Transparent heart icon with white outline and + sign.

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

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

White magnifying glass.

Search thousands of RP articles

Equipping Christians to think, speak, and act

Open envelope icon with @ symbol

Get Articles Delivered!

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



News

Peanut allergies plunge … and they could plunge even more

Not that long ago it was thought that young children shouldn’t be exposed to peanuts, to prevent a dangerous reaction. But, as Prov. 18:17 notes, “The first to put forth his case seems right, until someone else steps forward and cross-examines him.” That cross-examination first began in 2015, when a ground-breaking study found that introducing peanuts to young children actually reduced the risk of getting food allergies by about 70 percent or more. In response, many doctors started changing their advice.

An Associated Press piece noted that

“About 60,000 children have avoided developing peanut allergies after guidance first issued in 2015 upended medical practice by recommending that caregivers introduce the allergen to infants starting as early as four months.”

Now a 2025 study has reviewed the data. According to the AP account, peanut allergies in children aged zero to three decreased by more than 40 percent since the recommendations were expanded in 2017.

In spite of the findings from the 2015 study, the AP reported that only about 29 per cent of pediatricians and 65 per cent of allergists say they follow the newer guidelines, suggesting that there could have been far fewer allergy cases still if more children were introduced to potential allergens at a younger age.

Dr. Derek Chu, Canadian Institutes of Health Research chair in allergy noted to the AP that this guidance extends to all common allergens, including dairy, soy, wheat, egg, shellfish, and nuts.

Red heart icon with + sign.
Assorted

Learning

“It was good for me to be afflicted so that I might learn your decrees.” – Psalm 119:71 Is it possible that something bad can be good for you? Can it be that God purposes adversity for our benefit? Perhaps it is only after the fact that we see the Almighty’s intent. Perhaps it is only later that we recognize blessings. *** The boy’s teddy bear was a friendly yellow-brown. It was not yellow like a dandelion, nor brown like a garden snail, but yellow-brown like straw. The pads on the bear’s feet and hands were blue – the kind of blue that the feathers of an indigo bunting display. The bear’s eyes were two, small beads. His brown irises glistened and blinked like black maple bark after a rainfall. The teddy’s nose had been sewn onto his face to resemble an inky cross. And below the nose, his solemn mouth was merely an ebony line. But the mouth was inconsequential. It was unimportant. It was unimportant because the bear never talked. He only listened. And there were many things the boy told him. The boy, whose name was Joseph John, was very fond of his teddy. He did not openly share this affection for the teddy bear with anyone. But his siblings knew, and so did his father. Joseph John was the youngest of six. His two older brothers did not live at home any longer. Harvey, the firstborn, had been hired by a farmer in a neighboring district and boarded with that family. William, the second oldest, was apprenticed to a local apothecary in a nearby town. Although both the boys often came home on weekends, they were more like uncles than brothers. In age, they were many years ahead of Joseph John. His three sisters were all married and only dropped in on birthdays and holidays. Jane, Joanne, and Mary, all endowed with solid names and strong maternal instincts, loved their younger brother but had their own families now. “Your birth was a total surprise to Mother and Father,” Jane once told him during one of her visits as he sat on her lap. “I like surprises,” Joseph John had rejoined and had not understood why his sister had laughed and hugged him. *** Michael Phillips, Joseph John’s Father, was a rather solid man in his late forties. Robust-looking and chipper, he liked to think of himself as well-conditioned. His piercing blue eyes usually twinkled as he regarded people over the top of his golden-rimmed spectacles. If someone suggested adiposity, he had been heard to speak candidly: “I’m able-bodied not stout. Stoutness betokens laziness and no one can ever accuse me of being lazy.” It was true. Michael Phillips was as active a person as you could find anywhere in town. Principal of the local school in Rainsville, Ontario, there was not one child or adult living in that little burg who did not know or respect Mr. Phillips’ vigorous attitude and lifestyle. If he said you should do something, you automatically did it; and if he said you should not do something, then you absolutely did not do it. Mr. Phillips taught the higher grades in school. Miss MacKechnie, a new teacher and a thirty plus something spinster, taught grades three and four, while Miss Potts, a pretty young woman fresh out of college, had the grade one and two students under her wing. There was another aspect of Michael Phillips which did not manifest itself that often, but which trait was embedded firmly in his ample figure. That trait was jocosity – a sense of humor which came to the fore when something suddenly struck him as farcical or ludicrous. *** “You are older now,” Michael Phillips informed Joseph John, as the boy walked next to him. They were on their way to school on one of the first Wednesday mornings of the autumn. “I think,” Michael continued slowly and placidly, “that being that you are older now and attending school, you ought to get rid of your teddy bear.” It was raining. The sound of the droplets spattered comfortably on the rounded top of the black umbrella held up over Michael Phillips’ head. Next to him, Joseph John half-walked under it as well. His father’s sturdy frame, however, easily overlapped the middle section of the umbrella and, consequently, denied the boy protection for his right side. Joseph John considered the possibility for a moment that he had been divided into two boys – a dry one and a wet one. But he knew that this was not possible. “Perhaps,” his father went on, even as he navigated over a puddle, “perhaps we might get you a bicycle.” Joseph John looked up in astonishment at his father. Taking his eyes off the road for a moment, he promptly stepped into that puddle. Now he had both a wet left side and a right wet foot. “A bicycle?” he repeated somewhat slowly. “Yes,” his father’s voice was strong, as strong as the gust of wind that suddenly pulled at the umbrella. “The truth is,” his father went on, placing both his hands on the umbrella shaft to hold it straight, “that William is getting rid of his bicycle. The pharmacist is giving him a new one and William is kindly thinking that you might like to have his old one.” “Oh.” Joseph John’s answer was almost lost in the brief wind bluster. There were many things to consider. For one thing, he knew as sure as raindrops were wet, that once his father made up his mind about something, there was not much you could do to change it. Another thing was that he did not really want William’s old bicycle and neither did he want to get rid of his straw-colored teddy. “Well,” his father’s voice bellowed above him, “that’s settled then. You’re almost six years old now and growing up quite sensibly. Your Mother would be proud of you, Joseph John.” Joseph John thought of the black and white photo on the dresser in the living room. Mother had sewn teddy and wouldn’t it be a little like getting rid of Mother if he got rid of his teddy? Mother had never said much, but she, like teddy, had listened to everything he said. “You’re not saying much, son,” Michael Phillips commented, even as he strode along, “But I’m glad this problem’s been cleared up. I expect you’ll want to throw that bear out with the trash. I’ll burn it tonight.” These last words left Joseph John aghast. He rarely concluded anything quickly, but rather tossed an idea over and over in his mind before deciding upon it. Glancing at his father’s hands gripping the handle of the umbrella, he remembered his mother’s hands – small and fine hands they had been. They were not like his sisters’ hands. Their hands were raw-boned and reddish. No, mother’s hands had been…. His recollections stopped. “Oh, yes,” his father continued, “I think I neglected to tell you that I’ve invited Miss MacKechnie over for supper tonight.” For the second time during their walk, Joseph John looked up at his father in amazement. Miss MacKechnie was his teacher. That is to say, she was his teacher some of the time. She taught art to the first and second graders every Tuesday. He was a little afraid of her. She rarely praised a child, but she often criticized, criticized and made fun of students. A ridiculous scene presented itself in his mind – the scene of Miss MacKechnie sitting at the kitchen table with himself and his father. It was almost more than he could conjure up. No colored chalk in her right hand, but a knife; no wooden pointer in her left hand, but a fork. And what would she do if the food did not please her? “Why?” he asked, even as the rain kept pattering on the umbrella and as his right foot began to feel soggy and cold. “Why?” his father repeated, as they neared the schoolyard and as the noise of children’s shouting and squabbling met them, “Because I say so.” He stopped at the gate of the iron enclosure encompassing the playground and so spiritedly shook the umbrella that spatters flew into Joseph John’s face. Then he undid the latch and lumbered through. Joseph John shuffled in behind his father, immediately blending in with the noisy crowd. The boy sighed. It was hard to sigh in a crowd. The small puff of it evaporated in the throng surrounding him. His right foot was thoroughly cold by now and he wondered if he could go inside before the bell rang and take off his shoe and sock. Miss Potts was nice and she might have an extra sock somewhere in her closet. She had given Miranda, who sat in front of him in class, an extra pair of mittens only yesterday. Walking towards the entrance, he contemplated what he might be able to do or say to change his father’s mind about the teddy bear. But his mind, like his right foot, seemed soggy and was not able to function properly. Swinging open the door, he began to dawdle down the long corridor heading towards his classroom. Through the corridor windows, a pool of light fell beautifully on the hall floor ahead and, consequently, he could discern that the door to his classroom was open. He could hear Miss Potts’ voice long before he reached it. “Helen, you are devious.” Helen was Miss MacKechnie. Joseph John knew this to be true. He halted underneath one of the wooden coat-pegs not too far from the door. “Why shouldn’t I be? Michael is a handsome man and I’ve got such a hankering to go out with him. His wife has been gone now, let’s see, it must be upward of some two years now, and all his children are out of the house…” She stopped. Joseph John had frozen in position, had become completely immobile. “Aren’t you rather forgetting his youngest?” Miss Potts’ voice had turned sharp. “That boy’s a trifling consideration. What sort of real conversation could ….” She stopped talking and left the sentence dangling. Joseph John leaned against the wall, his heart beating rapidly. Miss MacKechnie was coming for supper. And it became clear to him, although he would not have been able to put it into words, that she intended to take Mother’s place. Miss Potts’ voice began again. “I still think that you ought not to have supper with Michael, Helen. The man is quite a bit older than you are. At least fifteen years, I believe. You’re going there under wrong pretenses. You’re ingratiating yourself. And he actually believes that you need his help in keeping your students under control? “He was… He was flattered, Ann. And, the truth is that I could actually stand a few pointers in that department. That’s the truth.” “No, you are lying to him, Helen. You’re making him think you… that you need his help. And that’s just plain dishonest.” “You’re such a goody-two-shoes, Ann. No fun to talk to at all.” Joseph John looked down at his shoes. His right shoe was shiny with wetness. He bent over and began to undo the laces. Pressed against the wall, small and unobtrusive, Helen MacKechnie didn’t even see the child as she stormed past him back to her room. *** Later, after school, Joseph John ran home. The first thing he did upon reaching the red, brick path leading to the backdoor, was to close his eyes and smile with relief. The house was still standing. It was still intact. Regardless of what the day had brought, the path wordlessly welcomed his feet and the white curtains with the red geraniums behind them, smiled at him. He smiled back. “Hi, home,” he said softly. *** Mrs. Marjorie, the part-time housekeeper, was puttering about in the kitchen. “How was your day, Joseph John?” “Fine, Mrs. Marjorie, how was yours?” “Fair to middling, child, fair to middling.” Having said that, she poured Joseph John some tea into a green mug and the green of the mug and the red of the tea imbued peace and security to the boy. He sat down by the kitchen table, coat hung over the back of his chair, feet dangling comfortably. This routine occurred every day and it sheltered him from the unusual, from the abnormalities of life. His hands soaked in the warmth of the mug even as his mouth carefully sipped the hot liquid. Mrs. Marjorie had been Mother’s friend and she lived only two doors down. Every day she was there when he came home from school and she stayed until six, until Father came home. Setting the table for supper, cleaning and tidying up, she could always be counted on for a hug. Mrs. Marjorie had loved Mother. “Did you,” he began, but then stopped. “Did I what?” she answered as she sliced him a fresh piece of bread and slathered it with butter. “Did you ever have …? “Have a what?” she smiled. “Well,” he continued, “have a doll, or a … a something that you loved. You know like a toy.” Mrs. Marjorie searched his face for a small moment before she said, “Well now, and if that isn’t a good question, Joseph John.” Jacob John took a bite of the bread, expectantly chewing as he studied her face. “I did have a doll. I believe it was one my mother made for me.” “You did?” “Yes.” Mrs. Marjorie was grinning now and continued. “And a fine doll it was. But you needn’t look so surprised, young fellow, because you see, everyone has something they treasure, something they cherish. And that’s a fact.” “Do they?” She nodded and sat down opposite him. “Yes, indeed, and that’s the truth.” “My brothers?” he ventured on into the conversation. “Well, let’s see. I believe Harvey had a little dog on wheels that he pulled around everywhere he went. It eventually broke and I don’t remember what happened to it. And William, now let me see. Oh yes, William at one point had a pet frog which he took to bed. He almost killed the poor animal because he didn’t put him back in the place where frogs belong – in the pond.” Joseph John was fascinated. “Did Father make him get rid of it, Mrs. Marjorie?” “I can’t recall. But eat up your bread, Joseph John. I’ve got to leave soon. Nathan is coming home early tonight and I want to be there when he arrives.” Nathan was her son. He was a traveling salesman and sometimes dropped in for a visit. “Miss MacKechnie is coming for supper.” The sentence flew out of his mouth before Joseph John could catch it. “I know,” Mrs. Marjorie nodded, a shadow passing across her face, “and you’ll have to be on good behavior, child, and that’s a fact.” “Why is she coming, Mrs. Marjorie?” “I expect she likes my cooking.” Mrs. Marjorie grinned as she spoke. “But you won’t even be here.” “But my food will be here and your father is right handy at heating food up.” “Yes,” Joseph John conceded as he chewed his last bite, disappointed that Mrs. Marjorie did not seem to understand that he was not at all looking forward to Miss MacKechnie’s visit. “Now go and feed Bobby, or your father will be cross.” Joseph John scraped his chair back and stood up. “Can I just go up and … and take care of something?” Mrs. Marjorie nodded and Joseph John raced out of the kitchen. He sped up the stairs to his bedroom, grabbed his teddy and hid him in the clothes closet. Then he grabbed a pillow case from the hall closet and stuffed it into his pocket. He could fill it with dirt or something else soft and bulgy and give it to his father before he went to burn the trash tonight. He wouldn’t say anything, would just give it to his father, and then disappear before questions were asked. Surely that wouldn’t be lying. Then he went downstairs again, grabbing his coat from the back of the chair as he passed through the kitchen, and went out to feed the dog. *** It was Joseph John’s job to give Father’s dog dinner every day after he came home from school. Bobby was a little terrier who had been left by the side of the road by someone two years ago. It had been right after Mother had died. Father had been out for a walk when a white puppy had crawled out of some juniper bushes and had followed him home. It’s strange, Joseph John thought even as he filled the dish with food, that Father had so taken to Bobby. The small dog had been in dire need of bathing, his right eye had oozed with pus and he had limped. Father, who never cuddled or hugged, who rarely played games because he considered that a waste of time, had suddenly lavished affection, care and playfulness on a stray, wee mutt. Jacob John, who had been all of four years old at the time, had been a trifle afraid of the dog’s sharp, pointy teeth and spiky claws. He had also been worried, truth be told, that Father would love the dog more than he loved himself. The feeling had covertly crept up in his heart after Bobby had lived with them only a few days. He had felt guilty about this envy welling up within himself. Father rarely hugged him, played with him, or tucked him into bed the way that he hugged, played with, or settled Bobby into his basket. Although he would not have been able to put it into words, "jealousy and envy" were clouds that began to plague his conscience. Rev. Morse read the law each Sunday and he knew it by heart. Although the pastor had habitually leaned over the pulpit intently staring at the congregation, it seemed to Joseph John during this particular time that he was especially staring at himself. “Is there any time,” the reverend had said one Sunday, “in which you think that God is not there? Is there any time you feel that God does not see what you do?" As he had continued, his words appeared to eat into Joseph John’s heart: “Well, then you are wrong. God sees and hears everything you say, think or do.” The dog whined and Joseph John was startled back into the present, into the fact that he was holding the dog’s feeding dish in his hand. But no matter, the pastor’s words went on in his head and sprinkled over onto the dog food. “You know if you choose to be truthful and faithful in your work, God’s love is there for you. It is there for you every day. Remember that! It is most important!” And Joseph John did not know whether or not these words had anything to do with the teddy hidden in his closet. Bobby was overjoyed to see him. The pet was in the backyard, enclosed in a fenced-in run. When he saw the boy coming, he began hurtling himself around in small circles, stopping only when Joseph John had unlatched the gate and had come in. Then he stood on his hind legs. His front legs hugged the boy, pulled at his coat with his sharp teeth, even as his nose tried to reach the bowl he was holding up high. “I know,” Joseph John told the dog, “I know that you’re hungry. I am too, but I did have a snack. Tonight though, I have to eat with Miss Mackechnie and that makes my stomach feel funny.” He put the bowl down and stood back, smiling a little as Bobby devoured his food – devoured it quickly, licking the bowl with his red tongue until its inside was shiny with saliva. When the bowl was absolutely spotless, he began to lick the edge, knocking it over in his eagerness for more food. “Father sure likes you,” the boy murmured, and it came to him that the dog might be as dear to his father, as the teddy was dear to himself. And it came to him as well that perhaps he, Joseph John, loved the teddy bear more than he loved his father. Was it possible that his father was jealous? Such a thing had never occurred to him before and he scuffed the idea into the grass with his brown shoe. Giving up on the dish, Bobby was eager for playing and jumped up on the boy. Usually Joseph John left quickly, holding the empty bowl high in the air, making sure that Bobby stayed in his run when he quit the cage. But today, as he stood outside the enclosure, he studied the terrier. Perhaps tonight he should remain for a while and entertain the wagging animal. It abruptly dawned on him that Bobby was alone all day and had nothing much to do except bark at overhead birds or stand on his hind legs trying to catch sight of passers-by. Father was away at school all day. And although Father undoubtedly loved the dog, there were many times when he had no moments to spare for Bobby. And tonight, well, tonight there was Miss MacKechnie and Joseph John didn’t have much hope for the little mutt. He put down the bowl on the grass, and re-opened the gate. “Come on, Bobby,” he called out, “let’s go for a walk, you and I.” Exuberantly agreeable, the dog came racing out. Zipping past Joseph John, he sped down the lawn and darted off down the country road leading towards the town. In spite of his good intentions, Joseph John began to feel a trifle apprehensive. After all, Bobby was not really used to going for walks with him, and he could clearly hear his father’s voice whispering to his subconscious, "Don’t do things with the dog, Joseph John, until you have consulted with me." Swallowing audibly before he also forced his legs to bolt, Joseph John broke into action, taking off after what now seemed only a speck on the horizon. They lived on a country road, and there were many fields into which Bobby could possibly turn and disappear. “Wait, Bobby!!’ As he yelled the words, the boy accelerated his sprint, gravel flying under his feet. Presently, after running for close to five minutes, he could see two figures approaching on the horizon of the road. Slowing down, he discerned that they walked arm-in-arm, the way Father used to walk with Mother. Joseph John stopped dead and considered. If Bobby had passed them at breakneck speed, they surely would not be strolling along as calmly as they were doing. His remorse increased by the minute. Having a run-away dog, was an indictment on him. He had not been faithful in the work his father had given him and was found wanting. No doubt there would be much anger. Anxious to get out of sight before the couple reached him, he turned and walked quickly into the undergrowth at the side of the road. There was a bench stationed at this precise spot. Bushes sheltered its back and it seemed to Joseph John a perfect spot for cover. Perhaps Bobby had galloped this way as well. Perhaps the dog would soon nuzzle his arm and willingly be carried home. Joseph John sighed deeply before he sat down on the ground behind the bench. The earth was still wet from the morning’s downpour. He knew straightaway that his breeches would soon be damp and uncomfortable. He took off his coat and sat on it. Cedar branches sheltered him from view. He waited quietly, his heart slowing down as he rested. Presently he could hear footsteps on the gravel road. The plodding of a heavy-set person contrasted with the lively crunch of someone much lighter and quicker. Carefully peeking out, Joseph John could see that the couple, now only some fifty feet away, were none other than his father and Miss MacKechnie. Their conversation, faint at first, became clearer as they approached his spot. “… it surely,” he heard Miss MacKechnie enunciate in her rather high-pitched and animated voice, ‘was evident that your extended invitation for supper was due only to the fact that you felt sorry for me.” Michael Phillips’ rejoinder was not long in coming. “Absolutely not” he boomed out, “I asked you to come to supper solely, Miss MacKechnie to build up the school. For the fact is, if you have problems with discipline, the school suffers. And I am in charge of the school.” “Yes,” Miss MacKechnie answered, “and I appreciate your saying that. But remember that I am an independent woman and that it is humiliating for me, in a sense, to ask for help. Secondly, this is my first year here. These are two counts against me. I just want you to know that I am so very thankful that you are taking the time to help me.” “And why should I not help you?” His father’s tone, although milder now, was slightly annoyed. “Perhaps, ….” To Joseph John’s dismay, Miss MacKecknie stopped in front of the bench. She leaned heavily on her companion’s arm, panting a little. Peeking between the branches, Joseph John could tell by the look on his father’s face, that the man was not pleased. The why of it was Greek to him, but he felt sorry for his father. Instinctively he grasped that Miss MacKechnie was trying to lead him along, was interposing things which would …? He didn’t actually know what Miss MacKechnie was doing but it became clearer and cleared to him that his father didn’t like it. “Perhaps,” Miss MacKechnie continued, suddenly thinning out her voice to almost imperceptible, “we could sit down for a moment? Frankly, I’m quite exhausted - quite tired and ….” “Sit down?” Michael Phillip’s voice was sceptical and unwillingness hung heavily on his two words. “Yes, Mr. Phillips, would that be too much to ask.” She was speaking very softly now and although Joseph John, head down behind the bushes, strained the ears of his mind, he still could not comprehend what exactly she intended. But he could ascertain that the couple was making straight for the bench behind which he was hiding. Instinctively he crawled towards the right so that they might not see him. It took a few minutes for Miss MacKechnie to install herself on the bench. It was a wooden bench, a sturdy bench, and Joseph John remembered vaguely that he had sat in that very spot with his mother. “It’s very beautiful here,” Miss MacKechnie began, as she ran a gloved hand over the lap of her skirt. “Yes,” Michael Phillips answered, “that it is.” There was quiet for some time and Joseph John felt such a strong urge to sneeze come over him, that he buried his nose into his right arm. “How has it been for you,” Miss MacKechnie went on, “bringing up a child on your own now that your dear wife has passed on?” Instantly Joseph John perceived that his father’s back stiffened at this question, and the boy slowly raised his head up from his arm. “It has been well,” the answer came grudgingly, and seemingly without emotion, “God has been good to me.” “Nevertheless, it must be difficult. You are to be applauded, sir. Not many men could manage as I see that you do.” Without speaking, Michael Phillips nodded and she went on. “Do you ever think, if it is not too bold for me to mention it, of remarrying?” “No.” The answer was quick and short and had Helen MacKechnie been a woman of some insight and sensitivity, she would not have pursued the point. But she was not such a woman. “But why ever not? Such a handsome man as yourself, one so helpful and knowledgeable.” Totally ignoring the compliment, Michael Phillips half-stood up, signaling an end to the conversation. “I presume you are rested at this point, Miss MacKechnie? If so, I would suggest we walk on.” Joseph John listened and inwardly applauded his father’s suggestion. “Oh, but I am still quite fatigued, and would be most happy with just a few more minutes of just sitting here.” Michael Phillips sighed. Leaning back once more, he exuded frustration and began tapping his fingers on the bench’s armrest. Sitting some two feet to the left of Helen MacKechnie, his whole frame suggested extreme dissatisfaction. Helen shifted her form to the right, moving her body slightly towards him. “Sir, I hope you will forgive my forthrightness, but I would like to be completely honest with you. I would like to tell you that I am very attracted to your outspoken, if somewhat blunt, character. I know this is not a thing for a woman to confess to a man, but since I judge you to be a person of some bashfulness where women are concerned ….” She left off speaking for a small moment before continuing. “I feel I must impart this to you. Truthfully, I do not think, brash though you are, that you would have the confidence to tell me, a much younger woman, that you also feel attracted to me.” A bird sang in the bushes. Perhaps it was laughing along with Michael Phillips who, at the close of Helen’s words, had burst out into such a roar of laughter that his belly shook. Joseph John felt giggles welling up inside his own belly at the sound, but knew that he could not let his whereabouts be made known. Helen MacKechnie, at first merely astounded at the howling, stood up. She shook out her dark blue skirt. “You, sir,” she then managed in a loud voice, “are mocking me. And I do not take kindly to that.” “Mocking you?” Michael Phillips stopped in the midst of a loud chortle, and regarded her in amazement. “Yes.” “Surely, madam, you were bantering. Your speech was ridiculous to the point of absurd and preposterous. Having never given you any indication whatsoever that I was in the slightest manner drawn to you, I must conclude you are joking. Consider this, ma’am. Whoever might, and this is dubious, perhaps marry you, has a great deal of weariness ahead of him.” Helen MacKechnie stamped her right foot. “Do not think, sir, that I will let this go. You have insulted me.” “It is true, Helen,” and Joseph noted that his father left the Miss part of her name off at this point, “I am perhaps a little rash with my words, but hopefully this will be for your good. The truth of the matter is that what you have said is unbecoming for a woman to say. And you should remember that you speak and act before an All-seeing Eye. Please reflect on this. If you need help, rely on God. He will give you what you stand in need of.” Perhaps her anger gave her extra strength, but at this juncture Helen MacKechnie bent over, pulled at her skirt and ripped the rather flimsy material – ripped it so that a strip of fabric hung loose and a gaping tear exposed a great deal of her leg. Michael Phillips stood up as well. Joseph John almost stood up as well, but then remembered that he was hiding. And when you hide, you do not show yourself. “I think that you had better leave.” His father’s voice was austere, his figure was ramrod straight, and authoritarian. “I think, sir,” Helen MacKechnie weighed in breathlessly, while she faced him boldly as she held on to her skirt, “that the school board will want an accounting of this ripped skirt.” It seemed to Joseph John at this precise moment that he was sitting in church. He could literally feel the solid, wooden kneeling bench on which his small feet always rested. It was a spot his Sunday shoes could just reach from the height of the pew. He was leaning against his father. The organ had just finished, grand and majestic, and there was an echo of the last psalm hanging over the congregation. Pastor Morse was presiding on the pulpit ready to begin his sermon. “Please read the Genesis passage with me once more,” he intoned, “so that you will better recall what it is we will be reflecting on tonight.” Father had put his finger under the words the minister was reading, and Joseph, for all his five years, had followed father’s finger. Mother had taught him to read when he was four, and he had ever loved words. “We will begin at the latter part of verse 6 in chapter 39.” Father’s patiently pointing out every word, Joseph John reflected even now as he sat on the moist ground behind the bench, had shown love. He pointed them out every Sunday, and every Sunday he leaned against his father as he sat in the bench. How strange that was, but he knew of a surety at this very moment, that Father loved him even though he might not show it in games and such. “Now Joseph was handsome in form and appearance. And after a time, his master's wife cast her eyes on Joseph and said, “Lie with me.” But he refused and said to his master's wife, “Behold, because of me my master has no concern about anything in the house, and he has put everything that he has in my charge. He is not greater in this house than I am, nor has he kept back anything from me except you, because you are his wife. How then can I do this great wickedness and sin against God?” And as she spoke to Joseph, day after day, he would not listen to her, to lie beside her or to be with her.” Father was handsome even as Joseph in the story was handsome. It was a handsomeness inside him. Miss MacKechnie wanted to take that handsomeness. She had told Miss Potts that she had a hankering for him. Joseph John wasn’t sure about that word. Perhaps it had to do with blowing your nose. But Miss MacKechnie had a way of teaching, a way of saying things which … which helped her get her own way. “Michael is a handsome man and I’ve got such a hankering to go out with him. His wife has been gone now, let’s see, it must be upward of some two years now, and all his children are out of the house…” Miss MacKechnie had said something that wasn’t true. She had lied. She had said all of father’s children were out of the house. Miss MacKechnie was erasing him, Joseph John, like a picture or a sentence she didn’t like, out of father’s life. That was stealing, a taking away something that did not belong to you. But he knew that father would not let her take him out. And a great love for his father welled up inside Joseph John, even as he brushed aside the cedar branches that were hiding him from the road. And he saw that Miss MacKechnie had sat down again. “Won’t you reconsider now, Michael,” she said, “surely your career as the principal of the school is important to you? Why risk a scandal?” Pastor Morse had said: Some innocent questions can be dangerous. We have to learn to recognize them. Spending time answering questions which might lead to sin, is wrong. Was Miss MacKechnie’s question wrong? At this moment Bobby came from behind and nuzzled Joseph John’s hand. It made him glad. He had hoped this would happen when he first sat down. “Hi, Bobby,” he whispered, “How are you?” The dog whimpered slightly. He’d likely been off in the fields and woods, chasing grouse or rabbits or birds. “You have to be quiet, Bobby,” Joseph John continued whispering, “because Father is in trouble on the road.” It was then that Michael Phillips’s voice reached behind the bench making the dog’s ears perk up, perk up straight like two antennas. Joseph John had to hold and hug him to make him stay in place. “A scandal?” Michael’s voice repeated Helen’s words quizzically, and again, “A scandal?” The dog began to squirm terribly in the boy’s arms. “Yes,” Helen MacKechnie smiled, unaware of the twisting, wriggling dog straight behind her in the bushes. “Helen,” Michael Phillips urged, “you are walking down an improper and immoral path here.” Bobby, hearing his master’s voice speak again, could not be contained by Joseph John any longer. Breaking free of Joseph John’s hold, he leapt through the cedar bushes, ran around the bench and hurled himself at Michael Phillips. “Bobby!?” “Your dog!?” Bobby, excitedly licked his master’s hands. Satisfied that it was really him, the creature suddenly turned and faced Helen. Helen did not like dogs and seeing one this close by caused her breath to come faster. She let go of the torn skirt and a strip of blue cloth hung quivering down her leg in the slight, late afternoon breeze. Bobby, game for anything moving, anything at all he might tug, jumped for it and pulled. She screamed. The material, fairly flimsy to begin with, easily gave way to the dog’s teeth. Triumphantly, the little animal ran away with it – ran away down the road. Helen stood frozen, immobile – a look of fear and disbelief on her face. “Are you alright?” Michael Phillips asked. She did not answer and he tried again, joking this time. “There goes a piece of vital evidence in your case.” Shaking herself, Helen MacKechnie’s voice returned. “Are you reconsidering my question, Michael?” “Some questions don’t need an answer.” “Well, then, I guess I’ll go and see if I can contact some board members.” Helen’s voice was cold. “Father?” Joseph John stepped out from behind the cedar bushes. “Son? What are you doing here?” “I was out … out, sort of walking with Bobby. He ran ahead of me and we ended up here.” “Were you here,” Helen queried, “the whole time that we …?” She stopped and Joseph John answered. “You mean did I see you rip your own skirt?” To his surprise, he heard his father break out into laughter again, stopping only to say between chuckles, “Do you still want to come for supper, Helen, or have you had enough to chew on for the evening.” *** There were only two of them for supper that night – just Joseph John and his father. And, afterwards, when it was time to burn the trash, Joseph John told him that he did not really want to burn the teddy bear that his mother had made. To his surprise, his father nodded and did not at all appear annoyed or rankled. “You did well today, son,” he remarked as they stood by the fire in the backyard, “and I was proud of you.” “Why?” “Why was I proud of you?” Joseph John nodded. “Because you chose to tell the truth and were not afraid of the consequences.” “Oh, father,” Joseph John blurted out, “I just remembered that I forgot my coat behind the bench. I sat on it because the ground was wet. I hope we can find it tomorrow.” “It is better to lose a good coat than a good conscience,” his father replied, “and tomorrow night, let’s play a game of checkers after supper, son.” And although Joseph John didn’t quite understand, he leaned against his father, the way he had leaned against his father in church when father’s finger underlined the words of Scripture for him. And together they watched the fire devour the trash. *** God visits His children with troublesome matters so that they will learn about Him. Affliction can produce knowledge, empathy, patience and heart....

Red heart icon with + sign.
News

Saturday Selections – Nov. 1, 2025

Luther vs. the Roman Catholic church In light of Reformation Day this week: Luther's stand, as a rock opera. A theology of bed Many of us go to bed plugged into our smartphone and then fade into sleep all the while never free from distraction. But, as Rev. Ian Wildeboer shares, the Bible points us to a different sort of bed time. "You can tell cause a da bones!" Viral dinosaur skit perfectly exposes “Trust the Science” culture It took quite a while for me to realize that much of what I was learning in university wasn't actual, but only theoretical. I wasn't the only student confused, because our profs weren't presenting their theories as educated guesses – they were presenting them as facts. And their guesses were based on assumptions, and sometimes, as this video highlights and mocks, there was an awful lot of guesswork and assumptions stacked atop a scant amount of actual, factual information. Canada is turning its assisted suicide regime into an organ donation supply chain Canadian doctors are now murdering their patients and then harvesting their organs – it's happened at least 155 times so far. And under the euthanasia regime, it's all legal. The idea of giving your organs away to those in need will now become one more enticement to encourage desperate, confused, lonely, ailing, or abandoned people to sign up for MAiD murders. This has implications for Christians, even though we'd never agree to euthanasia. Why? Because Christians are going to require transplants. Do we need to create a parallel organ donation system that is free from any encouragements to murder? How could we even go about doing that? Manage your time better... ...with these 4 quick tips. Creationist on why you shouldn't be worried about climate change In this conversation, atmospheric scientist Dr. Larry Vardiman starts talking about the Ice Age and its causes, but about 5 minutes in continues on to talk about climate change, and how today's concerns "are the result of a deep confusion about earth history." This is 20 minutes, but worth it for Christians concerned about climate change or curious about a creationist perspective on ice cores. ...

Red heart icon with + sign.
Articles, Entertainment, Movie Reviews

Reading films: are Christians as discerning as they used to be?

"Moving pictures" have only the briefest of histories, spreading throughout North America early in the twentieth century. The first movie theatres were converted stores with hard wooden benches and a bedsheet for a screen, and they came to be known as "nickelodeons" because the admission price was five cents. Films were short – in 1906 the average length was five to ten minutes. In 1911 the earliest cinema music was played on tinkling pianos. During the silent film era, slapstick comedy – which depends on broad physical actions and pantomime for its effect rather than dialogue – was widely prevalent. With the advent of the "talkies" in the 1930s, screwball comedy became widely popular. It was laced with hyper action, was highly verbal, and noted for its wisecracks. In 1939 the first drive-in theatre was opened on a ten-acre site in Camden, New Jersey. A brief history of the Church and movies  When movies first because a form of widespread public entertainment, Christians were frequently warned against movie-going. Many "fundamentalist" pastors forcefully exhorted, "When the Lord suddenly returns, would you want to meet Him in a theatre watching a worldly movie?" In Reformed Churches too, Christians were also exhorted not to attend movie theatres. 1. The Christian Reformed Church (CRC) As early as 1908 the editor of the CRC denominational magazine, The Banner, complained: "Theatre going supports a class of people that frequently caters to the lowest taste of depraved humanity, actors and actresses and their employers." A general objection was that the movie industry as a whole tended to be "of the world," and thus against Christian values and the church… and ultimately against God's Kingdom. The CRC 1928 Report of the Committee on Worldly Amusements paid close attention to the question of worldliness in relation to the movies. The Report stopped short of calling the whole movie industry anti-Christian, but still issued severe warnings against attending movies. CRC Synod 1928 judged: "We do not hesitate to say that those who make a practice of attending the theatre and who therefore cannot avoid witnessing lewdness which it exhibits or suggests are transgressors of the seventh commandment." In 1964 the CRC took another serious look at the movies. The CRC realized that its official stance and the practice of its members were at great variance, producing a "denominational schizophrenia and/or hypocrisy." In 1966 a major report The Film Arts and the Church was released. It differed substantially from the earlier studies. Film, it said, should be regarded as a legitimate means of cultural expression, so the medium of film must be claimed, and restored by Christians. The Report was idealistic in hoping that members of the CRC would become discriminating and educated moviegoers, reflecting on and discussing films as part of their cultural milieu. The review of movies in The Banner began in 1975, but faced strong opposition. But in time the Reformed doctrine of the antithesis  (we should not be just like the world) became muted in the choice of movies made by CRC members. There was little difference in what they watched, and what the world watched. 2. The Protestant Reformed Church (PRC) The PRC was fervent in its denouncement of movies and movie attendance. The PRC considers all acting as evil, as is the watching of acting on stage, in theatres, on television, or on video. PRC minister Dale Kuiper said, "Certainly the content of almost 100 per cent of dramatic productions (movies, television programs, plays, skits, operas) place these things out of bounds for the Christian." But already in 1967 a writer noted that PRC practice did not match PRC principle: "When I was formerly an active pastor in a congregation, it was always a source of sad disappointment to me that so few of our young people could testify, when asked at confession of faith, that they had not indulged in the corruptions of the movie." And since 1969 and continuing till today, various pastors and professors have lamented that large numbers of PRC members watch movies, either in theatres or, more often, on television. 3. Evangelicals Evangelicals have a history of making films as a way of teaching Christian values. The Billy Graham organization Worldwide Pictures made modest independent films to evangelize youth: The Restless Ones (1965), about teenage pregnancy; A Thief in the Night (1972), an end-times thriller; and the Nicky Cruz biopic, The Cross and the Switchblade (1970). A reporter dubbed them "religious tracts first, entertainment second." More recently, evangelicals made new producing sci-fi films about the apocalypse, which critics claim are embarrassingly poor-quality – artistically flawed – productions marketed in the name of evangelism. As examples, they refer to the three profitable Left Behind Movies (2000, 2002, 2005). There has also been a trend to create "family-friendly" movies. However, these movies tend to depict a world where all issues are plain and simple. Evildoers are destroyed, the virtuous rewarded, and often times the “good” characters have within themselves everything they need to secure their destiny. Clearly, then, this is not the real world. We've also seen, among evangelicals, a defense of less than family-friendly films. Already back in 1998, the Dallas Morning News ran a story about the growing number of Christians who advocate going to even R-rated movies. The reason? Evangelical filmmaker Dallas Jenkins said, “Non-Christians are just as capable of producing God-honoring and spiritually uplifting products as Christians are, and I've been as equally offended by a Christian's product as I've been moved by something from a non-Christian." Perspectives So how should Christians think about films? How can we approach them with discernment? It begins with recognizing that a film is more than a form of entertainment: it propagates a worldview. Films often: exalt self-interest as the supreme value glorify violent resolutions to problems promote the idea that finding the perfect mate is one's primary vocation and highest destiny Films also so often promote a view of romantic love as being passionate and irresistible, able to conquer anything, including barriers of social class, age, race and ethnicity, and personality conflicts. But the love it portrays is usually another euphemism for lust. In Images of Man: a Critique of the Contemporary Cinema, Donald J. Drew observes that in contemporary films, the context makes it clear that love equals sex plus nothing. An underlying assumption in mainstream Hollywood films is that the goal in life is to become rich. And acquiring things is even supposed to make you a better person! But the values of consumerism, self-indulgence and immediate gratification can harm individuals, families, and communities.  Titanic (1997) Most films depict a world in which God is absent or non-existent. For example, there is nothing in the film Titanic to suggest that God is even interested in the fate of those on board the sinking ship. Whether uncaring or impotent, God is irrelevant in the world of this film. In his book Eyes Wide Open: Looking for God in Popular Culture, William D. Romanowski comments: "Whatever outward appearances of belief dot the landscape of Titanic, they have little bearing on the faith of the main characters, especially when compared to the film's glorification of the human will and spirit." The principal character Rose Bukater is engaged to Cal Hockley, who is concerned only with the approval of his social set. He equates wealth and social status with worth and character. Aware of the limited lifeboat capacity, Rose says, "Half the people on the ship are going to die." The snobbish Cal responds, “Not the better half.” These attitudes run against the grain of American values associated with freedom and equality. And because he is the obvious bad guy, the director has so framed things that whoever stands against Cal will be understood, by the audience, to be the good guy. And so we see in opposition to Cal, the free-spirited artist Jack who is the ultimate expression of pure freedom. His character traits, talent, and good looks easily identify him as the hero. And so the scene is set that when Rose and Jack have an illicit sexual encounter, the audience is encouraged to cheer this and want this, because it is for Rose a declaration of independence from her fiancé and her mother's control over her. The now famous sex scene sums up many of the film's themes: Forbidden love, class differences, and individual freedom. The Passion of the Christ (2004) There was, not so long ago, a film in which God was included. Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ was highly recommended by evangelicals for its realistic portrayal of Christ's suffering and death. But how true to the Gospels is the film? Why did the director have Jesus stand up to invite more scourging by the Roman soldiers? Was the suffering Jesus endured primarily physical, as this film portrays? Is the film historically accurate or is it a reflection of Gibson's theology? Co-screenwriter Mel Gibson said that he relied not only on the New Testament but also on the writings of two nuns, Mary of Agreda, a seventeenth-century aristocrat, and Anne Catherine Emmerich, an early nineteenth-century stigmatic. The violence in the film became a matter of much debate when the film was released. On the one hand, the head of an evangelical youth ministry said, "This isn't violence for violence's sake. This is what really happened, what it would have been like to have been there in person to see Jesus crucified." On the other hand, many critics cringed at the level of violence in the movie. Romanowski comments, "In my estimation, it is difficult to provide dramatic justification for some of the violence in the film." Star Wars (1977) While the inclusion of God in a film is a rarity, the inclusion of spirituality is not. One of the most iconic and controversial film series has been Star Wars. In 1977 it hit the big screens and it was an immediate success. Legions of fans formed an eerie cult-like devotion and the box-office receipts were astronomical. It originated a new genre – the techno-splashy sci-fi soap opera. The film definitely has a semi-religious theme. In From Plato to NATO David Gress writes that the Star Wars film saga broadcast a popular mythology of heroism, growth, light, and dark sides, wise old men and evil tempters, all concocted by the California filmmaker George Lucas. Much of the inspiration came from the teaching of Joseph Campbell, who claimed there is truth in all mythology. Campbell wrote in 1955 that "clearly Christianity is opposed fundamentally and intrinsically to everything I am working and living for." Meanwhile, John C. McDowell, Lecturer in Systematic Theology at New College, University of Edinburgh, finds something redemptive in Star Wars. He analyses the "classic trilogy" Star Wars, The Empire Strikes Back, and the Return of the Jedi in his book The Gospel according to Star Wars: Faith, Hope, and the Force. He calls these films a "pop-culture phenomenon" of unprecedented stature and much more than mere entertainment. He suggests that the films carry even "more influence among young adults than the traditional religious myths of our culture." He argues that these films possess rich resources to change and transform us as moral subjects by helping us in some measure to encounter the deep mystery of what it means to be truly human. He even claims that Star Wars is "a parabolic resource that reveals something of the shape of a Christian discipleship lived under the shadow of the cross." He notes that the theology of the original trilogy is difficult to pin down – though the interconnectedness of all of life does seem to be the fruit of the Force in some way and this is therefore exalted as the movies' "good" or "god." McDowell also discovered pacifist themes in the films – according to him, Star Wars at its best possesses radical potential to witness to a set of nonviolent values. Critical assessment Should we warn Christians about the kind of movies they are watching, whether in a theatre or on TV? Some say, "They are only movies. They won't influence us." I wonder whether the lack of critical thinking by evangelicals is the result of the tendency to privatize faith, confining religious beliefs to personal morality, family, and the local congregation, all the while conducting their affairs in business, politics, education, and social life, and the arts much like everyone else. Aren't even many Christians overlooking the persistence of evil in human history? We live in a fallen world that is at once hostile to God and also in search for God. Works of art can glorify God – including film art – but they can also be instrumental in leading people away from Him. Ever since the fall, human beings have been in revolt against God, turning their gifts against the Giver. Art, along with nearly every human faculty, has been tainted by the fall. Indeed, one of the first phases of the disintegration brought by sin was the usurpation of art for the purpose of idolatry (Rom. 1:23). Most people believe they are personally immune to what they see on the film screen or on TV. How do we grow in our faith? Not by watching and observing a steady diet of movies. We must restore the primacy and power of the Word of God. God gave us a book – the Bible – and not a movie. We should be critical in our thinking, and apply our Biblical worldview. Scripture calls us to "test everything. Hold on to the good. Avoid every kind of evil" (1 Thess. 5:1-22). Rev. Johan Tangelder (1936-2009) wrote for Reformed Perspective for 13 years. Many of his articles have been collected at Reformed Reflections. This article was first published in November 2019....

Red heart icon with + sign.
Culture Clashes

Jonathan & David and the difference between brave & crazy

The divide between brave and crazy isn’t always easy to see. God wants us to be brave –how many times did He encourage Joshua to be “strong and courageous”? – but our lives and limbs are gifts from Him, not to be carelessly gambled away. So brave is good, crazy is not. But which is what? Some activities are always crazy – don’t stand on a rolly chair to change a lightbulb, don’t do it! – but oftentimes whether a thing is brave or crazy depends on why you are doing it. We see that contrast in 1 Samuel 14 and 2 Samuel 23:13–17. In both, Israelites fight Philistines. In the first we find Prince Jonathan and his armor-bearer climbing up a cliff face to go attack a Philistine outpost, just the two of them. “Jonathan said to his young armor-bearer, ‘Come, let’s go over to the outpost of those uncircumcised men. Perhaps the Lord will act in our behalf. Nothing can hinder the Lord from saving, whether by many or by few.’ ‘Do all that you have in mind,’ his armor-bearer said. ‘Go ahead; I am with you heart and soul’” (1 Sam. 14:6-7). Doesn’t it seem insane? How do you even swing a sword when you’re climbing up with your hands and feet? But this was brave because they were doing it for the Lord. If they’d died doing it, they wouldn’t have had any reason for shame. In 2 Samuel 23:13-17, Israel is again battling the Philistines, who have a garrison at Bethlehem. When David dejectedly declares, “Oh, that someone would get me a drink of water from the well near the gate of Bethlehem!” three of his mighty men go do it. They break through enemy lines and get David his water… which he then pours out. “‘Far be it from me, Lord, to do this!’ he said, ‘Is it not the blood of men who went at the risk of their lives?’ And David would not drink it.” Why not? Because what they’d done was crazy, and he didn’t approve. Had they died, it would’ve been for what? Their leader’s wistful whine? That’s not a good why. And that’s quite the difference....

Red heart icon with + sign.
Parenting

Why it’s good for teens and kids to do chores

We should do chores for the same reason we go to school – preparation ***** Chances are, as a part of the family, you are asked to do various menial (or not so menial) tasks about the house or yard. “Son, will you take out the trash?” “Sweetheart, would you dust the house for me?” “Will you mow the lawn?” “Will you start the laundry?" “Would you put away the dishes?” Or, if, like myself, your mother decides to finish writing a fifty-lesson Bible study in a week flat, then you find yourself generously helping her keep the house running by taking over the role of “housewife” for a week. This should be easy. Now, to most of us, the word “chores” sends us running to our bedrooms where we promptly take solace under the bed where nobody can find us (unless that’s always the first place you go when you’re trying to avoid doing something. Too predictable, mate. Find a new spot). Your parents assign you chores from an early age because you are a part of this family, and so it is your duty to contribute to the running of the house. What if I told you that chores will inevitably prepare you for being an adult? And if you hope to be married, you need to be doing chores for along the same reasons why you do school. It’s imperative that we all learn how to read, write, and calculate arithmetic so we can be better prepared for what the world has in store for us. It would be a bummer if you were not able to read your Bible because you had never learned how to read. Same with chores. What if you had never learned how to load the dishwasher until after you moved out? Any roommates wouldn’t be impressed. Or what if you never learned how to fold clothes until you were finally forced to do it after your marriage? Your husband would come home and find his clothes smelling awful from not being washed, and all his shirts wrinkled after being stuffed carelessly into the bureau (hang them up – Braendlein men’s shirts should be hung up in the closet!). What if you had never dealt with the trash in your life, and now you watch helplessly as your roommate drags the overflowing garbage bag to the apartment hallway, where he leaves it for no other reason than “I don’t know what to do with it!” …and you don’t know either! What if you had never learned how to make a decent peanut butter and jam sandwich, and you starved? Or your kids starved? Or you starved your husband of the nutrition he so sorely needs in order to support his growing family? What if you never learned how to scramble a decent egg, and all you could do, to surprise your wife with breakfast in bed, was bring her the box of Cheerios? Doing chores and learning how to manage a household will get you off on the right foot as you prepare to leave your home and someday get married. And if you think that women should learn how to do women’s chores, like dishes and laundry, while men should learn how to do men’s chores, like mowing the lawn and taking out the trash, then think again. Both sexes should learn how to do all of the aforementioned chores, regardless of whether or not the wives will spend their married days mowing the lawn and the men folding the clothes. You might find that your husband is great at folding laundry, and that you actually love mowing the lawn. My father is terrible at folding laundry and figuring out the difference between his boxers and his son’s (what an awkward day it was when he tried on my brother’s boxers and found that he had put the wrong ones in his own drawer). But he will do it if it blesses my mother (actually, scratch that; he will willingly make his four children fold the laundry if it blesses his wife). So if your mother asks you to move over the laundry and start a load of delicates, or your father asks you to take out all the trash in the house (how many trash cans are there, seriously?), do it with joy, and know that knowing how to do chores will save you a lot of pain when you finally move out or get married. And besides, you get to do all the chores when you’re a grown-up! Pictures by Hannah Penninga....

Red heart icon with + sign.
News

Saturday Selections – Oct. 18, 2025

Should Christians celebrate Halloween? If we do, we should definitely do it differently. Whatever its historic origins, Halloween today has become a celebration of, and the commercialization of, death, the demonic and all things creepy – 5-foot spiders and 8-foot skeletons are on sale now at your local Walmart! Your kids want to dress up as a cute puppy dog or a princess? Downright counter-cultural! Shucks, while trying to find a stock picture for the topic of Halloween, I discovered 99% of the Halloween pictures had skeletons, ghosts, devils, witches, vampires, or the like. Photos of kids dressed up in clever or cute costumes could hardly be had. The most compelling case against tech in schools (10-minute read) This is on "the mounting evidence that computers and tablets on students’ desks are interfering with their education because the distraction effects almost always outweigh whatever educational benefits were promised." As Jonathan Haidt (author of The Anxious Generation) writes, "I banned the use of all screens in all of my classes at New York University several years ago, because it became clear that many college students can’t stay present in class when there’s a laptop or phone on their desk." National Post article highlights the case against term limits and for small, teeny tiny government Citizens, frustrated with politicians who don't deliver on their promises, might well raise the notion of term limits, to ensure that we can at least sweep out the disappointing mass of them every couple of terms or so. But what good is it, if we get rid of the figureheads and not the powers behind the throne? "Nearly one-quarter of Ontario's senior managers appear to have progressive leanings" – so reads the headline. We can debate how conservative Ontario's current government may or may not be, but even if it was headed by the most stalwart of Christian conservatives, it might not make any difference if its bureaucracy – the folks who actually decide how government decisions will be implemented – was run by radicals. So a case could be made then, that if an elected official is ever going to have a chance at draining the swamp, he's going to need to have some time on the job to figure out where exactly the drain is situated. Term limits might just ensure that no one ever has enough experience to take on the swamp. Of course, we already have politicians with plenty of experience, and they haven't righted the wrongs. But what an article like this shows is that our priority shouldn't be to bring in a new batch of politicians, but to just start whacking away at the bureaucracy. If we were to elect some good men, the only chance they'd have against an entrenched bureaucracy is if it were quickly reduced and rooted out. Sports gambling ads are overrunning the airwaves It's called the gambling industry, but there's nothing industrious about it. In true industries, everyone benefits. A farmer grows grain, a builder creates a home, a barista serves up a cappuccino – in each case provider and purchaser are both better off, such that everyone involved can say "thank-you." But in gambling, the only way someone can win is for others to lose – there is no mutual benefit. The government and the gambling industry know the odds are always against the betters. Even the winners, if they keep gambling, are sure to lose in the long run – that's how the odds are stacked. In other words, our government and the gambling "industry" they've partnered with are making their money by encouraging their citizens to do something stupid with their money. This is evil undisguised. Let kids read dangerous stories This is about the rise of "cozy stories" – the Hallmark-movie versions of middle school novels, that don't have grit, chills, or tension – and why we need to steer our kids away from reading too many of these. What is the unbeliever's most compelling argument? Jeff Durbin, on how even the most emotionally powerful argument from an unbeliever has to have power from the Christian worldview to have any power at all. ...

Red heart icon with + sign.
Documentary

12 free must-see docs for Christian families

Documentaries aren’t your thing? Then you haven’t seen these. We’ve got brilliant scholars and scientists sharing, in just a line or two, all their study, and the many books they’ve read or written. And we get videos and pictures of birds, planets, or our own insides, that we’d never see like that on our own. Six categories each have two “winners” to create this  "Top 12" list, but I’ve cheated a bit by sneaking in some honorable mentions. All the films can be watched for free online, and you can click on the documentary titles for longer reviews. 6-DAY CELEBRATED Some creationist videos limit themselves to beating up evolution, and while that can be fun and valuable – we are called to destroy false arguments (2 Cor. 10:4-5) – the best sort celebrate the truth of God’s Word and the genius of His design. The Riot and the Dance: the TV series 2022- / 30 minutes RATING: 9/10 The folks who brought us Riot and the Dance: Earth and Riot and the Dance: Water now have a TV series, and you can watch the pilot episode for free. It’s God’s creation viewed through the eyes of a poet and an adventurer. Narrator Dr. Gordon Wilson shares that while he teaches a marine biology class, he “needed to go back to school for this film – scuba school!” Why? “I don’t want to just sit back and narrate over some pretty picture. I wanted to get as close as I can to as many divinely crafted underwater miracles as possible.” Dr. Wilson can’t help but gush: “I love turtles, their eyes, their beaks, their scales like tiles on a fancy floor. What hilarious cartoon characters they are, and what a fantastic cartoonist God is.” This is just geeky cool! Is Genesis History? 2017 / 100 minutes RATING: 8/10 Del Tackett is best known for his excellent Truth Project video series, and this is every bit as good. He interviews PhD-holding scientists with various areas of expertise, all of them happy to share why their field of study backs a literal understanding of the first few chapters of Genesis. This is among the best creationist documentaries ever made, filled to the brim with heartfelt, concise, deep discussion! When that leaves you wanting more be sure to explore their YouTube channel and IsGenesisHistory.com for extras they just couldn’t fit in the film. HONORABLE MENTION: Remember all those cutesy story bible ark depictions that had the giraffes sticking their necks out of the top windows? No wonder many people – Christians included – are skeptical of the Bible’s Flood account. But as Tim Lovett shows in Noah’s Ark: thinking outside the box (2008/35 minutes), the ark’s dimensions have more in common with a modern ocean-going oil tanker. Computer animation, large-scale models, and a generous dose of humor make this a documentary that parents and teens will both enjoy. INTELLIGENT DESIGN Intelligent Design (ID) proponents celebrate a Designer but purposely won’t mention who He is. It’s a familiar enough strategy for Christians in the public square: the world demands we leave God out of it, and for some reason we listen to them rather than Him (Ps. 96:3)! But while ID is afraid to go much beyond toppling evolution, that shouldn’t stop us from taking their findings and going further, giving credit to the Brilliant Triune Engineer. The Master Designer: the song 2014 / 76 minutes RATING: 8/10 I appreciated this documentary’s patience, keeping to just a half dozen animals, to allow the time to explore each one in some depth. It begins with the bee and its amazing ability to make honey. Did you know “It takes 556 bees flying a total of 55,000 miles to gather nectar from an astounding 2 million flowers to make a single pound of honey”? Though a bee has a brain the size of a seed, it’s a brilliant architect, with a hive’s hexagonal honeycomb structure maximizing storage capacity. Weirder and more wonderful, the bee communicates through the language of dance – yes, really! – wiggling this way and that to tell the other bees where the nectar is to be found. And we shouldn’t forget that honey itself is amazing in that it never spoils! And that’s just the first of the six critters we get to meet. Revolutionary: Michael Behe and the mystery of the molecular machines 2016 / 60 minutes RATING: 7/10 Revolutionary is about what a quiet professor did to get Darwinian evolutionists very, very upset with him. Michael Behe seems to believe in an old earth and that some sort of evolution may well have occurred. So why would Darwinians be so very disturbed by him? Because Behe doesn’t believe the world came about by chance. While studying the human cell he realized the microscopic machines within it are so intricate and complex it’s inconceivable they could have come about via only random mutation and natural selection. This is in part, a history of the ID movement, which Behe had a big hand in beginning. But the real “star” of the show is one of those “micro-machines” that so fascinated him: the bacterial flagellum motor that can manage 100,000 revolutions per minute. Behe is too quiet to keep kid’s attention, but he’s also an ID giant, and someone worth knowing. HONORABLE MENTION: Michael Behe’s Science Uprising: a revolutionary case for Intelligent Design (2019-) series might be just the thing for teens. With 10 different short videos, just 6-10 minutes each, this comes in bite-sized chunks. And there’s still plenty to chew on here, with topics like “The myth of the Multiverse,” “Mutations break’ they don’t create,” and “No, you are not a robot made out of meat.” ECONOMICS Economics is a bigger spiritual battlefield than maybe most Christians realize. Just consider how, while God commands us not to covet our neighbor’s goods, those on the Left make envy out to be downright virtuous, peaking over the fence at what the millionaires and billionaires have. So, this often-neglected sphere is worth further study. The Pursuit 2019 / 77 minutes RATING: 7/10 The Pursuit is the story of one man’s search for the best way to lift the world’s poorest out of their poverty. And what the former French-horn player and current globe-trotting economics professor Arthur Brooks discovered is that it’s the free market that did this, that lifted literally billions out of extreme poverty. So why would a Buddhist/Catholic former French horn player make a good guide for Christians interested in learning about economics, and the benefits of the free market? It’s because, as much as he might differ from us in big ways and small, his case for free trade is built on principles that line right up with Scripture. He doesn’t quote it, but his foundation is the Second Greatest Commandment (Matt. 22:36-40) – Brooks is clearly motivated by a love for his neighbor. Love Gov: Breaking up with government is hard to do 2015 / 25 minutes RATING: 8/10 An economic argument for small government presented as a comedic romance? Hmmmm… Alexis is thinking of quitting college to start her own business, but then she meets the strangely charming Scott Govinsky (known as “Gov” to his friends). Gov is so very caring and supportive. And eager to help. And he never seems to runs out of advice. Perfect material for a boyfriend? Alexis thinks so…at first. The problem is, Gov’s advice isn’t nearly as helpful as it seems. Alexis’ new boyfriend Gov is a stand-in for our government, which wants to mind our business because it cares for us so deeply. But as much as the politicians and bureaucrats might mean well, that doesn’t mean they are doing well…which is what Love Gov tries to show. That’s a point worth sharing with our kids, and this series 5 short 5-minutes videos makes for quick viewing. But these are libertarians, not Christians, teaching the lesson here, so parental guidance is a must. Watch the whole 5 episode series here. THEOLOGY Theology is the study of God, and as the earth is the Lord’s and everything in it (Ps. 24:1) so, in a very real sense, all the other documentaries are theological too. But here it we get to learn more about God without anything distracting from our focus. The God Who Speaks 2018 / 92 minutes RATING: 9/10 The God Who Speaks makes the case that God still speaks to us today like He did with His prophets, doing so through Scripture. Alistair Begg, R.C. Sproul, Albert Mohler, Frank Turek, Kevin DeYoung, and Norman Geisler are some of the names here, all speaking to how the Bible attests to its own Divine origin. Really worth checking out! The Marks of a Cult: a biblical analysis 2005 / 115 minutes RATING: 8/10 How would you define a cult? What this documentary focuses on are religious groups that have some connections to biblical Christianity, but which have departed so far from it, that they are worshipping another God. The film offers Christians an easily understandable way of spotting those departures by using the four common math operations. As the host explains it, “A group can be classified as a cult when they: 1. Add to the 66 books of the bible… 2. Subtract from the triunity of God by either denying the personhood or the deity of one or more members of the Godhead 3. Multiply works necessary for salvation 4. Divide the loyalties of their followers from God…” These math symbols are then used as the documentary’s four “chapters” and serve as logical breaks for any who might prefer to digest this 2-hour documentary in chunks. PRO-LIFE Is there a bigger tragedy in our age? Are there any victims more vulnerable, and more in need of someone to speak up for them? Here’s some help to get you ready. Babies are murdered here 2014 / 54 minutes RATING: 8/10 This is a must-see for anyone sitting on the sidelines. Where the film gets controversial is in the producers’ argument that we must name the sin that is going on behind clinic doors, using stark, clear terms, like “murder.” Do they want us shrieking it as women enter abortion clinics? Not at all. The men and women we see here witnessing are carrying large signs that read “Babies are Murdered Here” but there isn’t a hint of self-righteousness about them. They are clear, and generally pretty winsome too; truth is being coupled with grace. Their approach is comparable to pro-lifers who make use of large graphic pictures and pair that with soft-spoken words. 180: from pro-choice to pro-life in minutes 2011 / 33 minutes Rating: 7/10 What kind of question would prompt a pro-choicer to become pro-life almost instantly? What street preacher Ray Comfort does here is confront people with the incoherence of their own views. When he asks them to explain what circumstances make it permissible to kill a baby, each of his interviewees is brought short. They don’t want to say we can kill a human being simply because they might grow up poor. Or because they are unwanted. Or because they are inconvenient. Their conscience convicts them with the knowledge that these are not good reasons to murder someone. By asking his pointed question Comfort makes them realize that they have never really thought through the issue of abortion before. Comfort’s approach will not work with any who have hardened their conscience. But for the ignorant or confused, what Comfort presents is incredibly clarifying. HONORABLE MENTIONS: While Fearfully and Wonderfully Made (49 minutes) is little more than a PowerPoint lecture, it’s an amazing lecture, which is why it was for years, among Answers In Genesis’s top-selling DVDs. A Christian looking at their newborn might call the child a “little miracle” but Dr. Menton reveals the insufficiency of this description. There isn’t just one miracle involved in the conception and birth of a child – numerous miracles are involved at every stage, even before conception occurs. Any adult who gives it 15 minutes will want to stay for the rest of it, and will be sharing this link with all their friends! Back 2019, to mark 50 years since Pierre Trudeau’s government first legalized abortion, pro-life organizations came together to make The Missing Project (75 minutes). It’s an important film, for the history lesson it provides, and for how it explains the division that exists among pro-lifers, between “abolitionists” and “incrementalists.” Who are these two camps? Abolitionists argue we can never settle for half measures – we need to push for a total ban on abortion. Incrementalists want this same end, but believe the best way forward is one step at a time. What’s missing from this film is any sort of explicitly Christian defense of the unborn. Our value, and everyone’s equality, can only be properly grounded in what we all share – being made in the Image of God (Gen. 9:6) – so that is a notable omission. APOLOGETICS We’re called to have a ready response to any who want to know about the hope we have (1 Peter 3:15) because of Jesus. How can we do that? What would it look like? Here’s a couple of masterclasses. Collision 2009/ 88 minutes RATING: 9/10 In May 2007, leading atheist Christopher Hitchens and pastor Douglas Wilson were asked by Christianity Today to dialogue on the question “Is Christianity good for the world?” They wrote six exchanges which were printed in the magazine and then, in 2008, compiled into a book. When the two men headed out to do an east-coast book tour, filmmaker Darren Doane tagged along. He captured their exchanges and interactions, both onstage in formal debate settings, and as they conversed over a pint of beer in the local pub. The end result is the most entertaining and enthralling debate you will ever see on film. This is a must see for its able demonstration of presuppositional apologetics. (Don’t know what that is? See the next documentary.) The attacks that Hitchens levels against God and Christianity are mimicked on secular campuses, so Wilson’s able defense of the faith will be instructive and will be an encouragement to our young people when they face these same attacks from their professors and fellow students. You can watch it on Facebook here. How to Answer the Fool 2013 / 85 minutes RATING: 8/10 While Wilson, in Collision, gives the better demonstration of presuppositional apologetics, Sye Ten Bruggencate gives the better explanation of it here. Some Christians will try to provide atheists with reasons for why they should believe in the Bible, and for why they should believe in God. In How to Answer the Fool, Ten Bruggencate teaches us to start with the Bible instead, and to present to the unbeliever the fact that it is only by acknowledging God, and the Bible as his Word, that the world makes any sense. Or to borrow from a C.S. Lewis analogy in Weight of Glory, this is believing in the Bible for the same sort of reason we believe in the sun. It’s not because we see it but because by it, we can see everything else. HONORABLE MENTION: The Fool (2019 / 65 minutes) is the true story of how evangelist Ray Comfort was ridiculed by atheists the world over for a silly joke he made that fell flat. But God was using Ray’s humiliation: these same atheists started inviting Ray onto their shows, podcasts, and stages and they let him say anything he wanted. So Comfort used these forums to share the Gospel with thousands of atheists at a time. Atheists even took Ray’s books and read through them on their YouTube channels, all in an attempt to mock him. But the end result was they read out a Gospel presentation to their listeners. As Ray asks, “Who but God could take atheists and not only have them listen to the Gospel, but have them proclaim it?” Find more than 100 other documentary recommendations, many of them also free to see, at ReformedPerspective.ca/100....

Red heart icon with + sign.
Assorted

Why Charlie Kirk’s death hit so hard

For a time, in September, my Facebook feed – I’m sure yours too – was full of tributes to Charlie Kirk. At this point, I don’t need to tell you that Kirk was big. He was the founder of Turning Point USA, an organization maybe best known for setting up tables at university campuses across the USA, with Kirk, and sometimes his friends too, willing to debate anyone who would take the mic. Some give Kirk credit for Trump’s win in 2024, because of the way Turning Point was so effective in its outreach to young voters. I felt a weight when I heard about his assassination. And the weight increased as I processed. Maybe that’s how you felt too. If you track the news, it’s been a heavy year. Overdoses. Transgenderism. Abortion. Stabbings. Euthanasia. Shootings. Never mind the economy. Now this. But why is this hitting so hard? I only watched Kirk’s videos occasionally. Why am I mourning someone who had so little impact on my day-to-day life? Of course, you have to feel sad for his loved ones – but it’s not that kind of grief. Assassinations are jarring, by nature. Not that I’ve lived through too many. But this is different. Charlie Kirk’s murder crystallized the hatred that I’ve been seeing directed towards Christian ideas and towards prolife activists. The hatred that activist Christians have felt directed our way through the condescension and the shouts, now manifested through murder. Across America, and Canada too, thousands celebrated. Mocked. Laughed. Who watches a man die, and laughs? That scares me. The apostle John equated hatred with murder (1 John 3:15), and I’ve never felt how close that link is until now. In her video commemorating Charlie, Christian commentator Allie Beth Stuckey put it, “We’re bringing words. They’re bringing weapons.” Ultimately, Charlie Kirk was murdered for views that I hold. Probably not all of them, but the fundamentals. Many of those views are non-negotiable Christian convictions that you and I and all God’s people hold. Christianity wasn’t a part of Kirk’s message: it was the driving force behind it. The gap and the bridge For a while, it’s been pretty clear that Christianity stands at odds with secular beliefs. Now, two seemingly contradictory things come to mind: 1. It’s not an “us” versus “them” We can’t just write off everyone on the other side. Christ came and died for us while we were still His enemies (Romans 5:8-10), and if not for Him, we would be enemies still. So, if God can do that for us, what might He be working in those folks over there? So we need to talk. As Charlie put it: “When people stop talking, really bad stuff starts. When marriages stop talking, divorce happens. When churches , they fall apart. When civilization stops talking, civil war ensues. When you stop having a human connection with someone you disagree with, it becomes a lot easier to want to commit violence against that group.” The Christian response is to treat everyone with dignity (Matt. 7:12), and pray for anyone who hates us (Matt. 5:43-44). 2. There are two sides We can’t be confused about how there are two sides (Josh. 5:13-14): God’s side, and everyone else’s. As God’s people we are, and are called to be, fundamentally different. To me, the spiritual battle was brought to light by this assassin’s physical act. Are these two conflicting views? No. These both make sense when we recognize what we share with our enemies: we’re all made in the image of God (Gen. 9:6), and we’re all in desperate need of a Savior. We can look across the divide in humility knowing there but for the grace of God, go I. Social media makes both sides think, “Duh!?” The algorithms selecting what’ll show up in our social media feeds only sharpen the division, making it difficult to actually have compassion for others. Everyone wonders: How can anybody support ____? It’s just so obviously wrong! Then we all click on what we want to see, and afterwards the algorithm feeds us more and more of the same. My liberal friend commented, “He shouldn’t have been killed. But he said the gun deaths are worth it, so it just feels ironic.” Worth it. Worth what? Did he really say that? What did he mean? But the internet clip stops right there. “Hah,” laughs an anti-gun activist. The assumption is that had Charlie known he would be killed by a gunman, then his tune would’ve changed. I disagree, largely because I got to see what else Charlie said. Another thing Kirk said was: “I don’t believe in empathy,” and since his murder that quote has been pasted across the Internet. “How heartless can you be?” thinks the social studies student. Missed is the next phrase that isn’t included: “I prefer sympathy.” And Kirk went on from there to explain why. One student asked him, “If your ten-year-old daughter was raped, would you want her to have the baby?” Kirk answered: “Yes.” Some stop listening at “yes.” Those who listen longer hear a compassionate “why.” Explanations on immigration and marriage aren’t heard, but clips “proving” xenophobia, transphobia, and homophobia dominate YouTube. Charity is dead. Assumptions of good intent are gone, and undiscerning scrolling forms a worldview. Those who hear only what they want call him a hateful, dangerous fascist. When that’s your belief, then all redeeming qualities fail. They’re not redeeming qualities at all – they’re manipulation tactics. And assassinating a fascist is a heroic act. One spray-painted billboard read: “Death to all Charlie Kirks.” That’s enough Internet for me today. Can we get back to normal life? It’s tempting to dismiss this as a one-time event. A crazy person shot a MAGA activist. We’re not American. Most people aren’t crazy. Right? Maybe we could start to be discerning again. More neutral. The words “He had it coming,” will always be wrong. But we might reflect, “Should he really have linked his Christianity so closely with partisan politics?” or “He was unnecessarily controversial… if he just spoke the Gospel, this wouldn’t have happened.” Not quite victim blaming, but maybe we should adjust the halo a bit? Should we really call him a martyr? If he is one – if that’s what we were to conclude – we’d also have to conclude that Christianity itself is hated, not just some Christians who don’t put a good face to it. Then it’s not just about Charlie; you and I are hated. And I think the 100+ church burnings across Canada in the last 5 years bear witness to Who is really hated. So no, this wasn’t a matter of tone. We don’t look at prophets in the Old Testament, and suggest perhaps their tone was off. Sorry, Jeremiah. You were a bit harsh there - a little too blunt on that one! Watch any of his videos – in whole – and listen to those who knew him; Charlie Kirk was incredibly patient and well-versed. He was grounded in the Gospel, in both public and personal life. Many young people attribute their own shift to conservatism to Charlie Kirk, and many are now opening their Bibles for the first time while navigating the loss. Charlie Kirk was targeted because he was effective. The turning point I’m not the first to say this – it’s ringing all over the Internet: in the bullet, hate took a physical form. And this is how Charlie’s wife responded: “You have no idea what you have just unleashed across this world and across this entire nation.” Erika Kirk is right, God has so used this that in Charlie’s death his voice has been amplified. His videos are being watched even more. And I’m excited for all the new voices who have been emboldened to speak. Christian voices. As I’m writing this, a lot has already been said. An insane amount of commentary. But the hate felt personal, so I wrote too. I’ve done outreach – speaking up for the unborn – some of it on university campuses. My life hasn’t been in danger, but the hate’s been the same. The people in Kirk’s videos are the same sort that pro-life activists talk to every day on the streets. Like Charlie Kirk, I enjoy talking to someone who radically disagrees with me; I get to show my own humanity, and I get to tear down the image of heartless, ignorant pro-life monsters that they’ve crafted about us in their minds. Conclusion Charlie’s assassination brought it home: they hate us – they really hate us. And there are so many of them. I wrote a poem a few years ago, while struggling with the weight of others’ opinions of me. I find it a good measure for checking my own heart and actions. Am I doing something wrong, or am I just scared of being ridiculed? Am I hesitant to speak because I think it’s prudent, or because I fear the opinions of others? Strive, at the end of the day When fingers are pointed my way, To have no fault but Thine. Let them hate my faithfulness, I say. Your laws, they laugh at. Your love, they despise. I pray, they find those in me, And be not me, they criticize. You and I both know we’ll do it imperfectly. But that’s not the calling. We don’t have to worry about perfection – Jesus has accomplished that for us. The outcome of evangelism isn’t on us either. But obedience is. May God grant us the courage to speak out boldly and patiently to a world that so desperately needs to hear His Good News. Picture is adapted from one by Gage Skidmore and used under a CC BY-SA 2.0 license....

Red heart icon with + sign.
News

ARPA condemned in BC legislature

On the very first day of the fall legislative session, British Columbia MLAs debated the “views and policies of Association for Reformed Political Action” for almost an hour. The debate was over a motion tabled by the NDP: “That this House condemns the intolerant views of the Association for Reformed Political Action (ARPA), including its harmful discrimination against transgender people, its belief that homosexuality is ‘immoral’ and its explicit policy goal of restricting abortion access in British Columbia.” The NDP’s motive for the motion seemed to be to condemn the Conservative opposition for attending ARPA’s MLA reception at the BC legislature back in April. However, the debate never talked about the two issues that ARPA specifically raised at that reception: medical gender transitioning for minors, and euthanasia. By what standard? Several NDP, Green, and independent MLAs rose to condemn ARPA’s positions on gender identity, sexual orientation, same-sex marriage, conversion therapy, abortion, IVF, and surrogacy. They argued that ARPA’s views violate various rights and freedoms and run counter to principles of diversity, equity, inclusion, and tolerance. Now, it goes without saying that ARPA – and all Christians – are in favor of all of these things when viewed in a proper way. In fact, a recognition of rights and the practice of tolerance only really arose in the Christian West. What this debate exposed is what happens when these things are unmoored from their Christian anchors and made our ultimate political goals. If the expansion of freedom becomes the most important aim of politics, then medical transitioning for minors makes sense. If diversity is the legislature’s most sacred value, then opposition to gay marriage is indeed out of place. But orthodox Christians know all of these values – rights and freedoms, equity and tolerance – are not the ultimate basis for morality or justice. Rather, the ultimate basis for just laws is God’s revelation to us in His Word and creation. MLAs spent a whole lot of time talking about rights in this hour of debate. But they spent virtually no time talking about what is right. They refused to acknowledge how removing the breasts of a fourteen-year-old girl in the name of “gender-affirming care” is not in her best interest. They refused to consider whether providing euthanasia to the mentally ill might be a step too far even for them. They refused to contemplate whether pre-born children at 35 weeks of age deserve any protections in law. Calling good evil (Is. 5:20) Instead, MLAs voted 48-3 to condemn ARPA’s “intolerant” views. (The text of the motion uses “intolerant,” but the word “hateful” was bandied about the most.) Here’s how the vote broke down: The entire NDP and Green caucuses, along with independent Elenore Sturko, voted to condemn ARPA. The two MLAs from OneBC, and another independent, Jordan Kealy, voted against the motion and spoke up to defend ARPA. None of the Conservative MLAs opted to be present for the vote. The lone Conservative speaker to the motion accused the motion of being a “political trap.” All of this might remind us of the words of Jesus in John 15:18-21: “If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they kept my word, they will also keep yours. But all these things they will do to you on account of my name, because they do not know him who sent me.” If Reformed Christians were of the world – if we supported medical gender transitioning, same-sex marriage, or abortion on demand, or kept silent about them all – these MLAs would not have condemned ARPA. Reformed Christians strive to stand publicly for what God reveals to be true. God says that He created two sexes? That’s how it is. He designed marriage to be between one man and one woman for life? That’s our definition too. God created human life to begin at conception and commands us not to murder? Then abortion is wrong. Recognizing and honoring these truths is good for everyone. What true love looks like Our motivation, then, for raising these issues is one of love. Earlier in John 15, Christ says: “This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends. You are my friends if you do what I command you. No longer do I call you servants, for the servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all that I have heard from my Father I have made known to you. You did not choose Me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my Name, He may give it to you. These things I command you, so that you will love one another.” And that’s what ARPA and all Reformed Christians should intend to do. We endeavor to love our fellow citizens. This includes not just the fellow brothers and sisters in Christ that Jesus has in mind here, but all people, as Jesus taught in the Parable of the Good Samaritan. We call for a law against abortion because we love pre-born children. We love children who are confused about their gender. We love the same-sex couple next door. And yes, we ought to love the MLAs who voted yesterday to condemn ARPA. For, as John wrote later, “we love because He first loved us” (1 John 4:19). And so, in this condemnation of ARPA in the BC legislature, as Reformed Christians we might feel “afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not driven to despair; persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed” (2 Cor. 4:8-9). For we know that “we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us” (Rom. 8:37). But in light of the fact that few MLAs stood up to defend ARPA – much less defend the bodily integrity of gender dysphoric children or the lives of those threatened by euthanasia or abortion – our provincial representatives need to hear from us. Encourage them not to be afraid to discuss the issues that desperately need our government’s attention, but to boldly hold the government to account. A version of this article was first posted to ARPACanada.ca...

Red heart icon with + sign.
People we should know

Cornelius Van Til: his life and impact

Cornelius Van Til may not have seemed a likely candidate to accomplish a "Reformation of Christian Apologetics," but God is in the habit of utilizing unlikely candidates to mount great victories for His kingdom. Van Til "wanted to be a farmer.... Instead he became one of the foremost Christian apologists of our time," to use the words of David Kucharsky in Christianity Today (Dec. 30, 1977, p. 18). Early life Van Til was born May 3, 1895, in Grootegast, Holland, as the sixth of eight children to a devout dairyman-farmer. At the age of ten his family sailed to America and settled in Indiana. Cornelius enjoyed the soil and animals, but his evident intellectual strengths got him sent to Calvin Preparatory School in 1914. He worked his way through as a part-time janitor and wholly loved the study of philosophy. By the time he enrolled in Calvin Seminary in 1921, he was already familiar with the works of Abraham Kuyper and Herman Bavinck and had added a knowledge of Hebrew, Greek, and Latin to his Dutch and English! He studied systematic theology under Louis Berkhof and Christian philosophy under W. H. Jellema. During his first year of seminary J. Gresham Machen - the man who stood head and shoulders above others as presenting a Christian faith worthy of scholarly defense – published The Origin of Paul's Religion. The next year Van Til transferred to Princeton where he could study with Machen as well as at the philosophy department of Princeton University (under the Scottish personalist, A. A. Bowman). At the seminary Van Til managed the student dining club, and lived on the same floor in Alexander Hall with "Das" Machen, who was busy publishing numerous apologetical studies (including his monumental Christianity and Liberalism ). Van Til's seminary adviser, C. W. Hodge Jr., was a grandson of Charles Hodge and the successor to B. B. Warfield. Van Til profited from the solid Biblical instruction of men like Hodge, Robert Dick Wilson, William Park Armstrong, and Oswald T. Allis, but the professor closest to his heart was Geerhardus Vos, the respected Dutch scholar who championed the method of "Biblical theology." Van Til won the prize-winning student papers for both 1923 (on evil and theodicy) and 1924 (on the will and its theological relations). The seminary granted him a Th.M. in systematic theology in 1925, after which he married his long-time sweetheart, Rena Klooster. At the university Van Til's prowess in metaphysical analysis and mastery of Hegel's philosophy had gained high praise from A. A. Bowman, who offered him a graduate fellowship. In 1927 the university granted him the Ph.D. in philosophy for a dissertation on "God and the Absolute." In the same year his first published piece (a review of A. N. Whitehead's Religion in the Making) clearly exhibited the salient lines of presuppositional analysis: a) locating an opponent's crucial presuppositions b) criticizing the autonomous attitude which arises from a failure to honor the Creator-creature distinction c) exposing the internal and destructive philosophical tensions which attend autonomy, and then d) setting forth the only viable alternative, Biblical Christianity. When J. Gresham Machen declined the chair of apologetics at Princeton Seminary, deciding to remain in the New Testament department, the Board of the seminary was encouraged by William Brenton Greene (1854-1928), the retired professor of apologetics, to invite Van Til to lecture in the department for the 1928-1929 academic year. Following the reception of his doctorate and his first visit back to the Netherlands (1927), Van Til had accepted the pastorate of the Christian Reformed Church in Spring Lake, Michigan. Although installed for only a year, he took a leave of absence from the congregation and taught apologetics at Princeton, impressing everyone so favorably (even though the youngest instructor there) that at the end of only one year the Board elected him to assume the Stuart Chair of apologetics and ethics. The decline of PCUSA and the beginning of the OPC However, within weeks the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. reorganized Princeton Seminary in such a way that control of the once conservative bastion of Reformed orthodoxy was turned over to men who desired to see many different viewpoints represented at Princeton and who favored a "broad church." Machen resigned and immediately started work to establish Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia. Van Til likewise resigned and returned to Michigan. In the mean time, Machen handpicked Van Til to teach apologetics in the new seminary, even traveling with Ned B. Stonehouse to Michigan in August to plead for Van Til's acceptance of the position – after a previous visit from O. T. Allis had not secured it. After declining at first, Van Til took up teaching duties at Westminster Seminary in the fall of 1929, where he continued in that ministry until retiring more than forty years later. When Machen was unjustly forced out of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. in 1936, Van Til supported him in the founding of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, where he came to have a decided influence for years to come, both as a scholar and as a powerful pulpit preacher. Presuppositional publishing From the outset of his teaching career Van Til sought to develop a distinctively, consistently Christian philosophical outlook. He wanted to see everything in terms of a Biblical world-and-life-view. The first major syllabus produced by Van Til at Westminster Seminary, (now titled A Survey of Christian Epistemology) came out in 1933. In it he traced through history various epistemological positions, noting the bearing of metaphysical convictions upon them, and advanced the necessity of a transcendental, presuppositional method of argumentation. He insisted that Christians must reason with unbelievers, seeking to reduce the non-Christian worldview (whatever form it takes) to absurdity, by exposing it to be epistemologically and morally self-contradictory. Van Til's insight, a brilliant and apologetically powerful one, was that antitheism actually presupposes theism. To reason at all, the unbeliever must operate on assumptions which actually contradict his espoused presuppositions – assumptions which comport only with the Christian worldview. Van Til's presuppositional approach has been a powerful impetus for reform in Christian thinking. Outwardly, it directs a transcendental challenge to all philosophies which fall short of a Biblical theory of knowledge, demonstrating that their worldviews do not provide the philosophical preconditions needed for the intelligible use of logic, science, or ethics. Inwardly, it calls for self-examination by Christian scholars and apologists to see if their own theories of knowledge have been self-consciously developed in subordination to the word of God which they wish to vindicate or apply. It has likewise cut a wide swath through a large number of relevant areas of interest, requiring that every area of life be governed by the inscripturated word of God. Conclusion Those who knew Dr. Van Til personally will testify that he was not only a man of principle and conviction, a towering intellectual, but equally a man of warmth, humor, and compassion. On April 17, 1987, he joined all the saints who from their labors rest. This article was first published in the May, 1995 issue of Penpoint (Vol. VI:5) and is reprinted with permission of Covenant Media Foundation, which hosts and sells many other Dr. Bahnsen resources on their website www.cmfnow.com. It appeared in the November 2014 issue....

Red heart icon with + sign.
News

90,000 legal homicides in Canada since 2016

According to calculations from the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC), as of September this year approximately 90,000 Canadians have been euthanized since this form of homicide was legalized by the federal government in 2016. Homicide is defined under Section 222 of Canada’s Criminal Code as an act causing the death of a human being. The staggering number of euthanasia deaths have been steadily increasing, from 1,018 in 2016, to 15,343 confirmed cases in 2023. Based on the reports available for 2024, the EPC projects there were 16,500 euthanasia deaths that year, an increase of 7.5 percent. EPC drilled in on BC’s 2024 data and found that 35 percent of the 2,767 euthanasia deaths were approved based on “other conditions.” Of these, 65.9 percent were related to “frailty.” They noted that “frailty” isn’t defined and can encompass euthanasia for a “completed life” – in other words, an elderly person is not sick or dying but simply wants to die. The increasing numbers, and broad standards for qualifying, are a far cry from what the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in Carter v. Canada (2015), when it allowed euthanasia for a competent adult who “has a grievous and irremediable medical condition (including an illness, disease, or disability) that causes enduring suffering that is intolerable to the individual in the circumstances of his or her condition.” Behind each of these statistics is a human being made in the image of God, many of whom left this earth without hope. As ARPA Canada and others communicated to Parliament and to the courts prior to the legalization of euthanasia, as soon as we remove the sacred line of the Sixth Commandment to not murder, it becomes impossible to maintain any other line. Sure enough, Parliament is now considering further expansions of euthanasia for those whose suffering is solely psychological, as well as for children....

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