Universal Salvation… It’s not all bad!

Is “Universalism” really a four-letter word? asks Adam Couchman

I‘ve had reason lately to contemplate the suggestion of universal salvation - that is, everyone will be saved in the end.

No need for repentance, conversion or any sense of morality, you’re just “in”.

I’ve been thinking about this for no other reason than I take the words of The Army’s sixth doctrine very seriously… “made an atonement for the whole world”. Similarly, I look at passages such as Titus 2:11; “For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people” (ESV), and ask myself the question “What does it mean to say all people?”.

How do we address that? Do we actually mean, “the whole world” or do we rationalise it in some way as needing a caveat clause: only those who go through some “initiation process” of some kind “get in” (be that a “sinners prayer” or otherwise)?

I recognise that there is a fairly weighty scriptural basis for the suggestion that some people are “in” and some people are “out”. The Bible does speak of a place of punishment, and a place of reward, and Paul frequently uses the phrase “in Christ” which suggests there are some who are “out of Christ”. But for me, as I said to a friend over coffee the other day, I’d much rather dance with a doctrine that said “all people are saved” than one that suggests that 75-80% of people in the world are going straight to hell. There’s a certain amount of attraction towards and comfort in universalism there. It says a lot about the extensiveness and extravagance of God’s love and grace.

I’m not a universalist, though. I’m still not convinced that it’s orthodox, and neither has the church been throughout its history. I’m with Karl Barth at this point, though, who when accused of being a universalist (which he wasn’t) he responded by saying “I’m not, but would it be so bad if I was?”

However, I do find that upon raising even the possibility of universalism there’s a certain amount of discomfort that arises in people almost immediately. Stop for a moment and assess your own thoughts and feelings as you’ve been reading this post. Are you disagreeing with any suggestion of universalism? Have you been considering a strongly worded rebuttal (which is welcomed by the way)? What’s going on inside your head at the mention of this word?

“Universalism” is just one of those theological dirty words (It’s a shame it’s not spelt with four letters). It seems to be one place of common ground as a “no-go zone” regardless of one’s particular theological bent in other areas.

I have to ask why is that so?

Again, would it be so bad if God did, in fact, save everyone in the end? Would it be so bad if God did say that “Christ’s sacrifice is sufficient for all, you don’t have to do anything, you don’t even have to be a particularly nice person, you’re all saved, you’re all in!” This is where the discomfort arises.

How would we feel if our next door neighbour in eternity was Adolf Hitler? Or Osama bin Laden? Or an axe-murderer? Or a child rapist? This, I suspect, is the underlying source of our discomfort with any suggestion of universalism. We want retributive justice. Like when we watch any movie based on a theme of “us” and “them” we want to know that the bad guy gets it in the end. Reminiscent of the scene in Bruce Almighty when he’s standing in the rain screaming at God, we know God can do some pretty good “smiting” and we’re looking forward to when he does that to “those evil people in the world” in the end (i.e. not “us” but “them”)…

Universalism, for all its faults, does have one thing going for it. It exposes within us the limits of our own love for others; particularly the love we have for our enemies.

What did Jesus say? “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love you neighbour and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven.” (Matthew 5:43-45 ESV). In the context of this discussion those words become particularly powerful.

When was the last time you prayed for Adolf Hitler, or Osama bin Laden, or much closer to home someone who insults me? When have you prayed for your enemy’s eternal salvation? I don’t think I’ve ever done that! “Lord, have mercy upon him/her.” It’s almost painful to type those words in reference to those “enemies”, let alone pray for them.

But doesn’t that say more about me than it does about God? Doesn’t that expose in me the extent of my ability to love my enemies, whilst at the same time showing just how far God goes to provide a means of salvation for all people. In the light of that, consider these words from Romans…

“For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will scarcely die for a righteous person-though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die-but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.” (Romans 5:6-11)

We were “enemies of God”, Paul suggests, yet still at that time Christ died. It’s as if we are the terrorist, or the mass murderer, or the child rapist in our considerations above. We deserved God’s retributive justice (”Smite me Almighty Smiter!” as Bruce Almighty so aptly said), but instead of it being directed towards us it was directed towards Christ. God should have punished us. God should have destroyed us, yet because of his covenantal love and the faithfulness of Christ he fulfilled his promises to Abraham, Moses and David through Jesus Christ and now makes them available to all people, Jews and Gentiles, through Jesus Christ and by the Holy Spirit. This still amazes me and to be perfectly honest I still don’t fully understand it. But boy am I thankful!

Let’s not forget that this is where we’ve come from and in the light of that consider where we’re going, and also who’s coming with us. Do we just want it to be “the lost, the last and the least” (as important and absolutely vital as they are). It’s interesting that often that phrase is said by those who are “the found, the first, and the finest”.

Or should we also be desparately seeking “the worst, the woeful and the wicked”? To coin a completely overused phrase… what would Jesus do?

“Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven.”

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.

5 ways to improve SA Worship

by James Pedlar

I believe it is time for a renewal of Salvationist worship.  I don’t mean that Salvationists should sing more up-to-date contemporary music, and I don’t think it’s just about recovering classic hymns, though in certain corps either of these might be called for.   I’m talking about re-thinking some of the big picture questions, about the structure of the service, the theology of worship, and the historical roots of Army worship practices. 

Why do Salvationists worship the way they do?  Army worship may not have a formal structure mandated by headquarters, but it has many informal structures and conventional practices which need to be examined.   The way we worship has an immense influence on our Christian formation, even for those of us who come from “free” (non-liturgical) worship traditions.  For the Army, I think this means stepping back and re-examinig the things we do without thinking in worship.

That’s a huge task, and I’m not intending to offer a full-fledged approach to renewing the Army’s worship here in this article!  But I’d like to get a conversation started.  We need lots of people thinking about this, and interacting with other Christian traditions in order to glean insights from their worship practices. 

So, as humble a contribution to what I hope will be a larger conversation, I’ve got a few suggestions on my mind for improving Salvationist worship:

1. Eliminate the MC-style running commentary on songs

Army worship is an example of “routinized revivalism,” meaning that many Army worship practices are morphed versions of revival techniques, handed down through the generations.  Salvationist worship leading is a prime example.  Leading a revival meeting was more like leading a musical “program” than leading worship.  The leader acted as an MC and tried to keep things moving as the show went on.  The routinized version of this is the Army tradition of “lining out songs,” or offering a little commentary on the theme of a song before it is sung. Contemporary worship leaders often play the MC role in a different way, offering little observations and “sermonettes” between songs or exhorting worshippers to greater sincerity passion in their worship.

Why is this a problem?  Because all these little comments inserted between songs cause us to spend too much time talking to one another in worship, and not enough time communing with God.  Worship should be about God speaking to us, and us responding to God’s Word.  This running commentary style leadership means that we’re spending more time talking to one another.  And it doesn’t really add anything to the service.  It is more of a distraction than an aid to worship.  Just sing the songs.  They don’t need to be introduced, sermonized or commented upon. When our worship leaders act like MCs, worship ends up feeling more like a musical program than an encounter with the living God.

2. Stop singing about the Army

This is a touchy one, I know, but it needs to be said.  Songs such as #807, “Joy in The Salvation Army” and #681, “Come Join Our Army,” should be banned from Sunday worship.  These songs might be useful for a Salvationist pep-rally but they are completely wrong as aids to worship. I’ll be more blunt: they are not aids to worship, they are denominational anthems.  These songs are not focused on the greatness of God, but on the greatness of The Salvation Army. They are very “effective” at strengthening denominational loyalty and firming up Salvationist identity, but when we turn our Sunday morning service into an opportunity for reminding ourselves how great we are, we are engaging in a form of idolatry.  We gather to worship God.  How can we stand before the throne of grace and sing joyously about ourselves?  

3. Let the word be heard

Many churches are dropping the practice of reading scripture publicly during worship.  This is not only a Salvationist issue, but one which cuts across the evangelical spectrum.  I’m not entirely sure of the logic behind this, although it is probably felt that stopping the “flow” of emotionally charged music to listen to a reading disrupts the mood.  Often if scripture is read in our services, the reading is incorporated into the pastor’s sermon. 

Scripture needs to be heard in our worship services because we need to allow space for God to speak to us.  The primary way that God speaks is through scripture. And we don’t always need a pastor to tell us what the scriptures are saying!  Scripture, the sixteenth century reformers would tell us, is self-authenticating. It has its own power and its own efficacy, therefore a simple public reading of scripture is a way of allowing God to speak in the midst of his gathered people. We should have at least two readings in every service (covering both Testaments), and we would also do well to use the Psalms as a form of corporate prayer. Preferably these readings will take place toward the start of the worship service - so that it is clear that we are allowing God to speak before we offer our response to him. 

4. Pay attention to content

Many people have grown tired of the “worship wars,” and rightly so.  The biggest problem with the traditional vs. contemporary debate, in my mind, is that it has thrown us off more important questions concerning the content of our songs and hymns.  Some new worship music has weak and shallow content, but the same can be said of some “traditional” songs!  Beyond the question of idolatrous “Army songs,” think of a song like “I Come to the Garden Alone.”  It is loved by many, and has moved people for generations, but when you look at the text, there’s not much content there.  I’m not saying these have absolutely no place in worship, but they have a limited place, and they need to be complemented by songs like “In Christ Alone” or the great Hymns of Wesley and Watts - hymns which paint the bigger picture of who the triune God is, and tell the story of God’s redemptive work in history.  

5. Drop the showtunes

While content is genrally a more important issue than “form” or style, there are times when style can override or obscure solid content.  I’ve got nothing against Gowans and Larsson as leaders.  They are both fine Christian men, who’ve served with dignity and integrity, and I appreciated the direction they gave to the worldwide Army.  However, it is just plain weird to go to church and sing show tunes.  Why would I show up for church and suddenly start praising God as if I’m in a play on Broadway?  For example, think about song #274, “He came to give us life in all its fullness.”  If you’ve been around the Army for a long time, this song seems normal, but it isn’t.  It is just plain weird to praise God in this way - unless you are really into Broadway-style musicals, but I think it is a safe bet that the majority of Salvationists don’t walk around with Rodgers and Hammerstein on their iPods.  Maybe these songs have a particularly strong meaning for people who were a part of the productions when they first came out, but for those of us who don’t have that history, they’re just an odd kind of worship song.

Those are some piecemeal and rather uneven suggestions for improving Salvationist worship, but I think they are a start.  

Anyone have other ideas?

James Pedlar is a doctoral student at Wycliffe College, in the Toronto School of Theology.  He specializes in the study of the Church - especially questions involving reform movements, Christian unity, authority structures, and ecumenical dialogue.  He is also interested in Wesleyan theology, Salvation Army theology, and the theology and practice of worship. James works part-time as Assistant Coordinator of Faith & Witness at the Canadian Council of Churches.   He recently completed a two year research project on young adult attrition for The Salvation Army in Canada and Bermuda, which you can read about here.   Before that he was Community Ministries Director for The Salvation Army in the Quinte Region of Ontario, Canada.  James is married to Samantha and they live in East York.  You can read his blog here

Officer Outliers!

“We have a precious resource we should be tapping” suggests Joe Noland.

There’s an interesting book making the rounds titled Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell. In it, among other things, he repeatedly mentions the “10,000-Hour Rule,” claiming that the key to success in any field is, to a large extent, a matter of practicing a specific task for a certain number of hours.

In addition, other studies have also shown that excellence at a complex task requires a minimum level of practice, and experts have settled on 10,000 hours as the magic number for true expertise. Gladwell quotes neurologist Daniel Levitin as follows:

“In study after study, of composers, basketball players, fiction writers, ice-skaters, concert pianists, chess players, master criminals, this number comes up again and again. Ten thousand hours is equivalent to roughly three hours a day, or 20 hours a week, of practice over 10 years… No one has yet found a case in which true world-class expertise was accomplished in less time. It seems that it takes the brain this long to assimilate all that it needs to know to achieve true mastery.”

To put this into context, think of it in Salvation Army officership terms. For example, there are certain skill sets that must be learned and practiced in order to become a successful corps officer. This carries over into a host of specialized appointments, the corps officer skill set being foundational to all. It occurs to me that there are a host of retired officers with world-class officership expertise (do the math), whose practical and consulting skills are not being tapped sufficiently. Confession time! Looking back, as a TC, I too unconsciously overlooked this prestigious and potentially prolific pool of TSA “Outliers” (Unfortunately, the book wasn’t published then to nudge me).

This Gladwell induced insight has led me to compile and edit the August/September issue of Journal of Aggressive Christianity (JAC) with this “Outlier” theme in mind: “CHARGE! Looking Back. Facing Forward: 5 Wise Words of Counsel.” The writer contributors are all successful retired TSA officers.  The “Foreword” establishes the theme: http://www.armybarmy.com/jac.html

 Coincidentally (or is it?), Commissioner Jim Knaggs touches on the Army’s use of consultants over at TCSpeak: http://tcspeak.com/blog/2010/07/28/consulting/. Another word for “consultant” might be “Outlier.” Who knows the Army better than its retired officers with, perhaps minimally, 40-50,000 hours of practice each? They are specialists in their field. Read carefully what Knaggs has to say because it is very important. In part he writes, “Nor can we rely so much on outside consultant(s) that we ignore our own perspective or mission priorities” (The paraphrase is mine). Although outside objective consultation is valuable, in certain circumstances, let us not minimize the consultative expertise (Outliers) within our own ranks.

Following is but one example out of many. Rob Birks writes on his FaceBook thread:

“My Dad, Major Daniel H. Birks, turns 80 this Sunday. He leaves the next day to cover a Corps (Church) in Oklahoma for an indefinite period of time. Way to not retire from full-time ministry Dad!”

That DC in Oklahoma is a wise man. First hand, I can tell you that Dan Birks was (is) an extremely successful corps officer with world-class expertise, having been one (C.O.) most, if not all of his active officership years. The title, Outlier, fits him to a “TSA.” He would also be an invaluable, consultative resource to young, fledgling corps officers. And he’s not alone! In the above-mentioned “Foreword” I write:

 ”Retirement is really a misnomer, isn’t it? As is the term “active service,” especially in TSA circles. You do not turn off “accumulated knowledge and experience” like a water spigot; it keeps on flowing with two possible outcomes: Down the drain or, like the water flowing through Hoover Dam, channeled into power - creative, productive energy.”

 Oklahoma? Why is it that the Southern Territory keeps tapping our valuable resources? Go get ‘em, Commissioner Knaggs!

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 chicken or the egg?

… asks Wayne Rumsby

What comes first, the chicken or the egg? I remember as a boy, trying to work this out. I ended up with more questions than answers. What about the clouds and the rain? Or what about the alphabet, who decided that A should be first? Today I wonder about a different first. Do we find God and then go to church or do we find God at church?  Many have pondered this through the discussion of the Believe, Behave, and Belong formula.

I often hear that beliefs drive or define behavior, and yet there are many situations where our behavior modifies our beliefs. Most learning works when we agree to try things we don’t necessarily believe, in order to experience the consequences. Even the old expression, learn by burn, suggests that experience is a very effective agent of learning. Is it possible that behavior and belief are like the chicken and the egg. We grow as we learn and we learn as we grow. To take it one step further, do we experience God and His salvation in this manner or is it simply an event?

The evangelical order has always been, believe in Jesus, then behave in a Christ-like way, then join the church and belong. It seems to have worked quite well, especially in the boom years of evangelicalism. So who came up with this recent church growth strategy of encouraging people to belong first? Why do we put signs on the front lawns declaring that all are welcome? Often those same churches have training classes teaching their brand or doctrine to their new would-be adherents. I wonder if that’s what Jesus would do? The woman at the well fully expected Jesus to ask her to leave just because of her status. In most cases Jesus simply invited people to follow him. Was he suggesting that if you hang around, you will begin to see the truth lived out, and it may be easier to believe having seen it demonstrated?

Consider these three different styles of teaching. You can tell someone about something. You can demonstrate the idea, or you can involve them, even immerse them in the idea. To believe, as I understand it, is have so much confidence in knowing something, that it changes your behavior. So what does it take to gain that kind of confidence. I don’t think there are very many people who have thrown themselves into a body of water, having read about swimming. As wonderful as words are I don’t think they are enough to create belief.

Another interesting thing about believing, is that it is most accurately expressed in our actions. What we do holds more truth than what we say. Even when we try to convince ourselves that we do or don’t believe something, our actions often reveal the truth. Sometimes it is expressed as head vs. heart, or knowledge verses feelings. This struggle is perfectly expressed in Romans 7:15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do.

I’m not much of a scientist, however, I do understand the importance of order in the universe and especially order of events. I think that sharing the epic truth of the Kingdom of God with people involves inviting them in, involving them in an experiential process that includes and is validated by the living words in the Bible. The kind of experiences I’m talking about are so compelling that they change behavior and reveal new beliefs. This is salvation, it’s messy and in some cases prolonged. I would even suggest that it isn’t individual. If we really let Belong, Behave and Believe happen we would all experience a collective salvation experience. In case you think that I made a mistake by placing behave before believe, let me assure you that that’s what I meant. I believe, that belief comes from practiced behavior, in a safe and loving environment.

St. Francis of Assisi said, “Preach the gospel at all times - and if necessary use words”

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. 

Should we condemn WAR?

What do we do about this ”hideous, hellish tragedy”? asks Cory Harrison

Iwas intrigued recently as I read the following November 10, 2009 Associated Press headline:  President Barack Obama is nearing a decision to add tens of thousands more forces to Afghanistan.

I am quite certain that I am not the only person who voted for the sitting President, thinking I would never read a headline such as that. 

In my part of the Salvation Army world, to be opposed to adding troops to Afghanistan and opposed to war in general is to be considered the in minority at best.  

Mohammed Khatib, secretary of the Bilin, West Bank, village council, whom many refer to as a modern-day Gandhi, said recently, “Nonviolence is our most powerful weapon.  If they cannot accuse us of terrorism, they cannot stop us. The world will support us.” 

In response to this quote, an SA Officer friend of mine responded, “That has to be one of the worst ideas and I am happy to see that no one followed him on it. It is a quick way to ensure evil spreads and has dominion. The monsters are not moved to compassion by pacifism, they consider it weakness.” 

In light of the President’s impending decision to send more troops to war and in reflection of my Officer friend’s comments, I thought it would be useful for us to have a simple reminder of three foundational Salvation Army statements on the subject of modern warfare. 

1)  From Chosen to be a Soldier, the Orders and Regulations for Salvationists:

The Salvationist will regard war as an evil and will condemn the use of force as a means of settling differences between nations.

2)  From the Founder, William Booth in The General’s Letters:

One thing is plain-every true soldier of The Salvation Army would cry day and night to God to avert so dreadful a calamity as war.  Let him shut his ears to all the worldly, unscriptural, un-Christian talk about war being a necessity.  It cannot be a necessity before God that tens of thousands of men should be launched into eternity will all manner of revengeful passionate feelings in their souls, and too often, according to the testimony of these who know all about it, with dreadful blasphemies on their lips.  Whatever may be the right method of setting human disputes and preventing earthly calamities, this cannot be the divine plan.  This cannot be the will of God. 

 3)  From The Officer’s Review-1933 by Bramwell Booth: 

War is hideous-a fierce and hellish tragedy.  The earth is red with blood and the sky dark with the wrath of God.  War-like preparations and wicked ambitions, whenever they have been found together in the history of the world, have always produced abominable consequences.  WAR VIOLATES ALMOST EVERY RULE GOD HAS LAID DOWN.

In my country, we live in a very unique time; a time with incredible support of war as a means of settling differences between nations.  Much of this support has come from within ‘church’ and I would dare say The Salvation Army. 

As a Salvationist, I am held to accountability to many aspect of the O&R; abstinence from alcohol and tobacco, support of the Army’s spirit and mission through attendance and participation, and financial giving to my local Corps. 

This leaves me asking 3 complex questions:

Firstly, where are the Salvationists, Officers and Soldiers alike, who are “regarding war and evil and condemning the use of force…” ?  Are they the majority or the minority in your Corps?

Secondly, to what lengths can we or should we go as Salvationist to “comdemn” war?   Practically how do we live this aspect of Salvationism out?

Thirdly, am I a true soldier of The Salvation Army in that I have cried day and night for God to avert a “dreadful calamity of war?”  Am I sitting by, while thousands are needlessly dying?

 As for me, I am “shutting my ears to all the worldly, unscriptural, unchristian talk about war being a necessity.”

Writer: Cory Harrison is a life long Salvationist stirred by the mission of The Salvation Army. Cory spends his days enjoying coffee and community with the poor, oppressed and addicted.