Transparent heart icon with white outline and + sign.

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

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

White magnifying glass.

Search thousands of RP articles

Equipping Christians to think, speak, and act

Open envelope icon with @ symbol

Get Articles Delivered!

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



Assorted

Charlie Kirk in context

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

*****

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

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

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

1) even accurate
2) in context

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

“I don’t believe in empathy.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



News

Saturday Selections – Oct. 11, 2025

Ray Comfort does a stint at a Turning Point USA event

Since Charlie Kirk's murder, his organization has been filling his shoes with quite a variety of stand-ins. His podcast has featured the vice president of the United States, J.D. Vance, guest hosting, followed by the DailyWire crew of Orthodox Jew Ben Shapiro, and Roman Catholics Michael Knowles and Matt Walsh. Then, this past week, Mormon Glenn Beck took a turn too.

Kirk's organization Turning Point USA continues to do events on university campuses too, and at at least one event, God's gospel was clearly heard... and not just on campus but in Fox News coverage afterwards. Network television! It's just fun to see God making that happen!

What is K-Pop Demon Hunters? A primer for parents

It's the latest "thing" – one of those cultural happenings that all the kids are talking about. Here's a quick primer on the Netflix film. It's hardly family-time viewing, but depending on how many of your kids' classmates have already seen it, it's worth considering if you might want to watch it together so you can discuss it with your own crew.

A woman has been appointed as the Archbishop of Canterbury

In as far as the Church of England has a head, it would be the Archbishop of Canterbury, and now, for the first time in 1,400 years, that is a woman. In addition, Sarah Mullally is pro-choice, and doesn't seem willing to call homosexuality sin.

The good news? There are many conservative Bible-believing Christians still in the Anglican Church, especially in Africa, but all over the world. They have found ways to insulate themselves from their denomination's liberal trends, while still remaining a part of it. But when your denomination calls evil good, blessing same-sex unions and countenancing the murder of the unborn, should you want to still be associated with it? Of course, the reason these Christians have stayed is in the hope they could still reverse the course.  But if they were unsure before of whether they should stay or go, that their is denomination is now being led by a usurper – Mullay has long been one, taking on church leadership roles God hasn't allowed for women – might grant them now the clarity they've needed to know there is a time to go.

When the fallible, the over-confident, and the liars tell us to  "trust the science"

"Because of disillusionment with the COVID-19 vaccines, more people are refusing to have themselves and their children inoculated with other vaccines, which over a long period of time have proven to be safer and more effective than the COVID-19 vaccines.

"This has led to an increase in preventable diseases such as measles, chickenpox, and polio. Rather than criticize such people as ignorant and foolish, governments and public health authorities should perhaps take a long look in the mirror to see what role they have played in this undermining of trust in the public health system."

The sad state of Evangelical theology in 2025 

This was a survey of folks who actually say the Bible is their highest authority. Two examples:

  • 64% believe that “Everyone is born innocent in the eyes of God.”
  • 53% agree that “Everyone sins a little, but most people are good by nature.”

Conspiracy or gossip?

Candace Owens is not well known in Canada, so why bother sharing a warning against her conspiratorial videos? Well, because she isn't the only one sharing gossip. Aren't our social media pages full of it?

The video below spreads a rather harsh assessment of Owens, so isn't it gossip too? That's a good question, and raises another: how can we tell what's gossip and what isn't? Well, if we spread a bad report about someone, it's gossip unless:

  1. It's true. This isn't a matter of you sincerely believing it is true – Owens certainly seems sincere, but that doesn't lessen the damage she is doing. If you are besmirching someone's reputation, you need to have grounds. You should have the "receipts."
  2. It needs to said (Eph. 4:29). Truth isn't reason enough to share a bad report. Everyone doesn't need to know that so and so was caught up in pornography once, or that this couple had a rough spot in their marriage years ago. In Prov. 20:19 we read, "A gossip betrays a confidence so avoid anyone who talk too much." You can gossip in spreading truth that doesn't need to be spread.

Can you prove it, and does it need to be said? Two good questions to ask before sharing the latest report, even if it is about folks you just know are bad guys. That you're slandering Justin Trudeau or Mark Carney doesn't make your slander any less of a sin. What it does do, in the eyes of any non-Christians who might be watching, is discredit your Christian witness. That doesn't mean keeping quiet about the monstrous evils these two have pushed (abortion, euthanasia, transgender mutilation, and more). It does mean, stick to the facts – these important facts. God wants us to stop gossiping!


Today's Devotional

October 15 - Self-control

“Likewise, urge the younger men to be self-controlled.” - Titus 2:6

Scripture reading:Proverbs 23:19-24:2; Titus 2:1-10

Young men also have it tough in our present day. There’s the injustice of judgmental phrases, like “toxic masculinity,” or being labeled “alpha,” or, worse, “beta.” Many young Christian men are also being allured by ultra-masculine takes, by unbelieving podcasters and influencers online. Masculinity is not inherently >

Today's Manna Podcast

Manna Podcast banner: Manna Daily Scripture Meditations and open Bible with jar logo

Patience is the fruit of the Spirit

Serving #996 of Manna, prepared by Rev. Richard Aasman, is called "Patience is the fruit of the Spirit" and is based on Galatians 2:22.











Red heart icon with + sign.
Dating

A creative approach to boundaries in dating

Signing on the dotted line? (Gal. 5:16-25) ***** Several weeks ago, my fiancé and I sat down at a local restaurant with my aunt and uncle, where we enjoyed a good meal and a great conversation. That conversation, however, did not start in the most conventional way. “Well, I’m looking forward to this free food,” said Nathan, my fiancé. “You’ve earned it,” my uncle replied with a grin. We had successfully completed our contract a few months prior, and were finally sitting down to the promised reward of a dinner out, paid for by my aunt and uncle. The contract had been written up by my uncle, signed by myself, and witnessed by a friend – all back on June 29, 2022. This makes it sound very official, but in truth it was spontaneously scrawled down on a loose piece of paper, borne of a somewhat harebrained conversation and spur-of-the-moment decision. Let me explain. A few years earlier I’d been in an unhealthy dating relationship. Despite the brief time frame, the physical side of the relationship had quickly escalated. Nothing about my actions had been God-honoring. I had been naive and impulsive and foolish, and it cost me much heartache. In the days that followed, I had many conversations with my parents, close friends, and various other family members; they collectively blessed me with wisdom, listening ears, and reminders of God’s grace and the sovereignty of His plans. I had repented, and knew I was forgiven, but with lingering hurt and shame I was struggling to move forward. I wanted to express that repentance in steps taken, but I didn’t know what that could look like. One night while visiting, my uncle suggested I take what I’d learned and apply it to the future – that I learn from my mistakes, and do my utmost not to repeat them. “Easier said than done,” I grumbled. That’s when he got a strange glint in his eye. Doing things different What followed was humorous, bizarre, and one of the best things I’ve ever been involved in. We sat down and wrote up a rough draft, with my uncle setting the terms. The contract stated that I would “not kiss a man for at least 2 months after the start of a relationship.” It also stated that, upon successful completion of the contract, my aunt and uncle would treat me and my significant other to dinner at the restaurant of our choice. I signed, my uncle signed, and a friend who was present signed as a witness. I recognize that the specifics of this contract may not be for everyone. Some people may think the terms restrictive, while others may think they are not cautious enough. But what I want to draw your attention to, rather than the details, is the overarching purpose: seeking accountability which seeks to serve the Lord (1 Thess. 5:11-13). Four reasons to sign on the dotted line A couple years passed, and I met Nathan. After a few months of long-distance dating, we decided I would travel to Alberta to spend the summer in his hometown and see if the relationship had a solid future. Dating in-person would be different. It was time to tell him about the contract. I hadn’t signed it as a joke – my commitment was sincere – but it had been easy to imagine becoming complacent down the road if I found myself again in a romantic situation. Nathan took the news very well. Yes, he made a joke about it (“Free food if we pull this off? Sweet!”), but he recognized the value in it. We both saw wisdom in it, for multiple reasons. First, it would hold us accountable to another person. As the third party, my uncle was at liberty to ask how the contract was going – and while I can’t remember him doing so, the knowledge that he could was good motivation for us to stick to it. Occasionally, I texted over the summer to let my aunt and uncle know that things were going well. We did not want to let them down, or to let ourselves down by breaking the terms. Second, it would teach us a lot about each other. Is the person I am dating respectful of boundaries (1 Cor. 6:12-13)? Are they self-controlled (Prov. 25:28)? 1 Cor. 13:4-5 reads, “Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist upon its own way; it is not irritable or resentful.” So does the person I am dating value long-term love over short-term thrills, or are they manipulating situations to get what they want? How much do they value sticking to a commitment (Col. 3:23-24)? Can I trust them to navigate the relationship in a manner that seeks to glorify God and show Christian love to me, rather than to gratify themselves (Phil. 2:1-4)? We learned the answers to these questions, and more. We built teamwork, both striving to support each other in keeping the contract rather than making it difficult for each other. Third, the contract helped us to focus on the emotional and spiritual aspects of our relationship, rather than the physical. We built a solid foundation of friendship, faith, and intellectual companionship, rather than a false foundation of hormones and desire (Phil. 4:8). Fourth, it was practice – practice for not giving in to stronger temptations further down the line in the relationship. Learning not to compromise each other in the “smaller things” has made it much easier to continue in the same way now; we learned to value each other’s well-being and holiness early on, and that has been extremely beneficial as we grow nearer to marriage and temptations become more serious. Plan to succeed (Prov. 21:5) We found a lot of value in having boundaries written down. There is something tangible about it, something more binding than a simple conversation. So, while still in the stage of “no kissing allowed,” Nathan and I sat down and wrote up a list of boundaries for once the contract was done. I consider this to be our “contract after the contract.” I highly recommend this to any young couple; it is always easier to keep a boundary in place if you establish it before, rather than trying to make boundaries after you’ve already crossed lines. And get detailed in your boundaries! If you’re too embarrassed to talk about it, then you certainly shouldn’t be doing it. Hard and fast rules are much easier to stick to than vague concepts. Don’t allow yourselves loopholes – in the heat of the moment, you will be sorely tempted to take advantage of them, and almost always will. Both Nathan and I asked a person outside our relationship to hold us accountable to our boundaries. This person is someone who can check in with us, ask how things are going, and is someone we can go to if a boundary has been crossed and counsel or prayer is needed. Find someone you can trust with this; you’d be surprised how many people are willing. Many people want to see you do well – and many will have perspectives to share about their own experiences and mistakes, which you can learn from. I’ve talked to quite a few people about this contract. While most see the benefit to it, there are a few who respond, “That doesn’t sound very romantic.” But here’s what truly isn’t romantic: Guilt. Regret. Selfishness. Carrying shame into a marriage together, or breaking up with someone you’ve gone too far with – which in turn affects your future marriage to somebody else. I’ve experienced it, and many of my friends have experienced it. Any of them would tell you how scarring and unromantic it can be. In contrast, I cannot think of something that has made me more attracted to my fiancé than the effects of these contracts and boundaries. Seeing his care and dedication, his respect for me, his self-control, his leadership in holding to commitments – seeing how he loves me, respects himself, and above all, strives to honor God in his conduct – it all has made my love for him grow exponentially. Help yourself… or your kids If you are newly dating, or if you have kids who are dating; consider writing up a contract. It may feel embarrassing… but I am not asking you to shout it from the rooftops! It can be kept as private as you wish, a simple sheet of paper that can be tucked away in a drawer somewhere. I was initially a bit embarrassed to tell Nathan about my contract, and now I speak of it with much appreciation and a desire to recommend it to others. Remember the purpose, and that sheet of paper may become a treasured thing to look back on years down the road. “Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God with your body.” – 1 Cor. 6:19-20...









Red heart icon with + sign.
People we should know

Francis Schaeffer: Intellectual leader of the Christian Right

During the late 1970s and early 1980s many conservative Protestants in the United States became involved in social and political activism for the first time. The movement emerging out of this activism is often referred to as the "Religious Right" or "Christian Right." While a number of factors combined to produce this phenomenon, one of the most important was a theological shift. Conservative Christians who had previously avoided any form of activism came to believe that they had a duty to speak out on behalf of Biblical positions regarding social issues. More than any other individual, a Presbyterian pastor named Francis Schaeffer was responsible for this shift. A recent book by Barry Hankins, Francis Schaeffer and the Shaping of Evangelical America (Eerdmans, 2008) provides a good overview of Schaeffer’s life, work and influence. Reformed foundation Francis Schaeffer was born in 1912 to a nominally Christian family in Pennsylvania. As a young man he converted to Biblical Christianity as a result of hearing an evangelist. After completing college he enrolled in Westminster Theological Seminary in 1935. In 1937 Westminster Theological Seminary split, and a number of professors and students left to form Faith Theological Seminary. Mirroring this split, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church had a rupture, with a number of people leaving to form the Bible Presbyterian Church. There were a number of issues involved, one of the most important being eschatology. Those who formed the new seminary and new denomination were premilleniallists, and Schaeffer was among them. After completing seminary, Schaeffer became a very effective Bible Presbyterian pastor in St. Louis. In 1948 he moved with his family to Switzerland as a missionary under the auspices of the Independent Board for Presbyterian Foreign Missions (IBPFM). To make a long story short, Schaeffer's relationship with both the Bible Presbyterian Church and the IBPFM deteriorated. He left both organizations. (Ultimately he joined the Reformed Presbyterian Church, Evangelical Synod which merged with the Presbyterian Church in America in 1982.) Come and question! In 1955 Schaeffer formed his own mission group called L'Abri, the French word for shelter. It was basically a small community in Switzerland that would receive guests who had questions about Christianity and life in general. L'Abri was very effective and gradually emerged as an influential evangelical organization. People came from all over the world to learn about Christianity from Francis Schaeffer. Many people became Christians in this way, while many who were already Christians had their lives and careers paths changed in a positive direction. Schaeffer’s ministry focus was on demonstrating that only Christianity provided an answer to life’s questions and problems. Schaeffer could explain why the popular philosophical movements of the mid-twentieth century were deficient. Doing so provided an avenue for presenting the Gospel. As Barry Hankins writes, “Apologetics had two purposes for Schaeffer: the first was defense of the faith, and the second was to communicate Christianity in a way that a given generation can understand the message.” L’Abri, however, was not just about providing intellectual answers from a Christian perspective. It also provided shelter and care for people who were having personal problems. The love and care provided by his ministry substantially increased Schaeffer’s credibility and his esteem among believers and unbelievers alike. Hankins notes, “Schaeffer taught that the ‘final apologetic’ for the Christian faith was the fulfillment of Jesus’ command that Christians love one another.” A wider audience Schaeffer would speak to people individually about their questions and concerns, but he would also lecture regularly. By the end of the 1950s, many of the lectures were being taped. Gradually, an audience for these taped lectures spread throughout the world. “By 1968, there were Schaeffer listening groups across the U.S. and Canada, as well as in Taiwan, Japan, India, South Africa, France, New Zealand, Australia, and nations in South America” Even before 1968, however, Schaeffer’s influence was being noticed. Hankins records that, “His growing popularity was noted in a 1960 issue of Time magazine.” As a result of his increasing notoriety, Schaeffer began lecturing tours, first in Britain and later in the USA. These lectures were very popular. Many were subsequently published in book form and this caused his fame and influence to spread even further. Schaeffer was teaching evangelicals about modern philosophical trends and how they related to Biblical Christianity. This had not really been done before, so Schaeffer was on the cutting edge of Christian cultural analysis for English-speaking conservative Protestants. “To whatever extent evangelicals by the mid to late 1970s were analyzing culture instead of rejecting it, Schaeffer was largely responsible,” Hankins argues. By the mid-1970s Schaeffer was so well-known that he became acquainted with some American politicians and was even hosted at the White House by President Gerald Ford. Pivotal books In 1973 the US Supreme Court ruled in the infamous Roe v. Wade decision that women had a right to abortion. This was a momentous decision and Schaeffer began to speak out increasingly for the pro-life cause. Actually, he was the most prominent evangelical leader promoting the pro-life cause because so many evangelicals during the early to mid-1970s were ambivalent about this issue. In 1976 Schaeffer (with substantial help from his son Franky) produced a book and film series called How Should We Then Live? that described the decline of Western Civilization due to the rise of secular humanism. It was an effective combination, introducing many conservative Christians to worldview thinking for the first time. Then in 1979, he produced another book and film series called Whatever Happened to the Human Race? that presented the Biblical position on abortion and other life issues. This book and series had a major impact in activating evangelicals into the pro-life cause. Schaeffer's influence continued to increase. In 1981 he wrote a book called The Christian Manifesto, demonstrating that secular humanism was replacing Christianity as the basis of the United States. If Christians did not resist this trend, he argued, it would only get worse. This book is arguably one of the most important ever produced by the Christian Right. Then in 1984, he wrote The Great Evangelical Disaster, which criticized a trend among some evangelical leaders to question the inerrancy of the Bible. If these men continued in that direction, Schaeffer warned, they would soon be embracing theological liberalism. He called on conservative Protestants to continue to defend the Bible as God's inspired and inerrant Word as his last message to the church. In the same year this book appeared, he died of cancer. No coincidence he was Reformed Hankins notes that Schaeffer’s “attempt to alert Christians to the need for intentionally and self-consciously forming a Christian worldview based on solid Christian presuppositions was the central part of his intellectual project.” This continues to be a major component of his legacy. It’s important to recognize that Schaeffer’s theological background provided him with the intellectual tools to confront popular culture from a Biblical perspective. “His training within the Reformed branch of American fundamentalism by scholars such as J. Gresham Machen and Cornelius Van Til served him well in this regard.” Reformed theology provides the most robust Christian challenge to our modern secular culture and it was foundational to Schaeffer’s own ministry and success as an apologist. Photo by Dr. Gary Lee Todd, taken sometime in 1981 (Flickr.com/public domain)....

Red heart icon with + sign.
Adult non-fiction, Book Reviews

Being a witness: an interview (of sorts) with Francis Schaeffer

Francis Schaeffer (1912-1984) has long since been retired from his earthly duties, but the Presbyterian pastor, philosopher, and apologist was still up for an interview (of sorts) on the desperate need for a clear Christian witness in the public square. The text in bold is his own words, taken from his book A Christian Manifesto. **** JON DYKSTRA: A Christian Manifesto was your last book. Why did you feel the need to write it? FRANCIS SCHAEFFER: It was intended as a rallying cry for Christians, to stand up against the world’s humanist worldview, by offering up God’s own. The basic problem of the Christians in this country…in regards to society and in regards to government is that they have seen things in bits and pieces instead of totals. They have gradually become disturbed over permissiveness, pornography, the public schools, the breakdown of the family, and finally, abortion. But they have not seen this as a totality – each thing being a part, a symptom of a much larger problem. have failed to see that all of this has come about due to a shift in…. the overall way people think and view the world and life as a whole. This shift has been away from a worldview that was at least vaguely Christian…toward something completely different – toward a worldview based upon the idea that the final reality is impersonal matter or energy shaped into its present form by impersonal chance.  The phrase “separation of church and state” has been used to push Christians to the sidelines in politics, and we have, for the most part, gone willingly. Christians have forgotten that the Lordship of Christ covers all of life and all of life equally. That includes politics as well. A Christian Manifesto is a call for Christians to reenter the public square as Christians. It argues that the Christian worldview is absolutely vital to civil society and we need to share it with them. JD: Why is it vital? FS: Because it is foundational! In the American Constitution we have the phrase “certain inalienable rights.” Who gives the rights? The State? Then they are not inalienable because the State can change them and take them away. Where do rights come from? Now Christians know there is Someone who gave these inalienable rights, but if you don’t recognize the Giver, how can you recognize His gift? If we ignore God and build our law on humanist assumptions we are left with rights that have no foundation. And if we can’t explain the basis for these rights, how can we complain when they are taken away? That’s why a secular worldview is the road to tyranny. JD: How should Christians respond when their government ignores God? FS: Be a witness! We are where we are today in large part because of the many voters who held to two bankrupt values – personal peace and affluence. Personal peace means just to be left alone, not to be troubled by the troubles of other people, whether across the world, or across the city. Affluence means an overwhelming and ever-increasing prosperity – a life made up of things and more things – success judged by an ever-higher level of material abundance. Even as voters demand peace and prosperity, we Christians need to stand on principle. We need to speak, even when that is going to cause us trouble, and cost us materially. JD: But are Western Christians prepared for the cost that comes with being a witness? FS: Many are scared. That's because obedience can be scary. I know many among your readership had grandparents involved in hiding Jews from the Nazis. What your grandparents understood is that when we recognize Christ as Lord of All then at a certain point there is not only the right, but the duty to disobey the State. That’s why your grandparents were willing to risk the wrath of Man – because they valued the approval of God. And they understood that when Jesus says in Matthew 22:21: “Give to Caesar what it Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s” it is not: GOD and CAESAR It was, is, and always will be: GOD and CAESAR The civil government, as all of life, stands under the Law of God. JD: You’re talking here about there being a time and place for civil disobedience. What cautions or considerations would you share when it comes to resisting a government imposing wicked laws? FS: Samuel Rutherford suggested that there are three appropriate levels of resistance: First, must defend himself by protest (in contemporary society this would most often be by legal action); second, he must flee if at all possible; and third, he may use force, if necessary to defend himself. One should not employ force if he may save himself by flight; nor should one employ flight if he can save himself and defend himself by protest and the employment of constitutional means of redress. JD: Here in the West we are still free to make use of the first possibility, taking legal and political action. What would you say to Christians who are hesitant to speak out against our society’s humanist worldview, and downright scared about presenting the explicitly Christian alternative? FS: I would tell them the world needs to hear a Christian witness. And until we share that, anything we do is only treating the symptoms. Then I might quote to them a few lines from Bob Dylan’s Slow Train Coming: You’ve got gangsters in power and lawbreakers making rules When you gonna wake up, When you gonna wake up, When you gonna wake up And strengthen the things that remain? A version of this article first appeared in the March 2008 issue....