Ragamuffin: church family
The Church Family is actually a community of faith. It is a collective of people endeavoring to live like Jesus. It is of one mind but definitely not like the Borg of Star Trek. We are a collection of individuals who care for others.
I recently came across something that another Salvation Army church has adapted from Rick Warren’s purpose driven style. I have modified it a little further but find it a helpful reminder that I am a part of a valuable community of faith. It is worth contemplating. I am not always big on signing cards, pledges and vows but this is pretty good.
Having received Christ as my Savior and being in agreement with mission of this church I desire to be a part of this community of faith. As an attendee I commit myself to God and to others in this church family:
I will guard the unity of my church by acting in love toward others in my church family. I refuse to gossip and endeavor to support my leaders.
I will share the responsibility of my church by prayer, by inviting others and by warmly welcoming newcomers.
I will serve the ministry of my church by using my gifts and talents, by serving where possible, by developing a servant’s heart that will help when needed.
I will support my church by attending faithfully, by living a life of integrity and by giving regularly.
_________________
Name & Date
Ragamuffin appears every Monday on theRubicon. Find past Ragamuffin posts and a bio of Capt. Jay Davis here.
9 Comments to Ragamuffin: church family
Leave a comment
Categories
- 1000 Post Celebration
- Areopagus
- Belief
- Blogroll
- COMING SOON
- Concise Oxford
- Creation
- Creative Arts
- Double~take
- Easter
- Ecclesia
- Education
- Ephemera
- FAD
- Featured
- From Russia with Blogs
- Gen whY?
- History
- JustThinking
- Lives lived
- Match factory
- Match Factory Events
- Ordination
- Personae
- Politics
- Power
- Ragamuffin
- Ramblings
- Redux - The Best of
- Resources
- Resurrected writers
- Reviews
- Rubicon Books
- Rubiconography
- Shades of grey
- Shades of grey
- Supper Club
- theRubi-Blog
- Think
- Thinkaloud
- Thought
- Uncategorized
- Urbanities
- Vox populi
Sound and Fury
- Slaves 5 Margaret Okubo, David, Johnny Gainey
- What The Hell? (Part One: Bell's Hell) 12 Jim, Jim, Robert deidrick
- Politics #1 : Political parties - An Erroneous Assumption 4 Rochelle Stockman, Terry Camsey, Phil
- Murungu or Mwanangu 5 George, givesak, Andrea614Regent
- Heaven without hell 24 Mary Davis, Cadet Nathan Swartz, Andrew Bale
It is like re-inventing the wheel. The Soldiers Covenant (Articles of War) covers all this and more.
Jay,
We have a whole series of covenants here at 614 in Toronto that help in strengthening our people’s commitments to our local mission in Regent Park. The Saddleback guys, like the Willow Creek guys, are committed to the local church first, foremost and last - one of Hybels’ mantras is: “The local church is the hope of the world”.
So what your friend created in his “Fellowship Commitment” and what you highlight on your blog is mostly an attempt, as I understand it, to deal with the fact that these days people are often mostly locally committed, without buying into the “big picture” necessarily - ie, I have people in my congregation who are passionately committed to 614 Regent Park but don’t really care much at all about the wider Salvation Army. Nothing much I’ve been able to do about this over the years - both here in Canada and when I served in Russia. Post-denominationalism, I believe it is called.
Andrew - I don’t agree with your point. The soldier’s covenant binds people to the movement, not it’s local expression. Besides, it could be considered a bit unbiblical, actually, in that it’s a one-way street - it’s all about the promises that we (the soldier) makes to the outfit and nothing really about the promises the movement makes to its members. In the bible, God’s covenants are always two-way streets.
My thoughts.
We’ve dealt with this in Vancouver. How does someone understand themselves as belonging to us? Not everyone is going to be a soldier, though we encourage it. It is possible to be at the heart of our community and not be committed to the larger SA?
There is debate over this, but we are rounding to the idea that local involvement comes first, and then (possibly) international commitment.
Geoff, how is the Nazirite vow two-way?
I am in agreement, btw, that the Soldier’s Covenant should be two-way, but I’m not convinced it’s unbiblical for that reason.
Grace,
Aaron
Yes, maybe unbiblical was too hard a word to use (we love to throw that charge around though, don’t we). How about “not-as-biblical”? Anyway, you’ve got me with Nazarite vow, unless someone else has some thoughts to add to this (or bail me out)?
Wait a second…
The Soldier’s Covenant isn’t between the Soldier and the Army. While the Army facilitates it, the movement has no power to recind the covenant. Therefore its merely a cofactor in the relationship between God and Soldier.
God’s part is expressed in the first and final paragraphs.
And what’s the distinction between the local corps and the worldwide Army?
Its like over on the ‘Salvo empire’ post where they’re trying to separate the Army and the Kingdom. You can’t be a Salvationist, and not in the Kingdom, but you can be in the Kingdom, and not a Salvationist. Likewise for the corporate Army.
Your local expression is inextricably linked to the the global. Just like my local expression is as well. I’m not part of your local expression, but we’re all part of the global thing.
I think Andrew’s picked the wrong wheel. It looks more like the Adherent’s commitment.
John,
Interesting post. Two things I’d like to highlight and riff on…
“The Soldier’s Covenant isn’t between the Soldier and the Army. While the Army facilitates it, the movement has no power to recind the covenant.”
So can TSA suspend or rescind soldiership? It certainly has in the past. Or is it just acknowledging that the covenant has been broken (as I would guess it has by every Salvationist alive and dead), and is thus null and void?
Understand, I’m a fan of the Soldier’s Covenant, but it does seem that TSA is more of an active player in here than just a facilitator.
“You can’t be a Salvationist, and not in the Kingdom…”
You can certainly be a soldier and not in the Kingdom of God. I have known CSMs who were not saved. I’m not saying they are being honest, or that they should be soldiers, but you can definitely be “signed up and in” but not in the Kingdom.
Grace,
Aaron
“So can TSA suspend or rescind soldiership?”
I’d say its simply an acknowledgement of the Soldier’s intentional, repeated breaking of their covenant. We know God’s about restoration of covenant as well, so its natural that the Army exercises grace, ie counselling folk and trying to disciple them before giving up and scratching their name. If we were to look at it as a threeway covenant, the Army surely has the least influence on what happens.
I feel a chemistry analogy coming along.. maybe in another post. Its too late at the moment
“You can certainly be a soldier and not in the Kingdom of God.”
I see where you’re coming from, but if you’re not saved you’re not a soldier, whether you’re counted on the stats or not. So your unsaved CSM was neither a Salvationist or in the Kingdom, even though the Army was blind to his soul.
I’d just like to note the shift in John’s definition of the covenant from solely between God and the individual to a ‘threeway covenant?’. The chemistry analogy may be needed to clarify this shift. If the Salvation Army can rescind the covenant on ‘repeated breaking of the coveneant ‘ is it truly consistent to all portions of the covenant. In my own personal experience it seems that such taboo issues such as ‘abstaining from alcoholic drink, tobacco,and gambling’ are weighted more heavily than other, possibly more important, parts of the covenant such as ‘ growing in grace through worship, prayer, service and the reading of the Bible. ‘
Woah wait a second. No shift in definition. “If we were to look at it as…”. You can’t take the Army out of it, but I think Geoff and Aaron perhaps overstated it in their initial posts, where they were saying about it being a covenant between the Soldier and the Army. My take has been that the covenant is between God and Soldier, with the Army needing to be present, like witnesses at a marriage.
Chemistry analogy probably doesn’t help..! Consider a cofactor dependent enzymatic reaction. Look at God as the enzyme, Army as cofactor, and the individual as the substrate. The reaction only takes place between the enzyme and the substrate, but the cofactor needs to be present. Its limited, I know.
The Army cannot rescind a covenant (Officers or Soldiers) and never has. As said before, taking a name off a role is in response to the individual’s decision to break their covenant with God.
Would it be too far to say that the Army’s part in this covenant is purely administrative?! They put the name on the role, recognise availability and commitment, provide opportunity for service in response to that, and if the Soldier chooses by their lifestyle or beliefs to break the covenant, then the Army makes all effort to get them to restore the covenant. If this doesn’t work, then the name is taken off the role.
We probably look at lifestyle parts of the covenant as being more heavily weighted due to their visibility. Its harder to see if someone is growing in grace. I agree with you that each part needs to be taken as seriously as the next.