Transparent heart icon with white outline and + sign.

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

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

White magnifying glass.

Search thousands of RP articles

Equipping Christians to think, speak, and act

Open envelope icon with @ symbol

Get Articles Delivered!

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



News

Bible labelled as hateful by government MP

Liberal MP Marc Miller serves as the chair of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. On October 30, 2025, he made these comments about the Bible during a committee meeting:

“In Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Romans – there’s other passages – there is clear hatred towards, for example, homosexuals… I mean, clearly there are situations in these texts where these statements are hateful. They should not be used to invoke or be a defense.”

The committee was studying Bill C-9, which the Liberal government is calling the Combatting Hate Act. When a government leader publicly calls passages of Scripture clearly hateful, it reveals something far deeper than a policy debate. It shows a government forgetting its duty before God. Civil authority is not ultimate. Scripture teaches that those in power are ministers of God, called to uphold justice and protect truth. From the very book Minister Miller referenced, Romans 13:1 reads,

"Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.”

And in Psalm 2:10-11, we are told, “Now therefore, O kings, be wise; be warned, O rulers of the earth. Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling.”

John Sikkema, Legal Counsel and Director of Law and Policy for ARPA Canada, had the opportunity to present to the same committee a few hours after Miller’s comments. As Mr. Sikkema said in his statement before the committee:

“….today in Canada, people are being accused, often by government officials, of promoting hatred simply for expressing moral or political views. Earlier this month, the British Columbia Legislature condemned ARPA as hateful... A B.C. government MLA even told a story… defamed and vilified Reformed Christians as criminal harassers, which seems like a way, frankly, to stir up hatred against this group, while at the same time accusing these Christians of promoting hatred for the views that they hold.”

When leaders begin labelling parts of the Bible as dangerous or hateful, they place themselves above the very law that gives their authority any meaning. Our concern is not merely for Christians, but for Canada itself. A nation cannot claim to pursue justice while rejecting the standard of the One who defines it. Government serves under God’s authority, and it has a duty to ensure that His Word and those who live by it remain free to speak. This gets to the heart of Christian concerns about Bill C-9.

Red heart icon with + sign.
News

BC private property rights in question after court ruling

The City of Richmond, a suburb of Vancouver, sent out a letter in October to some of its residents, informing them of a recent BC Supreme Court decision which “has declared aboriginal title to your property which may compromise the status and validity of your ownership.” The court decision, by Justice Barbara Young, is found in an 863-page ruling, resulting from what is claimed to be the longest trial in Canada’s history. She ruled that the Cowichan First Nations “have established Aboriginal title” to about 800 acres in the city, because the ancestors of the Cowichan once had a seasonal fishing village in the area centuries ago. The court ruled that the Crown’s granting of land to settlers was not valid because it infringed on the Cowichan Nation’s title. The decision is causing understandable unrest among property owners in the area and around the province. If the Cowichan Nation still has title, what does that mean for their ownership? And if this is true for these 800 acres, what does it mean for the rest of BC, given that as much as 95% is claimed to be “unceded traditional First Nations territory”? The BC government and City of Richmond are appealing the court ruling, though the NDP government has been promoting First Nations land title extensively in recent years. This included recently handing over title to the entire Haida Gwaii archipelago of 10,180 km² to the Haida Nation (or just over 1 percent of the province). “I think this is one of the most significant rulings in the history of the province, and maybe the country,” Malcolm Brodie, the Mayor of Richmond, said to the Globe and Mail. “I think it potentially could dismantle the land title system, certainly in our province, with ramifications across the country.” This is the logical outcome of “land acknowledgements” being read out before meetings, sporting events, and university classes across the province and across the country. The Left kept accusing us all of living, working, and playing on stolen land, and it was only a matter of time before someone with power realized that if property has indeed been stolen then it needs to be returned – that only makes sense. But so much of this doesn’t make sense. Do the Cowichan own this land because they walked through it hundreds of years ago? If so, then wouldn’t it make sense to apply that same standard towards the Indigenous peoples who walked through it before them? If we are going to restore property said to have been stolen 100 years ago, why not restore it to whatever tribe or nation owned it 200 years, or 500 years ago? Where does it stop? If my great-grandparents stole $10 a hundred years ago, should I feel any obligation to pay it back to the great-grandchildren of the guy whose wallet they took? Lots of questions here, and there are plenty of biblical texts worth exploring for insight (Num. 5:5-8, Matt. 7:1-2, Lev. 6:1-7, etc.) but for now let’s consider just one. A theft is said to have occurred one hundred years ago, and the 8th Commandment, do not steal, is the basis of the Cowichan complaint. But to hand over this land, as it is today, wouldn’t be righting a wrong, but perpetuating another. If my great-grandparents had invested $10 they stole into starting a business that, through the work of our family’s next three generations, became a multi-billion-dollar enterprise, would I be responsible for returning everything that $10 became? Because that’s what’s being considered today: were the Cowichan to take over this chunk of Richmond, they would be taking developed property worth thousands of times more than the open land that existed there before. The 8th Commandment, do not steal, is the basis for private property rights and, as economist Barry Asmus and Bible scholar Wayne Grudem have explained, it is “the necessary foundation for all human flourishing on the face of the earth…. Whenever this commandment is ignored, entire nations remain trapped in poverty forever.” It’s easy to see how that is so. If this ruling stands and this becomes the new normal in Canada, who would invest here? Who would want to put money down if a judge can decide with a stroke of their pen to give over everything they’ve developed? It’ll be impossible to build an economy without a stable foundation of private property beneath it. Map at top of article produced with materials from the Native Land Digital App (https://native-land.ca/) ...

Red heart icon with + sign.
News

Arctic sea ice remains steady for past two decades

If you’ve ever fallen for the “Heads I win, tails you lose” trick, the mainstream media’s climate change reporting might strike you as familiar. Whatever the latest news might be, the spin is in just one direction: the planet is in crisis. It happened again, just recently, with what should have been good news for all. Based on data from the US National Snow and Ice Data Center, Arctic ice decreased to 4.602 million square kilometers on September 10th, the low point for the year, corresponding with the warmer temperatures of summer. The number is 1.2 million square kilometers greater than where it was at in 2012, and close to half a million more than 2007 levels. In general, the ice trend has been close to flat over the past two decades. Hurrah, right? Where the mainstream media did cover the story, the data didn’t change their long-standing climate alarmism. As EuroNews.com reported it: “Scientists say this is a temporary slowdown that may continue for a further five to 10 years. When it ends, it is likely to be followed by faster-than-average sea ice decline.” The spin goes beyond the media. “While this year’s Arctic sea ice area did not set a record low, it’s consistent with the downward trend” reported NASA. And the World Wildlife Federation still warns: “Polar ice caps are melting as global warming causes climate change. We lose Arctic sea ice at a rate of almost 13% per decade…. If emissions continue to rise unchecked, the Arctic could be ice-free in the summer by 2040.” What isn’t being publicly acknowledged is that the projections of the leading scientists and their spokesmen have often been wrong. One example: the former US vice president Al Gore, while accepting a Nobel Prize for his climate advocacy back in 2007, spoke of a study saying the North Polar ice cap could be gone during summer months just 22 years from then (or 2029). He went on to add, “Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years” (i.e., 2014). This doesn’t mean that the Arctic ice won’t decrease further, or that the climate isn’t changing (it has been changing since creation). But it does mean that we need to humbly acknowledge our finite and limited understanding of this world, in contrast to God’s sovereign hand over His creation, including Arctic sea ice....

Red heart icon with + sign.
News

Saturday Selections – Nov. 15, 2025

Women don't belong in combat (5 min) That world won't acknowledge that it is Who made us, and in Whose Image we are made (Gen. 9:6), that makes us valuable. So, instead, the world evaluates people on the basis of what a person might have, or how they look, or what they can do. All of these other evaluations cause troubles, especially the last. An abilities-based assessment is what's behind both dehumanizing the unborn, because they can't yet do many of the things the already born can do, and dehumanizing the elderly and disabled because they can't do what the young and more able-bodied can. Valuing people on the basis of what they can do is also what's been behind the push for women in combat roles. If you are what you can do, then we would be forced to conclude that women aren't the equal of men if there is anything men can do that women can't. So, in rejecting God, the world also has to reject the reality that men are stronger and make more capable soldiers. The world puts on blinders, because the only alternatives are equally unattractive to them: either to believe that men are better than women, or to believe that our worth is found in God and not in ourselves or anything we can do. Another problem with the minimum wage It's said a person will judge himself by his intent – "It doesn't matter how it went, after all, I meant well" – and judge others by their actions... or, in other words, by whether it actually went well. The minimum wage is an example, implemented in the name of helping the poor, and therefore judged by its implementers to be a success, no matter what results. But with the newly elected New York mayor having campaigned on a push for a $30 minimum wage, it doesn't take much imagination to see the harm that could result, with all sorts of businesses closing because they can't afford to pay those wages. Then, instead of the poorest getting paid more, you have the poorest getting fired. Now a new study finds that the harm the minimum wage causes hurts blacks more. This is a US study, and the racial aspect doesn't translate directly to Canada. But the fact that the minimum wage hurts the most vulnerable certainly does. The woke mob doesn't forgive, but God does Malcolm Gladwell became one of the first big names to admit peer pressure cowed him into saying guys in dresses should be able to compete against women. His admission – both to being cowed, and owning up to it now – are remarkable in a culture in which forgiveness is in low supply. A whole list of reasons to consider marrying younger Tim Challies with a bunch of benefits that come with marrying younger. On marital nakedness What the world cheapens, God's people can enjoy as He intended. Nick Fuentes: a name your kids may know (15 min). Nick Fuentes is big in the US, and probably leaking across the border, so if your kids don't know about him yet, they may soon. Whether or not you've heard of him, there's a reason to watch this video – Fuentes' rise is an object lesson in how taking a strong stand against what's wrong can be both attractive and still really, really evil. Too many think we can find the the truth simply by pushing back against the lies of the Left. But that forgets that there is another side of the horse to fall off of. So, for example, feminists who say motherhood is slavery are calling good evil, but when Fuentes hits back at feminists by degrading women, he's just turning his followers in a different evil direction. So Truth isn't found by rejecting error but by turning towards Christ. While Fuentes says he is Christian, he wears his "faith" like an outfit, to be put on or taken off whenever it suits. Maybe we can use this video with our kids to show how being loud while professing "Lord, Lord" (Matt. 7:21-23) can be a very different thing than being bold in our submission to the LORD (Matt. 10:32-33). The one concern I'll offer with the video below, is that it includes, near the end, depictions of Christ as He has been portrayed by actors through the years, including some quite bloody, graphic portrayals.. I'd have loved if they'd steered clear of visually depicting Jesus (my concern is the 2nd Commandment), but share this anyways because of the insight offered. ...

Red heart icon with + sign.
News

Government leaves religious and pro-life organizations alone in 2025 budget

Pro-life Christians can breathe a sigh of relief. Actually, you can take two. The 2025 federal budget unveiled on Tuesday leaves the charitable status of religious organizations and pregnancy care centers alone. 2024 – the threat Both of these concerns were raised late in 2024 when the Standing Committee on Finance reported on its pre-budget consultations. This is a standard practice, where the government gives Canadians the opportunity to share what they want to see in the upcoming federal budget. The report made a whopping 462 recommendations, but two caught the eye of pro-life Christians: • Recommendation 429 suggested removing the charitable status of “anti-abortion organizations.” • Recommendation 430 proposed removing charitable status for religious organizations. The latter recommendation came out of left field. Organizations like the BC Humanist Association have long lobbied for the government to give religious activities less time, less money, and less recognition. But no mainstream political party or figure had seriously entertained the idea until this federal finance committee recommendation. Even after this recommendation was made, Karina Gould, the new chair of the Finance Committee, wrote the following to the Canadian Executive Director of the Christian Reformed Church “Charitable status for religious organizations is not under review, and this government has no plans to change that. Any suggestion otherwise is false. We respect the role faith-based organizations play in communities across the country, and religious organizations continue to enjoy charitable status under the same rules that apply to all charities in Canada. There have been no policy or legislative changes proposed that would revoke charitable status from religious groups including churches.” Roots in 2021 The idea of revoking the charitable status of pregnancy care centers, however, has a longer history. In their 2021 election platform, the Liberals explicitly promised to remove the charitable status of “anti-abortion organizations (for example, Crisis Pregnancy Centres).” This recommendation not only betrayed their pro-abortion stance but also accused pro-life organizations of providing: “…dishonest counselling to women about their rights and about the options available to them at all stages of the pregnancy.” Of course, they entirely ignored the material, emotional, and relational assistance these pregnancy care centers provide. Then last fall, the federal government announced its intention to introduce legislation to require pregnancy care centers to either disclose that they do not provide abortions or else lose their charitable tax status. Thankfully, gridlock in Parliament, the resignation of Justin Trudeau as prime minister, and the spring federal election prevented such a bill from being introduced. 2025 and onward These attacks on pregnancy care centers were dropped from the Liberals’ 2025 election platform. Though there is no mention of the revocation of charitable status for religious organizations or “anti-abortion” organizations in the federal budget, and though the current government seems to have different priorities than the last one, this isn’t necessarily the end of the story. Given that tens of millions of Canadians identify as religious and that revoking the charitable status of religious organizations would be a massive departure from four hundred years of charitable status tradition, this change seems unlikely to be implemented in the near future. Not only would this be bad policy, it would also be bad electoral politics for the government. However, the Liberal Party has firmly set its face against the pro-life cause. They’ve done so in every recent vote on abortion legislation, and in the change they made in 2017 to the Canada Summer Jobs program which required applicants to declare support for abortion, and in their continued funding for abortion. So the government may well set pregnancy care centers in their sights again in the coming years. A good test of the government’s intentions will be whether this recommendation reappears in the final consultation report before next year’s budget. We need to continue to remind our Members of Parliament of the benefits that both religious organizations and pregnancy care centers provide, so as to fend off attacks on their charitable status. Levi Minderhoud is a policy analyst for ARPA Canada (ARPACanada.ca)....

Red heart icon with + sign.
Parenting

The importance of risky play

“Make sure you're home by suppertime... and don't get your feet wet!” Mom called out as my brother and I hurried to our bikes. We were about 9 and 11 years old at the time. “Have you got the matches?” I asked. “Yes,” he said, patting his pocket and jumping on his hand-me-down bike. Our plan was to use the matches to light birch-bark torches so we could see properly inside the cave we wanted to explore. It was pitch black in there, and last time the battery in our old flashlight had died right away. To get to Kelly's Cave we first had to cross the multiple sets of train tracks that were two blocks from our house. But this time out, a long train of coal cars blocked the way. Thankfully they were just coming to a halt, so we waited until they stopped, then glanced up and down the tracks looking for any adults, and quickly crawled under the middle of one of the cars, dragging our bikes behind us. We knew that it took a long time for railcars to start moving after coming to a standstill, and we’d have plenty of time to scramble out if they did begin going again. Biking briskly down the service road, then veering off onto the old trail at the base of the mountain, we soon arrived at the bottom of a pile of loose rocks that had been carved out about 70 years earlier to form the cave. Before we scrambled 100 feet up the steep slope that led to the entrance, we first found a nearby birch tree and stripped off several sections of bark, then broke off some branches. Arriving at the cave’s mouth we wrapped the bark around the end of our sticks and pulled out the matches. When the bark was lit it curled tightly, allowing it to burn slowly and steadily, while giving off a wonderful aroma. Quickly, we moved to the end of the first 25-foot stretch of tunnel, where the daylight still reached. Then we turned right, keeping our heads down, looking at the ground ahead of us; soon we came to the pack rat’s nest of shredded paper and random objects we’d seen last time. I’d spotted a ball-peen hammer in the mess and really wanted it, but I was convinced that, should there be an angry and cornered rat in there too, he was liable to jump for, and bite at, my throat. So, I worked up my courage, shielded my neck with my hand, and then lunged for the hammer – thankfully this time the nest seemed empty, so I came away with a great prize which I could proudly take home! Then we continued on, shuffling along deeper into the mountain. It was very cold and damp, and the only sound was the crackle of our torches and the steady dripping of water hitting the cave floor. We were very careful not to brush the walls since we'd once seen a large clump of spiders clinging onto them. Our dad, who’d been in the cave with us before, had warned us about a water-filled pit further in, so we moved slowly and carefully, and we soon saw some logs and branches which spanned an ominous pool, which was who knew how deep? After testing the strength of this wooden span, we slowly crept across, imagining a bottomless crevice filled with icy water. A few years later I learned that it was only about two or three feet deep, but at the time we assumed it was bottomless – better to be safe than sorry! Our torches were burning down, so we pushed ahead, promising ourselves we’d turn around shortly, since we didn't want to end up stranded in the pitch dark! Soon enough, there it was – the end of the tunnel. We’d made it! Somewhat disappointed that there wasn't a treasure chest or other artifact (I was reading The Hardy Boys and The Three Investigators books at the time!), we shuffled quickly, but carefully, back the way we’d come... over the bridge, around the corner, past the nest, one more 90° turn, and then we could see daylight. We emerged just as our torches were flickering out – we’d finally made it out again! Thrilled at our conquest, we slid down the scree slope (this is why we always changed into play clothes after school), discarded our torches (making sure they were completely out so, as not to start a forest fire), and pedaled down along the trail, elated and ready for another adventure. So much to explore The author zipping around in his younger years. We knew this forested area well, having spent many hours exploring and playing in the bush, and near the tracks. Over here was where we’d spent many days chopping small trees down with a hatchet, attempting to make a log cabin. We learned that this was harder than Farley Mowat’s books made it seem, and we often came home tired, and with scrapes or bruises. Once, when we were pushing over dead trees, a top snapped off and smashed to the ground right beside us – a close call! Farther down the trail was the site of the old ski jump where you could still see some outdoor lights attached to trees. In the winter many hours were spent climbing up this hill, and sliding down on inner tubes, toboggans, and even a homemade sled. A few hundred yards off in another direction was an old dump site where we had explored and found many rusty objects, and well down the other way was a railway siding where we could clamber into boxcars and pretend we were hobos. Halfway between, under that one spruce tree, was where our dad had shot a grouse with his old .410 shotgun. His catch motivated us to try to go after grouse too, or rabbits, using our homemade bows and arrows or slingshots, but without any success (although my Boy Scout manual did explain how to snare rabbits, so that was a plan for later in the fall). During those childhood years we spent many hours roaming, playing, and trying not to get hurt or get wet feet in those forests, trails, and caves. On other days we biked around town, explored the alleys and dumpsters behind businesses, looking for treasures, and collecting cans and bottles to exchange for quarters which we quickly spent in the arcade games in the back of the seedier stores. We rubbed shoulders with the local youth in these places and even had to turn down the offer of drugs because we knew that they were bad for us. But what about… Maybe you’re wondering, “What about the risks and dangers?” Yes, we got plenty of minor injuries and had some close calls and moments of genuine fear, but these became excellent learning opportunities and helped us grow in confidence and wisdom. Also, we were very aware of the consequences of foolish actions, and knew that recklessness, and endangering ourselves, was wrong. However, there is a big difference between fun adventures and recklessness, and a kid can do some exciting and even foolish things without crossing this line. Kids learn from the direct instructions of their parents, by watching others, and from reading about or experiencing the consequences of dangerous or reckless choices. They learn quickly from their own mistakes and accidents, and will develop a strong sense of self-preservation. Thankfully, rarely do minor childhood mishaps have serious consequences (and let’s not forget that “safe” and sedentary lifestyles comes with their own health hazards!). By learning to manage the risks and cope with the results, our kids can increasingly be empowered to make good decisions, and to take care of themselves. The reality is, Mom and Dad only vaguely knew where we were when we went out on our adventures, but they trusted and prayed that we wouldn't do anything foolish, dangerous, or illegal. Besides, they were very busy working, and looking after the younger siblings, and they didn’t live in constant fear of the world or other people. They also modeled an outdoor playful lifestyle (including taking risks), and encouraged us to get outside and entertain ourselves. Over time, these factors fostered confidence and bravery in us, while still showing us that recklessness was both wrong and foolish. For example, my dad was actively involved in my late-November childhood birthday parties, taking my classmates and me on hikes, exploring and making fires, and crafting equipment like slingshots or bows and arrows, and doing all of this despite the snow and the darkness that came early in northern BC. When the climate or other factors discouraged outdoor play and adventure, we would busy ourselves with indoor forts, Meccano, electronics kits, and reading. Oh, the books we devoured by the hundreds! We were going on adventures with the Bobbsey Twins, Tom Swift, Wambu, Scout, and many others. Their exploits were recreated in our imaginations, as we pictured ourselves with them in the jungle, desert, tundra, or under the sea. Our knowledge and understanding of the world, and of people, broadened, and our worldview solidified as we incorporated these stories and experiences with the Christian perspective with which we were raised. Many lessons were also learned about safety, and taking risks, as we experienced, vicariously, the exciting exploits of the books’ characters – lessons that were often useful and realistic, thus also helping to prepare us for life in the real world. Tech takeover Screens and technology were lurking on the horizon though, already way back then in the 1980s. As the decade progressed, more and more parents would rent a VCR and videos to entertain the kids at birthday parties. It was so much easier, less messy and tiring, and sure kept the partygoers happy. Within a few years we had a Commodore 64 computer in our home, and by the time we were adolescents many hours had been spent on Test Drive (1!), Winter Olympics, and other games. Our play-based childhood was being affected by screens, and in the next decades this transition only accelerated for others in my age group. Thankfully we all had a solid grounding in the outdoors, and TV and technology were still regarded with suspicion by the older generation. However, as the years and decades have passed, the temptation to spend time on screens has only increased. There are other dangers… Three of the Penninga boys – from left to right, Tim, Jeremy and Dave – up on Hudson Bay Mountain. So, how much do these childhood experiences matter? And what’s been the cost for the children who are not allowed to explore and have adventures, and who spend way more time on screens than reading? No doubt these kids are a lot safer physically (and cleaner!), and parents probably worry less, as their children are shuffled between adult-supervised activities like after-school programs and sports, or are quietly gaming, or scrolling through social media on their phones. Does this trend towards supervision and screens have significance? According to lots of careful research it has become very clear that the cost of replacing a play-based childhood with a screens-based one has been enormous, especially on kids’ mental and emotional well-being. In his book, The Anxious Generation - How the Great Rewiring of Childhood is Causing an Epidemic of Mental Illness, Jonathan Haidt makes just that case. Its first section outlines the impact smartphones and social media have had on children and adolescents in the last 15 years. Data conclusively shows that rates of anxiety and depression have greatly increased (depression for girls rose 145% between 2010 and 2020; for boys 161%), as have suicide rates and visits to ERs for self-harm. These destructive trends occurred across many different countries around the world, and correlate directly to growing up with smartphones. Haidt’s theses are backed up by data that is both scholarly and current. While the author has evolutionary, atheist presuppositions, his book is still an excellent research-based overview of the damage that Internet-enabled devices (especially smartphones) have done to the Millennial and Gen Z generations. Thankfully, Haidt also addresses what can be done about it all. He points to play, the sort that is unsupervised and unstructured and has elements of genuine risk – the kind of play that most kids all around the world naturally engaged in prior to the recent explosion of fears and screens. According to Haidt: “Unsupervised outdoor play teaches children how to handle risks and challenges of many kinds. By building physical, psychological and social competence, it gives kids confidence that they can face new situations, which is an inoculation against anxiety... a healthy human childhood with a lot of autonomy and unsupervised play in the real world sets children's brains to operate mostly in ‘discovery’ mode with a well-developed attachment system and an ability to handle the risks of daily life. Conversely, when there is society-wide pressure on parents to adopt modern overprotective parenting, it sets children's brains to operate mostly in ‘defend’ mode with less secure attachment and reduced ability to evaluate or handle risk.” He goes on to explain how being in discovery mode means you are curious and excited about life, and eager to explore and move ahead. Those who operate in defend mode are careful and suspicious, and “tend to see new situations, people and ideas as potential threats, rather than as opportunities... being stuck in defend mode is an obstacle to learning and growth in the physically safe environments that surround most children today.” A play-based childhood, Haidt argues, encourages the positive discovery mode while a screen-based one promotes a more fragile and restrictive defend mode. Overprotective parents, trying to guard their children from risks and conflicts, actually harm their kids who need to experience thrills, fear, and conflict to learn how to manage it in the real world. Children are thrill-seekers who need adventures and risks to overcome their fears and develop resilience. How does Haidt stack up against the Bible? This rings true because it lines up with Biblical principles. For example, in Proverbs 28:1 it says, “The wicked flee when no one pursues, but the righteous are bold as a lion.” King David trusted in God to protect him, and, consequently, took on bears and giants with confidence. Meanwhile, in the list of curses for covenant disobedience God says “…those who hate you will rule over you, and you will flee even when no one is pursuing you” (Lev. 26:17b). Godly leaders need to be brave to stand up against threats and deal with challenges. For example, God tells Joshua, “Be strong and courageous. Do not be terrified: do not be discouraged, for the LORD your God will be with you wherever you go” (Joshua 1:9). In the knowledge of God’s providence, we can face life and the future without fear and can be confident that nothing will separate us from His love since nothing happens by chance (Lord’s Day 10). Since our eternal future is secure, and we can trust that God will be with us, we do not need to live in fear of catastrophe or death like the unbelievers do. Yes, bad things do happen in a fallen world, and we need to accept that sometimes, even with abundant caution and care, people will get hurt or even die in accidents. But this should not scare us or make us elevate safety to the status of an idol, thinking that somehow we can control everything. If we love the Lord and live according to His will, we can trust that He will provide and care for us, and gives us what we need to face life’s challenges and dangers with confidence. As those who live with a view to eternity, our spiritual health should be our main concern (1 Tim. 4:8). We must live in fear of God, who controls our eternal destiny, and not of man (Luke 12:4-5). Recklessness and foolish behavior is an evil on one end of the spectrum, but living in constant fear of injury or death, and thinking we can control everything also is sinful. The balanced Christian life lies somewhere in the middle. What does this sort of play look like? So, what does this beneficial play look like? It usually happens outdoors when there is free choice, and not when supervised or structured by adults. Researchers have found that play needs to be thrilling and exciting with a real risk of physical injury and an element of uncertainty (think merry-go-rounds, exploring forests, and bike jumps!). Six factors characterize this kind of play: 1. heights (climbing, trampolines, haylofts); 2. high speeds (sledding, swings, racing down hills); 3. dangerous tools (axes, saws, knives); 4. dangerous elements (waves, fire, ice); 5. rough and tumble play (wrestling, tackling, “king-of-the-hill”); and 6. disappearing (hiding, exploring and wandering, not fully knowing where you are). Roller coasters, zip lines, and other thrill rides are a good example of combinations of these things. Kids need, and seek out, these factors but too often parents, teachers, and other adults try to deter them. The adults are overly afraid of injuries, abductions, or lawsuits, and treat even minor scrapes and bruises as akin to serious harm. Many adults have an unrealistic sense of danger and are too overprotective, and they don't trust other adults to intervene, or don’t trust their kids to know their own limits. A growing culture of litigation, insurance, and well-meaning but harmful “safety police” work together to counter these important parts of childhood play. In the August 11, 2025 entry on the After Babel Substack, Haidt and his two co-authors of “What Kids Told Us About How to Get Them Off Their Phones” wrote: “Since the 1980s, parents have grown more and more afraid that unsupervised time will expose their kids to physical or emotional harm. In another recent Harris Poll, we asked parents what they thought would happen if two 10-year-olds played in a local park without adults around. Sixty percent thought the children would likely get injured. Half thought they would likely get abducted. These intuitions don’t even begin to resemble reality. According to Warwick Cairns, the author of How to Live Dangerously, kidnapping in the United States is so rare that a child would have to be outside unsupervised for, on average, 750,000 years before being snatched by a stranger. Parents know their neighborhoods best, of course, and should assess them carefully. But the tendency to overestimate risk comes with its own danger. Without real-world freedom, children don’t get the chance to develop competence, confidence, and the ability to solve everyday problems. Indeed, independence and unsupervised play are associated with positive mental-health outcomes.” Children who were raised on screens need more freedom out in the real world. Organized sports have their own dangers Unstructured and risky outdoor play is actually safer for kids, with fewer injuries per hour, than participating in adult-guided sports teams, according to play researcher Mariana Brussoni of the University of BC. Unstructured and unsupervised physical play also has more developmental benefits for the children since these kids “must make all the choices, set and enforce rules, and resolve all disputes. Brussoni is on a campaign to encourage risky outdoor play because in the long run it produces the healthiest children” (Haidt, writing in The Anxious Generation). In their paper “What is the Relationship between Risky Outdoor Play and Health in Children? A Systematic Review” published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, Brussoni and her co-authors found that risky play had overall health benefits for children aged 3-12. “Specifically, play where children can disappear/get lost and risky play supportive environments were positively associated with physical activity and social health, and negatively associated with sedentary behaviour… There was also an indication that risky play supportive environments promoted increased play time, social interactions, creativity and resilience. These positive results reflect the importance of supporting children’s risky outdoor play opportunities as a means of promoting children’s health and active lifestyles.” As an example, despite my adventurous childhood, I only ended up in the local hospital once for an injury, and that was a broken foot I got in an indoor-soccer PE class at school! One of the main messages of these books? Put away the screens and kick your kids outdoors! A sudden shift In general, children born before 1980 were much more likely to grow up engaging in risky play and were allowed and encouraged to roam out and about, away from parents, by age 7 or so. Kids had more freedom to walk to school, play with neighbor children, get into and resolve conflicts, and generally have a more exploratory lifestyle. But, as Haidt details, in the following decades parenting became more intensive, protective, and fearful, resulting in kids who were more sheltered, coddled, and unable to roam freely until much older (age 10 or 12). Safety became paramount, as a fear of strangers, abductions, injuries, and death, skyrocketed. At the same time, technologies like computer games, DVDs, and phones made it much easier to keep kids from playing and exploring. Haidt goes on to provide other reasons why this change occurred, including more intensive parenting, more supervised and structured sports and programs for kids, and a renewed focus on academics. When it rains in the world, drips are felt in the Church As is often the case, Christian parents are swept up in these changes and can too easily accept them without thinking critically about the disadvantages. After all, isn’t it better to be safer? To provide more structured and supervised activities for the kids? To supply a tablet or phone to keep them quiet? And do we speak out when the merry-go-rounds disappear from the playground and are replaced by much safer (and more boring) equipment? Do we read books or articles that feature research about factors that affect our children? For example, a very good book that addresses many current challenges to parenting came out in 2019 entitled Gist: The Essence of Raising Life-Ready Kids. It was by child psychologist Michael W. Anderson and pediatrician, and the book was featured as a Focus on the Family Resource. This very practical manual discourages parents from always trying to protect and control everything, and it encourages them to back off and let their kids sort out way more of their own problems. In this sin-tainted world life is full of challenges, difficulties, and disappointments, and children need to learn how to face and overcome these to prepare them for managing in adulthood. Although the book is not overtly Christian, Gist is clearly grounded in Scriptural principles and displays a nice balance between truth and grace. It’s the kind of book I wish would have been available sooner, so I could have read it when my children were small! What’s to be done? The final section of Haidt’s book provides many more examples of what schools, parents, and governments can do to promote a return to a play-based childhood, and a turn away from a screen-based one. Several of these ideas are already being implemented, such as more rugged playgrounds, and banning phones in schools. It seems that the pendulum is swinging back towards a healthier balance again, from the safety paranoia, and excessive screen time, back to how it was more in previous decades. Conclusion God’s people do not need to live in fear, since we know we have a Father in heaven who watches over us and protects us. As it says in Proverbs 1:33, “whoever listens to me will dwell secure and will be at ease, without dread of disaster.” We must also heed what the Bible teaches about this topic, as it is found in the Sixth Commandment where we are told “you shall not murder.” In Lord’s Day 40 of the Heidelberg Catechism, it explains that this commandment means we are not to “injure my neighbor, personally or through another… or harm or recklessly endanger myself” and we must “protect our neighbor from harm as much as we can.” To takes risks is different than being reckless. Also, Proverbs 27:12 tells us, “The prudent sees danger and hides himself, but the simple go on and suffer for it.” We need to use or heads. Since his childhood adventures, Kelly’s Cave has been all boarded up. And let’s consider also the Fifth Commandment, where we are taught that authority needs to be obeyed, like wearing seat belts and bike helmets, and not trespassing (including on railways!). But we also need to speak out against and resist the multiplication of safety rules imposed by overly-zealous authorities and companies. As an example, the entrance to Kelly’s Cave was blocked by a thick cement wall in the late 1980’s (as were other caves around here), closing another door to adventure. Of course, many children do not live near forests, caves, or railway tracks, or attend schools that have any forest or brush land. Families are smaller and there don’t tend to be packs of kids roaming around outside together. Still, there are many things that can be done to encourage healthy play: parents need to model fun and adventurous behaviour, screens need to be avoided or severely limited, and it’s helpful to have spaces where kids can explore and which contain materials they can use. It can start small with pillow and blanket forts inside, wooden blocks and other basic items for toys, trips to nearby parks or bush areas. But then parents need to be brave and begin to pull back from constant supervision and intervention and let the children explore and figure things out for themselves. It’s also important to understand that the world is not nearly as dangerous a place as the media suggests (yet another reason to avoid too much media), and that disallowing adventurous and risky play comes with very serious negative consequences (anxious teens and young people who struggle to cope with the demands of adulthood). So set a good example by confidently getting out into the yard or neighborhood and finding adventure and fun! It takes more effort but is far better for you and makes better memories, too! Be wise and discerning but not fearful, and remember that we have a Father in heaven who watches over us and blesses us, also as we seek to do what is best for our children....

Red heart icon with + sign.
News

Saturday Selections – Nov. 1, 2025

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

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

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

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

Red heart icon with + sign.
News

Saturday Selections – Oct. 25, 2025

Easiest way to save 175,000 Europeans a year “Every year, around 1,300 Americans die from extreme heat. But in Europe, which has about double the population, 175,000 people die from extreme heat.” Why this huge difference? “…strict environmental regulations to help combat climate change…” Christians are being encouraged – in the name of biblical stewardship – to sign on for the climate catastrophic agenda. It can be hard to know what to do, since the science is beyond most of us. But you can gauge the fruit of that agenda. Here we see how those trying to save the planet aren’t saving the people on it. So that’s not an agenda we should sign up for. Ontario school taught third graders how to “get into drag” We send our kids to Christians schools not, first of all, to shelter them, but rather to teach them to see the world as it really is – as God created it and sustains it. But government schools are a danger we should shelter our kids from. Public schools indoctrinate children to see the world as it isn't – to see it as completely disconnected from God. And that's not enough for the government, as this report shows: they also want children to question their gender, and feel guilt, not for their sins but for their skin color. Parents disrobe to make their point The trans agenda has schools across this continent telling girls they need to be okay with boys in girls' locker rooms, changing in front of them, and watching them change. What we have here is adults refusing to protect girls. So, in what seems to becoming a trend, three parents have gone to school board meetings and, while arguing against this ridiculous policy, disrobed to their underwear or bathing suit. In the first case, in September, the board shut down the meeting, too uncomfortable to continue, and isn't that exactly the point that mother, Beth Bourne, was trying to make? If the board can't take such discomfort, why are they subjecting girls to it? Then, in October, a couple of women did the same, undressing to their underwear, to make the same point. Awkward? Certainly. But is it a sinful way to make a point? After all, God calls us to modesty (1 Tim. 2:9–10). But He has also used immodesty to make a point, having Isaiah walk around naked (or in no more than his underwear) for three years (Is. 20:2-4). God also calls on us to defend our children and take the hit for them (2 Cor. 12:14, 1 Thess. 2:7-9), modeled most clearly in what God had done for us (John 10:11). The school was set on humiliating children, and these parents were willing to be humiliated instead. Neither school seems to have listened. We can only hope these brave parents will also have the sense to pull their kids out. Too hot to be old (10 min. read) There are moons, and planets, and even a former planet, that are way too hot to be 4.6 billion years old. Our solar system gives evidence of being a young one after all. Conservative Anglicans have been liberated The appointment of a female Archbishop of Canterbury has prompted conservative churches to formally split away. Why girls are more susceptible to transgender indoctrination Our kids, girls or guys, need to know that their teen struggles are common – at some point in their teens, everyone feels like a friendless loner who has something deeply wrong with them. They need to know hear that from their parents so they don't start looking for answers on the Internet or elsewhere where they could hear their problem is that they were born in the wrong body. They need to hear from us that yes, they might be broken... as we all are. Thankfully, we can turn to God in our brokenness and in repentance, and He will be a Father to the lonely. ...

Red heart icon with + sign.
Culture Clashes

Jonathan & David and the difference between brave & crazy

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

Red heart icon with + sign.
Parenting

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

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

Red heart icon with + sign.
News

Saturday Selections – Oct. 18, 2025

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

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