SALVATION ARMY - who are you?

The way forward – part 1

By David Woodbury

Today, in some areas of The Salvation Army there are exciting and innovative programs being implemented that reflect early SA philosophy, yet there is a lack of connection, training, education and support, that Army corps of the 50s to the 80s provided. 

It may well be that The Salvation Army is caught in a quandary, really not knowing what it is. Is it simply a clone of Hillsong Church or some other quasi Pentecostal church? Is it a clone of Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church in California, since they are two of the models preferred by many within The Salvation Army? Or is it simply trying to imitate the latest Christian trend? Whatever the influences that are impacting the Army, the bottom line may well be that in our rush to appear successful we have lost our unique identity. If that is the case, and I suspect it is, how are we to recover that identity?

The first challenge facing us is the question of how we see ourselves. Are we a church or a mission? The churchification of The Salvation Army; the push to make us like other churches, particularly some of the Pentecostal churches, needs to be addressed. The utilisation of the word “church” on Salvation Army buildings, stationery and literature I believe is counterproductive to our mission and calling.

For many years Salvation Army centres were designated as “corps”; terminology that is little understood or relevant in today’s world and the need for a more relevant definition is desirable. However, the utilisation of the terminology “church” is highly questionable in a Salvation Army setting. While “corps” may seem an irrelevant term, the concept behind the word is still pertinent: a group of persons associated together or acting under common direction; especially:  a body of persons having a common activity or occupation.

The reality is the word corps, has fallen out of today’s vocabulary and many have no comprehension of what it means. The group of journalist that is located in the nation’s capital used to be referred to as the Canberra press corps – I’ve noticed that now they are often referred to as Canberra press gallery.

While I understand the philosophy behind the utilisation of the word “church” to designate our presence as part of the global Christian community, the reality is that many non-Christian people, at least in western culture, have a negative attitude toward the church. Since these are the people we seek to reach then I question why we use terminology which engenders a negative response?

Having been a corps officer for some years I am well aware that among the ecclesiastical community we have at times, suffered from an inferiority complex because we were not, in the eyes of others, a church. However, because of that very issue, we often found ourselves far more accepted and relational to the non-church sector of the community. Does this pose the question; in our rush to be seen as a legitimate church have we surrendered that distinctiveness that made us so esteemed and effective?

Can we not be both? The reality is that humanity will always gravitate to the softest option. In the majority of situations being a church member is far less challenging than being a Salvation Army Soldier. I suspect that this issue may well have exercised the mind of the Late General Eva Burrows who said”

The Founder marched us out of the church and into the world – and I am not planning to march us back. While we are certainly part of the universal Christian church, we are a distinctive and unique part of it. Perhaps if we insist on using the church terminology we may well fade into oblivion as just one of the many denominations in what is now, in western culture, a highly competitive member market. Whether or not we can survive in such a setting is highly questionable.

In his book, The Authoritative Life of General William Booth, George Scott Railton records the following event: "After a while," writes The General, "the work began to spread and show wonderful promise, and then, when everything was looking like progress a new trouble arose. It came about in this wise. Some of the evangelists whom I had engaged to assist me rose up and wanted to convert our Mission into a regular Church, with a Committee of Management and all that sort of thing. They wanted to settle down in quietness. I wanted to go forward at all costs. But I was not to be defeated or turned from the object on which my heart was set in this fashion, so I called them together, and addressing them said, '

My comrades, 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.'" (Chapter IX - Army Leading)

When we investigate the meaning of the terminology church through the various dictionaries the reality is that they all lead with the same definition; A building used for public Christian worship. Oxford Living Dictionaries

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/church

Accessed on 7 April 2017   

While we acknowledge that the theological meaning is much different the reality is that the leading dictionary definitions reflect public perception. To many non-Christians, the word Church denotes a building, something that is static and in many ways cloistered.

In comparison to this the terminology mission brings to mind an image that is active, mobile and purpose-driven and most dictionaries speak of: The vocation or calling of a religious organisation, especially a Christian one, to go out into the world and spread its faith. (Oxford Living Dictionary)

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/church

Accessed on 7 April 2017   

Missions tend to have a sharper and clearer focus on their reason for existence; they instinctively know what they need to achieve and have the vision and adaptability to realise their goals. Since they possess a clear focus they are not easily side-tracked or distracted by other issues, even though such issues may be quite worthy.

The Christian Mission, out of which The Salvation Army evolved, had a very clear concept of the role of its centres and simply designated them; mission stations. Perhaps this is a more relevant designation that clearly depicts the role and mission to which the Army is called. As an organisation, we were missional in our mindset and terminology.

Possibly in adopting the terminology, church, we have also infused into our corps a church mindset rather than that of a Holy Spirit fired mission. The bottom line is: are we a church or a mission? 

• If people are told they are a church – that’s how they will perform. 

• If they are told they are a mission – that’s how they will behave. 

We are, what we think we are.

Perhaps some robust discussion is needed to come up with terminology which more aptly describes the Army’s mission and refocuses our mindset. Until we come to the place of really knowing who we are, a church of a mission, it may be well-nigh impossible to embark of the road to recovering our unique identity.