Salvos - moving forwards or backwards?

I was recently reading an article in TIME magazine about how the fundamental and militant section of Islam had rose to prominence and was overshadowing an older more mystical version. This version called Sufism is more introspective and peace loving then the Al Queda and other fundamental versions. Unfortunately, due to diminishing world power, Sufism was not considered to be as viable an option for many Muslims as was the more ‘masculine’ or ‘aggressive’ brands of Islam. The results have been clear and disastrous – increased war and terror reign because of this path that many have taken. It made me think about The Salvation Army and its approach. It seems it too was borne out of a desire to make Christianity more ‘aggressive’ and militant. The resulting Army gradually settled into the dominant culture that surrounded it and became a tool of social justice and change. However, in recent times there has been a resurgence of this masculine, fundamental and aggressive Christianity. Perhaps this is in retaliation to the more liberal and esoterical direction that the Army was heading in at least the Southern Territory of Australia, in large part due to the influence of non-religious employees. Often these paid workers showed greater compassion, drive and grace then the salvo counterparts. As a result, some within the Army seems to think that this is a bad thing and that it has affected the mission and direction of the Army. Thus we return to a time that the Army was wonderful .…..and so is borne, ‘aggressive Christianity’, and ‘primitive Salvationism’, terms coined to incite strong reactions. Particularly from young people who want nothing more then to make a difference in the world here and now. These young people become the backbone of the movement embracing the idea of an ‘acting’ Army, before they develop the alibility to critically think through their decisions. Faith is very difficult and complex, requiring years to work through the multiple layers, consequences and challenges that arise. While the fundamental type of Army is very appealing it has the ability to create a high potential cost to all involved. I think we live in a world where this fundamental type of faith in practice can be very damaging. Damaging to both those who take part and those who are in the so-called firing line of this new fundamental movement. This happens to the young people who are adherents of the movement, becoming burnt out and disillusioned when deep questions of faith obliterate many of the often shallow answers purported by fundamentalists. Damage to those who are told it is Jesus or Hell, Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve and believe or burn. Christianity is a way of Love, grace, peace and joy, yet this fundamental Salvationism quietly promotes ways of thinking that are inherently counter these basic premises. We have seen the consequences of this type of rigid belief system within the religion of Islam, and while what I am expressing is on a whole different level, it can come from the same place within each of us. This is the most challenging part. Are we becoming subversively xenophobic? Is aggressive and primitive Salvationism appropriate? Is maintaining war like metaphors in a world torn apart by war necessary? The Salvation Army today must be different from The Salvation Army of 120 years ago, if only due to the learned experiences. When I was 15 I was a moron when I look back compared to myself at 31. How much more should a church look back and hope to have changed and grown.