shape Salvationists’ faith
2. There are distinct differences in how Salvationists define “tradition”
understanding of their expressed theology.
2.
There are distinct differences in how Salvationists define
“tradition”
The survey provided interesting insights into how officers and soldiers define tradition as the word was expressed in at least two distinct ways. The first could be described as “tradition viewed as belief” which focusses strongly on the doctrines and theological foundation of the denomination. Tradition in this context expresses the essence of what Salvationists believe and why.
113 The second understanding that emerged was tradition understood as “elements which aid belief.” These traditions are the identifying markers that aid in the practical outworking of the denomination. For example these identifying markers include such things as uniform, flag, brass bands, and the like. These “forms” often identify what is valued most within the denomination.6 As the question in the survey was relatively ambiguous, it is not surprising that both understandings emerged.
While this second understanding has an important function within The Salvation Army, the important point for discussion remains how tradition viewed as belief arises from the received theology of The Salvation Army, and as a consequence how it should also contribute to the shaping of Salvationists’ expressed theology.
What becomes evident from chapter two is the need for a clearer articulation of the denomination’s theological teaching, which needs to be viewed more clearly through a contemporary Wesleyan lens. If Salvationists are not fully aware of their Wesleyan heritage, there is a potential danger that they may develop an eclectic mix of theological viewpoints that bears limited resemblance to the tradition of The Salvation Army. Consequently, there is a need to explore and invite robust discussion of The Salvation Army’s doctrines across the denomination so that received theology is clearly
articulated and can connect with Salvationists’ expressed theology.
It is apparent from Salvationists’ comments within the survey that there was a mixed reaction of both positive and negative responses to tradition viewed as belief. While
114 many participants had been able to see connections between the received theology of The Salvation Army and their own expressed theology, there were other participants who either found tradition to be restrictive or a hindrance to their faith development – even believing it bears no relevance at all. Some participants suggested that experience had become the most important connection for their faith. While this may not come as a complete surprise, it perhaps sounds a warning that some Salvationists’ expressed theology may potentially be moving away from the received theology of The Salvation Army. Tradition viewed as belief needs to become an important influence that
contributes significantly to how Salvationists’ expressed theology is shaped.
Ted Campbell cautions not to dismiss the relevance of tradition and the contribution that it makes to understanding scripture, for the role of tradition underpins the received theology of a denomination.
[W]e conclude that it is inadequate if not intellectually dishonest…to look askance at tradition, view it pejoratively, and reject its consideration out of hand. Our calling then, in recognizing the authority of tradition in a
Wesleyan sense, is not to favour an antiquated vision of the past; it is, rather, the calling to value God’s own work throughout the story of God’s people, and to take courage and confidence in the faithfulness of God speaking to us
in traditions beyond the witness of the biblical age. 7
What Wesleyan theology contributes to wider theological discussions are its particular views on the concepts of original sin, salvation, grace and the emphasis on holiness, all of which are heavily influenced by its understanding of scripture. This teaching makes a contribution to the church universal and therefore should not be lost among other theological voices. What Salvationists may not realise is that minimising the
significance of ‘tradition viewed as belief’ as an essential part of the formation of their
115 expressed theology, can potentially reduce faith formation to feelings and perceptions. The danger is that experiences can change as quickly as circumstances vary.
If people know what they believe about God then when crises occur and faith is tested, they may be better able to negotiate pain and suffering. Fowler identifies that at Stage 3 (“synthetic-conventional”), a person’s faith is significantly shaped by the church or other “authority figures”; whereas when a person moves to Stage 4 (“individuative- reflective”), there is critical evaluation and exploration of faith.8
At these stages people move from having a fairly simple to a more mature faith. Faith is consolidated and personal ownership is taken of what belief looks like for them. When suffering brings pain and confusion, such crisis moments may determine whether faith remains an anchor or is abandoned. When suffering challenges the core of a person’s faith the natural tendency is to renegotiate what life looks like. Some people may come through the renegotiating phase with a stronger faith – but looking decidedly different. For other people this renegotiation may not be quite so successful and faith may be abandoned because it does not make sense in the confusion.
Establishing a strong faith foundation becomes critical before tragedy strikes. This foundational knowledge will not answer the ‘why’ question but it will provide a firm faith base that is stronger despite the risk of turmoil and suffering. Tradition helps to
8 James W. Fowler, Stages of Faith: The Psychology of Human Development and the Quest for
Meaning (New York: HarperCollins, 1995). See Part IV – Stages of Faith 117-211. “It is significant when persons at Stage 3 encounter and respond to situations or contexts that lead to critical reflection on their tacit value systems. Under such circumstances they begin the transition to Stage 4’s explicit
116 ground Salvationists’ faith in a vibrant theology that speaks not only to the heart but optimises the holiness tradition as being valuable and distinctive.
The first two statements discussed in this chapter have identified what has influenced and shaped Salvationists’ expressed theology, and how tradition can contribute to that theology. For these statements include how scripture and experience are the two main influences that shape Salvationists’ faith; and how there are distinct differences in how Salvationists define “tradition”. The remaining four statements expand – through a Wesleyan lens – how God is perceived in suffering. The next statement under consideration concerns how doubt is perceived and what it looks like through a Wesleyan lens.