|
Are We a Metaphor?
by
Anthony Castle
A dangerous
assumption
In recent discussion and debate a vital question, or
common assumption, about The Salvation Army’s identity has
arisen. Basically, is TSA’s militant metaphor contradictory
and irrelevant to the gospel and the culture in which we
minister? In my view, the crux of this issue is not the
relevance or alleged irrelevance of a militant identity, but
the assumption that it’s metaphorical. I concede that the term
‘metaphor’ has been employed in the past to explain TSA’s
militant modus operandi, though I suspect for lack a better
word. You see when one assumes that TSA is a metaphor one
perceives its identity, cause and methods as figurative,
immaterial, and like any descriptive device, open to
alteration. If we are a metaphorical army in a metaphorical
war, then we are not really an army and this is not a war.
The assumption is based upon the notion that militancy is but
one of many images presented in scripture to give simple
description to our faith and practice. After all, it is not as
if militancy is the only descriptive image offered in
scripture. What of ‘reaping the harvest’ or ‘running the
race’? Scripture utilizes agricultural and athletic themes
frequently, usually alongside the militant image, and you
don’t see any other denominations getting excited and
transforming into the Harvesters of Deliverance with uniform
overalls and pitchforks. No Athletes of Redemption either,
equipped with vestment shorts and relay baton. So why do we
take the militant image so seriously?
The sword of the Word - Eph 6:17, Heb 4:12
We take it seriously because scripture does. The militant
image appears often in the epistles, frequently terming
Christians as “soldiers” (Php 2:25, 2 Tim 2:3-4, Phm 1:2)
engaged in a “struggle” (Heb 12:4, Eph 6:12), a “fight” (1 Tim
1:18, 2 Tim 4:7) or a “war” (2 Cor 10:4, 1 Pe 2:11). We are
given divine armor (Eph 6) and weaponry (2 Cor 6:7, 10;4) to
combat the strongholds of Satan, whose title translates to
“enemy”. There are also a number of linguistic references in
scripture regarding militancy, for example ‘paganus’, the term
for those not who aren’t Christian, was originally used when
describing one unengaged in military service.1 The
designation of Jesus as ‘kurios’ was actually an authoritarian
title for a military commander.2 Scripture employs
a detailed militant rhetoric that easily supercedes any
alternative image in frequency, depth and spiritual
application.
Ultimately, the militant imagery in scripture refers to the
unseen reality of spiritual warfare and its apocalyptic
conclusion. The spiritual realms are plagued with wars that
steer the fate of creation (Dan 10:13, Eph 6:12, Rev 12:7),
until Jesus returns to “make war”, covered in blood wielding a
sword (Rev 19).
Literary vs Literal
So militant imagery applies literally to the metaphysical,
but what about our physical action? Isn’t the militant view of
our ministry still just a metaphor? I don’t think so. When we
feed a hungry person, the experience of hunger is actually
overcome and defeated. When we lead someone to Jesus, they
have actually switched sides in a violent, cosmic struggle. We
are literal protagonists involved in a literal conflict. We
can express ourselves metaphorically in relation to language,
but not in behavior. We cannot be or do a
metaphor.
If, for argument’s sake, TSA must function as a literary
mechanism, it may be better suited to metonymy. A metonymy is
a figure of speech where the name of something is substituted
with one of its attributes or associations, for example,
referring to a Christian and their faith as a soldier in a
war.
However, metonymy is just another grammatical term, and though
it may be useful in theological theory, it will fail when
applied to our practice. Ultimately, this splitting linguistic
headache has to do with our culture’s preoccupation with
categorization and definition. It is a reaction symptomatic of
the postmodern mentality. If something appears anachronistic
or idealistic, we feel compelled to employ our most effective
tool of subversion to devalue it… a definition.
Manifest Mystery/Sacramental life
The problem is that these categories just don’t contain
the TSA. We can’t function as either metaphor or metonymy, so
could it be that we actually transcend both? When something
eludes definition, it is either meaningless, or alternatively,
a mystery. To avoid becoming yet another meaningless
institution, we might need to advance into the 3rd millennium
claiming the transcendent nature of our identity, not
rejecting it. Avoiding attempts to fit into inappropriate
categories and just function as a living, breathing,
manifestation of mystery.
This works on the most basic level. Tell your neighbor that
you’re an official member of a conservative, protestant Church
denomination/charity organization and they’ll have turned
their back on you and walked off before you’ve even finished
the sentence. Tell them you’re a covenanted warrior fighting
to banish social and spiritual evils from the world and
they’ll at least pay attention.
Mystery never functions in technical categories. Am I washed
by the blood of the lamb? Technically no, my body remains
untouched by the physical blood of any particular type of farm
animal, infant or otherwise. However, the sacrificial death of
Jesus Christ has a cleansing and restorative effect on my
person and life. It is not a truth that we would ever deny.
Context of culture or a context of compassion
The question of metaphor never entered into the theology
of our spiritual ancestors. William Booth put it quite simply,
“God led us to make an Army. We called it an Army. And
seeing it was an Army to deliver mankind from sin and the
power of the Devil, we called it an Army of deliverance. A
Salvation Army.”3
As far as William Booth was concerned, there were “killing
armies”, then there was The Salvation Army. We weren’t the
fake army, the others were.
Then again, maybe the question never arose. After all, the
original Salvationists were probably too busy leading tens of
thousands to Jesus, effecting legislation to liberate women
and children from prostitution and industrial exploitation as
well as leading an expression of the Church that spread
dynamic spiritual and social reform across the planet. Why
would they bother questioning what they were?
The weary postmodern suspicion that would have us mistake the
sacramental reality of spiritual warfare for an anachronistic
image will pass, especially in the context of mission. What
does the homeless junkie overdosing in an alleyway have to say
about our detailed and obtuse theological identity? What about
the prostituted women on my street who’ll be beaten by their
pimps tonight? The 44 children that have starved to death in
the time that it took for you to read this article? We are not
a metaphor to them. We would do well to discard the literary
categories and claim the literal reality. Make no mistake.
This is war.
Footnotes
1- Major Phil Needham, Community in Mission: A Salvationist
Eccelesiogy, (The Campfield Press, Atlanta, 1987), p.126.
2- Major Phil Needham, Community in Mission: A Salvationist
Eccelesiogy, (The Campfield Press, Atlanta, 1987), p.126.
3- General Eva Burrows (Rtd), quote from the introduction of
the lecture The Identification Marks of The Salvation Army as
part of the Christian Church.
|
