A quick poll (out of interest)

[Andy Broadley]

Does anyone think that Baptism and/or Communion should be included in Army worship?

 

[Andy Broadley]

I went for 'don't know'. I got feelings both ways on it, so would like more debate.

 

[elm0]

I voted "Yes - Baptism and Communion". I don't think they should become a regular part of the services, as in once a week/fortnight/month like some churches do it. I used to be at a church that had communion the second and fourth Sundays of each month, and baptisms were the first Sunday of the month. For me it just became a routine, the meaning behind it got lost in the 'ritual'. So yes I think they should be part of SA worship, and am glad to say that they are already at some corps.

 

[coalfarm]

Why should we include them?

Surely a baptism with the Holy Ghost is much preferable to water, for Jesus, in the new covenant, saught to "baptise with Holy Spirit and with fire"!

As for communion, i have to agree with General Orsborn:
"My life muct be Christ's broken bread,/ My love His outpoured wine,/ A cup o'refilled, a table spread/ Beneath His name and sign,/ That other souls, refreshed and fed,/ May share His life through mine." (SASB 512)
Surely living out the New Covenant in service to each other and to the lost and dirty and hurting and hungry is far more important than repeating from time to time a ritual that celebrates the New Covenant.

 

[Andy Broadley]

Hey good debate so far


Hope theres more to come.

 

[TheDag]

I voted for both baptism & communion. Maybe it was my upbringing but I do miss it (as well as missing litugy). I agree with elmo that we don't want it to become a ritual that loses its meaning. That didn't happen to me with communion probably because I went through a two year confirmation course that involved teaching about communion which is a requirement to tbe allowed to have communion. (There is these days often a communion before confirmation course which goes for 8 weeks) Of course communion is probably seen as being more important in the lutheran & catholic churches as they have different beliefs to other churches. All other churches basically believe the same thing and the salvos probably just automatically took the methodist belief.
I can understand the sentiment expressed in the song coalfarm mentioned. I agree that if we aren't living our lives to make a difference for God and his kingdom then why bother participating in communion. If we don't do that I would also ask why bother participating in anything christian. Communion can also be seen as a worship aid just like singing or playing instruments in church. Considering that we are supposed to offer our entire self and lives in worship then really I don't see the difference between singing and communion.
Finally it would do us well to remember that we also have our own rituals that are simply followed because thats how the army does things.

 

[Andy Broadley]

.
Finally it would do us well to remember that we also have our own rituals that are simply followed because thats how the army does things.

This is true. British meetings usually go a little along the lines of...

1. Opening song
2. Prayer chorus & Prayer
3. Second song
4. Scripture reading
5. Singing company
6. Story/message for the young people
7. Third song or chorus' (Testimony time)
8. Offering & announcements
9. Songsters
10. Message
11. Appeal
12. Closing song
13. benidiction

And it's usually not far off that.

 

[gemmald]

i voted yes communion only.

I think that dedication is enough for now. However i do like it when we occasionaly break bread at church but obviously no alcohol!! i personally and i stress, personally, would like to break bread more often

 

[sreno7]

It is scriptural so why not do it? We are told to repent and be baptized so lets do it? We are also told to remember Christ in Communion.

 

[Andy Broadley]

Interesting that the majority opinion seems to be with including the sacrements in our worship.

 

[elm0]

Interesting that the majority opinion seems to be with including the sacrements in our worship.

But were they all Sallies that voted?

 

[Andy Broadley]

But were they all Sallies that voted?

Good point. I think that they probably were, or at least had an attatchment to the Army.

Curious that the mood seems to be for reform on this, but when we discussed the alcohol rule a few months ago, the traditionalists very much held the sway.

 

[TheDag]

But were they all Sallies that voted?

Once a lutheran always a lutheran I say!

 

[elm0]

Curious that the mood seems to be for reform on this, but when we discussed the alcohol rule a few months ago, the traditionalists very much held the sway.

I'm not sure it's only the traditionalists that supported that one Andy, I'm definitely not a traditionalist, and I'm all for keeping that as is.

 

[coalfarm]

I don't think 8 is a particularly persuasive sample size for determining the attitude of the majority of salvationists...

 

[Andy Broadley]

I don't think 8 is a particularly persuasive sample size for determining the attitude of the majority of salvationists...

Of course it isn't, it was just a quick straw poll out of pure curiosity

 

[D'Ann]

Hi Andy,

I hope that it was okay that I voted... otherwise subtract one vote from the Yes, there should be Baptism and Communion included...

sorry. I pray all is well for you and I can't wait to hear about your trip to Holland.

God's Peace,

Debbie

 

[Victrixa]

As an ex-Salvationist, I believe that Baptism and Communion should be included as, in Christian history, when someone became a Christian, he or she had to be baptized to become a member of the Church. And though Baptism is but a symbol of a Christian's dying unto him/herself and raising up to life in Christ (and a 'contract' between the believer and God promising to follow and obey Him), I still can see that it was commanded by our Lord (in Scripture).

As for the Lord's Supper, that also, was commanded by Jesus. 'Do this in rememberence of Me'. The Lord's Supper is His Memorial - the Memorial of His Sacrifice on the Cross for us.

I don't wish to debate or sound harsh or impolite, I just think that all churches ought to practice the 2 Sacraments.

I understand why William Booth decided to take away these 2 Sacraments. At the beginning, the Salvation Army was not a church but only a movement to help people with different backgounds. Sacraments were not needed as it was not a church and the 'meetings' were evangelistic meetings (like Billy Graham's evangelistic meetings - a call to Salvation).

Now the S.A. has become a church and should offer the Sacraments. It's still a movement as well but it's also very much a church.

I can see that becoming a soldier is also an engagement to follow Christ (as Baptism is), however, it still isn't the waters of Baptism.

I also understand that Agape (fellowship) meals can be like a Lord's Supper, but they still aren't Christ's Memorial with the elements of the bread and wine commemorating His Sacrifice for us.

Just my humble opinion and no one has to agree with me but that's how I feel. Otherwise, the Salvation Army is perfect!

(But one isn't a lesser or less holy Christian if he/she doesn't practice Baptism or Communion, okay? I want this to be understood. There's lots of other symbolism in the S.A. - God knows that. Actually He inspired all the S.A. symbolism which is beautiful and lovely!)

I love you all in Christ and do not wish to cause division. I just shared my opinion, is all.

 

[Andy Broadley]

As an ex-Salvationist, I believe that Baptism and Communion should be included as, in Christian history, when someone became a Christian, he or she had to be baptized to become a member of the Church. And though Baptism is but a symbol of a Christian's dying unto him/herself and raising up to life in Christ (and a 'contract' between the believer and God promising to follow and obey Him), I still can see that it was commanded by our Lord (in Scripture).

As for the Lord's Supper, that also, was commanded by Jesus. 'Do this in rememberence of Me'. The Lord's Supper is His Memorial - the Memorial of His Sacrifice on the Cross for us.

I don't wish to debate or sound harsh or impolite, I just think that all churches ought to practice the 2 Sacraments.

I understand why William Booth decided to take away these 2 Sacraments. At the beginning, the Salvation Army was not a church but only a movement to help people with different backgounds. Sacraments were not needed as it was not a church and the 'meetings' were evangelistic meetings (like Billy Graham's evangelistic meetings - a call to Salvation).

Now the S.A. has become a church and should offer the Sacraments. It's still a movement as well but it's also very much a church.

I can see that becoming a soldier is also an engagement to follow Christ (as Baptism is), however, it still isn't the waters of Baptism.

I also understand that Agape (fellowship) meals can be like a Lord's Supper, but they still aren't Christ's Memorial with the elements of the bread and wine commemorating His Sacrifice for us.

Just my humble opinion and no one has to agree with me but that's how I feel. Otherwise, the Salvation Army is perfect!

(But one isn't a lesser or less holy Christian if he/she doesn't practice Baptism or Communion, okay? I want this to be understood. There's lots of other symbolism in the S.A. - God knows that. Actually He inspired all the S.A. symbolism which is beautiful and lovely!)

I love you all in Christ and do not wish to cause division. I just shared my opinion, is all.

Thanks for that, and of course you won't cause division. As for debating, you are a former officer, and so have every right to post your views and opinions here.

The whole point of this thread is to find out what people think about the subject

 

[Abiel]

I think Vic has a valid point. Bill Booth didnt set out to build a church, but that's what we are. This is not universally accepted by Salvos. To them, we are a 'movement' not a church,l with 'corps' not churches. And the way things are going financially in the UK I can sadly see a time where the church/corps side of the Army is increasingly removed. Corps which cannot finance themselves independantly are going to come under increasing scrutiny. Many are already being closed. We rely on public support. The public supports our social work, not our worship.