Mission, Fundraising and the Army
Do you struggle trying to find balance between the Army’s evangelistic and social mission? Do you feel that government money and/or fundraising divert the mission of the Army?
In his book, Origins Of The Salvation Army, Norman H. Murdoch discusses the historical context in which the army’s social services evolved. It seems that the issue of accepting government money and fundraising has been an issue for the army since the 1880s. Here’s what he says:
“Growth was the preeminent future of the Army in the early 1880s. By 1885, however, Booth was adopting new goals and tactics which drastically altered the army. He had founded an urban mission to preach salvation from sin in East London slums in 1865. By 1874, he had given up the normal mission program of mixing salvation with soup as being beyond his financial resources and counterproductive in that social service programs attracted a following of ‘soupers.’ In fact, by 1876, he was aware of his inability to deal with the slum clientele and turned to the ‘respectable’ working class. Among this population, the Army experienced significant growth in the early 1880s. But as the decade progressed, the soul-saving methods of Booth’s formative years no longer were working as they once had, even with the working class.
By 1885 – 87, the army stagnated, just as the Christian Mission had done in East London by 1877. It was in this climate that Booth would turn toward social salvation. Thus it was the Army’s failure to grow as a revivalist sect, that turned it in the direction of social services. The Army soon became a religious sect with a social service ministry (p. 116-117).”
“As the army lost personnel and money a new approach was in order.” “In late 1888, Booth was for the first time asking government aid for his rescue, slum, and shelter work ( p.155).” “By the 1920s, most of the army’s income in the U.S. came from federated community funds. As the army sought ways to increase its income, it tempered its aggressive Christianity in both verbiage and action. Spiritual programs became irrelevant to its survival (p.171).”
Here’s my point. The army wouldn’t have survived if it weren’t for government money. The army tempered its “aggressive” Christianity and bowed to the almighty dollar (according to Murdoch). Are we still doing that today? Do we temper our message for community dollars?
What if we quit fundraising? What do you think about officers working second jobs?
It appears, from Murdoch’s book, that the Army has always struggled to be affective and bear fruit with the “social services” method of outreach. What do you think? Should we stop fundraising? Stop accepting government money? Can the army bridge the mission of evangelism and social services and be effective?
In his book, Origins Of The Salvation Army, Norman H. Murdoch discusses the historical context in which the army’s social services evolved. It seems that the issue of accepting government money and fundraising has been an issue for the army since the 1880s. Here’s what he says:
“Growth was the preeminent future of the Army in the early 1880s. By 1885, however, Booth was adopting new goals and tactics which drastically altered the army. He had founded an urban mission to preach salvation from sin in East London slums in 1865. By 1874, he had given up the normal mission program of mixing salvation with soup as being beyond his financial resources and counterproductive in that social service programs attracted a following of ‘soupers.’ In fact, by 1876, he was aware of his inability to deal with the slum clientele and turned to the ‘respectable’ working class. Among this population, the Army experienced significant growth in the early 1880s. But as the decade progressed, the soul-saving methods of Booth’s formative years no longer were working as they once had, even with the working class.
By 1885 – 87, the army stagnated, just as the Christian Mission had done in East London by 1877. It was in this climate that Booth would turn toward social salvation. Thus it was the Army’s failure to grow as a revivalist sect, that turned it in the direction of social services. The Army soon became a religious sect with a social service ministry (p. 116-117).”
“As the army lost personnel and money a new approach was in order.” “In late 1888, Booth was for the first time asking government aid for his rescue, slum, and shelter work ( p.155).” “By the 1920s, most of the army’s income in the U.S. came from federated community funds. As the army sought ways to increase its income, it tempered its aggressive Christianity in both verbiage and action. Spiritual programs became irrelevant to its survival (p.171).”
Here’s my point. The army wouldn’t have survived if it weren’t for government money. The army tempered its “aggressive” Christianity and bowed to the almighty dollar (according to Murdoch). Are we still doing that today? Do we temper our message for community dollars?
What if we quit fundraising? What do you think about officers working second jobs?
It appears, from Murdoch’s book, that the Army has always struggled to be affective and bear fruit with the “social services” method of outreach. What do you think? Should we stop fundraising? Stop accepting government money? Can the army bridge the mission of evangelism and social services and be effective?
posted by Bret at
11:29 PM
3 Comments:
I don't believe Booth was as much the impetus for social change that history records him as. I think that honor goes to a socialist named Frank Smith (remember the guy who took over the USA ater teh Moore split)
I think where we have gone wrong is that we have several generations of soldiers who are no longer living according to the mission. They love preaching the gospel, but you can forget about meeting human needs.
Here is what I believe is the answer - reconnect our Army to a social gospel. Make every corps a place that meets the real needs of the community, quit having church hoping people will show and "pour" that church into the streets.
"They will know we are Christians by our love."
God bless you Bret. Please pray for Ke'olani. Concerned right now.
By
Anonymous, at 2:07 PM
You said, “I think where we have gone wrong is that we have several generations of soldiers who are no longer living according to the mission.” Do you think this is a leadership issue?
I’m praying for Ke'olani.
Blessings,
Bret
By
Bret, at 7:37 PM
It's not a leadership issue - it's a heart issue. Only I can have a heart for the lost adn only I can care about social justice, etc. We definately don't hear it enough from leadership that there is more which must be done and that on many fronts we are inadequate.
But the change begins within me and all the "me's" within our Army.
The discussion is ocurring all over the place regarding "how" we do things. In or out of uniform? With or without federal funds? My concern is not in the how but rather in the doing. My challenge for all salvationists is to "do something." We are too content with seeing social ill. Jesus said we will always have the poor with us, but He did not mean that we should not attemt to help people out of it. He healed the lame and yet there are still lame among as, as well as blind and leprous. Was Jesus a failure? No and He made a difference at teh time and place He was at.
My contention is that we have a mandate to meet needs and preach the gospel. (Luke 9:1-6) My fear is that we hide in our corps halls and never truely try to meet need or effect change in our communities. I am no longer satisfied with saying, "God bless you, be well fed." We feel so bad for the empoverished, but do we do something?
By
Anonymous, at 3:58 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home