Muzzled in the Maritimes: Sean Feucht and the Dubious Politics of "Safety"

Sean Feucht and the Dubious Politics of "Safety"

Sean Feucht is being cancelled here in the Maritimes. And that’s good—except, I’m afraid, it really isn’t.

Cards on the table: Sean Feucht is a loudmouth who wraps his alt-right politics in a Christian flag and then sets it all to rock music. Feucht is a former “worship pastor” in the signs-and-wonders mode. The public problem with him, however, is not his gospel-preaching or his worship-leading. It is with his politics.

He is a MAGA Trumpist. He is scornfully antagonistic to sexual and gender diversity. And he has made his politics apparent in rallies that have been anti-anti-racism, anti-Critical Race Theory, and anti-Black Lives Matter.

Thoughtful Christians might well have qualms about left-wing politics in the United States (or Canada). I certainly do. Traditional Christians remain “heteronormative.” And even some of us appalled with the continuing toxicity of race relations in North America can bristle at simplistic and extreme versions of DEI. (I offer a guide to such matters in a little book available here.)  

Still, there are at least two serious concerns faithful Christians would have with Mr. Feucht. But we should have at least one major worry with the municipal governments now deplatforming him.

The first Christian concern that all Christians ought to share is Mr. Feucht’s insistence on packaging what are clearly political rallies as “worship” events. Yes, worship songs are sung, prayers are said, and God is mentioned. But it is simply disingenuous for him to keep claiming that these events centre on worship when they originated as responses to political events—notably the BLM protests arising out of the George Floyd killing— and they continue to feature his extended and vociferous commentary (to put it gently) about a wide range of political issues.

It simply isn’t true, therefore, that he is being cancelled merely because he is a Christian saying and singing Christian things in public. And his pretending otherwise serves only to bring confusion and needless opposition to the genuine proclamation of the Gospel.

The second concern many Christians will have is over both the content and the style of Mr. Feucht’s ethical pronouncements. Many Christians won’t agree with some of his views. Many more, however, will agree with him on conservative political and moral questions but will remain dismayed at the lack of certain qualities that the New Testament says are supposed to characterize Christians: such as love and gentleness.

Yes, Jesus and the apostles could sometimes be severe, even harsh. But not with sinners. They were severe with fellow believers or with those who should have been: religious leaders who refused to acknowledge God’s blessing on the Christ and on the Christian movement.

Where, then, is Mr. Feucht speaking the truth in love? Where is the earnest apostolic attempt to be all things to all people in order to win at least some?

Mr. Feucht’s so-called worship services are, in fact, incendiary political rallies intended to fire up the already convinced. And a lot of us churchgoing folk don’t, won’t, and shouldn’t support them.

Still, it remains concerning that some of these clamorous rightwingers provoke civic authorities in Canada to overreach. I think it is now evident that certain municipal and provincial governments restricted attendance in churches during the COVID-19 epidemic in ways they did not restrict attendance at, say, bars or other secular gathering places. And now I’m wondering if we’re seeing something similar here in the Maritimes as one after another civic government cancels Mr. Feucht’s rallies.

It is a legitimate point, of course, to be concerned about public safety. But woe to the politicians who hide (as many do) behind this innocuous concern.

When I lived in Vancouver, I remember being stuck in traffic for hours as demonstrations in favour of the legalization of marijuana paralyzed the downtown for hours—without police intervention. And one doesn’t have to dig deep into Google for examples of municipal tolerance of left-wing political demonstrations in the United States with the full expectation of damage to property and even harm to people. Double standard as to balancing free speech and public safety?

Are there really so many angry citizens in Halifax or Charlottetown—on either side of Mr. Feucht’s politics—as to threaten civic order? I’d like to see the police services reassure us with hard evidence that safety really is the issue.

Or is “safety” being redefined now to suit progressive sensibilities? One of the MSM reports as follows:

The decision to deplatform Feucht “shows that there's no space for hate in Moncton," says a woman identified with a local activist group opposing Mr. Feucht. “Nobody that signed this letter is anti-religion or wants to remove people from being able to speak out about religion,” she assures us. “This is about hatred. This is about making a community unsafe, feeling like they're not welcome.’"

Alarm bells should go off in the heads of anyone concerned with civil rights in Canada. This spokesperson says that she and her cohorts are not against religion, just hate. But one might easily surmise that, on the contrary, they just hate Mr. Feucht’s religion. And why? Because he opposes the broad agenda of the LGBTQ+ coalition. But so what? How does some noisy man and his noisy friends making noise at a rally actually endanger anyone?

Ah, the now-typical answer: “This is about making a community unsafe, feeling like they’re not welcome.” And that phrasing is just as disingenuous as anything Mr. Feucht says.

No gay or lesbian or trans person is going to be unsafe in these cities because of such a demonstration. These are cities that proclaim their support of a progressive agenda: from Moncton’s rainbow crosswalks to Charlottetown’s official website claiming, as another Pride Week (not just a “day,” note) begins: the City “stands in full support of our diverse and vibrant 2SLGBTQ+ community.”

This claim of imminent harm is a clever and cynical exaggeration aimed at silencing views some people simply dislike. And once we start silencing people who disagree with us because it hurts our feelings to be disagreed with, we’re no longer acting like adults, but petulant teenagers.

More cards on the table: I think Mr. Feucht plays fast and loose with the Christian religion. I think some of his political views are odious. I think he’s a troublemaker, not a prophet. So I take no joy in defending him.

Still, my disliking him is not the point. Martin Luther King, Jr., was a preacher who also held public rallies that combined religion and politics. I like his combination better, and I think King was more honest about what he was doing. But if I think it’s okay for King to have spoken as he did in public, I should be okay with Mr. Feucht doing what he does—from, ironically enough, a deep commitment to civil rights.

Again, I would like to see the police demonstrate that there really is an imminent threat to public order posed by Mr. Feucht, or his opponents, that they could not contain. I have a lot of confidence in the RCMP and I’m not yet buying that they really couldn’t cope.

I’m afraid instead that this invocation of “security” concerns is a convenient dodge for civic authorities who originally did the right thing—permit someone to hold a meeting, however unpleasant and even disturbing it might have been—and now find that they can’t take the entirely predictable political heat from the other side.

It's annoying to find myself having to champion Mr. Feucht’s right to bring disgrace upon my religion in public. But until I am satisfied that the peace officers really couldn’t keep the peace while he had his little rant, I’m going to worry about far bigger issues.

I’m going to worry about the continued erosion of free speech and free practice of religion in this country, an erosion perpetuated by a political left that is every bit as self-righteous and intolerant as Mr. Feucht is on the right.