Thank you, James, for being able to do this interview. I've recently read your book "The 95 Theses of Covid & Church". Clearly you've been inspired by Martin Luther. Can you share with me a bit about yourself and what motivated you to write this book?
Glad to be a part of this great ministry. It looks like you've been interviewing some great men of God from Canada. And that's where I think my main inspiration has come from -- faithful Canadian pastors like Tim Stephens, James Coates, Jacob Reaume, Aaron Boswell and others, who have remained faithful to the call of the pastorate during a time of testing. They have put steel in my spine to speak the truth in a clear and succinct manner so that we can all more accurately see the full argument for remaining truly open during Covid against government mandates. But mostly, this book has come about as a result of my own interactions with those who have questioned my view. Honestly David, I love to get pushback because it really drives me to the Scriptures to see if these things are so. Far be it from me to ever defend my view for merely being right. That is a vanity and a chasing after the wind. I want to know what the Lord says, and when I evaluate this whole situation from the word of God, I'm left wondering why 99% of churches closed down in Canada. Clearly, something had to be said, and I think the whole situation tells a lot about the state of the church here. God has used Covid to expose so much. So, in short, a zeal for the church has inspired me to write it, as well as my own interactions with numerous unbelievers who had suffered from severe depression and loneliness as a result of all these lockdowns and restrictions. If ever there was a time unbelievers needed access to a faithful church, it is now. After reading the 95 theses that you've written and chatting with you, I've come to learn that you are governed by the regulative principle when it comes to worship. Can you briefly explain what it is and how your response to how the church should operate despite restrictions has been influenced by it? This is a great question, and I think it gets to the heart of the issue, even more so than government overreach. The regulative principle of worship teaches that we must only worship in a way prescribed by the Lord Himself whereas the normative principle teaches that we must not worship in a way that goes against scripture. There is an ocean of difference between the two. The first will choose not to do livestream services as a replacement for the physical gathering because nowhere does the Bible tell us to do that, whereas the second is totally fine with livestream services because nowhere does the Bible forbid it. There is also a third view that basically teaches anything goes so long as God is worshiped with a good heart. I believe the large majority of churches in Canada operate on the second and third of these principles, and this was the case long before the government stepped in to determine how Christ was to be worshiped. As you scan your eyes across the Canadian landscape of churches that have remained open, I'd say most of them operate on the regulative principle (besides some obscure offshoots). So if one were to say they don't believe human life is valuable, it shouldn't surprise us when they announce their abortion. It's the inevitable outcome of a belief. The same goes with our view of ecclesiology. If we believe God can be rightly worshipped in a way not prescribed by Him, we should not be surprised to hear that they've shifted everything online when it becomes convenient to do so. After all, where does it say in the Bible that it's a sin to go online? Of course, this kind of question is never encouraged by scripture. Nadab and Abibu were never encouraged to ask, 'When did God tell us NOT to offer this strange fire?' Rather, there were specific instructions laid down for how to worship. That's at the heart of the regulative principle. In your book, you note that pastors are acting in such a way that they are biblically illiterate. Many of these pastors are graduates of Bible schools and seminaries. Is it true that they are biblically illiterate or are they simply interpreting scripture through a different lens? I think it's easy to misinterpret a statement like this. I'm confident that many of these pastors could run theological or intellectual circles around me and are far more equipped than I am. This wasn't meant to be a comparison between them and me. Rather, it seems that many are majoring in the minors and are simply unable to apply basic teachings. As I've noted in the book, the job description of every pastor is to tend to their flock and be in their midst. The most basic element of Christianity is that we follow Christ, not Caesar, and that we endure suffering as a good soldier of Christ. So many of my 95 theses aren't exactly profound or highly intellectual. A lot of it is just basic stuff that every Christian should know not long after conversion. I'm left wondering where many of these pastors have been trained and what their view of the church is. How easy is it to lose the bigger picture of scripture, right? We can talk about the deep meanings of Greek or come up with the most profound of illustrations all day long, but if we lose the central tenets and core foundations of the faith, we'll wind up picking lilies in the field way off yonder instead of contending earnestly for the faith in the midst of the battlefield. As you wrote this book how did your knowledge of God both inform what you wrote and in what ways did it grow? Well, first of all, I'm blown away at just how patient God is. It took me a while to come to these views (nearly a year), all the time helplessly trying to live the Christian life apart from Christ and His church. As such, I'm able to be patient with others. I've realized that it's all too easy to go along with the crowd without ever batting an eye. The people of Israel all worshiped the golden calf through the leadership of Aaron. Nobody wants to be the guy to go against that. And so God is patient, He's long-suffering, but mostly I'd say, His love for the Bride has been astounding me. Christ died for the church. He came and sought Her out, and He did so incarnationally. He dwelt among us. He told us He'll never leave us. His love ought to draw us into His presence, not away. Thirdly, I've been learning how holy God is. He is the king of all kings, the Lord of all Lords, and we don't need to assist Him in accomplishing His work. He works in His own way and on His own terms. We don't need to resort to being 'creative' or 'innovative' when it comes to worshipping Him. We don't need to bow to the government as if God's provision is dependent upon them. Pragmatism does not help God out. Fourthly, God is faithful to all His promises. He will continue to build His church one way with or without restrictions and mandates. We've seen that all throughout the pandemic. His highest concern is and always has been the church. It's Christ's mission to nourish, cherish and sanctify His Bride, so God can use whatever situation to accomplish those ends. So my growth in the knowledge of God, much more than my views of politics, has really shaped a lot of what I said in this book. One of the theses you have written says, "That by reducing Christianity down merely to the 'spiritual realm' , you have abdicated your social responbilities as a Christian in the political and social realm.' I've come to realize that as Christians, we need to become more involved in our society. In your estimation, what is our responsibility as a church in these two realms, and where do we start? I think we first need to start on our knees with both our hearts and our Bibles open. From my end, I've seen nothing but a disinterest in politics from many churches simply because, as they might put it, the kingdom of God is not of this world. The gospel should be our primary allegiance. But there is a false dichotomy going on here. The gospel compels us to love our neighbours, and one of the most practical ways of doing that is in the political realm. Again, God has been patient with me because 12 months ago, I would've emphasized the local over and against the global, and I think this is what many do. They restrict 'neighbours' simply to the local, and they reduce 'love' down to merely being nice or doing community service. I've even seen churches replace their Sunday gathering with community involvement long before Covid. While I of course appreciate the emphasis on the local, we have to remember that we live not just in a neighbourhood, but also in a city, a country and a world, and that a lot of what happens in those larger realms trickles down to the local. So, if Nelly down the road lost her job due to refusing vaccination, should we A) offer to mow her lawn every week for free, or B) call our MPs and stand up for her rights? Many would choose A simply because it's easier, more practical and apolitical. Don't get me wrong, A still benefits her, but guess what's going to benefit her way more? The church being open, for one, so that she could meet the very people of God face to face and hear about the grace of God in Christ Jesus, but two, these same Christians fighting for her rights in the streets so that she can get her job back. There are a number of ways to get involved in our communities as the church, but what I want to emphasize is being aware of the issues, both our cultural and political climate. We should also not be afraid to take strong political stances. Much can be said about that as well, but I think many pastors try to be neutral for the sake of unity. But neutrality is a myth, and it can also be destructive. For example, you can't treat abortion and homosexual marriage in the same way you treat differing eschatological views. You can't say, 'OK, you believe ripping babies limb from limb is OK, and you think it's murder. Both are fine! Unity in Christ! Unity in Christ!" So why would we then say, "Oh, you don't believe the true and proper worship of Christ is important and that you think Caesar should boss around the Bride of Christ, but the other side doesn't. Both are fine! Unity in Christ! Unity in Christ!" Rather, we need to stick firmly to what the Scriptures say. Neither the Right nor the Left are perfectly in line with scripture; that's true, but one's a whole lot closer to the other, and I don't think we need to be afraid to say that. There are so many questions that I have, so hopefully, we can do this again. As we come to the end of the interview, I want to ask about the response to this book. Have you received any feedback from pastors who have read the book and have changed their mind on the role of the government and the church? Yeah, so I've sent a free .PDF file of the book to numerous churches across Canada, and I've only got a few responses. If there were some kind of Wittenberg church I could post this to, that would be so much easier, haha. Finding pastors' emails buried on their church websites is quite the task, and I think I hit my limit at around 80-100. But in the responses I received, I haven't had one that actually dealt with my arguments. One pastor from Saskatchewan pointed out a spelling error and that my biography at the end had too big of words. He also said I was too young to have anything important to say (I'm 33, much older than guys like Spurgeon, Edwards and others whom God used mightily even before they were 20). Others were a little more respectful and simply wrote it off simply because they didn't want to quarrel over what they perceived as a minor difference. There were also charges of pride, possibly because of my strong tone throughout. But I believe the highly critical tone I took in my book was absolutely necessary. We're talking about the fact that 99% of Canadian churches closed down and offered to God worship that was not acceptable to Him. We're talking about the fact that the Bride of Christ was left to fend for Herself for two whole years. This is not primarily about masks or vaccines, as important as that is. Paul had sharp words in his letter countless times, but the one I wanted to leave us with is 1 Cor 11:22 when Paul was dealing with a theological disagreement in the Corinth church. He says, "What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not". On the other hand, I've also received some encouragement as well, not least of which was from a pastor from BC who had been disciplined by his church for coming to many of the convictions held in this book. I've also had some who have reached out to me to offer encouragement through Instagram. Thank you, David, for interviewing me, and God bless you and your wife in your ministry!
0 Comments
Thank you for being willing to do a follow-up interview. Since the last time we chatted, what new things have you learned from the peer-reviewed studies you have been looking at?
Sure! There’s a ton of research that’s come out since the interview we did. I can’t cover it all, but let’s look at a few different studies that shed light on various topics. To kick things off, here’s what an article from the beginning of the Omicron frenzy was finding: “It is of concern that 83% of cases occurred in fully or booster-vaccinated people. Whether this observation is an artefact as the major superspreading events and subsequent chains of transmission have occurred primarily in young adults, and not yet spread to children, who have not been vaccinated, is still too early to say.” “Recent results, however, indicate that Omicron significantly escapes two-doses’ vaccines, ranging from complete loss to 33- to 44-fold reduction of neutralizing activities [8,12] Sera from people who received the third dose of vaccines maintained about 10% of the neutralizing activity, and such neutralizing activity was completely lost after three months.” So, even at the beginning of the Omicron wave, there were a few facts that were emerging:
Cutting-edge Vaccine Findings This is a big one. Hot off the presses, this study took the Pfizer vaccine and put it on some human liver cells in a lab. They wanted to see how quickly the cells would absorb the vaccine and what happens on the inside of the cell after a few hours. Here’s a quote from this published peer-reviewed study: “In the BNT162b2 toxicity report, no genotoxicity nor carcinogenicity studies have been provided [26]. Our study shows that BNT162b2 can be reverse transcribed to DNA in liver cell line Huh7, and this may give rise to the concern if BNT162b2-derived DNA may be integrated into the host genome and affect the integrity of genomic DNA, which may potentially mediate genotoxic side effects. At this stage, we do not know if DNA reverse transcribed from BNT162b2 is integrated into the cell genome. Further studies are needed to demonstrate the effect of BNT162b2 on genomic integrity, including whole genome sequencing of cells exposed to BNT162b2, as well as tissues from human subjects who received BNT162b2 vaccination.” Ok, in human language, here are some important things that the study found:
Compare this with the government of Israel’s fact-checker article on mRNA vaccines: “The cells' genome (DNA) is stored within the nucleus, surrounded by double membrane. This membrane allows large molecules such as the produced mRNA molecule to leave the nucleus but prevents large molecules from entering the nucleus. Therefore, the mRNA molecule administered by the vaccine is entirely incapable of entering the nucleus and "reach" the DNA.” We know this is false because this peer-reviewed study has found foreign vaccine-induced DNA floating around inside the nucleus! And it found a lot of it. Take another quote from the same government of Israel article: “The mRNA molecule survives within the body for a few hours” Well, look at what this pre-print study has found: “In this paper, we provide the first data characterizing the actual proteins produced by mouse and human cells in culture that had been incubated up to 30 minutes with the commercial vaccine produced by Moderna (i.e., Spikevax). The mRNA vaccine continues to produce proteins up to 12-14 days after introduction to the cells.” 12-14 days is significantly more than “a few hours.” Let’s go even further. Another recently published study indicates: “In contrast to disrupted germinal centers (GCs) in lymph nodes during infection, mRNA vaccination stimulates robust GCs containing vaccine mRNA and spike antigen up to 8 weeks postvaccination in some cases” In reality, if you are looking in the right place (e.g. lymph nodes), you’d actually find that the mRNA from the vaccine is still present up to 8 weeks later. This is only from the places in the body we’ve studied so far! Just to stop for a moment: these are kinds of findings that strongly vindicate people who chose to not take these experimental gene therapy drugs because of the lack of safety studies. The vaccine proponents like governments claim that these vaccines only stay in your system for a few hours. But studies are finding that’s not true at all - even up to 8 weeks later the vaccine’s “stuff” is still in your lymph nodes making your body produce spike proteins. And, if you read my last interview, you may recall studies that found the spike protein itself is harmful. Side-effects Here’s a study that found a link between vaccination and cancerous lymph nodes: “PET/CT revealed hypermetabolic lymph nodes in the axillary and supraclavicular regions draining the vaccine injection site in 36% of the subjects having received the first dose and 54% of those studied after the 2nd dose. The hypermetabolic lymph nodes were enlarged in 7% of 1st dose vaccinees and 18% of 2nd dose vaccinees. Both differences were statistically significant, demonstrating that the impact on draining lymph nodes was greater after the booster dose, confirming data from the meta-analysis above (12). Regarding the relationship with the underlying malignancy, hypermetabolic lymph nodes were considered as malignant in 5% of the patients while no conclusion regarding the malignant nature could be drawn in 15% of the vaccinees including 16 patients with lymphoma. Interestingly, in none of these studies, the possibility that the mRNA vaccines could have played a role in the development of malignant lymph nodes was considered.” So, there’s evidence that the mRNA vaccines could be causing cancer in lymph nodes, but as this case study reports, “Interestingly, in none of these studies, the possibility that the mRNA vaccines could have played a role in the development of malignant lymph nodes was considered.” Hmmm… Another study titled “The mRNA-LNP platform's lipid nanoparticle component used in preclinical vaccine studies is highly inflammatory” finds that injecting mice with the mRNA vaccines causes inflammation and led to a high mortality rate in those mice. “Vaccines based on mRNA-containing lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) are a promising new platform used by two leading vaccines against coronavirus disease in 2019 (COVID-19). Clinical trials and ongoing vaccinations present with very high protection levels and varying degrees of side effects. However, the nature of the reported side effects remains poorly defined… The same dose of [lipid nanoparticles] delivered intranasally led to similar inflammatory responses in the lung and resulted in a high mortality rate. In summary, here we show that the LNPs used for many preclinical studies are highly inflammatory… Furthermore, the preclinical LNPs are similar to the ones used for human vaccines, which could also explain the observed side effects in humans using this platform.” Another study titled “Four cases of acquired hemophilia A following immunization with mRNA BNT162b2 SARS-CoV-2 vaccine” looked at 4 people who ended up with a condition that causes your blood to not be able to clot properly. The study’s highlights were: “• Immunomodulatory effects of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination are still poorly understood. • Four cases of Acquired hemophilia A (AHA) observed after mRNA BNT162b2 vaccination • Unusually high AHA incidence in eight months in our province (total population 526,349)” Finally, here’s another study that’s from last year titled “Comprehensive investigations revealed consistent pathophysiological alterations after vaccination with COVID-19 vaccines.” This study found lots of different unexpected changes to the blood of those vaccinated: “Here, we report, besides generation of neutralizing antibodies, consistent alterations in hemoglobin A1c, serum sodium and potassium levels, coagulation profiles, and renal functions in healthy volunteers after vaccination… Altogether, our study recommends additional caution when vaccinating people with pre-existing clinical conditions, including diabetes, electrolyte imbalances, renal dysfunction, and coagulation disorders.” Masking There’s just so much to cover! Around masking, I’ll let you do some of your own reading and digging. Here’s a few to get started: - https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1750-2659.2011.00307.x - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31479137/ - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21477136/ - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26952529/ We knew masking didn’t work - even in 2011. The UK’s influenza pandemic plan from 2011 says it very plainly with all the specific reasons why masking doesn’t work. Check out page 37. Lockdowns It was known before this pandemic that lockdowns, restricting travel, gathering limits, etc. had great socio-economic harms for very little benefit. Here are a few documents highlighting this:
“Evidence and experience suggest that in pandemic phase 6 (increased and sustained transmission in the general population), aggressive interventions to isolate patients and quarantine contacts, even if they are the first patients detected in a community, would probably be ineffective, not a good use of limited health resources, and socially disruptive.”
“NPIs such as travel restrictions have also been employed by countries as a political or social measure to abate fear rather than a necessary public health measure. While national public health guidelines generally recommend NPIs during an outbreak to limit contact frequency between individuals and to decrease the potential risk of spread of respiratory pathogens, there is a broad lack of evidence of efficacy and a lack of understanding about secondary adverse impacts.”
Recently, John Hopkin’s research has come out and stated: “An analysis of each of these three groups support the conclusion that lockdowns have had little to no effect on COVID-19 mortality. More specifically, stringency index studies find that lockdowns in Europe and the United States only reduced COVID-19 mortality by 0.2% on average. SIPOs were also ineffective, only reducing COVID-19 mortality by 2.9% on average. Specific NPI studies also find no broad-based evidence of noticeable effects on COVID-19 mortality. While this meta-analysis concludes that lockdowns have had little to no public health effects, they have imposed enormous economic and social costs where they have been adopted. In consequence, lockdown policies are ill-founded and should be rejected as a pandemic policy instrument.” Again, this isn’t new. Our public health approaches have not been built on science, or else we would not have used such drastic and harmful measures which we already knew would do more harm than good. Last time we didn't get into the natural side of things. What have you found out about natural immunity? There’s a great collection of 150 studies on this topic here. I’ll quote a few of the studies listed: - https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.20.21255670v1 “Our results question the need to vaccinate previously-infected individuals.” - https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.03.21259976v2 “There was no difference in the infection incidence between vaccinated individuals and individuals with previous infection.” - https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.01.21258176v3 “Individuals who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection are unlikely to benefit from COVID-19 vaccination…” - https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1.full “SARS-CoV-2-naïve vaccinees had a 13.06-fold increased risk for breakthrough infection with the Delta variant compared to those previously infected…” “The increased risk was significant (P<0.001) for symptomatic disease as well.” “SARS-CoV-2-naïve vaccinees were also at a greater risk for COVID-19-related-hospitalizations compared to those that were previously infected.” “This study demonstrated that natural immunity confers longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization caused by the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity.” What have you found most interesting or alarming as you look at these studies? Taking the topics and studies I covered in the last interview and this one, the most alarming thing is that all these things - immune escape, harms of lockdowns, the ineffectiveness of masking and the superiority of natural immunity are nothing new. These things have been established for years and decades. What’s so alarming is that our public health officials around the world decided to ignore these things after the pandemic began. Now we are seeing the tangible results of the poor public health measures that were using harmful and ineffective policies. So why did that happen? Was it mere incompetence? Or intentional? I don’t know the answer, but nonetheless, it’s concerning. We are increasingly seeing the public, in large, now losing trust in their political leaders and public health officials for flip-flopping so much and ignoring what used to be solid science. As we come to the end of the interview for today, I want to stress the importance of people doing their own studies. Where can people start researching for themselves? There’s a handful of scientists that I personally follow. Here are some links: - https://twitter.com/P_McCulloughMD - https://twitter.com/GVDBossche - https://twitter.com/MartinKulldorff - https://twitter.com/DrJBhattacharya - https://vinayprasadmdmph.substack.com/archive - https://rwmalonemd.substack.com/archive - https://www.youtube.com/c/MedicinewithDrMoran - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCF9IOB2TExg3QIBupFtBDxg I always like to start with my readers getting to know you a bit. Can you share a bit about who you are and why you have become so interested in learning Canadian law lately?
Sure! My name is Molly Broomer. I’m married to my husband Tyler, and we live just outside of Edmonton with our two lovely kids. I was born in Canada and lived here until age 6, but I spent my most formative years growing up in Texas, just outside Houston. All of my education is American, with the exception of a few courses that I took here in Canada during my bachelor’s degree. I have a degree in Biblical Studies from Moody Bible Institute, which fuelled my desire to apply Scripture to all of life. Growing up in the U.S., I was taught the importance of civic duty and patriotism and national identity. These are values that are instilled from a young age via the education system and the community at large. When I moved back to Canada 12 years ago, I realized I really knew nothing about our governmental system or our legal system. While that didn’t sit well with me, I was definitely busy with “other things” for a long while. But in the last six years under Trudeau, as Canada has accelerated quickly toward some very concerning ideology, and particularly as I watched citizens all around me become seemingly completely comfortable with our government stripping our Charter rights in the name of “health and safety,” my interest was quickly piqued. My husband shifted into law enforcement three years ago, and we quickly got a very inside look at the justice system. I have always been attracted to studying the law and even toyed with being a lawyer for a quick minute several years ago (maybe one day, still!). Seeing the “system” from the inside made me aware of just how unaware we had previously been about what really goes on, how important it is to know your rights, and how many people actually do not know their lawful rights and freedoms. When my pastor (James Coates) was unlawfully jailed in January of 2021, I knew that I had to start taking this seriously and figure out a way to mesh my knowledge of Scripture with a deeper understanding of civic law & government. In a way, I was forced to become interested, but I’m very grateful for that. As someone who was born in Canada and raised in America, what major difference do you see between how Americans and Canadians understand the law? Well, this is a tricky question because Americans vary so much from state to state, as do Canadians from province to province. Additionally, the USA has changed a lot since I lived there, which we’ve all been watching from afar. But, I will speak to my personal experience and some broad generalities. Keep in mind I am painting with a very broad brush here. I also want to be clear that I am trying to be factual here, not necessarily assert that one country is better or worse than the other. As I mentioned previously, Americans are taught to be proud of their national history & identity from a young age. The history of the United States is a proud one. The bravery and fortitude showed by the colonies and later the Founding Fathers, to conceive of a nation so unique, fight for that vision, sacrifice for it and for posterity, and then solidify that idea in iron pen- this is the history in which Americans proudly share. If you’ve never read the Declaration of Independence, I encourage you to do so. It is full of beautiful, resolved language regarding the responsibility of a people to throw off a tyrannical government and instate a new one, which is exactly what they did. And in place of a monarch, they instated a government of the people, by the people, for the people. I believe it is because of this history and this foundational belief system that Americans tend to (generally) view their relationship with the government with healthy skepticism. The government should work for them and represent the people well, and if they don’t, they’ll do something about it. Additionally, the Bill of Rights is far more enshrined in American culture than here in Canada, and I was taught from a young age just how important those inalienable rights are to human flourishing. Now, sadly we are seeing some of these attitudes change in America, but again, I’m speaking in generalities from my own experience. I believe most adults my age and older have had a similar experience. In general, I believe Americans view the law, particularly the Bill of Rights, as their protection from the government and protection from tyranny. Now, Canadians, on the other hand, have a very different history. Canada is born from those who wished to avoid war and remain loyal to Britain, as well as those who were just simply wary of the Americans. Throughout the American Revolution, Loyalists fled to Canada, sometimes even enticed by the British with promises of land or freedom. It wasn’t until almost one hundred years after American Independence that Canada confederated and became a nation. It was not until over one hundred years after that that Canada introduced its own bill of rights (the Charter). So in a way, it often feels like we don’t really know who we are as a nation or even where we come from. I might offend a few of my fellow Canadians when I say this, but in a sense, it often feels as though the Canadian national identity is that we don’t truly have a cohesive identity, at least not in the way a country like America has. Of course, older Canadians would identify themselves very much with the commonwealth and great loyalty to the Queen. Still, we seem to know more about who we are not rather than who we are (i.e. we are not America, we are not really Britain either). On the whole, though, the Freedom Convoy marks the first time most Canadians felt a sense of true national solidarity and identity. Most of our history, political decisions and legal decisions come from avoiding war or conflict of some kind and trying to appease everyone within our borders, and often those without, too. Our Charter is only 40 years old, and it contains clauses that allow for the infringement of rights under certain circumstances. I think this comes from the fact that we are more concerned with the good of the collective than with individual good and individual rights. Lacking the same strength of identity forged in war and struggle for independence from tyranny has, I believe, led to a society that believes the government is generally good and looking out for their best interest. We don’t question our laws very often. The stereotype is true! We are very nice, passive, polite people. We are a lot more trusting of our government and less likely to assert our individual rights. Why do you think it is important to understand the laws of the land and teach them to our children? I certainly hope that all Christians are actively teaching the laws of God to their children first and foremost. And because we know that God’s law is best for all of mankind, I believe it is appropriate to stay apprised of the legal happenings in our country so that we can assess current and proposed legislation with a biblical lens. Our children need to learn this skill from us. We need to teach them to think critically about government and justice and legislation, ask intelligent questions and examine issues from all angles. We also need to teach them how to hold those earthly laws up to God’s Word and determine whether or not our country is governing within God’s parameters. I saw this with such clarity during the pandemic, as governments began to play God. Attempting to prevent death and deliver their people from sickness, they stepped far outside God’s parameters for governmental authority. Simultaneously, I watched far too many Christians blindly follow their lead, even giving up right worship and fellowship with the Body of Christ, without asking hard questions about whether what the government was doing was even legal, which it wasn’t the vast majority of the time. We need a robust theology of government & law & spheres of authority so that we can discern where we fit within our nation. Christians do have a responsibility to submit to and honour the government insofar as the government is not commanding what God has forbidden or forbidding what God has commanded. We need to know the law so we can obey it and uphold it. We need to know the law so we can fight against it at the right time, when the law is unrighteous, oppressive, or out of step with the nation’s values or God’s law. How does your faith impact your desire to learn the law? Psalm 33 tells us that God loves justice. God wrote his law on our hearts (Romans 1), and he gave us the first written law in the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20). I serve a God who is perfectly just, who loves and executes justice, who has promised to judge the earth rightly, and who commands that we also do justice (Micah 6:8). His laws are wonderful, and Scripture sets a clear path of rejoicing in and meditating on the precepts of God. I used to be someone who drew a dividing line between politics/law/government and my faith because I thought they were incompatible. My attitude was, “I’m never going to convince the secular world to view the world as God does, so leave them to their own devices, and I’ll be over here in the church doing my own thing.” However, as I’ve matured in faith and in life, I see that politics/law/government is exactly where my faith should be brought to bear. Fighting for truth, fighting for justice, fighting for the rights of my children and my neighbours - this is loving, and this is in step with who God says he is and the things he says he cares about. Laws have ramifications for those around me, either ameliorating or degrading. Every law will either move us closer to God’s standard or farther away - nothing is neutral. They either help or harm. Even the smallest bylaws have consequences, good or bad. If I stand by quietly while a government encroaches upon and oppresses my neighbour, am I loving them? Am I loving and obeying God if I stand by quietly while a government blasphemes God’s Word and prohibits what he has commanded (most recently in Canada, see Bill C-4)? What should we do when our government does not hold itself accountable to the laws of the land? John Knox said, “Resistance to tyranny is obedience to God.” We know from Scripture that God does not tolerate tyranny, oppression, or injustice. He will punish evil rulers and nations either here or in the end. I believe Christians have a duty to resist tyranny when we see it, not only in defence of our religious rights and such but in defence of the weak and the vulnerable. I don’t know that I believe a Christian should take up arms against his government, but I believe peaceful resistance, civil disobedience, is very much biblical and called for in these instances. The Hebrew midwives refused to carry out unlawful orders to kill baby boys because they knew that to do so would violate God’s law (Exodus 1). Daniel continued to pray publicly after prayer had been outlawed, even though he could have done it in secret (Daniel 6). Why? Because he was making a statement: My God is most powerful and most worthy, and I obey him above all others. This should be our attitude toward governments who break the law. I watched our church, Grace Life, simply continue on in obedience to God when the restrictions came down requiring them to close. They did not draw attention to themselves; they simply continued being faithful, meeting together each week as God has commanded. Eventually, this civil disobedience put them at odds with the government when they were reported, and that is when things got sticky. James Coates peacefully defied the government’s overreach by preaching God’s Word and calling the government to accountability before God, continuing to shepherd his flock in spite of unlawful mandates. When the time came, he accepted the consequences of his decision, no matter how unjust they were. He showed us that you can resist tyranny while still submitting to and honouring your government (Romans 13). I believe Christians can and should hold the government to account because the government’s authority is given by God. Their authority is also restricted by God. It is limited in scope and execution. We are well within our biblical mandate to speak the truth and live out God’s law, even if it brings us up against a government that has overstepped its God-given boundary. Our desire is not to crush the government; our desire is to obey God above all others. If that brings us into conflict with earthly powers, so be it. Thanks for your time! For those who want to learn more about Canadian laws, where do you recommend that they start? I’m very honoured that you would ask for my thoughts, David. It is a real joy to talk with brothers and sisters around Canada about these very important issues! First, begin with Scripture & the Spirit. Familiarize yourself with God’s law and his character so that you can judge rightly. Ask the Spirit for wisdom. James 1:5 says, “If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him.” Much of what we need to be good students of law & government is found in Scripture and will be illuminated by the Spirit as we study it. Ask God for his wisdom as you seek to understand these things, and he will help you. He is the source of all knowledge, after all! Secondly, just start reading laws. When you hear of a new bill being passed, go read it in its entirety. As you find terms you’re unfamiliar with, look them up. A common-sense approach will help you learn more as you familiarize yourself with how bills are written and what the language means. Think critically, and think biblically. Finally, personally, I have found these books very helpful in understanding Canadian constitution, law, and government: The Canadian Constitution, 2nd Edition. Adam Dodek The Canadian Regime: An Introduction to Parliamentary Government in Canada, 7th edition. Patrick Malcolmson, et al. It is helpful and formative to look at the theory/philosophy of law itself from a Christian perspective, so either of these two books by J. Budziszewski are amazing: The Revenge of Conscience: Politics and the Fall of Man Written on The Heart: A Case for Natural Law And if you are interested in a Christian look at government and our Godly response, it just so happens James Coates has a book releasing March 1 on that very topic, which I highly recommend! God vs. Government, James Coates & Nathan Busenitz Thank you Pastor Sean for coming back for another interview. Today I want to chat with you about the conscience. So let's start with what is the conscience and what role does it play in our life?
The conscience is most succinctly defined in a little book by Andy Naselli and JD Crowley (Conscience: What It Is, How to Train It, and Loving Those Who Differ) as “your consciousness of what you believe is right and wrong.” With that in mind, the conscience provides you with the ability to make decisions and live your life based on what you believe is right and wrong. Though a person may ignore his or her conscience or may actively choose to oppose his or her conscience, everyone has a conscience because human beings were created in the image of God (Gen 1:26-27), who is a moral being. How can we distinguish between a theological/doctrinal matter and a matter of conscience? For Christians, our conscience must be informed by the Bible so then the more we study God’s Word, the more we learn about God and what pleases Him. The more we learn about what pleases God, which is to say what is right and wrong, the stronger our conscience becomes. The Bible provides us with everything we need to know to live a life of godliness (2 Peter 1:3-7), but obviously, it does not address every single issue or every single thing we will need to make a decision on in this life. Those things which are not addressed directly in Scripture are matters of conscience, which is to say, things about which we must decide for ourselves what we believe to be right or wrong, which for the Christian means deciding what we believe would most honour God. There are also things which are mentioned in Scripture, but Scripture tells us directly, or it implies, that they are also matters of conscience, which is to say things which Christians can disagree on, like for example, choosing to celebrate special days or not (Col 2:16) or choosing to consume alcohol or not. The conscience wasn’t something that was emphasized or talked about a lot until two years ago. Why do you think there is now an interest in this topic? Well, quite frankly, I think there should be more of an interest in this topic than there currently is among the church, but the reason some Christians are talking about it is because of the polarizing issues (e.g. vaccines and masks) that have come around which are related to COVID-19. When I say I wish there were more of an interest, I say that because I think too many churches are not thinking enough about the issue of conscience, and whether they mean to or not, they are binding individual Christian’s consciences. This happens when a church makes a matter of conscience an issue of obedience to the Lord. In other words, what you will often hear is that if you really love your neighbour, you will get vaccinated. The problem with this argument is that it cannot at all be defended from Scripture because Scripture does not command us to get vaccinated. This means that vaccination is a matter of conscience, and so instead of telling Christians they must get vaccinated, the church should instead teach Christians to apply principles found in Scripture, research the issue, speak with those they trust, pray about it, then do what they believe would most honour God (1 Cor 10:31). If the church understood conscience rightly, I think this would be happening more often, so I really do pray that the church will take a greater interest in understanding liberty of conscience and the corresponding doctrine, Christian liberty. A person’s conscience differs from person to person for multiple reasons, one of which is how it is informed. This causes tensions between people, yet we are called to have fellowship with those whose conscience may differ from ours. As a pastor, how do you navigate this? What about as a parent or spouse? You know, this has been one of the most difficult things about being a pastor over the last two years, to see difference of opinions on all things COVID resulting in so much division in the church and in the home. As a pastor, what I have done to navigate this is first, I have been sure to help my congregation understand liberty of conscience and have also helped them navigate how to discern what is or is not a matter of conscience. The second thing I have done is emphasize that as believers, our unity is found in Christ, not in our opinions on viruses and vaccines. The third thing I have done is emphasize the need to have compassion and show charity to those who come to different conclusions on matters of conscience. While in marriages and homes, there would be slightly different nuances to how they apply, the same three things are necessary, an understanding of liberty of conscience, a focus on the source of our unity, and an emphasis on compassion and charity. On conscience issues, such as wearing masks or getting the vaccine, some pastors are binding the conscience of those in the church. What is a pastor’s role in protecting the consciences of those they are to care for? Binding the conscience of a believer is a serious matter, as requiring something that God does not require is to both add to the Word of God and claim lordship over the conscience of a child of God. With that said, the first way a pastor can protect the consciences of those he cares for is to exalt Jesus as Lord as he preaches the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:27). This will both remind the congregation who is Lord and ensure that they know what God does and does not require of His people, which will then result in their consciences being more informed by Scripture. The second way a pastor can protect the consciences of those he has been entrusted with is by constantly calling them to a lifelong pursuit of holiness, which by necessity includes never denying your conscience (see James 4:17 and Romans 14:23). The third way a pastor can protect the consciences of those he has been entrusted with is to be confessional (because the historic confessions like the Westminster Confession or 2nd London Confession have a robust statement concerning liberty of conscience) or at the least have a section in the church’s statement of faith concerning liberty of conscience. This will ensure that churches are not caught by surprise but are rather prepared to deal with situations biblically where liberty of conscience is central. As we come to the end of the interview, I’d like to ask one final question. How does a pastor ensure Christian liberty on conscience matters? This may sound like too simple of an answer, but the way a pastor ensures liberty on conscience matters is by preaching the gospel. As mentioned earlier, there are two corresponding doctrines at play here - Christian liberty and liberty of conscience. It is because we have Christian liberty that we have liberty of conscience, which means that the more we understand Christian liberty (i.e. that we have been set free FROM sin and death and set free TO live for God), the more we will be committed to liberty of conscience. And if we want to understand Christian liberty better, then we need to understand the event through which our Christian liberty was purchased, namely, the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus. |