A Christian Response to MP Marc Miller’s Comments on the Bible and “Hate Speech”

Recent remarks by MP Marc Miller are deeply concerning, not just for people of faith, but for anyone who values freedom of conscience and speech. It is troubling when an elected official casts the entire Holy Scripture of Christians as “hateful” and suggests that public engagement with it might be prosecutable. 

In a committee session he asked:

“In Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Romans — there’s other passages — there’s clear hatred towards, for example, homosexuals.” 3LifeSite
And
“I don’t understand how the concept of good faith can be invoked if someone were literally invoking a passage from, in this case, the Bible … and somehow say that this is good faith.” LifeSite+1
He further stated:
“Clearly there are situations in these texts where these statements are hateful. They should not be used to invoke… a defence, and there should perhaps be discretion for prosecutors to press charges.” LifeSite+1

In short: Miller asserts that certain Biblical passages are “clearly hateful” (specifically toward homosexuals) and argues that citing Scripture should not provide a defence in public-hate-speech or public-incitement contexts. Juno News+1 He says he is a Christian himself. But that is not as clear as he think it is.

First of all, clearly, if someone harms another person and tries to justify it by quoting the Bible, that is evil. The Christian teaching rejects violence done “in God’s name.” and we don't need a politician to lecture society on that. Every Christian knows that The Word of God never calls us to destroy, but to love our neighbour. 

Marc Miller’s comments are deeply problematic for several reasons.

1. They mis-characterize the Bible and Biblical faith. To claim that passages are “clearly hateful” without recognising the interpretive, historical, theological contexts, reduces scripture to a weapon of ideological condemnation. The Bible does indeed include hard teachings, and yes, parts of it were used (and mis-used) throughout history in wrong ways — but to condemn the whole as “hateful” dismisses centuries of faithful exegesis and teaching of Christian mercy, redemption and transformation.

2. They undermine freedom of religion and speech. The suggestion that “if you preach a verse we don’t like you may face prosecution” opens the door to chilling pastoral, educational, and preaching activity. Who defines what is “hate”? Who decides which passages are unacceptable to quote or teach? The State is not a Theological Studies entity, and when it starts to evaluate the validity of faith claims or religious texts for criminal liability, we’re on very dangerous ground. If the Bible can't be used in court, the parliament shouldn't be determining exegesis.

3. They betray the Christian mission. Christians preach not just condemnation, but the gospel of forgiveness, love of neighbour, the cross of Christ, the transformation of hearts. If believers must constantly look over their shoulder to ensure no one might interpret their sermon as “hate,” the church loses its prophetic, bold witness and becomes muted by fear.

4. They conflate incitement to violence with faithful Biblical proclamation. Miller correctly notes that mass violence cannot be justified by Scripture. No real Christian would even say that. But by linking scripture-citation with prosecution, the line between violent hate crime and conscientious religious speech gets blurred. Preaching John 3:16, Romans 1, or Leviticus passages in historical/theological context is not the same as publicly inciting violence or discrimination.

 At the heart of this debate and at the core of this rebuttal lies the question: Who gets to define what “hate speech” and “hate crime” really are?

The problem is not that society condemns hatr

ed or violence—Christians do too. The problem is how easily those words are stretched to cover anything that simply disagrees with popular ideology. When “hate” becomes a label for whatever offends someone’s feelings, and “crime” becomes a tool to silence viewpoints, then the law stops protecting justice and starts enforcing conformity.

The danger lies in the fluidity and vagueness of the term. “Hate speech” can mean one thing today and another tomorrow. It might begin as a safeguard against real abuse, but it soon becomes a weapon against conviction. Once truth itself is subject to emotional approval, moral reasoning is replaced by mood, and legal principles by politics.

Faith communities, in particular, become easy targets. A sermon about sin, repentance, or God’s design for creation can be recast as “hate” simply because someone feels confronted by it. But confrontation is not hatred—it’s part of how truth and grace work together. The Word of God first exposes what’s wrong and then goes on to heal what’s broken.

Christians must therefore resist this redefinition. To preach Christ crucified and His entire Word is not an act of hate—it is an act of love. To teach God’s Word is not a crime—it is Grace. A society that criminalizes disagreement does not protect minorities; it endangers everyone.

For Christians, this is a moment to stand firm: the truth of Scripture cannot be silenced by political interests, ideological pressure, or fear of prosecution. The church will continue to teach, preach, and disciple, even when that teaching is counter-cultural, even when it runs against popular opinion. Truth is not hate, and silence is not love.

We defend Christian freedom in Canada as meaning more than the absence of arrest—it is the freedom to live, love and speak faithfully what God has said. Whether a politician agrees with it or not.