The Illusion of the “Modern Progressive”

I have this hobby that I like. It is about as nerdy of a hobby as I can think of. I love reading philosophy books. I know, don’t judge me too harshly. I enjoy reading them from different cultures and times.

I have a few eras that I am interested in, but one of my favorite eras and subjects is atheistic writings of the 1500’s to around the first half of the last century. I like to figure out why people think that there not being a God seems reasonable to them. But, I have to explain why I cut off my time at about 1950’s or so. The reason is the intellectual side of Atheism has taken a dive for the worst; Russell was much more compelling then Dawkins. That is not to say there are not some mildly compelling modern Atheistic philosophers today, it just seems as if Atheism has already reached its zenith and is in slow decline. Time will tell if it makes a comeback.

So, what does this have to do with the Modern Progressive? Before we explore this, we need to look a little into the past. At the time of the Reformation, spiritual information was taken out of the hands of the Catholic Magisterium. This put sacred knowledge out of the hands of Latin speaking clergy and into people outside the Church’s influence. The domino effect of this eventually put education out of the influence of the Church as well. Yet, things remained “Christian” for a while. But, then a new birth was happening, a new light. It was thought that we were moving from the darkness into the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment was fundamentally a separation of what was viewed as “subjective” things (like purpose and meaning), from “objective” things (like logic and sense perception). While Christianity sought to combine all these elements, the Enlightenment broke them apart and dissected them. Then we put “subjective” ideas into the realm of personal preference, and made “objective” ideas discussed in the public square. Things like religion were relegated to the home, while things like science were allowed in political arenas. Thus, the creation of the “Secular State.”

The Scientific Method grew during this time and became a force in schooling, eventually gaining such stature that if you were to be thought of as “educated” you needed to subjugate your thinking to a “scientific” system. To be an educated man was to be a scientific man. And few could deny the promise of this new science. It opened up new lands, new inventions, and a new Utopia. Instead of waiting for the New Heavens and the New Earth, we set about creating it. Utopian literature sprang up and dotted the literary landscape, with authors presenting their view of the new scientific age to come, the perfect society. Science was now the new religion that promised a better world and people were very optimistic. But, two events happened to change this; World War I and II. As the terror fell on two cities in Japan, the idea of a scientific utopia was shaken. We saw that science could be to our ruin instead of our savior. Replacing earlier utopian visions, were now stories of supposed scientific Utopias where the hero fought against all odds to topple this now evil “Utopia”. We became suspicious of precisely what we had always hoped for.

So, what does my extremely poor history lesson have to do with Modern Progressives? Well, first notice the word “modern.” By this, I am meaning people who define themselves as “progressive” that are born sometime after World War II. This is the era where the Utopia was in ruins, Marx fell with the Wall, and there was no objective goal mark for us to reach. Second, we look at the word “progressive.” This word denotes movement towards a goal. Here we have a problem, what is the goal we are to move towards? The Utopia has been burned to the ground by two atomic bombs. For every Utopia set up, a hero comes and brings it down. So, how can we know any movement we make is “Progressive”? Sure we can change things up, but with no goal in sight, how can we know progression had been made?

Some might think that anything which is new is “progressive.” We allow for abortion and this makes us a “progressive” society. Unless a society has some end goal in mind, a Utopia if you will, then movement away from existing societal norms can hardly be thought of as “progressive”. This is merely movement. Is this regression? Is it lateral movement? How can we know? The moral of the today’s age is that perfection is unknowable. Progressives have some fuzzy ideal in mind, possibly looking a little like the lyrics of “Imagine”, but this is hardly something we can use as a measuring rod.

With the death of God in our society, we built our Utopias. When these fell, we killed any concepts of progression. Progressives are therefore in an illusion, they push for movement but there is little indication they are progressing. The term is meaningless to the Agnostic or Atheist, but this is the group that most often uses this term to describe themselves. Odd, don’t you think?

Psalm 51: A Bible Study

“Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me” (verse 5).

 It was a lively discussion that morning on the mission field. The students of the Bible School found the words of Psalm 51 hard to understand, especially that word: “In sin did my mother conceive me.” What did that mean? Was David born out of adultery? Or was his mother a decent woman, but did God consider the deed of procreation as such as something sinful? Or had David himself committed a certain sin before his birth? The students struggled with that verse but just could not come to a conclusion. Can you?

An impressive psalm

Psalm 51 is a very impressive psalm. Just like Psalm 6, 32, 38, 79, 102 and 130, it is a so-called penitential psalm. Having a deep and humble tone, these psalms are expressions of a contrite heart. They show us what happens when God works repentance. Then a desire is born for remission of sin, reconciliation with God, and renewal of our life. We can clearly see this in Psalm 51. Again and again the poet asks the Lord to blot out his guilt and to show him a token of His favor. Fervently he prays that he may be cleansed and learn to serve God with a sincere heart. Is that also your prayer?

A sad background

Why did David bow so deeply in this psalm? The reason can be found in 2 Samuel 12. The king of Israel had fallen into a double sin. Not only had he committed adultery with Bathsheba; he had also caused her husband to die on the battlefield. As a result, the man after God’s heart had lost the joy of his salvation and the peace of his conscience. Yet he could not find the place of true remorse until the prophet Nathan had confronted him in a personal way. Then David broke down and became a guilty sinner before God. What a blessing it is when we may come to that place. Ask the Lord much to bring you there by the power of His Spirit!

Sinful from our conception

David had made a deep fall. It grieved him that he had sinned so horribly. But there was something else that grieved him: he had fallen in Adam long before he fell into actual sin. He had already fallen in Paradise. Consequently, he had been conceived and born in sin. Do we now understand what he means? David says, I did not become a sinner by committing adultery, but I’ve always been a sinner from my earliest beginning. God’s holy anger rested upon me when I was still in my mother’s womb.” How necessary it is for all of us to learn this. Martin Luther called this truth “the heaviest doctrine of God’s Word.” If we never learn this, there will be no room for that sinless Child of Bethlehem, for Him who is able to cover our original sin and guilt.

No soul?

It is hard to see how people who read Psalm 51 can deny that man has a soul right from the time of conception. Would God’s wrath really rest on something that is merely “beginning life”? If an “embryo” or “fetus” does not have a soul, can it ever be called “a child of wrath” (Ephes. 2:3)? Can “a piece of tissue” or “cluster of cells” be held accountable when it is not a human being in the biblical sense of the word? Moreover, denying an unborn baby his or her personhood leaves us basically helpless in the debate with the abortion movement. Let us realize that and take a firm stand on this issue. But above all, do not rest until you may know by experience what Psalm 51 means for your own soul.


  1. Upon David’s confession of guilt he immediately received a word of pardon (see 2 Sam. 12:13). Why then did he still have to bow so deeply in the dust and write Psalm 51?
  2. Many believe that also Psalm 32 was written after David’s fall. Read this psalm with attention. Is there a difference with Psalm 51?
  3. What does Lord’s Day 14 of our Heidelberg Catechism teach us about the profit of “Christ’s holy conception and nativity”?
  4. The truth of Psalm 51 verse 5 is a strong plea against abortion. In Psalm 139, Jeremiah 1 and Luke 1, there are similar passages. What do they tell us about life before birth?

The New Tolerance

News Story: Government-funded ‘registry of homophobic acts’

Gai Ecoute has launched a new registry that will put people on a list that commit what they feel are homophobic acts.

This registry was launched in partnership with and receiving funding from Quebec’s Justice Department. People will anonymously tip this agency towards groups or individuals who commit actions which are deemed homophobic. In describing what a homophobic act is, the organization gives the following description; any negative word or act toward a homosexual or homosexuality in general: physical abuse, verbal abuse, intimidation, harassment, offensive graffiti, abuse, injurious mockery, inappropriate media coverage and discrimination.”

Some of these descriptions I think are very reasonable. No one should tolerate “physical abuse” based on someone’s sexual preference for example. This is indeed criminal. However, we can see how the New Tolerance plays itself out here. If “any negative word or act toward a homosexual or homosexuality in general” is considered homophobic, then the New Tolerance is very intolerant. If you accept the homosexual lifestyle you are “tolerant”, but if you say anything negative about homosexuality, you are “intolerant”. Is this a very tolerance position? I cannot see how even advocates of the homosexual lifestyle can fail to notice that this vision of “tolerance” is about as intolerant as you can get. This is an obvious contradiction.

To further show how intolerant this group is, they even define homophobia as “inappropriate media coverage.” It will be interesting to see what they mean by “inappropriate”, but it is sounding like even giving media coverage to this discussion will black-ball you. It seems that they are trying to intimidate people who have different views as they do about homosexuality, and also squash all public discussion as well. This doesn’t sound like a free democratic society, but more like a totalitarian regime. Yes, this is the true face of the New Tolerance once you look past the mask.

Another troubling aspect of this is that the tipsters can remain anonymous. This is not how law works in a democracy. Having the ability to face your accuser is a fundamental aspect of Canadian law, yet this very basic ideal is skirted in the name of “tolerance.” No need to make a homosexual advocate have to show some responsibility for his or her accusations, the New Tolerance takes care of their own. The accuser should at the very least be made to show his or her face when acting in a way that might greatly affect someone else’s life. This will allow the person being accused (or lawyer) to cross examine the accusations of the accuser. This seems obvious.

And this leads me to my final consideration. What is the registry for? Will it be used to legally trample on the people or organizations that are on the list? Will the list be public? Its’ close ties with Quebec’s Justice Department is a bit unsettling. Their intentions should be made public, if they haven’t done so already.

All this is just another example of the New Tolerance. This whole movement is a contradiction and should be exposed as such. Otherwise, real human rights will be chipped away while fabricated human rights will be championed and promoted. As we stumble down the rabbit trail, we are starting to find ourselves in Wonderland where things just don’t make much sense anymore.”

The Thunder Bay Assault: A Child’s Conscience versus A Man’s Anger

Two days ago, an angry man assaulted several of our female Caravan team members while engaging the public through Choice” Chain in the Algoma Business District of Thunder Bay, Ontario. He was walking by our demonstration with a little girl, and almost immediately became irate.”

According to Caravan team member Maaike Rosendal:

After he had screamed at Choice” Chain volunteers across the street, Thunder Bay local, Brian, walked towards us. While waving a stick at me, he encouraged the little girl with him (I’d estimate around 3 years old) to stand in front of the sign so he could take a picture. Screaming at us that he was going to put pictures of vaginas in public while making obscene gestures, he asked, “How would you like that, huh?”

I explained the difference between showing pictures of an injustice to turn people off versus showing obscene images which turn people on, when the little girl piped up, “What is it, Brian?”

“Ask them,” he responded angrily.

When I told her it was a baby, she asked, “What happened to the baby? Why is it broken?”

Me: “The doctor killed the baby.”

Little girl: “Why did he kill it?”

Me: “I don’t know sweetheart, but it’s sad, isn’t it?”

Little girl: “Uhuh, but why is there blood?”

Me: “Because the baby got hurt. I’m sure Brian loves you very much though, and that he’ll make sure you’re always safe.”

Then Brian interjected to me, “I don’t want you talking to her!” Then he angrily shouted to the little girl, “Go to your mom!” He pushed her into her mom’s direction, who was across the street; this resulted in the little girl almost running into traffic.  Thankfully he had enough sense to grab her by the arm and while swearing, he crossed the street.

The little girl continued to ask about the aborted pre-born children on the signs when she was with her mother on the other side of the street.  She inquired, “Mommy, there’s a dead baby; why did the doctors kill the baby?”

This little girl is the perfect illustration of what pro-life activists have found to be true time and time again: Children have functioning consciences. When they see a dismembered baby, they want to know why that happened, and who allowed it to happen. They do not get disturbed by the pictures so much as the obscene language and temper tantrums of their parents.

The angry man came back shortly afterwards, displaying his disdain for women and pre-born children by dumping a two-litre jug of milk on the heads of a three of the pro-life girls standing on the sidewalk with signs.

This is the response of a man furious that women dared to stand up and speak for women and children, and furious that the little girl did not share his anger at the protestors, but rather wanted to know, “Why did the doctors kill the baby?” This little girl knew instinctively what Brian could not grasp intellectually: That when faced with evidence of an injustice, we should ask why the injustice is happening, not react with more violence towards those who stand to expose it.

Used with permission from

Graphic Images Save Lives

“You’re making me feel bad,” she said. “I went along with two of my friends when they had their abortions because I wanted to support their choice. One of them was my brother’s girlfriend too.” I expressed my sympathy. “I’m so sorry to hear that. I didn’t come here to make you feel bad, yet I’m glad you now know what happened during the abortion. The truth often hurts but also sets free.” I offered her information about post-abortion help, which she eagerly accepted, then looked at the pictures again. “That would’ve been my niece or nephew, but I didn’t know.”

She had no idea. She didn’t know that her friend’s “choice” tore apart the tiny body of a pre-born child. She didn’t know that supporting such a choice allowed her brother’s baby to be decapitated, dismembered and disembowelled. She now knows the ugly truth because a graphic image of abortion conveyed just that. Had she seen the pictures a few weeks or months earlier, this young woman would have done everything in her power to prevent the abortions from taking place. Instead, two babies are now dead.

Another young woman we spoke with was opposed to abortion with the exception of pregnancies resulting from rape. Needless to say, she also wouldn’t impose her beliefs upon anyone else, not upon her friend scheduled for an abortion next week either. I pointed to my baby and asked whether she would have the responsibility to take action if I was planning to kill him next week. “Of course,” she exclaimed. “That would be terrible.” Pointing to a picture of a first-trimester aborted fetus I gently asked, “Do you think it’s any different with your friend’s child who, if you don’t do anything, will soon look like that?”

She had no idea either. She believed that being pro-life was merely a personal preference, not an objective truth that compels us to respect the lives of all people, including the pre-born. The abortion images changed it all. Instantly aware of her responsibility she asked for pamphlets and contact information for her friend. Perhaps, because pro-lifers showed her the truth, a small child will live. Many others have certainly survived for that very reason.

Far too often we’ve heard pro-lifers object to showing graphic abortion images. We agree that they are disturbing. They keep us from sleeping soundly, as they should, but more importantly, they change minds and save lives. Postcards, posters, signs, and trucks with graphic abortion images continually convict and convince of the pro-life truth, and the aforementioned are only two of many instances that prove this. But the converse is true as well. Babies die when we censor the truth, preventing women from knowing what abortion does and allowing pre-born children to be killed in their mother’s womb. Every child that is killed due to the mother’s ignorance is an indictment upon Christians and pro-lifers who have the knowledge and means necessary to save those lives.

Each of us has a responsibility to speak truth and show compassion, especially to the very least (Matthew 25:40). Additionally, the Bible makes it clear that the sins of our nation are our own (e.g. Proverbs 29:12) and that no one can wash their hands of innocent blood. What makes it worse, however, is when Christians without any Biblical reason whatsoever and in contravention of our Reformed heritage actively oppose a pro-life strategy that is truthful and hugely effective in saving lives, simply because it makes them uncomfortable. Our hands already drip with the blood of pre-born children by virtue of the fact that our tax dollars pay for every single abortion. And yet, even conservative church leaders who take it upon themselves to speak out on behalf of the voiceless and support the actions of those who seek to stop abortion are slandered and mocked by some in an extremely unbiblical way.

There are those in the Christian communities in North America who feel that it is a positive thing that they can sleep well at night, unburdened by the blood of thousands of children who were butchered during the day, bought and paid for by the tax dollars of our labour. There are those in the Christian community who seem to be more passionate about opposing the efforts of the largest pro-life educational movement in Canada than they are in ending the killing.

Ask yourselves a question: If you are at peace with a culture that murders its own children, is that staying true to Christianity and as close to our Reformed background as possible?

If you can consider yourself “personally pro-life” (much like Pontius Pilate was) but pass the blame for abortion onto others and do not fight it, are you not also to blame?

If you are fighting pro-life activists more actively then abortion, how much does abortion actually concern you? Have you written more letters complaining about graphic images, or abortion?

The EndtheKilling youth movement swells by the week, with Reformed people of all denominations flocking to get involved, make a difference, and save the lives of Canadian children. If you cannot support their efforts, at the very least do not oppose it. We have met too many women who had abortions because we were too late in exposing it to them. Dozens have told us they would not have had abortions if we had gotten to them earlier. For the sake of their children and thousands who are being “drawn unto death” every day, we ask for your support. We fully and completely respect all those who seek to fight abortion in their own ways, and are uncomfortable with the activism we have chosen. But let us not condemn each other’s efforts.

For as Abraham Lincoln once said, a house divided against itself cannot stand.

Why the Pro-Life Cause Is Important: An Interview with Reverend Cornelius Sonnevelt

What do you feel the Christian’s duty towards the pre-born are?

I cannot express this better than with the words of Psalm 82 (the rhymed version):

         “Do justice for the helpless,
          The orphans cause maintain;
          Defend the poor and needy,
          Oppressed for wrong and gain.”

What made you so pro-life?

1. I was brought up with a strong sense for justice and injustice.  My dad, in particular, was a man who always chose the side of the underdog even when that got him into trouble at times.

2. When I was 17 years old, the Lord came into my life.  From that moment on, God’s Word became the standard for my outlook on issues of life and death.  Especially Psalm 139 had a powerful influence on how I began to see the pre-born.

3. When abortion was about to be legalized in the country of my birth, I attended a huge rally organized by leaders of various churches including the Roman Catholics.  The late Rev. A. Vergunst (by no means a man who preached salvation by works) accepted the invitation to attend this public meeting.  His example and address during that large gathering made a very deep impression on me.

How has being pro-life and the recognition that abortion is happening affected you?

After returning from the mission field in Nigeria, I have always tried to lay these needs before the Lord in my private life and in public.  Sometimes, when posting in front of abortion clinics in the Netherlands, I took my children along.  My wife and I realized that the abortion issue could be shocking for them, but we did not want them to grow up in a vacuum.  Additionally, the fact that the legalized child murder continued unabatedly has often made me depressed.  Will God not avenge the blood of all those helpless children?  Is the hardening mentality in our western societies not a sign of His judgment?  It seems we’re living under a cloud.

What are the biggest obstacles pro-life activists face from religious communities?

1. Indifference.  Many assert that, “of course,” they are pro-life (who is not?), but how many are really wrestling with this in prayer?  How many send letters to the responsible people?  How many go out of their way to make a difference?

2. Complacency.  We tend to think that, no matter what we do, the abortion caravan cannot be stopped.  We get used to the horrible practices that occur in hospitals and clinics.  And so we carry on with our life, our careers, our vacations, and you name it.

3. Active opposition.  There are Reformed people who regard all activism as a kind of good-works religion or, even worse, as outright wrong because “we are not supposed to demonstrate or to protest in the first place.”  This is hard for me to understand.  In my younger years, when I was a member of a communist youth group, I participated in demonstrations, in strikes and sit-ins, and in street battles with the police.  But our methods were totally different (they were often violent), and so was our goal.  We did not fight so much for others but primarily for our own rights, for more freedom, for higher wages, and so on.  Reformed people who actively oppose the work of organizations such as CCBR are either confused or influenced by an Anabaptist, a-political way of thinking.  Of course, they are entitled to their own opinion, but by portraying pro-life activism in a negative way, they undermine the good cause.

Can you think of other obstacles?

Yes, I have come across the idea that a pre-born child does not have a soul until it is a few months old or even until it is born.  This weird idea, cherished by a few ministers in former times, is potentially dangerous today as it plays directly into the hands of the abortion movement.  After all, if a pre-born child has no soul, what is it?  Just a cluster of cells?  A handful of tissue?  A blob?  You may still call it human life, but if it is not a human person, abortion loses much of its pervasive, sinful, and criminal character.  Then there is the innate fear to be seen as a radical, either by the outside world or by the members of your own church community.  And finally, many prefer to have a paid job to being involved with volunteer work that earns you little more than flak and spittle.  Suppose you have the choice between a teaching position with a fat salary and a job with a pro life organization where you must live from gifts―what would you do?

What words of advice do you have for those within our communities who seek to do pro-life work?

1. Pray for a deep compassion with the pre-born and their mothers.

2. Have a little patience with those who oppose you.

3. Go out and do the work with God’s help!

The Economic Boycott: How to Fight Planned Parenthood

Imagine there is a knock at your door from a small boy who asks if you want to buy candy so he can go to camp this summer. You do not object and while spotting your favourite candy you casually ask which camp he plans to attend. The boy answers, “The Hitler Youth Program.” You are now faced with a moral dilemma. While you would love to support the child and buy the candy, you obviously cannot support the immoral agenda of the Hitler Youth and so you cannot buy the candy.

Now imagine that one of your favourite stores publicly announces its support for an organization that provides abortions. Once again you are faced with a moral dilemma. The company’s goods mean much to you and it would be very inconvenient to do without, yet remaining a loyal customer would imply consent for their decision and actually fund abortions.

It is very likely that the second scenario is true for at least some of the stores you shop at; they are just not telling you. Brands or stores such as Nike, Johnson&Johnson, Staples, and Red Lobster, to name a few, financially support Planned Parenthood, thereby directly paying for the decapitation, dismemberment and disembowelment of small children. Do we have an obligation to take action?

What is Planned Parenthood?

Let us first consider what the organization being funded actually stands for. Planned Parenthood was founded in 1916 by Margaret Sanger, a woman who advocated for eugenics through birth control in order to limit the number of people she considered inferior. Today, Planned Parenthoodstill celebrates her legacy, even comparing her to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. It promotes the ‘sexual liberation’ of children and youth in collaboration with UNFPA, aides and abets human traffickers by performing abortions on their victims without offering help or contacting police, and condones rape and incest by failing to report when a woman comes in for an abortion after having been sexually abused.

As if it couldn’t get worse, Planned Parenthood is also the single largest abortion provider in the world. In 2010, the so-called reproductive health care provider was responsible for nearly 330,000 abortions, each of which brutally ended the life of a small, preborn child. Planned Parenthood reports having distributed approximately 1.5 million emergency birth control kits in the same year, and while birth control pills occasionally cause an abortion, emergency birth control (also known as the morning-after pill) usually does so. That makes no difference to Planned Parenthood since, in their own words, everyone has the right to choose when or whether to have a child” regardless of how this comes about.

Annually Planned Parenthood reaches 1.1 million people with programs that encourage sexual experimentation, leave out abstinence education, and deny parental rights and responsibilities, thereby perpetuating a cycle of sexual immorality that leaves behind a trail of death and destruction among born and preborn people alike.

Public ignorance of Planned Parenthood’s activities, goals and philosophy is its greatest ally because the greater the public education about the organization, the far less support there is for it. In fact, the more knowledge people gain about Planned Parenthood’s agenda and actions, the more likely they are to actively oppose them as well. It is therefore imperative that we educate ourselves and others, and follow up with appropriate action.

Funding and Financial Stewardship

Almost half of Planned Parenthood’s revenue comes from government grants and reimbursements and particularly in the U.S. pro-life efforts are constantly made to curb this through legislation. At the same time, more than 20% of the enterprise’s annual income is derived from donations, largely from corporations that thus lend support and legitimacy to Planned Parenthood through their philanthropic programs. And that is precisely where we must take an honest look at our own involvement. After all, by buying from companies that support the biggest abortion provider in the world, are we not funding the slaughter of the innocents as well?

Proverbs 3:9-10 tells us to “Honour the Lord with thy substance, and with the firstfruits of all thine increase: so shall thy barns be filled with plenty, and thy presses shall burst out with new wine.” Wise stewardship of the resources we receive means that we purposely seek God’s glory and the advancement of His kingdom, also in our financial interactions. It is therefore impossible to honour the Lord with the wealth He has given us if our purchases pay for an agenda and activities that areharmful and ungodly.

It is true that the corporations’ decision-makers who support the abortion industry are ultimately responsible for the funding of Planned Parenthood, but that is irrelevant for us. In order to refrain from participating in evil, we ought to withhold our financial support for these corporations as much as possible. This is also known as boycotting.

Economic Boycott

The Albert Einstein Institute’s defines an economic boycott as “the withdrawal or withholding of economic cooperation in the form of buying, selling, or handling of goods or services, often accompanied by efforts to induce others to do likewise.” Utilizing this tactic in the case of Planned Parenthood not only disassociates us from its agenda, it also exposes the group’s evil deeds and brings about change. How? By economically boycotting these companies, informed pro-lifers make a conscious choice to use an effective tactic that raises the issue to a level where it gets appropriate attention.

While some question their effectiveness, boycotts that are carefully planned and faithfully executed actually have a long tradition of bringing about the desired change. Just recently, Pepsi stopped using aborted fetal cell lines as flavour enhancers after months of pro-life protest and a boycott of the company’s products. A famous example from history is the boycott of sugar that was slave-grown, organized by William Wilberforce in order to call attention for the inhumane treatment of African slaves. Combined with other efforts, this boycott successfully ended the 18th century slave trade in the British colonies. Since that time, many have joined in effective boycott efforts at some point in history.Today, while we know about the evil of Planned Parenthood and the fact that our money is often used to fund it, should we not do the same?

The Boycott List

One may wonder how to go about such a boycott but this has been made easy by Life Decisions International, an organization that “is dedicated to challenging the Culture of Death. LDI concentrates on exposing and opposing the agenda of Planned Parenthood,” one of its projects being the Corporate Funding Project which educates companies about Planned Parenthood to convince them to stop their financial support. LDI provides a list of corporations that refuse to deny support to Planned Parenthoodand encourages those who care about life and God’s commandments to boycott them. The Boycott List includes corporate names, subsidiaries, products, services and how to contact each company, and can be ordered at


In Ephesians 5:11 the Lord instructs us to “have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.” In his commentary, Matthew Henry writes that having fellowship with the deeds of darkness is done not only by committing a sin but also by “commendation, counsel, consent, or concealment” of the sins of others. He points out that the second part of the text shows we must not only refrain from but also reprove sin in order to not have fellowship with them, and this should be done by witnessing “seasonably and pertinently, in our words; but especially by the holiness of our lives, and a religious conversation.”

In the case of abortion, refraining from having one isn’t good enough. In the case of Planned Parenthood, not to use its services doesn’t quite meet biblical standards. We must neither engage in the organization’s works of darkness, nor give consent to them with our financial interactions. At the same time, we are called to reprove in love, in order to hinder the triumph of evil, to seek our neighbor’s welfare, and to bring glory to God’s great name.”For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also” (Matthew 6:21).


According to Life Decisions International, at least 283 corporations have already ceased their funding, resulting in a 40 million dollar loss for Planned Parenthood. Clearly, just as Wilberforce engaged in a boycott to end the injustice of his time, those who boycott corporate supporters of Planned Parenthood today attempt to eliminate the greatest human rights abuse of our day.

People often ask what they can do to help make a difference for life. While there is no single way to restore respect for the sanctity of life in our society, one thing is true. The pro-life movement will only succeed to the extent that pro-life people are willing to be inconvenienced. After all, if we say abortion is a terrible injustice but do not act accordingly to save precious children from being killed, why should anyone believe us?”

Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?

One of the favorite atheist rebuttals” during arguments concerning the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,and  among other issues of historicity confirming Christian record, is the flippant statement that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” This is generally followed by a triumphant look on the part of the atheist, who is quite positive that his or her extensive reading of the Wiki-Quotes of Christopher Hitchens handily trump any examination of historiography or philosophical consistency.

But let’s take a closer look at that statement. Does the statement extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” actually hold true, or for that matter, really mean anything?

That statement can be broken up into three sections, which should be examined individually before examined in conjunction with each other:

1. Extraordinary Claims
2. Requires
3. Extraordinary Evidence

Let’s first unpackage the beginning of the sentence. When, for example, Christians give the historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ or for His miracles, atheists call this an extraordinary claim. A “claim,” of course, could be defined as a proposition of some sort. But what is extraordinary? Which claims are defined as extraordinary, which claims are mundane, and which claims are, let’s say, completely extraordinary? Is there some sort of scale that grades claims on how extraordinary they are? An objective ranking from one to ten?

This even applies on a very basic cultural level. Let us give you a very basic example:

EG. “Buddhist and Hindu belief systems formed in India and Tibet teach that the body is governed by many chakras, or energy centres. There are seven major chakras: six are aligned in an ascending column from the base of the spine to the tip of the head and one hovers outside the body, between the genitals and the knees.

Anne Rooney, The Story of Medicine, Arcturus Publishing Limited, 2011, pg, 15

To people who have grown up in Western culture, this would be a more extraordinary claim. People living in India might not find it so extraordinary. This makes the concepts of extraordinary completely subjective. How can an objective value be placed upon a word such as extraordinary? The idea that certain claims, such as the resurrection of Jesus or biblical miracles in general are extraordinary, is completely the subjective opinion of the person stating this. We could point out that for over a millenia it would be the atheist’s denial of Jesus’ life as described in the Gospels which would be an extraordinary claim. This irony just goes to further prove the point that calling a claim extraordinary, while a clever rhetorical device, is essentially meaningless.

Before examining the second point, let’s briefly unpackage the third while we’re discussing the concept of extraordinary claims.

3. Extraordinary Evidence.

In order to really see what the questioner is demanding here, both words must be examined. We`ve looked at extraordinary, and determined that it is both subjective and ambiguous. So what of “evidence?”

Evidence is a very slippery word. What does evidence mean–and who gets to decide? The idea of evidence looks very different from person to person. A Yogi’s idea of evidence might seem very different then what a scientist considers to be evidence.

For example:

There is something which speaks within us in the language of eternity, not merely in the language of transitoriness. The consciousness of the transitoriness of things is an indication of the presence of a non-transitory eternity. This is a subtle voice that speaks within us, but it gets stifled, smothered by the mud that is thrown over it and the dust that is kicked up by the activity of the senses which blinds our eyes until we cannot see what is hidden behind this profundity within our own selves.”

The Yogi believes that “senses… blind our eyes until we cannot see what is hidden behind this profundity within our own selves,” whereas a scientist uses the senses to find evidence. The scientist will go through the rigours of the scientific method to find evidence and the Yogi will go through the rigors of meditation to find the “profundity within our own selves.”

Thus, even the word “evidence” itself must be clarified if it is to be deemed objective instead of subjective. The person who is making the claim must be able to demonstrate what they call evidence is actually valid evidence. A search of human philosophy will demonstrate that this is harder to do then what most people first think.[1]

The final word in this sentence is “requires.”

2. Requires.

Even if one could show that “extraordinary claims” and “extraordinary evidence” are indeed objective, which looks extremely unlikely, it is hard to see why one “requires” them to correlate to each other. What if a claim is indeed true, but there is little evidence for it? Under this approach the person would fall into error because of this completely unproven approach. He would deny the claim because of this word. At one time there was little evidence that the earth was round, so the scientific community thought the earth was flat. There was plenty of evidence for that, just look at the ocean. It looks flat. There doesn’t seem to be a necessary connection between an Extraordinary Claim and Extraordinary Evidence. Rather, it appears that this approach could lead one into error.

This entire article might seem to some a flippant response to a reasonable demand. But is the demand reasonable? From a philosophical perspective, the recent tomes being churned out by the self-labelled “Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse” are exceptionally shallow books. Do they ask good questions? Yes. Do they bring up some good points? Absolutely. Are they in any way philosophically consistent to the point that their thesis of anti-theism can be accepted? Absolutely not. And thus, the rhetorical devices of the anti-theist crowd must be held to the same high standards they disingenuously claim to hold religion to.

The stark reality is that the witty statement “extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence” is one that in every sense that matters is semantically meaningless. It is actually an attempt to demand the evidence that the asker would require to believe in something without explaining why that is necessary. When the polemical anti-God, anti-Christian rhetoric of someone like Christopher Hitchens is examined, it becomes quite clear that no matter what evidence is presented, he never would have decided to believe in God’s existence because the idea itself was reprehensible to him.

And thus, this statement should be abandoned as a rhetorical device, rather then a valid argument, due to its lack of meaning and philosophical function.

[1] For example, If the atheists using this phrase would then state that only reason or only the scientific method can provide true evidence, then they must explain why reason cannot in and of itself prove that reason is rational, or that the scientific method cannot be used to demonstrate that its methods actually produce truthful results.

Christians – The Last True Contrarians

There is probably no more sought after title among writers, activists and idealistic university students than that of “contrarian”—the martyr-like defender of a righteous cause. Many even attempt to become contrarians by wittily opposing the mainstream as much as possible, in spite of the fact that it is becoming increasingly difficult to appear the martyr by opposing global warming. I find the desire to be a contrarian to be extremely self contradictory—if a contrarian is indeed one who defends a righteous cause, than while the contrarian may in fact be a voice crying in the wilderness, he should not enjoy being so. Instead, a contrarian by definition should long for his views—if indeed he actually believes them to be true—to be main stream.

And what true contrarians are left in today’s washed-out culture? It often seems as if the era of youthful rage against injustice is over, simply because the great causes of today are more or less agreed upon. Environmentalism is trendy, even to some extent among conservatives. No one is advocating for any sort of racist apartheid or devaluing of any ethnic group. Every one pretty much agrees (albeit with much apathy) that the genocides in Darfur, Congo and elsewhere are horrific and should be put to an end (just not by us.) For the most part, what passes for controversy today are manufactured tempests in teacups, with greedy journalists eagerly waiting for someone, anyone to say anything that resembles racism, or sexism, or some other “ism.”

Ironically, I think that the last real contrarians are the Christians.

Christians do not want to be contrarians. They want to be main stream, simply because Christianity is a religion that makes universalist claims. If Christians actually do believe their own faith, they must believe that the entire world would be better off following biblical truth. Of course, much of this truth is quite uncomfortable to today’s culture of instant gratification and moral relativism.

We believe abortion, based on embryology, biology, and moral philosophy is the wilful destruction of a human life that we have no right to take.

We believe that gay marriage should not be permitted, based on both religious truth and the societal implications that reflect that truth.

We believe that promiscuity is not only immoral, but damaging to society.

We believe that Christianity is the only true faith.

These views, while once prevalent, are not very popular now, although I would argue that all but the last of these statements is self-evident. If you challenge our culture on abortion, you get called “anti-choice,” or “misogynist,” or some other creative slur. If you challenge the idea that gay marriage is a valid concept, you get compared to George Wallace or some equally distasteful racist. And if you point out the ill effects of promiscuity, you get called a prude, or sexually repressed, or worse.

Yet, Christians do not wallow in the idea that we are “contrarians,” hugging this epithet to ourselves as a badge of honour. Because, as any genuine contrarian, we would prefer that others would recognize the truth in what we say and change their minds. We genuinely believe that if people would comport themselves in a Christian fashion, society would be better off.

Now, I realize that it may be hard to believe that country that lacked a sky-rocketing STD rate, plunging demographics, and broken homes could be better. But we actually believe it.

Even if everyone else thinks something to the contrary.

How To Die In Oregon: Our Culture’s Dance with the Devil

Generally, people don’t like a story where all the main characters die. However, that is precisely the point of a new HBO documentary entitled How to Die in Oregon, which traces the lives—and deaths–of a number of people after the passage of Oregon’s notorious 1994 assisted suicide, or “Die with Dignity” law.

The documentary begins with a morbid scene of a volunteer from an assisted suicide group called “Compassion and Choices” asking an old man surrounded by his family two questions: “You know you have the right to change your mind?” and “Do you know what this medication will do to you?”

The man answers gruffly that he wants do die, and affirms that he knows he is choosing suicide. The scene closes morbidly as the man breathes his last.

This documentary is a perfect example of how those who reject biblical truth are selling their message to the next generation. “I’m very against religion telling me what to do,” declares one man defiantly. And the message of “dying with dignity” is cleverly sold to viewers as it follows the lives of a number of elderly people and cancer victims, all asking for “medication” that will kill them while saying things that while intended to be comforting, should chill all of us.

“I don’t want to be a burden.”

“It’s the decent thing to do. For once in my life I’ll do something decent.”

“I just want to close my eyes and drift off…”

The film is eminently visceral, and incurs powerful emotions. It follows the journey of one likeable, dignified woman with cancer as she tells her children and husband that when she loses certain functions, she wants to take poison to end her own life. As the documentary records her grief, the grief of her family, and the gut-wrenching pain she suffers from her cancer, you begin to feel empathy. Her suffering tore at my guts while I watched. You slowly begin to understand why she’s making the decision to die.

That is because when we abandon any objective truth, decisions become about how one feels, not about what is right. Compassion becomes not what is best for someone, but what will make them feel the best temporarily. The documentary does not once address the fact that death is the gateway to an eternity, that we will not just “close our eyes and drift off,” but rather face our Creator. It cites people talking about how they want ultimate control over their lives, without examining whether or not that control is ours to take.

Neither does it address more fundamental truths. Why is human life valuable in the first place? What are the dangers, the “slippery slope” of assisted suicide? When God is taken out of the picture and we succumb to utilitarianism, it can be argued that suicide in the face of suffering is the right answer. Of course, if God does exist, then our desire for the “right” to choose our own time to die is just one more evidence of our complete societal rejection of the sovereignty of God. This documentary tries to normalize death, ignoring the fact that death is inherently unnatural—a punishment for our original sin that should never be considered normal.

And while the secularists will immediately accuse me of a slippery slope argument, how can we not examine the implications of allowing the practice of medicine extend to the gruesome business of ending lives? We have only to look at the Netherlands, where reports tell us many are euthanized without their consent, and the elderly often fear going to the hospital because doctors have become dispensers of death as well as life. They cannot be sure that what the doctor is putting in their IV bag is medicine—because the word “medicine” has been mangled to include poison.

Indeed, the documentary does admit the possibility of this, citing a man named Randy Stroup. Stroup was suffering from prostate cancer, and asked his health insurance provider to cover new chemotherapy treatments. Instead, he received a letter informing him that while his prognosis wasn’t good enough to waste money on chemo, they would pay for “end of life treatment.” Essentially, they quietly informed him that his life was no longer worth fighting for, and that if he wanted to die, they would pay for the poison.

When Stroup went public, the Oregon Health Board reversed its decision. However, this scenario is just a little preview of what is to come. With many reports citing the desertion of elderly parents and relatives in care homes by the younger generation, we should ask ourselves not just what a terminal cancer patient would do with a perverse law like this, but what impatient and greedy children might do as they see “their” inheritance slowly shrinking to pay for the care of their parents. When love waxes cold and human life is valueless, there may be many who will say in despair, “I don’t want to be a burden” and actually believe that taking their own life is “the decent thing to do.”

For Canadian readers, take note. The documentary also interviews a woman named Nancy Niedzielski, who helped crusade for the legalization of assisted suicide in Washington State. On her way to an interview with a Canadian radio station, she comments: “Evidently this is a hot topic in Canada.”

And so it is. We must remain vigilant against the further eroding of our Christian heritage and further attacks on the value of human life, created in God’s image. When you receive requests for assistance by those who seek to combat euthanasia and other attacks on human life, please respond. The churches are the conscience of the nation. If those consciences fall silent, what can we expect? Look to the Netherlands, and say “Not here. Not in Canada.” Look at their mobile euthanasia units, the commitment of infanticide due to the 2002 Groningen Policy, and their downgrading of human life, and make a decision. This cannot happen here.

Here, we can still fight.