Salvation + ism = The Right Balance

More on “isms” from Joe Noland

This post is in response to the responses - see last post: The last thing I want is for my column to discourage anyone from TSA because that’s not the intent. Were it not for the Army and its God-given mission, who knows where I might be today. It wouldn’t be pretty, of this I’m confident.

It’s just that I so desperately want the Army mission to stay relevant and inclusive. It breaks my heart to see our young adults leaving the Army for other mission fields, and there are many doing so. As part of my own personal ministry, I speak with them every chance I get trying to ascertain the reasons why.

This whole ‘Ism” thing keeps surfacing in my conversations simply because, with the passing of generations, we (mostly from the top down) have come to define it wrongly: Statically, traditionally, exclusively. This, in turn, dilutes the original intent and meaning of Salvationism.

Salvationism is a two part word: Salvation + ism. The salvation part is never changing - the same, yesterday, today, forever (the conservative part). Ism, by its proper definition is “a movement” - always changing: “Mobile, fluid, robust, pulsating, progressive, maturing - Genesis in motion.” In other words, our methodology needs to stay relevant, inclusive and flexible in order to reach the last, the lost and least (the liberal part).

Now, some six generations later the “Ism” portion is in danger of losing its adaptability part, as most Isms are prone to do with the passing of time. These danger signals can be yawned away as repetitious and/or boring, as they so often are. My blogging plea is that we take the lead from Catherine Booth who rightly raised the “red flag” from the very beginning in her Aggressive Christianity Lecture Series.  Shouldn’t we continue to wave this ubiquitous “flag” so long as the danger lurks? Jesus persistently warned those around Him likewise, didn’t He?

Look! For conservative, liberal or those in between, there is no better mission field than TSA today if we get the “ism” part right. And there are growing expressions around the Army world that “get it!” And it’s spreading rapidly, thank God!

Every movement - new and old - must constantly and repetitiously examine its raison d’être. None are immune, the likes of Crystal Cathedral included. By the way, I don’t know about E flat horn players, but the Hour of Power is in need of a sanctified bassoonist. But, then again, they are experiencing their own schism at the moment, aren’t they? Better to stay with the Army, continuing to wave the red, yellow and blue flag - the red with its double entendre of course. After all, the red flag (both parts) will need waving wherever one goes. Unless you decide to bury your head in the sand that is, and many do.

I continue this examination, repetitiously, in the next post where the phrase Genesis in Motion is coined. It represents a creative attempt at defining Salvationism more clearly. Whoops, isn’t that another ism: Euphemism?

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.

10 Comments to Salvation + ism = The Right Balance

1. Dear Commissioner,

   I wasn’t going to respond to your post (uncharacteristic of me I know), but you have hit a ‘raw nerve’, and I can’t help myself! I warn in advance this is going to be a long post – so I don’t expect anyone else to bear with the length of it except yourself. But if anyone does – by all means…. join the discussion!!!!

   I find myself in the position of whole heartedly agreeing with the ideas you make in your article. However, I would vehemently take issue with your comment that ‘there are growing expressions around the Army world that “get it!”’ I don’t deny that there are parts in the Army world that ‘get it’, but I would suggest that they are in fact shrinking and something else is replacing them.

   I too have been deeply concerned with why people leave the Army (having left the Amy myself) and more broadly why people leave the church universal. My discussions and observations have led me to conclude that ‘form’ is irrelevant. What is relevant is ‘does what the Army (or the church) in regard to its’ theology have to offer, answer the human condition of the individual?’ Sadly, I think in many cases, the answer is ‘no’.

   There is a very strong conservative theology within the ‘Army, which I believe is gaining strength. My concern with this is that conservativism (there’s that ‘ism’) of any description, can only ultimately end in great harm to those around. We can look at ‘modernising our processes’ as much as we like, but if the underlying theology is conservative in nature, it can only end in destruction. Let me give a few examples….

   Recently, in Australia, there was a single officer who was found to have a level of mental illness. This manifested in her having a gambling addiction, and yes, she gambled some of the Corps funds. When it was discovered, instead of supporting her and trying to restore her to health, the ‘Army leaders prosecuted her and pushed for a prison sentence (which she received). That is a sad indictment against the ‘Army. This is not an isolated event. There are other cases currently ongoing which can’t be commented on because they are still in the courts. The ‘Army is pressing for jail sentences rather than trying to restore the individual.

   There was a client in an ‘Army rehab, who also had AIDS. Nothing unusual about that in this day and age. The ‘Army doctors and officers had his medication changed because the medication he was on would show up in urine tests similar results to if he had been ‘using drugs’. Now with this person, he was on that particular regime because other medication was ineffective in his case. When he complained about it, he was told that he can’t be serious enough about getting clean. As a result, his life was put at risk. He faced the very real risk that the virus would become immune to the only medication that was working for him, meaning he faced the prospect that the virus would overtake him in a few years, rather than living to a normal life span. Because of the conservatism of the doctors and officers involved, they would not accept up-to-date research on the subject. I saw this happen – I was the officer that took up his case and was soundly chastised for doing so. (By the way, having done considerable research on the subject of HIV/AIDS myself (for various reasons), much of the ‘Army’s understanding and position on the subject is dangerously (almost criminally) out of date and wrong. It would appear that the conservative theology of those involved prevent them from reading research papers that contradict their desired conclusions.)

   I repeatedly saw homosexuals being told at ‘Army welfare centres that they could have assistance if they were willing to give up their lifestyle etc., and if they weren’t willing to do so, then they can’t be in that great a need of assistance.

   From my experience, this is the ‘norm’ within the ‘Army (and much of the wider church). We can say that this is individual officers who do not represent God, but that’s a cop-out. Anyone who believes that needs to (respectively) take their blinkers off and look at what’s really going on. When it becomes the ‘norm’, there is another dynamic at play. Conservative theology, by its’ very nature, prevents the acceptance of any new idea that might challenge it. It forces a particular interpretation of the world that increasingly becomes far removed from reality, thereby causing such destruction. These ‘trends’ I would suggest are the only ultimate outcome of conservative theology. The growing conservatism within the ‘Army (and the church) is causing incalculable destruction. Yes, there are examples of individuals who are helped, but this would seem to be ‘the exception that proves the rule’ as it were. I do believe that conservatives will be held accountable on the day of judgment for the destruction in the world, and that they will be seen with the blood of murdered minorities on their hands and asked to ‘please explain’.

   It’s not just ‘processes’ that need to be changed, it’s the theology that also needs to continually be updated and re-examined in light of our growing understanding of our world and human nature. There is no place at this point in time for liberal theologians within the ‘Army. Where they are identified, they are usually pressured to leave, and this seems to be getting worse. I admit that there are some corps and officers to whom this does not apply, but once again, this would seem to be the exception that proves the rule. And I wonder how much longer they will survive in the current climate within the ‘Army.

   Style is only a superficial reason for people leaving. When I look at some of the congregations that are experiencing dramatic growth, their style is very old. The congregation I attend has a style similar to the ‘Army back in the 1960’s, but it is booming. Some High Church congregations are booming. Why? Because their theology is meeting the needs of the individual. It is a cop-out to say that their theology is ‘watered down’. It is relevant to people today, and reflects a more accurate understanding of our world.

   Here’s a challenge. When the first openly gay CO or DC or TC is appointed, and their relationship recognized, or even when the ‘Army starts ordaining same sex unions, or they put a float in the Mardi Gras to show their support for all people in society, then I will probably submit a letter to the personnel department requesting to be re-instated as an Officer. That will show to me that the ‘Army is willing to embrace a vibrant, growing theology which by its’ very nature is constantly changing and maturing. Until then, this is all just talk with no action.

   Yours in Christ,
   Graeme.
Graeme Randall on March 28th, 2009

2. Graeme: Wow, I did strike a nerve didn’t I. This kind of dialogue is good and healthy, and whilst I agree with a lot of what you say, I do have trouble with other parts. Maybe it has to do with semantics, the term “theology” being one of those concepts we wrestle with so often, semantically. Maybe it’s because both theology and practice (processes) sometimes get confused together. For example, is unconditional love (inclusiveness) theology or practice/process? The line begins to blur somewhere in there and, in fact, we get into trouble when we try to separate the two. The result is dogmatism at one extreme, and secular liberalism at the other. I like to think of myself as a sanctified liberal, by the way.

   Admittedly, I’ve seen some tragic results when the law has been followed, dogmatically, sans the compassion part. It’s the holy balance I’m after and preach in these retiring years, and will continue to do so passionately until the Lord decides to take me. Hopefully, that preach will live on through my writings even a little longer. In this short space there is no way I can respond to your frustration adequately. Thus I have written a controversial (by conservative standards) book addressing those very concerns: Lean Right, Love Left: Balancing the Body. It can be ordered on my website http://www.joenoland.com, the Creations link. If money is a problem, I’m happy to send it to you at no cost, just send me the address: joe@joenoland.com. That goes for anyone reading this comment.

   Finally, I do have the luxury of traveling the Army world more than many, and from my perspective, those who “get it” are part of a fresh wind that’s blowing (your expressed vehement disagreement respectfully noted). I don’t know your particular circumstances, but do resonate with your frustration. Thanks for sharing and for keeping in touch with the Army through the miracle of cyberspace. It does keep the flag waving.

   NOTE: I’ve taken more time than I normally would for this response because losing officers and young adult soldiers is a subject of critical importance and priority.

   JN
Joe Noland on March 28th, 2009

3. I wasn’t yawning to suggest that the danger signs aren’t to be noted and/or challenged. I was yawning at the assumption that simply because one takes his salvationism seriously that it automatically places me in the school that creates a museum out of a monument.

   Wave the flag, wave the flag, but please don’t assume that salvationism is always the cause. As I suggested, more likely it is traditionalism we’re up against.

   Creative salvationist mission, is as you say, attack+adapt+attract=some. I firmly believe that salvationism, as God intended, has the great potential to be a creative community where authenticly magnificent missional stuff happens. Its true, in many quarters it is being stifled. However, lets not make attacking salvationism the red herring in this conversation.

   I’ve been inspired by much of your writings Joe, and thank God for you. For those of us young salvationists who are seeking to work for change, we need all the encouragement we can get!
Andrew Clark on March 29th, 2009

4. Thanks Andrew, well said and couldn’t agree with you more. One of the dangers and drawbacks of this kind of medium is that something always gets lost in the translation, part of the risk involved in doing this. In eyeball to eyeball conversation there are inflections, body language, immediate feedback and other nuances that help with the interpretation. Thanks for the clarification.

   JN
Joe Noland on March 29th, 2009

5. We had General Larsson at the college yesterday and he spoke on being a visionary corps leader. He put the whole ‘Salvation + ism’ thing as ‘Salvation’ and ‘Army’, with Salvation being our mission and Army being our dynamic. As far as the dynamic is concerned we need to be unapologetically focussed on salvation, bold in proclaiming the full Gospel in relevant ways, adaptable, and aim for mobilising all our ‘troops’.

   It was suggested that by being adaptable we honour William Booth, not by doing what he did but by what he’d do today! This doesn’t mean that we have to destroy everything that has gone before but it does mean that we have to consider whether what we are doing is actually fulfilling our mission.

   What I love about the stories of the earliest day of The Salvation Army is that it was adaptable. People were sold out to the truth of the Gospel and were willing to try anything that furthered that aim, whilst throwing out anything that didn’t. Traditionalism tends to be passionate, system focussed and intractable! What’s true salvationism? Passionate, mission focussed and adaptable!
Graeme on March 30th, 2009

6. That Larsson has a way with words doesn’t he? Nicely put and helpful, your concluding comment included.

   Traditionalism: Passionate, system focused and intractable.
   Salvationism: Passionate, mission focused and adaptable.

   You have a way with words too, Graeme, I like that. Thanks for sharing. Now, the real challenge is making the talk fit the walk… at every level.

   JN
Joe Noland on March 30th, 2009

7. for Graeme you write a lot in the rubicon. to me I think you miss the yellow, red and blue. Love it or leave. Thanks Joe Iam still waving the flag at Cathedral City Church [corps] 6 months a year. regards to all henry armstrong. Just passing bye
henry armstrong on March 31st, 2009

8. I agree Joe that making the talk fit the walk is the essential thing. If we can, and I include myself in that, then I’m sure the best days of the Army’s involvement in God’s mission are ahead, not behind!
Graeme on April 6th, 2009

9. If I might chime in…I’ve been reading the recent articles on obstacles and culture, but I can’t help and notice a certain presupposition in the mix. Now, I don’t think anyone intends this, but it seems that we’ve fallen into the mistake of judging success in ministry, or following God’s will even, by numbers and conversions into our Army, or by the decline or increase of the church.

   Can you not think of completely false churches that have record attendance and finances? Are there not equally small but vibrant and healthy churches?

   If our practice and theology are moored to culture in order to appease it, rather than being moored to scripture, where is the foundation? What keeps us in the Truth? I just fear that in these discussions we’re missing objectivity somewhere.

   I want to be acceptable to the culture, but I want to follow the truth more. These are not always compatible.

   I want the culture to hear the gospel in the best and clearest way, but they may not want it regardless.

   I want to be relevant, innovative, new, reforming, rethinking, remaking, reimagining, redoing, culturally considerate, liberal in some ways, conservative in others, loving, hopeful, peaceful, gentle, etc. But all of these need foundation in something. It must be God. It must be Christ. It must be the Holy Spirit. Our foundation must be in God and in His revelation, the scriptures.

   David Witthoff
David Witthoff on April 7th, 2009

10. David:

    Ahhhh - But what is ‘Truth’. I think, fundamentally, that is where all the disagreement is. I fear we will never have universal agreement on what is truth.

    Graeme.
Graeme Randall on April 7th, 2009

Leave a comment