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 3 - A life of repentance

“If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins…” - 1 John 1:9 

Scripture reading: 1 John 1:8-10; Psalm 32

As we continue to look at John’s theme of fellowship with God, sin is a topic that may not be ignored.  In fact, John mentions the word sin 27 times in his short epistle.  The bottom line is >

Today's Manna Podcast

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

Is There a Sense to Life?

Serving #892 of Manna, prepared by B. Tiggelaar, is called "Is There a Sense to Life?" and is based on Ephesians 4:1-24.











Red heart icon with + sign.
Christian education - Sports, Theology

God and the 2014-15 Seattle Seahawks

All about God’s sovereignty, Man’s free will, and American football ***** When the editor suggested I write a piece about American Football, I was a little taken aback. Firstly, this did seem like an odd subject for a magazine like Reformed Perspective. “But still,” I thought, “I suppose we can hardly claim on the one hand that Christ is Lord over all of life, then on the other hand rule American Football as being off-limits.” The second reason was even more fundamental. I’m a Brit. And not a Brit that has any love, let alone knowledge of American Football. In fact, I’ll put my cards on the table right now: the game has about as much fascination for me as the game of cricket probably has to the average US Football fan – that is to say none whatsoever. So I was relieved as I read through the editor’s request to find that the American Football bit was somewhat incidental, and I was not being asked to spend hours watching old Giants vs. 49ers games on YouTube. Rather, the request was to try and make some sort of sense of comments made by Russell Wilson, the Seattle Seahawks quarterback, after his side’s victory over the Green Bay Packers in January (2015), which sent Seattle to the Superbowl. The most improbable of comebacks For those not familiar with what happened, with less than four minutes left in the game and trailing 19-7, the Seahawks staged a dramatic recovery, tying the game to take it into overtime, before going on to win 28-22. What was especially amazing was that the Seahawks’ quarterback, Russell Wilson, went from playing one of the worst games of his life, throwing four interceptions, to scoring three touchdowns in the game’s final 6 minutes. Wilson then caused a stir with his post-match comments when he was asked to explain how his team has gone from being down and out without any hope to being victorious a few minutes later: "That's God setting it up, to make it so dramatic, so rewarding, so special." Of course, this set the whole Twittersphere afluttering with many ridiculing his claim. It also set off a series of articles on the web with titles like, “Does God play a role in picking the winning team?” What are our options? So what should we make of Wilson’s comments? I think we have to break our answer into two parts, one of which deals with the general question of God’s relationship with His creation, and the other which deals with the more specific question of whether He intervened in this particular instance. The first and more general question is basically a question about the nature of God’s sovereignty, and I think the best way to look at this is to examine all the other possible answers that could have been given as to whether God really did intervene to make the match so dramatic. These positions are: God has nothing to do with Seattle Seahawks games because there is no God. God has nothing to do with Seattle Seahawks games because He does not deal directly with the created order. Although God is sovereign, He has nothing to do with Seattle Seahawks games because He could care less about US Football. God has everything to do with Seattle Seahawks games, foreordaining their results, and so when Wilson threw his interceptions, that was because of God’s direct “interception.” God has everything to do with Seattle Seahawks games, foreordaining their results, yet he does so in such a way that does not involve the kind of direct intervention Wilson suggests We can further categorize these positions as follows: God is in control of nothing because he is not there (Atheistic). God created the universe, winding it up like a watch, and then left it to its own devices (Deistic) God has created the universe, but He is only interested in “spiritual things” (Pietistic) God is sovereign and controls everything that happens, to the extent that no-one has free will (Ultra Sovereignty) God is sovereign and is involved in everything, yet in such a way that man has liberty to act and to make choices (Sovereignty) Narrowing it down I trust that readers of Reformed Perspective can see that both the first two positions are highly illogical, not to mention unbiblical. It is highly illogical to believe that something came from nothing – and by that I really mean nothing: no time, no space, no matter – not to mention also believing that the something was then capable of organizing and sustaining itself into an amazingly complex order. It is also highly irrational to believe that a creator would go to the trouble of creating an amazingly complex order, only to walk away with total disinterest, leaving it to itself. What of position three? It actually turns out to be quite odd, since it refutes the very claim it makes. Those who hold to this position tend to be loud about the “sovereignty of God,” yet they then extend this sovereignty to include about 0.000000001% of the universe that God created. Well, if God is sovereign, He is sovereign over all creation and so the idea that He cares nothing for certain parts of His creation – especially “physical things” – is a denial of His sovereignty. What of positions four and five? They actually share many things in common. Both agree that God is sovereign over all things, including Seattle Seahawks games. Both agree that God foreordains the results of Seahawks games. Both agree that God upholds all the players involved and without this the game could not have been played, let alone played out so dramatically. Yet the difference is that whilst the fourth point understands this to mean that God controls everything, down to the last interception, and so basically micromanages His creation, which seems to me to be closer to Greek fatalism than biblical Christianity, the fifth view understands this in a way that retains God’s sovereignty, but also insists on man’s “free will.” Personally I take the fifth view to be the correct one. Free will?!? I realize that this might spook some readers. “We don’t have free will,” some might say, “as we lost it in the Fall.” My response is as follows. What we lost when Adam sinned was communion with God, righteousness, holiness and spiritual life, so that we need to be saved, and have no free will to choose salvation. We are by nature dead in trespasses and sins – as dead spiritually as Lazarus in the grave was physically – and as you know, dead people can’t bring themselves to life. However, this is not the same as saying that we lost our ability to make choices in all other areas of life, though of course those choices will be dictated by our sinful hearts. So as I sit here typing, did God foreordain it? Yes. Am I doing it out of free will? Yes. This seems impossible and counter-intuitive, but then He is an "impossible and counter-intuitive" God. Here is how chapter three of the Westminster Confession puts it: "God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established." This is a grand and frankly amazing statement. The God it presents is infinitely bigger than our imaginations can grasp. Look at it like this. Can you imagine a God who sets up the world and then gives perfect free will to his creatures so that He doesn’t know what is going to happen next and can’t control it? Yes, I can easily imagine Him. What about a God who unchangeably ordains whatsoever comes to pass, and does so by micro-managing every single detail to the nth degree? Yep, I can get my head around Him too. But what about a God who unchangeably ordains whatsoever comes to pass, yet does so without infringing on the liberty of His creatures to make choices of their own “free will”? I must confess that I am unable to comprehend such a God, or to understand how this is possible, but then again I have no understanding of how a universe can be spoken into existence either, or how the eternal Son of God can become a baby. Such things are too high for me, and I accept them by faith. What I am suggesting is that God is neither a deist God who is uninvolved in His creation, nor a pietistic God who is sovereign over a tiny portion of His creation, nor is He a micromanager who manages every aspect of it in the kind of minute details we understand by micromanaging. Rather, He is in sovereign control, upholds everything by the Word of His mouth, foreordains all things, yet does so in such a way that He is not in the business of micromanaging Russell Wilson’s passes. Conclusion But moving on to the second question, couldn’t He do that if He wanted? Doesn’t God intervene in His creation? Of course He does, and the Bible is full of instances of His interventions in human affairs. But the question is not whether He can intervene, but rather did He intervene in this specific instance? The question here hinges to a large extent on just how much priority God puts on the results of American Football games. Now as someone who upholds the sovereignty of God in everything, and the Lordship of Christ over everything, I understand that God cares about all of His creation and this includes American Football. But is this the same as saying that He cares about it to the extent that He is prepared to intervene to “change the result” and give the watching audience a good time? Emphatically no. Pietists (number three in the positions mentioned above) often want to reduce the things God cares about to “spiritual things” such as salvation, worship, prayer and Bible-reading, with everything else reduced to nought. Then over in the other ditch, there are others who want to flatten everything to make out that God cares for all things equally. This is not so. Just as we hierarchies of importance in our lives, it is fairly clear from the Bible that God has hierarchies of interest and importance. Yes, He is interested in American Football, in that He created the players, gave them the ability to play what is essentially a perfectly okay game (well cricket is better of course), and in that He calls on man to do things with all their might and for the glory of God. However, this is not the same as saying that He is interested enough in it to intervene in a game to make the game more exciting and give everyone a good time (except of course for Green Bay fans). In conclusion, though God cares about His entire creation, and though He ordained the surprising events and the result in the match between the Seahawks and Green Bay Packers, I think Russell Wilson would have a hard time making a Scriptural case that God intervenes directly in such matters. This was originally published in the March 2015 issue under the title "God and the Seahawks."...







Red heart icon with + sign.
Internet

Is TikTok the ultimate contraception?

The social media app that’s convincing youth that babies are boring, and other such lies. ***** A hundred years before the invention of the television, Danish theologian and philosopher Søren Kierkegaard wrote: “Suppose someone invented an instrument, a convenient little talking tube which, say, could be heard over the whole land … I wonder if the police would not forbid it, fearing that the whole country would become mentally deranged if it were used…” The prescient comment was part of his criticism of the daily press, specifically how the constant stream of news inflates the importance of momentary events in people’s minds. Imagine what he might have said about the evening news on television, once a literal “tube,” which Neil Postman criticized for making us all dumber. In the end, it is the smart phone, along with social media platforms like TikTok, that has finally fulfilled Kierkegaard’s nightmare. The ultimate “talking tube” that goes everywhere with us, the smart phone has proven to be particularly detrimental, especially to young people. The connection between social media use and depression, anxiety, and other mental health problems is now well-established, for all the reasons Kierkegaard foresaw. And now, as it turns out, social media platforms also make users less interested in having children. Recently, Finnish sociologist Anna Rotkirch published an article in the Berlin Review entitled, “The TikTok Baby Bust.” In it, she explains how the introduction of the app coincided with a rise in “anti-natalist values memes,” worsening mental health (especially for girls), and degrading social skills. Specifically, TikTok users became “more likely to embrace the idea that ‘I want to do other interesting things in life besides having a child.’” One way that TikTok discourages fertility is by portraying the childfree life as more fulfilling than parenthood. Another way is by portraying singleness as more fulfilling than marital life. The combination of the device, the platform, and the messages broadcast on them have, as sociologist Brad Wilcox remarked, “. . .proven to be the ultimate contraception.” Though few influencers will outright proclaim, “don’t get married or have babies, it’ll ruin your life,” the platform rewards certain messages. So, consumers consistently hear, subtly and quietly, that “life is about self-expression and public performance,” and “you need to be pretty at all costs,” and “sex is only for pleasure,” and “your fertility is an obstacle to your happiness,” and “there are already too many people on this planet.” I often ask parents and teachers what they would do if a creepy old man were walking around the school whispering awful messages in the ears of their daughters and students. Well, that’s TikTok in a nutshell. The messages common to the platform are damaging enough, and the medium only adds to its power and influence. In A Practical Guide to Culture, Brett Kunkle and I talk about the importance of artifacts in a culture. Any idea that influences or transforms a culture, for good or for bad, requires tangible things to enable the message. The Protestant Reformation would have never happened without the printing press. The sexual revolution would have never happened without the pill and porn. In the same way, the anti-natalism of our age is made possible by the smart phone equipped with social media. Platforms like TikTok make it possible to think about ourselves in radically disembodied ways, with a business model that relies on envy and addiction. The constant, unapologetic demand for screentime catechizes users to reject personal relationships, as if the opinions, experiences, and values of distant strangers selected by an algorithm matter more than the people in their own, real lives. So-called “influencers” are put on a pedestal, where they not only champion bad ideas but reward followers who imitate their lifestyles with the promise that they too can be famous. No wonder that over half of millennials report that their ultimate career goal is to be an influencer. In his book The Anxious Generation, Jonathan Haidt urged parents and educators to get smart phones out of kids’ hands. Exposing young people to the messages common on social media, on a limitless basis, behind closed doors, or during school is simply insanity. A cultural revolution as deep as the TikTok baby bust requires our cooption. Had Kierkegard seen the smart phone, he would have warned of it as well. He understood, as too few philosophers in his day did, that human beings are not brains on sticks. We are creatures of habit, body, and relationships, which means what we believe has a lot to do with what we do. If we are to effectively make the case for why marriage and family matter, why children are gifts from God, and why young people should prioritize these real-life relationships, it will require more than words. In this battle of ideas, we must grasp that the “convenient little talking tube” in each of our hands is one of the things deranging young minds today. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, go to Breakpoint.org. This is reprinted with permission from the Colson Center....

Red heart icon with + sign.
Internet

Will AI replace reading?

Empty libraries and human-less humans ***** Many new technologies are sold with the promise of freeing people from menial tasks. Dishwashers, dryers, tractors, and word processors are just a few of the many inventions that have made life easier, reducing the amount of backbreaking labor involved in necessary chores and leaving users more time for things worthwhile, like learning, creating, and enjoying relationships. But what happens when technology promises to “free” us from even those worthwhile activities? That’s one of the many questions we face in the age of artificial intelligence. For example, entrepreneur and “Shark Tank” judge Davie Fogarty recently told his 40,000 followers on X that “(r)eading books is now a waste of time. AI reasoning models can distill key insights and tell you exactly how to implement them based on everything they know about you.” Can reading really be outsourced to AI? Should it be? Is this a post-schooling version of the new epidemic of AI-based cheating where students have chatbots do their research and compose their assignments? Is the study and reflection on ideas now as much of an historical anachronism as plowing a field by hand? The process is the point The belief that reading and writing should be delegated to AI betrays a confusion not only about what technology is for but, even more, what we are for. Also, it lands us in some dark places, philosophically and spiritually. Author and classics professor Spencer Klavan wrote on X that many students who outsource the slow work of reading and writing soon find themselves wondering what the point of life is. After all, why go on if humans are obsolete, and chatbots can perform every task better in a fraction of the time? All new technologies require humans to wrestle again with what it means to be human. Human work is vital, not only because it is a way in which humans love and serve our neighbors, but because it is a fulfillment of the creation mandate. It’s true the Fall has turned much of our work into toil, and so any technology that alleviates futile, dangerous, and pointless work is a blessing. However, for some of our work, like reading, the process is the point. Not all activities can be measured in the narrow, utilitarian way that Fogarty and other over-eager fans of AI claim. Assuming AI can “distill” a work accurately, or that we need to be made “free” of sitting with an author, following an argument, or experiencing a narrative reduces truth, goodness, and beauty to mere data. To optimize or automate reading is simply not to read. It is like asking AI to free us from eating a delicious meal or taking a walk in the park with our kids. Some things cannot be optimized or outsourced, because they are irreducibly embodied, conscious, and human. Required to read and wrestle The best case-in-point is the Bible. God could have revealed what He wanted us to know in a bulleted list of “distilled” theological “insights” or moral pronouncements. Instead, He gave us a library of stories, proverbs, epistles, history, and authors, writing diverse types of literature over centuries, all of which comprise Holy Scripture. Part of what makes the Bible such a gift is the work and the humility God requires of us as we wrestle with It. Describing the slow and divinely blessed act of reading the Bible as a “waste of time” is a failure to grasp what it is, why it was given to us, and why we, as creatures, need it. And this is also true of many other books. To “free” us from this wonderfully inefficient process is to free us of our humanity. It is asking to be liberated from the nature given us by the God whose image we bear. To paraphrase the Psalmist, this will be how humans in this technocratic age become like our artificially intelligent idols. Novelist and songwriter Joseph Fasano wrote a poem entitled “For a Student Who Used AI to Write a Paper”: I know your days are precious on this earth. But what are you trying to be free of? The living? The miraculous task of it? Love is for the ones who love the work. The most important part of that work, in fact, reflects what it means to be made in the likeness of God instead of a computer. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, go to Breakpoint.org. This is reprinted with permission from the Colson Center....