The Theological Climate in Canada

To describe in meteorological terms the climate of so vast and varied a land as Canada is, even for the weather expert, a matter of some complexity. But the task of describing the theological climate is vastly more complex. The variables are infinitely more subtle, and often the tools for research do not exist. Such a description, therefore, can only be partial and will be influenced by the writer’s own vantage point within the church.

I

At the time of this writing, many parts of Canada are experiencing record cold spells for the winter. Theologically speaking, however, the freezing gusts of winter are giving way to summer heat. Publication in early February of E. Harrison’s controversial book The Church Without God has again brought to the fore the unresolved issues arising out of the Honest to God debate. Once again the Canadian church is being rocked by the more radical aspects of the so-called new theology. And the handmaid of this theology, the new morality, is prominent also. Latent in the debate is a theological cynicism, or indeed nihilism, that threatens the very foundations of belief. And the danger is increased a hundredfold, compared to previous times of unrest and doubt, by the fact that it comes not from outside but from inside the ranks of the clergy—from within the Church itself.

The new-theology movement holds under its umbrella widely differing points of view and is difficult to define. Like the Gnosticism of the early Christian era, it is an amalgam of religious thinking, a polarity of trends rather than any firmly fixed point of view. As in Gnosticism, however, certain common features emerge. One significant aspect is the eclectic nature of its approach both to the works of such modern theologians as Bultmann, Tillich, and Bonhoeffer, on which it chiefly relies, and to the biblical record. This is very apparent in Robinson’s Honest to God, to mention the most obvious example. Another characteristic is the denial of the supernatural elements of the faith, climaxing in the paradoxical lament of the radical “God is dead” theologians. Many who may not wish to go this far nevertheless concur in a virtual repudiation of the historic creeds and of the truths to which they bear witness, and adopt a corresponding universalism that cuts the nerve of evangelistic concern.

It is distressing that in all this ferment, hardly any appeal is made to the Scriptures as a unique authority. Generally the Bible is quoted only to make a point already established by an appeal to reason or to some aspect of contemporary culture. Of the authors mentioned above, Bonhoeffer comes off worst. His name is constantly used to bolster arguments leading to conclusions entirely foreign both to his actual thought, as expressed in his theological treatises, and to the spirit of the man himself.

The result of the furor is confusion on many sides. If those outside the Church are bewildered when they hear responsible churchmen like the former moderator of the United Church of Canada saying they do not believe the creeds or the doctrine of the Trinity, those inside are often even more bewildered. Many clergy and laity give the impression of being in a state of shock, uncertain where to turn. Leaders continue to talk about “mission,” but among many there is less and less certainty about what that mission is. The word “evangelism,” though much discussed in recent years, is being quietly dropped in some of the larger denominations, and slogans like “dialogue” and “men for others” are beginning to take its place.

The confusion caused by the new theology is being intensified, somewhat paradoxically, by the current quest for renewal of many in the Canadian church. In itself this quest is not a bad thing, of course; obviously renewal is God’s will for his Church in every generation. But much of what passes for renewal in the Church today falls short of this high aim. With few or no fixed points of reference, no theological principles, renewal becomes renewal for renewal’s sake alone and tends either toward sensationalism or toward a “sell-out” to the cultural environment. (The recent experiment in psychedelic worship carried on at a university campus in British Columbia seems to many to be an example of both.)

Ii

Yet the current situation does have positive aspects.

1. In the first place, religion is news. In the press, on radio, and television, the Christian faith is under continuing discussion. In clubs, restaurants, and casual social gatherings—almost everywhere, in fact—it is now possible to raise the central issues of the Gospel with a freedom formerly unknown. Never, since the days when St. Paul first set the marketplace at Athens buzzing with his preaching, has public attention been so focused on the Christian Church and its message. The Church must not ignore the great evangelistic opportunity this attention affords.

2. A radical re-examination of all our structures and all our presuppositions is being forced upon us, whether we wish it or not. A great shaking is taking place; only the things that cannot be shaken will remain. We are being challenged to stand and deliver. There is no room for complacency, coziness, or retreat. Everywhere the call has gone out for committed Christians of every denomination to stand and be counted for Christ’s sake and the Gospel’s. This means that we can no longer simply wave the old banners or trot out the old slogans. We must be willing to submit ourselves, our worship, our methods of proclamation and of witness to the Evangel—everything—to the Word of God afresh, in order to hear what the Spirit of God is saying to the churches in this new situation. Only in this way can true revival and true communication of the Gospel take place.

3. A divergence—also radical—is beginning to reveal itself in all the major denominations in the face of the radical trend in theology. Theological conservatives of the main Protestant groupings are finding a new fellowship with one another regardless of denominational allegiances. On matters of creedal belief or of belief in the physical resurrection of Christ, for example, evangelical Anglicans are discovering that they have closer ties with their Anglo-Catholic brethren (or indeed with the Orthodox) than with neo-liberals. Similarly, conservative United Church members feel a closer bond with their Baptist or Presbyterian counterparts than with the extreme wing of their own communion. And so the story goes. What this may mean for the future, especially where schemes for reunion are already under discussion, only time will tell. On the Canadian scene at the present moment, the relevant question is not “What denomination do you belong to?” but rather “Are you a believer, in the New Testament sense?” New lines of communication are being opened up and a new kind of challenge to old isolations felt.

Iii

Some of the negative aspects of the situation have already been mentioned. There are these also:

1. The new theology in its more extreme forms can be seen to lead either to that hardiest of all perennials in the theological garden, pantheism (or “cosmic religion”), or to an extreme theological nihilism—“God is dead,” “The Church is dead.” For neither of these does evangelism, mission, or outreach have any importance. To be sure, not many will go this far. But those who do, and who yet insist on remaining within the Church, are already exerting an influence on many who are impressed by the often repeated claim to honesty and the show of intellectualism. And at the very moment when the deep issues of the faith are matters of public debate, departments of evangelism and missions seem to be suffering from inertia, perhaps even a failure of nerve or vision. A recent survey of the activities of the committees on evangelism of one large national church has revealed that an alarming vacuum exists in this area.

2. Through lack of imagination and at times through sheer default, conservative evangelicals generally ignore the mass-communications media. Groups that do take the twentieth century seriously in this regard often stick to stereotyped and largely outmoded techniques and to a “hard sell” that fails to communicate to the outsider. Ironically, those in the major denominations who are the most eager to use radio and television and the most skilled at doing so—those who form the communications avant-garde—generally have little to communicate.

3. For the evangelical perhaps the most serious temptation is simply to dig in and sit tight. Some point to the Bible’s prophecies of unbelief in the end times and of the deception of those who have called themselves Christians (e.g. Matt. 24:24). Others seem to think that if the present crisis is only ignored long enough, it will go away. And others give the impression that all we need do is keep on saying the same old words in the customary way—only louder than ever—and our obedience will be complete. That they may be saying this to fewer and fewer people does not seem to worry them at all. As one very conservative acquaintance of mine put it, when speaking of the writings of Bonhoeffer, “I just put a blind eye to the telescope like Nelson of old and keep on as I have always done!” Nothing could be more surely fatal.

Iv

Who speaks for the conservative evangelical position in Canada?

This is not easy to answer. Besides the easily identifiable groups, there are evangelicals in all denominations. But they can scarcely be said to speak with a clear or unanimous voice on key issues. In fact, despite various efforts to establish a fully representative Canadian Evangelical Fellowship, there is as yet no fully indigenous, united evangelicalism in this country. Individual voices can be heard throughout the land, some of them increasingly effective in scholarship, in the pulpit, in teen-age and adult evangelism, and in lay witness. But the overall picture is hardly reassuring.

Geography is a hindering factor. Evangelicals are often denied the fellowship and mutual consultation that could weld them into a unit. Moreover, many committed Christians are reluctant to identify themselves with a “party,” especially when the label seems to carry with it memories of someone else’s battles in another time and place. Theological colleges, apart from Toronto Bible College and the various Baptist seminaries, appear reluctant to be clearly identified as conservative evangelical. Besides Wycliffe College, it would be hard to name an Anglican or United Church college that would be happy to be described that way.

V

Nevertheless, in spite of all this, a strong evangelical witness remains. What is more, there are signs of new life in many areas.

In the Anglican communion the newly organized Canadian Anglican Evangelical Fellowship (CAEF) is already national in scope. The Koinonia Youth Fellowship is closely allied to it and seeks to present the claims of Christ effectively to Anglican young people. In the United Church, the Renewal Fellowship is a similar development that involves increasing numbers of clergy and laymen. In addition to the fine work already being done in the high schools by the Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship, the “Young Life” work is making a remarkable impact on teen-agers, particularly in metropolitan Toronto, where hundreds of youngsters meet weekly for prayer, Bible study, and recreation.

In the universities IVCF seems to be showing a greater willingness to experiment with new approaches as it seeks to reach beyond the group structure to the campus outside. This is paralleled by the growth of new graduate and faculty Christian fellowships in many colleges. Besides all this, of course, there is the continuing faithful preaching Sunday by Sunday from hundreds of pulpits and the daily witness of thousands of believers in every denomination and in every walk of life.

Vi

If the dangers are great, the opportunities are even greater. If, however, there is to be a true moving forward in the cause of Christ, a true witness to the unchanging truths of the Gospel, a real renewal in our time, certain conditions must be met.

First, there must be a willingness on all sides to admit past failures, to renounce old suspicions, and to confess that there has often been uncharitableness towards those of other schools of thought. There must be metanoia (“repentance”). The times are too grave for the luxury of the many past divisions over secondary matters.

Second, there must be a greater willingness than ever before to move outside the camp—the camp of old labels and stereotyped ways of thinking, of regard for secondary things as if they were of primary importance, of smug denominationalism (or, even worse, of smug non-denominationalism). Unless we are prepared to hear what the Spirit is saying to the churches now, we will continue to seem irrelevant to the uncommitted masses and to fumble weakly while the world walks by. The words of Bishop Newbigin, “Hold fast to Christ and for all the rest be uncommitted,” speak to our need. Jesus Christ is the same, yesterday, today, and forever; but at the same time, our God is a God who moves. We must be willing to travel light, to lay aside outmoded attitudes and all other unnecessary barriers.

In the final analysis, our case rests with God’s witness to himself in Holy Scripture. Renewal, revival, and the communication of the Good News depend upon this—not on better stewardship programs, not on more committees or on more skillful evangelistic techniques, but on the activity of the Holy Spirit through God’s Word in our midst. This is our great need and our greatest hope in this hour of unparalleled opportunity. The mass media may be as yet virtually untouched by the churches; yet they seethe daily with the evidence of mankind’s need for God. May all of us v/ho love the Lord and look for his appearing pray for a fresh endowment from God as we serve him in this mighty land.

Have something to add about this? See something we missed? Share your feedback here.