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!



Magazine, Past Issue

July/Aug 2025 issue

WHAT'S INSIDE: Are you still able: A nation-wide challenge to experience life without screens / Creation stewards in a logging town / Who do you want to be? RP's 10-day screen-fast challenge / We took the no screens challenge... and now we're changing our habits / What can I do anyways? 35 screen-alternative ideas / Is TikTok the ultimate contraception? / How to stay sane in an overstimulated age / Defeated by distraction / How to use AI like a Christian boss / Who speeches were they? On AI, and others, writing for us / The Way / Who is Mark Carney? / What if we said what we mean? - the political party edition / Am I lazy or just relaxing? What does Proverbs say? / Get out of the game: Christians need to steer clear of sports gambling / Man up: ARPA leaderboards and the call to courageous action / Christians don't pray / Our forever home / Calvin as a comic / The best comics for kids / Fun is something you make: 11 times for family road trips / Come and Explore: Mr. Morose goes to the doctor / Rachel VanEgmond is exploring God's General Revelation / 642 Canadian babies were born alive and left to die / 90 pro-life MPs elected to parliament / Ontario shows why euthanasia "safeguards" can't work / RP's coming to a church near you / and more!

Click the cover to view in your browser
or click here to download the PDF (8 mb)



News, Pro-life - Euthanasia

MP says: No MAiD for the mentally ill

BILL C-218 PROPOSES TO SCRAP EXPANSION OF EUTHANASIA FOR MENTAL ILLNESS

*****

MP Tamara Jansen has introduced a new bill that would repeal the expansion of euthanasia to those with mental illness. Four years into the conversation about euthanasia for mental illness, we can be incredibly happy that there is another proposal to eliminate one of the most egregious parts of Canada’s euthanasia regime.

History of the planned expansion of euthanasia for those with a mental illness

Euthanasia for those with a mental illness was first raised in Bill C-7 in 2021, which originally set a date of March 17, 2023 when euthanasia for those with mental illness would be legalized. After a report by a committee of the Quebec legislature recommended against euthanasia for mental illness and an expert panel report on euthanasia for mental illness noted significant risks, the government passed Bill C-39, which delayed the expansion of euthanasia for mental illness until 2024.

As that date approached, former Member of Parliament Ed Fast introduced Bill C-314, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying). If passed, that bill would have repealed the expansion of euthanasia to those with mental illness as the only condition causing their request. Although that bill received unanimous support from the Conservative, NDP, and Green Party, along with 8 Liberals, it failed to pass by a vote of 150-167.

As ARPA noted at the time, such a close vote, especially on a social issue dealing with a matter of life and death for those with mental illness, sends a message that Canadians have serious reservations about expanding MAiD further. If only nine more MPs had voted in favour instead of against, the bill would have passed 2nd reading and advanced to committee for further study.

In response to the close defeat of the bill and in light of concerns raised by nearly every provincial government that they weren’t prepared, the government decided shortly after to delay the expansion of euthanasia for mental illness for a second time, this time until 2027. In the wake of the vote, the Conservatives – who had unanimously voted in favor of entirely repealing the expansion – were riding high in the polls, were expected to form government, and promised to repeal the expansion of MAiD to those with a mental illness. But Trudeau’s resignation and Carney’s ascension led to a different outcome in the recent election.

With no Conservative government in charge of things and no commitment from the Liberals to revisit the issue, MP Tamara Jansen used her opportunity to introduce a private member’s bill on the issue. Her Bill C-218 is identical to the previous one introduced by MP Ed Fast and intends to permanently eliminate – rather than just delay – the tragedy of euthanasia for mental illness.

The tragedy of euthanasia for mental illness

Every case of euthanasia is a murder. And every case of euthanasia in our health care system is fundamentally at odds with the central premise of health care of doing no harm. But extending MAiD to those with a mental illness is particularly tragic.

Simple logic dictates that MAiD isn’t appropriate for people with mental illness. People who have a mental illness are not able to give fully informed consent to MAiD. By definition, their reasoning isn’t entirely sound, and so they should not be put in a position where they could choose to end their life. We should be providing suicide prevention – not assisted suicide – for those who are suicidal because of a mental illness.

As a nation, we have poured resources into suicide prevention across the country, particularly for people with mental illness. Canada now has a suicide crisis hotline to help people escape suicidal ideation. We should continue do to this rather than encouraging suicide assistance through MAiD. Indeed, offering suicide assistance undermines suicide prevention efforts.

As a country, we raise awareness around mental illness and encourage people to seek help or treatment. For example, Bell Let’s Talk Day is all about reducing the stigma around mental illness and getting people the mental health care that they need. MAiD for mental illness entirely undercuts these efforts. Rather than encouraging people to access mental health care, legalizing MAiD for mental illness encourages people to end their lives instead.

To really drive home the tragedy of euthanasia for mental illness, consider this story that we shared with young people at ARPA Canada’s “God & Government” conference a few months ago:

It’s February, and as you’ve experienced it is cold, and snowy. Just behind Parliament Hill the wind howls across the Alexandria bridge.

It’s just after dinner time, and a man originally on his way home from the corner store is now standing on one of the struts that hold the bridge in place. Emergency vehicles have begun swarming around, the bridge has been cordoned off, and traffic is being redirected to the Portage bridge further up river. A camera crew from Ottawa CTV station, craving a good story, hover just off the bridge, attempting to see what the commotion is all about.

Paramedics prepare warming blankets and pull out supplies. Police officers and other personnel chat to each other through earpieces. They’re waiting for someone. A moment later, an officer jumps out of a police car that pulls up just a few feet away from where the man clings to the buttress of the bridge.

“What’s your name, son?” the officer hollers over the whistle of the wind. “Can we talk about this right now?”

“I just don’t think I can do it anymore,” the man shouts back. “I’m done with everything. My depression is simply too much to bear. I don’t have any desire to live anymore.”

“I see,” the officer shouts back, “well if that’s the case…”

The officer jogs up to the side of the bridge, snow crunching under his heavy boots until he stands near the railing where the man is just within reach.

He hoists himself up onto the railing, reaches over and stretches until he has a hold of the bottom of the man’s heel. With a sudden jerk, he wrenches the man’s right leg high into the air. He disappears into the darkness below. “We’re good,” the cop chirps into his radio, “it’s what he wanted.”

The following morning’s headline in the Ottawa Citizen read, “Heroic Police Officer supports a young man’s right to Die with Dignity, in the face of overwhelming and debilitating depression.”

Virtually no Canadian wants to live in such a country. And yet, legalizing euthanasia in any form but especially euthanasia for mental illness, functionally puts our health care system in the exact same position.

The road before us

Bill C-218 again offers Canada the opportunity to step back from the euthanasia ledge and onto firmer ground that respects the value and dignity of very human life. We are grateful that another MP has taken up this issue and is pushing the government to repeal further expansion of euthanasia.

The new Parliament after the spring election has a fairly similar makeup in government as when Bill C-314 – the previous proposal to scrap the planned expansion for euthanasia for mental illness – was voted on. Prime Minister Carney has not expressed where he stands on the issue of MAiD. Perhaps he will whip his caucus to defend the previous government’s law, but perhaps he will allow a free vote among his MPs on the issue.

The fact that this is still a live issue and that now four separate pieces of legislation have arisen on this topic in just four years is a testament to your continual advocacy! ARPA groups across the country have worked hard to email and meet with your MPs, talk with your neighbors, and deliver nearly 250,000 flyers to spread the message of caring, not killing.

This has contributed to the ongoing conversation, but with another bill on the table, we need to get back at it. Take a few minutes to email your own Member of Parliament expressing your support of Bill C-218 and ask them to support it as well. Copy Prime Minister Mark Carney, Minister of Justice Sean Fraser, and Health Minister Marjorie Michel on that email, encouraging the government to support the legislation as well.

As Christians, we can continue to advocate for caring, not killing, in all circumstances. And we can continue to put pressure on our elected officials to do the same.

Levi Minderhoud is a policy analyst for ARPA Canada (ARPACanada.ca) where this post first appeared. It is reprinted with permission. Picture credit: office of MP Tamara Jansen.


Today's Devotional

July 2 - Fellowship in the light

“God is light and in Him is no darkness at all.” - 1 John 1:5 

Scripture reading: 1 John 1:5-8; Ephesians 5:8-21

Light is a common metaphor in the Bible to describe who God is.  It speaks of God’s holiness or, in other words, His absolute moral perfection.  In God there is not even a hint of darkness nor could there be, for God >

Today's Manna Podcast

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

Obedience

Serving #891 of Manna, prepared by B. Tiggelaar, is called "Obedience" and is based on Genesis 3:1-15.











Red heart icon with + sign.
Drama, Movie Reviews

Facing the Giants

Sports / Drama 2006 / 111 minutes Rating: 7/10 Grant Taylor doesn't have a lot going his way. His car runs only sometimes, he's not all that successful at work, and now he's found out that he's the reason why his wife can't get pregnant. He is shook. So he goes to God in prayer. Facing the Giants is the second film from the Kendrick Brothers, a Baptist twosome who decided to use films to reach out to the unchurched. They've been using films like Overcomer and Courageous to draw folks in with the entertainment and then hit them right between the eyes with some gospel truths. Movies always have a moral, so a cinematic sermon isn't exactly something new. What is new here is the upfront earnestness – not a lot of subtle going on. The point is to preach, even more than entertain. But entertaining does happen. When Taylor is brought low, he's forced to turn back to God. And when he repents of his apathy, he can't help but share his new joy with the high school football team he coaches. And, they respond. It's one thing to be on a football team that only loses – that can be disheartening – but another to be on a team that realizes there's more than one way to win. Coach Taylor pitches a new vision of success to his players: "We need to give God our best in every area and if we win, we praise Him and if we lose we praise Him." As Proverbs recounts, when you serve God with all your heart, there's a tendency for good things to follow. Hard work brings its reward (Prov. 10:4, Prov. 22:29, etc.) and we get to see the football team putting in that work via training montages and gritty game footage. Coach Taylor even pulls off one of the better practice-field inspirational speeches – your kids will love it when he pushes a lineman to dig deep and discover a reserve ten times bigger than he even knew he had to give. That's when the wins start stacking up, and winning isn't the only ripple. Coach Taylor's Godward vision for this team has bad students becoming scholars, and a father and son reconcile. Older teens will see some of the happiest happenings as bordering on cringe, and they ain't wrong to think it. When one player's crippled father gets out of his wheelchair, this has become simply too good to ring true. But God can do anything. And this is far from beyond what God has already done, so I think we can rein in the criticism at least a little. My kids loved this up until about 12, and that's what I would suggest it for: the less critical 12 and under set. Cautions The main caution would be a "prosperity doctrine" undercurrent. Coach Taylor gives himself to God, and then God gives him everything he ever wanted, from a new truck, to a child, to a championship too. While it's important for your kids to recognize this implicit theme, it's an accidental inclusion, not intentional – the stunning turnaround is just the way of sports films overall. And I think the producers were aware of the danger, such that the prosperity gospel is pretty explicitly renounced. As Coach Taylor notes, "I've resolved to give God everything I've got and leave the results to Him." Taylor isn't pitching some guarantee to his family or team that God will make everything go their way so long as they pray hard enough. Conclusion Every sports film has the small guy stage a miraculous comeback to win it all. But Facing the Giants offers up a very different measure of success. Coach Taylor challenges his team not to make winning, but rather to make glorifying God, their goal. That's the vision we want our kids to understand and adopt too. So you know what would have been great to see? If the filmmakers could have shown someone succeed, not by winning the championship– that's every other sports film's story – but by losing the big game the right way. It's probably not giving too much away to say that we don't see that happen here. So what could have been a great story becomes merely a good one. Yes, it is preachy, and the acting is sometimes less than impressive (though not painfully so) but Facing the Giants could still have been something special if it had followed through on the sermon it was preaching – that we can honor God in failure too. Then it would have dared go where no other sports film has gone before. But as it is, there are funny bits, some solid sports action, inspirational get-the-blood-pumping speeches, and some pleasant people and good kids learning important lessons. A nice evening for the family. ...

Red heart icon with + sign.
Drama, Movie Reviews

Courageous

Drama 2011 / 129 minutes Rating: 8/10 Like Fireproof, Facing the Giants and Flywheel before it, Courageous is a sermon wrapped up as a film. But unlike those earlier Kendrick brothers’ efforts – where the message took precedence over the moviemaking – this time the sermon has been wrapped up in a really good film! The moral of this story is that fathers are vital to their kids, and consequently to the whole country. We follow five fathers, four of them police officers, only one of whom seems to be doing a great job as a dad. Another, Adam Mitchell, will seem quite familiar to most of us – he isn’t a bad father; he just isn’t as good as he could be. Or to put it in his own words, “I’m doing about half of what I should be.” Courageous begins and ends with a pair of chase scenes which give the Kendricks a chance to show just how good they have become at staging action sequences. These are basically police chase scenes, and they are intense! In the middle of the film we have some comedic scenes that are laugh-out-loud funny, and of course plenty of edifying conversations about the challenges of fatherhood. Cautions Two cautions: the comedy and action make this a film that most of the family would enjoy, however there is one tragic event that makes this too emotional for children, and might make it quite unpleasant for some parents too. Without giving too much away, one of the five families is struck by tragedy, which is what gets that father to reassess just what he’s doing as a dad. It is a necessary plot element, but it turns this from a start-to-finish feel-good movie to one that will take viewers through the full range of emotions. The second caution would only be not to expect too much from the film. If you're looking for depth and nuance and Academy Award-winning acting, then this isn't for you. The acting's not remarkable but it is solid. And while the biblical model of godly fatherhood is given a compelling presentation here, it certainly isn't a comprehensive one - there isn't time for more in a 2-hour film. Conclusion What you will find here is an encouraging, inspiring plea for fathers to get on with the task and privilege of raising their children. If you don’t mind being challenged as you are being amused, you’ll enjoy it. Edifying and entertaining – it’s a rare combination, but the Kendricks have pulled it off! ...





Red heart icon with + sign.
Family, Movie Reviews

The Wild Brothers: 8-episode DVD series (+ free vlog series)

Reality / Documentary Each episode is 28-30 min / 2015-2016 Rating: 7/10 Everyone in our family enjoyed this DVD series, from our 2-year-old all the way up to mom and dad. At series start, the Wild family lives in the deep jungles of Papua, Indonesia, where dad is a missionary to the Wanu tribe. The four Wild brothers are the sort of boys who collect pets in their pockets, and who love to explore the jungle with a butterfly net in one hand and a slingshot in the other. In their first adventure, titled Welcome to our World, we get introduced to the family, and the boys introduce us to God’s creation. We go hunting with them, we’re introduced to their best friend, a native Indonesian child named Pu, and we get to watch their facial expressions as Pu introduces them to a local delicacy, raw echidna brain. A fun extra is the boys skinning a ten-foot python that even after it has been dead for an hour is still moving! The second in the series, called Jewels of the Jungle, follows the family as they go butterfly and moth-hunting. Our girls wanted to buy butterfly nets of their own after that one. Then in the third, Paradise Lost, the family is on vacation with another missionary couple, the Browns, and their three girls. My own girls love this series even though it is all about boys, but I think they appreciated how the girl-to-boy ratio was upped for this adventure. The two families head from the inland missions to the coast of a beautiful island. From this home base they head out each day to explore reefs and bays and check out sea turtles, manta rays, sea snakes and so many gorgeous fish. Some misadventures also occur, some painful, like mom getting stung by a jellyfish, and some hilarious, like the boys contending with a large snake (8-12 feet long) that has decided to take up residence in their cabin roof. As they do in each episode, the boys bring a solid Christian perspective to their exploration: when they come across an old bone deposit – a burial ground where skulls are haphazardly stacked by each other – they take the opportunity to talk about how despite the beauty of this world, it is still fallen, and waiting for restoration. There are five other episodes, and each is just as interesting as the next. The only disappointment is maybe in the way the series concludes. In the last two episodes they are make preparations to sail across the ocean in a giant canoe. It is fascinating, as they carve the boat out with local help, and point out parallels to what Noah had to do. But because this is real life, and because in real life sometimes plans get upended, the finale doesn't end on the triumphant note we might have wished for. Cautions There are no cautions to note. While it isn’t clear what denominational background the family is from, the Christian reflections the boys and their parents share with viewers are thoughtful and solid. In one episode a brief shot of some human skulls is seen, and an encounter with a snake in the extra features of one episode was just a tiny bit scary for my little ones. That said, my girls, at the time 2 through 6, enjoyed this immensely – that little bit of tension didn't scare them away! Conclusion The Wild Brothers are very adventurous boys, the sort who play with bugs, and even eat the odd one now and again...at least when they are properly cooked! And they are very godly boys too, very aware of how God makes Himself evident in the creation all around us. And while they are boys, this was exciting for my girls too – I don't know that they fully appreciate bugs yet, but this did move them in that direction. I'd recommend this as great viewing for families with young kids 10 and under. Mom and dad will enjoy it too, but there might not be enough action for teenagers. You can buy the series on DVD or via download at AnswersInGenesis.org and as DVDs at Amazon. The trailer below is for the first episode, Welcome to our World. Addendum: free vlog series The Wild Brothers also now have a free vlog series, called "Highlands to Island" that you can find here. While you should watch the first episode, my daughters and I found the later episodes, from maybe 8 onward (there are 30 so far) more interesting than the first few. The vlog isn't quite the DVD series, but until new DVDs come out, this sure is a nice way to reconnect with this wonderful missionary family. https://assets.answersingenesis.org/vid/prod/etc/trailer/30-9-507_wild-brothers-1-trailer.mp4...





Red heart icon with + sign.
Assorted

What should we think of withdrawals?

Revisiting church membership and excommunication Dealing with withdrawals is one of those difficult issues that eventually every consistory faces. All the more vexing is the fact that our church order appears not to address it at all. How do we account for this and what procedure should be followed? I hope to give some guidance on these matters in what follows. A brief historical overview Reformed history in cases of withdrawal shows that two points are of importance. It comes down to: How we understand the character of church membership - is it something that a member may take up and put down, or is it the responsibility of the consistory to bestow and take away? How we understand the function of the church order's procedure for excommunication - is the procedure of excommunication intended to be used in cases where a member wants to leave? In the 16th and 17th centuries the procedure for excommunication in the church order was applied to those who withdrew for no good reason – it was even applied to those who declared that they were joining another church. It was understood that a church member did not have the right to terminate his membership.1 This same excommunication procedure was also followed by the churches of the secession (1834), except when members left for another Reformed church. For those members the consistory instead made a declaration that their membership in their original church was terminated. It wasn't until the 1860s that synods received proposals to acquiesce in a withdrawal. The idea was that the consistory, rather than exercise discipline on a member who withdrew, would instead simply let him withdraw. After heated debate, spread out over three synods, it was decided that in cases where a member withdrew consistories would be allowed to choose between the procedure of excommunication or to read off a simple declaration of withdrawal. The entire faculty of the Theological School at Kampen sharply objected to the introduction of this second option – they didn't believe a member should be allowed to withdraw. The churches of the Doleantie (1886) gave in to withdrawals from the beginning. This had to do with Abraham Kuyper’s view of church membership, which, as he taught, begins and ends by an act of the free will of the individual. This contrasted with the historical position that the responsibility for church membership rests with the consistory, not the individual. But Kuyper's view prevailed, and church discipline after withdrawal was therefore considered incorrect. This issue was raised again at several synods rather soon after the union of 1892 and the decisions favored Kuyper’s ideas – especially because of the strong influence of his colleague Prof. F. L. Rutgers. After the Liberation (1944), not a single general synod has dealt with the issue of withdrawal. It would appear that in practice the customs existing before the war were generally followed, with the exception of inferring withdrawals from circumstantial evidence. Previously this had been forbidden, but the practice has become widespread within the Liberated churches. Some in the Liberated churches even defended Kuyper's view that it is a church member’s self-determination which ends his membership. It looked as though the triumph of Kuyper over traditional Reformed polity on the character of church membership was complete. However, the 1990’s saw a reversal of this trend. In this respect, advice given by Professor M. Te Velde on June 14, 1997 to the Reformed Churches of New Zealand is very interesting. Te Velde defends the premise... ...that to belong to the church is not a matter of man’s absolute free will and free choice. He who withdraws himself from the church ought to receive a response from that church. And (unlike with various other societal relationships) not a response that is neatly neutral and bureaucratic or perhaps with regret and in impotence concludes and records what the departing individual is doing, but appends to it an authoritative judgment and explicitly declares that, for that person, entitlement to the privileges and promises, bound up with church membership, has ended. Brother "N" cuts the bond with the congregation. The church affirms this (after admonition and appeal) by declaring from its perspective that Brother "N" no longer belongs to the congregation. We are not used to referring to this declaration by the church as "censure" or "discipline." But it is related. After all, it pronounces judgment, it has a judicial character.2 Here the perspective is no longer that of Kuyper and his colleague Rutgers, but that of the Reformed Churches from the time of the Reformation. Only the practical implementation is different. Te Velde believes that church membership The one area where Te Velde and Kuyper's colleague Rutgers both agree is that the disciplinary procedure we find in our church order is intended for those who must be evicted from the church despite the fact that they themselves are determined to remain – it is not meant for those who want to leave. The form for excommunication in the liturgical forms is derived entirely from the discipline procedure prescribed in the church order. Where that procedure is not followed – where the steps of church discipline have not occurred – the form for excommunication clearly cannot be used. However, in cases of voluntary withdrawals – cases where the formal steps of discipline are not involved – Te Velde does make the suggestion that, several weeks prior to the final declaration, the congregation can be notified of the brother’s desire to withdraw and asked to admonish and pray for him. The character of church membership A key question to understanding how we should treat withdrawals concerns where the ultimate responsibility for entering into and being removed from membership in the church of Christ belongs. Can a church member of his own free will terminate his membership? In what follows I mention a number of considerations which show, in my opinion, that the responsibility for church membership rests with the consistory. There is, of course, a correlative. A consistory cannot use force to compel someone to remain a member of Christ’s church. We begin with the much quoted text of 1 Corinthians 5:12. What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? Paul has admonished the congregation of Corinth to excommunicate a particular sinner. He then tries to clear up a misunderstanding. In verses 9-13 he writes that he had told them “not to keep company with sexually immoral people,” but he did not mean immoral people in the world. It was never the intention that church members would not be allowed to associate with notorious sinners among the general public – for then they would have to go and live on another planet. No, he says, only brothers who remain in their sins (and for that reason are placed outside the fellowship of the church) must be avoided. The distinction Paul makes between “the people of this world” and a so-called “brother” is not between actual members of the Christian congregation and non-members, but between those who once were part of the fellowship in Christ and those who never had any connection with that fellowship. In our form for excommunication we also continue to call someone who has been expelled a brother. And this is appropriate, for the evicted person remains a brother – although a brother who is excluded from the benefits in Christ because of hardening in a certain sin. In this regard we can see that it is impossible to break the bonds of fellowship once joined – even though membership in the church is terminated. However, this text gives no answer to the question as to whether a church member can terminate his own membership. Lord’s Day 31 of the catechism can provide some clarification. Someone who has left the church remains a brother, but he is a brother of whom it is publicly stated that he is no longer admitted to the sacraments and that he has so hardened himself in sin that the consistory can no longer bear official responsibility for him. This is the second key of church discipline. In the highest sense, the final responsibility for the taking up and laying down of membership in the church of Christ rests, of course, with Christ himself. That perspective leads directly to the premise that here on earth the shepherds of the church, appointed by Christ, would bear that responsibility in his name. According to Hebrews 13:17 they will be held to account on judgment day for their rule. The keys of the kingdom of heaven are given to the office bearers to bind and loosen from sins (cf. Matt.16:19 with John 20:23). For that reason this binding and loosening is restated after the procedure for church discipline in Matthew 18:15-18. The responsibility for making a pronouncement regarding this does not belong to the church member, but to the office bearers who have charge over his soul. There is a direct parallel between defection from the church and admission to church membership. As we confess in Lord’s Day 21, Christ gathers his church throughout the ages. He establishes faith in people’s hearts by his Holy Spirit. Because of that faith there is a desire to follow Christ and join his church. People who have come to faith are admitted to Christ’s church by means of profession of faith and baptism (cf. Acts 2:41). This baptism is administered by office bearers of the church, ruling in the name of Christ. Someone who joins the Christ’s church does this voluntarily and may never be coerced. For its part the church has that liberty as well and can never be forced into baptizing people indiscriminately. The final responsibility for baptism rests with the consistory. A person who by faith and the administration of baptism is admitted to Christ’s church also shares in his promises, including the promise that God includes his children in his covenant. Hence infant baptism. If having reached adulthood, these children do not want to accept this baptism and rebel against the church of God, they are to be admonished and (if unrepentant) must be excommunicated. As the form puts it, adult children, who obstinately deny communion with Christ, are excluded from his fellowship. They are declared to have no share in his benefits as long as they do not repent. In summary, Scripture continues to view those, who have been put out of the church in some sense, as “brothers” who are not to be equated with those who have never been a member. A different ethic applies to excommunicants than applies to those outside the church. Furthermore, Scripture makes clear that determination of membership is a matter for those whom Christ has placed as shepherds over his flock. If a sheep strays, this does not automatically release the shepherds from their duty to go after that sheep! The use of the steps for excommunication Although the Reformed churches originally intended that the procedure of church discipline (based on Matthew 18) be used in all cases of church defection (i.e., for those who wished to remain a member as well as those who wanted to leave the church) there are sufficient reasons for holding to Rutgers’ premise, that the steps for excommunication in the church order are more suited to people who must against their will be placed outside the church. In such cases the safety valve provided by the scrutiny of a classis make sense. Indiscriminate expulsion of people from the church, against their own intentions, must be guarded against. We must also ask whether it is appropriate to undertake a lengthy disciplinary procedure against someone who no longer wishes to remain a member. Although we do not concede to him the right, nor the authority, to discontinue his own membership, his case is in its nature different from that of someone who despite hardening in sin, desires to retain membership. Paul says in Titus 3:10-11 “Reject a divisive man after the first and second admonition.” It would therefore be a mistake to apply Matthew 18 to all cases of church discipline. The church order rightly states that public sins are not intended here. When our Lord gave his disciples guidelines on how to deal with sin within their circle, He did not give them a detailed church order. The object of Matthew 18 is a private sinner from within the circle of the disciples. Essentially this case has little in common with someone who openly declares that he no longer wants to belong to that circle (i.e., the church). Therefore to propose an approach other than the one prescribed here does not have to be unbiblical. There is much in favor of a consistory acquiescing to the wish of someone who no longer wants to be a member. The desire must not be a sudden urge but a well considered position to which someone is clearly committed. In that case the consistory can proceed with making an appropriate announcement about the membership of that brother. The nature of the announcement will depend upon the circumstances of the withdrawal. Differentiation in withdrawals It is obvious that withdrawals differ in nature. At least three different circumstances can be considered: A) Withdrawal for reasons that do not warrant discipline Someone may withdraw because he is moving to a country where we have no sister churches. This person, however, fully intends to join the church of Christ there. Under those circumstances we would wish that person God’s blessing. We never say that our sister churches are the only true churches of Christ in this world! The consistory in its announcement will say only that brother "X" is no longer a member of the church. Depending on circumstances something could be added regarding his/her destination. B) Withdrawal for unclear reasons There will always be cases which are difficult to assess. For instance, someone moves suddenly without notification and sends a letter of withdrawal. If further contact is impossible, the consistory should not resort to guessing his motivation. No one may have motivations imputed to him. Before a withdrawal is deemed deserving of discipline there must be certainty. The withdrawing member must be given the benefit of the doubt. In a statement about such cases the consistory must be careful. The statement cannot go beyond an announcement that the brother involved is no longer a member of the church. Any expression of “regret” should not support the suspicion that that person was necessarily deserving of discipline. C) Withdrawal for reasons which warrant discipline By far most cases in this category are of people who withdraw themselves during disciplinary procedure. The brother may already have been suspended from the Lord’s Supper. In that case the consistory has already informed the brother that, without repentance, he will end up outside the kingdom of heaven. That message is clearly explained in the form for the Lord’s Supper, which warns members to withhold themselves if they become hardened in certain sins. It states: “we declare to them that they have no part in the Kingdom of Christ.” That pronouncement remains in effect “while they persist in their sins.” The pronouncement is provisional. If the disciplinary procedure does not end in withdrawal then the declaration in the form is simply a public confirmation of this provisional judgment. It was conveyed to the person long ago when he was first suspended. The public declaration that this person stands outside the kingdom of Christ is of significance to both him and the congregation. He must repent and the congregation is exhorted to act in such a manner that this message reaches him.3 What must be done then when someone, while under discipline, withdraws? Such a person says that he does not intend to repent. His act of withdrawal is in this instance a public sin. In an announcement to the congregation his name and his desire to withdraw can be made public, and the congregation exhorted to admonish the brother. Because of his declared desire to leave the church, the approval of the classis is no longer required before his name can be made public. If, after some weeks, the conclusion must be drawn that he has hardened himself in this desire, the consistory will have to announce that the efforts of the congregation did not turn this brother from his sinful way and a declaration is made that he is no longer a member of the congregation. The congregation may already know the standing of this brother from the announcement of his name in the second step. The congregation is then exhorted to exert itself on his behalf so that he may come to repentance. In the implementation of the excommunication mention is made of the fact that the elders and congregation have tried everything to bring him to repentance and that their responsibilities – in the ecclesiastical sense – have come to an end. The judgment, however, remains conditional. A person who has been excommunicated can always return if he shows remorse. But until he does, he remains excluded from the office bearers’ care for the church. For this reason there can be no objection to making an announcement in the final declaration of the consistory by which his membership is terminated and the sinner’s standing with regard to the kingdom of heaven is stated. On the contrary, there is every reason to make clear to the sinner, as well as the congregation, the seriousness of the matter. Proposed resolutions In conjunction with the preceding I propose that the following decisions be taken:  The consistory decides that in all cases of withdrawal a judicial declaration be made by which the membership of the person concerned is terminated and in which the consistory shall give a clear explanation of its responsibility for this. The consistory decides in cases of withdrawal for reasons which warrant church discipline to: make an announcement to the congregation several weeks before the judicial declaration. In this announcement the desire of the person involved to withdraw shall be made known and the congregation shall be exhorted to pray for him and to admonish him in a brotherly manner. announce in the judicial declaration that, if the person involved does not come to repentance, he will remain outside the kingdom of Christ, according to the form for the Lord’s Supper celebration.4 Endnotes 1 For detailed case studies and relevant decisions see my paper “Reformed Church Polity concerning Withdrawal of Church Membership” 2 Professor M. Te Velde's Advice to The Reformed Churches of New Zealand, June 14, 1997., Par. 8. 3 See my article, "The Sinews Of The Church, Biblical Principles Concerning Church Discipline" 4 p.593 Book of Praise “we declare to them that they have no part in the kingdom of Christ”  Rev. Dr. R. D. Anderson is pastor of the Free Reformed Church of Rockingham, Western Australia. This article is an abbreviated version of a much longer article on his website: "Reformed Church Polity concerning Withdrawal of Church Membership."  ...

Red heart icon with + sign.
Theology

I won't go with you: abandonment as an act of love

“You’re kicking someone out of your church?” It can be hard bringing friends into our churches – our music is slower, our benches are harder and our sermons are longer – but it gets harder still when a friend is brought the same Sunday an excommunication notice is read out. Excommunication is almost impossible to explain, because almost no other churches do it. It is a completely new thing to most people outside our Reformed churches, and on the surface it seems so harsh and uncaring. It seems mean. The biblical basis is clear enough, Matthew 18:15-18 speaks of excluding an unrepentant sinner, from the communion of the Church: “Let him be to you as a heathen and a tax collector.” 2 Thessalonians 3:14 even gives a clear reason for this exclusion: “do not keep company with him, that he may be ashamed.” But the biblical explanation isn’t very satisfying. Yes, that’s what it says, but can that be what it really means? It doesn’t seem to make sense. Wouldn’t it be better if this sinning brother kept coming to church, and kept hanging out with his Christian friends? How can God’s word act on his soul if we prevent him from even hearing it? This is the sort of thinking that has eliminated excommunication in most churches, and delayed and lengthened the process in many of our own churches. There is always the hope that as long as the sinning brother keeps attending, something might change. This hope for change seems to disappear once they have been excommunicated, and so the process is dragged out as long as possible. The pro-life explanation I never fully understood the rationale behind excommunication until a Lutheran, in my university pro-life group, explained it to me. She didn’t talk about excommunication though. Instead she talked about abandonment as an act of love. Our group was discussing what one of our members had gone through when her friend asked her to go with her to an abortion clinic. “What could I do? She’s my best friend, and she was going crazy. She needed me so I went with her.” “Did she know you were pro-life?” “I told her.” “She knew you were pro-life and she still asked you to help her get an abortion? Does she know what being pro-life means? Does she know you think abortion is murder?” “She needed me so she asked me. We’re best friends!” “Your friend asked you to help her murder her baby. Do you think she really understood what she was asking you to do? If she had really understood, do you think she would have asked you?” “But she did ask…what else could I do?” “You could have said no. You could have said, ‘You know I love you, you know we are best friends, but what you are doing is wrong, and I cannot help you do it. You know I would do anything for you, but I will not do this. If you are going to do this, you will have to do it alone.’ That would have given your friend – the friend who knows you love her dearly – something to think about. If you go with her, she’ll never understand how serious abortion is. After all, her pro-life friend went with her. But if you refuse to help her, if her best friend abandons her, then she might just be shocked into realizing just how serious this is. Abandoning her gives her more to think about than accompanying her ever could." Shock and shame An unrepentant sinner is often an ignorant sinner. He doesn’t see the need to repent and doesn’t think his particular sin is a big deal. That thought is confirmed when the church refuses to discipline him. There is no sharp break to snap the sinning brother back to his senses. Instead he’ll probably start attending less and less frequently, and start making more and more friends outside the church. Finally discipline becomes impossible because the man no longer has any friends left in the church. Excommunication at this point is incapable of shaming him, because he doesn’t care what the people in the church think. But if we act while the church is still the focal point in his life, then the unrepentant brother will see the people he loves, and the people who love him, telling him they will not walk down the wide path with him. Then the brother will be left alone with his thoughts, left alone to evaluate his path. And Lord willing he will then be forced to see the error of his ways. Excommunication does make sense, and we should thank God for it. First published in the November 2000 Reformed Perspective....