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!



Culture Clashes

What will Canada look like in 2040?

Where some see gloom, God’s people can proceed in hope, knowing that God remains in control

*****

“Canada to Become a Dystopian Nightmare, Households Will Flee: Gov Report.”

A Christian friend shared this article with me, from Better Dwelling, a news outlet specifically focussed on Canada’s housing market. This friend wanted to make sure I was aware of a government report, “Future Lives: Social mobility in question,” that was published in January but which hasn’t been noticed and circulated until more recently.

According to Better Dwelling’s Stephen Punwasi, the report from the federal government’s own think tank, Policy Horizons:

“paint a grim picture resembling a dystopian mashup of a Charles Dickens’ novel meets Terminator. A Canada where wealth & the ability to own a home are determined at birth, hungry households hunt & fish for sustenance in cities, and moving down social classes is the norm. Welcome to Canada in 2040.”

The message will undoubtedly resonate with many Canadians who have noticed that things have been changing quickly in the past five or ten years. Not so long ago, children could anticipate earning more, and spending more than their parents ever did. Now we may make more money, but it doesn’t go nearly as far. We can go to university, but a degree doesn’t mean much when it comes to getting a good job today.

Young adults are finding it hard to imagine being able to buy even a modest home. Those that can find jobs are working more, and not having as many children. So, instead, to keep our population growing, we are bringing in millions of immigrants. But they need a place to stay too, which makes it even harder and more expensive for everyone to find a place to live.

Then there is AI: that mesmerizing but creepy technology that is replacing many jobs and seems to be a lot smarter than most people using it today.

Indeed, anticipating 2040 can be rather scary.

But that is only true if we aren’t looking to the future with faith in our sovereign and loving God.

PROVIDENTIAL GLASSES

In Lord’s Day 10 of the Heidelberg Catechism, we confess that God upholds heaven and earth and all creatures so that “all things come to us not by chance but by His fatherly hand.” As a result,

“with a view to the future we can have a firm confidence in our faithful God and Father that no creature shall separate us from his love.”

I don’t know what is going to transpire in the next 15 years, but based on this confession of God’s providence, I believe a good case can be made that the changes we are experiencing aren’t something to fear but can be means through which God is gathering His Church and kingdom.

What follows are some possibilities of the future, when looking through providential (in contrast to rose-colored) glasses.

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

AI will have us seeking something authentic
From my limited experience, the hype around AI is well-warranted. It is far “smarter” and more capable than I would have imagined. Even the over-used word “revolutionary” may not suffice. The advance of AI means we’re soon going to have a hard time telling whether what we read, see and hear is real or original:

  • Did Emma really make that valedictorian speech that had us laughing and crying? Or was it the product of Chat GPT with a few tweaks to make it look authentic?
  • Was that YouTube clip about the New York Yankees having a moment of silence after Charlie Kirk’s death real, or just AI-generated? How can we even know?
  • Did the pastor actually write that sermon on Lord’s Day 10, or did he ask AI to make a sermon for him, pointing it to www.TheSeed.info to ensure that the result would line up with solid Reformed orthodoxy?
  • Can I trust that the person calling me to ask for money is actually my son/grandson in trouble? He sounds just like him, but something just doesn’t seem right.

This is just a small taste of AI’s impact and is legitimately concerning.

God’s Word remains trustworthy
But when we look through the glasses of God’s providence, something else becomes clear: in a world where it is very difficult to know what is true, solid, trustworthy, and real, the things that are will become all the more noticeable and meaningful. And what is more true, solid, trustworthy, and real than God and His Word? “The Lord is my rock, my fortress and my deliverer; my God is my rock, in whom I take refuge, my shield and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold” (Psalm 18:2).

Just as many young men today are pushing against the woke culture they were catechized in, I won’t be surprised if many people begin recognizing the beauty of God’s Word for what it is: unchanging, reliable, proven, not open to opinion, and anything but artificial.
In that dizzying sea of AI will stand the rock of God’s Word and the sure hope of the Gospel. That may explain in part why popular secular influencers like Joe Rogan, Piers Morgan, and Andrew Schultz are all asking Canadian Christian Wes Huff to come on their platforms to explain how Scripture is reliable. Who would ever have seen that coming this year?

The Colson Center also shared news about a “quiet revival” across England and Wales: “the number of 16- to 24-year-olds in the U.K. attending church at least once a month jumped from 4% in 2018 to 16% in 2024.” To add to this, the most recent data from book sales revealed a 22 percent increase in Bible sales in the USA (compared with 1 percent for total book sales). And the “religious books” category saw the largest increase in publishing in 2024.

For the past 75+ years, many in Western Civilization saw God’s Word as a relic from the past, that isn’t all that relevant. That seems to be changing.

IMMIGRATION

So many people
With a plummeting fertility rate, Canada, along with most Western nations, relies on immigrants to keep our population and economies stable, let alone grow. In just two years, from 2022 to 2024, Canada’s population grew by 2,358,697 with about 98 percent of that increase due to incoming temporary and permanent residents.

Such a large influx of new people over a short time can result in challenges. One has only to follow the news in places like the UK and Germany to see how difficult it is to provide leadership in a secular country in which many immigrants have little interest in upholding the social conventions and laws of that land.

So many who can now hear
But when we look through providential glasses, here too we see some amazing possibilities for the Church.

My friend and his family were missionaries in a remote region of Africa, carrying God’s Word on foot to people immersed in paganism. But they came back to our small community in northern BC not long ago and realized that a lot has changed since they left for Africa. God has literally brought people from around the world to our own doorstep. This friend has decided to continue his mission work at home, reaching out to immigrants in our own community. At the same time, many “Canadians” who grew up in this nation have become as pagan, or more, than many of places where these immigrants are coming from. Millions of people in our own provinces aren’t familiar with the Gospel. The fields are ripe for the harvest, and they are next door!

Ironically (providentially), God is sometimes using immigrants to challenge the trajectory that our society, and even some churches, have been on. For example, recent election results show that immigrants and minorities are swinging to the political right, favoring conservative parties federally and provincially.

Closer to home, delegations representing different ethnic communities within the Christian Reformed Church urged their synod to adopt a biblical perspective of sexuality and were one of the forces leading to a shift in direction within that denomination.

God isn’t looking to us to save Western civilization. Civilizations have risen and fallen many times. It is His kingdom that endures. And in His grace, God is bringing many to our land who are willing to “seek first His kingdom.”

SOCIAL WELFARE SYSTEM

The partial collapse of government
The “Future Lives” government report mentioned at the beginning of this article made waves in part because it warned that in the dire near future “people may start to hunt, fish, and forage on public lands and waterways without reference to regulations. Small-scale agriculture could increase.” To add to this “governments may come to seem irrelevant if they cannot enforce basic regulations or if people increasingly rely on grass-roots solutions to meeting basic needs.”

In other words, if Canadians are struggling under our socialized government welfare system, they may just start to take matters into their own hands and provide for themselves and their families. We saw a taste of this during Covid, as rural land became much more popular to own, and the public trust in government regulations was broken (in spite of daily assurances from public health officers).

More freedom to be productive?
I don’t think I need to work hard to convince most readers that there is a lot to this “warning” that may be a providential blessing. In a land where government regulation has stifled productivity and development for decades, many Canadians and Christians would welcome increased freedom and responsibility so that they can fulfil the cultural mandate that God gave humanity to “be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it” (Genesis 1:28).

That said, I think it is also the case that many Christians have become reliant on the government income (i.e., monthly child care benefits, independent school funding, and even funding for their magazines) and may have a hard time adjusting if this were to decrease or terminate.

Society will be greatly blessed when more responsibility is put on individuals, families, churches, and community organizations, rather than the state. But that is only the case if these people use their responsibility for the furtherance of God’s kingdom, and not their own.

UNIVERSITIES

Ivory towers may topple
The government report also warned that “post-secondary education could be a stranded asset.” A stranded asset loses its value prematurely, as a result of a shifting market – think of someone who had a horse buggy factory as motor cars were taking over. University degrees might become like that?

“People may look for alternative forms of training in new niches that appear to offer upward mobility. Non-traditional providers, including private firms, may outcompete traditional PSE players in attracting consumers.”

What could rise from the rubble?
As with the decline of the social welfare system, not many Christians will lament the breakdown of post-secondary education as it is represented in much of Canada today. Universities have been bastions of evil in our land, training generations of Canadians to undermine the Christian heritage that our civilization and country was founded on, and replace it with hedonism and, more recently, critical theory. There is little surprise that the “centers of higher learning” don’t help with “upward mobility” and might be outcompeted by private firms that seek to build, rather than tear down.

The question is, what will be the worldviews of the private firms that are built? Will they, like the Harvard and Princeton University were when they were founded, operate on a biblical and Reformed foundation? If so, unlike Harvard and Princeton, will they stay true to their mission?

CANADA IN 2040

I understand why people aren’t optimistic about the future of Canada. Even in my own community, far removed from any urban centers and which, until recently, was known for being an idyllic place to raise a family, there are places that feel eerily similar to Vancouver’s Downtown East side. I see more homelessness, open drug use on the streets, and the need for 24/7 policing. My family isn’t even comfortable walking down parts of Main Street anymore. The same is true in communities across Canada today.

This is the natural fruit of a secular worldview (ironically labelled “progressive”), and we can expect the trajectory to only continue as long as our country refuses to humble itself before the LORD.

But God’s kingdom is above all of this and is advancing perfectly according to His plan. He put us in this time and place intentionally. He has a calling for us, right here and right now. We can leave the future in God’s hand, confident that He has the authority and power to guide all things. “If God is for us, who can be against us?” (Romans 8:31).

There may be reformation or revival, like in the time of Josiah (2 Kings 22-23). Or God may have good plans for another civilization to take our place, as He has done to the Babylonian and Roman empires, along with so many others. Or He may usher us into glory today yet.

God doesn’t burden us with the future. Our task is to focus on the present. We can use each day He has given us to build on the foundation of Jesus Christ, confident that “if the work that anyone has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward” (1 Cor 3:14).

As such, it doesn’t matter so much if Canada still exists in 2040. We know with certainty that God’s kingdom will endure.



News

A renewed hunger for the Bible

Data from the Association of American Publishers reveals that the biggest sales increase among all categories of books being published last year in the United States was religious books – up 18.5 percent from the previous year. This comes on the heels of similar growth the previous year.

Publishers Weekly asked these publishers what was driving the increase and the answer was Bibles, Bible study materials, commentaries, and devotionals.

“Christianity and Scripture and the people who write from these perspectives hit people where they live” explained Shane White, divisional VP for sales at InterVarsity Press. “That's why we see the sales we see."

"Whatever denomination you're in, whatever your religious background, you're engaging the Bible more now than you did 10 years ago," noted Bob Gaudet, the executive VP of marketing and publicity for Baker Publishing Group.

Although there isn’t data of Bible sales in Canada, the Canadian Bible Society distributed 631,298 Bibles and pieces of Scripture in 2024, a 20.1 percent increase from the previous year, which was already 22.5 percent more than the previous year.

In Isaiah 55:10-11, God reminds us that just as the rain comes down from heaven to water the earth and make it sprout, giving us both seed for sowing and bread for eating, the same is true of His Word. “It shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose.” Praise be to God for giving more people an appetite for the Bread of Life (John 6:35).


Today's Devotional

September 18 - Brought near

“But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.” - Ephesians 2:13 

Scripture reading:Acts 8:26-40

There is a legend in Ethiopia that after the conversion of the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8,  the Ethiopian eunuch then took the gospel down to Ethiopia, and established the Christian church in that place. That legend >

Today's Manna Podcast

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

One non conforming faith

Serving #969 of Manna, prepared by Julius VanSpronsen, is called "One non conforming faith" and is based on Romans 7.











Red heart icon with + sign.
Parenting

4 problems with State-funded daycare

…and the erosion of the family that the Church isn’t talking about enough **** Orthodox Christians are champions of the family, and rightly so. Stretching back to the beginning of history, marriage – and, by extension, the family – was the first institution that God created (Gen. 2:18, 24-25). Chronologically, the family supersedes the State, the Church, and any other institution in society. For that reason, Christians often call the family the “basic unit” or “basic institution” of society. Inseparable from the concept of the family is the principle that parents have the primary responsibility to care for the children that God has entrusted to them. This responsibility springs from the unique, natural relationship between parents and their children. Over the first few months and years of their lives, most children are raised almost exclusively by their parents. Over time, parents may gradually delegate some of their responsibility to professional caregivers and teachers. However, their right and responsibility as primary caregivers are never forfeited; they are only delegated. Ultimately, parental responsibilities towards their children are non-transferable. This responsibility is not only natural but also biblical. Throughout the Bible, God commands parents to teach their children the law of God, their shared history, and their religious practices. The wisdom of the book of Proverbs is imparted as from parents to children: “Hear, my son, your father's instruction, and forsake not your mother’s teaching.” Deuteronomy 6:7 also says that the people of God, “…shall teach diligently to your children and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise.” Although the Bible teaches that parents bear the primary responsibility to raise their children, it does not indicate that parents are required to do it alone. All parents need assistance in this task. In the Reformed tradition, we even make commitments at the baptism of our children to “instruct them in these things or have them instructed in them” (from the “Form for the Baptism of Infants,” in the Book of Praise). We acknowledge, basically from day one, that there may be others involved in the raising and teaching of our children. Because of this natural and biblical basis, Christians have traditionally advocated for primary parental responsibility in matters of modern education (for example, by advocating for parental choice on whether to homeschool or which school to send their children to). But as the church and individual Christians became less directly involved in delivering education, the government gradually took on more responsibility in this area. Public schools have been available options for more than 100 years now. Almost 90% of Canadian children now attend a fully funded, secular public school for the greater part of their childhood and adolescence. This has had an immense impact on our culture and ongoing transformation into a secular society. Now, governments in Canada are proposing the single greatest expansion of state authority over the family in the past century in the form of child care policy. And Christians aren’t even batting an eye. The State’s plans for childcare When governments and advocacy groups speak of child care, they generally mean non-parental, institutionalized daycare, where trained professionals care for children from a wide variety of households in a daycare facility. (Because child care should refer to the care of a child no matter who provides the care, we’re going to use the term daycare to refer to this professionalized, institutionalized form of child care.) Daycare typically focuses on children aged 0-5. Recently, daycare has been undergoing a transformation away from being about just caring for children and towards early childhood education. For example, British Columbia recently moved responsibility for child care under the Ministry of Education. This signals that, in essence, the government wants schooling to start at an even earlier age. In their 2021 budget, the Canadian federal government earmarked $30 billion over the next five years to daycare, with an annual commitment of $9.2 billion by 2026 and beyond. Their goal is to cut daycare fees in half by 2022 and to ensure universal $10 per day daycare is available to all parents by 2026. Subsidizing and regulating daycare falls within provincial responsibility, so the federal government will have to coordinate their efforts with the provinces. This is similar to how Canada’s health care system works: the provinces are responsible for health care, but the federal government provides provincial governments with billions of dollars in funding under the condition that their health care system meet certain national criteria. Now, although each province requires all children to receive a formal education, there is no such requirement that all children must attend daycare. As it stands right now, the provinces are only planning to make universal, subsidized childcare available for those who want it. Prior to the pandemic, the parents of 57.6% of children wanted non-parental child care, despite the current high cost of such child care. The government – and many daycare advocates – are keen to establish government-funded daycare spots for a variety of reasons. Their primary argument is that access to daycare helps achieve gender equity for women by relieving mothers (who are disproportionately involved in child care) of the responsibility for caring for children. This enables more women to be employed and narrows the labour force participation rate gap between men and women. Second, advocates think that subsidized daycare will make life more affordable for the average Canadian family. Third, they claim that early childhood learning programs and quality daycare lead to better outcomes for children. Four problems with State-funded daycare Why is this approach to child care something Christians should be concerned about? There are at least four problems with this model: #1: Subsidized daycare encourages more parents to spend less time with their children If parents are ultimately responsible for raising their children, particularly young children, then subsidizing daycare encourages parents to hand off responsibility for raising their children to others while they pursue economic goals or search for self-fulfillment outside of the home. A classic principle of economics is that when you subsidize something, which is functionally the same as lowering the cost of something, people demand more of it. They demand more of it because it is cheaper for them. The same principle holds true for daycare. If the government subsidizes daycare, some parents who already use daycare a couple of days a week will find it convenient to use it for the entire week. Or some might start sending their child at age 3 instead of age 4. Other parents, enticed by the lower cost of daycare, will start sending their children to daycare for the first time. Obviously, the time that children spend in daycare is time not spent with their parents. #2: Subsidized daycare encourages parents to see children as a burden rather than a blessing The primary argument in favor of subsidizing daycare sees children as a burden rather than a blessing. Supporters of subsidizing daycare view it as a way to increase women’s participation in the labor force and the economy. Without access to daycare, women are “stuck at home” or “forced to stay home” to care for their child(ren). This is against their presumed “true desire” to rejoin the workforce, either to find fulfillment in a career or a higher material standard of living. According to this mindset, children are not a blessing, but a burden on the career advancement or financial stability of parents, particularly mothers. Subsidizing daycare contributes to this mentality.  #3: Subsidized daycare fails to appreciate the choice of some parents to care for their own children The subsidization of daycare underappreciates the decisions of some parents to stay at home and care for their own children. Our broader culture already looks down upon this decision as, at best, a waste of time or talent or, at worst, perpetuating outdated or sexist stereotypes. This disregard will only grow if our provincial governments support only daycare. For Christian parents who choose to raise and/or educate their own children, they would be required to pay taxes to support publicly funded daycare while also forgoing the income of a second parent in the workforce that most other families enjoy. In a country where the cost of living – particularly housing – is rising quickly, this extra taxation without any resulting benefit makes it more and more difficult for a parent to prioritize raising their children themselves.  #4: Daycare is not in the best interest of all children In discussions around daycare, many advocates speak primarily of the benefits to parents, particularly women. But what about the children? Are daycare programs good for all children? A significant body of evidence suggests not. In their 2019 report A Positive Vision for Child Care Policy Across Canada, Cardus describes how Quebec’s universal, subsidized daycare led to poor outcomes for children. A working paper published by Baker, Gruber, and Milligan finds a correlation between attendance of an institutionalized childcare center and lower social and behavioral skills.* These findings should not be surprising when we look at the biblical pattern of parents having the ultimate responsibility for raising their children. God designed the structure of a family, and we know He designed it for His glory, our good, and the greater good of society. What can we do? For these reasons, Christians should be critics of universal subsidized daycare. Yet, this change in government policy is an opportunity for Christians for at least two reasons. First, we should continue to praise parents who fully embrace the responsibility to care for and educate their children themselves. The child care provided by stay-at-home parents has been discounted for decades. We live in a capitalist culture driven by goals of productivity and career advancement where many find their primary identity in their work. We also live in a secular culture dominated by individualism and materialism where being a stay-at-home parent is often met with disdain. We need to laud parents who make sacrifices in other areas of life to fulfill this responsibility well. We should support policies that enable parents to care for and educate their children themselves rather than encouraging parents to pass this responsibility to others at earlier and earlier ages. Secondly, daycare is an incredible opportunity for the Church. Canadians are calling for a government-supported daycare program because they often don’t have the social networks to help them in this task. Many families need daycare due to poverty, disability or sickness, or single parenthood, and we know that childhood years are fundamental in shaping children’s character. Rather than leaving only non-Christians to care for and educate young children, Christians should also pursue childcare careers and make child care a mission field. Conclusion Subsidized daycare is often presented as a pro-family policy because it reduces the expenses of many families. Although it might materially enrich some families in the short-term, however, it is more aptly characterized as a get-moms-back-to-“real”-work strategy. Our culture increasingly thinks children should be entrusted to professionals over parents. Parents, relieved of their duty, are then expected to work full-time. Extending significant funding to daycares will entrench this mentality in our society and perhaps increasingly creep into the Church. Instead, government policy ought to emphasize that the care of children is primarily the responsibility of parents, and this is a task – and calling – to be taken up with joy. We have a window of opportunity to influence the shape of childcare systems now as these systems are being formed, but it will be much harder to change these systems once they are in place. Consider the points raised above, talk about it with your family and friends, consider how you can be a salt and a light to the world around us, and start a dialogue with your representatives today. Endnote * Michael Baker, Jonathan Gruber, Kevin Milligan. (2019). The Long-Run Impacts of a Universal Child Care Program. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy. 11; 3. p. 1-26 Levi Minderhoud is the BC Manager, and Anna Nienhuis is a policy analyst and editor for ARPA Canada....

Red heart icon with + sign.
History, Parenting

Questioning daycare and preschool: how young is too young?

In this twenty-first century, more and more children are being relegated to daycare or other institutions that look after them for a great many hours each day outside of the parental home. According to the US Census Bureau, as of 2015, about 3.64 million children were enrolled in public kindergartens in the United States, and another 428,000 in private ones. Statistics Canada reported that in 2011, almost half (46%) of Canadian parents reported using some type of childcare for their children, aged 14 years and younger, during that year.  Many children obviously spend more time with childcare providers than with their family. Various studies have shown that young children who spend time in daycare may bond less with their mothers than those who stay home.  And it has also been concluded by other studies, that children who attend daycare experience more stress, have lower self-esteem and can be more aggressive. “Even a child,” Proverbs 20:11 tells us, “is known by his actions, by whether his conduct is pure and right.” It seems a simple enough proverb and easy to understand.  We have all encountered children’s actions – at home around the supper table, in a supermarket while we were shopping, in a classroom setting or on the street – and frequently found their actions lacking in moral wisdom.  Greed, selfishness, anger, sloth and you name it, these vices surround cherubic faces like black halos. So it neither surprises nor shocks us when Proverbs adds commandments such as: “Do not withhold discipline from a child; if you punish him with the rod he will not die. Punish him with the rod and save his soul from death” (Prov. 23:13-14). “He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is careful to discipline him” (Prov. 13:24). But what does that have to do with preschool and daycare? Read on. Johann Heinrich Pestalozzi: education is key to a better society To understand today’s education system we need to know something of its history. On January 12, 1746, Johann Heinrich Pestalozzi (pronounced Pesta–lotsi) was born in Zurich, Switzerland.  His father died when he was only 6 years old and Johann was sent to school with the long-term goal of becoming a pastor. As he grew older he developed a keen desire and vision to educate the poor children of his country.  After completing his studies, however, and making a dismal failure of his first sermon, he exchanged the pulpit for a career in law. He reasoned within himself that perhaps he might accomplish more for the poor children of his country through law than through preaching.  But after studying law, as well as opting for a number of other careers, in the long run Pestalozzi ended up standing behind a teacher's lectern. Now, throughout these formative years Johann Pestalozzi had been greatly influenced by Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Rousseau was that philosopher who repudiated original sin and who penned the words: “there is no original perversity in the human heart.” Pestalozzi fell for these false words – he fell hook, line and sinker. Consequently, his principles in teaching strongly reflected the view that education could develop the pure powers of a child's head, heart and hand.  He thought, and he thought wrongly, that this would result in children capable of knowing and choosing what is right. In other words, educating students in the proper way would evolve towards a better society.  Such a thing happen could only happen if human nature was essentially good and it was on this principle that Pestalozzi based his teaching. Pestalozzi died in 1827 and his gravestone reads: Heinrich Pestalozzi: born in Zurich, January 12, 1746 – died in Brugg, February 17, 1827.  Saviour of the Poor on the Neuhof; in Stans, Father of the orphan; in Burgdorf and Munchenbuchsee, Founder of the New Primary Education; in Yverdon, Educator of Humanity. He was an individual, a Christian and a citizen. He did everything for others, nothing for himself!  Bless his name! As the engraving indicates, Pestalozzi was much admired, and his approach to education lived on after him, having a massive influence on various educators who followed. Friedrich Froebel: the father of Kindergarten One such person was a man by the name of Friedrich Froebel.  Born in Oberweissbach, Thuringia in 1782, he was the fifth child of an orthodox Lutheran pastor.  Interestingly enough, the boy heard his father preach each Sunday from the largest pulpit in all Europe. On it you could fit the pastor and twelve people, a direct reference to the twelve apostles. Friedrich's mother died when he was only nine months old. Perhaps his father did not have time for the boy, because when he was ten years old, he was sent to live with an uncle.  During his teenage years he was apprenticed to a forester and later he studied mathematics and botany. When he was 23, however, he decided for a career in teaching and for a while studied the ideas of Pestalozzi, ideas he incorporated into his own thinking.  Education should be child-centered rather than teacher-centered; and active participation of the child should be the cornerstone of the learning experience. A child with the freedom to explore his own natural development and a child who balanced this freedom with self-discipline, would inevitably become a well-rounded member of society. Educating children in this manner would result in a peaceful, happy world. As Pestalozze before him, Froebel was sure that humans were by nature good, as well as creative, and he was convinced that play was a necessary developmental phase in the education of the “whole” child.  Dedicating himself to pre-school child education, he formulated a curriculum for young children, and designed materials called Gifts. They were toys which gave children hands-on involvement in practical learning through play. He opened his first school in Blankenburg in 1837, coining the word “kindergarten” for that Play and Activity Center.  Until that time there had been no educational system for children under seven years of age. Froebel’s ideas found appeal, but its spread was initially thwarted by the Prussian government whose education ministry banned kindergarten in 1851 as “atheistic and demagogic” because of its “destructive tendencies in the areas of religion and politics.” In the long run, however, kindergartens sprang up around the world. Mom sends me to preschool My mom was a super-good Mom as perhaps all Moms are who make their children feel loved.  And how, at this moment when she has been dead and buried some 25 years, I miss her. She had her faults, as we all do, and she could irritate me to no end at times, as I could her.  But she was my Mom and I loved her.  She was an able pastor’s wife and supported my Dad tremendously.  Visiting numerous families with him, (in congregations in Holland she would walk with him to visit parishioners), she also brewed innumerable cups of tea for those he brought home. Always ready with a snack, she made come-home time after school cozy for myself and my five siblings, of whom I was the youngest. In later years, being the youngest meant that I was the only one left at home, and it meant we spent evenings together talking, knitting, embroidering, reading and laughing.  She was so good to me. Perhaps, in hindsight, I remember her kindness so well because I now see so much more clearly a lot of selfish attributes in myself – attributes for which I wish I could now apologize to my Mom. My Mom was diagnosed with breast cancer when I was 32 – a young mother myself, with five little sets of hands tugging at my apron strings.  I was devastated.  But my quiet mother who always had been so nervous in leading ladies’ Bible studies and chairing women's meetings, was very brave.  She said she literally felt the prayers of everyone who loved her surround her hospital bed.  She had a mastectomy, went into remission and lived eight more good years Many young mothers are presently faced with a fork in the road decision – shall I go back to work or shall I stay home?  Should I send my children to daycare, and thus help pay off the mortgage or should I stay home and change diapers?  Times are tough.  Groceries have to be bought, gas prices are ever increasing, and so is school tuition. I delve back into my memories and remember – remember even now as my age approaches the latter part of three score plus years – that my father and mother placed me in a Froebel School, a preschool, when I had just turned four years old.  I was not thrilled about the idea.  As a matter of fact, I was terrified. My oldest sister, who was eleven years my senior, was given the commission of walking me down the three long blocks separating our home from the school which housed my first classroom. My sister was wearing a red coat and she held my hand inside the pocket of the coat.  It must have been cold.  When we got to the playground which was teeming with children, she took me to the teacher on duty.  I believe there was actually only one teacher.  My sister then said goodbye to me and began to walk away. The trouble was, I would not let go of the hand still ensconced in the pocket of her coat.  The more she pulled away, the tighter I clung – and I had begun to cry.  Eventually the lining of the pocket ripped.  My sister, who was both embarrassed and almost crying herself, was free to leave. I was taken inside the school by the teacher. It is a bleak memory and still, after all this time, a vivid memory.  I do not think, in retrospect, that my mother wanted to get rid of me. Froebel schools were touted as being very good for preschool children.  She, a teacher herself with a degree in the constructed, international language of Esperanto, possibly thought she was being progressive as well as making more time to help my father serve the congregation. Dr. Maria Montessori, a follower of Heinrich Froebel, established the Dutch Montessori Society in 1917.  By 1940, 5% of the preschools in Holland were following the Montessori system and 84% called themselves Froebel schools or Montessori schools.  The general nametag is kleuterschool, (kleuter is Dutch and means a child between 4 and 6).  Today the age limit is younger because of the increased interest in sending children of a younger age to school.  Creativity and free expression are the curriculum norm. Most of the memories I have of attending the Froebel school, (and let me add that it was for half days), are not pleasant.  I recall braiding long, colored strips of paper into a slotted page. Afraid to ask permission to go to the bathroom, I also recall wetting my pants while sitting in front of a small wooden table in a little blue chair.  My urine dripped onto the toes of the teacher as she passed through the aisle, checking coloring and other crafts.  Such an experience as I gave that teacher cannot have been inspiring for her.  Perhaps she always remembered it as one of the most horrible moments of her career. In any case, she took me by the hand to the front of the class and made me stand in front of the pot-bellied stove. Skirts lifted up behind me, she dried me off with a towel.  Then she made me stay there as she put the little blue chair outside in the sunshine. At lunchtime she brought me home on the back of her bicycle.  Knocking at our door, she called up to the surprised figure of my mother standing at the top of the stairs. (We occupied the second and third floor of a home.) “Your daughter’s had an accident.” I think I dreamt those words for a long, long time afterwards.  But this I also clearly recall, that my mother was not angry. Would I have been a better child had my mother kept me at home?  Felt more secure?  More loved?  Perhaps. Perhaps not.  There is always the providence of God which like a stoplight on a busy street corner abruptly halts one in condemning the actions of another. God had a purpose for me, no doubt about it, in all that occurred in my life – whether things during preschool days or later.  And so He has in all our lives. Conclusion We live at a time when everything is fast-paced – food, travel, and entertainment. What we often don’t realize is that time is also fast – fast and fleeting – gone before we know it.  Our little children, sinful from the time of conception, two years old today, will be twenty tomorrow and thirty the day after that.  And when they wear out the coat of their allotted time span, will it have mattered who fed them each meal, who read books to them, who played with them and who disciplined them? When we think back to the Proverbs we started with, we realize this is a question we have to answer with the Bible as our guidebook. The strange thing is that I now regret that I did not spend more time with my mother when she was old.  I loved her very much and love usually translates into time. For parents concerned with mortgage and groceries and other bills, the simple Proverb "Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways acknowledge Him, and He will make your paths straight” (Proverbs 3:5-6) is good to hang over their lintels.  First things should be put first.  I have never heard God’s people say that He has forsaken them....





Red heart icon with + sign.
News

Millions distributed to Canada’s legacy media during election campaign

While the media was covering the federal election, the newly formed Canadian Journalism Collective (CJC) started its first handouts of cash from the enormous pot of $100 million that it is now mandated to give to Canadian news outlets each year. The funding comes from money that Google was required to pay in order to comply with the Liberal government’s Bill C-18, the Online News Act, which passed through Parliament in 2023. As revenue has dwindled for the legacy media, the Liberal government has been very motivated to step in with their own funding, both directly and indirectly. In addition to its $1.4 billion in annual funding of the CBC, it provided about $885 million of other media handouts in the past five years. The Hub, a relatively new media organization which doesn’t support government funding, reached out to Canada’s largest legacy media companies to ask if they received any of this money, how much they got, and whether they would be willing to disclose this during the election campaign. None of the organizations would commit to this. Why does this matter? We can’t serve two masters – if the media is supposed to be the servant of the public, holding the government to account, it can’t also be in the employ of that government. Last year, Reformed Perspective turned down an opportunity to receive substantial funding from the “Special Measures for Journalism” component of the Canada Periodical Fund. By God’s grace, our readers not only covered all our bills, they provided the means for us to grow our circulation and expand our team. Thank you for being the means through which we can continue to celebrate God’s truth, without being beholden to the government....

Red heart icon with + sign.
Media bias, News

Canada's news ban one year later

It's been a year now since Meta banned Canadian news from its Facebook and Instagram platforms, in response to Canada's 2023 "Online News Act." This Act required large "digital news intermediaries" – only Google and Meta met the criteria – to compensate Canadian news outlets for news articles the social media giants shared on their platforms. Instead of paying up, Meta instead chose to stop sharing these news links. Now, a year later, a report from the Media Ecosystem Observatory (MEO) highlights how the ban has hurt Canadian media's online presence. The report estimated that pre-ban, Canadian news outlets' social media engagement amounted to more than 19 million a day, but post ban that has dropped by 8 million or roughly 43%. It has hit local news particularly hard because many were only on Facebook, and not other platforms. The results also include almost a third of Canadian news outlets going effectively dark on the social web, no longer posting to it. 770 outlets were posting prior to the ban, and a year later that's down by 215. So in some pretty significant ways the Online News Act is hurting, rather than helping, Canadian news outlets. The premise behind the Act was always flawed. It was built on the presumption that by linking to news articles, these two companies, in some way, owed the news outlets something. Google and Meta were making money off of sharing these news links, as Facebook, YouTube, and Instagram rank one, two, and three among the places Canadians turn to for their news. Being a home to these links brought more traffic, which meant more ad revenue. But Meta and Google were helping their bottom line by also helping these news outlets. Any online creator, big or small, wants their content shared – that's how we can reach further. No shares means no reads, watches, or listens. That's why companies will pay Meta and Google to share their posts – so we can reach more people. The idea of penalizing these companies for sharing links to news articles is akin to penalizing them for giving out free promotional ads. Both Google and Meta threatened to simply stop carrying any Canadian news – if what they were doing was going to be viewed as theft, then they would stop "stealing." However, shortly before the Act came into force, Google negotiated an agreement with the Canadian government, giving it $100 million a year to be distributed as the government so decides. The Act becomes yet another medium for the Liberal government to direct dollars to the media outlets it wants to support. Meta held firm – it would not pay – so it chose instead to stop allowing Canadian news shares on its platforms. The government backed them into a corner, and they decided to show just how helpful (and not harmful) they were to Canada's news outlets... by no longer helping them. A year later, and the point has been well made. Canadians are still turning to Facebook and Instagram for their news, but there isn't much to find. The Online News Act has effectively prevented many Canadians from being able to access Canadian news coverage. So, will the government learn its lesson and back down? Or is the Liberal government happy with Canadians being limited in their access to Canadian news? If that first doesn't happen, it only makes the second seem quite plausible....