Streams in the Salvation Army: Schism or damage limitation?

The Salvation Army includes people of widely divergent theological views. This variety may be concentrated in some divisions, and the spectrum is different from country to country, but it is there. Specifically, in the UK territory, in a church which calls itself "evangelical", there is a significant number of people who reject the term, or are even scathing about it. 

From my limited, though growing, experience, unity in TSA seems to have been based around practical working together and not talking (or even thinking?) too much about doctrine. The movement has been held together around group traditions and activities - and sub-cultural cohesiveness is a powerful thing. Add to that, of course, the Army's structure and submission to leadership, and there is a degree of disciplined unity. 

But it is not quite the same as "being of one mind", or maintaining the unity of the Spirit. In fact, working together with an unspoken agreement never to discuss the content of our faith is the very opposite of the fellowship that should be the camaraderie of Kingdom Soldiers. Not ever talking about anything that might potentially tread on the toes of those who are not evangelical can leave little room for a distinctively evangelical spirituality and cooperation in today's SA. 

Evangelicals might want to ask all who cannot sign the 11 Doctrines in good conscience to simply leave - or at least renounce soldiership/officership. We might say, "you were not being open and honest when you said you believed this", and many people in the wider world might agree with us. But a mass "liberal" exodus is highly unlikely. The intrinsic brittleness of some of the doctrines, which has led to people signing them with some "qualms" for years, the alignment and self-comparison of TSA with "mainline denominations" as opposed to close association with the missional community with which it had most in common, the resultant steady influx of more liberal theology and the failure to latch on to the best more conservative scholarship in the colleges, and now the caustic environment of deconstructionalism, with its direct assault on the objective meaning of texts - these things have all led to the strength of non-evangelical emphases and all that flows from that strength. 

In the UK in 2015 the presenting issue in all of this is the acceptance as soldiers and officers of people in homosexual relationships. The fact that anyone is pushing for such a change of position has come as a shock to some evangelicals, but it really shouldn't; the underlying theology and attitude to culture makes this particular pressure inevitable and it ought to be no surprise.  

I hate this motto

The real issue is not Single Sex Marriage or related challenges. The real issue is the gospel of Jesus Christ, the doctrinal content of our faith. That is the root; the "SSM issue" is just one of several branches. To change the metaphor: the house we live in as a family in London is owned by the Army, and is falling down. Visible cracks keep appearing in internal walls. They are alarming. But the cause of those cracks is less visible - subsidence and cracking of the foundations.  The gay debate is a very visible crack; it is the loss of a coherent base in the authority of scripture, a common view of the doctrine of sin, the work of Christ and the future judgement which together are the foundational problem leading to that more obvious crisis.  

There may be trouble ahead

There is little doubt, though, that this particular issue is going to be the catalyst for some ructions. On past form that probably means a number of people leaving - resigning as officers or soldiers and heading for other churches. A full-blown split seems perhaps less likely, but significant losses will come. Is there anything that can be done to prevent this? Whether we face an explosion or "just" a steady bleed, what can be done to contain this? Are there ways to alleviate the shock? 

Other Christian traditions have contained equally broad theological spectra. The Anglicans have had their streams going back centuries. Although there is overlap between High Church and Liberal, and Liberal and Evangelical, by and large congregations and leaders from one wing can effectively work without reference to the other wings, much of the time. And official structures have worked in order to maintain the stability of the whole. (The present Archbishop of Canterbury has suggested that this may now prove impossible, especially globally, because of the homosexuality issue, and some formalised loosening of links may be inevitable. See Guardian) 
 

During the 1990s I was in close contact with a number of young evangelical Anglican pastors. With women's ordination in hot debate, and the homosexuality issue already on the horizon, I was stunned by their radical pragmatism in preparing for the future. They could see that quiet coexistence in the evangelical wing of the CofE was going to become increasingly difficult. Despite the church's efforts to accommodate, with offers of pastoral oversight from "flying bishops" opposed to women's ordination etc, they could see that such accommodation would not be sufficient in the long term. Being allowed to be a comfortable conservative congregation in an increasingly liberal church wasn't going to work at the point when candidates for ministry were put forward for ordination. A network of local churches may happily do its own thing, but if its present ministers are sidelined when it comes to appointments to positions of influence, or its potential future ministers are consistently refused training or ordination because of their views, it is doomed to increasing marginalisation and ultimate extinction. The response of my friends was dynamic: considerable effort was made to secure a key training college for their particular theological camp; links were developed with likeminded branches of global Anglicanism outside the crisis in the CofE itself, and, above all, commitments were made to evangelism and church planting within and outside the CofE in the UK, in fellowship with similar evangelicals outside the national church. 

The result of all that is, a generation later, one of the strongest church-planting movements in the UK. There are new Anglican, neo-Anglican and nonconformist-with-Anglican-input churches all over the place, with new congregations already planting yet further churches. (See recent blog about Inspire.) Should current crises cause a total meltdown in the CofE, these people already have a structure in place for support and further development. 

In the Salvation Army, we have none of this, but it is high time to talk. Firstly, it is time to talk across the theological divides, to try to understand one another, to be honest about the intractability of some of the differences, and to discuss how to limit damage to the church as those differences play out over time. Pretending there are no real differences, or trying to hold it all together with middle-of-the-road empty talk only antagonises both sides. I don't mean Facebook-group-grenade-throwing conversations, either. I mean proper, respectful conversation, as when Martyn Lloyd-Jones met up with a group of "mainline liberals" years ago because they were perturbed at his standing aloof from their ecumenical process; after an honest and open conversation it was the liberals who agreed it couldn't work. I don't want to be schismatic; I want the kind of dialogue which makes it clear who is ruling the gospel out. It is possible to be real friends while having major differences of thought, but real friends are able to talk about their differences. At the moment dialogue about doctrine appears to be the stuff of angry online chats and (!) blogs, but not of frank talks over coffee.
 

Secondly, it is time to talk within our strikingly different wings. I say that for both sides, and I hope I am not unsympathetic to the difficulties for the "liberal" side in this debate too, especially when it comes to what is felt to be a fudge regarding positional statements, or when private encouragement from leaders seems to be followed by a public cold-shoulder. 
 

But my direct sympathy is clearly on the evangelical side of the fence. We are officially an evangelical church. When some people publicly repudiate that term and deride it, it cannot be schismatic for those who embrace the word to talk with one another. Evangelicals may wish that the liberal wing would just go away, but it won't, and with the speed of capitulation to the spirit of the age accelerating, there is an urgency in the air. Evangelicals need to start to network. We need mutual support. We need to work out in advance some damage limitation strategies for the future. We need to avoid the default position of allowing a steady trickling loss of gospel people from the Army. We can't settle for that. 
 

Of course, evangelicals within the Salvation Army (or outside of it) are hardly a homogenous group. Differences on the charismatic spectrum, differences over worship style, differences over eschatology, not to mention cultural and political differences that have nothing direct to do with the issues at stake - we have them all. But a thoroughgoing commitment to the Doctrines in the light of  the Founders' intended meaning would take us a long way. Just to grab four... The Bible is not just a "library of books"; it is one Book and it has one overarching Author whose voice we must hear and heed. The human race is made in God's image, but disastrously fallen so that every one of us is utterly unable to come to God, and we cannot say of any of our desires "God made me this way" without also acknowledging the pervasive influence of sin. Christ died for our sins, and that is of first importance - hearing that message and trusting him in his death is at the heart of everything for us. There are two populated destinies for the human race in eternity, and the gospel warns us to flee from the wrath to come. We may vote differently, have different views of gun-control, have different tastes in church music - but with agreement on those things we can be an Army fighting the same battle.
 

Thirdly, TSA evangelicals need to talk with people outside the Army. For too long we have been somewhat hermetically sealed, and when we do have contact with other churches, it is mainly at rather formal level, and we tend to look mostly to the "mainline denominations." We need to wake up to the fact that church growth in the UK is not really happening in the mainline denominations - or not in the mainline parts of them. That means relating to Vineyard and New Frontiers and other "new" churches, to Independent churches of many shades, to the young neo-Anglican churches I have mentioned, as well as to evangelicals in the historical denominations like the Anglicans, Baptists and Methodists. And we should relate knowing that we have something unique to offer: many of the growing churches are waking up to social concerns, to trafficking and food banks and homelessness and abuse, but they are predominantly middle-class and lack experience and knowledge in some of these areas. Partnership in social action with Salvation Army corps could be so helpful for these groups if based on a clear mutual commitment to the same gospel. And on the other hand, many of these churches are rich in Bible teaching and localised training ministries - we could benefit from their strengths too.

I know that suggesting any kind of parallel structure within or outside TSA sounds ludicrous. The idea of wings/factions/streams is alien, let alone the suggestion of "neo-Army" church planting, given our leadership structures.  But how will you and your corps honour Christ once a generation is occupying the Divisional and Territorial posts whose connection to the Doctrines is thoroughly postmodern? When those who scorn the Bible, despise the atonement and laugh at hell are the authorities in TSA, what will you do then? For that is where we are heading. Some of today's cadets are future DCs and TCs.

TSA is already a movement that would be unrecognisable to its founders. Passivity is no longer an option. Booth's "I will fight" dynamism needs to be applied to the battle for the gospel of Jesus within the movement he started. Wake up and smell the Shloer, folks! 

A visit to inspire...

Old Street roundabout from the air

My stepson, Ben, was baptised on Sunday. His church meets in a hotel in the Old Street area of London. The style is contemporary, with two young  church leaders, a band with a lot of kit (the church owns no property, but an impressive trailer!) and a cosmopolitan, professional and mainly early-twenties congregation. This is as you might expect in that neighbourhood - students and Silicon Roundabout Techies are dominant. It is happy, though not especially clappy, but hands are raised, the vibe is laid-back, the coffee is good, and the expectation is that time spent lingering over it and cup cakes later will last at least as long as the service itself. 

Westminster Abbey

The surprise for some may be that the church is Anglican. Its ministers are both ordained in the CofE. Some leadership team members are even called "wardens". One of the pastors splits his time, with part time work with Christians in Sport.  The other is a house husband every Monday while his wife fulfils a role as Director of Counselling at a big parish church up the road. This job-splitting explains the strength in depth - two ordained ministers, and there are other part-time workers too. A small church seems amazingly well-served through the use of part-timers - which I'm sure means sacrificial living, actually. 

Can the church speak
to the modern city?

And the service is CoE. It is contemporary, but the overall shape of it, the liturgy surrounding baptism and the Lord's Supper - all of it is actually faithful to a great river of tradition going back through the centuries. It is in the stream of Anglicanism's perpetually persistent Puritan wing - shorn of the outward symbols like vestments or candles, true to the classic theology of a Stott, a Moule, a Ryle or even a Cranmer for that matter - this is actually reformation faith re-formed for post-modern twenty-somethings. 

If all of that sounds potentially bumptious and cloying, or pressuring and naggy, or triumphalist and ecclesiastically snobbish, please think again. Evangelicalism has a specific subculture which can be cringeworthy. Remember the ghastly evangelical with his smile and his sofa and his gaggle of lovelies who wanted to take over and "bless" the church in the BBC's excellent Rev? There is none of that here. Everything comes across as sane, non-manipulative, not artificial, not fake, straightforward, honest, real. The preaching doesn't shy away from big issues - we were in Ephesians 1, of all places! - but deals with them in a way which is winsome and kind. What is impressive is the quiet respect for people and their complicated stories in the whole service, and in the manner the sermon comes over especially. 

And the stories are complicated and diverse. Here was the surprise for me. I knew the place was Anglican - but I confess to slightly dreading a sense of cloned testimonies, and everyone being bright young things from the tech industry. 

Three men are baptised. My stepson is an art student from a Christian home, who had a patch a while ago of saying he definitely wasn't a Christian, and then more recently that he very definitely is. One baptisee is a little older than me, converted recently from a background in Chinese Buddhism. The third man is in his twenties, with, by his own account, a deeply troubled past which had involved beating people up and a fair number of police stations. I am not sure I have ever seen three more different men, all confessing Christ as Lord and Saviour at the same time. 

The Word that Lasts:
Door at St Helen's, Bishopsgate

A short while ago I wrote a piece about the need for Conmen in the Salvation Army.  What we saw on Sunday is precisely the kind of thing I had in mind. Our crying need is not to move from the theology of our founders. The constant cry that the doctrines are a hindrance to people in this day and age is simply wrong. Our contemporaries need the old doctrines put in a contemporary way - just that. That may mean, in some contexts, planting churches which are not about bands and uniforms, still less about cartridges and specialing and other bits of awful in-house jargon. It means going back to our roots in gospel-driven cultural relevance. 

The great pragmatists, William and Catherine, would, I think, have been pretty impressed by what we saw on Sunday. Here was gospel work being done. One of those baptised comes from exactly what they would have seen as the prime harvest field for their Christian Mission. In an area like Old Street, and given the general demographic of the church, he was perhaps exception rather than rule. So that leaves me with the challenge - how are we to do that "conservative but contemporary" thing among those who the Army has traditionally seen as "our people"?

Inspire London is by no means unique. As it happens, my youngest stepson Sam also attends a new Anglican church - planted this month, in fact, the second plant of a church which is itself less than a decade old. The young Anglican evangelicals have the ball at their feet. I knew these guys, or their spiritual predecessors, back in the nineties. They were talking about large-scale church planting then. And they have done it and are doing it.  It can be done - by God's help it will be done. The Salvation Army in the UK is doing some planting, for which we should be thankful and prayerful - but we are closing corps faster than we are opening. How can that tide be turned? 

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   

For more information about Inspire Church see here.

 

For my previous blog about Conmen in TSA see here.