There are so many things that are happening in our world that are problematic. Here in Canada, speech is being censored, gas prices are continuing to climb, travel is still being limited, jobs are still being withheld from certain people, manufactured food shortages are in the works, communist universal basic income bills are going through parliament, our Prime Minister is pushing climate change action, and people continue to kill babies in the womb.
As I scroll through my news feeds, it is easy to find stuff to expose and correct, but it is challenging to find things worth celebrating here in Canada. My news feed is bombarded with stories that display an unbridled, hastened shift away from any moral foundation. The common moral foundations which society seemed to agree on have been removed. This shift has been spurred on by embracing the postmodern philosophical worldview - where truth is based on subjective feelings and experience. No longer do we strive to understand what is true, but simply what we want to believe is true. God has given our nation up to what seems right in their own minds (Rom. 1:24), leading to a nation that thinks men can be pregnant, drag queens can teach children about sexuality, and schools see no harm in teaching children about masturbation. Unsurprisingly, these news stories are championed and celebrated by our culture, and they eclipse stories worthy of celebration. It's so easy to get caught up in all this bad news that we sometimes forget to celebrate the victories. So, for a change, I want to share some good news that you may have already heard. There have been some favourable outcomes in the provincial courts in British Columbia and Alberta regarding rulings made in cases involving different pastors. On May 2, after nearly a year of being wrongly convicted, the criminal charges on Tim Stephens were dropped! On May 12, two dozen covid violation tickets against three BC pastors who faithfully opened their churches despite the tyrannical restrictions were dropped. These tickets would have totalled $55,200. And this hasn't just happened in the western provinces, but over here in Atlantic Canada as well! God's word says, "Rejoice in the Lord always..." (Php. 4:4). The dropping of these criminal charges and tickets is something that we can rejoice about! It shows how God vindicates and provides for those who stand for what is right. But notice the word "always." That's how often we should rejoice! But this news seems like a needle in a haystack of perversion. How can we rejoice in a time when there is so much bad stuff that is taking place? That's something I've been thinking about recently and something I asked you about this week. This is what I heard from you:
These people get it! We can be thankful amid all this bad news because of what God is doing and where history is ultimately leading. Take, for instance, the tickets that these BC pastors had received. It was troublesome news, and yet God used them for the good of His church. Gathering now meant there was a price. And with the price came the motivation needed to grow closer together. Fellowship became sweeter, deeper and more personal for many. He also used them to reveal the tyranny of the unjust leaders in Canada and expanded the witness of His church. People took notice. And some who never would have come into a church, came. Depending upon the church, these people would have heard a clear gospel message - and some even got saved! God used these tickets as a means to grow his church. That's something to rejoice about! And now it seems he again is using the tickets to advance his kingdom. Truth is being revealed through the court cases, and the church is being vindicated. So Paul writes, "Rejoice in the Lord always..." (Php. 4:4) Always? Yes, always! Now, I'll admit, it's easier to grumble, criticize and complain than it is to rejoice and be thankful! I even find this true when it comes to writing. It's much easier to expose the bad things in Canada and criticize it for what it is than to sit down and write about thankfulness and things to be thankful for. As I'm writing this, I see other news items come across my news feed, and I'm torn between writing about thankfulness or focusing on them and ripping them apart. I'm struggling with why I am writing about this topic when there are troublesome current events in Canada that seem to be more pressing - Events that pose a threat to our nation's sovereignty, such as the International Treaty on Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness and Response that's been presented by the WHO. Why write about thankfulness in such a time as this? Because as important as it is to expose sin and error in our nation, thankfulness keeps our witness winsome (Php. 4:5) and guards our hearts and minds against worry and bitterness (Php. 4:6-7). Too much criticizing turns people away and makes our hearts cynical. It often leads to grumbling, which is a sin that we are told to avoid (Php. 2:14; Jas. 5:9). Yes, we are to warn and instruct others of sin; but grumbling stems from a heart attitude where we believe God is not sufficiently good, wise, faithful, loving, powerful or competent. This is to be avoided - and we do that through thankfulness. Which, by the way, is God's will for us. Paul writes, "Give thanks in all circumstances; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you" (1 Thess. 5:18). God's word is clear; it's our emotions and opinions that get in the way. We find it difficult to be thankful because we either think we deserve better or fail to understand God's sovereign activity. So when times are troublesome, we need to remember some key truths.
Though Canada is in a mess morally, and there are so many troublesome events taking place, try to see what God is doing in our nation. He's not asleep at the wheel or powerless to bring an end to the madness; rather, He is actively leading everything according to His plan and purpose. So be vigilant not only in your stand for the truth, but in our watchfulness of his work in your country.
6 Comments
When I was in high school, I took chemistry. By no stretch of the imagination was I good at the subject. I took it because I wanted to do lab experiments. Well, that's where I became familiar with an expression I thought was common to everyone – the litmus test. Have you heard of that expression? The term comes from chemistry, where litmus paper is dipped into a solution to determine the PH of that solution. The paper turns a particular colour depending upon the PH factor.
In society, the expression "the litmus test" is used metaphorically to refer to a test in which a single factor (such as an attitude, event or fact) is decisive in determining the state of a specific thing. For instance, many people have been using whether a church stayed open despite the restrictions as the test of whether that church is faithful and healthy. But is that even fair? Is that even the determining factor of the state of a church? Yes, to some degree, gathering in person is a sign of a healthy church. You can't be a church if you aren't assembling. I mean, it's in the word church! The word literally means a called-out assembly. However, if this is the litmus test of a healthy church, then we got a problem. You see, throughout the last couple of years, there has been a mixture of churches that refused to close - some that I would never recommend someone to attend. This week I was sent an article about The Church in the Vine, which is located in Edmonton, Alberta. They tried to follow different health protocols, which were reasonable. However, when it came to restricting attendance and permitting health officials to go in and observe that they were following the mandates, they refused to comply. Though I respect them for refusing the health officials to come in and disturb their worship service, I would not recommend someone to enter their church. It is a hotbed of heresy. They are a full-fledged NAR church with women pastors that promote, teach and adhere to new revelations given by God. They are governed by emotionalism, attractionalism, experience, and mysticism over the clear teaching of God's Word. Here's an unpopular opinion. Ready? Some churches that closed their doors when the government restricted gathering are more doctrinally sound than some that stayed open. And some that stayed open should have closed for good. Merely gathering and being active cannot be the litmus test – and this is evident in the book of Malachi. During that time in history, there was a lot of worship activity taking place. The doors were open, and people were coming to the priests to offer sacrifices. The priests were actively performing their duties. Yet, God calls for them to bring all this to a close. He literally says, "Oh, how I wish someone would close the doors." What was happening for God to say this? The activity taking place was in violation of God's clear instructions. They offered sacrifices that were blemished and abhorrent to God. So, is there a litmus test that can be used to determine the state of a church? The answer is yes. The test is how close that church adheres to God's Word. I think it's clear that discernment is needed when determining the state of a church. Though the church in the Vine gathered and did not restrict attendance, there were some red flags regarding their worship. For instance:
These are just some red flags that a quick website and Facebook search can find. How many red flags do you need until you recognize the church is not healthy and should be avoided? We can't know the red flags in a church unless we are doing the litmus test. But this demands something from us - consistent reading and studying of God's Word. We need to know God's word to apply God's word rightly. And we need to handle God's word rightly to apply it rightly. If we interpret scripture with a humanistic hermeneutic, it will do us no good in determining an activity that goes against God's Word. It would be like trying to do the litmus test without the paper, or at most with a different type of paper that wouldn't display an accurate result. There are some things that we should be looking for in a church. Signs that it is spiritually healthy. Last week I asked a question on my Instagram story about what you considered were signs of a healthy church. I loved what each of you had to say! I'll admit, sometimes it feels like I'm writing to an audience of one - so it's always encouraging to hear from you! Here's what some of you had to say:
All of these can be backed up with multiple scripture verses. But what is the overarching sign of a healthy church? A devotion to sound doctrine. As one person replied about what makes a healthy church, "They hold to sound doctrine, everything will fall in line after that." When you read about the early church in Acts, there are four things that they devoted themselves to (Acts 2:42). The first thing that is mentioned is the apostle's teachings; after that came fellowship, the Lord's Supper and prayer. It's been said, "Orthodoxy leads to orthopraxy." Or in other words, right doctrine leads to right living. So what does a church look like that is devoted to sound doctrine? Well, that's another blog for another time. When I was younger, my parents gave me a bible for Christmas. On the "presented to" page, my Dad wrote my name and then at the bottom, he wrote three bible references. One of those bible references was 2 Timothy 2:15 - "Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth." This verse has propelled me always to strive to understand, handle and teach God's Word accurately.
The expression "rightly handling" is also translated as "rightly divide" and has in mind the idea of cutting a straight line or laying a straight path in the teaching of God's Word. There's a right and a wrong way to handle and teach God's word. Sadly, in many churches, God's word is mishandled, manhandled and at times not even handled. How we read and interpret scripture matters. In many churches, a humanistic hermeneutic influenced by postmodernism is employed. Now, that's a mouthful! So, let me break down some of those words to try to explain what I mean. Postmodernism is a philosophical worldview that focuses on the reality of an individual, making truth relative to what a person perceives to be true in his reality. Those who hold to this worldview dismiss objective truth (truth outside of a person's experience) and assert that truth cannot be known for certain. As a result, they deny any universal truth claim and absolute truth. The tell-tale sign that someone adheres to this worldview, or at the very least is influenced by it, is the expression, "Well, that may be true for you but not for me." Postmodernism is humanistic. Something that is humanist over-emphasizes humanity, especially individuals within a society. This humanistic worldview has influenced how many Christians read and interpret the Bible. That brings us to our third word – hermeneutics. Hermeneutics is the method or principle of interpretation. In the church, a humanistic hermeneutic influenced by postmodernism is one where the interpreter interprets the bible passage based on their own individual reality and experience. So what does that look like in the church? Well, let me give you a few different scenarios.
These are three typical scenarios where the humanistic hermeneutic is being employed and even encouraged. This is not how we are to read, handle and interpret the Bible. To put it bluntly, it doesn't really matter what we think of the passage. We don't want to know what we think it means; we want to know what the author intended it to mean to his original audience. An author writes a book in a historical setting with an intended purpose and audience in mind. They choose their words intentionally to build their story or argument. This is called authorial intent. And it really should be something we are familiar with. We understand that when we read a book, we don't jump in the middle of it and say, "Ah ha, the author is saying this," when we have not read what proceeded it. We also don't pick up Pilgrims Progress, a book written by John Bunyan to allegorically describe the Christian journey, and use it as a recipe book. Why? Because that's not the author's intent! Yet, for some reason, we forget to discover the author's intent when it comes to the books of the Bible, and we jump into interpreting it with our own thoughts. I think what's helpful to mention here is that the Bible consists of 66 books written by 35 authors. Each book is written with an intended audience and purpose in mind. It would be best if you learned the author's intent before you attempt to interpret what a certain passage means. Thankfully, the author's intent is found in the book they have written and often is clearly stated. I'll give you two examples:
Now, why am I harping on this? The humanistic hermeneutic I've mentioned seeks to replace authorial intent with an individualized perspective. This is appealing because it opens the scriptures up to what we want them to say, and we get to reshape them into something more palatable - something more fitting with our culture, our agenda, or even the sins we want to continue doing. The issues that are found in many churches, some of which I have discussed on other blogs, are not because they don't read the Bible; it's because they interpret it based on a man-centred hermeneutic that emphasizes individualized truths and distorts the simple meaning of scripture. As a good student of God's Word who desires to handle God's Word rightly, you need to discover the author's purpose. But that demands work! It demands study! It requires getting to know the historical setting in which the book was written. There's a method of interpretation that seeks to do this. It's called the Historical-Grammatical method of interpretation. Now, you might be cautious about using a method, thinking that it's unspiritual. I can hear it now - "Ya, but the Holy Spirit is your teacher. He's the one that will lead you in the truth. Just listen to him!" This spiritual approach may actually open the door to a humanistic hermeneutic since it relies heavily on personal revelation. Furthermore, it goes against other clear teachings of scripture like 2 Timothy 2:15 which portrays the Christian as a worker who works hard to rightly handled God's word and Proverbs 2:4 that refers to a seeker of truth as someone who works hard to discover the truth like a man seeking and minging for precious jewels. Everyone uses a method; the only question is how close does that method bring you to rightly handling God's Word? I'll state it plainly – the historical-grammatical method of interpretation is probably the best approach to studying God's Word. You may have never heard of this method; however, it has been around since Martin Luther and the protestant reformation. This method was a reaction against the Four-Fold method of interpretation that gave rise to wild ideas and allegorizations of the Bible – especially in books like Song of Solomon. The Historical-Grammatical method sought to ground God's Word in the historical context in which it was written. The method asserts that each biblical passage has ONE basic meaning, which was firmly rooted in historical truth, and relayed accurately according to common principles of human language. This method directly opposes the humanistic hermeneutic that is prevalent in the church today, which seeks to rip the truth from its historical foundations. It guards us against attempting to think, "what does this mean to me" as it prompts us to think, "what did it mean to the author and the original audience." So what steps are taken with this method? There are three steps:
So there you have it, the historical-grammatical method of interpretation, which seeks to ground the biblical passage in its historical setting so that we can rightly understand it and then apply it to our lives today. Let me end with this final thought. What would happen if more churches forsook their humanistic hermeneutic and instead embraced this method? What would the church look like then? Written By David Hanson
What do you do if a loved one is suffering from a terminal illness that is gradually causing them to deteriorate and lose their body function? Do you allow them to continue to suffer, or do you bring that suffering to an end? I want you to feel the weight of that decision – because what I am about to talk about next needs it. On March 9th, 2022, Churchill Park United Church of Winnipeg hosted an assisted suicide ceremony for an 86-year-old woman who had been a member of that church. Last year Betty Sanguin had been diagnosed with ALS – a progressive nervous system disease that affects nerve cells in the brain and spinal cord, causing loss of muscle control. The muscles of a person with ALS gradually become paralyzed until they cannot swallow or breathe – leading to death. Within a very short time, Betty had deteriorated, and the doctors were talking about putting a feeding tube in because she couldn’t eat or swallow anymore. Knowing the suffering she would further experience as the disease progressed, she decided to end her own life with medical assistance, surrounded by friends and family. As a pastor, I’ve been around people of all ages as they were dying. I’ve seen a young lady fight for her life before she passed away. I’ve seen cancer slowly deteriorate a seemingly healthy person until they were a shell of a person. I’ve seen seniors fade away slowly – sometimes alone and sometimes with family around them. I’ve been to the bedsides of several people. I’ve learnt how unprepared I was to deal with it. Society tries to avoid it by keeping those approaching death at a distance, putting them into homes to fade away. And some in our society try to avoid death by avoiding seeing their loved ones in the hospitals. Death is uncomfortable – but it’s a reality we need to face. You can sympathize with the situation of someone dying, but you can’t truly understand the weight that comes until you lose a loved one. Last year I saw my father pass away from a terminal condition. My father, who was a very independent and private man, suffered increasingly growing more dependent on his family to care for him until he passed away. Before his death, he was in much pain as he slowly suffocated. I don’t say this because I want sympathy, but simply for the fact that I am writing this blog as someone who has been very close to death. Death is an enemy (1 Cor. 15:26) and a curse (Rom. 6:23). It often involves suffering, and progressive illnesses like ALS prolongs that suffering. This is why assisted suicide seems like a viable option to some. In Canada, assisted suicide has been legal since 2016. In 2020 there were 7,595 cases of medically assisted suicide. This was an increase of 34.2% from 2019-2020. The trend continues to increase. Why is society okay with medically assisted suicide? A primary reason is that they believe it is compassionate to bring an end to suffering. People have been influenced by society to value human life on par with animals. Sometimes even below animals. We treat animals as part of the family and even refer to them as our children. So, what happens if our pet is suffering? Well, the compassionate thing is to put Fido down. Why wouldn’t we apply that same logic to humans – after all, we are just animals, right? What I have said should make you upset because you know that you are more valuable than a dog. Human life is sacred because every man and woman has been created in the image of God (Gen. 2:7) and been given dignity and honour far above the animals. We can’t treat Fido the same way we treat Betty. Human life must be cherished and protected, not brought to an end simply because a person is suffering. When we avoid suffering, we avoid growth. God appoints these days (Ecc. 7:14) for the intended purpose that we may be conformed more into his image. Suffering brings humility. My father was forced to rely on us to feed him, moisturize his lips, and help him stand up to use the bathroom. He had to rely on the nurses to rotate him and fix his cushions and air supply. And he wasn’t the only one who learned humility – I did as well. I learned not to care what others thought and care for him in ways I never had. I would never have held his hand as a full-grown man – but at the deathbed, such thoughts quickly leave. Death is an enemy and curse, yet it is also a blessing in many ways. Death focuses the mind on what is important. My Dad was someone who loved his library full of books and was concerned about where they would end up. That all came to an end during the last week of his life. The things that truly mattered became priorities – like repairing a relationship with my younger brother – or hearing about the promises of heaven and life. And things like his books “grew strangely dim” in light of eternity. My father’s perspective grew as he suffered. Still, I believe the suffering he went through was more of a sanctifying experience for those who cared for him. It was difficult emotionally to see him fade away. However, I saw what it looked like for a Christian to suffer before death graciously and with joy as he went on to be home with the Lord. To take your own life prematurely is selfish, and it robs yourself and your family of all of this. Yet, for some, they choose to take their life by medically-assisted suicide like Betty. Partly because they want to avoid suffering and partly because they believe it is a dignified way to die. For some, the thought of deteriorating and becoming someone who needs to be cared for 24/7 is not dignified. Yet, is this that the Bible says? What does it mean to die with dignity? The Bible seems to indicate a few big things.
Though people try to justify assisted suicide, let’s call it for what it is – murder. God alone is the giver of life and the one who determines when and how that life should end. When offered life and death, God always commands us to choose life (Deut. 30:19). Yet, in attempts to escape suffering, we justify the taking of life. No one objected to Betty wanting to take her life; however, one person objected to the church being used as the venue for this service. Yes, you read that right; the lethal injection was performed during the assisted suicide service, which was hosted in the church building. Dawn Rolke, the minister at the church, told The Christian Post, “For us, it was perfectly natural to hold this service for Betty in our sanctuary because death is a natural part of life and Betty had lived a good part of her adulthood in this faith community. Hers was a growing, changing spirituality; her faith was feisty, fierce and passionate, like Betty herself”. What was her justification? Well, she says that the church is often “host and home to all the raggedness of our lives and to some of our significant life rituals: baptism, marriage, ordination, funeral or memorial service”. I guess they can now add to that “Assisted-suicide ceremony”. Or as they coined it, “A simple crossing over ceremony.” Unless God performs a miracle, a terminal illness will lead to death. Betty was going to die regardless of whether she had taken the injection. But does this justify her decision? No, for the simple reason that God is sovereign over death and alone is the one who determines when we die. Death is an enemy, but it is often seen as an escape for those who are terminally ill, as well as for those who are dealing with depression. Depression and anxiety lead many to believe it’s better to go to sleep never to wake up again. Assisted suicide isn’t new; however, this is the first time it has happened in a church that I am aware of. As the ceremony was happening, family and friends kept coming in and out, saying their goodbyes. At 1 pm, the lethal injection was administered. An hour later, she passed away surrounded by family. A murder took place. This is such a drastic story. Perhaps it’s something you won’t encounter – but since medically-assisted suicides are increasing here in Canada, odds are you will know someone in the future that will be contemplating it. So how should we approach those who are choosing to end their life?
Death is uncomfortable, and rightly so, yet we need to be there for those who are struggling with suffering and hopelessness. To abandon them in their time of need and not encourage them to live is not only immoral but heartless. To not be a voice of objection is to be a voice of approval. Your words and presence matters! One lady shared with me her experience with anxiety and depression that led her to believe the lie that it would be better to go to sleep and not wake up. Life had been tremendously hard for her, and lies gripped her heart. Her sister’s words snapped her back to the truth. What did her sister say? She said, “God made you in His image. You are his daughter, a child of the King. How dare you think you are worth nothing when you are everything to God! If you are okay with dying and escaping this life, it would kind of be like an insult to God.” These words changed her perspective and gave her the purpose to continue living. We can take a reactive approach or a proactive approach as a church. As I continue to think about assisted suicide, there are things the church should be doing way before someone thinks about it. We should be continually teaching the value of life from the womb to the tomb and the importance and value of suffering. We should also create opportunities where we are around those who are dying. And we should be continually pointing others to Jesus – someone worth living for even if you cannot move. Are you familiar with Critical Race Theory? If you're not, I'd recommend two books on this topic. One by Voddie Baucham titled Faultlines and the other by Owen Stachan titled Christianity and Wokeness. CRT is something that we need to become familiar with as believers because it is not only prevalent in the workplace, your community and the public school you send your children to, but it's in the church!
What is CRT? In February, I interviewed Samuel Sey on this topic. He has spent considerable time researching it, and this is what he has to say about CRT. He writes, "Critical Race Theory is essentially a race-centric version of marxism and post-modernism. Critical race theory suggests the essential conflict in society is racism. It suggests white people (and Western nations) oppress non-white people, especially black people. And the only possible way to limit or end that oppression is to change our legal system and culture into an 'anti-racist' system, that would discriminate against white people in order to create 'equity' (or equality of outcome) for non-white and especially black people". There is an aggressive attempt to teach that being white is something to be ashamed of because white people are inherently and often unaware racists. Those who are white have a privileged status over those of other ethnicities. You have heard of this referred to as "white supremacy." It's taught in schools all across Canada, and it's why corporations structure their hiring practices to ensure the most diverse population – regardless if they aren't the most qualified. That same mentality has crept into the church and has even been promoted by people like Matt Chandler (here, here and here). This Easter season, there has been another visible example of CRT in the church. I use the word "church" here lightly because the church involved is the First United Church of Oak Park in Chicago. If you know anything about the united church, they have rejected the gospel and have embraced liberal doctrine and social justice. So what I'll say next shouldn't be a surprise. For lent, they decided to "Fast from Whiteness." This was demonstrated by abstaining from performing hymns composed or written by white musicians and replacing them with music and liturgy written by Black People, Indigenous People, and People of Colour. God created diversity. And diversity is a beautiful thing. In fact, in heaven we will worship with people of all ethnicities (Rev. 7:9-10). Yet, what we have here is an intentional "fasting from whiteness" informed and motivated by CRT. During this season of lent, songs and liturgy was chosen strictly based on the skin colour of those who come from oppressed ethnic groups. As I reflect on this event, I'm torn on what I want to tackle. Part of me wants to stop and make a case for whether Lent (a tradition formalized in 325 AD after the Council of Nicea) is biblical and then consider what we should fast from if it is biblical. Yet, another part wants me to take this event as an opportunity to explore how we should determine what songs we should use during corporate worship. Sometimes it's difficult for me to know what to tackle in a current event like this. The issue that is more pressing here, and one which we see in other churches, is the embracing of CRT and other false ideologies when it comes to making decisions regarding worship in the church. When it comes to choosing music or liturgy, we cannot choose based on the colour of one's skin. That is the sin of partiality that is forbidden in scripture (James 2:1-13). That goes for any decision that is made based on preferential treatment. So how should we choose what music we should use for corporate worship? There are different approaches that people take. Here are some that I've thought of.
I'm sure you can think of others. I've been guilty of employing all these methods at some point in my ministry. And as I reflect on them, they all share something in common - self. The determining factor really that drove these methods was what I wanted out of a corporate worship meeting, whether that was to elicit a feeling in myself or others, to sing songs that I loved, to keep others happy, or to try to look like I had a plan as I quickly gathered some songs together. Worship is not about us. It is about God. Everything we do, including corporate singing, is to be done to the glory of God (1 Cor. 10:31). But he is not only the object of worship - he is the conductor too. He is the one who directs and determines how we are to worship. That truth is revealed throughout scripture in the fact that God did not accept the worship of those who did not offer what He had prescribed. Song choice may seem significant to some and not significant to others. Yet, if God is the conductor of worship, and singing is an act of worship, it must be important to God. So how should we choose the songs we sing in corporate worship? We need the bible, not culture, to inform us. The book of Psalms was the prayer and songbook of the church. As you read through them, you notice some common characteristics of the songs sung throughout God's people's history. Things we should look for in the music that we pick today.
Of course, the book of Psalms is not the only place where the songs are contained. Throughout the Old and New Testaments, there are songs that God's people sung corporately. Philippians 2 contains one of them. And when you examine the hymn, you find that it shares the same commonalities that I've mentioned above, except that there is an added focus, especially on Jesus. Of course, other things should be considered when choosing music for corporate worship, such as whether it can be sung corporately. Though we have the freedom to enjoy different styles of music, some simply cannot be done as a group. The hymn writers wrote with the church in mind; many contemporary artists write with individuals in mind. However, there has been significant growth in solid theologically rich songs for corporate worship over the past years with such groups as CityAlight, Sovereign Grace and The Gettys. So how do we choose music? The colour of a person's skin cannot determine whether a song is fit for corporate worship because this is not a scriptural practice. Nowhere do you see this as a determining factor for anything in worship. To choose based on skin colour is to not simply be led by CRT but engage in the sin of partiality. So how should we determine what songs to sing in the church gathering? Simply put, we must examine the content of the song and the response that it leads to. If in doubt, sing scripture and the psalms! What’s the greatest threat to the church today in Canada? That’s a question I asked a few weeks ago on my Instagram stories. I enjoyed reading your responses. And I am hoping to do more of these, so watch for them throughout the week.
The greatest threat to the church is not what is happening outside the gathering but what is happening within it. Yes, times are not good in our country. There are a lot of bad things that are happening in our nation. Democracy is dying. Charter rights have been suppressed. Certain people and ideologies are being censored and penalized. Protests that aren’t in line with the narrative are aggressively curbed. Communist ideologies and bills such as S-233 are trying to be pushed through. Moral legislation is voted down, and immoral ones are passed. Increasingly our government is being given more power, and currently, we have a Liberal-NDP coalition. God’s Word is called a myth, and teaching biblical sexual ethics is deemed as hatred and has been criminalized. Times are not good, but these things are not the greatest threat to the church. Are we in unprecedented times? Is the government we have and the culture we live in worse and more immoral than others throughout history? No. In the New Testament times, God’s people were literally under a dictatorship and surrounded by a slough of sinful debauchery. Yet, what is their greatest concern? The infiltration of false teachers into the church. We shouldn’t be oblivious to what is happening in our country. However, we should be more vigilant when discerning those in the gatherings throughout our country that propagate false ideologies – especially if you are an elder. As Paul is making his way to Rome, he gives this warning to the elders of Ephesus. “Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood. I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. So be on your guard! Remember that for three years I never stopped warning each of you night and day with tears.” (Acts 20:28-31) Those savage wolves are here, and some are even leading churches. For clarity’s sake, I have in mind those who teach doctrine contrary to God’s Word – especially those preaching a different gospel and a different Jesus. Jesus referred to the false teachers as “wolves in sheep’s clothing” (Mt. 7:15), expressing how they try to masquerade as harmless and something they aren’t. They are often a hidden danger in plain sight, mixing in with those in the church (Jude 12). This truth isn’t lost here. Paul says that these false teachers will arise even from within the church. Men who seem trustworthy and innocent would insert themselves into places of influence and begin to teach things that distort the truth and draw people away. These men are savage wolves that bring harm through what they teach. Peter refers to their teachings as “destructive” heresies for a reason. As I look around at our country and even right here in the Annapolis Valley, there are a few prevalent heresies that are being embraced and promoted.
A wolf preys on the weak. A weak Christian is someone who doesn’t know God’s word enough to stand against the deception and lies of these teachers. Sadly, churches throughout Canada have been plagued by biblical illiteracy for decades. Many do not know what God’s Word says on a given topic because they do not intentionally spend time reading and studying it. As Charles Spurgeon said of those in his own time, “There is enough dust on some of your Bibles to write ‘damnation’ with your fingers”. This makes them easy pickings for these wolves. These savage wolves are a far greater threat than authoritarian governments. Remember that when Paul gave this warning to the Ephesian elders, Nero was the ruler. Yet Paul’s focus is not on him but on the savage wolves seeking to destroy the church through deceptive doctrines. This threat was so significant to him that he never stopped tearfully warning them day and night for three years. Let me ask a question – is Justin Trudeau a more significant threat to you or a pastor such as Henry Hildebrant that teaches a different gospel? Don’t get me wrong. Justin Trudeau can definitely make things more difficult for us politically, economically, and physically. However, false teachers that distort the truth lead others towards spiritual decay and eternal destruction. On top of that, embracing these lies will lead to a further decline in our society. The church is the pillar and the butler of the truth, given the task of confronting error. We can’t do that if we have embraced the error. And this is largely why we are in the state we are in today. Yes, we should be concerned about our government’s actions; however, we should be more concerned about the false teachers influencing others to embrace damnable heresies. So what do we do? The Bible provides us with practical steps to take.
As you stand up for what is right, don’t be fooled that the government is the greatest threat to you and the church. It isn’t! These savage wolves are. So fellow brothers and sisters in Christ...dig deep into God’s Word, be on guard, contend for the truth, and commit yourselves to God. And pastors, guard the flock God has made you overseers of. Guard, teach, equip, contend, expose, warn and confront. The wolves are hungry. Don’t give them an opportunity to feed. Written By David Hanson
Listen to the audio version here On Sunday, I had the privilege to share God's Word with a country church here in the valley. I chose to preach on wayward worship and how God responds to such activity. I picked this not because this church has been disobedient. In fact, I didn't know the people until that Sunday. It wasn't a message of correction but a reminder of a problem we all share. Our hearts are an idol-making factory, prone to wander away from God and His instructions. You can find my reading of the sermon here. 1 Kings 12:25-13:10 contains the events of Jeroboam setting up a new way of worship in the Northern Kingdom of Israel and God's clear disapproval of it. There is a lot of stuff that is packed into this passage that is relevant for today. Jeroboam sets up a new religion, trying to keep God in the picture while violating his instructions regarding worship. It's the typical pagan worship masquerading as "Christian worship." Jeroboam sets up two golden calves and refers to them as the god who took them out of Egypt. It's very similar to what Aaron had done in Exodus, except double the trouble. Last week I wrote about confronting the elephant in the room. How do we do this? Part of the process is that we need to try to understand the root causes that influenced and led them to their decisions. Some of the key ones are pride, ignorance and fear. The heart of the problem is always the problem of the heart. Jeroboam's decision to set up a new way of worship stemmed from a heart controlled by fear. Difficult times will either make strong men or expose weak men. Times were challenging for Jeroboam, who was king over the northern half of a divided kingdom. As king, his role was to rule over the people, leading them in righteousness as contained in the Torah and providing security so that the nation could live and worship God faithfully. Yet, fear influences how he leads and causes him to violate God's instructions regarding worship. Much like how many pastors operate today, Jeroboam was worried about the "what if" scenarios. What if the people leave? What if I may face some opposition? What if my position comes to an end? To lessen these potential outcomes, many leaders attempt to appease the people, believing it gives a measure of control over the outcome. Jeroboam's fear of the "what if" leads him to create a convenient way of worship that would rival any seeker-sensitive movement. He changes the place of worship so that it's closer to home. He opened the priesthood up to anyone who wanted to be a priest, which would have enticed more people to get involved. He even creates a new celebration that would rival the one at the temple. He did all this after seeking counsel. That's the shocking thing. Who counselled him? Was he simply seeking counsel that he wanted to hear to ease his worries, or did someone say that this was acceptable? Whatever the case, he created a convenient way of worship that would keep the people entertained enough to stay. A whole system motivated by the fear of the "what if." Fear is a dominating factor in how many church leaders determine what to do for worship. Just think about why many churches refused to gather for chunks of time over the last two years. Fear of the virus, fear of public opinion, fear of penalties, fear of sickness and death, and fear that people would leave. Let's not pigeonhole ourselves into focusing only on a pastor's response to the mandates. There's more to a gathering than whether people are being vetted, masked, and distanced. Step back and look at how your pastor is making decisions regarding leading, preaching, teaching, choosing music, confronting sin, church discipline and a whole host of other things. Is he making decisions based on obedience to God or fear of the "what if"? For many church leaders, popularity, attendance numbers, and the offering plate influence their decision-making more than God's Word does. Of course, church leaders aren't the only ones prone to this. Just as they are afraid of losing people and finances, we fear rocking the boat, disturbing unity, and being viewed as troublemakers. We are worried about how people will perceive us, so we grin and bear it, believing that things will get better. Frankly, we are often more afraid of man than God. No one is immune to fear; that's why the command to not worry is repeated 365 times in the Bible. Fear is something that I need to guard against in my own heart. I'm prone to worry about all sorts of things – two big things being finances and how people perceive me. I've seen fear motivate me to avoid, adopt, adapt and justify certain decisions. Like Jeroboam, I have allowed the fear of the 'what if' to influence the way I worship and lead others in worship. I've written about that before, but while I was pastoring in Manitoba, I was worried about losing my position if I stood against the mandates being followed in the church. Ashamedly, fear initially led me to go along with the pragmatic approach of doing "Zoom church." What I needed during that time was what Jeroboam received in 1 Kings 13:1-10. I needed to be confronted with the truth, shown what God thinks of such worship, and be stopped in my tracks. For Jeroboam, God sent a prophet with a stern warning and rebuke. For me, it was several messages by faithful pastors who clearly taught God's word so that it was simple to understand just how wayward I was leading the church. Unlike Jeroboam, who decided to continue in his ways, I was convicted and brought back to the path of biblical worship. Without these faithful pastors, I wonder whether I would still be offering worship that was unacceptable to God. I'm not writing this to get sympathy or a pat on the back. Rather, I am sharing my story because I know I'm not the only one who has allowed fear to influence how I made decisions and led others into worship. For those who want to confront the elephant in the room, take the time to understand the root cause. Perhaps, like myself, he's a pastor who struggles with the fear of the "what if." If that's the case, he needs a faithful man of God who would come to him with patience, mercy, and truth - three things you see in 1 Kings 13:1-10. Are you that man? Written by David Hanson
There's an elephant in the room, and it isn't leaving until it is addressed. On Sunday, I posted on Instagram about this elephant, and I was shocked about the post's attention. It has resonated with more people than I realized. The expression "The elephant in the room" refers to a significant problem or controversial issue that is obviously present but avoided as a subject for discussion because it is more comfortable to do so. The issue is worship – particularly who gets to determine how we worship. Many churches have allowed the government to dictate how, when, and where they worship for two years. Now that things have lifted, it's life as usual now, right? That would be the easy and comfortable thing to do. But whether you like it or not, the elephant is still in the room in many churches, and it still needs to be dealt with. The elephant cannot be adequately addressed unless we understand how seriously God takes worship. Sadly, there is a lack of concern in many churches when it comes to how God has prescribed worship. The question, "How does God want us to worship Him?" is replaced with "What do the people want?". Some churches are more concerned about entertaining the goats, catering to their neighbours, advancing a particular agenda that is favourable to the masses than about advancing the kingdom, feeding the sheep, and obeying God's methods of worship. Many are okay with setting up a new way of worship. They make decisions based on fear, popular vote, and pragmatism. But how we worship matters! God rejected Cain's offering not simply because Cain's heart was not right but because his offering was not according to what was prescribed. He had set the pattern of blood sacrifice in Genesis 3, but Cain offers a bloodless one. God not only rejected Nadab and Abihu's offering of a foreign incense but also took their lives. God not only rejected the worship from the priests during Malachi's day but desired for them to stop completely. He says, "Oh that there were one among you who would shut the doors, that you might not kindle fire on my altar in vain!" (Malachi 1:10). God would rather have no worship than to be worshipped in a way he has not prescribed. That's how seriously God takes worship. Shouldn't we take it seriously as well? One Bible story that's been brought to my mind recently is the story of King David bringing the Ark to Jerusalem (2 Sam. 6:1-15). It's the episode with Uzzah that I have in mind. But the onus lays on David, who chose to go against what God had already clearly instructed. The thing about this story is that David is not antagonistic or apathetic towards God. He loved the Lord and desired to do good. He cared for his people and wanted them to worship God. Yet, good intentions do not cause God to overlook violations of his instructions. The story begins when David hears about the Ark of the Covenant (the symbol of God's presence) being in Baele-Judah. He gathers some men and heads down to retrieve the Ark. God's instructions are clear on how the Ark is to be transported. It was to be carried by Levites of the family of Kohath (Exodus 25:12-15; Numbers 4:15). Yet David takes a pragmatic approach and puts it on a cart. This decision comes as a failure to recognize what God's instructions are. A cart is a practical and proficient tool, much like how zoom was practical. This vehicle would have made things easier for everyone. However, whether something is right is not determined by whether it works, is easier, more comfortable or even more popular. What makes something right is whether God has commanded it. It's really just that simple. Yet, suppose we aren't reading and studying God's Word, learning what God instructs regarding worship. In that case, we will act similarly to David in this story. We may have good intentions, but we will ignorantly be disobeying God. God doesn't overlook our ignorance. God expects us to know His Word and obey it. David's pragmatic approach leads to a deadly consequence. As they venture out on their way back, the ox stumbles, the cart jerks, and Uzzah reaches out his hand to protect the Ark from falling. At that moment, Uzzah, a priest who should have known better, drops dead. Ignorance of God's law is no excuse. God taking someone's life is drastic. And though we want to believe that such things only happened under the Old Covenant, that simply isn't true. 1 Corinthians 11 stands as evidence of that. Some of the people in the Corinthian church who took the Lord's Supper in a manner that God had not prescribed died (1 Corinthians 11:27-30). 1 John also speaks of a sin that leads to death (. I wonder whether we would have a greater concern for how we worship God if God killed Christian leaders who violate His instructions regarding worship? Maybe that's a morbid thought. But what will it take for us to come back to the awareness of how serious worshipping God the right way is? When Uzzah dies, David is angry and gripped by fear. He was angry undoubtedly because he thought he was doing the right thing and that his good intentions were enough. But God cares about both the intentions of the heart and the actions of a person. And though his intentions were good, his actions directly violated God's instructions. Uzzah's death fills David with fear, a reasonable fear, the fear of the Lord. He stops what he's doing, drops off the Ark at the nearest spot, and returns home. When he returns again to retrieve the Ark, he does so according to God's instructions. Things may look normal today, and we may be convinced that what we have done over the last two years was acceptable. There's been activity, people have enjoyed a new way of doing things, and people may have been joyful. But even this is no measure of whether something is acceptable to God. Before Uzzah's death, there was activity and celebration. Yet, none of this pleased the Lord because it was not what he had prescribed. But these were just temporary measures, right? Well, how quick would a trip from Baale-Judah to Jerusalem be? Far less than two years! How brief would Uzzah's touch have been? Far less than the trip to Jerusalem. The truth is, whether something is temporary or prolonged does not justify a disobedient act. I can hear it now. "Yes, but we were simply following Romans 13 and obeying our leaders". Well, this story blows that out of the water as well. David was a governing authority that permitted wrong behaviour, but God did not overlook it. God is the one who dictates how we worship...no one else. The question begs to be asked: Has God clearly communicated how we should worship? The answer is yes. But you must study your Bible to find out what He has to say. So there's an elephant in the room. You can ignore it, or you can confront it. The choice is yours. If you ignore it and try to go on as if nothing happened, I fear a couple of things will happen. First, you will continue to justify how you responded and consequently lock yourself into the same response next time it happens. Suppose your belief is that someone besides God has the right to dictate how, when and where we worship, whether their intentions are good. What stops you from subjecting yourselves again to this philosophy in other areas of worship? Second, if you don't address the elephant in the room, you will neglect the conscience of those in your church that is convinced that Jesus alone dictates worship. Isn't their spiritual walk just as important as those who sided with you during the two years? So, where do we go from here? There needs to be open, honest, biblically informed discussion between church members and the leadership. We can't simply ignore the elephant. We need to talk about it, learn the truth together, and embrace the fact that Jesus is Lord of His church. Leaders need to repent, and members need to forgive. Until that happens, the elephant will stay there with his trunk waving in the air. Written by David and Aimee Hanson
Have you ever thought you were right and passionately so, but weren't? How long did it take before God sanctified you in that area? Should we be patient with fellow Christians? What about the elders who care for your souls? Recently we have seen blog and social media posts recommending people who believe we should worship God as God prescribes to leave their state church for the open churches. The posts focus on leaving a church that is abiding by the mandates. These are now lifting throughout Canada. Should we return to these churches that enforced them? Though this is a big issue in many churches, it's not the only one. So, we want to approach this in a more general way. There's an underlining assumption – there is a proper time to leave a church. We have a question: "When is that time, and do we have to leave?" To be straightforward from the beginning, we don't necessarily have answers. Each situation is different, and therefore, each response may also differ. Perhaps in some cases, the advice to leave a church for another may be appropriate; but in other times, it may not. By making blanket statements and telling people they must leave a church for another – could we perhaps be binding the conscience of some people? This article is not about what you should do, but instead, some thoughts and questions that may be necessary to consider. These thoughts and questions come from our personal consideration of this matter. We have made mistakes. We have left churches perhaps pre-emptively and are growing and learning in this area. By no means are we writing this as authorities on this matter; we just want to show that perhaps there's more to consider. Also, for clarification, we have in our mind serious doctrinal matters that impact and distort who Jesus is and what the gospel is. This is not about leaving the church because of preferences. So, where do we start? Well, let's consider why someone may want to stay. Staying is by far the hardest choice because, naturally, our pull is to leave. However, if God is sovereign and brought someone to the specific church they are at, could it be that they are there for a reason? Could you be there for a reason? Could it be that God wants to use you as an instrument to bring correction to the church? After all, aren't Christians to be people who speak into all areas of life, even into churches that have gone wayward? Consider this. God at times encourages some to stay in some oppression. Hagar was told to go back under Sarah's authority when Sarah was unpleasant. In the New Testament, wives married to unbelieving spouses were to stay and win them to Christ with their submission. On the flip side, God also takes us out of slavery or oppression. Israel was taken out of Egypt after over 400 years of oppression. God frees us from the slavery of sin. I see often we need to have patience with fellow believers in our church. Some may ask, how long should we be patient, 1-2 years? Perhaps in our culture of everything being so fast, we aren't patiently waiting for God to sanctify people. If you are in a rocky stage of marriage or in your church, do you give it a year? Or do we make it that divorce is never on the table, and we work at peacemaking, drawing the unrepentant who thinks they are right to God? Does God call some to be like Jeremiah and stay as watchmen calling their elders to repentance? Even if they never listen? My wife and I have discussed staying in Canada despite increasing authoritarian oppression. We believe we should re-build, yet we also think there is a time to leave a church. All things that are of God will last. Why should we have more of a heavenly mind about our country than our church? Now let's consider another aspect of this. If we believe that God is calling us to stay, what should our approach be towards those in the church? We should consider them not as enemies but as brothers (2 Thess. 3:15). And as family members, we should approach them lovingly and persistently, calling them back to what God has instructed. I believe some refer to this as causing a "holy ruckus." Now, of course, there's more to consider by staying. For instance, what would be the spiritual impact if you stayed? Would it do greater harm to you and your family if you stayed? Do you have young impressionable children who would be influenced negatively by the church's choices and leadership? Is there a potential for change, or are they set in their ways? If you think the leaders are open to obeying God, are you prepared to instruct them what God says? If you believe the leaders aren't open to correction, at what point would it be "casting pearls before swine"? When would it be better to wipe the dust off our feet and leave? I guess what we are saying is this – if the church is open to correction, how long are you willing to endure to teach them? If we default to leaving instead of staying to teach God's Word, what attitude does that show? If we run when things are bad, who is there to stand up for what is right? Now, we aren't advocating that you must stay. We are simply giving you more to consider as you make your decision. Here's another layer. What impact would staying in the church have on your testimony? Would your association cause others to think that the activity or teaching demonstrated in the church is appropriate? 1 Corinthians 5 and Ephesians 5 warns about associating with those who are engaged in grievous sins that even pagans do not tolerate. To add to this, would staying in a church that does not worship God as prescribed cause you to be complicit in sin? God judged those who did not worship as prescribed. See Cain, Aaron's sons and the Corinthian church in 1 Corinthians 15. In Galatians 4:29-30, it says those who bind the conscience to their own desires in a church instead of the word of God act like Ishmael to Isaac. Abraham removed Ishmael, and we are told to remove those persecuting the church in this way. What happens when the pastor and the denomination are okay with persecuting the church? What happens when all the authorities God has put in place for accountability neglect their role? Okay, so let's say we worked through all of this and considered that the best action is for us to move. Here's something to consider. What issues are we trading off? No church is perfect. What problems can we live with, and which ones can't we? If the church embraces a different gospel and a different Jesus, I would say that it is high time to find another place to worship – especially if they are unwilling to change. There are such things as primary, secondary and tertiary issues. Primary issues are those which distort who Jesus is and what the gospel is. Secondary and tertiary matters are a matter of conscience that we can have Christian liberty on and agree to disagree with. That's probably a whole new post if you're interested. Here's something else to consider. When you read the bible, when did different people leave to go to other churches? There seems to be a few various reasons. First, when Christians could not stay in their city due to persecution, they spread out and joined other churches (1 Pet. 1:1). Could a determined unfaithful pastor who forces his church to follow unbiblical rules be a valid reason for moving to another area to join a church? I would agree that this could be a justifiable reason to relocate to another church. Second, throughout the New Testament, Christians were sent to other churches for a specific task by their elders in building the church in a different town. We don't hear of too many people being sent from one church to another these days. Why is that? Perhaps it is because Christians have believed the lies of individualism. We live in such an individualized society that it has crept into the church. Why don't we join with other like-minded churches, find out their needs and send a person who is gifted in a way that will bless their church? Finally, in the New Testament, we see people leaving a church due to church discipline through ex-communication. In North America, many ex-communicate themselves. Why are we judging ourselves? That's not our role, is it? Here's one of our pressing concerns in this matter. Today many tend to come into churches freely and just as freely leave the church. We don't see too many who stay in a church for hard times. Both my wife and I have moved many times and attended many churches. At times we have been jealous of other churches because of the ministry happening there or because they don't have x or y issues that we had in ours. This jealousy is a sin. We have learned that we need to repent of this and commit to the church that we are placed in. Depending on your situation, leaving may not always be the right thing to do. Sometimes you need to stay, commit to the church, exhaustively pray for the many members there, and cause a holy ruckus pointing them to the bible. Before you decide to head off to a new church where the grass is greener, you should first attempt to water the grass where you are. And if this is what you choose to do, keep watch that you do not disqualify yourself while calling them to repentance. Don't be a hypocrite who is pointing at the speck in your brother's eye when you have a two-by-four in your own. Yet, after you have attempted to patiently correct and teach those who are erring from sound doctrine, and they are still unwilling to change, then perhaps its time to move on to another gathering. We have the freedom to stay and the freedom to move, but we don't have the option not to warn others of their sin and its consequence. Written by Aimee Hanson
I am a mom, and I have some concerns regarding a recent bill making it’s way through the Senate. Bill S-210 An act to restrict young persons’ online access to sexually explicit material sponsored by the Honourable Senator Julie Miville-Dechene was brought forward on December 8, 2021. It is now in the Consideration in committee stage. There was a similar bill before the election called Bill S-203, which made it as far as the committee stage. There have been changes to this new bill based on that committee. I want to present what the bill is about and some good and bad things about it to help us think critically about the situation and what God says about pornography. To give the senator the benefit of the doubt, she likely had good intentions with this bill desiring that children not be able to access explicit content. That is honourable as children should not be accessing pornography. The speeches for the bill gave a lot of detail on the harms for children accessing pornography, and the bill itself provides a statement vaguely stating these harms. In one of the question and answer periods on November 30, 2021, Honorable Senator Julie Miville-Dechene says some Christians support this bill. On December 2, 2021, the Honorable Senator Rosemary Moodie directly quoted a UN meeting promoting bills such as this one. The senator sponsoring the bill stated in her speech on November 30, 2021, that there are other similar bills in Germany, France and Australia. One has to ask, should Christians be supporting the same thing as the UN? What is this bill all about? According to the second speech by the Honorable Miville-Dechene, one of the reasons for bringing forth this bill suggests that parents are not doing their job protecting their children, so the government has to protect the children. Her direct quote is: “For years, we have left it up to parents to control minors’ access to online pornography. We know that this does not work. Many of us have experienced this with our own children. We should keep in mind that not every parent has the same level of digital literacy. If parental controls were working, we would know it, and I can assure you that we would not be here today to speak to this bill.” They are right. There is a huge epidemic of parents who have rejected God, and therefore, children have learned to do what is right in their own eyes. This is troubling for a few reasons. Yes, parents need to watch their children’s online content, but the government does not get to take over if the parents fail. This attitude from the government is problematic. This is a slippery slope for the government to have more control over the children in Canada. On December 2, 2021, Rosemary Moodie stated, “This is especially important because children do not have a federal accountability officer in Ottawa, as they do in many provinces and territories within Canada and in multiple countries around the world, such as the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, France, Sweden and Poland. They do not have somebody solely dedicated to considering their rights, to amplifying their voices and to advocating for their priorities. Until they do, individually and collectively, we as parliamentarians must step up and fill this gap as well as we possibly can. So in this respect, Senator Miville-Dechêne’s bill is an important act of service and care towards children and youth.” I have huge concerns about the federal accountability officer! Children should be accountable to their parents and pastors, not the government. In the current Bill S-210, it will be illegal for a website with explicit content to be accessible to those under 18. A site that allows access will be charged with a first-time offence fine of 1/4 of million dollars and subsequent offence fines of 1/2 a million dollars. Not knowing the age cannot be used as a defence. The question lies: how can the owners of these websites guarantee the ages of those that visit their website? During the question period on November 30, 2021, the senator who sponsored the bill was asked about the privacy and the technology that may be used to determine the age of those who visit these websites. This was her response: “All technologies are now possible, and a range of methods are generally included in the regulations. The use of digital identity technology is one possibility. There is a Canadian company called Bluink, whose technology allows users to input certain information on a cellphone, and these users only share the information when they want to, for example, when they must prove that they are over the age of 18. There are other methods, such as adding a token to a browser. It is obviously important for a third party to conduct the verification.” Digital identity should be a concern for all Canadians. It seems as if this bill looks good, but rather, it will have far-reaching implications. When the Honorable Senator Julie Miville-Dechene was asked which members of parliament support this bill, she mentioned the Honorable Steven Guilbeault - who was serving as Minister of Canadian Heritage and at the time of this bill was busy with Bill C-10 involvement. She summarized his concerns by saying this: “I think one of his concerns was that we shouldn’t focus only on porn sites, but that all social media and the internet had harmful material and that our view should be broader. Obviously, it makes sense, but from my point of view, with a private bill, I couldn’t just go straight to the internet as a whole. It was too complicated, so I focused on porn sites. To be frank, half of teenagers go on porn sites when they want to watch porn. It’s not something that’s not used.” Essentially, he did not think the bill would censor enough for our protection. According to Romans 13, the government has the role of punishing evil. Pornography for any age is evil. If I were to re-write the bill, I would give the same punishment for even having a pornographic website on the internet as long as the person who owns the website is Canadian. This would require demonstrably justified evidence for making pornography no longer a protected freedom of expression and would make it illegal for all ages. Currently, only if children are in the explicit content is it illegal. All ages can access it. The purpose of Bill S-210 makes it so children cannot access it. Pornography harms all people who access it, no matter their age. It ruins relationships and our brains. God has not designed us to enjoy watching anyone have sex. According to 1 Corinthians 6: 13-20, God wants us to glorify God with our bodies and flee sexual immorality. Both Psalm 101:3 and Psalm 119:37 say to not look at worthless things. Sinful things are worthless. As a mom, I want to disciple the next generation to repent of this sexual immorality and follow Jesus, who gives life. Do we as Canadians want to follow other countries or our motto “from sea to sea” (a quote from Psalm 72:8 referring to God’s dominion over our entire nation)? I have been praying for God to have dominion over Canada - from the Atlantic to the Pacific - just as our motto says. |
AuthorHello! I'm glad you found my blog. My name is David Hanson, and I am a concerned Christian who desires for the church of North America to become aware and begin to think biblically of what is happening around them in society. It's time for the church to awake and speak into the current events of the day. We alone have the truth to navigate life effectively. That truth is the Word of God. Archives
May 2022
Categories |