If we represent God to the general public…
then are we portraying a God who can be regarded as quaint and therefore someone to be regarded with interest but not taken seriously?
At the recent Freedom Congress held in Dunedin we had a march of witness and everybody rejoiced that a couple of Japanese tourists (who knew nothing about Jesus) were spoken to. However, my question is… What impression do the general Kiwi public get of both God and The Salvation Army by displays such as this?
Let me explore my concerns a little more:
When The Salvation Army (TSA) started in London the concept of being part of an army was exciting and in vogue. The “cause” was great and the “look” was modern and possibly even cutting edge. The look was based on the military army of the time.
If we look at the “open air meeting” as being the equivalent of the Military Army’s (MA) advertising. (Yes, that comment alone may cause consternation amongst many but surely “witnessing” for God is, as far as the public is concerned, about letting them know about him. Isn’t that what advertising does too! – Even if you struggle with this, please bear with me.), then lets compare TSA with MA from the early 1900’s. (I’ve used a US recruiting poster because in Britain they didn’t have to push very hard for recruits)
Now lets jump to the present day and do the same (but with NZ recruiting this time)…
Now my contention is that the MA has modernised both how it approaches its mission and how it presents itself to the public. I’m certainly not against taking God out of our buildings and to the people (I suspect he’s already there) but unfortunately TSA remains in a time warp, at least in how we present ourselves to the general public. If you doubt it, ask some unchurched friends how they view such marches of witness. Does watching us inspire them to join, or do they simply stare in disbelief at the quaint bunch of people in front of them…
good post, good questions, well contrasted with the imagery
In response to the question in your final sentence, I think it’s both, perhaps for different sections of our population if using generalisations.
I think for many people, watching us produces curiousity, which I think God uses in many instances. I don’t think that this just applies to marches, or open-airs, but also to our uniform-wearing, our ‘non-sacramental position’, our involvement in social services etc etc…there’s a curiosity about why we do what we do. Perhaps we’re quaint in some ways, but I think in the early Army just as much in today’s Army, aroused curiousity brings new people into our midst. The next question for me would be ’should we be an attractional Army or a missional one?’ and street marches could be debated in that context, but I’ll leave that for another time.
If you were generalising ‘watching us’ and not confining it to the street march, I can think of many people who have been inspired to join the Army via this means. They’ve seen Salvationists at work, or seen the Army ‘on the march’ and they’ve been inspired to get involved. However, if you’re confining it to the street march, I wonder if its relevance in today’s culture has been poorly evaluated. But I’ve been humbled in similar situations before (eg a Hallelujah wind-up at a contemporary corps) so I’m not going to be quick to judge on this.
If I can speak about young people (although I’m not considered one anymore by the international SA regulations, I still work with them so I figure I can say a little bit)…they continue to be captured by ‘a cause to die for’. Young people want to give their lives to something significant and they’re signing up. I’ve just been to a fairly small SA corps this past weekend where the two girls in uniform in the photo above wear full uniform every weekend. They’re not the only ones and more are signing up for soldiership. I’ve thought about why it’s happening at that corps and not at others…I think it’s because the message presented is tough, blatant and inspiring. It’s not easy, it’s not comfortable and it’s something they can give their lives to. It’s what got me hooked 14 years ago.
So…quaint? Perhaps. Inspiring? As long as we arouse curiosity and show the world we’re serious about the fight.
@Rebecca
To answer some of your questions (both express and implied):
1. I’m speaking about marches, open airs and the like, not generally.
2. I’m not arguing against the uniform (though I’d like to see more modern options for these type of occasions (we already have suitable alternatives for “Salvationists at work”
My comments to you:
1. Why choose between missional and attractional – Why not both?
2. I agree with you on the message needing to be tough, blatant and inspiring.
3. Your last paragraph. I don’t believe we can be quaint and inspiring at the same time. If we are serious about the fight, we shouldn’t come across as quaint. I think those marches infer to the public that we’re not as serious about the fight as we should be. (I think our message suffers by how we appear, a bit like the Christian message can actually be harmed by the megaphone man who shouts at people as they walk past.
God bless
Paul
1. I think we can be both missional and attractional, definitely. But I think we perhaps get the percentages back to front – we spend 80% of our time attracting the 20% and 20% of our time (if that) being missional to the 80%. Just a thought.
2. What if the purpose of the march is to actually remind US that we’re in a fight? Being ‘on parade’ might serve the purpose of reminding us that the world is watching and that there’s a world out there who need saving.
Are you suggesting that marches are quaint? I agree that we shouldn’t come across as quaint, but I’m not sure marches are quaint. As I said earlier, marches could provoke curiosity and I don’t think that’s a bad thing.
I agree that our message suffers by how we appear. If you think we appear quaint, in what way would you suggest we present ourselves as a fighting Army in order to not look quaint?
@Rebecca
Your points:
1. I’ll address the missional vs attractional in a separate post shortly
2. I’m pretty sure that if the march was to remind us of something it wouldn’t have been call a “March of Witness”
2 (Ctd) well we could start by not doing the things that when we do them its like holding up a big sign saying “Old fashioned” and “Irrelevant” coz that’s when people don’t hear the actual (good) message we have to give. Maybe we should somehow show the world the immense amount of good stuff we do, but do it in such a way that they understand its because of Jesus’ love that we do it.
God bless you Bex
I think the word ‘quaint’ is misplaced here, it implies something like the slightly odd uncle who we love as a member of the family, but barely tolerate most of the time, buu we’ll say nice things about him at his funeral, if we remember to go
my experience of SA marches, uniforms, bands, militarism etc is they, and therefore we, are now perceived as simply ‘weird’ by most on the public … they do nothing to attract people to the modern SA in our culture
this is almost certain in the context of our church efforts, although in the context of the public accepting our socal work then perhaps the word quaint is more applicable
there was a time when they were very culturally relevant but that time has long past
by way of illustration check out the movie Dr Zhivago … there’s a scene early on where people join the revolution simply by falling in behind a march … can you imagine that happening now?
this was the culture of that time (1917) and stretching back to Victorian England when the SA was formed (1860s/70s) and came to NZ (in 1883, which was being celebrated/remembered in one of the photos Paul has compared above)