|
Who are We?
by
Captain Grant Sandercock-Brown
When I played
rugby for Blakehurst, in the dressing room prior to the game
we would get in a huddle, fiercely gripping each other
jerseys, glaring in each others eyes. We would start noisily
running on the spot as a designated leader with passion and
aggression would yell out ‘who are we’? To which we would
respond (perceptively enough) ‘Blakehurst’. This exercise
would be repeated twice and it was customary to make the final
answer the loudest and the most convincing. Then it was game
on. I must confess to always enjoying the sound of metal
football studs on concrete, consequently I enjoyed the running
on the spot bit (where my lack of speed was never an issue). I
must also confess that I was a bit embarrassed by the whole
group intensity thing and that my ‘Blakehursts’ were often
inadequate in volume and vigour. Nevertheless, our fiery
leader posed an interesting and eternal question, ‘who are we?
And if ever there was time for Salvationists to
(metaphorically) grip each others jerseys, look each other in
the eyes and ask that question it is now. I mean, who are we?
Or perhaps, ‘how should we answer that question’, ‘is it
possible to answer that question’ or even better, ‘who’
exactly should answer that question? It’s not a new one of
course. The ‘who are we’ question has been posed many times
with corresponding answers about ‘non-negotiables’ and
‘distinctives’ and ‘core values’(I’ve offered a few responses
myself). But I have a growing conviction that there is a fatal
flaw in all such discussions.
As I see it, it is not to that we can’t define our non-negotiables
in that somehow they are there and we just haven’t been able
to articulate them, to name precisely who we are. The problem
is that we can’t define our non-negotiables because no-one has
the authority to do so. It is true that John Gowans came
closest with his excellent mantra of Save Souls etc … but as a
cadet in college when it was first said, I can assure you that
people immediately interpreted his statement any way they
wanted. We needed him to be there for another ten years to
explain what he really meant.
It seems to me that the only way for us to identify our non-negotiables
as a sustaining idea for a world-wide international missional
movement is to find a visionary, dynamic and prophetic woman
or man of God and make them general for at least twenty years.
That is, we need to give someone the authority and the time to
define (or re-define) who we are.
People sometimes say ‘thank goodness the days of the
franchised Army are over, we need freedom to be what we need
to be in each place’. Fine. But understand that the reason
there was a franchised Army (i.e. we looked and sounded
remarkably similar all over the world) was not in the first
instance because there was heavily authoritarian centralised
control but because there was a prophetic idea
(non-negotiable) called the Salvation Army and thousands of
people committed themselves to it and thousands more got saved
because of it.
If I was to ask the question, ‘who are we?’ I suspect I would
get a whole raft of answers with different emphases, different
theologies, the product of a 100 different visions and life
experiences. Who will choose amongst them? Who will decide and
once decided have the authority to say ‘this is the way ahead,
follow me as I follow the Master’? No-one. A three year
General can’t. A Territorial Commander no longer can. What
chance does a Corps Officer have?
So what am I saying? In the context of a thoroughly scriptural
and Wesleyan world view and a mission to take the gospel to
the “whosoever”, particularly the poor, find the next John
Gowans (or William or Catherine or George Scott Railton) and
make them general. Within that context it probably doesn’t
matter what their non-negotiables are, it just matters that
they have some. Give them the job for twenty years. Some who
disagree with this General may leave, that’s OK. We cannot
accommodate and live out everyone’s ideas but we do need to
live out God’s idea for us. We need one overarching and
sustaining idea about who we are and what we need to be doing
and a leader who can define it, proclaim it and make it
happen.
In the West we are on the slippery slope of incipient
congregationalism and that is very dangerous. We must stop
uncritically reading Willow Creek et al! Not because it is bad
but because it is not us! How can an international missional
movement possibly buy into an idea that ‘the local church is
the hope of the world’? (Strictly speaking by the way, Jesus
is the hope of the world, not a church). Non-sacramentalism
will not kill us, contemporary worship styles will not kills
us, not using the song book will not kill us, but lack of
commitment to a sustaining centralised vision (of which
congregationalism is a symptom) will ensure the demise of the
Army as we know it. In the first chapter of Acts Jesus tells
his disciples that they will be his witnesses throughout the
world, not his healthy congregation builders (Jesus never says
go out and grow healthy churches or anything remotely like
it). And in the great commission in Matthew, Jesus’ paradigm
is ‘go and tell’, not ‘settle down and invite’. It is OK to be
us! We just need someone to articulate what ‘us’ should mean.
We are not a denomination growing mega-churches we are an
international mega-mission and somehow we need to state what
that means clearly and believe in it wholeheartedly.
As the Salvation Army we are in partnership with God to save
the world he loves so much, particularly the marginalised. Of
course Booth said it much more pithily, “go for souls and go
for the worst”. It’s actually a very big idea. An
international missional movement needs a non-negotiable big
idea, a sustaining vision. And we need a leader to state it
with authority, passion and commitment in a way that will
speak to our times and with the time to bring the idea to
life. After all, if I’m ever in a pre-match huddle with the
General and she fixes me with a steely glare and asks ‘who are
we’, I want to know the answer!
Debating our identity is interesting. Unfortunately, giving
someone the authority to articulate a big idea that will
sustain us as us in the 21st century may prove impossible.
|
