Denomination Building?
My last post about the Primitive Salvo movement caused a a great conversation. Thanks to all who commented. Aaron raised some great issues about what I would consider denominational distinctives. This generated some further thinking on my part, especially when Bret noted that we did most things for the sake of the Army.
Let me say that I first joined the Army because it was in my blood as a church. My parents are retired officers and I could not imagine worshipping anywhere else. I gave at least some intellectual ascent to the tenets of our faith as I understood them. I also, to some extent, internalized them early on without wrestling with them. I believed them because that was what I was supposed to believe. I was a soldier.
I also bought the whole denominational philosophy of membership, not necessarily real soldiership. Even though I was a soldier in my early teens, missional thinking really was not at the forefront of my thinking. Sadly, while I wrestled with this somewhat in my later teens and in my twenties, I was well into my officership before I really committed myself to the missional component of my "church." I was a son of the regiment. I was in lock step with the denomination and the form of The Army.
I was also right in there when it came to the old "Stepping Up" poster and philoshophy. Cradle roll through Sr. Soldier and every program in between was important. I believed to be part of the movement and to fulfill my role I had to have a programatic mindset. Membership was most important to the program. Jr. Soldiers and Sr. Soldiers were most important in the process.
Recently, the challenge has been re-issued across the US to make more soldiers. We are encouraged to build the Army. In so doing, I believe those challenging us really believe we are building the Kingdom. I believe these Godly people have righteous intentions. While my view of what it means to be a Salvationist is much different than early in my life, I think to many we are seeing our movement as a church and not necessarily what our birthright is. That, in my opinion, is to be a group of Christians dedicated to changing the world through grace, justice and the practical living of holiness.
I love The Salvation Army as a movement! I think that in its various incarnations around the world, it can be vessel used by God for the salvation of individuals and a redemptive force in the pursuit of social justice and the fight against poverty.
I am not sure though that I am convinced about the issue of The Salvation Army as a denomination. I am probably treading dangerously here. I wonder if the Army has gone from a Kingdom movement to a church more concerned with denomination building. I am not sure the two need be mutually exclusive. Although in ever-increasing numbers people are not joining but attending churches because of some of the hard and fast rules that don't allow for the individual to express their faith in unique ways. The more I reflect on this issue, the more I am realizing we are regulated to the point that we have lost the opportunity for the real characters of our movement to come to the forefront as leaders. Instead, I think we often make leaders out of conformists. In other words, those who are in lock step with the denomination.
I am really beginning to wonder about this idea of denomination building. Is it really where we should be going still? Have we forsaken our roots by looking to make soldiers instead of finding new innovative ways to have people fall in love with Jesus? Maybe I am just in a dream state, but I believe that if we are faithful to the mission and I mean really faithful, that God will take care of the movement we call the Army. I am not sure we need a push to build denomination.
I am thankful for the Army and love it. These are just my thoughts. Yet for years, I have struggled with some issues in this movement where God has called me to serve. Here are some question with which I am struggling. Is denomination building a holy pursuit? Is it better to be a movement or a denomination? Would we be better to recruit missioners instead of soldiers? What do you think would happen if we really recruited people to join our movement instead of our denomination?
What do you think?
Let me say that I first joined the Army because it was in my blood as a church. My parents are retired officers and I could not imagine worshipping anywhere else. I gave at least some intellectual ascent to the tenets of our faith as I understood them. I also, to some extent, internalized them early on without wrestling with them. I believed them because that was what I was supposed to believe. I was a soldier.
I also bought the whole denominational philosophy of membership, not necessarily real soldiership. Even though I was a soldier in my early teens, missional thinking really was not at the forefront of my thinking. Sadly, while I wrestled with this somewhat in my later teens and in my twenties, I was well into my officership before I really committed myself to the missional component of my "church." I was a son of the regiment. I was in lock step with the denomination and the form of The Army.
I was also right in there when it came to the old "Stepping Up" poster and philoshophy. Cradle roll through Sr. Soldier and every program in between was important. I believed to be part of the movement and to fulfill my role I had to have a programatic mindset. Membership was most important to the program. Jr. Soldiers and Sr. Soldiers were most important in the process.
Recently, the challenge has been re-issued across the US to make more soldiers. We are encouraged to build the Army. In so doing, I believe those challenging us really believe we are building the Kingdom. I believe these Godly people have righteous intentions. While my view of what it means to be a Salvationist is much different than early in my life, I think to many we are seeing our movement as a church and not necessarily what our birthright is. That, in my opinion, is to be a group of Christians dedicated to changing the world through grace, justice and the practical living of holiness.
I love The Salvation Army as a movement! I think that in its various incarnations around the world, it can be vessel used by God for the salvation of individuals and a redemptive force in the pursuit of social justice and the fight against poverty.
I am not sure though that I am convinced about the issue of The Salvation Army as a denomination. I am probably treading dangerously here. I wonder if the Army has gone from a Kingdom movement to a church more concerned with denomination building. I am not sure the two need be mutually exclusive. Although in ever-increasing numbers people are not joining but attending churches because of some of the hard and fast rules that don't allow for the individual to express their faith in unique ways. The more I reflect on this issue, the more I am realizing we are regulated to the point that we have lost the opportunity for the real characters of our movement to come to the forefront as leaders. Instead, I think we often make leaders out of conformists. In other words, those who are in lock step with the denomination.
I am really beginning to wonder about this idea of denomination building. Is it really where we should be going still? Have we forsaken our roots by looking to make soldiers instead of finding new innovative ways to have people fall in love with Jesus? Maybe I am just in a dream state, but I believe that if we are faithful to the mission and I mean really faithful, that God will take care of the movement we call the Army. I am not sure we need a push to build denomination.
I am thankful for the Army and love it. These are just my thoughts. Yet for years, I have struggled with some issues in this movement where God has called me to serve. Here are some question with which I am struggling. Is denomination building a holy pursuit? Is it better to be a movement or a denomination? Would we be better to recruit missioners instead of soldiers? What do you think would happen if we really recruited people to join our movement instead of our denomination?
What do you think?
posted by Larry at 7:53 PM
29 Comments:
Larry,
I like your ideas . . .
I’ve had similar thoughts recently. Here’s my thought on the subject.
What if the Army’s role in the Kingdom was not to “do church” but rather be a social arm of the church?
What if we stopped “doing church” all together and partnered with another church and the officer serve as a local volunteer leader within the partnering church (just like any other normal working person) and ran the Salvation Army in his/her community?
What if we concentrated our energy and resources into one or two areas rather than 15?
What if we just kissed the “denominational” thing goodbye, as you suggest, and be an agency, an arm, an avenue for other believers to serve in? Let the “church” do what they do best and let us do what we do best.
This is just what if . . . However, I have actually thought it through enough to know how it could work.
Just a few thoughts.
Blessings,
Bret
Why do we need to do church anyway? If it really is all about the Kingdom then why not help others who already do it really well? Isn't that what we say about the duplication of Social Services? let us handle it . . .
Isn't it a stewardship issue?
Just wanted to add that thought . . .
Blessings,
I am not for doing away with the worship aspect of our movement. I think we are a place where others who are not accepted anywhere else find acceptance. More than anything, I think that I struggle with recruiting church members and not mission partners. I am not sure that we always recruit mission partners. Therein is the key to my question.
Larry,
warning - this is going to wander
Word person that I am, I was curious about the difference between a denomination and a movement. The 'Webster' definitions offer some food for thought
movement: an organized action by people working toward a goal
denomination: a particular religious body (from "to name")
So in this simple sense, not incompatible.
I'm guessing that at least the second word never passed the lips of Jesus. But as people organized, they needed to decide who belonged and who didn't, and so developed doctrines, rules of inclusion/exclusion, and practices of faith.
My personal experience was different from yours - introduced to the Army as an older teen, from the start I was engaged by the ways that faith was integrated with a care for those on the margins. The denominational (or should I say doctrinal) distinctives, traditions, politics, etc., were something that I was willing to accept (put up with?) because I thought I could see the bigger picture, what I would now understand to be a call to social justice (and, another whole topic, what I also saw through the blinders of an idealistic young adult as being a ministry as accessible to women as men).
Brett, while we were at Hough, we wondered about this concept of simply being a mission (in other words, giving up the attempt at having a congregation), because that seemed to be such a struggle. Could we just "run the Army" as an offshoot of the Nazarene, Methodist, or (now we're getting into deep waters) the Presbyterian or Greek Orthodox church?
Now I'm not sure that would have been wise. Somehow, our ministry cannot only be a group of paid people, no matter how committed. I long (and have experienced/am experiencing now) to be a part of a body of believers,working together toward a goal, that of loving Jesus together, bringing others along, and doing something to even the playing field for those on the margins. And, yes, I'm willing to take the Kroc resources and use them to accomplish that goal. But does it have to look like what we're accustomed to knowing as "the Army," particularly in worship customs?
One of my current struggles with this is that most of the people in our current body of believers don't fit the 'soldier' profile. We say, come join our army, but then, if you do this or that (smoking is a big one) you can't really join (although if you gossip or are a slum landlord, you're not disqualified). Another subject, in a sense, but when the mission/movement that was the very early army began to gain a structure, it became narrower instead of wider, Partly because holiness (a denominational distinctive?) became defined behaviorially rather than spiritually.
Larry, I don't think it matters whether they're called missioners or soldiers - already we recruit people to come alongside in a variety of ways, with varying levels of commitment and varying levels of conformity to "the rules." Our board members and employees would understand themselves to be part of the Army -and they may not even know the soldier distinction exists.
Gotta stop - this could go on forever . . .
hs,
I am not talking about taking the soldier label away. I am asking in essence if we need to be recruiting soldiers who are church members or active soldiers who are part of a living organism that sees mission as a natural spiritual outlet for their holiness. Maybe we make soldiers without the thought of mission?
Larry,
If we can put the Instatutionalism of the Army aside for a minute. and simply accept that there are those within our monster on an organization who see it as their job to "protect the corperation" (If you are interested who i am quoting ask me privately)and there are others who push soldiership because it makes them look good. I believe there are some key reasons why there Army should be growing denomationaly
1. Contrary to Mclaren i believe that if we can learn to LOVE each other than denomational distinctives from all denomination benifet the church athey alow for dialog none of us truly 'know' God. (of course we have a relationship with Him but we can't fully fathom Him)
2. If we as the army can maintain our soul and missional purpose than i believe we have prophetic message and voice for the rest of the church particular to the divide betwee socially conscience librals and evangelistacally minded conservatives. ( generously focusing on the positives of both movements) We have a message that both are important to the 'Missio Dei'.
3. We remain the church for those who wouldn't be accepted in most mainstream church and as 'their' (I realize that i would fit in most mainstream churches either)church. we have an obligation to offer them something 'Salvationist' that is just as real as being Catholic or baptist or methodist.
steve,
not suggesting that we do away with our denomination. i am asking if we should be building denomination or building a missional movement which would include some distinctives. I don't think I disagree with you.
Larry,
Your point about the Army being a place for those who are not accepted anywhere else . . . just curious, how many churches are there in you community? I find it hard to believe that the Army needs to be a place where others can go who are not accepted. Don’t you think we should be filling gaps rather than duplicating services?
HS,
On your comment “our ministry cannot only be a group of paid people.” My idea is that the “paid people” run the army and coordinate the ministry. The volunteers come from churches. I can see there being a Salvation Army liaison (volunteer) in multiple churches. The liaison would recruit volunteers for ministry.
Imagine, a social service ministry being delivered by volunteers trained in evangelism.
Discipleship and spiritual formation would still be done the same way. But instead of channeling people through the Corps we would channel then through the local church.
A volunteer could even attend church with our clients and help them find a church that would be right for them.
I’m really trying to think “Kingdom” . . . I’m wresting with how to be most effective.
My ideas of course, create many challenges for the recruitment and training of officers, especially if they are recruited from the Baptist, Methodist, or Whatever church and agree that the uniform is irrelevant and refuses to wear it.
So my question is this: Is what we do about us or about the Kingdom? Or is it about us in the name of the Kingdom? Mmmmm . . .
Larry,
I agree with the missional movement idea.
This comment has been removed by the author.
First of all, I’m not sure that I entirely understand your post either Larry. I’m not sure that I see the distinction you’re trying to make. What I can tell you is that changing the label probably wouldn’t change the attitude. So what is it that you’re really suggesting needs to be changed?
I would also like to say that Brett’s original idea of the Army being a social arm of the church got discounted a little too quickly, in my opinion. Let’s not pretend for a minute that our congregants are any more accepting of “the outcasts” than any other church members. “The outcasts” are usually embraced by the Officers, or the social workers, or maybe one or two soldiers, but certainly not by the congregation as a whole. Ours has become a holiness movement, in many ways separated from social action. In that respect, though we might think we have the market cornered on holiness, we are like any other traditional and (dare I say it) legalistic church in the city. The only difference being that we, ourselves, have a social arm that is focused on social action. So what would be the difference?
Imagine it. We simply link up with another, larger church in the community. Suddenly we have access to a MUCH larger number of Christians. We, in fact, become the mission department of that church, challenging each of it’s members to live out the words of Christ by becoming involved in mission and social action, and then actually providing them with an outlet to do it. I think it’s a great idea that, in the long run, would involve a lot more people in the idea of holiness, through social action, then what we’re currently seeing in our Corps. Sure, the uniform might become a thing of the past, and also brass bands, even our ranking system would probably eventually be done away with, but surely we’d see a lot more people embrace this idea of social holiness. And, before anybody says it, it isn’t us conforming to be more like the mainstream church, it’s us acknowledging that we’re in Rome and shaving our heads, if need be, to get more people involved in the mission.
I think it’s a great idea Brett, and I intend to think and see if there’s a way to actually put a plan like that into action.
On a side note, the Southern Baptists are already doing something similar in one of our Corps over here in London. We’ve got five Southern Baptist Missionaries over here at one of our Corps. They worship with us, are involved in our cell groups, and even participate in some of our own social action activities. In addition to that, however, they also run some of their own programs, including English classes, and are out in the community introducing people to Jesus. Many of those people have ended up as adherents at our Corps. Another Corps in our city in is in partnership with a different Baptist sect. The particular Baptist sect has sent along a couple of missionaries who are actually helping a couple of our officers to build a church.
As somebody who grew up outside of the Army, I don’t really see the difference in our so-called “holiness” movement, and the Southern Baptist Church that I grew up in. We had many of the same beliefs, including those concerning drinking and smoking. For me, the one big difference is our stated belief in social holiness. I think, if we could work in partnership with other churches to bring this call to a wider audience, we’d be missing the point not to take it.
tim,
i think that as a movement our theology and mission continues to move forward as purely a denomination, we stagnate. i am not against partnerships with other expressions of the Body. in fact, i think they can be healthy. i think the main thrust of my post has to do with the idea of membership vs. (to coin a word) missionship. the idea of denomination is one that sets us up as a place that you described, with only a few reaching out. my thought is that if we are really the movement and not just a denomination that we will be what we should. in other words, is making members what we ought to be doing or is making missioners the key? Maybe I am just about as clear as mud on this. that is why i want to tease it out with people.
Sorry Larry, I’m having a real hard time separating the two. While I admit that I don’t look around me and see a lot of soldiers involved in social holiness, I did think that that’s what I was committing to when I become a soldier. So how would changing our title from a denomination to a movement change that?
This comment has been removed by the author.
tim,
Aaron has a great point about missional community. I am not sure the institution of denomination does that. Maybe I am splitting hairs. I think asking people to join in mission is the key. Membership does not always equal missionship. In other words, movements maintain mission, organizations like denominations often build structure with no life.
You see being a soldier for what it should be. You see it as living in missional community with a life of social holiness. I fear most see their membership as just membership, with no association with mission. My point is when we call people to organization, which is often the case in denominationalism, we get more structure. If we call them to a movement of God, a living expression of His mission, we will be what I believe God intended for the Army and the church at large. I don't think propping up the denomination does that. To be a missioner is so much more.
In that Case Larry, Rightyoo!!! As long as we maintain our voice
Larry . . . I agree with your last point . . . well said.
Aaron . . . good point about community. I couldn’t agree more. Some of our ideas may begin to part when we start exploring all the different ways of creating a community of mission. All of us could have different ideas on how to make a community of mission a reality and all of them would probably work from one degree to another. The issue, then, isn’t necessarily how we do it but that we do it (does that read right?). Community and mission can take on many forms.
One of the greatest challenges in all this is leadership tenure.
Blessings,
Bret
bret,
i am not sure we can build community with the model you suggest. how would you do that?
My contact with The Salvation Army happened as a child, bringing my family to church through a connection through a weekday Sunbeam/Scout program. Reverance to God was apart of the badges we were accomplishing, and church attendance suggested and invitation offered and accepted.
Yet our family did not stay because the Sunbeam troop was large and vibrant, the Scouts maintained overnight camping schedules or because the donuts and coffee after meeting were fresh.
We stayed connected with the church because of the worship of God and the doctrinal beliefs were solid and strong. The officer preached from the Bible, not from a popular book, and several of the adults presented lived holy, loving lives.
It was a long time before I realized my church different from other churches. It was a longer time before I realized that not every congregation was as spiritually concerned about the alcohol rehabilitation of some who are in the pews, about the oppressive feeling of poverty on a young mother who is the sole parent of a brood or for the homeless who lived in the poor section of town.
My faith expected every church to face life with a spiritual concern about these matters.
Shaped by my church and its doctrine, without doubt. But shaped more, hewn sharper, from the words of Jesus and the teaching of the Bible.
It is not naive, or "walking lock step" to consider that the way in which you see the world, your perspective, has been affetced dramatically by the teachings straight from God about the need for social justice wthin this world. Don't be so hard on yourself or your experience. Don't overlook the depth of the impression that God made upon you -
"Changing the world through grace, justice and the practical living of holiness." It is a birthrite, not be squandered or gambled. "A redemptive force of social justice" - yes!
Your words always seem to stir up a dramatic forum. Sometimes I hold back on comment, it seems like it would only be interupting a long involved conversation.
The Salvation Army is a movement, and I'm not saying that from my honor junior soldier class so I'll get a gold star, but because God calls The Salvatin Army to be more than the boundaries of a denomination. Thre are a lot of hats to wear, but there are also alot of souls who are empty and lost, stomachs which are empty and ill, lives which are like flotsam in the sea of sin. Walking this world in white, not afraid that we may get dirty, but knowing that God's holiness is a scotchguard for our lives, we must go to where the dirtiest live.
Your posts always provoke so much thought and interaction...and you are right most of the time.
Denomination building? I can't even make someone a soldier who I think would make a pretty darn good soldier save one issue... smoking. Is there a difference between membership in the Kingdom and membership in a church or corps?
Membership into the Kingdom of God primarily consists of believing in the Lord Jesus Christ and living our lives according to His teachings. Seeking forgiveness of our sins through Jesus.
The Army as well as the Church has more requirements for inclusion then heaven itself!
Jessie,
Right most of the time??????
aaron,
so what you are saying is that you see being part of the mission of the army or the Kingdom in levels. You see it as a tiered system? So do we have a caste system?
aaron,
i like this feistiness. it would indeed seem, at first glance, that there is an exclusionary view toward soldiership in our orders and regulations. blue is right in his observation that there appears to more legalism in the church than in heaven.
never meant that the terms as inflammatory. it is a hard question we need to ask ourselves though. remember, i am a soldier too. in asking you, i ask myself. i happen to think in soldiership there is a difference not in commitment, but in expression. if you meant expression that is fine. if you meant commitment, i think there is some room for discussion.
i do think though an examination of the rank system may find it close to theologically indefensible, but that one is for another discussion.
I don't want the Army to be nor become just another denomination. If we are to be the movement we so desire, the levels of membership, in my mind, have to even out.
It doesn't make sense to me that in order to be a full member of The Salvation Army one must attain the stature of sainthood.
How does one become a member of TSA? The only way as I know it is to become a Soldier and sign the covenant. We have become a denomination because of these guidelines. On the other hand, one can become a level two Salvationist and become an Adherant. That makes us a regular denomination even more because the "cast system" is more prevelant.
The Nazarites were a part of the Nation of Israel and yes they were called to be just who they were. The Army as a whole was called to bring the Gospel to those who were considered to be the very worst. We are also called to live a Holy life. Correct me if I am wrong though, but before becoming a member of the Army one must already be Holy. Heaven yes, the Army, in my opinion, no. Is it not a process? Why not make them soldiers to begin the process?
Larry,
I mean expression for soldiers, though the soldier's covenant does make certain commitments to the larger Salvation Army that need not have a part in local Corps membership. I agree with you on the rank structure thing.
Blue, I'm not really a fan of adherency, for the reason you mention and others, but I think there is room for membership outside of soldiership. We have a lot of members and a few soldiers, with some members working towards expressing their faith walk through soldiership, and others not. We have cell leaders - the fundamental level of leadership in our Corps - who are not soldiers.
The soldier's covenant makes a lot of sense to me in terms of TSA's stated international mission and purpose. This is what we're about, so why wouldn't we want those wanting to identify themselves with the organisation as soldiers to state that they are about those things as well?
But again, it's not for everybody, nor should it be. It is not a document about what it means to be saved, nor even sanctified. It is a document about a very certain type of expression that is meant to flesh out the main ideas of TSA internationally.
It is pretty problematic when used as standards for Church membership.
Grace,
Aaron
Larry,
I’m not so sure that it would be “us” creating community but rather us joining a community and helping others join a community.
Aaron,
You mentioned the distinctive marks of 614 . . . my suggestion would have identifying marks as well.
My present appointment has 4 thrift stores, a community center with educational and athletic programs, a social service and admin office and a Corps. In our scenerio, if we were to partner with a local church then the church would become the agent for spiritual formation and discipleship. In addition, I would be the link between the church and the Army and have a direct line for recruiting volunteers for our community center, social services and other forms of ministry and outreach.
Why would a church need to engage in social services with us around? Why would we need to “do church” with more than 2,700 churches in our community? How can we (the church) talk about unity when there are more than 2,700 churches all trying to do their own thing. And what’s worse is that they all think they are meeting a need that no one else is meeting. Give me a break! And The Salvation Army is no different.
Imagine if I made my three buses and two vans available to our partnering church? Imaging if, rather than picking up people and bringing them to our church, we picked them up and took them to our partnering church.
I really don’t see how a whole lot would change in terms of spiritual formation. The issue would be soldiers and uniforms. The mission would be the common thread. We would lose our identity as a church and become an organization (which most people see us as any way).
This would take a HUGE burden off the officer. We have our hands in so many pots it's seriously funny. As a result we don't do a whole lot real well. Something must give. We must decide what it is that we are supposed to do and do it better than anyone else.
This comment has been removed by the author.
The more I hear Bret's argument, the more I think it's the best idea I've heard in a long, long time.
And, if I understand the Army's history correctly, wasn't it our original goal as a movement to reach outcasts and then eventually move them into local churches? Thus we never bothered to iron out details like the sacraments?
This idea would solve so many problems and, in my mind, the only "problems" it would create deal with our own ego and pride. I say we start immediately!
Aaron,
Wanting us to love each other, live together, and invite other people into redemptive community is certainly noble and biblical. What you’re suggesting would be a kind of “small group” in my model. The group could even meet at The Salvation Army on a certain night, but worship on Sunday with the partnering church facility.
As far as people who call the army their “church.” Each Corps would need to handle a transition such as this differently. There’s no doubt that it would ruffle a lot of feathers.
At the same time, not every Corps would necessarily have to make this transition. Most (or at least many) of the Corps in the South are rotting on the vine. We’ve reached the end of our life-cycle . . . it’s now time to reinvent ourselves– whatever that might be or look like.
Tim,
God bless you. I’m glad to see someone understands where I’m coming from.
All this is just part of the dialogue . . . trying to chart a course and make things better.
Blessings,
Bret
hi larry,
just stopped by for a "quick" read. thanks for helping slash reminding me to think, instead of acting out of my embedded tendancies....
:-)
jenn
Post a Comment
<< Home