These contemplations were written in Vienna in May and June 1986. They are entirely unstructured and split into the separate sessions when I originally wrote them. They are, perhaps my first ever blogs although that long ago there was no www around to host the blog 😂 that is how old I am. They can be seen as an early attempt to “feed my ignorance” in precisely the way that this blog later took form. They are, of course, representative of my thoughts back then which have inevitably changed in many ways since that time.
Expanding one particular facet of the above introduction, there are too many people today who are Christians in name only – they belong to their church for reasons of convenience and to conform. Throughout these discourses I shall refer to the SA, not because it is any worse or any better than any other organisation/church, rather because it is my church, the one I know best.
Here the problems of “soldiers in name” can be particularly bad. Musicians especially can be attracted by the musical side of the Army which is undoubtedly a very useful outlet for amateur musicians. Having said that, my own opinion is that music is a tool which can bring God very near, and not just salvationist music. One has only to listen to the beautiful religious music from composers like Bach, Handel and Bruckner, to name but three, to appreciate the closeness of God to both composer and listener alike.
Equally, so called ‘secular’ music can bring God close. Here it depends more on the setting and the individual. Again, looking at my own experience, Beethoven’s Egmont overture always moves me because I associate it with the memorial service for the Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics. Music – whether sacred or secular, is, for those who can appreciate it, a very important connection to God. I do not doubt that the same is true for other branches of the arts, but my speciality is music.
An aside, throughout these discussions I will quite probably stray from my original point. I believe that this is entirely justified as at no point do I know what the end of my search is going to be so each path must be explored. Somewhere is the answer.
To return to the discourse, SK believes that the more Christians there are the less likely that they are true Christians. Certainly, I would say that in a given SA corps much less than 100% of the soldiers will be true committed Christians. That is not to say that they are unchristian, but, given the present teaching within the SA, for people few get any real grounding in the wider aspects of Christianity. It has to be a positive search by the Individual (as this is). The answers will certainly not be just given. The basics are of course taught, but that, as SK suggests, may be only sufficient to “keep the populace quiet”.
I believe that what was said in “The Sea of Faith”, whether true or not must be at least discussed and be available to the general public in the sense of the non-theological public. The average Christian would be uninterested in such a book (or am I being too harsh). This is a terrible indictment of the average Christian. They should at least have strong feelings against the views in the book. Apathy may be the present day Christian illness. Of course, any such strong feelings against the thoughts presented in the book should be based, not on hearsay, but on personal experience. How many average Christians have thought enough about their experience to read the book and be qualified to judge it? Very few I feel, because the ‘average’ Christian is probably only a christian, not a Christian.
Is this being too harsh? Not in my experience. I wonder how many of the 400 soldiers at Boscombe SA have even heard of the book, let alone read it. If, having read it, the ideas are rejected, fine! At least that knowledge of Christian history has been added to the memory. I’m almost ashamed, no I am ashamed, to admit that so many of the ideas contained in that book had never occurred to me. I shall return to “The Sea of Faith” later.
Having said all that, what is wrong with being only a christian and not a Christian? Nothing as long as it is admitted to. Given SK’s thoughts, not everybody can be a Christian, otherwise there is no point to it. There will always be those who are ‘called’ to suffer and die for Christ. These people are perhaps the true Christians. However, for every one of them there are thousands or hundreds of thousands who must follow the example of goodness set in the Bible without ever needing to suffer for it. Or is that true? Is it possible to be a christian (with a small c) without suffering? I think Yes. I answer that way because I believe that if we live our lives according to God’s plan then our lives will be happy and fulfilling. This is true surely even for those who must suffer or even die for Christ – they should not be apprehensive since they have done their ‘job’. It may not be possible to see it like that at the time, but beforehand it should be a comfort in that you need not worry about the possibility.
So where does that leave us? Is there anything wrong with someone who is in the SA “Just for the music”? If that is strictly true then yes, there is. I doubt if anyone would, in that position, deny the existence of God or the example of Christ. This then, means that most, if not all, salvationists are christians who live by christian ethics and morals even if they do not positively live up to all that is expected of them as salvationists.
Since it is voluntary anyway, then I don’t think that anyone who is not prepared to accept all the rules and regulations should commit themselves to do so. Then we come down to the detail of what is and isn’t correct Christianity. To be a salvationist and drink alcohol is surely not, since one of the things that identifies, to an ‘outsider’, a salvationist is that he/she is teetotal. So this is hypocrisy. It doesn’t make his/her more/less a christian but it does make him/her less of a salvationist. What detracts from them as a Christian is that they are living a lie.
However, just because someone obeys every rule that the SA has does not make then then a christian, far less a Christian. It probably makes then a very good person, but they may still not be a christian. I realise that I still haven’t offered my definition of christian as against Christian, but this can only be built up throughout these pages.
There is a long way to go. To reiterate in different words the conclusion of part 1 – it is an individual answer which must come out. What is acceptable to one may not be acceptable to the next person and vice versa. Too few people have found any answer – few have even bothered to look, in my opinion. Perhaps this is the reason new converts seen to be so “full” of Christianity. It is NEW to them. They don’t have all the answers but they have found some. They have had to look. Whereas, those brought up in the faith have the same answers but have never had to look for them so they don’t seem anywhere near so exciting. It’s like your first experience of flying. It is exciting, but by the 50th time it has become boring. There is no novelty any more. What’s more, there is nothing more to discover, since an aircraft contains you within very tight constraints – not much to explore. With Religion though, there is an infinity to explore – the more so because no-one has come up with the right answers as yet.