Bang Bang You’re Dead

An Army that shoots its wounded won’t survive, says Captain C.

I had the pleasure of conversing with one of the Army’s world renowned brass band composers this last week. He is a very clever man who has written some of the best music of the past forty years but he is no longer a salvationist. You see he made a mistake, quite a big one I suppose by some people’s standards, but certainly not a hanging offence by any means, and he has made amends in every way possible.

While many corps are happy to play his music and others are happy to “own” him as once one of their own, noone is ready to fully forgive him and welcome him back into the fold.

We reminisced about what we loved about the Army and how sad it was to see it “going to the dogs” in so many areas. When he asked me why I thought that was the case I blurted out “Because just like what has happened to you my friend, we are an Army that shoots its own wounded”. Whoops.

But the problem is … it’s true.

So many of our great thinkers, managers, theologians, spirit-filled leaders, innovators, teachers, preachers, musicians and young people have copped a bullet right between the eyes. OK OK … I hear you and your pleas for a need for discipline and standards and …. (insert sanctimonious excuse here …) but we have missed so many opportunities to grow as an Army because we have chopped people off at the knees just as they were getting into their stride.

I’ve heard my Australian friends refer to it as the “Tall poppy syndrome” where people with outstanding talents who stand head and shoulders above the crowd are brought down to size. Mediocrity then reigns.

Tell me that’s not the case now?

 Writer: Captain C is an officer in a Territory far, far away. He has a few “difficult” questions to be asked and some obscure observations to share. Some people are happy to hear what he has to say even though they may disagree. Other people wish he’d just go away. 

Taking what’s offered?

Rescue the perishing, prey on the dying? asks Captain C.

Iremember my officer Grandfather’s outrage at a colleague accepting a house from one of his former corps parishioners via their will. It wasn’t that there was anything un-toward happening but it just wasn’t acceptable, according to the regulations for officers. Then again this particular officer was from a “good army family” (read “connected”) and seemingly operating under a different paradigm. Some people like Gramps were rude enough to see this all as being simply unjust, wrong and letting the side down.

I was reminded of this situation when a friend recently told me of how his family were passed over in the inheritance of a maiden Aunt. Instead of leaving anything from her vast accumulated earthly fortune to her flesh and blood she had instead left it all to an officer and his family who had befriended the hapless old soul. That’s her choice I suppose, after all it is her “will”, but aren’t there rules about this sort of thing? My friend complained to people in authority, but to no avail. To say he is a little bent out of shape is an understatement.

So does that mean it’s now open slather as far as being a benefactor of dead people’s money? If that’s the case the upside maybe more officers getting out of their offices and away from their computers to visit the sick and dying in their homes and hospitals. With the pathetic level of officer retirement allowances can one be blamed for taking what’s offered for services rendered? Or is this just an example of downright, flesh-driven greed?

This is a dangerous area that can mean that fellow officers and comrades who have faithfully and selflessly served have their work somewhat cheapened when one person is chosen over another as benefactor.

Maybe it’s time to get a few things out into the open and clarify what is indeed kosher? What say you?

Writer: Captain C is an officer in a Territory far, far away. He has a few “difficult” questions to be asked and some obscure observations to share. Some people are happy to hear what he has to say even though they may disagree. Other people wish he’d just go away.

The Demon Drink

Is teetotalism a problem for our growth?

ALCOHOL, the demon drink; I’ve never touched the stuff, ever. So it’s not a problem area for me personally, but there is a question that begs an answer - at a time when most of our other church colleagues have relaxed or completely deleted their alcohol ban for church members, why are we still so vehemently against it?

I know our history and the many people in the early days who were saved from the gin palaces, and then there are the tens of thousands who we still help every year to “give up the grog” (as we say in Australia). Integral to this is the strict temperance pledge and the famous 12 steps. But it could be argued that this extremely high standard has had a marked effect on the number of people who want to join or remain in our ranks.

Australian social commentator and futurist Hugh McKay recently told a journalist colleague of mine that the SA’s temperance stance is one of the main reasons why we will never be a numerically large force in Australia. Our standards mean that young people who feel the need for a “social drink”, business people who entertain clients, couples who want to enjoy the sophistication of a winery tour or anyone who wants to celebrate with champagne or relax with scotch at the end of a hard day cannot be active Senior Soldiers. Then again, neither could Jesus, who apparently enjoyed the odd drop of red. Let’s not forget His first miracle where the water was turned into wine and the last supper where he set the template for communion with bread and wine as his body and blood. 

In most circles, drinking alcohol is seen as common, completely acceptable, behaviour. Whereas our strict stance marginalises us to the extent that many think edges towards cult levels. If it’s an historical thing, then why didn’t we maintain the other Booth family choices of vegetarianism and homeopathy as well?

It could be argued that apart from the downsides of over-indulgence, alcohol-fuelled violence and alcoholism, that alcohol is a gift from God for us to enjoy in moderation. But when it comes down to it, does drinking really glorify God and help us in worship of Him? Don’t misunderstand me, I’m not talking about binge drinking or “getting smashed”, the bible is very clear on the spiritual gift of self control.   

Something that has always mystified and disappointed me personally is how when friends leave the SA for another church they inevitably start drinking almost immediately. Was their promise to avoid alcohol a promise to God or just the SA? When I attended a pentecostal mega-church it was common to see the youth pastors fervently preaching the word and then find them an hour later at the public bar guzzling pots of beer. Some of the penti old timers said that relaxation of the alcohol restrictions were essential to their recruiting drives and them seeming like “normal” people (in spite of their tongue-talking, excorcism, faith healing, prosperity teaching, holy rolling), and besides, stopping people from drinking was actually a form of “spiritual bondage”. I kid you not.

Am I saying that this our most sacred of cows should be put out to pasture? That we should lower our very high standards? No, no, I’m not, but I am suggesting that we be realistic about things like church growth and retaining young people and that we get serious about this conviction and remember WHY we do it. If it really is about being “clean” and a “temple of the Holy Spirit” then let’s do that across our other self-indulgences as well. If it is to help our friends in recovery then why don’t we come down off the platform or down from the balcony and shake their hand, take them home for lunch, look after their kids, take them to a job interview and generally get alongside of them instead of treating them like second class citizens.

If teetotal is going to be a cornerstone of who we are and what we are then let’s get really serious about it. Be loud and proud. We should be the first port of call for journalists when there is a story about alcohol controls or tragedies, or when the government wants to work out some alcohol legislation. The SA in Australia recently commissioned an extensive survey on alcohol use and the media were all over it, uniforms on TV on the morning shows, creating major cut-through. That’s what I’m talking about.

Officers (and let’s face it everyone else) should be better trained in how alcohol addiction works. We leave it up to a handful of hard-working Social officers. There is a degree of misunderstanding about alcohol amongst some officers which is only eclipsed by their ignorance of mental health issues. I know of one who insists on taking new adherents into bars, collecting, when they are fresh from a recovery program.  It’s hard to see this as nothing but a sort of test for these poor souls. It’s actually a cruel, ill-informed, self-fulfilling prophecy as most inevitably “fall off the wagon”. Anyone who knew the slightest thing about addiction or who genuinely cared for our struggling brothers and sisters just would not do that.

So let’s not just reject alcohol just because we always have, let’s know what it’s all about and why we do it, and have the courage of our convictions.

 I’ll drink to that!

With God on our side

 Part two of a look at the Handbook of Doctrine’s teaching on the sacraments by James Pedlar 

A second, more obvious change in the 2010 Handbook is the addition of a claim that the Army’s non-observance of sacraments is the result of a specific, divine, prophetic calling.  For the most part, this change was accomplished by simply adding material that wasn’t included in Salvation Story (see the chart Comparison of Salvation Story and Handbook of Doctrine on Sacraments).   

The only existing sentence from Salvation Story that was altered to reflect this idea of a divine calling is the following (my emphasis): 

Salvation Story: “Early in our history, The Salvation Army chose not to observe specific sacraments as prescribed rituals.”

Handbook of Doctrine: “Early in our history, The Salvation Army was led of God not to observe specific sacraments, that is baptism and the Lord’s Supper, or Holy Communion, as prescribed rituals.”

The significance of changing the wording from “chose” to “was led of God” hardly needs to be pointed out.  It follows from this that the Handbook stresses the permanence of this decision as a matter of obedience to God:

“The Salvation Army is a permanent witness to the Church as to the possibility, and practicability, of sanctification without formal sacraments…This ongoing commitment to model the conviction that ‘no particular outward observance is necessary to inward grace’, demonstrates obedience to a specific calling to a distinctive and prophetic role within the Church.” 

This is an enormous claim, and it needs to be thought through carefully.  In the spirit of furthering discussion on this topic, I’d like to raise a few questions that come to my mind when considering this idea that Salvationists have a divine vocation to non-observance of the sacraments. 

1.  On what ground can a claim to a specific divine calling to non-observance of the sacraments be established?  If God’s name is going to be invoked as a support for the Army’s position, the Army should have some clear and decisive authority on which to build its case.  According to doctrine #1, scripture is the only such authority.  Salvationists cannot directly support this claim with scripture (recall that the specific claim we’re discussing here is that Salvationists have a special divine calling to non-observance). To put this matter in a nutshell: If the Army’s position is biblical, then it is not specific to the Army, and no one should observe sacraments.  If it is not biblical…well then we’d have to look at other sources of authority.   

What does tradition say?  Again, there is little support there, unless you are talking about “Salvationist tradition” only (or appealing to the Quakers, as Salvationists sometimes do).  But we can’t restrict “tradition,” as a theological authority, to our own denominational history.   

What about Christian experience?  Perhaps this is where the strongest case might be made for the Handbook’s claim, but it would really be a claim which rested on experience alone. I think this is what Shaw Clifton means when he appeals to “God’s ways and dealings with us.”  He is talking about the Army’s “collective experience” - the fact that God has been present and blessed the Army in its history of non-observance - and using that as a support for the Army’s practice and theology.  So the question becomes, is the Army’s collective experience a sure enough footing on which to lay claim to a specific divine calling to non-sacramental worship?  If our answer is yes, that leads to my second question. 

2. Can other Christian traditions use the same logic to justify their positions on the sacraments?  To take an extreme opposite case, can Roman Catholics justify their own sacramental theology on the basis of their history - their “collective experience” - and the ways in which God has been present amongst them in their spiritual practices?  If God’s presence among us, and God’s blessing of our ministries, is taken as an indication as to the correctness of our theological convictions, then we end up in the awkward situation where God is simultaneously affirming contradictory sacramental theologies (unless we want to be sectarian and deny that God is blessing others who have differing theological convictions - but the Army has always opposed sectarianism).   

3.  How do we account for both the divine and human elements at work in the history of the Army?  Salvationists are not shy about claiming that “God raised up the Salvation Army.”  In my opinion, the Handbook’s treatment of this issue highlights the theological questions that arise when we start to apply this idea to specific issues.  I believe that The Salvation Army was “raised up by God.”  However, I believe there were a lot of human forces at work as well! Sometimes we can’t completely disentangle the two, and this is reason to be modest in making claims about the specific ways in which God was at work.  My final question follows from this:  

4.  What does it mean to say that the Army was “led of God” to not observe the sacraments?  I mean, what kind of historical evidence would lead us to this conclusion?  Most of us are aware of William Booth’s seemingly provisional and tentative statements on this matter. It seems to me that the idea of a specific divine calling was something which emerged later in Army history - a gradual realization, over time.  And if so, we are back to the question of the weight of “collective experience” as a theological authority. 

I don’t doubt that God has been with the Army throughout its history, but personally, I don’t believe that this is a sure enough footing on which to make the claim that the Army’s non-observance of the sacraments is the result of a specific, divine, prophetic calling.  In my opinion, bringing God into the debate in such a direct way requires more substantial, authoritative support.

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

Officer Morale - What’s wrong?

… asks James Pedlar

For two years I studied the issue of young adult attrition in the Canada and Bermuda Territory. Officership was a frequent topic of conversation as I engaged with current and former young adult Salvationists about challenges that the Army faces in keeping younger people involved.

The young adults I interviewed were issuing a clear call for changes to officership, and it centred around three issues:

First, many were less-than-enthusiastic about going to Training College, based on their impressions of the training experience. The general impression they had was that Cadets were treated like children.

Second, there was a lot of scepticism regarding the effectiveness of the appointment system. People who were potential officers were usually somewhat nervous about entrusting their gifts to the discretion of headquarters.

The third area of concern was the example of officers themselves. These young adults often heard officers complaining about their lives as officers, and it had the effect of giving officership a bad reputation. I don’t think this is unique to young adults. The fact that officers often seem unhappy and frustrated is having a “trickle-down” effect upon the general Army population. If officers are mostly unhappy, who would want to join them? One person I interviewed put the issue in a nutshell: “You don’t hear a lot of officers talk about how wonderful the Army is.”

My study focused only on Canada and Bermuda, but I’d suspect that the situation is quite similar in other Western Territories. Although it is clear that officer morale is a problem, I’ve struggled to put my finger on the real root of the problem. What is it about officership that seems to leave people so frustrated?

Is it the same issues that young adults identified - training and appointments?

I have met a few officers who were, in all seriousness, scarred by their training experience. I met one young officer who compared training college to a concentration camp, where they try to break you down and re-mold you from scratch! I know that this is an extreme description, but on the other hand, it is consistent with what other people say in less sensational ways about officer training.

As for the appointment structure, everyone knows of stories of appointments that were a less-than-ideal fit for both officer and local ministry. Becoming an officer means saying that you’re willing to serve wherever “the Army” sees fit (for “the Army,” read “the appointments board”). This is becoming a tough sell in cultures like Canada, where anything “institutional” is viewed with extreme scepticism. And one can see how resentment and frustration could build in those who feel that they’ve been given the short end of the stick, appointment-wise.

Maybe it’s the compensation system? I know officers in Canada are well cared for, but they don’t have the same kind of freedom as the rest of us do to spend our money as we see fit. Their lifestyle is fixed at a decent level, but they don’t have much disposable income. Does this make people bitter?

Some have suggested that many officers feel trapped - that they get to a certain point in their life and they’d really like to do something else, but the financial and personal costs of leaving are too great, so they just stick it out. Because they’ve got no equity, changing careers in mid life can be difficult, especially if your training is not recognized outside of the Army and/or church world. If it is true that there are officers out there who are just “sticking it out” because they feel trapped, then it’s not surprising that they’d be generally unhappy.

Is it the paperwork? I’ve heard lots of officers complain about the number of forms they are made to fill out by DHQ and THQ. And sometimes these administrative processes can be a bit insulting, as, for example, when an officer who runs a million-dollar a year operation has to get approval for a new stove or couch for the quarters.

Perhaps it’s got nothing to do with the Army at all. Maybe it is the general stresses of ministry that people face in any denomination - unrealistic expectations from their congregations, working long hours, putting up with abuse from people who complain about insignificant issues, and so on. Maybe we would find the same kind of dissatisfaction and frustration among the Methodists or Pentecostals.

Whatever the cause may be, poor officer morale is a serious concern in this Territory, to the point that I’d suggest that any attempts to help improve officer recruitment need to start with improving morale among current officers.

What do you think? Why don’t we hear more officers talking about how wonderful the Army is?

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

What might have been

by Terry Camsey 

Some while ago retired General John Larsson wrote the following: 

“As I look back, how I wish we as an Army had been more positive in our response to the Holy Spirit renewal. Had we had prophets who taught us to welcome this movement of the Spirit whilst rejecting the wrong teaching that accompanied it, the story could have been so different. 

But, instead of hoisting our sails and setting them to catch the full force of this gale of the Spirit, we as a movement lowered them. Instead of fanning the fire of the Spirit we sometimes quenched it. And all because the explanation of an experience that was so right was so wrong. 

It is, of course, easy to have 20/20 vision with hindsight and none of this was clear at the time. It also has to be said that despite our hesitations as a Movement, the Holy Spirit renewal succeeded in bringing about climate change in the Army - in a positive sense. The temperature in our worship has risen markedly since those days, and we are still rejoicing in the new warmth…” 
 

I suspect that the Army has always had its prophets, since that is one of the spiritual gifts that are bestowed upon (some) members of the body of Christ…his church. Whether we were interested in what such prophets had to say is debatable. 
But recently, as I read those words again, they brought to mind an incident that occurred a few years ago at the end of a divisional music camp in Northern California. It was one of the first such camps opened to non-musicians who didn’t qualify for the music camp embracing them in what is now known as a Gospel Arts program. 

Unique to that camp was the production of a youth musical involving all campers.  Groups of non-musicians, coached by empathic and enthusiastic leaders, accepted the challenge of interpreting the story of Daniel in the lions’ den. Carefully studying Scripture, they worked out a script, did all the acting and (for want of a better word) choreography. They also had the task of rooting around the camp and getting together their own costumes, and props. The music students provided songs to illustrate each segment, and the whole production was called “FAITH, FANGS AND FIRE!” 

At the end of the presentation, on the last day and last event of camp, the participants swarmed spontaneously on to the floor of the hall and started dancing for pure joy to the music. 

When I reported to my next officer appointment a few days later, I was called in to the Territorial Commanders office, because one of the outside attendees had phoned THQ to complain about the dancing…which was “definitely not allowed.” In response, I produced a picture from a very old Army Periodical (the War Cry, as I recall) where Salvationists were depicted at a tent meeting dancing in the aisles in the Spirit and in full uniform! 

Some years later, while visiting a territory near the Land of Oz, I was made aware of sharp differences between younger officers who were into faith healing - and other visible evidences of the Holy Spirit at work -  and an older generation of Salvationists, very disturbed by this and labelling it “not real Army.” 

The old Army periodical I mentioned seems to contradict that claim.  

I recall doing some research on the subject of signs and wonders with (I believe, but its a few years ago and I’m not getting any younger!) the help of the International Heritage Center. In particular, I clearly remember a quote by General William Booth in which, talking about the supernatural gifts of the Spirit, he said he could not doubt that they were at work among the early Army. 

Another influential and highly placed early day commissioner indicated that his “delight” was the holiness and healing meetings. 

It is quite evident that signs and wonders, healing meetings and other such workings of the Spirit were not unusual in Booth’s young Army…a quite different interpretation of what “real Army” is. 

It has been my experience that, in using the phrase, “it’s not real Army,” many older people are talking about the Army in the era in which they were brought up…an Army that had (as the then, now deceased officer Charles Skinner wrote many years ago in an unpublished song warning against it) “become respectable!” 

Was Booth’s early Army the “real Army?” Of course! Is today’s Army the “real Army?” Of course! Are they the same?  

They may be to some extent, but in other respects not.  The big question is, “Are we allowing the Holy Spirit the freedom to do as He wills?” or are we quenching Him? 

General Larsson finishes the thoughts I have quoted above by saying: 

“…But it is what might have been that will always tantalize.” 

“Holy Spirit , come, O come,

Let Thy will in me (us) be done!

All that hinders shall be thrown aside,

Make me (us) fit to be thy dwelling.”

(Chorus of Song 188 in the SASB)

Writer: For thirty years Terry Camsey has been immersed in Church Growth and Health issues at local, middle and upper administrative levels. He is author of the book “Slightly Off-Center” (Crest Books) and is working on “Beyond the Cusp of The Curve..exploring the single most critical influence on the life, health, growth, vitality and decline of Christian denominations and the churches within them.”

He is founder of the new ChurchCatalystsInternational focusing on the role of interventionists as catalysts: shedding light, creating heat, inspiring energy and accomplishing transformation. More details are on his new website http://churchcatalystsinternational.org./ 

© Terry Camsey, August 2010 (Used with permission of the author)

5 ways to improve SA Worship

by James Pedlar

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

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

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

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

1. Eliminate the MC-style running commentary on songs

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

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

2. Stop singing about the Army

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

3. Let the word be heard

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

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

4. Pay attention to content

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

5. Drop the showtunes

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

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

Anyone have other ideas?

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

Does Power Corrupt?

            “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”  Lord Acton 1887

“Unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it”  William Pitt 1770

One of the unfortunate byproducts of any society of humans is that power corrupts and that absolute power corrupts absolutely.

In my media career I have had both the fortune and misfortune of dealing on an intimate basis with the powerful of many kinds - politicians, celebrities, popstars, movie stars, sporting heroes. I have seen firsthand the power (either perceived or real) corrupting over and over again.

It is rare to find an organisation which has not been effected by the powerful ones who seek to “settle old scores”, crush innovative non-conformists with a wet blanket of conservatism, take personal credit for the toil of others, unfairly practise nepotism, impede the advancement of outstanding young people and bully more junior staff, send nay-sayers to “Coventry” (or “Back of Beyond” as we say in Australia) or other equally cruel, selfish, non-edifying acts of destructive indulgence.

The less powerful victims, their families and colleagues suffer. So too ultimately does the organisation. A lack of true accountability or undeserved position goes hand-in-hand with this type of megalomania. If it’s not kept in check the almost inevitable corruption follows. It’s part of the nature of fallen man I suppose. 

Of course, as members of the Christian community we are immune from this insidiousness right??? In a perfect world where everyone was perfectly in sync with their Creator, surrended to and guided by the Holy Spirit there would be no pathetic powerplays, self-seeking egos or foolish pride getting in the way. But unfortunately, we don’t live in a perfect world.

Our hierachical structure sometimes elevates people to positions of power that are beyond the level that an individual can adequately handle things, without letting themselves get in the way. Don’t get me wrong; some of our leaders are brilliant, inspiring, spirit-filled visionaries. They lead “from the front”, with a prophetic drive but with their feet firmly on the ground. Unfortunately there are others who fall short.

Jesus put the religious leaders well and truly “in their place”, I trust he’ll continue to do so, but we also need to do our part. We need to have an attitude of zero tolerance to any abuse of power by leaders.

Let’s pray earnestly for our leaders and support them in such a way that they don’t need the corruptive practices of the flesh to somehow edify their work.

Politics #1 : Political parties - An Erroneous Assumption

Geoff Ryan walks the fine political line

A

s a member of the local riding association (Canadian electoral district) for the Conservatives, I was involved in strategy and policy discussions for our candidate during a provincial election in our province a couple years ago. She is a white, well-heeled lawyer in her mid-fifties who lives in the upscale, old-money end of our electoral district. Her husband is in banking. She is a good woman who genuinely cares about social change and about certain key issues in our area. There are parts of the riding where who she is and what she appears to represent would play well, but not in my particular neighbourhood.

The New Democratic Party candidate was a Latina woman who worked with the Toronto Community Housing Corporation and was personally connected with many of the people and places in my neighbourhood. Though younger and more attractive than the Progressive Conservative candidate, she was not warm or personable, and struggled as a public speaker. In my community, she was quite popular. However, in other areas of the riding, people wouldn’t even open the door when she came knocking.

One Tuesday evening, I made my way to the Conservative campaign launch. It was held at a nice restaurant on Yonge Street. Several well-known political figures were in attendance. There was an open bar. Expensive (and inedible) finger food was served and shoals of bright young things, recently graduated from political science university courses via Upper Canada College, were working the crowd and tapping on their Blackberrys. I made sure my attendance had been noted, then left. This was not really my scene nor my crowd.

The following Saturday, I was in my backyard putting up a shed with help from a guy who recently started attending our church after coming through drug rehab. Around noon, I remembered that the NDP candidate was holding her campaign launch that afternoon in a rented space just around the corner from my house. Though dressed in paint-splattered jeans and a torn T-shirt, with a disreputable baseball hat crammed onto my head, I decided to wander over. As I rolled up to the office, I was met by the campaign manager, a woman with a crew cut who was chain-smoking out front. Looking into the office I saw a small group of immigrant women, sitting in a circle, chatting and eating home-baked goodies. The “staffers” in the office were young, bearded men with backpacks and wan smiles, and thin girls wearing badges in support of alternative bands and various left-wing causes. I schmoozed for a bit, and then went back to my shed.

The problem that niggled at me for the rest of the weekend, the duration of the campaign and, frankly, ever since, is that the NDP crowd was pretty much what my church looks like on any given Sunday. These were my people and this was the milieu in which I have lived most of my life. And the Conservative party (pun intended) wasn’t.

Certain things are important to me-small government, fiscal responsibility, entrepreneurship, individual initiative and self-reliance, plus a deep conviction of the limitations and shortcomings of the welfare state. Having lived in a post-Socialist state for almost a decade (Russia), I am quite clear-eyed about the retro-socialism that the NDP is trying to sell. Yet, there are things that come with the label “Tory” that I struggle with and don’t particularly want to own. But this is where I have landed. It’s the same with the “evangelical” label that I, at times, reluctantly wear.

Fernando Henrique Cardoso, two-term President of Brazil, sociologist, professor, politician and, according to some, one of the world’s top public intellectuals, wrote a piece entitled “Political Parties” in Foreign Policy magazine in 2005:

We take it for granted that political parties are vital to modern political life. They have shaped representative democracies since the late 19th century. Yet, their prospects are not bright in today’s large democracies. In fact, these powerful political machines may soon disappear. The ground is already shifting underneath their feet. Political parties have based their platforms on ideological and class divides that are becoming less important, especially in more advanced societies. Although class consciousness still matters, ethnic, religious, and sexual identities now trump class, and these affiliations cut across traditional political party lines. Today, the labels left and right have less and less meaning. Citizens have developed multiple interests, diverse senses of belonging, and overlapping identities…. Political dislocation exists alongside a growing fatigue with traditional forms of political representation. People no longer trust the political establishment. They want a greater say in public matters and usually prefer to voice their interests directly or through interest groups and nongovernmental organizations…. And thanks to modern communication, citizens’ groups can bypass political parties in shaping public policy. Political parties no longer have a lock on legitimacy.

When I first read this, I thought: That’s me. I shopped the idea around to some friends and acquaintances and felt like I was moving from room to room in a large house flicking on all the lights.

Though disillusionment with established political structures might be very real, political disengagement is not the answer. This is not the place to make the case for Christians to be involved in politics, but a short quote by Glenn Tinder, writing some years ago in The Atlantic Monthly, says it well enough:

We are so used to thinking of spirituality as withdrawal from the world and human affairs that it is hard to think of it as political. Spirituality is personal and private, we assume, while politics is public. But such a dichotomy drastically diminishes spirituality construing it as a relationship to God without implications for one’s relationship to the surrounding world. The God of Christian faith … created the world and is deeply engaged in the affairs of the world. The notion that we can be related to God and not to the world-that we can practice a spirituality that is not political-is in conflict with the Christian understanding of God.

If Cardoso is right, then it might actually make little difference with whom Christians choose to align themselves politically (here in the West). Parties rise to power and fall from power in cyclical patterns, and when they are in power, their influences on the policies and laws that impact “our people” are neither consistently good, nor consistently bad, regardless of political stripe. It is a misguided course of action, based on an erroneous assumption, to associate one party in particular with particular concerns or with any consistent approach to things that matter most to us.

For instance, one might associate the concerns and needs of the poor with Labour (UK), Democrats (US) and Liberals (Canada). Or, to mention another example, one might associate the religious right, along with its concerns and positions, with Conservatives (UK), Republicans (US) and Conservatives (Canada).

I have socially conservative Pentecostal friends who tell their congregants to vote Conservative, hoping they will overturn the same-sex marriage bill-an erroneous assumption. The rhetoric and policies of the NDP include care for the poor and working class, but they aim to do this by an endless expansion of government programs, strengthening the welfare state, yet thereby perpetuating generational dependence and dysfunction-another erroneous assumption. The Conservatives, reputedly cold-hearted when it comes to the down and out, actually believe deeply in the tenets of community development over service provision (whether they know it or not) and so might, in the long run, be a better bet for the poor-yet another erroneous assumption. It gets complicated.

I have a friend in Germany, Frank Heinrich, who, like myself, is a Salvation Army officer. He pastored a 614 church in Chemnitz, a city in former Eastern Germany. His church is situated in a vast and bleak micro-city of Soviet-era apartment buildings, home to thousands and thousands of people. Frank decided to run for political office in hopes of improving life in his parish. The Salvation Army (in an unusual move) granted him a leave of absence to run. This past September, he won in a landslide and is now in the Federal Parliament representing Chemnitz. Frank is a flamboyantly left-wing kind of guy with a huge heart for the poor and marginalized. But he ran his campaign as part of the Christian Democratic Union Party and was elected as a member of that party-one seen as representing the conservative right wing of the German political landscape, analogous to the Republicans in the U.S. or the Conservatives here in Canada.

His reasoning? They were going to win anyway, and he really wanted to achieve something in Chemnitz. So he threw his lot in with them, planning to work from “the inside” to effect change. A triumph of pragmatism over principle, some might say. The words of Fernando Henrique Cardoso, if true, suggest that today’s political parties are quite malleable. My German friend, then, may find himself with some significant room to do some things he might not have had room to do before.

So what’s a reluctant Tory like me to do? Short of starting my own party, I figure that picking a party to get involved with is kind of like picking a church. As a Christian, you have to be in community, and so you pick a church of some sort to belong to. The same thing goes politically. You pick a party. There’s no such thing as the perfect church, or perfect political party. Settle on one that you can live with and go from there.

Just don’t make assumptions.

Copyright © 1974-2010 Cardus. All Rights Reserved.

Writer: Major Geoff Ryan is co-founder of theRubicon and was publisher for three years. He is co-ordinator of the 614 Network and organizes the bi-annual Urban Forum. His interests include writing, politics, coffee and his children. Geoff and his wife Sandra minister in Regent Park, a social housing project in downtown Toronto, Canada.

This article originally appeared in Comment magazine, the opinion journal of CARDUS: www.cardus.ca/comment http://www.cardus.ca/comment/article/1524/

A special on Christians and politics