Interesting. A few questions that need exploration:

What, exactly, do they “get”?

How or why is Europe and/or Canada ahead of us in “evolving into a post-whatever society”. I go to Canada and Europe and all I see - in terms of post-modern/whatever - is more of a bent towards socialism mixed with a hodge-podge of democracy. What makes them further along than we are in terms of reaching post-whatevers?

Tell us what the dialogue of tomorrow sounds like. What, exactly, are these folks saying that’s ringing your bell?

I’m in agreement that the American Church needs to humble itself - but only in the context of “we don’t have it all figured out”. There’s much to be learned from some amazing church leaders here and abroad, though I’ll also say that certain folks here are balancing humility with staggering success (Perry Noble, Andy Stanley, Rick Warren, etc.). Furthermore, in reaching this particular po-mo culture, there are some getting-it-done churches that are light years ahead of most other churches in the context of reaching their local communities.

Please define further your sense of mission and how/why teaching to Canadians would be like telling fish about water…

I am Canadian.  I’ll be honest, if you’re taking a look at the stats and reading through the surveys, Canada is actually about 50 years ahead and Europe is 20-30 years ahead.  It’s a common misconception that they’re ahead of us.  David Fowler a pastor with the C&MA;in Canada has put together a little powerpoint presentation to highlight some of these statistics using Michael Frost as a source (http://www.cmaccd.com/files/D_414.ppt). 

That being said I think you’re both right and wrong, there is a segment of the Canadian church that ‘gets it’, the other 95% is trying to become the American church.  That’s particularly frustrating because it ruins it for the rest of us.

Perry Noble doesn’t get it, he does fancy church but it’s still church for Christians, Andy Stanley, as much as I admire him, again, church for Christians, the same with Rick Warren.  Although to be fair, Rick Warren’s latest Africa kick is very much in line with where culture is headed (a social conscience is the growing trend for post-Christian spirituality). 

Not to knock the emergent church movement too much but it’s so insular that it’s just church for those who don’t like church.  The problem is that it looks so foreign to someone with no church background that to get someone into an emergent community is like asking someone to join a cult. 

There are churches out there that are wrestling through what it means to follow Christ in a post-
Christian culture.  There are churches who won’t label themselves Christians because of the negative connotation and now thanks to examples like George W. Bush, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and Ted Haggard won’t call themselves evangelical either, not that the ideas are bad but that the words/labels create a negative impression (not many people like GW in Canada, Christians/Christ-followers included). 

For many people in Canada there’s no problem with Jesus, just with the church.  Craig Groeschel’s comments about not liking Christians, Erwin McManus’ comments much the same have been the Canadian norm for years.  People don’t like Christians because they’re judgemental and self-righteous, they are insular and unwelcoming.  Instead of engaging culture they try and recreate culture in their image (not necessarily Christ’s). 

If Americans hold up Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson and James Dobson as the heroes of the faith (Dominianism) then Canadians cling to an Irish rocker named Bono.  The most articulate example of what an attractive Christ-follower looks like, is Bono, to Canadians at least.  He doesn’t have it all together but his journey is authentic and honest. 

Thanks for reading,

James Giroux
http://www.emergentjuniorhigh.com

Thanks for your comments Anthony, although I haven’t been to NewSpring Church in person I have taken the time to watch several services online.  NewSpring was brought to my attention through a pretty cool video on YouTube so I went to the site completely open-minded and excited about what I might find.  I did check them out and my opinion still stands.  I know it’s not the same as ‘being’ there but it is possible to get a feel when their entire service is put up on the internet.

Anthony, you’re assuming that what unchurched people want is a place with cool music, cool effects and a senior pastor that reminds me of a youth pastor (and sometimes talks at me like one).  Your comment also makes the assumption that I must be uninformed because I don’t share your opinion on NewSpring church. 

I am surprised that you jumped on me the way you did, if I were to only look at your comment it would seem like I spent 90% of my time badmouthing NewSpring church.  I made one comment.  In fact there was a whole lot more stuff I said about the current state of the church that is more relevant to this discussion that you chose to completely ignore.  You reacted to one statement I made, which was my opinion (granted it was stated fairly absolutely) but instead of weighing that against everything else I said, you automatically dismissed everything else I said as stupid and uninformed.  That is a good example of how the church keeps missing the point. 

Take a look at what’s important to the church right now, abortion, prayer in schools, gay marriage, creation science.  Which one of those issues is really going to make any type of difference in the lives of people?  The only people that are affected by this stuff are the Christians who fight for it and the people who fight against it, let’s be honest, maybe 35% (considering the reality of “vote for values” evangelicals) of the population of America.  That leaves 65% of people who don’t care and have a view that that’s what Christians are all about. 

As far as I can tell, Christ was about feeding the hungry, clothing the naked and healing the sick.  How does fighting abortion do any of those, how does the gay marriage debate do any of those, how does fighting for prayer and creation in schools look anything like what Christ did?  How would Christ respond to these things?  He’d probably call those Christians pharisees and ask them why they haven’t cared for the ‘least of these’. 

It would be easy to dismiss this as liberal social justice hogwash except that for that 65% of Americans and 90% of Canadians and 95% of Europeans it matters.  It matters enough that Mother Theresa who made a life out of serving the poor impacted the world.  It matters enough that ‘socialist’ governments are still elected all around the world to help the plight of the poor.  Despite how comfortable Americans are with them.

People admire and respect the life and teachings of Jesus, spirituality is at an all time high in america and canada, church attendance is at an all time low.  How do you make that correlation?  What could it possibly be that causes that?  As a Canadian I can easily say it’s people like Falwell and Robertson who hijack Christ for their own ‘values’.  The problem is that the only person I can really blame is myself for not being a better example of what truly moves Christ. 

I’d be okay with fighting abortion and yelling at gays if anywhere I saw Jesus doing it but the only people I saw Jesus yelling at were the people who were trying to impose their morality and religiousity on other people. 

If the church can figure out how to look more like Jesus and less like church I think you’ll see a big change.  Thanks again Anthony for your comments and I hope you don’t feel personally attacked out of this, that’s not the point.

James Giroux
http://www.emergentjuniorhigh.com

Here are some things that aren’t bad words:

- liberal
- environmentalist
- social justice
- humanitarian work
-

Interesting conversation. James, you make this commnent:  “As far as I can tell, Christ was about feeding the hungry, clothing the naked and healing the sick.” In my community, those are default positions for the church. If there is a food pantry or a health care facility or a homeless shelter, the norm is to have a church tie in, or a faith based foundation for it. In my community it is the secular community that has not stepped up to the plate in these areas.

I have not doubt that the American church has missed the boat more than it has done right, but in the areas of compassion, we are there just as much as those around us are not.

Earl
I’m glad you see something positive in Canada than Americans might be able to learn from. I don’t want to argue statistics, because you can get statistics to support just about any position. There are parts of Canada that are more european than we are in terms of moving toward a post-whatever society, but then again that depends on what part of Europe we are talking about. I think, for example, that there are some excitng things happening in terms of the missional church in england, but I have a friend in Spain, where the church has little impact. There are other parts of the church, that as James mentions, want to emulate what I would call the worst of the big American Church scene.

I think we are still learning… I want to be always learning how to be the person / people that God wants us to be in a changing age… as the old adage goes: when we stop learning, we start dying.

Thanks for the post & the comments

Here are thoughts from a guy sitting in the frosty north. 

First of all, I have to say that my thoughts here are written in a context that is not biased nor anti-American.  I love my American brothers and sisters and hope all things for them.  Unfortuneately, one of the greatest defining statements that Canadians make is that we are not Americans.  We then proceed to indentify with iglooes, dog sleds, lumberjacks, and moose hunting, but I digress…
At the risk of sounding un spiritual, I enjoy our wide and diverse range of faiths that we have here.  Spirituallity is allowd up here and the Christian church does not have a monopoly on it.  For years we in the church have stood in open condemnation of other religions and not realized that we come across sounding like Big Brother.  But in our post modern and diverse culture, some Canadian churches are thriving in the midst of this transition from watch dog to whatever we are now (I ran out of pithy metaphors) And the reason that they are thriving (they being churches like the Meeting House in the GTA and North Park Community Church in London) is that we have learned to humble ourselves, shut up, and listen to what is being said around us.  We never change the message of what we are saying, Jesus Christ is the hope of the world, but we change in how it is said.
For years, people have referred to going to work in a church in the US as going to the show, like making the transition to the big leagues from the minors.  It’s not about that.  It’s about making the star of the show look good where ever He has called you to be.
I think in years to come the church in Canada is in for shake ups.  I think clergy will lose their special status for income tax purposes and eventually, with in my life time, churches will lose charitable status.  And i think that churches that learn to humble themselves, shut up, and listen to the world around them will make out OK, because they keep their focus on those that Christ has called us to reach, not the frozen chosen (forgive the Canadian imagery) in the pews.
I have lots more to say on the subject, but i have to go climb on my snowmobile with my 30-30 and bag a moose for dinner…
Josh
PS - Earl, thanks for demonstrating humility for us, next time your in my neighbourhood the pints are on me

While I am sure that my Canadian kin like the take Earl has given, Earl really did not say anything that could not be said in reverse too.  In fact what Earl said was painted with such broad brush stokes that it could apply to many other countries of the world and what ever church you want to label. 

Like Anthony I would love some finer brushstrokes.  For example, what do Canadians get?  You say they get it, what exactly is it?  It is the Emergent?  Is it social Justice and James would have us believe?  You are generalizing on a breathtaking scale, so much so that you could not possibly be wrong because your post fails to make a point. 

I applaud your sense of being Christian over American, this is how we should all be or at the very least have a prioritized view of the world that places God’s kingdom over a US kingdom.  With that said I am not sure how the Canadian church should or should not advise the American church.  James responses here in this post do not have words of wisdom that help me or my church with our mission.  They are communicated in such a way as to actually build a wall not a bridge.

So do you agree with the wisdom of James concerning the American church?  As for the Canadians knowing things naturally that Americans have to be taught.  What for example?  Again such a broad stroke that you couldn’t possibly be wrong but failing to make an actual point that is useful. 

I am not offended, I see myself as a pretty well rounded Christ follower with extensive ministry boundaries.  I pastored an emergent church for 8 years and now pastor a church that refuses either label of emergent or modern.  We simply focus on sharing Christ with others and loving our community. 

Finally I guess I struggle with your assessment of the American church as though it is a single entity with a single focus and a single mandate.  I think you know this is not true but your suggestion that we humble ourselves is again is so broad that it cannot be wrong but in the end has no real application to the local pastor. 

I would hope that I would not be labeled as having made your point.

Interesting article.  Just last week I had a disturbing conversation with a Canadian co-worker who is so absorbed by apologetics, he doesn’t read Scripture, go to church, pray (unless it’s for a debate) or feel his time or money is well-spent on helping the less fortunate, particularly those that are unsaved.  I found this disconcerting because it seems like he’s not even practicing the faith that he’s so adamant in defending.  While I agree we have much to learn from other cultures, we have to be sure not to throw the baby out with the bath water.  In Jesus’ day, the Pharisees and other religious leaders didn’t have it right about what serving God was all about, but nevertheless, Jesus worked for change and instructed His followers to do the same.  In doing so, we have to be careful that we don’t throw out practices that are for our benefit because some of abused them.

(OK, really this is my last post on this! I was addressed and am responding to his question)

Rainer wrote:

“We try to separate “telling people about Jesus” from “caring for people”, and then somehow try to make sure we maintain a balance between the two. Maybe we’ve missed the point. Maybe caring for people is in itself part of telling people about Jesus.”

Two things:

1) What part of “The great commission states we’re to be about the business of telling people about Jesus and (both, not either/or) clothing, feeding and curing.” did I not make clear? Your statement simply affirms what I just said. If, while we are in evangelistic process of making disciples, we are living out our lives in community with (not apart from) them and doing things like clothing, feeding and curing we will have the best opportunity to reach the lost. You must have missed my “(both, not either/or)” text.

However, what I’m reading (and therefore interpreting) from those advocating a social focus is a tacit implication that by doing those things alone, that in and of itself is evangelism. But that logic is flawed. If it were true, the Red Cross would be the world’s greatest evangelistic outreach and have millions come to know Christ through humanitarian aid.

2) Maybe caring for people is in itself part of telling people about Jesus. - Rainer

If you build a house with Habitat for Humanity (a great thing, by the way), did H.F.H. tell them about Jesus and answer their spiritual questions? Nope.

If [Product: Red] donates enough to Africa, will they hear about Jesus? Nope.

Social activism is important in that we must live out a life that contributes to the well being of others. (Love your brother as yourself). But that step alone isn’t feeding their spiritual hunger. We can do all of the “lifestyle evangelism” we want, but until we create opportunities for people to investigate the claims of Christ, have we really fulfilled the Great Commission? Unquestionably, no.

This is not an “either/or” scenario of having a social activism or an evangelistic activism. The balance of those two is the key. In this discussion, I’ve still yet to hear any practical “this is what Canadian churches are doing better” that shows that balance.

All done here...email me off line if you wish to discuss, as I’m pushing my posting quota on MMI today.

- Anthony

I’m a Canadian who has been living and working in the US (full-time in a church) for a couple years now, and I don’t really have a lot to add at this point, as I don’t have time, but I do want to chime in on one noticeable difference (noticeable to me, anyway). Maybe this addresses more concretely something that Canadians “get”, though I’m not sure I would describe it that way…

One of the great differences I see in the portrayal of (mostly evangelical) Christianity here in the US is the desire for power - and mostly political power. There seems to be a strong desire that Christians (or at least a Judeo-Christian attitude) be in positions of political authority in the US so that the resulting culture can be mandated to be a “good, moral, faith-based” culture. Or if it’s not Christians in those positions, it’s Christians striving to heavily influence people in those positions. (Thus all the recent talk about how the Democrats needed, and continue to need, to court “people of faith” in order to do well in elections.)

There are many factors that play into this, but it seems to me that it’s a top-down, imperialistic mindset that doesn’t only play itself out in churches, but it other domestic affairs, and around the world. Another example is Christian mission organizations that try to bring not only the Gospel but the American dream/Western culture (things like the worship music, liturgies, or congregational polity) to other countries and cultures. Along with that, I’ve noticed that there is a notion of USAmerica being “God’s country” as if God had chosen the USA to act as His arms and feet on earth, like He did Israel in the Old Testament.

In Canada there is much less of this type of mindset. There is not as much of a sense of “this political party=Christian” (though still is some sense of that). Canadians in general are less imperialistic and more multicultural; less “top-down” and more “grassroots”. This can lead to more sensitivity to local culture, especially when dealing with things like overseas missions. It also has cultural ramifications at home too.

Let me try to give a concrete example - I’ve seen examples of both Canadian and US mission organizations overseas. In general the USAmerican model is to send missionaries out and those missionaries lead the ministry - they do the work of proclaiming the Gospel (which is a wonderful thing - I’m not knocking any missionaries). When funding runs out or problems arise, those missionaries come home and the efforts abroad can falter. The model I’ve seen from a Canadian organization is that the focus is more on training the locals to proclaim the Word. Then if/when those missionaries need to return home, the locals continue the work.

Admittedly it’s anecdotal and based on a very small sample, but to me it’s the classic “give a man a fish vs. teach the man to fish” example, and I think it’s representative of a USAmerican vs. Canadian mindset.

Of course, I’m speaking in generalities, and there will be multiple exceptions on both sides of the border. But hopefully that’s a more concrete example to help shed some light on things.

For what it’s worth,
Michael.

Interesting article Earl.  I happen to be reading your book right now as well.  It’s odd how so many of us in Canada covet what’s been going on in the big name churches in the states though…

Hi Dave,

“I think the “desire for power” could also be called a desire for influence - a desire to be salt and light in a corrupt world.  Does that throw a different light on it?” Sure. But I’m not sure that’s what I see. That may be the desire, but my impression is truly that (in general) the desire is for the nation to be governed on Christian principles, and that the way to a truly Christian nation is to legislate it and/or that it’s through the political system that it will happen. Maybe that’s just the high-profile mindset that I observe. I’m sure there are piles of Christians who want to simply be salt and light and not seeking the limelight and power.

“Also, the “top-down” thing is a reality in the church and shouldn’t necessarily be equated with a political position or ideology.  After all, the church is a Theocracy and the Bible clearly creates positions of authority."I agree. Perhaps I wasn’t as clear as I should have been. The true top-down authority is from Jesus to us as His church. The problems come when we as humans hold on to control by “giving the fish”. Church leadership is about equipping people for ministry (teaching people to fish), not being the ones who do all the ministry. So when I say top-down, perhaps a better phrase is “keeping control”. I hope that helps clarify.

“Finally, I agree about worship music and liturgies being culture-driven but I don’t think congregational polity should be based on culture alone."Nor do I. I would also say the same for music and liturgies. All of them must be based on the Word of God. I wasn’t saying that any of these (or the myriad of other things that go along with “being church") should be based on culture alone. But we need to keep culture in mind. Any cultural philosophy that conflicts with the Word shouldn’t be used in the church. But again, the point goes back to my missions example - bringing the Word to other cultures shouldn’t be tied in with the culture of the missionary.

On another note, anyone interested in the cultural differences between Canada and the US might want to take a read through “Fire and Ice: The United States, Canada, and the Myth of Converging Values” by Michael Adams. It’s a few years old now, but I remember it being pretty insightful. I’ll have to read through it again now to refresh myself!

For what it’s worth,
Michael.

Thanks Michael.  I sound like we’re really pretty close on our points of view.  I agree that our mission efforts, local or global, must be focused on making disciples - ones that will then go out and make more disciples.  That seems like a no-brainer, but I know some don’t see it that way.  I can’t imagine such a church thriving.

To Donnie - In my pretty traditional, conservative region of the California desert, I already see almost total ignorance of the Gospel among unchurched people.  I think the US is already more post-Christian than most people realize. 

Dave