In May 2024, I had the privilege of speaking at the BGC Canada Celebration in Calgary. Because the theme of the conference centred on Mordecai’s words to Esther “for such a time as this,” one of the sessions I gave was basically laying out the framework that SEATS has been developing for the past 20 years on how the church can engage society “in such a time as this.” The session covered two aspects. The first aspect was the theology of evils, which I’ve written about many times on this blog. The other aspect looked at the functional church, which we see as essential to our identity in the church and society. 

The session was more of a download, laying everything out in a long, complex, complicated system. I apologise if it was a little bit inaccessible because of that. I also wasn’t as clear in stating it during my talk, but I think that Canada is now a mission field and as Jesus’ followers we need to approach it as such.

This reality was made clear by many other presentations at the conference that talked about ways Canadians perceive the world. The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada’s Rick Hiemstra was very clear in providing statistics and surveys to help us understand the way Canadians think. And all of these reinforce the idea that Canada is a Mission field.

What does it mean to say that Canada is a Mission field?

Before we go further, I want to highlight that current missions theory sees all parts of the world as the “mission field.” Yet, we often still think of missions as someone leaving their own home to go to another place.

I understand that there are two ways we could define “Canada is a mission field.” One way is “the world is coming to Canada so they’re at our doorstep so we can present the gospel to them.” And this certainly may be true.

BGC Canada addressed this about 30 years ago when we formed GLOBAL Ministries. The tagline at the time was “across the street, around the world.” This was a recognition that people are coming to Canada, which presents an opportunity for us to reach out to them wherever they might be. Eva and I were privileged to be selected for that team at the very beginning and are grateful to continue serving in Southeast Asia. We also know that many of you also are finding ways to reach “across the street” as well as “around the world.” We’re happy to be together on the same team in doing this!

The problem is this is only half the story. It is true that Canadian missionaries have had a tremendous impact on the world as they followed God‘s call to bring the message of his good news around the world. But there’s more to the story.

The other way of defining “Canada is a mission field” is by recognising that new immigrants to Canada are bringing their Christian faith to a place that is no longer Christian. I particularly enjoy the fact this includes Filipinos. For many years now the Philippines has been the number one source of new Canadians. One way this impacts Canada is by Filipino Christians coming to work in Canada, moving to small towns with dying churches, and injecting new life into those churches. Alison Marshall from Brandon University has written a lot on this specific subject.

So what are the implications of “Canada is a mission field”?

Given the fact that Canada is now a Mission field I thought it important to discuss some ways we can think about this. What can I do as I live in my Canadian community, pastor my Canadian Church, and dream about reaching Canada for Christ? How can I tweak the perceptions I have about the world and about Canada and about the gospel so that they can become more understandable to one another? What are some practical ways that the Canadian church can engage society?

It may also mean that the way we’ve traditionally done things may not work anymore. We may need to think about what the church will look like in the next generations.

If Canada is a mission field, we need to approach Canada as if it’s a place we do not understand or we’re not familiar with. We’re unaware of the culture. We’re unaware of the language. We’re unaware of the practices. This means we must come in with a fresh mind asking, “How can we help the people of this place connect with God on an understandable level?“ And “How will my journey with these people help me draw closer to God, myself?”

(I should mention as an aside that while the immediate context of my talk was Canada, since I was invited to a Canadian conference, these principles apply to any culture around the world. So those who are thinking about doing missions in it any other country can figure out ways to make these relevant to their new context as well.)

Jose de Mesa’s Hermeneutics of Appreciation is a usable framework for Canadian churches wanting to go “across the street.”

What comes to mind immediately is Jose de Mesa’s hermeneutics of appreciation as a framework for how the church can engage society. (I have already written a bit on de Mesa’s ideas, here.) de Mesa developed this framework in the 1970s. He was a contemporary of other Filipino academics who collectively realised that the Western-based systems of history, psychology, and anthropology were inadequate in describing the Philippine situation. They worked at reconstructing these ideas using the Philippine context as a base. Jose de Mesa approached the area of theology in the same way.

De Mesa’s insights into how Christianity entered the Philippines is helpful for us as we think about how the church of Jesus Christ can re-enter Canadian society. He developed a hermeneutic of appreciation for use when Jesus’ followers from one culture approach people from another. I thought it might be useful to see how his four hermeneutical steps may apply to the church in Canada today with the hope that this may serve as a model for us to use in the church today.

It’s important for us to remember at this point that de Mesa was largely reacting to issues he observed as a cultural insider to how the gospel was and is understood in the Philippines — his approach is in direct opposition to a hermeneutic of suspicion. It’s also important to realize that de Mesa writes as a deeply devoted Christian who sees Jesus as his Saviour and the Saviour of his nation. But having said that, it’s important to realize that there is a critique in this hermeneutic – a critique that’s useful in helping us understand our own ways of approaching others with the gospel.

Attitude #1 Presume the cultural element or aspect under consideration to be positive (at least in intent) until proven otherwise.

A lot of the stuff we do in churches is cultural, even though we assume it’s biblical. I guess what I’m trying to say is that there is sometimes a blending of how we interpret the Bible with how we view the world. What sometimes happens as we go somewhere else and see how other people live is that we immediately assume that they are doing things for all the wrong reasons. We understand that sin enslaves the entire world and we assume that those who have not yet heard about Jesus Christ are also slaves themselves. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that everything that everyone does is done for bad reasons.

Sometimes these things are just different cultural preferences. I remember reading Peace Child by Don Richardson. You may have read the book or seen the movie. It’s a powerful example of how a missionary to New Guinea found a redemptive analogy within his mountain tribe. Richardson’s thesis is that every culture contains what he calls redemptive analogies. Richardson even goes through and illustrates other examples of redemptive analogies that he has found in other times and in other parts of the world. More on this below.

Richardson‘s theology incorporates the ideas that “all have sinned fall short of the glory of God” with the idea that “God has placed eternity in the hearts of humans.” He ties the two together by saying that God has hidden clues in each society and culture that help people move from sinners towards eternity.

We won’t find Redemptive analogies if we approach a culture from the idea that we are right and they are wrong — if we approach another culture with the idea that these are all pagan people with no connection with God and that we are the first voice of God that people have heard. This is actually against what scripture teaches. Typically theology refers to two types of revelation: One of them is general revelation where God makes himself known to all people through means not limited by language — including emotion, conscience, and will (Ps 19:1-2; Job 12:7-10; De 8:18; Pr 16:9; Pr 20:27; Ge 3:7-8). The other is special revelation where God makes himself known specifically through his word — both Living and written (Is 53:5-6; Mic 5:2; De 6:6-7; Ps 119:105).

Popular advice states that we should avoid two topics of discussion in life: religion and politics. Why is that? Because we tend to argue and fight over them don’t we? To apply de Mesa’s framework here we would need to seek understanding of the Other rather than to push the rightness of our own belief. This is scary, isn’t it? Because we must relinquish  power in order to do that. But yet it’s only through vulnerability that we can connect with others in the world around us, isn’t it? 

Presuming that the culture element is positive rather than negative also acknowledges the fact that God is already at work in an among that culture, and some of the things that God has revealed to them may come out through the culture.

Attitude #2 Be aware of your own cultural presuppositions and adopt the insider’s point of view. 

Sometimes when it comes to presenting the gospel we take an exclusivistic approach. An exclusivistic approach means that we know what’s right and nobody else does. We need to present the gospel to Them. This leads us to approach people as if They are wrong and We are right. That’s because the exclusivistic approach is the approach of the Outsider.

I had a conversation the other day with a close friend and colleague is also a pastor. We were discussing preaching and the role of the preacher in the message. We reminded ourselves that the first audience of any sermon is the preacher themself. But there’s also an aspect in the Bible where through the prophets God tells people that they are wrong. The key to remember is that the prophets also recognize themselves as being wrong too. For example, Isaiah says “every word that passes through my lips is sinful,” indicating his desire to be disqualified from this ministry. In the same way, we too as preachers need to recognize our own complicity in sin. Other people are not the only sinners in the world. We, too, are included in that. So when we approach the subject of sin and repentance, we need to approach it in an inclusivistic way. Meaning rather than saying, “You are all a bunch of sinners and need to repent,” we say, “We are all sinners and we all need to repent.” There’s an inclusive aspect to the Gospel.

This is what de Mesa is talking about in his “Be aware of your own cultural presuppositions and adopt the insider’s point of view”

So we use inclusivistic language — words like us and we — and find ways how we too need to hear God’s gospel in the situation. We also assume that God has been at work in the world before we arrive with his message. Back to Richardson’s redemptive analogies. He describes examples such as the peace child of his tribe in New Guinea, and the banana tree/book among other tribes. He even mentions Paul’s recognition of the Athenian “altar to the unknown God” as an example. Bruce Olsen, in his autobiographical Bruchko, describes waiting five years before finding the culturally-appropriate way to present Jesus to his tribe in Colombia. These redemptive analogies provide bridges into a culture to help them understand the goodness of who God is and help introduce them to his special revelation for all humans.

What redemptive analogies do we find around us? What ways has God prepared Canadians to understand and accept the good news? What artifacts in Canadian cultures bridge us to God?

For example, Canadians have a deep connection to the land. This includes First Nations, Inuit, Metis, and Settler cultures (I should point out here that I have family connections with each of these four groups). It’s important to realize that there’s a word that’s sometimes translated land in the Bible and other times translated as earth. But connection to the earth is often among disputed among Christians, isn’t it? I remember a younger me pushing against the idea of creation care because it seemed like it was worshiping nature rather than worshiping God. I thought that as humans we were supposed to “subdue” creation. However, connection to land is one of the key aspects of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Not only is that a main part of ancient Israel‘s connection with him, but it also emerges when others are trying to understand God. It’s especially significant in God‘s conversations with Job where God clarifies and reveals himself to Job through the land. Perhaps understanding this connection with the land or earth is a redemptive analogy for Canadians.

Another example for Canadians may be our internationally-acknowledged kindness. Kindness appears to be under attack today. I’ve seen pushback against the concept of empathy and also against being a “nice man.” In fact, I engaged in a short dialogue on X with someone the other day who was advocating that men should no longer be “nice.” However, kindness is a key part of the gospel of Jesus Christ. For example, the reason that we are saved is because God showed his kindness to us. And the evidence of the fact we are saved includes, among other things, kindness towards others. Perhaps kindness is another redemptive analogy for Canadians. 

Can you think of any more redemptive analogies for Canadians or even for your own culture?

Attitude #3 Go beyond cultural stereotypes.

When I was in Grade 5 at Lorne Haselton School in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, the Gideons came and presented each of us with a New Testament, including the Psalms and Proverbs. I remember mine was red. Afterwards, at recess, we were discussing these New Testaments, and one of my classmates came up to me to talk about it, and I blurted out to him, “What are you gonna do, rip it up?” And he had this look of confusion on his face. I think about that interaction a lot and wonder, “What was it that caused me to assume that my classmates who didn’t go to church would just be interested in ripping up the Bible?” Well, I think it’s because there was a cultural presupposition when I was growing up that the world was divided into Believers and Unbelievers. Believers did everything God wanted them to do, and Unbelievers did nothing that God wanted them to do. And so, I assumed that a Unbeliever receiving a New Testament would just be interested in getting rid of it because it was something good. Of course, looking back on this and on my Grade 5 self, I realize that I was deeply mistaken and that my cultural presuppositions towards those who were not-yet-Christians were wrong.

One of the key influences in my life was Les Goertz’ book, The Not-Yet-Christian. Goertz approaches the issue with the understanding that people are on a journey towards God. People who come from a point of being originally righteous in Genesis 1, but subsequently slaves to sin, are on a journey back towards that original identity. The idea of looking at someone as a not-yet-Christian reminds us of the hope that at some point someone’s relationship with God will become better — even as my own relationship with God hopefully becomes better over time.

Attitude #4 Use the vernacular as a key to understanding the culture in its own terms. 

I took my first ancient Greek class in university. It was actually Attic Greek. I did this in anticipation of attending Canadian Baptist Seminary after I graduated. (I had heard horror stories of crash Greek and wanted to avoid that experience.) When I got to seminary I was able to skip crash Greek and go straight into Greek exegesis. One of the things I remember learning in studying Greek was that there was a lot of belief that we could find the specific meaning of each of these words. And so we used various grammatical forms, we looked at various words, and determined various definitions for them. But a couple of cracks appeared in the picture as I was studying Greek. One of them was that we weren’t actually defining the words we were translating. Rather, we were giving them glosses. A gloss is a something shiny that looks good and helps us think that we understand something but hides something deeper and non-understandable beneath it. A number of years later in my career, I moved to the Philippines and learned Tagalog — a language I now use to conduct most of my daily affairs. And what I learned was that there is no such thing as a simple transition from one language to another. All translation is betrayal simply because there is no one-to-one relationship between languages! Some languages don’t have the words used in other languages, which often makes it difficult to transmit ideas from one language to another.

Further complicating things is that we often think of text as relating to words and thus the term vernacular as relating to the spoken language specific to a certain context. However, Hanks tells is that text goes beyond merely written word and looks at the systems and structures of a society. “… text can be taken … to designate any configuration of signs that is coherently interpretable by some community of users.”

There’s a current program for Missionary Kids or Third-culture kids when they end up coming to Canada at the end of their schooling and whatever country they grew up in. One of the aspects of this Reboot program is introducing these young people to Canadian culture. This includes introduction to the vernacular, where they learn such things as the true meaning of the phrase, “Netflix and chill” — a term that when interpreted at face value is NOT correct.

In some ways it appears that the church in Canada has lost its grasp of the vernacular. Why do I say this? A year or two ago there was an Angus Reid poll that came out where one of the surprising findings was that — at least among a certain segment of Canadian society — the church is viewed as “damaging to society.” Which is odd, isn’t it? After all, the message the church isn’t one of danger, but love and salvation and a God who wants a relationship and wants the oppressed to be freed and wants the blind to see and wants to lame to walk and wants the prisoners to be set free. So then how come, all of a sudden, there is this idea that the church is something that’s damaging to society? It may be because we’ve lost a grasp of the vernacular.

Now some people are going to complain and say, “My church isn’t like that.” I realize that and I agree with you. However, in the mind of people outside the church, they label us ALL as Christians — in the same way that we label people outside the church as Pagans. There is a little understanding of the nuanced denominationalism that we understand as Insiders. We are all guilty of generalising when it comes to identifying others. Lila Abu-Lughod says some good stuff about generalization and advocates for focussing on particularities instead. But that’s a conversation for another day.

What I’m saying is here is that if our basic core message is misunderstood, it’s probably for one of two reasons: Either we’re not getting it right, or we’re not making it understandable in the vernacular of the day.

What’s the next Step?

What’s your take on this? Does the Canadian church have some work to do in the future? Are there redemptive analogies that would be beneficial for helping the church engage society?

Whether you agree, disagree, or have a fresh perspective, drop a comment and let’s discuss!

If you enjoyed this post, why not share it with your network? Remember, sharing is what friends do!

Photo by Matheus Viana on Pexels.