It’s time for you to find your own apartment.

There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit distributes them. There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. There are different kinds of working, but in all of them and in everyone it is the same God at work.

Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. To one there is given through the Spirit a message of wisdom, to another a message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues, and to still another the interpretation of tongues. All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he distributes them to each one, just as he determines. (I Corinthians 12:4-11, NIV)

The summer edition, 2017, of History Manitoba contains an article called “Evangelization, not Legislation,” by Nolan Brown. The subtitle, “Christian Fundamentalism, the Briercrest Institute, and the politics of the Great Depression” intrigues. I thank friend TR for sharing the article with me.

In short, Brown traces the way William Aberhardt’s and E.C. Manning’s Social Credit and J.S. Woodsworth, M.J. Coldwell and Tommy Douglas’ Canadian Commonwealth Federation (CCF) came to birth and prospered during the depression and its aftermath with quite different programs and policies. Four of the principles mentioned had backgrounds in Christian ministry, but their approaches to alleviating the poverty and despair left behind by ten years of drought and economic collapse reflected very different interpretations of the Gospel mandate.

It may be oversimplified—while being enlightening at the same time—that Aberhardt’s view of a gospel response to the hardship was geared far more toward the regeneration of individuals—the charismatic approach—than Woodsworth's, for instance. Alberta premiers Aberhardt,and later Ernest C. Manning, appeared weekly on the Back to the Bible Hour radio program, while J.S. Woodsworth, M.J. Coldwell and Tommy Douglas campaigned for a socialist agenda that would lift people up through government assistance and income redistribution, a highly political economic path to an end not dissimilar in intent from Social Credit.

Briercrest Bible Institute appears in the article because of its connection to the principles in the evangelical movements in Alberta, and for its contribution to a growing “personal salvation” wave in Saskatchewan, nourished by the fertile soil of hardship and disappointment.

More relevant in our time is an article by Joel Barde in the November, 2017 edition of The Walrus. (At this writing, the article is too new to be posted online, but look for it through the link.) Titled “Second Coming,” its focus is on the rise of the “New Apostolic Reformation” playing out in North Winnipeg and in Northern Canada all the way into Nunavut. Highly charismatic in nature, the movement thrives on healing ministry and Pentecostal-style worship and the author makes a doubtful point that the emotional nature of this movement echoes with Inuit culture in some ways, making it attractive to quite a few by now. The movement—like charismatic Christian movements generally—is stridently anti-gay, anti-abortion and anti-political. Its appeal is mostly to the marginalized, an approach that’s not dissimilar from the mission focus of Back to the Bible Hour, Briercrest Bible Institute and—closer to home—the Youth Farm Bible Camp in Rosthern. Influences of the prosperity gospel (God rewards obedience with wealth) has affected this movement somewhat, Barde says, not surprising when the influence of wealthy, charismatic mega-churches has been so strong in North America.

The two articles illustrate for me the divide in Christian faith in North America (and elsewhere) that may in the end be credited with the demise of old-line church participation and the current period of rampant dissension manifested in charismatics’ and liberals’ futile attempts at dialogue on thorny issues. The failure to eradicate poverty and inequality of opportunity in liberal democracies makes for good press for movements that propose that its not the physical, present conditions of a man’s life that are critical, but his assurance of a better, eternal life that matters.

It should be apparent to us by now that there’s little probability of the “Evangelization” and the “Legislation” viewpoints ever supporting the gospel of Jesus Christ in tandem, from under the same roof. They ought to be able; the gospel of Jesus Christ is decidedly both. But they have, in effect, become different denominations and Abrahamic religions (Jewish, Christian, Muslim) have become very good at the art of antagonistic, self-righteous splintering.

A friend and educator put it something like this: what the (Mennonite) Church lacks is a model for dealing with contention as is illustrated in some functional families. When a son or daughter living at home quarrels with parents over issues, practices a life style that conflicts with prevailing family values, the time comes for the parents to say, “It’s time for you to find your own apartment.” This is not a family break-up; the son or daughter is as loved as he or she ever was; it has simply become apparent that the tensions are both unnecessary and play out as irritants to the ties that bind the family together . . . permanently and unconditionally.

 That the bride of Christ should so often take the “get out of my house and don’t come back before you’ve changed,” dysfunctional-family dynamic is appalling. It drives us to ponder again the meaning of “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.” (Matthew 10:34, NIV)