Transparent heart icon with white outline and + sign.

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

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

White magnifying glass.

Search thousands of RP articles

Equipping Christians to think, speak, and act

Open envelope icon with @ symbol

Get Articles Delivered!

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



News

Saturday Selections – Mar. 30, 2024

Rich Mullins: Creed (4 min)

Rich Mullins riffing off of the Apostles' Creed.

How C.S. Lewis predicted the pronoun push...

...and in a passage in The Horse and His Boy, he taught us how to respond.

Bug zappers might do more harm than good

Sick of mosquitos? Your bug zapper might be the problem. A couple decades back two universities tested how many mosquitos actually get zapped and found that of the approximately 24,000 bugs their zappers killed, just 39 were mosquitos. Less than o.2 percent! The rest included bugs that actually eat mosquitoes, which means the bug zappers might actually be making your mosquito problems worse.

The Road to Socialism and Back Again – a free e-book

This free e-book charts the fall and rise of Poland's economy, stagnating for decades under centralized communist management, then quadrupling once some freedoms were returned. It's history we need to share.

However, while this notes that socialism doesn't work, it doesn't dig into what God says about the why: that a centralized economy doesn't work because it lacks humility (a distant leader knows how to run all our lives better than us?), it fosters envy over what the rich have (breaking the 10th Commandment), it requires men to be angels (working hard with no thought of gain for themselves), and in eliminating private property, it violates the 8th Commandment. No wonder then that it doesn't work.

Christians aren't ready to argue against AI-generated porn

When it comes to pornography, Christians will point out the harm it does to "performers," highlighting the dark, dark side of porn production. It is dark, so that argument is certainly valid. But that the performers are harmed isn't the foundational reason pornography is wicked – the underlying problem is that porn conflicts with God's plan for sexuality. And now, with the advent of AI-generated, actorless films, talking about the harm done to the actors, rather than mentioning anything about God, won't work as an objection anymore.

The conclusion to the linked article is both spot on, and really, really sad, because it makes it seem as if talking about God is the very last thing any Christian would want to do in the culture wars. But is that true?

"This will be uncomfortable, because it will force Christians to make moral arguments that appear irredeemably at odds with the secular society. The benefits of emphasizing things like exploitation is that such concepts resonate with non-Christian audiences. There’s nothing wrong with seeking this common ground, but the reality is that we’re not going to have that ground at all very soon. The arguments against consuming or licensing pornography that will matter in the age of AI will be moralistic arguments: arguments rooted in the goodness of embodied sexuality in the context of marriage, and the destruction that occurs to hearts and emotions by feasting on a fake version of sex that collapses us inward. 'This is somebody’s child' will have to become, 'You are somebody’s child.'

"Here will be a good stress test for Christian moral theology. Western Christians can articulate a vision of life that makes sense in a radically fractured, technologically isolated context. But that vision requires helping people get beyond the 'Does it harm anyone' framework, not simply appropriating the question. So it seems very likely that Christians will have to bring God into the discussion. When there’s no one to exploit, there is still God to offend. When there is no one to be trafficked, there is still God who sees. And when there is no one to stand over your shoulder to intervene or care, there is still God who saves."

Pre-natal screening: should we do it?

Some prenatal testing – specifically the sort that is called "invasive" – comes with a risk for the unborn, and so Christians should question why we'd want to get such a test at such a cost. As the article above and video below explain, "non-invasive" tests come with a different sort of "risk" for the unborn... though not when conducted by pro-life Christians.

Red heart icon with + sign.
News

Election day delay could cost taxpayers millions

On March 20 the Liberal/NDP government proposed bumping the 2025 election date back a week because the election would otherwise be at the same time as Diwali, the Hindu festival of lights. Critics have noted that moving election day back a week would also guarantee that any MPs first elected in 2019 would now be eligible for pensions that they wouldn’t have gotten if they’d lost. An MP needs to serve 6 years to be eligible for a pension, and for those elected on Oct 21, 2019, the 2025 election date of Oct 20 would have left them a day short. If current polling numbers persist, the government could expect a lot of their MPs to lose, but this election-day delay would give them a going-away pension bonus. Among the other electoral changes being proposed are an expansion of 2 more days of advance polls, giving voters seven days in total – six advance days and election day – to be able to vote in person. The government also wants to make it easier to vote by mail, and allow electors to vote anywhere in their electoral district. These changes are being done in the name of “encouraging participation in the electoral process.” However, that doesn’t seem a pressing issue – over the last 30 years, electoral turnout has stayed consistently within 60%-70% of eligible voters. Looking south of the border, we can see that what’s more important is the perceived trustworthiness of the election. Canada has not had allegations of stolen elections, as is almost commonplace in the US. That’s because Canada’s federal elections, as they have been run over the last many decades are the most verifiable in the world, with each voter checked off a list at their poll, and every ballot evaluated by two Elections Canada agents as well as representatives from each major party. These competing interests provided the ultimate verification for each election. Mail-in balloting and vote-anywhere initiatives might make it marginally easier to vote, but cause complications – last election 90,000 mail-in ballots arrived too late to be counted – and muddle the transparency. The more heated our politics become, the more important it is that our elections are not only trustworthy, but are obviously so....

Red heart icon with + sign.
News

Saturday Selections – Mar. 23, 2024

How to undermine election trust The title of this video – "how to steal an election" – isn't as much the issue here as the fact that results become more disputable, and more controversial, when in-person voting is replaced with mail-in balloting. This is an American case, but applicable to Canada and elsewhere. Why chromosomal differences do not create additional sexes The Christian apologetic group Stand to Reason has made this short and to the point, but with plenty of links to go explore deeper. Sadly, Jordan Peterson still isn't Christian Aaron Renn argues that Peterson is basically New Age. Only God as Trinity can offer Atonement Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and other prominent atheists have equated Good Friday as nothing more than a case of "cosmic child abuse" – a vengeful Father venting His wrath on His innocent Child. That's a charge shared by Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons (so lock this in for the next time you hear a knock at your door) and others who deny that God is indeed Three in One, because then the Cross is indeed a god punishing some "entirely other" being. But, as we know, at the Cross it is a just God also showing mercy by voluntarily taking on our punishment. In the linked article, Jeremy Treat explores this truth from two other analogous angles. Yes, teens, virginity is good for you Virginity doesn't just provide freedom from sexually transmitted diseases, but it also lowers incidences of all sorts of other risky behaviors, such as smoking and drug use. Are biblical counselors unbiblical? (20 minute read) Secular psychologists who ignore the spiritual world can, at best, treat only half the person: their material body. Biblical counselors can turn to the wisdom God has written in His Word to treat the soul too. But how much should biblical counselors rely on, and turn to, what God has also revealed in His Second Book, the "book" of Creation? That's where an important debate is being had. Astonishing fly can breathe underwater even after losing its underwater lungs (6 min) This fly as a larvae has organs that allow it to breathe underwater, but it loses those in its adult stage. But it still lives underwater using a completely different system to get its needed oxygen. That all happened by chance? You have to be willfully blind to miss God's creative genius here. ...

Red heart icon with + sign.
News

More Canadians are “Alberta bound”

“It’s good to be Alberta bound” sang Canadian folk legend Gordon Lightfoot. Looking at Statistics Canada’s Quarterly Demographic Estimates, many Canadians are taking this to heart. 45,194 moved in from other provinces in 2023 alone, more than to any other province. The two factors being cited by the mainstream media are Alberta’s “more favourable” tax environment and lower housing prices. These factors are very real, as Alberta doesn’t have a provincial sales tax nor a land transfer tax. The average sale price of a home in Alberta has gone up in the past year, but is still well under $500,000 (compared with $957,000 in BC and $853,000 in Ontario). Albertans also make more money per week, on average, compared to all other provinces. But Alberta has had lower home prices and lower taxes for many years. So, what accounts for the recent exodus from places like BC and Manitoba? One clue may be found when we look at shifting population trends in the US, where Republican states (known as “red states”) have seen a significant increase in population in recent years. The fastest-growing states from 2022 to 2023 were South Carolina, Florida, Texas, Idaho, and North Carolina, all of which voted for Donald Trump in 2016 and 2020. Although Canada is very different than the United States, Alberta has been led by the United Conservative Party government since 2019. Both their past Premier Jason Kenney and their current Premier Danielle Smith are known throughout Canada as being more supportive of freedom and smaller government compared to other Canadian provinces. When people feel unable to change their political environment, a common outcome is to “vote with your feet” by leaving the environment and going to a location that is more desirable. In this respect, Canada may not be so different from the US after all....

Red heart icon with + sign.
News, Transgenderism

Leaked documents show “gender medicine” is neither science nor medicine

Leaked internal files from WPATH, the world’s leading transgender medical association, reveal doctors openly acknowledging patients’ regrets, painful complications, and life-threatening conditions resulting from the double mastectomies and genital amputations and mutilations involved in transgender “medicine.” The World Professional Association of Transgender Health (WPATH) created standards for such “procedures” that have been adopted by doctors around the globe (including many in Canada). Significantly, WPATH is also a vocal advocate for “gender transitioning” of minors. Mia Hughes is a women’s rights advocate who curated the recently released 250-page leaked report. She summarized some of the alarming findings: “WPATH-affiliated health-care providers advocate for the destruction of healthy reproductive systems, the amputation of healthy breasts and the surgical removal of healthy genitals as the first and only line of treatment for minors and mentally ill people with gender dysphoria, eschewing any attempt to reconcile the patient with his or her birth sex.” The documents reveal that WPATH-affiliated healthcare providers endorse irreversible and damaging interventions, such as hormone treatments and surgeries, even in cases where minors may not fully comprehend the long-term implications. Videos from leaked Zoom calls show doctors openly admitting that children have little to no understanding of what they are consenting to. One doctor even stated that they are “explaining things to people who haven’t even taken biology in high school.” Doctors within WPATH have also stated they are aware of severe complications, including cancer, resulting from these interventions. One doctor shared that a 16-year-old female patient had developed cancerous tumors with an oncologist and surgeon confirming this was a result of the prescribed hormones. Moreover, the documents reveal there is a disregard for the psychological and emotional struggles of patients, with clinicians dismissing concerns and proceeding with treatments despite serious mental health issues. We are regularly urged to “trust the science,” but the gender debate shows how twisted the world’s “science” can become. But for those with eyes to see, reality aligns with God’s Word, that we are designed to be “male and female in His image.” For more, see Matt Walsh's podcast below about the leaked documents and the origins of WPATH. ...

Red heart icon with + sign.
News

Lawyer learns she should double-check ChatGPT’s work

Last month, a BC lawyer was caught submitting an AI-generated legal application to a family court. Chong Ke was representing a father asking that his children travel to China so he could have parenting time with them there. Ke used ChatGPT, a text-based generative Artificial Intelligence (AI), to write the application, which cited two fake cases. ChatGPT does not provide links to its sources which makes its fabricated content hard to spot. To the AI’s “success,” the case was won, finding it was in the best interest of the client's children to visit their father. Although the fake cases were put into the application, they were never presented in the hearing, so the courts kept the initial ruling. Shortly after the ruling, the lawyers for the mother tried to track down the cases referenced, even asking for copies from the opposition. After not receiving any copies the team hired a researcher to find the cases. This matter was then taken to court where Ke apologized for her actions. "I acknowledge that I should have been aware of the dangers of relying on Al-generated resources, and been more diligent and careful in preparing the materials for this application. I wish to apologize again to the court and to opposing counsel for my error.” The process of preparing legal documents can be arduous, and although AI technology might be a tool to help with this, we should not be naive about its capabilities. Ke was ordered to pay the costs associated with the time and resources the other counsel used to discover the fake cases. In attempts to make court applications easier, the lawyer ended up doing the opposite, deceiving others in a scramble to seek truth in the application. In the court case against Ke, the judge reminds us that AI is not a replacement for humankind. “As this case has unfortunately made clear, generative AI is still no substitute for the professional expertise that the justice system requires of lawyers."...

Red heart icon with + sign.
Internet, RPTV

Talking to teens: How does social media fit into a Christian worldview?

TRANSCRIPT Welcome to Reformed Perspective; I'm Alexandra Ellison. Did you know that in Canada almost everyone is on social media? About 89% of the population uses it, making Canada one of the most online countries in the world. Given the prominence of social media in our society it's crucial to understand how it's being utilized. For Christian parents it's especially important to be aware of their kids' online activities. In today's video, I visited a high school to talk with Christian teenagers about their experiences with social media. Q. 1 Are you on social media? If so, what apps do you use? Student 1: "Not too much but I am on YouTube and Messenger Kids." Student 2: "Not really. A little bit. I have Google Chat so I can text my friends; they live like an hour away from me so I don't get to see them too often, so I text them sometimes and sometimes do a video call with them." Student 3: "Yes, I am. I use Tik Tok quite a bit, as well as Instagram." Student 4: "Yes I'm on social media. Mostly Instagram and Snapchat." Q. 2 What are the benefits of social media? Student 2: "I get to talk to my friends. If I didn't have it I wouldn't be able to communicate with them too much." Student 1: "I get to catch up with my friends because I don't live close to them and I get to just be entertained and, um, find out a little bit about like movies that are coming out that I might like or just, um, stay current." Student 3: "I mean, it's entertaining. I also have communication with some of my friends as well via social media, so it's a good way to stay in contact with them. Also, with Instagram, I'm able to look at my family's posts to see what they're up to, especially if I'm not able to see them. I have a cousin overseas so I'm able to see what she's up to overseas, via her posts on Instagram." Student 4: "Most of the benefits are communications; I've been able to communicate with one of my Bible studies that happens on social media, and also a lot of my friends: church friends, school friends." Q.3 What are some of the negatives? Student 2: "If you are with a person, sometimes they're too busy with their phone to actually be with the person. When you're with the person they're too busy on their phone, not with you." Student 1: "There are a lot of downs to all of these different websites, so you need to be careful on them." Student 3: "I know people think that they can handle it, so it lessens my time doing other more productive things. As well, it does have things on there that one should not look at." Student 4: "The negatives of social media are distractions. Sometimes it can just be really distracting, like you want to go do your work and then you just get distracted looking at something on Instagram and then you get down a rabbit hole, down there for an hour." Q. 4 What should parents be aware of? Student 2: "Make sure that what they're watching is good content not bad." Student 4: "They should be aware of who their kids are following 'cause there's a lot of people who maybe seem like they're good people but then they give false information or just a lot of things that can be not honoring God on social media. Sometimes they post something inappropriate that you don't want to see in your feed, or randomly comes up. You especially don't be following those type of things." Q.5 How does your Christian faith guide you in using social media? Student 3: "My faith comes into play for what I'm looking at so that I don't look at the negative things. As well, it keeps me honest with what I'm looking at, and how I use my time on social media, and what I use it for spreading God's Word, or at least not getting into different areas of social media where they would be putting God down or just not following Him." Student 4: "Well, when I use social media my faith can come into play through communications with friends. Especially since I'm at a Christian school, so I can talk with Christian friends, have good conversations, as well as being able to have my Bible study that we have on Instagram. And we meet up and stuff, so it helps me communicate with others and helps me grow in that. And I think that's pretty good, to have that space to be open, when sometimes you can't communicate with others." Q.6 Can social media be used to glorify God? Student 2: "I think so. You can tell your opinion on your worldview; share your views of the world on social media." Student 1: "Well I would say they would have to be extremely careful, and pretty much not really interact with it that much at all. And maybe just talk about the Gospel and all the benefits and all the good things to spread the message because God wants us to spread His Word to the world. There are adults and other people that also do that on YouTube and other platforms, but young kids can also try to do that, to show that the youth also love God as well. But there are risks to that – major, major risks – because some people do, when they're on these platforms, they might get caught up with the fame that they might be getting, and more want what the public wants instead of what God wants them to want." Student 3: "I think that they can use social media to their benefit and to our benefit as Christians, as you can spread the word of God via social media to a large group of people especially if you have a large platform like these influencers do. As well, you can find communities on Facebook, for example, you can join a Facebook group of Christian people, whether they're doing a Bible study or they just talk about their views on Christ." Student 4: "Pages like I follow, a few that put a Bible verse a day, or follow like YouVersion, the Bible app. Ways like that. And then also through communication with other Christians, like if you're just find spaces through different apps, you can find people on things like Discord or Facebook. There's just many ways you can connect with others." It's important for us to reflect on the profound impact our digital interactions can have on our faith and our relationships. Just as we are called to love our neighbors as ourselves, let us extend that love into the virtual realm remembering that every interaction carries the potential to glorify God. In a world often filled with noise and distraction if we do choose to use social media maybe use it as a tool for spreading the light of Christ for building up one another, and for fostering genuine connections rooted in love and grace. As we navigate the ever-changing landscape of technology, may our faith serve as a compass guiding us towards discernment and ultimately towards God's eternal truth. Thanks for watching this episode of Reformed Perspective. Make sure to subscribe and share this video with family and friends....

Red heart icon with + sign.
News

Saturday Selections – Mar. 2, 2024

Click on the titles below for the linked articles... How did we get the Bible? (12 min) Was the Bible authorized, or simply recognized, by the Church? 10 astonishing alien underwater photos Here's a Top 10 of an award-winning National Geographic photographer's underwater shots showing some of the amazing diversity of life God has crafted under the water's surface. For more, check out his website - it's in French, but you don't need to know that to appreciate his pictures. 10 diagnostic questions for your marriage Do you and your spouse laugh together? Kevin DeYoung's friend suggested that "the couple that laughs together lasts together." That got DeYoung thinking: "What are some other questions that can help diagnose the health of our marital life? Here are ten that may prove useful." 10 best evidences confirming a young earth The folks at Answers in Genesis have a lot here for us to chew on! Why the world is running out of babies "Only 3% of the world’s population currently lives in a country whose birth rate isn’t declining. ...Italy, Spain, Portugal, Thailand, and South Korea will lose half their populations by the end of this century." Why? Even protesters are blessed by oil Everyone instinctively understands that hypocrisy is bad – that's one of those truths God has written on our hearts (Romans 2:15) – but like many truths, it can be deliberately obscured. So showing that someone is a hypocritic isn't enough anymore. We need to spell out in detail the implications of their double standard. The spoof below highlights even oil protesters' dependency on all sorts of oil products in their daily lives. Until someone somewhere starts living without oil themselves, what we are all demonstrating (anti-oil protesters too) is the blessing of oil for meeting so many of our daily needs. The video is PG-rated for one mention, and one inference, of the word "ass" so don't watch it with the kiddos. ...

Red heart icon with + sign.
Economics - Home Finances

Tiny home contentment

As dusk was settling in on a foggy November day in BC’s Bulkley Valley, I parked my car on the driveway next to the home of Matt and Montana Slaa. String lights were glowing around their home, which overlooked a rolling field, and also came equipped with a stunning view of two mountain ranges. It wasn’t hard to find the entrance, as there was only one door. Matt and Montana, along with their daughter Gabriella, welcomed me into their tiny home. I had to be careful where to put my shoes, as there was no boot room or entryway, and I had a hard time reaching the hanger for my coat as it was about 8’ high. But it only took a few seconds to feel an overwhelming sense of coziness and tranquility, radiated by the character of both the home and my hosts. In an age where it has become a momentous challenge for young men and women to get into the housing market, I visited with Matt and Montana to discover whether their outside-the-box solution of living in a tiny home with children is a practical solution that others may want to consider, or more of a romantic notion than a practical one. When dreams and practicality unite With marriage, God joins two people into one. For Matt and Montana, that happened in the summer of 2020. Montana grew up in Smithers, the daughter of a school teacher and an artist. Matt’s family moved into the area as his father is a pastor who accepted a call to serve in a local Reformed church. “I always wanted to live in a cabin,” shared Montana. “It was right from when I was young. That was my dream.” The happy couple as they move in... Matt was in university while they were dating, preparing to become a teacher. They wanted to get married, but how were they going to afford that? “I felt like I had to come with a financial plan for Montana and her dad,” Matt explained. The problem was that he still had to do more studies to get his education degree to become a teacher. That itself would come with a big cost, as they were planning to move away and study for a year in PEI. They proceeded to estimate the cost of building a tiny home, using the money they had saved. They had a year and a half to plan the project, using software from SketchUp to design it around the materials they collected. “We did it very cheaply,” explained Matt. “Wood and windows we collected from someone who was getting rid of them for free.” At this point in the conversation, Montana kindly offered me a cup of tea. Since a coffee table doesn’t fit in the room, she pulled out a tall block of wood, which they use not only as a coffee table but also a dinner table (when it is laid down on its side), and a stool for their daughter to stand on when helping with the dishes. I learned that the Slaas didn’t experience tiny home living prior to jumping in with both feet. Most of their inspiration came from online research and books, but they “just learned along the way.” At one point they decided “we've seen what we want to see. So we stopped looking at ideas, and worked with what we had liked, to come up with our own plan.” They purchased a 20’ trailer to go under the home for about $5,000, and built the home 22’ long and 10.5’ wide. That is about the maximum width to still be road legal if it was ever to be moved. Since both Matt and Montana are tall, they didn’t bother with a loft but kept the ceiling vaulted, with a curved ceiling over their bed. Their bed is raised, with a lot of storage underneath, and space too for Gabriella to enjoy some quiet time. Windows dominate two of the walls, to take in the views of fields and mountains. Freedom from debt and materialism Spending more time outside was part of the appeal for the couple. The small quarters force them to get outside for more space. A highlight of each morning involves Montana taking Gabriella out to the chickens, which currently live in a greenhouse for the winter, to collect the eggs. I asked them what else inspired them about tiny house living. For Matt, a big motivation was the freedom that comes from building his own place and living mortgage-free. “That is what came first.” But he was quick to see that it provided so much more, including spending a lot of time together. “So many people, when we talk about tiny homes are like, ‘we can never live that close.’ But we love it.” The couple acknowledged that they aren’t naturally bent towards a minimalist lifestyle. But this home forces them to do with less. “We always say you fill the space that you have,” Matt said. “So every few months, we have to do a purge through all our storage space.” “There's so many things that you don't really need because you have something that works,” added Montana. “Just the other night we were talking about how we don't have an electric mixer, even a handheld one. It's going to be another thing that we have to put somewhere. I have one whisk and I use it for everything. We make whipping cream all the time.” They originally didn’t think they needed a toaster either, but decided that toasting their bread over the fire wasn’t a sustainable option. “We just learned to really love the idea that we can do it with less,” said Matt. “And then there's the financial benefit of that too. We started to save a lot of money.” Matt contrasted this with the year they spent in PEI, where they lived in a larger home that was 600 or 800 square feet. “We saw an espresso machine for sale, it's like, ‘oh, you should get that.’ And we loved it. But there were so many things that were like, ‘oh, we should get that’ or ‘we should do that.’ Just because it was possible. Before you know it, we had spent quite a lot of money doing all these things. And we had to sell a lot of it when we left, so that we can fit back into this.” Building from scratch Tiny homes have become popular, and it isn’t hard to buy them new or used throughout the world. I asked Matt if he had experience building homes before tackling this project. He always loved creating things as he grew up, and did some woodworking. But for the most part, he figured it out as he went and thinks most people can do the same. “I'm convinced that given enough time, and commitment to learning, you can do it.” That even included the wiring, though not without getting shocked once. Northern BC gets cold over the winter, and the Slaas’ walls are framed only with 2x4 lumber. Yet the home stays plenty warm thanks to a tiny wood stove. The stove requires very small pieces of wood, so they use less than a cord of wood each year. (A cord is 4’ wide by 4’ tall by 8’ long – equivalent to a pickup truck load piled high.) This is about 20 percent of what most homes in the area use. And the stove plays an important role in keeping the home dry, which can be a challenge for a small space with a few people breathing, cooking, and showering in it. Because the fire burns out after about four hours, the Slaas sometimes wake up to a cool home (about 12 ºC). But it warms up quickly again when a new fire is lit in the morning. Matt showed me their bathroom, complete with a compostable toilet. A small bin of wood shavings paper sits next to the toilet, to assist with the composting. I don’t notice any smell (an improvement over many bathrooms with flush toilets). They also have an on-demand hot water system for their shower, but the water has to be collected in a bucket so the showers aren’t long. Their total cost to build the home was about $15,000. That includes the trailer under it, the wood stove, and the propane water heater, which were the more expensive components. Prioritizing family With another baby due in the new year, the couple has started building a second unit, with about the same dimensions, next to this home. The plan is to connect the two dwellings with an indoor walkway – a four foot-wide hallway which will also be their new main entrance/ boot room. The added space will make it much easier to put the children to bed without worrying about waking them up, and Matt and Montana are also looking forward to an eating area. The new quarters won’t be built on a trailer, but this new unit can still be loaded onto a trailer if it needs to move in the future. A little help in the kitchen can always be had. The Slaas are realistic that this setup is not going to be too long-term, because they hope to have a big family, the Lord willing. That is why they are building the addition as a separate structure. “The idea is that, very easily, we can pull it apart. And it will be its own tiny home unit,” Matt explained. “We could sell it, or Airbnb it, or rent,” added Montana. “But we are determined to make it work as long as we literally possibly can. And even after that, we are quite keen to explore other options,” shared Matt. “I've looked at yurts that are almost 1,000 square feet. And they're $40,000 to $50,000. Why not?” I asked Montana what it is like to be a mom in a tiny home. “There's definitely things that you just do differently,” she explained. “Like sometimes I think, oh, it'd be really nice if I could get up more easily without waking up in the morning. So most of the time, I would just stay in bed with her until she wakes up because I don't want to disturb her. I get up, I sneak out of bed and then sit here, in the dark, so that she can keep sleeping, and I quietly just read and do really quiet things…. “As soon as you have kids, it is not about you. It's a sacrifice that you make. And it's a really good one…. “But then we just do our morning routine and eat breakfast together and then we try to get out of the house and go outside and do the chickens in the morning and that breaks up the morning for Gabriella. And she does get a little bit cranky in the morning. I think sometimes she just gets kind of bored.” Gabriella doesn’t get the boatload of toys that many other children experience, even in homes with less means. She plays with kitchen utensils and the kindling for the fires, in much the same way that kids play when their parents are camping. “So we've been really trying to teach her that it's okay to play or read a book by herself.” Gabriella also ends up doing a lot with Montana. “She'll stand at the counter on the stool with me while I make dinner or do the dishes, she loves to help with the dishes. She wants to do what I'm doing. And I think that it's a big difference to having a house with more rooms.” Montana admits that some things just don’t work in the tiny home, including her passion for painting. That’s hard to do with a little one in close quarters, so Gabriella will often go up to her oma’s house for an afternoon, which is on the same property. Hospitality can also be a challenge. “Generally, if we have people over, it's for coffee. Maybe a cup of tea and chat for a couple hours,” explained Matt. It doesn’t work well to have people over for a meal unless they can eat outside, which is seasonal and weather-dependent. Saving to buy dirt A look inside, with bed in the back, play nook underneath, and the wood burning stove to the left. They are also transparent that this is not meant to be an alternative to getting into the real estate market, but a step towards it. “This allows us to dream of and hope for a future in buying real estate, because we do hope to have our own property, hopefully with a good bit of land, that we can farm and garden and have lots of animals,” Matt shared. Because they live on someone else’s property, tiny home living allows them to save a lot of money. Some time ago they put a note on Church Social (a congregational app) to see if anyone would be up for having them park their home on their property, and were amazed that four or five families were willing. Their monthly costs for utilities total about $100, so they are able to save $20,000-$30,000 a year towards buying their own land, which they hope to do in about five years. “This lifestyle allowed us to go to PEI to go to school for entire year, not even working, and to be loan free and to come out so much further ahead than we could have,” shared Matt. “So financially, it's a no-brainer.” “If we had a $400,000 home we'd be struggling to buy groceries. That doesn't sound at all better than where we're at now.” Matt later added that because of this arrangement “we've never had any financial stress whatsoever.” This is far less expensive than renting. Most Canadian communities, including Smithers, have seen rental rates skyrocket to between $1000 and $2000 per month for a modest unit with one or two bedrooms. Matt noted the contrast: “If you live in your tiny house for a year and a half, it's paid off.” He also respectfully disagrees with those who challenge them that a tiny home won’t increase in value. “If you build it yourself, you can almost always sell it for what you spent on it if you're smart with it. And likely more. And you have an option of renting it out.” Matt emphasized the importance of keeping the costs down by working with what is available rather than insisting on a particular design. “We're not set on what's on our walls or whatever we're going to put on our ceiling. Something might come up that will work good for us.” “The fact that we built it ourselves makes a big difference too. We built it while we were engaged and it's kind of part of our marriage story, our love story. I think if you just bought a tiny house for $100,000 you wouldn't be that attached to it or invested in wanting to stay in it.” Matt explained that because tiny homes are built on a trailer, they aren’t subject to the rules that governments have about building structures on a property. It is similar to an RV being parked on a property. Contentment personified As I left their home and drove to mine, one word was impressed on me: contentment. In 1 Timothy 6: 6-8 we read that: “godliness with contentment is great gain, for we brought nothing into the world, and we cannot take anything out of the world. But if we have food and clothing, with these we will be content.” I also can’t help but be convicted at how much effort we put into pursuing possessions, caring for them, storing them, and then getting rid of them. Instead of giving us contentment, they so often choke us like thorns among the wheat (Matt. 13:22). “In a sense, we feel very wealthy,” Matt reflected. “We have so much more than what so many people have. And we're so thankful for how the Lord has directed us along this path and taught us to love it.” Pictures are thanks to the Slaas. For bigger pictures, read this article as it is featured in the Jan/Feb 2024 issue....

Red heart icon with + sign.
News

Saturday Selections – Feb. 17, 2024

Failing at failure? This could be a great way to bring up an important conversation with our kids. The fear of failure stops many children from trying new and hard things. God gave them talents, and if they are going to develop those skills (and not bury them - Matthew 25:14-30) our children will need to push their limits. That might mean running so hard they start tripping, stumbling, and even eating some dirt. They need to know there is such a thing as God-glorifying failure... but not God-glorifying cowardice. Marriage makes men better Though he doesn't acknowledge God, this evolutionist has discovered that God's plan for the family – marriage – works best, reining in men's antisocial behaviors. There is a really great metaphor here, too, about our rational self being a rider trying to control an elephant that represents our impulses. Those impulses – or, in Christian terms, sinful desires – can be easier or harder to control depending on where we take them. So, for example, a rider troubled by alcohol shouldn't "take his elephant" into a bar. To extend this to the family realm, a dad or mom trying to deal with a kid that pushes their buttons shouldn't indulge in watching the late show – they'll have to put their elephant to bed early each night to better enable them to be calm and controlled. The Swiss Family Robinson: a return to the classics Jonathon Van Maren makes a plug for this great book. Parents, if you get your kids a copy, be sure you get an attractive one: a great cover, good font, and a few illustrations thrown in here and there can really help by making a classic so much more appealing. G.K. Chesterton on AI If you want to understand AI, then who better to ask than someone born two hundred years before it was invented? This is a good one! And for an in-depth dive check out what's on offer at Creation.com. The most bizarre experience of my life When theologian E. Calvin Beisner was invited to do an interview about climate change, he never expected to be interviewed by a clown. Who knows how this will end, but some people certainly are desperate to try to make Christians look bad. "He Gets Us" takes a big "L" in the Super Bowl Among the Super Bowl commercials last week were two to promote the "He Gets Us" evangelistic campaign. Many Christians have defended them as "pre-evangelism" – sure, they didn't hint at the Good News, but they did tell people that Jesus gets them. That's a start, right? There's some truth to that – they had a minute, and if you had just a minute would you be able to present the whole of the Gospel to someone? To say it another way, an incomplete message isn't wrong... it just needs more. But the problem comes when we say the easy part and stop. And a lot of "churches" are content with just telling folks that Jesus gets them. But they don't want to offend anyone. Telling people they need to repent? Jesus as Saviour is offensive indeed. Now someone has shown how it is possible, in just a minute, to tell people quite a lot about Jesus and their need for a Saviour. And Ray Comfort gives his own version here. ...

Red heart icon with + sign.
Assorted

Love is...

Love is a mostly misunderstood word – it’s mistaken for sex, for sentimentality, for some sort of chemical thing that just happens, or doesn’t, and either lasts forever, or doesn’t. Some think it’s effortless. Some even think it can be bought for money. Christians, too, are confused. We know love is more than sex, more than sentimentality, and more than chemistry, but most of us are still trying to figure out whether love is a feeling or an action! So what is love then? God tells us that love is… sacrificial “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her” (Eph. 5:25). Some misunderstand love as a math formula, where things are supposed to work out even on both sides of the equation: if you give a friend a thoughtful present, you should be able to count on getting one in return; if you give your spouse a backrub, they should get up and make you coffee; tit for tat, back and forth, even-steven. But Christ demonstrated the complete inequity of real love – He loved us, so He gave himself up for us, even though, in return, we can offer him nothing. Loving is giving with no thought of getting. something you do “Let us not love in word or in tongue but in deed and in truth” (1 John 3:18). Love is more than a feeling, more than an attraction, more than arousal or sentimentality. Love is expressed in what we do for one another. We can say we love our brother, but if we won’t visit him when he’s lonely or help him when he is troubled, there is no love. Love is an action. not a duty to be performed “If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing” (1 Cor. 13:3). Doing is not enough – it’s not enough to give to the poor, go to church twice each Sunday and read the Bible regularly if we are not doing this out of our love for God. A daughter can take her aging father to medical appointments, help him with his shopping and pop by regularly for a cup of coffee, but this, by itself, isn’t love – the very same tasks could be done by hired staff. Love is more than just a verb. A husband can play the part of a loving spouse – he can do all the right things, but love is more than just action, more than just duty. It is an attitude... Love is a feeling. not God “Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love” (1 John 4:8). The Beatles got it backwards when they sang, “All you need is love.” All we need is God, and while God is indeed love, that doesn’t make the reverse true – love isn’t God. The Beatles aren’t the only ones to get it backwards though. Our society is in love with love – they insist it's the only way to bring meaning to our lives so it must be pursued no matter what the cost. Affairs, naturally, have become commonplace; if love is god, nothing should stand in the way of it, not vows, not spouses, not family. Instead of pursuing the God who is love, our society pursues love itself and has made an idol of it. But love is not God. from God “In this is love, not that we loved God, but the He loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins” (1 John 4:10). God commands us to love our neighbor, and it’s a command most of us find easy to do. Or at least easy to do with old Mrs. Todd, our next-door neighbor who bakes cookies for us every Thanksgiving. But this command isn’t as easy to obey with that neighbor two doors down, who always steals our parking spot. Or the guy right next door who leaves beer cans on our lawn. Love these guys? Maybe we would if they were only a bit more lovable. But of course, the love God is commanding here is of a more godly sort – the love that comes from Him. We need to humbly remember that we love, only because God loved us first. He, after all, didn’t love us because we had first in some way earned or prompted His love. No, He loved us first, sending His Son to die for us even while we were His enemies. And it is because He loved us first, that we can now love Him, and our neighbor. Love comes from God....

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

My dog ate the evidence for evolution

3 evolutionary theories that are based on the lack of evidence for evolution ***** There are plenty of great, readable books that expose the many problems with evolutionary theory. These include Gordon Wilson’s Darwin’s Sandcastle, Change Laura Tan and Rob Stadler’s The Stairway to Life, and Marcos Eberlin’s Foresight: How the Chemistry of Life Reveals Planning and Purpose (just to name a few). But what about something shorter? My daughter is sometimes allowed to take a notecard full of key facts with her into a test. That’s what I was looking for: not a book-sized rebuttal, but something short enough to remember and use. That meant it couldn’t involve stacks of studies and countless facts to counter the evolutionists’ mountain of materials. Those facts can be had, and include revealing quotes, like this infamous admission by one of the world’s leading evolutionary biologists, Richard Lewontin (1929-2021). Back in 1997 he acknowledged that it wasn’t the evidence that drove evolutionists to accept evolution, but their ideology: “Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. “It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” As impressive as that admission is, it’s just one guy. I was after something bigger, and also simpler – an argument where, even if I didn’t recall all the details, I might still be able to recall and relay the gist of it. What I found are three instances where evolutionists have accidentally acknowledged the lack of evidence for their theory. That acknowledgement comes, not from anything they’ve said, but instead by the “sub theories” they’ve offered to explain away the missing evidence. And what’s the evidence for these “sub theories”? Only that Evolution needs them to be true. This is akin to the student who, to explain why he hasn’t handed in his homework, claims his dog ate it, and when he’s asked for proof that his dog did indeed chow down on the assignment, he points to what’s missing: “My dog must have eaten it, because my homework’s not here, right?” As his teacher knows, the missing paper isn’t proof at all; the boy is simply presuming the very thing – that he actually wrote a paper – he was being asked to prove. And when he resorts to this kind of logical contortions, all it really evidences is that he has nothing better to offer. I think the same is true in the three evolutionary examples that follow. The most compelling evidence on offer is only the lengths evolutionists are willing to go to, to prop up their theory. Two pillars When it comes to the Theory of Evolution we all know the basics: once there was no life on this planet, but then simple cells formed in the primordial soup. After millions of years, and through the process of natural selection, these simple cells eventually spawned more complex cells and even more complex organisms, until finally we arrived. Greg Koukl has called this the “Molecule to Man Hypothesis.” And as Koukl also noted, if we’re going to take this nice story seriously, then evolutionists would have to prove two key things: 1) That life can come from non-life 2) That transitions from one kind to another do happen. These two ideas are so pivotal to evolutionary theory that if they can’t both be proven, then Evolution wouldn’t have a leg to stand on. 1. Life from non-life The Stanley Miller experiment (also known as the Miller-Urey experiment) consisted of a closed system with tubes connecting a heated water (ocean) chamber down below, with a gaseous chamber above, with sparks simulating early Earth lightning.        One of the problems with the Stanley Miller experiment is that it turns out amino acids come in left-hand and right-hand varieties – mirror images of each other – and the experiment produced equal quantities of each.         But our bodies don’t use both. Living creatures use the left-hand sort, and just as you can’t fit your right hand into a left glove, the cell can’t use right-handed amino acids – they aren’t a good fit. In fact, their presence can harm cells, and at a minimum, they would need to be sifted out. That means, even before the first cell ever formed, there would need to be some sort of mechanism present which could separate the righties from the lefties. That separation can be done in a lab through intelligent intervention. But who or what could do the selecting on early Earth after that lightning bolt blasts out that first batch of amino acids? Cells don’t exist yet, so there are no cellular mechanisms present to do the separating – there’s nothing in place. It’d be more accurate to say the Stanley Miller experiment didn’t produce building blocks of life so much as a muddled mess. The idea that life came from non-life used to be known as Spontaneous Generation. Maggots, it was thought, were spontaneously formed in dead rotting meat, and many believed that mice and flies were formed the same way. After a bit of investigation this was shown to be untrue. Today the idea persists under a different name: Abiogenesis (literally life from not life). Everyone knows maggots could never spontaneously form from non-living matter, but what if the organisms being formed were much simpler? What if it was only a single cell? And what if we gave it millions and millions of years to develop? Could it happen then? Well, if you read the scientific literature you’ll hear that yes, under those circumstances abiogenesis could happen, and indeed did happen. However, even though scientists are very sure it happened, even they’ll admit they haven’t worked out exactly how it happened. But isn’t evolution supposed to explain the “how” part? To be fair, they do have a variety of interesting ideas, but all of their proposals have serious problems. Let’s take a look at the best-known example – the Stanley Miller experiment in 1953. Though it happened 70 years ago, this experiment is still getting in the news today, because it was so influential. For decade upon decade the experiment has been cited in textbooks as proof that life could arise through a series of random chemical reactions. It’s so pivotal, that many a time it is presented as the proof for life from non-life, with no others given. So what happened in the experiment? Miller subjected a mixture of chemicals to an electric spark. The mixture of chemicals was supposed to mimic Earth’s early atmosphere and the electric spark was supposed to represent lightening. A week later, Miller discovered that some amino acids had been formed, which was significant because amino acids are a vital component of living cells. It should be noted though, that amino acids are not living themselves, but are merely a necessary component of cells. So they are a basic building block of life in much the same way that steel is a necessary building block for cars. These amino acids were presented as proof that life could arise from random chemical interactions. Consider for a moment how overstated this claim was. Miller hadn’t shown how life could be created from non-life, he had only shown how one necessary component might be formed. Going back to the car analogy, this is akin to someone zapping a rock of particularly pure ore and then declaring that the puddling blob of molten metal that results proves a car could come about by chance. Overstatement aside, there were other significant problems with the experiment and its results. For example, at one point many evolutionists thought that Earth’s early atmosphere was in some ways the opposite of what we have today: they believed back then it was hydrogen rich and lacking oxygen. Why? Well, at least in part because they needed it to be that way; oxygen would have interfered with the chemical reactions that they needed. And yes, to work, Miller’s experiment required a lot of hydrogen and absolutely no oxygen. But today even evolutionists will concede that our environment has always had oxygen in it. And that means that the amino acids could never have formed here on Earth via anything remotely resembling Miller’s method. The fix: extraterrestrial life from non-life So here’s where things get interesting. Put yourself into the shoes of an atheistic scientist who knows that Abiogenesis couldn’t have happened here on Earth. What “logical” conclusion will he be forced to draw? That’s right – life must have originated on some other planet first, and then come to Earth! This idea is known as Panspermia and while it’s not evolutionists’ consensus position, that it is seriously discussed at all only emphasizes the problem that evolutionists have with life arising here on Earth. The only “evidence” for Panspermia is that life exists here on Earth and it seems impossible for it to have started via evolutionary processes on Earth… therefore it must have started elsewhere. So Panspermia – this theory of an extraterrestrial origin for life – is actually an acknowledgement that evolutionists can’t explain how life could have arisen on Earth. 2. Transitions from one kind to another Things don’t get any easier for evolutionists when it comes to transitional forms. Evolutionary theory says that molecules evolved into man over millions of years and via millions of tiny changes. So when we start searching through the fossil record we should come across literally millions of transitional forms as one species turned into an entirely new one. Now, depending on which side of the creation/evolution debate you are talking to, the fossil record either doesn’t provide any examples of these transitional forms, or there are museums’ worth of such fossils. The Archaeopteryx has often been mentioned as a transition between dinosaurs and birds, and you can go to Creation.com or AnswersInGenesis.org, to learn about how it and other supposed transitional forms fails as a true transition. (The short summary: if birds evolved from dinosaurs or reptiles, then feathers must have evolved from scales and their wings must have evolved from arms. The Archaeopteryx has true wings and detailed advanced feathers, similar to those of bird species today. It only seems fair that when evolutionists are asked for transitional forms between reptiles and birds they should have to produce the half feather, half scale versions – the true transitional forms. The Archaeopteryx is at best a questionable example of an intermediary stage.) But what I want to highlight is the kind of argument evolutionists have to resort to if they acknowledge that there aren’t good examples of transitions. How would they explain away that lack of evidence? The fix: transitions few and far between Well, if someone absolutely refuses to believe in Creation, what “logical” conclusion will they be forced to come to? Then evolution must have happened in quick spurts, leaving few evidences of transitions in the fossil record! This theory is called Punctuated Equilibrium and was first proposed by Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge in 1972. Again, this theory is not based on the evidence, but rather the lack of it: we’re missing the transitional forms that would be needed to prove Evolution, but since Evolution must be true – that presumption is beyond question – then Evolution must not need transitional forms all that badly after all. Punctuated Equilibrium is an acknowledgement that evolutionists don’t have the abundance of transitional forms they expected to find. It’s also worth noting that until Gould and Eldredge, the lack of transitional forms was not really acknowledged. As Gould put it in 1977, “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of palaeontology.” Creationists were pointing out the lack of transitional forms long before Gould and Eldredge…but secular scientists don’t listen to creationists. 3. The Anthropic Principle At this point we should see the beginnings of a pattern in the Evolution/Creation debate. And the Anthropic Principle only makes that pattern all the more evident. The phrase “Anthropic Principle” was first coined to describe the amazing way in which our universe seemed to be designed specifically for human life. For us to live here on Earth it seems we need physical constants, laws, and properties to fall within certain narrow ranges. In Designer Universe: Intelligent Design and the Existence of God, authors Jimmy H. Davis and Harry L. Poe give these three examples: Protons and electrons have to have just the right charge. Atoms are composed of two charged particles: a positively charged proton and a negatively charged electron. The proton is 1,836 times larger than the electron and yet these two particles have exactly equal charges. If the two charges weren’t exactly equal in magnitude, if say, there was a charge difference of only one part per billion, all the pieces of your body would fly apart. Our Sun has to be just the right type of star. The Sun is not a typical star, being bigger than 95 per cent of all other stars. These smaller stars aren’t as hot so a planet would have to orbit much closer to stay warm enough. But at closer distances the rotation of a planet becomes locked so that one side always faces the star. This would cause one side of the planet to freeze and the other side to burn (sort of like our moon, or like Mercury). Additionally, our sun is a single star. 70 percent of stars are estimated to be binary or multiple star systems. It is hard to imagine how habitable planets could exist in such systems. Jupiter is just what we need, just where we need it. Jupiter turns out to be in just the right orbit and the right distance away to protect Earth from bombardment by killer asteroids or comets. Jupiter’s large size and high gravity makes it act as an asteroid and comet catcher. Some other stars have Jupiter-like planets orbiting them, but in most cases they are either in the wrong orbit, or are too near the sun, or may be spiraling inward toward the sun. While our Jupiter is necessary for life on Earth all the other “Jupiters” detected so far would prevent life from living in those systems. These are just a few examples of the anthropic (man-centered) nature of our universe. When you add all the factors together that would have to be just so for life to exist in our universe it turns out the odds against life are astronomical. The odds are so amazing even evolutionists are astounded. This makes the Anthropic Principle a powerful piece of evidence for a universe Designer. The fix: An infinite multiverse But imagine you are an atheist and evolutionary scientist who has been confronted with the Anthropic Principle and the astronomical odds against life in this universe. What logical conclusion are you going to be forced to draw if you want to remain an atheist? That’s right – if the odds are infinitely stacked against life in any one universe, wouldn’t the odds even out considerably if there was an infinite number of universes? This universe would then just happen to be that one universe in a million billion where the odds all worked out in our favor. This multiverse theory has become a staple in Star Trek and Marvel superhero movies, but once again there is no actual evidence for it. None at all. It’s another evolutionary story used to fill in for a lack of evidence. Thus the Multiverse Theory is an acknowledgment of just how implausible it is that an undesigned universe would be so well-suited for life. One last example I'll include one bonus example of an evolutionary theory based on a lack of evidence: the Oort Cloud. This is a theorized cloud of icy planetesimals that are said to be on the outer fringes of our Solar System. This cloud is beyond the limits of our current observational technology, so how do we know it is there? Because evolutionists need it to be. We still have comets, and if our Solar System is 4.6 billion years old, as the evolutionists presume, then any icy comets passing around the Sun should long ago have melted away. So, the continuing existence of comets would seem to be evidence of a Solar System that is much much younger – just thousands, not billions of years old.. But, no, evolutionists see them instead as evidence of a comet breeding ground way, way out there, where billions of icy chunks will sometimes bump into each other in just such a fashion as to direct an ice ball inward towards the Sun, starting a new comet. So the evidence for the Oort Cloud is lacking, and based only on the fact that evolution needs it to exist. Conclusion I haven’t tried here to provide facts to counter the evidence for evolution. Instead what we’ve explored is how evolutionists themselves have highlighted the lack of evidence for their theory by coming up with theories to explain away that lack. Evolution’s two pillars – life from non-life, and species’ transition to new species – were supposed to have lots of proof to back them up. But evolutionists have had to come up with “sub theories” – Panspermia and Punctuated Equilibrium – to explain why that proof is missing. And these sub theories are themselves supported, not by evidence, but by the lack of it. When Christian scientists pointed out the amazing odds against a universe supporting life, evolutionists answered this evidence with another unsupported story – the Multiple Universe Theory. Finally, the Oort Cloud is yet another example of evolutionists, instead of relying on evidence, turning to stories that already assume Evolution is true. Reflection questions What are the two pillars of evolution? Explain "Abiogensis." Is it possible? Explain "Panspermia." What does the theory of Panspermia show? What problem is there with the theory of transitional forms? What is meant with "Punctuated Equilibrium”? Why have evolutionists come up with the idea? What is the "Anthropic (man-centered) Principle”? What is the "Multiple Universe Theory"? A version of this article was first published in the January 2003 issue under the title “The Science is underwhelming.”...

Red heart icon with + sign.
Assorted

Gambling as the new norm? Christians still need to say no

Estimates had Americans betting a record $23 billion on Super Bowl LVIII, up more than a third from the $16 billion that was wagered in 2023. Among the betters was one Cardinal Pritchard, who shared that he’d made a wager in an article for the news site Not the Bee. Pritchard didn’t specify how much he bet, so it could have been trivial. What is notable is that he publicized it on a specifically Christian website and in making his admission there, he was acting as if it’s no big thing for Christians to gamble. The irony is that he did so in an article on the enormity of America’s gambling problem – Pritchard reported that an estimated 67.8 million Americans placed a bet on the Super Bowl, for an average of well over $300 a bet! Gambling is a bad bet Big, too, is just how common gambling has become – that works out to almost 1 in 5 Americans. Pritchard actually reported it as 1 in 4, but his math was off. Bad math is, of course, an ailment common to gamblers, who make the repeated mistake of thinking that this time they’ll come out ahead. But in a bit of computation that should be a part of every Christian high school math curriculum, if you engage in any sort of regular gambling the odds are going to get you in the end. Why? Because casinos and online sites take their percentage, so what’s paid out will always be less than what was paid in. Thus one of the reasons Christians shouldn’t gamble is because it’s a bad use of the resources God has given us. It’s worse than what the one servant did in the Parable of the Talents (Matt. 25: 14-30) who buried the money his master entrusted to him, and didn’t even put it in the bank to earn some interest. How much angrier would his master have been if the servant had come back with half a talent, having frittered the rest away in gambling? Or if he’d come back with a debt of several talents? Even when you win gambling is bad news But what if you are an especially good gambler, defying the odds to actually win more than you lose? Would it be okay for a Christian to gamble if he could turn a profit? No, but for a different reason. When you win at gambling it is only because someone else lost. Whatever your gain, it is someone else’s pain. Sometimes investing is likened to gambling, but a key difference is that if I make money on a business investment, it can be as the result of that business doing something to benefit many others. A company like Costco grows in value because it opens more stores that serve more people some good values. Your gain as a Costco stockholder comes at the general populace’s gain too. But in gambling, you only win because someone else has lost. And that’s not loving your neighbor (Matt. 22:35-40). Add to this the number of people who get addicted to gambling and lose everything. And then consider how, in Canada, provincial governments have a big hand in pushing gambling, and thus a big hand in destroying these lives. While I couldn’t dig up the specifics for the Canadian Super Bowl wager numbers, gambling is big business in Canada too, as evidenced by the sheer volume of sports gambling ads on television. A peek at government coffers shows their own heavy dependence on gambling. Alberta, for example, is expecting to take in $1.5 billion in 2023-2024, or, more than $300 per citizen. God’s people need to understand why gambling is wrong so we can steer clear of this entrapment. And in steering clear we can also be a good neighbor to others by “denormalizing” gambling. Just say no, for everyone’s sake....

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