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

ARPA condemned in BC legislature

On the very first day of the fall legislative session, British Columbia MLAs debated the “views and policies of Association for Reformed Political Action” for almost an hour. The debate was over a motion tabled by the NDP:

“That this House condemns the intolerant views of the Association for Reformed Political Action (ARPA), including its harmful discrimination against transgender people, its belief that homosexuality is ‘immoral’ and its explicit policy goal of restricting abortion access in British Columbia.”

The NDP’s motive for the motion seemed to be to condemn the Conservative opposition for attending ARPA’s MLA reception at the BC legislature back in April. However, the debate never talked about the two issues that ARPA specifically raised at that reception: medical gender transitioning for minors, and euthanasia.

By what standard?

Several NDP, Green, and independent MLAs rose to condemn ARPA’s positions on gender identity, sexual orientation, same-sex marriage, conversion therapy, abortion, IVF, and surrogacy. They argued that ARPA’s views violate various rights and freedoms and run counter to principles of diversity, equity, inclusion, and tolerance.

Now, it goes without saying that ARPA – and all Christians – are in favor of all of these things when viewed in a proper way. In fact, a recognition of rights and the practice of tolerance only really arose in the Christian West.

What this debate exposed is what happens when these things are unmoored from their Christian anchors and made our ultimate political goals. If the expansion of freedom becomes the most important aim of politics, then medical transitioning for minors makes sense. If diversity is the legislature’s most sacred value, then opposition to gay marriage is indeed out of place.

But orthodox Christians know all of these values – rights and freedoms, equity and tolerance – are not the ultimate basis for morality or justice. Rather, the ultimate basis for just laws is God’s revelation to us in His Word and creation. MLAs spent a whole lot of time talking about rights in this hour of debate. But they spent virtually no time talking about what is right. They refused to acknowledge how removing the breasts of a fourteen-year-old girl in the name of “gender-affirming care” is not in her best interest. They refused to consider whether providing euthanasia to the mentally ill might be a step too far even for them. They refused to contemplate whether pre-born children at 35 weeks of age deserve any protections in law.

Calling good evil (Is. 5:20)

Instead, MLAs voted 48-3 to condemn ARPA’s “intolerant” views. (The text of the motion uses “intolerant,” but the word “hateful” was bandied about the most.) Here’s how the vote broke down:

  • The entire NDP and Green caucuses, along with independent Elenore Sturko, voted to condemn ARPA.
  • The two MLAs from OneBC, and another independent, Jordan Kealy, voted against the motion and spoke up to defend ARPA.
  • None of the Conservative MLAs opted to be present for the vote. The lone Conservative speaker to the motion accused the motion of being a “political trap.”

All of this might remind us of the words of Jesus in John 15:18-21:

“If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they kept my word, they will also keep yours. But all these things they will do to you on account of my name, because they do not know him who sent me.”

If Reformed Christians were of the world – if we supported medical gender transitioning, same-sex marriage, or abortion on demand, or kept silent about them all – these MLAs would not have condemned ARPA. Reformed Christians strive to stand publicly for what God reveals to be true. God says that He created two sexes? That’s how it is. He designed marriage to be between one man and one woman for life? That’s our definition too. God created human life to begin at conception and commands us not to murder? Then abortion is wrong. Recognizing and honoring these truths is good for everyone.

What true love looks like

Our motivation, then, for raising these issues is one of love. Earlier in John 15, Christ says:

“This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends. You are my friends if you do what I command you. No longer do I call you servants, for the servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all that I have heard from my Father I have made known to you. You did not choose Me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my Name, He may give it to you. These things I command you, so that you will love one another.”

And that’s what ARPA and all Reformed Christians should intend to do. We endeavor to love our fellow citizens. This includes not just the fellow brothers and sisters in Christ that Jesus has in mind here, but all people, as Jesus taught in the Parable of the Good Samaritan. We call for a law against abortion because we love pre-born children. We love children who are confused about their gender. We love the same-sex couple next door. And yes, we ought to love the MLAs who voted yesterday to condemn ARPA. For, as John wrote later, “we love because He first loved us” (1 John 4:19).

And so, in this condemnation of ARPA in the BC legislature, as Reformed Christians we might feel “afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not driven to despair; persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed” (2 Cor. 4:8-9). For we know that “we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us” (Rom. 8:37).

But in light of the fact that few MLAs stood up to defend ARPA – much less defend the bodily integrity of gender dysphoric children or the lives of those threatened by euthanasia or abortion – our provincial representatives need to hear from us. Encourage them not to be afraid to discuss the issues that desperately need our government’s attention, but to boldly hold the government to account.

A version of this article was first posted to ARPACanada.ca

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

FALSE DILEMMA: Is Genesis 1 Historical or Poetic?

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

Red heart icon with + sign.
News

Saturday Selections – Sept 27, 2025

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

Red heart icon with + sign.
Assorted

Veya’s story

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

Red heart icon with + sign.
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?...

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