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!



Assorted

Charlie Kirk in context

Many will condemn a man for an isolated sentence or two. Christians do it too. Instead, we should assess others just as we would like to be judged (Matt. 7:12).

*****

If you have liberal friends or family, then in the days and weeks after Charlie Kirk’s murder, you probably saw all sorts of Kirk quotes, shared by them to warn people about what a problematic figure Kirk supposedly was.

While Kirk had his flaws, the most common quotes being shared were generally not at all what they first seemed, being taken right out of context. As Proverbs 18:17 teaches us, “The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him” so we need to go beyond that first impression, and do the cross examination.

We can do so, not as people who must defend Charlie Kirk, wrong or right, but instead as God’s people, equipped by Him to discern right from wrong. Using our discernment, it’s easy to see that Kirk was attacked by the Left, not for what he might have gotten wrong, but for how often he expressed godly thoughts bravely and clearly. So, we shouldn’t accept their word for any of it. We need to check whether the quote is:

1) even accurate
2) in context

So, what follows, are a few of the more common accusations stated in bold, and then put in context right below.

“I don’t believe in empathy.”

This is likely as much a misquote as it is a quote out of context. You can find Kirk saying he didn’t like this particular term, and wasn’t at all opposed to feeling for the injured and suffering. What he has said along these lines is:

I can’t stand the word empathy. Actually, I think empathy is a made-up, new age term that does a lot of damage. But it’s very effective when it comes to politics. Sympathy, I prefer more than empathy.”

“Black women do not have the brain processing power to be taken seriously.”

This was pitched as proof of Kirk being racist. Like the previous “quote” it is both inaccurate and out of context. Kirk wasn’t insulting black women in general; he found it ridiculous that four specific black women were proudly declaring they were beneficiaries of affirmative action. Kirk was arguing, during the July 13, 2023 episode of his podcast, that affirmative action is the opposite of earning something. He thought it funny, then, that anyone would brag about being an affirmative action beneficiary.

“If we would have said three weeks ago... that Joy Reid and Michelle Obama and Sheila Jackson Lee and Ketanji Brown Jackson were affirmative-action picks, we would have been called racist. But now they're coming out and they're saying it for us! They're coming out and they're saying, ‘I'm only here because of affirmative action.’ Yeah, we know. You do not have the brain processing power to otherwise be taken really seriously. You had to go steal a white person's slot to go be taken somewhat seriously.

In other words, he wasn’t critiquing black women. He was criticizing these four black women.

“If I see a black pilot, I am now going to wonder: Boy, I hope he’s qualified.”

Charlie Kirk is no fan of affirmative action, which responds to past discrimination by flipping the script – you are still judged by the color of your skin, but the racism is directed the opposite way now. Here he was responding to a 2021 United Airlines plan to have half their pilot trainees be blacks or women, and among the points he was making was that this kind of DEI/affirmative action has the effect of undercutting blacks who are qualified, by giving people a reason to question whether they earned their position or were just given it on the basis of their skin color. Black economics professor Thomas Sowell made a similar point, on the Uncommon Knowledge podcast about how his students treated him:

“I received more automatic respect when I first began teaching in 1962 as an inexperienced young man with no PhD and few publications than I did later in the 1970s after accumulating a more substantial record. What happened in between was affirmative action hiring of minority faculty.”

"I think it's worth it. I think it's worth it to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the 2nd Amendment to protect our other God-given rights."

Longer and shorter wersions of this quote circulated again after Kirk was killed by a gun-wielding assassin. While Kirk’s enemies were sharing it gleefully, the quote was blunt enough to shock Kirk-appreciating Christians. Why would he say something like that? How can any gun deaths be “worth it”?

In this case, the quote was entirely accurate, but in need of context. As Christians we know life is to be revered as a precious gift from God. But we live in a broken world in which death is an ever-present enemy – everything we do comes with risks of injury, and even death. The example Kirk used was that: “Driving comes with a price. 50,000 people die on the road every year.” Do we think that’s “worth it”? We could cut down on those deaths entirely by banning cars. But, of course, that comes with a cost too, in all the freedoms that come with driving, like a broader range of places you can live, or work, or people you can visit, foods you can eat, and entertainment you can enjoy. All of that would be severely curtailed. And, there would come a cost in lives too, in that without ambulances, some wouldn’t get to the hospital in time.

We can agree or disagree with Kirk on whether the 2nd Amendment is worth the price being paid, but we should acknowledge his larger point. The Left will deny or ignore it, but life always involves tradeoffs, and freedoms always come with risks.

Photo of Charlie Kirk during his 2024 “You’re Being Brainwashed” university tour.
Picture is adapted from one by Gage Skidmore and used under a CC BY-SA 2.0 license.

Red heart icon with + sign.
News

90,000 legal homicides in Canada since 2016

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

Red heart icon with + sign.
News

Saturday Selections – Oct. 4, 2025

Bahnsen vs. Hitchens, the Rap Battle Here's AI put to its weirdest and most wonderful –the late Reformed apologist Greg Bahnsen taking on the late atheist apologist Christopher Hitchens. Were dragon stories really dinosaur encounters? Short answer: it sure would seem so! Where do human rights come from, senator? A US senator thought that it was akin to being a fundamentalist Muslim to think that human rights come from God. They come from the state, he insisted. But if they come from the state, how could the state ever violate them? How could we ever complain about any state abusing human rights? Health-care costs for typical Canadian family will reach over $19,000 this year That we don't pay for healthcare directly doesn't mean we don't pay for healthcare. It means, at the very least, that tax dollars that go for that care aren't used for anything else. And the hidden costs of our socialized healthcare system also mean it is really hard for us to tell if we're getting value for our money. Canadian government pushing hate speech law again "Hatred is a real sin. But government and law enforcement cannot discern the degree of hatred in one’s heart, though they can judge and punish the things they do. "That’s why existing prohibitions in the Criminal Code focus on prohibiting particular actions, not emotions or motivations. While Christians should condemn hateful thoughts, words, and gestures, the government cannot regulate the heart." The dangerous logic of Moral Subjectivism "If right and wrong are things outside of ourselves which we can't change, we need to align our behavior with what's right. But if it's the other way around, and morality is just a thing I get to make up, well, I can act however I want." "Huh... that's basically the same as not having a moral system..." **** This video is worth watching for what it gets right, like the above. But where it falls short is in what it settles for – that agreeing there is some sort of objective moral standard outside ourselves is all that's really important. The problem is, ideologies and religions can hold to an objective truth that includes the notion that "conversion by the sword" is a legitimate means of persuasion. So, for example, it isn't enough that an ISIS jihadist thinks a moral standard exists outside himself, he isn't about debate and dialogue. This sort of short-sightedness is what happens when we appeal to the fruits of Christianity without actually holding to the Root of it, Christ Himself. Civil discourse is a fruit of the only real objective standard that exists, God's morality, which teaches us: God has no interest in merely outward observance (Is. 1:13), discouraging any attempts at compelled belief. to treat others as we would like to be treated (Matt. 7:12), prompting civil discourse. to love our enemies (Matthew 5:43-4), prompting civil discourse. it is good to hear both sides (Prov. 18:17), which encourages hearing out things you might disagree with. we are all made in the Image of God (Gen. 9:6), and that hate is the equivalent of murder (Matt. 5:21-22), which both, again, encourage civil discourse. So not just any objective moral standard will do. Civil discourse is a fruit of Christianity, and as we are seeing, a nation that turns from Him will slowly but surely start losing the fruit of the Christian faith, including civility. ...

Red heart icon with + sign.
Assorted

Dominee’s friend

There is style and there is class. Dominee may not have had much style, as the world considers style, but he had class. Dominee had accepted a call to another church. At such a time we cover up the pain of separation with laughter. How could we be happy? This was the man whom God had sent to us to speak to us the Word of God every Sunday. We heard the voice of the Great Shepherd through His under-shepherd twice every Lord’s day. Because Dominee’s voice was so familiar, and his sermons somewhat predictable, we thought we knew him. We knew from the cadence of his heavily accented sentences when he was wrapping up the sermon — just the final song yet, and the benediction, and we’d soon be outside chatting, swapping stories, and laughing. Dominee was not what you would call an especially stylish man. During all the years he preached to us he wore a grey suit. He may have replaced it with a new one once in a while, but we never noticed because the new one was identical to the previous. Nothing stylish about Dominee. Even when he would drop by because of illness in the family or if someone needed encouragement, he’d wear a grey suit. We thought we knew him, until his farewell evening. As I said, when we are sad, we turn to laughter. To cover up our sadness. The farewell evening had begun and was evolving in a predictable way. There was only one unusual thing that immediately caught everyone’s attention. Near the front of the church sat an old Sikh gentleman and his wife. We could tell he was a Sikh because he was wearing a turban. The turban happened to be pink. Later I was told it was, in fact, lavender. The chairman of the men’s society, a serious man, ascended the pulpit. He read some Scripture, prayed, and invited us to sing a well-known Psalm. On behalf of the men’s society, he spoke some kind words of farewell to Dominee, his wife, and the children, and then presented them with a gift, a beautiful painting of local scenery: “We don’t want you to forget this beautiful part of the country!” This was followed by several presentations — women’s, young people’s, youth. And on it went, predictably and comfortably. The presentations alternated between funny, sad, and poignant. But mostly we laughed. When the elders and deacons performed a humorous skit about Dominee’s typical way of leading a meeting, we laughed heartily. When one of Dominee’s local colleagues told a story about Dominee at a classis meeting, we laughed so hard we thought our sides were going to burst. After several hours, when everyone was good and ready for coffee and cake, the chairman of the men’s society ascended the pulpit once again. With gravity, he thanked everyone for coming, bade Dominee farewell once more, and asked if there was anyone whom he had missed, or who had not been on the program but yet wanted to say something. The Sikh gentleman stood up. Well, this was interesting. Slowly, with age and dignity, he walked to the front of the church. He began to speak. This was very interesting. No one could remember a Sikh speaking in our church. He began to tell a story. It had been a hot summer afternoon when he and his wife were walking along the sidewalk. Suddenly overcome by heat, thirst, and exhaustion, he sat on a stone wall in front of a house. That house, as it turned out, was the Manse. Dominee was sitting in the shade reading a newspaper from the old country that had just come in the mail. He noticed the Sikh man sitting at the end of the driveway on the stone wall, and the man’s wife bending over him with a look of concern on her face. Dominee got up to see if he could help. “My husband is very thirsty,” said the lady. “Could he please have some water?” Dominee went to the house and came back with a pitcher of water and some glasses. He poured two glasses of water, and then he took a moment to speak about the other water, the living water that Jesus provides. On that day Dominee and the Sikh became friends. The Sikh gentleman and his wife would drop by more often to talk with Dominee. We never knew. We thought we knew our Dominee. We all listened intently to the Sikh as he told us the story about our kind Dominee. He considered it an honor to count him a friend and wanted to give him a parting gift. The Sikh explained that it was their custom to give the turban they are wearing to their departing friend. The turban would be a reminder of their friendship. With that the Sikh removed the turban from his head, reached forward, and placed it on Dominee’s head. Dominee was mostly bald and had a smaller head than his Sikh friend, and so the turban sank down over Dominee’s forehead. It was a sight to behold! Our Dominee clothed in his trademark grey suit, the only way we had ever seen him in all the years he had ministered to us, wearing a lavender-colored turban. No one laughed, snickered, or tittered. Instead, after a moment during which you could have heard a pin drop, the congregation slowly rose and began to clap. We did not know whether we were clapping for Dominee or the Sikh. Likely, we were clapping for the Lord. We had seen a remarkable thing. Our immigrant congregation may not have had much style, but on that evening we had class. Dominee wore the turban for the rest of the evening, during coffee and as we all came by his table to say farewell. He wore it with pride. Dominee did not have much style, but he had a lot of class. And we thought we knew him. There is style, and there is class. This is a true story, which I experienced as an adolescent boy at the departure of a neighboring minister. The references to style and class were inspired by Sietze Buning’s “Style and Class” collection of poems. This first appeared in the January 2015 issue....

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

FALSE DILEMMA: Is Genesis 1 Historical or Poetic?

or Doctrinal?      or Theological?           or Covenantal?                or an Accommodation?                     or so on and so on and so on ***** We know you can’t have your cake and eat it too. We know a man cannot serve two masters. And we know Genesis 1 cannot be both history and mere metaphor. That’s all true. But can Genesis 1 be history and much, much more? Not an either/or Among Christians one of the more common ways of undermining the historical reliability of the opening chapters of the Bible is to highlight some other attribute of this passage. We’re told that the point here isn’t to tell us how things were created but rather Who is responsible. This is a theological treatise, not a scientific one, right? And it can’t be history because in some ways it resembles poetry. In his book God's Pattern for Creation: A Covenantal Reading of Genesis 1 United Reformed pastor Dr. W. Robert Godfrey gives several examples of this same dismissive approach. The President of Westminster Seminary in Escondido, California contrasts a covenantal understanding of Genesis 1 with understanding it as history. He says a choice has to be made since the days of creation as described in Genesis 1 “are not a timetable of God's actions but are a model timetable for us to follow.” While “the days and week of Genesis 1 are presented to us as a real week of twenty four hour days,” “these days and week... do not describe God's actions in themselves but present God's creative purpose in a way that is a model for us.” He pitches this same contrast, between a historical and covenantal understanding again and again. “Genesis is not a world history text... it is a covenant history focusing on what the people of God need to know about their God and about themselves” “Genesis is not written as a history book for uninformed, worldwide readers, but is part of the covenant history written for a covenant people who already know their God” “The revelation of God as the all-powerful creator is not just information for the world. It is a message to the covenant people about the character of their God.” “Genesis 1 is not an encyclopedia of history or science but a covenant revelation of the character of the creation that God made for man...” Clearly, given the repeated “not this... but that” rhetorical device used by Godfrey, his assertion that Genesis 1 is “covenantal” in character is meant to counter an opposing view of the creation account. To Reformed Christians, this kind of “covenantal language” has its appeal; we love the covenant, and we love covenant theology, because we see in the covenants of Scripture the structure and beauty of God's relationship with His people, and indeed with all of creation. But I question Godfrey's assertions in all of these statements, because they create a conflict where one does not necessarily exist! This “not this... but that” language creates the impression that the two parts of the statement are mutually exclusive. If Genesis 1 is “covenantal” in its character, does that necessarily mean that it is not a history of the world? Of course, Godfrey does use the phrases “world history text” and “encyclopedia of history or science,” appearing to assert that those who argue for the “six consecutive real days that actually happened in history” view actually consider the opening chapters of the Bible to be a scientific treatise of some sort. This kind of language is not at all helpful, and it mischaracterizes those who believe that God created all things in the span of six actual historical days. Both/and Here's an example of this kind of thinking in practice. Suppose for a moment that two men come across a field of barley for the very first time. One man looks at the barley and says, “Clearly this crop is meant only to form the basis for a beverage. I will harvest it, mash it, ferment it, and make beer.” The other man looks at the barley and says, “Clearly this crop is meant only to form the basis for bread. I will harvest it, grind it, and use the end product to make bread.” Both men refuse to acknowledge the truth of the other's discovery. So, the one man makes nothing but beer, and the other man makes nothing but bread. Both die, one from cirrhosis of the liver, the other from dehydration. Why do they die? Because they both failed to realize that they were not dealing with an “either-or” equation, but a “both-and.” Barley has multiple uses; therefore, one use does not exclude the other. In creating a false dichotomy between two applications of the text, Godfrey misses out on a very important aspect of the message of the six days of creation. A true either/or Now I should note that while Godfrey does not accept Genesis 1 as a real chronology of events, he still insists his view is a literal interpretation and “also historical in its approach as it affirms that God created in time and by his sovereign power everything described in Genesis 1.” Given the fact that, according to Godfrey, “we must conclude that the days of creation in Genesis 1 are not simple chronology” I find it difficult to harmonize Godfrey's actual view with his claims. In contrast to the false dilemma that Godfrey presents, between understanding Genesis 1 as true history or as covenantal, there does seem need for a choice to be made here. He can’t offer up his view as literal and historical and still dispute that creation occurred in six actual days. Conclusion So yes, we can’t have our cake and eat it too. But no such choice has to be made between understanding Genesis as historical and covenantal, between it being historical and theological. These are simply false dilemmas. Rev. Witteveen’s website is Dan1132.com. This first appeared in the June 2015 issue....

Red heart icon with + sign.
News

Saturday Selections – Sept 20, 2025

Charlie Kirk one week later The link above heads to Tim Challies' collection of the week's best articles on Charlie Kirk. My favorite was by Barry York on how we should deal with the inevitable clips that will and have surfaced, where Charlie Kirk evidences less patience or less grace than was his norm. I've my own thoughts. I've got liberal social media friends who are happy to cancel Kirk for a stray word... but is it really the stray words they are bothered by? In one of their posts a reference was made to how Charlie Kirk supported the stoning of homosexuals (which Stephen King also claimed and got in trouble for). The Christian response has mostly been to protest how anyone could ever possibly think that. But the better response is, I will suggest, to double down with the Gospel truth that it isn't just homosexuals who stand condemned, but every single one of us – before our just Judge we would all be found guilty of actions that warrant not simply stoning but the lake of fire (Matthew 5:21-22). I think what actually made Kirk offensive to many is how he shared that we are sinners in desperate need of a Savior. That's offensive indeed, both to the world and to the liberal church. It is also a very needed preamble to the good news of the Gospel. Bach's music as the fingerprints of God Defending the Christian faith can sometimes be awfully simple. So here's one simple defense of the faith that amounts to an "argument from beauty." There is the music of Johann Sebastian Bach. Therefore there must be a God. As philosopher Peter Kreeft notes, you either get this one or you don't. But that doesn't make it any less true. IVF may have killed more than 250 million since 1978 "In vitro fertilization is destroying hundreds of millions of human embryonic children, according to a new estimate. This further shows why pro-lifers must be as opposed to IVF as they are to abortion." To put that in some kind of context, the Encyclopædia Britannica estimates the total number of people killed in World War II, including the Jews murdered in the Holocaust, the soldiers on both sides, and the civilians too, as being between 35 million and 60 million. In other words, the IVF deaths you aren't hearing about anywhere may amount to four times the number of those killed in the biggest war ever waged. If books are too indecent to show in the paper or read out loud at meetings, what are they doing in Alberta public schools? Alberta opposition leader Naheed Nenshi has been challenged to read out loud the horrific graphic novels he is defending. Guns and statistics Statistics are said to be one of the three big classes of lies, so it should come as no surprise that government statistics often align quite closely with whatever narrative it is that they are trying to push. The FBI has reported that armed civilians stopped active shooters in just 3.7% of the time over the last 10 years. But a watchdog group says that this low number has a lot to do with how the FBI chose to tabulate the data. They counted things up quite differently, and, if you excluded shootings taking place in "gun-free zones" (where no one other than the shooter was going to have a gun), then 52.5% of these events were stopped by a civilian with a gun. That number has its own spin, but this is an important article to read to really understand the need for taking a Prov. 18:17 approach to statistics. Chris Gordon: a word to young people over the death of Charlie Kirk Too many of us actually saw Charlie Kirk die – the videos of his death, videos of people celebrating his death, videos of nihilists preaching chaos, were streamed all over the Internet. Pastor Chris Gordon begs young people to look away. We are not meant to dwell on this brutality and darkness. Look to Christ instead! Charlie Kirk picture is adapted from one by Gage Skidmore and is used under a CC BY-SA 2.0 license....

Red heart icon with + sign.
Culture Clashes

What will Canada look like in 2040?

Where some see gloom, God’s people can proceed in hope, knowing that God remains in control ***** “Canada to Become a Dystopian Nightmare, Households Will Flee: Gov Report.” A Christian friend shared this article with me, from Better Dwelling, a news outlet specifically focussed on Canada’s housing market. This friend wanted to make sure I was aware of a government report, “Future Lives: Social mobility in question,” that was published in January but which hasn’t been noticed and circulated until more recently. According to Better Dwelling’s Stephen Punwasi, the report from the federal government’s own think tank, Policy Horizons: “paint a grim picture resembling a dystopian mashup of a Charles Dickens’ novel meets Terminator. A Canada where wealth & the ability to own a home are determined at birth, hungry households hunt & fish for sustenance in cities, and moving down social classes is the norm. Welcome to Canada in 2040.” The message will undoubtedly resonate with many Canadians who have noticed that things have been changing quickly in the past five or ten years. Not so long ago, children could anticipate earning more, and spending more than their parents ever did. Now we may make more money, but it doesn’t go nearly as far. We can go to university, but a degree doesn’t mean much when it comes to getting a good job today. Young adults are finding it hard to imagine being able to buy even a modest home. Those that can find jobs are working more, and not having as many children. So, instead, to keep our population growing, we are bringing in millions of immigrants. But they need a place to stay too, which makes it even harder and more expensive for everyone to find a place to live. Then there is AI: that mesmerizing but creepy technology that is replacing many jobs and seems to be a lot smarter than most people using it today. Indeed, anticipating 2040 can be rather scary. But that is only true if we aren’t looking to the future with faith in our sovereign and loving God. PROVIDENTIAL GLASSES In Lord’s Day 10 of the Heidelberg Catechism, we confess that God upholds heaven and earth and all creatures so that “all things come to us not by chance but by His fatherly hand.” As a result, “with a view to the future we can have a firm confidence in our faithful God and Father that no creature shall separate us from his love.” I don’t know what is going to transpire in the next 15 years, but based on this confession of God’s providence, I believe a good case can be made that the changes we are experiencing aren’t something to fear but can be means through which God is gathering His Church and kingdom. What follows are some possibilities of the future, when looking through providential (in contrast to rose-colored) glasses. ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AI will have us seeking something authentic From my limited experience, the hype around AI is well-warranted. It is far “smarter” and more capable than I would have imagined. Even the over-used word “revolutionary” may not suffice. The advance of AI means we’re soon going to have a hard time telling whether what we read, see and hear is real or original: Did Emma really make that valedictorian speech that had us laughing and crying? Or was it the product of Chat GPT with a few tweaks to make it look authentic? Was that YouTube clip about the New York Yankees having a moment of silence after Charlie Kirk’s death real, or just AI-generated? How can we even know? Did the pastor actually write that sermon on Lord’s Day 10, or did he ask AI to make a sermon for him, pointing it to www.TheSeed.info to ensure that the result would line up with solid Reformed orthodoxy? Can I trust that the person calling me to ask for money is actually my son/grandson in trouble? He sounds just like him, but something just doesn’t seem right. This is just a small taste of AI’s impact and is legitimately concerning. God’s Word remains trustworthy But when we look through the glasses of God’s providence, something else becomes clear: in a world where it is very difficult to know what is true, solid, trustworthy, and real, the things that are will become all the more noticeable and meaningful. And what is more true, solid, trustworthy, and real than God and His Word? “The Lord is my rock, my fortress and my deliverer; my God is my rock, in whom I take refuge, my shield and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold” (Psalm 18:2). Just as many young men today are pushing against the woke culture they were catechized in, I won’t be surprised if many people begin recognizing the beauty of God’s Word for what it is: unchanging, reliable, proven, not open to opinion, and anything but artificial. In that dizzying sea of AI will stand the rock of God’s Word and the sure hope of the Gospel. That may explain in part why popular secular influencers like Joe Rogan, Piers Morgan, and Andrew Schultz are all asking Canadian Christian Wes Huff to come on their platforms to explain how Scripture is reliable. Who would ever have seen that coming this year? The Colson Center also shared news about a “quiet revival” across England and Wales: “the number of 16- to 24-year-olds in the U.K. attending church at least once a month jumped from 4% in 2018 to 16% in 2024.” To add to this, the most recent data from book sales revealed a 22 percent increase in Bible sales in the USA (compared with 1 percent for total book sales). And the “religious books” category saw the largest increase in publishing in 2024. For the past 75+ years, many in Western Civilization saw God’s Word as a relic from the past, that isn’t all that relevant. That seems to be changing. IMMIGRATION So many people With a plummeting fertility rate, Canada, along with most Western nations, relies on immigrants to keep our population and economies stable, let alone grow. In just two years, from 2022 to 2024, Canada’s population grew by 2,358,697 with about 98 percent of that increase due to incoming temporary and permanent residents. Such a large influx of new people over a short time can result in challenges. One has only to follow the news in places like the UK and Germany to see how difficult it is to provide leadership in a secular country in which many immigrants have little interest in upholding the social conventions and laws of that land. So many who can now hear But when we look through providential glasses, here too we see some amazing possibilities for the Church. My friend and his family were missionaries in a remote region of Africa, carrying God’s Word on foot to people immersed in paganism. But they came back to our small community in northern BC not long ago and realized that a lot has changed since they left for Africa. God has literally brought people from around the world to our own doorstep. This friend has decided to continue his mission work at home, reaching out to immigrants in our own community. At the same time, many “Canadians” who grew up in this nation have become as pagan, or more, than many of places where these immigrants are coming from. Millions of people in our own provinces aren’t familiar with the Gospel. The fields are ripe for the harvest, and they are next door! Ironically (providentially), God is sometimes using immigrants to challenge the trajectory that our society, and even some churches, have been on. For example, recent election results show that immigrants and minorities are swinging to the political right, favoring conservative parties federally and provincially. Closer to home, delegations representing different ethnic communities within the Christian Reformed Church urged their synod to adopt a biblical perspective of sexuality and were one of the forces leading to a shift in direction within that denomination. God isn’t looking to us to save Western civilization. Civilizations have risen and fallen many times. It is His kingdom that endures. And in His grace, God is bringing many to our land who are willing to “seek first His kingdom.” SOCIAL WELFARE SYSTEM The partial collapse of government The “Future Lives” government report mentioned at the beginning of this article made waves in part because it warned that in the dire near future “people may start to hunt, fish, and forage on public lands and waterways without reference to regulations. Small-scale agriculture could increase.” To add to this “governments may come to seem irrelevant if they cannot enforce basic regulations or if people increasingly rely on grass-roots solutions to meeting basic needs.” In other words, if Canadians are struggling under our socialized government welfare system, they may just start to take matters into their own hands and provide for themselves and their families. We saw a taste of this during Covid, as rural land became much more popular to own, and the public trust in government regulations was broken (in spite of daily assurances from public health officers). More freedom to be productive? I don’t think I need to work hard to convince most readers that there is a lot to this “warning” that may be a providential blessing. In a land where government regulation has stifled productivity and development for decades, many Canadians and Christians would welcome increased freedom and responsibility so that they can fulfil the cultural mandate that God gave humanity to “be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it” (Genesis 1:28). That said, I think it is also the case that many Christians have become reliant on government income (i.e., monthly child care benefits, independent school funding, and even funding for their magazines) and may have a hard time adjusting if this were to decrease or terminate. Society will be greatly blessed when more responsibility is put on individuals, families, churches, and community organizations, rather than the state. But that is only the case if these people use their responsibility for the furtherance of God’s kingdom, and not their own. UNIVERSITIES Ivory towers may topple The government report also warned that “post-secondary education could be a stranded asset.” A stranded asset loses its value prematurely, as a result of a shifting market – think of someone who had a horse buggy factory as motor cars were taking over. University degrees might become like that? “People may look for alternative forms of training in new niches that appear to offer upward mobility. Non-traditional providers, including private firms, may outcompete traditional PSE players in attracting consumers.” What could rise from the rubble? As with the decline of the social welfare system, not many Christians will lament the breakdown of post-secondary education as it is represented in much of Canada today. Universities have been bastions of evil in our land, training generations of Canadians to undermine the Christian heritage that our civilization and country was founded on, and replace it with hedonism and, more recently, critical theory. There is little surprise that the “centers of higher learning” don’t help with “upward mobility” and might be outcompeted by private firms that seek to build, rather than tear down. The question is, what will be the worldviews of the private firms that are built? Will they, like Harvard and Princeton University were when they were founded, operate on a biblical and Reformed foundation? If so, unlike Harvard and Princeton, will they stay true to their mission? CANADA IN 2040 I understand why people aren’t optimistic about the future of Canada. Even in my own community, far removed from any urban centers and which, until recently, was known for being an idyllic place to raise a family, there are places that feel eerily similar to Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside. I see more homelessness, open drug use on the streets, and the need for 24/7 policing. My family isn’t even comfortable walking down parts of Main Street anymore. The same is true in communities across Canada today. This is the natural fruit of a secular worldview (ironically labelled “progressive”), and we can expect the trajectory to only continue as long as our country refuses to humble itself before the LORD. But God’s kingdom is above all of this and is advancing perfectly according to His plan. He put us in this time and place intentionally. He has a calling for us, right here and right now. We can leave the future in God’s hand, confident that He has the authority and power to guide all things. “If God is for us, who can be against us?” (Romans 8:31). There may be reformation or revival, like in the time of Josiah (2 Kings 22-23). Or God may have good plans for another civilization to take our place, as He has done to the Babylonian and Roman empires, along with so many others. Or He may usher us into glory today yet. God doesn’t burden us with the future. Our task is to focus on the present. We can use each day He has given us to build on the foundation of Jesus Christ, confident that “if the work that anyone has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward” (1 Cor. 3:14). As such, it doesn’t matter so much if Canada still exists in 2040. We know with certainty that God’s kingdom will endure....

Red heart icon with + sign.
News

A renewed hunger for the Bible

Data from the Association of American Publishers reveals that the biggest sales increase among all categories of books being published last year in the United States was religious books – up 18.5 percent from the previous year. This comes on the heels of similar growth the previous year. Publishers Weekly asked these publishers what was driving the increase and the answer was Bibles, Bible study materials, commentaries, and devotionals. “Christianity and Scripture and the people who write from these perspectives hit people where they live” explained Shane White, divisional VP for sales at InterVarsity Press. “That's why we see the sales we see." "Whatever denomination you're in, whatever your religious background, you're engaging the Bible more now than you did 10 years ago," noted Bob Gaudet, the executive VP of marketing and publicity for Baker Publishing Group. Although there isn’t data of Bible sales in Canada, the Canadian Bible Society distributed 631,298 Bibles and pieces of Scripture in 2024, a 20.1 percent increase from the previous year, which was already 22.5 percent more than the previous year. In Isaiah 55:10-11, God reminds us that just as the rain comes down from heaven to water the earth and make it sprout, giving us both seed for sowing and bread for eating, the same is true of His Word. “It shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose.” Praise be to God for giving more people an appetite for the Bread of Life (John 6:35)....

Red heart icon with + sign.
News

Saturday Selections – Sept 13, 2025

On the death of Charlie Kirk American Christian and conservative leader Charlie Kirk was shot and killed on Wednesday. Kirk (1993-2025) wasn't as remarkable for what he said (though he did get things mostly right) as he was for how he spoke up (boldly, as a grateful child of God) and for where he was willing to go. Kirk made dozens and dozens, and maybe hundreds, of appearances – captured as YouTube clips – on campuses across the United States. He'd set up a booth and take on any and all questions from liberal students who, it so often seemed, had never even heard an intelligent conservative Christian speak before. It was at one of these events that he was murdered. The link above goes to a collection of articles, assembled by Tim Challies, reflecting on Kirk's assassination. The video below is of Kirk stepping up for the unborn. May Kirk's courage inspire many more Christian young men to be just as strong and courageous (Joshua 1). Tim Challies, on how to write a great book review... ...which is a great primer for writing a book review for Reformed Perspective too. If you've got a great book you'd like to review, let us know. Organ transplant investigations expose grisly stories of patient abuse This is an American story, but one that should concern Canadians because in our murder-as-medicine MAiD-approving country, wouldn't it be all the more likely that a dying patient might be euthanized for their organs? Taming technology (10 min. read) Some real help on offer here for families who want to rethink how technology is taking over their home. How to face apparent contradictions in the Bible Michael Kruger has three tips to deal with passages in the Bible that seem contradictory: 1) don't be scared of them 2) don't apply today's conventions to yesterday's writers 3) be humble and patient: that we don't have an explanation now doesn't mean there isn't one, or that it won't show up later My Soul Among Lions, Psalm 2 I remain fascinated at the many very different, great treatments that can be given to the Psalms..... ...

Red heart icon with + sign.
Book Reviews, Children’s picture books

Bruno the Bear

by W.G. Van de Hulst 47 pages / 1978 & 2014 Little Rosie is sick so Mother takes her off to bed. But wait, what about her teddy bear Bruno? The little goof has slipped right out of her tired little hand onto the floor. There he lies, sitting up against the doorpost with his glass eye twinkling, almost winking, as if he had a secret joke. It’s no joke though, when Jimmy and Joe come home from school, and turn their sister’s favorite toy into a puppet on a string. They make Bruno dance and fly, and then - oh no! – they swing him about over the canal outside their window. When Bruno gets hooked on a pole sticking out of the water the string breaks, and then the two naughty boys don’t know what to do. Their sister is crying – she’s sick and wants her teddy. But they don’t dare tell Mother what they did! Bruno the Bear was originally published in Dutch, and the translators have done a wonderful job – it is a fun book to read out loud. It is also a beautiful book, with more than 25 pictures that are quite helpful in setting the scene. My three-year-old and five-year-old were both able to follow all the way through this pretty long story – I think it might have taken a half hour to finish. One thing I particularly appreciated was the author’s Christian take on the boys naughtiness. The two boys don’t want to tell Mother or Father, and they don’t. But that night, as they go to bed, we learn that Joe tried to pray, but didn’t dare. And Jimmy “had said it as fast as he could. And that was not really praying. No, Jimmy did not really dare to pray either.” When I asked my girls why the two boys didn’t dare pray, they understood exactly why, and we had a good conversation about what the boys needed to do – fess up! (Which they do indeed do a few pages later.) Bruno is one of 21 Van de Hulst children’s books the publisher sent me, and so far this is our favorite. In some of the other books I’ve had to “mute” some of the action – for example, in The Rockity Rowboat I skipped over a description of just how fierce a big black dog looked – but what might be need a bit of abridgment for a three year old will be great reading for a child in Grade 1 and 2. So, to sum up, Bruno is well translated, beautifully illustrated, thoroughly Christian, and engaging enough to keep a three-year-old’s attention for half an hour. You can order it, and the other Van de Hulst books, at Inheritance Publications....

Red heart icon with + sign.
Pro-life - Abortion

Judges vs. justice: a history of abortion in Canadian courts

In 1988 Canada’s Supreme Court’s gave their Morgentaler decision which struck down all restrictions on abortion in the country. Shortly afterwards the Supreme Court again dealt with abortion in the Borowski and Daigle cases. Together, these three cases have been called the “abortion trilogy” and a close look at these cases shows how Canada’s top judges can take a large amount of the credit for us being one of just three countries in the world with no protection for the unborn. 1. The Morgentaler decision In 1983 abortionist Henry Morgentaler was charged with operating an illegal abortion clinic in Toronto. At that time, the law only allowed abortions to be performed in accredited hospitals with special abortion committees that had to approve each abortion. Morgentaler and his supporters considered this to be too restrictive. His case went all the way to the top and on January 28, 1988, the Supreme Court ruled that Canada’s abortion law violated section 7 of the Charter. The majority of judges argued that the abortion law violated the procedural fairness required by the Charter of Rights. While this was a major victory for Morgentaler, there was a sense in which that decision was not a complete defeat for the pro-life cause because it gave Parliament the option to pass better abortion legislation. (though Parliament hasn’t touched the issue since). In his 1992 book Morgentaler vs. Borowski, University of Calgary political scientist Ted Morton relates some little known information that shines some light on the Supreme Court’s thinking. Morton notes that when Gwen Landolt, a lawyer and leader of the pro-family group REAL Women of Canada, read the Supreme Court’s decision she noticed something startling. Four of the judges who struck down the law referred to a document known as the Powell Report in their decision. Dr. Marion Powell had been commissioned by the Ontario government to survey the availability of abortion services in Ontario. Dr. Powell was a “pro-choice” activist, and her report was released on January 27, 1987, three months after Morgentaler’s case had been heard by the Supreme Court. Landolt reviewed the Morgentaler docket in the Supreme Court archives and confirmed that the Powell Report had not been mentioned in court when the case was argued – obviously because the report did not yet exist at that time. In other words, the Supreme Court, in striking down Canada’s abortion law, had relied heavily on a document that had not been submitted as evidence, and which had been produced by an abortion rights activist. Landolt shared this information with Laura McArthur, the president of the Toronto Right to Life Association. McArthur then lodged an official complaint with the Canadian Judicial Council, arguing that the Court had deprived Morgentaler’s opponents of the right to challenge the Powell Report when the case was argued. Considering that Dr. Powell was a pro-abortion activist, the impartiality of her report was certainly questionable. The Council replied that the issue raised by McArthur was outside of its mandate to consider, and also that the Supreme Court occasionally relies on materials which have not been introduced as evidence. This is known as “judicial notice.” However, as Prof. Morton notes, “To justify the Court’s use of the Powell Report as an exercise of judicial notice was to stretch the concept beyond its normal scope.” 2. The Borowski decision While Henry Morgentaler had been fighting in the courts to strike down restrictions on abortion, a prominent Manitoba pro-life activist (and former provincial cabinet minister) Joe Borowski had been fighting in the courts to have abortion prohibited in Canada. That is, he was challenging the same law Morgentaler was challenging, except from the opposite point of view: Borowski said Canada’s abortion law violated the Charter because it allowed abortions to be performed. He argued that unborn children were protected by the Charter’s declaration that “everyone has the right to life.” After considerable effort and expense, Borowski’s case reached the Supreme Court in October 1988. A few months later the Court ruled that it would not address Borowski’s arguments because his case had become moot. The law he was challenging had been struck down in the Morgentaler decision, so the Court did not need to address issues related to legislation that was no longer operative. All of Borowski’s efforts were thwarted by this declaration that his case had become moot. Years of work and expense came to nothing. Now the pro-life movement had lost two cases at the Supreme Court, but there was one more yet to come. 3. The Daigle decision On July 7, 1989, Jean-Guy Tremblay obtained a court injunction in Quebec to prevent his former girlfriend, Chantal Daigle, from aborting the child they had conceived together. The Quebec Superior Court upheld the injunction 10 days later. Then on July 26 the Quebec Court of Appeal also upheld the injunction. In a decision that shocked the country, that court ruled that an unborn child was a “distinct human entity” that “has a right to life and protection by those who conceive it.” The Quebec Court of Appeal decision was immediately appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada. The Supreme Court judges were called back from their summer vacations to hold an emergency session on August 8. As Ted Morton and fellow University of Calgary political scientist Rainer Knopff write in their 1992 book Charter Politics, “Never before in the Court’s history had a case moved from trial to the highest court in the land with such speed!” Canada was in the midst of a full-fledged crisis. How dare a court in this country declare that unborn children had a right to life! During the Supreme Court proceedings, Daigle’s lawyer announced that she had gone to the US and had an abortion there, making the case moot. The injunction preventing her from getting an abortion no longer had any practical effect. The Chief Justice then asked the opposing lawyers if they wished to continue the proceedings. Tremblay’s lawyer said no, but Daigle’s lawyer said yes. The Court therefore decided to continue, and within two hours they had struck down the (moot) injunction against Daigle, once again handing the pro-abortion side a complete victory. That wasn’t all, however. The Court decided to do more than decide Daigle’s case, which concerned Quebec’s civil law. The Court went well beyond the questions of that case by also addressing the rights of the fetus under common law, which applies in the other nine provinces. This was to prevent a similar case from later arising in one of the common law jurisdictions. The Supreme Court had previously taken the position that it wanted to avoid unnecessary judicial pronouncements. Morton and Knopff point out that in this case the Court violated its own maxim twice: When the justices learned that Chantal Daigle had had her abortion, why did they persist in ruling on the issues involved rather than declaring the case moot – which it clearly was? Similarly, why did the Court expand the scope of its ruling to include the common law when this was not necessary for a Quebec appeal? They note that, “for many this aspect of the Daigle decision encourages the suspicion that the Supreme Court is less than neutral on the abortion issue.” Morton and Knopff indicate that there are other questions as well. When Borowski’s case became moot, the Supreme Court refused to proceed with it. When Daigle’s case became moot, the Court proceeded anyway. “Why under these circumstances, sceptics wonder, did the Court persist in deciding the issue of fetal rights? Why did it treat Borowski and Daigle so differently?” As mentioned, Daigle’s case was rushed to the Supreme Court level unlike any previous case. Perhaps this can be justified because of the medical issues involved. It could be seen to be an emergency situation. As a result of the lack of time, there was much less legal preparation and input than usual for a major court case. When Daigle had her abortion, however, the emergency was over. There was no need to rush into a decision without proper study and thoughtful consideration. This was serious stuff, after all, because it concerned the supreme law of the land. Morton and Knopff quote another constitutional expert as saying that it was a bad idea to rush ahead with the Daigle case and produce a major court ruling “in a hothouse, emergency atmosphere. This opinion will be with us for centuries.” And yet this important decision had been reached with considerably less preparation and argumentation than would normally occur. The Canadian people (most notably those in the womb) were not well served. Operation Rescue Besides the Daigle controversy, there was other activity on the abortion front in Canada during 1989. After the Morgentaler decision, many Canadian pro-lifers became increasingly frustrated about the lack of restrictions on abortion. Some joined Operation Rescue and engaged in civil disobedience directed primarily against Everywoman’s Health Clinic in Vancouver and two abortion clinics in Toronto. Operation Rescue was a group founded in the US to promote nonviolent resistance as a pro-life tactic. Operation Rescue activists would use their bodies to block access to the entrance of abortuaries. Pregnant women were thereby prevented from entering and getting abortions. The police were always called in to break up the blockades. Court injunctions were imposed against these protests, but activists would often ignore the injunctions. Many were thus thrown in jail and fined. The courts in BC were particularly harsh in dealing with protestors who participated in Operation Rescue. But while the mainstream media strongly approved of Daigle’s actions and her Supreme Court decision, it disapproved of the Operation Rescue missions. Writing at the time, Ted Byfield of Alberta Report pointed out the hypocrisy of the situation: It’s true that, in aborting the child, she defied a court injunction. In Vancouver, that is a dreadful thing to do, as the judges so gravely aver every time they slam the abortuary rescuers into jail for doing it. receives no such admonition. She has been through enough, the judges decide. So we see how law is administered in Canada. If you defy an injunction in opposing abortion, you are a wretched criminal and must go to jail. If you defy an injunction in having an abortion, you are a national hero, and warmly commended. Conclusion Ted Byfield’s comment puts the matter clearly. Canada’s courts had become politicized. When they were presented with an abortion-related case, the outcome always favored the pro-abortion side. The courts reasoned one way in one case, and the opposite way in another case, in order to arrive at their desired decision. Their legal reasoning was steered in particular directions to achieve their political goals. The courts will not change until Canadian society has been changed. This is why the efforts of pro-life groups are so important. Neither the politicians nor the courts will respond favorably to pro-life arguments until there’s a broader reception of the pro-life message. It isn’t going to start at the top – grassroots activity is essential to accomplishing this goal. We all need to talk to our neighbors. This article first appeared in the April 2015 issue....

Red heart icon with + sign.
News

Were the 215 soil abnormalities actually graves? 37% of Canadians think we should just presume so.

Allegations of mass graves outside of Canadian residential schools was one of the top news stories in the world in 2021. Ground-penetrating radar was said to have found evidence of the remains of as many as 215 children on the grounds of the former Kamloops Indian Residential School. But these soil anomalies have not been investigated since, and no exhumation has been done, and consequently, no actual bodies have been found. And today, for many Canadians, the lack of proof is seen as irrelevant. The results from a survey released by Angus Reid this summer revealed that 63% of respondents would only accept the initial claim if further information from exhumation was made available. However, more than a third of respondents will accept these are unmarked graves, even if nothing is done to verify whether these are actually graves. Among indigenous respondents, 44 per cent accepted the claim without more evidence. The numbers who don’t need evidence increases to 56% of young women, aged 18-34. A few years ago, Christian apologist Abdu Murray argued that we have transitioned from a post-modern world to a post-truth world. “Post-Modernism says there’s no such thing as truth, but Post-Truth mindsets say, ‘Truth is important, but only in so far as it feeds and satisfies my feelings and my preferences. So truth exists, but I don’t care unless it happens to conform with what I like.’” How do we engage with a world that acknowledges that truth exists but is happy to ignore it? In his book Saving Truth: Finding Meaning & Clarity in a Post-Truth World, Abdu Murray concludes that “the answer is Jesus – the truth who is personal. He is the Saving Truth.” In other words, Christians must communicate truth, but we must also introduce our neighbours to the person of Jesus – the “way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6). Christ alone speaks to the head and the heart....

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