Winnipeg’s mayoral candidates and the faith community; questions and answers

 

How will Winnipeg’s new mayor engage the city’s faith communities? That’s the question posed to candidates in late September. 

I reached out to local faith community leaders for specific issues they wanted to see addressed by the candidates. They came up with three questions. 

First, knowing the contributions made by faith groups to help the marginal and vulnerable in the city, what would the candidates do as mayor to recognize and support those efforts? 

Second, what would they do to address and combat antisemitism and Islamophobia? 

And third, what could the city do to help congregations with aging buildings, especially in the core, maintain these buildings so they could continue to serve people in the area? 

Candidates who replied were Shaun Loney, Rick Shone, Glen Murray, Chris Clacio, Scott Gillingham, Rana Bokhari, Jenny Motkaluk and Kevin Klein. Below find their full responses. Their edited responses were published in the Winnipeg Free Press on October 8. 

Shaun Loney

I'm an active member at St. Mary's Road United Church.  I also attend Indigenous ceremonies regularly including at the Sandy Saulteaux Centre near Beausejour.  

My job as Mayor will be to help us see our assets in the City to make measurable progress on the issues that we're struggling with but we need new and modern tools to connect what we have to what we need. 

The question is, what role can our faith communities play in helping the City address issues like homelessness and poverty and what does that look like in 2022, here in Winnipeg. 

I want to partner with faith communities to help Winnipeg emerge out of an old paradigm where we treat people living in poverty as though there is something wrong with them and to see they have been interacting with failed systems and outdated institutions. 

The way I see it, Winnipeg's defining issue is our ability to connect the people who most need the work with the work that most needs to be done.  Social enterprises lean into a business model that embeds love and compassion into our economics.  They hire people with barriers to employment.  As Mayor, I'd love to partner with faith communities who are struggling with underutilized church buildings to see employment opportunities emerge for new Canadians, Indigenous and others left out of the labour market. 

How about a few faith communities with underutilized buildings working with the City to see new housing opportunities for women getting out of jail and those same women being able to work in a coffee shop on the main level? 

How about an Islamic community hosting a social enterprise that hires refugees to paint? One week it's completing painting jobs that have been contracted by the City and the next it's working on getting a driver's license or learning English. 

We can begin to see "problems" like underutilized buildings or refugee unemployment as opportunities when we take as asset-based approach and see the potential in each other. 

The outcomes generated by ventures like these—including providing supportive housing for those living on our streets—have important financial benefits to our overburdened emergency services such as police, fire and ambulance.  As Mayor, I will modernize how nonprofits and emergency service providers partner with each other to recognize the important financial benefits that nonprofits have in lowering the workloads. 

How about a church hiring people with physical disabilities to visit lonely seniors who are regularly calling 911 out of sheer loneliness?  The Winnipeg Fire and Paramedic Service would have a financial interest in the impacts that this activity would have on their daily dispatches.   

These social enterprise activities would have positive revenue implications for faith communities that can add to their donations.  Faith communities already use social enterprise strategies—selling tickets to a fall supper or a musical put on by members of the congregation. 

Others, such as MCC, sponsoring thrift shops to do social good.  Let's do a lot more of this, in new and interesting ways.  As Mayor, I will make this a clear option for faith communities to partner with the City to work together to solve our most stubborn problems. 

Antisemitism and Islamophobia are indeed growing problems. In 2015, when PM Harper announced a snitch line to report "barbaric cultural practises" my partner Fiona and I organized an event at the Central Mosque.  We expected 30 people to show up, to show some love for our Islamic neighbours—and 300 showed up. Here's the news of the event in the Winnipeg Free Press and another from Global TV.  As Mayor, I want to be very active in helping Winnipeggers in embracing diversity of all kinds to see the potential in each other.   

Rick Shone

I know, from experience, that faith groups play a huge role in the function of our society. I grew up in the Presbyterian Church and was a youth leader into my university days. I went to a Christian Reformed school and a Mennonite high school (MBCI) and completed a minor in religious studies at the U of M. The values of these communities have shaped and informed the person I am today. 

Many faith groups are so active in the wider community and all the efforts of these volunteers makes a difference. I would love to see the city partner more with faith groups to address social issues. When I decided to run for mayor, I knew that if the city could develop better partnerships with faith groups, biz groups, neighbourhood associations, etc. we could achieve so much more as a team when we work together to solve these challenges. 

I currently sit on the board of the West End Biz and have been on the board of the Central Neighbourhoods Association, so I have seen first-hand the struggle it can be for organizations when partnering with the city. 

Winnipeg must be a city where all people feel safe and supported. This is my goal and I do not support any type of hate. In our household, my wife and I have raised our kids to respect others. We have raised them not to judge, to get to know people and their stories. We have many friends from both of these communities but there are also so many others who do not feel supported and safe in Winnipeg. 

My vision is to live in a city with a heart, one that supports and accepts others. It starts with education and then creating opportunities from different ethnic backgrounds, faiths, etc. to be able to meet, mix and get to know one another.  

The question of older buildings is is a great one I've thought of often as I've seen our aging members and Presbyterian churches. When it comes to upgrading/renovating, etc. I do think the city can be much more expedient in granting permits and ensuring that certain things remain grandfathered so as to not trigger costly upgrades. 

Many congregations are realizing that they must use the building more than just on Sundays or service days. They are indeed perfect buildings that can be used for community gatherings of all kinds, including City of Winnipeg leisure guide programs. Day care, weddings and many other functions can be held in church buildings. These programs can help pay for rent and upgrades to the building to ensure that they remain prominent in the community for a long time to come. 

Glen Murray 

Many of the best social outreach programs in our city are run by faith-based organizations. It is integral that the city reduce and remove roadblocks that prevent these organizations from fulfilling their mission. Together we can work to achieve better outcomes for groups looking to make an impact. 

As a member of a community that has been historically marginalized and attacked, I personally understand the challenges prejudice and hate can cause. It is important that the Mayor always be on the front lines, combating all types of hate in our City. We must ensure Winnipeg is always a welcoming, accepting and open place for people of all faiths. 

It’s important that we always appreciate that Winnipeg has many beautiful historic buildings. While the city cannot engage in a broad scale program to restore privately-owned buildings, we can and must always play a role in ensuring that we have beautiful public spaces in good repair. I am open to hearing all ideas from community leaders for how the city can help. 

Chris Clacio 

Thank you for your email and the questions I've been meaning to engage with the faith groups for many years, but I've been personally unaware of how to do that. 

As Mayor I would start by visiting every faith group in Winnipeg to discuss how the city of Winnipeg and the Office of the Mayor could do better engagement to reach out to the different groups in our city and include them in the civic process within city hall. 

After the first initial meetings with every single faith group, I would set up a meeting with all the leaders of the faith groups I meet with to begin the dialogue and discussions to address our relatives that are struggling and need support in our city. 

I do see and believe that going forwards in the post-covid world where we exist in the city of Winnipeg needs different faith groups to be at the table and be involved in the solutions that the city could partner up to address topics of concern in Winnipeg. 

Early in the election I made an announcement that I will rebrand the Office of Public Engagement into the Office of Civic Engagement. What makes this office different from the current form is if you as a resident or as a group of residents have an initiative or project you want to do in your neighbourhood you would reach out to this division, and they would connect you with your local councilors and specific department staff to help fund and implement the program. 

The best summary of how this office would operate would be what in the municipal sector is called a civic innovation lab which is based on social innovation labs. The second part of my announcement was the creation of a four-year participatory budgeting process.  

As mayor I would work with both the Jewish and Muslim citizens within our wards and neighbourhoods to address all forms of antisemitism and Islamophobia within our city. Over my 7 years working with urban indigenous young people in the inner city of Winnipeg, one important gift they have taught me about working alongside other citizens who I myself don't represent or speak for is to first get to know the citizens that come from the Jewish and Muslim communities. 

During my time helping and supporting urban indigenous young people in the city it was through always showing up every Friday at 6pm since August 2014 at 470 Selkirk Ave. At the Indigenous Family Centre that I was able to connect with and see different citizens from all walks of life coming together to "stop the violence and build community'' 52 times for 9 years straight. 

The only way I know how to make all citizens safe is to see more investments within the city go towards recreational, museums, parks, pools, and libraries services. This is the only way I believe we can improve our citizens' safety. 

There are many things the city can do to help different groups maintain and utilize these old church buildings so they can continue to serve all citizens. The difficulty at the moment is all about accessibility for citizen-based organizations to work in collaboration with the city to better coordinate with all stakeholders to implement the initiatives which is why the Office of Civic Engagement would be an asset in organizing with all faith groups, Jewish, Muslim, and Christian based organizations within the city. 

This would allow for easier communication with city staff, mayor's office, your city councillor, and the citizens to design, develop, and evaluate city services for aging church buildings.  

I have a complicated relationship within my life related to my faith and it wasn't until the pandemic began and my own journey of reconciliation of showing up every Friday and helping urban indigenous young people building up the neighbourhoods of the mature and inner city for almost 7-8 years. 

My family immigrated from the Philippines during the time of martial law being placed by the federal government back in 1974. My Mom had arrived here in 1982; 10 years prior to my birth in June 1992. Growing up here on Turtle Island; Winnipeg no one in my family ever explained to me about how to speak Tagalog, the history of the Philippines, or my family's relationship with Roman Catholicism. All I knew growing up was that I was non-practicing Catholic and I had seen my own immediate and extended family members always following prayer. 

As I attended University to study politics I had joined several atheist, agnostic, philosophical student groups trying to figure out whether I believe in those beliefs. When the Truth and Reconciliation Commission released their final report back in 2015, I had already been learning from many urban indigenous young people how indigenous knowledge had been systematically been misrepresented or excluded in many places within our city. As the pandemic grew my relationship to the Meet Me at The Bell Tower slowed down where I was always connecting with different citizen-based organizations.  

June 2022 that was the year I turned 30 years old, reflected on my life (and lived experiences), and learned more about my relationship to my own faith. I still consider myself a non-practicing Catholic but now I understand a little bit about my mom's family relationship to Roman Catholicism through learning about the colonial process that happened in the Philippines by the Spanish from 1565 to 1898 and the United States from 1902 to 1946. 

As part of the self reflection of learning about all this history of my family's homeland and its similar process that happened here to First Nations, Metis, and Inuit peoples. I can now see why I had struggled to figure my relationship to a higher authority. 

Scott Gillingham 

As a former pastor for over 20 years, I have a deep appreciation for the important contributions faith communities make to the health and strength of our city. The congregations I led were always actively involved as partners with organizations like Winnipeg (now Manitoba) Harvest, downtown missions; Union, Siloam and Lighthouse, Adult and Teen Challenge, helping refugees and other newcomers to Winnipeg. We were intentionally focused on building up our city.  

The theme of my campaign is “Uniting to Build a Stronger Winnipeg. Government is not the answer to every challenge facing the people of our city, nor can government alone do all that needs to be done to address the poverty, addiction and homelessness in Winnipeg. For more than a century in Winnipeg faith communities have been and remain on the front lines of meeting the social needs of Winnipeggers. I take this opportunity to thank them for their quiet, faithful work bringing help and hope to people of all ages and walks of life. 

I envision a city where all partners, including faith communities, are at the table, appreciated, empowered and working together in a coordinated manner to address Winnipeg’s shared social challenges and seize our opportunities.  

As Mayor, I will lead the coordination of the contributions made by every sector, including faith communities, senior levels of government, Indigenous governments, the business community, educators, non-profits and more. Each sector has a role to play in building a stronger, healthier Winnipeg where all people have the opportunity to benefit. By coordinating our efforts we can identify and address areas of overlap and gaps so the people we are serving get the help they need. 

Over the past several months of my mayoral campaign I have been very engaged with various and diverse faith communities across Winnipeg. I am encouraged by their commitment to making Winnipeg a stronger city. They are dedicated to helping address the social needs many fellow-Winnipeggers face.  

Earlier this year, I used my social media platforms to denounce in the strongest terms the appearance of an antisemitic flag at a rally in Winnipeg. 

As Mayor, I will continue to denounce antisemitism, Islamophobia and will work to foster a city that is growing in mutual acceptance, understanding and appreciation.  

A few months ago, I attended a forum at the Grand Mosque on Waverley St hosted by the Manitoba Islamic Association. The topic of Islamphobia was discussed and was a followup to the recent report, ‘Community Experiences with Islamophobia’.  

The presence of the antisemitic flag and the report outlining the experiences forum shows Winnipeg still has work to do to eradicate hate and intolerance in our community.  

As Mayor, I will actively engage all faith and cultural communities to listen and understand what they are experiencing in Winnipeg. By knowing what communities are facing we can find ways to address it. I will work to make our city a place where all people feel welcome, safe and at home in Winnipeg.  

As a former pastor I can appreciate that some congregations with older buildings can get to the frustrating stage where they feel they are spending their time on money serving the building instead of the people of the community. 

As Mayor, I will be open to support rezoning of older church buildings so that appropriate adaptive reuse may be accommodated. For example, the conversion of St. Mathews Anglican Church to the West End Commons housing community is an example of an aging church building that was transformed into 26 apartments offered at affordable rents through a no-profit structure. 

I recognize that beyond the tangible work of addressing social needs, faith communities strengthen the fabric of our city by promoting values of love for others, generosity, honesty, service, mutual respect and hope. Lived out, these values strengthen individuals and build families. As Mayor, I will always appreciate the importance of faith communities to Winnipeg’s future hope and success. 

I am a Christian and attend church regularly.  

Kevin Klein 

First, thank you for reaching out to the candidates to address these challenges within the Faith-Based community. I imagine that over the years you have tried to reach out to those in power to achieve meaningful discussion and have received many empty promises. I will try to answer based on my proven track record and personal history.

There is a culture at City Hall that fears the repercussions of allowing religious groups to participate and receive funding for social issues in Winnipeg. I find this disappointing given how much help religious organizations give to the vulnerable. Every organization that provides service should have a seat at the table. There is a massive amount of funding that goes to organizations in the city but no accountability as to where the funding is going or what kind of results are achieved. 

When elected, I will open the opportunity for funding to any non-profit organization who is willing to help and will require more accountability from those already receiving funding to ensure that funding is being used wisely and prudently.

I am fortunate to have made many personal connections within both the Jewish and Muslim communities during my time in Winnipeg. I value them as friends and advisors and will continue to maintain these connections and listen as Mayor. I believe these connections with community leaders will enable me to be aware of issues quickly and I would rely on their input to treat them with the cultural sensitivity that they deserve and provide them with the assurance that their safety is crucial.

While church buildings are private property and do not fall under the purveyance of the city, I believe that we can still help make upkeep and renovations easier by making them less costly. During this campaign I have committed to reducing the cost of permits for non-profits by 75%. When elected mayor I would work with council to help them understand the importance of preserving these aging buildings within the communities that they serve.

I hope that I have answered your questions clearly. As a child I was often one of the vulnerable who relied on the charity of others, so I understand how important religious organizations are to the community.

Finally, I am reminded of a story my father-in-law (a retired minister) tells of how important it is to serve the community.

Their church building was next door to a middle-school and the kids who smoked would come hang out on the church steps as they couldn’t smoke on school property. Graffiti, destruction, and garbage became a huge issue. As opposed to forcing them off the property, the ladies of the church began a lunch program and invited the kids in for a free meal every week.

Not only did the graffiti and destruction stop, but years later my father-in-law would run into these kids who told him how that small act of kindness encouraged them to make different choices in life. 

Jenny Motkaluk

Religion/faith is a personal matter. The government doesn't and should never tell congregants what to believe. At the same time the good works that faith groups do is a reflection of their moral beliefs and support broader social goals. Where those efforts provide a benefit to the community as a whole, the City should be a good partner. Just as the City should be a good partner to anyone whose efforts will make Winnipeg stronger.  

Winnipeggers deserve leadership that supports the passion, ambitions, and dreams of all of us. Recently, I participated in the redevelopment of Augustine United Church into Augustine Centre, which includes Oak Table and SPLASH Daycare as two partners that offer substantial support to the broader community.  The City could have been a better partner in that process and when I'm Mayor, it will be. 

Winnipeg is a great city because of the people who choose to live here.  We are the most diverse city in the country and everyone who lives here is first and foremost a Winnipegger in my view. People who want to inject the violent politics of other countries halfway around the world into Winnipeg, must know that there will be zero tolerance for anything other than reasoned debate. I believe Israel has a right to exist.  

When Jews, Muslims or any other Winnipeggers are harassed and attacked in our city, I will speak out against it and take action. I reject Woke Culture, BDS, and equity policies because they are often used as a disguise for antisemitism and other forms of discrimination. 

Churches are a big part of the urban mosaic and many congregations are facing the same challenges of dwindling and aging membership which reduces their ability to maintain their Churches. Augustine Centre is a great example of a congregation responding to this challenge and should be looked on as a model for others, such as Rosh Pina which was recently listed for sale.  

Sadly, the City of Winnipeg acted more as a barrier to success in that project than a champion.  In particular, delays in the permit office proved very costly to their redevelopment efforts. As Mayor, I will create high performance departments so that City Hall starts working with us rather than against us. 

I identify as a Winnipegger.  As a kid, I was raised in the Ukrainian Catholic community, I went to Immaculate Heart of Mary School and attended several churches in the North End of Winnipeg, including St Joseph's and St Andrew's. 

Rana Bokhari 

Recognizing the challenges that marginalized, racialized and vulnerable people in our city face is one the most important issues in this campaign. How the government at all levels have addressed these issues thus far, is perhaps one of our society's greatest failures. As a Human Rights candidate, as a woman who believes that how we treat our most vulnerable is a reflection of our society—I believe that drug, addiction and mental health issues require all groups, community, faith and others partnering together to do better. 

I understand the challenges both the Jewish and Muslim communities face. I have lived experience dealing with Islamophobia. The City has a role to play in creating safe communities, safe places of worship and safety on the streets free from any violence rooted in antisemitism and Islamophobia. This starts with education, lifting the voices of those communities and ensuring that we come together to celebrate our achievements and also our hardships shoulder to shoulder. 

I acknowledge that some very important landmarks and old church buildings continue to serve invaluable services to all community members. Whether it is through programs, shelter, gathering spaces or food banks. 

One of the main pillars of my campaign is community, we would work together to ensure we are supporting the community who rely on these spaces by working with various Christian denominations that are continuing the great work despite all odds.

A few more things about The Meeting House Town Hall, including comments about Cavey's return to ministry and comments from victim's advocate Melodie Bissell

 

A few more things emerging from the August 14 Town Hall meeting by The Meeting House about additional substantiated allegations of sexual abuse by former pastors Bruxy Cavey and Tim Day

People on social media reacted with anger after Bruce Miller, a member of the church’s Board of Overseers, said he had told Cavey “God isn’t finished with you yet” and that maybe Cavey might have a future ministry “speaking to other ministers” about what he did wrong.

Significantly, the other members of the Board were quick to note those were Miller’s personal thoughts and did not represent the church.

Miller himself walked his comments back later, noting he was not “striving to return him [Cavey] to ministry . . . that is up to God.”

He was not advocating Cavey return to The Meeting House, he went on to say.

Miller may have been the one to say that out loud in that way, but others seemed to share his opinion.

During the Q & A period, there was pushback against the Board with some people wondering why they hadn’t had a chance to hear Cavey’s side of the story yet.

That prompted a sharp response from Jennifer Hyrniw, a member of the Board, who said: “Unless someone fully admits and fully repents, we aren’t giving them the opportunity to speak to our community.”

In fact, this meeting featured more questioning about the Board than previous Town Halls. Not everyone was satisfied with the direction or actions the Board had taken.

One person questioned the nature of the sexual abuse, whether it was only inappropriate comments.

The Board quickly responded the abuse was more than that.

Another person accused the Board of not being fully transparent by not disclosing the nature of the abuse or allowing Cavey to speak.

Noting she “spoke for many who feel this way,” she added the Board’s lack of transparency was polarizing and demoralizing the church and contributing to disunity—and to a decline in attendance and giving.

There was light applause after she finished sharing her thoughts.

In response, Hryniw noted the church was trying to respond in a trauma informed way—a way that protected and supported victims. She assured the questioner the Board dealt with the issues in a “robust” way, with the needs of the victims in mind.

If The Meeting House couldn’t handle that kind of response to the abuse—a response that put “the institution at risk”—then “maybe it shouldn’t exist as a church,” she said.

After that exchange, I contacted Melody Bissell, who is serving as an advocate for victims at The Meeting House.

“I think the focus is being shifted to the wrong thing here,” she said of the blame being cast on the Board.

“People want to blame someone,” she said of the criticism of the Board.

But the Board isn’t to blame, she noted; the abusers—Cavey and Day—are responsible for what is happening at the church.

By “pointing fingers at the Board of overseers” members of The Meeting House could lose focus on the victims—the people most in need of support.

Knowing the Board as she does, she wanted to “give credit where credit is due” for the way they have worked through the “painful and excruciating” experiences of the victims, trying to make things right.

She was quick to also credit them for changing the terminology from “sexual harassment,” as described in the first investigator’s report, to “sexual abuse” for the subsequent investigations.

“On behalf of the victims, I am very grateful for that change,” she said.

As for members who are angry with the Board for the way they are responding, “they aren’t looking at the situation through the eyes of the victims,” Bissell said.

More education about a trauma informed approach is needed, she added, noting there was more concern by some about “safeguarding” the church than “caring for the oppressed.”

There’s not point in debating the degree of the abuse, she said. “All abuse is wrong,” she stated.

As for Cavey and his future ministry, “he has lost his right to influence other pastors,” she said, adding his victims “have a lifetime of healing.”

While there is room for “genuine” repentance, Cavey’s actions may “disqualify” him from some roles in the future, she said.

She also praised The Meeting House for being “generous” in financially supporting the victims so they could participate in counselling.

Additional sexual abuse claims substantiated against former The Meeting House pastors Bruxy Cavey, Tim Day

Board of Overseers, church leaders at Aug. 14 Town Hall

Following two additional investigations into clergy sexual abuse and misconduct, The Meeting House has confirmed three more substantiated allegations against its former pastor, Bruxy Cavey.

That news was shared at an August 14 public town hall meeting held by the church.

 That brings to four the number of substantiated allegations against Cavey, who resigned from the church in March following the announcement of the first substantiated allegation.

One of the new allegations involved someone who was under the age of 18 when the abuse occurred, the church reported.

The church also announced a substantiated allegation of sexual abuse or misconduct against another former pastor, Tim Day.

The claims were substantiated by an independent investigator with experience in the field of sexual abuse and misconduct, the church said.

“In all cases, the victims suffered great harm,” said Jennifer Hryniw, a member of the church’s Board of Overseers, at the meeting.

While Cavey was involved in the additional investigations, Day chose not to participate although he was “provided multiple opportunities” to do so.

Hryniw went on to say The Meeting House had decided to clarify its language around the allegations, calling what happened “sexual abuse by a church leader”—a term it adopted from Mennonite Central Committee.

According to that definition, sexual abuse by a church leader is “any sexualized behavior that occurs within the church context where one party has more power than the other,” she said.

This marks a change from the first investigation, when The Meeting House referred to Cavey’s actions as sexual misconduct or harassment.

At the time, the church thought its language—taken directly from the first investigator’s report—was “strong enough to convey the seriousness” of the situation, Hryniw said.

By not calling it sexual abuse, some felt the church was “downplaying the harm done,” she noted.

“That was never our intention . . . we have learned a lot since then,” she said.

Hryniw went on to commend the bravery of the first victim, who “endured so much” and “deeply apologized” on behalf of the church for taking so long to name what she had experienced. 

During a question-and-answer time, Bruce Miller, a member of the Board of Overseers, acknowledged the church’s decision to provide financial support to Cavey and his family after his resignation elicited some “very strong opinions.”

That compensation, he said, “has now come to an end,” he said, adding that Day has not received any compensation.

Some victims are receiving financial support for counselling, he said.

When asked if the police have been informed about the new substantiated allegations, Miller said they have been “made aware.”

When pressed for more details about the abuse, and whether they were just “inappropriate” comments or behaviours, church leaders declined to go into specifics out of consideration for the victims and to prevent their identities from being revealed.

Hryniw clarified that none of the cases of abuse involved “misunderstood comments.”

“We had a robust investigation that was detailed and thorough . . . the victims were credible, the claims were substantiated,” she said.

When asked why Cavey had not been given a chance to speak to the congregation, Hryniw replied “unless someone fully admits and fully repents, we are not giving an opportunity to speak to our community.”

For Nour Aziz, another member of the Board of Overseers, hearing stories from victims was “heartbreaking, disappointing, inexcusable . . . we need to name it for what it is.”

Power in a church “should never be top down,” she went on to say, adding “we want to move forward in a way that doesn’t hurt people anymore.”

Opinion: A few reflections on the June 8 The Meeting House Town Hall meeting about sexual misconduct and abuse

I attended the June 7 The Meeting House Town Hall meeting, the one where it was revealed there were 38 reports of, or inquiries about, clergy sexual misconduct and abuse at that southern Ontario church.

I wrote about that meeting in Anabaptist World.

A few impressions.

First, I give full credit to leadership at The Meeting House for facing this head on and dealing with it in an open and transparent manner.

Even though none of the members of the Board of Overseers was in leadership when the abuses and misconduct happened, they have owned it and promised to see the investigations through to the end—to “turn the lights” on to it, no matter what the investigations reveal.

Second, full respect to Jennifer Hryniw, the member of the Board of Overseers tasked with detailing the findings of the reports and the investigations to this point. 

She brought a sense of sadness and heaviness to her sharing that was totally appropriate and genuine, considering the subject matter.

The long pauses she took between sentences as she shared spoke volumes, and helped listeners enter the deep sense of pain she was feeling about what had happened.

Third, I didn’t think there was sufficient time for lament during the meeting. I acknowledge it might have been happening in other forums, but it was lacking June 8.

Although the pain and suffering of victims was acknowledged and named, the second part of the meeting felt too upbeat and positive to me—God is going to help us through this! God has plans for us!

As one person put it: “They talked about the latest developments for about 15 minutes total, (out of about 90 minutes), took a very few questions, and then spent the rest of the time being inordinately excited about the future of the church. It was like whiplash: 'We own this, but can you all look over here now and see all the exciting things that are happening next? We’re done looking at the ugly stuff.'”

“As a congregation they need to sit with this and grieve this if they want to actually get to the point of meaningful change, no matter how uncomfortable it may feel. Every single church and organization always skips right over this step. And that is a key reason nothing ever changes.”

For me, talk about future plans for the church might have been better left for another time; let the gravity of what has happened sink in.

Fourth, I appreciated how leadership indicated this was not a matter of a few bad apples doing a few bad things, but a culture problem in the church in the past.

From what was said at the meeting, and from talking to former members and insiders, it is clear there was a workplace culture issue that not only permitted this kind of activity—but enabled it and stifled any concerns about it.

This was made plain by Hryniw, who said: “We also heard stories of brave individuals who tried to address the culture of immorality in the past. They felt shut down and alienated by the church.”

This “culture of immorality” wasn’t only about clergy sexual misconduct, she said, but also about other leaders and staff who engaged in sexual misconduct, adultery and “troubling” emotional abuse.

Finally, while church leaders indicated giving is down 30-40%, they didn’t indicate what has happened to attendance. One could speculate that it, like giving, is down, too.

According to one expert who consults with churches that have experienced clergy sexual abuse, a decrease in attendance and giving is normal after an occurrence like that.

:That 30-40% number is par for the course,” for churches that experience clergy sexual abuse, she said.

“When I have consulted with churches going through this, I usually tell them they can expect this and should prepare.”

Not only that, over 50% of churches that experience misconduct will close their doors within five years, she said, citing research in that area.

“When I look at the churches I have worked with, those figures are about right,” she said. “Half the churches I consulted with closed within five years. And they were vibrant and engaged churches before that.”

It will be interesting to see how the Meeting House will fare, she added, adding that “word on the street is that many people have exited worshipping at the Meeting House . . . From what I have heard, many have just left the church, not going other places.”

Church members are secondary victims, in a situation like this, she said. “They experience a huge loss of trust in authority figures, and even loss of faith in God.”

Canadian scholars weigh in on recent Angus Reid study of religion in Canada

I call them my "scholarly hive mind," people who study religion in Canada from different perspectives. Whenever a new report about religion in Canada comes out, I ask them to weigh in. Like happened recently with a new Angus Reid Institute study that I wrote about in the Winnipeg Free Press.

I can never include everything they share with me in my columns in the newspaper, so here are their full comments on the report.

John Stackhouse, Crandall University 

Of course Canadians-in-general are leery of evangelicals and Muslims. They represent the only two religions visible on the cultural landscape that disrupt the easy course of the post-Sixties agenda of self-realization, prosperity, security, and justice (for approved minorities). 

Hindus in Canada are neither populous nor prominent. Sikhs show up significantly only in the Vancouver and Toronto suburbs. Buddhists have that nice Dalai Lama to speak for them, while most Canadians couldn’t name four more important facts about that religion. (“Aren’t they into compassion and mindfulness? That’s nice!”) 

If the Chinese who have helped overheat Vancouver’s housing market were identifiable with a religion, that religion would be named alongside evangelicalism and Islam. And God help our Jewish neighbours if Canada experiences an economic downturn. 

Meanwhile, then, it’s those noisy, Trump-loving, sport-spoiling evangelicals and those ominous, women-shrouding, terrorist-abetting Muslims we have to watch out for. 

And why not the Catholics? Everyone knows that Catholicism in Canada nowadays has only the slightest purchase on its members (exhibit A: artificial birth control; exhibit B: abortion; exhibit C: attendance at mass and confession). 

The clergy are so utterly disqualified from public respect because of the continuing tide of sexual scandals around the world that the junior members just long to be quiet and kind while the senior members speak irrelevantly into the air, when they dare to speak at all. 

We are not yet in an era of cultural wars, thank God. But the dominant attitude of Boomerish consumerism, fervent-but-selective moralism, and as-you-like-it spirituality militates against conspicuous recalcitrance. 

Witness the brief nod by court after legislature after professional college toward religious rights per the Charter as they are then swiftly set aside in the interests of What Matters More. Evangelicals and Muslims are the two most obvious groups who refuse to entirely get with the program. 

So no wonder the rest of the crowd suspect and resent them. They’re always threatening to ruin the party and rain on the parade. 

Sam Reimer, Crandall University 

I suspect that part of the reason that evangelicals’ religiosity is so high is because the less committed evangelicals are disaffiliating. It is, after all, the least popular religion. Interestingly, this disaffiliation trend does not seem to be the case for Muslims, who (based on some reports) often increase their religiosity when they land in Canada (at least for the first generation). 

The majority of Canadians were raised in a religious tradition: I wonder if the questions asked here help us understand much about faith transmission (e.g., Did you go through your religion’s formal entry process?).  

We know that parental commitment is the highest predictor of faith transmission, but it requires two parents who share the same religious views and who both model active religiosity at home. The questions don’t really get at these factors.   

My (late, RIP) friend Gary Bouma said that Australians and Canadians are fine with religion unless it is serious religion. I assume he meant commitment to those religions that makes exclusive claims.  

Of course, past and present failures, and media coverage of them, affect perceptions of religious groups as well. It is not surprising then, that Evangelicals and Muslims are viewed as more damaging and also feel the most “shut out” by society. This is much higher for evangelicals who feel the society is moving away from their beliefs, and a more privileged Christianity in the past. 

Will immigration help sustain Canada’s religious communities? Well, that depends which ones. Obviously, they will not help sustain the United Church much, nor most mainline Protestant groups.  

Immigration will help maintain (particularly charismatic) evangelical churches, and Catholicism to a lesser degree, but obviously they will sustain and grow non-Christian world religions. But for how many generations? That we don’t know.  

Joel Thiessen, Ambrose University 

Subcultural narratives, attitudes, and practices related to ‘us’ and ‘them’ go a long way to explain Evangelicals and Muslims as outsiders on several fronts (e.g., more religiously committed). 

This is reinforced with the one question on ‘your family participated in religious events.’ Evangelicals (50%) and Muslims (42%) stand out in this regard, reinforcing the role of family-based religious socialization behaviours in particular.    

Several markers that cultural Catholicism persists (far higher affiliation than belief or practice), alongside clear markers akin to the secular end of the continuum among those who identify as Catholic (e.g., 28% of Catholics don’t believe in God or a higher power; only 43% of Catholics want a religious funeral). 

I was surprised to see the proportion of people who find themselves in religious traditions who were not raised in a religious tradition (as high as 30% among Mainline Protestants and as low as 14% among Muslims). More recent qualitative research into conversion experiences, pathways, and narratives in late modern Canadian society would be fascinating here. I was surprised with how high some of these figures were. 

While the narrative earlier in the report is that QC and BC are among the most secular provinces, we shouldn’t lose sight of the data half-way through the report on the two provinces with the highest proportion of people to not be raised in a religious tradition – BC (36%) and AB (34%) – the two provinces with the highest proportion of religious nones, as my research with Sarah showed.   

Perhaps I shouldn’t be surprised, but it was noteworthy to see how few wanted a religious funeral. Maybe qualitative research exists on this social shift, but if not, a study should be done. I am co-teaching an interdisciplinary course on ‘death and dying’ next year, and this would be an interesting line of inquiry.   

Perceived and/or Experienced Polarization – fascinating (and unsurprising) to see the negative views among many in Canada toward Evangelicals and Muslims, especially Evangelicals. In turn, Evangelical perceptions of persecution toward their group are very strong. 

Paying attention to polarization rhetoric, perceptions, and experiences is worth tracking closely in the years ahead, and we need more qualitative data to understand better the processes, mechanisms, and narratives that give rise to group perceptions of the ‘other.’ 

Media is certainly part of the story, but I think there is more in play too (e.g., family, school, politics, social media). Sarah and I explored some of this in one of our chapters on religious nones ,and I look forward to learning more here from the recent book by Paul, Patricia, and Sarah, Religion at the Edge.   

Intriguing to see that Muslims (38%) and Sikhs (39%) were the most likely to say that Canadian society makes room for their personal values and faith. This might suggest that prevailing narratives on multiculturalism and diversity are progressively taking root. 

However, Muslims were also the second most likely to say Canadian society shuts out their personal values and faith (26%). Clearly, a lot of work remains on the diversity/inclusion front too. 

Sarah Wilkins-Laflamme, University of Waterloo 

Those with no religion/non-believers don't get much exposure to organized religion in their everyday lives anymore. Their religious literacy is usually quite low. 

Often one of the only places they hear about religion now is in the media when there's a negative news story about religion (unmarked graves at formerly Catholic-run residential schools; sex abuse scandals; right-wing evangelicalism from the US and in the Freedom Convoy; the occasional pastor who refuses to comply with health restrictions; etc.). 

The nonreligious don't come into much contact with the 'better' sides of religion, such as the social services certain religious groups provide, or the sense of community religion often provides for more religiously committed individuals. 

The negative views are also picked up and reinforced by non-religious individuals' social networks who often share the same nonreligion and views. 

Muslims and Evangelicals still get the short end of the stick here, being the most disliked groups for many years now. Buddhists are usually the most liked group, although this Angus Reid/Cardus series of surveys didn't ask about Buddhists. 

And I also think it's worth pointing out the extremely negative views Evangelicals hold towards atheists and Muslims, although the report did not focus on this result. 

Most of the trends presented in the report were not all that surprising, and are a continuation of what's been found in previous surveys and years. The one finding that was more surprising for me was the one Joel also mentioned: the high rates of individuals who said they come from a no religion background but are now into religion. These rates are higher than other surveys have shown them to be. 

It might be that a currently religiously committed individual has a different definition of what a nonreligious upbringing looks like (some, but not as much, religion), versus a currently nonreligious individual. More research needed on this. 

Recent Stats Can General Social Surveys (from 2018 and 2019) are showing a steep decline in rates of cultural Catholicism in QC (in favor of no religion). Also, the report got the 2019 Stats Can GSS rate of no religion wrong...it's not just over one quarter, but now over one third of the general adult population in Canada who says they have no religion. 

Rick Hiemstra, Evangelical Fellowship of Canada 

The headline grabbing question in this poll was “In your view, would you say the overall presence of each of these in Canadian public life is benefitting or damaging Canada or Canadian society?” and the possible responses were:

• Damaging;
• No real impact;
• Benefitting;
• Don’t know/Can’t say. 

The question itself was about “presence,” not what these groups did or did not do. I think we should be concerned that the mere presence or existence of a group is being characterized as damaging, or that people are being pushed to think of their neighbours in these terms. 

This is polarizing language (damaging-benefitting) and one can only hope that those writing the survey were unaware of what they were doing. We have far too many historical and contemporary examples of what happens in societies when a group is reduced in the public consciousness to a threat. 

It is reasonable to ask, “What does a society do with a damaging group?” If their existence is damaging, is their existence tolerated? 

Listing “damaging” groups validates and reinforces prejudice. Surely we can all be more careful with each other’s safety and reputations. 

Kevin Flatt, Redeemer University 

From the point of view of Canadian history, dealing with deep religious and cultural differences has been a recurring challenge that we've sometimes handled reasonably well (coexistence of English-Protestant majority and French-Canadian minority) and sometimes very poorly (relations with Indigenous peoples). 

Our federal structure of government can be understood primarily as an attempt to allow for religious-cultural difference in the perennially contested areas of education, access to public institutions, and customs/laws regarding family, marriage, and children. 

This structure has worked reasonably well for safeguarding the distinct identity of French Canadians in Quebec, and to some extent (though less well) for French Canadian minorities in other provinces. 

In today's context, it's mainly evangelical Protestants and Muslims who have thick religious commitments that are out of step with the predominantly secular hegemonic culture. 

Like the old Anglo-Protestant/French-Catholic and the continuing Indigenous/settler divide, these differences have profound implications for education, access to the public square, and family/marriage/sexuality. 

And like them, the differences between evangelicals and Muslims and the Canadian majority tend to produce fear and distrust on all sides. 

Unfortunately, the structures we built to accommodate the Anglo-Protestant/French-Catholic "two solitudes" have not been adapted or extended to accommodate evangelicals and Muslims now that mainline Protestants, most Catholics, and "nones" have largely converged around a shared secular progressivism since the 1960s. 

Our main creative response to the English-French divide—provincial jurisdiction—can't really help evangelicals and Muslims due to their geographical distribution as fairly small minorities in most places. 

Let's take the example of evangelicals and education in Ontario. In the 1950s and 1960s, when my parents were in school, most evangelicals would have found the public school system hospitable if somewhat uninspiring (it had, after all, a generically mainline Protestant ethos). 

By the 1980s and 1990s, when my generation was in school, overtly Christian elements had been stripped from the system due to the combined effects of social change and the Charter, and the system seemed somewhat alien to evangelicals but more or less religiously neutral. 

Today, in my children's generation, most of the evangelicals I know (including several public school teachers) perceive the system as overtly hostile and heavily invested in disabusing their children of their parents' core values. Most of those who can afford to do so are sending their kids to private Christian schools or homeschooling them, usually at great financial sacrifice, while they pay public school taxes and watch their Catholic and progressive secular neighbours enjoy public funding for the schools that reflect their values and teach them to their children. 

Even leaving aside the question of whether this is just, it is not a formula for long-term social harmony. It is likely, in fact, to produce alienation and even radicalization. (Side note: is anyone tracking trends in the area of withdrawal from public schooling? Anecdotally, the evangelical exodus from public schools seemed to have accelerated massively even before COVID, and I have heard similar things about the Muslim community.) 

Sadly, these survey results do not provide much hope for the future improvement of the prospects of religious outlier groups in Canada. I find it alarming that on balance nearly all groups think the mere presence of evangelicals and Muslims is "damaging to Canada." I share Rick's concern about the wording of that question, too. 

Speaking purely as an evangelical, I'm painfully aware that some of our more newsworthy representatives don't do us any favours. But as a society we can't make our willingness to tolerate the very existence of a group contingent on their perceived approvability according to the tastes of the majority. 

On a more hopeful note, it was very encouraging to see that large majorities of Canadians of all stripes think that freedom of conscience and religion makes Canada a better country. 

It is worrisome to see that most groups of Canadians think freedom of conscience and religion is diminishing in Canada; even more worrisome if they are correct (as they probably are, in my view). 

But combined with the on-balance positive view of religious contributions that most Canadians have, maybe there is a small opening here for a more tolerant and accommodating approach to deep religious difference.