Officer Morale - What’s wrong?

… asks James Pedlar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“The Un-Churchable”

St. Patrick’s ministry was considered an outreach to “barbarians” by the Roman Church leaders of his time. To be worthy of receiving the Christian faith, a people first had to be considered civilized to some degree, and upon receiving the faith, they had to be willing to accept “the Roman way” (Hunter, The Celtic Way, p. 17).

The ability to be welcomed into the Kingdom was expected only of the non-barbarians of the world. The Irish who were believed to be uncivilized by the Roman wing of Christianity were considered, to coin a phrase, “Un-Christianable.”

Most established denominations come from Roman or European roots, and most have trouble reaching today’s barbarians. There continues to be a lack of willingness to welcome those who are considered uncivilized and not willing to take on “the Way of the Church.” To be sure, there are some denominations who boast that they are different, and provide a home to those who have no church that will accept them, but in my opinion, that is more lip-service than reality.

Most denominations have trouble welcoming homosexuals (who would come to Church with their ‘mates’), prostitutes (who have no plans of quitting their night job), couples who live together (and have no plans to get married), and, let’s not forget those who come for no other reason than they like the practical teaching of Christianity (but have no plans to “join” the Church).

There are many “barbarians” in our world today, who are not civilized enough, nor are they willing to become “Denominationized” and make themselves able to fit in with the predictable behavior of those to whom the Church finds easiest to minister.

So what to do?

Recognizing that we are all “barbarians” is probably a good beginning (s. Romans 3:23). Secondly, the Church would do well to remember who Jesus spent much of his time with-the twelve not-good-enough’s that no other rabbi would take the time to teach (disciples), and people whom very few, in his time, would even consider inviting to worship (barbarians).

“While Jesus was having dinner at Levi’s house, many tax collectors and “sinners” were eating with him and his disciples, for there were many who followed him. When the teachers of the law who were Pharisees saw him eating with the ‘sinners’ and tax collectors, they asked his disciples: ‘Why does he eat with tax collectors and ’sinners’?’ On hearing this, Jesus said to them, ‘It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners’” (Mark 2:15-17 NIV).

Denominational leaders are expected to spend the majority of their time with the “church folk”, as if he or she is the matradee of the civilized and churchized, while the barbarians are ostracized until they are ready to be assimilated into “the Denomination way”, like good little boys and girls.

I know my words may come across as a bit negative, and my intention is not to offend the establishment, but to bring recognition to the truth that many Christians could stand to hear God’s warning and promise in Ezekiel 34:4: “You have not strengthened the weak or healed the sick or bound up the injured. You have not brought back the strays or searched for the lost. You have ruled them harshly and brutally” (NIV).

As George Hunter says so clearly, “…as in the case of the ancient Roman wing of the Church, denominations are still substantially in the hands of the less apostolic wing of the Church, which works overtime to gain and retain institutional control; which assumes it knows best; and which works persistently to impose Roman, European, or other culturally alien forms upon the more indigenous and growing movements within the denomination. This pathology is observed today, for example, in most of the denominations in the United States that were ‘imported from Europe’” (pp. 95-96).

In His dust,

Johnny

Works Cited:

George G. Hunter III The Celtic Way of Evangelism: How Christianity Can Reach the West… Again (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2000).

Writer: Capt. Jonathan Gainey was born in Jacksonville, FL in June, 1969. He has been married to Staci, the daughter of retired Salvation Army officers, for twenty years and they have four children ages 18, 16, 12, and 4. Jonathan was commissioned as an officer in June of 2002, and is currently serving in his third appointment in New Bern, NC, USA. He is working on a Masters of Divinity from Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary and is the creator and manager of the Flocks Diner website, where his passion for learning and teaching is expressed and shared through writing and a weekly podcast.

The Holy Spirit and The Salvation Army

  What, if anything, do Salvationists think or feel about God the Holy Spirit?

Let’s consider the historical roots of Salvationists’ theological grasping after the Holy Spirit. The Salvation Army has always believed in and preached on a personal relationship with Father, Son and Holy Spirit (p 40, the old Handbook of Doctrine). But we have no specific doctrine addressing the person of the Holy Spirit.

The Salvo doctrines touching on the Holy Spirit, as with all Salvo doctrines, are highly evident as being theologically sound and hailing, via Wesleyan and Arminian lineage back to orthodox Christianity’s origins. 

There is the third doctrine: ‘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.’ 

The seventh doctrine: ‘We believe that repentance towards God, faith in our Lord Jesus Christ and renewal by the Holy Spirit, are necessary to salvation.’ 

The eighth doctrine: ‘That we are justified by grace through faith in our Lord Jesus Christ and that he that believes has the witness in himself.’ 

The Spirit has particularly been sought through prayer; we plead with the Spirit to ‘indwell’ Salvationists both in their platform/pulpit ministry and in their daily lives.  

William Booth, no scholar but a great ‘practitioner’ who knew how to work a room, sought to establish a vital and compelling ministry that would work on people’s hearts and minds and compel them to make peace with God (General Booth by Railton: pp 40-43).  

He would consequently act like a spiritual berserker at times (ibid: p 42), his outlandishly demonstrative preaching style breaking through people’s formal and respectable ‘defences’.  

Booth believed he was empowered by the Spirit and acted with the strength of that belief. A committed belief in the indwelling of the Spirit, Booth taught his officers, would mean ‘you are full of faith, and of the Holy Ghost, you will have a full measure of salvation’ (Seven Spirits, p 88). That would affect the outcome of public and personal ministry. 

Booth taught his officers that they themselves were responsible for the outcomes under God’s steam, as ‘all this is in harmony with the law laid down by Jesus Christ when he said, “According to your faith be it unto you”‘ (ibid). 
 

Consider Commissioner Brengle’s classic if daggily-titled Love Slaves (for example, pp 70, 71). Brengle was of course one of the Army’s most prominent damage control experts (a ‘putter outer’ of internal arguments and ‘friendly fires’) and perhaps our most respected holiness teachers . To a certain extent we enjoy a legacy of ’seeking after’ holiness - we persist in this organisational quest and conversation - because of Brengle and his peers. We should all doff our caps at the Army’s remaining/surviving (?) spiritual retreats known as ‘Brengle fellowships’. 

Brengle emphasised the need for personal purity (Love Slaves, p 72) and also wrote against the dangers people in ministry encounter from wrongful expressions of their sexuality (pp 61-67, particularly the prophetic example given of the silver-haired American evangelist, p 62). 

Salvationists have traditionally been more comfortable pursuing the fruits of the Spirit rather than the Spirit’s gifts. But there have been experiences of signs and wonders that defy rational thought or conjecture. In particular the supernatural power of the Spirit has been attested to by Bramwell Booth, the Founder’s oldest son and the second international leader of the Army (see Echoes and Memories, p 50). 

I want to put the possibility of levity at ‘witnessing levitation’ aside (one of the high points of Bramwell’s memoirs), and add this disclaimer: I don’t want to sound disrespectful of the guy and his grasp on reality (not intended). But we should be aware that, as well as the reality of political payback on the part of his relative/s and his leadership peers, the second General’s mental and physical health was one of the reasons the High Council got rid of him some few months before he was ‘promoted to glory’  

Salvationists have occasionally issued criticism of other churches for lack of an authentic conversion experience of their congregations. This has been, it has been suggested, due to a lack of pursuing, wrestling and submitting to God the Holy Spirit (see These Fifty Years, pp 64,65). 

But no less an authority than the Founder himself attested to the fact that the gifts of the Spirit, including physical healing, had been enjoyed intermittently ‘in the Army throughout its history’ (Larsson, The Man Perfectly Filled With The Spirit, p 70). 

Obeying the Holy Spirit’s prompting was part of the way Salvationists were taught they would prevail in prayer. Catherine Booth urged her comrades to live in union with Jesus, obey the teaching of the word and the urging of the Spirit, and rely utterly on God (Practical Religion, p 211). 

Perhaps sailing a little close to the notion of a ‘magical formula’ for answered prayer, the historical record of the Army reveals that Salvationists did catch the wind of the Spirit in their sails. 

Evaluating the growth and sustaining work the Spirit undertook in the life of the Army, these words of Catherine Booth ring true for the Army of her day and challenge Salvationists in this era: 

‘God must be true; and if your experience contradicts the sure word of promise, you may be certain that it is your experience [read personal experience here] which is at fault. Examine yourself. Repent, and do your first works. He is faithful and just to forgive the sins of His people, and to cleanse them from all unrighteousness. 

‘And then bring all the tithes of a whole-hearted, loving, and believing service into His store-house, and prove him therewith, and see if He will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out such a blessing that there shall not be room enough to receive it.’ 

Do we put up our hand and accept culpability for a perceived lack of spiritual success?  

Are our expectations of God too small?  

Or do we fail to back them up with genuine faith and works? 

Writer: Barry Gittins is a Melbourne-based writer, lifelong Salvationist, husband (to Trudy) and father(to Emily and Benjamin) who seeks God in everyday encounters. A frustrated poet and playwright, he has worked for the Salvos’ Australia Southern Territory in various roles since 1991: as a journalist (for Warcry, The Young Soldier/Kidzone, The Musician),technical writer and CD-ROM author in corps program (mission development), senior review editor (Warcry) and editor (On Fire). He currently works as a social program and policy consultant (writer/researcher) for the social program department.

Scary Statistics and Terrifying Trends!

Steve Court posts some scary statistics and terrifying trends over at http://www.armybarmy.com/blog.html (Aug. 9, 2010). And his accompanying challenge is not only courageous; it’s spot on!

His concluding comment: “The Army is better than this. It deserves better than this. God certainly deserves better than this. If you aren’t uncomfortable reading this post, you should be, so ask the Lord to make you uncomfortable (and to show you what you should do to help)”. Click on over there, check out the numbers, and test your own personal comfort level. 

If you go back into the archives of my blog, “Slightly Irregular” (www.joenoland.blogspot.com), you’ll find posts on this theme, ad nauseam. So, I’ll spare you further comment on my part and share some outside, intelligent, authoritative voices. 

Anne Rice, on her Facebook page, recently announced that she is quitting Christianity. Interviewed, she says in part: “I’ve also found that I can’t find a basis in Scripture for a lot of the positions that churches and denominations take today, and I can’t find any basis at all for an anointed, hierarchical priesthood. So all of this finally created a pressure in me, a kind of confusion, a toxic anger at times, and I felt I had to step aside. And that’s what I’ve done.” The entire interview is worth a read: 

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-beliefs-anne-rice-20100807,0,5152082.story 

Leonard Pitts writes brilliantly in his Miami Herald column: “According to a 2008 study by Trinity College, religiosity is trending down sharply in this country. The American Religious Identification Survey, which polled more than 54,000 American adults, found that the percentage who call themselves Christian has fallen by 10 since 1990 (from 86.2 percent to 76 percent) while the percentage of those who claim no religious affiliation has almost doubled (from 8.2 to 15) in the same span…Organized religion, Christianity in particular, is on the decline, and it has no one to blame but itself: It traded moral authority for political power.”

He concludes, “But what of those who are not atheists? What of those who feel the blessed assurance that there is more to this existence than what we can see or empirically prove? What of those who seek a magnificent faith that commits and compels, and find churches offering only a shriveled faith that marginalizes and demeans?

Its response to those people, those seekers, will determine the future of organized religion. And it might behoove keepers of the faith to keep in mind the distinction Anne Rice drew in her farewell: Christ didn’t fail her, she said. Christianity did.” Read more:

http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/08/04/1760058/keeping-faith-losing-religion.html 

Phil Wall, insider-outsider, writes in his book I’ll Fight…’ Holiness at War’,

“Secondly, the nature of leadership is changing dramatically in the Western world. To say that top-down hierarchical leadership is dead is an understatement. Current specialists in leadership such as Charles Handy and Professor John Hunt of London Business School, suggest that linear and relational leadership will shape future organisations, and emerging generations will have little attraction to heavy authoritarian institutions.” 

Notice a unifying theme here? 

Can’t resist it. Here’s my slightly irreverent insider’s take (perhaps not as intelligent and authoritative) on it all: http://slightlyirreverent.blogspot.com/2008/12/i-had-dream.html. 

To nudge you over there, here’s a question asked within the post: “Were Jesus here in the flesh today, would He even entertain taking on a title: General Jesus or Pope Jesus or Archbishop Jesus?” 

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

The Hospital (A parable)

Once upon a time, a group of doctors moved into a new town. They had heard that people were getting sick and no-one would help them get better. ‘This will never do!’ they said, and off they went.

When they got to the town, they realised how big a job they had. There were sick people everywhere-in the streets, in the parks, in the shops, in homes. Concerned, they went to the local hospital, but the doctors there didn’t seem the slightest bit worried about the
situation. ‘No,’ said the Chief Administrator. ‘There aren’t as many sick people in this town as you might think. And anyone who does get
sick wants to be that way.’

Unperturbed, the young group of doctors went out into the street looking for sick people to heal.

At first, people weren’t very happy. ‘If we want to get better,’ they’d say, ‘we’ll come and see you.’ Others would say, ‘I already have my own doctor, thank you very much. I have a check-up every month and everything seems to be okay.’ Yet others would say, ‘I’m not sick, and I would appreciate it if you stopped talking like that around my children!’

Yet the group of doctors worked diligently, and many people were healed. Some of the people who got healed wanted to help other people
who were sick. So they were trained in different jobs. Some became health educators, teaching people how to stay healthy. Some became
nurses. And some even dreamed of becoming doctors and enrolled in the big university in the city.

However, there was a problem. The doctors could only do so much working in people’s homes and in the streets. The health educators
needed a room to put their flip-charts. The doctors and nurses needed private rooms where they could do their consultations. And everyone
agreed they needed a tea room where they could eat their lunch.

After much discussion they realised that what they really needed was a clinic. So they started a huge fund-raising campaign so they could
build one. It wasn’t hard to do-all the people they’d healed were willing to help. A big hospital in another town sent them some money,
and before they knew it, they had a lovely clinic with a big waiting room, a tea room for the staff, and enough stethoscopes for everyone.

The town thought this was great! People came to the clinic from miles around and were healed. They went and got their sick friends who were also healed. Many of those people wanted to learn to look after people, and before long, the clinic was full of people wanting to help
others get better. In fact, the clinic was so full of people there wasn’t enough room for sick people to get in the door!

The doctors had a meeting to discuss the problem. One doctor thought they should open another clinic. Another thought they should close
their books and send people to the old hospital up the road. ‘No,’ said one doctor. ‘Let’s open our own hospital!’

Nobody had thought of that! But they thought through the possibilities. They could do operations! They could open wards for
people who needed to stay a few days! Instead of sending trainee doctors to the city they could train them locally! The health
educators could make their own flip-charts instead of buying everyone else’s!

So once again they started to raise money. Some of the ladies set up a stall and sold doylies and knitted animals. They sold space to
florists and newsagents who wanted to set up shop in the hospital. And instead of buying new sphygmomanometers, they got them donated by sponsors. They had a big raffle, and they had benefit concerts, and before long they had enough money to build the hospital.

The new hospital was a sight to behold. It had a massive foyer with coffee shops and newsagents and florists and restaurants. They had a
huge car park and a bus stop out the front. The operating theatre had lots of machines that went ‘ping!’ The wards were the the cleanest and
shiniest and fanciest any of the doctors could remember seeing.

Most importantly there was a huge Emergency room. It had several ambulances that would rush out at a moment’s notice to bring sick
people back to the hospital. All the best doctors and nurses were stationed in there.

Every floor had a tea room for the staff. The doctors elected the doctor who had had the idea of building the hospital to be the Chief
Administrator. The other doctors all became heads of departments. They made the nurses into matrons and sisters and ward managers. The health educators were given fancy laptop computers and projectors so they didn’t need to use flip-charts anymore.

Everyone got to work. The Chief Administrator held staff meetings every week in the fancy tea room on the top floor. The heads of
department had staff meetings every day to discuss budgets and new ways of doing surgery. The health educators would talk about the new
ways people were getting sick and write grant proposals so the government could fund programs to research ways to help the sickest
people in the community. The nurses would do training courses every week, learning new techniques in infection control and ward organisation.

News of this new hospital went for miles. People would come and take tours to see how it was run. They would marvel at the big tea rooms
and the gymnasium on the second floor. They were full of wonderful phrases like, ‘industry best practice’ and ‘a paradigm example of
mission focussed development, leveraging existing synergies to maximise staff potential thus setting new benchmarks and producing
positive staff/client interactions leading to the achievement of all stipulated outcomes.’

The wards were full of patients. Many of them weren’t even sick-they were just so worried about their health they would come in, just in
case. Some had been near sick people outside the hospital and were worried they might have caught their diseases, so they checked in.
After all, they were told, if your life’s at risk you won’t take chances. Many people were so worried about getting sick they stayed in
the hospital. Some were able to get permanent beds. Others got jobs in the hospital so they never even had to go outside. They could help
sick people by staying right where they were.

After a while the big new hospital started to feel a bit small. They had to expand. The Board of Directors held a meeting to discuss the
options. Someone suggested they open a new hospital. Someone else suggested they get rid of all the healthy patients.

After some discussion they decided that the Emergency room was taking up far too much room and money. So the Board of Directors decided to open a small Emergency room in one of the sicker neighbourhoods in the town. If people got sick they could go there. Once they were a bit
better they might be able to find a place in the hospital. That way no-one would have to worry about sick people coming into the hospital,
and the space saved would make a lovely play area for the children who had been born in the hospital. Whilst doctors might risk being around
sick people, it seemed reckless to expose children to the dangers outside.

The new Emergency room was very popular amongst the people of that neighbourhood, but after a few months the Chief Administrator
discovered that one of the doctors assigned to the Emergency room had sent a newly healed patient to another hospital. That wouldn’t do-that other hospital had female doctors and he wasn’t even sure the health educators were properly qualified! So he immediately shut down the Emergency room, saying that it was better for people to stay sick than receive bad medical advice.

Besides, they didn’t need an Emergency room anyway. After all, keeping people healthy was just as important as getting healthy in the first
place. Sick people could still come to the front door. And everyone agreed that if people were still getting sick it was all their own
fault. So they closed the Emergency room.

One day, the Chief Administrator got a visit from a group of young doctors from another town. They claimed that people in the town were
getting sick, and that they’d like to help out. ‘No,’ said the Chief Administrator. ‘There aren’t as many sick people in this town as you
might think. Anyone who does get sick wants to be that way.’

I think you know the rest of the story.

Writer: Cameron Horsburgh. Along with his wife Trudy, Cameron is the Corps Officer at the Colac Corps of the Australian Southern Territory. They have two daughters, Shekinah (12) and Charis (9). They all look forward to the day when the girls’ schools have enough money to buy all the supplies they needs, but the Navy needs to sell raffle tickets to buy ships.

blog: http://spiritcry.wordpress.com

5 ways to improve SA Worship

by James Pedlar

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

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

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

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

1. Eliminate the MC-style running commentary on songs

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

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

2. Stop singing about the Army

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

3. Let the word be heard

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

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

4. Pay attention to content

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

5. Drop the showtunes

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

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

Anyone have other ideas?

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

Should we condemn WAR?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This leaves me asking 3 complex questions:

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

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

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

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

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

Who can afford to save the poor?

                                                                                                                                                                                                          … asks Wayne Rumsby

First of all by poor I mean under-resourced. Truly all of us experience moments of poverty in our lives. However, for most people I know poverty is only momentary, because they are able to bring other resources to bare.

Most times these other resources are friends who willingly step into the gap in order to save us. The poor I’m referring to are people who have nobody behind them with outstretched arms, willing to catch them as the fall. In some cases, they are like the prodigal son who have wasted their resources. Sadly, many of the poor are part of a generational experience, and there seems to be no place to return to. 

Downtown Toronto maybe one of the few places on the planet that has not suffered the recent recession. Everywhere you look there are new shiny towers reaching for the sky. Every piece of land is being developed and re-developed. The prices of these condos makes you wonder how this will work out, one thing is for sure, there won’t be room for those who make $20k or less. 

The city has recently undertaken a project that they call the Revitalization of Regent Park housing project, which itself was pitched as a revitalization project just after the second world war. It will be beautiful, truly revitalized, but perhaps not for those who live there now. It has been marketed as a mixed housing project but the reality is that very few people who live there now will be able to survive the process and benefit from the changes. Overall the city will be revitalized, but the under-resourced, the poor will simply be swept aside. 

Eleven years ago my wife and I bought a house in South Riverdale in response to God’s calling to move closer to those who live on or near the street. Over the past decade all of this progress has driven the value of our home upwards. This is good news for us, but it’s not such good news for those who can’t scratch together a down payment of $50,000 or more. The raw truth is that the kind of money that street pastors can attract is never enough to impress the lenders. We’ve recently taken steps to reduce our footprint and our budget by sharing our home with another family. They are also involved in urban ministry. They don’t own a home, and the prospect of being able to own one is remote, so we will share our resources and try to make this work. 

The question remains, who can afford to reach the city’s most under-resourced who live on or near the street? They can’t afford to live here and we can barely afford to either. Furthermore, we can’t afford the space and materials to support these folks whose poverty often includes being chronically under-productive.

The return on investment isn’t very attractive. We can lead them to Jesus but then what? We, the Church, need to ask ourselves, how much should we spend on saving a soul? Sometimes we can do it pretty economically by inviting people to a big stadium and simply delivering the gospel. If that works, it represents one end of the spectrum, at the other end are those who have been raped and beaten and left for dead.

The costs for saving them are truly staggering, Jesus knew that.

Writer: Wayne Rumsby is at least a fourth generation follower of Jesus Christ. In his late 30’s Wayne responded to an invitation to visit an inner city mission in the heart of Toronto. At the time he was working as a graphic designer. It wasn’t long before he left his job in the fast paced ad business, in the glass towers, to become a full time missionary on the streets and in the alleys. The focus of his mission was to help the marginalized discover God through meaningful work. For most of the past decade Wayne was helping people discover who God had created them to be, by teaching them to make beautiful furniture in a woodworking shop. Today Wayne and his wife Linda are working with the team at 614 Regent Park with the very same vision, helping people discover who God has created them to be, and more.  

INTEGRITY

by Terry Camsey

“No matter what an organization says, no matter what image they try to project, the organization needs to demonstrate who they say they are and deliver what they say they offer…”

T

hus commented Elexio Obiah in an issue of Outreach magazine. There’s a lot of food for thought there and a great challenge to the church in general.

A while ago a friend in New Zealand, who is a Salvationist and has a tremendous heart for the mission of the Army, e-mailed me. Apparently that territory had recently been running an ad on television reminding people (if they ever knew) that the Army is more than a charity and is, in fact, a church. In his corps, an immediate response was experienced when - as a direct result of that ad - a new person turned up at the corps on Sunday.

The strategy of the ad was sound. Take people from what they know of an organization to what else you would like them to know.

When it came out, the Crest Book “Come Join Our Army’ by R.G. Moyles led me to contact the author. I was privileged later to enjoy some insightful conversations with him over the internet. In that book he points out that, towards the end of the late 1880’s and early 1890’s, Salvationists were becoming aware that the Army, as they had known it, was beginning to change. They were “now being asked to become as actively involved in charitable work as previously they were in red-hot revivalism.” And they were being popularized for that. Dr. Moyles suggests that they then became “less frequently hailed as soul-saving revivalists and more often as social reformers known less for their aggressive evangelism than for their good deeds.”

Interestingly, Dr, Moyles tells us in his book that - coinciding with this change - the Army’s membership in inner London peaked and, from 1900,”began to experience a slow decline in numbers to the present day.”

Was there a correlation between the change of emphasis and the decline in memberships? A somewhat similar phenomenon was experienced in (as I recall) the mid 1970’s when churches of many denominations in the USA started to make social work the priority. Where evangelism was the primary emphasis, social work increased, but when social work became the priority, evangelism suffered.

Even as I write this, the cautionary - but sage - saying, “Stick to your knitting” comes to mind.

A few years ago I learned that Charlie Chaplin, famed comedian of yesteryears, once entered a “Charlie Chaplin look-alike Competition.” He came in third! His brand image (the bowler hat, walking stick, black moustache and erratic gait”) was there, yet obviously the judges felt he didn’t seem to be himself!

No doubt many of those early Salvationists caught up in the changing focus of the Army, from evangelism to social work felt much like that…the Army didn’t seem to be itself. As far back as 40 years or more, ago General Kitching expressed concerns about the danger of   the Army taking its eyes off the primary purpose of our ministry. God did not send his Son that people might have clothes on their backs, or food in their bellies, or a roof over their head.

Addressing such social and emotional needs only earns us the right to share with them the prime reason God sent his Son…that they might have eternal life. This is not to knock the ministry of our social work so long as it is connected - as we say it should be - on a continuum that draws social service recipients toward the evangelical ministry of corps…and draws the soldiery into personal involvement with the Army’s social ministry.

I guess this is not helped if the bulk of our advertising focuses - as an end product - on what Booth only intended as a stepping stone (a means to an end) to our real product…”the pearl of greatest price.”

What do you think?

P.S. And the “brand” played on!

Writer: A published and recorded composer; cornet soloist of international fame; Terry Camsey was a Salvation Army officer for over twenty years mostly in the area of Church Health and Growth who in retirement is a church growth consultant. He studied with Carl F George (of the then Fuller Institute of Evangelism) as a church growth “doctor” (Diagnosis with Impact), Lyle E. Schaller, Charles and “Chip” Arne and trained as facilitator with Covey Institute (Seven Habits and  First Things First), and The Edward de Bono Lateral Thinking Course.

Terry has traveled as Church Growth teacher around the world including Britain, Scandinavia, Germany, Australia and New Zealand, Philippines, Germany.

He is writer of “Slightly Off-Center” (Crest books) and regular columnist in New Frontier (The Salvation Army USA West’s periodical) for over two decades.

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

HoD: does track six need a remix?

                            We believe that Jesus Christ has become the propitiation

                            for the sins of the world, that he rose from the dead, and

                            that he ever liveth to make intercession for us.

                            Sixth doctrine of The Doctrines of the Methodist New Connexion (1838)

 

                            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.

                            Sixth doctrine of The Doctrines of The Salvation Army

 

                            Irrevocable: not to be recalled, withdrawn, or annulled

                             Gage Canadian Dictionary

 

T he release of a new edition of The Salvation Army’s Handbook of Doctrine has sparked a lot of thought, started many conversations, and has elicited several questions.

 - Why publish a new edition of the Handbook of Doctrine?

 - Do we need a new edition of the Handbook of Doctrine?

 - Was there anything wrong with Salvation Story?

 - Can Salvation Story and the new Handbook of Doctrine work together? (They are similar; there are a few differences. Put together do the two texts make each other stronger? Reflecting on the changes I have observed throughout the text, I still have not read the entire book, was there anything else that could have been reworded or reworked?)

 - Could/should a doctrine or doctrines have been reworded or reworked?

 - Will this edition be reworked or reworded in a generation or two, or less?

I’m sure there are questions I have not thought of, I have not asked yet, or that wouldn’t even come to mind for me. The following thoughts are centered on some things I’ve read about, thought about, and conversations I’ve had with friends I love, respect, and look up to.

During our time at CFOT in Winnipeg, my sisters and brothers in Christ / in training and I had a two-part class entitled “Salvation Army Theology.” I enjoyed the class. We took a comprehensive look at various theologies and schools of thought that fall under the umbrella of Christian Theology. We learned about Church and Salvation Army history. The bulk of the class consisted of looking at The Doctrines of The Salvation Army, their history and basis in scripture. The lectures and notes were informing. Discussion was lively. Learning and thinking was accomplished.

One very lively discussion was about our sixth doctrine and the fact that it may be missing a word or two. To be honest, I didn’t think much about it at the time. I saw what was being said and could understand it; but it wasn’t a deal breaker for me. It’s still not a deal breaker for me, but I do believe it’s worth talking and thinking about.

I believe the word “resurrection” or words “and resurrection” should be added to our sixth doctrine. There may be people who agree or disagree. There may be people who feel a certain way about another doctrine or two. Whichever side of the debate or debates we fall on, there’s no denying the importance of having these conversations and thinking through these elements of our spiritual journeys.

Let’s care enough to read, study, think, and ask questions; it’s all part of the journey.

Let’s dive in…

Both Salvation Story and the new edition of Handbook of Doctrine contain The Doctrines of the Methodist New Connexion. This is more than appropriate. Our first General and cofounder William Booth was an ordained minister of the New Connexion whose doctrines were said “to be ‘those of Methodism, as taught by Mr. [John] Wesley.’” (Salvation Story, Pg.: 130). In fact, the writers of Salvation Story, referring to The Salvation Army’s statement of beliefs, state: “While their origin is nowhere stated, their roots are clearly in the Weslyan tradition. The articles bear a striking similarity in words and content to Methodist New Connexion doctrines…” There are differences, but they are “slight editorial modifications, chiefly of punctuation…” (Salvation Story, Pg.: 130).

I agree and disagree. Both sets of doctrines are valuable and it’s easy to see the minor differences between the two. However, there is a scriptural and theological thought lost in translation from the sixth doctrine of The Methodist New Connexion to the sixth doctrine of The Salvation Army: the resurrection of Jesus Christ. I am definitely not the first person to notice this or say anything about it. I won’t be the last person to notice this or say anything about it if it does not change. It strikes me as more than odd that we would not allude to or make explicit reference to the resurrection of Jesus Christ in our doctrine of the atonement. Lining up the two sets of doctrines, where relevant, we can clearly see “he [Jesus Christ] rose from the dead” in the sixth doctrine of the Methodist New Connexion and no allusion to or statement of Christ’s resurrection in our sixth doctrine; why?

Jesus Christ was adamant about His resurrection: “Then he began to teach that the Son of Man must undergo great suffering, and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.” (Mark 8:31, NRSV, emphasis mine).

In his letter to the Corinthians Paul was very clear about the importance of Jesus Christ’s resurrection: “…if Christ has not been raised, then our proclamation has been in vain and your faith has been in vain.” (1 Corinthians 15:14, NRSV). The Apostle goes on: “If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins.” (1 Corinthians 15:17, NRSV).

Jesus Christ’s resurrection is the central belief and most important element of Christianity. All other thoughts, elements, and beliefs flow from and follow the proclamation that Jesus Christ is risen from the dead.

N.T. Wright, leading and respected voice in Christian thought and New Testament studies in particular, has written numerous volumes of works. The most relevant for this topic is Surprised By Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church. Very early in the book Wright makes the point of how “impossible it is to account for the early Christian belief in Jesus as Messiah without the resurrection.” (Pg.: 48). Without Jesus Christ’s resurrection “we are of all people most to be pitied.” (1 Corinthians 15:19, NRSV).

Before someone says it or thinks it: I know; we mention the resurrection in our eleventh article of faith. It seems to me, however, with the content and within the context of the doctrine to be referring to the general resurrection of believers. With no prior mention of Jesus Christ’s resurrection in our statement of faith, have we put a scriptural and theological cart before the horse? To paraphrase Paul: “If Christ has not been raised from the dead; we, nor anyone else, will be raised from the dead.” (See 1 Corinthians 15).

Our sixth doctrine, as stated, leaves us with a penal substitution-like view of the atonement. If we were to include an explicit reference to the resurrection of Jesus Christ it would make it clear that Christ’s work through the atonement is not limited to the “punishment” side of things. We have removed the word “propitiation,” but we are left with a propitiatory-like understanding of the atonement. The suffering, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ is about the forgiveness of sins and new creation; it’s a very real and spiritual renewal.

Propitiation, like or dislike it, is only half the story. We need the resurrection of Jesus Christ to complete the entire story and work of the atonement. To have one without the other would be like reading the Gospels and leaving out Christ’s resurrection or watching a film trilogy without the third film. We would only have part of the story. We would be lost. Christ’s suffering and death has paid for and erased our sins. Christ’s resurrection has broken the power of sin.

In The History of The Salvation Army: Volume II, 1878-1886 Robert Sandall writes: “By the Deed Poll of 1878 the doctrines of The Salvation Army therein contained were declared irrevocable.” (Pg.: 129). In fact, “The Foundation Deed of The Salvation Army, 1878″ is an appendix in this volume and William Booth wrote: “…the religious doctrines professed believed and taught by the Members of the said Christian Mission are and shall for ever be as follows:…” and the doctrines are listed. (Pg.: 288).

Why?

Commissioner Charles Baugh wrote a short volume/commentary on our doctrines, published in 1950: We Believe:- The Doctrines of The Salvation Army. In chapter one, entitled “Unchangeable Doctrines,” he writes: “…not the slightest desire has thus far been shown by those in authority to change or modify our doctrines. Neither can they be changed. They remain and ’shall for ever be’ unchanged.” (pg.: 7).

Why?

No one would accuse The Salvation Army of not believing in Jesus Christ’s resurrection. Every relevant section on our sixth doctrine in every edition of our Handbook of Doctrine and Salvation Story includes references to Christ’s resurrection being vital to the forgiveness of sins and the work of the atonement. We read about the resurrection in scripture. We sing about the resurrection. We preach about the resurrection. We, like every man, woman, and child on the face of the earth depend on the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Why not make the logical move and include “resurrection” or “and resurrection” in our doctrine of the atonement?

Our sixth doctrine is not wrong or heretical as stated. However, it would be so much more Biblically accurate, and therefore so much more powerful, if an explicit reference to Jesus Christ’s resurrection were included in the actual statement and language of the doctrine.

“Christ the Lord is risen today, Hallelujah!

 Love’s redeeming work is done; Hallelujah!”

Writer: Mark Braye and his wife Nancy are officers in Essex, Ontario, Canada. They have two children, pictured above, Hannah and Micah. The four of them love to play and watch Sesame Street.