For generations, Canadians have enjoyed
a reputation for being among the freest people in the world. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and
the ability to openly debate moral and social issues have long been considered
foundational rights. That is why the
advancement of Bill C-9 through Canada’s Senate has generated such intense
concern among Christian leaders, constitutional experts, and faith communities
across the nation.
Supporters of the legislation argue that
it is necessary to combat hatred and protect vulnerable groups from targeted
abuse. Few would dispute the importance
of protecting citizens from violence, harassment, or genuine threats. The concern, however, is not whether hatred
should be opposed. The concern is
whether the government is redefining biblical beliefs themselves as hateful.
At the center of the controversy is Bill
C-9’s removal of Section 319(3)(b) of Canada’s Criminal Code. That provision has historically protected
individuals who express religious beliefs in good faith based on sacred texts
such as the Bible. Critics warn that
removing this safeguard creates a legal environment where long-held Christian
teachings could become vulnerable to criminal complaints.
The legislation is now headed back to
the House of Commons where it is expected to clear Parliament and become law
before the summer recess.
Many Christians are asking a simple
question: What happens next?
The answer is that nobody knows exactly
how the law will be enforced. Yet
history shows that laws often begin with narrow promises before gradually
expanding through court rulings, government interpretations, and activist
pressure campaigns. Christians therefore
have reason to examine not only what the legislation says today but also what
it could enable tomorrow.
Consider a pastor preaching through
Romans 1, where the Apostle Paul describes same-sex relationships as sinful. For two thousand years, this has been a
standard Christian teaching shared by the Christian church. Under previous protections, a pastor could
confidently teach that passage knowing the law recognized the legitimacy of
religious expression.
Under the new framework, critics fear
that a complaint could be filed claiming such preaching promotes hatred against
a protected group.
Perhaps the complaint would ultimately
fail. Perhaps charges would never be
laid. But even an investigation can
become punishment. Churches could face
legal expenses, reputational attacks, media scrutiny, and pressure to
self-censor.
This is how speech restrictions often
evolve—not necessarily through dramatic arrests, but through intimidation.
Imagine a Christian school teaching
students that marriage is between one man and one woman. A teacher quotes Jesus’ words from the Gospel
of Matthew. A parent objects and files a
complaint. Suddenly administrators must
consult lawyers, revise policies, and determine whether biblical instruction
exposes them to liability.
Even if the school eventually prevails,
the message to other institutions becomes clear: avoid controversy, soften
doctrine, and stay silent.
The chilling effect becomes the real
victory.
Another area of concern involves
Christian counselors, pastors, and church leaders who provide spiritual
guidance. Imagine a young adult seeking
advice from a pastor regarding questions about sexuality, gender identity, or
biblical morality. If the pastor
responds by explaining traditional Christian teachings and encouraging the
individual to align his or her life with those beliefs, critics worry that such
conversations could eventually become the subject of complaints.
Perhaps no charges would ever be laid. Perhaps a court would ultimately side with the
pastor. But once legal uncertainty
enters the picture, many ministries may begin avoiding these conversations
altogether. Some pastors could decide
that discussing certain topics simply carries too much risk. The result would be a chilling effect on one
of the church’s most important functions: providing biblical counsel to people
seeking spiritual guidance.
Many churches require pastors, elders,
youth leaders, and ministry staff to affirm statements of faith and live
according to the church’s understanding of biblical morality. Critics of Bill C-9 fear that maintaining such
standards could become increasingly difficult if traditional Christian beliefs
are portrayed as hateful or discriminatory.
Consider a church that requires youth
leaders to affirm biblical teachings regarding marriage and sexuality. A rejected volunteer or former employee could
potentially file a complaint alleging that such standards promote hatred toward
a protected group. Even if the church
eventually prevailed, it could face significant legal costs, public
controversy, and pressure to abandon long-standing doctrinal requirements.
For many believers, the concern is not
merely whether churches would win such cases. The concern is whether years of
investigations, legal battles, and public scrutiny would gradually pressure
Christian institutions to soften or abandon biblical convictions in order to
avoid conflict altogether.
Another practical concern involves
online ministry. Many Canadian pastors
now reach thousands of people through YouTube, Facebook, podcasts, and
livestreams. If authorities begin
viewing certain biblical teachings as potentially hateful, online content could
become a prime target.
Will pastors begin avoiding certain
passages altogether?
Will ministries remove sermons from
their archives?
Will Christian publishers stop printing
books that address controversial moral issues?
These questions may sound alarmist to
some, but similar patterns have already emerged in parts of Europe where speech
laws have increasingly collided with religious expression.
Once government authorities gain greater
power to determine which religious beliefs are acceptable, every unpopular
biblical doctrine becomes vulnerable. Christian
teaching on gender, marriage, sexual morality, exclusivity of salvation through
Christ, and even certain pro-life arguments could eventually come under
scrutiny.
The problem is not merely what today’s
government believes. Governments change.
Cultural standards change. What one administration considers protected
speech, another may classify as harmful expression.
Christians understand this principle
because church history is filled with examples.
Throughout history, governments have
often tolerated Christianity until biblical teaching collided with prevailing
social values. The conflict rarely begins
with a direct ban on Christianity. Instead,
authorities typically insist that believers may continue worshiping privately
so long as they refrain from publicly expressing certain convictions.
Freedom of worship is not the same as
freedom of religion.
Freedom of worship means Christians can
gather inside church buildings and conduct services. Freedom of religion means believers can live
out and proclaim their faith in public life without fear of government
punishment.
Many critics argue that Bill C-9 pushes
Canada closer toward the former model while weakening the latter.
Even Alberta Premier Danielle Smith has
voiced concerns about authorities monitoring church services. Such warnings would have seemed unthinkable in
Canada only a few years ago. Yet they
are now being discussed openly by elected officials.
For Canadian Christians, the response
should not be panic, but preparation.
Churches should educate congregations
about their constitutional rights. Ministries should seek competent legal
counsel. Christian organizations should
strengthen partnerships with religious liberty groups prepared to challenge
unconstitutional applications of the law.
Most importantly, believers should
resist the temptation to retreat into silence.
The New Testament was written largely by
men who lived under governments hostile to Christian teaching. The apostles repeatedly affirmed that
believers must speak truth with both courage and love, even when doing so
carries personal cost.
Christians should never use the Bible as
a weapon to demean or mistreat others. Genuine
hatred has no place in Christian witness. At the same time, Christians cannot abandon
biblical truth simply because society increasingly labels it offensive.
That is the tension Bill C-9 brings into
sharp focus.
The coming years may determine whether
Canada continues to protect robust religious freedom or moves toward a model
where certain biblical convictions are tolerated only when kept private. For many believers, this debate is no longer
merely political or legal.
It is becoming a test of whether
Christians will remain free to openly proclaim what they believe God has
already spoken.
Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.
Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army
Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel