Why Canadian Churches Entering the Missional Dialogue may be in Trouble

I was re-reading Tim Keller's online intro article to the missional church and something struck me.

One of the reasons much of the American evangelical church has not experienced the same precipitous decline as the Protestant churches of Europe and Canada is because in the U.S. there is still a 'heartland' with the remnants of the old 'Christendom' society.

This blog offers a dialogue on the missional church, but with a Canadian slant. The component above that fueled this post was:

...American evangelical church has not experienced the same precipitous decline as the Protestant churches of Europe and Canada....

Of course, Canadian Protestants are quite unlike their American counterparts, although they try their darnedest to attend all the conferences and buy all the books. What's more important to realise is Canadian culture has progressed 10-15 years ahead of their American friends with respect to religiosity.

Why is this significant? Because Canadian churches entering the missional dialogue are doing so under the pretense that they are in the same struggle as their American friends.

For some this may be true (I think primarily about bible-belt land Alberta), the similarities in culture may be close. For most, however, there is a uniquely Canadian response that needs to emerge from the missional movement if it is to succeed.

This does not suggest all resources from the US are no good. But information that seeps from organizations (also called churches) on the fence between church growth movements and missional church movements, including commentary on American cultural response, are useless and perhaps a detriment to the development of the missional church in Canada.

Conversely, I do believe the resources that speak more into the theological (missiology, ecclesiology) and training components are more useful South and North of the border.

So what about Canada? Take time to learn about Canadian culture and stats, not American ones. Rather than Barna or Gallup, try Reginald Bibby's books on Canadian religiosity. He's written over the span of nearly 40 years collecting his own data on emerging religious trends in Canada.

You'll find a lot of information that's unique, things you wouldn't expect regarding church trends. So often we hear about the rise and fall of X and Y denomination for Z and A reasons. Find you uniquely Canadian voice and extrapolate your missional response from there.

For example, Bibby funds 1 out of 5 adults in Canada attend a weekly service. Yet out of five adults three more (4 out of 5) believe in God. So 80% believe in God, and the final 20% don't believe in anything. Many people still pray, still believe in some god, and thus aren't necessarily hostile to religion. A growing number of people do not resonate with religious institutions, but still crave connection to community.

Missional church seeks to capture that 20% who have never been connected into church and never heard any church language. They may also find success communicating to the 'lost' 60% who have been disenfranchise or have never been connected into church yet maintain spiritual elements.

What missional church does not accomplish is attracting a bunch of the same--evangelical types looking for a change--and call them converts or adherents. Geographically replacing numbers is not a victory.

That isn't to say that the only issue at hand is the package. Evangelicals will be quick to put on a different hat and play harder rockier music to their growing youth generation. Putting on new pants does not entail a change in overall direction.

Packaging the same message but with different wrapping paper does little to truly fix the problems in churches (I think primarily of evangelicals who are trying so hard to enter the missional conversation.)

In reality, the task at hand is to revamp what many churches already value--small groups and commission. Every church values these two things, yet I have yet to visit a church that does those two strongly.

Imagine that, the two crucial components of church today and we do them the worst. Small groups are designed to increase the value of relationship and purpose. In missional church small groups operate under the assumption of 'entering God's plan to redeem humanity'. That means they are active participants in community, seeking to walk with those who are seeking the reign of God on earth.

The second, commission, once again exists to draw into God's plan to redeem humanity, yet now we comprehend that in between the 'doings' of evangelism and social justice. No church is complete without it, and you're not a church without them.

Considering I like to pick on evangelicals for a variety of reasons and topics, it's worth noting that they have a) have maintained numbers over the past 100 years despite being a relatively small sect, b) of all the denominations do the best to involve their adherents.

Still, we seek more. Missional church pulls off the pretenses of the 80/20 rule (20% of the community does 80% of the work) and instead mobilizes the community to be connected into commission (other buzzwords include 'Incarnational living).

So how is your community doing with the missional struggle? Are you caught looking to America for all your answers? Or are you a leader in your community, putting your ear to the ground and finding out what the real voice of culture sounds like?