Army Talk: Salvation Army = Stigma?

Friday, May 12, 2006

Salvation Army = Stigma?

I’ve heard it said before. However, it never really hit me as hard as it did last night. You have to understand who it was that said it. It was a 70 year old saint (who I really respect) who struggled with whether or not to leave the church when I moved the pulpit. You can imagine my surprise.

Here’s what he said: “Captain, one of the reasons the young people don’t like to come is because they get made fun of for going to church at The Salvation Army. They don’t like the uniform and most of our people are old.”

This statement was made as our men’s discipleship group discussed why our church was not successfully reaching people and what we could do about it. I said, “What do you think we should do?” He responded, “I don’t know Captain.”

After some more discussion I threw out this idea: “What if we changed the name? What if we simply said, ‘I worship at the New Life Worship Center.’ Do you think that would change things a little? It’s not that we would no longer be ‘The Salvation Army,’ it only means that ‘New Life’ would be a ministry of the Army, very much like ‘The Loaf’ at The Salvation Army in Lawrenceville, GA.”

I asked the same gentleman, “What do you think would be best: wearing the uniform I wear on Sunday or wearing this (alluding to my black slacks and SA polo shirt)?” He said, “That” (referring to the polo shirt). The rest of the group agreed.

After a full hour of discussion we identified many barriers to effective outreach and ministry. Two them, at least as our group (eight men) saw it, was the name and the uniform.

Changing the name of the worship center and changing what we wear will not, by themselves, fix our problems. Our challenges are much bigger. Nevertheless, things must still change. Here are some thoughts:

What is our mission? Is to make uniformed wearing Salvationists or is it to make radical followers of Jesus? Is our ministry about us or is it about the Kingdom of God?

Is it possible for our religious tradition and commitment to external expressions of worship to actually hinder our mission to make disciples?

Feel free to respond. . . be open and honest. . . (Leave an anonymous comment if you need to) . . . you won’t offend me, I promise.

And just for fun, take this survey . . . it’ll take about two minutes. It covers the uniform, the mission, and the name change idea. I’ll post the results in a week or so.

Click here for the survey:
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=176371849198

(For some reason the link sends you to different pages of the survey each time. If it sends to any page other than the first simply hit the "back" button at the bottom of the page, that will get you to the beginning.)

53 Comments:

Hey Captain! I like the survey and hope many will take it and be HONEST. And not be so army they won't say how they feel. I love the salvation army but still have a mind of my own.
Hoyle

By Anonymous, at 3:31 PM
"What is our mission? Is to make uniformed wearing Salvationists or is it to make radical followers of Jesus? Is our ministry about us or is it about the Kingdom of God?"

I think more need to ask this question. We had our corps review this past week...we have a full schedule of ministries (especially considering the help of the soldiers is limited to 2). The first question raised...why don't you have senior and junior soldier prep classes? What?! We have plans to integrate these programs as we can, but that's what stands out? Not the financial seminars that will equip people to make good decisions fiscally? Not the dinners that serve at least 60 people 3 nights per week? Not the back to school backpacks that will allow children to start the new year with some confidence? I know that people are growing spiritually, and becoming more aware of what God wants for their lives...why is this any less important than making more clones for the Army? The ones we have aren't getting it! Sorry, I'm a little heated about this subject!

By Nicole_Marietta, at 11:25 PM
I think what the youth are lacking is action if we sold the church building and had meetings in the park I think it would be a good start. Then maybe take away the youth meetings and replace them with youth worship at the soup kitchens. Most importantly I think that we need to slash apart the red tape that stops people preaching on the streets (speaking based on Australia and China's ways) If we broke the law and told people about Jesus more whiles working maybe the youth would come.
Sorry the topic really get's me excited. Oh yea and don't change the name instead change what the name means (Salvation Army charity or Salvation Army Revolution)

By pete footer, at 9:53 AM
bret,

good question about the uniformed sallies. i am not so sure the uniform is the impediment. everyone wears a uniform of some sort. i think it is what we have become as a movement.

we have lost some of our identity here in the states. we cannot decide whether we want to be a mainline church or the emergent movement the Booths founded.

i find it interesting that there are groups who mimic and study us because they see our history and believe in what the booths founded.

nicole, i have had some of those reviews. they are mostly done by people who have not been in your position as corps officers for a very long time. when asked that question that you were asked, i always asked how they did it when they were in_______ (you name their appointment) i have seen some great tap dancing take place.

i do believe in soldier making, but not just for the sake of soldier making. it must be for the mission. i often wonder what happened to those i have made soldiers over the years.

i am not sure it is name change or uniform change that will help us. i just believe there is a need for corporate and holy change. people are attracted to the mission, not necessarily worship. maybe we just need to start considering ourselves as mission stations not citadels.

sorry for rambling.

By Larry, at 4:25 PM
Thanks for your comments. Good stuff!

So far there have been 33 respondents in the survey. And, as you can imagine, the responses are as diverse as those responding. The truth is there is no one-size-fits all approach. Everyone approaches challenges from a different context. We need to be given the freedom to strategically address the challenges each appointment faces.

We will discuss more specific actions as we continue to flesh out the issues.

Blessings,

Bret

By Bret, at 5:16 PM
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

By Johnny, at 7:36 PM
Recently my family has been appointed to a brand new corps. The plans that we have for ministry are much different than the way my current appointment implements ministry.

For instance, the goal is to have a sanctuary in every community. The mission will include small group ministries, and each small group host will be asked to allow their home to be a miniature temple or, in the words of the Hebrews, a "miqdash me'at."

I will ask that they place some kind of symbol on their lawn, home, or mailbox, such as a flag that will designate that home as a place of help, hope, and encouragement in their neighborhood.

There is "much" more to the plan, but this is one aspect of doing things in a way to which people will respond.

I have experienced small groups and though I didn't do everything completely right, I definitely learned a lot about how "not" to do them.

All of those groups will gather in a place of worship, and programs will be home ministries.

This idea is not new; John Wesley started it in the early eighteenth century. (Talk about traditional.)

Grace and peace...

By Johnny, at 7:41 PM
Thank you Larry for the encouragement and tactic we can use in future reviews. I just get so enraged when numbers start to be priority one instead of commitment. Yes, in an ideal Army world...our guests would be so committed to the Army that helped them they would want to reach out and help others...to know more about the Army, to be committed to it's mission. Does this happen, yes I believe it can...Overnight or even in a year's time? Possibly, but we have seen and have in our roll books names upon names of those who were signed up and now have shipped out...no where to be found. This has been one reason why we are so particular about soldier making (junior and senior). Do we teach them about the Army, yes. Do we teach them about mission, yes. Do we force them to enlist...no.

By Nicole_Marietta, at 8:37 PM
Bret,

A few things just occured to me. These folks who seem stigmatized by Army involvement...

.Are these youth/adults who are radical about their commitment to Jesus?
.Are they up front about their faith with whomever they come in contact?
.Do they consider themselves missionaries to a sin-sick world?
.Do they consider income as provision from God and school and work as ministry opportunities?

My fear is that alot seem to be ashamed of the Army when there is really a problem with a fear of being stigmatized for Jesus. If you were to tell me that people refuse to listen to the gospel message because they are in uniform, I would say take it off. If you were to tell me that if you were to change the name of the Army corps so that they will definately come (even though their are other similarly named churches all over town - a name for every taste), I would say call it mashed potatoes if need be.

I am not ashamed to be a militant Christian who asks first if someone needs a change in their life - needs hope and a future - needs the Lord Jesus to come in and clean their heart, soul, and body.

How many Abundant Life, or Firm Foundation, or New Hope, or some other named churches can our cities hold. Go to everyone of them and you will see that these are places of spiritual gluttony. All they need is someone to step in the pulpit every Sunday and ask if the church wants fries with that and pass the offering plate so that everyone ther can feel good knowing they got their spiritual groove on. Go to these churches and you will see that by how people dress and act that there is an invisible sign that certain groups of society need not apply.

"The Loaf" is a great start, but there are more disenfranchised members of our society who are already boycotting the churches with the catchy names and common clothing. But I do not want to be a part of any church who encourages it's members to save their own butt and keep it on the road to heaven and to hell with everyone else. I don't use those words lightly as when we focus on the content of our regulars, we take our eyes of the outsiders who might be on the way "to hell" if someone does not leave the church and get where those people are.

BTW, I am rooting the word "church" out of my vocabulary. My fellowship is a "corps" - our meeting place is a hall. There is one church and The Salvation Army is a part.

But bottom line. We may be called passe, or idiots or freaks. But as long as the "relevant" churches have no place for freaks - I don't mind dressing like one.

This is how I feel and say it in love as it is my conviction - not binding on any other person - nor is it God speaking, but I Patrick... When I want to be like everyone else so that I might see greater numbers in my corps, it is like Jesus is speaking to me in Matthew 23:15.

"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are."

I don't want to resemble the "my butt only church movement". I want to resemble the "Christ for the whole wide world" movement and I am convinced that the best way to meet the needs of a people on the fringe is be a church on the fringe. People are dieing spiritually and physically in the poorest neighborhoods of Greenwood. White churches across the river are praying for the poor. Bolack churches are praying for them selves. If only someone would fight for them and show the love of God and develop a relationship with them and be their friend. Every day I put on my uniform and fight and love minister Jesus. I am not ashamed, because they know I am the only one comeing around who cares enough to leave my church bulding.

I love you brother.

By Anonymous, at 12:34 AM
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

By Bret, at 1:52 AM
Johnny,
You should share your plan with us. I like it. I would like to hear more. Maybe you write a blog and go a little deeper.

Larry,
Your comment about what we have become as a movement being our challenge is a good one. That’s part of what all my blogging is about.

Nicole,
Teaching about the army is not bad, in fact, I think it’s needed. . . a lot. However, do you think we (our Army practices) put more emphasis on the Army then we do on Christ and his mission?

Patrick,
I admire your zeal and conviction. I encourage you to wear your uniform to the game on Saturday and your black socks to bed. . . but as you suggested, many would agree that you were weird.

To your line of questions . . . I answer “yes” to all of them. If I were to have a choice, I would not wear uniform during times of worship and/or evangelism. However, I would wear an Army shirt of some kind. I love the Army and am not ashamed at all . . . I just don’t dig the uniform and I don’t see people standing in line to wear it. To the contrary, I see the opposite happening.

The other churches you mentioned. . . 85% of them are ineffective. Ugh. . . maybe we are already like all the other churches. . . preoccupied with ourselves - what we wear, how we look, and making sure everyone notices us . . . Never mind the lost . . . as long we abide by the O&R, balance the budget (well?), don’t steal, and don’t sleep with the secretary (well, I guess you can even do that in some cases) then you’re ok. In few years you’ll get a better appointment. . . Mission (in a spiritual sense) really doesn’t matter (so it seems). Where's the accountability to the mission?

I think Larry was right when he said “I think it is what we have become as a movement.”

Susan,

Great comment. I agree.

We’ll continue all this on the next blog. I will be posting some of the survey results tomorrow some time.

Blessings!

By Bret, at 1:55 AM
Some O&R is crazy - but there is quite a bit of it that is really good stuff. You are right - in many ways we are like all the other churches - and that has been our choice as a movement. At least our dress sets us apart. ;o)

By Anonymous, at 8:22 AM
Here is a post I would like to see and then we could probably have some better discussion.

How is the uniform hindering your completion of TSA Mission Statement at this point of the ministry of your corps?

How does calling your corps The Salvation Army hinder your completion of the mission of TSA right now?

Are your soldiers actively working to complete the mission of the Army right now and find it impossible because of the name and uniform of TSA?

I'll blog the opposite this eveing when I get back from classes.

By Anonymous, at 8:34 AM
Bret,
To respond to your question:
"However, do you think we (our Army practices) put more emphasis on the Army then we do on Christ and his mission?"

I certainly pray that the Army practices would be an example of Christ and His mission. If not, may we be ashamed to even call ourselves His people. I want people to be educated though. I see too often people blindly following the pressure to be enrolled in this fight as soldiers who have no idea what it is they are committing to. This commitment comes from our love for God and a willingness to sacrifice self for the ministry of others.

By Nicole_Marietta, at 11:40 AM
It's always good to remember the quote, of which I am unable to remember the author, "Before taking down the fence, find out why it was put up."

The reason I quote that contemporary proverb is because I try to remember that William Booth started with a plan which was to never get stuck in a plan.

By Johnny, at 1:17 PM
PLEASE READ THIS IN ITS ENTIRETY

Orders and Regulations For Soldiers of The Salvation Army

Chapter X, Section 1, Paragraph 5

Though The Salvation Army sees itself as an intergal part of the Universal Church, it remains wholly autonomous and is not bound by any decree or decision of others.

Chapter XI, Section 1, Paragraph 6

One feature of Salvationism about which the soldier should be thoroughly informed is the practice of uniform wearing. It was introduced as a natural consequence of the Movement adopting military lines and the name of an Army, and has proved itself productive of numerous advantages, For Example:
(a) it singles out its wearer as a professing Christian
(b) it is an invitation to the people to avail themselves of the help in spiritual and social matters which Salvationist may be expected to render;
(c) it helps it wearer to remember to walk worthy of his calling;
(d) it is a protection in surroundings where he might otherwise be molested;
(e) it creates an immediate feeling of comradeship with any other wearers of the uniform;
(f) it opens the way for the soldier to act as the representative of the Army whatever his errand may be. This consideration makes it imperative to keep the uniform neat and clean, and to ensure that it follows the regulation lines authorized for the territory or command concerned.

Chapter XI, Section 1, Paragraph 7

The uniform of The Salvation Army is no intended to isolate its wearer from other people, but is rather as already mentioned, the dress of 'a servant of all'. It does not imply a rebuke to sinners, but a rather loving greeting from the Heavenly Father. It is no claim to superiority and no attempt to proclaim Salvationism as a condition of salvation, but is a testimony about the grace of God in Christ.

Articles of War
A Soldiers Covenant

10th Proclamation

I will be true to the principles and practices of The Salvation Army, loyal to its leaders, and I will show the spirit of salvationism whether in times of popularity or persecution.

If you are a soldier, which that includes officers because all officers are all soldiers first, what is the point of the orders and regualations, principles of the army?

As a soldier of The Salvation Army you had to sign a paper called The Articles of War, a sacred covenant. That piece of paper has 11 Doctrines, statements of what you believe, 10 proclamations,
and one statement that says you will live by these Doctines, and proclamations. You did this of your own free will and before God and His people.

You can't call this legalism, you made the choice. It was of your own free will that you wished to join The Salvation Army. To become an soldier you had to attend classes to fully understand the commitment.

Orders and Regulations For Soldiers of The Salvation Army
Chapter 1, Section 2, Paragraph 1

Though the Army's soldiers (members) are drawn from various cultures, traditions, and races, as well as from all levels of society, they have all signed their name to the document called 'Articles of War'. In 1890 it was stated as a regulation that 'every salvation soldier mus consider, accept and then sign this document. This requirement is in force today, as are its reasons, which are reproduced here:
(a) That he may understand beforehand the doctrines, principles and practices to which he will have to conform.
(b) Thinking and praying over these Articles will help him to find out whether he really has the faith and spirit of a salvation soldier or not.
(c) The pledge invovled in signing these articles will help him to be faithful to the Army in the future.
(d) They prevent many joining who are no in heart and head with us, and who consequently would be likely afterwards to create dissatisfaction and division.

Chapter 1, Section 2, Paragraph 2

The salvation soldier should reflect upon the significance of the fact that the Articles of War, quoted below, are virtually identical to the original ones drawn up at the end of the nineteenth century. The only major addition is the promise to abstain from the use of tabacco. The Salvation Army shows steadfastness of purpose and refuses to lower its standards or to sacrifice its principles.

Orders and Regulations For Soldiers of The Salvation Army
Chapter 1, Section 1, Paragraph 1

The salvation soldier must clearly understand the basic nature of the Movement of which he is a member.
The Salvation Army is a fellowship of people who have accepted Jesus Christ as their personal Saviour and Lord and whose common aim is to induce others to subject themselves to the lordship of Christ.

My question to you is what do you do?

If you are a soldier or officer, who have enter into a sacred covenant that proclaims that you will uphold the principles and practices of The Salvation Army. The uniform wearing is a practice. Can you change your covenant that you made?

SO IS IT JUST A MATTER OF WEARING A UNIFORM OR IS IT DEEPER?

By Anonymous, at 2:07 PM
Anonymous,

Thanks for your comments. I understand you position and respect it. However, the covenant is man made. It was also made a long time ago. I signed that covenant a long time ago and since then, have grown, changed, and become frustrated by an organizations commitment to religious practice. To suggest that everyone who disagrees with the present system should just leave is crazy. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that our organization is in crisis and is dying a slow death. We are on the verge of being nothing more than just another organization trying to do the most good.

We’re not just an organization. We’re a mission. The question is are we accomplishing the mission the make disciples? Most on the survey agree that we are doing a “poor” or “fair” job. We must face reality and ask hard questions and be willing to do whatever it takes to get back on track.

Are you willing to do that?

By Bret, at 2:43 PM
"Hell, Fire, Brimstone, and...Polyester?"

It's always good to remember the quote, of which I am unable to remember the author, "Before taking down the fence, find out why it was put up."

The reason I quote that contemporary proverb is because I try to remember that William Booth started with a plan, which was to never get stuck in a plan.

Booth wanted The Army to be continually transitioning into a movement that was ahead of its time. Right now many would say that we are falling behind the times.

I also keep in mind that being a Zealot for Christ is not synonymous with being a staunch Salvationist, especially when the staunch becomes a stench. And for many, we stink to high heaven in the areas of speaking a language that people can understand.

Sometimes a tradition can have the same affect that the KJV of the Bible has on the ears of a ten-year-old. If we have to explain everything we say and do, are we really sending a clear message or an apology for being outdated?

Ready or not, I'm moving forward! Christ is leading His children to reach the world for Him, not to reach the few who are willing to wear uniforms or say "Fire a volley!"

When we revue the history of The Salvation Army, we will find that The Army grew as it changed and stagnancy came when The Army began to claim traditions. The only true tradition of The Salvation Army is its refusal to settle down.

Today there is a new push for spiritual development, which is revealing that the church culture of the twentieth century was missing a few screws. It’s not traditions and garb that make Christ’s Kingdom great; it is the effectiveness of His people, regardless of any classical habits.

"Jonadab son of Recab ordered his sons not to drink wine and this command has been kept. To this day they do not drink wine, because they obey their forefather's command. But I have spoken to you again and again, yet you have not obeyed me" (Jeremiah 35:14 NIV).

I honestly believe that there will be Salvationists on Judgment Day who will, upon a guilty verdict, turn to Jesus and smugly say, "I might be going to hell, but I'll be going to hell wearing polyester!"

Forever changing,
Johnny

By Johnny, at 4:39 PM
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

By Johnny, at 8:33 PM
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

By Johnny, at 8:41 PM
I'm looking forward to the day when Salvationists can so readily quote the Bible in support of God's mission the way we quote O&R to support The Army.

Whose are we?

Why are we so quick to defend the Articles of War, while we are completely stagnant on defending the Great Commission the moment it gets in the way of the sacred Articles of War?

There's a way to obey both, and it requires obedience "first" to the Word of God. The reverse order is the very reason so many Salvationists spend so much time defending the rules and regulations of an organization and ignoring the requirement to transcend with Jesus in an ever-changing world.

Even the military changes with the times; uniforms are updated, not just altered. And the equipment, tactics and strategies are constantly updated.

In the words of John Maxwell, "If it works, it's outdated." My addition, “If it used to work, it’s ancient.”

Most O&R are based on theory and past accomplishments and failures. They are updated occasionally. As a matter of fact, I was one of the people asked to send in some revisions. The problem with the updating process is that The Army is too worried about “Tunic Lovers” and won’t do anything beyond letting us put away our bus caps.

As far as I’m concerned, the ability to see irrelevance is more an act of obedience than keeping the law. The spirit of the O&R rings true. It is ridiculous to insist on building Model T’s just because Ford used to make them. The fact is, they don’t sell.

Why is it that Christian movements are the only organizations that refuse to produce what people are looking for? Instead we work fifty times harder trying to convince the world that Model T’s are still hot.

Let’s burn the O&R and write it over as if we really do live in 2006.

Forever changing,
Johnny

By Johnny, at 8:49 PM
Anon - I appreciate your sincerity but your point is moot.

A uniform without a war is moot. Read the rest of the O&R for soldiers as to mission expectations of soldiers - for fun read the one for officers and the expectations for officer mission.

I see some flaws in this whole discussion:

1. The entire discussion is based on the fact that we are "hoping" that if we change our form, people will come in and check us out when our tradition shows that approaching the lost in their element in helpful and meaningful ways is far more succesful. There are many Salvation Armys succeeding in traditional forms: outdoor ministry, ministry of helps, sacrifice, incarnation, social justice, etc. I believe that where these methods are performed in relavant ways to the community - EVERY Salvation Army will be sucessful missionally.

3. In order to prove that there is a need for a "retooled" Army in your community, you must show that there is no similiar church nearbye who successfully meets the criteria you hope to achieve. In short, establish need and prove that your change will not effect the ministry of someone else who is already doing well in your community and cut them at the knees.

4. You need to prove that you and your church people are doing everything you can missionally and that you fail both in the corps and in the field because of a name and a uniform.

5. Pride and self-worth are not found in dress or a neme. I am finding that when youth are involved in the ministry, they are more stoked about membership. Our kids have been throughout the neighborhood three times in two months on prayer walks and visitation. They are interested in Salvationist mission and faithful in attendance, uniform wear and sacrifice.

6. And I will point out something important. What you are trying to do with the name and the uniform has already been done and supported by the system of the Western Territory and it failed. THere was even a problem of those who were introduced to TSA through these "non-corps" who, when introduced to the soldier concept, quit the church for the Army.

By Anonymous, at 9:44 PM
Wow. Interesting discussion. I am in support of an alternate uniform, one that doesn't look like a doorman at a hotel. Technically you could call a t-shirt and blue jeans a uniform.

Johnny
(Even the military changes with the times; uniforms are updated, not just altered. And the equipment, tactics and strategies are constantly updated.)
This is true. However the Oath of Enlistment does not. In the US, when you enlist you are affirming your mission in the service(to support and defend the Constitution of the USA, to obey the officers appointed above you etc..) I happen to take the Articles of War very seriously. It lets others know exactly where I stand. Its my oath of enlistment. The articles of war are in defense of the Great Commission, it is in defense of the whole Bible, its authority and so on.

Loren

More on the uniform, General Alfred Gray, Jr. former commandant of the Marine Corps, said 'don't look good be good'. This should be true for us. We should not be worried about what we are wearing, but the message we are proclaiming!

By Anonymous, at 10:10 PM
BTW, I left out the 2. in my disertation. Been in Miss. too long.

By Anonymous, at 10:30 PM
Hopefully we can see that the Articles of War and the structure and traditions of The Army are not necessarily the same thing.

When I took my oath in the U.S. Army, I took it "Extremely Seriously." When it was time to change duty station or the style of uniform, I was glad to do so. The fact that my oath was kept, while the traditions and techniques of my enlistment changed, did not hinder my sense of duty or loyalty to the U.S. or it's purposes and causes.

I don't mind if we wear uniforms or dance naked in the street. And if we don't settle on some form of autonomy within each command, then we will continue to struggle with relevance.

Loyalty is never my weakness. It's the freedom to question whether or not my boots are right for the terrain that I am not willing to hand over.

I was proud to serve my country and I'm proud to serve The Army.

When I was in Germany, my Battalion Commander would not allow my wife to join me. I promised to obey my commanding officers in my oath, so I went along with what he said, right? Wrong. I immediately wrote my Congressman and my wife joined me two weeks later.

Was I disobedient? No. In that case, my oath became a bully that was partnering with the officers I had sworn to obey. There is a time to salute and move out. There is also a time to realize that the oath has broken its promises.

It takes two to make a covenant. Both are required to keep their promises.

Grace,
Johnny

Grace,
Johnny

By Johnny, at 11:20 PM
For the sake of conversation:

I have signed the articles of war.

So let me ask everyone this; It says on their that I will abstain from alcohol, I have sinced grown and realized that the Bible never condemns alcohol, so can I now drink. I can handle alcohol very well, it doesn't affect me. Alcohol, especially red wines, have a benefical effect on the body. So can I ignore my promise, which I do argue is not only between me and the army, but with God as well?

Johnny,
You're right about something. There is a distinction between lawful and unlawful orders.

Loren

By Anonymous, at 9:53 AM
The problem with the Army is this. The Army is a structure of all Chiefs. The Army is ran by officers, General down to the Corps Officer. There is no checks and balances for officers.

You can't have an army without soldiers. Until officers appreciate their soldiers nothing will change. You know some officers are quick to use a section from the O&R.
{ They prevent many joining who are no in heart and head with us, and who consequently would be likely afterwards to create dissatisfaction and division.} Alot of officers use this as a personal tool, they say if your not like me leave, or don't like what I am doing leave. Like your battalion commander Johnny, gives and unlawful order. They want what they want and don't care about anything else.

The army will never grow. When you have people who sees things one way, the army will never grow or change. To change you must change the idea and thinking of your leadership, and the way you colleauges think.

I am sure that some officer out there will read this, jump down my throat for saying what is the truth. See that is real Jesus compassion, that is the compassion of the army.

The army is becoming more of a joke. Officers think that they know all. Think they have the best way.

Soldier
USA Eastern Territory

By Anonymous, at 10:10 AM
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

By Johnny, at 11:32 AM
We can't ignore our promise "and" the promise can be revised and adapted. Is the promise still an important promise?

I believe that the Articles of War are important. I also believe that the human beings who created the promise cannot become a slave to yesteryear's issues of culture, social structures, needs, and issues.

Just as we discovered, in recent history, that hats are not a requirement and adequately revised the uniform, and just as in past history, years after The Salvation Army began, we realized that alcohol is dangerous for some and should not be consumed by Salvationists, we can also revise the O&R and the Articles of War today.

I believe that some officers are a bit dictatorial, but not because they are purposefully mean. My understanding, concerning these kinds of leaders, is that it comes from a lack of confidence, maturity, and effective leadership training.

The Army will grow. The reason is that there are many who are already claiming change in his and her own minds and appointments, waiting on the day that they can have an impact on a greater portion of The Army.

The Army is a "structure of chiefs." This will have to be revised to an Army of confident leaders who are willing to delegate and empower soldiers.

That day is happening now in many places and it will continue to develop throughout The Army as the old "blessed" guard is replaced by the new and progressive leadership that is already present.

My challenge to The Army is to pray hard, work smart, and prioritize our oaths—God, family, ministry, stay relevant, encourage change, and run like a gazelle from the status quo.

“Great leaders don’t think outside the box—they bury it. And then they make darn sure none of their followers are tempted to dig it up again.”
—Colonel Jeff O’Leary (RET), The Centurion Principles, Battlefield Lessons for Frontline Leaders, 7.

Forever burying the boxes,
Johnny

By Johnny, at 11:51 AM
Patrick,

Your number 4 comment about “proving that the uniform is a reason for failure” is tough. That was one reason I conducted the survey. . . just to see what others were thinking. Depending on how entrenched and saturated in Army culture and practice will depend on how you view the effectiveness of the uniform and other external practices of the army.

Too many Salvationist are so saturated with the army they are unable to see reality and naturally sees things as better and more healthy than they really are. I think that’s what’s wrong with many of our leaders. . . they have grown up army and served in the army their entire life. Therefore they are unable to see reality.

Your number 5 comment . . . I agree with the mission aspect. Do the kids wear the uniform to school?

#6. If they failed it was for other reasons. As many have already said, the uniform alone will not fix the problems. . . we have to eliminate every barrier and potential distraction as well as engage in the right activities to be successful.

Overall, you’ve made some great points.

Johnny,

Dude! You hit the nail on the head about six times.

Loren,

Thanks for the comments. Your question about alcohol. . . I believe that’s between you and God. The articles of war doesn’t mention slander, bigotry, or gossip, all of which are more harmful than a glass of red wine. The idea behind the articles of war (I believe) is holiness. The article is a commitment to striving to be more like Christ. (That’s my interpretation.) It also suggests that we should guard our witness.

Soldier, USA Eastern Territory

I agree with your comment about the chiefs. . .

As far as the Corps Officers: I’m, sorry . . . I have been hurt too. . .I have hurt others (unintentionally and, in most cases, unknowingly). As far as I know, I’ve made them right, I think. . .

You should go the CO and share your concern when he/she misses the mark. If you came to me, I would respect you and admire you for not letting issues fester.

Also, if you have another way of doing something, share that too. . .if your idea is rejected, ask why and expect a good answer that shows His/Her way is best for the overall Corps.

Chat more later . . . Blessings!

By Bret, at 11:58 AM
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

By Johnny, at 3:24 PM
It appears, and I may be wrong, that we are discussing traditions, and somehow we have mingled those traditions as part of a sacred covenant.

Should we confuse our habits and promises, we will surely be confused.

And the answer to the question of whether the promise changes when "stuff" changes, is simply argumentative.

When I married my wife, we lived in an apartment and I was Bread salesman. Our lives have required changes as children were born and vocations were developed and we took necessary action. We did not change our promise, though we definitely applied it in new ways.

She didn't tell me that I had to keep wearing my Flower's Baking Co. uniform, because our initial marriage covenant was made while I was selling bread.

I can also say, with certainty, that the encouragement or implementation of moral, ethical, or Christian values being changed has not entered the minds of leaders and change agents.

This kind of assumed parallelism is what caused Jesus to call the religious leaders of his time a "brood of vipers." The danger is that we are saying that there is something sacred other than God. Only He and His church (The people of God) are sacred.

There is no sacred furniture, no sacred traditions, and no sacred garb.

A covenant is made, not to enslave the one's who have made the agreement, but as a reminder that each will be held to a specific behavior. When either breaks the covenant, by not keeping up their end of the deal, the covenant is broken. The vassal does not somehow become the enemy of God, but a friend who has cancelled a deal.

Let's not confuse the fact that there are provisions for breaking covenants.

When someone breaks a covenant, they are no longer able to depend on the other party keeping their part of the promise; it doesn't make them unholy, it makes them human.

Still, we are to remember the subject at hand, which is relevance in the way we reach the world for Jesus. This has nothing to do with promise breaking. I didn't promise to wear the same style uniform that I was commissioned in and never question its relevance. I never promised to always sing from the red songbook. I didn't promise to always lead Sunday school in the traditional way. I didn't promise to lead worship at 11:00 on Sunday morning or call Home League blessed.

I promised a lot, but I didn't promise to live in the past. I promised to be an Officer of The Salvation Army and reach the world for Jesus. When blue suits and programmatic approaches to ministry prevent my priority list--God, Family, Ministry, I will bury the box, while remaining faithful to my promises, which have nothing to do with traditions and religious habits.

We will do well to remember that Christ transcends all traditions, cultures, and generations. We should follow his lead.

By Johnny, at 3:33 PM
All good questions.

From my last response: “We did not change our promise, though we definitely applied it in new ways.”

Provisions for breaking a covenant are changing your mind or the other party not fulfilling their part. The Army has a responsibility to keep its promises as much as the soldiers an officers. I believe that Salvationists have a tendency to make a covenant with The Army some kind of eternal bond, by which breaking it will constitute some kind of horrible spiritual failure and mortal damage to the spirit. It’s interesting that this is the only covenant that we tend to zealously defend.

We break our covenant with God every time we walk by a needy person without helping, refuse to give the benefit of the doubt to someone who hurts us, look at another person lustfully or receive marital nurturing (non-sexual) from a person to whom we are not married, refuse to forgive, give in to rage, neglect feeding the hungry, visiting those in prison, or care for the sick...you get the point.

Why is the Articles of War our greatest focus, when there are the Instructions of God that are constantly disobeyed; yet never confronted?

Many Salvationists are guilty of the same sin as the Recabites in the book of Jeremiah, who kept strictly to the law of their sectarian covenant, yet would not obey the orders of God.

I wouldn't consider any part of the Articles of War a tradition, at the moment. That isn't what I'm personally concerned about changing.

I'm concerned about changing our structural habits, such as the look of our garb, the way we worship, the way we insist upon programmatic ministry, et cetera. And I am keeping in mind that not all appointments are requiring such dramatic changes right now, hence the need for more autonomy in each appointment.

The act of transcending, means to move in and with the current reality, culture, paradigm, social structure of the day in which we live.

In other words, Jesus does not speak Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek to those who speak 21st Century English, French, Spanish, et cetera; He speaks 21st century English. We are to model His desire to reach us where we are and take us to where He is, rather than wait on people to appreciate our own traditions and speak our lingo.

Christ transcending a culture means that he has moved beyond yesterday and is part of our culture today. He meets us where we are and doesn't require that we wear first century clothing or speak a Semitic language.

By Johnny, at 5:34 PM
On autonomy in the apointments - there was a group that thought that way that evolved from a splinter group from TSA.

Check out the American Rescue Workers.

By Anonymous, at 6:34 PM
Tell you what, I'm going to ask them to wear their uniform on the last day of school. I'll let you know what they say.

By Anonymous, at 6:39 PM
Patrick,

Thanks for challenging me. One more question: Why only on the last day of school? If they're so on fire, as you are, why not every day? Would that be impractical? Would they feel out of place? Maybe weird?

Johnny,

You’ve nailed it again. Thanks for comments.

Loren,

Good questions. . .thanks for contributing to the dialogue.

My wife and I discussed this last night. We came to one conclusion. . . that maybe it’s not so much the uniform but what the uniform looks like. We began to discuss all kinds of alternatives. Some of them I thought were really cool and culturally relevant.

By Bret, at 7:33 PM
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

By Johnny, at 7:59 PM
I'm not sure if we are all having the same dialogue. It seems that answered questions keep popping up in different forms.

There are "degrees" of autonomy. I can't believe that I really have to say that.

There are a lot of groups who think that everything should stay the same way and continue to live:

Winn Dixie, Oldsmobile, Montgomery Ward, the majority of U.S. Salvation Army Corps, and nearly all of Europe. The only TSA posts that are thriving are the ones that have chosen to speak the language of the people, "To the Jews I was a Jew, to the Gentile..." such as Africa and Canada, to name only two.

Individual appointments require "Some" individual freedoms.

I find it interesting that the person who is fighting for the uniform is out of his in the photo. Where's your tie? Sorry, I am as choleric as the next type-A personality. I couldn't resist.

Yes the message of Christ changes. It changes from "I have not come for the Gentiles, but for the Jews" to "Go and make disciples of all people." Thank God the message of Christ changes.

Today the message is "Don't put any stumbling block in your brothers way" and "Do whatever you can, that a few might be saved."

I love the uniform, by the way. I also believe in covenants, doctrines, and standards. The staunch pragmatists that insist that no structure (not promises, covenants, or vows) can change, will find their way to the publishers to co-write a book about survival with the previous owners of Montgomery Ward and Oldsmobile. The title will be, "Death's Not As Bad As You Might Think. There's a Lot Less to Do and Nobody Debates With You"

About the last question:
Where does the Bible teach that Jews didn't act like Jews, live like Jews, teach like Jews? The fact is, the first century church was the last of the purest form of Christianity.

Jews spoke Hebrew to the Jews, Aramaic to the Hellenized Jews, and Greek to the Gentiles.

Jesus wore the same clothes as every other Jewish Sage, and his students were all Jews who did and taught exactly as Jesus.

It wasn't until the third quarter of the second century that Christianity took on the form of a religious, non-Jewish sect. It was then that the whole Christian world would look like Rome or it wouldn't exist at all.

The Reformation was an attempt at bringing back a sense of relevance and shortly after, even the Protestants would go back to rituals and an official "Authorized Version" of the Bible. Even the layout of our chapels is a John Calvin creation.

We are all following books we’ve never read and trusting teachers we’ve never met, assuming that because the ideas are old, they must be correct.

“I’m looking for a lot of men with an infinite capacity for not knowing what can’t be done.”—Henry Ford

By Johnny, at 8:18 PM
Yes Jesus messages change. I think you are confusing message and purpose. To one he says, "Sell all you have and follow me" and to another he says, "Go home and tell everyone what you have seen." Same Jesus, different message. I don’ think those two guys fought about it; they either did or didn’t do what they were individually told.

Yes the message is different for you and me. "To some He gave the gift of teaching and pastoring, and to some he gave the gift of hospitality." The messages are absolutely different. The Word of God, which is Christ himself, is the same for all. And His message is very unique to each of us.

Again, I'll clarify, the books I'm referring to are books concerning traditional forms of ministry, not Scripture and Biblical truths.

Jesus stays the same; Scripture is full of mysteries and constant revelations.

When Jesus said, "Unless you hate your father and mother and brother and sister" are we to believe that he meant "hate" the way 21st century English speaking people mean it? In Jesus' Semitic language, hate held two forms--"hate" and "to love less." The Bible is always being revised to speak the current languages in their most current forms.

Again, I want to be clear, Jesus stays the same; His messages are unique to each of us. For you to follow Christ means to live according to your gifts and calling, just as for me, I must be true and obedient to serve according to my gifts and calling.

By Johnny, at 9:01 PM
Jesus fed 5,000 in the land of the 12. The 12 is a reference to the fact that the place where he was feeding the people was the same place that the last of the 12 tribes of Israel were still worshiping YHWH according to the traditional ways.

He then went to the Decapolis on the other side of the lake, which is known as the "Land of the 7," referring to the 7 pagan nations that were pushed out of The Promised Land when Joshua arrived. The place where Jesus is now feeding 4,000 is where those 7 nations gathered after leaving Canaan.

At the end of the miracle in the "Land of the 12," Jesus was left with "12" baskets of food signifying that he was the bread of life for the 12 tribes of Israel.

At the end of the miracle in "The Land of the 7," Jesus was left with "7" baskets of food signifying that he was also the bread of life for the Gentiles.

That is relevance. He provides according to our needs, not according to our habits and traditions.

Today, people are starving for intimacy and “maskless” Christianity, where people are free to admit their flaws and ask for prayer, encouragement, and help from other Christians.

The church has become a place where we put on our best clothes, brightest smile, and closed lives. And people are no longer responding; they want to be real.

Suits, shiny shoes, and fancy haircuts are no longer acceptable to a culture where people want, need, and are begging for someone to know who they really are.

They want to be spoken with, not at. They want to be worshiped with, not for. They want to experience God, not hear about Him. They want to be a part of an authentic community of Jesus followers, not a religious society of traditions and liturgy.

We are not a church among many; we are a part of the one church, the only church. Other congregations are merely brothers and sisters who live in another zip code. And when they are doing something that is reaching people, we are not to say, "That's their idea." We are to say, "Look what our family is doing in Wherever, USA. That's how God is reaching the lost. Let's get on board.

Instead we have become so bound up in having a distinct identity that we are no longer willing to ride the wave that God has provided, unless we can call it our own wave.

I hope this has helped.

Johnny

By Johnny, at 10:25 PM
On the Articles of War - I don't know about anyone else, I knew that when I signed it it would mean a lifetime commitment. I knoew that if I signed it I was placing restrictions on myself that would be dificult to keep. I prayed and God gave me peace to sign it. There have been many times where I wanted to leave the Army and revert back to previous lifestyles and it was my commtments to God, one of those in the form of the AoW, that have brought me to repentence and I have peace in the knowledge that God still holds me to this commitment.

I would say that if you no longer feel the covenant you made is relevant of corect in your case - write to your DC and tell him you are no longer comfortable in keeping the promise you seem to have so lightly made. While you are at it, rethink your commision and officer's agreement. Those words are far to militant and have lost their relevency.

I would ask that we answer three questions and that no one respond in the anon. If you are not brave enough to sign your names to your words, your opinion is worthless.

1. How many souls have you seen come to Jesus in the last month through your personal (not pulpit/inside the corps) ministry?
2. How many times have you ministered in your neighborhood in the last month?
3. How many times have you encouraged your fellow soldiers to get off the pew and work the mission statement of TSA (and hold them accountable) in the last month?

And Loren - you have to answer - because most cadets get saved on covenant Sunday. ;o)

I'll put mine last. And if anyone says "0" to any of these questions, we have more than a uniform problem.

By Anonymous, at 11:46 PM
Culture is much, much more than beliefs and values. It is the way we live and view the world around us, along with the way we interact and apply our beliefs and values in the world.

Every one of my neighbors lives in a different culture than I. Am I to suggest that they have 3 boys and 1 girl, buy a Jack Russell Terrier, become a Salvationist, and dye their hair brown or am I to love them as they are and live in such a way, myself, and speak such a message that they will live for Jesus and remove any offensive lifestyle habits?

The issue of Paul saying he does not preach circumcision to the Gentiles has to do with circumcision not being an acceptable practice for Greeks, and one that was a stumbling block to having them accept and follow Christ. Paul’s point was to prove to Peter and the other Jews that circumcision was to be a requirement for the Gentiles, though it was and still is for the Jews. He didn't have to preach circumcision to the Jews; they were circumcised automatically on their eighth day of life. This did not stop for the Jews, but was wavered for Gentiles.

Another helpful fact is that all Semitic people were circumcised, not just Jews. This included everyone in the Near East, Middle East, Africa, Egypt, et cetera. The only people who weren't circumcised were the Greeks. The reason that the Philistines were not circumcised is because they were originally from the Greek Isles.

People brought up in predominately Hindu countries will not give up their culture, though they will give up their belief in Hinduism. This is why it's important to remember that culture is much more than a belief system. Even we, as Americans live outside our belief systems, though we abide by our culture and are able to continue to believe.

For example, we believe that Christ is the Savior of all and that we are to express ourselves in every way to be Christians. And at the same time we send our children to public schools where our children are taught many things that go against our beliefs. It is, in fact, part of our culture to suppress our belief systems in order to obtain an education for our children. We don't change our beliefs, but we live according to an American culture, which is becoming less and less Christian.

A Hindu would experience the same issue. They will believe in and follow Christ, while living in the pro-Hindu culture of their country.

Patrick,
I have a great respect for your passion.

Let's think about what you propose.
I go to my D.C. and say that I no longer believe in the covenant I signed. That would be a lie, first of all. Again I'm not eager to change anything Scriptural or Theological, or anything about the covenant. I will implement new applications on the same covenant. Open-air meetings are effective in some cities and some countries; in others they are seen as historical novelty. In the latter, home worship, where non-Christian neighbors are invited to attend, will have the required effectiveness.

By the way home groups were open-air meetings in Jesus day, as were speaking in a field or on the side of a mountain. The difference was that people were eager to hear the teacher. The teacher did not have to scream in the middle of a road or have a musical group to attract eager ears and willing learners. It was a great honor to have the opportunity to be taught by a sage or teacher of God’s Word.

Let me also pose a challenge to all of our steadfast belief systems.
If we truly believe that the 66 books are the only writings, which constitute the divine rule of Christian faith and practice, then we are all guilty of claiming otherwise every time we claim that a sermon is a message from God.

At a minimum, it is a message from God, which does not constitute the divine rule of Christian faith and practice. In that case, why are we teaching that message? We are better off to simply stand up and read the Bible to everyone, without our helpful and applicable commentary, which does not constitute divine rule of Christian faith and practice.

Think on that for a while.

As for your 3 questions, you make some assumptions.

1. We know when people "come to Christ."
Never in the history of the Jews or the first century church was a person considered saved, because he or she decided to "believe." The proof of someone "coming to Jesus" was when he or she confessed that He was the Savior and began to live according to his teaching. You can have 5000 people come to an altar, pray for salvation, and none of them actually come to Christ. There is fruit of the Spirit and it isn't a "sinners prayer."

2. There is an objective action for evangelism.
People minister in millions of ways. Jesus healed some, taught others, gave food and drink to some, and rebuked others; all of these are forms of ministry.
Recently, my family bought tires for a neighbor’s vehicle; we brought food to another, drove kids to school; we let another stay with us when his mother has to go out of town. Ministry and evangelism are much more than running our flappers about something the world doesn’t understand.

3. Because I spoke and the message was so convicting, they came to the altar. Usually they already have their minds made up that they want to humble themselves and pray before their church family. They are just waiting for me to shut-up.
Again, the real conversion proof is not seen at the altar, it’s seen in their living.

By Johnny, at 4:50 PM
God loves you just the way you are, but he refuses to leave you that way. He wants you to be just like Jesus.

-Max Lucado, A Heart Like Jesus

By Anonymous, at 5:55 PM
Johnny - Perhaps I was not clear, but...

1. We know when people "come to Christ."
You can have 5000 people come to an altar, pray for salvation, and none of them actually come to Christ. There is fruit of the Spirit and it isn't a "sinners prayer." I'm not talking about ministry inside the corps. I've led 3 people to Jesus on the streets around the neighborhood of the corps this month, and offered salvation more to at least 9 more and further developed relationships with a dozen more. Maybe those people were just talking out of their head to get me to go away, but they testified with their words to me tha they were saved, and I am out working the beat - that is the point. We must measure success in souls. My point is that if one can not add up how many people they have at least witnessed to and heard a profesion of faith from - there is a problem. And for the record - I don;'t ussually offer alter calls. I encourage them to go to the alter if needed, but to make the commitment in theri heart and live the change.

2. There is an objective action for evangelism.
People minister in millions of ways. Jesus healed some, taught others, gave food and drink to some, and rebuked others; all of these are forms of ministry. This is true, but Jesus expected lifechange out of those He ministered to as His closing statement is generally "Go and sin no more." The point is commitments to Jesus. In looking at your examples, it seems you are advocating subjective evangelism. Those are all excellent ministries of helps, but they are not personal evangelism - unless you were encouraging repentance while you were helping. People do understand right and wrong - it is at the center of our society and I have not met a person yet who does not grasp the fact that we have sinned, deserve the penalty, yet God is eager to forgive.

3. Because I spoke and the message was so convicting, they came to the altar.
Usually they already have their minds made up that they want to humble themselves and pray before their church family. They are just waiting for me to shut-up. Again, the real conversion proof is not seen at the altar, it’s seen in their living. The point is not about the corps - it is about getting those who say they follow Jesus to imitate Jesus, leave the temple and synogogue and go where the people are and minister and evangelize. (Don't forget that we should always do the work of an evengelist.) All through the book of Acts the message goes out to everyone - Repent, Repent, Repent. Whoever believes will be saved. You can not help people in the corps, except each other.

But let me reiterate the point. TSA has a mission - preach the gospel (Not you or me - all of us, blue and red) of Jesus Christ & meet human needs in His Name. (Not you or me - all of us, blue and red). Do we encourage the soldiery to work the mission of TSA and then hold them accountable. I encouarage ours to hold me accountable.

Luke 13:3 (NIV)
Luke 13:5 (NIV)
Acts 2:38 (NIV)
Acts 3:19 (NIV)
Acts 11:14 (NIV)
Acts 15:11 (NIV)
Acts 16:17 (NIV)
Acts 16:30-31 (NIV)

By Anonymous, at 7:04 PM
BTW, the sermon on the mount, the woman at the well, the centurian's son, Peter and John walking down the street, Paul at Mars Hill .. not cottage services. There are many more examples. There is a place for cottage ministries - and there is a place for teh "underworld of sorrows where people seldom hear his name. Tell the world."

By Anonymous, at 7:10 PM
You'll have to give me the liberty of a few typos. My wife has been away all week and I'm taking care of our four wonderful children, including the 2-year-old.

Add the word "not."

Paul’s point was to prove to Peter and the other Jews that circumcision was "not" to be a requirement for the Gentiles, though it was and still is for the Jews."

By Johnny, at 7:38 PM
Get to know the Jewish history of Jesus. It will help you to better understand who and what we are supposed to immitate.

Grace,
Johnny

By Johnny, at 7:42 PM
I know Jesus personally and am familiar with Jewish custom and Jesus' movements both within and without it. We have Jewish roots, but the gospel supercedes Jew or Greek, slave or free. I also that Jesus blasted what the Jewish culture had become. If I need to understand what Jesus expects of me then I will read the words in red. Other study is helpful, but solo scriptura is preimanant. Now If you would like for me to cut and paste a bunch of words in red, I can. The great commision does not need to be interpreted for it stands on its own and Christ's admonition is not subjective, neither is the poitn of the Good News of Jesus Christ.

Don't worry about typos. the only way I could get it right is if I type in Wor dna dthen cut/paste.

I appreciate your knowledge and study. From your previous posts, your research into the Word and the background has been very enlighting. But I believe this point is well documented and clear from the Word.

By asking the 3 questions - i want there to be no doubt that it is about mission, relationships and obedience - not uniform and culture. Culture plays a small part in presentation, but the message of the Gospel and the expectation of the hearer is the same anywhere.

By Anonymous, at 7:53 PM
Loren,
I'd love to say that you are right about most of what you're saying, but your dead wrong.

Jesus and his disciples in Acts were only reaching Jews. Paul was the one chosen to reach the Gentiles, as a Jew among Jews, who understood God's Word backward and forward.

Paul "Never" denounced anything of Jewish lifestyle or ritual. His calling was to the Gentiles and he quickly realized that circumcision was such a stumbling block that the Gentiles were refusing Christ on the basis of that one ritual. So he argued with Peter and eventually they would hold a council to decide the matter “for the Gentile converts.” It is there that it was decided that Gentiles would not have to be circumcised. Jews continued according to the Torah.

Did Paul shut out the Jews when he was trying to be culturally relevant to the Gentiles? This is hard for us to understand based on the fact that we live in a melting pot. In Paul's day, Jews lived in Jewish communities and Gentiles lived in Gentile communities. Paul didn't have to shut out anyone; he was only speaking to Gentiles.

Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles. Jesus came for the Jews. Don't forget that.

The reason that Jesus says go to Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and to the ends of the earth is because of the priority of who God sent the Messiah and His followers to reach.

Jerusalem - this is where the tribe of Judah (purest Jews) was living.
Judea - this is where the purest Jews were scattered about.
Samaria - These were the Jews who were of mixed heritage.
The ends of the earth - this is a Semitic idiom or figure of speech referring to the Gentiles.

Being a Christian is not a culture of its own. Being a Christian is following the mission of Christ in every land, country, nation, city, neighborhood, and being an American in America, an African in Africa, and Asian in Asia, and German in Germany. Christians look, talk, eat, play, and even worship differently in every culture, though they serve and worship the same God.

The reason that believers were together and had everything in common was because at Pentecost and in the church of Acts, they were all Jews.

It was not until the calling of Paul that the Gentiles were to hear the Gospel. Did a few hear the message? Sure. Did they believe? You have to understand that Gentiles had nothing in common with their Jewish neighbors. They worshiped hundreds, even thousands of gods. One more god was not a problem for them. The difficulty for Gentiles to receive the message was in their inability to accept one god.

In fact, the point that Jesus was half God and half man was a must for Gentiles to accept him as a god. All of their gods were half man, half god. To the Jews this was not necessary for Jesus to be the Messiah. There were many Messiahs and I don’t mean mock-messiahs. Messiah is a Hebrew word of “One anointed with oil and called to lead God’s children.” Saul and David were two Messiahs. So when we say that Jesus is the Messiah, it is difficult for Jews to hear this in any way other than one anointed with oil and called to lead God’s people. The fact that Jesus died before he could literally lead God’s people is a major stumbling block for Jews to believe he was the last Messiah.

Paul had a difficult task ahead. This is why he had to make some provisions in order to have them accept Christ. The Jews didn't become Christians; they became another sect of Jews known as the "Sect of the Nazarene."

Among the sects were the Pharisees (which means Protestant, they were also very charismatic and Jesus was most like the Pharisees, which is why He was often rebuking them.), the Sadducees (these were the Jews who were literalists and would not budge in their interpretation of the Torah, if the word said “Do not work on the Sabbath, then even fishing for pleasure was not allowed, because it was a way that some people made a living; the Pharisees were more liberal and willing to make provisions such as you can’t fish for money, but you can fish for fun), the Zealots (Peter was a Zealot, these were very militant Jews, hence Peter using a sword), and the Essenes (which included those of the Dead Sea community).

Christians being anything other than another sect of the Jews did not come about until 170 A.D. when the leader of the Sect of the Nazarenes of the time, whose name was Chrysostom was angered after seeing Nazarenes worshiping with other Jewish sects just as they had for 170 years. And he gave an order that it was forbidden for any Nazarene to worship with any other Jewish sect.

By the fourth century, the Hebraic Christians (Jewish Christians) had separated from the Hellenized Christians (Jews who were heavily influenced by the Greek culture) and the Greek Christians would create what we know today as the initial Catholic Church, complete with governmental power and the backing of Rome. Jews, including Jewish Christians, were ostracized and any “Christian” caught associating with them would face severe consequences.

In the fifteenth century Martin Luther was struck with a holy discontent for the "vows" he had made as a priest to uphold the views and practices of the Holy Catholic Church (sound familiar) and he began the Protestant Reformation, which gave William Booth, around four centuries later, the ability to start The Salvation Army.

Until we are ready and willing to seek out our true roots of Christianity, which is the biblical fact that we are the grafted in branch (Gentiles) of the root (Jews) and stop being arrogant, as if we are the new Jews and the Jews are now the new Gentiles, we will continue to miss out on a lot. Paul even warned us not to become arrogant, but to remember that we were grafted in to the root.

That's all for now.
Grace...

By Johnny, at 8:54 PM
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

By Anonymous, at 11:08 PM
"God fearers" was the name given to Jewish Proselytes who worshiped with the Jews but did not accept circumcision.

I never said Jesus was the "apostle" to the Jews. I said he came first for the Jews, hence Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and then the ends of the earth. Jesus is the Messiah for all as stated with the 12 leftover baskets and the 7 leftover baskets.

Jesus healed gentile children and fed gentiles; that is clear. Gentiles were present at Pentecost, but Jesus was not there.

I also never said that Paul was the "only" apostle to the Gentiles. I was a Jew sent specifically to the Gentiles.

Jesus told the disciples after they had ministered in Jerusalem, Judea, and Samaria to “now” go into the entire world. Paul is not there, and neither is Jesus.

I also never said that the disciples would not bring the gospel to the Gentiles, Jesus said that he was not sent to the Gentiles, but to the Jews “first” and then the Gentiles, which would be by way of Paul and the disciples, though Jesus was not against healing or caring for or sharing with gentiles who were present. Jesus did not, however, go looking for gentiles to share the gospel with.

You are wrong about being a Jew only if your mother is a Jew. Paul even said that being a Jew is not about lineage, though Jews in Paul’s day would have argued that point.

Samaritans are Jews. They are the poor and unimportant Jews that were left when Babylonia exiled the tribe of Judah to Babylon. Those Jews would eventually intermarry and add idol worship to their worship of YHWH and build a new Temple at the Mount Gerizim. The returning Jews would not allow the Samaritans to worship with them because of their idol worship and intermarriage.

Paul says that circumcision doesn't mean anything as far as bringing someone to Christ, though the Jews were required to do this. He never said to the Jews, "Stop all Jewish Torah practices." He simply made an allowance for the Gentile converts.

Paul was willing to humble himself for the salvation of those who were not like him. Paul was a Pharisee, a Jew of the highest order. The many sects of the Jews were not willing to believe that Jesus was their Messiah because he died. That is why he would also try to reach the Jews. But it's clear that Paul was sent to make Gentiles the priority of his life and ministry.

Jesus did not relieve the Jews from the Law, he {clearly interpreted" it to them, which is the true meaning of "fulfill." To "abolish" literally means to "misinterpret."

Faith in the Semitic language is a word of action. It is a verb. After the Great Awakenings faith was given a alternate meaning, which we call "believing." But faith to Jesus and to Paul was not about believing as much as it was about obedience, following, and living the message of Christ. Believing is a part of faith, but it’s not the central part as we see it today. That’s why Jesus says that he will divide the sheep and goats based on who “fed” the hungry, “visited” the prisoner, and “clothed” the naked.

By Johnny, at 11:44 PM
Thanks for spelling YHWH correctly. That being said...

Talk. Theory. Ideas. Exchange of ideas is a waste of time. Answer three questions? Absolutely not. This is at the point of 2 Tim. 2:23.

I must apologize, but I am a straightforward guy. I will answer simple questions. If the answer is - I am a moron, I will give you the answer.

Johnny, you are the most capable writer I have seen on blogs. Lots and lots of paragraphs and ideas. I thought this might be a great iron sharpens iron discussion. I guess I should have brought a spork.

Thank you Loren for your abilities to clearly and succictly answer three questions.

1. Already answered.
2. At least four times a week.
3. Every week. Depending on the discipling relationship, Most get it once. The more intence discipling relationships get it more.

This will be my last post in any stream regarding uniform and I have made the following deductions form the discussion:

* My comfort and those in my worship service is important.
* My commitment to the army is based off corporate worship attendance and relevence to me personally.
* My "church" exists solely for the purpose of those who attend on Sunday.
* I want to build attendance and then relationships.
* Build it like everyone else and they will come.
* Relevence to to mission is unimportant as long as "church" is relevent to me.
* As long as the people in our four walls are happy and saved and our butts are out of the frying pan, it is great.
* We sure hope someone will come visit our church and become like us.
* My neighbor may be in rags, so I will be relevent to him by dressing casual in how I reach him.

Friends, The Salvation Army is a Holiness Movement and this mindset is alien to anything recognized under Wesleyan tradition.

"The church was dead and Wesley awakened it; the poor were neglected and Wesley sought them out; the gospel was shrunken into formulas and Wesley flung it fresh upon the air once more in the speech of common men; the air was stagnant and fetid; he cleared and purified it by speaking always and everywhere the word of God; and men's spirits responded, leaped at the message, and were made wholesome as they comprehended it. It was a voice for which they had waited, though they knew it not. It would not have been heard had it come untimely. It was the voice of the century's longing heard in the mouth of this one man more perfectly, more potently, than in the mouth of any other--and this man a master of other men, a leader who left his hearers wiser than he found them in the practical means of salvation."

President Woodrow Wilson, "John Wesley's Place in History".

"Wesley...demand- ed that those active in the social work of his fellowship must deliver help to the poor, not merely send it ... Wesley’s theology led to his social ethics. He rejected any notion of predestination, arguing that Christ’s atoning death and resurrection were available to all. As a result, the rich were not rich because of God’s election, and the poor were not poor because of God’s reprobation. Further, Wesley believed that justification was not merely imputed to the believer, but the individual was also renewed and the process of sanctification begun. An important part of sanctification was to follow Christ’s example and to love one’s neighbor as oneself. The overall goal was the renewal of the individual believer, and the renewal of society through the actions of believers."

Manfred Marquardt, "John Wesley's Social Ethic: Praxis and Principles"

Wear what you want. Talk all day long about the nuances of the issues, but for the love of our Lord, go to the highways and byways and beckon those who have yet to hear of the love of Jesus, that they may find salvation (full salvation) in Him. In short, talk is cheap. So is polyester.

Signing off.

By Anonymous, at 1:17 AM
I'm with you Patrick.

Thanks everyone for giving me the opportunity to flesh out some of the last 4 years of education, personal studies, and critical thinking that I and others like you have been experiencing.

This is a great way to work through some of those thoughts and find out what we really know and believe.

Grace and peace,
Johnny

By Johnny, at 6:26 AM

Army Talk

Friday, May 12, 2006

Salvation Army = Stigma?

53 Comments:

About

About Me

Previous