I was impressed with a friend's blog a long time ago about their Corps' standards for making soldiers. In fact, I printed it and posted it where I could see it at my office desk. High standards. Standards I agreed with.
Many years ago, I was a Water Safety Instructor (WSI) with the Red Cross. That meant I could teach people and certify them to be Lifeguards. I was always concerned with making sure they were qualified, because I was told that if someone I certified ever had a drowning at their site, as their instructor, I could be called to court with them. I held a very high standard because of that! I didn't just make anyone a lifeguard. They had to really be qualified. In fact, I once failed a friend who didn't give it his all.
Since then I have always held an equally high standard for making people soldiers. I tell those in my soldier prep classes the above story and let them know I'm not interested in making pew-warmers. I want active, fighting soldiers involved in ministry.
That's been a fine tack for years, but now I find myself concerned with a certain facet of this standard. What do we do with people who are mentally or physically challenged? At first glance, they obviously can't carry the standard at the level I have expected. Are they therefore disqualified for soldiership in this Army?
I don't like that thought at all.
Sure there is the analogy of a military army- they certainly can't bring in people not qualified to be full soldiers. I see that and agree with that. There are just some things some people can't do. Period.
But as I've said before, we are not a "real" army. We use the term as a figure of speech (like scripture does). In fact, we are a Body. Well . . . that one breaks down too; the only analogy that works completely is: We are the Church. There is nothing out there like the Church, but the Church. We are unique.
And the Church is made up of all kinds of people. I don't care what you think about membership in this Army, I believe everyone who believes in Jesus Christ can belong to this fighting force. Everyone has some way they can be important to the mission of winning the world. Even if it's just being faithful to the church by attending regularly. We may never know how powerful faithfulness is, in the grand scheme of things!
Don't get me wrong- I'm not advocating pew-warmers. If people can do more, they most certainly should. I do not well tolerate lazy Christians (isn't this an oxymoron? Can there really be such a thing?)! We were not Saved to Sit. We were Saved to Save (and Serve, but not just Serve).
So back to my original line here: What do we do with people who are saved (love Jesus), but don't have the physical or mental wherewithal to be "fully" active soldiers as we usually know them? Do we make them adherents (a sad excuse for a response)? Do we just let them "belong" to our Church as members? Or do we make them soldiers and encourage them to do whatever they can and be faithful at it?
I'd really like to know your thoughts on this issue, please.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
As a parent with a special needs child and an officer, I know that my daughter may never be able to say the Jr. Soldier pledge or sing or preach or witness about how God has changed her life, but I will encourage her to do what she can for the cause of Christ. I will enroll her as a "uniform wearing soldier" when I believe she understands and has made the faith commitment. Just because she cannot preach at an open air or give a testimony in a salvation meeting doesn't mean she shouldn't be welcomed into the corps as a member.
Doug, I apologize if I sound harsh, but if you have read my wife's article in The Officer, you will know a little bit of what we've been through and how we feel about this.
In His Grip,
Dave
No need to apologize. I don't read your comment as harsh, rather understanding what I'm talking about. I hope you don't think my blog was harsh! I'm REALLY trying to sort through this issue.
I hope my not having to sort through this earlier in my ministry doesn't mean we have ignored people who we thought were "below" our standards!
I totally think you should let them be full members. i bet sometimes they could be more commited then some of the people who can actully get out there and preach an teach. but people with physical and mental issues have so much compassion, and i am sure they would find someway to make a impact in the corps. im sure just there presance and there existance can be a blessing to others. I kinda think if there was a rule against having certain people as members it would make the salvation army kinda a elitest type of place...that wouldn't be so cool......
Doug: No, I didn't think your blog was harsh. I just get defensive occasionally. :) One my many flaws I am working on.
Deb: I think you're right, there isn't a black and white answer to the question beyond faith. But if a person shows the child-like faith, then I believe they should be enrolled and encouraged as much as possible.
In His Grip,
Dave
salarmyofficership.blogspot.com
I work with mentally and physically challenged people, and to be honest, if this is even an issue in terms of where they fit in within the Army context, I would not be bringing them to that church. There should be no question of where they fit in or their value to the church. What does it really matter whether or not they can be soldiers in the Army? What does it really matter if all they can do is come to church and enjoy the music and fellowship? I count it a privelege to work with these guys and have learned so much from them about the love of God, despite the fact these guys can't even speak. Oh, they can't make an official declaration of faith, so would that make them mere pew-warmers? I don't for a second think it is even a thought in the Lord's mind where they fit in. To even ask 'do we just let them "belong" to our Church as members?' is crazy to me. I know there's a thing with blog comments right now and things being misconstrued, so I hope this comment is not taken the wrong way. I'm sorry, I guess I am pretty passionate about this right now. I just think it's terribly sad that this is even a question. All people should be welcomed in to any church with open arms, and I believe there should be a special place for the mentally and physically challenged because I know God sees them as precious and deeply important.
Just one other thought. Maybe the title of this post should be 'to love or not to love: there is NO question.'
I believe in standards. Especially standards for church membership. I have seen way too many people made soldiers who aren't even saved (I led a soldier to salvation a couple of years ago). And I've seen members from other churches who act like anything BUT Christians. So we can't just drop standards of membership because we want everyone to "belong" to our fellowship. Everyone who comes belongs to our fellowship. We welcome them, encourage them, pray for them and love them. But not everyone who attends will become a fully committed member (or want to). There is a difference. Hence the discussion about our standards.
I particularly dislike seeing people use their soldiership (or other church membership) as their badge of salvation. Belonging in itself does not make one saved. There must be evidence of Jesus' lordship in a person's life. How that shows up is going to be different for every unique individual. My comment about "pew-warmers" is about this kind of person- NOT the challenged. I hope it is obvious now, these are 2 distinct categories of people we're talking about here.
Maybe our problem is that we want to set inflexible standards, when our standards need to be customizable for each individual. But can they then be called standards?
I like this discussion (discussion is the exchange of ideas). Please don't let it degenerate into argument (I have written and re-written this comment in the hopes that I don't stir up anger in anyone- that is NOT my intent). I have opened myself up to scrutiny with this question because I don't like what I've discovered in my previously set standards and want to change them for the better. I want to hear what people think that I may use their ideas to form a new standard which is more encompassing, but still a high one.
Jesus set the bar high when he said things like: "No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for service in the kingdom of God."
I was going to comment more, but it got too long so I posted on my blog.
If you'd like to read it, go to eemc.blogsome.com
My one question right now is what gives anyone the right to judge or determine where another fits into the church? Honestly, who cares about the standards of the Salvation Army? What is that to anyone? The true standard is the unfailing love and grace of the Lord, and in his eyes we all fit in somewhere into his Church, regardless of how others perceive us to fit into one little branch of a church. Being in uniform certainly does not make one saved, just the same as being an officer does not give anyone the right to judge where one's heart is at in terms of their relationship to Christ. If we just decided to love and accept people no matter what, then this wouldn't even be a question. The fact that there is this Army standard clouds things and apparently causes some to miss the point. This whole Army exclusivity thing is very troublesome.
Of course we have been called to serve, but above all we have been called to love.
I am shocked that your questions regarding the mentally and physically disabled are written about on this blog? What the heck is wrong with the church today? Light Seeker, I am sorry if this sounds harsh, but it is quite clear in the Word that the marginalized are most definitely supposed to be a part of the church! It is also clear that Jesus was simply not concerned about uniforms and the like...As a challenge to all members of the body - the holy catholic and apostolic church- have we lost sight of why we believe what we believe?
Okay, here we go again. People are not reading what's been written, they are just responding based on what they THINK others are saying and thinking. Makes me want to stop blogging.
Nowhere was it said ANYONE is not welcomed and loved in the Church.
I see a wrong thought, try to steer us in a direction to fix it and this is what happens. If you read my second to last paragraph again, you'll see I posed my question in a way that assumes the answer people will take is: we should accept ALL Christians into the Body of Christ. Every Christian has a part to play and we need every one. I have never taught or believed anything different. However there are some in the Church who need to revisit the basics now and then.
Thanx Dave (and some others) for getting that. Thanx anonymous for making my point.
Doug, I agree with that statement fully. My problem is the need to take it to the next level of questioning the validity of soldiership. Bill is right in saying 'who cares?' The question should not be who is in or our, soldier or not. I understand you're just trying to figure out where they fit in to the heirarchy of church membership, but again, the point is that they do have a place, they do fit in, no matter what. To classify people are pew-warmers or effective soldiers seems to be slightly judgemental. If we are all accepted into the church, then the issue of soldiership or membership is entirely irrelevant, and it bugs me that the Army is so fixated on that rather than just accepting people with open arms unconditionally, regardless of whether or not they sign on the dotted line.
Joe, I was raised in the Army. I know what it's all about. That's great if the purpose here is to try to get around the 'high' standards of the Army and get these people enrolled as soldiers, but again I would say 'who cares?' The only covenant I see as important in terms of being a part of THE Church [not one little branch of it] is what God has already covenanted with us through Christ. Compared to that, soldiership is a lesser covenant and irrelevant in my eyes and in the long run in general. Basically, I don't think this whole question really matters that much, and should not even be an issue. The fact that these distinctions even exist [soldier, member adherent etc.] brings disunity to the body. That's all I am trying to saying.
The Salvation Army is my Church. I care. I care about it's mission in the world today. I care about the people who have joined me in the fight. I care about those in other denominations (believe it or not, I care about you). But I certainly care about the branch of the Church in which God has appointed me to serve.
Since God has placed me here, I defend it where needed. Where it is wrong, I work to change that from within as best I can. But changing rules changes nothing. We must change hearts to affect real change.
I care about how we treat people. Obviously "we" have made plenty of errors in dealing with people over the years and caused many unnecessary pain and hardship for them (just like every other church- there is no perfect one). I wish I could step in and heal those hurts; make ammends; repent or whatever else is necessary, but there are only a relative few who I can actually touch in this way. God will call those who have caused pain to account for their unbending allegiance to legalism. I don't want to be one of them.
I believe in covenant. And I don't want this discussion to go back to rehashing that. I've seen too many such discussions that never reach a conclusion of agreement. Many of us don't agree on this. I can live with that. I have plenty of friends who believe differently than me, but I love them just the same. They are a part of my family whether I like it or not (I DO like it, by the way).
I care about those people who attend my church but have no real relationship with Christ. Their attendance will not save them and because they don't understand that, I fear for their souls. But I care for them and work to change that as best I can.
I also care about those who attend who will never be able to do some of the things "typical" Church membership includes. As long as they know Jesus, I want them to play whatever part they are able and called to play. And I want others to accept them for that role, however "minor" some may think it is. Their role is important to Jesus and it is important to me.
If people don't know Jesus, I love them anyway, but they are not a part of The Body of Christ. Calling them members, soldiers, adherents, officers, whatever- still does not make them any closer to being a part of That Body. I love them "just because," but I also have a hope that one day they will experience the Gospel and join my "heavenly" family as a "member" of That Body.
These things matter to me. That's why I blog these questions and look for others who care as well.
Thanks for the repartee. Off to blog something less controversial!
Doug, thanks for that explanation. I understand that you and others will hold to the Army way, and that there will ultimately be disagreement in terms of whether that is right or wrong. I just don't understand the need to define someone's role in the church in relation to their membership or soldiership. Everyone has something to offer and everyone is a valuable member of the body of Christ, regardless of whether or not they are a member or a soldier. It seems like you agree with that, and it's frustrating that the Army feels the need to create those divisive distinctions. As far as it relates to the lysically and metnally challenged, it should not matter if they are members or soldiers or just attending...the fact that they are there is enough, and they are to be love and valued because their place in the eyes of God is far more important than how we define and categorize them. I appreciate the discussion and that we disagree on certain issues, but the mentally and physically challenged are very close to my heart right now and it kills me to see that this is even an issue, in any church. That's just my perspective on it,so you know where I'm coming from.
As always, I invite emails if you want to keep the coversation going directly.
mclaren.ic@gmail.com
I agree with you that all people are to be loved, in the church of Christ, and all of her branches, too. In the Catholic church, you have communion. In the Baptist church, you have baptism. In other denominations, some other form of declaration of faith is an option. In the Salvation Army, that would option would be soldiership. Soldiership is not salvation. It is an act of love in response to the Father. Covenant. My Jesus gave His life for the whole world, the least I can do is live my life as a sacrifice for Him....I choose the Salvation Army. I love the fighting spirit of the Army. I love the drive to service and servanthood. I love that we were birthed by the call to the 'least of these'. The Salvation Army was the Joshuas and the Davids and the Rahabs and the Pauls of the 19th century world, and it saw exponential growth within the first ten years of its existance.
When I became a soldier, it wasn't about fitting in. It was about what God was asking of me, despite the things I saw around me...then I started seeing things around me change...
i can't believe i missed this one!! But I'm not going to add anything to it -- don't worry. I don't think there's a single thing I could add that hasn't been said except to repeat this one brilliant little thing:
". . we are not Saved to Sit. We were Saved to Save (and Serve, but not just serve). . ." I LOVE that!!!!
Pew...does anyone know where that term came from?? It's just a funny word...it sounds french. pew pew pew ba ha ha ha!!! If you don't recgonize this it's called comic relief.
LOL! that makes me think of "Pepe LePew"!!!
Post a Comment