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)
Comments
Post a Comment