Note: Joe Gunn is executive director of Citizens for Public Justice, an Ottawa-based ecumenical group advocating for social justice. He has worked for churches and church organizations, mainly Catholics, in Canada and Latin America, and he was director for the Social Affairs office of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB). In March 2010, he delivered the Sommerville lecture in Christianity and Communications at St. Jerome’s University in Waterloo, Ontario. I am, with Gunn’s permission, providing here an excerpt from that speech.

On October 17th, 1996, Canadians turned on their evening newscast to hear CBC anchor Peter Mansbridge begin with these words: “Good evening. A blistering attack on governments across the country today, from Canada’s Roman Catholic bishops. The issue is poverty. The bishops accuse governments of using the most vulnerable people in society as human fodder in the battle against deficits. And the bishops weren’t the only ones speaking out…”

The bishops were holding their annual plenary gathering in Halifax, Nova Scotia. Before they began the meeting, however, the bishops of the Social Affairs Commission gathered with a roomful of local activists, including the president of the National Anti-Poverty Organization. To the assembled media, the bishops released their pastoral letter at Hope Cottage, a church-run soup kitchen in the downtown core. People living in poverty spoke, so it wasn’t only the bishops who got the microphone. And after the press conference, the media accompanied the men in black to serve lunch and eat together at the soup kitchen.

Today there seems to be a big change in terms of the public voice of the churches. The Catholic Church has not been totally silent, but if you go to the “Documents” section of the website of the Social Affairs Commission of the bishops, only one text has appeared since March 2008. Today, the capacity and determination of the churches to work for social and ecological justice seems weak. Service to the world now seems less of a concern than doctrine and maintenance of a shrinking membership base among the largest, historical denominations. Economically, the mainline churches are suffering, with unfortunate cuts to church staff and budgets becoming widespread. Is this change happening in all the Christian churches? Is there still a role for conscientious Christian leadership in public justice in Canadian society today? And if so, how might it best be done?

Should Christians be engaged?

Citizens for Public Justice [the organization that Gunn leads] believes that “if religion is understood to be one’s ultimate commitment or life orientation, then it cannot be confined to private life, particular rituals or institutions.” After all, why argue for keeping Christianity or Islam out of public life, when other “religious” value systems like capitalism, liberalism or humanism are not restricted? To ask a person of faith to leave their beliefs behind as soon as a political discussion begins is like asking a lung to refuse to breathe in air. The real issue is how people of faith can and should contribute to a hopeful citizenship.

Not only do Christians have to get involved in public justice, then, but the proper way to advance on this path to holiness is by addressing the causes of suffering of the poor, the disadvantaged, and the Earth community.

Status of faith-based work for justice

A month ago I contacted the social ministry offices of Canada’s nine largest Christian churches and asked if they’d answer a few questions about their social ministries. Eight of the nine were more than pleased to do so: only the CCCB refused to respond. I received helpful replies from the Presbyterian Church in Canada, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada, the Anglican Church of Canada, the United Church in Canada, the Christian Reformed Church, Mennonite Central Committee, the Canadian Religious Conference, and the Canadian Council of Churches (CCC).

Among the nine church groupings in the survey, more than two-thirds have fewer staff resources today as compared to five years ago. Several organizations now use short-term internships filled especially by students. Increasingly, volunteers are mandated to serve on committees where staff once served. One respondent expressed disappointment that there were “few, if any” justice educational resources for church use in congregations, and expressed disappointment that there is “no capacity to draft briefs or make presentations to government committees.” When asked what had happened to budgets for this work of social ministry over the past five years, five of the groups reported that they had suffered decreases (some of even up to half), and two had no increase.

When asked about future expectations, six of eight churches that responded to this question expect decreased budgets in the short term future, with the larger groups at reductions of 9-10%, which are levels that could mean losing staff. One church office gave staff a week off without pay as a cost saving measure.

Finally, I asked the most difficult question: “Do you feel that your church office has increased, decreased or enhanced effectiveness in social justice ministries over the past five years?” Seven respondents answered. Three mentioned greatly decreased effectiveness, while two said things remained about the same. One respondent felt his church had “in practice, essentially abandoned its work on social justice” spending most of its time on internal issues and sexuality. This person added, “I suspect those who are passionate are working outside the formal church structures.”

Another revealing commentary was that, “With the sequential decimations of church office staff in all the important member churches of the CCC, there is nothing like the capacity there used to be to undertake substantial joint work compared to five years ago. We continue to rely on sister organizations for substantial policy work: Project Ploughshares, Citizens for Public Justice, KAIROS. . . but unfortunately, those partners are also vulnerable.”

The case of KAIROS

The situation of KAIROS having its funding cut by the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) has been in the news recently. What has not been well-covered is that official Catholic support for ecumenical social justice work through KAIROS has been curiously muted. Although both Development and Peace (D&P) and the Catholic bishops serve on KAIROS’ board, their financial commitment to the organization has diminished over the years. The Catholic bishops now give KAIROS $100,000, and all of that comes from D&P. Six years ago, they gave over $250,000. It is the faithful and generous contributions from religious sisters that maintain the Catholic contribution to this ecumenical social justice ministry today.

Not only financial support, but also political support has been waning. In early December, a memo sent to all the bishops reported, “the CCCB executive committee unanimously agreed that the Conference of Bishops will not embark on a campaign to pressure the government of Canada to reconsider its funding decision” concerning the cuts to KAIROS. The executive gave two reasons for inaction: “The international program of KAIROS has always been secondary for the CCCB,” and “The CCCB is not convinced that such a campaign will result in success.”

Contrast this response with that of South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu, who stated on December 9 that, “The world needs more of KAIROS Canada. It would be an unparalleled setback for the poor, vulnerable and disenfranchised if the voice and work of KAIROS in the global South is muted.” The board of Citizens for Public Justice echoed this concern in their letter to the prime minister, stating “CPJ is concerned that this decision may be another in the trend to discontinue funding of groups who raise questions about current policies, thereby silencing some of the diverse voices that are essential for a healthy public debate about international issues of justice and stewardship.”

New tone needed

While the recent voices of the Christian churches in Canada have been muted and maligned when they have engaged in the public sphere, public dialogue and political advocacy are still constitutive elements of what it means to be a person of faith. But it seems clear that this must now be done differently than in the past.

First, there is still a role to play in defending ecumenical social justice ministry in the churches – I see no reason to cede hard won ground now occupied by the organizations like KAIROS that represent almost 40 years of struggling to live the Gospel faithfully in action. We cannot spend all our strength in attempting to maintain church structures for social ministry if these efforts make such demands upon our energy that we are not free to address the real social and ecological challenges that history places before us.

Secondly, lay people will have to lead the way in defending ecumenical social justice ministry in the Canadian churches, and even start new movements. We should get over any assumption that the churches’ social witness has to be further clericalized in order to be valid. Laypeople of all sexes should be able to reclaim their social mission as well as their contribution to the emerging non-white church’s more inclusive voice.

Thirdly, the way we’ve designed the process of preparing and delivering church statements must change. Have you ever been asked your opinion on an issue, or invited to help develop an opinion in dialogue, study and debate with your church leadership? If we don’t involve more people in these processes, we can’t expect them to fully accept any eventual stances as their own.

Fourthly, we need to walk the talk before we squawk. The example of the 1996 pastoral letter on poverty suggests how a process was developed to draft a message with others, and deliver this text with the only people who could be the architects of their own liberation: people with a lived experience of poverty. Otherwise, the message would have lacked authenticity and credibility.

Fifth, it is important to ensure that the spoken word of the churches is delivered to defend the poor and vulnerable. It is crucial and not always easy to ensure that these words do not arise in order to promote the churches’ own interests and reputations, instead.

Sixth, any pronouncement has to be delivered with appropriate humility. Polls tell us that Christianity is the affiliation of 77% of Canadians, but only 17% attended a place of worship in the previous week. As some say, “Canada is a nation of believers, but not belongers.” A Christendom view of the world is no longer prevalent. A whole new role, perhaps a smaller role, for organized Christian religions is emerging.

Perhaps the situation offers possibilities for groups like Citizens for Public Justice and other lay associations to be more collaborative and helpful to churches that are desirous of recovering their voice on public justice issues. And perhaps we need to remind ourselves that large, unwieldy institutions don’t always have the genetic make-up to be prophetic. The cutting edge seems to flourish more easily on the margins, in smaller groupings that are more nimble, responsive, and enjoy fewer organizational constraints. Perhaps the Christian voice in public affairs today should best be presented in new tones – but we should not accept that voice being either muted or maligned.

It’s been a bad month for Pope Benedict XVI and the Catholic hierarchy, and by extension a bad month for Catholics in general. The church has been rocked by more allegations, many of them now proven, regarding past sexual assaults by priests on young boys and adolescents, and by news of subsequent cover-ups by bishops in Ireland and Germany. These revelations follow a torrent of similar cases in the U.S. in the past decade, others in Austria, Switzerland, the Netherlands and France, and still others in Canada that surfaced mostly during the 1980s and 90s.

There are now allegations that Pope Benedict, when he was a powerful cardinal, refused to take action against Father Lawrence Murphy, an American priest who had sexually abused as many as 200 boys, many of them deaf, in Wisconsin over a period of 25 years. Father Murphy died, never seriously challenged and still a priest, in 1998. There are other allegations that Benedict, when he was the Archbishop of Munich in 1980, refused to discipline priest predator under his authority but rather had him reassigned. The Vatican, along with some cardinals, archbishops and bishops have gone into a mode of full damage control. On Good Friday, as the pope looked on during mass, a priest who is close to him compared recent criticisms of the church to the holocaust perpetrated upon Jewish people. He later offered a half-hearted apology in the face of withering criticism.  On Easter Sunday, again with the Benedict attending at the mass, a cardinal compared criticism of the pope as what he described as the malicious gossip of women. This week two senior cardinals appeared on Vatican Radio to talk about an anti-Catholic “hate” campaign targeting the pope because of his opposition to abortion and same sex marriage.

I worked for the bishops

The broad outline of events is available to anyone who watches the news or reads newspapers. I do not intend to pronounce on what Pope Benedict knew, and when, about various sexual predators when he was either an archbishop or a cardinal. I am confident that the truth will emerge. I do wish to add, however, some personal observations based upon four years in the early 1990s when I worked in the communications department for the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB).

I had been fully engrossed in researching and writing a political book in 1989-90 and had not been following the news as carefully as usual. In preparation for my job interview with the CCCB in Ottawa, I spent a couple of days in a library reading both Catholic and secular newspapers and magazines. I encountered a variety of news stories regarding allegations of sexual assaults against young boys by the Christian Brothers at the Mount Cashel orphanage in Newfoundland. I found only scant coverage in Catholic papers but there was much more of it in the mainstream media. It was later discovered that when allegations began to surface in the late 1980s, the provincial government, the police and the church had cooperated in a cover-up. Eventually nine lay brothers were convicted of sexually and physically abusing boys. A commission of inquiry criticized the archbishop for not taking action and he was later to resign. I remember thinking, What is it about Newfoundland that would allow a situation such as this to occur? A more insightful question would have been, What is it about the church that allows this to occur?

I got the job with the bishops and was confronted almost immediately by a controversy involving allegations of past abuse at church schools in the town of Alfred near Ottawa, and at Uxbridge near Toronto. Some of the victims set up a picket in front of the CCCB offices in Ottawa and also engaged in a peaceful protest at an annual general assembly of the bishops. Eventually, 700 former students came forward to allege abuse. Most decided to seek mediation rather than pursuing legal options. Then allegations emerged that Aboriginal children had been physically and in many cases sexually abused at residential schools where they had been forced to attend over many decades. Catholic and Protestant churches operated the schools in partnership with the Canadian government, which saw in them a method of forcibly removing children from their homes and assimilating them into the mainstream of Canadian society. The Catholic schools were usually operated by orders such as the Oblates or Jesuits and various orders of religious sisters.

Hierarchy in denial

I found that the bishops were in denial about the sexual crimes committed by clergy and seemed incapable of making prompt and transparent decisions. The hierarchy in Newfoundland refused for months to respond to media queries about Mount Cashel, which is an eternity in media terms. The church stonewalled and a public narrative was born from which it has never fully recovered. Many of the bishops feared, and in some cases loathed, the media. They were generally older men who had received a bookish classical education and they were especially uncomfortable with television. They were much more at home with their own Catholic publications, which in many cases were house organs rather than anything resembling independent media.

When we received calls at the CCCB from journalists regarding allegations or actual criminal charges related to sexual abuse, there was rarely anyone prepared to respond to them. The rationale was that the CCCB was not a head office for the Canadian church but rather an organization to help bishops do some of the things that were difficult to accomplish at the local level – such as writing and presenting briefs to government. Bishops, according to this line of reasoning, are appointed by the pope and answerable to him, not to other Canadian bishops. We were to refer calls back to the diocese or archdiocese in question. In the case of residential schools, we were to refer queries to the religious orders. Frustrated journalists would soon call back to say they had been rebuffed or ignored when they made those calls. I was frustrated, too, and since the buck appeared to stop in Rome rather than anywhere in Canada, I began to provide journalists with a telephone number for Pope John Paul’s press secretary, a Spaniard named Joachim Navarro-Valls.

I see certain parallels between the behaviour of the hierarchy in Canada then and that of the Vatican now. Among bishops and priests, loyalty to the institution is prized above all else, even the dictates of conscience. Canadian bishops, for example, seldom if ever spoke out publicly even if they believed that the Vatican was making a big mistake in its position on contraception, or on its stubborn resistance to allow use of inclusive language in the church. This unconditional loyalty to the institution made it difficult for the hierarchy to acknowledge the innocent victims of sexual abuse because it would have been perceived as an admission of weakness and guilt, and as such a betrayal of the church.

A new and dispiriting defence also began to take hold. According to this logic, it was only a small percentage of clerics who had engaged in sexual abuse – an argument that I believe to be true. Their number, it was said, was roughly comparable in percentage terms to that of people in other occupations yet priests and the church were being singled out for much harsher criticism than those other people. I found this a most unfortunate comparison for two reasons. It played into the easy tendency to see anti-Catholicism and persecution of the church in every criticism and question, another parallel to what has recently been emanating from Rome. Secondly, the church had, throughout history, claimed that its leaders were divinely inspired and that as an institution it was perfect and could not err. Indeed, that was old theology which did not square with a much more modest tone adopted by the world’s bishops at Vatican II in the 1960s. Most Catholics today are likely more comfortable with a church which is prepared to be humbler and to admit to its weaknesses.

From Pain to Hope

To its credit, the CCCB did overcome resistance and a variety of barriers to appoint a task force investigating a wide range of issues and problems related to sexual abuse by clergy. The subsequent report, called From Pain to Hope, was issued in 1992. It provided guidelines to assist dioceses in dealing with allegations and cases of abuse, looked at better methods of screening candidates to the priesthood for sexual maturity, and recommended better training and formation in seminaries. Significantly, the task force called upon church officials to respect civil laws and collaborate fully with civil authorities in sexual abuse inquiries. This is precisely what the church had not done in virtually all circumstances previously, whether in Canada, the U.S., Ireland or Germany — and what the Vatican still seems unprepared to do even now.

The CCCB, in partnership with religious orders that had been involved with residential schools, struck another task force on that issue. There was an agonizing reluctance on the part of bishops and religious orders to admit that the church had been engaged systematically in a culturally destructive project, not to mention the sexual abuse of vulnerable children. There was also a resistance to offering apologies, although they did come eventually. Yet when it came time to provide compensation to victims, Catholics dragged the process out long after other churches were ready to agree to terms.

More shoes to drop?

I left the CCCB in 1994 and do not know how faithful the Canadian church has been in following up on its protocols and promises. In observing subsequent scandals in the U.S. and Ireland, and now at the highest levels of the church in Rome, I am struck by how little has been learned by the international church from the earlier experience in Canada. I am surprised, as well, at how little real repentance there appears to in Rome for crimes that were committed against defenceless children.

It is true that most of the assaults that we are hearing about today happened years ago. In Canada the number of new cases has fallen off dramatically, but unsettling questions remain for the broader church. Recently, attention has focused on Ireland, one of the most traditionally Catholic countries of Europe. Will there soon be another shoe to drop in Asia, Africa, or Latin America? If so, can we trust church officials to respond with transparency and with the interest of victims uppermost in mind? Let’s hope so, but given the Vatican’s performance in the past few weeks we have at least some reason to be sceptical.

Pawlowski is identified as head pastor of Kings Glory Fellowship Association, which, according to Equipping Christians for the Public Square,  faithfully filed a tax return as a charity for the last 30 years.

Kings Glory Fellowship Association was listed at Revenue Canada Charity Directorate under Other Denominations, Congregations or Parishes, (not else classified). As  a charity it would  have had a board or trustees. They would have hired their head pastor. The current head pastor is Artur Pawlowski.

Kings Glory Fellowship Association got it’s charitable status revoked by Revenue Canada in October.

Meantime back in Calgary, head pastor Artur Pawlowski gets himself known as a combative street preacher and head of a group called he calls Street Church Ministries. He’s got religious right sites believing his new minis is being persecuted.

Street Church Ministries is not listed with Revenue Canada, but it takes donations and has the same address as Kings Glory Fellowship Association.

One is not the other in the eyes of the government and rightfully so. One gets it’s charity licence yanked for not filing, one isn’t listed as a charity but takes donations on it’s website.

Street Church Ministries is saying it is going to take the case of  Kings Glory Fellowship Association charity licence being yanked to court. It is run by Artur Pawlowski who is the one yelling persecution.

The board of Kings Glory Fellowship Association is responsible for filing it’s tax return, responsible for who it hires as head pastor.  Holy Post:

Artur Pawlowski, the head of the Kings Glory Fellowship, said his group “has nothing to do with politics and we do not advertise for a party or a candidate. The only political activity you can connect us to is defending our right to speak.”

Mr. Pawlowski said the primary mission of his church is to feed homeless people. He said this group supplies food for about 150,000 a year, mainly to people “that no one else wants to deal with.”

“When we feed people we don’t care whether they are homosexuals or have had abortions or been divorced but we preach what the Bible says about those issues.”

Maybe Kings Glory Fellowship Association does feed homeless people. So apparently does Street Church Ministries.
Street Church Ministries is involved in political activism and as such cannot cross the 10% threshold of involvement required by law.

Where is the persecution?
If Kings Glory Fellowship Association board filed for a name change to Street Church Ministries, where is it listed?  Since when can a group be politically active (Street Church Ministries) and misuse the charitable status of another group (Kings Glory Fellowship Association)?

Small but important detail wouldn’t you think?

I’ll update and correct this post if someone can show me what’s in a name.

Update: Alberta Gazette DON ROSS MINISTRIES, ASSOC. Alberta Society Incorporated 1984 JUL 30. New Name: THE KINGS GLORY FELLOWSHIP ASSOCIATION Effective Date: 2005 JUN 29. No: 503153363
Canada Gazette THE KINGS GLORY FELLOWSHIP ASSOCIATION, CALGARY, ALTA  118887280RR0001

Your twin accusations that I accused the advocacy group KAIROS of anti-Semitism and that this is why the Canada International Development Agency did not approve a cost-sharing program with the group are false.

I did not accuse KAIROS of being anti-Semitic. What I said was that KAIROS has taken “a leadership role in the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign (against Israel).” In fact, Toronto Star columnist Rosie DiManno’s own research led her to the same conclusion. She wrote that KAIROS has taken “a leading role in divestment, sanctions and targeted boycotts of Israel,” and said those who deny that are “disingenuous and dissembling.”

While I disagree with the nature of KAIROS’s militant stance toward the Jewish homeland, that is not the reason their request for taxpayer funding was denied. International Cooperation Minister Bev Oda – not me – is responsible for the Canada International Development Agency. And she has been clear that a cost-sharing program with KAIROS was not approved because it did not meet CIDA’s current priorities, such as increased food aid.

Our government continues to support the many worthwhile charitable endeavours undertaken by churches and other organizations that are members of KAIROS, particularly those that make a real difference in the lives of those living in poverty in developing countries.

So what did Jason Kenney actually say at the Global Forum for Combating Anti-Semitism in Jerusalem?
From BigCityLib Strikes Back:

What Prime Minister Harper witnessed in Mumbai, what happened at the same time in Calgary, were practical expressions of the new anti-Semitism. Even though Canada is celebrated around the world as being a successful model of mutual coexistence and tolerance, we too have seen a troubling increase in incidents of anti-Semitism. B’Nai Brith Canada publishes the authoritative registry of anti-Semitic incidents in Canada. In 2008, they received reports of 1,135 incidents of anti-Semitic instances, the highest number recorded in 28 years of the study, an increase of 8.9% over 2007.

[...]

So how have we addressed these growing incidents of anti-Semitism? Well first of all, on the domestic level, our government has worked with the Jewish community to begin a program of recognizing our own history of official anti-Semitism.

[...]

We have articulated and implemented a zero tolerance approach to anti-Semitism. What does this mean? It means that we eliminated the government funding relationship with organizations like for example, the Canadian Arab Federation, whose leadership apologized for terrorism or extremism, or who promote hatred, in particular anti-Semitism.

We have ended government contact with like-minded organizations like the Canadian Islamic Congress, whose President notoriously said that all Israelis over the age of 18 are legitimate targets for assassination. We have defunded organizations, most recently like KAIROS, who are taking a leadership role in the boycott. And we’re receiving a lot of criticism for these decisions. I can’t recall how many times I’ve been sued for some of the decisions that we have taken, but we believe that we’ve done these things for the right reasons and we stand by these decisions.

The full text of the speech can be found at MP Rick Rick Dykstra’s site.

The funding would have been 40% of a four year project which effects KAIROS work in six countries. The objection is more about politicalizing aid work and not honouring government legislation.  You may chose to interpret Kenney’s remarks any way you want.  Bev Oda’s decision flies in the face of Bill C-393. The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada:

If you wanted to tick off the Roman Catholic Church, the mainline Protestant denominations and Evangelicals while undoing a longstanding relationship that has fostered improved human rights and strengthened sustainable development opportunities around the world, what single step could you take as the Government of Canada? Until Monday of this week, that was a question that hadn’t occurred to anyone. But on Monday, Bev Oda, Minister for International Cooperation, delivered the answer by ending a 35 year relationship with KAIROS with a phone call.

The core groups of KAIROS are:

KAIROS Member Churches are:
The Anglican Church of Canada
The Christian Reformed Church in North America
The Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada
The Presbyterian Church in Canada
The United Church of Canada
The Religious Society of Friends (Quakers)
The Canadian Catholic Organization for Development and Peace
The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops
The Canadian Religious Conference
The Mennonite Central Committee of Canada
The Primate’s World Relief and Development Fund (PWRDF)

The support is flooding in for KAIROS from all over the world and from very diverse groups across Canada.

KAIROS
Scott Tribe
Western Standard
Dennis Gruending
Pushed to the Left and Loving it: has background on Charles McVety, Canadian Christian College, Christians United for Israel (CUFI)

Charles McVety denouncing KAIROS
LifeSite: Alfonse de Valk
Ezra Levant: Would you lie for 7 million?

I have never seen Canadian protestant denominations, other faith groups, partners and citizens join together to take such a strong stand against this pathetic behavior by the Canadian Government and it’s ministers.

By Dennis Gruending 2009. Used by permission. All rights reserved

In October, I attended a fundraising dinner and auction at Ottawa church to support a legal clinic to assist women in eastern Congo. In some of their stories, captured on a brief video, the women describe how they had been gang raped and brutalized by young men who fight in armies and militias. These women were the lucky ones. They talked about how others had been murdered during their ordeals or left to die afterwards. The goal on that October evening was to raise $25,000, enough money we were told to support the clinic for one year. People that night dug deeply into their pockets for $22,000 and we were asked to sign our cheques to KAIROS, the Canadian ecumenical social justice group. Now, a scant six weeks later, we learn that Bev Oda, the minister in charge of the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) has cut all funding to KAIROS. The news arrived in a terse telephone call from a faceless official who said that the organization’s projects do not fit with CIDA’s criteria. Tell that to women in the Congo.

KAIROS acts on behalf of 13 of Canada’s major churches or church-based organizations, and it includes under its umbrella the Anglican, Catholic, Christian Reformed, Lutheran, Presbyterian and United Churches, as well as the Mennonite Central Committee, the Quakers and others. KAIROS, or its predecessor groups, have received money from CIDA for 35 years to support partners working in regions experiencing some of the world’s most serious human rights violations. The organization uses what it collects from people in its member churches and elsewhere to add to money provided by CIDA in support of 21 ecumenical and citizen’s organizations in Latin America, Africa, Asia and the Middle East. The work of KAIROS is highly regarded in Canada and overseas.

CIDA’s “priorities”

KAIROS worked with its global partners to develop a program for years 2009-2013, focussing upon human rights and ecological justice.  The budget was for $9.2 million over four years, with CIDA contributing just over $7 million of that amount. The proposal was submitted to CIDA in March 2009, where it moved through various levels of approval before arriving on Bev Oda’s desk in July 2009. There seemed to be little cause for concern. KAIROS had received a positive audit report for its 2006-2009 work and a good evaluation. When, in September 2009, the agreement had still not been signed, KAIROS was granted a two-month extension on a previous contribution agreement. Sources say it was then that people at KAIROS began to worry. They were being told that there was trouble at the top, which meant the minister’s’ office, or more likely with this government, the prime minister’s office.

There was no communication until, on November 30, the last day of the extension, KAIROS was told that it was cut off. The organization says in a new release: “We asked for an explanation and were informed that our program did not fit the government of Canada’s priorities. This was the last day of an extension to our current proposal.  No written explanation has been provided.” In one telephone call, the Canadian government appears to have terminated a long-standing relationship between CIDA and KAIROS or its predecessor organizations. KAIROS says the decision, if not reversed, “would cut funds to 21 ecumenical and citizen’s organizations in Latin America, Africa, Asia and the Middle East, and cut educational work that helps Canadians across the country to develop skills and knowledge in the exercise of their global citizenship.”

Minister Oda did not communicate with KAIROS — she rarely communicates publicly with anyone about her portfolio except in the most controlled of circumstances. But the “trouble at the top” may well have had more to do with the work of KAIROS within Canada than its overseas projects. KAIROS has questioned, on environmental and hence ethical grounds, the rapid development of the tar sands in Western Canada. KAIROS hosted a forum in Calgary on the tar sands in October 2008 and organized a delegation of Canadian church leaders to visit the tar sands in May 2009. The Reform Party and the Canadian Alliance, prior to their takeover of the Progressive Conservative Party, were beneficiaries of generous support from the oil and gas industry. The Harper Conservatives exist on similarly friendly terms with the carbon industry and will not hear of any proposal that would scale back rapid development – despite the environmental problems such development will cause. The criticism from KAIROS may well have excited the ire of Conservatives at the top.

Canada as petro state

The eyes of the world are upon Canada as 192 countries meet in Copenhagen to discuss measures that would start to slow the runaway train of carbon pollution that causes global heating. Canada, which used to be respected among nations, is becoming a pariah due to its stubborn insistence to do little to mitigate the production of greenhouse gases – and the Canadian tar sands are among the largest emitters. George Monbiot, a columnist for The Guardian in Britain, recently wrote: “So here I am, watching the astonishing spectacle of a beautiful, cultured nation turning itself into a corrupt petro-state. Canada is slipping down the development ladder, retreating from a complex, diverse economy towards dependence on a single primary resource, which happens to be the dirtiest commodity known to man.”

The treatment of KAIROS is not only a punishment; it is a warning. Citizens for Public Justice, another fine ecumenical organization, has also questioned oil sands development, albeit in a polite and almost tentative way. Might CPJ expect repercussions? The Catholic aid agency, Development and Peace, has had a multi-year campaign to bring attention to the corporate behaviour of Canadian mining companies abroad. D&P receives CIDA funding. Should the organization be looking over its shoulder?

Fighting the cuts

KAIROS and its supporters are not going down quietly.  The organization is asking its people to contact their MPs, asking to have the decision reversed. A variety of NGOs and churches, including the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, which does not belong to KAIROS, have criticized the government’s decision.

The issue appears to have some political legs as well. All opposition parties, including the Greens, who do not have a seat the House of Commons, have called for the move to be reversed. Liberal MPs Bob Rae and John McKay, as well as other opposition members, have raised the issue in Question Period in the House of Commons. As I write this, church and NGO Leaders have announced that they will convene a news conference on Parliament Hill to address what they call” the unprecedented decision” to cut all funding to the human rights program of KAIROS.

KAIROS is asking its supporters to contact their own MPs and are also ask that they write to: Prime Minister Stephen Harper, pm@pmo-cpm.gc.ca; Bev Oda, minister of international cooperation, oda.b@parl.gc.ca; and Margaret Biggs, president of CIDA, Margaret.Biggs@acdi-cida.gc.ca. KAIROS asks that those who write also copy their letters to KAIROS at info@kairoscanada.org.

…And in other news, bears shit in the woods.

Pope Benedict XVI called on Christians and Muslims today to serve mankind with the “light of God’s truth” while warning that extremists in nations such as Iraq were exploiting religious differences for political and violent agendas.

Speaking at the Al Hussein bin Talal Mosque, the pontiff, whose three-day pilgrimage here is an attempt to mend relations with the Muslim world, said the “tensions and divisions between the followers of different religious traditions, sadly, cannot be denied. However, is it not also the case that often it is the ideological manipulation of religion, sometimes for political ends, that is the real catalyst for tension and division, and at times even violence in society?”

Wasn’t the point of his Pontificating Preachiness’ harangue to condemn stuff like this? And this?Oh. Wait. That’s evidence of the ideological manipulation of christianity for political reasons, by the Vatican

In counterpoint, not everyone welcomes the Pope’s visit.

Jordanian clerics expressed disappointment that Pope Benedict XVI in an address to Muslim leaders on Saturday failed to offer a new apology for remarks seen as targeting Islam. …”What the pope said about the Prophet Mohammed is untrue. Islam did not spread through the power of sword. It’s a religion of tolerance and faith,” Hussein said. The pope had in 2006 quoted a medieval Christian emperor who criticised some teachings of the Prophet Mohammed as “evil and inhuman.”

Which is of course MASSIVELY different from the medieval clerics who justified the evil and inhuman actions of the Inquisition with the doctrine they claimed was inspired by the words of God and Jesus.

Reprinted with permission. deBeauxOs

Pope Benedict XVI began an 8 day visit through the Middle East Friday.

As someone who defected to the Anglican church from my Baptist roots a few years ago, I have watched with interest as the Canadian and American provinces of that church gradually tear themselves apart over gay marriage and the ordination of women. That process took a large step forward recently when the right-wing dissidents of the Anglican Communion, acting under the auspices of their alternative communion the Global Anglican Futures convention (GAFCON), voted to recognize the breakaway conservative churches in Canada and the U.S. as a new “emergent province,” the Anglican Church of North America. (Previously, bishops and parish churches had justified defying the authority of the Anglican Church of Canada by submitting to the authority of the South American province of the church.)

Naturally, a host of networks, publications, and foundations are springing up to support this “emergent province.” One of them is a particularly interesting case: the Cranmer Foundation of Canada, currently (apparently) website-less. I noticed the existence of this new group when I was reading through the CanadianChristianity.com news, and Lloyd Mackey made reference to it. It ran into a spot of difficulty after setting up in January under the name “Canadian Anglican Foundation” (CAF) – which obviously bore more than a passing resemblance to the existing, official foundation of the Canadian church, the Anglican Foundation of Canada (AFC).

The organization tangled with the Anglican Church of Canada almost immediately by registering as a domain name “anglicanfoundation.ca”. Either this was a pesky attempt at cyber-squatting or an attempt to beat the official Foundation to the domain name; either way, the AFC attacked the CAF and retained legal counsel. In early March, the AFC won: the upstart CAF agreed to rename itself the Cranmer Foundation of Canada, surrender the rights to the AnglicanFoundation.ca website, and purchase new digs for itself at CranmerFoundation.org and CFoC.ca (neither of these websites are up yet). But that, to me, isn’t the end of the story. Who’s behind the Cranmer Foundation – and where will its money go?

For some reason, despite the March peace treaty, the Cranmer Foundation hasn’t surrendered its old website yet. In fact, it’s even updated the site with the new name. According to the website:

The CFoC provides grants, bursaries and technology expertise to tradition Anglican ministries in need of assistance.

Grant and bursary applications will soon be available for download and completion.

While not a political lobby group, primarily, the CFoC remains concerned that the voices of traditional Anglicans in the Anglican Church of Canada be heard in a real, substantive way, with excellence and integrity.

Not primarily a political lobby group? The website stopped being updated, presumably as a result of the peace accord with the AFC, and the grant and bursary applications never became available. The Board of Directors, the Episcopal Patron, the Chief Financial Officer and basically everyone except the communications officer are also listed as “TBA.”

Oddly enough, there’s only a single publicly identifiable figure behind the new Foundation – director and communications officer Mike Daley. He’s the one handling all correspondence with the religious media. Supposedly there are six other directors, but the old website doesn’t mention them, and Daley told the Anglican Journal he wouldn’t name them until after the group was officially incorporated (more on this in a moment). According to Daley, the new group will give grants only to “traditional” Anglican ministries, which he defined as adhering to traditional Anglican doctrines and “the traditional Anglican and Catholic views on human sexuality” (by which I assume he means: anti-gay marriage).

Now, Daley is a notorious and self-pronounced “shit-disturber” on the Canadian Anglican right, who’s previously been behind projects like CaNNet (see the story of that particular site, in his own words, here). Along the way he was for a time (might still be – I’m not sure) a communications officer at Anglican Essentials, one of the arms of the schismatic breakaway group, the Anglican Network in Canada, which will be part of the new right-wing Anglican Church of North America.

Daley has been caught before registering domain names that seem, well, intended to cause confusion – i.e. cybersquatting. In advance of the General Synod of 2004, his allies in CaNNet created a website called “gs2004.classicalanglican.com,” providing an anti-gay marriage counterweight to the official site at “gs2004.anglican.ca.” Sarah Lublink, now Sarah Daley, also helped register “anglicancommunion.ca,” “anglicancommunionnetwork.ca,” and “anglicancommuniondioceses.ca” – they were never used, but Anglican Journal thought they were being reserved for an anticipated breakaway organization (which ultimately became the Anglican Network in Canada). Last year he also created LambethConference.net to provide right-wing commentary on the global Lambeth Conference of Anglican bishops – unofficial commentary, since the Conference itself never approved the website.

The fact that none of the other directors are even being identified made me immediately suspicious that this project was in fact a Daley affair operating under the cover of being a broader organization (or perhaps he just hopes that it will become a larger organization, eventually). A little bit of digging confirms many of my suspicions. First, the organization actually lists a contact phone number – (519) 702-9100 – which is a cell phone number in London, Daley’s home town, one he uses for his own use.

Domain name WHOIS searches turn up some more interesting names. Although the new domains don’t seem up and running yet, they have been registered: CranmerFoundation.org is supposedly registered by Judy Daley (connection unknown, but presumably a relative) and Sarah Lublink, who presumably married into the tribe, since on her personal website her surname is now Daley and her contact address is the same as Michael’s. Michael has used Sarah as cover before, when he registered the CaNNet domain name.

Interestingly, despite the fact that the website continues to maintain that it can’t give out grants or bursaries because it’s not formally incorporated, it has, in fact, given out one “technical grant” of an undisclosed amount, to a new project called the Anglican Wiki Project. That organization isn’t complete yet, but its main page states that it is a joint project of “the Canadian Anglican Foundation, Anglican Comment and iAnglicans.com.”

Now, the Anglican Foundation is the Cranmer Foundation (Daley’s baby, but he obviously hasn’t updated the Wiki recently, since late February in fact). Anglican Comment is his personal blog, created in January when he retired the now obsolete squat at LambethConference.net. That site is registered by Sarah Lublink, but administered by the Canadian Anglican Foundation and Michael Daley.

And iAnglicans.com? That’s the iAnglican E-Zine, also created in late January but currently without anything but the first introductory post (i.e. it hasn’t published its first issue). That site, too, is owned by Sarah Lublink, but lists a Mike Daley contact email (mike@anglican.tk).

There are also mega-churches north of the border, though generally smaller and fewer in number than those found among our neighbours to the south. In 2007, the Toronto Star published an important investigation of one such Canadian church, the Prayer Palace:

[T]he three white pastors – Paul Melnichuk and his 40-year-old twin sons, Tim and Tom – lead lavish lives in contrast to the mainly working-class black families that make up the bulk of the church.

Between them, the pastors have amassed a real estate fortune worth about $12 million. Each owns a multi-million-dollar country estate north of Toronto (Tim’s is worth as much as $5.5 million), they share a Florida vacation villa, and the pastors and their wives drive luxurious cars – among them a Porsche Cayenne SUV, a Lexus RX 330 SUV and a Mercedes-Benz CLK 320 convertible…

The Star went on to reveal further dubious financial practices, including enormous salaries and grand houses for the pastors, and the mysterious purchase of a church and properties in Florida.

The investigative report prompted protests outside the gates of the church, and defiance within. The next Sunday, senior pastor Paul Melnichuk taunted the media, promised to make a response after engaging a special PR team, and then reveled in a demonstration of loyalty:

Within moments, a woman in a burnished gold dress and head-dress ran to the stage and slapped a $50 bill onto Melnichuk’s forehead.

The move was met with cheers and, following a request by a church volunteer, congregation members started throwing money at Melnichuk’s feet.

“First the funds go the church,” said the beaming pastor. “After that, if the folks want to bless me…”

The church volunteers, acting on Melnichuk’s instructions, divided the growing pile of cash into three collection buckets; the pastor then instructed a young member who is training to be a preacher to dip in and take out “a handful of cash.”

“I hope the media got a picture of me with a $50 bill stuck to my forehead,” Melnichuk laughed.

Media and bloggers, like Benediction Blogs On, watched askance, though others, like Catholic IDer and journalist Denyse O’Leary, defended the church, noting that subsequent audits apparently turned up nothing of great interest.

Have you blogged or written about the Prayer Palace or similar religious movements in Canada? Drop us a line and let us know if we can use and link your post in full or in part.

Further reading:

Benediction Blogs On. “Paul Melnichuk of the Prayer Palace Responds…“, March 13, 2007.

Religion News Blog. “Bradenton Church Owner Investigated,” March 7, 2007.

Spiritual Pathways Ministries. “Pastor Paul Melnichuk and the Prayer Palace,” February 20, 2009.

__________. “Should Pastor Paul Melnichuk Live in Palaces…?” December 27, 2007.

achievable ends (I had television business dealings with the subjects of the article in the ’80′s. I wish I was shocked.)

The same sort of rebranding exercise, evidently, may be practiced in many other sectors of society as well. In March 2009, Benediction Blogs On explored a similar exercise in Vancouver by the Global Harvest Centre and Fresh Fire Ministries, previously home to disgraced Lakeland Revival leader Todd Bentley. The two groups have now become Transform Central and Transform International, respectively.

Bene D believes that this is part of a larger strategy to salvage Bentley’s image as religious leader, advancing on several fronts via the Christian media:

As the Canadians play transformers, Todd Bentley’s parents began to put out feelers into the neo-charismatic community to see how former followers were handling his downfall. Dave Bentley (Todd’s biological father) released information to a  web site NAR considers antagonistic…

Then a few weeks later a puff piece featuring Dave Bentley ran in Canadian Christianity the first of February.

Right on cue, Bentley’s stepmother Darcia has released a ‘newsflash’  at Sound of Fire Productions. Darcia and Dave Bentley also run a site called Freedom Fire Ministries.   

What is interesting is this is the second time his parents have said he is undergoing restoration at Rick Joyner’s Morningstar Ministries. Only hard core fans seem to be playing along, because the powers that be which hold power aren’t saying anything. After the flurry of distancing last year, I think the decision has been made to starve fans of news to better a comeback and the parents are either going with the program or not quite following the apostle’s script.  

Most interesting, however, is Bene D’s use of Quantcast web traffic statistics to suggest that charismatic groups involved in the revival are vastly inflating the numbers of people they claim to be reaching:

What I find even more interesting is how easily lies come and how easy it is to believe them.

During Lakeland the claims of the numbers of people watching the online streaming were hyped, as professional marketing kicked into high gear. The claims as they have been throughout religious history were over the top. Thousands healed, millions watching.   The numbers decimate the hype,  it’s becoming clear key players took a hit when the shows star ran off.

To be fair, this site mostly measures US traffic with some global, and Quantcast makes no claim this all of this is hard data, (see the symbols for estimated).  Still, it’s a far cry from the millions being reached, thousands being healed, and the dead raised, isn’t it?…

A response and similar analysis of the state of the evangelical church in Canada has since been written by Ro at PomoTheo.com, also in three parts (here, here and here). The PomoTheo piece reaches similar conclusions, though with some additional comments on the particular Canadian context. In this country, the author argues, we are already in the midst of an enormous inter-generational shift, as Canadians continue to mark down religious adherence on the census form but flock to the churches and other houses of worship in fewer and fewer numbers.

It’s also much more skeptical about the remnants which Internet Monk believed would exist in evangelicalized Catholic and Orthodox groups, the charismatic movement, and missionaries coming here from Africa and Asia. Even where such shifts are likely, Ro writes, they are likely to be inaccessible to the surrounding secular culture, and probably (in the case of missionaries) financially unsustainable in a post-denominational religious landscape. Ro remains guardedly optimistic about the prospects for a smaller, revitalized missional movement emerging from the wreckage.

In linking both analyses, Benediction Blogs On commented: “The Internet Monk… has an opinion worth reading. He got a lot of feedback. A Canadian responded with his critique and look at evangelicalism north of the US border; and no feedback. I’m not surprised by that.”