Introduction

"Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people" (Proverbs 14:34).

In 1979, Dr. C. Everett Koop and Dr. Francis Schaeffer predicted that things unthinkable before the 1970's would be accepted by society by the end of the 1990's. Things like killing elderly and handicapped people, same-sex marriages and partial birth abortions. Why is this? Why such significant changes in moral values in such a short time?

Prior to the 1970's, societal moral views were built on a biblical basis. God's moral law was the framework for moral judgments. This produced righteousness; a general outward righteousness that exalted our nation. "Righteousness exalteth a nation."

Secular humanism, however, replaced the Word of God as the basis for determining moral values. Humanists see people as evolutionary animals, as products of chance, not creatures of God. As the highest evolutionary creature, no moral absolutes are higher than man. Moral standards therefore change with people's opinions. Opinion polls and ideas perceived to be politically correct drive moral consensus.

"But sin is a reproach to any people." What was sin before became questionable in the 70's, acceptable in the 80's and those who opposed this and called sin "sin" became seen as " problems" in the 90's. What will the current decade produce?

What is the result of embracing sin in our society? A reproach. We witness the consequences of sin; consequence of self-centeredness: immorality, violence, family breakdown and all types offensive and rebellious behaviours. What is the result of embracing sin in as a society? "Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people."

Supreme Court Pornography Decision

On January 26th the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in the case of child pornography dealer John Robin Sharpe. Some pro-family groups have expressed relief that the decision upholds most of the current legal restrictions on child pornography. Many are far less positive and fear that the Court has opened the door to acceptance of such material by finding that Canadian law too severely restricts the freedom of child porn users on at least two points.

In a 6-3 decision the Court said that the current law's infringement on Charter rights are for the most part justified. The Justices declared an exception regarding the "possession of any written material or visual representation created by the accused alone, and held by the accused alone, exclusively for his or her own personal use."

Thus a pedophile collection of stories and drawings, including realistic computer generated images involving the depiction of young children with adults in any depraved act are now allowed by law as long as they are self-produced and not distributed. Police forces will now have the more difficult task of having to prove that child pornography, of the nature allowed by the ruling, was actually meant for distribution.

Gwen Landolt, lawyer for Real Women, said that the material should be outlawed on the grounds that it is intrinsically reprehensible and that those with pedophilic cravings for these materials should be helped out of their disorder rather than having their illness fed. The court ruling itself seemed to concur when it said that child pornography "fuels fantasies that incite offenders to offend."

The Court has ruled that the exceptions will be read into the law and thus no amendment by the government is required to comply with the decision. The only option open to the Government to reverse this decision, which some critics find disturbing, is to use the notwithstanding clause to negate the read-in of the increased 'freedom' for child pornographers.

The decision is the latest of many by Canadian courts citing the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to alter Parliament-made law and advance the liberalization of the moral culture. The National Post reported that there were some 100 cases involving child pornography on hold awaiting the result of this ruling.

Dr. D. Reid of Focus on the Family stated that "We cannot rest while our children's safety is still endangered by those who would prey upon them through child prostitution and sex tourism. It is crucial that lawmakers keep the safety of Canada's children uppermost in their thinking. It is their rights - not the rights of those who would exploit our children - that need protection."

This is another sad example of what happens to a society that turns away from God and His Word. We need to pray that the Lord will still have mercy upon us and cause us to repent of our sins.

Supreme Court Upholds Latimer’s 10-year Sentence

The Supreme Court of Canada ruled unanimously on January 18 that Robert Latimer must serve the regular sentence for second-degree murder - a 25-year sentence with a minimum ten years in prison. Latimer, who killed his 12-year-old disabled daughter Tracy in 1993 argued that he acted out of love and mercy.

The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada (EFC), an intervenor in the case, praised the decision. "As a society, our message to parents of disabled children must be one of compassion and a commitment to assist them in caring for their children. We must not condone or excuse the taking of their child's life," said spokesperson Bruce Clemenger.

"The disabled are pressed on all sides by those who assert that their lives are of lesser worth than others," wrote lawyer Iain Benson, executive director for the Ottawa-based Centre For Cultural Renewal, in a review of the ruling. "To grant Robert Latimer a lesser sentence [would be] to agree that the life of Tracy Latimer was of such a nature that it was not of any value to her. To pardon Mr. Latimer while he maintains that his choice was the right one, the moral one, would weaken our collective grasp of the inviolability of life and the equal dignity of the disabled."

The response of many Canadians to this case has been sympathy for the Latimer family. Others, especially of the disabled community, point out that Court testimony suggested Tracy did not suffer untreatable pain and was not unhappy. The Latimers refused assistance and rejected medical assistance to help Tracy.

Certainly this tragic case should cause us to examine our own response to the needs of poor and suffering families in our community. "Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ" Galations 6:2.

Less Television Viewing Results in Less Aggressive Behaviour

Elementary school-age students who reduce the amount of time they spend watching TV show a decrease in aggressive behavior. This is the result of a recent study conducted by the Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine in the United States.

Researchers from Stanford University Medical School reported that an eight month program to limit television viewing among 225 third and fourth grade students from two schools in San Jose, California, led to a statistically significant reduction in aggression on the school playground.

What is one contributing factor to escalating violence among our children and young people, at younger and younger ages? The considerable hours spent watching TV.

Universal Daycare in British Columbia

Universal daycare is fast becoming a reality in British Columbia. Effective January, 2001 the first phase of Child Care B.C. program was implemented. By 2004, Child Care B.C. will cover all forms of licensed child care. Currently parents with children from Grade 1 to age 12 enrolled in licensed group centres are paying $7.00 a day per child. Over the next four years, infants, toddlers, 3 to 5-year-olds, and children in licensed care during summer months will be phased into the program. By 2002, parents will pay a maximum of $14 per day and all remaining daycare costs will be subsidized by government. According to a recent news release from the B.C. Ministry of Social Development and Economic Security, the federal funding towards the program is about $40 million per year and the annual cost of Child Care B.C. in 2005 is being estimated at $400 million. All children will be eligible for participating programs regardless of family income and it will not be the parents, but the licensed childcare provider, who applies for the funding.

On the surface the Child Care BC program may sound positive, but there are several areas of concern.

The government already has a child-care fee subsidy program for low-income parents which will remain in effect. While recognizing there are families where the parent(s) must work and use daycare due to economic hardship or other circumstances, there are others for whom this is not a necessity. An increasing financial burden is being placed upon the Canadian tax-payer to subsidize daycare for anyone regardless of means or need, and, "stay-at-home parents who don’t put their children in daycare must be wondering why their tax dollars are subsidizing daycare at all."

The new program discriminates against parents who stay at home to care for their children and also those who rely on members of their extended family or neighbors. Basically, the NDP is taking taxes from single income families and in some cases giving it to dual-income families who have their children in daycare by choice. According to an article in the March 2000 Fraser Forum, "only 16 percent of Canadian families claim child-care expense deductions for commercial daycare", and if it were affordable, "89 percent of parents would prefer home care for their children over professional daycare. 75 percent of dual-income couples wish they could afford to have one parent stay home and raise their child(ren)". Would it not be better to implement changes to our current federal tax rules so that a parent, or an extended family member, would be able to stay home as the primary care-giver of the children?

Another area of concern is the long-term effects of institutionalized childcare. Although a study recently claimed that preschoolers benefit from a stimulating daycare-type environment, several others have found that daycare children are more likely to be aggressive with peers, more likely to catch illness, and more likely to show disrespect towards adults. According to Judith Anderson, an adjunct professor at SFU, government daycare initiatives may initially be successful but are ultimately short-sighted. She also points out the irony that while on the one hand, governments have been racing to de-institutionalize mental patients, the elderly, and criminals, on the other, they are advancing policies to institutionalize children. "No one knows the effect of institutionalizing most infants for most of their waking hours", she says. "Our children are guinea pigs in an experiment with no exact precedents."

What is happening to the parental role in the rearing of their children? According to proponents of government daycare, dual-income families are increasingly seeking outside care of their children, and now there is a child-care crisis for which universal daycare is proposed as the solution. In fact, as mentioned previously, most Canadian families prefer parental care or care provided by extended family. The Bible is also quite clear regarding the responsibility of parents in the bringing up of their children. God who created us knows best and it is his plan that children be raised in the loving environment of their family. And yet again we see evidence of man’s desire to be wiser than God. The push for government-run daycare moves forward, the traditional family values of parental care continue to be under attack, and "the state" is becoming more involved in the upbringing of children. Please remember to pray, and also to write letters to express your concern regarding this new program. Let us encourage those in government positions to oppose the trend of universal daycare and instead, seek ways to support all families in providing for the care of children in their own homes.

Evolution: What It Means to a Christian

Many today believe that the creation/evolution controversy is strictly a scientific debate. It has nothing to do with their life and therefore, does not concern them

This could not be further from the truth. Whether we realize it or not, evolution and its many related theories and ideas affect each one of us every day of our lives.

In the 17th to 18th centuries, most theologians and scientists were strictly creationist with the odd exception. They held to a literal interpretation of the Bible and believed that the Bible was the infallible word of God. During the early 19th century, a few geologists began propounding the theory that the earth was very old. This change in focus grew until, in 1859, Darwin proposed his theory of evolution of new species through natural selection. Many scientists and even more importantly, several theologians, readily accepted this theory and began applying it to all areas of science and theology. Many Christian leaders today regard the Genesis account of creation and the flood to be an allegory or outright error. Consequently, Biblical inerrancy is questioned and rejected by many and the foundation of true Christian belief is undermined. The man-made theory of evolution and its related ideas has taken creation’s place as the foundation of thought in our society.

The theory of evolution has many far-reaching effects. Many Christian communities struggle to somehow compromise Christian belief with so-called science. This has led to many ideas such as the Gap Theory, local flood theory or tranquil flood theory. Today many Christian camps are jumping on the "intelligent design" bandwagon but even that tends to often compromise God’s Word, as the "Big Bang Theory" is often accepted as an explanation of the origin of the earth.

Evolution also produces many social effects. If God did not create man as a perfect being in His own image, then there is no basis for morality. If humans evolved along with the animals by chance, then there is no reason to respect and love one’s neighbor. The theory of natural selection by survival of the fittest applied to the human race produces devastating results. Abortion and euthanasia become acceptable because human life has no special value. Animal rights become exaggerated because animals are equal to humans. Homosexuality and promiscuity become commonplace and are considered normal. Is this a picture of our society and where it is going? The root cause of this is sin. It is unbelief in God. Believing evolution rather than divine creation is a foundational cause.

So what do we do? We must understand the far-reaching effects of evolution and realize it is a tool of Satan to turn this world upside-down. We must return to God’s Word and use it as the only foundation for all our beliefs. God created the world in six literal days and created Adam and Eve on the sixth day to have "dominion" and to "subdue" the earth. God did not create the crowning glory of His creation millions of years after the rest of creation, as this would defeat the whole purpose of creation. If the scriptural creation and flood accounts are fables, then so is the story of the fall and man’s need for a Redeemer, Jesus Christ. Returning to God and His Word will lead us, under God’s blessing hand, to stronger family life, better knowledge of sin and its consequences, good environmental stewardship, and a realization of the need for a Savior, Jesus Christ.

What can we do? We should support organizations that are constantly at the front lines of this battle, fighting the influence of evolution on both theological and scientific fronts. There are several of these organizations but two in particular that stand at the forefront. Answers in Genesis is an organization based in Australia, which publishes a quarterly magazine called Creation: Ex Nihilo. This magazine offers many helpful and interesting articles from a creation science perspective, often linking evolution with its social and religious consequences. This magazine can be ordered from:

The other organization actively involved in this debate is the Institute for Creation Research. They also publish a periodical called Acts and Facts. This magazine can be obtained from:

While we cannot agree with every doctrinal perspective in all articles, these magazines provide sound Biblical teachings about creation and solid scientific evidence that witness of God’s creation in six days and a worldwide flood.

Redefinition of Marriage Being Sought in the Courts

Recently two gay and lesbian couples were "married" in the Metropolitan Community Church in Toronto with the expected fallout that the couples plan to sue the Ontario government after they have refused to recognize the legality of their "marriage" even though federal law defines marriage as a "voluntary union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others."

Even though the opinion polls seem to suggest a slight decrease in the number of Canadians who support gay marriages, the newspapers including the Toronto Sun, the Toronto Star, the National Post and the Globe and Mail have written a number of editorials supporting the overhaul of marriage laws.

Currently court cases have been launched in British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec. These court cases will be funded by taxpayers through the Federal Court Challenges Program (FCCP). Canada’s strong homosexual activist group Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere (EGALE) has been the push behind this. This was orchestrated by Shielagh Day, a lesbian activist who chairs the government FCCP Committee on equality issues, thus requiring the public to pick up the tab for the "equality" cases.

Recent rulings have allowed intervenor status in these cases to be granted to two groups on either side of the debate. Intervening to protect marriage are the Association of Marriage and the Family (Real Women of Canada, the Canadian Family Action Coalition and Focus on the Family) as well as the Interfaith Coalition on Marriage and Family (the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, The Catholic Civil Rights League, The Ontario Conference of Catholic Bishops, and the Archdiocese of Vancouver). Intervening on behalf of the homosexual couples is EGALE and the Metropolitan Community Church.

Meanwhile in the Netherlands, the Dutch senate has passed laws legalizing same sex marriages and allowing gay and lesbian couples to adopt children, all scheduled to take effect in April. Currently the country’s civil codes are being re-written to remove phrases like "father and mother" and "man and woman" to be replaced with "partner". At the moment it does not appear that non-residents could flock to the Netherlands to be married or that other countries will recognize the gay marriages.

The BC case is due to be heard in court this July, the Ontario case is scheduled for the fall, and the Quebec timetable has not yet been set. Pray for our nation as our courts rule on these cases, and continue to make our voices heard with our lawmakers and our judges.

Closing