Not a big deal, you say?
Well, this person has covenanted with God based on the SA doctrines.
He has applied for officership based partly on his belief in these doctrines. He feels 'called' to officership, which is basically the vocation of establishing these doctrines in the hearts of every human on the planet. He has confirmed verbally and in writing his belief in the doctrines. And he avoids confessing his disbelief to his superior officers (not wanting, I gather, to jeopardize the free car and home- in the West- and tenure for life).
So here we are, The Salvation Army, stuck with a lying, deceitful, underhanded, misled (in beliefs) scoundrel. If things follow form, this lying, deceitful, underhanded, misled scoundrel will be a leader in The Salvation Army, maybe at your corps, in a matter of months.
Here's one for you. He's not alone.
When do we draw a line in the sand? At what point do we say 'enough is enough'?
It is bigger than officership. It goes to all of soldiership.
I am asking a common courtesy, which may be naive in this situation. How about having the honour of quietly stepping out of the ranks if you don't believe what you covenanted that you believed? How about having the modesty to relinquish your soldiership if you are intentionally, habitually not living up to your covenant promises? How about helping us cleanse the ranks of compromising hypocrisy? Either that or repent.
Not only will it go better for you in eternity, but your resignation of your soldiership (and, for you officers who fit the bill, your offiership) could be the best thing you'll ever do for The Salvation Army.
I'd prefer repentance.
Much grace,
STEPHEN COURT, MAJOR
Canadawww.armybarmy.com/blog.html
13 COMMENTS:
OUCH! But, he's dead on!
UKT
Hmm here we go with the cult-like behaviour again. Question the institution and you're a "lying, deceitful, underhanded, mislead scoundrel". Nice healthy non-accusational, non-judgemental attitude by Stephen Court.
I was going to comment on the last posting but since it appears to me that the posting by Major Court relates so well to the posting by Captain C. of Australia (and the comments that followed Captain C's article)I've decided to just make one comment here and kill two birds with one stone.
First I must say that I am in complete agreement with Major Court and think that authenticity and purity of ones beliefs are very important---especially if one is covenanting with God through a Xian organization with a set core of doctrines.
What surprises me is that anyone might think that the phemonenon Major Court refers to is peculiar only to TSA! I also suspect (though I have no actual proof)that it may have been more true years ago when the average cadet went to training at the age of 17 to 20 and lived in a culture where people for the most part had few options but to remain in whatever line of work they started in while in their mid to late teens!
According to the latest science on the subject it's been discovered that critical thinking college courses for 18 and 19 year olds are a total waste of time because that mental capacity doesn't develop in most people until around the ages of 23 to 25!
As a result no one will ever be able to convince me that what at least some of those SA officers from the past signed on for and believed at 18 was exactly what they still believed at 35.
Also not too long ago ABC News in the U.S. did a feature story on evangelical Xian ministers who had completely lost their faith but continued on pastoring and preaching because they couldn't get out of it financially and didn't know how to do anything else. They were of course interviewed in the shadows to protect their identities. (you can look it up on YOUTUBE)
In his 2008 book "Crazy For God" Frances Schaeffer's son Franky who was his father's sidekick as guru to the Evangelical world in the 1970's and early 1980s admits that he himself was one of those non-believing "believers" while being lauded as an evangelical spokesman!
Lastly, I want to reiterate something I posted about 2 years ago on this blog that relates also to Captain C's article.
1. All churches/denominations are corporations and their leaders ALL act accordingly. No one should be surprised by this.
2. Historically people who make it to the top ecclesiastical positions have proven themselves to be die-hard administrators/business people. Yes, they can be good Xians but don't count on it. That's not why they're there. They're there because they're die-hard administrators.
In the 4th or 5th century Ambrose the Governor of Milan was made Bishop when he wasn't even a Xian because he was such a good administrator. (though he was baptised the following week!) His preaching skills were considered "adequate" (code for not out and out awful)but he was a great administrator and was eventually made a saint!
3. As is true of all corporations there will ALWAYS be some scoundrels here and there. That's just the way life seems work on the third rock from the Sun.
Daryl Lach
USA Central
"You Must Go Home by the Way of the Cross, To Stand with Jesus in the Morning!"
I recieved Jesus as my Savior and King in the early 70"s. The one who lead me to Christ was a member of 'The Jesus Peoples Army' in Bellingham WA, USA. I lived on this Christian commune for a long time and that is where I learned my initial theology before coming to the Army.
I brought with me Biblical beliefs to the Army such as practicing baptism, partaking of the Lord's supper and speaking in tongues. In training I had instructors who knew my belief background and were constantly harrassing me and telling me I was wrong. I could have quit, but I didn't. As an officer I adhered to Army principals, practices and doctrine because I was a Salvationist and officer. I didn't stop believing in my initial system, but I agreed as an officer to promote the theological teaching of the Army. Other things like tongues and communion I practiced privately and with like believers, but never insisted our soldiers participate. Some called me hypocrite because I believed in the Army doctrine and more. After leaving the Army I choose to practice my theology because I am no longer committed to the denomination. In my working life I work for the government and as such follow thier rules and laws even if I believe the are bad laws. One rule in the work place is that we can not initiate spiritual or religious conversation with the people we serve even though being a believer would help and even propagate healing in thier lives. I follow government rules because they are my employer even when I disagree. ( I hope you get my drift.)As an officer I disagreed with a lot of things especially some of my Divisional Commanders. If they ordered me to do something a certain way, unless it was immoral or unethical I did it that way even if I disagreed with them.
An officer represents the entire Army in it's beliefs and Doctrines and not to uphold them is hipocritical and they should go to another church to serve.
Former
USA West
I agree with some of what Steve has stated but with due respect would have to state that he is a bit naive. Many do not agree 100% in just about every religious organization what is expected or assumed. The doctrines are pretty general and most Christians would agree with them anyway. It is probably O+R that is more frowned upon or some of the leadership directives and poor leadership or unChrist-like leadership.
The Lord never changes and His ways never do but a 146 year old organization must change to serve the present age. If William Booth saw that brass music was still a major influence in the Army I think that he would be upset. (nothing against brass-I enjoy it). Serve the present age !
USA former
Certainly a true to form SC! Controversial and challenging to gain equally controversial and challenging responses.
The emphasis on narrowly defined covenanted beliefs is a bit of a cop out and rather disingenuous unless you come from a narrow sectarian perspective. We deplore it with gusto in other groupings yet practice it ourselves without checking it. Yes, there is a good measure of proud (arrogant?)sectarianism in our officer and soldier ranks.
It is one thing actively preaching verbally against the written SA 'law', it is a totally different thing to have a Soviet style thought police on your back that takes us back to the 1920's in the Army when leading officers were boxed in so as to conform to a narrow and controlled pattern that resulted in cowed and resourceful officers who, in order to survive, had to be rather economical in whom they could trust.
Contra to what SC is saying, it is not 'basically the vocation of every officer to write these doctrines in the hearts of every human on the planet' It is our task as officers to present Jesus as the source of our eternal happiness and joy and leave the rest to God. The interpretation of our human SA doctrine and dogma leaves room for a much wider lens and options than some people are comfortable with.
Are you really saying that officers and soldiers should not be such who preach and believe wholeheartedly in a literal 6 day/ 24 hour creation or in an inerrant and infallible inspiration of the Bible that is incapable of misleading and that it contains no human error? A large number of officers and soldiers must then 'quietly' do the honourable thing and slip away into oblivion so as not to poison the waters because that is not what the Army officially teaches to be its doctrinal position.
Again, hiding behind 'covenant' makes one wrong if not agreeable with loaded expressed definitive legalist opinion as the letter of the Law rather than the spirit.
From some-one as experienced and seasoned as SC I was expecting far more magnanimous grace towards those who are not living up to his perfect covenanted standard. Cheap shots and a rather derogatory way of calling this differing cadet a lying, underhanded, deceitful scoundrel only in it for the material benefits makes me shudder that there is room in the SA for such expressed thinking.......
I agree with one thing....repent!
I have to say I agree with USA former. The doctrines are extremely broad, and very encompassing. Anyone who believes that Jesus is the Son of God, that his death and resurrection bought us salvation, can agree whole heartedly with all the doctrines.
When I was in college, one of our doctrine teachers was a retired officer who was on the doctrine review board, and who (as a board) wrote the old red 'handbook of doctrine' many of us remember. He taught us that the doctrines can be embraced by an extreme liberal through to an extreme conservative. What we have difficulty with is not the doctrines themselves, but the interpretation that our leadership from time to time insist we accept. The doctrines are fine. I think that is probably what the cadet in the article was referring to.
I wonder what interpretation Major Court has of the doctrines? Who would he suggest step out of uniform for not 'being in step'? As far as I can see, no matter what your theology, so long as you believe that we are saved through Christ, you can be in line with the doctrines.
Just my thoughts,
Yours in Christ
Graeme Randall
...there is room...
Sorry but for some reason I didn't get that same vibe from reading Major Court's article that Graeme and the person who posted before him got. I was under the impression that the candidate out and out didn't believe in several doctrines of TSA. To me this would be wrong and I do some times wonder if some of the more mediocre candidates don't (and didn't always) look at officership as a way to security and power that they might never had gotten anywhere else.
Of course this would be hard to judge in any one individual case and is probably best left to God to do so unless the candidate actually told someone that power and secuity was what they were after.
But I also agree with the last two postings that the doctrines are actually open to a much wider interpretation than some people might like them to be.
I think of the 10th doctrine for instance and remember growing up always hearing about the eradication of inbred sin. From time to time someone in the Army or at the holiness collge I attended would come up with a new twist on the eradication of inbred sin and/or the indwelling of the Holy Spirit which would leave me totally confused. I have to admit that at one point I had a hard time swallowing this doctrine hook, line and sinker.
But then a close friend of mine who taught preaching and theology at Fuller Seminary for 10 years and was himself a product of a holiness denomination told me that one of the Hebrew words for Holiness could literally be interpreted as "he who does justice though he knows he's a sinner!" That along with understanding that the definition of sin between Arminians and Calvinists is not always the same (in Arminianism we're only responsible toward God for the sin we commit not for being born into sin) made the whole thing much more palatable to me. The concept of prevenient grace which I'm not sure is either found in Calvinism or if it is it is not interpreted in the same way we interpret it also helped me come to grips with the doctrine holiness.
I realise though that some officers and soldiers might find my theological view a little off kilter from what they perceive to be the norm but at least it allows me for whatever reason to say with confidence that I do believe in the 10th doctrine. It's what the Baptists refer to as "soul competency" if I'm not mistaken.
In a nutshell how Fred Gregory approached his differences with the Army as an officer and the gist of what USA Former has written on it pretty much expresses my own belief on how the subject/situation should be handled wherever there is any inner personal conflict between a Salvationist and Army Beliefs and Characteristics.
Daryl Lach
USA Central
"You Must Go Home by the Way of the Cross, To Stand with Jesus in the Morning!"
I always wondered about "the general judgement at the end of the world" in SA doctrine. There is no general judgement, there are many judgements. I just counted it as a summary of all end time judgements in (general). No big deal but wording is ancient on that one.
USA Former
I recall during a week of Christian Unity and a pulpit exchange, leading the holiness meeting and the Dean from the local cathedral preached. During the service I enrolled a senior soldier and as a part of that together we read the doctrines out loud. I watched the Dean wholeheartedly read our doctrines until we got to number 11 and for that he remained silent. As he commenced his sermon he mentioned this and spoke briefly of his struggle with number 11. I looked round the congregation and recognised that there were a number of them who agreed with the Dean. Did this make them lesser Salvationists, I don't think so - just thinking Salvationists for whom I thank God.
it might be interesting to know which doctrine:
- one God;
- trinity
- inspired scripture
- person and nature of Jesus
- means of salvation and/or availability of sanctification
- immortality?
Do any of us consider any not quite so important?
Former UK officer
Thank goodness that Jesus does't judge us based on the perfection of our doctrine. None of us would make into heaven. None of us would ever get to know Jesus.
I understand in some senses the outrage expressed, but I feel like writing in the sand: "Step forward those who have never doubted, never told a lie, never exagerated, never refrained from telling the whole truth, never held a doubt, never believed the wrong thing." (Matt 7:1-5)
We're supposed to use discernment and correct a brother or sister but here our brother or sister has been publicly maligned and that person may not even be known or have been spoken to. We may not know who they are, but there is always the chance that they do, and we have called them a liar, deceitful, underhanded, misled (in beliefs) and a scoundrel - a wicked or evil person; someone who does evil deliberately. Scripture describes us all that way: "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked." (Jer 17:9) So how is it that this doen in love, showing grace and mercy. There are many that say they believe and yet their actions say otherwise.
To this brother or sister motives have been attributed and may be actions which it is likely we have no idea about. That's why we are supposed to go to our brother or sister and speak to them face to face, and in love.
I'm thankful to God that this person has chosen to follow Jesus, has heard the call of God, and has been obedient to that call. I'm grateful they are in a place where they may be led to believe the whole gospel and led into all truth by the Holy Spirit.
Romans 14:13 - Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather determine this--not to put an obstacle or a stumbling block in a brother's way
Graeme
Melb Aust
Post a Comment