They look quaint and hopelessly outdated, don't they, these two advertisements reproduced from the pages of The New Outlook, Volume One, Number One, publication date June 10, 1925, the date of the founding of the United Church of Canada.

The language is dated. Today, missionaries are referred to as overseas personnel, and Formosa is called Taiwan. We speak of First Nations peoples, not Indians. The word "Oriental" has been scrapped in favour of the word "Asian." A call to make "CANADA HIS DOMINION" would have to be altered to conform to inclusive language policies, becoming a summons to make "Canada A Dominion Under The Reign of Christ."

But it is not just the language that is dated. The concepts underlying the language seem very old-fashioned as well. Look again at that phrase "CANADA HIS DOMINION." Such a call to make the nation subject to Christ would be offensive to some, sounding as if it were our intention to convert people to the Christian faith, a notion frowned upon in a culture where every religion is deemed equally valid, equally true. A call to make the nation subject to Christ would perhaps interfere with the secular state by bringing religious conviction out of the church where it can be safely ignored and into the public square where it might make truth claims that would come into conflict with the truth claims dominant in the culture. The United Church of Canada in our time is clearly wary of any call to make "CANADA HIS DOMINION." Such a call would fly in the face of a self- image of a denomination wanting to understand itself as inclusive, progressive and tolerant of other faiths.

Even the illustrations on the sides of the page are dated. By reproducing the official shields of the nine provinces and of the Dominion of Newfound-land, it seems as if the United Church of Canada is claiming to be not only a national church, with congregations and mission agencies spread across the nation, but a state church, a denomination that sees itself, to some extent, as Canada's official church. By claiming that "The Home Mission Work of the United Church of Canada stands for the righteousness which exalteth a nation" the church is making the bold assertion that it has something to teach the nation, to offer the nation in achieving righteousness. Nowadays, the very idea that "righteous" is a good thing is suspect. Because we have consistently confused righteousness with self-righteousness, the word "righteous" is distasteful to many people. The whole idea that the United Church is capable of teaching righteousness to the country, or that righteousness is a desirable state would strike many as highly questionable.

These ads are clearly dated, not to mention triumphalistic. They suggest that the Christian religion and the institutional church are destined to conquer the nation and the world. The United Church was born out of a conviction that its task was to lay claim to the nation and the whole world for Christ. We have a much more humble view of what the church and perhaps Christ can and should do, it seems, than our forebears eighty years ago.

These ads will probably strike us as paternalistic as well, rooted in the notion of North American Christians as the ones able to bring enlightenment and assistance to the unfortunate masses in the rest of the world. Again, in recent years, this vision of our capacity to help has been seriously curtailed.

But, but.... If you are like me, aren't you just a tad envious of the energy, the confidence and the clarity of purpose that rings out from these advertisements? Don't you mourn, even a little bit, the loss of a church that had such a clear notion of its purpose, a sure sense of the urgency of its task and the ringing confidence that the appeal for help was being made to a constituency that would respond powerfully, prayerfully and with gifts of the purse? Maybe that our name "United" reflected our unity around our mission?

There was a time-and we see it reflected in these ads-when people knew what a missionary was and what mission work was for; and it seems that such clear understanding is no longer the reality.

• In the Book of Acts we see Paul and Silas on their travels, engaged in a mission of to take the message of Jesus Christ into new places and to plant new churches.
• In the Middle Ages, when almost everyone in Britain was at least nominally Christian and mostly illiterate, the church did its mission work by teaching the faith using innovative means. Mystery plays, dramatic enactments of the salvation story or other biblical themes, were presented to appreciative audiences. The stained glass windows of the great churches and cathedrals were also the teaching tools for those who couldn't access the printed word.
• The modern mission movement, inaugurated with William Carey's famous treatise of 1792, ushered in a new way of thinking about mission, and waves of missionaries swept out from Europe and North America to spread the gospel around the world. Many mission organizations were established to further this work and also to extend the work of the church at home. These advertisements from 1925 clearly reflect that missionary wave.
• In our own time, the notion of mission is evolving yet again. The long term missionary who goes out to the mission field for decades, returning home for furloughs and perhaps retirement, is being supplemented by those specialists who go as requested partners to help out as needed for terms of a few years.
• Short-term mission trips lasting for a couple of weeks or a month or two, where people go to a developing nation to build a school or drill wells or staff a medical clinic are a new development. Travel is cheaper, people have more disposable income, they retire younger and healthier: all of these factors have contributed to this new kind of mission activity which is often more service-oriented than evangelism-oriented.

But it's not just that the notion of mission is changing or evolving. An argument can be made that the church has become embarrassed by the very notion of mission. The very word in the New Testament, apostolos, means "sent out." It is as if we Christians have been reluctant to say "In the good news about Jesus Christ we have something wonderful to offer to the world." Sending missionaries off to other countries has become unfashionable, and the history of mission in our own country receives scant attention. We are embarrassed to say "We have something wonderful to offer."

Look again at those advertisements-their confidence, energy and clarity of purpose. Today, how many of us can state clearly what we believe, or have the depth of faith to say it? When we talk of evangelism, if we talk of evangelism, we probably mean growing the local church, or more likely, trying to stem the tide of decline in our local church. Evangelism, mission, have deteriorated from inviting people into a life-changing relationship with Jesus Christ, claiming Canada for Christ, to extending an invitation to be part of an organization.

Evangelism does not have to be triumphalist, or paternalistic or hopelessly quaint. An evangelism that is appropriate in our context will take its cue from Bishop Lesslie Newbigin who, in his 40 years in India, learned to be both an unapologetic ambassador for Christ and someone who recognizes and respects the reality of other faiths. For Newbigin, evangelism meant testifying to the truth one had experienced in Jesus Christ and inviting others to come alongside and see if they can see that truth as well.

To do evangelism means to invite, not to impose. But when we as individual believers, as congregations, as a denomination are embarrassed by evangelism, when we shy away from mission, when we are ashamed of the name of Jesus Christ, then all we have to offer is ourselves.

A congregation that is embarrassed by Jesus has nothing left to do but brand and market the organization. And when we say that we can offer fellowship, we need to look around and see if that is the best we can do. Consider how fractured that fellowship often is. Simmering old feuds, arguments that flare up over the music, the budget, the décor, the menu for the annual spring luncheon. If fellowship is our best selling point, we're in big trouble.

Let's face it.. If all we have to offer is ourselves then the reality is that people can get better coffee at Starbucks and better music from their MP3 players. The public library has a broader book selection and the children's program at the "Y" is better funded and in more up-to-date facilities.

A denomination that is embarrassed by Jesus has nothing to offer but itself. Political activism in the form of meetings, resolutions, letter campaigns and committee busy-work become substitutes to fill the gap left when the zeal of The world for Christ, thy kingdom come and Canada for Christ has departed from God's people, like the glory of the Lord departing the temple.

If we are not offering Jesus Christ, if all we have to rely on is our reflection in the mirror, then it is vain to consider that the worlds will beat a path to our door to become more like us: our mission will be fruitless, our evangelism gutted of its power.

Looks like David Lloyd George had it right after all: "The missionary programme of the church must go forward or we might as well close up."

Rev. Dr. Diane Walker is minister of Pelham Community Church, United Church of Canada, and Senior Editor of Fellowship Magazine.