Transparent heart icon with white outline and + sign.

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

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

White magnifying glass.

Search thousands of RP articles

Equipping Christians to think, speak, and act

Open envelope icon with @ symbol

Get Articles Delivered!

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



News

Saturday Selections – Oct. 18, 2025

Should Christians celebrate Halloween?

If we do, we should definitely do it differently.

Whatever its historic origins, Halloween today has become a celebration of, and the commercialization of, death, the demonic and all things creepy – 5-foot spiders and 8-foot skeletons are on sale now at your local Walmart! Your kids want to dress up as a cute puppy dog or a princess? Downright counter-cultural! Shucks, while trying to find a stock picture for the topic of Halloween, I discovered 99% of the Halloween pictures had skeletons, ghosts, devils, witches, vampires, or the like. Photos of kids dressed up in clever or cute costumes could hardly be had.

The most compelling case against tech in schools (10-minute read)

This is on "the mounting evidence that computers and tablets on students’ desks are interfering with their education because the distraction effects almost always outweigh whatever educational benefits were promised."

As Jonathan Haidt (author of The Anxious Generation) writes, "I banned the use of all screens in all of my classes at New York University several years ago, because it became clear that many college students can’t stay present in class when there’s a laptop or phone on their desk."

National Post article highlights the case against term limits and for small, teeny tiny government

Citizens, frustrated with politicians who don't deliver on their promises, might well raise the notion of term limits, to ensure that we can at least sweep out the disappointing mass of them every couple of terms or so. But what good is it, if we get rid of the figureheads and not the powers behind the throne? "Nearly one-quarter of Ontario's senior managers appear to have progressive leanings" – so reads the headline. We can debate how conservative Ontario's current government may or may not be, but even if it was headed by the most stalwart of Christian conservatives, it might not make any difference if its bureaucracy – the folks who actually decide how government decisions will be implemented – was run by radicals.

So a case could be made then, that if an elected official is ever going to have a chance at draining the swamp, he's going to need to have some time on the job to figure out where exactly the drain is situated. Term limits might just ensure that no one ever has enough experience to take on the swamp.

Of course, we already have politicians with plenty of experience, and they haven't righted the wrongs. But what an article like this shows is that our priority shouldn't be to bring in a new batch of politicians, but to just start whacking away at the bureaucracy. If we were to elect some good men, the only chance they'd have against an entrenched bureaucracy is if it were quickly reduced and rooted out.

Sports gambling ads are overrunning the airwaves

It's called the gambling industry, but there's nothing industrious about it. In true industries, everyone benefits. A farmer grows grain, a builder creates a home, a barista serves up a cappuccino – in each case provider and purchaser are both better off, such that everyone involved can say "thank-you."

But in gambling, the only way someone can win is for others to lose – there is no mutual benefit. The government and the gambling industry know the odds are always against the betters. Even the winners, if they keep gambling, are sure to lose in the long run – that's how the odds are stacked. In other words, our government and the gambling "industry" they've partnered with are making their money by encouraging their citizens to do something stupid with their money. This is evil undisguised.

Let kids read dangerous stories

This is about the rise of "cozy stories" – the Hallmark-movie versions of middle school novels, that don't have grit, chills, or tension – and why we need to steer our kids away from reading too many of these.

What is the unbeliever's most compelling argument?

Jeff Durbin, on how even the most emotionally powerful argument from an unbeliever has to have power from the Christian worldview to have any power at all.

Red heart icon with + sign.
News

Saturday Selections – Oct. 11, 2025

Ray Comfort does a stint at a Turning Point USA event Since Charlie Kirk's murder, his organization has been filling his shoes with quite a variety of stand-ins. His podcast has featured the vice president of the United States, J.D. Vance, guest hosting, followed by the DailyWire crew of Orthodox Jew Ben Shapiro, and Roman Catholics Michael Knowles and Matt Walsh. Then, this past week, Mormon Glenn Beck took a turn too. Kirk's organization Turning Point USA continues to do events on university campuses too, and at at least one event, God's gospel was clearly heard... and not just on campus but in Fox News coverage afterwards. Network television! It's just fun to see God making that happen! What is K-Pop Demon Hunters? A primer for parents It's the latest "thing" – one of those cultural happenings that all the kids are talking about. Here's a quick primer on the Netflix film. It's hardly family-time viewing, but depending on how many of your kids' classmates have already seen it, it's worth considering if you might want to watch it together so you can discuss it with your own crew. A woman has been appointed as the Archbishop of Canterbury In as far as the Church of England has a head, it would be the Archbishop of Canterbury, and now, for the first time in 1,400 years, that is a woman. In addition, Sarah Mullally is pro-choice, and doesn't seem willing to call homosexuality sin. The good news? There are many conservative Bible-believing Christians still in the Anglican Church, especially in Africa, but all over the world. They have found ways to insulate themselves from their denomination's liberal trends, while still remaining a part of it. But when your denomination calls evil good, blessing same-sex unions and countenancing the murder of the unborn, should you want to still be associated with it? Of course, the reason these Christians have stayed is in the hope they could still reverse the course.  But if they were unsure before of whether they should stay or go, that their is denomination is now being led by a usurper – Mullay has long been one, taking on church leadership roles God hasn't allowed for women – might grant them now the clarity they've needed to know there is a time to go. When the fallible, the over-confident, and the liars tell us to  "trust the science" "Because of disillusionment with the COVID-19 vaccines, more people are refusing to have themselves and their children inoculated with other vaccines, which over a long period of time have proven to be safer and more effective than the COVID-19 vaccines. "This has led to an increase in preventable diseases such as measles, chickenpox, and polio. Rather than criticize such people as ignorant and foolish, governments and public health authorities should perhaps take a long look in the mirror to see what role they have played in this undermining of trust in the public health system." The sad state of Evangelical theology in 2025  This was a survey of folks who actually say the Bible is their highest authority. Two examples: 64% believe that “Everyone is born innocent in the eyes of God.” 53% agree that “Everyone sins a little, but most people are good by nature.” Conspiracy or gossip? Candace Owens is not well known in Canada, so why bother sharing a warning against her conspiratorial videos? Well, because she isn't the only one sharing gossip. Aren't our social media pages full of it? The video below spreads a rather harsh assessment of Owens, so isn't it gossip too? That's a good question, and raises another: how can we tell what's gossip and what isn't? Well, if we spread a bad report about someone, it's gossip unless: It's true. This isn't a matter of you sincerely believing it is true – Owens certainly seems sincere, but that doesn't lessen the damage she is doing. If you are besmirching someone's reputation, you need to have grounds. You should have the "receipts." It needs to said (Eph. 4:29). Truth isn't reason enough to share a bad report. Everyone doesn't need to know that so and so was caught up in pornography once, or that this couple had a rough spot in their marriage years ago. In Prov. 20:19 we read, "A gossip betrays a confidence so avoid anyone who talk too much." You can gossip in spreading truth that doesn't need to be spread. Can you prove it, and does it need to be said? Two good questions to ask before sharing the latest report, even if it is about folks you just know are bad guys. That you're slandering Justin Trudeau or Mark Carney doesn't make your slander any less of a sin. What it does do, in the eyes of any non-Christians who might be watching, is discredit your Christian witness. That doesn't mean keeping quiet about the monstrous evils these two have pushed (abortion, euthanasia, transgender mutilation, and more). It does mean, stick to the facts – these important facts. God wants us to stop gossiping! ...

Red heart icon with + sign.
Assorted

Why Charlie Kirk’s death hit so hard

For a time, in September, my Facebook feed – I’m sure yours too – was full of tributes to Charlie Kirk. At this point, I don’t need to tell you that Kirk was big. He was the founder of Turning Point USA, an organization maybe best known for setting up tables at university campuses across the USA, with Kirk, and sometimes his friends too, willing to debate anyone who would take the mic. Some give Kirk credit for Trump’s win in 2024, because of the way Turning Point was so effective in its outreach to young voters. I felt a weight when I heard about his assassination. And the weight increased as I processed. Maybe that’s how you felt too. If you track the news, it’s been a heavy year. Overdoses. Transgenderism. Abortion. Stabbings. Euthanasia. Shootings. Never mind the economy. Now this. But why is this hitting so hard? I only watched Kirk’s videos occasionally. Why am I mourning someone who had so little impact on my day-to-day life? Of course, you have to feel sad for his loved ones – but it’s not that kind of grief. Assassinations are jarring, by nature. Not that I’ve lived through too many. But this is different. Charlie Kirk’s murder crystallized the hatred that I’ve been seeing directed towards Christian ideas and towards prolife activists. The hatred that activist Christians have felt directed our way through the condescension and the shouts, now manifested through murder. Across America, and Canada too, thousands celebrated. Mocked. Laughed. Who watches a man die, and laughs? That scares me. The apostle John equated hatred with murder (1 John 3:15), and I’ve never felt how close that link is until now. In her video commemorating Charlie, Christian commentator Allie Beth Stuckey put it, “We’re bringing words. They’re bringing weapons.” Ultimately, Charlie Kirk was murdered for views that I hold. Probably not all of them, but the fundamentals. Many of those views are non-negotiable Christian convictions that you and I and all God’s people hold. Christianity wasn’t a part of Kirk’s message: it was the driving force behind it. The gap and the bridge For a while, it’s been pretty clear that Christianity stands at odds with secular beliefs. Now, two seemingly contradictory things come to mind: 1. It’s not an “us” versus “them” We can’t just write off everyone on the other side. Christ came and died for us while we were still His enemies (Romans 5:8-10), and if not for Him, we would be enemies still. So, if God can do that for us, what might He be working in those folks over there? So we need to talk. As Charlie put it: “When people stop talking, really bad stuff starts. When marriages stop talking, divorce happens. When churches , they fall apart. When civilization stops talking, civil war ensues. When you stop having a human connection with someone you disagree with, it becomes a lot easier to want to commit violence against that group.” The Christian response is to treat everyone with dignity (Matt. 7:12), and pray for anyone who hates us (Matt. 5:43-44). 2. There are two sides We can’t be confused about how there are two sides (Josh. 5:13-14): God’s side, and everyone else’s. As God’s people we are, and are called to be, fundamentally different. To me, the spiritual battle was brought to light by this assassin’s physical act. Are these two conflicting views? No. These both make sense when we recognize what we share with our enemies: we’re all made in the image of God (Gen. 9:6), and we’re all in desperate need of a Savior. We can look across the divide in humility knowing there but for the grace of God, go I. Social media makes both sides think, “Duh!?” The algorithms selecting what’ll show up in our social media feeds only sharpen the division, making it difficult to actually have compassion for others. Everyone wonders: How can anybody support ____? It’s just so obviously wrong! Then we all click on what we want to see, and afterwards the algorithm feeds us more and more of the same. My liberal friend commented, “He shouldn’t have been killed. But he said the gun deaths are worth it, so it just feels ironic.” Worth it. Worth what? Did he really say that? What did he mean? But the internet clip stops right there. “Hah,” laughs an anti-gun activist. The assumption is that had Charlie known he would be killed by a gunman, then his tune would’ve changed. I disagree, largely because I got to see what else Charlie said. Another thing Kirk said was: “I don’t believe in empathy,” and since his murder that quote has been pasted across the Internet. “How heartless can you be?” thinks the social studies student. Missed is the next phrase that isn’t included: “I prefer sympathy.” And Kirk went on from there to explain why. One student asked him, “If your ten-year-old daughter was raped, would you want her to have the baby?” Kirk answered: “Yes.” Some stop listening at “yes.” Those who listen longer hear a compassionate “why.” Explanations on immigration and marriage aren’t heard, but clips “proving” xenophobia, transphobia, and homophobia dominate YouTube. Charity is dead. Assumptions of good intent are gone, and undiscerning scrolling forms a worldview. Those who hear only what they want call him a hateful, dangerous fascist. When that’s your belief, then all redeeming qualities fail. They’re not redeeming qualities at all – they’re manipulation tactics. And assassinating a fascist is a heroic act. One spray-painted billboard read: “Death to all Charlie Kirks.” That’s enough Internet for me today. Can we get back to normal life? It’s tempting to dismiss this as a one-time event. A crazy person shot a MAGA activist. We’re not American. Most people aren’t crazy. Right? Maybe we could start to be discerning again. More neutral. The words “He had it coming,” will always be wrong. But we might reflect, “Should he really have linked his Christianity so closely with partisan politics?” or “He was unnecessarily controversial… if he just spoke the Gospel, this wouldn’t have happened.” Not quite victim blaming, but maybe we should adjust the halo a bit? Should we really call him a martyr? If he is one – if that’s what we were to conclude – we’d also have to conclude that Christianity itself is hated, not just some Christians who don’t put a good face to it. Then it’s not just about Charlie; you and I are hated. And I think the 100+ church burnings across Canada in the last 5 years bear witness to Who is really hated. So no, this wasn’t a matter of tone. We don’t look at prophets in the Old Testament, and suggest perhaps their tone was off. Sorry, Jeremiah. You were a bit harsh there - a little too blunt on that one! Watch any of his videos – in whole – and listen to those who knew him; Charlie Kirk was incredibly patient and well-versed. He was grounded in the Gospel, in both public and personal life. Many young people attribute their own shift to conservatism to Charlie Kirk, and many are now opening their Bibles for the first time while navigating the loss. Charlie Kirk was targeted because he was effective. The turning point I’m not the first to say this – it’s ringing all over the Internet: in the bullet, hate took a physical form. And this is how Charlie’s wife responded: “You have no idea what you have just unleashed across this world and across this entire nation.” Erika Kirk is right, God has so used this that in Charlie’s death his voice has been amplified. His videos are being watched even more. And I’m excited for all the new voices who have been emboldened to speak. Christian voices. As I’m writing this, a lot has already been said. An insane amount of commentary. But the hate felt personal, so I wrote too. I’ve done outreach – speaking up for the unborn – some of it on university campuses. My life hasn’t been in danger, but the hate’s been the same. The people in Kirk’s videos are the same sort that pro-life activists talk to every day on the streets. Like Charlie Kirk, I enjoy talking to someone who radically disagrees with me; I get to show my own humanity, and I get to tear down the image of heartless, ignorant pro-life monsters that they’ve crafted about us in their minds. Conclusion Charlie’s assassination brought it home: they hate us – they really hate us. And there are so many of them. I wrote a poem a few years ago, while struggling with the weight of others’ opinions of me. I find it a good measure for checking my own heart and actions. Am I doing something wrong, or am I just scared of being ridiculed? Am I hesitant to speak because I think it’s prudent, or because I fear the opinions of others? Strive, at the end of the day When fingers are pointed my way, To have no fault but Thine. Let them hate my faithfulness, I say. Your laws, they laugh at. Your love, they despise. I pray, they find those in me, And be not me, they criticize. You and I both know we’ll do it imperfectly. But that’s not the calling. We don’t have to worry about perfection – Jesus has accomplished that for us. The outcome of evangelism isn’t on us either. But obedience is. May God grant us the courage to speak out boldly and patiently to a world that so desperately needs to hear His Good News. Picture is adapted from one by Gage Skidmore and used under a CC BY-SA 2.0 license....

Red heart icon with + sign.
News

ARPA condemned in BC legislature

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

Red heart icon with + sign.
People we should know

Cornelius Van Til: his life and impact

Cornelius Van Til may not have seemed a likely candidate to accomplish a "Reformation of Christian Apologetics," but God is in the habit of utilizing unlikely candidates to mount great victories for His kingdom. Van Til "wanted to be a farmer.... Instead he became one of the foremost Christian apologists of our time," to use the words of David Kucharsky in Christianity Today (Dec. 30, 1977, p. 18). Early life Van Til was born May 3, 1895, in Grootegast, Holland, as the sixth of eight children to a devout dairyman-farmer. At the age of ten his family sailed to America and settled in Indiana. Cornelius enjoyed the soil and animals, but his evident intellectual strengths got him sent to Calvin Preparatory School in 1914. He worked his way through as a part-time janitor and wholly loved the study of philosophy. By the time he enrolled in Calvin Seminary in 1921, he was already familiar with the works of Abraham Kuyper and Herman Bavinck and had added a knowledge of Hebrew, Greek, and Latin to his Dutch and English! He studied systematic theology under Louis Berkhof and Christian philosophy under W. H. Jellema. During his first year of seminary J. Gresham Machen - the man who stood head and shoulders above others as presenting a Christian faith worthy of scholarly defense – published The Origin of Paul's Religion. The next year Van Til transferred to Princeton where he could study with Machen as well as at the philosophy department of Princeton University (under the Scottish personalist, A. A. Bowman). At the seminary Van Til managed the student dining club, and lived on the same floor in Alexander Hall with "Das" Machen, who was busy publishing numerous apologetical studies (including his monumental Christianity and Liberalism ). Van Til's seminary adviser, C. W. Hodge Jr., was a grandson of Charles Hodge and the successor to B. B. Warfield. Van Til profited from the solid Biblical instruction of men like Hodge, Robert Dick Wilson, William Park Armstrong, and Oswald T. Allis, but the professor closest to his heart was Geerhardus Vos, the respected Dutch scholar who championed the method of "Biblical theology." Van Til won the prize-winning student papers for both 1923 (on evil and theodicy) and 1924 (on the will and its theological relations). The seminary granted him a Th.M. in systematic theology in 1925, after which he married his long-time sweetheart, Rena Klooster. At the university Van Til's prowess in metaphysical analysis and mastery of Hegel's philosophy had gained high praise from A. A. Bowman, who offered him a graduate fellowship. In 1927 the university granted him the Ph.D. in philosophy for a dissertation on "God and the Absolute." In the same year his first published piece (a review of A. N. Whitehead's Religion in the Making) clearly exhibited the salient lines of presuppositional analysis: a) locating an opponent's crucial presuppositions b) criticizing the autonomous attitude which arises from a failure to honor the Creator-creature distinction c) exposing the internal and destructive philosophical tensions which attend autonomy, and then d) setting forth the only viable alternative, Biblical Christianity. When J. Gresham Machen declined the chair of apologetics at Princeton Seminary, deciding to remain in the New Testament department, the Board of the seminary was encouraged by William Brenton Greene (1854-1928), the retired professor of apologetics, to invite Van Til to lecture in the department for the 1928-1929 academic year. Following the reception of his doctorate and his first visit back to the Netherlands (1927), Van Til had accepted the pastorate of the Christian Reformed Church in Spring Lake, Michigan. Although installed for only a year, he took a leave of absence from the congregation and taught apologetics at Princeton, impressing everyone so favorably (even though the youngest instructor there) that at the end of only one year the Board elected him to assume the Stuart Chair of apologetics and ethics. The decline of PCUSA and the beginning of the OPC However, within weeks the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. reorganized Princeton Seminary in such a way that control of the once conservative bastion of Reformed orthodoxy was turned over to men who desired to see many different viewpoints represented at Princeton and who favored a "broad church." Machen resigned and immediately started work to establish Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia. Van Til likewise resigned and returned to Michigan. In the mean time, Machen handpicked Van Til to teach apologetics in the new seminary, even traveling with Ned B. Stonehouse to Michigan in August to plead for Van Til's acceptance of the position – after a previous visit from O. T. Allis had not secured it. After declining at first, Van Til took up teaching duties at Westminster Seminary in the fall of 1929, where he continued in that ministry until retiring more than forty years later. When Machen was unjustly forced out of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. in 1936, Van Til supported him in the founding of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, where he came to have a decided influence for years to come, both as a scholar and as a powerful pulpit preacher. Presuppositional publishing From the outset of his teaching career Van Til sought to develop a distinctively, consistently Christian philosophical outlook. He wanted to see everything in terms of a Biblical world-and-life-view. The first major syllabus produced by Van Til at Westminster Seminary, (now titled A Survey of Christian Epistemology) came out in 1933. In it he traced through history various epistemological positions, noting the bearing of metaphysical convictions upon them, and advanced the necessity of a transcendental, presuppositional method of argumentation. He insisted that Christians must reason with unbelievers, seeking to reduce the non-Christian worldview (whatever form it takes) to absurdity, by exposing it to be epistemologically and morally self-contradictory. Van Til's insight, a brilliant and apologetically powerful one, was that antitheism actually presupposes theism. To reason at all, the unbeliever must operate on assumptions which actually contradict his espoused presuppositions – assumptions which comport only with the Christian worldview. Van Til's presuppositional approach has been a powerful impetus for reform in Christian thinking. Outwardly, it directs a transcendental challenge to all philosophies which fall short of a Biblical theory of knowledge, demonstrating that their worldviews do not provide the philosophical preconditions needed for the intelligible use of logic, science, or ethics. Inwardly, it calls for self-examination by Christian scholars and apologists to see if their own theories of knowledge have been self-consciously developed in subordination to the word of God which they wish to vindicate or apply. It has likewise cut a wide swath through a large number of relevant areas of interest, requiring that every area of life be governed by the inscripturated word of God. Conclusion Those who knew Dr. Van Til personally will testify that he was not only a man of principle and conviction, a towering intellectual, but equally a man of warmth, humor, and compassion. On April 17, 1987, he joined all the saints who from their labors rest. This article was first published in the May, 1995 issue of Penpoint (Vol. VI:5) and is reprinted with permission of Covenant Media Foundation, which hosts and sells many other Dr. Bahnsen resources on their website www.cmfnow.com. It appeared in the November 2014 issue....

Red heart icon with + sign.
News

Saturday Selections – Sept 27, 2025

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

Red heart icon with + sign.
Assorted

Veya’s story

The fight for her life in a broken and biased healthcare system – one that sees doctors perpetrating euthanasia and abortion and calling them both medical care. ***** “Our sweet Veya Hope ran into the arms of Jesus yesterday.” So shared Veya’s mother, Krystal Vanderbrugghen, on her Instagram page on August 2, 2025. Krystal continued: “Her name was her calling – Hope. She carried it with her every single day she spent inside those hospital rooms and gave it to all who knew her.” Veya was first introduced to the waiting world, and to the arms of her parents Krystal and Jeremy, just a year and a half earlier, on December 4, 2023. Although the LORD didn’t have many days allotted for Veya here on Earth, her life touched tens of thousands of hearts. And her experiences here also exposed just how difficult it can be to fight for care in a broken world and medical system. “We pray that Veya’s story continues to encourage other families who are given this same precious gift – the gift of loving and raising a child with Down Syndrome,” Krystal explained. Hope born Jeremy and Krystal, along with their other children Ivylee, Irelyn, and Lincoln, live in Caledonia, Ontario. In the fall of 2023, as they were eagerly awaiting the birth of another child, they learned that their baby had a congenital heart defect which would require surgery at some point after birth. “While this is a lot to process, we know without a doubt God truly has a perfect plan for this baby even though the road ahead is filled with uncertainties.” That’s what Krystal shared at that time on Instagram, not realizing just how true these words would be for her and her family. She would continue to share, with all who took an interest, the challenges of the road they were on. In an appearance on RP’s Real Talk podcast earlier this year, talking with Lucas Holtvluwer, Krystal explained that hospital stays brought their own problems. “She was born with Down Syndrome and a cardiac defect – pretty straightforward – but she has now encountered some medical complexities from living her life in a hospital this long and from delayed treatments.” One complication and delay led to another, and Veya was transferred from Hamilton’s McMaster Hospital to SickKids Hospital in Toronto, which is one of the leading children’s hospitals in the world. Crumbling care “Our journey started off really great, like we had teams that were really invested,” Krystal explained to Lucas. “But then we experienced her care declining January of this year, so that kind of set her on a totally different trajectory.” “Specifically with her last ICU admission, you could just tell through the conversations with the doctors that they were really just trying to wrap things up with her and kind of coerce us into letting her go rather than help her,” she shared on the podcast. “I feel like the team coach, trying to keep the spirits alive…. But they all just kind of vanished.” Krystal was particularly confused when Veya was denied a necessary liver transplant. She asked their Pediatric Advanced Care team if it was Veya’s Down Syndrome that was influencing their decision-making. “They can never say yes or no, but they said, ‘Mom, I think you know the answer to that deep down in your heart.’ And I said, ‘well, that is the confirmation.’” One particular incident really broke Krystal’s trust in Veya’s care. “Right after her liver surgery, she got RSV , and then a few days after that, she got overdosed with a lethal amount of potassium. It wasn't just a little bit, it was 10 times the regular amount that she normally gets, and it was during the evening when none of us were there.” Veya’s heart rate went to 350 beats per minute, and she had to be shocked three times to stabilize her. “I do have questions whether it actually was an accident or not, because these sorts of things happen when families step away. So, the timing of it, but also the amount. You know, it's one thing, if you gave a little extra, but 10 times the amount, like, an actual lethal dose?” Growing support Krystal shared the ups and downs of Veya’s journey on her Instagram account. Her photos, videos, and touching words lit a fire in many hearts around the world, and she ended up with close to 40,000 Instagram followers, many of whom were praying for Veya, and encouraging Krystal and her family. “For me, social media was like an open diary and a way for me to process but also a way for me to be able to connect with others that were raising children with Down Syndrome, because I knew nothing about it, and so it's been a really great place for resources and connecting.” But the care hasn’t only been virtual. Krystal and Jeremy are members of Trinity Canadian Reformed Church in Glanbrook, Ontario. And as she told Lucas back in July, “Our church community, they're phenomenal. I'll tell you this, we had a meal train set up for Veya when she was born, and we are 19 months into this and that same meal train is still going.” She added that the amount of support they have received allowed them to be fully present and to advocate for Veya, because everything else was being taken care of. The many prayers that were raised for their family carried them. “I don't think my husband and I really understood that till we lived this experience. Like you really feel carried by prayers. There's just this indescribable peace that comes with it.” Growing faith We read in James 1:3 how “the testing of your faith produces endurance” and Krystal attested to this when speaking about their journey prior to Veya’s death. “As much as we want to enter the next season of life and be off of this medical journey, there's a part of you that doesn't, because of the experience you have with God's nearness. Because it forces you to slow down and really lean into Him. “….The ways we've experienced God's goodness and care over these 19 months, we're forever thankful for that. Faith is not without pain. It's there to give you the courage to face it, right? And a lot of times this journey has really forced us to our knees.” She later added that, as hard as it has been, they have seen so much good come from this journey already, particularly with the many interactions with people in the hospital. Seeking justice After Veya’s promotion to glory, Krystal shared with Reformed Perspective that they hope to have further meetings with SickKids Hospital regarding the neglect that Veya experienced, which Krystal sees as a push to end Veya’s life rather than care for it. “What was happening was the team was trying to 'stealth euthanize' Veya through means of denying life-saving measures.” They are working with other families who experienced similar harms for their medically complex children at the same hospital, seeking to raise their concerns collectively. Her hope is to see a formal acknowledgement of harm, public reporting requirements, independent investigations, disability rights training, and whistleblower protection so that staff can report unsafe practices without fear of losing their jobs. Although she has devoted much of her past couple of years to being an advocate for Veya and others with disabilities, she also understands that she can only do so much. And that is OK. “Our God, The Creator of Life has the final say.” Advice for others When asked by RP what advice she would have for other families who may face similar situations, she urged them to document everything, including conversations and decisions, names, and copies of medical records. She also advised to never go into important meetings alone. Bring someone to witness and support you. Further, use clear and assertive language like “can you explain in writing why you are denying this treatment?” And if there are concerns, escalate them by asking to speak with a patient’s relations person or ombudsman, or even filing a complaint with the hospital leadership or licensing board. She encourages others to seek a second, or third opinion, and not be afraid to transfer care to another institution, even if it feels scary. And “trust your instincts – God gives them to us for a reason!” You know your child best so “if something feels wrong, it probably is.” Most soberly, she warns “know that Canada has become a death culture.” In an age where it has become legal to end the life of someone who requests it simply because they are suffering, it becomes all the more important to be on guard for the care of our loved ones, particularly those who are more vulnerable. “Instead of offering care, too many hospitals offer ‘comfort care only.’ Instead of fighting for life, they push families towards giving up and will blame you for your loved one’s suffering.” Her final advice is most encouraging. “You are not alone, God goes behind you and before you…. When you are battling the medical system for your child never forget to stop and ask God for guidance, strength, wisdom and peace. He sees, He knows, and He will lead you step by step.” A tribute for Veya In the weeks following Veya’s death, Krystal paid tribute to Veya with these words: “I didn’t have to look into your eyes to fall in love with you. I didn’t need to hear your soft, raspy cry to know you loved me too. I didn’t have to hold your hands to cherish you forever – because from the very beginning, within my womb, our hearts were already intertwined. “Veya, you changed me. Through you God gave me a deep perspective. You touched my soul and awakened a love so deep that can only be explained by His goodness. You gave me countless memories that I will hold close for the rest of my life. My heart aches in a way words can’t fully capture, and I know that ache won’t leave until we’re together again. …Though the longing never fades, each day moves me closer to the joy of holding you in Heaven.” Pictures used with permission of the Vanderbrugghens....

Red heart icon with + sign.
Theology

What does fleeing sin look like?

Despite endless attempts to do so, fleeing sin can’t be done halfheartedly – that only sets the stage for failure. A tepid turning away is like a drunk who doesn’t buy beer anymore but still goes to all the same parties and hangs out with the same drunken crew. He’s pushed off his sin, but only a short distance. So what does fleeing sin look like? It’s radical. It involves complete commitment. In Genesis 39 we find an example of this radical commitment. When Potiphar’s wife propositions Joseph first he refuses her, and, when that isn’t enough and she grabs hold of his garment, Joseph takes off running. Now, grown men don’t run away, do they? It’s undignified. And they certainly don’t shed clothes to get away. But that’s what Joseph did. She was holding his cloak, so he let her keep it. We don’t know exactly what state of undress this left Joseph – was he naked, or did he just lose his outer layer? – but we do know this was no calm and cool departure. This was a man desperate to do what God wanted, even if it left him clothed only in righteousness. This is complete commitment. Matthew 5:29 outlines another radical response to sin: “If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell.” This passage is most often explained as a figure of speech, not to be taken literally. And that’s true enough – Jesus’ point here is to highlight just how important it is to flee sin but He isn’t prescribing the specific means of doing so. However, we shouldn’t “explain away” the radical nature of what’s being said. God can’t stand sin and we need to do whatever it takes to fight our entrapping, entangling sins. The reason that we don’t go plucking out eyeballs is because there are other means – more effective and less harmful – of fleeing sin. But these other means can be painful too, and we may be tempted to dismiss them as too radical. But if that leaves us trapped in our sin, then we need to hear what Christ says next: better a one-eyed man in Heaven than a two-eyed man in Hell. This is about our salvation! If your smartphone causes you to sin… Computers and smartphones are a part of our daily lives – most jobs involve them, and almost everyone has one. But they are also portals to pornography. If that’s a problem for you, then in Matt. 5:29 Christ prescribes a radical, and vital, solution: “if your computer/smartphone causes you to sin, pluck it out.” But how can we manage without a computer? How can we keep in touch with our friends without a smartphone? Is it even possible today to do without these devices? Well, plucking in this case might not mean doing completely without. They can be managed via various technological and practical means. A person can: install accountability software like Covenant Eyes on their computers that monitors where they go on the Internet and then shares it with an accountability partner get filtering software that will block most (but not all – nothing is 100% effective) of the harmful content on the Internet use software or hardware means to limit the time your computer is hooked up to the Internet place their computer in a public area in the home, where other can see what you are up to when you are online install monitoring software on their smartphone swap their smartphone for a simple cellphone (some still allow you to text friends, but not surf the Internet). What if none of this is sufficient? Then, Christ tells us to remember, better computer-less and on your way to Heaven, than a social media king on your way to Hell. If your friends tempt you to sin... Temptation comes in all sorts of forms, and some of us will find it harder than others to resist peer pressure. If your good buddies are into all the wrong things, and you find yourself pulled in again and again, then you need to give up on this group of friends (Prov. 13:20, 1 Cor. 15:33). It doesn’t matter if you’ve known them since elementary; don’t place your friends above God.  If your job tempts you to sin... Some jobs involve travel, leaving you alone in your hotel room with the porn channels, or maybe it’s simple risqué R-rated films, readily available. Maybe all that time alone on the road causes temptation. Or maybe you work in an office where there is a growing pressure to conform to their politically correct culture (and in doing so deny your Lord). Or you work with coarse colleagues who have nude pics on the walls. Or you have dishonest colleagues who pressure you to fudge figures. There’s any number of ways your job can be a source of temptation. There is also any number of ways of managing this. It could involve creativity, and a willingness to make strange requests. I heard of one man who required that any hotel room he stays at have the TV removed from his room. Maybe it means speaking to colleagues and asking them to take down their girlie pictures. It could be embarrassing. But that’s the level of commitment God calls us to. If a workaround isn’t possible, and temptation at your job is unavoidable and causing you to sin, then don’t think it too radical to quit…even if you don’t have another job lined up (this is what deacons are for). If your “me time” is causing you to sin... We are called to flee from more than just sexual temptation and drunkenness – Matthew 5:29 applies to all of life. So, for example, God also wants us to control our anger…even if you are a parent running on very little sleep. Tiredness can leave anyone short-tempered, and some of us have to watch out for this even more than others. Maybe it’s been a long day, the kids are finally in bed, and now we just want a little “me time” before we head to bed – just an hour of TV, or a couple chapters. We just want to unwind. Except, that we’re exhausted. And that exhaustion has meant that instead of being a loving disciplinarian, we’ve been a ticked off grump every time our kids have been kids. So it might only be nine o-clock, but if your “me time” is causing you to sin, you need to pack it in early. Flee to Now there is more to fleeing than simply fleeing from. Running from can give us only the temporary sort of victory that Jesus speaks of in Matthew 12:43-45. Here He describes a man who has a demon leave him. Success? Well, no, because after the demon leaves, the man doesn't replace it. When the demon comes back he finds his former abode "unoccupied" and so brings seven other demons to come join him, and "the last state of that man becomes worse then the first." This is what comes of fighting sin on our own. Our fleeing can't simply be an aimless fleeing from but must be deliberate fleeing to our Saviour. He can help us not only put off our old sinful ways, but renew us, so we can put on a new self (Ephesians 4:22-24) "which in the likeness of God has been created in righteousness and holiness of the truth." Conclusion When we are entangled in sin it may feel like there is no way out. It can feel like we are caught in such a complicated situation we are unable to get free. It’s important then to understand that fleeing sin isn’t complicated…but it is radical. And while fleeing sin isn’t complicated, that doesn’t mean it’s easy. Proverbs 22:6 says that if we train up a child in the way he should go, when he is old “he will not depart from it.” That works both ways, for good or evil. If you’ve been partaking in the same sin again and again, you’ve “trained” yourself – you’ve carved some deep ruts that will be hard to get out of, and easy to fall back into. That means fleeing from sin may be hard to do. But it isn’t hard to figure out what to do. It is a matter of placing God as first and throwing off everything that hinders (Hebrews 12:1). The reason we fall into sin, then, is because we count everything as too high a cost. Now anyone who has been entangled in sin knows they can’t get free on their own; that’s why in setting out the radical nature of what fleeing from sin involves, it’s vital we not forget the radical nature of what has already been done for us. Those entangling sins? Jesus has paid for them, so He can loose us from them. We need to flee from sin, yes, but more importantly, we need to run to the God who loved us so much He died for us to set us free. So what does fleeing sin look like? It means running from temptation and putting off every sin and weight that hinders us. It means turning and sprinting full out – arms flailing, legs churning, spittle flying, maybe even cloak leaving – towards our Father and his secure embrace. For more, see John Piper on Hebrews 12:1 and running. This article was first published in August 2017....

Red heart icon with + sign.
News

Saturday Selections – Sept 20, 2025

Charlie Kirk one week later The link above heads to Tim Challies' collection of the week's best articles on Charlie Kirk. My favorite was by Barry York on how we should deal with the inevitable clips that will and have surfaced, where Charlie Kirk evidences less patience or less grace than was his norm. I've my own thoughts. I've got liberal social media friends who are happy to cancel Kirk for a stray word... but is it really the stray words they are bothered by? In one of their posts a reference was made to how Charlie Kirk supported the stoning of homosexuals (which Stephen King also claimed and got in trouble for). The Christian response has mostly been to protest how anyone could ever possibly think that. But the better response is, I will suggest, to double down with the Gospel truth that it isn't just homosexuals who stand condemned, but every single one of us – before our just Judge we would all be found guilty of actions that warrant not simply stoning but the lake of fire (Matthew 5:21-22). I think what actually made Kirk offensive to many is how he shared that we are sinners in desperate need of a Savior. That's offensive indeed, both to the world and to the liberal church. It is also a very needed preamble to the good news of the Gospel. Bach's music as the fingerprints of God Defending the Christian faith can sometimes be awfully simple. So here's one simple defense of the faith that amounts to an "argument from beauty." There is the music of Johann Sebastian Bach. Therefore there must be a God. As philosopher Peter Kreeft notes, you either get this one or you don't. But that doesn't make it any less true. IVF may have killed more than 250 million since 1978 "In vitro fertilization is destroying hundreds of millions of human embryonic children, according to a new estimate. This further shows why pro-lifers must be as opposed to IVF as they are to abortion." To put that in some kind of context, the Encyclopædia Britannica estimates the total number of people killed in World War II, including the Jews murdered in the Holocaust, the soldiers on both sides, and the civilians too, as being between 35 million and 60 million. In other words, the IVF deaths you aren't hearing about anywhere may amount to four times the number of those killed in the biggest war ever waged. If books are too indecent to show in the paper or read out loud at meetings, what are they doing in Alberta public schools? Alberta opposition leader Naheed Nenshi has been challenged to read out loud the horrific graphic novels he is defending. Guns and statistics Statistics are said to be one of the three big classes of lies, so it should come as no surprise that government statistics often align quite closely with whatever narrative it is that they are trying to push. The FBI has reported that armed civilians stopped active shooters in just 3.7% of the time over the last 10 years. But a watchdog group says that this low number has a lot to do with how the FBI chose to tabulate the data. They counted things up quite differently, and, if you excluded shootings taking place in "gun-free zones" (where no one other than the shooter was going to have a gun), then 52.5% of these events were stopped by a civilian with a gun. That number has its own spin, but this is an important article to read to really understand the need for taking a Prov. 18:17 approach to statistics. Chris Gordon: a word to young people over the death of Charlie Kirk Too many of us actually saw Charlie Kirk die – the videos of his death, videos of people celebrating his death, videos of nihilists preaching chaos, were streamed all over the Internet. Pastor Chris Gordon begs young people to look away. We are not meant to dwell on this brutality and darkness. Look to Christ instead! Charlie Kirk picture is adapted from one by Gage Skidmore and is used under a CC BY-SA 2.0 license....

Red heart icon with + sign.
News

The assassination of Charlie Kirk

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

Red heart icon with + sign.
Apologetics 101

What Truth sounds like: sometimes calm isn’t appropriate

Some years back, Justin Trudeau made it a requirement that all Liberal MPs had to support abortion. MP Lawrence MacAulay had, to that point, been known as pro-life, but he indicated, via a series of tweets, that he would follow his party leader Justin Trudeau's new requirement for his MPs. MacAulay wrote: "I'd like to clarify my comments to The Guardian the other day. I am personally pro-life, and have long held these beliefs; however I accept and understand the party position regarding a woman's right to choose. Despite my personal beliefs, I understand that I will have to vote the party position should this issue ever come up in the House of Commons." Broadly speaking, there are two sides of the abortion debate: those who know it is a baby and recognize that this is a life and death situation those who don't understand (or at least claim not to understand) that abortion ends the life of a precious human being But there is a third group. This group is made up of those who know it is a child, know it is a life and death situation, and knowingly advocate for death. This is the group Lawrence MacAulay joined. He called himself "personally pro-life," so he understands a life is involved. And yet, knowing what he knows, MacAulay pledged support for the murder of 100,000 Canadian children each year. This is the most indefensible of all positions – the most outrageous stand of all. So how should we respond when someone in public office takes such an outrageous position? We can write about them to the local paper, and we can write to them via an email or letter, and when we do, we should then be civil…but we should not be calm! Calm isn't appropriate We communicate things in how we say them, just as much as by what we say. That's why when we sing to God, it should be with gusto – mouthing the words, even if they are wonderful words, sends a mixed message, or simply doesn't praise Him at all. In the same way, a calm, quiet response to Lawrence MacAulay's betrayal wouldn't match up with what he'd done. The confusion he created certainly cost children their lives. Any woman who was considering abortion at the time who then heard this professedly pro-life MP agree to support abortion would have had to understand this as an acknowledgment that abortion isn’t really a life or death matter – it can’t be if he’s not even willing to take a stand. That's the implicit message he spread. And in how we respond, there’ll be an implicit message sent in how we say what we say. So if someone is promoting the slaughter of the unborn, we can't talk to him like we would if he was proposing an increase in the GST by a per cent or two. (Sadly, if MacAulay had done that, he'd probably have gotten more heated responses than he ever got for his tweets.) This isn't about money, but about lives, so if our response doesn't have some heat in it, we're not doing it right. Does that mean we should just go off on him? SHOULD WE TYPE OUR LETTER IN ALL CAPS? Should we call him every name in the book? Of course not. But we should use powerful words. We should use clear words even though we know they will offend. There is no getting around offending someone in this situation - people will get offended when you confront them about the blood on their hands. But we should not offend him with spurious insults, or with demeaning talk. Here is the letter I wrote this MP at the time: Dear MP Lawrence MacAulay, As a pro-life citizen, I don’t appreciate your party leader's stance. But your recent tweets left me more disappointed in you than him. Justin Trudeau, at least, can pretend he doesn’t know better. But why are you personally pro-life? Of course the answer to that is simple – you know it is a baby. So let’s look back at what you tweeted and insert in your own pro-life perspective. Here then, is what you really said: "I'd like to clarify my comments to the Guardian the other day. I am personally against the killing of unborn babies and have long held these beliefs; however I accept and understand the party position regarding a women's right to choose to kill her unborn baby. Despite my personal belief against killing babies, I understand that I will have to vote to kill unborn babies – my party's position – should this issue ever come up in the House of Commons." Being personally pro-life and yet politically pro-choice is the most damnable of all positions in the abortion debate. It means you know what is going on, but don’t have the courage to act. Please reconsider. Jon Dykstra If I were to have a second go at it, I would have started differently. "Don't appreciate" and "disappointed" aren't the sort of terms you use to tell someone to stop promoting mass murder – far too relaxed. However, I'm not sharing this as an example of some perfect letter. There is no such thing, so that shouldn't be our standard. But it is worth reflecting on what we could improve on for next time. While my beginning could have been better, I got the right tone in the second half. No euphemisms, nothing to minimize what he is doing. My tone matches my message – the words I use bring with them a brutal clarity: this is killing children – this is damnable. Conclusion Christians are too often too calm. We live in a crazy culture in which there is a right to murder unborn babies; murder is also being touted as a “treatment” for the elderly, sick, disabled, and maybe soon even the mentally ill; and adults and even children are being told they are the wrong gender and that the fix is to have healthy body parts mutilated. That is crazy! But too often our tone and the word choices we use simply don't match the overall claim that we are making. Can we talk of being "disappointed" or not "appreciating" the actions of a man like Lawrence MacAulay and really expect to convince our fellow Canadians that 300 children a day are being slaughtered in our country? That's not the right vocabulary. Back in 2014, at this same time that MacAulay was issuing his tweets, three Mounties were murdered in Moncton, N.B., and the newspapers were filled with words like "heartbreaking," "horror" and "grief-stricken." Those are the kinds of words we use in the face of a travesty. How we sound does matter. If we're going to convincingly communicate the truth of what's being done to the unborn, the elderly, and the gender-confused, we need to talk like we mean it. Instead of being "disappointed," we need to be "devastated." Instead of being "regretful," we should be "shocked." A deeper problem might lie not in our vocabulary and how we talk, but in our hearts and how we feel. It is hard to speak about being outraged when we aren't actually outraged. Apathy is understandable in the face of an evil like abortion that is decades old, or even an evil like transgender mutilation, which is mostly happening to people we don’t even know. But apathy in the face of evil is also sinful. If we speak of being disappointed because that's all the passion we can muster, then we need more than a change of vocabulary – we need a change of heart. Please forgive us our apathy, Lord. Please turn around those who love the shedding of blood. And please, Lord, save the children and adults who are being killed and mutilated! A version of this article first appeared in the July/August 2014 issue....

Red heart icon with + sign.
Pro-life - Abortion

Judges vs. justice: a history of abortion in Canadian courts

In 1988 Canada’s Supreme Court’s gave their Morgentaler decision which struck down all restrictions on abortion in the country. Shortly afterwards the Supreme Court again dealt with abortion in the Borowski and Daigle cases. Together, these three cases have been called the “abortion trilogy” and a close look at these cases shows how Canada’s top judges can take a large amount of the credit for us being one of just three countries in the world with no protection for the unborn. 1. The Morgentaler decision In 1983 abortionist Henry Morgentaler was charged with operating an illegal abortion clinic in Toronto. At that time, the law only allowed abortions to be performed in accredited hospitals with special abortion committees that had to approve each abortion. Morgentaler and his supporters considered this to be too restrictive. His case went all the way to the top and on January 28, 1988, the Supreme Court ruled that Canada’s abortion law violated section 7 of the Charter. The majority of judges argued that the abortion law violated the procedural fairness required by the Charter of Rights. While this was a major victory for Morgentaler, there was a sense in which that decision was not a complete defeat for the pro-life cause because it gave Parliament the option to pass better abortion legislation. (though Parliament hasn’t touched the issue since). In his 1992 book Morgentaler vs. Borowski, University of Calgary political scientist Ted Morton relates some little known information that shines some light on the Supreme Court’s thinking. Morton notes that when Gwen Landolt, a lawyer and leader of the pro-family group REAL Women of Canada, read the Supreme Court’s decision she noticed something startling. Four of the judges who struck down the law referred to a document known as the Powell Report in their decision. Dr. Marion Powell had been commissioned by the Ontario government to survey the availability of abortion services in Ontario. Dr. Powell was a “pro-choice” activist, and her report was released on January 27, 1987, three months after Morgentaler’s case had been heard by the Supreme Court. Landolt reviewed the Morgentaler docket in the Supreme Court archives and confirmed that the Powell Report had not been mentioned in court when the case was argued – obviously because the report did not yet exist at that time. In other words, the Supreme Court, in striking down Canada’s abortion law, had relied heavily on a document that had not been submitted as evidence, and which had been produced by an abortion rights activist. Landolt shared this information with Laura McArthur, the president of the Toronto Right to Life Association. McArthur then lodged an official complaint with the Canadian Judicial Council, arguing that the Court had deprived Morgentaler’s opponents of the right to challenge the Powell Report when the case was argued. Considering that Dr. Powell was a pro-abortion activist, the impartiality of her report was certainly questionable. The Council replied that the issue raised by McArthur was outside of its mandate to consider, and also that the Supreme Court occasionally relies on materials which have not been introduced as evidence. This is known as “judicial notice.” However, as Prof. Morton notes, “To justify the Court’s use of the Powell Report as an exercise of judicial notice was to stretch the concept beyond its normal scope.” 2. The Borowski decision While Henry Morgentaler had been fighting in the courts to strike down restrictions on abortion, a prominent Manitoba pro-life activist (and former provincial cabinet minister) Joe Borowski had been fighting in the courts to have abortion prohibited in Canada. That is, he was challenging the same law Morgentaler was challenging, except from the opposite point of view: Borowski said Canada’s abortion law violated the Charter because it allowed abortions to be performed. He argued that unborn children were protected by the Charter’s declaration that “everyone has the right to life.” After considerable effort and expense, Borowski’s case reached the Supreme Court in October 1988. A few months later the Court ruled that it would not address Borowski’s arguments because his case had become moot. The law he was challenging had been struck down in the Morgentaler decision, so the Court did not need to address issues related to legislation that was no longer operative. All of Borowski’s efforts were thwarted by this declaration that his case had become moot. Years of work and expense came to nothing. Now the pro-life movement had lost two cases at the Supreme Court, but there was one more yet to come. 3. The Daigle decision On July 7, 1989, Jean-Guy Tremblay obtained a court injunction in Quebec to prevent his former girlfriend, Chantal Daigle, from aborting the child they had conceived together. The Quebec Superior Court upheld the injunction 10 days later. Then on July 26 the Quebec Court of Appeal also upheld the injunction. In a decision that shocked the country, that court ruled that an unborn child was a “distinct human entity” that “has a right to life and protection by those who conceive it.” The Quebec Court of Appeal decision was immediately appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada. The Supreme Court judges were called back from their summer vacations to hold an emergency session on August 8. As Ted Morton and fellow University of Calgary political scientist Rainer Knopff write in their 1992 book Charter Politics, “Never before in the Court’s history had a case moved from trial to the highest court in the land with such speed!” Canada was in the midst of a full-fledged crisis. How dare a court in this country declare that unborn children had a right to life! During the Supreme Court proceedings, Daigle’s lawyer announced that she had gone to the US and had an abortion there, making the case moot. The injunction preventing her from getting an abortion no longer had any practical effect. The Chief Justice then asked the opposing lawyers if they wished to continue the proceedings. Tremblay’s lawyer said no, but Daigle’s lawyer said yes. The Court therefore decided to continue, and within two hours they had struck down the (moot) injunction against Daigle, once again handing the pro-abortion side a complete victory. That wasn’t all, however. The Court decided to do more than decide Daigle’s case, which concerned Quebec’s civil law. The Court went well beyond the questions of that case by also addressing the rights of the fetus under common law, which applies in the other nine provinces. This was to prevent a similar case from later arising in one of the common law jurisdictions. The Supreme Court had previously taken the position that it wanted to avoid unnecessary judicial pronouncements. Morton and Knopff point out that in this case the Court violated its own maxim twice: When the justices learned that Chantal Daigle had had her abortion, why did they persist in ruling on the issues involved rather than declaring the case moot – which it clearly was? Similarly, why did the Court expand the scope of its ruling to include the common law when this was not necessary for a Quebec appeal? They note that, “for many this aspect of the Daigle decision encourages the suspicion that the Supreme Court is less than neutral on the abortion issue.” Morton and Knopff indicate that there are other questions as well. When Borowski’s case became moot, the Supreme Court refused to proceed with it. When Daigle’s case became moot, the Court proceeded anyway. “Why under these circumstances, sceptics wonder, did the Court persist in deciding the issue of fetal rights? Why did it treat Borowski and Daigle so differently?” As mentioned, Daigle’s case was rushed to the Supreme Court level unlike any previous case. Perhaps this can be justified because of the medical issues involved. It could be seen to be an emergency situation. As a result of the lack of time, there was much less legal preparation and input than usual for a major court case. When Daigle had her abortion, however, the emergency was over. There was no need to rush into a decision without proper study and thoughtful consideration. This was serious stuff, after all, because it concerned the supreme law of the land. Morton and Knopff quote another constitutional expert as saying that it was a bad idea to rush ahead with the Daigle case and produce a major court ruling “in a hothouse, emergency atmosphere. This opinion will be with us for centuries.” And yet this important decision had been reached with considerably less preparation and argumentation than would normally occur. The Canadian people (most notably those in the womb) were not well served. Operation Rescue Besides the Daigle controversy, there was other activity on the abortion front in Canada during 1989. After the Morgentaler decision, many Canadian pro-lifers became increasingly frustrated about the lack of restrictions on abortion. Some joined Operation Rescue and engaged in civil disobedience directed primarily against Everywoman’s Health Clinic in Vancouver and two abortion clinics in Toronto. Operation Rescue was a group founded in the US to promote nonviolent resistance as a pro-life tactic. Operation Rescue activists would use their bodies to block access to the entrance of abortuaries. Pregnant women were thereby prevented from entering and getting abortions. The police were always called in to break up the blockades. Court injunctions were imposed against these protests, but activists would often ignore the injunctions. Many were thus thrown in jail and fined. The courts in BC were particularly harsh in dealing with protestors who participated in Operation Rescue. But while the mainstream media strongly approved of Daigle’s actions and her Supreme Court decision, it disapproved of the Operation Rescue missions. Writing at the time, Ted Byfield of Alberta Report pointed out the hypocrisy of the situation: It’s true that, in aborting the child, she defied a court injunction. In Vancouver, that is a dreadful thing to do, as the judges so gravely aver every time they slam the abortuary rescuers into jail for doing it. receives no such admonition. She has been through enough, the judges decide. So we see how law is administered in Canada. If you defy an injunction in opposing abortion, you are a wretched criminal and must go to jail. If you defy an injunction in having an abortion, you are a national hero, and warmly commended. Conclusion Ted Byfield’s comment puts the matter clearly. Canada’s courts had become politicized. When they were presented with an abortion-related case, the outcome always favored the pro-abortion side. The courts reasoned one way in one case, and the opposite way in another case, in order to arrive at their desired decision. Their legal reasoning was steered in particular directions to achieve their political goals. The courts will not change until Canadian society has been changed. This is why the efforts of pro-life groups are so important. Neither the politicians nor the courts will respond favorably to pro-life arguments until there’s a broader reception of the pro-life message. It isn’t going to start at the top – grassroots activity is essential to accomplishing this goal. We all need to talk to our neighbors. This article first appeared in the April 2015 issue....

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
Evolve Digital logo.   Benchpress theme logo.   Third Floor Design Studio logo.
Bench Press Theme by Evolve Digital  & Third Floor Design Studio