At last month’s New Democratic Party policy convention in Vancouver, delegates unanimously passed a resolution which calls on the government of Canada to revoke the charitable status of “ex-gay organizations,” identifying only one organization by name.
As reported in stories by LifeSiteNews and Xtra! Canada’s Gay & Lesbian News, this follows on the heels of the August 2010 revocation of the charitable status of an organization which ministers to the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender/Transsexual) community in New Zealand.
Should members of the LGBT community who, as the result of personal decision, want to discuss changing their sexual behaviour be told there’s nowhere to go? Should religious charities be forbidden from providing support to those who want to converse, seek counselling or change their lifestyle?
There are thousands of Christian charities in Canada that seek to minister to and share the gospel with the wider Canadian populace, while others seek to focus on ministering to various subsets of the population, whether the poor, the disabled, or even those seeking freedom from addictions or, in this instance, questions about changing the way they live. Many of Canada’s finest care institutions operate as Christian charities – soup kitchens, hospices, half-way houses and drop-in centres for teens. Canada’s charitable sector is broad, diverse and its regulatory body, the Canada Revenue Agency’s Charities Directorate, enjoys independence from government and political interference as it operates at an arm’s length from the government. This arrangement has greatly benefited Canadians in the past.
In Canadian law, Christian (and other faith-based) charities operate under the ‘Advancement of Religion,’ one of four “charitable heads” or charitable ends, as their works are a direct result of their Christian beliefs to love their neighbour, preach the gospel to all and to do justice, love mercy and walk humbly with God (Micah 6:8).
There is a long history of cooperation between church and government in Canada in many areas, including those of social justice and relief of poverty. Advancement of religion includes those acts of service that flow from Jesus’ command to love God and our neighbour. So worship, Bible studies, and the like all flow into practical acts of service, and inform how we engage in the public square.
This NDP resolution is a potential attack on the heart of all of these types of ministries, not just those offering services to gays and lesbians. In advancing religion, ministries are sharing the gospel and offering assistance and support to those who would like to accept it. Christian charities in Canada are heavily regulated and are very closely monitored. Should charities that minister to the LGBT community, or any other community, violate CRA policies or regulations, they face consequences. Should Canadian charities commit any crimes, criminal law is there to capture that behaviour.
The advancement of religion has, in law, a presumed public benefit due to the moral, theological and ethical framework it has provided to the Western world (Canada, in particular), which has informed and inspired our moorings and traditions. Historically, the Church in time past functioned as the ‘loyal opposition’ and a breakwater against government tyranny. It also encouraged virtues necessary for the sustenance of society. For these reasons and others, the charitable head of advancement of religion benefits from a presumption of public benefit. There is, of course, the additional public benefit of making their ministries available to all who would avail themselves of the services offered.
The NDP policy proposal is an affront to the longstanding foundation of the ‘advancement of religion’ charitable head. If implemented, this idea would serve only to weaken the Canadian charitable community and rob Canadian citizens of the many benefits they receive from this sector. In short, the NDP policy proposes a very slippery slope that we best not slide down.
The vote and discussion at the NDP convention can be viewed here, at about 01:16:00. The resolution passes unanimously and then is followed by remarks.