John Stonestreet – Page 5

The Demand for Death in Canada Grows: Guest Column

Sep 5, 2025John StonestreetEuthanasia and Assisted SuicideAssisted Suicide, Euthanasia, Life, Pro-life, Sanctity of Human Life

According to a recent article in The Atlantic, assisted suicide is now so popular in Canada that doctors cannot keep up with the demand. Appropriately titled Canada is Killing Itself, the article described how Medical Assistance in Dying (or MAiD), passed just 10 years ago, now accounts for about one in 20 deaths in Canada. That number is more than the total number of combined deaths from Alzheimer’s and diabetes, and it surpasses many countries where assisted dying has been legal for far longer. The shortage of “care” is not due to a lack of interest from medical professionals. Doctors are in fact flocking to join what the Atlantic article called “the world’s fastest-growing euthanasia regime.”

For example, Dr. Stefanie Green, a founder of the Canadian Association of MAiD Assessors and Providers, traded in her decades-long practice as a maternity doctor to end lives. Both kinds of medicine, she told The Atlantic, are “deliveries.” Some doctors have reported euthanizing hundreds of patients and yet, the demand exceeds the supply.

Canada’s Parliament legalized MAiD in 2016, promising increased autonomy and decreased suffering. Instead, the practice has corrupted medicine, threatened conscience rights, pressured the vulnerable, and expanded the culture of death. As the American Medical Association’s official opinion articulates, “Euthanasia is fundamentally incompatible with the physician’s role as healer, would be difficult or impossible to control, and would pose serious societal risks.” That’s especially true in single-payer health care systems like Canada has. Eventually, the decision of who should live and who should die will be determined by financial realities, justified by arbitrary ideas about “quality of life.”

In fact, whenever and wherever it is legalized, the so-called “right” to die soon becomes a perceived “duty to die.” Though patients are promised “death with dignity” and an end to unnecessary suffering, patients consistently report not wanting to be “a burden” on friends or family. Many are convinced, as law and disability professor Theresia Degener described, “a life with disability is automatically less worth living and that in some cases, death is preferable.” 

Despite what Canadian officials have claimed, there are no effective “safeguards.” A report last year in the New Atlantis noted hundreds of serious violations of regulations in just the Ontario province, and none have been reported to law enforcement. Although Ontario Chief Coroner Dirk Huyer boasted, “Every case is reported. Everybody has scrutiny on all these cases,” physician whistleblowers identified over 400 “issues with compliance.” These range from patients killed who were not capable of consent to communication breakdowns with pharmacists providing the deadly prescriptions. For example, only 61% of physicians notify pharmacists about the purpose of the euthanasia medications prior to dispensation, as required.

Even more troubling are reported cases of providers expediting euthanizing drugs to patients sooner than the legally required 10-day waiting period. In one case, euthanasia provider Dr. Eugenie Tjan administered the wrong drugs. When the patient did not die, the doctor had to administer different drugs to complete the assisted suicide. Huyer failed to report this, eventually admitting this was a “blatant” case of violating Canadian laws: “The family and the deceased person suffered tremendously.”

Also, according to the report, about one quarter of all euthanasia providers in Ontario were notified by the coroner’s office of a compliance issue in 2023 alone. National law states that all reports should lead to criminal investigations, but Huyer failed to report even one. Instead, he determined that all issues in question required only an “informal conversation” with the practitioner. Dr. Tjan, for example, received an email of warning and remains licensed.

To call this a “slippery slope” is an understatement. MAiD began as a practice limited to gravely ill patients at the end of life. The law has already expanded to include people suffering from serious medical conditions but not facing imminent death. MAiD will soon be available to those suffering only from mental illness. Parliament has also recommended granting access to minors.

Assisted suicide is not a medical practice. Rather, it is a practice that corrupts medicine, risks abuse, and erodes public trust. The best-case scenario at this point is that Canada becomes a deterrent for the rest of the world, and that Christians there demonstrate courage in how they live and how they die.

Guest Column: That Bible Verse Is Not About Immigration (and Other Ways How Not to Read the Bible)

Aug 7, 2025John StonestreetChristianityBible, Christianity, Religious Freedom, Religious Liberty

Recently on X, the Department of Homeland Security posted a video that featured immigration enforcement officers riding in Black Hawk helicopters and toting rifles to a cover of Johnny Cash’s song “God’s Gonna Cut You Down.” A narrator quoted Isaiah 6:8: “Here am I, send me.”

Democratic Congressman Hakeem Jeffries utilized a similar hermeneutic a few days later. Quoting from the Gospel of Matthew during a record-breaking speech to delay the passing of President Trump’s “Big, Beautiful Bill,” he said,

For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat. I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink. I was a stranger, and you invited me in. I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.

According to Jeffries, this passage applies to government assistance programs. “It’s not just in [U.S.] law, it’s right here in Matthew,” he said.

As Christian statistician Ryan Burge pointed out in a post on X, “there’s been empirical work” demonstrating how both the Right and the Left “emphasize Bible verses that [reinforce] their own political perspectives,” while conveniently ignoring the context of those verses.

Selective proof-texting points to how widespread and deep biblical illiteracy is. In addition to an ignorance of the actual content of the Bible, there is ignorance about what the Bible even is, and how Christians throughout the ages have used it. It’s bad when this ignorance shows up in politics. It’s sad when it shows up in our churches and Christian subcultures.

Who hasn’t seen a “verse of the day” calendar that overlays a singular motivational Bible quote on a field of flowers or a sunset? Before the DHS misused Isaiah 6:8, thousands of church conferences and short-term mission trips have, with “Here am I, send me” printed on banners and t-shirts. Often missing is Isaiah’s near-death experience and repentance beforehand, not to mention what God actually sent Isaiah to do (basically, fail as a prophet until he was eventually sawn in half).

Christian publishing, much of Christian music, and maybe the majority of Bible studies are afflicted with this same bad habit. Christian bookstores are full of “Bible promise” titles filled with de-contextualized verses meant to directly apply to the reader. But how many books of Bible curses are there, though the Bible includes those, too? How many Americans, in the habit of “verse plucking,” gladly claim Deuteronomy 28’s national blessings, but don’t read on about the national curses for disobedience that directly follow? How many Bible studies ask the question, “What does this verse mean to you” before truly wrestling with, “What does this verse mean?”

For years, I led a session for Christian school leaders entitled “How (Not) to Read the Bible.” But of course, the point isn’t to take the Bible out of anyone’s hands. Rather, it is to help us know and understand this essential way that God has made Himself known. Rather than treat Scripture as a fortune cookie, we have what Peter called, “the prophetic word more fully confirmed.” More confirmed than what? Astonishingly, Peter wrote that the Word of God is more sure than his own experience with Christ on the Mount of Transfiguration.

A simple, effective way to understand Scripture is to ask where the verse in question fits, within the chapter, the book, the testament, and redemptive history as a whole. Who was speaking, and why? For example, best not to quote an observation about God or life out of the middle of Job, when his friends give “darken[ing] counsel by words without knowledge.” Answering these questions always requires reading more than a single verse.

Also, we should always ask where a passage fits within the four-act drama of the whole Story of Scripture. Seeing the Bible’s larger movements from Creation to Fall to Redemption to Restoration de-centers ourselves and our stories from the text and re-centers God and His story. This will also require reading the Bible not in isolation from other Christians or from Christian history. God’s Word, like the Christian faith it reveals, is personal, but as Peter goes on to say, it is not private. The Bible tells the story of God and His creation, so we must ask, “Where do I fit into it?” rather than “Where does it fit into my life?”

None of this means the Bible ought not be personally applied or, for that matter, brought into policy discussions. Rightly understood, the Bible speaks to all of life. We must be careful to bring the Word of God to our discussions, rather than our opinions masqueraded as a Bible verse. After all, unlike our political class and inspirational calendars, God has not revealed Himself in soundbites.

Lessons from the Rise and Faltering of Transgenderism: Guest Column

Jul 9, 2025John StonestreetTransgenderLGBT, Transgender

Many “inevitable” social movements turned out not to be so inevitable. The most notable recent example is transgenderism. In the latest development of this fast-moving story, earlier this month the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a Tennessee law that prohibited so-called “transgender care” for minors, including hormone therapy and sex-reassignment procedures.

Predictably, the American Psychological Association threw a fit about the ruling, scolding the court for disregarding “decades of psychological research and clinical consensus,” and jeopardizing “the health and wellbeing of transgender youth.” Aside from further eroding their public credibility, the APA statement ignores the obvious fact that any consensus around transgender “care” and identity is collapsing. It’s not 2016 anymore. First, there was the Cass Report, which questioned key claims of transgender medicalization. Then there was the closing of Britain’s only gender clinic. Also in recent days, L.A. Children’s Hospital announced it would close its center for transgender youth, one of the largest and oldest clinics of its kind and a hub for “gender reassignment” surgeries on children for years.

Public opinion has shifted as well. Earlier this year, Pew Research reported that about two-thirds of adults now support policies requiring trans athletes to compete on teams that match their biology. Most adults also support outlawing gender identity curriculum in elementary schools. Compared to just three years ago, more Americans now support laws that require people to use the bathroom corresponding to their sex and favor banning transgender surgery on minors. And just last week, the University of Pennsylvania signed an agreement with the Office of Civil Rights of the Department of Education about men competing in women’s sports. Penn will now strip Lia (born William) Thomas of his swimming wins against women, reinstate the integrity of women’s athletic teams and spaces, and apologize to the women whose rightful athletic “records, titles, or similar recognitions” were stolen by a male athlete.

Now somewhat on the other side of this cultural confusion, there are two crucial lessons to be learned about how culture changes, and how to fight future battles. First is how unpredictable and fragile supposedly “inevitable” cultural progress is. A few short years ago, corporations, government, higher education, entertainment, science, and medical establishments were being aligned in support of the idea that boys can become girls, and vice versa. But then a few courageous athletes, artists, filmmakers, de-transitioners, and a handful of public figures like J.K Rowling and Jordan Peterson spoke out. Unfortunately, many Christians and high-profile pastors were unwilling to do the same.

And yet, remarkably, it was enough to start the resistance. The momentum of the trans movement has now slowed and faltered. Though Irreversible Damage was inflicted on too many individuals, especially children, the mutilation of bodies and poisoning of minds turned out to be not inevitable, culturally. This should embolden us all to be willing to break the “spiral of silence” sooner and to stand courageously against false ideas in the future. After all, the worst ideas flourish when people are convinced that resistance is futile.

The second lesson to learn is how quickly social contagions spread. How an observably absurd and unscientific idea like transgenderism took over the West should humble us all and highlight the danger of losing a high and shared view of the human person. Until we can agree broadly on what it means to be human, what sex is for, what male and female mean, what marriage is, and why there are givens to our embodied nature, we remain susceptible to other absurd and dangerous notions.

And so, we should ask, even as this particularly bad idea is in retreat, what “inevitable” bad idea might take its place? How can we as Christians be better prepared and willing to respond?

As neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet, a likely (but tentative) guess is that we will encounter new and dangerous forms of transhumanism. Just as transgenderism began with the belief that the body is merely a vehicle for the “authentic self,” so will visions of biological enhancement, AI relationships, new forms of “designer baby” eugenics, and attempts at immortality. And anyone who believes that there are created givens to the human person and moral boundaries that limit the expression of our “true selves” will be castigated and accused of hate, bigotry, and anti-science. Christians who understand that humans are made in the image of God must speak early and often, and especially clearly, no matter the cost.

Thank God that trans ideology, though far from defeated, is faltering. However, short of a cultural revolution in which our createdness is embraced and the myth of self-creation rejected, the West will continue to be vulnerable to the next bad idea that claims to be inevitable.