Two Opposing Concepts: The USA vs. Canada

In this post, I’d like to explain the essential difference between the USA and Canada in the conception of their founding which affects their approach to law and to authority.

First of all, the American Declaration of Independence says, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights…” From this conception come the rights enshrined in the American Bill of Rights by way of the first ten amendments to the USA constitution. The first amendment says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting a free exercise thereof …” Included in this amendment is the right of the people to “peaceably assemble.” The basic concept on which America rests is the notion of unalienable rights held by each citizen. The Bill of Rights limits government action. Recent cases in the Supreme Court ruled in favor of churches and against the attempts at state governors at closing them down during the Covid-19 crisis. This is one example of many that show the freedom and liberty individual Americans have in consequence of their conception of government. As an outsider, I have to say the American Constitution is one of the noblest documents created in the history of civilization. Its ideas have empowered the American nation like no other nation in the history of the world.

On the other hand, Canada’s foundation rests on an entirely different principle. The provinces of Canada joined in a federal union under the Crown (at the time of Canada’s founding, the Crown was that of Queen Victoria). By a royal decree, Queen Victoria brought into being the nation of Canada. The constitution states, “The Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is declared to continue and be vested in the Queen.” Now, although the Queen’s authority is more symbolic than real, the important point to note is the difference between the two nations. In the USA, the nation’s foundation is its citizens with unalienable rights consenting to a government that administers the nation. In Canada, the nation’s foundation is the authority of the Queen who subsequently grants rights and freedoms to her citizens.

Canada added its Charter of Rights and freedoms to the Canadian Constitution in 1982. The Charter illustrates what I mean by rights and freedoms granted to the citizens by the Crown. The second clause of the Charter contains these words: “Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: (a) freedom of conscience and religion … (c) freedom of peaceful assembly …”

So far, so good. We are grateful for this document. But hold on! Don’t forget the first clause of the Charter: “The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.” [Emphasis added.] The freedoms in the Canadian Charter are not absolute, nor do they derive from the unalienable rights of citizens. The Crown guarantees them, but can limit them by law when, in the judgement of the Crown (i.e. the government), they “can be demonstrably justified”.

What this means is that if the government decides to limit a freedom in the Charter, the only way citizens can overturn the decision is by forcing the government to justify its position in the courts. This is much harder to do in a country where freedoms are granted, and rights are not unalienable. “Demonstrably justified” is a relative term, not a clear-cut and absolute term.

In the Covid-19 crisis, the Canadian governments (federal as well as provincial) are limiting our freedoms in various ways, due to the state of emergency presented by the pandemic. Hardly anyone denies that the pandemic presents a justification for some modification of our freedoms. The only hope churches have on the legal front in Canada is to show that the restrictions on religion are unreasonable in the circumstances, or compared to the way other freedoms are restricted (like the freedom to peacefully shop at Costco or the local marijuana shop!).

On the outside, looking at how the responses to the pandemic are playing out in various US states and Canadian provinces, the varied rules, shut downs, masks/no masks, etc. look the same in application. The authority of the governments, however rest on entirely different foundations, which affects how successful appeals to the courts might be in different jurisdictions.

Canada is a “top-down” country: the authority is at the top, the freedoms trickle down (if we are in the good graces of the Crown). The USA is a “bottom-up” country: the authority is at the bottom [citizens] who grant to their governments limited authority.

The Roots of Postfundamentalist Evangelicalism (and Fundamentalism) (Part 2)

I’m writing about the book, Pocket History of Evangelical Theology, published by InterVarsity Press, by Roger Olson. Last time I listed the roots of what Olson calls postfundamentalist evangelicalism (otherwise known as “evangelicalism” today). For a more detailed definition of postfundamentalist evangelicalism, see this post. For an expansion on the first two roots of evangelical theology, see this post.

Once again, I’ll list Olson’s roots, and then we’ll expand on the middle three of them. The last two will be explained in the next post.

  1. Pietism
  2. Revivalism
  3. Puritanism
  4. Wesleyanism
  5. The Great Awakenings
  6. Old Princeton Theology
  7. Holiness-Pentecostalism
  8. Fundamentalism

Pietism (see this post)

Revivalism (see this post)

Puritanism

The Puritans are important in the development of evangelicalism and fundamentalism primarily through their influence in the life of Jonathan Edwards. (Secondarily, the Baptist movement owes its beginnings first to Puritans and subsequently the English Separatists. This development, not noted by Olson, contributes to both evangelicalism and fundamentalism insofar as Baptists are a part of both movements. But back to the Puritans…) “The Puritan movement began in Elizabethan England in the late sixteenth century. … Puritanism broadly defined began as the English movement to purify the Church of England under Queen Elizabeth I … of all vestiges of ‘Romish’ doctrine and practice.” (38) The Puritans were statists, admiring John Knox of Scotland and his reformation of Scottish society into a constitutional monarchy with an established Presbyterian church. “The Puritans wanted a similar thorough reform of England.” (39) This anti-Romish impulse for purity and orthodoxy eventually led to the Plymouth Colony in America and a society formed on Puritan ideals. Out of this society later came Jonathan Edwards and the Great Awakening with assistance from the English evangelist, George Whitfield. Puritanism, then, forms a significant well-spring of evangelical and fundamentalist thought.

Olson says, “Evangelicalism as a movement was born in the 1730s and 1740s Great Awakening.” (46) By evangelicalism here, he means, I suppose, “pre-fundamentalist evangelicalism.” That is, the evangelical movement that followed the Great Awakening eventually became the fundamentalist and evangelical movements we know today.

Wesleyanism

Wesleyanism is the influence of John Wesley on the evangelical movement. Wesley, unlike Whitfield, was Arminian in his theology. He and his brother Charles were friends of Whitfield (and Wesley preached Whitfield’s funeral sermon), but they diverged sharply in soteriology. Nevertheless, Wesley’s emphasis on personal conversion paralleled the emphasis of Edwards and Whitfield. All of them called for individual salvation and decried any notion that church membership or ritual could make a man right with God. “For Wesley, true ‘scriptural Christianity’ begins in a person with the experience of being ‘born anew’ by the Spirit of God. Of course, he did not deny the efficacy of the sacrament of infant baptism, but he did deny that it alone establishes a person’s right relationship with God. For Wesley, authentic Christianity is experiential Christianity and must be freely chosen; it can never be inherited or the product of an effort to ‘turn over a new leaf.’” (48)

Further, Olson says, Wesley “believed that only God can save a person and that if a person is saved it is entirely due to God’s grace, but people must respond to God’s grace and to the gospel with a free decision of repentance and faith.” (48)

Wesley’s views of salvation and individual conversion form a major root of evangelicalism (and fundamentalism). His views of sanctification likewise influenced a large following, but their impact was only on a segment of the evangelical world, not the whole.

The Great Awakenings

Olson calls the Great Awakenings “the Crucible of Modern Evangelical Theology” (52, emphasis added). Olson says, “Something quite new appeared out of the Great Awakening and Edwards’s and Wesley’s sermons and essays — a massive movement, a subculture of experiential Christianity solidly rooted in Protestant orthodoxy.” (52) Noting the differences between these two (who he calls the “fathers of evangelical Christianity”), he says that their “two streams of thought about salvation” entered evangelicalism and remain present, but also make evangelical theology “an unstable compound always about to explode into internecine rivalry, if not warfare.” (53-54) Alas, we all know this is true.

The Great Awakening subsided but later events gained the name “the Second Great Awakening.” Prominent in this history was Charles G. Finney, but he is not the sole proponent of the Second Awakening. While his bad theology should receive no applause, no one can deny that his methods and the fervent activity of many other contemporaries profoundly shaped evangelicalism/fundamentalism with an emphasis on the authority of the Bible and the need for individual conversion. This influence is the influence of revivalism, but it is in the “crucible” of the First and Second Great Awakenings that its ideas formed.

Preliminary conclusion number two

Puritanism predates Revivalism, and “the Great Awakenings” are nothing more than specific instances of revivalism taking hold in America, especially. Likewise Wesleyanism is essentially Revivalism, but a specific flavor of it. It is interesting to me that Olson puts Revivalism ahead of Puritanism as a root of the movement. It is also interesting how much evangelicalism owes to Revivalism and Revivalists. When thinking about where we are today, we would do well to consider what God thinks of these movements and, if they are biblical and God-honouring (as I think they are), what we can do to implement Revivalism in our own ministries.

The Roots of Postfundamentalist Evangelicalism (and Fundamentalism) (Part 1)

Returning to the book, Pocket History of Evangelical Theology, published by InterVarsity Press, by Roger Olson, today I want to discuss the roots of Postfundamentalist Evangelical theology. For a definition of Postfundamentalist Evangelicalism, see my prior post. The roots of Postfundamentalist Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism are identical, except for one point, which we will get to shortly. The two movements are branches of the same tree. Some people say Fundamentalism is a subset of Evangelicalism (including good friends), but I disagree. I think history bears me out. The two movements have a common ancestry, but they also have a definite point of divergence. I’ll say more on that later, as well.

Returning to the Roots

In Olson’s book, the first chapter defines evangelicalism. Having achieved that goal, he turns to Part II: The Roots of Evangelical Theology. This comprises eight chapters for eight roots (or threads in the tapestry, to use a different metaphor). The roots Olson lists are:

  1. Pietism
  2. Revivalism
  3. Puritanism
  4. Wesleyanism
  5. The Great Awakenings
  6. Old Princeton Theology
  7. Holiness-Pentecostalism
  8. Fundamentalism

Since Olson sees fundamentalism as a “root” of postfundamentalist evangelicalism, it is here where their root structure differs. Obviously, fundamentalism can’t be a “root” of itself. This may seem trivial, but it is one of those key facts which disproves the notion that fundamentalism is a subset of evangelicalism. Fundamentalism is a smaller movement than evangelicalism, but it isn’t evangelical in the modern sense of the word (which is Olson’s sense). The reason some see fundamentalism as a subset is because of a mostly shared root system and the fact that fundamentalism is smaller. The reality is that we have two divergent movements built on the same root system.

Having said that, let’s do some quick definition of the roots of postfundamentalist evangelicalism. Today we will look at just the first two, then pick up on the others in subsequent posts.

Pietism

Pietism began around one hundred and fifty years after the Reformation. By this time, many states had established (i.e. state-sponsored) Reformed churches and a certain settled formalism ensued. Pietism grew up out of a concern over this formalism, desiring a more heart-felt religion for those professing Christ. “Pietists are always concerned that Christianity be something more than historical knowledge and mental assent to doctrines; they want to distinguish authentic Christianity from false or merely nominal Christianity by identifying the ‘real thing’ by life-transforming experience of God in conversion and devotion to God in the ‘inner man’ and by discipleship that is shaped by the Bible, aims towards perfection, and seeks to be ‘in the world but not of the world.’” (Olson, 23)

Revivalism

Revivalism has some connections with Pietism, but is its own distinct movement. Ethnically, it is more a British and American phenomenon, even though there were (and are) Pietists in America. Olson’s initial definition of revivalism goes this way: “Revivalism was the phenomenon in Great Britain and North America that saw emotional preaching calling masses of mostly already baptized people, often outdoors, to make decisions to repent and follow Jesus Christ.” (33) The distinctive mark of revivalism as opposed to pietism is “the need for each person publically to repent and receive Jesus Christ by an act of inward faith as well as outward profession.” (34) Revivalism included Christians of differing theological beliefs (Calvinists and Arminians), who shared a similar fervor and a desire for awakening the lost or the backslidden to a public testimony of Christianity. The division in theology persists among evangelicals (and fundamentalists) today, but what the revivalists united on was that “they … elevated experience over doctrine as the true centerpiece of Christian existence.” (37)

Preliminary conclusion

The roots of Pietism and Revivalism are important components of evangelicalism and fundamentalism. Some of the new “Conservative Evangelicalism” wants to go back to a Reformed religion, bypassing almost all of evangelicalism’s roots. Especially the earliest and most persistent roots of Pietism and Revivalism receive the most scorn. This disdain for historical impulses galvanizing evangelical history is mystifying. Surely they contributed to the success of genuine Christian expansion worldwide for hundreds of years. Perhaps we should consider that religion of the heart is at least as important as the religion of the mind.

getting the history part of grammatical-historical

Just a thought that occurred to me while listening to Living History: Experiencing Great Events of the Ancient and Medieval Worlds …It is extremely helpful to Bible interpreters to have an understanding of the culture and history in which the Bible was written. This particular “Great Courses” offering touches on some points of history that help us in understanding the culture the early Christians were saved from. I think that I am reading the New Testament with better understanding as a result.

Even better than this course are two other offerings: Herodotus: The Father of History, an excellent presentation by Elizabeth Vandiver and the actual work of Herodotus: The Histories.

These works are full of secular misconceptions and there are sometimes misrepresentations of Biblical information contained in them. However, one thing I’ve found fascinating is the Greek mindset on display. I suspect that many Greeks of the ancient world viewed their pagan superstitions cynically, yet they most likely “hedged their bets” and went along or adopted them as a “cultural practice.” Nevertheless, whether true believers or no, they had a culture to overcome in coming to Christ. “The Greeks look for wisdom.”

As we consider the preaching and teaching of the apostles in the context of the thinking of the day, we can gain insight to perhaps preaching and teaching the pagans of modernistic and post-modernistic society as well.

A refusal to vote for Trump is a vote for…

Hillary?

So say the rabid Trumpsters on social media. If you object to Trump and his excesses, his foolish statements and positions, you are pounced on and accused of supporting Hillary Clinton.

Well, I don’t think so. I don’t have a vote in the election (but many family members do). But like most in the world, I have an opinion.

The polls on the election fluctuate and will continue to fluctuate until the real poll, election day. However, I think the polls have consistently had Hillary ahead. As of today, the Real Clear Politics polling average has Clinton ahead by 2.7%. More important, though, is the state by state polling. Every prognostication based on state by state polling shows Hillary killing it in the Electoral College. Trump will have to get probably 10 points ahead of Hillary to overcome her advantage state by state.

I think that tells us that, barring some unforeseen miracle – a creditable third candidate, some unforeseen disaster that overtakes Hillary’s campaign, or some other unknown event – Hillary Clinton will be the next President of the United States.

All my reading about this election suggest that even Democrats are not thoroughly enamored with Hillary. She has more negatives than most candidates in history and is thoroughly beatable. So why is she leading? Because she has a clown for an opponent.

Why does she have a clown for an opponent? Because the voters in primary season voted for him.

The reality is that “A non-vote for Trump is a vote for Hillary” is just a canard. Ridiculous. It was all those votes for Trump during primary season that are the actual votes for Hillary.

Thanks Trumpsters. You’ve just elected a president worse than Obama. Hard to believe.

No moral compass

That’s basically what this Abacus survey of Canadians on issues of morality seems to suggest, for the vast majority of Canadians. This presents a challenge for evangelism (so many false values to get past) and an opportunity (Christianity is clearly different). May we be bold and call men from darkness to light!

shutting down arguments

Online discussion is very predictable. There’s a meme out there about how such discussions go and the odds that Hitler will be mentioned as the discussion lengthens (It’s even made it into the Oxford English Dictionary, apparently).

In Christian discussion boards odds are that as soon as someone is losing an argument, one of two strategems will come up:

  1. Have you spoken to X about this? (The Matthew 18 card)
  2. You can’t judge motives

What is the purpose of these strategems?

To shut you up, that’s what. It does get a little tiresome, but I encourage you to either take no notice of those who attempt to use them, or push back against them.

This does not mean that I advocate impolitic speech, or uncharitable communication. However, I think that we must insist that topics be discussed on their merits and refuse to be drawn into a side-tracking rabbit trail by allowing these tactics put us on the defensive.

don_sig2

new blog

An old-timey friend of mine, Monty McCoy, has joined the blogosphere at leadinghorsestowater.net. I love the title, reminds me of a favorite quote from Murphy’s Law and Other Reasons Things Go Wrong, “You can lead a horse to water, but if you can get him to float on his back, you’ve got something!” I can’t remember who said that originally, but I think it is particularly applicable to most leadership situations.

Monty and I used to team teach a Sunday school class in our church’s bus ministry. With him, I used to visit some of the poorer sections of our town where most of our children came from. These homes were so broken, it was hard to see how they could be helped – only the grace of God could make a difference.

We had some professions of faith in our class – it was first grade. I don’t know how serious these little ones were, but I know that little children can make serious spiritual decisions. Regardless, I think the ministry to little ones (and all ages in that community) was a worthwhile effort. It was costly, eventually our church gave up that ministry (after I had moved away). It certainly isn’t the “in thing” among Christians these days, but what could be more important than teaching the Bible and the life changing message of the gospel to anyone who will listen?

Well, Monty and I reconnected last year after spending about thirty years incommunicado (hurrah for the internet!). Monty is a godly servant in a local church somewhere in Iowa (he really lives out in the sticks, a real country gentleman). I appreciate his faithfulness and ministry a great deal and recommend his blog to you. Hope you enjoy it.

don_sig2

a very special guy

AM_knighthood

This is our dear friend Al, receiving a knighthood from the Republic of France for his role on the beaches of Normandy, June 6, 1944. He has been invited to a special ceremony there this year (all expenses paid), but at 92, he doesn’t want to chance it. He said to me today, “I made it off those beaches alive once, I’m not sure I can do it again!”

More importantly, Al testifies that he is depending on the work of Jesus Christ to save his soul from sin. He regularly attends our services with his wife and brings one of our other ladies along with them as well. Yes, he is still driving and is as sharp as a tack. He is actually kind of hard to keep up with, but he is a real blessing to us.

awkward!

I don’t know if my American friends can see this video, its an interview by a Canadian TV personality, George Stroumboulopoulos. I can’t stand George and I’m not a huge fan of the Prince, but I was a good deal put off by the beginning of the interview.

The way it appeared to me, Strombo, as they are sitting down, unexpectedly sticks out his hand to the Prince, expecting to shake hands. Prince Charles appears not to notice at first, then, to spare George embarrassment, reaches out and shakes his hand.

It might be just me, but I seem to recall that you just don’t do that… If you meet a royal and they initiate a handshake, it’s all good. But we commoners keep our hands to ourselves otherwise. At least … that’s the way I think it is supposed to be done.

I am sure on-air interviews aren’t easy, for interviewee or interviewer. But wouldn’t George have been briefed on protocol before he sat down with the Prince? Or is he just completely clueless? (I tend to think the latter.)