Many Voices--One Army

Below is an article I received from my D.C. It was sent to him by THQ prior to T.E.C. (Territorial Executive Committee) which starts tomorrow here in the east.

"MANY VOICES, ONE SALVATION ARMY
Are you a traditionalist, neo-Salvationist or a voice of radical change? With all the competing viewpoints in our Movement, how should we respond? By Lieut-Colonel Graham Durston, Divisional Commander, Sydney East and Illawarra, Australia Eastern Territory
ONE of the essential qualifications of a divisional commander is to be a good listener, because people love to share their views on The Salvation Army with you. And to be honest, I welcome and encourage it. Over the past four years I have had the opportunity to move between the two Australian territories and have become aware of the diversity that exists within the Army. I refer to a diversity of worship styles, theological underpinning, organization, culture and philosophy of mission. At least from the time that John Gowans was territorial commander in Australia, leadership has generally applauded and encouraged diversity. I clearly remember on one occasion Commissioner Gowans saying: ‘I am an unhappy man. I can’t seem to get the idea through that all corps do not have to be the same. Try something new and see if it works.’ I think history shows that John Gowans was phenomenally successful in communicating that message.In an attempt to make sense of current debates within the Army, I have identified five distinct voices. I call them voices because to date they have not hardened into factions. It is true that some voices are becoming strident, but we can still describe the discourse as a conversation or debate rather than destructive and divisive argument. I present now a catalogue of these voices, describing their outstanding characteristics and giving them an identifying name. This analysis is based purely on what I have heard and seen. I have not conducted any surveys, or utilized any task forces or focus groups. While an attempt has been made to distinguish the voices by bringing a cluster of generalizations together, there is undoubtedly merging and overlapping. As well as identifying these ideas, I hope to clarify some of the implications of following them through to their logical conclusions.

Traditionalist voices are saying: We prefer the Army to stay basically the same, though we will constantly try to do things better. The existing structures ensure that we remain an army, and this is what God has called us to be. Blended worship styles are acceptable as long as the rich treasury of Salvation Army songbook songs is included. Bands and songsters are favored but not exclusively. Uniform is important and good standards are to be maintained. There are some non-negotiables such as uniform, songbook, military structure, the holiness table, mercy seat and the doctrines. We need to keep some traditional terminology. Pastoral care of soldiers is important. Making new soldiers is important. Social work is significant as an historical mandate, but not necessarily done by the corps. Ethical standards are to be maintained by being a disciplined Movement.

Pentecostal voices are saying: A Pentecostal style of worship is to be used exclusively.Include some aspects of Pentecostal theology and practice such as slaying in the Spirit and speaking in tongues. Adopt Pentecostal ecclesiology (leadership by a small group of Spirit-filled elders). Exercise of strong spiritual leadership by an officer leader. This extends to discipline or excommunication of the ‘unspiritual’. Ultimate authority is the perceived leading of the Spirit, rather than ‘orders and regulations’. Maintain a distance from ‘less spiritual’ corps. Minimize or dispense with Army structures. Limit social services to helping members of the congregation. Uniform is not important. Casual contemporary dress is favored. Making soldiers is not important. Seeker-sensitive voices are saying: (Though the term ‘seeker-sensitive’ originated with the Bill Hybels model, I am using it here as a convenient heading for a wider cluster of characteristics. Another possible heading could be ‘Contemporary corporate voices are saying:’) Emphasize the sensitivity of newcomers (customers). Attempt excellence in worship and all features of your product. Communicate clearly and get rid of all jargon and unfamiliar terminology. Wearing uniform can be insensitive to newcomers (customers). Limit uniform-wearing so newcomers feel comfortable. Contemporary casual dress is favored. Emphasize evangelism. Have the kind of church where people feel comfortable and happy.Social services may take second place to evangelism. Preference is to be given to addressing local needs.Effective state-of-the-art technology is essential. We need to blend in as a neighborhood church and to minimize denominational involvement and affiliation. Discourage overt Salvationism. Crests, hierarchy, songsters, brass bands, timbrels and congress are largely irrelevant and foreign to the local interests. Adapt Army structures to suit the local situations. Replace corps councils or pastoral care councils with leadership teams, management teams or other corporate models.Contemporary life is so pressured. Don’t ask too much of anyone. Making soldiers is not important.Simplify the structure. Contemporary congregations resent divisional, territorial and International Headquarters, which are expensive and unnecessary.

Voices of radical change are saying: Our first task is to understand the post-modern culture in which we are ministering. Based on a general decline over recent decades, the Army needs radical surgery. It is not a question of whether the Army will die in the next 20 years, but how it will die. Will it die in such a way that resurrection is possible? Change is urgent. Those who will not change must be ignored or left behind. Change-agent leadership is a necessity. Maintenance leadership must go. Apart from the gospel, everything is negotiable. Uniform, military terminology andthe hierarchical form of government are allexpendable and may have to go. Pastoral care is not important in these urgent times. It is a good work to close a declining corps down, if it leads to a new, relevant mission. Effective communication with post-modern generations is the hallmark of the Church. Making soldiers can wait until we get our direction and structures relevant.

Neo-Salvationist (aka radical or primitive Salvationism) voices are saying: Get back to William Booth’s vision of the Army: ‘Go for souls, and go for the worst.’ Make a strong call for mission and sacrifice. Emphasize the social aspects of the gospel by reaching out to the poor and marginalized, but with a strong evangelical intention. Wear uniform, but not the ‘tin soldiers’ kind. Do not wear it on Sunday to worship but through the week when engaged in mission. Wear a ‘work’ uniform not a ‘corporate’ type. Making ‘fighting’ soldiers is important, but only if they have something relevant and challenging to do. Engage in incarnational ministries. Live in the housing estates or flats with the poor. Emphasize holiness teaching. Teach that bias to the poor is the sign of true holiness. Engage in contemporary forms of worship but include some mission songs. Change the world by converting the individual, but also address structural evil. Get involved in social justice issues. Take on the prophetic mantle. Speak to the Army and to the world. Encourage the exercise of gifts, such as words of prophecy and special revelations.

There are admirable qualities and characteristics expressed by all these voices. Unity in diversity is a New Testament ideal. However, there are also threats. Diversity can lead to tension. People identify closely with one approach, become passionate about it and the voices can become more insistent and even angry. Sometimes this leads to feelings of superiority of one viewpoint over others. Pressures at the tension points lead to fractures in the Body of Christ. If someone wanted to heighten tensions and destroy the unity in diversity of The Salvation Army, the tongue is the most effective weapon. The following hurtful words might be aimed at the various voices.

To the traditionalist say: You do not know how to worship. It’s because of you that the Army is in decline.

To the Pentecostalist say: You are all emotionalism and there is little depth. You do not get people saved, just steal them from other congregations.

To the seeker-sensitive proponents say: You just want to mimic American large-church models. You have ceased being Salvationists except when it is to your personal advantage to accept denominational support.

To the voices of radical change say: You are out to destroy the Army. You are so task-centered, you have lost sight of people altogether.

To the neo-Salvationists say: You cannot come to grips with the present post-modern society by going back to a vastly different society. You will be selective with what you bring from the past. The romance of serving the poor is one thing, but what of the discipline and quick-changing mission mentality of that period of Army expansion?

These damaging assertions create unease, open up the cracks in our unity and cause deep resentment.

What is the role of leadership in managing this diversity in the Army? Through prayer we have to listen to God’s voice in all of this. Affirm that the Lord still needs an international evangelical movement, active in addressing the social needs of people, based on the Bible and the particular theological insights of John Wesley and William Booth.

Do we believe that we still have both a biblical and historical mandate to be The Salvation Army? If so, we need to concentrate on the education and training of our officers, soldiers and adherents to keep them fulfilling the calling of being a Salvationist today. We need to provide direction for the future. We may also need to set limits to diversity, so that our central reason for being is not obscured. This will require careful study of the theology and ecclesiology that underpins these voices, identifying what is consistent with our calling as a Movement and what has strayed into the province of another part of the Body of Christ. As a first step we might consider the implications of carrying through exclusively and completely the main thrust of the five voices. (I warn you that there is a little bit of caricature here to emphasize some points.)

Traditionalist voices: The implication is that, in the face of all the changes in society and despite the alarming decline in the past 30 years, only minor changes are needed. We will continue to offer this and future generations a worship and service environment much the same as it is now. In 30 years we will look much the same as we do now, though if trends continue we will be a small, struggling, elderly denomination.

Pentecostal voices: The implication is that we will become more like the growing Pentecostal churches and that we can abandon much that is uniquely Salvation Army. We will move to more autonomous local leadership of like-minded, spirit-filled people and have a different theological emphasis. Social work will be phased out. We will be unrecognizable as The Salvation Army in 20 to 30 years.

Seeker-sensitive voices: We will maintain our evangelical missions though social services will be reduced to assisting the local disadvantaged. Salvation Army churches will look like any other evangelical local church, and become even more middle class than the present denomination. Salvation Army terminology will disappear altogether. Fewer, but larger, local churches will dominate and divisional and territorial headquarters will be replaced by a small national leadership resource team led by a chief executive for ministry, supported by a small group of expert facilitators. The community salvation church will not have any special connection with the poor.

Voices of radical change: Given that the post-modern society with which we are endeavoring to relate keeps changing, we are not sure what The Salvation Army will look like in even 20 years’ time. However, since we have left behind and lost all the slow changers, we are now ready to embrace any further changes in society with urgency. We are focused on evangelizing the present generations, but we are having some trouble in maintaining our members who still seem to need nurture and pastoral care.

Neo-Salvationist voices: We will focus most of the Army’s ministry and resources on the poor and marginalized, and middle-class, suburban ministry will be seen as secondary. The Army will become increasingly an inner-city mission, influential in social justice issues, but lacking a broad base of support in the suburbs. We are finding it difficult to recruit sufficient workers with the spirit of William Booth. It is taking decades to develop stable leadership from the ranks of the converts. Funding is difficult because of a reduced support base and decreasing involvement of corporations and the general public.
ConclusionMy purpose in pushing these various voices to their logical conclusions is to try to demonstrate that, in my view, none of them exclusively provides a solution to the Army’s problems.Very few people would follow one voice to the exclusion of all others. However, I hope that by distinguishing the voices it might be possible to foresee where an inappropriate emphasis could lead. One can easily understand why tensions arise.One voice is calling for a movement to a more church-type organization, while another voice is advocating a return to a sect-type. One voice counsels measured and gradual change, another, death and resurrection. Some voices are distancing themselves from social service, while others are increasingly involved with the poor. There are voices that champion the local church, which provides such a comprehensive and satisfying programme that the people have no interest in the rest of the organization.In addition, I sometimes notice theological positions foreign to historical Salvationist understandings being espoused. There are far more significant issues for us to face than the style of worship or the type of musical accompaniment we prefer.A personal viewRather than only reporting other views, I should express my own thoughts on the Army. I believe that The Salvation Army was raised up by God and that its work is not finished.We have a uniqueness that the world and the Church need. That uniqueness lies in the way we talk about God and his relationship with the world – in other words, our theology. It is a theology that declares: ‘ Whosoever will may be saved’ and saved to the uttermost. We have a special mandate to care for the poor and marginalized. While affirming that we are part of the Body of Christ, we have always kept an edgy distinction from other denominations. Our name embodies what we are: a disciplined Movement engaged in the salvation of the world, with a sense of urgency.This is the theology that inspires our worship and motivates our mission. We need to articulate it clearly and comprehensively for this generation. It is this theology our officers, soldiers and adherents need to hear again. It is our source of inspiration rather than what God is doing in other parts of the Body of Christ. We may always be a relatively small but effective force in God’s plan.I believe we still need to be a disciplined Movement, centrally organized but with an enlightened administration focused on resourcing frontline ministries. This has been the trend for many years.There is value in listening and learning from each other. We need the consistency and faith of the traditionalists, the fervency of the Pentecostals, the evangelical zeal and expertise of the seeker-sensitive, the deep concern to relate to our present age of the radical voices, and the dedication to the service of the poor of the neo-Salvationists. However, it would be a tragedy if the many voices created a dissonance that prevented us hearing the voice of God.I want to conclude on a completely unspectacular but vitally important note. Wherever we serve in the Army we need to be praying for the Lord’s direction. The God who called us into being as an organization has not stopped speaking to us. There is abundant evidence that he is still blessing our ministry.It is our task to listen to his voice in a spirit of love and unity. During Holy Week we read Jesus’ high-priestly prayer in John 17. In it he prays that we will be one as he and the Father are one.Unity in diversity is a New Testament ideal. Such unity is not easy to achieve and must be prayed for. At the same time a diversity that diverts us from our God-given mission must be challenged. May The Salvation Army’s ongoing discussions express that unity of purpose and mutual love that is the prayer of the Lord for his disciples in every generation.This paper first appeared in The Practical Theologian, a publication of Australia Eastern Territory and is reprinted with permission from Horizons, a Canada and Bermuda Territory publication.