Transparent heart icon with white outline and + sign.

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

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

White magnifying glass.

Search thousands of RP articles

Equipping Christians to think, speak, and act

Open envelope icon with @ symbol

Get Articles Delivered!

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



RPTV

Canadian women's unfulfilled fertility goals and the country's declining birth rate

TRANSCRIPT

Welcome to Reformed Perspective. I'm Alexander Ellison. Today we are diving into a pressing issue – Canada's record low birth rate. Statistics Canada recently confirmed that in 2022 just over 350,000 babies were born, marking the lowest number of live births since 2005. This raises a critical question: what do Canadian women really want when it comes to family size?

"So, do you guys have children?"

"No, no."

"Yes."

"Do you have children?"

"No."

"Uh no."

"Do you have children?"

"Yes."

"Do you plan to have children in the future?"

"We don't think so. We actually just talked about it, like two days ago, and I don't know. Everything is just getting so expensive. We rarely know if we will make it, everything's rising up so much."

"Honestly, I did think I was going to do it when I was younger, but recently, I've changed my mind, not just because of the whole financial thing, but security, and everything in my country. And then the whole idea of having children is just so big a responsibility. I don't know if I want it or not."

"I had three, and that was enough."

"I feel like I'd like to build a family of my own. I found that quite a nice future idea, to kind of like raise people like I was raised, hopefully give them a good future."

"Yeah, pretty much the same. I just like the idea of family." 

"Just having people to support you..."

"Yeah, by your side."

"It's really important, especially the fact that I don't have siblings, you know. So I want to have children."

"Well, we had four children, two girls and two boys, and life was busy, but it was enough. I wouldn't want it to be busier, but I can't imagine my life without them."

A Christian think tank, Cardus, took a closer look, through a survey they did, discovering some eye-opening facts. They found that when it comes to family size, there's a significant gap between what Canadian women desire and what they actually have.

Andrea Mrozek: "So we found that almost half of Canadian women wish they'd have more children than they do have at the end of their reproductive lives. So we asked a range of women, up to the age of 44. And that's the key takeaway: that women would like to have more kids than they have. Fertility ideals are much higher than intentions. What that means is that the future people have for their family is not typically fulfilled.

"My thought for changing the culture is around recognizing that you can be fulfilled over the life course in every way – that the career is something you can have the entire life course to work on – but having children is something you only have a more limited amount of time to work. I think we're really fortunate to live in a world where we have a lot of options and possibilities as women today. I think now is the time to speak more strongly to the joys of a family life. At one point in time you needed to speak more strongly to the desires of doing waged work and getting out into the world and having a career, but those things are completely accessible, they're accessible over the life course, but having a family is something that is deeply fulfilling and can only be done in a certain time frame. We kind of lost the plot on why that matters, how it feels to not achieve that.

I really am hoping young men and young women can live in freedom and trust God with their lives. That means trusting him with every aspect of our lives including our family and our fertility. In a secular worldview, it's quite
constrained – you have to do things in a particular way, in a particular order, and definitely take the birth control
pill till you're good and ready, and really constrain, actually, how you live your life. I think you could view a
secular worldview as being quite constrained. Then the joy of being Christian, and the beauty of being Christian is living in the freedom of God's plan for us, and being open to all aspects of that, at whatever time in life that they do come. I think we as Christians have more capacity to live imaginative lives, and that includes our family lives."

As we conclude our discussion on women's fertility goals, let us remember that children are a blessing and an integral part of God's plan for families. In a world where fertility rates are declining, it is crucial to support and understand the desires of women when it comes to building their families. We hope this video has shed light on the importance of considering women's wishes in family planning and how societal challenges can impact their fertility choices. Remember in all our pursuits let us honor the call to "be fruitful and multiply" (Gen. 1:28), trusting in God's divine wisdom.

Thank you for watching this video. Please like this video and subscribe to this channel, and feel free to share with friends and family. For Reformed Perspective, I'm Alexandra Ellison.

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

Pro-life flag proposal gets town talking about worldviews

A proposal by the Smithers Pro-Life Society for their community to fly a pro-life flag was unanimously rejected by their town council, but not without exposing their worldviews and getting the entire community talking about life and freedom and what to do when worldviews conflict.  An unlikely catalyst Along with many other communities located towards BC’s west coast, the town of Smithers has embraced a very secular ideology, which it understands to be “progressive.” As a part of its recent “Pride” celebrations, the town welcomed a drag queen story reading for children at the public library. Not impressed, over 800 members of the community signed a petition to express their concerns. Jessica Vandergaag, a board member of Smithers Pro-Life, was in attendance when the town council responded to this petition. “The councillors reiterated over and over how inclusive and diverse our community is and that the public square was for ‘everyone.’ Their words rang through my head all evening.  A thought came to mind – why not ask for the pro-life flag now when we can hold them to their words of inclusion and diversity? While they still remember the words they said!” Since the town flies rainbow flags on its main street, Smithers Pro-Life was planning to request next year that a pro-life flag be hung as well. But with the town council’s declaration that the public square is for everyone, now seemed the time to act. In the same month Vandergaag, along with board member Betty Bandstra, stood before Smithers council, backed by a crowd of supporters in the gallery. They requested that the town hang the pro-life flag or paint it on a crosswalk in the same intersection as the rainbow crosswalk. Vandergaag proceeded to give an impassioned speech to Council, explaining that “the pre-born remain the group that is most ignored, even though it has the highest death rate, 100,000 killed per year in Canada.” After quoting the mayor’s and councillors recent comments about welcoming different perspectives and worldviews, Vandergaag had the pro-life flag held up, and she made the case that the most vulnerable deserve public recognition “because it is through the awareness of human rights abuses that empathy is developed and public opinion is changed.” A confused response What was the town council going to do? How could they turn down a request for a symbol that shows inclusiveness for vulnerable citizens, with so many in the community demonstrating their support? The local newspaper gave the story its front page, providing coverage that was surprisingly fair to Smithers Pro-Life. Council put the request on their next meeting agenda, and the pro-life community showed up once again, filling the gallery to show their support for the initiative. Each council member spoke, and their words exposed the impact this proposal had on their hearts and souls. They were emotional and passionate… and also confused. One council member, Genevieve Patterson, who identified herself as both pro-choice and Christian, was in tears as she shared her story of multiple miscarriages. She explained how she had three pregnancies where the baby had died after the first trimester, requiring her to have a D&C procedure, to remove the baby. She went on to call the D&C her “abortion” and said that “I am grateful for my right to choose. It saved my life.” She added “As a Christian woman, and a leader in my community, I will never use my relationship with God to rationalize my political beliefs, as I believe my relationship with God is just that – my own.” Although everyone should sympathize with her experience, it is a fallacy to compare what she went through with abortion, as an abortion involves purposeful action to end the life of a preborn child. The pro-life perspective would adamantly support her in her D&C. And although she professes to keep her faith separate from her political beliefs, her pro-choice stance made it very clear that her beliefs dictated her political beliefs. The one member of Council who is known as a Christian and a member of a local Reformed church also voted against the flag. He explained that the feedback he read about the proposal included the concern that: “there will be women in our town, who might have had an abortion, not because they wanted to but because life circumstances forced them to such a decision. The presence of a pro-life flag or crosswalk could be very triggering.” He could understand why they would conclude that. His other comments made it evident that his main concern was about how people from both sides of these issues talked about the other side. Somewhat ironically, the only Council member who showed support for the proposal explained that he was an atheist, and had opposed the original rainbow crosswalk proposal on the grounds that it would raise one ideology or group over others. He sees this current proposal as proof that he was correct, and voted against it for the same reason as the rainbow crosswalk. He said he wanted to see a new proposal to not allow the town to make any more symbolic statements like the rainbow crosswalk, though he wouldn’t remove that crosswalk now because he isn’t in favour of removing symbols. Gladys Atrill, the town’s mayor, started her speech by reflecting that “residents of Smithers have challenged council in the past two weeks with big issues: issues about who we are, what we believe, our worldviews, what is OK in public, what symbols we should consider.” She proceeded to contrast the rainbow flag, and its alignment with the Canadian Human Rights Act, with the pro-life flag, which contradicts the reality that abortion is legal in Canada. “As such, I’m not in favor of placing symbols in public places that relate to health procedures since there are many that are viewed as controversial….. Miss Vandergaag linked her strong faith in God to her pro-life belief. Others hold different views, that abortion is a medically-necessary procedure and that women have the right to self-determination.” Mayor Atrill failed to recognize that the right to life is foundational to all other rights and is included in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which the town is bound to uphold. She also failed to recognize that many things were legal and even celebrated in the past which we are ashamed of today (including how women were not recognized as persons under the law). The fact that something is recognized by law doesn’t make it right. To add to this, the mayor had no issue imposing her worldview (the right to abortion), over Vandergaag’s and others who are pro-life, within the same minute that she claimed that “The debate over abortion belongs at other tables than this one.” From town hall to town square After the town’s unanimous decision against the pro-life flag, the local media covered the story again. And this sparked a conversation that has carried on in the following weeks. In July, a local radio station invited Vandergaag and Bandstra, along with the drag queen story hour host, to an hour-long discussion about the pro-life flag proposal. Although she was nervous about taking part, she reflected after that “the conversation went well and I really felt at the end that God gave me words and guided me through quite the monologue.” She added that the others who took part expressed thanks to her and Bandstra for the civil conversation and the councillor in particular seemed “quite moved” by it. “I really pray and believe that even if it is not aired, that God did some planting there between the six of us.” Reflecting on the whole ordeal, she commented “while the result was not as we hoped, we do believe it to be a positive experience in the grand scheme.” She proceeded to give one example. “I was contacted by a former co-worker, whom I had no idea was pro-life, wondering what the result from Town Council was. Her family was visiting from Ireland and it was a topic of their conversation. I shared that it had been voted down and she expressed her sadness. I was touched that she contacted me and that conversations about it were still happening over a month later!” Not only do these conversations bring attention to our preborn neighbours, they also break through the veneer of “inclusivity” and “equality” that our secular leaders often champion, without having to defend. It was rather obvious that the council members only welcomed some perspectives, and these were ones that aligned with their own worldviews. The antithesis is as real in 2023 as it was in the Garden of Eden. Vandergaag “absolutely recommends” others to do this in their communities, both because of the conversation it creates and as a voice for the preborn who are otherwise not heard. But she also advised that it be done as a “delegation request” rather than simply a letter request. This is a request to address town council in person about a matter that important to a citizen or group, before a decision is made. “Letters can get passed by but a delegation request gets you extra time to present your request and the town council has to act on it with a motion in the following meeting.”...

Red heart icon with + sign.
Politics, RPTV

RPTV: MP Arnold Viersen on the legal fight against pornography

OVERVIEW 1:05 - Beginnings with local ARPA chapter 3;30 - Why don't you do it, Arnold? 4:09 - Why learning French isn't always a bad idea 5:05 - Three reasons Viersen ran 5:48 - Private Member's Bill on pornography 8:01 - Mindgeek, the Canadian pornography company 9:53 - On protecting children online 12:23 - Ways to fight pornography and human trafficking 14:21 - Christian worldview as a launching pad TRANSCRIPT Welcome to Reformed Perspective; I’m Alexandra Ellison. In today's video, I had the privilege of sitting down with a dedicated Member of Parliament who has been actively using his Christian worldview to champion the cause of human dignity. Arnold Viersen is the Member of Parliament for Peace River-Westlock in northern Alberta Today, let's learn more about how he got into politics and what he is currently doing to combat online pornography. So, to start off, could you introduce yourself and just talk about how you got into politics. Arnold Viersen: Well, thanks for interviewing me. My name is Arnold Viersen. I'm the Member of Parliament for Peace River-Westlock, which is a big chunk of Northern Alberta. I mostly just say Northern Alberta, because... several European countries are smaller than that. I'm married. I've got six kids – my oldest is 11, the youngest is two and we're expecting one in February, so it's exciting. How did I get involved in politics? It was through an organization called ARPA Canada. There was a guy named Mark Penninga – you might have heard of him before – and he came to Edmonton I think back in 2010, just before I got married. There was a notice in the church bulletin – organization called ARPA, a guy named Mark Penninga, be here on Wednesday night, kind of thing – and so I convinced my brother-in-law to drive with me. It was about 50 kilometers to church, so it was a bit of a drive. I said, hey we should go to this thing, And he says, "Well, what is it?" I said that's what is for, to tell us what this is. So we showed up and four other people showed up so there was six of us that showed up to this event. Mark was telling us how he wanted to set up local ARPA chapters all across the the country, and that a local board was, he was kind of hoping for seven people to be on these boards and seeing as there was six of us there, he just kind of told us that we were now the ARPA board for that area. So that was back in 2010 I became a local board member with ARPA. Then I moved to Neerlandia, Alberta – that's where I'm born and raised – and I moved back there, bought a house there. I got married and joined the local ARPA board in in Neerlandia. I was involved with organizing a God and Government in Alberta, and then the following year we organized it for Ottawa. ARPA's big thing was "get to know your Member of Parliament so that you can have some influence with them" and so I went there and got to know my Member of Parliament. Then in 2013, where I lived became a brand new riding. There was no incumbent, there was no Member of Parliament at all. I thought, Well, rather than waiting to get to know my Member of Parliament, if I work hard to elect somebody then I'll know them before they get elected and I'll probably have more influence. So starting in 2013, I started going around asking my friends if they thought they should be Members of Parliament – three friends in particular I talked to, and one was like, "Wait a minute, I've got six kids; I can't do that." The other one was "I've just started a new business here; I can't take my foot off it." And the third just thought it was crazy. But all all of them said. "Hey Arnold, if you think it's such a good idea, why don't you do it?" So I was 27 at the time. I didn't think 27-year-olds were old enough to be Members of Parliament, but turns out there's only three requirements for being a Member of Parliament – be a Canadian citizen, be 18 years old, and get the most votes – so that put me on the path to running in the nomination for the Conservative Party of Canada, and running to be the Member of Parliament. The Reformed community came out very strong in support of me, in the nomination in particular – that was a really important piece that led me on the path to doing this. People always say, "Did you dream of this your whole life?" and, definitely not. I remember Mr. Wielinga in grade seven trying to teach me French and I said, "Why are you teaching me French? Probably Dutch would be a better language to learn than French, seeing as I could probably use that more." And he said, "Well, you never know, you might work in the Parliament building one day." And I said to him, "Fat chance of that happening!" He came back – he lives in South Africa now – he came back a couple years ago and walked to my office and said, "Fat chance of that happening, Arnold!" So, it wasn't something that was on my radar, prior to 2013. That's really interesting to hear how God puts different people in your life to lead you down a different path. So over your years in politics, you've worked on many issues upholding human dignity. Why has this been so important to you? Arnold Viersen: So when I ran in the nomination, there was three things that motivated me to get involved in politics. One was the defense of Alberta. I generally find that the rest of the country doesn't understand Alberta, and also generally is trying to shut down all the things that were we're trying to do – so that was one of the things. I'm a firearms owner and I also find that the country is pretty hard on firearms owners so I wanted to defend firearms owners. And the unborn or pre-born – that was another motivator for me. In Canada there's no protection, there's no law for the pre-born so I wanted to get involved in politics to defend the pre-born. That has branched out into probably more of just a defense of human dignity. Back in 2015, right after I got elected, I had the opportunity to do a Private Member's Bill, and everybody in the whole country shows up with ideas for a Private Member's Bill. Seeing as you get to make the decision on what that is, I just started writing a list. And there's a guy named Mark Penninga again – a character that reappears in my story of politics often – I just remember I had narrowed it down to 12 items that I was interested in. I remember going through it with him, and his criteria for whether it should be a go or no go was how many other MPs would do it. If the issue had wide support and other MPs would probably do it, he said "Arnold, you don't have to do that one; somebody else will do it." So that's how I came to the issue of combating pornography in Canadian society – we eventually settled on doing a private member's motion on the impacts of pornography on Canadian society. That has basically drawn together a whole bunch of groups from across the country that care about that issue, and human trafficking and prostitution. That area, that's kind of been my niche in the world of politics. So I'm a Conservative Member of Parliament – I fight alongside my Conservative colleagues, and then my kind of special thing that I bring to that Conservative movement is the combatting of human trafficking, prostitution, and pornography. And this seems to be fairly well accepted within the Conservative movement and I'm able to get some some action happening on it in other parties as well. Focusing in a little bit, I've seen a lot of kind of campaigning for online safety of children. Would you be able to expand on that, and introduce what is is Mindgeek for people who don't know about that. Arnold Viersen: Mindgeek's a company that owns a whole host of websites in the world. They're based in Montreal, Canada, so they are a Canadian company. They claim that they own 80% of the pornography in the world, and I don't have any reason to doubt that either. Their ownership structure is really murky. We're never quite sure who's in charge and who owns it. We do know that they make a lot of money, despite it being a private company so their are not publicly available. But they brag about how much money they make, which is approaching a billion dollars a year. They've gotten into hot water – we've kind of been pushing this – in that they have no controls on who is viewing pornography, but also who is showing up on their site. In Canada there's non-consensual images laws; there's underage images laws; all this kind of stuff. But Mindgeek doesn't seem to care about the law, and they just want to make a lot of money. They have a big office building in Montreal; I've been out there protesting outside of their office building in Montreal. They are two main executives that we know of, based in the Montreal area, so this is a particularly Canadian story, although the ramifications of their actions are felt all across the world. I know that you've been working on legislation and also working on spreading this message. What do you see the future of protecting children online? What do you hope to get? Arnold Viersen: While my private member's motion way back in 2015/16, kind of opened the door to this discussion, I've seen of other countries – France, Germany, the UK, Australia, and then states like California, Utah – have all really been grappling with this as well. While we got accolades in Canada early on for starting to tackle this, other countries have very much leapfrogged us. There's some good stuff happening in terms of age verification of those that are using pornography, and then also of those showing up in pornography, that's kind of happening all around the world. It's branching out a little bit beyond that, to child safety online becoming more of a much broader topic than just pornography use. It's about, what are the impacts of social media, why are our children more depressed and more sad and participating in other socially detrimental activities? Instagram for example – their own internal documentation showed that one of their notification features was causing suicides in 12-year-old girls. So this whole online safety world and regulation is growing. While I started in this fight around the pornography issue and keeping porn out of the hands of kids and keeping kids out of porn, it's broadening out from there into this whole online safety world. I liken it to traffic laws. When the car was first invented, it was cars and horses and buggies and there were no laws around how the roads work. We've made decisions on which side of the road to drive on; we've made decisions about painting lines on the roads, and the lights on the roads, and what the lights mean, and putting guardrails, and all this kind of stuff. So we're likely going to proceed down a similar path when it comes to the use of the Internet. For a lot of the audience, they're very passionate about these issues but they're not necessarily sure kind of where to start on, you know, wanting to get involved; how can people get involved? Arnold Viersen: Well first, the biggest thing is, just quit looking at porn. That's a big challenge. In Canadian society we know from the stats 85% of the population is participating in the use of porn. So the most impactful. I would say it's the simplest; it's not necessarily the easiest but it's the simplest. Beyond that there's local organizations that are fighting human trafficking in your local area. Human trafficking happens within 10 blocks or 10 minutes of where you live. There's likely an organization in your community that's already participating in the fight against human trafficking, sheltering the victims of human trafficking, that sort of thing. If you want to get involved politically, there's huge opportunities for all of these things municipally, provincially, and federally. Municipally, you have the licensing of body rub parlors, that kind of thing. That all municipal. Libraries, what kind of content is available on library computers, that kind of thing, that's all municipal. Provincial, you have the education system – how do we train our children to identify victims of human trafficking and also to not become victims of human trafficking. So there's education opportunities. Then federally, becoming a Member of Parliament – the more Reformed Members of Parliament we have here the better, in my opinion, so... get involved with your local Conservative association, run for nomination, that sort of thing... Thank you so much for sharing. My final question would be, how do your Christian convictions come into play in everyday life on the hill as an MP? Arnold Viersen: Being a Christian on Parliament Hill is a luxury – it gives me a solid worldview, a launching pad from which to launch from for the issues I work on. It also allows me to see issues clearly, having a solid worldview. Being a Christian on the Hill also sometimes pigeonholes. People see you coming, which has its advantages as well – people, generally, because they know I'm a Christian, they think I'm going to think in a particular way, which often I do. So it opens the negotiation up on any particular issue; you have a good starting point, a good basis point Being a Member of Parliament is an extremely rewarding position, and one that you have to enjoy every day that you're here, because I've watched many Members of Parliament come and go, so make the most of it. Thank you so much for coming on to speak with me today. Be sure to go check out . Arnold Viersen: Yeah, check out my website and follow me on Facebook and Instagram so you can keep up with all the work that I'm doing in Parliament. Thanks for watching this episode. If you would like to support this work, please consider liking this video, subscribing to this channel, and sharing it with friends and family. For Reformed Perspective, I’m Alexandra Ellison in Ottawa....

Red heart icon with + sign.
Parenting

Preparing to inherit the earth

Does slow and steady growth have Christianity primed to take over the West? **** First published in the November 2013 issue. Current events make it appear that Christianity is on a downward slide in North America, as well as all the other Western countries. But are appearances deceiving? This is the surprising conclusion of a book by University of London politics professor Eric Kaufmann in his book Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth? His answer to that question is “yes.” He's come to this conclusion despite being a liberal who doesn't like what he sees. Kaufmann has carefully studied demographic trends and thinks the coming increase in the influence of Christianity in North America (and other religions in different regions) basically amounts to a return to the Dark Ages. He wrote this book to warn fellow liberals that the sky is falling. Despite the dramatic gains for secularization over the last four or five decades, those gains are about to be lost. Kaufmann summarizes his thesis thusly: “this book argues that religious fundamentalists are on course to take over the world through demography.” Demographic direction What’s going on here? Well, to make a long story short, secular people don’t like having large families. Many don’t have any children at all. As a result, for many years, most Western countries have had below-replacement birth rates. That is, the average number of children born to each child-bearing-age woman is below 2.1, the number necessary to keep the population stable. This is the result of what demographers are calling the “second demographic transition” (SDT). (The first demographic transition occurred decades earlier when urbanization and the improvement in medical care decreased infant mortality and led to a decline in the fertility rate.) The SDT is a result of the 1960s sexual revolution and the rise of feminism, when the values of many people in the Western countries changed. Individualism became much more important and the ideal of getting married and raising children was severely diminished. As a result, the desire for many people to have a traditional family has declined dramatically. There are fewer marriages, more divorces; fewer children, more abortions – you get the picture. The bottom line is that most women are having fewer (if any) children. Relatively robust This trend is affecting conservative Christian families to a certain degree as well. The average Christian family is having fewer children than in previous generations. However – and this is a big “however” – the fertility rate of secularist women fell much further than the fertility rate of conservative Christian women. Christian women still have a relatively robust fertility rate. For example, one 2002 study placed the fertility rate of evangelical Protestant women at 2.5 compared to 1.5 for women without religion. Thus the proportion of conservative Christians in the United States relative to the secularists is growing through the natural increase of child-bearing. There is no reason to believe that this trend will stop, and the long-term consequences are enormous. According to Kaufmann, the influence of conservative Christians will increase: "After 2020, their demographic weight will begin to tip the balance in the culture wars towards the conservative side, ramping up pressure on hot-button issues such as abortion." Kaufmann refers to the population growth of conservative religious people as “demographically turbo-charged piety.” Demographic change, then and now Interestingly, there’s a precursor in history to a rise in Christian influence through demographic growth. Some scholars believe that the success of Christianity during its first two to three hundred years was partially the result of demographic factors. Christianity had a more family-centered ethos than paganism and therefore attracted a disproportionate number of female converts. Thus the Christians likely had a higher fertility rate than the pagans. Christians also cared for their sick during plagues, so they had a lower morality rate. "Higher fertility, lower mortality and a female skew in the childbearing age ranges endowed Christians with a significant demographic advantage over pagans." In addition to evangelism, this contributed to the rapid growth of Christianity in the Roman Empire before Emperor Constantine became a Christian himself. Demographic change takes time, so the results don’t become evident immediately. Nevertheless, it will ultimately have a large impact. For example, the so-called “mainline” Protestant churches which abandoned the Bible decades ago are part of the secularist trend. This contrasts sharply with the conservative Protestants who still uphold the Bible as the Word of God. Kaufmann notes the effect on demography: "Between 1960 and 2000, liberal Protestant denominations saw their share of the American religious market cut in half from 16 to 8 per cent, while conservative Protestants doubled in size from 7 to 16 per cent." Although not as pronounced as in North America, the higher fertility of conservative Protestants in two European countries is notable. According to Kaufmann, "In Europe, the roughly 100,000 Conservative Laestadian Lutherans of Finland and more than 1 million Dutch Orthodox Calvinists have both bucked secularizing trends. These high fertility endogenous growth sects are starting to make an impact: there are now more Orthodox Calvinist church attenders than those of its liberal parent, the Dutch Reformed Church, whose parishioners once outnumbered them six to one." In various regions of the world conservative religious believers have a higher fertility rate than secular-minded people. Thus Kaufmann discusses the high fertility rates of Muslims in the Arab world and parts of Europe, as well as the high fertility rate of Orthodox Jews in Israel. So the complete picture offered in his book is not all good news for Christianity. But for North America, certain regions of Europe (and hopefully places like Australia and New Zealand), conservative Christianity has the upper hand demographically. Ideas have consequences In obedience to God, Biblical Christianity strengthens the family, encourages married couples to have children, forbids abortion and frowns on divorce. This leads to high fertility and the growth of the church over time. In contrast, the modern secularist mindset emphasizes individualism: focus on yourself, not others. Having children will tie you down, especially if you are a woman, and prevent you from reaching your potential. You could be the president of a corporation or a high-flying lawyer – but only if you don’t have children. People who believe this way will not leave many descendants – they and their ideology have a barren future. It shouldn’t be surprising, then, that the proportion of conservative Christians in North America will grow relative to secularists. Ideas have consequences, and since the secularists (generally speaking) emphasize their own personal and individual ease and happiness, having children won’t be an important part of their lives. Thus they are beginning to lose the demographic race with conservative Christianity. Because of these demographic trends Kaufmann laments, “In effect, secularism must run to stand still and sprint in order to succeed. In America, as in the world, it looks destined to fail in the long term." Even more to the point, due to its emphasis on individualism at the expense of having children, “Secular liberalism lies hoist on its own petard.” Conclusion The pervasiveness of pornography, the legalization of abortion, the invention of no-fault divorce and gay marriage, and the spread of euthanasia, are just a few of the events that might make it seem as if Christianity is on the wane in the West. But the day-to-day faithfulness of conservative Christians in their families, bearing and raising children, is the tortoise that will win the race against the child-avoiding secularist hare. There’s a common saying that “demography is destiny.” That might be somewhat overstated, but the basic point is sound: significant change in the size and structure of populations determines the future of nations. With this in mind, current fertility rates give conservative Christians in North America a reason to be optimistic for the long-term future....

Red heart icon with + sign.
News

Saturday Selections – Oct. 21, 2023

Click on the titles below to go to the linked articles... On the Irreducible Complexity of sperm cells This video is not a Christian presentation, but the many precise and intricate steps it shows – one after another after another – that are all involved in the creation of a new human being can't help but have you praising our Maker. The link above is to an Intelligent Design article on just some of the amazing aspects of sperm cells. Pill may double a woman's risk of depression Christians have another reason not to take it: the pill acts not only to prevent conception but also "thins the uterine lining to hinder the implantation of a fertilized egg." A fertilized egg is, of course, an unborn baby, so one of the actions of the pill is to prevent any conceived child from implanting in its mother's womb. Why a No to trans, but still a Yes to gay "marriage"? (10-min read) The world is beginning to tread the line of rejecting transsexuality, even as it continues to embrace gay marriage. Christians can ask "If people aren’t gender-neutral, might marriage not be either?” Christian Nationalism and blasphemy laws Every nation has blasphemy laws. What they are just depends on what a nation considers sacred and profane. Why some in the Left embraced Hamas "One of the more ridiculous images to make its way around social media sites in the wake of the horrific attack in Israel was a photo of four Westerners with a sign, 'Queers for Palestine.'" John Stonestreet talks about this unity as being based on a mutual hatred of Western traditions. To put it more pointedly, what unites them is Who they hate. Taking a lesson from Pierre Poilievre In a recent exchange, Canadian Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre gave a Masterclass in dealing with hostile questioners – he managed to put an opponent in his place, all while really enjoying an apple. So how'd he do it? Click on the title above to get a fuller explanation, but the short of it is, as Tim Barnett explains below, Poilievre questioned the accusations. The attack was baseless so, in simply asking the accuser to explain himself more fully, Poilievre disarmed him. The takeaway for Christians is to do the same when we are attacked for our beliefs, whether about the unborn, creation, sexuality, or God Himself. The accusations will also be baseless, so our best response will often be to get our accuser to expose the emptiness of his attack by getting him to more fully explain himself. We, too, should question the accusation. ...

Red heart icon with + sign.
In a Nutshell

Tidbits - October 2023

Halloween in a small American town I live in a delightful and occasionally comical small town where the church-attending Christians make up a solid majority of the population. This is such a Christian town that when Halloween comes around, one of the local churches will set up a hot chocolate stand for our area, and you'll see a dad or two dressed up as a monkish Martin Luther, tonsure and all. When I first moved here Halloween fell on a Sunday, and I was impressed to see most of the kids did their trick-or-treating on Saturday instead. Then I was quite surprised when one of the trick-or-treaters at my door – a little princess – told me "my brother is the devil." Sure enough, there he came toddling up the path, a two-year-old dressed in a bright red satin, forked tail wagging behind. Lynden: it's a town where trick or treating on Sunday is verboten, but dressing up as Satan ain't no big thing. “The free market is a bathroom scale” “The free market is simply a measurement. The free market tells us what people are willing to pay for a given thing at a given moment. That’s all the free market does. The free market is a bathroom scale. We may not like what we see when we step on the bathroom scale, but we can’t pass a law making ourselves weigh 165. Liberals and leftists think we can.” – P.J O’Rourke Are you wearing anything ten years or older? About ten years back, Christian Courier's editor Angela Bick shared that her friends were surprised to learn that they weren’t wearing anything as much as ten years old. The surprise was probably prompted by the realization that 40 years ago the situation would have been quite different. Kids’ clothing in particular was treated differently then, with patches (and patches upon patches) being far more common. Darning socks was more common, and the resoling of shoes too. Whenever one generation decides to do something differently than the previous, it is worth a moment’s reflection - if you aren’t wearing anything from a decade ago, why might that be? Is it a result of shoddy manufacturing and living in a throw-away culture? Are clothes simply not made to last like they once were? Are we financially blessed, to the point that we don’t need to wear worn out clothes? Are we financially irresponsible, spending money on clothes when that money could be put to better use? Is it a matter of clothes being less expensive to replace than they once were? Might it mean we are overly concerned with keeping up with the latest fashions? The way it was… and could be? In the 1940s, in the Netherlands, most men worked six days a week at physically-taxing jobs. So, come Sunday it could be quite a struggle for these men to stay attentive through the church service, especially when it came time to pray and eyes were shut and heads were bowed. And to make it harder still, the prayers were quite often fifteen minutes long. In his wartime biography The Way It Was, author Sid Baron notes that to help these men stay awake it was the practice then to allow the option of standing during prayer. So throughout the church, as most bowed their head to pray, many farmers and laborers would rise. This practice is no longer common anywhere in Reformed churches, most likely because ministers no longer tax their congregation’s attention with fifteen-minute prayers, and because far fewer members do heavy physical labor. Still, it might be a practice worth reviving for some particularly sleep-deprived folk: the mothers and fathers of newborns! Brother, can you spare a dime? by Gregory Koukl You can't help having mixed feelings when people beg for food on the street. Your heart goes out to them, but you have reservations too. Is there a real need here, or is this just laziness disguised? Here's a simple solution. Give food to the poor by helping fill the cupboards of your local church feeding program. If your church doesn't have one, find a Christian facility that does. They make sure food goes to people with a genuine need, and the Gospel goes out along with it. Another alternative is to make up a couple of bags of food and keep them in your trunk. Include the kinds of things that can be opened without tools and eaten without cooking. Include plastic silverware that's sealed together with a napkin that you get from take-out food places. Then give it in Jesus' name. Welfare is not God's answer to the needs of the poor. Instead, He asks for charitable, responsible, obedient giving. Don't give money to someone begging in the street. Instead, send your money to a reputable Christian agency in your area, or give food in prepackaged parcels. You'll have the peaceful confidence you've really done something for the poor and homeless. SOURCE: Reprinted with permission from www.str.org Biblical, musical ABCs Jamie Soles is well known among conservative Reformed churches in Canada, but for those that don’t know of him, below are the lyrics of a song from one of his children’s albums “The Way My Story Goes” which is available (along with more info) on the artist’s website SolMusic.ca. “These Are They” Jesus said, “You search the Scriptures For in these, you say, your life will never end, Don’t be misled; the life you’re looking for Is found in Me, for I am found in them. And… "These are they, these are they, These are they which speak of Me.” Adam, Abel, Abraham, Aaron, Ammon, Amnon, Andrew, Abishai, Abishag, Abigail, Ahab, tell the world of Me. Ahaziah, Amaziah, Ahimaaz, Ahasuerus, Ahithophel, Abiathar, Ahitub, too, Asahel and Absalom, Abner and Abednego, Asa and Amasa, just to name a few. Now… These are they.... Boaz, Balaam, Barzillai, Balak, Barak, Baal, Babel, Baasha, Baruch, Benjamin, all tell the world of Me. Barnabas and Bethel, Bezalel and Bilhah, Benaiah, Belial, and Bashan, too, Bethlehem and Ben-Hadad, Beelzebub and Babylon, The Bible bubbles over with Me; how ‘bout you? Now… These are they.... Caesar, Caleb, Caiaphas, Canaan, Cain, and Chedorlaomer, Cushi, Chloe, Claudius, all tell the world of Me. Corinthians, Cyrenians, Cyrus and the Cretans, Cornelius, Capernaum, and Chimham, see? These are only part of it This is but the start of it Stories are your biblical ABCs! Now… All these stories, they show My glories These are they which speak of Me. Top 10 verses: important omission BibleGateway.com is a website that includes dozens of different translations of the Bible. It gets more than 8 million visitors each month, and back in 2011. when they listed their site’s most-searched for verses of the Bible, Collin Hansen at TheGospelCoalition.org noticed a startling omission among them. While the top ten includes verses that are often emblazoned on shirts, or are held up on signs at sports events (John 3:16 was the #1 verse) none of the top ten most-searched-for-verses talked about sin! It isn’t until verse #19 that sin is mentioned: “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.” It’s not surprising that talking about sin is unpopular. But the Good News of the Gospel only makes sense after we understand our own sinfulness, and God’s hatred of sin. Then it is good news indeed that God has sent us a Savior and Mediator! So it isn’t a surprising omission, but it is a glaring one. It should be polite to ask a woman’s age Our culture worships youth, so it’s no wonder they think it’s rude to make mention of someone’s age. But why do we think it’s rude? After all, the Bible speaks quite highly of the elderly, as it is with age that wisdom can come (at least among the righteous). That’s why Proverbs 20:29 notes that “gray hair is the splendor of the old” and Prov. 16:31 tells us: “the silver-haired head is a crown of glory.” Among Christians old should be excellent! 30% of Gen Z Americans would welcome gov’t monitoring inside their homes Nearly a third of Americans under 30 would welcome a government surveillance device in their homes, in the name of reducing spousal and child abuse. Clearly they haven’t been taught about the surveillance states of the past, like the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. And they must not know about China’s current “social credit system,” where citizens are constantly monitored and granted freedoms based on how obliging they’ve been to their government’s every requirement. And they haven’t read 1984 or any other dystopian fiction. That a third of American young people trust the government to watch their every move isn’t an endorsement of our political leadership’s trustworthiness, but is instead an indicator of how badly they are educating our youth in their public schools. Now Christians might think that if we aren’t doing anything wrong what does it matter if we are being watched? But do you spank your children? Might some government official somewhere want to recast as abuse what you know to be appropriate and measured? Do you teach your children that God made us male and female? Do you insist that marriage is between one man and one woman? What might the government think about that? To be constantly monitored is to be constantly assessed. And knowing, as we do, that our governments don’t measure right and wrong by God’s standards, we should fear the prospect....

Red heart icon with + sign.
News

Saturday Selections – Oct. 14, 2023

Click on the article titles below to go to the linked articles... Evidence for design: the push-pull principle Evolution is supposed to happen in small, random steps. What it can't account for is the push-pull principle, when two independent systems are needed to start and stop a body function. This would require that these two systems evolved not in small random steps but in a tight simultaneous choreography. On Hamas: so this is what they mean by decolonization RP contributor Jonathon Van Maren encourages us to listen to what they are telling us. John Stonestreet and Timothy Padgett also weigh in, on the reality of evil: "Hamas didn’t simply attack Israeli military units or take out strategic targets. They mutilated the bodies of Jewish soldiers, killed entire families, kidnapped children and the elderly, and sexually assaulted women and girls before either killing them or carting them back to Gaza as trophies. One of the kidnapped is a survivor of the Nazi attempt to exterminate the Jews." The crisis of trust in science In recent years "Science" has been celebrated as our only reliable guide, and not really to be questioned. But how is this God-substitute doing? Well, in 2016, Nature reported that more than 70% of researchers had "tried but failed to reproduce another scientist's experiment, and more than half have failed to reproduce their own experiments." Homosexuality is getting pushed in evangelical churches under the guise of neutrality We've seen it happening in the CRC, and now mega-church pastor Andy Stanley is leading the way for sexual compromise in his influential mega-church. As Stand to Reason's Alan Shlemon notes: "Andy Stanley is either naïve or crafty. Either way, he’s dangerous. He’s naïve if he thinks he can host the Unconditional Conference and it will not corrupt the church’s teaching on sexual ethics. Or he’s crafty and is using this conference to change the theology of his church and possibly other churches. Either way, he’s dangerous." Why Johnny can't read.... but can spell G-A-Y God gave us His Word, and thus, Christians love and promote literacy. While the Enemy can misdirect literacy, he can also use ignorance, which might be the best explanation for why many of his schools aren't that interested in the ABCs. This article is a shocker. "With large majorities of their students incompetent in English and math, Los Angeles schools are ramping up efforts—for more gay pride and gender indoctrination." When artificial intelligence makes art, what becomes of the artist? A machine can make a picture, but can it discover meaning? Stop the slinging in politics (2 min) Potty humor aside, this makes an important point – insults don't advance an argument and don't win hearts or minds.  ...

Red heart icon with + sign.
News, RPTV

RPTV: Ed Fast wants to stop gov't from offering euthanasia to the mentally ill

OCT 18, 2023 UPDATE: The vote today failed to pass, but it was close, with the entire NDP and Conservative caucuses supporting Ed Fast's Bill. For more on the vote, see ARPA Canada's update here. TRANSCRIPT Welcome to Reformed Perspective. I’m Alexandra Ellison. In March of 2021, Parliament passed Bill C-7, which amended the criminal code, changing the provisions for doctor-assisted suicide in Canada. Medical Assistance in Dying, otherwise known as MAiD, became available to those whose natural death is not reasonably foreseeable. It also expanded euthanasia to become available for those with mental illness to come into effect in March of 2023. Last March, the federal government delayed the mental illness provision of Bill C-7 by one year, promising to create safeguards. However, they have yet to act on this promise. Today, we bring you a critical development in this ongoing debate. Conservative Member of Parliament Ed Fast is putting forth Bill C-314, aimed at stopping the Canadian government from expanding euthanasia to those suffering solely from mental illness. Ed Fast: “Well, this is an existential issue for Canadians because it's quite a step to expand Canada's assisted suicide laws to the most vulnerable in our society, the mentally ill being among the most prominent of those. I want to make sure the mentally ill are protected against government overreach. We know that they are intensely vulnerable to abuse, and we want to make sure that Canada's laws do not extend to the degree that those most vulnerable Canadians risk unnecessary death, and needlessly die." On October 3, the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition hosted a press conference in support of Bill C-314. Anike Morrison is a recent graduate of an Ontario university, whose passion for advocating this bill stems from her own experience with mental health. Anike Morrison: “I have gone through quite a bit when it comes to my mental health, and I've had some really hard times. But I am coming through the other side of that, and I can say from personal experience it gets better. And I am living proof that with help, with counseling, therapy, family and friend support, medical care, that you can actually come out through that other side of a dark period of time without having to take your own life, or without having to leave your family and friends grieving for the loss of your life. You can actually get better and enjoy life.” Whether the bill passes or not, Morrison hopes this will open the conversation about euthanasia nationally and internationally. Anike Morrison: “I’ve been hearing that Canadians across the country are in support of Bill C-314. So I'm hoping that that movement and progress carries the Bill to be passed. But even if it is not, I'm hoping for increased conversation around medical assistance in dying in Canada, and even internationally, and having a national discussion about what is appropriate, and what is merciful, and what is truly helpful for our society, and what, maybe is going too far.” Dr. Paul Sabba is a family physician in Quebec who has been advocating for pro-life policies. In 2020, he wrote a book called Made to Live reflecting personal stories and debunking the myths of euthanasia and assisted suicide. Dr. Paul Sabba: “For example, if I refer a patient to a psychiatrist here in Quebec, it's about a 5-month waiting time from the time I make the referral to the time they actually get treatment. In the present legislation, which will be coming into effect for people with mental disorders here in Canada in March of 2024 – people will have access to be euthanized – there's only a three-month waiting period. We don't end the person's life because they have a disorder, or health or mental challenge, or are in distress. We have to help them in that distress. We have to meet what their needs are. That's our goal. That's the idea of the Good Samaritan; you don't leave the person half dead. You care for them. You treat them. We make every attempt to bring them to wellness, as close to wellness as you can, and find out what their needs are." Bill C-314 is currently at its second reading, with a vote scheduled for October 18 to see if it will go on to further study. Ed Fast: “I'm hoping that cooler heads will prevail and that members of all parties in the House of Commons will understand what's at stake here – the lives of the most vulnerable in Canada – and that they will support my Bill.” The reality is the general public is in opposition to the government’s expansions to euthanasia. According to the most recent Angus Reid Institute survey, just 28% of Canadians are in favor of MAiD for individuals with mental illness, while a significant 82% of Canadians emphasized that enhancing mental health care should be a priority before considering MAiD. For Reformed Perspective, I’m Alexandra Ellison in Ottawa. Other RP euthanasia resources For resources on how to understand and respond to arguments for euthanasia, check out the articles below. Euthanasia and the folly of downward comparisons Why euthanasia restrictions fail – “safeguards” become “barriers to access” Euthanasia film highlights horrors, but offers the wrong solution ...

Red heart icon with + sign.
Human Rights

The biblical and historical basis for parental rights

With the onset of parenthood, couples suddenly find that this new role is now dominating their lives. Children have become a central factor in how time and money are spent, and these same children also become a source of anxiety. Are they okay? Are they alright? The well-being of their children becomes an overwhelming feature of parents’ lives. Parents want what’s best for their children so the decisions they make are with this objective in mind. Christian parents will want their children to be instructed about God and his Word because they understand that spiritual matters are of the greatest concern. This normally includes education in a Christian school or homeschooling. Historically, in the English-speaking democracies, parents’ ability to choose Christian education for their children has frequently received widespread support. Of course, parents can choose what education their children are to receive! Who else could make that kind of decision? Sadly, there are threats on the horizon. Powerful forces in the media and various governments are increasingly suspicious about parental influence in education. These kinds of threats make it imperative for Christian parents to understand the basis of their rights in making authoritative decisions for their children. One excellent source of information is American lawyer John Whitehead’s 1985 book entitled Parents' Rights. Many of the matters he discusses in the book are dated because it was written thirty years ago. But the biblical and historical information he provides about parental rights are still valid and useful to know today. The Bible In the Bible, God has ordained three key institutions: the family, the church, and the state. Each one has specific roles and responsibilities. Each one also has specific powers and authority. However, the power and authority are not inherent in the institutions themselves but are delegated by God. Family, church and state have “derivative” authority from God – it comes from Him. Therefore the authority they exercise must always be used in accordance with God’s revealed will. There is no just authority that can be exercised in opposition to God’s truth. To which of the three institutions did God give the oversight and care of children? Clearly, it is the family. Already in the first chapter of Genesis, Adam and Eve are told to be fruitful and multiply. Whitehead notes: "Not only is there a command to have children, but there is the teaching that children are from God. When Eve had borne a child, she recognized that she had not done this alone and understood that the Creator was the ultimate source of the child. She said: “I have gotten a man from the Lord.” In Genesis 33:5, Genesis 48:9 and Joshua 24:3-4, it is explicitly stated that children are given by God. As Whitehead explains: "These verses indicate that children are given by God to families and not inanimate institutions or governments. Not only are children given, but they are also called gifts and blessings: “Behold, children are a gift of the Lord; the fruit of the womb is a reward.” As such, children are not just given to any family. The implication is that specific children are given to particular parents as a gift from God." The centrality of the family in the raising of children is further buttressed by the primacy of the family as an institution: "The family was the first institution created by God, even before the state. Because it was the first, it can be considered to be the foundational institution upon which all others are built." History John Whitehead is American, so the historical discussion he provides about parental rights is primarily about the United States. Nevertheless, the USA is part of the broader Anglo-American culture (“Anglosphere”) that shares legal precepts descended from Britain. The other Anglosphere countries have operated under the same basic principles. During the first half of the seventeenth century, Puritan settlers from England began arriving in the North American colonies. This area became known as New England. Later in the century the colonies adopted laws requiring children to learn to read and to be catechized. It was clearly recognized that teaching children was the responsibility of parents and these laws reinforced that fact. As Whitehead points out, "All of these enactments were concerned simply with the basic education of children, and should not, therefore, be confused with modern compulsory education laws which require classroom attendance at state-approved schools." Parents in the colonies did, in fact, take their responsibility seriously and children learned to read on a wide scale. “At the time of the Revolution, literacy rates had reached unprecedented heights, and by 1800 literacy was virtually universal.” That is, decades before the public school system was created in the USA, almost everyone (excluding slaves, unfortunately) could read and write in that country. Universal literacy was not the result of public education. John Locke John Locke (1632-1704) has been one of the most influential political philosophers in the history of the English-speaking world. He was the key philosopher behind the founding of the United States, and his thought underlays many early American documents and institutions. Although there is a debate over the degree to which Locke reflects a genuine Christian perspective, there are some clear biblical ideas in his work. Locke understood that God had created the world and everything in it. As Whitehead explains, Locke saw children as being the creation of God: "Therefore, instead of belonging to their parents, children belong to the Creator. Parents, then, hold children in trust for God. This means that parents, as stewards, are to take care of their children for God. The child must be raised to live the sort of life which is pleasing to the Creator." Children, of course, are born without the ability to take care of themselves or make decisions for their lives. They will eventually develop those capacities and become independent adults. But in the meantime, it is necessary for the parents to care for them and take steps to see that they grow morally and mentally into responsible individuals. As Locke saw things: "the child’s weakness is a source of parental authority, which in turn is a source of parental obligation. Thus, parents are under a God-mandated obligation to “preserve, nourish, and educate” their children. This is not a choice parents have. The obligation is not to the child, but to God." In other words, parents are accountable to God, first and foremost, for how they raise their children. The children are really God’s children entrusted to the parents, so those parents must answer to Him for their child-rearing efforts. The courts Locke’s perspective on the position of parents reflects the Christian thought that dominated the US during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Whitehead states that, “it was this parental authority and obligation that was embedded in the law and protected by the courts.” Whitehead discusses particular American court cases from the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries that demonstrate how strongly parental rights were upheld in common law. He summarizes the situation thusly: "Parental power, the early court decisions indicate, is essentially plenary. This means it should prevail over the claims of the state, other outsiders, and the children themselves 'unless there is some compelling justification for interference.'" It is important to note that the erosion of parental rights that has occurred in recent decades is strongly related to the decline of Christianity in the USA and in the other Western countries as well. This is reflected in American court decisions: "The older cases specifically noted that they were relying on Christian principles. However, the modern phobia over the separation of church and state prevents any reference to the Christian principles in terms of them being truth." Parental rights were historically based on Christian ideals. As the Christian basis of the West has deteriorated, the foundation for parental rights has weakened as a result. There is still some support for parental rights in the USA and other countries like Canada. But Whitehead thinks that continuing support is best explained as being part of “the cultural memory” of the past “when the Christian idea that children are gifts from God was an assumed principle.” Conclusion Whitehead suggests that there are two key commitments Christians must make if they are to secure parental rights. “The first is, of course, the commitment to be good parents.” Parents must raise their children in accordance with God’s loving commands and expectations. In other words, parents must take their responsibilities and obligations seriously if they want their parental rights to be recognized. “Second, as Christians, we must be committed to stand strong for the truth.” Parental rights are ultimately rooted in Christianity, so it is especially incumbent upon Christians to advocate for them. The purpose and rationale for parental rights need to be explained. In the end, parental rights are not primarily for the benefit of parents, but for the benefit of children. Children need the loving care of their parents. No institution can take the place of the family in the lives of children. As Whitehead puts it, “The state is simply, and will always be, a poor and ineffective parental substitute.” This first appeared in the June 2015 issue....

Red heart icon with + sign.
Christian education

What the Charter says about private schooling

This first appeared in the September 2014 issue. **** Parents who don’t want to send their children to public schools can be thankful for the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Although there are aspects of the Charter that have clearly worked against the influence of Christianity in Canada, it does contain provisions that protect the rights of private Christian schools. These provisions may very well be put to the test over the next few years as the media and political elite increasingly see conservative Christianity as a negative influence. Near miss in Alberta In 2012, Alberta adopted a new Education Act. The first version of the Act debated in March of that year contained controversial provisions that appeared to make curriculum in home schools and private schools subject to Alberta’s human rights legislation. This was a problem because most homeschoolers and private school supporters are Christians whose morality conflicts with modern notions of “human rights,” notably the so-called “human right” to homosexual activity. Many Christians choose private alternatives to public education so that their children can avoid being taught the religious distinctives of secular humanism, including the supposed virtues of homosexuality. So, if the government required even homeschoolers and private schools to teach such anti-Christian beliefs, it would clearly defeat the purpose of choosing distinctively Christian education. Thankfully, substantial grassroots activism by homeschoolers and other Christians convinced the government to drop the harmful sections. The new Act was therefore not problematic after all.  A privilege granted by the government? Nevertheless, during the debate over the Act, there was extensive discussion about parental rights in education, especially regarding homeschooling and private schooling. Some supporters of private education asserted that parents have a constitutional right to choose homeschooling or private schooling. However, one of the Liberal Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) objected strongly to that idea. She was adamant that there was no such right. As the Alberta Hansard records, she claimed to have read the Constitution and then said: "Nowhere in the Constitution or the Charter is there a right to distance learning or to homeschooling or to private schools. Those are accommodations that the province has seen in its authority to be able to say: 'We will allow this. We will offer it.'” According to her, the ability of parents to homeschool or send their children to a private school was simply a “privilege” that the government allows from the goodness of its heart. And she also thought that this privilege should be revoked. This MLA asserted that Alberta’s public education system is wonderful, and argued that people should not be allowed to choose to opt out of that system for private alternatives. Haranguing her fellow legislators she asked, “Why? Why are they allowed to be getting out? Why are we allowing them choice? What’s wrong with the system we have?” She then went on to demand that the government “quit allowing this very good public system to be opted out of by anyone who wants to get out. Defend the system that we have and insist that people adhere to it.” In her view, the government should “insist” that all children attend public schools. She couldn’t understand why the Alberta government would allow parents the “privilege” to choose private alternatives to the public schools. Clearly, there are still politicians in Canada today who think the government has ultimate authority over the education of all children. That’s scary.  The truth about parental rights in the Constitution Thankfully, we are not at the mercy of power-hungry politicians. In 2009, retired law professor Dale Gibson presented a paper entitled “Towers, Bridges and Basements: The Constitutional and Legal Architecture of Independent Schooling” at the twentieth annual conference of the Canadian Association for the Practical Study of Law in Education. His paper was subsequently published along with other conference proceedings in a volume entitled The Law in Education: A Tower or Bridge? Gibson was a professor of law at the University of Manitoba from 1959-1991, and a professor of law at the University of Alberta from 1991-2001. During his long academic career, he won numerous awards and wrote a multitude of articles, including articles about Canada’s Constitution. In other words, he is an expert on Canadian constitutional law. In Gibson’s learned view, Canadian parents “have the constitutional right to determine the shape of their children’s education." According to him, there are three distinct provisions of the Charter of Rights establishing that parental right. Parental rights provisions First of all, section 2(a) of the Charter guarantees every Canadian the “freedom of conscience and religion.” Parents have the right to teach their own children in accordance with their religious beliefs. This has already been recognized in Canadian jurisprudence. Gibson quotes a 1986 Supreme Court ruling as stating: "Those who administer province's educational requirements may not do so in a manner that unreasonably infringes the right of parents to teach their children in accordance with their religious convictions." Secondly, section 2(b) of the Charter guarantees every Canadian the “freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression.” This section also supports parental rights in education. Although it has not been used to defend educational rights, Gibson states, "I believe the general principles underlying freedom of expression, as explained by the courts in other contexts, are capable of supporting the parental right to educate children in independent schools." Thirdly, section 7 of the Charter guarantees every Canadian “the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.” Gibson argues that Canadian jurisprudence supports the notion that the right to liberty includes the right of parents to educate their own children. In particular, one Supreme Court judge has actually written that, “the liberty interest under s. 7 includes the right of a parent to bring up and educate one’s children.”  Conclusion In sum, then, contrary to the view of the Liberal MLA mentioned above, Canadian parents do have a constitutional right to choose to send their children to a private school or to homeschool them. This right is rooted in three sections of the Charter of Rights: freedom of religion, freedom of expression, and the right to liberty. It is generally recognized that the government has an interest in the education of children, so there are some limits to parental rights in this context. But Christians need not fear that the government could compel all children into the public schools. Such a move should be decisively thwarted by the Charter of Rights. This first appeared in the September 2014 issue under the title "Educational rights in Canada: What the Charter says about private schooling."...

Red heart icon with + sign.
News, RPTV

RPTV: the 1 Million March 4 Children

TRANSCRIPT: Welcome to Reformed Perspective, I’m Alexandra Ellison. In the midst of a swiftly shifting cultural landscape, a significant event has emerged that gathers people from diverse backgrounds under a common cause. The 1 Million March 4 Children, a Canada-wide demonstration, has drawn attention across Canada, uniting them in a shared mission: To protect our children from indoctrination and sexualization. In today's video, we delve into the heart of the 1 Million March 4 Children, seeking to understand the motivations and voices that fuel this mobilization across different backgrounds and beliefs. On September 20, thousands of people gathered outside Parliament Hill to protest against Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity policies within the education system. Wellington St. was shut down for hours as parents, educators and children gathered to have their voices heard. Christians, Muslims, and people of various faith backgrounds attended the event. The demonstration, titled “1 Million March 4 Children,” expanded across Canada with protests happening in most provinces. This protest comes just months after Premier of New Brunswick, Blaine Higgs amended policy 713, making it so that LGBTQ-identifying students under 16 would have to inform parents before changing their name or pronouns within the classroom. Since this policy amendment took place in June, the conversation about parental rights has only expanded across Canada. Police were on the scene and LGBTQ activists also protested in opposition. The 1 Million March 4 Children was started by a Muslim man, who started speaking out on social media after discovering what was being taught in the education system. Kamel El-Cheikh: “But Canada's parents are the engineers, the restorators, they're the average blue-collar workers that care about their kids.” During the event, a father spoke out about how he got involved in the gender-critical movement after his daughter announced she would begin testosterone for gender transition after her 18th birthday. Shannon Boschy: "Unsafe means somebody might question them. A rational loving parent might say, ' Are you sure, sweetie? It's okay to be confused. We're going to get you some help that you need.' But no, this affirmation leads to the medicalization. These kids are ending up in the gender clinic." The leader of the Christian Heritage Party came all the way from Smithers, BC for the march. Rod Taylor: “We all have the responsibility as parents to raise our children. I think these parents, and Kamel El-Cheikh, who was the Muslim organizer of this event, he reached out to people of other faiths and said, 'Let's come together for something that we all agree on, something we all believe in, for the freedom to raise our children according to our own beliefs.' And that's something we all can agree with.” Taylor hopes that people can find their identity in Christ, rather than their gender. Taylor: "Parents are the first educators of their children. They have the responsibility from God to be the educators and trainers, and to raise their children not only physically, but in a moral perspective so that their kids know who they are. And this whole thing about identity, yes, children need to know who they are in God. He's the one who made us, He made us male and female, created us in His image, and puts us here for a purpose. And so we want to see that purpose fulfilled.” As we conclude our journey through the 1 Million March 4 Children, one resounding truth becomes abundantly clear: As Christians, we are entrusted with the sacred duty to share God's truth and be vocal in the public sphere. Our faith calls us to stand firm in believing that every child is a precious creation, molded in His image. May this march serve as a testament to our unwavering commitment to God's intended design and our collective responsibility to ensure that truth prevails in the lives of future generations....

Red heart icon with + sign.
News

Saturday Selections – Sept. 30, 2023

Click on the titles below to go to the linked articles. Everything has to be working just right, right from the start (2 min) For a baby to grow, all sorts of systems have to be working just right, and have to have been developed all at the same time. So how could evolution ever get over such a "hurdle"? Overcome your enemies by dying Peter Krol has a rather unexpected strategy for effective Christian engagement – he wants us to "overcome enemies by dying." "God does not ask his people to live as idiotic simpletons or punching bags. God wants his people to overcome strife and evil (Rom. 12:21). But the way you overcome it matters. To win the fight in the wrong way is to lose." Just as you can win badly, there is also a way to lose gloriously. Krol's point is that the outcomes are up to God, and the methods are up to us, so, win or lose, do so with His glory in mind. Krol also lays out five strategies on how best to do so. How to lose your pastor in 365 days There always seems to be a pastor shortage. Might it be worth asking ourselves, how do we in the pews make their job attractive or unattractive? Here are 11 ways to show some appreciation. Why we can't trust the science journals - a climate scientist explains "...a climate scientist has written that he pulled his punches in a climate-change article in order to be published by the prestigious journal Nature." Samuel Sey: Why I am not a "Christian Nationalist" If you support a Christian think tank or lobby like ARPA Canada or the Colson Center that advocates for laws that abide with God's commandments, then by the way some define the term, you are a "Christian Nationalist." But as Samuel Sey notes here, there are a lot of folks fighting for this term, bringing different definitions to it, and the way some others define it, you most certainly aren't a "Christian Nationalist." Unmasking "Christian nationalism" (90 minutes) John Stonestreet, Rusty Reno, and Hunter Baker debate the usefulness of the term "Christian nationalism" and debate also whether Christians should even be trying to bring in Christian laws. Isn't that top-down "Christianization"? That's a good point, and a reason why, in our efforts to bring in laws that align with God's commandments, we should do so as Christians, seeing the public square as just one more opportunity to glorify God. Then, when a Christian law is adopted, it won't be forced from the top down but will have been adopted because we've convinced the country that God's ways are best. This is a long listen – an hour and a half – but worth the time for the sort of discourse happening here: some disagreement but done in the spirit of digging down to the truth together. More on Christian nationalism: legislating morality (2 min) While there's reason to question the usefulness of the term "Christian nationalism," all Christians should want and pray for their nations to be governed by God's Word. While apologist Frank Turek is Arminian, in the video above he makes a good, concise point that all legislation is moral in nature. If it isn't justified as being about right and wrong, then it is simply capricious, based on the whims of whoever happens to be in charge. Is that what anyone is after? No, we want our laws based on the only real standard: God's. Where Turek gets it wrong is that he thinks this law is self-evident. There is a sense in which that is true: God tells us His law is written on our hearts (Romans 2:15). But we also know that with work and effort, we are quite capable of blinding ourselves to what is true. Shucks, we have people who believe it is all right to murder a baby so long as one foot is still inside its mother's body, or that the government should fund the mutilation of children who are confused about their gender. So, the law isn't always self-evident; it is often very much in need of proclamation. Thankfully, God has given the world His Church to do that!...

Red heart icon with + sign.
News

SK Premier to use “notwithstanding clause” to uphold parental authority

If a public school student under 16 wants to be referred to by his own “preferred pronouns,” does the school need to go to his parents? Does the school need to get parental consent? In Saskatchewan, the provincial government has said yes. But then, yesterday, Regina judge Michael Megaw decided no. At the request of an LGBT lobby group, the judge granted an injunction – a stop-for-now order – against the government’s parental consent policy. Then, in a very rare move, Saskatchewan’s Premier Scott Moe announced he is recalling the province’s legislative assembly on October 10, to use Section 33 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, to override the judge’s ruling. Section 33 is better known as the “notwithstanding clause,” which gives legislatures and Parliament the power to override sections of the Charter, though only for 5 years at a time. Any legislation invoking the clause has an automatic five-year expiration date, at which time the legislation will either lapse or have to be renewed again. The clause was included in the Charter to keep the judiciary from becoming too powerful, “interpreting” the Charter to fit their own preferences. It was included as a tool for reining in activist judges. Premier Moe minced no words in defending the move, even though it is extremely unusual. "Our government is extremely dismayed by the judicial overreach of the court blocking implementation of the Parental Inclusion and Consent policy – a policy which has the strong support of a majority of Saskatchewan residents, in particular, Saskatchewan parents. The default position should never be to keep a child's information from their parents.” He went on to explain that: "It is in the best interest of children to ensure parents are included in their children's education, in their classrooms and in all important decisions involving their children.” The announcement came a week after the “1 Million March 4 Children” rallies, held in towns and cities across Canada, to speak up for children in the face of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (SOGI) curriculum and activism. The move also comes after work by supporters of WeNeedaLAW.ca and the Saskatchewan Pro-Life Association to promote parental rights, albeit to a different end. Their efforts were in defense of the unborn, promoting a law that would require parental consent before minors can have an abortion. But have their years of effort borne fruit in this other direction? Saskatchewan isn’t on its own in taking a stand. In June, the New Brunswick government revised its educational policy to require parental consent for children under 16 before schools used their “preferred pronouns.” Mainstream media bias and opposition were on full display in the coverage of the March, and the New Brunswick decision, making Moe’s decision all the more laudable. While we aren’t always happy with our elected leaders, we can be thankful for Section 33 of the Charter. Without it, a lone judge would be able to overturn the decisions of our legislatures and Parliament. Photo is adapted from a Sept 22, 2023 photo by Alberta Newsroom (flickr.com) and used under a CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 DEED license....

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