
THE WRITING ON THE WALL
Any believer, or really anyone, who knows anything about the Bible, even if only a little bit, can clearly see the writing on the wall. We are in the End Times and Jesus' return is imminent.
Take the passage in 2 Timothy 3:1–7.....
2 Timothy 3:1–7 (NKJV)
“But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away! For of this sort are those who creep into households and make captives of gullible women loaded down with sins, led away by various lusts, always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
Does this passage not clearly describe our current society?
I mean, these behaviors have always existed throughout human history—as far back as Adam and Eve, and Cain and Abel. Pride, greed, violence, sexual immorality, selfishness, rebellion, and mankind's rejection of God are certainly nothing new.
But what concerns me is the degree to which these characteristics seem to have become increasingly prevalent in our society, and how many things that were once widely considered immoral, destructive, or shameful are now not only accepted, but in some cases celebrated.
To me, the change has been dramatic, particularly over the last several years.
When I look around at our society today, I can't help but think about Paul's warning.
We live in a culture increasingly focused on self.
My happiness.
My desires.
My truth.
My body.
My choice.
My identity.
My feelings.
My life.
There is certainly nothing wrong with recognizing that every individual has value. Christianity itself teaches that every human being is created in the image of God.
But there is a tremendous difference between recognizing the value of the individual and making the individual the center of everything.
Christianity teaches us to deny ourselves.
Our culture increasingly tells us to indulge ourselves.
Jesus tells us to follow Him.
Our culture tells us to follow our hearts.
Scripture tells us that truth comes from God.
Our culture increasingly tells us that each individual can determine truth for himself or herself.
Those are fundamentally different ways of looking at life.
THE VALUE OF HUMAN LIFE
One of the areas where I believe we can see this change most clearly is in the way our society views human life.
As a Christian, I believe human life is sacred because we are created in the image of God.
Our value does not come from our age.
It does not come from our health.
It does not come from our intelligence.
It does not come from our physical abilities.
It does not come from our productivity.
And it does not come from whether someone else considers our life convenient or inconvenient.
Our value comes from God.
That applies to the unborn child.
It applies to the newborn baby.
It applies to the disabled.
It applies to the elderly.
It applies to the terminally ill.
And it applies to every human being in between.
ABORTION
Perhaps nowhere is the debate over the value of human life more obvious than abortion.
I understand that abortion is an emotional and deeply divisive subject. I also understand that there are extraordinarily difficult circumstances involving pregnancy, and I do not pretend that every situation is simple.
But my Christian belief is straightforward:
Life is created by God, and human life has value before birth.
Psalm 139 describes God as knowing us and forming us in the womb. Jeremiah speaks of God knowing him before He formed him in the womb.
For me, that makes the unborn child more than simply a political issue.
That child is a human life.
And when I look at how dramatically society's attitudes toward abortion have changed, I again find myself thinking about the larger question running throughout this article:
Who determines the value of a human life?
If our value comes from God, then another person's circumstances, desires, fears, or assessment of our worth cannot be what ultimately determines whether our life has value.
But abortion is not the only area where questions about the value of human life are being raised.
Increasingly, societies are also debating whether intentionally ending a person's life can be considered an act of compassion when that person is suffering.
That brings us to another issue that deeply concerns me:
MEDICALLY ASSISTED DEATH
Several countries now permit some form of euthanasia or physician-assisted dying under particular circumstances.
Supporters argue that competent adults experiencing unbearable suffering should have the right to make decisions concerning the timing and manner of their own deaths.
I understand the compassion behind wanting to relieve another human being's suffering.
But as a Christian, I believe we must also ask a much deeper question:
What happens when death itself becomes an accepted solution to suffering?
And perhaps nowhere is that question more important right now than in Canada.
CANADA AND MEDICAL ASSISTANCE IN DYING
Canada provides another example that deserves discussion.
Canada legalized Medical Assistance in Dying, commonly known as MAID, in 2016. Initially, eligibility required, among other things, that a person's natural death be “reasonably foreseeable.”
But only five years later, in 2021, Canadian law was expanded. A person's natural death no longer had to be reasonably foreseeable in order to qualify for MAID. This created a separate pathway for people suffering from serious and incurable illnesses, diseases, or disabilities even when they were not approaching natural death.
Think about how quickly that boundary moved.
In 2016, Canadians were told that medically assisted death would be available under specific circumstances involving people whose deaths were reasonably foreseeable.
Five years later, the requirement that death be reasonably foreseeable was removed for another category of patients.
And another expansion has already been written into Canadian law: people whose sole underlying medical condition is mental illness are scheduled to become eligible for MAID beginning March 17, 2027, although implementation of that expansion has already been postponed more than once.
The numbers themselves are staggering.
According to Health Canada, 15,343 people received MAID in 2023 alone. That represented approximately 4.7 percent of all deaths in Canada that year.
Since legalization, tens of thousands of Canadians have died through MAID.
A 2025 article published by Dordt University, The Cautionary Tale of Euthanasia in Canada, raises an important question from a Christian perspective: What happens when a society increasingly begins to view death as an answer to suffering?
The article points out that the suffering associated with requests for MAID is not limited simply to uncontrolled physical pain.
According to Canadian MAID data discussed in the article, among the commonly reported sources of suffering were the loss of the ability to participate in meaningful activities, the inability to perform activities of daily living, perceived loss of dignity, isolation or loneliness, and feeling like a burden upon family, friends, or caregivers.
That should cause us to stop and think.
Loneliness.
Loss of independence.
Feeling like a burden.
Loss of dignity.
These are profoundly human experiences —particularly among the elderly, seriously ill, and disabled.
But should death become our answer to them?
As Christians, I believe our answer should be exactly the opposite.
When someone is lonely, we should surround that person with fellowship.
When someone becomes dependent upon others, we should help carry that burden.
When someone believes he or she has lost dignity because of illness or disability, we should remind that person that human dignity does not come from physical ability, independence, productivity, or health.
Our dignity comes from God.
We are created in His image.
A person confined to a wheelchair has no less value than someone who can walk.
A person who requires assistance eating, bathing, or dressing has no less value than someone who lives independently.
A person suffering from cancer, ALS, multiple sclerosis, severe disability, or another devastating disease does not somehow become less human because his or her body is failing.
And a person who feels like a burden should never be made to believe that the world would be better without them.
That is what concerns me about the direction in which this can move.
The Dordt University article describes Canada as a cautionary tale—a warning about what can happen when death increasingly becomes accepted as a solution to human suffering.
I believe Christians should offer something radically different.
When people suffer, we should not abandon them.
We should walk beside them.
We should care for them.
We should relieve suffering wherever reasonably possible.
We should provide excellent medical and palliative care.
We should remind them that their lives still possess meaning and value.
And above all, we should remind them that their dignity does not depend upon what their bodies can still do.
Their dignity comes from the God who created them.
If human life has value because it was created by God, then its value cannot simply disappear when that life becomes difficult, painful, inconvenient, dependent, disabled, or elderly.
And if Canada's experience raises difficult questions about adults choosing medically assisted death, consider what has now happened in the Netherlands—where the person whose life was intentionally ended could not possibly have made that choice for himself or herself.
The person was a child who wasn't even two years old.
THE NETHERLANDS
In late 2025, doctors intentionally ended the life of a child who was not even two years old—the first reported case under the Netherlands' framework allowing the termination of life of children between the ages of one and twelve.
The child unquestionably suffered from devastating and irreversible medical conditions. Born extremely prematurely at just over 26 weeks, the child suffered extensive brain damage, severe cerebral palsy, visual impairment, frequent epileptic seizures, and serious difficulties with breathing and swallowing.
But here is something important.
The official review did not describe this child as facing imminent death. Instead, it stated that the child had a reduced life expectancy that depended upon the occurrence of future life-threatening complications.
There was no expectation of recovery or significant improvement, and physicians believed the child's suffering would increase.
Even some of the physicians consulted during the process initially disagreed about whether ending the child's life was justified.
One consultation team concluded that it could not be established that the child's suffering met the required standard and believed reasonable alternatives remained.
Later physicians reached a different conclusion, determining that the suffering was unbearable and that no reasonable alternative existed.
Ultimately, the child's parents requested that the child's life be ended, and the physician agreed.
The child was almost two years old.
Obviously, a child that young could not understand what euthanasia was, much less make an informed request to die.
Adults made that decision for the child.
The physician administered increasing doses of sedating medications, followed by drugs intended to induce a deep coma, and the child died.
I cannot imagine the suffering this child experienced. Nor can I imagine the heartbreak of parents watching their child suffer from such devastating disabilities. I do not question their love for their child, and I am certainly not minimizing the terrible circumstances confronting that family.
But precisely because the circumstances are so heartbreaking, we need to ask an extraordinarily difficult moral question:
When did intentionally ending the life of a child become an acceptable answer to suffering?
Think about where that line has moved.
We are no longer talking about an unborn child.
We are not talking about an adult who has personally requested assisted death.
We are talking about a living child who was not even two years old and could not possibly consent to having his or her life ended.
The decision was made by adults who determined that the child's suffering was unbearable, that meaningful improvement was not expected, and that ending the child's life was the only reasonable remaining option.
As a Christian, that deeply troubles me.
Because if human life derives its value from God, then severe disability cannot remove that value.
Suffering cannot remove it.
Dependence upon other people cannot remove it.
A shortened life expectancy cannot remove it.
And another human being's assessment of someone's future quality of life cannot remove it.
The Christian response to suffering should be extraordinary compassion: relieve pain, provide the best palliative care possible, surround the suffering person with love, support the family, and walk beside that person through the darkest moments imaginable.
But there is an enormous moral difference between allowing natural death when medicine can no longer prevent it and intentionally causing death.
For me, that is a line we should be very reluctant to cross.
Because once human beings assume the authority to determine that another person's suffering has made continued life no longer worthwhile—particularly when that person is incapable of making that decision for himself or herself—we have entered profoundly dangerous moral territory.
THE MASSACHUSETTS CASE
Now consider the recent Massachusetts trial involving a mother accused of killing her three young children.
These were not unborn children. They were three living, breathing children.
The mother was accused of killing her five-year-old daughter, her three-year-old son, and her eight-month-old son in 2023. The case eventually went to trial, where there was little dispute that she caused their deaths. The central issue was her criminal responsibility at the time.
Her defense argued that she was suffering from severe postpartum mental illness, including postpartum psychosis, and therefore should not be held criminally responsible. Prosecutors argued that her actions demonstrated planning and deliberation and that she understood what she was doing.
The jury was ultimately unable to reach a unanimous verdict, resulting in a mistrial.
The public reaction to this case has troubled me almost as much as the case itself.
There has been tremendous sympathy for the mother because of her reported mental-health struggles. A fundraising effort established for her parents eventually raised more than $1 million to help them with expenses associated with supporting their daughter.
People suffering from severe mental illness deserve appropriate treatment, compassion, and care.
But three children are still dead.
Three innocent children lost their lives.
Surely we can have compassion for someone suffering from severe mental illness without losing sight of the children whose lives were taken.
As Christians, those two things should not be mutually exclusive.
We can show mercy and compassion toward people who are suffering while still recognizing the enormous moral seriousness of taking innocent human life.
God's commandment is clear:
“You shall not murder.”
Human life matters because God created it.
And that brings us to another area where I believe our culture has moved dramatically away from biblical teaching:
Sexuality, marriage, and gender.
SEXUALITY, GENDER, AND GOD'S DESIGN
Another area where I believe our culture has moved dramatically away from biblical teaching concerns sexuality, marriage, and gender.
Genesis tells us that God created mankind in His own image:
“Male and female He created them.”
God created man and woman with purpose. He brought them together and commanded humanity to “be fruitful and multiply.”
There is an order to God's creation.
Throughout creation we see male and female, reproduction according to kind, and an intentional design established by the Creator.
Human beings did not create that order.
God did.
Only a man and a woman can naturally produce another human being. Two men cannot conceive a child together. Two women cannot conceive a child together without biological material from a male.
That isn't hatred.
It is biological reality, and for Christians it also reflects the design described in Scripture.
Our culture's attitudes toward homosexuality, gender identity, and sexuality have changed enormously during my lifetime.
When I was younger, homosexual relationships were rarely displayed publicly in the way they are today. Transgender identity was not something regularly discussed in schools, advertising, entertainment, government, or mainstream media.
Today, Pride celebrations take place throughout the country. LGBTQIA+ identities are represented throughout entertainment, television, movies, politics, corporations, advertising, and education.
And increasingly, Christians who continue to hold the traditional biblical understanding of marriage, sexuality, and biological sex are told that our beliefs themselves are hateful.
If we say homosexual sexual activity is sinful, we may be called homophobic.
If we say that God created humanity male and female, we may be called transphobic.
If we refuse to affirm something that contradicts our understanding of Scripture, we may be called intolerant or bigoted.
But Christianity was never supposed to change its teachings every time society changed its standards.
If Scripture is truly the Word of God, then I don't have the authority to rewrite it simply because its teachings become unpopular.
At the same time, Christians need to remember something equally important:
We are commanded to love people.
I don't hate gay or transgender people.
Quite the contrary.
I have friends who are gay. They are human beings created in the image of God, just as I am. I want them—and everyone else—to know Jesus Christ.
I pray that they encounter Him, experience His love, recognize the truth of His Word, repent of sin, and follow Him.
And before anyone reads this and thinks I am pointing my finger at everybody else's sin while pretending I have none of my own, let me make something very clear:
I was no angel before finding Jesus.
Not even close.
I had sin in my own life.
I made mistakes.
I lived according to my own desires.
And eventually I had a choice to make.
Would I continue living according to what I wanted, or would I surrender myself to Christ?
Would I continue living in sin, or would I repent, deny my flesh, and begin following Him?
I chose to follow Him.
That doesn't mean I suddenly became perfect.
I wasn't perfect then.
I'm not perfect now.
And I won't become perfect through my own efforts.
That is precisely why I need a Savior.
The Gospel isn't:
“Look how much better I am than you.”
The Gospel is:
“I am a sinner too, and Jesus Christ saved me.”
That distinction matters.
Biblical Christianity does not teach Christians to hate homosexuals, transgender people, adulterers, alcoholics, drug addicts, liars, thieves, sexually immoral people, prideful people—or anybody else.
It teaches that all of us have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.
All of us need forgiveness.
All of us need grace.
All of us need Jesus.
But loving somebody does not require me to tell that person that everything he or she does is good.
If I truly believe something separates a person from God, remaining silent because I am afraid of offending that person isn't necessarily love.
Sometimes love requires telling the truth.
But it matters how we tell it.
Mockery isn't evangelism.
Cruelty isn't courage.
Degrading another human being doesn't demonstrate Christ's love.
Jesus demonstrated both truth and mercy.
Christians should strive to do the same.
I believe God's design for sexuality and marriage remains what Scripture says it is. I also believe every person standing outside that design is someone Christ died for.
Those beliefs are not contradictory.
God is a God of order and truth.
But He is also a God of mercy, forgiveness, grace, and love.
I know that personally because I have needed every one of those things myself.
And that brings me to my final example—one that is much more personal to me.
MY 27 YEARS IN LAW ENFORCEMENT
My last example is much more personal to me.
I became a police officer in 1994. It was something I felt driven to do. Looking back now through the eyes of my faith, some might say God was directing me toward that line of work.
I spent 27 years in law enforcement, serving with five different police agencies before retiring in 2021.
During those years, I worked in numerous assignments and positions. I served in patrol, investigations as a detective, gangs, narcotics, as a K-9 handler, patrol sergeant, background investigator, traffic unit supervisor, and eventually as a K-9 unit supervisor.
Over the course of that career, I probably worked alongside approximately 400 different law-enforcement officers.
Were all of them perfect?
Absolutely not.
Neither was I.
Police officers are human beings. They make mistakes, exercise poor judgment, lose their tempers, struggle with problems in their personal lives, and sometimes make decisions they regret.
But there is an enormous difference between being imperfect and being corrupt.
Out of the hundreds of officers I worked with during those 27 years, I am personally aware of only three whom I considered legitimately dirty cops.
One was involved with using or stealing narcotics.
Another was having sex with prostitutes while on duty while supposedly conducting sex-offender checks.
A third was suspected of stealing while on duty.
The first two were arrested, lost their law-enforcement careers, and were never allowed to work as police officers again.
In the third case, we could not prove the suspected theft. Nevertheless, the officer was ultimately terminated and did not continue working as a police officer.
Three officers out of approximately 400 with whom I worked.
I didn't personally like every officer I worked beside. I certainly didn't agree with every decision they made. And as a supervisor, there were officers whom I had to counsel, discipline, correct, or simply tell things they didn't want to hear.
That's part of the job.
But with the exceptions I mentioned, the overwhelming majority of the men and women I served with were good people trying to do an extremely difficult job.
They served their communities with honor.
And I was proud to serve alongside them.
I was proud of my profession.
I was proud of my career and what I accomplished during those 27 years.
But toward the end of my career, particularly as I approached retirement in 2021, I began noticing changes among some of the younger officers entering the profession.
I emphasize the word some because it would be unfair to characterize an entire generation of officers based upon my experiences with particular individuals. I worked with younger officers who were hardworking, intelligent, courageous, respectful, and committed to serving their communities.
But I also began encountering attitudes that concerned me.
Some newer officers seemed more self-focused. Some were difficult to work with. Some struggled with criticism or correction. Some lacked the social skills, common sense, maturity, and life experience that I had been accustomed to seeing in new officers earlier in my career.
Some seemed to resent being told what to do—even though law enforcement is, by its very nature, a profession built upon a chain of command.
Others seemed to expect supervisors to handle them with kid gloves.
One incident in particular has always stuck with me.
I had a newer officer working under me when I was a sergeant. His reports weren't being completed and submitted on time.
So I did what supervisors have been doing forever:
I told him to get his reports turned in on time.
He apparently didn't appreciate my tone.
He filed a complaint against me.
As I understood it, he felt intimidated or threatened by the way I spoke to him.
The complaint was investigated.
I was cleared.
The officer subsequently failed to successfully complete his probationary period and was terminated.
That incident wasn't the entire basis for my concerns, nor am I suggesting that one officer represented everybody entering law enforcement at that time.
He was simply one example among a number of experiences that caused me to recognize that the culture within the profession was changing.
As those of us who had entered law enforcement in earlier decades began retiring, a new generation was taking our place.
Every generation is different from the one before it. Some of those differences are undoubtedly positive. Policing itself has also changed enormously, and some reforms have made officers more accountable, professional, and better trained.
But other changes concerned me.
I began seeing attitudes inside the profession that seemed to reflect some of the same attitudes I was seeing throughout society:
Entitlement.
Self-centeredness.
Resistance to authority.
Difficulty accepting criticism.
Less personal accountability.
And an expectation that the world should accommodate the individual rather than the individual learning discipline, responsibility, and self-control.
Those are precisely the kinds of characteristics that make Paul's words in 2 Timothy so striking to me:
“Lovers of themselves... proud... headstrong... haughty... lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God...”
I had read those words before.
But now I felt like I was watching some of them unfold around me.
Today, as a retired police officer, I frequently see news reports involving police officers accused of serious misconduct.
Some allegations prove true.
Others don't.
An accusation against an officer is not proof of guilt, just as an accusation against anybody else is not proof of guilt. Due process matters.
I also know that modern technology has dramatically changed what we see. Nearly everyone carries a camera. Officers wear body cameras. Patrol cars have cameras. Businesses have surveillance systems. Social media can spread an incident across the country within minutes.
That means misconduct that might once have gone unnoticed can now become national news almost instantly.
For that reason, I cannot simply claim that every disturbing police-misconduct story proves misconduct is statistically increasing nationwide. That requires reliable evidence rather than anecdotal observation.
But I can tell you what I personally observe.
As someone who spent nearly three decades wearing a badge, some of what I see concerns me deeply.
And it isn't limited to law enforcement.
I see troubling examples in the fire service, government, education, businesses, families, entertainment, social media, and nearly every other institution in society.
The profession I knew wasn't perfect.
The generation I came from wasn't perfect.
I wasn't perfect.
But something has changed.
Accountability increasingly seems negotiable.
Personal responsibility is increasingly replaced by excuses.
Self-control is treated as oppression.
Authority is automatically viewed with suspicion.
Truth itself sometimes appears to mean whatever an individual wants it to mean.
And personal happiness has increasingly become the ultimate standard:
“If it makes me happy, it must be right.”
But Christianity teaches almost exactly the opposite.
Jesus didn't say: