In the last few days I have noticed a good number of people posting on Facebook that Canada has criminalized the Bible. I have tried to find validation for these claims, and have now found several interesting articles relating to Bill C-9 which has been introduced to their house of commons. Every article I found states the same thing: Bill C-9 does not criminalize the Bible, but, in my estimation, it does present an extremely slippery slope headed in the wrong direction. For the sake of clarity, let me share a statement from an article entitled, “What Bill C-9 Actually Does.”

Bill C-9 aims to strengthen Canada’s response to hate-related incidents, including antisemitism. The amendment in question removes a specific defense in the Criminal Code for statements made in good faith based on religious texts, but it does not make quoting Scripture a crime. Religious discussion, debate, and sharing of biblical passages remain legal, unless they willfully promote hatred against an identifiable group.

The reason I believe this to be a slippery slope headed to destructive ends is because of the underlying intent that could be read into this statement. Look again at the last sentence in the statement quoted above. Read it carefully. Make special note of the word, “unless.” There is the slippery slope. There is the possible destructive end to which this bill could lead.

Let’s think of a hypothetical end result of this bill. Suppose on a given Sunday morning, in a typical, conservative, Bible-believing church, the pastor preaches a message on human sexuality. He isn’t targeting the subject. He is preaching expositionally through the Bible, and the text of the week is as follows:

“Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever, Amen. For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.” Romans 1:24-27

In this text, Paul mentions only two sexes – male and female. He also mentions the “natural” as opposed to that which is “against nature.” And what specifically does he single out, for illustration of his premise that they “exchanged the truth of God for the lie”? Unnatural sexual behavior. This would include much of today’s emphasis of the 2SLGBTQI+ acronym, which identifies “sexual orientations.” Notice the “+” at the end. Just in case your personal sexual orientation is not covered with the other letter significations, you can add yours here!

Now, suppose that as the preacher delivers his message, there happens to be in the congregation someone who identifies as bisexual. He is offended at the words the pastor is using, steps outside, calls the police, reports the pastor for “hate speech”, to which police are dispatched and then make their way to the church. They enter the church, making their way up the aisle toward the pastor, who continues with his message. They step up on the platform, one of either side of the pastor, where one of them says, “You are spewing hate speech, which could incite riotous action. We must ask that you stop immediately, or you will be arrested for attempting to instigate a riot.”

Now, please remember that this is all hypothetical. But would you not agree that the trajectory for something like this is not a baseless interpretation of a possible scenario taking place? Those who have voted on this bill may think that they are doing a great service to the civility of their citizens, but they are really opening a Pandora’s box of terrible end results of their decision.

Paul stated in the fourth chapter of his first letter to Timothy the following:

Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. 1 Timothy 4:1-3

Note particularly that Paul is speaking of those who have departed from the faith, having been deceived. In the previous passage quoted above he said that they had exchanged the truth of God for the lie. I believe that this suggest Bill C-9 is much more dangerous than the outright criminalization of the Bible. I believe (maybe in absolute naivete) that if a bill to make the Bible illegal were introduced it would be immediately derailed. But this is a more subtle, seemingly innocuous, bill for everyone’s protection. Well, not necessarily for everyone. Christianity will suffer the ultimate blow from such a bill.

Could I suggest that prayer be lifted for the citizens of Canada? It would be fitting for us to lift their national leaders in their decision-making process to weigh carefully the far-reaching ramifications of this bill. And could we add our own nation to that prayer list, if it is not already there? Our nation is following in the tracks of many other nations before us. Nations that were once bastions of the Christian faith, and now, sadly their countrysides are dotted with empty buildings which were at one time thriving houses of worship. Pray that this will not be the epitaph written across the gravestone of a dead nation. Oh, God, have mercy!