WorldNetDaily revealed that American leaders were infuriated by a Salvation Army’s International Social Justice Commission position paper accepting abortion in the cases of rape, incest or fatal fetal deformity in December.
Major George Hood, chief communications officer for Salvation Army USA, told WND that that the position statement had apparently been developed “through the London office that does not reflect the position we’ve taken in the U.S. on abortion,” and pointed towards the U.S. branch’s own statement, which is unequivocally pro-life.
The USA branch states: “The Salvation Army believes in the sanctity of all human life and considers each person to be of infinite value and each life a gift from God to be cherished, nurtured and redeemed. Human life is sacred because it is made in the image of God and has an eternal destiny. (Genesis 1:27) Sacredness is not conferred, nor can it be taken away by human agreement. The Salvation Army deplores society’s ready acceptance of abortion, which reflects insufficient concern for vulnerable persons, including the unborn. (Psalms 82:3-4)”
Hood said he was outraged at the international group’s statement, which declares that because “rape and incest are brutal acts of dominance violating women physically and emotionally,” such a situation “represents a special case for the consideration of termination as the violation may be compounded by the continuation of the pregnancy.”
It also states, “The Salvation Army believes that termination can occur only when carrying the pregnancy further seriously threatens the life of the mother, or reliable diagnostic procedures have identified a foetal abnormality considered incompatible with survival for more than a very brief post natal period.”
“When I read [the international group’s position] I was stunned,” Hood said. “When I saw the language, there was smoke coming out of both my ears.”
Rebecca Kiessling, an attorney and pro-life activist who was conceived in rape, called the pro-abortion statement “one of the most disheartening things I’ve seen.”
““The Salvation Army is all about rescuing treasures and trading beauty for ashes with the used clothes and household items people donate to them, but they can’t seem to do the same for rape victims and their children,” said Kiessling, who says she has donated to the popular charity group.
Hood told WND that the issue would be raised at the church’s international conference in February. “There will be correspondence sent objecting to this statement being released in the U.S., because it has no bearing in the U.S.,” he said.
____ _________________________________
PLEASE SHARE YOUR COMMENTS
50 comments:
I agree with the Americans!
The General should be ashamed of herself!
May God Have Mercy on us
Each to their own! The Salvation Army in the USA has always been apart from the wider international SA with internal powers and special privileges that not other territory in the world has. Its sheer financial clout and generous personnel support for world mission is known and much appreciated. This has also meant that sometimes it wants to impose on the rest of the Salvation Army conservative and right wing principles and practices that could well be totally out of line with advanced, more liberal or progressive western thinking elsewhere.
The USA Salvation Army as a church movement is tiny (approx 100.000 soldiers of which 50% are probably inactive. This is not very significant or appreciated as such. Its social and community work on the other hand is and therein lies its brand name strength. The world-wide SA is larger than its rather insular self-sufficient USA branch and it is only correct that any international statement reflects this.
I just can not believe that the latest intern ational statement on abortion came into being without the knowledge and active preparatory involvement of the USA national leadership and other North American personnel. Were they, as a minority out manouvered on the international scene by the majority as equals rather than superiors at home? Are they doing again what they did a few years again ( same sex social benefits) by trying to placate the ultra evangelical right wing dogmatists? Do they not have the guts and an ounce of integrity to stand apart with conviction rather than sup with those we have spiritually, doctrinally and dogmatically so little in common anyway? Are they so spineless? I do not believe that to be the case. So why then? I suppose protecting the mighty $$$$ income comes into play as well!
ACTIVE UK
AMEN UK ACTIVE!
I also think that it's wonderful that Ms. Kiessling's mother decided to carry her to full term (along with any other woman who made the same personal decision) but to impose such a decision on any other woman who has been raped (particularly in the early stages of her pregnancy)is a direct violation of human rights.
As an American I'm in complete agreement with the International SA's position. There's a BIG difference between the International Commission's statement and a lacksadaisical view of abortion as bith control or as a way to get rid of an inconvenience.
Though I have always loved the Army dearly, one of my own gripes with American officers and soldiers is that so many of them seem to think that they somehow have to impress the religious (and political) right in this country to have any validity as a Xian movement----and as UK Active correctly points out---many times in direct conflict with the Army's own doctrinal positions!
For instance I don't know how many stupid American Salvationist's I've met over the years who insist that one can not be a Xian without being a pre-millenial dispensationalist. When you explain to them that it is only one eschatological position among many and that TSA the same as most other denominations allows it's members the freedom to believe in whatever position they want to, they act as if you're a wolf in sheep's clothing ready to destroy all that the "Army" holds dear. I often wonder what some Training College officers this side of the pond must be teaching cadets!
Anyway, God Bless the General. She should NOT be ashamed of herself!
Daryl Lach
USA Central
"You Must Go Home by the Way of the Cross, To Stand with Jesus in the Morning!"
Whether or not the USA SA is afraid to bite the bullet or not is one thing, but to continue to put George Hood out front as spokesperson is a joke! He was on the O'Riley Factor a few years ago and didn't have a clue about the SA's position on same sex partnerships and benefits. My wife and I shook our heads in disbelief. And ever since I shiver in fear every time I see him heading toward a microphone.
Isn't there a uniformed professional out there somewhere that has the savvy and necessary presence to represent us?
SA Officer
USA West
I think this is a very brave and honest move by the Army and I for one congratulate the General for being compassionate in these areas. 'Except I am moved with compassion' Scripture also comes to mind: 'Judge not that ye be not judged' None of us know how we would feel or react if we were to be raped or abused. I thank God for an Army that in my opinion has been compassionate. I am prolife and hate the thought of abortion, am totally against it, but such circumstances are different and I think could help bring about much needed healing without laying on guilt. I don't dispute that it would be wrong for some women even in these circumstances to have an abortion but I thank God they can now make a prayerful decision and I believe the God I worship would honour and respect this.
Well, this is the latest in the downhill fall of TSA. Although I see the merits of this change in policy it does go against TSA's mission statement and beliefs from its inception in the mid 1800's. Seems to me that now there will be more dissention in the ranks and this will prove counter-productive to the Cause. Former- Canadian Territory
This is a touchy subject. One must remember how the Army operates and yet maybe it is time for change in the hierarchial system. Some edicts are world wide and others are regional or territorial. The USA does seem to operate at a different pace than London at times. In many cases I do wish we were more in line with one another. Abortion statements vary but communion is forbidden in all Army properties. something is wrong with the system. I see the Army often working out of disunity than unity and agreement.
As far as abortion we do know that the body aborts fetuses for various physical reasons.Do we as Christians have that choice ? If I had to choose between my wife and an unborn child I choose my wife to live. Is that sin ? I think the situation would be very rare where one would have to choose. Actually I think some form of birth control pills do cause a type of abortion just in case there is a pregnancy in the first stages of life (a few hours to days).
I am pro -life but I think that there may be rare instances of exception. I would not want to place a judgement call on a female that was raped or in a life or death medical situation. Many of us would not know until we would be in such a situation. I would hope that we all would seek God in our time of need.
USA former
I for one believe that abortion may at times be the lesser of two evils. That does not make it acceptable but does accept that in some instances it may be necessary to save the live of the mother. To expand that to include rape victims, however, does not in my opinion hold up to the test of acceptability. I believe that a fetus which is viable is live and there are strict guidelines in Scripture for when taking a live is acceptable.
I have always been against the policy that allowed SA Hospitals in Canada to perform abortions and view that this statement being released goes to far. Social Justice does not include allowing a mother to abort due to rape or incest. I am not yet convinced that it is allowable even for fetal deformity.
Natural abortions--that is miscarriages-happen regularly and I somehow think that God has hand in that but this new statement if accepted and promulgated as TSA Policy worldwide should be met with a rising up of the members of TSA to reject such.
John Stephenson
Former Canada and Bermuda
The Australian Territories statement on their website includes this: The Salvation Army supports efforts to protect and promote the welfare of the weak and defenceless person, including the unborn. It takes seriously the rights and needs of both the foetus and the mother. It accepts that termination of a pregnancy may be justified on certain limited grounds; that is, where, in the judgement of competent medical and allied staff, the pregnancy poses a serious threat to the life of the mother, or could result in irreversible physical injury to the mother. In cases of proven rape or legally defined incest an abortion may be justified because of the extent to which rape and incest violate the whole person. Termination of a pregnancy may also be justified where reliable diagnostic procedures determine that a foetal abnormality is present which is incompatible with life other than brief post-natal survival or where there is total absence of cognitive function.
I wonder if General Bond took these words as her new mantra when leaving Australia for the UK?!
Former
Australia
The writing is on the wall. There are very few truths found in scripture more plain than Christ's words on harming the innocents in the world. When any church begins to adapt truth to fit their priorities trouble is right behind. Judgement must begin in the house of God. We discard lives as easy as the fast-food trash in our cars.
Former
USA Central
And as I'm guessing you're talking about the International positional statement on abortion - just a reminder that's exactly what it says (almost word for word).
FORMER
USA Central
Very sad to see IHQ's new stand on abortion.
FORMER UK
After reading tis blog, can this be a parting of the ways of the different territories, if not there is deffinately a rift in their beliefs. A sad day indeed. The cracks are bad for the army
former Canada
I also find the new statement to be one that concerns me and should concern all of us. Maybe it is time for a rising up of the members of TSA to resist this type of statement.
Former Canada
15 hours ago · Like
The new statement out of IHQ is more than just disheartening. It does not reflect the views of a majority of Salvationists, in my view.
This never should have been released before international review. IHQ needs to remember where its funding comes from!
FORMER OFFICER
USA East
Let us be careful how or whom we condemn or judge with regards to this statement. I believe that there are some who belong to the FSAOF whose opinions might differ greatly from those already expressed and it would be a pity for this to create a schism in our fellowship. It is enlightening to read the comments and put them alongside my own beliefs. A good way to create constructive thinking / criticism in my own life. Thank you
Former officer
Australia
If the different territories have a "parting of the ways", that will be in my view the end of TSA as it exists today. It is disheartening to read this statement and to wonder who was actually involved in the writing of same. If other national leaders were not given input then this is sad although not surprising. TSA is after all not a democratic organization.
While it is also easy to condem things we do not agree with or even understand I will always live by the creed -"Walk a mile in my shoes...." Until you are a woman who has been affected by any of the 'new' situations that now 'allow' abortion you cannot possibly understand the turmoil. We all answer to God for our own actions not the actions of others.
Former
USA SOUTH
The Australian Territory's statement on their website includes this: The Salvation Army supports efforts to protect and promote the welfare of the weak and defenceless person, including the unborn. It takes seriously the rights and needs of both the foetus and the mother. It accepts that termination of a pregnancy may be justified on certain limited grounds; that is, where, in the judgement of competent medical and allied staff, the pregnancy poses a serious threat to the life of the mother, or could result in irreversible physical injury to the mother.
In cases of proven rape or legally defined incest an abortion may be justified because of the extent to which rape and incest violate the whole person. Termination of a pregnancy may also be justified where reliable diagnostic procedures determine that a foetal abnormality is present which is incompatible with life other than brief post-natal survival or where there is total absence of cognitive function. http://salvos.org.au/about-us/overview/documents/tsa-positional-statements-Part2-abortion.pdf
former SA officer
Australia
Although I agree that rape and incest are terrible crimes against humanity, I'm totally baffled by IHQ's actions here. Don't they know what the Territories are saying? If IHQ was on the ball, this would never have happened. What were they thinking?
Former now CoE ministry
UKT
So all of you who are against this would force the mother of a child born to rape or incest to go full term in pregnancy?
Former USA
YES!
USA Central
Always interesting to see very down the line anti abortionist MEN. It has been my observation that people who hold strong which ever side views on this subject miss any sense of the Father heart of God and his pain for both mother & child. This is not a clear pro or anti subject but one which includes pain on every side. It is one that is too easy to push our view into areas we have place to go and I believe the Social Justice Committee is honouring that.
Former NZ
Summing up the International statement as saying Abortion is OK albeit in limited circumstances (such as seems to me what is being done here) is over simplistic - it says far more (not least that it should only be considered in EXTREME limited circumstances, should be counselled against, but that love should be shared with those making these very difficult decisions AND more besides).
One under authority (both heavenly and ecclesiastically).
An active current SA soldier and a former UK officer.
- Let's not forget to love (all)
I think that in cases of rape and incest or life and death instances of the mother that the termination of life should be up to the individual.If I recall a DNC within 48 hours of pregnancy would terminate the zygote. I know that this often does not take place because of various circumstances. I consider myself pro-life but feel that the above mentioned circumstances should be elective. I have heard of rape victims having children and that they matured into wonderful adults.It makes us all wonder (what to do in these cases). I would not desire to be the one to tell a female that she had to have a child from rape or incest. Yes it is a life in the womb but who would willingly desire to be in such a situation ? This is touchy stuff. Many would not know what to do unless they were in such situations. We all can be very judgemental. I agree with the death penalty is some cases but also feel that should also be an exception instead of the norm.
What husband if the circumstances were presented, would choose a child instead of their wife ? I would choose my wife to live. Granted such cases would be very rare with new technology today. Befor we judge peoples opinions and beliefs or actions, we need to understand what it would be like to be in their situation. Protect life , but which one ? Can we do this in a 100% fashion ? Not every one will be satisfied with any statement on abortion or the protection of life. The situation that presents itself now is will there be a rift between leadership and territories ? We shall see.
USA former
I think we need to be very careful here and look at the source of the original article and how it probably has been trying to manipulate and compromise the USA Salvation Army, in particular its rather naive USA press spokesman. Reported words may well have been put into his mouth or taken out of context, who knows whether the spewing is kosher and is intentioned to cause discontent.
I think Kiessler (whoever she is)confirmed what I have said earlier on about what the Army is best known for in the USA - old clothes and old furniture recycling through its Thrift Stores. Sad perceptions really.......
There has always been great tension in keeping the USA Salvation Army under the overall direction of a London based directorate. One of the reasons that Evangeline Booth became a naturalised USA citizen was that she would become more acceptable and the Army to be perceived as American rather than just being a branch of the UK. This could also be said, to lesser extent, of the schisms and formations of independent national SA's in Sweden (1905) and the Netherlands (1921.
It think it was Arnold Brown who said that the most difficult task of any General is to keep the SA together as an international unit under equally binding international regulations. This is nothing new! One can go back to the earliest days of the Army and look at how not a few of Booth's children went their own way by forming their own organisational structures.
I like to say it again, I just can not believe that the USA SA leadership was not consulted on, participated in and then agreed to the final version to be released....there are some not so clever power games being played out here to protect the home turf in order to please a narrow bigotted right wing mindset.
The vast majority of western Salvationists are perfectly rational in their thinking, educated and able to make up their own mind on such matters of life and death. Remember it is only an international organisational positional statement and members/ officers are allowed to keep their own integrity intact whatever way.
What would you do with a female soldier who has decided on an abortion against your better judgement? Take her off the roll as unworthy?, make her an outcast? make her repent? Banish her to outer mongolia...God forbid!!!
ACTIVE UK
The USA SA Statement is stone cold, matter of fact, limited and naive and does not deal with any practical, human, emotional, compassionate and reflective concerns of any individual who finds herself in predicament. At least IHQ has build a case, underpinned it and shows the process as to why it has come to the conclusion it did.
BRAVO!!
USA STATEMENT
“The Salvation Army believes in the sanctity of all human life and considers each person to be of infinite value and each life a gift from God to be cherished, nurtured and redeemed. Human life is sacred because it is made in the image of God and has an eternal destiny. (Genesis 1:27) Sacredness is not conferred, nor can it be taken away by human agreement. The Salvation Army deplores society’s ready acceptance of abortion, which reflects insufficient concern for vulnerable persons, including the unborn. (Psalms 82:3-4)”
ACTIVE UK
I'm probably not suppose to know this so I'm going to keep my identity anonymous but just to add more fuel to the fire I understand that in fact the USA Ethics committee DID in the last two years approve of the International positional statement after it was presented to them by the International Justice Committee. (though there was a small minority of nays.) So everyone needs to lighten up on Commissioner Christine McMillan and the General.
Not only did those two dames do nothing wrong procedurally but I for one congratulate them on being compassionate and standing up to the often times far right wing of both the evangelical world and TSA in America.
As far as there being a schism over this don't bet the rent money on it. We're no longer in the early pre-institutionalized days of TSA.
Will some people leave over it and declare that the Army is going to Hell in a handbasket? Probably. But then again what's new??!!
USA Central
George Hood? nice guy. met him once along with his wife over breakfast a few years ago.
I'd rather hear from women officers/salvationist regarding this issue not TSA's PR guy!!! Every President, Territorial, Divisional Women's Ministries Secretary should be shouting from the rooftop on this issue. Some of the Army's best men are WOMEN! NOT GEORGE HOOD!
Greater New York, USA East.
I agree with one of the UK Actives who said that it is probable that the USA leadership was aware of and agreed to this statement. The sentiments in this 'new' statement are not new. Many Territories around the world have had this in their statements for well over a decade. The international statement IS agreed to by ALL Territories before it is released. Either George Hood is acting alone, or there are serious power games being played out in the USA.
I very much agree with the statement - always have done. Don't forget - God also created us with Free Will - and He respects that in us - and still loves us and gives us His grace and salvation in spite of it.
Perhaps the USA should either pull it's head in, or come clean with its' true intentions, and stop the power games. It did after all, agree to the statement, and did so over a decade ago. Surely George Hood is not so naive as to not understand the process of TSA in his own territory, or to understand the decisions that have been historically made, or currently made in his own territory.
Former Australian East
Let's also get some clarity around the process of these statements. MASIC (Moral And Social Issues Council), who writes these statements, are not done in isolation by a couple of Officers in Ivory Towers. They are made up of Officers and Non-Officers, Lay personnel, Experts in various fields (including various fields of medicine) etc. ALL people associated with TSA are invited to offer their opinion, either in writing, or can request to address the board in person. As a cadet, I sat on a couple of these boards. They are truly agonised over. Ever full stop is debated, every comma, use of every word is debated. Every aspect of the statement is debated. The submissions, sometimes numbering in the hundreads, are all read and considered, before a statement is made, and decision agreed. Then it goes through the same process at IHQ before is approved for that territory. The IHQ boards have a similar process, with representatives from all territories etc. So this debate is absolute nonsense unless you think that either George Hood is operating alone, or their are serious power games going on.
Yours in Christ,
Former Australian East
I think heads should roll, for the total lack of loyalty and miss-truths that would be known they were not accurate actual explanations of internal international TSA procedures. Perhaps even moving national and territorial US leaders. Included in this should be moves beyond this far more serious issue to other areas where the US seem to be going it alone and then when transferred to another overseas territory taking their out dated (possibly odd) ideas with them - like SSOs. Same rules should apply to all.
I am intrigued that this issue has blown up now; why is everybody is assuming that it’s something so new? Is it because the International MASIC was discontinued some years ago and has now been reconstituted, so that it is re-issuing Positional Statements?
The 1990 IHQ Positional Statement on Abortion included the words
“In cases of proven rape or legally defined incest an abortion may be justified because of the extent to which rape and incest violate the whole person.”
The 2000 USA Statement did not include these words.
The 2005 New Zealand Positional Statement (and I have some knowledge of this as I was Chairman of the New Zealand MASIC at the time) included the following:
“Termination of a pregnancy may be justified on certain limited grounds where:
• the pregnancy could result in serious physical injury or threat to the life of the mother, or
• there is a foetal anomaly which is incompatible with post-natal survival, or
• the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest.”
That statement, like all national statements, was then vetted by IHQ and approved by the then Chief of the Staff, who was an American – as is the present CoS, who would have approved the current international statement.
Would it be helpful to remember that Moral and Social Positional Statements are guidelines and not binding on any Salvationist? No-one signed up to them in their Soldier’s Covenant.
I think Major Hood was being somewhat disingenuous in his statement – surely he cannot be unaware of this history or of the usual national and international processes – and suspect that the correspondent who suggested internal USA religious politics as the reason for this was quite correct.
Harold Hill, Retired, New Zealand.
A comment when we posted several articles on "inclusivity"
‘The international SA world were kept informed’ on the SA and homosexuality through reading your blog pages. We are confident that this issue will haunt us, intermittently, for the simple reason that we do not acknowledge our own faith straight out.'
Is this not yet again a biblical issue on which we ought to present a common stand and not seek to be culturally relevant? Why the clumsy attempt to straddle the fence?
Thank you Major Harold Hill for enlightening us all about the SA's earlier positional statements and the recent attempts at 're-establishing' protocol.
Would the 'Clashing of theology with cashology' be a suitable title?
USA DHQ
This happened a year ago:
A girl 12 yrs old, was raped on her way home from some YP activity. She became pregnant and a very early abortion followed. Do you pro-life extremists really think the best solution for her should have been to fulfil the pregnancy and be a 13 yr old mother???
Former Sweden
My grandson is a product of rape and he serves the Lord on the mission field. Nuff Said.
Former USA
I know there is research on this somewhere if I can find it... but abortion on rape victims is one more trauma and assault on their bodies...it does not heal them it further victimizes them ...SHAME on TSA "social justice" commission...also it opens the door to interpretation for the "medical experts" to determine what condition is viable for life ...as some believe downs syndrome etc. are "choices" that could be made....
FORMER SOLDIER
Ps 139:13 "For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb"
Active
London, UK
Looking at TSA position statement regarding abortion, and this is the 2000 IHQ statement and as such, applicable to TSA USA or is there a separate 'branch statement'?.
Quote: 'TSA recognises tragic and perplexing circumstances that require difficult decisions regarding a pregnancy. Such decisions should be made only after prayerful and thoughtful consideration, with appropriate involvement of the woman's family and pastoral, medical and other counsel. A woman in these circumstances needs acceptance, love and compassion'.
That doesn't sound 'unequivocally pro-life' as stated by Commissioner Hood.
USA KY
To "Anonymous FORMER SOLDIER" who posted on Friday, 06 January, 2012 the research you know there is on this somewhere you might just find at the bottom of the International positional statement which makes just your point but in a more caring way.
While my heart goes out to the victims of rape and incest, several points need to be made. First, why is it that we are signing off on killing the one person in this entire scenario who is absolutely 100% innocent - the child? This is the most disturbing aspect to this entire discussion. I know some will say I am "blaming the victim" but nothing could be further from the truth. Women who have been violated in this way deserve all the compassion and support that can possibly be provided, but giving her "cover" to destroy a life is not really helping. It is setting her up for a lifetime of guilt and depression. Secondly, I am ashamed that the Army is giving in to this manipulative tactic so often used by leftists: take a very rare exception and use it to wedge the door open so that later more and more morally repugnant ideas can be smuggled in. The number of such cases is actually a very small fraction of the total, yet this is the proverbial camel's nose inside the tent to desensitize us to greater and greater acceptance of other types of sin down the road. We are often mocked for raising the "slippery slope" argument, but this is precisely what is happening here. Thirdly, I am saddened to read in these comments those who have been deceived into thinking this really will be restricted to mothers whose physical life is endangered. As we have repeated seen in recent decades, the definition of mother's life gets stretced beyond all recognition. It has been stretched to include the mother's "mental health" and in some cases even "financial health.' Sorry, I am not buying into that. Finally, I am furious that IHQ has publicly announced this change in policy without bothering to consult other territories which are going to be hugely impacted by its fallout. The Lord will hold us to account whenever we fail to stand for the most innocent and defenseless of all.
Stephen...
You certainly make some valid points and I like to repeat what I wrote earlier on:
"I just can not believe that the latest intern ational statement on abortion came into being without the knowledge and active preparatory involvement of the USA national leadership and other North American personnel. Were they, as a minority out manouvered on the international scene by the majority as equals rather than superiors at home? Are they doing again what they did a few years again ( same sex social benefits) by trying to placate the ultra evangelical right wing dogmatists? Do they not have the guts and an ounce of integrity to stand apart with conviction rather than sup with those we have spiritually, doctrinally and dogmatically so little in common anyway? Are they so spineless? I do not believe that to be the case. So why then? I suppose protecting the mighty $$$$ income comes into play as well!"
Keep well
ACTIVE UK
I, for one, am getting extremely weary of the constant throwing of the epithet "right wing extremist" by so many in this comment thread. It seems John the Baptist would be considered a "right wing extremist" by many of our brethren, as would Isaiah, Nathan, Jeremiah, Amos and a host of other biblical figures who stood strongly and unapoligetically against sin. So too, apparently, would Charles Whitfield, Jonathan Edwards, John and Charles Wesley and, yes, our own Founder. All of these were people who took Scripture seriously and thus refused to compromise with evil. But today we have become so "sensitive", so "understanding", so "openminded" that our brains fall out. We can't stand to be criticized for taking a stand, so little by little we trim a bit here and a bit there... and before we know it, we look no different than the world we are called to save. Why should they care what we say if it doesn't differ from what they say?
If holding to the truth of Scripture that God values EVERY life makes me a "right wing extremist", then I wear that as a badge of honor!
One more thing... I am not ashamed to put my name to my statement rather than hiding in anonymity.
Former Officer
USA Central
Pardon one further comment from me, but just a word for those wanting to throw the book at General Bond... If you take the trouble to read through the Positional Statement on the International Social Justice website, you will see that it was signed off in November 2010, a couple of months before General Bond was elected and five months before she took office. Cool it, friends.
Harold Hill
According to some, scripture has to be followed exactly with no reference to interpretation according to when why or to whom it is written. So we should have no qualms at smashing the heads of our enemies babies against rocks. (Psalm 137:8-9 - http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+137%3A8-9&version=CEV)
We should be wary of making a complex situation simple with pat answers.
Stephen wrote:
'It seems John the Baptist would be considered a "right wing extremist" by many of our brethren, as would Isaiah, Nathan, Jeremiah, Amos and a host of other biblical figures who stood strongly and unapoligetically against sin.So too, apparently, would Charles Whitfield, Jonathan Edwards, John and Charles Wesley and, yes, our own Founder'
I think you are perceptively correct and hit the nail right on the head! Many of these guys were just horrible oddballs with a strong sense of self importance and above all 'never wrong', in other words, 'always right' - which meant that everyone else is always 'wrong' as there can only be one 'right' and since I am absolutely right then you must be absolutely wrong. To associate too closely with such folks is soul and faith destroying as they lecture and are not willing to listen because they can not be taught anything new for they know it all and are experts at circular reasoning.
To the point....many of those so-called righteous biblical and non-biblical' worthies' were just religious bigots and having extremely dysfunctional family lives. Reading through the OT, there are not a few who committed heinous and hideous recorded and non-recorded crimes with no concern whatsoever for any sacredness of God given life. You could mirror that to certain self-righteous ultra 'Christian' personalities today! Bah humbug hypocritical I would say;);)
Ps...Is it not wonderful that the international Salvation Army is a broad enough Christian Church to contain a wide variety of people with such different notions? Including yours and mine?
Go well
ACTIVE UK
This irretractable, irrefutable, holier than thou, I am always right and you are always wrong, there is no reason or purpose for interpretation, science, thinking or circumstance is why I had to walk away from TSA. And pretty much Christianity. I cannot identify with it anymore. There appears to be no room for post modern thinking or quite frankly even differing opinions.
I'm going out on a limb here to say I am pro-choice. Please note, I did not say pro-abortion. I said pro-choice. My choice, your choice, their choice. Hard choices. Hard, hard choices. How dare you presume for another.
Freedom from legalism. Freedom in Christ.
The issue of abortion is a touchy one. People can say all they want and have all types of positional statements,but when it comes to the personal life situations , things seem to change. I considered myself Pro-life but if a situation stared me in the face such as a 12 year old raped and pregnant, or the life of a mother in a serious life threatening situation, I would consider giving advice to abort. If my wife was pregnant and I was presented with a choice for her to live or our unborn child , I would choose for my wife to live. Granted these situations are rare and probably will not be seen in my life but we never know. At times we have to choose some unpleasant decisions.
Many years ago we were presented with the statement by my mother's doctor, "You have 5 minutes to decide if you want her to stay on life support or to die". Point blank. Mom had cancer and had suffered enough. She had told us to let her go if this situation happened. We had many thoughts and emotions but we had to remind ourselves that she would be ushered into eternity with the Lord and have no more suffering. We could have extended her life perhaps an hour or a month. Are we murderers for having done what we did ? I know this does not relate to abortion other than deciding who lives and how long , or whatever. It is complicated and many feelings of emotion follow our thoughts.
If someone wants to hold to the position that there is no abortion in any case then that is their choice but I personally believe there are exceptions. They should be extremely rare. Options should be discussed and compassion is needed in abundance. As far as aborting a child for convenience or for reasons of finance or emotions , I disagree with
aborting. I do recognize that this does open up a door for interpretation , but you have that in capital punishment and in other moral and ethical issues anyway.
Regardless of our stand and belief and practice, we must all answer to the One who will judge us and Who knows our feelings , thoughts , and our hearts.
Bob,
USA former
Dear, 'irretractable, irrefutable, holier than thou, I am always right and you are always wrong, there is no reason or purpose for interpretation, science, thinking or circumstance is why I had to walk away from TSA', I shared your journey until I found a truly loving salvationist fellowship 2 years ago; the FSAOF. It was no accident that God led me here- I used the search words SA officer and healing. The rest is history.
Former
USA East
Home Page purchase valium diazepam - valium online prescriptions
Post a Comment