took another serious look at the movies. The CRC realized that its official stance and the practice of its members were at great variance, producing a "denominational schizophrenia and/or hypocrisy." In 1966 a major report The Film Arts and the Church was released. It differed substantially from the earlier studies. Film, it said, should be regarded as a legitimate means of cultural expression, so the medium of film must be claimed, and restored by Christians. The Report was idealistic in hoping that members of the CRC would become discriminating and educated moviegoers, reflecting on and discussing films as part of their cultural milieu. The review of movies in The Banner began in 1975, but faced strong opposition. But in time the Reformed doctrine of the antithesis  (we should not be just like the world) became muted in the choice of movies made by CRC members. There was little difference in what they watched, and what the world watched. 2. The Protestant Reformed Church (PRC) The PRC was fervent in its denouncement of movies and movie attendance. The PRC considers all acting as evil, as is the watching of acting on stage, in theatres, on television, or on video. PRC minister Dale Kuiper said, "Certainly the content of almost 100 per cent of dramatic productions (movies, television programs, plays, skits, operas) place these things out of bounds for the Christian." But already in 1967 a writer noted that PRC practice did not match PRC principle: "When I was formerly an active pastor in a congregation, it was always a source of sad disappointment to me that so few of our young people could testify, when asked at confession of faith, that they had not indulged in the corruptions of the movie." And since 1969 and continuing till today, various pastors and professors have lamented that large numbers of PRC members watch movies, either in theatres or, more often, on television. 3. Evangelicals Evangelicals have a history of making films as a way of teaching Christian values. The Billy Graham organization Worldwide Pictures made modest independent films to evangelize youth: The Restless Ones (1965), about teenage pregnancy; A Thief in the Night (1972), an end-times thriller; and the Nicky Cruz biopic, The Cross and the Switchblade (1970). A reporter dubbed them "religious tracts first, entertainment second." More recently, evangelicals made new producing sci-fi films about the apocalypse, which critics claim are embarrassingly poor-quality – artistically flawed – productions marketed in the name of evangelism. As examples, they refer to the three profitable Left Behind Movies (2000, 2002, 2005). There has also been a trend to create "family-friendly" movies. However, these movies tend to depict a world where all issues are plain and simple. Evildoers are destroyed, the virtuous rewarded, and often times the “good” characters have within themselves everything they need to secure their destiny. Clearly, then, this is not the real world. We've also seen, among evangelicals, a defense of less than family-friendly films. Already back in 1998, the Dallas Morning News ran a story about the growing number of Christians who advocate going to even R-rated movies. The reason? Evangelical filmmaker Dallas Jenkins said, “Non-Christians are just as capable of producing God-honoring and spiritually uplifting products as Christians are, and I've been as equally offended by a Christian's product as I've been moved by something from a non-Christian." Perspectives So how should Christians think about films? How can we approach them with discernment? It begins with recognizing that a film is more than a form of entertainment: it propagates a worldview. Films often: exalt self-interest as the supreme value glorify violent resolutions to problems promote the idea that finding the perfect mate is one's primary vocation and highest destiny Films also so often promote a view of romantic love as being passionate and irresistible, able to conquer anything, including barriers of social class, age, race and ethnicity, and personality conflicts. But the love it portrays is usually another euphemism for lust. In Images of Man: a Critique of the Contemporary Cinema, Donald J. Drew observes that in contemporary films, the context makes it clear that love equals sex plus nothing. An underlying assumption in mainstream Hollywood films is that the goal in life is to become rich. And acquiring things is even supposed to make you a better person! But the values of consumerism, self-indulgence and immediate gratification can harm individuals, families, and communities.  Titanic (1997) Most films depict a world in which God is absent or non-existent. For example, there is nothing in the film Titanic to suggest that God is even interested in the fate of those on board the sinking ship. Whether uncaring or impotent, God is irrelevant in the world of this film. In his book Eyes Wide Open: Looking for God in Popular Culture, William D. Romanowski comments: "Whatever outward appearances of belief dot the landscape of Titanic, they have little bearing on the faith of the main characters, especially when compared to the film's glorification of the human will and spirit." The principal character Rose Bukater is engaged to Cal Hockley, who is concerned only with the approval of his social set. He equates wealth and social status with worth and character. Aware of the limited lifeboat capacity, Rose says, "Half the people on the ship are going to die." The snobbish Cal responds, “Not the better half.” These attitudes run against the grain of American values associated with freedom and equality. And because he is the obvious bad guy, the director has so framed things that whoever stands against Cal will be understood, by the audience, to be the good guy. And so we see in opposition to Cal, the free-spirited artist Jack who is the ultimate expression of pure freedom. His character traits, talent, and good looks easily identify him as the hero. And so the scene is set that when Rose and Jack have an illicit sexual encounter, the audience is encouraged to cheer this and want this, because it is for Rose a declaration of independence from her fiancé and her mother's control over her. The now famous sex scene sums up many of the film's themes: Forbidden love, class differences, and individual freedom. The Passion of the Christ (2004) There was, not so long ago, a film in which God was included. Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ was highly recommended by evangelicals for its realistic portrayal of Christ's suffering and death. But how true to the Gospels is the film? Why did the director have Jesus stand up to invite more scourging by the Roman soldiers? Was the suffering Jesus endured primarily physical, as this film portrays? Is the film historically accurate or is it a reflection of Gibson's theology? Co-screenwriter Mel Gibson said that he relied not only on the New Testament but also on the writings of two nuns, Mary of Agreda, a seventeenth-century aristocrat, and Anne Catherine Emmerich, an early nineteenth-century stigmatic. The violence in the film became a matter of much debate when the film was released. On the one hand, the head of an evangelical youth ministry said, "This isn't violence for violence's sake. This is what really happened, what it would have been like to have been there in person to see Jesus crucified." On the other hand, many critics cringed at the level of violence in the movie. Romanowski comments, "In my estimation, it is difficult to provide dramatic justification for some of the violence in the film." Star Wars (1977) While the inclusion of God in a film is a rarity, the inclusion of spirituality is not. One of the most iconic and controversial film series has been Star Wars. In 1977 it hit the big screens and it was an immediate success. Legions of fans formed an eerie cult-like devotion and the box-office receipts were astronomical. It originated a new genre – the techno-splashy sci-fi soap opera. The film definitely has a semi-religious theme. In From Plato to NATO David Gress writes that the Star Wars film saga broadcast a popular mythology of heroism, growth, light, and dark sides, wise old men and evil tempters, all concocted by the California filmmaker George Lucas. Much of the inspiration came from the teaching of Joseph Campbell, who claimed there is truth in all mythology. Campbell wrote in 1955 that "clearly Christianity is opposed fundamentally and intrinsically to everything I am working and living for." Meanwhile, John C. McDowell, Lecturer in Systematic Theology at New College, University of Edinburgh, finds something redemptive in Star Wars. He analyses the "classic trilogy" Star Wars, The Empire Strikes Back, and the Return of the Jedi in his book The Gospel according to Star Wars: Faith, Hope, and the Force. He calls these films a "pop-culture phenomenon" of unprecedented stature and much more than mere entertainment. He suggests that the films carry even "more influence among young adults than the traditional religious myths of our culture." He argues that these films possess rich resources to change and transform us as moral subjects by helping us in some measure to encounter the deep mystery of what it means to be truly human. He even claims that Star Wars is "a parabolic resource that reveals something of the shape of a Christian discipleship lived under the shadow of the cross." He notes that the theology of the original trilogy is difficult to pin down – though the interconnectedness of all of life does seem to be the fruit of the Force in some way and this is therefore exalted as the movies' "good" or "god." McDowell also discovered pacifist themes in the films – according to him, Star Wars at its best possesses radical potential to witness to a set of nonviolent values. Critical assessment Should we warn Christians about the kind of movies they are watching, whether in a theatre or on TV? Some say, "They are only movies. They won't influence us." I wonder whether the lack of critical thinking by evangelicals is the result of the tendency to privatize faith, confining religious beliefs to personal morality, family, and the local congregation, all the while conducting their affairs in business, politics, education, and social life, and the arts much like everyone else. Aren't even many Christians overlooking the persistence of evil in human history? We live in a fallen world that is at once hostile to God and also in search for God. Works of art can glorify God – including film art – but they can also be instrumental in leading people away from Him. Ever since the fall, human beings have been in revolt against God, turning their gifts against the Giver. Art, along with nearly every human faculty, has been tainted by the fall. Indeed, one of the first phases of the disintegration brought by sin was the usurpation of art for the purpose of idolatry (Rom. 1:23). Most people believe they are personally immune to what they see on the film screen or on TV. How do we grow in our faith? Not by watching and observing a steady diet of movies. We must restore the primacy and power of the Word of God. God gave us a book – the Bible – and not a movie. We should be critical in our thinking, and apply our Biblical worldview. Scripture calls us to "test everything. Hold on to the good. Avoid every kind of evil" (1 Thess. 5:1-22). Rev. Johan Tangelder (1936-2009) wrote for Reformed Perspective for 13 years. Many of his articles have been collected at Reformed Reflections. This article was first published in November 2019....

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