Tradition
In The Salvation Army, the word tradition is often bandied about. I have, at times, been accused of being an un-traditional Salvationist, largely, I understand, on the basis of my not especially liking brass bands. I suspect other superficial aspects of Salvation Army worship and culture may have been included here also. But I have to say, some of my favourite Christian songs are what might be termed good, old-fashioned Army anthems, like “Storm the forts of darkness,” and “On we march”, and almost anything penned by Generals Orsborn or Gowans.
Anyway, I bring all this up because I believe that what many Salvationists think of as our traditions are not as traditional as they think. Our traditions, our heritage, going way back to our origins, have more to do with attitudes, character, outlook. The “charisms of the Founders” are more traditional than bands and songsters and uniforms.
And in this respect, I believe I am a dyed-in-the-wool traditionalist. I believe our finest traditions have to do with our constituents. Our movement was for the little people, with the little people, and by the little people. I want to issue a challenge here, that we retain, or perhaps recover, that central element of our heritage. You could say that it is our DNA.
Bloodline
And DNA, bloodlines, heritage, are so important in the overall biblical narrative. Salvation history revolves around one particular lineage. Jesus of Nazareth, the gospel writers are keen to point out, is descended from King David. In this way, he fulfils the role as the Messianic Son of David. In Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus is acknowledged as the Son of David on a number of occasions. Let’s take a brief survey:
• By “the crowds” in Jerusalem on Palm Sunday (Matthew 21:9). The term “the crowds” may be an equivalent to the Am Ha-aretz, the ‘people of the land’, treated with contempt in Jewish writings such as the Talmud and the Mishnah. Their biggest fault appears to be a lack of attention to ritual cleanliness. If “the crowds” does refer to such people, these would be very much outcast, the little people.
• By the Canaanite woman in Matthew 15:22. We’ve already discussed her story, but to recap, she was a foreigner, outside the people of Israel, and by rights, less familiar with the title and its significance.
• By children, again on Palm Sunday, in the temple (Matthew 21:15). This angered the chief priests and scribes, but Jesus simply directed them to Psalm 8:2, that well-known verse, “Out of the mouths of babes…”
• By blind men, more than once (Matthew 9:27; 20:30-31). These men could not see, but they recognised Jesus’ heritage better than most. Need I say more?
Quite a surprising bunch of people. The uneducated, the alien, the disabled. These were the ones who saw Jesus as the Son of David. Rarely is the title used of Jesus by anyone else. But for these people, the Messiah would be the Son of David. It seems to me that this was how they understood the Messiah. Not only was David Israel’s greatest king, and the man after God’s own heart. A vital link between David and Jesus is seen in his relationship with the little people. In 1 Samuel 22:1-2, we read of David, fleeing King Saul, and taking up residence at the cave of Adullam. And here, the distressed, the debtors and the discontented came to him in their hundreds, “and he became captain over them.” This was David’s army. These were his people.
Later, when David had finally taken the throne, he also embraced Mephibosheth, the disabled son of Jonathan. 2 Samuel chapter 9, which reports that story, ends by telling us that Mephibosheth “always ate at the king’s table…” David sent for the man, and had table fellowship with him from that time forward.
The distressed, the debtors, the discontented, the disabled. These were David’s people. A man after God’s own heart, true enough.
Heritage
And so, similar groups of people call out to Jesus, “have mercy on us, Son of David!” They recognise the family resemblance in him. They see that his heritage, from David, is compassion toward the marginalised. So Jesus’ solidarity with the little people is not a new thing. It was his heritage, a family tradition. He was simply reviving that tradition.
As Salvationists, our solidarity with the little people is likewise our heritage. Once again, The Salvation Army was raised up by God to be not only for the little people or even with the little people, but by the little people. It was inclusive, because other places were not. We all sat at the table together. Let it be so now, and always.
