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.
0 Comments
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. Written by David Hanson
It's come to my attention that I should put a face to this blog. Initially, I chose to be anonymous for a couple of reasons. First, I was pastoring in a church (in Manitoba) and organization that did not support my decision to speak out against different "political" issues. Out of respect for them, as well as a measure of fear of man, I chose to write anonymously. I believed that I needed to be another voice in Canada speaking out against the injustice, corruption and sin that is taking place. I couldn't keep saying, "all is fine, and the government is trying their best," when all was not fine. It would be like saying, "peace, peace," when there is no peace. Second, I struggle with pride. I'm someone that fights against the pull of wanting to be recognized for my efforts. In my fight against pride, I believed the best way to proceed was to avoid putting my name on my material. Perhaps this was the wrong approach. Perhaps there's a better way. I guess I'll find out as I step out of the shadows even more. So who am I? Well, I did an interview with Scribbler News a while back that shared a bit about who I am. You can check it out here. I never really know how far back to go when people ask me this question. So, let's start at the beginning. I was born and raised in Alberta in a Christian family. My father was a pastor for large portions of my life. Morning devotions were a regimented part of my upbringing. It was typically led by my mother before we went off to school. Reading the Bible, and learning from others through books and commentaries, was encouraged in my family. Though I was raised in a Christian home, some things did not reflect Christ in the home. These are things I've had to come to terms with and try to avoid in my own family. I'm told that I "accepted Jesus into my heart" at an early age. I was later baptized when I was 12. But as I look back, I didn't really live for Jesus. Instead, I lived according to expectations placed on me or that I perceived were placed on me. I do remember living in such a way as to please my father. This was sometimes motivated by fear of consequences. It wasn't until I was 18 that I believe I came to know Jesus and be known by Him. It was during my second semester in Bible College at our yearly program retreat. During a time of music and worship, a great conviction of sin overwhelmed me. At that moment, God opened my eyes and made me alive to my need for Jesus. Tears flowed as I recognized that I had sinned greatly against God and needed forgiveness. That's the moment God saved me. There is a significant difference between thinking you're a Christian and actually being saved. That's what I found out that day. It's not until you come to terms with your sin in light of the holiness of God and repent that you're saved. And that can't happen unless God has awakened you to your sin and made you alive to turn to Him in faith. Because of my experience, I'm always a bit hesitant when children and young people claim that they are saved. This is an area that I need to trust God in more each day. There are many areas that I need to grow in, but God has seen me fit to serve Him. I'm humbled by this and usually feel not fully equipped for the task. I'm continually growing and learning and trying to find where I belong. What else is there to say? I've been married to my beautiful, intelligent, God-fearing wife for five years. God blessed me greatly by bringing Aimee into my life. There's a whole story about how God brought us together! She is my greatest supporter and has been by my side as I pastored for the past few years. Together we have been blessed with a daughter that takes after her mother. She's turning two this month! God calls everyone to serve in some capacity. For a few years, the role he had given to me was to pastor and teach. I love studying the Bible in preparation for preaching and teaching it. I could lock myself in my office for hours if I weren't married. My wife was the one who encouraged me to get out and see people. I'm convinced that God has gifted me with the ability to teach. But of course, there is much more involved in pastoring. In 2021 I stepped down from the pastorate. I was pastoring a small rural church of about 30 people from September 2020 to June 2021. While serving, God led me to the conviction through scripture and sermons from faithful pastors that the church must gather (along with speaking to current events). This led me to challenge the board to be faithful to scripture and open the church to everyone who wanted to attend, which was met by hesitancy and displeasure. They allowed me to prepare a teaching and even address the church with what I had learnt. I preached on Romans 13, and they then gave me the ultimatum to either stop preaching on the topic or give them my sermons to approve. Having my voice silenced on this issue, I turned to another avenue and created the Church Awake blog. I continued to preach on our need to worship God as He has prescribed but did it more subtly from the pulpit. This activity, along with my blog, led the church and the organization I was with to confront me with one final ultimatum – either repent and submit to the board or part ways. I chose to finally part ways. You can read more of the finer details in my interview with Scribbler News. I'll be honest. I was a bit scared about stepping down. There was a price for obedience, and I wasn't sure if I could pay it. For me, that cost was my employment and housing. We were given a month to move and find a new job. I don't have a trade to fall back on, but God came through in big ways. Having decided to go back to Nova Scotia, God provided a job and a place to live. I've learned again a truth that I have grown up seeing – God provides for those who faithfully serve Him. We chose to go back to Nova Scotia for three reasons. First, we wanted to move somewhere where a church gathered. Second, we wanted to live near family. But most importantly, we wanted to come back to the church we had left so that we could attempt to restore some relationships we had severed. So we moved back to the Annapolis Valley and have been attending Weston Christian Fellowship Church since July 2021. Before moving back to Nova Scotia, I had spent three years in the valley. I can now add to that another eight months. The state of the churches here isn't good. Though there are some doctrinally sound faithful churches, many aren't. There is a hodgepodge of critical issues in many, such as statism, CRT, liberalism (eg. women pastors, supporting LGBTQ2+) and traditionalism (eg. KJV-onlyism). The valley needs faithful pastors who recognize the lordship of Jesus and lead the church according to His Word. Too many are offering strange fire. My ministry has changed. I work as an office admin and sales for a local company. It takes up most of my time. But I still write and blog. Why? There are a few different reasons - some minor and some major. One significant reason I write is that as a father, I am concerned about the country that my daughter is growing up in, and I want to be prepared to teach her how to slay the dragons. Writing not only keeps me sane but it helps me mentally work through things. My biggest reason for writing is that I believe as Christians, we need to speak the gospel in all areas of life. That includes the policies of our nation. We can't stay quiet and expect things to change for the better. That's not how life works. We need to teach and warn those around us of their sin and its consequence. And we need to start with the church. As other wiser men have said, "As goes the church, so goes the nation." As I write, hopefully, I can influence at least one person. And if that person can influence another, then there can be change. One day hopefully, I can make this a full-time job, but for that to happen, I would need the financial support of others. But for now, I will continue to write in hopes that others are reading. Written in collaboration with my wife
Bills aren't made in a cultural vacuum void of historical precedent. That's something that is becoming increasingly obvious to us. Take, for instance, Bill S-233 (and its twin sister bill C-223), which is preceded in our estimation of nearly 92 years of history. Several events have created an atmosphere of dependency on the government for financial assistance throughout this time, all leading up to this bill. Here is what we found: 1927-1970: Initial Steps A guaranteed basic liveable income (GBLI) in Canada began with Guaranteed Income Supplement for Seniors and Canada Child Benefit. The Old Age Pension Act started in 1927, with provinces joining gradually. While provinces joined on, the culture had changed, moving from municipalities (including charities and families) taking care of the poor to the federal government caring for them. This was largely influenced by the rhetoric from public figures and labour groups to look towards the federal state for their assistance. There have been many changes over the years in regards to what is now called Guaranteed Income Supplement for Seniors. Interestingly, The Constitution Act of 1867 had to be amended for this legislation to move from provincial to federal. As for the Canada Child Benefit, it was started in 1945 by the Honorable Mackenzie King to help families after WWII get by due to inflation caused by the war. It was the first federal GBLI bill to pass and set a precedent that it's the government's role to help families financially in times of crisis. 1971: The Croll Report In 1971 there was a special Senate committee on poverty. In the Croll Report, the official idea of a GBLI for all Canadians was introduced. In talking about this report, Senator Kim Pate said in her speech on Feb. 8, 2022, "As we approach the second anniversary of the pandemic, the need to revisit the Senate's 50-year-old recommendation regarding guaranteed livable basic income is more urgent than ever." The Croll Report, which emphasized that poverty is the most significant issue and shame in Canada, was the catalyst that propelled the government to where we are today. 1974-78 & 2017-18: GBLI Pilot Projects From 1974-78, an experiment was done in Manitoba to test out a GBLI. Minicome is the name of the pilot project which the Honorable Pierre Elliot Trudeau proposed in a throne speech in 1973. Another pilot project was done in 2017-2018 in Ontario. Senator Kim Pate mentions both of these projects in her speech to support her bill. However, she conveniently failed to mention that the Minicome project ended in 1978 when it cost too much to continue, and the one in Ontario was ended in 2018 by Doug Ford because it was deemed unsustainable. From what we have read regarding these pilot projects, a GBLI gives short-term benefits, but carries with it long-term drawbacks. For instance, some families are able to use the money to further their education, but in the end the cost is unsustainable on the economy. This bill would bring about a measure of success, but at what price? Our children will end up paying for our short-term "quick fix". 2019: Federal Carbon Tax There have been increases made to different guaranteed incomes by different prime ministers throughout the years. This comes as a welcome relief to some. Lots of Canadians, us included, can't get by without the assistance of these incomes (eg. Child Tax Benefit). Whether intentionally or not, these programs have fostered an atmosphere of dependency. And the government continues to pass legislation making it extremely difficult to live without them. In 2019, in attempt to reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the Honorable Justin Trudeau implemented a federal carbon tax. This tax may seem unrelated to bill s-233, except for three things:
2020: Restrictions On Businesses The Canadian economy hasn't been good for some time. Senator Pate mentions in her speech that 10% of Canadians "were struggling below the poverty line" on the "eve of this pandemic". Yet in 2020, provincial and federal governments started implementing several restrictions on individuals, families, and businesses, exasperating this issue through job losses. When you factor in recent medical findings regarding the efficacy of the lockdowns and restrictions, as well as the push for the global reset, you can't help but wonder whether these mandates were intentionally implemented to weaken the economy. Its important to catch where Senator Pate places the blame in her speech. She blames the pandemic (ie. the virus) and not the mandates for this negative impact on the economy. Yet was it the virus (which has a 98% recovery rate and was experienced mildly by many) or the restrictions/mandates that are to blame? Just ask the business owners who had to turn away paying customers because of their medical status or let go of staff because there wasn't enough business. Or ask the nurses, RCMP officers, and military personnel who were put on "leave without pay" for their medical choice. The list, of course, is longer than that, but the point is these are people who lost jobs because of unnecessary restrictions and mandates, not because of a virus. Senator Pate uses the pandemic to justify the necessity of this bill. Yet, the government used the crisis to bring about this "necessity." They created the problem to bring in a "solution." 2020: CERB In 2020, another significant event took place which prepared the nation for this bill. CERB. In March 2020, the federal government provided $2000 a month for up to seven months for those who qualified. Those who qualified were those who made more than $5000 and had lost their income because of the pandemic. CERB emphasized that in times of crisis, the government will intervene, assist, and be the financial safety net for the people by providing money. Keep in mind that bill S-233 seeks to have a framework that facilitates an economy that responds to "climate crisis and other current major challenges." In light of this, CERB appears to be another precursor to a GBLI, getting Canadians accustomed to government handouts during times of crisis. In her speech, Senator Pate uses CERB as evidence for the need for a GBLI, emphasizing that though it alleviated some financial need, it didn't go far enough. People who made less than $5000 missed out! 2021: Bill S-233 (and C-223) After all of these events, then Bills S-233 and C-223 were presented. They were presented on the same day, December 16, 2021 – one in the Senate and the other in the House of Commons. It appears they stacked the deck in attempts to make it more likely that one of them would pass. Senator Pate and MP Leah Gazan, strategically use these preceding events we have mentioned to highlight and justify the need for a GBLI. According to Senator Pate, three of the federal parties favour this bill. It is only a matter of time until it passes, and the Minister of Finance will have to create a framework for a GBLI. Stepping Back We have been looking at various controversial bills over the past while – S-233 is just one of many. And we have learned that typically a lot of history precedes the proposal of different bills. When you study them, step back and consider how we got to this point. Whether big or small, government policies and legislation influences a nation's ideology, setting them on a path that often goes contrary to God's. As we step back and examine the history leading to bill S-233, we see how the government has created an atmosphere of dependency. They have a saviour complex, often making or exasperating the problem so that they can come in to rescue people through their solutions. Ultimately, over ninety-two years, they have gradually turned us away from God's way of dealing with poverty to their own solution. Want to read more about how God wants us to alleviate poverty? Click here. |
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 |