via: Street Prophets

Readers of BDBO rock! (Just wanted you to know that)

Am I any closer to understanding how CTS can claim CITS Media Resources Organization is a charity able to issue tax receipts? Not exactly. Closer, but not fully understanding this ‘charity’ legally yet.

In the meantime I said I’d post a history of CTS (Crossroads Television System).

Rather than re-invent the wheel may I point you to an excellent historical summary of CTS from the Canadian Television Foundation. The article is in plain English and gives a succinct overview.

Television system is a unique Canadian term which refers to TV stations which share common ownership, brand and programming.
CTS is a privately owned non-profit with shareholders who expect a reasonable return on their investment. CTS hasn’t said that to me personally, I’m drawing that conclusion based on an email from a former employee and this comment at ChristianWeek. If I’m wrong, by all means pipe up.

CTS is regulated by Industry Canada and the Canadian Radio-Television & Telecommunications Commission. It is carried to consumers by Bell and Shaw (StarChoice) by satellite, and is also on cable in most provinces and territories in Canada. According to the CRTC religious broadcasting policy:

Accordingly, the Commission considers that any religious organization or foundation using the Canadian broadcasting system to solicit funds should be a charity, and should be registered as such with Revenue Canada in accordance with the Income Tax Act. Registered charitable organizations or foundations must, among other requirements, make available an annual public information return describing the charity’s purpose and activities and setting out financial details regarding receipts and disbursements.

Yesterday I asked how a non-profit media company could call an appendage of the company a charity.
The appendage is called CITS Media Resources Organization, marketed under Our Cause at the CTS website and website called Hope for TV.

There are days I realize how much I don’t know. This has been one of them. Any corporation or company can decide at any stage in it’s life to file a letters patent, that’s not at all unusual.
CTS made it’s application in 2008.
Yep, CITS Media Resources Organization has been on Corporation Canada’s website since October 2008.

October 2, 2008 to be precise this application was filed in the municipality of Burlington. CITS is licenced to broadcast by Hamilton with repeaters in London and Ottawa. In 2008 CTS got a licence to broadcast out of Edmonton and Calgary.

On October 27, 2008 a copy of a letter from a representative of the Industry Minister was attached to file # 449772-4.

The first three directors were Richard Grey, former President of CTS, Janine Maxwell, a businesswoman from the USA, and  Rev. Keith Parks of Bethel Pentecostal Assembly in BC. Does anyone know who the directors are now?

I scoured Alberta and Ontario Gazettes yesterday, and it finally twigged to try Canada Gazette. A reader thought to look also and sent the link.

That answers my question.  Sort of. By what authority does CITS Media Resources Organization have the right to call itself a charity?  If I am reading correctly - by the authority of former Industry Minister Jim Prentice.

(Update: Sarcasm aside, Industry Canada cannot grant charitable status. The remaining question is this: has this corporation registered as a for profit or a not for profit? It’s been Gazetted, the next step would be application to Revenue Canada Charities)

A letter of patent is the public granting of a right, in this case a request by CTS (a media organization) to have it’s own charity.  Canada Gazette is the official newspaper or publication of government, a public announcement of record.

I’m not a lawyer and I don’t play one online, I’m not a politician or a business owner.
I’m just trying to figure out why a religious broadcaster applied for a charity appendage in 2008 and unveils it now; knowing that for all intensive purposes CTS is robbing it’s home donor base.
I’m trying to figure out where the tax receipts will come from because there is no listing for CITS Media Resources Organization federally- and located where I’m used to finding charities listed - Revenue Canada Charities.

Is this an opps? Was this marketed before Rev Can Charities approval?

Ms. Maxwell, one of the original applicants may be a Canadian citizen, a dual citizen or a US citizen.
I don’t know.  Perhaps citizens of other countries are permitted to set up or help set up Canadian charities.
Dick Gray was president of CTS and owner of Dick Gray Broadcasting Consulting. We don’t know if the original applicants are current charity directors.

According to the letters patent, this CTS ‘charity’ is permitted to operate in Canada and elsewhere. Elsewhere?

Who oversees this CITS Media Resources Organization?

Given what happened with the alleged ponzi scheme with Crossroads Christian Communications Inc. this summer, is this CTS charity something donors can put trust into?

My brain is about the consistency of poutine as I write this. Two days of scouring gazettes, newsletters, and regulations to find out where this charity sprang from is tiring.  And depressing.
Shining through all the legalize is a great deal of ambition.
Religious programming in Canada is not very transparent.
Canadians don’t pay much attention. We are stuck with channels like CTS, and like any speciality channel we aren’t interested in, we don’t tune in.

If you are interested in the goals of CITS Media Resources Organization (which go beyond the ads and glossy brochure in the letters patent) let me know and I’ll lay them out in a post. I think CTS has some talented broadcasters, who believe with all their hearts they are working for God. They work hard, do they have any input or awareness?

As a Christian who worked in ‘liberal/secular’ media, and a bit in religious media, I don’t like the approach the marketing has taken.

It’s fear based, shallow, and targeting vulnerable people.  Parents in Canada have v-chips in their TVs. They are capable of monitoring their kids viewing, and making decisions without a religious broadcaster telling them their new ‘charity’ appendage can do it for them. Other vulnerable groups may sincerely believe they are giving to God in giving to The Cause, when giving may be effective closer to home.

The CRTC licence granted to CTS Alberta weighed out the conflict Canadian Christians are expressing. Some feel Canada needs more religious programming, some don’t. Some object to balanced programming.
In a 2004 article in Mediacaster Magazine, called Channelling Faith, the author looks at religious broadcasting in Canada.

However, the model of religious broadcasting which CSNY sang about, is strictly American evangelicals. Their congregations number over 10,000 and the level of bombast, dire predictions, and product pitches (they sell a lot of books and VHS tapes) is not reflected in the Canadian faith programming, however these preachers do buy time on the Canadian channels. And, proving that forgiveness is still a hallmark of the Christian faith, Bakker is back on the air (and can be found on Miracle Channel) – and Swaggart and Falwell of course, still have their shows, but not on Canadian television.

Can you picture 100 Huntley Street’s David Mainse, now retired, who had been on Canadian television for over 40 years, dancing, or waving his arms around predicting where the hellfire will strike, or hollering at viewers, or dissolving into raging tears? Thought so. This is not the model of faith broadcasting in Canada.

That’s reflective of the viewers, says Miracle Channel’s vice-president, broadcasting Gord Klassen. “There is a totally different dynamic of viewers in Canada than in the States,” he says. Some of the things that have gone on with some of the religious broadcasters in the States, that would just not be tolerated up here… it’s less glitz and flash.”

Indeed, a look at the Canadian programming on our faith channels shows no wild Canadian preachers and a lot of sober, thought-provoking discussion where the underlying message is largely Christian. While U.S. evangelicals are likely to use a Bible-verse-fuelled verbal jackhammer, sometimes complete with a similar decibel level, to make viewers into believers and donors, the Canadian way is more along the lines of, “we have a message that we want to talk about, but do it in a way that you would do it if you were talking to people over a table at Tim Horton’s,” explains Klassen. “It’s a lot more laid back, and real. I think that’s the way I’d put it.”

“We’re not going to beat people over the head until they convert,” adds NowTV’s Jeff Thiessen. “The pink hair doesn’t fly with us.” NowTV is a Vancouver-based Christian broadcaster which also holds a license for Winnipeg, which it plans to put to use this fall.

That was 2004, I think the conclusions are less true. Think of Canadian religious broadcasters as the branches of a tree, not the trunk. There are  offshoot companies from these broadcasters.  Peter Youngren has started GraceTV and is comfortable modelling US televangelists.
CTS runs retro shows from the US as well as originals, balanced and ministry according to their CRTC mandate.
How many of CTS ministry shows below (click on the ministry link above)  do you see as originating in the US?
How many originate from the US on other religious broadcasting channels in Canada?   The duplication of programming on religious channels  is not going to be solved by a CTS charity for new programming (among other goals).
Media is a business, airtime is bought. Advertising is bought.
I hope potential donors go into this with their eyes wide open.

CTS Facebook
CTS Twitter
CITS – wiki

Hmmm.

This is interesting, CITS has produced four slick ads. They are similar to the parental control ads produced in the US bemoaning TV content.

That isn’t the most interesting part by far. Not even close.
CITS has had an interesting history which I’ll get to, but let’s follow this marketing.

What is interesting is the new ‘charity’ called CITS Media Resources Organization as we click through.  I’m using the word charity in quotes because I called Revenue Canada.
I’ll get to that below, I also called the CRTC.

Let’s follow the offered links and see what is going on.

After watching the ads at Hope for TV (Whois – registered September 17, 2009 to  Crossroads Christian Television)  we land with a click on the Hope for TV FAQ page above. The page discusses parental fears, media addiction, dearth of choices and what parents and churches can do to have HOPE.  The Hope for TV solicitation campaign is using 1995 data from The Canadian Heritage Department.
CTS hired a new PR firm this summer. Group of Seven Media started working with Crossroads Christian Television September 1, 2009. Clicking through…

We’ve clicked to the heart of Hope for TV, the parent company CTS (Crossroads Television System) and a plea for partners. You. Me. CTS is asking viewers to donate. Is this business permitted to ask for money? We’ll get to that.

From 4 ads about TV and video violence, to CTS, to a brochure,  an email donation address and a CTS donation form page. Let’s click.

Okay. Now, about that call to Revenue Canada Charities. I made two calls. The first was to ask about CITS Media Research Organization, since I can’t find them listed in the Charities directorate online. The help desk at Rev Can couldn’t find CITS Media Research Organization either. I asked how long it takes to register a charity. I was told want to be charities are informed it takes about 6 months after receipt of a completed form for official status.

Since CITS Media Research Organization wasn’t found in the main data base I asked if applying groups are permitted to advertise as a charity.

No.

Doesn’t matter what a group expects to happen, if they do not have approval from Rev Can and their registration BN number they are not permitted to advertise or soliciate. Makes sense to me.

What’s going on?

I called Rev Can Charities back and asked if Hope for TV was registered as a charity, thinking there might be a sub-name or company for CITS Media Research Organizations or CTS I’m not cluing into.

No.

I also asked Rev Can Charities if they could tell me who the board of directors for CITS Media Research Organization is.

No.

Not until a tax return is filed. No tax return can be filed until there is a charity to file it. See the conundrum?

Here’s where BDBO readers can help.
I think CTS has every right to respond to this apparent confusion.
I also think television viewers in Canada who receive CTS on cable and satellite have a right to know why the company is soliciting viewers for money and why the claimed charity isn’t showing up on regulatory radar. Share your information in the comments section.

1) I’ve written CITS Media Research Organization. I do not have a long distance package on my phone and my mic on my computer is busted so Skype isn’t working. It’s time for readers in the 905 area code to go from clicking to dialing if you’d care to help out.
If you are in Edmonton – CKES or Calgary – CKCS, ring  up the affiliates. If you are directed to Burlington CTS head office, by all means pop into the comments and let us know.

2) Would readers in the GTA Hamilton/Burlington  905 area be willing to call CTS and ask what you think needs to be asked?

3) Once we here at BDBO receive the information from CTS you gathered about (“CITS Media Research Organization is a charity” ) and your information you’ve gathered is in the comments section, the next steps will be clearer.

Will complaints need to be filed with Rev Can Charities?

While readers get to work, I’ll dig through CTS/CRTC information and post background on Crossroads Christian Television. Since we all pay to receive CTS on our satellite and cable packages, this is our concern.

What is going on here?

Update: The two men listed as heading this charity are Jack Hawkins and Iner Smith. Hawkins contact phone # is in the 905 area and Smith’s # is the 519 area. See the comments below, thanks everyone;  if CTS or the affiliates are listed as a business in Alberta and Ontario, CTS can ask for donations and the CRA is not relevant. Since the brochure says tax receipts will be issued end of year, this ‘charity’ has to be registered somewhere. It would be helpful if CTS was forthcoming and responded. If you have ideas or information, please share it.

Uganda’s Anti Gay bill was raised in the House of Commons Thursday. Xtra:

Bill Siksay asked about the Uganda issue coming up at the Commonwealth meeting.

Siksay: Mr. Speaker, Uganda’s anti-homosexuality bill is reprehensible, vile and hateful. It violates human rights by imposing life in prison on gays and lesbians and a death sentence for those who are gay and have AIDS. It will jail anyone who fails to report people they know to be gay. At the Commonwealth meeting, will the Prime Minister meet face to face with Uganda’s Prime Minister to help stop this bill, and will he make gay, lesbian and trans rights essential to development and educational work supported by Canadian foreign aid in Uganda and elsewhere? Baird: Mr. Speaker, the current legislation before Parliament in Uganda is vile. It is abhorrent. It is offensive. It offends Canadian values. It offends decency. We strongly condemn that and the Prime Minister will make that strong condemnation as well.
John Baird – champion of queer rights abroad. Who knew?

The Anglican Church of Canada has come out against the Uganda bill.

COGS passed a resolution that expressed its dismay and concern over the draft proposed anti-homosexuality bill currently before the parliament of Uganda. COGS resolved to call upon the church of the province of Uganda to oppose this private member’s bill, and called upon the Government of Canada, through the Minister of External Affairs, to convey to the government of Uganda a deep sense of alarm about this fundamental violation of human rights and through diplomatic channels, to press for its withdrawal; and asked the Primate to send this message to the appropriate bodies.

American fundamentalist influences have been noted by Dr. Warren Throckman and Jeff Sharlet on NPR this week.
The Family, The College of Prayer, Rick Warren, Exodus International, Scott Lively, Institute of Religion and Democracy,  etc.

Here is the text of the bill. To summarize:

- if someone (family, friend) knows that someone is engaging in homosexuality, that person is to report them to the police within twenty-four hours or face fines and/or up to a three year prison sentence
- groups advocating for GLBT will be banned, leadership can be fined and imprisoned for seven years
- homosexuals can face life in prison and in some cases the death penalty
Ugandan gay citizens in a relationship outside the country face extradition from abroad, life imprisonment and the death penalty

Political Research Associates: Globalizing the Culture Wars Africa Report. Richard Bartholomew looks at one of the sponsors who along with the Ugandan president (see links above) Ethics and Integrity Minister,  James Nsaba Buturo, is part of  The Family, the fundamentalist network in the US.

The US, France, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have also condemned the bill.
It is bound to be an issue at the Commonwealth summit which begins today.

The controversy is growing because Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni is the chairman of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Trinidad and Tobago, which opens on Friday with Stephen Harper joining the leaders of 52 other countries.

If it is raised at the summit, the issue has the potential to divide Commonwealth leaders, who hold deeply polarized views on homosexuality. A number of Commonwealth countries, including Canada and Britain, have liberal views on the subject, but many African and Caribbean nations are socially conservative and maintain laws on their books that criminalize homosexuality.

The British Columbia Supreme Court has ruled that The Anglican Network of Canada does not have legal rights to the buildings and land they chose to leave.  The ruling affects four schismatic BC congregations, there are 35 groups of Anglicans across Canada who chose to leave The Anglican Church of Canada over same sex marriage and female ordination. Church members can leave the church, but not take the church with them. The four BC groups, St Matthew’s (Abbotsford), St Matthias & St Luke’s (Vancouver), St John’s Shaughnessy (Vancouver) and Church of the Good Shepherd (Vancouver) took the property issues to court in September 2008.

The court decision was more than 90 pages long, but the crux of the issue can be boiled down to two key points: The Diocese of New Westminster said the main structure of the Anglican Church is the diocese and any parish within that part of the structure. The conservative group argued that once the Diocese of New Westminster allowed same-sex blessings to take place, it broke the rules of basic Christian faith and no longer had authority as a legitimate church entity.

But Wednesday’s ruling by Mr. Justice Stephen Kelleher said the diocese did not break faith when it allowed same-sex blessings, citing a general synod of the Anglican Church  in 2007 that said the issue of same-sex marriage is not one of core doctrine.

It is not known how this ruling will affect other schismatic groups across the country.
Schismatic Anglicans in Canada have chosen to align themselves with with breakaway groups in the US, forming a separate province, with bishops from outside North America.
In the US some groups who left the world wide communion have won the right to keep church property.
The lawyer for the breakaway groups says the judge doesn’t understand doctrine.

“The judgement implies the Church can determine doctrine by democracy. And that shows a lack of understanding of what the Christian faith is about. Doctrine comes from scripture, the inspired word of God. And you can’t change what is in the scripture. We can’t vote on what we’ll believe.

“It’s a lack of appreciation of what Christian faith is about and a reflection of our society just how few Christians are left. It also sets a precedent not only for the Anglican churches in Canada but also for all religious denominations, in my view.”

Ms. Chang also argued that the judge’s reading was incomplete. He did not take into account that, in her view, the majority of 70 million Anglicans in the world oppose same-sex blessing as running opposite to the Gospels.

“The judge said the buck stops in Canada, that the Church has the authority to do these things. And if you don’t go along you have to sacrifice your property and all your money.”

Buildings are a small part of what church is, and a 98 page legal ruling on property – is about property.
Across Canada there are about 3500 people who have chosen to align with the ANiC, under the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone and Primate Gregory Venables in South America. New Westminister bishop Michael Ingham has written a letter which will be read Sunday inviting the schismatic congregants to continue worshipping in the buildings they went to court over.
The judge also ruled that a 2.2 million dollar trust in BC would remain with the breakaway congregants. The four properties in BC are worth about 20 million dollars.

Virtue Online
Vancouver Sun
Anglican Journal

By Rick Hiebert. All Rights Reserved. Used By Permission.

Todd Bentley’s November 17 webinar is proving to be part of a series. And something that he says in the taped version of his webinar on “the anointing”, as saved on his website is unnerving, if not scary.

I’ve listened to Bentley preach for years, and so his mixture of things that are good, thoughtful and Biblical sprinkled on a body of things that sound aberrant, if not heretical, within the same address, is something that I am used to in one of his messages. Such is his webinar on the anointing.

[His next, fans might note, to be on on the subject of "intimacy with God". It's set for December 15.]

I might add more on his webinar in the comments below, but there is one thing that he says that sets off an alarm that I feel that I need to cite. It fails my smell test.

It comes after Bentley has been talking about David at length. David didn’t look like the “best” person for God to use, Bentley points out, but God did nevertheless. Gradually, David grew in his anointing, i.e., his sphere of influence and power. When David became King of all Israel, Bentley argues, he came into his “third anointing” and all the promise of the day that he had been anointed by the prophet Samuel had been fulfilled.

Some of his listeners, Todd says at the end of the 64th minute of his webinar, are about to come into their “third anointing” this year.

Starting at 64:26, Bentley says:

 ”Everything changes when the kingly anointing comes. When the kingly anointing comes on you life, that’s when you begin to reign–”he [David] began to reign at 30″…and then all of a sudden the third anointing comes, the kingly anointing….when you come into you third anointing, that’s when you begin to reign. I’m telling you what I touched in Lakeland, what I touched two years ago, what I touched five years ago, it was just on my way to third anointing, it was on my way to kingship, and I’m saying, My God, I haven’t even began…. ”

He goes on to promise that his listeners will go on to operate in the fullness of their giftings soon, but the damage has already been done.

Recall the wrong teachings of Lakeland. The people who weren’t healed. The people who were “healed” and then went on and died. Does Bentley expect now that all this will happen in a bigger and worse scale?

Let’s give Bentley the benefit of the doubt for a moment and assume that Lakeland was a great and fine revival. We see no Evan Roberts style humility here. Had Bentley said, “I really liked being an evangelist. People were blessed and touched and God did some great things. I’m sad that that is gone,” it would be one thing. But he doesn’t.

 We have Bentley proclaiming, with raised voice and flailing of arms that he is to be a king, with incredible amounts of authority and power. He has not yet begun to operate in the levels of mischief, er, anointing that he plans to.

This isn’t the humility of a humbled man. This is pride, if not hubris.

If I had the flawed record of Bentley, I would hestitate in wanting to be a king. I would just try to not be in the King of King’s way as I served Him.

Some of Bentley’s critics feared that the evangelist was flirting with the Manifest Sons of God heresy. Would this fit? I fear it does.

Scary. Really scary, I would say.

By Rick Hiebert. All Rights Reserved. Used By Permission.

On November 17, last Tuesday as I write, evangelist Todd Bentley had another of his “webinars” on his website. This time, one about getting “the anointing” of the Holy Spirit.

You may have a look at the webinar yourself, as it is up on his website. But I noticed that “first things first” applied.

Before the main part of the webinar, Jason Hooper, a Morningstar itinerant minister, did the equivalent of taking an offering over the Internet. (It remains in the version posted at Bentley’s website, and begins at the 17:58  mark. Just click on the button at the left of your screen as the video plays.)

Hooper, who has no doubt been set up by Joyner and Bentley to say exactly the right thing here, says something incidental that is perhaps quite interesting.

He begins his offertory talk by leading into a  teaching on how you can “sow into an anointing”. This teaching, popular in the more extreme fringes of charismatic Christianity, would have the would-be donor go beyond giving because you might like the speaker, or might want to help with what they are doing. No, what they are instead doing, argues the teaching, is getting the right to have some of the person’s anointing or gifting for youself. Like Todd’s evangelistic gifts? Well If you cross Bentley palm with silver, you’ll get some of his gifts of the Holy Spirit for yourself.

It’s very shrewd, isn’t it? Simony is alive and well?

Anyways, it’s when Hooper goes into some of Bentley’s recent history to woo you into forking over some cash that he says a couple of interesting things that may reveal more than he intends to. more…

By Rick Hiebert. All Rights Reserved. Used By Permission

J. Lee Grady, well known as the editor of the main Charismatic magazine Charisma, has been interviewed on Christianity Today’s website today. The lengthy story goes into Grady’s efforts to give corrective words to some of the excesses in his wing of Christianity.

One example is his distate with money-grubbing machinations, which he says may well be as bad as the medieval practice of the Church selling indulgences.

The group that Grady joined in his salad days that had a dictatorial leaderhsip style, by the way, was the Maranathas. (There was a sprinking of items in the student newspaper where I went to school–in the 70s and early 80s before my days on campus–about the group’s outreach there are how people were worried about it being a cult.)

Many figures in the movement comment on Grady and his concerns, which makes the story an interesting read.

Those who have been following the errant evangelist Todd Bentley may be interested to know that Grady’s eventual condemnation of Bentley’s misdeeds has resulted in a difficult past year for the editor:

Grady said he lost several friends after he publicly questioned evangelist Todd Bentley’s revival meetings, which attracted 30,000 visitors each week last summer in nearby Lakeland, Florida.

“The Lakeland revival was a four-month-long nightmare because of its divisiveness,” Grady says. From the earliest days of the revival, Grady used his columns to question Bentley, who was often physically rough with those who came to the platform for healing…..

….Grady says it was the most difficult stand he had to take because so many followers distanced themselves from him. But it was also a time when other leaders told him they had begun to rethink arrogance or showmanship in their own ministries.