|
Time to Grow Up?
by
Captain Geoff Webb
(Captain Geoff Webb's article first appeared in 'ON
FIRE' magazine, read more at
www.salvationarmy.org.au/onfire)
Geoff Webb asks if the Army is ‘continuing
adolescence’ or ready for adulthood.
Identity versus relevance. The debate
surrounding these issues started long before ‘postmodernity’
had made any impact.
Should Christians offer the gospel on a
‘take-it-or-leave-it’ basis, after German-Swiss theologian
Karl Barth’s approach, perhaps? Or should we seek to make it
culturally relevant, whatever that may take, following Barth’s
German-American contemporary Paul Tillich?
Within The Salvation Army, with its own unique
subculture, we needed and need to address the issue as much as
anyone.
True to our ethos, we often adopted a
pragmatic, eclectic approach; we used whatever patterns,
methods and styles we thought might work. We explored
different possibilities, much like an adolescent tries on
different roles and personality traits. (I well remember my
teenage ‘sarcastic summer’!)
That adolescent approach sometimes presented
its own problems. We suffered from intellectual flabbiness—a
failure to think reflectively (and theologically) about what
we were exploring.
One example of this has been the enduring
impact of ‘dispensational pre-milleniallism’: a belief that
the world is hopelessly evil, embodied in the notion that
believers would all be raptured before the apocalyptic
tribulations that would precede the book of Revelation’s 1,000
years of Christ’s reign on earth.
The Army by the mid-20th century had been
heavily influenced in this premillennial approach by the
Schofield Reference Bible, and in the latter part of the
century by the writings of Hal Lindsey, Tim LaHaye and others.
Our own theological origins were ‘post-millenial’:
believing that God was favourably disposed to the created
world and wanting to redeem it, as embodied in the notion that
evil will gradually be defeated by the expansion of the
Kingdom of God throughout history until Christ’s second
coming. This is clearly reflected in many of our Army songs
and early writings, including the line in our Founder’s song -
“the whole world redeeming”.*
Yet the impact of pre-millenial thinking has
negatively affected our missional engagement, our
understanding of our role within the kingdom of God in the
world, and our theology. That includes our understanding of
human suffering.
How could we understand or identify with
Christians undergoing persecution and tribulation, if we felt
that we would get ‘raptured’ before tribulation occurred to
us—leaving someone else to grab the steering wheel of our car?
As we moved through our ‘adolescence’—the
Army’s own identity crisis—the result was much handwringing.
The ‘worship wars’ (surrounding such monumentally serious
matters as ‘the song book’ versus ‘plastic choruses’) were but
a symptom of a much deeper issue that continues to polarise
Salvationists: the need to consider what is the essence of The
Salvation Army.
Catholic theologian Hans Küng’s distinction
between ‘essence’ and ‘form’ needs to be understood and
explored within our Army context.
‘Essence’ as concerns a church, involves those
things that are at the heart of who we are, and without which
we would cease to exist as The Salvation Army.
‘Forms’ are those elements that are an outward
expression of essence and, however helpful, are not
essential.
Is it possible to be a Salvation Army corps
without a songster brigade or a brass band or a contemporary
group? Of course it is—many small corps have never had one or
other of these music sections. They can be helpful but they
are not essential; they are therefore ‘form’ rather than
‘essence’.
At the Army’s 2006 international symposium,
Major Philip Cairns stated that the Army’s ‘decline in western
countries would suggest that it has suffered as much from
being focused on form as any other institutional church’.
The major indicated a need ‘to help
Salvationists grapple with the essence in such a way as
to be able to shape and construct Salvation Army forms
that will be relevant and effective’.
Lieut-Colonel Graham Durston’s article ‘Many
Voices, one Salvation Army’ (initially published in the
Australia Eastern Territory’s Horizons journal in 2005 and
re-published in numerous Salvation Army journals last year,
including On Fire) commented about many competing
viewpoints in ‘our Army’.
In describing them, he sought to identify what
the different ‘voices’ were saying. An unfortunate flaw in his
article involved his identification of neo-Salvationism (‘new
expressions of’ Salvationism) with primitive Salvationism—in
fact they appear to be poles apart.
The lieut-colonel did, however, note the
importance of unity in diversity. Unity must revolve around
our essence; diversity relates to forms.
One way to understand diversity is to examine a
‘relevance/identity’ continuum, or line. Those at the
‘relevance’ end of the continuum, including neo-Salvationists,
argue we can afford to sacrifice anything relating to ‘forms’
that gets in the way of relevance.
Some also suggest we need to be externally
referenced—we must orientate ourselves to societal norms, and
respond with relevance when dealing with ethical issues. This
has been the position of the Uniting Church in Australia, for
example.
Recognising the societal norms regarding
homosexuality—even among clergy—the Uniting Church has
developed an ethical position in its ‘Sexuality Report’ that
seeks to respond with what it hopes to be a relevant position.
The result has not been without its own pain
among sections of that church.
By contrast, those at the ‘identity’
end—including traditional Salvationist voices and primitive
Salvationist voices—contend we need to remain true to our
past, and that it is often very difficult to separate form
from essence.
Our identity, they say, is more important than
issues of relevance.
Primitive Salvationists like Captain Stephen
Court offer the argument that ‘prophetic’ trumps ‘relevant’;
thus, ethical issues need to be internally referenced.
Interestingly, this is the position that The
Salvation Army has typically taken in its ethical responses.
The issue of relevance has been further
complicated by the impact of postmodern uncertainty. Our Army
has been infected by it, including the postmodern emphasis on
tolerance.
David Clendenin (Christianity Today)
draws a helpful distinction between ‘social tolerance’ and
‘intellectual tolerance’. Intellectual tolerance says all
beliefs should be respected as valid while social tolerance
respects a person’s right to a belief, but holds the view that
not all beliefs are valid.
Expressing social tolerance does not require us
to sacrifice our own integrity; we can respect other views
without having to agree with them.
For some time we seem to have allowed
intellectual tolerance within the Army, as we explored the
limits of the identity/relevance continuum. But what happens
when that exploration goes too far?
Durston noted that ‘theological positions
foreign to historical Salvationist understandings [are
sometimes] being espoused’.
One example of a more extreme exploration is
the UK’s ‘Alove - The Salvation Army for a new generation’
brand, which erases our military metaphor (including any form
of uniform), minimises association with the main Army brand,
and de-emphasises the soldiers’ covenant—to the point of
dismissing it.
In a time when we are considering issues of
Salvationist essence and form it would seem important that,
despite adopting culturally relevant forms, we do not
sacrifice the essence of what it means to be The Salvation
Army.
It is vital we also identify the acceptable
limits along the continuum, to prevent the possibility of
self-destruction. A helpful analogy can be found in the early
days of the church, in the process of forming the canon of the
New Testament.
There, too, Christians struggled; some wanted
to preserve the continuity of the faith with its Jewish
heritage. Others sought to connect Christianity with
prevailing philosophy within the Gentile world.
The boundaries of what was acceptable were
established; the canon marked the limits of ‘acceptable
diversity’.
Jewish expressions of Christianity were judged
unacceptable when they regarded strict legal observance as
more important than love, or when they clung to a limited view
of Jesus, or became rigid and exclusive.
Gentile expressions of Christianity became
unacceptable when they claimed spiritual superiority and
failed to respect the knowledge and spiritual experience of
other believers; or when its liberalism reduced the
significance of the exalted Christ; or when it separated the
unity of the earthly Jesus and the exalted lord.
The limits of diversity need to be defined in
terms of essence and form. In a sense we need to develop our
own ‘canon’ (or measuring-stick) of Salvationist expression.
Voices focusing on identity need to avoid so
confusing essence and form as to make them identical. Taken
to its extreme might see the development of an Amish Salvation
Army expression previously warned against by General Paul
Rader (Rtd).
‘Amish’ Salvationists would reject any need for
relevance, becoming increasingly eccentric and exclusivist.
Voices focusing on relevance, however, need to
avoid attempting to get rid of essence as well as form. Taken
to its extreme, relevance-seekers may develop a Salvationist
expression that would see itself as rejecting any need for
identity, and then succumbing to doctrinal error and
syncretism (the intermeshing of different cultural
perspectives into the one belief system to the point of
corrupting the faith) .
So what is the essence of The Salvation Army?
This is a matter for continuing debate, and will no doubt
exercise many of us for years to come. Could I suggest some
possibilities?
Salvation of the whole person. A renewed
holiness emphasis. The centrality of our soldiers’ covenant.
Our military metaphor as a vital expression of our apostolic
ministry.
If such things are seen to be our essence, then
varieties of Salvationism that stress social justice without
evangelism, or evangelism without social justice, would be
seen as deficient.
Expressions that eliminate the soldiers’
covenant, and commitment to our doctrines, would also be
rejected.
While the military metaphor may vary in the
extent of its articulation, we are not The Salvation Club—the
Army expression is not merely form, but part of our true
essence, although it is shown in various forms. (Hopefully,
this attempt to identify our essence will result in a flurry
of letters to the editor; continuing the debate around essence
and form.)
Cairns maintains that successful churches
know who they are and what their purpose is; they succeed
in conveying this message to their people, and ensuring their
people are committed to it.
It is time for us, within ‘our Army’, to leave
behind the uncertainty of our adolescence and express the
confidence of maturity.
Perhaps it is time for us to eliminate
intellectual tolerance within the Army, and outline the
acceptable limits of diversity.
Some varieties of Salvationism may need to be
deemed invalid, even though we may respect those who are
genuinely seeking to create such expressions. Firm but gentle
pastoral responses may need to be shown to people who operate
‘outside the canon’.
Persistence within error would even be seen as
part of the ‘heretic spirit’ and should be subject to the
correction of church discipline. (Perhaps there could be a
‘General’s Inquisition’ established in every territory!)
It’s time for us to move out of adolescent
uncertainty and exploration, and into the confidence and
certainty of adulthood.
 *
There have been some excellent articles about this in
Word & Deed, the
Army’s journal of theology and ministry.
Captain Geoff R. Webb and his wife, Captain
Kalie Webb, are the corps officers at Ingle Farm (SA). Geoff
has previously served in educational and corps appointments,
has a doctorate in biblical studies and a passion to prove
that ‘it is possible to live out what Jesus said by
understanding, loving and living God’s word’.
|
