Not another article on the sacraments!

by Adam Couchman

I

’ve just spent the last twelve months working on a dissertation towards my honours, and I chose to investigate the Army’s position with regard to the sacraments.

Now before you ask why another author has pulled out the whip in order to flog a horse whose last breath was breathed long ago, let me explain why I chose this topic. Before 2007, “sacramental theology” was something I had never heard of. Throughout my two years of college and four years studying for my theology degree, it just never came up. I had to ask: why? Why is it, in The Salvation Army, that because we do not use the dominical sacraments, we have also chosen, by and large, not to engage with sacramental theology (at least to any real depth)? Or - dare I say - even develop one of our own (except to quote Albert Osborne’s song)? Is it because we think we don’t need to, since we are apparently “non-sacramental”? Have we just forgotten about it, or not been interested in this topic at all? And if this is the case, then why is it so?

When you read Army literature on the sacraments, it can generally been divided into two camps: “for” and “against.” That is, there are those who argue that we should, for various reasons, re-adopt the traditional sacraments. Then there are those who say that the Army’s position is valid and there’s no need to change. The conflict between these two positions has unfortunate consequences: one camp ends up denigrating the practises of other denominations (mostly unintentionally) by suggesting that sacraments are unnecessary parts of worship; the other suggests that the Army is somehow not being true to the Bible or to the Church universal - or that the lack of sacramental expression is behind the Army’s decline in many parts of the world.

When the arguments take either of these two options, I suggest that this is when our dearly departed equine friend begins to be beaten once again. The same arguments are brought up over and again and reused with monotonous regularity (I can hear the crack of a whip somewhere). Can I humbly suggest that we take a different approach? What I attempted to do throughout my research this year was to take a look at what we do have, rather than what we don’t have. That is, we should examine our existing ceremonies of swearing-in, marriage, officership, etc. A little bit of history first.

It is often noted that the word “sacrament” is not to be found in the English Bible. This word is derived from the Latin sacramentum. Tertullian was the first to use this word to describe the rites used in Christian worship. This word describes the oath of allegiance that a Roman soldier would take when pledging to his commanding officer. Tertullian liked this word and its meaning and adopted it in order to translate the Greek mysterion, which is found in the New Testament describing the saving work of God. Ironically, since “sacrament” derives from “sacramentum,” the Army is really the only denomination that could be considered “sacramental,” since it has soldiers who pledge an oath of allegiance to their “commanding officer” (Jesus Christ).

The difficulty that has plagued discussions over the sacraments throughout the history of the Church - not just since 1883 when the Army decided to discontinue its use of these ceremonies—has been an attempt to answer the question:

“How does God bestow his grace to his people?”

We know that we are saved by grace, sanctified by grace, engage in God’s mission by his grace and so on. Yet how, when it gets down to the nitty gritty of it, does God’s grace get from God to us? This question is at the heart of sacramental theology.

Essentially, this is a mystery (which is why I love the Orthodox Church’s continued use of the word “mystery” rather than “sacrament”). God’s grace is conveyed to us in ways that God chooses. We cannot manipulate it or magically make it appear when we want it to. God, and his grace and its transmission, is essentially a mystery that will forever remain beyond the realm of human understanding.

Yet still we attempt to answer the question in order to communicate the truths of the Gospel with others. This is important, but it is the different answers to this question (not the question itself) that have caused so many problems throughout the centuries. Some would say that God’s grace is only transmitted through the elements of bread, wine and water. Some go as far as to say that the elements become the Body of Christ in the course of the ceremony of the Lord’s Supper. Some say that the elements are just representative of Christ’s body (which is now in Heaven), but still they are God’s chosen means by which he conveys his divine grace to us and must be used. Calvin suggests that, in participating in the ceremony, we are taken to Heaven where Christ is in order to receive Divine grace. Wesley reverses that process suggesting that Christ comes from heaven to us in the course of the ceremony. Suffice it to say that the Army’s answer to this seemingly simple question is that God’s grace can be conveyed to us irrespective of the elements themselves — or indeed the ceremony itself. That is to say, the Army would say that we do not need to participate in baptism or the Lord’s Supper in order to be saved, because God’s grace is freely given to us when we respond in faith to God.

This is very simple, positive and uplifting theology. We don’t have to answer questions about the eternal security of people who have been saved in the final stages of their lives without being baptised, because we believe that their confession of faith is as immediately effective as that of the person who receives Christ as a little child or at any other time in life (and is or is not baptised as well). We don’t have to discuss whether someone needs to be baptised first in order to partake of the elements of the Lord’s Supper because, in the Army, the elements are not used. The availability of grace, represented by the openness of the Mercy Seat in our worship halls, is free for all at all times and in all settings - saved or not, baptised or not, young or old, male or female. Hallelujah!

This is Army sacramental theology in its simplest form. Yet we are NOT non-sacramental. To suggest so is to only look at sacramental theology in respect to the ceremonies that are or are not employed. We have an inherent sacramentality that is expressed in ways that are unique to this denomination. It is expressed through our worship style, through the wearing of uniforms, through our flag and crest, through the songs that we sing (Osborne’s above-mentioned “My life must be Christ’s broken bread,” for instance), and finally through the ceremonies that we do employ.

When we start to look at our ceremonies, some further questions begin to arise. For now, we will just look at the swearing-in ceremony as it stands since its significant change in 1989 - whereby the Articles of War became the Soldier’s Covenant.

The opening line of the Soldier’s Covenant says this:

Having accepted Jesus Christ as my Saviour and Lord, and desiring to fulfil my membership of His Church on earth as a soldier of The Salvation Army, I now by God’s grace enter into a sacred covenant.

This suggests that there are three components to this ceremony: (1) testimony to having already received Jesus as Saviour and Lord (past crisis event); (2) the acceptance of a new means of fulfilling one’s membership of Christ’s church (present crisis event); and (3) the entering of a sacred covenant by God’s grace (present crisis event, but ongoing process as well). Let us examine each of these components individually:

1) This ceremony could never be considered the moment of salvation for the participant. The Soldier’s Covenant makes this explicit in its first line. The process by which one is accepted for soldiership could also be considered a “period of discernment” whereby the leaders of the local congregation (Pastoral Care Council) determine the suitability of the one applying. The studies of Salvation Army theology and practises (preparation classes) also play a critical component in ensuring that the one participating in the swearing-in ceremony confesses to the past crisis event of accepting Jesus Christ as Saviour and Lord.

2) The ceremony is not, as some would suggest, the moment whereby one becomes a member of the Church. Salvation Story says:

Membership in the body of Christ is not optional for believers: it is a reality given to all who know Christ, the head of the Church. It is a benefit of the atonement through which we are invited into fellowship with God and with one another (pg 100).

If the participant in the swearing-in ceremony is already a believer (as I have suggested in the first point above), then he/she is already a member of the body of Christ - the Church. It is not an optional extra; it’s a standard feature of the conversion experience. When you are saved, you automatically become a part of the Body of Christ. The swearing-in ceremony is therefore a crisis event whereby the participant chooses to fulfil his/her existing membership of Christ’s Church as a soldier in The Salvation Army. It’s not a change from “non-member” to “member,” rather from “member” to “different type of member” (soldier).

3) In my research I found that most writers, when discussing soldiership, emphasise these first two elements of the ceremony, but few have noted the importance of this third point. In the course of the swearing-in ceremony, the participant enters into a new, grace-based, covenantal relationship which is between God, the Army and himself/herself. The cutting of this covenant requires the following aspects in order to be made effective:

i. the grace of God
ii. the faithful response of the participant
iii. the presence of witnesses (see the last paragraph of the Soldier’s Covenant)
iv. the ceremony itself

The participant thereby enters into an ongoing, grace-based relationship with God and the Army, promising to live by certain behavioural standards and accepting and affirming particular doctrinal statements. Now while these standards and beliefs may be affirmed by anyone apart from this ceremony, in order for the Soldier’s Covenant to be made effective, all four of the elements above must come into effect.

In other words, the ceremony becomes the means whereby God’s grace is conveyed to the participant. Does this sound like a sacrament to you?

Whilst some would argue that the swearing-in ceremony is not a sacrament, I would argue that it bears a striking family resemblance. Hence, I call it a “neo-sacrament.” That is,

…an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace given unto us as a means whereby we receive the same, and a reminder of the assurance we have in the Holy Spirit. (Definition adapted from The Book of Common Prayer.)

So what does this suggest for the Army?

Firstly, whilst still affirming the free availability of God’s grace (especially for salvation) irrespective of ritual or ceremony, we can still affirm that in certain circumstances God’s grace is received through rituals or ceremonies. We do it ourselves (cf. marriage and the Officer’s Covenant for further examples).

Secondly, when we suggest that we don’t need ceremonies in order to receive God’s grace, we actually denigrate our own worship practises. Perhaps this is why, in certain settings, more are choosing not to become soldiers or officers. When we say to them, “It’s just a testimony,” they respond with, “Then why do I need it?” Perhaps if we give a greater depth of teaching about the grace-based covenantal aspect of soldiership, marriage and officership, they may become more attractive.

Finally, in my own experience in researching and investigating the riches of sacramental theology, I have found that the grace-based covenantal relationships that I am a part of have become more and more significant to me. God’s grace enabled me to become a soldier on 19th February, 1995. God’s grace enabled me to become a husband on the 18th March, 2000. And God’s grace enabled me to become an Officer on 30th November, 2003. And in each instance, it is God’s grace that sustains each of these unique relationships with the Army, my wife and with God himself.

The ceremonies employed by The Salvation Army, whilst unique to us and created by us, have become means whereby participants enter into specific grace-based covenantal relationships with God and others. They are special ways of expressing the Army’s “neo-sacramental” theology. They have become one of the mysterious ways whereby God bestows his grace to us.

“Thanks be to God for his indescribable gift!” (2 Cor. 9:15)

Writer: Adam Couchman has been an officer for four years and is currently in his first appointment. With his wife Megan, Adam is the corps officer of the Armidale Corps in North NSW Division, Australia Eastern Territory. They have two daughters: Brielle (3) and Annabelle (20 months). Adam and Megan recently received a change of appointment to the School for Officer Training as Training Officers. Adam will also have the additional appointment of Assistant Director for the School for Christian Studies. They take up these appointments at the beginning of 2008. Adam enjoys music, theology and attempting to bash a small white ball hundreds of metres around trees, shrubs, over water, through sand, into a series of small holes with a number of crooked sticks; although often with not much success. Adam’s claim to fame is that he has played the piano for four Generals (and counting).”

10 Comments to Not another article on the sacraments!

1. I have serious difficulty with seeing the Soldier’s Covenant as actually being any kind of covenant with the army. Why? Because nowhere is it spelt out what the army’s responsibilities are to the soldier, and covenants are supposed to have two parties?

   Even in one where there are three parties, or one is an integral servant of the other (ie the army is in service to God) it should be explicitly clearly set out exactly what the army is undertaking to do for the soldier, ie engage them in active service unless there are very good reasons for not doing so, equip them, train them so far as possible, give basic pastoral care, etc etc, resolve conflicts or grievances on either side in a just and responsible way, appeals process etc. However the covenant is expressed, it MUST be expressed. Otherwise how can we call it a covenant?

   Look at what the soldiers are committing?

   Nu? Where is the army in this? Has it even clearly thought it through and stated its responsibilities clearly? Surely it should be in the Articles of War itself.

   Many blessings for a peaceful and beautiful Christmas to Adam and all readers. :0)
Eleanor Burne-Jones on December 20th, 2007

2. Good article. I largely agree.
John Norton (Canada) on December 20th, 2007

3. Adam this is a good article and in particular am interested in the idea that our covenants can be seen as sacramental.

   Eleanor, the important thing in accepting our covenants as sacramental is to actually remember that our Soldier’s Covenant is not a covenant between ourselves and the Army, but is in fact between the individual and God. God’s side of the covenant has been given to us through grace and the soldier’s covenant is our response to that grace! By signing it we willing give ourselves over to the Lord’s service through The Salvation Army. Now it could well be argued that there is a duty of care placed upon the Army but this is not part of the Soldier’s Covenant with God, and therefore should not be spelled out in that document!
Graeme Smith on December 20th, 2007

4. The inclusion of the Army as a party in the covenant was deliberate on my part. Here’s why - who has the right to discontinue this covenant in the event that the individual does not meet expectations? (eg has an affair, begins drinking etc) If the Army were not a party then they would have no right to discontinue a covenant between the individual and God.

   Eleanor has pointed out that the Army’s responsibilities are not spelled out and this is, as I see it, a further issue. However, you could consider the role of the “witnesses” part of the Armys role in the covenant. (”I call on those present to witness…” cf. also the marriage covenant in this one)

   Thanks for the great comments.

   Have a great Christmas everyone.
Adam Couchman on December 20th, 2007

5. Thanks for the article. I don’t groan when I see another article on the sacraments. I think this is still a big topic for a lot of people, and so we need to keep discussing it.

   I think you are right to say that, if we believe all of life is potentially sacramental, i.e. a means of grace, then the soldier’s covenant can be sacramental. I’m not sure I understand your choice of the term ‘neo-sacramental’; doesn’t seem necessary to qualify sacramental in this way based on the broad understanding of ’sacramental’…can you expand that a bit?

   My problem is that we exclude the practice of the traditional sacraments as if our non-observance is necessary to witness to the fact that they are non-necessary. We can maintain that they are not ‘necessary to salvation’, and yet still observe them as means of grace - just as we have our own ‘invented sacraments’ that we observe, without maintaining that they are ‘necessary to salvation.’

   James
James Pedlar on December 20th, 2007

6. If the Army’s role in the covenantal relationship is simply as witnesses, then in reality they are not actually part of the relationship. All they do is witness that the person has entered the covenant with God. Witnesses to a legal document are not parties to the contract, so why are they within a covenant.

   Now like I said it could and probably should be argued that the Army has a duty of care to it’s soldiers. This would raise the question as to whether our Soldier’s Covenant is in reality a membership document for soldier’s of The Salvation Army, or whether it is a covenant. I’m not sure that it can faithfully be both!
Graeme Smith on December 20th, 2007

7. James…

   Thanks for your comments. In a sense, the use of the prefix “neo” is redundant, however, I chose to use it for a number of reasons.
   (1) It recognises that the Army does have a sacramentality but one that is “new” to the church universal (as opposed to “non” which suggests we do not have one at all).
   (2) a desire to use a more positive self-description which refers to what we do have rather than what we don’t (cf. non-sacramental or non-observance etc)
   (3) link Army sacramentality with the church universal in some way
   (4) try and provide a positive way forward when we discuss sacramentality in the Army
   (5) emphasise the possibility for continued adaptability with regard to the ceremonies that the Army uses to express its inherent sacramentality (i.e. the possibility that we abandon soldiership and/or officership to use something more appropriate in the future - that is, not hold on to the ritual/ceremony just because “that’s what we do”).

   Hope that helps explain it a bit better.

   With regard to including the “Army” in the covenant (using the term to refer to the people not the institution) my intention was to emphasise the communal nature of covenants. I’m beginning to see that I haven’t been successful in this attempt and need to work on clarifying that.

   I just don’t like the idea that soldiership, or other covenants, are an individual undertaking. With regard to baptism, there have been some traditions that see it as entry into the Body of Christ - that is being joined with those who have already been baptised. Whilst I would never say that soldiership is entry in the Body of Christ in the same way, there is a sense in which, in the course of being sworn-in, the participant is joined in covenant with those who are already soldiers. I need to really flesh this out some more I think.

   I would welcome your thoughts.
Adam Couchman on December 20th, 2007

8. I have no problem with believing the army would be more focussed in its sense of responsibility towards its soldiers if it spelt it all out.

   I’m not griping on about the army here, I’m genuinely bothered by messy thinking. (I’m Jewish, we get bothered about covenants!)

   It is also important for those of us who are in ‘loyalty v. faithfulness’ dilemmas. If the only way we can be faithful in loving and serving God, the only way we can find an avenue of service and grow in faith is to leave the army, what happens to that covenantal relationship with the army if it exists?

   I’m coming to believe I don’t see there is any covenant with the army because of its lack of reciprocal nature, and I therefore hold I can take my Articles of War with me out into the wilderness, and the fact the army isn’t a place for me to serve doesn’t impact the reality of what I committed. But it still bothers me.

   In part it comes down to the most basic questions of what the church is there for. Certainly there is an accountability of the soldier toward the army, and the army should be able to respond if a salvationist starts drinking etc. But it simply infantilises the soldiers to keep the covenant one sided, with the embodied assumption the army can do no wrong, and has no responsibilities other that to tell these naughty little children off if they get caught drinking in the pub…. What happens if the CO or a succession of them persistently fail to provide or enable effective discipleship and training for soldiers, are disasters in the area of pastoral care and can’t be bothered to get fresh training, fail to engage soldiers in mission, have no plan for how to engage the enemy in their neighbourhood and are not getting off their rear ends to go work out how, when and where to do that? etc? It seems to me they currently have absolutely no clear responsibilities to clear up any of those issues, and rather than having a clear cut evaluation process that leads to action if they lose the plot, any protests from soldiers along these lines are put down to just a lot of people griping, or soldiers becoming egomaniacs and wanting to take over the corps! Enough already. Clearer goal posts might reduce the simmering tensions between officers and soldiers? Just a thought - maybe it wouldn’t, but I’m fishing around here for something that will improve church health all round.
Eleanor Burne-Jones on December 21st, 2007

9. Adam, I’ve been reading over the covenant again, although I’m so old that I signed the Articles of War not the Soldier’s Covenant! As I read the document it is clear, in my opinion, that the commitment is to the institution that is the Army, although those people who make it up are obviously part of that commitment.

   I agree that our covenant needs to be communal and in many ways there is a tacit communality within our Soldier’s Covenant. There is little doubt in my mind that we are joining ourselves to the community of Christ through The Salvation Army.

   My current understanding of the commitment that I made when I signed my Articles of War is that I entered into a sacred covenant with the Lord to serve Him through TSA. Whilst I have submitted myself to the authority of TSA they cannot actually break the covenant I have made. This is why, whatever the Army does in the future, even if it should fall apart and no longer exist, I can be true to the covenant I signed.

   Strangely, in reading both versions it seems that the Soldier’s Covenant was worded in such as way as to make it more a membership document rather than a Covenant, whereas the old Articles of War seem more clear in its declaration of covenantal relationship even though the word is not actually mentioned! This brings into question whether by including the word ‘covenant’ in a document makes it a covenant or not!

   Sorry to have put the emphasis on one area of the article Adam! I do understand where you are coming from on this, and I suspect that your full dissertation will be an important contribution to the discussion on the sacraments within the Army.

   Have a great Christmas!
Graeme Smith on December 21st, 2007

10. Interesting article - this is an area that I think still needs some work. I am pleased that you have not just defined the Army’s sacramentalism from a negative framework (ie. why we don’t celebrate the traditional sacraments) as many have done previously. I have also done some study on this subject and wrote on the theme of ‘engagement with the poor and marginalised as a sacrament in The Salvation Army’. For those interested, my paper is accessible through the Theological Forum at http://www.salvationarmy.org.au/brunswick
Jason Davies-Kildea on December 21st, 2007

Leave a comment