Church History

Bills C-6 and C-7: just new laws or new unjust laws?

January 20, 2021 by Don Hutchinson

Presentation for the National House of Prayer, January 20, 2021.

Thank you for praying for our nation. And, thank you for inviting me to share briefly today about the possible implications that would result from passage of Bills C-6 and C-7.

I’ll begin by talking about context and the importance of the context in which both bills arise.

A Martin Luther King, Jr. quote that circulated widely this past MLK Day reads:

‪How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law.

This inspirational quote is often used to inspire the challenge of any law deemed by the user of the quote as unjust. It is most often quoted without context and out of context. King was committed to peaceful protest against segregationist laws. He was prepared to accept the consequences for his peaceful protest, whether or not the law was changed as a result. King wrote these sentences in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail where he was in custody on 16 April 1963. He would be dead within five years, without seeing the change he was seeking.

Why start there in a brief talk about two bills currently before Canada’s Parliament?

Because context is important.

Let’s turn our thoughts to the context in which Bills C-6 and C-7 exist.

First, we live in a free and democratic society. Please do not mistake claims that religious freedom is or may be limited as a targeted assault on the Church. Please do not mistake the imposition of a political agenda that differs from yours as the end of our democracy.

Christians in Canada’s free and democratic society have rights and freedoms that exceed those found in many countries around the world. The challenge is to use our freedom wisely.

Second, the culture in which we live has been moving away from Judeo-Christian influence for well over half a century. Following the Second World War people left the Church disillusioned with a God who allowed two world wars and a depression during their lifetimes. They also succumbed to the developing distractions of 1) the automobile, with the allure of a Sunday drive at the end of a six day workweek, and 2) the television, which offered remote church in the morning and The Wonderful World of Disney in technicolour at 6:00 p.m.

One manifestation of rejecting the Church’s influence was the sexual revolution, which churns its wheels forward to this day. Slogans of the sexual revolution apply to sexual preferences, abortion, and more recently end-of-life decisions. “My body. My choice.”

Another manifestation was the shift in the language of human rights. Long before 1982’s Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the 1947 United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the increasing influence of American media were pushing Canadians culturally toward the pursuit of personal gratification and away from considerations of societal responsibility.

The Canadian Church has been wrestling with its place in society and its understanding, misunderstanding, and revised understanding, of the Bible since the 1960s.

Which brings me to my third point. The Bible.

Despite its devaluation by the broader culture, the Bible remains true from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21. God has not changed. God’s Word has not changed.

All 27 books of the New Testament were written in the context of a Church experiencing persecution. The persecution started with people in culture rejecting Christians because of their claim that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah. The persecution extended to government action because of cultural influence and because of the Christian claim that Jesus was the only King to whom they would bow.

We cannot disregard that history or the experience of persecuted Christians in nations around the world today. Canadian Christians cannot confine select passages of Scripture to the first-century and import others we like better into the twenty-first. Jesus said,

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God. Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you. (Matthew 5:9-11 NIV)

Jesus also said,

Behold, I am sending you out as sheep in the midst of wolves, so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves. Beware of men, for they will deliver you over to courts… and you will be dragged before governors and kings for my sake, to bear witness. (Matthew 10:16-18, ESV)

Let’s consider Bills C-6 and C-7 in the context of democratic rights, claims to personal autonomy, and the Bible.

In our democracy every Canadian is equally placed to pursue the development, amendment or elimination of laws through elected legislatures and through the courts.

Bill C-7, medical assistance in dying, is the result of people pursuing their understanding of constitutional rights in the courts. Existing law was upheld in 1993[1] then overturned in 2015,[2] and Parliament decided to accept the direction of the courts.

Parliament has the constitutional authority to reject such decisions by the courts but has not.

The decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Carter case in 2015 cut against established Biblical, traditional, and legal understandings of the sanctity of human life and murder. But, the decision was accepted by the government as the direction of and for culture. The law shifted.

In 2016, Bill C-14 presented a legally conservative interpretation of the court’s direction.

The Trudeau Government’s decision not to appeal the overturning of C-14 in the 2019 Truchon[3] decision of a single judge of the Quebec Superior Court was puzzling. I don’t recall another instance where a government passed a law and the same government did not fight for that law to be upheld when it was challenged in court.

As citizens, we are constitutionally empowered to intercede on Bill C-7 through submissions to Parliament, in this instance the Senate where the bill is now being studied, and in the public square. The wise as serpents and innocent as doves personal presentations are perhaps best made by those whose lives and livelihoods may be most directly altered by the proposed changes to the law: those living with disabilities, and people employed in palliative care such as doctors, nurses and other caregivers. For those who submit to the governing authorities as directed by Paul in Romans 13:1-7[4] and by Peter in 1 Peter 2:13-17[5], public rallies are effectively proscribed due to pandemic regulations.

As Christians, we take our right to intercede a step further because as citizens of heaven we are called to pray. That’s the directive Paul gave in 1 Timothy 2,[6] to pray for our leaders that we might live in peace.

If C-7 becomes law with its current scope, and because healthcare is constitutionally provincial jurisdiction,[7] if provincial governments and medical associations do not step in with action supportive of freedom of conscience and religion to exempt the unwilling from compulsory involvement in acts they consider unconscionable, we can anticipate:

Costly court challenges;
Public hospitals will offer MAiD before palliative care, as some are already doing;
Palliative care facilities and practitioners will step away from their practices; and,
Capable, intelligent students will choose careers other than medicine if the taking of human life becomes a mandatory part of their training.

Bill C-6 is said to be intended to address the issue of involuntary conversion therapy. The concern behind the bill arises out of sometimes torturous practices, in which some members of the Church participated. Good intentions are not deliberated when practices used are demonstrably harmful.

As drafted, C-6 is an insidious bill with unpredictable results. The current structure of the bill leaves it open to interpretation and application that goes beyond the stated purpose, potentially exposing voluntary, non-harmful counselling and spiritual guidance to risk of criminal prosecution. The failure of the Trudeau Government and the House of Commons’ Justice Committee to stipulate a precise definition for what is illegal implores us to continue to advocate and to pray for careful definition. If the definition of conversion therapy is not properly refined before the bill is passed, we can anticipate:

Costly court challenges, inviting the courts to define or strike down the law. The Supreme Court of Canada has long held that “a law will be found unconstitutionally vague if it is so lacking in precision as not to give sufficient guidance for legal debate;”[8]
Because of fear, a chill effect on the ability to find counsellors and even the seeking of voluntary counselling by those struggling with questions of sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression;
A similar chill effect on availability of spiritual counselling and direction, negatively influencing religious freedom;
Rumours and false stories about conversion therapy charges and imprisonments;
Enforcement of the law that will likely be complaint driven, but will empower targeted complaints by extremist activists in the LGBT+ community; and,
Perhaps most unpredictably, more municipalities and provinces will implement similarly vague prohibitions on conversion therapy because they lack the clarity of direction the federal government will have squandered the opportunity to provide.

For those who have a deep seated understanding of the sanctity of human life and a biblically informed appreciation for parents, children and sexuality, the proposals in C-6 and C-7 represent new unjust laws, out of harmony with the moral law of God.

But most Canadians have little interest in these bills. They are unconcerned about God and they do not perceive their personal rights or autonomy to be affected. For them, these are just new laws, being put in place to fit with the evolving cultural understanding of morality. C-7 mirrors the thought it is more humane to give a lethal injection to a dying pet than not to give one to a person who no longer desires to live. C-6 affirms that judging others’ sexual proclivities is no one else’s concern.

It took commitment, effort and time to convince Canadians to accept these ideas.

It will take commitment, effort, and time to influence the culture to believe otherwise.

[1] Rodriguez v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [1993] 3 S.C.R. 519.

[2] Carter v. Canada (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 5, [2015] 1 S.C.R. 331.

[3] Truchon c. Procureur général du Canada, 2019 QCCS 3792.

[4] Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. ²Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. ³For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, ⁴for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. ⁵Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience. ⁶For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. ⁷Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed. (Romans 13:1-7 ESV)

[5] Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, ¹⁴or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. ¹⁵For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. ¹⁶Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. ¹⁷Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor. (1 Peter 2:13-17 ESV)

[6] First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, ²for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. ³This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior. (1 Timothy 2:1-3 ESV)

[7] Constitution Act, 1867, section 92, subsection 7.

[8] R. v. Nova Scotia Pharmaceutical Society, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 606; Ontario v. Canadian Pacific Ltd., [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1031.

The Unbearable Whiteness of Jesus

August 27, 2020 by Don Hutchinson

Originally published at Convivium on August 27, 2020.

Questions about the Christian Messiah’s skin colour offer a fascinating complex of archeological, historical, migratory, linguistic and theological answers that ultimately won’t matter. 7 minute read.

Questions about the whiteness of Jesus, White presence in Bible times, and the whiteness of the North American Church have become widespread in public debate during recent months. It’s not that there wasn’t already discourse about these points, but discussion was relatively confined and, some might say, often seemed more an assortment of monologues rather than conversation.

Was Jesus white? It’s a fairly simple question, with or without photographic or archeological evidence. Yes or no. That’s the answer: yes or no.

Before I expand on that response, here’s another question. Does it matter to the mission and ministry of Jesus and his Church whether Jesus was White? Does the gospel change based on the colour of Jesus’ skin? The answer to those questions is shorter. No.

So, was Jesus White? Yes. (I’ll get to “or no.”)

You and I have likely experienced similar demographic questions or descriptors that reference White as an all-embracing classification for a large swath of humanity. The federal census is more detailed, but professional surveys and news commentary frequently conflate ethnicity with colour. Options presented are often along the following lines: White, Black, Indigenous, Asian, South Asian, Other. More recently the category “prefer not to say” has been added to surveys.

What do we do with that? White isn’t a race or an ethnicity. It’s a colour. So is Black. Although we know Indigenous is most often aboriginal, how many generations prior does one’s family have to have arrived in a land before one is Indigenous? While the answer to this question may seem apparent in North America or Australia, it is less so in the Middle East and other parts of the world. These same surveys sometimes substitute East Asian for Asian, although I haven’t seen North Asian or West Asian as options.

Presented with this array, what would Jesus tick?

If Jesus is at all like me, or I at all like him, he might tick the Other box. I do this on an annual professional report that asks me for my ethnic background. Although I’m out in the sun without sunscreen for thirty minutes to an hour on most warm weather days cycling with my grandson, the hostess at a socially distanced dinner I recently attended was quick to suggest I sit in the sun to soak up some vitamin D because I was so, well, white. Still, I select the Other box, which requires I write in a description, Caribbean-Canadian. Hey, my ancestors spent three-and-a-half centuries living and dying in Barbados before my parents immigrated to Canada.

Jesus would encounter a problem with today’s ethnicity/race question. Jesus was a Mediterranean Jew, born in Bethlehem of Judaea.

When it comes to shades of white, the Mediterranean complexion gets tossed in with White on contemporary surveys unless one chooses Other. Coptic Egyptian friends? White. Greek? White. Italian? White. Spanish? Portuguese? White. White. My friends with their Mediterranean olive-skinned appearance are not white like blond-haired blue-eyed Scandinavians or someone of Germanic descent, or like me who can trace ancestry across centuries to Scotland on my dad’s side and England on my mum’s. But, if Mediterranean friends are White so was Jesus. Even my Palestinian Arab friends would be slotted in the darker-shade-of-White category.

To avoid being boxed in as White my friends and Jesus would have to choose Other. That’s the “or no.” Jesus was not likely pallid in appearance. x-Other: Mediterranean Jew.

Supplementing the debate about the whiteness of Jesus is one about the presence or absence of white people during Bible times. Until recent months I had not heard the statement, “There were no white people in the Bible.” Maybe I wasn’t listening for it, because it seems now to be passionately argued. If we categorize the Romans, Greeks, Arabs and Jews as White, there are no Bible stories without white people. If those key participants are characterised as “Other, write in description,” there are still white people to be found in Scripture.

There would be some people of paler complexion in the Mediterranean camps – Romans, Greeks, Arabs, and Jews – just as there are today. Additionally, there would be those Indigenous light-skinned people from other parts of Europe who were aligned with the Roman Empire because of conquest or economics.

Paul’s letter to the Christians in Galatia was written to people of Celtic ancestry. The Gauls of Galatia moved from the area of modern day France to an area in modern day Turkey about three centuries before the birth of Jesus.

History also points us to the reality of trade routes and cosmopolitan centres, particularly port cities and historic national capitals like Jerusalem, where people of all ethnicities, races, and colours mingled. Much like many cities today.

Perhaps, one significant error made when reflecting on whiteness in the Bible is the failure to consider other-than-whiteness. It’s easy to read the Bible with mental images of characters who resemble us, rather than situating them in their own context.

What is the likelihood that Egypt’s Pharaoh resembled a tanned and oiled up Yul Brynner as portrayed in the movie The Ten Commandments? Egypt didn’t fall under Persian rule until five centuries before the birth of Jesus. Is it more likely that Pharaoh was Nubian, i.e. Black, like the population living along the Nile River some 1300 years before the baby born in Bethlehem?

Speaking of the Nile, the story of Moses is quite different in perception if Pharaoh’s daughter is considered dark-skinned, like her parents, and the infant retrieved from the river (Exodus 2:5-6) of olive complexion, like his parents.

After Moses’ return to Egypt to lead the Israelites’ exodus, perhaps the objection of his siblings Aaron and Miriam to Moses’ wife, Zipporah, was because she was a Cushite (Numbers 12:1), a dark-skinned African.

In The Song of Solomon, the love interest being pursued by Israel’s king sometime in the 900s B.C. describes herself as “very dark, but lovely” (1:5). Solomon calls her “most beautiful among women” (1:8) and “a mare among Pharaoh’s chariots” (1:9). Bride and groom.

There are other Biblical passages that may require our reconsideration, but these are sufficient to suggest the next point. Another trending topic is the whiteness of the Church.

Although the Church was initiated by a resurrected Mediterranean Jew whose initial followers were Mediterranean Jews (in fact, Christianity was initially considered to be a branch of Judaism), it wasn’t long before Jesus’ commission to “make disciples of all nations” (Matthew 28:19) resulted in Gentiles – Roman, Greek, Ethiopian (Acts 8:26-40) and Galatian – being added to their number. Reorientation of the Church northward following the diaspora accompanying persecution of Christians in Jerusalem resulted in some contextual theological differences between more northerly, generally lighter skinned, Europeans and the Mediterranean Orthodox and African Orthodox communities of the Church.

Early icons of Jesus in the Orthodox communities portray a darker complexion for the Christ than the blue-eyed sandy-haired pictures found in many twentieth-century Western Sunday School classrooms welcoming the little children unto him. African and African-American portraits are of a Jesus darker still. Indigenous and Asian brothers and sisters render a Jesus more illustrative of their appearance.

It puts me in mind of the Sunday School chorus that, like some contemporary surveys, substitutes colour for ethnicity or race.

Jesus loves the little children,
All the children of the world.
Red, brown, yellow,
Black and white,
[x-Other: olive, too]
They are precious in His sight.
Jesus loves the little children of the world.

Perhaps, rather than debating whether the Church is too white, we in the Church would be healthier to explore the expressed intent of that chorus in the context of Jesus words, “just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another” (John 13:34-35). Many were doing so before the events of recent months. Many more are doing so today. More are welcome.

There is no question about the influence of the white-European-heritage part of the Church on the global Body of Christ and the world beyond, for both good and bad. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn penned the words, “the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being.” The Church has not been exempt. Thankfully, there is grace.

We must make the effort to discuss, deliberate, debate and learn from one another what we may have missed in Scripture and life because the lens of experience through which we were reading our Bibles may have been tinted, perhaps partly by Hollywood’s portrayals or pictures on Sunday School walls.

By doing so we might also encourage those outside the Church to think beyond pale assumptions about the colour of Christ’s Body, whether in their consideration of two millennia past or today.

Descriptions of early Church ecumenical councils remind us the bishops of influence invited to participate were from a variety of ethnicities, races and colours. They discussed, deliberated and debated as equals to inform theological formation for the maturing Body of Jesus’ followers. We need similarly to continue having conversation that leads to action in the tradition of mutual respect.

Christianity was not and is not either a Western or a White religion. The cultural and global contexts in which the Church is situated reveal a demographic spread that is as wide-ranging as the cultural and global contexts of the planet.

The Church’s most dramatic growth in recent decades has been in the global South. In the global North much growth has been through immigration from the global South, as well as from East to West.

The Body of Christ has many parts, St. Paul wrote, required to relate effectively with one another in order for the Body to function well (1 Corinthians 12:12-27). Some parts are White.

When we from many nations meet together one day with Jesus in heaven (Revelation 7:9), I wonder if he will be to our eyes like the photo circulating on social media accompanied by the query whether we see a black dress with blue stripes or a white dress with gold stripes? Or, hopefully by then we will have become accustomed to and appreciative of our various hues of human; and the colour of Jesus’ skin won’t matter.

Full message – UNDER SIEGE: Religious Freedom and the Church in Canada

September 25, 2018 by Don Hutchinson

Southside Victory Church, Calgary, Alberta

Sunday, September 9, 2018 – 11:00am service

UNDER SIEGE – table of contents

September 4, 2018 by Don Hutchinson

UNDER SIEGE: Religious Freedom and the Church in Canada at 150 (1867–2017)

CONTENTS

Acknowledgements
Preface
Introduction

PART I: THE FOUNDATION

Under Siege
A Little Canadian History and a Minor Lesson in Canadian Civics
Canada’s Cultural Revolution Comes to Church
The Constitution, the Courts, and the Cheese
Unlikely Heroes
The Law Is a Jealous Mistress

PART II: RELIGIOUS FREEDOM AS INTERPRETED BY THE COURTS

A Few Words About the Charter
The Government Can Serve Money, But Not God
When State Neutrality Isn’t Neutral
Shh, Don’t Tell Anyone
What Do You Mean There Are Membership Standards?
Religious Freedom Is for Individuals of All Faiths
Religious Freedom Is for Groups, Congregations, and Institutions
The Church Likely Cannot Serve Both God and Government without Trouble
Sacred Texts Are Not Hate Speech
You Can’t Say That in the Classroom (Or in Public)

PART III: FAITHFUL CHRIST-FOLLOWERS ASK “HOW SHOULD WE THEN ENGAGE?”

Christianity in Canada at 150
Render Unto Caesar (Or at least Parliament)
American, British, Canadian, Dutch, and German Thinkers on Public Faith
Just the Truth, the Whole Truth, and Nothing But the Truth
Freeze, Flight, Fortitude, Infiltrate, or Fight?
Humility and Prayer Are Action and the Beginning of Action
Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics
Casual Christians in Confrontation or Committed Encounter with Culture
The Church as Charity

Conclusion

Conclusion: Fear Is a (Strong but) Poor Motivator

Appendix I: The Nicene Creed
Appendix II: The Apostles’ Creed
Appendix III: Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Appendix IV: Pierre Trudeau, 100 Huntley Street “Salute to Canada”
Appendix V: Joe Clark, 100 Huntley Street “Salute to Canada”
Appendix VI: Christian Witness in a Multi-Religious World
About the Author

UNDER SIEGE is available from a variety of booksellers in paperback, Kindle, Kobo, Scribd, Google Play & Apple iBooks.

Winds of Change in Politics and Pew

May 5, 2018 by Don Hutchinson

Originally published at The Gospel Coalition Canada on May 1, 2018. (2nd of 3 parts on the Canadian Church and the public sphere) (pt 1)

TGC Editors’ note: Canadian Evangelicals have largely lost their voice in the public sphere of Canada. It hasn’t always been this way. The pathway toward a distinctively Canadian secularism is an interesting story. Regaining some of what was lost will require us to understand that story and then to move forward in humble and yet decisive engagement in a country that has lost its way. There is almost none better suited for this task than Don Hutchinson, a man who has an intimate knowledge of the rise of Canadian secularism and the nature of religious freedom in our land. This article is part II of III (here is part I).

For the Dominion of Canada, the twentieth was a century of promise and fulfillment, challenge and response. The century would be nearly done – 1982 – before the nation would complete its quest for independence. In that time more than two dozen constitutional amendments were sought from the British Parliament at Westminster.

As the century started, there was rapid expansion from Atlantic to Arctic to Pacific in population, nationwide transportation networks, and the recognition of new provinces and territories. But even as the young nation asserted itself in North America, the decision to send Canadian troops to fight in Europe’s Great War was made in Westminster’s Parliament, not Ottawa.

On the battlefield, first at Ypres, then Vimy and others, Canada’s troops distinguished themselves as a formidable national fighting force. Congratulatory messages were sent to Prime Minister Robert Borden rather than his counterpart in London. The Canadians had won an identity of their own.

Soldiers came home in victory, despite the loss of nearly 61,000 Canadian lives. Canada’s churches strengthened with the post-war celebration, comforted those who lost loved ones and welcomed the influx of European immigration that followed.

During the Great Depression of the 1930s congregations and para-congregational missions were the backbone of voluntary and government networks meeting human need. The federal government extended the Income War Tax Act of 1917, initially a temporary measure, adding to it a deduction up to ten percent from taxable income for donations to charitable organizations such as churches and missions.

The trauma of the Depression reshaped Canadian politics. The prairies gave birth to the Social Credit Party and the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation, both led by ordained Christian ministers. Social Credit’s “Bible Bill” Aberhart, a Baptist, became premier in Alberta in 1935 (succeeded by evangelist Ernest Manning from 1943 to 1968). J.S. Woodsworth, a Methodist minister, was a leader in the social gospel movement and led the CCF into Parliament. Tommy Douglas, a Baptist minister, led the first socialist (CCF) government in Canada when elected premier of Saskatchewan in 1944. In 1961 Douglas stepped aside from premiership to become leader of the federal party at the convention when it changed its name to the NDP.

World War II was different from the Great War (WWI). Canada’s Parliament declared the nation to be at war seven days after the British Parliament. Ottawa was still obliged to follow the lead of Westminster, but this was a symbolic but significant gesture of independence. Over one million Canadians distinguished themselves in service during WWII on the ground, in the air and on the sea.

The end of the century’s second war, however, produced a sense of uncertainty. Radio had brought the realities of war into the living rooms of the nation, and video into its movie theatres. Combat in the air and on the sea made the world smaller. Some enemy vessels had even made it to Canadian waters. And the development of atomic weapons spawned duck and cover drills in schools.

The Depression had outstripped the church’s capacity. The social gospel response of church-leaders-turned-political leaders encouraged the government to take greater responsibility. Uncertainty following WWII undermined confidence in the church and its God. This marked the beginning of the Canadian trend toward bigger government and smaller churches.

The Roman Catholic Church in Quebec was caught in a maelstrom brought on by Depression, WWII and its close affinity with the corrupt Union Nationale government of Maurice Duplessis, defeated shortly after his 1959 death. La Revolution tranquille (“the Quiet Revolution”) brought cultural and political change to Quebec.

The arrival of the “three wise men” from that province signaled a tide change in federal politics. Newly elected Liberal Members of Parliament Jean Marchand, Gérard Pelletier and Pierre Trudeau joined the government and cabinet of Lester Pearson in 1965.

Also in 1965, Pierre Berton’s The Comfortable Pew: A critical look at the Church in the New Age was a bestseller. The Anglican, United, and Presbyterian churches accepted former-Christian Berton’s opinion that they needed to step away from the Gospel, toward greater cultural alignment and social engagement.

Ten Protestant denominations had joined together in 1944 to establish the ecumenical Canadian Council of Churches. Over time they were joined by Orthodox and Catholic denominations. Most evangelical denominations avoided this early ecumenical movement, having retreated into a focus on worship and evangelism. But in 1964, a group of leaders concerned about cultural drift away from biblical principles formed The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada as a place to build relationships and discuss their concerns.

Canadian society was in a state of flux. The elements of politics, culture, and the church – churches – were on a variety of disparate paths, all leading to collision in the public square. Some would entertain conversation at the nexus. Others would engage in criticism and censure.

Pearson, managing a minority government following the elections of 1963 and 1965, was obliged to Douglas to keep his government alive. Douglas’ influence resulted in government implementation of national plans for health care, pensions, and student loans.

Trudeau, a lawyer and intellectual Catholic, became Pearson’s Justice Minister. Influenced by concepts of individual rights from the writings of French Catholic philosopher Jacques Maritain, who worked alongside Canadian John Peters Humphrey in drafting the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Trudeau would begin to re-focus the law on the individual’s desires instead of the historic, biblically-informed, interests of the broader society. He introduced legislation that provided for no-fault divorce, qualified surgical abortion, and the decriminalization of homosexual sexual activity between adults, famously declaring “there’s no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation.”

Following Centennial celebrations in 1967, in 1968 Trudeau succeeded Pearson as Prime Minister. He was quick to initiate pursuit of a constitutional bill of rights as part of bringing the Canadian constitution under Canadian control. A 1971 effort gave Ontario and Quebec each a veto. Quebec’s premier, Robert Bourassa, exercised it. Trudeau would not repeat that mistake in the next round of negotiations. A decade later, following the near constitutional crisis of the failed 1980 Quebec referendum on separation, all provinces except Quebec sided with Trudeau.

On the steps outside of Canada’s Parliament, on April 17, 1982, Prime Minister Trudeau and Queen Elizabeth II signed the Constitution Act, 1982. Canada’s constitution was home. The British North America Act was renamed the Constitution Act, 1867. And the nation had a Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Charter would change the Canadian legal system and influence the already shifting relationships between state, culture, church, and Canadians. The independence of a nation was established. The Charter became the foundation for a society whose citizens would become more focused on personal independence, individual rights, and private benefit than on the broader cultural and societal Canadian good. And much of the church offered little to counter that transition.

In its first decision on the Charter right to “freedom of religion” the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that a “truly free society is one which can accommodate a wide variety of beliefs” and that freedom of religion was “the right to entertain such religious beliefs as a person chooses, the right to declare religious beliefs openly and without fear of hindrance or reprisal, and the right to manifest religious belief by worship and practice or by teaching and dissemination.” A Canadian, the Court ruled, was “free to hold and to manifest whatever beliefs and opinions his or her conscience dictates, provided inter alia only that such manifestations do not injure his or her neighbours or their parallel rights to hold and manifest beliefs and opinions of their own.”

Adjudicated in the context of a commercial dispute by a pharmacy that wanted to remain open on Sundays, that first case, R v Big M Drug Mart, established that government cannot support one religion over another and each Canadian is free to decide what he or she does or does not believe. This judicially-enforced personal autonomy has led to considerable litigation, particularly concerning disputes between individuals, organized religion and government, including undertakings such as education and marriage.

The independence of the nation by the beginning of the twenty-first century and a citizenship that embraced Charter assured individualism ushered in what Canadian philosopher Charles Taylor termed “a secular age.”

The expressed desires of individuals often shouted down existing societal requirements. Politics became increasingly challenging and polarized. Growing numbers of Canadians began to identify as having either no religion or a self-determined spirituality. Those occupying pews on a Sunday morning decreased in number. Church buildings that were raised in an era of booming congregational growth survived as heritage sites, community centres or live-performance theatres. Even for Christian Canadians, congregational connection started to shift from traditional churches in which birth led to membership to those more focused on personal choice to follow Christ, perhaps a policy that better fit with the new individualism. Great Britain faced similar societal change and challenges but was no longer the arbiter of the Canadian response. The response was determinedly in Canadian hands.

Don Hutchinson has held leadership positions within the Canadian Church for over three decades. He has served in the roles of pastor, lawyer and consultant, as well as in government relations. Don is the principal of ansero, a ministry facilitating partnerships for those engaged on the issue of religious freedom in Canada and with the global persecuted Church. His book Under Siege: Religious Freedom and the Church in Canada at 150 (1867–2017) has been recently released. Purchase it here.