RP App | Reformed Perspective

Most Recent

News

Halloween decorations overtaking Christmas decorations in BC

A survey of BC residents concluded that, for the first time, more people in the province are going “all out” with their decorating for Halloween than for Christmas.

The survey was conducted by BC Hydro, the crown corporation that provides most of BC’s hydro power. It found that half of BC residents decorated their homes for Halloween this year, thirteen percent of which put on a “mega display” (defined as ten or more strings of lights and at least one plug-in inflatable). Just over half plan to decorate for Christmas, of which ten percent plan a “mega display.”

Although the numbers are similar, and the survey was done before Christmas, when one compares Halloween decorations with Christmas, the contrast is striking. Halloween decorations generally celebrate death with tombstones, skeletons, and even effigies, ropes around their necks, hanging from trees, and then there’s the embrace of the occult, witches, and darkness. In contrast, most Christmas decorations radiate light, joy, and beauty, a fitting display to mark a holiday that celebrates the birth of our Incarnate Lord.

BC recently made headlines for being the province with the highest proportion of people who say they have “no religious affiliation” (now up to 41 percent). As such, it isn’t surprising that there is waning enthusiasm for the celebration of Christ’s birth. Yet it is sad that a population would willfully celebrate the darkness which Christ came to save us from. “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness” (Isaiah 5:20).

News, Pro-life - Abortion

What does Pierre Poilievre think about the unborn?

News

Climate conference hypocrisy continues to be instructive

Humor, News

God’s humor on display in Education Secretary’s misquote

Two months later, Poilievre’s apple moment keeps rolling

Back in October, Canada’s Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre went viral with a video clip that’s been characterized as a “masterclass” for dealing with hostile media. Poilievre was visiting an Okanagan orchard, and the editor of the local paper, the Times Chronicle, tried to get Poilievre to answers questions about how he was a rightwing “populist….taking a page out of the Donald Trump” playbook. In response, the Conservative leader – munching contently on a huge apple – batted away each loaded question by asking his own. He wanted Urquhart to define his terms. And Urquhart couldn’t. When Poilievre posted the clip to Twitter on Oct. 14, it garnered more than 1.5 million views, and national coverage by the likes of the Vancouver Sun, National Post, and Globe and Mail. His performance was so dominant the Winnipeg Free Press’s Charles Adler tried to recast the exchange as the Conservative leader “squashing” and “devouring” the poor reporter. Poilievre’s apple moment made a splash in the US too, and the rest of the English-speaking world (prompting an Australian Sky News anchor to wonder if “perhaps there is hope for Canada yet”). And two months later the clip was still making the rounds. Joe Rogan, possibly the world’s most popular podcaster (this is not a recommendation of his show), shared the clip with his tens of millions of listeners on a Dec. 7 episode. Christian apologist Tim Barnett highlighted the seven questions Poilievre posed as a “brilliant” example of “using good questions in tough conversations.” Poilievre went viral because he was effective and because he was confident in the face of an arrogant, unfair attack – asking the reporter to explain his insults dismantled them, and Poilievre’s casual apple-munching was the perfect optic. Barnett believes God’s children can be that effective and that confident in our own confrontations with a hostile world if we employ this same tactic. In attacking our God, the world is attacking the very Author of reason and reality, which leaves them open to the same sort of dismantling if only we are brave enough to ask them to explain themselves. And the apple? Well, that’s optional. ...

History

Christmas Truce

There’s a lot of things you think of when Christmas comes to mind. Christmas tree, Christmas pudding, Christmas presents, Christmas lights, Christmas services, Christmas carols. One of the words you don’t tend to connect with Christmas is truce. What’s a “Christmas truce”? It sounds like a feuding family that makes up for the holiday season. Yet in 1914, the phrase Christmas truce had power, perhaps more so than any of the other phrases that you typically associate with Christmas. Ground to a halt The First World War had started a few months earlier, and after significant early victories by Germany that pushed France to the verge of defeat, the war had ground to a stalemate. The Allies and the Germans faced off over hundreds of miles of trenches that stretched from the Swiss border all the way to the English Channel. The two sides faced off against each other with their respective trenches separated by a no man’s land. If you raised your head above your trench just a bit too much, someone in the trenches opposite would probably shoot you. If you were ordered out of your trench to attack the other side, well, you were likely shot before you could make much progress across the area between the trenches. The no man’s land was a forbidding area, littered with the corpses of soldiers. This stalemate had gone on for months. Many of the men had signed up for a brief bit of adventure fighting the enemy, thinking everyone would be home for Christmas. It didn’t quite work out that way. Soothing music As Christmas approached, the war ground on, slow, deadly, and lacking the purpose and enthusiasm it had once had. Yet, Christmas Eve that year was different than what anyone might have expected. Gunfire, according to reports, ceased around noon that day. Both sides of the conflict had received cards and small presents from home. For English troops this included a present from Princess Mary, a tin with tobacco, cigarettes, or sweets, among other items. The Allied troops on the Western Front heard Christmas carols floating across no man’s land. The Germans sang Silent Night, in German, of course, and the Allies responded with The First Noel. In one place, the English were alerted to the truce when a German voice called out in English, “English soldier, English soldier; a merry Christmas, a merry Christmas!” What was seen up and down the line was Christmas lights, and small trees. A man displaying Christmas lights on a small tree makes himself vulnerable because his enemy now has a clear target to aim at. Yet the English troops didn't take advantage of the German vulnerability, apparently because it was Christmas. A present exchange Despite the objections of the officers, both sides emerged from their respective trenches, meeting in the middle. They shook hands, and exchanged some of the small presents they had received from home. Communication had its problems, but a number of the Germans had worked in London before the war started, and that helped things along. There is even talk of at least one game of soccer starting up between the two sides, though this is hard to confirm. Though it’s not known for sure if it happened, it’s fascinating to imagine soldiers who had shot at each other only a few hours earlier now trying to score goals on each other. Reason for the season As strange as all this is, what you really have to wonder is why. Why did this happen? There have been spontaneous truces in all kinds of wars, but those tended to be localized and were generally a chance to help the injured or recover bodies of fallen comrades. This time was a bit different. At about the same time, more than a hundred thousand soldiers scattered over hundreds of miles put down their weapons and not only tolerated their enemies picking up their wounded from the battlefield, but actually went and celebrated with them, singing songs and giving gifts. Some have suggested that the truce was due to war weariness, since this long, grinding war had been going on for months with little progress and little hope of ending. If that’s all that was involved, surely there would have been more truces on the Christmases of 1915, 1916, and 1917 as the war seemed less and less hopeful and more and more soldiers grew weary of it. The only explanation I can find that makes sense to me is that this was a different time, when Christmas meant more than good feelings, time off from work, a lot of food, and time spent with the family. This was a holy time that was about the celebration of the birth of a Savior who promised to alleviate our sufferings and reconcile us to God. Christmas Eve was a “night the angels sang,” and so Pope Benedict XV urged that at least on this night, “the guns may fall silent.” Maybe some stopped shooting because the pope asked them to, but I suspect many more, this early in the war, simply couldn’t ignore the incredible significance of Christmas. While it’s hard to shoot someone at any time, it seemed impossible to shoot someone on the night when God Himself came to live among us. To learn more History.com's "Christmas True of 1914" Imperial Warm Museums' "The Real Story of the Christmas Truce" TheSmithsonian Magazine's "The Story of the WWI Christmas Truce" Sabaton's Christmas Truce, below, is a unique account by this heaven metal band. James Dykstra is a sometimes history teacher, author, and podcaster. This article is taken from an episode of his History.icu podcast, “where history is never boring.” Find it at History.icu, or on Spotify, Google podcasts, or wherever you find your podcasts. Picture at the top of the page was originally published in "The Illustrated London News," January 9, 1915, with a caption that read: "British and German Soldiers Arm-in-Arm Exchanging Headgear: A Christmas Truce between Opposing Trenches….Saxons and Anglo-Saxons fraternising on the field of battle at the season of peace and goodwill: Officers and men from the German and British trenches meet and greet one another. A German officer photographing a group of foes and friends."...

Human Rights

Why defend free speech?

Why should Christians defend the freedom for others to say and write things we wouldn’t? **** Some years ago, an American diplomat was having a drink with his Russian counterpart in Moscow, capital of the Soviet Union. He was trying to explain to the communist what free speech means. “In America, any citizen can just stroll around downtown Washington with a sign that says ‘Down with President Reagan’ and not get arrested. That’s what it means to have freedom of speech.” “So what?” his Russian friend replied. “I can do the very same thing and not get in any trouble – I could march right into the Kremlin, right into Secretary Gorbachev’s office and yell ‘Down with Reagan’ and I wouldn’t get arrested.” ***** This was one of many jokes President Reagan loved to tell to contrast Western freedom with Soviet repression. And the joke hints at an important litmus test for free speech, which is whether you are free to criticize your own government, laws, and society – in private or public. The humble should want to be second-guessed (Prov. 18:17) But why should a society, particularly a democratic one like Canada, allow its prevailing norms, beliefs, or behaviors to be questioned and criticized? Because, we believe societies and governments – like any fallible person or group of persons – can be wrong. They often are. Truth exists. And truth trumps majority opinion, personal feelings, and political power. On that score, there are many examples of men speaking truth to those in positions of political power. They are recorded for us in the Bible and through Church history. You might think of Nathan calling out David for his adultery with Bathsheba. Or you might think of how Samuel and Jonathan speak the truth to King Saul. The proud make speech costly Many other prophets dared to speak the truth to other kings of Israel and Judah. Jesus condemned Jewish authorities for killing these prophets. In Matthew 23, Jesus even points to a specific example recorded in Scripture, namely that of Zechariah in 2 Chronicles 24:20: "Then the Spirit of God came on Zechariah, son of Jehoiada the priest. He stood before the people and said, “This is what God says: ‘Why do you disobey the Lord’s commands? You will not prosper. Because you have forsaken the Lord, he has forsaken you.’” But they plotted against him, and by order of the king , they stoned him to death in the courtyard of the Lord’s temple." Or, consider the example of the Apostle Paul. In Acts 17 we read about how Paul went about his work. In the first part of Acts 17 he’s in Thessalonica. We read: "And Paul, as was his custom, went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that the Messiah had to suffer and rise from the dead. “This Jesus I am proclaiming to you is the Messiah,” he said. Some of the Jews were persuaded and joined Paul." Let’s contrast that with the conduct of those who don’t like what Paul is saying: " formed a mob and started a riot in the city they dragged Jason and some other believers before the city officials, shouting: 'These men who have caused trouble all over the world have now come here, and Jason has welcomed them into his house. They are all defying Caesar’s decrees, saying that there is another king, one called Jesus.'” These guys seem pretty politically savvy. Whip up a mob. Cause a riot. Blame your opponents’ message for your behavior. Get officials to silence them. The wise will challenge speech Then Paul goes on to Berea, where we read that the Jews were “noble” and that they “eagerly examined the Scriptures to see if Paul’s teachings were true.” Then we go on to read about Paul in Athens later in the chapter: " reasoned in the synagogue with both Jews and God-fearing Greeks, as well as in the marketplace day by day with those who happened to be there. And a group of Epicurean and Stoic philosophers began to debate with him. And they took Paul and brought him to a meeting of the Areopagus, where they said to him, “May we know what this new teaching is that you are presenting? You are bringing some strange ideas to our ears, and we would like to know what they mean” (Acts 17:17-20)." The response to Paul by those interested in the truth is to investigate, discuss, and debate. The response of those interested in preserving their power rather than pursuing truth is to silence Paul by force. But the truth of Christ is more powerful than the force of rulers. In 2 Corinthians 10, Paul uses a military metaphor to explain gospel ministry: "Though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, our weapons have divine power to demolish strongholds. We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ." Demolishing strongholds and taking captives – not with the sword, but the truth of God’s Word. Now, of course, Paul and the Apostles spoke the truth, as we must, regardless of whether the law protects our freedom to do so. It is good to defend the freedom to share the truth. Paul defended himself using his rights as a citizen, for example, with the goal of bearing witness to Christ. God hates compelled speech Other early Christians advocated for freedom to preach and practice the gospel, arguing that religion is a matter of the heart and cannot be coerced. In A.D. 197, Tertullian wrote his Apology as a defense of persecuted Christians. He addressed it to the Roman authorities. Tertullian says it is “a privilege inherent in human nature that every person should be able to worship according to his own convictions.” Coercion in religion, he argues, only fosters irreligion and hypocrisy. Tertullian contends that “heretics and philosophers study the same themes as believers: what is the origin of evil, and why? The origin of humans, and why?” He also appeals to the image of God in man, with an emphasis on man’s reasoning and decision-making capacity. God has used speech The ability to disseminate views increased dramatically with the invention of Gutenberg’s printing press in the mid-1400s. It made books and pamphlet printing far faster and cheaper, making written materials widely accessible. A few decades later, the Catholic Church did not like much of what it saw coming off the press, so in 1487 the Pope issued a papal bull calling for regulation of the press. That did not accomplish much. So, the next Pope – Leo X – issued a stronger papal bull in 1515 forbidding publishing without prior authorization from the Church. Leo X did so just in time for Luther. By 1521, the Pope’s envoy in Germany wrote to the Pope to bemoan the “daily downpour of Lutheran tracts in German and Latin. Nothing is sold here except the tracts of Luther.” Luther called the printing press “God’s highest and extremest act of grace whereby the gospel is driven forward.” The data backs Luther up. The Reformation spread faster in towns that had printing presses. And in turn literacy grew fastest in places where the Reformation took hold, as it did firmly in the Netherlands. Between 1600 and 1800 no one read or printed more than the Dutch. Their literacy and rate of literary consumption by the late 1600s quadrupled that of France or Italy. Speech can be misused Now there’s also no denying that the printing press and the explosion of religious pamphlets allowed some strange flowers to bloom. Radical Anabaptists had very odd and heretical teachings and were early victims of persecution. Luther said of this persecution, “I am deeply troubled that the poor Anabaptists are pitifully put to death. Let everyone believe what he likes. If he is wrong he will have punishment enough in hell. Unless there is sedition, one should oppose the Anabaptists with God’s Word.” Luther was not always consistent with this principle. He supported censorship of certain Anabaptist writings as well as Zwinglian pamphlets. Calvinists exercised censorship too – for example, when the Presbyterians controlled the Parliament of 17th century England and forbade publishing books or tracts without prior license from Parliament. But the Presbyterians were opposed by various Puritans including an important Reformed political thinker named John Milton. You may know him as the author of the epic poem Paradise Lost, but he was also a very important political thinker and advocate. John Milton, on iron sharpening iron In 1644, during the first English Civil War between Parliament and the Crown, John Milton published an unlicensed pamphlet attacking an Order of Parliament from the year before that prohibited publishing anything unless it had first received a license from the censors appointed by Parliament. Milton titled his great free speech pamphlet Areopagitica – in reference to the Areopagus in Athens and likely to Paul’s visit there recorded in Acts 17. Milton’s unlicensed pamphlet would prove very influential in later English and American and Canadian history. So let’s follow its argument. Milton was concerned about how we, as human beings made in God’s image, promote the truth. Option number one is through reading widely, considering different opinions, and thinking critically. Iron sharpens iron, as the proverb goes. Option one has an optimistic view of the truth, that the Truth with a capital T will ultimately triumph. The only way this can happen, though, is if citizens have the freedom of expression needed to discover the truth by considering God’s revelation for themselves. But Milton anticipated a common objection: won’t the freedom of expression allow bad ideas to spread? That leads us to option number two to promote the truth: through force. Underlying this second belief is the presumption that the Truth will lose out, unless we force others to adopt it. In their eyes, truth will ultimately lose in a fair fight. The only way to maintain the truth – if they even believe in objective truth – is to allow some people to decide what truth is and enforce it upon everyone else. So those who wish to restrict the freedom of expression have little confidence in the power of the Truth. Or, alternatively, they might even think Truth is powerful, but they hate it and wish to supress it. Milton uses the example of the Bible. If you want to stomp out heresy and inappropriate content, then you might consider banning the Bible too. We all know churches or people who have twisted the Bible to promote their own opinions. The Bible also has graphic descriptions of sin (ex. the final chapters of Judges) and even suggestive descriptions of goodness (ex. the Song of Solomon). That’s why the Roman Catholic Church did not allow the Bible to be printed in the common language: because they did not trust common people to interpret it. But truth doesn’t come from the Pope or from the King. It is found in God’s revelation of Himself, a revelation that He has given to all mankind. Some speech needs to be policed Now, just because we believe in freedom of expression doesn’t mean that the government may never regulate any type speech. The Bible speaks of many sins of the tongue. The government does have a role in regulating some speech, such as outlawing perjury, which is bearing false witness in court. Some forms of speech constitute injustices against others in themselves, such as libel, threats, or fraud. But it is not the responsibility of the government to police all the sins of the tongue. Some of these judgements are reserved for other spheres of authority: elders in the church combat heresy, parents in the home police unkind words, bosses in the workplace punish false advertising, and even individuals in their own minds need to guard against ungodly thoughts. …but the bigger problem is truth being restricted However, the problem today isn’t so much that governments in Canada are trying to combat sins of the tongue that are outside of its responsibility. Instead, the main problem today is that they are more and more punishing speech that proclaims the truth and is glorifying to God or, relatedly, speech that challenges the prevailing ideologies and idols of our day. We can think of Canada’s conversion therapy ban, which makes it illegal to promote a biblical view of gender and sexuality in some settings. We have bubble zone laws that prevent pro-lifers from talking about abortion in any way around hospitals and abortion clinics in some provinces. One Ontario MPP proposed another type of bubble zone that outlaws the proclamation of God’s design for human gender and sexuality in certain areas. A growing number of municipalities and, again, another Ontario MPP are proposing to ban pro-life literature. This onslaught against free speech is what Christians need to stand up to. We may very well disagree with the manner that it is presented in. Perhaps such speech was spoken in anger or with inappropriate exaggeration. We might even disagree with the truth of the speech itself. We might think that what our neighbor is saying runs contrary to some biblical principles. But if we neglect to defend free speech, we are essentially saying that we don’t think that the Truth will triumph but that lies will always overcome the Truth unless put down by the force of law. But we have every confidence that the Truth will prevail. So let us defend the right of our neighbors to speak what they think is true so that every obstacle to the preaching of the gospel may be removed for us as well....

Interview with an artist

Joanne Stoffels is on a treasure hunt

Kleanza Creek18” x 36"Acrylic on canvasClear, cool, shade and light; Kleanza Creek near Terrace, BC is a spectacular stop along the highway. The lighting in this scene challenged me. Interview with an artist ***** Smithers, BC artist Joanne Stoffels believes life is a treasure hunt for beauty. And she finds an endless source of inspiration right outside her window in ever-changing mountains, dramatic cloudscapes, tiny blue forget-me-not blooming in her garden, and in the fragile, fleeting beauty of the cherry blossom. Scanning for compositions and framing scenes through windows has become a way of life for Joanne: “My six children, all grown now, and my patient husband humor me as they are called once again to observe the magnificence and share the joy.” Stoffels “sees” paintings while singing the Psalms, or reading Scripture. She often feels as though a painting is just “waiting to burst forth from the edges of my imagination – abstract colours and shapes moving across the page.” The term gloryscope (something she picked up from pastor and author Paul Tripp) resonates deeply with Joanne and she hopes that her artistic creations will draw others closer to the wonders of the true Creator. Stoffels started to paint about 10 years ago, sticking mostly to subjects which she has personally experienced. Mountains, forests and the alpine feature prominently. “Many of my paintings are of places that hold a special memory. Some work is more representational, some leans more to ‘abstract landscape.’” Stoffels is curious about other artists’ experiences too. Especially in her first years of art, she explored the work of Emily Carr and the Group of Seven. “The writings of Emily Carr gave me a feeling of kinship, ‘trying to get that joyous worshipping into the woods and mountains, the works of the Lord.’” She admires the way the Group of Seven in particular have captured our immense, glorious country in a “bold and raw new kind of art.” Currently Joanne works when she can in her dining room/studio whenever inspiration strikes. “Our home has quite a creative, relaxed vibe to it. An easel might be up and the table littered with supplies for several weeks before we tidy it all up again, scrape paint from the table, and use it for guests or family dinner.” She sells her work privately and through a thriving artisan shop in Smithers, called Out of Hand. You can follow Joanne on Instagram @paintingsbyjoannestoffels. You can also connect with the artist by email at [email protected]. Also, some of her work has been transformed into stickers, available on her daughter Montana’s blueskyartshop.square.site store. Late Summer 12” x 36" Acrylic on canvas - This bright piece captures a late summer sunset from our driveway. In the evening the world melts into blocks of colour. If you have a suggestion for an artist you’d like to see profiled in RP please email Jason Bouwman at [email protected]. You can also follow Jason on Instagram: @jaybouwman....

News

Saturday Selections – Dec. 9, 2023

If you can choose your gender, can you choose your race? In this secular video, the presenter compares blackface – whites using black make-up to ca...

News

Trudeau’s ban on single-use plastic overturned

A Federal Court has ruled that the Liberals' decision to designate plastic as “toxic,” so they could ban single-use plastics, overstepped the fede...

News

Will Canada start killing their mentally ill this March?

News

Saturday Selections – Dec. 2, 2023

Minimum wage laws increase homelessness, new study finds Despite the best of intentions, minimum wage laws don't create wealth because they don't cre...

Pro-life - Abortion, RPTV

Pro-life legislation attempts in Canada

TRANSCRIPT Welcome to Reformed Perspective. I'm Alexander Ellison. Since the Morgentaler Decision in 1988 there has been no abortion law in Canada. The Supreme Court struck down the existing law, stating that it hindered equal access to abortion. However, it's essential to note that the Court's decision did not endorse the absence of federal legislation on abortion, or protection for pre-born children. In fact, it affirmed Parliament's right to create new legislation. In response to the Morgentaler Decision, Brian Mulroney's Conservative government attempted to draft a compromise abortion law in 1990. Despite efforts to balance pro-life and abortion advocate perspectives, Bill C-43, which permitted abortion only if a physician deemed it necessary for a woman's health, passed in the House of Commons, but was later defeated in the Senate. Since then, Member of Parliament Cathay Wagantall has championed change by introducing three private member's bills, each aimed at recognizing and upholding the inherent value of human life. Cathay Wagantall: So, I'm Cathay Wagantall and the Member of Parliament for Yorkton-Melville which is a riding along the Manitoba border, a couple hours north of Regina, our capital. It's 42,000 square kilometers and it's rural and I've been a Member of Parliament for eight years now. The first was – we called it Cassie and Molly's Law – protecting pregnant women and their pre-born children. An individual named Jeff from Windsor had reached out. I think at one point in time he had become friends with folks at ARPA Canada. It was actually Mike Schouten who introduced me to the possibility of doing a bill in relation to what happened to Jeff when he lost his partner Cassie who was 7 months pregnant at the time. They weren't together anymore, but they were still in a very good relationship and had named Molly Molly and were ready to raise her together in their homes about a block apart. And was attacked in her home by someone who knew both of them and it was horrific. What Jeff didn't expect, and was thoroughly blown away, was that there was no recognition of Molly. So Cassie and Molly's Law was to protect pre-born children by basically bringing in a law that gave serious criminal charges for also either injuring or taking the life of a pre-born child. That bill used words like "pre-born child" which is in the Criminal Code but not in this context. And so it, of course, raised the angst of the House, well pretty well every other party, who are very very anti- pro-life legislation, and are very pro-abortion. So that's the direction that they wanted to take this bill, which they did. But I was very fortunate that my colleagues all supported it, except for two and one abstained for various reasons. But that being said, it did wake the House up to the fact that there was someone there who was willing to bring those issues to the floor. When I do trade shows or anything like that, I always have petitions. So I would have one on Firearms – I live in rural Saskatchewan – one on palliative care, and one on life issues. And I realized that although people want abortion to be available, they have this idea that it's already a law in Canada and it's minimal. So when I brought forward the next it was a sex-selection abortion bill, that basically should be illegal. And God is really good; He times things often to assist with what He's put you there to do, and at the same time a poll came out that made it clear that in Canada Canadians are not as divided on this issue, is what it said, as honestly, the media and politicians want you to think they are. What it did is it showed that the majority of Canadians want access to abortion, but as you dug deeper with their questions they totally want a law against sex selective abortion, late term abortion, they want more pregnancy counseling centers, not less, and they want doctors to have to share with their patient exactly what the dangers and and potential complications are of this type of surgery, which is not required in Canada. I mean, I've had my gallbladder out; I spent half a day at the hospital being told a number of things, and that does not happen in this case. So I brought it forward and people would come to sign my petitions and they'd go "I believe in access to abortion, I'm a nurse" or whatever, and I'd say "Oh, so you're okay with sex-selective abortion?" and they said "No." And then I explained the dynamics that are in Canada right now, where besides North Korea we're the only country without any laws. And they would sign my petition. So I realized that although was not going to pass in the House, and this is one of the challenges of this area, is that you have to win in different ways until it becomes something that can happen within our government, and because of the way the House is set up right now, the only political party that you can be a part of, that does not insist that you have to be pro-abortion is the Conservative Party. So you know you're not going to win a vote in the House. But it's important that we always keep these things in front of Canadians. I believe that as legislators we have a responsibility to respond to culture, but we are also responsible for shaping what our values are in Canada and this is part of that. So again, of course, the bill didn't pass and it was very vital if you ever want to go and listen to some of the speeches it's very clear that there's a lot of anger, and and an attempt to make those of us that are pro-life look like terrible people. Yeah, it's the House of Commons. But we made headway because across the country people woke up to realize that in Canada we we don't have these laws. As Wagantall mentions with the current political climate it's challenging to get parties with hard stances on abortion to side with pro-life bills. A policy analyst with ARPA who has worked on these pro-life bills explains why she says they take the incremental approach: Anna Nienhuis: Yeah, so we take an incremental approach just because of the legal reality in Canada. Right now there is no abortion law, so there is no legal protection for any pre-born children, and there's this polarized debate that kind of pits the pro-choice and pro-life side against each other, so we work to find common ground where Canadians can agree so that we can protect some pre-born children while we work for that cultural shift to be able to protect them all. This past spring Wagantall had the opportunity to introduce another private member's bill. Cathay Wagantall: I have to admit that after the third election I said, okay, Lord, I'd be okay if I didn't have another private member's bill, and He said no, nope, that's not how it's going to be, so I did get an opportunity again this last time around – number 62 or 63 – and I brought forward the violence against pregnant women act which is similar to Cassie and Molly's law but far more targeted. It didn't bring in any sentencing or anything like that but what it did is said that if an individual has committed this crime and that crime has been recognized by the courts and this person has been found guilty then the judge must consider that a child was also physically harmed or murdered as an aggravating factor and what that means is they absolutely must take that into account when they're sentencing and there's only about a handful of, circumstances where aggravating factors are required, but this is about violence against pregnant women and violence against women is a priority of this government and something that they want to champion that they're about. And, of course, I was able to indicate that well if that's the case then they definitely should be supporting this bill and again they took the same approach they always do, which is attack in the House of Commons. Then the Prime Minister, and a number of women Liberal Members of Parliament did a Twitter attack on me, and of course they tried to make it sound like this is all about abortion. Again, it's a hidden attempt, all that kind of thing. And it was amazing because, right across the country, people responded to that with their comments with saying here's the actual feedback on this bill – it's two sentences long and it's about women who want to have a child – and they really lit into them for taking advantage of this in the way that they did. Now, again, of course it didn't change the vote in the House unfortunately. They're representing – everyone else in the House of Commons is representing – about 16% of Canadians who are on the extreme perspective of abortion at any time for any reason. So it was exciting. It was exciting. Fortunately my leader was very supportive, as was our whole caucus. So we feel like a number of other issues around , and circumstances where this government is offside with Canadians because they're not out there representing the true perspectives, they have their own ideology and their own purposes, and their own attempts to use an issue as a wedge issue, that they're losing the ground to do that. Having a child is the most impressive thing that a human woman can do, is have those children. And there are many women who would love to have children that can't. And we need to, at the very least, continue to push for the fact that this is something on which women are being misled. They're being misled to think that they can't afford or they can't handle it. We're women; we can handle anything. And sometimes a bad choice is made, but that doesn't mean that you have a bad choice and you follow it up with another bad choice. So it's important to me that we celebrate life, and the beginning of that is we're knit together in our mothers' wombs (Ps. 139:13) and it's a spiritual experience and a privilege to be a mom and to have a child. Thanks for watching this week's episode. Please feel free to like this video and share it with family and friends. For Reformed Perspective, I'm Alexander Ellison in Ottawa....

In a Nutshell

Tidbits – December 2023

“You better watch out!” It’s nearing that time of year again, when you might hear the chorus of a familiar Bing Crosby hit. I always thought it sounds a bit like he was talking about God (he's not). My friend's thinking went in a completely different direction, and he wrote his own ending... He knows when you've been sleeping He knows when you're awake He knows if you've been bad or good, We're in a surveillance state! Next issue for the Supreme Court? Despite dying over a hundred years ago poet William Cosmo Monkhouse (1840-1901) has his finger on the pulse of today’s culture. There once was an old man of Lyme Who married three wives at a time. When asked, “Why a third?” He replied, “One’s absurd! And bigamy, sir, is a crime.” Lyrics o’ the month In his song Screen Door, Rich Mullins seemed to be working through James 2:14-26, (and Matthew 7:15-20, Galatians 5:6, Hebrews 6:10, etc.). It's about as useless as a screen door on a submarine Faith without works baby, it just ain't happening One is your left hand, one is your right It'll take two strong arms to hold on tight Some folks cut off their nose, just to spite their face I think you need some works to show for your alleged faith Well there's a difference you know 'Tween having faith and playing make believe One will make you grow, the other one just make you sleep Talk about it but I really think you oughta Take a leap off of the ship before you claim to walk on water Faith without works is like a song you can't sing It's about as useless as a screen door on a submarine Faith comes from God and every word that He breathes He lets you take it to your heart, so you can give it hands and feet It's gotta be active if it's gonna be alive You gotta put it into practice, otherwise… Faith without works is like a song you can't sing It's about as useless as a screen door on a submarine T-shirt Christianity. the best kind Abort73.com sells shirt to direct people to their website, which offers up compelling and comprehensive information on the evils of abortion. You can buy this shirt and many others at Abort73.com here. And if you want to create your own t-shirt design, be sure to check out RP's t-shirt contest. Spurgeon spouting sense on… EVANGELISM: “Every Christian here is either a missionary or an imposter.” BEATING PROCRASTINATION: “The way to do a great deal is to keep on doing a little. The way to do nothing at all is to be continually resolving that you will do everything.” FINDING A PERFECT CHURCH: “If I had never joined a church till I had found one that was perfect, I should never have joined one at all; and the moment I did join it, if I had found one, I should have spoiled it, for it would not have been a perfect church after I had become a member of it. Still, imperfect as it is, it is the dearest place on earth to us.” LOVING GOD’S WORD: “A Bible that’s falling apart usually belongs to someone who isn’t.” Top 10 math jokes • Counting in binary is as easy as 01, 10, 11… • Do you hear about the mathematician who was afraid of negative numbers? He’d stop at nothing to avoid them. This is either funny or educational “There are just two kinds of people in this world: those who believe in false dichotomies, and penguins.” SOURCE: Spotted on a t-shirt Laundry tips for guys Shirts have to be changed daily; jeans can last forever. No one sees it, and it doesn’t wrinkle anyway – don’t fold your underwear. Stress relieving tip: when buying black socks, make sure all of them are exactly the same. Pairing sports socks wastes time – make sure you've bought just one kind, then dump the mass of them straight into your sock drawer. No one knows how to fold a fitted sheet – don’t try. Washing your shirts in cold will keep your whites from becoming pinks. Only your underwear, towels, sheets, and workout clothes need to be washed in hot. Nothing like a good (or gross) illustration to clear away the confusion While it seems safe to say most Reformed Perspective readers didn't see Fifty Shades of Grey, many professing Christians did. And one of the justifications they used might sound familiar: “I’m not watching it for the sex; I’m watching it for the story.” This is a line that many a Christian has used to justify watching many a film that wouldn't meet with grandma’s approval. "But grandma," we say, "we understand the sex scene is vile, but we’re enduring it to get to all the other good stuff in the film." However, WORLD magazine writer Emily Whitten says Christians are just lying to themselves with this type of justification. She makes use of a simple illustration to help us see through our self-deception. "Here’s a quick reality check as to whether the played a role in your enjoyment: If all the sex in the movie were replaced with long scenes of the characters’ experiencing recurring diarrhea, would you still find the story as endearing or entertaining? Would you be willing to sit through something so disgusting to get to the love story? If not, then you are seeing it for the sex scenes at some level." SOURCE: Emily Whitten’s “Five myths about Fifty Shades of Grey” I think I get it, therefore I am Rene Decartes walks into a bar. The bartender asks, “Would you like a beer?” Descartes replies, “I think not,” and then promptly disappears. SOURCE: Andy Simmon’s “25 Jokes that make you sound like a genius” in the Sept. 2014 issue of Reader’s Digest The Bible is a miraculous whole In my first-year English class our learned professor told the class that the Bible was most certainly the greatest book ever. He praised it for the excellence found in its many parts – I can still remember the quiet awe that came over him when speaking of the Bible’s poetry. But despite that awe, he wasn’t a Christian. I don’t think he understood how all those excellent parts came together in a remarkable whole. As pastor R.A. Torrey once explained, the unity of the Bible gives evidence of the One Mind behind it all. "The Bible consists of sixty-six books, written by more than thirty different men, extending in the period of its composition over more than fifteen hundred years; written in three different languages, in many different countries, and by men on every plane of social life, from the herdsman and fisherman and cheap politician up to the king upon his throne; written under all sorts of circumstances; yet in all this wonderful conglomeration, we find an absolute unity of thought. "A wonderful thing about it is that this unity does not lie on the surface. On the surface there is oftentimes apparent contradiction, and the unity only comes out after deep and protracted study. "More wonderful yet is the organic character of this unity, beginning in the first book and growing till you come to its culmination in the last book of the Bible. We have first the seed, then the plant, then the bud, then the blossom, then the ripened fruit. "Suppose a vast building were to be erected, the stones for which were brought from the quarries in Rutland, Vermont; Berea, Ohio; Kasota, Minnesota, and Middletown, Connecticut. Each stone was hewn into final shape in the quarry from which it was brought. These stones were of all varieties of shape and size, cubical, rectangular, cylindrical, etc., but when they were brought together every stone fitted into its place, and when put together there rose before you a temple absolutely perfect in every outline, with its domes, sidewalls, buttresses, arches, transepts–not a gap or a flaw anywhere. How would you account for it? You would say: 'Back of these individual workers in the quarries was the master-mind of the architect who planned it all, and gave to each individual worker his specifications for the work.' "So in this marvelous temple of God’s truth which we call the Bible, whose stones have been quarried at periods of time and in places so remote from one another, but where every smallest part fits each other part, we are forced to say that back of the human hands that wrought was the Master-mind that thought."...

News

Ben Shapiro, Daily Wire, launch a new kids’ TV network

What kind of TV shows or videos do you want your children or grandchildren to watch? What choices are off limits because of objectionable content, or worldviews antithetical to the Christian life? Thankfully we now have one more option to choose from. In 2022, The Daily Wire announced that it would compete with Disney and other studios, by launching a kids’ entertainment division. If you aren’t acquainted with The Daily Wire, you may still have seen YouTube clips from some of their commentators, including Jordan Peterson, Roman Catholics Michael Knowles and Matt Walsh (who made the What is a Woman? documentary), and Jews Ben Shapiro and Dennis Prager. Their entertainment service has now gone live under the brand name “Bentkey” with a handful of original series aimed at kids, and around a dozen series produced by others but vetted by the brand as “safe” viewing for children. Parents and professional reviewers have given thumbs up to the new service, with even left-leaning commenters seeming to appreciate the lack of an agenda in the streaming shows. Christian parents will still need discernment to judge if Bentkey is acceptable for their family’s viewing, but may appreciate this additional choice. Bentkey is available by subscription only, either as part of a membership at DailyWire.com or as a standalone product for $99 U.S. annually at Bentkey.com. (Currently, Canadians can access the kids’ network only through a web browser, while those in the U.S. are able to download an app to their Smart TV or tablet.) And if you’re looking for more entertainment options, last year RP published a whole issue on “Movies that King David might watch,” full of 200+ recommendations of worthwhile films for the Christian family. Find the issue here, and the article at ReformedPerspective.ca/200. Picture by Wirestock Creators/Shutterstock...

Movie lists, Movie Reviews

Top 10 films on PureFlix right now

Pureflix is a per-month subscription streaming service that provides Christian content on both sides of the US/Canadian border. While much of its content is mediocre, there are gems to be found. What follows is a Top 10 list of movies for mom and dad, some of which could be watched with the older kids too. And as a bonus, right afterward, is a Top 10 for shows that the kids might like. In many cases you can click on the movie title to find a longer review, and some of those longer reviews even include links to where you can watch them for free, though often in lower resolution. To watch these on Pureflix.com, Canadians and Americans can sign up for a free trial here. Movies for mom and dad 1. I Can Only Imagine This is the life story of MercyMe singer Bart Millard, or, more specifically, it’s the story of what drove him to write what might be the most popular Christian song of the modern era, "I Can Only Imagine." The focus isn’t as much on Bart’s transformation from troubled kid to successful singer, as it is about God transforming his abusive father. Cautions here that make this unsuitable for family viewing is that Millard’s father is indeed abusive, both physically, which we mostly don’t see, and verbally, which we do. However, for adults, this will be a remarkable film and a good part of it is J. Michael Finley, a good actor, and an absolutely fantastic singer. 2. The Most Reluctant Convert: The untold story of C.S. Lewis This is the story of Lewis’s conversion from ardent atheist to “the most reluctant convert,” bowing his knee to God not because he wanted to, but because he couldn’t do otherwise. It’s also a story superbly told. If you already know Lewis you’re going to love this film; if you don’t, this film will soon have you loving Lewis for the way he could put into words the wonder God worked in his and our own hearts. 3. The Long Goodbye: The Kara Tippetts Story The remarkable documentary is a tearjerker about a mom facing terminal cancer, who offers us encouragement in her confidence that God has both her and her family. 4. Tortured for Christ Tortured for Christ is a must-see film about Richard Wurmbrand’s courageous and faithful stand against the Soviets when they took over Romania. 5. Sabina This is a sequel/prequel to Tortured for Christ, about how Pastor Wurmbrand's Jewish wife Sabina was willing to help even Nazi soldiers, because of her love for God. 6. Beyond the Mask When a young 18th-century assassin wants to leave his dark life behind his employer tries to have this loose end tied up, with a bomb. The assassin survives thanks to the warning of a passing vicar who ends up paying for his kindness by getting blown up himself. In search of a new life and a new identity, Reynolds adopts the vicar's identity, and meets Charlotte, a young woman who knows a lot more about God than this "vicar" does. Romance, intrigue, daring-do and plenty of explosions follow. A concern would be the violence, which, while never gory, is frequent – lots of fisticuffs going on here. That said, this is one of the better-produced, better-acted, better-written, Christian films. 7. Time Changer In the year 1890, seminary professor Russell Carlisle proposes teaching morality to the masses without making mention of God, reasoning that even if people don’t become Christians, it would be a good thing if they were at least taught that stealing was wrong. But after a colleague uses a time machine to send the professor more than a hundred years into the future, to present-day USA, Carlisle realizes that morals founded on anything but God have no foundation at all, and are just dismissed as opinion. This is a good-looking science fiction movie with an important and powerfully presented Christian message. 8. The Ultimate Gift Jason, a spoilt rich kid, is given an inheritance by his billionaire grandfather, but it comes with conditions. To get the money Jason has to complete 12 separate tasks, all of which are intended to humble and shape him. It’s a fun film, with a grandfather handing out tough love from beyond the grave in the hopes he can still teach and help his aimless grandson. Emily, a child with a terminal condition, also teaches Jason some important lessons, but her eventual death makes this one kids won't like. A sequel, The Ultimate Life, is only middling. 9. Extraordinary Extraordinary is based on the real-life story of Liberty University professor and ultra-marathon runner David Horton, who runs races not just hours long, but weeks long. That’s meant he’s left the homefront to be managed by his wife on her own. And she might have had enough. Overall, Extraordinary is a lightweight comedic drama about a doofus husband who takes a while to get his priorities right but who figures it out in time for a happy ending for all. That’s all it is, and on some evenings that’s really all we’re looking for. 10. The Amazing Adventure In this black and white calico, Ernest Bliss (Cary Grant) is a young man who has inherited a lot of money from his father. Yet he’s nervous, can’t eat, and can’t sleep. When he goes to the specialist and the doctor diagnoses him with “self-indulgence” Bliss is both offended and intrigued. What’s the prescription then? The doctor tells Bliss to earn his own living for a year and dismisses him with a wave, knowing that this pampered socialite will never follow this advice. But Bliss ends up making him a bet: if Bliss does do it, then one year from now he’ll expect a handshake and an apology from the doctor, and if Bliss loses, then he’ll give £50,000 for the doctor’s downtown charity clinic. That’s the setup, and the general plotline is as you might expect. Bliss learns some lessons about just how it can be for a regular Joe, and it isn’t too long before he’s secretly using his connections and money to help the struggling people who have befriended him. If you don't mind black and white, and its slower pacing, a couple of other classics worth checking out are Meet John Doe and The Jackie Robinson Story. Bonus: Top 10 shows for the kids There's a lot of fun and goofy content on Pureflix, but some of it is goofy in a theological sense too, so parents do need to exercise discernment on behalf of their little ones. Even the recommendations below include a caution or two. 1. Life at the Pond A Christian series aimed at the preschool set that, like VeggieTales, pairs simple animation with somewhat sophisticated humor – there’s yuks here for mom and dad to enjoy too. The four stars are aquatic: Bill the Duck is a regular joe; we are Bill the Duck Tony the Frog fills the role of wisecracking comic relief Floyd the Turtle is the most child-like, and often the straight man setting up Tony’s zingers Methuselah the Alligator is older, and a voice of biblical wisdom The first two episodes, There’s Something Funny in the Water and The Little Things, are calm enough for even the youngest, while The Alligator Hunter, Big Mouth Bass, and The Rise and Fall of Tony the Frog, have some tension, and even some frantic action, so might be best for 5 and up. 2. Buddy Davis' Amazing Adventures (and The Creation Adventure Team) Buddy Davis is a musician, dinosaur sculptor, and children’s entertainer. In his Amazing Adventures series, he’s teamed up with the folks at Answers in Genesis to share a half dozen expeditions – underground, to Alaska, Africa, the swamps, and more – that kids will really enjoy. In The Creation Adventure Team he pairs up with a robot dinosaur sidekick to investigate when the dinosaurs died, how they lived, and whether there were any on the Ark. These two videos feature pretty frenetic action, some decent special effects, and a number of clever spoofs. 3. Defense of New Haven Defense of New Haven is a wonderfully bizarre adventure: a steampunk Christian allegoric comedy adventure, with every character played by a child actor, even though the characters are adults. Our hero, Alec, is a one-armed man who gets recruited by a fully-bearded six-year-old to carry a secret message to the city’s miniature-steamboat-driving defensive forces so that they’ll be able to stop gas-mask-wearing raiders. That is a sentence I never imagined writing, but this is a movie I would have never imagined seeing. And it is both cheesy and fantastic. If you enjoy this, you’ll also like the producer’s earlier all-children film, The Runner from Ravenshead, which is also available. 4. The Legend of 5 Mile Cave The Legend of 5 Mile Cave begins with a bang, a fleeing cowboy being shot right off his horse by an eagle-eyed sheriff. And it begins with misdirection too: the sheriff looks kind of scary, his posse pretty mean, so are they the heroes? Or should we be rooting for the guy lying at their feet? It doesn’t get any clearer when we cut forward 20 years and see an escaping prisoner evade pursuing guards and their bloodhounds. Again, it seems like we’re supposed to be siding with the bad guy. What’s going on? Don't worry, things will eventually be set aright but it is quite the ride until then. 5. A Show about Anthem Lights A real-life Christian cover band, Anthem Lights, has turned itself into a cartoon. This reminded me of Duck Dynasty, with band members playing dumber, funnier versions of themselves. While other animated material on the site wasn't all that impressive, they do seem to have all or at least most of the VeggieTales. but only some are recommended. Click on the link to see which ones. 6. Storm: Luther's forbidden letter Storm Voeten is the 12-year-old son of a printer living in 1500s Antwerp. Martin Luther has written his 95 Theses and his ideas are a source of debate and division across Europe. That’s also true in the Voeten household, where Storm’s mother, a staunch Catholic, doesn’t even want to hear Luther’s name. But his father is interested in learning more…and he’s even willing to print Luther’s ideas. This is a pain-free way for kids to learn this important history. 7. Back of the Net A science geek girl, looking to spend a semester on the seas studying sea creatures, accidentally ends up at a soccer academy. Hijinks ensue, and while there is just a bit of boy/girl oohing and aaahing, that silliness is kept to a minimum, making this a fun one for the fam. 8. F.R.E.D.I A friendly football-sized and shaped robot is stolen from bad guys and ends up in the hands of a couple of teen guys. This struck me as almost the kid version of a Hallmark movie (the good kind) that is pretty light, fairly predictable, but just a pleasant 90 minutes spent. Just watched this one with my kids, and our 10 year-old daughter gave it a 9.9. I think I'd give it a solid 8 as a kids' flick. 9. Patterns of Evidence: Young Explorers This 5-episode series is based on filmmaker Timothy Mahoney’s documentary Patterns of Evidence about his search for evidence of Israel’s captivity in Egypt. The original was part mystery, part biblical history and this sequel covers the same territory, but this time with a group of kids along for the ride. This is now not simply a documentary, but a docudrama, with fact and fiction, education and entertainment, all mixed together. There is humor on two levels here, with pratfalls for the kids, and dry humor for the adults – there are some snort-worthy moments! The five episodes in order cover: The adventure begins when the kids hear about Timothy Mahoney’s work and are eager to help They learn that we may know where Joseph lived in Egypt The team searches for signs of captive Israel’s population explosion The Young Explorers go search for signs of the 10 plagues The search continues on into Israel, where the team now investigates the fall of the walls of Jericho For another fascinating documentary series, check out Creation Proclaims – it's a nature series for kids, that takes a close look at all sorts of animals, and narrated by a former atheist whose university students won him over when they challenged him to look at just how amazing God's creation is. Episodes average around 10 minutes each, focussing on one animal, and there are 24 episodes in all. Mom and dad will find this pretty cool too! 10. Jack and the Beanstalk While this Abbott and Costello classic puts too much of the slap into slapstick, it's otherwise a pretty fun flick....

Science - Creation/Evolution

Is creation worth fighting about?

Billions of years, or just six days, do we need to care? ***** Does it matter? Of all the questions in the creation vs. theistic evol...

News

Saturday Selections – Nov. 25, 2023

Refuting Mormonism – is there only one God? (9 min) It can be a bit confusing to nail down whether Mormons teach that we can become gods, and wheth...

RPTV, Sexuality

RPTV: Jojo Ruba talking about Canada's Conversion Therapy Bill

News

Fashion for a reason: RP’s t-shirt contest!

Some years ago, a Lisa Klassen took the idea of wearing clothes to God’s glory to a new level. When she was an ardent 16-year-old, she was suspended...

Sexuality

Make it up as you go: Alfred Kinsey’s sex research

“Research” that opposes God’s law will be exposed…. eventually ***** When an immoral agenda is being advocated on the basis of “scientific” evidence, there is good reason to be suspicious. Science has a certain aura to it in Western societies, so promoting a particular view as being the “scientific” one is a clever strategy. However, sometimes the scientific veneer is just a Trojan Horse. This has been the case with some of the most influential social science of the twentieth century. Perhaps more than any other single individual, Professor Alfred C. Kinsey of Indiana University could be blamed (or credited) with the breakdown of traditional morality in the USA and other major English-speaking countries. Kinsey was a pioneer “sex researcher” who published two ground-breaking studies, one on male sexual behavior (1948) and the other on female sexual behavior (1953), which rocked the Western world and led to the liberalization of laws regulating sexual conduct in the USA and other countries. That’s a notable accomplishment for one man. During much of the twentieth century science was seen as providing the answers to many of humanity’s problems, so any perspective couched in the language of science received instant respect and credibility. Kinsey was able to take advantage of this prevailing attitude to push his own personal political agenda of sexual freedom. He correctly figured that scientific data “proving” that most people were secretly promiscuous in one way or another would provide a powerful impetus to overthrow traditional conservative views. Kinsey thus conducted his “research” in such a way that it would produce the results he wanted. Judith Reisman unmasks Kinsey Beginning in the 1980s another American researcher, Dr. Judith Reisman, began uncovering the real truth behind Kinsey’s work. She discovered the deliberately fraudulent basis of Kinsey’s influential studies and began to actively alert people to the fact that many changes in American law and culture had been initiated on the basis of this fraud. Dr. Reisman’s work is very important but she is yet to receive the attention and credit that she is due for her efforts. This work has been summarized in a small book – just 84 pages – by Susan Brinkmann, called The Kinsey Corruption: An Expose on the Most Influential “Scientist” of Our Time. There are many reasons to be outraged over Kinsey’s research, but we will touch on just two of them here. 1) He skewed his data Social science research often involves surveys of the general public. A large group of people is given a set of particular questions, then the answers to those questions are compiled and the survey results are considered to be empirical evidence regarding the issue being studied. Presumably the group of people surveyed is representative of the wider population. With this in mind it’s not too difficult for an unethical researcher to produce research that will give him the specific results he wants. If he knows beforehand that certain people are likely to give him particular answers to his questions, he can target those people for his survey so that he deliberately gets a larger proportion of them in his survey sample. Thus the results of his “scientific” study will be heavily weighted in favor of the results he wants. This is basically what Kinsey did. Kinsey’s research was based on survey data which he claimed represented the American population. But it did not represent the American population, and he knew it. His data included a disproportionately large percentage of people who engaged in sexually immoral behavior. "In an outrageous example, Kinsey classified 1,400 criminals and sex offenders as 'normal' on the grounds that such miscreants were essentially the same as other men – except that these had gotten caught." So the information about sexual behavior provided by these 1,400 degenerate men was considered to represent the sexual behavior of average American males. When it’s understood how Kinsey undertook much of his research, it’s not surprising that according to his, "skewed data, 95 per cent of the American male population regularly indulged in deviant sexual activities such as extra-marital affairs, homosexuality, pedophilia, etc.” 2) He relied on rapists’ “data” More outrageous, however, is the way Kinsey obtained data about children’s sexual behavior. In short, children were sexually abused and the abusers would then provide information to Kinsey. One of the chief sources of information about children “was later discovered to be Rex King, the serial child rapist responsible for the rapes of more than 800 children.” Kinsey in Canada Reisman’s research focuses primarily on the USA where Kinsey worked and had the most obvious impact. However, Kinsey’s influence spread throughout the English-speaking world. Here in Canada, Kinsey’s studies have been used to justify cultural and legal changes as well. In 1969 Canada’s law was changed to legalize homosexuality. In the debates over this change, Kinsey was cited as an authority. For example, in the House of Commons on January 23, 1969, one MP read from an article stating that, “Homosexuality is now known to be much more widespread than was thought in the past, as the researches of Dr. Kinsey and others have shown.” He goes on to say that, Dr. Kinsey concluded “that 37 per cent of the male population of the United States had had some homosexual experience between the beginning of adolescence and old age.” This MP then refers to Kinsey further. One of the documents cited most commonly in favor of legalizing homosexuality in Canada was the Wolfenden Report. This report was an official document produced in the 1950s for the British government recommending liberalization of laws relating to prostitution and homosexuality. In England, the recommendations on prostitution were implemented in 1959 and the recommendations for homosexuality were implemented in 1967. The Wolfenden Report was widely seen as very authoritative and it was unquestionably influential in the changes made to Canada’s law on homosexuality. In the House of Commons on January 24, 1969, one Liberal MP pointed out that the government’s proposals for legalizing homosexuality were based on the “recommendations of the Wolfenden committee.” He goes on to point out that the government’s perspective is “very close to the philosophy of the Wolfenden Report.” Throughout the Parliamentary debate, the Wolfenden Report is cited over and over again. Why is this relevant? Because Alfred Kinsey’s “research” on homosexuality was a source for the Wolfenden Report itself. The committee that produced the Wolfenden Report considered Kinsey to be an authority on homosexuality and freely referred to his work. In this respect, Kinsey indirectly influenced the change in Canadian law through his impact on the Wolfenden Report. In 1982 Canada adopted the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, the federal and provincial governments were given three years to bring their laws into conformity to the Charter’s provisions on equality rights before they came into effect. A Parliamentary committee on equality rights traveled the country in 1985 to get citizen feedback on how the Charter’s equality provisions should be interpreted. Numerous homosexual activists made presentations to this committee advocating their perspective. It was common during these presentations for the activists to refer to Kinsey’s research as a justification for homosexual rights. For example, during a presentation to the committee in Vancouver on May 27, 1985, an activist claimed, “Approximately 10% of the population in Canada is gay.” Subsequently, MP Svend Robinson asked the presenter, “You made reference to 10%. I assume this is based on the studies by Kinsey and a number of others.” The activist replied, “That was the Kinsey Report, the 1948 studies, yes.” Another activist testified before the committee in Winnipeg on May 30, 1985, stating that "Our individual and collective experience has provided us with every reason to think that the statistics deduced by the Kinsey Institute in the 1940s were correct: that about 10% of the population is homosexual." On that same day another activist said, “Statistically, the invisible homosexual minority makes up approximately 10% of the population of this country.” And in yet another presentation, a United Church minister remarked, “We point out that about 10% of the population, according to sociological figures, are of homosexual orientation.” The point here is that Kinsey’s studies were viewed as pertinent and relevant to the advancement of homosexual rights here in Canada. His data provided an apparent scientific authority for arguments in favor of homosexual rights. But Kinsey had deliberately skewed his research to get the kind of figures that would support the changes in law and culture that he desired. Kinsey: the movie Some liberals have been concerned about the erosion of Kinsey’s credibility that has resulted from Reisman’s efforts. A Hollywood movie (appropriately entitled Kinsey) was made in 2004 to bolster Kinsey’s reputation. It starred Liam Neeson as Kinsey himself. You won’t learn about his fraud in this movie, though. Brinkmann writes that this movie “presents the life and work of Alfred C. Kinsey in the most glowing terms. Instead of presenting the facts, it glorifies him as a persecuted hero who found himself trapped in a world of sexual repression.” Conclusion Brinkmann notes in the conclusion of her book that the “legacy of Alfred C. Kinsey’s twisted life and work can be read daily in the ever-worsening moral condition of our country.” Of course, Kinsey alone cannot be blamed for the moral decline of the Western countries, but he certainly deserves more blame than just about anybody else. Kinsey is still widely recognized as an authority on sexual behavior despite the fact that the truth has begun to come out – his research is not reliable. This provides good grounds to be suspicious of “studies” promoting various aspects of modern sexual promiscuity, whether homosexual or heterosexual. When viewed carefully, many studies purporting to support various trendy views will be found to be faulty. Most researchers aren’t unethical like Kinsey. But all researchers (whether left-wing or right-wing) are influenced by their worldview – their studies will likely confirm their preconceived views. Social science is not like physical science where you can get precise measurements that are repeatable, giving exactly the same results every time. Social science is much more subjective than that. In other words, the rule “don’t believe everything you read” should be doubly applicable whenever the media reports a new study allegedly demonstrating that monogamy among human beings is unnatural, or that homosexual couples are better parents than heterosexuals, and other such things. Sure, that’s what the study concluded. But you have good grounds for being skeptical about the study itself. These kinds of studies have been flawed or “fixed” before, so the rational response is skepticism. This was first published in the March 2015 issue....

News

Saturday Selections – Nov. 18, 2023

Why Jeff Bezos isn't as wealthy as you think This is not a Christian video, but in explaining why covetous plans for Amazon founder Jeff Bezos' wealth might well cause more harm than good, we see here another illustration of how God's 10th Commandment is an example of not simply His righteousness, but also His love - obeying His Law is better for us. Ayaan Hirsi Ali: Why I am now a Christian Hirsi, a former Muslim who bravely spoke out about Islam, is now calling herself a Christian. However, if the reasons she gives in this essay are the total of her profession of faith (Christ warrants one mention, and repentance none) then she may not yet be, though we can hope and pray God will continue to move her. Her profession does make a compelling practical case for Christianity. She is sharing that the world needs Christianity to be free. Problems with preferred pronouns "All we’re being asked to do is change one word. It’s a simple request. Just use a different pronoun. It might seem like a no-brainer for a believer to comply. Why cause unnecessary tension by refusing a request to be courteous?" Alan Shlemon explains why it really matters. Creationists are exploring new territory. When a fish gets trapped in a lightless cave, and its future progeny lose their eyes, creationists have noted that this was a loss of, and not a gain of, function. Or, in other words, this sort of "evolutionary evidence" didn't prove evolution at all, since, at best, it might have indicated that a man could eventually devolve into a molecule but it gave no insight into how a molecule could ever evolve into a man. Creationists are now testing whether even such a devolution might be the result of brilliant design. Could it be the result of a built-in ability to adapt to changed environmental circumstances? Creationists are setting out to answer that question... and the preliminary results are in. James Tour calls evolutionists' bluff YouTube "experts" often tout supposed advances in origin-of-life theory. But Intelligent Design proponent Dr. James Tour exposed that for the lie it is, challenging leading experts to show that they've solved any of five fundamental problems origin-of-life theory faces. And no one could. Lots of technical language in this one, but to explain by way of analogy, if scientists claimed that evolution could build a rocket to the moon, Tour is willing to pretend that evolution has indeed built the rocket and then is asking evolutionists to explain only how their theory accounts for the refined rocket fuel. And the fact they can't explain the origin of the smaller thing highlights how they certainly haven't made any progress on the more fundamental issues. Even with living things all around to offer examples and blueprints, and even with supercomputers to aid their theorizing, scientists still can't offer even the basics of how life could have come about by unguided evolution. And let's not forget that these same scientists still can't create life on purpose, even with intelligence, blueprints, supercomputers, and refined chemicals. Wind power on the grand scale envisioned is still an unproven technology Germany is one of the world's leading wind power producers, and they are having troubles. The iron law of woke projection At the risk of belaboring the joke below, I'm going to harp on how it is funny because it is true. Christians are often attacked for the very things our attackers are doing to us. "You're just trying to force your morals on everyone," says the atheist trying to force his morals on us. So, when you are attacked, don't get defensive. Recognize their attack for what it really is: an attempt to deflect from their own behavior. Point them back to God. Let them know that even if their accusations were true – even if we're horrible hypocrites – our wickedness isn't going to be any sort of defense for them before their Maker. The only "excuse" available to them is through turning to Jesus, and begging Him to cover their sins with His blood. ...

In a Nutshell

Tidbits – November 2023

Practice makes better I had a friend who makes it a point of pride not to open doors for women because. “Women are just as capable of opening doors as men.” True, but he's missed the point of this little politeness. Gifted with greater strength, men could use their power (and some brutes do) to dominate women. Proper Christian chaps in times past took a stand against this misuse and instead put their strength at women’s disposal, doing so in many different ways: helping with chairs, giving up their seat on the bus, carrying packages, holding the song book at church and, yes, opening doors for the fairer sex. It wasn’t that women were incapable – men were just practicing using their strength to help. They were engraining a habit, and modeling it to others, showing how gentle men behave. And since brutes continue to abound it’s clear that many men still need to practice and model this gentlemanly behavior. Pop Quiz Put your biblical knowledge to the test. Order the following events as they occur in the Bible beginning with “1” for the earliest and “10” for the last. Answers are at the bottom of this page. Daniel in the lions’ den Noah’s ark The giving of the Ten Commandments Elijah and the prophets of Baal Solomon building the Temple Samson and Delilah Jesus feeding the 5,000 Saul’s vision on the Damascus road Joseph and his coat of many colors The martyring of Stephen Nellie: a life worth living (27 min) “I’ll play football in heaven,” says John “Nellie” Nelson (1965-2009) who was born with arthrogryposis and couldn’t move any of his joints from his neck down. He was, nevertheless, an assistant football coach for one of the best football programs in the country. What he did with the little he was given showed these young men what living to God’s glory really meant. I first saw this at a film festival a decade back, and was delighted to discover it is now available for free on YouTube. Marital advice from the unmarried I got married later in life, and in my single days I wrote down some advice for the married me that I hoped would be. It was a few things that I, and some other singles, noticed about the very happiest of our married friends. They make it a priority to hug or kiss their spouses hello and goodbye. That mushy stuff may make the kids groan but it sure seems to keep mom and dad happy. While Dutch folk do have a tendency to tease the ones we love, happy couples are also quick to compliment their spouses (men, see Prov. 31:10-31 for a little inspiration). "Dating” is common – they find ways to regularly spend time alone together. While tonight it may have been your wife’s job to make supper, that’s no reason not to thank her for the wonderful meal! The happiest couples regularly thank each other, even for the ordinary routine work they do for one another every day. And the happiest couples grow spiritually together, not just reading the Bible together, but really studying it and praying together. A punny pastor Pastor John Barach posted this bit to his blog some years back, on pulpit exchanges: TERRY: "So when you have a pulpit exchange, you come here and our pastor goes to another church and that pastor goes to another church... It's kind of a domino effect!" ME: "No, Terry. It's the dominee effect." Fly the silly skies WestJet is a Canadian airline known for its humorous flight attendants. The following are some quips attributed to these flying funsters: "Welcome aboard West Jet Flight 245 to Calgary. To operate your seatbelt, insert the metal tab into the buckle, and pull tight. It works just like every other seatbelt; and, if you don't know how to operate one, you probably shouldn't be out in public unsupervised." "In the event of a sudden loss of cabin pressure, masks will descend from the ceiling. Stop screaming, grab the mask, and pull it over your face. If you have a small child traveling with you, secure your mask before assisting with theirs. If you are traveling with more than one small child, pick your favorite." "Weather at our destination is 50 degrees with some broken clouds, but we'll try to have them fixed before we arrive. After a very hard landing in Edmonton, the flight attendant came on the intercom: "That was quite a bump, and I know what y'all are thinking. I'm here to tell you it wasn't the airline's fault, it wasn't the pilot's fault, it wasn't the flight attendant's fault… it was the asphalt." Quote of the month “People should know what they believe and why they believe it, and they should know what they don’t believe and why they don’t believe it.” – Dr. Glen Martin A stolen gift In June street evangelist Ray Comfort's new bicycle was stolen, so he ended up going back to the same bike store to buy the very same bike again. He has already spoken with the store owner about God the last visit, so this time he asked the man about his family, and discovered that while he had two children, and had been with their mom for 15 years, they were not married. And this is what Ray then told him: "I told him that if he loved his girlfriend he would marry her. I talked about her eternal salvation and that he was making her a fornicator. I also told him that the Bible begins with a naked couple being commanded by God to have sex, that sex is a gift from God to humanity.... Then I told him a story of a little boy whose dad had a brand new $100 bill in his wallet that he was going to give him as a gift. Not knowing that, the son snuck into his dad’s room, opened the wallet and stole the money. The $100 was going to be his anyway, but he stole it and made something bad out of something that was going to be good. I said, 'That’s what you’ve done with God’s gift of sex.'" SOURCE: Ray Comfort's Facebook post of June 10, 2014 Anagram arrangements Sometimes the exact same letters can be used to say the same thing in another way, as happens in the anagrams below. Astronomer: Moon starer The eyes: They see The Morse Code: Here come dots Slot Machines: Cash lost in me Snooze Alarms: Alas! No more Z's A decimal point: I'm a dot in place The earthquakes: That queer shake Eleven plus two: Twelve plus one Butterfly: Flutter-by Vacation Times: I'm Not as Active Source: the world wide web Dad joke of the month Two atoms are walking down a road when one says, “Oh no, I’ve lost my electron!” “Are you sure?” asks the second. “Yes,” says the first, “I’m positive!” Source: 3-2-1 Penguins – The Cheating Scales of BullaManka Unromantic… or just thrifty? Rene Gutteridge’s romance novel My Life as a Doormat has a rather creative introduction on being a romantic on the cheap: "I’m practical. Practical people can be romantics. I don’t think the two contradict each other. Sure, I cringe when an insane amount of money is spent on a dozen roses, and as I watch them die their slow deaths despite the Evian and the aspirin tablet, I can’t help but wonder what better use there was for forty dollars. Can the feeling of holding roses really match saving the starving children of the world? I simply pose the question. "I’m getting sidetracked. The fact of the matter is that I just see romance differently. I see it in defined spaces, with reason and structure attached. Romance doesn’t necessarily need spontaneity either. Scheduled romance is certainly a viable option for busy people. There’s no reason why a bottle of wine can’t be sought out days ahead of time, why a horse-drawn carriage can’t be ridden in the off-season to save ten dollars. Practicality is a simple frame of mind that in all honesty offers more perks and functionality than such frivolousness." Bringing the Greek fire! “Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber.” – attributed to Plato Answers for "Pop Quiz" The correct order of events is 2, 9, 3, 6, 5, 4, 1, 7, 10, 8 or Noah’s ark Joseph and his coat of many colors The giving of the Ten Commandments Samson and Delilah Solomon building the Temple Elijah and the prophets of Baal Daniel in the lions’ den Jesus feeding the 5,000 The martyring of Stephen Saul’s vision on the Damascus road ...

Gender roles

Different is good! God created male and female

God created males and females to be very different from each other. That’s obvious to us as Christians and to most other clear-thinking people. But to leftwing ideologues who see any recognition of difference as “inequality,” accepting such difference is a form of heresy. For example, many feminists consider any difference between males and females to be the result of “social conditioning” – the two genders are only different, they say, because our “patriarchal” society imposes differing expectations on boys and girls. And once the government and its education system have properly imposed “equality” on society, then the differences between men and women will disappear. Leonard Sax In recent years, that ideological perspective has been thoroughly refuted by scientific studies of the human body. Many of these studies and their implications are summarized by psychologist and medical doctor Leonard Sax in the book Why Gender Matters: What Parents and Teachers Need to Know about the Emerging Science of Sex Differences. Sax is not coming to this issue from any sort of Christian or social conservative perspective. He is not opposed to homosexual behavior, and as a medical doctor he prescribes birth control to sixteen-year-old girls without their parents’ knowledge. In other words, he is not a believer, or a conservative as such. He is simply frustrated by the harmful effects of leftwing ideology on children. When Sax was trained at university, most professors accepted the ideological view that male and female differences are socially conditioned rather than being natural and intrinsic. He refers to this view as "the dogma of 'social constructionism,' the belief that differences between girls and boys derive exclusively from social expectations with no input from biology." Attention Deficit Disorder? After practicing medicine for a few years, he suddenly saw a huge increase in the number of grade 2 and 3 boys being sent to him with notes from their teachers saying they have Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) and needed medication. This glut of supposedly ADD boys alerted Sax to the fact that something was wrong. As it turns out, it wasn’t that the boys were ill or needed medication. It turned out that boys have a different sort of learning style than girls, and that the current method of teaching in many schools favors the female learning style. When boys have a hard time paying attention in class they are diagnosed as having ADD and given drugs to cope with that “problem.” But in most cases these boys don’t actually have a problem. They’re just not being taught the way boys need to be taught. As Sax summarizes the situation, “The failure to recognize and respect sex differences in child development has done substantial harm over the past thirty years.” The brains of male and female humans have significant differences, especially during infancy and childhood. These differences affect the way children learn and thus are relevant when considering how they should be educated. Girls draw nouns, boys draw verbs Take the eye, for example. Baby girls are naturally interested in looking at faces while baby boys are more interested in looking at moving objects. According to Sax, “The reason for that difference has to do with sex differences in the anatomy of the eye.” The anatomy of the eye is different for males and females. It is impossible for the differences to be the result of social conditioning. And these differences are significant. Sax says that, "We’re not talking about small differences between the sexes, with lots of overlap. We’re talking about large differences between the sexes, with no overlap at all." Such biological differences between boys and girls are reflected in a number of ways. For example, when boys and girls are given paper and crayons to draw with, the difference reflects itself in the kinds of pictures that result. Boys tend to portray movement and action more than girls. “Psychologist Donna Tuman summarizes the difference this way: girls draw nouns, boys draw verbs.” Toys In feminist ideology, boys and girls play with different kinds of toys because their parents give them the kinds of toys they are expected to play with. Boys get “boy toys” like balls, trains, and cars, while girls get “girl toys” like dolls, and baby carriages. The feminists argue that if the boys were given girl toys, and the girls given boy toys, the children would turn out differently – the boys would express more femininity in their play and the girls would express more masculinity in their play. But the actual research done on children as young as nine-months-old demonstrates that boys naturally gravitate to boy toys and girls to girl toys. Their respective interest in those kinds of toys is natural, not the result of social conditioning. The feminists are wrong again. This is how Sax summarizes the overall situation: "Girls and boys play differently. They learn differently. They fight differently. They see the world differently. They hear differently. When I started graduate school in 1980, most psychologists were insisting that those differences came about because parents raised girls and boys in different ways. Today we know that the truth is the other way around: parents raise girls and boys differently because girls and boys are so different from birth. Girls and boys behave differently because their brains are wired differently." This is a point that bears repeating: “The bottom line is that the brain is just organized differently in females and males.” And the organization of the brain is not something that can be conditioned by a “patriarchal” society. Danger and violence Sax discusses a number of other ways that boys and girls differ. One of the most interesting is their reaction to danger. Generally speaking, when a girl is confronted by danger she feels fearful. But in many cases a boy confronted with the same danger will experience a thrill. Boys often seek out dangerous activities for fun. This is less common in girls. Sax notes that, “Studies in the United States and around the world universally find that boys are more likely to engage in physically risky activities.” Boys often get enjoyment from activities that most girls want to avoid. Boys are also less adverse to violence than girls. Much like the situation with danger, “many young boys get a thrill from violent or quasi-violent confrontation. Most young girls don’t.” This fact has educational implications because it affects the kind of literature that will interest most boys: "Boys as young as two years of age, given a choice between violent fairy tales and warm and fuzzy fairy tales, usually choose the violent stories. Girls as young as two years of age consistently choose the warm and fuzzy stories." Discipline and spanking Sax has a long discussion on how girls and boys need different kinds of discipline. In his view, boys tend to need strict authoritarian discipline, which includes spanking. However, he does not believe girls respond positively to spanking and advises parents not to spank girls. This differs from the Christian view since girls are not exempt from spanking in the Bible. However, because he does recommend spanking for boys, he spends some time defending spanking as a legitimate form of discipline. He refutes the argument that spanking leads to child abuse saying, "Parents who love their young son and spank him only occasionally when he does something really outrageous are at no more risk of becoming child abusers than are parents who never spank." He also points out that some countries have outlawed spanking and doing so has not decreased child abuse at all. "Sweden, for example, passed a law in 1979 making it illegal for parents to spank their children. But a Swedish government study conducted in 1995 showed a fourfold increase in child abuse in the years following passage of the law. Of course, that doesn’t mean that the law somehow caused an increase in child abuse. But it certainly provides no support for the theory that outlawing spanking will decrease child abuse." Sax makes another very valuable point. Children have not changed in the last few decades. They still misbehave. How is that misbehavior dealt with? In the “olden days” children were spanked. Now, rather than receiving a spanking, “these kids are instead being put on calming behavior-modifying drugs such as Ritalin, Adderall, Concerta, and Metadate.” Sax points out the hypocrisy of this current state of affairs: “In a bizarre turn of events, it’s become politically incorrect to spank your child, but it’s okay to drug him.” This situation is tied to a larger philosophical change. As Sax describes it, "Fifty years ago, bad behavior was considered a disciplinary problem. If you misbehaved, you needed to be punished. Today bad behavior is more often considered a psychiatric problem. Kids who misbehave are referred to a specialist for a diagnosis – and for treatment, often with medication." Spanking and human nature There is an important aspect to the debate over spanking that Sax understands much better than most people. At the root of this dispute is a difference over human nature. Are humans naturally sinful or naturally good? If children are born sinful, then it stands to reason that force will be needed to direct them into positive behavior patterns. But if children are naturally good rather than sinful, then corporal punishment is never necessary. Other forms of correction are assumed to be superior and preferable. If children are born good, as the currently dominant worldview believes, then bad behavior must be the result of bad parenting, poor nutrition, ADD, violent entertainment, or something like that. Spanking can’t solve any of those problems because they’re not the children’s fault. Instead, the children need some sort of medical treatment to deal with their misbehavior. But as Christians we know that children are born with sinful natures. They are not born good. Thus spanking will always be needed as a form of discipline for children. The current effort to criminalize spanking is a direct attack on the Christian doctrine of original sin. The opponents of spanking do not believe in original sin and therefore reject its implications for child discipline. Instead, they want to impose their preferred methods of child-raising (based on the assumed natural goodness of children) through government coercion. Conclusion Sax summarizes his message this way: "Human nature is gendered to the core. Work with your child’s nature, work with your child’s innate gender-based propensities, rather than trying to reshape them according to the dictates of late-twentieth-century political correctness." Recognizing these gender differences and taking them into account in child-raising and education is best for everyone involved, especially the children themselves. The idea that gender differences are instilled by a patriarchal society, and can be eliminated by imposing an egalitarian society, is simply a feminist ideological fantasy. It has no basis in reality. And the efforts that are taken to enforce this fantasy are harmful to the children who become its victims. God deliberately made males and females to be very different from each other. As the French say, vive la difference! This was first published in the September 2015 issue under the title "Different is good! God created males and females to be very different"....

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

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

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

Search thousands of RP articles

Equipping Christians to think, speak, and act

Get Articles Delivered!

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

Kids

Magazine

Articles

Book Reviews

Movie Reviews

Daily devotional

More of Reformed Perspective!

Newsletter

Real Talk

Manna

About Us

Advertise

Contact Us

Shop our merch!

Articles

Book Reviews

Movie Reviews

Kids

Advertise With Us

Your Turn! Contest

Lego Contest

Search CATEGORY: RP App

News

Halloween decorations overtaking Christmas decorations in BC

News, Pro-life - Abortion

What does Pierre Poilievre think about the unborn?

News

Climate conference hypocrisy continues to be instructive

Humor, News

God’s humor on display in Education Secretary’s misquote

Top 10 RP articles of 2023

News

Two months later, Poilievre’s apple moment keeps rolling

History

Christmas Truce

Human Rights

Why defend free speech?

Interview with an artist

Joanne Stoffels is on a treasure hunt

News

Saturday Selections – Dec. 9, 2023

News

Trudeau’s ban on single-use plastic overturned

News

Will Canada start killing their mentally ill this March?

News

Saturday Selections – Dec. 2, 2023

Pro-life - Abortion, RPTV

Pro-life legislation attempts in Canada

In a Nutshell

Tidbits – December 2023

News

Ben Shapiro, Daily Wire, launch a new kids’ TV network

Movie lists, Movie Reviews

Top 10 films on PureFlix right now

Science - Creation/Evolution

Is creation worth fighting about?

News

Saturday Selections – Nov. 25, 2023

RPTV, Sexuality

RPTV: Jojo Ruba talking about Canada's Conversion Therapy Bill

News

Fashion for a reason: RP’s t-shirt contest!

Sexuality

Make it up as you go: Alfred Kinsey’s sex research

News

Saturday Selections – Nov. 18, 2023

In a Nutshell

Tidbits – November 2023

Gender roles

Different is good! God created male and female