Neo-sacramental Theology

Paper title: Neo-sacramental Theology
Author/researcher: Adam Couchman
Country of origin: Australia
Publication/completion date: October, 2007
Length: 106 pages
Keywords: The Salvation Army, sacraments
Abstract:

Since January, 1883, The Salvation Army has not formally practised the dominical sacraments within its worship services, yet it still has an inherent sacramentality. At the time that this decision was made by the Army’s leader and founder, General William Booth, the issue was never fully resolved. Rather it was put off to another day when the Army would have more light on the subject. Booth left the decision open for future generations to discuss and, if necessary, rescind. In its 142 year history, this theological issue has been addressed and readdressed by many generations of Salvationists. There have been many publications on this topic and many thorough attempts to give explanation for The Salvation Army’s stance.

Given this longstanding history and ongoing discussion, it is not intended to walk the same ground that others have trodden with regard to this issue. Rather, it will be argued that, even though the Army does not use the dominical sacraments in its worship, still there is an inherent sacramentality present. This can be seen through the ceremonies and symbols that the Army does employ. Whether or not these ceremonies can be viewed as “sacraments” contextualised for Army purposes will also be considered. Finally, terms used to describe the Army’s sacramental self-understanding will also be summarised; traditionally anti-sacramental, non-sacramental or nonobservance.

A new term, “neo-sacramental,” is proposed in the hope that this provides a positive self-understanding of Army sacramentality, and a deliberate link to sacramental theology and the Church universal.

Click here to download a pdf of this paper (327 KB).

Monday, February 22nd, 2010 Education

18 Comments to Neo-sacramental Theology

Let’s back up just a bit and realise that the concept of sacrament itself is a very late concept. Roman Catholics believe to be “a rite in which God is uniquely active.” Augustine of Hippo defined a Christian sacrament as “a visible sign of an invisible reality.” The Anglican Book of Common Prayer speaks of them as “an outward and visible sign of an inward and invisible Grace.” By this definition alone our lives are “a living sacrament”.

Our insecurity about Communion and Baptism stems from a lack of research of their origins. Baptism can be traced back to Exodus 30:16. The Laver “כיור” used for ceremonial washing was a large copper pot, sitting on a brass stand, with two spouts. It stood within the Tabernacle’s alter of sacrifice and the Holy of Holies. The Priest ceremonially purified himself here before making atonement for the people.

This practice develop into various washing ceremonies documented in the Talmud that were in use during the time of the Essenes, spilling over (forgive the pun) to the time of John the Baptist. Many places of worship had a tank for such purposes. It certainly explains why everyone knew what baptism was.

The Talmud tells us that “The Sukkot water libations quench the thirst caused by judgment.” In the Tzemach Tzedek compiled by Yosef Marcus, we read excellent explinations of Jewish thought on the subject of Baptism. For example it is said “Water in the human realm is the experience of inherent nullification to G-d. When a person experiences such transparency, the natural fire of his G-dly soul is cooled and doused.”

I strongly recommend the study of the following words and their use in the Old Testament before weighing in on Baptism

רָחַצְתְּ Strongs number H7364
rachats raw-khats’
a primitive root;
to lave (the whole or a part of a thing):–bathe (self), wash (self).

טָהָרְתִּ Strongs Number H2891
taher taw-hare’
a primitive root;
properly, to be bright; i.e. (by implication) to be pure (physical sound, clear,
unadulterated; Levitically, uncontaminated; morally, innocent or holy):–be
(make, make self, pronounce) clean, cleanse (self), purge, purify(-ier, self).

טְבֹּל Strongs number H2881
tabal taw-bal’
a primitive root;
to dip, to immerse:–dip, plunge.

If one were to take the time to understand the Jewish concept of כיור I believe that the passages where Jesus turns the purifying waterpots into wine, where Jesus washes feet, where Jesus commands baptism etc., would become much clearer. It would also show that most of the rituals related to כיור and Baptism are man made rituals.

Capt Ron Farr

Capt Ron Farr on February 22nd, 2010

“the concept of sacrament itself is a very late concept.”

So we’re clear, are you defining Augustine as “very late”?

Or is it Exodus you are defining as very late? Or are you claiming what goes on in Exodus is somehow contradictory to Augustine? No idea what you’re on about here.

John

John on February 23rd, 2010

The term ’sacrament’ may be late but the concept is as old as they get and continues to develop even now. The danger that the Founders sought to avoid was confusing the experience of the sacred with its common manifestation - water, wine, (uniform, mercy seat). Let’s not fall into the same trap of confusing the term with the concept…

Jason D-K on February 23rd, 2010

I love how this topic always generates discussion!

If I may offer some sort of clarification here (I hope!).

My paper was not seeking to be one that dealt with Biblical texts via a word-study style approach. Rather, I was attempting some historical theology mixed with some comparative work of our practices as well.

Firstly some background into the “problem” I was attempting to deal with…

1. We say we are sacramental (Salvation Story, appendix 9)
2. We don’t practise the dominical sacraments (Baptism, Eucharist) for a whole list of reasons (I summarised them into seven most commonly used)
3. We do practise our own ceremonies which happen to use very sacramental language (e.g. “I now by God’s grace enter into a sacred covenant” Articles of War; “I place this ring upon your finger as a continual sign that we are married”)

How do the “reasons” (from 2) for not using the dominical sacraments hold up when we put them up against the ceremonies we do use (from 3)?

In other words, if for example we do have a “fear of rituals” (Clifford Kew’s words in ‘Closer Communion’, not mine) and that’s a reason why we don’t practise the dominical sacraments, is that reason valid when we practise other “rituals” such as enrolling a soldier?

This is an issue of consistency between what we profess and what we practice…

Finally, given the “consistency” problems, I oppose the use of language such as “non-sacramental”, “anti-sacramental” or “non-observance” and propose a new term - “neo-sacramental” in an attempt to reconcile and connect our sacramental observances with our sacramental heritage in the Church universal.

One piece of feedback I received from my markers was the lack of Biblical exegesis. I recognise this flaw in the paper. However, given the constraints of a paper such as this, and that my chosen methodology didn’t specifically call for it (the biggest issue was consistency between what we profess and what we practice - Biblical exegesis doesn’t necessarily solve this problem, but of course can help a great deal) I didn’t feel that it was entirely founded.

Anyway… no use for another dissertation when you can just click on the link and read the original…

I would welcome more specific feedback on my paper itself.

Thanks
Adam

Adam Couchman on February 23rd, 2010

My point is this. Augustine and other Church fathers are very late in their analysis of sacramental theology. The roots of what we call Communion and Water Baptism predate the first century and Christian thought as we know it, yet there appears to be very little reference to this body of work.

We have many years of pre-Christian Jewish religous thought that does not appear to be addressed by Christians, including the Early Church Fathers, in our analysis of their meaning. I would suggest that our concepts of “Sacrament”, “Communion” and “Water Baptism” are traditional, Gentile distortions of John the Baptist’s, The Apostles, and Christ’s original intent; not biblical at all. In short, traditions that have been extrapolated in error by the early Gentile Church. So early Church Fathers were really discussing man made traditions and concepts, cultural bias, not God given ordanance.

We cannot fully comment or comprehend the pure New Testament teaching on these subjects unless we understand their true Jewish roots. Nor can we fully grapple with their relevance today until we ponder Talmudic understanding. Without a careful analysis of the Old Testament Biblical text we can’t begin to understand God’s original intent, stripping away man made traditions added through the centuries.

If we were to do so, many of the discussions would shift significently. My earlier comment on Sukkot water libations for example. If we were to review the thought and intent of these libations we would see the true thought and intent of Water Baptism. If we were to review the thought and intent of Priestly Garments, we would see the true through and intent behind our Uniform and how they line up.

I’ve not exhaused the discussion on this. There is so much more today, but so little space on the internet.

Captain Ron

Capt Ron Farr on February 23rd, 2010

You have said “”neo-sacramental” in an attempt to reconcile and connect our sacramental observances with our sacramental heritage in the Church universal.” My true point is this. I see no need to reconcile sacramental heritage in the Church universal at all. This in itself suggests somehow that sacramental theology is an absolute truth. I believe we need to call into question this early Catholic theology and return to the roots of scripture to understand these observances. I believe we will find that our purer Biblical theology will move us toward an “Ordinant Theology”, in our ritual observances. I believe it will confirm the truth of “Sacramental Living” with “Ordinant Observance”. In short a dividing of tradition from absolute truth.

Capt. Ron Farr

Capt Ron Farr on February 23rd, 2010

Ron, why don’t you tell us briefly what you see as the “early Catholic” concept of sacramentalism in contrast to what you see as the biblical concept. It’s hard to make head or tail of what you’re saying without knowing what exactly is the concept that you are condemning.

John on February 24th, 2010

The Roman Church tells us that their are seven sacraments: Baptism, Eucharist,Confirmation, Marriage, Holy Orders, Atoning for the sick. While each many may have their roots in the Bible,each definition is defined in the Christian Era, not BCE. The word sacrament itself is a Latin word “sacramentum” meaning “a sign of the sacred”.

So then, the definition of Sacraments, as seven or two, is purely an ecclessiastical definition, not a biblical one. The word appears nowhere in scripture. Based on this its definitions are man made, created in the historical and cultural context of the time. I am not suggesting that they are not valid ways to look at the graces of God, but I am saying that they are man made, historical, cultural, ecclessiastical.

So why do we feel we need to use these definitions as our starting point for the discussions? When in fact the Old Testament used the term Ordinance חקת to describe the roots of Communion and Baptism?

Let me focus on “Baptism” for a moment”. The Term Baptism, a concept that matured in the Christian Area comes from the Greek “baptisma”. This Greek word does not appear in the LXX in reference to a sacrament. To fully understand John and Jesus’ intent for water Baptism, to understand the changing of the Purification Water being turned into wine, we must complete a through analysis of the Hebrew mindset.
If we do so, I believe that we will find a Non-Sacramental theology within the text. We will see a ordinant theology, and a holiness theology within holy writ.

I believe that in an earlier posting, I suggested a number of Hebrew words to be reviewed to fully understand the Old Testament Concept.

For Clarity I outline the Biblical References here:

רחץ râchats Total KJV Occurrences: 72
wash, 36 Gen_18:4, Gen_19:2, Gen_24:32, Exo_2:5, Exo_29:4, Exo_30:17-21 (5), Exo_40:12, Exo_40:30, Lev_1:9, Lev_9:13-14 (2), Lev_14:8-9 (2), Lev_15:16, Lev_16:4, Lev_16:24, Deu_21:6 (2), Deu_23:11, Rth_3:3, 1Sa_25:41, 2Sa_11:8, 2Ki_5:10, 2Ki_5:12-13 (2), 2Ch_4:6 (2), Job_9:30, Psa_26:6, Psa_58:10, Isa_1:16, Eze_23:40
bathe, 18 Lev_15:5-8 (4), Lev_15:10-11 (2), Lev_15:13, Lev_15:18, Lev_15:21-22 (2), Lev_15:27, Lev_16:26, Lev_16:28, Lev_17:15-16 (2), Num_19:7-8 (2), Num_19:19
washed, 17 Gen_43:24, Exo_40:31-32 (3), Lev_8:6, Jdg_19:21 (2), 2Sa_12:20, 1Ki_22:38, Job_29:6, Psa_73:13, Pro_30:12, Son_5:3, Son_5:12, Eze_16:4 (2), Eze_16:9
washing, 1 2Sa_11:2

ṭâhêr Total KJV Occurrences: 95
clean, 42 Gen_35:2, Lev_12:8, Lev_13:6 (2), Lev_13:13, Lev_13:17, Lev_13:23, Lev_13:28, Lev_13:34 (2), Lev_13:37, Lev_13:58-59 (2), Lev_14:7-9 (3), Lev_14:11 (2), Lev_14:20, Lev_14:48, Lev_14:53, Lev_15:13, Lev_15:28, Lev_16:30, Lev_17:15, Lev_22:4, Lev_22:7, Lev_23:22, Num_8:7, Num_19:12 (2), Num_19:19, Num_31:23-24 (2), 2Ki_5:10, 2Ki_5:12-14 (3), Job_17:9, Psa_51:7, Jer_13:27, Eze_36:25
cleansed, 23 Lev_11:32, Lev_12:7, Lev_14:4, Lev_14:7-8 (2), Lev_14:14, Lev_14:17-19 (3), Lev_14:25, Lev_14:28-29 (2), Lev_14:31, Lev_15:13, Lev_15:28, Jos_22:17, 2Ch_30:18 (2), 2Ch_34:5, Neh_13:9, Neh_13:30, Eze_22:24, Eze_36:33
cleanse, 15 Lev_16:19, Lev_16:30, Num_8:6-7 (2), Num_8:15, Num_8:21, 2Ch_29:15-16 (2), Neh_13:22, Jer_33:8, Eze_36:25, Eze_37:23, Eze_39:12, Eze_39:14, Eze_39:16
purged, 4 2Ch_34:8, Eze_24:13 (3)
purified, 3 Ezr_6:20, Neh_12:30 (2)
purify, 3 Isa_66:17, Eze_43:26, Mal_3:3
pure, 2 Job_4:17, Pro_20:9
cleanseth, 1 Job_37:21
purge, 1 2Ch_34:3
purifier, 1 Mal_3:3 (2)

ṭâbal Total KJV Occurrences: 16
dip, 9 Exo_12:22, Lev_4:6, Lev_4:17, Lev_14:6, Lev_14:16, Lev_14:51, Num_19:18, Deu_33:24, Rth_2:14
dipped, 6 Gen_37:31, Lev_9:9, Jos_3:15, 1Sa_14:27, 2Ki_8:14-15 (2)
plunge, 1 Job_9:31

Talmudic Studies on Netilat Yadayim (Hand Washing) suggest a different understanding of “Washing” or “Baptism. and I have included a link to a number of articles that will help explain the Jewish mindset on this. It will also help us understand why Jesus needed to address the issue of hand washing more than once during his ministry. It also helps us to understand Jesus and foot washing in a Holiness Context.

http://www.chabad.org/search/keyword_cdo/kid/12186/jewish/Netilat-Yadayim.htm

It is not really my intent to condemn, any theological stance. I just think we need to look at all of the facts, historically, and biblically. If we do I believe that we as The Salvation Army would be less insecure about where we are on this issue.

Capt Ron Farr on February 26th, 2010

“each definition is defined in the Christian Era”

Yes, these particular instances of sacraments are peculiarly Christian, and not old covenant.

“The word sacrament itself is a Latin word “sacramentum” meaning “a sign of the sacred”.”

Ok, but the word used by one particular church in one particular language is not in itself very conclusive.

“Based on this its definitions are man made, created in the historical and cultural context of the time. ”

The definition of ALL words are man made, created in their own historical and cultural contexts. That includes words in the bible and not in the bible. The people of God have to press into service existing vocabularies to service current needs. Vocabulary can hardly be an important issue.

“This Greek word does not appear in the LXX in reference to a sacrament.”

You seem to be begging the question since you haven’t really explained what you understand by sacrament. Or do you just want to run with “a sign of the sacred” which is the only definition you have so far provided? For example, we have 2Kings 5:14 Ναιμαν καὶ ἐβαπτίσατο ἐν τῷ Ιορδάνῃ ἑπτάκι κατὰ τὸ ῥῆμα Ελισαιε, καὶ ἐπέστρεψεν ἡ σὰρξ αὐτοῦ ὡς σὰρξ παιδαρίου. Looks like something pretty sacred happened here in conjunction with βαπτίζω.

“to understand the changing of the Purification Water being turned into wine”

What purification water being turned into wine?

“Talmudic Studies on Netilat Yadayim (Hand Washing) suggest a different understanding of “Washing” or “Baptism.”

Assuming that Talmudic studies are reflective of old testament Judaism. (Why on earth would wax on about evidence of Jewish extra-biblical traditions like Talmud, but not Christian?), and why would we assume that hand washing has any link to baptism? I’m not aware of the bible ever drawing that link.

And even if we run down that path, how are all the explanations given at this Jewish site not in conformance to your stated definition of sacrament as “a sign of the sacred”? In fact if you search the web site you provided to us for signs of things sacred, there are pages and pages of them.

At this point, I still don’t know what you are talking about.

John on February 26th, 2010

To be honest I am finding this whole argument tiresome and frankly a little disrespectful. I would like to ask you, have you actually taken the time to read my dissertation? It’s quite simple to click on the link which says “Click here to download” at the top of this page and download it in PDF format. You can then easily read it on your computer screen or print it off and read it at your leisure. I suspect that much of the discussion that is taking place here is based on pre-conceived arguments and subsequently tangentially disparate discussions have arisen. The reality in that situation is that no one is really talking to or listening to each other because we’re using language in completely different ways.

Please can I ask that the discussions in this thread relate to my dissertation. I think that’s a fair request. Otherwise, put your own paper up on the site. I’m sure the Editor would be willing to receive more on this subject, given this topic’s ability to generate ‘discussion’ (used with a very loose definition in this case). Submit your own scholarly and supported views and let’s discuss them in another thread with respect and generosity to the author’s work on each occasion. It is completely unfair and unwarranted to talk about what you “think” my paper is about (which I invested a great deal of myself into – spending months on it, and giving up plenty of time with my family as a result!) when you haven’t actually read it. The alternative, in the event that you actually have read it (which at this stage, there seems to be no evidence that you have), is that you are simply refusing to speak to the paper itself. Quite frankly this feels like I’ve been invited over to dinner and there is an entire conversation about my work going on in front of me without anyone actually talking to me.

I am just asking for basic respect for the author of the work in question here.

I’m sorry to have my little tantrum in this way, but I did submit my paper in the hope of gaining some fair and honest critique of it. I would welcome that, and had hoped to receive some from the participants on this site. To date, I haven’t received any.

Adam Couchman on February 26th, 2010

No disrespect intended. I am happy to keep my mouth shut so as to not put anyone to sleep.

Enough said;

Capt. Ron

Capt Ron Farr on February 27th, 2010

Adam, I’ve read your dissertation, and I think Capt Ron Farr, who I presume is in the Army, is falling afoul of its conclusions. No Christian “church” is non-sacramental, no matter how much they may claim it to be true, least of all the Salvation Army. I particularly appreciated your note that ironically, the Salvation Army is perhaps the only truly sacramental church, according to that word’s original meaning. I’ll let Ron discover that one for himself. I think you’ve done good work.

John on February 27th, 2010

Adam, you are quite right and please accept my apologies for not making the same points myself earlier. The introduction to the Education section of this site (http://therubicon.org/category/education/) is quite clear about the purpose of these entries, which is intentionally distinct from a normal blog type interchange.

It’s been a while since we’ve published something of such depth but I’m pleased to say that there are a few more lined up for weeks to come. So keep your eyes out and enjoy reading some excellent dissertations.

Jason Davies-Kildea (Rubicon Education Editor)

Jason D-K on February 27th, 2010

When a person walks along without a thought of Torah in his head, the very ground under his feet cries out: “Clod! What makes you any better than me? By what rights do you step on me?” — Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak of Lubavitch

Adam, let me be very specific here, without coming across as too harsh. Believe me I am not trying to insult your work in any way, it is obvious you have put a lot of thinking into it, but I would say there is more to be done.

One of the main reasons for me initially commenting, and I don’t often comment on any article on any site, is that I have found, the underlying conclusions of your article without merit, and somewhat predictable for the following reasons.

As already stated; it’s foundations, and much of the work done by others on this subject, is focused on Christian thought, and lacks a foundational and biblical perspective.

As well as this, feeling the need to define a term such as “neo-sacrament” suggests somehow that, sacramentalism itself is our starting point. This is why I am suggesting an Ordinant Theology as oppossed to a Neo-Sacramental Theology. Sorry if you missed my point as I wrote. I will try to be clearer if I ever comment again.

John/Jason, had asked specifically for me to explain where I was coming from, and I appreciated the questions. So I have briefly outlined in two or three posts the specific, and rudementary Biblical roots of my understanding. Perhaps I have said more than I should have.

These comments are cleary off the top of my head and not intented to be an exhausive article. I am sure that those of you with University Degees can write articles, but my comments were just that comments.

I was very impressed with the LXX Greek quote that outlined the word Baptizo, clearly a reference I had missed and worthly of exploring further in my thinking. Thanks for this. I’ll have my LXX out tonight reviewing the detail.

My point however is, we cannot dismiss the Old Testament record, clearly Jewish, nor the Hebrew understanding of such things as outlined in the Babylonian Talmud specifically and in other Jewish commentary, culture and history more generally given their impact during bible times. I am not sure how else to say it to make it more clear.

The ultimate reason for my comments, was to suggest some new avenues of thought and discussion as we grapple with our understanding and see the face of God. As we press beyond our conventional thinking, listen to others who understand things from a different presective then I am not in the business of condeming Augustine’s work, or insulting a specific theological understanding. Sorry if this is not the right forum for communicating these kinds of comments.

Yes I am a proud Salvationist and I see no need to speak ill of any of my Christian brothers. Most importantly, and I think more to the point, I would rather be seen as a person of the Word, able to place all concepts and terms on the block of reason and open pursuit of the truth.

I have so much to learn.

Blessings

Capt. Ron

Capt Ron Farr on February 27th, 2010

And one final comment, I promise;

“For two to sit together and have no discourse about the law, is to sit in the seat of the scornful”
Aboth, chap III

Capt Ron Farr on February 27th, 2010

John thanks for pointing out 4 Kings 5:14 Ναιμαν καὶ ἐβαπτίσατο ἐν τῷ Ιορδάνῃ ἑπτάκι κατὰ τὸ ῥῆμα Ελισαιε, καὶ ἐπέστρεψεν ἡ σὰρξ αὐτοῦ ὡς σὰρξ παιδαρίου.

The Hebrew reads וירד ויטבל בירדן שׁבע פעמים כדבר אישׁ האלהים וישׁב בשׂרו כבשׂר נער קטן ויטהר׃.

Note the translation of ויטבל as ἐβαπτίσατο
טְבֹּל tabal taw-bal’ a primitive root; to dip, to immerse:–dip, plunge. This is a word I mentioned in an earlier post.

Naiman’s “Dipping” or “Baptism”, outlined in this passage magnifies the idea that Hebrew OT washings were clearly understood as an outward symbol of an inward call to holiness; an ordinance, not a sacrament. It also magnifies the truth that those coming for John’s Baptism understood this as well.

So I say again we cannot dismiss the Old Testament record, clearly Jewish, nor the Hebrew understanding of such things as outlined in the Babylonian Talmud specifically and in other Jewish commentary, culture and history more generally given their impact during bible times.

Thanks for adding this insight. I believe it adds weight to an Ordinat Theology as opposed to a Sacramental Theology

Capt Ron Farr on March 4th, 2010

Where is the symbol in Kings 5:14? He went in the water and he was healed. No mention of any symbols.

John

John on March 4th, 2010

Thanks for posting this paper. I just finished reading it.
I’m a self-admitted “sacrament loving Salvationist”. I derive great pleasure and fulfillment from participating in communion and being linked through that experience to 2000 years of the body of Christ that came before me.
As such, I am deeply saddened by the popular culture of the Army, which is decidedly anti-sacramental (at least in my experience).
Having said that, I totally agree with the Army’s official position on the dominical sacraments, that they are not necessary. I do think though that a complete dismissal of sacraments isolates us from fellow believers. I think we lock ourselves away from other parts of the Body of Christ because we look down on them for practicing the sacraments. (Yes - I know this is not official SA teaching, that doesn’t mean it is not reality.)
I like this notion of neo-sacramental because I think it’s a good step in starting to correct what can be a very negative anti-sacramental mindset into a healthy, positive, ecumenical mindset.
While I realize it was out of the scope of this paper, I would have loved to read more about how this inherent neo-sacramentalism does or should impact our interaction with other church bodies and with the Church as a whole.
Thanks again.

Josh Garrington on March 5th, 2010

Neo-sacramental Theology

Related posts:

18 Comments to Neo-sacramental Theology

Leave a comment

Topics

Recent Additions