Browse By Topic

Amazing stories from times past

Apologetics 101

Assorted

Being the Church

Christian education

Christian education - Sports

Church history

Culture Clashes

Dating

Dying Well

Economics

Economics - Home Finances

Education

Entertainment

Evangelism

Gender roles

History

Homosexuality

Human Rights

Humor

In a Nutshell

Indigenous peoples

Internet

Interview with an artist

Letter Writing

Marriage

Media bias

Music

Parenting

People we should know

Politics

Pornography

Pro-life - Abortion

Pro-life - Adoption

Pro-life - Euthanasia

Pro-life - Fostering

Religion

Religion - Mormons

Religion - Pentecostal

Religion - Roman Catholic

Remembrance Day

Science - Creation/Evolution

Science - Environment

Science - General

Sexuality

Soup and Buns

Theology

Transgenderism

Most Recent

Internet

One week in: Facebook isn't for everyone

It's been nearly a full week since I deleted my Facebook account. My thoughts so far? Why didn’t I do this before?!?

I made my decision to exit social media circles carefully. I first joined Facebook when I turned 15, and have slowly become more and more dependent on it and other social media outlets since then. Facebook, Instagram, and in a lesser way, Snapchat have caused too much damage in my mind and heart for me to justify continued use.

Not for me

Let me be clear: I do not believe they are evil creations! It is simply that I am not meant for social arenas.

The Apostle Paul tells us that all things may be lawful, but they may not be helpful; he urges us to do all things in moderation, and herein is where I think the evil in social media might be found: the temptation to addiction. I don’t presume to tell you that social media is good or bad for you. But I do want to challenge you to ask that question for yourself. Are you able to use it in moderation? It is certainly lawful, but is it helpful for you?

Like many others, I am a person with intense convictions, feelings, hopes, dreams, desires, sorrows, and fears. When I see beauty I experience joy, and when I see ugliness I feel sadness, anger, and if not treated carefully, that sadness and anger can begin to cross into the murky waters of depression and hatred. In the early Facebook days there was much more to enjoy on Facebook, and it was much more personal. These days most of my newsfeed isn’t even posts from my friends. Usually it’s posts from my friends of friends, from ads, and from viral strings (which are usually filled with hateful interactions between people who don’t even know each other!)

I have found that being addicted to scrolling social medias is not just a mindless thing. It’s very mindFUL. I see hateful social justice posts regarding racism, sexism, classism, religion, or politics, and my head seethes with frustration at the world I live in. From the ignorance and folly, to the intentional hatred and violence, I find that the personality and heart that God built into me can’t handle such a constant diet of that well. Some people can! And I am grateful for their ability to present goodness in that world. But it’s not me. I’m not called to that. A diet of such negativity has brought more and more worry to my heart, and less and less joy.

How did I get here to this choice? I did not want to make a rash decision to leave social media circles, just to re-enter them a week later, so I have spent months in prayer, bringing my symptoms of depression, frustration, and cynicism to Him and asking Him to show me the true source. I felt sure the root was in social media, but I didn’t want to rule out other possibilities, which is why I took my time. I found my answer one morning when I felt the Spirit calling me to come be with Him. I opened my bible unintentionally to Psalm 37; as I read through it I found each next verse convicting me more deeply that I had to give up this addiction of social media completely in order to restore the joy in life and the control over my daily habits.

"Fret not yourself because of evildoers; be not envious of wrongdoers! For they will soon fade like the grass and wither like the green herb. Trust in Yahweh, and do good; dwell in the land and befriend faithfulness" (vs. 1-2).

There are a couple of things in this Psalm that addressed so poignantly the decision I was facing, and the effect that social media was having on my life.

First, I find that whether I’m dealing with stupid drivers on the road, or observing hatred via social media viral strings, I get angry. I see ignorance, stupidity, folly, and evil and I feel worried, anxious, joyless, and sometimes even hatred. The very first verse in Psalm 37 says: “Fret not yourself because of evildoers.”

And second, I find that the complicated busyness of life, feeling spread thin from being aware of hundreds of people’s lives via social media, and having an appalling amount of useless information running around in my head makes me feel worn out emotionally all the time. The second verse in Psalm 37 spoke to me of the beauty of a simple and quiet life, saying: “Trust in Yahweh, and do good; dwell in the land and befriend faithfulness.”

From negative to positive

After reading that Psalm I made the final decision to go cold turkey on the addiction that social media had become, and immediately felt such abounding peace in my heart. Peace and joy like I haven’t felt in a long time. I deleted (not just deactivated) my social media accounts, and discovered more wholesome and thoughtful ways of communicating with friends and family, by way of iCloud Photo Sharing, and Blogging.

So why do I ask "Why didn't I do this before?"

It's been a week filled with so much beauty, creativity, and positivity. Something I've learned to value highly through the ups and downs of life is to surround yourself with positivity. Or, as my favorite band Switchfoot puts it:

"Is this the world you want? Is this the world you want? You're making it, every day you're alive. You start to look like what you believe... What you say is your religion; How you say it's your religion; Who you love is your religion; How you love is your religion; All your science, your religion; All your hatred, your religion; All your wars are your religion; Every breath is your religion, yea! Is this the world you want? Is this the world you want? You're making it, every day you're alive."

For years I surrounded myself with the voices of negativity and with the feelings of failure and worthlessness that comes with addiction to screens and social media. It marred how I lived, how I loved, how I spoke, how I thought, even how I felt. When I removed myself from the chronic negativity spawned by so many of the voices on social media, I found that I no longer had a confusing veil of shadow keeping me from appreciating the good things in life. Exiting social media tore down that veil; it was as though I saw real sunshine for the first time in years.

Time to spare

Without having my time eaten up by the pointless pursuits of the internet, I've found that my days are far longer, with far more potential. Instead of putting off every errand, chore, or project till the last possible moment, it's been myriads of happy busyness. The week began with some thoughts in my mind of a project of redoing our guest room. Up until now it’s been a workout/study/guest room containing a loft bed for the occasional guest; underneath it, a desk and a dresser of drawers for workspace and storage; and a workout tower for my husband. My goal was to transform it into a real guest room, suitable for putting real guests up in, while keeping some room available for my husband's workspace. I did some cleaning, organizing, and preparatory errands during this week, utilizing all my coupons and rewards points to obtain what I needed to put together a good-looking, color coordinated guest room and bathroom. It was a week-long project with hard work, but the final result is just beautiful.

My husband saw a new side of me today. I was geeking out over the excitement of being able to decorate beautifully, and take a messy unkempt place where we didn't like to be, and turn it into a soothing, warm, and comfy room. What I love about the day we had today, was that instead of quite literally wasting a day of our lives by instead living the lives of the characters on TV, was that we created. We worked, we sweated, and we created. We lived today to the fullest, by being and doing exactly what God created us to do: to be like Him! Our work today was a story of His work - taking something unlovely and useless, and redeeming it through His own hard work into something beautiful and worthy! Joy comes in many ways, but in my life, joy comes most in the creation of something beautiful. A little excursion to Bibles for China Thrift Store with a ton of loft bed hardware bungee corded down and sticking halfway out of my trunk turned into a fun and sunny adventure with my husband, enjoying the open windows, the fresh cool air, and the blue skies. (And a new all time low, driving down the road to the dumpster holding an old ratty twin mattress to the top of my car with our arms extended up out of the windows... but we don't talk about that.)

So a week in and here's what I'm thankful for: I'm thankful for more time to do fulfilling work and errands; I'm thankful for more time to relate to friends on a deeper level than a "like" on a post; I'm thankful for time to read books, and do constructive crafts; I'm thankful for time to THINK: I've had a lot of thoughts and ideas and arguments brewing in my mind, and I've enjoyed the quiet luxury of focused thought. I'm thankful for beauty from ashes.

And now I'm excited to go to the house of the Lord in the morning and worship with the beautiful community that Jesus has been so kindly building around us.

Grace Pitman blogs at ThePitmanCorner.com where a version of this article first appeared.

Full Article

People we should know

Jacobus Arminius: professed the confessions even as he opposed them

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 ...

Pornography

No satisfaction: James’ Epistle on pornography

If I were to do a sample of readers to ask what they think is the driver behind pornography, my guess is that the most common answer would be just one...

Transgenderism

3 problems with transgender surgeries

This summer Pullman Regional Hospital in eastern Washington State announced they might offer transgender surgeries and asked the public for feedback. ...

Transgenderism

Transgenderism 101: Share the truth with compassion

Transgenderism is the latest political cause du jour, dominating media headlines, saturating academic deliberation, the subject of new laws and radical educational policies across the country. Lost in the debate, from either side, are the kids themselves. It is important that, in so far as we are able, we ensure our part in this debate isn’t confused as being an attack on the dignity of individuals genuinely struggling with gender identity disorder. As psychologist Dr. Mark Yarhouse notes, in his 30 years of counseling patients struggling with gender identity, most who come into his office are not seeking to tear down the “social constructs” of maleness or femaleness. They are simply looking for help as they navigate these very troubled waters in these times of social change. Today people who believe they were born the wrong gender are being encouraged by the intellectual elite in media, politics and academia to embrace that notion and run with it. That might mean they start identifying as the other gender, or it might mean undergoing surgery to try to resemble the other gender. This must be strongly opposed. Why should Christians oppose it? Because we know it will hurt people! As one Canadian Reformed pastor said at a recent political rally, these new policies require us to love less. They silence genuine concern for transgendered kids, while advocating a celebration of an ideology that, by any measure of science and common sense, will do irreparable harm. What is transgenderism? The term “transgendered” is an umbrella term for the different ways in which some people might experience or express their gender – their maleness or femaleness – differently from people whose gender matches their biological sex. Put another way, transgenderism describes the experiences or expressions of a small proportion of the population who say there is a difference between their mind and their body when it comes to the question of whether they are male or female. One of the debates within the social sciences today revolves around the question of whether we should bring the body into conformity with the mind (via hormone injections, male genitalia removal, breast augmentation, or other surgery) or bring the mind into conformity with the body (via counseling). Perhaps the group that captures the most attention today are those who struggle with gender identity disorder, also known as gender dysphoria, a psychological phenomenon. We might hear them say something like, “I’m a woman trapped in a man’s body” or vice versa. According to the revised language of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition (the DSM‑5), gender dysphoria refers to the distress that may accompany the incongruence between one’s experienced or expressed gender and one’s assigned gender. Gender dysphoria is a rare ailment: according to the same manual, it manifests in only 0.005% - 0.014% of adult men and 0.002% - 0.003% of adult women. However, we can expect those numbers to increase dramatically as the popularity of the phenomenon increases with the fawning media coverage of transgender celebrities like Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner and the gender-bending behaviors of Jaden Smith (the son of actor Will Smith who “challenges gender stereotypes” by regularly wearing dresses and make-up, etc.). The celebration and indoctrination happening more and more in elementary schools across the country only exasperates the problem. A somewhat related but separate condition happens when, due to genes, hormones, or body structures that differ from the norm, a child may have an “intersex condition” (in older literature, “hermaphrodites”). This could make it difficult to identify a child’s gender at birth – we live in a fallen world, and one of the results of that brokenness is that some people are born with malformed genitalia. This is not, however, what we’re talking about with transgenderism. An intersexed condition is a biological disorder, and should be distinguished from a transgendered person’s gender dysphoria, which is a psychological disorder. It is important to note that most intersex people are not lobbying to pass as the other sex or as a third sex, but are simply seeking to discover to which sex they belong. Their biological sex identification can typically be discovered through a chromosomal or blood test. Truth with grace We know from the creation story (see Gen. 1:27 and 2:18) that God created humankind in his image (imago dei) and that the wonderful mystery of that design includes the binary reality of the sexes: we are made either male and female. That means a woman’s femaleness reflects something of the image of God, and that a man’s maleness reflects something of the image of God. The binary nature of humanity is implicitly confirmed in the words of Jesus in his discussions on marriage (see Matt. 19:4 and Mark 10:6) and in Paul’s directions to the new Christians in Corinth and Ephesus and to Timothy on the distinct responsibilities and natures of men and women. (See, for example, 1 Cor. 11:7-9; Eph. 5:22-33; 1 Tim. 2:12-14.) To mar or to diminish the masculine and feminine diminishes our God-given identity as males or females. Both reflect the glory of God. This is probably why God forbade cross-dressing in Deuteronomy 22:5. This prohibition goes beyond whether boys can wear dresses (the clothing of men at the time of the exodus from Egypt probably resembled something more akin to modern female clothing today). The point is not the article of clothing per se; it’s the intentional diminishing or obscuring of masculine or feminine differences, which is an assault on our design. It should be unsurprising that the sciences confirm this binary reality. With the exception of a few simple organisms, all creatures (including humans) are marked by a fundamental binary sexual differentiation: male or female markers are imprinted on every one of their trillions of cells. The testimony of biology, chromosomal data, and social-scientific evidence all confirm the essential biological binary of the sexes. (For more on this point, see my book review of Why Gender Matters.) But the Bible does not only speak to the issue of gender confusion, it also speaks to how we should relate and communicate on this issue. The Bible reminds us that gentle answers turn away wrath, but harsh words stir up anger (Prov. 15:1) and that “gracious words are like a honeycomb, sweetness to the soul and health to the body” (Prov. 16:24). Jesus Christ fulfills this in his ministry and example. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God… And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth” (John 1:1,14). Randy Alcorn calls this pairing of grace with truth a paradox, and one Christians must emulate: our speaking and relating and communing on this issue of transgenderism must be characterized by grace and truth. Where truth is conveyed without love, it is nothing but noise (1 Cor. 13:1). The truth needs love, and the truth communicated in love will be kind, patient, and will not be rude, irritable or boastful. (1 Cor. 13:4,5). But love also “rejoices in the truth” (1 Cor. 1:6) meaning that we cannot let our instinctive compassion run unfettered because that will end up hurting, not helping. Having established this foundation, let’s examine some of the science and policy surrounding this phenomenon. When helping hurts – medical testimony Celebration of transgenderism is seen by some as the best way to assist transgender individuals. There is no evidence, however, that the negative outcomes associated with transgender identification – including higher rates of suicide and attempted suicide, overall mortality, and need for psychiatric inpatient care – are alleviated by accepting and encouraging alternative gender identities in those with gender identity issues. The theory behind this celebratory approach to transgenderism is not scientific – it is political. Gender dysphoria is a psychological phenomenon. Gender fluidity – the idea that we can shift from one gender to another – is a concept that is socially constructed and normalizes gender dysphoria, and thereby impedes its diagnosis and treatment. To leave the dysphoria untreated is to leave struggling individuals without help, and to ignore experienced researchers in this field. Johns Hopkins Hospital was one of the first institutions in the United States to perform so-called “sex change” operations. Dr. Paul McHugh, the chief psychiatrist there in the late 1970s, commissioned a study of the sex change program. Its authors found that In a thousand subtle ways, the re-assignee has the bitter experience that he is not – and never will be – a real girl but is, at best, a convincing simulated female. Such an adjustment cannot compensate for the tragedy of having lost all chance to be male, and of having in the final analysis, no way to be really female. Some 40 years later, Dr. Sander Breiner concurs, explaining that she and her colleagues had to tell the surgeons that “the disturbed body image was not an organic at all, but was strictly a psychological problem. It could not be solved by organic manipulation (surgery, hormones)”. Many Canadian experts in the field of psychiatry, including those who regularly work with transgendered youth, have grave concerns about the politicization of this psychiatric issue. Toronto psychiatrist Dr. Joseph Berger says that some transsexuals “have claimed that they are ‘a woman trapped in a man’s body’ or . Scientifically, there is no such thing.” Dr. Ken Zucker sees the political approach to gender identity and fluidity as unsound. And Dr. Susan Bradley considers the political moves of some activists “disgraceful.” Dr. Paul McHugh, cited above, points out, “This is a disorder of the mind. Not a disorder of the body.” Canadian policy makers should take these warnings to heart. Apotemnophilia: a comparison Apotemnophilia is a neurological disorder characterized by an individual’s intense and long-standing desire for the amputation of a specific limb. It is a type of Body Integrity Identity Disorder (BIID). Some with this condition look for surgeons willing to perform an amputation of a healthy limb and some apotemnophiles have purposefully injured limbs in order to force emergency medical amputation. In 1997, Scottish doctor Robert Smith was performing these amputations before a public outcry brought them to a halt. What would the compassionate option be: to accommodate the person’s self-perception by amputating healthy limbs as Dr. Smith did, or to treat the psychological condition itself? The comparisons between gender identity disorder, anorexia, apotemnophilia and other similar conditions are clear. As Dr. McHugh says, It is not obvious how this patient’s feeling that he is a woman trapped in a man’s body differs from the feeling of a patient with anorexia that she is obese despite her emaciated, gaunt state. We don’t do liposuction on anorexics. Why amputate the genitals of these poor men? What ought we to do as a compassionate society? Alleviating the psychic distress of transgendered individuals requires nuanced answers. We hear about the high rates of suicide among the transgendered. Well, if we want to address this, we must distinguish between suicides that result from rejection by family, isolation, bullying, etc., (all of which are unacceptable) and suicides where psychiatric care is offered that seeks to resolve the dysphoria in keeping with their birth sex. This is not to say that bullying, rejection by family, isolation, etc., are not an issue for transgender people. They can be, and that type of behavior must be corrected. But the reality is that family rejection, isolation and bullying increase suicide risks for all youth, not just transgender youth. The unfortunate politicization of this issue results in the condemning of anything less than full affirmation, reinforcement and celebration of the gender incongruence in transgender youth, a “solution” that compounds the problem. Where family and community walk alongside a transgender individual with love and compassion, all with the goal of resolving the dysphoria in keeping with the patient’s birth sex as much as possible, we predict the suicide rates will dramatically decrease, particularly because other coexisting issues can also be properly treated. The way we frame our approach to this issue is of the utmost importance. A compassionate society must recognize the mental illness dimensions of gender identity disorder and reject the dangerous and unhealthy human experimentation of hormone treatments and surgical amputations and modification. A compassionate society gives space for expression of struggles and helps to answer the questions “who am I?” and “where do I belong?” without deconstructing gender. And a compassionate society affirms the inherent dignity and intrinsic value of every human being as either male or female, including those who struggle with confusion regarding their sexuality and gender. Recommendations In terms of scientific and social research, the field of gender identity is still relatively new. Unfortunately, when the State attempts a radically new policy response to transgenderism, it becomes an agent of forced social and cultural change without any standard or criterion of success, and without clearly understanding the possible outcomes. Take just one example that illustrates this concern: in an effort to accommodate transgendered children, the provincial government in Alberta wants every school to work towards eliminating gender differences not only in the classroom, but even on sports teams and in change rooms. This is not the well-reasoned, scientifically-based public policy we should expect of our representatives. Here are a few suggestions for better public policy as it relates to protecting transgendered youth and enhancing social and public policy. State actors must cease to use the phrase “sex assigned at birth” and maintain the scientifically accurate term “sex.” Sex is a biological reality. It is not assigned. To use the language of “assigned” instils a flawed assumption that any incongruence is a biological error, rather than a psychological Provinces must ban all gender reassignment surgery on children before the age of 18. Further, in light of the fact that those who have had sex reassignment surgery have higher rates of attempted suicide, surgical transition should be abandoned as a treatment option even for adults. Provinces must ban all cross-gender hormone treatment on children, including puberty suppressants, due to unacceptably high risks of depression, suicide and sterility. To chemically alter the natural and healthy development of a child with such incredible risks before the child can give their own informed consent is nothing short of child abuse. The State must provide ample room for civil society to respond to this issue. Parents, the medical profession, churches and other community groups must have the freedom to address gender dysphoria in their families and communities without threat of enforced ideological conformity by the State. Provinces must abandon laws that make gender reinforcement illegal. Such laws violate children’s rights and doctors’ conscience rights and interfere with parental decisions regarding the best interests of their children. For example, Ontario’s Bill 77 – which amended the Health Insurance Act and the Regulated Health Professions Act to prohibit services that seek to change the sexual orientation or the gender identity of patients – should be repealed. This law, and others like it, promote an ideological blindness at odds with the best interests of the patient. The terms “gender identity” and “gender expression” should be removed from law because the terms are based on subjective perceptions and cannot be objectively evaluated or measured. There is no consistent policy reason to protect transgenderism, but not protect trans-racism, trans-ageism, trans-ableism, or even trans-speciesism (all of which have manifested in recent years). Further, laws that add the terms “gender identity” and “gender expression” as protected grounds of discrimination such as those passed in Ontario and Alberta and being contemplated federally with Bill C-16 are unnecessary since all transsexuals are already protected in law, no less than anyone else. In the interim, we urge that a better balance of rights occur. In places where a reasonable expectation of privacy exists, (washrooms, women’s gyms, etc.) the biological measure of a person’s sex must be the determining factor for access. Due to the reality that there is no objective means to identify a transgendered person, this measure of preventative access can help protect against devastating consequences. Interestingly, spaces of privacy have become "gender-neutral." Adding different genders has had the pernicious effect of subtracting the difference between the sexes expected in public, and removing the privacy and the shield for natural modesty appropriate to them in certain social contexts. Conclusion Gender matters because people matter. Maleness and femaleness are distinct and complimentary realities that correspond to our biological selves and go to the core of what it means to be human. When governments ignore or undermine this reality they do so to society’s detriment. While some children struggling with gender identity disorder may need exceptional care in their various situations, the State helps no one by “breaking down gender” across the province or country. Canadian politicians must be willing to take a stand for good public policy as it relates to gender and sexuality. With sound public policy, we can help our transgendered neighbors as they navigate these troubled waters in times of social change. Out of compassion for our transgendered neighbors, inspired by our duty to love them as ourselves, we need to speak out against an ideology that harms them. It won’t be easy, but the right thing to do rarely is. This article is adapted from a fully footnoted 2016 Policy Report for Parliamentarians on Gender Identity which is available at ARPACanada.ca. This first appeared in the Nov/Dec 2016 issue....

Culture Clashes

Overpopulation is a myth, and we should have known

While overpopulation fears aren't causing the same panic they once did, this bogeyman hasn't disappeared entirely. The United Nations still has their Population Fund, advising nations on how to handle, as their mandate puts it, "population problems." While China has moved away from a One-Child-Policy – couples were fined, or even forced to have abortion if they had a second child – the government still has a Two-Child Policy. And while India's Supreme Court shut down that country's mass sterilization camps just this past year, the country is still committed to population control. So why does the myth persist? Two reasons: Most aren't familiar with the current state of the world. We don't hear about how things are improving, and how poverty is decreasing even as population is growing. Many still trust these doom and gloom prophets because they aren't familiar with the predictions that were made back in the 60's and 70s. The younger generation, especially, doesn't understand just how outrageously and how disastrously wrong these experts were. The world today Last year Japan’s birthrate fell below 1 million for the first time, while 1.3 million deaths were recorded. Since 2010 Japan’s population has shrunk by approximately 1.2 million (or roughly 1%). And they aren’t the only country shrinking; Russia has roughly 4 million less citizens than it had in 1995. We can see in Europe that population has leveled off, with deaths exceeding births for the first time in 2015, so growth is due only to immigration, not procreation. In Canada, too, we are not having children at replacement levels – whereas we would need 2.1 children born per woman to maintain a stable population (this number is slightly over 2, to account for children who don’t survive childhood), our birthrate is only 1.6. The United States, Australia, and the Western world in general are all under 2. There are problems that come with this, as an aging population doesn't have enough young people to care for it. The overall world population does continue to grow, with the growth focussed primarily in the developing world. For example, Africa's population has just passed 1.2 billion, up from roughly half that in 1990. But even as world’s population increases, we’ve seen not a shortage of food, but an increase in our ability to feed the planet. And poverty continues to decline worldwide – by one measure, extreme poverty has been more than halved over the last 30 years, even as the population has grown from 5 billion to more than 7 billion. Starvation does still occur, but that is due more to government corruption and war than to an inability to produce enough. The predictions of the past But how can things be getting better even as the world population increases? As one of the best-known population alarmists, Dr. Paul Ehrlich, noted, a finite planet cannot sustain infinite growth – at some point the Earth is going to run out of food, room, and resources. That seems to be a matter of basic math. And it's this basic math that had Ehrlich make this prediction in his 1968 book, The Population Bomb: "The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate..." People under 40 may not understand the scope of the disaster population alarmists were predicting. Ehrlich said England wouldn't exist by the year 2,000 – this was end-of-the-world-type rhetoric, and people were taking it seriously. This New York Times video does a good job of capturing just how scared people were. https://youtu.be/W8XOF3SOu8I Clearly Ehrlrich was wrong. But to many it is less than clear as to why. One reason is a revolution in agriculture that was deemed "the Green Revolution." Even as Ehrlich was making his doom and gloom predictions, an American innovator, Dr. Norman Borlaug, was developing new strains of wheat and new farming techniques that dramatically increased crop yield. As Henry Miller wrote in Forbes: "How successful were Borlaug’s efforts? From 1950 to 1992, the world’s grain output rose from 692 million tons produced on 1.70 billion acres of cropland to 1.9 billion tons on 1.73 billion acres of cropland." Ehrlich was about as wrong as wrong can be. The world has not ended; things have dramatically improved. And lest we attribute it simply to luck – Norman Borlaug just happening to come around just when we needed him to save us from disaster – we need to view this from a Christian perspective. Ehrlich, and population alarmists viewed each new baby as being a drain on the planet. They didn't see them as human beings given a task to develop the planet. They didn't recognize that while each human being does come with a mouth that needs to be fed, we are also gifted by our Creator with a brain, and with two hands, with which we can produce. We not only consume, we create (and in doing so reflect our Creator God). That's how more people can mean more, not less, resources - that's why food production has gone up, and poverty down, even as population continues to rise. Not just wrong but dangerous Overpopulation alarmism isn't just wrong, it's dangerous. This end-of-the-world rhetoric had a role in the Roe vs. Wade decision which legalized abortion in America. It has been used to justify government-funded abortion, forced sterilizations, and actions like China’s One-Child Policy, and now Two-Child Policy, under which tens of millions of Chinese babies have been aborted, many against their parents' wishes. Meanwhile, in Africa, where the population is growing, the first annual Africa-China Conference on Population and Development was just held in Kenya and hosted by the Chinese government and the United Nations Population Fund. Mercatornet.com’s Shannon Roberts shared how some of the speakers pointed to China’s coercive population controls as worthy of imitation. And at least one Kenyan media outlet thought that wasn’t such a bad idea. The Daily Nation commented: “With a controlled population, the Chinese economy boomed, benefiting from cheap labour from its many people and rising to be the second largest after the United States. Should Kenyans do the same?” Population controls are not just a problem of the past – they exist and are still being advocated for today. That's why we need to bury the overpopulation bogeyman once and for all, before it kills millions more. Christians falling short The Bible doesn't speak to all issues with the same degree of clarity. But when it comes to the population alarmism, God couldn’t be clearer: children are not a curse to be avoided but a blessing to be received (Gen. 1:28; 9:1, 9:7, Prov. 17:6, Ps. 127:3-5, Ps. 113:9, etc.). Back already in the 1960s Christians could have spoken out against overpopulation alarmism, based on the clarity of these texts. And some did. But the Church is so often impacted by what we hear from the world around us. We let ourselves be muted, we let ourselves become uncertain. We start to ask, "Did God really say?" And then, like the watchman on the wall who failed to give warning (Ez. 33:6) we become responsible for the deaths we might have been able to prevent, if we'd only spoken out. It's back? While the overpopulation hysteria has died down in recent years, this bogeyman is primed for a resurrection. Global warming and concerns about CO2 emissions have some questioning "Should we be having kids in the age of climate change?" The argument, so it goes, is that people can't help but have some sort of carbon footprint, so the only sure way of reducing carbon emissions is to have less people on the planet. Once again we are being urged to have "one and be done." Once again children are being portrayed as a problem rather than as a blessing. The Bible doesn't address climate change as clearly as it does overpopulation alarmism, but what we can be certain of is this: obedience to God is not going to destroy our planet. While obeying God doesn't always lead to a smooth life for Christians here on Earth – following God can lead to a loss of friends, or business opportunities, or result in persecution – when we as a society turn to God then prosperity follows. Then we end slavery, open hospitals, develop Science, create industry. This obedience doesn't even need to be of the heart-felt sort to still reap benefits – even unbelievers, when they follow God's commands for marriage, sex, and parenting will have better results (for a book-length treatment of this thought, see Vishal Mangalwadi's The Book That Made Your World). Our disobedience can be destructive – our self-centeredness, greed, jealousy, and hatred can cause real harm. But not our obedience. That's why the begetting of many children is not something we need feel guilty about, or refrain from, out of concern for the climate. We can be certain that the world’s doom will not be caused by us, in obedience, listening to God and having children. God has spoken out against overpopulation alarmism, so we need to. The next time you hear someone talking about overpopulation, point them to the Bible and share how spectacularly incorrect all the doom and gloom predictions have been. We need to bury this bogeyman....

Pornography

Is Porn more like heroin, or driving a car?

Explaining why it's evil to our non-Christians friends ***** In recent weeks, I’ve come across what seems like a multitude of articles on the subject of pornography, especially articles focused on the fact that more and more teenagers and children are now viewing pornography on a regular basis. The latest piece to catch my eye came from Rod Dreher on The American Conservative website. At one point, Mr. Dreher writes a paragraph in which you can almost hear him weep in sorrow as you read it: “This society has a death wish. I wish I had some idea how it could be saved. What concerns me most of all right now is the horrifying complicity of conservative, even conservative Christian, parents in the spiritual, moral, and emotional ruin of their children and of their moral ecology because they, the parents, are too damn afraid to say no, my kids will not have a smartphone, I don’t care what they and society think of me.” I hope that readers will share his sorrow, and that it might induce parents who have perhaps been blasé to take a long, hard look at their situation and take whatever action they can to protect their children’s innocence. The issue of pornography is a difficult one to even talk about, but we must. I want to consider the societal phenomenon, addressing what I believe is one major way we are being deceived, and how we can communicate the nature of that deception to our non-Christian friends and neighbors. It’s not just a problem for children I would assume that all Christians reading this know instinctively that pornography is wrong. At the same time, I am also aware that we can often fall into the world’s way of thinking on issues, and that this can mean that we accept its solutions to problems and fail to see the real issue. One of the ways we are doing this around pornography is increasingly seeing the major problem as being its spread to children, rather than pornography itself. Of course the spread to children is a massive problem, but it is not the problem. Here’s an example: an article by Conor Friedersdorf in The Atlantic quotes one of the world’s biggest “porn stars” expressing concern that we’re not doing enough to stop pornography getting in front of children. Yet the same article states that “accessing hard core porn is (properly) legal.” This now seems to be the default position: pornography is fine for adults, but we just need to keep it from children. Now it is of course true that pornography filtering down to children is a very great evil. Young minds are more susceptible to habit-forming from new stimuli in ways which adult minds are perhaps not. Nevertheless, if we concentrate all our efforts on simply stopping pornography getting into the hands of children, we miss the point completely. For the problem is not primarily that pornography is falling into the hands of children, but rather that as a society we have opened the floodgates to allow porn in and normalized it. It is absurd to think that it is possible to normalize something like this, and for it not to filter down to children. Children, by their very nature, want to grow up to be adults, and they often want to do adult things before their time. So if we have largely normalized pornography amongst adults – and we have – then no amount of paywalls and banning of smartphones or anything else is going to make much difference. We have become a pornographic society, and children, who aspire to do what adults do, will generally find ways of getting their hands on it by hook or by crook (though of course responsible parents will take as much action as they can to prevent their children coming into contact with it). Drugs? Or driving? Look at it like this. There are two types of activity that adults seek to protect children from. First, there are perfectly good activities that we want them to grow up into, but for which they need to come of age before we allow it. For instance, driving a car. Then there are activities which are bad in and of themselves, and which we try to protect them from not just because they aren’t old enough to do them, but because we don’t ever want them to do them. Taking heroin would fall into this category. So which category does porn fit into? Is it like driving? Or is it like heroin? Is it something a child should one day be able to do, only not just now? Or is it like heroin; something that no sane parent would ever want their children to get into, no matter how old? If our culture puts it in the same category as driving a car, something to be avoided as a child, but something that is perfectly normal once you turn a certain age, then it can be safely said that we have lost all moral compass and are quite sick. If, on the other hand, we see it in the same category as heroin, then at least we would be acknowledging it as a problem to be dealt with. But why don’t we want kids seeing it? Sadly, I would say that we have moved in the last ten years from treating it in the heroin category to the driving category. “We don’t want you to touch it now, but of course there will come a time when it becomes your right to consume as much of it as you like,” is essentially the message. And yet the schizophrenic nature of this is obvious when you think about why it is we don’t want children seeing it. Isn’t it because we know it pollutes their minds? Isn’t it because we instinctively know that it demeans and degrades them? Isn’t it because we are well aware that it will give them a terribly unhealthy and warped view of the opposite sex? Of course it is, but are we really naïve enough to think that it doesn’t have the same sorts of effects on adults? But they’re adults, and we can’t stop their rights, can we? And, of course, if we did enact a law that bans it all, such a law at the point we currently find ourselves at would be as effective as King Canute commanding the sea to go back. What I am suggesting is that our culture urgently needs to stop looking at the main problem as being one of trying to prevent pornography falling into the hands of children. That is only byproduct of the much larger problem society needs to acknowledge: the normalization of pornography among adults. Rob Slane is the author of “A Christian and Unbeliever Discuss: Life, the Universe and Everything.” A version of this article first appeared on SamaritanMinistries.org and is reprinted here with the author’s permission....

Humor

Simply and truly

There once was a man whose parents had given him the highly unusual name of “Amazing” when he was born. They gave him the name hoping that he would aspire to it and achieve great things. But as far as most people were concerned, Amazing never seemed to do anything to live up to his name. He never even got far from where he was born. He worked in the family business, and had some limited – one might even say quite normal or ordinary – success and married his high school sweetheart. While she thought him quite extraordinary, no one else did, and his name left him as the unfortunate butt of countless jokes. These jokes so bothered him that he told his wife that when he died he didn’t even want his name put on his tombstone; maybe then the jokes would stop. Well, when Amazing did finally die, his wife honored his request. But she also wanted to have people finally understand how extraordinary her husband had been. So in place of his name she had this inscription placed on the tombstone: “Here lies a man who was loving and faithful to his wife for 50 years.” And now, whenever people walk by, they point and say, “Well, isn’t that Amazing!" Source: A joke passed along by my father-in-law ...

Assorted

To appear before the Lord

A young lawyer had a dream. He found himself one morning before a judge at court in a T-shirt and crumpled shorts. The judge asked him how he came to ...

Media bias

Don’t watch the news, read it!

This first appeared in Reformed Perspective in 2000, and yet the thesis of this article is just as relevant for today's Internet Age, as entertainme...

Media bias

Don’t read the news, read a book!

No, you’re not paranoid, the media really is out to get Christians. In his book How the News Makes Us Dumb, C. John Sommerville argues that news by...

Transgenderism

You think feelings can redefine reality? What if I told you I feel like they don’t?

Transgenderism

A is A…except when it wants to be S?

The transsexual debate and the death of logic “Hi A. It is A, isn’t it? I hardly recognized you there. It’s B. Remember me? How are you doing?” “I’m fine. Well I’m … well it’s just … I’m …” “What is it A? Is something the matter? You don’t look quite yourself.” “Look, B. There’s something I need you to know. I’m no longer known as A.” “What do you mean you’re no longer known as A, A?” “I mean I no longer identify as A. In fact, from now on I’d like you to call me S.” “S?” “Yes. S.” “I’m afraid you’ve lost me.” “Look, it’s quite simple. You’ve always known me as A, and all my life everyone told me I was A. But recently I started to question whether that’s really who I am. And the more I questioned it, the more I realized I was just the victim of social conditioning and prejudice. To put it bluntly, I’ve been brainwashed into thinking that I’m A.” “Social conditioning? Brainwashing? But A, you are A. How could you be anything else? Remember the first rule of logic: A = A and so A can’t = non-A.” “Well I simply don’t agree. In fact I believe that’s nothing but an outdated social construct.” “Social construct? But it’s an obvious truth. And it’s true for all times and all places.” “There’s nothing obvious about it whatsoever, and frankly I’m amazed that anyone living in our post-modern culture could still think it is.” “Ah, I thought as much. You’ve been listening to the post-modernists haven’t you? Well frankly I don’t much care what they say about it. It’s self-evidently true that A = A and there’s an end to it.” Do feelings make the man? “You know, B, I had always thought of you as a fairly open-minded letter. But I’m beginning to detect a quite shocking level of intolerance in you. Listen. Maybe this will persuade you. All my life I’ve had this nagging suspicion that I might be different. I’ve never much liked the way I look. That silly pointy bit at the top and that even sillier horizontal bar in the middle. And that’s just the capital “me.” Don’t get me started on the little “me”! But I’ve always admired S. Beautiful curvy letter is S. Well thankfully we’ve moved on from outmoded stereotypes that would have meant that I stayed an S trapped inside an A’s body, and I can now be any letter I want.” If gender, why not species? “But you can’t be an S. Surely you can see that?” “You know, I don’t think I’ve ever come across such a shocking level of bigotry. Why can’t I be another letter entirely, if I want to? Who are you to say what I can and can’t be?” “Why stop at a letter then? Maybe you could identify as a number. I could call you 1. Or 19 if you like. Or maybe even a duck.” “Adding sarcasm to hate speech doesn’t make it any less hateful.” “Hate speech? I said nothing hateful. But A, do you not see what will happen all if you insist on calling yourself S?” “Such as?” You already have a role to fill “Well, I don’t know how we’d get along without an A. I mean, imagine if we tried driving to Alberta without you.” “What do you mean?” “Ever tried driving to Slberts? And what about that fellow who got caught up in the tree after trying to topple his father from the throne. Now what was his name?” “Absalom?” “No. Sbsslom I think it was. Not to mention what we’ll do with the poor old SSrdvsrk. Can’t you see how ridiculous it all is?” “Well I’m not going to stand here all day being lectured by someone who is clearly a Hater and a Transletterphobe.” “You mean ‘someone who is clesrly s Hster snd s Trsnsletterphobe’? You see, all you’ve succeeded in doing by refusing to abide by the simple truth that you are A and that you cannot therefore = non-A is to sow chaos and confusion. Imagine what will happen if T wants to become C, or Y wants to become X.” “As it happens, Y is already well on her way to becoming X thank you very much. She’s a chromosome, you see. She used to be male but now identifies as X. And as for X, he’s sometimes identifying as Y. You have a problem with that?” “Well yes, actually. It’s just a clear denial of objective reality.” “Objective reality? Hah! What you need to realize is that every letter has the right to identify as whichever letter they want, and every other letter ought to respect their feelings.” Why should your feelings win? “Hmm! Fair enough. You win. I will no longer identify you as A.” “Good. Thank you.” “Instead, I shall now identify you as H.” “H? But I just told you I identify you as S, didn’t I.” “Yes you did, but your basis for doing so was based firstly on a denial of objective reality, and then on making subjective opinions and feelings your standard. And, I might add, you said we all have to respect that. Well okay, in my subjective opinion, I no longer identify you as A, or indeed as S, but as H. Are you prepared to respect that?” “But I’m S and you have no right to call me H.” “No right? So let me get this straight. You decree that there is no such thing as objective reality (A = A) and that your feelings are king. Then you insist that I accept your definition as truth and call me a hater, a bigot and a phobe if I don’t. So what you have done is to use your subjective feelings to create your own new ‘objective reality’ and insist that I accept it. Well sorry, I refuse. Two can play at that game and I say you’re an H! Now you’re not going to be a Transletterphobe, a bigot, and a hater and deny me my rights are you? Or is subjectivism taken to its logical conclusion as hard for you to bear as it is for me?” Postscript After this exchange the letter B was hauled off for tolerance training where he is learning that the right to define objective truth is the sole preserve of the Cultural Marxists who denied it in the first place. Rob Slane is the author of "A Christian & an Unbeliever Discuss: Life, the Universe & Everything" which is available at Amazon.ca here and Amazon.com here....

Pornography

FIGHT! A message from the most porn-riddled country in the world

In 2016, Google pronounced the country where I pastor, Papua New Guinea (PNG), the most porn-riddled country in the world. This “fact” was established by the number of times the word "porn" or "pornography" had been typed into their search engine. However, I know the Western world is not any better off; they merely search under more perverse words, which cover the full orb of sexual perversions known to mankind. What saddens me more is that those who claim allegiance to Christ are not free from this perversion. A recent study from Barna Group revealed that in America: 77% of self-attested Christian 18-30 year-old men (with a growing number of women) view porn at least monthly. And 77% of men 31-49 view it at least every three months, while over 20% are addicted. This is huge. If you view porn weekly, monthly or bi-monthly or whatever the interval of time between viewings might be, there are serious signs of addiction prevalent in your life. And you will feel the impact: viewing porn throws one's faith into question, one’s life into a constant cycle of guilt and shame, and can throw the sacred institution of marriage into jeopardy. Do your deeds match what you profess? We can talk about being justified by faith. We can boldly proclaim that, “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (Romans 8:1). We can say, "I am a sinner saved by grace”, and say it a thousand times a day, but if we are living to gratify the flesh then the fact is we are not pleasing God! Further, it may evidence that we may not even belong to Christ. As we read Romans 8:7-8: “…the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.” The word hostile here in Romans 8:8 may be better translated as enmity. That means you cannot look at porn websites, or read trashy, porn-riddled novels like Fifty Shades of Grey, or watch nudity in films or in online games or on apps (and etc. and etc.), and have peace with God. You are creating enmity between you and God. But not only is there enmity between you and God, this also moves on a horizontal level. Hostility grows, especially between spouses and family members, at the cost of this perversity. The fact is, you cannot look at porn and be at peace with or be a blessing to your spouse – present or future – or your family, your friends, or anyone else. One cannot do both. You cannot feed the flesh and feed the vertical or horizontal relationships with love and truth. To feed the one is to starve the other. And if we feed the flesh, satisfying its insatiable hunger for more, we leave those we love with all the pain of a relationship starved of the attributes that sustain its healthy growth. Hope Is there hope? Yes. The Gospel still rings with the clarion call of reconciliation between us and God, in Christ. And through that restored relationship, we can also find hope for reconciliation between us and those around us. There is hope because it is still true that "…there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (Romans 8:1). Amen. There is grace for the wretched man or woman, like you and me, who daily confesses their sins and addiction and seeks God’s grace! Grace upon grace. However, this is the point of our salvation: the new birth in Christ by God’s Spirit creates a radically new lifestyle! As we read in 2 Corinthians 5:17: “Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation, the old has gone, the new has come.” And if you are found in Christ you do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. “For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who living according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit” (Romans 8:5). There is another clarion call in this Gospel of grace and that is that we need to fight! Fight the flesh. Make it our slave. Make it obedient to Christ (cf 1 Corinthians 9:27). In short, we need to take up spiritual arms. Make war! “No more murmuring about our imperfections,” as Pastor John Piper has said, rather: "make war.” Make war with all the artillery and armament of heaven: the sword of the Spirit; the belt of truth; the shield of faith; the helmet of salvation; the feet fitted with the Gospel of peace; the breastplate of righteousness and prayer. (Ephesians 6:13ff). Fight with all the resources at your disposal: accountability with spiritual friends or mentors transparency with those close to you seek counsel from your pastor or elder filters on everything (eg. use Safe Eyes, or Covenant Eyes, or others) if your smartphone enslaves you, throw it out pray and meditate upon the Gospel promises daily as you trust in Christ’s righteousness And do not surrender. The cost of surrendering to the flesh is too high. I live in a country where fights are sparked at the drop of a hat. But I assure you that the fight worth fighting is this one. And know that the blessed value of winning this fight daily, in the grace given us from above, is indescribable peace and a clear conscience! That is a precious gift! May this Gospel of grace and truth flow through this porn riddled land we call PNG, and no less every country in this world lost in deep sexual perversion. Pastor Ian Wildeboer is a missionary from the Free Reformed Churches of Australia serving in Papua New Guinea. A version of this article first appeared in the June 2016 issue of Tulait Magazine and is reprinted here with permission. In that publication the article was paired with a very good article by John Piper on 6 strategies for fighting lust....

Christian education, Indigenous peoples

No other gods

The Truth & Reconciliation Commission’s Call to Action #64 is a challenge to Christian churches and schools… and the First Commandment **** Last year Canada’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) published its final report as well an accompanying document with 94 “calls to action.” The TRC report resulted from over seven years of hearing abuse allegations from aboriginal Canadians who had been students in the country’s Indian residential schools (which operated from the 1870s until the last school closed in 1996). The exact extent of the abuse that took place may never be known because the Commission heard complaints but had no power to compel testimony. That meant abuse claims could be heard, but not fully investigated – the accused individuals were never brought forward to either answer for or defend their actions. When the TRC released their 94 calls to action the Liberal Party quickly promised to implement every one of them, and reaffirmed this promise after forming the government of Canada. Promoting truth and reconciliation sounds noble, but the conclusions of this report are radical, promoting one culture and religion over all others. This article will limit its focus to a key recommendation that pertain directly to Christian churches and schools. Requiring native spirituality at school Because some of the abuse occurred at Christian residential schools, some of the report’s calls to action were directed towards Christian schools and the churches associated with them today. Call to action #64 states: "We call upon all levels of government that provide public funds to denominational schools to require such schools to provide an education on comparative religious studies which must include a segment on Aboriginal spiritual beliefs and practices developed in collaboration with Aboriginal elders." By “denominational” schools, the report is likely targeting all religious schools, regardless of their formal connection to specific church denominations. Forcing religious schools to promote aboriginal spirituality, even if such spirituality violates the Christian faith, flows from a consistent message in the TRC report that requires churches and religious institutions to “affirm Indigenous spirituality in its own right.” These institutions are being called on to “formally recognize Indigenous spirituality as a valid form of worship that is equal to their own.” Freedom of religion should mean being free from State coercion If someone were to ask me, or the Christian school I’m a member of, to teach that aboriginal spiritual beliefs are equal to my own Reformed Christian faith, I would respectfully point out to them that they are wrong and there is no way I will comply. Doing so violates the first commandment – it is idolatry. Pagan aboriginal spirituality has little in common with the gospel of Jesus Christ and I’m not going to confuse my children by claiming that the competing faith claims are the same. But Natives are free to try to convince me otherwise, just as I will encourage my neighbors to consider the good news of salvation through Jesus Christ. But it is a different matter altogether when the TRC demand that the State compels its citizens to undermine their beliefs by forcing the indoctrination of pagan spirituality. And when the Liberal government promises to follow through, then our fundamental freedoms are at risk. Section 2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms lists the fundamental freedoms that all Canadian possess and that must be protected from any actions by the State. They include freedom of conscience, religion, and association. All three are involved here - when Christians come together to form churches and schools, they do so protected by the freedom to associate, and the freedom to live according to their religion. When the State forces these churches and schools to promote a religion that undermines their own, these constitutional rights are violated. Natives don’t want to be treated this way Even aboriginal Canadians should speak up against this assault on freedom. In fact, the very same TRC calls to action includes the demand that all faith groups commit to: "...respecting Indigenous people’s right to self-determination in spiritual matters, including the right to practice, develop, and teach their own spiritual traditions, customs, and ceremonies…" So all faith groups may not interfere in indigenous spirituality, but the TRC report, supported by Canada’s government, demands that interference into the religious teachings of all other faith groups. It is a one-way street. This is the very reason why we have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms – to protect citizens from the State including when the State thinks it can tell people what to believe! Conclusion The politicization of the residential schools has made it difficult to get a firm handle of what really happened in these schools. It is indisputable and unjustifiable that abuse occurred. It is also completely inappropriate for the State to require the removal of children from their homes to be placed in institutional care, except in extreme circumstances. Where wrong was done, justice must be served, also when churches or governments are responsible. But we also know that the residential schools were well-intentioned and went a long way towards helping disadvantaged people with education, nutrition, skills, and medical care. When good was done, that too must be acknowledged. Canada’s federal government is not helping anybody, especially Canada’s aboriginal peoples, by endorsing all of the demands from the TRC....

Indigenous peoples, Politics

Looking at two more of the TRC’s Calls to Action

The goal of Canada's Indian Residential Schools – which were run by churches along with the government – was to educate, but also convert and civilize Native children, replacing their culture with a Western one. Starting in 1884, school became compulsory for Native children under 16, and when a local school wasn’t available Native children would often be forcibly taken from their families and sent to these boarding schools. In other instances families were threatened with fines or prison if they didn’t send their children. This practice left the children on their own, away from any family or trusted adults they could turn to for help. That left them especially vulnerable to sexual and physical abuse. For six years, a "Truth and Reconciliation Commission" (TRC) traveled across Canada to hear from former students of the schools. More than 6,500 were heard, and their testimony collected. The Commission also issued 94 calls to action, all of which the Liberal government agreed to. But not all of these recommendations were of the same quality. In his article "No other gods," Mark Penninga highlights how #64 would require Christian schools to promote native spirituality. That isn't the only one that's got problems. But lest readers think they are all problematic, I wanted to list one more bad one, but also highlight one that could be great. The bad: #6 Of the Commission’s 94 recommendations some are simply wrong. For example, #6: "We call upon the Government of Canada to repeal Section 43 of the Criminal Code of Canada." This is the section that specifically grants parents a defense when they use “reasonable force to discipline a child” – this is a legal recognition of parents’ right to spank their children. The reason the Commission is calling for an end to spanking is likely because of the physical abuse some Native children suffered in the schools. But in making this recommendation they are overlooking the vast gulf that exists between beating up a child and spanking one. The good: #81 One of the best recommendations might be #81, to make a monument to remember the evil done to these children and their families. "We call upon the federal government, in collaboration with Survivors and their organizations, and other parties to the Settlement Agreement, to commission and install a publicly accessible, highly visible, Residential Schools National Monument in the city of Ottawa to honour Survivors and all the children who were lost to their families and communities." We want our country and especially our legislators to be continually confronted with the horror that the government committed in stealing children from their parents to teach them values their parents opposed. In Ontario right now the government is pushing forward on their proposed and hotly opposed Sex-Ed curriculum. Those in power are still eager to force their worldview on other people’s children. So let’s build a monument, make it huge, and place it somewhere in Ottawa that legislators will walk past every day. Stealing and indoctrinating children remains a temptation for lawmakers, so they need to be reminded of past wrongs in the hope that this memory will restrain them from committing future evils....

Pro-life - Abortion

An Emergency Room is not the Church

Why “We Need a Law” doesn’t talk about the Gospel but you should ***** One of the questions ARPA Canada has received most often pertains to ...

Homosexuality

One in ten? Alfred Kinsey’s most famous lie

Even if you haven’t heard of Alfred Kinsey you probably have heard about one of his key “findings” – that 10% of all people are homosexual. Dr...

Christian education - Sports, Theology

God and the 2014-15 Seattle Seahawks

All about God’s sovereignty, Man’s free will, and American football ***** When the editor suggested I write a piece about American Football, I w...

Theology

How are we to read the Bible?

From January 16 to 18, in 2014, the Canadian Reformed Theological Seminary hosted a conference on the topic of hermeneutics. It's a big word, but the...

Being the Church

Laughter in the pews

My mother has a wise saying, one of many I might add, that if you go to church faithfully, you'll experience lots of interesting things. And she wasn't even talking about the sermons. She was referring to those unexpected events during the church service, things that shock or surprise us, or may even move us to fits of giggles or tears of laughter. I suppose each of us will have a favorite story to tell. And for some reason, things seem excruciatingly funny just when we're trying to be the most solemn. The smart shopper This tale happened on a Sunday morning late one January. The matronly Mrs. de Member (not her real name) sailed confidently up the aisle with a row of children in tow. This was a normal weekly occurrence. However, this Sunday the confidence was sadly misplaced. Mrs. de Member, no doubt in the busyness of getting half a dozen children church-ready, had forgotten to do a final check on herself. Perhaps her husband had already tooted firmly on the Suburban's horn, to remind his family that it really was time to go. After all, he did not want to be the last one in the consistory room, again. The brothers were not always gentle in their ribbing. Yes, if Mrs. de Member had done that final mirror check, she certainly would have noticed the sales tag that was now flapping and twirling from the back collar of her brand new winter coat. The offending stub informed all the curious that Mrs. de Member was a most frugal shopper. Apparently, she had waited until the price had been reduced, not once, not twice, but three times to less than fifty percent of the original! As she and her family settled into their pew, a couple of irreverent young rascals in the bench behind her snickered. Their mother signaled vigorously to shush them. Of course, no one was brave enough to draw Mrs. de Member's attention to the advertisement, and certainly no one had thought to bring a pair of scissors, to perhaps unobtrusively snip off the wayward tag. By the end of the service, everyone within reading distance knew the price down to the penny, including GST. Mrs. de Member was not in church in the afternoon. One of the little ones had apparently developed a bad cold over the lunch hour. Alone in the pews Church attendance with one's unpredictable progeny can be a challenging, and often humbling experience. Training the young ones to sit still and listen takes weeks even months. With some more recalcitrant offspring, years. (Some never learn, but move effortlessly from embarrassing their long-suffering parents to annoying the vigilant elders, who keep a hawk's eye on the socializing teens on the balcony.) In any event, the Sunday eventually arrives when a young Dad and Mom, let's call them Jim and Jenny, feel confident enough to attend the Lord's Supper, together. After having sternly warned their young ones to behave and having left a generous supply of peppermints with the eldest to be doled out at the appropriate moment, Jim and Jenny march resolutely up the aisle to the table. The minister greets them with a smile, and they take their seats, facing him. The minister speaks, the participants listen, the bread is passed, participants chew gently and swallow unobtrusively. All is quiet in the pews. The minister speaks once more, lifts the silver carafe high and the sparkling red liquid pours in a glittering stream into one of four silver goblets. He speaks the familiar words. He passes a goblet to his right, then one to his left. At that precise moment, a shrill little voice pierces the stillness. "Amy, give me a peppermint! Mommy said we could have a peppermint when the minister poured the wine!" A titter of barely suppressed laughter ripples through the pews. Here and there a Mom and Dad give each other a knowing wink and a sympathetic nudge. Remember what it was like? Jenny rubs her nose nervously, as a red flush creeps slowly up her neck and suffuses her face. Jim rummages in his trouser pockets, retrieves a pristine white handkerchief, and surreptitiously wipes his unexpectedly perspiring brow. How did it get so hot in here, all of a sudden? Thankfully, no further audible altercations ensue. Amy must have doled out the peppermints according to plan. The wine goblet, dutifully sipped from by all, has made its way around the table, and been returned to its place in front of the minister. All are attentive to the brief meditation. The organ begins the strains of a familiar psalm. The congregation joins in. The music fades, wafting gently upward to the rafters. The minister stands and nods. The participants rise and turn toward their pews. Jim and Jenny come down the aisle, eyes averted, shoulders rigid. Quickly they find their seats. And then again that high-pitched, persistent voice. "Mommy, Amy didn't give us any peppermints, but I said she had to, 'cause you told her to." "I know dear," Jenny whispers, placing her fore finger firmly over little Jimmy's lips. "Sh-h-h! You can tell me about it later." Congregational lore Two stories. There are many more. There was the time the minister lifted the lid off the baptismal font, only to find there was no water. Or the time when there was not enough wine to go around. Or the time the minister almost forgot to serve the wine. There was the time when an elder hauled his misbehaving daughter up front to sit in the elders' bench with him. The poor minister was so taken aback, he attempted a few more sentences, and then pronounced a speedy "Amen." Grandmas have fainted. Children and even an elder reading the sermon have vomited up their breakfast and whatever else they might have eaten before church. Collection bags have been dropped; coins and candies have rolled down the aisles. Birds and bees have flown in through open windows. Conversations from consistory rooms have been overheard by whole congregations, via the minister's microphone. Bibles have dropped from balconies on unsuspecting members seated below. And the best stories become part of congregational lore. They become part of our identity and shared experience. And in a strange way, they help us to love each other better....

Christian education - Sports

Is the good foul good? Playing basketball a different way

The object of basketball is pretty simple. You and your four teammates want to put the ball through your opponent's hoop. This is how you score. The other team also wants to score, but on the opposite hoop, so they will try to take the ball away from you. You must not let them! The winner is the team that manages to put the ball through their hoop the most times, in the time allowed. It's that simple. Simple, but it sounds like things could get kind of violent, right? This is where the rules come in. Basketball is a non-contact sport. There is even a rule that says so. The rules control the violence by punishing players who biff their opponents too obviously. The most common punishments are called free throws, which are free chances to score. Usually allotted in two's, they are given to the player who has been biffed to compensate him for the biffing he received. Biffing is, of course, also known as fouling. With players being punished for fouling, you would think they would do what they could to avoid committing fouls. After all, both the letter and the spirit of the rules are against fouling. But sometimes, late in a game, when one team is behind by only a bit but there doesn't seem to be enough time to catch up, they will foul their opponents on purpose. By fouling they do give their opponents free chances to score, but the clock stops. The strategy is simple. The team that is behind will foul the worst shooter on the other team and stop the clock. After the fouled player takes his shots (which they hope he will miss) they will get the ball back. The clock will start again and they will race down the court and hope they get their shot in. Then they will quickly try and foul again to stop the clock. This way only a few seconds of game time can be made to last a much longer time So it is actually to a team's advantage to foul in this case. This brings up two problems Christians might consider. The first is ethical. Fouling is against both the spirit and letter of the rules, so should Christians commit deliberate fouls? The second problem is also ethical but of a more concrete nature. Late in a game when one team tries to deliberately foul, the refs often won't call it. They know it is to the offending team's advantage so they will only call it if it is very, very obvious. The practical result is that these late, deliberate fouls are often very, very hard fouls. So again, should Christians commit these deliberate fouls? Some would say it's just part of the game. That is a somewhat legitimate argument. Sure the letter and spirit of the rules say that fouling is wrong, but anyone playing the game knows that these type of late game fouls will occur. No one is surprised, so in a way these fouls are a part of the unwritten rules for the game. That is just how it's played. But there is still the potential problem of injury, and the problem we should have with deliberately "biffing" someone. Sure it's a part of the game, but it doesn't have to be. In the Golden Bears' Summer Basketball League almost everyone is at least 6'2" and the average weight is somewhere above 200 pounds. The fouls in this league are already hard fouls and the league's organizers really didn't want to see any harder fouls late in the games. So instead of calling fouls the regular way the Golden Bears did it with a twist. If you committed a foul your opponents got one point and kept the ball. If you committed a foul on a player shooting the ball and he scored, the basket counted, and he still kept the ball. The clock never stopped and you could never regain possession of the ball by fouling a player. There was never an advantage to fouling someone. The end result was a league in which almost everyone had fun, and no fights occurred. It's just one approach, but it's worth considering....

Education

Home education - a way of life

"I get to help bake bread!" "Jason, can I read to you while you paint?" "Let's invite somebody over today. We can make cream puffs." Another day has begun. In our 'school' every day is a new adventure and the children plan their days as much as I do. It's been called "delight-directed learning," and we are enthusiastic advocates of this approach to home-education. The basic idea is to find out what interests your child has, and then to guide him to useful resources and experiences so he becomes an "expert in his field". Because we are not bound to a curriculum, we can use whatever books and resources we believe will be helpful and they can work at the pace which allows them to absorb the subject to the highest degree. Another advantage is that we can wait until our children are ready before teaching them new concepts, and we found this especially beneficial in teaching our son to read. Not everyone follows this approach. In 1997, there were over 6000 families home-educating in the province of Alberta, and each family chose the methods which were best for their children. Many home-educating parents follow a curriculum that provides daily lesson plans, workbooks and textbooks. They like the structure this provides and need the assurance that everything is being covered. Even so, they usually find that because one-on-one teaching is so effective, they can finish all the bookwork in the morning and use the afternoons to pursue other things. What Should They Be Taught? "But how do you know that your children are learning everything they need to know for adulthood??!" This is a question which we are frequently asked. It's true that they won't know everything by the time they turn eighteen, but then again, who does? Education should prepare children for a lifetime of learning, and the best thing we, as parents, can do when our children are young, is instill in them a love of learning and teach them how to communicate effectively, to write well, to be respectful and self-disciplined. These are the kinds of things young people need in the world, and if they don't know who the second president of the United States was, they'll know where to find the answer if they need it! Not that I'm downplaying the importance of history - our children need to know that there was life before they came along! We believe that the most important thing our children need to be trained in is good character. Developing patience, perseverance, diligence, obedience, generosity, self-control, discernment, resourcefulness, orderliness, compassion, deference, and a host of other qualities is a life-long pursuit which is best begun when our children are young. Nobody has a greater interest in our children's character development than we parents do, and nobody has a greater motivation either - we have to live with them! Here's a quick quiz for you: what do Winston Churchill, Alexander Graham Bell, Albert Einstein, the Wright Brothers, Philip Melanchthon, Leonardo da Vinci, Abraham Lincoln, Charles Dickens, and John Wesley have in common? They were all home-educated! I'm not saying that every home-educated child will grow up to be a genius, believe me, but I was very interested to read about these famous home-educated people, and I wonder what curriculum (or lack of it) they used! So how were we introduced to the concept of home-education? A friend of ours, who knew that we were looking into education options, called me up and said, "I heard this guy on the radio talking about home-schooling. It sounds kind of interesting; here's his phone number." And that was the beginning of a whirlwind of phone calls and questions, because this was only two months before our eldest was to start school. We decided to take the plunge and try it for a year, since kindergarten wasn't compulsory, and if it didn't work out we could put her in school for grade one. Instead, it has turned out to be a great source of joy for us to see our children grow and mature, to talk with them often, to have the best hours of the day with them, and to guide them in the ways of the Lord. And our children have the freedom to pursue their interests, to spend as much time as they want on what they are working on, and to be best friends with each other! What About Socialization? This is another thing we are often questioned about. What is "socialization," anyway? Is it not learning how to interact appropriately with others of all ages, having good manners and good habits, and behaving properly? These can all be learned very effectively in the setting of a family and in spending time with friends in the church and neighborhood. Peer pressure is avoided and they are free to be themselves and grow up slowly! So what do our kids do all day? We have three children: Jessica (12), Michelle (9), and Jason (8). Jessica does a lot of reading, Michelle is a craft enthusiast, and Jason plays with Lego a lot. They spend time together outside and get in each other's way occasionally. They have chores to do every day (dishes are a favorite), but a lot of their time is their own. Every so often, I say the word "math" and everyone dives for cover. Unfortunately for them, some things just have to be done, and times tables, borrowing and carrying, and fractions have all had their turn on the table. Spelling, handwriting, and phonics are other non-options. But then there are social and science topics that are theirs to choose. Middle Ages, Australia, bears, South America, seals, tigers, and beavers have all been covered, and the science kit is always available. The little electric circuit with a car wired in is fun to get out once in a while. Scooping creatures out of Grandad's pond and raising tadpoles has also been exciting for some (dad was unimpressed!). We are blessed in Alberta to have very reasonable home-school regulations that allow us the freedom to choose our own curriculum and teaching methods. We are required to register with a school board in the province. Various options are available to fulfill this requirement. The school board keeps records of our children's progress and assigns a facilitator who visits twice a year. They provide tests (government achievement tests, Canadian Test of Basic Skills, and others) if the parents want to make use of these. The board also provides funding for supplies (up to $510 per child per year upon sending in receipts, starting in Grade 1), and group lessons. Art supplies, books, and educational games are all covered by this funding. Where's Your Education Degree? "But you're not qualified to teach your children!" This is a misconception that holds many parents back from home-educating their own children, but studies have shown that even high school dropouts can effectively teach their children. All the parents need is to be literate and to have a love and concern for the overall development of the children that God has entrusted to them. It's true we are not government certified teachers, and it's true we're not experts on all the topics our kids ask us questions about, but some of the most rewarding experiences we have with our children are when we are learning together with them. There are always going to be things that we don't know, but we can show them where to find the answers, and let them discover things for themselves. Books, other people, educational videos, and field trips have been wonderful sources of information for us. We visit the library frequently and request books on topics the children are interested in. Setting an example of enthusiasm for learning is much more of a motivation for our children than trying to give them the impression that we know it all! We are members of a Christian support group in our city consisting of over one hundred families. We meet once per month to exchange ideas, hear about new opportunities, and use the library that belongs to the group. Each year a science fair is organized where the children can do a project and explain it to others. A field trip committee organizes various outings which families can go on together. Some of our favorites have been the John Walter Museum, Safety City, voyageur canoeing, and the Ukrainian Pioneer Village. These field trips are an opportunity to meet with other home-educating families. In the spring one of the families in the support group organized a track and field day, which was great fun! We try to take advantage of opportunities which we feel will advance the academic, social, and character development of our children. On to University Another query that home-educators often hear is "What if they want to go on to college or university?" We are not experts on this, as our oldest is only in grade seven at the moment, but from information which we have gleaned from meetings, conferences, and home-school families with older children, most colleges and universities have become much more open to the "home-school graduate" in the last five or ten years. Applicants from home-school families are not as rare as they once were, and for some colleges the writing of standardized equivalency tests is all that is necessary. For others, the Math and English Departmental exams must be written. In most cases though, it is recommended that students meet with the registrar ahead of time (in grade ten or eleven) to discuss options. It is also possible to qualify as a "mature student" upon reaching the age specified by the college (sometimes as low as 16 if the student has been out of school for one year). Another option students have to learn a trade is apprenticeship. This idea has been growing rapidly in home-school circles as it allows parents to have input into who their child's "teacher" will be. It is usually possible to find a Christian individual who does just what your young person wants to do, and most would be glad to have an assistant who works for free in exchange for being taught the necessary skills. This is just one of the ways that apprenticeship could work. Opportunities abound for motivated young people! As home-educators, we are often told that our children are naive. I must confess when we hear this we are encouraged. Do we really want them to be "worldly-wise," aware of all that goes on in the world around them? Their young minds are not equipped to deal with that kind of information. Should we talk to them about the evil practices of the world so that we can explain why they are wrong? That isn't right. Romans 16:19 says, "I would have you wise unto that which is good, and simple concerning evil." It is our duty as parents to shield our children from wrong influences and ideas. They will hear about it soon enough when they are older, and then they will be better able to deal with it and to stand firm in the faith they were brought up in. We are thankful that we heard about home education when we did. Our children are a gift from our Heavenly Father, and we treasure every day we have with them - they will be grown before we know it! Home education is a wonderful way to stay close to our children, to know what they are learning, and to guide them in the ways of the Lord. The primary responsibility of raising and educating children rests with their parents, and we have chosen to fulfill that responsibility ourselves instead of delegating it to others. It has become a way of life for us, and we are grateful for the opportunity to teach our children at home!...

Economics

If strikes are bad can unions be good?

I grew up hearing horror stories about unions but little else. Unions were bad because union members threw bottles and sticks at their opposition. Later on I found that unions often supported political parties that favored abortion. There was more harsh criticism when a teacher's union went on strike, demanding more money and holding the students for ransom. Unions were bad because their actions were bad. But is it possible to have a good union, even a Christian union? What if such a Christian union took a stand against picket line violence, didn't support political parties, and didn't strike? Would there be a place for this type of union? Maybe. Is there such a union now? No. The Christian Labour Association of Canada (CLAC) almost fits the bill. It's certainly against picket line violence, and doesn't support any political parties. That already elevates it above almost every other union but the CLAC is better than other unions in still other ways. Secular unions' are condemned in most Reformed circles for several reasons, including: Many require an oath of allegiance promising unconditional obedience to the principles of that union's constitution. Christians can't promise this type of obedience to anyone or anything besides God. Secular unions promote a class struggle between employers and employees, as if the two were natural enemies. Whereas the Bible instructs us to love our neighbor as ourselves, these unions encourage animosity between owners and their employees. The idea of a class struggle between the rich class and the poor class is accepted as inevitable by these unions (Karl Marx also thought it was inevitable). Unions strike. In contrast the CLAC recognizes God's supremacy and encourages a cooperative environment between employer and employee. Instead of advocating a class struggle they repeatedly emphasize respect and cooperation. But while the CLAC differs from most unions in these respects, it still shares the other unions' willingness to go on strike. They go on strike a lot less often, but they still go on strike. So the question is, can Christians go on strike? What Are Strikes? Employees have always had the ability to leave their jobs when they're unhappy with either the working conditions or their salaries. All they have to do is quit. When employees strike, however, they leave their jobs and prevent anyone else from taking them. They retain a claim to their job even as they vacate it. There is also a coercive element to strikes. They are designed to force employers to capitulate to employee demands. And what's wrong with that? The first problem is the harm caused by just such a strike. Whenever a business is shut down by a strike the people who have come to depend on that business suffer. The most obvious example is a teacher's strike, where the students suffer, but the same thing happens no matter what type of business is involved. A strike at a tire manufacturer will hurt (and maybe even shutdown) the automaker that's dependent on that tire supplier. The striking workers hurt innocent third parties. I once heard a union representative argue that there was no such thing as innocent third parties. He reasoned that if company B bought supplies from company A because of A's good price, and A had a good price because he unjustly underpaid his workers, then B was at least partially responsible for this injustice. B was encouraging injustice by supporting an unjust employer and so B would only get what he deserved if he was hurt by a strike at company A. This whole argument hinges on the union representative's idea of justice. He thought it was unjust to underpay workers. It might very well be, but who exactly is supposed to decide what a just wage is? Is $5 just? How about $10? Obviously it depends on the type of work. A McDonald's employee can't expect to get paid as much as computer engineer. But still the question remains, exactly how do you determine a just wage for these two positions? Wages, just or not, were at one time determined by free enterprise ideas of supply and demand. The lower the supply of qualified workers, and the higher the demand for those workers, the higher the wage would be. And vice versa. So an entry-level unskilled position at McDonald's, a position anyone could fill, receives a low wage, and a highly skilled, sought after computer engineer makes hundreds of thousands. On a basic level this seems fair, and even just to most people. We can clearly understand why some people are paid more and others are paid less. Skilled people get paid more and people in unpopular jobs get paid more because they are skilled, and because they are willing to do jobs no one else will. But when unions are thrown into the mix things get a bit peculiar. Have you ever wondered why mailmen get paid so much? Well back in the good old days of my father's youth (long, looooong ago) they weren't paid much more than an entry-level wage. After all, it didn't take a lot of brains to deliver mail, (really, how different is it from what your paperboy does?), so the post office didn't have to offer a high wage to attract employees. But then unions got involved and someone decided that mail delivery wasn't an entry-level position, it was a career. Minimum wage obviously wasn't good enough for a career position (perhaps it was even called unjust) so with the help of a number of strikes the union managed to substantially increase their workers wages. And they managed to substantially increase the cost of mail too. But why did their wages increase? Only because the union decided their jobs were career positions, not entry level. The union decided, and it had nothing to do with justice or fairness. And when steel workers, or grocery store clerks go on strike for another 25 cents an hour, it again is simply a union decision, and it has absolutely nothing to do with justice. Any attempt to link pay increases to justice is simply rhetoric meant to disguise the harm being done to the truly innocent third parties. And that's what's wrong with strikes. Strikes hurt third parties, not to further the cause of justice, but to further the striking workers' own welfare. The striking workers are thinking only of themselves. Non-striking Unions? Selfishness is only one problem with strikes. The coercive nature of strikes, where the employees try to bring their employer to his knees, isn't exactly in keeping with a Biblical theme. But if strikes are bad can unions be good? Yes, because unions don't have to go on strike. As mentioned before, employees have always had the option of quitting their jobs if they were unsatisfied with either the working conditions or the wages. If employees didn't have this ability they would be little more than slaves. Now, if a certain employer decides to pay unreasonably low wages, this non-striking union could advise its members to quit and seek employment in more profitable fields. But that isn't all such a union could do. As it stands now the CLAC already has a retraining center for employees who have lost their jobs. The center is paid for with union dues, and is used to retrain workers for new jobs usually with their same company. This center could be used to train employees to find new jobs in new fields of employment with other companies. Then when an employer decided to be unreasonable, his workers wouldn't be limited to just the jobs he was offering, at the unreasonable wage he was offering. If he wanted to retain them, he would have to start paying them a reasonable amount. A naïve dream? Perhaps a bit...but all the good dreams are....

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

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.

Search thousands of RP articles

Articles, news, and reviews that celebrate God's truth.

Get Articles Delivered!

Articles, news, and reviews that celebrate God's truth. delivered direct to your Inbox!

Magazine

Past Articles

Book Reviews

Movie Reviews

Daily devotional

More of Reformed Perspective!

Newsletter

Real Talk

Manna

VOTC

About Us

Advertise

Search CATEGORY: Recent Articles

Browse By Topic

Amazing stories from times past

Apologetics 101

Assorted

Being the Church

Christian education

Christian education - Sports

Church history

Culture Clashes

Dating

Dying Well

Economics

Economics - Home Finances

Education

Entertainment

Evangelism

Gender roles

History

Homosexuality

Human Rights

Humor

In a Nutshell

Indigenous peoples

Internet

Interview with an artist

Letter Writing

Marriage

Media bias

Music

Parenting

People we should know

Politics

Pornography

Pro-life - Abortion

Pro-life - Adoption

Pro-life - Euthanasia

Pro-life - Fostering

Religion

Religion - Mormons

Religion - Pentecostal

Religion - Roman Catholic

Remembrance Day

Science - Creation/Evolution

Science - Environment

Science - General

Sexuality

Soup and Buns

Theology

Transgenderism

Internet

One week in: Facebook isn't for everyone

Not for me

From negative to positive

Time to spare

People we should know

Jacobus Arminius: professed the confessions even as he opposed them

Theology

What does fleeing sin look like?

Pornography

No satisfaction: James’ Epistle on pornography

Transgenderism