|
'De-armifying'
the Army
by Commissioner
Wesley Harris
MUST we 'de-armify' the Army in order to fulfill the Army's
mission?
The question -
spoken or unspoken - is being raised in many places. A report
from
India
would provide an extreme example as the following extract from
an article in Salvationist illustrates:
'The Evangelical Fellowship of India has issued a
statement urging Christians leaders to tone down 'spiritual
battle' language in a bid to prevent Hindu fundamental groups
taking advantage of inflammatory words to paint Christians in
India as anti-national. EFI cautions against using military
metaphors from the Bible because to do so is 'unloving,
inappropriate and counterproductive'. It says that 'warfare
vocabulary' such as army, attack, battle, campaign, conquer,
enemy, foes, forces, soldier, victory and weapons have been
used wrongly as motivational tools for mission.'
Now I am not
qualified to provide detailed comment on the situation in
India
although I would hope that our movement may be helped by the
fact that in that country we have been translating the
military metaphor into the language of love for nearly 120
years. Furthermore, it may be wondered whether the prejudices
of some extremist groups will ever be accommodated whatever
terms are employed. It is also regrettable if the
representatives of some other faiths do not show to Christians
the tolerance and understanding which their devotees expect to
find when they migrate to western countries.
But is the military metaphor which has served us well since
1878 now past its use-by date? Is that the reason why in some
corps - and even some territories - there is a tendency to
change traditional Army terms and substitute others, sometimes
ones borrowed from the churches?
Adaptation is a law of nature and certainly the Army has been
able to adapt to many cultures and conditions around the
world. We need the courage to change but prudence may require
it to be cautious courage.
Sometimes we have been too ready to exchange the dynamic terms
of Salvationism for the tired terms of other groups with
little evidence that this has made us more comprehensible or
acceptable to secular men and women.
Commissioner Bill Luttrell has written, 'We are a church like
no other church and an army like no other army'. I agree. The
Church Universal is not to be characterized by dull sameness.
We can dare to be different. We don't have to ape other
bodies; we can be ourselves.
With unity there can be diversity. The Army may not suit
everybody but, for all its faults, many of us feel that it is
the best thing we know.
A
few among us are like someone joining a rugby football club
and then complaining about the shape of the ball. They should
have joined a soccer club in the first place!
Our name - and
the quasi-military forms that go with it - brings instant
recognition in many parts of the world. The devoted service of
those who have gone before us makes our name a passport to
acceptance with many. That is certainly true where I live in
Australia.
Our name stands so high that I can only pray that we may be as
good as people think we are!
Multi-national companies are often ready to guard their name
with expensive law suits, if necessary. I am confident that if
the holder of a McDonald's franchise decided to change the
name to McTaggart there would be a swift response. A good name
is something to be prized!
It may be said that our quasi-military forms are no more than
a metaphor but metaphors matter. The name The Salvation Army
defines what we are as a movement, or at least what, under
God, we were meant to be. It points to our uniqueness, our
message and our mode. History would indicate that the change
of name from the Christian Mission to The Salvation Army
helped to bring cohesion and effectiveness to the work without
changing what we were essentially, namely a Christian mission.
Our ethos is closely related to our quasi military form as is
our solidarity as a far flung movement and yet a close knit
community around the world. I do not believe that we need
sacrifice our identity in order to fulfill our destiny as a
lively limb of the Body of Christ. History would testify to
the contrary and there is plenty of current experience to
verify that we can 'do the Army thing' and still be sensitive
to the feelings of modern men and women.
Our 'goodly heritage' is one of aggressive Christianity which
has always been offensive to some but nevertheless effective
with many.
Our call is not merely to passive membership but active
soldiership. I remind myself that at the center of the title
bestowed on me by the Army is the word 'mission'. A
commissioner without a mission would be a contradiction in
terms and an offence to Almighty God. But then, so would any
'Salvationist' without salvation and a desire to share it!
As one of our songs puts it, 'We are an army mobilized by God'
and we had better believe it!
|
