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

Helping you think, speak, and act in Christ.

Open envelope icon with @ symbol

Get Articles Delivered!

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

News

When they went after Barry Neufeld...

Barry Neufeld was a school trustee in Chilliwack, British Columbia. He was elected for three terms in 2011, 2014, and 2018, earning the second-most votes of the seven school trustees in each of those elections.

In 2016, British Columbia amended its Human Rights Code to recognize and protect people based on their “sexual orientation and gender identity” also known as SOGI. In 2017, the province introduced SOGI 123 in schools to prevent bullying based on sexual orientation or gender identity, to teach students progressive sexual and gender ideology, and to create more LGBTQ-friendly facilities.

But Neufeld is a Christian and refused to promote this unchristian ideology. At school board meetings, in social media posts, and through speeches, Neufeld called out SOGI as a lie that contradicts the reality of who people are and how they ought to identify.

After the British Columbia Teachers’ Federation and their president publicly disparaged Neufeld for his anti-SOGI comments, even accusing him of hate speech, Neufeld filed a defamation case to defend his name. Neufeld’s lawsuit was ultimately tossed out by the Supreme Court of Canada, in part because it would limit his opponents’ freedom to speak out on an issue of public importance.

Meanwhile, the British Columbia Teachers’ Federation and the Chilliwack Teachers’ Association filed a human rights complaint against Neufeld. They alleged that he discriminated against members of the LGBTQ community and that many of his comments amounted to hate speech under British Columbia’s Human Rights Code.

Last week, the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal issued its decision. They found that Neufeld had published discriminatory and hate-promoting statements and ordered him to pay $750,000. These funds would be distributed to any Chilliwack school teacher who identified as LGBTQ to compensate for “injury to their dignity, feelings, and self-respect.”

So, what does this mean for us?

As it stands right now, this ruling sets a precedent that anyone who criticizes SOGI or those who identify as LGBTQ strongly enough could receive the same treatment as Neufeld: a complaint, a hearing, and a penalty from the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal.

Although Neufeld was condemned for his comments as a school trustee, there is no reason why anyone else could not be charged with similar violations. In other words, Christians could be severely fined for expressing their views on gender and sexuality in public. Now, Neufeld will almost assuredly appeal this decision, and so it might be overturned by a court. But unless this happens, this decision is a real cudgel that can be used against Christian expression.

So, what can we do?

If Neufeld appeals the Tribunal ruling to a court, ARPA and other groups will likely seek to intervene as friends of the court to advance legal arguments about freedom of expression and the limits of the Tribunal’s authority. But we cannot make a grassroots or political appeal to courts, of course.

But we can use this opportunity to call on MLAs to rein in the Human Rights Tribunal’s power to quash speech. The Tribunal gets its powers from the Human Rights Code. That means MLAs can rein it in by amending the Code, especially by revoking the clause that prohibits hate speech. While federal law prohibits hate speech in the Criminal Code, that offence provides four defences, and the offence must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. In British Columbia law, conversely, there are no defences, and the standard of proof is merely a “balance of probabilities.” In other words, as long as the tribunal is at least 50% confident that a person violated the Human Rights Code, they can impose penalties.

Let’s take this opportunity to tell our provincial MLAs how this ruling – and British Columbia’s Human Rights Code – punishes or threatens to punish people for expressing Christian beliefs about sexuality and gender.

Red heart icon with + sign.
News

Saturday Selections – Feb. 28, 2026

Canada about to murder its 100,000th citizen via MAiD When you become callous about life, and see ending it as compassionate, then how can you object when death becomes popular? And why wouldn't you want "same day delivery"? And why wouldn't you offer "compassion" to newborns too? You can only object if you have some basis for morality and human worth. And God is the only basis for that. So, Church, we need to object to evil, but never stop at that – we must witness to the God Who gives us clarity! How separate should Church and State be? ARPA Canada offers up three Reformed thinkers on the question. A couple of things they all agreed on is that the government is under God's reign even when it doesn't recognize Him, and the Church is to glorify Him in the public realm even when God is not welcomed there. Trump gets the US to step back some on global governance The US government recently cut their involvement with 66 international organizations. I can't attest to how bad or good all 66 were, but the United Nations Population Fund and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change were among the biggest recipients of US funds. The first pushed a "population bomb" narrative that treated children as a curse on the planet, and not the blessing that God says they are (Ps. 127:3, Prov. 17:6), and the second did much the same, though more as a carbon-footprint curse. In a related note, RP's March selection for our Bucket List Book Club – which you can join here! – is Necessary Endings, about how sometimes the best way forward is by halting what just isn't working. Don't bet on it Sports gambling isn't harmless fun for anyone involved. Many lose big - one study found "nearly 15% of bettors have used personal loans to fund wagers, while 12% have turned to high-interest payday loans." And if you win? That might be worse yet. Your money comes directly from someone else's misery. You only win by someone else losing – it is a zero sum game.  That's why God wants us to have no part of gambling. We are to be productive – to be fruitful and multiply (Gen. 1:28) – creating wealth, and not simply "redistributing" the wealth of poor idiots into our own pockets. (Albert Mohler recently weighed in on sports gambling and the newest gambling venture, prediction markets.) The bright sadness of Ben Sasse After a pancreatic cancer diagnosis, a US senator has used his trial and his fame as a way of spreading the Gospel, including podcast conversations with Michael Horton and Uncommon Knowledge's Peter Robinson. First victim of autonomous AI harassment? Scott Shambaugh didn't want AI writing for his outfit... and one autonomous AI agent didn't like it and, without any human instructions to do so, wrote and posted an article to the 'Net attacking Shambaugh. ...

Red heart icon with + sign.
Science - Creation/Evolution

Of baby birds, and death before the Fall

Today we started off the day with a funeral right after breakfast. Bluey Leapey Wieske died during the night. We buried him at the back of the our property, close by where we buried the cow a few months ago. Micah asked me, “Daddy, when I die, can you bury me next to Bluey?” Micah called him Bluey Leapey because of his eyes. They were a kind of blue, and the flickering of his eyelids made Micah think of the name “Leapey.” Micah found Bluey’s nest fallen to the ground from the towering palm trees by the kitchen complex. Bluey had fallen with the nest, then climbed partway back up the tree where Micah found him, stunned, clinging to the bark. For two days Micah researched how to care for injured wild baby birds. He did everything he could to nurture and save the little bird. One clear instruction from the many sources consulted Micah completely ignored: “Do not handle the bird too much.” For some reason, Bluey did not seem to like being placed in the remnant of the nest we gathered up. He much preferred to nestle on Micah’s chest, clinging to his shirt. I fully expected the bird to die within minutes, but he lasted two days with Micah feeding him fruit and bread moistened with water. Micah is seven years old. He is an active, energetic, carefree, very physical child. He is also extremely sensitive. This morning we awoke to hear his wails of lamentation as he discovered Bluey’s lifeless form lying in the carefully prepared nesting box next to his bed. Micah’s weeping continued as we headed out after breakfast and laid Bluey to rest in a small hole dug under a spreading tree in the back field. Why did Micah cry? Is his grief a consequence of his innate understanding that death is abnormal, an enemy, a cursed result of sin and the Fall? Or his is grief abnormal, an enemy, a cursed result of sin and the Fall? Death is good? There are those who, in an attempt to resolve perceived conflicts between science and faith, propose that the Bible be read in the light of modern scientific research. Since scientists claim that multiple lines of evidence point to animal ancestry for humans, and an evolutionary origin to all of life, some Christian scientists believe that the Bible should be read in such a way that it allows for a world in which animal and human life developed over millions of years. Contrary to atheistic evolutionism, this Christian version understands the process not to be the result of random chance, but rather a beautiful, intricate process created and directed by God Himself for His glory. There’s a problem: this theory requires that death and suffering exist in this world long before the arrival of Adam and Eve. (In fact, this theory makes it impossible to even hold on to the Biblical Adam and Eve, but that’s a different story.) The problem is dismissed by Christians who believe that God used evolution to create life on this planet. They argue that when the Bible says that death entered into the world through Man’s sin, this is a reference to the death of humans. It doesn’t refer to the death of non-human creatures. Science has established the presence of catastrophic death and disease well before the arrival of homo sapiens in the history of evolution. According to evolutionary creationists, that’s OK. Evolution requires millions of years of birth, suffering, and death in order to progress. This can be understood to be “very good,” as God declared of His creation, as long as it doesn’t refer to human death. Since Adam and Eve’s respective “parents” or non-human progenitors were not actually human, but only human-like, it doesn’t matter that they suffered and died before the Fall. This is all part of God’s glorious plan of (evolutionary) creation, which He declared very good (Genesis 1:31). It’s really good and beautiful that foxes eat rabbits. Or that little birds fall out of trees and die. It’s all part of how Creation/Evolution works. Behold, it was very good. And it is very good. Why is Micah crying then? According to the thesis that Creation is through Evolution, I guess Micah’s sinful little heart is rebelling against God’s good and perfect creative work. Who is Micah to question what God calls very good? This is the way God has made the world: through suffering and death, Life is perfected. That’s the way it was before the Fall, and that’s the way it continues after the Fall. Not the way it is supposed to be However, the Bible teaches something different. The Bible informs the way I comfort and instruct Micah at this important educational moment. We speak together about the very good creation into which our sin introduced death and destruction as results of God’s curse. This is an important instructional opportunity to show Micah that the wages of sin is death: not just death in the sense of a heart stopping or a person not breathing anymore, but death in all of its horrible catastrophically destructive aspects as it affects Man, relationships, animals, and all of creation. This little bird died because Eve took a bite from a fruit that God had told her not to eat. This little bird died because we are sinners. The creation is groaning and is in bondage to decay because of our sin. But here is the good news. Jesus is making all things new. In the new creation, things are very, very good. There is no more death. In the new heavens and the new earth, Micah will no longer weep over a dead little bird, because Jesus is bringing about the day when the full Life-giving and Life-transforming results of Jesus’ death and resurrection will finally rid the universe of every last vestige of the heart-wrenching sadness and misery that results from our Fall. Rev. Wieske is currently pastor at the St. Albert Canadian Reformed Church. He wrote this article while serving as a missionary in Brazil. The article first appeared in the July/August 2015 issue of Reformed Perspective under the title "Of baby birds, death, and creation."...

Red heart icon with + sign.
Interview with an artist

Anne deJong is taking a palette knife to the Rockies

Rest (12 x 12”)A view from along the Icefields Parkway - alongside her favorite palette knives. Breathe in the crisp mountain air. Allow the hustle and bustle of everyday life to drift away on the breeze. Drink in the beauty of the jagged mountain peaks and the blue, blue lakes. These are the feelings that Anne deJong’s paintings summon up. Her love for spending time in the mountains, and her awe at the majesty of God’s creation she finds there, inspire her. "I take every opportunity I can to hike and camp in the Rockies, and I always come home with hundreds of photos as inspiration for my work. Those stop-in-your-tracks moments where I am filled with awe for the creation around me is what I try to capture on canvas." She wants the viewer to feel like they are there. And she's succeeded – over the years, many who've found similar feelings of tranquility and awe in these majestic Canadian landscapes have connected with her work. How did she become a painter of the mountains? Beginning as a graphic designer, she started to take painting more seriously in 2019. "My Grandpa did a lot of painting after he retired, and he was the one who encouraged me to try painting." Her unique style developed as Anne dove into the use of palette knives, something she discovered while leading an Art Club at Parkland Immanuel Christian School. She loves the thick textures the knives create with oil paint, and uses different strokes to capture motion in long grasses or the rugged cliffs and rocks. At first she painted many different landscapes, but she found herself drawn more and more to the scenes of the Rockies. Original Minis (5 x 5”)Anne likes wrapping her paintings around the edges of the canvas as it gives the paintings a 3d-feel when viewed from an angle. For Anne, the mountains bring to mind the presence of the Lord, as in Psalm 125:2: "As the mountains surround Jerusalem, so the Lord surrounds his people, from this time forth and forevermore." She explains, “I don’t think specifically of what I believe when I work, but to me the mountains are such a witness to the majesty of our God.” She feels blessed to experience God's creation through the mountains, and to be able to recreate it on canvas. For many artists, getting their work out into the world is a challenge, and it didn't come easily to Anne either. She had to research the selling process and find the best ways to reach people interested in her work. But she has found that people who share similar experiences with the mountains connect with what she paints, so she starts by talking about her experiences in the mountains. Through her website, social media, and in-person events such as art walks and community markets, she has found ways to bring her work to others who find joy in the scenes she creates. And her work has gained recognition and appreciation over the years, and is included in private collections in Canada, the US, the UK, Australia and the Netherlands, and corporate collections within Alberta. Most recently her paintings have been chosen to be displayed at the Avens Gallery in Canmore, a well-known gallery that focuses on western Canadian artists. God gives great opportunities for His people to display the joy they find in His creation! Learn more about Anne deJong's work on her website and her Instagram page. She also has a newsletter you can subscribe to on her website, which is the best way to learn about her events and latest work. Steadfast (24 x 36”)This is a pre-wildfire view of Jasper National Park’s Pyramid Mountain, from the parkway. It looks quite different now but the mountain is the same – standing strong above the devastation left behind by the wildfire. Send Harm-Mae Smit suggestions for artists to profile at [email protected]....

Red heart icon with + sign.
News, Pro-life - Euthanasia

No jail for man who admits to killing his partner

“An Ottawa man who pleaded guilty to manslaughter in the death of his ailing husband has been sentenced to two years less a day of house arrest for an act the judge called ‘in every respect an assisted-suicide mercy killing.’” So began a news story from the CBC, which went on to explain that Philippe Hébert, 74, killed Richard Rutherford, 87, on April 15, 2022. Rutherford was struggling with health challenges and a recent cancer diagnosis, and Hébert was tired and stressed by Rutherford’s condition, compounded by fears that Rutherford would be isolated due to Covid restrictions. At the sentencing hearing on February 17, Justice Kevin Phillips explained the light sentence by noting that Rutherford wanted to die. “Phillips said despite the killing being ‘close to murder,’ Hébert was honouring the ‘last wish’ of his husband and friend. Rutherford had the mental capacity to make that decision, and given his medical condition it was understandable, the judge said.” The CBC story, and others like it, painted a picture of how Hébert was a model citizen and was surrounded by supporters in the court room. In law, as in journalism, words matter a great deal. In this case, the reader is led to feel understanding, and perhaps even gratitude, for Hébert’s willingness to honor the “last wish” of his partner. But if we avoid the euphemisms and speak the plain truth, a very different picture emerges. According to the National Post, Hébert woke up to find that his homosexual partner Rutherford was crying. Hébert claims that Rutherford couldn’t go on living and wanted him to help him end his life. In response Hébert promised he would end his own life after killing Rutherford. According to Hébert ‘s testimony, he used an incontinence pad to suffocate Rutherford, then attempted to end his own life, and called 911 for help. Of course, with Mr. Rutherford now dead, we have no idea whether he actually asked to be killed. Decisions and media coverage like this only further erode the sanctity of life. When Canadian law treats murder as medicine, then how can society be all that critical of someone who takes it upon himself to deliver that “treatment”? When killing-is-caring is logically extended, what protection does it give to others who are vulnerable and may be seen as a burden to their caregivers? There is only one line that can be drawn here: that no one should murder another (Gen. 9:6) because our lives are not our own, but entrusted to us by our Maker. That will be too Christian for many, but then we can challenge them to offer any other standard that can hold scrutiny. What other line can they propose that won’t be struck down as by a court because it unfairly limits others? If it is compassionate to murder someone suffering from cancer, why isn’t it compassionate to offer the same “treatment” to someone suffering from depression? By what standard – once God’s law is abandoned – can any one be denied this inexpensive, immediate, and sure cure for suffering?...

Red heart icon with + sign.
News

Saturday Selections – Feb. 14, 2026

Reformed and Dangerous's Mortification of Sin Reformer John Owen returns... with reverb. (And you can get the shirt here.) The mysterious power of male sexuality Tim Challies on how male sexuality – often portrayed as purely problem by the world and even Christians – was originally made good by God, and does indeed have a powerful good purpose. The truth about Tumbler Ridge When a killer murdered 8 people, injured 25 more, and then murdered himself in the small northern BC town of Tumbler Ridge this past week, the media was quick to make points about guns, but not about the elephant in the room – that the killer was a man who claimed to be a woman. We can call it mentally ill, but we shouldn't lose sight of it simply being wicked, and it is a wicked society that reinforces this. As Samuel Sey noted, "A society that encourages trans people to not value the bodies that God gave them shouldn’t expect them to value the bodies that God gave to others." There is something going on here with trans-identifying shooters becoming increasingly common, and again, Samuel Sey says what few others are willing to notice: “A 2022 Quebec study reveals that transgender youth are the most likely group to support violent radicalization. When we encourage people to identify as victims, vengeance and violence are inevitable.” Rev. Jim Witteveen is another who is noticing. He has noticed that the evolution of transvestism from pathology to a lifestyle that must be always honored (even when you've murdered 9) shows "the entire worldview of modern psychiatry is built on shifting sand. There is no stability to it. It has no foundation in reality." The necessary gift of dependence The author writes as someone who is wheelchair bound, struggling with his dependence on others, but realizing that all of us are, always and forever, entirely dependent on God. And we are, even in our dependence, still used by Him to help others. How to guide your children through the Digital Age The algorithm is shaping your kids. You can help them resist by: teaching them to ask "what message is this digital media trying to communicate?" Help them spot the worldview being pushed. reclaiming the silence in your own life and showing them how it can be done. We don't need constant distraction. helping them see through the online identity trap. You are not how many followers you have. Parents need to model it, if we're going to pass it on. Making complementarianism work... This gent offers up quite a good quick overview of headship in marriage. ...

Red heart icon with + sign.
History

Carried

Listen to me, you descendants of Jacob, all the remnant of the people of Israel, you whom I have upheld since your birth, and have carried since you were born. Even to your old age and gray hairs I am he, I am he who will sustain you. I have made you and I will carry you; I will sustain you and I will rescue you. (Isaiah 46:3-4) Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. (Isaiah 53:4a) ***** Around the year 1000, on a low-lying mountain and near to a trade route, a castle was built. Named Weinsberg Castle, it was situated in what is known today as Baden-Württemberg, Germany. Along the right bank of the Rhine, the area abutted Germany’s largest continuous forest, the Black Forest. It also boasted beautiful valleys and small lakes. Fruit was grown in these valleys and the region had a delightful profusion of vineyards. Weinsberg is, after all, translated as “wine mountain.” The rich, well-drained soil on its sides, plunges roots solidly and deeply downward to seek water. The vines, consequently, produce well-nourished grapes. Truly a wonderful piece of property and a pleasure to visit. The Castle of Weinsberg does not stand on that mountain any longer, although if you were to pass along a nearby road, you could climb up and visit its ruins. There is a story about the importance of power, wealth and fame touching Weinsberg. It is a good story! Feudal feuding In the 1100s, two rival families in Europe were engaged in a feud. The names of these two families, were Welf and Hohenstaufen. Rather like the American Hatfield vs. McCoy disagreement, ongoing power struggles and quarrelling had long taken place in the Weinsberg Castle area. It was not always comfortable or safe to live in the shadow of this beautiful fortress. The Castle of Weinsberg, and its small surrounding town, belonged to the house of Welf, with Welf VI as its head. Conrad III was the head of the Hohenstaufen faction. In 1138, anger came to a head for the two families due to the fact that Conrad III had just been elected the new Holy Roman Emperor, rather than Welf VI. Bloodshed rather than reconciliation loomed on the horizon. It appeared as if Conrad III, who laid siege to Weinsberg Castle in 1140, might triumph. But the small town and its castle stood firm. The house of Welf were an obstinate lot who refused to buckle, much to Conrad’s irritation. Seemingly, relief appeared on the horizon for the Welf family. A relative was marching to their aid with an army at his side. However, the tide turned as this army was crushed by Conrad. The siege of Weinsberg continued and turned out to be a brutal and protracted affair. Conrad III's forces employed a range of tactics to wear down the city's defenses. His army, comprised of heavily armored knights and skilled archers, surrounded the city, totally cutting off the castle’s supply lines, and blocking escape routes. Despite the defenders' valiant efforts, the relentless pressure eventually took its toll, and the once-formidable walls of Weinsberg Castle began to crumble. The Welfs, whose ancestry could be traced back to Charlemagne (747-814), the first Holy Roman Emperor, were a proud family. By all rights, they should have conceded the battle. But they did not. Conrad, angered by their obstinacy, vowed that he would make Castle Weinsberg an example to all his enemies. He sent this ultimatum to them: “Unless you surrender, I am going to demolish the city, burn your houses and put you all to the sword.” A boon granted The citizens were, at this point, filled with terror and despair. Supplies were scarce and starvation hung in the air. The men of Weinsberg, knowing that further fighting was futile, sent a reply to the angry besieger. They asked for a pardon. But Conrad was inflexible at this point. He had been offended by the length of the siege, and it had rubbed him the wrong way. Then he received another message from the castle: “We are not afraid to die and we are ready to continue fighting. We are even prepared to see the castle destroyed and our houses burned; but we are not prepared to see our women die. So, we beg that their lives be spared and that they be allowed to leave the castle.” Conrad granted this request. And, perhaps suddenly struck by some compassion, he permitted an extra boon for the wives as well. Not only would he allow them to leave the castle unmolested, but he would also give them approval to carry out their most precious possession. But he stipulated that this possession had to be carried by them – carried without the help of carts or animals. When Conrad’s message was read out loud in the town square, all the men nodded soberly. They agreed to his conditions and were happy their wives would be spared. The Weinsberg women, including Welf VI’s wife, Uta, had also been listening to the message. Uta, at the time of her marriage to Welf, had been one of the richest heiresses in Germany. A wealthy, respected woman, she left the square solemnly, Conrad’s message ringing in her ears. Then she assembled with all the women of Weinsberg. Together they gravely and rationally conferred with one another, and they came to a decision about what they would carry out – about what their most treasured possession was. Total agreement The next morning, the gates of Weinsberg Castle were thrown wide open for the departure of the duchess and the other women, who would take, so it was thought, money and provisions for the journey ahead to safe territory. But Conrad III, and his army, were taken aback at what came through the gates. The first woman to appear was the Duchess Uta, and, on her shoulders, she bore her husband, Welf VI. Behind her came all the other women. Some of them, like Uta, carried their husbands; others carried parents, children, or sickly relatives on their backs. Disregarding jewelry and personal safety, but counting loyalty and love for their husbands and others as their most precious possessions, the women bore fellow citizens on their shoulders. It was not an easy physical feat and it was one that might have been unacceptable to Conrad. As a matter of fact, Duke Friedrich, Conrad’s brother, commented disapprovingly that such things should not be allowed. The king, however, with a certain amount of admiration, showed favor to the women's cunning, and replied that it would not be fitting to change one’s royal word. He honored his agreement despite the fact that he had not foreseen the result. The siege ended peacefully and the castle was later renamed Schloss Weibertreu, which means “castle of women’s faith,” symbolizing the bravery and loyalty of those women. Another man Although this story warms hearts and illustrates bravery, affection and compassion, there is a story, another story, which is greater and filled with more grace and love for saving family, than even these women were able to give. This other story involves a man who, although he was of princely dynasty, did not have a particularly regal appearance. He was not popular either. The truth is that he was mocked by most. He was neither respected nor wanted. He did not impress his opponents. As a matter of fact, you could go so far as to say that he was despised and rejected by people. Yet, despite his high disapproval rating (even his few friends forsook him), this man walked freely, alone and of his own accord, towards a battlefield. This battlefield was a vineyard and it was called Gethsemane. Filled with dying branches, it was being besieged by the “god of this world,” by the “prince of the power of the air” – by the most hideous and evil host that ever was on earth. Incredibly, the man’s goal was to fight a battle by himself against this horrendous horde. Why? So that he could carry his family to safety away from this murderous throng. In the darkness of the blackest of nights, the besieging army, carrying torches, spears and staves, met the solitary man. And the man, walking boldly towards them, asked this opposing army a question. Twice he asked the same question: “Whom do you seek?” When he was told that he was the one whom they wanted, the man answered by giving these amazing words of creation, redemption, and comfort: “I am he. So, if you seek me, let these men go.” The voice of that man, the voice of Truth, echoes and resounds: “Let these men, let my people, go.” Ecce Homo. What the Man said then, is true today and will be true tomorrow. Jesus knows His people. They are part of His family. They are the branches in His vineyard, and He is the vine. They are a people freed, a people let go and they are His own. And He knows them even though they might be old and have gray hairs. His care extends beyond time and He carries them with love and purpose, even through extremely difficult and besieged times. He bears them in their griefs and He carries them in their sorrows, carries them to a heavenly mansion which He has prepared for them....

Red heart icon with + sign.
Assorted

The definition of patience

Patience. It’s a word we would never bother looking up in the dictionary because we already understand its meaning. But sometimes a well-known word can leap to life with new meaning and application when we read its formal definition. So consider what Dictionary.com has to say about patience. Patience: putting up with annoyance, misfortune, delay, or hardship, with fortitude and calm and without complaint, loss of temper, irritation or the like. It is an ability or willingness to suppress restlessness or annoyance when confronted with delay. Wow. Simply put, patience means not showing annoyance or anger with people or things that aren’t acting as we desire! From this definition we can deduce that we are very often…. not patient! This definition leads me to believe that the practice of “patience” or “impatience” relies almost completely on the words that come out of our mouths and the body language that we exhibit (heavy sighs, eye-rolling, stomping, slamming doors) when we do not like what is being said or done. Is patience an attitude then, or an action? Love is patient It definitely starts with an attitude – we have to decide how we are going to react, and we do that by recognizing what is right and wrong and then making our choice. In 1 Corinthians 13, Paul tells us that, “Love is patient.” That means that love puts up with "annoyance, misfortune, delay, and hardship with fortitude and calm and without complaint, loss of temper, or irritation." It means love is the "ability or willingness to suppress restlessness or annoyance." In Romans 12:9-21 Paul tells us how to behave like Christians. Part of that includes verse 12, which states, “rejoice in hope, be patient in tribulations, be steadfast in prayer.” That means that when we have tribulation (which means trials, troubles, problems, aggravations) we are supposed to put up with them with fortitude and calm and without complaint, loss of temper, or irritation; we are to suppress restlessness and annoyance. Excusing ourselves But patience is not easy, and it has become difficult to recognize right from wrong because our culture not only excuses impatience, it exalts it as a right and a virtue. It is “only understandable” to be impatient in traffic or standing in line, when confronted with confused or ignorant people, or in obtaining whatever it is that we need or want. Television commercials suggest that we grab each other’s breakfast food, race to beat our spouse to the better car, and complain loudly whenever things displease us. Life is all about indulgence and not letting anyone or anything get in our way. It is also very easy to excuse our behavior by blaming our impatience on our workload, our temperament, our upbringing, our heritage, our gender, or our age (whether young or old!). Recognizing the sin of impatience So let’s get the definition of patience correct first – let’s know right from wrong, because God tells us in several places that we are to be patient, including with family and church members. How do we talk to and about our church family? 1 Thessalonians 5:14 tells us that as we “warn the unruly, comfort the faint-hearted, and uphold the weak,” we are to “be patient with all” of them. This is different than “tsk-tsking” as we look down our noses. Paul tells us to express all the fruit of the Spirit spoken of in Galatians 5:22-23: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness and self-control. This involves not demanding our own perceived “rights” or our own way. It involves loving others more than ourselves for “love overlooks a multitude of sins” as well as mistakes and small differences (1 Peter 4:8). And it involves trusting God to take care of the details when there are delays and difficulties. We must drop the hurry and the worry about what others might think of us. Either we are acting patiently, or we are not. God’s written and preached Word can give us strength that helps us choose patient behavior. We exhibit this fruit of the Holy Spirit best when we are walking closest to Him. The Apostle Paul said in Romans: “So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me” (7:21). So true. But having a better definition of this sin will at least help us to identify our inclination towards it, and make it less excusable. God tells us to be patient: to put up with daily trials without complaint or irritation. The best news is that He promises strength through the Holy Spirit, and forgives our confessed sins daily as well. “Faithful is He who calls us, who also will do it” (1 Thess. 5:24). This article was first published in January 2017....

Red heart icon with + sign.
News

Saturday Selections – Feb. 7, 2026

Is the Church the true Israel? It's R.C. Sproul vs. John MacArthur in the epic rap battle that they surely must have had at one of those Ligonier conferences back in the day... But who would build the roads? One of the justifications for our ever expanding government is the notion, "If the government doesn't do it, who will?" That was the justification for the takeover of everything from education to healthcare, garbage pickup to mail delivery, and so much more. I live in a city in which garbage pickup is done by private enterprise, which I couldn't have imagined anyone but the government doing... until I saw it being done better by a business. So this article, about how some roads were built long ago by private citizens, is an exercise in imagination – who knows how small we might be able to shrink our inefficient government if only we started considering what might well be possible without them? Dying to give Aaron Renn with why parents should financially bless their children now, and not wait until after the funeral: "A dollar at 25 can change a destiny. A dollar at 55 barely moves the needle." That's true, but of course there is some middle path that needs to sought here – too much help too early might amount to spoiling your 20-year-old's drive. Too little help, when it was yours to offer, might mean they are stopped from achieving what they otherwise might have been able to do with your help. 4 sermons many churches won't preach Worth noting, even if you go to a conservative church where these will be heard, because the pressure to shut up about these still exists even there – the world presses in. 20 US Democratic presidential contenders are asked whether a man can become a woman... ...and guess how many said "no"? It's getting to a point in the US where the Left doesn't want to stand too strongly for trans ideology. But they also won't speak against it. Only one was willing, and even he still wanted parents to be allowed to poison their kids with cross-gender hormones that – he himself acknowledges – won't transition anyone. The GOP is certainly not God's Own Party, but it's not a bit of slander to say the Democrats are indeed the Devil's very own, and this is just one more example. Is morality subjective? Lying is wrong, but if there is a Nazi soldier at your door asking whether you are hiding Jews, lying can be right. So does that mean morality is subjective? The Christian knows that's not so – we aren't lying just for kicks, but because we are acting out of love for our neighbor. God's Law is still the objective standard for our actions. But even the moral relativist will get tripped up here. Their case for subjectivism just doesn't stand. ...

Red heart icon with + sign.
History

Our heroes have feet of clay

You find them everywhere. They’re the people we look up to. They sing, they dance, they play hockey, they win battles and they found nations. They’re our heroes. You know the people: George Washington, Wayne Gretzky, Winston Churchill, or Ginger Rogers. They’re larger than life figures that do larger than life things flawlessly. We want to be like them. Unless you’re Canadian. When an Internet poll asked Canadians who their heroes were some of the results were predictable, like Terry Fox, but there were also a few less likely individuals. Don’t misunderstand: these people did some incredible things and were certainly larger than life. However, they were also hopelessly flawed. John A. One man who topped the list was Canada’s first prime minister, Sir John A Macdonald. It is to Sir John A. that much of the credit goes for the founding of the Dominion of Canada in 1867. He helped pull together a disparate bunch of English Canadian Reformers and Tories and united them with French Canadian Bleus. Then he got the British to bully Nova Scotia and New Brunswick into a grand confederation of colonies that formed the nucleus of the present day Canada. While that’s impressive, Canadians know Sir John A. in a more intimate way than that. You see, as most Canadians are aware, Sir John was bounced from office in 1873 for the Pacific Railway Scandal that involved suggestions of bribes, patronage, and all kinds of corruption. Additionally, the prime minister was a habitual drunkard. It was no secret for he bragged about his drinking, yet Canadians forgave him, returning him and his party to office in 1878. There are other unusual Canadians as well. William Lyon Mackenzie King made the list of heroes for his impressive job of shepherding Canada through the Second World War. If that doesn’t sound impressive, keep in mind that when Prime Minister Borden tried to guide the country during the previous world war, he succeeded in alienating French speaking Quebec, and much of the farming population, as well as accidentally splitting the opposition Liberal party in two. King kept peace and tranquillity, while Borden created a political crisis that threatened to undo Canada. Though a master politician, Canadians were aware of King’s oddities, including consulting with mediums, and talking to his dead dog – stuffed and sitting on the mantle. Rebel Riel Louis Riel was also on the list of heroes. While the man who initiated the only rebellions Canada has ever had may seem an odd choice as a hero, to many Western Canadians Riel is exactly that. With his rebellions at Red River and then in the North West Territories, Riel was probably the first Westerner that ever made “the East” sit up and take notice, and to perpetually alienated Westerners, that makes Riel a hero. However, Riel was a religious fanatic, believing himself a prophet and in communication with God. He had spent time in a mental asylum, and at the time of the 1885 Rebellion may have actually been mentally unbalanced. E is for equal rights...and also eugenics In its heroes, Canada is an equal opportunity employer. One of the most significant women to make the list was Emily Murphy. A successful writer under the pen name Janey Canuck, a Member of the Canadian Parliament, the first female police magistrate in the British Empire, and a participant in the landmark “Persons Case” that gave Canadian women legal status as people, Murphy has had her reputation tarnished in recent years. The United Farmers government of the province of Alberta enacted the Sexual Sterilization Act in 1928 that allowed for the sterilization of the mentally incompetent and others unfit to parent. This version of eugenics, repugnant to most modern Canadians, was strongly backed by the otherwise progressive and reform-minded Murphy. Conclusion Canadians choices for heroes have been odd. The less savory facts behind the lives of most of Canada’s heroes are well known and thoroughly documented, but Canadians picked these people anyway. Someone once told me that you can’t tell an American something bad about their heroes. They don’t want to know about George Washington’s dismal military record as a British lieutenant, and they won’t listen if you tell them that Thomas Jefferson had slaves on his plantation. They certainly don’t want to hear any suggestions that Martin Luther King cheated on his wife, or may have plagiarized his dissertation. But Canadians are different. They know the weaknesses of their heroes and accept them for that. The Bible also contains some unusual heroes, “heroes of faith” like Noah, Abraham, and Rahab. Noah got drunk, Abraham denied that Sarah was actually his wife, and Rahab was a prostitute. These were flawed people, but by God’s strength, they were allowed incredible moments and even years to do deeds that we still remember today. We look back at them, and we look up to them for those deeds. Heroes are not flawless people. They make mistakes, but that doesn’t negate the good that they’ve been allowed to do. That doesn’t mean we can’t look up to them, but it does mean we can’t idolize them. It’s healthy to know that even great women and men have feet of clay, for it reminds us who is ultimately in control.  James Dykstra is both a student and teacher of Canadian history. This article was first published in June 2017....

Red heart icon with + sign.
News

Court rules that Emergencies Act against “Freedom Convoy” was unlawful

Four years ago, in February 2022, Canada’s federal government invoked the Emergencies Act for the first time since it was enacted back in 1988, granting itself extraordinary power to break up the truckers’ convoy that assembled in Ottawa and elsewhere to protest Covid policies. By invoking the Act, the government received the power to prohibit citizens from assembling, as well as freeze bank accounts of those involved in the protests, and even ban and freeze crowdfunding, among other measures. In January of this year, the country’s Federal Court of Appeal made a unanimous decision, agreeing with the lower court ruling from 2024, that the government had not been legally justified to making use of the Emergencies Act. The court ruled that the protests “fell well short of a threat to national security.” The court also found there simply wasn’t sufficient evidence to back up the government’s claim that the convoy posed a threat of serious violence. “When all these legal and factual considerations are taken into account, we fail to see how the could ‘reasonably believe’ that a threat to national security existed at the time the decision to invoke the Act was made.” This decision is a good example of why civil governments need checks and balances on themselves, given our sinful human condition, and particularly a check on the age-old thirst for more power. The legislative and executive branches require the accountability and safeguards that are supposed to come from the Constitution, through the oversight of the judicial branch. For Christians, obeying the Romans 13 command to “be subject to the governing authorities” isn’t as simple as submitting to whatever the Prime Minister or Governor General orders in a given moment. In this case, it was the Prime Minister and Governor General that were acting illegally, and not the private citizens – the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the Canadian Constitution Foundation, among others – who successfully challenged them in court....

Red heart icon with + sign.
News

Saturday Selections – Jan. 31, 2026

Reformed and Dangerous's Christ is King A little harder rocking than some of us might be used to, but the fire in the music is a match for the power of the words... Is Bluey's dad too good?  A New York Times article offered up that critique, and the folks at Breakpoint ministries had this insightful response. An unexplored mission field: seniors' homes? I'm really hoping this link works (it is behind a paywall but says I can share it). This is a story of a lady suffering from dementia who is bringing the gospel to other dementia sufferers. Sex on the silver screen – outsourcing depravity Tim Challies asks, are we outsourcing our sexual depravity, getting actors to do for our entertainment what we would never do ourselves? Free will vs. determinism Atheist Sam Harris has famously argued that because we are just meat machines, all our actions are determined, so we should be more compassionate to criminals because what they did isn't really their fault – their "output" is just a result of all their inputs, with no choice on their part. He denies we have any free will, but, ironically, wants us to choose to be nice to criminals. His campaign highlights his own disbelief in his notion. Calvinists deny free will too, but mean something very different by it. We know that Man is sinful in all he does, and cannot choose God apart from God's own intervention. But we also know that when we choose to steal, lie, or cheat, we are responsible – we are making these choices for evil. So, we make choices, even as God is sovereign. Do we get that totally? Nope, but God tells us it is so (Rom. 8:7-8, Eph. 2:8-9), and each of us know it is true personally in how we experience both that slavery to sin, and know yet that it is still me, myself, and I responsible for my sins. The free market's "double thank-you" Sports can help teach kids a lot of real-life lessons – how hard work pays off, the importance of being a team player, etc. – but there's one big difference between life and games. In the arena there can be only one champion but in life both sides can win. Socialists deny it, pitting the poor against the rich, and fostering envy over what our wealthier neighbors have (violating the 10th Commandment). But the rich only get rich by being helpful. Unless he stole his money, a businessman can only get rich via free, voluntary transactions. And those exchanges will only happen when both sides agree that they are better off for it. Kid offers to mow your lawn for $20? He's only going to make the offer if he thinks it's worth it for him, and you'll only agree if you think it benefits you. Both are better off. You are both "richer" for it. When the government manages things, it may force people to do what they wouldn't otherwise want to do. We're taking your money to build this library (and stock it with obscene books). We're going to build a hockey arena so we're hiking your taxes. That's win/lose – one side wins by making others lose. And the government can even pull off lose/lose situations where everyone is worse off. So we want to combat the Left's envy by remembering the rich only got that way by thousands and millions of voluntary transactions in which not only did they benefit, but the other side was made richer too! Instead of envying them, we should be saying "thank-you" right back to them!      ...

Red heart icon with + sign.
Entertainment

You might relate to Mary Bennet, but you’re not supposed to imitate her

Mary Bennet gets a lot of good press. In Pride and Prejudice, she is one of the heroine Elizabeth Bennet’s three younger sisters, and she’s known as the bookish one. Maybe because readers of Pride and Prejudice may be bookish as well, we tend to feel the story overlooks her, so many a blog post, and articles, and even sequel novels have been written bemoaning this. This is in spite of the plentiful evidence that Jane Austen herself did not like her. Despite Mary being bookish, Austen did not mean to point to her as a character that we should imitate. This is astonishing, as the bookish girl is a pretty strong stereotype for female heroines by now – just think of Belle in Beauty and the Beast, Hermione in Harry Potter, or Jane Eyre. All of them readers, some a bit know-it-all, but all with a heart of gold. The character of Mary Bennet is swimming directly against the current in this matter. And readers relate to Mary – many of us know what it feels like to be “plainer” than those around us, to feel less intelligent even though we’re desperately trying to appear smart, to feel like no more than a background character in someone else’s story. Who can’t relate to wanting some distinction of your own, even if it’s not beauty? We like books about bookish characters proving themselves because we’re reassured that our bookishness will not be our undoing, and that someday those around us will realize that our bookishness has value.” But Jane Austen does not give us that satisfaction with Mary. Evidence of dissatisfaction with Mary’s story can easily be found. Both The Guardian and The Atlantic have written articles about the proliferation of sequels about Mary Bennet, which include: The Independence of Miss Mary Bennet, The Forgotten Sister, The Pursuit of Mary Bennet, and of course, one called There’s Something About Mary, Bennet. Many, many authors have seen potential in her character, and clearly many readers want to read about that potential. So what are Mary’s faults, according to Jane Austen? It’s not that she’s bookish and plain. It’s that she appears to read only in order to lecture others about what she’s read. She appears to practice music only in order to draw attention to herself with it. As a result, neither her speeches on the books she reads nor her performances on the piano avoid sounding “affected.” “Mary had neither genius nor taste; and though vanity had given her application, it had given her likewise a pedantic air and conceited manner, which would have injured a higher degree of excellence than she had reached.” In other places Austen defends the reading of books and applying oneself to improving oneself, but Austen never vindicates these aspects of Mary. She really doesn’t do much with her character plot-wise, and demonstrates that her way of being is just as “silly” as the younger sisters Kitty and Lydia’s way of living. Mary does not get a character arc or much development at all. She has no romantic events come her way either. I don’t think Jane Austen was against bookish girls. I don’t think she was subtly fighting against education for women, or against women having an opinion. I think she had a more complex idea here. What Jane Austen is trying to show is how one trait, overemphasized and over-developed, can be ridiculous. It’s kind of amazing how, despite all of Mary’s deficiencies in beauty and intelligence, her self-absorption is still derided as vanity by Austen. This is an important point! We like to think if we haven’t been given all the advantages other people have, we’re protected from vanity. We’re given a free pass to focus on ourselves, because after all, we aren’t as advantaged as everyone else. People should recognize and encourage us in what we do have. However, this very lack of humility can prevent improvement in the areas we might have relative strength in! It’s Mary’s air of condescension that makes her sisters dislike her speeches more – no one likes to be talked down to. Her piano-playing, while better than some, is less pleasant to listen to because of how conceited she makes it sound – she’s all-too-aware she is more skilled than Elizabeth. Her vanity in these things prevents her from using her gifts in a way that would actually give pleasure to other people (and Elizabeth proves you can give some pleasure to a listener even without being the best piano-player ever). And her vanity likely prevents her from even seeing the ways her gifts fall short of what she thinks they are. She doesn’t improve in the areas of attitude and mannerisms because she doesn’t think she needs to. Love is more excellent Does this mean she deserves to be laughed at by her sisters, or shamed by Mr. Bennet at the Netherfield ball? Of course not. Mr. Bennet’s treatment of her, in particular, is meant to highlight his shortcomings as a father and his insensitivity to what might improve his daughters’ characters. Now, if Mary actually is meant to have a character arc, perhaps one of Elizabeth’s or Jane’s attempts to rein in their younger sister’s vanities would sink in. As it is, we as readers are only left with the impression her vanity leaves on us, with the implication it is a warning – do not get so consumed in creating your own space for your own gifts that you blind yourself to how useless they are to anyone outside yourself. This is basically the opposite of every “find yourself” message in novels and media that is so common. Because, what is the reason we develop our gifts and talents? God did make each one of us unique, and he didn’t intend for some gifts to be laughed at or looked down upon. But He does have a purpose for our gifts. In 1 Corinthians 12, Paul talks about the body and how each member belongs, even the parts that seem weaker. Yet Paul goes on in 1 Corinthians 13 to talk about a “more excellent way” – love. Our gifts are to be used in love, to build others up. No one should look down on another, and at the same time those who feel “less honorable” should remember their role is indispensable because it builds up others, not just themselves. We can draw inspiration from another Mary in Scripture, who humbly sat at Jesus’ feet to learn from Him. She was interested in study, to the extent she seemingly neglected other practical tasks. It’s not study that is the problem. But her attitude of humility, and her interest in things that really mattered, made her different from her Austen namesake. She focused her eyes on Jesus and what He called her to do, rather than her own motivations. A moral of the story So perhaps for us bookish types, we can take the message that there’s nothing wrong with being bookish, but it’s our attitude to others as a result that can be the problem. Even if others don’t understand us, it doesn’t give us justification to feel superior to them. Even if we are actually better in one area than someone else we know, rubbing that in everyone’s faces will not help anyone else, and can even be destructive to ourselves. But then again, this is not meant to be the main message of the novel – Mary is merely one of dozens of Austen side-characters that demonstrate how one over-developed characteristic renders one ridiculous. It’s Darcy and Elizabeth who get character arcs, and who change throughout the novel. Austen uses their story to tell her message. Though if you look at how Austen takes down her main character’s characteristics of “pride and prejudice,” maybe Mary Bennet’s characterization does support the overall theme of the novel after all. What about you? Do you find yourself with a lot of sympathy for Mary Bennet, or do you find her tiresome (as her sisters did)? Was Jane Austen too harsh on her? Harma-Mae Smit loves exploring how faith interacts with daily living, and diving into local history! She lives in Edmonton with her husband and daughter, and you can learn more about her at her website HarmaMaeSmit.com....

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