It's Not Army?
I know I may tread dangerously as I write today. (What's new?) I recently have had a discussion that many of you have had. I was talking with some of our more veteran members about some of our newer ministries.
They explained how they had visited the newer plant. These godly people were aghast that there was very little uniform wearing that Sunday (if any). They were also somewhat dismayed that the worship leader was in a T-shirt (with a shield on it) blue jeans and flip-flops. They were also very unsure about the casual nature of the Gospel presentation that day and that instead of an "altar call" the preacher called people forward to wash their hands as a sign of some type of purity.
Their assessment was, that it was not Army. This prompted me to ask, so what exactly is? The conversation centered very much around worship forms, the NYSB and other venerable institutions of our movement. Little was said about the doctrine of holiness, service to the poor, or the fact that this particular expression of ministry conducted an outreach (in uniform) to the homeless on a regular basis.
I don't get really too much into the mix about uniform. I think there are some important times to wear it, especially for community service. I like a good brass band piece, on occasion, especially if I know the words and it isn't 12 minutes long. Rarely, can I sit through a concert anymore. I even like the song book, especially if we can use singable tunes.
I guess over the last 10 years as I have reflected on my service to the Lord through our movement, I have begun to think more and more about what is Army. I wonder if what we consider to be Army is more what we like and dislike rather than a real desire to serve the Lord as He leads us into this brave new world.
It comes down to whether it is about methodology or mission. Are we really meant to be a "church" in the denominational sense of the word? Or are we strictly to be a movement of the church especially for those who have no other church? Are we strictly for the poor and downtrodden? Is the answer somewhere in the middle?
What are the essentials of this movement ordained by God? Is the militaristic metaphor one that now causes more division, because of the divisive connotation behind military action or does it unite us behind a leader because of its clear structural delineation of responsibility? Is the answer somewhere in the middle? Is it none of the above?
Is wearing our uniform on Sunday really what we should do when we meet in the community of believers? Should we wear it some other time as a witness? Do we need uniform at all? Does the uniform cause more issues of division than we think or do we make more of this issue than we ought to?
These are all questions that have arisen over the years as we have wrestled with this issue of what Army is.
I fear that often we have treated many of our traditions as sacred cows and not really treated others with the respect which they deserve. We may also be a little guilty of not changing our ways for fear of the unknown.
So what is Army? Is it a matter of perspective, a matter of opinion, a matter of mission or a matter of holy leading? Have we labeled as important things that are more methodology than missional? Is a militaristic metaphor really the right one for these days?
I am asking myself many of these questions, while knowing that I am called to this movement because of what I see as Army.
So I ask again, what is Army?
I am anxious to hear.... What do you think?
They explained how they had visited the newer plant. These godly people were aghast that there was very little uniform wearing that Sunday (if any). They were also somewhat dismayed that the worship leader was in a T-shirt (with a shield on it) blue jeans and flip-flops. They were also very unsure about the casual nature of the Gospel presentation that day and that instead of an "altar call" the preacher called people forward to wash their hands as a sign of some type of purity.
Their assessment was, that it was not Army. This prompted me to ask, so what exactly is? The conversation centered very much around worship forms, the NYSB and other venerable institutions of our movement. Little was said about the doctrine of holiness, service to the poor, or the fact that this particular expression of ministry conducted an outreach (in uniform) to the homeless on a regular basis.
I don't get really too much into the mix about uniform. I think there are some important times to wear it, especially for community service. I like a good brass band piece, on occasion, especially if I know the words and it isn't 12 minutes long. Rarely, can I sit through a concert anymore. I even like the song book, especially if we can use singable tunes.
I guess over the last 10 years as I have reflected on my service to the Lord through our movement, I have begun to think more and more about what is Army. I wonder if what we consider to be Army is more what we like and dislike rather than a real desire to serve the Lord as He leads us into this brave new world.
It comes down to whether it is about methodology or mission. Are we really meant to be a "church" in the denominational sense of the word? Or are we strictly to be a movement of the church especially for those who have no other church? Are we strictly for the poor and downtrodden? Is the answer somewhere in the middle?
What are the essentials of this movement ordained by God? Is the militaristic metaphor one that now causes more division, because of the divisive connotation behind military action or does it unite us behind a leader because of its clear structural delineation of responsibility? Is the answer somewhere in the middle? Is it none of the above?
Is wearing our uniform on Sunday really what we should do when we meet in the community of believers? Should we wear it some other time as a witness? Do we need uniform at all? Does the uniform cause more issues of division than we think or do we make more of this issue than we ought to?
These are all questions that have arisen over the years as we have wrestled with this issue of what Army is.
I fear that often we have treated many of our traditions as sacred cows and not really treated others with the respect which they deserve. We may also be a little guilty of not changing our ways for fear of the unknown.
So what is Army? Is it a matter of perspective, a matter of opinion, a matter of mission or a matter of holy leading? Have we labeled as important things that are more methodology than missional? Is a militaristic metaphor really the right one for these days?
I am asking myself many of these questions, while knowing that I am called to this movement because of what I see as Army.
So I ask again, what is Army?
I am anxious to hear.... What do you think?
posted by Larry at 1:51 PM
33 Comments:
The charism, not the clutter.
Blessings.
Eleanor, Sis under private vows and lots of grey clouds here in chilly Cornwall UK.
How about this for starters, Larry?
My definition of Salvationism – Muscular Piety:
- A fighting spirit as a basic posture
- Demonstrating evangelistic passion
- Exuding a compassion for the poor and downtrodden
- Giving a vibe of unwarranted optimism
- Comprehension of spiritual warfare
- Living the sacrament of the ordinary
- Strong belief in egalitarian ministry
- Displaying an unusual degree of initiative and innovation
- Serving with an international perspective
- Open to sabotage the status quo
- Vowing an uncompromised commitment to holy living
- Worshipping with vociferous zeal
RJM
Right there with you, Larry.
I too am called to TSA but I struggle often with the unnecessary tensions within our organization about what is right and what is wrong. Or as you've put it "What is Army?" Obviously, I can offer no clear answer but Rick's response in pretty encompassing.
My gut wants to say that if the ministry is effective (What is effective? That's another blog!) then it certainly warrants some freedom. Can we allow one another the freedom to fail? Try something new, if it fails, try something else . . . (Can I hear some applause for Comm. Nolan?)
I am profoundly interested in our young adults and what they have to offer to our good 'ol Army. If one chooses to lead worship wearing a t-shirt with a shield on it in his own church home, I'm all for it. I have a good selection of my own battle gear to wear when it is appropriate.
I am praying that the veterans (I suppose I need to include myself in that group - sigh.) will extend grace to those who are trying to reach the lost in any way they can. Their passion should not be squelched. The present day culture is extremely demanding and challenging - can we allow some new techniques for a new day?
I should mention as well that many of those who argue for 'The Army' ways have forgotten some of our history. Our early leaders (Booth, Railton, etc) were radical in some of their ways. But, that is for our historians to comment on further.
I know I have not answered your question but you have touched on a deep concern of mine.
What a terrific post tonight, Larry.
"Doing it Army" has to include sacramental living, that our lives our Christ's broken bread and outpoured wine intended to refresh and feed hungry souls.
"Doing it Army" has to include tranformational expectations.
"Doing it Army" has to include the Tale of Two Cities: the best of times and the worst of times; the best of lives and the worst of lives; the best of hearts and the worst of hearts. And frequently this happens within the congregation in worship.
"Doing it Army" must include a Holiness table and mercy seat used for prayer.
"Doing it Army" must include holy living.
"Doing it Army" must show love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.
And ALL of that can be done with flip-flops. (Although I would advise, not from a CO point of view but rather a concerned mom, flip flops in March in NE OH is a colossal mistake!)
It could NEVER be a mistake to emphasize another lesson of purity. Purity needs to be emphasized again and again and again - it is truly Holiness Unto the LORD to accept His gift of His character and grasp it and be filled by it and wear it.
Purity as Holiness Unto the LORD - that's "Doing It Army" and it inspires me to hear that the teaching of purity continues and is maintained by hearts that desire His cleanness in our world which can easily be influential in its darkness.
Rick, I love your definition - it's exceptional! Especially the bit about unwarrented optimism - Christ is risen; He is risen indeed! But I am a lover, not much of a fighter, my basic posture is not of avoidance or denial...I contend that my basic posture is a loving spirit.
BTW, I believe that the uniform wearing is intended as a testimony, and that testimony needs to be made in places away from the corps more than within the corps. Almost to the degree that uniform wearing is more effective away from the corps building, at work, at school, grocery shopping, at hockey practice. I.e. SA Night at the Jake (oops, I'm sorry the Cleveland Indians don't play at Jacobs Field anymore.) I mean, SA Night at Progressive Field should be a night when Army soldiers and officers where their uniforms...their tunic uniforms. Not a tshirt or jeans or shorts, but uniforms. That would be a more effective mode of wearing the uniform than Sunday morning songsters attire. Granted, those of us'ns who wear hose will be more uncomfortable, but I'll be wearing my uniform that night. (And its not just 'cause I'm in the band.)
Anything that includes reaching the excluded lost for Christ is “Army”. Anything that is not reaching the excluded lost for Christ should be left for the Methodist/Presbyterian/etc. churches. Therefore, if your Corps is not regularly seeing conversions or, at the very least, growth in the area of the excluded, what you’re doing isn’t Army. Uniforms and brass bands have absolutely nothing to do with. If you’re reaching the excluded lost with uniforms and brass bands, awesome! You live in some weird little pocket of the western world where people are still into that and probably also enjoy a good boiled and salted white fish. But to suggest that a kid wearing a t-shirt, and reaching the excluded lost with his guitar, isn’t Army, is actually so anti-Army, and so ignorant of Army history, that you should actually be stripped of your uniform, sent back to Soldier classes, and not allowed to wear your uniform again until you understand that it’s the mission that makes you “Army”. Dressing in uniform, but not actually being a part of the mission, is pretending. My daughter has a box full of fairy dresses, but putting one on doesn’t make her a fairy anymore than wearing a uniform and playing a brass instrument makes you a Salvationist.
Now take off that uniform, go re-read the articles of war, admit that you haven’t kept any of them outside of the one on drugs and alcohol, and think about whether or not you’re really prepared to commit to this radical, highly evangelistic, offensive, praxis model of church or not.
And one more thing.
We won’t be giving you that uniform back until you start getting involved in social action again. It costs way too much money (at $300 a pop!) to buy you a uniform simply to wear to church in front of people who are already Christians. If you’re not prepared to be actively involved in social action (and this doesn’t mean hiring a social worker at your Corps) then your uniform will go to somebody who is. After all, Corps and DHQ resources helped subsidize the purchase of that thing and giving it to somebody just to wear to church is simply poor stewardship.
I've often been chided for my belief that wearing our uniforms for each other is ridiculous. Why do some salvationist only wear their uniforms on Sunday during church, but then as soon as the benediction is pronounced (or the band is dismissed) the tunic comes off and a jacket is worn to the restaurant for lunch? I was appalled a few years ago when as the CO, we were asked to host a well-known retired General for Sunday morning. Following the meeting, we were to take her to lunch with the DCs. My wife and I showed up at the restaurant in our uniforms and were told we were dressed inappropriately and needed to wear a sweater or sports coat instead of the tunic. We refused and lo and behold, our tunic helped initiate spiritual conversation with the wait staff during lunch....an opportunity that would have been lost had we worn sweaters and sports jackets.
But what is Army? Is it too trite to say that being Army boils down to "Saving Souls, Growing Saints & Serving Suffering Humanity?" Whether it is accomplished while wearing logo tees or epaulettes shouldn't matter, should it?
Tim, I Good words. I've thought more and more about the Army lately since my mom passed away as I've considered whether God in fact was calling me to spend my remaining years in full time service. The Army to me, and this will probably sound a bit arrogant has always been what I decided it was to be. I grew up in the heady quarters of it, That is a play on words as my parents were always on headquarters in my lifetime. And banding was the way I moved from place to place after I left home. Not being under officer rule allowed me to decide what the Army is. And now working for the Army in the west at a camp still affords me the views I choose. A good Army was about good people. People full of graciousness and hospitality. Forgiving and non judgmental. Being Christlike in their daily lives. A bad army was about not so nice people, not comprehensively saved and more authoritative and insensitive to the Holy Spirit, full of their own ideas about leadership, flaunting it over their employees and not with much love for others. But before I go further:
Here is a question that came up at an Easter Dinner with some officers, some lay workers and myself. I heard the General is set against love feasts or any form of celebrating the Lord's supper. Is this true? A directive from Christ being called non Army? Can someone clarify this for me? Thanks.
Oh yeah and RJM, I like your ~"Open to sabotage the status quo." if I understand what you are meaning.
Should have mentioned a great little book that relates here to this subject:
"A Peacock in the Land of Penguins"
A thought provoking read.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Rick,
"open to sabotage the status quo" Could you elaborate?
Spiritual warfare could put us in company with the charismatic movement.. Some would argue that is not Army in doctrine and practice. Maybe expounding on this more would help.
By the way, thanks for hosting the Bible Study. You will never know the impact that will have.
"CAN'T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG?"
ALB
speaking of "Authenticity?," please read part 1 of (former officer) TJ's article over at http://fsaof.blogspot.com - seems authentic to me.
but wait - "It's Not Army?"
ALB
Salvationist Saboteurs of the Status Quo
- Going for sinners – going for the worst
- Taking the gospel out of the sanctuary and into the street
- Women leaders
- Not serving communion and not baptizing
- Capturing bar tunes with sacred lyrics
- Wearing a uniform
- Marching a brass band down a residential street
- Holiness now, for all believers – not when we get to heaven, for a select few
- Praying with people at disaster sites
- Shouting, banging drums, shaking timbrels and clapping in worship
- Utilizing prominent citizens to give money, time, expertise and influence for SA mission
RJM
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Rick,
Thanks for the further explanation.
I do question a few. The issue of communion and baptism the way you state them, tend to trivialize them. These are important symbols for most of Christianity. IF not trivializing them, it does seem to paint them as an unimportant issue. They are not.
Much of the rest of your list is being done by the church in several expressions not just the Army. We were not the only ones doing it at our inception either. Some would argue that others do them better than us now, especially the more edgy types of music.
The only things really unique to this list are wearing uniform and marching a brass band down a street of a residential neighborhood. The latter tends to be more of annoyance to our neighbors in the Western World than a sabotage of the status quo.
As to the loud worship and women leaders, many of our African American and Pentecostal sisters and brothers have been right with that movement for years. Even now, many of the mainline denominations have strong women leaders.
By the way, I rarely get to a really loud meeting in the West anymore, when it comes to Salvation Army gatherings. Which then begs to question, are we really sabotaging the status quo?
ok, i really need to know why we don't serve communion and don't baptise. not really why we don't do it, but more why there needs to be a directive to not do it. is it stated somewhere in scripture it isn't needed?
feel free to answer to jfstrain@yahoo.com if it doesn't need to be addressed here. yet, i think it may.
This comment has been removed by the author.
jeff,
the answer to that may be in another blog..there are many opinions and explanations. i do endorse what i understand to be our position. i do believe that everything should be a sacrament.
I'll wait for the post on love feasts and baptism at a later time then. Thanks Larry. I think everyone is looking in on your blog.
In general, outside of the theaters of decision making, people just want to love the Lord and each other in all the ways that are approved by Scripture. No need for editing.
TSA: an expression of the body of Christ with a rich heritage of adapting cultural practices to the proclamation of the gospel, built on the desire to be inclusive, particularly of the poor.
I appreciate that in these days, (on a good day) it has room for warriors, prophets and lovers.
Terry Camsey's article in the most recent Officer Magazine has some thoughts on the baby and bathwater which give some perspective on this discussion as well.
Did the 'old guard' think differently when they were 20 or 30? I wonder how they would describe the Army of their youth? Perhaps for some of them, it was never really defined in terms of a mission to the poor - think in terms of the stories of the glory days of some of the larger corps. Maybe it really wasn't all that different from today, where the expression of 'the army' really does vary from community to community.
it's time for everyone in the Army to stand up and be counted. As they are, the way God created them, in the name of Christ. The Army is a church of many characters. Everyone of us. A true soldier of Christ will not step down from what the Lord tells him to be or do. If reaching the lost is our goal, reach the ones assigned to you, no matter what the cost or criticism. Sometimes we can get down right dirty in His work. It breaks my heart to go where he leads me sometimes. But when you see the tears of those who would never darken a church doorway looking at the humility and honesty of His love in your imperfections, you will thank the Lord for who He has made you to be. Because then we better understand His ways.
Many Salvationists live outside the perimeter of the Army corps now, because it is not the lost we are led to find. Many will never have time for the squabbling of Army regulations, who has that kind of time these days? Our days are numbered. Get out of the board rooms and back into the streets. Or where ever the Lord has you. Broadway, Wall street, Hollywood, Vancouver, Ohio, where ever. But for the Lover of our souls sake, figure it out soon.
Yeah Jeff, I don’t know who you are, but I like you.
I found Jesse’s insistence that a holiness table must be present for the ministry to be “Army”, an interesting one. Having never seen anybody in the Army reference the holiness table (except to once tell me to stop sitting on one), I’ve always wondered why the army had communion tables in their halls when they rarely practiced communion (except in basements and beyond the watchful eye of the authorities). It might alarm you then to know that one of the first things Jamie and I did, when taking over an old SA building, was to move the holiness table (known only to us a “table”) and mercy seat out. In fact, we gave them away to another Corps. We moved out the stage and lectern as well. If I had known then the meaning behind the holiness table, I would have found it a bit strange to keep one around as we were starting a ministry to the lost.
Even now that I’ve discovered what the holiness table is meant to represent (I had to ask somebody this week), I personally find that it represents what is so often wrong with the Army and the church at large; this belief that the uniforms, brass bands, and holiness tables somehow encompass all that we are supposed to be but are too often nothing but hollow shells. Ironically, “encompass” also means “obsolete”.
I don’t know guys. Seems odd to me that we have these graven tables in our chapels, but rarely call people to holiness, as if it’s enough to simply have one around. And it seems doubly strange that we have these uniforms, meant to represent our heart to God and our hand to man, yet require that people really only remain faithful to coming to church in them. It’s like having a bag full of walnut shells that, once opened, had no walnut inside. Nice shells, but who really cares?
It was a nice table though. Hand made too.
Ah, Tim. You should have kept that table. On one hand, I do understand, but on the other hand, the 'mercy seat' and the 'holiness table' seem to be symbols of separation rather than inclusion. I think back to the scene from, I think, Glory, when the society lady kneels next to the street person, and as the SA person attempts to move him over (downwind, I imagine), she insists that he should stay - for 'we're both seeking the same Saviour'
Ironic that it was the seeker who had to remind the "saint," the newcomer who could see what those who'd been around a long time failed to recognize.
sorry, was a bit vague - On the one hand, I understand the Army's heritage of the mercy seat and holiness table,although hadn't realized that the mercy seat/altar in its current usage emerged from the holiness movement/camp meeting culture of the 1800's.
The other thought is that perhaps that just as the Spirit-wind blew through those years and allowed for the powerful use of the altar call, in today's changing - yes, even emerging - church, that same Spirit-wind is stirring up, as one example, the creativity of the prayer rooms, with tangible, or should I say tactile ways of encountering God. I love the words of the glorious creation hymn:
Spirit, Spirit of gentleness,
blow through the wilderness,
calling and free.
Spirit, Spirit of restlessness,
stir me from placidness,
Wind, Wind on the sea.
Not alarmed Tim: it sounds like you both made a decision and acted very effectively, efficiently, thoughtfully and generously to follow it through. I am certain they were accepted within the spirit of gratitude and honest affection, providing out of your wealth to help someone else in their need.
The teaching of the mercy seat and the Holiness table are not about matching blond furniture with the wood of the window sills and lentils of the doorjams. The teaching of the mercy seat and Holiness table are not about furniture at all. The teaching of the mercy seat and Holiness table are not about protecting sacred idols and they are not about everything that is wrong with the Army. They are not about tables and benches.
The teaching of the mercy seat and Holiness table are exclusively about communion with God and the portable access that communication finds within the faith of Christ Jesus. No furniture required. And from your own description of your ministry and the household of faith you lead and nurture, you describe honest and expecting communion with God. Whether you want to agree or not, it truly sounds like we are both on the same side of what is being said.
The mercy seat is described by Yahweh Himself, saying in Exodus 25:22, "And there I will meet with you, from above the mercy seat, and commune with you."
Colonel Phil Needham writes:
‘The mercy seat itself is symbolic of any place where a seeker comes after God in prayer. The true mercy seat is the heart, and the outward act of kneeling at a prayer bench, or any other place, is nothing if not the outward sign of the kneeling soul. Any place can become the mercy seat setting. The actual mercy seat in a corps hall is therefore only symbolic in the sense that it represents all such places.’
The mercy seat represents that all sinners are brought to God with repentance, sorrow about their sins and how that sin has caused an irreparable chasm.
We are called to be saved from sin - mercy seat
We are called to be saved for holiness - holiness table
Commissioner Samuel Logan Brengle, the Army’s early-day holiness teacher, delights in saying: ‘I have carried a mercy seat around in my heart half a century or more. And if there is ever any need, I constantly fly to thee.’
We should also be clear in our thinking, understanding, speaking and practising as to what the mercy seat is not:
It is not the only place where people meet with God.
It is not the only place where sinners find salvation or forgiveness.
It does not possess any special spiritual power of its own.
It is not a sacred object in the sense that it adds eternal significance to what takes place.
Its use is not an essential step which must be taken on the way to becoming a soldier in the Salvation Army.
There is no virtue attached to the mere object, which is just a bench. Therefore it should not become another idol to worship.
A van bumper. A park picnic table. Monkey bars. A garden path. A lakeside seat on a giant boulder. A pine needle covered wooded area. A bike rack outside the library. These are all places within my personal expereince which have been tranformed into a sacred communing place with the Creator God who forgives sinners and transforms sinners. Mercy seat. Picking the gravel out of my hose, I know that God presence has brought the sacred blessing of His redemption and grace - and it has all been done without a piece of furniture.
Benches and tables - they are symbolic. But what they represent is a lynch pin to the faith we practice. God meets personally with us, and calls us to meet with Him. God saves us from sin. God saves us for holiness.
Truthfully, I didn't develop that answer to cause judgement, add another notch to potshot city for all ministries that do not have a mercy seat or Holiness table. If I could edit a comment I would add the phrase " the teaching of" so as not to bring disturbing, uninteded criticism into the reading of this responses.
Have courage and know that God is at work in the ministry you serve and share. Have courage and know that God is at work in the ministry that other people serve and share.
BTW, on a lighter note, I thank God everyday for the privilege of being a woman, please use my name in its feminine spelling "Jessie" instead of the masculine "Jesse". Or else I just may begin referring to you as what shall we say, "Timantha."
Tim,
JessIe articulated the aspect of the holiness table well. HS also gave a good perspective. These are symbols of something greater than us. Just as a cross hanging in a sanctuary or hall is meant to represent the sacrifice of Jesus, so these two symbols in our theology are there to help us think about the forgiveness of God and the opportunity to be holy.
Their use can vary. A call to commitment can vary. A call to holiness can vary. The teaching should be clear.
I would hasten to say that if taught incorrectly, they do become obsolete in their meaning. They do become idols as JessIe suggests. They certainly are not magic boxes, but important symbols as is the communion table in the tradition in which you were raised.
I think that the way we teach and use them is so important. I do not believe that there is always a need to do the traditional altar call. In fact, in some respects, it can be counter-productive. To use these symbols in creative and, yes, in sometimes traditional ways is I believe a very powerful way of bring people into a meaningful dialogue and relationship with God.
So I am not sure they are obsolete, unless we make them so by limp teaching.
I agree that we're actually all in agreement here, even if we've stated our thoughts in different ways. But consider the fact that I've been SERVING with the Army, fulltime, for nine years, and only last week found out what the holiness table was for (the mercy seat was pretty obvious). There's something seriously wrong with that.
Again, the outside of our cup looks pretty amazing, but the inside needs somebody to focus on discipling it! Or put more plainly, I'm not sure that many of our symbols have a whole lot of meaning behind them these days. I know what they're SUPPOSED to stand for, but do they really? If not, maybe we need to focus a little less on the outward symbols, and a little more on the inward understanding and commitment.
Tim,
I agree. I would not throw the baby out with the bath water though.
Tim,
I'm intrigued by your comments. Over the years, I've quite often spoken a sentence or two of explanation prior to inviting people to come to the altar, and sometimes do the same regarding the holiness table. I do remember the time when my husband gave the invitation to "place your all on the altar" and two men (from the Adult Rehab program) came forward and sat on either end of the mercy seat, facing the congregation, so even that isn't self-explanatory. Because I come from a faith tradition that did not use an altar in that way, I think that I am sensitive to how newcomers may not be familiar with that component of our service.
You said, "I'm not sure that many of our symbols have a whole lot of meaning behind them these days. I know what they're SUPPOSED to stand for, but do they really?" Do you find yourself utilizing other kinds of symbols or symbolic language? I do think this may be something that does change as culture changes. We certainly don't use the full list of military terms in most cases any longer.
As I think about this, I do find myself using symbols, images and metaphors a lot, but not generally a lot of "army" ones. Don't know that I'd preach a sermon on the symbols of the crest (any idea what the 7 gospel shots are), but I have used paper chains (the kinds of things that bind us), and a picket fence (allowing each person to label a part of the fence as to the way God guards their life).
I guess I see symbols in a more fluid way, helping believers to connect with God in some way. I've also had some experience with icons, and found them to be personally informing and helpful. Perhaps as the denominational lines become more permeable (as seems to be the trend), we'll be able to more deeply value the symbols of faith that have been cherished over the centuries by believers of many denominations.
Hi, just visiting, and wanted to drop a couple comments :)
Larry, i'm sure you'd agree with me, but uniforms CAN'T cause division themselves. Sin causes division. Individual choices to indulge in pride and selfishness and anger cause division, but certainly an article of clothing is not the culprit.
Also, I might remind everyone that there is no excuse for soldiers to not know something of the history of topics like the uniform, and brass bands, and mercy seats. O and R very clearly recommends that you become familiar with all of these (we can attest to the wisdom of these words by reading the comments of this very post).
anyway I think Catherine Booth put it best when she said
"The Army’s success has been built upon the great fundamental principle of adaptation"
before you hoot and hollar and say screw the military metaphor and let's all play electric guitars - remember... Old people want to keep their old ways, and young people want to change everything. Now-here is the tricky part.
you gotta use some wisdom. There are obviously benefits to both types of thinking, there will never be a happy medium, thus is the blessing of inter-generational relationships. Too many people differ in their opinions, and mentor/disciple people differently amongst the same organization to purposely advance their mode of thought. THAT causes division. It's called deception.
It is up to our leaders (and by leaders I don't mean CO's or even TC's, I mean those of you who have been annointed as leaders)to work it out together, and be good examples of how to handle situations man to man (and by man i mean human, not man) and spur eachother on, rather than tear our own army apart...but you guys seem to be doing a fine job here by what i've read, not that i'm the judge, just a few thoughts...
Having read the list of comments, I come back to what I first said, being faithfully army is about the charism of the army, not the clutter. If we can articulate our charism, our inner sense of who we are as a church successfully, and find agreement there, then what can be allowed to become second order issues - the 'clutter' of uniforms, formal, informal, ranks, brass bands, differing views on sacraments etc can be handled more gently and flexibly, and with less damage to people and congregations. My conviction is that energy poured into trying to get coherence over second order issues is largely a destructive endeavour because it deflects us from our charism which is in effect our battle orders.
Richard Munn's definition of salvationism surely does a good job of defining our charism. Does it matter how we challenge the status quo so long as we resist fossilizing? The art of keeping the army fighting I would argue is about minimalising what we all have to agree on (other than for practical purposes locally), but then holding that essential heart of it right up before our eyes as we fight. It is when the list of what we have to agree over starts to grow that the fossilization begins.
First let me just say that I really appreciate the spirit in which this is being discussed. I honestly don’t think I’ve seen this before. The church, as a whole, would not be in the place it is if we could all discuss our differences like this.
The second thing I need to say is that I think I may finally be removed enough from church culture to see the absolute oddness of it all. My wife and I started a ministry working with immigrants in North London about four years ago and many of the church metaphors we see just seem completely out of place. When I was a kid my father used to tell me that the church speaks a different language than the rest of the world. That when we use words like “saved”, it has no meaning to the world and makes us appear to be living on a different planet that is simply irrelevant to the surrounding culture. Since coming to work alongside the Army, I have only seen that list of metaphors grow.
I want to make sure that I’m clear here. True, I’m not particularly sure that the military metaphor is a good one these days. There’s lots of negativity surrounding it, whether we compare ourselves to a physical Army, or a spiritual one. And I’m not entirely sure that I’d agree that garments, in and of themselves, cannot cause division. Certainly David caused division by dancing while scantily clad, even though his heart was very much in the right place. If nothing else, the uniform, when worn in a church setting, divides the congregation into those who think the uniform is important, and those who don’t. When I first came to the Army, I always felt out of place in a church setting. That said, the attitude of those wearing their uniforms (in that particular environment) was definitely at play, so maybe Joe is right. Still, I want to be clear in saying that my biggest problem is certainly not with the uniform itself (or any of the other symbols mentioned here), it is with the idea that methods are what make us who we are as a church. The instance this becomes true, we have a shelf life, because the effectiveness of methods absolutely come and go.
Unlike HS, I grew up in a denomination that believed we were being disobedient to “The Great Commission” if we did not offer an alter call anytime we came together. If I had a penny for every verse of “Just As I Am” that I’ve sung in my life, I’d be able to fund several homeless shelters on my own. The problem is that a culture began to grow up around us that was very cynical towards the alter call. In fact, even many young church gowers grew cynical of it. I stuck with it, however, until I was visiting with a friend who shared with me that he’d rather people not come forward and make a decision at the end of a church service. For my friend, he wanted the opportunity to visit with people about their commitments. He believed that it was a much more effective, authentic, and (obviously) relational way of journeying alongside people. From that moment on, I began to see the alter call, not as useless, but possibly as not the most effective way for somebody to make a life change.
Many Salvationists argue against communion by saying that it can lose its effectiveness if observed too often. I find this to be the most ironic argument against the sacraments of any I’ve heard in the Army because, so often, I’m surrounded by Salvationists who have not reached out to a lost or needy person since the day they dawned their uniform. If that’s the case, what sets them apart from a Methodist, or any other denomination on the planet? The uniform? Or is it the fact that they don’t drink or smoke? Honestly? If that’s the criteria, then we are irrelevant and rank right alongside the Amish as far as our impact on the planet. We are living in a bubble. People are happy to come see us at Christmas, and even stop and take a picture of our horse and buggy, but they just as quickly get back in their cars and wonder why anybody would choose to “dress like that in 2008?”
If I’m going to choose to have a mercy seat, or a holiness table, or to wear a uniform, it’s only because those symbols will let me into the door of somebody’s soul, not because “It’s Army”. The mission is what makes us Army. The methods are what date us and challenge our effectiveness. So just as the catholic church must work to make sure that communion keeps its meaning within their ministry, so we must work to make sure that our uniforms keep their meaning in ours. And we’ve clearly not done that. So, to repeat my earlier post, either wear them to be a part of the mission, or take them off. Because, every time somebody wears one who is not involved in the mission, they sap a little more of the meaning out of them. And with a large percentage of Salvationists in the western world (yes, I am generalizing) not involved in the mission, how much of the meaning is left?
(p.s. before anybody quotes any stats on the effectiveness or image of our social services, let me point out that our congregations separated themselves from social services years ago. They have very little to do with each other these days, except in a very small percentage of our Corps.)
Post a Comment
<< Home