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!



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 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....

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....

Red heart icon with + sign.
News

Saturday Selections – Aug. 30, 2025

Great illustrations of the government's limits Big government presumes that its bureaucracy is omnicompetent, able to manage for its citizens the job market, healthcare, education, trash collection, and so much more. And in making much of its own capabilities, it diminishes its citizens – we must be incompetent if we need their active intervention in so much of our lives. So is the government omnicompetent? No, as this video demonstrates with three examples of government programs gone wrong. Were they to acknowledge their limitations, governments would then limit their own fiddling and allow more room for other sorts of "government" – including family government, Church government, and self-government – to take up more responsibility. China slaps tariff on Canadian canola after Canada imposed a tariff on Chinese EVs Canadians who want to "go green" will have to pay more to do it, since our government imposed a 100% tariff on cheap Chinese electric vehicles (EVs) last year. Does that tariff help Canadian EV production? Possibly... but only by hurting Canadian consumers in the pocketbook. And now China has hit Canadian canola with a huge 78% tariff. Might that help China's canola producers? Maybe. But only by hurting Chinese canola consumers. When tariffs beget more tariffs, the only way to stop the cycle is for one country to step back and stop. And that isn't as defeatist as it is made out to be. It is, in fact, a defense of your country's consumers, who will no longer be forced to pay the jacked-up pricing our tariffs create. Yes, ending tariffs could hurt some Canadian producers – those who can't produce goods as inexpensively as countries abroad are able to – but ending tariffs will help our consumers, who will then get more bang for their buck. Ending tariffs will also help any of our producers who use imported products. And, in this case, ending tariffs could have helped our country's canola producers escape a punitive payback by the Chinese government. Media gives big coverage to study that says climate change will cost trillions... ... but didn't give big coverage when the same study started getting questioned. Court backs Calvin U over prof fired for officiating a gay "marriage" A same-sex "marriage" is two people committing, for life, to live in rebellion against God. They are doing so to their own harm, and quite possibly their eternal destruction, should they keep to that commitment. How could this professing Christian have been confused about whether or not he should officiate such a ceremony? It'd be akin to officiating a ceremony where a pair of anorexics made a solemn vow not to eat again – why would anyone do that to them? It's good news, then, to hear that Calvin University took a stand, and the courts backed them. Trump (sort of) says, "The US should be more like Canada" Canada's federal election results have, historically, been beyond questioning. With a scrutineer from each of the major parties overlooking the ballot counts, there have been as many as four tallies to check against each other – the Elections Canada result, but then also the Liberal, Conservative, and NDP counts. But as we move to more mail-in ballots and, municipally, we bring in electronic voting, what we're left with is a system that requires more and more trust from the voters because there is less and less transparency. We have only to look south of the border to see how badly that can go. Now President Trump has made transparency an issue, with his demand for getting rid of electronic voting machines. The Prodigal - Josiah Queen Quite the peppy take on the Prodigal Son... ...

Red heart icon with + sign.
Theology

I won't go with you: abandonment as an act of love

“You’re kicking someone out of your church?” It can be hard bringing friends into our churches – our music is slower, our benches are harder and our sermons are longer – but it gets harder still when a friend is brought the same Sunday an excommunication notice is read out. Excommunication is almost impossible to explain, because almost no other churches do it. It is a completely new thing to most people outside our Reformed churches, and on the surface it seems so harsh and uncaring. It seems mean. The biblical basis is clear enough, Matthew 18:15-18 speaks of excluding an unrepentant sinner, from the communion of the Church: “Let him be to you as a heathen and a tax collector.” 2 Thessalonians 3:14 even gives a clear reason for this exclusion: “do not keep company with him, that he may be ashamed.” But the biblical explanation isn’t very satisfying. Yes, that’s what it says, but can that be what it really means? It doesn’t seem to make sense. Wouldn’t it be better if this sinning brother kept coming to church, and kept hanging out with his Christian friends? How can God’s word act on his soul if we prevent him from even hearing it? This is the sort of thinking that has eliminated excommunication in most churches, and delayed and lengthened the process in many of our own churches. There is always the hope that as long as the sinning brother keeps attending, something might change. This hope for change seems to disappear once they have been excommunicated, and so the process is dragged out as long as possible. The pro-life explanation I never fully understood the rationale behind excommunication until a Lutheran, in my university pro-life group, explained it to me. She didn’t talk about excommunication though. Instead she talked about abandonment as an act of love. Our group was discussing what one of our members had gone through when her friend asked her to go with her to an abortion clinic. “What could I do? She’s my best friend, and she was going crazy. She needed me so I went with her.” “Did she know you were pro-life?” “I told her.” “She knew you were pro-life and she still asked you to help her get an abortion? Does she know what being pro-life means? Does she know you think abortion is murder?” “She needed me so she asked me. We’re best friends!” “Your friend asked you to help her murder her baby. Do you think she really understood what she was asking you to do? If she had really understood, do you think she would have asked you?” “But she did ask…what else could I do?” “You could have said no. You could have said, ‘You know I love you, you know we are best friends, but what you are doing is wrong, and I cannot help you do it. You know I would do anything for you, but I will not do this. If you are going to do this, you will have to do it alone.’ That would have given your friend – the friend who knows you love her dearly – something to think about. If you go with her, she’ll never understand how serious abortion is. After all, her pro-life friend went with her. But if you refuse to help her, if her best friend abandons her, then she might just be shocked into realizing just how serious this is. Abandoning her gives her more to think about than accompanying her ever could." Shock and shame An unrepentant sinner is often an ignorant sinner. He doesn’t see the need to repent and doesn’t think his particular sin is a big deal. That thought is confirmed when the church refuses to discipline him. There is no sharp break to snap the sinning brother back to his senses. Instead he’ll probably start attending less and less frequently, and start making more and more friends outside the church. Finally discipline becomes impossible because the man no longer has any friends left in the church. Excommunication at this point is incapable of shaming him, because he doesn’t care what the people in the church think. But if we act while the church is still the focal point in his life, then the unrepentant brother will see the people he loves, and the people who love him, telling him they will not walk down the wide path with him. Then the brother will be left alone with his thoughts, left alone to evaluate his path. And Lord willing he will then be forced to see the error of his ways. Excommunication does make sense, and we should thank God for it. First published in the November 2000 Reformed Perspective....

Red heart icon with + sign.
Politics

What if everything was about God?

It struck me, just recently, that I’ve been regularly promising to praise God’s Name “among the nations.” This pledge, to talk about God outside of church, out in the world, with non-Christians, comes up again and again in the songs we sing each service (Ps. 18, 57, 108, etc.). And, just recently, God gave me an opportunity to talk about Him with more than a hundred thousand people, sharing His views on a local political issue. God made it happen This year our public library system asked voters to approve a roughly 66% increase in taxpayer funding. The way things work here, an official “voters’ guide” is sent out to everyone, and it includes both the reasons for and against every proposed levy. Who writes up those reasons? Whoever volunteers first. So, I recruited my wife Janice, and the two of us, along with one other gentleman from the area, became the three-person “Against Committee.” Why was I against more money for the library? It’s because our solidly Christian town has a very unchristian library. The local branch is run by people who put on big Pride Month displays, even in the children’s section. This Spring, I bumped into a neighbor by the picture books section, and as we were chatting, she started sifting through the shelves, looking for treasures. But what she kept discovering was one disgusting picture book after another. They were about sexual development, or pushed gender-confusion and other LGBT themes, and were intended for kids barely old enough to read. Neither of us knew what to do with her growing stack. I ended up checking them all out, not because I wanted them, but because, with no late fees being collected anymore, I could at least keep these out of circulation for a good long while. That’s all I was thinking at the time. But I still had those books on my desk when this voters’ guide opportunity popped up. Turns out, God had provided me just the ammunition I’d need for my write-up. What kind of win? While I wanted to focus on how the library was opposing God and what He’s said about gender and sex, the third person on our Against Committee wanted a focus on the money. Making it about the money could broaden the appeal to anyone in the county who cared about their pocketbook. Surely that was a bigger group than just the concerned Christians! Asking for a two-thirds increase is significant, so he had a point. It’s also a familiar point. When it comes to politics, Christians tend to bring forward fiscal issues, or other generally conservative points, rather than anything explicitly Christian. In this case, if more people care about money than God, isn’t the winning strategy obvious? The thing is, not all wins are wins. In 279 BC, King Pyrrhus of Epirus defeated the Romans at the Battle of Asculum, but at a devastating cost to his own army. Ever since then the term Pyrrhic victory has been used to describe a win that leaves the victor weaker than before. In Christians’ engagement with the world, we will, for the sake of some perceived short-term victory, overlook the long-term consequences that come with excluding God from the public square. We wonder why our culture is turning from God, but if, for strategic reasons, God’s own people won’t profess His Name in politics, who are we expecting will? Every square inch The world is the LORD’s, and consequently, the Devil is always and forever trying to get us to overlook, downplay, or deny that. In this library skirmish, the real issue wasn’t how much, but rather Who the library was opposing. So, what kind of win would it be if we had to shut up about our LORD to get it? If the Devil could choose to make us focus on either money or God, wouldn’t he choose money every time? The devil’s win is getting Christians to self-censor their praise and rob God of the glory that is His due. Thankfully, while the third member of our committee wanted money mentioned, he was happy to keep God central. After some back and forth, this is what we sent out to 140,000 eligible voters: Argument Against In the opening chapters of Genesis we learn that God made us male and female (Gen. 1:27) and sex is intended for marriage (Gen. 2:24). Our library system actively opposes these truths, and wants more money to do so. They oppose God in their teen section where Beyond Magenta shares an account of oral sex with a six-year-old. Despite this being brought to the library’s attention, they didn’t pull the book. That opposition is apparent even in the picture book section. Your preschooler can pull My Princess Boy off the shelf and ask you whether boys should wear dresses too. Being You: A First Conversation About Gender will teach them that “it’s okay to wonder: Am I a girl? Am I a boy? Am I both? Am I neither?” And Everybody is a Rainbow depicts naked genitalia. A $600,000 home currently pays about $155 a year to this system – the library wants to up that almost $100, to $252. We have increasing food, electricity, housing, and gas costs – that’s what we need our money for. We most certainly don’t need to give more money to a library that’s opposing God-given truths and sowing confusion, even among the littlest. The voters’ guide only allowed us 200 words, but the debate was also being had in the local paper. The paper published an article arguing for the increase, touting the library as somewhere safe to go. I got 300 words, in a letter to the editor, to share how God knows best what is best for us, and a library pushing transsexual confusion on little kids isn’t safe at all. Three kinds of objections Objections came in three sorts. Folks noted that, if it was about the money, borrowing from a library can save you a lot of money. That was a decent point, and it underscores the danger of what could have happened if we’d made this minor point our major one – we would have wasted all our energy on a matter that doesn’t matter. Another objection was along the lines of “Don’t force your God or your views on me.” But this objection applies better to their position than to ours. Christians don’t want to be forced to pay even more money to support views our Lord opposes. Meanwhile, the library and its supporters want to force us to cough up cash for their agenda. The irony was heavy. The third objection was over the definition of words like “safety,” “love,” and “gender,” and whose definition we were going to go with, the Left’s or God’s. A real win The vote went against us, and now we’ll have to hand over even more money to a library that’s shown it hates God. In the past that kind of result might have gotten me frustrated. This time I’m just grateful. God gave me an opportunity to praise His Name in public, and He made it easy for me. He put the committee sign-up sheet in front of my face, and so pre-arranged things to get my neighbor to track down the obscene picture books I could cite as horrible examples. Then He got a couple hundred words about Him sent out by a State that hates Him to over one hundred thousand voters who don’t normally hear about Him. It was a political campaign with the focus on God. Because everything is about God. And He is amazing....

Red heart icon with + sign.
Internet

Screen-fast strictness – how tough is tough enough?

The screen-fast sign-up form had a space for “My listed exceptions” where people could list the important but limited screen-usage that their life and job required of them. Unfortunately, after the screen-fast began, we started hearing from people who didn’t sign up because they thought no exceptions were allowed. Shucks. I wish we’d managed to be louder about the possibility of exceptions, since we wanted to give everyone every reason to participate. For many this was more about turning away from social media than screens. Some listened to podcasts instead of watching videos, even if that meant they were using their phone. Exceptions maybe, but good ones. So, come next time, your screen-fast could like this: “We didn’t do any internet browsing (I searched for recipe inspiration via books!), or anything that could become a time waster/rabbit hole. We did have to order some needed items that came up (quick order and done), checked email once day in case there was committee work that needed attention (unlikely but possible this time of year). I spent more time in real books (loved that!) and no browsing/scrolling in bed before lights out (probably my favorite part), and used messaging as needed for necessary communication (though for extended chats, phone calls happened too, more than usual). I didn’t open Facebook or Instagram (my biggest time wasters) at all. My husband didn’t open Facebook Marketplace or Varagesale (his scrolling vices).” Some also thought the “the ‘rules’ were vague, and left too much for interpretation so creating an excuse...was easy at times.” Good point – the exceptions might allow some of us more flexibility than we should take. For example, I fully planned for my family to go just 9 days, because part way through the fast we had a 5-hour plane flight. I thought that would be too long to be stuck in one seat without a video to pass the time. But my wife encouraged the kids to read, play card games, chat, and watch the scenery out the window, and they all did just fine. It was wonderful that we didn’t just wimp out. Here’s how some fasters used creativity and determination to keep their screen usage to an absolute minimum. “Went camping with the family…..Had to get out our old GPS to find where we had to go. Left the phone home.” “Early on the kids kept coming up with reasons to go online – a recipe they needed, some piece of music they wanted to play, and we got a little Pharisaic, letting them ask their neighbor friend to help download whatever. It still meant that, instead of turning to a screen, they had to interact with a friend.” “I did take the opportunity to sift through some of my parents CD collections and listen to music that way…” “We found it very helpful to become aware of our instant gratification culture in the family. Suddenly Amazon shopping was off the table and if somebody needed something they had to wait until we went to town.” “The hardest thing for my wife and I is that about twice a week we would watch a show in the evening together. Otherwise, I found it freeing but not super difficult.” “I was in kitchen and realized I was missing an ingredient for dinner. Usually, I would just grab my phone and Google substitutes or a recipe for what I'm missing. During my screen-fast I had to thumb through a cookbook, or just wing it.” “…we had a 4-hour drive during the challenge where they would normally get a tablet to watch shows. Instead, we picked out a couple fun fidgets, coloring books and new crayons, and I read them a chapter book. On the way home… even though the 10 days were past, the kids didn't ask for a tablet once!? So how hard is too hard? When it’s so hard you don’t think it’s possible to do it. When is it too easy? Maybe it’s like weight training – if you don’t strain, what’s the gain?...

Red heart icon with + sign.
Assorted

Why I don’t have a bucket list

Admittedly, to get guilt tripped into a camping trip exposes character weakness on my part. When someone bounds up to you, excited as a kitten encountering his first ball of yarn, and says they have the best idea for a geology fieldtrip, spanning 3 days (“ooh, ooh, no let’s turn it into 4!”), 400 miles, and something like 8 piles of rocks, any person with their wits about them would laugh and say, “Y’all have fun now, I’ll be over here, sleeping in my own bed.” People who camp on purpose, non-ironically, are an utter mystery to me. The more I learn about camping, the more outrageous and certifiable it seems! Did you know that KOA (one of the largest campground empires in the United States and yes, there is such a thing as a campground empire) stands for Kampgrounds of America?? How are we not promoting illiteracy and the overall degradation of our dignity by paying these people to borrow their dirt so we can sleep on it? Did you further know that after you have paid to sleep on dirt out in “nature,” you still are required to either buy or pack in your own wood for building campfires? In the (wait for it...) woods? Yet for the longest time during the diabolical planning of this trip, whose chief stated end was to go and stare at rocks, I could not bring myself to say “no, absolutely not, life is too short.” Which leads me to the character flaw, and my grandmother. ***** In the same week that this trip was scheduled to take place, I received word that my grandmother, my dad’s 94-year-old mother, had suffered a severe stroke. As I write this, I await further word on her condition; things didn’t look good last night. So I have been contemplating my grandmother, someone I have always found to be remarkable and not, perhaps, for the usual reasons. My grandmother was the quintessential farmwife. She raised four children, kept a lovely home, and was known for feeding people well. In many ways, I didn’t truly get to know her until I got married at age 20 and we both discovered that I shared her love of beautiful dishes, and of tables set to appeal to the senses. It was something she was teased about a bit over the years, her large collections of glassware, full sets of tableware, antique bowls and coffee service, but it has captivated me since childhood. She gave me my first everyday serving bowls when my oldest was a toddler – the same ones she used when her kids were little, and then proceeded to gift me antique glassware for my birthday for the next nearly 20 years. The year the glassware stopped was the same year she stopped calling on my birthday; that was, perhaps, the first time a birthday ever made me feel my age. I was blessed with 2 beautiful, intelligent farming grandmothers growing up; my mom’s mom went to the Lord a couple of years ago, and I like to think there are flavors of each of these women’s influences in my own farmwife homemaking. My maternal grandmother was known for ingenuity with the food at hand, with using her abundant garden to set visually peaceful tables, with the sort of minimalism that employs only that which is meaningful. My paternal grandmother was known for overflowing tables (why serve one kind of meat when you could serve three?), and for leftovers that could feed an army, created with simple recipes that everyone loved, served with what I find to be an uncommon blend of elegance and utility. She had no shame in making her mashed potatoes from a box, and paper napkins were a blessing. No one ever left her table hungry. I asked her once to teach me how she cooked various meats, how her meals always taste so good. She shrugged and said, “just a little salt and pepper?” As a person tempted by gourmet magazines, it was an important lesson for me. ***** And this, obviously, leads me to the ill-fated camping trip (not obvious, you say? We should spend more time together). The thing that guilted me into agreeing to this grand adventure of curiosity and literally leaving no stone unturned was the feeling that good mothers, or for that matter, that really interesting people, are the sort who long to travel the world, to always be experiencing new things. They are the ones who cannot simply read about a volcano, they have to climb it! At sunrise! And then go glissading down it, trying all the while to avoid hidden frozen lakes (you think I am making this up. Friend, I couldn’t make this stuff up. I refer you to your friendly neighborhood internet browser to prove the point)! How could I be worth anything at all if my bucket list was not perpetually on the verge of overflow? What does the truth – that I don’t even have a bucket list– say about me, about my value as a mother, as a wife, as a Christian? My grandmother has run well. She has lived an extraordinary life, and why? Because her life has been marked by extraordinary faithfulness to the task at hand. She has steadily built the portion of the kingdom wall God put in front of her. The pitfall I fell into was to believe that true faithfulness had to look different than embracing the life God has given me – it had to look both more “normal” and more exciting. I gave room to the lie that setting a gracious table was inferior to seeing something new, to having an adventure outside my own home. I am kicking myself as I write this... how could I have been so daft as to think that kicking rocks was more full of glory than grilling fresh corn on the cob, that sleeping on dirt had more inherent value than putting clean sheets on my family’s beds? Sitting here in the morning light, having removed myself from the geology fieldtrip, the truth of what it means to live well shines brightly before me. Only what’s done for Christ will last....

Red heart icon with + sign.
In a Nutshell

Tidbits – August 2025

Husbands, build up your wife R. Kent Hughes in Disciplines of a Godly Man, on Churchill at his very best: “Winston Churchill once attended a formal banquet in London, where the dignitaries were asked the question, ‘If you could not be who you are, who would you like to be?’ Naturally, everyone was curious as to what Churchill, who was seated next to his beloved Clemmie, would say. After all, Churchill would not be expected to say Julius Caesar or Napoleon. When it finally came Churchill’s turn, the old man, the last respondent to the question, rose and gave his answer. ‘If I could not be who I am, I would most like to be’ — here he paused to take his wife’s hand — ‘Lady Churchill’s second husband.’ The old boy made some points that night. But he also said it for everyone who has a good marriage.” One step to a balanced budget Billionaire Warren Buffet once proposed a one-point plan to ensure the United States would always have a balanced budget. It was a half-serious, half-genuine, 100-per-cent-genius suggestion. And it's equally applicable in Canada. "You just pass a law that says that any time there's a deficit of more than three percent of GDP, all sitting members of Congress are ineligible for re-election. Yeah, yeah, now you've got the incentives in the right place, right? ….If you guys can't get it done, we'll get some other guys to get it done. The only problem: the people who would have to pass such a law are the same people who would lose their jobs." Worst names In an old copy of Reader’s Digest, one letter writer noted that their relatives had gotten married in the Boring Baptist Church. It was a curious name. Might it have come about as a reaction to the seeker-sensitive marketing that has churches hyping that "We have a great band, a puppet ministry for the kids, and the very best coffee bar in town!" But no, this is simply what the folks in Boring, Oregon called one of the local Baptist churches. A bad name, to be certain, but better than what the congregations have to deal with in Falls, Virginia. Who wants to say they go to a Falls church? Clues for the clueless Modesty is a battle that every upcoming generation seems keen to wage. So if your teens are either wearing their clothes too high or too low, here's a couple tips that may be hepful. BOYS: If their pants hang low, arrange for the little sister to point out: "Freddy, I can see your panties!” That should do it. GIRLS: This line might be best delivered by mom, or maybe grandma: "If you can’t sit down in it without being indecent, it isn’t decent.” Playing at religion C.S. Lewis, in Miracles, wrote about sinful man's tendency to pretend to seek after God. But what may come of even that when the Holy Spirit is involved? “It is always shocking to meet life where we thought we were alone. ‘Look out!’ we cry, ‘It's alive!’ And therefore this is the very point at which so many draw back – I would have done so myself if I could – and proceed no further with Christianity. An ‘impersonal God’ – well and good. A subjective God of beauty, truth and goodness inside our own heads – better still. A formless life-force surging through us, a vast power that we can tap-best of all. But God Himself, alive, pulling at the other end of the cord, perhaps approaching at an infinite speed, the Hunter, King, Husband – that is quite another matter. There comes a moment when the children who have been playing at burglars hush suddenly: was that a real footstep in the hall? There comes a moment when people who have been dabbling in religion (‘Man's search for God!’) suddenly draw back. Supposing we really found Him? We never meant it to come to that! Worse still, supposing He had found us!” A bumper sticker worth 1,000 words A good question can be a powerful thing (as Jesus demonstrated in His earthly ministry). Spurgeon – the rap If you've got reservations about rap, that's understandable – like rock and pop, most of it is horrible. But consider also what a Reformed rapper can do with this genre. Here's Shai Linne, with part of Verse 3 from his ode to Charles Spurgeon. (Click here to hear him perform it.) To observe this servant is extremely instructive One word about Spurgeon is he was productive Preached Jesus - no speakers - loudly he’d shout it Each week packed houses of crowds in the thousands His sermons were published - sixty-two volumes He worked almost like he just knew he would die soon Made mad disciples, passed on his knowledge Established a school to train pastors in college Sold out to the Lord Jehovah, his portion Also he built two homes for the orphans A monthly magazine, plus he wasn’t too busy to write books - about a hundred and fifty God’s grace in Spurgeon was manifest But remember, the best man is a man at best Yes, he struggled with depression - consistently sick, kid Both he and Susannah, physically afflicted He experienced as a servant of Jesus The power of God made perfect in weakness Later on comes complications His stands for orthodoxy got him shunned by his denomination But through all the hardship and all the controversy He never stopped relying on the sovereign God of mercy And when he had finished pressing towards the goal He entered into heaven at the age of fifty-seven His life is a case of God’s grace effectively At work in sinners to leave a great legacy The proof is many years later in your speakers We’re praising Jesus for raising up the "prince of preachers." Don’t all religions lead to God? In Together for GOOD, Jay Adams gives readers a fictionalized conversation between Greg Cunninghamm, a pastor, and Bob Rawlston, an unbelieving man wrestling with the Book of John. One of the Bob's struggles is with John 14:6 where Jesus says, “I am the Way and the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." It is the exclusive claim of the last sentence that bothers Bob. "I always thought that whatever religion you accept, so long as you are sincere, it will ultimately lead you to God. But Jesus doesn't provide much room for anybody except those who believe in Him." The pastor has two responses well worth considering: "If all religions lead to God, surely He wouldn't be much of a God since He'd be a contradiction in Himself. You see, since every religion contradicts every other, and if all of their ways lead to God, then God Himself must be confused. You wouldn't want to believe in a God who says one thing today and the opposite tomorrow, one thing to one person and the opposite to another, I'm sure? ".... And think of this: if people can be saved from their sins some other way than by believing the Gospel, then Jesus' crucifixion was not only a senseless tragedy, but sending Him to die was a stupid, brutal act on God's part. No matter how you squeeze it, when you think rationally, you have to come to the conclusion that if there's one God, there can only be one way." Math to make you smile In Craig Damrauer’s New Math the author takes everyday language and gives the words mathematical definitions. Sometimes the results are insightful. His definition of a Ponzi scheme makes it evident that those that fall for them are, most often, looking to get something for nothing: Ponzi scheme = ROI – R – I (ROI stands for Return On Investment). Other definitions are merely humorous. Here are a half dozen of the best. MODERN ART = I could do that + yeah, but you didn’t PERSEVERANCE = if at first you don’t succeed + repetition DOG = cat + loyalty REVENGE = do unto others – as you would have them do unto you CHILDREN = joy – sleep LOSING ARGUMENT = you’re right + I’m sorry REALIST = pessimist + good PR Why read Christian biographies? In his article, "Brothers, read Christian biographies," John Piper explained why we should: “Hebrews 11 is a divine mandate to read Christian biography…. If we asked the author, ‘How shall we stir one another up to love and good works?’ (10:24), his answer would be: ‘Through encouragement from the living (10:25) and the dead’ (chap. 11). Christian biography is the means by which ‘body life’ cuts across the generations.” Danger of biblical biographies I once read a fictionalized biblical biography of Paul that left me thinking that he and James fought over whether we can be saved by works or faith. I learned later that this was the author inserting his own perspective, and, not yet discerning enough to sift what was biblical from what was fiction, I swallowed it all. Some years back, Joanna Voschezang, writing in the Faith in Focus denominational magazine of the Reformed Churches of New Zealand, expressed a similar concern: “ sub-genre within that of biography is a section which could just as well be entitled ‘Biblical Novels.’ There are a number of books that have been written about people in the Bible such as Rahab, Joshua, Moses and Tamar. These books are written with very little factual, biblical information to go on and yet an entire story has been made around it. The danger of these books is that they can color your view of that biblical character for the rest of your life and yet 95 percent of it will be conjecture on the part of the author. When it comes to the lives of those in the Bible it is best to stick with the original source – God’s holy Word!” The real thing In Charles Martin’s When Crickets Cry, the main character has a frank conversation about pornography with a young man named Termite. "Your mind imprints images, especially that kind, on the heart, so that ten and fifteen years down the road, when you're married and trying to make something out of your life, they come drifting back, bubbling up and reminding you how much greener the grass is outside your own bed. I have loved one woman in my lifetime...she's been gone five years, but, I've got enough memories to last a lifetime, and I wouldn't sell you a single one for every picture in every magazine around the world. And you know something– the ones where she has her clothes on are worth just as much as the ones without.... Love is no tool; neither is a woman's heart." ….Termite scoffed and shoved the last bite of jerky into his mouth “How would you know? You just said you’ve loved only one woman. I think you need to test-drive a few cars before you buy one." "You can buy that lie if you want, but if you're working for a bank, you don't study the counterfeit to know the real thing. You study the real thing to know the counterfeit.... From out of the heart, you speak. You put that crap in your heart, and you can't help but find it coming out your mouth. It'll color and flavor your whole person. Pretty soon, it'll eat you up." Cults flourish wherever the Church is neglectful Some cults are started by charismatic figures with large egos – they are quite happy to have the attention on themselves rather than God. But as Jay Adams explained, sometimes it is the Church that is to blame for the rise of a cult: "…as someone has said, 'Cults are the unpaid bills of the Church.' What does that mean? Simply this – whenever the church of Jesus Christ fails to emphasize some truth, and becomes imbalanced in one direction or another, it leaves room for a cult to creep in and take over that area of theology which it has neglected. You didn’t pay your bill, so someone else moves in to take possession of what was your God-given responsibility to teach in the first place. Take the days in which there was little emphasis upon eschatology. The Adventist cults gained favor. The period in which there was little concern for pastoral care led to the beginnings of the healing cults." From insult to insightful "The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false- for the urge to rule it.” Some quotes age well. This bit, from H.L. Mencken (1880-1956), was originally targeting Christian missionaries heading off to “foreign parts” and, in that context, was simply insulting. But today, when we have would-be environmental, economic, educational, and political saviors, all of whom are demanding more control and more power, Mencken’s words have become insightful....

Red heart icon with + sign.
News

Saturday Selections – Aug. 9, 2025

Four guys, one piano, doing a One Direction cover The Piano Guys, getting clever... Anything can be an idol "I have worshiped an hour of uninterrupted sleep. I have worshiped a number on the scale. I have worshiped a number in my bank account. I have worshiped a pregnancy test, a tidy to-do list, a stocked pantry, a nicer vehicle, a certain number of social media followers, my reputation, positive book reviews, the way I look or didn’t look, perfect obedience from my kids, a certain home aesthetic. And on and on the list goes. I have a heart that loves to produce idols, and unfortunately, so do you..." Keep our kids from the public school Kool-Aid "The world wants our children to buy into poisonous ways of thinking. These ways of thinking are destructive and dangerous. They’re Satanic." How voting with your feet helps "You vote every day when you go to the grocery store or the gas station, pay your rent, purchase a washing machine or buy a latte. You are voting with your feet and sending important messages about your preferences and desires to the folks who are trying to give you what you want... The private voting we do through economic exchange is possibly the most important voting that we can do: It brings about change, it helps us express our values and it serves the public good in awe-inspiring ways." AI and the threat of Mutually Assured Boredom "The great danger is that we increasingly find real, flesh-and-blood people boring. It’s already the case that many ordinary human interactions, filled with quirks, annoyances, and complexities, struggle to compete with nonstop entertainment from our devices. AI promises to exponentially expand our options for distraction, drawing us even further from genuine relationships, but this time by successfully imitating human conversation." Union leaders oppose family and life values Reformed church leaders have, over the years, had several different reasons to oppose union membership, including the Marxian ideology that underlies adversarial negotiations, and the claims that are made on employment that amount to theft – i.e., when strikers prevent others from doing the work they've abandoned, they are acting as if they (and not their employer) own the job. Then, as the article above highlights, in Canada, compulsory union dues have been used to promote "abortion, euthanasia, special rights for LGBTQ, same-sex marriage and transgenderism." Fortunately, in some jurisdictions in Canada, there is an option – on the basis of religious conscientious objection – to have your union dues redirected to an agreed-upon charity. What about the higher wages that are supposed to come with unionization? That happens. But as the video below highlights, that often comes with a cost, too. ...

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Evolve Digital logo.   Benchpress theme logo.   Third Floor Design Studio logo.
Bench Press Theme by Evolve Digital  & Third Floor Design Studio