IS THE SALVATION ARMY FACING

AN IDENTITY CRISIS?

By David Woodbury

General Brian Peddle

There has been quite some discussion on the place of soldiership in the contemporary Salvation Army. However, it may well be that the discussion is a symptom of a deeper malaise. On the subject of soldiership Colonel Laurie Robertson spoke with General Brian Peddle during his visit to Australia: ”there has been a view expressed in our Other’s magazine by someone: Let’s lower it to just being a Christian.” 

The General’s reply was in the least, highly definitive: “I’m not on that page, I’d lift it, I’d make it something quite significant for our young people. Young people who want to identify with something worth living for, or even dying for; it’s a cause, it’s a calling. If God’s calling me to that, don’t dumb it down,”

The reference was to an article by Captain Peter Hobbs in Others, July 2018. I would want to affirm Peter for his enthusiasm, commitment, and his courage in raising the issue of soldiership. Some of the points he raises are quite valid and worthy of discussion, if we were a church, but we are not; we are an Army on a mission, and there is a vast dichotomy between the two.

It may well be that the real issue is our identity; are we in fact, facing an identity crisis? Perhaps this is the issue the Army needs to address at this moment in its development. If we are an army on a mission, and that is my belief, then our structure, ethos and operation is vastly different to that of a mainline church.  

We have spent so much time, and great resources, looking at and trying to mimic other churches whose culture and theology does not fit The Salvation Army, that we may have lost our identity; we are no longer sure of who we really are and what is our mission and role in the 21^st century.

An army by its very nature has a specific structure and regulations as to how it operates which are diametrically different to anything else that surrounds it. And this is true of the ecclesiastical scene as it is of the world that surrounds us. It may well be that in our rush to appear relevant we have sacrificed many of those characteristics that made us an army, and perhaps, in some ways we are beginning to look little different to other churches or the society that surrounds us. The words of Paul to Timothy are worth noting: Soldiers don’t get tied up in the affairs of civilian life, for then they cannot please the officer who enlisted them. (2 Timothy 2:4 - NLT)

The push to make the Amy just like other churches is not new; indeed, The Founder himself had to address it in the early days of the organisation. He said in part: The formation of another Church is not my aim. There are plenty of Churches. I want to make an Army. Those among you who are willing to help me to realise my purpose can stay with me. Those who do not must separate from me, and I will help them to find situations elsewhere.'" (The Authoritative Life of General William Booth, - George Scott Railton Chapter IX - Army Leading)

Most modern armies have specialised and highly trained shock troops, like the SAS; highly trained, adaptable, very dedicated and willing to make extraordinary sacrifices to achieve their goals.  While all Christians, like Paul, are soldiers in God’s army (2 Timothy 2:3), soldiers in The Salvation Army are called upon to be highly trained, highly committed, highly mobile and adaptable, very dedicated and willing to make extraordinary sacrifices to win the world for God. 

William Booth’s shock troops went where most Christian of the day would hesitate to venture; to the gin palaces, the poverty-stricken slums with all their social problems, to the “unclean people” who would never darken the door of the church, willing to suffer and sacrifice, even, for some, to the point of death.

The requirements for membership in such a force is different and in some ways call for more stringent and demanding standards; higher levels of commitment, dedication and sacrifice; and perhaps it is this requirement of dedication and sacrifice that may well be the sticking point in today’s society.

I’m not sure about some of the theology of Peter’s claims in his article; He claims that Jesus opposed a two-tiered structure; in fact, it would seem to me that he created one, by calling twelve men from out of the many who followed him, to be in the forefront of his ministry. It would appear that the early church had a multi-tiered approach to ministry which Paul outlines in 1 Corinthians 12:28. “Here are some of the parts God has appointed for the church: first are apostles, second are prophets, third are teachers” etc. (NLT) What needs to be understood is that these levels are not indicators of our standing before God, but rather that of function in ministry roles.

Likewise I am not sure about Peter’s assertion Jesus “recruited everyone to be involved in his mission without discrimination”. Any reading of Luke 9:57-62, or similar passages in the other gospels, makes it clear that Jesus had very rigorous conditions on discipleship (See Luke 9:23). No where do I read that Jesus downgraded the conditions of discipleship just to increase the number of his followers. John 6:60-70 records that many deserted him because of his teaching.

I am aware that in some Salvation Army centres a new level of membership is locally created to allow those reluctant to put their name to The Soldier’s Covenant, to be in leadership. Perhaps those who truly wish to be authentic disciples should read Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s book; The Cost of Discipleship.

If we are to look at the Army’s call for total prohibition on the consumption of alcohol, which may be the one of the elephants in the room in today’s membership debate, then we might like to consider its reality in a world awash with substance abuse, including ethanol (alcohol) and all the attendant problems and misery it brings. 

For me personally, the abstinence from alcohol goes beyond the Articles of War that I signed. I believe that some part of the Christian church needs to set the example that a meaningful and fulfilling life can be lived without the need of such a drug impacting their brain. I believe that still is the calling for The Salvation Army.

Perhaps the time has come for us to be brutally honest and factual. Soldiers in The Salvation Army are different from the average church member. They have a different calling, not superior or inferior, but different. They are called to a more regimented and defined commitment, where sacrifice, over and above the norm is part of their lifestyle. Sacrifice was very much an integral element in the lives of early Salvationists, particularly officers, who were not guaranteed an income. Many willingly embraced this sacrifice as a part of discipleship and it wasn’t until the second half of the last century that a guaranteed allowance was paid.

It is only as we rediscover our historic identity and the mindset that went with it that we can once again be a fighting force.