Primitive Salvationism?
I begin by saying that I know this is probably going to put some people off and anger some of my good friends. For about ten years now, there has been a movement afoot called, "Primitive Salvationism."
This term recently raised again in my thinking, as I read Jim Knaggs's blog. Although Jim did not use the term, a person commenting on his blog did. The idea of this brand of Salvationism hearkens back to by-gone days and invokes the names of Railton, the Booths and other pioneers of the Army. In many of the writings of those who espouse it, the idea of primitive salvo thinking urges us to capture the spirit of early heroes of the faith, especially salvationist heroes.
Those who claim to practice this type of salvationism, see this as the "real" Salvation Army. In fact, there is almost an elevation of Railton and others to saint level with a sense they were infallible. Now mind you, I believe we ought to have a sense of our real history. I would hasten to say that it should not be sanitized or embellished. I also think there might be a sense that we do need to recapture the entrepreneurial spirit and sense of urgency for souls our fore bearers are said to have.
So why do I think that my friends who practice this type of Salvationism and who hold these folks in such high regard in such high esteem might take issue with me? I am not sure that the "good ole' days" of our founding were as good as we would suggest. Were they heroic? In a sense, yes. Were they godly? I think so. So why do I call this into question? Simply, these people no matter how heroic were human and flawed. Did God use them? Yes. Can we learn from them? I believe so.
I think that my issue is the same as one raised by the person commenting on Jim's blog. I am afraid that often we raise people to sainthood and the good ole' days can be painted nostalgically so that they are skewed.
I am of the belief that as heroic and flawed as the Booths were, I think it is not their persona that should be captured, it is their creative ways of ministry that could be adopted. It is also their risky nature in social justice matters that should be mimicked.
Do I think we should return to their practices and their lifestyle? I don't think we need to. What the Booths did worked in Victorian England during the industrial revolution. Uniforms worked ostensibly, in my opinion, because people especially in the US were coming out of civil war and veterans were used to marching behind a band. It gave them a sense of belonging. The military was a way of life. It is not necessarily so now.
Now let me say we should not give up our fight against social injustice. We should not give up sharing the gospel. It is the power to life. What I suggest is that "primitive salvationism" may be the latest fad. It may not necessarily be salvationist, because it may not contain the innovative spirit that God wants for this movement.
I don't doubt the fervor of my friends who practice this type of salvationism. I believe they love God and if it works for them; great. If it builds the Kingdom; I'm for it. I think the issue I might have is that those who practice this type of salvationism, tend to be judgemental of those who don't necessarily practice their brand of salvationism.
Am I a fan of the status quo? I think that practicing what we are now may lead to a watering down of our salvationist DNA. I also think that a new style of salvationism is needed, that does hearken back to our roots, but does not count on hero worship to make it happen.
Here's what I think. Maybe its time to realize that the autocratic style of leadership and the CEO mentality which Commissioner Joe Noland has warned us about is not going to work now. I think it is now time to think that a more democratic and inclusive leadership is needed. I also believe it is time to be risky. It is time to take a stand on issues that may not just be the safe stand and begin to work progressively toward saving the world from social ills while modeling the Gospel of Jesus. I am not sure that primitive salvationism does that.
Is this brand of primitive salvationism the best for us? Can we be happy with what we have? What is the best brand of salvationism to practice? Does our current style work? What do you suggest?
What do you think?
This term recently raised again in my thinking, as I read Jim Knaggs's blog. Although Jim did not use the term, a person commenting on his blog did. The idea of this brand of Salvationism hearkens back to by-gone days and invokes the names of Railton, the Booths and other pioneers of the Army. In many of the writings of those who espouse it, the idea of primitive salvo thinking urges us to capture the spirit of early heroes of the faith, especially salvationist heroes.
Those who claim to practice this type of salvationism, see this as the "real" Salvation Army. In fact, there is almost an elevation of Railton and others to saint level with a sense they were infallible. Now mind you, I believe we ought to have a sense of our real history. I would hasten to say that it should not be sanitized or embellished. I also think there might be a sense that we do need to recapture the entrepreneurial spirit and sense of urgency for souls our fore bearers are said to have.
So why do I think that my friends who practice this type of Salvationism and who hold these folks in such high regard in such high esteem might take issue with me? I am not sure that the "good ole' days" of our founding were as good as we would suggest. Were they heroic? In a sense, yes. Were they godly? I think so. So why do I call this into question? Simply, these people no matter how heroic were human and flawed. Did God use them? Yes. Can we learn from them? I believe so.
I think that my issue is the same as one raised by the person commenting on Jim's blog. I am afraid that often we raise people to sainthood and the good ole' days can be painted nostalgically so that they are skewed.
I am of the belief that as heroic and flawed as the Booths were, I think it is not their persona that should be captured, it is their creative ways of ministry that could be adopted. It is also their risky nature in social justice matters that should be mimicked.
Do I think we should return to their practices and their lifestyle? I don't think we need to. What the Booths did worked in Victorian England during the industrial revolution. Uniforms worked ostensibly, in my opinion, because people especially in the US were coming out of civil war and veterans were used to marching behind a band. It gave them a sense of belonging. The military was a way of life. It is not necessarily so now.
Now let me say we should not give up our fight against social injustice. We should not give up sharing the gospel. It is the power to life. What I suggest is that "primitive salvationism" may be the latest fad. It may not necessarily be salvationist, because it may not contain the innovative spirit that God wants for this movement.
I don't doubt the fervor of my friends who practice this type of salvationism. I believe they love God and if it works for them; great. If it builds the Kingdom; I'm for it. I think the issue I might have is that those who practice this type of salvationism, tend to be judgemental of those who don't necessarily practice their brand of salvationism.
Am I a fan of the status quo? I think that practicing what we are now may lead to a watering down of our salvationist DNA. I also think that a new style of salvationism is needed, that does hearken back to our roots, but does not count on hero worship to make it happen.
Here's what I think. Maybe its time to realize that the autocratic style of leadership and the CEO mentality which Commissioner Joe Noland has warned us about is not going to work now. I think it is now time to think that a more democratic and inclusive leadership is needed. I also believe it is time to be risky. It is time to take a stand on issues that may not just be the safe stand and begin to work progressively toward saving the world from social ills while modeling the Gospel of Jesus. I am not sure that primitive salvationism does that.
Is this brand of primitive salvationism the best for us? Can we be happy with what we have? What is the best brand of salvationism to practice? Does our current style work? What do you suggest?
What do you think?
posted by Larry at 11:52 AM
27 Comments:
This comment has been removed by the author.
This can be a hard one because even I am guilty of encouraging Salvationists to “get back to that radical style of Salvationism”, and it’s that call “back” that’s at the root of this so-called movement called Primitive Salvationism. But I too stop short when I hear people talking about getting back to doing everything the way that Booth did it. I admire Booth’s courage in taking risks…but I don’t admire the way he dictated to and bullied his subordinates, nor the Anglican/Catholic style of leadership that he set up in our church.
Not to wax too American here, but the genius of the Constitution is that those who wrote it left a way to mould it and shape it as needed. They understood that they couldn’t possibly have been able to foresee the needs of the nation after their lifetime. I wish that people could understand that same need in our church. Our foundations are a call to reach “the least of these”, a call that we believe Jesus set forth. But how we go about doing that should not be written in stone. For that matter, defining who “the least of these” even are should not be written in stone. In today’s day and age, “the least of these” stretch well beyond homeless people.
I was visiting with a police officer today who grew up going to SA after school clubs. She said that, while she was thankful for the clubs and enjoyed them, she was bored to tears for about 30 minutes every week when they had to sit down and listen to the Officer talk about the Bible. Listen, I’m no Rob Bell, but when we manage to make Bible stories boring, it’s time to change our method. And the same is true of all of our communication. If we aren’t communicating the gospel in a way that captures people’s hearts and attention, then we’re clearly in need of some new communication methods because the gospel itself is still relevant.
I can’t decide if I got off track there or not? I guess my point is that it’s not a call “back” that we need, but a call forward.
(and, incidentally, we need to jump forward about forty-years.)
Larry:
yes, and no...
The Good ole days, as they as so fondly referred to, are gone, sigh, we will never live them again; (or for anyone born post 1900, we will never live them.) The grass is always greener in someone else's meadow - we never think that it has to be cut - yet it does, it needs the same hard work and effort as the meadow that we presently tend.
I love the idea of getting back to taking the same risks that the P.S.'s took, (not to be confused with the Sony PS products.) The P.S.'s lived in a different time, different calls on life, different needs, and definate different emphasis on life. I'm not trying to get myself out of the need to be all kinds of gung-ho for the Kingdom, I just think that we need to add reality to our thinking. Reality and feelings are two completely different entities.
Life has changed, to ignore that fact would be stupid. Through the years since the good ole days, we have learned what is and is not acceptable; what the public does and does not respond to; what we can and cannot do with the "Soldier" power that we have.
Those who have signed their Articles of War, Adherency and Local Officer papers never cease to be the Salvation Army. When we are in the supermarket, we are the Salvation Army, when we are in conversation with parents at the school gates, we are the Salvation Army, when we are in line at the post office, a place I thoroughly struggle to remain patient, I need to remember that I am the Salvation Army.
The Salvation Army, to the world, we are the Army of Salvation; armies find a weak point and strike as hard as they can to make the strongest impact. We work with low income/working class/poverty line people because we have come to find that they realise their need for the Lord in a much more tangible way. (I believe in ministering to the other classes, but I think that if you look around your corps, your seekers are found in the aforementioned classes.)
My challenge in response is this; are we all taking care of our wee corner of the meadow? And I'm not just talking financially, or if you are a "Professional Christian," are you a Local Officer? Are you giving your time to your corps? Your money is great, but if you are unwilling to give of your time, what does a bank filled with money do? (If you are complaining and yet doing your bit, you are validated; if you are complaining and doing nothing about it, you are just a whiner! No one likes a whiner...)
Honestly, my idea for a forward moving Salvation Army - more commissioned Local Officers. God has a calling on everyone's life, I can't believe that we have so many people with no or just one talent; I don't believe it. Many have MANY talents, many can lead the Songsters, be a CCM member, and teach JS, many can...
mhairi,
thanks for your comments. the problem is we are no longer known as an army of salvation to the world at large. in the states anyway, few of our soldiers are involved with social work matters without being employeed.
you are right, more local officers will help. that would help develop inclusive leadership that cannot be ignored.
tim,
you are right. we need to be forward thinking. too often we are trying to protect our assets and it causes us to not think forward but to be extra cautious, and calling it stewardship.
Why this whole primitive Savationist movement (of which I was once enamored)seems to be a reaction to a movement within the Army toward social work to the exclusion of the Gospel. Let's call it secular Salvationism. A few years ago it seemed like more and more people were willing to comprimise our mission for the sake of monies to do good works. And that was scary. It scared me. And people looked back to our 'roots' we dove 'feet first' over 'the edge' with this 'extreme' celebration of our past leaders because with all of their faults they we're NOT secular at least not the way we remember them.
However, Larry I think your right the world is changing and will continue to change and if our mission is what we are all about we need to adapt and adjust all of ourmethods when needed (even the sacred cows) for the sake of mission.
If the mission is the center than we remain Salvationists and maybe or methods should be completely abandoned for some more effective.
Would that make us "-pgraded Salvationists"?
Sorry about the spelling i sent that post from my blackberry it was suposed to say "Upgraded Salvationists"
I know that this has nothing to do with the topic at hand but I am still giving up Steve Bussey's blog for lent.
Missed you last night!
This comment has been removed by the author.
aaron,
this is not an attempt to bash...i want to understand. you mention that your language does not always match your action or is easily misunderstood. i have heard and read from ps types that we can't send our firebrands into corps now because they are all dead. maybe i misheard or misread. maybe i just misunderstood. it does appear though that there is a pretty strong pecking order as well among ps types. maybe again i misunderstood. i guess there is the problem a language and actions that are not matching. honestly, i am not indicating that there is anyone who is lying or lacking integrity, maybe it is that ps is still trying to understand itself?
did you see the article in this recent online Christianity Today about the demise of the pastoral CEO role?
there is a hybrid style afoot, one that is not totally Episcopal, and not totally congregational (which is believe is totally "non-conformist") it is a style rooted on spiritual authority, and based in the Word of God.
aaron,
what do you mean by fixed idea? are you talking denominational distinctives?
charles,
i actually did read the article. interesting stuff there.
In some ways I find the PS movement refreshing. I remember first coming to the Army and wondering when the last time was that anybody had been discipled in the movement. I looked around and saw people who could spot the difference between a captain and a major from a mile away, but who couldn’t quote me five verses out of the Bible. I found it very scary and, dare I say it, very cult like. Sometimes I still do. My problem is that, while I recognize that PS’ know their Bible and are definitely discipling people, there still seems to be this worship of all things SA. I’ve never liked that about Salvationists. I think it borders on idolatry and it makes me a little sick to my stomach. When I’m in a worship service and a Booth quote comes up on the screen, or we start singing a hymn about TSA, I find myself wondering just who we’re worshiping here? In that sense, I think PS’ still have it wrong.
If I were to be totally honest here…and I guess I will, I’m so sick of talking about all of this. I think it is an absolute joke/tragedy that we’re still discussing things like uniforms, and whether or not it’s ok to ditch certain programming that is no longer working. I detest the arrogance of people who introduce themselves by and insist on being addressed by their ranks while pretending that “it really doesn’t matter” to them. I’m tired of hearing about the radical history of TSA. There’s a reason that we talk about our history so much. It’s like talking to somebody of Greek or Roman heritage. All you can say is, “Yeah. You guys have an amazing history.” But in your mind you’re thinking, “Wow, this is kind of sad.” To me, everything but the Bible is negotiable. If it’s not found in the Bible, what in the heck are we arguing about? The uniform is alienating people? Get rid of it! Church hierarchy is not something that is embraced in this day and age? Get rid of it! All that matters is the gospel. How can we possibly justify the death grip we have on old programming and promotional ideas somebody came up with one-hundred years ago?
Somebody slaughter this white elephant…PLEASE!!!
joe,
are you saying that you think that i am criticizing? or are you saying that we should not even ask the hard question? either way, that would seem not to be healthy for the sa. i would hope that my brand of salvationism might get questioned from time to time. it helps me to examine myself, my theology and yes, my obedience to God. to not think about these things makes us cultish. i think the booths did have many negotiables to answer tim. that was the reason many programs started or corps started and then folded. either there was a lack of progress or they were just bad ideas.
joe, i honestly don't see how having a good discussion and allowing people like aaron to share their view and asking the hard question is not healthy. i think it helps us build community. maybe it is our insecurity in who we are that tends to make us unhealthy and defensive. i am glad this works for aaron and his gang. i am glad tim's salvationism works for him. i see some commonality in all of them. exploring these different expressions or trends, however, long or short they are help us to define a better base of community and faith.
Joe,
One more thing, if I misunderstood your comment and have been a complete idiot about what I have just written, please let me know. Not trying to bash, just trying to learn and determine what is best for this brandh of the Kingdom.
Hello. Good post, Larry. Good comments here. Thanks for the brain fodder. If I may throw another slant in with the other "tangents"...
Let me first say that I may be disqualified from the current conversation by virtue of the fact that I am (tisk, tisk) currently not reguarly attending an Army corps. Because I am in college full-time and unable to work during the week, the job that makes the most sense for me is to lead worship at church on Sundays. This way, I can support my family and go to school full-time. But I digress...
Aaron asked:
"Does it make sense to for something to be Salvation Army if there is no interest in justice, or the poor? I don't think so."
This is the crux of the matter for me. As a man or woman of God, you must define your focus. As a fellowship of believers, you can refine your identity, while still maintaining the gifts of your consituents. As a movement, you can call people of like mind and heart and gifts and calling to join you in the ministry of the Lord to a specific area or need. But as a denomination, you move into murky waters, I think.
What I'm saying is that the minute the Army started calling itself a denomination and setting up churches, it ceased to have its narrow (and quite effective, I think) focus. This is not necessarily a bad thing.
To draw from a business analogy - and I know that we're all about not having CEOs and such - when Google started out, for the longest time, they were the BEST search engine around. They still are one of the best. But now that they've branched out into mail and other applications, they have some of the best stuff on the web. The metaphor gets a litle bit thin after this, but their company still has the same DNA and I'm sure that the people working in the Gmail department aren't calling the ones in the search engine department un-Google like.
My point is that, having grown up in the Army, I have a very different personality and calling than my parents did. It is much the same in many ways, but the reason my parents joined the Army is not the same reason I choose to still affiliate myself with it.
I think the best solution is to let the many different streams that are present within the Army coexist with one another, so long as none of them is heretical. The one thing we all have in common is that we want to see people healed and coming into close relationship with their Maker.
The Army doesn't ONLY have to consist of uniform-wearing, brass-banding, knee-drilling, emergent, primitive, 614-ers, ancient-future, throw-your-label-in-here Salvationists. It can consist of all of them. I'm all for diversity. We're not just a mission anymore - we're a branch of the Church.
Two brief thoughts.
I grew up in a very 'army' corps, and have seen a number since then. I have never seen anything that struck me as idolatry in the sense of people idolising army stuff. I see people obsessing with and focussing on army stuff, but what I see behind that is a spiritual life they cannot articulate in any other terms, and sometimes not a lot happening in it, because of narrowness, brittleness, or irrelevance to mission and context. What primarily strikes me is the poverty of ability to articulate our spiritual and inner lives to one another in anything other than the most simplistic army terms, or in charismatic speak that doesn't necessarily connect with an experience within SA spirituality.
I remember vividly as a young person going to the army to 'do church', while reading books and doing housechurch/charismatic movement between Sunday services in order to do 'real Christian life.'. Virtually my entire ability to be aware of my inner life with God and put it into words arose from my experience outside TSA.
I ended up feeling like I had a split personality.
The other point is not unrelated. We are very good at doing mission statements and even at visions. But our visions depend on context, city, town, department, etc. There is something else we can identify which potentially unites all of us whether PS or 'community church', and that is the charism of our church, it's spiritual heart - an inner quality a little more elusive to describe than a mission statement, but potentially far more powerful. That is about articulating our spiritual heart.
My sense is that if in dialogue we can explore and understand that, then the niggling loops of arguments about uniforms and worship style will all fall into place, with our inner unity undisturbed by a variety of outer appearances.
Sounds like touchy feely stuff, and perhaps not something the men feel immediately comfortable with. But mature spirituality - and the spirituality of mature churches which are good at doing formation work - have this quality of articulating what it is to be part of their congregation(s) in a way that lifts people up and out of the quagmire of smaller details that often consume our energies needlessly.
Just my thought for what it's worth!
Blessings
Eleanor, Sister under private vows, Penzance
joe,
i have had experience with the ps movement. i think that isn't legitimate not to question, even if you have not experienced the movement or the aren't swimming in the middle of it. that is akin to saying not to read about sa history, if you are not experiencing it.
aaron,
to me our dna is about non-denominational movement that is about social justice, holiness and salvation (not necessarily evangelical style.) in other words, we are about doing whatever works. it is not about a style or denomination building. it is simply about a type of christianity in action, doing m whatever it takes in a culturally relevant way. in our context and culture, i am not sure it is about being quasi-military.
Good post . . . you raised some good questions:
“What is the best brand of salvationism to practice? Does our current style work?”
What do you mean by “work?” This has been my struggle all along. How do we define success? How do we know if what we are doing is the right thing? I personally think that we (in America) have missed the point just a bit . . . I’m not sure any of us even know what the heck we’re doing . . . it’s supposed be all about “His” kingdom . . . We miss it when it becomes about “our” kingdom.
Do you ever notice that almost everything we do is all about the army? The name, the rank, the uniform, the “style” the . . . money . . . Is it really all about the Kingdom?
All that to say, What do you mean by “work?”
aaron,
you don't want to talk about labels. i think it is the ps crowd that coined the name and labeled themselves. you are right it is polarizing. therein lies my feeling. when we start claiming a special name or right, whether it be emergent, traditional, ps, contemporary or whatever, we tend to polarize and set our style up as the best. i do believe if it is working for you and people are finding the kingdom (to answer bret for what i mean by "work") great. i don't believe that the military style, terminology and hierarchy will be something that will continue to endear us to people for the long term going forward. at this point in time, the idea of the military has lost its lustre and certainly is something which all but a small portion of the world would see as positive. i think that to be true to our dna we need to adapt. to be sure we don't need to be relevant for the sake of relevance, but we should "become all things to all people so that we might save some."
aaron,
thanks for this discourse. it has been a pleasure. i think you are a good Christian brother. sometimes those who would start to pry and ask the hard question are in fact, your ally. they ask the question to get the discussion in the open so that others might be better informed as well.
Larry exits stage left.
Aaron exits stage right.
Phil is left wondering if either of them noticed his, Bret's, Eleanor's or Steve's questions and comments.
:)
Only slightly kidding. I know this conversation could go on and probably will under a different blog post heading. The discourse was informative...
Phil,
I did notice, and was trying to address everything in my coments, though I ofetn addressed it specifically to Larry.
I was a little puzzled by your comments, to be honest. I couldn't quite make out if you were saying that justice and the poor are not somehow intrinsic or essential to The Salvation Army.
It seemed you were suggesting that our focus has now broadened (denominationally) so that if someone doesn't feel called to that, they can still legitimately be SA.
IF that is what you were saying, I respectfully disagree.
This is not me saying that anyone has to adopt any particular model.
Does every salvo have to move to the inner city? Nope. There are plenty of ways of being about justice and the poor wherever you are.
Should more salvos move into the inner city? Yup, because this is where the majority of the population and social evils are and are continuing to move, and engaging with those is part of our DNA.
I guess what I'm getting at is, I agree that we have certainly broaded our focus as a denomination, but that there are certain essentials without which it makes no sense to distinguish something as SA (as opposed to anything else).
We can do and be about a lot of different things as well, no question. But I would argue that there is an essential calling on TSA to "remember the poor." This call is on every Christian and every Christian body, but TSA has in its foundation a prophetic role to remind the Church. I just don't see why we would be content to give that up.
Grace,
Aaron
Hey, thanks for addressing my points in particular, Aaron. I'm glad to hear you say that you still think there is room for those who are called to different areas of ministry and that "not every Salvo has to move into the inner city". Indeed, there are people everywhere who need Jesus just as much as the poor person on the street.
Absolutely, justice and the poor are intrinsic to the Army - and, as you say, every Christian and Christian body. And, as you mention, care for the poor will look different in different contexts.
I'm starting to think that maybe Steve (Court) is right about the whole covenant thing being what holds us all together. That and winning the world for Jesus (although even that language is still debatable for me). :)
I could go on. Thanks, Larry, for the post.
Instead of "winning the world for Jesus" how about "the whole world in love with Jesus"?
:)
Grace,
Aaron
aaron,
that last comment was the best so far. the whole world in love with Jesus......what a difference that would make. i think that is something that would change the world and our sa as we know it!
I think I'm half baked here, I've been missing something. I mentioned charism, but it strikes me that if TSA wants to connect with its charism it's no good looking for little paragraphs that sum it up. It needs exploring and expressing differently, and it is that which crosses the boundaries of the details of what we do. I sense armybarmy expresses the charism of the army, even without its military language, and that is its power.
Maybe I'm off the wall here. I just know we need to go deeper (and more playful? :0) ) than vision statements to understand our charism. 'The whole world in love with Jesus' is a way of expressing it, for example?
Hmmm. "The whole world in love with Jesus..."
That sounds like some pretty good material for a song! :)
grace,
Phil
Post a Comment
<< Home