A global vision | Salvation for the world

by Phil Wall

Evangeline Booth wrote The world for God and in doing so articulated a battle cry that has been at the heart of Salvationism from our earliest days. This was not just a vision statement for a religious organization but rather a worldview though which Salvationists were to engage their faith. Narrow parochialism is the antithesis of historical Salvationism and I am of the opinion that it is only a full embracing of such a world view by leadership that will ensure our future. I begin my reflections on “leading with a global vision” by asking what kind of world we find ourselves in.

The world is in paradox - both expanding and contracting at the same time. The sociologist Benjamin Barber writes in his book MacWorld versus Jihad of the clash at the heart of this paradox. On the one hand, globalization is uniting the world and creating a global cultural intimacy never seen before. It is drawing us together primarily through market capitalism and technical innovations. The fastest growing market for mobile phone technology is Africa, and it is no accident that the second best known English phrase around the world after Hallelujah is Coca Cola. The Church must have a bigger marketing budget!

At the same time we are shrinking and local and tribal interests are gaining increasing influence and power around the world. Devolution in Scotland, tribal conflict in Rwanda and Bosnia, voting trends in governments are examples of this, in part a reaction to the homogenizing influence of globalization.

Economically the gap between rich and poor continues to increase. Consider the 24 mostly Western developed nations (including North America, Western Europe, Australia and New Zealand).  With a population of 900 million, the GNI is $27,000 USD. Compare this to 1.2 billion people who live on under $1.00 a day and 2.7 billion who people live on under $2.00 USD a dollar a day. Historical injustices, indigenous corruption and corrupt markets protectionism is responsible for such a situation.

Environmentally we are heading towards global catastrophe that if not responded to urgently and strategically will, within 25 years, be irreversible and will change forever how people live on the earth.

Spiritually the world is in the grip of what some have called the Third Reformation. Whilst the Church in the Northern hemisphere struggles, a remarkable revolution is taking place in the South.

For example in 1900 there were about 10 million Christians in Africa, about 10% of the population. Now they number around 360 million, 46% of the population and growing fast. The fastest growing community is within Pentecostalism that by 2040 will number around one billion worldwide. The Church will number around 2.6 billion, making it by far the largest religion in the world.

Philip Jenkins, Distinguished Professor of History and Religious studies at Penn State University asserts that the 21st Century will be one in which “…religion replaced ideology as the prime animating and destructive force in human affairs”. Christianity will dominate not just the religious landscape but also the social, political, economic, environmental and even military ones as it clashes with Islam in the South and liberal rationalism in the North. We are in a spiritual revolution.

This is a snapshot of our global context, and as Salvationists we must begin with our mission context and not our “ecclesiastical clutter”, as it was once described by Philip Needham. Before moving on it is important to consider “home base”. The Army is largely a mirror image of the developments described above, with positive growth in the South and desperate decline in most of the North, with a few glorious exceptions of indigenous corps and some of the more so-called “contemporary” expressions.

In the North we continually struggle to inspire and capture the hearts and minds of young people. Even in the Southern Hemisphere, where the Army is mostly young, the onset of urbanization and globalization is beginning to have a similar impact upon the more educated/Westernized young people who increasingly leave the Army and move to the more Pentecostal/charismatic traditions.
I think the kinds of leaders who most likely thrive in this emerging context and help us fulfill our global calling are what I call “Contemplative activists”.

Their ecclesiology will be diverse. As I have reflected on 43 years of Salvationism it seems to me that part of our challenge is not that we took the military metaphor too far but rather we have not taken it far enough. The “parade ground” Salvationism that dominates much of the West has not helped the Army to fulfill our global vision. These leaders will take the metaphor much further and maybe create something of a cadre of Salvationist “special forces”.

Such leaders are able to blend in with local cultures, are more at home amongst those they are seeking to reach than they are within the cloisters of Army committee meetings or Sunday services. They will ‘incarnate’ themselves in their mission fields in ways that will enable them to reach those largely un-reachable. This includes young people living in very distinct sub-cultures,  such as the Islamic world that normally only meets Christians within the worlds of business or education, and the poor.

Like the earliest disciples, few will be “professional clerics”, but they will live and breathe the Kingdom of God in their worlds. Many will be ‘bi-vocational’,  most will be free from the security and at times bondage of “church funds”. They will live by faith, they will create resource. These future leaders will define themselves not by religious trappings but by their experience of Christ, their relationships and the context to which they find themselves called.

Their theology of holiness will be broad. To respond to the context as described above they will need to stretch Booth’s “war on two fronts” framework to the full. They will be informed theologically, ethically distinct and culturally engaged. Holiness merely defined by personal piety will be rejected as shallow heresy. As we look back with horror at dualistic evangelicals like John Newton who for years saw no wrong with slavery and profited from it, so these warrior monks will view our own antipathy towards issues such as the environment. They will take their holiness theology seriously and regularly engage in political/social action. Their theology of holiness will call them to take up an often costly prophetic mantle.

Their economics will be sacrificial. To slay the ever present “golden calf” and release much needed resource, like monks, they will live with a “theology of enough”. Frugality and simplicity will live comfortably alongside of joyful extravagance as they live lives of generosity in response to an extravagant God, holding tightly to Jesus and loosely to possessions.

Their spirituality will be eclectic. This will enable them to move freely in and out of the different contexts in which they find themselves. It will be heavily relational - this will be a generation of leaders for whom relationship is primary and structure, with so-called orthodoxy. They will not sit comfortably within systems. They will be marked by openness to mystery, pilgrims amongst the richness of other traditions and more than likely have some kind of intimate charismatic/Pentecostal experience.

To survive in the challenging environments to which they must go they will need a militant commitment to the historic spiritual disciplines and strong accountable relationships. This will be critical in creating the resilience required for the constantly changing terrain of their battle fields. For this Army to win its battles it will truly need to be an Army marching on its knees.

William Booth shared a prophetic vision towards the end of his life of the emergence of a Religious Order within the Army. He called them “The red hot sons of salvation” amongst other names. They were contemplative activists, deeply in love with Jesus and intimately engaged with His world. If ever the world needed such a Salvation Army, it needs it now.

Writer: Phil Wall is CEO of Signify where he provides leadership and coaching services to senior corporate executives in the UK and US. Phil previously worked as a London police officer and as a communicator/leadership trainer with The Salvation Army in the UK.

8 Comments to A global vision | Salvation for the world

1. thanks Phil - very interetsting article… not sure I understood the paragraph
   “Their …..themselves. It will be heavily relational - this will be a generation of leaders for whom relationship is primary and structure, with so-called orthodoxy. ”

   what do you mean? I’m interetsted because I have been exploring for a while the relationship between orthodoxy and the third reformation as you call it….

   david
David R on April 30th, 2009

2. Thank you Phil for your insightful essay on the future of Salvationism. I found it intriguing how some Salvos are leaving the Army for more charasmatic/pentecostal churches. It is interesting to note how in the early days of The Salvation Army, it was largely a charasmatic movement. It could also explain why the Army grew so quickly. Perhaps these Salvos left out of a deeper need of signs and wonders? Who knows. Interesting I did find it.

   I believe that a return to holiness is all important for the Army. As General John Gowans once preached, the Army needs to have Holiness meetings again. I grew up a Salvo and did not truly understand Holiness until a few years back.

   Thank you for your article once again.

   Shalom.
Peter Haslett on April 30th, 2009

3. Sign me up. With one contingency, though - can you rework the environmental paragraph? I don’t want to get into a political discussion, but the unsubstantiated 25-year comment seems to weaken your overall article. There is much scientific debate about the legitimacy of some of the claims being made about man-made global warming.

   Check this out:
   http://ibdeditorials.com/CartoonPopUp.aspx?id=272659250197933
Jeremiah on April 30th, 2009

4. Thanks for the optimism for the future!

   I was a bit taken with your overemphasis on environmental issues (seemingly giving the lack of attention to environmental issues the modern moral equivalence to slavery). After examining the issue both from a moral and a scientific perspective I see most of modern environmentalism as neither moral nor scientific. In fact, much of today’s environmental movement is pure scientific and spiritual deception. Quite frankly, I’m amazed at just how much of the Church has jumped along on that very deceptive New Age coattail.

   The young people will find far more relevant ways to maximize holiness as demonstrated in the ‘war and two fronts’ motiff. Perhaps adoption rates will soar among them so that those facing a decision about abortion have more than theoretical options. Perhaps they will reemphasize, renew, and reclaim the dying role of fatherhood in many Western nations and some sub-cultures.

   All of us want a clean planet and should work to that end, but I neither see Biblical mandate nor scientific evidence (if ALL the evidence is examined) that should result in calling the Church to an issue that is neither critical nor based in eternity.
David Payton on May 12th, 2009

5. With all due respect David if you can’t see a biblical mandate .. Try Genesis 1 for starters, for good stewardship of the earth then you have not grasped one of the foundational points of Christianity - sadly like many people out there still stuck in the dualist, platonic perversion of Christianity that still lurks (largely in North America).

   I am going to give a much fuller answer to this when I am free, but my preliminary comment is this: Through Genesis to Revelation the Mission of God is to completely renew and restore his good creation. Despite the presence of evil it doesn’t make creation evil, but fallen. God’s purposes were always to renew, not to obliterate the heavens and the earth unlike much of the dualist, left-behind nonsense that is still rife in the world today (including a book on the Rapture by a Salvationist to my great dismay). That great act of renewal, yes, is still yet to come, but we as the messengers of this good news need to be anticipating this already in our preaching and praxis. If holiness is merely about ‘my private spirituality’ and doesn’t include the vital topics such as justice, peace, stewardship and tangible acts of new creation bursting upon this world by human beings through the power of the creator and redeemer God, then it is not biblical Christianity and it is merely this ‘New age’ rubbish that you are eager to press on to the Christianity that includes discussion of these topics.
   More of this to follow.
Craig Gaudion on May 13th, 2009

6. Now were talking, Craig! Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem like we’re communicating. You don’t seem to have carefully read my comments but indeed have done much to read INTO them that which you disagree. If you’d lower your pulse and put aside your (North American) prejudices you might find there are issues on which we agree.

   Two strikes against you, Craig. Strike One; I never implied that personal piety and things like justice, peace, and stewardship mutually exclusive concepts. In fact, my comments on adoption and the revitalization of fatherhood were aimed at communicating just the opposite (but could you hear it?).

   Strike two; I have taught Genesis 1 at the School for Officers Training for 7 years. I have taught the Hebrew for the verb in Genesis 1:26 and 28 for “dominion” (KJV) or “rule” (NIV) as describing man’s relationship to the creation. It can mean one or a combination of the following: to tread down, to subjugate, to have dominion, to prevail against, to reign over, to rule over, or to take. I see THIS as a true Biblical mandate.

   As I mentioned in my first comments (but could you hear it?), everyone wants a clean planet and should work to that end. Everyone believes in being good stewards of God’s creation. But according to Genesis 1, the planet was made for man (like the Sabbath) not man for the planet. We are to rule over creation and take advantage of all it offers us without abusing it.

   The New Age Movement has unabashedly made the planet it’s god, which is why any believer should be very wary of joining hands with any environmental organization.

   Again, I am a bit dis-heartened to hear believers claim that this issue is a “foundational point of Christianity”. Apparently, we just discovered this ‘foundation’ to be so in our generation. Where is Paul on this subject? What did Jesus say about it if it is so ‘foundational’ to Christianity?

   But what scares me more than anything was your undoing of the biblical message so that you could make your environmental message the correct one. You say that “God’s purposes were always to renew, not to obliterate the heavens and the earth”. I guess if that were true then an environmental ‘foundation’ to Christianity can be invented. But the Bible DOES say in several places that God will indeed destroy both heaven and the earth. If you wish I will site them. How can you say otherwise other than to force Christianity into a new extra-Biblical mold?

   This, by far, is the most dangerous and damaging trend you’ve brought up. It goes beyond gray-area points of contention to actually challenge the integrity of Scripture to make it mean whatever the latest trendy philosophy we’ve tacked onto Christianity means.

   I challenge you to actually present a truly Biblical argument on this subject. I’m not looking for an argument based in the rational, reasonable, or even the logical seeing this is not philosophical argument (though you are welcome to use the Scriptures rationally, reasonably, and logically). I must tell you, I have yet to see any Biblical argument why the Church should align itself with the priorities of the modern environmentalist movement.

   And I have not even BEGUN to debate you on the science that is supposed to be behind all this which is getting harder and harder for it’s proponents to defend.

   I would like to say that I look forward to your, “More of this to follow”, but the reality is that I am very anxious (not in a good way) to hear it.
David Payton on May 13th, 2009

7. Dear David please don’t project on to me any such notion of a ‘quickened pulse’ and American prejudices which aren’t there. I am merely stating a FACT that large portions of North America (yes it is prevalent in a few pockets of the UK) have embraced the unbiblical idea that God will ‘rapture’ a chosen portion of the world whilst will let the earth go up in flames along with most of humankind. This IS unbiblical, a complete misunderstanding of the apocalyptic genre.

   I do not apologise for using philosophical argument and rationality in my approach. To suggest that these tools are not needed when approaching a subject like this (yes providing it is completely underpinned with a biblical foundation) is misguided I’m afraid.
   If it’s a fight you want, I am not going to give it, nor a proof-texting war. I think I as a full-dress response I will write my own article as a spin-off to Phil’s, provided I get the permission from the Rubicon chiefs.

   Grace to you,
   Craig
Craig Gaudion on May 15th, 2009

8. Craig

   Thanks. I’ll take all the grace you can offer! It did feel like you we’re coming out swinging in your first response which caught me a bit off guard. Opinions on this subject are clearly strong and divided even here in the States. Bible fights and proof-texting wars, in my experience, do nothing to entrenched opinions (except make them more entrenched).

   But I do consider myself ahead of the game a bit because my opinions in my life have been all over the board. I have at different times been Pre, Post, and even Mid trib Rapture while studying this in college. I have even wavered with environmentalism. I struggled between Just War theories and Pacifism for DECADES until arriving at a position. So I do like to consider myself open and ready for more.

   As a word of explanation, in my Western and Eastern Europe travels, my living in Finland for four years, my serving in Russia for seven years, my serving alongside Salvation Army officers, Envoys, and soldiers from many countries along the way, I must admit being blown over by the anti-American sentiments I encountered which I naively did not expect at all. Neither officer rank nor spiritual maturity seemed to matter at all. Almost everyone without exception had some kind of irrational bitterness aimed at my heritage. I say ‘irrational’ because whenever I pressed for an explanation the answers were wildly disproportionate to the emotions involved. It ranged from a mild joking form of camaraderie to a visceral venom. I learned to adjust but an adjustment it was. The Body of Christ, unfortunately, is all too often just a step or two behind the world in all these things instead of being as distinct as it ought. American Salvationists have no clue how much they are despised even by their brother and sister Salvationists around the world. Perhaps I was wrong, but that is what I saw in your in your first response.

   My only objection to the use of philosophy, logic, reason an the like in making any argument is when it is done devoid of Biblical content especially when discoursing on spiritual things.

   Remember the 70’ies and 80’ies when the airwaves were flooded with fundamentalists preachers offering us supposed Biblical arguments why Rock and Roll was of the devil? Finally in 1987 I took them all to task and wrote a research paper called “Rock and Roll Redeemed” showing how none of there arguments were Biblical at all. The may have been philosophical, cultural, logical, or even reasonable; but they were not Biblical. The best they could do was to pull some vague passages from Old Testament prophetic books and claim they had something to do with the subject at hand (that’s mainly how most cults get started).

   I see the same trend here with environmentalism. You saw my Biblical argument in my comments. I think that pretty much sums it up, unless you bring a boatload of philosophy, logic, and reason TO the Bible message? But, as I said, I like to think I’m open if you can show me something I just don’t see.

   I guess it eventually will come down to how severe we all interpret the word “stewardship” as it relates to creation balanced with the command/blessing to “rule/have dominion” over it. And no doubt we will all have different thresholds on that interpretation.

   My concern is that this issue does not distract us from our Great Commission aimed at those who are based in eternity. Booth’s passion was for souls and I think our definition of holiness even 1000 years from now will have a hard time improving on that.

   Grace taken, and given,

   David
David Payton on May 15th, 2009

Leave a comment