The Army under camouflage?

Who are we trying to fool ?

The Red Shield and Army Crest are missing. The flag is gathering dust in the storeroom with the cornets and trombones. Someone worshipping in uniform is seen as a sort of quaint curiosity. The songs of William or Herbert Booth, Albert Orsborn or Catherine Baird have been discarded with the moldy old red-covered songbooks. The “members” of this “church” state that they are “an initiative of The Salvation Army” (albeit in small print). This is the Army under camouflage.

The Collins Dictionary describes camouflage as “the disguising of military personnel and equipment…to make them blend in with their surroundings.” Is that what we are trying to do here? Is this a sort of post-modern response to a perception of what is “really needed and wanted by the people out there”? Does the blend run the risk of becoming the bland? By being “seeker sensitive,” have we watered down the things that made us unique? Is it just as simple as us being downright ashamed to be The Salvation Army?

It seems some of us are having an adolescent identity crisis, but we are not alone. During my recent visit to Bill Hybel’s Willowcreek complex south of Chicago, my thorough search was unable to unearth a cross or anything else that would identify the place as being even vaguely Christian. The huge edifice was little more than an impressive state-of-the-art convention centre. Many Pentecostal Churches have followed suit with their elaborate barns that seem more rock-and-roll venue than church. Because these people seem very successful in growing their respective churches and organizations, it would seem natural for us to attempt to go the same way of Christian incognito — but I believe that this route represents stealthy suicide for our SA movement.

Perhaps this is the kind of camouflage that Webster defines as “behaviour or artifice designed to hide or deceive”? There is an old show business saying that you can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time. Who are we trying to fool — and, more importantly WHY are we trying to fool?

Deception is first and foremost un-Christian, as it belongs to the “Father of Lies” (John 8:44). Maybe deception is too strong an accusation and it’s more like this “anti-Army” activity is actually just straight-out rebellion. Either way, the Bible warns us that “rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft” (1 Samuel 15:23).

I appreciate that those of us who grew up in the SA have our individual hang-ups with some of the old fashioned “daggy” (as we say in Australia) SA stuff, but I’ve never actually met someone who openly stated that all of the Army “stuff” got in the way of them finding and following Christ. In fact, in my experience it’s quite the opposite. I’m amazed by the number of men coming through our recovery programs who want a red shield tattooed on their arm or chest, while at the same time many of our own kids avoid uniform or soldiership like the plague.

If we are to prosper (or even survive), we need to be true to ourselves, our reason for being and our ongoing mission. Let’s not cower timidly behind the camouflage.

Let’s march out there boldly and bravely as a dynamic, committed movement with no illusions about our desire to see the world won for God, and let’s do it loudly and proudly!

Friday, December 12th, 2008 Think

21 Comments to The Army under camouflage?

Hey Bruce. great thoughts. can’t say i haven’t had my “adolescent” thoughts of camouflage at times in my life as it relates to the Army. i completely agree with you: if our discarding of certain elements is done deceitfully or out of embarrassment, then it is shameful. as one of my friends recently said to me, “with all of our culture-imitating show, it’s like we’re trying to trick people into following Jesus.”

on the other hand, God knows our hearts - and I know some that are sincerely doing their best to let ineffective methods and forms die out naturally while raising new standards and pioneering new ways to reach out to hurting and lost people.

if, in going forward in this fight, we have in mind those who need Christ, i have every confidence God will lead us in the way… and our identity will flourish in that leading, rather than get muddled in any peculiar trappings of our movement.

Phil on December 12th, 2008

I agree with most of this post Bruce, but I’m wondering what you mean by ‘… it’s more like this “anti-Army” activity is actually just straight-out rebellion.’

I’m not sure how an honest but perhaps misguided change of strategy is the equivalent of mutiny. Or did I miss something?

Cameron Horsburgh on December 12th, 2008

Introducing, or re-introducing, army ’stuff’ to a congregation already lacking in, er, passion is not straightforward.

Just yesterday I had a conversation with a friend (at another church)about how very difficult it is to find materials that light my young teen son and daughter up about being Salvationists.

She responded that if anyone tried telling her about the army’s history at her corps she’d run out and never come back. She has spent long enough at the breaking point of endurance there already.

So I argued it could be taught well. And it will light up teens, as they meet the charism of the Salvation Army for the first time.

After much consideration she wondered, not unkindly but with gentle concern, if someone could convey army charism with passion in her congregation. (This is someone who spent a decade in the Salvation Army without ever knowing Brengle existed or that TSA has holiness teaching.)

And I recalled my son’s falling about with laughter when I showed him something from an army site in another territory that communicated that being a salvationist is about radical discipleship, being passionate, being innovative and taking risks - I’m working on pursuading him this is for real.

I hope that when the good news that the Salvation Army charism is alive and well reaches some of the quieter and older congregations in my territory, it comes in a way that helps the corps to recover the passion that comes with it. I don’t think that is impossible, perhaps it just can’t be ‘pushed’ from the top down but needs to emerge from a desire for renewal within a congregation at grassroots level.

Eleanor Burne-Jones on December 12th, 2008

Haven’t been to any Corps with no emblematica in sight…

Did help out at a Presbyterian church (PCA - the “conservative” branch). THey bought and converted a Best Buy store into a church, but for a long time were looking for what kind of cross to buy. Before they had managed to make a decision, the church had a flourishing ministry to Muslim widows of Serebnica and former Yugoslavia (as well as Croats & Serbs of Catholic/Orthodox background). They began to hear over and over from these women that if there had been a cross in the building they would never have gone for the ESL, driving classes or let their kids be a part of the kids’ ministry. Too much fear, too many crucifixes worn by killing and raping soldiers…Today lots of their teenage children and these women, who saw “Christian” soldiers slaughter their fathers, older brothers, other family members, are now Christian.

If there is evidence of Christ in the community, there is no camoflouge whatever emblematica is around or not.

Maureen Diffley on December 12th, 2008

Our missionary sergeant did a great slide show on our corps history recently — the point being: WE started as a missionary outpost; so, relate to the mission work being done currently. It was a great, pointed, way to knit the newcomers in with the long-timers and a subtle reminder of the proud history we stand on. I would agree the Salvation Army loses if it tries to me-too! the mega churches. Heck, guitars are everywhere. Where but the TSA can a young person learn to glorify God through mastery of the Eb horn? My father’s taught four kids from our homeschool group cornet, with one now showing up at the corps pretty often, and more are signing up every year. It is a unique evangelism.

Catherine W on December 12th, 2008

Bruce,

Thanks for your passionate post, Bruce, but in reading it over I’d like to take issue with a couple of the ideas you posit and the way you employ certain language.

I’m not sure that the externals you have identified as defining us (The Salvation Army) and that make us unique - are actually as vital as you suggest.

You ask if we are ashamed to be The Salvation Army, and then define certain external addendums as the things that define us as TSA. I could also argue that such measures as adaptability, flexibility, fidelity to the poor, a pan-sacramental view of all aspects of creation, a redemptive theology of salvation, Booth’s “help-or-hinder” principle etc - that these things are more defining than what we wear, what we sing, and how we choose to brand ourselves. Brand management is not the answer to an un-Christian spirit of deception or an anti-biblical bent toward rebelliousness.

Besides, the rebelliousness and disobedience card is one that should be played very, very carefully as TSA came into being because of an act of disobedience and, depending on your view, rebellion by William Booth toward the Methodist New Connection. We simply can’t celebrate this act as a seminal, God-inspired moment in the birthing of our Movement, and then turn around and pillory anyone who subsequently dares question anything about the way the Army has developed -can we?

The Red Shield, the Crest, the Songbook - do these really define us as a people of God? Do such constitute the central dynamic in who we are called to be as a “Community in Mission”? They are merely - and I use this term “merely”, quite intentionally” - the trappings of our religion, our Salvation Army religion. Nothing less… but certainly nothing more.

Camouflage is employed by soldiers in order to gain a tactical advantage over the enemy. They hide and they blend in, in order to gain an element of surprise. I would argue that it is not so much deception as it is subversiveness, possibly?

I think that in most Army’s, deliberate deception is in reality the purview of the spy corps (military intelligence).

This idea that as a Movement we need to preserve - at all costs seemingly -our “uniqueness”, puzzles me. What do we mean by this? What is the point of being unique unless it is because those unique characteristics are somehow connected to our mission. In other words, we are a certain way and we do certain things (and don’t do certain other things) because it serves our mission. The culture that is initially created and subsequently develops around this mission, is a only ever intended to be a wineskin and never to be confused with the wine.

Without this mission imperative, can any talk of uniqueness be understood in any terms other than pride or idolatry? I mean really, what’s the point of a particular (sub)culture except as a mean of facilitating the group’s purpose? Why be different -unique - from other branches of the church, unless it is in order to serve a missional purpose? Am I making any sense?

I think I understand your frustration with all the Willow World Wannabees. However, while the tendency to conformity and the attraction of the hero churches and hero pastors and hero models exert a strong pull, the antidote to such “wandering” is surely not to further entrench ourselves in a culture that might have outlived its effectiveness and no longer “serves the present age” (quote General Osborn)

Geoff

Geoff Ryan on December 12th, 2008

Thanks for taking the trouble to respond everyone. Passion is what Rubicon is about! This post was motivated by a disturbing trend that I’ve seen emerging in the SA that effectively “throws the baby out with the bathwater” in some Corps.

Don’t get me wrong - for me it’s not about iconography or holding fast to dodgy old brass bands or becoming walking history teachers or even “worshipping the flag” (which is equally disturbing). It is about being true to ourselves and our mission and not being sucked into some kind of trendy, politically correct, seeker sensitive model which makes us a pathetic imitation of the pentecostal barn down the road.

Yes we sometimes take the “army” thing too far, almost to the point of weirdness, yes we can tend to hide behind our glorious history and grand exemplars of the faith. It’s absolutely true that we have to be culturally relevant and not let “our stuff” get in the way of what God wants to do for people who somehow stumble through our doors. We spent too long in the “lost years” where we did the army with our heads and not our hearts (see http://www.therubicon.org/?p=1414).

I’m not one of those people who wants to hold on the smelly old wineskins for the sake of familiarity but I am offended when the SA corps becomes just another church without a mission heart. That can be a staunchly traditional corps with all the bells and whistles like the one I examined in “Lip-serving suffering humanity” (http://www.therubicon.org/?p=1460) as well as the nouvelle softcore penti-clone. I’ve seen both kinds of Corps get it so wrong.

In Australia we have a growing number of soldiers and officers who enthusiastically attend the annual Hillsongs conference (almost as a Mecca experience) but wouldn’t go to an SA Congress or conference if their life depended on it. If you ask them they say that they are “over all of that silly army stuff” and to a degree I agree, but what are they doing about it? Some seem to think by being diametrically opposed to where we have been (that’s the “anti-army” bit I was talking about) or just sitting on their hands and being bitter is the way to go.

I’m not saying it’s easy! We are at an important crossroads in our movement as we continue to rediscover our purpose and more and more of our people are captivated by the practical idea of mission and are getting involved. What I’m saying is let’s be true to that purpose and not try to be what we are not.

Bruce Redman on December 12th, 2008

I agree that the trappings are relatively unimportant, except insofar as they express a communal and missional truth. Outside of those contexts, I would argue that they are meaningless, even harmful. We CAN reintroduce the ideas of mission and community through these trappings, and that is helpful and faithful in some ways to our history, but the reality of mission and community, the spirit that is meant to inhabit those symbols, is far more important.

Grace,

Aaron

aaron on December 13th, 2008

Fascinating article, Bruce. Thanks for the piercing insights and observations.

I once saw a presentation by brothers Lt. Colonels (Dr.) Herb and Damon Rader (USA East) in which the star at the centre of the SA flag was depicted as representing ‘the body’ and the perimeter 8 points some expression of Salvationism – Advisory Boards, Social Institutions, Disaster Services, Rehab Centres, Employees, Music, DHQ, 614 Corps etc etc.

The centrifugal ‘pull’ of the star means that the points – by very design – are moving away from the centre. The crisis occurs when a star point breaks from the ‘body’ – it jettisons as a separate entity.

Is this what is happening to the ‘expressions’ of the SA you have described? Are they an irretrievable ‘break away’ entity; or, a vibrant, new face of Salvation Army ministry?

Key to countering this organizational jettison is for the star points to retain the original DNA of the body. They remain organically part of the whole.

Do these incognito expressions Salvationism have Salvation Army DNA? If not, then I conclude you are correct – there is some delusional ‘kidding’ going on.

Thanks for the Monday morning provocation.

RJM

Richard Munn on December 15th, 2008

I’d take issue with the your use of 1 Samuel 15:23. This verse makes direct reference to Saul’s rebellion against God. Substituting God for the Salvation Army may be an even greater problem in the church.

Luke on December 15th, 2008

I had lunch a while ago with a girlfriend with whom I grew up at our corps. She has left — found a great Bible-based church where as she put it, “they play songs just like the ones I hear on the radio.” It’s great for her, and I’m really happy she’s so blessed there.

This kid — I’ll call him Joe — who has started coming to corps events through my father’s band class is in a different world. There’s a lot of reasons something like two million American children are homeschooled. Schools might be a source of bad values, not challenging academically, driving the siblings apart, but a goodly number are home because they’re bullied. That could well be Joe. Perpetually awkward, he’s the sort a lot of teacher’s see as hopelessly limited; it’s his Mom alone that sees all his potentialities.

Our junior band is a great blessing to Joe; and Joe is a great blessing to the band. It gives him equal standing with more socially successful kids — our corps has produced two college music majors in the past couple of years and has at least three more for whom that would be a possibility coming up — trains him in a beautiful expression of God’s gift of music to the world and let’s the world see him in a different way, more the way his mother sees him than the way he’s typically viewed.

I guess my point is, I believe God created denominations because people are unique and are blessed in various contexts. There are dozens of rock-and-roll churches in my area that my girlfriend can take her family to; there’s only one Salvation Army. If you morph it out of existence, my girlfriend may be fine; what happens to all us Joes?

Immigrants work so hard to preserve their culture, teaching their children the old language or passing on special holiday traditions for no other reason than that it is precious to them. Surely you respect that effort, though it’s hard to point to exactly why it’s worthwhile in a “new world.” Why, then, would you take the Salvation Army, a beautiful, vibrant and life-giving culture, and wad it up and throw it away as if it is trash?

Catherine W on December 16th, 2008

Being unique … aren’t we all unique, without even trying?

I like the Army, generally speaking, warts and all, symbols and all, history and all. It is the issues of leadership, vision, and results that are critical, not what we wear or what our symbols are.

When it comes to being “different”, I’m with Geoff - assuming he’ll have me! If being different is entirely about being different for difference sake, then can their be any rationale other than idolatory and/or elitism? Do we really want to say, “thank God we’re not like them”, i.e. other Christians?

What is of most concern to me is when issues of power and control are “camouflaged” as issues of identity. When de-constructing our denomination is rationalized as being relevant. When discarding uniforms and Army programs is called “removing barriers” when its really about personal preferences and agendas. When leaders evaluate committment by the the sharpness of the crease in one’s uniform trousers, instead of one’s heart, efforts and results.

Do we have to be “either” “or”? Does it have to be “all” or “nothing”? Can’t we be effective, missional, and loving … and in uniform?

Mark on December 16th, 2008

Catherine,

You wrote: Immigrants work so hard to preserve their culture, teaching their children the old language or passing on special holiday traditions for no other reason than that it is precious to them. Surely you respect that effort, though it’s hard to point to exactly why it’s worthwhile in a “new world.” Why, then, would you take the Salvation Army, a beautiful, vibrant and life-giving culture, and wad it up and throw it away as if it is trash?

I think I understand the point you are trying to make and like you I do value many aspects of SA culture. After all, I am a 4th generation Salvationist and an officer for 18 years.

But I really do not agree with equating the culture of a people group (as in an ethne) with the sub-culture of a particular expression of church.

The culture of any immigrant developed over centuries, usually involves language specifics and racial characteristics and historical occurances and religious allegiances…it is infinitely deeper and wider and more profound than any religious sect, even ours.

I think that to equate the two in such a casual manner elevates a sub-culture to be something more than what it actually is and correspondingly denigrates a cultural identity into something of less importance than it actually is.

For example, would you first and foremost define yourself as a Salvationist or an American?

Geoff

Geoff Ryan on December 17th, 2008

See, I take a few days away to shovel and Christmas shop and here I am being teased!

I will tell you the story of two churches:

About 100 years ago, many European immigrants moved to my town. Both Italian and Polish Catholics established churches, less than a mile apart. The Italian church happens to be my polling place; my husband has a tie to the Polish one. They were the same religion, equally devout, both started schools and established festivals. The Italians assimilated, but not so much. We know a Nino, Nico, Santo, Gino, Nicolina, Rocco and have seen birth announcements for a Guido and Luigi. At the Polish church, the church leaders — the children of the founders — are Joan, Donald, Sean and Christine; children in the parish are Laura, Christopher, Jonathan and Patrick. The Polish church holds a dinner every year, and if you ask where to get the Polish delicacies they’ll tell you: at the supermarket! frozen food aisle! I can count four specialty Italian groceries off the top of my head and have waited in line behind young women debating with the owner about the pasta. Not too starchy, right? (What do I know — I thought pasta WAS starch). Anyway, 100 years later, which church do you think is closing? Hint: I’ll still be able to buy pizza slices and bags of biscotti when I go to vote.

I don’t think culture equals religion, but they’re linked. Culture may be just a wineskin, but throw out the wineskin and good luck carrying the wine.

And am I American? I think they banned that sometime last year, so I won’t confess to it. I’m going to read a little “City of God” this spring so I’ll know how to navigate the ruins. Citizen of the Eternal City — that’s me (I hope).

Catherine W on December 22nd, 2008

Had to check it out before answering: Fifth generation — beat you by one, Geoff. But do you really want to play House of Lords?

The longing in the human heart for freedom and the radical notion that average people can manage their own affairs will survive the end of my nation; Christ’s work will go on if there’s no longer a Salvation Army. Both deaths are, to me, sad, though.

Catherine W on December 23rd, 2008

Catherine,

I surrender to your superior eloquence. Great rebuttal.

My wife is a fifth-generation Salvationist, so that may help bolster my pedigree credentials, but you’d probably still win.

I don’t think the death of a particular aspect of Salvationist culture is necessarily a cause for mourning. The culture shifts and changes shape throughout the world in any case. If it becomes too static anywhere, that is probably a death of sorts anyway.

I figure that the main question is not whether there is going to be a death - that is an inevitability for me. The real question is whether or not a resurrection will follow the death.

A death, in fact, is necessary for any resurrection to take place. The endless debates about worship music, the uniform, sacramental observance etc…these are just the family arguing over the funeral arrangements, in my opinion.

Why be sad? As the Good Book says: “Unless a seed falls to the ground…”

Christmas greetings (a time of year when we celebrate a birth that caused thousands of deaths…I hope the irony is not lost on any of us).

Geoff

Geoff Ryan on December 23rd, 2008

Like the old song says, “Everything dies, baby, that’s a fact, but maybe everything that dies someday comes back, put your makeup on…” oh, never mind…

You know, I think a lot of the reformers are right: You’ve got to meet people’s needs now; running anti-alcohol programs alone when drug use is rampant, for instance, is failing to update the mission in a tragic way.

But Army culture is only uncool in contrast to some heavily marketed version of a youth cult — we can push back on that successfully. Just think, somewhere in the wilds of upstate New York, a small child signed his letter to Santa, “from Guido.” Makes Bramwell and Evangeline sound downright trendy.

Anyway, Merry Christmas back at you. Our corps doesn’t have a meeting, so I guess I’ll just make some lasagna and thank God for all that is, was and will be. And then, on to resolutions…

Catherine W on December 24th, 2008

First, Bruce, great article.

I understand where you are coming from. I went to a particular corps website and there was only one mention of TSA under several layers in regard to their heritage. That is not to say it’s good or bad, just that it is what it is.

Many of the corps (I use that word in this forum as you all know what I mean) here in B.C.(western Canada) are not corps - they are churches. Actually, they’re community churches and little about them resembles TSA. They are a new breed of SA expression that has left behind the identity trappings, which I agree is not a bad thing. However, there is also no expression of our social ministry to the poor and disenfranchised. That is where I take exception.

I think that of all of the things we change in TSA, we cannot leave out our first calling - our ministry to the “least of these”. Every SA church should have some kind of social ministry - or else we’ve really lost our focus. That is the non-negotiable for me. All the rest - uniform, logo, music, worship style, preaching style, etc., are all expendable. They are not at the heart of our identity.

Anyway, that’s my view, it’s what I live, it’s what I preach and it’s what I encourage others in the SA to remember.

Whenever this topic comes up I’m reminded of something I read somewhere - could it have been something Geoff wrote? It was about the Moravian Church and its wandering away from it’s original calling to pray. At first they prayed all the time, then it went to just daily times, then to weekly…. well, who in the heck are the Moravians today? When they abandoned their calling, the very reason they were raised up by God, they began to become irrelevant and although they still exist, no one really remembers them.

I wonder…???? Will that be the fate of TSA? When we are no longer focussed on the reason that God raised up TSA, what will happen to us?

That, my friend, is the real question?

grace… Kathie

Kathie Chiu on January 2nd, 2009

Kathie,

Nice to hear from you. As usual, I think William Booth summed it up most succinctly: “We are married to the poor. We must ever be true to our bride.”

Best wishes for 2009

Geoff

Geoff Ryan on January 2nd, 2009

That’s it Kathie! You’ve well and truly got it! It’s all about being true to who we are and what we were raised up to be, the trappings as you quite rightly point out are just that … things to get caught in and caught on.

As we get sucked into a seeker sensitive, non-offensive, “happy place” where the grubby stuff like homeless, addicted, incarcerated, sick and poor people are left behind we become middle-class and whitebread and downright bland and ineffective.

Let’s keep believing the sleeping sallie giant will keep waking up to who and what we really are and not get sidetracked by glittering church growth schemes.

Bruce Redman on January 3rd, 2009

What about planting a new corps in a neighborhood that is not ready for what the Army is. I am asking because there may be a corps that is established but is for all intents and purposes a sick and dying corps. The thought is to “re-open” that corps tailored to the neighborhood.

This would mean that while a traditional Holiness Meeting would be kept for those who are soldiers of the corps. The remainder of the meetings would be geared to the interest of those trying to be reached.

It would still be very much Army, with flags, symbols, and uniforms!

Think urban corps, Hip-Hop corps with all the trappings of the Army.

Aaron Abram on January 12th, 2009

Sound and Fury

Does Power Corrupt? 19 Charlee, Errin Hogan, Errin Hogan
With God on our side 19 Hank Harwell, Robert Deidrick, John Stephenson
What The Hell? (Part One: Bell's Hell) 13 Phil, Jim, Jim
Officers - "The shrinking pool" 41 Thimon, David Hutchinson, Rob
Resurrected writers: Catherine Booth 1 Michelle Townsend