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

Should we condemn WAR?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This leaves me asking 3 complex questions:

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Writer: Bruce Redman is Editor of theRubicon. He is an Australian film and television professional, radio broadcaster and university lecturer in journalism and communication. Bruce and his wife Anne headed up a team to plant an SA mission in Fortitude Valley, in inner-city Brisbane. He is a lifelong, fourth generation Salvo with a mission heart. Personal Blogspot:  http://neosalvosunite.wordpress.com/

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

A Future of Officer Training

T

he issue of Officer Training comes around time and again in SA discussion. It’s somewhat of a hot topic since so much development goes on in our SFOTs/CFOTs. I’d just like to share some vision, some hope on Officer Training myself.

What I wonder is what the future of officer training will look like. Already the scene is changing. I know many of the training colleges are now linked with Christian colleges near their locations. Continuing education is now a standard part of most curriculum as well. But where are we going with all of this? What is the goal of our education centers? What is their purpose?

Is the goal to one day have our training colleges on par with Christian colleges? Should we seek to make them on the same level as evangelical seminaries? Why should we be like them? In what ways do we need to be different?

Perhaps there is room to expand the idea of training itself. For one, why is it that our educational facilities are only for those who want to be officers? I know they are called colleges or schools for officer training, but our soldiery could benefit from the same kinds of instruction! Could there be a day when our institutions offered education for all Salvationists, while only commissioning those who wanted it? D.L. Moody’s mission in founding a school was to train “Gap-Men.” These were people who were trained in ministry but who stood between the laity and the clergy. They bridged the unfortunate social gap which sometimes appears. We could be training the same kind of “Gap-People.”

What about specialization as well? Can training expand to accommodate the youth worker, the social service worker, the theologian, the bible scholar, the preacher, the counselor, the worship leader, the children’s minister, etc.?

The old Methodist model of quick training gets people onto the field in a hurry, which is what is needed in a revival. But when there’s no revival you’re training people for what doesn’t exist. We need pastors, not revivalists. We need teachers and counselors and children’s ministers and all the others because we have churches now, not revival halls. Ask the basic question: What are we training cadets for?

Are we training them for reality or for the reality of past ages?

Finally, what is the potential of training colleges? What is the limit to “education” as we, The Salvation Army envision it? Perhaps its time to take a look and imagine a bit. Let some new ideas flow as we try and realize our potential in regards to Christian education. It would be a shame to think too small in education. So what is the future you see for our training centers? What is the need on the field that we should prepare officers and soldiers for? What can you do to help us realize that goal?

And to those who staff our training schools:

How do you see our training facilities in the future?

What is your vision?

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, student, and teacher of the scripture that he can be.

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.