My “Master-dissertation” was on “The Salvation Army
and the Church Growth Principles". My working-hypothesis was: "No
church is better suited for church growth than the Salvation Army" (a
statement made by Peter Wagner in one of the seminars held on the subject). In
connection with this paper, I was allowed an interview with General Paul Rader
in his office on Tuesday Feb. 14th 1995.
Here it is:
What value has the
Church Growth Movement as you see it?
When I from 1971-73 was
studying at Fuller I was acquainted with Donald McGavran whom I think it is
right to say is the father of the CGM. I
felt that he stood for something that was in the spirit of the Founder. His
priorities were right and his position in mission could just as well have been
expressed by William Booth. He saw disciple-making as the ultimate aim of the
mission.
William Booth was
never satisfied with just the redemption of men. They had to be taken further.
The target and main aim was to persuade them to become disciples.
I further found that
the CGM had a substantial theological basis. Donald McGavran communicated this
until his death. In the periodical: "Evangelical Quarterly" Arthur F.
Glasser writes that he went to McGavran just before he died and asked him this
question: "What is the most ignored fact in Church Growth theory?"
"The Lordship of
Jesus Christ" was McGavrans answer. This is what gives us authority:
"The Lordship of Jesus Christ".
When I was at Fuller,
it was still the mission-work that showed the most interest in Church Growth
theory. This was caused by a frustration over the fact that everything was
regarded as mission. Missionaries were busy with everything but disciplemaking
- the number of missionaries returning to take teaching-degrees is pointing in
the same direction.
Win Arn and Peter
Wagner came into the work and tried to set the right focus again. They started
to measure results, which in some circles created resistance: "How is it
possible to measure spiritual results?"
This is not a problem
with us in the Salvation Army. We have measured our results as long as we have
existed. But the CGM enabled churches to look at membership, face facts and ask
questions like: Where are we going?
In addition to this
we saw in the late 70s and early 80s a revival of evangelism end the fact that
people must be born again. More and more churches became occupied with how to
get results, and the looked to the CGM for help. I think it is right to stress
that CG is not an "American thing".
The Salvation Army
became interested in the CGM because it stands for something we have always
wanted to do. General Orsborn said: "The main thing is to let the main
thing remain the main thing", and this is still the main thing. We must do
our part to fulfil the great commission and make men into disciples.
Would you say that to
be a soldier and to be a disciple is the same thing?
We have no guarantee
that a soldier is a disciple, bur it should be our aim that our soldier became
disciples. I want a renewed focus on soldiership. We have 799.000
seniorsoldiers in the world today. I cannot see why we should not have 1
million who marched under the flag. We must build a seeker-sensitive-ministry,
continue to reach new people, enhance the quality of the teaching we give our
people and so on.
Would it not be
easier to make adherency the target of the discipeling?
It is important the
adherents feel that they are a part of our movement, bur we cannot fulfil our
mission without soldiers. Without soldiers, no officers, without officers, no
army. William Booth said very strongly that he did not want members, but
soldiers. Today Salvationists are more church-conscious and the
membership-thought has a fine spiritual connotation. Personally I think about
the body of Christ in this context and Romans 6 that speaks about the limbs as
servants for the good.
In what way has CG
been adopted into the SA?
When I was the TP in
the training college in New York,
we had Ken Baillie on the staff. He was a very enthusiastic CG-man who came to USA from Canada where he had experienced
success with the CG-principles as a corps-officer. I remember that he said:
"Until we get the top leadership with us we will never see real growth in
the army". Little did he know that I one day should be the general, and
that he himself should be TP in USA-Central with great influence.
It was particularly
under the leadership of general Eva Burrows that the CGM reached to the
different parts of the Salvation Army world, and something very important
happened when she took the initiative to the Strategy for Growth Conference in
1989. She was herself very interested in CG and had seen it functioning in
different parts of the world. May be her most important contribution was that
she gave people permission to try out new things.
One of the results
from the Strategy-Conference was that many territories appointed CG-secretaries
and made growth a main emphasis. But CG is not a "cut and glue"
program with simple solutions, we need to make people disciples, that is an indisputable
fact.
Which territories
have had success with the CGP?
Personally I have
seen growth in Korea
and in USA-West. CG depends very much on goal setting. Canada showed
an interest in the CGP at a very early stage, and I think that they will be ready
to confess that they have not reached the goals they had hoped for. At the same
time I think the territory has learned a lot and seen things they would not
have seen if it was not because of this effort.
The Southern
territory in Australia can
report on successful corps-plantings, and even India is experiencing exciting
things in the growth-area.
One of our fastest
growing territories is East-Africa, but this is happening without any special
focus on CG. McGavran would be the first to admit the validity of this, because
the Holy Spirit is sovereign. The theory does not function without the Spirit,
but the Spirit can function independent of the theory. J. Edmund Orr spoke on
this subject in a lecture, and underlined the difference between mechanics and dynamics
in the Kingdom of
God.
What kind of
growth-strategies has the international SA?
CG is very much a
question of leadership, and I do particularly think of the factor of
motivation. A leader must know the will of God, have a vision and so get people
to see the same vision. This demands a lot of prayer and a focus on the right
priorities.
It is important to
show that CG is very much in line with what we in the SA are already dedicated
to. If our people are convinced about this, things can start to happen. Only
when a goal becomes the goal of the people, it can be reached.
To set goal must
always be our priority. We must let our people share partnership, ownership and
stewardship in this order. We have occasionally turned the order in the SA, but
it is difficult to motivate people for stewardship, if they do not feel
partnership and ownership. If we get them to this point they will see that to
be faithful involves being fruitful.
Thinking about CG -
what do you see as the strengths of the SA?
Both Eddie Gibbs and
Peter Wagner stress the importance of looking at strengths, and I see it as far
more important to focus on our strengths than on our weaknesses.
The first thing I
will mention is the unity. In the SA we have a very clear sense of mission. A
lot of churches exist for a variety of reasons, but we know very well why we
exist. If we do not win souls, we are not doing our job.
Discipline is also an
important factor. Soldiers know what is expected of them. In the same way we
could say that the dedication of our soldiery is a very important resource.
They can be mobilised.
Many young adults
will appreciate the practical aspects of the SA. They are give an opportunity
to serve, and I think that a lot of people today will want to take part in a
practical Christianity.
To serve is not
depending on e.g. financial resources. I remember visiting a poor island in the
Pacific. The island was influenced by the atomic test bombing in the area. The
SA there had no economy and small resources, but I remember the pride of one of
the Salvationists as he showed me his "League of Mercy- card" and
told how happy he was for the opportunity to serve.
I think that our
commitment to evangelism is an important asset. The same can be said about the
dedication of our officers, and in that connection I should mention the
appointment system. Much can be said about this, but it is a strength that we
can move human resources to an area where we see a need.
There is also
something that tie us together in the army, and that is our common identity. We
belong to a greater context. I have spoken to many who envy us this
international fellowship.
Last but not least, I
will mention the treasure the SA has in the "good-will" we enjoy in
the public. In the USA
we often said: "God help us to become as good as people think we
are!" This "good-will" is definitely a great resource for us.
You mentioned that
you preferred to speak about strength rather than weakness. Do you see any
weaknesses?
I could mention quite
a few things, but just mention a couple of things that I see as a challenge. There
is no doubt that the uniform is a great advantage in many areas. It opens up a
lot of possibilities, but quite a few are also turned of because of it. I can
understand that a newcomer who finds that 2/3 of the congregation are in
uniform, will feel a bit left out. In addition to this we know that a lot of
people love the SA, but would not for anything in the world carry its uniform. We
face a challenge here. How can we keep the advantages of the uniform without
turning people off? Uniform-wearing is without doubt one of the privileges of
the soldiery.
William Booth was a
pragmatist, and his letter to the first contingent missionaries to India gives
advices about adaptability, but without letting this interfere with our
characteristics. I wonder if he had the uniform in mind when he wrote this? You
will find this letter at the back of Booth-Tucker´s autobiography.
Another challenge we
face is the use of "codes" in our meetings, a language that only the
"insiders" understand. We must be more conscious about the people we
want to reach.
I could have listed a
long list of challenges, but as I said, it is more encouraging to see the
possibilities that lay in our strengths.
