HOME | CHURCH JOB OPENINGS | ABOUT MMI | CATEGORIES OF INTEREST | CONTACT US

image

How Canadians Can Save the American Church

Orginally published on Sunday, February 18, 2007 at 3:35 AM
by Earl Creps

A while back at a conference I met my very first Canadian missionary to the United States. To be honest it had not occurred to me until that very moment that such a thing was possible, any more than an American missionary being stationed in Montreal. Aren’t both of us supposed to be “sending” nations? After I recovering from the shock, I muttered something like, “Please go home and round up about 1000 more people like yourself and send them. We’re in trouble down here.”

I still believe that. The American church is desperately in need of help if we are going to have any reasonable chance to do mission among Pre, Post, and Semi Christians in emerging culture. Some of that assistance might just come from north of the border. Here’s why:

1. Canada is over the horizon. If Europe is roughly 50 years ahead of us in terms of evolving into a post-whatever society, Canada might be more like 20-30 years. Moreover, Canadians were dealing with multiculturalism long before those of us who live stateside ever heard the word. If these very rough estimates are anything close to correct, that means…

2. Canadians get it. I’m generalizing on a breathtaking scale here, but my Canadian friends seem to have a perspective, a sense of humor, and a critique of the US that feels like the future to me. I do seminars aimed at helping Americans get a sense of where mission in emerging culture is headed. But I’m not sure those would have an audience if they were held in Toronto. Why tell fish about water? Which means that…

3. Canadians should advise American churches. Last week I worshipped with a group of American college students being led by a Canadian who served full time as a staff pastor in a local congregation. It’s my dream scenario. Other examples would include Dave MacDonald, lead pastor at West Winds Church in Michigan, or Sean Kelly who trains interns for the Convoy of Hope compassion ministry. When I talk to these friends, it feels like I’m in dialogue with tomorrow. They know things naturally that Americans have to be taught. Which means that…

4. The American church has an opportunity to humble itself. American leaders are barely able to accept the help of missionaries and church planters from the southern hemisphere. Imagine the sanctifying power of having to admit that the help we need has been just across the border to the north all this time? That by itself might save us. At the very least, those of us born in the USA would have a chance to reorient out leadership toward the future rather than spending whole careers exhausting ourselves trying to get ahead of something called “the curve.”

Could the Canadians light the fuse on the next great awakening? I don’t know. But I think we should find out.

About the Author:  Earl Creps has spent several years visiting congregations that are attempting to engage emerging culture. He directs doctoral studies for the Assemblies of God Theological Seminary in Springfield, Missouri (http://www.agts.edu).  Earl and his wife Janet have pastored three churches, one Boomer, one Builder, and one GenX. He speaks, trains, and consults with ministries around the country. Earl’s book, Off-Road Disciplines: Spiritual Adventures of Missional Leaders, was published by Jossey-Bass/Leadership Network in 2006. Connect with Earl at http://www.earlcreps.com .

 

 


This post has been viewed 3879 times so far.



  There are 28 Comments:

  • 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…

  • Posted by Earl Creps

    I rest my case.

  • Posted by James Giroux

    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

  • Earl, you may have intended to be witty and sharp with your reply, but for those of us seriously asking questions, putting on a self-righteous air of “I rest my case” - inferring that I can’t see the forest for the trees and am oblivious to the revelation you have found - hardly helps us to “catch up”, does it?

    James then makes the incredulous statement:
    Perry Noble doesn’t get it, he does fancy church but it’s still church for Christians.”

    Are you serious, James?

    Perry and the leadership of Newspring don’t do “fancy church” and there’s simply no way that Newspring church is “for Christians”.

    Have you been to Newspring? And even if you haven’t, have you bothered to read Perry’s blog - even once? This dude does everything except church as normal and they certainly don’t do it for Christians. One only has to spend a few moments on Perry’s blog (much less visiting the most dynamic non-churchy church I’ve been to - period) to know that they exist for reaching the unchurched for Jesus.

    That you can even make what can only be described as a wholly uninformed comment like that then weakens the potential credibility of yours and Earl’s case of Canadian churches being “ahead”.

    I asked serious and honest questions and so far we’ve only heard a self-righteous (sorry, Earl, but that’s what it is, friend) and uninformed responses.

    If you’re here to share a revelation or something helpful to those of us woefully “behind the curve”, please actually share some practical applications instead of smug, vague commentary.

    Still hoping this turns into useful dialogue,

    Anthony

  • Posted by James Giroux

    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
    -

  • Not attacked at all, so it’s all good. And while I appreciate your thoughts, I don’t share your take on Scripture that you suggest takes on a socialistic approach. Did Jesus do all of those things? Yep. But if we assume he was here for the main purpose of “feeding the hungry, clothing the naked and healing the sick”, it would have to be said that he failed miserably.

    Did he do some of those things some of the time? Unquestionably. Did he abolish hunger, end poverty and cure all diseases? Nope. 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. If we put the latter before the former, we will fail Jesus.

    If that were not so, Jesus would not have told us we’d have the poor with us always. Just because the secular world (using your figures above) says social activities come first doesn’t mean the church should put evangelism in second place.

    There’s no doubt that Mother Teresa was admired by millions. Should we continue to do more? Absolutely. But did her actions automatically translate into people moving from a Christ-less eternity to an eternity with Him? Not automatically.

    You and I would agree that guys like Falwell tend to put people off to Christianity. I’d even say that many old-school church attenders here in the USA turn people off to the message of Jesus. But that’s why it’s more important than ever that In this culture churches like Newspring, North Point and Saddleback exist. So please don’t assume that because Canadians wouldn’t like those churches disqualifies them as being incredibly relevant, authentic and capable of reaching people for Christ.- in this culture.

    Just as those churches are very useful here in the USA, they would probably not work in other areas. But that’s the great thing about the local church! It should be indigenous to the local area! So when I hear people dogging churches that are flat-out getting it done here, it just ticks me off. Business as usual in churches is the enemy, not the churches that are crazy about making disciples!

    And so I end my comments on this post with this: Please share with us what will work in this context and don’t assume that just because the American culture is at odds with much of the rest of the world that we’re “behind the curve” in reaching people - at least when it comes to the churches refuted in your second reply.

    Blessings,

    Anthony

  • Posted by kent

    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.

  • Posted by

    James, thanks for your excellent observations. I too am troubled that many prominent evangelicals in USAmerica are overwhelimingly attached to an agenda that was not Jesus’ agenda at all.

    Did Jesus think that abortion or gay marriage were okay? Undoubtedly he did not. Interesting that he himself is not recorded as addressing them at all. Does that lack of info mean that we should have no stand on it or simply go along with the current societal status quo? Undoubtedly not. I am not a “red letter Christian”. All of scripture is equal to me. BUT… It is telling that these issues were not the main agendas of people like Christ and even Paul, who only makes passing references. Perhaps they should not be our defining issues either. Perhaps the Gospel should be.

    Just my .02

  • Posted by michael bells

    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

  • Posted by Brent

    I think there are valid arguments on both sides.  The modern megachurch model is successful, but where are most of them successful?  In the suburbs among mostly established, middle-aged people.  That is a group of people who are still in modernity, still loving their church like their businesses, large and imposing.  Those churches are reaching that group of people b/c that group of people still desire those type of churches.  You don’t find many of those churches reaching the urban (those that live in the city), the intellectuals, or the young because those people are already making the transition into a postmodern era and desire a different way of doing church.  Newspring does a great job in Anderson, SC, but I’m not sure it would have the same effect in LA, San Fransisco, or DC.  As our entire culture begins to be more pomo, churches will have to adapt, but this isn’t a sudden transition, so we can’t say that Northpoint isn’t reaching people, they are, but there focus is different.  Could those churches do more in the social justice area...sure.  Some megachurches are beginning to see this, and are making changes (Willow Creek, Saddleback to a degree, and others).  At this stage in time both are doing what God has called them to do and both are reaching people for His glory, but I do agree that the move in the future will be towards focusing on the Kingdom being here (helping the poor, taking care of the sick, etc) which should be a natural by-product of our belief in the Kingdom to come.

  • Posted by

    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

  • Posted by David

    Great discussion.  Earl, I appreciate your approach and I for one agree with you.  Of course I’m Canadian, so why wouldn’t I?!
    However I have lived in the States most of my life, but I digress.

    We are in this climactic change in Western Civilization, as we all know.  Therefore; the inevitable clash occurs.  It’s a typical revolution (hopefully without the blood) where a new line of thinking is emerging about ‘how to do church’ and moreso on a grand scale, ‘how to see the world’, whether you follow Jesus or not.

    Being one of those post-modern people (or whatever term you choose), I’m learning how to navigate the waters very carefully.  Never wanting to compromise the mission, I also don’t want to alienate my brothers and sisters who have laid a foundation to build on.  It is a foundation rooted in modernity, but it worked for the modern age.  Now we need to lay a post-modern foundation upon it for the post-modern age.  This means significant changes, and some major reinforcement of the old foundation, but we must be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath water.  Modernity served it’s purpose, and the church advanced (with many flaws, as I’m sure the post-modern church will have too) for the Glory of God.

    My prayer (and I’m an optimist, but I’ve seen seeds of success) is that the post-modern church can forge ahead into the future while not degrading the modern church, and that the modern church (for those who wish to stay, as my in-laws still need a place to go) will encourage us to forge ahead into the great unknown.

    Albiet, this kind of partnership rarely happens, as history shows that those who begin the revolution, don’t really get support from those already entrentched in the status quo.  But Earl (and others) are examples of God pursuers that give me hope.  Maybe the remnant that supports the revolution - and are indeed a part of it -will spread.

    Thank you for your insights (and following comments).  Earl, my wife and I read your book and then gave it to our pastor because you explain this phenomenon much better than we could.

    Blessings,

  • Posted by Leonard

    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.

  • Posted by Leonard

    James, your argument about Jesus not speaking on abortion or gay rights is so silly I almost did not answer.  His main ministry was to seek and to save the lost and give his life a ransom for many, not to as you state; “As far as I can tell, Christ was about feeding the hungry, clothing the naked and healing the sick.” If this were his main mission he was a miserable failure in that he did not consistently do this nor did he teach his followers to do this.  If this were what Jesus was about then it would also be like a doctor treating cancer with aspirin.  What ails a man is not poverty but sin.  Jesus came to deal with the cancer not the symptoms of sickness. 

    Social Justice is important but 90% of Canadians do not think this is the big issue as you state, nor do 65% of Americans or 95% of Europeans.  Actually most in all our countries could care less about the poor, HIV, homelessness and such social travesties.  Because they may not agree with a stance on Gay rights, abortion does not mean they care about the other issues.  Sinfulness and selfishness actually preclude their caring.  And while none of us would actually admit we do not care we show how much we care with our checkbooks and our time.  If 90% of Canadians cared as you suggest you would not have any social justice issues left.  In fact you would have solves Canada’s problems and then the worlds. 

    Finally to assume that Jesus silence indicates his position is not only poor biblical interpretation but bad logic.  I don’t remember Jesus speaking on the inquisition, slavery, genocide in North Africa.  He never preached on HIV or Islam.  Why, none of that was around when he came.  Yet all these issues are real and important to the culture and expression of faith.

  • Posted by

    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.

  • Posted by Rainer

    Anthony, you made the following comment/question/response to James:  “Did he do some of those things some of the time? Unquestionably. Did he abolish hunger, end poverty and cure all diseases? Nope. 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. If we put the latter before the former, we will fail Jesus.”

    Could it be, possibly, that this is part of the problem that has been plaguing churches for so long? 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. As Christians, we shouldn’t separate the two. It’s not about putting either one before the other. Any time we do either, we’re failing Jesus.

  • (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. smile

    - Anthony

  • Posted by

    I didn’t miss anything… and no I’m not expecting a reply.

    As far as “Canadian churches” doing anything better, I’m not sure they are. I’m guessing that there are proportionately just as many “better churches” in America as in Canada, but maybe they just get overshadowed by those oversized corporate conglomerate churches that seem to be popular in America.

    My concern, was your comment that “If we put the latter before the former, we will fail Jesus.” This implies that we are discussing two separate issues.

    There should be no “former before the latter” or “latter before the former”.

    I simply don’t think that we should have a system where we even separate the two. You’re correct, helping people is great, but without Jesus it isn’t enough. I equally feel that talking about Jesus is great, but if we as the church don’t help people, that isn’t enough either.

    Churches (in Canada and America - as well as everywhere else) need to move beyond thinking about the gospel of Jesus in such a narrow view that “social work” is seen as an “add-on” activity to the church, or somehow being of lesser value than “evangelization”. Why can’t we just stop separating the two?

    Just my opinion… for what it’s worth!

  • Posted by

    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.

  • Posted by

    James, your second post reads:
    “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’. “

    I’m a bit stunned that you seem to have missed that fighting abortion IS caring for “the least of these.” The very least...literally.

    Also, making an attempt to present the scriptural teaching on Creation in public school is just an attempt to at least expose kids to what Christians throughout history have seen as factual and true. 

    I also think God has taken a position on marriage and it excludes homosexuality, so I am willing to speak to that in the public arena.

    Those of us who take such positions are simply standing up for what the Bible clearly teaches.

    So, as a question to kind of help identify where you’re coming from, do you agree with these positions:
    God created the universe and life itself.
    We should not kill the innocent.
    Homosexuality is sin.

    Whaddya think?
    Dave

  • Posted by Lon

    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…

  • Posted by

    Michael writes:
    “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. ...
    There are many factors that play into this, but it seems to me that it’s a top-down, imperialistic mindset ..... 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)

    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?

    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.

    Finally, I agree about worship music and liturgies being culture-driven but I don’t think congregational polity should be based on culture alone.

    Dave

  • Posted by

    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.

  • Posted by donnie

    I am a church planter living in Canada but originally from the United States.  I love Canada and have often said that it would be difficult for me to go back to the U.S. to serve in ministry.  Canadian culture fits for me and my family.  My only comment is around Earl’s statement about a U.S. Missionary stationed in Montreal.  We need a lot of missionaries stationed in Montreal, Calgary, Vancouver, Salmo, Kelowna, Prince George, White Horse, etc, etc… We will take all Christian missionaries from Canada, U.S., and beyond because we need them.  Canada is a very unreached nation.  I regularly have conversations with people who have never heard about their need for a Saviour found only in Jesus Christ.  The Canadian church is not strong.  It is weak with divisiveness and lack of missional vision.  Of course this is not all Canadian churches… Please (to my U.S. brother’s and sisters) do not think that just because Canada speaks English that is has been reached with the Gospel.  For some reason it sadly has not.  Where Europe is spiritually is where Canada is heading and where Canada is spiritually is where the U.S. is heading if something doesn’t change.

  • Posted by

    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

  • Page 1 of 2 pages

     1 2 >
Post Your Comments:

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Live Comment Preview:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Please enter the word you see in the image below: