INTEGRITY

by Terry Camsey

“No matter what an organization says, no matter what image they try to project, the organization needs to demonstrate who they say they are and deliver what they say they offer…”

T

hus commented Elexio Obiah in an issue of Outreach magazine. There’s a lot of food for thought there and a great challenge to the church in general.

A while ago a friend in New Zealand, who is a Salvationist and has a tremendous heart for the mission of the Army, e-mailed me. Apparently that territory had recently been running an ad on television reminding people (if they ever knew) that the Army is more than a charity and is, in fact, a church. In his corps, an immediate response was experienced when - as a direct result of that ad - a new person turned up at the corps on Sunday.

The strategy of the ad was sound. Take people from what they know of an organization to what else you would like them to know.

When it came out, the Crest Book “Come Join Our Army’ by R.G. Moyles led me to contact the author. I was privileged later to enjoy some insightful conversations with him over the internet. In that book he points out that, towards the end of the late 1880’s and early 1890’s, Salvationists were becoming aware that the Army, as they had known it, was beginning to change. They were “now being asked to become as actively involved in charitable work as previously they were in red-hot revivalism.” And they were being popularized for that. Dr. Moyles suggests that they then became “less frequently hailed as soul-saving revivalists and more often as social reformers known less for their aggressive evangelism than for their good deeds.”

Interestingly, Dr, Moyles tells us in his book that - coinciding with this change - the Army’s membership in inner London peaked and, from 1900,”began to experience a slow decline in numbers to the present day.”

Was there a correlation between the change of emphasis and the decline in memberships? A somewhat similar phenomenon was experienced in (as I recall) the mid 1970’s when churches of many denominations in the USA started to make social work the priority. Where evangelism was the primary emphasis, social work increased, but when social work became the priority, evangelism suffered.

Even as I write this, the cautionary - but sage - saying, “Stick to your knitting” comes to mind.

A few years ago I learned that Charlie Chaplin, famed comedian of yesteryears, once entered a “Charlie Chaplin look-alike Competition.” He came in third! His brand image (the bowler hat, walking stick, black moustache and erratic gait”) was there, yet obviously the judges felt he didn’t seem to be himself!

No doubt many of those early Salvationists caught up in the changing focus of the Army, from evangelism to social work felt much like that…the Army didn’t seem to be itself. As far back as 40 years or more, ago General Kitching expressed concerns about the danger of   the Army taking its eyes off the primary purpose of our ministry. God did not send his Son that people might have clothes on their backs, or food in their bellies, or a roof over their head.

Addressing such social and emotional needs only earns us the right to share with them the prime reason God sent his Son…that they might have eternal life. This is not to knock the ministry of our social work so long as it is connected - as we say it should be - on a continuum that draws social service recipients toward the evangelical ministry of corps…and draws the soldiery into personal involvement with the Army’s social ministry.

I guess this is not helped if the bulk of our advertising focuses - as an end product - on what Booth only intended as a stepping stone (a means to an end) to our real product…”the pearl of greatest price.”

What do you think?

P.S. And the “brand” played on!

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, May 2010 (Used with permission of the author)

Avoiding the Faith-Shakers

T

here is some truth to the fears of some Christian fundamentalists concerning the dangers of deep biblical studies. Like others, I have experienced the mix of emotions that come from looking at the Bible through the writings of early manuscripts. Some of those emotions include fascination and awe, while others are among those feelings that could ultimately be refered to as faith-shaking.

Recently at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, the faculty led a Saturday seminar called “Seminary or Cemetery”, which focused on the dangers of deep theological studies and how some seminarians risk the danger of actually losing their faith.

I believe I have some insights into how to avoid this danger.

Just as most Christian denominations accept the belief that Jesus is both human and divine, God’s Word is also humanly and divinely written. As for his humanity, Jesus grew in stature and knowledge (Luke 2:52), and, since the invention of Guttenberg’s printing press, God’s Word has evolved from Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek into the vernacular of nearly every nation in less than 600 years.

As Jesus, who is the Living Word (John 1:1), grew and developed into the man and rabbi who would fulfill Old Testament prophesies and prove to be God as Messiah, so has the Bible gone through many written developments until it has reached its full ability to speak to all people today.

We know how Jesus learned and grew. He grew and learned as a human being. But how did the Bible grow?

The Bible has gone through many processes to reach us where we are today. Scholars like Bruce Metzger, Gordon Fee, Kurt and Barbara Aland, and even the very controversial Bart Ehrman have done a spectacular job of giving those who want to know the ability to discover how the Bible came to be.

When doubt creeps in to the mind of a well-meaning student of God’s Word, it does so through the very human side of the Bible’s development. For example, when one looks over an early scriptural document and sees the scribbling of a monk in the margin of such an important manuscript, it is easy to think, “Oh my God, a normal person wrote this!” And suddenly, the awesomeness of the written words begins to be stripped of their mysterious power.

I suppose the same thing would happen, if we were to travel back in time to a point in the life of Jesus when he needed a diaper change. We would have to say, “How could God produce something that smells that bad?”

Being human is not anti-God, but the exact image of God without divine perfection. The written words that we read and trust as the very Word of God sometimes include the human stench of flaws produced by the careless hand of a scribe.

The flaws are caused by both human error and intentional changes. Scribes have been known to have problems with their sight and hearing, and they have also made errors in judgment. Among the reasons for intentional changes include spelling and grammar issues, alterations for reasons of doctrine, and the desire to smoothen word flow. All of these are well-known and documented by textual critics who work diligently to correct such flaws and restore the orginal meanings of the text.

And just as Jesus may have stumped his toe or gotten a cold, the scribes were not always completely careful when recording the musings, stories and wisdom of the many men and women of the Bible.

The Word of God is flawless, while the written form of God’s words must be constantly inspected and cross-checked as new manuscripts, historical facts, and the social cultures of biblical stories and people are discovered.

I am not threatened by textual flaws, but encouraged to know that God uses imperfect vessels, like you and me, to share the most important message ever given, even though we may not always pass it along with perfection.

In His dust,
Johnny

Works Cited:

Bruce M. Metzger and Bart D. Ehrman The Text of the New Testamen: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (4th ed., New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), pg. viii.

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.

Much Ado About… | The Rumpus Blur!

HoD: does track six need a remix?

                            We believe that Jesus Christ has become the propitiation

                            for the sins of the world, that he rose from the dead, and

                            that he ever liveth to make intercession for us.

                            Sixth doctrine of The Doctrines of the Methodist New Connexion (1838)

 

                            We believe that the Lord Jesus Christ has by His suffering

                            and death made an atonement for the whole world so that

                            whosoever will may be saved.

                            Sixth doctrine of The Doctrines of The Salvation Army

 

                            Irrevocable: not to be recalled, withdrawn, or annulled

                             Gage Canadian Dictionary

 

T he release of a new edition of The Salvation Army’s Handbook of Doctrine has sparked a lot of thought, started many conversations, and has elicited several questions.

 - Why publish a new edition of the Handbook of Doctrine?

 - Do we need a new edition of the Handbook of Doctrine?

 - Was there anything wrong with Salvation Story?

 - Can Salvation Story and the new Handbook of Doctrine work together? (They are similar; there are a few differences. Put together do the two texts make each other stronger? Reflecting on the changes I have observed throughout the text, I still have not read the entire book, was there anything else that could have been reworded or reworked?)

 - Could/should a doctrine or doctrines have been reworded or reworked?

 - Will this edition be reworked or reworded in a generation or two, or less?

I’m sure there are questions I have not thought of, I have not asked yet, or that wouldn’t even come to mind for me. The following thoughts are centered on some things I’ve read about, thought about, and conversations I’ve had with friends I love, respect, and look up to.

During our time at CFOT in Winnipeg, my sisters and brothers in Christ / in training and I had a two-part class entitled “Salvation Army Theology.” I enjoyed the class. We took a comprehensive look at various theologies and schools of thought that fall under the umbrella of Christian Theology. We learned about Church and Salvation Army history. The bulk of the class consisted of looking at The Doctrines of The Salvation Army, their history and basis in scripture. The lectures and notes were informing. Discussion was lively. Learning and thinking was accomplished.

One very lively discussion was about our sixth doctrine and the fact that it may be missing a word or two. To be honest, I didn’t think much about it at the time. I saw what was being said and could understand it; but it wasn’t a deal breaker for me. It’s still not a deal breaker for me, but I do believe it’s worth talking and thinking about.

I believe the word “resurrection” or words “and resurrection” should be added to our sixth doctrine. There may be people who agree or disagree. There may be people who feel a certain way about another doctrine or two. Whichever side of the debate or debates we fall on, there’s no denying the importance of having these conversations and thinking through these elements of our spiritual journeys.

Let’s care enough to read, study, think, and ask questions; it’s all part of the journey.

Let’s dive in…

Both Salvation Story and the new edition of Handbook of Doctrine contain The Doctrines of the Methodist New Connexion. This is more than appropriate. Our first General and cofounder William Booth was an ordained minister of the New Connexion whose doctrines were said “to be ‘those of Methodism, as taught by Mr. [John] Wesley.’” (Salvation Story, Pg.: 130). In fact, the writers of Salvation Story, referring to The Salvation Army’s statement of beliefs, state: “While their origin is nowhere stated, their roots are clearly in the Weslyan tradition. The articles bear a striking similarity in words and content to Methodist New Connexion doctrines…” There are differences, but they are “slight editorial modifications, chiefly of punctuation…” (Salvation Story, Pg.: 130).

I agree and disagree. Both sets of doctrines are valuable and it’s easy to see the minor differences between the two. However, there is a scriptural and theological thought lost in translation from the sixth doctrine of The Methodist New Connexion to the sixth doctrine of The Salvation Army: the resurrection of Jesus Christ. I am definitely not the first person to notice this or say anything about it. I won’t be the last person to notice this or say anything about it if it does not change. It strikes me as more than odd that we would not allude to or make explicit reference to the resurrection of Jesus Christ in our doctrine of the atonement. Lining up the two sets of doctrines, where relevant, we can clearly see “he [Jesus Christ] rose from the dead” in the sixth doctrine of the Methodist New Connexion and no allusion to or statement of Christ’s resurrection in our sixth doctrine; why?

Jesus Christ was adamant about His resurrection: “Then he began to teach that the Son of Man must undergo great suffering, and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.” (Mark 8:31, NRSV, emphasis mine).

In his letter to the Corinthians Paul was very clear about the importance of Jesus Christ’s resurrection: “…if Christ has not been raised, then our proclamation has been in vain and your faith has been in vain.” (1 Corinthians 15:14, NRSV). The Apostle goes on: “If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins.” (1 Corinthians 15:17, NRSV).

Jesus Christ’s resurrection is the central belief and most important element of Christianity. All other thoughts, elements, and beliefs flow from and follow the proclamation that Jesus Christ is risen from the dead.

N.T. Wright, leading and respected voice in Christian thought and New Testament studies in particular, has written numerous volumes of works. The most relevant for this topic is Surprised By Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church. Very early in the book Wright makes the point of how “impossible it is to account for the early Christian belief in Jesus as Messiah without the resurrection.” (Pg.: 48). Without Jesus Christ’s resurrection “we are of all people most to be pitied.” (1 Corinthians 15:19, NRSV).

Before someone says it or thinks it: I know; we mention the resurrection in our eleventh article of faith. It seems to me, however, with the content and within the context of the doctrine to be referring to the general resurrection of believers. With no prior mention of Jesus Christ’s resurrection in our statement of faith, have we put a scriptural and theological cart before the horse? To paraphrase Paul: “If Christ has not been raised from the dead; we, nor anyone else, will be raised from the dead.” (See 1 Corinthians 15).

Our sixth doctrine, as stated, leaves us with a penal substitution-like view of the atonement. If we were to include an explicit reference to the resurrection of Jesus Christ it would make it clear that Christ’s work through the atonement is not limited to the “punishment” side of things. We have removed the word “propitiation,” but we are left with a propitiatory-like understanding of the atonement. The suffering, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ is about the forgiveness of sins and new creation; it’s a very real and spiritual renewal.

Propitiation, like or dislike it, is only half the story. We need the resurrection of Jesus Christ to complete the entire story and work of the atonement. To have one without the other would be like reading the Gospels and leaving out Christ’s resurrection or watching a film trilogy without the third film. We would only have part of the story. We would be lost. Christ’s suffering and death has paid for and erased our sins. Christ’s resurrection has broken the power of sin.

In The History of The Salvation Army: Volume II, 1878-1886 Robert Sandall writes: “By the Deed Poll of 1878 the doctrines of The Salvation Army therein contained were declared irrevocable.” (Pg.: 129). In fact, “The Foundation Deed of The Salvation Army, 1878″ is an appendix in this volume and William Booth wrote: “…the religious doctrines professed believed and taught by the Members of the said Christian Mission are and shall for ever be as follows:…” and the doctrines are listed. (Pg.: 288).

Why?

Commissioner Charles Baugh wrote a short volume/commentary on our doctrines, published in 1950: We Believe:- The Doctrines of The Salvation Army. In chapter one, entitled “Unchangeable Doctrines,” he writes: “…not the slightest desire has thus far been shown by those in authority to change or modify our doctrines. Neither can they be changed. They remain and ’shall for ever be’ unchanged.” (pg.: 7).

Why?

No one would accuse The Salvation Army of not believing in Jesus Christ’s resurrection. Every relevant section on our sixth doctrine in every edition of our Handbook of Doctrine and Salvation Story includes references to Christ’s resurrection being vital to the forgiveness of sins and the work of the atonement. We read about the resurrection in scripture. We sing about the resurrection. We preach about the resurrection. We, like every man, woman, and child on the face of the earth depend on the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Why not make the logical move and include “resurrection” or “and resurrection” in our doctrine of the atonement?

Our sixth doctrine is not wrong or heretical as stated. However, it would be so much more Biblically accurate, and therefore so much more powerful, if an explicit reference to Jesus Christ’s resurrection were included in the actual statement and language of the doctrine.

“Christ the Lord is risen today, Hallelujah!

 Love’s redeeming work is done; Hallelujah!”

Writer: Mark Braye and his wife Nancy are officers in Essex, Ontario, Canada. They have two children, pictured above, Hannah and Micah. The four of them love to play and watch Sesame Street.

I was a teenage fundamentalist - #11

Barry Gittins asks us what we mean when we plot out ‘the end of the book’.

Happy, sad, good, bad - new or trad?

I

n Monty Python’s The Meaning of Life (shot and released in 1983, when I was 15) we followed a hapless French waiter down streets and lanes with the now-ubiquitous one-shot to camera.

His philosophy? ‘The world is a beautiful place. You must go into it and love everyone. Try to make everyone happy, and bring peace and contentment everywhere you go. And so I became a waiter…. Well, it’s not much of a philosophy I know, but well…’

I laughed my head off in stunned surprise at the Frenchman’s anguished, voluble and abusive conclusion to his homespun wisdom (the F-bomb was a fairly novel weapon for comedians back then). The waiter intuits that his belief is rejected by we, the audience, as inadequate - his angry defence suggests that both he and we know there is more to the tale of ‘life’.

As a teenager I had the luxury of time; I could study, grow and learn. I also exhibited the more-than-occasional arrogance of youth.  At the risk of repeating that youthful presumption, not an unprecedented occurrence, I have to say that the closing phrase of our 11th doctrine strikes me now as arrogant in itself.

‘We believe,’ the doctrine states, ‘in the immortality of the soul; in the resurrection of the body; in the general judgment at the end of the world; in the eternal happiness of the righteous; and in the endless punishment of the wicked.’

Most people I have spoken with about spiritual matters in my life, be they Christians or Jews, Muslims, agnostics (and even some rather confused atheists), Buddhists or New Agers, believe that there is an essential element to us - the spark that drives our bodies, the breath of life that gives us hope, sentience, laughter, joy and deep, existential pain.

What do you believe? When it comes to resurrected carcasses, do we get zapped back into existence or do we trade up? Most Christians I know who live within The Salvation Army’s tradition don’t express a belief in bodily resurrection. What was a matter of deep significance to the early Church does not seem to be of great merit to 21st century Christians.

Many bereaved Salvationists of my acquaintance rarely or never return to the graveside of their partner, or the place where they scattered or buried their ashes. Perhaps the rise in the popularity of cremation suggests that the notion of bodily resurrection falls into the discarded theology pile, or that we don’t have any problem believing in a God who can reconstitute bodies from disintegrated atoms and nothingness. Personally, I’d much rather upgrade to a ‘heavenly body’ than stay put in my current model, especially if I live to enter senescence -incontinence, arthritis and the rest of decreptitude’s ensemble (as Bill Shakespeare memorably put it, ’second childishness and mere oblivion, sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything’).

More significantly, do we, will we, wait for the umpire’s celestial whistle? In the cosmic scheme of things a final reckoning seems called for. The mass killings, enslavements, rapine, petty tyrannies, horrors of war, cruelties of neglect and abuse - the random acts of unkindness - all seem, like Abel, to call out to God. Spilt blood bears witness to our fallen state.

Jesus said that we will face a judgment; judging by his descriptions it is one that will surprise many of us who feel we are safely encamped among ‘the righteous’. Like many people, I take great comfort from the ‘eternal happiness of the righteous’ (Revelation’s chapters 5,7, 21 and 22 being among the most aspired to, hopeful and inspired writings of any religion).

Like many people, I also find great discomfort in the 19th century take on biblical writings that follows; the anticipation of ‘the endless punishment of the wicked.’ Ultimately, that does not sound like God. Ultimately, torture, pain and revenge don’t sound like Jesus. Ultimately, endless punishment doesn’t come from the same place as love, joy and peace.

It does not sound like it is God’s call; yet it is a call made clear and recorded in various scriptural passages. It comes back full circle to the first doctrine; that scripture is inspired by God and ‘constitutes the Divine rule of Christian faith and practice’. Do you believe that, knowing the passages we struggle with? The Scriptures record that God started this whole business going and state that God is said to be ready to pack it all in; in God’s good time.

If God exists, and I believe God does, then the brutalities of human existence happen because God permits them to ensure our free will, or because God is powerless to prevent them. A powerless God cannot, by definition, be God. A God who surrenders power or stays His hand points to grace. But blood, the stuff of life, cries out to the maker of life for justice.

Christianity, as with Judaism, believes that it duly follows that the desecration of life by natural disasters (we used to call them acts of God) that indiscriminately strike ‘the just and the unjust alike’ occurs because the world is ‘fallen’. All creation groans, the Apostle Paul wrote, waiting for deliverance.

Without dragging this article into the mires of eschatological second-guessing or the mazes of prophecy and parable, it is enough to accept that we don’t know. We speculate, we ponder, we pray and hope for grace and forgiveness because of Christ’s life, death and renewed life through his body, the Church.

God’s will is not our will. Judgment, if it comes, will come from God.

In this final doctrinal jaunt let’s consider this ambiguous entity we call The Salvation Army (complete with its self-important capital T in the definite article, but nowadays missing much of the zealous self-belief and drive that led to its inception).

What does it profit a non-profit to save the world? Bear with me here, because this deliberation has direct relevance to our 11th doctrine and its notions of the righteous and the wicked.

Option A: Do we finally see our way clear to owning our part in the broader church and retreat fully into numerical insignificance (at least in the West)? Do we go about shunning ‘evil companions’?

A few years back the Australia Southern Territory’s corps programme department conducted research of its members (soldiers) to discover that the vast majority of those surveyed live in a Salvationist enclave. They don’t evangelise, because it’s icky, uncomfortable and feels forced. That’s largely because they don’t genuinely know and engage with anyone who is not like them already. They live, breathe and sometimes work in a Salvation Army frame of mind that doesn’t include others.

Option B: Do we continue with our holistic mission as a paramilitary Christian body, caring for body and soul (mind you, not always catering for the ‘mind’) and treating ‘the least of these, my brothers and sisters’ as if they were Christ himself?

This ‘Option B’ is my obvious preference and prayer; yet it flies in the face of the reality (in my home country of Australia at any rate) that those who statistically comprise The Salvation Army (soldiers, adherent members, junior soldiers) still have a marked chasm between their everyday lives and the social welfare conducted by mostly secular people (good, caring people) in their name.

Finally, the dreaded but not by any means inevitable Option C:  do we see - as has been warned against by several credible Salvation Army prophets in Australia - the Army rapidly shuffling off its older generations (as comrades are promoted to glory and younger, potential Salvationists vote with their feet), sloughing off its holiness skin and emerging as a social welfare agency with quaint Christian antecedents?

Despite the rear guard raging against the dying of an earlier generation’s light (as has been seen in a Salvation Army magazine’s letters to the editor pages in recent years in the Australia Southern Territory, manifesting a willingness to kick the social workers who slog away on a shoddy yet superannuated and salary-packaged wage for ‘not being Salvationists’), it is the service of our rapidly turning-over workforce (Salvation Army social workers have an annual 20% attrition rate) that actively presents Christ’s compassion to ‘the least of these’.

Like that elusive, tick-marked Greek goddess, social program staff members out in the territory ‘just do it’; helping others without judging or condemning them. It is a witness to Christians, delivered by people who are often not Christians, yet act in accordance with the light they have been given. Ain’t no bushels over their lamps, thank God.

The 11th doctrine has been used by some, and is in danger of still being used by all of us, as a spiritual ‘get-out-of-hell’ card. That approach ignores the central message of the gospel: God wants us to be rescued, and wants us to rescue others. If we adhere to the mindset of this doctrine concerning the secular, unchurched staff doing God’s work as per Christ’s instructions - work for which we happily accept the applause - then we put ourselves into the seat of judgment and ultimately see both our staff and the folks they help as hell-bound, unlike saintly lil’ us.

What incredible, colossal hubris. ‘Judge not so you are not judged.’

We need to wrestle with that mindset; a worldview that puts people in different camps. We need to live the ‘Sheep and Goats’ message of Christ. If we declare that we are righteous and others are wicked, if we value our rep or our sovereignty at the risk of neglecting those around us in despair and crises, then we are no different from the Levite and the Priest who left the aggravated assault victim to wait in pain and brokenness, suffering until he received the unwanted ministrations of a despised foreigner who wasn’t in the club, let alone the approved theological mix.

Grace came to town in the person of Jesus. Grace would suggest we don’t label ourselves or our fellow creatures. Grace calls us to bind wounds, apply unguents and dispense medicines. Come to think of it, that Pythonesque waiter’s philosophy of service ain’t that far removed from Christ’s golden rule.

The challenge for all who call themselves Christians, and all who embrace the ethos of The Salvation Army, comes in the thinking behind our doing.

If we pause for honest reflection the answers to these re-cast ‘action points’ that follow our doctrines (below) will be at best ’sometimes’, at worst ‘never’.

Always, throughout all time and beyond, we are covered by a preserving grace that calls us to chase these dreams in the name of a Father who calls us on, the example and passion of a Son who walked the walk, and the power and peace of a supernatural Spirit who calls out to us from the mountains tops, the streets, the beaches and deserts of our lives.

A Salvationist says they will: be responsive to the Holy Spirit’s work and obedient to His leading…growing in grace through worship, prayer, service and the reading of the Bible; make the values of the kingdom of God and not the values of the world the standard for my life; uphold Christian integrity in every area of my life, allowing nothing in thought, word or deed that is unworthy, unclean, untrue, profane, dishonest or immoral; maintain Christian ideals in all my relationships with others: my family and neighbours, my colleagues and fellow Salvationists, those to whom and for whom I am responsible, and the wider community; uphold the sanctity of marriage and of family life; be a faithful steward of my time and gifts, my money and possessions, my body, my mind and my spirit, knowing that I am accountable to God; abstain from alcoholic drink, tobacco, the non-medical use of addictive drugs. gambling, pornography, the occult, and all else that could enslave the body or spirit; be faithful to the purposes for which God raised up The Salvation Army, sharing the good news of Jesus Christ, endeavouring to win others to Him, and in His name caring for the needy and the disadvantaged; be actively involved, as l am able, in the life, work, worship and witness of the corps, giving as large a proportion of my income as possible to support its ministries and the worldwide work of the Army; be true to the principles and practices of The Salvation Army, loyal to its leaders, and show the spirit of Salvationism whether in times of popularity or persecution.
So, just quietly, between you and me, how do you rate your life measured against these aspirations? In all honesty, in terms of fulfilling all these expectations, I don’t do so good.
SuperChristian is a role that I will never measure up to. I need God’s grace and strength to get closer to who God actually wants me to be.

Writer: Barry Gittins is a Melbourne-based writer, lifelong Salvationist, husband (to Trudy) and father(to Emily and Benjamin) who seeks God in everyday encounters. A frustrated poet and playwright, he has worked for the Salvos’ Australia Southern Territory in various roles since 1991: as a journalist (for Warcry, The Young Soldier/Kidzone, The Musician),technical writer and CD-ROM author in corps program (mission development), senior review editor (Warcry) and editor (On Fire). He currently works as a social program and policy consultant (writer/researcher) for the social program department.

Musical justice

Title: Who says I can’t sing? Musical justice for people with intellectual disabilities
Author/researcher: Katrina McFerran, National Music Therapy Research Centre, University of Melbourne
Publisher/funder: The Salvation Army’s Melbourne Central Division Research and Advocacy Portfolio
Country of origin: Australia
Publication/completion date: 2008
Length: 25 pages
Keywords: music, music therapy, Australia, disability
Abstract: This report explores the complementary roles of music therapy and community music for people with disabilities.  It compares two existing music programs through The Salvation Army Brunswick and Able Australia, in order to identify overlap and points of distinction.  The adult participants in these programs were engaged as co-researchers in the investigation, offering their perspectives through focus group interviews, regular written feedback mechanisms and quality of life questionnaires.  These adults included people with a range of disabilities and their carers, both of whom engage in the music programs with equal enthusiasm.

Click here to download a pdf of this paper (753 KB).

Tags: Australia, disability, music, music therapy

The HoD 2010 - An initial response…

Adam Couchman shares his thoughts

“Did you know the new Handbook of Doctrine is available online?” a cadet asked me casually over a cup of coffee. He knew I was very interested in its publication, and that it was expected to arrive at Salvationist Supplies (Trade) at Easter 2010. For someone like me, when it was late I started looking at my watch wondering when it would come (I am a self confessed nerd after all). And so I quickly finished my coffee and “Googled” the text. Within a few mouse clicks I had the document on my computer screen and, still being a fan of hardcopies, I had begun to print it off as well.

As I usually do with every new book I looked over the contents to see what lay ahead. The chapters are renumbered… there’s a significant increase in page count… some new Appendices including a lectionary… all of this heightens my enthusiasm, and so I start to read.

I read in the Foreword that the “principal aim has been to maximise user-friendliness” (pg xiv). OK… interesting aim for a theological text. Then in the Before you begin reading… section some explanation is given as to the new layout.

Each chapter is presented in two sections. The first part of each chapter contains the formal and officially approved Salvation Army exegesis of the relevant article of faith. These together constitute the official Handbook of Doctrine.

It continues to suggest that the second part of each chapter, entitled “for further exploration” are intended to be a “useful resource but do not form part of the official statement of Salvation Army doctrine” (pg xx). Already at this point I’m struggling to go on. Let me attempt to explain why.

I’m a “big picture” kind of person. I like to know the grand vision before I start to wrestle with the details. It just helps me put those details into perspective. So for this particular document I want to know “What is this for?” “Who is meant to read this?” “Who has written it?” “What is an appropriate response to it?” “How does this help the Church and The Salvation Army?” “How does this bring glory to God?”, and so on.

I may just be nitpicking here but what does it mean to say that this document (or at least the first sections of each chapter) is “the formal and officially approved Salvation Army exegesis of the relevant article of faith”? How does “The Salvation Army” exegete something? Isn’t that an intellectual exercise of an identifiable person, not a nondescript entity? I have difficulty with answering these questions. Here’s why.

I often say to Salvationists in various locations (the classroom, at the corps, etc) that “I try not to speak of ‘the Army’ as if I’m not a part of it”. You’ve all heard the comments before - “Why does the Army do this or that?” “Why did the Army appoint them there?” “What was the Army thinking?” I do my best to avoid using such language. Because more often than not it’s a smoke screen designed to divert attention away from the speakers own inadequacies or alternatively an attempt to strengthen their opinion on any given topic (”If it was me I wouldn’t do that”). It’s very rare that these comments are complimentary, and even less so that they’re coming from an informed position. Plus, more importantly for me, it goes a long way to show what we believe about ourselves - our ecclesiology. If I speak of the Army as some institution “out there” making decisions, or doing things I don’t like, or in this instance providing me with a theology which I can simply pick up and read and somehow acquire as my own, then I’m not a part of it. I don’t like that. I am the Army. Said more correctly, I and my Salvationist sisters and brothers in Christ are the Army. I hold to this position very strongly, because I see significant dangers in any other stance.

detach your theology from your ecclesiology …

But immediately I’m forced to reconsider that position as I read the HOD. This document is written and approved by “The Salvation Army”, which means two things. If you are The Salvation Army (as I have suggested above) then you are its author, and subsequently if you want to critique it in any way then it requires some serious mental, and theological, gymnastics in order to do so.  You’re forced to “detach” yourself from “The Salvation Army” momentarily in order to try and read this document objectively. You’re forced to detach your theology from your ecclesiology. Good luck with that.

A further comment about the language employed here. Note above the use of the term “exegesis” (pg xx, see also pg 323). I may be somewhat conservative at this point, but I would like to suggest that some terms should be reserved for use when referring to the Scriptures. This term does describe what is being done with this text (exegeting the doctrines), but by using this term which is most often used in reference to the Scriptures it surreptitiously begins to elevate the doctrines to a level where they should not be - on par with Scriptures.

If that point is too subtle, then turn to the newfound “lectionary” in Appendix 8 (pg 327-333). Initially when seeing this in the contents I was pleasantly surprised. My surprise quickly turned to horror though when I actually looked more closely at the “lectionary” itself. Every other (RCL, Byzantine, Roman etc) provides a set of readings throughout the course of the year (or three years) for Scripture. This one provides a set of readings throughout the course of the year for the Handbook of Doctrine. This, in my opinion, is an absolute travesty. If the subtlety of the use of the word “exegesis” elevated the HOD close to being on par, well this new “lectionary” may even suggest that the HOD is more important than Scripture. “Come on, Adam, it’s just a reading plan”. Yea, I know but words are important, and as I suggested above, some terms should be reserved for use when referring to the Scriptures. Said another way, this is the first time in Church History that a lectionary has been created for anything other than the Scriptures. At least as far as I know (please correct me if I’m wrong).

What does that say?

Finally, in this initial response to the Handbook of Doctrine, it’s necessary to note that this text is effectively a revised edition of Salvation Story. So, for a thorough comparison the two should be read together. That’s a time consuming task, but I think it provides some insight into the theological emphasis that is being put forward here.

a very different shift in emphasis …

For example, the very well written Appendix 9 of Salvation Story (pg 113-114) says the following at one point with regard to being a sacramental community; “Our life together is sacramental because we live by faith in him and our everyday lives keep stumbling onto unexpected grace, his undeserved gift, again and again.” Here the emphasis is upon finding grace in the ordinary and unexpected. This emphasises the giftedness of grace, that it is provided by God and made available through faith.

The newly edited version of this particular line in the HOD states the following; “Our life together is sacramental because we live by faith in him and our everyday lives reveal and offer unexpected grace, his undeserved gift, again and again.” (pg 270). This is a very different shift in emphasis. Here the emphasis is upon us, as the bringers of God’s grace. Note, the subtle shift from faith quickly onto “our everyday lives” as the means by which grace is conveyed.

The above is given simply as an example of the need to read the HOD and Salvation Story in conjunction with one another, although you can probably tell that I have some serious issues with this particular revision that has taken place.

So, I will continue to read and review the new HOD, albeit in a fashion that requires me to disjoin my theology from my ecclesiology, that calls me to read two books at once, and that could, given the recent suggestions of retribution for mild reviews, put me in danger of the “freezer”… Better get my thermals out.

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.

Be You!

E

arly on in my Christian walk I met some people who wanted me to change who I was. The way I dressed, the way I spoke, the way I viewed things. And because of my need, my desire to know Jesus and know his people, I obliged them and began to chip away at the fabric of who I am, who God created me to be.

I began to mimic and copy mannerisms and the “Christianese” of the people around me. I wanted to make everyone happy. Until I woke up one day, and realised I was nothing more than a carbon copy of this idea of what a Christian should look and dress and act like. And it horrified me.

There was nothing authentic or real about who I had become, it had nothing to do with who Jesus was moulding and shaping me to be but was more about who the people I had surrounded myself with were comfortable with me being.

The problem is that besides being completely demoralising for those within the church, those people outside of the church are pretty good at smelling a fake. They can tell when we aren’t being authentic. Our non christian friends (I’m assuming you still have some of those) and non Christian co-workers notice that some of us appear to undergo a lobotomy after becoming a Christian.

That maybe for a good number of us there is this beautiful honey moon period where we give our lives to Jesus and we are pumped and passionate and excited and they can see a genuine difference in us, but that over a period of time where we avail ourselves to the church we slowly become desensitised and civilised and lose the things that made us most uniquely us.

Unfortunately  those outside of the church a lot of the time look and see that Christianity seems to be more about cloning than it is about authenticity and a relationship with Christ. No wonder they are saying “no thanks”.

I said “no thanks” for so long because I was scared of what I would become should I say “yes”. Because I saw people go into the church as interesting, exciting, passionate individuals and come out like robots, no longer allowing anyone to have a difference of opinion, or having their delicate church sensibilities damaged by our worldly ways.

Our church’s should be the most colourful, diverse, alive, interesting places because they are full of people, individuals from all walks of life. People who speak and act and look different from each other. People with different thought patterns and outlooks and interests. People with different abilities and passions and talents. And thankfully some of them are. Thankfully there are some church’s out there that nurture a creative environment, where people are free to be themselves and express themselves and be most vibrantly who they were created to be.

The Bible tells us in the well known passage of Scripture, Psalm 139 that we are fearfully and wonderfully made. Crafted in the womb by God himself. He made you who you are, he made you with your quirks and your interests and passions and outlook on life, your particular taste in art and music and your communication skills. He created you that way for a reason and he called you to a destiny based on the person that you are, that he created you to be. Don’t change who you are to fit an ideal or a century old copy of who others deem a Christian. Just endeavour to become the best version of you. Endeavour always to grow and learn and allow Christ to work in you and challenge you and soften you…don’t allow yourself to be a clone of another,.. be unashamedly, unabashedly, unusually, unorthodoxly, uniquely you.

The Kingdom of God will benefit more from one individual in relationship with God than a church full of clones doing and saying all the ‘right’ things but failing to be who God has called and created them to be.

“Be yourself. Everyone else is already taken.” - Oscar Wilde

Writer: Sally Joy Morgan’s life maxim is, ‘Dream, Risk, Create’, in fact the entirety of her passions and hopes both past and present can all be summed up in just those three words. Determined to always walk the road less travelled, Sally is passionate about two things, God and humanity and endeavours to give her life for both. Sally is a keen preacher and writer and looks forward to investing more time in these areas in the future. After serving for two years at Gympie Salvo’s as the Assistant Church Leader and Youth Pastor, Sally is back home with her family and friends in Brisbane where she attends North Brisbane Salvo’s.

Postmodern Parables #1

An Introduction to a series by Mark Braye

P

arables are stories told to teach, elicit thought, strike hearers visually and conceptually, and deliver a message in an artistic structure.

Parables throw ideas alongside life; they illuminate an idea in a fun form; and they connect elements of faith with elements of the everyday.

Throughout the Gospels, Jesus Christ used parables as a medium for more than one-third of His teachings. We know them well. The parables Christ told explicitly or implicitly delivered messages of hope, love, and grace; they showed hearers what a new/better way of living should look like; they illustrated, in terms people could understand, elements of the divine and elements of faith. Parables were, and still are, important; vital even, to communities of faith.

We love stories. We’re very narrative-centric (”What’s your/her/his/their story?” “Is this a news story?” “I liked the special effects but not such a great story”). From the moment we’re born, parents and grand-parents and other friends and relatives are telling us stories and reading us stories. From early ages we’re watching and learning from the stories of Sesame Street, Dora and Boots, and Thomas the Tank Engine. We read fiction and non-fiction. We read stories about Sam-I-Am, The Hardy Boys, a dog named Cujo, and Holden Caulfield. We read biographies and experience the true stories of Wayne Gretzky, Pierre Trudeau, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Lebron James, Clint Eastwood and Barack Obama. We enter the worlds and stories of Narnia and Pandora through the special effects of movies and the imaginations of writers and filmmakers.

I love to read and I love to hear stories, but I love films. I might be a movie geek. Motion Pictures are my favorite forms of story. I love how film incorporates written word, visuals, music, and human hands to tell a story.  

In his book The Great Movies, Roger Ebert writes: “We live in a box of space and time. Movies are windows in its walls. They allow us to enter other minds - not simply in the sense of identifying with the characters, although that is an important part of it, but by seeing the world as another person sees it.”

Movies allow us to see a lot. Movies say a lot to us. Movies say a lot about us.

I believe films are postmodern parables. I think they teach, make us think and converse, strike us visually, and deliver a message in an artistic structure. With postmodern[1] parables I want to look at a movie or a writer/directors movies or a genre of film that:

• a.) displays themes we can connect to our spiritual journeys or ministry
• b.) has a story of redemption or a character(s) learn something along a journey of discovery
• c.) eludes to Christian scriptures or elements of faith and theology
• d.) contains “glimmers of the gospel”
• e.) explores themes and tells stories of social justice, ethical dilemma, liberation, and the battle of good vs. evil

I’m going to write about movies and I want us to think and talk about movies and how they are more like parables than we give them credit for.

Get your popcorn ready.

Writer: Mark Braye and his wife Nancy are officers in Essex, Ontario, Canada. They have two children, pictured above, Hannah and Micah. The four of them love to play and watch Sesame Street.

COM 2 COM 3 - Unsung Heroes!

 Joe Noland continues his virtual conversation with Comm Jim Knaggs

O

ne of the questions Commissioner Jim Knaggs planned to ask me (but didn’t have time to) in the isalvos.com interview was, “Who are your heroes?” I answered it, in part, under question #2.  (See http://therubicon.org/2010/04/comm-2-comm-2-no-boundaries-yes/).  

Now let me take this opportunity to expand upon that answer, in addition to those three divisional commanders and one territorial commander previously mentioned. First and foremost would be a corps officer, the then Lt. Ed Henderson, who influenced the direction of my life more than any one person ever; one who modeled for me risk-taking and adaptive, aggressive evangelism big time. In fact, that influence is documented in the film, “Altars in the Street,” available over at www.joenoland.com - the “Creations” page. I also honor he and his wife, Eleanor, in several of my other books. 

Since that time, spanning almost 50 years of officership, there are countless other Corps Officers who have been added to my ‘Hero List.” They are too numerous and there is not enough space to mention all here, most of them Corps Officers to the very end, never having their names listed in the much sought after “Staff” section of the Dispo, or “Officers on Active Service” section in the Year Book. 

I think of Major’s John and Mary Rocheleau, slugging it out year after year, Christmas after Christmas right up until retirement. When I was Territorial Youth and Candidates Secretary, we averaged 60 + cadets per session over five years, John and Mary holding the record for those coming in from their corps. It was a sight to behold, and all because of their Christ-mentoring spirit, grass roots style. These are two of my heroes! 
Then there’s Brigadier and Mrs. John Bawden, spending three quarters of their officership career in two corps appointments (Imagine that!): Great Falls, Montana and Albuquerque, New Mexico, she proudly wearing five silver stars, one for each child. And now their son and daughter-in-law, Majors Ron and Marilyn Bawden, retiring as Corps Officers out of Glendale, Arizona, she sporting two silver stars representing each child. They are four of my heroes! 

Most recently, Major’s Tom and Sylvia Petersen, retiring out of Reno, Nevada, where Doris and I had the privilege of conducting their Retirement Service. They gladly, without reservation, accepted some of the most difficult corps appointments in the Western Territory - Compton, Boise and Reno, among others - never slowing down one iota. And now they volunteer happily, full time, no compensation, no complaining, whatever the C.O. asks of them, in the Spokane Corps. Definitely two of my heroes! 

And the list goes on. Unfortunately, in our system, “Corps Officer” resides on the bottom rung of the hierarchical scale, sometimes even viewed and treated as second-class citizens. Were it not for them, where would we be? They represent the life-blood of this Army! (Along with their Soldiery) Most of them UNSUNG! - The best kind of hero. 

This is how I would have answered the question had there been enough time. 

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.