Wrong, but wromantic; right, but repulsive.

Wrong, but wromantic; right, but repulsive. With these memorable words, Sellars and Yeatman summed up the Cavaliers and Roundheads in their fondly remembered "1066 And All That" - the source to this day, I must confess, of all my basic knowledge of British history. 

We are at a critical time for the church in the West. Fin de siècle change is all around us and, as ever, the church is the last body to catch on. That "last body" is not especially derogatory: we are the oldest body, with, by our very nature, roots most deeply anchored in the past, so caution and care ought to be intrinsic to who we are. Nevertheless, we have been caught out by the speed of change. 

It seems to me that there are two ways Christians are jumping at the moment. Some are standing firm on doctrine, strong and true, but sometimes doing so in a way that communicates hardness and brittleness. Others are buying into a more fluid understanding of the faith, and are emoting warmth and honesty and winsomeness in the process. 

Now please hear me out; I'm not saying that postmodern people are all warmth and openness. Actually there is more nastiness, arrogance, cruelty, dishonesty and abuse out there than ever. But some of the post-modern Christians whose voice is heard come across with an honesty and gentleness and kindness that is often lacking amongst conservative evangelicals. Evangelical rhetoric is not suited to the current environment; we may complain about that environment, but we still have to work within it. 

At its best, the more postmodern or liberal stream of Christianity can be very good at honesty about failure and weakness. The success of books like The Ragamuffin Gospel, of authors like Richard Rohr and of bloggers like Rachel Held Evans is in large part due to their honest and sympathetic handling of human frailty. We may critique them (I do!) but we must observe how they have a manner of speaking that functions culturally and draws people by its perceived integrity. 

And the fact is that evangelicalism is not the snow-white bed of honesty it wants to show itself to be. We need to remember that religiously conservative movements are ALWAYS the seedbed for pharisaism and hypocrisy. We are far from immune to that. 

Specifically, we have painted ourselves into a corner by hybridising our worthless-worm view of sanctification with a perfectionist expectation of those who lead us. We know we are all sinners, but expect perfect holiness, and create an environment of intense pressure to deliver that "holiness". 

This applies especially to leaders. Despite the repeated crashes as giants are knocked off their pedestals, we continue to insist on building more and higher pedestals. We are desperate for heroes - and then fast to utterly destroy any hero who shows himself to be mortal. 

I know to my cost what it is to allow a gap to develop between my publicly spoken, doctrinally impeccable, words and my personal devotional and moral life. I know what it is to hear temptation knocking at the door and feel that I couldn't open up about it for fear of losing my job - of coming off the pedestal for good. Every time I hear the words "mind the gap" on the tube I am reminded of the gap I did not mind in my own life - the creeping professionalisation that led to mask-wearing and levels of direct dishonesty and evil that make me shudder still. 

I am a passionate conservative evangelical. I believe in "true truth". Insofar as I ever want to 'rejoice in diversity', 'celebrate the liminal" or 'create a safe space for the exploration of ideas and for hearing different voices', I want to do so within the framework of a commitment to Scripture read as a united, God-given book. I am more than happy with the basic shape of classical reformation theology and appalled that so many are so quick to abandon that faith. 

But I am not at ease with what we have become if and when our conservative theology degenerates into an unkind pharisaism. My question is - Is it possible to retain the commitment to evangelicalism - to doctrinal orthodoxy - and at the same time be honest about weakness and failure, about fear and doubt, about temptation and sin? Can we speak the truth in LOVE? 

It jolly well ought to be possible! Our theology - of grace on the one hand and indwelling sin on the other (sorry - Salvationist/Wesleyan hat off today!) ought to make us kind and understanding more than any other tradition. But we aren't. We are very unforgiving - which leaves the struggling sinner very much alone. As a result, the casualties mount up - people bruised and burnt-out by their experiences of churches where grace has mutated into law, and holiness into hypocrisy. As my friend Robert Bannister put it, "the church is for people who have fallen off the roundabout" - but many churches have forgotten that.  

The Salvation Army is a church that is actually very good at helping roundabout-fallers like me. My prayer for our movement is for a fresh discovery of powerful preaching, with authority, and of genuine commitment to evangelical doctrine. May that come about without losing the love, the warmth and the grace to those who are hurting failures. 

And for every "staunch evangelical" church I pray - may you know and feel and practice the love and grace and patience and kindness and forebearance that flow from the very doctrines you love. For these things are fruit of the Spirit. 

As culture heads into meltdown, as Islam and Intolerant Tolerance threaten the church, can we manage to be Right but NOT Repulsive? 

Evangelicals and Evangelists

Every so often I become aware of the ongoing confusion about these and related words. It is one thing when the BBC, a Prime Minister or a quality newspaper gets it wrong, another when members of a Christian church or even a theological college mix them up. So here goes:

Evangel - the original lovely Greek word at the heart of it all. Good news - gospel - the happy message.  

Evangelism - the act of spreading this good news.  

Evangelist - a person who spreads this good news, and perhaps (as in Ephesians 4:11,12) someone who trains other Christians in spreading it.  Also used of the writers of the four New Testament books known as Gospels.   

Evangelistic - of or related to the spreading of the good news. Can be used by extension to humorously describe enthusiastic advocacy for other things: "He's very evangelistic about kale/UKIP/the films of Kaurismäki."

Evangelical - adjective - in its broadest sense, of or relating to the gospel. But as a technical/historical term in theology, evangelical has come to describe a particular stream of thought and practice which emphasises: the divine author behind the human authors of the Bible, and therefore the authority of Scripture; the atoning death of Jesus Christ as the unique, sufficient and complete sacrifice for sin; the universal debilitating effect of sin in humanity which necessitates an immediate transforming work of God by the Holy Spirit; the importance of the active spreading of the gospel and the living out of its values in home, workplace and wider society; and a steady and vivid consciousness of and looking for the return of Christ. Although this use of the term has its roots in the 18th century revivals, the theological emphases described go back further, being at the heart (for instance) of Puritan, Huguenot, Moravian and Reformation life. 

Evangelical - noun - a person who sees themselves as part of the theological stream described above. Evangelicals see those theological points as of critical importance and as being essential to "normal Christianity".

Note also:

Evangelisation - as evangelism, the spreading of the good news.  Less used these days, I think, but when it is used by evangelicals it tends to have a more strategic, large-scale or geographical connotation. "Through low-key, home-based evangelism, the church saw the effective evangelisation of the whole region." This word is also used more by Roman Catholics to describe the teaching of the gospel within the community of the church. 

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! 

On this day... construction commenced on the Bethesda orphanage

On this day in 1740, work began on George Whitfield's orphanage project in the state of Georgia.

Another good example of the great tradition of social concern going hand in hand with word-based evangelism.

For further information, read here.

Why care? The theological foundation of social action

A friend of mine who has worked in development work in TSA for a number of years said to me a few months ago that he felt he didn't really have a theological basis for what he was doing. My impression is that he has dipped a little into various theologies, principally of the more Progress or Liberation type, but he has never felt that he has a coherent and comprehensive understanding from which to work. Specifically, I think he has never been strongly exposed to the broader evangelical history of social action nor its theological base. I believe that the SA, with its glorious history of social action, needs to rediscover its own theological roots in just this area, and so to place evangelism and social action in close coordination within the Army's holistic mission. 

You don't need a Liberation Theology to have a holistic vision for social action. The Christian social reformers of the 19th Century would not have agreed with an LT reading of, say, Exodus, and yet their call to social action WAS grounded in their classic, evangelical theology. What are the distinct elements of such a theology as it touches on social, compassionate and developmental issues? In one sense a "holistic" vision is one where all thought-streams are interconnected, so that every aspect of theology has a social outworking, but I think it is possible to identify three key theological taproots of evangelical social concern.

1) The Image of God: Common humanity flowing from common humanness. 

We recognise and honour the image of God in every human being. This image is present and underwrites the value of human life after the Fall - it is present in all, regardless of gender, age, colour, class, age or ability. Admittedly, among the various lines of discussion regarding the nature of the image of God, it has been an evangelical stream - the Lutheran - that has tended to say that the image was lost completely in the Fall, but Reformed theology, with a few exceptions, has argued for a damaged and yet still present image, which is still the basic measure of human value. This position has dominated British evangelical theology.

The logic of this, once seen, or allowed, is inescapable. If the measure of human worth resides outside of ourselves, in God himself, then a respect and honour is due to one another which precludes all racism, sexism, classism and ageism.  And how can I allow my fellow image-bearer to starve, be mistreated, abused, trafficked or killed? 

In honouring all human beings as being made in the image of God, I honour the One who is THE image of the invisible God - the Man for whom and by whom all things were first made. This leads to the second point...

2) God's kindness and compassion in Jesus Christ

In a broken world under judgement, social concern is motivated by - we might say made possible at all by - the grace of God in Christ. The human race has fallen - we are corrupt. At one level we don't deserve any good. Hunger and pain, struggle and failure, chaos and unfairness, are all woven into our lives. But what God has done in Christ means that we cannot adopt a "grin and bear it" approach. He has shown kindness and mercy and condescension when we were dead in our sins. He has stooped to help us. We live in a helped world. 

This help has come to us holistically. Though the centre and goal of Jesus whole ministry was to PREACH the gospel of forgiveness of sins and then to BE that gospel through his dying and rising, nevertheless, along the way of the Word and the Cross, he did good at the most practical level. Maintaining the spiritual message of the Cross at centre is totally consistent with vigorous attempts to ease the physical burden of our fellow human beings because that is exactly how Jesus demonstrated his love as he travelled along the same road. If sin is the cancer and suffering and injustice are the symptoms, I will not take my eyes off the need for a cure from sin, but I will want to help with the symptoms. I will recognise that to preach the message of forgiveness to a man with an empty stomach is to deny the love at the very heart of the message I preach.

It is striking how the NT letters, as they come to practical application, repeatedly bring us back to the cross of Jesus as our motive.  Love your wife, give to the poor, be kind and tolerant towards each other in the church, submit to your boss - all these and more are to be driven, for the Christian, by a constant awareness of God's love in Jesus.  Amongst all the rediscoveries of which the church is in need, the rediscovery of the link between Cross and lifestyle is amongst the most important. 

3) The coming age of Christ 

The gospel of Christ is more than simply a spiritual message of forgiveness in itself, of course. In justification we hear the verdict of the future judgement day brought into the present; that great "Not Guilty" is the opening fanfare of our entrance into eternal life, and eternal life is enjoyed now and forever, in a new world which the scripture presents consistently as physical and solid. 

The future world will be a place of justice and peace, of integrity and prosperity. All that is corrupt and unjust in the present system will be swept away into the rubbish bin of eternity. Some Christians, including some evangelicals, have tended to say, "Well - that's for the age to come - no need for us to do anything now." I think the opposite - we are to live as citizens of the coming kingdom. This world may be passing, it may be destined for judgement, and yet it is groaning for its future redemption and we cannot live as if it had no value at all. The powers of the age to come have already laid hold of us, and we have to demonstrate the values of that age in the here and now by pursuing the same goals. We are to show the characteristics of the future reign of our dear King, Jesus, in this age. Indeed, it is precisely the certainty of his coming justice, of judgement in the light of the transcendent moral values of this King, that makes the pursuit of justice in the present evil age so utterly imperative. 

One of my favourite characters from British church history is James Montgomery the hymn writer, who gave us the carol "Angels from the realms of glory".  He was imprisoned on more than one occasion for his radical, socialist-leaning views. He cared passionately about the plight of the poor, and helped in the fight against the slave trade. All of that was rooted in his Moravian spirituality - the same source that John and Charles Wesley had drunk from so deeply. My favourite hymn of his is the well-known paraphrase of Psalm 72...

1. Hail to the Lord's Anointed,

great David's greater Son!

Hail in the time appointed,

his reign on earth begun!

He comes to break oppression,

to set the captive free;

to take away transgression,

and rule in equity.

2. He comes with succour speedy

to those who suffer wrong;

to help the poor and needy,

and bid the weak be strong;

to give them songs for sighing,

their darkness turn to light,

whose souls, condemned and dying,

are precious in his sight.

3. He shall come down like showers

upon the fruitful earth;

love, joy, and hope, like flowers,

spring in his path to birth.

Before him on the mountains,

shall peace, the herald, go,

and righteousness, in fountains,

from hill to valley flow.

4. To him shall prayer unceasing

and daily vows ascend;

his kingdom still increasing,

a kingdom without end.

The tide of time shall never

his covenant remove;

his name shall stand forever;

that name to us is love.

That is eschatological hope, clearly breaking out into present social concern. 

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * 

I am not rejecting every insight that has come through Liberation Theology. I am saying that a broad-based commitment to social action was built into the Christian movement way before LT. In the Salvation Army there are many who have a genuinely deep love for Christ, and a deep love and concern for people, which have been come into being through a traditionally evangelical but theologically impoverished preaching. As those who are involved in social action look for a deeper foundation, they seem to be offered mainly non-Evangelical models. We need to go back to our roots, with greater confidence that we have what we need in classic Evangelical thought.



*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

For a helpful and thorough historical and theological survey of the relationship between Evangelism and Social action in the SA, please see here. I think it ends up a tad too positive about the impact of post-modernity, but I think the authors may not have been aware of (or imagined) the way that post-modern thought would invade evangelical theology over the last decade.