THE TERMS THAT IDENTIFY US MAY NO LONGER BE EFFECTIVE

             Terms like 'Christianity' and 'christian' and certainly 'evangelical' may no longer effectively serve the faith.  They are tarnished when applied too generously in contemptible situations. They are censoriously associated with partisan political affiliations. They are borne by uninformed marginal factions. The difficulty is not a simple comical variance like the potayto/potahto, tomayto/tomahto pronunciations. It pertains to understanding and is profoundly more critical and potentially injurious to faith.  Because they derive from the Christ and the evangel, the terms are associated with one for whom holiness and perfection are intrinsic rather than performed. Divine standards, values and principles are in unambiguous juxtaposition to common human behaviour. People who claim to be Christian or evangelical yet whose lives upon even casual scrutiny, appear to be insincerely linked to Jesus, compromise the identity of believers in the world.  When followers of Jesus credibly embrace by living and conversation their Master's attitudes, they perpetually and predictably clash with societal moralities. Our Canadian culture deplores, sometimes reprimands and even legislates against the expression of faith inspired conduct. The evangel/gospel will speak to non-followers only as our personal faith is genuinely Christian and courageous.

STAYING RIGHTEOUS AS A PERSON & AS A CHURCH

We are already fifteen years into the 21st century and shifting sociological values in Canada, and in British Columbia have redefined life to an extent that individual Christians and the Church must consider these changes when answering for themselves how they fit. What kind of responsible life decisions should the individual believer make in order to responsibly react to society? How should the church in a community meet people who are affected by cultural modifications to morality, sexuality, ethnicity, family and economy?

Right now, half of all children are spending a portion of their lives in a single-parent home. One out of three married couples with children, have a stepchild or an adopted child. Most children grow up with mothers at work outside the home. The most rapidly growing segment of homemakers is unmarried men who live alone or head families. Older people as well as young singles are seeking alternatives to traditional marriage. What were regarded once as 'non-families' have received legal recognition as families and these include unmarried heterosexual couples, gay and lesbian couples as well as friends who intentionally live together. Pressure is constant to redefine 'family' as a group of people who live and care for each other.

So here is my compendium of questions for the day. As an individual Christian and as a church, do you still champion the nuclear family as an ideal? If you are no longer attending an organized local church, how are you maintaining a lock on God's values for family, morality, society, and gospel? If you have been contemplating separating yourself from a local church, what blueprint do you have for preserving righteousness personally and in your family? If you lead a church or are a member of a local congregation, what roles do you want the church to have within the community? Do you provide family services that take into consideration the children and adults who are dealing with divorce, single parenting, remarriage and blended families? Do you feel that to be relevant, you must capitulate to societal values and abandon traditionally held moral values?

EMBARRASSED ENOUGH TO LOOK INTENTIONALLY INTO THE MIRROR

Postmodern, secular society is not impressed by people of faith. We have not made a good impression. No matter what faith or what branch, we have blown a good reputation. That has to change.

CHURCHES in the CANADIAN CULTURE

Hebrews 13:1-25 contains the concluding exhortations in a book in which the author is concerned enough to restate fundamental doctrinal truths out of concern that believers may fall away. (Read)

From this 13th chapter of warnings and recommendations, I am extracting the 8th verse because it pertains to a Conference theme, 'Changing Culture, Changeless Christ.’  As a Conference participant, it strikes me that verse 8 is the support for the 2nd part of the title, Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever. What then can be understood about the first part, the Changing Culture?

Canada's culture is defined by behaviours and beliefs of innumerable social, ethnic and age groups. We understand culture as consisting of foods, clothing, special holidays, distinctive music, modes or forums for interaction. Foundationally Canadian culture has been influenced by Aboriginal and European cultures and traditions and has now become a mosaic comprised of an integration of numerous global cultures introduced by immigrants whom we encourage to retain their cultures.  This multi-cultural attitude is unique in that it promotes both exclusivity and compatibility. There is also a sense in which we have been culturally colonized by America whose influence is impossible to ignore because it's the other country in our two-nation continent and its media and Internet contact influences and impacts.

Christians recognize the benefits derived from some of our cultural changes, yet we frequently speak out of concern for the change factors that may adversely influence and affect children, youth, young adults and young parents and inevitably our churches. Attitudes, ethical and sexual mores are communicated in society through music, theatre, film, television productions, literature and conversation. Christians are apprehensive that faith foundations and principles for holy living and character and values will be eroded by a virtual God-free culture. The church desires not only to protect followers of Christ from slippage but also aspires to present Christ's good news to others. Congregants need to interact with the question of whether their church should be changing what it does and how it does it? 

Within an ever-changing societal culture, how should churches speak to people about a human condition that has not changed, and about the Saviour whom it is impossible to change, and about his gospel that must not be changed? Reasonably, if the subject and content are unchangeable, conceivably the communication method(s) we use can be altered, changed, improved to suit an audience.

Consider these contrasts:

1.     One person conducting serious hymns sung from a hymnal and a choir wearing robes, contrasted with choruses led by a worship band of singers, keyboard, guitars and drums and lyrics on a screen.

2.     Solemnity, silence and a Bible in hand contrasted with informality, a coffee cup and an iPhone.

3.     Ties and jackets and dresses contrasted with causal cotton pants for men and women.

4.     Tradition, regularity, consistency, predictability contrasted with innovation, novelty, originality, and surprise.

5.     Small local churches with one pastor and where everyone knows your name contrasted with colossal mega church enterprises or villages with multi staffs.

6.     Pastors preaching through Bible books mornings and evenings contrasted with preaching themes and topics and majoring on application rather than exegesis.

7.     Long churches with pews for everyone facing the pulpit contrasted with round or wide halls and theatre seating directed at a stage.

8.     Old and holy smells contrasted with love and airy.

9.     Words read publicly, responsively, words sung and heard contrasted with images, cartoons, lyrics with landscapes, the pastor's faces up close. 

10. Restrictive rules for living, for church membership, rules pronounced and preached contrasted with ubiquitous freedom and autonomy.

11. Church loyalty to brand and to congregation contrasted with relocating to a different congregation and denomination.

The church in Canada has already changed a great deal within two or three generations?

It's a waste of time to debate whether those shifts and changes to church practice have been progressive or damaging? Furthermore, those changes are not the discussion in which to engage. Rather, since Jesus the LORD is unchanging, how then do Christians fit into this changing Canadian cultural mosaic? Is it possible for Christians to practice their commitment faithfully while accommodating changes that are relevant to their time and culture?

Of greater alarm should be the other changes that parts of the church are advocating, such as panning the trustworthiness of scripture, or the validity of hell, or the exclusivity of Christianity, or the importance of corporate worship, or the necessity of conversion, or the mandate for evangelism.

Here is a fundamental premise statement. The Christian living amidst a community whose mores, ethics and standards change, is herself or himself indwelt by the changeless Spirit of the unchanging Christ who is changing female and male believers into the likeness of Christ using standards that Christ taught ages ago, and that will continue to be the Christian's guidance system within a God-free culture. 

Churches must consider doing things differently? Perhaps because the way people process information has changed. Perhaps because of people's education, or occupations, or conveniences, or interests, or lifestyles or walls of protection or the economy.  Perhaps because society's self-perception is one of progress, advancement, values superiority, and its perception of Christian standards deems them obsolete, archaic and invalid. Perhaps the church can then recognize that it is not imperative to practice faith in the same personal or corporate way as its been done. Churches must embrace the change. How?

ECCLESIOLOGY AND MISSIOLOGY MUST MATCH

Some eager Christians may have a great game plan to reform society outside of the local church, or without involvement of the local churches. That’s a case of having a commendable mission concentration but having a faulty ecclesiology. That would be unfortunate since the apostle Paul called the local church “the pillar and ground of the truth.” That’s a significant role. The local churches should be the equipping and accountability agencies that facilitate the marketplace leaders who are working to reform, serve and build health into societies. Local churches disciple and build character and emotional health into the lives of the reform leaders. Does that make sense? That’s large ‘C’ Church functioning together missionally from a sound ecclesiology.