Don Hutchinson

Gleanings from the mind of a Christian Leader and Lawyer

A Prayer for lawyers and judges

by

Our Father, You are wise, and just, and merciful. You are gracious toward all human beings in Your relationship with us. May those of us who have been trained and equipped to practice law be wise, just, and merciful in our interactions with others. Whether we are advisors, advocates, or adjudicators, may we be helpers. Encourage and enable us also to be gracious toward all.

Father, for those of us who are Christians, may our service for others and for the culture in which we live also provide a harvest taste of the fruit of Your presence in us―love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,  gentleness, and self-control―that You would be known through us, and glorified.

Father, we are mindful of the considerable number of lawyers positioned to serve their neighbours as politicians. We pray that each, along with advisors, advocates, and adjudicators, would contribute to all of us being able to live quiet and peaceful lives.

Father, may each lawyer and each judge share in the knowledge of Your truth, experience the joy of Your salvation, and daily live and serve with sensitivity to Holy Spirit’s counsel and direction.

In Jesus’ name. Amen.

Christianity, Politics and Our Relationship with Media

by

From a fifteen-minute talk at the Parliament Hill Christian Fellowship. (Numbers in brackets after quotes are page numbers from Church in Society.)

It seems to be in vogue for speakers to open a talk with a personal embarrassing story. So here goes. As a young preacher, co-pastoring with my wife in our first church, I received the encouraging word, “You could be the next Billy Graham.” In youthful pride I watched Billy Graham on television when I could, observing and practicing his mannerisms―he pointed his fingers only when applying Scripture to current events, open arms when talking about sin and forgiveness, and a corner Bible flip when speaking about the authority of Scripture. I never preached to a stadium full of people. It was about two decades later when I read his autobiography, Just As I Am (1997) that I realized the keys to being the next Billy Graham were faithfulness, prayer, Bible reading and Bible study. I also read his regret about not spending more time with his family. It’s not about preaching to stadiums full of people. Hold those thoughts in mind. We’ll come back to Mr. Graham.

For now, as requested, some random and relevant thoughts from my book Church in Society: First Century Citizenship Lessons for Twenty-First Century Christians.

To begin, I believe

Christian faith is personal, intimately personal. And Christianity was always intended to be public, engaging, and sincere in its expression—not just private. Being a Christ-follower is a both/and experience, not an either/or one. We need to have the private devotion to follow and the public expression to convict us if we are ever on trial for being Christian. (xxv)

That’s the premise of the book. Key thoughts to remember when living out our private devotion to Jesus in a public way are the three commandments identified by Jesus:

  1. Love the Lord our God (Mark 12:30).
  2. Love our neighbours as ourselves (Mark 12:31).
  3. Love one another—by this, the world will know we are His disciples (John 13:34–35). (xxvi)

Loving God requires us to be in relationship with him. If you have ever had deep affection for a person, a pet, or an object you know how life-consuming love can be. You have also likely experienced how that in love experience can adjust over time to be less consuming. The challenge is for the less-consuming love to be a continuing and deepening love. That takes work. The question becomes, are we putting in the effort with God?

Billy Graham’s effort in prayer and Scripture was not unique to him. Prayer, Bible reading and Bible study are the personal and intimate conversations with God that nourish our growth in Christlikeness, cooperating with Holy Spirit in conforming us to the image of Christ (Romans 8:26-29). To live a life of active public Christian citizenship we need first to understand what it is to be and live as a Christian.

Loving our neighbours is premised on the love we have for ourselves. The love we have for ourselves is premised on our relationship with God, who is love and loves us more than we can imagine.

Before we look at our neighbours, let’s think about our love for one another within the Body of Christ. Jesus said it’s that love by which the world will know we are His disciples, His students, His followers.

This commandment is often forgotten or confused in expression as simply “love one another.” Here’s what Jesus said, speaking to His disciples about their relationship with each other.

A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another. (John 13:34-35) (John 15:12, 17)

In John 17, drawing to a close his comments at the last supper that start for us in John 13, Jesus prayed for unity, not uniformity; unity among his diverse disciples, including us who believe because of the witness by those who were with Him that night. (John 17:11, 20-23)

Jesus knew our diversity would be just as great as, and greater than, that of the twelve in the upper room with Him. It’s not about sameness. Unity is our diversity collected in common purpose. That may involve divergent expressions and pursuits, but with the common purpose of bringing glory to God. May our pursuits be based not purely in personal preference, or theological sameness, but in kingdom purpose. His purpose. (31)

Paul wrote about this as the many parts of the one Body of Christ in Romans 12 and 1 Corinthians 12. How are we doing at appreciating the other parts and the diverse expressions of the Body of Christ? To recognize other Christians, or to keep a check on ourselves, look for the fruit of the budding and ripening presence of Jesus in us: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. (Galatians 5:22-23)

Before becoming a disciple of Jesus, Paul was among the first persecutors of the Church. We have not yet seen the last. When one part of the body suffers, are we aware Christ’s Body is suffering still?

Remember, in the Body of Christ, they are us. (48)

Love one another. By this all people will know we are Christ’s disciples.

As citizens of heaven and citizens of earth we are called to exercise our citizenship in Canada with consideration of these three commandments. Loving God. Loving His Church. Loving our neighbours as we love ourselves. These three are the frame to our motivation for engagement with the time, culture and society in which we live: how we understand our rights and freedoms; and how we participate in our community, with government and through politics.

Let me touch briefly on two subjects in that regard that may be most germane to this audience: politics and media.

Politics, whether in church leadership or national governance, is supposed to be about people. Serving the people. Looking out for the best interests of all constituents. But too often it’s more about power than governance. Part of our sinful nature is the desire to be the greatest by having dominance over others rather than by serving them. (113-114)

I think that’s why Paul told Timothy to pray for people who hold political power. And I think that underlies Peter telling us to honour the emperor. More than submission, we honour the emperor (empress, king, queen, president, prime minister, or anyone in the vocation of politics) by praying for him or her. (114-115)

Here’s what Paul wrote:

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. This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. (1 Timothy 2:1-4)

Are we praying for our prime minister, leaders in opposition, parliamentarians, premiers, mayors, city councillors, and school board trustees?

Peter wrote:

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. Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor. (1 Peter 2:13-17)

These men were writing at a time when Christianity was not welcome. Paul wrote from prison; and Peter already, or soon to be, arrested, then executed.

As Christians, our participation in politics starts and ends with prayer. Pray for government officials. Pray about our participation. Pray as we participate. And then pray for government officials, that those in positions of authority would look out for the best interests of all citizens, including Christian citizens. (125)

It is easy for us to lose our equilibrium if we make the effort to balance our discipleship to Jesus with discipleship to a political party or political objective. Jesus is not to be held in balance with anyone or anything else. It is in Christ that we find the space and capacity to participate in politics, and we must make the effort both to maintain our relationship with Jesus and to thwart the temptation of political passion to overwhelm or compromise our maturing in Christ.

Following on that thought, a few words about our participation in media, which in the 21st century includes mainstream media, alternative media, and social media.

What media do you take in? What media do you rebroadcast? What do you share as a participant in media? How do you assess the accuracy of what you receive and what you personally broadcast? (129)

John Stott wrote, “The influence of the mass media upon us all is continuous, insistent and pervasive.” (131)

David Haskell adds,

The greatest problem with news is not that journalists are influenced by their perceptions; the greatest problem is that news audiences do not realize journalists are influenced by their perceptions. (132)

All media is biased. Mainstream media. Alternative media. Social media. Even our own tweets and posts.

Like mainstream media, the alternative positions of the alternative media—both political left and political right—allegedly ‘report’ on the same events. In both mainstream and alternative media, commentators are masquerading as journalists. They are intentional about stirring emotion with their words rather than informing consumers to encourage independent thought. It is our responsibility to engage in independent thought anyway. Why?

Like the sower in the parable Jesus told in Mark 4 we are sowing seed in what we share. Like the soil in the same parable seed is being sown into us. We are cautioned not to be passive recipients of the media seed we accept into our lives but to actively think about what is taking place in us because of the media we consume. There are a few simple questions we can ask ourselves. Who is the messenger? What is their bias? For whom did the messenger prepare the message? And for what purpose? How reliable is the messenger? How readily can the message be fact-checked and verified with other sources? How current or relevant is the information? (questions from 133-134)

Neither reporters nor social media adversaries are Satan incarnate, whether or not it seems like they’re trying to undermine you, me, or Christ’s work. (140)

And we? We are always Christians. In every aspect of our lives we are united with Jesus. We represent Jesus to others (2 Corinthians 5:20), and we are called to make the effort to do so well: good and faithful; loving God; loving one another; loving our neighbours as we love ourselves.

Submission to Public Order Emergency Commission (Rouleau Commission)

by

There are many who have made up their minds about the Freedom Convoy public protests and the first time use of the Emergencies Act to end the prolonged demonstration at the foot of Parliament Hill in Ottawa. Neither the evidence presented at the Public Order Emergency Commission or parliament’s Special Joint Committee on the Declaration of Emergency nor their final reports will influence a change of mind for some. But the two reports will likely have a significant influence on the future of public demonstrations and government response in Canada.

Below is the preface of my submission to the Public Order Emergency Commission, which is under the leadership of the Honourable Paul S. Rouleau, and a link to the full submission of 6 pages plus appendices.

 

Preface

This commission is challenged to sift out the good questions from among the many being asked. Good questions are questions with purpose and intent. Good questions seek reasonable answers; meaningful answers which, in this instance, may influence the future development and governance of a nation.

The commission will receive emotional testimony connected to experiences with the Freedom Convoy protest. The commission will also receive testimony shaped by political considerations. It will take good questions to get to the facts, to assess different perspectives and perceptions, and to set aside extraneous information in order to provide meaningful answers within the commission’s mandate.

As events unfolded in the last weeks of January and into February 2022, there were myriad raw feelings exposed―among the assortment of protesters, local residents and business people, politicians at three levels of government, and members of the media―driving strong messaging, opinions and perspectives that supplemented the facts to frame their understanding of events.

There were also political motivations for framing messaging about the situation that unfolded primarily at Parliament Hill and its immediate surrounds: initially on Wellington Street and another six to eight city blocks, and secondarily in the parking lot of the RCTG baseball park; then a roughly 3 km2 area of the 2,790 km2 city was designated as “the red zone.” Approximately 15,000 of Ottawa’s 1,100,000 residents live in those 3 km2. By the time the Emergencies Act was invoked the demonstration area within the red zone had been largely narrowed, through negotiation by the City of Ottawa, to a one and a half kilometre (one mile) stretch of Wellington Street, and the off-site staging area at the RCTG park some five kilometres (3 miles) away.

Facts ought not to be sacrificed in favour of political expediency, political interpretation or political advantage. In the Canadian political experience history has shown that facts concealed are inevitably revealed, sometimes unintentionally but more often because someone was asking good questions and seeking meaningful answers. At issue becomes whether by the time of revelation the advantage sought has already been gained; whether an interpretation repeated has sufficed to alter perspective on otherwise potentially disquieting information; and whether the expediency that was presented has been sufficiently engrained in the resulting image crafted as to make its effect difficult to erase.

A significant challenge for this first Public Order Emergency Commission is to separate fact from fiction, as well as from feelings, opinions, and political massaging in order to fulfil the mandate to examine and assess the basis for the Government’s decision to declare a public order emergency, the circumstances that led to the declaration, and the appropriateness and effectiveness of the measures selected by the Government to deal with the then-existing situation.

I hope what follows will generate some good questions to aid in the quest for reasonable and meaningful answers about the actions associated with the federal government invoking the Emergencies Act in the context of a public protest as it unfolded in real time, not simply with our benefit of hindsight; and with foresight to potential consideration of the Act’s use, or avoidance of its use, in the future.

The Freedom Convoy Protest and Response of the Trudeau Government: The Importance of Good Questions and Meaningful Answers

Biblically informed thoughts on Christian use of social media

by

“Preach the gospel at all times. Use words if necessary.” This quote, or words to this effect, are often attributed to St. Francis of Assisi. However, there is no record of Francis having said or written any such thing. The closest to this thought is found in his twelfth of the rules for friars (frères or brothers) from 1221 in which Francis required that those who preach “must first draw from secret prayers what he will later pour out in holy sermons” and “all the friars… should preach by their deeds.” These latter words align with the admonition found in James’ letter that faith without corresponding works is dead, a lifeless and meaningless claim to faith (James 2:17).

With the advent of social media many Christians seem to have adopted an inverse variation on the theme, “Use words. If necessary preach the gospel.” The absence of biblical influence on the behaviour of too many users of social media, including Christians, is evident by the tone in its use which is often self-focused or unrestrainedly negative. Taking into account an individual’s posting trend it can be jarring when someone quotes Scripture or identifies as a Christ-follower. What are we doing unto others?

Three months ago, I felt a prompting to address this inconsistency through ninety days of questions about our social media behaviour, framed in light of Scripture used in context so that those interested might either know the context or open the Bible to read the context. Ninety days of biblical quotes and relevant questions would daily be constrained by the 280-character limit of Twitter.

I don’t chase or follow every prompting, but experience has taught that when a prompting aligns with Scripture and the challenge to live with Christlike character it’s one to pursue. As Francis might have advised his friars, first draw from private prayer what will be poured out in 280 characters or less. This was my ninety day challenge as much as in sharing it became ours.

For those who might want to take up your own ninety days of biblical reflection about social media use, here they are. [Link below]

Blessings, Don.

Biblically informed thoughts on Christian use of social media

The Charter, Indigenous Relations, and The Queen

by

Two noteworthy historic events coincide this week, in addition to the millennia-old celebrations of Passover and Easter.

A central constitutional component in the less ancient history of the Dominion of Canada is our monarchy. Two significant events in the life of the Queen of Canada take place within days of each other. Seventy years into her reign, April 21 is Queen Elizabeth II’s 96th birthday and April 17 marks four decades since she signed the final paperwork authorizing Canada’s constitution to be administered at home instead of from the Palace at Westminster (the Parliament building of the United Kingdom).

I will address the constitutional landmark first, with a brief telling of how my own story intersects. As shared in Under Siege: Religious Freedom and the Church in Canada at 150 (1867–2017):

The day after writing the final exam of my first year of law school was April 17, 1982. That morning, I got on my bicycle and rode a fair distance to my friend Mitch’s house. He was one of the few people I knew who owned a colour television—a twenty-six-inch screen at that! It was a beautiful, sunny day in Vancouver— and pouring rain in Ottawa. Mitch had invited a bunch of fellow law students to his place for an unusual kind of party, one that has not been repeated in my lifetime. We watched the live broadcast as Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau and Queen Elizabeth II, on the front steps of Parliament Hill, signed the official documentation to transition Canada’s constitution from an act of the British Parliament (the British North America Act, now referred to as the Constitution Act, 1867) to the Canadian-held and Canadian-amendable Constitution Act, 1982. While often referred to as the repatriation of our constitution, it was actually the patriation of our constitution, as this was the occasion when it became the property of Canada and Canadians for the first time.

Canada, established July 1, 1867, did not actually become a sovereign nation until April 17, 1982. Also on that day, Canadian law was forever changed by the inclusion of thirty-four sections in Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982. These sections are known as the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

A few days later, I left Vancouver to prepare for and then enter Christian ministry as a pastor. None of us in that living room on a sunny west coast morning had any idea how dramatically the amendment to our constitution would change the practice of law, the practices of Canadians, or the very nature of our nation.

Precisely three years later, as provided in the Constitution Act, 1982, on April 17, 1985, the equality rights provision of the Charter came into effect. As a result of the time required for legal cases to make their way through the court system, exactly seven days later the Supreme Court of Canada issued its first decision on the Charter’s guarantee of freedom of religion in R v Big M Drug Mart. But already the seeds planted in 1982 were producing fresh growth that would in short order revise Canada’s legal landscape.

Not long afterward, I was asked by the Canadian leader of my church denomination, The Salvation Army, to return to law school to prepare myself to establish a national legal department.

At the time, my wife Gloria and I were co-pastoring a church in the Lax Kw’alaams (“place of the wild roses”) village, commonly called Port Simpson, part of the Port Simpson No. 1 Reserve of the Tsimshian First Nation in northern British Columbia.

I carried the above story forward to Lax Kw’alaams because lessons learned there inform an important portion of both this week’s constitutional celebration and the monarchy.

As Her Majesty’s birthday approaches amidst Platinum Jubilee celebrations of her accession to the throne in 1952, republicans are openly advocating an end to the monarchy in Canada. The heir to her throne, our throne, plans to visit in May. The announcement alone gave amplified profile to the republican agenda because Prince Charles is thought less popular with Canadians than his mother.

Like the organizers of the 1864 Charlottetown conference on confederation, and subsequent gatherings leading up to the British North America Act of 1867, Canadian republicans forget that our founding nations are not just two―the United Kingdom and France―but hundreds. Turtle Island’s first citizens had their own long histories before welcoming the relative newcomers from Europe half a millennium ago. The Constitution Act, 1982 reminded of and reinvigorated that truth.

While many Canadians will this week celebrate the 40th anniversary of sections 1 to 34 of the Constitution Act, 1982, better know as the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, we need remember the constitutional amendment of 1982 also included sections 35 to 52.

Section 35 recognizes and affirms “the existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples” who are described as including “the Indian, Inuit and Métis peoples of Canada.” The “existing aboriginal rights” mentioned are distinct from and pre-date written treaty rights. Those rights are pertinent to every square metre of Canadian soil, including those covered by treaty. While government and the courts are sorting out application of old treaties and aboriginal rights, as well as redress for violations, the section also recognizes new treaties that are still being negotiated concerning unceded lands.

It cannot go unnoticed that treaties with Indigenous residents were made with the Crown―the monarch―not the government.

When we lived in Lax Kw’alaams, the elders were clear, as have been elders I have since encountered from sea to sea, that formalized Indigenous relationship with Canada is understood to be with the Queen not her prime minister. The Queen is the head of state. The prime minister is the head of her government.

To become a republic, in addition to constitutional negotiations (see Part V of the Constitution Act, 1982 for the procedure), renegotiation would be required for treaties made between Indigenous peoples and the Crown. There are 70 recognized treaties made between 1701 and 1923, describing the basis for relationship between the Crown and 364 First Nations, representing over 600,000 people. As part of Canada’s comprehensive land claims policy to address previously unceded lands, an additional 25 treaties have been negotiated since 1973. These describe the relationship between 97 Indigenous communities and nearly 90,000 people. Treaty negotiation is complex, historic, and ongoing in Canada.

Perhaps we Canadians might focus a bit less this week on the Charter and more on opportunities to advance reconciliation with Canada’s Indigenous peoples; much less on outspoken republicans and more on our esteemed monarch’s 96th birthday. Long live our noble Queen.