Crucified Lord or Conquering Saviour?

What story of salvation?

Images have undeniable power to evoke new ideas and emotions in people’s minds and hearts, both good and bad. Images work at a non-conscious level and so we need to remind ourselves that images can overpower words. And yet we seem to be inclined to underestimate the power of images in religion. In today’s society, does military language and imagery conjure thoughts of pride and heroism, or, with all the violence, and suffering in our world, does it accomplish the opposite?

If the purpose of The Salvation Army was the eternal spiritual salvation of the world, do we have the legitimate authority to pursue salvation by evangelistic violence. There is a need for a missionary action that puts aside the aggressiveness of our militaristic imagery and rhetoric in favour of being a movement of a non-violent evangelism.  What image is more readily brought to mind when we look at this poster?  I don’t think it portrays an image of a powerless suffering Christ who is brings peace and reconciliation. Rather it portrays a theology of militarism with “Christ as warlord”, forcefully leading powerful forces (eg bombers in the background and The Salvation Army below). It speaks more of a reversal of love in favour of a violent zeal and an  imperial salvation that will be attained and maintained by violence or the threat of violence. Where does that idea come from? And why is the language of evangelism so routinely linked to images of violence. Unfortunately, such words and images  long employed by the church and The Salvation Army in regards to mission and evangelism are increasingly causing offence to the very people with whom we are seeking to share the Gospel of peace and non-violence.

Mission images drawn from warfare, include such tiles as “Aggressive Christianity” (Catherine Booth), “Christ, the Aggressor” (Commissioner J. Hay) and “aggressive evangelism”, and statements like “We only desire to form and to keep up outside every denominational circle a body as large as we can of free-shooters, for the express purpose of assaulting with spiritual weapons those who, like ourselves, are without a church, but who, unlike us, are still in rebellion against God”. [1] Or the names that have been given to the War College Vancouver training sessions, “Death and Glory, Martyrs, Revolution, Holy_, Incendiary, War Cry”.[2] Some of these words and images are biblical; some are motivational tools from the secular arena that we use to inspire involvement and action. None are value free nor is violence ever redemptive.

Mission that proceeds out of a position of power or force is very different from mission that proceeds from a posture of humility. It inevitably affects the message of the gospel and distorts ministry. Therefore one must ask, how effective is this particular image? We need to accept the need to be sensitive in our language and to show some consideration for others and how they may perceive our words. We must have the courage to ask if, in our day and age, the military metaphor hinders or helps Christian mission?

It’s time we took a hard look at our somewhat ambivalent relationship between mission, evangelism, and violence, because we can no longer hold to any forms of “sacred violence” by merely spiritualize the terminology. Such an approach inevitably communicates imperial values that are at odds with Gospel. On this point especially, many of our efforts at evangelism do violence to the gospel and to the integrity of what we are attempting to do in the name of Christ. What is needed is an “evangelism from a non-violence perspective” which is centered in Jesus Christ whose gospel is counter-violent.

As mentioned above, the poster presents an imperial narrative of salvation that is a counter-narrative and saviour to that presented in the New Testament. Warfare language was not the motivational language of the New Testament for mission rather it was the language of peace and reconciliation. They shared Christ because they had experienced the love and grace of God, which led to worship and proclamation.  Moreover, the Jesus that was proclaimed is a saviour whose “Lordship over all creation is gained in a totally implausible way. It is not achieved through military victory and the resultant status and rank due to a conqueror. Rather, his Lordship is the result of subversively abandoning such status and rank in humble obedience (Philippians 2:5-11)”.[3] If we know Jesus Christ in the cross, then we should also know that his majesty is one that is only known through power-in-weakness. This saviour is part of a very different story than that which portrays Christ Jesus as warlord. In the light of Philippians 2 any representation of God and/or of Jesus Christ as an imperial god of violent, aggressive power has “nothing to do with the majesty or holiness of the triune God known in the weakness of the cross”.[4] If we fail to see this then we collapse into idolatry.

The consistent story of the New Testament is one of a God who loves even his enemies and of a Lord “who died for us” all (1 Thessalonians 5:10). As Richard Hayes rightly notes “there is not a syllable in the Pauline letters that can be cited in support of Christians employing violence”.[5] The inevitable corollary of this love is non-retaliation and non-violence on the one hand and a pro-active response of peacemaking on the other.

Although he called for “non-aggressive” evangelism, World Council of Churches General Secretary Rev. Samuel Kobia notes that there needs to be “a better theory and practice of non-aggressive or non-violent form of evangelism or proclamation.”[6] The task of evangelism is not simply saving individuals from hell for heaven, or of calling individuals to repentance and an individualistic struggle to be faithful to their confession of Jesus as Lord. Rather, it is calling individuals to repentance and entrance into the Kingdom community of God’s people here and now as a living foretaste of the coming and consummated Kingdom of God.

In other words, the primary concern of “evangelism from the non-violent” is the formation of disciple communities.  Christian evangelism, or so I want to argue, is no-violent in every way. The good news is, as Isaiah said, the good news of “peace.” But this peace is not only the content and substance of evangelism; it is its very form. Christian evangelism refuses every violent means of converting others to that peace, whether that violence is cultural, military, political, spiritual, or intellectual. Evangelism instead requires only the peaceable simplicity of an offer and an invitation to “come and see” (John 1:46). Thus in it evangelism the goal of the Christian community is to allow the life and Spirit of the God of peace, rather than the imperial spirit to flow through it.

Writer: Major Wayne Ennis has been an officer for 43 years. He has served as a Corps Officer and in  Education and Training.  In Singapore he was Training Principal and Executive Director of the Nursing Home and was also Training Principal in Papua New Guinea. He is currently Senior Lecturer at the Australian Southern Territory Training College. He is  married with three adult children and four grandchildren.

REFERENCES:

[1] George Scott Railton, HEATHEN ENGLAND, 1887,  p145. Quoted on http://www.armybarmy.com/blog.html

[2] http://www.thewarcollege.com/?page_id=249

[3] S. Keesmaat, Crucified Lord or Conquering Saviour: Whose Story of Salvation” in Horizons in Biblical Theology Vol.26 No 2 (December 2005)  76

[4] M. Gorman, Inhabiting the Cruciform God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009)  35

[5] R. Hayes, The Moral Vision of the New Testament (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1996) 331

[6] S. Kobia, http://www.ucc.org/news/kobia-church-must-promote.html

7 Comments to Crucified Lord or Conquering Saviour?

1. Is this article objecting to violence, or just to images and language that can be misconstrued as to seem they promote violence?

   I think we could all agree: violence is bad.

   As for motivational images and language that can be misconstrued as to seem they promote violence: well, they are misconstrued. And any image can be misconstrued as to seem it promotes negative behaviour, not just warfare/violent images.

   The only kind of encouragement in regards to violent involvement that I have received in TSA, is perhaps to suffer it for the sake of someone else.

   And there ARE warfare images in the NT. What of them? “Merely spiritualized” swords and armour?

   Is there such a thing as “mere” spiritual warfare? If yes, then it is valid to merely spiritualize the imagery. If no, then it is valid to utilize warfare imagery and language, and to demonstrate the deeper meaning that lies behind it.

   Even the Human Rights movement in the 60’s used military language, and one of their primary values was non-violence. MLK referred to the movement as an army without weapons.

   Sean
Sean on February 17th, 2010

2. A thought-provoking article. Thanks. It’s been curious to me as to how Catherine was able to integrate her Quaker upbringing with the militant metaphor of TSA. When does our theology and or praxis spring from the identity found in a metaphor (army) rather than - or more than - from a solid biblical understanding of who Christ was?
JoAnn on February 18th, 2010

3. This article fails to note that the NT itself provides the corrective to such violent images and understandings of evangelism.

   While several times using the languages and images of warfare (2 Corinthians 2:14; Ephesians 6:10-18, Colossians 2:15, Revelation 1:16 et al) this is consistently linked to the weakness and vulnerability of God’s love and power as expressed through Jesus’ cross (which is where the victory of God is won). There’s nothing new in this; Gustav Aulen noted it in his “Christus Victor” in the 1930s, and it is disappointing that the article fails to refer to this.

   David C.
David Cavanagh on February 18th, 2010

4. Just to throw something into the discussion of our paradoxical persona, to show that it’s been a talking point for some time, you may find in The Officer, Vol. I, No. 1, January 1893 page 4:

   “No bloody war spirit,no pandering to the brutal craving for wholesale slaughter, has polluted our pages. We hate war, and all its paraphernalia. A word is enough to the wise. Let us beware, even in our illustrations, lest we pander to, or tolerate, the cruel taste for blood.”

   Harold
Harold Hill on February 19th, 2010

5. The Scriptures are full of violent images of Christ’s coming. There is no better image for the Army! Let’s rise up to battle!

   Joel 3:13-14 “Put ye in the sickle, for the harvest is ripe: come, get you down; for the press is full, the fats overflow; for their wickedness is great. (14) Multitudes, multitudes in the valley of decision: for the day of the LORD is near in the valley of decision”.

   Joel tells us of a treading down ” באו רדו ” is emphatic in it’s grammar and tone as it calls us to the harvest!

   Christ has said in Matthew 11:12 “And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force”.

   As we forcefully fight the Salvation War, it is critical that we understand who the enemy is. It is not mankind, it is not those who disagree with our theology, nor does our enemy show himself openly for us to defeat him easily. Our war, and make no mistake it this war is an offensive thing, with with evil personified.

   It is a war within, against our baser passions, it is a war without against, social injustice, immoral living, and denial of God’s Soverienty.

   I for one choose to press boldy into the battle fray. I choose reckless abandon to soveriegn command, over a safer gentler way.

   Ron
Capt Ron Farr on February 20th, 2010

6. Thanks for the responces to this. While I can appreciate the zeal expressed by Ron it is in someways the type of language etc that I was talking about.

   The poster in the article was in fact copied and changed from a WW2 war bonds poster (I have a copy of that poster). I also have a couple of islamist posters which if I were to cut and pasted Ron’s rhetoric into would cause all kinds flack for the Muslim community. Comparing the two is an interesting exercise. With the poster “the image is the message” and the message is a one of Christ as warlord, not the Prince of peace.

   David, is I have read Christus Victor and I think it stands at the center of atonement theory. Like all articles one must make a choice as to what texts etc one will use. Philippians was chosen because of its subversive power.

   Wayne E
Wayne on March 4th, 2010

7. I will take a moment to disagree.

   This weak, powerless, meek, wishy-washy, Jesus is NOT the Jesus of the scriptures. He is NOT the Jesus of the Salvation Army. He is NOT the Jesus of William Booth.

   He is the liberal left cartoon of Jesus. A dead church, empty church, go-nowhere church kind of Jesus.

   My suggestion - get out of the college and into a corps. Get your hands and uniform dirty.

   Steve G.
LTC Steve G on May 25th, 2010

Leave a comment