Leadership – Page 11

Don’t Wanna Be a Christian Covidiot

March 23, 2020 by Don Hutchinson

“What a difference a day makes, twenty-four little hours, brought the sun and the flowers, where there used to be rain,” or snow in the more recent context of the Great White North. I remember my Dad playing that 1959 Grammy winner sung by Dinah Washington. Use simple math to multiply that difference-making day by a week and we have the alarm encountered by hundreds of thousands of Canadians crossing the border to return home from March Break, or a snowbird winter, when informed at the border they are to go home, go directly home, and stay home.

Over the last week Canadians have been witnesses to the rise of a new statistical interest, a fresh constitutional question, and the coining of a new word, “covidiot.”

Covidiot. The first time I heard the word two other songs came immediately to mind. The first, Green Day’s 2004 hit American Idiot declares, “Don’t wanna be an American idiot.” The second, Weird Al Yankovich’s 2006 parody hit Canadian Idiot, which similarly asserts, “Don’t wanna be a Canadian idiot.”

The word covidiot stems from the behaviour of Americans and Canadians on the beaches of Florida after a “stay home” and “keep physical distance when in public” plea was made by government and medical authorities. Similar behaviour was repeated this recent warm and sunny weekend in Vancouver, and in Toronto with the release of a new video game.

Across the country federal and provincial leaders have requested, or ordered under authority of legal enforcement, that gatherings be constrained to below a selected number – starting at 250 and working down to fifty, twenty, ten, then five, all with minimal spacing of two metres between participants.

Many Christian leaders have adapted to this request by moving Sunday services and weekday gatherings (whether church, bible school, college or university) online, by holding parking lot or drive-through communion, setting up social media communication formats, and inviting congregants to support food banks and check-in on neighbours’ needs.

Other Christian leaders have defiantly stated they will not forsake the assembling together (Hebrews 10:25) of their flocks in person, stating they must obey God, rather than men (Acts 5:29).

Some Christian leaders are simply uncertain what to do in uncertain times.

And, that’s why I’m writing this. Some Christian leaders asked me for advice. Most particularly, they want to know whether the government can compromise our rights to freedom of religion (Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2(a)) and freedom of peaceful assembly (section 2 (c)).

The short answer is, “yes, the government can compromise those rights.” You will find more detail in my book Under Siege: Religious Freedom and the Church in Canada at 150 (1867–2017), but the key to that “yes” is found in section 1 of the Charter which reads, “The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”

I suspect few Canadians or Canadian judges would disagree that the circumstances of Covid-19’s rapid spread demonstrably justify government taking legal action to constrain peaceful assembly for the purpose of public safety, provided the law is equally applied by the government making it, i.e. there are not exceptions for either non-religious groups or religious groups.

On the matter of freedom of religion, there is no constraint against finding alternative ways to engage and share religious beliefs and practices, which, as noted above, many churches have done.

The statistics supporting the government’s claim for reasonable limits on peaceful assembly are staggering, and staggeringly simple to understand.

According to the World Health Organization and the U.S. Centres for Disease Control, the average person who gets the flu will infect 1.3 other people. Take this out to ten generations (1 x 1.3 x 1.3 x 1.3 x 1.3 x 1.3 x 1.3 x 1.3 x 1.3 x 1.3)* and that person will spread the flu to 14 people. The incubation period for the flu is one to four days, so you might infect people before experiencing symptoms yourself. The hospitalization rate for flu is 2% of those infected. This is statistically the number taken into account in the design of hospital intensive care units – about twenty people in every one thousand, spaced out over a period of five to six months. The death rate is under 0.1%.

The W.H.O. and CDC have identified the statistical average infection rate for Covid-19 as 2 to 2.5 people. So the ten generation infection rate is (1 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2)* 1,024 to (1 x 2.5 x 2.5 x 2.5 x 2.5 x 2.5 x 2.5 x 2.5 x 2.5 x 2.5)* 9,537. That’s a significant range, and a dramatic difference from the flu. The incubation period for Covid-19 is one to fourteen days, so you might infect people for up to two weeks before experiencing symptoms yourself, hence the significant range in ten generation infection rates. The hospitalization rate for Covid-19 is 19% – that’s 195 to 1,812 all in a matter of weeks if everyone were to go about our lives as normal (as we pretty much do with the flu). This is an influx for which the Canadian medical system is unprepared – as were China’s and Italy’s. Hence the requests and orders to stay at home and observe spacial distancing. The mortality rate for Covid-19? 1% to 3.4%, dependent on medical intervention when required. You do the math.

There is a vaccine for the flu. None yet exists for Covid-19.

In addition to the broad numbers above, there are risks based on demographics. Let me break it down based on one household, my own. In a matter of weeks I will move from one demographic category to a higher risk demographic when I turn 60. Males are already experiencing a higher mortality rate per capita from Covid-19 than females. My wife is already in the higher age risk demographic, suffered kidney failure three years ago and has had more than one issue with lung weakness (e.g. pleurisy and other bronchial ailments) putting her in one of the highest risk categories for women. Our daughter, in her thirties, is in a higher risk category because she smokes. Our grandson has a compromised immune system.

Now, think of how many people you know who are over sixty. Seventy. Eighty. How many you know who smoke? How many may have compromised immune systems evidenced by asthma, allergies, past illnesses, multiple sclerosis, cancer… the list goes on.

Governments in Canada are not trying to stop the sharing of the Gospel. They’re trying to stop the sharing of Covid-19.

Jesus left us with three great commandments. Love the Lord our God with all our heart, mind, soul and strength (Matthew 22:37-40; Mark 12:29-31; Luke 10:27). Love one another, and by this the world will know we are his disciples (John 13:34-35; 15:12, 17). And, love our neighbours as we love ourselves (Matthew 22:37-40; Mark 12:29-31; Luke 10:27). I explore how disciples might effectively live out these three concepts of love in my book Church in Society: First-Century Citizenship Lessons for Twenty-First-Century Christians, but here are a few thoughts for today.

Based on all of the above, here are two questions to ask in regard to gathering in a time when gathering is restricted. Is the Gospel being constrained by not gathering? Is it loving toward other disciples or toward our neighbours to gather?

Is this a time for Acts 5:29 defiance, like Peter and those with him in Jerusalem who were commanded by religious leaders to stop sharing the good news about Jesus Christ, or a time to heed the advice of Jesus and the apostles Paul and Peter concerning government?

Jesus told his followers to render unto Caesar (the government of Jesus’ day) the things that belong to Caesar (say, the government of our day), but not to give government the things that belong to God (Matthew 22:21; Mark 12:17).

The apostle Paul expressed, “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. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad.” (Romans 13:1-3, ESV)

And the apostle Peter stated, “Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people… Honour everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the emperor.” (2 Peter 3:13-15, 17 ESV)

Rather than gather, this is a time to heed Paul’s advice to his protégé, Timothy:

First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. (1 Timothy 2:1-2 ESV)

Pray for political and medical leaders who have accepted responsibility for all Canadians, including you and me. And, accept responsibility for yourself.

I don’t wanna be a Christian covidiot. I hope you don’t either.

*The math has been corrected. A friend pointed out that my first set of numbers did not include the 1 originating person with the flu or Covid-19.

Beware the Ides of March – #COVID–19

March 16, 2020 by Don Hutchinson

One evening in March 44 B.C., Julius Caesar, Emperor of the Roman Empire, held a gathering of friends in his home. Somehow, the topic of conversation turned to one’s preferred way to die. Caesar stated his hope that death would be sudden.

The next morning, Julius’ wife tried to persuade him to stay home as, after the macabre discussion of the night before, she had dreamed she saw him covered in blood. Caesar’s close friend Brutus arrived for the walk to the Senate chamber and persuaded Julius instead of the importance in the day’s agenda. On March 15, the Ides of March, the two walked in conversation to the morning meeting, one from which Caesar would not survive ambush and assassination by a group of national leaders, including Brutus.

Beware the Ides of March.

On the evening of March 15, 2020 Prime Minister Justin Trudeau met with his cabinet. Following the meeting, he did not emerge through the door into the darkness where media representatives were waiting – although, by all accounts he fared better in the meeting than had Caesar. Instead of the Prime Minister or Deputy Prime Minister, six cabinet ministers – three men and three women, representative of Trudeau’s gender-balanced cabinet – would meet the press.

COVID-19, the novel coronavirus, was the known agenda of the rare Sunday cabinet meeting and the topic on everyone’s minds.

Having just met with the Prime Minister, whose wife tested positive and who himself had not been tested, the six emerged in a cluster. No social distancing modeled here. One is optimistic they were as good a distance from Mr. Trudeau in the meeting as he had maintained with media earlier in the day. No one actually knows whether he has been infected, only that he is not showing observable symptoms – not uncommon according to reports from pandemic specialists.

Questioned by the media, two cabinet ministers, one male and one female, would alternate answers.

The description above of the cabinet presentation is referred to in the communications world as signalling. In the instance of signalling good things, such as cabinet solidarity and gender balance, it’s virtue signalling from which a virtuous message is awaited, or else it is imagery without substance.

Anticipated virtuous substance from the virtue signalling is tied to an ancient concept adopted by the early Church leaders, formalized in the Roman Catholic Church as seven virtues that stand in contrast to seven sins. The four cardinal virtues were recognized long before the Church, at least as early as Plato in classical antiquity. They are: prudence (common sense), fortitude (courage), temperance (self-control), and justice (fairness). These are complemented by three theological virtues: faith, hope, and charity (love, lovingkindness). These stand opposed to the seven deadly sins of pride, envy, greed (food, money, status, power), anger, sloth (indifference, laziness), gluttony (over-indulgence of anything), and lust.

Would virtuous messaging suitably accompany the visual signal presented? The cluster of cabinet members imaged that all was well. They were close together, even cheerful. They were gender balanced. They spoke one message with two voices, boy-girl-boy-girl style.

Asked about the lack of screening for international travelers arriving by air, the Justice Minister noted they had assurance from the Minister of Public Safety appropriate screening was taking place, then he shifted to stating he would not argue with the facts on the ground but Canadians should be assured the process was beginning.

The Minister of Public Safety attended the meeting, but was not presented to media. Neither presented were the Minister of Health or the Minister of Transportation. Left unaddressed by the cabinet cluster was the action taken by the Premiers of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Alberta and the Mayor of Montreal to have their own representatives at international arrivals gates (after customs and luggage pickup) to inform travellers of the need to self-isolate for fourteen days.

At this point the Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages interrupted to note Canadians main priority was to be assured by government that we are safe, the main priority of the government as well. Accordingly, she said, tomorrow we will hear an important announcement.

Tomorrow? The cabinet met. The ministers sent out to address the public are not directly responsible for the file. An important decision has been made, but Canadians won’t find out until the next day. No time was given. (Although Monday morning it was announced as 1:00 p.m., after the noon news cycle in eastern Canada.) No indication as to who will make the announcement. (Although, it might likely be narrowed down to one or more of the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, ministers responsible for the file or the Chief Public Health Officer of Canada, Dr. Theresa Tam, none of whom were present at the Sunday evening media scrum.)

In response to the question about delay in announcement, the Minister of Justice noted cabinet had been working on this since December and numbers are excellent, with an acceptable infection and death rate, so the strategy thus far is working. Acceptable to who? He followed up in French to note that this is being revisited on a day-to-day basis and Canadians should be confident the government is taking all necessary measures.

Messaging for this brief scrum had obviously been developed. It did not match the signalling.

They either knew and did not share or were unaware that a Canada Border Services agent at Toronto Pearson Airport tested positive, information reported by the media shortly after the cabinet cluster scrum. The media report noted that the CBSA’s union had repeatedly requested improved measures to protect agents and for screening of travellers. Although other employees were notified, there has been no indication of timeline or location to advise travellers of the potential risk.

The seven infected in one Calgary gathering reinforces that airport screening has been inadequate, as do the anecdotal stories and photographs emerging on social media from customs containment areas in airports across the country. And the community exposure due to lack of airport screening explained why premiers and a mayor sent their own people to international airports.

The Sunday evening scrum messaging did not hold out hope toward Canadians, but suspense in the wait until tomorrow message. Conveying an “I know something you don’t know” attitude evident in the answers and the facial expressions of cabinet ministers demonstrated neither temperance (self-control) nor justice (fairness) while they encouraged Canadians to trust the government.

The suggestion that cabinet has been working on this for three-and-a-half months, but doesn’t have basic airport screening or protective measures in place suggests some prudence (common sense) is needed. Charity was absent in the expressed lack of concern that each of the “excellent” “numbers” of infected and dead is a Canadian, a person, with family and friends.

Canadians, meanwhile, are asked to demonstrate fortitude (courage), practice social distancing, and have confidence that our federal government can be trusted, at least until that tomorrow announcement is made, or the next one.

Those who have heard me speak on crisis communications, and those who have availed themselves of my advice in a crisis, will recognize this Sunday evening cluster scrum as a video to be viewed in the context of how to communicate poorly.

Beware the Ides of March.

You will also note the Monday timing is an example of not addressing Canada’s several time zones in a manner that demonstrates justice (fairness) to Canadians and to media. All noon hour news requirements would be met with an 11:00 a.m. press conference (catching Newfoundland at 12:30 and B.C. at 8:00 during the early morning broadcast). Four in the afternoon would capture every six o’clock news broadcast in the country. Of course, in the age of social media, most will know within seconds what is being said.

It would have been virtuous for one person to have shared the simple message, “Cabinet has had a significant meeting and the Prime Minister will address the nation tomorrow at 1:00 p.m. eastern time.” And potentially add whether there would be opportunity for questions following the address.

If you are not already praying for our Prime Minister, his cabinet, and the federal government’s response to this crisis, I suggest you exercise the virtue of faith and start. While you’re on your knees, say one for the people of Canada as well.

“Did you know there’s an election coming?” – Christian preparation to participate in the process of electing a government

September 29, 2019 by Don Hutchinson

Message delivered Sunday, September 29, 2019 at St. Andrew’s Christian Church, Rockland, ON – 10 minute read

Old Testament reading: Jeremiah 29:4-7

New Testament reading: 2 Corinthians 5:16-21

Gospel: Mark 4:1-8

It seems I have been participating in the political arena off and on for the better part of my life. There were losses and wins for high school student council. Yes, even in high school campaign signs disappeared or were found torn in half. Also in high school, I fell in love with the leadership style and politics of the woman I still believe should have been Canada’s first female prime minister, and was Canada’s first female Minister of Foreign Affairs, Flora MacDonald.

I won and lost a few more times in university before an interrupted period in life following my acceptance of Jesus Christ as my Saviour and Lord. For what seemed a long time, I considered politics would be a distraction to my faith, and then re-discovered the arena as a vital part of expression for a public faith.

I ran for municipal office in Markham in 2003, experiencing the exhilaration of a close race, being declared early in the evening the winner, and falling into second place within moments. Perhaps the person most pleased by my political campaign was my doctor who encouraged me to do my best to keep off the twenty pounds I lost going door-to-door. My doctor today might encourage me to pursue political office if the same weight loss could be guaranteed. But, my body weight is not what we’re here to talk about.

As time moves inexorably toward October 21st, social media is crowded with tweets and posts from people who have made up their minds, people who are trying to influence the decision of others, and people who are trying to figure out whether to vote at all, and, if they decide to vote, who to vote for. Mainstream media has assigned journalists and opinion writers to focus on the election, charged to find something new every day that will entice our interest. In an effort to grab the headlines, politicians present policy proposals and daily cast doubt on the capacity of their opponents to govern, let alone govern wisely.

How does a Christian prepare to participate in this messy process of electing a government?

To begin, remember that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). None of us are perfect. Neither politicians, journalists, nor potential voters, Christian or not, can truthfully claim to be perfect, even when noting the shortfalls of others.

When considering my own imperfections, I am reminded the late Rich Mullins once said, “No, the church isn’t full of hypocrites; we always have room for more.”

Mullins also said, “I never understood why going to church made you a hypocrite either, because nobody goes to church because they’re perfect. If you’ve got it all together, you don’t need to go.”

Those of us in the Church are neither more nor less perfect than others. We’re certainly not better than anyone else. But we are different. Different because of Jesus. Integrity requires us to accept the obligations that align with our faith.

We read earlier from the Old Testament a message from God to the Jewish exiles in Babylon, Jeremiah 29:4-7.

The Church has not replaced the nation or people of Israel. But we have been grafted-in to the same Vine, the teachings of the Old Testament are relevant to the Church, and apply to us even today. Now, two and a half millennia after God spoke in the night to Jeremiah, God’s words as written by the prophet help us to understand important aspects of the “love your neighbour” commandment.

Build houses and live in them; plant gardens and eat their produce. Take wives and have sons and daughters; take wives for your sons, and give your daughters in marriage, that they may bear sons and daughters; multiply there, and do not decrease. But seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare. (Jeremiah 29:5-7, ESV)

As we approach another federal Election Day, we benefit from giving consideration to what these words mean for us, you and me in the Church in Canada, today.

We are not in exile. In fact, we have democratic rights the exiles did not have. The right to vote in freedom is absent from the majority of today’s world. Entrusted to us, our vote is to be stewarded with care, and with recognition that we are citizens of heaven living provisionally as citizens of Earth. We are dual citizens as it were, with responsibility to exercise our citizenship with integrity in both realms.

We Christians have adapted well, perhaps too well, to the nation in which we live. We have built houses and we live in them. We have planted gardens and eat the produce. We are living a Canadian family life, or seeking to do so. But do we seek the welfare, the very best, for our city, our province and our nation? In fact, what does it look like for twenty-first-century Canadian Christians to seek the welfare of the city, province and nation where God has placed us?

Like much of twenty-first century Christianity, you and I have been influenced by the changing society in which we live. What if we could reverse that influence so that instead of changes in society influencing us, as Christians you and I influenced the changes in society? The first-century writers of the New Testament reveal a Christianity that adapted within its culture – even today we Christians look like those around us – while living a lifestyle that influenced changes in society until over time the cultural shape of the Western world was referred to as having a Judeo-Christian heritage. What if instead of looking back, nostalgically longing for a time that perhaps never really was, we deliberately chose to look forward and ask ourselves, “How do we, today, in preparation for the coming election, seek the well-being of the nation in which God has placed us, knowing that in the well-being of the nation we will find our well-being?”

I think it best to begin with God’s message to Jeremiah for the people in exile. A similar message was personally delivered some three centuries earlier to the man described as the wisest who ever lived.

In 2 Chronicles 7 we read the record of God visiting Solomon during the course of another night. Here’s part of what the Lord had to say.

I have heard your prayer… if my people who are called by my name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and heal their land. (2 Chronicles 7:12, 14, ESV)

We have all sinned. If we humble ourselves and seek him in prayer, God is committed to forgiving our sin.

Our land, our nation, is damaged. The politics involved in electing Canada’s next parliament are designed to drive wedges between one voter and the next, doing more damage. If we will humble ourselves and pray, God is committed to healing our land.

In our national anthem we sing, “God keep our land glorious and free.” It’s more than a national song, it’s a national prayer.

The first step for Christian preparation to participate in the election of a government is prayer, both personal and in community with other Christians.

What should we pray?

We pray that God’s purposes for Canada will be accomplished. We pray for the health of the nation. We pray for political leaders, for critical issues facing the nation, and that voters will make a wise and informed choice and will not be discouraged from voting because of campaign antics. And, pray that there will not be difficulties in voting on Election Day or at advance polls.

For more guidance on how to pray during this election, two prayer-oriented ministries with positive prayer points on their website are the National House of Prayer (www.nhop.ca) and Nation At Prayer (www.nationatprayer.ca).

In addition to praying for the nation and the election generally, pray about which political issues are of greatest significance to God and you together in partnership, how you will vote, and whether you will get involved beyond prayer and voting.

One way to get more involved is to conduct some basic research to inform yourself about theological positions on policy issues as well as the positions of political parties and individual candidates. If you have time for social media, online videos, television or listening to your favourite music, you have time to research your vote beyond how you may have always cast your ballot or the party your parents supported.

By the way, this basic research will also inform your prayer during the election.

So what does the basic research look like?

First, remember social media comments and mainstream media headlines are not the same as the story or the truth. In areas of public policy that have captured your interest, it is beneficial to read the articles others are referencing, or at least the articles under the headlines that catch your attention.

If you’re trying to sort through which issues are most important, I encourage you to spend a few minutes visiting the election materials of some reliable Christian public policy engagement organizations.

The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada (www.evangelicalfellowship.ca) has a variety of resources that inform on the issues for individuals, as well as what churches can and cannot legally do during an election campaign. Here are some of the issues for which the EFC provides background information and questions for candidates:

Medical Assistance in Dying
Palliative Care
Human Trafficking
Prostitution
Pornography
Refugees
Poverty and Homelessness
Indigenous Peoples
The Environment
Religious Freedom in Canada
Religious Freedom Internationally

Similarly, Citizens for Public Justice (www.cpj.ca) provides materials on:

Climate Justice
Ending Poverty
Refugee Rights
Participating in Democracy

The Christian Reformed Church’s Centre for Public Dialogue (www.crcna.org/PublicDialogue) covers:

Refugee Justice
Indigenous Justice
Human Trafficking
Climate Change

There are also election specific resources that have been prepared by the Canadian Council of Churches (www.councilofchurches.ca), the Association for Reformed Political Action (www.arpacanada.ca), and others.

When you explore election materials prepared by and for Christians, you will notice that no political party has the corner on biblically-based public policy. Different parties have a different focus and will capture different parts of the essence of different biblical concerns. As a result, you will benefit from also looking at the posted policy platforms of the parties. If you scan the index, you will find you can then scan the whole or only consider party positions on the issues God has placed on your heart.

For me, big issues include religious freedom in Canada and Canada’s ability to influence religious freedom globally, as well as the personal character of the party leaders and individual candidates, including the candidates in my riding. I make room for forgiveness in my assessment, and gather the information required to engage in informed prayer to make a decision, all of which is readily available through simple internet searches by party name, leader name, and candidate name.

For some, this may seem like a lot of work. But I think stewardship of God’s gift to us is worth the effort.

The holder of an undeveloped faith and uninformed opinion will fall readily into a political camp. One who holds a developed faith will choose a political camp with prayer, caution, & realism. Difficult for both will be to continue to follow Jesus first, before falling in behind the camp commander. For some, following Jesus will require changing camps.

That brings me to my concluding point for today. When we engage in the political sphere it is vital throughout our participation that we follow Jesus first.

The reading from 2 Corinthians 5 reminds us that we are new creations in Christ; citizens of heaven, as Paul wrote in Philippians 3:20, even while resident on Earth. In addition to being citizens of Christ’s kingdom, Paul shared in this morning’s reading that we are ambassadors for Christ (2 Corinthians 5:20).

When associated with a political party, it is very easy to develop a kind of herd mentality. Your party leader is right and therefore the other party leaders are not!

Remember, at all times all Christians are ambassadors for Christ.

There is nothing wrong with joining a political party. There is nothing wrong with volunteering your time for a candidate, or placing a sign on your lawn. But be cautious about allowing your buttons to be pushed and your political battles to become heated attacks directed toward other people. We “do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places (Ephesians 6:12, ESV).”

You may be wondering about the Gospel reading from Mark, chapter 4.

“Listen! Behold, a sower went out to sow. And as he sowed, some seed fell along the path, and the birds came and devoured it. Other seed fell on rocky ground, where it did not have much soil, and immediately it sprang up, since it had no depth of soil. And when the sun rose, it was scorched, and since it had no root, it withered away. Other seed fell among thorns, and the thorns grew up and choked it, and it yielded no grain. And other seeds fell into good soil and produced grain, growing up and increasing and yielding thirtyfold and sixtyfold and a hundredfold.” (Mark 4:3-8, ESV)

As ambassadors for Jesus, we are sowers of the seeds of the Gospel.

In Jesus’ story of the sower, told using the available media of the day, a sower was spreading seed by hand, a small quantity at a time, across a large area over a long period of time. In regard to media in the twenty-first century, we are not hand-seeders but broadcast-spreaders covering vast territory in an instant. Other broadcast-spreaders share with us and we with them, and they with others, and so on.

We are not capable of assessing whether the seed we sow will be readily devoured, spring up and die off, be choked out, or produce a harvest. We are capable of determining whether we are sowing good seed. Every participation we have in the political process is a sowing seed event, including how we allow the seed sown by others to influence us.

Earlier on this morning, I quoted Rich Mullins’ comments on the all too real human weakness of those of us who make our way to Christian worship services on a regular basis.

“No, the church isn’t full of hypocrites; we always have room for more.”

and

“I never understood why going to church made you a hypocrite either, because nobody goes to church because they’re perfect. If you’ve got it all together, you don’t need to go.”

We know we’re not perfect. We will make mistakes in our political engagement. But, as communications consultant Barry McLoughlin has said, “Hypocrisy in religion is the low hanging fruit of media.” That includes social media. We would be wise to bear that in mind, along with some simple advice for our media and social media engagement from Leonard Read who has written,

There is an Arab proverb to the effect that he who strikes the second blow starts the fight. Ignorance stands ever ready, and all about us, to strike the first blow. However, we need not strike back by projecting our own ignorance – by insisting on points we cannot soundly explain. Short of an ability to explain our beliefs in an attractive, enlightening, and truth-serving manner, there is always the friendly alternative of silence. (The Manners of Leadership)

Guard your heart (Proverbs 4:23). Be an ambassador. Sow good seed.

Since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith. (Hebrews 12:1-2, ESV)

As Christians, our preparation to participate in the process of electing a government starts and ends with prayer, focused on Jesus and what he would require of us.

Pray for Canada. Pray about our participation. Pray as we participate. And then pray for those elected to form government, as well as those elected in opposition. Pray that those in positions of authority will look out for the best interests of all citizens, including Christian citizens.

That said, let’s pray.

Father, as Canadians are in the midst of an election campaign that will result in the formation of Canada’s next government, we pray for the well-being of our nation. We pray for the party leaders vying for the position of prime minister and the hundreds of candidates campaigning in each riding. We know that the perfect candidate does not exist, the perfect political party does not exist, and neither does the perfect campaign platform. Help us to inform ourselves and choose wisely in our stewardship of the right to vote in our free and democratic nation. Especially help us to trust You, in Jesus’ name. Amen.

Letter to Benchers re Statement of Principles

June 18, 2019 by Don Hutchinson

The governing board of the Law Society of Ontario (Benchers) is scheduled to meet in Convocation on June 27, 2019. As part of the meeting they will be considering the repeal of the compulsory Statement of Principles implemented in October 2017. The Statement of Principles reads: “I declare that I abide by a Statement of Principles that acknowledges my obligation to promote equality, diversity and inclusion generally, in my behaviour towards colleagues, employees, clients and the public.” Below is my letter to the Benchers.

June 18, 2019

The executive summary of this letter is, along with a substantial number of those who voted in the recent Bencher elections, I am opposed to the Statement of Principles (SOP). I have been since initial notice of the SOP set my human rights advocacy senses tingling at the danger inherent in ticking the yes box on the Annual Report.

The SOP is one in a string of actions that cause concern Benchers might have lost touch with being lawyers, as most are, and regulators of the legal profession on behalf of the people and government of the Province of Ontario. Instead, Convocation has in recent years seemed more interested in acting as judges and politicians on behalf of its constituency of 50,000+.

The fifteen members of the Challenges Faced By Racialized Licensees Working Group are commended for their work, along with the effort of the Equity Initiatives Department, and the resulting recommendations in Working Together: Strategies to Address Issues of Systemic Racism in the Legal Profession. The solution to human rights apprehensions for an identifiable community, however, is not the abrogation of the rights of others. It perplexes me that a group of lawyers concerning themselves with human rights of members of the legal profession could arrive at a solution such as the SOP, and more so that a government authorized regulatory body composed mainly of lawyers would be inclined to implement the SOP as a mandatory measure. The SOP is an appropriate recommendation for consideration by members of the profession, perhaps even for exploration in the practise setting. Recommendations are, after all, in the normal course of events, recommendations for broader consideration. But imposition of the SOP is a violation.

When each of us accepted “the honour and privilege, duty and responsibility of practising law” in Ontario, we took an oath to conduct ourselves honestly and with integrity, to “champion the rule of law and safeguard the rights and freedoms of all persons” in addition to observing the ethical standards of our profession. This is a strong commitment, to which the vast majority of lawyers in Ontario adhere, and for which there is a disciplinary process for those who do not.

The compulsory requirement that every member of the law society implement a personal statement of principles acknowledging an “obligation to promote equality, diversity and inclusion generally” or face undefined potential penalty for ticking the no box suggests authoritarian impulse rather than thoughtful professional governance responding to a sensitive situation. We already have an obligation to respect human rights laws, among other laws, and adhere to the Rules of Professional Conduct.

No packaging or redefinition of the word promote could suggest other than an active engagement in advancing concepts undefined and undefinable.

Equality as a concept is elusive and lacks precise definition, according to the Supreme Court of Canada and as acknowledged by the LSO in its guidance on developing an SOP. Diversity and Inclusion carry similar precision to equality in their understanding. Lawyers were left to assess whether to define the undefined in a manner one hoped would comply, if one made the effort at all to draft a SOP, to simply tick the yes box on the promise the SOP would not have to be produced, or to tick the no box with uncertainty as to what the future might hold as a result.

As a profession, we are committed to champion the rule of law and safeguard the rights and freedoms of all persons. It would be only isolated members of the legal profession who would not stand with clients against a mandatory requirement such as the SOP in another public policy or administrative setting. The violation of freedoms of conscience, thought, belief, opinion and expression would be self-evident. The failure to identify consequences for non-compliance would have set alarm bells ringing.

Lawyers are persons. We fit into the category of all persons on whose behalf we committed in taking our oath. We are neither above nor below the law, nor above or below other persons.

This is a situation in which it is best to apply the human rights concept of formal equality, acknowledging freedoms described in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and remove the SOP requirement.

Substantive equality is already required of us by our oath and under provisions of the Ontario Human Rights Code, without the requirement to promote generally the undefined.

Perhaps, it is also time for Convocation to return to the raison d’être set out in the originating legislation for The Law Society of Upper Canada in 1797, “securing to the province and the profession a learned and honorable body, to assist their fellow subjects as occasion may require, and to support and maintain the constitution.”

If individual lawyers and law firms are held accountable for the commitments made when each of us was called to the Bar of Ontario, contributions such as Working Together: Strategies to Address Issues of Systemic Racism in the Legal Profession, Respect for Religious and Spiritual Beliefs: A Statement of Principles of the Law Society of Upper Canada, and other reports to the profession will help guide us, without the need for fear-inducing and freedoms violating requirements such as the compulsory SOP. Repeal the Statement of Principles requirement.

Sincerely,

STOPSOP: Law Society of Ontario Bencher Election 2019

April 11, 2019 by Don Hutchinson

Time was, like many lawyers in Ontario, I was content with the leadership of our government authorized regulatory agency. Time was.

Now, I endorse the slate of lawyers running for election as benchers under the STOPSOP (Stop the Statement of Principles) banner. I also stand opposed to remaining benchers who voted against accreditation of a law school at a religious university. In six short words, the primary reason why is, Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. To add three more, rule of law.

It seems that in recent years the Law Society’s elected leadership concluded a little trim or nip and tuck on the rules was no longer sufficient, instead apparently going all-in with the mistaken belief the responsibility to regulate is a call to control. Sadly, in doing so, it looks as if a majority of benchers concluded the rule of law to be a threat to rule over the realm of legal practitioners.

In 2014, benchers voted 28-21 against adhering to the agreement entered into with the Federation of Law Societies of Canada authorizing the mechanism for approving new law schools. Why? Because the school in question was to be at a Christian university that held to a Biblical standard for members of its community. That vote was also a vote against fundamental constitutional principles of religious freedom as had been determined by the Supreme Court of Canada, ironically in regard to the same Christian university operating a faculty of education.

For the 2015 bencher election, I posted How would they vote on Trinity Western’s Law School today? Candidates for the law society in Ontario. The blog includes a link at the bottom to a breakdown of how then benchers and bencher candidates voted, or would vote, on the issue of accrediting the proposed law school at Trinity Western. (I include this note because some have asked me for such a breakdown to aid in their consideration of bencher candidates this April.)

In the Trinity Western case, the Law Society of Upper Canada, as it was then known, was saved by the proverbial bell when the Supreme Court of Canada decided for stunningly poor reasons, that abrogated from basic principles of legal and constitutional interpretation, to carve out a new and special niche within Canada’s constitutional law only for government authorized bodies regulating the legal profession. As I stated in Supreme Court sidesteps Supreme Being and supreme commitment: beyond the headlines and headnotes in the Trinity Western law school cases, the decision invents a “Charter value” in order to uphold

a professional arrogance that asserts lawyers hold a special place in Canadian society as ‘protectors of the public interest’ (as if Canada was not a democratic society with elected officials to fill that role…) … The result of this professional arrogance is, at times, lawyers seek ways for the law not to apply to them in the same way the law applies to others. Although it was hoped the lawyers-now-justices of Canada’s Supreme Court would rise above that particular vanity, most did not.

The concern with the Supreme Court’s inventiveness is perhaps best stated by Justices Brown and Côté, writing in dissent in the Trinity Western law school cases:

First, Charter “values” — unlike Charter rights, which are the product of constitutional settlement — are unsourced. They are, therefore, entirely the product of the idiosyncrasies of the judicial mind that pronounces them to be so. … What is troubling, however, is the imposition of judicially preferred “values” to limit constitutionally protected rights, including the right to hold other values.

Secondly, and relatedly, Charter “values”, as stated by the majority, are amorphous and, just as importantly, undefined.

At the same time the Trinity Western debacle was unfolding, the benchers were busy needlessly rebranding the historic Law Society of Upper Canada to the Law Society of Ontario, theoretically as part of a bid to be better understood by the public. I have imagined a majority of benchers somehow convinced the history of Canada taught in Ontario’s education system no longer included reference to the Constitutional Act of 1791 when the provinces of Upper Canada and Lower Canada were carved out of Quebec in an early step toward the Confederation that would take place in 1867. Equally, they must have convinced themselves that those looking for a lawyer, or to complain about one, would suffer confusion searching out the Law Society of Upper Canada that would not be present with the new name, Law Society of Ontario.

Tinkering with the Law Society’s image and function has bloated the annual budget to over one hundred and forty-two million dollars ($142,535,700.00 to be precise). This is a more than 30% increase in budget in last four years, and a 100% increase (yes, the budget has doubled) over the last thirteen years.

In October 2017, while continuing to battle in the courts against Trinity Western University’s requirement for a commitment to shared religious beliefs, busy rebranding the Law Society to a friendlier name, and authorizing budget expenditures like they were spending someone else’s money (they are), the benchers imposed a new requirement on the profession, a mandatory declaration of a Statement of Principles (SOP).

I declare that I abide by a Statement of Principles that acknowledges my obligation to promote equality, diversity and inclusion generally, in my behaviour towards colleagues, employees, clients and the public. [Whatever that means.]

Tick the box, they told us.

In February 2018, I wrote about Why I said “NO” to the Law Society. In the same way that the Law Society was seeking to impose an ideological tick box on Trinity Western University – agree with us and we’ll let you have a law school – the benchers were now imposing an ideological tick box on every member of the legal profession.

The Law Society made it mandatory to tick the YES box, offering a NO box without telling us what the repercussions would be for those of us who ticked it. Ostensibly, the position expressed is, “You will face consequences, but we will not tell you what they are.” This coercive type of policy that mandates agreement with an ideological opinion violates conscience, and has historically been evidenced by totalitarian regimes.

Given the number of TWU-opposed, budget-bloating and SOP-favouring benchers seeking re-election, I choose to support those who have expressed their commitment to the rule of law and principles of constitutional interpretation, known as the STOPSOP slate. Here’s the list:

Inside Toronto : Robert P. Adourian; D. Jared Brown; John F. Fagan; Sam Goldstein; Philip H. Horgan; Murray Klippenstein; Lubomir Poliacik; Geoff Pollock; Chi-Kun Shi; Nicholas Wright.

Outside Toronto: Ryan Alford; Gerard Paul Charette; Joseph Chiummiento; Jean-Jacques Desgranges; Gary D. Graham; Cheryl R. Lean; Cecil Lyon; C. Scott Marshall; Trevor Robert Parry; Jorge E. Pineda; Brian L. Prill; Alexander D. Wilkes.

If anyone has a Law Society of Upper Canada lapel pin you are willing to part with, I would much appreciate receiving one. My own effort to purchase a pin was left too late, and the stock was gone.

I’d like to wear the LSUC pin when speaking to law students and young lawyers. When they ask what it is, I will tell them, “Time was, there existed the oldest professional self-regulating body in North America. Called The Law Society of Upper Canada, it was recognized by statute in 1797, ‘for the purpose of securing to the province and the profession a learned and honorable body, to assist their fellow subjects as occasion may require, and to support and maintain the constitution.’”