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

Articles, news, and reviews that celebrate God's truth.

Open envelope icon with @ symbol

Get Articles Delivered!

Articles, news, and reviews that celebrate God's truth. delivered direct to your Inbox!



Being the Church

A principled (and practical) guide to tithing

Twice every Sunday the offering plate comes your way. What do you do? Do you chip in whatever you have in your wallet, do you have a cheque already written out, or will you send an e-transfer later in the week? Do you abide by whatever tithing tradition your parents instilled in you, or look around to see what everyone else does, or do you have your own rationale of how to give?

How we tithe is an intensely practical question for everyone, but perhaps one that you’ve not given much thought. Here are some biblical principles for tithing, followed by some practical suggestions, from my experience as a deacon and as a manager of a personal household budget, of how to apply these biblical principles in our offerings.

1. God owns everything

The first principle that we need to recognize when we consider tithing is the fact that everything ultimately belongs to God and not to us. As the Creator and Sustainer of all things and the Redeemer of His people, God not only is the ultimate owner of everything, but we owe Him everything. Like the servants in the parable of the talents (Matt. 25:14-39), we are merely temporary stewards of the blessings that God has given us.

The tithe – 10% – is a reminder of that fact. Abram offered the first recorded tithe in Genesis 14, when he gave a tenth of the spoils from the defeat of Chedorlaomer to Melchizedek, the priest of God Most High. Jacob also vowed to give God a tenth of everything (Gen. 28:22). This voluntary tithe was enshrined in God’s law in Numbers 18:21-24, when God commanded the Israelites to give a tithe every year to support the Levites and the tabernacle.

The disposition of our heart should not be “how little of my hard-earned money do I have to part with” but “how much of God’s blessings am I able to give back to Him?”

2. Our heart (not just the %) matters

We see cheerful and abundant giving throughout Scripture, whether it was the Israelites giving overabundantly for the construction of the temple (Ex. 35:20-36:7), the early Church freely sharing their possessions (Acts 4:32-37), and later congregations collecting for needy churches (Rom. 15:25-28, 1 Cor. 16:1-4, 2 Cor. 8:1-5, 2 Cor. 9:1-15).

It is entirely possible to give large sums of money to the LORD but without the right motivation. In Acts 5, Ananias and Sapphira sold a piece of property and gave some of the proceeds to the disciples. And yet they wound up dead because of their dishonesty. Instead, in 2 Corinthians 9:7, Paul famously reminds believers that

“each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.”

While it may be relatively easy to change our giving patterns, changing our heart from being a reluctant, to a cheerful, giver may be far harder. Yet we serve a God who delights more in a pure heart than external sacrifice, and we need to recognize that our giving should come from gratitude over God’s grace delivering us from our guilt. So we must set our hearts in the right direction when we give.

3. First fruits

The Bible also speaks to when we give. Men like Abel gave “the firstborn of his flock and of their fat portions” (Gen. 4:4) Throughout the books of the law, God commands the people of Israel to bring to Him the first fruits – not their last fruits – of their field and their flocks. Calling upon His people to bring their first fruits was a way that God set the priorities of His people: give to Me first and provide for yourselves after.

This practice also fostered a trust in God’s people that He would provide if His people obeyed Him and gave their first fruits to Him. In the days of Malachi, when the people of Judah were robbing God of their tithes and contributions (possibly because they thought that they were too poor to afford to tithe), God calls the people to:

“Bring the full tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house. And thereby put me to the test, says the Lord of hosts, if I will not open the windows of heaven for you and pour down for you a blessing until there is no more need” (Malachi 3:10).

Questions to consider

With these general biblical principles established, here are some more practical suggestions of how we can live out these principles in our tithing.

A. How much should I give?
This is everyone’s biggest question as well as the one that will impact our lifestyle the most. And the usual Christian response is to tithe (to give 10% of our income).

But, interestingly, most Israelites were commanded to give more than a 10% tithe. God also commanded a second tithe every year to fund ceremonial feasts and festivals (Deut. 14:22-27). And every three years, the people were to give a third tithe that was to go not only to the Levite but also the poor (Deut. 14:28-29). They were also to provide for the poor in other ways that would have a financial cost, such as allowing the poor to glean the droppings and corners of the field (Lev. 19:9). So, in reality, the Israelites arguably tithed as much as 23.33% annually. (I say “arguably” because some theologians like John Calvin thought that the tithe to the poor every three years was simply a further explanation of how to spend the first tithe to the priests and Levites.)

We live in a different time period today. The civil and ceremonial law apply differently to the Church today. We don’t support one thirteenth of the population of the Church with our tithes (as the twelve tribes had to support the tribe of Levi in the Old Testament). We don’t have a calendar of feasts and festivals that require another tithe. Various institutions of society, such as the government, do a lot of the work of providing for the poor (through the taxes we pay). And so that strict command to give away 10% (or 20% or 23.33%) of our income may not bind us today.

But I still think that a 10% tithe is a good minimum for us all to strive to give. Even if you’re a student working a part-time job, an unemployed man collecting EI, or a retiree living off a pension, aim to give at least 10% back to the LORD. In Mark 12:41-44, Jesus watched many rich people putting large sums of money into the temple treasury. We have no idea what percentage of their regular income they brought. Perhaps some brought 5%, thinking that the sheer amount of money that they gave was more important than the relative percentage of the income they gave. Perhaps some brought exactly 10%, giving just as much as the law required, no more and no less. And perhaps some brought 15%, priding themselves on exceeding the demands of the law. But then a poor widow comes in and gives two small copper coins. Jesus says to His disciples:

“Truly, I say to you, this poor widow has put in more than all those who are contributing to the offering box. For they all contributed out of their abundance, but she out of her poverty has put in everything she had, all she had to live on.”

In other words, the widow gave 100%.

While we may not be called to give every cent that we earn to the Church, in The Ministry of Mercy, Timothy Keller calls Christians to give “sacrificially, until their lifestyle is lowered.” Following the call in Galatians 6:2 to bear one another’s burdens, he suggests that “we must give so that we feel the burden of the needy ourselves.” In support of this, he quotes Jonathan Edwards, who said,

“If we be never obliged to relieve others’ burdens, but when we can do it without burdening ourselves, then how do we bear our neighbor’s burdens, when we bear no burdens at all?”

Keller’s book is a real challenge to Christians to give more than just 10%.

Those more well off could and should give more. In 1 Corinthians 16:2, Paul commands the Corinthians “to put something aside and store it up, as he may prosper.” Those whom God has prospered are in a position to give more than those who are struggling. To use an example, those of us who earn the median family income in Canada of $98,390 and tithe 10% would give away almost $10,000. Those who earn double that – nearly $200,000 – and still give 10% would give $20,000. The rate of giving is equal. And the richer family gives away more. But who feels the impact of that tithe more?

The average family.

They might have to give up a vacation, live in a smaller house, or pass on enrolling their children in organized sports. The comparatively richer family probably doesn’t have to give up these things and could give far more before they really began feeling it.

B. Tithing pre-tax or post-tax?
If you do decide to give a certain percentage of your income regularly to the Church (say, 10%), some might ask, “should that 10% be pre-tax or post-tax?” Our response to this question may reveal where God and His Church are on our priority list.

Most of us don’t get the full amount of our paycheque. Even before our earnings are deposited into our bank account or we pick up our paycheque, the government takes its share, roughly about 25% of our salary through income taxes, CCP contributions, and EI premiums. If we give 10% of our take-home paycheque, what are we implicitly saying? That the government is entitled to its share first and in full and God gets a tithe of our second fruits (and a lesser amount to boot).

So consider giving of your income pre-tax, before the government claims its share.

C. Tithing at the beginning or end of the month?
Perhaps this isn’t a significant question in your mind, but again it may reveal your heart. If you write a monthly cheque or pre-authorize any bank withdrawals to the Church on the last day of the month, what does that say about your priorities? Are your priorities to make sure that you have enough money to pay your rent, your grocery bill, and your credit card statement and then give some of whatever is left over to the Church? Might this be how you implicitly think about giving?

And so, consider determining, as soon as you get your paycheque, what you are going to give back to God and His Church, giving to God of your first fruits rather than your leftovers.

D. Can I let the offering bag pass me by?
This is another question that many people would raise an eyebrow at. As long as I give my 10%, who cares when I give it?

As a deacon, I saw some people would wave away the offering bag during a service, implying that they had nothing to give that service. Others would write a few (though substantial) cheques a few times a year but give little during the remainer of the year. When December rolled around, we would often collect three or four times our usually monthly donations in a single month, suggesting that some people only gave at the end of the year.

A handful of people in the congregation gave much smaller amounts every week. We as deacons often thought to ourselves that we’d save a whole lot of time if we didn’t have to count as much cash, or input a lot of small cheques, from these frequent givers. But this attitude of giving a little bit every week again reflects a heart that always has giving back to the LORD written on it.

And again, there are Scriptural and confessional hints that we shouldn’t let the offering bag pass us by each Sunday. As already quoted in part, 1 Corinthians 16:2, says, “on the first day of every week, each of you is to put something aside and store it up , as he may prosper.” Based in part on this passage, Lord’s Day 38 of the Heidelberg Catechism, speaking of what God’s will for us is in the Fourth Commandment, says

“that the gospel ministry and schools for it be maintained, and that, especially on the festive day of rest, I diligently… bring Christian offerings for the poor.”

In the Old Testament, there are also a few warnings against appearing before the LORD empty-handed, even if these passages are not strictly related to tithing (Ex. 23:15, 34:20; Deut. 16:16).

So don’t let the offering bag pass you by. Even if the total amount that you give in a year doesn’t change, give often.

E. How can my tithing go the furthest?
Finally, we can be good stewards of our money by taking advantage of charitable tax advantages. Our federal and provincial governments give significant tax credits (typically 40-50%) to encourage charitable donations. That means that you can get up to 40-50% of your donations back on your tax return every year. If you are the average Canadian family earning $98,390, tithing 10%, and giving away almost $10,000, that could mean a return of $4,000-5,000. We are called to give taxes to whom taxes are due (Romans 13:6-7, Mark 12:13-17, Matthew 17:24-27), but if there are organizations that spend their money more efficiently or that labor more in the Kingdom of God than the government (and I’m sure we can think of many such organizations), making use of our charitable receipts is good stewardship. Through these tax benefits we can give even more generously to the most effective and godly organizations around us.

The key to getting that tax credit is that your donations need to bear your name so that your church can issue a tax receipt. So write cheques or donate cash in envelopes with your name on it. Cash tossed in the collection bag won’t get you a tax receipt, but I’ve heard of some churches allowing congregation members to buy “tokens” through cheque or directed cash so that they can get a tax receipt. This allows parents and children to still donate via the offering plate while taking full advantage of charitable tax receipts.

Conclusion

However you decide to give to your local church, consider both where your heart is and what your hands are doing. As James 2:18 says, “Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.”

That includes our tithing.



News

Saturday Selections – Mar. 29, 2025

Propaganda techniques (10 minutes)

This 1948 or 1949 movie highlights seven different propaganda techniques, and to be forewarned about them is to be forearmed. This could be great for a high school English class. Click the title above for the full 10-minute color presentation, or watch a 7-minute B&W abridgment below.

News or narrative – when the truth-tellers can't be trusted

What with images and video that can be faked so quickly and so skillfully, the biggest problem with our news consumption might be the speed at which we imbibe. When we just hit headlines, or read whoever the algorithm puts in front of us, we can't know if they are trustworthy – we can't know that this is true. So... slow down.

The slippery slope of theistic Darwinism

Howard Van Till was a physics professor at Calvin College who used to be "the pre-eminent example of an evangelical Christian scientist in the 1990s who defended Darwinian evolution."

Until he stopped being Christian.

Or even a theist.

Doctor Google, influencer moms, and the local Church

"I recently saw some Christian influencers offer a course on marriage, though they had been married for less than two years. They had paltry experience and undoubtedly little wisdom, but they did have a big platform. And many were eager to learn from them. God has carefully constructed his church so that, as much as we may benefit from those who are far off, we are likely to find the greatest and most credible help nearby. Your church has many seasoned saints who have spent their whole lives following the Lord and whose godliness is on display each and every time the church gathers."
- Tim Challies

A mid-life assessment

A pastor's wife discovers with age comes new:

"...temptations to impatience, ungraciousness, pride. This had surprised me then, but I now see this is true not just in ministry. I used to imagine I’d have to fight the same besetting sins my whole life, and while some old struggles still remain, I’ve found I need to also be vigilant for new ones."

Rend Collective: Build Your Kingdom Here

A song and a prayer.


Today's Devotional

April 3 - Why?

“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from saving me, from the words of my groaning? O my God, I cry by day, but you do not answer, and by night, but I find no rest.” - Psalm 22:1-2 

Scripture reading: Matthew 27:45-54

The word “why” is so compelling here. For here is no sigh of impatience >

Today's Manna Podcast

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

Psalm 4 Rest in prayer: Meditations from the Psalms

Serving #801 of Manna, prepared by Rev. Cody Swaving, is called "Psalm 4 Rest in prayer" (Meditations from the Psalms) and is based on Psalm 4.













Red heart icon with + sign.
Documentary, Movie Reviews, Religion - Mormons, Watch for free

The Bible vs. the Book of Mormon

Documentary 66 minutes Rating: 8/10 Which is the true sacred text: the Book of Mormon, or the Bible? That's quite the question, and this is quite the documentary, with narrator Joel Kramer tracking down experts, Christian and Mormon, to compare and contrast the two books. Kramer and his partner in this effort, Scott Johnson, are members of the Living Hope Christian Fellowship in Brigham City, Utah which has made a concerted effort to reach out to the Mormons all around them. They attempt to do so here by showing how the Bible is backed by history in a way that the Book of Mormon simply is not. The Book of Mormon is said to be a translation of ancient Egyptian, as it was set down on golden plates. It has different books in it, with the main narrative about ancient Israelites who ended up in the Americas before Christ, and were later visited by Him after his resurrection. These Israelites were divided into two groups, the Lamanites and the Nephites, who fought one another. That is a historical claim, but in contrast to the abundant archeological evidence for the historicity of the Bible, there isn't the same to back the Mormon account of ancient Israelites in the Americas. Now, a Mormon might note that absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence – just because we haven't found anything yet isn't definitive proof that we never will. That's true enough. However, the sheer weight of evidence – literally tons of it – on the biblical side still stands in stark contrast to the lack thereof for the Book of Mormon. If you like this film, you'll also appreciate this same group's documentaries DNA vs. the Book of Mormon, and The Bible vs. Joseph Smith, which you can purchase on DVD at Sourceflix.com. This one, though, you can watch for free, below. ...

Red heart icon with + sign.
Religion, Religion - Mormons

Mormons and Masons have their secrets. We don’t.

There’s nothing esoteric about the Christian faith. There is no secret mystery into which you must become initiated in order to be admitted. It’s not like the Gnostic sects where one had to become an initiate for years before he became a full member. Jesus spoke to this issue plainly when He said in John 18:19: "I have spoken openly to the world. I always taught in synagogues, or in the temple court, where all the Jews assemble, and I didn’t teach anything secretly." Christianity isn’t Masonry, or Mormonism, where you take vows “never to reveal and always to conceal” rituals that you are required to perform in a Lodge meeting or in a “temple” ceremony. It has always been completely aboveboard about its beliefs and practices. Indeed, as Jesus said, He always spoke “openly.” If an organization – or pseudo church – has anything worthwhile to offer, let it be open to examination. How can anyone vow to never reveal something before he knows what it is? That is one form of what the Bible calls a rash vow (Prov. 20:25, Eccl. 5:2-7, Judges 11:29-40). It is sinful to make a vow that one doesn’t know whether or not he ought to keep before he knows what it is he is vowing to keep secret. Suppose, after taking a vow, one were to realize that he must expose the error or sinfulness of what he learns – he’d then find himself in an intolerable position. On the one hand, he’d be obligated to expose it; on the other hand he would have vowed not to do so. That is an unacceptable dilemma, one into which one must never allow himself to be inveigled. One more thought – if a group of any sort has something worth becoming a part of, it has no right to conceal it from anyone; but like our Lord said, it is something that should be proclaimed “openly to the world.” If it’s worthwhile, spread it abroad. Why would you selfishly cling to it as private truth? If it’s not something worthwhile, then don’t get into it in the first place. On every score, then, no Christian should ever become involved in a secret society. A fundamental principle of our faith is to preach the message of salvation to all the world. We have nothing to hide. Dr. Jay Adams is Dean of the Institute for Nouthetic Studies and the author of more than 100 books. This post first appeared on his blog at www.nouthetic.org and is reprinted here with permission....



Red heart icon with + sign.
News

Dominion Report: a free and solidly Christian news source for Canadians

The Dominion Report is a Canadian news website (DominionReport.ca) and newsletter that offers up a Christian perspective on the week’s events. It delivers that perspective via two- to six-paragraph introductions to articles they link to from other media outlets. If you’re familiar with RP’s weekly Saturday Selections column, it’s a lot like that, but the Dominion Report goes a little longer and has more of a specifically news focus. As an example, last week’s edition offered up: Canadians' beliefs on the Resurrection a conservative student forced out of a university election a Chinese military hacker who was allowed to become a Canadian permanent resident how Toronto auto thefts have doubled since 2021 and a few more “quick hits” They’ve been online since mid-2023, and their past 35+ weekly newsletters showcase what sort of Christian perspective they are offering. I don’t know if it is specifically Reformed, but it is certainly a conservative sort of Christian, and strongly pro-life, with writers regularly turning to Scripture for guidance. Importantly, it doesn’t seem to be over-torqued. WORLD magazine, one of the very best Christian publications, has as one of their slogans, “sensational facts, understated prose.” We live in pretty outrageous times, so we don’t need anyone to hype up the hysteria, and from what I’ve read, the Dominion Report presents the facts with a pretty level head. Check them out at DominionReport.ca, and if you like what you see, be sure to sign up for their weekly newsletter. (Their RSS feed is DominionReport.ca/feed and you can find out how to use it here)....





Red heart icon with + sign.
Documentary, Movie Reviews, Pro-life - Abortion, Watch for free

The Missing Project

Documentary 2019 / 75 minutes RATING: 8/10 2019 was the 50th anniversary since Pierre Trudeau’s government first legalized abortion in Canada. To mark the occasion a number of pro-life organizations came together to make this film. This is, in part, a history lesson, detailing the country’s sad descent to where the unborn today have no protections under Canadian law. The Missing Project begins by explaining the divisions that exist among pro-lifers, between what’s called the “abolitionists” and the “incrementalists.” As ARPA Canada’s André Schutten clarifies: “In Canada, the pro-life movement is very split on the question of, 'How do we implement a law?' So some people within the pro-life movement are adamant that we can only ever advocate for a total ban on abortions . Whereas others, including myself and my team, we certainly believe that we can make incremental changes .” One of the film’s strengths is how it gives time to representatives from both these sides. Whatever camp pro-lifers might have fallen into, it was a confusing time after the abortion law was struck down in 1988 and the Mulroney government proposed Bill C-43. No one knew at the time that this would be the last abortion restricting legislation proposed by a Canadian government. Some pro-lifers opposed it, hoping for much more. In a horribly ironic twist, these pro-lifers were joined in their opposition to the bill by abortion advocates who didn’t want any restrictions at all. They say hindsight is 20/20 but that isn’t true in this case. Pro-lifers today still fall on both sides. We hear some arguing the bill would have done almost nothing, and then get to hear from one of the bill’s crafters who argues that it would have at least done more than the nothing we’ve had in place since then. Bill C-43 was defeated in the Senate on a tie. After hearing from the various sides, viewers will probably be grateful that they weren't Members of Parliament at the time, and didn’t have to decide whether to vote for or against this bill. After the historical overview, we start hearing about the many things that have been missing in the public debate about the unborn. First and foremost, there are all the missing children, millions killed before they saw the light of day. Missing, too, is any media coverage of their plight. While that violence is committed behind closed doors, Jonathon Van Maren notes the media also have no interest in covering violence done in broad daylight against pro-life demonstrators. "...abortion activists often take their core ideology to its logical extent, which is that they can react with violence to people they find inconvenient - that's the core message of the abortion ideology." A missing answer At one point an atheist lists herself as one of the missing voices in this debate. It is odd, then, that while she was given time to make her argument – that we need to present secular arguments so as to reach atheists like her who don’t care what the Bible says – we don’t hear anyone making the argument for an explicitly Christian pro-life witness. There are many Christians in the film, but no one answering this young atheist, explaining that if we are only the chance product of an uncaring universe, why, from that worldview, would anyone conclude life is precious from conception onward? She believes it, but not because of her humanist stance – it's only because God's Law is written on her heart (Romans 2:14-15). So not only is it our joy and privilege to glorify God in all we do (1 Cor. 10:31), even from a very practical perspective, proclaiming the triumph of the Author of Life is the only answer to a culture of death. Conclusion That said, this is a film every Canadian Christian should watch because there is something here for everyone. Even if you've been involved in the pro-life movement for 20 years, you are going to hear something you’ve never heard before.  If you don't want to watch, because the death of 100,000 children a year is simply too depressing a topic, the filmmakers made sure this film is also encouraging. For example, about two-thirds of the way through, when we could really use a brief reprieve, the director gave us a moment of delight. Dr. Chris Montoya explains how we know a baby is able to learn from the time of the first detectable heartbeat. I won’t give it away, but it involved a tuning fork and thumping mom’s tummy. In a film full of muted horror, this was a moment of wonder – a kid at two months can already respond!  Another reason The Missing Project is encouraging is because of the challenging note it ends on. We learn there are things that can be done to help these babies. We don’t have to just toss up our hands in despair.  Another reason for hope is that, although God is not mentioned, Christians can fill in the blanks. We can see God at work in these various organizations, and it isn’t hard to imagine how His people can ally with and make use of these groups to offer our own Christian pro-life witness. So watch, learn how to spot our culture’s pro-abortion lies, be challenged, discover all the opportunities, and then go spread the truth that every one of us is made in the very image of God, right from the moment of conception.  The Missing Project can be viewed, for free at WeNeedALaw.ca/MissingProjectFilm where you can also find discussion questions and tips on how to host a movie night. Check out the trailer below. For more, you can also check out the 50 individual interviews that started this project – one for each year abortion has been legal in Canada. You can find those on the Life Collective website and also on YouTube here. Some of these individual interviews do raise an explicitly Christian perspective. ...

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

DIRECTION MATTERS: the difference between legal, decriminalized, and regulated abortion, & why we support gestational limits

It has been 30 years now since the Supreme Court struck down Canada’s last abortion law in their R. v. Morgentaler decision (1988). Soon after, the Mulroney government made an attempt to craft a new law. But Bill C-43 was a piece of legislation that would have protected only some pre-born children. Those involved in Canada’s pro-life movement during the early 1990s were divided on whether or not an imperfect law was something they could support. Today this issue is still being debated. On the one side there are those who argue we should not support legislative measures that protect some but not all pre-born children. On the other side we are arguing for advancing abortion legislation one step at a time. We wholeheartedly believe that Bible-believing Christians can, in good conscience, support partial restrictions on abortion, including gestational limits. IN DEFENSE OF DEBATE Trying to save the pre-born is a fight to which many Christians have devoted a significant part of their lives. It is an issue we are passionate about and heavily invested in. It is, consequently, very hard for us to discuss strategy in a dispassionate manner. But when we turn to the Bible we see there is good reason to try. Proverbs 18:17 tells us, “The first to present his case seems right, until a second comes and questions him.” Finding out who is right is often aided by hearing both sides. Proverbs 27:17 makes a similar point: “Iron sharpens iron, and one man sharpens another.” We need to imitate the Bereans (Acts 17) who were willing to hear, but then went to the Scriptures to test what was being said to them. In what follows, we are going to make our case for the morality of advancing abortion legislation one step at a time. We know some will disagree, but we hope that we can interact, as fellow Christians, in a God-honoring manner, having patience with one another and showing love to each other, as we search for the truth on this matter. WHAT WAS UNCLEAR WITH BILL C-43 IS CLEAR TODAY It’s been 30 years since Canada’s abortion law was struck down and 27 years since its intended replacement, Bill C-43, was defeated in the Senate. Many pro-life organizations celebrated the bill’s defeat. It was a piece of legislation that, according to then justice minister Kim Campbell, abortionists would have “no need to fear.” She wrote: “The legislation is designed to protect a doctor from being convicted under the new law (and) protect nurses and other medical staff acting under the doctor’s direction.” While the bill did offer more restrictions on abortion than we presently have, when compared to the law the Supreme Court had struck down only three years before, it had far fewer protections for the pre-born. There was also some reason to hope that if this bill was defeated it could be replaced with a better one. Few would have expected that for the next three decades no such bill would be forthcoming. But here is the key point: the situation then was far murkier than it is today. Then it was unclear whether a better bill might be passed, and it was unclear whether this bill limited evil or expanded it. Compared to the completely lawless situation they then had, the bill offered some limitations. But compared to the previous abortion law from just three years before, this bill greatly expanded the evil that could be done. There is nothing murky about the situation we now find ourselves in. Today we have had 30 years of unfettered abortion, and 27 years of governmental cowardice – no prime minister has ever again tried to pass an abortion law. So if a bill is proposed today that offers any limitations on abortion, it would be clear what direction this is taking us: towards limiting evil, and away from its expansion. THE COUNTER-ARGUMENT But some pro-life groups are convinced that any law that saves only some is unjust, and can’t be supported. Their argument goes something like this: Since Canada has no abortion law, promoting a law that restricts only some abortions (for example, making abortions after 12 weeks illegal) would mean that we are legalizing and condoning all of the abortions that are not banned (e.g., those happening before 12 weeks). In a January 20, 2014 editorial, The Interim, a Canadian pro-life newspaper, put it this way: We...find politically motivated compromise that creates arbitrary demarcations to protect some human lives but not others to be abhorrent, adding the insult of age discrimination to the injury of death by abortion. Protecting pre-born life requires political action, not political compromise. So the question we have to answer is: if we promoted a law that would restrict abortion to 12 weeks’ gestation, would we be legalizing and/or condoning the abortions that are permitted? ON LEGAL AND ILLEGAL To answer that question properly, we have to understand what is actually meant by the terms legalizing, decriminalizing, and regulating. From there we will explain why we all should support regulating abortion. But by no means should we support abortion being legal, let alone condoned. Confused? It actually isn’t too complicated. Please take a few minutes to walk with us through a few points.  1. What is not illegal is legal In our legal system, unless something is illegal it is presumed to be legal. For example, walking your dog without a leash is presumed to be legal unless and until a bylaw is passed requiring a leash. We could not say, before the bylaw was passed, that walking your dog without a leash was not legal; it wasn’t illegal, and so it was legal. We also need to make a distinction between something being legal and something being legalized. The common use of the word “legal” can simply be interpreted as “allowed” or “permissible.” Similarly, the term “legalized” can mean the process of removing a prohibition against something that is currently not legal (i.e., the process of making something permissible). With abortion in Canada there are no laws that regulate the practice (although some doctors’ manuals might advise some limitations). So, there are no laws regulating which procedures can be used, how late in the pregnancy the procedure can be done, or what information should be shared with the patient. And there are no waiting periods, age restrictions, parental notifications, etc. Generally speaking, we can say that abortion in Canada is completely legal from conception until the child is fully outside its mother. Abortion has yet to be regulated since the 1988 decision of the Supreme Court made it fully legal. 2. New restrictions do not make abortion legal – it is already legal Even if there is no abortion law, abortion remains legal. Adding restrictions doesn’t make it legal, nor does it make abortion more legal. Some of what was legal is now made illegal (e.g., abortion after 12 or 18 weeks’ gestation), thereby saving some lives and limiting evil. That is exactly what the Bible calls the State to do – to limit evil. Some might object, “Wouldn’t a law prohibiting abortions after a certain number of weeks arbitrarily divide humans into ‘protected’ and ‘unprotected’ classes?” The continuum of human life begins at fertilization and ends at natural death. Currently under Canadian law only “born” humans have protection, so our law today already divides humans into “protected” and “unprotected” classes. If the law was changed to reflect increased protection by extending it to “pre-born” humans from 20 weeks to birth, then fewer babies would fall under the unprotected class, thus limiting the injustice of abortion. We certainly do and would support any initiative that would move more humans into the “protected” class. 3. In a country where there are no restrictions or laws pertaining to abortion, regulating abortion is a step toward making abortion illegal  We have already established that abortion is allowed in Canada for any reason. In this case, regulating it does not mean we are granting something that was illegal the legitimacy of legal status. Rather it means limiting and regulating by law something that once had absolutely no restrictions. Note as well that regulating abortion is worthy of support only if we are moving in a direction that limits abortion. In a 1968 Canada, our argument in favor of a gestational limit law would fail: a gestational limit of 12 weeks would have expanded evil, greatly increasing the number of children left unprotected. However, in a 2018 Canada, proposing such a gestational limit is fully in accord with the Bible because such a limit would restrict evil, greatly increasing the number of children protected. It is understandable that pro-life organizations do not like to promote a law that doesn’t protect all pre-born children. We would all much prefer to see a complete ban. But the alternative is to maintain the legal reality of abortion-on-demand. A ban is simply not possible in a democratic state in which the people’s hearts are against God and against life. The Bible teaches us that the role of politics is to restrict The reality is that the law won’t be able to eradicate evil. FURTHERMORE... Two further points need to be made. First, there is a very real sense in which all pro-lifers have already endorsed a step-by-step approach to eliminating abortion, even though these steps will protect only some children. All pro-lifers support efforts to defund abortion. By doing so, they support a process that would protect some children, but not others. Under defunding, abortion remains legal as long as the mother or the father pays for the abortion. Someone could argue, “I won’t support that defunding law because it only saves poor babies while all the babies of rich mothers who can afford the abortion will still be terminated.” That may be so, but defunding abortion is a step in the right direction. Such a law does not say that abortion is right; it does say (implicitly) that you can do it as long as you pay for it yourself. So consistency demands that those opposed to gestational limits should also object to abortion defunding. Or that those who support defunding also support gestational limits. Second, one of the objections to this step-by-step approach is that it supposedly condones the death of those we cannot yet save. But saving some does not mean we condone the death of those we can’t save. As Jonathon Van Maren pointed out in a 2012 article, many Jewish children were saved during the Second World War (including by some of our parents and grandparents) because they were small enough to hide in the homes of brave families who took them in. Not only could they hide, more could hide in a small space than adults or seniors. Nobody would ever say – or even think the thought – that, because these families saved children and not adults, they were condoning the deaths of the adults that they couldn’t save. Clearly then, when we can save only some, saving them does not condone the death of any others we could not save! OUR CHALLENGE In this article we’ve explained that gestational limits would not legalize abortion because it already is legal. We’ve also argued that saving some does not condone the death of those we cannot yet save. And we’ve tried to show that all pro-lifers already support legislative efforts that will protect only some children (in this case, the children of poor mothers). We want to conclude with a challenge. If you think we are wrong, please address these points one by one and explain why. Be specific. Please show how abortion in Canada is, in any sense, not already completely legal right now. Show how a gestational limit that will protect only some differs morally from a defunding effort that will protect only some. And explain why those who saved Jewish children weren’t condoning the death of their parents (who they couldn’t save), but today when we try to save some pre-born children (via a gestational limit) we are supposedly condoning the death of the children we aren’t able to save. CONCLUSION In Canada we have opportunity right now to save some of the many pre-born children being killed by abortion. We value them all. However, in today’s political, social and legal climate, we can’t save them all – we can’t eliminate this evil. But we can take steps to limit it. We can take steps to protect more and more children. We can save some now, while continuing to push for further protection for all children in the womb. Gestational limits would be a step in the wrong direction in any country in which abortion was currently banned. But in a country such as Canada, where all abortions are legal, this is a step in the right direction. This would restrict evil. So direction matters – it makes all the difference. Of course, political and legal action in the pro-life cause can’t happen in isolation, so this is certainly not the only pro-life work that needs to be done. Far from it! The political/legal action discussed above must happen in concert with continued education, abortion awareness, cultural engagement, prayer, crisis-pregnancy counseling, adoption efforts, etc. Together, and by God’s grace, we can work towards the end of state-sanctioned abortion in Canada! This is an updated version of an article that first appeared in the March 2014 issue of Reformed Perspective. Mike Schouten is the director of WeNeedALaw.ca, Mark Penninga and André Schutten are both with ARPACanada.ca, and Jon Dykstra is the editor of ReformedPerspective.ca....