The Red Shield and Army Crest are missing. The flag is gathering dust in the storeroom with the cornets and trombones. Someone worshipping in uniform is seen as a sort of quaint curiosity. The songs of William or Herbert Booth, Albert Orsborn or Catherine Baird have been discarded with the moldy old red-covered songbooks. The “members” of this “church” state that they are “an initiative of The Salvation Army” (albeit in small print). This is the Army under camouflage.
The Collins Dictionary describes camouflage as “the disguising of military personnel and equipment…to make them blend in with their surroundings.” Is that what we are trying to do here? Is this a sort of post-modern response to a perception of what is “really needed and wanted by the people out there”? Does the blend run the risk of becoming the bland? By being “seeker sensitive,” have we watered down the things that made us unique? Is it just as simple as us being downright ashamed to be The Salvation Army?
It seems some of us are having an adolescent identity crisis, but we are not alone. During my recent visit to Bill Hybel’s Willowcreek complex south of Chicago, my thorough search was unable to unearth a cross or anything else that would identify the place as being even vaguely Christian. The huge edifice was little more than an impressive state-of-the-art convention centre. Many Pentecostal Churches have followed suit with their elaborate barns that seem more rock-and-roll venue than church. Because these people seem very successful in growing their respective churches and organizations, it would seem natural for us to attempt to go the same way of Christian incognito — but I believe that this route represents stealthy suicide for our SA movement.
Perhaps this is the kind of camouflage that Webster defines as “behaviour or artifice designed to hide or deceive”? There is an old show business saying that you can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time. Who are we trying to fool — and, more importantly WHY are we trying to fool?
I appreciate that those of us who grew up in the SA have our individual hang-ups with some of the old fashioned “daggy” (as we say in Australia) SA stuff, but I’ve never actually met someone who openly stated that all of the Army “stuff” got in the way of them finding and following Christ. In fact, in my experience it’s quite the opposite. I’m amazed by the number of men coming through our recovery programs who want a red shield tattooed on their arm or chest, while at the same time many of our own kids avoid uniform or soldiership like the plague.
If we are to prosper (or even survive), we need to be true to ourselves, our reason for being and our ongoing mission. Let’s not cower timidly behind the camouflage. Let’s march out there boldly and bravely as a dynamic, committed movement with no illusions about our desire to see the world won for God, and let’s do it loudly and proudly!
1 comment:
Agitate
Ag"i*tate\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Agitated; p. pr. & vb. n. Agitating.] [L. agitatus, p. p. of agitare to put in motion, fr. agere to move: cf. F. agiter. See Act, Agent.]
1. To move with a violent, irregular action; as, the wind agitates the sea; to agitate water in a vessel. "Winds . . . agitate the air." --Cowper.
2. To move or actuate. [R.] --Thomson.
3. To stir up; to disturb or excite; to perturb; as, he was greatly agitated.
The mind of man is agitated by various passions. --Johnson.
4. To discuss with great earnestness; to debate; as, a controversy hotly agitated. --Boyle.
5. To revolve in the mind, or view in all its aspects; to contrive busily; to devise; to plot; as, politicians agitate desperate designs.
Syn: To move; shake; excite; rouse; disturb; distract; revolve; discuss; debate; canvass.
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
Post a Comment