Compiled by Janet Epp Buckingham

Hate is always spread against “the other.” Christians cannot be complacent that we are somehow exempt from hate.

Spreading hatred seems to be on the rise around the world. The London bombings and 9/11 were the results of hatred. Anyone who has toured Auschwitz-Birchinau, (http://www.auschwitz-muzeum.oswiecim.pl/html/eng/start/index.php warning‹disturbing images) and seen the Nazi death camps, or been to Rwanda (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/evil/ warning‹disturbing images) to see the results of the genocide in that country has experienced the awful reality of the ultimate end of hatred: death.

Hatred is spread against “the West,” against Jews, against Muslims, against gays and lesbians, against women, against blacks, whites, aboriginal people, and on and on. Hatred is always spread against “the other.”

How are Christians to respond to the spread of hatred?

We have to remember that in some parts of the world, Christians are hated, merely because of their Christian faith. In Islamic countries like Saudi Arabia, it is a criminal offence to hold even a private religious ceremony. In countries like India, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Sri Lanka, Christians are under constant threat of violence. In other countries, like China and Vietnam, certain Christian groups are seen as a threat to the nation, pastors are jailed and church buildings are razed.

So, Christians cannot be complacent that we are somehow exempt from hate.

Jesus gives a great deal of teaching about these kinds of issues. First, He tells us that Christians will face persecution‹not might, but will (see Matthew 24:9). Second, He tells us to love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us. Third, He demonstrated this radical forgiveness by publicly forgiving His executioners when He was on the cross.

But what does Jesus have to say about persecution of others? In John 3:16, 17 Jesus makes it clear that He did not come into the world to condemn people. He tells us how much God loves everyone. We are told, “do not judge, and you will not be judged” (Luke 6:37) Clearly, Christians are not to take on the role of condemning others.

In this light, it is no wonder that it is perplexing to legislators and courts when Christians are concerned about laws that limit the spread of hatred. Is it really part of religious practice to spread hatred about others?

Of course, it is not that simple. Anyone who has read through the Old Testament is well aware that there is plenty of condemnation of others. While Christ ushered in a new approach to dealing with others, He did not sweep away the Old Testament. But when confronted with the woman caught in adultery, or when He met the Samaritan woman at the well, Jesus did not throw the Old Testament law at them to condemn them, and neither should we.

But we also must ensure that the Bible is not barred from public places on the basis that it is “offensive.” Certainly, the Bible is offensive to sin, but all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. The Bible offers hope to us sinners!

So, how did I end up in a courtroom in Regina last week seemingly defending someone like Hugh Owens who produced bumper stickers throwing Scripture at gays and lesbians with the message that God condemns their behaviour? Good question!

There are lots of Christians who are not temperate with their speech. Like anyone else, they get hot under the collar and rant a bit. The problem comes when this rant becomes public. And it is even more of a problem when the ranter asks others to join in the rant so that it becomes a campaign. Hugh Owens is one of the latter.

I, for one, do not believe it is particularly Christian to go around condemning people and then claim that it is part of one’s religious beliefs. Nevertheless, once an issue like this gets to court, and the courts start dealing with religious freedom, Christians need to be there to ensure that Christians do not lose the ability to distribute Scriptures or the ability to speak publicly on sexual morality as a side casualty in the legal process. At the Saskatchewan Queen’s Bench, the judge ruled that Leviticus 20:13 promotes hatred against gays.

Hugh Owens has refused to get a lawyer, and is representing himself in court. This is a good way to ensure a bad decision. The court structure is set up to have lawyers making legal arguments. I am a lawyer. I have years of training in legal research and interpreting and applying cases. I know that this is training that other people do not have. When ordinary citizens start representing themselves in court, they cannot bring the legal interpretation that has been developed in other cases (precedents) to bear on the current case. And this is the situation for Hugh Owens.

Quite honestly, Owens acted with the best of intentions. He believed God was calling him to proclaim a message that God is not okay with homosexuality. He had planned a second round of bumper stickers proclaiming that Jesus is the answer to the problem of sin. But after the complaint against the first advertisement of religious bumper stickers, the newspaper refused any more of his ads.

Owens is not the only case where Christians are facing court challenges because of their public expression about homosexuality. Bishop Henry is facing a human rights complaint in Calgary regarding his pastoral letter about same-sex marriage. Stephen Boisson, a Red Deer pastor, is facing a complaint about a letter to the editor. Teacher Chris Kempling is appealing to the Supreme Court of Canada after being disciplined by the British Columbia College of Teachers for letters to the editor about the teaching of homosexuality in the schools. Bill Whatcott is in court for distributing pamphlets about homosexuality at a university in Saskatchewan.

These cases are all important. They involve our fundamental freedoms both as Christians and as Canadians. Freedom of speech is not for expression that everyone agrees with but that which is unpopular. The majority has no need of protection. This is a protection for minorities.

What was it Martin Niemoller said?

First they came for the Communists,

and I didn’t speak up,

because I wasn’t a Communist.

Then they came for the Jews,

and I didn’t speak up,

because I wasn’t a Jew.

Then they came for the Catholics,

and I didn’t speak up,

because I was a Protestant.

Then they came for me,

and by that time there was no one

left to speak up for me.

Janet Epp Buckingham is director of Law and Public Policy and general legal counsel for the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada in Ottawa.