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.
The HoD 2010 - An initial response…
Adam Couchman shares his thoughts
“Did you know the new Handbook of Doctrine is available online?” a cadet asked me casually over a cup of coffee. He knew I was very interested in its publication, and that it was expected to arrive at Salvationist Supplies (Trade) at Easter 2010. For someone like me, when it was late I started looking at my watch wondering when it would come (I am a self confessed nerd after all). And so I quickly finished my coffee and “Googled” the text. Within a few mouse clicks I had the document on my computer screen and, still being a fan of hardcopies, I had begun to print it off as well.
As I usually do with every new book I looked over the contents to see what lay ahead. The chapters are renumbered… there’s a significant increase in page count… some new Appendices including a lectionary… all of this heightens my enthusiasm, and so I start to read.
I read in the Foreword that the “principal aim has been to maximise user-friendliness” (pg xiv). OK… interesting aim for a theological text. Then in the Before you begin reading… section some explanation is given as to the new layout.
Each chapter is presented in two sections. The first part of each chapter contains the formal and officially approved Salvation Army exegesis of the relevant article of faith. These together constitute the official Handbook of Doctrine.
It continues to suggest that the second part of each chapter, entitled “for further exploration” are intended to be a “useful resource but do not form part of the official statement of Salvation Army doctrine” (pg xx). Already at this point I’m struggling to go on. Let me attempt to explain why.
I’m a “big picture” kind of person. I like to know the grand vision before I start to wrestle with the details. It just helps me put those details into perspective. So for this particular document I want to know “What is this for?” “Who is meant to read this?” “Who has written it?” “What is an appropriate response to it?” “How does this help the Church and The Salvation Army?” “How does this bring glory to God?”, and so on.
I may just be nitpicking here but what does it mean to say that this document (or at least the first sections of each chapter) is “the formal and officially approved Salvation Army exegesis of the relevant article of faith”? How does “The Salvation Army” exegete something? Isn’t that an intellectual exercise of an identifiable person, not a nondescript entity? I have difficulty with answering these questions. Here’s why.
I often say to Salvationists in various locations (the classroom, at the corps, etc) that “I try not to speak of ‘the Army’ as if I’m not a part of it”. You’ve all heard the comments before - “Why does the Army do this or that?” “Why did the Army appoint them there?” “What was the Army thinking?” I do my best to avoid using such language. Because more often than not it’s a smoke screen designed to divert attention away from the speakers own inadequacies or alternatively an attempt to strengthen their opinion on any given topic (”If it was me I wouldn’t do that”). It’s very rare that these comments are complimentary, and even less so that they’re coming from an informed position. Plus, more importantly for me, it goes a long way to show what we believe about ourselves - our ecclesiology. If I speak of the Army as some institution “out there” making decisions, or doing things I don’t like, or in this instance providing me with a theology which I can simply pick up and read and somehow acquire as my own, then I’m not a part of it. I don’t like that. I am the Army. Said more correctly, I and my Salvationist sisters and brothers in Christ are the Army. I hold to this position very strongly, because I see significant dangers in any other stance.
detach your theology from your ecclesiology …
But immediately I’m forced to reconsider that position as I read the HOD. This document is written and approved by “The Salvation Army”, which means two things. If you are The Salvation Army (as I have suggested above) then you are its author, and subsequently if you want to critique it in any way then it requires some serious mental, and theological, gymnastics in order to do so. You’re forced to “detach” yourself from “The Salvation Army” momentarily in order to try and read this document objectively. You’re forced to detach your theology from your ecclesiology. Good luck with that.
A further comment about the language employed here. Note above the use of the term “exegesis” (pg xx, see also pg 323). I may be somewhat conservative at this point, but I would like to suggest that some terms should be reserved for use when referring to the Scriptures. This term does describe what is being done with this text (exegeting the doctrines), but by using this term which is most often used in reference to the Scriptures it surreptitiously begins to elevate the doctrines to a level where they should not be - on par with Scriptures.
If that point is too subtle, then turn to the newfound “lectionary” in Appendix 8 (pg 327-333). Initially when seeing this in the contents I was pleasantly surprised. My surprise quickly turned to horror though when I actually looked more closely at the “lectionary” itself. Every other (RCL, Byzantine, Roman etc) provides a set of readings throughout the course of the year (or three years) for Scripture. This one provides a set of readings throughout the course of the year for the Handbook of Doctrine. This, in my opinion, is an absolute travesty. If the subtlety of the use of the word “exegesis” elevated the HOD close to being on par, well this new “lectionary” may even suggest that the HOD is more important than Scripture. “Come on, Adam, it’s just a reading plan”. Yea, I know but words are important, and as I suggested above, some terms should be reserved for use when referring to the Scriptures. Said another way, this is the first time in Church History that a lectionary has been created for anything other than the Scriptures. At least as far as I know (please correct me if I’m wrong).
What does that say?
Finally, in this initial response to the Handbook of Doctrine, it’s necessary to note that this text is effectively a revised edition of Salvation Story. So, for a thorough comparison the two should be read together. That’s a time consuming task, but I think it provides some insight into the theological emphasis that is being put forward here.
a very different shift in emphasis …
For example, the very well written Appendix 9 of Salvation Story (pg 113-114) says the following at one point with regard to being a sacramental community; “Our life together is sacramental because we live by faith in him and our everyday lives keep stumbling onto unexpected grace, his undeserved gift, again and again.” Here the emphasis is upon finding grace in the ordinary and unexpected. This emphasises the giftedness of grace, that it is provided by God and made available through faith.
The newly edited version of this particular line in the HOD states the following; “Our life together is sacramental because we live by faith in him and our everyday lives reveal and offer unexpected grace, his undeserved gift, again and again.” (pg 270). This is a very different shift in emphasis. Here the emphasis is upon us, as the bringers of God’s grace. Note, the subtle shift from faith quickly onto “our everyday lives” as the means by which grace is conveyed.
The above is given simply as an example of the need to read the HOD and Salvation Story in conjunction with one another, although you can probably tell that I have some serious issues with this particular revision that has taken place.
So, I will continue to read and review the new HOD, albeit in a fashion that requires me to disjoin my theology from my ecclesiology, that calls me to read two books at once, and that could, given the recent suggestions of retribution for mild reviews, put me in danger of the “freezer”… Better get my thermals out.
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 Land of Dragons (Geoff Ryan)
A Parable of Incarnational Urban Ministry (meant to be read aloud).They will rebuild the ancient ruins and restore the places long devastated; they will renew the ruined cities that have been devastated for generations. (Isaiah 61:4)
O
nce upon a time there was a land people thought was full of dragons. Now, it was mostly people who didn’t live in the land, people from the outside, who told the tales about all the dragons that roamed there. They whispered stories they had heard second and third hand about what the dragons looked like and listened to rumours of how awful they acted, how they breathed fire and ate people and generally trashed everything in sight. They would use these stories of the dragons to scare their children into behaving better, and then they themselves would snuggle down in their warm beds at night, safely far away in another land, and feel deliciously afraid at the thought of the dragons and deeply grateful that they themselves didn’t live in this land.
If any of them came near this land on their travels, they would always find a path that would take them around the borders of the land, for they would never, ever enter in it in case they were pounced on and eaten by a dragon. Otherwise they felt safe enough, for it was a well known ‘fact’ that the dragons never strayed outside the borders of their land.
From time to time the newspapers in those far off lands would report an incidence involving a dragon. If there were too many of these incidences in too short a time, the rulers of the surrounding lands started muttering darkly among themselves about the “dragon problem” and what to do about it and mostly how to ensure that it didn’t spill out and over into the surrounding lands and into the safe lives of their own people. They hired more and more dragon-catchers in an effort to make the land dragon free, but all these dragon-catchers ever caught were little lizards that looked something like dragons, but which everybody knew were not the real thing at all.
Then one day a few people decided that they would move into the land where the dragons lived and live there themselves. Sure they had heard the stories of the dragons but they had also met some of the people who lived in that land and they seemed nice enough so they thought it couldn’t be all that bad. Their friends mostly thought they were crazy while others that they were very brave (though a little foolish). Most agreed that they would surely die or at the very least come to some dreadful harm. But having decided that this is what they should do…they went ahead and did it. In twos and threes the people in this group slipped over the border and settled into the land of the dragons.
And they were in for two of the biggest surprises of their lives.
You see, while they didn’t really go looking for dragons, they did at least arrive expecting to see or encounter dragons. They were prepared to have to run away from a few, if needed. But they didn’t find any dragons in the land. Not one single, solitary dragon. They saw a few lizards and occasionally, a large slouching shadow shifting off to the side and glimpsed out of the corner of their eye… a thing that maybe could be something like a dragon, but they couldn’t be really sure. And little by little as time passed and the newcomers settled down to live their lives in the new land, they stopped worrying about dragons and sometimes even went days without thinking about them at all.
Their second real surprise was the people they met in the new land. They weren’t anything at all like what they expected, though truth be told if they thought about it, they would’ve realized that they hadn’t given much thought to the people in the land at all, busy as they had been thinking mostly about the dragons. The people in the land were…well…nice and friendly and pretty ordinary. In fact, they seemed just like the people in the land they had moved from. Which is to say - they were just like them!
But what about the dragons? What about what the other people in other lands had said about the dragons? How could the truth be so different from what they had thought all along? So, they asked their neighbours what the truth was.
And different people gave different answers.
Some said indeed the dragons did exist. You just had to stay out late into the night and you could catch a glimpse of them because they only came out then. Of course, the people who gave them this answer never went out at night and themselves hadn’t seen any of these dragons, but they knew this to be the truth, nevertheless.
Others answered that there used to be dragons, but not anymore. They had all gone away, moved far, far away and never came round anymore. The dragon-catchers had chased them all away and so things were much quieter now. Dragons were a thing of the past.
Still others didn’t give any answer at all. They just smiled knowingly, looked from side to side, smiled again and then walked away without saying a word.
Naturally it was this latter group that intrigued the newcomers the most. Their non-answer to the mystery of the dragons seemed to hold more truth than all the other answers put together. What they knew, they knew, and not just because someone else had told them it was so.
After a while of living in the new land, about the time it was no longer “new” or even “another land” anymore but had started to become “home”. When the newcomers were no longer “new” and had changed from “comers” to “stayers”. When they were considered by the people of the land to have always sort of lived there and been a part of life, around this time they become close friends and valued neighbours with everyone who had lived there their whole lives.
And when you ask a question of a friend, it is quite a different thing than asking a question of a stranger and especially of someone you’ve just met. So they asked their neighbor-friends: “What about the dragons?”
And their neighbours again smiled knowingly, looked from side to side and then instead of walking away, said the following: “Yes, there were some dragons around back in the day - and there still are. But not nearly so many as people in the other lands think. And even the ones we do have here are quite different from what everyone thinks. There are many reasons for this but mainly it is because they are our neighbours and friends, members of our community and some of them are even our family members.
“But the reputation of the fierce dragons is helpful for us who live here and useful for those who live outside. It helps keep people away who really don’t want to be a part of our lives. It gives them an excuse to avoid coming here and a reason to fear us and so in this way they can stay safe and warm and happy in their own homes far away and never have to do something they really never wanted to do in the first place - get to know us.
“It keeps strangers out of our community and scares them away so they don’t come down and bother us, because we know that if they did come into our land, they would look down their noses at us because they think they are better than us and they would want to tear things down and build new things and make some of us leave and take others of us away. We are really a small land, not nearly as powerful as the lands surrounding us and we feel the unsettling truth of this in our hearts every day.
“So we pretend that we have these fearsome dragons roaming around our land and the people outside believe that we have these fearsome dragons roaming around our land, and in this way everything stays as it always has and nothing ever has to change and that suits both of us, even if it is just a lie.
“And if the price we pay is that occasionally one of the few real, living dragons who do actually live here decides to eat one of us, well, it seems a small price for us to pay in the bigger scheme of things.
“And even when that does happen, it is hard for us to become too angry or stay too angry at the dragons for eating one of us because, you see, we know the dragons really, really well and we remember when they were young and nothing more than cute little lizards and know that deep down inside, they still are like this.
“It’s just that sometimes when they think dragonish thoughts, then they start to do dragonish things. And it is those things only that the people in the other lands hear about the dragons so they understand them to be this way all the time. They never, ever saw them when they were young and nothing more than cute little lizards and can only see them as scary, fire-breathing dragons. That’s the “truth” that’s most useful to all of us.”
Well, the newcomers didn’t hardly know what to do with this revelation. It seemed to them that everybody had been lying all along - the people who lived in the dragon land and the people who lived outside of it in other lands. And these lies were all fed and kept alive by fear. And even though both groups of people seemed content enough - how happy could they really be when their lives were shaped by fear and lies?
So the small group of people who had ignored the fear everyone said they should feel and moved into the land (who by now had become to a larger group as more people moved into join them and people who had always lived in the land started hanging out with them more and more until they resembled nothing more than one big family) decided that the very best thing that could happen was for everyone - both the people in the land and the people outside in other lands - to simply stop being afraid and stop lying to themselves and others. Because they knew that power of a lie is in its fear and that if you stop being afraid then the lie just fades away and dies. And the best way to take away this power was to start living different sort of lives, lives that no longer hid behind lies and fear, lives that opened up more than they closed off, lives that were free.
So they all started talking more and more about this and spending more and more time together in order to talk about this and it seemed like a new family had taken root in the land - a family that was growing and growing. And the more they talked, the more excited everyone became and the more other people saw this and the more they wanted to join in the conversation and feel like they were part of the family. And slowly but surely the words, “What if…” were spoken more and more in their conversations and eventually they altogether replaced the old thoughts of “What is will always be”, and “What had always been will never change.”
They organized get-togethers that included music and laughter and food. And they cried together and held each other. They started rebuilding the places the dragons has knocked down and restoring the relationships that had been cramped by fear and lies. And some of them taught all the others the truth of who they really were and all of them listened to the truth of who everyone else really was and the more truth they spoke and listened to, the lighter the whole land became - the shadows started to shrink away and become nothing more than smudges and people started to venture out at night (most particularly those who had never gone out at night because they had always believed that this was when the dragons came out).
Some of them ventured out of their land to visit the other surrounding lands and discovered that they had relatives they never even knew existed there. A few people from the other lands even came to visit (not too many and not to move in and live there…just to visit).
But the most amazing wonder of all was that some dragons crept out of their lairs, quietly and warily, not breathing any fire or with even a whiff of smoke and no roaring whatsoever and lay down on the ground a little way off from the loud, happy, laughing, courageous family and watched them, with their heads resting on their front paws and their tails slowly switching from side to side and some people who noticed them swore that the occasional smile lit up their faces and that one or two even snorted as if they were trying to laugh (a difficult thing for a dragon to do, after all).
And the land that everyone used to think of as a place full of dragons, became known instead as the land of light and love and laughter.
Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” (John 8:32)
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.
Politics #2 : Speaking to Politics (Chick Yuill)
Chick Yuill was invited to preach at the service organised by the churches in Manchester and the Conservative Christian Fellowship as part of the Conservative Party Conference. This is his sermon on that occasion, slightly ammended for publication.Conservative Party Conference - “Welcome to Manchester Service” Tuesday 6th October, 2009 Text: Isaiah 58:6-12
T
here are many in 21st century Britain who would question the rightness of a Christian worship service being linked in any way with a party conference. I am clearly not one of them - and that for reasons that I can articulate briefly and simply.
The Christian faith is not merely a private matter - something between a man or a woman and their God. There is far too much in 
the teaching of Jesus about love for others and justice for the oppressed for that to be true. On the other hand, I do not believe that the church should have a privileged place in society. We live in post-modern, post-Christendom, multi-cultural Britain and I, for one, do not seek to turn the clock back.
Our calling is neither to personal piety for ourselves nor to a crusading pursuit of power for the church. Our calling is to express our faith in the public arena, not by forcing it on others but by living it out in every area of life.
It is most definitely not the role of the church to politically endorse any party. But equally certainly, it is our task to prophetically engage with those who serve us and lead us in politics. I want to offer you four reasons why that is both our right and our responsibility.
1. The church calls us to a point of reference
In every human enterprise - perhaps especially in those that set out with high ideals - there lies the danger of expediency: principles can be abandoned and people can be trampled in pursuit of even the highest of goals.
I would not suggest for one moment that Christians and other people of faith are the only ones with a moral compass, but it seems to me that the beliefs to which we are committed provide an ultimate point of reference for all human endeavours including the political arena. If, as we believe:
- The world is the creation of a good God
- All human beings are made in his image
- God, whom Christians describe as trinity, is in his own being community and has created us for community
- God loves the world so much that he gave his own Son to die for it
If all that is true, there is a clear point of reference for how we live, how we treat each other, how we conduct business, and how we do politics. It means that in politics, as in every human endeavour, we must act in such a way that everything we do demonstrates our commitment to:
- Respect human dignity
- Encourage personal responsibility
- Work for a healthy society
2. The church has a proven track record
There is no other group of people spread throughout our nation like the church. In every town, city and village throughout Britain, the Christian church is present and active. We’re by no means perfect in our efforts to be the body of Christ on earth - but we are there!
And in so many places - often the most needy areas in our society - these Christian churches are not just gatherings of the faithful. Ask who is running youth clubs, after-school clubs, breakfast clubs, homework clubs,lunch clubs for the elderly and a thousand and one other projects. And again and again, you’ll get the same answer: It’s the church!
Ask who are the people volunteering as school governors, local councillors, community activists. And again and again, you’ll get the same answer: it’s members of the church and followers of Jesus who are seeking to make their communities better and safer places.
We have a right to be heard simply because we’re there. And - more importantly - we have a responsibility to speak for those who often cannot speak for themselves. We don’t ask to be the only voice in our nation. But we are an important voice which cannot and must not be stifled.
3. The church wants to partner in renewal
All of us here this evening - whether we are part of the church in Manchester or members of the Conservative Party - are in the business of renewal. We want to change things for the better.
Politicians who imagine that this can be done merely by improving the environment in which people live without recognising and addressing their deepest spiritual needs are mistaken.
That way lies the disillusionment of empty materialism, but so are Christians who imagine that the job of the church is simply to prepare people for the life to come.
That way lies the escapism of the religious ghetto and the dereliction of our responsibility to work for the Kingdom of God here on earth.
We refuse to accept that there is a division between the sacred and the secular. We refuse to accept that faith is only about the individual.
Our Christian faith is holistic. We believe that God is concerned about the whole of life. The scripture that was read earlier calls us to a renewal of our towns and cities.
10 and if you spend yourselves in behalf of the hungry
and satisfy the needs of the oppressed,
then your light will rise in the darkness,
and your night will become like the noonday.11 The LORD will guide you always;
he will satisfy your needs in a sun-scorched land
and will strengthen your frame.
You will be like a well-watered garden,
like a spring whose waters never fail.12 Your people will rebuild the ancient ruins
and will raise up the age-old foundations;
you will be called Repairer of Broken Walls,
Restorer of Streets with Dwellings.(Isaiah 58:10-12)
And we will partner with all men and women of good will and with politicians of every hue who are committed to working for the restoration and renewal of our towns and cities.
4. The church holds the promise of resurrection
But this is perhaps the most important thing that we bring to our society. The most important thing I will say this evening:
At the heart of the Christian faith is the conviction that God’s new creation has broken into this world, into our time and space, in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. And that conviction fuels and fires our hope that what God has done in the resurrection of Jesus he will one day do not only for us but for his entire creation.
So we are not, as some imagine, primarily concerned with going to heaven. Rather, we are committed to working to bring heaven to earth.
We all know - priests and politicians and all people of goodwill - that every victory for good in this life is partial. We know that this is a fallen world and that there are always injustices to be put right, wounds to be healed, and evils to be eliminated. We know that there are set-backs and failures.
But we believe that every victory, however small, is worth the winning. Because one day God will take it up, make it part of his great resurrection project, incorporate it in his great plan of renewal.
The story of the resurrection is a story that everyone who is working for good needs to hear. It is a truth that everyone working to make a better society needs to grasp. It is a hope that needs to take hold of every one of us if we are not to give up in despair.
Let me end with a personal story…
About 18 months ago a very dear friend of ours, Nicola, died after a magnificent battle with cancer. Her death might have been seen as just a tragedy, but on the night she died her husband, Phil, sent a text message to all his friends. There has never been a more glorious text message. It said simply this:
Nicola died peacefully at 6.00pm this evening to continue her resurrection adventure.
That says it all perfectly and beautifully. Life that is lived for God and for good - with all its setbacks and tragedies - is part of God’s resurrection adventure. Every good thing that is done, albeit imperfectly, is part of God’s resurrection adventure.
Every act that alleviates human suffering and pain, however seemingly small, is part of God’s resurrection adventure.
So let’s work together to build for the Kingdom of God:
- in the hope of the renewal of all things
- in the promise of the resurrection, and
- in the pursuit of God’s great adventure.
Besides which all our political convictions and even our theological constructions are but faint shadows of the great reality for which we strive and which, please God, will one day dawn over our world.
(c) Chick Yuill 2009 - (Used with kind permission)
http://www.anvilding.com/speakingtopolitics.htm
Writer: Chick has spent over thirty-five years in full-time ministry. Most of this time has been devoted to leading and pastoring local congregations, both in the UK and the USA. He is a passionate communicator and has frequently appeared on national radio and TV, speaking on issues of faith and morality. He is also a regular speaker at major Christian conferences such as Spring Harvest and contributes frequently to Radio Two’s Good Morning Sunday show. Chick is the author of a number of books including, ‘We Need Saints’, ‘And God Created Sex…’ ‘Leadership on the Axis of Change’, ‘This Means War’ and ‘Others’, a new look at the story of Jonah. His latest book, ‘A Terrible Beauty: the fierce splendour of gospel and grace’ was published jointly by Spring Harvest Publications and Authentic in April 2008. In October 2006 Chick relinquished his position as the denominational leader for The Salvation Army in Greater Manchester and now devotes himself fully to reflecting, speaking and writing on issues relating to what it means to be authentic followers of Jesus in the 21st Century. As part of this ministry in the wider church, he gave two days each week to fulfil the duties of chairman for HOPE in Greater Manchester during 2008, an initiative that sought to encourage churches to work together to share the good news of the Christian gospel in word and deed in a way that will not only bring individuals to faith but will also impact and transform surrounding communities. That particular ministry has now come to an end and from September ‘09, Chick will work half-time for the London Institute of Contemporary Christianity (LICC) in the North West of England. His role, which is linked to LICC’s Imagine Project, will involve working with churches to promote and facilitate the concept of Whole-life-discipleship. Chick has been married to his wife Margaret for over 40 years and for all of that time they have shared their ministry. Their commitment to God and each other is summed up in their joint mission statement: To model Christian marriage and Christian ministry in a manner that glorifies God and serves as an example to others.
Politics #1 : Political parties - An Erroneous Assumption
Geoff Ryan walks the fine political line
A
s a member of the local riding association (Canadian electoral district) for the Conservatives, I was involved in strategy and policy discussions for our candidate during a provincial election in our province a couple years ago. She is a white, well-heeled lawyer in her mid-fifties who lives in the upscale, old-money end of our electoral district. Her husband is in banking. She is a good woman who genuinely cares about social change and about certain key issues in our area. There are parts of the riding where who she is and what she appears to represent would play well, but not in my particular neighbourhood.
The New Democratic Party candidate was a Latina woman who worked with the Toronto Community Housing Corporation and was personally connected with many of the people and places in my neighbourhood. Though younger and more attractive than the Progressive Conservative candidate, she was not warm or personable, and struggled as a public speaker. In my community, she was quite popular. However, in other areas of the riding, people wouldn’t even open the door when she came knocking.
One Tuesday evening, I made my way to the Conservative campaign launch. It was held at a nice restaurant on Yonge Street. Several well-known political figures were in attendance. There was an open bar. Expensive (and inedible) finger food was served and shoals of bright young things, recently graduated from political science university courses via Upper Canada College, were working the crowd and tapping on their Blackberrys. I made sure my attendance had been noted, then left. This was not really my scene nor my crowd.
The following Saturday, I was in my backyard putting up a shed with help from a guy who recently started attending our church after coming through drug rehab. Around noon, I remembered that the NDP candidate was holding her campaign launch that afternoon in a rented space just around the corner from my house. Though dressed in paint-splattered jeans and a torn T-shirt, with a disreputable baseball hat crammed onto my head, I decided to wander over. As I rolled up to the office, I was met by the campaign manager, a woman with a crew cut who was chain-smoking out front. Looking into the office I saw a small group of immigrant women, sitting in a circle, chatting and eating home-baked goodies. The “staffers” in the office were young, bearded men with backpacks and wan smiles, and thin girls wearing badges in support of alternative bands and various left-wing causes. I schmoozed for a bit, and then went back to my shed.
The problem that niggled at me for the rest of the weekend, the duration of the campaign and, frankly, ever since, is that the NDP crowd
was pretty much what my church looks like on any given Sunday. These were my people and this was the milieu in which I have lived most of my life. And the Conservative party (pun intended) wasn’t.
Certain things are important to me-small government, fiscal responsibility, entrepreneurship, individual initiative and self-reliance, plus a deep conviction of the limitations and shortcomings of the welfare state. Having lived in a post-Socialist state for almost a decade (Russia), I am quite clear-eyed about the retro-socialism that the NDP is trying to sell. Yet, there are things that come with the label “Tory” that I struggle with and don’t particularly want to own. But this is where I have landed. It’s the same with the “evangelical” label that I, at times, reluctantly wear.
Fernando Henrique Cardoso, two-term President of Brazil, sociologist, professor, politician and, according to some, one of the world’s top public intellectuals, wrote a piece entitled “Political Parties” in Foreign Policy magazine in 2005:
We take it for granted that political parties are vital to modern political life. They have shaped representative democracies since the late 19th century. Yet, their prospects are not bright in today’s large democracies. In fact, these powerful political machines may soon disappear. The ground is already shifting underneath their feet. Political parties have based their platforms on ideological and class divides that are becoming less important, especially in more advanced societies. Although class consciousness still matters, ethnic, religious, and sexual identities now trump class, and these affiliations cut across traditional political party lines. Today, the labels left and right have less and less meaning. Citizens have developed multiple interests, diverse senses of belonging, and overlapping identities…. Political dislocation exists alongside a growing fatigue with traditional forms of political representation. People no longer trust the political establishment. They want a greater say in public matters and usually prefer to voice their interests directly or through interest groups and nongovernmental organizations…. And thanks to modern communication, citizens’ groups can bypass political parties in shaping public policy. Political parties no longer have a lock on legitimacy.
When I first read this, I thought: That’s me. I shopped the idea around to some friends and acquaintances and felt like I was moving from room to room in a large house flicking on all the lights.
Though disillusionment with established political structures might be very real, political disengagement is not the answer. This is not the place to make the case for Christians to be involved in politics, but a short quote by Glenn Tinder, writing some years ago in The Atlantic Monthly, says it well enough:
We are so used to thinking of spirituality as withdrawal from the world and human affairs that it is hard to think of it as political. Spirituality is personal and private, we assume, while politics is public. But such a dichotomy drastically diminishes spirituality construing it as a relationship to God without implications for one’s relationship to the surrounding world. The God of Christian faith … created the world and is deeply engaged in the affairs of the world. The notion that we can be related to God and not to the world-that we can practice a spirituality that is not political-is in conflict with the Christian understanding of God.
If Cardoso is right, then it might actually make little difference with whom Christians choose to align themselves politically (here in the West). Parties rise to power and fall from power in cyclical patterns, and when they are in power, their influences on the policies and laws that impact “our people” are neither consistently good, nor consistently bad, regardless of political stripe. It is a misguided course of action, based on an erroneous assumption, to associate one party in particular with particular concerns or with any consistent approach to things that matter most to us.
For instance, one might associate the concerns and needs of the poor with Labour (UK), Democrats (US) and Liberals (Canada). Or, to mention another example, one might associate the religious right, along with its concerns and positions, with Conservatives (UK), Republicans (US) and Conservatives (Canada).
I have socially conservative Pentecostal friends who tell their congregants to vote Conservative, hoping they will overturn the same-sex marriage bill-an erroneous assumption. The rhetoric and policies of the NDP include care for the poor and working class, but they aim to do this by an endless expansion of government programs, strengthening the welfare state, yet thereby perpetuating generational dependence and dysfunction-another erroneous assumption. The Conservatives, reputedly cold-hearted when it comes to the down and out, actually believe deeply in the tenets of community development over service provision (whether they know it or not) and so might, in the long run, be a better bet for the poor-yet another erroneous assumption. It gets complicated.
I have a friend in Germany, Frank Heinrich, who, like myself, is a Salvation Army officer. He pastored a 614 church in Chemnitz, a city in
former Eastern Germany. His church is situated in a vast and bleak micro-city of Soviet-era apartment buildings, home to thousands and thousands of people. Frank decided to run for political office in hopes of improving life in his parish. The Salvation Army (in an unusual move) granted him a leave of absence to run. This past September, he won in a landslide and is now in the Federal Parliament representing Chemnitz. Frank is a flamboyantly left-wing kind of guy with a huge heart for the poor and marginalized. But he ran his campaign as part of the Christian Democratic Union Party and was elected as a member of that party-one seen as representing the conservative right wing of the German political landscape, analogous to the Republicans in the U.S. or the Conservatives here in Canada.
His reasoning? They were going to win anyway, and he really wanted to achieve something in Chemnitz. So he threw his lot in with them, planning to work from “the inside” to effect change. A triumph of pragmatism over principle, some might say. The words of Fernando Henrique Cardoso, if true, suggest that today’s political parties are quite malleable. My German friend, then, may find himself with some significant room to do some things he might not have had room to do before.
So what’s a reluctant Tory like me to do? Short of starting my own party, I figure that picking a party to get involved with is kind of like picking a church. As a Christian, you have to be in community, and so you pick a church of some sort to belong to. The same thing goes politically. You pick a party. There’s no such thing as the perfect church, or perfect political party. Settle on one that you can live with and go from there.
Just don’t make assumptions.
Copyright © 1974-2010 Cardus. All Rights Reserved.
Writer: Major Geoff Ryan is co-founder of theRubicon and was publisher for three years. He is co-ordinator of the 614 Network and organizes the bi-annual Urban Forum. His interests include writing, politics, coffee and his children. Geoff and his wife Sandra minister in Regent Park, a social housing project in downtown Toronto, Canada.
This article originally appeared in Comment magazine, the opinion journal of CARDUS: www.cardus.ca/comment http://www.cardus.ca/comment/article/1524/
A theory of everything?
by Adam Couchman
I
n the 1950’s one of the great scientific races of all time ended. The discovery of the double helix structure of DNA, the building blocks of life, opened the door to many more significant scientific breakthroughs in our time.
This discovery has had a huge impact on our understanding of life as we know it, and in particular has provided the framework for some very significant developments in the areas of medical research and criminal investigations. In the twenty-first century a new race is on, for the elusive “theory of everything”. The challenge here involves drawing together 
multiple, widely accepted, but at times seemingly contradictory theories (such as quantum theory, the theory of relativity, string theory, etc) under a single unifying whole - the so-called, but yet to be discovered, “theory of everything”.This challenge is proving particularly elusive for scientists, but I believe the church also needs to embark upon a similar quest lest it continue on a path of segmentation and eventual separation.
As I see it, there tends to be three main focal points that people, by virtue of personality, interest, culture, upbringing or otherwise, tend to be drawn towards within the church; worship, mission, and social justice. Of course, these three categories are not mutually exclusive, nor an exhaustive representation of the possibilities that exist, and they are of course generalisations as well, but from my observations it appears that people tend to lean towards one of these particular areas more heavily than they do to others. The danger here is that people lean “too far”, becoming exclusivist in their approach to Christian living and misunderstanding and even looking down upon others who do not share their views or passion in their particular area of interest.
For example, those who lean in the direction of “worship” tend to place a great emphasis upon the weekly gathering. A lot of preparation goes into this meeting, with practices, musical arrangements, sourcing new songs, movie clips, decorations, sermon preparation and so on. These are all worthwhile activities for worship is a good thing. We are created to worship and enjoy God’s presence, but without the added dimensions of mission and addressing the issues of injustice that exist within the world we risk becoming “Sunday” Christians; only interested in the next service and never actually engaging with the world around us.
Similar dangers abound in the other two categories I have suggested. Those who lean towards “social justice” are passionate about righting the wrongs that exist within the world. This particular emphasis has received much attention in the last five to ten years and rightly so. Before that time we’d rarely even heard of phrases such as “fair trade” or “people trafficking”. Sure, the church had been involved in dealing with these issues in the past but what has changed dramatically is how accessible the solutions have become. The average Christian now has the opportunity to become a part of the solution, not just your heavyweights like John Wesley, William Wilberforce, or W.T. Stead. Simple things like what thinking about what chocolate, tea and coffee we purchase are making a difference for those who produce these commodities. Recently we saw Cadbury in the UK and now in Australia release “fair trade”
labelled chocolate, as a direct result of the pressure that has been placed upon this company from those with a particular interest in social justice issues.
However we must remember that Christians are not the only ones trumpeting this horn. This is not a bad thing, of course. The more, the merrier. But the danger is that as we address these issues the “why?” becomes detached from the “how”. There is a significant threat that social justice activity loses its theological framework, and so successes such as the “conversion” of Cadbury, become “human” successes and not God’s. We put the pressure on the company and we convinced them to change their ways. We forget to acknowledge and thank God for his activity in sanctifying one more of the impure and unjust structures that have existed within society.
I could continue, but you get the picture.
I guess what I am trying to suggest here is not that we stop any of these activities. That would be an absolute travesty. Nor am I suggesting that those who have a particular bent towards “mission” should suddenly stop and get on with the “real” issues of worship or addressing social justice issues. Again, that would just be arrogant and misguided. Rather, I would like to propose a “theory of everything”; a theological framework that I hope each of these emphases, and indeed others that come to mind (education, youth and children, aged care etc.), can be one part of. If each of us can hold onto this “theory of everything” then perhaps there is the opportunity to see ourselves as contributing to the whole, and thus benefiting each of the other areas.
So here’s my suggested “theory of everything” summed up in a phrase I picked up in Clark Pinnock’s Flame of Love - “social sanctification”. If we try and look at this issue from God’s perspective here is what we see. In creation God saw that everything was “very good”, in other words the whole was holy - it was “socially sanctified”. Then sin enters the equation and causes all the problems that we see within individuals and society as a whole. But, against the popular myth that sin caused “separation from God”, God remains very much interested in his creation. He does not separate himself from his people, but rather sets about the task of “sanctifying” that which is no longer “very good”. This takes place by means of floods, covenants, the calling out of a particular people as a royal priesthood, a sacrificial cultic system, the provision of land, the continued self-revelation of God’s self by means of the Scriptures, and ultimately through the Christ event and the sending of the Holy Spirit into creation. We also possess the eschatological hope that is revealed in passages such as Revelation which reveal a time when creation will ultimately be re-created (note not destroyed), and return to a state of being “very good” once again. This is, as I see it, God’s ultimate purposes in the world, and I describe this process as “social sanctification”. The miracle is that God invites us to be involved and equips us for the task in this ongoing process.
Within this broader category of “social sanctification” we can see many possible sub-categories that contribute to this ultimate goal of restoring creation to being “very good” once again. These include, but are not limited to, the three main categories listed above. Worship; restoring right relationship between humanity and God by means of attributing to God the praise that he is due as God. This is social sanctification and addresses the rampant individualism that sin is founded upon and continues to infect society with. Mission; eliminating the barriers that exist preventing those who are not a part of the people of God from entering into fellowship with the Triune God and true fellowship with creation. This is social sanctification and responds to the call of God to share the good news of the Gospel with the entire world. Social justice; directly addressing issues of injustice and inequality that particularly affect the poor, disadvantaged, marginalised of society, not forgetting issues related to ecology, for the betterment of all creation. This is social sanctification and recognises that the Christian faith is not just about “me and my relationship with Jesus”, but about God’s restorative activity within the world which we are called to be a part of.
The more I think about this theory, the more it resonates with me, and the more I think it has value within the Christian church. One of the major problems that scientists face in their pursuit for this elusive theory is that a “theory of everything” must be a theory of EVERYTHING. It must encompass every known scientific endeavour and include all possible outcomes. So too for this theological “theory of everything”.
So it’s time to take this theory from the hypothetical and trial it within the test tube. Does it fit? Does it work? Are the outcomes consistent? Is it possible for all Christian activity, thought and practice to be conflated beneath this umbrella?
The task is massive, but I think the call to “make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace” (Ephesians 4:3) calls for such an endeavour.
For the glory of the Triune God and for the purpose of His kingdom, may it be so.
Writer: Captain Adam Couchman is currently the Director for the School for Christian Studies at Booth College, Australia Eastern Territory. He loves reading, talking, discussing, thinking, and re-thinking all things theological. Most of all, he just wants to “be Holy as God is holy”. Adam is married to Megan and together they have two girls - Brielle and Annabelle.
Categories
- 1000 Post Celebration
- Areopagus
- Belief
- Blogroll
- COMING SOON
- Concise Oxford
- Creation
- Creative Arts
- Double~take
- Easter
- Ecclesia
- Education
- Ephemera
- FAD
- Featured
- From Russia with Blogs
- Gen whY?
- History
- JustThinking
- Lives lived
- Match factory
- Match Factory Events
- Ordination
- Personae
- Politics
- Power
- Ragamuffin
- Ramblings
- Redux - The Best of
- Resources
- Resurrected writers
- Reviews
- Rubicon Books
- Rubiconography
- Shades of grey
- Shades of grey
- Supper Club
- theRubi-Blog
- Think
- Thinkaloud
- Thought
- Uncategorized
- Urbanities
- Vox populi
Sound and Fury
- Does Power Corrupt? 19 Charlee, Errin Hogan, Errin Hogan
- With God on our side 19 Hank Harwell, Robert Deidrick, John Stephenson
- What The Hell? (Part One: Bell's Hell) 13 Phil, Jim, Jim
- Officers - "The shrinking pool" 41 Thimon, David Hutchinson, Rob
- Resurrected writers: Catherine Booth 1 Michelle Townsend
