Primitive Salvationism | scary

Joe Noland says live riskily

I feel compelled to expand upon some earlier thoughts posted over at Slightly Irregular. In flight to Hawaii, I read a very interesting novel, Early Autumn, by Robert B. Parker. While a bit controversial in some aspects, it’s the story of a private detective taking an abused teenager under his proverbial wing. In the story, he gives this boy some advice, paraphrased as follows:

“There are no boundaries, and that’s scary. Without boundaries, there is no control, and that’s even scarier. If you avoid looking over the edge, it won’t scare you to death.

Reality is uncertain. Insecure people want certainty; that is, they want to escape reality or control their reality or make it the way they ‘suppose’ it to be. They spend their lives trying to be what they’re ‘supposed’ to be. You are going to have to get autonomous,” advises the detective.

Sounds familiar, doesn’t it? It’s a cyclical dictum of institutional structure and culture. Read the New Testament and this truism rings forth with even greater clarity. Jesus exercised his autonomy for all the right reasons. The original Ten “Supposes” (Commandments) had proliferated out of control, perpetuating an illusion that the religious authority was in control. In their pursuit of certainty, oppression and suppression became the hierarchical reality of the day. Jesus came to set us free, which included liberation from the bondage of all those add-on “supposes.”

Later, Martin Luther was inspired to exert his autonomy and break the cycle similarly. Think about it: didn’t the Booths exercise their autonomy likewise in opposition to this “suppose” mentality, thus persuading them to leave New Connexion Methodism? All three were sent to preach a Gospel of freedom. Today we study the “supposes” of the 1st, 15th and 19th century-like Sanhedrin and exclaim, “Pshaw!” Wait a New York minute! Is there little difference in this 21st Century?

Comparatively, the religious right today, with its dogmatic proclamation of certainty, scares me to death - as does the Army’s increasing tendency to lean in that direction, especially with its ever-growing proclivity for structure, regulation, uniformity and conformity. Autonomy be damned! Literally.

The advice given by Parker and liberally paraphrased by me: “Live riskily. Look over the edge once in awhile. Don’t get hung up on what you are ‘supposed’ to be, or what others ‘suppose’ you to be. Learn to exert your God-given individuality. Become what God supposes you to be.” There you have my definition of “Primitive Salvationism.” Talk about scary!

Writer: Commissioner Joe Noland’s ministry can be summed up in three words: chaos, creativity and controversy - three elements implicit in any successful innovative endeavor. Cecil B. DeMille, renowned producer of Biblical epics, once wrote, “Creativity is a drug I cannot live without.” Joe’s mantra reads, “Creativity is my drug of choice.”  Access Joe Noland’s complete bio, among other things, by clicking into his website.

2 Comments to Primitive Salvationism | scary

1. Commissioner,

   You have a great article here. I agree with you in that organizations, ours in particular, could benefit from taking a few more risks and by trying things in way we haven’t tried them before.

   Your ending though has me a bit concerned. You say that we shouldn’t attempt to be what others suppose we should be, and that the individuality of following God’s plan is where our real path is in life, and that this is true “Primitive Salvationism.”

   But I’ve encountered many instances where I’ve talked with self-proclaimed “Primitives” about my plans in higher education only to be met with questions like “Why would you want to do THAT (go to seminary)? Or “What are you going to do with THAT? Mostly these questions imply that the knowledge and education gained will be completely useless. So while it’s good to do what God directs and not what others suppose, I find Primitive Salvationism has its own suppositions which it imposes on me (and I on them, to be fair).

   I suppose what I’m getting at though is that the method of “risk” is different, one from another. What one person sees as institutionalization may be risk to another, and what one sees as risk, another sees as an antiquated tradition. Education is a great example of this. What’s the greater risk, having 20 year old cadets, or raising the standard to require Master’s level work before training? Most will say the former, but I find whenever a higher standard is mentioned, people argue the logistics of changing everything, almost as if it were too great a risk to change…

   So I accept the idea of risk, but perhaps it needs fine-tuning. Are there different types of risk? Good risk and bad risk? How would we know the difference? Not to relativize this so much, but the perspective of the observer is going to be crucial in evaluating risk, right?

   Dave
David Witthoff on March 5th, 2009

2. You’re absolutely right Dave! The post did exactly what it was intended (not supposed) to do: make one think and apply individualistically. There are no easy, simplistic formulas for risk-taking. Thanks for some excellent thoughts. Also, I probably didn’t phrase the ending properly and have added some clarifying thoughts over at my blog: http://www.joenoland.com - Blog 1.
Joe Noland on March 5th, 2009

Leave a comment