Anyone
who comes to The Salvation Army will receive assistance based solely on their
need and our capacity to provide help. We work with people who are
vulnerable and marginalised across the world, and offer very practical help,
unconditional assistance and support regardless of race, religion, gender or
sexual orientation.
We
employ a large number of people of other faiths, cultures and varying sexual
orientation and we respect and value the rich diversity of our staff and the
communities in which we serve.
Interdenominational and
interfaith work
The
Salvation Army works to promote interdenominational and interfaith
collaboration across the UK and Ireland. In August 2014 our Territorial
Commander Clive Adams signed a letter to The Telegraph alongside other leaders
from the Christian, Hindu, Islamic and Jewish faiths to condemn the
‘crimes against humanity’ taking place in Iraq. This united stand by
multi-faith movements was followed by a vigil in September 2014 at Westminster
Abbey, where representatives of The Salvation Army joined other senior
religious leaders to affirm solidarity with the people of Iraq. Underlying our
work with ecumenical and interfaith work is a belief in the common humanity and
equality of all people.
Catering for learning
and physical disabilities
Furthermore,
we believe each person is intentionally created in the image of God (Genesis
1:27). This means everyone is of infinite worth. Living in this world can
involve pain, suffering and varying degrees of disability but this does not diminish
the value of life. We strive to include and involve anyone with a learning or
physical disability within our day to day activities, and aim to make
adjustments and provide support to enable anyone to access everything we
provide.
Condemning homophobia
The
Salvation Army stands against homophobia, which victimises people and can
reinforce feelings of alienation, loneliness and despair. We aim to be an
inclusive church where members of the LGBT community find welcome and the
encouragement to develop their relationship with God.
A
diverse range of views on homosexuality may exist within The Salvation Army –
as among the wider Christian (and non-Christian) community. But no matter where
individual Salvationists stand on this matter, The Salvation Army does not
permit discrimination on the basis of sexual identity in the delivery of its
services or in its employment practices.
Gender equality
"I
insist on the equality of women with men,” said our founder William Booth in
1908. “Every officer and soldier should insist upon the truth that woman
is as important, as valuable, as capable and as necessary to the progress and
happiness of the world as man.”
As
The Salvation Army became established, so women were given leadership responsibilities.
Catherine Booth, William’s wife, fought to expand the role for women in church
and public life, advocating better conditions and pay for women workers in
London’s sweated labour, most notably in the match-making industry. In the
early days of The Army, women were sent to open new corps (churches), while
others started social work among the women of the streets. By 1878
there were nearly equal numbers of women officers (41) as there were men
officers (49). William’s daughters are great examples of how important women
were in the early development of The Army. Catherine (Kate) pioneered work
France, while Emma became the principal of the first Army training home for
women, Evangeline became the first female international leader (General) of The
Salvation Army and Lucy led the Army’s work in India, Denmark, Norway and South
America.
This commitment to
equality remains today.
15 comments:
Inclusivity? The SA's position remains unchanged. A gay person's, including a gay or lesbian Salvationist in a monogamous relationship, welcome and inclusivity ends with the 'welcome sergeant'. Any suggestion that you are welcome to join and celebrate by joining a musical section, share in meeting leadership, Bible studies is pure rubbish.
Now, I note this clear declaration :
" The Salvation Army does not permit discrimination on the basis of sexual identity in the delivery of its services or in its employment practices. "
To me, this means that the Army let it self be free to let the discrimination in the membership question to continue.
I do not see this to be solved in any near future, sorry to say!
To me, as I'm quite liberal in my Christian faith, it's a pity that the Army has leaned towards to Conservative, evangelical part of Christianity.
Though, I know there's a lot Salvationists around the world who questions the Army's stans in those matters.
Kjell Edlund
Former officer of the Salvation army
God's messengers session 1980-82
Sweden
Give me a break! Nothing new whatsoever.
You've lost whatever enthusiasm you might once have had on the inclusivity of LGBT folk in the Army. It's not a question of your effectiveness having been sabotaged by some dramatic failure or reluctance to speak out. It's something far more prosaic—complacency and settling for evangelical mediocrity.
Gay, Former Officer serving in a mainline denomination in a multitude of fellowship and leadership roles
; respected and valued
Well, that time has come beginning in Jesus’ day and growing in numbers each century since. Progressive Christianity (sometimes known as emergence Christianity) is a movement that is swelling in numbers day by day. It is one of the movements behind many churches that now accept homosexuality as normal and allow Gay pastors. It is also a movement that accepts other religions as being acceptable for a relationship with God. It is a movement that downplays many biblical admonitions considering them outdated thus their title as “progressive.” Popularity rules with progressives and not the truth. Societal issues are determined by numbers rather than God’s truth. Inclusivity is the norm and exclusivity is hated.
This aberrant faux Christian movement’s primary scriptures to defend their love for people are found in the Bible and says, “These things I command you, that you love one another.” John 15:17Open in Logos Bible Software (if available) or “Love your neighbor as yourself,” Matthew 22:36-40Open in Logos Bible Software (if available). Because of this love, progressives take this to mean not to offend anyone even if it’s a biblical commandment. The word sin itself becomes offensive to the progressive or at least watered down. And repentance is no where to be found. Spiritual rebirth or regeneration is not necessary to the progressive because all you have to do is “love one another” and God will accept you. Some examples of biblical beliefs that are ignored by progressives and replaced with their own theology are the following:
Jesus is the only way to God (John 14:6Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)) – progressives believe that Jesus is one of many ways to God
The Bible is the authoritative Word of God (2 Timothy 3:16Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)) – progressives believe that the Bible shouldn’t be taken literally
Man must be born-again and saved through God’s grace only (John 3:3Open in Logos Bible Software (if available) and Ephesians 2:8-9Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)) – progressives believe that one is eventually saved through good works
Only those who receive Christ can be called children of God (John 1:12Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)) – progressives believe all people are already children of God
Bible teaches absolute truth and not up to the private interpretation of its writers (John 17:17Open in Logos Bible Software (if available) and 2 Peter 1:20-21Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)) – progressives believe there is no absolute truth, but whatever your truth is considered the truth.
We are to make disciples of the whole nation (Matthew 28:19-20Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)) – progressives believe that since only God can draw man to Himself (right), then we are not to be involved in converting people (wrong).
Homosexuality is a sin (Leviticus 18:22Open in Logos Bible Software (if available) and Romans 1:26-27Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)) – progressives refuse to believe that the bible even teaches this belief. That somehow the scriptures are misunderstood and taken out of context; or that the admonitions against homosexuality don’t apply to our time.
God created male and female with different purposes (Ephesians 5:22-33Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)) – progressives believe that there are no boundaries in genders. Women are told not to submit to anyone.
God created the Universe (Genesis 1:1Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)) – progressives believe evolution is not incompatible to Christianity
God never changes (Malachi 3:6Open in Logos Bible Software (if available) and Hebrews 13:8Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)) – progressives believe God’s word changes with societal changes
Thank you, Poster @ 4. I too am becoming increasingly uncomfortable with the progressive element that is creeping into our churches. There is another side to Christianity besides love - it's Christian discipline. We seem to have completely lost sight of this element of our faith. It's a me, me, me, gimme, gimme, gimme scenario these days, and what we want, we get at any cost. Someone in an earlier article said they could not understand this site's obsession with LGBT issues. But even though this article did not specifically state LGBT - it also referred to learning and physical disabilities - it is only the LGBT issue that has been commented on so far.
The Army's not so hot in dealing with other marginalised people either. Is a drunk person welcome at our meetings? Is a smelly person welcome? It's not all about what LGBT people need.
I think the issue that commenters 4 and 5 are really getting at is the difference between a relativistic philosophy and an absolutist philosophy. We have been, in my opinion, been on the wrong track, ever since absolute truth has started being replaced by relative truth.
John Stephenson
Canada and Bermuda Former
Let me reflect on what I am reading in the article “Inclusion in the SA – Anything new here?” The first paragraph is fine, it states what is “officially” opposed and a lack of “scriptural” support. In the next paragraph is stated how people are treated by The Salvation Army when they come seeking help and assistance. Now, let me declare that I am a 76 year old gay man, and that means I read this paragraph with a good dose of skepticism. My skepticism is based in human nature. I mean by that how in the world can the SA state that everyone will have all the help and assistance from the SA, if the person sitting there is repulsed by the very thought of having to deal with someone who is gay? In my view, it goes against human nature to expect someone to give a 100% effort to help or assist someone, whose life-style causes them revulsion. Therefore that statement sound nice, but is hardly what happens in real life.
The statement on “homophobia” again sounds good, but in practice, means next to nothing. How can I say this? Simply from my own experience. I am at present a soldier in a Corps in Sweden, where the CO has a – what I'll call a “traditional” - view of what the Bible has to say on the subject of homosexuality. When I wrote an article, which I ending by saying I saw a day coming when the Army, would accept gay marriages, he took that immediately to mean that I was living in such a relationship. How he could make that assumption, I really don't understand, but he did. Let me give a little more background to what I am saying. He has been in my home, before he read this article, and he should have been able to observe that there was no hint of anyone else sharing my apartment. My health is not the best, that means that home maker services, visit my home a number of times a day, to give me help and assistance. In any case his assumption caused a number of email exchanges between me and this officer as well as our CS. All of this because he thought I was living in an active sexual relationship with someone else, it didn't seem to matter that the law of the land permits such a thing as a gay marriage, nor that I might (which I wasn't) be in a loving same sex relationship. In his understanding, and as an “official” SA policy, that fact would have meant that I could not be a soldier in the SA.
This officer says that he considers himself as an “open” type person, very tolerant of others and their life-styles, but he couldn't accept, as a soldier in his corps, a person who had been enrolled as a soldier 59 years earlier, and now was transferring his soldiership. He has no problem being welcoming to a gay couple that attend the corps, but are not soldiers nor adherents, that's OK, but it is a totally different matter when it has to do with being accepting of a soldier who is in a same-sex loving relationship, which is approved by the society in which they live.
What then do the words: “We aim to be an inclusive church where member of the LGBT community find a welcome and the encouragement to develop their relationship with God” mean? I submit that they are meaningless. It is my view, that Scripture says nothing – absolutely nothing – on a loving same-sex relationship. The Bible has something to say about homosexual actions, but not action conducted with a loving same-sex relationship. In fact there are 2 possible passages if Scripture that might be interpreted as viewing in a positive light a loving same-sex relationship. One is the story of Jonathan and David the other Ruth and Naomi. Jonathan was the son of King Saul and one can read the following words said by King Saul to his son Jonathan: (1Sa 20:30 BBE) “Then Saul was moved to wrath against Jonathan, and he said to him, You son of an evil and uncontrolled woman, have I not seen how you have given your love to the son of Jesse, to your shame and the shame of your mother?” Makes you wonder about our reading and interpreting of what Scripture actually teaches on this subject, doesn't it?
Dear dear Lord Jesus! Your story is a clear proof of what I'm saying in my earlier post.
The truly sad thing is that you are not the first, nor the least to have this sad experience.
An inclusive church, hey??
There is a great deal of hypocrisy in The Salvation Army, and that goes from the top down! As a son of the regiment my parents did not deprive me of knowing any of the Army's dirty linen, past or present. I am a veritable storehouse of information as to which officers were unfaithful to their partners, who was caught stealing money or owning property, who the lesbian officer couples were, who the pedophiles were, whose discipline had been to send them along to another unsuspecting Corps.
Over the decades serving in another denomination, I have listened to Salvationists telling their stories in confidence, some about officers in very high office, stories that I am forbidden to tell. These officers have been protected simply because they were talented, particularly in the areas of administration and leadership. Perhaps it was all done with the best of intentions believing, that the "blood of Jesus" and the "fire of the Holy Spirit" could turn pumpkins into horse carriages.
When I read posters on this Forum blaming "Progressives" for the more tolerant attitude among evangelicals toward people of same sex orientation and monogamous relationships, I have to smile. Twenty five years ago and more my denomination dealt with this issue positively, and no one at that time had even heard the word "progressive", except in reference to a right wing political party who had a social consciousness, which its successor does not have. No, the only wing of the church that protested was the fundamentalists and their implicit belief in their five "absolutes".
When Jesus had a conversation with the rich young ruler, the only absolute that he affirmed was love: love of God with one's heart, mind and strength, and the neighbour as oneself, as the conditions for eternal life. When the young man said he had followed that injunction from his youth, Jesus's requirement was that all that was left for him to do was to sell everything he had and give it to the poor. He didn't say to him that you have to believe in an inerrant Bible, or in his virgin birth, or his substitutionary atonement, or that he would die and his physical body would once again walk the earth, or that he would come again at the end of the age, hopefully in 2015! No yet that is what the absolutists claim; but the thought of giving everything they have to the poor, would be the last thing on their minds, particularly those in the mega churches with their mansions, BMW's and MB's!
I have discovered that in The Salvation Army the beliefs of its officers span the whole spectrum of theology. However the people on the right can say anything they want, because they take both the scriptures and the doctrinal statement literally, but those who deviate even one iota must be discreet and silent. And if a potential soldier should say that one is not sure about "the endless punishment of the wicked" those on the right and on the left would bar that person from becoming a soldiers. Is that hypocrisy or not?
Wake up folks. I am aware that there are cadets on their Commissioning Day who cross their fingers behind their backs as they repeat the eleven cardinal doctrines like parrots, as if they were the proof of their salvation and the veracity of their call. What is more, they are prepared to be silent when they see injustice, because the goal in their sight is that they hope with God's blessing, to reach some strata in the administration. Prove me wrong. If I am wrong, where are those officers on the left letting their voices be heard about the issue under discussion? That's what I would like to know. Some of them are sitting in high places.
Bravo John Sullivan. Bravo!
John Sullivan
I enjoyed your post here and will say that I agree with much of it. TSA has been expert at hiding stuff in the past and I would suggest that they would do the same again if it wasn't for voices that would cry out. I hope that one of those voices is mine when it comes to the issues around paedophilia and sexual assault on youth. You know the incident of which I speak that came out in 2013/2014 about my now 35 yr old son being sexually abused in 1989-91. Even with some attempts to hide this by some I would congratulate our THQ and the sexual abuse counsellor for the Territory in dealing with this issue. I am also as you know glad that the criminal court stuff is over with the abuser now doing federal time. On the sexual identity issues(LGBT) I am torn..I know people who are sincere and honest in their belief that samesex relationships are permitted. I would agree that the temptation is not the sin but the would suggest that acting on it is contrary to God's plans. Having said that I am still torn on the issue for I have seen discrimination in housing, benefits etc for LGBT people. That is wrong. And I cannot see a way out that allows me or many others within TSA to say such activity is permissible. I am going to stop here because I don't want to get a fight going.
I refer to Dr John Sullivan’s comments above.
The extract 'the people on the right can say anything they want, because they take both the scriptures and the doctrinal statement literally, but those who deviate even one iota must be discreet and silent' shows a tacit underpinning personal conviction that 'progressives' are right in their 'progression' of inclusivity in faith, and that fundamentalists are wrong. Many times on this site I have read some sneering and withering comments about 'fundamentalists' who don't accept this 'progression'.
Those who are LGBT say 'I was born this way' and live out this type of life with conviction.
Surely, the logic with which you apply your pitying judgment of 'fundamentalists' would tell you that 'their beliefs too, are innate, and no amount of progressive thinking can change their convictions, even if they wanted to. They, too, act out of conviction. Different, yes, but no less sincere.
And where exactly is your evidence that those who deviate from fundamentalist thinking are discreet and silent? Doesn't seem that way to me. The rampant advance in progressive thinking within the church is marginalising traditionalists, and splitting friends, church members, and the churches themselves. Is this of God? Is this wants he wants from his people? A little more tolerance and respect of those on opposite sides of the issues wouldn't go amiss.
Your example of the rich young man bears a little more scrutiny: the reason Jesus told him to sell everything he had to give to the poor wasn’t because of his interpretation of scripture: it was because Jesus knew that his riches were his one obsession – they were as vital to him as breathing. Jesus required total surrender from him, yet the young man loved his wealth more, and couldn’t give it up to follow Jesus, and consequently, Jesus said, he would have been lost to the kingdom.
And with respect, your statement 'Twenty five years ago and more my denomination dealt with this issue positively' is discriminatory towards those who cannot agree with your thinking. As a 'progressive' thinker yourself, and the stages of illuminating progression you have completed over the years should prompt you to realise this. I gained the impression reading your comments that you considered yourself to have reached the zenith of all theological reason, and, satisfied with your enlightenment, were pitying those who you consider to be less endowed with your spiritual insights. If I’m mistaken, I’m truly sorry.
Ultimately, though, it is God who is our judge. Each of us is responsible for working out our own salvation according to the truths revealed to us in God’s word. It’s obvious from the differing opinions even just on this blog that people are ‘enlightened’ in different ways – that’s why we have denominations, because people are convicted differently about various doctrines and truths, and want to worship with like-minded people who think as they do – there’s power in unity. Personally, I don’t think that’s a bad thing. But to denigrate people who have genuinely held beliefs is not, to my mind, very Christian.
I do agree there is a lot of hypocrisy in the Salvation Army, and that nepotism within the ranks is rife, but the Salvation Army is not the only denomination afflicted thus. There are horrific morality stories coming out from other leading churches, too. But the refusal of the SA leadership to acknowledge its weaknesses or to instigate any type of reforms is ungodly to say the least. They talk the talk but do not talk the walk, walk the talk or walk the walk. Seems to me that the devil is hard at work within the church, and gaining much success. Am I allowed to say 'devil' or don't we believe in him anymore? Has he, too, been 'progressed'?
A “Nondiscrimination Communications” memo – sent out earlier this year to brief members nationally – was obtained by Queerty, and shows that discrimination is still very much in effect.
The letter – which is signed by Commissioner Paul Seiler – warns that all members are liable for “termination” if they attend same-sex wedding ceremonies in uniform, while members are also banned from officiating same-sex weddings, even out of uniform.
The organisation maintains a ban on gay leaders, saying: “Leadership roles in denominational activities such as teaching or holding local officer roles require certain adherence to consistently held spiritual beliefs.
“This would apply to any conduct inconsistent with Salvation Army beliefs and would include same-sex sexual relationships.”
It adds: “For anyone in a Salvation Army ministry position, the theological belief regarding sexuality is that God has ordained marriage to be between one man and one woman and sexual activity is restricted to one’s spouse.
“Non-married individuals would therefore be celibate in the expression of their sexuality. This is the long-standing expectation of all individuals in ministry roles in The Salvation Army, including lay people.”
Spokesperson Jennifer Byrd did not apologise for the overtly discriminatory practises in a statement, claiming that the organisation had been “misunderstood”.
She said: “The Salvation Army is a religious organization founded in 1865 by a Methodist minister. As such all 3,500 officers that you see wearing a uniform are ordained ministers in The Salvation Army church.
To John Stephenson
Are you saying you would be willing to join a support group advocating for those sexually abused within the SA and have not managed to receive justice
To Commenter 14--yes I would--in our families case we have received justice and support both from TSA and in the Criminal Justice System but I know of and heard of many others who did not.
Post a Comment