New - Handbook of Doctrine

What do you think?

There is a new Handbook of Doctrine available either in book form or via PDF download at http://www.salvationarmy.org/ihq/www_sa.nsf/vw-dynamic-arrays/20ED848CF00D99E28025770400056C19?openDocument

We are currently preparing a series of commentaries on the new HOD but in the meantime here is a quick review by an Australian SA magazine:

“War to the teeth & salvation for the world”

A few thoughts about uniform wearing by Cameron Horsburgh

One day I was at home working on my message for Sunday’s meeting when the phone rang. Trudy had forgotten to take her lunch in to the office and she was hoping I could take five minutes to run it up to her. So I picked up her lunch, got in the car, and delivered it. I had just about made it back to the car when I bumped into one of the saints of the Corps. ‘Hello Captain!’ he said, to which I responded. His next comment was interesting.

‘Oh, you don’t look very captainy today.’

What he meant was, ‘You’re at the Corps and you’re out of uniform.’ He’s the sort of person who would never question his officers publicly, but you could tell when he disapproved of something. This was one of those times. Whilst I didn’t see any need to justify myself, I explained that I’d just popped in to do a couple of quick things, and that I was going back home to work. Thankfully, he approved.

I’ve always liked wearing my uniform. I remember a Corps Cadet lesson many years ago where uniform wearing was explained. I don’t remember the details of the lesson, but I do remember Elijah Cadman’s exclamation: ‘I would like to wear a suit of clothes that would let everyone know I meant war to the teeth and salvation for the world!’

Now, as an officer, I’m the one teaching the Corps Cadet lessons and training recruits to be soldiers. The question of uniform wearing comes up frequently, and I’m always ready with the story of Cadman. Yet as I look at the reasons we really wear uniform I wonder if I’m being completely honest.

I first wore uniform in public nearly twenty years ago. I was cheating somewhat, because I wasn’t enrolled as a soldier until the next morning! I’d been waiting for this for years. I had my suit of clothes, and I was ready to tell the world that I meant war. I’ve been through a few uniforms since, but I still wear it proudly.

My concern is that in practical terms the Army has lost sight of the uniform’s purpose. Instead of being a means of publicly declaring one’s faith and willingness to stand against evil it has become an internal symbol of conformity and authority.

Before I became an officer I was involved in a paradenominational mission group. One Sunday afternoon this group had a particularly important meeting that I needed to attend. Consequently I wasn’t going to be able to go to the Army that night, so I explained the situation to my officer, who gave me her blessing.

The mission group meeting finished much earlier than expected. On the way home I realised I could make it to the Army on time if I didn’t go home first. I wasn’t sure if that would be appropriate. I was riding my bike, and it had been a hot day; moreover, the chain had fallen off my bike a few times, and I was covered in grease. I really needed a shower. Still, the Army’s proud of the fact that we don’t have a dress code, and I knew full well that there would be people there dirtier and smellier than I. So I pushed on, glad that I was going to be able to get there.

I arrived just as the meeting started. At the end of the meeting the officer shook my hand, glad that I was able to attend after all. After she’d moved on, another person, who was very influential in the Corps, came and quietly asked where my uniform was. I explained my reasons to him, suggesting it was better to be at the Army in regular clothes than at home in my uniform.

He disagreed. He told me that as a soldier I was expected to wear my uniform to meetings, and to do otherwise was an abrogation of my duty as a Salvationist. I naively thought that fighting the war was more important than simply dressing for it.

As a cadet I never quite got why and when I had to wear uniform. For example, there is apparently a rule in our Territory that requires officers (and by extension, cadets) to be properly attired when they visit THQ. It never occurred to me that people in THQ needed to be sure of my intentions in the Salvation War. (One cadet figured it must be because the devil is winning the fight there, and the staff need reinforcements. I’m not that cynical!)

Sometime we cadets would get a memo telling us to wear full Navy uniforms for particular lectures. Generally speaking, full blue uniform would be required if we had a visiting lecturer who was an active officer with a rank of full Colonel or higher. We had at least one retired Commissioner lecture us, and I’m fairly sure we had a retired General come to speak. We didn’t have to worry about full blues then.

Our choice of uniform was dictated by our visitors’ position within the Army. Our personal declarations of war were only incidental to the apparently more important aim of conforming to the structure of the Army. For many, uniform wearing is more to do with hierarchy than holiness.

Of course, forgetting the reason we wear uniform isn’t the sole preserve of Training College staff. In College we would wear uniform to class, and then get changed into regular clothes whenever we dared venture out into the ‘Real World.’ And it’s not only cadets who do it. I know people who leave their uniforms at the Army hall and get changed into them when they arrive on Sunday. Once the meeting’s over, they change back again to go home.

Sadly, many of us wear our uniforms because it’s expected. That’s part and parcel of officership, but it’s no different for our soldiers. We want to play in the band, or hand out songbooks, and so we proudly wear the costume prescribed by the Army. Yet when it’s time to go outside and declare war on the dominion of Satan, we’re not so sure.

So what do I tell my Corps Cadets? I’ve always been told that wearing uniform signifies my desire to fight, yet my experience tells me it is as much to do with fitting in and conforming to the rules. Hopefully those in my tutelage will be clear about why they make the choice to wear it. I can only pray that they will learn to fight in a way befitting such a potent and important symbol.

Along with his wife Trudy, Cameron is the Corps Officer at the Colac Corps of the Australian Southern Territory. They have two daughters, Shekinah (12) and Charis (8). They all look forward to the day when the girls’ school has enough money to buy all the supplies it needs, but the Navy needs to sell raffle tickets to buy ships.

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

H

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Holy Spirit dependent without being Pentecostal (Acts 2)

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

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

Acts 2 and 3 (selected verses)

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

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

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

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

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

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

The first difference – Understanding Acts 2.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let me divert briefly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Swiss theologian Emil Brunner makes the point:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion
General Clarence Wiseman wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

The SA Doctrines - Time for change

Iwould like to open these comments by restating, for reference, the doctrines of The Salvation Army as they presently exist …

1. We believe that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments were given by inspiration of God, and that they only constitute the Divine rule of Christian faith and practice.
2. We believe that there is only one God, who is infinitely perfect, the Creator, Preserver, and Governor of all things, and who is the only proper object of religious worship.
3. We believe that there are three persons in the Godhead-the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, undivided in essence and co-equal in power and glory.
4. We believe that in the person of Jesus Christ the Divine and human natures are united, so that He is truly and properly God and truly and properly man.
5. We believe that our first parents were created in a state of innocency, but by their disobedience they lost their purity and happiness, and that in consequence of their fall all men have become sinners, totally depraved, and as such are justly exposed to the wrath of God.
6. 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.
7. We believe that repentance towards God, faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, and regeneration by the Holy Spirit, are necessary to salvation.
8. We believe that we are justified by grace through faith in our Lord Jesus Christ and that he that believeth hath the witness in himself.
9. We believe that continuance in a state of salvation depends upon continued obedient faith in Christ.
10. We believe that it is the privilege of all believers to be wholly sanctified, and that their whole spirit and soul and body may be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
11. We believe 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.

I think it is necessary to make the point up front that these doctrines are not the truth. Jesus Christ is the Truth (John 14:6). These doctrines are instead pointers to the Truth (capital T). At times I get the impression that the doctrines are immovable, unchangable and anyone who suggests otherwise is considered a heretic. The major problem with this attitude, whether it’s explicitly stated or not, is that it actually forces its adherents to contradict themselves.

What do I mean by this? Well, the first doctrine states that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments “only constitute the Divine rule of Christian faith and practice”. To suggest, then, that the doctrines are beyond the need of regular editing actually contradicts this doctrine. Consider, as well, that most Christians now use a different translation of the Scriptures (the most popular being the NIV) than what was in vogue 100 years ago (the KJV the clear favourite then). What does this suggest about the content of doctrine one??? Yet some would suggest that updating the language of the doctrine itself is beyond suggestion. Seems strange to me…

I have suggested above that the doctrines are not the truth, but rather pointers to the Truth (Jesus Christ). I would like to suggest that the doctrines, in their present format, are deficient in the way they do in fact point to the Truth. Let me suggest a few examples of why this is so:

1. The use of exclusive language (e.g. “men”) excludes half of the population unnecessarily. One of my lecturers wisely said to me early in my study career; “If you can use a word that doesn’t exclude people just as easily as one that will then which one should you choose?” In this example replacing words such as “men” with gender neutral words such as “human” or “humanity” is long overdue. Particularly true for a denomination that has always professed equality for women and men within the organisation (at least in its rhetoric).
2. The change from “Holy Ghost” (D3) to “Holy Spirit” (D7) is confusing and even misleading. “Ghost” is a word with two many science fiction, fantasy world connotations and relies significantly upon the KJV translation which most congregations no longer use in corporate worship. Consistency in this regard would be a simple editing process to use the same language across both doctrines.
3. A major issue is the lack of reference to the resurrection of Christ. The resurrection of the body does make an appearance in the final doctrine, but this is not a reference to Jesus’ resurrection but rather the hope of our resurrection. Again, these doctrines are pointers to the Truth (Jesus) and if there is no reference to the resurrection of the Truth, then that is a glaringly obvious omition for me.
4. The separation of Doctrines 2 and 3 is misleading. Whilst I can see that this is an attempt to show that we worship one God who has been revealed in the three persons of Father, Son and Spirit, the importance of stating this mystery together rather than apart is far more necessary in my mind. The Trinity is a central tenet of the Christian faith and the Doctrine of God needs to be, at one and the same time, the Doctrine of the Trinity - together, not apart.
5. Order is also important. Whilst it’s like saying “where do you start on a circle?” or the old “Chicken and the Egg” problem, at the same time it’s necessary to carefully consider this starting point. Is what we believe about the Scriptures foundational to what we believe about God, or is it the other way around? On this particular point my mind is not made up, but I think it’s a discussion point worthy of consideration.
6. The semi-Pelagian nature of Doctrine 9 is a significant problem. There is no mention of grace within this doctrine and so it gives the impression that “continuance” is entirely dependent upon “obedient faith”. Whilst I would automatically qualify this by stating that this “faith” is itself a gift of God’s grace anyway (Ephesians 2:8), still greater clarification of this is needed, lest Salvationists profess to a doctrine that suggests that God has nothing to do with keeping them secure in his love.
7. Doctrine 10 relies heavily upon 1 Thessalonians 5:23, more specifically the KJV of this verse. No modern translation of the Bible uses the word “unto” but rather “at” in reference to the “coming of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ”. This is a significant alteration and, if we are to continue to rely upon this verse for our doctrine of holiness then some strong exegetical work needs to be done regarding this.

These examples above are a few of the obvious examples of the need for the doctrines of The Salvation Army to be updated. They have served us well for over 120 years, however they are at risk of not serving the purpose for which they are there for - namely, point to the Truth. If we are forced to exegete them in order to then be pointed to the Truth, then that is evidence enough for me that work need to be done in order to update them.

I would hope that this would happen sooner rather than later. 

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.

Resurrection: Hope for Life

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Jason Davies-Kildea considers the great Christian hope.

The road to despair is wide and runs downhill for many of those who find themselves on the doorstep of The Salvation Army.  The ‘Our Homeless Children’ report included this short quote that is unfortunately indicative of the thoughts of too many people: “What do I most hope for? That I die pretty quick“.

One might rightly wonder why anyone would want to work against such dire circumstances on a daily basis?  For me, the answer is that, despite so many contrary indications, not only is there real hope, but to be a bearer of hope is a deeply meaningful role.  There is something almost counter-cultural about spreading hope today.  In a review of the Oasis movie, Captain Paul Moulds was described as a ‘delusional optimist’ - the kind of description I would proudly share.  Hope may be unexpected, but it is a crucial component of Salvation Army social ministries.  Liberation theologian, Jon Sobrino, says this:

Those who have a radical hope for the victims of this word, who are not convinced that resignation is the last word…can include in their experience a hope analogous to that with which Jesus’ resurrection was first grasped and can direct their lives to taking the victims down from the cross.  Furthermore, those who, in the midst of this history of crucifixion, celebrate what there is of fullness and have the freedom to give their own lives will, perhaps, not see history as nonsensical… but as the promise of a ‘more’ that touches us and draws us despite ourselves.[1]

If, as the apostle Paul claimed, resurrection is the central affirmation of Christianity, then this deep symbol of hope should still be a vital, life-giving metaphor for us today.  In a similar vein, Jewish people celebrate the story of the Exodus, the liberation of an entire people from slavery and the beginnings of new life, new opportunities in the Promised Land.  Both are powerful stories of hope grounded in the historical memory of people of faith.  Yet to leave them entrapped in history is to rob them of much their power to continue to inspire us today.

If our message is to transcend the barriers of the faith community, we may need to learn to find ways of talking about resurrection beyond the category of history - for this indeed has become a stumbling block to many of our current generations.  In Alice in Wonderland, when Alice tells the Queen that one can’t believe impossible things she gets the reply:  “I daresay you haven’t had much practice.  When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why sometimes I believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast!”  This has become the all-too-common picture of a Christian, someone who is able to twist their brain into a doctrine-conforming pretzel - and who can no longer speak sensibly to a post-modern world.

It is important, then, for us to remember that resurrection is firstly a theological proclamation.  It says something about the nature of God.  God is on the side of life!  God cannot be defeated by death.  When we experience suffering and death, this God is not absent but is actively sowing the seeds of new life.

The real challenge of resurrection is not about belief, but about experience.  It challenges us to place deeds before creeds, to live resurrection before we can begin to preach resurrection.  Here the message of Leonardo Boff resonates powerfully with the mission of The Salvation Army:

Wherever people seek good, justice, humanitarian love, solidarity, communion and understanding between people, wherever they dedicate themselves to overcoming their own egoism, making this world more human and fraternal and opening themselves to the normative Transcendent for their lives, there we can say, with all certainty, that the resurrected one is present, because the cause for which he lived, suffered, was tried and executed is being carried forward.[2]

There is only one appropriate response to the reality of resurrection experience: to seek out and work towards creating resurrection experiences and opportunities for new life in the lives of others.  The Salvation Army is continually finding ways to impart hope into people’s lives.  Surely this is something we want to multiply, so that every corps, every social centre can function as a community of resurrection possibility.

May the source of our hope never fail. May we always impart hope with generosity.  May we know the experience of resurrection, of new life, of new hope, in our own lives and in the lives of those whom we serve.

Writer: Captain Jason Davies-Kildea is currently serving with his wife, Michelle, at the Brunswick Corps and Community Programmes in Australia. He received a Churchill Fellowship in 2006 and travelled last year to the US, UK and Kenya to look at “models of holistic service, for highly disadvantaged people, which have been established in faith-based communities”. He recently graduated with a Masters in Theology and writes regularly on his own blog, which you can find here.  

[2] Leonardo Boff Jesus Christ Liberator (London: SPCK, 1980), 219

I was a teenage fundamentalist - part two

Who’s in charge here? asks Barry Gittins

What do you do if you are told something is sacred? You place it above other things.

For me, as a young Queenslander (who occasionally conceded he was also an Australian) that meant honouring rugby league as the football code of all football codes.

My support of a) the Brisbane players-populated Canberra Raiders rugby league football team, b) the Brisbane comp’s Souths club and, later, c) the Logan City Scorpions, all subsequently devolved into my devotion to (ta da!) the Brisbane Broncos and, latterly, a sneaking, partly-held fondness for NRL premiers the Melbourne Storm.

As a sport, rugby league may have a few obvious flaws or obstacles for the uninitiated. What may be occasionally lacking in grace and gaining in brutality, however, is always equal to the sum of my memories: it is the code of football that I grew up playing and loving.

I put it, unequivocally, on a pedestal as the ultimate example of football. That statement is revealing and, perhaps surprisingly for some, highly relevant to any discussion of faith, religion and spirituality.

Coming from French and Italian terms to describe the ‘foot of a stall’, the term ‘pedestal’ originated as the support that was given to a statue or a vase. In some instances a lamp or a lit candle would be placed on a pedestal as an act of worship.

In that context, my love of rugby league is either worship of a thing of grace and terrible beauty (?!) or merely a blatant form of idolatry.

More importantly, we are quick to do exactly the same with forms of knowledge or belief. When we venerate something and place it on a pedestal, such as our conception of ‘who God is’, we are either worshipping God in truth and beauty or making our own little idol - our own conception of who God has to be in order to please us.

As a teenager I readily signed on to be a senior soldier of The Salvation Army. As such I accepted the Salvos’ second doctrine: ‘We believe that there is only one God, who is infinitely perfect, the Creator, Preserver, and Governor of all things, and who is the only proper object of religious worship.’

Those words, like all of the Salvos’ doctrines, were based on ancient church teachings and first ratified in the 1800s. They provoke a cattle call of caveats for postmodern pundits because they imply God is squarely in the driver’s seat when we are supposed to be behind the wheel ourselves as the symbolic Body of Christ.

Let’s talk creation. I have no problem with creation, if we accept that a creator can create anyway he wants to, i.e. by using or mandating a full or partial process of evolution if it seems the best way to go (some creationists accept this possibility by advocating ‘adaptation’ in their views).

 If I buy into this belief of God as creator, however, does that mean I’m linked cheek and jowl with those earnest literalists (disparaging term removed reluctantly) who insist on a 6,000 year-old planet and a word-by-word reading of the Genesis creation account?

Do I have to ‘own’ folks who advocate (loudly) that the mythos (story) of Adam and Eve, with its inherent acceptance of incest as race-spawning origin story, is to be taken as a factual rendering of humanity’s arrival at the top of the food chain?

Then there’s this preserving business. Preserving a social strata/order or economic scale/structure that may include a) slavery and b) landed gentry (part of the anti-meritocracy of privilege) is horrendous to anyone who advocates social justice or human rights.

The concept of social rigidity that the ‘preserver’ role advocates is more at home with the medieval church than with the church of the 21st century.

If my faith in God means the Almighty is neither a fantasy nor an unsubstantiated entity who is currently on leave (the atheist and agnostic positions respectively), then does that mean I have to believe that God is actively preserving a planet that is a) falling to pieces climate-wise through human agency, b) depending on your scriptural interpretation either on divine autopilot, under the power of Satan (literally ‘adversary) or under human stewardship, and c) constantly hosting human (as opposed to spiritual) conflicts between individuals, families, communities, creeds, nations and cultures?

What happened to the concepts of the divine image, free will and original sin that the Genesis accounts enshrine and human actions embody?

And if we say God governs us in this day and age, are we in effect passing the buck for our own hubris and failings onto our ‘fall God’ of choice? Moreover, does that mean we remain, as with the superstitions of the Greeks and Romans and other fallen empires, convinced that every normal and abnormal weather pattern is the result of a cheesed-off God punishing humanity for the abundance of our crimes, or for the lack of our piety?     

When you read about Christ’s encounter with a sick child and his dad (Mark 9: 14-32) you get one of the most revealing and helpful cries of all the gospel-recorded encounters. I’m with you, says the father, but I’m not with you all the way.

We can’t claim an interventionist, all-powerful God and then insist on notions of free will. That does not compute. We can’t, with any measure of credibility, believe God is in control (and ask God to do the legwork for us through prayer) when we are patently called to be his hands and feet - to be his agents, in the footsteps of Jesus.

Paradox is a beautiful thing, but logic would suggest it has its limits. As Jesus noted, a house divided against itself will fall (I tend to think he was borrowing from the Roman doctrine of divide et imperium).

We have to take responsibility for human action, especially concerning the state of a planet suffering the effects of global warming. That is, we have to take responsibility for how you and I live; for the size of our homes; the petrol we pump into cars, the burgers we guzzle down, the extent to which we consume the world we live in without replenishing it or fulfilling our biblical mandate to care for the Earth. 

We are conditioned to take God stuff on faith, and rightly so; without faith, we are reminded, it is impossible to please God. But a blind faith is just not up to it.

Blind faith will not bear the fruits that we need to grow. It will not accept the biblical invitation to test our God; to taste and see that God is good.

Thousands of years of faithful worship and service, thought and deed, underpin our pursuit of God through Christ. Much of it, however, flies in the face of the knowledge and understandings we have reaped from God-given intellects and curiosity in numerous fields of enquiry, such as medicine and biomechanics, psychology and psychiatry, physics and astrophysics, chemistry and bio-chemistry, archeology and history, and philosophy and theology.

As that father cried out to Jesus, when caught in a tight spot between his desires and his dilemmas: ‘I believe; help me with my unbelief.’

May my doubts add to my faith. May empirical and intuitive knowledge deepen that faith. And may my faith, alongside the word of God, guide my steps.

‘A lamp unto my feet’ is not much use if I don’t I walk down the path with my eyes open.

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. 

the Rubicon - BY REQUEST - Rooted in Mission not Maintenance Part#3

 Rob Perry says The world needs the Church to roll up its sleeves and re-enter abandoned communities - Part #3

3) Religious Phase – Towards Mission

Kierkegaard’s third sphere is the religious sphere. This existential realm goes beyond the ethical. This stage is only discovered by faith. Kierkegaard examines the religious phase in his book Fear and Trembling. In this study, Kierkegaard looks at Abraham’s (near) sacrifice of Isaac. He examines the motivation and the horror behind this humbling and confusing story. It is here that we enter the realm of faith. Kierkegaard said:

“But what did Abraham do?… He mounted the ass, he rode slowly down the path. All along he had faith, he believed that God would not demand Isaac of him, while still he was willing to offer him if that was indeed what was demanded. He believed on the strength of the absurd, for there could be no question of human calculation, and it was indeed absurd that God who demanded this of him should in the next instant withdraw the demand. He climbed the mountain, even in that moment when the knife gleamed he believed – that God would not demand Isaac. Certainly he was surprised by the outcome, but by means of a double movement he had come back to his original position and therefore received Isaac more joyfully than the first time.”

Nothing but faith could have sustained Abraham through this trial. The trial itself seemed ludicrous and paradoxical. Abraham was required to suspend the ethical and proceed on belief in God only. He did not believe that God would violate the ethical, but he carried on in faith that God would rectify the paradoxical command with morality. Faith sustained him, and God delivered Isaac. Abraham lived in the strength of the absurd.

The third sphere of our lives as Christians is when we surrender fully, and in faith allow ourselves to be led by God wherever and however he wills

For our purposes in examining mission, I would say that the third sphere of our lives as Christians is when we surrender fully, and in faith allow ourselves to be led by God wherever and however he wills. We are no long confined to our own wisdom. Instead we are called and commissioned to go wherever, and do whatever God commands.

God commanded Jeremiah: “Do not say, ‘I am only a child.’ You must go to everyone I send you to and say whatever I command you. Do not be afraid of them, for I am with you and will rescue you.” This encapsulates the essence of mission. Although we feel inadequate, we go wherever God commands and do whatever he commands. Faith replaces fear, for God will protect and deliver us. If God calls us to a personal Jubilee, instructing us to give up our possessions, we need not be afraid, he will rescue us. If God calls us to leave our homes and move into the poorest area of our city, we need not be afraid, he will rescue us.

To go into the unknown involves an intense trust in God. It truly does require a “leap of faith.” The rich irony is in the fact that on the other side of the leap of faith, we find a fulfillment and joy that is indescribable to those who have not yet leapt. Frederick Buechner said that a person’s place “is where your deep gladness and the world’s deep hunger meet.” I, and countless others, can only testify that this is true.

Some years ago I led a team that took a group of community children from Toronto to a camp during the spring break. For seven days, 60 loud and hyperactive six- to 12-year-old residents of the urban jungle descended upon the wilderness campground. Due to some miscalculation and a lack of volunteers, the staff was drastically outnumbered and the children smelled blood. I lost my voice on the first day, and by the third, we were all exhausted and beginning to be afraid of total collapse. Kids were fighting and threatening each other, some were continually trying to run away, while others would barricade themselves in the cabin to avoid going to programs. Between replacing broken property and cleaning lice out of hair and clothes, I found a new depth to my prayer life, as I pleaded God not to allow any kids (or staff) to get damaged by the end of the week.

In the midst of the turmoil, God’s Spirit descended upon camp. As day seven approached, we had a night in which we gave the kids an opportunity to accept Jesus as Saviour. Slowly one by one, kids came forward to the Mercy Seat – girls mostly. The boys were still feeling out the situation, sitting at the back, acting cool. That is until Jamal made his move. Now Jamal was never the most popular kid. He was a bit chubby and he was awkward in basketball. He always tried just that little bit too hard. He was too influenced by other kids, and would follow whoever happened to be around. But here he was, the first boy standing. Jamal stood up at the back and made the trembling journey to the front of the room where he knelt and prayed with a leader. Who should follow but his whole crew. The five or six other boys with whom Jamal had spent the week filed in line behind him and almost inexplicably found themselves kneeling at the front of the room as well. It was a beautiful moment.

But that’s not even the best part. Later that night in our cabin I recounted the day’s events with the boys. “I am really proud of you guys,” I said. “Today you made some very important decisions.” Just then another leader came in, and I told the guys to share with her the good news from the day. All at once they started to share the story of decision day. Andrew, an especially enthusiastic young man, spoke up and said, “Yeah it was great! I got up first and went to the front, and then all the others followed…” It was at that point Jamal sat up stiffly in his bunk, and indignantly interjected, “F___ off! I accepted Jesus first!”

As long as I live I will never forget those six words!

When I was in the southern part of Russia, I visited some refugee camps that tented hundreds of families who had fled from the Chechen war. In a couple short weeks I had become attached to a wonderful group of children who lived there.

I happened to be visiting during their annual festival, a competition in which children from different refugee camps presented songs, artwork and dance. In the days preceding the festival, I sat in on the kids’ rehearsals as they tried their best to put together what would be the best possible presentation for the day. For hour upon hour I sat and listened as they practised. To this day, these are only the Russian phrases I have memorized: “Hello” “How are you?” and “It’s cool that you got on TV” – the repetitious line from the chorus of the pop song the kids sang in their presentation.

When the day finally came for the competition, I sat beaming with paternal pride (as if I had anything whatsoever to do with their presentation). The kids sang, danced, displayed their artwork and generally had a great time. A group from another camp got up and put on a stunning display of their national dance. It was a close race, but when all was said and done, there was something far more important going on than song and dance. For those few days, in that refuge far away from demolished homes, bombs and gunfire, hundreds of children displaced by war came together. And for a short time they were centre-stage; the kids were the singers, the dancers, the artists and the musicians. They were the stars and they shined!

In two weeks that seemed like two years, I got to know a small group of kids who had lived through horrors I cannot imagine. I got to see them at their very best. And, in case you are wondering, yes, they won! But truly, that’s not important. What matters is that in those moments those children felt like the most important people on earth, not forgotten victims of an often-ignored war.

After my two weeks were finished, as I was preparing to get in a taxi and leave, Khavazh, one of the boys who I had spent the most time with came to me, and through a translator asked me a question… another phrase I will never forget: he simply said, “When are you coming back?” Of course I had no answer for him. The kids in my community were waiting for me. But at that moment, how I wished I could stay. And in that moment, as it has so many times before and since, the Scripture resonated in my heart, “The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few.” If only my fellow Christians knew the riches they were missing. If only the Church could understand the depth of joy and meaning found on the other side of mission. John Ortberg wrote:

“Jesus took a little child in his arms and said, in effect, ‘Here’s your ministry. Give yourselves to those who can bring you no status or clout. Just help people. You need this little child. You need to help this little child, not just for her sake, but more for your sake. For if you don’t, your whole life will be thrown away on an idiotic contest to see who is the greatest. But if you serve her – often and well and cheerfully and out of the limelight – then the day may come when you do it without thinking, ‘What a wonderful thing I’ve done.’ Then you will begin to serve naturally, effortlessly, for the joy of it. Then you will begin to understand how life in the kingdom works.’”

It is through mission that we express perfect love for Jesus Christ. This outpouring of love is costly. It involves a terrifying leap of faith to go wherever God sends you. But the good news is that after that initial leap, the adventure is only beginning. To maintain a mission focus is not easy, but to do so is to be significant. Mission is the key to the meaningful life we have all been called to.

Conclusions
Kierkegaard’s three spheres are mere guidelines. No one person or congregation fits perfectly into any sphere; I am sure that we can identify personal areas of selfish motivation as in the aesthetic sphere, rigid adherence to the rule of the law, as in the ethical sphere, and moments of unselfish obedience and faith, as in the religious sphere. However, if we are Christians, we are called to mission. There is no escaping this reality.

Todd Gitlin, an old time 1960s protestor, posits three complementary motivations for anyone who wants to wade into political activism. Adventure, duty and love. I believe he has hit on something that goes beyond politics, and takes us into the realm of mission. The fact is that God understands people, and when we make ourselves available to him, he meets us where we are.

If our main motivation is fun and adventure, we could become downhearted, wallow in our selfish nature, and do nothing. Or, like Samson, God could use our flamboyant nature and our desire for fun and new experiences as our motivation to go places no one else would ever dream of going. Shock rocker Marilyn Manson once bemoaned the fact that there were no new adventures out there. He said, “What other violence can you show? What other drug can you do? What other thing can you get pierced? It’s all been done.” There are no new adventures out there. We keep attempting to create the fastest roller coasters, the highest bungee jumps and the wildest parties. The one true adventure that is left is simply to fearfully and courageously follow wherever God leads – to the darkest places on earth, or to people in our own apartment building. God, as Redeemer, seeks to redeem our natures, not destroy them.

What about duty? I believe there are two ways to look at the word duty. We can look at it as a strict adherence to a set of rules, which is very limiting. Our other option is to confront our responsibility to the world. Mother Teresa once said that, “If there are poor in the world, it is because you and I don’t give enough.” This is a stinging indictment from a woman who lived her life among the poorest of the poor. However, we must take our duty to love and care for others seriously. This is not legalism, but responsibility. We are comfortable and well fed while elsewhere people are dying of starvation. Yes, we have a duty. We have a God-given duty to care for others.

Adventure, duty and love, but the greatest of these is love.

Love is God’s defining characteristic and our highest aim. At the end of the day, we may live among the poor, give up our possessions, preach the Word and feed the hungry, but if we don’t have love, we are nothing. Eternally, our lives count for nothing. Maintenance takes root when love becomes distorted, and love for self replaces love for God. Mission is the pure expression of our love for Jesus Christ and for others.

Someone wrote: “Pity sighs, and says, ‘how awful.’ Compassion weeps, and says, ‘I’ll help.’” The world needs people who will help. Much more than that, the world needs the Church to roll up its sleeves, re-enter abandoned communities and help. Because, like Jesus, we weep when we gaze upon fallen Jerusalem. We weep when we see empty monuments where life-giving inner-city churches once were. We weep because all around the world mothers are weeping for lost children. We weep because every day people die without a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. We must weep. And from that place of brokenness, with our hearts firmly set on God, it is time for us to take that courageous leap of faith and to respond to God’s call to go wherever he tells us to go and do whatever he tells us to do.

Writer: Rob Perry works with children and youth at 614 Regent Park, Toronto, Canada.

Photo: John McAlister

the Rubicon - BY REQUEST - Rooted in Mission not Maintenance Part#2

Rob Perry says The world needs the Church to roll up its sleeves and re-enter abandoned communities - Part #2 

2) The Ethical Stage – Maintaining Legalism
Those… who are tied to blind dogma, perfunctory ritual, and institutional self-preservation, those who see God as guardian of the status quo (no matter how oppressive it may be), have so institutionalized God in their thinking and feeling that they are unable to see Him at work outside their narrow – and usually self-serving – perceptions. – Phil Needham from Community in Mission – A Salvationist Ecclesiology (36)

During the roughly four centuries between the Old and New Testaments, pagan cultures influencing Jewish life became a significant problem. In response to the corrupting pressure of Greek and Roman culture, new politico-religious factions began to appear within Judaism. Over time, the most influential of these sub-sects became the Pharisees. Initially, the Pharisees were pious Jews who chose to turn their backs on a world that was increasingly contrary to the laws of God, and to separate themselves from corrupting influences.

They started well. The Pharisees were a lay-holiness movement dedicated to protecting Judaism from outside influences and creating righteous followers of God, commendable goals. However, their good intentions were not enough. By the time of Christ, the Pharisees had generated 613 different laws pertaining to the minutia of Jewish life. Maintaining strict rules of conduct had become the reason for their religion. The end result of the Pharisee’s movement was a rigid adherence to the letter of the Mosaic Law; to the point where today to call someone a Pharisee is synonymous with charging him or her with legalism.

Kierkegaard’s second “existential sphere” is the ethical stage. Our churches are jam-packed with people who subsist in the ethical sphere. The ethical stage is the moral stage, the dutiful life. The ethicists are convinced that obedience to duty, structure, and rules will bring happiness.

The search for greater meaning begins when an individual despairs at the limited nature of temporary pleasure

There is something to be said for the ethical stage. The search for greater meaning begins when an individual despairs at the limited nature of temporary pleasure. A person comes face to face with the reality of his own sinfulness and need for God.

Leviticus 25:18 says, “Follow my decrees and be careful to obey my laws, and you will live safely in the land.” It was this type of directive that consumed the Pharisees, and is the same kind of directive that consumes many churches. It has become many believers’ goal to live in perfect obedience to the law. While this is a commendable and biblical aim, it is the motivation behind the goal that we must examine.

Why do some “follow (God’s) decrees?” So they will “live safely in the land.” It is an insular, self-protective desire that drives them, and it inhibits mission. The irony is that the context of this command is the Year of Jubilee, an excellent Old Testament concept that is ripe with implications of social justice and self-sacrifice. It was during the Year of Jubilee that people were commanded to lend freely to those in need, to free their servants and slaves, and cancel debts. God did promise that he would protect and look after his people. In essence God says, “Sacrifice. Give to the poor. Free your servants. And, once you have given more than you dreamt you could, do not worry, then I will take care of you.”

Moving Beyond the Ethical Sphere
Some want to live within the sound of church and chapel bell. I want to run a rescue shop within a yard of hell. – C.T. Studd

The author Elie Wiesel, a Jew who lived through WWII concentration camps, once reflected on one of the great evils in the world: He said, “The opposite of love is not hate – it’s indifference. The opposite of art is not ugliness – it’s indifference. The opposite of faith is not heresy – it’s indifference. And the opposite of life is not death – it’s indifference.” In Jesus’ day, the Pharisees had become absorbed by the rule of the law, which became a hindrance to them living God’s will. We must not become indifferent. If we are apathetic and indifferent, we are useless to God.

The old maxim is true; sometimes we can be so godly minded that we are of no earthly good. We become so focused on having sanctified souls and spotless congregations, that our churches are frightening to anyone who does not follow our strict codes of conduct. When a genuine “sinner” enters our sacred doors, everyone is uncomfortable. The church members are uncomfortable, because suddenly an outsider is among them who does not fit into their rigid norms. She may look different, smell badly, or have poorly behaved children. The visitor also feels uncomfortable. The moment she enters the church she sees a congregation of people who look the same, dress the same, have reserved pews and condescending stares. She knows this is not a place of refuge for her. John White wrote:

“Meanwhile our churches, like secular associations, are concerned with fund-raising, beautiful buildings, large numbers, comforting sermons from highly qualified preachers, while they display indifference to the poor, the insane, and the lonely. Jesus himself would find no place in our all-too-respectable churches, for he did not come to help the righteous but to bring sinners to repentance. Our churches are not equipped to do that sort of thing.”

Jesus himself would find no place in our all-too-respectable churches, for he did not come to help the righteous but to bring sinners to repentance

Jesus was the embodiment of what it means to live beyond the ethical sphere. Did he obey the law? Yes. He fulfilled it by living beyond legalism, traditionalism and ritualism, choosing to dwell in the dirt, grime and hilarity that is found in relationship with people who were lonely, despised, liars, fornicators, cheaters, alcoholics, failures and losers. This is the believer’s mission, to carry on this great work of Christ! The mission will be accomplished only through relationship. The method is simple. Love your neighbour; get to know the people near your home or church, be their friend, pray for them and love them.

Just before his ascension Jesus commanded his followers to, “Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” As in the Year of Jubilee, when God’s people step out in faith, his promise is that “surely [God is] with you always, to the very end of the age.” Jesus’ command to his disciples is to “go.” It is not a command to necessarily pack up everything and go to a far off land, as it is a reminder that wherever you are, it is your duty as a disciple to make other disciples. It is for us to live the Christian life, not just to visit it. We are to proclaim Jesus and make disciples in his name. Wherever our homes and churches are, that is where we fulfill mission.

A poster in my office has a quote from an anonymous missionary, “I have but one candle to burn, and would rather burn it out where people are dying in darkness than in a land which is flooded with lights.” Jesus preached the kingdom of God, a place where the King reigns. It is the place where tears are replaced with laughing, darkness with light, sickness with healing, loneliness with community and death with life. Where Jesus is, his Kingdom is. Where his people are, there also is his kingdom. If we believe the Holy Spirit is alive in us, and that with his power we can live out the ‘God with us’ vision of Jesus Christ today, we must ask, where would Jesus live now?

Conquering Legalism in the Church
True disciples focus is beyond themselves and their own personal piety. They seek holiness with a burning passion, so that they may shine an even brighter light in the dark places where they bring the Kingdom. The key to overcoming legalism is to roll up our sleeves and get dirty. Relationships are dirty. To live incarnationally is messy and sometimes difficult. However, when we are in our glass palaces miles away from the realities of life, indifference is too easy an option and adherence to legalistic ritual too readily replaces sacrificial mission.

Relationships are dirty. To live incarnationally is messy and sometimes difficult

In order to help congregations move beyond the ethical sphere, a few things must happen. We must protect our churches from becoming ignorant of the outside world. Here, discipleship is key. The sad reality is that many people in our congregations are not passionate about mission because they have not been properly discipled. I will never forget the day when one of the key elders at the church I grew up in stood in front of the entire congregation and made an off-hand comment that John 3:16 was the only verse in the Bible he had memorized. This is unacceptable. We must ensure that our congregation understands the Bible. This includes mission.

Prayer is essential. It ignites and maintains the believers’ missional focus. At our church, we leave our building and pray in our neighbourhood at least once a week. This allows us to keep the reality of our community constantly before us. Being in the neighbourhood helps us to pray effectively about the specific needs of our community. Also, praying in the community is a prophetic statement. It tells our community that God’s people are present and that someone is “standing in the gap” on their behalf.

We also do our best as a church to ensure that our mission focus is international, not just local. For example, we have united prayer for issues such as the persecuted church, child soldiers or the AIDS epidemic in Africa. I remember hearing people from the streets of Toronto, many of whom have been affected by AIDS, praying for the victims of the African AIDS epidemic.

During appeal times in church we have opportunity to sign petitions regarding international social justice issues. We give opportunity for people in our congregation to write letters overseas. Despite the fact that our church is comprised largely of people from one of the poorest neighbourhoods in Canada, we focus for weeks on the annual offering for our denomination’s overseas mission work.

It takes hard work and creativity to maintain a mission focus for a church body. However, if the vision is not clear, and the focus is not continually targeted towards mission, it will wind up in the minutia of legalistic irrelevance.

Writer: Rob Perry works with children and youth at 614 Regent Park, Toronto, Canada.

the Rubicon - BY REQUEST - Rooted in Mission not Maintenance Part#1

The world needs the Church to roll up its sleeves and re-enter abandoned communities by Rob Perry

It is called “The Church,” which is what it once was. It still looks like a church, a brown brick building, with a church steeple, even a cross on top, but people don’t worship there. Around a decade ago the small congregation moved out, and the building was sold. Now it’s a trendy downtown club, home to a variety of local jazz and classical performers. Its name is a sad testament to what once was.

Two blocks away, at the top of another brick building with a steeple, is a large sign. Spanning the width of the church, written in chipped blue paint, it reads “Salvation Army Citadel.” This church moved in around 1904, and moved out in the 1980s. It’s an apartment building. The sign remains as a faded reminder of the past.

Less than a block up the road are two impressive works of architecture that stand almost side-by-side. These church buildings exist as a remembrance of what were, a century earlier, two of the most influential denominations in the east part of downtown. In fact, people still do worship at both. In the past number of decades as other Christian denominations were on their way out, these massive church buildings acted as anchors. Even though they have little or nothing to do with their environment, they remain; large buildings, tiny congregations, locked doors. Monuments.

The saddest part of the situation is that, as when they were first constructed, these buildings stand in some of the neediest areas of their city. Gangs, crack prostitutes, poor families and homeless addicts pass by their doors every day, and sleep in their stairwells every night. Social problems still remain. In fact, they have increased, but God’s people have left.

The prophet Ezekiel says, “I looked for a man among them who would build up the wall and stand before me in the gap on behalf of the land so I would not have to destroy it, but I found none. So I will pour out my wrath on them and consume them with my fiery anger, bringing down on their own heads all they have done, declares the Sovereign LORD” (Ezekiel 22:30-31). In a very real sense, it is the Church’s responsibility to “stand in the gap” on behalf of our communities. But, unfortunately, for neighbourhoods across North America, the on-site intercessors are gone. One morning, the community woke up, and its prophets, evangelists and priests had disappeared. In a twinkling of an eye, the neighbourhood was abandoned. There was no one to stand in the gap anymore, because the intercessors had moved to the suburbs.

It is the Church’s responsibility to “stand in the gap” on behalf of our communities

You can almost read the congregations’ stories in the bricks on the church walls. Around 80 or 100 years ago, new churches formed mostly around immigrant populations that inhabited the community. The churches were the most important landmarks in the neighbourhood. Everyone was affiliated with one or the other, whether they attended on Sundays or not. The children attended the Sunday Schools. When they became teenagers, many stopped going, only to find themselves back in times of crisis or when they were a little older, sending their own children to Sunday school. In communities filled with poverty and crisis, the churches were the safe places, the houses of refuge, the sanctuaries.

In many cases, small congregations inhabited these buildings, meeting faithfully week after week, year after year. But generations passed, children grew up and had children; they got better jobs, and moved into “nicer” areas of town. Their children in turn grew, got degrees and careers, and with them, families, larger incomes, bigger houses and fancier cars. With every succeeding generation, love for the community diminished. Churches lost their mission focus, and as their children became adults, the thought of remaining in the neighbourhood as a witness of hope, was not a consideration. The church was no longer their sanctuary. Those who still attended commuted. Gradually, the churches stopped owning responsibility for their communities and began focusing on insular details such as sermons, traditions, rivalries and maintaining programs that had been running since the church’s inception. At some point, the desire to maintain defeated the impulse for mission. Inevitably, eventually the church itself “graduated” to the suburbs, where its members lived. All that was left in the urban centre was a monument; a reminder of what was once the gathering place for a community.

That is the past; the question for the present is how the Church can regain its lost sense of mission? After decades, and even centuries of maintenance focus at the expense of our communities, how do we turn our hearts and minds towards mission again?

One of the most succinct descriptions of mission in the Bible is found in Jeremiah 1:17: “But the LORD said… ‘You must go to everyone I send you to and say whatever I command you… ’” It is a very simple, yet profound command, with massive implications: Wherever God sends us, we go; whatever he tells us to say or do, we do. Mission encapsulates not only the far corners of the earth, but also our own cities and communities.

Upon receiving God’s call, Jeremiah’s natural inclination was to look inwards: He said, “Ah Sovereign LORD, I do not know how to speak; I am only a child.” Astounded by the awesome task set before him, Jeremiah was forced to face his own inadequacies. Today, in order for the Church of Christ to regain a vision for mission, we need to examine ourselves as Jeremiah did.

In order for the Church of Christ to regain a vision for mission, we need to examine ourselves as Jeremiah did

There are many motivations for mission, with love being the highest. What is mission after all, if not love for God expressed through service to the poor (see Matthew 25:31-46)? Let us examine a few things that keep us as people and congregations from attaining a missional existence. From there we will look at how to overcome these barriers, to move beyond maintenance, and achieve authentic mission.

Soren Kierkegaard specified three stages of human existence; reflecting a person’s attitude and motivation towards themselves and the world around them. The three spheres include the aesthetic sphere, the ethical sphere and the religious sphere: selfish motivation for pleasures, a strict adherence to rules and duty, and a higher calling towards God, respectively. Any group of Christians has believers who fit into one of these three stages (not everyone experiences each stage; neither is any stage exclusive of the others).

1) The Aesthetic Stage – Maintaining the Trivial
I say that I know life has gotten so boring so quickly in so many ways – and that neither of us planned for this to happen. I never thought that we would end up in the suburbs with lawnmowers and swing sets. I never thought that I’d be a lifer at some useless company. But then wasn’t this the way of the world? The way of adulthood, of maturity, of bringing up children? – Douglas Coupland from Life After God

What are we living for? What is most important to us? What drives us? According to Kierkegaard, the aesthetic sphere is the pursuit of pleasure. During this stage, self is the focus. Hedonism, materialism and other pursuits to do with personal gratification characterize this sphere. I believe that there are many people in our churches who have not graduated from this stage of development. When a believer sits in church week only for “personal blessing,” or when service to God is focused more on what “I get out of it” than on personal submission to the will of God, or when self-gratification is the benchmark of a religious experience, it is a safe bet that the believer is still living in the aesthetic sphere.

When we choose to avoid mission, our focus shifts elsewhere. And, when the most important thing in life is taken away, only trivialities remain. In the movie The Untouchables, the main character, Eliot Ness, faces the disparity between the urgent and the trivial. Eliot Ness is the leader of a group of incorruptible crime-fighters during the time of American prohibition. These “untouchables” had one goal: to bring Al Capone to justice. Towards the end of the movie we see Ness come face to face with life’s priorities. One of Ness’ men has just been murdered. The remaining three ‘untouchables’ are in hiding, hopelessly trying to figure out a new plan of action. Their case against Capone is in shambles, their comrade is dead and they are physically and emotionally drained. Just then Ness’s wife phones. There is silence in the room until his short conversation is over. After getting off the telephone, Ness turns to one of his partners and says, “She’s sitting in some room surrounded by people she doesn’t know going over kitchen colour charts or something.” And then he says with bewilderment: “Some part of the world still cares what colour the kitchen is.” To Ness, the colour of his kitchen walls was irrelevant.

Is it wrong to paint the kitchen? Of course not. However, when your life is mission focused, you gain a different perspective. Viewed in the light of a world filled with loneliness, disease and violence, does the colour of our kitchens really matter? What about the colour of the kitchen cupboards at church, or the carpet in the sanctuary, or the type of clothes the choir wears? Certainly these things need to be taken care of, but how many hours have we spent in committee meetings looking at colour charts while the battle rages outside our doors?

The Cure for Personal Aestheticism
The Jewish mystic Abraham Heschel once said, “We should not spend our life hunting for trivial satisfaction while God is waiting.” God is waiting. But where is he waiting? He waits for us to turn to him in prayer. He waits for us to seek him and fulfill the most important command, to “Love God with all our hearts, with all our souls, and all our minds. This is the first and greatest commandment.” However, we must not forget the second commandment, for “the second is like (the first); love your neighbour as yourself” (Matthew 22:37-39). And so, who are our neighbours? Christoph Blumhardt writes:

“Do we want to follow Jesus on this way? Then we must accept him in this company. Then the call comes to us to set to work wholeheartedly, for here is Jesus. He himself, speaking about the time of his absence, does not say, “I was rich and you respected me.” He says, “I was poor, I was hungry, I was thirsty, I was imprisoned, and you came to me, to the poor Saviour. You came to me, who sat as a guest at the table of the lowest men. There you came to me.” Here must be your whole heart; here you must do the deeds of faith; for it is from here that the power comes which will overthrow the world, the wretched, unhappy world.”

Every person is Christ for me and since there is only one Jesus, the person I am meeting is the only person in the world at that moment

Mother Teresa said, “I believe in person-to-person contact. Every person is Christ for me and since there is only one Jesus, the person I am meeting is the only person in the world at that moment.” When we enter into relationship with the outcast and unwanted in our society, this is reality. We are in the presence of the divine. We must not lessen this by demystifying it. It is mysterious, and strangely humbling. To love Jesus by serving others is the essence of mission. And, when we replace mission with trivialities, it is we who miss out.

Battling Corporate Aestheticism
Joy and perfect communion with God can only be found in mission. When we are serving sacrificially and completely, we become partners with Christ in his redemptive work. When we exist in the aesthetic sphere of Christian life, it is easy to fool ourselves into thinking that we are fulfilling our destinies as followers of Christ, when we are only living to indulge our comfort zones and fulfill our selfish desires.

How much time have we spent debating what kind of music is to be played during worship? There are passionate Christians who will fight to defend their style of music. However, if we desire to recapture mission, we must enter into the “worship debate” only by examining our position through the lens of mission. Through a missional lens, the worship question is pragmatic: what kind of music will most effectively speak to the hearts of my church’s surrounding community?

We had to address this question when beginning a new church in urban, multi-cultural Toronto. In the neighbourhood surrounding the church, you will hear as many as 100 languages spoken. The residents of our community come from nearly every culture and tradition in the world. So, what music is right for this church?

On Sunday, we may sing songs in French, Mandarin, Spanish, Zulu and Russian. We use a “worship band” style including keyboards, guitars, bass, drums, and vocals – because it is the nearest we have to what most neighbourhood people listen to on the radio. As a mission-focused church, the principle here is that every congregational decision must be mission focused.

This principal carries over to other areas of church. For instance, our church meets on Sunday at 4:30 pm. Why? Because people in our neighbourhood like to sleep in on Sundays. Decisions are based on the needs of the community, not the desires of the believer.

Mission involves sacrifice and a focus on others. It means being not only comfortable, but joyful when people who look differently enter our churches

I am sure we know people in our congregation who may be mired in the aesthetic stage. Unfortunately, sometimes these people are pastors, or hold places of authority. However, until such people are ready to move on in maturity, mission is too high a calling. Mission involves sacrifice and a focus on others. It means being not only comfortable, but joyful when people who look differently enter our churches. Mission necessitates a passion and love for God’s fallen creation, and a willingness to do whatever it takes to be a transformative influence in the world. However, as long as we are content to live a self-absorbed hedonistic religion, our goal will be to ultimately maintain a church that makes us happy and comfortable.

Top photo: Timothy Samoff, Bottom photo: John McAlister

Writer: Rob Perry works with children and youth at 614 Regent Park, Toronto, Canada.

I was a teenage fundamentalist

Maybe it’s not that simple? asks Barry Gittins

‘If Jesus said it I believe it  /  his word cannot lie,
If it’s written in the Bible  /  I’ll believe it ’til I die.
Though the mountains be removed  /  and cast into the sea,
God’s Word will last forever  /  throughout eternity.’

It was the early- to mid -’80s. Brisbane’s King George Square was packed with festive, congress-bound Salvos and I was harmonising my faith into an arsenal of mikes with my sister, Karen, and my bro, Ash. He strummed his acoustic as we all squinted into the blazing sun and sang our hearts out. The tune and the sentiments were parroted out happily as together we enjoyed expressing our love for God through music.

Although, as I look at those lyrics today, I recognise I have several issues with them.

Perhaps the Word ‘cannot lie’, but human beings can and do misuse that same Word. We swing ‘the sword of the Spirit’ against other people rather than ‘principalities and powers’. The veracity of the scriptures is something that is a key value for fundamentalists and, to varying degrees, all Christians.

‘Truth’ should be another word for Christ, just as ‘good’ (literally) is another word for God. In all honesty, that is not always the case with Christians. Nor is scripture always helpful and useful for teaching, as the apostle Paul told Timothy.

Simply put, the possibilities of mistranslations and the realities of misapplications of scripture can no longer be ignored if Christians want to take their faith seriously and be taken seriously in the broader marketplace of ideas.

I still believe God inspired the writing of the ’scriptures of the Old and New Testaments’. I no longer agree with the Army’s doctrinal stance that the biblical record is the only thing that constitutes ‘the Divine rule of Christian faith and practice’. Human agency is involved, clearly, in the writing and interpreting of scripture. To pretend otherwise is foolish and disrespectful of our God-given capacity to reason.

That’s patently not the case, in light of a) the Christian belief that God the Holy Spirit moves through all people, b) the long-held theological recognition that God is revealed through his creation and his creatures, and c) the historical reality that the vast majority of Christians throughout the life cycle of the church have been illiterate, relying on the preaching, example and verbal teachings of church canons that may or may not have been related to scriptural teachings (and clergy and laity that may or may not have been biblically literate).

Christians can no longer present a viewpoint, state an ethical framework, or try to justify bigotry, simply by saying ‘the Bible says so’. It doesn’t wash with others, and if we are honest it doesn’t wash with ourselves.

These days? I love God and I love the idea of God as expressed through love (1 John 4:7,8). It continues to make sense to me in a cruel universe. I believe Jesus is the best path I personally have found and will find to take me ‘home’ to God. I believe the kingdom of God is among us (rather than within us, as is introspectively and improperly translated).

I’m less inclined, these days, to categorise, praise or dismiss others. To uncritically accept the judgments of others, or accept the pronouncements of fellow believers - or non-believers - as ‘gospel’. I find myself walking a well-beaten track between Christ’s admonition to share my faith and to ‘judge not’.

I would like to think that I am less naïve than my younger self, but that I still retain my love for a God who loves me back, and my hope in a Saviour who was executed to stay ‘on message’.

We are called to embrace life and love as a child of God; we are called to be childlike in our awe at creation and creativity and our readiness to wonder. We are not called to be childish in an others-negating, exclusivist, ‘it’s not your road, it’s my road’ manner.

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.