RP App | Reformed Perspective

Being the Church

Titus 2 young men are not boys

"Likewise, urge the younger men to be sober-minded." – Titus 2:6

*****

In Titus 2 Paul gives instructions to older women, younger women, older men and younger men, and gives instruction concerning the care of children. Every age group is covered... except for one. Why doesn't Paul say anything about adolescents?

Adolescent males typically have the strength of adult men, and in many ways the freedoms and opportunities of adults too. And at the same time these adolescents have nowhere near the responsibilities of an adult; we say of them, they're "boys who shave." We’ve accepted that the teenage years are when boys do dumb things, and we're quick to forgive them because, well, they’re just kids so what can we really expect? However Scripture speaks of just two main age brackets: children and adults. This third grouping, adolescents, is simply not Scriptural. And that, of course, is why Paul makes no mention of them in Titus 2.

In God’s eyes teenagers are responsible for their conduct (as is a tween!), and needs to repent of sin as much as any 50-year-old. The Bible simply does not know of a "boy who shaves." In the Bible, if you are no longer a child you are a man, albeit a "young man." So when, in Titus 2:6, Paul talks of the need for younger men to be self-controlled, he has in mind any male who is not a child and not yet an “older man.”

So let's take a closer look at what Paul has to say in Titus 2 to the younger men of the church in Crete, and take from it what we can for the instruction of our own younger men.

While our focus is on the younger men, we should note that the Lord has preserved this passage of Scripture for the benefit of more than just the “younger men.” In this same chapter older men (Titus 2:2) are to give leadership, and part of the leadership they provide is surely that they ensure that younger men are what God wants them to be. Older women (Titus 2:3) are to teach the younger women to love their husbands (Titus 2:4,5) – and those husbands are invariably included in the group described as “younger men.” Both the older women and the younger women, then, have a vested interest in what the Lord expects of the younger men. The whole congregation, then, can and must learn from God’s instruction to the younger men.

Source

It is important to remember that Paul’s instruction to Titus in this chapter, in relation to what Titus must teach the “younger men,” did not come out of the blue. As in all his teaching, Paul is building on God’s earlier revelation – what he says here must be understood in the context of the Old Testament, and of the example of the perfect young man Jesus Christ.

So let's consider first the instruction from Genesis, then the instruction from Jesus Christ.

Paradise

Adam was surely no child when God created him, and surely no old man either. In the eye of our minds we see Adam in Paradise as a “younger man” of some 20 to 30 years old, in the prime of strength and ability. Notice what responsibilities God expected him to satisfy. In Genesis 1:26-2:18 we learn he was to:

Image God – Just as the almighty Creator was loving and just and holy and kind and generous, so Adam was to be loving and just and holy and kind and generous. Creatures, angels, even God Himself should be able to see in the young man Adam something of what God was like.
Rule over all creation – This young man received a kingly function, with all creatures under his dominion. Please note that God did not let Adam hang around for many years until he was older and/or wizened through a lifetime of experience before all creation was placed under his feet. Right away God put him in the Garden with the mandate to “work” it and “keep” it (Genesis 2:15). The term “keep” describes the function of protecting the Garden from enemies – and God knew full well that Satan would attack the Garden through his insidious temptation. Yet God entrusted the Garden to the care of this young man!
Be fruitful – The command to be fruitful does not refer simply to making babies, but includes the responsibility of raising the children so that the next generation has learned how to image God and be effective rulers of God’s world too.
Be a leader – God said too that it was not good for the man to be alone, and so God created a woman to be “helper” to the man (Genesis 2:18). The man in turn was to accept the helper God gave him, and give her leadership and protection.

God’s instructions to Adam in Genesis 1, then, point up that Adam was expected to embrace responsibility. Young men of subsequent generations were, obviously, to do the same. The Biblical picture of manhood is not characterized by loafing or playing games, let alone letting things happen. Rather, a Biblically faithful man welcomes responsibility and takes initiative.

This is what older men are to impress on the younger, and what older women are to teach younger women to encourage in their husbands.

Fall

The fall into sin made carrying out this glorious responsibility immeasurably difficult. Work became a slog and a burden and weeds appeared not only in gardens and fields (Genesis 3:18-19), but also in one’s character and in inter-personal relations. Tensions characterized marriage (Genesis 3:16b), and children would reduce a man to tears (Genesis 4). We can understand why the Preacher describes all as vanity, a burden, a groan (Ecclesiastes 1:2). “What has a man from all his toil and striving of heart with which he toils beneath the sun?” (Ecclesiastes 2:22).

After the fall the creature that had been fashioned to image God, rule over God’s world, and raise more image-bearers, now bumps into so much frustration. How humbling for a creature endowed with such glorious responsibility!

Understood

Despite the destructive effects of the fall into sin, several figures of the Old Testament demonstrate that they fully understood God’s intent for young men. Consider the examples of Joseph, David and Daniel:

Joseph – He was 17 years old when his father sent him to check up on how his brothers were faring as they tended the family flocks (Genesis 37:2). He was also, then, 17 years old when he was sold as a slave to Egypt. As a young man he ended up in Potiphar’s house and readily embraced the responsibility his master entrusted to him when he “put him in charge of all that he had” (Genesis 39:4). Not too many years later, perhaps in his early 20s, Joseph was imprisoned “where the king’s prisoners were confined" (39:20), yet even there he took the initiative to embrace whatever responsibility rolled his way. So “the keeper of the prison put Joseph in charge of all the prisoners” (39:22). He took control of his feelings so that he did not waste his energy with feelings of anger at his brothers or pity for himself. When his family came to Egypt 20 years after he was sold, he was still a relatively “young man” – but now ruler over the entire country.
David – Already as a teenager he was entrusted with his father’s sheep. As a teenager he fought off a lion and a bear, and was called to play the lyre to King Saul. As a youth he volunteered to fight Goliath (1 Samuel 17:42). In his 20s he led Israel out to battle as Saul’s commander, then fled from Saul and, though persecuted, refused to kill him. Young though he was, he understood what manhood was about; he embraced responsibility and so made hard decisions. By the time he was 30, he was king over God’s people Israel.
Daniel – He was a young man, likely yet a teenager, when he was taken as prisoner to Babylon. Young though he was, he refused to eat the food the palace prescribed (Daniel 1:8ff). Again, though young he made use of the opportunities he received to learn what he could learn. So, when God elevated him as a very man to a position of power and leadership in a foreign land, he was ready for the challenge.

These three young men acted in line with God’s expectation as revealed in Paradise. They understood that youth was not a time for loafing, nor a time to live off others; being young men meant that they were to embrace responsibility to image God and rule over what was entrusted to them – especially themselves.

Jesus

The Biblical example of what a “young man” is to look like is none other than Jesus of Nazareth. He was “like his brothers in every respect,” and that includes the reluctance some have to embrace responsibility. But the Scripture says of this young man that though he was tempted in every respect as we are, He never gave Himself to sin (Hebrews 4:15). That’s to say that in his teenage years, and in his 20s too, He made it His business to image God in all He did, and made it His business too to rule over whatever God entrusted to His care – including first of all Himself, be that in guarding His mouth or restraining his sexual urges.

At 30 years of age – truly a young man still! – He took up His public ministry in Israel, preaching the good news of the kingdom of God, healing the sick and raising the dead. In the process He denied Himself for the benefit of those the Father entrusted to Him, even embracing the cursed cross and the heavy judgment of God for the benefit of the undeserving. Herein He demonstrated precisely what God intended for all men back in Paradise already; they are to embrace responsibility, and so take initiative to further the Lord’s kingdom.

Paul drew out for the Ephesians what this means for men.

Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her, that he might sanctify her…. In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies… (5:25ff).

Jesus’ embrace of the responsibility that belongs to being a man means that, “the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people” (Titus 2:11). Jesus is the (young) man, whose example all men are to follow.

Titus 2:6 - "sober-minded"

Let's return now, to Paul's instructions for young men in Titus 2.

Paul's objective is to build up church life in Crete. He turns to God’s Old Testament instruction and to Jesus’ example to consider what gifts the Lord has given to His church and what this example needs to look like in practice. It is this material he unpacks as he tells Titus to “urge the younger men to be sober-minded.”

The term Paul uses to describe what young men are to be is difficult to translate. The NIV and the ESV render it with the term "self-controlled," the NKJV has "sober-minded," the NASB has "sensible." The same term appears in Mark 5:15 in relation to the demoniac man – after the pigs, driven by the demons that used to possess the man, were drowned in the sea, the locals found the man “in his right mind.” In Romans 12:3 Paul instructs his readers “not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment.”

The point is this. God created us to “rule over” all creatures, including ourselves. With the fall into sin we became slaves to sin so that Satan ruled over us.

However, Christ – perfect man that He was – conquered sin and Satan and so brought salvation for all people (Titus 2:11). Sin, then, is no longer our master, no more than the exorcised demons were now master of the demoniac of Mark 5. Instead, Christ has poured out His Spirit so that we can again be the men God wants us to be.

Men are meant to embrace responsibility. The victory of Christ has given renewed opportunity to embrace responsibility. Paul would have Titus urge younger men to take seriously the victory of Jesus Christ as they make decisions day by day about what to do. They are, in other words, to think of themselves with the "sober judgment" that comes with believing the gospel of Calvary: since you are no longer slaves to sin – that’s real! – but once again God’s possession through Jesus Christ – that’s reality, too! – you don’t have to give in to sin and temptation; you can resist the evil one. Factoring that victory into one’s decision-making process is being sober-minded, and yes, it leads to a life of self-control.

Titus 2:12

Titus 2:12, logically follows what we read in verse 6, and works out what this level-headedness looks like in the midst of life’s temptations. We read there than Christ’s victory,

train us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age.

And yes, the word translated as "self-controlled" in verse 12 is the same critical word as the apostle used in verse 6 about the younger men needing to be “self-controlled,” “sober-minded,” level-headed, realistic. Christ has broken Satan’s back; let younger men factor that reality into their decisions. That’s taking responsibility properly.

I need to add: “the present age” is not a reference to the younger years but is instead referring to the time before Christ’s return in glory (see vs. 13). His victory on the cross guarantees the final great act of history, the day when He comes to judge the living and the dead. That reality again prompts the “young man” to a particular level-headedness as he factors this return into the decisions he makes – whether driving his car, spending his money, raising his family, deciding on his recreation, etc., etc.

Crete

This sort of lifestyle represented a huge challenge for the younger men Paul was writing to on the island of Crete. The culture of the island is caught in that proverb Paul earlier quoted: “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons” (Titus 1:12). It’s a mindset that encourages the more energetic to do whatever they feel like doing. With the Christian faith new to the island, the “younger men” had very few role models to look up to.

That’s why Paul told Titus that he needed to be a good example for these young men. We read in verse 7: “show yourself in all respects to be a model of good work, and in your teaching show integrity, dignity, and sound speech that cannot be condemned.”

Titus was the apostle’s “true child in a common faith” (Titus 1:4), which is to say that Titus learned how to do the Christian life, and teach it too, from the apostle himself. As preacher on the island, and a young man at that, Titus needed to be aware that other young Christian men on Crete would be watching how Titus himself lived out the gospel of Christ’s victory in his daily responsibilities. His own way of factoring in Christ’s triumph in his daily decisions needed to demonstrate that he said "No" to ungodliness and worldly passions, and instead gave himself to good works. Moreover, his teaching couldn’t have the empty ring of liars’ big talk (1:10ff), but needed to exude integrity, dignity and soundness.

Here is a reality true for every preacher/teacher of all times, indeed true of all office bearers and leaders. Anyone entrusted with the task of preaching and teaching the gospel of Christ’s victory needs be aware of his role as a model of Christian living. Brothers, we are created and recreated to image God, and so to rule over whatever God has entrusted to our care in the same way as the Lord does it. Christ Jesus emptied Himself for the sake of His bride, the church. As teachers and preachers of this good news, we must – if we wish the gospel to be credible – obviously factor in the reality of Christ’s victory into all our conduct and our words.

Vital role

Paul, then, sees a vital role for younger men in building up church life, be it on Crete or be it in Canada. Younger men are to take seriously whatever responsibility God gives them (be it for a vehicle, a house, a wife, children, themselves, work, etc) and consistently factor in the victory of Jesus Christ on the cross as they make decisions pertaining to the responsibilities God has given. Then there’s no place for ungodliness, and plenty of place for godly lives. Such a lifestyle advertises the church wonderfully.

Conclusion

What do we see of today’s younger men in the churches? From teens to 50s, are these men making responsible decisions, and so contributing positively to church life?

There is, I’m convinced, so very much for which to be thankful on this point. We see young men making profession of faith and presenting their children for baptism. We see younger men devoted to their wives and families, and stretching themselves for service in God’s kingdom. It’s reason for gratitude.

We also see younger men who do not stretch themselves all that far at all. We see some younger brothers content with a basic job, content to come home from work and chill in front of TV or on the Internet, and we see some, too, who pour themselves into sport.

There is nothing wrong with sport, nor with relaxing in front of the TV, or even doing simply a "hands on" job. But there is a problem if one spends no time or energy to prepare one's self for increased responsibility tomorrow. It’s for responsibility that God created men, so men must read, study, and prepare for leadership roles tomorrow.

Manhood is not to be measured by how much hair you can grow, or how big a truck you can drive, or how much beer you can drink, or how good you are on your skates, or how big a fish you can catch. Without knocking any of these things, none of them catch what God created men to do.

What God wants of men is that we embrace responsibility, to the point that we work with Christ’s victory in every decision we make, 24/7. What does that look like? It follows the example of Jesus Christ in His self-emptying for His bride. He is the younger man who took responsibility for those God entrusted to His care, and so he laid down His life for His own. That’s the sensible, sober-minded, levelheaded example the Lord gives us.

This article first appeared in the March 2013 issue.

News

Saturday Selections – April 18, 2026

The universe is God's canvas Art is hard to define, but an artwork can tell us a lot about the artist... or the Artist. Survivor - they had to l...

Culture Clashes

Which conspiracies are true?

A quick survey of X or the top YouTube-influencer-content on the Right reveals that conspiracy theories have never been so widely spread or fervently ...

Economics

The Parable of the Talents: the Bible and entrepreneurs

Marriage, Soup and Buns

Advice to new brides

“Oh, a coffee maker! Just what Peter and I need – thank you so much!” Bridal showers are a fun, valuable tradition. The bride-to-be’s famil...

Politics

Why I’m grateful for the notwithstanding clause

Legislatures make laws, the executive enforces them, judges interpret and apply them in specific cases. Three branches, checks and balances – that’s Civics 101. As Calvinists, we get why we need checks and balances. We know that voters, lawmakers, bureaucrats, police, judges, juries – everyone – is fallen. So we don’t want to entrust one sinner or one group of sinners with too much power. And we want to hold people with power accountable. It’s this Calvinistic insight into human nature that contributed to strong checks and balances emerging in the UK and the US. But who checks whom and how, exactly? That’s where things get interesting. Canada currently awaits a ruling from our Supreme Court on whether the legislature or the judiciary has the final say in disputes over Charter rights and freedoms. More specifically, the Court is reviewing the Quebec government’s use of the notwithstanding clause (section 33 of the Charter) to shield its secularism law (Bill 21) from being declared unconstitutional and unenforceable by the judiciary. The federal government has intervened in the Quebec case to argue that the Supreme Court should impose certain limits on the use of the notwithstanding clause – limits that do not appear anywhere in the text of the Charter. Various other interveners insist that the clause is dangerous and contrary to the spirit of the Canadian constitution. What is the notwithstanding clause? Prior to 1982, Canada had no constitutional bill of rights, unlike the US, which adopted its Bill of Rights in 1791. Today, Britain and several other Commonwealth countries continue to go without such a constitutional bill of rights, which would authorize judges to strike down legislation. Britain, therefore, is said to maintain legislative or Parliamentary supremacy on rights questions, while the US is said to have judicial supremacy. Canada has a kind of hybrid model. Ordinarily, a judge in Canada can strike down a statute if, in the judge’s opinion, the statute violates Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, section 33 of the Charter says that a legislature may declare that a law will operate “notwithstanding” certain parts of the Charter, which include the fundamental freedoms listed in section 2, and the legal rights in sections 7-15. Any invocation of the notwithstanding clause expires in five years, though a legislature may re-invoke it limitless times. This five-year-expiry rule ensures voters can have a say, since the constitution requires an election within 5 years of the last election. Judges’ role in lawmaking Returning to the basic notion that legislatures make laws and judges interpret them – well, that’s not the whole story. 1. Judges have been setting precedents of centuries In the nearly 1000-year-old common law tradition, much of the law is judge-made. Their rulings set a precedent that other judges then follow, and it’s these precedents that make up what’s called common law. But common law is subject to statute. Legislatures might choose to codify the existing common law, or they could pass a law that deliberately modifies or overturns it. But the key is, any legislation they pass prevails over common law precedents whenever there is a tension between the two. The maxim that legislatures make law and judges interpret and apply it may lack nuance, but it highlights the supremacy of statute law over common law. 2. Judges interpret the laws Where we have a statute, there is still an important role for judicial interpretation and precedent, since legislators cannot conceive of and cover every possible situation. But for centuries under the common law tradition, judges have recognized that while they have an inherent civic authority to resolve civil disputes, they are also duty-bound to apply any statute that applies to the case before them. 3. Judges can overturn laws when they find a conflict with the Charter When it comes to the Charter, however, it gets a little odd, because there’s always another law involved. Judges recognize that they should not apply the Charter in the abstract. Rather, as with other laws, judges apply the Charter in particular cases with particular facts. But the Charter is normally used to argue that the other law in question in a given case must not be applied. If applying the law – say, a law forbidding noise above a certain decibel level in a park – would violate the Charter in a particular case (e.g. a group gathers in the park and shouts a political slogan), then judges may declare the law itself to be void. The Charter has massively expanded judges’ lawmaking role in Canada. Most Charter rights are stated broadly and abstractly. Consequently, although a judge is supposed to rely on the facts of a particular case and not make rulings about the constitutionality of statutes in the abstract, judges still end up deciding major policy questions via their Charter rulings. Here, the basic principles underlying the differentiation between the legislative and judicial roles are in tension. Judges end up deciding what the law on a given matter will be for the country, or province, or town, based on the evidence and legal arguments presented to them in a particular case. Legislatures vs. courts The legal process is supposed to discover the truth and reach a just outcome in individual cases. The legislative process ideally channels the wisdom and experience of the broader community and persons from various walks of life into formulating generally applicable rules that reflect what society considers just and good. As John Finnis explains, while courts are fundamentally backward-looking (resolving particular, concrete disputes between parties based on pre-existing rules) legislatures are fundamentally forward-looking – deciding what ground rules should govern society in the future. Legislatures are sometimes referred to as majoritarian bodies, in two senses. First, bills become law by majority vote among legislators. Second, legislators are elected, so presumably legislation reflects majority views in society. The fear, then, is that legislators may not care about the rights and interests of minorities. The latter point may be more or less true depending on how elected members conceive of their role. Do they decide their vote based on public opinion polling? Or do they, in line with Edmund Burke and Abraham Kuyper, see themselves as elected to exercise personal judgment, bring their personal knowledge and experience to bear, and seek to enact just laws for all citizens? Legislatures need not be merely majoritarian bodies codifying shifting popular opinion into law. At their best, they are representative and deliberative bodies endeavoring to enact just laws for everyone in society. Meanwhile, we tend to overlook the fact that the judiciary, too, is majoritarian in the former sense – in appellate courts, cases are decided by a majority vote of justices on the bench. Of course, judges in Canada are appointed, not elected. When a judge fulfills his role of carefully deciphering the facts, and faithfully interpreting and applying the law to the facts, he should not be worried about whether his ruling will be popular. Legal training and expertise are most applicable to applying pre-existing laws to specific events that occurred in the past. But what if a judge is not deciding whether Person A violated Law X, but whether Law X (e.g. a law restricting abortion or euthanasia) should even be law? Should the latter be shielded from electoral and legislative accountability (short of amending the constitution)? Of course, a constitutional bill of rights only gives judges final say over laws that affect the rights listed therein. But since such rights tend to be broadly worded (e.g. freedom of expression, liberty, security of the person), and judges often take considerable liberties in interpreting them, the result is that a small group of unelected people – judges, especially on apex courts, who often serve for decades – can decide major political issues for a province or nation. A prominent justification proffered for giving judges the final say on rights matters is that these are matters of principle and courts are better forums for resolving them on principle rather than politics – which supposedly has more to do with negotiating the distribution of material benefits in society. But this is mere question begging. Rights are matters of principle, sure, but so are questions about the just and proper limits on rights, the duties that correspond to rights, the just distribution of benefits in society, and so on. Really, these are all political questions. They all raise competing moral views and involve judgments about how we ought to live together as a community. Against judicial supremacy There’s an instrumental or consequentialist case to be made – in terms of better or worse policy outcomes – against judicial supremacy, to be sure. Canada’s judges invalidated Canada’s abortion restrictions and euthanasia ban, for example. They also struck down various laws that were premised on spouses being opposite-sex, paving the way for same-sex marriage. The same is true in the US, except on euthanasia. A principled, biblical case against judicial supremacy is somewhat more difficult, and necessarily fairly nuanced. I think Christians can make decent principled arguments in defence of the American system over the British or the Canadian system. But allow me to attempt a more principled case against judicial supremacy and explain why I’m grateful for the notwithstanding clause. The biblical truth that all persons are image bearers of God is the fundamental basis for the equality of all citizens. And while the imago dei admits of distinct, unequal offices (e.g. parent, elder, magistrate), one political implication of imago dei is that each person is God's representative on earth, and together we exercise dominion. We are equal before God, and we all bear some (albeit not equal, depending on our office) responsibility for our political community and the rules that will govern it. Representative legislatures, arguably, best reflect this Christian anthropology as it applies in the political sphere. A nation’s citizens share a common civic responsibility to respect and preserve public justice, the common good, and each other’s individual rights. The body politic, as David Koyzis explains, is by its nature not a private concern, but a community of citizens and their government called by God to do justice. Therefore, it seems appropriate that citizens should bear political responsibility within that community. “Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women,” the famous Justice Learned Hand observed. “When it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it. While it lies there it needs no constitution, no law, no court to save it.” By assigning “rights questions” to unelected judges to finally resolve, legislators and citizens effectively wash our hands of this responsibility. Does a person have a “right” to abort a baby, euthanize a patient, or “marry” a person of the same sex? Does a pre-born baby have a right to life? Should people be free to publicly proclaim the gospel? And so on. A system of judicial supremacy obscures if not reduces the responsibility we have as citizens for preserving others’ rights and the common good. “Isn’t it awful that Barry Neufeld was censored so severely by the Human Rights Tribunal?” you might say. “Yeah, let’s hope he wins in court,” your friend might reply. I hope that too, of course. But do we realize, as citizens, that we are responsible for the law that applies in such cases? A constitutional model – in which legislatures remain ultimately responsible for deciding whether we will be a society that will permit abortion, prostitution, euthanasia, and easy access to online pornography – makes our responsibility as Christian citizens more clear. Also, a system in which judges play a predominant law-making role privileges legal rhetoric and “rights talk” while displacing or marginalizing moral and theological language and perspectives. This accelerates secularization and makes the prophetic task of the Church in politics more difficult, as there is more translating to do. Outstanding opportunity? Functionally, outside of Quebec, Canada has had a system of judicial supremacy since 1982. Cracks have started to show recently in some provinces, as Ontario, Alberta, and Saskatchewan have all used the notwithstanding clause in the last three years. Alberta and Saskatchewan have used it to protect parental authority. Alberta has also used it to preserve its law against medically transitioning minors. Federally, it has never been used, though Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre has, notably, endorsed its use. I think this represents an opportunity for us as Reformed Christians. While biblical truth is generally ignored in Canadian society, it is systemically ignored in our highly secularized legal system. Canada’s courts are a uniquely challenging forum to make biblical arguments – in fact, if arguments are explicitly biblical, a judge will likely reject them outright. The notwithstanding clause could offer Christians opportunities to advance more just laws by persuading their fellow citizens instead. “Who will guard the guardians?” has been a classic question in politics throughout the ages. Reformed political thought, Koyzis explains, posits various checks, including those built into government itself, such as separation of powers, recurrent elections, limited jurisdiction of government agencies and ministers, federalism, and so on. But within such a system, some body must bear primary responsibility for resolving great public problems. It is best, I believe, for that body to be a representative and deliberative one, one for which each and every citizen bears some responsibility. The Charter has greatly obscured the sense of citizens’ responsibility to preserve fundamental rights and freedoms. The notwithstanding clause offers an opportunity to recover it....

Book Reviews, Children’s fiction, Children’s picture books

The barber who wanted to pray

by R.C. Sproul 2012 / 33 pages Rating: GREAT R.C. Sproul has written a half dozen picture books to date, all of them great instructional tools, and all of them decidedly average stories. This time round Sproul is using a picture book to teach both children and their parents and packaged a great lesson on prayer in a pretty good historical tale. The Barber Who Wanted to Pray is based on something that really happened. In 1535 Martin Luther was asked by his friend, Master Peter the barber, how to pray more effectively. Luther wrote a 20-page answer which became the booklet A Simple Way to Pray (... for Master Peter). Artwork is first-rate – we feel like we’re right there in a 16th century German barbershop. And the lesson Luther and Sproul pass along here is sure to help readers of all ages with their prayers. To get a better account of what Luther was suggesting, please do find a copy of this book, or look up Luther’s booklet Simple Way to Pray online. But, in brief, what Luther suggested was that we memorize the Lord’s Prayer, the Apostle’s Creed and the Ten Commandments, and then, each time we pray, use a single line or clause from one of these as the focus of our prayer. So, for example, we might focus on the Apostle’s Creed’s first line: “I believe in God, the Father Almighty, the Maker of heaven and earth” and then in our prayer think on and recall some of the wonders God has made on the earth, and in the heavens above. It’s a wonderful, very helpful lesson. I originally got Barber Who Wanted to Pray thinking it might be a good way to teach my three-year-old how to do more than 3 or 4 line repetitive prayers. But what was a bit much for her was still helpful for her daddy. The simple lesson Luther taught his barber 500 years ago is just as useful to young and old today....

News

Saturday Selections – April 11, 2026

Climate Doom Archive: the polar bear The polar bear has long been a symbol of the global warming catastrophists, but as the folks at the Climate Discussion Nexus detail below polar bears are doing just fine. Australians aren't having kids Since it takes two to tango that means it takes an average of two children per woman to keep a population stable (and just slightly more than that – around 2.1 – to account for children who don't make it to adulthood). But Australia has averaged less than two children per woman since about 1975... and it's now near 1.4. Canada is worse at about 1.25 and China leads the depopulation dive at just about 1.0. God's cultural mandate, given before the Fall (Gen. 1:28) but repeated to Noah and his sons (Gen. 9:1) applies to more than just child-bearing but certainly includes it. "Be fruitful and multiply" gives Christians good reason to counter this demographic downward trend by, in obedience, trying for 3 or more. The silent killer: comfort "The danger lies in making comfort a priority – living an easy, carefree life that avoids stress, grief, or restriction... When comfort becomes our aim, we lose sight of the fact that the Christian life is often marked by disciplined effort, not stress-free living." New free creationist journal New Creation Studies is a new publication brought to you by some of the same people behind the great (and free) documentary Is Genesis History? Get married young (10 minute read) Marriage can get crowded out as an ambition because of career, income, education, or even travel goals. But what if we made the big things in life our big priority? 1,000 IVF frozen babies vs. 2 newborns: who would you save? It's a dilemma that's been pitched many times: if a hospital was on fire and you could only save a newborn baby, or let's say two – one tucked under each arm – or a nitrogen canister that contained one thousand frozen IVF babies, which would you save? The presumption underlying the question is that how most would act – saving the two crying, squirming, already-born babies – proves that embryonic babies aren't valuable. But, as Ben Shapiro shows below, that's not so. What he doesn't do, is show where human value does comes from. The world has no basis for it. If we are merely star dust, or just another animal, or just chemicals in motion, then why would any of us be any more valuable than that rock over there, also star dust, or another animal like, say, a chicken? Or why would we say our human-type walking bags of chemicals are all equal, but that equality doesn't extend to the chemical reactions going on in that fizzy can of Coke? The only basis for human worth, and for human equality, comes from being made in the very Image of God (Gen. 1:26-27). That is the only thing we all share equally and it is what gives us our worth (Gen. 9:6). ...

Theology

The beauty of 52 Sundays

or why we gave two years to bringing the Heidelberg Catechism to video… and more ***** There is something disarming about the Heidelberg Catechism. It doesn’t begin with abstract definitions, but with comfort. Our only comfort. Many of us have encountered, or experienced ourselves, a quiet guilt about “not knowing enough theology,” as if faithfulness were measured primarily by intellectual mastery. The Heidelberg resists that posture. Designed to be digested slowly over the course of a year, it teaches with patience. It repeats itself intentionally. It understands that formation takes time. And it certainly took time to capture that on film. Today, we find ourselves standing at a moment we honestly didn’t know how to imagine back on July 13th, 2023 when our organization, Faith to Film (FaithToFilm.ca) first took on this project. Every Lord’s Day of the Heidelberg Catechism now has a completed video. Fifty-two videos. Twenty-six pastors. Multiple denominations. One catechism. A full, freely available teaching resource on ReformedConfessions.org that did not exist before, but now it does. Why we started Pastor Hans Overduin took on Lord’s Days 15 and 23. Too often, Christian content is forced to choose between depth and visual excellence. We didn’t think that tradeoff was necessary. The Reformed confessions, in particular, seemed like an area crying out for this kind of care. Written centuries ago, they articulate truths that remain deeply relevant today. Truths with direct application for people wrestling with today’s fears, today’s doubts, and today’s hope. The church has never failed to recognize their value. They remain central to catechesis, preaching, and discipleship. And yet, the digital representation of them has not sufficiently reflected the clarity, weight, and beauty of the truth they contain. We wanted to do something about that. Our broader vision continues to be a single digital home for the Reformed Confessions where learning is layered. A video for introduction. A quiz for reinforcement. Extended material for deeper study. Illustrations that help concepts land. A place where churches can confidently send their people, knowing they will be met with clarity, pastoral care, and theological integrity. Not to replace traditional catechesis, but to supplement it and to provide access for those who may not have the same proximity to teachers or resources, whether new converts, families, or believers in other parts of the world. The Heidelberg Catechism felt like the natural place to begin. We are deeply grateful to the twenty-six pastors who lent their voices to this work. Though they serve in a range of congregational settings, they spoke here in one voice, bearing witness to the unity the Heidelberg Catechism has long provided to the Reformed church. Their participation reflects a shared commitment to teaching what has been confessed, received, and faithfully passed down through generations. The long middle Rev. John van Eyk addressed Lord’s Days 11 and 13. What we didn’t fully anticipate was just how long this patient approach would take. Don’t be mistaken, we understood the importance of moving slowly. We simply wanted the fruit of patience immediately. After all, two and a half years is long enough for enthusiasm to fade. Long enough for schedules to clash, funding to stretch thin, and momentum to feel fragile. This is why we are so grateful for everyone who supported this work. There is also a unique weight to the nature of this work. We regularly found ourselves asking difficult questions: Are we honoring the gravity of these truths? Are we preserving the warmth that Ursinus and Olevianus intended? Are we being careful, not only with words, but with images? There is a real challenge in visually representing biblical and theological concepts while maintaining a healthy reverence for God’s name and character. Navigating that tension was no small task. So yes, it is true that this has been a challenge, but it’s hard to stay stressed when the very content you are producing is a balm for your own soul. Sitting there, mouse in hand, editing a video on Lord’s Day 1, and being reminded that you are "not your own, but belong body and soul, to your faithful Savior, Jesus Christ." Time after time the words of the pastor on screen would cut straight through the producer mindset and hit the believer's heart. It really is a profound thing to experience. To realize that the very truths you are trying to broadcast are the same truths holding you together while you do it. Ready for you to use Pastor Mark Wagenaar tackled Lord’s Days 52 and 22. At this point, the Heidelberg Catechism series is no longer a project we are working on, but a free resource the church can now rely on. Go to ReformedConfessions.org, watch the videos, sit with the illustrations, and work through the questions. It is our prayer that it finds its way into your homes, classrooms, membership instruction, or quiet personal study. We pray that, in the steady rhythms of teaching and repetition, God would use this work as He has so often used catechesis: to form believers who know what they believe, why they believe it, and how that belief shapes their lives before Him and before one another. Above all, this moment draws our attention away from ourselves and back to the God who preserves His truth across centuries, cultures, and mediums. As we look forward to the development of the remaining Three Forms of Unity, we rest in the knowledge that the weight of this work does not fall on us. We are not the reason these words endure. We are witnesses to the fact that they do. “The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God stands forever” (Isaiah 40:8). Kyle Vasas and David Visser are a part of the team at Faith to Film which, in addition to ReformedConfessions.org, has done video series on Calvinism and Essential Truths, and is in the planning stage for one on office bearer training. Check out all their work, and how you can support it, at FaithtoFilm.ca....

Science - Creation/Evolution

6 days or 24 years: why does the difference even matter?

Theology

The pursuit of wisdom: do it ‘til you die

Some might assume that, as they grow older, they will grow in wisdom. But the Bible tells us that’s hardly a given. One of the themes of the book of...

In a Nutshell

Tidbits – April 2026

Some is better than none “There is nothing wrong with starting a hefty book like Calvin’s Institutes and only getting a hundred pages read. Think...

News

Aussie senator shows us how to do it... and how not to do it

News

Saturday Selections – April 4, 2026

Woody takes on screens? I wasn't expecting much from Toy Story #5, but with Woody and the crew taking on tech, I'm looking forward to this... 3 dodges that can derail any discussion Apologist Greg Koukl on the how skeptics will use "the ad hominem fallacy, the genetic fallacy, and the straw man fallacy" to avoid having honest discussions. And he shows how to get discussions back on track. US vice president thinks UFOs are demons J.D. Vance took that position based on his Judeo-Christian worldview. “I don't think they're aliens. I think they're demons anyway…. I mean, every great world religion, including Christianity, the one that I believe in, has understood that there are weird things out there, and there are things that are very difficult to explain. And I naturally go, when I hear about that sort of extra supernatural phenomenon, I go to the Christian understanding that there's a lot of good out there, but there's also some evil out there. And I think that one of the devil's great tricks is to convince people he never existed.” And creationist Gary Bates agrees. Canada should heed warnings from Dutch tax on unrealized gains The Netherlands House of representatives just passed legislation that would tax unrealized capital gains at 36 percent. That means, if your retirement stock portfolio grew from $50,000 to $150,000 this year, you would have to pay government $36,000 on that $100,000 increase in value. One big problem? You don't actually have any of that money yet – it's still invested in your stocks. So, as this article shares, a "person would either have to sell the stocks, dig into their savings, or take out a loan to pay the government." And, as anyone who has stocks knows, that $100,000 increase could take a sudden drop at any time too. So what does such a tax encourage? To steer clear of investing, where the losses will still hurt, and your gains will be taxed before you've even realized them. If you think a tax on unrealized gains could never happen in Canada, consider the similarity behind our property taxes. As I spotted on the 'Net, from a fellow named Ron Rule: "Imagine if income taxes were based not on how much you made, but how much your town decided you could have made. That's basically how property tax works. The assessor decides what your house is worth, then taxes you as if you paid that price." Property values in places like Hamilton and Toronto have doubled in a decade, which means that people who bought homes before the market went crazy are now getting taxed on gains they won't "realize" until they sell their house. And if they bought a $500,000 home in 2015, and are now paying taxes on a house worth $1 million, the taxes may well force them to sell – their assessed increases, never actually seen in their bank account, might just drive them out of their home. A biblical case for border security US Speaker of the House Mike Johnson wrote this back before Donald Trump became president again. There is a certain sense in which I would suspect all readers would be united about border security. We lock our house doors, as Franklin Graham put it, not because we hate those outside, but because we love those inside. So we'd all be united in wanting to keep the drug and sex traffickers and other criminals out. But what of those who have no nefarious intent, and are simply looking for a better home? The practical observation in that case is, we can only start to consider those situations once the border is secure, so we can then sift the latter from the former. I wonder if Mike Johnson would support sponsorship programs, so that the individuals he speaks of, perhaps working through their churches, could act in rescuing some? Pierre Poilievre tells Joe Rogan he supports letting doctors kill their patients Last month Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre made an appearance on the most popular podcast in the world. Federally, his party has been leading the opposition against euthanasia for the mentally ill, and we can be thankful for that. But, in an appearance on The Joe Rogan Experience, he told Rogan that he actually supports giving people the choice to murder themselves. That's a problem, and for the mentally ill too, because if euthanasia is a right and is good medicine for some, then how can you deny this treatment for others when it could instantly alleviate their affliction? If it is mercy to kill some sufferers, why isn't it mercy to kill other sufferers too? What fixed standard can Poilievre (or Joe Rogan) appeal to that would permit death to be used to "help" the physically ill, but not the mentally ill? What immovable line can you draw once you've decided killing is caring? The lady below is coming out hard against Poilievre, and makes a very compelling practical argument against every form of euthanasia, highlighting the many enormous abuses underway in Canada's euthanasia culture. But the problem with her practical argument is that it invites a practical solution. Have better laws. Spend more on palliative care. Making the waiting time longer, etc. But no practical solution will safeguard life so long as a culture doesn't value life. And we will only value life when we no longer thing its value comes from us, or from others, or from what we can do or experience. It is only when a culture looks upward and understands that life – our own life – is not ours to dispose of as we wish, but is entrusted to us by God above, that it can draw a fixed line: Do not kill (Ex. 20:13). (This woman, Kelsi Sheren, takes God's name in vain several times, and drops an f-bomb or two, but I'm sharing the video anyway, because she presents here, in 20 minutes what you may not have heard in months of the mainstream media's euthanasia coverage.) ...

Assorted

When there is smoke…

You think you know someone. Five years – truly, has it already been five years that we have spent morning, noon and night working side by side? How many meals, how much laughter, how many truly delicious accomplishments we have achieved together only to arrive at this Easter morning and have you, the oven I’ve grown to trust, inexplicably burn the bacon beyond recognition?!! The betrayal runs deep. Now, hopefully there aren’t any readers who are questioning the underlying necessity of bacon in the life of the believer. If so, go read Nehemiah 8 and then come back. I’ll wait. A large platter of bacon, crisped to perfection, is my weekly gift to my people, the reminder of all the wondrous things we mortals can experience this side of paradise. Over the years, I have moved through many different seasons and methods of bacon prep. In the newlywed years, I attempted bacon on a paper-towel-ensconced plate in the microwave. This works better, I admit, if you hadn’t thought it a brilliant idea to register for large, square dinner plates that, when placed in the microwave, aggressively prohibit the rotation mechanism, thus producing bacon that is highly, almost toxically cooked on one end and raw on the other. I then spent multiple years employing the electric skillet on the countertop method, which was largely fine but had two predictable problems I never seemed to entirely stay ahead of: I buy cheap griddles (yes, that technically makes me the problem, so make it three predictable problems) and they always seem to have large dead spots in the center, thus requiring a complicated mosaic of fatty meat scattered about that can cook approximately three pieces at a time, and the grease catch always has a tendency to break, which I consistently fail to notice until the grease has dripped all across the counter and floor, leaving an exciting patch for walking on days after the bacon has been consumed. Then I was introduced to cooking bacon in the oven and, dare I have the hubris to say, I shall never go back? It has now become a part of my own personal Sunday morning liturgy. To get the family up and out to worship without a stressed atmosphere, I wake up an hour or so before the rest and go cook bacon. Later, when everyone is up, I pop the already cooked bacon back into the now cooling oven to warm it back to perfection and voilà – eat the fat! This was my plan on Easter morning... And then the oven betrayed me. Now, if ovens could speak, mine would probably say (and for some reason, I hear this in an Australian accent), Whoa now, Missy, I am not the one who broke the pattern, you did! You acted the dingo (again, Australian) and left the oven on for too long and you did not pay close attention when you warmed the bacon back up, which is why your family had to eat LIMP TURKEY BACON on Resurrection Sunday! At this point, obviously, I would push random buttons on the oven that would make it stop talking and probably clean itself. Ha, and so there. But then... I would have to acknowledge that the oven, while unnecessarily preening and self-righteous and sporting a cooler accent than mine, was correct – I assumed the bacon was safe. I stopped paying attention. Smoke always ensues when we stop paying attention. It is really no different in our daily walks with Christ. We have areas that we let our guard down (you know the one, that guard we are told to keep up with unceasing vigilance because our adversary the devil roams about like a lion seeking one to destroy?). We feel safe, spiritually, and fail to pay attention to the faint aroma of singed flesh that is beginning to permeate our relationships, our thoughts, our homes. One such example that leaps to mind for me is that brief window of time at the end of a long day when you and your spouse finally get to go to bed. How many thoughtless words have been spoken in those last moments of the waking hours? How many misunderstandings could have been avoided, how many apologies would not have become necessary, if we were to go to bed, spiritually, with a knife under our pillow, ready to spring to the cross at the first sign of temptation? Because that is the only recourse when you light God’s good gifts on fire: Christ. He is your only protection, your true security, the only place you can and must turn again and again in the midst of temptation, of failure, of opposition, of smoke. Some kitchen fires... some relational fires... leave an aroma in the air that lasts for days. I spent a solid 48 hours haunted by the Easter bacon. But with each acrid whiff, I am given the choice to turn, and return, to the Gospel and put my hope in His unfailing protection. He is not done handing out bacon. So, I cannot be done standing guard, in His grace alone....

Science - General

Wild about beetles

From a young age some people are fascinated by beetles. For example, English author A. A. Milne wrote a delightful poem concerning a boy and his pet. The poem, in Now We are Six (1927), recounts the experiences of a boy who put a beetle in a matchbox for safekeeping. However disaster struck when his nanny, apparently looking for a match, inadvertently let the beetle out of the box. And Nanny let my beetle out - Yes Nanny let my beetle out - She went and let my beetle out - And beetle ran away. A search is set up and, happily, a beetle is discovered. It was Alexander Beetle I'm as certain as can be And he had a sort of look as if he thought it must be ME." So Nanny and the boy quickly shovel their find into the matchbox. This lady is determined not to make the same mistake again. And Nanny's very sorry too for you-know-what-she-did, And she's writing ALEXANDER very blackly on the lid." This delightful scenario has no doubt occurred through many generations in many countries. Even today, some children enjoy beetle pets. And all of us can appreciate beetles for what they tell us about their Designer, even if we are not in the market for a pet. Rhinos The scary looking rhinoceros beetles are among the largest beetles. Although they may grow to more than 150 millimeters, or 6 inches long, they are completely harmless to humans since they do not bite or sting. The claim to fame of these beetles is the horns, one projecting from each side of the thorax (section behind the head), and another one pointing forward from the centre of the thorax. These insects are sort of the Triceratops (horned dinosaur) of the insect world! They are a subgroup of the scarab beetles and, like most scarabs, they have strong legs – some species can lift up to 850 times their own weight! Our interest in this group of insects comes from the fact that children in Japan like to buy or catch these insects for pets. Apparently it is particularly fun to breed these pets. While most scarab beetles are not as showy as the rhinoceros beetles, they nevertheless are a most interesting group of insects. Beetles are a group of insects that exhibit sheathed wings. The front pair of wings (projecting from the back of the middle section or thorax) is hardened for protection. Underneath we find a second pair of wings which look more typical of insect wings. In order to fly, the beetle raises the hardened pair to expose the other pair which do the actual work of flying. In that beetles all exhibit a head, thorax (with three pairs of legs, besides the 2 pairs of wings), and an abdomen (covered by the hardened sheathed wings), they all are basically similar in design. It is in the design of the antennae, mouth parts, leg structure and ornamentation (color, patterns and projections) that we see variety between beetle groups. And variety there is indeed! In total, worldwide, there are about 165 families of beetle. We find most species collected in six extremely diverse families, each with about 20,000 or more described species. The scarabs or Scarabaeidae, are stout-bodied beetles measuring between 2mm long to 17 cm (almost 7 inches). Many scarab beetles exhibit bright metallic colors, especially on the hardened exterior wings (called the elytra). These insects have distinctive club shaped antennae, the component parts of which can fan out like leaves, in order to sense odous. The front legs often are broad and powerful for digging and the hind legs more so. Some of the most famous scarabs include dung beetles, June beetles, rhinoceros beetles, Hercules beetles and Goliath beetles, as well as those ever unpopular rose chafers. The Hercules beetle is the most famous of the rhinoceros beetles. Native to the rainforest of the Americas, this creature's central horn is extremely large and intimidating. Goliath beetles on the other hand, are among the largest insects in terms of body size and weight. Native to Africa, they measure 60-110 mm (2.5 - 4.5 inches) for males. The diets of scarab beetles range from fruit, to fungi, to dead animals and even the slime trails of snails. Dung beetles It is however the dung beetles, which are particularly remarkable. These species feed partly, or exclusively, on animal droppings. Dung, however, can be resource in short supply. The dung beetles have a wonderful sense of smell, based in their antennae, for locating this resource when it is fresh. Cows in a pasture apparently produce about 12 pats per day, per individual animal, but the location of these droppings is hard to predict. Once the odor reaches one beetle, it probably has also attracted many competitors, so speed is essential. One elephant dropping in east Africa was monitored in the 1980s. Four thousand insects arrived within a half hour. It took 16,000 dung beetles only two hours to entirely clear away 1.5 kg (3 lbs) of manure. Some dung beetles roll the dung into round balls which they immediately remove from the scene. They then bury it in a suitable spot in order to use it as food, or as a chamber to shelter and feed their young. Others merely bury dung where they find it. Still other species simply live in the manure where it has been deposited. The true dung beetles roll freshly deposited dung into round balls which may be very heavy compared to the insect. In one study, beetles averaging 2-5 grams in weight, moved dung balls which averaged 6-240 grams and they did this at speeds of up to 20 cm per second. That is fast going! Speed is essential because other dung beetles will steal the ball if they can. The male then pushes the ball in a straight line, despite all obstacles. One can move the farthest and fastest away from point A, when one travels in a straight line. If eggs are to be laid in the resource, the female follows behind, rides along, or helps push the ball. The dung beetles prefer the droppings of grazer animals (herbivores). These droppings are notoriously rich in undigested nutrients and in moisture. The beetles don't need anything else to munch or drink. Mostly the males push the ball backwards, rolling it with their hind legs. An item in the May 2012 National Geographic described how dung beetles may find themselves navigating across sand as hot as 150 degrees F (66 degrees C) during the day in South Africa. To cool their parched feet the beetles frequently climb up on top of the dung which may be only 73 degrees F, or 26 degrees C, compared to the hot sand. When scientists outfitted the beetles with heat resistant silicon booties the beetles did not need to climb up on the dung as frequently. It is evident that dung beetles, while proceeding backward in a straight line, need to orient themselves to prevent their moving in a circle. Features in the landscape will not work as points of reference because the insects are too close to the ground. Obviously the key is to look up to the sky. Previous studies have shown that beetles can navigate using the sun or the moon, or patterns of polarized sunlight or moonlight. Star bugs! Now a study, published in the Feb 18, 2013 issue of Current Biology, documents that dung beetles can also orient themselves by the stars, specifically the Milky Way. Marie Dacke of Lund University declares that her study with dung beetles is the very first demonstration that any creature, other than humans, can orient themselves by the Milky Way. In order to prove her point, she needed to be able to turn the stars on and off. Thus she obtained permission to deploy her beetles in the Johannesburg planetarium. With the "sky" darkened, the beetles went round in circles, but with the sky illuminated by stars, the beetles proceed nicely outward. One commentator remarked that dung beetles achieve a lot with minimal computing power in the brain. It is certainly interesting that this navigational skill is uniquely conferred upon a beetle. Scarab beetles are not exactly obscure insects. There are apparently about 30,000 species in the family, comprising about 10 per cent of all known beetles. The dung rollers were in former times venerated by the ancient Egyptians who compared the emergence of the young beetles from underground to the daily rising of the sun in the east. It is obvious, moreover, that these beetles are important contributors to a clean environment. By removing and burying dung they prevent disease-ridden insects from multiplying, and they also contribute to soil fertility. A project in Australia (1965-1985) involved the introduction of 23 species of dung beetles. There were native species already present, but they were unable to deal with the droppings of cattle, which have a different chemical consistency then the droppings of the native marsupials. This agricultural initiative resulted in improved fertility in pastures, and vastly reduced numbers of insect pests. But the scarab beetles are only one beetle family out of about 165 families. No doubt, the diversity of beetles and their interesting stories could fill many books. Other beetles The weevils (Curculionidae) are a very large family of usually small beetles (less than 6 mm or 1/4 inch long). Their distinctive feature is their long downward curving snout. The mouth parts at the tip are less elaborate than in many other groups. This does not prevent these beetles from damaging many crops. One of their infamous members is the cotton boll weevil. Others of the 60,000 species include those munching on nuts, fruits, stems and roots. The ground beetles (Carabidae) are another large and interesting group. Their claim to fame, besides their beautiful shiny black or metallic ridged hardened wings (elytra), is the pair of glands in the lower back of the abdomen. These glands produce nasty or even burning secretions guaranteed to make any creature threatening the beetle, extremely unhappy. Among the noxious products released by such insects are hydrocarbons, aldehydes, phenols, quinones, esters and acids. Among this infamous group we find the bombardier beetles which combine chemicals in a mixing chamber just prior to explosively releasing quinones at 100 degrees C along with a gas mixture. Most of these ground beetles live under bark of trees or under logs or rocks. Most are carnivores, eating any kind of invertebrate they can overpower. Because they eat many caterpillars which are plant pests, most ground beetles are fairly popular. Many of these beetles too, in former years, were prized by collectors because of their large size and showy color patterns. Many beetle families have unpopular representatives. The small darkling beetles (Tenebrionidae) with about 20,000 species, are named for their plain dull bluish black or brown color. Their preferred diet is fresh and decaying vegetation. However some of them make a habit of exploiting processed grain products. This group includes the confused flour beetle, the red flour beetle and mealworms. Such spoilage of food has apparently long been a problem for human societies. May Berenbaum mentions (p. 144) that alabaster vases from Tutankhamen's tomb (dating from about 1350 B.C.) were found to contain Tribolium castaneum, the red flour beetle. Many people feed Tenebrio (mealworms) to various pets, but the mealworms living on their own, are bad news for stored grain products. The leaf beetles (Chrysomelidae) include the Colorado potato beetle which has no trouble, once present in any numbers, in eating a potato plant completely to the ground. Another infamous member of this family is the flea beetle. These small dark beetles have very strong hind legs for jumping. Flea beetles are particularly enthusiastic about plants in the mustard of crucifer family. Cabbages, broccoli, cauliflower, radishes and the like are all fair game. And these beetles are a major economic concern on canola crops, also in the same plant family. Ladybugs One of the most delightful beetles however is the Coccinellidae family which includes ladybugs. These are predators of aphids and scale (bad plant pests) among other victims. We have only to consider the ladybugs to derive some appreciation of the diversity among beetles. Ladybugs are small, up to 10 mm long (0.4 inch). They are round, broadly oval or narrowly oval. They can be orange, red, yellow or black. The elytra is decorated with black spots, red spots, white spots or spots stretched into bars. The number of spots varies from 0, 2, 3, 7, 11, 13 or more. Over 5000 species are found worldwide and of these, there are about 450 species native to North America. Ladybugs and indeed all beetles, are wonderful examples of the richness and variety we see in nature. Beetles are quite plain in their basic organization. The amazing diversity in appearance as well as in lifestyle, tells us something about the Creator. God loves variety and He loves beauty! The fancy elaborations on the beetle theme in terms of talents and appearance, can only serve to increase our interest in the creation. Could the various ecosystems survive with plainer looking beetles? No doubt. But isn't it fun to be able to observe and enjoy beetles in all their vast variety? This first appeared in the June 2013 issue. ...

Economics, People we should know

Friedrich Hayek (1899-1992) showed us that free enterprise is necessary for freedom

One of the greatest social theorists of the twentieth century was a libertarian – some would say conservative – economist named Friedrich Hayek (1899-1992). Hayek spent his life arguing that free enterprise is not only necessary for economic prosperity, but also essential to maintain political liberty. For much of his career, he faced overwhelming opposition to these views, but he did eventually gain some mainstream acceptance, winning the 1974 Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences. Hayek’s life and legacy An important book about Hayek has recently been published, written by Dr. Eamonn Butler of the Adam Smith Institute in London, England. It’s called Friedrich Hayek: The ideas and influence of the libertarian economist (2012), and it summarizes Hayek’s life and key insights. Hayek was born in 1899 in Vienna, earned a doctorate in law from the University of Vienna in 1921, and a doctorate in political science from the same university in 1923. At the University of Vienna Hayek became a close associate of Ludwig von Mises, the leading figure in the “Austrian School” of economics, which emphasizes the importance of the free market. Hayek and Mises then set up an economic think tank and Hayek undertook economic research. His research demonstrated that bad government policy was the cause of the “boom and bust” cycle of many countries’ economies, and he predicted that the USA was about to experience such a bust. Shortly thereafter, in 1929, his prediction came true, with the Wall Street Crash and the beginning of the Great Depression. In 1931 Hayek took up a position teaching economics at the prestigious London School of Economics in England. He became a naturalized British citizen in 1938 after Hitler took over Austria. The Road to Serfdom In April 1945 Readers' Digest released an abridged version of Hayek's Road to Serfdom. While the original is 250+ pages, this version is just 60. It can be read for free online here. There is also an 18-page cartoon summary that was meant to create interest in the longer book. You can find the comic at Mises.org/books/TRTS where you can also download the original, both of them also free to download. Because of World War Two, Hayek began to focus more on political science. He was afraid that totalitarian ideas were going to sweep the world, not just in the more vicious forms of Nazism or Communism, but even in the softer form of socialism. He believed that the moderately socialistic direction of the Western countries in the mid-twentieth century would ultimately lead to authoritarian government. To articulate this view, in 1944 he wrote a book called The Road to Serfdom, which was very controversial and quickly sold out its first print run. Butler notes that this book was: read by the young Margaret Thatcher, who later said she found it "the most powerful critique of socialist planning and the socialist state." It made Hayek’s name in America, too, where tens of thousands of copies were sold, and Reader’s Digest distributed another 600,000 copies of its own condensed version. Due to this publicity, Hayek gave lectures across the USA and became a visiting professor at Stanford University. In order to help spread libertarian ideas, in 1947 Hayek assembled 39 British, European and American scholars who supported individual freedom to found an organization that would promote the intellectual case for the free society. Because this meeting was held at the Swiss resort of Mont Pelerin, it was called the Mont Pelerin Society. This increasingly important organization still exists today to pursue the same goal. Shortly after World War Two, a former Royal Air Force fighter pilot named Antony Fisher went to Hayek to get advice on how to promote free enterprise in the face of popular socialist assumptions. Hayek convinced Fisher that the best thing would be to found a think tank that would generate intellectual arguments for freedom. A few years later, in 1955, Fisher set up the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA), the first of several free market think tanks that would become very influential by the late 1970s and 1980s. Fisher would later play a role in the creation of Canada’s Fraser Institute, as well as like-minded think tanks in other parts of the world. Rise to prominence In 1950 Hayek became a professor at the University of Chicago. While there he wrote one of his most famous books, The Constitution of Liberty, articulating the foundations and principles of a free society. In 1962 he moved back to Europe to be a professor at the University of Freiburg in West Germany. As mentioned previously, he won the Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences in 1974. And over the course of the 1970s he wrote a three-volume set called Law, Legislation and Liberty, once again expressing the intellectual case for the free society, as opposed to socialism. Besides the Nobel Prize, Hayek also received other honors. Butler points out that in 1984, Queen Elizabeth II made him a Companion of Honour (he described it as "the happiest day of my life"), and in 1991 he was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by George H. W. Bush. Hayek died in 1992, after seeing his ideas receive acclaim in many academic circles, as well as influencing the policies of some English-speaking democracies (especially Margaret Thatcher’s Britain) and some newly-liberated Eastern European countries. Freedom versus socialism Among Hayek’s many insights, two are of most significance for Christians. First, he argued that modern societies are much too complex to be centrally planned by government (i.e. socialism doesn’t work). Secondly, he argued that attempts to engineer societies to conform to some concept of “social justice” inevitably lead to authoritarian government (i.e. socialism leads to tyranny). Many people believe that if human societies were completely planned and run by governments, they would be much more efficient and fair. In Western societies today there are so many different kinds of products, of so many different shapes and sizes, that the situation is virtually chaotic. So if the government could decide what is produced, all of the products could be standardized, leading to economic efficiency. As well, there is a considerable amount of inequality in society, because some people benefit much more than others in a free market system. Through central planning, the government could equalize incomes, and thus enhance social justice. 1. Too complex for central planning But Hayek points out that societies are much too complex for any human organization to be able to centrally plan successfully. Societies are spontaneous orders, with millions of people every day making economic decisions of various kinds. How could a government possibly be able to aggregate and apply all of the information that would be necessary to anticipate these economic decisions every day? It’s simply impossible. Any attempt to do so would lead to all kinds of economic problems (think, for example, of the old Soviet Union). Consider one particular example of this problem, namely, the determination of salaries in a centrally planned economy. Should a nurse get paid more than a mathematics professor? Should a butcher get paid more than a coal miner? There are thousands of different occupations, and the central planning authority would have to determine each of their salaries relative to each other. How could they possibly know what was right? Hayek correctly argued that the free market takes care of this efficiently without central planning. People pay us for the goods and services we produce because they value those products. So market rewards do depend, in a very real sense, on the value that we deliver to other members of our society. They also reflect the scarcity and skill of the producers, the numbers of customers who want the service and the urgency or importance that buyers attach to it Therefore a person’s salary reflects a number of economic factors, not the political calculation of a bureaucrat. If there are too many people pursuing a particular occupation, their salaries will go down. If there is a shortage of people in a particular occupation, their salaries will go up. In a free market society, economic information is communicated through prices. Prices are signals that indicate “to everyone where their product is most highly valued, and prompting them to steer their efforts and expertise in those directions.” Say, for example, that there is a shortage of tin. Because there is not enough of it, its price will rise. Due to the price increase, companies that use tin will use less of it or find a substitute for it. The extra demand for the substitute will in turn bid up its price, and prompt those using the substitute to seek yet other materials to substitute for that; and so it goes on. The entire market order adjusts to the shortage of tin, even though hardly anyone knows what caused it. The overall point is that free markets automatically adjust to changing conditions. It’s part of the nature of the free market to process all kinds of information and respond to it spontaneously. Central planners could never hope to know all of this information and to be able to respond to changes in the economy so rapidly and effectively. Besides the fact that socialism doesn’t work, its tendency is to lead inevitably to authoritarian government. A central planning government must determine how labor, land and other productive resources are used in the economy. It has to coordinate all these different factors so that they work towards the completion of the government’s plan. In such a situation, everyone would have to do what the authorities have determined is necessary for the achievement of the government’s objectives. Individuals must expect to be uprooted and deployed at the direction of the authorities, since personal life now counts for nothing compared to the good of the collective – a good that is defined by those same authorities. Butler summarizes the point this way: “When governments believe they can ‘run the country’ just as they might run a factory, our lives and property become a mere input at their disposal.” 2. Inequality can be a good thing A centrally planned economy can redistribute resources between people and therefore lead to a situation of greater material equality. However, the loss of freedom necessary for such an endeavor is quite high. As well, the economic benefits of inequality are lost. In the economic sphere, inequality is not always a bad thing. Yes, you read that right: inequality is not necessarily a bad thing. Butler describes Hayek’s insights on the economic importance of inequality this way: Inequality is not just the outcome of the market process: it drives the market process. The high gains made by successful producers act as a magnet, pulling people and resources to where the greatest value can be captured, and away from less productive and less valuable uses. So people and resources are attracted to where they will make the greatest possible contribution to future incomes. And this is a continuous, dynamic, growing process. The inequality that so many people resent is, in fact, the very attraction that steers effort and resources to their most productive applications, pulling up incomes at every level. Hayek argued that the government should have a minimal role in society. Mostly it should be concerned with national defense and enforcing the rules (laws) that protect people from each other. It would also provide public goods such as roads, land registries, organized responses to natural disasters, and other things that governments can do best. He also saw the need for government “to support needy groups such as people with disabilities, those incapable of work, orphans or the elderly.” Needless to say, the government can fulfill these tasks without becoming socialistic. Conclusion Hayek was not a Christian scholar and he was not trying to promote a Christian perspective. Nevertheless, his scholarship dovetails well with Biblical Christianity because he believed in the need for a private property-based economic system. The Bible establishes private property as an essential institution and assumes a private property-based economy. In this respect Hayek’s intellectual work supports an economic system much like what the Bible demands. There are few twentieth century thinkers that were as important and influential as Friedrich Hayek. Whereas so many academics think that mankind is smart enough to re-engineer societies through governmental power, Hayek was humble enough to concede that human beings are very limited in their knowledge and that their efforts to re-engineer any society are bound to be detrimental. While not everything in his thinking can be embraced by Christians, his overall perspective on economics and society provides a powerful intellectual antidote to the socialistic fallacies that are still common in North American colleges and universities today. Hayek and his ideas are featured below in a couple of epic rap battles vs. his economics arch nemesis, John Maynard Keynes. ...

Politics

5 ways God’s providence should impact how we approach politics

News

Saturday Selections – Mar. 28, 2026

Some good news about euthanasia Scotland has voted against euthanasia after looking at the horror happening in Canada. 1 in 5 Canadian employees...

Being the Church

Retirement: What are you retiring from? What are you retiring to?

History

The case against the draft

Why no State has the right to take what belongs to Christ ***** Across the Western world, military recruiting is sputtering. In 2022 and 2023, the U...

Assorted

The conceited apple-branch: a Romans 12:3-8 fable?

Was Hans Christian Andersen thinking of Romans 12:3-8 when he wrote this? Perhaps not…. but he could have been. ***** It was the month of May. The wind still blew cold, but from bush and tree, field and flower, came the whisper “Spring has come.” Wildflowers covered the hedges, and under one little apple-tree, Spring seemed especially busy, telling his tale to one of the branches which hung fresh and blooming, and covered with delicate pink blossoms that were just ready to open. Now the branch knew well how beautiful it was – this knowledge exists as much in the leaf as in our blood. I was not surprised when a nobleman’s carriage, in which sat a young countess, stopped in the road right by. She said that an apple-branch was a most lovely object, and an example of spring at its most charming its most charming. Then the branch was broken off for her, and she held it in her delicate hand, and sheltered it with her silk parasol. Then they drove to the castle, in which were lofty halls and splendid rooms. Pure white curtains fluttered in every open window, and beautiful flowers stood in shining, transparent vases. In one of them, which looked as if it had been cut out of newly fallen snow, the apple-branch was placed, among some fresh, light twigs of beech. It was a charming sight. Then the branch became proud, which was very much like human nature. People of every description entered the room, and expressed their admiration. Some said nothing, others expressed too much, and the apple-branch very soon came to understand that there was as much difference in the characters of human beings as in those of plants and flowers. Some are all for pomp and parade, others are busy trying to maintain their own importance, while the rest might not be noticed at all. So, thought the apple-branch, as he stood before the open window, from which he could see out over gardens and fields where there were flowers and plants enough for him to think and reflect upon, it is the way of things that some are rich and beautiful, some poor and humble. “Poor, despised herbs,” said the apple-branch, “there is really a difference between them and one such as I. How unhappy they must be, if that sort can even feel as those in my position do! There is a difference indeed, and so there ought to be, or we should all be equals.” And the apple-branch looked with a sort of pity upon them, especially on a certain little flower that is found in fields and in ditches. No one gathered these flowers together in a bouquet; they were too common. They were even known to grow between the paving stones, shooting up everywhere, like bad weeds, and they bore the very ugly name of “dog-flowers” or “dandelions.” “Poor, despised plants,” said the apple-bough again, “it is not your fault that you are so ugly, and that you have such an ugly name. But it is with plants as with men, – there must be a difference.” “A difference?” cried the sunbeam, as he kissed the blooming apple-branch, and then kissed the yellow dandelion out in the fields. All were brothers, and the sunbeam kissed them all – the poor flowers as well as the rich. The apple-bough had never considered the extent of God’s love, which reaches out over all of creation, over every creature and plant and thing which lives, and moves, and has its being in Him. The apple-bough had never thought of the good and beautiful which are so often hidden, but can never remain forgotten by Him – not only among the lower creation, but also among men. However, the sunbeam, the ray of light, knew better. “You do not see very far, nor very clearly,” he said to the apple-branch. “Which is the despised plant you so specially pity?” “The dandelion,” he replied. “No one ever gathers it into bouquets; it is often trodden under foot, there are so many of them; and when they run to seed, they have flowers like wool, which fly away in little pieces over the roads, and cling to the dresses of the people. They are only weeds. But of course there must be weeds. Oh, I am really very thankful that I was not made like one of these flowers.” Soon after a group of children came to the fields, the youngest of whom was so small that he had to be carried by the others. And when he was seated on the grass, among the yellow flowers, he laughed aloud with joy, kicking out his little legs, rolling about, plucking the yellow flowers, and kissing them in childlike innocence. The older children broke off the flowers with long stems, bent the stalks one round the other, to form links, and made first a chain for the neck, then one to go across the shoulders and hang down to the waist, and at last a wreath to wear round the head. They all looked quite splendid in their garlands of green stems and golden flowers. It was then that the oldest among them carefully gathered the faded flowers – those that were going to seed in the form of a white feathery crown. These loose, airy wool-flowers are very beautiful, and look like fine snowy feathers or down. The children held them to their mouths, and tried to blow away the whole crown with one puff of their breath. “Do you see?” said the sunbeam, “Do you see the beauty of these flowers? Do you see their powers of giving pleasure?” “Yes, to children,” scoffed the apple-bough. By-and-by an old woman came into the field, and, with a blunt knife, began to dig round the roots of some of the dandelion-plants, and pull them up. With some of these she intended to make tea for herself, but the rest she was going to sell to the chemist, and obtain some money. “But beauty is of higher value than all this,” said the apple-tree branch; “only the chosen ones can be admitted into the realms of the beautiful. There is a difference between plants, just as there is a difference between men.” Then the sunbeam spoke of the abundant love of God, as seen in creation, and seen over all that lives, and of the distribution of His gifts to all. “That is your opinion,” said the apple-bough. Then some people came into the room, and, among them, the young countess – the lady who had placed the apple-bough in the transparent vase, so pleasantly beneath the rays of the sunlight. She carried in her hand something that seemed like a flower. The object was hidden by two or three great leaves, which covered it like a shield, so that no draft or gust of wind could injure it. And it was carried more carefully than the apple-branch had ever been. Very cautiously the large leaves were removed, and there appeared the feathery seed-crown of the despised dandelion. This was what the lady had so carefully plucked, and carried home so safely covered, so that not one of the delicate feathery arrows of which its mist-like shape was so lightly formed, should flutter away. She now drew it forth quite uninjured, and wondered at its beautiful form, and airy lightness, and singular construction, so soon to be blown away by the wind. “See,” she exclaimed, “how wonderfully God has made this little flower. I will paint it with the apple-branch together. Every one admires the beauty of the apple-bough; but this humble flower has been endowed by Heaven with another kind of loveliness; and although they differ in appearance, both are the children of the realms of beauty.” Then the sunbeam kissed the lowly flower, and he kissed the blooming apple-branch, upon whose leaves appeared a rosy blush. This article was originally published in the May/June 2028 issue of the magazine. This is a lightly modified/modernized version of Andersen's “The Conceited Apple-Branch.” ...

News

Health-adjusted life expectancy plummets

Canadians can expect 3.5 fewer years of good health compared to a decade ago, according to recent data published by Statistics Canada. Life expectancy has increased steadily in Canada and throughout the world for many decades, though with a noticeable dip around the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020. But it is one thing to live longer, and another to live healthier. The Statistics Canada report examined health-adjusted life expectancy (HALE), a measure of the number of years in good health an individual is expected to live. Comparing the period of 2000-2002 to 2010-2012, HALE increased by nearly two years, to 70.4. But fast-forward a decade later to 2023, and HALE has dropped to 66.9 years, erasing the gains from the previous decades. Factors that contribute to the drop include the thousands of annual deaths from drug overdoses, increased mental health challenges, increased obesity, more misuse of drugs and alcohol, and a strained healthcare system. Although other countries also experienced a drop, it wasn’t as significant. The World Health Organization reported a 1.6 year decrease for HALE during and after the pandemic internationally. And although Canada ranked 5th in the world in life expectancy in 1990, our ranking has plummeted to 25th today. The Statistics Canada study noted that Canadian females have a life expectancy of 84 years and a HALE of 67.7 years, while males have a life expectancy of 79.6 years and a HALE of 66.4 years. Scripture makes it evident that God sovereignly determines how many days we live (Ps. 139:16) and is the One who gives us health or takes it away (Jer. 30:17, Ps. 103:3). We also learn from passages like Proverbs 3:1-2 (“keep my commands in your heart, for they will prolong your life many years and bring you peace and prosperity”) that walking in line with God’s Word is good not just for our spiritual health but also our mental and physical health. This correlates with studies that find that those who regularly attend religious services live about four years longer than average and have a much lower (up to 33 percent less) risk of death at any given moment....

News

Saturday Selections – Mar. 21, 2026

Make college less expensive by making it less expansive? When colleges were Christian it made sense that they had certain basic courses that would be required of all students. While it would be arguable then too what those basics should all be, understanding that God's fingerprints are everywhere evident gives a basis for His people to want at least an overview of the broad topics of music, arts, athletics, history, math, logic, and maybe more. But when colleges aren't Christian, and those in charge can't even understand that boys can't become girls, we know better than to believe they have the wisdom to know what core subjects all students should be exposed to. The many problems with BC's human rights regime The Devil will try to obscure, confuse, and hide or, as is happening here, silence the truth, because he can't beat it. Now, God's Name is holy, thus there are also Christian reasons for some restrictions on speech. But the case for broad freedoms of speech is actually this Christian one: We aren't worried about protecting God's Truth. We know it isn't fragile, so it doesn't need to be protected with protective speech codes. And we understand that the Holy Spirit uses people, and the dialogues we have, to bring people to Him, thus people need to be free to propose even errors, so they can be corrected and exposed. But the more our culture turns their back on God, and His 10 Commandments, the more they, as Chesterton put it, will govern by their 10,000 commandments – laws and restrictions without end, governing not just actions, but speech, thoughts, and feelings. If Christianity isn't true, then why the outrage at Epstein? "...modern pagans despise Christian sexual morality, but they are also forced to borrow from it as they condemn the kind of horrific treatment of women and children revealed in the Epstein files. The 'uncomfortable truth about the Epstein accusations,' as Paul Anleitner posted on X, is that… 'We only find them morally reprehensible because of Christianity.'" Elders are competent to counsel Christians underestimate the wisdom God has given us in His Word. Christians also overestimate the wisdom of the world. We think we need to turn to the "experts" in matters of counsel, even though these are the folks who say that boys can become girls, sex before marriage is fine, homosexuality is just another lifestyle (and doesn't lead to incontinence), and life doesn't begin until you are born. Christians stand up for a Sikh in court The Sikh didn't want to swear a loyalty oath to the queen because he said it would conflict with his oath to "Akal Purakh and to his spiritual guides" to which his religious convictions say he owes sole allegiance. The courts initially said that swearing loyalty to the queen didn't violate his religious belief because swearing loyalty to the queen wasn't really about swearing loyalty to the queen. Hmmmm.... The courts could have concluded that the Sikh's stand just couldn't be accommodated, but this excuse about there being no conflict was relativistic nonsense, pretending that words don't mean what they clearly do. So the Christian Legal Fellowship was happy to intervene. The Canadian government is now deciding who's a journalist The media are said to be a watchdog for the governed, holding to account the governors. But what if that government started subsidizing the press, but only the reporters it favored? And what if "the government is not just subsidizing the press, it is defining it and accrediting it"? Then what we have is a clear attempt by the government to turn the people's watchdog into the government's lapdog. See also below Conservative MP Rachael Thomas talking to former CBC host Travis Dhanraj about how Conservatives were specifically excluded from being given time. https://youtube.com/shorts/oAT5G0QBxqg?si=zMCrdlBSY73thN6S...

News

Alberta introduces law to restrict euthanasia

On March 18, Alberta Justice Minister Mickey Amery rose in the Alberta legislature to introduce Bill 18, the Safeguards for Last Resort Termination of Life Act. “It is my hope that if Bill 18 is passed, it will set an example for the rest of Canada, because hope should always be easier to access than death.” With this bill, Alberta is set to become the first Canadian jurisdiction to formally restrict euthanasia in Canada. This is big news and a massive win for pro-life advocacy in Canada. While the media, government bodies, and legislators have signaled concerns about euthanasia, there has been little appetite to reverse course. Until now. What does Alberta’s Safeguards Bill do? The Safeguards for Last Resort Termination of Life Act restricts euthanasia in many ways. First, Bill 18 will prohibit doctors from murdering any of their patients who are not nearing natural death. Euthanasia was initially legalized only for those whose natural death was “reasonably foreseeable,” but it was also legalized for non-terminal conditions in 2021. Alberta’s bill turns back the clock and clarifies that Medically-Assisted Death (MAD) will only be available for people with a prognosis of natural death within 12 months. Second, Bill 18 will prohibit euthanasia for people with mental illness as their only underlying condition. As of right now, euthanasia for mental illness is scheduled to become legal across Canada on March 17, 2027, although this expansion has been delayed a couple of times and there is a federal bill right now that proposes to scrap this expansion entirely. Alberta’s legislation means that no matter what the federal government does about euthanasia for mental illness, it will not be offered in Alberta. Third, the Safeguards for Last Resort Termination of Life Act bans healthcare providers from initiating a conversation about euthanasia or advertising euthanasia in medical facilities. If assisted suicide is offered or advertised in hospitals, patients may feel pressured or encouraged to consider it. If passed, Bill 18 would allow health professionals to talk about euthanasia only if the patient brings it up first. Fourth, this legislation would codify conscience rights into law. It allows medical professionals not to provide euthanasia, assess a patient’s eligibility for euthanasia, or refer a patient to a euthanasia provider against their conscience. Bill 18 would also protect healthcare facilities’ freedom to opt out of providing or participating in euthanasia. This is increasingly an issue for faith-based institutions that want to provide care without murdering their patients. Fifth, this proposal would establish better oversight over euthanasia. Although euthanasia is still an exception to murder in Canada’s Criminal Code, governments have implemented very little oversight to ensure that existing rules are followed. Bill 18 will establish better oversight, review euthanasia deaths, and impose professional penalties for failure to follow criminal or provincial regulations. Sixth, the bill cracks down on “doctor shopping.” Right now, if a person is refused euthanasia by one doctor, they seek out another doctor who will approve their request. For example, in 2024, a woman who was refused euthanasia by her doctors in Alberta was later approved for euthanasia by a doctor in British Columbia. Bill 18 will prohibit doctors from referring a patient to a doctor in another province. Those are the biggest changes Alberta is proposing, though the legislation contains even more restrictions on medical assistance in dying. How can you respond? This legislation is the most pro-life legislation introduced by a sitting government since Brian Mulroney’s failed abortion bill over 35 years ago. While the bill is very likely to pass in Alberta’s majority government, it is still a good idea to send a note to your MLA urging him or her to support this legislation if you live in Alberta. You can also thank the Premier and the Minister of Justice for their leadership on this issue. Those who live outside Alberta should also reach out to their MPP/MLA, health minister, and premier to ask them to introduce similar legislation. Bill 18 only applies in Alberta. But every suffering person deserves these safeguards against euthanasia, no matter their postal code. Proverbs 24:11 counsels us to “Rescue those who are being taken away to death; hold back those who are stumbling to the slaughter.” While Reformed Christians shouldn’t rest until euthanasia is outlawed entirely, Alberta’s Safeguards for Last Resort Termination of Life Act will certainly rescue many and try to hold back many more. Top photo is, from left to right, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, Justice Minister Mickey Amery, and an Ontario doctor who also spoke, as they announce to reporters Bill 18’s euthanasia restrictions. Photo is by Chris Schwarz/Government of Alberta and used with the government’s permission....

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 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37

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

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

Search thousands of RP articles

Helping you think, speak, and act in Christ.

Get Articles Delivered!

Helping you think, speak, and act in Christ. delivered direct to your Inbox!

Kids

Magazine

Articles

Book Reviews

Movie Reviews

Daily devotional

Contests

More of Reformed Perspective!

Newsletter

Real Talk

Manna

About Us

Advertise

Contact Us

Shop our merch!

Magazine

Book Reviews

Movie Reviews

Articles

Kids

All Contests

Bucket List Book Club

Being the Church

Titus 2 young men are not boys

"Likewise, urge the younger men to be sober-minded." – Titus 2:6

Source

Paradise

Fall

Understood

Jesus

Titus 2:6 - "sober-minded"

Titus 2:12

Crete

Vital role

Conclusion

News

Saturday Selections – April 18, 2026

Culture Clashes

Which conspiracies are true?

Economics

The Parable of the Talents: the Bible and entrepreneurs

Marriage, Soup and Buns

Advice to new brides

Politics

Why I’m grateful for the notwithstanding clause

Book Reviews, Children’s fiction, Children’s picture books

The barber who wanted to pray

News

Saturday Selections – April 11, 2026

Theology

The beauty of 52 Sundays

Science - Creation/Evolution

6 days or 24 years: why does the difference even matter?

Theology

The pursuit of wisdom: do it ‘til you die

In a Nutshell

Tidbits – April 2026

News

Aussie senator shows us how to do it... and how not to do it

News

Saturday Selections – April 4, 2026

Assorted

When there is smoke…

Science - General

Wild about beetles

Economics, People we should know

Friedrich Hayek (1899-1992) showed us that free enterprise is necessary for freedom

Politics

5 ways God’s providence should impact how we approach politics

News

Saturday Selections – Mar. 28, 2026

Being the Church

Retirement: What are you retiring from? What are you retiring to?

History