|
Image or Offering
from JAC Issue Eight
by Graham Harris
Charles Swindoll, in a reissued book, The
Bride, has made the statement, “Don’t
work on your image, work on your offering.”
When Swindoll made that statement he was speaking about
showing readiness
for Christ’s return by living a sacrificial life. Swindoll
went on to say: Consider
your life as little more than an offering poured out to God,
rather than a polished
monument for men to admire[1]
The Salvation Army has, arguably, the best image of any
organization on Earth.
The late General Frederick Coutts said to cadets, on several
occasions, “You
wear the most respected uniform on earth”.
This excellent image seems to be the result of two combining
factors; one is the
consistent doing of good works and the other is the effective
making known of
some of those good works.
If anybody attempts to say that our good works are waning then
they know more
than is revealed in a reading of our current Year Book.
So, does Swindoll have anything to say to us? Perhaps he does.
He emphasizes
the basic commitment to doing what we believe wants us to,
rather than to
making those doings known. To do that must have some
considerable
implications for our “Public (or, in some territories and
commands, what has
come to be known as “community”) Relations departments. We
have come to
depend so much upon these departments. In some parts of the
Army world they
are the major winners of support and dollars, which frequently
go together.
However, I wonder, could it be true that there has been a
subtle shift from “doing”
to that of “image”?
I have only had one major difficulty within the organization
and it was painfully
obvious that while privately there was great concern for me
personally, officially,
image was what mattered. I was roundly condemned for standing,
publicly
against a political evil.
The Army has not been historically “nice” about taking the axe
to political, moral
or social evils.
Commissioner S. Carvosso Gauntlett’s book, Social Evils the
Army Has
Challenged remains an exciting record of the Army working,
very strongly, at its
offering and not being, primarily, concerned with image. Each
chapter of this
work records our organization's determination to deal with
social and moral evils.
There are also recorded in this work the objections of
persons, “high” and “low” to
this work. The forces of evil are portrayed as being ranged
against the Army’s
“Maiden Tribute” campaign, and the battle that was waged by
Salvationists, and
the popular press, against those who made profits from Japan’s
“Licensed
quarters” are recorded in this work. Also indicated is the
fact that one non-
Christian religion opposed our care for India’s criminal
tribes but that a
magnificent work was, nevertheless, undertaken. The fight
certainly left
Salvationists under the clear impression that their fight was
a costly and, in some
quarters, an unpopular one.
Nor is such only “ancient history” in the often unpopular
moves that we have
made. When Major David Brunt ran a rescue work in Sydney’s red
light area
what he and his team did was very unpopular with certain
people. At one time,
the major and each member of his staff had been beaten up at
least twice. The
bashings that they suffered did not only come from the
underworld but for some
highly-placed persons who were annoyed at having their human
‘toys’ taken from
them. To those Salvationists “offering” was much more
important than image.
The problem for the Army is that as our unpopularity has
increased so our work,
and our opinion, on a whole variety of public and ethical
issues, is sought. When
we give that opinion on a specific moral issue (and that means
really give a
Christian view, and not necessarily one that is politically
correct), there is the
almost inevitable result that those who are otherwise-minded
than we are will
object. When that happens the Army must decide either to
acquiesce and
preserve the status-quo, or to take a stand, knowing that
flack will certainly
follow.
It is a matter of great regret that the Army has not always
raised its voice, and
maintained the strength of that voice against social and
political evils, such as
those in Commissioner Gauntlett’s work. No amount of
breast-beating will excuse
us for what we have not done. The tragic result of such
non-action is that failure
to make an “offering” may have seriously damaged our “image”
also.
This is a result on which the Army has no monopoly. The
failure of some
organizations to take a stand against the slaughter of Jews,
during the second
world war, when they knew what was going on, is one that is
not only
reprehensible but one that has lost those organizations the
respect of millions.
There are similar cases presently happening in our world is
patent. We should be
making our voice heard against genocide and oppression. We
will almost
certainly know when “offering” is neglected for “image” such a
result will follow. It
most certainly is not intended but that can be the result.
The positive which may come out of past failure is that we
learn the lesson and
do not allow, in the future, what is ‘politically correct’ to
silence our voice when
similar evils are practiced or perpetrated. Our “offering”
should always be to do
that which is acceptable to God and not concern with our
images in the eyes of
others. In the first way lies popularity, with God, in the
second the invidious
position of some popularity – for the present – but at the
possible cost of the
support of God, and of those who can clearly see that acts do
not agree with
profession.
I believe that one of the basic problems we encounter and
which contributes to
concern over offering is that we tend to be governed by those
who put the
organization first rather than by those who put the prophetic
voice first.
It is natural for the manager to conserve and preserve the
organization. It is
natural for the prophet to speak for God. Where these two are
in conjunction that
is good. Where they diverge the latter should be the voice
that prevails.
Dr Roger Green delivered the first “Coutts Memorial Lecture”
during a visit to
Australia. During that lecture he warned against government by
bureaucracy. I
quote:
We have not traditionally given the teacher and the preacher
…the place of
importance they have held in the historic Christian church.
Indeed, our Lord
himself fulfilled the office of teacher. Many times in our
history, the
teacher/preacher/scholar has been marginalized rather than
given the place of
central importance that the life of the church demands. It is
time now to affirm
that the teacher, the theologian, the preacher is the person
at the center of our
institutional life. [2]
That is something of particular poignancy to say to us. Why
should we argue so
strongly for the preacher/teacher/scholar to be at the center
of our organization?
The answer is, in part, that it is the persons who carry out
the offices of preacher,
teacher, scholar, who are more likely to speak with the
prophetic voice. The basic
responsibility of administrators is to preserve the
organization – and the tendency
there is to develop a bureaucracy that will conserve the image
rather than
exercise that work or talent which is germane to our growing
body – our offering.
To say that is not to indicate that administration is not
important. It is. We have
suffered greatly for poorly carried out administration. But,
if there is a conflict
what is prime; the declaration of God’s work, in the prophetic
voice (our true
offering) the latter must prevail or our silence will be most
destructive. To quote
again from Dr Green:
… the Army of the future will be pleased ,,, to place at the
center of our
institutional life the preacher, the teacher, the scholar –
not for the
aggrandisement of persons holding those offices – but because
the Scripture as
well as the tradition of the church has placed these people at
the center of our life
together.
Notes:
[1] Charles Swindoll, The Bride, p. 156
[2] Roger J. Green, Facing History: Our
Way Ahead for a Salvationist Theology. Being part of the F.L.
Coutts Memorial
Lecture, delivered in Sydney, Australia, Thursday, July 23,
1998.
|
