The entire mission of The Salvation Army
I am having a conversation full of my usual philosophical hoo haw with a friend of mine. He is working very hard on developing a philosophy of mission that will encourage the full mission of The Salvation Army. I have asked him what he really sees as the "full mission" of The Salvation Army.
I know we have a pretty decent mission statement in the States. Meeting human need and preaching the gospel, without discrimination etc. That sounds really good.
He is struggling with keeping "the spiritual" aspect of the work in the social ministry. We have been having this discussion on whether or not it is a matter of keeping social aspect in the spiritual ministry. In other words, "Do we perform social service ministry for conversion purposes or do we perform social services because in themselves they are spiritual service?"
He contends that the social ministry aspect overwhelms the spiritual many times and "God is relegated to a 50% person in the chapel." I contend that to really be authentically Christian we really offer our social ministry not expecting conversion or anything else because that is really Christian and being social in our spiritual work.
In fact doesn't our theology teach us that everything we do must be a sacramental experience. Service is done as an act of worship not as tool to draw people into the club. That does not mean that we don't witness to the power of Christ to transform, but we also don't hold it over people's heads either and make them feel as if they "owe" us to become Christians because we have helped them. We should be bearing the image of Christ around. Isn't that our ultimate spiritual ministry?
I just happen to think if we do anything out of a desire to get people to join our club, we may be bordering on being less than genuine in our love for them. On the other hand, do I short change the Gospel by not being aggressive?
When Jesus asked us to baptize and make disciples, how did he want us to do that? Was it through loving or was it through apologetics or slick methodology?
You see where I am going on this? What is mission? Brian McLaren in his book "A Generous Orthodoxy" says this, "In a pluralistic world, a religion is value based on the benefits it brings to its non-adherents. I think that has something to say to us about the way we think of mission. Is it really about getting people to join the club? Is it about being open-handed and unconditional in our love expecting nothing in return? Is it both?
So yes, I have been struggling with this whole idea of social/spiritual/integrated mission. My friend and I are having this very important discussion because we both want the best for the Kingdom. We want people to know Jesus. I just wonder if we are thinking about different methodologies or philosophies?
What do you think?
I know we have a pretty decent mission statement in the States. Meeting human need and preaching the gospel, without discrimination etc. That sounds really good.
He is struggling with keeping "the spiritual" aspect of the work in the social ministry. We have been having this discussion on whether or not it is a matter of keeping social aspect in the spiritual ministry. In other words, "Do we perform social service ministry for conversion purposes or do we perform social services because in themselves they are spiritual service?"
He contends that the social ministry aspect overwhelms the spiritual many times and "God is relegated to a 50% person in the chapel." I contend that to really be authentically Christian we really offer our social ministry not expecting conversion or anything else because that is really Christian and being social in our spiritual work.
In fact doesn't our theology teach us that everything we do must be a sacramental experience. Service is done as an act of worship not as tool to draw people into the club. That does not mean that we don't witness to the power of Christ to transform, but we also don't hold it over people's heads either and make them feel as if they "owe" us to become Christians because we have helped them. We should be bearing the image of Christ around. Isn't that our ultimate spiritual ministry?
I just happen to think if we do anything out of a desire to get people to join our club, we may be bordering on being less than genuine in our love for them. On the other hand, do I short change the Gospel by not being aggressive?
When Jesus asked us to baptize and make disciples, how did he want us to do that? Was it through loving or was it through apologetics or slick methodology?
You see where I am going on this? What is mission? Brian McLaren in his book "A Generous Orthodoxy" says this, "In a pluralistic world, a religion is value based on the benefits it brings to its non-adherents. I think that has something to say to us about the way we think of mission. Is it really about getting people to join the club? Is it about being open-handed and unconditional in our love expecting nothing in return? Is it both?
So yes, I have been struggling with this whole idea of social/spiritual/integrated mission. My friend and I are having this very important discussion because we both want the best for the Kingdom. We want people to know Jesus. I just wonder if we are thinking about different methodologies or philosophies?
What do you think?
posted by Larry at 12:31 PM
40 Comments:
Ok, so I'll take a stab at by giving the approach we take here in our community. First, we involve everyone in the corps social ministry (corps members, volunteers from every social arena, Advisory Board, other ministers and churches). We don't call it social services, but a ministry just like youth ministries and adult ministries. Sometimes semantics is what divides our thinking (but not the total problem). We instruct from the pulpit, in the boardroom, at our food bank, at every public relations engagement, and on the street encounters about the importance of helping each other. There are no strings attached, no hoops to jump through, and no expectations forced on anyone to "join the club-even our other ministry groups". Just because they don't "attend" doesn't mean we don't have an investment in their spiritual growth and development. We see donors, social ministry participants, Advisory Board, and even other ministers as our extended congregation. Does having their spiritual health a priority mean I have to "preach" at them...no. As it has been commented many times on this and other blogs, we have a duty to demonstrate the gospel (a little less mouth, a little more heart and hands).
Hey larry I have been read and responding to bussey's blog for some time and never even knew you had one.
This is a hard one. I think as salvationists we need to look deeper than the Booths to the our wesleyan heritage.
It all boils down to love. Real Love. Authentic Love. Mildren Bangs-Wynkoop described this love as something that entangles all of Weslyan theology "making it messy"
If I see someone hungry I will feed him because I love him if I see someone who does not know the saving power of christ I will tell them. If I know they will never except jesus will I still help them of course because I love them.
If we lose the tension we risk becoming like the YMCA on on extreme or a particular church I attened recently where they leave the building before communion and pretend to feed the poor symbolicly because the liturgy is written that way even though their community does nothing to help realistically.
Hey Larry,
Nice one! And Steve- glad you found Larry's blog!
I would agree that we can sometimes bifurcate our ministries into 'spiritual' and 'social' - the spiritual side being very 'churchy' and the social side being very... well... 'social'...
Like Nicole says, it might be a 'semantic' issue in that this represents just another aspect of ministry that people are involved in. However, I think the breakdown occurs not on the semantic level, but on the human level - when we consider ourselves as just being a part of the 'spiritual-' or the 'social-' part of our organizational identity.
I have unfortunately witnessed this in certain places where people come to be involved in worship, but don't want to be hanging out with people from a different socio-economic grouping! This type of absurdity causes our entire understanding of what is church to tailspin and eventually implode!
I think Wesley's concept of 'the world is my parish' is important in this regard. We need to broaden our understanding of what is 'spiritual' to being all facets/ aspects of what we do - allowing our actions to speak louder than our words. However, this doesn't mean that we turn every act of kindness and every formal/informal service to the community gets reduced into an 'it's-Jesus-or-hell' free-for-all! This just turns people off and embitters them to the life-changing power of the gospel. "They'll know we are Christians by our love..."
Redemptive mission deals in wholes, not compartments. Therefore every facet of ministry is part of our overarching mission, it just focuses on different aspects (both the eternal and the temporal) and requires different strategies.
I believe "social service" is spiritual service. I find it interesting on a lot of levels that the story Jesus holds up as an example of "loving your neighbor" is the Good Samaritan. Not only did a hard-sell for the Gospel never occur, the server as far as the story goes was anonymous to the served.
I think our mission is best served by, and perhaps well defined by, the idea of "transparent service:" that we are ready to declare our motivation for serving - our love for God and love for our neighbor - as any opportunity arises. "...Let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven." Matthew 5:16
I believe, though, that a problem arises when we, as a church neck-deep in social ministry, engage non-believers to be the point-people on the delivery of "services" as we have on occasion been know to do.
It sounds to me like you and your friend are "converging on an agreement," coming from different directions. It doesn't sound like your far off philosophically, just worried about the pendulum swinging too far in either direction.
Thanks to you for the comments...
Steve Bussey, "bifurcate????" isn't that something someone does after a spicy meal?
Steve Carroll, I am not sure I agree with your comment on us becoming a YMCA. I think that is often used as a crutch to fill an evangelical notion that we need to get a decision for Christ. I am not sure that is authentic Christianity. Rather, I think that it goes further to "BIFURCATE" (got to love a word that sounds like you have some stomach distress) the very thing you say should not be "BIFURCATED."
By the way, did you hear about the conjoined twins that were "BIFURCATED" recently?
Krista,
The discussion with my friend was inclusive of "programs" like day camp. These are social too. I wonder though if we really always need to go for a decision for Christ when we are ministering in that realm.
Campbell,
Great point. Got to love the 117 reference. I think, however, that you have hit upon a great point about advocating for those who have no voice. In fact, we often put band-aids on gaping wounds and think we have done our jobs. Isn't integrated ministry about more than just patching a wound? Isn't it about healing? Thanks for a good reminder.
You were always one of my favorite 117ers ;) Hang in there CAPTAIN.
how about these thoughts?
Larry,
Just for you: :)
Steve
___________________________
bi·fur·cate ( P ) Pronunciation Key (bfr-kt, b-fûr-)
v. bi·fur·cat·ed, bi·fur·cat·ing, bi·fur·cates
v. tr.
To divide into two parts or branches.
v. intr.
To separate into two parts or branches; fork.
adj. (-kt, -kt)
Forked or divided into two parts or branches, as the Y-shaped styles of certain flowers.
_________________
[Medieval Latin bifurcre, bifurct-, to divide, from Latin bifurcus, two-pronged : bi-, two; see bi-1 + furca, fork.]
Campbell,
My 'love' thing is intended to be a corrective.
Yes, of course we need to speak-out what we believe in. I'm not proposing that we cease to bear witness to the gift of salvation.
I am rather saying that we shouldn't expect people to know who Jesus is through the abstraction of de-contextualized words. Jesus didn't relegate his ministry to a series of impersonal sermons... If he wanted to do this, he would have just downloaded this message on the world's MP3s and stayed in heaven!
No way! He incarnated in physical form in order to "BE" among people... this means that what he said was stated as a result of his INVOLVEMENT in peoples lives! Along with this, we witness Jesus healing people, feeding people, protecting people, listening to people, serving people, walking with people, living with people etc. etc. etc. ...and yes he did TALK to people - but this was situated in a life bent in the posture of (dare I say it) 'social' service.
Much of our concept of evangelism is decontextualized from situated service and therefore comes across as arrogant, presumptive, and (unfortunately) irrelevant...
That's not because the message isn't true, relevant, or necessary - but rather because this message gains meaning best through the action of sacrifice - this is why disciples of Jesus must take up their cross to follow Jesus - because this is the way to most effectively communicate.
So, the relationship of social and spiritual isn't just beneficial, but ESSENTIAL to effective mission.
Steve
Ok so heres my problem with Larry's argument about Sacramental living and and Christian works being ends unto them selves.
1. In America at least The Social service is not done by Salvationists or members of the Salvation Army as a part of the Christ service or Sacremental live our work is by and large done by paid empolyees who more often than not are not Salvationist who are very often not even Christians.
A. If they are not Christians is can we actually claim their work as Christian service?
B. What happens when they (our non Christian employees are faced with solutions to percieved problems that Christians wrestle with? (Condem distribution, abortion, needle exchange and on and on)
My other thing The message we still believe is that one must ultimately accept the message of Christ to recieve his salvation so what is wrong with wanting to see their soul saved in addition to their body.
Steve Carroll,
Are you saying that non-Christians cannot be used by God? Are you saying that the Salvationist calling is being lessened here in the States and using it as an excuse to prop up your argument. Having made those two arguments, in effect, you have said that no one who disagrees with us can be used of God. So Catholics and Pentecostals would not be useful to us.
I wonder how God managed to use Pharoh to further the cause of Joseph or Nebudchanezzer (sorry awful spelling) who even though he did not believe declare the things of God were great. Or even take Constantine who converted to Christianity, but still was brutal. Your argument collapses on itself.
In other words, you are talking about exclusivity and an "our way is the only way" mentality. Jesus even said, if they are not against us, they are for us, when his disciples complained that people were doing good things and using Jesus's name. Those guys had not yet joined the club.
By the way, don't you believe that Jesus draws people unto Himself? In a world that distrusts organized religion, we can talk all we want, but being the presence of Christ is always the best. Pressing for a decision is not always the best method. Sometimes people just need to be part of the community long before they join the club.
steve carroll,
As to needle exchange and condem usage, we have officers who distribute them. I guess then we should ask them to not serve. They would not see things your way.
I love you. This is a great discussion.
Steve Bussey,
Go bifurcate yourself.
Ok, so I've read through the posts and have been encouraged to continue to lead our people (again...extended congregation included)in the direction we are going. I guess my biggest concern is the call for everyone to be an activist. Yes, we need to do something to get to the root of the problem...does this always mean picket signs and petitions? We are beginning a seminar series by a Christian Financial Counselor to anyone interested. This came from the urgency placed on my heart that they need guidance ESPECIALLY for budgets, money management, and to be counseled in spending habits. This gentleman does everything free-even the follow up financial planning (one-on-one). He was a God-sent resource and now co-minister in this vineyard God has placed us. Yes, I see the welfare state as the governments new form of slavery (I haven't met a social worker trying to work themselves out of a job). Does this negate the need to speak out to those who can facilitate change? By no means, but we need to be pro-active...becoming and demonstrating the change we seek in this world!
Larry God Can use any one He wants that doesn't make their actions "sactremental" or Christian service. God can use the results of sin to produce Good that dosn't me he wants the SIN. God is God.
Good works can be done by any one but not Christian works.
The Fact is we have been unfaithful to who we have called to be. socially and spiritually. It is a shame that most of the people that sit in our congregations play no part in own social ministry.
Other denominations are great but they are not Salvationists. Yes that statement is dripping with denominational loyalty, So what!!! I believe We The Salvation Army have a prophetic role in the Body of Christ. That is we have a pecial message and insight that the rest of the church needs to hear. As do the Pentacostals and the Catholics but their message and insight is different. Ours is our mission and they have a different bent. They are welcome to join us in our fight (the military language was for Larry's benifet) and we can join them in theirs. The issues is on of haveing the same intentions and the same purpose.
As far as the programs mentioned i did not coment on whether they are right or wrong (altough i am sure you already know where i stand) what i stated is that they a moral issues that are being decided for us by employess who donsee them as moral issues.
Steve,
So you are saying that we are special and superior because we are the Salvation Army. Interesting. Pride is not a Christian work or value. I am not sure you have addressed your weak argument on the role of the employee. Last time I checked, the person in charge has the right to set the tone. Last time I checked, the soldiers can take on the responsibility..Thank you Nicole for pointing this out.
Steve, at best you have given a attempt at saying we're special and then telling us why we are not. By the way, what makes a work "Christian?" What is the difference between God's work and "Christian" work? Are you talking about Christendom or being Christian? Seems all the answers you want are given to you from Nicole and others.
By the way Nicole, activism is in our Salvationist DNA. It does not necessarily mean picketing. I think that it might mean lobbying and using our considerably good name to influence political and social systems.
Larry,
I agree..."Does this negate the need to speak out to those who can facilitate change? By no means, but we need to be pro-active...becoming and demonstrating the change we seek in this world!"
Let's not forget that we also have a responsibility to witness or be a witness to our non-salvationist/non-Christian employees, Advisory Board members and volunteers. Many times these people have more of an impact for Christ becasue of what they do for the Army. Not everyone who is connected with us will be Christian and that's ok. Sometimes hanging out with only Christians all the time gets boring and stuffy.
Steve-if you're social worker is not a Christian instead of being bothered by that..invest your time into him/her and maybe things will happen.
Hi Nicole,
I think what you're doing at your Corps is awesome - and illustrates how the gospel compels us to be involved in a wholistic redemptive mission.
I am also interested in your use of the term, 'activism.' I often hear this term used around NYU circles, but this is often applied in an anarchistic way which has less to do with people and more to do with seeing things from a particularly narrow ideological viewpoint.
However, using activism in a "pro-active" way is different. This is a great way in which we can model selfless, Christ-like involvement in social issues.
This is why I love the Army! We're involved in challenging the injustices of sweatshops and human trafficking amongst a plethora of other local issues.
However, our form of challenge is not rooted in socio-political, self-serving motivations, but rather it comes from a redemptive, Christocentric motivation.
In that way, I think that it is not just important, but essential that we are involved in pro-active activism.
Steve
I for one believe that "the Army" has done way too little social activism. If Christ was not the ultimate social activist, then I don't know who was! Standing up to law makers...loving the law breakers, what an example! Social services are also an integral part of our "DNA" but we should not bifurcate these vital forms of social responsibility.
Too often, if not all the time, our administration (meaning TSA administration) shys away from taking a stand on issues or merely authors a "mission statement" on the issue and leaves it at that.
I was actually told by an officer in a high ranking position that once I finished my education that there really would be "no place for me in the Army." (My Ph.D. will be in Public and Urban Policy.) Because the Sal "doesn't really get into that." What?!?!
I would like to think that our call to social ministry encompasses both direct forms of service as well as being involved in the infrastructure of our society that allows/encourages/produces these social ills to begin with (Thanks, Campbell for pointing this out.)
Okay, off my soap box now... :)
As for passing out condoms and clean needles, don't get me started. . .
Tim and Phil. . . where r u? I know you both must have something to say.
Steve B.,
I agree with your take on "pro-active activism." But do you really think it should stop there? Could we, or should we, not continue this in the realm of activism? As long as we stay away from direct forms of activism we continue to let the "anarchists" rule the day. At The New School, where I attend, I think they would see us as having a "particularly narrow ideological viewpoint" ourselves. :)
Thanks Andi!!!!!
I doubt I will ever be in a spot to hire someone who can help shape public policy stand for the SA. I would take you in a minute for that work.
I think I know your stand on condoms and needles. What would you say is "Doing the Most Good" when it comes to those controversial stands? I think we often confuse the idea of Doing the most good with, keeping the most rules.
I am still sorting out my position on some of these things. This discussion is helpful.
I guess what I'm saying is that we need to not only step up to create change(whether it's petitions, discussions with key leadership locally and federally,or speaking out about social injustice) but many times we can get so caught up in the issue that practical steps are missed right in front of us. We (meaning my husband and I) speak out against the slavery caused by the welfare system and are advocates for many people to get services needed...BUT we also want to empower those "stuck" in the system ways to get out. These practical one-on-one encounters and ministry I believe is what the Army is also about.
thanks, Andi, for thinking of us. your comment made me laugh. :) i can't speak for Tim, but I'm practicing my listening skills right now. :)
Hi Andi,
Thanks for the comments.
Let me just clarify my statements of activism:
1. I believe in and support many types of activism. I believe that it's something which Christians (and Sallys) can (and should) do.
2. When I refer to pro-active activism, I'm not talking about passive, sign-an-e-mail, let's-not-ruffle-any-feathers activism. I mean getting involved in issues that are solution-driven as opposed to being simple noise-making. For example, there is a time and place to gather in a physical location and through a mass demonstration, but this has often become an excuse for mass spectacle.
I attended a presentation of Steve Duncombe on Wednesday at my U. He's written a couple of books on Cultural Resistance. While I was impressed with his intellect, some of his motivations for protest seemed a little bit weak and predictable. It struck me that there is a culture of people who live from protest to protest - almost getting a buzz off of being controversial. This to me, is a waste of time!
I think any form of activism needs to be motivated from deep issues which effect others. This seems to be what Jesus did (as you say) - and I AGREE wholeheartedly!
3. I agree that we evangelicals often have narrow ideological viewpoints - and this sickens me! I'm all for remaining open for dialogue (see my previous posts). However, anarchy is an alternative solution to what I believe is a redemptive solution.
This doesn't mean that we don't challenge powers and social structures which are injust... Social structures might come down, but they will always be replaced with alternatives. If this is our solution, then we're going to be involved in a hopeless struggle.
Gotta run,
Steve
Steve B.,
Thanks for clarifying. I think we are on different pages of the same book, you and I. I am somewhat of an idealist when it comes to challenging the system, I guess I will always be involved in this "hopeless struggle." But I agree that this cannot be the only way we attend to social ills.
Nicole,
What you and your husband are doing is at the very heart of what needs to be happening. I think that we as an "army" and a church are in a unique position to attack from all angles, political and practical. I just wish we'd find a nice balance of the two.
Larry,
Oh boy! I'm going to have to think on the "Doing the Most Good" question. I must get some work done today!
Phil,
I MISS YOU! Stop listening and start blabbin'! ;)
Greetings in Jesus' name.
I recently learned that 151,147 sought salvation in The Salvation Army in the USA last year. I'm guessing that most did so in our 'social services'.
Hallelujah.
grace,
Stephen Court
armybarmy.com/blog.html
These comments are really great. I know I have more than a few social worker types who read this blog (more than Andi). I am wondering if you see the need to give specific invitation to Christ in this venue of ministry or do you see being the presence of Christ as authentic.
I love the political discussions as well. Have any of you New York residents seen the latest budget proposal that slashes nearly a billion dollars from the health care system? What should we do about that?
Once again, I ask the question, are we doing the most good or keeping the most rules?
Stephen,
Interesting statistic. I am wondering how many of those "salvation experiences" were spiritual stillbirths that came because we pushed for commitment without building relationship.
I hope that the still births were few and far between.
I also wonder if we really have a grasp on what seeking salvation in our social service programs is. Maybe that is a discussion for another blog entry.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I guess what we need to ask is...do we allow the rules to dictate how we serve in His name? Are we so burdened by possibly offending that we do not offer (not mandate, but ask)to pray with individuals who come through our doors instead of just sending them on their way? I certainly hope not. Are we so concerned about the revolving door or the stat numbers that we become another assembly line for them to be shuffled through until the next month? Again, I certainly hope not. Again, I think it comes down to being a reflection of Christ to those whom we come into contact..how does this take shape? Depends upon the person. Christ did not have a cookie cutter approach to service...so why should we? There wasn't a checklist for him to go through as he encountered each person...he wanted to meet the individual at the place of their need. Sensitivity to the Spirit will allow us to find the direction to take in our encounters with ALL we come into contact (donors, social ministry participants, volunteers, etc).
Andi,
I would agree - we do need to be involved in the hopeless struggle - but we doing this with the eshcataological hope of heaven. The curse of the abuse of power is here to stay, and we are to be involved in challenging such powers - I whole heartedly support this.
What I don't support is the basic assumption of a common anarchist - that life is best lived in a continual state of entropy. This is impossible, and therefore appears to be an irrational solution to a very complex problem.
Maybe I should clarify: I don't think activism = anarchism. I just think that many anarchists have hijacked this role in society. Maybe it's time we Christians take that role back once again - redeeming it?
Steve
Wow I spend a week In meetings and look at all the splintered discussions I missed out on.
First on needle exchange and condom distribution my point as not wether it is right or wrong but that they are moral decisions that need to be decided by our membership not unsaved merceneries. I have more but time for another meeting.
Mercenaries? A bit unbecoming term to be used by a Christian! No wonder you don't trust them. You use a term like that, you alienate people. Do you think you are superior?
Last time I checked we aren't superior or more blessed. We are forgiven and "there but for the grace of God." I am not sure if you called me a mercenary that I would want to be on your side or support you.
Steve,
By the way, didn't Wesley see the world as his parish? So if we follow that discussion, automatically making people join a club and be exclusionary in our view certainly would not make us Wesleyan in our thought. I think it would probably make us..I am really struggling to find a word.
mer·ce·nar·ies
A professional soldier hired for service in a foreign army.
I realize it is imflamatory language but that is intentional. First because a professional soldier does not have the mission of the army at heart. They hire on for other reasons sometimes finacial but also do to their own motives
secon we have legions of our own soldiers who are largely uninvolved and that is a tragedy.
We aren't superior but we do have a specific mission or calling i would argue that most denominations or at least groups of denomanation have a disctinct message or gift to give to the rest of the church they are all important but not all the same.
Denomationalism is not bad in and of it self. We must celbrate or distinctiveness and the distinctiveness of our brothers and sisters. We are not an exclusive club but we are a distinct branch with something important to offer the rest of the whole. and a lot to recieve from the rest of the the branches.
Steve,
You still completely devalue the whole of the Body of Christ. Inflammatory language is even worse when done intentionally. It shows either 1.) A lack of understanding of our role as grace agents as Chrisitans or 2.) A lack of maturity stemming from insecurity in who you are.
As to the specific calling or mission: I don't see anywhere in scripture where The Salvation Army has been given a specific calling or mandate other than that given to all of the church. If you can point that out, I would be glad to see it. In fact, the church as the whole has been called to God's mission. This mission includes service to the poor. Somehow in our attempt to theologically defend some position founded as a response to Victorian England's Christianity missional drought as a mandate, which was a respnse against the very thing you advocate, exclusionary behavior, is really to lose sight of the big picture of the Kingdom. In fact, to think we have the market cornered on that calling certainly shows a lack of understanding and a sense of superiority, which is antithetical to the Gospel. I submit it is not a special calling we have been given, it is a different methodology we have decided to take on as our way to serve. It has been taken on as a mantle and as theology is fluid, so must our methodology become so.
It is tragic our soldiers are not involved. I am not sure it is because we have sold out to mercenaries,(which by the way is not only derrogatory, but negates the work of several people employees, volunteers and advisory members over the years who have done more good and lived more missionally than some of us who are Salvationists)but that officers have bought into this idea that we are superior.
Rarely do you find an officer in the States that allows the rank and file to make a decision. Therein is the tragedy.
Larry this language of superiority is also infamtory. I have never used the term nor do Iacceptand notion of denominational superiority.
Now the idea that God would give a specific group a specific 'prophetic' message I be l believe the bible does speak on that actually I can think of a few examples of hand however I am sitting in my car right now waiting for Delia to come out of Staples so we can take Logan to chucky Chease for his birth day.
I continue to appeciate your point of view Larry.
Steve,
I am not sure how you deem owning our weakness and recognizing that we can tend to see ourselves as superior as inflammatory.
Your Points are valid, that we can a certainly have (just read through our song book)elevated our organization/ denomination to the point of superiorty. I was reading a copy of the an "officer's review from the 30's last night and there as an article about a "beautiful" conversation as tyhe article went on it became aparent that to person who was converted may well have never been lost. they simply hadn't recied our particular revivalist style of conversation. but it seemed (even from the article which was slanted in our direction.) that the person may well have already had a real relationship with Christ.
in spite of those who would lift the Salvation Up as superior I still believe we have a significant message for the rest of the church. I also the pentacostal movement has something significant for us. as does the orthodox community, as does the Reformed tradition and on and on.
If we loose our selves in anti denomationism we risk lossing these significant denominational distinctives and what is left is a traditionless christianity that is susceptable to the theological notions of the day.
we need tred carefully
When i turn off my defences and listen to your arguments i agree with what you are saying but i feel like "agrippa" almost you have persueded me.
I still feel like we do people a disservice if we exclude proclamation from our service. We have been comanded to make disciples and to be witnesses. Yes Jesus used is strongest Sacremtal language when he was speaking of feeding visiting and helping, for that reason service in itself is justified. But, we have still been comanded to make disciples.
Steve,
I contend that Booth appropriated our theology from the Quakers and Methodists(and now many Sallies appropriate it from just about every pop theologian there is) and that our only real denominational distinctive is missional and that is serving the poor. There are others who use uniforms in various forms, use warring language and even firebrand evangelicalism. Even our service to the poor as a distinctive is being lost as more and more people are buying into the entire mission of God.
Our tradition theologically is not suspect..our thought that we are unique in our theology and alone stand as the beacon to the poor is increasingly suspect. In spite of it all, I love the Army, because it is where I believe God has called me to use the gifts He has given me.
Post a Comment
<< Home