Taking a Stand Against Canadian Law and Culture

If you follow the Shepherd’s Conference or John MacArthur’s ministry, you may be aware of an email circulated under the auspices of the Shepherd’s Conference called, “A Call to Pastors to Stand United on Biblical Sexual Morality.” In this letter, over John MacArthur’s signature, is a call to join with pastor James Coates and others to “take a stand for the truth of the saving gospel.” The issue rightly raising the ire of MacArthur and others is the recently passed legislation of the Canadian parliament banning so-called, “conversion therapy.”

Before I get into my response, let me note from the outset that Christians can differ on what to do about matters like this. I expect some of my brethren on the FBFI board might well disagree with some of my conclusions. Nonetheless, I want to offer one Canadian pastor’s perspective on the issue and the appropriate response.

So. What is “conversion therapy”?

At a risk of over-simplification, conversion therapy, “is the pseudoscientific practice of attempting to change an individual’s sexual orientation from homosexual or bisexual to heterosexual or their gender identity from transgender or nonbinary to cisgender using psychological, physical, or spiritual interventions.”¹ (Note: this definition may not exactly replicate the definition in the legislation. You can read the legislation itself here, this is from the first reading of the bill. I am not aware that the bill received substantial alteration by the time it went through third reading and Senate assent, all part of the legislative process in Canada.)

The legislation bans the publication or possession of written materials or recordings that are “an advertisement for conversion therapy” (equating the same with child pornography or an advertisement for sexual services!!). It also forbids any person from knowingly causing another person to undergo conversion therapy, declaring such an action an indictable offense liable to imprisonment for a term “not more than five years.” Those who promote or advertise conversion therapy are likewise “guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years.” And anyone who “materially benefits” from such provision of conversion therapy is likewise guilty of the same. There are provisions for lesser penalties in each case (“summary convictions”). As I understand it, the penalties named are maximums.

Needless to say, these measures are alarming. The law described above received unanimous support in the House of Commons, received Royal Assent on Dec 8, 2021, and will go into force on Jan 8, 2022. The response of John MacArthur and others is to organize a day of protest on Jan 16, 2022 after the bill has gone into effect.

More than one person forwarded the Shepherd’s Conference email to me, asking, “What do you think?” and “Will you support this effort?”

What do I think about the bill? It is terrible. It deserves outright condemnation by all people, not just Christians. It flies in the face of “nature itself” as Rm 1.26-27 describes.

What do I think about the effort to take a stand against the bill on January 16? Well, this is where things get complicated.

First, I have to say that I think MacArthur’s letter misrepresents the facts concerning the bill.

• James Coates claims that the bill “directly comes against parents and counsellors who would seek to offer biblical counsel with respect to sexual immorality and gender” and that it could “criminalize evangelism.” I would encourage readers to read through the bill itself and see if these claims are true. Yes, those in favour of the bill are likely antagonistic to evangelism. However, I don’t see how the bill explicitly forbids evangelism or even counselling one might offer in a discipleship context. It makes no reference to evangelism itself.
• Another pastor, Andrew DeBartolo, said “According to Canadian law, as of January 8, 2022, the belief in God’s design for marriage and sexuality will now be seen as a myth.” Well… this is a bit hyperbolic. Most Canadians have thought God’s design for anything is a myth. They think God is a myth. They’ve thought that for a long time. This measure isn’t news.
• DeBartolo says, “The definition is intentionally broad, and it can clearly be used against any preacher or elder who either speaks against homosexuality/transgenderism or who counsels a person to obey Christ and abandon their homosexual/transgender actions and lifestyle.” It remains to be seen whether this is true. I don’t see anything about speech in the bill, just programs and materials. I say “just” — let me reiterate, the bill is terrible, I share the alarm, but I think we shouldn’t overstate the case. I also don’t see that it necessarily follows that offering counsel is explicitly prohibited by the bill.
• Again, from DeBartolo: “On January 16, 2022, faithful men across this … will be preaching on God’s design for marriage and a biblical ethic of sexuality. We will be doing so illegally…” Nothing in the bill talks about preaching. We still have freedom of speech in Canada. The bill doesn’t overthrow this at all.

Interestingly, MacArthur notes in his portion of the letter that the state of California made a similar ban against “gay conversion” in 2012 (Senate Bill 1172). Has this bill produced the draconian results DeBartolo and Coates fear? Has it affected the ministry of churches in California at all? Did MacArthur call for pastors to take similar stands, hold special rallying days, etc., when that bill passed?²

So, what should we do about this reprehensible legislation? The best day for taking public stands was before the House of Commons acted. I am sure that Christians who make it their business to lobby the government did just that. There wasn’t much of an effort to rally Canadian churches beforehand, at least no effort that made any attempt to contact me or the pastors I fellowship with.

Coates, MacArthur, and others think it wise or helpful to protest the bill after the fact by making January 16 a day of protest.

What do we gain by taking the January 16 stand? According to DeBartolo, those who join with him will be “declaring to the State that there is one God and one Lord over His church, and that Christ alone gets to both define marriage and dictate what is required in the pulpit.” Well. I guess that is something. It won’t bring about any change in the legislation. It will also be highly unlikely to sway hearts and minds in the general public who will mostly (like 99% of them) never hear about this stand or anything the preachers have to say.

As a general principle, I have many reservations about defiant political protests, especially coming from the pulpit. There is the question, what is the mission of the church? Is political protest part of that mission?

To answer that, how would you define the mission of the church? Rather than a mission statement, I have this:

^{Matthew 28:19} Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: ²⁰ Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

^{Ephesians 4:11} And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; ¹² For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

The short answer, for me, concerning the churches mission is one word: discipleship. That includes evangelism and all the teaching ministry and social interaction of church life.

I think we can agree that this is the mission of the church. Can we add anything else to it? Social action, perhaps? Any activities under that head should be discipleship oriented, or else why would we do them?

Political activism? While I see some precedent in the Scripture for exercising individual legal rights (Paul under arrest by the Romans, for example), I find no precedent for church involvement in any attempt to influence government in any way. The New Testament, as far as I know, gives no mandate for political activism. I find it very difficult to lead the church in this direction. I leave it up to individuals what they might choose to do as part of a political party or a political pressure group. I just have a hard time seeing the church itself in this role.

Moral protest? Certainly the Old Testament prophets raised their voices in protest against the immorality and idolatry of Israel (God’s people), and the New Testament preachers spoke against the sins of the Gentiles, especially within the church. They also preached to the Gentiles and the Jews, calling for repentance. However, the first point of repentance they called for in their sermons was to repent of unbelief in God and to accept the Saviour God sent. Did they spend much time protesting the many evils of the Roman empire? Slavery? Child abandonment and exposure? Orgiastic pagan worship? Although I agree that we can have a role to play preaching against the sins of our generation, I’d like to see the clear precedents for that in the New Testament. To whom did the apostles address any message on such topics, if they addressed them at all?

The mission of the church, expressed in clear Biblical terms, is evangelism and discipleship. If the Lord allows us to reach a significant portion of our generation, then we can effect political change, simply because Bible believers would form a significant voting block which the government would have to listen to. As it is, they can easily ignore us.

Furthermore, I have to say, John MacArthur’s interference in the Canadian process bothers me. I don’t think he understands Canada all that well, and his attempt to take a leadership role in a Canadian problem rouses my patriotic defensiveness. I suspect that many of my American friends might have trouble understanding my feelings here. Let me try to give you a parallel that might help.

How many of you were offended about reports of Russian interference in your recent elections? I know that some of the reports were unfounded, and certainly the perpetrators were misidentified, but what about the principle of the thing? Do you like foreigners interfering in your processes? Suppose we turned the situation around. Suppose Canadian pastors were urging your pastors to take a stand against the border fence, for example? (Most Canadians, including most Christians up here, would take a dim view of that project. Note: I am in favor of the fence, personally.) How would you react to foreigners interposing themselves in an American problem? Yet here we have a prominent American pastor imposing his views on a Canadian situation, one which I don’t think he understands all that well.

Some will object, “Well, James Coates is a Canadian.” True enough. He is also a divisive figure in the Canadian church scene. While I agree that Bill C-4 is alarming, and that we should oppose it, I don’t agree with his characterization of it. I also don’t agree with his methods of opposing it.

What should we do? Keep on making disciples. We might run into a homosexual or trans person who hears the gospel and repents. I’ll keep on trying to help such people come to a saving knowledge of Christ and a holy walk with Him (though their appearance in my ministry has been rare).

I don’t see any need to grandstand, thump my chest, and pat myself on the back at the same time (think about that picture), showing myself to be righteous to a world that believes me to be crazy. It reminds me of another passage:

^{Luke 18:10} Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican. ¹¹ The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. ¹² I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.

Let’s keep our focus on the mission of the church.

UPDATE: I ran across this article in the New York Times, Canada Bans ‘Conversion Therapy’. The article indicates that the bill passed with some underhanded skullduggery. That gives me some hope that the courts may yet protect churches in some instances if attempts are made to restrict them. Still, no one wants to have to fight in court, an undertaking that can cost far more than a local church can handle on its own.

---

Don Johnson is the pastor of Grace Baptist Church of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada.

1. Conversion therapy – Wikipedia, accessed January 5, 2022. [↩]
2. Perhaps he did, but I am not aware of it. [↩]