The problem persists in the Salvation Army, of
today. In which way can we include GLBT persons in our fellowship without
creating groupings; an A team and a B team? How can the Corps offer (church)
membership in the Salvation Army in a positive manner that allows GLBT persons
to feel valued, appreciated and loved by both the corps fellowship
(soldiers/adherents) and also by the God to Whom the fellowship is showing
(leading) the way.
Somewhere in this discussion one must remember
that the Salvation Army has traditionally been the spokesperson for the
marginalized. GLBT persons with Christian beliefs are often ‘doubly
marginalized’. They are both excluded from the Christian community because of
their sexual orientation, but often also excluded from the GLBT community due
their grounding in the Christian faith.
In the Salvation Army soldiership is in
itself problematic; we apply vague/weak and double morality standards concerning
the various ‘offenses’ that exclude one from soldiership status. It appears
that as it concern this there are several different options from which to
choose.
Firstly, we can say that soldiership is
open to all regardless of lifestyle and it is up to each one who enters into
soldiership that they will to their best ability seek to interpret God's will and live a
pure and holy life. This solution makes it possible for GLBT persons to become
soldiers and makes civilians membership (adherents status) quite unnecessary. This
solution (interpretation/ reading) on the other hand, allows for alcoholics,
smokers, gamblers, people who abuse pornography, to become soldiers as well.
Then it falls on the local pastor (an officer with the gift of pastoring or BOSC - Board of Spiritual Care) to guide each one, in good faith, to a whole life
(integrity) before God.
Secondly, we insist that soldiership is
a lifestyle choice, (as it’s defined and appears today) one not compatible with
GLBT persons who choose to live out their sexuality. If one chooses this path one
must also ensure that soldiership is also observed in all other respects.
Adherent membership is offered today (as an alternative) to others seeking a
corps community membership. (But then one should probably review the wording of
the description of Adherency, see below)
Thirdly, one can select to remove the
soldiership status and instead simply have a membership status where holiness
is not a requirement but rather (a fellowship) wherein faith in Jesus is what
unites us and binds us together. In common with the first solution this places responsibility
on the local pastor who will engage with each member working out what this
means individually in every person's life.
With regard to Adherency membership, (Existing
civilian membership) this is already problematic. The (Swedish) leaflet
explaing Adherence membership reads; "Civilian membership is full
membership in the Salvation Army as a Christian community." It further
states; "Being a member means you are offered corps’ ceremonies (are
freely available) such as baby blessings/dedications, confirmations, weddings
and funerals." This means that a GLBT person as a civilian member is
promised the offer of both a marriage ceremony and baby dedication.
Of course one can argue that according to the
SA a marriage not a marriage unless it is between a man and a woman but do we not
then do exactly what the SA was accused of in the TV show Cold Facts: come with
empty words; everyone is treated equally. This especially given the fact that
the marriage ceremony is not instituted explicitly in the Bible but is rather, a
tradition we have added to the Bible through methodical exegesis and our normal
hetero interpretation of the scriptures
In addition, marriage is enshrined as one
of our inalienable human rights in the UN Universal Declaration of Human
Rights. (Http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml # A16)
Without any exaggeration it can be said
that the Salvation Army is facing a huge assignment regardless of the route one
choose to take in the future relative to GLBT issues. If we as a denomination
want to take a more positive inclusive approach it requires repentance and
thorough, in-depth, strategic Bible teaching at all levels.
If we choose to go in the other direction it
requires ransacking, repentance and a culling of the current soldiers and
officers in order to resolve what we in our Orders and Regulations say that we
stand for.
What is clear is that we as a denomination
have to initiate a debate and bring this discussion to all levels, both in
public and within the corps walls, both on the local level and the cabinet (SA
leadership council).
VISIT OLTERMAN'S BLOG
http://warcry.olterman.se/
If we as the Salvation Army want to be both open to embrace the oppressed and continue to be a holiness movement, we must engage in lengthy and giving discussions about how we should live in and manage the tension between these concepts.
VISIT OLTERMAN'S BLOG
http://warcry.olterman.se/


5 comments:
Mackan Andersson (SA officer) has written a few blog posts about The Salvation Army and the GLBT issues… he also refers to Patrik Olterman’s (SA officer) blog series on the same issues and where Patrik prosits similar thoughts.
Mackan concludes that, as a Salvation Army officer he may not conduct marriage ceremonies of same-sex couples following SA dictates, and as a consequence, must decline observing the Swedish marriage law.
It is an interesting and unusual conclusion. Typically the response is quite the opposite. A number of priests in the Swedish (Lutheran) Church attempted to renounce the marriage law because they do not want to participate in or conduct same-sex marriages. The same reasoning has been voiced among the evangelical free churches. And there are many voices being raised by the Churches stating that they will renounce the marriage law if in the future they are forced to marry same-sex couples. But Mackan, a SA officer arrives at completely the opposite conclusion; he does not have the right to perform same-sex marriages because he is not allowed to by SA orders and regulations (positional statement)
More to follow…
Lt. Peter Baronowsky
Regional Commander, TSA Latvia
I do believe one of the problems (indirectly related to the topic) is that officers use various standards for memebership around the world. The adherent issue can cause problems especially when people do not understand what it is for. We should be reminded of the "pastoral" care that people need and the proper and adequate indoctination and expectation of soldiers. Becoming a soldier is not the same as "joining a church for memebership". Soldiers were meant to be a spiritual fighting force for the kingdom.
USA Former
Peter, as I stated on Mackans blog as well, renouncing your right to perform the wedding does not deal with the issue. If you have LGBTQ members in the congregation they will ask for a blessing over their union after their civil marriage.
(and the thoughts on my blog are not similar but identical as the article above is a translation from my blog)
This truly is a very good series.
Is this being circulated more widely - sent to the General, TC's, MASIC's around the world? I think it really needs to be. The debate on this topic really needs to be had - like it is being thrashed out in the Church of England etc.
Yours in Christ
Graeme Randall
Former Australian East in London
A very fine posting regarding this issue, presenting one aspect that I had not considered. Thank you.
Post a Comment