Things I see in the S.A. and wonder at:

[Amisk]

 

[JoshuaCh1v9]

I can't comment on how thrift stores on your side of the pond are run Amisk.

As for you statements about remarriage, I would say that I find your comments to be personally hurtful, and contrary to Army regulations and stance on this issue.

 

[nvrbnunloved]

Indeed, as I have already stated elsewhere, Army standpoint on this is as follows;

"Jesus taught that divorce is failure (Mark 10:2-12; Matthew 19: 3-9). Salvationists believe, however, that his attitude to those caught up in marital strife would never be anything but loving and compassionate.

Therefore, The Salvation Army, whilst defending vigorously the ongoing relevance of God's will for men and women in relation to marriage, recognizes the reality that some marriages fail. It is therefore willing, under God, to offer counsel and practical help to couples so affected.

The Army permits (but does not require) its officers to perform a marriage ceremony for a divorced person, following careful counselling, where it is considered that remarriage could lead to the healing of emotional wounds. Sound doctrine with practical mercy are the hallmarks of the Salvationist's approach to marital and emotional strife."

 

[JoshuaCh1v9]

Indeed, as I have already stated elsewhere, Army standpoint on this is as follows;

"Jesus taught that divorce is failure (Mark 10:2-12; Matthew 19: 3-9). Salvationists believe, however, that his attitude to those caught up in marital strife would never be anything but loving and compassionate.

Therefore, The Salvation Army, whilst defending vigorously the ongoing relevance of God's will for men and women in relation to marriage, recognizes the reality that some marriages fail. It is therefore willing, under God, to offer counsel and practical help to couples so affected.

The Army permits (but does not require) its officers to perform a marriage ceremony for a divorced person, following careful counselling, where it is considered that remarriage could lead to the healing of emotional wounds. Sound doctrine with practical mercy are the hallmarks of the Salvationist's approach to marital and emotional strife."

To be able to be married in our own church, by our own officers in the presence of God, our families and our church family was amazing beyond description.

To have married this woman anywhere would have been the best day of my life, but to see her walking down the aisle towards me in OUR church, where we worship each week....well that took it to levels that I could never, in my wildest dreams, have ever hoped for.

 

[TheDag]

Then I see ministrial officers proforming marriages for folks that are divorced. Which is totally against the Scriptures. Christ Himself forbid it when he said in Matthew 5:31-35 " It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:

But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery."

Wouldn't you think that a minister who takes part in one of these weddings would be equally guilty?

This is a common misunderstanding of scripture. Nowhere does the bible totally forbid marriage after divorce. To claim that is adding to the text what one wants to see. If we take what it appears to mean at face value then it means the one who leaves their partner is not allowed to remarry. The one who was left by their partner however is not forbidden to remarry. However when original text is looked at then we find word inconsistancy in what words are translated as divorce in the bible which casts doubt over this passage. Putting away also is not the same as divorce.

As for the op shops I personally agree that they should not be selling R rated material in family stores (operated as a charity). When it comes to the Salvos stores which have have one aim which is to make as much money as possible then I'm not personally sure.


As for employing non-christians it all depends. Where the service is offering legal services or employment services then employing qualified professionals in those areas is the priority. In other areas then employing christians certainly would be better imo. Of course here down under another factor is if they receive government funding or not. If they do then they can not exclude non-christians. This is why the Salvos here apply for funding for specific programs rather than different groups over all. This gives them flexibility to choose where to keep christians only or where not to.

 

[JoshuaCh1v9]

Thats also an issue in this country Dag. Employment law does not allow non Christians to be excluded from many posts. However, where the post is one providing such things as family and legal services, the priority is for the employee to be able to fulfill that role as effectively as possible.

Is the first concern of every SA employee the Salvation of peoples souls? No. Thats one of the priorities of the Salvation Army. Meeting their non spiritual needs is also a priority and that often means that an ability to provide the appropriate service is more important than being a Christian.

I believe the wording in most job descriptions requires the employee to be in sympathy with the aims of the SA.

 

[Amisk]

[

 

[JoshuaCh1v9]

And I would refer you to what my wife posted last night, which you seem to be choosing to ignore because it does not fit your agenda here.

That is the Salvation Army's stance on remarriage following divorce. If you can't handle that then perhaps you should seek a church that fits your narrow and uncaring attitude to the pain and heartache that is a reality for many peoples lives today.

I'm sure there are many denominations who would support your stance. I thank God that The Salvation Army is not one of them.

The Salvation Army exists to Save Souls, Grow Saints and serve SUFFERING humanity. Not just the parts of it that have happy secure marriages, a steady income, a home etc.

 

[TheDag]

Amisk you are also ignoring my comments it seems that shows that it is the one who chose to seperate who is not allowed to remarry if indeed that is the intention. I have enough doubt over translation issues to not consider that binding. When a word that is not translated anywhere else in the bible as divorce is suddenly translated as divorce one must question it.

 

[Amisk]

 

[JoshuaCh1v9]

Sorry for being so long in getting back to you.

I think you are mis-reading the verse in question: In the translations I quote here, each one warns of the penalty of divorcing one’s partner and remarrying or marrying some one who has been divorced. Here are a few of the translations that I have copied to prove my point.

"And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery." Mathew 19:9 KJV

"Now I say to you that whoever divorces his wife, except on the basis of sexual immorality, and marries another commits adultery, and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery" Matthew 19:9 Lexham English Bible

"And I say to you, that whoever leaveth his wife, but for fornication, and weddeth another, doeth lechery [doeth adultery]; and he that weddeth the forsaken wife, doeth lechery [doeth adultery]." Matthew 19:9 Wycliffe Bible

`And I say to you, that, whoever may put away his wife, if not for whoredom, and may marry another, doth commit adultery; and he who did marry her that hath been put away, doth commit adultery.' Matthew 19:9 Young's Literal Translation

But I tell you this. No man may send his wife away unless she has committed adultery. If he does, and if he marries another woman, he commits adultery. And if a man marries a woman who has been sent away by her husband, he commits adultery. Matthew 19:9 Worldwide English (New Testament) (WE)


You will note also that there are a number of the more modern translations that have dropped the unlined section of the above verses .

I suppose one of the reason for that is, as the church has drifted into liberalism, more liberal translators are editing out those things which they find judgmental in the original scriptures. That is one of the reasons that we have to be very careful when purchasing the newer translations coming on the market these days.

I think the key word in your post there Amisk is judgemental. Thats exactly what you are being. And as you are so keen to stress the words of our Lord, here are some more for you

"Judge ye not, lest you also be judged".

Let me ask you something else here. You are adamanet that ONLY adultry can be grounds for divorce and remarriage. Are you therefore saying that any woman (or man) that suffers domestic abuse, or whose children suffer such abuse at the hands of their spouse, should either be forced to remain in that abusive situation, or, if they then find a partner who will love them the way they deserve to be loved, should then not be permitted to marry in their own church, in the presence of their Lord and their spiritual family?

Can you further explain to me how this attitude of yours then fits with our Lords command that you should 'love one another as I have loved you'?. Especially as He went on to say that there is no greater commandment than this.

I do not know your personal circumstances Amisk, but it is my experience that few inhabit the utopian world that you imagine exists. Here in the real world, there are real people, suffering real hurt and pain, leaving relationships that have failed for very real and genuine reasons.

Halelujah that the Salvation Army, along with many other parts of the body of Christ, meets the needs of those people with genuine love and compassion. Halelujah that solid happy families have resulted from remarriages within our church. Solid happy families that you would rather not exist, or would seek to prevent from being blessed.

 

[TheDag]

You will note also that there are a number of the more modern translations that have dropped the under lined section of the above verse .

I suppose one of the reason for that is, as the church has drifted into liberalism, more liberal translators are editing out those things which they find judgmental in the original scriptures toward their life style. That is one of the reasons that we have to be very careful when purchasing the newer translations coming on the market these days.

or perhaps they have realised that was not right? After all it would not be the first time things have been changed in the bible because they later realised it wasn't right. Sometimes this was as a result of finding earlier texts.

 

[Amisk]

 

[JoshuaCh1v9]

If the Bible errors in one doctrine then it is untrust worth in all. When was man given the right to decide what doctines were correct and which were not?

Well, if you want to follow that arguement Amisk, how many wives do you have? Have a quick check on what your clothes are made of. If ANY of them are a mix of fibres then boy are you in trouble on judgement day.

You will also, I assume have plucked out both eyes by now, cut out your tongue and chopped off both hands.

The Church, the body of our Lord, is not about legalism or sticking to the letter of the law. That was extactly what Jesus spent so much time hammering the Pharisees about. The Church our Lord founded is about love. About forgiveness. About acceptence. About the attitude HE showed to the woman who about to be stoned.

"Neither do I condemn you". A lesson there Amisk my friend.

 

[JoshuaCh1v9]

I would like you to answer another question if you will Amisk (or can).

As a Salvationist (I assume seeing as you post here a lot)....

Do you believe that The Salvation Army should have women officers?

Yes or No? Should the Salvation Army have women in positions of leadership in our church? Bearing in mind that the current General is a woman.....

 

[Amisk]

 

[TheDag]

If the Bible errors in one doctrine then it is untrust worth in all. When was man given the right to decide what doctines were correct and which were not?

I think you have gotten confused here. I was not suggesting any such thing. What is fact is that the bible does require interpretation to understand. Error in that interpretation leads to wrong beliefs. In your previous post you also did not actually address problems with translating the bible and the questions marks over why a word is translated as one way while every other place in the bible it is translated differently. Fact is translation was done by people who are human and thus prone to mistakes. I also pointed out that when earlier manuscripts were found this led to changes in passages in the bible and as a result where the OT is being quoted in the NT you will find it does not actually match. How do you explain that? Surely if the scriptures are being quoted then it should read the same in both the OT & NT.

 

[JoshuaCh1v9]

I am not here to judge any man or woman. That is not my job. I have merely pointed out what the Bible declares in relationship to marriage, divorce and re-marriage. What you decide to do with the information is totally up to you, just as it was when you and I were sitting in a evangelistic service and heard the gospel for the first time. The major or the evangelist told us that we were sinners in need of a Saviour. He didn't judge us he merely pointed out our need to be walking according to Christ’s command.

I have done the same. I merely posted an error in the present church doctrine and what we decide to do with it is up to us.

No man need answer to me, Christ made the statement in the verse quoted previously. Any decision you come to is between you and Him, just as it was on the nite that you set in that evangelistic service and heard the gospel for the first time. Christ made the original statement and if you have a complain with my quoting Him then take it up with Him.

As I thought then. You pick and choose the scripture you deem to be untouchable and absolute, and the doctrines you wish to pass judgement on.

Paul clearly states that women should not have positions of leadership in the church. But you will not back that here and say that The Salvation Army (and many other churches) have got it wrong.

I'm not asking you to judge any man or woman. I'm asking you to say if you believe the Salvation Army church is right or wrong. You cannot possibly claim not to be here to judge the Salvation Army as a church because your OP did exactly that.

I strongly disagree with my friends in the Roman Catholic church (and I have many good friends who are Catholics) when they say that women should not have leadership positions in the church, but I at least respect them for having the courage to stand up and say it.

So, Amisk my friend, I ask you again to give an honest and straight answer to a simple question. Yes or No.

Is the Salvation Army wrong to appoint female officers and have them in positions of leadership (over men) in our churches?

 

[Amisk]

 

[JoshuaCh1v9]

You are changing subjects here. If you wish to discuss Women in ministry then start a new topic. Do not side tract this discussion.

Have a good weekend!

No, it's the same principle. I have no issue at all with women officers.

You however, are ducking the issue. You don't have the courage to stand by the arguements you started this thread with. You claim that the Army is wrong because you say that re marriage goes against biblical teaching, but you are afraid to say that it is wrong on the same principles when it comes to women having positions of leadership over men in the church.

And, yes, I will have a very good weekend. I shall be worshipping the God who says 'Love one another as I have loved you. There is NO greater commandment than this'.

I rather feel sorry for you, that the god you appear to worship is not as loving and inclusive. I will pray for you brother, that the Spirit will work in you and your hardness of heart. God Bless you.