Traditionally we have emphasized the importance of 'separating church and state'. Somehow this appears more and more difficult as society has evolved. Once religious organizations operated schools, hospitals, orphanages and all aspects of welfare. The state now controls these social structures but controversy is built into most aspects of well being. The evolution of NGOs (Nongovernmental Organizations) has further complicated each issue.

Furthermore the 'church' is not a unified structure. Difference between organized religions is probably just as great as between church and state. Birth control, abortion/right to life, euthanasia, blood transfusions, same sex marriage; the list is endless and added to almost daily in news reports, i.e. the Ray Latimer case, Sue Rodrigues, etc.

The controversy escalated during the Harris years in Ontario with the religious community being blackmailed about protests to cuts to welfare recipients. 'Fanatical' mothers and grandmothers from women's groups were met at Queen's Park by armed security forces. Claims that faith communities were interfering in political affairs through advocacy brought a threat of losing tax exemptions. Are welfare concerns for single mothers not a moral issue?

Faith communities have been alarmed about abuses of the natural world. One major initiative in the Christian Jubilee Program was Renewal of the Earth, where 30 denominations / organizations lobbied for action. Locally the issue was labeled "Caring for Creation". On a global scale a 'United Nations Consultation on the Environment and the Economy' was held in Rio de Jeneiro, Brazil in 1992. Heads of state met to plot strategies for the future of the world.

Along with the official meeting, NGOs, including Canadian faith groups, met in parallel sessions. Talking with a friend who attended, I was pleased to hear that John Charest, Canada's representative, took the time to brief the Canadian NGOs about deliberations by governments and to listen to the views expressed in the satellite meetings. Obviously the state of the world was seen as a legitimate concern of both government and 'church' in Canada. Each has a role to play.

Official recommendations were published. As a follow up, plans were made for evaluation of progress at a conference to be held in the Philippines. This was sponsored by the Canadian Council of Churches and major church organizations in Asia. Partial funding was supplied by CIDA in Ottawa. I was privileged to be one of 9 Canadians sponsored by the CCC to attend the meeting in the University of the Philippines, Los Banos, near Manila. Church representatives attending from other S.E. Asian countries included Hong Kong, Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam, New Zealand and Taiwan. Aboriginal representation was an important component, being the people most directly affected by land use policies of their respective governments. Proceedings of the meeting, "Consultation on Sustainable Forests in Southeast Asia" were published and a limited number of copies were distributed within the church community in Canada.

The state of the Canadian environment is a moral concern for Canadians. Governments have talked about it for the past two decades but with little effective action being taken. It is only recently that politicians have awakened to the fact that their electorate has taken the matter seriously. Governments have been caught flat-footed. Now political parties are scrambling to catch up, trying to be seen as leading the parade. We in our communities have a small window of opportunity to move forward in this crucial field, especially with federal elections looming.

There is a drastic need for policies to provide a healthy environment for our children and their future families. I like the aboriginal philosophy of acting to ensure the well being of the 7th generation. We need to act now to guarantee clean water for drinking and cooking. It is essential that we clean up our act as regards pure air, counteracting the pandemic of respiratory diseases.

Canadian people are showing leadership. The first need is for government to respond by enacting policy. Secondly is implementation by society. Here faith communities have the opportunity to lead. There is no room for controversy over the roles of 'church and state'.

We're all in this together.