The SA Doctrines - Time for change

Iwould like to open these comments by restating, for reference, the doctrines of The Salvation Army as they presently exist …

We believe that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments were given by inspiration of God, and that they only constitute the Divine rule of Christian faith and practice.

We believe that there is only one God, who is infinitely perfect, the Creator, Preserver, and Governor of all things, and who is the only proper object of religious worship.

We believe that there are three persons in the Godhead-the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, undivided in essence and co-equal in power and glory.

We believe that in the person of Jesus Christ the Divine and human natures are united, so that He is truly and properly God and truly and properly man.

We believe that our first parents were created in a state of innocency, but by their disobedience they lost their purity and happiness, and that in consequence of their fall all men have become sinners, totally depraved, and as such are justly exposed to the wrath of God.

We believe that the Lord Jesus Christ has by His suffering and death made an atonement for the whole world so that whosoever will may be saved.

We believe that repentance towards God, faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, and regeneration by the Holy Spirit, are necessary to salvation.

We believe that we are justified by grace through faith in our Lord Jesus Christ and that he that believeth hath the witness in himself.

We believe that continuance in a state of salvation depends upon continued obedient faith in Christ.

We believe that it is the privilege of all believers to be wholly sanctified, and that their whole spirit and soul and body may be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

We believe in the immortality of the soul; in the resurrection of the body; in the general judgment at the end of the world; in the eternal happiness of the righteous; and in the endless punishment of the wicked.

I think it is necessary to make the point up front that these doctrines are not the truth. Jesus Christ is the Truth (John 14:6). These doctrines are instead pointers to the Truth (capital T). At times I get the impression that the doctrines are immovable, unchangable and anyone who suggests otherwise is considered a heretic. The major problem with this attitude, whether it’s explicitly stated or not, is that it actually forces its adherents to contradict themselves.

What do I mean by this? Well, the first doctrine states that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments “only constitute the Divine rule of Christian faith and practice”. To suggest, webelieve_doctrines1 then, that the doctrines are beyond the need of regular editing actually contradicts this doctrine. Consider, as well, that most Christians now use a different translation of the Scriptures (the most popular being the NIV) than what was in vogue 100 years ago (the KJV the clear favourite then). What does this suggest about the content of doctrine one??? Yet some would suggest that updating the language of the doctrine itself is beyond suggestion. Seems strange to me…

I have suggested above that the doctrines are not the truth, but rather pointers to the Truth (Jesus Christ). I would like to suggest that the doctrines, in their present format, are deficient in the way they do in fact point to the Truth. Let me suggest a few examples of why this is so:

The use of exclusive language (e.g. “men”) excludes half of the population unnecessarily. One of my lecturers wisely said to me early in my study career; “If you can use a word that doesn’t exclude people just as easily as one that will then which one should you choose?” In this example replacing words such as “men” with gender neutral words such as “human” or “humanity” is long overdue. Particularly true for a denomination that has always professed equality for women and men within the organisation (at least in its rhetoric).
The change from “Holy Ghost” (D3) to “Holy Spirit” (D7) is confusing and even misleading. “Ghost” is a word with two many science fiction, fantasy world connotations and relies significantly upon the KJV translation which most congregations no longer use in corporate worship. Consistency in this regard would be a simple editing process to use the same language across both doctrines.
A major issue is the lack of reference to the resurrection of Christ. The resurrection of the body does make an appearance in the final doctrine, but this is not a reference to Jesus’ resurrection but rather the hope of our resurrection. Again, these doctrines are pointers to the Truth (Jesus) and if there is no reference to the resurrection of the Truth, then that is a glaringly obvious omition for me.
The separation of Doctrines 2 and 3 is misleading. Whilst I can see that this is an attempt to show that we worship one God who has been revealed in the three persons of Father, Son and Spirit, the importance of stating this mystery together rather than apart is far more necessary in my mind. The Trinity is a central tenet of the Christian faith and the Doctrine of God needs to be, at one and the same time, the Doctrine of the Trinity - together, not apart.
Order is also important. Whilst it’s like saying “where do you start on a circle?” or the old “Chicken and the Egg” problem, at the same time it’s necessary to carefully consider this starting point. Is what we believe about the Scriptures foundational to what we believe about God, or is it the other way around? On this particular point my mind is not made up, but I think it’s a discussion point worthy of consideration.
The semi-Pelagian nature of Doctrine 9 is a significant problem. There is no mention of grace within this doctrine and so it gives the impression that “continuance” is entirely dependent upon “obedient faith”. Whilst I would automatically qualify this by stating that this “faith” is itself a gift of God’s grace anyway (Ephesians 2:8), still greater clarification of this is needed, lest Salvationists profess to a doctrine that suggests that God has nothing to do with keeping them secure in his love.
Doctrine 10 relies heavily upon 1 Thessalonians 5:23, more specifically the KJV of this verse. No modern translation of the Bible uses the word “unto” but rather “at” in reference to the “coming of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ”. This is a significant alteration and, if we are to continue to rely upon this verse for our doctrine of holiness then some strong exegetical work needs to be done regarding this.

These examples above are a few of the obvious examples of the need for the doctrines of The Salvation Army to be updated. They have served us well for over 120 years, however they are at risk of not serving the purpose for which they are there for - namely, point to the Truth. If we are forced to exegete them in order to then be pointed to the Truth, then that is evidence enough for me that work need to be done in order to update them.

I would hope that this would happen sooner rather than later.

staff-1gcropped

Writer: Captain Adam Couchman is currently the Director for the School for Christian Studies at Booth College, Australia Eastern Territory. He loves reading, talking, discussing, thinking, and re-thinking all things theological. Most of all, he just wants to “be Holy as God is holy”. Adam is married to Megan and together they have two girls - Brielle and Annabelle.

Tuesday, November 10th, 2009 Belief, Ephemera, Featured

22 Comments to The SA Doctrines - Time for change

I completely agree, and especially with regard to 9 which seems to point to salvation sustain by my own efforts, or by works.

As you have pointed out Adam, Ephesians 2:8 says it all.

Wayne

Wayne on November 10th, 2009

Hi Adam,

Some good points. Although I think I would be EXTREMELY cautious about altering too much of them (my doctrine teacher always said ‘we have one doctrine, 11 articles of faith’).

A couple of your points I agree with (inclusive language, the distinction betweeen ‘unto’ and ‘at’ for eg.), but others are not that much of an issue for me. The beauty of the doctrine at the moment is its’ theological inclusivity. They are (we were taught) purposely written in such a way as to allow individuals to hold extreme fundamental views right through to extreme liberal views and still remain faithful to the docrtine. For this reason, it needs to be exegeted and understood for the individual. If we ‘clarify’ it too much, then we are in danger of taking away the theological inclusivity of the doctrine. That would be a great shame.

Something to think about.

Yours in Christ,
Graeme.

Graeme Randall on November 10th, 2009

Sounds good to me Adam. I get that your examples are there to start the ball rolling, so the particular details are not the main point. Having said that, I agree with them all.

If we need to exegete the articles every time we consider them, let’s do that job properly once (NOT ‘once and for all’) so that a summary of our beliefs is accessible to anyone with a basic grasp of the faith (and in fact of English). That way we’re inclusive in more than gender - we’re keeping the faith in the hands of ordinary men and women who believe, not just the theologians or the very literate.

So - for mine, feel free to go ahead and prepare a draft revision and put it out there. If ‘plain english’ is good practice for insurance companies, why not for us? (And if we can’t express our faith in ‘plain english’, we need to ask ourselves seriously if it really is ‘our’ faith!)

Russell

Russell on November 11th, 2009

Of course we also have to consider the international nature of the Bible and the consideration that for some English speaking parts of the world the KJV is actually still a significant translation of the Bible. How would this therefore sit in terms of Doctrine 9?

Of course, English is also not the only language of TSA and we need to therefore factor in what other language translations may render the verse!

Of course D9 has to be read in the context of D8 which clearly outlines how salvation is received. D9 recognises D8 and therefore surely grace is implicit within it.

Graeme Smith

Graeme Smith on November 11th, 2009

Amen to point 3.

The resurrection is the central tennant of faith. We need to make it clear that we trust in it.

“And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.”
1 Corinthians 15:14

Josh

Josh Garrington on November 12th, 2009

Thanks everyone for your comments and helpful contributions. Obviously any change is not going to happen quickly (nor should it for that matter), but I still think it’s worth discussing.

I think I will make a draft revision. That’s a good suggestion. No use talking about it and not contributing a solution!

One thing I have been doing since writing this (amongst a miriad of other things) is looking at the way the doctrines have been used in our history. In particular, with the Articles of War, which is the way Salvationists have “signed up” to the doctrines.

Interestingly, the doctrines themselves in their “official” format were a late edition to the Articles of War. At first there is no “doctrinal” statements, but rather an affirmation of faith in the Articles of War (see Sandall’s History of the Salvation Army, vol 2, Appendix D). At some point soon after 1882 (when the Articles of War started), within a matter of years, there were six doctrinal statements added, but they were not the official doctrines. They were a conflation of the official eleven, with some other “Brengle” type language with regard to holiness (i.e. “roots of bitterness” etc.). This was in place for many years. At some later point, probably close to the 50s or 60s, the official eleven doctrines replaced the 6 statements and that’s been the case ever since.

The difficulty with determining dates with the Articles of War was that often a Corps would purchase say 50 blank ones from the SA Trade and use them over the course of many years. So the date of signature doesn’t necessarily mean that the Articles of War are the latest edition. Sometimes people signed a black and white copy and then when the colourful ones with pictures came out (”the illuminated copy” as many call it) resigned them and “post-dated” them. Makes any kind of chronology for this research very difficult.

The point here is that whilst the doctrines themselves have not changed since they were inscribed in tablets of stone (almost), the way in which we (as Salvationists) have signed up to them - i.e. said yes I believe in the truths of the Gospel as Salvationists understand them - has in fact altered over time. This suggests to me that there is a kind of “evolution” of the doctrines that has for some reason stunted at some point since they were included in their official format in the Articles of War and now the Soldier’s Covenant (since 1989).

Adam

Adam on November 12th, 2009

If it’s OK I’m going to quote a quote … I got this note from Sojourners and immediately thought of this thread.

The Christian faith for most people is not communicated by doctrinal pronouncements … but by what goes on in the church in its most local setting. It is here, in the church down the street, that people are caught up in the Gospel promise — or are turned away.
- James C. Fenhagen, from his book Mutual Ministry

Wayne

Wayne on November 13th, 2009

I’d like to add my aggreement. I’ve often said that the doctrines are archaic in their wording - and hard for many of our soldiers to understand.

And I’ve never appreciated ending the doctrines with “the endlesss punishment of the wicked.” Yeeesh. How awful is that?

Would there be some difficulty in changing the doctrines (their wording and phrasing, not their intent, obviously) because of they way they are written into Salvation Army Legal documents such as the Deed Poll? Would such changes have to be brought before parliament?

Jeff

jeff carter on November 13th, 2009

Doctrine 8 mentions ‘Grace’ and in my opinion, Doctrine 9 qualifies Doctrine 8.

The use of “sexist” words, such as ‘man’ as expressed by the author, is not necessary in my opinion to be changed. It is the work of ‘political correctness’ and championed by “do-gooders”. Words such as ‘man’ were intended to represent mankind as a whole.

The use of ‘at’ rather than ‘unto’, as attributed to other translations, is incorrect in my opinion. I suggest ‘until’ would be more accurate.

I am vehemently opposed to changing the words of the Doctrines/Articles of Faith just for the sake of change.

Brian H

Brian Hamer on November 18th, 2009

Jeff…

I agree with changing the ending with the word “wicked”. Why not something about the “glorious return of Jesus Christ” or similar. Much better.

Also, as I understand it, and I have this on fairly good authority (i.e. from a high ranking retired Officer), from a legal point of view all that would need to be changed is an appendix to the Salvation Army Act 1980. Whilst this would require government involvement, it wouldn’t expose us to the fears that some have expressed in the past “What else would the Government change if they had the chance?”. I’m no lawyer but I think that’s the case. Others may be able to confirm or deny this information…

Anyway, who said anything about having to change them in the legislation. Couldn’t we revise them for “working” purposes and leave the legislation alone? Do we have to also change where they are legally?

Brian…

With respect, I feel you have been unfair here… Firstly, you have put “sexist” in quotation marks which suggests that it was included in my original article. This, as you will see from a closer look, is not the case. I deliberately suggested we needed to avoid “exclusive language”. This is a vastly different thing that me saying that the language as it stands is “sexist” - which is inflamatory language which I think has been used to polarise my suggestions as extreme in this discussion. The language that presently is used is not “sexist” as it stands at all (nor would I say that it is) because, yes, it is intended to include all of humanity by the use of the word “man/men”. However, and again I refer back to what I actually said, if you can use a word that is inclusive of all people, rather than one that can be interpreted to exclude half the population, I ask you what’s the better word? Man or person? Men or people? For me it’s a clear answer.

Secondly, at no point did I suggest change “just for the sake of change”. Change is a painful and long process. I know that what I have suggested here is going to take years to take full effect and will require long and deliberate discussions in many locations. Who would want that just for the sake of it? Not me. Rather, my reasons for suggesting change were deliberate and clear - because I feel that in the 21st Century the doctrines in their present format are failing in their purpose - to point to the Truth, who is Jesus Christ. This is change for the mission’s sake… for Jesus’ sake… for the kingdom’s sake. That’s a change worth going through the pain of (at least in my mind). It’s not change for the sake of it at all.

In terms of using the term ‘until’, whilst doctrinally preferable to Wesleyans like us who profess to the possibility of living a holy life “now” as well as “at” Christ’s return (which I would preach any day of the week), if we want to continue to base our doctrine on 1 Th 5:23, then “until” is going to be hard to use based on sound exegesis of that verse alone. So, perhaps the whole doctrine needs to be revised and based more upon the whole of Scripture, rather than just one verse. A suggestion?

Thanks
Adam

Adam Couchman on November 20th, 2009

I thought that Salvation Army is a revolutionary movement to stop injustice, to help and love the poor and the sick as Jesus did.

Instead a set of doctrines are the base of a religion not different from any other denomination, Doctrine 11 is not different from the doctrines of the Catholic Church, what it indicates that Salvation Army is far from being a revolutionary movement, and far from Jesus.

Jesus did not have doctrines, just love and compassion.

Jesus is here now, lets focus on Him.

Graciela

Graciela on December 13th, 2009

I’m always game for a bit of controversy but be careful your language is correct. We are talking about TENETS of faith not TENANTS/TENNANTS!

Georgina Pinches on January 14th, 2010

I’m surprised you haven’t critiqued number 11? It is not possible to state in the immortality of the soul AND in the resurrection of the body, from an orthodox christian point of view (there is an attempt to address this in the handbook of doctrine, but the terminology and analogies they use slip and slide around).They mean very different things, which I am intending to outline in my upcoming dissertation for uni.

Resurrection is the PHYSICAL reconstitution of all that a person is - all in ‘Christ’ who have died will be be physically raised at the final realisation of the Kingdom.

Immortality of the soul is a platonic idea which involves an escaping of the soul from the body.

Even if the explanation (such as in the handbook)is given that God somehow upholds a person after death negating their ultimate dissolution into nothingness, we must steer away from ‘immortality of the soul’ language as this by the nature of its use in history, philosophy and theology, states that immortality would be an innate, a natural state of humanity.

We infact believe in ‘temporary disembodiment’ but I’m not sure if:

‘We believe in temporary disembodiment; in the resurrection of the body…’

would see its way into a reformulation of the statement!

In fact neither the Apostles’, Nicene or Athanasian creeds creeds have ‘immortality of the soul’ but just ‘resurrection of the body’. It’s only methodism (from which we of course adapted our statements)which includes such a distinction.

I propose as a first draft:

‘We Believe in the resurrection of the body; in the general judgment at the end of the AGE; in the resurrection to life for the righteous and the condemnation of the wicked; that death will no longer have the last word, but that God WILL be all in all.

Let’s go out on a high!

(John 5.28-29: 1 Cor 15.28)

Craig Gaudion on January 28th, 2010

Thanks for some great comments and responses. I agree with the last one here. The only reason I didn’t go into this was that already the number of examples was mounting up. You have made some significant points, here, and I like your suggested “first draft”…

Adam Couchman on February 1st, 2010

Cheers Adam and thanks for a provocative and thoughtful article.

Craig

Craig Gaudion on February 6th, 2010

I wholeheartedly agree that changing some terminology and wording within the doctrines could be in order. As long as that change of wording doesn’t change the meanings of said doctrines.

I think somewhere along the line The Articles of War for Salvation Army Soldiers changed also, not the doctrines that, as Adam mentioned, are now included on the same page, or what is actually involved in that covenant, but rather, the wording. I think this was done to contemporise the language for a 20th century ‘audience’.

For example, these two points:

“I do here and now declare that I will abstain from the use of all intoxicating liquor, and from the use of all baneful drugs, except when such drugs shall be ordered for me by a doctor.

I do here and now declare that I will abstain from the use of all low or profane language and from all impurity, including unclean conversation, the reading of any obscene book or paper at any time, in any company, or in any place.”

were amalgamted into this one:

“I will abstain from alcoholic drink, tobacco, the non-medical use of addictive drugs, gambling, pornography, the occult and all else that could enslave the body or spirit.”

I think if we can update, clarify and stremline our doctrines without having to wade through countless miles of red tape, as well as not changing our movements theology, we should!

But just to add something that has always stuck with me, Brengle once wrote (excuse my paraphrasing as I cant find the direct quote):

“Acts 16:31 didn’t say be a good person and you will be saved, or, follow this theology and you will be saved, it said: Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved”

I think in matters such as these its always good to remember that.

Tim G.

Tim Girling on April 14th, 2010

Tim, you make a really interesting point here. The Articles of War have been through a number of changes, and most significantly it’s “how” they’ve changed that’s important, for the doctrines are specifically one of the points of alteration throughout the course of time. Now, it’s difficult to pinpoint exactly when these changes have taken place because it just doesn’t seem to have been recorded. Add to that the practical issue that Corps Officers are likely to have purchased multiple copies to have on hand and gone through them before restocking with newer versions. Similarly, the change from the boring black and white version to a more colourful copy meant that some people resigned a newer copy and backdated it so that they could display a nicer copy in their home. I have a copy of one of these last samples which is dated 1892, but there is a photo of William Booth that we know is from 1905. Clearly a backdating…

Back to the doctrines… the first version of the Articles of War only has a single doctrinal statement. Along the lines of “I affirm the teaching of the Army”. You can find a copy of this in the Appendix of Volume 2 of the History of the Salvation Army (Sandall).

Then there is a change (probably around 1890-ish) whereby six doctrinal statements are included into the document. The next change is a visual one where the statements are indented on the page to highlight them as somehow significant. Note at this point they are “not” the official doctrines, but rather amalgamated statements. I find it interesting that the holiness statement is the longest and includes reference to the “roots of bitterness” (a “thing” inside of every individual that, if removed, would mean that the source of sin was taken away and thus you could live a perfect life); something I would have great difficulty subscribing to now myself. Apparently, though, everyone needed to believe this form of holiness doctrine in order to be a Salvationist at this time. This takes us somewhere up to around 1930. Again, it’s difficult to be certain.

We now have the Articles of War with these six statements removed and the official 11 doctrines inserted. This would be the document that older Salvationists would be familiar with and signed when they were sworn-in as soldiers.

Then in the late 1980’s General Eva Burrows called for a revision of this document. She has told me personally that at the same time she asked the International Doctrine Council whether they would like to revise the doctrines and they declined (interesting!). The Articles of War went through a lengthy process of consultation throughout the world and finally released in 1989 with the new sub-nominal of “A Soldier’s Covenant”. In 2004 this became the official term when referring to this document.

Given that for a significant portion of our history all Salvationists were required to subscribe to doctrinal statements that were “not” the official doctrines but variations of them, particularly on such an important document such as this, that suggests to me that in fact the early Salvationists did not hold as tightly to these doctrines as the majority of Salvationists do now.

They are not “manna from heaven”, nor have they gone through as rigorous a process as the classical creeds of the church. They are simply statements that our early leaders put together based upon sources that they were already familiar with (e.g. the Methodist New Connexion doctrines). Sure, there was probably discussions that took place, but let’s not forget how pragmatic the early leaders were. They were never meant to be treated as if they were either “inspired” or “infallible” and so I suggest that it’s entirely appropriate for them to be changed, revised, updated, whatever it takes to ensure that they communicate God’s Truth in the 21st Century (not the 19th). Even the Scriptures have gone through more revision since our doctrines were written. It’s time to update them!

On another note, I would be very interested to see if anyone has done some more accurate work on the transitions that have taken place for the Articles of War.

Adam Couchman on April 14th, 2010

Just a thought regarding what Craig Gaudion said (re Doctrine point 11):

Whilst I agree with the principal of finishing on a positive note, we need to be very careful of our language.

A phrase (Scriptural as it is) such as “God will be all in all” is very slippery. There are many (liberal) interpretations surrounding this - so much so that it almost has become the ‘bastion’ of those in camp ‘universalism’. They argue: “How can God be all in all while the wicked are in hell”. Whilst we do not agree with the universalist position, our language needs to be very clear in what we are (and are not!) saying.

Also regarding the ‘immortality of the soul’ - whilst scholarship advocates that it is a platonic incision; we need to be mindful of ‘jettisoning’ it altogether. Too often we attempt to “throw-out the baby with the bathwater”.

The original doctrinal point stated “eternal” happiness of the righteous; and “endless” punishment of the wicked.

This is unpopular in our postmodern, secular society. Heaven forbid that God should punish the wicked (at all!) let alone for a period of everlasting duration! How scandalous!

However, reference toward the everlasting nature of the age to come, both in terms of life for the believers and judgment for the damned, should certainly be included. Scripture does not bow to culture. Matthew 24:46 is an excellent example of this parallelism - and is certainly exegeted by many renowned scholars in a defense of the life everlasting, and the punishment everlasting.

To be honest I am surprised that two seperate words(eternal for the righteous and endless for the wicked) are currently employed in stating this point in doctrine. (I ask, how can we enjoy eternal life when God is the only eternal being, something that we are not!? Unending or everlasting appears a more suitable translation of the Greek aionios).

Again, my reasoning for this suggestion is to use appropriate language, that is not ‘bounded’ with a theological position to which we disagree.

That is, we need to clearly (re)state our position in the face of the ongoing debate that continues over annihilationism / resurrection of the believers only.

******************************************

Adam, I also agree with your point (#6) over the semi pelagian nature of doctrine 9. My beautiful wife, who comes from a non-salvationist tradition, has baulked at the soldier’s covenant based on that one point. And for good reason.

On first reading it does seem to indicate a sort of ‘works based maintenance’ of righteousness. i.e. it is commonly read :

“…in order to ’stay saved’ you must ‘do’…”

In practise we see legalism abounding in our corps because holiness has not been correctly taught, and thus points such as this are misinterpreted and grossly misrepresented.

This of course is very problematic and no simple solution exists.

You are correct in stating that grace is implicit, and indeed our soteriology does reflect such (although our practise may sadly not!)

Yet as it stands, doctrinal point 9 does not state the precedence of grace.

I encourage you in your continued stated purpose - bringing our doctrine into inclusive, accessible language of the 21st century, and in such a way that is theologically sustainable with our ecclesiology and soteriology.

God bless you,

Jesse

Jesse Caulfield on April 15th, 2010

Firstly about doctrines, was reading the book “The Sins of Scripture” by retired Bishop John Shelby Spong. He writes about creeds of the Christian church, and the same comments could also apply to doctrines as both are statements of belief. He writes ……….

Most members of the church’s hierarchy regard the creeds as the source of the church’s unity. However, the fact is that the exact opposite is the case. The creeds actually guarantee the disunity of the church and were consciously intended and designed to do just that. That is a strong statement, resisted by many on the first hearing, but history reveals that the primary purpose of any creed is to determine who it is that does not qualify for membership. Creeds are designed to separate the true believers from the false believers. Because creeds set boundaries, they inevitably divide……………

If the army does keep doctrines to help decide who is in and who is out, then I have a few comments and questions…. your comments and answers are encouraged.

1. We believe that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments were given by inspiration of God, and that they only constitute the Divine rule of Christian faith and practice.

Suggest stating whether the army believes that the bible is the literal word of God. The word ‘inspiration’ is not specific enough.

2. We believe that our first parents were created in a state of innocency, but by their disobedience they lost their purity and happiness, and that in consequence of their fall all men have become sinners, totally depraved, and as such are justly exposed to the wrath of God.

Q. Who were the first parents, and how long ago was this ?

If all men are sinners until they believe in Jesus, then Hell must be overflowing with babies and young children, whom died before they could accept Jesus. This does not sound like a loving God. Suggest this doctrine needs some work. Feel free to quote scripture that mentions that the unsaved do go to Heaven, as its quite easy to find scripture that mentions the saved go to Heaven. ( see doctrine 7 for the requirements of salvation )

8. We believe that we are justified by grace through faith in our Lord Jesus Christ and that he that believeth hath the witness in himself.
9. We believe that continuance in a state of salvation depends upon continued obedient faith in Christ.

Doctrine 8 mentions Grace, and this is a gift from God. 9 mentions that remaining in salvation requires work. What is it… a gift given to us, or gained by works ?

John D.

John Duthie on August 19th, 2010

Just to clarify the question regarding changing these “legally”… The Salvation Army Act 1980 “revoked” all other Deed Polls and previous Acts (e.g. 1931 and 1968) that affect this change. So it is the only Act now that “counts”. Within this act is included this line…

“The provisions of Schedules 1, 2, 3, 4 and 7 to this Act may from time to time be extended or varied by deed executed by the General, such deed having the prior written approval of more than two-thirds of the Commissioners.”

The doctrines are contained under Schedule 1 of the Act and so are open to being varied under the Salvation Army Act 1980. There have been similar changes made in recent years to broaden the high council to include more of the married women officers.

Thanks
Adam

Adam Couchman on October 15th, 2010

Just caught up on this interesting discussion. Enjoyed reading your thoughts Adam. I agree that a revision of these doctrines is well overdue.

How about adding a doctrine of the church? The thing that seems to be most glaringly obvious about early Salvationist belief is how individualistic it was. Salvation was all about a personal relation between God and our souls, and completely missed the point that salvation is first and foremost an adoption into God’s family, the people of God, the body of Christ. Individualism is of course a product of the enlightenment.

My research suggests that this individualism came via the Booth’s adoption of ‘holiness revivalism’. People might say that forming an Army was not individualistic, but there is a wealth of difference between a collection of individuals (collectivism) and a community of interdependent people. Let’s face it, ‘Army’ speaks more powerfully of collectivism than it does of community.

I firmly believe that it was this loss of understanding of the church in ‘holiness revivalism’, a loss of understanding that mission cannot be divorced from authentic community, that ensured that we as a denomination got saddled with the most extreme form of autocracy, to hold all this individualism in check. I love Lesslie Newbigin’s suggestion that what we desperately need in our age is authentic community as the true hermeneutic of the gospel.

david

David on October 15th, 2010

Many other Christian organizations have articles or statements of faith that are displayed on web sites or literature. The eleven doctrines of the Salvation Army are in need of simplicity and reduction of words. I think that six or seven statements should be enough. Rarely do I see much more these days.An in depth explanation can take place elsewhere in booklet form or another area of explanation.

Bob D

Robert deidrick on October 25th, 2010

Sound and Fury

Does Power Corrupt? 19 Charlee, Errin Hogan, Errin Hogan
With God on our side 19 Hank Harwell, Robert Deidrick, John Stephenson
What The Hell? (Part One: Bell's Hell) 13 Phil, Jim, Jim
Officers - "The shrinking pool" 41 Thimon, David Hutchinson, Rob
Resurrected writers: Catherine Booth 1 Michelle Townsend