On a High Horse?

by Terry Camsey

“If your outgo exceeds your income,

Your upkeep will be your downfall!”

I

t’s an old couplet but one that has application in many different contexts. For example, while on holiday in Germany last year, my wife and I visited the town of Saltzburg… a  city with close connections to the early life of Mozart.

The Tour Guide mentioned the dilemma of the Catholic Church there which was losing thousands of members a year… and with that loss a considerable reduction in guaranteed income. It reminded me of that couplet with the outgo of members significantly impacting the upkeep potential.

No church can survive without members…in fact members are the church. They are the one measurement that can - more than any other - impact (no, determine!) the future of the church.

In John 3:16, God sets out the foundational purpose of His church quite clearly. He gave his only begotten Son that… “people should have clothes on their backs?” No! That “people might have a roof over their heads?” No! That “their bellies might be filled?” No!

Our ministry may include all of those and more, but the supreme purpose God gave us Jesus was that people might have everlasting life. William Booth was astute enough to know that it was difficult to speak to a man about his soul while such physical needs might be so urgent that he could hear nothing until those needs were satisfied. There is a real danger that in meeting only temporal needs, we can fail to take the opportunity to speak to that man about the state of his soul.

Salvation Army history books tell us that everyone coming through the soup lines of Booth’s day was dealt with spiritually.

The mandate (command!) given by Christ Himself in The Great Commission - to the disciples of his day and by inference to those who follow in their footsteps - is to: go and make disciples of all nations; baptize (enroll them in His church), and teach them to observe all the things He commanded those first disciples to do…promising that, if we did, He would be with us always to the end of the age.

We can (and do) measure many things, but the bottom line in evaluating our mission and ministry in accomplishing The Great Commission is quite clear, “souls won, enrolled in the church and being discipled.”  That is the ultimate measure of our success in ministry. All else should contribute to that end.

General Wellington, once sent a dispatch to the British Foreign Office while fighting in Spain. It read thus:

Gentlemen, while marching from Portugal to a position which commands the approach to Madrid and the French forces, my officers have been diligently complying with your requests which have been sent by His Majesty’s ship from London to Lisbon and thence to dispatch riders to our headquarters.

We have enumerated our saddles, bridles, tents and poles, and all manner of sundry items for which His Majesty’s government holds me accountable. I have dispatched reports on the character, wit and spleen of every officer. Each item and every farthing has been accounted for with two regrettable exceptions for which I beg your indulgence.

Unfortunately the sum of one shilling and nine-pence remains unaccounted for in one infantry battalion’s petty cash, and there has been a hideous confusion as to the number of jars of raspberry jam issued to one cavalry regiment during a sandstorm in Western Spain. This one reprehensible carelessness may be related to the pressure of circumstances, since we are at war with France, a fact that may come as a bit of surprise to you gentlemen in Whitehall.

This brings me to my present purpose, which is to request elucidation of my instructions from His Majesty’s government, so that I may better understand why I am dragging an army over these barren plains. I construe that perforce it must be one of two alternative duties, as given below. I shall pursue either one with the best of my ability but I cannot do both:

1) To train an army of uniformed British clerks in Spain for the benefit of the accountants and copy-boys in London, or, perchance

2) To see to it that the forces of Napoleon are driven out of Spain

Your Most Obedient Servant,

Wellington

One wonders whether leaders on the front lines of other “Calvary regiments” (no misprint!) might even today face a similar dilemma in determining priorities.

It’s a point worth pondering, don’t you think?

Writer: A published and recorded composer; cornet soloist of international fame; Terry Camsey was a Salvation Army officer for over twenty years mostly in the area of Church Health and Growth who in retirement is a church growth consultant. He studied with Carl F George (of the then Fuller Institute of Evangelism) as a church growth “doctor” (Diagnosis with Impact), Lyle E. Schaller, Charles and “Chip” Arne and trained as facilitator with Covey Institute (Seven Habits and  First Things First), and The Edward de Bono Lateral Thinking Course.

Terry has traveled as Church Growth teacher around the world including Britain, Scandinavia, Germany, Australia and New Zealand, Philippines, Germany.

He is writer of “Slightly Off-Center” (Crest books) and regular columnist in New Frontier (The Salvation Army USA West’s periodical) for over two decades.

© Terry Camsey, August 2009 (Used with permission of the author)

7 Comments to On a High Horse?

1. I have a number of issues with this post.

   Firstly, it seems to be based upon a Platonic and thus dualistic understanding of “soul” and “body” as separate and distinct entities. For example “There is a real danger that in meeting only temporal needs, we can fail to take the opportunity to speak to that man about the state of his soul.” The most obvious refutation of this claim is the example of Christ himself. On many occasions Jesus looked after only the so-called temporal needs (healing, feeding, even raising from the dead in Luke 7) and didn’t ask about the state of the soul of the person/people he encountered. If we interpret these events with a Platonic dualistic understanding of “soul” and “body” you’re left wondering why Jesus didn’t “evangelise” properly (i.e. He looked after their stomach, now he should have asked them about their soul). In reality a Scriptural understanding of “self” is that “soul” and “body” are in fact inseparable (Take 1 Thess 5:23 for example). You cannot have one without the other. Said differently, take one away, you lose both. So, for Christ, in dealing with “temporal” needs he was also dealing with “eternal” needs. So I think that the suggestion that we can “only” offer temporal needs without addressing “spiritual” needs is actually a misnomer. Matthew 25:31-46 seems to suggest an inseparable link between the “temporal” and the “eternal” in ministry. We need to view all ministry in this light (i.e. a Scriptural understanding of the self) and reject the Platonic dualism that has threatened the Church for centuries (e.g. Gnosticism).

   Secondly, the interpretation of Matthew 28:16-20 (the so-called Great Commission) is flawed here. This article seems to suggest that the ever-abiding presence of Christ is somehow conditional - “if we did” is the giveaway phrase. This is certainly not the case in Matthew’s Gospel. The ever-presence of Christ is an all-encompassing and unconditional promise within Matthew’s Gospel. The “I Am” is “with you always” 28:20 is a beautifully constructed book-end echoing its opposite counterpart in 1:23 whereby Jesus is named “Emmanuel - God (I Am) is with us”. The fact that Matthew does not have an ascension narrative like the other Synoptics suggests that he wants this thought to be the lingering message that remains with his hearers; “I am with you always” (say that line out loud and pretend you’re hearing it for the first time as Matthew’s first recipients would have). Jesus does not go away (in this Gospel), but promises to remain with his disciples always. No conditions. No strings attached. Just because that is “who he is” - Emmanuel - God with us. Even Matthew 18:20 (the other verse expressing this theme) does not suggest that Christ’s presence is somehow conditional, but rather that it is emphasised where two or three are gathered (this is significant in its context as this passage contains advice for dealing with problems within the Church).

   Finally, the “bottom line” (at least in Matthew’s gospel) is not “souls won” but “disciples made”. Even more specifically, “disciple-makers made”. That requires a holistic approach to mission that sees all ministry (such as giving a cup of cold water in Jesus’ name 10:42) as a part of the “disciple-maker making” process. Not just those aspects which address the “spiritual” over and above the “temporal”. The ultimate example of that in Matthew’s gospel is the Sermon on the Mount. This sermon addresses “all of life” issues. It is definitely not just “how’s your soul brother/sister?”
Adam Couchman on April 19th, 2010

2. Thank you Adam

   I don’t believe that we are that far apart.

   You mention that the “bottom line” (in Matthew’s gospel) is “not souls won, but disciples made.” A disciple is a follower of Christ. Question is whether people more likely to become followers before accepting Christ or after.

   Regarding the relationship of “social” to “spiritual”, did not Christ himself, seeing their hunger, feed the multitude with the miracle of the five loaves and two fish. Didn’t He see meeting needs and seeking the lost as two sides of the same coin.

   Questions remain: Do we, like Booth, deal with the spiritual needs of EVERY PERSON that comes to us for social help? I rather suspect that, if we did, there would be more of such people in corps today.

   I am just glancing at the number of people served by The Salvation Army in one year in one territory. That number is just short of a million and a half people. If only one-percent of them were subsequently enrolled (”baptized” in the Army) that would significantly magnify “the Body of Christ”

   But really, the whole point of my article is in the story of Wellington. His leaders at The Foreign Offices were obviously more interested in having him chase down and account for farthings (the smallest English coin of the time), to the detriment of his focusing on the war.

   Is it possible that the exercise of frequent gathering of multiple statistics to satisfy leaders of all administrative levels and interests - from the Territory down to DHQ - is also taking away the time of our front line officers. Time better spent engaged in the Holy war?
Terry Camsey on April 20th, 2010

3. You are so right Terry about the stats. So much time wasted on collecting depressing information. Recently I’ve seen officers vigourously enrolling people and pulling the old trick of asking people forward to sign some fangled bookmark or pledge to get their “stats up”. It’s a cynical and pathetic exercise and akin to keeping the pennys in check.

   We need a fresh attitude to our social. If it was integral with everything else we do (like the 614 concept) we wouldn’t even have to push, it just happens naturally. Trouble with our social as it presently is, is that officers are dumped there in a seemingly second-rate appointment spend much of their time working through their own psych problems and often don’t even ask the question.

   It’s obvious that social is the engineroom of TSA as the corps decline continues. We have to get “with the program”.

   Peter B.
Peter B on April 21st, 2010

4. Hi Terry…

   Thanks for your response.

   I can agree with you that the “social” and the “spiritual” are two sides of the one coin, but still I’m uncomfortable even with that dualistic understanding of ministry…

   Similary, I’m uncomfortable with equating our “enrolling” (presumably you mean soldiership here) with “baptism”. That suggests that “only” soldiers are disciples in The Salvation Army, which of course is far from true.

   On to your main point… I agree that administration can choke The Salvation Army’s efforts. As one who is “administratively challenged” I struggle with some of the seemingly unnecessary paperwork and reporting systems that I have to deal with. However, I have also been in appointments where I’ve seen an atrocious mismanagement of Army funds and found myself asking the question “Why didn’t DHQ step in and stop this?” So, I can see the absolute need for accountabilities, reporting and the like. Anarchy would be just as destructive to our mission as overbinding ourselves in red, yellow and blue tape!

   What we need to call for us “appropriate and functional administration”. The best example I’ve heard of this was a Corps Officer who received a request for a 16 page report directly from THQ. The CO went to his DC and asked the simple question “Why is this needed?” The DC went back to the THQ department and negotiated on behalf of the CO (and everyone else for that matter) and the report was reduced from 16 pages to 1! Needless to say, everyone was happy in the end.

   I don’t think officers and staff at DHQ’s or THQ’s are ever ‘deliberately’ overconsumed with administration that they are completely detached from being focussed on the mission of the Army. Sometimes, however, it happens that all of us get consumed in our own “world” and think that our requests are the most important and so they just lose the missional perspective.

   In answering your question “yes it is worth pondering this”.
Adam Couchman on April 21st, 2010

5. Hi Adam

   Good to hear from you.

   It is enriching to hear other opinions based on a slightly different perspective. “Iron sharpening iron!”

   May I respond…

   Baptism is described as “the ritual act by which a person is admitted to membership of the church”. Other churches do it with water. The Army doesn’t but on that definition isn’t enrollment (as soldier OR ADHERENT)our way of bringing people into church membership?

   Certainly accountability should be required of those who are given freedom to act. But, having been involved in administration and program (for many years)at both territorial and divisional levels, I am aware of the danger when program specialist are not just concerned with accountability and reports…when the statistics are used as a bludgeon to increase levels of activity and membership to the benefit of those administrators (especially program specialists) who have their next promotion in view.

   This has resulted, for example, in some such “Directors” demanding a quota from each corps at music or other camps they are responsible for. “For whose benefit do we do this, in this way?” That is a question that need to be asked.

   And more than that…EACH controlling level needs to be a servant-leader like Jesus, asking of those they seek to control, “How can I HELP you?” The answer will/should open up healthy dialog and influence the focus and agenda of such leader.

   One more related point. It seems to me that whenever a mid- or upper-level leader visits a corps we try to show him/her what we feel they want to see. We might even do a march to open-air (with a borrowed or composite band), maybe have a glory march with Army flags and handkerchiefs waving around the hall during the meeting. We might have knee drill etc etc.

   My guess is that they go away thinking that all is well with the Army when, in fact, what they have been shown is not the norm! Do you think that influences decision-making?

   How about the rolls padded with people either dead for years or not seen for many years? Maybe they should be on a corps Memorial Roll, or an Absent Friends list. Certainly they may not represent anything like reality!

   We need lots and lots of prayer…and to recognize and respect those who, like The Sons of Issachar” KNOW THEIR TIMES. This Army needs an “HEIR FORCE” don’t you think!
Terry Camsey on April 22nd, 2010

6. After reading the comments by Adam Couchman and Peter B, I get the feeling thats it’s more of protecting our turf.

   Surely the big question is as Bob Docter put in his book “A view from the corner” “Do we really want to grow?” better still do we really want to see souls saved? If yes is your answer, then why is it that our corps are not bursting at the seams and we are having to build bigger halls instead of hearing about closures and our numbers are declining.

   As a life long Salvationist it is very depressing to see the direction we are taking and how out of balance we have become.

   Regarding the collection of Stats, yes they can be a right pain but using them wisely they hold a wealth of information on the health of your corps.

   Roy
Roy Stephens on April 23rd, 2010

7. I don’t want to take this discussion down a side trail when the main focus of the content of this post was upon excessive administration loads. I think that’s unfair on Terry and the point he has made here.

   However, I would like to respond to your last comment regarding baptism/soldiership. You have used the definition of Baptism “the ritual act by which a person is admitted to membership of the church”. This would fit well in a tradition that believes in “sacramental regeneration” (i.e. saved by the act of baptism) but not so well in others, specifically those who hold to a Zwinglian view (just a sign of a past event).

   For Salvationists, we couldn’t adhere to this definition of baptism if we want to equate it with the enrolling of soldiers because the Articles of War precludes it. The first paragraph states that “having accepted Jesus Christ as my personal saviour” (i.e. past event), “and wanting to fulfil my membership of his Church on earth” (this also assumes that this has already occurred, presumably at conversion) “as a soldier of The Salvation Army” (this is a new event taking place in the event of the swearing-in - a kind of status change in the existing membership of the Church). From this simple exegesis of this paragraph alone it suggests that we can’t say that soldiership is “the ritual act by which a person is admitted to membership of the church” because the Articles of War suggest that they already are a member of the church.

   In general terms, I don’t know of any Christian who is not, by default, a member of the church. They are “in Christ” by the Spirit already.

   Again, it’s not my intention to hijack this discussion down a path that you didn’t intend it to go, but still I think it’s an important distinction to be made.

   To respond to the rest of your last comment, I can only respond with a “sigh”. The optimist in me would love to say “that doesn’t exist” or “it’s only in the minority”… but the realist fights back and has to agree wholeheartedly with your assessment.

   I can only hope and pray that I’m a leader who asks “How can I help you?” if and when I’m in such a role…

   One last comment (I promise!!!) regarding dead or inactive people filling roles. I know that in my territory there was a move to have an electronic database replace the old handwritten roles at corps to try and centralise the processes of transferring etc. Unfortunately the program was so cumbersome and timeconsuming that it didnt work and became an added burden for people at the corps level. So if you look at the stats for my territory (AUE) you’ll notice that they don’t move that much for a period of about 5 years then all of the sudden start to drop dramatically as this problem was sorted out… Again, though, it took a lot of work caused by something that was supposed to reduce it!

   Adam
Adam Couchman on April 27th, 2010

Leave a comment