Jubilee Spring 2022

Christianity in the Crosshairs: Conversion Bill C-4 Takes Aim at Canadian Freedoms

Book Review : ‘ Liberty in the Things of God’

Tim Dieppe

The Limits of Civil Obedience: The Meaning of Romans 13

Dr. Joseph Boot

Dr. Ted Fenske

to

at Ezra Institute: PO Box 9, STN Main, Grimsby, ON L3M 4G1 jubilee@ezrainstitute.ca

by Kathy Jimenez.

ministry letter

Dear friends, After another turbulent year, we have seen and continue to tes tify to God’s providential and gracious work in bringing about ministry growth despite a variety of obstacles to overcome. It’s my privilege to share with you a brief review and update of the past year, and to outline our exciting plans for the year ahead.

Leadership and Growth

After many years of faithful service, 2021 was a tran sitional year for Ezra at the board level. New mem bers were welcomed onto the board helping to give fresh energy, new impetus, and clear direction for the future of the ministry at a vital time. By God’s grace we have seen growth in every area of the min istry in 2021, including a 700% increase in podcast subscribers, placing the Ezra Institute’s Podcast for Cultural Reformation in the top 1% of global pod casts. Resource sales were up 300% and new donors have been added in 2021 with additional church support coming online. The summer training pro grams were a great success despite various travel restrictions. Thank you for your ongoing support, and thank God for His goodness in this and for guid ing us to this point.

Facilities

Some of you may be familiar with the behind the scenes four-year-long struggle we have been en gaged in with local planning authorities for relevant permissions to develop and utilize our present site and facility in a fashion that will enable us to take the residential training component of our work forward

at the current location. In the providence of God, in the late summer of 2021, that struggle was finally lost and our development permit application (plans that had been adjusted many times in back-andforth negotiations to try and satisfy regional govern ment requirements) was emphatically rejected by all three relevant planning authorities. Unfortunately, our first enforcement visit from the authorities soon followed. Mercifully, this disappointment coincided with significant increase in interest from Christian leaders in Western Canada to expand our cultural apologetics training into Western provinces.

In view of the planning authorities’ decision and the ongoing steep financial overheads involved in own ing and running a large facility capable of hosting 50 students – used intensely for only 4-5 weeks per year – the board has prayerfully deliberated over the past six months and prudently decided we need to rethink our overall training strategy. The deci sion has been made to redeploy our building asset, putting our God-given means into producing more worldview/cultural apologetics resources, engaging more staff, and hosting more in-person residential training in additional locations in Canada and be yond. Some beautiful suitable facilities are available

to us for our training programs in Ontario, and other venues are being rented for the short, intensive pe riods of residential teaching in various appropriate settings as demand grows in the West. To this end, please pray for a successful and quick sale of our current property this Spring and our relocation to suitable space in the area for our fabulous staff team where we can continue to host seminars, meet with friends of the ministry, and run the day-to-day ac tivities of the Institute. Our current facility has been a great blessing to Ezra and has helped establish both our ministry identity and further advance our in-person training academies. These programs will go on and are being expanded, but not at this pres ent site.

This was a hard decision, and we recognise that in some ways, after four years of being relatively set tled it will be disappointing news, especially for lo cals who drop in from time to time to help on the land or around the house or just for fellowship. It is normal to develop an emotional attachment to bricks and mortar, especially in lovely surroundings, and we will all miss this place very much. Howev er, we must never allow means to become ends in themselves and when a good thing has served a time-limited purpose and no longer works for ad vancing a kingdom vision, it is important to return thanks to the Lord for His good gifts and to let go. As such we look forward with hope and excitement to what God is going to do through our resources and training in new venues across Canada.

Launch in Additional Jurisdictions

In conjunction with these developments, we have realized that our present cultural challenges also of fer unique and expanding opportunities for the min istry of the Institute. The demand for our resources and training has been growing globally, accelerated by increasing cultural pressure, hostile legal envi ronments, and the gradual erosion of historic free doms. As opposition increases, the need grows, and receptivity and interest take off. Considered nega tively, Canada’s authoritarian drift illustrated in a dangerous new law criminalizing the full practice of Christianity (Bill C-4) and other Federal Bills pending

which look to erode freedom of speech and expres sion (Bill C-10, C-36) make it prudent that the Ezra Institute seeks to protect its intellectual property and access to a growing international audience. To meet the growing ministry interest and demands, as well as to help mitigate risk to the ongoing work of the Institute, we are seizing this unique opportunity to expand and are looking to open additional offic es of the Ezra Institute in the USA and United King dom, hiring appropriate staff in each location, whilst maintaining the integrity of our Canadian work and expanding the resourcing and training.

Family and Home

As founder and president, I will be dividing my time for our in-person training academies and con ferences between the three national locations. As a ministry engaged and concerned with distinctly Christian thought leadership for culture, seeking to speak prophetically into the crisis facing the West, aside from of our main residential programing in Canada about 5 weeks per year, the work of the Institute consists in our writing and scholarship, publishing (including books and Jubilee), itinerant speaking, podcasts, and various digital resources. This work can be effectively accomplished from al most any location. In light of all this, after lengthy prayerful deliberation, my family has decided we will be making our family home again in England as we seek to establish an office for Ezra in the United Kingdom. Being British and a UK citizen I am the ob vious person to take on that challenge. In addition, with elderly parents and in-laws in England needing our help and presence after 19 years living in Can ada, as well as my children entering British univer sities this year, this move seems the wisest course for the family in the medium term. We recognise that for some of our Canadian friends and support ers this change will be a significant adjustment and for those who love us most, a tough pill to swallow when we are not so close to hand for a visit. How ever, we are convinced that this is the best thing, not simply for family, but for the kingdom mission of Ezra to develop, grow and expand. And we will be back in Canada frequently to be together at key times throughout the year.

For example, I will be present in Canada with the Canadian staff team for all our training programs and conferences, and will be working closely with them in every aspect of the ministry in conjunction with our international director on a weekly basis. Our popular Podcast for Cultural Reformation, Jubi lee journal, and publishing work will continue in its present form with considerable expansion coming in the area of print publishing as we seek to integrate Paideia Press with its numerous and unique reforma tional titles into the Ezra ministry. It is very exciting to contemplate what God is going to do as we de velop not only our Canadian work but grow into the USA and the United Kingdom. There are wonderful partnership opportunities for us in the USA and UK with like-minded organisations where the influence of Ezra’s reformational vision can spread

Global Training Portal

Tied in with these exciting developments is our new subscription-based remote digital training platform currently in development. This major new initiative is being launched Spring 2022 in order to help us reach a much larger audience and effectively aug ment our in-person training programs. It also allows for broader partnership with like-minded organi sations and institutions and helps meet the global need for affordable equipping in Christian world view, cultural apologetics, and Christian philosophy. With increasing numbers of students either rejecting woke institutions or being denied access to high er education because of state medical mandates, this platform will enable the Institute to serve the broader Christian community more efficiently. The platform also provides us with an excellent opportu nity to access and utilize the gifts and abilities of our global team of Fellows much more efficiently. We look forward to working together with you for the extension of the Kingdom of God. To preview and help us test this new portal before official launch, please contact us, we would love to share it with you and record your feedback.

Thank you for your support, friendship, and partner ship in the gospel and for standing with us in these days of great challenge and opportunity. Please

LETTER

pray for us as 2022 will be a year full of work and change, and we trust, great fruitfulness in Canada and beyond.

In This Issue

We’re pleased to bring back a slightly enlarged for mat for Jubilee this season, and we hope that it con tinues to be not only an informative update on the activity of the ministry, but a meaningful resource for your ongoing edification.

In this issue, Dr. Ted Fenske, Ezra Institute Fellow for Medicine and Public Christianity, considers some of the inevitable fallout over Bill C-4, now signed into law in Canada, which effectively criminalizes Chris tian counselling in the area of gender dysphoria.

Tim Dieppe, Fellow for Public Policy, reviews Robert Louis Wilken’s book on the Christian origins of reli gious freedom, in which he traces the doctrines of freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, and the separation of church and state, to the early church fathers, and clearly demonstrates that Enlighten ment rationalism boldly appropriated these doc trines and stripped them of their distinctive Chris tian language, grounding them instead in the laws of nature.

My own article discusses the many recent appeals to Romans 13 in arguing for churches to comply with increasing state overreach into issues of Chris tian worship. I assert that there are clear scriptur al limits to the normal Christian exhortation to civil obedience, and that the Christian’s first duty is to stand with Christ – even against the state if need be.

Pro Rege, Joe Boot, FOUNDER & PRESIDENT

The Limits of Civil Obedience:

OF ROMANS

Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience’ sake. (Rom. 13:1-5, NASB)

Romans 13 has long been a controversial and great ly misunderstood passage. It is also a passage that has been often referred to in the last few years in light of mandates, lockdowns, and coercion – often invoked to require an almost unquestioning sub servience and submission to the state.

The non-Christian, secular-pagan person has no specific reason to obey the state except that the state has a monopoly on the means of force and fi nancial resources through coercive taxation. There is no basis or reason in a chance-originating world without God to obey civil authority except the force, guns and patronage belonging to the state.

JOE BOOT is the founder and President of the Ezra Institute for Contemporary Christianity and the founding pastor of Westminster Chapel in Toronto.

Joe earned his Ph.D. in Christian Intellectual Thought from Whitefield Theological Seminary, Florida. His apologetic works have been pub lished in Europe and in North Amer ica and include Searching for Truth, Why I Still Believe and How Then Shall We Answer. His most noted contribution to Christian thought, The Mission of God, is a systematic work of cultural theology exploring the biblical worldview as it relates to the Christian’s mission in the world.

Joe serves as Senior Fellow for the cultural and apologetics think-tank truthXchange in Southern Califor nia, and as Senior Fellow of cultural philosophy for the California-based Centre for Cultural Leadership. Joe lives in Toronto with his wife, Jenny, and their three children, Naomi, Hannah, and Isaac.

That is not the case for the Christian. Here, we will consider the core teaching of the first five verses of Romans 13 and their implications for Christians with specific attention given to the limits of our obe dience.

We will consider the text under four headings:

1. The General Obligation to Obey Civil Authority

2. The Enforcement of Civil Authority

3. Civil Authority as a Ministry of Justice

4. The Place of Conscience

1. The General Obligation to Obey Civil Authority (v. 1)

Paul says every person is to be subject to governing authorities. This is a general term that can denote various authorities (parents, church leaders etc.), but here has special reference to civil power. This author ity is empowered to govern by enacting and administering law.

In this first instance, government is referred to in the abstract. It is not a reference to particular persons or magistrates but to the institution of civil rule itself.

Paul therefore calls every person to be subject to God’s institution of civil government, in the same way that he calls everyone to be subject to family-instituted authority exercised through parents (Eph. 6:1-3), and institutional church authority through elders (Heb. 13:17) – be cause the family and church are also spheres of authority ordained by God. We are likewise to be subject to God’s laws and norms for the state. That there are cruel and unjust parents, apostate and wicked church leaders, or evil and lawless civil governments – the reality of which necessarily puts limits around our obedience in all these institu tions – is obvious, but is not Paul’s peculiar concern here.

However, clearly Paul does not have a slavish submission in view, but an orderly and due submission. Paul does not digress to address the rights of the oppressed or abused in this passage, for we can consult God’s law on such matters. He is dealing in this text solely with the character and duties of civil government and our responsibility to this God-ordained sphere of authority.

Francis Schaeffer poses the critical question that arises here: “Has God set up an authority in the state that is autonomous from himself? Are we to obey the state no matter what? … In this one area is indeed man the measure of all things?”1

THE LIMITS OF CIVIL OBEDIENCE

Dr. Joe Boot, M.A., Ph.D.

Clearly not! Because authority is from God and ex ists because of Him, we are immediately alerted to the fact that in this teaching Paul is radically alter ing the pagan political understanding of his Gentile readers. He is placing all authority under the triune God in its operation – it is therefore delimited im mediately by God and His law-Word. This gives the Christian a positive duty to obey civil authority in things lawful that the unbeliever does not have.

Schaeffer answers his own question in this way:

The civil government, as all of life, stands under the law of God. In this fallen world God has given us certain offices to protect us from the chaos which is the natural result of that fallenness. But when any of fice commands what is contrary to the Word of God, those who hold that office abrogate their authority and they are not to be obeyed and that includes the state.2

So, in the general calling to be subject to authority instituted by God, we are not confronted with an un qualified requirement of subservience to all human governments – we will return to this point shortly. Neither is Paul dealing with church-state relations here, least of all demanding the church institute and its leadership acquiesce to all requirements of civil governments. As James M. Willson writes in his bril liant commentary on Romans 13:

The church is an independent society. Her constitu tion, her doctrines, her laws, her administration, all are from Christ. To him alone is she subject.3

2. The Enforcement of Civil Authority (v 1-2)

Since all spheres of authority are established by God and instituted by Him, to resist proper subjec tion to authority is to oppose God’s ordinances. To reject the role of civil authority in human society is therefore an act of rebellion against God. To ‘resist’ implies a root and branch defiance of authority – it does not refer to resistance to immoral laws, injus tice, or oppression. Rather we are called to respect and honor duly constituted authority.

Now, in the providence of God and by His permis sion, kings reign and various governments come to power. Jesus told even Pontius Pilate that he would have no authority unless it had been given to him from above (John 19:11). In this sense even the dev il is granted power and authority from God in the world. However, the simple possession of power is not sufficient reason to obey a given authority. That would imply the unacceptable idea that a man stolen and enslaved to a master would be duty bound to obey and submit to this vicious and lawless power (Ex. 21:16) and that to escape and seek freedom would vi olate Romans 13.

Paul is clearly not teaching that ev ery despot, tyrant, or wicked dicta tor rules by divine sanction. Such an interpretation would bind people, society, and nations to surrender to tyranny and do so in the name of divine support and approval. This absurd view fails to distinguish divine providence from a scriptural principle of action. In the divine ways of providence, there are times when an evil ruler is allowed to come to power, but no one can claim divine sanction for evil, injustice, oppression, and sin. The counsels of God are always righteous ness and justice.

It is vital to keep in mind that Paul in verses 1-2 is re ferring to the institution of government, not specific actors. He maintains a clear distinction between the ‘authority’ and the ‘ordinance,’ between the sphere of government as a societal institution, and the par ticular president, magistrate, or prime minister in whose hands the reins of civil authority are found at any given moment. He is asserting that no authority can be properly exercised over people except that

THE LIMITS OF CIVIL OBEDIENCE

Because authority is from God and exists because of Him, we are immediately alerted to the fact that in this teaching Paul is radically altering the pagan political understanding of his Gentile readers.

which God has established. He goes on to show the kind of power and authority that does have God’s sanction – which is not any old government but only those that are subject to his norms (ordinances) which delimit the role and function of the institution of the state.

When people advocate for an almost blind or un questioning obedience to the state in current cultural circumstances, appealing to Romans 13 and saying that ‘the government is established by God,’ they reveal a serious error of interpretation in assuming that by this expression Paul means any and all exist ing governments. Such a view contradicts the clear teaching of the Bible and so cannot be Paul’s perspective.

For example, regard ing Israel, when they set up an indepen dent government with ten tribes under Jeroboam, God says through Hosea, “They have installed kings, but not through Me. They have appointed leaders, but without My approval” (Hos. 8:4). God permitted this in His providence, but He clearly did not sanction it. Likewise, both the proph et Daniel and the apostle John refer to the Roman Empire as a multi-headed beast whose heads are full of blasphemous names (Dan. 7:11; Rev. 17:1-3).

Such governments cannot lay claim to being or dained or sanctioned by God in any sense other than the way in which God permits judgment and disease to come upon people for their sins – judg ments to be removed by repentance, faith, and a right attitude toward God. In fact, the gospel of Christ is proclaimed for that very purpose, that the stone not cut with human hands would smash to pieces the great image of rebellious and evil governments seen by Daniel in his vision (Dan. 2).

In locating all government under God, Paul shows that government was not left to human arbitrari ness, ambition, pride, and violence but is ordained by God with prescribed limitations, functions, and duties.

The confession of the early church led by Paul in the Gentile world was “Jesus Christ is Lord” (or sov ereign), which ran counter to the claims of Caesar in Rome (Acts 17:1-7). And power not derived from God is always an illegitimate usurpation.

This obviously means there are times when illegiti mate (lit. lawless) authority must be resisted – most especially when it intrudes into the life of God’s people, the worship of God, and the government and ordinances of the church. Consider Azariah, the High Priest, withstanding Uzziah, the king of Judah who tried to overreach his sphere of authority into the priestly office. Recall what the High Priest said:

They took their stand against King Uzziah and said, “Uzziah, you have no right to offer incense to the Lord—only the consecrated priests, the descen dants of Aaron, have the right to offer incense. Leave the sanctuary, for you have acted unfaithfully! You will not receive honor from the Lord God” (2 Chron. 26:18).

Likewise, what of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed nego, and then later Daniel, all of whom refused to comply with specific laws enacted by the su preme king of Babylon – whose very Word was considered irrevocable (Dan. 3:1-12; 6:4-12)? They took their stand in terms of the law of God The pagan officials knew that the only way to bring a charge against just and righteous men like Daniel and his friends was by enacting something contradicting the law of God. Consider also the Hebrew midwives in Egypt. They refused to obey the command of the Egyptian government to kill the Hebrew baby boys and then lied to Pharoah in order to obey God, and God blessed them for it (Ex. 1:15-23).

If this basis of resistance in the sovereignty and law of God is removed, then all law and morality

There are times when an evil ruler is allowed to come to power, but no one can claim divine sanction for evil, injustice, oppression, and sin.

is simply resolved into the absolute will of the leg islature. In Canada, Bill C-4 (anti ‘conversion ther apy’ legislation) recently sailed through the Hous es of Commons and Senate, criminalizing anyone – parent, pastor, or therapist – who would dare counsel anybody to obey God’s law with regard to human identity and sexuality. I cannot comply with this law as a Christian leader! This is surely godly resistance.

The kind of resistance Paul is condemning and damning in this text is clearly not resistance to law less commands, but a brazen opposition to the rightful and wholesome exercise of civil authority and the attempt to overthrow it.

3. Civil Authority as a Ministry of Justice (v. 3-4)

Paul now moves from a description of God’s pow er and authority in the institution of government, to his prescription for the function of government. The reformed scholar and theologian Charles Hodge wrote of this passage:

All authority is of God. No man has any rightful pow er over other men which is not derived from God. All human power is delegated and ministerial. This is true of parents, of magistrates, and of church officers … this passage, therefore, affords a very slight foun dation for the doctrine of passive obedience.4

Scripture is clear about this ministerial role and the accountability of civil authority as a ministry of jus tice. God in fact pronounces His woe upon authori ties that violate God’s laws and norms regarding the jural function of civil government:

Woe for the one who builds his palace through un righteousness, his upper rooms through injustice (Jer. 22:13).

Woe to those enacting crooked statutes and writing oppressive laws to keep the poor from getting a fair trial and to deprive the afflicted among my people of justice (Is. 10:1-2).

The Psalmist rightly asks:

Can a corrupt throne—one that creates trouble by law—become Your ally? (Ps. 94:20)

The question is rhetorical because the answer is ob vious biblically. The apostle Paul reinforces this bib lical truth by asserting that the civil government is to be God’s servant as an avenger of wrath. Schaeffer correctly grasps the meaning of these verses:

God has ordained the state as a delegated authori ty; it is not autonomous. The state is to be an agent of justice, to restrain evil by punishing the wrongdo er and to protect the good in society. When it does the reverse, it has no proper authority. It is then a usurped authority and as such it becomes lawless and is tyranny.5

Paul teaches that rulers are not to be a cause of fear for good behaviour or good works, but only to those who do evil

In these verses we now encounter for the first time a specific magistrate, legislator, or executive of ficer. This reminds us again of the vital distinction between the institution of government (dealt with in verses 1-2) and particular governors themselves – like the distinction between the office of the pres ident or prime minister and a given person occupy ing the office in a given year.

We are to study and understand and honor God’s norms for the institution of civil government, and we are to obey rulers but also test them for conformity to God’s norms. That is why God required the king of Israel to read the law himself and study it so as not to be haughty and prideful, raised above the people (Deut. 17:14-20). And it is also why God sent His prophets to kings and rulers, addressing even pagan lands. For both governor and governed are subject to the law of God (c.f. Jonah 1:1-2; Amos 1:3-2:3).

The kind of ruler to whom Paul’s injunction (Romans 13:1-5) to the Christian actually applies are thus not a cause for fear for good behavior, but evildoers.

THE LIMITS OF CIVIL OBEDIENCE

Without doubt, the works or behaviour to which Paul refers are works in conformity with the truth of the gospel of the kingdom, the law of God, and pur poses of God. It is impossible to think that Paul sud denly, in this chapter of Romans, now refers to some other standard of good than that laid down in the law-Word of God, than the kind of works we were created in Christ Jesus to do (Eph. 2:10). This same principle is behind the apostle Peter’s teaching:

Submit to every human authority because of the Lord, whether to the Emperor as the supreme author ity or to governors as those sent out by him to punish those who do what is evil and to praise those who do what is good. For it is God’s will that you silence the ignorance of foolish people by doing good. As God’s slaves, live as free people, but don’t use your freedom as a way to conceal evil. Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the Emper or. (1 Pt. 2:13-17)

God is to be feared and the civil authority honored in its calling to punish those who do wrong and commend those who do what is right. As such, the rulers to which Paul and Peter refer are to judge and apply law in a manner that will not hinder either the spread of the gospel, faithfulness to God’s law or works of righteousness among the people. Rather, they will only be a cause for fear for those that do evil and violate God’s justice (1 Tim. 1:9-10).

To this end, Paul points out that the civil authority is to be God’s servant (lit. deacon) for good, bear ing the sword – a symbol of power and authority to bring punishment on evildoers. In God’s norms for the jural function of the state, the law is armed with penal sanctions made for the unrighteous (1 Tim. 1:9). As such it both protects and advances the righ teous, orderly, and peaceful members of society. So, with the royal law in hand, the magistrate is to exe cute justice.

Civil authority is therefore maintained by sword power. It does not bear this power in vain but is called to be God’s minister of wrath on those who practice what is evil. Imagine a world without such a ministry. Wickedness would be left unrestrained and

unchecked by any civil power. But God will not al low those that do evil to escape with impunity. The state is required to exercise the power God has in vested in it, but justly and faithfully.

4. The Place of Conscience (v. 5)

According to Paul, the legitimate function of the state is to be a ministry of justice, under God in obedience to His standards of good and evil, righ teousness and justice. As such, the Christian obeys, not simply out of fear of punishment for doing what is wrong, but because of a higher principle – our conscience before God.

Our conscience before God, saturated in the Word of God and governed by the Holy Spirit, is therefore a critical arbiter in determining when we must dis obey the state for vio lating God’s norms or abandoning its legiti mate function. Some times we may hear people say that “you don’t see the disciples or early church resist ing government or exercising civil disobe dience.” This is simply ignorance. Paul and several other apostles were repeatedly on trial both for disobey ing civil authorities and because they had appealed their case to higher authorities with regards to charges laid against them. Consequently, Paul spent a lot of time in prison!6

Even a cursory reading of church history reveals the early Christians were persecuted and thrown to the lions because the Roman state considered their claims seditious and treasonous and as such, many were executed as rebels. Their crime? Declaring that Jesus is Lord over Caesar.

Wherever the Reformation penetrated, God and His law-Word were placed above the ruler or king, and this often led to severe persecution.

By refusing to participate in the emperor cult and offer sacrifices to the genius of the emperor, they were regarded as political offenders and were often martyred. The Romans didn’t care which gods you worshipped. You could get a license to worship any one so long as you acknowledged the ultimate au thority of Caesar over your cult. A reading of Foxe’s Book of Martyrs reveals some of the suffering that Christians have endured for insisting on the Lord ship of Christ.7

From the early church on, Christians have both obeyed and disobeyed civil government for the sake of conscience before God. When the state has departed from its God-prescribed role, when un righteous rulers have enacted what is contrary to God’s law, Christians have frequently been ready to give their lives. As just one example, when William Tyndale (1490-1536), the man who translated the Bible into English, advocated the ultimate authority of God’s Word over the state and Roman church, he was tried and ultimately executed.

In fact, wherever the Reformation penetrated, God and His law-Word were placed above the ruler or king, and this often led to severe persecution. The puritan Samuel Rutherford held that oppressive po litical power was not from God but a ‘licentious de viation of power and is no more from God … that a license to sin.’ As such Francis Schaeffer correctly noted, “In almost every place the Reformation had success there was some form of civil disobedience.”8

It takes a biblically informed conscience to not only know when to submit but also when to disobey. Christ is Lord of our conscience. The Christ who is Lord and is establishing His kingdom would not have us bow and scrape before a lower law that op poses Him and His purposes. For what are states without justice, as St. Augustine once remarked, but gangs of thieves?

If a civil authority begins to attack the law of God or fundamental structure of the norms for a just so ciety, the Christian must stand with Christ and work for His kingdom against injustice and labor for such rulers to be relieved of their position of authority.

Only those who serve God in this way are the true friends of civil government and biblical social order.

As James Willson puts it:

They alone are the friends of civil law and social order who vindicate the paramount claims of the Supreme Potentate and maintain the rights of an enlightened conscience… it will be well with the world when civil government shall be avowedly restored to the do main of conscience – conscience toward God, His law, His Christ, and His gospel.9

1 Francis A. Schaeffer, A Christian Manifesto (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, 1981), 90.

2 Schaeffer, A Christian Manifesto, 90-91

3 James M. Willson, The Establishment and Limits of Civil Govern ment: An Exposition of Romans 13:1-7 (Powder Springs, GA: Amer ican Vision Press, 2009, originally published in 1853), 16.

4 Charles Hodge, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (New York: A. C. Armstrong, 1883), 639.

5 Schaeffer, A Christian Manifesto, 91

6 Cf. Acts 5:17-42; 12:1-18; 16:22-40; 18:12; 21:27-28:30.

7 See, Foxe’s Book of Martyrs: Complete and Unabridged (Belfast: Ambassador, (1563) 1998).

8 Schaeffer, A Christian Manifesto, 93

9 Willson, The Establishment and Limits of Civil Government, 78-79.

THE LIMITS OF CIVIL OBEDIENCE

CHRISTIANITY IN THE CROSSHAIRS:

Conversion Bill C-4 Takes

Aim at Canadian Freedoms

The ‘ABC’ cultural front of Anything but Christian ity has made further advance. Camouflaged with rhetoric and innuendo, and making strategic use of the pandemic, Bill C-4, the so-called Conversion Therapy Bill, has made significant headway into the religious freedom territory of our country – and as go religious freedoms, so goes all freedom. Though our constitution and system of jurisprudence are founded upon Biblical principles, our Charter of Rights and Freedoms recognizes the supremacy of God, and even our National Anthem derives from a Christian hymn of praise, the priorities of our gov ernment seem bent in diametric opposition to the Word of God, and our heritage as a Christian nation seems to matter little. With the passing of Bill C-4, our government leaders, both Liberal and Conser vative, have unanimously agreed that Biblical teach ing in reference to gender identity and sexuality is a myth that causes harm. With the passing of this legislation, our Canadian leadership has brazenly rejected the one true and living God, and in par

ticular, Christ’s call to repentance from sexual sin. As a result, this legislation brings into striking range the heart of Christian witness. From faithful preach ing of the Word, to compassionate counsel, and even private family discussions, Bill C-4 criminalizes Christian communication. Anything spoken or writ ten, and deemed as meeting the legislation’s vague definition of “conversion therapy,” can potentially come under attack with penalty of jail. The ambition of this essay is to bring some clarity to what this leg islation actually is, and what it isn’t, and to outline some of the dire implications this newly enshrined law will have on numerous vulnerable groups within our society – including those who identify as LGBT –as well as on the remaining freedoms of our nation.

The use of the term conversion in Bill C-4’s title is intended to strike a dissonant chord. For the Chris tian, conversion to faith in Christ is a positive thing, representing the climactic event in their personal testimony; for the majority in our secular society,

conversion is an ugly thing, synonymous with proselytization, and holds only negative connotations. Rather than being a wonder ful memory of when we responded to the gos pel’s call on our lives, re pented of our sins, and placed our faith in Je sus, conversion is con sidered a form of manipulation and coercion. As a result, Christian mis sionary outreach of yesteryear has been shamelessly demonized. The sharing of the gospel in the developing world has been equated with Western oppression, cultural suppression, patriarchy, white supremacy, and racism. As a result, contemporary Christian outreach organizations have taken steps to distance themselves from this past, many even changing their names to avoid conflict. The former Evangelical Medical Missions Aid Society, for example, known for their worldwide medical excellence and Kingdom work, has rebranded themselves with the sec ular designation, Education Medical Aid Service, and simultaneously erased all identifiable Christian links and language.

We have already seen in Canada vague euphemisms like Compassion ate Dying, Death with Dignity, and Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID) make more palatable the idea of a doctor intentionally killing a patient. Similarly, the negative undertones of the term conversion make more seemingly necessary the bill’s criminal code amendment. After all, just as we would all want to receive a little compassion when facing palli ation, and some assistance in our dying moments, who would want to be subjected to coercion and strong-armed bullying about something as personal as gender expression and identity? It’s nothing short of a manipulative manoeuvre on the government’s part to set the bill up for a slam dunk. And dunked it was, passing through both Houses of Parliament in record time, and without a peep of protest.

The expression Conversion Therapy used in the bill’s description adds an additional emotive punch. It brings to mind certain medical prac tices, such as lobotomy, electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), and aversion therapy, formerly used in some instances to treat certain individuals with unwanted homosexual desires.1 Understandably, the very idea of these interventions is unpalatable to our contemporary sensibilities and sparks indignation. For the uninitiated, it sounds like the stuff of mad scientist laboratories and torture chambers. And that’s exactly how LGBT lobby groups want to keep it – lobotomy likened to Dr.

TED FENSKE is Fellow for Medicine and Public Christianity at the Ezra Institute, Clinical Professor with the Division of Cardiology at the Uni versity of Alberta, staff cardiologist at the C.K. Hui Heart Centre, and an executive member of the Christian Medical/Dental Society.

Referring to himself in his hospital role as ‘a sheep in wolf’s clothing,’ Ted endeavors to shine God’s light in dark places of need and provide compassionate care for his patients, asserting that his personal faith in Christ has been the focus and foun dation of his practice.

Ted is a regular contributor to the Canadian Journal of Continuing Medical Education, Perspectives in Cardiology, and several other schol arly journals, as well as contributing to FOCUS magazine, the Christian Medical/Dental Society publication on the intersection of Christian belief and medical practice. He has given numerous talks in public forums on a broad range of topics, including Christian apologetics, countering euthanasia, theodicy, gender confu sion, and addressing the gay gospel.

Formerly from Vancouver, he is the proud father of three sons and con tent to call Edmonton ‘home.’

CHRISTIANITY IN THE CROSSHAIRS

T.K. Fenske, MD, FRCPC, FACC

With the passing of Bill C-4, our government leaders, both Liberal and Conservative, have unanimously agreed that Biblical teaching in reference to gender identity and sexuality is a myth that causes harm.

Frankenstein operating on his monster, electrocon vulsive therapy equated to forcible restraint and electric shock as depicted in the film, One Flew

Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, and aversion therapy to movie scenes from A Clockwork Orange with the compulsory viewing of Nazi atrocities. These de liberately implied associations are intended to stir up a visceral response. Such unthinkable torments then get lumped in with legitimate reparative ther apies enlisted for unwanted homosexual desires, as well as professional counsel for gender dysphoria and parental advice on sexual identity, all mixed to gether to help make the case for Bill C-4. As per his victory message sent out on Twitter, Justin Trudeau leaned into this emotional appeal with his choice of adjectives:

“It’s official: our government’s legislation banning the despicable and degrading practice of conversion therapy has received Royal Assent - meaning it is now law.”2

This same rhetorical tactic was employed by our government to get euthanasia decriminalized in 2015. It’s a simple formula, and one that effective ly poisons meaningful dialog. Once emotions get inflamed, lucid discussions fall apart and rational debate ends. The cross-country Town Hall meetings arranged to discuss doctor-assisted suicide fell prey to this scheme. Despite the presentation of numer ous articulate, well-reasoned arguments persua sively countering euthanasia, the gatherings were hijacked by emotional stories of loved ones dying in agonizing pain with doctors standing by helpless. Recognizing that the desire to avoid pain runs deep in our race, the euthanasia lobbyists chose pain re lief as their primary persuader, holding up MAID as the solitary solution. Although it was often claimed that euthanasia would be reserved for terminal ly ill patients suffering from extreme pain, nothing could be further from the truth. There’s a general misperception that patients die in inexorable pain, but this simply isn’t the case. Interviews conduct ed with family members of patients in Oregon who opted for a lethal dose clearly demonstrated that the patient’s decision to proceed with suicide was not because of poor pain control or suffering. Of

the list of symptoms on the survey to assess degree of suffering, none were graded at higher than two out of five on the severity scale, pain included.3 This has certainly been the case during my 30 years of practice in cardiology, during which time I’ve wit nessed more than my fair share of dying patients. Outside the fluster and flurry of in-hospital cardiac arrests, the deathbed is not a place of torment, but rather a sacred space with tender family farewells, encouraging last words, timely moments of recon ciliation, songs of praise, prayers, and even some gentle humor. Instances of “irremediable suffering” expose substandard palliative care provision rather than underscoring the need for lethal injections. In fact, we’ve never been in a better position to pro vide compassionate pain control for the dying. The timing and urgency of adopting euthanasia as a vi able option for Canadians wishing to die had more to do with the spirit of our times, influenced by the ideal of autonomy, rather than for any medical in dication. But now, thanks to the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision to allow MAID, Canada has the most permissive laws for doctor-assisted suicide of any jurisdiction where it’s practiced.

Just as the Canadian public were deceived by emo tional appeals in order to get euthanasia legalized, so too, are they being sold the false narrative of LGBT oppression in order to shut down Christian witness. The contemporary practice of medicine, for example, is anything but LGBT hostile. If there was once a time in Canada when discrimination was shown towards non-heterosexuals by healthcare practitioners, those days are long gone. In rhythm with the spirit of the times, the pendulum of medi cal practice has swung entirely away from any sem blance of LGBT stigmatization, and towards full acceptance and affirmation. This is in part because of pressure exerted from above by special-interest groups on healthcare authorities, but in part, as well, because of the increasingly recognized health disparity that exists within the LGBT community.

Taken as a whole, this diverse group are at a substan tially higher risk for poorer health outcomes as com pared to the general population. Not only do they suffer from higher rates of depression, substance

abuse, eating disorders, post-traumatic stress dis order, and a startling 20x increase in suicide rates; LGBT people are more likely to experience sexual abuse, intimate violence, homelessness, and be involved in pros titution.4 As such, significant efforts have been made to reduce this care gap by ensuring a welcoming and sensitive clinic al environment that will better at tract and not dis suade LGBT pa tients. Single-stall, gender-neutral washrooms are commonly avail able, patients are addressed with their preferred name and pronoun, and chaperones are provided for those who wish. Current patient registration forms are culturally-sensitive and include separate questions for birth sex and gender, and medical histories are undertaken using an LG BT-inclusive format, taught ad nauseum to all med ical students and continually reinforced throughout their clinical training.5 In fact, the only “despic able” and “deplorable acts” which LGBT patients are subjected to in medicine these days are being driven by their own lobby groups. These include the provision of ethically-questionable puberty-de laying hormones for gender-confused children, and sex-reassignment surgeries, which represents noth ing short of the mutilation of hitherto normal human anatomy, and results in avoidable long-term harms, including increased suicide rates.6

As for the alluded-to medical interventions used in the past to address unwanted homosexual desires, Bill C-4 is a moot point. These interventions were never part of mainstream Canadian medical prac

tice for the purposes of targeting gender dysphoria or “converting” homosexual inclinations, and cer tainly pose no threat to LGBT people today. Lobot omy, for example, was a procedure used to treat a wide variety of mental illnesses and conditions, with varying levels of success, from personality disorders and schizophrenia to depression and even chronic migraines.7 This surgical procedure, which involves severing connections in the brain’s prefrontal cor tex, was undertaken at a time when neuropsych iatry was in its infancy, predating modern pharma cotherapy, which later eclipsed the intervention and revolutionized the specialty. Although crude by contemporary standards, frontal lobotomy provided ground-breaking insight into neuroanatomical/clin ical correlations from which contemporary biological theories of behavior have developed. Aversion ther apy has also had a broad application of use in the treatment of addictions, from substance abuse to behavioural obsessions. Employing various noxious stimuli to create unpleasant mental associations, this form of behavioural psychology makes use of negative reinforcement to help break addiction cycles. The fact that it was historically employed to treat non-heterosexual inclinations should be of no surprise; homosexuality was officially considered a mental illness up until the early ‘70s, before LGBT lobby groups pressured for it to be de-patholo gized.8 As for electroconvulsive therapy, it too, has been used to treat a wide variety of mental illnesses. Although it’s undergone some refinement over the years, ECT continues to be used in modern psych iatry, and remains the most proven-effective inter vention for treating certain illnesses, including cata tonia and refractory depression.9

The timing and urgency of criminalizing conver sion therapy had nothing to do with protecting LGBT persons from historic medical interventions, nor contemporary discrimination, but everything to do with protecting the LGBT narrative – a fragile “happiness is” storyline that attempts to challenge the reality of God’s created order, and is utterly de pendent upon the artificial supports of rhetorical terrorism, cancel-culture censorship, and deceptive legislation like Bill C-4. The pandemic served as the perfect distraction to minimize opposition. With all

CHRISTIANITY IN THE CROSSHAIRS

Criminalizing conversion therapy had nothing to do with protecting LGBT persons from historic medical interventions, nor contemporary discrimination, but everything to do with protecting the LGBT narrative.

attention drawn to COVID case number reporting, little bandwidth was left to push back on the ad vancement of the liberal agenda. The same cheap opportunism worked effectively for the expansion of abortion services during the COVID crisis. Despite the plummeting number of surgeries during the ini tial waves of the pandemic (with resultant unwield ly lengthening of surgical waitlists), the number of abortions actually saw an increase.10 By deeming abortion an “essential service,” the government was able to not only release the heretofore con troversial do-it-yourself abortifacient, Mifegymiso, onto the market, but make it easily available by telephone consultation.11 So too, for doctor-assisted suicide. De spite the steady increase in euthanasia deaths in Can ada,12 as well as the climbing number of suicides occurring during the pandemic,13 the passing of Bill C-7 under the pandemic cloak effectively expanded the indications for euthanasia by removing the safeguards of foreseeable death, waiting period, patient consent, and even mental competency.14 The anti-conversion legisla tion simply followed suit. As we’ve experienced re peatedly in the past two years, “Never let a good crisis go to waste.” So, despite the myriad problems created by the pandemic’s handling in our nation, our newly elected government snapped into action by ignoring them all, and instead made criminaliz ing “conversion” its top priority.

Bill C-4’s legislation is unashamedly aimed at the last remaining opposition to the LGBT movement, namely the church and its saints. As gay columnist, Paul Varnell, aptly summarized, “The chief opposi tion to gay equality is religious. We may conduct our liberation efforts in the political sphere and even the cultural sphere, but always undergirding those and slowing our progress is the moral religious sphere. If we could hasten the pace of change there, our over all progress would accelerate – in fact, it would be

assured.”15 The other major obstacles have already been steadily removed. The Canadian legal system caved to LGBT activism first with Pierre Trudeau’s Bill C-150, resulting in the 1969 removal of sodomy from the criminal code. Then in 1973, opposition from the medical community collapsed when the American Psychiatric Association removed the di agnosis of “homosexuality” from the second edi tion of its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSMII),16 leaving followers of Christ as the lone voice to counter LGBT invasion into our culture. In Rev. John MacArthur’s sermon criticizing Bill C-4 (that was later banned by You Tube as “hate speech”), he predicted that “Ultimately, the dissenters, the ones who will not cave in, are going to be those who are faithful to the Bible.”17 And they are precisely the ones the gov ernment is hoping to target.

By defining conversion ther apy as “a practice, treat ment or service designed to change a person’s sexual ori entation to heterosexual… or to repress or reduce non-heterosexual attraction or sexual behaviour,”18 the legislation renders religious freedoms wide open to legal attack – from compassionate Christian counsel offered to consenting adults with unwant ed same-sex attractions, to faithful preaching of the full counsel of Scripture, including the portions deemed inflammatory and politically incorrect, to parents explaining to their own children concepts of basic biology regarding sexual function and pur pose according to God’s design. It’s nothing short of a grotesque governmental overreach. The Bill’s vague wording makes the legislation broad enough to reach into not only the clinic or counselor’s office, but the sanctuary, prayer chapel, youth room, and even our kitchens and living rooms. While Pierre Trudeau maintained that, “there’s no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation,” his son is en suring that with Bill C-4 in effect, there is no safe space from state scrutiny.

IN THE

The biblically faithful are under the gun in Canada, pastors and parents in particular. Legal precedents have already been established which render the conversion legislation no idle threat.

The legislation isn’t limited to restrictions on verbal communications, but targets any use of materials that might be construed as countering the LGBT narrative, as well – conceivably even the Bible. In particular, Bill C-4 makes “providing, promoting or advertising conversion therapy” a criminal offence, with penalties of two to five years in prison. Since the Bible clearly contains verses that denounce homo sexuality as sin, it’s a short step, and perhaps even an inevitable one, to see how this newly enshrined law not only directly counters the Bible, but may prohibit its very distribution and use. Curiously, this amendment to the criminal code was inserted next to the management of obscene materials. Specifi cally, management of materials deemed to endorse conversion are placed in Chapter 24, Subsection 164, along with details regarding the disposal and deletion of materials on child pornography, voyeur ism, intimate images, and sexual service advertise ment.19 This bizarre juxtaposition is analogous to the criminal code amendment for doctor-assisted suicide, placed in Section 7 which addresses “life, liberty, and security of person.” It’s a bit like storing the multivitamins in the same cupboard as the rat poison and insecticides, and betrays either a par tiality for the ironic, or just plain disdain of all things sacred.

As a result, the biblically faithful are under the gun in Canada, pastors and parents in particular. Legal precedents have already been established which render the conversion legislation no idle threat. In 2005, for example, Sweden’s Supreme Court charged that Pentecostal pastor, Aka Green com mitted a hate crime under Swedish law by preaching on 1 Corinthians 6, which includes homosexuality in Paul’s list of sinful behaviours.20 As the pandem ic has made clear, our government has no qualms about imprisoning pastors, either. Pastors James Coates and Tim Stephens were both put in jail, and their respective churches forced shut, for the misde meanor of gathering their parishioners, as biblically commanded: “let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds, not giv ing up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing” (Heb 10:24-25). Bill C-4 now gives teeth to our governing authorities to censor so-called in

flammatory preaching, order the shutdown of dis senting churches, and perhaps even remove their charitable status, all in the name of enacting justice against hate crimes. Parents need to be prepared for LGBT attacks as well. As evidenced by the 2019 debacle, for example, when the Supreme Court of British Columbia charged a father with child abuse for the “hateful act of misgendering an adult male,” when he refused to privately refer to his teenage daughter as a boy, and raised concerns about her taking puberty-blocking hormonal therapy.21

In addition to directly sanctioning persecution of the biblically faithful, Bill C-4 is poised to harm numer ous vulnerable groups within our society, including LGBT persons. By criminalizing Christian witness of the gospel in the important sphere of sexuality and gender identity, and simultaneously encouraging “the exploration or development of an integrated personal identity – such as a practice, treatment or service that relates to a person’s gender transition,” this legislation condemns those who have been caught up in the pagan ideology of the LGBT nar rative to continue to struggle without remedy or re demption. Three groups, in particular, will be most negatively impacted by this legislation.

First, it will harm those who are struggling with their sexual identity, and in their confusion have been lured into exchanging objective reality for subjec tive feelings. They buy into the Gay Script, which states that a person’s same-sex attractions are nat ural, and indicate one’s core identity, and that sex ual behaviour is the primary means of finding fulfil ment, conflating sexual attraction, sexual behaviour, and core identity, all to their own detriment.22 The second group are the children who have been im mersed in LGBT ideology in their formative years (thanks to liberal school curriculums), and have come to believe that the sexual characteristics of biology, gender identity, expression, and sexual attractions all operate on a spectrum, and that they must de fine these terms for themselves. And the third group are those who have transitioned to the opposite sex, and in the process, have come to realize their vast mistake, and deeply regret their decision. This de-transitioning group are the most to be pitied, as

CHRISTIANITY IN THE CROSSHAIRS

they continue to experience levels of stigmatization from the heterosexual community, while being si multaneously shunned from the LGBT community, which accepts gender transition as a one-way street only.23 Bill C-4 will effectively hinder these groups from having gospel truth spoken into their lives, and understanding the critical truth that sex is not ulti mate, that sexuality doesn’t define us, and that our true identity needs to be formed around a personal relationship with Christ.

Canadian liberties are in jeopardy. Despite the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which guarantees our freedoms of religion, conscience, thought, belief, expression, and association, the government’s severe measures enforced during the pandemic have shown just how fragile these freedoms are, and how easily they can be stripped away. From lockdowns and provincial border clo sures to mask mandates and mandatory vaccina tions, as well as the unilateral enactment of the War Measures Act in response to the Freedom Convoy’s peaceful protests, our once “True north strong and free” has quickly become a bastion of woke West ern oppression. The passing of Bill C-4 is one more step in this wrong direction. By insinuating that the Bible is myth, this legislation targets the very roots of our Canadian liberties, since it is the Christian worldview, centered on the authoritative Word of God, that provides the foundation for making sense of human freedoms. The Bible represents the very foundation of freedom, without which, the idea of freedom merely floats as an ethereal ideal, sub ject to redefinition by whoever is in power. Even the non-Christian Jordan Peterson recognizes this weight of Scripture, saying in an interview with Joe Rogan, “that the Bible is the precondition for the manifestation of truth, which makes it way more true than just true… It’s a whole different kind of true.”24

If Scripture is maligned and reduced to myth, our freedoms also get maligned and reduced; as evi denced by Justin Trudeau’s shameful dismissal of the grassroot Freedom Convoy as representing “a fringe minority with unacceptable views.” If vaccines of questionable benefit and documented harms can be mandated for an entire population – from

CHRISTIANITY IN THE CROSSHAIRS

high-risk elderly to lowrisk young adults, to norisk children – then any matter of state decree can follow, including the control of all thought, words, or deeds, as is being attempted with Bill C-4. There is no neu tral ground on which our government operates. As such, it’s important for us to realize the reali ty of our situation. This is not peacetime. We are in the throes of a battle and under ever-present hostile attack. With the passing of Bill C-4, biblically-faithful Christians have come into the crosshairs of our governing authorities. Those Canadians who laud and support the legis lation will soon realize their mistake when their own freedoms are whisked away with no “normal” to go back to. As the remnant Christian church, we need to be aware of the implications of this anti-Chris tian legislation, and steel ourselves for potential persecution, understanding that the greatest dan ger facing the Canadian church is not that we might face criminal charges, but that we compromise our teaching of the Word of God, or fall silent in our proclamation of the gospel. With the passing of this bill, increasing challenges to the visible church will undoubtedly mount, but there is strength in num bers. As our faith gets tested, we need to heed the words of Isaiah who said, “If you do not stand firm in your faith, you will not stand at all” (Isa. 7:9).

1 Smith, G. et al. Treatments of homosexuality in Britain since the 1950s—an oral history: the experience of patients. BMJ. 2004 Feb 21; 328(7437): 427.

2 Justin Trudeau, Twitter post, December 8, 2021, 3:27 PM, https:// twitter.com/JustinTrudeau/status/1468678569928925185.

3 Ganzini, L et al. J Gen Intern Med. 2008;23(2):154

4 Sexuality and Gender: Findings from the Biological, Psychological, and Social Sciences. The New Atlantis (Special Report) – Lawrence Mayer and Paul McHugh. August 2016 (http://www.thenewatlantis. com/publications/number-50-fall-2016).

5 Fenway Guide to Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender Health, 2nd Edition. Harvey J. Makadon (editor), Kenneth H. Mayer (editor), Jennifer Potter (editor), Hilary Goldhammer (editor).

The greatest danger facing the Canadian church is not that we might face criminal charges, but that we compromise our teaching of the Word of God.

6 Dhejne, C, et.al. “Long-Term Follow-Up of Transsexual Persons Undergoing Sex Reassignment Surgery: Cohort Study in Sweden.” PLoS ONE, 2011; 6(2). Affiliation: Department of Clinical Neuro science, Division of Psychiatry, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden. Accessed 3.20.16 from http://journals.plos.org/plosone/ article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016885.

7 Kucharski Anastasia, History of Frontal Lobotomy in the United States, 1935-1955. Neurosurgery, Volume 14, Issue 6, June 1984, Pages 765–772.

8 Drescher, J. Out of DSM: Depathologizing Homosexuality. Behav Sci (Basel). 2015 Dec; 5(4): 565–575.

9 Espinoza,R. Electroconvulsive Therapy Review. N Engl J Med 2022; 386:667-672.

10 https://theconversation.com/how-the-covid-19-pandemic-has-af fected-abortion-care-in-canada

11 https://www.sogc.org/common/Uploaded%20files/CANADI AN%20PROTOCOL%20FOR%20THE%20PROVISION%20OF%20 MA%20VIA%20TELEMEDICINE.pdf

12 “Second Annual Report on Medical Assistance in Dying in Can ada 2020,” Government of Canada, https://www.canada.ca/ en/health-canada/services/medical-assistance-dying/annual-re port-2020.

13 Gunnell D, Appleby L, Arensman E, et al; “COVID-19 Suicide Pre vention Research Collaboration. Suicide risk and prevention during the COVID-19 pandemic.” Lancet Psychiatry. 2020;7(6):468-471.

14 “Bill C-7: An Act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts,” Government of Canada, https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/pl/ charter-charte/c7_1.html.

15 Joe Dallas, The Complete Guide to Understanding Homosexuality: a Biblical and Compassionate Response to Same-Sex Attraction, (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 2010), 462.

16 R. Bayer, Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnosis (New York: Basic Books, 1981).

17 Jon Brown, “Thousands of churches raise alarm about scope of new Canadian ‘conversion therapy’ ban,” Fox News, last modified Jan uary 16, 2022, https://www.foxnews.com/world/thousands-church es-raise-alarm-scope-new-canadian-conversion-therapy-ban?

18 Bill C-4, Parliament of Canada, https://www.parl.ca/Document Viewer/en/44-1/bill/C-4/royal-assent

19 Ibid.

20 J.W. Jepson, “Anatomy of a Hate Crime,” Liberty Magazine, last modified August 2006, https://www.libertymagazine.org/article/ anatomy-of-a-hate-crime.

21 Tessa Vikander, “Misgendering kids and preventing transitioning can constitute child abuse, B.C. Supreme Court rules,” Toronto Star, last modified March 12, 2019, https://www.thestar.com/van couver/2019/03/12/misgendering-kids-and-preventing-transition ing-can-constitute-child-abuse-following-bc-supreme-court-ruling. html

22 Mark Yarhouse, Understanding Gender Dysphoria: Navigating Transgender Issues in a Changing Culture (Downers Grove, IL: In terVarsity Press, 2015).

23 Vandenbussche, E. (2021) Detransition-Related Needs and Sup port: A Cross-Sectional Online Survey, Journal of Homosexuality, DOI: 10.1080/00918369.2021.1919479.

24 Billy Halowell, “Famed Psychologist Jordan Peterson Tells Joe Ro gan Why the Bible Is ‘Way More True Than Just True,’” CBN News, last modified January 27, 2022, https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/ entertainment/2022/january/famed-psychologist-jordan-peterson.

CHRISTIANITY IN THE CROSSHAIRS

TIM DIEPPE, BOOK REVIEW:

Liberty in the Things of God

Liberty in the Things of God: The Christian Origins of Religious Freedom, by Robert Louis Wilken (Yale University Press, 2019).

Previously published at Affinity UK: https://www.affinity.org.uk/news/news-stories/ post/828-liberty-in-the-things-of-god-the-christian-origins-of-religious-freedom

A Corrective to Enlightenment Assumptions

Contemporary received wisdom says that religious freedom is the fruit of the Enlightenment. As the story goes, following the Reformation, Christians persecuted each other, on both sides of the divide, and set in motion the so-called wars of religion. We had to wait till the middle of the seventeenth centu ry for “men with greater wisdom and less religious fervor” (1) to expound the benefits of religious free dom. Modern ideas of freedom of conscience and

tolerance therefore originated with “enlightened” thinkers who realised the superiority of reason over faith and were distrustful of religious claims.

It is not difficult to see how this account is hostile towards Christianity, portraying the faith as intoler ant and tending towards violence. Tolerance and freedom of religion are said to have emerged in the West as religious faith declined. It is this narrative which Robert Louis Wilken, Professor of Christian History at the University of Virginia, seeks to chal lenge in this, his latest book.

Wilken first takes us back to the early church. Those Christians were faced with a Roman Empire which

was distrustful to say the least of foreign cults, and wanted to impose uniformity of worship, resulting in the persecution of adherents to the newly-formed faith. Tertullian used his writing gifts to defend the rights of Christians to worship as they saw fit. He was actually the first person in the history of Western ci vilisation to use the phrase “freedom of religion.”

“I am not allowed to worship what I wish, but am forced to worship what I do not wish. Not even a hu man being would like to be honoured unwillingly”, (11) he wrote, deliberately scorning forced piety.

Then came Lactantius (c. 250-c. 325) who argued that “religion cannot be imposed by force… only by words, not by blows” (20). Or again, “Laws are able to punish offences, but they are unable to punish the conscience” (20). He went on to suggest that re ligious acts which are forced are a mockery of God if the mind is not persuaded. The Edict of Milan in 313 AD, by Constantine and his co-Emperor Licinius, al lowed freedom of religion throughout the empire. Its impact was short-lived, but the ideas lived on.

By the time we get to the Middle Ages, the church was developing a theology of two powers, or two swords – that of the church and of the state. The idea of separating church and state, and therefore allowing dissenting groups to flourish, was a radical one. Pre-Reformation Christians and others “could not imagine a peaceful society divided by religious belief” (80). A theology of conscience was also de veloped which allowed people to follow their con sciences as long as this did not impinge on others. Pope Gregory the Great (590-604) spoke out against the persecution of Jews, writing that they should not be forced to believe, but persuaded, and criti cising the practice of forced baptism (30). Ambrose argued that “The things of God are not subject to the authority of the emperor” (34).

Wilken then takes us, chapter by chapter, through the Reformation across Europe, focussing on Germa ny, Switzerland, France, the Netherlands and finally England. In each chapter he shows how arguments for freedom of religion were made by Christians who made use of Scripture to defend the principle and often appealed to church fathers for support.

Martin Luther, of course, famously defended himself by saying “My conscience is captive to the Word of God… to go against conscience is neither right nor safe” (52). Wilken also quotes from the journals of Caritas Pirck heimer, abbess of a convent which re sisted the reform ers’ attempts to convert them. “We cannot find in our conscience that we should believe and hold fast to what everyone wants us to”, she writes (50). Her appeal to conscience echoes that of Luther. Both sides of this divide, therefore, were ap pealing to the dic tates of conscience and thus for free dom in how they worshipped.

One of the highlights of the book is an anonymous tract, Good Admonition to the Good Citizens of Brussels (1579) which introduced the idea of a “nat ural right” of religious freedom (109-110). Another is Thomas Helwys, founder of the first Baptist church in England, and author of A Short Declaration of the Mystery of Iniquity (1612). Helwys went so far as to argue for religious freedom not only for other dis senting Christians, but also for Jews, Catholics, and Muslims (140). His is not simply a defence of the rights of Christians, but a more thorough defence of the principle of religious freedom for all. Helwys was the first to argue comprehensively in this way. He was followed by Roger Williams, who in The Bloudy Tenent of Persecution (1644) aimed to show that the Scriptures offer no support for the persecution of re ligious believers (148). Once again, he was not just talking about Christians, but pagans, Jews, Turks, and even antichristian consciences, arguing that God has clearly allowed such worship and that uni

BOOK REVIEW: “LIBERTY IN THE THINGS OF GOD”

Tolerance and freedom of religion are said to have emerged in the West as religious faith declined. It is this narrative which Robert Louis Wilken, Professor of Christian History at the University of Virginia, seeks to challenge

Tim Dieppe

TIM DIEPPE is Fellow for Public Pol icy at the Ezra Institute, and Head of Public Policy at Christian Concern which he joined in 2016. Tim’s spe cial interest is in Islamic affairs. This interest developed after the 2001 attacks which prompted him to study the nature of Islam, including sharia finance. Tim connected with Chris tian Concern after being asked to run a sharia fund which he refused to do. This led him to become more in volved in combatting the increasing influence of sharia law in the UK.

Prior to this, Tim had a successful career in fund management for over twenty years. Most recently, Tim was the manager of the WHEB Sustain ability Fund which he ran from 2012 to 2015. Before that Tim designed and launched the pioneering multi-the matic investment process for the Henderson Industries of the Future Fund which he managed for seven years. This fund and the SRI Team at Henderson received multiple awards over the period, and Tim was named one of Britain’s top 100 fund manag ers by Citywire. Tim managed some £400m of global multi-thematic SRI funds, working as part of a highly integrated collaborative team of six SRI specialists. The funds invested exclusively in ten ‘Industries of the Future’ themes combining five envi ronmental themes.

Tim is married, with two children. He and his wife play an active role in their local church: Trinity London.

formity of religion in a civil state is contrary to the will of God because it confounds civil and religious matters. John Owen, following the 1662 Act of Uniformity, also wrote eloquently on toleration, reaching back to Tertullian, Lactantius, and others to argue that “liberty of conscience is a natural right” (164).

The book concludes with John Locke, who studied under Owen at Oxford. It was said that all Owen’s students, including Locke, promised to defend “liberty of conscience” (169). Locke’s A Letter Concerning Toleration argues forcefully for freedom of religion from both Scripture and reason. He ad vances no new arguments and clear ly stands on the shoulders of Owen and many earlier Christian writers in making his case. Unlike Owen and others, though, Locke does not cite earlier Christian writers such as Tertul lian, Lactantius or Gregory the Great to support his argument. Wilken con cludes:

Locke’s ideas on religious freedom cannot be understood without refer ence to Christianity. The Letter Con cerning Toleration is, however, the work of a philosopher informed by Christian thinking, not a theological treatise. No doubt that is one reason it came to be held in such high regard in the generations after Locke’s death. In his hands ideas first advanced by Christian thinkers came to be seen as reasonable without reference to their origins.” (179)

Wilken has manifestly succeeded in demonstrating that ideas of reli gious freedom did not originate in the seventeenth century or in the writings of John Locke. It was early Christians who first defended free dom of conscience and freedom of religion. It was they who first ad vocated for a separation of church and state which paved the way for freedom of religion within a state. Freedom of religion was not born of religious scepticism, but of faith.

This book is a much needed, and valuable counter to the prevailing narrative on religious freedom. It does not offer an up-to-date defence of the concept, or a discussion of its limits, but ably defends the Chris tian origins of religious freedom. Al Mohler, in a revealing interview

BOOK REVIEW: “LIBERTY IN THE THINGS OF GOD”

John Owen, following the 1662 Act of Uniformity, also wrote eloquently on toleration, reaching back to Tertullian, Lactantius, and others to argue that “liberty of conscience is a natural right”.

with the author, describes it as “the most important book written on religious liberty in a very, very long time.”1 It comes highly recommended for those in terested in religious freedom or church history.

1 “The Christian Origins of Religious Liberty: A Conversation with Historian Robert Louis Wilken,” Albert Mohler, last modified September 17, 2019, https://albertmohler.com/2019/09/17/rob ert-louis-wilken

BOOK REVIEW: “LIBERTY IN THE THINGS OF GOD”

“Ruler of Kings reminds us that Christ’s sceptre of power rules over all of life, and that he will inevitably recieve the inheritance of nations.”

- James R. White, Alpha and Omega Ministries

What should a Christian proposal for social order look like?

To the best government, obedience can be yielded only in things lawful; for there is a higher law to which rulers and subjects are alike amenable.

”

your copy at ezrapress.ca