Chick Yuill's Resignation Letter

[JoshuaCh1v9]

Resignation Statement
-
Chick Yuill
With great regret and following much soul-searching and prayerful reflection, I have made the decision to resign from officership in The Salvation Army. My resignation will come into effect at the beginning of October, 2006.

After thirty five years unbroken service as an officer, this has been a very difficult and costly decision. Sadly, however, I find myself in a position where I cannot remain as an officer without sacrificing my personal integrity and dignity.

In order to avoid misinformation or misunderstanding of my position, I outline below the major factors which have led me to my decision.

1. An incident took place at the Territorial Leaders Conference in June 2005 which has never been resolved. Despite the then TC's subsequent denials, the great majority of people in that room knew that an unwarranted verbal attack had taken place on me. It remains a very painful memory for Margaret and me. That memory is the more painful because we believe that I am not the first officer to be the recipient of such public abuse from the same source.

2. In interviews prior and subsequent to the incident at the TLC, Margaret and I believe that we were subject to a level of personal abuse that would not be tolerated in industry and commerce. It is our honest conviction that, not to put it too strongly, there was a lack of transparency and complete truthfulness in these interviews.

3. An attempt was made to move us out of divisional leadership. The less than honest manner in which that was communicated to us, the nature of the appointment being proposed, and the suggestion that Margaret, after more than 34 years of officer experience, should take on the role of my research assistant - all of this left us with a sense of being demeaned.

4. On 28th September 2005 we received an appalling letter which we still find difficult to believe. It demanded that we sign a document which would be drawn up by the Territorial Commander promising never to libel him again. The letter carried an implicit threat of legal action and dismissal if we did not sign this document. We adamantly refused to sign this document as we had never at any time libelled the Territorial Commander. We were placed in a position where we had to take legal advice with regard to this letter. The counsel we received echoed our
amazement that such a letter could be sent to us, affirmed that the accusation made in the letter was totally without foundation, and stated that the letter itself could reasonably be viewed as intimidation

5. It now appears that we have been black-listed with regard to any preaching or teaching outside of the United Kingdom territory. Two invitations to Australia and one to New Zealand have been rejected to our certain knowledge. The grapevine tells me that some negative word about the Yuills has been communicated to the International Secretaries at IHQ.

6. We can only assume that we are being treated as a) disobedient officers and b) the promulgators of some level of heresy. We believe that both of these accusations constitute an unwarranted attack on our integrity. The final humiliation came some weeks ago when I was lecturing at the ICO, something I have done at the request of successive Principals for over 23 years. After lunch, and before going in to lecture for another couple of hours, I was summoned to the office of the somewhat embarrassed Principal to be informed that, at the General's instruction, she must no longer invite me as I am no longer a fit person to teach at the ICO.

7. I deeply regret the fact that I cannot pursue this matter within the structures of the Army. But our past experience, when we raised these issues with IHQ, leads us to the sad conclusion that there is a culture of fear that inhibits any progress towards a just resolution of this matter. Given the position that our former TC now holds, I have neither hope nor reasonable
expectation of a fair hearing and a just outcome.

Some would advise me just to keep my head down, but I cannot do that in all conscience. Such a course of action would mean firstly, that I would be implicitly colluding in an approach to leadership that I firmly believe to be abusive; and secondly, that I would be denying the gifts of teaching and preaching which I have in some small measure and which are affirmed by the invitations and requests I receive to minister in these areas. If the present leadership of our movement seek to suppress these gifts, then I must go elsewhere to fulfil my ministry.

This has been the most costly decision of my life in spiritual and emotional terms. The Salvation Army is the part of the Church that has nurtured me in the faith and given me an avenue of service. It is also the place where most of my closest friends continue to minister and serve. I want to make it clear beyond any doubt that I am not seeking to lead any kind of break-away movement, nor will I knowingly do anything that will harm the ministry of the Army in any way. The decision I have made is done in obedience to conscience. I have no desire to influence others. And I believe I can say that, whilst I leave with a sense of injustice, there is no bitterness in my heart towards the Army or towards any individual.

It will, of course, also be costly in financial terms as I will forfeit my Salvation Army retirement grant and pension because of my decision to resign. However, that is part of the cost I must pay and I will do so without bitterness or rancour on my part towards the Army. Margaret and I are resolutely agreed that in this matter we will not trade personal integrity and dignity for financial security.

At this time I have no prospective employment awaiting me. I will take some time to prayerfully consider whether any other avenue of ministry will open up or whether I need to seek secular employment. Your prayers would be appreciated.

In conclusion, I would want to acknowledge that, since I made my decision known to them, the present Territorial Leaders, Commissioners John & Betty Mattear and Lt.-Colonel Bill Cochrane have demonstrated a level of courtesy and practical sympathy for which we are enormously grateful. In the light of my decision, Margaret has decided to retire in February 2007 when she will reach the age of sixty. Because of this she will be eligible for a retirement house under the normal procedure for retired officers. We are deeply grateful to the TC and CS for facilitating this provision.

4 th September, 2006

[JoshuaCh1v9]

A sad, sad day for the Army.

On a par with what we did to Captain Gypsy Smith

[sawitch]

I agree!! Why do we allow ourselves to be dictated to by one man, elected only by his peers? It's time the ordinary Salvationist had a say in what happens.

I believe that the current General will do untold damage to the Army and we are helpless to do anything about it. :(

Also, don't you think it's outrageous that Chick should lose his pension after working for the Army for so many years? If this happened in industry there would be a public outcry. Surely when people resign, for whatever reason, their service should be recognised and rewarded.

Chick is a very brave and principled man. Shame we can't say the same about the General!! :P

[JoshuaCh1v9]

I agree!! Why do we allow ourselves to be dictated to by one man, elected only by his peers? It's time the ordinary Salvationist had a say in what happens.

I believe that the current General will do untold damage to the Army and we are helpless to do anything about it. :(

Also, don't you think it's outrageous that Chick should lose his pension after working for the Army for so many years? If this happened in industry there would be a public outcry. Surely when people resign, for whatever reason, their service should be recognised and rewarded.

Chick is a very brave and principled man. Shame we can't say the same about the General!! :P

I heard it said that the only people who were delighted to see Clifton promoted to General were all the staff at Territorial Headquarters.

Because they got rid of him as TC

[Amisk]

I heard it said that the only people who were delighted to see Clifton promoted to General were all the staff at Territorial Headquarters.

Because they got rid of him as TC

While Chick may have good reason to resign, the public comments here both from himself and those who have took a poke at Clifton will do little to heal the wound or win souls to Christ.

[JoshuaCh1v9]

While Chick may have good reason to resign, the public comments here both from himself and those who have took a poke at Clifton will do little to heal the wound or win souls to Christ.

Dear brother.

I'm all for unity and getting behind our leaders, but there comes a point where you have to stand up and be counted.

This guy is going to do untold damage to the Army

How many more Yuill's will we lose before he is done?

[sawitch]

I heard it said that the only people who were delighted to see Clifton promoted to General were all the staff at Territorial Headquarters.

Because they got rid of him as TC

Yeah, I heard that too. My DH was a victim of Clifton's cull of employees at the end of 2004. He's been told by former colleagues that he's better off out of it all!

While Chick may have good reason to resign, the public comments here both from himself and those who have took a poke at Clifton will do little to heal the wound or win souls to Christ.

Maybe not, but this is a forum where we can express our concerns and genuine greivances. Try posting these on the 'official' website forum and see what happens!
The problems in the SA won't go away if we continue to 'be nice'. As Andy says we've got to stand up and be counted.

[Abiel]

Try posting these on the 'official' website forum and see what happens!


There are many 404s out there at the moment

[Abiel]

A sad, sad day for the Army.

On a par with what we did to Captain Gypsy Smith

Tell us the story of Gypsy Smith, Andy

[sawitch]

There are many 404s out there at the moment

Sorry, 404s??? What's that?
:confused:

[Abiel]

When you do a google search, you can then click on the links- if they have been removed it generally says there is a 404 error. It's web speak

[JoshuaCh1v9]

Gypsy Smith was the officer who funded the work of the Army in Hull in 1880, and other places. Without doubt one of the finest officers to serve in the early Army.

Chris will find this interesting, as he knows the Old Icehuose in Hull.

I quote Captain Smith....


I took charge of the Ice-House. Never before had I seen such crowds and such wonderful results. It was quite a common thing for us to have gathered together a thousand people who had been converted at the services, and what is perhaps even more marvellous, an attendance of about fifteen hundred at the prayer-meeting at seven o'clock on Sunday morning. Very often the building was filled, and the street in which it stood, Cambridge Street, completely blocked. Many a time I have had to get to the platform over the seats, as the aisles were so crowded that nobody could walk up them. During the whole six months I spent in Hull we needed two policemen at every service to manage the crowds at the doors. Some conception of the magnitude of the work may be gained from the fact that the Ice-House and the other branch of the Mission, which was much smaller, sold every week 15,000 copies of The War Cry.

[JoshuaCh1v9]

After serving in Hull and then Derby, he was then appointed to Hanley.

I again quote Captain Smith. Read it through, it's worth it....


The end of June, having been six months in Hanley, the General informed me that he wanted me for another sphere of labour. Mrs. Smith was in delicate health at the time, and the ladies of the town sent a petition to Mrs. Booth, appealing to her, as a wife and mother, that for the sake of my wife's health I should be allowed to stay in the town a little longer. The General readily gave his consent. When the leaders of the Free Churches knew that I was likely to be removed from their midst, a committee was formed, representing all the Churches in the town and neighbourhood save the Roman Catholics. This committee, a leading member of which was a churchwarden, impressed by the striking work of grace which had gone on under my poor feeble ministry, felt that I should not be allowed to leave the district without some expression of their love and appreciation, and presented me with a gold watch, bearing this inscription: - " Presented to Gipsy Rodney Smith, as a memento of high esteem and in recognition of his valuable services in Hanley and district, July, 1882."

My wife and my sister, Mrs. Evens, each received a gift of five pounds. These presentations were made at a public meeting, presided over by Alderman Boulton, who was supported by many of the leading persons in the town. The gifts came from people who were outside the Salvation Army. The soldiers of the Army had some intention of making us a gift, but we stopped that movement, as we knew that the General did not approve of such presentations.

To my surprise, about two weeks after, Major Fawcett, my superior officer, called on me about these presents. He said that he was sent to ask me what I had to say about those testimonials. I said that the gifts had not come from soldiers of the Army, that they came entirely from outsiders, that I had done no more than many other officers, and that a little while ago an officer in Birmingham had received a silver watch. I added that when I received the gifts I rather felt that headquarters would be delighted that we had made such an impression on the town, and that outsiders were showing appreciation of our work. The Major told me that I should hear from London shortly. On August 4th a telegram arrived for the two lieutenants, who had received silver watches from the same committee, summoning them to London. There was no communication for me that day. These young men had been with the Salvation Army for six months, and I had been for five years. The young men came to seek my advice. I urged them to obey the summons at once. They reached London early next Morning, and on their arrival at the Training Home in Clapton, they were told that if they did not give up their watches they must leave the Army.

On Saturday morning, August 5th, about six o'clock, my second baby was born, a son. The morning post a few hours later brought me the following letter from Mr. Bramwell Booth: -
"We understand on Monday, July 31st, a presentation of a gold watch was made to you at Hanley, accompanied by a purse containing £5 to your wife, and the same to your sister. We can only conclude that this has been done in premeditated defiance of the rules and regulations of the Army to which you have repeatedly given your adherence, and that you have fully resolved no longer to continue with us. The effect of your conduct is already seen to have led younger officers under your influence also astray. Having chosen to set the General's wishes at defiance, and also to do so in the most public manner possible, we can only conclude that you have resolved to leave the Army. Anyhow, it is clear that neither you nor your sister can work in it any longer as officers, and the General directs me to say that we have arranged for the appointment of officers to succeed you at Hanley at once." I was greatly upset by this letter. Some of the statements in it were wholly inaccurate. In the first place, I had never given my adherence to any rule forbidding the officers of the Army to receive presents. I knew that at a conference of officers the General had made a statement in regard to this matter. He strongly disapproved of the practice, for the reason that some officers, leaving their stations in debt, went off with costly gifts. Moreover, the tendency was that while successful officers received presents, those who had not been successful got none. This of course, was not conducive to good feeling and discipline. I ought to say that throughout his speech the General was referring to gifts from soldiers of the Army - at least this was my impression. It did not apply to presents, such as mine had been, from outsiders. Another grossly inaccurate statement in the letter was that I had led astray two younger officers. The two young lieutenants accepted their watches without consulting me and without receiving any advice from me.

None of us had ever dreamt that trouble would come from these presentations. The letter was totally unexpected, and gave me a painful shock. I was utterly overwhelmed, and such a communication reaching me a few hours after the birth of my second son, was in the greatest degree depressing. The letter was not only inaccurate, it was ungracious. There was no word of appreciation for my five years' hard work, for I had held some of their most important commands, and had succeeded as few others of their officers had done. During that summer I had often secretly thought that some day I might leave the Army, but I never gave expression to these sentiments except to my wife. I had written out my resignation twice, but my wife had prevailed upon me not to send it, and so the letters were put in the fire. I knew in my own heart that I was not a Salvationist after their sort. I felt thoroughly at home in the Christian Mission, but rather uncomfortable and out of place in the Salvation Army. I did not like the uniform, I did not care for the titles nor for the military discipline. My style was not quite Salvationist enough. Still I succeeded, and the Army gave me a splendid sphere for work and an experience which no college or university could have supplied me with. But I had never had any desire to leave in this abrupt fashion. I had hoped to withdraw in the most friendly manner and to remain on good terms with the movement and its leaders. But this was not to be. My heart was heavy as the prospect of parting from beloved friends and comrades opened, blank and bare, before my soul.

I took the letter to my wife and read it to her. She felt greatly hurt, because she had been very loyal to the Army and its leaders, but she bore it bravely and was very ready to stand by me. My first impulse was to take the letter to the editor of the local paper, and then I thought, "No, Sunday is before me, I will keep the matter to myself till the end of the Sunday services." I determined in this way to communicate the news to all those who sympathised with me and my work. There were great congregations all day. I required no small amount of strength to go through my work, but I was wonderfully sustained. I preached the Gospel as faithfully as I could, despite the burden on my heart. At the evening service the building was crowded to suffocation. I had stated at the morning and afternoon services that I had a very important intimation to make at the close of the evening service. I arose in a stillness that could be felt to read the letter from Mr. Bramwell Booth. When I had finished, there was an extraordinary scene. I needed all the self-possession and tact that I could summon to my aid to quell the anger of the people. They began to hiss. But I said, "That is not religion. We have preached charity, and now is the time to practice what we have preached." And they dispersed quietly, but in a state of great excitement.

In the meantime I had replied to the letter from Mr. Bramwell Booth. I concluded my answer thus: "I need not say how sorry we all are in reference to the steps taken in the matter. You know I love the 'Army' and its teachings, but, as you wish, I shall say 'farewell' on Sunday. But I shall reserve the right to say that you have turned us out of the 'Army' because we have received the presentations. I can hold the world at defiance as regards my moral and religious life. If I leave you, I do so with a clear conscience and a clean heart. Of course, my sister and myself hold ourselves open to work for God wherever there is an opening."

Early the next morning the Testimonial Committee was called, and meetings were held every day of that week up to and including Thursday. They sent communications to the General, stating how sorry they were that my dismissal had arisen out of their act, an act which was one of good-will and in loving appreciation of Gipsy Smith's services. They said that if they had known what the result would be, they would rather have lost their arms. No good was accomplished by the letters, and so a deputation was sent to London to see the General. It was arranged that they should send a telegram to the meeting at Hanley on Thursday night announcing the final decision. The place was crowded to receive it. The telegram said: "Dismissal must take its course." Immediately there was a scene of the wildest confusion.

At the close of my last Sunday's services as an officer of the Salvation Army we found two brass bands outside waiting for us. I had no desire for demonstrations of this sort, and had no knowledge of these elaborate preparations. Two big Irishmen seized me and lifted me on to their shoulders, my sister was politely placed in an arm-chair, and the bands, accompanied by great crowds, carried us all round the town, and finally took us home. From five thousand to ten thousand people gathered outside the house on a piece of vacant land. They shouted for me again and again, and I had to address them from the bedroom window before they would move away.

And so ended my connection with the Salvation Army. It has given me anything but pleasure to set forth the story of my dismissal, but I have felt - so important and cardinal an event it was in my life - that it must be told in full. I have not the least desire, and I am sure that my readers will believe this, to damage in the slightest degree the leaders and workers of the Salvation Army. I consider it one of the greatest and most useful religious movements of the last century. Its great service to the Christianity of our country was that it roused the Churches from their apathy and lethargy, and awoke them to a sense of their duty towards the great masses who were without God and without hope in the world. I shall always be grateful for my experiences in the Salvation Army, and I look upon the dismissal as providential. God overruled it. If I had carried out the intention that I had formed some time previously and had resigned quietly, nothing would have been said or heard about me in that connection at any rate; but the dismissal gave me an advertisement in all the papers of the land which cost me nothing and procured for me hundreds and thousands of sympathisers.

I have the warmest feelings of love and admiration for General Booth. He gave me my first opportunity as an evangelist, and he put me in the way of an experience which has been invaluable to me. I think that William Booth is one of the grandest men that God ever gave to the world. His treatment of me was always kind and fatherly. I do not myself share the frequently expressed view that Mrs. Booth was the real founder and leader of the Army, General Booth is too gracious and chivalrous, and besides, he has too profound a sense of what he owes to his beloved and lamented wife, to contradict this view. But, for my part, I believe that William Booth was both the founder and the leader of the Salvation Army. Catherine Booth was undoubtedly a great woman, a great saint and an able preacher, but even as a preacher she was in my opinion greatly inferior to the General. I always feel when I read her printed sermons that I know very much what is coming, for there is a sameness about her addresses and sermons. But the General, on the other hand, never gave an address or preached a sermon without introducing something quite fresh. He is more original and more ready than his wife was, and had he given his time solely to the pulpit he would have been one of our greatest preachers. But for many years he was fully occupied in the defence and explanation of the methods and aims of the Salvation Army. I have heard him talk for nearly a whole day at officers' conferences in a simply marvellous fashion - without intermission, full of ideas, practical and possible, and full of common sense. He was splendidly seconded in his work by Mrs. Booth, and has at the present time able coadjutors in his children. The officers of the Salvation Army are men of intelligence and zeal. I have the happiness to number a good many of them among my friends today. Some of them indeed, were brought to God under my ministry.

[JoshuaCh1v9]

The comparisons between Gypsy Smith and Chick Yuill are clear to see.

It is generally felt that it was Bramwell booth who was responsible for Smith's dismissal, rather than the founder himself.

Whatever the truth, on both that occasion and this, the Army lost one of it's greatest talents.

[chrisbroadley]

having heard chick Yuill preach as officer at blackpool citadel on many occassions while on holiday there and also having heard him on a few occassions at other army events also by reading some of his writen work it is clear to me that chick was one of the Salvation Army's best officers of our time and should have been a future general himself. few officers like him exsist (more the pitty) now the Army has lost him too. a grave mistake.

We have to pray hard that the lord will take control of the situation and deal with the rott. so this army of ours can move forward before its too late.

[Abiel]

Thank you for sharing that story Andy. I have never heard it before, but I have beard several like it.

[chrisbroadley]

As andy stated and rightly too the likeness is stricking and shamefull that such a thing could still happen. my personal thought are chick should take it further legally like he said this would never happen outside the army. nor should it be allowed to happen in the army now.

[Amisk]

As andy stated and rightly too the likeness is stricking and shamefull that such a thing could still happen. my personal thought are chick should take it further legally like he said this would never happen outside the army. nor should it be allowed to happen in the army now.

This action is scripturally wrong. There is scripture that condemns it. I believe it was Paul who warned against one Christian brother taking another Christian brother to the courts of the world for settlement. It brings shame on the name of Christ.

I have spent time this evening looking for the exact reference, but I'm unable to put together enough of the wording to pick it up on the Scripture Search on the computer.

Some of you may know the reference that I'm referring to and can aid me here, if not I shall continue to look for it and will add the reference when I find it.

It is no testimony to the world if Christians take each other to court, so please for the sake of the Gospel let by gone be by gones. Or agree to sit down with impartial Christians brothers and come to a conclusion on who is right and who is wrong.

[chrisbroadley]

This action is scripturally wrong. There is scripture that condemns it. I believe it was Paul who warned against one Christian brother taking another Christian brother to the courts of the world for settlement. It brings shame on the name of Christ.

I have spent time this evening looking for the exact reference, but I'm unable to put together enough of the wording to pick it up on the Scripture Search on the computer.

Some of you may know the reference that I'm referring to and can aid me here, if not I shall continue to look for it and will add the reference when I find it.

It is no testimony to the world if Christians take each other to court, so please for the sake of the Gospel let by gone be by gones. Or agree to sit down with impartial Christians brothers and come to a conclusion on who is right and who is wrong.
yes but there is also the sence that injustice is wrong and god told us to stand up against injustice

[Amisk]

Correct. But as Christians the Bible tells us not to take our brother to court among the ungodly but to settle it through our Christian brothers.

Are we any more sure that we will win our case against our brother in the courts of the land than we are among a gathering of our peers of fellow believers?

From what I have read on this case, about all the going to the courts of the land would do is drag the name of Christ and the Salvation Army as a denomination in the dirt. Christ and the Salvation Army would be the loosers no matter the end result of the judge's decision. It appears to me that those who are advising to go to the courts of the land have failed to look at this end of their advise.

[JoshuaCh1v9]

Correct. But as Christians the Bible tells us not to take our brother to court among the ungodly but to settle it through our Christian brothers.

Are we any more sure that we will win our case against our brother in the courts of the land than we are among a gathering of our peers of fellow believers?

From what I have read on this case, about all the going to the courts of the land would do is drag the name of Christ and the Salvation Army as a denomination in the dirt. Christ and the Salvation Army would be the loosers no matter the end result of the judge's decision. It appears to me that those who are advising to go to the courts of the land have failed to look at this end of their advise.

Except that you won't get General Buzz to sit down and find amicable accommodations.

If it were that easy, Chick would never have had to resign in the first place. It was the sheer intangitence of the General that cuased this situation.

After 35 yeras loyal service Chic has been forced out, and as a result will lose his pension. The point Chris is making is that Chick is a victim of what employment legislation in this country calls 'constructive dismissel'

What would almost certainly happen is that the case would never get to court in the first place. Chick should be granted his full pension in recognition of 35 years of loyal service to the Army.

The General should also receive his pension....now.

[chrisbroadley]

Except that you won't get General Buzz to sit down and find amicable accommodations.

If it were that easy, Chick would never have had to resign in the first place. It was the sheer intangitence of the General that cuased this situation.

After 35 yeras loyal service Chic has been forced out, and as a result will lose his pension. The point Chris is making is that Chick is a victim of what employment legislation in this country calls 'constructive dismissel'

What would almost certainly happen is that the case would never get to court in the first place. Chick should be granted his full pension in recognition of 35 years of loyal service to the Army.

The General should also receive his pension....now.
too right andy. too right. pension him off now before it gets worse

[Amisk]

It took me a while to find the scriptures that I was referring to. Likely you are all formiliar with it anyway, but to refresh memonies and to keep my word to find it, here it is: "Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints?

Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?

Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?

If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church.

I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren?

But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers.

Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded?

Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren."
1 Cor. 6:1-8

You must choose you this day whether you will serve the Lord or not in this matter.

[JoshuaCh1v9]

It took me a while to find the scriptures that I was referring to. Likely you are all formiliar with it anyway, but to refresh memonies and to keep my word to find it, here it is: "Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints?

Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?

Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?

If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church.

I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren?

But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers.

Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded?

Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren."
1 Cor. 6:1-8

You must choose you this day whether you will serve the Lord or not in this matter.


If there is anything that may be done, I will not stand by and see this General destroy our Army. OK, I'm just me, so very little, if anything that I can do in practical terms. But I will not condone what General Buzz is doing, nor ever support a man who would do this.

And quite frankly I don't care a great deal if that's scriptural or not.

[Amisk]

If there is anything that may be done, I will not stand by and see this General destroy our Army. OK, I'm just me, so very little, if anything that I can do in practical terms. But I will not condone what General Buzz is doing, nor ever support a man who would do this.

And quite frankly I don't care a great deal if that's scriptural or not.

Doesn't say much for your Christian beliefs, brother. Good thing Christ didn't take that attitude at Calvary.

[JoshuaCh1v9]

Doesn't say much for your Christian beliefs, brother. Good thing Christ didn't take that attitude at Calvary.

No. But He took it in the Temple and with the Pharisees plenty of times.

[sawitch]

Perhaps, to be fair, Amisk hasn't seen the damage created by 'General Buzz'. He's only featured on the SA's world stage for a few months, whereas he's had years to wreak havoc here in the UK.
Maybe views will change after a few years experience of the guy!!

[JoshuaCh1v9]

Perhaps, to be fair, Amisk hasn't seen the damage created by 'General Buzz'. He's only featured on the SA's world stage for a few months, whereas he's had years to wreak havoc here in the UK.
Maybe views will change after a few years experience of the guy!!

Agreed.

Wait till he gets his hands on Canada.

[Mudfrog]

Well I'm sorry to disappoint you guys but this issue is not as clear cut as you might think. From my perspective as an officer there are issues here that are so one sided, so out of context and I don't think you should take CY's resignation statement at face value.#

When i read the statement all I could think of was a baby throwing the rattle out of the pram. There is another side to all his complaints and i want to tell you that it's not at all honest what CY has done or said in his statement.

An example:
He says that an attempt was made to move him out of divisional leadership. So what? He had been the DC in that division for 6 years; what was the problem with moving him? Other DCs move, why not him; or does he think he is outside the appointments system?
He implied the job was a punishment appointment. However he didn't tell you that the appointment was quite a prestigious one - it was a newly created parliamentary officer. He refused it, OK; but it was also refused by 2 other DCs who thought they were unable to do the job. They haven't resigned over it; why Yuill?

And what about his complaint that the leadership blocked all his overseas speaking engagements? Why is that a problem? His appointment was Divisional Commander, not International Evangelist. The TC merely told him to stick with his job and to obey the regulations. As a CO I am allowed two specialling weekends away from my corps a year. Surely a DC shlould stay in his division and lead it; not go swanning off around the world never being available to his officers and soldiers in the division.

And as for the ICO. Why does Yuill think he should be the permanent lecturer there? He's done it for a number of years, why not allow someone else the privilege and opportunity.

To my mind CY, who in 35 years has only ever been a CO apart from a short time at the College and a few years as a DC in one division, is too full of his owbn importance. The Army will not collapse without him; it's not like Gypsy Smith or anyone else.

There are a lot of people who are not sorry to see him go - people who disagreed fundamentally with his leadership, policies, doctrinal opinions, apart from the obvious regret that a colleague officer has resigned.

An officer colleague of moine, when asked what he thought of the Yuill's resignation replied, 'I thought he was a holiness teacher'.

Another colleague, when he read the resignation statment replied, concerning Yuill's motives and his words, 'It's sinful'.

This will blow over and the Army will hardly notice.

[sawitch]

Welcome Mudfrog.
You made some good points and balanced the argument well. I don't have any particularly strong views either way, but I do think it's wrong that CY's pension is forfeit. This isn't the first instance of this 'injustice' and it's time it was rectified for all officers who resigned for whatever reason.

PS: I'm a bit puzzled as to why your profile says you joined on 31st October 2006. We haven't got there yet!!

[JoshuaCh1v9]

Well I'm sorry to disappoint you guys but this issue is not as clear cut as you might think. From my perspective as an officer there are issues here that are so one sided, so out of context and I don't think you should take CY's resignation statement at face value.#

When i read the statement all I could think of was a baby throwing the rattle out of the pram. There is another side to all his complaints and i want to tell you that it's not at all honest what CY has done or said in his statement.

An example:
He says that an attempt was made to move him out of divisional leadership. So what? He had been the DC in that division for 6 years; what was the problem with moving him? Other DCs move, why not him; or does he think he is outside the appointments system?
He implied the job was a punishment appointment. However he didn't tell you that the appointment was quite a prestigious one - it was a newly created parliamentary officer. He refused it, OK; but it was also refused by 2 other DCs who thought they were unable to do the job. They haven't resigned over it; why Yuill?

And what about his complaint that the leadership blocked all his overseas speaking engagements? Why is that a problem? His appointment was Divisional Commander, not International Evangelist. The TC merely told him to stick with his job and to obey the regulations. As a CO I am allowed two specialling weekends away from my corps a year. Surely a DC shlould stay in his division and lead it; not go swanning off around the world never being available to his officers and soldiers in the division.

And as for the ICO. Why does Yuill think he should be the permanent lecturer there? He's done it for a number of years, why not allow someone else the privilege and opportunity.

To my mind CY, who in 35 years has only ever been a CO apart from a short time at the College and a few years as a DC in one division, is too full of his owbn importance. The Army will not collapse without him; it's not like Gypsy Smith or anyone else.

There are a lot of people who are not sorry to see him go - people who disagreed fundamentally with his leadership, policies, doctrinal opinions, apart from the obvious regret that a colleague officer has resigned.

An officer colleague of moine, when asked what he thought of the Yuill's resignation replied, 'I thought he was a holiness teacher'.

Another colleague, when he read the resignation statment replied, concerning Yuill's motives and his words, 'It's sinful'.

This will blow over and the Army will hardly notice.

Hi Major.

Welcome to Cyber Corps. Great to have you here. Hope you will stay and become a regular.

I understand what you are saying here and you make your points very well. I'm also reluctant to try and argue against them becuase you clearly know far more of the situation than I do.

However, Chick was a valuable asset to the Army. Sure, the Army will not go under without him, that was never an issue, but it will be poorer without him in it.

And to lose his pension after 35 years was something that the Army could have prevented.

But that there is a great deal of concern and disquiet about this new General among Army folk is something that cannot be denied. A great many Salvationists, not just a few, feel that the election of Shaw Clifton to general was a bad move and the Army will only go backwards as a result. The feeling among many of the rank and file is that he is trying to undo everything that General Gowans achieved.

The difference between Cyber Corps and the Army's own message board is that we can air those concerns here without having them deleted.

[mayor02to04]

It would appear that it is not possible for the lay Salvationist to have any influence on the final choice of the International Leader. -

It would also appear that the General is impune once in appointment -

Lay Salvationists and Officers with issues have no avenue to voice their concerns -

The Salvation Army is not 'open' so much is veiled -

However The Freedom of Information Act to which the movement is subject does give course for hope -

When was the last time one read a letter which brought into question direct the function and conduct of The General in The Salvationist -

So if the internal way is barred ie within the movement what can the lay and officer Salvationist with concerns and issues do? -

The answer is of course to amend the Salvation Army Act 1980 -

In my lifetime I have found very few officers, less than five, who had a copy of the act or had even read it -

A copy of the act is available -

The act was 'sponsored' by The Salvation Army but can be amended by Members of Parliament -

So perhaps rebellious Salvationists need to approach their MPs!

Schedule 3 Parts I & II make interesting reading - That section deals with the Vacation of office by The General.

The Salvation Army oftens forgets that the movement is not above the law of the land.

[JoshuaCh1v9]

It would appear that it is not possible for the lay Salvationist to have any influence on the final choice of the International Leader. -

It would also appear that the General is impune once in appointment -

Lay Salvationists and Officers with issues have no avenue to voice their concerns -

The Salvation Army is not 'open' so much is veiled -

However The Freedom of Information Act to which the movement is subject does give course for hope -

When was the last time one read a letter which brought into question direct the function and conduct of The General in The Salvationist -

So if the internal way is barred ie within the movement what can the lay and officer Salvationist with concerns and issues do? -

The answer is of course to amend the Salvation Army Act 1980 -

In my lifetime I have found very few officers, less than five, who had a copy of the act or had even read it -

A copy of the act is available -

The act was 'sponsored' by The Salvation Army but can be amended by Members of Parliament -

So perhaps rebellious Salvationists need to approach their MPs!

Schedule 3 Parts I & II make interesting reading - That section deals with the Vacation of office by The General.

The Salvation Army oftens forgets that the movement is not above the law of the land.

Another newcomer to the ranks of Cyber Corps:clap: :clap: :clap:

Welcome brother.

Please make use of the roll call thread to introduce yourself and tell us a lkittle about yourself.

And I hope that you too will become a regular here.

The tone and content of your post suggests to me that you are either and officer or a very involved soldier within the Army (perhaps a local officer?).

Again, good points well made.

I would like to add a note of caution here as well if |I may.

This issue is producing a wide range of views and opinions from many different people. The danger here is that polarised views could quickly become divisive and destructive if care is not taken to avoid this.

Whatever our views of General Clifton, and I believe I have made mine perfectly clear, he WAS elected as general, he IS the general, and as soldiers and officers we have a duty to obey his orders.

I might not like what I believe he is doing, but he is still my General.

I am all for having open and frank debate within Cyber Corps and I wish the Army would allow the same to happen on it's own site, but I have no wish to see the Army I love ripped apart by this, nor even to lose people from here as a result.

I believe that the Lord is starting to do good things through Cyber Corps. lets make sure we don't damage that.

[mayor02to04]

I do not refer directly to the current holder of the office General. My comments are in no way personal, but are aimed at the leadership of the movement at various levels.

The issue I have is the manner in which the movement is managed.

There is little if any accountability or scrunity of decision made by our leaders. Such is the rigid chain of command it has from the very first days of the Army produced officers and lay members who have concerns which are not addressed. Army history reveals that and just about every Corps in the UK has had 'problems' because of the 'structure'.

With regret the Army leadership rarely listens and does not need to because of the 'structure' in place.

This is nothing new. Often officers and lay Salvationists receive a 'policy decision' or a 're-structuring'. Those 'policies' are never a matter of scrunity and will not be by the membership of the movement and lay involvement is very 'selective' . It is a mtter of management control and the Army leadership have exercised that with deplorable effect.

Because needful change cannot be acheived from within then the course of action is to bring that change from external pressures. A revised or amended Salvation Army Act would be the vehicle to bring about change, make the movement more accountable and ensure that all within the movement had a voice. Other demoninations have such forums not the Army, forums which influence policy.

Sadly currently The Salvation Army is not 'fit for purpose' hence the rapid decline. Long overdue is an external audit of the movement - not financial, although that could be part of it, but an audit of the management of The Salvation Army.

Consider this The Army has not so much lost members but driven many of them out, were the movement managed better with recourse in place, many would still be with us today.

The Salvation Army is a progressive and inherited dictatorship and that does need to change.

I am sorry if my views appear extreme.

One final thought for the moment. Do you think for one minute the Salvationist would print this as a letter? If your answer is 'no' than that alone confirms the management of the movement.

[mayor02to04]

I do not refer directly to the current holder of the office General. My comments are in no way personal, but are aimed at the leadership of the movement at various levels.

The issue I have is the manner in which the movement is managed.

There is little if any acountability or scrunity of decision made by our leaders. Such is the rigid chain of command it has from the very first days of the Army produced officers and lay members who have concerns which are not addressed. Army history reveals that and just about every Corps in the UK has had 'problems' because of the 'structure'.

With regret the Army leadership rarely listens and does not need to because of the 'structure' in place.

This is nothing new. Often officers and lay Salvationists receive a 'policy decision' or a 're-structuring'. Those 'policies' are never a matter of scrunity and will not be by the membership of the movement and lay involvement is very 'selective' . It is a mtter of management control and the Army leadership have exercised that with deplorable effect.

Because needful change cannot be acheived from within then the course of action is to bring that change from external pressures. A revised or amended Salvation Army Act would be the vehicle to bring about change, make the movement more accountable and ensure that all within the movement had a voice. Other demoninations have such forums not the Army, forums which influence policy.

Sadly currently The Salvation Army is not 'fit for purpose' hence the rapid decline. Long overdue is an external audit of the movement - not financial, although that could be part of it, but an audit of the management of The Salvation Army.

Consider this The Army has not so much lost members but driven many of them out, were the movement managed better with recourse in place, many would still be with us today.

The Salvation Army is a progressive and inherited dictatorship and that does need to change.

I am sorry if my views appear extreme.

One final thought for the moment. Do you think for one minute the Salvationist would print this as a letter? If your answer is 'no' than that alone confirms the management of the movement.

[JoshuaCh1v9]

I do not refer directly to the current holder of the office General. My comments are in no way personal, but are aimed at the leadership of the movement at various levels.

The issue I have is the manner in which the movement is managed.

There is little if any acountability or scrunity of decision made by our leaders. Such is the rigid chain of command it has from the very first days of the Army produced officers and lay members who have concerns which are not addressed. Army history reveals that and just about every Corps in the UK has had 'problems' because of the 'structure'.

With regret the Army leadership rarely listens and does not need to because of the 'structure' in place.

This is nothing new. Often officers and lay Salvationists receive a 'policy decision' or a 're-structuring'. Those 'policies' are never a matter of scrunity and will not be by the membership of the movement and lay involvement is very 'selective' . It is a mtter of management control and the Army leadership have exercised that with deplorable effect.

Because needful change cannot be acheived from within then the course of action is to bring that change from external pressures. A revised or amended Salvation Army Act would be the vehicle to bring about change, make the movement more accountable and ensure that all within the movement had a voice. Other demoninations have such forums not the Army, forums which influence policy.

Sadly currently The Salvation Army is not 'fit for purpose' hence the rapid decline. Long overdue is an external audit of the movement - not financial, although that could be part of it, but an audit of the management of The Salvation Army.

Consider this The Army has not so much lost members but driven many of them out, were the movement managed better with recourse in place, many would still be with us today.

The Salvation Army is a progressive and inherited dictatorship and that does need to change.

I am sorry if my views appear extreme.

One final thought for the moment. Do you think for one minute the Salvationist would print this as a letter? If your answer is 'no' than that alone confirms the management of the movement.

Firstly, and most importantly, you do not feel the need to apologise for your views.

Extreme or otherwise.

One of the benefits of this forum is that we are able to express our views, and have no fear of them being deleted or have any fear of repercussions for what we post (usual CF rules notwithstanding)

Secondly, although I acknowledge your well made arguements, I can't agree with them. The Army's chain of command is what has prevented us from having any plists of schisms in the 141 years of our history.

It might be rigid and inflexible at times, but it works.

What we need to do is pray that we get leaders who will follow Gods will and give us wise and sound leadership

[Mudfrog]

Also, I think you'll find that most people who leave do not do so thinking of the structure. They leave for broadly two reasons - they are not saved and therefore (in the case of teenagers) do not want to worship any m ore; or they leave because of local issues - disagreements, personalities, etc.

I do not buy into the idea that the structure is why the Army is in decline.

Firstly, this is a very parochial view - globally the Army, with all its structure, is bigger than it ever was in the past. We see decline in the UK and Western Europe for exactly the same reasons that the Church as a whole - including the charismatic churches - are seeing decline. It has little to do with structure but a lot to do with 'the spirit of the age'.

[JoshuaCh1v9]

Also, I think you'll find that most people who leave do not do so thinking of the structure. They leave for broadly two reasons - they are not saved and therefore (in the case of teenagers) do not want to worship any m ore; or they leave because of local issues - disagreements, personalities, etc.

I do not buy into the idea that the structure is why the Army is in decline.


Me neither. The structure is not to blame. The strusture of the Army leadership is what has prevented us from having splits and divisions. In fact I go to the other extreme and say that it is lack of respect for our officers that is damaging us.

Firstly, this is a very parochial view - globally the Army, with all its structure, is bigger than it ever was in the past. We see decline in the UK and Western Europe for exactly the same reasons that the Church as a whole - including the charismatic churches - are seeing decline. It has little to do with structure but a lot to do with 'the spirit of the age'

I agree that worldwide we are bigger, but we cannot simply shrug and say 'Spirit of the age' about the fact that the Army in Britain is going down the tubes at a rate of knotts.

If that be the case then we need to be attacking the Spirit of the age with all the fervour that the Army founders attacked the gin palaces

And if that makes us unpopular and the object of ridicule....tough

No one ever said it was going to be easy

[Mudfrog]

Me neither. The structure is not to blame. The strusture of the Army leadership is what has prevented us from having splits and divisions. In fact I go to the other extreme and say that it is lack of respect for our officers that is damaging us.



I agree that worldwide we are bigger, but we cannot simply shrug and say 'Spirit of the age' about the fact that the Army in Britain is going down the tubes at a rate of knotts.

If that be the case then we need to be attacking the Spirit of the age with all the fervour that the Army founders attacked the gin palaces

And if that makes us unpopular and the object of ridicule....tough

No one ever said it was going to be easy
Of course, the spirit of the age is not a tangible enemy, unlike the gin palaces or other social injustices. The Bible warns of a falling away in the last days, and I believe that in the west the church is doing just that. When you say that the Army is decling at a rate of knots, yes kit's true - but ALL the churches are doing this. The Church as the Body of Christ, is also declining fast and even the (transfer) transient growth of the Penetcostal churches is not slowing down the overall downward spiral.

I believe that nothing can be done except through a sovereign revival.
We must do all we can - faithfully proclaiming the Gospel in the best and most effective ways we can think of, but ultimately the only thing that will remedy it is revival power.

[JoshuaCh1v9]

Of course, the spirit of the age is not a tangible enemy, unlike the gin palaces or other social injustices. The Bible warns of a falling away in the last days, and I believe that in the west the church is doing just that. When you say that the Army is decling at a rate of knots, yes kit's true - but ALL the churches are doing this. The Church as the Body of Christ, is also declining fast and even the (transfer) transient growth of the Penetcostal churches is not slowing down the overall downward spiral.

I believe that nothing can be done except through a sovereign revival.
We must do all we can - faithfully proclaiming the Gospel in the best and most effective ways we can think of, but ultimately the only thing that will remedy it is revival power.


I believe that you are right. The problem is that there is a big diffwerence between Christians doing all they can, and Christians doing all they are prepared to do.

[JoshuaCh1v9]

Perhaps that is what seperates us from the generation os Salvationists that had them packed to the doors.

They did all they did all the could

Most modern Salvationsists wouldn't be prepared to do that

[TheDag]

Having just looked at this thread for the first time I am grateful that at my corps one of our strong points is that if people have a difference of opinion they are free to say so and feel comfortable enough to do so. I myself have on several occasions had lengthy discussions on matters that I disagree with. Others also feel comfortable to do so.

I would have liked to meet CY. I would have liked to ask him a few questions about battle orders.

[JoshuaCh1v9]

Having just looked at this thread for the first time I am grateful that at my corps one of our strong points is that if people have a difference of opinion they are free to say so and feel comfortable enough to do so. I myself have on several occasions had lengthy discussions on matters that I disagree with. Others also feel comfortable to do so.

I would have liked to meet CY. I would have liked to ask him a few questions about battle orders.


I think that we also have that freedom of expression here in Cyber Corps. This thread being a prime example of that.

Strong views have been expressed from both points of view and all have been respected, even if not always agreed with.

I too would have liked to have met Chick. Our Chris met him several times, and is a big big fan.

[Mudfrog]

That's the problem - Yuill has his 'fans' - his 'blue-eyed boys' - and there is little objectivity. He has resigned and therefore it foillows that TSA MUST be at fault, and especially the General.
None of the fan club has stopped to ask whether Chick Yuill has actually been in the wrong and his style and message has just been his undoing.

There is also the idea of what goes around comes around - I think that some of the stuff that he has meted out to others has come back on him. He has been given a taste of his own medicine and he didn't like it.

[JoshuaCh1v9]

That's the problem - Yuill has his 'fans' - his 'blue-eyed boys' - and there is little objectivity. He has resigned and therefore it foillows that TSA MUST be at fault, and especially the General.
None of the fan club has stopped to ask whether Chick Yuill has actually been in the wrong and his style and message has just been his undoing.

There is also the idea of what goes around comes around - I think that some of the stuff that he has meted out to others has come back on him. He has been given a taste of his own medicine and he didn't like it.

Hi Major

Whatever the truth of the situation, and we will probably never know that, the fact remains that Cliftons man management skills have been somewhat none existent in this.

This could, and should, have been handled a great deal better than this.

[Mudfrog]

Hi Major

Whatever the truth of the situation, and we will probably never know that, the fact remains that Cliftons man management skills have been somewhat none existent in this.

This could, and should, have been handled a great deal better than this.
Hmmm, and what is the source, the evidence, for this assessment of Shaw Clifton's management skills? Would it be Chick Yuill's controversial, one-sided, bitter and heavily spun resignation statement?

Don't forget we have only his side of the story - and we will never hear the general's because he is in no position to answer back.

I'm afraid that, knowing some of the reality and having had him as a DC for 5 years, I think the complaints are not as kosher as people are making out.

[JoshuaCh1v9]

Hmmm, and what is the source, the evidence, for this assessment of Shaw Clifton's management skills? Would it be Chick Yuill's controversial, one-sided, bitter and heavily spun resignation statement?

Don't forget we have only his side of the story - and we will never hear the general's because he is in no position to answer back.

I'm afraid that, knowing some of the reality and having had him as a DC for 5 years, I think the complaints are not as kosher as people are making out.


I am aware that you are much better informed than I about the situation Major.

I would love to look back on General Cliftons years and say I was wrong.

Whats more I am all for getting back to basics. What I don't want to see is the Army going backwards to basics.

[Mudfrog]

I am aware that you are much better informed than I about the situation Major.

I would love to look back on General Cliftons years and say I was wrong.

Whats more I am all for getting back to basics. What I don't want to see is the Army going backwards to basics.
Indeed - bacvk to basics is exactly what SC wants - uniforms for officers at all times, officers reinstated in positions taken (usurped by lay people) and the reintroduction of Brengle holiness - all of which were resisted and openly criticised by a certain CY.

[sawitch]

Indeed - bacvk to basics is exactly what SC wants - uniforms for officers at all times, officers reinstated in positions taken (usurped by lay people) and the reintroduction of Brengle holiness - all of which were resisted and openly criticised by a certain CY.

Perhaps if all officers were prepared to do the job they were commissioned for there wouldn't be a need for lay people to take on the role! I speak from personal experience of having been 'landed with' a corps when the officers walked out without a backward glance. I certainly had no wish to take on this 'unpaid' role while the officers sat in the quarters doing nothing and being paid for the priviledge!! I did it to keep my corps going.
And what about the numerous 'commissioned penpushers' taking lay persons jobs.
I also have personal experience of SC's lack of integrity but am reluctant to give details because I don't want to be threatened by legal action. :sorry:

[Mudfrog]

Perhaps if all officers were prepared to do the job they were commissioned for there wouldn't be a need for lay people to take on the role! I speak from personal experience of having been 'landed with' a corps when the officers walked out without a backward glance. I certainly had no wish to take on this 'unpaid' role while the officers sat in the quarters doing nothing and being paid for the priviledge!! I did it to keep my corps going.
And what about the numerous 'commissioned penpushers' taking lay persons jobs.
I also have personal experience of SC's lack of integrity but am reluctant to give details because I don't want to be threatened by legal action. :sorry:
I think you'll find that 98% of officers do exactly what they are commissioned for, oftern in difficult circumstances.

There is a shortage of officers - we have to ask why.
Maybe it's because a lot of young people - officers' kids especially - who have witnessed the heartache behind the quarter's door.

Did you know that across the Church, Monday is the day that sees the highest number of resignations amongst pastors and ministers? Sunday must be a real burden for some ministers. Maybe a prayer for the officer is better than a complaint

Just a thought.

[TheDag]

Indeed - bacvk to basics is exactly what SC wants - uniforms for officers at all times, officers reinstated in positions taken (usurped by lay people) and the reintroduction of Brengle holiness - all of which were resisted and openly criticised by a certain CY.
So it seems that SC wants to force his way on a contoversial subject. We only need to look here in Cyber Corps to see the difference of opinions on uniforms. In my area uniforms often put people of and/or into a defensive mindset. As for jobs being usurped by lay people I have seen no evidence of that. I certainly think there are jobs that should be done by lay people yet we pay officers to do them. Officers who aren't neccesarily good in that role. Certainly we don't want to put every officer out of a job but so many admin jobs could be done by lay people and that would leave the officers free to do ministry jobs instead of being stuck in an office. All this is just my opinion tho of course and I realise others will have different opinion to me especially on the uniform.

[sawitch]

:( As for jobs being usurped by lay people I have seen no evidence of that. I certainly think there are jobs that should be done by lay people yet we pay officers to do them. Officers who aren't neccesarily good in that role. Certainly we don't want to put every officer out of a job but so many admin jobs could be done by lay people and that would leave the officers free to do ministry jobs instead of being stuck in an office.

I agree. Perhaps there would be fewer lay staff redundancies and fewer unofficered corps if officers stuck to the role they were trained for. The SA in the UK made many lay people redundant. These people were largely DHQ/THQ workers and in many cases were 'replaced' by 'commissioned penpushers'. Frankly I think this is immoral and unworthy of the organisation.:(

[JoshuaCh1v9]

I have no experience at HQ level, so cannot comment on that.

But at Corps level, both officers and local officers have an equally vital role.

One cannot manage without the other.

And lay people running unofficered Corps are a harsh reality of life.

Whether it be good or not is besides the point, they are needed.

[JoshuaCh1v9]

Indeed - bacvk to basics is exactly what SC wants - uniforms for officers at all times, officers reinstated in positions taken (usurped by lay people) and the reintroduction of Brengle holiness - all of which were resisted and openly criticised by a certain CY.

I support much of what the Major is saying here, but I would repeat thet there is a big difference between 'back to basics' and 'backwards to basics'

It must be remembered that the Army was built on a basis of being relevent and contempory to the people it ministered to.

Lose that and we lose the Army.

[Mudfrog]

I support much of what the Major is saying here, but I would repeat thet there is a big difference between 'back to basics' and 'backwards to basics'

It must be remembered that the Army was built on a basis of being relevent and contempory to the people it ministered to.

Lose that and we lose the Army.
I am not sure it was either relevant or contemporary. Just what aspects of the Army could be described as such? Don't say the uniform because when Mrs Booth introduced the bonnet the female cadets all complained it was old fashioned!

If Army history tells you anything it's that manty, many people went into the training college or even into soldiership with the result that their families disowned them - and this was into the 1930s!! The Army has never been relevant or contemporary - do you mean fashionable?

If we start by trying to be these things we are merely following the spirit of the age and we will go down even faster. I suspect that some of our decline is simply because we are trying to be relevant and we are losing the message in the style. The church is not meant to be like the world, it is called to be different.

[JoshuaCh1v9]

I am not sure it was either relevant or contemporary. Just what aspects of the Army could be described as such? Don't say the uniform because when Mrs Booth introduced the bonnet the female cadets all complained it was old fashioned!

If Army history tells you anything it's that manty, many people went into the training college or even into soldiership with the result that their families disowned them - and this was into the 1930s!! The Army has never been relevant or contemporary - do you mean fashionable?

If we start by trying to be these things we are merely following the spirit of the age and we will go down even faster. I suspect that some of our decline is simply because we are trying to be relevant and we are losing the message in the style. The church is not meant to be like the world, it is called to be different.


Again, I agree. The church is called to be different from the world (in the world, not of it)

But, to quote the founder himself.

"Why should the devil have all the best tunes?"

That wasn't contempory?

[Mudfrog]

Again, I agree. The church is called to be different from the world (in the world, not of it)

But, to quote the founder himself.

"Why should the devil have all the best tunes?"

That wasn't contempory?
He may have said it - in fact it was a quote from Roland Hill - but it wasn't born up in the song book that he produced. Not all the songs were put to secular tunes - some were, indeed, but that was common practice in the churches already. It was nothing new for the Army to start using them. We still used many of the church hymns. It is a myth - a false one too - that all our worship in the early Army was the Nineteenth century version of Graham Kendrick and Matt Redman!

I would also question why, if the Devil has all the best tunes, we took the rubbish ones that spoke to the lowest common denominator!

In any case, if we are using 'relevant' and 'contemporary' as concepts that must be present in order to grow the church then I would say this:

There is another myth; one that the Army promotes out of ignorance or out of self-interest - that myth that says how phenomenally successful we were in London in the 1870s and 1880s because the churches were turning away the poor.

1. The Army never attracted the lowest 10% of the population - the ones the churches didn't want. The Army was predominantly lower miidle or upper working class.

2. The Army was only as successful as the other churches. The records show that all churches were growing, having success, opening new ventures.

3. In the context of 'contemporary' worship, the qwhole argument falls down when you discover that the most successful church in London in the late nineteenth century was the Roman Catholic church. It grew amazingly, especially in the East End. Everything was in Latin. The laity were excluded from participation, the music was medieval; the image, surroundings, vestments and ceremonial of the church was as far removed from contemporary life as could be. And yet the RC church grew faster than the Army probably for a great number of reasons.


Whatever else can be said about church growth the issues of relevance are actually 'irrelevant'.
What grows a church is strong leadership - whatever the style of music. And if, like we have done over the last 3 generations, we depend on music (contemporary of traditional) to grow the church, then we will continuwe to fail.

We should stop trying to be contemporary and simply be confident in what we are and can do.

[JoshuaCh1v9]

He may have said it - in fact it was a quote from Roland Hill - but it wasn't born up in the song book that he produced. Not all the songs were put to secular tunes - some were, indeed, but that was common practice in the churches already. It was nothing new for the Army to start using them. We still used many of the church hymns. It is a myth - a false one too - that all our worship in the early Army was the Nineteenth century version of Graham Kendrick and Matt Redman!

I would also question why, if the Devil has all the best tunes, we took the rubbish ones that spoke to the lowest common denominator!

In any case, if we are using 'relevant' and 'contemporary' as concepts that must be present in order to grow the church then I would say this:

There is another myth; one that the Army promotes out of ignorance or out of self-interest - that myth that says how phenomenally successful we were in London in the 1870s and 1880s because the churches were turning away the poor.

1. The Army never attracted the lowest 10% of the population - the ones the churches didn't want. The Army was predominantly lower miidle or upper working class.

2. The Army was only as successful as the other churches. The records show that all churches were growing, having success, opening new ventures.

3. In the context of 'contemporary' worship, the qwhole argument falls down when you discover that the most successful church in London in the late nineteenth century was the Roman Catholic church. It grew amazingly, especially in the East End. Everything was in Latin. The laity were excluded from participation, the music was medieval; the image, surroundings, vestments and ceremonial of the church was as far removed from contemporary life as could be. And yet the RC church grew faster than the Army probably for a great number of reasons.


Whatever else can be said about church growth the issues of relevance are actually 'irrelevant'.
What grows a church is strong leadership - whatever the style of music. And if, like we have done over the last 3 generations, we depend on music (contemporary of traditional) to grow the church, then we will continuwe to fail.

We should stop trying to be contemporary and simply be confident in what we are and can do.

Wow.

Gonna take me a while to work through this one Major (how does he think to that level at this hour of the day?:eek: )

Be with you soon.

[JoshuaCh1v9]

In fact I need to make some tea first.

Back in a few minutes

[JoshuaCh1v9]

There is another myth; one that the Army promotes out of ignorance or out of self-interest - that myth that says how phenomenally successful we were in London in the 1870s and 1880s because the churches were turning away the poor.



Wow!!!

Don't let your buddy General Buzz hear you say that Major.

He'd have a duck fit.

1. The Army never attracted the lowest 10% of the population - the ones the churches didn't want. The Army was predominantly lower miidle or upper working class.

2. The Army was only as successful as the other churches. The records show that all churches were growing, having success, opening new ventures.

Sources please Major?

I have plenty that can show otherwise.


Whatever else can be said about church growth the issues of relevance are actually 'irrelevant'.

If Jesus is to be relevent then we, as part of His church, must be also.

What grows a church is strong leadership - whatever the style of music. And if, like we have done over the last 3 generations, we depend on music (contemporary of traditional) to grow the church, then we will continuwe to fail.

You will get little or no arguement from me on that point Major. Strong leadership IS essential to church growth. Always has been and always will be.

But making sure that we put our message over in a way that people will want to listen to, without compromise on the content, is something we can't ignore either.

[JoshuaCh1v9]

It's essential that I clear something up here as well.

I seem to have gotten into a debate with the Major and seem to be on oposing sides to him.

This is not the case

Most people here in Cyber Corps can attest to the fact that I am a traditional Salvationist, who supports a return to traditional values and attitudes in the Army.

I want no truck with those who would consign the uniform, officers, and titles to the dustbin.

I would like to see us back out on the streets on a Sunday morning, I want us back in the pubs with the papers...etc etc

Much of what the Major says I am on board with.

However, we must also combine that with new ideas and new approaches to Evangelism that help us take our traditional methods forward and get results.

There is a TV ad on the go here at the moment for a daily newspaperthats states....

"We stand for traditional values, but we don't stand in the way of progress"

THATS the Army I want to see

[TheDag]

Whatever else can be said about church growth the issues of relevance are actually 'irrelevant'.
What grows a church is strong leadership - whatever the style of music. And if, like we have done over the last 3 generations, we depend on music (contemporary of traditional) to grow the church, then we will continuwe to fail.

We should stop trying to be contemporary and simply be confident in what we are and can do.
If Jesus is to be relevent then we, as part of His church, must be also.

But making sure that we put our message over in a way that people will want to listen to, without compromise on the content, is something we can't ignore either.
I think the problem here is that you are using different definitions of relevance. In my view unless you are relvant then you are not going to get your message across. Or in other words we need to meet people where they are at.
Where I think Major is coming from is associating relevance with popular culture. For example I visited one corps who showed a clip from a movie and everything in that service revolved around the movie. Having not seen the movie I felt the message was out of my reach, something I could not grasp. That is not being relevant.

[Andy Broadley]

Good afternoon Major (or evening would be more accurate I suppose)

Good day?

This is my origional account BTW

Joshua is my sock account

[Surviving]

I can't believe that this has happened, but then again I can! Being an officers kid, I have seen my parents go through things and can't believe how a Christian organisation can do such things. I won't say anymore, other than it's a shame that he has left.

[Mudfrog]

I can't believe that this has happened, but then again I can! Being an officers kid, I have seen my parents go through things and can't believe how a Christian organisation can do such things. I won't say anymore, other than it's a shame that he has left.
This all assumes that CY is in the right, does it not? There may be another side to consider.
And there are those who have considered the possibility and are not convinced that CY has been badly treated and may have resigned needlessly.

[JoshuaCh1v9]

There are two sides to every story.

And as always hindsight is 20/20.

Whatever the rights and wrongs, and I still maintain that this could and should have been handled much better than it was, the time has come to allow wounds to heal.

If reconciliation is possible then it should be sought with all earnest and urgency.

If it is not possible then we should pray that CY will continue to achieve great things for the Lord whatever he does and wherever he is.

[salvationsoldier]

It's essential that I clear something up here as well.

I seem to have gotten into a debate with the Major and seem to be on oposing sides to him.

This is not the case

Most people here in Cyber Corps can attest to the fact that I am a traditional Salvationist, who supports a return to traditional values and attitudes in the Army.

I want no truck with those who would consign the uniform, officers, and titles to the dustbin.

I would like to see us back out on the streets on a Sunday morning, I want us back in the pubs with the papers...etc etc

Much of what the Major says I am on board with.

However, we must also combine that with new ideas and new approaches to Evangelism that help us take our traditional methods forward and get results.

There is a TV ad on the go here at the moment for a daily newspaperthats states....

"We stand for traditional values, but we don't stand in the way of progress"

THATS the Army I want to see
I wholeheartedly agree with what you are saying.

[JoshuaCh1v9]

I wholeheartedly agree with what you are saying.

Hi SS

Welcome to Cyber Corps.

Great to have you with us.

Another recruit to the ranks, and our first from Manchester.

Please look in on the roll call thread and tell us a little about yourself, and I hope we will see lots of you in Cyber Corps.

And thank you for the support.:thumbsup:

[salvationsoldier]

Hi Andy,

Thanks for the welcome.

I am agreement with you. I'm a traditional Salvationist and whilst not wishing to stand in the way of progress I feel it is imperative that the Army maintains it's standards. It is by those and by our outward witness that we are known. There can be no moving away from the uniform that gives us our identity and especially under the heading of modernisation.

Being a member of the Central North division, Chick was my DC. I have seen and heard him many times, I have met him though I doubt he would remember me. I have found him always to be extremely passionate. His talks are empowered by that passion. I personally was stunned by his resignation but am sincere in my prayers for him.

Again thank you Andy and I'm looking forward to our talks together.

[JoshuaCh1v9]

Hi Andy,

Thanks for the welcome.

I am agreement with you. I'm a traditional Salvationist and whilst not wishing to stand in the way of progress I feel it is imperative that the Army maintains it's standards. It is by those and by our outward witness that we are known. There can be no moving away from the uniform that gives us our identity and especially under the heading of modernisation.

Being a member of the Central North division, Chick was my DC. I have seen and heard him many times, I have met him though I doubt he would remember me. I have found him always to be extremely passionate. His talks are empowered by that passion. I personally was stunned by his resignation but am sincere in my prayers for him.

Again thank you Andy and I'm looking forward to our talks together.

:amen: I agree with you about Chick. I take on board everything the Major says the situation, and I accept that he is far better informed than I about the circumstances. But Chick is a greta loss to the Army. That we will get over it is not really the issue.

And I also look forward to chatting Howard.:thumbsup:

[TheDag]

I am agreement with you. I'm a traditional Salvationist and whilst not wishing to stand in the way of progress I feel it is imperative that the Army maintains it's standards. It is by those and by our outward witness that we are known. There can be no moving away from the uniform that gives us our identity and especially under the heading of modernisation.

My only question would be
what do you consider to be uniform? I would think any item of clothing that identifies us as a member of the salvation army. There is a couple of threads on this controversial topic called "Going back into uniform" and "What does the uniform (do) for us?". I also think the cost of the uniform is absurd these days (at least in Australia it is). Numerous people who have become soldiers have borrowed a uniform as buying one especially if they are a student is not possible. I would prefer to wear a t-shirt with a bifg slavation army logo. Of course seem as I'm not a soldier I can't wear the uniform.

[JoshuaCh1v9]

My only question would be
what do you consider to be uniform? I would think any item of clothing that identifies us as a member of the salvation army. There is a couple of threads on this controversial topic called "Going back into uniform" and "What does the uniform (do) for us?". I also think the cost of the uniform is absurd these days (at least in Australia it is). Numerous people who have become soldiers have borrowed a uniform as buying one especially if they are a student is not possible. I would prefer to wear a t-shirt with a bif slavation army logo. Of course seem as I'm not a soldier I can't wear the uniform.



http://www.salvationarmy.org.nz/SITE_Default/SITE_x-drafts/x-images/17326.jpg

Jackets off in summer of course and epaulettes on shirt.

I understand that tunics are not worn in hotter climates, for obvious reasons.

I also agree that the cost of uniforms is high, but this was ever the case.

People do indeed beg, borrow and accumulate bits of uniform from where and when they can. And they always have done. And somehow the Army survived.

[Mudfrog]

Somewhat off topic I feel.

[JoshuaCh1v9]

Somewhat off topic I feel.

You're right

But thats kinda the way things go round here.

Threads tend to meander and find their own way

Not often that a thread stays on topic for too long

[TheDag]

http://www.salvationarmy.org.nz/SITE_Default/SITE_x-drafts/x-images/17326.jpg

Jackets off in summer of course and epaulettes on shirt.

I understand that tunics are not worn in hotter climates, for obvious reasons.

I also agree that the cost of uniforms is high, but this was ever the case.

People do indeed beg, borrow and accumulate bits of uniform from where and when they can. And they always have done. And somehow the Army survived.
Except it is no good borrowing if the person you borrowed from needs it for the same reason you need it. So you have to buy it. Sure that may not happen in larger corps but in a church plant like I attend it can. I think most Australian salvationists have more relaxed view because of the diversity of tempretures. In some parts in winter if you hang washing outside it is likely to freeze while in other parts the average tempreture is 28C and there is no way washing will freeze. Some salvation army territories in Australia stretch the entire length of the country while others go almost the entire length of the mainland. One will always get differences so people need to be more flexible. The unflexible just break. In my church there he leader will wear uniform today if the family having a child dedicated wants him to. If they don't then he won't wear uniform (although he doesn't normally. We had a person come into the meeting once and he apologised for interupting. He had never apologised before or since. The only difference is that there was people in uniform. He thought it was a special occasion.

[sawitch]

I wish the attitude in the UK was as free as it is in your corps.
I do not have a uniform that fits me so I wear a navy skirt, regulation blouse and a cardigan. This is not appreciated at my corps!!
Many young people are choosing not to wear formal uniform and this generates a lot of disapproval from the oldies. (My generation and older!!)
I agree that identity is important but surely a more informal, and cheaper solution could be found.
:amen:

[TheDag]

I wish the attitude in the UK was as free as it is in your corps.
I do not have a uniform that fits me so I wear a navy skirt, regulation blouse and a cardigan. This is not appreciated at my corps!!
Many young people are choosing not to wear formal uniform and this generates a lot of disapproval from the oldies. (My generation and older!!)
I agree that identity is important but surely a more informal, and cheaper solution could be found.
:amen:
Especially considering the original reason for the uniforms was so one could avoid getting caught up in making sure ones clothing was fashionable. These days there would be plenty of cheaper options for a uniform that could serve the same purpose.

[JoshuaCh1v9]

Especially considering the original reason for the uniforms was so one could avoid getting caught up in making sure ones clothing was fashionable. These days there would be plenty of cheaper options for a uniform that could serve the same purpose.


That is not really the case.

I found this article which makes an interesting read.

http://www1.salvationarmy.org/heritage.nsf/36c107e27b0ba7a98025692e0032abaa/4c3fc447c2a9d1fd802568cd0036e695!OpenDocument

[JoshuaCh1v9]

This bit stood out for me in particular, considering what The Dag had said about the cost.


The great majority of pioneer Salvationists were proud of their uniforms because of the great crusade for which the uniform stood. Partly because of pride and because of economic necessity (officers and soldiers have always had to purchase their own uniforms and in 1890 a uniform would cost on average, three weeks' salary) many Salvationists wore their uniforms on any occasion where formal clothes would be expected. Weddings, funerals, family portraits, visiting relatives and town hall meetings would be some of the occasions one might expect to see the uniform.


In many countries where The Salvation Army commenced work, a specialised tailoring department was set up to ensure standard-isation of uniforms at a reasonable cost.

Up until recently women continued to wear a smaller version of the Victorian bonnet. However most countries around the world are now adopting the less-expensive felt bowler hat style. The high-collar tunics are also being replaced by an open-neck jacket using terylene as well as wool. (Today the cost of a uniform is an average weekly salary.)

According to culture and climate different uniforms may be worn in other countries. White, grey, beige, safari type with shorts or perhaps a sari with a Salvation Army sash. Not all Salvation Army members wear a uniform. It is a personal choice to do so, but the reason for wearing it remains unchanged.

It stands for:

A commitment in the war against evil.
As a personal testimony to the wearer's own Christian faith and practice.
And signifies the availability of the Salvationist to anyone needing a helping hand and listening ear.


Interesting to note that, in real terms, the uniform is now one third of the cost it was in the 1890's

[JoshuaCh1v9]

Especially considering the original reason for the uniforms was so one could avoid getting caught up in making sure ones clothing was fashionable.

Having done a little research on this subject I have yet to find a reference to this being the reason.

I did however, find this


Taken from the Salvation Army International Heritage Centre Website



Elijah Cadman was also the inventor of Salvation Army uniform, declaring at the fledgling Army's War Congress in August 1878: 'I would like to wear a suit of clothes that would let everyone know I meant war to the teeth and salvation for the world' His earliest uniform cap is held in the International Heritage Centre collection, together with his Bible, his bugle and his brass War Office plaque from the days when he commanded the Yorkshire Division.

[Mudfrog]

Thanks Andy for your recent posts. I am heartily sick and tired of people suggesting the uniform is a restriction and an economic burden. The truth is that you will put your money into whatever you value most. I wonder ifg the people who moan about the £150 they might fork out on a uniform are averse to spending far more than that on a two week holiday to Spain - not to mention the other clothes they wear!

The unifom is one of the best things the Army has in its work and witness. It is not about membership; it is about availaibility and witness. If more people wore it, more people would become familiar with it and know what it means.

There are too many invisible Christians and I believe that denomination that wears a distinctive uniform is both valued by the wider Church and appreciated by the public.

And don't forget, there are many, many young people who do wear the uniform gladly and proudly.

[JoshuaCh1v9]

Thanks Andy for your recent posts. I am heartily sick and tired of people suggesting the uniform is a restriction and an economic burden. The truth is that you will put your money into whatever you value most. I wonder ifg the people who moan about the £150 they might fork out on a uniform are averse to spending far more than that on a two week holiday to Spain - not to mention the other clothes they wear!

The unifom is one of the best things the Army has in its work and witness. It is not about membership; it is about availaibility and witness. If more people wore it, more people would become familiar with it and know what it means.

There are too many invisible Christians and I believe that denomination that wears a distinctive uniform is both valued by the wider Church and appreciated by the public.

And don't forget, there are many, many young people who do wear the uniform gladly and proudly.


I agree Major

I was actually surprised when I found out that in real terms the uniform costs much less nthese days than it did way back then.

And, yes, it isn't cheap. As you said, £150 for the basic uniform.

You can of course spend much more than that if you buy a model C overcoat, new cap, etc etc etc etc, but £150 will get you a tunic, trousers (or skirt of course) shirt/blouse and a tie.

And it's hardly the sort of thing you buy every year.

Most people have the same uniform for several years, but even if you say you want to replace it every third year, then your uniform is going to cost you £1 a week.

Hardly a bank breaker, even for the tightest of budgets, and I know more about those than maost, believe me.

And if people want to offset the cost even more, they should get out there into the pubs and on the streets with the papers and do some heralding.

[JoshuaCh1v9]

See? I told you the majhor and I were on the same side:thumbsup: :D

Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree about CY:)

[mac8]

Hi all, just to let you know I'm meandering around on the site. I hate the fact the uniform is uncomfortable and hence can't wait to get out of it when I get home, but I appreciate wearing it out and about in town when appropriate - people are happy to come up, smile and engage in conversation.
Mac8 One of the Franciscan Salvationists and loving it...!

[Abiel]

The uniform is extremely expensive for people on fixed/low income and of low quality. IMO.

Peruse your xmas catalogue in this week's Salvationist- the addition of an army logo sure pushes up High Street prices.

But maybe they are sources ethically.

[mac8]

I notice the pics on the previous page. Is it compulsory to be headless?
Is this what was decided once we stopped wearing hats?

[mac8]

So what's the very best way to show lovingkindness to all parties caught up in conflicts?

[Evangelina]

Elijah Cadman was also the inventor of Salvation Army uniform, declaring at the fledgling Army's War Congress in August 1878: 'I would like to wear a suit of clothes that would let everyone know I meant war to the teeth and salvation for the world' His earliest uniform cap is held in the International Heritage Centre collection, together with his Bible, his bugle and his brass War Office plaque from the days when he commanded the Yorkshire Division.
*chuckle* The exact reason I prefer combat boots, fatigue trousers and an "I'll Fight" tshirt to the standard uniform ;)

[JoshuaCh1v9]

The uniform is extremely expensive for people on fixed/low income and of low quality. IMO.

Peruse your xmas catalogue in this week's Salvationist- the addition of an army logo sure pushes up High Street prices.

But maybe they are sources ethically.

But twas even more the case a hundred years ago.

And people managed then

[JoshuaCh1v9]

I notice the pics on the previous page. Is it compulsory to be headless?
Is this what was decided once we stopped wearing hats?


*Ding Ding*

WINNER!!!!!


Post of the week

[Evangelina]

*Ding Ding*

WINNER!!!!!


Post of the week

I concur.

[TheDag]

Thanks Andy for your recent posts. I am heartily sick and tired of people suggesting the uniform is a restriction and an economic burden. The truth is that you will put your money into whatever you value most. I wonder ifg the people who moan about the £150 they might fork out on a uniform are averse to spending far more than that on a two week holiday to Spain - not to mention the other clothes they wear!
I have three t-shirts (out of nine) that I actually paid money for. One is advertising social justice (see http://www.beaheroaustralia.org/ ) the other two are salvation army t-shirts. One of which has a great big Salvation army logo on it. People have seen that from a distance and headed straight towards me to talk to me. Others have seen it and started talking to me on the train and bus. On the other hand I have seen what I thought was a salvo and went to say g'day and found out they were a security guard! In one thread one person tells that many people have mistaken them for store security when in uniform. Yep give me my t-shirt that stands out a mile away rather than something that one has to get right next to just to figure out if it is a salvo or security!



The unifom is one of the best things the Army has in its work and witness. It is not about membership; it is about availaibility and witness. If more people wore it, more people would become familiar with it and know what it means.
The uniform means absolutely nothing unless it is accompanied by action.


There are too many invisible Christians and I believe that denomination that wears a distinctive uniform is both valued by the wider Church and appreciated by the public.
Once again no problem with a highly distinctive t-shirt that stands out from a distance.


And don't forget, there are many, many young people who do wear the uniform gladly and proudly.
That is great and I support them 100%. However I also believe that we shouldn't insist on uniform either. Although I must admit I've always wanted to see In the Flame's idea in practice (I've heard it many times) of combat fatigues!

[JoshuaCh1v9]

*chuckle* The exact reason I prefer combat boots, fatigue trousers and an "I'll Fight" tshirt to the standard uniform ;)


ROFL

Touche

If I hadn't just given it to mac8 I'd have given you post of the week for that one.

OK, you can have that point:D :thumbsup:


Now we need your brains again here

http://www.christianforums.com/t4156612-william-booths-telegram.html

Right up your street is this one

[Mudfrog]

Combat gear? T-Shirts? Yes, but not all Salvationists are teenagers! You have to have a uniform that suits all ages, sexes and body types. 'Student-wear' is not suitable for most people over 30. Apart from the cringe factor of older people trying to dress young, it would simply look stupid.

[JoshuaCh1v9]

Combat gear? T-Shirts? Yes, but not all Salvationists are teenagers! You have to have a uniform that suits all ages, sexes and body types. 'Student-wear' is not suitable for most people over 30. Apart from the cringe factor of older people trying to dress young, it would simply look stupid.

There are variations to the uniform though.

I had my 'Sunday' uniform, tunic, trousers cap etc, but I also had my 'fighting' uniform, which I wore for street stands with the papers and for the two weekly pub rounds.

That was basically black trousers (but not the SP&S ones - in fact they cost me 30p from the Army charity shop), white shirt, clip on tie, and one of those navy blue v neck naval pullovers with slip on 'S's on the epaulettes. And a cap I managed to scrounge.

This was much more practical and durable for the pubs etc, and prevented the 'Sunday' uniform getting dirty and smelling of smoke etc.

And the 'combat fatigues' got a lot of use. I was doing two street stands a week and two pub rounds.

But it was all low cost stuff so easily replacable.

[TheDag]

Combat gear? T-Shirts? Yes, but not all Salvationists are teenagers! You have to have a uniform that suits all ages, sexes and body types. 'Student-wear' is not suitable for most people over 30. Apart from the cringe factor of older people trying to dress young, it would simply look stupid.

Hang on I'm confused. Didn't you say you were in favour of the current uniform and people wearing it. That doesn't suit people of all ages. I have worn suits to work befor and ties but I didn't like it one bit. I just kept geting in trouble for not wearing business shirts. I guess I'm one of those for whom "student wear" is always suitable. I'm often bearfoot (but not pregnant) during church. I only wear shoes for the walk to church. Of course there are other alternatives like a jumper (or sleevless jumper) with a huge salvo logo on it. Basically what I'm saying is we don't have to have a formal uniform as in suit & tie. We could and should consider more informal clothing. Sure the suit and tie can be good for formal occasions like a business lunch when looking for coporate donations but there certainly should be an alternative for hotter climates.

[Evangelina]

Combat gear? T-Shirts? Yes, but not all Salvationists are teenagers! You have to have a uniform that suits all ages, sexes and body types. 'Student-wear' is not suitable for most people over 30. Apart from the cringe factor of older people trying to dress young, it would simply look stupid.
Of course, this is an argument which could easily be applied to the current uniform, too ;) The number of times I've heard Salvo women complaining that the skirt makes their butt look huge..!

Combat gear is worn by military soldiers of all ages, and I haven't heard many complaints from older soldiers about it looking 'stupid' on them.

But I acknowledge that a lot of older people would probably feel uncomfortable in combat fatigues and tshirts - it's out of their comfort zone. I can sympathise... but I do think that they need to realise that others might feel the same way about the standard uniform, as they do about 'student-wear'. "Love one another" and "submit to one another in love" ... I firmly believe that following these commands involves understanding, appreciating and allowing differences, without demands that everything be the way I want.

[JoshuaCh1v9]

Said this before and I think this bears it out, albeit generalising.

There are big diferences in the way the Army is developing here and in Australia.

[JoshuaCh1v9]

However, there ARE alternatives for Salvationists in hotter climates.

http://www.christiantoday.com/files/min/min_20051115_tues11art.jpg

[TheDag]

However, there ARE alternatives for Salvationists in hotter climates.

http://www.christiantoday.com/files/min/min_20051115_tues11art.jpg
If the picture shows the alternatives then I take it you were being sarcastic here Andy?

[JoshuaCh1v9]

If the picture shows the alternatives then I take it you were being sarcastic here Andy?



No. Sarcasm is against CF rules;)

That was the only picture I could find in a hurry:)

I meant that in hotter climes Salvationists tend to have the open shirt with the 'S's on the coller and epaulettes, and often white trousers as well.

As opposed to black trousers and tunic as worn in cooler climates.

It would be unreasonable to expect someone to wear the tunic etc when it's 40'C in the shade:eek:

Thats why the 'whites' were developed in the first place.

[mac8]

So can someone tell me more about the differences between the way TSA is developing in Oz and in UK?
Thanks,
Blessings
Eleanor n/TSSF

[JoshuaCh1v9]

So can someone tell me more about the differences between the way TSA is developing in Oz and in UK?
Thanks,
Blessings
Eleanor n/TSSF

Well Eleanor, first you need to understand that this is only based on our discussions here in Cyber Corps and nothing more solid than that.

But from thiese it seems that the Army in Oz is rather more relaxed in it's approach to many aspects of Army life than the UK Army

Uniform is just one area that has come to light. But there are others such as the fact that many Oz Corps seem reluctant to call themselves churches, prefer to call their officers pastors rather than CO's, and generally seem to be moving away from what is traditionally seen as the Army's identity.

Whereas in Britain we seem to be much more traditional in our approach.

[mac8]

Hi

That's interesting Joshua. I spoke to someone from Oz a couple of weeks ago, and he said he thought it depended on where you were- there's a lot of contrasts. There's tremendous innovation in the church plants, loads of energy. I just wish I had their skills and experience to offer. I think its a shame if we lose the heart of being army - today Michael Coleman, an officer in Oz who I have just met in cyberspace, described the spiritual heartbeat of the army: "I think I understand the heartbeat, angel, sacred centre, of TSA to be around a passionately owned and respectfully delivered socio-spiritual gospel, that is accessible, broad-based, transforming on a number of levels, not the least the spiritual, but not excluding the psycho-social. It is embracing of the marginalised prophetsparticularly, for it is ministry to this group that moves the Salvationist's heart. Other branches of the Church may have congregation members, but the Salvationist is an activist for Jesus. He/she has an anger in his/her breast that so little is being done for the lost souls of the world"
What do you think?
Warmest blessings
Eleanor n/TSSF

[Evangelina]

Hey Eleanor - are you following me? :) You're popping up everywhere Salvo-related recently!

(InTheFlame is aka Evangeline, and Naomi)