Salvation Army

[The Mexican Puritan]

Is the Salvation Army a REAL church? I am doing an internship at the Salvation Army Adult Rehabilitation Center, serving as an alcohol and drug counselor. I told someone this, and he told me the Salvation Army does good things but is not a real church. Is this a fair assessment?

 

[Poimen]

The Salvation Army does not administer baptism or the Lord's Supper in accordance with Christ's commands and therefore cannot be considered a church of any kind.

 

[JM]

The Salvation Army: Why does The Salvation Army not baptise or hold communion?

 

[Hamalas]

I didn't even realize that some people consider it a church!

I just thought it was an older "Goodwill"!

 

[au5t1n]

The Salvation Army: Why does The Salvation Army not baptise or hold communion?

Wow. Their reasoning behind not observing the sacraments verges on gnosticism.

 

[Scott1]

With all the uncompromised mercy ministry they do, it is hard to criticize the Salvation Army.

Let me say I have been involved with it in the past, and it is a great organization that "fills a gap" that many churches are not filling.

Long ago, I realized it was a church in the sense of being organized as a 501(c)(3) charity and that it held regular church services.

I've come to realize there are many problems with the church's theology:

For starters, it's Arminian influenced, (not sure about covenant theology v. dispensationalism) and has a limited statement of beliefs but not really a confession to which it is bound and accountable.

I've come to understand that somehow, they do not do the Lord's Supper as part of their services. I've looked at their official "rationalization" and it is shallow and wrong biblically.

I'm not sure how to resolve this, knowing what I now know. I'm still inclined to participate in the mercy outreach... but could not see joining their church.

 

[kvanlaan]

The reasons for The Salvation Army's cessation of the sacraments may be summarised as follows:

1. The Army's Founders felt that many Christians had come to rely on the outward signs of spiritual grace rather than on grace itself. William and Catherine Booth believed, with the Apostle Paul, that salvation came solely from the grace of God personally received by faith. They felt that much of what passed for Christianity in their day was primarily an observance of outward ritual.

2. Some Bible scholars had pointed out that there was no scriptural basis for regarding the sacraments as essential to salvation or Christian living. Many Christians assumed that Jesus commanded the use of baptism and holy communion. But there very few New Testament references to these practices and it was argued that none of them showed any intention by Jesus that they (or any other practice) should have become fixed ceremonies.

3. The sacraments had been a divisive influence in the Church throughout Christian history and at times the cause of bitter controversy and abuse.

4. Some churches would not allow women to administer the sacraments. The Army, however, believed that women may take an equal part in its ministry, and did not want to compromise this stance.

5. The Society of Friends (the Quakers) had managed to live holy lives without the use of sacraments.

6. Many early-day converts to the Army had previously been alcoholics. It was considered unwise to tempt them with the wine used in holy communion.
To a large extent this is still the Salvationist's standpoint. However, it should be stressed that Salvationists have never been in opposition to the sacraments. Indeed, when they take part in gatherings with Christians from other churches, Salvationists will often share in using the symbols of the Lord's Supper as a sign of fellowship. Furthermore, Salvationists are not prevented from being baptised in other churches should they so desire.

Why doesn't The Salvation Army hold any communion services?
(from The War Cry, 28 February 1987)

The answer must be a two-part one.

First, it is felt that there are some very real dangers in forms of religion which place heavy dependence on ceremonies and rituals. Meaningful symbols can become meaningless rituals, and have often done so. The Salvation Army places the emphasis on personal faith and on a spiritual relationship with God which is not dependent on anything external.

Further, Church history shows that disputes about the detailed practice and meaning of such ceremonies have often been a divisive factor between Christians.
The second part of the answer is to point out that the belief of many Christians that the use of the sacrament of communion was commanded by Christ as essential for all Christians for all time, can be no more than an assumption.

They interpret certain texts in the light of hindsight: that is, they read back into history their present background of belief and practice and assume that Jesus or the Early Church leaders were requiring observance of the ceremony - though it may be possible to interpret their words in other senses.
For example, take the sentence in Luke 22:19 (AV), 'This do in remembrance of me', which is thought by many to command what we now know as communion. It could equally well be a suggestion to the Twelve that they should think of Jesus whenever they shared the annual Passover meal or had any meal together (for that is what they were doing), in much the same way as Christians today remember Jesus whenever they say grace before any meal.

The binding nature of this statement is further brought into question when one studies the background of the sentence. It does not appear in Matthew or Mark, nor does it appear in some of the oldest manuscripts in Luke (and therefore is left out of some modern translations of that gospel). It has been suggested that it comes from elsewhere, eg 1 Corinthians 11:24 (to which we shall return). If we look at John's gospel we find that the symbolic act there (John 13:3-17) is feet-washing. Why do sacramental Christians not observe this as a binding command, when they do so with the rather less certain one about bread and wine?

There is no doubt that Christians in the Early Church did share common meals, but initially they were meals, not ceremonies (Acts 2:42-46; 4:32; 20:7, 11, 27:33-38). 1 Corinthians shows, however, that in that one church at least they soon ceased to be occasions of real sharing (1 Corinthians 11:17-22) .
To give the meal more spiritual meaning and dignity Paul used the traditional teaching about the last supper (11:23-24) to steer them away from selfish 'bingeing' and towards real Christian sharing in the spirit of Christ.

It should be noted, however that 15 of the 21 New Testament letters make no mention at all of the ceremony which so many Christians now regard as essential to Christian living.

For a time both kinds of meal continued (Sunday morning - communion; evening - common meal). Then gradually the ceremonial became dominant and more and more ritualistic.

The Army does not hold its position as an article of faith or doctrine, but simply as one of practice. So it does not debar anyone who wishes to partake in such a ceremony or prevent anyone who wishes to enter a communion service as a sign of fellowship with other Christians.

It also recognises that many sincere Christians find the communion ceremony to be a deeply meaningful aid to worship and devotion, and a help towards drawing a Christian community closer together.

Baptism

The Army Founders' attitude to baptism was similar to that of Communion. They saw dangers that the rite could replace the reality of entering into a living relationship with Jesus, and so they decided that the Army would not practise adult baptism.

To become a Salvation Army soldier a person must first and foremost acknowledge that they have asked God for forgiveness for their wrongdoing and that Jesus Christ is their saviour from sin.

Recruits - as those who wish to become Salvation Army soldiers are known - study the Army's doctrines and the principles and practice of a Salvationist lifestyle before a swearing-in ceremony takes place, usually in a Sunday meeting. During this, recruits stand under the Army flag and publicly acknowledge their salvation from sin, state their belief in the Army's doctrines and promise to live by the standards laid out in the 'articles of war'. They then sign a copy of these articles of war and a prayer is said asking for God's help in keeping those promises.

While this ceremony is a serious occasion, it is also a very joyful one with the new soldier being warmly greeted by the congregation and by individual fellow-Salvationists.

As with the ceremony of Communion, Salvationists are not forbidden to be baptised in another church if they feel this is right for them as individuals, and the Army has from time to time reconsidered its stance on the sacraments, and continues to keep it under review.

Sorry, but add to this women in the pulpit, and this list would make any reformed pastor shudder, I think. Using the Quakers (and nowhere actual scripture) as justification for not taking part is just goofy. Regardless of their 501 status, they seem about as much a church body as Joel and other 'churches'. Those also give to the poor in an uncompromising way. Call it a network for non-governmental social work, social outreach, or what have you. But don't call it a church.

I read this list and hear Sheldon's "In His Steps" screaming out at me.

 

[Skyler]

Wow. I never knew that.

 

[Scott1]

The reasons for The Salvation Army's cessation of the sacraments may be summarised as follows:

.....

To a large extent this is still the Salvationist's standpoint. However, it should be stressed that Salvationists have never been in opposition to the sacraments. Indeed, when they take part in gatherings with Christians from other churches, Salvationists will often share in using the symbols of the Lord's Supper as a sign of fellowship. Furthermore, Salvationists are not prevented from being baptised in other churches should they so desire.

This section illustrates the untenable nature of the official reasoning- biblically, practically and by common sense.

On one hand, they say it is not commanded, may only incite meaningless ritual... on the other,they are not opposed to it, it's okay if you want to do it or have someone else do it to you... and then join them.