The Purpose of Work - Work Redefined #2

Work - How Do we Measure Its Value and Significance?

My move, or calling, into full time Christian ministry, was focused on the poor people in the inner city and their need for dignified and meaningful work. I had spent several years volunteering at a drop-in that served the most obvious needs of the homeless: soup, socks and a roof over their heads for a few hours. I began to see loneliness and boredom as two of the greatest problems that they faced on a daily basis.

The causes were many and often went right back to early childhood experiences. In most cases they had been set aside at a very young age, often told that they were useless by their own parents, because of learning disabilities or other challenges. This too was often the experience of several generations. So a child might have never seen anyone close to them in a positive or meaningful work situation. Malcolm Gladwell, in his book Outliers, reveals the stories behind the stories of people who achieve great success and demonstrates very clearly that there is really no such thing as individual success. I suppose then that there is really no such thing as individual failure. I recognize of course that there is always a moment when we make choices individually, and we therefore have individual responsibility. However, the atmosphere from which we breathe forth our ideas, the community and experiences that we live and learn in, have an undeniable influence on the decision making process. How could we change that atmosphere? Simply providing soup and socks wasn’t changing their view of the world around them, perhaps it was only reinforcing the idea that had been drummed into them from an early age, the idea that they were useless.

Over the next few years I developed a program, based in a woodworking shop, that was designed to introduce those, who are often referred to as, the useless people, to a positive, supportive and meaningful work experience. I was determined to have them prove to themselves that they weren’t useless. So for the next few years I invited people from the drop-in to the shop, where we worked together building furniture. It was my theory that if they were engaged in making beautiful things that other people valued/bought then their efforts would become meaningful. The value or price paid by the customer became the expression of the makers usefulness. What added even more significance was that very often these pieces went and occupied a place of importance in the homes of the buyers. Trunks that we thought would be good for storing blankets ended up as coffee tables. People bought these products because they loved them and in the process they loved the people who made them. This value/love transaction was not lost on the builders, I saw it on their faces.

It all seemed wonderful, but of course there were challenges. Many of the folks we were working with had a deeply wounded sense of self. The lies that had been stuck to them by the generations before them were their truth, and therefore the truths that they were experiencing at the shop felt like lies. They were often angry to the core, or full of fear and anxiety, or both. Controlling those feelings with drugs or alcohol is what they were taught and what they practiced. They’re minds, fractured into little pieces, were designed to survive the various challenges that life throws at them. Often the positive affirmations experienced in the shop did not transfer into these other areas of their lives. For a few the experience was enough to turn their lights on, for most it simply wasn’t. We had participants who quit the program to go back to school, we’ve had others transfer their new found selves into unrelated jobs. Sadly though, we had one who bought a bottle with his meagre stipend, and drank himself to death in the very last days of the year. 

In the end the biggest challenge we faced was ourselves. The challenge was initially expressed as a financial crisis. The cost of supporting the program was too great. What became very clear, very quickly was that the cost of this program, compared with soup’n socks, was too high. The return didn’t justify the investment. If we were to carry on then the expense to revenue ratio would have to be brought in line, balanced. It was even suggested that if the work training program was to be meaningful, it had to be profitable. I could not bring myself to become the oppressor, striving for profit over the needs of the participants. 

That journey, and the violent collision of paradigms that ended it, brought me to a new realization that the way we value work needs further investigation. The idea that work is the property of business, and that it must be profitable in order to be considered meaningful, needs to be rethought. The philosophy, which dates back to the great Greek thinkers, that work is toilsome, and is relieved through leisure activities, also needs to be challenged. Before I take on the ancient philosophers whose names I can’t spell, I should declare that I am neither philosopher, nor psychologist nor sociologist. I am merely a front line worker who has seen first hand, the problems that this line of thinking manifests. If leisure feeds our souls and work drains our souls, and leisure can only be purchased with the profits from our work, then how do those who can’t work profitably feed their souls? The answer of course is they don’t. People who can’t afford to purchase what makes them feel alive simply steal to purchase what makes the struggle of life less painful. On the other end of that scale, those who can work profitably, find that the money then becomes the vehicle to meaning. Their pay cheques purchase the things that give meaning to their lives. Their sense of self no longer comes from the work of their hands, but from the money. All who embrace this world view, spend all of their effort chasing money. They will often exchange skill for cash, but they will do it in ways that rob their soul. They know bang for the buck. Why search for meaning in the work?

I recently read a book, Shop Class as Soul Craft by Matthew B Crawford, that sought to inquire into the value of work. Every once in a while someone comes along and talks about work on a higher level than simply gittin’er done. Crawford is one and the other that comes to mind is Robert Pursig, in Zen and the Art of Motorocycle Maintenance. It’s obvious that Pursig, and his sense of Quality as the very essence of life, had a significant influence on Crawford. Crawford dives deep into the value of work, especially the work of the hands. He completely reverses the notion that manual labour is less intellectual than information based work. Although he stays away from the spiritual component of work, he does, as the title suggests, unfold the true value as being that which comes from the soul of the worker. In jobs where the task requires only labour, and shuns any kind of creative expression, where excellence is only measured by compliance to the status quo, the worker withers. As Crawford puts it, “…the degradation of work is often based on efforts to replace the intuitive judgments of practitioners with rule following…”. This renders the value of the workers efforts extrinsic.  

So, how should we measure the value of work? The green revolution, as well as the mortgage market melt down, is beginning to teach us to count all the costs, although I think we’re still just faking it in most cases. However, the idea that there are indirect expenses that need to be considered is something that is floating to the surface. If we are to measure the real value of work then I believe the formula needs to include the life of the worker. Up to this point business has treated the life of the workers as a cheap and infinite commodity. I suppose this is true if we only consider labour as a component. I believe that the act of work, involves the pouring of ones life into a product, and that the sense of self-worth should be realized in the process. If work is to be fully valued then it must reflect both the extrinsic and intrinsic values. 

Although the problem of degradation of work effects many, and even those with steady jobs, my great concern is for those who are not able to work at a profitable pace? What do we do with the unemployables? We can give them welfare or we can put them in jail, because we believe jail is less costly than caring for them. When they get out we can give them soup’n socks. However, none of these solutions will provide the soul food that good work does. There are organizations involved in providing work, within a supportive environment, to people who are not able to function at a competitive pace. However, in order to be eligible for these programs, you must be declared intellectually challenged according to Ministry of Health standards. What then do we do with the people who fall between that bench mark and the expectation of consistently competitive? I’m referring to people with learning disabilities, who have been labeled retarded by everyone except the Ministry of Health. Others are survivors of childhood trauma. In school, teachers described them as those who do not try hard enough. They are the people who hang around on the corners asking for spare change. They are the ones who make us all mutter, “Get a job”.

My final point in all of this is regarding the perspective of the Church. There is value in those lazy, useless people, the Bible says so. In the very opening pages of the Biblical epic we see God working and enjoying His work. It is in those same verses that God declares us made in the image of the Trinity. I believe that work is a vital need, no different than a roof overhead, or a meal on the table. It is in our work that we discover for ourselves, and reveal to others, just who we were created to be. Without work we become invisible, like the battered man on the road to Jericho, passed by, eclipsed. The Church seems to have handed work over to business, because they have bought into the idea that work is only about making money. The Churches response to the beggar is “get a job”. 

My conclusion is that the Church, and that includes para-church ministries and missions, should have a strategy that includes healthy and meaningful work opportunities for all in their care. We need to make sure that we are not simply feeding their short term needs and ignoring who they really are. Our response to this challenge should be, “Come and share my work with me, I want to see who God has created you to be”. There in lies the value.

Writer: Wayne Rumsby is at least a fourth generation follower of Jesus Christ. In his late 30’s Wayne responded to an invitation to visit an inner city mission in the heart of Toronto. At the time he was working as a graphic designer. It wasn’t long before he left his job in the fast paced ad business, in the glass towers, to become a full time missionary on the streets and in the alleys. The focus of his mission was to help the marginalized discover God through meaningful work. For most of the past decade Wayne was helping people discover who God had created them to be, by teaching them to make beautiful furniture in a woodworking shop. Today Wayne and his wife Linda are working with the team at 614 Regent Park with the very same vision, helping people discover who God has created them to be, and more. 

The Purpose of Work - Work Redefined #1

Ihave been told that work belongs in the realm of business and not within the realm of Christian community development. I have also been told that work that is not profitable, is not meaningful. So, what is the purpose of work? I believe that we have all come to embrace the idea that work is toilsome, it is part of the curse brought on us by the original sin. Or, perhaps we hold a more secular philosophy, that work is the opposite of leisure.

We work so we can live. We spend most of our time draining our souls, so that we can spend the excess of our efforts on something that will replenish our souls. This is a dreary existence. For many there is never enough excess, their souls are being slowly drained.

Then there are those who can’t compete, they can’t even get in the game. They can’t afford to purchase what makes them feel alive, so they simply steal to purchase what makes the struggle of life less painful. In their pursuit of soulful meaning they will often exchange skill for cash, in ways that robs their soul. These are the poor and many of them wear suits.

The dictionary defines work as: productive or operative activity. That’s straight up, no cultural or philosophical baggage there. My own definition is: any effort focused on a desired outcome and leisure is any effort with no desired outcome. The early chapters of the Bible holds some clues about work. Perhaps a more biblical definition of work would be: a creative, productive or operative activity that reveals the worker. God’s creation is revelation, and we are created in His images. Therefore, our work, our efforts, become meaningful when they are productive, but also when they reveal God and His images in us.

The Church seems to have handed work over to business, because they have bought into the idea that work is only about making money. Our response to the beggar is “get a job”. We have declared that the only kind of work that is honorable is paid work, and anyone who can not pull their weight is useless. We have become like those who passed by on the road to Jericho. I have a son who is 15 years old, he looks like 7 and has the mental capacity of an infant. By these terms he is useless. I have a friend who was traumatized as a child when his step-father danced around, waving his chainsaw. The roar of the saw drowned out the screams of his little sister, who was tied naked to the kitchen table. By these terms he is useless.

What about those with learning disabilities? They are often convinced by the system, and their families, that they’d never amount to anything? By these terms they are useless.

Therefore, the Church, and that includes all of the Rubicon community, needs to have a strategy that includes healthy and meaningful work opportunities for all in their care. We need to make sure that we are not simply feeding their short term needs and ignoring who they really are. Our response to this challenge should be, “Come and share my work with me, I want to see who God has created you to be”. 

Writer: Wayne Rumsby is at least a fourth generation follower of Jesus Christ. In his late 30’s Wayne responded to an invitation to visit an inner city mission in the heart of Toronto. At the time he was working as a graphic designer. It wasn’t long before he left his job in the fast paced ad business, in the glass towers, to become a full time missionary on the streets and in the alleys. The focus of his mission was to help the marginalized discover God through meaningful work. For most of the past decade Wayne was helping people discover who God had created them to be, by teaching them to make beautiful furniture in a woodworking shop. Today Wayne and his wife Linda are working with the team at 614 with the very same vision, helping people discover who God has created them to be, and more. 

The Match Factory

Tags: action, climate justice, copenhagen, ideas, international day for the abolition of slavery, international day of volunteering, Match factory, social action, social action ideas, the rubicon, theRubicon, un climate negotiations

Deeper shade of Grey | Faith House 17

Real lives in Kings Cross…   

 “Are you queuing mate..?”

“No … no …. no!” I stammer a little too quickly, I compose myself and continue “be my guest…” I usher the city gent into the space I was holding and realise perhaps that wasn’t what a minister of religion should be saying to a perfect stranger in the reception of a brothel in London’s notorious Kings Cross!

Did I say brothel? I meant to say sauna and massage parlour, the youngish guy looks almost as nervous as me as he looks down a price list. The bouncer helps, “that’s £20 to get in and £100 for the girl…”, the £20 is rung into the till, a towel is handed over and the guy disappears behind a door to have a break in his journey before heading to the home counties hinterland to his leafy suburb. Did I say ‘break in his journey?’

I continue in my conversation with a hard nosed receptionist/bouncer about mining in Yorkshire as the red light outside beckons another punter, another £20 and towel is exchanged, he disappears. It is not every day that you get invited to go on a ’sauna and massage parlour crawl’, I’m being introduced to Faith House’s detached work to some of Kings Cross’ sex workers.

This is how it works Estelle and Anna waltz into the inner sanctum with a wave, a smile and a cheery ‘Salvation Army’, to check that the girls are OK, to have a chat, exchange CD’s, I stay outside to talk with the bouncers. For a year now this special relationship with several ‘parlours’ and lap dancing clubs has developed to the point where the team are welcomed and expected. I learn quickly not to look at the monitors, to keep eye contact, in a friendly but disinterested way, as one of the girls comes for change. There’s something a little bizarre as the bouncer breaks from telling me about life down a mine to open the till for a girl who for a few years could be my daughter.

After walking, praying and chatting for nearly two hours we return. This is what struck me, ‘those pictures’ in the phone boxes that teenage boys snigger at and stuff in their back pockets, are real people, with real stories. Holiday had seen me catch up with the BBC’s The Street, one episode saw Anna Friel as a single mother who would do anything for her two boys, even working in a sauna as a prostitute to afford the larger mortgage to get away from the school bullies. Tonight there was an uncanny resemblance, except this is not fiction.

Here’s where the attributes of God are incarnated into the real lives of those, who for whatever reason, either need to become a commodity, or facilitate an industry for commuters heading off to the suburbs.

Writer: Capt. Gordon Cotterill lives in London, England, is married to Kate and has two daughters Bethan and Eryn. He has been a Salvation Army officer for ten years and ‘cut his teeth’ in ministry with his wife as the corps officers at Poplar in the East End of London. The lessons he learned there in his day-to-day ministry, amid the chaos of the inner city, continue to shape his understanding and passion for biblical and grace-centred mission. His latest appointment as Spiritual Programme Director at the William Booth College, London now offers him the opportunity for the fusion and exploration of ‘mission’ and ’spiritual formation’ while trying to inspire a new generation of Salvation Army officers as to their role in God’s plan for His creation. Gordon keeps a blog where he mulls over themes of mostly, mission and spiritual formation.

SA Non-Negotiables?

Iwas recently asked what I thought the “non-negotiables” of The Salvation Army were. I thought my reply might interest others …

I always find the discussion regarding “non-negotiables” somewhat amusing. It seems to be a perpetual one that has become more prevalent in the last ten years or so. I can remember the then Commissioner Shaw Clifton (now General) speaking at the Coutts Memorial Lecture when I was in college (2003) on this very topic. His talk from that occasion is now the first chapter of his book New Love. He shared his 8 “non-negotiables” on that occasion…

1. Realism
2. Idealism
3. Acceptance (or Inclusiveness)
4. Compassion
5. Simplicity
6. Internationalism
7. Visibility
8. Audibility

I’ve also been a part of a similar discussion at a conference in Melbourne in 2006. There it was about Salvation Army “DNA”. All that’s just to say that this discussion keeps revolving and never seems to come to a definitive conclusion.

This is all just symptomatic of The Salvation Army’s “identity crisis” of the last 10 years. The ultimate question here is “Who are we?”.

For me, using the General’s list as a starting point, I struggle with the obvious lack of biblical language within that list of distinctives. You may be aware that the YMCA was a “Christian” organisation but certainly now has drifted away from that as it’s core roots. It would certainly be possible for The Salvation Army to also drift away from it’s Christian heritage and become just a social organisation if we held to this list of “non-negotiables” provided by the General. That’s really dangerous for me. If those 8 things are the things we must hold on to (which I’m assuming is the way he’s using “non-negotiable”) then there’s nothing there about the primacy of Scripture, our evangelical focus, our pneumatological priority (i.e. holiness of life), etc.

I personally think that we are a movement that epitomises “strength in weakness” (2 Cor 9). This should be evident in our message, our motivation, and our methodology. What I mean by this is that we preach a message about the Christ who, in the incarnation, became weak so that we may be strong. Our God is a God who loves us enough to subject himself to the humiliation of the cross and the suffering of a Roman execution. Our motivation becomes the belief that there is no “weakness” in this world that cannot be overcome with Christ’s “strength”. No addiction, no illness, no sinful life, no persecution, no government, no temptations, nothing can defeat the strength of Christ and all that he achieved in the incarnation, and all that that entails. And so our methodology reflects the message and motivation that we have. A willingness to adopt whatever means is appropriate to achieve the goal of the Salvation of the World. A willingness to humiliate ourselves regardless of the consequences if that communicates the message in some way (e.g. willing to place our reputation on the line or willing to give up government funding if necessary, dare I say it). Dropping the old if it no longer works, and adopting the new if it does, or alternatively re-adopting the old if it works again.

This is what I mean by “strength in weakness” - an absolute dependence upon Christ who strengthens us; and not relying upon our reputation, our past methods, our government funding, our heritage, or anything else that we like, that really aren’t “non-negotiable”. I would love to see and be a part of an Army that looks like that.

For me, when we talk about non-negotiables, or what we want to look like in 10 years etc, if we start making the list too long, and begin drifting away from “who we are (and are meant to be) in Christ” then we risk making “peripherals” central. The non-negotiables are the message, the motivation (which stems from the message), and the methodology (which ironically is completely adaptable).

What are your non-negotiables?

Writer: Captain Adam Couchman is currently the Director for the School for Christian Studies at Booth College, Australia Eastern Territory. He loves reading, talking, discussing, thinking, and re-thinking all things theological. Most of all, he just wants to “be Holy as God is holy”. Adam is married to Megan and together they have two girls - Brielle and Annabelle.

Fair Trade and Dead Aid

“My Voice Can’t Compete with an Electric Guitar” says Robert Joustra

Things that make us feel better don’t always work.

Take two of the most venerated icons in Western foreign policy: fair trade and foreign aid.

Few injunctions to the moral person seem more pressing-trade fairly, give to the poor-and religious people, to their credit, can push these the most. After all, Jesus said to also give your robe to the man who asks for your coat. This instinct drives the aid industry and the increasing pressure on developed governments to give more, assuming that the unwillingness of the developed world to part with its wealth causes the developing world’s problems-if only we bought more fair trade, if only we gave more generously.

But this isn’t the message emerging from prominent global economists like Paul Collier. In The Bottom Billion, Collier argues that fair trade is really foreign aid masquerading as a new model of international trade. He writes, “The price premium in fair trade products is a form of charitable transfer… the problem with it, as compared to just giving people the aid in other ways, is that it encourages recipients to stay doing what they are doing” (163). The fair trade brand exists because the global market somehow masks the true cost of production-which is to say the people who do the actual production do not receive the appropriate dividends.

This is, in short, unprofitable work, and subsidizing unprofitable and undiversified economies is the surest recipe for ensuring that those economies remain dependent on that subsidy. Collier writes, “They get charity as long as they stay producing the crops that have locked them into poverty” (163). Such charity may seem benevolent in the short term, but in the long term, it may retard the growth and diversification of economies in the developing world. At best, the fair trade brand is an interesting viral marketing campaign which alerts us to the critical reformations that must be made to the imbalance in global trade and finance. At worst, it’s a false populist optimism which reinforces the prevailing economic order-the proverbial band-aid for the cancer patient. What we need, as both Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Collier agree, is fairer and freer trade, ideas which mostly have not worked because they have never really been tried.

Foreign aid has also come under siege in the past several years, most recently and impressively by Dambisa Moyo in her slim but punchy read, Dead Aid. Moyo tackles the presumption that exponential increases in foreign aid will solve the crisis of development on the African continent. After decades of ever-increasing aid agendas, she points out, the continent is far worse off than it was before aid ever came. The counter-argument, of course, is that aid has come with too many strings: tied aid, a form of subsidy which requires aid recipients to buy products from the donor country; loans with interest rates that cripple the economies of developing countries in repayment; or the much villainized structural adjustment, which required the reformation of developing economies in a Chicago School imagination. Many argue that if we simply gave away the aid with no strings attached, forgave the debt and got our neo-colonial noses out, Africa could certainly be rescued.

But even while admitting to the shady aid practices of the past, Moyo is not so enthusiastic about this Bono-style cash dump. Moyo’s argument is the classic counter-welfare case: large-scale infusions of cash infantilize economies and governments, ironically reducing accountability. Citing Collier’s research, Moyo argues that aid does not merely go to corrupt governments, but actually has a corrupting influence on governments. Those governments whose principle revenue comes from taxation are inherently more accountable to their population. But without such accountability to domestic institutions, and with the checks and balances of foreign lending institutions spotty, at best, abysmal governance in corrupt governments is propped up by a virtually unlimited stream of cash.

Even well-intentioned and practical aid, like the recent Hollywood mosquito-net campaign, can have unintended side effects on receiving economies. Moyo helps us imagine how the sudden infusion of hundreds of thousands of mosquito nets will affect a domestic economy. Yes, initially, every household will have a net. But what happens to the domestic producers of such nets who cannot-surely-compete with the cost of subsidized Hollywood benevolence? Domestic net production seizes, causing joblessness and poverty. Then, when these nets need replacement in five years, the cycle starts again. Another Hollywood campaign, another infusion-the cycle of aid-dependent poverty continues.

… the fair trade brand and foreign aid are palliative care for a patient whose options are rapidly shrinking …

Moyo and Collier’s arguments are intentionally inflammatory, but they are also correct in many respects. The aid model is not working, and no large-scale cash infusion or debt forgiveness scheme is going to make it suddenly start working. The fair trade brand is too small-scale and ultimately regressive. Yet, like committed ideologues, we continue the practices that have long ago proven unsuccessful; as one prominent aid economist says in Moyo’s book, “My voice can’t compete with an electric guitar.” Aid has its new priestly caste wrapped up in the Hollywood powerful and rock stars of the world, but we need a new hermeneutic to read and practice development, one which takes the responsibility and capacity of domestic economies seriously and ceases the degradation of African markets and governance through easy and inflationary money. Our goal, in Moyo’s infectious visionary language, is a world without aid.

There is a danger in religious circles that as our consciences are reawakened, our intellects are not always so equally roused. These practices of fair trade and foreign aid have come under considerable attack in the last few years, mitigating the enthusiasm of fair trade and foreign aid advocates but also-importantly-pointing to a principle of social and cultural change that is much in need of recovery. Foreign affairs do not need Band-aids hastily slapped on by fringe grassroots populists, but long-term substantive critiques of the global social and political architecture.

We need what one Christian politician of the last century called an architectonic critique and what Cardus calls the renewal of (North American) social architecture. The system is certainly broken, but the fair trade brand and foreign aid are palliative care for a patient whose options are rapidly shrinking. There may well be solutions to some of the endemic problems that vex the international order, but as long as our consciences are salved by feel-good coffee branding and knee-jerk check writing campaigns, we won’t take the hard look we need at the architecture of global capitalism and bring about the social innovation that is necessary for genuine architectonic reformation.

Writer: Robert Joustra is a Researcher with Cardus, serving as Associate Editor of Policy in Public. He lectures in international politics and foreign policy at Redeemer University College and is currently pursuing a PhD in international politics at the University of Bath. He is astonishingly well-versed in Norse mythology, central Asian migrations from the 5th to 17th century and emergent science fiction series since the 1970’s. For the amusement of posterity he keeps a record of his research, topical interests and existential crises at Fuhd Me: A PhD Blog (pronounced F’hud, phonetic for PhD).

If that got you fired up, you need to watch Stephen Lewis and Paul Collier debate Hernando De Soto and Dambisa Moyo at the Munk Debates: Be it Resolved that Foreign Aid Does More Harm than Good. Copyright © 2009 Cardus. All Rights Reserved.

This article originally appeared in Comment magazine, the opinion journal of CARDUS: www.cardus.ca/comment

The Audacity of Love! | Compassionate Radicalism

 Joe Noland continues his thoughts on “flaming liberal” Christians

I‘m encouraged by The Rubicon’s philosophy and willingness to print all sides, very rare in a traditional, conservative culture, “culture of another day,” as so perceptively phrased by one contemporary writer.

Jesus was faced with the same dilemma, albeit, comparatively different, technologically speaking. His ideology spanned the gamut from conservative to liberal, his liberal constituency being in the minority, obviously. It was Jesus’ example that led Paul to later write, “I am all things to all men that my all means I might save some,” leading him out of an ultra fundamentalist viewpoint, toward a more radical expression of mission.

To paraphrase another writer, what separated Jesus (and Paul) from His contemporaries was “the audacity of love.” By definition, a compassionate lifestyle is about as liberal as it gets, simply because the love that Jesus exemplified, and the Holy Spirit solidified, knows no boundaries, this being the very foundation of our holiness doctrine. In this respect, I submit that Jesus and Paul were freedom flaming liberals, as opposed to legalistically fomented conservatives.

So it was at the beginning. Sadly, as our movement has matured, so have its boundaries, thus framing our holiness thinking legalistically instead of missionally. It has become more fashionable to preach and write about it, sometimes pompously, other times creating a “have” and “have not” exclusive club mentality in the process. The “doing” has taken precedence over the “being” - “Doing the Most Good!” Admittedly, I too have been guilty of getting the sequence wrong more often than not. I touch on that sequence in the seminal post of this series: http://therubicon.org/2009/09/jesus-christ-flaming-liberal/

 I expand on this thought in my book, Lean Right, Love left: Balancing the Body:

“There is room for radicalism in the church, to be sure, but spiritual radicalism should be differentiated from secular radicalism. Let’s not confuse the two together, as we so often do. When you study the modeled life of Jesus, the distinction becomes extraordinarily clear. He was as radical as they come. I like to refer to His brand of radicalism as “Compassionate Radicalism.”  (Note: The words “radicalism” and “liberalism” being interchangeable here).

 ”Walter Brueggemann, in The Prophetic Imagination, gives further clarity to this kind of radicalism when he writes, “Jesus, in his solidarity with the marginal ones, is moved to compassion. Compassion constitutes a radical form of criticism, for it announces that the hurt is to be taken seriously, that the hurt is not to be accepted as normal and natural, but is an abnormal and unacceptable condition for humanness. In the arrangement of ‘lawfulness’ in Jesus’ time, as in the ancient empire of Pharaoh, the one unpermitted quality of relation was compassion. Empires are never built or maintained on the basis of compassion. The norms of law (social control) are never accommodated to persons, persons are accommodated to the norms. Otherwise the norms will collapse and with them the whole power arrangement. Thus the compassion of Jesus is to be understood not simply as a personal reaction but as a public criticism in which he dares to act upon his concern against the entire numbness of his social context.” (End of Brueggemann quote)

“The emphasis here is on the “hurt” as opposed to the condition that created the hurt. The focus is not on the leprosy; it is on the person who is suffering the resulting banishment, stigma, and pain. The focus is not on prostitution, adultery, homosexual or heterosexual liaisons; it is on the person(s) who will inevitably suffer the hurt, both self-inflicted and “norms”-inflicted, which will invariably accompany these lifestyle choices. Medical and social researchers take the condition seriously (doing), whilst Christians take the hurt seriously (being). In Pharaoh’s time the law was all that mattered. In Christ’s time compassion mattered more. Compassion is the preemptive counterpunch that will topple the forces of evil.”

You can’t get more radical (or liberal, or audacious) than that!

I wonder… in our modern day power arrangement have we reverted back to the law mattering more? Does our holiness thinking now have a legalistic tinge to it? Have we once again expanded the boundaries? Do we preach it better than we live it? Is sanctified living (and the good accompanying it) generated from our “doing” (focusing on the condition rather than the hurt) or is it coming from our “being?”

Perhaps we need to rethink the sequence pattern. Maybe we need to put the “audacity” (radicalism) back into our holiness being.

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.

the Rubicon - BY REQUEST- Is The Salvation Army Pentecostal?

H

ere is a description of an early Salvation Army meeting recorded in General Bramwell Booth’s autobiography Echoes and Memories:

‘At night Corbridge led the hallelujah meeting till 10 o’clock. Then we commenced an All-Night of Prayer. Two hundred and fifty people were present till 1am; two hundred or so after. A tremendous time. From the very first, Jehovah was passing by, searching, softening and subduing every heart. The power of the Holy Ghost fell on Robinson and prostrated him. He nearly fainted twice. The brother of the Blandys entered into full liberty and then he shouted, wept, clapped his hands, danced, amid a scene of the most glorious and heavenly enthusiasm. Others meanwhile were lying prostrate on the floor, some of them groaning for perfect deliverance ….’

This happened in 1878 - 22 years before the official start of the Pentecostal movement. Was The Salvation Army Pentecostal, or did it at least begin that way?

Here is another classic, this time from Samuel Logan Brengle:

‘But we cannot have what Peter obtained on the day of Pentecost’ wrote someone to me recently. However, Peter himself, in that great sermon which he preached that day, declared that we can, for he says: ‘ Ye shall receive the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you’ - Jews, to whom I am talking - ‘and to your children,’ and not to you only, but ‘to all that are afar off’ - nineteen hundred years from now - ‘even as many as the Lord our God shall call,’ or convert (Acts 2:38, 39).’

In recent days, some people have challenged The Salvation Army by referring back to its early days and suggesting that it has moved away from its Pentecostal roots. Are they right? Was Brengle really a Salvationist Pentecostal?

Let me suggest that Pentecostalism isn’t determined by the way people act under the influence of the Holy Spirit. At the heart of Pentecostalism is a theology and interpretation of Scripture that then manifests itself in various forms of behaviour.

When we look at these theological and interpretive issues, we discover differences between The Salvation Army and the Pentecostal Movement.

Let me make it clear right at the start of this talk that this is not a Pentecostal bashing exercise. Quite the opposite – although we in The Salvation Army do not embrace some of their theological positions or many of their practices, we do admire their passion for the Lord and the spreading of the gospel. They have in fact been a ‘wake up call’ for the whole church (including the Army) challenging us regarding our own dependence on God and effectiveness in our ministry. We must both honour and respect our brothers and sisters in Christ.

Pentecostalism
The modern Pentecostal Movement has a specific point in time when it commenced.

‘It all began at 7pm on 31st December 1900. 40 students at a bible college in Topeka Kansas, had come to the conclusion that the biblical evidence of baptism in the Spirit was speaking in tongues, and they were now praying for the experience. When the principal of the college … was persuaded to lay hands on one of the students, a ‘glory fell upon her, a halo seemed to surround her head and face’ and she began to speak in tongues.’

This began a movement which has changed the face of the church through the 20th century and into the 21st century. Although its development has tended to ebb and flow, over the past 30 years there seems to have been a consistent growth in this movement.

Peter C. Wagner has described the major stages of this renewal as three ‘waves’.

1. The first wave - The rise of Pentecostalism is that described by John Larsson (above). It really emerged from the 19th century holiness movement in North America and for much of the first half of the 20th century was on the fringe of the church and seen as a deviation from mainstream Christianity – “too much experience, and too little in theology”.
2. The second wave was the charismatic renewal of the 1960’s and 1970’s - described by some a neo-Pentecostalism. This time it was based in a mainstream church - the Episcopal (Anglican) Church at Van Nuys, a suburb of Los Angeles. Far from being on the fringe, this ‘charismatic’ renewal took place in a well-established church with a long tradition of conservative worship and orthodox theology.
3. The third wave - the renewal movement in the 1980’s and 1990’s was associated with people like John Wimber, Peter C. Wagner, Jack Deere and others. Again they were ministering and teaching in mainstream denominations. It spawned the Church Growth movement and had a focus at Fuller Seminary in Pasadena.

In each of these waves, the principle characteristics were: speaking in tongues (glossolalia), an interest in healing, ecstatic worship, interest in prophecy (particularly in the third wave) and spiritual warfare (also the third wave). Also common to all of the waves is the experience described as ‘baptism of the Spirit’ and it is this description of the action of the Holy Spirit that provides the common link throughout the history of the movement.

‘The distinctive teaching of Pentecostalism is the emphasis on the second crisis experience subsequent to conversion which is called the baptism of the Spirit. This experience is seen as giving power for witness and releasing gifts of the Spirit within the personality and increasing the fruit of the spirit. Speaking in tongues is considered by most Pentecostals to be the necessary sign that the blessing has been received.’

The fourth wave?
In 1999 the writer R.T. Kendal in a book called The Anointing speculates about a fourth wave of Pentecostal renewal. He sees a coming together of the conservative evangelical and charismatic groups that will have an influence which will cross denominational boundaries.

Although this ‘wave’ has not yet fully formed, there are things happening that seem to be indicating that Kendall might be right. The characteristics of the ‘fourth wave’ he has observed are:

• A particular pattern of worship – 20-40 minutes of chorus singing; then prayer (often in small groups; or everyone speaking out loud); then a 35-45 minute sermon, followed by ‘ministry’ (often laying on of hands).
• Some slaying in the spirit
• Some speaking in tongues (although not overt or public)
• Fervent ‘supernatural’ believing prayer
• An expectation of signs and wonders

Is this ‘fourth wave’ already happening? In our own Territory, we seem to be seeing some of these characteristics. Some corps and even some larger events (such as Unlimited) express a strong dependence on the outpouring of the Holy Spirit with an emphasis that is more along the lines of the Pentecostal tradition than the Holiness tradition from which The Salvation Army comes. But this is not limited to Australia. Major Ian Barr of the UK territory says this:

‘… it is difficult to gauge the accuracy of Kendal’s thesis, but there is no shortage of evidence even in the Army. The UK Territory’s annual Roots convention, started in the early 1990’s by a group of officers and soldiers with charismatic leanings, has grown to accommodate a diverse range of Salvationists. It bears all the hallmarks of the fourth wave - a coming together of charismatic and evangelical conservative Christians for worship and study with a strongly prophetic and missiological agenda.’

Whether it is a ‘fourth wave’ or simply an awakening of the Spirit, we should rejoice in the new enthusiasm for the mission and a new passion for the things of God that is being displayed in our present generation.

The big question is however – can we embrace this awakening without embracing Pentecostal theology? There is a difference in our theologies. How do we respond to the Holy Spirit without getting caught up in the trappings of another denomination?

Holy Spirit dependent without being Pentecostal (Acts 2)

The Salvation Army is not a Pentecostal movement (in spite of the influences). Our interpretation of Act 2 leads us to a different understanding of ‘baptism of the Spirit’, and thus sets us aside from our Pentecostal friends.

Let me take a moment to look at Acts 2 and then highlight two theological differences between The Salvation Army and Pentecostalism.

Acts 2 and 3 (selected verses)

2/1 ‘When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place. 2 Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. 3 They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. 4 All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them.

14 Then Peter stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice and addressed the crowd: “Fellow Jews and all of you who live in Jerusalem, let me explain this to you; listen carefully to what I say…”

40 With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, “Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.” 41 Those who accepted his message were baptised, and about three thousand were added to their number that day. 42 They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.

3/1 One day Peter and John were going up to the temple at the time of prayer–at three in the afternoon. 2 Now a man crippled from birth was being carried to the temple gate called Beautiful, where he was put every day to beg from those going into the temple courts. 3 When he saw Peter and John about to enter, he asked them for money. 4 Peter looked straight at him, as did John. Then Peter said, “Look at us!” 5 So the man gave them his attention, expecting to get something from them.

6 Then Peter said, “Silver or gold I do not have, but what I have I give you. In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, walk.” 7 Taking him by the right hand, he helped him up, and instantly the man’s feet and ankles became strong. 8 He jumped to his feet and began to walk. Then he went with them into the temple courts, walking and jumping, and praising God. 9 When all the people saw him walking and praising God, 10 they recognized him as the same man who used to sit begging at the temple gate called Beautiful, and they were filled with wonder and amazement at what had happened to him.

12 When Peter saw this, he said to them: “Men of Israel, why does this surprise you? Why do you stare at us as if by our own power or godliness we had made this man walk? 13 The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus. You handed him over to be killed ….”’

The first difference – Understanding Acts 2.

What is Acts 2 all about? Is it about the Holy Spirit (and the signs and wonders associated with him), or is it about what the Holy Spirit did? Pentecostals celebrate the first – the coming of the Holy Spirit, and their worship re-enact the signs and wonders of Pentecost (talking in tongues, exuberant behaviour etc.)

The Salvation Army (along with mainstream non-Pentecostal churches) celebrates what the Holy Spirit did … and that is the creation of the church. Described theologically as ‘Christ’s last act of creation on earth’, it was on the day of Pentecost that the church was born. Because of this belief The Salvation Army celebrates the purposes of the church that the Holy Spirit created.

What are these purposes? Acts chapters 2 and 3 tell us …

The first activity the church under the direction of the Holy Spirit was to preach the gospel … verse 14 onwards records the first sermon of the church by Peter. It was a mission sermon (kerygma). It had a challenge with an appeal and 3000 people were saved

The second activity of the church was to gather the new believers together for teaching, friendship and the building of a community. They did ‘fellowship’.

Then in chapter 3 we see a third purpose: a suffering man was given physical help. In this case he was healed. We saw this happen often with Jesus himself, but here we see that it is also to be part of the church … involvement with society at the most basic level.

Proclaiming the gospel (saving souls); sharing and teaching in fellowship (growing saints) and caring for the sick (serving suffering humanity).

It is interesting to note in Chapter 3 that immediately after the healing of the lame man, Peter goes back to the first thing the church did. He again uses this opportunity to preach. The mission of the church to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ is always part of the narrative of Acts.

Some may argue that this is a primitive ecclesiology and that history has advanced the idea of ‘church’ well beyond these three basic functions. Is the church of Australia today as dynamic as the Acts church? I am suggesting that the church of today (including The Salvation Army) could do well to re-visit its New Testament roots, certainly in regard to understanding its reliance on the Holy Spirit.

The second difference - understanding ‘baptism of the Spirit’.

The Salvation Army used the term ‘baptism of the Spirit’ for many years, as did the Wesleyans and many of the Holiness movements of the 19th century. The intention of this phrase ‘baptism of the Spirit’ was to describe the cleansing that comes to the person who is being fully sanctified – made holy.

In early Salvation Army teaching the baptism of the Spirit was associated with ‘second blessing’ theology – that Christians were saved, and then in a subsequent experience (baptism of the Spirit) were cleansed of their sin and fully sanctified. Although The Salvation Army has now moved away from the ‘second blessing’ teaching, it still declares that when a person is saved, they are cleansed of their sin through the baptism of the Spirit. We can be saved and sanctified – and it is all the work of the Holy Spirit. It won’t happen without him. For The Salvation Army, and for the whole holiness movement, the focus the baptism of the Spirit was on ‘power’ (exousia) for ‘moral authority’ and evidenced though the life of love and purity.

When the Pentecostals came onto the scene, they too began to use this term ‘baptism of the Spirit’. But theirs’ was a different meaning. For them, the focus was on the ‘power’ (dynamis) for the purpose of supernatural giftedness and evidenced in the signs and wonders.

For Pentecostals the baptism is a ‘doing’ thing. For Salvationists, it is a ‘being’ experience. Salvation Story is helpful here.

The baptism of the Holy Spirit is a way some have used to describe the holiness experience. Baptism is a symbol of dying to ourselves and emerging as new persons in Christ. It was used in the Early Church as the receiving of the Holy Spirit at regeneration which was the requirement for membership in the body of Christ: ‘We were all baptised by one Spirit into one body’ (I Corinthians 12:13). The ‘baptism of the Holy Spirit’ may therefore be considered as distinct from being ‘filled with the Holy Spirit’. Baptism happens once at the beginning of Christian experience, while infilling happens repeatedly throughout the Christian life.

The impact of the Pentecostals was such that because of confusion over the meaning of ‘baptism of the Spirit’, The Salvation Army (and the holiness movement generally) moved away from this terminology in the early 20th Century.

The problem of experience
It is at this point that we come face to face with the one of the most problematic aspects of the Holy Spirit - experience, and the problem of experiential theology.

Let me divert briefly.

• Biblical Theology is the development of theology based purely on what the bible says (eg. Creation). This theology forms the foundations of the doctrines of the church.
• Systematic Theology collates and organises the Biblical concepts and moulds them into rational ideas, especially the theology that is not clearly spelt out in scripture (for example the Trinity).
• Experiential Theology is theology that expresses itself in the human’s response to God. It adds the ‘flavour’ and colour, but is affected by interpretation, bias, pre-conceived ideas, and individual experience (for example, slaying in the Spirit and the ‘second blessing’).

Whenever we discuss the Holy Spirit, we become affected by ‘experiential theology’. It is how people experience God and because we are all different, the experience will be different for each one of us. This is why there are so many diverse opinions regarding the work of the Holy Spirit. If we are going to avoid error, then we must always return to scripture.

It is the question of ‘experience’ that presents the most contentious issues related to Pentecostalism. The ‘doctrines’ of the General Council of the Assemblies of God (USA) states “We believe … the initial physical evidence of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit is ‘speaking in tongues’ as experienced on the Day of Pentecost and referenced through Acts and the Epistles”. To speaking in tongues we also add ‘slaying in the Spirit’, ‘prophecy’ and ‘healing’. It is these things that cause most of the arguments.

Each of these expressions falls into the category of ‘experiential theology’ and must be tested against ‘biblical theology’.

Speaking in tongues – from the Greek word glossolalia meaning ‘unknown tongue’ The interpretation of this word in scripture is hotly debated. Dr Roger Green, head of NT studies Asbury College, argues that this term always means a language that is known, but unknown to the speaker. Acts 2 for example indicates that all those from foreign countries could understand what the disciples were saying even though the disciples had not learned their language. Other scholars on the other hand, argue for a spiritual language that is only known to God. Whatever position is taken, it is still qualified by Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians that discourages this language being used in public (1 Cor. 14:19 and 28) and is one of the lesser gifts. (1 Cor 12:28-31). There is no suggestion in scripture that this is a gift given as one of the evidences of the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

Slaying in the Spirit – there is no equivalent experience described in scripture.

Prophecy – in scripture it is primarily the proclamation of the word of God. Very little is involved in telling the future or forecasting events. Almost none of it is prophecy over individuals.

Healing – is evidenced in scripture and although there are some accounts of the apostles’ healing people following the resurrection of Jesus, they are few, and usually in the context of a larger evangelical purpose. What is never present in scripture is the idea that the ‘faith’ usurps the sovereignty of God. Healing cannot be demanded and is not equated with salvation. Fullness of life (John 10:10) is not a physical reference, but a spiritual one.

The Salvation Army celebrates the purpose of the church, which was created in Acts 2. The re-enactment of Pentecost through the signs and wonders is therefore not our tradition and in our opinion cannot be fully substantiated by scripture.

This does not diminish the experiences that some people have. Many have been blessed through the ecstatic experience of signs and wonders. But it is largely ‘experiential theology’ and therefore not the basis of doctrine or biblical interpretation.

Experience and Scripture
This does not mean that experience is not indicated in scripture, in fact, quite the opposite. In the 1930’s, the theologian Rudolph Otto explained the two particular types of experience that can be identified in Scripture and was evident in the life of the Church.

The first of these experiences he describes as the ‘Numinous’ - an intense experience and near physical encounter with God that is characterised by fear, fascination and mystery in the almost tangible presence of the divine.

Biblical examples of intense experience are found in the story of the transfiguration of Jesus in which Peter speaks for James and John in Mark 9:6 and says ‘Rabbi it is good for us to be here’. They were really so frightened that he didn’t know what to say. The Old Testament story of Moses at the burning bush is another example of this intense type of experience. These occurrences are very rare, yet nonetheless real to the participants, and throughout the centuries a relatively small number of Christians have given testimony to such near-physical encounters with God.

The second type of experience Otto describes as ‘ecstatic’ – a joyful experience, a sense of release from one’s normal inhibitions, often evidenced by speaking in tongues, and other ecstatic manifestations. Acts 2:2-4 is such an example.

It is this second type of experience that has become more commonly expressed in the modern church and has been fundamental to the various manifestations of Pentecostalism and charismatic renewal in the twentieth century. There is no question that ‘experience’ is part of the biblical tradition and therefore to be expected as part of the church tradition.

Experiencing the Holy Spirit without being Pentecostal
However, a person or a church doesn’t have to be Pentecostal to acknowledge or experience God through his Holy Spirit. They are Biblical experiences, not ‘Pentecostal’ experiences.

The Swiss theologian Emil Brunner makes the point:

‘… we ought to face the New Testament witness with sufficient candour to admit that in this ‘pneuma’ (Holy Spirit) which the Ecclesia was conscious of possessing, there lie forces of an extra-rational kind mostly lacking among us Christians today.’

Experiencing the Holy Spirit should be a part of who we are as the ‘ecclesia’, the church. But I suspect that Brunner’s suggestion that the modern church is ‘lacking’ in its acceptance of the supernatural is partially right. The rationalism of Modernity has created many Christian cynics who are skeptical to anything supernatural. Maybe scientific rationalism has had a ‘dampening’ effect on the church, and The Salvation Army.

I believe that God has used the Pentecostal movement to challenge The Salvation Army to a new awareness of our need to be Holy Spirit dependent. Even though The Salvation Army has constantly acknowledged the importance of the Holy Spirit, it has not always acted that way. We are not Pentecostal, but the Pentecostals can teach us to be more expectant of the supernatural workings of the Holy Spirit.

I personally believe that God has brought into existence The Salvation Army and given us our emphasis for a specific reason… the world needs a church of holy people who are mostly on their knees before God in humility and brokenness. God has called us to a broken world. How better to reach a broken world than through the awareness of our own brokenness, and the reliance of his perfect grace and love. Our baptism of the Spirit is ‘power’ (exousia) for the life of love and purity.

There is no question that early Salvation Army teaching advocated an experiential type of Baptism of the Spirit. Certainly, early leaders encouraged Salvationists to fervently pray for the blessing.

The emphasis however, was not the ‘signs and wonders’ or the experiential nature of the ‘blessing’. The result was always for the experience of holiness – that state of ‘perfect love’, ‘full salvation’, entire sanctification. It was always for ‘what it meant’, not for ‘what was to be ‘experienced’.

The historical records show little evidence of people speaking in tongues; there were accounts of people falling down and lying one the floor in an trance – but this appears to have been spontaneous, and not encouraged by a mediator ‘slaying’ in the Spirit. There are certainly accounts of laughing, joyous behaviour, but the focus was always on the life change that followed – the life of holiness that was a foundational doctrine of our early Salvation Army.

Conclusion
General Clarence Wiseman wrote:

‘The New Testament does not teach that Christians need a new baptism in the Spirit, for they already possess the Holy Spirit, otherwise they would not be Christians. What is required is an awakening to the necessity for an utter and complete surrender to the Spirit.’

The Salvation Army is not Pentecostal. But it is ‘charismatic’ because it is absolutely dependent on the Holy Spirit and the gifts he gives to enable us to be his servants in the world.

Our challenge is to pray more expectantly for the beautiful Spirit of Jesus to transform the whole world and to use The Salvation Army as one of his tools in this mission.

Note: The original version of this article contains numerous endnotes. Unfortunately such notations are not supported in the software used to create theRubicon. If you wish to see the original piece you can download a pdf by clicking here.

 
 
Writer: Following seven years as a high school teacher Lieutenant Colonel Philip Cairns was commissioned as a Salvation Army officer in 1982. His ministry has included twelve years as a corps officer (pastor), appointmnetsat the training college and in the pastoral care department. He has also been involved in corps (church) programme work at both the divisional and territorial levels. He was previously the training principal and the principal of Booth College,and has recently taken up his current appointment as Secretary for Personnel,  Australia Eastern Territory. Philip is married to Jan and has three children and six beautiful grandchildren.

Stranger Behavior

Many people have concluded that very few human beings can be trusted to enter our homes. Outside of family, friends, and acquaintances, even fewer people are worthy of that intimate invitation. Read the newspaper, watch the news on television, or read about the daily happenings via the internet, and it will not take a person long before he or she gets up from the comfort of the couch to lock all the doors and close the blinds.

It’s true that there is much to be careful about in our world today. Just a couple of years ago, a young boy went into an abandoned house in a town near Fayetteville to “check it out”and was discovered dead. He was killed by the people who were illegally hanging out in the abandoned house to take their drugs and do whatever worthless air thieves do.

I can’t help but get a little sickened and insensitive when I stop to consider what God’s plan is for this world and its people, only to look around and see the complete opposite in so many places. After all, as Peter told the followers of Jesus, “offer hospitality to one another without grumbling” (1 Peter 4:9 NIV).

As Marvin Wilson points out in his book, Our Father Abraham, the ancient Jews held hospitality as one of the most important virtues. Among the customs observed by the ancient Jewish people was the practice of placing a napkin over the threshold of a doorway to signal to travelers and to the poor that guests were free to enter. They would also use a flag to signify that a meal was being served, and anyone who happened by was welcome to come in and sit at the table to share in the family meal. One of the Mishnaic statements made by the sages was, “Let your house be open wide, and let the poor be members of your household” (Mishnah, Avot 1:5).

There were also proper courtesies that were expected of the guests. Guests were to leave some food on their plates, offer a special prayer for the host after the meal, and they were to cause the host no anxiety. Anyone who caused anxiety to the host was considered to be unworthy of being a guest.

It appears that many Western strangers would fall into the category of being unworthy. Many of us have no “stranger etiquette.” Too many of us want to put our feet on the couch, eat the last biscuit, answer our cell phones in the middle of the meal, and grab the remote control after dinner. The thought of praying a special blessing for the host, eating modestly, and giving peace to the host are all foreign ideas to many of us.

Sure, I think we could do a lot better at welcoming strangers. I also think we strangers could do a much better job of being worthy of the welcome.

In His dust,

Johnny.

Writer: Capt. Jonathan Gainey was born in Jacksonville, FL in June, 1969. He has been married to Staci, the daughter of retired Salvation Army officers, for twenty years and they have four children ages 18, 16, 12, and 4. Jonathan was commissioned as an officer in June of 2002, and is currently serving in his third appointment in New Bern, NC, USA. He is working on a Masters of Divinity from Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary and is the creator and manager of the Flocks Diner website, where his passion for learning and teaching is expressed and shared through writing and a weekly podcast.

Shuffle-proofing the vision

Local “ownership” is the key

Where there is no vision, the people perish …   - Proverbs 29:18

Ours is an unusual movement where we have an extensive annual shuffle of our leaders and pastors, where they are appointed by some central ”higher power” rather than “called” by a particular congregation. The upside is that there can be a continual freshness about program and approach and leaders can be inspirational without becoming too entrenched or bogged down. One of the many downsides though is that a leader’s vision can be ignored, trampled or compromised by subsequent appointees.

Perhaps this is one of the reasons that we don’t tend to foster too much vision-casting by officers. That’s understandable when you consider the constant shuffle, but I believe that it’s one of the reasons that we are not moving forward in so many areas of our work.

Last week I visited a corps at a large rural centre where an officer friend of mine has revolutionised the corps and the community in which it resides. In just over a year he has opened a new building, created innovative corps activities, initiated new social programs, commenced a plant and engaged with previously unexplored ethnic groups and demographics. This man has a big vision for the future of his corps and everyone is very excited.

“I just can’t wait for Sunday these days,” explained one old faithful soul, “There is always a new person arriving with new challenges for us to engage with. Our officer is such a man of vision and action and we are with him all the way. I just hope the army keeps him here long enough to make these things happen!” I told her that I thought that it was actually up to her and the others in the corps to be inspired by what had happened so far and to grab the vision with both hands and keep it alive and focused into the future.

 Where there IS vision the people (and all around them) prosper!

I’d like to think that for the remainder of my friend’s appointment he will spend more and more time passing the baton of  the vision to the local leadership, soldiers and corps comrades so that when the new officer is appointed they will be able to allow that person to enhance a continued vision with their own skill set and dedication. One would hope that the new appointee isn’t tepted to allow individual preferences or arrogance get in the way of something that is well and truly alive and prospering.

The key I believe is a sense of “ownership” in the locals. I observe that more and more corps and centres are not inspiring or often even allowing the soldiers and comrades ownership of longterm visions and strategic plans but are instead investing too much hope and power in the hands of the officers which often results in eventual disappointment and falling away when a new person comes and heads in a new direction.

It’s understandable that a leader wants to lead (after all that’s what they are trained to do and that’s what we want them to do) but I have seen too many officers stomp through a carefully planted and budding harvest field in size 12 hobnail boots leaving a path of destruction and disappointment in their wake. They are later observed scratching their heads saying things like, “I just don’t understand why the people aren’t with me.”

I’ve previously written of the importance of maintaining the DNA of church plants (  http://therubicon.org/2009/05/messing-with-the-dna/ ) which are often initiated by the vision of lay people. We really need to be more respectful of God-given vision and not allow leadership or lack thereof to derail the purpose for the work in the firstplace.

Let’s encourage our people to have a sense of real ownership of the vision for their local corps and centre, let them hold it in their hearts and have it be seen in their every activity. And let’s train our officers to be sensitive to a need to empower their people and be sensitive to the Holy Spirit’s ultimate plan rather than initiate something of their own just because they feel they have to.