Laws that threaten religious freedom rarely begin by banning sermons. They begin with the redefinition of words — especially words like harm, hate, safety, tolerance, and inclusion. Over time, those redefinitions reshape what a society considers acceptable speech, and eventually, what it is willing to tolerate from people of faith.
Bill C-9 has been presented to Canadians as a necessary measure to combat hate and to protect vulnerable communities. On the surface, those are certainly laudable goals – goals which Christians should affirm and support without hesitation. The Bible condemns hatred (Titus 3:3), violence (Psalm 11:5), cruelty (Proverbs 12:10), and injustice (Isaiah 1:16-17). Christianity does not advocate malice or harm (Colossians 3:8), nor does it seek licence to demean or abuse others.
And yet, sincere and thoughtful concern has been raised about Bill C-9 — particularly among those who hold to and contend for the freedom to teach and publicly articulate biblical convictions. Concern, because biblical preaching increasingly collides with the modern conception of what constitutes “hatred.”
The question is not whether we oppose hatred. We do. The question is whether a government-defined concept of “hatred” may one day be used to scrutinize or punish the faithful proclamation of biblical truth.
What Bill C-9 Is and Why It Matters
Bill C-9 introduces new hate-crime provisions into Canadian law. It has been framed by the government as protective, preventative, and remedial. It creates new offenses aimed at protecting access to places of worship and ending violence and vandalism against certain religious groups (NOTE – there are already laws on the books to deal with this).
Further, to address and criminalize hate related actions, the Bill provides a definition of hatred, namely, “…the emotion that involves detestation or vilification and that is stronger than disdain or dislike.” It is difficult to establish an objective legal definition for hatred. But an even greater trouble is the subjectivity which is sure to be used in determining violations. Which is given more weight – the perception of the one who feels hated upon or the intention of the one who spoke? There is serious concern that the speaker’s purpose or aim may take a backseat to the hearer’s feelings and sensitivities, which is dangerous in a world increasingly hostile to biblical morality.
Our criminal code currently has a clause in Section 319(3)(b) which states an individual cannot be convicted of willfully promoting hatred when they “in good faith … expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on belief in a religious text.” During committee consideration of the Bill, the Bloc Québécois, an opposition party in the House of Commons, has offered their support to Bill C-9 provided an amendment removing this religious exemption from the criminal code is included. A very real concern is that legitimate religious teaching or discussion – including quoting certain texts from the Bible or other religious texts – may be deemed hate-speech, and be prosecuted as such, without the aforementioned legal protection.
Bill C-9 does not explicitly outlaw sermons, moral instruction, theological claims, or religious debate. That point is often emphasized by those who dismiss concerns about its implications. But laws do not operate only by what they explicitly forbid. If not precise and unambiguous, they are open to broad interpretation and manipulation in application and enforcement and become subjugated to cultural assumptions. This will lead biblical preaching to be increasingly viewed through a lens of suspicion.
The Core Tension: Biblical Truth and Modern Definitions of “Hatred”
Biblical preaching, by its very nature, makes moral distinctions. It declares that some things are right and others are wrong, identifying what God calls sin as sinful. It urges repentance of transgressions, reformation of character and conduct, and submission to Christ. Bible preaching proclaims exclusive truth claims — the Bible is God’s word, Jesus is Lord, salvation is found in Him, and all people are accountable before God.
In Scripture, such preaching is an expression of love (Revelation 3:19; Proverbs 27:6). In the modern secular imagination, however, moral disagreement is perceived as harm and hatred. Correction is recast as coercion and hostility. Proclamation of an exclusive truth is viewed as inherently dangerous.
When the legal definition (or at first, the social concept) of “hatred” is set at odds with biblical love, truth, and correction, faithful preaching is reinterpreted by outsiders as something it is not. What Scripture presents as compassion the culture may perceive as cruelty. In the gospel offer of rescue from sin others hear rejection and repulsion.
Why Process Matters as Much as Verdicts
Some have argued that these concerns are overblown, noting that courts still require a high bar for conviction. That may be true. But convictions are not the only means by which speech is discouraged. The legal process itself exerts pressure. Complaints, investigations, hearings, legal costs, damaged reputations, and public scrutiny can all function as deterrents — especially for smaller congregations and those without substantial legal resources at the ready.
In such an environment, widespread conviction is not required – just the uncertainty, fear, and growing sense that speaking plainly may invite trouble. Long before any verdict is reached, the process is used to punish those who allegedly spoke “hateful” words. The process itself becomes an ominous threat, hanging overhead like a looming gallows.
History shows that once speech is placed under heightened scrutiny, self-censorship often follows. Some may begin to soften language, avoid certain texts, or steer clear of culturally sensitive teachings. Why? Certainly not because Scripture has changed, rather, because the cost of speaking the truth has been elevated.
This Is Not Only a Christian Concern
Much of the public discussion has focused on Christianity, but the implications of Bill C-9 extend beyond the church. Other religious communities who may welcome the stronger protections against vandalism, harassment, and intimidation at places of worship (protections mentioned in Bill C-9), will also be affected by the attack the Bill levies against religious convictions. Orthodox Jews who maintain longstanding moral teaching based upon the Torah, as well as Muslim communities holding to traditional views on marriage, sexuality, and gender, will also be caught by this attempt to quell religious speech and practice which is offensive to an ever permissive and hypocritically tolerant culture. Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, and other religious traditions also hold ethical frameworks that do not always align with modern Western ideology.
This underscores an important truth: the issue is not Christianity versus government. It is the broader question of whether religious conviction — particularly when it conflicts with dominant cultural values — will be tolerated as a legitimate voice in public life.
What Faithful Christians Must Continue to Do
Faithfulness to the message of God cannot be surrendered for safety. Christians are stewards of a message they did not invent and cannot edit. The gospel is not to be adapted for the sake of cultural comfort. Our duty is to proclaim the truth with clarity, humility, and love. Christians have always lived under laws that were not written with biblical truth as their foundation. The ancient prophets were constantly accused and disdained (2 Chronicles 36:15-16; Jeremiah 20:1-2). The apostles preached under threat from Jewish and Roman authorities alike (Acts 5:27-29, 40; 16:19-24). Jesus Himself was condemned as a danger to public order (John 11:49-50; 18:14). Why should we be surprised if the world reacts the same to the church today?
A Closing Word
Bill C-9 may be framed as a tool to combat hatred. Christians should oppose hatred wherever it exists. But we must also be vigilant when the meaning of hatred is expanded, reshaped, or detached from objective moral truth. Faithful service to God has always carried risk. It always will. The call of the gospel has never been to secure comfort in the here and now, but unto the hope of the eternal presence of God in the there and then. Our task, then, is not to preach with fear — nor with defiance — but with conviction, wisdom, and love, trusting that obedience to God is worth whatever cost may come (Acts 20:27; 2 Timothy 4:2-3; 1 Corinthians 4:1-2).
Links: YouVersion | GROW magazine
Return to the article archive
