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.
1 Comment
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. The art of distraction is a vital component when it comes to politics. As our attention is turned to what is happening between Ukraine and Russia, a troubling bill is making its way through the Senate. Bill S-233, entitled "An Act to develop a national framework for a guaranteed livable basic income," is currently in its second reading.
This bill, along with its twin sister bill C-223, is based on the following premises: 1) poverty is our greatest issue and shame in Canada and 2) poverty is preventable by effective government policy and assistance. The goal of this bill is to:
With this bill, they seek to facilitate "the transition to an economy that responds to the climate crisis and other current major challenges". Implied in these words is something Trudeau has already been indicating – climate change will be the next crisis. And what has been implemented in our current crisis will be brought into that one. Restrictions on businesses being one carryover. So how do they plan on eradicating and preventing poverty stemming from such activity? By providing everyone over 17, including temporary workers, permanent residents and refugee claimants, access to a guaranteed livable income whether you work or not. This had already been implemented in part with such programs as CERB. Yet, a guaranteed basic livable income (GBLI) would go further. CERB was given only to those who made more than $5000. In Senator Pate's estimation, this didn't go far enough. The framework proposed by Pate, the sponsor of this bill, would include all people over the age of 17 regardless of whether they made $5000 or not. How would you sustain this? More taxation on those who are working. There is a lot to write about concerning this bill. Too much for a single blog. So along with my wife, we will be tackling a couple of different aspects that we find concerning. As a Christian, and a former pastor, my mind typically goes first to one question – what does the Bible have to say about this topic? I believe that God's Word addresses all issues in life – and this one is no exception. So as we shine a light on this bill, I want to start first with what God's Word says about poverty and how to deal with it. In her speech, Senator Pate said, "Poverty is not inevitable, nor is it an individual failing. It is the result of government policy choices that fail to provide viable pathways out of poverty that abandon and leave people behind". Pate presupposes two things: poverty is preventable, and the government is the solution to poverty. But how does this stack up to what God says? "For there will never cease to be poor in the land. Therefore I command you, 'You shall open wide your hand to your brother, to the needy and to the poor, in your land.'" (Deuteronomy 15:11) Poverty is inevitable in this life. Jesus affirmed, "The poor you will always have among you" (Mt. 26:11). His words stand in stark contrast to what Senator Pate claims. Her world is one in which poverty can be eradicated. But the utopian world of Star Trek, one in which money doesn't exist, and everyone's needs are met, is a fantasy world. Poverty exists because sin exists. Such things as war, theft, greed, pride, apathy and even laziness contribute to poverty. To eradicate poverty, sin must be eradicated. And this will not happen until Jesus' return. Man's Solutions Exasperates Poverty Senator Pate's solution to poverty is government intervention and the provision of GBLI. GBLI may sound like a great idea to some. The promise of wealth without having to work is satisfying to our fallen nature, prone to instant gratification and laziness. On top of this, the thought of the poor being taken care of without us having to go out and help them assuages our apathy. Strictly from an economic viewpoint, though, who would pay for a GBLI? The government doesn't make money; they take and spend money. Your money! And currently, they are failing massively with handling your money. Canada is currently 1.2 trillion dollars in debt. For there to be a GBLI, there would have to be an increase in taxation. In Senator Pate's speech, the focus was put on the rich. She believes it is wrong for the rich to profit off the poor, and so she seeks to redistribute it through taxation to those in need. It's a socialist ideology, not a Christian principle. It's very Robin Hood-esque. Robin Hood is praised as the people's hero. But taking from the rich to give to the poor is still theft. Taxation is not the solution to poverty. It typically tends to have the exact opposite effect. Higher taxes increase prices, which then increases the cost of living, resulting in the need for higher taxes to provide people with more financial assistance. It's unsustainable. Taxation puts a strain on a nation that is often unbearable (1 Sam. 8:10-18). Solomon taxed his people so that he could do certain projects. This put a strain on his nation (1 Kings 12:4). After his death, representatives of the nation asked for a reprieve. Solomon's son Rehoboam, instead of listening to the people, increased taxation (1 Kings 12:14). The result is the nation that was already experiencing strain and division, split in two (1 Kings 12:16-20). Will this be repeated in Canada? Taxation is not the solution, and the government is not the appointed vehicle responsible for alleviating poverty. A government engaged in social welfare is a government that has trespassed its sphere of authority. This responsibility is given to the individual (Deut. 15:11; Isa. 58:6-9; Heb. 13:16; 1 Jn. 3:14), the family (1 Tim. 5:8), and the church (1 Tim. 5:3-16; Mt. 25:35-40). God's Solution Alleviates Poverty Man looks at government to solve poverty; God directs individuals to alleviate poverty. After stating that there would always be the poor in the land, God says, 'Therefore I command you, 'You shall open wide your hand to your brother, to the needy and to the poor, in your land'" (Deut. 15:11). Notice the responsibility lays on individuals giving personally ("you shall") and generously ("open wide your hand"); not on a governing body providing a GBLI. Government handouts usurp personal responsibility and create apathetic people. We don't need to care for the poor if someone simply grabs money from our pockets and hands it to them. There's a reason why God commands us as individuals to give personally. It brings us face to face with the person who needs help, moves us to care for them and gives us a measure of gratitude when we assist that person in getting back on their feet. Personal giving leads to further acts of charity, for we learn that "It is more blessed to give than to receive" (Acts 20:35). The government desires forced giving through taxation; God desires free giving through charity. A principle runs throughout the Bible – giving generously out of the surplus that we are given. This is the principle of gleaning. Landowners were to leave the edges of their crops and the grain that fell as they gathered it so that the poor and foreigner could gather it (Lev. 19:9-10). We are to care for the needy, but we were never intended to give free handouts without a measure of effort attached to it. Paul reminded the church, "If a man will not work, he shall not eat" (2 Thess. 3:10). He would also warn about idleness when it came to giving to younger widows in need (1 Tim. 5:13). Idleness is something we must avoid, yet if this bill it passed it will force the Finance minister to make a framework for GBLI which would lead our nation toward a greater propensity to being idle. We were created to work (Gen. 2). Work gives dignity; handouts do not. Whereas we are to give freely without interest (Lk. 6:35), we are to do so to enable the needy to get back on their feet, so they can also contribute to helping others. This is the cycle that alleviates poverty. Personal charity, not forced taxation, which leads to further acts of charity enabling the needy to work and become contributing members of society. That's a cycle that won't break the bank! There is so much more that I can say regarding giving, but I believe I have made my case. Senator Pate's two presuppositions does not stack up to what God says. Poverty is inevitable due to sin and the solution to alleviating poverty is personal charity not government intervention and assistance. The responsibility lies on the individual, not the government, to help the poor. This is our duty, especially as the church. We are to be active in feeding the poor, clothing the naked, giving shelter to the homeless, and caring for the widow and orphan. These activities demand work. Are you up to the task? Unprecedented. That’s a word I’m growing tired of. It implies that we have not been here before in history. Yet, we have - haven’t we? There have been protests in our recent history: protests which were actually violent and a threat to Canada. I’ll mention those a bit later. What’s unprecedented is for our Prime Minister to invoke the Emergency Measures Act on a PEACEFUL protest.
The Act On February 14th, Trudeau invoked the EMA, which in my opinion, has eerie parallels to the Enabling Act enacted during Hitler’s rise to power. I guess it was Trudeau’s way of saying how much he loved Canada. But I digress. For the past week, I’ve been studying the EMA. It is a statutory act intended to give certain temporary powers to the Governor in Council when there is a severe threat to Canada’s safety, security, sovereignty, or territorial integrity that cannot be resolved by other laws already available. There are four different emergencies in the Act – public welfare, public order, international and war. The section invoked under the EMA is the Public Order Emergency. According to section 19 (1) of the EMA, the powers given to the Governor in Council under the Public Order Emergency include:
One additional power granted was the freezing of bank accounts of those involved in the protest or who supported the protest. I have read that this power is not retrospective and would only apply to those who gave or were involved in the protest after the EMA was invoked. These powers are limited to a specific geographical area and are subject to the Charter and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Here's the UN Act). I’m not sure this means too much. Why? Well, under Section 1 of the Charter, our protected rights can already be limited by law “as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society”. Our rights have always been restricted – it is just more exasperated now. Forcing The Act Through If we understood our laws better as Canadians, perhaps many more would have quickly understood the unlawful use of the EMA. The threshold wasn’t met. According to the EMA, a Public Order Emergency can only be enacted when there is a threat to the security of Canada so severe to be a national emergency. The definition of a threat to Canada is given by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and must conform to it. You can find it for yourself here. The definition contains four components. The bottom two are most likely in view by Trudeau. Think critically about whether this applies to what was happening in Ottawa. Take note of the word violence. “Threats to the security of Canada means (a) espionage or sabotage that is against Canada or is detrimental to the interests of Canada or activities directed toward or in support of such espionage or sabotage, (b) foreign influenced activities within or relating to Canada that are detrimental to the interests of Canada and are clandestine or deceptive or involve a threat to any person, (c) activities within or relating to Canada directed toward or in support of the threat or use of acts of serious violence against persons or property for the purpose of achieving a political, religious or ideological objective within Canada or a foreign state, and (d) activities directed toward undermining by covert unlawful acts, or directed toward or intended ultimately to lead to the destruction or overthrow by violence of, the constitutionally established system of government in Canada, but does not include lawful advocacy, protest or dissent, unless carried on in conjunction with any of the activities referred to in paragraphs (a) to (d).” The threshold was not met. There was no violence at the peaceful protest. And there were laws already in the books that had the power to deal with the situation. And yet, Trudeau invoked the EMA, and it was voted in. How was that possible? Well, there has been a calculated approach leading up to this.
Setting The Precedent The unprecedented enactment of the EMA has set a precedent – suppression of any protest with “unacceptable views.” This can be especially seen when compared to the other protests over the last couple of years. Two years ago, environmentalist protesters throughout Canada set fires along railway tracks, blockaded the tracks, and managed to force the Canadian Railway to close its eastern network. That same year BLM protestors defaced several statutes in an aggressive response against racism and police brutality. Last year nearly 50 churches throughout Canada were burned to the ground or vandalized in response to the unmarked graves that were discovered. At no point was the EMA ever considered in response to these actual threats to the economic stability of Canada and the safety of Canadians. However, the three-week PEACEFUL protest in Ottawa, filled with love, dancing, and bouncy castles, was deemed such a threat to the security and safety of Canada that the EMA had to be invoked. What makes the Freedom Convoy a threat? It isn’t that they are a threat to the security of Canada; rather, they hold an ideology that threatens Trudeau’s tyrannical control. They are asking for something he believes is unacceptable – the freedom to make their own medical choice. For them to be granted that Trudeau would have to relinquish control of bodily autonomy to Canadians. That’s why Trudeau did everything he could to stop the protest, except the two things that would have stopped it – meeting with the organizers and ending the mandates. By invoking the EMA, the precedent was set – ideologies that are voiced against Trudeau’s plan will not be heard. Under the Public Order Emergency, any protest suspected to breach the peace can now be ended by whatever force is deemed necessary. The Public Order Emergency is temporary – only 30 days – but we know what temporary mean’s in today’s world. The provincial states of emergencies were only supposed to be two weeks to flatten the curve – it’s now been two years with no real end in sight. Currently, another reported variant has appeared, which will slow down the ending of the mandates. No surprise really! This is how it’s been — the ever-moving goalposts. Under the EMA, these 30 days can be extended multiple times. I’m no prophet, but I assume that it will be extended numerous times until Trudeau gets what he wants. 100% vaccination. Violence is not to be tolerated. I think we can all agree on that. However, the EMA was called to stop a PEACEFUL protest. One where people came across Canada to be heard by their Prime Minister. Yet, they were silenced. Silence the people, and you silence democracy. Silence democracy, and what are you left with? A totalitarian government that leads according to the agenda of the leader. Democracy is dying the death of a thousand paper cuts - and so is Canada. Light In The Darkness It’s dark times for Canadians that hold views that go contrary to Trudeau’s regime. But it's in the darkness that the church shines the brightest. We have a hope more incredible than anything the world has. God is in control. His kingdom cannot be stopped (Matthew 16:18; Romans 16:20). The unrighteous will be judged (Ecclesiastes 3:17). The heart of the ruler can be changed (Proverbs 21:1). God will use these troubles to shape, strengthen and advance His kingdom (Rom. 8:28). And we have already been freed from the greatest tyranny of all – sin and death (Romans 8:12) So church, as the darkness surrounds us, arise. Stand by faith in the full armour of God. Keep your eyes trained on Jesus, who, for the joy before Him endured much suffering. Consider that these times are for our good. And then, live your life to the glory of God. Raise your family. Go to work. Wash the dishes. Gather as the church. Make disciples. Shine like lights in a dark world. And as you go, share the hope that you have in Jesus. For it is only in times such as these that men become free to hope in God. Guest Blog by Aimee Hanson
After the Emergency Measures Act was invoked, I was discouraged. I was discouraged because of two reasons: (1) many prayers have been answered not the way I like, and (2) the constant lack of accountability for the Prime Minister with very little opposition for years now. There were only four Premiers who were against invoking the Emergency Measures Act. That is less than half. I was healed from this discouragement by reading scripture. When I spent time reading scripture and talking about scripture with people, my soul was at peace. When I began to think about the cares of this world, I got discouraged again. We need to be constantly reading God’s word and be praying. If you are unsure what to pray, pray God’s word back to God. Reading Isaiah 40 reminded me that God is in control of the world, and it is He “who brings princes to nothing, and makes the rulers of the earth as emptiness” (Isa. 40:23). Praise God that He is in control! Then Psalm 37 reminded me not to fear the evil people in power but to trust God. Ask God to help us trust Him and not to fear man. Are you one of those evil people in power in your household? Repent and thank God for His mercy. Then Exodus 1 reminded me that God fulfilled His promise to multiply the Israelites under oppression. In the same way, the church grows under persecution. As Christians, we need to think big picture like Joseph, who saw the suffering that came to Him as God’s sovereignty. He used oppression for the good of many. A few weeks ago I prayed that God’s will would be done – whether that was the end of the mandates if God willed to give our freedoms back or the continuation of the mandates if God’s plan was for the church in Canada to grow under tyranny. I very much want all these unjust mandates to end and will continue to speak up against them because God wants us to speak for the rights of the poor and needy (Prov. 31:8-9). Yet we need to understand God’s kingdom will advance as He has determined. God uses all things, including tyranny and freedom, for the good of those who love Him. Our battle is a spiritual battle, and God is using ALL things for our sanctification and bringing about His kingdom (Romans 8:28). I have read the book of Job recently. When God said to Job, “where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me if you have understanding” (Job 38:4). God created the whole world and is holding it in place. Do you trust Him to do that? If you are discouraged, like I was, about world events, where does your hope lie? Is your hope in your freedoms here on earth coming back or God’s plan, whatever that may be? Is your hope in God’s justice reigning on earth in all circumstances? I repented of not trusting God to control the world. Perhaps you need to as well. On February 7th, Justin Trudeau accused the freedom protestors of trying to blockade our democracy. The ludicrousness of this accusation reveals a continued insensitivity towards charter rights, a continued suppression of the people's concerns, and confusion on how democracy works. The one who is actually blockading democracy is Justin Trudeau and any other leader maligning and suppressing peaceful protest.
In a democratic country, there are certain avenues through which we can lawfully voice our concerns – and one of those ways is through PEACEFUL protests. The charter, which is the highest law of the land in Canada, protects this right under sections 2b (Freedom of expression) and 2c (Freedom of peaceful assembly). 2c hasn't truly been tested in court, so there aren't clear lines on what is allowed and prohibited under this right. Of what I can find, riots and "gatherings that seriously disturb the peace" (super vague!) are not permitted, along with physically impeding or blockading lawful activities. You can find a list of potential offences from the Criminal Code here that would limit actions while protesting. Our right to protest only goes so far as it does not infringe upon another person's charter rights (eg. mobility rights). This is important to understand, especially when there are protests along the US/Canada border prohibiting people from crossing the border. Interesting enough, that is a right that Trudeau has been suppressing to certain people by the restrictions imposed on travel since November 2021. Unlike what Trudeau has said, peaceful protests do not blockade democracy; instead, it protects it. Democracy is a system of government that is governed by the consensus of the people. Or, as Abraham Lincoln put it, it is "of the people, for the people and by the people." It is one where the elected representatives hear the concerns of the people, bring them to parliament, present laws and vote accordingly. In a democracy, you need to hear the voice of the people – and peaceful protests are a visible demonstration of the people's grievances. It gives a voice for the minority, which corrects the tyranny of the majority. It grabs the attention of our elected representatives and encourages debate in parliament – which is what we see happening as a result of the protests in Ottawa and throughout the country. To stop peaceful protests is to silence the people. To silence the people is to blockade democracy. Though Trudeau claims to hear the people, he refuses to meet with the organizers of the protest. So, which one is truly blockading democracy? Democracy is a system of government you don't see mentioned in the Bible. This doesn't mean that it is unbiblical; it simply means that we can't be dogmatic about how we should operate within this system. Should we employ our right to protest, or should we simply continue to live life quietly in subjection to God's law (1 Thess. 4:11)? Though there are no instructions regarding protests in the Bible, we do have some working principles.
Some Christians have difficulty when it comes to claiming and using our rights. Paul never did. There are two recorded times that he used his rights as a Roman citizen. The first was in Acts 16 after his unlawful arrest in Philippi. He used his rights, very much how many protestors are today, to confront the government's misuse of power over its citizenry. The second occurrence is in Acts 22 in Jerusalem, where he was nearly unlawfully scourged and beaten. He claims his right to due process as a Roman Citizen and was spared from the whip. However, the more significant intention in asserting this right seems to be his conviction to go to Rome, appeal to Caesar, and advance the gospel. If Paul used his rights, why do we shy away from using ours? Of course, using them needs to be done in a responsible manner. There are two aims in the Christian life. Aim #1 – to glorify God. Aim #2 – to make disciples. These two aims need to inform everything in our lives, even what protests we support and join. We need to ask whether it will glorify God and give us opportunities to share and advance the gospel. It's easy to get behind the protests that are happening in Canada. The cause is worthy. They are standing and fighting for the freedom of bodily autonomy (I've written about that freedom here). I am amazed at how peaceful all the protests have been throughout Canada. There has been an intentional effort on the organizers' part to work with the police to maintain a peaceful environment. They have respectfully responded to the police and given in to certain demands even when they were at times unfairly treated. On top of this, they have calmly handled the media and certain governing parities maligning them (no doubt to intentionally stir them into a frenzy). They have stood their ground in a very Canadian way. What other protests have you heard of where people shovel sidewalks, pick up garbage, sing the national anthem, pray, sing hymns, and have bouncy castles! It's clear that the truckers aren't there for violent and malicious reasons. They are there to make their voice heard – end the mandates! However, though all the protests throughout Canada have been peaceful, not all the protests are constitutionally lawful. Protests which block traffic are not legal. And so, we need to use discretion and prudence as we practice our democratic rights. Allow me to clarify something here. Whether these peaceful protests in Canada are entirely covered by the law (which can be altered by the government, e.g. Nova Scotia's new directive) should not eclipse their struggle, message, and intention. These truckers, and their supporters, have experienced and are experiencing the effects that the unjust federal and provincial mandates have brought. For the past two years their lives have been disrupted and restricted. Some have lost jobs because of their medical choice. Others are worried that they will not be able to keep their business afloat. They simply want to be heard - to be given the freedom back to make choices for themselves. And affecting commerce is an effective strategy to grab Parliament's attention. This does not make their actions lawful, but they are reasonable. Yet what is the reaction that we see by our government? There is a precedent that is being set - protests with "unacceptable" views are being discouraged whether they are lawful or not. The protestors were first maligned, then their financial support was frozen, then injunctions were written up to silence their expression, and now they are forcefully being told to go home or face severe charges and consequences. Trudeau has invoked the Emergency Measures Act (aka the War Measures Act). This act, which hasn't been issued since the FLQ crisis by his father in 1970, will grant him temporary powers to disband any protests they believe will "breach the peace". If the protests have been largely peaceful, what is the need to invoke this act? If peaceful protests are discouraged by this measure of suppression, how does this encourage democracy? Trudeau claims that the protestors are blockading democracy when the fact of the matter is that the current actions of our federal and provincial governments are discouraging dissenters, silencing their voice, and ultimately blockading democracy. Democracy listens to the people; totalitarian governments do not. Introduction
Welcome to Chinada, where what happens in Canada reflects the communist regime in China. Last week, I wrote about controlling the narrative and our need to discern what is genuinely taking place. In that article, I mentioned that controlling the narrative is critical to controlling a nation. There are three ways they do this in China – propaganda, censorship, and centralization of content. All three are becoming more prevalent in our country. As the truckers stand up against the tyranny of the federal government mandates, keep your eyes on parliament. Not simply to see how things are being shaken up, but more specifically, what bills are being reintroduced. Bill C-10, now called Bill C-11, has been revived – and Bill C-36 (which will soon go by a different name) is right on its heels. What is the potential harm present in these bills, and how should we think of them as the church? Let’s look at each one individually. Bill C-11 Bill C-10, a hotly debated bill when it was first introduced, was revived on February 2 as Bill C-11 (now called the Online Streaming Act). This bill is an amendment to the 1991 Broadcasting Act, which seeks to regulate, support and promote Canadian content (ie. content made in and by Canadians which promotes Canadian culture) on social media platforms. This bill has in view commercialized social media platforms (e.g. YouTube, Netflix, Tik Tok, etc.); however, there is ambiguity in the law which potentially makes the scope broader than that. It requires these platforms, which are to be licensed, to contribute to the creation and availability of Canadian stories and music and contribute finically to support Canadian artists. Those platforms that don’t abide by these requirements will be finically penalized. This bill doesn’t seek to remove non-Canadian content; however, a higher priority is given to Canadian content over others, consequently burying non-Canadian content. This is problematic to freedom of expression since it suppresses content that is not deemed Canadian. Which begs the question – what will be the determining factor of what is considered Canadian content? In the bill the content must “serve the needs and interests of all Canadians.” Who gets to make that judgement call? The Canadian Radio-Television Commission will be given the authority to regulate online platforms. Therefore, the details are largely up to them - of course with policy direction from the government. The same government which deems the Bible as a myth, Christianity as the worst part of Canada, and the Freedom Convoy’s stand for freedom as unacceptable. For me, this bill reflects a communist ideology and tactic – the control of the media in the name of promoting nationalism in order to hinder and suppress dissenters (such as the church). With this bill we are put onto a road that leads to China. China regulates the internet and media in order to keep their Chinese nationality intact. An identity that is shaped by the communist party and guarded by prohibiting western ideologies that don’t adhere to their vision of China. Bill C-36 Whereas Bill C-10 regulates Canadian content, Bill C-36 seeks to monitor, regulate, and remove hate speech (especially targeting race, religion, and sexual identity) from online platforms. It is an amendment to the Criminal Code, making the activity and the thought punishable by jail time. The bill proposes creating a peace bond to help prevent hate propaganda offences and hate crimes from happening. To prevent something is to stop something before it happens. Therefore, this bill also covers thought crimes. On top of this, the accuser can make a complaint and remain anonymous if they feel threatened. Those found guilty will be required to be under surveillance for up to 12 months. How does this not sound like China? The regulation, suppression and prohibition of speech is literally the textbook definition of censorship – a tactic used by communist countries to suppress freedom of speech and expression. Because God has written His law on our hearts (Rom. 2:15), we should all agree that hatred is wrong. The crux of the matter though is twofold.
We can’t lose sight of when this bill is attempting to be reintroduced. The governing authorities are using the Freedom Convoy protest as justification as to why this bill is needed. Think about that for a moment. They are using a protest (which is covered by our charter rights of freedom of expression and assembly), which they have deemed unacceptable, as a cover to pass a bill that suppresses freedom of expression. That should make your head spin! This bill poses a great threat to our freedom of expression, not simply as a nation but especially for the church. A liberal interpretation of hatred will penalize the church’s message, which is already deemed unacceptable, hateful and bigoted. A LARGER TREND These two bills are simply part of a larger trend of the suppression of freedom of expression. Just consider the following things:
Yes, compared to other countries such as China, we still have mainly open access to social media with very few restrictions. Yet this is rapidly changing. Why? Some may see it as the government protecting us from ourselves. There is a risk when it comes to unhindered freedom of expressions – such as vulgarity, immorality, and hatred. That’s because our heart is deceitfully wicked, and from our heart stems our words. However, if you search the scriptures, you will not find the government as the one given the role to suppress speech. Each individual is responsible for practicing self-governance over their own words. The government is not the thought police, and censorship is not the solution (read my article on that here). There is something bigger happening here. The government is suppressing our freedom of expression to control the narrative. If you control the narrative, you shape a person’s worldview causing them to see the world as you want them to. This is how a government hinders dissenters and controls a nation. Strategically it is smart – morally, it is evil. On paper, we have a charter right for freedom of expression. Yet, functionally this right only exists for those who hold acceptable views (ie. views that align with the mainstream narrative). Those who do not follow the narrative are suppressed and censored. When you step back and observe what is taking place, its not that hard to know that the liberal government is leading us more and more into a socialist society – one which reflects communist China. Not really a surprise when you consider that Trudeau looks up to the leader of China. Last week I started reading the novel "Safely Home" by Randy Alcorn. It's a story of two former Harvard roommates, one from America and the other from China, reunited after a separation of time, distance and life choices. Li Quan is a devoted Christian who returned to China after he graduated. Ben is a person who lost his way as he pursued promotion in his business career.
There is a part in the story where Ben and Quan are at the Great Wall of China. Ben is impressed by its beauty, not knowing the larger history behind it. There Quan gives a proverb to Ben - one which has been bouncing around in my head ever since reading it. "A frog was in a well," Quan said. "A bird stopped to drink at the well. They argued about how the sky looked. The frog thought it was very small. The bird thought it was very big." "O…kay." "The bird could see the sky as it really was. The frog could only see a tiny part of it. We do not always see as clearly as we think we do." In communist countries, there is a strategic effort to control how people view things. Why? Well, if you control the narrative, you control a person's perception. If you control the perception, you control the nation. Karl Marx understood this, and that is why one of the ten strategies he wrote to implement communism successfully is the centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state. But how do you control how someone perceives something? Communist countries, such as China, employs the use of propaganda (i.e. information given with an intentional bias or misleading nature to promote a particular point of view), censorship (involving suppression of critical coverage) and control of content (typically through centralization of media under the state or monetary influence). From what I have read, each communist party maintained a department to monitor and suppress any information that did not go along with the party. These tactics aren't just found in China; it's here in Canada. There are many examples, but I want to focus on how the government and the government-sponsored media have been handling the trucker convoy. From the beginning, Trudeau has been controlling the narrative. It's evident in his speech on January 26th, in which he lays a framework to view the event.
Having laid the framework by which to view this event, he then lambasts the truckers. And here, we explicitly see his communist leaning. In a communist society, the individual's best interests are indistinguishable from the society's best interest. Thus, the idea of an individual freedom (such as the freedom of medical choice) is incompatible with a communist ideology. With that said, notice Trudeau's rhetoric. "The small fringe minority of people that are on their way to Ottawa, that are holding unacceptable views that they are expressing, do not represent the views of Canadians who have been there for each other, who know that following the science and stepping up to protect each other is the best way to continue to ensure our freedoms, our rights, our values as a country." Trudeau's argument is simple, the truckers' view (ie. the freedom of medical choice) is unacceptable because it doesn't fit in with the majority of Canadians. Is this what makes a view acceptable? In a communist society, yes. The narrative was firmly set at that point – the truckers were a small fringe minority with unacceptable beliefs. The government, along with government-sponsored media, intentionally sought to limit your view of the event – making you see the event like a frog in a well seeing the sky. Just consider how they reported on this convoy as they made their way to Ottawa.
And when they finally arrived in Ottawa, what happened? They continued with the talking point of extremism and hatred. There has been circulation of pictures and articles about Terry Fox being "defaced", the cenotaph being used as a parking lot, people carrying confederate flags and swastikas, disgracing of the unknown soldier memorial (by urinating and dancing on it), verbal harassment at a soup kitchen (reported here), and "F*** Trudeau" signs. I'm not here to disprove whether these things happened. Many people are already shining light on that. I simply want you to consider how mainstream media's reporting influences how you perceive this convoy and its cause. So consider, is your view being limited and influenced by the media on this event? Here are some necessary questions to consider as you critically think about the trucker convoy. These questions can also be applied to other protests, causes and events being covered in our nation.
As Quan said to Ben, "We do not always see as clearly as we think we do". Sometimes the reason for that is because the media influences us to see it a certain way. This is especially true in communist countries like China, where the state party controls the media. What about Canada? How free is our media to report on things? Mainstream media is largely sponsored by the government - and the government has a certain narrative. God warns us about jumping to conclusions. In Proverbs, we read, "If one gives an answer before he hears, it is his folly and shame" (Proverbs 18:13). A couple of verses later, we read, "The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him" (Proverbs 18:17). God wants us to practice critical thinking – the objective analysis of available facts, evidence, observations and arguments to form a judgement. He wants us to step back, ask questions, cross-examine the evidence, and attempt not only to see the bigger picture but what is true. Will we do it perfectly? No. But we should consistently, persistently, and humbly engage in this activity, nonetheless. So ask yourself, are you the frog or the bird? Are you only seeing a piece of the picture (the part that government-sponsored media wants you to see) or the whole thing? Are you doing what God desires and weighing everything, cross-examining what you have read, heard and seen? Are you thinking for yourself, or are you being controlled and conformed to the narrative? Edited: This article has led to some confusion and upset feelings. This was not my intention. I acknowledged that there are faithful churches that are standing up against the government overreach. They have made great sacrifices. Thankfully, I belong to one! This article is not an attack against them, but an indictment against the unfaithful churches that have (and still do) bowed the knee to ceaser. The church as a collective should have united together and pushed back against the unjust mandates. And yet the majority hid and compromised. This is what upsets me. And this is what I was writing against.
"The convoy of freedom" has rolled out and is heading to Ottawa to protest the mandates. It's a bitter-sweet thing to me. It's sweet to see many Canadians rallying together, putting pressure on our tyrannical government. However, I grieve at the same time. Why? Because it should be the church leading the charge (Prov. 28:4-5). We are to be the moral backbone of our nation, calling out evil and urging people to repent (Eph. 5:11). We are the butler and pillar of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15), actively teaching others what God has decreed (Mt. 28:19-20); yet many have hidden, cowered and compromised. This will be an unfavourable opinion, and I desperately hope that I'm wrong because I'm tired of the injustice and evil that our government is allowed to get away with. Still, though there is a movement and lots of hype from certain people, the truckers most likely will not succeed. The government won't listen. They are already suppressing things: turning off cameras, showing bias reporting, and pushing the narrative of vaccines. The government will suppress the movement, like a defiant toddler with its fingers in their ears. There is really only one way out of the mess we are in. Repentance, obedience and prayer. One verse that sums this up for me is 2 Chronicles 7:14, "if my people who are called by my name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and heal their land." If the truckers managed to succeed and the government relented of the mandates, what would that mean for our country? The truckers are the ones who are elevated and praised for their heroism, while the church (as a collective) continues to be seen as irrelevant. The truckers are seen as the ones who will fight against injustice, while the church will bend to tyrannical rule. The truckers will be viewed as the saviours of Canada, and the church will continue to bleed. Now, this may sound like jealousy. But the reason I see this as a grievous thing is not only should we be the ones who ought to care for what is right, but God's reputation is on the line. Whether we like it or not, how we behave as a church reflects on God. To justify cowardice, and compromise God's clear teachings, brings shame to God. And that should horrify us! If the truckers managed to succeed, and the government relented from the mandates, then what? Though we may have the freedom to engage in society and freely travel, we are still in a morally perverted country. Will we look to our truckers to get us back to being a Christian nation? Will the compromised churches then wake up and get to work confronting bills like C4 and others anti-Christian legislation. Their track record hasn't really been good up to this point. If the mandates were taken away, we still have a government that praised the passing of Bill C4. We still have a government that dismisses the Bible as a myth. As one person has said, we don't live in a post-Christian culture anymore; we live in an anti-Christian culture. There will progressively be more and worse things coming down. Yes, I support what the truckers are doing. Yes, I think what they are doing is good. God has given innate rights and freedoms to all people, which the government should be upholding. To stand up for these things by putting pressure on the governing authorities is the morally right thing to do. But this should be the church's fight. I grieve that most churches in Canada continue to cower and compromise. If the truckers did succeed, I can't help but view this as a Deborah and Barak situation. Barak was a weak, cowardly man who didn't want to do his role and needed his hand held by Deborah. Deborah was a lady who took on a role that really wasn't meant for her and yet led Israel into victory. God was gracious and gave victory, yet that victory was given to Deborah and Jael when it should have been Barak's. In case you missed it, I'm viewing the church as Barak and Deborah as the truckers. I don't think I'm off the mark. I remember when I was still pastoring under Village Missions, the organization's director was hoping for a day like this. A day when those outside the church would lead a revolt and bring an end to this season. I shook my head then, and I shake it now. Why are we waiting for the world to act first? We are supposed to be leading in moral issues, not the world! So church, take up the fight. Lead the way! Show and teach our country the way that God has decreed. Man up and stop being like Barak. It's time to be faithful and courageous. Praise the Lord for churches and Christians that are already doing this. Written by Aimee Hanson
How did God respond to the wicked nations that sacrificed their children to false gods (2 Kings 3: 27, 2 Kings 17: 17-18, 2 Kings 21:2-6, Jer. 7: 30-34, and 2 Chron. 33:6)? How do you think God is responding now to Canada, where tens of thousands of children are murdered yearly for the god of self. We don't have recorded the exact amount since there are no records of how many babies have died as a result of the abortion pill. North American churches have been preaching on sanctity of life in the middle of January because the decision of Roe vs. Wade was on January 22, 1973. In solidarity with American Christians, I would like to share a little about Canada's history of abortion laws. The case similar to Roe v. Wade in Canada: R. V. Morgentaler had its verdict on January 28, 1988. Two years after Canada was founded in 1869, abortion was illegal until 1969. In 1969 the Omnibus Bill was brought forth, which changed several laws in the criminal code. This bill was introduced by Justice Minister, The Honourable Pierre Elliott Trudeau. It changed many laws, including making contraception legal and also allowing abortions to take place with the approval of three or more doctors. Most Canadians are unaware that 34 years ago, there was a case that made abortions legal for all stages of pregnancy. This case questioned whether Canadian Charter rights were consistent with the criminalization of abortions that did not have approval from 3 or more doctors. It was determined the women's Charter rights of "life, liberty and security of the person" were in violation. The child's charter rights have not been in view, and it was not determined whether they are included in the Charter's right to life as they were considered "potential life." God, who created all things, wants us to protect the most vulnerable, and that includes the unborn. On November 16, 1989, a court case ruled that a father's rights did not exist or supersede the mother's right to control her body. Since then, many other challenges have been brought forward, and nothing has changed. One of which was Bill C-233 "Sex-selective Abortion Act" seeking to make it illegal for sex-selective abortions. David Hanson from Church Awake wrote about it here. Canadian taxpayer dollars fund abortions in Canada and around the world. There has also been further evil done in my home province. In 2020, NS ruled it illegal to protest an abortion facility or pharmacy that sells an abortion pill. On March 10, 2020, Bill 242, "Protecting Access to Reproductive health Care Act" made royal assent in the NS legislature. This act makes it illegal for anyone to persuade someone to not have an abortion while 20 m from the land the building is on. To break this law could result in a $5000 fine or 6-month imprisonment for a first offence. Why do I keep insisting abortion is evil? There is another body inside the mother. In fact, when a doctor (or murderer) conducts an abortion, he has to ensure he or she gets the full fetus out for her health and protection. In doing so, they count the limbs to make sure there are two arms and two legs and all the rest of the body parts. You might ask wouldn't the fetus come all at once? There are different ways abortions are done based on the stage of pregnancy. I was taught that one of the common ways is to destroy the baby being created by God inside the mother by taking it out piece by piece. I say this because most aren't disgusted by the word abortion in Canada. You need to know how depraved it is to willingly and celebratorily kill the unborn. I know that it may make people literally sick to know this if they didn't know. Church Awake did an interview with Bill Davenport, who is Executive Directory of a pregnancy care centre here in the valley. He said many women who undergo an abortion have mental anguish that can last for years, sometimes resulting in an addiction to resolve the pain following it. God can save you from your sin if you've had an abortion. God did that for Erin Coates; listen to here testimony here. What hope does Canada have if we are under God's judgment for unjust laws? Here are some things we can do...
Do not sit by while a holocaust is happening in your country. |
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 |