This Wednesday, October 12, a very important case is coming before the Supreme Court of Canada. They will be exploring these two issues:
1) Can Christians preach and teach against what we believe to be a sinful behaviour--a behaviour that we believe ultimately harms the person involved--but still love the person?
2) Can Christians be critical--in public--of the activities of a person or community without this criticism being understood as hatred?
The EFC will be presenting arguments to defend our right to religious freedom. Please pray that truth and justice would prevail and that our Canadian right to religious freedom is maintained. See here for more information.
2 comments:
Thanks for the post, Ryan. The questions to be explored by Canada's Supreme Court are deeply relevant to Canada's Christian community.
Here are the two questions again, and here are some of my thoughts about these questions.
Question 1:
Can Christians preach and teach against what we believe to be a sinful behaviour—a behaviour that we believe ultimately harms the person involved—but still love the person?
Thoughts about question 1:
If a behaviour does in fact harm another person, then I would think it's loving to proclaim it as harmful plus educate others about it. If smoking does in fact harm a person and we believe this, then it's part of love to say so and inform others about it. So it would seem that there's no logical inconsistency between (a) believing, asserting, and arguing that X is wrong or harmful and (b) loving the person who does X.
Of course, love would require that the asserting and arguing that X is wrong or harmful should be done with gentleness and respect. Love would also require an acknowledgment that we hold our beliefs fallibly.
But if X is wrong or harmful and we believe this—and we have good grounds for believing this—then surely it would be unloving NOT to "preach and teach" against X.
Question 2:
Can Christians be critical—in public—of the activities of a person or community without this criticism being understood as hatred?
Thoughts about question 2:
If a court judges that a Christian’s criticism—in public—of the activities of a person or community is sufficient grounds for thinking that this criticism should be understood as hatred, then it should be noted that the court's judgment itself is a criticism—in public—of the activities of a person (a Christian) or community (Christians) and so, to be consistent, is sufficient grounds for thinking that the court's criticism should be understood as hatred too.
Philosophy Foosballers: What do you think?
P.S. I acknolwedge that my thoughts may be mistaken. Mistaken or not, I will be praying that our Supreme Court makes some wise judgments.
Here's an update on the Supreme Court case, presented by LifeSiteNews.
Post a Comment