Transparent heart icon with white outline and + sign.

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

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

White magnifying glass.

Search thousands of RP articles

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

Open envelope icon with @ symbol

Get Articles Delivered!

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



Soup and Buns

Poise, aka self-control

“When words are many, sin is not absent, but he who holds his tongue is wise.” – Proverbs 10:19

*****

The lights inside the large sanctuary dimmed, and I sang the first two stanzas of my memorized solo. Suddenly, my mind went blank. Blank! Panic rose, as there were no lyrics available to me. But I had learned during voice lessons that poise should be the immediate reaction to a problem. I stood in position quietly, praying “Help!” Thankfully, my experienced pianist kept on playing, spoke the phrase that I had missed, and followed me when I resumed singing.

After the concert, my cheeks flushed with embarrassment as I faced everyone. But the Chorale members empathized, and my friend in the audience said, in surprise, “Oh, I thought you were just pausing for effect!”

Dictionary.com defines poise as: “a dignified, self-confident manner or bearing; composure; self-possession.” Perhaps we could also think of it as a type of self-control. I chose not to act on my strong, surging emotions, in order to achieve a higher purpose: in this case, not ruining the concert nor embarrassing myself.

Another example occurred years later.

I drove our son David to Baltimore for an overnight college visit during which our six-year-old Amy and I would visit with friends about 90 minutes past there. The 2-hour drive developed into a 7-hour ordeal due to an overturned HazMat truck on I-95. We survived the situation with acceptance and good humor until after we dropped David off at midnight. I ran out of poise then as fatigue overwhelmed me. With no fortitude to drive another 90 minutes, I phoned my friends that we would stay at a motel and come in the morning.

The night clerk at the motel refused to take a check and I had not taken a credit card with me – $57 cash, period. In my exhaustion, I shouted at her, a counterproductive move, indeed. Then I looked at Amy. To this day I can remember her little face, eyes wide, mouth open, beginning to be frightened by my actions. I stopped my words and stood there quietly, praying. The poise that characterized me from then on did not reflect the tumult inside of me, but it subdued Amy’s fear, and brought the clerk back to the counter. Thankfully, I found some school fundraiser change in the depths of my purse, which I borrowed for this emergency. The clerk slowly counted each nickel and dime, testing my self-control for endless minutes until we reached $57. Never was I so happy to climb into bed!

These are two examples of reasons for practicing self-control. But I admit to finding it easier to control emotions in these situations than when my temper is flaring or my goals are being thwarted. Then the task has always been much more difficult.

It doesn’t help that our culture emphasizes “being real” and “expressing oneself” by always saying exactly what is on our mind. Thus, too often, we feel entitled to act and react in whatever manner we decide, especially when someone has infringed on our happiness. “Consideration” seems to be a lost art.

The fact is that we are all sinners, prone to do what pops first into our heads and what feels best to us at the moment. As the refrain of the song Thank You, Lord states:

But it goes against the way I am to put my human nature down,
And let the Spirit take control of all I do;
‘Cause when those trials come, my human nature shouts the thing to do,
And God’s soft prompting can be easily ignored.  

Honest emotions need to be expressed, but the time, manner and place must be carefully considered. More often than not, our first thought derives from our self-centered hearts; therefore we fall into anger, impatient behaviors, and gossip. Jeremiah 17:9 states that “The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?” We must take care not to absolve ourselves too easily! Developing poise – a moment, or ten, to stand quietly and think and pray despite the hurricane-force emotions within us – is our responsibility of love to God and others, and thankfully, self-control is a fruit of the Holy Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23).

Self-control means stopping to consider more aspects of the situation than were visible to us in the initial moment, including the feelings of others. Let’s practice poise when we are surprised or overwhelmed and stand quietly from the outset; we will surely find help in our time of need.

“He who guards his mouth and his tongue keeps himself from calamity.” – Proverbs 21:23

Find more of Sharon’s articles by clicking here. This column is one of several dozen collected in her book “Soup and Buns,” which you can purchase by contacting the author at sharoncopy1@ gmail.com. 

Red heart icon with + sign.
In a Nutshell

Tidbits – April 2024

Benefit of boredom There’s a certain sort of belonging that comes out of boredom. One of my formative young experiences was spending four years in the Air Cadets, which I didn’t really have any interest in joining, but a friend invited me and I had nothing better to do. Collective boredom is even better – a great family memory is the enormous sandcastles we’ve built, again, not because of anyone in particular wanting to, but just because there’s only so long you can splash in the waves at the beach. As Ted Kluck wrote in his March 1 WORLD magazine column “An argument for being bored together,” boredom can be magical. He’s reviewing a movie, set in 1971, that he loved and I never saw because of its 35 f-bombs, so I’m not pitching the film. But I am also remembering the merits of boredom. "The Holdovers …is actually about the magic of being bored with other people, and the creativity and connection that comes as a result. You end up exploring campus buildings. You end up watching television together. You end up breaking bread together. Somebody gets hurt, and then cared for by the group. You hatch outlandish schemes together, and then carry them out. ….I daresay nobody will ever want to watch a movie about college (or boarding school) in 2024. What is there to be romantic about? 'We had a really nice class session on Microsoft Teams'? No thanks. "In a modern context, of course, we don’t have much of an opportunity to be bored together, in that we can carry our televisions, our stereos, our classrooms, and all of our conversations with us on our phones. We can curate and self-promote and move-make and side-hustle – all while standing in line at the supermarket. We never have to be bored. "As a result, we are probably very productive. But we are also – if anecdotal evidence as well as everything written in the past decade is to be believed – very lonely. Perhaps we need more unmediated time together, because relating to one another takes time. 3 Me jokes Me: I am soooo hungry! Horse (nervously): How hungry are you? Genie: You have 3 wishes. Me: I’m not doing this. I know that whatever I wish for is just going to come back and bite me in some way. Genie: It won’t. If it does, I promise I’ll give you infinite wishes. Me: Okay, then I wish for a boomerang with teeth. Genie: Well played sir, well played … Doctor: “It turns out, you have acute appendicitis.” Me (blushing): “Compared to who?” What’s wrong with the world? “In one sense, and that the eternal sense, the thing is plain. The answer to the question, ‘What is Wrong?’ is, or should be, ‘I am wrong.’ Until a man can give that answer his idealism is only a hobby.” – G.K. Chesterton (Aug 16, 1905 in a letter to the Daily News) “It’s me. I’m the problem.” – Taylor Swift “We should not ask, ‘What is wrong with the world? for that diagnosis has already been given. Rather, we should ask, ‘What happened to the salt and light?'” – probably John R. Stott Baby whale’s outboard motor is delivered first Could whales have come about via a step-by-step evolutionary process? Or does their make-up evidence a Brilliant Designer, Who created them just so, from the get-go? Geoffrey Simmons weighs in: "No one knows how blow holes came about, certainly not by small successive steps, or how the internal lungs became connected up to these holes in a way that prevents drowning. Or, how a massive communication center, found in their heads, came about. Or, how the ability to depressurize body segments during deep dives evolved. Calves are born tail first (they cannot go head first in case the process is too slow) and these newborns must rise to the surface immediately for air or else they will drown. The ability to swim must be present from the beginning. Trial and error would never have worked." Opportunity to honor God’s Name in Christian films I often get sent a “screener” link for upcoming Christian films. It’s a chance for me to watch the film online before it comes out in theaters so I can let RP’s readership know about a good one that’s coming to theaters soon. But more often than not, even in these Christian films, someone will stub a toe and let loose with an abuse of God’s Name. Very often it happens just once, but even so in film after Christian film, there it is: God’s Holy Name treated as an expletive. You know what you’ll almost never find in a Christian film? Actual expletives. Because Christians won’t stand for that. When it happened again with the latest screener, I sent the promoter this note: Thanks for the follow up. I did get the screener link. It looked intriguing but pretty early on someone took God’s Name in vain and that’s our one big no no, so it isn’t for us. I know that’s an unusual position, but it’s based on the holiness of God’s Name, and the fact that taking it in vain is completely unneeded. Christian studios manage to never use the F-word, so this isn’t a matter of realism. It’s that the F-word is treated with more “reverence” than God’s own Name. RP reviews movies that have violence, or some degrees of sexuality, or which delve into all sorts of dark topics (we reviewed Sound of Freedom, for example) but not movies that take God’s Name in vain. And, that one stand eliminates about 99% of movies, including the vast majority of Christian films too, which only underscores that need for us all to make the holiness of God’s Name more of an issue. Whereas folks might go to a movie for the sex or violence, no one goes to hear God’s Name taken in vain, so it has no upside for the producer. So why does it happen? Because Christians have treated it as so unimportant that there’s also no downside for the producer to do it. I got a very polite reply, and she promised to send it on to the film’s producers. There’s a real opportunity for us to effect a change here, if we’re willing to track down the production companies and send them a polite note. It might be as simple as googling the movie, and seeing if it has a website. If not, the production company probably will, and because these are mostly smaller companies, some will still have contact option. These are Christian filmmakers, so this isn’t due to any hatred of God; it’s just ignorance. Even a few notes making the same point could go a long way, because they’ll want to listen. Tradition, not simply for tradition’s sake Tradition is often the received wisdom of the previous generations, and shouldn’t be lightly discarded. But as Ronald Reagan pointed out in the anecdote below, it’s also important we understand why we maintain these traditions. “We can’t be like the fellow’s wife who used to cut off both ends of the ham before she cooked it. When he asked her why she did that, she said because that was the way her mother always did it. “One day, he got the chance to ask his mother-in-law why she cut off both ends of the ham before she cooked it. And she said because that’s the way her mother did it. “Came the holidays and Grandma was visiting and he told her about it and asked if that was true – why did she cut off both ends of the ham before she cooked it? She said, ‘That’s simple. I never had a pan big enough to get the whole ham in it.’” Awfully good oxymorons An oxymoron is a phrase that seem to be self-contradictory, but isn’t. The most common examples are just two words, like jumbo shrimp, plastic silverware, civil war, and unbiased opinion. But they can be larger too. “May I ask a question?” and “Less is more” are both complete sentences. The sardonic “Free advice is worth what you paid for it” shows how they can be employed for comic effect, as did baseball star Yogi Berra’s many oxymoronic turns such as: “Nobody goes there anymore. It’s too crowded.” Other classics include: “It’s the little things in life that are colossal.” – G.K. Chesterton “Always and never are two words you should always remember never to use.” – probably Wendell Johnson “…the mercy of the wicked is cruel.” – Prov. 12:10 “Alas! Hegel was right when he said that we learn from history that men never learn anything from history.” – George Bernard Shaw “I always advise people never to give advice.” – P.G. Wodehouse “Everyone says forgiveness is a lovely idea until they have something to forgive.” – C.S. Lewis ...

Red heart icon with + sign.
News

Oregon abandons decriminalizing hard drugs

“America’s most radical experiment with drug decriminalization has ended, after more than three years of painful results,” The Atlantic reported in early April. Increased overdose deaths and “chaos in the streets” has the state of Oregon going back to criminalizing hard drugs. When the state decided to decriminalize drugs in 2020, 59 percent of voters supported it. Decriminalization advocates wanted to focus on a strategy of reducing the harm that drugs cause to users. Over $260 million was spent on services to help make this a reality. Three years later, 64 percent now want to go back, with support particularly strong among African American and Hispanic Oregonians. The New York Times reported that a wide range of officials supported a rollback in policy, citing surging homelessness, street protests, “an exodus of downtown businesses, record numbers of homicides, the rapid spread of fentanyl and soaring overdose deaths.” British Columbia followed Oregon’s lead by decriminalizing many hard drugs in 2023. Adults in possession of heroin, fentanyl, crack, meth, ecstasy, and some other hard drugs, so long as they are for personal use, will not be charged. This is an experiment being run until 2026. The province’s NDP government is already being criticized by mayors of smaller cities in the province who are reporting public disorder similar to what’s been experienced in Oregon. Yet BC is pressing on with its experiment. An underlying motivation for decriminalizing hard drugs and providing “safe supply” of drugs, even at the taxpayers’ expense, is the belief that drug problems will lessen if we ditch the stigma associated with drug use. If we stop treating it as shameful and immoral, then, so the argument goes, more people might seek treatment. But as Romans 7 teaches us, the law plays an important role “in order that sin might be recognized as sin.” Secular society may succeed in changing its laws to reduce the stigma of sin, but as we’re seeing in Oregon, making sin seem less sinful isn’t the answer. That will only serve to hold sinners in bondage further. What is needed is something that the law can never accomplish. “Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death? Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord!” (Romans 7:24-25)....

Red heart icon with + sign.
Assorted

That I may declare it boldly

Therefore, take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand firm. Stand therefore, having fastened on the belt of truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, and, as shoes for your feet, having put on the readiness given by the gospel of peace. In all circumstances take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming darts of the evil one; and take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God, praying at all times in the Spirit, with all prayer and supplication. To that end, keep alert with all perseverance, making supplication for all the saints, and also for me, that words may be given to me in opening my mouth boldly to proclaim the mystery of the Gospel, for which I am an ambassador in chains that I may declare it boldly, as I ought to speak. – Ephesians 6:13-20 **** When I was a baby my mom dressed me, often in clothes which she herself had made. Gifted with creativity, she knitted sweaters, booties, skirts, jumpers (and you name it) – all for me. Later on, my oldest sister was given the task of helping me and I still remember sitting on the baby dresser, feet dangling over the edge, as she washed my face, chose my clothes and carefully decked me out like a precious doll before she took me down to breakfast. How blessed I was! Care, clothes and food – all provided for me before I even understood what great provisions these were. And later, after breakfast was finished, my Father would add to the list of benefits by awarding me with an unequaled present, the reading of the Bible. As I grew older, I learned how to dress myself. And so I did. Putting on undershirts, underpants, socks, skirts, tops, dresses, etc., all grew into skilled appareling techniques which I mastered with growing ease. As my Father kept on reading the Bible to all of us gathered around the table, I was continually instructed in the wearing of an armor. Although there were no mail accoutrements hidden under the dining room table, and no chain link vests hanging in the hall closet, nevertheless, I slowly imbibed the knowledge that I needed to be girded by this protection. 80,000 conversations Although it is somewhat of an impossible statistic, it has been calculated that the average person will meet approximately ten thousand persons in his lifetime. That is mind boggling! These people will not be intimate acquaintances. Rather, they will be people whom we meet once, perhaps twice, in our lifetime and then probably only in a casual way. Nevertheless, they will pass through our lives – in shops, at malls, on streets, on buses, in classrooms, at baseball games or in restaurants. Ten thousand folks, each with a beating heart and a living soul! Ten thousand people! Enough to populate a small town! When I was first married, I had to walk through the downtown streets of Hamilton each day to get to my place of work. No matter what the weather had in mind, sunshine, snow, rain or wind, every morning I would pass a woman at approximately the same spot. She was a thin, middle-aged lady with dark hair tied back in a severe bun. The woman always avoided my gaze and would never look at me directly. I began to say “hello” to her, but she never responded. I tried “good-morning” and “good day” and, after a few weeks, it began to be a sort of game for me. Will she react to me today? Will she smile back at me? What shall I do this morning to catch her attention? In the end, after about eight months, just before we moved from Hamilton to Guelph, she smiled back. And then, I never saw her again. ***** One piece of data I read posits the thought that if you have conversations with three new people each day for 73 years, an average life span, the number of conversations you would have during your lifetime would be 80,000. That's a lot of conversations! And this number of people are as many as would fill an Olympic stadium! Time to clear your throat, or rather, time to think about putting on the armor. Once, many years ago, my husband and I stayed in a small motel in Whitney, Ontario, a town bordering Algonquin Park. We were there for a few days of holidays and enjoyed ourselves immensely. The three children we had at that point were being looked after by family and we reveled in sleeping late and in long nature hikes. Next to our little motel was a small trading post with a lady proprietor. She was a very sociable woman and whenever we stopped in to make a purchase, she talked incessantly and enthusiastically about the beauty of the park and about the delight she took in the wildlife around her store. She also went out of her way to show us some of the unique artifacts displayed in her shop. Friendly, good-natured and personable, she made us feel special. On the morning we left to drive back home, we stopped in to say good-bye. After briefly chatting, another customer arrived and we slowly faded into the background towards the door. Behind us, the woman chattered away to the newcomer. And then she swore. Her voice had turned raucous, loud and exclamatory, puncturing the air. We went on our way. I distinctly remember that it was raining hard outside. My husband had the windshield wipers of the car going quickly. Back and forth they went, as if they were trying to wipe out the memory of that swear word. We never saw the woman again. What sort of letter are you? We are letters. Paul tells us this in 2 Corinthians 3. We are letters which are read. When people are more intimately involved with us, they are more likely to read us more carefully (and between the lines), than those who know us only a little bit. Yet all the people who pass us, and that includes strangers who only see us for a moment or two, will scan us to some extent. And what will they read? When I was in business college, there was a girl in my class. Her name was Ellie. She was a quiet girl with an appealing roundish face and glossy, bobbed, reddish-brown hair falling sleekly about her cheeks. Ellie gave the impression of vulnerability. Her large, brown eyes observed the world questioningly above a multitude of freckles. During one of those first days of school, we both chanced to be going down the elevator at lunch hour and somehow ended up eating lunch together in a local park. Ellie boarded in the downtown Hamilton YWCA. She had a room there and invited me to see it. Her family lived on a farm, too far away for her to travel back and forth every night, she told me. I thought nothing of it until a few weeks later, when it became obvious to me, naive though I was, that Ellie was pregnant. It was difficult to broach the subject, but I did. Ellie cried and told me that she had been adopted and that her adoptive brother was the father. She loved the baby growing within her, but her parents had told her that she could only come back home if she would give up the baby for adoption. Both empathetic and horrified after her revelation, I promised to help her. I was a Christian, I told her, and Christians always help others. It was a Friday and I went home full of plans, immediately contacting two local pastors to ask if they could help me find a solution to Ellie's problem. Neither was particularly enthusiastic and, thinking back on it now, I cannot really blame them. Although my eagerness to help knew no bounds, the information I had was scanty. When I came back to school that following Monday, Ellie was not in class. Walking to the YWCA during lunch hour, I discovered that Ellie had disappeared. No one at the desk was willing to give me her address. I never saw her again. ***** If you go shopping, it is inevitable that you will pass a great many people whom you will never see again during your lifetime. It is unlikely that you will hold a conversation with each and every one of these people. But the sheer breadth and width of the scope of individual lives who intersect with you for only the space of a moment is mind-boggling. It can make you conceive of yourself as part of a huge multitude; it can make you conclude that you are immensely small; and it can make you regard God as incredible beyond comprehension. For He knows the minds and hearts of all – every step, every thought, and every hair on their heads. Go out into the world, He said. We tend to hide behind devices now – we speak to a lot of people on these devices, without actually really speaking to them – and feel good because people respond to our trivial questions and remarks. There is a need for people to belong – the need to build up a facade of relationships – the need to look as if we are not alone. The sad truth is that most people don't know how to belong any longer. If there is any sort of pandemic in the world which is in dire need of a vaccine, it is the pandemic of perceived friendships with inanimate cellphones. It is a deafness, an inability to interact, and a numbed knowledge of what real fellowship actually means. Detached and indifferent, many have lost the wisdom of how to live in community, of how to love your neighbor as yourself. Catholic conversation A number of years ago, I accompanied my husband to Montreal where he had to attend several meetings. While he was participating in his conference, it was my privilege to wander through the streets of Montreal. It cost me five dollars to get into the Notre-Dame Basilica. And thinking about it, maybe the five dollars went to a wrong cause and I should have resisted the desire to see the insides of this monumental structure. But I didn't. I handed my ten-dollar bill over to a man behind a dark desk, a man who was neither friendly nor gracious and, after receiving my change, I pushed open the heavy, creaking door to the Basilica's sanctuary. An overwhelming smell of wax assailed me almost immediately upon entering. Electric light bulbs were hidden away high up on the ceiling or inside niches; and rows upon rows of flickering sweet-smelling candles were situated under every pillar. I made my way past these little flames with the wooden boxes in front of them, every one of them inviting poor, unsuspecting supplicants to put their dollars and dimes to bad use. Side aisles were flanked by stained glass windows. Haloed statues overshadowed these aisles every few steps. I strolled towards the front of the massive church. An English guide was stationed next to the first few pews, where she was giving a group of non-French tourists a brief history of the Basilica. The friendly, short-haired guide motioned to me that I should sit down with the rest of the group in those first few pews. She asked us, "Did you know that the Notre-Dame used to be just a small chapel?" The huge ceiling above our heads almost belied this fact, and we all stared up at the vast space above our heads because the guide made a sweeping upward motion with her arm. "Yes," she continued, "and by the way, my name is Gabrielle, you know, like the angel." This evoked chuckles. "Now we will just go around and everyone else can say their name and where they come from." There were people sitting next to me from Norway, from BC, from Michigan and California. "You know," the little guide went on, "you are in a place where many famous people have been." We did not respond but looked at her expectantly. We knew she would tell us who else had been there. And she did. "In 1873, Sir George Cartier's funeral was held here. And in the year 2000, Pierre Elliott Trudeau's funeral took place here as well. And in 1994, Celine Dion was married in this very church. The truth is that one hundred or more marriages and approximately one hundred and twenty baptisms are celebrated here every year. We have a special chapel attached to the Basilica. It is the Sacré-Coeur (Sacred Heart) Chapel, also known as the wedding chapel." We took all this information in silently. "And then, of course, in 1984, the Pope, that is, John Paul II, visited. He raised the status of Notre-Dame from church to basilica. He did this because of the church's historic, architectural and artistic value. It is very beautiful, do you not think so?" Heads nodded. Who could deny the architectural immensity of this place? A stooping figure hung on the cross straight overhead, surrounded by what I presumed to be the apostles. But above the cross was another representation – that of Mary being crowned by God. The guide was not long in pointing this out. "Mary has first place here," she said. "It is, after all, her church. That is why," and she motioned upwards again with her arm, "the ceiling is blue. Blue is her color, you know." We all gazed up once more. It was true. The magnificent ceiling was a sky-blue. The guide continued to recite a litany of cultural events which regularly took place in the Basilica and how the Montreal Symphony Orchestra had performed there several times. Then, after telling us we were free to walk around and browse, she excused herself and left us on our own. I never saw her nor any of that group again. A key conversation But then there is this story. A long time ago, a traveler reached the fork of an old Roman road. It was about suppertime and he, being quite weary, sat down. In the west, he could see a mountain and to the north was the city which today is called Nablus. There was a well nearby. In the present time, that well is surrounded by the walls of a convent, but at that moment it was quite out in the open. It was a deep well, almost 100 feet deep. The traveler was thirsty and when a woman appeared, a stranger, carrying a water-pitcher on her shoulder, he spoke to her. She had walked some ten minutes from the nearby city to get to the well and she was alone. "Give me a drink," the stranger said. His accent and pronunciation immediately told the woman that he was not native born to the area but that he was Jewish. And she was also quite aware that Jews were usually not of a kindly disposition towards people from her area. As a matter of fact, they wouldn't even use the same cutlery or drink from the same vessels. She was therefore puzzled by his request. "How is it that you," she countered his question, "a Jew, ask a drink of me, a Samaritan?" The stranger merely looked at her and then made use of her curiosity to further the conversation. He said, "If you knew the gift of God, and Who it is that said to you, 'Give me a drink,' you would have been the one to ask Him, and He would have given you living water." She said to Him, "Sir, you have no rope-bucket, and the well is deep; where do you get that living water? Surely, you are not greater, are you, than our father Jacob who gave us this well and he himself drank from it, and so did his sons and his flocks." To the west of the woman, Gerizim, the mountain of blessing, stood. And to the northeast of Gerizim stood Ebal, the mountain of the curse. And the stranger said to her, "Whoever drinks this water will thirst again; but whoever drinks the water that I shall give him will in no way be thirsty again forever, for that water which I shall give him will become in him a spring of water that keeps on bubbling up unto everlasting life." The woman, who had walked ten minutes in order to get to the well and who had to walk ten minutes down and back each day in order to satisfy her physical needs, immediately yearned for this water of which the stranger spoke. "Sir, give me this water," she pleaded, "that I may not get thirsty or have to keep on coming so far to draw water." The stranger responded, "Go, call your husband and come back here." Impressed by his friendliness, and by His interest in her life, the woman, who was usually avoided by the people of her town, responded. In offering the woman a few moment of His time, a moment which led to a taste of eternity, Jesus begins to quench her inner thirst. Spurgeon commented that Christ has different doors for entering into different people’s souls. Into some, He enters by the way of understanding; into many, by the way of the affections; to some, He comes by the way of fear; to others, by the way of hope; and to this woman He came by the way of her conscience. All sorts of conversations to be had After Jesus' encounter with the Samaritan woman, He told His disciples that the fields were white with harvest. He intimates that there are numerous multitudes ready for them to meet. He declares that there are countless people ready to be spoken to, ready to be brought into the kingdom of God. By knowing Him and by wearing the “so very useful” armor He gives us to wear, we also are able to meet with, speak to and listen to at least some of the host of villagers, innkeepers, musicians, businessmen, housewives, gender-lost and value-lost people we will meet on our way. Jesus never saw the Samaritan woman again. Or did He?...

Red heart icon with + sign.
News

One step forward, two steps back in Online Harms bill

What do pornography and hate speech have in common? Well, the federal government says they are both harmful. That’s why they’ve wrapped these issues up together in their recently announced Online Harms Act, otherwise known as Bill C-63. As the government’s news release stated, “Online harms have real world impact with tragic, even fatal, consequences.” As such, the government is of the mind that the responsibility for regulating all sorts of online harm falls to them. But the approach of the government in Bill C-63, though it contains some good content, is inadequate. BACKGROUND In June 2021, the federal government introduced hate speech legislation focused on hate propaganda, hate crime, and hate speech. The bill was widely criticized, including in ARPA Canada’s analysis, and failed to advance prior to the fall 2021 election. Nonetheless, the Liberal party campaigned in part on a promise to bring forward similar legislation within 100 days of re-election. Over two years have passed since the last federal election. In the meantime, the government pursued a consultation and an expert panel on the topic of online harms. Based on these and feedback from stakeholders, the government has now tabled legislation combatting online harm more broadly. Bill C-63 defines seven types of “harmful content”: a) intimate content communicated without consent; b) content that sexually victimizes a child or revictimizes a survivor; c) content that induces a child to harm themselves; d) content used to bully a child; e) content that foments hatred; f) content that incites violence; and g) content that incites violent extremism or terrorism. The hate speech elements of Bill C-63 are problematic for Canadians’ freedom of expression. We will address those further on. But though the bill could be improved, it is a step in the right direction on the issue of child sexual exploitation. DIGITAL SAFETY OVERSIGHT If passed, part 1 of the Online Harms Act will create a new Digital Safety Commission to help develop online safety standards, promote online safety, and administer and enforce the Online Harms Act. A Digital Safety Ombudsperson will also be appointed to advocate for and support online users. The Commission will hold online providers accountable and, along with the Ombudsperson, provide an avenue for victims of online harm to bring forward complaints. Finally, a Digital Safety Office will be established to support the Commission and Ombudsperson. The Commission and Ombudsperson will have a mandate to address any of the seven categories of harm listed above. But their primary focus, according to the bill, will be “content that sexually victimizes a child or revictimizes a survivor” and “intimate content communicated without consent.” Users can submit complaints or make other submissions about harmful content online, and the Commission is given power to investigate and issue compliance orders where necessary. Social media services are the primary target of the Online Harms Act. The Act defines “social media service” as: “a website or application that is accessible in Canada, the primary purpose of which is to facilitate interprovincial or international online communication among users of the website or application by enabling them to access and share content.” Further clarification is provided to include: an adult content service, namely a social media service that is focused on enabling its users to access and share pornographic content; and a live streaming service, namely a social media service that is focused on enabling its users to access and share content by live stream. Oversight will be based on the size of a social media service, including the number of users. So, at the very least, the Digital Safety Commission will regulate online harm not only on major social media sites including Facebook, X, and Instagram, but also on pornography sites and live streaming services. Some specifics are provided in Bill C-63, but the bill would grant the government broad powers to enact regulations to supplement the Act. The bill itself is unclear regarding the extent to which the Commission will address online harm besides pornography, such as hate speech. What we do know is that the Digital Safety Commission and Ombudsman will oversee the removal of “online harms” but will not punish individuals who post or share harmful content. DUTIES OF OPERATORS Three duties laid out in Bill C-63 apply to any operator of a regulated social media service – for example, Facebook or Pornhub. The Act lists three overarching duties that operators of social media services must adhere to. 1. Duty to act responsibly The duty to act responsibly includes: mitigating risks of exposure to harmful content, implementing tools that allow users to flag harmful content, designating an employee as a resource for users of the service, and ensuring that a digital safety plan is prepared. This duty relates to harmful content broadly. Although each category of “harmful content” is defined further in the Act, the operator is responsible to determine whether the content is harmful. While it’s important for the Commission to remove illegal pornography, challenges may arise with the Commission seeking to remove speech that a user has flagged as harmful.  2. Duty to protect children The meaning of the duty to protect children is not clearly defined. The bill notes that: “an operator must integrate into a regulated service that it operates any design features respecting the protection of children, such as age-appropriate design, that are provided for by regulations.” This could refer to age-appropriate designs in the sense that children are not drawn into harmful content; it could refer to warning labels on pornography sites, or it could potentially require some level of age-verification for children to access harmful content. These regulations, however, will be established by the Commission following the passage of the Online Harms Act. The Liberal government says that its Online Harms Act makes Bill S-210 unnecessary. Bill S-210 would require age-verification for access to online pornography. In its current form, however, the Online Harms Act does nothing to directly restrict minors’ access to pornography. It would allow minors to flag content as harmful and requires “age-appropriate design” but would not require pornography sites to refuse access to youth. As such, ARPA will continue to advocate for the passage of Bill S-210 to restrict access to pornography and hold pornography sites accountable.  3. Duty to make certain content inaccessible Finally, Bill C-63 will make social media companies responsible for making certain content inaccessible on their platforms. This section is primarily focused on content that sexually victimizes a child or revictimizes a survivor and intimate content communicated without consent. ARPA has lauded provincial efforts in British Columbia and Manitoba to crack down on such content in the past year. If such content is flagged on a site and deemed to be harmful, the operators must make it inaccessible within 24 hours and keep it inaccessible. In 2020, Pornhub was credibly accused of hosting videos featuring minors. Additionally, many women noted that they had requested Pornhub to remove non-consensual videos of themselves and that Pornhub had failed to do so. At the time, ARPA Canada submitted a brief to the Committee studying sexual exploitation on Pornhub. Our first recommendation was that pornography platforms must be required to verify age and consent before uploading content. Second, we recommended that victims must have means for immediate legal recourse to have content removed from the internet. This duty to make content inaccessible will provide some recourse for victims to flag content and have it removed quickly. Further, the Commission will provide accountability to ensure the removal of certain content and that it remains inaccessible. The Act creates a new bureaucratic agency for this purpose rather than holding companies accountable through the Criminal Code. The Criminal Code is arguably a stronger deterrent. For example, Bill C-270, scheduled for second reading in the House of Commons in April 2024, would make it a criminal offence to create or distribute pornographic material without first confirming that any person depicted was over 18 years of age and gave express consent to the content. Bill C-270 would amend the Criminal Code to further protect vulnerable people. Instead of criminal penalties, the Online Harms Act would institute financial penalties for failure to comply with the legislation. Of course, given the sheer volume of online traffic and social media content and the procedural demands of enforcing criminal laws, a strong argument can be made that criminal prohibitions alone are insufficient to deal with the problem. But if new government agencies with oversight powers are to be established, it’s crucial that the limits of their powers are clearly and carefully defined and that they are held accountable to them. THE GOOD NEWS… This first part of the Online Harms Act contains some important attempts to combat online pornography and child sexual exploitation. As Reformed Christians, we understand that a lot of people are using online platforms to promote things that are a direct violation of God’s intention for flourishing in human relationships. This bill certainly doesn’t correct all those wrongs, but it at least recognizes that there is improvement needed for how these platforms are used to ensure vulnerable Canadians are protected. Most Canadians support requiring social media companies to remove child pornography or non-consensual pornography. In a largely unregulated internet, many Canadians also support holding social media companies accountable for such content, especially companies that profit from pornography and sexual exploitation. Bill C-63 is the government’s attempt to bring some regulation to this area. … AND NOW THE BAD NEWS But while some of the problems addressed through the bill are objectively harmful, how do we avoid subjective definitions of harm? Bill C-63 raises serious questions about freedom of expression. Free speech is foundational to democracy. In Canada, it is one of our fundamental freedoms under section 2 of the Charter. Attempts to curtail speech in any way are often seen as an assault on liberty. Bill C-63 would amend the Criminal Code and the Canadian Human Rights Act to combat hate speech online. But the bill gives too much discretion to government actors to decide what constitutes hate speech. HARSHER FOR “HATE SPEECH” CRIMES The Criminal Code has several offences that fall under the colloquial term “hate speech.” The Code prohibits advocating genocide, publicly inciting hatred that is likely to lead to a breach of the peace, or willfully promoting hatred or antisemitism. The latter offence is potentially broader, but it also provides several defenses, including: the statement was true the statement was a good faith attempt to argue a religious view the statement was about an important public issue meriting discussion and the person reasonably believed the statement was true Bill C-63 would increase the maximum penalties for advocating genocide and inciting or promoting hatred or antisemitism. The maximum penalty for advocating genocide would increase to life in prison instead of five years. The bill would also raise the penalty for publicly inciting hatred or promoting hatred or antisemitism to five years instead of the current two. Bill C-63 defines “hatred” as “the emotion that involves detestation or vilification and that is stronger than disdain or dislike.” It also clarifies that a statement does not incite or promote hatred “solely because it discredits, humiliates, hurts or offends.” This clarification is better than nothing, but it inevitably relies on judges to determine the line between statements that are merely offensive or humiliating and those that generate emotions of vilification and detestation. ARPA Canada recently intervened in a criminal hate speech case involving Bill Whatcott. Whatcott was charged with criminal hate speech for handing out flyers at a pride parade warning about the health risks of engaging in homosexual relations. Prosecutors argued that Whatcott was promoting hatred against an identifiable group by condemning homosexual conduct. This is an example of a person being accused of hate speech for expressing his beliefs – his manner of expressing those beliefs, but also the content of his beliefs. NEW STAND-ALONE HATE CRIME OFFENCE The Criminal Code already makes hatred a factor in sentencing. So, for example, if you assault someone and there is conclusive evidence that your assault was motivated by racial hatred, that “aggravating factor” will likely mean a harsher sentence for you. But the offence is still assault, and the maximum penalties for assault still apply. Bill C-63, however, would add a new hate crime offence – any offence motivated by hatred – to the Criminal Code, and it may be punishable by life in prison. It would mean that any crime found to be motivated by hatred would count as two crimes. Consider an act of vandalism, for example. The crime of mischief (which includes damaging property) has a maximum penalty of 10 years. But, if you damaged property because of hatred toward a group defined by race, religion, or sexuality, you could face an additional criminal charge and potentially life in prison. ANTICIPATORY HATE CRIMES? Bill C-63 would permit a person to bring evidence before a court based on fear that someone will commit hate speech or a hate crime in the future. The court may then order the accused to “keep the peace and be of good behavior” for up to 12 months and subject that person to conditions including wearing an electronic monitoring device, curfews, house arrest, or abstaining from consuming drugs or alcohol. There are other circumstances in which people can go to court for fear that a crime will be committed – for example, if you have reason to believe that someone will damage your property, or cause you injury, or commit terrorism. However, challenges with unclear or subjective definitions of hatred will only be accentuated when determining if someone will commit hate speech or a hate crime. BRINGING BACK SECTION 13 This is the first time the government has tried to regulate hate speech. The former section 13 of the Canada Human Rights Act prohibited online communications that were “likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt” on the basis of their race, religion, sexuality, etc. As noted by Joseph Brean in the National Post, section 13 was passed in 1977, mainly in response to telephone hotlines that played racist messages. From there, the restrictions around hate speech were extended to the internet (telecommunications, including internet, falls under federal jurisdiction) until Parliament repealed section 13 in 2013. Joseph Brean writes that section 13 “was basically only ever used by one complainant, a lawyer named Richard Warman, who targeted white supremacists and neo-Nazis and never lost.” In fact, Warman brought forward 16 hate speech cases and won them all. A catalyst for the controversy over human rights hate speech provisions was a case involving journalist Ezra Levant. Levant faced a human rights complaint for publishing Danish cartoons of Muhammad in 2006. In response to being charged, Levant published a video of an interview with an investigator from the Alberta Human Rights Commission. Then in 2007, a complaint was brought against Maclean’s magazine for publishing an article by Mark Steyn that was critical of Islam. Such stories brought section 13 to public attention and revealed how human rights law was being used to quash officially disapproved political views. Bill C-63 would bring back a slightly revised section 13. The new section 13 states: “It is a discriminatory practice to communicate or cause to be communicated hate speech by means of the Internet or any other means of telecommunication in a context in which the hate speech is likely to foment detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.” A few exceptions apply. For example, this section would not apply to private communication or to social media services that are simply hosting content posted and shared by users. So, for example, if someone wanted to bring a complaint about an ARPA post on Facebook, that complaint could be brought against ARPA, but not against Facebook. If a person is found guilty of hate speech, the Human Rights Tribunal may order the offender to pay up to $20,000 to the victim, and up to $50,000 to the government. This possibility of financial benefit incentivizes people to bring forward hate speech complaints. British Columbia has a similar hate speech provision in its Human Rights Code. ARPA wrote about how that provision was interpreted and enforced to punish someone for saying that a “trans woman” is really a man. The Tribunal condemned a flyer in that case for “communicat rejection of diversity in the individual self-fulfillment of living in accordance with one’s own gender identity.” The Tribunal went on to reject the argument that the flyer was not intended to promote hatred or discrimination, “but only to ‘bring attention to what views as immoral behaviour, based on his religious belief as a Christian’.” Ultimately, the Tribunal argued that there was no difference between promoting hatred and bringing attention to what the defendant viewed as immoral behavior. NO DEFENSES FOR CHRISTIANS? As noted above, when it comes to the Criminal Code’s hate speech offences, there are several defenses available (truth, expressing a religious belief, and advancing public debate). These are important defenses that allow Canadians to say what they believe to be true and to express sincere religious beliefs. But the Canadian Human Rights Act offers no defenses. And complaints of hate speech in human rights law are far easier to bring and to prosecute than criminal charges. Criminal law requires proof beyond reasonable doubt. But under the Human Rights Act, statements that are likely (i.e. 51% chance, in Tribunal’s view) to cause detestation or vilification will be punishable. So, hate speech would be regulated in two different places, the Criminal Code and the Human Rights Act, the latter offering fewer procedural rights and a lower standard of proof. Bill C-63 clarifies that a statement is not detestation or vilification “solely because it expresses disdain or dislike or it discredits, humiliates, hurts or offends.” But again, the line between dislike and detestation is unclear. Human rights complaints are commonly submitted because of humiliation or offence, rather than any clear connection to detestation or vilification. Section 13 leaves too much room for subjective and ideologically motivated interpretations of what constitutes hate speech. The ideological bias that often manifests is a critical theory lens, which sees “privileged” groups like Christians as capable only of being oppressors/haters, while others are seen as “equity-seeking” groups. For example, in a 2003 case called Johnson v. Music World Ltd., a complaint was made against the writer of a song called “Kill the Christian.” A sample: Armies of darkness unite  Destroy their temples and churches with fire  Where in this world will you hide  Sentenced to death, the anointment of christ   Put you out of your misery  The death of prediction  Kill the christian  Kill the christian…dead!  The Tribunal noted that the content and tone appeared to be hateful. However, because the Tribunal thought Christians were not a vulnerable group, it decided this was not hate speech. By contrast, in a 2008 case called Lund v. Boissoin, a panel deemed a letter to the editor of a newspaper that was critical of homosexuality to be hate speech. The chair of the panel was the same person in both Johnson and Lund. Hate speech provisions are potentially problematic for Christians who seek to speak truth about various issues in our society. Think about conversion therapy laws that ban talking about biblical gender and sexuality in some settings, or bubble zone laws that prevent pro-life expression in designated areas. But beyond that, freedom of speech is also important for those with whom we may disagree. It is important to be able to have public dialogue on various public issues.    GOVERNMENT’S ROLE IN REGULATING SPEECH This all raises serious questions about whether the government should be regulating “hate speech” at all. After all, hate speech provisions in the Human Rights Act or the Criminal Code have led and could lead to inappropriate censorship. But government also has a legitimate role to play in protecting citizens from harm.  1. Reputational harm and safety from threats of violence Arguably the government’s role in protecting citizens from harm includes reputational harm. Imagine someone was spreading accusations in your town that everyone in your church practices child abuse, for example. That is an attack on your reputation as a group and as individual members of the group – which is damaging and could lead to other harms, possibly even violence. Speech can do real damage. But Jeremy Waldron, a prominent legal philosopher and a Christian, suggests that the best way to think about and enforce “hate speech” laws is as a prohibition on defaming or libeling a group, similar to how our law has long punished defaming or libeling an individual. Such a conception may help to rein in the scope of what we call “hate speech,” placing the focus on demonstrably false and damaging accusations, rather than on controversial points of view on matters relating to religion or sexuality, for example. Hatred is a sin against the 6th commandment, but the government cannot regulate or criminalize emotions per se or expressions of them, except insofar as they are expressed in and through criminal acts or by encouraging others to commit criminal acts. That’s why we rightly have provisions against advocating or inciting terrorism or genocide, or counseling or encouraging someone to commit assault, murder, or any other crime. When the law fails to set an objective standard, however, it is open to abuse – for example, by finding a biblical view of gender and sexuality to constitute hate speech. Regrettably, Bill C-63 opens up more room for subjectivity and ideologically based restrictions on speech. It does nothing to address the troubling interpretations of “hate speech” that we’ve seen in many cases in the past. And, by putting hate speech back into the Human Rights Act, the bill makes many more such abuses possible. We suspect it will result in restricting speech that is culturally unacceptable rather than objectively harmful.  2. Harm of pornography As discussed earlier, Bill C-63 does introduce some good restrictions when it comes to online pornography. In our view, laws restricting pornography are categorically different from laws restricting “hate speech,” because the former laws are not designed to or in danger of being applied to censor beliefs, opinions, or arguments. Restricting illegal pornography prevents objectively demonstrable harm. Pornography takes acts that ought to express love and marital union and displays them for consumption and the gratification of others. Much of it depicts degrading or violent behavior. Pornography’s harms, especially to children, are well documented. The argument is often made that pornography laws risk censoring artistic expression involving sexuality or nudity. But Canada is very far, both culturally and legally, from censoring art for that reason – and Bill C-63 wouldn’t do so. Its objectives as they relate to pornography are mainly to reduce the amount of child pornography and non-consensual pornography easily available online.  CONCLUSION While the Online Harms Act contains some good elements aimed at combatting online pornography, its proposed hate speech provisions are worrisome. Unfortunately, the federal government chose to deal with both issues in one piece of legislation – this should have been two separate bills. As Bill C-63 begins to progress through the House of Commons, we can continue to support Bills S-210 and C-270, private members’ bills which combat the online harms of pornography. Meanwhile, head to ARPACanada.org for action items related to the Online Harms Act. ...

Red heart icon with + sign.
News

St Catharines challenged for censoring pro-life messages

ARPA Canada is taking the city of St. Catharines to court. In September 2023, the city passed a bylaw that forbids delivering any image of a fetus to a private residence unless it is placed in a sealed envelope with a warning label on it. In their application to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in late February, ARPA Canada (ARPACanada.ca) argued that the bylaw is a violation of the Charter-protected freedoms of conscience, religion, and expression, and is beyond the authority of a municipal government. They believe that “the bylaw’s true nature and purpose is to suppress pro-life or anti-abortion content,” because it doesn’t apply to any other gory images. Such a bylaw could impact the Canadian Center for Bio-ethical Reform (EndTheKilling.ca) which has long used abortion victim photography to show the public the gory reality of what abortion is. As the organization explains on its website: “By studying effective social reform movements of the past – from the British Abolitionists, to the National Child Labour Committee, to the civil rights movement – we can see how they changed the unchangeable by exposing injustice using visual evidence, and confronting the culture with that evidence.” ARPA Canada doesn’t use abortion victim photography, but does include ultrasound pictures of living unborn babies in its campaign materials, so they’d also be required to put a warning label on their envelopes. “The bylaw requires ARPA and its volunteers to mislead people about our message,” said John Sikkema, ARPA’s legal counsel. “Ultrasound photos are common and innocuous, not offensive or disturbing.” St. Catharines is the latest Canadian city, along with London, Woodstock, and Calgary, that have passed bylaws in an effort to prevent the sharing of pro-life materials. Photo is of ARPA Canada material that would require a warning label if delivered via the mail....

Red heart icon with + sign.
News

Dominion Report: a free and solidly Christian news source for Canadians

The Dominion Report is a Canadian news website (DominionReport.ca) and newsletter that offers up a Christian perspective on the week’s events. It delivers that perspective via two- to six-paragraph introductions to articles they link to from other media outlets. If you’re familiar with RP’s weekly Saturday Selections column, it’s a lot like that, but the Dominion Report goes a little longer and has more of a specifically news focus. As an example, last week’s edition offered up: Canadians' beliefs on the Resurrection a conservative student forced out of a university election a Chinese military hacker who was allowed to become a Canadian permanent resident how Toronto auto thefts have doubled since 2021 and a few more “quick hits” They’ve been online since mid-2023, and their past 35+ weekly newsletters showcase what sort of Christian perspective they are offering. I don’t know if it is specifically Reformed, but it is certainly a conservative sort of Christian, and strongly pro-life, with writers regularly turning to Scripture for guidance. Importantly, it doesn’t seem to be over-torqued. WORLD magazine, one of the very best Christian publications, has as one of their slogans, “sensational facts, understated prose.” We live in pretty outrageous times, so we don’t need anyone to hype up the hysteria, and from what I’ve read, the Dominion Report presents the facts with a pretty level head. Check them out at DominionReport.ca, and if you like what you see, be sure to sign up for their weekly newsletter. (Their RSS feed is DominionReport.ca/feed and you can find out how to use it here)....

Red heart icon with + sign.
News

Saturday Selections – Mar. 30, 2024

Rich Mullins: Creed (4 min) Rich Mullins riffing off of the Apostles' Creed. How C.S. Lewis predicted the pronoun push... ...and in a passage in The Horse and His Boy, he taught us how to respond. Bug zappers might do more harm than good Sick of mosquitos? Your bug zapper might be the problem. A couple decades back two universities tested how many mosquitos actually get zapped and found that of the approximately 24,000 bugs their zappers killed, just 39 were mosquitos. Less than o.2 percent! The rest included bugs that actually eat mosquitoes, which means the bug zappers might actually be making your mosquito problems worse. The Road to Socialism and Back Again – a free e-book This free e-book charts the fall and rise of Poland's economy, stagnating for decades under centralized communist management, then quadrupling once some freedoms were returned. It's history we need to share. However, while this notes that socialism doesn't work, it doesn't dig into what God says about the why: that a centralized economy doesn't work because it lacks humility (a distant leader knows how to run all our lives better than us?), it fosters envy over what the rich have (breaking the 10th Commandment), it requires men to be angels (working hard with no thought of gain for themselves), and in eliminating private property, it violates the 8th Commandment. No wonder then that it doesn't work. Christians aren't ready to argue against AI-generated porn When it comes to pornography, Christians will point out the harm it does to "performers," highlighting the dark, dark side of porn production. It is dark, so that argument is certainly valid. But that the performers are harmed isn't the foundational reason pornography is wicked – the underlying problem is that porn conflicts with God's plan for sexuality. And now, with the advent of AI-generated, actorless films, talking about the harm done to the actors, rather than mentioning anything about God, won't work as an objection anymore. The conclusion to the linked article is both spot on, and really, really sad, because it makes it seem as if talking about God is the very last thing any Christian would want to do in the culture wars. But is that true? "This will be uncomfortable, because it will force Christians to make moral arguments that appear irredeemably at odds with the secular society. The benefits of emphasizing things like exploitation is that such concepts resonate with non-Christian audiences. There’s nothing wrong with seeking this common ground, but the reality is that we’re not going to have that ground at all very soon. The arguments against consuming or licensing pornography that will matter in the age of AI will be moralistic arguments: arguments rooted in the goodness of embodied sexuality in the context of marriage, and the destruction that occurs to hearts and emotions by feasting on a fake version of sex that collapses us inward. 'This is somebody’s child' will have to become, 'You are somebody’s child.' "Here will be a good stress test for Christian moral theology. Western Christians can articulate a vision of life that makes sense in a radically fractured, technologically isolated context. But that vision requires helping people get beyond the 'Does it harm anyone' framework, not simply appropriating the question. So it seems very likely that Christians will have to bring God into the discussion. When there’s no one to exploit, there is still God to offend. When there is no one to be trafficked, there is still God who sees. And when there is no one to stand over your shoulder to intervene or care, there is still God who saves." Pre-natal screening: should we do it? Some prenatal testing – specifically the sort that is called "invasive" – comes with a risk for the unborn, and so Christians should question why we'd want to get such a test at such a cost. As the article above and video below explain, "non-invasive" tests come with a different sort of "risk" for the unborn... though not when conducted by pro-life Christians. ...

Red heart icon with + sign.
Internet

3 things we need to tell our kids about ChatGPT

ChatGPT and the many other new AI text generators might strike parents as problematic, since kids are now able to turn to this tool and, with just a few prompts, churn out their homework. Need a 600-word essay on the biblical perspective on why abortion is wrong? ChatGPT can output it in less time than it’ll take most students to type the request. Isn’t that cheating? Yes, if the teacher wanted students to write it on their own. But it also isn’t hard to imagine how teachers could also incorporate AI tools into lessons on not only writing, but editing and analysis. How good is the AI essay? Where is it weak, and what might it be missing? Did the opening grab you? Would its argument be more powerful as a dialogue? What other prompts could we use to tighten it up?  AI possibilities are enormous but yes, ChatGPT does also open up new temptations for kids to shirk the work they are supposed to be doing on their own. That means that we, as parents, are going to have to remind and reinforce to our kids a few important points: 1) God loves a hard-won C. Or to put it another way, God doesn’t care about your marks: if you get a low grade but tried hard, great, but He hates an ill-gotten A. And your parents think the very same. 2) Cheating hurts you (Prov. 10:2). A basketball player might be able to build a robot that shoots better than he does, but it isn’t going to help him learn how to shoot. If an assignment is intended to help a student learn to write, getting someone or something to write it cheats the student out of what they could have learned. Cheating is also a matter of character – if you’ll cheat on something as little as an essay, what kind of person are you becoming? You do become what you do. 3) Knowing how to write remains an important skill even in the era of AI, because of all the skills a student has to learn to be able to write like: research, organizing thoughts, and learning to discern truth from error and stronger points from weaker ones. That’ll help you write an essay, but also choose a career, and even assess who you might want to marry....

Red heart icon with + sign.
News

Saturday Selections – Mar. 23, 2024

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

Red heart icon with + sign.
News

More Canadians are “Alberta bound”

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

Red heart icon with + sign.
News, Transgenderism

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

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

Red heart icon with + sign.
News

Saturday Selections – Mar. 16, 2024

Click on the titles below to go to the linked articles... If $50/hr is a good minimum wage why not $100... or $1,000? (9 min) A Californian legislator recently proposed raising the minimum wage to $50/hr, or approximately $100,000 US/year (or roughly $135,00 Canadian). And, as the video below shares, Batman himself thinks it's a great idea. But if $50/hr is good, why not $100/hr... or $1000? These minimum wage proponents and transgenderism activists share one thing in common: both believe that wishing can make it so. But simply declaring everyone worth a certain wage doesn't change reality. Older employees, still skilled but slower than they once might have been, and lower skilled or inexperienced workers aren't going to be able to bring $50/hr in value to their employers. That means this minimum wage is going to price them right out of the labor market. And that's true of every minimum wage, no matter how well intentioned – they declares a minimum value for labor, and anyone who can't meet it, or can't meet it yet, is legislated out of any chance at a job. Childless China: coercive population plan implodes "Kenneth Emde of Minnesota, who came of age during the Swinging Sixties, recently explained why he is childless today. 'I was a college student when I read Ehrlich’s The Population Bomb,' he said in a letter published by the Wall Street Journal. 'I took it to heart and now have no grandchildren, but 50 years later the population has increased to eight billion without dire consequences. I was gullible and stupid.'” This is a secular piece, so it doesn't make the case for how Emde could have known better. He needed to listen to the real Expert, who says in His Word that children are a blessing, not a curse. On the cost of business subsidies, and the trouble with electric cars The Fraser Institute was busy this past week, issuing two eye-opening reports. The first was on the $52 billion Canadian governments spent on corporate welfare in 2022. We can't agree on much in this country, but can we at least agree not to take money from some companies to prop up other companies? From 2007 to 2019, PEI, Quebec, and Manitoba spent all or nearly all of their corporate income tax revenue on business subsidies! The second report was on the impossibility of meeting the new electrical demands that will come if all new cars from 2035 onward have to be electrical. We'd need the equivalent of 10 new dams, each of which, if history serves, would take 10 years to plan, another 10 years to build, and cost $16 billion each. So what happens if we have the cars but not the electricity? March 16 is the 4th anniversary of "15 days to slow the spread" In this look back a professor explains how he got fired from Harvard for refusing to be vaccinated (he'd already had COVID), and got fired from the CDC for being too pro-vaccine. Dissenting opinions, whatever the direction, weren't allowed and that came with a cost. "Sweden was the only major Western country that rejected school closures and other lockdowns in favor of concentrating on the elderly, and the final verdict is now in. Led by an intelligent social democrat prime minister (a welder), Sweden had the lowest excess mortality among major European countries during the pandemic, and less than half that of the United States. Sweden’s Covid deaths were below average, and it avoided collateral mortality caused by lockdowns." When the pope isn't Catholic This is a lament from Canada's pro-life and mostly Roman Catholic media outlet LifeSiteNews, highlighting the ways the pope is targeting established Catholic doctrine. Roman Catholics dealing with a corrupt pope face a situation a little like Martin Luther, who wasn't looking to start a new church but was left with no choice once he was kicked out. We can pray that when orthodox Roman Catholics are kicked out of today's Roman Catholic Church, they'll finally stop putting their trust in this institution. Bluey: the beach (7 min) Our family just learned about a cute Australian dog named Bluey, and so far we are about 20 episodes into the first season. Our kids are older than the target audience, but the whole family is enjoying the accents, the energetic (and generally respectful) kids, and the super fun dad (mom ain't bad either). This is a current show, so I was wondering if it would take a turn for the weird some time soon. But so far so good, and from what I could read online, it does seem pretty solid. We found it on DVD from our local library, but some episodes can be watched for free online. This one will play everywhere except, unfortunately, Bluey's native land. ...

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