Lent Musings (2 of 5)

“I suck at Lent” admits Dion Oxford

T

o instantly dispel any myths that I might be creating for myself as a super spiritual person (those of you who know me already know better), I need to confess right off the top that Lent thus far for me has been a miserable failure. On Shrove Tuesday I committed to several Lenten disciplines that I would try to pursue throughout these 40 days and all but one of them has, for the most part, gone by the wayside. (The only one that I haven’t blown yet is my commitment to not shave, which I’ll get into in a later post but I’ll say now that this beard getting out of control…) I promised God that I would or would not do certain things for 40 days out of my love and commitment for Him and my desire to be more like Jesus, but the temptations for the things I promised not to eat or to do have quite pathetically proven to be greater than my promise to God. And it didn’t take long for that to happen. (It’s kind of liberating to get that out there but I feel like a total loser about it all)

So this Lent has reminded me of two very powerful truths about myself;

1. I am miserably prone to slipping over and over again back into sin.
2. I am going to die and there’s nothing I can do to stop it.

As I’ve read and reflected on the text of Matthew 6:1-18 and have allowed myself to be challenged to read scripture, the first of four themes of Lent (known in liturgical circles as the four ‘acts of righteousness’), I am made very aware of the deep sin within me and my desperate need to confess and repent of that sin.

There is darkness within me. Lent, beginning on Ash Wednesday, reminds me of that pervasive darkness and the struggle to keep that darkness in check. Lent reminds me in full force of the battle that rages within me, and the battle that rages within the world, of darkness verses light.

So Ash Wednesday, especially when reading the traditional texts that come with it of Matt. 6:1-18 as well as Joel 2:12-18, acts as a ‘reboot’ of the spiritual journey. I’m not a computer geek by any means but when my computer gets slow and sluggish I am occasionally advised to run the ‘defragment’ software in order to clean up the hard drive and help it not get bogged down in little bits and pieces that get stuck in there which aren’t necessary and only go to slowing down and confusing the computer. Ash Wednesday is God’s way of defragmenting us. It takes us out of our potential complacency and distractions, and brings us back to reality to focus on the truly important things of the Christian walk. It takes our minds off of trivial theological disputes (in the case of some of the recent dialogues on the Rubicon it reminds us that mudslinging over what version of the Bible is best or if or how we participate in sacraments, is out of step with the Christian walk) and refocuses us on things of bigger importance.

Lent brings us back to the basics of the story. And the story reveals that though the darkness is all around us and through us, and though we are born sinful and flawed (Ps. 55:5), the darkness cannot overcome the light. The darkness that followed Jesus every step of the way, and in very real ways came close to tempting Him to sin, did not defeat Him. But He did get murdered for standing firm against the darkness. His witness of light came at great cost. So too, our attempt to stand against the darkness should cost us. In fact, if it doesn’t cost us anything it’s worth absolutely nothing.

Ash Wednesday then is reboot day. It is the beginning of our walk towards Easter Sunday, where Jesus defeated sin and death. It reminds us that we too have sin within us that needs to be overcome. It reminds us that we too are on a journey towards our own death. It reminds us that, with Jesus, we too can overcome the sin and death in our own lives.

But it leaves us with choices to make. How than shall we live? What might we do to stand firm against the darkness? What disciplines might we attempt to embrace in our efforts to stand firm? When the world literally crumbles all around us (Haiti, Chile, Japan), when corrupt governments deal in death and people continue to die in the streets, when death surrounds us everywhere we look, how do we respond? Is our response to death the same as that of the rest of the world’s or are we noticeable in our response to oppression, injustice, and death?

Lent offers suggestions as to where to start with that. The first, as I’ve mentioned, is to read and take seriously the scriptures that have been given to us to reveal something of the nature of God and how we as His created beings are to respond in light of the good news of God’s love for us and for all of creation.

In my next piece I will focus my thoughts on the 2^nd of the 4 acts of righteousness, giving.

Until then I’m still sucking at Lenten disciplines, cursed with sin and longing for Easter,

Dion 

Writer: The Concise Oxford is written by Dion Oxford who, along with his wife, Erinn, and daughter, Cate, live in Toronto, Canada and are committed to journeying alongside people in the margins of society. He and Erinn have spent a combined 30 years working amongst folks who are living on the streets of Toronto. Dion is a recovering Salvationist who currently worships at an evangelical Anglican church but still works for The Salvation Army at the Gateway, a shelter for men experiencing homelessness. He and his wife see the solution to homelessness as the church taking seriously the two great commandments of loving God and loving our neighbour. He likes to read, write, fly kites, cycle long distances, watch TV, play in his band and hang out with his friends.

Lent Musings (1 of 5)

Lent for Dummies - Like Me (by Dion Oxford)

F

or those of us who grew up not paying much attention to the Christian calendar, Lent is a season that has often passed us by without even noticing it. Protestant piety made a point of rejecting everything associated with the higher liturgical traditions, for many very good reasons I might add, but sadly threw away a lot of great proven spiritual practices along the way in an effort to purge itself from the many legalistic trappings that can come with liturgical worship.

But in the past few years as I have begun worshipping in a more liturgical tradition, Lent has become of crucial significance to me in my Christian walk. When I started trying to observe the season, I originally needed a “Lent for dummies” lesson. So, as I suspect there are others out there just like me who are interested in Lent but know very little of what it means or where it comes from, here’s my feeble attempt at offering my own flawed version of “Lent for dummies”.

What does the word ‘Lent’ mean?

The word ‘Lent’ has a lengthy evolution. In Latin, the word quadragesima was used to refer to the 40 days leading up to Easter. In the middle ages, the English word ‘Lent’ emerged which means, quite simply, spring. (Which comes from the German word Lenz and the Dutch word lente) This derives from the German root for ‘long’ due to the fact that in springtime the days visibly lengthen. (Notice that ‘Lent’ and ‘Lengthen’ are very similar)

The practice and Purpose of Lent

(This entire section comes from http://www.crivoice.org/cylent.html)

“Originating in the fourth century of the church, the season of Lent spans 40 weekdays beginning on Ash Wednesday and climaxing during Holy Week with Holy Thursday (Maundy Thursday), Good Friday, and concluding Saturday before Easter. Originally, Lent was the time of preparation for those who were to be baptized, a time of concentrated study and prayer before their baptism at the Easter Vigil, the celebration of the Resurrection of the Lord early on Easter Sunday. But since these new members were to be received into a living community of Faith, the entire community was called to preparation. Also, this was the time when those who had been separated from the Church would prepare to rejoin the community.

Today, Lent is marked by a time of prayer and preparation to celebrate Easter. Since Sundays celebrate the resurrection of Jesus, the six Sundays that occur during Lent are not counted as part of the 40 days of Lent, and are referred to as the Sundays in Lent. The number 40 is connected with many biblical events, but especially with the forty days Jesus spent in the wilderness preparing for His ministry by facing the temptations that could lead him to abandon his mission and calling. Christians today use this period of time for introspection, self examination, and repentance.

Lent has traditionally been marked by penitential prayer, fasting, and almsgiving. Some churches today still observe a rigid schedule of fasting on certain days during Lent, especially the giving up of meat, alcohol, sweets, and other types of food. Other traditions do not place as great an emphasis on fasting, but focus on charitable deeds, especially helping those in physical need with food and clothing, or simply the giving of money to charities. Most Christian churches that observe Lent at all focus on it as a time of prayer, especially penance, repenting for failures and sin as a way to focus on the need for God’s grace. It is really a preparation to celebrate God’s marvellous redemption at Easter, and the resurrected life that we live, and hope for, as Christians.”

Where do I start if I want to participate in Lent?

As I have attempted over the past few years to go deeper with Lent, I have tried to observe the four emphases of Lent that traditionally are derived from Matthew 6. These are;

1. Scripture (Matthew 6:1-18)
2. Giving (Matthew 6:2-4)
3. Prayer (Matthew 6:5-15)
4. Fasting (Matthew 6:16-18)

Hopefully you will find reading the Matthew passage through this lens would be a helpful start if participating in Lent is new to you. And if you think it’s too late to try some of these disciplines this year, hear me plead with you that it is not too late, lest we slip instantly into the legalistic pitfalls that can come with practicing the spiritual disciplines!

So, over the next 4 Lent Musings, I will focus on each of these areas individually as they relate to my own life and my attempt to act justly, love mercy, and walk humbly before God.

Longing for Easter,

Dion

Writer: The Concise Oxford is written by Dion Oxford who, along with his wife, Erinn, and daughter, Cate, live in Toronto, Canada and are committed to journeying alongside people in the margins of society. He and Erinn have spent a combined 30 years working amongst folks who are living on the streets of Toronto. Dion is a recovering Salvationist who currently worships at an evangelical Anglican church but still works for The Salvation Army at the Gateway, a shelter for men experiencing homelessness. He and his wife see the solution to homelessness as the church taking seriously the two great commandments of loving God and loving our neighbour. He likes to read, write, fly kites, cycle long distances, watch TV, play in his band and hang out with his friends.

The Holiness Movement: Dead or Alive?

 Is there a Holiness dichotomy here? asks Joe Noland

I

‘ve been thinking a lot about holiness lately, simply because often our theology doesn’t seem to jive with the way we treat each other internally - administratively, officially and otherwise. I detect a holiness divide, separating the internal from the external. “Others” is reflected in our compassion toward “the last, the lost and the least,” those being exploited on the outside, whilst there is little patience or consideration for those not living up to our standards on the inside. There appears to be a holiness dichotomy here.

Social justice is big now, whilst injustice within sometimes gets lost in the translation. Leeriness of the holiness messenger, oftentimes makes the message suspect, unfortunately.

Keith Drury tackles this subject in a paper titled, The Holiness Movement: Dead or Alive? (Link: http://www.crivoice.org/hmovement.html) He lists eight factors contributing toward its death, with number seven perhaps capturing the reason for the ambivalent feelings expressed above. 

1. We wanted to be respectable.
2. We have plunged into the evangelical mainstream: “Holiness people” became “evangelical people.”
3. We failed to convince the younger generation.
4. We quit making holiness the main issue.
5. We lost the lay people: “We have generals without armies. Strategy, but no soldiers.”
6. We over-reacted against the abuses of the past: “While the abuses of the old holiness movement were glaring (and perhaps responsible in part for our own overreaction), the abuses of our own generation have been no better.”
7. We adopted church-growth thinking without theological thinking: “Pastors became CEOs. Ministers became managers. Shepherds promoted themselves to ranchers.”
8. We did not notice when the battle line moved: “The doctrine at risk in many holiness churches is not entire sanctification but “transformational conversion.” We may need to stand at Luther’s side awhile before we can rejoin Wesley.”

One needs to read this paper in its entirety in order to grasp the full essence of his message. Whilst not agreeing with all that he says, most of it makes perfect sense. And those of us claiming to be part of a holiness movement should sit up straight and take notice.

Writer: Commissioner Joe Noland’s ministry can be summed up in three words: chaos, creativity and controversy - three elements implicit in any successful innovative endeavor. Cecil B. DeMille, renowned producer of Biblical epics, once wrote, “Creativity is a drug I cannot live without.” Joe’s mantra reads, “Creativity is my drug of choice.”  Access Joe Noland’s complete bio, among other things, by clicking into his website.

Starting this week on theRubicon

A call to worship

Adam Couchman says we’ve got it all so wrong. 

B

y virtue of my present appointment I have had the opportunity to visit a few different corps throughout the territory I am in (Australia Eastern) to participate in and, at times, provide leadership for worship.  In the course of my travels I am seeing some disturbing trends and some of these are very concerning indeed. Firstly, a little history…

Many would be well aware of the so-called “Worship Wars” in which “contemporary” battled “traditional” and no one ended up winning; not even the compromiser of “blended” worship (the neutral Swiss in this battle). Following on the revival of the charismatic movement and the emphasis upon Church growth, the war cry of “Contemporary” was “New is good, Old is bad”. As a result, anything that was older than tomorrow, or beared even a striking resemblance to anything that had been used in the past, was thrown out because it no longer “worked” or was “relevant” (apparently) and the replacement of the “brand spanking new” was employed, often times with little or no more “effect” (insert “bums on seats”) than before…

You know the time I’m referring to… you don’t need me to explain it…

The big problem is that when we inserted the “new” often it was done uncritically. Churches looked at the big players like Willow Creek, or Saddleback, or Hillsong and simply tried to do what the latest technology in computers was capable of… “Plug and Play”. We bought into the latest software (new worship and programs) - unaware or uninformed that there was an incredible amount of training and skill required to operate it (e.g. contemporary worship) - inserted this wonder-working device into our own church and…

The Blue Screen of Death!

You know the one. When your halfway through some really important, difficult and time-consuming work and then it happens; your computer freezes and instead of displaying what was moments ago your (inevitably) unsaved work, you are now trying to decipher some completely foreign terminology spewed up from the innards of your PC in the form of white text on a blue screen… Computer failure!… the blue screen of death!

I have to be completely honest… I have been seeing this screen a lot lately. Not on my work computer, but on the faces and lives of people around the territory. As I travel around and participate in the “worship” that is being offered around the various corps, by and large (of course there are exceptions) people have forgotten how worship is meant to be. It’s become meaningless, unimportant, and ineffective. You can see it written all over people’s faces. A desperate nothingness mixed with complete boredom. In many cases people just turn up out of routine, compulsion, or because their child was not involved in their sport that particular day. 

This is incredibly sad for me…

This is an immensely complex problem that requires serious theological, Biblical and most of all pastoral thought and concern. The pastoral aspect was the one we forget the most on the battlefields of “brass” vs “guitar”. One of the main contributing factors, in my opinion, has been the rhetoric of “worship evangelism”.  What I mean by this is the desire to focus our weekly worship gathering on being primarily about presenting the gospel to those who have not heard it before. This saw the gathering change from “reverence” to “relevance”; from “exaltation” to “entertainment”; and from “holiness” to “helpfulness”. 

The huge problem here is that in conflating worship and evangelism into one event, we actually stopped doing both. The move towards more “entertaining” worship gave us some short-lived motivation to “bring people to church”. Why? So that they could be “evangelised”?Slowly but surely, we stopped evangelising in any other setting. We stopped sharing the gospel anywhere but in the gathering. At the same time, because our Sunday gathering became about the “seeker”, all we got fed was the “milk” of the gospel message over and over again. We stopped serving the “main meals” that Christians need, and just kept serving up the basic rations. People stopped evangelising, people stopped worshipping, programs stopped working… computer failure… Blue screen of death!

We have two important changes to make:

1. Firstly, our worship needs to be worship. I know worship is more than “an hour on Sunday” but I am deliberately referring here to our corporate and weekly gathering. This event is about joining with the Spirit of God as he draws us, through the Son, into fellowship with the Father and with one another. Funnily enough, I suspect that if we get this right we might just become attractive to those who are not a part of that gathering. Note I am not referring to getting the “music” right, or the “PowerPoint” or even the “message”. I’m talking about getting the “worshipping together to and in the Triune God” right. “And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.” (John 12:32)… It may also become evangelistic, but as a secondary outcome of our primary purpose here - worship.

2. Secondly, our evangelism needs to be evangelism. We need to get well and truly past this concept that “bringing people to church on Sunday” is the be all and end all of evangelism. The results of that approach are obvious - it becomes just about those “bums on seats”, and evangelism becomes the sole responsibility then of the preacher. This can lead to the preacher becoming incredibly guilt ridden when “results” (again, “bums on seats”) don’t occur. How much more effective could we be if all Christians were engaged in evangelism for every one of the 168 hours available to them in any one week?

While I’m at it, we also need to get over the obsession with “friendship evangelism”. If I’m to be perfectly honest, I find it much easier to share “resurrected life in Christ” with a stranger than my closest friends and family. That may just be an excuse, but subconsciously I guess there’s more “on the line” if the relationship goes sour as a result. So, please, you evangelise my friends, and I’ll evangelise yours. Together, we might just evangelise the world. While we’re at it, let’s “befriend those who have no friends”… Now where have I heard that phrase before. Oh, that’s right … My Officer’s covenant.

I recognise the enormity of this challenge. What I am talking about is a complete “reboot” of our worship. Perhaps even a “rebuild” (if I may be permitted to stretch that computer metaphor just a little bit further). The starting point in this task, I suggest, is to join with the disciples in Luke 11:1 and plead with the Lord to “teach us how to pray”. This may mean learning once again to pattern our worship around the Lord’s Prayer; allowing the worship words of Christ to become our own once again. This kind of worship can only occur in Spirit and in truth (John 4:23). The Spirit, who intercedes on our behalf (Romans 8:26) even when we don’t even know how to pray (all the symptoms seem to suggest that we don’t), brings us by our resurrected and ascended mediator Jesus Christ (1 Tim 2:5) into the very throne room of God the Father, who is actively seeking worshippers of this kind (John 4:23).

“Let us therefore approach the throne of grace with boldness, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.” (Hebrews 4:16).

My heartfelt desire is that our worship will truly be worship and our evangelism truly will be evangelism. God help us in this task. “Lord, teach us how to pray”.

For the glory of the Triune God and for the purpose of his kingdom, may it be so.

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.

The SA “Water Cooler” (according to “On Fire” magazine)

Please send submissions, suggestions or anything else please email rubiconeditor@gmail.com

ORDINATION #1 - Every soldier a Missionary (Geoff Ryan)

“The Founder marched us out of the Church and into the World - and I’m not going to march us back in.”  (General Eva Burrows)

Major religious revivals and cutting edge churches usually exhibit certain commonalities, regardless of the era or context. One of these is a renewed commitment to the ‘priesthood of all believers’, a New Testament imperative that seems constantly in tension with established church structure. From the early house churches of Acts, to the emergence of the Franciscan order, the Waldenses, Quakers, Puritans, Moravians, Primitive Methodists, the Salvationists up to present-gurus such as Peter Wagner and Rick Warren and others  (for a quick survey of reform movements throughout church history, I would suggest ‘First Called Christians: A Study in Names’, by Gustave Isely, SP&S 1952). The idea is the common dignity, calling and privilege of all Christians before God. “Every shoemaker can be a priest of God, and stick to his own last while he does it’, said Luther. Yet, ‘no single Church has been able to express in its worship, work and witness, the full richness of this doctrine.’ (C. Eastwood).

‘In the early Church, decision making was neither highly structured nor done in isolation. It involved the community. As time went on and the priesthood developed, however, diversity of gifts was depreciated. The clergy were seen to be concerned with the spiritual, the laity with the secular. Hence clerical power and privilege expanded. The result was a considerable diminuation of lay participation in the life and decision making of the church. From time to time in the history of the church, movements such as lay monasticism and the Protestant reformation have made attemnpts to restore the laity to their rightful place, but the dilemma is still with us.”     (Community in Mission, Phil Needham, P. 16)

The Salvation Army developed a priesthood, in any case, through default more than anything else I believe, although concrete steps were eventually taken to formalize popular perception and practice. In truth, an officer is a Christian who has entered a covenant relationship with God in submission to the spiritual authority of The Salvation Army and its structural constraints as a means to release him or her from the distractions of daily life in order to invest completely in mission. It is a ‘role’ and not a ’status’ thing, more pragmatic in nature than anything else.

The impulse to spiritualize things is strong, however, and often the beginning of many of our problems. In spiritualizing - or overspiritualizing - things it becomes much easier to remove them from the realm of reality and thus, trivialize them into impotence. Call it the ‘Monty Python syndrome’.

… if there is someone standing up front getting paid to do it all, why not let them?

As the role and importance of the officer increased, conversely the involvement and commitment of soldiers - the laity - decreased. This cuts both ways, though some fault may lie with the organization that exalted the ‘office ‘of the officer disproportionate to its function thereby gradually disempowering the soldiery. The other side is that this agreement actually suited many, and maybe eventually the majority, of the soldiery (ever heard of the 80/20 principle?). The urge to  compartmentalize religion along with other facets of our lives is almost irresistable, and besides, if there is someone standing up front getting paid to do it all, why not let them? In todays Army, soldiership is by and large church membership rather than a commitment to being a missionary, with the corps functioning as a mission centre.

Yet the profound beauty of early-day Army operations was that anyone and everyone could and did do everything that eventually came to be regarded as the exclusive domain - if not sacred obligation - of the officer. That’s why we had ’soldiers’ as opposed to ‘members’ - we were enshrining within our membership structure an expectation of mission involvement.

 ’…the description of membership as soldiership means that there is no room for passive membership. In this sense, ’soldier’ is a better word than ‘member’. Members can be passive or active; they may do no more than belong on the rolls. Soldiers cannot only belong; they are either fighting or maintaining readiness for battle - otherwise, they are not really soldiers. To put it differently, the objectives of a society or club are usually primarily internal; the objectives of an army are primarily external. Hence, the Church’s use of the military metaphor is symbolic of its external purpose: mission in the world.’ (Community in Mission, Phil Needham, P. 55)

Most early-day corps were opened by soldiers with the officer being sent in later. This is still often the case in the areas of most intense Salvationist warfare (Africa and Asia). It was my experience in the Russia. Of the corps opened in the Southern Region (Division) during my time as Regional Officer, all five were pioneered by soldiers and four of these are still run by soldiers.

As the ‘Christian Mission’ mindset waned and we grew up and became a church, we took on characteristics of the churches around us. As generational Salvationists were born and grew up in the ranks, as persecution turned into acceptance, respectability and even emulation we adjusted accordingly. The models we had around us were churches and we gradually minimized the distinctives that distanced us from our cousins. As a prophetic movement, we slowly took on board priestly trappings, hiked in from the  hills to the sanctuary of the Temple and found that we rather liked it there. The Army’s hierarchal structure is actually closer to the Roman Catholic church than to most of the Protestant congregational models, but we were already tinkering with various aspects of our missional structure, bit by bit ending up with a our present day incarnation - a hybrid that is neither fish nor fowl, neither Army nor church, order nor denomination.  No less confusing for our cousins than for us.

 … we created static congregations and installed our ‘priests’

The mission emphasis shifted from ’sending them out’ to ‘bringing them in’ - we built Temples, we invested in equipment, we created static congregations and installed our ‘priests’ and our soldiers increasingly assumed the role of spectators who came to church, even as our corps increasingly ceased operating as mission centres and became churches.

A significant step toward this was made during Arnold Brown’s Generalship in the early 1980s when the decision was made to commence ‘ordaining’ officers in addition to the Army’s traditional practice of ‘commissioning’. I, for example, was ‘ordained’ and ‘commissioned’ - to cover all the bases, I suppose. This rather significant event passed, it seems in hindsight, with relatively little notice.

(Ordination) … was a defining moment …

In reality, I think it carried some vast implications in the way we view ourselves and our focus as a ‘missionary church’. I would go as far as to say that this was a defining moment in The Salvation Army’s journey from mission movement to church. ‘Commission’ is a military term and carries with it the implication of  ’sending’ and of being equipped for a concrete task. As such it reflected not only the military metaphor of early Salvationist mindset, but also the emphasis we had on mission. ‘Ordination’ is a church term, it is static and has to do with the offices of a priest and, if truth be told, historically implies access to sacramental authority (its origin is from the Latin ordinaire, which means ‘to put in order’ - does this imply a commitment to the ascendancy of the structure of the organization, rather than the mission?). It owes more to church tradition than Scriptural injunction.

Why it was really instituted is hard to say. I suspect that it had more to do with the Army seeking the validation of the status of our clergy class in the eyes of our fellow churches than anything else. My point though, is the shift in mindset from mission, to maintenance, from the war to the Army that fights the war, from sending to staying put, risk to risk management. In the end this change was official confirmation of the reality that was played out weekly in Salvation Army corps around the world.

All this is by way of background, however. That point is that were every soldier to understand their soldiership as a call to mission and that being a ’soldier’ is synonymus with being a ‘missionary’, and were every corps to understand that their reason for being is to engage in mission in the world and that ‘corps’ is synonymous with ‘mission centre’ then maybe our renamed ‘community churches’ would actually live up to their names and our soldiery would too. 

One other thing, I think a reemphasis on the ‘priesthood of all believers’ would go a long way toward correcting misconceptions of officership from both sides.

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.   

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.

The Poor (in Luke)

A

 preliminary look at the theme of the poor in Luke yields a mixture of results about real socio-economic situations and appropriate spiritual reactions to those situations. It may also bring to light for Luke an unexpected result of the Messiah’s arrival. The nature of the poor, and in many cases how they were overlooked by the people of Israel, may highlight how the people misunderstood their Messiah.

In one particular case, a man resides in Hades, and after calling for Lazarus to go warn his family, Abraham says that they have Moses and the Prophets. The rich man calls for Lazarus to go because he believes the man’s resurrection will convince his family. Abraham disagrees in a way foreshadowing Christ’s resurrection. But the most interesting part is what they might have been convinced to believe. The rich man wants someone to come back from the dead to convince his family to help the poor, and from this their eternal destiny would not be like his. Indeed, to understand the poor in Luke is to come uncomfortably close to a re-imagined soteriology; at the very least, it calls for a renewed understanding of how true faith is lived out in the spirit of Christ.

Some consideration should be given to what may be called non-traditional understandings of “poor.” To trace the theme, the word πτωχός (poor) will be observed in all its occurrences in the book of Luke, but in many other sections Jesus is healing, ministering, and among people of low class, though πτωχός may not be used of them. In fact, a large number of the people in need who Jesus met were in need of more than just money or sustenance.   Keeping this in mind, when Jesus speaks about the poor (πτωχός), those instances were not his only consideration of them or the only aspects of the poor Luke wished to highlight. The total picture includes Christ’s actions among people in need, whatever word was used to describe them. Still in tracing the theme, following the occurrences of πτωχός gives a framework. 

  ¹The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;  Isaiah 61:1 (King James Version)

Luke gives an appropriate commencement to a study of the poor in Jesus’ own citation of Isaiah 61:1. We find him citing this passage twice in Luke; both are in the early part of the book (4:18 and 7:22), and both citations are the only citations of the OT in which the poor are mentioned. Luke 4:18 and Isaiah 61:1 (LXX) are almost identical except that Luke 4:18 reiterates the idea of release to captives while the LXX has a more obvious expression of binding broken hearts. In Luke 7:22 Jesus is responding to John the Baptists’ questions and gives his answer in rapid fire. From Isaiah 61 we can see “τυφλοὶ ἀναβλέπουσιν” (give sight to the blind) and “πτωχοὶ εὐαγγελίζονται” (preach good news to the poor) as direct correlations to 7:22. The aspect to note from these two sections is that when Jesus announces his purposes (4:18) and identifies himself (7:22) he does so with respect to his purpose and ministry to the poor.

In forming this theme through the book of Luke, perhaps it would be appropriate to note that the theme of the poor as a part of the gospel began even before Luke, and before Christ came as man. The poor have been in mind from early times in regard to the Messiah. Jesus’ statements about the poor then should have been recognized in relation to his messianic position. When John’s disciples come to him in 7:22 it is because John’s perceptions of the Messiah are not being met.[1] Jesus’ response is a reiteration of his purposes and they are citations of messianic passages, passages that John should have known. It was Jesus’ action in his service to the poor and others of low class that identified him as the Messiah. Green even notes that 4:18 shows that Jesus came for the poor, that they were his primary purpose. Jesus is bringing those who were considered “outsiders” into the fold and showing that they too can be a part of God’s family.[2] It may be then that it is no coincidence that the gospel, salvation, and the poor are intricately connected in Jesus’ later interactions and discussions.

Between these sections Jesus preaches his sermon on the plain where he states “blessed are the poor, for theirs is the kingdom of God.” While many seem to have run wild with ascetic aspirations based on this and other verses, it seems that the blessing is related to Jesus’ arrival. There is an aspect to the fulfillment of each blessing as well that has an eschatological outlook. To some extent, each group is blessed or “woed” in the present, but perhaps more so in the eschaton, presicely because Jesus has come to inaugurate the end of times. The poor are thus blessed because Jesus has finally arived on the scene, the Messiah of his people and the world. It is not to say there is some intrinsic blessing to being poor. Rather, hunger, being hated, being poor, etc. are curses which the Messiah’s coming reverses, or at least begins the process of reversal. Again we see Christ’s coming and purpose wrapped up with ministry to the cursed and to the poor.

After a significant break in Luke with no mention of the poor (πτωχός), we come upon Jesus’ exhortation to the Pharisees to invite the poor to their parties in 14:12-14. Once again we see a reversal of perceptions: The Messiah is not rubbing elbows with the religious elite, but rather he is focused on the poor and the outcast. Green notes that Jesus’ actions reversed the common understanding that the poor and lowly were outside God’s people, but that Jesus came to make them his family. He broke the social boundaries to ensure that all people, and especially the poor had access to God and honor from him. Jesus words and behavior “collapse the distance between rich and poor.”[3]

The poor are mentioned again in another section of Jesus’ teaching (16:20) when he relates the story of Lazarus and the rich man. Once again there is a purposeful correlation that Jesus is building between being a follower of God and helping the poor. Being identified with God was to identify with helping the poor, perhaps even identifying with the poor themselves. It may be that the point of the gospel which the people were missing was the aspect of true faith in God. It seems that the story is trying to say that the rich man’s family would not follow God rightly even if a man rose from the dead. Following God rightly in this case would have been caring for Lazarus. Besides being a good lesson on what it means to believe in God and follow him, it is also an indictment against Israel pointing out how they don’t recognize their Messiah, and perhaps a prediction that even after the resurrection, they still wouldn’t get it. Jesus is pointing out that if they had real or complete faith in God, real identity in Him, they would be doing what he was doing: helping the poor.

¹⁸And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?  ¹⁹And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God. ²⁰Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother. ²¹And he said, All these have I kept from my youth up. ²²Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me. ²³And when he heard this, he was very sorrowful: for he was very rich. Luke 18:18-23 (King James Version)

When Luke writes in 18:18 and following about the rich man who comes to ask Jesus about eternal life, Jesus questions him about the law. The man replies that he has kept it all, and yet Christ requires one more thing from him. He calls him to sell all he has and give to the poor. It would seem that the theme of the poor in Luke is tied up in salvation and the law, and that ministry to the poor is some sort of missing piece. Perhaps it is the fact that the law itself could be kept without helping the poor, but the spirit of the law in some sense could not be kept without helping the poor. This teaching may be more significant than it seems, for if there is more than keeping the law that a Jew needed to do, what else might there be? It may be that Jesus was teaching that salvation is not about following any set of rules, but identifying with God and with the Messiah, who in turn identifies, ministers, gives, and loves the poor. Could it be that the rich man did not need to minister, give, or help the poor, but needed to be a minister, a giver, and a helper to the poor?

A similar lesson could be drawn out of 19:1-10 with the story of Zaccheus. When others begin to grumble about Zaccheus’ occupation as a tax collector, he addresses the issue himself, without a word from Christ. After claiming that he would give half his possessions to the poor and give back four times to anyone he might have defrauded, Christ proclaims that salvation came to his house and that Zacchues was a son of Abraham. Once again the law of Moses is in some sense subordinated to Christ’s mission. It is not following the law that makes this man a son of Abraham, but his generosity and how he gave to the poor (or at least claimed he would give to them). Luke is trying to show through this story how someone considered an outsider, someone who would never be considered a son of Abraham, certainly is one by his actions. By identifying with the Messiah and the work of the Messiah, Zaccheus shows his faith in who Jesus is. To take this just one step further, when they questioned him about being a sinner, he does not cite his credentials in relation to the law, but finds a defense in giving to the poor. Whether he realizes it or not, in this action he is identifying with the Messiah and his mission.  

Finally, in Luke 21:3 Jesus speaks about a poor widow who puts in her last bit of money. Without ever mentioning that she is blessed more than the others, Jesus still honors the woman by his mention of her and how she sacrificed to give. In this final instance of the poor in Luke, we find that Luke highlights a reversal of societal norms as Christ honors the lowly to a higher status than the others.

To conclude this brief look at “the poor” in Luke, some unforeseen realities begin to emerge. First, “the poor” as a theme does not seem to fit Luke. When the poor are mentioned it is always in close context to Christ, to his mission, purpose, character, and identity. In this way, “the poor” are never isolated from Christ, it is truly “the poor and Christ” in Luke, especially when the stories and passages where πτωχός is not mentioned are considered; Christ is very often with people in serious need. Second, the relationship between the Law and helping the poor is radically redrawn so that the value placed on these people seems to be greater than the rules and codes the people had handed down to them. Valuing people is based on true faith in God and His identity; if the people understood and obeyed God, they would have done what Christ did. Finally, and more simply, what can be said about “the poor and Christ” is that he valued them supremely, loved them dearly, and spent his time, resources, energy, and blood for their benefit, healing, and salvation. May we do the same with our lives.

Writer: David Witthoff is a Salvationist from the Oakbrook Terrace Corps. He recently graduated from the Moody Bible Institute of Chicago with a BA in Pastoral Ministry. Currently he lives in Hamilton, Massachusetts, USA where he is working towards a Master of Arts in Old Testament and a Master of Arts in Biblical Languages at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. David enjoys writing music, exegeting, sci-fi tv shows, running, soccer, languages and talking about the Army with his friends. His hope is to be the best soldier, officer, student and teacher of the scripture that he can be.

References: 

[1] Joel, B. Green, The Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 1997) 295

[2] Green, 211

[3] Green, 553