Posted on

We’re not in Kansas Anymore – Reflections on the Passage of Bill C-4

PAUL CARTER  |  DECEMBER 8, 2021 (From an article written for the Gospel Coalition)

On Tuesday, December 7th the Canadian Senate passed Bill C-4, effectively banning the practice known as conversion therapy. The bill had been introduced to the House of Commons on November 29th and was approved on December 1st without further debate or study. It received Royal Assent today and will become the law of the land in 30 days.

The vast majority of Christians are opposed to the sort of coercive practices that many associate with conversion therapy; however, the language of Bill C-4 as passed is exceedingly broad and may have the effect of criminalizing religious conversation and teaching with respect to the Biblical perspective on human sexuality and gender.

The proposed changes to the Criminal Code by Bill C-4 are summarized as follows:

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to, among other things, create the following offences:

(a)?causing another person to undergo conversion therapy;

(b)?doing anything for the purpose of removing a child from Canada with the intention that the child undergo conversion therapy outside Canada;

(c)?promoting or advertising conversion therapy; and

(d)?receiving a financial or other material benefit from the provision of conversion therapy.

It also amends the Criminal Code to authorize courts to order that advertisements for conversion therapy be disposed of or deleted.[1]

This new bill thus expands the provisions of the original proposal from protecting minors to protecting persons in general. It seeks to criminalize any act of “causing another person to undergo conversion therapy”. It does not matter that the person consented to or even sought out the therapy in question.

Again, if conversion therapy were to be defined as “using coercive means or methods to change a person’s gender identity or sexual orientation/behaviour” then most Christians would heartily endorse this bill. The definition proposed, however, is exceedingly broad:

Definition of conversion therapy

320.?101?In sections 320.?102 to 320.?104, conversion therapy means a practice, treatment or service designed to

(a)?change a person’s sexual orientation to heterosexual;

(b)?change a person’s gender identity to cisgender;

(c)?change a person’s gender expression so that it conforms to the sex assigned to the person at birth;

(d)?repress or reduce non-heterosexual attraction or sexual behaviour;

(e)?repress a person’s non-cisgender gender identity; or

(f)?repress or reduce a person’s gender expression that does not conform to the sex assigned to the person at birth.

For greater certainty, this definition does not include a practice, treatment or service that relates to the exploration or development of an integrated personal identity — such as a practice, treatment or service that relates to a person’s gender transition — and that is not based on an assumption that a particular sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression is to be preferred over another.[2]

The Bible does not make a distinction between biological sex and gender, so it is unclear from this definition if preaching a sermon on Genesis 1:27 would now place a pastor outside the boundaries of Canadian law:

“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” (Genesis 1:27 ESV)

Of further concern is the provision that “conversion therapy” be identified with efforts to “repress or reduce non-heterosexual attraction or sexual behaviour”. The Bible clearly identifies heterosexual marriage as the proper context for sexual behaviour and expression and urges all others outside that estate to exercise self-control. Is a Bible Study on the fruit of the Spirit, as taught in Galatians 5, now to be considered outside the law?

“But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.” (Galatians 5:22–23 ESV)

One suspects that the government intends to see such questions answered in the courts.

What is clear is that the government has privileged a very particular metaphysical view – a view at odds with medical science and nearly every religious tradition on planet earth. Their view is plainly stated in the preamble to the bill that passed without dissent and to loud applause on December 7th:

Whereas conversion therapy causes harm to the persons who are subjected to it;

Whereas conversion therapy causes harm to society because, among other things, it is based on and propagates myths and stereotypes about sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression, including the myth that heterosexuality, cisgender gender identity, and gender expression that conforms to the sex assigned to a person at birth are to be preferred over other sexual orientations, gender identities and gender expressions;

And whereas, in light of those harms, it is important to discourage and denounce the provision of conversion therapy in order to protect the human dignity and equality of all Canadians;

Now, therefore, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:

The idea that gender equates to biological sex would have been taken for granted by every generation of Canadians prior to this one. To enshrine the spirit of the age as the law of the land is an act of hubris. To refer to the beliefs once held universally and still held broadly by many Canadians, as “myths” and “stereotypes” is an act of blatant intolerance. The net result will be legal exposure and authorized harassment of pastors and churches.

Where Does This Go From Here?

As mentioned above, having received Royal Assent, Bill C-4 will become the law of the land within 30 days. At some point thereafter it will likely end up before the courts subject to a constitutional challenge. Given the robust provisions of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms with respect to religious belief and expression, it may be expected that the language and breadth of the bill will be found to exceed what is permitted by law.

Christians should be praying for and working towards a better version of this legislation with the ultimate goal of protecting all people from abusive and coercive practices while at the same time protecting the rights of parents and pastors to read, teach and commend what the Bible has to say about sex and gender.

How Should Canadian Christians Respond?

There are two extremes that ought to be avoided.

Firstly, Christians should avoid over reaction. We mustn’t even appear to be in favour of abusive and coercive practices. Christians do not resort to strong arm tactics. We speak, we love, we model, we commend, we pray. That is our playbook. Conversion therapy should never have been a tool in anyone’s toolbox in the first place. We must avoid over stating our concerns and we must avoid even the appearance of indifference toward people who have suffered under these treatments. We must be narrow and specific with respect to our concerns with Bill C-4.

Secondly, we must avoid trimming our sails. I’ve already heard pastors talking about no longer making their sermons available online and no longer broadcasting worship services. This would place the elderly, the sick and the stranger outside the sound of the Gospel! There may be a place for an offline training event; there may be wisdom in providing some “closed door counsel” to the congregation as to how to engage on these matters, but the Gospel must remain public. If we must suffer for preaching the whole counsel of God, then so be it.

Jesus told us that dangerous days were to be assumed and expected.

“Behold, I am sending you out as sheep in the midst of wolves, so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves.” (Matthew 10:16 ESV)

It’s time for us to take that counsel seriously.

Let us be wise as serpents. Let us not rant and rave in the Public Square. Let us not take the bait on every offered hook. Let us be measured and disciplined in the statement of our concerns.

And let us be innocent as doves. Let us not abandon our call to preach. Let us not turn our backs on the vulnerable and the abused. Let us be humble and restrained in our public protestations.

And if we should suffer for preaching and speaking the truth in love, then let us rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is our reward in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before us.

Even so, come Lord Jesus!

Pastor Paul Carter

To listen to the most recent episodes of Pastor Paul’s Into The Word devotional podcast on the TGC Canada website see here. To access the entire library of available episodes see here. You can find his personal blog, Semper Reformanda, by clicking here.

[1] https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-4/first-reading

[2] https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-4/first-reading

Posted on

Why Democracy Is A Poor Choice For Church Governance

It has been argued that democracy functions most effectively in a Christian culture. However, democracy is not necessarily a Christian form of government. There is no necessary aspect of democracy that absolutely requires a Christian worldview. For that matter, Christianity itself does not mandate democracy or any other form of earthly government. Democracy can exist apart from a Christian worldview. Even still, it’s been a pretty good system for the time it has existed.

The question I wish to ask us to consider is not about the idea of democracy as a form of societal governance, but rather about believing that democracy has a place within church governance. Because we live in a somewhat free and democratic society, there is an underlying belief that democracy is God ordained as the one, the only, and best way to operate in the church community too. But is it?

The Baptist Faith and Message, the confessional document of the Southern Baptist Convention, contains the following statement on the function of the church (Section VI, The Church): “Each congregation operates under the Lordship of Christ through democratic process.”

That’s a clear statement, if there ever is one, of their understanding of church governance. It’s a position that says that that the church is designed by God to function by majority rule through the voting of members of the congregation. As the phrase “democratic process” implies, each member in good standing has equal input in decision making.

Congregational voting – the biblical model for church function or not?

In answering that question, one must distinguish between a consensus and a vote. It is clear that Scripture encourages a consensus among church members and we are commanded to have one mind.

Paul says, “Only conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ; so that whether I come and see you or remain absent, I may hear of you that you are standing firm in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel; in no way alarmed by your opponents.” – Philippians 1:27-28

So, it seems that having one mind is the standard for God’s church, but notice it nowhere says that we are to get really good at the voting processes.

In the New Testament, we see this pattern worked out in the church at Jerusalem. In Acts 6, when men were selected for the distribution of food to the Hellenistic widows at the recommendation of the apostles, it says, “And the statement found approval with the whole congregation; and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas and Nicolas, a proselyte from Antioch” – Acts 6:5 (emphasis added).

This passage clearly indicates that there was a consensus because obviously a choice was made. What the passage does not mention is whether or not a vote was taken in order to make that choice. What we do know, is that the action was not initiated by the congregation but was initiated by the Apostles, who incidentally, were men who held their positions without any human vote having taken place.

Many of my friends in congregational churches (I pastor in one) tend to assume a vote was the means to reaching the consensus in Acts 6, but I really don’t think that this assumption holds up well under scrutiny. Think about times when voting has taken place – anywhere, and you’ll realize that votes never produce consensus.

That’s because a congregational vote is a choice of “yes” or “no” to a proposal that has been made. That proposal may not address the concerns of many in the congregation, so in casting a vote, the voter is sometimes forced to simply choose the lesser of two offensive options and will not be satisfied with any outcome. When the church’s vote is not unanimous, congregational voting may well create disharmony rather than consensus.

Consensus is far more likely to be reached through good communication between leaders and the congregation, especially without Roberts Rules of Order interfering with open discussion, and without limiting the content of the discussion to a single motion or the duration of the discussion to a single meeting. If a statement finds approval with an entire congregation, the leaders and the people will know it without a democratic process.

The truth is that voting and certainly the democratic process was not a part of the cultures of the Old or the New Testament and was not imposed on those cultures by commands of Scripture, as a good many other concepts were. It’s safe to say that the ‘democratic’ process comes from western tradition, not from Scripture.

In fact, I can’t find anywhere in scriptures where the church, the local Body or for that matter any other Body should be a democracy. If anything, the scriptures display a Theocracy with Jesus by the Holy Spirit as the head for the glory of God the father.

Are There Dangers That Democracy Brings?

A danger that democracy brings to the life of a congregation is the frequent error of a majority focus. Throughout history, it’s demonstrated that the majority is often horribly wrong. Look no further than Nazi Germany, or even the movement to popularize homosexuality, abortion, or a myriad of other social and spiritual ills we face in Canada today.

In Exodus 32 the people took a popular vote which led Aaron to acquiesce to the popular consensus: so, he gave them a golden calf. In 1 Samuel the popular choice was to appoint a king over Israel, so God gave them one: Saul. Throughout Scripture, the popular ‘way’ was often a sinful one. That’s why God so frequently sent prophets to hold his people accountable. Without strong, godly leadership, they were like sheep without a shepherd. There seems to be a tendency for people to be led astray in large groups.

What Is The Biblical Model of Leadership?

The biblical model for leadership and decision making within God’s church involves qualified and tested leaders making decisions on behalf of the body. This does not take place without the body’s involvement, but it does take place without granting equal power to those who have not been biblically qualified as elders. First Timothy 3 and Titus 1 are clear regarding qualifications and duties of these leaders. If equal input is given to those who haven’t been biblically qualified, the church in question is simply rejecting God’s commands regarding the function of his church.

The reason that voting is absent in Scripture may well be that voting itself is in conflict with the God-given structure for the church. Hebrews 13:17 commands, “Obey your leaders, and submit to them; for they keep watch over your souls, as those who will give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with grief, for this would be unprofitable for you.” A vote that would remove decision-making responsibility from qualified leaders is in direct opposition to the command of this text.

Democracy can’t bear the test of a careful study of Scripture. It is a system which stands in opposition to God’s design regarding church leadership and church function. As such, it is a concept that can be gently laid aside by the believer who is willing to test everything by the Word and to adjust his or her life accordingly.

Posted on

Why Christians Must Support Donald Trump

“I hate that guy!” “The world would be a better place if she just died today” “If I only had a gun I would…”

We have been seeing, and quite possibly feeling, the deep frustrations of people upset over the governmental leadership they now find themselves under. This has led to marches, rantings on social media, public displays of rage and heated debates around many social spheres at work, home and play. With any political change-up, we find that certain people will be fearful, frustrated, and angry while others will be joyful, optimistic and quite happy about who has been voted to be the ‘first among equals.’

In Ontario, where I currently make my home, I read with dismay some of the death threats (or at least the vivid wishes she were dead) being made about the Premier of the Province via twitter.  What concerned me even more though was that some of my Christian friends joined in.

I understand some of the very real frustrations with our leaders, whether they be Kathleen Wynn in Ontario, Justin Trudeau in Ottawa or Donald Trump in Washington, however what is to be expected of us in our responses to them, even if they are causing much angst? Please don’t think I’m advocating a ‘use me as a door mat’ passivity or even silence, nor am I suggesting to vote or not vote for any of the political personalities out there. For that matter I’m Canadian so couldn’t vote for Trump even if I wanted to; however, I do think that there is a higher response expected of the Christian community that must be embraced first before anything else is said or acted upon.

When the church was first ‘getting its legs’ the emperor was Nero who tortured and killed his enemies which included Christians. Many of those killed were covered with the skins of beasts in order to be torn to pieces by dogs, or were nailed to crosses, or were covered in oil and then fixed on spikes, while alive, ultimately being lit as torches to serve as nightly illumination for his garden parties. It is also believed that Nero was the one responsible for the deaths of both Peter and Paul. And this reign of terror wasn’t his only ‘problem’. Tension among Roman leaders ultimately became so great that the Praetorian Guard transferred their loyalty from Nero to Galba, leading the Senate to declare Nero a public enemy. Nero was forced to flee Rome, and he later took his own life.

This guy was one messed up dude, and yet, the apostle Peter specifically calls the people of Christ to show submission to the emperor. “Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good.” – 1 Peter 2:13-14.

The apostle Paul called on the churches to support, through prayer and by showing thanksgiving, “kings” and “all who are in high positions” “First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way.” – 1 Timothy 2:1-2.

And keep in mind that both these Apostles said these things while under the reign of Nero. The point is that Christians, above all people, should support through prayer and through showing respect, President Trump, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, and Premier Kathleen Wynn as well as all of our elected officials even if you are the polar opposite politically. After all, unlike those who see politics as the ultimate authority, we recognize that our political systems are temporal. We don’t then need to be provoked into the kind of outrage that passes for much of contemporary political discourse.

Finally, the apostle Paul said, “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.” – Romans 13:1 . If that is the case, unlike those who see history as impersonal or unpredictable, we are able to see behind everything a God who is sovereign over his universe and so then can trust him even if we can’t trust the specific person who is in power at the moment.

 

 

<a href=”https://www.bloglovin.com/blog/18483523/?claim=y2c6epmas3n”>Follow my blog with Bloglovin</a>