Don Hutchinson

Gleanings from the mind of a Christian Leader and Lawyer

Da Vinci, D’Olympics, and the Drag Queen Dinner Depiction

by

Da Vinci’s mural The Last Supper has often been parodied, including a video featuring rapper Snoop Dog who carried the 2024 Olympic Torch in Paris before this year’s opening ceremony while wearing the satanic emblem of Baphomet on his necklace.

The opening ceremony’s reimagining of Da Vinci’s masterpiece using drag queens, with a young girl seated at the table, has been subject to much social media commentary. Whether intended as satire of a piece of art (which seems unlikely given Da Vinci and his masterpiece are Italian not French and the mural is located in Italy not France) or not-so-veiled insult directed at Christians, there is little doubt the central figure in Da Vinci’s work is a depiction of Jesus of Nazareth, The Christ/Messiah, who was also the central personage burlesqued in Paris.

Some commentators note the host government of France would not have approved such mockery of a religion other than Christianity. If such treatment toward another religious community was presented in plans for the evening’s entertainment by Olympic organizers, government officials might have recalled the violent murder of eleven staff members employed by satire magazine Charlie Hebdo following its 2015 publication of a cartoon lampooning Islam’s prophet, Mohammed.

Others question why the French government’s stated purpose for a performance inclusive of everyone considered drag queens to be the preferred representative group. Perhaps French officials gave thought to the near past when drag queens were adult-only entertainment that took place in cabaret-like nightclubs before bursting into prominence as featured performers at events where children are invited to like them and aspire to be like them―library story hours, cartoons such as The Fabulous Show with Fay and Fluffy or Drag Tots, or that lone young girl seated at the opening ceremony’s Last Supper parody table. Perhaps they didn’t think about it at all.

A cadre of more liberal commentators express toward Christians who take offense that religious leaders’ objection to Jesus’ inclusion of people they determined unwelcome is simply now being repeated by today’s religious leaders who object to the drag-queen-dinner presentation. Yes, Jesus was inclusive; always inviting those who attended to follow Him and consistently cautioning the alternative to following Him was self-condemnation to an eternity separated from the experience of true love.

Some say Christianity is an effective target for such mockery because it is toothless in response. Rather than toothless, I prefer to think Christians will not take up weapons in response to offense, heeding Jesus’ words in Gethsemane (Matthew 26:47-53). Christians in democratic societies are positioned to voice displeasure, careful to criticize the offense without condemning the offenders. And Christians in all societies are encouraged to heed Paul’s instruction to the brothers and sisters in Ephesus about spiritual warfare being directed at life’s spiritual realities (Ephesians 6:1-18). Be aware, as C.S. Lewis wrote, “There is no neutral ground in the universe. Every square inch, every split second is claimed by God, and counterclaimed by Satan.”

Jesus was mocked, spit upon, and crucified (Mark 15:16-37). He told His followers to expect persecution, to pray for those who despise them, and to know Christians live in a world that rejects Him and them (Matthew 5:9-12, 43-48; John 15:18-25). As Jesus’ body, Christians are to love their neighbours in the world―including those who mock Jesus and them―and invite those neighbours to follow Him (Matthew 28:19-20). Christians are to live as peacemakers at peace with neighbours, and not to seek revenge for offense or mistreatment (Romans 12).

Christian, take care that the bitter taste from offense, as seems likely was intended by the drag queen Last Supper, does not take root in your spirit lest you become the medium for corrupting the spirit of others (Hebrews 12:15).

The Coming Christ and the golden calf of Christian nationalism

by

7 minute read.

Creation is not to be worshiped; it’s Creator is. Christian nationalism is a political distraction that lures allegiance and worship away from the Creator, seeking to turn a Christian’s eyes away from Jesus and toward a person, political party, or false perception of a nation’s past and future. Christian nationalism is neither Christian nor nationalism.

Some have said Christian nationalism is simply the label applied to Christians participating in politics in a manner with which one disagrees. Using this shotgun approach, Christians who hold differing positions on political issues end up pointing fingers, declaring others to be Christian nationalists. The others meantime may point back with like allegation. Non-Christians proclaim both as wearing the one Christian nationalist tag.

Denigrating an individual or group with this label deflects from bigger concerns.

The disparaging accusation by one Christian against another sows seeds of division within the Body of Christ. Accusation by non-Christian against Christian sows seeds of cultural division along a religious divide. The convenience of the label is a diversion from presenting or listening to a line of reasoning for expressed political opinions and policy positions. It is marginalizing rather than engaging in civil debate.

A perhaps more useable definition of Christian nationalism is the expressed desire of a group to acquire unfettered political control in order to impose allegedly Christian public policy on all residents of a nation.

Notably, by this decidedly more accurate definition it is evident Christian nationalism is not nationalism, i.e. patriotism, because it’s not about loyalty to a country but devotion to the idea that the country should be (re)defined by religion; more specifically, the particular concept of religious belief and practice accepted by the group proposing the country be defined by religion. Think of it as pursuing a “Christian” version of the Islamic Republic of Iran, a political theocracy where a distinct religious perspective has been imposed on the nation; all who disagree are penalized if found out of step, even those who are of the same religion but have a different understanding of the religion’s beliefs and/or practices.

In the North American context, self-defined or others-defined Christian nationalists are inclined to re-imagine or re-interpret history, promoting the mistaken idea Canada and/or the United States were not simply historically influenced by the prevalence of Christianity (in its variety of expressions) but were (are in some aspirations) inseparably Christian in constitution, more specifically the group’s preferred brand of Christianity.

Don’t get me wrong. Christians are eligible and encouraged to engage in the political arena alongside other citizens in the effort to influence public policy and government practices. This is in like fashion to the Jews living as exiles in Babylon who were encouraged to seek the peace and prosperity of the wider community as decreed by God through His prophet in Jeremiah 29:5-7. This aligns with what the apostle Peter wrote in his first letter; Christians live as exiles in the land (1 Peter 1:1), foreigners who now belonging to a new holy nation of people, set apart for God (1 Peter 2:9). The apostle Paul similarly wrote Christians live on earth with primary citizenship in heaven (Philippians 3:20).

In a letter to his protégé Timothy, Paul also wrote Christians are encouraged to intercede in prayer for government―the very government that had imprisoned him―and for people with civic authority that we might live peaceful and quiet lives, and that political leaders would know and follow Jesus (1 Timothy 2:1-4). And in his letter to Christians in Ephesus, Paul reminded of the need to be aware Christians are involved in spiritual battle, not fighting with other people (Ephesians 6:10-18).

Among those prepared to live by God’s command to love their neighbours, treating neighbours as they would like to be treated (Matthew 7:12; 22:39), Canadians and Americans have been blessed to have women and men motivated by Christian faith who serve or have served the public good through political participation.

The Canadian federal election in 2006 was particularly interesting because the leaders of the three main national parties were regular in their church attendance, self-identifying as Christians. Paul Martin was the sitting Liberal prime minister going into the election, a devout Roman Catholic. Jack Layton, leader of the New Democratic Party, was a lifelong member of the United Church of Canada and periodically also attended Metropolitan Community Church. Stephen Harper, a member of the Christian and Missionary Alliance Church, led the Conservative Party which would form government after the election.

If the mere mention of one or more of these names, or associating them here as Christian, caused you to cringe disdainfully or to nod selectively it may be that your personal definitions of Christianity and good public policy align with one expression of Christianity and/or politics without making allowance for the legitimacy of other expressions.

The differing manifestations of groups that self-identify or are others-identified as Christian nationalists are similarly limited in their Christian and political orientation to one sectarian conceptualization of Christianity and one perspective on public policy, neither wholly Christian nor inclusively nationalist.

Using political control to impose religious perspective and policy has not worked well historically.

In his book In the Name of Jesus, Dutch Catholic priest, theologian, and author Henri Nouwen summarizes at page 76,

One of the greatest ironies of the history of Christianity is that its leaders constantly gave in to the temptation of power—political power, military power, economic power, or moral and spiritual power—even though they continued to speak in the name of Jesus, who did not cling to his divine power but emptied himself and became as we are. The temptation to consider power an apt instrument for the proclamation of the Gospel is the greatest of all.

Jesus declined the opportunity to use His authority to take political control (John 6:15; 18:36) and cautioned His disciples that the use of physical force was not His way (Matthew 5:5-9; 26:51-53). Instead, Jesus instructed followers to be as salt among their neighbours, seasoning with love and grace (Matthew 5:13; 22:39), and as light in the world (Matthew 5:14-16), a source of moral clarity and biblical illumination.

The only nation commanded in Scripture to adhere to a God-delivered list of policies and practices was the ancient nation of Israel, including the command to welcome those from other nations to live with them (Leviticus 19:33-34).

In time, the determination of the Israelites to have their own political ambitions satisfied, including the desire for a human king like other nations rather than be led by the unseen God and His chosen prophets, resulted in centuries of subjugation by foreign powers. The conquerors often made the effort to impose religious perspective and policy of their own on the Jewish population, even if only asserting limitation on Jewish religious expression.

However, the seeds of the people’s political ambitions were evident long before the nation of Israel demanded for itself a king.

Moses was used by God to deliver the Israelites from slavery after living 400 years in Egypt. When Moses was delayed returning to the Israelite camp from a mountaintop meeting with The Lord even his brother Aaron―who had stood before the Egyptian king as Moses’ companion demanding the release of God’s people―was persuaded to make and bow his knee to a golden calf at the foot of Sinai rather than wait patiently on God’s timing for Moses’ arrival.

The crowd clamoured to submit themselves to the golden calf―a god of human design, a false god igniting their passions―rather than wait on the One God; God who had guided them, shook the mountain of meeting with His near presence, and promised abundant life in the land He had promised and given Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob from which their ancestors had journeyed to Egypt. As a result, God deemed the behaviour and the people “corrupt” (Exodus 32:1-7).

The word still applies.

Those claiming to promote Christian nationalism and those proclaiming observation of Christian nationalism today are referring instead to religious sectarian authoritarianism, a narrow perspective on Christianity in pursuit of absolute political control that makes an idol of civic power and a worship-demanding golden calf of their preferred leader.

The willingness to pursue political power at the sacrifice of following God, and claiming to do so in His name, is a corruption of Jesus’ great commission to the Church that His authority be used to make disciples (Matthew 28:18-20). Jesus did not use His authority to command government but to seek and save the lost (Luke 19:10; John 3:17).

It is encouraged for Christians to participate politically, but beware demands to bow to political parties or demagogues seeking to supplant waiting on the One God. Beware promises to satisfy today’s political passions, even biblical ambitions, if one merely concedes allegiance. This was the temptation to which the Israelites departing Egypt yielded, and the temptation of Satan to which Jesus refused to yield (Matthew 4:8-10).

The time is coming when Jesus will return in person to govern; it is He who will reign, not a proxy (Isaiah 9:6-7; Revelation 17:11-22:5). While we wait, know His kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36) but it does grant a new citizenship to each and all who follow Jesus on earth, with accompanying freedom and accountability. Here, now, today, Christians engage the political arena as foreigners, privileged to be equal participants with others in the nation.

“But I fear that somehow your pure and undivided devotion to Christ will be corrupted, just as Eve was deceived by the cunning ways of the serpent. You happily put up with whatever anyone tells you, even if they preach a different Jesus than the one we preach, or a different kind of Spirit than the one you received, or a different kind of gospel than the one you believed.” ―1 Corinthians 11:3-4 (NLT)

Secularism and the Changing Landscape of Religious Freedom in Canada

by

Edited notes from a presentation to the global Religious Liberty Partnership consultation in Toronto, Canada on 9 April 2024.

Canada has fostered several expressions of secularism. Right or wrong, shortly after his Liberal Party formed government in 2015, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau stated in a New York Times interview, “There is no core identity, no mainstream in Canada.”

Despite our relatively small population of 40 million, Canada’s vast geography has encouraged regional distinctives, as have demographics of age and ethnicity in a nation dependent on immigration for its economy.

Although the Supreme Court of Canada has interpreted “secular” to mean the state is to be neutral in regard to the religion or non-religion of citizens and accommodating of diverse religious beliefs and practices in societal participation, the broader cultural understanding of secularism seems the rejection of religion and religious influence. Canadian secularism further roots itself in uniquely Canadian experiences, including: cultural rejection of American Christian conduct recast as behaviour of the Canadian Church; denunciation of Church influence in a reimagined history; and, condemnation of a now considered oppressive non-Indigenous colonial presence associated with the historic influence of the Church.

The American Influence―Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, father of our current prime minister, said in a 1969 visit to Washington, D.C., “Living next to you is in some ways like sleeping with an elephant. No matter how friendly and even-tempered is the beast… one is affected by every twitch and grunt.” The effects of American media, politics, and purportedly Christian behaviour are continuing factors in Canadians’ understanding of ourselves as well as perceptions and treatment of Christians in Canada.

Reimagining History―Contemporary imaginations of Canadians have been captured by a variety of pseudo-nostalgic desires that reframe or redefine Canada’s history or evoke a past that never was.

Despite surrender of New France to Britain in 1760, Quebec remains what has been called a distinct society within Canada. Under the slogan maîtres chez nous―masters in our own house―Quebec’s political Quiet Revolution of the 1960s set a path toward greater provincial independence within the confederation. Quebec’s government moved aggressively away from longstanding political influence of the Roman Catholic Church, established diplomatic ties with secularist France, and set the course which would lead to political divide between sovereigntists seeking independence from Canada and nationalist federalists promoting a distinct society within Canada.

Regardless of more than two centuries of dissimilar cultural development, one recent offshoot of a reimagined Quebec-France relationship, with distinctly Québécois manifestation, is 2019’s Bill 21, An act respecting the laicity of the state. Bill 21 legislates a form of laïcité that prohibits wearing of religious symbols by people employed by government―such as teachers, police officers, and judges―as well as people attending to receive government services.

Recognizing Bill 21 violates constitutionally protected freedom of religion, it was enacted using the notwithstanding provisions of both the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Quebec’s Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms to evade scrutiny by the courts where it is nonetheless currently being challenged, along with political and public protest.

Equality for the Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual communities in Canada also progressed beginning in the 1960s. Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau decriminalized homosexual acts in 1969. In 1995, the Supreme Court of Canada decided the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides equal protection from discrimination based on sexual orientation, a ground not explicitly stated in the constitution. In 2005, Parliament legalized same-sex marriage. In 2019, Parliament lowered the age of consent to sodomy from 18 to 16 years.

Recent widespread acceptance of transgender orientation has resulted in amending human rights legislation to extend protections beyond “sexual orientation” to provisions for “gender identity” and “gender expression.” In 2022, Parliament criminalized “conversion therapy,” essentially making it illegal to counsel an adult or child seeking advice about gender questions that conformity with their chromosome-determined sex at birth is the preferred option.

LGBT politics have resulted in changes to education curriculum and debate about gender pronouns―he, she, they, zir and more. In Ontario, a Catholic student was suspended by his Catholic school and the Catholic school board for stating in a classroom discussion that there are only two genders, male and female. Governments in New Brunswick, Saskatchewan, and Alberta face or are threatened with legal action to challenge provincial regulations requiring parental approval if a child under 16 wishes to identify in school by another gender or seek gender affirming medical intervention.

LGBT politics have also influenced theological opinions, causing division within the Church.

Colonialism―Indian residential schools in Canada were a nationwide network of federal government funded boarding schools for Indigenous children, most operated by Christian churches. These mandatory attendance schools were to prepare Indigenous children for integration into Canadian society. The first school opened prior to Canada becoming a country. The last school closed in 1997.

A 2005 agreement between Prime Minister Paul Martin’s government and former residential school students settled tens of thousands of abuse claims. In addition to financial compensation, in 2008 Prime Minister Stephen Harper issued an official apology on behalf of the Government of Canada―supplementing apologies made by the Roman Catholic, Anglican, Presbyterian, and United churches in the 1980s and 90s. Per the agreement, Mr. Harper’s government also launched the Indigenous led Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC).

The final report of the TRC was delivered to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in December 2015. The report concluded the purpose of the residential school system was cultural genocide, a finding which Prime Minister Trudeau accepted and has repeated.

In May 2021, Chief Rosanne Casimir of the Tk’emlups te Secwépemc First Nation announced ground penetrating radar had identified 215 anomalies on the property of the former Catholic run Kamloops Residential School in British Columbia, potential grave sites. The initial 500-word Canadian Press article proclaimed 215 children’s bodies had been found in a mass grave, shaping media coverage and Canadians’ perspective. Within days, a church building was vandalized. Within weeks, two dozen churches had been vandalized or burned down. The number is now over 100. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau stated burning churches was “unacceptable and wrong,” adding it was “understandable” because of the trauma and anger.

The Church―With the Church cast frequently in the role of villain, both historic and contemporary, what does it mean for life as a Christian in Canada?

The best advice I offer the Church is to be the Church. The Bible instructs Christians to live life, individually and in community, following the teaching and person of Jesus; loving God, loving one another, and loving neighbours.

Canada’s constitution and decisions of its Supreme Court recognize the freedom of the Church to persist in our sincerely held beliefs and the practices connected with those beliefs.

It is a danger to the Church when we respond to cultural pressure with fear. Fear tends to drive in one of two directions. Christians may treat religious beliefs and practices as private, creating for ourselves a sense of embarrassment that we, like Peter in Pontius Pilate’s courtyard, are stepping away from following Jesus. Or, Christians may become defensive, fighting against a sense of being victimized, and embracing a reimagined history of our own―a Christian nation that never was. The fight-back response tends to be outspoken and aggressive; behaviour that in turn motivates a fear of Christianity in neighbours and the state, creating a kind of doom loop.

Instead, Christians in Canada are encouraged to take the opportunity that continues to be ours to participate and advocate in the public arena as equal citizens, as happened in some recent challenges, such as: a federal requirement to declare not to oppose abortion in order to receive funding otherwise available to businesses and charities; and, inconsistent treatment of churches under Covid-19 health guidelines. These situations stimulated groups of Christians who peacefully confronted government as well as Christians who had conversation with government. A current challenge is federal Bill C-63, the Online Harms Act, which would establish a mechanism to prosecute historic, then acceptable, statements which have become culturally unacceptable because of societal transition in attitudes. C-63 also creates criminal sanctions for potentially harmful comments not yet made that police and the courts are apprehensive might be made in the future. Biblical principles out of step with cultural opinions might be a prime target for such Orwellian government action.

Neither confrontation nor conversation has been effective in efforts to have Christian principles and practices about human life respected societally or merely for Christians and Christian institutions, most recently in regard to government imposition of medical assistance in dying (physician administered death) protocols in Christian senior citizen’s residences and a Christian palliative care hospice in British Columbia; a reminder that government funding comes with strings attached.

We participate as equal citizens but must not consign our faith to politicians or government.

Neither do we put our faith in the courts, but Christians do participate and advocate as equal citizens there as well, despite setbacks such as the 2018 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada which invented a new constitutional concept to prevent a Christian university from opening a law school, raising questions about cultural influence on Canada’s independent judiciary.

Thanks to Christian Legal Fellowship and others, Canada is experiencing an increasing number of legal academics and lawyers willing to take on the cultural and courtroom battles involved in sustaining what remains a contested but robust freedom of religion.

Comments on the Israel/Gaza motion passed by Canada’s House of Commons

by

Following are first impression summary comments on the Opposition Motion (Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona) pertaining to Israel and Gaza (as amended) passed by a vote of 204-117 on March 18, 2024, opposed by Conservative Members of Parliament (MP) and three Liberal MPs.

My comments will be made in italics, interspersed with the text of the motion.

Although opposition motions are non-binding, the amendments to the NDP motion were introduced by the governing Liberal Party and passed with support of the government party, giving indication of the Trudeau Government’s support for its content and necessarily change to Canada’s foreign policy position in regard to Israel.

Opposition Motion (as amended):

Canada’s actions to promote peace in the Middle East

That, given that,

(i) the situation in the Middle East is devastating to many Canadians, particularly those with friends and family members in the region,

(ii) the death toll in Gaza has surpassed 30,000, with 70% of the victims being women and children,

This statistic is provided by the Gaza Ministry of Health (i.e. Hamas) and has been repeated without verification by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), by some humanitarian aid agencies (notably the Hamas controlled Palestinian/Gazan branch of Save The Children), and by media. Hamas does not distinguish between civilian and combatant deaths in its reported numbers. Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) records of deceased Hamas combatants suggest combatant deaths at approximately 11,000 as of March 15, 2024. International analysts of urban warfare suggest even the Hamas reported numbers are exceedingly low for urban warfare, particularly for as densely populated a small geographic region as Gaza, crediting the IDF with taking exceptional care to protect civilians while taking action against military targets. Population of the Gaza strip is estimated to be 2.2 million people within 365 square kilometres (141 square miles).

(iii) Hamas is a listed terrorist organization in Canada whose attacks on October 7, 2023, killed nearly 1,200 Israelis and that over 100 hostages remain in Hamas captivity,

(iv) 1.7 million of residents of Gaza are displaced and at risk of starvation, death, and disease, and Gaza is currently the most dangerous place in the world to be a child,

Israel disputes the lack of humanitarian aid as records indicate sufficient food and water entering the Gaza strip. Gazans have reported Hamas officials seizing food intended for distribution, with humanitarian aid supplies available for purchase from Hamas authorized sellers. Humanitarian supplies marked UNRWA have been found housed in Hamas facilities discovered by the IDF.

(v) the United Nations reports over 70 per cent of civilian infrastructure in Gaza, including homes, hospitals, schools, water and sanitation facilities, have been destroyed or severely damaged by Israeli military attacks,

Hamas integrated its military infrastructure into civilian infrastructure, including storage of weapons and ammunition in hospitals, schools, mosques, and private homes. Hamas has also built an estimated 560 to 720 kilometres (350 to 450 miles) of tunnels throughout Gaza which are connected to medical facilities, schools, mosques, and private homes. By comparison, the City of London is geographically 4 times larger than Gaza and has 400 kilometres (250 miles) of tunnels for its Underground (subway system).

(vi) on January 26, 2024, the International Court of Justice ordered six provisional measures, including for Israel to refrain from acts under the Genocide convention, prevent and punish the direct and public incitement to genocide, and take immediate and effective measures to ensure the provision of humanitarian assistance to civilians in Gaza,

This provisional ruling of the International Court of Justice was in response to allegations of genocide made by South Africa. There is no finding or indication that Israel is involved in committing genocide in Gaza. The IDF is perhaps the most scrutinized military force on the planet, maintains meticulous records of its activity, publicly notifies about disciplinary action, and Israel has filed a request to dismiss the claim.

(vii) all states, including Israel have a right to defend themselves and in defending itself, Israel must respect international humanitarian law and the price of defeating Hamas cannot be the continuous suffering of all Palestinian civilians,

In defending itself, Israel is required to adhere to the Geneva Conventions and the Convention on Genocide.

(viii) Israelis are still at risk of attacks by Iran-backed terrorist groups including Hamas and Hezbollah,

(ix) the increase in extremist settler violence against Palestinians and reports of Palestinian communities being forcibly removed from their lands in the West Bank,

(x) the casualties of the war on Gaza and the Hamas terrorist attack include Canadian citizens,

This statement sets up a moral equivalency between the State of Israel legitimately defending itself under international law and Hamas, a listed terrorist entity under Canadian law.

(xi) Canadian citizens remain trapped in Gaza, blocked from leaving,

Canadian citizens have been restricted from leaving Gaza by the governments of Gaza (Hamas) and Egypt.

(xii) Jewish, Muslim, Arab, and Palestinian Canadians have reported an increase in hate-motivated attacks and racism since October,

Incidents of antisemitism have more than doubled, including vandalism and shooting at synagogues, private Jewish schools, and private residences. Pro-Palestinian demonstrations have targeted Jewish owned businesses, stores that sell Israeli products, Jewish hospitals in Toronto and Montreal, Jewish neighbourhoods and main intersections accessing Jewish neighbourhoods in several Canadian cities.

(xiii) Palestinians and Israelis both deserve to live in peace, with full enjoyment of their human rights and democratic freedoms,

the House call on the government to:

(a) demand an immediate ceasefire, the release of all hostages, and Hamas must lay down its arms;

(b) cease the further authorization and transfer of arms exports to Israel to ensure compliance with Canada’s arms export regime and increase efforts to stop the illegal trade of arms, including to Hamas;

Although the Canadian government had already paused lethal and non-lethal military-related exports to Israel in January, on March 19 Foreign Affairs Minister Melanie Jolie announced stopping the transfer of military-related exports to Israel. Israel is the only democratic nation in the Middle East. It is in the middle of a war that was initiated by Hamas and is now under attack from Hezbollah (also a listed terrorist entity under Canadian law) from the north as well. Canada does not sell arms to Hamas.

(c) ensure continued funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) to meet the dire humanitarian need, engage with the United Nations internal investigation and independent review process, and ensure implementation of necessary long-term governance reforms and accountability measures;

UNRWA has been shown to have been demonstrably infiltrated by Hamas operatives and relatives of Hamas combatants, has permitted Hamas to construct military facilities adjacent to, underneath, and within UNRWA buildings, as well as to have provided support and supplies to Hamas. Hamas facilities have been directly and noticeably wired into the electricity panels of UNRWA buildings. UNRWA operated schools teach genocidal antisemitism and Israel-eliminating anti-Zionism, over 3,000 teachers celebrating the October 7 massacre in a group chat.

(d) support the prosecution of all crimes and violations of international law committed in the region;

(e) support the work of the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court;

(f) demand unimpeded humanitarian access to Gaza;

Israel and Egypt have the right under international law to control their borders with Gaza.

(g) ensure Canadians trapped in Gaza can reach safety in Canada and expand access to the temporary resident visa program;

(h) sanction extremist settlers and maintain sanctions on Hamas leaders;

Extremist settlers are not listed terrorists in Canada. Foreign Affairs Minister Jolie announced in February that the Government of Canada would be sanctioning extremist settlers.

Hamas is a listed terrorist entity, the leaders of which should already be sanctioned under Canadian law. Minister Jolie announced in February that the Government of Canada would be sanctioning Hamas leaders.

(i) reaffirm that settlements are illegal under international law and that settlements and settler violence are serious obstacles to a negotiated two-state solution, and advocate for an end to the decades long occupation of Palestinian territories; and

Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005, re-entering in 2008 in an effort to stop rocket fire into Israel (Iron Dome defence system operational 2011) and again after the Hamas massacre of Israeli citizens on October 7, 2023. Egypt has strict border measures in place for Gaza with one border crossing. The first Israeli fence was put up in the 1970s as a matter of border control, and supplemented with a wall in 1994 as agreed in the Oslo Accords agreed between the Government of Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization. There are two border crossings between Israel and Gaza. An emergency crossing for additional humanitarian aid was opened March 12, 2024.

The West Bank security barrier, wall and fence, was built starting in 1994 and completed in 2006 with supplementary security measures put in place at various sections of the barrier since then. This action was taken following years of terrorist activities in Israel that originated from the West Bank. In 2003 the United Nations passed a general resolution requesting Israel stop building or remove portions of the barrier and sought the opinion of the International Court of Justice. In 2004 the International Court of Justice issued a non-binding advisory opinion that sections of the barrier were in violation of international law. Israel has said the portions of the barrier in question cannot be constructed along official boundary delineations because of land topography.

The Palestinian territories are not an independent state. Egypt has declined to accept responsibility for Gaza. Jordan has declined to accept responsibility for the West Bank.

(j) work with international partners to actively pursue the goal of a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East, including towards the establishment of the State of Palestine as part of a negotiated two-state solution, and maintain Canada’s position that Israel has a right to exist in peace and security with its neighbours.

The original wording of the motion would have requested Canada independently and unilaterally recognize a State of Palestine. The amended wording is closer to the historic Canadian position that Canada recognize a State of Palestine when the State of Israel does, following a bilateral peace agreement between the two. This wording suggests Canada might recognize a State of Palestine as part of negotiations, prior to a bilateral peace agreement, a position on which the Foreign Affairs Minister and Prime Minister have declined to comment.

The original motion was heavily criticized. The amended motion remains criticized for its undue attention to actions required of Israel and its treatment of the government of Israel and the government of Gaza (Hamas) as moral equivalents when Israel’s is a democratically elected government and Gaza’s is a listed terrorist entity that imposed itself by violence and exists for the purpose of destroying Israel and killing Jews.

 

Some trust in chariots, status, and celebrity

by

 

5 minute read.

“I’m from the government and I’m here to help.” These are the nine most terrifying words in the English language according then U.S. President Ronald Reagan in an August 1986 speech. Yet, a large swath of the Church in North America routinely joins the general public looking to politicians and governments for solutions to life’s problems. Not infrequently, the politicians and governments solicited for solutions caused the problems in the first place.

For example, in Canada we have a multi-layered housing crisis. The immigration minister blames his predecessor for having rapidly increased immigration from 323,000 in 2015 to 470,000 in 2023, as well as increasing international student visas from 350,000 in 2015 to 900,000 in 2023. The previous immigration minister is now housing minister. He also cited rapid increases in immigration as a key contributor to the crisis but depicts the burgeoning homelessness predicament as a “generational moral failure” of all Canadians. Meanwhile, colleges and universities in Ontario threaten to reduce programs or close entirely if international student numbers are reduced. Post-secondary schools have become dependant on foreign student tuition premiums. They lobbied the federal government to escalate student visa numbers after Ontario’s government froze tuition fees for domestic students at 2019 levels. Searching for solutions, eyes turn to the same politicians and the same governments whose actions yesterday produced the problems of today.

There is nothing wrong with lobbying government. For the Church, advocacy ought not to replace living out the principles of trusting God and loving neighbours but apply them.

For example, it took decades of advocacy over successive federal governments to raise the age of consent for sexual activity with an adult from 14 to 16 years of age in 2008, providing protection for Canadian minors and aligning with the lowest age in U.S. state legislation (which ranges from 16 to 21). Similar to efforts by The Salvation Army’s Bramwell and Florence Booth working alongside feminist activist Josephine Butler to raise the age of consent in England from 13 to 16 in 1885, the Canadian endeavour comprised a diverse group of activists and Christian ministries, including The Salvation Army, working in the streets and on Parliament Hill for the good of young neighbours.

While some things are the purview of government, peril is manifest when government is considered to possess solutions for all (or almost all) problems, abandoning perhaps better suited private initiatives and interventions.

Caring for the impoverished was at one time accepted by Church and government as church work, charitable undertakings the population came to expect from those motivated by love for God and neighbours.

At the birth of the Church, Christianity was considered a sect of Judaism before it was proscribed by Jewish religious leaders as well as by the Roman government. Christianity was prohibited. But permitted was leaving unwanted infants by the side of the road to die. Particularly unwelcome were girls and babies with visible defects. Christians valued (and value) all life as being created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27). Early Christians did not lobby government for change. They set about to rescue as many of the children as they found alive, accepting lifelong responsibility just as they did for brothers and sisters, widows and orphans within the Church.

In later centuries the Church established orphanages, adoption agencies, homes for unwed mothers, hospitals, alcohol and addiction recovery homes, schools (from Sunday schools to universities), inner city missions for those living homeless, halfway houses for men and women released from prison, food banks, and more. No government funding was sought or provided. As societal trust shifted from God to government many of these humanitarian services were subsumed by government, either directly, by taking operational control, or indirectly, through regulation and structured funding.

The Church was adept at finding and filling social gaps that required compassionate response. To some degree it still is. For example, there are still inner-city missions wholly funded by the Church, as well as used furniture banks and transitional housing for refugees and new immigrants, and more.

Gradually, however, the Church fell into the societal snare of depending on government, the collector and spender of taxpayer dollars, to deliver or fund charitable humanitarian services once provided as a natural extension of following Jesus whose ministry of compassion received no support from governing authorities―preaching the Gospel, healing the sick and troubled, feeding the hungry, and generally caring for his neighbours.

Politicians and governments have come to be regarded as having solutions to increasing numbers of life’s problems, even by the Church.

Relying on Jesus, whose words and actions previously motivated Christian response to societal challenges as practical demonstration of love for neighbours, has given way to political substitutes. The call to pray for governing authorities has been swapped out for competition to become those governing authorities. Ever so subtly, a quest for political power overwhelmed the command to serve (and to finance that service) as an expression of love. For many it seems compassion has been replaced by campaigning, and sincere relationship with Christ by fawning over a preferred candidate.

As in first century Judea, there are many asserting themselves as would-be messiahs. Media stars and social media personalities. Activists and politicians. Professing to have the answers. Declaring to be the one who can deliver. One-by-one each stake their claim, the charismatic capturing allegiance by charming souls.

Propaganda and gossip have long played a part in political success. Today’s era of social media memes, bots, AI deep fakes, and internet influencers has heightened exposure to misinformation, disinformation, and cult-like indoctrination; propaganda, rumours, and self-aggrandizing pseudo-messiahs abound. Verification, confirmation, common sense and responsible biblical comprehension are neglected in the virtual ecosystem of click-to-share in a world of self-styled saviours whose devotees unhesitatingly and unquestioningly parade (and click) in lockstep at the leader’s heels.

But there is only one who was born Abraham’s descendant, David’s heir, and Mary’s son, fulfilling the ancient prophecies. He died sinless on a cross, and on the third day was resurrected. He is the only one who did not misinform or disinform, the only one who delivered fully on his word without doing so to serve himself or his ego. His Church does well to heed his Word, study it, and give it pre-eminence over other sources of information. It is reliable. Its truth has been verified by countless lives and confirmed over two millennia. Irenaeus of Smyrna, Bishop of Lyons, advised in the second century, “We must spare no effort to look after our faith, in order that we may have a true understanding of reality.”

Where we place our trust is a strong indicator of where begins our understanding of reality. Where (in whom) are we placing our trust?

David was the God-following king who once led the only nation in history ever instructed by God to govern based on Biblical precepts. He offered this timeless advice to God-followers: Some trust in chariots and some in horses, but we trust in the name of the LORD our God (Psalm 20:7).

Let us not be given to chasing after new messiahs―with their chariots and horses, their status and celebrity―when we know the only One authenticated as Messiah.

Ask questions. Verify information. Confirm the origins of statements before believing them, before sharing them. Don’t simply put your trust in princes, human beings who cannot save (Psalm 146:3).

Amidst the political and general tumult of this world, we ought also to pause and pray for God’s guidance. Here’s a simple prayer gifted to us by the late Reinhold Niebuhr, “God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom to know the difference.” We could all benefit from some serenity, courage, and wisdom about now. And a little loving kindness for our neighbours wouldn’t hurt.