Must Caesar Always be Obeyed?

Romans 13:2

Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgement.[1]

O

ur Adult Sunday School recently finished a study of the Book of Judges. That particular book concludes on a gloomy note. Recall the final verse of the book. In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes [Judges 21:25]. That description is of a society without government. Paul, in our text, is teaching us that the state is God’s provision for avoiding anarchy, and it is thus good.

The first verse has instructed us that we must obey the governing authorities. The next two verses provide reasons why we should obey, even while defining the role of government. If we fail to be subject to the governing authorities, we are disobedient to God, and He will punish us [verse two]. However, the Apostle also cautions us that disobedience to government will lead to punishment meted out by the government itself. Today, I wish to focus on the second verse of this chapter, which states, whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgement.

This particular statement raises significant questions for those of us who think deeply concerning our role in the society wherein God has placed us. Are there conditions which would negate this command? In other words, is this teaching absolute? Can we imagine conditions which would make rebellion against the existing authorities justified? What if a government is tyrannical? Suppose the state violates human rights? Where are the limits of obedience for us as Christians? Must Caesar always be obeyed?

Jesus Addresses Governmental Authority — Jesus addressed the issue of the authority of the state on at least two occasions. The first of those occasions was examined in a previous message. Jesus had been brought before Pilate, the Roman procurator of Judea. Pilate appears agitated by the fact that the Master neither grovelled not attempted to mount a vigorous defence for Himself. He asked if Jesus were aware of the power Pilate had to either condemn a man or to set an individual at liberty. Our Lord replied to Pilate, You would have no authority over Me at all unless it had been given you from above [John 19:11].

Jesus, showing respect for the position Pilate occupied and showing respect even for the government represented, nevertheless held Pilate accountable for sin. Jesus acknowledged that Pilate had authority, but we saw that it was a delegated authority. Since the authority of Pilate was given by God, Pilate was responsible to God for how he used that authority. With these words, Jesus lays the groundwork for the limits of the authority wielded by the state.

The second passage occurs in the waning days of Jesus’ life on earth. The various religious groups were testing Him, seeking to discover any flaw in either His teaching or His character. The Pharisees were the first to attempt to trick Jesus into stumbling over his words. Note how the account begins. The Pharisees went and plotted how to entangle Him in His talk. And they sent their disciples to Him, along with the Herodians [Matthew 22:15, 16a].

The Pharisees and the Herodians were bitter enemies. The Pharisees were Jewish patriots, detesting the secularisation of society which resulted from Greek rule in the previous centuries, just as they resented the current Roman rule. The Herodians were pragmatists. They sought to adopt not only the social trappings of the Greeks and Romans, but they also endeavoured to introduce Greek political and cultural thought to the whole of Judean society. Nevertheless, mutual hatred of Jesus united the two disparate groups in singular a vile plot. Since they could not trip Him up with a theological question, they would manoeuvre Him into making a political misstep.

Tell us, then, what you think. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar or not [Matthew 22:17]? The question appears foolproof, sure to succeed in trapping Jesus either as approving of the Roman occupation or in advocating succession. If He approved of paying taxes, they could accuse Him to the people of being a collaborator and thus discredit Him. If He disapproved of paying taxes, they could denounce Him to Roman authorities as subversive. It seemed to them that Jesus was firmly impaled on the horns of a dilemma.

Jesus asked for a coin, and they brought Him a denarius [Matthew 22:19b]. Likely holding the coin so they could easily see it, Jesus asked whose portrait and whose inscription was on the coin. The obvious answer was quickly forthcoming, Caesar’s [Matthew 22:21a]. Upon receiving this answer, Jesus responded with the now famous answer, render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s [Matthew 22:21]. In saying this, Jesus lays the foundation for the precise teaching Paul provides in Romans 13:7. Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honour to whom honour is owed.

The denarius Jesus held had Caesar’s picture imprinted on it. We could certainly draw the conclusion that Caesar was infatuated with money since he put his picture on it. Jesus was saying, “If Caesar wants this stuff, give it to him. However, bear in mind that the imprint of God is on your soul and you have a responsibility to Him also.” There was great hypocrisy in the question posed to the Master on that day, for the Herodians and the Pharisees did enjoy numerous benefits purchased with Roman taxes. If they truly thought that all taxes were onerous and odious, they need to cease accepting the benefits.

Options for Government — We are considering issues surrounding the authority of the state and the limits of Christian compliance with the state’s authority. Jesus’ words about taxes suggested four options to the brilliant mind of Dr. James Montgomery Boice.[2] For the Christian, God may be sole authority, denying any role for Caesar. Opposed to that view, Caesar alone may be the sole authority, with the authority of God denied. God and Caesar may share authority with Caesar in the dominant position. Or God and Caesar may share authority with God in the dominant position. Each of these options needs to be examined in turn.

The first option is that God alone is the Christian’s authority. During various periods of history, some Christians have adopted this view, especially when the state had become corrupt or oppressively abusive. In the ancient church, some individuals isolated themselves in desert places. They separated themselves from all social contacts to permit themselves to focus on God and His will.

Perhaps you think that only anchorites or eremites associated with ancient monastic orders practised such religious seclusion. You would be wrong if that were your conclusion. Monasticism is the practical approach of far too many evangelical Christians. When we separate ourselves from contemporary culture, refuse to participate in the electoral process, isolate ourselves so that we have only Christian friends, or refuse to work for anyone other than a Christian employer, we are effectively monastics.

You will recall that the second option proposed by Dr. Boice was that of Caesar alone as an authority. Certainly, the more secular members of society would qualify for this particular view. I dare say that the majority of our parliamentarians would hold this view, and perhaps even the majority of the members of our various provincial legislative bodies as well as civic politicians. The Jewish leadership during Christ’s trial chose this way, you will recall. When presented with the opportunity to declare themselves for or against God, they cried out, We have no king but Caesar [John 19:15]. Tragically, there are professing Christians who choose this option, either through neglect or deliberately.

Of the options presented, this is without doubt the most dangerous, for there are no checks on the authority of the state. There is nothing to restrain the power of the state. Though the American State has checks and balances built in, the checks or balances for the Canadian State are less well defined. The courts seem unbound by the will of Parliament, and Parliament seems often to serve essentially as a dictatorial power under the usual majority governments. There is a check on the untrammelled power of Parliament as the people are permitted to vote from time-to-time, but it is a tenuous check, at best. The Governor General of Canada, and the Lieutenant Governor of the various provincial legislatures, can serve to hold Parliament and the legislatures in check in an emergency, but these are likewise checks which are seldom resorted to.

I need to address this issue somewhat further, because of the danger presented. According to the Psalmist, human rulers conspire against God, tragically with greater regularity than we might imagine [cf. Psalm 2:1-3]. Should a society forsake God, the people are then at the mercy of the governors. Each form of government has a guiding principle. The guiding principle of monarchy is honour. Aristocracy holds as its guiding principle, moderation. The guiding principle of despotism is fear. For democracy, whether republican democracy or parliamentarian democracy, the guiding principle is, of necessity, virtue or what is good. Canada is a parliamentary democracy; therefore, the guiding principle must be virtue or goodness.

In a previous message, we defined “good” as that which is pleasing to God. Should the people of Canada fail to be virtuous, society must soon degenerate into a corrupt system where people misuse the power of government for their own narrow ends. I suggest that in no small measure, that is precisely what we are witnessing in this day. Whereas Canada once practised government which honoured majority rights whilst guarding minorities, today our nation exalts individual rights at the expense of virtue. Increasingly, Canada is becoming a nation of multiple enclaves, each shouting loudly that its rights are greater than those of all others. There is no fixed standard; virtue has become whatever the loudest voice decides it shall be.

The third option proposed by Dr. Boice was that the authority of God and Caesar are recognised, but Caesar being dominant. This is the option many people would claim, though it is a cowardly option. The reason I say it is a cowardly option is that if the authority of God is claimed at all, it must be that of One who is supreme.

I still recall an incident which occurred during a deacons’ meeting at the Sapperton Baptist Church of New Westminster. The chair of the deacons asserted that the constitution of the church was superior to the Word of God. His justification for this outrageous claim was that we were a Canadian church and therefore required to obey the laws of Canada. To my utter surprise, the remainder of his fellow deacons agreed with him. I apologised to that board for treating them as spiritually mature individuals when in fact they were each nothing more than spiritual imbeciles.

Pilate, the great pragmatist, adopted this position. He knew Jesus was innocent of the charges levelled against Him by the Jewish leaders. He declared Him innocent and even tried to free Him, but He feared Caesar. When the Jewish leaders saw that Pilate was considering freeing Jesus, they confronted him, saying, If you release this man, you are not Caesar’s friend [John 19:12]. Pilate feared Caesar. More than anything in the whole world, he wanted to be Caesar’s friend, and thus, he condemned the sinless Son of God.

The irony of his cowardice is that he did not receive Caesar’s friendship. A few years later, Pilate was removed from office by, Vitellius, the proconsul of Syria and ordered to stand trial before Tiberius. Tiberius died before Pilate arrived in Rome, and thus, he was spared a trial. Nevertheless, the common account is that Pilate was banished to France by Caligula. There, the disgraced governor apparently committed suicide.[3]

I wonder if tacitly, many evangelical leaders do not hold this view of Caesar’s dominance? During the recent Biennial Assembly of the Baptist Union of Western Canada, I presented a resolution on behalf of this congregation. It was a request for the denomination to hold accredited ministers and those licensed by the BUWC accountable to a biblical standard. As has already been reported to the congregation, the proposed resolution was referred to the Executive Board of the denomination.

That the resolution was referred to the board was no great surprise. I had been cautioned that such would happen by several leaders of the denomination. Several had pleaded with me not to “overreact” to this action. Apparently, they feared that I would view this action as provocative. The referral to the Executive Board was not, therefore, surprising. It is a way to keep the request bottled up until such time that it is no longer relevant. This is one of the deficits of biennial meetings, when the leadership is not held immediately accountable to the constituency of the denomination. Though the referral was not surprising, the justification for referral was surprising for me as a Baptist.

The leadership pleaded for referral, revealing what can only be construed as naked fear of government. Leaders of this denomination revealed their sincere alarm at the prospect of triggering a response which would result in a court test of the stance, whether through challenging the BUWC as having violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or whether through a civil suit levelled against the denomination.

Several verses of Scripture suggested themselves to my mind, such as the following. God gave us a spirit not of fear but of power and love and self-control [2 Timothy 1:7]. You did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear [Romans 8:15a]. There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not been perfected in love [1 John 4:18]. We confidently say,

“The Lord is my helper,

I will not fear,

what can man do to me?”

[Hebrews 13:6]

Fear results from denial of God’s power or His presence. The leadership of our denomination appears to fear Caesar more than they fear God. Our denomination seems more likely to act out of fear of Caesar’s law than out of fear of Holy God.

The fourth and final option for Christians is that authority lies with God and Caesar, but God is in the dominant position. This is, of course, the only valid option for the knowledgeable student of the Word of God. It is position Jesus articulated when He spoke those words to the Pharisees and Herodians, to which we referred somewhat earlier, render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.

We recognise the authority of the state, and thus we endeavour to be the very best citizens. We obey the speed limits, we pay our taxes honestly, we vote in elections, we support worthy civic endeavours, we speak well of our governors, and we respect their office and pray for them.

There is yet another way in which we Christians serve as the best of citizens, however. This is by opposing the state verbally and through acts of non-compliance whenever the state strays from its role as fostering the good and restraining the evil. Christians must serve as the moral conscience of the state, holding the state accountable should it overstep the limits of divine authority or should it forsake its God-given role. The areas of potential conflict are addressed in the remainder of this message.

The Limits of Governmental Authority — Paul does not teach that the state is beyond criticism because it is divinely ordained. In most cases, Christians will submit to government, although they will refuse to yield absolute rights to government. As Christians, we must bear in mind that every demand originating from the state is to be evaluated in light of the Word of God. Indeed, the child of God is expected to contribute responsibly to the maintenance of a social order that is a terror to bad conduct. Nevertheless, the Christian draws his line of resistance when the state demands a loyalty reserved for God alone. The authority of the state is limited and cannot encroach upon the realms of evangelism, morality, freedom of peaceable assembly, freedom of speech and freedom to practise our Faith without interruption.

Christians cannot recognise the authority of the state in the area of evangelism. Jesus gave us a command. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you [Matthew 28:19, 20]. To the disciples gathered in Jerusalem before His ascension, He gave this command. You will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth [Acts 1:8].

Pastors are responsible to declare the whole counsel of God [see Acts 20:27]. Christians are to be witnesses of God. This is our calling, and we are not to cease from pursuing this command, even should we be commanded to cease by civil authorities. Baptists in Quebec were jailed for preaching the Gospel of Christ during the 1960s, just as their spiritual forebears were imprisoned and beaten in Massachusetts and Virginia two hundred fifty years earlier. Yet, their evangelistic efforts have continued to this day.

Should we be commanded to be silent, we already have the appropriate response recorded in Scripture. The Apostles were ordered by the Jewish authorities to be quiet concerning Jesus. Nevertheless, Peter and John answered them, “Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, you must judge, for we cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard” [Acts 4:19, 20]. The Apostles were threatened and released, but they immediately returned to preaching. This resulted in yet another arrest and the charge, “We strictly charged you not to teach in this name, yet here you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and you intend to bring this man’s blood upon us.” To this charge Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men” [Acts 5:28, 29].

A second limitation of the power of the state is in the realm of morality. No government has the right to command Christians to perform immoral or non-Christian acts. Governments cannot coerce women to abort their babies, as the Chinese government attempts to do, in the case of a second child to a woman.

Dutch citizens, following the German occupation during the Second World War, were ordered to have no dealings with Jews. This was an unjustified demand on Christians to behave immorally, and conscientious Christians were honour bound to disobey. Corrie ten Boom[4] and her family were right to hide Jews in disobedience to the German imposed laws. Likewise, in Germany, Dietrich Bonhoeffer[5] and Martin Niemöller[6] were right to oppose Hitler and to organise an underground church and to preach the truth, even though it meant imprisonment and even death.

Today, Christians, motivated by love, must teach that immorality—whether homosexuality or cohabiting for sexual benefit, testing whether a couple is compatible or any sexual activity outside of marriage—is sin and must therefore be condemned by God. We must speak out against racism, just as we must warn against the dangers of a pluralistic society. We must caution both government and corporations against greed and corruption. We must teach what the Bible says concerning gender discrimination—both discrimination against women and discrimination against men, which is becoming even more of a problem today. We must hold society accountable for the manner in which the aged are treated. We dare not be silent concerning the quiet holocaust as millions of infants are slaughtered in utero or as the most vulnerable members of society are quietly eliminated through what the Dutch refer to as the “good death”—euthanasia.

Government is limited in the areas of freedom of peaceable assembly, freedom of speech and freedom to practise our Faith without interruption. These freedoms, unalienable rights in the American Bill of Rights, are not necessarily guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is true that this document does attest that “everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: (a) freedom of conscience and religion; (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression…; (c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and (d) freedom of association.” Preceding this list of fundamental freedoms, the preliminary clause states: “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.”

In other words, the right to practise my Faith, the right to assemble peaceably, the right to hold thoughts contrary to the majority of society and the right to express those same thoughts, is limited by what the courts decide is justified. If ever a case for conflict between God and Caesar was being prepared, this is it.

Trinity Western University challenged the power of the British Columbia Teachers’ Federation when they sought leave to have graduates of their teachers program certified to teach in British Columbia. In a close vote, the Supreme Court of Canada found that their graduates could be certified. Nevertheless, the comments of some of the justices are worrisome. For instance, Justice Ian Binnie stated that, “It's all very well to say, ‘love the sinner but hate the sin,’ but is that not a contradiction in terms? While the religious may preach tolerance, religion is often an engine of intolerance.” Using Mr. Justice Binnie's logic, Winston Churchill was wrong to hate the Nazis’ sin.[7]

I remind you that He also sat on the case which referred the books advocating same sex parents back to the Surrey School Board, demanding review without any religious consideration. Conscientious Christians are not permitted to leave conscience at home and go about the work to which God has assigned them. My faith, of necessity, dictates how I live and guides me in moral and ethical decisions.

Now we have a bill under consideration in Parliament, debated this past Friday, June 6, 2003, which would include “sexual orientation” in the category of speech protected against hateful speech. Though the sponsor of the bill denies that he wishes to restrict preachers from declaring the words of Scripture, I must remind you that it is not Parliament, but the courts which have the final jurisdiction in these cases in Canada. The intent of Parliament is subservient to the wisdom of the courts, and I have scant reason to believe that the courts of this nation are sympathetic to Christian morality or godliness.

We have a government which equivocates on what marriage is, and when the Supreme Court of British Columbia demands that Parliament reconsider the definition of marriage before the end of June, 2003, the Attorney General of Canada shows little inclination to appeal the ruling, much less raise the issue before Parliament. I am no politician, but even I remember that just four years ago, Parliament passed a resolution in defence of marriage. That resolution declared: That, in the opinion of this House, it is necessary, in light of public debate around recent court decisions, to state that marriage is and should remain the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, and that Parliament will take all steps within the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada to preserve this definition of marriage in Canada.

Lois Mitchell, representing Canadian Baptist Ministers to the Justice Committee investigating legal recognition of same-sex unions, has written her assessment of what is coming. (a) Marriage will be redefined to include same-sex couples; (b) dissident religious groups will have the legal right to perform same-sex marriages; (c) churches or clergy who refuse to perform same-sex marriages may be subjected to legal action but will be able to apply for funding to help defer their legal costs; (d) ultimately this is a major step in the direction of criminalising any apposition to the practise and normalisation of homosexuality; (e) this proposal does nothing to strengthen either marriage or family in Canada; and (f) courts will continue to advance a “liberal” (small l) agenda and religious groups who do not give in to this political and legal pressure will reinforce assumptions and stereotypes of intolerance within secular society.

What shall be done? May I suggest that as Christians we are responsible, first and foremost to obey God. Have you prayed for those in authority? This is our first duty. 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 Saviour, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth [1 Timothy 2:1-4].

As wise and good citizens, I suggest that we are required to speak out forcefully on these issues. Christians should correspond with parliamentarians, revealing their understanding of morality. I append with this sermon a sample letter concerning the need for government to address the issue of marriage as required by the British Columbia Supreme Court. If you choose to be silent, you have no reason to complain when the definitions are changed and the attendant social changes which must follow wash over us.

Again, I recommend that we are responsible to be salt and light were we live and where we work. If you have quietly acquiesced to evil, you are part of the problem. Do not imagine that God will gather together a great multitude to resist evil, it must be resisted moment by moment in the home and in the workplace. If you condone friends or family living together in an immoral situation, you are part of the problem. If you are silent in the face of ethical deviation or before the advance of acceptance of that which is immoral, you are a part of the problem. Be salt and light. Who is a Christian today because of your witness? I trust the question leaves you with grave discomfort.

In this context, Bonhoeffer writes: “Through the call of Jesus men become individuals… Every man is called separately, and must follow alone. But men are frightened of solitude, and they try to protect themselves from it by merging themselves in the society of their fellow men and in their material environment. They become suddenly aware of their responsibilities and duties, and are loathe to part with them. But all this is only a cloak to protect them from having to make a decision. They are unwilling to stand alone before Jesus and to be compelled to decide with their eyes fixed on him alone… It is Christ’s will that he should be thus isolated, and that he should fix his eyes solely upon him."[8]

Lastly, I recommend that when state usurps the position of God, we must in conscience resist, practising civil disobedience. There must come a time when the child of God must refuse to obey unjust laws. The conscientious minister of Christ cannot perform, much less approve of, same sex unions. The church must give a clear voice condemning the practise of sodomites and lesbians. We must be careful not to permit ourselves to hate sinners, for we were each once sinners ourselves.

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God [1 Corinthians 6:9-11].

We must be thoroughly Christian, seeking every opportunity to worship. I am deeply concerned at the attitudes manifest by some who wish to be recognised as Christians, but do not wish the opprobrium associated with godliness. We need one another, and the more so in an evil day. Listen to the Word of God.

Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful. And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near [Hebrews 10:23-25].

In 1774, a Baptist from Massachusetts, named Isaac Backus, came to Carpenter’s Hall in Philadelphia to present a petition against the power of the state to tax Baptists to support the established church. Drawing on the watchword of all friends of liberty, Backus declared the statute to be “taxation without representation.”

Backus had powerful opponents. John Adams said Baptists could as easily expect a change in the solar system as to hope Massachusetts would give up its established church.[9] Samuel Adams, with rising blood pressure, accused Backus and the Baptists of simply being stingy, of refusing to “pay the pence” on economic grounds.

Backus cried out, “It is not the pence, but the power to impose the pence,” to which Baptists objected. He pleaded for separation of church and state and for complete religious liberty. He worked for more than forty years for those goals and lived to see the adoption of the First Amendment to the American Constitution, guaranteeing religious liberty.

More and more, I am conscious of the coercive power of the state. This awareness does not, however, permit me to live in fear of the power of the state. Instead, I find that I resort even more firmly to the Word of God and His power. There is no security to be found in lawyers or appeal to the courts. Even if one foe is bested in the precincts of jurisprudence, there will arise yet another to oppose righteousness.

Parliament passes a blizzard of laws, inundating citizens with curbs on their freedoms, all effected in an attempt to make Canada a better country in which to live. As citizens, we are caught up in any of a number of laws designed to protect us from ourselves or to ensure that we are a “nice” people.

If you have not witnessed the encroachment of the state into the precincts of the True and Living God, I can only wonder where you have been? Wake up! Take steps now to prepare for the inevitable conflict. Begin now to pray for those in authority, asking that God give them wisdom and grace so that we may live peaceful and quiet lives. Address the issues. Make yourself aware and write to those individuals who make the laws which direct our daily affairs. Be the salt and light which God intended you to be. Cease your silence and speak out for righteousness. At last, draw your line in the sand, preparing yourself to refuse the encroachment of the state into the sacred precincts.

I do fear that you will fail in all your intentions, however, until such time that you become a Christian. That must be addressed through submission to Christ the Lord as Master of your life. If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.” For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved” [Romans 10:9-13].

The following information comes from a fellow pastor in northern Alberta.

Dear Colleagues,

As you may be aware the Federal Government has been ordered by a BC Court to redefine marriage. They have until the end of June to appeal that ruling - something they appear very reluctant to do. However, a groundswell of opposition in the form of letters to the Justice Minister, Martin Cauchon, can change that [it has in the other cases]. I have made available the attached letter to our congregation to either send in, signed, as is, or to rewrite in their own handwriting [preferred], or to write an entirely original letter [best]. I will remind them that they do not need to put a stamp on the envelope as the MPs have 'franking' privileges. If you wish to you may copy or modify the letter as you see fit but I would urge you to encourage your congregants to do something soon or the court's decision will become law by default.

June, 2003

Mr. Martin Cauchon, MP

House of Commons

Ottawa, ON

K1A 0A6

Dear Mr. Cauchon:

In June of 1999 the Government of Canada passed a resolution to defend marriage as follows:

"That, in the opinion of this House, it is necessary, in light of public debate around recent court decisions, to state that marriage is and should remain the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, and that Parliament will take all steps within the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada to preserve this definition of marriage in Canada."

Unfortunately, as you are aware, the situation has not changed and the courts continue to interfere in this most basic of human institutions. Moreover, currently the government has until the end of this month to appeal a BC court decision that seeks to redefine marriage.

I therefore urge you to appeal this court decision with the utmost vigor, doing as your government promised: “take all steps within the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada to preserve this definition of marriage in Canada.” Beyond appealing this decision I would urge you in the strongest of terms to use the “notwithstanding clause” if that is what will be necessary to preserve marriage as “between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others”.

Sincerely,

The following information is provided by Mr. Reed Elley, MP for Nanaimo-Cowichan and a former minister within the Baptist Union of Western Canada.

BILL C-250 - An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (Hate Propaganda)

Dear Believers:

As you may be aware, Member of Parliament, Svend Robinson (Burnaby - Douglas) has been actively promoting his BILL C-250 - An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (Hate Propaganda) through the House of Commons. Although originally scheduled to return to the House for the final hour of debate in the Fall, he has switched places with one of his NDP colleagues, Mr. Peter Stoffer, MP (Sackville - Musquodoboit Valley - Eastern Shore).

Bill C-250 will therefore be up for one hour of debate on Friday, June 6, 2003 and then brought back to the House next week for one more hour. The Canadian Alliance remains very opposed to the current wording of the Bill and will continue to propose amendments and argue strongly against the Bill at that time.

The primary concern with this bill, which would place "sexual orientation" within the existing "hate crimes" legislation, is that using parts of Scripture would, or could be, designated as a hate crime.

I would encourage you to let other people know about this important issue. At this point it is particularly important to overwhelm Liberal Members of Parliament with individual letters and emails. If you have already written or sent an Email, please do it again. If you haven't yet, please consider it. It all helps!

Please feel free to copy or circulate this Faith Report to others who you feel would be interested in this information. Your prayer support is needed at this time.

----

[1] Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture quotations are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version Ó 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a division of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

[2] James Montgomery Boice, Romans: Volume 4, The New Humanity, Romans 12-16 (Baker, Grand Rapids, MI 1995) 649-50

[3] J. G. Vos, Pilate, Pontius (art.) in Merrill C. Tenney (ed.), Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible (Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI 1978) 792

[4] Corrie ten Boom Elizabeth Sherrill, and, John Sherrill, The Hiding Place (Chosen Books, Grand Rapids, MI, 1971)

[5] Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship (Macmillan, NY 1963)

[6] Hubert G. Locke (ed.) Exile in the Fatherland: Martin Niemöller’s Letters from Moabit Prison (Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI 1986)

[7] Ronald Rosmer, Tolerance is not a Virtue (ltr), Report, January 1, 2001 http://report.ca/archive/report/20010101/p05i010101f.html

[8] Bonhoeffer, op. cit., 105

[9] Bynum Shaw, Divided We Stand—The Baptists in American Life (Moore Publishing Co., Durham, NC 1975) 65