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!



Culture Clashes

Jonathan & David and the difference between brave & crazy

The divide between brave and crazy isn’t always easy to see. God wants us to be brave –how many times did He encourage Joshua to be “strong and courageous”? – but our lives and limbs are gifts from Him, not to be carelessly gambled away. So brave is good, crazy is not. But which is what?

Some activities are always crazy – don’t stand on a rolly chair to change a lightbulb, don’t do it! – but oftentimes whether a thing is brave or crazy depends on why you are doing it. We see that contrast in 1 Samuel 14 and 2 Samuel 23:13–17. In both, Israelites fight Philistines.

In the first we find Prince Jonathan and his armor-bearer climbing up a cliff face to go attack a Philistine outpost, just the two of them.

“Jonathan said to his young armor-bearer, ‘Come, let’s go over to the outpost of those uncircumcised men. Perhaps the Lord will act in our behalf. Nothing can hinder the Lord from saving, whether by many or by few.’ ‘Do all that you have in mind,’ his armor-bearer said. ‘Go ahead; I am with you heart and soul’” (1 Sam. 14:6-7).

Doesn’t it seem insane? How do you even swing a sword when you’re climbing up with your hands and feet? But this was brave because they were doing it for the Lord. If they’d died doing it, they wouldn’t have had any reason for shame.

In 2 Samuel 23:13-17, Israel is again battling the Philistines, who have a garrison at Bethlehem. When David dejectedly declares, “Oh, that someone would get me a drink of water from the well near the gate of Bethlehem!” three of his mighty men go do it. They break through enemy lines and get David his water… which he then pours out.

“‘Far be it from me, Lord, to do this!’ he said, ‘Is it not the blood of men who went at the risk of their lives?’ And David would not drink it.”

Why not? Because what they’d done was crazy, and he didn’t approve. Had they died, it would’ve been for what? Their leader’s wistful whine? That’s not a good why. And that’s quite the difference.

Red heart icon with + sign.
Theology

Genesis: theology and history!

A common objection to understanding Genesis 1 as history is that we should instead take it as theology. We’re told that God wants us to learn about Himself, and not history here. But it doesn’t have to be one or the other. In 1 Corinthians 10, the Apostle Paul says something very important about the relationship between the “text” of Scripture and the “history” recorded in Scripture. We need to keep this connection between God's work in history and the message of the words of Scripture in mind, so we can rightly understand the importance of the events recorded in Scripture. Paul is speaking in this passage about the events of the Exodus and the wilderness wanderings, and the importance of these events for his readers: Now these things took place as examples for us, that we might not desire evil as they did. Do not be idolaters as some of them were; as it is written, “The people sat down to eat and drink and rose up to play.” We must not indulge in sexual immorality as some of them did, and twenty-three thousand fell in a single day. We must not put Christ to the test, as some of them did and were destroyed by serpents, nor grumble, as some of them did and were destroyed by the Destroyer. Now these things happened to them as an example, but they were written down for our instruction, on whom the end of the ages has come. – 1 Corinthians 10:6-11, (ESV) Note carefully the words Paul uses in this passage. “These things occurred.” “These things happened.” These were actual events in history, and that is important. To say that they were recorded in Scripture to make a theological point, a theological point that should have a great impact on all of God's people, is absolutely true. They were “written down for our instruction.” But not only were these stories written down as warnings, “these things happened to them as an example”! There is no dichotomy here between theology and history; the two are so tightly linked that they cannot be torn apart. It's not “either-or.” It's “both-and”! Did God use a recognizable pattern in his work of creation? Yes, he did, and that pattern was meant to teach us many very important things. But to say that his work is recorded in a pattern that is meant to teach must not be used as a reason to deny that what is recorded is a true and accurate account of actual events. Our God is the God of history, not merely the God of ideas. This first appeared in the June 2015 issue....

Red heart icon with + sign.
Assorted

Charlie Kirk in context

Many will condemn a man for an isolated sentence or two. Christians do it too. Instead, we should assess others just as we would like to be judged (Matt. 7:12). ***** If you have liberal friends or family, then in the days and weeks after Charlie Kirk’s murder, you probably saw all sorts of Kirk quotes, shared by them to warn people about what a problematic figure Kirk supposedly was. While Kirk had his flaws, the most common quotes being shared were generally not at all what they first seemed, being taken right out of context. As Proverbs 18:17 teaches us, “The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him” so we need to go beyond that first impression, and do the cross examination. We can do so, not as people who must defend Charlie Kirk, wrong or right, but instead as God’s people, equipped by Him to discern right from wrong. Using our discernment, it’s easy to see that Kirk was attacked by the Left, not for what he might have gotten wrong, but for how often he expressed godly thoughts bravely and clearly. So, we shouldn’t accept their word for any of it. We need to check whether the quote is: 1) even accurate 2) in context So, what follows, are a few of the more common accusations stated in bold, and then put in context right below. “I don’t believe in empathy.” This is likely as much a misquote as it is a quote out of context. You can find Kirk saying he didn’t like this particular term, and wasn’t at all opposed to feeling for the injured and suffering. What he has said along these lines is: “I can’t stand the word empathy. Actually, I think empathy is a made-up, new age term that does a lot of damage. But it’s very effective when it comes to politics. Sympathy, I prefer more than empathy.” “Black women do not have the brain processing power to be taken seriously.” This was pitched as proof of Kirk being racist. Like the previous “quote” it is both inaccurate and out of context. Kirk wasn’t insulting black women in general; he found it ridiculous that four specific black women were proudly declaring they were beneficiaries of affirmative action. Kirk was arguing, during the July 13, 2023 episode of his podcast, that affirmative action is the opposite of earning something. He thought it funny, then, that anyone would brag about being an affirmative action beneficiary. “If we would have said three weeks ago... that Joy Reid and Michelle Obama and Sheila Jackson Lee and Ketanji Brown Jackson were affirmative-action picks, we would have been called racist. But now they're coming out and they're saying it for us! They're coming out and they're saying, ‘I'm only here because of affirmative action.’ Yeah, we know. You do not have the brain processing power to otherwise be taken really seriously. You had to go steal a white person's slot to go be taken somewhat seriously. In other words, he wasn’t critiquing black women. He was criticizing these four black women. “If I see a black pilot, I am now going to wonder: Boy, I hope he’s qualified.” Charlie Kirk is no fan of affirmative action, which responds to past discrimination by flipping the script – you are still judged by the color of your skin, but the racism is directed the opposite way now. Here he was responding to a 2021 United Airlines plan to have half their pilot trainees be blacks or women, and among the points he was making was that this kind of DEI/affirmative action has the effect of undercutting blacks who are qualified, by giving people a reason to question whether they earned their position or were just given it on the basis of their skin color. Black economics professor Thomas Sowell made a similar point, on the Uncommon Knowledge podcast about how his students treated him: “I received more automatic respect when I first began teaching in 1962 as an inexperienced young man with no PhD and few publications than I did later in the 1970s after accumulating a more substantial record. What happened in between was affirmative action hiring of minority faculty.” "I think it's worth it. I think it's worth it to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the 2nd Amendment to protect our other God-given rights." Longer and shorter wersions of this quote circulated again after Kirk was killed by a gun-wielding assassin. While Kirk’s enemies were sharing it gleefully, the quote was blunt enough to shock Kirk-appreciating Christians. Why would he say something like that? How can any gun deaths be “worth it”? In this case, the quote was entirely accurate, but in need of context. As Christians we know life is to be revered as a precious gift from God. But we live in a broken world in which death is an ever-present enemy – everything we do comes with risks of injury, and even death. The example Kirk used was that: “Driving comes with a price. 50,000 people die on the road every year.” Do we think that’s “worth it”? We could cut down on those deaths entirely by banning cars. But, of course, that comes with a cost too, in all the freedoms that come with driving, like a broader range of places you can live, or work, or people you can visit, foods you can eat, and entertainment you can enjoy. All of that would be severely curtailed. And, there would come a cost in lives too, in that without ambulances, some wouldn’t get to the hospital in time. We can agree or disagree with Kirk on whether the 2nd Amendment is worth the price being paid, but we should acknowledge his larger point. The Left will deny or ignore it, but life always involves tradeoffs, and freedoms always come with risks. Photo of Charlie Kirk during his 2024 “You’re Being Brainwashed” university tour. Picture is adapted from one by Gage Skidmore and used under a CC BY-SA 2.0 license....

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.
Assorted

Dominee’s friend

There is style and there is class. Dominee may not have had much style, as the world considers style, but he had class. Dominee had accepted a call to another church. At such a time we cover up the pain of separation with laughter. How could we be happy? This was the man whom God had sent to us to speak to us the Word of God every Sunday. We heard the voice of the Great Shepherd through His under-shepherd twice every Lord’s day. Because Dominee’s voice was so familiar, and his sermons somewhat predictable, we thought we knew him. We knew from the cadence of his heavily accented sentences when he was wrapping up the sermon — just the final song yet, and the benediction, and we’d soon be outside chatting, swapping stories, and laughing. Dominee was not what you would call an especially stylish man. During all the years he preached to us he wore a grey suit. He may have replaced it with a new one once in a while, but we never noticed because the new one was identical to the previous. Nothing stylish about Dominee. Even when he would drop by because of illness in the family or if someone needed encouragement, he’d wear a grey suit. We thought we knew him, until his farewell evening. As I said, when we are sad, we turn to laughter. To cover up our sadness. The farewell evening had begun and was evolving in a predictable way. There was only one unusual thing that immediately caught everyone’s attention. Near the front of the church sat an old Sikh gentleman and his wife. We could tell he was a Sikh because he was wearing a turban. The turban happened to be pink. Later I was told it was, in fact, lavender. The chairman of the men’s society, a serious man, ascended the pulpit. He read some Scripture, prayed, and invited us to sing a well-known Psalm. On behalf of the men’s society, he spoke some kind words of farewell to Dominee, his wife, and the children, and then presented them with a gift, a beautiful painting of local scenery: “We don’t want you to forget this beautiful part of the country!” This was followed by several presentations — women’s, young people’s, youth. And on it went, predictably and comfortably. The presentations alternated between funny, sad, and poignant. But mostly we laughed. When the elders and deacons performed a humorous skit about Dominee’s typical way of leading a meeting, we laughed heartily. When one of Dominee’s local colleagues told a story about Dominee at a classis meeting, we laughed so hard we thought our sides were going to burst. After several hours, when everyone was good and ready for coffee and cake, the chairman of the men’s society ascended the pulpit once again. With gravity, he thanked everyone for coming, bade Dominee farewell once more, and asked if there was anyone whom he had missed, or who had not been on the program but yet wanted to say something. The Sikh gentleman stood up. Well, this was interesting. Slowly, with age and dignity, he walked to the front of the church. He began to speak. This was very interesting. No one could remember a Sikh speaking in our church. He began to tell a story. It had been a hot summer afternoon when he and his wife were walking along the sidewalk. Suddenly overcome by heat, thirst, and exhaustion, he sat on a stone wall in front of a house. That house, as it turned out, was the Manse. Dominee was sitting in the shade reading a newspaper from the old country that had just come in the mail. He noticed the Sikh man sitting at the end of the driveway on the stone wall, and the man’s wife bending over him with a look of concern on her face. Dominee got up to see if he could help. “My husband is very thirsty,” said the lady. “Could he please have some water?” Dominee went to the house and came back with a pitcher of water and some glasses. He poured two glasses of water, and then he took a moment to speak about the other water, the living water that Jesus provides. On that day Dominee and the Sikh became friends. The Sikh gentleman and his wife would drop by more often to talk with Dominee. We never knew. We thought we knew our Dominee. We all listened intently to the Sikh as he told us the story about our kind Dominee. He considered it an honor to count him a friend and wanted to give him a parting gift. The Sikh explained that it was their custom to give the turban they are wearing to their departing friend. The turban would be a reminder of their friendship. With that the Sikh removed the turban from his head, reached forward, and placed it on Dominee’s head. Dominee was mostly bald and had a smaller head than his Sikh friend, and so the turban sank down over Dominee’s forehead. It was a sight to behold! Our Dominee clothed in his trademark grey suit, the only way we had ever seen him in all the years he had ministered to us, wearing a lavender-colored turban. No one laughed, snickered, or tittered. Instead, after a moment during which you could have heard a pin drop, the congregation slowly rose and began to clap. We did not know whether we were clapping for Dominee or the Sikh. Likely, we were clapping for the Lord. We had seen a remarkable thing. Our immigrant congregation may not have had much style, but on that evening we had class. Dominee wore the turban for the rest of the evening, during coffee and as we all came by his table to say farewell. He wore it with pride. Dominee did not have much style, but he had a lot of class. And we thought we knew him. There is style, and there is class. This is a true story, which I experienced as an adolescent boy at the departure of a neighboring minister. The references to style and class were inspired by Sietze Buning’s “Style and Class” collection of poems. This first appeared in the January 2015 issue....

Red heart icon with + sign.
Science - Creation/Evolution

FALSE DILEMMA: Is Genesis 1 Historical or Poetic?

or Doctrinal?      or Theological?           or Covenantal?                or an Accommodation?                     or so on and so on and so on ***** We know you can’t have your cake and eat it too. We know a man cannot serve two masters. And we know Genesis 1 cannot be both history and mere metaphor. That’s all true. But can Genesis 1 be history and much, much more? Not an either/or Among Christians one of the more common ways of undermining the historical reliability of the opening chapters of the Bible is to highlight some other attribute of this passage. We’re told that the point here isn’t to tell us how things were created but rather Who is responsible. This is a theological treatise, not a scientific one, right? And it can’t be history because in some ways it resembles poetry. In his book God's Pattern for Creation: A Covenantal Reading of Genesis 1 United Reformed pastor Dr. W. Robert Godfrey gives several examples of this same dismissive approach. The President of Westminster Seminary in Escondido, California contrasts a covenantal understanding of Genesis 1 with understanding it as history. He says a choice has to be made since the days of creation as described in Genesis 1 “are not a timetable of God's actions but are a model timetable for us to follow.” While “the days and week of Genesis 1 are presented to us as a real week of twenty four hour days,” “these days and week... do not describe God's actions in themselves but present God's creative purpose in a way that is a model for us.” He pitches this same contrast, between a historical and covenantal understanding again and again. “Genesis is not a world history text... it is a covenant history focusing on what the people of God need to know about their God and about themselves” “Genesis is not written as a history book for uninformed, worldwide readers, but is part of the covenant history written for a covenant people who already know their God” “The revelation of God as the all-powerful creator is not just information for the world. It is a message to the covenant people about the character of their God.” “Genesis 1 is not an encyclopedia of history or science but a covenant revelation of the character of the creation that God made for man...” Clearly, given the repeated “not this... but that” rhetorical device used by Godfrey, his assertion that Genesis 1 is “covenantal” in character is meant to counter an opposing view of the creation account. To Reformed Christians, this kind of “covenantal language” has its appeal; we love the covenant, and we love covenant theology, because we see in the covenants of Scripture the structure and beauty of God's relationship with His people, and indeed with all of creation. But I question Godfrey's assertions in all of these statements, because they create a conflict where one does not necessarily exist! This “not this... but that” language creates the impression that the two parts of the statement are mutually exclusive. If Genesis 1 is “covenantal” in its character, does that necessarily mean that it is not a history of the world? Of course, Godfrey does use the phrases “world history text” and “encyclopedia of history or science,” appearing to assert that those who argue for the “six consecutive real days that actually happened in history” view actually consider the opening chapters of the Bible to be a scientific treatise of some sort. This kind of language is not at all helpful, and it mischaracterizes those who believe that God created all things in the span of six actual historical days. Both/and Here's an example of this kind of thinking in practice. Suppose for a moment that two men come across a field of barley for the very first time. One man looks at the barley and says, “Clearly this crop is meant only to form the basis for a beverage. I will harvest it, mash it, ferment it, and make beer.” The other man looks at the barley and says, “Clearly this crop is meant only to form the basis for bread. I will harvest it, grind it, and use the end product to make bread.” Both men refuse to acknowledge the truth of the other's discovery. So, the one man makes nothing but beer, and the other man makes nothing but bread. Both die, one from cirrhosis of the liver, the other from dehydration. Why do they die? Because they both failed to realize that they were not dealing with an “either-or” equation, but a “both-and.” Barley has multiple uses; therefore, one use does not exclude the other. In creating a false dichotomy between two applications of the text, Godfrey misses out on a very important aspect of the message of the six days of creation. A true either/or Now I should note that while Godfrey does not accept Genesis 1 as a real chronology of events, he still insists his view is a literal interpretation and “also historical in its approach as it affirms that God created in time and by his sovereign power everything described in Genesis 1.” Given the fact that, according to Godfrey, “we must conclude that the days of creation in Genesis 1 are not simple chronology” I find it difficult to harmonize Godfrey's actual view with his claims. In contrast to the false dilemma that Godfrey presents, between understanding Genesis 1 as true history or as covenantal, there does seem need for a choice to be made here. He can’t offer up his view as literal and historical and still dispute that creation occurred in six actual days. Conclusion So yes, we can’t have our cake and eat it too. But no such choice has to be made between understanding Genesis as historical and covenantal, between it being historical and theological. These are simply false dilemmas. Rev. Witteveen’s website is Dan1132.com. This first appeared in the June 2015 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.
Pro-life - Abortion

Pro-life incrementalism isn't immoral...but it can be dangerous

Should Christians support a bill that would make abortion illegal after the second trimester? Some say no, and argue that such a bill would save third-trimester babies at the expense of babies in the first and second trimester. This side sometimes calls themselves pro-life “abolitionists.” They insist this sort of bill is immoral because it would legitimize the murder of the babies it isn’t protecting. Others, myself included, say that a bill like this is a good first step, to be followed by many more incremental steps like: a ban on sex-selective abortions, a parental notification law, an informed consent law, etc. As the article "Direction Matters" seeks to make clear, there is nothing immoral about this sort of “incremental,” step-by-step approach to ending abortion. But an incremental approach does come with some dangers that we need to be aware of if we are going to steer clear of them. Danger of being more clever than clear The genius of an incremental approach is that it allows us to recruit people who would normally never be on our side. For example, a bill that banned sex-selective abortion could see us side by side with feminists who are upset that sex-selective abortions almost exclusively target unborn baby girls. Pro-lifers working with feminists? Who would ever have thought? The danger of this incremental approach is that when we try to recruit people who don’t share our convictions, things can get more than a little confusing. We can find ourselves being tempted to downplay, hide, or even deny our convictions to get along with our strange bedfellows. Thirty years ago, an Alberta pro-life group called the Committee to End Tax-Funded Abortions (CEFTA) tried their own incremental approach and fell prey to this temptation. They knew that while most Albertans supported “a woman’s right to choose” more than 70% balked at having to pay for that choice. So CEFTA hammered on this financial angle, demanding an end to the tax-funding of abortion. They were trying to recruit fiscal conservatives to join with them in their effort. But then they got accused of being closet pro-lifers, just focusing on the financial as an excuse to limit abortion. That accusation was, of course, 100% true. But because CEFTA was trying to keep the focus on the financial, they ended up denying they had any interest in the unborn. They were even willing to concede that abortion was a private matter between a woman and her doctor, but asked. “...why are the taxpayers in the room writing the cheques?” CEFTA didn't put an end tax-funding for abortion. The clincher might have been when someone noted that every live delivery costs many times more than a surgical abortion does, so abortion actually saves the taxpayer money. In the end all that CEFTA succeeded in doing was portraying the pro-life movement as being more about money than about the unborn… which effectively dehumanized these Image-bearers. By hiding what they knew to be true about the unborn, the CEFTA ultimately ended up undermining that truth. That’s a real danger we need to watch for. A powerful pull So long as we engage in various incrementalism, we're going to face the same temptation to be quiet about or even deny our convictions. For example, do we think feminists are going to want to work with us to ban sex-selective abortions if we're upfront that our end goal is to ban all abortions? Will we be able to get a parental-notification law passed if voters know we intend this as just a first step towards making abortion entirely illegal? There is an enticing logic to staying quiet about our convictions, and that's why this is such a powerful temptation. But we can't stay silent. The only way we'll end abortion in Canada is if everyone understands that it is a precious unborn human being from conception onward, made in the very Image of God like the rest of us (Gen. 1:27, Gen. 9:6). So if, for example, we support a 6-month gestational limit, then we need to be clear that life really begins at conception. If we stay silent and leave people with any other impression, then we will doing the very thing our abolitionist critics have accused us of – saving some at the expense of others. We must not protect third trimester babies by downplaying the humanity of babies in the first and second trimester. Clever and clear So how do we recruit unlikely allies a better way? We need to be upfront about our differences, even as we emphasize our common ground. So if we were talking with a feminist neighbor about a sex-selective abortion ban, our side of the conversation might sound like this: "Freda, I've finally found something we can agree on! What do you think about a girl being aborted simply because she's a girl? That should get a rise out of a feminist like you. Come join us – we're trying to get this banned!" Or say you and your pro-choice university classmate were discussing a bill that would ban abortions after the second trimester: “Life begins at conception, and our worth comes from being made in the very Image of God. But if you and me can't agree on that point, let me ask you this: what do you think about late-term abortions? You have to agree that it's a baby at 6 months, right? If so, then act. Come join us and save at least these children!" Our position – our difference – is made clear. Then a pointed question – one that asks our listener to be consistent with their stated position – highlights our common ground. It can be that simple. Conclusion The incremental strategy will pair us with people who don't think like we do, and who deny what we know to be true. That will bring with it the temptation to stay quiet – it tempts us to downplay the very truths our culture needs to hear. Thankfully, this is a temptation that loses a lot of its pull once we are aware of it. So let's move forward eagerly, recruiting allies wherever they can be found, while pledging always, always to advocate for all unborn children. Let's ask God to give us the wisdom to combine cleverness with clarity. Then, the Lord willing, for the first time in a quarter century, we'll start passing laws protecting unborn children! That would be brilliant indeed! A version of this article was originally published in the March 2013 issue under the title “Being brilliant and clear: Fighting abortion incrementally isn't immoral...but it can be dangerous.”...

Red heart icon with + sign.
News

Saturday Selections – Sept 13, 2025

On the death of Charlie Kirk American Christian and conservative leader Charlie Kirk was shot and killed on Wednesday. Kirk (1993-2025) wasn't as remarkable for what he said (though he did get things mostly right) as he was for how he spoke up (boldly, as a grateful child of God) and for where he was willing to go. Kirk made dozens and dozens, and maybe hundreds, of appearances – captured as YouTube clips – on campuses across the United States. He'd set up a booth and take on any and all questions from liberal students who, it so often seemed, had never even heard an intelligent conservative Christian speak before. It was at one of these events that he was murdered. The link above goes to a collection of articles, assembled by Tim Challies, reflecting on Kirk's assassination. The video below is of Kirk stepping up for the unborn. May Kirk's courage inspire many more Christian young men to be just as strong and courageous (Joshua 1). Tim Challies, on how to write a great book review... ...which is a great primer for writing a book review for Reformed Perspective too. If you've got a great book you'd like to review, let us know. Organ transplant investigations expose grisly stories of patient abuse This is an American story, but one that should concern Canadians because in our murder-as-medicine MAiD-approving country, wouldn't it be all the more likely that a dying patient might be euthanized for their organs? Taming technology (10 min. read) Some real help on offer here for families who want to rethink how technology is taking over their home. How to face apparent contradictions in the Bible Michael Kruger has three tips to deal with passages in the Bible that seem contradictory: 1) don't be scared of them 2) don't apply today's conventions to yesterday's writers 3) be humble and patient: that we don't have an explanation now doesn't mean there isn't one, or that it won't show up later My Soul Among Lions, Psalm 2 I remain fascinated at the many very different, great treatments that can be given to the Psalms..... ...

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....

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