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.

By Dennis Gruending

Former Reform Party leader Preston Manning gathered members of the Canadian political and religious right for talk fest in Ottawa recently to strategize about how to win the nation for conservatism. Macleans magazine columnist Paul Wells wrote a piece about it called Hard Right Turn, which is where the Conservatives appear to be headed.  Another piece on the event that caught my eye was one by Lloyd Mackey, a journalist who writes mainly for evangelical Christian publications from his perch in the Parliamentary Press Gallery. I find Mackey’s columns interesting because he has good connections in the Conservative Party and with a segment of Canada’s Christian churches. Mackey was close to Preston Manning and once edited the Reform Party’s publication. He has also written books about Manning and his father Ernest, the late Social Credit premier of Alberta.

Mackey’s report from the Manning Centre hobnob began by invoking St. Francis of Assisi, who early in the 13^th century is said to have written one of history’s most famous prayers. “O Divine Master,” he wrote, “grant that I may not so much seek to be consoled as to console, to be understood as to understand; to be loved as to love.” Mackey picked up on St. Francis’ line about placing the understanding of others above being understood yourself. He then applied this wisdom to a recent controversy enveloping most of Canada’s mainline churches and the Conservative government.

Mackey describes how the topic arose in a conversation at Manning’s networking conference. “The subject, at that particular point,” Mackey wrote, “ was a recent conflict between a faith-based advocacy group and a government agency which had turned down funding for that particular group.” Mackey doesn’t name the group but it is KAIROS, the ecumenical justice and human rights organization, and the unnamed government agency is CIDA, which on November 30 suspended funding for KAIROS projects between 2009 and 2013. Mackey continues, “The speaker quoting St. Francis was trying to make the point that the advocacy group in question was more interested in getting its own viewpoint understood than it was in understanding the viewpoints of the people on the other side of the table.”

Mackey does not identify the speaker in this encounter either, but concludes: “He was putting forward the seemingly preposterous notion that an advocate should seek divine guidance in the quest of understanding an opposing viewpoint. And, if an advocate can get his or her mind around that humility-based concept, it could go a long way toward the accomplishing of goals that come out of reasonable compromise.”

Ah yes, but this does gloss over some other rather important details. CIDA’s removing of KAIROS funding is one thing. But Jason Kenney, the Immigration Minister, was not content to leave things rest there. Speaking at an international conference in Jerusalem on December 16, Kenney accused KAIROS of being anti-Semitic. This, one assumes, makes it rather difficult to turn the other cheek or to forgive someone seventy times seven. Kenney later insisted that he had not actually accused KAIROS of being anti-Semitic. His remarks, however, were recorded in audio and video. Listen to them here and judge for yourself.

KAIROS and its member churches have chosen not to go quietly into the night regarding the blowing up of their partnership with CIDA after 35 years of co-operation in the case of some of member organizations. The KAIROS response, however, has been quite conventional. The organization has asked people in member churches and organizations  — Catholic, United, Anglican, Presbyterian, and Lutheran churches, as well as the Mennonite Central committee and the Quakers – to write or send emails to their local MPs, the Prime Minister, and CIDA minister Bev Oda. Leaders from the KAIROS coalition also held a news conference on Parliament Hill, and member organizations have lobbied dozens of MPs, focusing mainly on the Conservatives. The delegation that met with Transport Minister John Baird included his former Sunday school teacher.

The Mackey article continues: “But my speaker friend who was interpreting St. Francis was exercising a different kind of thinking. Admittedly, advocates — and their sometimes symbiotically-linked cousins, absolutists — would find that difficult, particularly if their work and stances come out of a narcissistic mindset.” This is a rather odd non sequitur, but being called narcissistic is likely far less painful for KAIROS staff and member churches than being called anti-Semitic.

Unfortunately, no one has applied an analysis of Franciscan precepts to Jason Kenney. One fine Franciscan line that comes to mind is: “Lord make me an instrument of your peace.” Mr. Kenney is allegedly a devout Catholic so he should know all about the peace and love advocated by St. Francis. Kenney attended Notre Dame, a Catholic college at Wilcox, Saskatchewan, so he cannot plead ignorance on these matters. 

Kenney has been an MP since 1997. He used his contacts in the Christian right in 2000 to organize on behalf of Stockwell Day for his campaign against Preston Manning for the leadership of the Canadian Alliance party. Day won but suffered a self-inflicted meltdown and Stephen Harper defeated him in  yet another leadership convention in 2002. When the Harper-led Conservatives became the government, Kenney became a trusted attack dog, a kind of Churchill without the wit. Kenney was also given a key responsibility in winning over new Canadians and certain religiously identified groups to support the Conservatives.

Under Stephen Harper, with Kenney running interference, the Conservatives have clearly chosen sides in the Middle East conflict – supporting Israeli no matter what actions it undertakes. There is no subtlety here. Question the policies of the Canadian government and you will be punished. Question the policies of the Israeli government and you are called anti-Semitic.

Canada’s respected Rights and Democracy organization found that out early in 2010. The Conservatives appointed new board members who forced the resignation of the organization’s president Rémy Beauregard at a tense board meeting. Mr. Beauregard died of a heart attack later the same day. Conservative appointees to the board of Rights and Democracy accused the organization of being anti-Israel, a charge similar to that launched by Kenney against KAIROS. The research, if it can be described as such, for both of these charges may have arisen from one source – a right wing Israel-based group called NGO Monitor. In an investigative piece, Macleans’ Paul Wells reports that Gerald Steinberg, an Israeli political scientist, also runs NGO Monitor. Steinberg published an Opinion Editorial in the Jerusalem Post congratulating the Canadian government for its actions against both KAIROS and Rights and Democracy. Wells writes: “Steinberg’s list of organizations he regards as anti-Israel is long. In one publication he decries CIDA aid to what he calls ‘extremist political groups’ opposed to Israel, among which he counts Médecins du Monde, Oxfam, and the Mennonite Central Committee of Canada.”

Whoops! The Mennonite Central Committee? Extremist? I beg your pardon. These attacks are over the top. I am not a Mennonite but my wife is and I have often attended church with her. If there is any organization that exemplifies the spirit of St. Francis of Assisi, it is the Mennonite Central Committee. Kenney may well find that he has over-reached by deliberately putting a stick in the eye of Mennonites, Quakers, Catholics and mainline Protestants. I am told the KAIROS protests will continue, with homilies, public meetings, lobbying, musical events, even a photo contest – all done quietly, gently, and firmly, in a Franciscan manner. 

By Dennis Gruending

 Coded biblical inscriptions have been found on the telescopic sights of rifles used by soldiers from several nations, including Canada, who are fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq. The company that supplied the inscribed weapons initially defended its actions unapologetically, and the response by the American military spokespersons has been under whelming. The inscriptions, placed where they are, represent a betrayal of the Christian scriptures and their central message of peace and reconciliation, although some obviously see this activity as admirable and patriotic. The incident and responses to it raise deeply troubling questions about elements of the American military.

A group called the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, which seeks to preserve the separation of church and state in the U.S., blew the whistle to ABC News in mid-January, saying it had received a complaint from a U.S. Army infantryman. The gun sights allow soldiers using them to shoot at people with greater accuracy in the dark or in dim light. The inscriptions are in the form of raised lettering and numerals added to the serial numbers along the sights. One of the inscriptions reads: “JN8:12”, a reference to a passage in John where Jesus says, “Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness but will have the light of life.”  A second inscription reads “2COR4:6” and refers to St. Paul’s second letter to the Corinthians. The passage refers to God’s “[giving] us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.”

No apologies

A Michigan-based company called Trijicon, which has a $660 million contract with the U.S. Marine Corps, supplies the rifle sights. Trijicon, when first asked about it, defended its actions saying that, “as part of our faith and our belief in service to our country, Trijicon has put scripture references on our products for more than two decades.” The practice began under its founder, Glyn Bindon, a devout Christian from South Africa, who was killed in a 2003 plane crash. His son, Steven Bindon, is now president of the company and well connected to the leadership of the religious right in the United States. Trijicon states on its website: “We believe that American is great when its people are good. This goodness has been based on biblical standards throughout our history and we will strive to follow those morals.”

Initially, U.S. military officials also defended the use of the inscriptions, saying that they did not violate a constitutional ban on religious proselytizing by American troops. Officials said that the military would not stop using the telescopic sights. On January 20, an Air Force spokesperson named Major John Redfield compared the inscriptions to the use of Biblical language on the U.S. currency. “Are we going to stop using money because the bills have “In God We Trust” on them?” he asked. “As long as the sights meet the combat needs of troops, they’ll continue to be used.”

Barrage of criticism

That position changed within a few days after a barrage of criticism from a variety of groups, including the Military Religious Freedom Foundation and the Muslim Public Affairs Council. They said the implied message is that American soldiers are fighting a holy war against Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq, even though American politicians, including President Obama, have said this is not the case. A second, and perhaps predominant concern among soldiers is that publicity surrounding the inscriptions could put them at added risk if ever they are captured in battle. The defence departments and military officials in New Zealand, Australia and Britain, responded cautiously, saying that they had not known their soldiers were being provided with weapons bearing the biblical inscriptions. Within a few days of the controversy erupting, however, those organizations and the even U.S. military had decided that the inscriptions were not acceptable. By January 22, military spokespersons were saying that they did not approve of them and wanted them removed. Trijicon then announced that it would provide “modification kits” at its own expense for that purpose. Owner Stephen Bindon was now describing his company’s action as “both prudent and appropriate.”

A Canadian military spokesperson admits that Ottawa-based Joint Task Force 2 and a special operations unit from nearby Petawawa use the Trijicon rifle sights in Afghanistan, but Major Don MacNair cites national security reasons in refusing to say how many of the sights are employed. The activities of the joint task force are shrouded in secrecy, but the unit often works behind enemy lines and its members are trained to kill with cold efficiency. MacNair told the Ottawa Citizen that the inscriptions are inappropriate and should be removed.

Christo-fascism

The most disturbing question here is whether these military inscriptions represent a rogue act by a company owned by a right wing Christian businessman, or whether they represent an attitude and practice that is pervasive in the military and therefore more sinister. There has been significant reportage on the religious influence in the American military. Jeff Sharlet, writing in Harper’s magazine (May 2009) reported on a “subtle civil war” that is occurring for the “soul of the military.” He reports on a “small but powerful movement of Christian soldiers concentrated in the officers corps” who are trying to turn the military into a “righteous Christian army”. These officers bully recruits and ordinary soldiers to become involved in mandatory assemblies and prayer groups (open only to Christians), and they appear as speakers on the prayer breakfast circuit and on religious media owned by fundamentalists.

“What men such as these have fomented,” Sharlett writes, “is a quiet coup within the armed forces: not of generals encroaching upon civilian rule but of religious authority replacing the military’s once staunchly secular code … they see themselves not as subversives but as spiritual warriors –‘ambassadors for Christ in uniform,’ according to the Officers’ Christian Fellowship.” Sharlett also writes about how the chaplaincy in the U.S. military, which was once apportioned strictly according to the country’s religious demographic, has come to be dominated by graduates from fundamentalist bible colleges.

Every person in the U.S. military, Sharlet writes, swears an oath to defend the Constitution. But for fundamentalist officers and chaplains, “the Constitution is itself a blueprint for a Christian nation.” These officers and chaplains see the campaign in Afghanistan and Iraq as holy wars, exemplified by an example Sharlet discovered of soldiers in Iraq travelling through neighbourhoods with a bullhorn shouting, “Jesus killed Mohammed” – and shooting people who objected. This faction within the military also sees enemies everywhere at home, and believes it must “wage spiritual warfare against their countrymen” – those “post moderns” who believe in diversity and egalitarianism. Sharlet believes this religious intrusion into the American military is so deeply rooted that President Obama has chosen a hands off policy in exchange for “evangelical peace.”

In 2006, President George Bush began to use the term Islamo-fascism, which neo-conservative pundits Washington had been employing for some time to describe America’s enemies in the Middle East. It was an imprecise description that linked an entire world religion with an extremist political ideology — and moderate Muslims were offended. They might now ask in return if Christo-fascism is emerging within the American military.

By Dennis Gruending

 A group of the world’s most respected Elders says that religions frequently oppress women and that it’s time for faith groups to change their ways. “Religion and tradition are a great force for peace and progress around the world,” the group said in a statement issued in July 2009. “However, as Elders, we believe that the justification of discrimination against women and girls on grounds of religion or tradition, as if it were prescribed by a higher authority, is unacceptable . . . We especially call on religious and traditional leaders to set an example and change all discriminatory practices within their own religions and traditions.”

The Elders include Nelson Mandela, former Irish president Mary Robinson, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Myanmar’s Aung San Suu Kyi, Kofi Annan, Graca Machel, Gro Brundtland, and former U.S. president Jimmy Carter. Mandela brought the group together in 2007. He said that as former leaders no longer in office they could “speak freely and boldy” to support peace building, help address major causes of human suffering and promote the shared interests of humanity. They have visited and supported peace initiatives in Cyprus, the Middle East, Zimbabwe and Sudan, but now they have turned their attention to equality for women and girls – and upon the role that religions play in prolonging the injustice.

Carter quits Baptists over women’s ‘subservience’

Jimmy Carter is among the most outspoken of the Elders on this point. A lifelong Baptist who continued to teach Sunday school even while he was president, Carter made a painful decision to leave the Southern Baptist Convention in July 2009. He said that his action became unavoidable when the convention’s leaders, quoting a few carefully selected Bible verses, decided that women must be “subservient” to their husbands and prohibited from holding most church positions. Carter wrote at the time that, “Women and girls have been discriminated against for too long in a twisted interpretation of the word of God.”

Carter developed his theme further in December 2009 when he spoke, via teleconference, to a gathering called the Parliament of the World’s Religions in Melbourne, Australia. “The plight of abused women is made more acceptable by the mandated subservience of women by religious leaders,” Carter said. He reminded his audience that in the Christian scripture, St. Paul wrote (in his letter to the Corinthians) that “there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” Carter took another swipe at the Baptist convention and also at the Catholic church, the two largest religious groups in the U.S. “The Roman Catholic Church and many others revere the Virgin Mary but consider women unqualified to serve as priests,” he said.

Dueling philosophies

There is a philosophy called complementarianism, which holds that God has ordained some forms of leadership (such as being a priest, pastor or elder) as exclusive to men. The counter concept is known as egalitarianism, or biblical equality, which holds that all human persons are equal in fundamental worth and moral status. The logical conclusion here is that both men and women are fit to hold any and all offices within their churches, not to mention their role in secular society. The debate often centres around the interpretation of certain Biblical passages. The complementarians like to quote portions of Genesis, where Adam was allegedly created first. Those who hold this philosophy justify the exclusion of females from leadership due to the deception of Eve by Satan, which resulted in the fall. There are also New Testament passages, including some by St. Paul, about women covering their heads, or wives being submissive to their husbands. These time-limited passages are read to restrict leadership to men.

Carter and his fellow Elders will have none of it. The Scriptures, Carter said in his Melbourne speech, were written when male dominance prevailed in every aspect of life and so it is not surprising that they reflect a dominantly male point of view. “I realize that devout Christians can find adequate scripture to justify either side in this debate,” he said, “but there is one incontrovertible fact concerning the relationship between Jesus Christ and women: he never condoned sexual discrimination or the implied subservience of women.”

Women and the church

The Catholic church is perhaps the most prominent example of complementarianism. Its leadership also clings to the position that because there were no women among the first apostles there can never be female priests. In a church whose decision-making is dominated by clerics, that means women are forever excluded from leadership. The last two popes have said the matter is closed and cannot be discussed. Pope John Paul II was not amused when, on his visit to the United States in 1979, Sister Teresa Kane, president of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, challenged him publicly on the church’s treatment of women. The Vatican continues to rail against feminism and in July 2009 it announced a sweeping review of congregations of religious sisters in the United States. Some sisters fear that the Vatican is trying to shunt them back into the old ways.

Catholics and Southern Baptists have plenty of company in their opposition to having women participate in leadership. Pope Benedict recently agreed to welcome as Catholics those traditionalist Anglican priests who are disgruntled with their church. I had assumed their greatest objection would be that some Anglican congregations support same sex marriage or are willing to consecrate gay bishops. I have been surprised to read how often the unhappiness of disaffected Anglican priests is based on their opposition to the ordination of women.

In Canada, the United Church had its debate about women’s ordination in 1936. Yet, as recently as 2006, the Canadian Mennonite Brethren spent much of its national conference debating whether member churches should be free to call women to serve as ministers and pastoral leaders. The resolution was finally carried with 77% voting in favour. The Christian and Missionary Alliance (Prime Minister Harper is a member) will not ordain women and has had an on-again-off-again debate for more than 20 years about whether women should be allowed to serve as Elders in the church.

High stakes

There is more at stake here than another odd quarrel among church members that has little to do with the secular world. Every society has its creation myths and often they are powerful in ordering social and personal behaviour. Catholicism is the world’s largest Christian religion and wields considerable power and influence. The Vatican even has permanent observer status at the United Nations. Catholics compromise the largest church in the U.S. with 70 million adherents. The Southern Baptist Convention, with 16 million members, is the second largest religious group, and is growing rapidly. The leadership of both churches has veered to the right in recent years. Both, for example, opposed President Obama’s 2009 health care reform on the basis that it might lead to the state paying for abortions.

Church leaders are saying that women are not welcome to participate at all levels in their churches, or that women must be subservient to their husbands. That sends a strong signal to all of society’s institutions, from home to school, to boardroom and legislature. The message that women must be subservient and cannot lead is potentially of enormous consequence in the secular world. It is there, Carter said, that progress is being made and he fears that gains could be reversed. “It is ironic,” he added, “that women are now welcomed into all major professions and other positions of authority, but are branded as inferior and deprived of the equal right to serve God in positions of religious leadership.”
In fact, Carter fears that religious discrimination against women helps to create a general environment “in which violations against women are justified.”

These violations include widespread physical assault and the sexual abuse of women and girls; the use of rape by soldiers as a tactic of warfare; the recruitment of an estimated four million women and girls each year into the sex trade; restriction (mainly in Muslim countries) placed on the movement, education and social interaction of girls and women. We are mistaken if we believe that violations exist in faraway countries but not in our own. Carter could have said that 520 Aboriginal women have been murdered or gone missing in Canada, half of them since the year 2000, or that men with guns murder about 30 women each year in our country.

So the Elders have spoken. Carter, Mandela, Tutu, Robinson and the others present a formidable counterweight to blind tradition. They are immensely respected for their achievements and their integrity. They say that they are fully committed to the realization of equality and empowerment for all women and girls. They call upon all leaders, religious and secular, to promote and protect those inalienable rights. Theirs is a powerful message.