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.   

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

Declaring an Amnesty

Even Leaders “sin and fall short” - says Geoff Ryan

“The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation” (Thoreau)

Ithink that there are dozens, hundreds, maybe thousands of pastors throughout the world who live their daily lives and work their ministries in various stages of “quiet desperation”, due to the fact that somewhere along the line they messed up and sinned. Maybe it was an isolated incident, maybe more than once - a pattern emerging… Whatever the cause and effect, they gave in and are now trapped. Like one of those bottles that we hang up in the summer months to catch wasps and flies, once the victim crawls in there is no way back. That’s how it is if you are in ministry in the church, if you are a leader in evangelical circles. Who do you tell? How do you tell? There is no one to talk to and nowhere to go. The price to be paid is too high. The higher up the ladder you may have climbed, the farther the fall and so the deeper you bury it and more trapped you become.

Admitting fallibility may be hard simply due to pride. But even pride aside, the reality is that there simply is no way to admit that you have failed. Failure in our driven, corporate and success inspired culture is the unforgiveable sin. Truth has a way of outing itself though and so the fear becomes a daily, aching burden, a flickering fear awaiting the day all will be “proclaimed from the roofs.”

The fact is we all mess up, we all sin … every single one of us. If you are reading this and you’re alone sitting in a room or an office - raise your hand if you’ve messed up, if you have crossed some sort of a line somewhere, at some time, and even though you didn’t linger there for very long and may have quickly hopped back over, you still crossed that line and you carry that with you night and day… Sound familiar? But what to do with it, how to shake it off, put it behind, get on with life and calling and faith?

“But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.” (NIV, Matthew 6:15)

Following Nathan’s confrontation, David admitted that he had sinned (and rather more terribly and thoroughly than most of us will ever sin). But in his repentance Psalm, he points out to God that: “Against you and you only have I sinned…” Sin, once committed, is largely a matter between the sinner and their God. Other people are usually involved and this hurt and damage needs to be addressed. The main issue, however, is between God and prodigal. So although we may sin against God first off, repentance to God alone is not really an option.

I guess one thing that appeals to me about the Catholics is that, everything else aside, they would take my humanity seriously, if I gave them the chance. Confession in the Catholic church is now termed the “sacrament of reconciliation”. Evidence of a weak and compromised theology, my Jobian friends would say. the only (inadequate) thing the Catholics could offer their people - a way station on their endless cycle of sin. To me it suggested a profounder understanding of grace than maybe we evangelicals are willing - or able - to grasp. Maybe it’s something more realistic and practical?

Perhaps the Catholics know the world and understand the human heart better than us because they’ve been around longer. They know that people are frail and give into temptation and are prone to sin. This is our human side. This is our legacy of living as fallen creatures in a fallen world.

The Catholic concept of calling, of the priesthood, differs from most evangelical concepts of ministry calling. They have more of a “once-a-priest-always-a-priest-and-besides-its-a-thing-between-you-and-God” sort of theology. We would have a hard time getting our heads around how they view their leaders (priests) but at least they have some clarity about the nature of the call and the life of service. It is a developed and sure theology. It is a clarity woefully lacking in most evangelical circles, my own denomination in particular. Maybe because of this, the Catholics own their prodigals far more readily than we Protestants, we evangelicals. They send them to retreat houses and try to heal and restore them in most cases. Their bent is to deal in mercy, dispense grace and maintain respect for their fallen colleagues. The Catholic church defrocks with far more reluctance and fear than we do in giving the boot to an errant leader. Our eagerness for condemnation and swift judgment is a little embarrassing.

The recent sex scandals involving priests in the United States has garnered an enormous amount of media attention. It is a heinous thing these priests have done. No one, the Catholic Church included, is disputing this. But quietly in the background grace is moving At a conference of Major Superiors of Men, an association of Catholic Orders (about half of all American priests belong to these orders) last year, a decision was made, after a vote, not to cut the errant priests loose, but to work to restore them. The order felt strongly that their approach should be guided by the Catholic belief of redemption for sinners. “Just as a family does not abandon a member convicted of serious crimes, we cannot turn our backs on our brothers”, a spokesman said. I wonder how most evangelical denominations would have handled this?

“Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance. Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners - of whom I am the worst. But for that very reason I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display his unlimited patience as an example for those who would believe on him and receive eternal life.”     (1 Timothy 1:15-16, NIV)

Dr. Tony Campolo was asked by President Clinton to be one of his three spiritual advisors after the Lewinsky scandal broke. This request and Tony’s subsequent acceptance of the offer brought a firestorm down on his head. He was pilloried by the evangelical community, accused of all manner of motives and judged with a certainty and swiftness that would have seen the Pharisees of Jesus’ day green with envy. And remember, Tony was only in the position of counseling a sinner. He had not sinned himself, although he might as well have. I remember how Tony broke down at a conference we were both speaking at in Los Angeles during this time, as he shared about the viciousness of the attacks on him. One pastor wrote: “Don’t you understand that this man does not deserve grace?”

Evangelicals have high standards, maybe impossibly high. We are prone to an unconscious dualism, all but ignoring our humanity to instead invest almost solely in idealizing and striving for divinity. When a leader’s humanity rears up, when the “old man” refuses to stay dead, it is an affront to our convictions and so the instinctive reaction is to distance the church or organization from the sinner in order to preserve intact our reputations and integrity. The one will be sacrificed for the sake of the many. He or she will be cut loose and isolated. Kind of like the Amish practice of “shunning”.

For many of us, our heritage in the Holiness movement is an added pressure. Our second blessing paradigm has oft times edged out our tolerance for mercy and grace. Doubtful of the possibility of resurrection once we’ve blown it, we crucify with almost indecent haste. Indeed, we shoot our wounded.

While serving as a missionary in Russia I learned that while nowhere in the theology of the Orthodox Church was there instruction or teaching to worship icons, I came to understand that the reality “on the street” was different. Most of the little old ladies who haunted the churches in daily in droves to light candles and pray, for all intents and purposes did worship the icons. They bowed down to them, kissed them, prayed to them and bought replicas of them to carry around with them. Whatever the Church Fathers may have taught, the foot soldiers lived a different reality.

It is often much the same with us. Whatever John Wesley did believe about perfectionism (hard to get a straight answer on this and if you think you’ve got it nailed, try reading his journals sometime) and whether or not the holiness proponents in my own tradition were, at the end of the day, prophetic theologians or simply devout men who built theologies around personal experience - the understanding is that we live under the threat of an all but unobtainable goal. I was weaned on this as an evangelical, as a preacher’s kid. It is an all-pervasive understanding, an embedded conventional wisdom that sets us all up for failure.

Leaders are expected to be perfect. To sin is to admit weakness and failure and to invite punishment. Such is the church culture that we are a part of. Why is it that the most common reaction to the word holiness seems to be fear? If you think about it, it is an odd and even profane reaction. Fear as an instinctive, gut reaction to the winsome, attractive character of Jesus, the most holy of people. Why is this? Because we have little experienced this face of holiness, we have experienced something else in its place, something that smacks of legalism and fear. I sometimes wonder if we are among the most graceless of God’s people. The word in the trenches is this: If you mess up, keep it hidden or you’ll get crucified. Jesus claimed that his Father desired mercy, not sacrifice, but we know different - it is sacrifice and not mercy that will be extracted.

And we evangelicals pick our sins, do we not? Illicit sex, financial impropriety, addictions, abortion, divorce, homosexuality - all the obvious biggies. Yet simultaneously will accommodate such things as materialism and consumerism, worldliness, power and control issues, theological infidelity and hate, to name a few. If God has a hierarchy of sins these latter are surely the worser. It is sins like these that can displace God in our hearts, raise up true idols and slowly rot the fabric of our souls. The others? Bad enough, to be sure. But things that someone can move beyond, can get over, can pick themselves up from and dust themselves off and keep walking. If there is a helping hand to grip and not a heavy hand that spanks and pushes down and away.

So here is my idea. It is a gamble as risky as the one God took that dark afternoon on Calvary. Hold a denominational jubilee year. Announce an amnesty!  I’m issuing a challenge, I suppose. If our denominational and ministry heads are chosen and hired by us but also appointed by God, then the challenge is for them to be the “Father” in the parable of the prodigal son. Could a denominational head not travel from one end of his or her area of responsibility, stopping in strategically targeted towns and cities, central points covering that are announced well beforehand, and in each stop set up shop in a particular place…and wait. Pastors and other leaders within traveling distance would know that on certain days, their leader will be waiting at this certain place…waiting to hear confession. Just like those priests in the park in Toronto, they will dispense the sacrament of reconciliation and pronounce their benedicere. No human resources people present, no lawyers, no pastoral care specialists, no counselors - just the man or woman that God appointed as their spiritual head. Leaders would come to privately confess their sins, receive prayer and absolution and then go on their way. Sins forgiven and forgotten. No retribution, no comebacks, to “…go, and sin no more”, as Jesus would say.

“…you should act and speak as men who will be judged by the law of freedom. The man who makes no allowances for others will find none made for him. It is still true ‘that mercy smiles in the face of judgement.’”      (James 2: 13, J.B. Phillips)

I can hear the protests now. Sure it would be messy - but grace is messy. Sure there are people who would take advantage of it. But that’s ultimately between them and God, according to David. There are some parameters that would have to be in place and legal breaches might have to be considered. This is all understood. But the concept is doable - it can be done!

It would generate much public criticism in our evangelical world and from the world outside our churches. Our post-Christian societies understanding of grace is as poors as ours and their bent is to hold us Christians to higher standards than they would ever ask of themselves. But I also believe it would garner much private admiration. I believe it would  bring freedom and release back into the church. Good pastors, good leaders, long paralyzed by a bad choice or haunted by a moment of weakness, would be set free to once again move ahead with their calling and ministry. It would bring grace back into our pulpits and pews. Grace which would then flow out onto the streets and into the offices and homesof our countries, restablishing a trust long broken and dispelling fear. “He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners…to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor”, Jesus declared.

So fling open the closet doors and lets haul out those skeletons and bury them forever! Throw off the shackles of guilt! Get on with life! A new day is coming!

“In Latin, to bless is benedicere, which means literally: saying good things. The Father wants to say, more with his touch than with his voice, good things of his children. He has no desire to punish them. They have already been punished excessively by their own inner or outer waywardness. The Father wants simply to let them know that the love they have searched for in such distorted ways has been, is, and always will be there for them. The Father wants to say, more with his hands than with his mouth: “You are my Beloved, on you my favor rests.”

Henri J.M. Nouwen, The Return of the Prodigal Son

 

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 Next General

Geoff Ryan provides a job description for the “top job”

O rganizationally The Salvation Army is closer to the Roman Catholic church than most other Protestant denominations, the majority of which are governed according to a congregational model while we are structurally a hierarchy. We are a particular expression of the church militant and our ecclesiastical head is our only elected position. The Army’s High Council is analogous to the Catholic College of Cardinals which convenes when electing a new Pope.

The strange land of the 21^st century - to which many feel the church has been exiled - is one of complex challenges which differ significantly from those of the twentieth century. Any General of The Salvation Army will need to be able to first recognize and then, vigorously address these challenges. This essay identifies four major challenges. Two of them are ‘internal’, that is - specific to The Salvation Army. The other two are ‘external, and more general in nature.

In spite of the rather inclusive promise held out by the “leadership industry” that has taken root throughout the evangelical church in recent years and, while acknowledging that certain leadership skills can be nurtured, I believe that leaders are born more than they are made. The Salvation Army as it exists today is a vast global organization with thousands of senior executives (Divisional and Territorial leaders) and tens of thousands of line managers (active officers). We are an internationally recognized NGO with a presence in 109 countries of the world. It is an unstable and dangerous world which, in the coming years, will produce more Bosnia’s, Rwandas, Sierra Leone’s and Afghanistans. It is a world that is highly complex and nuanced and so in need of canny and worldly, statesmen/women to guide movements such as ours.

Historically, the Army culture promotes performers: composers/musicians, preachers/Bible teachers and from time to time, public relations/editorial people. With reference to our choice of General, we have primarily looked for personality, profile within the movement and Christian character. Yet, personal holiness may not necessarily be the only, or even the defining, characteristic of a great leader. It was Teresa of Avila who advised that it avails little to have a holy man in a position that requires good judgement and leadership if he has neither. The history of the Church shows that there were many who were holy but ineffective, and sometimes the contrary is also true as well.

The Generals who are to lead The Salvation Army forward in the 21^st century have to be more than simply good preachers or Bible students. They will need to possess skills and abilities needed by the world we minister in and not simply those valued by the Army’s particular subculture. They will need to be generalists, with the charisma needed to attract and deploy (and not be threatened by) the numerous specialists needed to get the job done. They will need to be persons of courage, decisiveness and possessing a measure of the iconoclast.

Internal Challenges

Structural reform

The Salvation Army is in need of organizational restructuring and ultimately this can only be comprehensively carried out from the top. The centralized command-and-control bureaucracy that has developed over the years is increasingly unworkable and simply not elastic enough to be effective in a world in which the information revolution has flattened lines of authority and post-modernity has irrevocably altered the way upcoming generations respond to authority and leadership and view their own autonomy and independence. Our whole organizational culture needs to shift, but this can start with structural reform.

Our Headquarters at all levels - International, Territorial and Divisional - need to re-imagine themselves into resourcing hubs and not first-and-foremost command centers. They need to understand that The Salvation Army is primarily an idea and not an institution. They need to understand that to lead in the 21^st century means to understand the subtle but vital difference between power (as conferred by an institutional structure) and influence (as granted to a leader by those who choose to listen to him/her and to follow him/her). This is all dependent, however, on local units being self-sustaining, innovative and not in need of the micro-managing that many DHQs and THQs are forced to undertake at present.

As strange as this may sound, the structure of al-Qaeda is instructive. Al-Qaeda functions as a pre-modern group whose methodology appears at times to be quite post-modern and who seem equipped to deal with the post-modern context better than many of us moderns (and sometimes with far more impact). Like The Salvation Army, al-Qaeda is an idea. Bin Laden and others provide the inspiration for the troops. They embody the idea, cast the vision and set the mission. They resource the cells - autonomous units operating subversively and deep within a generally hostile environment. They are connected like nodes to the centre (the vision) while retaining a large degree of independence and decision-making ability. They are in relationship with the centre and this provides accountability - not to a structure or institution - but to the vision. In reality, they constitute a network of local missions with an intense global focus. In no way am I suggesting that al-Qaeda is a positive or worthy idea, but simply that structurally and organizationally there are parallels here to be drawn.

Hand in glove with any restructuring is the need for leadership to “please stay still”, to quote an Australian officer friend of mine. The Army is doing better of late in allowing corps officers to remain in their appointments longer. But this paradigm shift is needed even more at the Territorial, Divisional and International levels. Leaders can no longer expect to achieve anything significant or be taken seriously or quite frankly, even listened to and obeyed, if they are remain unaccountable to those they lead. And this accountability means sticking around long enough to follow through on any vision they set, any strategy they devise and all promises they make. If leaders are not required to face the consequences of the policy decisions they initiate, then neither should the officers they presume to lead. Pope John Paul II had a tremendous impact on his church and the world - but he had 26 years to do it.

Theological Clarity

There is a need for theological clarity in The Salvation Army. Depending on your viewpoint, the Army is either in its adolescence and so cannot make it’s mind up who it wants to be when it grows up; or alternatively the Army is approaching a mid-life crisis and cannot decide who it really, secretly, thought it wanted to be all along. Either way, we seem continue in this interminable identity crises about who we should be. But, it all starts with what we truly believe.

Most of the arguments we engage in with each other are about ecclesiology, but such arguments are useless. The Australian theologian Michael Frost has said that Christology precedes Missiology, which precedes Ecclesiology (XME). Who we think Jesus is, will drive what we think he has called us to do and therefore how we do it. The “identity” issue needs to be solved before the “function” is clarified.

At this point in our history, the Army has opened itself to a vast array of theological influences. What was once a monolith in the Army: one order of service, one style of worship, one set of core beliefs, one mission - has now become a veritable smorgasbord of at time complementary, at times contradictory, ideas and theologies and “stories”. These range from a revisionist history of the Army that credits our emerging years with a late 20^th century/early 21st century Pentecostalism and prosperity-gospel; to the dualistic expressions of syncretistic spiritualism endemic in much of the Army in the Southern World; to the highly rationalistic, liberalism of parts of the Western Army; to the peculiarly American conservatism of the ‘Holiness Movement’ that owes little to true Wesleyan and much to mid-nineteenth century revivalists such as Charles Finney. I could go on.

Yet we do have our story. It is deeply rooted in our Wesleyan Heritage and tradition. It is not the same story as other denominations and movements. We need not be ashamed or embarrassed, nor do we need to become proud and arrogant. We just need to grow up and accept who we are. Someone needs to stand up and articulate clearly and intelligently who we are and what we believe. This someone needs to embody and explain the idea that is The Salvation Army. The only person who could do that is the General, but it will not happen with the way the position is presently structured, unless the new General changes things.

As with leadership at Divisional, Territorial and International levels, any General exists in that tension between the need to function as an executive and the call to shepherd the flock. We explain to outsiders that our Divisional Commanders are analogous to Bishops. However, as soon as an officer attains any degree of even middle-management leadership, they are divorced from their pastoral function and structurally disconnected from local community. The Catholic Archbishop of Toronto, for example, will be found in the pulpit of Toronto’s Cathedral every Easter and Christmas, whatever other administrative responsibilities he has. Bill Hybels, Rick Warren, Charles Swindoll - local church leaders all. When they err, it is on the side of pastor. Cannot all our DCs, TCs, IHQ Commissioners and the General, also be given pastoral responsibilities in a local corps and in this way remain permanently linked to those they would lead? This may  work out as primarily as a symbolic gesture, but symbols are important and the office and person of our General is nothing, if not a symbol.

It was as a shepherd that Pope John Paul II became the main theological driving force in Catholicism over the last quarter century and the most influential religious figure in the world. He issued his encyclicals, defining with crystal clear intent the theological identity and hence the missiological function, of his church. Because he remained at his post long enough, he was able to get to know his leaders and could therefore appoint to pivotal positions, those he trusted to share his vision. It has been said the power of the General’s office is the power of appointment. However, in a three or four year tenure, how is it possible for any General to get to know his/her international leadership sufficiently? Sadly, too often, the role of General is perceived as little more than ‘international cheerleader’.

The Salvation Army needs a theology adequate to face the challenges of the 21^st century. The office of the General, if it can be re-imagined and redefined, is the only one that can give it to us with consistency, clarity and authority.

External Challenges

Islam

In the closing years of the twentieth century all the theologians who mattered were saying that the issue for the church in the coming millenium was Islam. This was before 9/11, which simply proved that they knew what they were talking about. So what does The Salvation Army have to say to Islam? Theologically, I believe that with our holistic understanding of full salvation and our redemptive theology, we are positioned better than many expressions of the church to engage Islam with credibility. Structurally, however, we have to admit that as a quasi-military Christian organization, this is going to be difficult. If we choose to adopt an adversarial stance against the “threat of Islam”, as many of our evangelical brothers and sisters have, then business as usual will suffice. If we wish to be a little more realistic and effective and, frankly Christ-like, then we need to re-examine our presentation of ourselves.

In his book, The Next Christendom, author Philip Jenkins maintains that conflict in the twentieth century was defined by ideology, but in the 21^st century “the prime animating and destructive force in human affairs” will be religion. And the touch point will be where Christianity and Islam intersect - a battle for the hearts and minds and souls of millions of Africans, Asians, Europeans and North Americans.

To date the Salvation Army has largely ignored Islam, refusing to engage thoughtfully and strategically and really only addressing Islam reactively, when it has moved into “neighbourhoods” in which we already have a presence. We can no longer afford such naivety.

Globalism

There now exists “a new and aggressive secularization, borne into the heart of modern societies by the dynamics of globalization”, contends R. Scott Appleby, a history professor at the University of Notre Dame. “In traditional as well as developed societies, increasing materialism opens the way to a form of secularism that is indifferent or hostile to religious faith.” It is the notion that the human experience can be understood through criteria that give no reference to our transcendent origins and orientation. It is characterized by the reduction of human beings to objects whether through abortion, euthanasia, genocide and war or the social inequalities of the last century. All this we have carried over to the brave new world of the 21^st century. “A robust new form of globalism now dominates economic, political and cultural interaction among peoples. The commodification of social relations that turns individuals into cogs in the wheels of industry and politics now shapes virtually all forms of human interaction - even religion”, contends Appleby.

The next General will inherit a Salvation Army that in the West is awash in materialism and the attendant “commodification” of faith. We are an organization deeply compromised by the power structures of the day - political and particularly, economic. Walter Brueggemann states that: “consumer culture is organized against history…there is a depreciation of memory and a ridicule of hope, which means everything must be held in the now, either an urgent now or an eternal now. Any community that is rooted in energizing memories and summoned by radical hopes is a curiosity and a threat… When we suffer from amnesia, every form of serious authority for faith is in question, and we live unauthorized lives of faith and practice unauthorized ministries.” The Salvation Army is definitely a curiosity in the 21^st century, but are we a threat? Have the accommodations we have made over the years with these systems led us to live unauthorized lives of faith and to practice unauthorized ministries? Has the Army forgotten who we were called to be and for whom we were called into existence for? Have we completely lost the ability and freedom to speak and act prophetically on behalf of those excluded by the aggressively secular globalism of the 21^st century?

CONCLUSION

So here are the challenges before any General, as I see them anyway. It is quite a handful. So, what sort of person is needed?

Well, a General with a razor-sharp intellect formed by disciplined reading and study of philosophy, theology, politics, economics, and science; a natural leader who understands how to motivate and inspire people; a visionary who can think strategically and who understands organizational theory and the zeitgeist of post-modernity; a person rooted in the experience and understanding of the Wesleyan tradition - who knows exactly who they are and what our story is; a thinker with a deep knowledge and, if possible, personal experience of the languages, cultures, religious laws and customs of Islam; a tough-minded but tender-hearted follower of Jesus with a burning concern for the excluded and marginalized of the world, who would be a shepherd of those sheep who have no shepherd.

So  … who wants the job?

Writer: Major Geoff Ryan was co-founder and publisher of theRubicon 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 Next General is featured in Geoff Ryan’s book  “10 on the Army” and was previously published in “Horizons” magazine (Canada)

Just Holy (Part 1)

Holiness must include helping the poor and oppressed says Danielle Strickland

Righteousness and justice are the foundation of his throne. Psalm 97:2

But let justice roll on like a river, righteousness like a never-failing stream! Amos 5:24

There’s been a bold surge in the social justice space in the last decade. New emerging campaigns have been spreading the truth about the desperate need of many global issues that are worthy of paying attention too and lending a helping hand.

Far from a new idea, the global church has a great Christian tradition, a long ancient track record of social reform. Exposing the evils of the slave trade, and helping to end it, campaigning for equality and women’s rights, health and welfare reform, the care of prisoners and the reforming of prison systems around the world, education and employment options, the support of unions and workers rights. On and on goes the list of Christians who with a strong understanding of biblical theology embraced lives of social justice.

Far from being separate from purity and holiness movements, many of them were fueled by the fire of holiness preachers and revivals. Jim Wallace (in “Seven Ways to Change the World” )  suggests that those same hungers that fueled the revival fires of past great awakenings are alive and well today,  “Two of the great hungers in our world today are the hunger for spirituality and the hunger for social justice. The connection between the two is the one the world is waiting for, especially the new generation. And the first hunger will empower the second”.

Alongside our glorious past though, we also have shameful traditions. Exploitation of the poor, shaming the sinner, colonial support, power bases that relied on Christian ethics of submission to government authorities to continue their oppressive regimes, support of slavery and the inequality of women and minorities that are still allowed to continue within the Christian church at large.

The strength and weaknesses of our Christian tradition has its place for a discussion around holiness. Proponents of holiness would suggest it’s the answer to any problem and supporters of justice would suggest it has come woefully short in changing the world.

Is holiness simply the establishing of a ‘christian culture’ a ‘holy club’ that not only segregates itself from the world but maintains the exploitation of the poor?

The outcome and history of spiritual awakenings and revivals throughout history paint a different picture. Far from polarized, righteousness and justice are like twins, inseparable and from the same source. Psalm 97 suggests that both (together) are the foundation of God’s presence in the world. Isaiah 9:7 speaks prophetically of Jesus, “Of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David’s throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever.”

Isaiah 16:5 describes Christ’s reign, “In love a throne will be established; in faithfulness a man will sit on it- one from the house of David- one who in judging seeks justice and speeds the cause of righteousness.”

In Matthew 12:18 God the Father declares His delight in Jesus and the fulfillment of His purpose on earth, “Here is my servant whom I have chosen, the one I love, in whom I delight; I will put my Spirit on him, and he will proclaim justice to the nations.”

Baker’s Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology explains the intimate connection between righteousness and justice by breaking down the root of righteousness in the Bible, “The appropriate background to bear in mind for understanding the teaching of both John the Baptist and Jesus the Christ on righteousness/justice are two of the dominant ideas of the Old Testament. When we translate the Greek words based on the stem dikai- into English we make use of two sets of words based on the stems, just and right. So we have just, justice, justify and right, righteous, righteousness, rightwise (old English).”

Writer: Capt. Danielle Strickland is currently the Social Justice Director of the Southern Australia Territory. She digs traveling, reading, running, speaking, basketball and movies. Her passion is grace, mercy and justice… and all the stuff in between. Her favourite question is ‘how hard can it be?’ and most of her days are spent answering it.

We need you

Media of all sorts - articles, photographs, art, video and audio -  that would fit with our publishing mandate is welcome. For more information, please contact us.