YES. The use of visual media helps the Church bring people closer to the story of Jesus.

BY CAPTAIN MARK DALLEY

“A picture is worth a thousand words”—Anon.

I love bookstores, so I decided to work at one when I was a university student. While there, I learned how easily we are swayed by appearance. For example, when you are in a bookstore, how do you decide which book to pick up? Most of us want to believe that we base our decision on the value of the content, but if the cover isn’t attractive, we won’t even bother looking at it.

We are surrounded by images in our society. Everywhere we look we see graphics, posters and videos.

The use of images has always been part of the life and worship in the Church. This is exactly how God intended it, which is why Scripture speaks so frequently of the use of image.

In Genesis 1 we are told that we were created in the image of God. This means that each one of us is a billboard for God—we are literally God’s walking, breathing media. And in John 1, we are told that God’s plan of redemption and revelation hinged on his revealing himself to us in the image of Christ, in the “medium” of a man. In fact, the Word needed to be transformed into the image of flesh so that God’s glory could be fully revealed and salvation given through the “medium” of Christ’s broken body.

Media itself is simply defined as the primary means of mass communication. Therefore, the cutting-edge medium of Jesus’ day was parables. Jesus almost exclusively spoke in parables, using the images of the culture around him. He used parables because it allowed him to not only teach the deep truths of God but also to present them in an understandable way. Christ used the images of his culture and the media of his day to bring people into worship and relationship with God.

The use of media in the Church has always been of some debate. In the past this has been in the form of anything from stained-glass windows and popular music to the use of radio and TV. The real debate here is not about the use of media, but rather what forms of media are helpful to worship and which images should be used.

Many of you will remember the flannelgraph. I spent many years teaching Sunday school, and nothing helped me make the stories of Scripture more understandable than the flannelgraph. It was like a switch came on as my students were able to see, perhaps for the first time, the stories of the Bible play out before their eyes. The flannelgraph was the medium of the day and proved essential to the spiritual growth of many of us.

In Uncommon Lectionary, Tom Bandy writes, “Worship is a form of mission. It employs the indigenous cultural forms of any given micro-culture, in order to introduce seekers to Christ. Or, it employs whatever learning methodologies are most effective in any given micro-culture, in order to motivate disciples to witness, serve and model authentic Christian faith…. Worship is not intended by God or planning teams to send people to coffee, refreshments and conversation with their friends. It is intended to help people drink deeply from the fountain of grace, and send them to bring living water to the rest of the world.”

In other words, our use of images and the media that proclaim the gospel are integral to the mission that Christ laid out for us so many years ago. From the flag to the projector, the images of our worship have become the scrapbook of our lives together with each other and Christ.

As a corps officer, I have found that the type and amount of media used is directly dependent on the culture both within the congregation and the community in which we minister. What this means is that the media we employ must represent those we seek to reach rather than our own personal preferences. If the media that we use in our worship does not connect to the indigenous culture we seek to serve and to save, then we are hindering the mission of God.

No one picks up a book without a good cover, and no one keeps a book without a good story. Media, when used well, helps the Church bring people closer to the story of Jesus. We have the greatest story ever told, and the most powerful created image ever given: the cross. Knowing that the tool of media is available to me just as it was to Christ so many years ago, I would not want to attempt to portray the story of Jesus without it.

Captain Mark Dalley and his wife, Naomi, are the corps officers in Listowell, Ont.

NO. We should be wary of how dependent we’ve become on technology to guide our experiences in church.

BY JOHN McALISTER

As the congregation sings Did You Feel the Mountains Tremble?, I follow the words projected onto a large screen at the front of the church. Behind the words of the first verse, I’m shown a mountain in the background with clouds moving across the screen. On the second verse, I see images of people raising their hands in worship. For the third verse, I view a flowing river with birds flying in the sky. By the fourth verse, my eyes are sore and I’m mentally adjusting the first line to read, “Open up the doors and let me go home.”

All of this feels more like a full-out assault on the senses rather than a source of spiritual refreshment. Has the Church become too reliant on technology in its worship services? Whether it’s the use of creative—and sometimes tacky—PowerPoint backgrounds or the prevalence of video clips accompanying devotional messages, we are obsessed with finding new ways to visually engage our congregants.

Since images already pervade our society through billboards, TV, Internet, movies, magazines and social media, people have come to expect a visual experience in everything they do. So, in order to connect with people in a relevant manner, the Church feels obliged to incorporate media into its worship services.

While I’m no Neo-Luddite—just try taking away my iPhone—I believe that we should be wary of how dependent we are on modern media in church. A good starting point is the question: What would our worship look like if we had no electricity this Sunday?

Although I earn a living by designing and managing websites, a part of me craves a community where the many distractions of the world are stripped away. In other words, a church unplugged. As God tells us in Psalm 46:10, “Be still, and know that I am God.” As a society oversaturated with visual stimuli, it takes great discipline for us to sit still. While we may think we’re helping people to focus on the service through visual media, perhaps we’re making it even harder for them to connect with God.

While I recognize that it’s not feasible to eliminate technology altogether, we also shouldn’t overdo it. For example, the words we sing each Sunday have their own power to inspire and challenge us; they don’t need elaborate visual backgrounds to help us connect the dots. So, project the words on the screen, but use a simple background that doesn’t distract.

We should also be aware of how PowerPoint presentations and other visual media are used in the secular world. In almost every case, they are created to sell things or to market an idea. While we may think we have redeemed this technology, people are pre-conditioned to respond warily to advertisements. As well, if our sermons incorporate many bulleted statements, we may be connecting with people on an intellectual basis but missing their hearts, which is where profound change occurs. Rather than unpack the reasons why we should believe or behave in a certain manner, our preachers should turn off the screen and tell an inspiring story of how God and his Word have impacted their lives or someone they know. The passion they exude will come across as real and uncontrived.

In The Importance of Being Foolish, Brennan Manning writes: “Consider how our churches have explored and exploited our need to replace the numbness in our lives with a passion for something, anything. We’ve created worship in which music is meant to stir the emotions but the soul is left unmoved, in which the words spoken are little more than manipulations of the heart. We have created cathartic experiences filled with weeping and dancing in the Spirit that leaves us with the sense that we have touched God but that fail to give us the sense that God has touched us. We run to churches where the message feels good and where we feel energized and uplifted—but never challenged or convicted.”

Of course we want our churches to be engaging and relevant. But we must ensure that they remain places where people can find divine intimacy, not just locations where we try to market and sell Christianity.

John McAlister is the features editor and web producer for The Salvation Army.

YES. While the Bible was written thousands of years ago, its message is timeless and intended for all people. As such, we should be open to translations of the Bible that speak to all genders.

BY MAJOR CATHIE HARRIS

Should we adopt the use of gender-inclusive language in The Salvation Army? Absolutely!

When we are speaking or writing we should use language that includes everyone. For example, The Salvation Army believes that the good news of Jesus Christ is for all people. But if we revert to the language of previous years and say “the gospel of Jesus Christ is for all men,” most of our daughters, granddaughters, nieces and female visitors to our worship services or family services centres will not understand that they are meant to be included in that statement.

Language changes over time. Not everyone likes the changes or agrees with them, but words matter and language is not neutral. It either conveys a clear message or it leads to confusion. Like any form of communication we need to understand not only what was meant but what was heard. The generic use of “man” and “mankind” of the past is not currently understood to include the female gender. If we want to communicate clearly and be understood, we need to keep our language current. We cannot be a “transforming influence in our communities” if our language erects barriers. One of The Salvation Army’s key principles, first established by Catherine Booth, was a willingness to “adapt our measures,” or applied in this case, to adapt our language.

Certainly gender isn’t the only issue when it comes to adapting language. The Committee on Bible Translation has worked since 1965 on the New International Version of the Bible, the most widely distributed translation. The committee meets each year to keep current with new discoveries in biblical scholarship and the use of Standard English around the world. One of the changes they’ve made more recently is found in Genesis 23:4 where Abraham says, “I am an alien and a stranger among you.” In Standard English the word “alien” now brings to mind someone from another planet. So the updated NIV 2011 reads, “I am a foreigner and a stranger among you.” This conveys both the intent of the original author and is understood accurately by English speakers today.

The same principle is at work when it comes to gender. In the 1984 New International Version, Romans 3:28 reads this way: “For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law.” At the time, it was assumed that female readers would understand that they were included. We can no longer assume that. So the NIV 2011 translates it this way:
“For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law.” This maintains the original meaning of the writer and communicates with clarity to readers today.

Using gender inclusive language is not about compromise. It is not about changing the Bible. It is not about neutralizing the differences between men and women. It is about using language that makes sure that all people—men, women and children—know that they are loved by God and are recipients of God’s grace. All of our writing and speaking must clearly include everyone who is meant to be included.

The tricky part is knowing how and when to rewrite the gender-exclusive language of the past. There are times when this is easy. Bible passages that were meant to include men and women have moved from exclusive to inclusive language in new translations to reflect current Standard English. This reflects the work of translation from the original languages of Hebrew and Greek into English. The King James Version translated the original languages into Elizabethan English. Translations today should reflect current usage of the English language.

But should we rewrite hymns and songs? Should we change the words of Shakespeare and Samuel Logan Brengle when we quote them? These are more difficult decisions. We will not all agree. I have been known to change a few words of songs from paper to PowerPoint and I’m not sure that those who might normally object would have even noticed. But I hope that everyone felt included as they sang. I think the principle remains the same as the work of biblical translators: What did the original author mean? How can we most effectively communicate that today? Can we make changes without disrupting the form and structure of the writing? Most importantly, does everyone know they are included in God’s gracious invitation to be in personal relationship with him? Using gender inclusive language is one more way of expressing this. That is why we should intentionally work at doing this in The Salvation Army.

Major Cathie Harris is chair of the Social Issues Committee and lives in Winnipeg.

NO. We should be cautious about adopting gender-inclusive language. Instead, we should seek to understand the Bible on its own terms, within the language and tradition that gave birth to it.

BY KRISTIN FRYER, STAFF WRITER

One of the best classes I took in university was European Literature in Translation. The selected readings, which included The Brothers Karamazov and The Trial, were among the best books I’ve read.

Despite my immense enjoyment of the course, at times I felt as though I was missing something. One day in class, the professor, a native German-speaker, was reading a passage from Faust when he paused and said, “I wish you could read this in the original German. The English translation just doesn’t quite get at the meaning of these words.”

This is the fundamental “flaw” of translation—and it has led a number of language theorists to question whether translation is ever fully possible. The issue is rooted in the fact that every language is born out of and shaped by a particular people group and their beliefs and traditions. As German philosopher Hans-Georg Gadamer argues, every language is a view of the world, “not primarily because it is a particular type of language … but because of what is said or handed down in this language.” Tradition and language cannot be separated; language is tradition.

The further removed a reader is from the culture and tradition of a particular language, the more difficult it is for them to understand that culture’s literature.

As such, the translation of a modern French novel into English is likely to be more possible because we share more with the French culture. In many cases, we watch the same films, listen to similar music and are affected by the same major events (e.g. the recent economic downturn).

But in the case of ancient texts, the problems of translation can be particularly acute. Consider how far removed we are—temporally, linguistically, culturally—from the people living in the time of Abraham, Moses or Jesus. The cultural differences between then and now are stark.

And here lies the root of my skepticism toward many modern translations of the Bible, including so-called “gender-inclusive” translations.

It’s not the Bible’s fault that we cannot read ancient Greek and Hebrew. But if we could—and some people can—what would we encounter? To put it bluntly, we would encounter a text written by men, for men. And it should not come as a shock to modern readers that the Bible was written in this way.

Patriarchal language in the Bible is not a “scandal” that must be covered up by gender-inclusive translations. The Bible is what it is. The inspired Word of God: yes. Product of a particular language, culture and tradition: also yes. Going through the Bible and replacing “he” with “they,” “sons” with “sons and daughters,” and so on, does not “fix” this.

And in some cases, as various biblical scholars have pointed out, these kinds of changes can actually obscure the meaning of the Bible. In his essay “What’s Wrong with Gender-Neutral Bible Translations?” Wayne Grudem offers many examples of faulty gender-inclusive translations, such as Psalm 34:20, which contains a Messianic prediction. The Revised Standard Version reads, “He keeps all his bones; not one of them is broken,” while the New Revised Standard Version reads, “He keeps all their bones; not one of them will be broken.” According to Grudem, “The individuality of the Messianic prediction, so wonderfully fulfilled in Jesus’ death, is lost to readers of the NRSV.”

It is important to remember that no translation of the Bible is neutral. Every translation is the product of human beings, who have their own worldviews and biases, and a linguistic system, which has its own traditions and biases. Every translation reflects these biases. For hundreds of years, the English language has been heavily influenced by Christianity. But as culture shifts, so also does language. There is no denying that the culture of English-speaking people is becoming increasingly secular, and it would be a mistake to think that our language has not changed as a result.

We must be careful not to demand that the Bible conform to our language and our worldview, but instead seek to understand the Bible on its own terms, within the language and tradition that gave birth to it.

I realize that this may not be a satisfying conclusion for some readers. The reality is that some passages of the Bible make 21st-century women (myself included) uncomfortable. But focusing on this, instead of recognizing that the Bible is a product of a particular language and culture, misses the broader picture.

Modernized language or not, nothing can change the fact that the message of Christ already is gender-inclusive. “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16). Our salvation depends on our decision to follow Christ, not our gender.

Kristin Fryer is staff writer for Salvationist magazine.

NO. Halloween is harmless fun. Just because some have chosen it as their “helliday” doesn’t make it evil. The Church can redeem this event without succumbing to its dark side.

BY MAJOR KATHIE CHIU

When I was young, I loved dressing up in elaborate costumes each Halloween, smelling the crisp, earthy air from the fallen leaves, running from house to house … and, oh yes, the candy! But Halloween is hard for some Christians—they just don’t know what to do with it. Is it sinful and evil? Is it all about Satan worship and pagan gods? Or is it just fun and games? Years ago, when I got serious about my relationship with God I wanted to make sure that if I participated in Halloween I wasn’t breaking some kind of spiritual law. So I did some research. Here’s what I found.

Halloween can be traced back to the ancient Celtic feast of Samhain (pronounced sah-ween). Although it’s all about the candy now, it had some eerie beginnings. Originally it was a night for the druids to lead the people in a celebration of Samhain, whom they believed to be the Lord of the Dead. His festival fell on November 1. Most pagan nations had a belief that at death the souls of good people were taken by good spirits and carried off to paradise, but the souls of wicked people were left to wander the space between the earth and the moon or consigned to inhabit animals. On Samhain, the veil between the physical world and the spirit world was pierced, releasing evil spirits that would then harass the living. These wicked souls would return to their homes, so people would attempt to ward them off by wearing scary costumes. They would draw gargoyles on their houses and carve out gourds and pumpkins and put lights in them. They even tried to placate the evil spirits by offering them food. However, if the spirits weren’t satisfied, they would play a trick on them. Hence, trick or treat!

When Christianity spread through Europe and the British Isles, many pagans and druids converted to Christianity. However, they were still very superstitious. Many of the people were illiterate and uneducated and so their understanding of many things was very primitive. In order to combat superstition, the Roman Catholic Church established All Saints Day, a rival celebration on November 1. All Saints Day honoured all the martyrs who had died that year. On October 31, the Church held a mass called All Hallows, and the evening became known as All Hallows E’en, which means “holy evening.”

Halloween is the Church’s attempt to redeem a pagan celebration. This is nothing new for the Church. Christmas and Easter were also timed to replace pagan celebrations. Some of the old symbols remain—the Easter egg is a sign of fertility as is the Christmas tree. So what is so evil about Halloween? Some simply practise it as a cultural festival—a night to dress up and have some fun. Others have embraced a pagan-like religious belief and have resurrected some of what they think are ancient Celtic practices. Still others have embraced evil and declared Halloween their special night.

The Bible tells us that we are not to have anything to do with sorcery, divination or other occult-like practices (see Deuteronomy 18:10-13). Does Halloween fall in that category? I don’t think so. Just because some have chosen it as their “helliday” doesn’t make it evil. Our family has fun with it every year. We take the opportunity to go door-to-door with our kids and give out treats, meet our neighbours and say, “God bless you.” We also choose not to celebrate or glorify evil by dressing in costumes that resemble occult creatures—although this is a constant challenge, we still resist. Some people give out gospel tracts and others celebrate with harvest festivals in their churches.

Whatever we choose to do, we are to take God’s light into our communities. Whenever we engage our culture in this way, we should pray. We pray for opportunities to witness. We pray for protection over our family. We pray for discernment and wisdom as parents and also for our children as they go into our neighbourhood, encountering people who believe differently than us. Finally, we have fun and give all the glory to Jesus, because every day is his day.

Major Kathie Chiu is the executive director at the Centre of Hope and the Bethesda Centre in London, Ont.

YES. Christians are called to be set apart from the world. We have better things to do with our time than participate in Halloween’s rampant commercialization and pagan origins.

BY LIEUTENANT HANNAH JEFFERY

As I write this it is August and already I’ve noticed several new stores around town that display signs reading “Coming Soon.” They are Halloween stores devoted to selling costumes, decorations and other Halloween paraphernalia. Is it no longer enough to have the seasonal section at Wal-Mart boast black streamers and witch hats for the month of October? For months on end, we are encouraged to spend our hard-earned money on stuff that we don’t need. A $30 costume for our child to wear for an hour and grow out of by next year. Plastic ice cubes that look like eyeballs to float in the punch at the office party. A life-size glow-in-the-dark skeleton. We seem to give in more and more each year to this materialistic trap. Last year, Canadians spent approximately $1.5 billion on Halloween and the trend is on the rise.

Should Christians celebrate this holiday, spend their money on frivolous decorations and associate themselves with this traditionally pagan event? I ask myself these questions every year. I don’t spend a colossal amount of money. I buy my child’s costume at a second-hand store. I don’t decorate elaborately or with anything that looks satanic or evil. So every year I decide that it must be all right for me to send my child out into the community for an hour on Halloween to say hello to our neighbours. I decide that overindulging on sugar on occasion isn’t the worst thing in the world. I decide that since I do not personally practise ancient pagan festivals that I must not be doing anything anti-Christian. I decide that handing out a little treat to a few eight-year-olds is a nice gesture that displays my generosity.

So, every year I celebrate Halloween. But the more I think about whether Christians should celebrate Halloween, the more I second-guess my “yes” vote. Just because I’m not doing anything wrong by celebrating Halloween, doesn’t mean I’m doing anything right by celebrating it either.

There must be better ways to meet my neighbours that will glorify God. Abstaining from Halloween activities sets one apart from the rest of the crowd. Paul says to the Roman believers that they must “not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of [their] mind” (Romans 12:2). As Christians, we are called to live holy lives and being holy means being set apart for God’s purpose. We have so little time here on earth. Every moment is an opportunity to bring light into a dark world. Every conversation with someone is an opening to show God’s love. Every cent we have can be used to help someone in need.

Perhaps my time, effort and money can be better spent on October 31 than handing out a few chocolates to children already on a sugar-high.

Lieutenant Hannah Jeffery is the assistant corps officer and director of community ministries at Spryfield Community Church in Halifax.

BY CARSON SAMSON

Remember back in 2008, when we used Facebook to track down old flames and high school teammates? Or reconnected with friends no longer tied to our everyday lives—like our parents for instance? People don’t use social media to reconnect anymore; they use it to connect. Want to reach the world in 30 seconds? Welcome to Twitter. Want to gather a mass of like-minded individuals around a cause? Bring light to injustice? Defend the marginalized? Enter Facebook.

As a graphic designer, I sell social media to businesses like I used to sell stationery. It’s quickly become an integral part of a company’s brand strategy and an ever-growing facet of effective public relations. Why? Because every successful business understands the key to success lies in not just connecting with customers, but building relationships with them. These days, we see this happening with big business all the way down to the “mom and pop” operations.

Am I saying the Church is a business? Certainly not. But while we may not have customers or chief operating officers, we are in the business of training disciples of Jesus. And through his love and in proclaiming the message of salvation, we are involved in the business of saving souls.

I think churches can benefit by embracing social media. Here are two key ways:

Use social media to spread the gospel message. Can Twitter be an evangelistic tool? You bet. Social networks are open platforms to engage others in discussion, encourage them to pray and drive them to social action. Through social media we can ask others for spiritual support, invite them to attend our church events or urge them to support our cause or charity. Can you imagine running an entire Red Shield campaign online? Some might find this hard to envision, but last Christmas the fillthekettle.com initiative, where people recruited donors through Facebook, proved that the Army is readily embracing social media.

Let’s employ these same concepts in our community churches. How can we use social media to call people to action? Small groups, committees and ministry units can share agendas, schedule rehearsals or plan meetings over a social network. My worship team communicates regularly through Facebook messages. We also share videos via YouTube to become familiar with new music.

In my professional circle, I use social networks to swap success stories and setbacks, to glean useful information from others in my chosen profession. I’ve found that comparing strategies and best practices benefits all parties. Why can’t our corps do the same?

Use social media to build relationships. In times of joy or sorrow, we can uplift and support each other through social media. Healthy relationships between believers help solidify a church and bring glory and honour to God. I wouldn’t dare suggest online relationships should replace in-person connections and face-to-face ministry, but in many cases, they can be the touch-points through which deeper bonds are fostered.

In every church there are families or individuals who float about on the margins. They pass in and out of our doors, disappearing for varying lengths of time. To some, a church can be an intimidating place, and many are afraid to share their needs in this setting. Online communication isn’t nearly as scary. The sense of anonymity the Internet brings can help bridge the gap. Those who may be hesitant to speak to a pastor in person might welcome an online exchange instead.

The Salvation Army must continue to be a transforming influence in the communities of the world—be it in our neighbourhoods, across the globe or online. And as the world changes at a rapid pace, we must change our methods of outreach. Neglecting the opportunity to use social media to equip soldiers, officers and local leaders would be a mistake, because one thing will never change: a global longing for the love and grace of Jesus and his gift of salvation. People need the Lord, and we must find them, wherever they may be.

Carson Samson is the principal of Samson Design Studios based in Winnipeg. He can be reached at twitter.com/carsonsamson or facebook.com/samsonstudios.

NO. Social media, texting and electronic devices have become distractions. They prevent us from the real business of getting to know people face-to-face.

BY MAJOR RANDY HICKS

Hi, my name is Randy, and I used to be a Facebooker.… I am one of those people who have revolted against the tendency to put their lives online for the world to see. I decided to close down my social media account, and here’s why.

Recently I was in line for the teller at my bank. The person ahead of me had already taken up an inordinate amount of time and patience was wearing thin in the queue behind me. That’s when it happened. His phone beeped, indicating a text message had arrived.

That’s OK, I thought. It happens. But to my dismay he read and responded to it while the rest of us (including the teller) were placed on pause. I slowly counted to 10 as tensions rose. Just when I thought we were back in business, he took a phone call. Was this guy for real?

There ought to be a law limiting the use and abuse of social networking. I’m all for freedom of speech, but where did our manners go? Have we forgotten how to filter what we say before we actually put it out there, either in text or voice? When is it appropriate to use the tools we have developed? Do I need to be in your personal “phone booth” every time your cellphone rings?

I must admit that I’m a neophyte when it comes to texting. A while ago I received a text from a ministry board member that had me a little worried. Don’t get me wrong, he’s a nice guy and all, and I’m sure we’re fond friends but to sign off with “LOL”…. The joke was on me when I learned that “LOL” doesn’t mean “lots of love.” When he cleared it up we did indeed “laugh out loud.”

That’s harmless enough, but what about all the swearing and inappropriate topics that now freely flow through many fingers in abbreviated text-talk? Here’s a text for you: “Watch the way you talk. Let nothing foul or dirty come out of your mouth. Say only what helps, each word a gift” (Ephesians 4:29 The Message).

Also, I wonder if we’ve forgotten the importance of communicating “face-to-face?” When I send a text message, comment on your Facebook page or leave a voice mail, you don’t see my body language or, in the case of the text, pick up on my tone or mood. You get the words without the music. And what if I’m way off key?

Ah, you say, but the same is true of this article in the magazine. You don’t see my face or hear my voice so the onus is on you to interpret the tone of my rant. Perhaps through my choice of words you’re able to pick up on my sarcasm, anger and frustration. Do you imagine me pacing then pounding the keys on my laptop? Maybe I should use more exclamation points!!!

There is a difference. The beauty of print is that this conversation is simply between you and me right now. There are no comments to post, “like” buttons to press or messages to retweet. There’s something refreshing about that.

As for Facebook’s wall, where users can post a variety of inconsequential information—from what they ate for breakfast to the latest Farmville application—I think we can do without it. Nobody needs that much information. As for the whole social media trend, here’s a post from old Belshazzar’s wall: “You have been weighed on the scales and found wanting” (Daniel 5:27).

Major Randy Hicks is the corps officer at North York Temple in Toronto.

BY MAJOR (DR.) BEVERLEY SMITH

There have been a host of travesties, shipwrecked faith, and a trail of hurt and broken Christians left in the wake of churches who promote healing miracles within their ministry circle. I remember reading an author who had watched on television a well-known faith healer ostensibly cure someone’s husband of cancer. He followed up with the couple a week later, telephoning them at their home. The wife answered the phone with a sharp intake of breath as the author inquired how her husband was doing. She reported that he had died two days after the broadcast of his supposed healing. That was the end of the author’s trust in the television healer, and of his faith in Christ as well. Even renowned Christian author C. S. Lewis almost lost his faith when his mother did not recover in response to his childhood prayers begging God for her healing.

My own father, while welcoming the prayers of his friends and family, declined to be placed on a healing prayer chain when chemotherapy failed to alleviate his lymphoma. He thought that he would be just as happy to take what came from the Lord for good or ill, without dictating to God what that might look like. He passed away months later. I will concede that the Holy Spirit periodically urges us to pray in particular ways for the healing of someone we know. Our fervent prayers influence God’s heart, and even change our own hearts on occasion. But sooner or later we just get it wrong, and that can be damaging.

The problem is not God, who is the same wonderful and wonder-working God as before. The problem is in the misplaced faith of his followers, who expect God to come through for them with every illness every time. We want to be shrink-wrapped in a cocoon of comfort, free from the trials of mere mortals. We not only want it, some North American Christians have come to expect it as their right. Noted theologian Dr. John Stott remarked that we often only want to be comforted by God, not challenged or disturbed. Yet illness and death are part of our fallen nature, and are our companions throughout life. The miracles that come are not always the physical healings, but the ways God helps us to cope with illness and death, and the ways he strengthens our faith to believe. Is it possible to come to a place of faith so strong that we can echo Job: “Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him….” (Job 13:15 KJV)? When we place our faith in Christ, our rebirth through resurrection ushers us into a new physical reality so wonderful we can’t even begin to imagine it.

I recently read a book called Being Well When We’re Ill: Wholeness and Hope In Spite of Infirmity by Marva J. Dawn. It emphasizes that there’s a lot more to being well than physical health. It deals in a practical way with some of the frictions to faith that come with chronic illness, the loss of meaning that comes when you can’t do what you used to, the frustrations of living in the interface between medical science and illness, and how God keeps faith with us through our pain and limitations.

I wish church congregations would talk more about these things rather than expecting God to always be doing cartwheels for them. I wish they could acknowledge the glimpses of God’s grace we see through our hurts and illnesses instead of only focusing on the great gulps of grace we want with physical healing and miracles of other kinds. Marva Dawn makes the point that the way we bear our illness and infirmity is an aspect of our work for God, because people without Christ are watching. Even the Apostle Paul agreed that bearing his thorn in the flesh was in God’s permitted will, after he had asked God to take it away three times. And this was from a man whose handkerchiefs were known to heal people (see Acts 19:12). There are great mysteries here.

One of the ways Jesus was tempted in the desert was to expect God to do miracles for him as he threw himself down from the Temple or experienced hunger. Jesus refused. He would not test God (see Luke 4:12). Instead, he pointed each time to the miracle of God’s Word, written and spoken. Ministering angels eventually came, but they didn’t come until later. In the meantime, Jesus prayed and waited. We, too, experience desert temptations, so we pray and we wait. Signs and wonders are not the only things we wait for (and sometimes mercifully receive). We wait for God.

Major (Dr.) Beverley Smith is a medical practitioner at the Toronto Grace Health Centre.

YES. Who are we to limit God? Many people attest to his wonder-working power. The proof is all around us. It may be hard to believe, but miracles still happen.

BY CAPTAIN GRANT SANDERCOCK-BROWN

I believe in miracles. And not just because a song I learned in childhood commences with that line. I believe in miracles because I see absolutely no reason to disbelieve in them. In fact, the miraculous is an intrinsic part of the Christian faith. So when the editor asked me to give my answer to the question, “Does God still perform signs and wonders today?” I was happy to say yes. And I’m worried when any Christian believes that God has stopped doing so.

I can, however, understand why many Christians have become more timid about stating publicly their belief in miracles. Certainty in a God of signs and wonders has suffered enormously under the critique of rational empiricism. “Science disproves miracles and disproves God.” Or so we are told. Of course science has done no such thing and rational empiricists who say so are mightily exaggerating their case. Aside from the fact that proving a negative—“miracles don’t happen”—is notoriously difficult, not everything can be measured and replicated, observed and quantified. Sure, scientists are welcome to speculate on faith, love and grace, and also God and his abilities, but they do so with no more expertise than me. If God is God—truly and properly God—he is able to do anything we can imagine and many things that we can’t imagine. If he cannot do so, he is not God.

Indeed the core event of the Christian story, the Resurrection, the sign of signs and wonder of wonders, is beyond our imagining. But its effect is not. A dispirited and scattering bunch of Jesus followers were transformed when they encountered their miraculously risen Lord and the world has never been the same. And so, we believe, and always have done, that Jesus the Christ, the Son of God, died and rose again and now sits at the right hand of God.

However, signs and wonders are out of the ordinary. Hence the name. And the out of the ordinary is hard to believe. But it still happens. God’s power was not exhausted in the apostolic age nor has our need of a miracle-working God diminished. I have met many people who testify to God’s miraculous intervention in their lives. I know people who have been healed. I have heard people, under the influence of the Holy Spirit, speak prophetically to their communities. Have there been charlatans? Yes. Have some been too quick to label their own thoughts as a prophecy of God? Absolutely. That does not mean that God has stopped working. It just means that we must be discerning. But that has always been the case for the Christian family. It’s why Paul mentions the gift in his correspondence with “signs and wonders central,” the Corinthian Church.

Questions about signs, wonders, prophecy and healing are really questions about the power and presence of the Spirit in our times. The church at Corinth seems to have experienced far more divine activity than many of us see and experience. But if it’s any comfort, that’s not a recent development. The roots of the difference between Corinth and us go back a long way. New Testament scholar Gordon Fee talks about “the general loss of the dynamic and experiential life of the Spirit” from the second generation of Christians onward. Very quickly in the Early Church spontaneity gave way to formality; the experience of the Spirit gave way to the rites of the Church. But it’s also why, throughout the history of God’s people, popular movements have risen time and time again where ordinary people, trusting and open to God, are touched and healed and prompted by the Spirit. Some of these movements have ended up being heretical. But not all. Indeed The Salvation Army was born out of such a movement in the 19th century.

Often our doubting of signs and wonders comes from our own experience. Sometimes with all the faith we can muster (and only a mustard-seed-sized faith is required) we have prayed for healing, revelation and for the Spirit’s power. And nothing has happened, at least as far as we can tell. The reality seems to be that on most occasions we ask God for miracles and he asks us for endurance, suffering or hard work.

One day, when I see him face to face, I’ll share my view that a few spectacular signs and wonders in my own life would have been really helpful for me and my ministry; that some powerful, fulfilled prophecies and miraculous healings would have, in my opinion, bolstered his credibility. He’ll probably have a good answer for me. So until then I’ll trust God to be God. I’ll believe in signs and wonders and trust the evidence for them that I see around me and never cease praying that the Spirit, in a mighty way, will be at work among his people and in his world.

Captain Grant Sandercock-Brown is the corps officer at Chatswood, Australia Eastern Territory.

The Army was founded on the idea that all are welcome, including the wealthy. Salvation doesn’t work differently for the rich. After 145 years, the Army’s emphasis on “redemption and lift” has helped generations out of poverty. Instead of sending them to the church up the street, we need them to embrace our mission.

by Captain Mark Braye

Many people believe the mission of The Salvation Army is primarily, or even exclusively, to the poor. I disagree. Our mission is to the “whosoever,” including the rich and middle class.

Throughout our history many slogans have expressed our ministry. William Booth told his son, Bramwell, to “do something.” He spoke of “others,” “our people” and “going for souls and going for the worst.” His famous “I’ll fight” speech is often thought of as a rallying cry to serve the poor. But don’t his words address all social classes? Wealthy women weep. Wealthy men go to prison. There are dark souls without the light of God in gated communities and large suburban houses.

Catherine Booth, who held Bible studies for women among the elite of London, England, said, “Here is the principle—adapt your measures to the necessity of the people to whom you minister. You are to take the gospel to them in such modes and circumstances as will gain for it from them a hearing.”

The wealthy are “our people” as well. They are “others” for whom we must also “do something.” Our “modes and circumstances” will differ among them, but we have as much a mandate to minister to the rich and middle class as we do to the poor. They need Jesus, too.

Ignoring the wealthy puts us at a significant disadvantage. Across our territory, the middle class makes up the majority of our congregations. Our places of worship are safe spaces where all people can begin their spiritual journeys, grow in their faith and worship with their sisters and brothers in Christ. Where would we be if the majority of our denomination left tomorrow because their salaries were too high to fit in?

In terms of fundraising, the upper and middle classes are the greatest supporters of Salvation Army ministries. Our goal is not to exploit them for a piece of their income. Rather, it’s a two-way benefit: they help us fulfil our mission and we give them an opportunity to give back to others.

When we invite people with abundant resources to partner with us, our mission grows and more people are given a chance to escape poverty. Think of the support given to The Salvation Army here in Canada by the W. Garfield Weston Foundation. Or in America, by people such as Jerry Jones, owner and president of the NFL’s Dallas Cowboys.

The rich and middle class comprise a large portion of our volunteers and ministry groups. When these members of our church families get saved, they’re saved to save and saved to serve. Whether it’s standing by a Christmas kettle, handing out coffee at the Winter Olympics, playing in a brass band or leading a Bible study, they make the mission of The Salvation Army come alive.

The wealthy are also well connected and experienced for ministry. Educated professionals comprise our Salvation Army advisory boards and councils, serving as partners and mentors. Are we to take their advice at a professional level and ignore their spiritual needs when the meetings are over?

We do our mission a disservice when we ignore these realties and pine away for the glory days of the East London Christian Mission. There have been cultural and societal shifts in the past 145 years that the Booths could not have imagined. The Salvation Army, and the world in which we serve, is far more complex today. The wealthy are vital members of our denomination and integral ministers of our mission. They deserve our focus as much as anyone else.

Captain Mark Braye and his wife, Nancy, are the corps officers/pastors of The Salvation Army Tri-Town Community Church in Temiskaming Shores, Ont. They have two children, Hannah and Micah.

Our primary mission is to the poor. While we don’t turn away the wealthy, the more we gear our programming to meet their needs, the more we sacrifice our original calling. We’ve staked our reputation on serving the most vulnerable in our society. We are not just “playing church,” we are called to make a difference in people’s lives.

by Lieutenant Nyree Bond

Should the Army be a church primarily for the poor? Many think so. “Leave the middle-class congregations to churches on the other side of the tracks,” they say. Although I don’t fully subscribe to this view, there are many reasons why we should have a greater focus on the poor.

The truth is always more complicated than it appears. If the Army were only about the poor, I wouldn’t be where I am today since I grew up attending a middle-class, traditional Army corps in Toronto’s suburbs. When I was younger, I had no concept of what it meant to be poor. I never met someone who was homeless or needy, so the words only conjured up stereotypical images of tattered, dirty men living in cardboard boxes.

Even though I grew up in the Army and was indoctrinated in the mission, I had never actually served the poor. “I don’t do poor people!” I uttered arrogantly at our young couples’ Bible study in our middle-class Army church in the suburbs. Sadly, I was serious. I dreaded the idea of mixing with poor people.

Later that year, however, I volunteered at our local Army food bank where my husband was the new community ministries director. My time there became days, and then weeks, until I realized that it was not about what I was giving the clients but rather what I was receiving from them: the joy of offering food to a mother of three who had no money to buy cereal; the delight in listening to the stories of a lonely senior who just wanted to be heard; and the thrill of exchanging smiles with a toothless man grateful for respect.

I not only helped them, I began to care deeply for them. I could see gratefulness in their tears and their words of thanks. What a powerful discovery it was to see dignity restored by shaking hands or offering a sincere embrace.

Our mission statement doesn’t mention poverty, yet our Movement is steeped in it. It is part of who we are. Of course we don’t turn away the wealthy. After all, poverty can be evaluated in more than just economic terms. However, I believe that if the Army is not serving the poor, we have lost our true sense of mission.

Our Movement was birthed by William Booth and his vision to transform the impoverished in East London by focusing on living out holiness in word and deed. This notion is woven throughout the doctrine and mission of The Salvation Army. Social action became our central ministry, dubbing us a “church for the poor.”

The Salvation Army has a two-fold mission of social service and spiritual care. It is integral to our mission that we balance both and, ideally, integrate them with each other. We most effectively share God’s love through acts of service for others.

The early days of the Army focused on reaching the marginalized and offering hope to the hopeless. In our current context, there is still the need for hope and deliverance for people in poverty. In 2009, 2.9 million Canadians lived in poverty. More than half a million of them were children.

Our territorial position statement on poverty and economic justice states, “As Salvationists, we remain committed to The Salvation Army’s historic mission to care for the poor and marginalized … [and] will work to eliminate poverty.” It isn’t enough just to say it. We must be diligent in our efforts to transform the lives of those around us.

If we lose our focus on the poor, what viability would we have? What about our credibility with the public who donate millions of dollars each year in the expectation that we are helping the poor? God has entrusted us with the privilege of giving hope to the poor. If we aren’t serving the poor, we aren’t fulfilling our mission.

Booth himself described the poor as “his people” and proclaimed ministering to them as “his destiny.” Through personal experience, I’ve realized that ministering to the poor is not only my mission, but a privilege. I now know my purpose, and I echo William Booth’s words … “these are my people.”

Lieutenant Nyree Bond is community ministries director at Foothills Church and Community Ministries in High River, Alta. She and her husband, David, corps officer at Foothills Church, have three sons, Nathan, Brandon and Dawson.

Competition encourages the drive for excellence. Whether it’s at school, church or sports, kids need to learn to do their best. If not, they’ll regret it later in life when doors close on important opportunities.

by Peter Koehnen

There is nothing inherently wrong with competition, provided it is held in the appropriate contexts. The skills children learn through healthy competition are critical if they are to make an impact on the world for God, succeed in life and deepen their own faith.

There is a misconception that competition either damages children’s self-esteem or makes them self-absorbed and arrogant. Those problems are not the fault of the competition itself, but rather the context in which the competition is presented. Children must be taught that God does not care if we are the best, but only that we are striving to do our best.

Unfortunately, the public perception of competition has been tainted by steroid scandals, bribery and cheating. But these things are an indictment of the character of specific competitors, not of competition itself. Visit any community baseball diamond or soccer field where six-year-olds are playing on their first sports team. Those kids are experiencing the exuberance of doing their best. They are not crushed if their team loses. The snacks and oranges at the end of the game taste just as sweet.

As Christians it is our responsibility to teach children that God is pleased when we do our best at everything we do. Eric Liddell was a Scottish Olympian and Christian missionary in China. The winner of the men’s 400-metre race at the 1924 summer Olympics in Paris, his Christian values and athletic prowess were depicted in the film Chariots of Fire. About competition Liddell said, “In the dust of defeat as well as the laurels of victory there is glory to be found if one has done his best.”

Too many of our children are growing up with a sense of entitlement. They are led to believe that regardless of how much or how little effort they put into something, the results will be the same. This does not do our children justice, but instead sets them up for grave disappointment when they leave school and are expected to live independent lives.

The skills learned through competition are not limited to foot races, vocal competitions or math contests. They are transferable and necessary to most things in life. Without discipline, perseverance and determination our children won’t be ready for the real competition they will face in life, be it in university, college or the workforce. Skills fostered through healthy and appropriate competition can also help us in our mission as Christians. They can strengthen our resolve to overcome poverty, hunger and violence against the vulnerable. More than just believing in social justice, we need concrete and proven skills to achieve it.

Christians are not exempt from competition, but we do have a responsibility to teach our children that striving for a goal is noble even if it is never reached. While it is important to teach children the skills necessary for competition, it is just as important to teach them grace and humility in victory and defeat.

God has given us gifts. He wants us to develop and use those gifts to his glory. Eric Liddell said, “God made me fast and when I run I feel his pleasure.” God does not want us to hide our light under a bushel. We must teach our children to “let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in Heaven” (Matthew 5:16).

The only way for children to really learn what their “light” is, is to see it in the context of others. When we are young our mothers tell us that we are the fastest runners, best singers or most talented artists in the world. Mothers tell their children they are the best at everything, and that’s OK. But it would be unhealthy if we never tested those skills against others and instead grew up complacent, believing that we really were the best at everything.

The Christian walk is fraught with challenges and setbacks. Our faith is in constant competition with doubts, temptations and false idols. As adults, it’s no longer important to us if we played the best piano solos in our recitals or if we got first place in our Grade 5 public speaking contests. The skills we developed in those competitions, however, taught us to always strive to be better ambassadors of Christ’s gospel, to not be crushed when we fall on our Christian walk, but rather to get up, be thankful for God’s grace and keep on striving. And some day may we all say, “I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. Now there is in store for me the crown of righteousness” (2 Timothy 4:7-8).

Peter Koehnen is a secondary school administrator in Mississauga, Ont., who has been involved with The Salvation Army for the last 20 years.

Parents these days push their children too hard. Awards, prizes and recognition are great for the winners, but can damage the self-esteem of the losers. We need to ease up and let kids be kids.

by Bruce Ivany

Why are we in such a hurry to turn children into adults? It would seem that parents are feeling great pressure to ensure that their children develop as many skills and abilities, in as short a time as possible. But to what end and at what cost?

Some of this push comes from the misguided view of parents as to what constitutes success in today’s world and the vicarious need of some parents to live their lives through their children. In his book The Hurried Child, child psychologist David Elkind writes, “The concept of child competence, which drove much of the hurrying of childhood in previous decades, is very much alive today. Parents are under more pressure than ever to overschedule their children and have them engaged in organized sports and other activities that may be age inappropriate.”

I know young people in middle school and high school who are busier than executives of corporations. Their week is programmed from beginning to end with the precision needed by the CEO of a major company. If by chance there is a break in the schedule, these young people are at a loss for what to do, and their anxiety translates into that dreaded complaint: “I’m bored.” Many children struggle with the concept of “free time” or “playtime” because so much of their time is structured.

So what is the cost of raising our children this way? Elkind states: “Today’s child has become the unwilling, unintended victim of overwhelming stress—the stress borne of rapid, bewildering social change and constantly rising expectations.”

That’s right. Many of our children are feeling stressed. Whether we intend it or not, we are setting expectations beyond what many are capable of achieving. As a result, many kids are sleep deprived and their emotional needs are not being met. They rarely sit down to a meal with their family in the same room, at the same table, without the TV on and with no one hurrying back and forth from an activity.

Competition can also damage our children’s self-esteem. In his book Hurt, Chap Clark, professor of youth, family and culture at Fuller Theological Seminary, observes: “The pressure to succeed, whether in the classroom, in athletics, or in any endeavour that creates a sense of worth and accomplishment represents an elusive, never-quite-good-enough sense that [young people] wear like a cloud.” Clark suggests that their worth is measured by “the goal scored, the A grade, or a role in the school play.… In other words, it is not who they are but what they do that counts.

“Sports, music, dance, drama, and even faith-related programs are all guilty of ignoring the developmental needs of each individual young person in favour of the organization’s goals … they are only as valuable as their ability to contribute.”

In my 34 years as an educator, I have seen this played out time and again. Let’s state it plain and simple: we need to value our children for who they are, not what they do. Too many of our children find their value in their achievements. They have become “reward junkies.”

We need to encourage more than we praise. Praise is an expression of approval, recognition of what someone has done. But encouragement is the act of giving hope or support. One of the better things I did as a school principal was create means of recognizing students for their attitude and effort—something that everyone can achieve regardless of their natural talents or abilities.

Our current society tends to view “average” as a bad thing. But aren’t most of us average? We are not all genetically blessed to be smart, athletic, musical or creative. That doesn’t mean we don’t strive to become skilled or develop our talents. But we need to be realistic in our expectations of children.

I have coached sports for over 35 years. After the first few years, when I finally realized that it was my own ego behind a desire to win at all costs, I became a much better coach. I work hard with young people to help them develop their skills, to know what it takes to be a contributing member of a team and to enjoy the opportunity to participate. Unfortunately, I have come across parents who expect their child to be the next Sidney Crosby, Hayley Wickenheiser or Steve Nash.

God loves each one of us for who we are, not what we do. This is a message our children need to hear louder than anything else.

Bruce Ivany has spent 34 years as an educator in the public school system, most recently as assistant superintendent in the Abbotsford School District, B.C. He is currently working as an instructor at Trinity Western University in the School of Education.

This is the fourth in a series of Point Counterpoint debates in which a variety of Salvationists will explore two sides of an issue that is critical to Army mission.

Officership is not a career, but a covenant relationship designed for the long haul. Of course if we want people to sign up, we need to change our approach.

BY MAJOR WENDY SWAN

It may seem a no-brainer for someone in her 27th year of officer service to answer this question. Like others, I enjoyed a successful career in business prior to choosing officership. Since commissioning, have I ever been offered another career? Several times. Recently? Yes. Why then continue to commit to a lifetime of service as an officer?

Let me quickly affirm that much has been gained by the Church from using a business model in terms of management and stewardship of resources. I wonder, however, if we have inadvertently made a mistake in using business language to describe officership—specifically the use of the word “career.” Career speaks of experience and expertise that provide opportunity for power, independence, financial gain and “self.” Officership is not a career. More accurately, officership might be described as a “service path,” originating out of a covenant relationship with God and a vehicle within which to serve The Salvation Army.

The Army’s military terminology and imagery aside, ordination is not a new idea within the Church. It finds its roots in the Mendicant orders of the 13th century where groups of people offered themselves as a model of God active within a community. They took vows of obedience, poverty and chastity so that all of their time and energy could be expended on the religious work of preaching the gospel and serving the poor. Sound familiar?

Seven hundred years later, all Salvationists commit to evangelism, discipleship and service. Officers voluntarily choose additional covenant vows of obedience and simplicity of lifestyle. After more than 20 years in leadership development and training, I have yet to meet anyone who begins officership thinking, “Well, I’ll see how it goes.…” But statistics don’t lie—for an increasing number of people, the years of service as an officer are short.

Based on this reality, I’d like to ask another question: Under what conditions might the Army expect an individual to commit to a lifetime of service? Aside from the theological issue of covenant, I’d like to suggest some pragmatic components that facilitate productive “long-termers.”

Consultative Leadership: While we are making progress in consulting officers on a variety of issues, consultative leadership is more than asking officer personnel for thoughts or opinions regarding issues. These days, people not only want a voice, they want a vote. If people do not believe that their voice is truly heard and valued, they will vote with their feet. The best form of consultative leadership involves what I call “mature conversations,” discussions where deepest need and deepest passion intersect, where both parties recognize capacity and contribution as well as challenges and limitations. People choose to commit to the long term when what they experience in the short term tells them there is a future and they can envision their place in it.

Professional Development: Our Army provides a myriad of opportunities to fulfil one’s calling to serve community. While I’ve served in corps and social services, most of my officership has been in international education and training. We live in a world where accreditation and credentialing increasingly demand a high level of professionalism. While a growing number of people enter officership with extensive skills and education, it is critical that we adopt lifelong learning and equipping of officer personnel for present and future service. While limited financial resources will always be a factor, our strategic-planning lens must be one of “investment” and not “cost” at strategic points in an individual’s service.

Sabbatical Refreshment: I’m not talking about a year lounging on the beaches of Bali (as beautiful as they are!). Studies show that within the ministerial professions, frontline workers experience burnout regardless of how well they have attempted self-care. This is a particular danger for our movement as we expect 24/7 availability as well as multiple appointments from individuals. Are we guilty of abusing God’s grace when we ask people to commit to a lifetime and then fail to provide for the biblical precept of intentional re-creation? Several territories have in recent years implemented a variety of sabbatical forms. This is resulting in longer years of productive and energized service of officers. I’d love to see this become a reality here in Canada and Bermuda.

Consultative leadership, professional development, sabbatical refreshment—that sounds like an Army I’d want to sign up for—long term of course.

Major Wendy Swan is the extended learning program director at William and Catherine Booth College in Winnipeg.

Leadership in the Army is no longer one-size-fits-all. If we truly accept the “priesthood of all believers,” then we need opportunities for lay leaders to take a greater role.

BY MAJOR IAN SWAN

It is entirely reasonable to expect that officership will be a lifelong commitment. After all, it’s not a calling to a particular service path or vocation, but rather a covenanted life—or, to use the language of the Church, a joining of holy orders. The question we should ask ourselves is whether or not officership is a prerequisite for spiritual leadership.

Given our belief in the “priesthood of all believers,” the response seems obvious to me. However, our tradition of reserving certain roles and functions for officers seems to call our belief into question.

Throughout Africa, the ever increasing number of converts and soldiers necessitates the appointing of lay leaders. Constraints faced by territories in the training of officers make it impossible to produce an officer for every ministry unit. These lay leaders are selected on the basis of their spiritual maturity, competency and potential for future development. While considered a local officer, these individuals do not fill the traditional local officer positions but rather take on the role and function of the officer appointed to lead a particular ministry unit. These lay leaders serve on officer terms, but only for a specific time of service.

This practice replicates the early methodology of John Wesley. Having formed a small group of believers who studied and prayed together, he would then appoint a leader to encourage and monitor the group. The leader would be provided with organizational instructions and a small library of books to encourage their development and capacity. Wesley never intended these leaders to be ordained or take on the vestments of clergy.

For the first time, the Canada and Bermuda Territory is faced with the reality of fewer active officers than there are retired officers. This means we may soon have more ministry units than officer personnel to serve them. Unless there is an increase in cadets entering the training college, the gap between the number of available officers and the number of ministry units requiring leadership will only grow.

It would seem that for many potential candidates, a lifelong commitment is not something they are prepared to make.

One solution might be to prioritize mission opportunities and then close ministry units that are only marginally productive but are high consumers of mission resources. Alternatively, a proactive recruitment of lay leaders for a contracted service period may attract willing hands to the task of discipleship and mission expansion. This approach has worked in Australia and Hong Kong. New corps and ministries have been built and, in time, handed over to officer personnel. Similarly, Africa heavily relies on its envoys (lay leaders) to minister to its many congregations. The contracts for these envoys are reviewed annually and are subject to divisional and territorial approval. This process provides great flexibility and control while encouraging performance reviews and evaluations to be based on mission achievement.

When it comes time to release these lay leaders from service many have asked: What is the advantage of appointing a commissioned officer rather than a lay leader?

The advantage of officer leadership over lay leadership lies not in the “priestly function and role” but rather in trained leadership ability. Let me give an example from the field of project development. When building a school, a leader oversees the overall project and its component parts. However, that leader will gladly welcome assistants who complete the various components, be it the foundation or roof. Similarly, in mission, where there is not long-term consistent leadership, the broader vision and individual objectives may be lost.

Lay leaders on contracted service would need to demonstrate capacity for their particular ministry appointment or take training which would equip them for the task. They should also be under the care and supervision of qualified, informed leaders who understand the mission objectives and can ensure that short-term mission leaders contribute to the whole.

Lay service contracts have existed for overseas appointments where need is recognized and local resources are lacking. Perhaps it is time we recognized the need in our own backyard and provided a means whereby willing hands may be encouraged to serve without requiring them to commit to a lifetime.

Major Ian Swan is the associate dean for extended learning at William and Catherine Booth College.

This is the third in a series of Point Counterpoint debates in which a variety of Salvationists will explore two sides of an issue that is critical to Army mission.

No, don’t intervene. Let’s welcome everyone, even if it makes us uncomfortable. Salvation Army worship has always been a bit chaotic.

BY MAJOR KAREN HOEFT

I have been invited to comment on a hypothetical situation that I have dubbed “The Sunday Morning Worship Blues.” We have a new family who doesn’t understand the unwritten, unspoken rules that govern the congregation so that everyone can have a pleasant worship experience. These rules seem simple enough: children should not run in the aisles and cellphones should remain off. At least those are the rules we will tell you for now. When you break another one, don’t worry … we’ll let you know.

Sunday morning, all across our territory, Christians gather to celebrate the good news of Jesus. We gather as communities of believers with many styles, forms and distinctions. Historically, The Salvation Army’s distinct characteristics were not just our uniforms and brass bands but our ability to “sacralize the secular” (Diane Winston, Red-Hot and Righteous). Much to the dismay of other denominations, the Army was able to provide an atmosphere that was both welcoming and familiar to those who didn’t fit in to more traditional worship services. We took what was common in the world and used it to promote the gospel message. Usually this came with lots of noise, movement, music and theatrics, both from the leaders and from the congregation.

The sounds of Salvation Army worship were a cacophony of music, shouts of joy, dynamic preaching, loud hallelujahs, shocking testimonials, halls filled with laughter and mercy seats lined with weeping sinners. Silence was rarely, if ever, found in a Salvation Army meeting. This was not an accident, but intentional. The mission was to bring the gospel message to the people in a way they could understand it. If they never came in the doors then they might never hear the message and be transformed by it. Early Salvationists believed that it was the gospel message, not the meeting, that would transform people.

Has The Salvation Army changed since then? Have we adopted the unwritten rules that we once avoided? Have we scripted the sounds, so that only “acceptable” ones are allowed? Who decides what sounds enhance worship and which detract from worship? Is a child’s laughter and tendency to be rambunctious good or bad? Cellphones, texting, reading e-mails on a Blackberry—or the use of any electronic device for that matter—what gets the thumbs up or thumbs down?

The Sunday Morning Worship Blues has been sung before and we’ll sing it again. Who writes the rules, who changes the rules, and why? Many say those who have been there the longest, since it is “their” congregation. Others say the leader or tradition or whoever has the most power.

As a corps officer I have heard the Sunday Morning Worship Blues many times: at corps council meetings, at visioning meetings, at one-on-one chats. My own journey has been one of intentionally leading to create an environment where anyone could feel welcome, familiar and comfortable. This is done first by example. I have to be OK with sounds and movement and maybe people not giving me their full attention. (Maybe that text message or phone call really was more important than what I had to say!) I’d rather invite attention than command it. Children are easily engaged, but are tough critics. They get easily distracted because they’re kids. They love music, they love to move and they love noise. A congregation full of children teaches us all about sound and life and joy. I think Jesus understood this.

We need the children; they are our lifeblood. Babies, crying and all, are a gift of new life. Toddlers, learning to walk and run, show growth. Youth asking questions, challenging the status quo, keep us thinking. Strangers coming in teach us about hospitality and help us not to get too set in our ways. Lives being transformed breathe the spirit of life back into our communities of faith.

I believe we need to work together to create environments where a mother doesn’t have to cringe every two minutes from the “looks” hurled her way when her baby cries out, where kids can be free to make a little noise and move around, where a family who comes in to hear how the gospel message is relevant to their lives will stay long enough to not just hear the message but be transformed by it.

What would I do in this situation? I would invite everyone to participate in the community of faith—from the youngest to the oldest, from the seekers to the stalwarts of the faith. We all need each other! We can truly see transformation of the heart—all hearts—and not just outward conformation to a set of unwritten rules about worship.

Major Karen Hoeft is assistant executive director and community relations at Winnipeg Booth Centre.

Yes, but there are more subtle ways to let them know. Ultimately, respect for the Word of God and the whole congregation must take precedence.

BY CAPTAIN ROB KERR

Life in community always brings with it a tension between the needs of the individual and what is best for the group. The challenge is finding the right balance between the two. In society this balance is regulated with laws, but in the life of a Christian congregation, the balance is governed by love. This is where it gets tricky, because when we deal with each other in love we don’t want to hurt or offend anyone. It gets even more complicated when we are dealing with a new individual or family. We want them to feel loved, we want to encourage them and help them grow spiritually. The issue at hand is: Do the needs of the individual (in this case a family) supersede the needs of the group as a whole?

Obviously, if this type of disruption happens once, or even once in a while, we should be able to accept the disruption and encourage and support this new family. But when the disruption becomes chronic it is the responsibility of the corps officer to consider the needs of the group as well as the individual. Taking action to curtail such disruptions does not necessarily mean direct confrontation with the family. In fact, I would suggest that be the last resort. There needs to be opportunity for the family to adjust their own behaviour first.

The first step a corps officer needs to take is to look at the situation, determine what kind of support this family needs and then ask: How can we support this family, address the disruptions and allow them to maintain their dignity? In the case of noisy children, are we providing nursery resources? Do parents know about them? Do they know they are available for their children, too, and not just for the “members”? Perhaps the person who is in charge of the nursery could introduce herself, explain what happens in the nursery or children’s program and encourage them to attend.

Cellphones can also be addressed in a proactive way. It is easy for anyone to forget to turn off their cellphone on any given Sunday. Rather than get annoyed that they forgot, make every effort to help them remember. Put a reminder in the bulletin or on the announcement slides before the service. Since some people don’t arrive in time to see the announcements or read the bulletin (if they are rushing in at the last minute they are likely flustered and more likely to forget to turn off their phone), remind them again before the message. Helping the family to learn what is disruptive to the group allows them to make their own adjustments.

If these types of efforts don’t work, then what? Do we let the family disrupt the service in the name of love and compassion? If so, what message does that convey?

Some would argue it demonstrates unconditional love and selfless giving by the congregation—and it does—but if the corps officer allows it to become the norm, the officer is also conveying the message that the service is not really that important. Movie theatres don’t tolerate cellphones or crying babies during the show. Is the Word of God less important than a movie? If we believe that the message preached is the Word of God and the preacher is the ordained messenger of God, then we must give it our full attention and we need to make sure everyone understands that.

I believe that Satan would like nothing better than for our worship services to be disorganized and full of disruptions because then nobody would hear the Word of God and certainly wouldn’t take it seriously. We must take worship and preaching seriously. If the officer knows and believes that, I don’t see how he or she could possibly allow a continual disruption of the service.

Should the officer risk losing this family by dealing directly with the disruptive behaviour? If every other means of addressing the situation has been exhausted, then yes. A corps officer’s responsibility is to ensure that the Word of God is preached in such a way as to be received and understood. This takes more than just diligent sermon preparation. It requires worship that points people to our Lord and requires an environment that is without distraction or disruption (to the best of our ability). We have this responsibility to the entire congregation. To do anything less would be negligent to the Word of God, our calling and our people.

Captain Rob Kerr is the corps officer at Scarborough Citadel in Toronto.

This is the second in a series of Point Counterpoint debates in which a variety of Salvationists will explore two sides of an issue that is critical to Army mission.

Yes, “tainted” money can be redeemed. Our concern is not with how the wealthy spend their money, but how we can stand in solidarity with the poor.

BY ROB PERRY

In this age of Lotto 649, Pro-line, 50-50 draws and PartyPoker.net, many of us know someone who has been adversely affected by gambling. Gambling addiction is a serious problem. However, this is not an argument as to the harmfulness or morality of gambling. Rather it is a discussion as to whether The Salvation Army’s integrity would be compromised by accepting donations that come from the proceeds of gambling.

Micah 4 tells of a future filled with peace, prosperity and joy. It speaks of nations that turn to God and others that don’t. The chapter concludes: “ ‘I will give you hooves of bronze, and you will break to pieces many nations.’ You will devote their ill-gotten gains to the Lord, their wealth to the Lord of all the earth” (Micah 4:13).

This is the culmination of Micah’s vision of Israel defeating its enemies and restoring peace. The plunder or “ill-gotten gains” of wicked nations will be taken by Israel and used for God’s glory. Something that was meant for evil can be transformed into something life-giving. As Joseph said to his brothers after they mistreated him, “You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives” (Genesis 50:20). It’s about redemption.

The same was true for Zacchaeus, the diminutive tax collector whose life was changed when he encountered Jesus. Appropriately, Zacchaeus’ approach to finances reflected his new life: “Zacchaeus stood up and said to the Lord, ‘Look, Lord! Here and now I give half of my possessions to the poor, and if I have cheated anybody out of anything, I will pay back four times the amount’ ” (Luke 19:8).

Jesus does not stand up and say, “Hold on, Zacchaeus. While I appreciate the sentiment, you earned your money cheating your own people and colluding with Rome; therefore it is tainted money, and it is wrong for you to give it to the poor.” Instead, Jesus is silent on the issue.

It’s about redemption, but also about identification. As The Salvation Army, do we align ourselves primarily with the wealthy individuals and corporations who donate, or do we mostly identify with the underprivileged who are the beneficiaries of these donations? If it is the donor, we must be careful to walk alongside them in truth, and be prophetic about how they should make and spend their money. However, I believe that The Salvation Army’s primary identification must be with the poor. It is our privilege to stand alongside the beneficiaries: the homeless, the addicted, the starving. While the Bible has much to say about how the rich should acquire and spend their wealth, it is decidedly quiet about where the poor should find their help.

As someone who lives and works in an underprivileged community, part of my job is to be a surrogate beggar, more commonly known as a fundraiser. When I have the privilege to rub elbows with wealthy individuals or corporations to whom my people have no access, I get to “beg” on their behalf. It is one of my least favourite parts of my job. It is humiliating to me (as begging always is), and if I am not careful, it can border on exploitation. Yet I do it because the people I am representing need the programs and help this money will offer. After all, the money I raise is not for me; I am just the middleman.

If I asked the people in my community if they were concerned whether or not program money comes from the proceeds of gambling, their reaction would be confusion and incredulity. Most of them receive aid from other social service providers that are funded in part by gambling. Some of them even dream about the vast sums they will donate to The Salvation Army when they win the lottery. They do not care where our money comes from any more than a beggar on the streets of Jerusalem would have cared where Zacchaeus got the money to put in his cup. And nowhere in the Bible does God tell them they should worry about it.

When William Booth was criticized about receiving “tainted money” from wealthy donors, he replied, “We will wash it in the tears of the widows and the orphans and lay it on the altar of humanity.” In his words we find identification with the poor and redemption for the lost. Instead of piously turning aside proceeds from gambling, we can accept the gift, pray for the giver and use the money for the good of the poor.

Rob Perry is the ministry co-ordinator at Corps 614 in Regent Park, Toronto.

No, accepting gambling funds is hypocritical and weakens our prophetic voice. When it comes to gambling, our words must match our actions.

BY CAPTAIN RICK ZELINSKY

My counterpart in the “yes” camp has invoked our Founder’s words about cleansing filthy, sinful dollars in the tears of the poor. If only the issue of taking gambling dollars were that easy. But the practical benefit of accepting gambling revenue clashes with the Army’s ethical stance and covenantal relationship.

My previous corps in Williams Lake, B.C., was positioned across the street from the city’s only bingo hall. It was disheartening to see people lining up to gamble away their money only to end up crossing the street for assistance with food. Our corps was a sign of hope; the bingo hall a sign of hopelessness.

When asked about the Army’s stance on gambling, I would always reply, “My family will not go hungry if I spend a loonie or even $20 a week on the lottery, but our people lining up for bingo will. So, as Christians, we choose to abstain.” I say “we” because our faith is more than a personalized shopping list of choices—it is the life of the body of Christ, the Church lived out in community.

We must continually ask what it means to live as Jesus’ followers. When we accept gambling funds, do we fund our services on the backs of those we seek to save? Are we complicit in the deception that gambling leads to wealth and happiness?

Perhaps a better question is, Are we taking full advantage of our prophetic voice to the community? Theologian John Howard Yoder notes that it’s hard for the Church to be prophetic when it’s tied to government dollars. Without a clear distinction between church and state, writes Yoder, “Social ethics means not what everyone should think and do about social questions, but what people in power should be told to do with their power.” Christian “morality” becomes another means by which the state enforces its will.

Refusing gambling money signals our unwillingness to collaborate with a corrupt system. As Yoder puts it, we must not “use unworthy means even for what seems to be a worthy end.” This strengthens our solidarity as a covenanted people and maintains a consistent testimony to the world.

It should be noted that the biggest beneficiary from gambling in Canada is our government. Revenue from gambling helps fund our health care and education. Does that mean I’m complicit in gambling if I visit the doctor or go to school? Of course not. Christians have to live in the world. We can’t reduce our hospital stay by 20 percent in protest. We can, however, approach our local school boards and offer to help with fundraising that doesn’t involve gambling to reduce dependency on those funds.

At a minimum, the Army should refuse grants from gambling revenues. In our community, receiving such a grant would have given permission to the Lottery Corporation to advertise our organization as a recipient. Translation? Bingo dollars are good for the community and social work agencies. There are strings attached to those dollars and a price to be paid.

So how do we compete in the non-profit marketplace without relying on gambling? It sounds easy, but the answer is faith. God doesn’t ask us to accomplish what he cannot provide for. James tells us “we have not because we ask not,” and the gospel writers remind us to “ask and it will be given.” This doesn’t mean we “hunker in our bunker” and wait for the cash, but if we are doing all we can, then God will provide.

Part of our prophetic stance requires us to recommit our time and resources to God’s work. In most corps, the majority of funding comes from a small percentage of the congregation. Fewer and fewer corps in this territory are self-supporting. Many corps that struggle financially may be tempted to take the tainted money just to survive. The best way to stave off temptation is to redouble our generosity.

In Williams Lake, our corps took a public stance against bringing a casino to the city. We called on local government to take the high road for the sake of all its citizens. A building contractor for the casino told me, “Rick, I think you’re out of your mind on this—but I gotta hand it to you, you’re consistent.”

May our words always match our actions.

Captain Rick Zelinsky is the director of field education at the College for Officer Training in Winnipeg. Visit www.cfot.ca.