|
| Articles of War part two |
|
| |
As I promised when I first started writing about this, here are my thoughts on the Articles of War (otherwise known as the Soldier's Covenant). Let me start this by saying I don't believe someone can self-discipline themselves into godliness. I think if it was as simple as that, we would not have needed the sacrifice of Christ; the system given to the Israelites by God through Moses would have been enough.
My issue is not with stating what you believe in and signing something confirming this, but with the bold statements we make that none of us can realistically back up. When I look at the Articles of War I signed, I cannot help but think of Peter telling Christ, (in Michael paraphrase) "Even if everyone else denies you, I will not!" I don't think anyone needs to be told how that story ends.
We are human and fallen, and it does not matter how much we may want to live the statement, "I will uphold Christian integrity in every area of my life, allowing nothing in thought, word or deed that is unworthy, unclean, untrue, profane, dishonest, or immoral," we are going to fall short of it. In the last 24 hours, I probably have broken this statement at least every other minute (ok, perhaps not that bad). I am assaulted daily with things that are unworthy, profane, dishonest, and immoral to God and despite my best efforts they are in my mind. Yet, there I was at 16 before God and church boasting that I would not do this very thing. I cannot help wanting to go back and alter the text to say, "I will to the best of my ability (which will require Christ's sacrifice to cover the screw-ups that will happen) that..."
The next statement I think is almost as difficult to uphold as the first, "I will maintain Christian ideals in all my relationships with others; my family and neighbors, my colleagues and fellow Salvationists, those to whom and for whom I am responsible, and the wider community." Jesus was once asked, "Who are my neighbors?" The response is the well known parable of the Good Samaritan. I think one of the points of the parable is that everyone is your neighbor: your physical neighbor living next door, the man who you meet at a grocery store, the homeless man underneath the bridge, the child of an Islamic terrorist, and even the terrorist himself. In the parable the Samaritan sacrifices his own comfort, money, and time to aid someone who probably hated him; but then I guess that is different conversation entirely.
The point is if am I responsible when it comes to all those other people, (and I believe the answer is a resounding yes), how can I say that I am upholding this proclamation? Did I even stop and think about the millions starving today when my family threw out the wasted food that just sat in my fridge going bad? Did I even think about where the cheap plastic bin I bought at Wal-Mart was produced and the possible horrible conditions the worker that made it lived in? Did it even cross my mind that money I spent on my selfish (and probably pointless) desires could have been used to aid another? Unfortunately most of the time, the answer is a loud no. I am too caught up in my own little world to even think about this.
I think this is part of what I dislike about the Soldier's Covenant. It is almost as if we are dying to stand up and make these commitments before others without wanting to understand what we are truly committing to. I also think it is insane to put these huge decisions on someone far too young to make them. I don't think most people are truly capable of understanding the depth of the above statements at 15 or 16. I am getting ready to be 29 and I can barely wrap my mind around the depth of those statements. And if I did fully understand them back then, would I have still signed the contract?
I think there is this silly idea embedded into the leadership that believes everyone should be a soldier. There is a mentality that almost every child in The Salvation Army should follow a progression of Jr. Soldier, Corps Cadet, Soldier, and most of the time Officer. Nowhere in that progression is there Adherent (just a member of the church). In our rush to follow this progression, do we stop to ensure they understand the commitment they are dedicating themselves to? (As I said before, I believe soldiership classes could be measured better in minutes than hours in some cases).
Anyways, that is enough on the topic today. Perhaps some other time I will be willing to touch upon it again. I welcome someone else's thoughts on it and pray that they are not as broken as it currently appears to me.
|
|
| To add a comment to "Articles of War part two" |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| May 22, 2008 |
 |
|
|
This is the first I have heard of the soldier's covenant. Is it geared toward kids? I think your post makes really good points. It sounds very comprehensive, unlike the contracts to not drink on prom night. This could be akin to the idea of swearing to something or taking an oath when you know you're not going to keep it, I think. |
|
|
| May 22, 2008 |
|
|
|
The Soldier's Covenant is a part of The Salvation Army church. To give the official definition, "A soldier is a converted person at least 14 years of age who has, with the approval of the census board, been enrolled as a member of The Salvation Army after signing the articles of war (soldier's covenant)." [http://www.salvationarmy.org/ihq/www_sa.nsf/vw-dynamic-arrays/56C765982907E8E6802573B1004E4E37?openDocument] in case the link doesn't work. I believe the original intention was for Soldiership to be something with a deeper meaning than just a membership to a church. |
|
|
| May 22, 2008 |
|
|
|
You are correct in believing that Soldiership is a deeper commitment to The Salvation Army. Most of our people would probably be happy with being an Adherant (which is NOT any less than a soldier, just a different commmitment). Soldiership is not and should not be considered easy, and I agree that we sometimes "push" our young people into making that commitment without truly giving them understanding of just what they are signing. I will say that I did not fully comprehend the 11 doctrines until I went to Training and had intense classes in them. I would also say that today, young people are taking a greater interest in the mission of the Army, and want a deeper spiritual aspect to theirs corps (churches). |
|
|
| May 22, 2008 |
|
|
|
Michael, I love your posts. You have a fantastic way of looking at a situation and boiling down the points to its most fundamental elements. Then, examining them with real eyes and a genuine spirit. I love them. I think I've mentioned it before; but, if you have not already done so, you really need to read Donald Miller's book Blue Like Jazz--there is also an abridged audio version. The human nature you refer to throughout your post is a dominate theme in his book. Gratuitous self promotion: In Volume 1 Issue 2 of my weekly e-newsletter Friday Funnies, I give a very graphic and detailed review of Mr. Miller's book and my love for it the Media Moment section. Like all of your posts, this one did not disappoint. In your second paragraph, you make the statement: "that none of us can realistically back up" While there is something very natural about that statement, it doesn't line up with TSA's fundamental doctrinal beliefs. We are basically a Wesleyan Holiness Church. The Holiness Movement is based in part on the belief that we can in fact be Holy. [See our 10th Doctrine]. In this case, what seems so very natural is just that--natural. But we live with and in a sin nature; however, our God and His works are Super-natural. We cannot try to box God and His ways in our human (and thus very limited) frame of reference. It is called "faith" after-all. In your next paragraph you tackle another mouthful of a promise. Not to be too 'Clinton-like', but I believe the bulk of it teeters on the word "allowing". First for those who have progressed (matured) more in their walk with Christ than I, can look to the paragraph above. But for the rest of us, the problem comes in part American English VS English English (if you can say that), and in common definition of vocabulary in the 1880's vs 2000's (or even the 1980's, dud). I think you and I are looking at that word differently. I think you are looking at as: "being in there" as in: those immoral thought are in my head, thus I have already failed. Whereas, I'm look at it as: "granting permission" as in: I will not seek out immoral thoughts, nor will I sit ideally when immoral thoughts are in my head. While the distinction seems subtle, the impact can be significant. We have to remember that being temped is not a sin, rather it may be a sign that we are doing the right things. It is the action on (or failing to act upon) those temptations that is the sin. To believe otherwise sets us up for failure; God did not call us to be failures, but victors. In your next paragraph, you tackled a topic which has been the topic of countless books, including the one referred to in my first paragraph. As with your other points of concern, you are in what I refer to as the "Therefore's" of the Articles. When I was younger, I looked these as TSA's version of the Ten Commandments. i did not mean that as sacrilege, but I did and do consider them somewhat frivolous, and certainly redundant. Let's face it, if we live up to the first phrase of the first 'Therefore"--"I will be responsive to the Holy Spirit’s work and obedient to His leading in my life..." -- the rest is nothing more than a result. But to your point specifically... I tend to tie that specific "Therefore" and a few others to the one on Stewardship. That is, we are being good stewards of what God has given us in every area of our life, there is no need or cause for remorse or guilt. And I do not agree with you that we are "responsible" for others. We are called to love all mankind and to share God's love with them, but I really do not believe we are responsible--I'm reminded of Cain's terse reply. Remember, "Love" while a verb, does not mean cater to or coddle. I have no doubt that Jesus loved the 'money-changers' He threw out of the temple. When Christ commanded His disciples to " shake the dust off your feet", He didn't grant permission to revoke their love, just their peace, and then granted us permission to be at ease in the decision. The last point I will touch on is your view on the age. I couldn't agree more! While I do not doubt that there are some who are ready to be soldiers at 16, they are few. However, as I was typing this reply, I was reminded of Jesus' announcement: " anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it." Which brings me to this point. I realize that in TSA history, the Junior Soldier Promise would come much later than the Articles of War, but it says it all.... 'Having asked God for forgiveness, I will be his loving and obedient child. Because Jesus is my Saviour from sin, I will trust him to keep me good, and will try to help others to follow him. I promise to pray, to read my Bible and, by his help, to lead a life that is clean in thought, word and deed. I will not smoke, take harmful drugs or drink alcoholic drinks.' If we are able to make and live by that promise, we are in good shape, and God is sure to bless us! |
|
|
| May 23, 2008 |
|
|
|
I love the Junior Soldier Promise because I see in it the things missing from the Soldier's Covenant. It allows that we are just human and it is only because of the grace of God that we can live up to our potential. As for our neighbors, I am not saying we coddle everyone but show the compassion that Christ would have shown. Sometimes this means we need to rebuke someone for their own good, but should we be rebuking them if it is done out of anger and not love? I also think we are responsible for showing Christ's love unconditionally and a lot of times that means sacrificing our own comforts to achieve it. Is someone starving, homeless, or oppressed going to want to hear about their loving Heavenly Father when His children don't show that love? I have been frequently told that if we didn't pre-emptive strike this country or wage war on this religious group that they will invade. Normally the person goes on to describe the horrible and terrible things that group will do to us, as if that will justify what he wants to do. My response has always been to them, "if you truly have faith in your Heavenly Father then why don't you believe God when God tells us there that He will take care of us. We are told to love our enemies unconditionally yet you want to live in fear like someone who doesn't know God. If we are doing our Heavenly Father's work then we have no reason to be afraid because God will protect His children." (see below for the references) 6:25 Therefore I say unto you, be not anxious for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than the food, and the body than the raiment? 6:27 "But I say to you that hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 6:28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. 6:29 To him who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also; and from him who takes away your coat do not withhold even your shirt. 6:30 Give to every one who begs from you; and of him who takes away your goods do not ask them again. 6:31 And as you wish that men would do to you, do so to them. 6:35 But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; for he is kind to the ungrateful and the selfish. 6:36 Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful. I admit I may be looking at the issue a bit simplistically, but this has somehow always seems right to me. |
|
|
| May 24, 2008 |
|
|
|
I'm a fan of simplistic. Simplistic has always seemed right to me. |
|
|
Follow this blog
