|
The Unofficial Sacramental
Position of the JAC Editorial Board
from JAC Issue #40
by
Captain Stephen Court
the
unofficial sacramental position of the editorial board (minus
one of the two members)
of the Journal of Aggressive Christianity.
(complain to
revolution@mmccxx.net)
I
had an interesting experience at a territorial symposium
recently. The inevitable (in our territory) pro-sacrament
proposal came and was nearly approved to be forwarded to the
TC and Cabinet. When asked if there was any dissent to the
various proposals, I sheepishly stuck my hand in the air and
admitted I had some problems with the pro-sacramental
proposal.
Asked to
explain, I bored a few people with what follows (I’ve tidied
up a couple of contradictions I made there, and added some
bonus material, too!):
Origins.
But to kick
things off, let me testify that this issue never arises in my
corps, in which new converts join Christian community and
become disciples within the context of primitive
Salvationism. The issue seems to emerge from two sources:
Christians transferring over to The Army from churches, and
corps officers who are more influenced from outside The Army
than from inside.
For the first
problem, let me suggest that The Army assert a position more
akin to America than to Canada relating to immigrants. If you
move permanently to America you are expected to become
American in lifestyle and culture and practice. If you move
to Canada we bend over backwards so that you can live whatever
way you want. The result is that American culture is enriched
and Canadian cultural fabric is shredded. The Army has
suffered tears in its cultural fabric by celebrating the lack
of cooptation of incoming transfers.
For the second
problem, let me suggest that corps officers read Horizons and
The Officer and Salvation Army books and websites. There are
a couple of great resources I can recommend to start- The
Orders and Regulations and the Handbook of Doctrine. Good
stuff.
The Argument.
The Salvation
Army is non-sacramental for two main reasons: 1. Biblical; 2.
Missional.
1. Biblical.
Although
Scriptural, the sacraments are not Biblical. By this I mean
that though practised as recorded in Scripture, they are no
more the intentions of God for us than that we argue and split
up our evangelism (as Paul and Barnabus), cast lots for
another apostle, worship solely at the Temple, stare at a
physical pole with a snake on it, carry around God's presence
in a little box, devote things by literally killing every
living thing, or being obliged to chop off foreskin to remind
us that we belong to God. What is Biblical in each of those
instances is not Scriptural: don't argue but wait on God and,
in the meantime, love one another; ask God; worship Him
everywhere, recognize that we are the temple of God; look up
at Jesus and not the snake (which, inevitably, like every
other physical practice given by God, proved a snare to the
people of God or proved obsolete as superceded by spiritual
reality); carry around God's presence in our lives; devote
things by giving them over to God (and not destroying every
living thing); and circumcising our hearts (this is a deeper
argument than it sounds, most eloquently put by Colonel Eugene
Pigford in SALVATIONISM 201).
Water Baptism.
The ‘command’ to baptize Matt 28:19-20:
Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptising them
in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy
Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded
you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the
age.
Acts 2:38 Peter replied, "Repent and be baptised, every one of
you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your
sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”
That sounds convincing. However, we need consider these
verses in light of other Scripture. Two parallel texts speak
to this issue:
Matt 3:11 "I baptise you with water for repentance. But after
me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I
am not fit to carry. He will baptise you with the Holy Spirit
and with fire.”
Acts 1:5 For John baptised with water, but in a few days you
will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.
'BUT' makes the water obsolete. The water was a promise of
the Holy Spirit to come. It could be argued that to continue
to dunk in water after the Holy Spirit has come is to insult
Holy Spirit.
The purpose of baptism was to publicly announce that the
individual was associating with the Christians. It also
nicely symbolised the death and resurrection experienced by a
believer in Christ at conversion. That's it. And the
resurrection part was purely a happy coincidence (or a neat
addition by God!), since water baptism is not even originally
a Christian ritual.
Luke's Acts text (2:38) is not a theological treatise. You
can't nail theology and practice based on Acts since there are
so many different methods used in Acts (if you do, you could
as easily assert that tongues invariably accompanies the
arrival of the Holy Spirit, that martyrdom is the chosen
church growth method, and communism is the certified means of
church life...). Theology is not Luke's purpose. In this
text Peter commands that they repent and be baptised because
the Jews in the crowd needed to associate with the Christians.
By getting
dunked we are publicly associating with that dunking group,
whatever that group might be. Today, this is obsolete, as
wearing a Christian t-shirt (I was wearing ‘God rocks and
Jesus is better than disco’ on my shirt during this impromptu
presentation) or uniform (as I am reminded so powerfully every
time I go outside my doors) is magnitudes more effective in
associating with Jesus Christ publicly to sinners than getting
dunked once in front of six sinner friends (I’m being
optimistic) we were able to coerce out to the holiness meeting
with promises of Swiss Chalet (Canadian restaurant and SA fave)
and a swim afterward.
Oh, yeah, and Paul indicated that there is one baptism (Epheisans
4:5). I imagine he’s referring to Spirit, not water, in light
of his assertion in Romans 8:9 that without Holy Spirit you
aren’t even a Christian.
Communion.
The ‘command’ to take communion:
Luke 22:19 And He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and
gave it to them, saying, "This is my body given for you; do
this in remembrance of Me."
1 Corinthians 11:24-26 And when He had given thanks, He broke
it and said, "This is My body, which is for you; do this in
remembrance of Me." In the same way, after supper He took the
cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do
this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of Me." For
whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim
the Lord's death until He comes.
That's a pretty spotty command. Remember the context. They
were celebrating Passover. There was an elaborate ritual
surrounding it, pointing back to the commands of God to the
people of Israel to avoid suffering from the last plague on
Egypt (Exodus 12). So, in the context of that initial
evening, Jesus’ instruction for us is that whenever we eat
Passover bread and wine we should do it remembering that Jesus
is our Passover Lamb! It’s an excellent illustration.
However, in The Army we rarely celebrate the Passover. It is
an annual holy day. At most, it happens once a year.
In the Luke text, Jesus tells the disciples to do this in
remembrance. Does that mean that they are supposed to take
bread, give thanks, and break it (like
Jesus just did)? That is the simple meaning of the text.
That’s what they did. There is nothing ritualistic in that
text.
The Other Account of the Last Supper:
John
13:12-17 When He had finished washing their feet, He put on
His clothes and returned to His place. "Do you understand what
I have done for you?" He asked them. "You call Me 'Teacher'
and 'Lord,' and rightly so, for that is what I am. Now that I,
your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should
wash one another's feet. I have set you an example that you
should do as I have done for you. I tell you the truth, no
servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater
than the one who sent him. Now that you know these things, you
will be blessed if you do them.
At the same last supper, Jesus washes their feet, asks if they
understand, asserts that this is an example for them, “you
also should wash one another's feet. I have set an example
that you should do as I have done for you. ... you will be
blessed if you do them.”
If anything comes out of the last supper, it is definitely
foot washing.
Here Jesus projects the actions of a private supper into the
future, casting them as an example which, when followed, will
bring blessing. If there is anything we are to imitate from
this last supper, it is to wash each other’s feet.
The two
Protestant sacraments are, potentially, and largely for
the reasons suggested above, superstitious. As such they are,
potentially, not only in contrast with but also in
contention with Christianity. Not only are we staunch non-sacramentalists,
but we are also staunch non-superstitionists.
Missional.
The Salvation
Army has a prophetic calling to the world. Most of us haven’t
forgotten that. But we also have a prophetic calling to the
rest of the Body of Christ (for which we are the Fist- of the
Body of Christ).
In obedience
to this latter calling, we maintain a non-sacramental
testimony, willingly 'sacrificing' (or, at least, foregoing)
the ‘privilege’ of practising them as a reminder to our
cousins of every stripe and colour. For a Salvationist to
compromise by indulging in them necessarily waters down the
corporate testimony and prophetic integrity of The Salvation
Army, while, at the same time, letting down every non-Salvo
believer in the whole world, to whom we are to be a prophetic
testimony.
As one Body (the universal church), the Body still practises
the sacraments. Within the Body, the tiny part called The
Salvation Army is a living, breathing reminder to the rest of
the Body that the sacraments are helps at best, and that, in
and of themselves, they don't necessarily convey any blessing
that is not available without them. The testimony continues
outside of the Body. Whereas much of the Body finds itself in
the priestly tradition, into which the rituals of sacraments
fit smoothly (priests administer these sacraments, etc.),
The Salvation Army has was born in the prophetic tradition.
The prophetic tradition speaks out to society of sin, of God's
love, and of the way from one to the other. The focus is on
the prophetic, not the priestly. Fittingly we have stripped
off some/all of the priestly trimmings from our praxis (those
that remain are mostly accretions, like sacraments, to be
shed).
Other Reasons…
Practical.
It is not
helpful for us to identify, before our people- the sinning
public- with the liberal (apostate?) churches that hog the
real estate downtown and most of what passes for Christian
warfare on our front.
It is not
helpful for us to identify with the visible church for great
commission purposes, as the visible church happens to be
rejected by the majority of citizens in every country (based
on church attendance).
Number 8 serge
is a bear to dry clean after mucky harbour dippings.
Conclusion.
The neat thing
at the symposium was that, after my diatribe, the leader of
the group proposing the pro-sacramental stand suggesting
retracting the proposal and having this argument taught to
soldiers everywhere.
Now, that is a great idea.
|
