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 Holy Scripture of Christians as “hateful” and suggests that public engagement with it might be prosecutable. 

In a committee session he stated:

“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 deliberately 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. 

Our criminal code already addresses incitement to violence and threats of harm. What Mr. Miller suggests is not the protection of citizens from hatred, but the policing of confession of faith. To prosecute a citizen—or a pastor—for reading, quoting, or teaching Scripture would mark a shift from criminal law to thought control. A free and plural society that doesn't tolerate moral disagreement ceases to be free. 

Christians do not demand that our Scriptures dictate civil law; we insist only that civil law not dictate what we may read, teach, or believe. Freedom of conscience cuts both ways. The same Charter that protects the atheist from coercion protects the Christian from criminalization.

History has many examples of governments that tried to censor Scripture—the Roman Empire, totalitarian ideologies of the 20th century, even certain religious institutions when the Bible was translated into the people’s language. Every one of those attempts, sooner or later, was judged by history as an assault on conscience and human dignity. We would be foolish to repeat their mistake under a new vocabulary of ‘tolerance.' 

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. We do not defend Scripture in order to protect our traditions, but to serve our Lord and the truth that sets us free.

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. If Scripture may not be cited in public discourse or in the courtroom, then Parliament and secular courts are stepping into a role for which they are neither designed nor equipped: the role of theologian and pastor. That is not to say all uses of Scripture made by people are fair, but to insist that the State must not stifle responsible, historically-grounded Christian proclamation.

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.

 If the State begins deciding which Scriptures are permissible, it will not stop at ours. 

 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 hatred 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. “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. IF truth is subject to emotional approval, moral reasoning is replaced by mood, and legal principles by politics.

The term ‘hate speech’ collapses when it depends entirely on the listener’s feelings. If offence defines hatred, then no belief can be publicly expressed without risk of prosecution. The very same Scripture that says ‘Love your enemies’ could be deemed hateful simply because it assumes we have enemies. A society that outsources its moral reasoning to subjective offence will not protect anyone’s dignity—it will abolish debate altogether.

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 will 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. The Church stands for the protection of the vulnerable—not by adopting the tools of silence, but by proclaiming the Word of Christ with courage, humility, and love.

Yes, Scripture has been misused to justify evil. That is precisely why it must remain open to responsible, faithful interpretation—not banned from discourse. The antidote to misuse is not censorship but sound teaching. To silence the Bible because it was once abused is to silence the very voice that condemned those abuses in the first place. 

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 speak not from fear of losing influence but from faith in the Lord who reigns over all earthly powers. The Christian does not seek to dominate the public square, only to remain in it—bearing witness to truth and love. When you remove that voice, you don't impoverish the Church,  - you cause harm to the entire nation.

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.