Deeper shade of grey | lost themes 3

Lost themes of mission… salvation

M

ajor Ray Harris (R), when he was a training principal in Canada, once said your ‘understanding of mission will only be as wide as your understanding of salvation. Thinking about ‘Lost Themes of Mission’ I remembered trying to explore this and discovering the danger of watering down salvation.

Shortly afterwards I read these thoughts:

“… a friend of mine asked me a few months ago something that I’ve really been wrestling with for a while. It has to do with salvation and the common evangelical understanding of it (belief in Jesus = salvation and righteousness…. No belief in Jesus = condemnation and hell)…  I totally agree with that definition, but after really wrestling with the following question for a bit I think that I am starting to see that God’s view of salvation is probably just a little more complex and less formulaic than the Reader’s Digest version that we throw around in the evangelical church. I still believe that the Reader’s Digest version is true, but I think there is also much more depth and richness to the gospel than we often realise.”

Has our understanding of salvation been narrowed to the point whereby we have lost the profoundness of the fullness of salvation? As evangelicals we seem to be red hot on the ‘pardon from God’ aspect of salvation but speak out aspects of wholeness; healing; community; liberation; sufficiency; fullness of life etc.. in the same breath as salvation and I’m afraid you’ll draw ‘wooly liberal’ glances quickly followed by quick condemnation and dismissal. It leaves me thinking why has this aspect of salvation become a negotiable?

Since writing that a couple of years ago I have found myself discovering more and more depth to what we understand as salvation. Bruggemann reminds us that:

“The primal story line of the Old Testament is a sequence of events through which YHWH intervenes in the life of Israel in order to effect rescue, deliverance and emancipation. These actions are nameable, concrete and decisively transformative and are termed salvation this language bespeaks transformative power of immense proportion so that salvation can also be understood as a victory over negating powers a that are now defeated by the greater power of YHWH….Salvation is deliverance from any and every circumstance or any negative power that prevents full, joyous communal existence. Anything that precludes a full life that reflects the saving one that in the past , can always and will in the future overcome every impediment to well-being.”

Jurgen Moltmann also points to and encourages a wide view of salvation. He writes,

“Salvation does not mean merely salvation of the soul, individual rescue from the evil of the world, comfort to the troubled conscience, but also the realization of the eschatological hope of justice, the humanizing of man, the socializing of humanity, peace for all creation”

The Lausanne covenant includes the following statement:

‘The Salvation we claim should be transforming us in the totality of our personal and social responsibilities.’

It is interesting that as the church has been pursuing salvation for the individual the sense of salvation for social structures has become an unnecessary distraction. There is sadness in the irony that salvation for the world as it has slipped to being  a negotiable has become another lost theme of mission.

Deeper shade of grey appears every Wednesday on theRubicon. Find past posts and a bio of Capt. Gordon Cotterill here.

17 Comments to Deeper shade of grey | lost themes 3

1. Thanks for the post, Gordon.

   The breadth of the term ’salvation’ has been very much in my own thinking lately. The Army has always claimed to have a broad view, at least compared to other evangelical bodies. We’ve always insisted that ’salvation’ means nothing if it doesn’t include a person’s tempotral wellbeing.

   However, lining people up for heaven seems to be at the core of it all. For example, how many social programmes have been closed over the years because clients weren’t getting saved?

   Next time someone asks me why we’re a ’salvation’ army I’m really not sure what my answer’s going to be.
Cameron Horsburgh on June 25th, 2008

2. “salvation for social structures”

   What does a saved United Kingdom look like then? Are you pitching in for theocracy over democracy?
Matt Clifton on June 29th, 2008

3. Matt - I wouldn’t pitch for anything but the reign of God - seek first the kingdom and all that.
Gordon Cotterill on June 30th, 2008

4. Cameron - it is interesting that salvation is not the easiest words to translate into other languages. It is odd that the closest many get is that of well-being - fullness, wholesness; or perhaps exploring Jesus’ words in JO 10:10 gives an interesting insight.
Gordon Cotterill on June 30th, 2008

5. OK, but again, what does it LOOK LIKE? It’s easy to throws in these terms - “salvation for social structures”; “the reign of God” - but they’re pretty much worthless without a description of their practical outworking. Is it pure socialism or is there a centre-ground blend with capitalist wealth-creation? Is it the Communist vision of classless common-ownership? Is it Daily Mail right-wing nostalgia for Christian values? Is it an established church - Bishops in the House of Lords? Is it American ‘redeemer-nation’ imperialism? Is it analogous to the Muslim caliphate? Is it the imposition of Christian ethics via legislation on non-Christians? Is it…

   As Geoff Ryan wrote: politics - it is (unavoidably and biblically) our business. Otherwise I’m not sure we’re doing anything other than vacuous theorising.
Matt Clifton on July 2nd, 2008

6. BTW, theocracy - theos/kratein - means “the reign of God”
Matt Clifton on July 2nd, 2008

7. Salvation for social structures is for me impossible, or at least improbable, until the church exhibits the ‘reign of God’ itself. As for what that means in concrete terms I don’t know. Whilst there has to be a political element to this I’m not sure that it can be summed up in terms of easy political ideals.

   One political stance I don’t believe it can be though is the imposition of a political theocracy. To impose ‘Christianity’ on an unbeliever is not what I believe the Gospel is about. Becoming a Christian and choosing to live out a true life of discipleship has to be a personal decision. Therefore, imposing so-called Christian laws on society as a whole would simply alienate rather than attract. The real attraction is lives lived in the fullness of the Gospel; lives that speak of the love of God.

   For me, the practical outworking of this would have to be measured against how we followers choose to live out what James calls the ‘royal law’ which is to “love our neighbours as ourselves.” This ‘law’ has to work in conjunction with the greatest command to “love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul and strength” as only when this is in place can we truly achieve the ‘reign of God’ in our own lives. This is the way to true salvation, not only of the individual but society and structures as well.
Graeme Smith on July 2nd, 2008

8. I too wonder we mean by ’social salvation’. If I figure it out, I’ll let you know.

   What I can say, though, is that the regeneration of society happens through the same way as the regeneration of a lost sinner — the work of the Cross, the agency of the Holy Spirit and everything else we learn in our doctrine classes.

   I’ve been following the story of Aaron Taylor,* a missionary who recently spent time in conversation with a radical jihadist Muslim, Khalid. Whilst Taylor thought he’d done okay in the debate, he was haunted by the question left to him: “Tell me, preacher man. How would you implement the Bible from a governmental point of view?”

   Taylor had to admit that Khalid had a point. The Koran sets up a fairly rigorous social structure, yet nowhere does Jesus do anything of the sort. He refuses any attempt to make him king or even judge, at least in the earthly sense. Taylor writes:

   “It’s not that I didn’t know this before. It’s just that suddenly the thought of the Son of God coming to earth to live, die, and be raised from the dead—without suggesting some type of economic, judicial, or political system to give humanity a helping hand—took on a new and profound significance. If Jesus didn’t attempt to solve the world’s problems through seizing the reigns of political power, then He must have found a better way. That better way, I’ve at last discovered, is the cross. At the cross, Jesus taught humanity that it’s better to suffer injustice than to be the cause of it, it’s better to relinquish power than to pursue power, and, perhaps most importantly, it’s better to die than to kill.”

   However the reign of God looks, it won’t be adequately described in human political terms. Human political systems are about the imposition on society of the leaders’ will. Religious political systems are about the imposition of the leaders’ will and claiming God’s blessing. Jesus’ scheme is all about sacrificing the self for the sake of the Kingdom and others.

   *http://jesusmanifesto.disqus.com/how_a_radical_jihadist_led_me_to_jesus_part_1_of_3/trackback/
Cameron Horsburgh on July 2nd, 2008

9. Matt are we are going down a cul-de-sac. The point is that salvation is undoubtedly essential for the individual as it is for the fragmented communities we live within.

   So what is it?

   “While women weep, as they do now, I’ll fight” and all that …! I think Booth pretty much sums up what it is!

   I think IHQ’s International Social Justice Commission is trying to work into what it is.

   I think faith house and other countless places like it are trying to work out what it is.

   Corps fed up with just offering sticking plasters and really trying to get to grips with the source of local problems are working into what it is.

   And if the reign of God’s DNA is summed up in shalom, righteousness, grace, reconciliation, jubilee, hope etc… I guess the church’s potential for speaking into society and communities marked by fragmentation and brokeness is pretty high.

   Or is that all an unnecessary distraction?

   You are right when you say terms like - “salvation for social structures”; “the reign of God” - but they’re pretty much worthless without a description of their practical outworking.” I’d go one step further and say the descriptions are pretty much useless if not grafted to action!
Gordon Cotterill on July 2nd, 2008

10. Matt - I meant to add that the definition was useful - thanks.

    It’s given me something to ruminate on. I’m trying to work out why I feel uncomfortable thinking that Jesus had in mind theocracy when he talked about the kingdom of God – could it be that it loses the emphasis on the alternative way of life that Jesus stressed through word and action.
Gordon on July 3rd, 2008

11. Gordon, I wonder if your discomfort stems from a double meaning of the word ‘theocracy’. I always understood it to mean ‘rule by God’, and it might be exemplified by the way pre-monarchical Israel was supposed to have worked.

    However, it’s generally taken to mean ‘rule by the church/clerics’. In this situation we are governed by those who claim to govern according to the will of God. It sounds great in theory, but it is extremely dangerous to society and whatever religion it claims to represent. It always seems to end up in totalitarianism, which is quite the opposite of the free sacrifice of the self Jesus had in mind. For this reason I always feel uncomfortable when I hear the word ‘theocracy.’

    As far as I understand it, ‘the Kingdom of God’ seems to sum up my first definition of ‘theocracy’ quite well. I think God’s reign in one’s life leads very naturally to the sort of word and action Jesus taught.
Cameron Horsburgh on July 3rd, 2008

12. Clearly big and important issues are being raised here. I am not in a position to contribute very much, but have enjoyed the read. Thank you.

    An associate put me onto the exchange when she saw your reference to the Army’s new International Social Justice Commission, Gordon. I’m picking up on that reference because I am privileged to be part of the ISJC’s small staff.

    It may be more than the ISJC would claim for itself to say that it is trying to work out the meaning of “salvation for social structures” or “social salvation” in any comprehensive sense, but it is true that these are terms that begin to locate the ISJC mission.

    While (or, “Whilst”) I can’t speak officially for ISJC, I think the team would say we can use all the intellectual and roll-up-your-sleeves aid people such as yourselves can lend us.

    In fact, there’s a questionnaire we’ve sent out to Army leaders around the world asking them to help define the priority issues of social injustice to which the ISJC should bend its efforts.

    I’d be interested in what you would say by way of an answer.

    One of the provisional answers has come because of the mandated link between the ISJC and the UN. As you may know, the United Nations has articulated 8 “Millenium Development Goals” that are intended to focus the activities of member States and NGOs for the purpose of halving extreme poverty in the world by 2015. The goals are “structural” in the sense that they necessarily call for collective, policy-driven action (e.g., the provision of universal primary school education is not something achievable by individual effort).

    Surely we could agree that it would be a better thing for the children of the world if the brains God had given them were able to be challenged and disciplined through quality schooling. And so on for the other MDGs. Whether achieving the MDGs would count towards “salvation” in a biblical sense is debatable, I suppose, but I wonder if it is related to the meaning Jesus gave to “salvation” when he said, on the heels of Zaccheus’s declaring that he would redistribute his wealth, “Today salvation has come to this house.”
Jim Read on July 3rd, 2008

13. I know you didn’t set out to write about politics; I’m pressing you because I think your piece is implicitly an apologetic for Christian political engagement (and because the quality of your thoughts deserve some follow-up). It’s anything but a cul-de-sac: the idea “salvation for social structures” presses us to express its practical meanings. For example, the Darkest England scheme was Christian Socialism; Commissioner Frank Smith, “the father of Salvation Army social work” left to become an MP. Nowadays, lamentably, most political Christianity in the UK is expressed through the right-wing press and we don’t even have a Jim Wallis to help us.

    Cameron has it: I think your healthy discomfort finds its roots in John 18:36 “My kingdom is not of this world.” Cameron, that was a great extract from Aaron Taylor. The gospel is so radically anti-power that I’m not sure anyone has cracked the enigma of how a national politics can reflect the inaugurated kingdom. Perhaps it’s a mistake to try: you can draw a line from “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s” through Augustine to the First Amendment in the US Constitution separating church and state. Perhaps Jesus was the first secularist!

    But I can’t believe it’s a mistake. A politics riven with injustice compels us to attempt politics as an expression of the kingdom. How can we relinquish a responsibility that stares us in the face? I do think this suggests liberal democracy – individual freedom and constraints on power seem to me to be great themes in the New Testament. But of course, the outcomes all depend on the crucifixion of power in the hearts of those attempting it.
Matt Clifton on July 3rd, 2008

14. Ok Matt - I thought I was going to have to give the ‘I refer the right honourable gentleman to a comment I made some moments ago’ as I thought we were on our way down an old well-worn debate of a couple of years ago - my apologies.

    Jim Wallis profoundly changed the way I thought as a young Christian and undergraduate (Call to Conversion) I get and share your sentiment in terms of where is our Jim Wallis! Jim Read’s comments on the International Social Justice Commission were interesting - I for one am looking forward to seeing the ISJC develop and to see what it speaks into.

    Frank Smith is an interesting case study that I’d like to look into - and have earmarked some time at some point in the summer to do so. I would be fascinated to find out why he left - was it because we were too passive with our politics? Which I think is your point.

    I wonder - have we become content with doling out social welfare without the bigger theological picture of social justice and how that shapes our voice and action?

    Would your piece in the Officer Mag indicate that our voice should be heard in that place where politics and moral/ethics converge?

    Thanks Matt
Gordon on July 7th, 2008

15. Prof. Norm Murdoch has written a small monograph on Frank Smith that you might find informative: Frank Smith (1854-1940) : Salvationist socialist : principal ideologue of the darkest England scheme that created Salvation Army social services / by Norman H. Murdoch.

    It’s a characteristically Murdoch-esque history in that he minimizes the “ideas guy” role of William Booth in the social services ministry of the Army more than I think warranted, but it’s still an account of Smith that is very informative.
Jim Read on July 7th, 2008

16. Given the presumed context of that old debate, let me clarify: I seek after with passion the full, rich outworking of mission your “lost themes” series explores. What I will always argue for within that full vision is the central primacy of the proclaimed good news (evangelism) and the restored relationship of the individual person with God. I believe that to be the New Testament and Salvationist position.

    So politics: definitely. Social justice and ethics: definitely (cf. Officer Mag). Sad that The Salvation Army was silent throughout the passage of the recent Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill.

    Let me know how you get on with Frank Smith! (Thanks Jim)
Matt Clifton on July 8th, 2008

17. Matt

    I read this somewhere - I think in intelligent church by Steve Chalke

    “Jesus’ mission touched every part of life … The mission of the church is just as rounded and political”

    I don’t deny the centrality of evangelism, but would admit to working through for myself how political engagement can be used for evangelism - unless of course it represents evangelism in itself.

    So if we both agree on the ‘central primacy’ what does evangelism with politics look like?

    Maybe the answer is looking to what evangelism represents in the whole context of the reign of God (we’ve come full circle!). I sense another lost theme coming on!!

    Hope you guys are well.
Gordon on July 14th, 2008

Leave a comment