Eating at Chic-fil-a and Other Theological Quandaries

photo credit: JeepersMedia Chick-Fil-A via photopin (license)

Biased Opinion

The recent controversies surrounding the Salvation Army, Chic-fil-a, and Ellie Goulding have been discussed about with such great frequency that I doubt my own opinion would help. However, this whole topic has been bothering me, so much so that I have become once again embittered to what has happened in my recent past from being defrocked as a Salvation Army officer.

My opinion on this whole situation is therefore biased and biased to the extreme. I was once an officer in the Salvation Army, but after coming out as bisexual, going through a divorce, and having been a vocal advocate for LGBT inclusion in the Salvation Army, I was terminated with cause, with no chance to ever become an officer again.

That is the bias I bring to this conversation.

And I'm coming up with answers that I am uncomfortable with.

Chic-fil-a

Here's my first controversial statement:  I don't eat at Chic-fil-a regularly. I haven't seen the need and it doesn't necessarily appeal to me. I know I have now offended a wide swath of people. In all honesty, I don't particularly like to eat at fast food restaurants. The ones that I do frequent, if at all, I try to make certain to eat healthy. Chic-fil-a with its deep fried unhealthy chicken and waffle fries is not exactly the paragon of healthiness. In all honesty, neither have I been, but I digress.

Several years back, when it was revealed that Chic-fil-a's philanthropic support goes to some organizations that supported anti-LGBT views, they were roundly criticized. People stopped going there who were of a liberal persuasion. Conservatives loved it and made long queues outside of the stores in show of support.

Now with Chic-fil-a announcing they would no longer support certain agencies that have had a history of problematic relationships with the LGBT community (the Salvation Army and Fellowship of Christian Athletes), liberal people are flocking to the store and conservatives are aghast at what to do. I even had a good friend who, knowing my past history with the Salvation Army, asked me if it was OK for him to start eating at Chic-fil-a again.

Ellie Goulding

Ellie Goulding, a British pop star, had announced on Instagram that she was doing the halftime show of the Dallas Cowboy's annual Thanksgiving Game. This show traditionally is also the start of the Salvation Army's Red Kettle campaign. It is one of the Salvation Army's most important fundraisers during the winter phase, when they accumulate the most donations compared to the rest of the year.

Immediately there was an uproar among her fans due to the Salvation Army's troubled history dealing with the LGBT community. At first Goulding stated she wouldn't perform unless the Army offered an explanation or donated to an LGBT cause. That in and of itself would have been something:  The Salvation Army, a charity, donating to another charity.

All of the sudden, something behind the scenes happened and Goulding's concert is as of today still on and the Salvation Army issued a statement, thanking her for helping to dispel the rumors that the Salvation Army is anti-LGBT. Nowhere in that statement was there an apology from the Salvation Army to the LGBT community for when they have fallen short. Instead, where incidents of homophobia and discrimination involving the Salvation Army have come to light, the Army dismisses it as not representative of the Salvation Army. They have yet to apologize.

Is the Salvation Army anti-LGBT?

In a word:  Yes.

You might be wondering:  Why does the Salvation Army issue these statements about myths and non-discrimination?

The Salvation Army is trying to straddle a fence. On one hand, the Salvation Army is a Church. Most people are ignorant of this fact. They are also a part of Evangelical Tradition, coming out of the Holiness Movement. They just use military terms for traditional Church jargon.  "Officers" are pastors. "Soldiers" are members. "Corps" is a congregation. A "divisional commander" is a bishop. The General would be akin to the Pope.

The Salvation Army's social work is an integral part to their evangelistic work. Because often times the funding for their work comes from government sources, proselytizing is not allowed if the funding were to continue.

Nevertheless, the Salvation Army continues to serve humanity practically and it is due to their love of God that they serve all. The Salvation Army's own mission statement states that their mission is to "meet human need's in [Jesus Christ's] name without discrimination."

Then how is the Salvation Army anti-LGBT?

Their theology regulates people in LGBT relationships to be sinning.

In 2014, when marriage equality was slowly becoming law of the land in the United States, the Salvation Army was quick to respond to this "crisis." They issued instructions to all Salvation Army officers (pastors), forbidding them from performing same-sex weddings, attending these weddings in uniform, or allowing such weddings to take place in Salvation Army sanctuaries.

Officers who would go against such policies would end up being terminated.

Salvation Army officers (pastors) are not employees of the Salvation Army. When I became an officer, I had to sign a legal document, stating that I realized I wasn't an employee of the Salvation Army and that my relationship with the Salvation Army was spiritual, not legal. The Salvation Army in return gave me an allowance, a place to stay, etc.

That all went away when I was terminated.

It also gets around that pesky anti-discrimination clause. With officers not being employees, the Salvation Army could dictate to them who they could and could not marry. In this way, the Salvation Army could, in good conscious, say that they do not discriminate in their hiring practices.

What's the problem then?

Most people would just shake their heads and say, "Well, the Salvation Army is clearly very controlling, but they voluntarily signed up for that."

The Salvation Army's theological stance regarding marriage is that "The Salvation Army affirms that marriage is the voluntary and loving union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others." This forces LGBT people in the Salvation Army to either remain celibate, marry someone of the opposite sex (despite orientation), or leave. I remember last year at a music camp of the Salvation Army, a young man came out as gay. I stopped reading the comments on the feed when officers and soldiers criticized this young man for coming out.

Rejection is a bitter pill to swallow. When LGBT soldiers and officers (members and pastors) are forced to resign or are terminated, it leaves a gaping wound. It is perhaps easier for straight cisgender Salvationists to tell people in the LGBT community to find another church, not realizing that these people have long considered the Salvation Army their home. It is difficult to uproot and find another spiritual home. When that spiritual home rejects you, is it any wonder that so many people are simply rejecting religion altogether?

I never wanted to resign my commission (ordination) as a Salvation Army officer, but I was outed as bisexual and because I publicly questioned the Salvation Army's stance on LGBT inclusion, I was terminated with cause.

When that damning memorandum was leaked to the press, the Salvation Army tried to do damage control. They claimed their "theology of marriage" was separate from their "theology of service."

That's simply not true. Since their theology of marriage regulates LGBT people to celibacy, this mindset also informs their "theology of service." They should be one and the same.

But . . . 

Here's the thing:  The Salvation Army still serves people without discrimination. They help those in need and this includes those in the LGBT community. However, the Salvation Army will not accept people in the LGBT community as equals. Gay men cannot get married in the Salvation Army. Lesbian women cannot be ordained. A brief glance at most Facebook Salvation Army pages reveals the average Salvationist's stance towards the gay community:  from fear of the "gay agenda" or "lifestyle" to "prayerful concern" that the LGBT community will come to Christ.

Most Salvationists refuse to believe that people can be both gay, in committed relationships, and a Christian at the same time.

The Conclusion?

Will they serve people in the LGBT community practically?  Yes.

Is The Salvation Army anti-LGBT?  Yes.

Should we eat at Chic-fil-a? Should we put money in the red kettle?

That's perhaps not the right question. How do we treat our fellow human being? Do we show them love, or do we tell them they are not equal and cannot enjoy the same privileges that we do?

I guess it's a matter of conscience. I don't eat at Chic-fil-a. I'm not inclined to eat there now, either, even though they no longer support the Salvation Army. It's a marketing ploy to get us to spend money there.

I don't donate to the Salvation Army any more, even though they still help people out. I cannot forget how they treated me and how people in the Salvation Army continue to treat me after leaving.

It's a terrible thing to be shunned by the community that gave you a spiritual foundation.

I am also cognizant that this rhetoric of confronting the Salvation Army's homophobia comes up the most at Christmas time. It makes sense:  it's the Army's highest visibility. It's also the time when the Salvation Army raises the most money.

So what is the solution? Donate to the Salvation Army and people will be helped, including those in the LGBT community. Don't donate to the Salvation Army and maybe the Army will be forced to confront their homophobia.

The choice is yours. What's funny about it is that both choices have merit. It's a matter of your conscience.

Deconstructing Doctrine 11: Heaven and Hell

Christ our Judge via photopin (license)

This is the concluding blog post of my deconstruction of the Eleven Doctrines of The Salvation Army.

Rob Bell and Love Wins

In 2011, the pastor and speaker, Rob Bell, published his book, Love Wins, which dared to question our beliefs on Heaven and Hell. The backlash was immediate and fierce from the Evangelical Church. He was condemned as a heretic. He stepped away from his congregation, and people stopped coming to his events. The whole idea of even questioning whether or not there is a hell seemed too much for Evangelical Christians to accept. They disowned him.

Interestingly enough, he gained even more followers. He borrowed his son's microphone and began recording his thoughts in a podcast he called, The Robcast. I can't recommend this podcast enough.

I am cognizant that my own discussion of Heaven and Hell will lead to many people questioning who I am and whether or not I can still label myself a Christian.

This brings us to the final doctrine of The Salvation Army, #11:

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.

Squirrel Nut Zippers

In the 1990's, a jazz band from Georgia had a one-hit wonder with a calypso beat, called "Hell." I loved this song. It personified most of the preconceived notions we have of Hell.

It's irreverent, to say the least. I like it, even as I disagree with it.

So you're probably all wondering:  Do I believe in a literal Heaven and Hell? The question feels both important and at the same time irrelevant. Let me try to explain.

What did Jesus believe?

Jesus was a Jew. He wasn't a Christian. Nowhere in Hebrew Scriptures (Tanakh) is Hell EVER mentioned. Not once. For such an important concept in Christianity, one would think there should be some correlation in what Christians call the Old Testament. Judgment is mentioned in several places, but never a concept of Hell.

What is mentioned instead is an abode of the dead, called Sheol. English has a hard time translating this word. It is sometimes rendered as "the grave." Basically, it was an abode of the dead where everyone went, whether they were righteous or not.

Jesus' view on this is best exemplified in the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31). In this view of the afterlife, the rich man who perished was in a punishment side of Sheol, but was also able to talk to Abraham, despite being separated by a huge crevasse. Most modern Christians reject this idea of an afterlife. People who are in Hell can't talk to people who are in Heaven, but here it seems that this is the case.

In other passages, where "hell" is used in English, the Greek equivalent is often Gehenna, which was an actual place outside of Jerusalem, used to burn refuse.

Now Jesus did preach about resurrection and judgment, but what does that all mean? These are questions that I am still exploring.

I believe in Hell

But it's probably not what you're thinking. I have seen Hell. More often than not, we humans are the best stewards of Hell. I saw Hell on the news when I saw a Hutu murder a Tutsi with a machete on a news footage on CNN. I saw Hell in the Churches of Rwanda, where the decomposed bodies, skulls and clothes were left to rot for a reminder for future generations.

I saw Hell in the eyes of released Kosovar Albanian men, who described how their sisters and daughters (who were Muslim) were raped by Christian men and had crosses sliced into their breasts.

I felt Hell in the tears of my children as they went through the pain of my divorce, not knowing exactly what was happening.

I experienced Hell when my corps officers (pastors) told me I was not welcome to be a member of their congregation.

I heard Hell as I listened to the desperate pleas on 911 of a boyfriend trying to take away the knives from his girlfriend, who had already slit her wrists and ankles.

More often than not, Hell is of our own making. We all suffer when we show or allow this cruelty to continue.

I believe in Heaven

But it's probably not what you're thinking.

I heard Heaven when my sons first told me that they love me.

I tasted Heaven when a poor Albanian family slaughtered a lamb and roasted it for me and my friend to welcome us to his home.

I experienced Heaven when I meditated and experienced the presence of God through centered prayer.

I felt Heaven when my pastor placed ashes on my forehead for Ash Wednesday.

I swam in Heaven when my pastor baptized me and welcomed me into the Church, with no thoughts about my orientation. I cried when the congregation applauded, validating that my journey had not been in vain.

I believe in the Realm of Heaven, which Jesus described to those he taught. The Realm of Heaven is like a parent, who welcomes back their long lost child (The Prodigal Son). The Realm of Heaven is like a heretic, who helps out the true believer, despite their differences in theology (The Good Samaritan). The Realm of Heaven is loving your neighbor, no matter who they are or what they have done.

The Realm of Heaven is therefore our responsibility to bring about here on Earth, not something for us to wait for when we die. By then it's too late.

What happens when I die?

I don't know for certain, but certainty is not part of my faith, or else it wouldn't be faith, just certainty.

Do I believe there is a place of Eternal Conscious Torment, a true Hell, which has been distorted by modern Christians by their perverted reading and understanding of Scripture? Absolutely not.

Am I going to a nebulous place in the clouds, guarded by a pearly gate and having streets of gold to walk on? I don't think so, either.

However, I do believe that God is in all and above all, a concept called panentheism. So when I die, I am still with God and God is with me. That gives me great comfort.

What if I'm wrong?

For my loved ones, this is probably the part that concerns them the most. I haven't given up on God. I still follow Jesus. I know the way I follow God is not like many people do and that's ok. Christianity is ever-evolving and changing. The way we worship is certainly not like Christians of the First Century worshipped. There's nothing wrong with that either.

Just because I don't believe in a fiery Hell doesn't mean I'm going to go there. I think that's the part that flusters most traditional Christians.

In the end, it doesn't matter and it's a waste of time worrying about it. Instead, our efforts should be concentrated on loving God by helping others, bringing about God's Realm on Earth.

The Eleventh Doctrine, reworded:

I believe that it's our responsibility to conquer the Hell we humans have made on Earth, by loving God and others, bringing about Heaven to Earth. God, who is with us, will never forsake us as we live and die.

Deconstructing Doctrine 10: Sanctifi-Holiness

The Happening via photopin (license)

This is the 10th blog in my series of deconstructing the doctrines of my former church, The Salvation Army. Please refer to the other posts if you haven't read those yet.

Sanctification vs. Holiness

A good friend of mine, who was a missionary to Germany before I was, once told me a story about giving a talk to a congregation about holiness. His German wasn't quite up to snuff yet, so he had a translator assist him. His opening remarks went thusly. (It's not an exact transcript, but you'll get the gist of it.)

"Today we will be talking about holiness." - Officer

"Heute reden wir über Heiligung." - Translator

"Or as it's sometimes also called, 'sanctification.'" - Officer

"Auf Englisch gibt es zwei Wörter für Heiligung." - Translator (If you don't speak German or have a German translation app, "In English there are two words for "holiness.")

English is a wonderful language, but it is really an amalgam of so many different language traditions. Sanctification and Holiness are basically the same term. "Sanctification" has it etymology in Latin and "holiness" is Germanic.

What is holiness? Given at its face value, and by what I was taught growing up in The Salvation Army, holiness is being set apart by God to be used for God's purpose.

Merriam-Webster has an interesting take on it:  "emphasizing the doctrine of the second blessing; specifically, of or relating to a perfectionist movement arising in U.S. Protestantism in the late 19th Century."

The Salvation Army comes out of the Holiness Movement. Along with Methodism, Nazarenes, and Wesleyans, these denominations emphasized the power of the Holy Spirit to transform lives, which brings us to the 10th Doctrine of The Salvation Army

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 blamless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

What's good about this Doctrine

What I appreciated most about this doctrine was the emphasis that ALL believers may be wholly sanctified. ALL may receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. ALL. Everyone. Whosoever.

From its inception, The Salvation Army has ordained women. That was a radical statement. Hardly any other denomination did. Even today, most prominent Evangelical preachers (John Piper, John MacArthur, etc.) view that having a vulva makes a woman incompatible with preaching.

The Salvation Army never did.

Granted, it took them forever to begin implementing this theology in all of its manifestations. For the longest time, married female officers were not allowed to hold a rank of their own. It was always in their husband's name. That changed in the 1980's. In the 2000's, women were finally allowed to have their own rank in their own name. It is slowly starting, but finally married women officers are being able to be placed in positions of leadership over their husbands.

Unfortunately, there has still never been a female married General of The Salvation Army. That hurdle probably won't be surpassed any time soon. It took the Army nearly 150 years to allow wives to be superior in rank to their husbands. It will probably take just as long for there to be a married female General.

What's not so good about this Doctrine

Do you recall the Merriam-Webster definition of holiness? An emphasis on perfectionism? Therein lies the headache of this doctrine.

I knew many officers who tried to say that holiness is not perfectionism. Yet this doctrine of holiness tends to drive up to that idea. Holiness was emphasized as leading a "sinless" life. This was the Salvationist's key to the pitfall of Arminianism. It is possible to lose your salvation, but if you have been sanctified by the Holy Spirit, the Spirit will help you to avoid sin in your life. This led to many calls for being set apart by God. The Salvation Army began to have two meetings on Sundays:  a Holiness Meeting and a Salvation Meeting. The former was geared towards soldiers. The latter was geared to non-members. (That for the most part has gone away. Now for the most part they only have one meeting on Sundays.)

Trying to live a holy life, as defined by what others say "holy" is, made me a nervous wreck as a child. I would pray every night to God to forgive me for doing all the sins I had done in my life. That prayer became my litany. I was scared that there was something I had done that would negate my salvation and send me to be damned for all eternity in the Flames of Hell.

Worse than that, this idea of holiness became a call for officership (ordained ministry). The hierarchy of The Salvation Army, with its soldiers, officers, etc., put an emphasis on being an officer. Then your whole life was dedicated to God and in God's service.

The Salvation Army has a two-tiered level of lay membership:  adherent and soldier. Although never stated overtly, adherents are second-class members, who can never be in a position of leadership.

Then there comes officers (clergy) and soldiers (laity). Being an officer often came with this implication that it was a higher calling than "merely" being a soldier.

The guilt trip of this was installed by none other than William Booth, the founder of The Salvation Army, who stated,

"Not called! did you say? 'Not heard the call,' I think you should say. Put your ear down to the Bible, hear Him bid you go and pull sinners out of the fire of sin. Put your ear down to the burdened, agonized heart of humanity, and listen to its pitiful wail for help. Go stand by the gates of hell, and hear the damned entreat you to go to their father's house and bid their brothers and sisters and servants and masters not to come there. Then look Christ in the face - whose mercy you have professed to obey - and tell Him whether you will join heart and soul and body and circumstances in the march to publish mercy to the world."

I understand that William Booth's drive and mission was to save as many people as he could. That passion ignited The Salvation Army and did much good in this world, but it came at a terrible price. Booth disowned 2 of his sons and would not allow them to be at their mother's deathbed because they left The Salvation Army.

God protect us all from such a calling.

What then?

My life with God is now so different. Perhaps it's the terminology that got in the way. I love the idea of being in communion with God. I love the idea of holiness, but I despise the baggage of perfectionism that comes with striving to be holy.

So instead of forcing myself to do all the right things, I turned to contemplation and meditation. The goal of holiness is communion with God. I have found that through meditation. It doesn't make me perfect, but it does make me whole and that is what matters to me. There are many helpful guides to meditation, especially on a Christian basis. Meditation is an ancient rite that many Christians are beginning to reclaim in their daily life. I have found it to be extremely empowering for me.

My own thoughts on meditation:  There is no wrong way to do it. Go easy on yourself, realizing that this is also a discipline we need to engage.  Sometimes we get distracted when we meditate. When that happens, just realize that this has happened, don't beat yourself up on it, and refocus on God.

It is through meditation with God that I have experienced what holiness means to me.

If you need a starter course, I would highly recommend this article from Gravity:  A Center for Contemplative Activism.

https://gravitycenter.com/practice/centering-prayer/

Reworking the Doctrine

If I were to rework this doctrine, I would say:

It is the privilege of all creation to seek out communion with God and with each other.

Deconstructing Doctrine 9: Calvin and Arminius

photo credit: Jairus Calvin and Hobbes via photopin (license)

I am continuing in my deconstruction of the 11 Doctrines of The Salvation Army. Please refer to the other ones for context. I apologize for the delay in the publication. I had my sons with me for the summer and that took priority for me.

Not Calvin and Hobbes

One of my favorite comics of all time is Calvin and Hobbes. The genius behind it is unparalleled. Bill Watterson, the artist behind the strip, named the two main characters after Jean Calvin a French theologian, and Thomas Hobbes, an English philosopher.

The Ninth Doctrine of The Salvation Army is basically a rebuttal to Calvinism and espouses the theology of Wesleyan-Arminianism. This doctrine states:

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

Definitions

Calvinism is based on the teachings of John (Jean) Calvin. To discuss this in this one blog would be to cover a vast amount of territory, one which I am not prepared yet to cover.

Arminianism is based on the writing of Jacobus Arminius, a Dutch theologian, who actually was trying to defend Calvinism and instead ended up opposing it. His ideas were expounded upon by John Wesley, the founder of Methodism.

If we were to limit it to the scope of this one particular doctrine, we would be dealing only with the doctrine of Salvation.

According to Calvinism, salvation is something bestowed upon by God and nothing one can do can separate you from that salvation:  Death, sin, love, etc. It is a gift of God that it given to certain elect (those whom God has chosen).

According to Wesleyan-Arminianism, of which The Salvation Army adheres to, salvation is something that one can choose to leave behind through sin, making mistakes, etc. Salvation is open to the "whosoever," while in Calvinism, it is only open to those whom God has chosen.

Guess what? You can find ample support in the Bible for both positions. People have actually had schisms in church simply over these teachings. That's ludicrous. There is no reason to do so.

What's at stake?

Salvation is at stake. For most Calvinists and Wesleyans:  where do I go when I die? Do I go to Heaven or Hell? Is my soul right with God or not?

I don't think this doctrine really matters.

Salvation and the Realm of God is something that Jesus proclaimed for people now, not when they died. Salvation is something we bring to our everyday life. We are saved in how we treat our fellow neighbor. We are saved when we do justice for the orphan and the widow. We are saved when we stand in solidarity with people of other beliefs. We are saved by showing the Love of God to everyone, no matter what they look like or who they are.

We humans tend to like to have things in black and white:  You are saved.  You are not saved.  You are going to Heaven.  You are going to Hell.  We act like Sentries of Gates that do not exist.

Who are we to make such a judgment? If we are showing love to everyone and treating everyone with love and kindness, no matter who they are, we are saved. We have also brought salvation to the people we are loving. I believe that this is something God wants all of us to do, but many of us choose not to do it.

Conclusion

If I were to rewrite this doctrine, I would simply erase it.

Deconstructing Doctrine 8: Justification

Sword of Justice / La Justice via photopin (license)

Apologetics

In 1519, a young monarch was furious with the German theologian, Martin Luther. He specifically felt it was his duty as a head of state to stand up to what he believed were the heresies of Luther's 95 Theses. He wrote a treatise in rebuttal of this work, entitled Assertio Septem Sacramentorum, or "Defense of the Seven Sacraments." To reward him for his diligence in defending the Holy Roman Catholic Church, the Pope awarded him with the title, "Defender of the Faith," a title which all subsequent successors to his throne enjoy to this day.

The monarch was King Henry VIII of Great Britain, who himself would break away from the Catholic Church and start the Church of England, with himself as the head, in order to marry whom he wanted to marry.

Apologetics is this discipline that King Henry was exercising. Apologetics is the "branch of theology devoted to the defense of the divine origin and authority of Christianity." In my opinion, it is one of the lowest forms of theology because I do not believe God nor Christianity need any defending.

Which brings us to the Eighth Doctrine of the Salvation Army:

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.

Surprise!

I have virtually no issues with this doctrine.

My chief complaint would be the archaic language and the use of the King James Version.

This is perhaps my favorite doctrine. Basically, for me it seems that I do not have to defend myself as a Christian. I am "justified." In this sense, justification means being made righteous by God.

What's even better, this justification is found within us. This doctrine uses the King James translation of 1 John 5:10, which states in the Common English Bible:  "The one who believe's in God's Son has the testimony within."

Unfortunately, many people tend to make themselves God's Gatekeepers and "Defenders of the Faith," as if God needed to defend herself.

No True Scotsman . . .

There is an old adage that begins, "No true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge." It is used to justify many things. People tend to misquote Scripture and say that they are simply "discerning the fruits." They aren't trying to do that. They are more concerned with whether or not you belong to their tribe. So they use this false logic:

No true Christian would pray to Mary.

No true Christian would work on Sunday.

No true Christian would have an abortion.

No true Christian would support a "gay lifestyle" (whatever that means!).

Yet this wonderful doctrine states that I do not have to prove to you that I am a Christian. Many people try to figure out if someone is a Christian. They will try to use discerning questions, such as:  "If you were to die tonight, do you know that you would go to Heaven?" They will try to use a litmus test on you to discern whether or not you are a "member of their tribe."

"Are you saved?"

"What Church do you go to?"

"If you were to stand before God tonight and he asked you why he should let you into heaven, what would you tell him?"

This last question assumes the wrong things. First of all, it assumes that our lives as Christians is to make it into Heaven. Heaven is never my goal. When Jesus was ministering on Earth, he proclaimed the Kingdom of Heaven here and now. He did not say, "do this and you will get into Heaven." The Kingdom of Heaven was a matter of serving the poor, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, and welcoming the stranger. The Kingdom of Heaven is a matter of loving God by showing that love to others.

There is an old song by Andrae Crouch. It states:

But if Heaven never was promised to me

Neither God's promise to live eternally

It's been worth just having the Lord in my life.

Living in a world of darkness

You came and brought me the life.

What now?

I want to live my life as if there is no Heaven and it's my responsibility to build it here on this planet. It is my duty to live in such a way that God's love is brought to everyone. I want to live in such a way that it is my duty to bring love and life into this world and to make Heaven a Place on Earth. (There you go, Belinda Carlisle fans.)

If I were to rework this Doctrine, I would say:

I believe my identity is found in God and I do not need to prove this to anyone. My life is my witness.

Deconstructing Doctrine 7: Salvation, Part 2

What changes you when you join a religion? Any religion? What is fundamentally different from the time you were not a member to the time you were a member? Perhaps more importantly:  what happens when you leave that faith community?

The Seventh Doctrine of The Salvation Army attempts to break down and explain what happens when one experiences salvation. It states:

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

A Trinitarian Dilemma

When I first read this particular doctrine, even before I went through my deconstruction process, I thought this was somewhat of a forced statement. It seems as if the writer was try to force a Trinitarian view on salvation, attempting to state that one needs to be saved by all three aspects of the Trinity:  Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. It reminds me of trying to do a family picture with my kids. Everyone is needed, but it seems forced and not everyone is happy with the result.

(My three sons in a failed attempt at a family portrait. It also happens to be my favorite.)

I really like the idea of the Trinity, but at the same time, I have a hard time trying to figure out just what each person of the Trinity has to do in this process of salvation. Also, why is it that the Father has to be the one to whom forgiveness is sought? Why can't it be the Holy Ghost or Jesus?

I've got to have faith . . .

What is this nebulous idea of "faith/belief" in Jesus? Believe what? That Jesus lived? Interesting fact:  In German, there is no differentiation between the words "faith" and "belief." It's the same word, "der Glaube." In English, we tend to put nuances on them, but in actuality, "faith" comes to us via the French/Latin route. "Belief" is Germanic and they both mean the same thing.

Once as a Salvation Army officer, I had some young people from the United States come to visit. When they arrived, I gave them a brief rundown of what to expect as far as trying to minister in Germany. There were important things to know, like:  You have to shake everyone's hand when entering a room, or else someone might be offended. Verses in a German Bible are numbered differently, especially in the Psalms, and certain books of the Bible are in totally different places than in English Bibles. I reminded them to never use plays on words or acronyms, because they rarely worked in translation and, most importantly:

THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE IN GERMAN BETWEEN FAITH AND BELIEF.

I think they broke every single guideline I gave them.

One sweet girl was speaking before our congregation. She couldn't speak German, so I translated for her. She wanted to talk about three things that were important in her spiritual life.  I don't remember what the first one was, but the second and third were "faith" and "belief." I sighed and explained to my congregation what she was trying to imply.

Regeneration?

What is being regenerated? It is our life? I can understand that this process involves the Holy Spirit, but is it something that I must participate in as well? How active do I need to be, if at all? If I am being regenerated, the word itself assumes that I am going back to a state I was previously in. If I am tainted by original sin since birth (which I don't believe in), how can I be regenerated? It's a bad word choice.

Are we like some lizard that loses its tail and then it's regenerated?

I just think this doctrine is badly worded.

What does salvation entail?

Maybe this is the more pertinent question.

Looking at the Bible, there was no one answer for that, either. The writer of Ephesians (who most likely wasn't Paul, but wrote in his style), said:  "You are saved by God's grace because of your faith. This salvation is God's gift. It's not something you possessed. It's not something you did that you can be proud of" (Ephesians 2:8,9 CEB).

However, in James 2:14, the writer states, "My brothers and sisters, what good is it if people say they have faith but do nothing to show it? Claiming to have faith can't save anyone, can it?" This seems to be in direct contradiction to the doctrine. Having faith by itself is no good. It won't save you.

Then Jesus said to his own disciples after his resurrection:  "If you forgive anyone's sins, they are forgiven; if you don't forgive them, they aren't forgiven" (John 20:23 CEB). This seems to imply that salvation is dependent on us forgiving other people or other people forgiving us.

And, perhaps most controversial, it doesn't seem that we need to do anything for it, as long as someone else believes in Jesus. When Paul and Silas were in prison, the prison warden asked what he needed to do to be saved, they replied to him:  "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved - you and your entire household" (Act 16:31 CEB). The prison warden's family didn't need to do anything. They were saved by the faith of the warden.

At one point, we are told it's a free gift of God. (See the passage above from Ephesians.) In another part of the Bible, we are told to "work out our salvation with fear and trembling" (Philippians 2:12).

It's enough to drive one crazy trying to figure it out.

What then?

Some people might assume that I am deliberately trying to confuse things. I'm not. I even had someone decry me as a "false teacher" due to my post from the previous doctrine. These are genuine questions I have and am nowhere nearer to an answer. Is salvation a process or a gift, or both? Am I saved by proxy, by faith, or by deeds?

What if the answer is "all of the above?"

It's the terminology that gets in the way. "Salvation." "Regeneration." "Faith/Belief."

We need a new language to describe what is going on here.

Jesus said that the greatest thing we could do was to love God by loving others. This "salvation" is then a healing process:  a process of love. Sometimes it's instantaneous.  Sometimes it takes repeated efforts, patience, and discretion.

Salvation is a healing of wrongs done to us and to others.

Some experience healing through faith. Some experience healing through penance. Some experience healing through the faith of others. What matters is that it involves love.

If I were to reword this doctrine, I would say:

I believe that I experience salvation through the love of God, expressed by my love and the love of others.

Deconstructing Doctrine 6: Salvation

photo credit: wuestenigel Night view of Antigua, Guatemala from "Cerro de la Cruz" via photopin (license)

I'm continuing in my personal deconstruction of the doctrines I grew up with:  The Eleven Doctrines of The Salvation Army. Please refer to my previous blogs for the first 5.

What's wrong with us? Christianity tries to answer this question. Most religions are concerned with this question, too:  How can we have a better life? The sixth doctrine of The Salvation Army addresses this, but requires tons of definitions with the Christianese it uses.

This is the sixth doctrine:

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.

in 1997 I went to Germany as part of a requirement of my Master's degree to serve overseas in a missionary setting. I was invited by one of my friends to go with him to Switzerland for a youth congress he was participating in. On the bus ride to Switzerland, there was a young man who wanted to practice his English on me. He asked me which denomination I attended, in German I replied, "Die Heilsarmee" (The Salvation Army). He stumbled a bit on that and asked me, "What type of army is that? What is a 'healing army?'" This young man literally translated the word "Heil" from the German word, "heilen," which means "to heal."

In some ways, I appreciate that better than the word, "Salvation." Language is an ever-evolving thing. The doctrine here states that there is wrong in this world and the healing of this world is made by Jesus because of his suffering and death.

I agree with the first part, that Jesus came to bring healing, but I disagree with the second part, that it was accomplished by his suffering and death.

Why did Jesus die? That's a very easy question to answer. Jesus was executed for treason:  for breaking the law, for being in direct opposition to Rome as a pretender to the throne. The fact that he was a descendant of David did not help matters. On a religious side, he made claims amounting to divinity, which got the religious community in an uproar.

Have you ever sought meaning in a tragedy that happened? Why did a love one die? Why did a child die? Why did a natural catastrophe happen? It's easy to impose our own meanings to tragedies after they have happened.

I am convinced that the Early Church was trying to bring meaning to the meaningless death of Jesus. In all honesty, there was nothing special about his death. Jesus died by crucifixion. It was so common that Josephus recorded roads being lined with people executed on a cross. Even the Bible stated that Jesus was crucified between two other criminals.

It only makes sense then that the Early Church sought to find meaning in an event that already occurred. Jesus' death was ignoble. It was intended to shame and humiliate his followers. In order to counteract such a despicable death, the Church began to invent its own story as to why Jesus died.

The writer of Hebrews compared Jesus' death to that of a Passover Lamb. That symbolism works just a little bit and would resonate with a Jewish audience, but have little to do with non-Jewish people. The symbolism doesn't work completely, though, because the Passover Lamb was not a lamb of atonement. In fact, the animal that was set aside for atonement wasn't a lamb at all:  It was a goat. The goat was the animal where the sins of the nation were set upon on Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement. Even then, it wasn't sacrificed, but forced to be abandoned in the wilderness. (See Leviticus 16:7-10.)

In more recent soteriology, many Christians love the idea of "penal substitution," the theory that Jesus had to die to take away the sins of the world and without his death, we couldn't be saved. God's wrath demands a sacrifice and it is only appeased by blood.

I reject that notion. I reject the idea that God needs blood in order to satiate God's wrath.

So I reject outright the idea that Jesus even needed to die for my sins. He did not. Such a notion makes God into a bloodthirsty deity with no regard for grace and mercy. God's "wrath" does not need to be satisfied. Let us think about this rationally:  If all we needed to do was to sacrifice Jesus, logically, the quickest and easiest way (and the most barbaric way), would be to do it when Jesus was a baby. If God demanded a blood sacrifice from a human (which goes against the Torah) (cf. Deuteronomy 12:31), this would be the most expedient way. However, the idea that Jesus had to be sacrificed to appease God's wrath is illogical.

If that's the case, where does salvation come from? Where is healing in this world? Jesus gave it to us already. When Jesus proclaimed the Kingdom of Heaven or the Kingdom of God, it was something that was meant for this world, not some afterlife. God's kingdom was meant for now, not later. The examples given by Jesus of what the Kingdom of Heaven was like was something that we did. The Kingdom of God is how we treated each other. The Kingdom of God was showing love and mercy. The Kingdom of Heaven was found in the relationships we had with each other.

Salvation is not attained through a gruesome blood sacrifice.

Salvation came to us through the incarnation of the Christ.

This is the mystery that I am wrestling with now. If Jesus as the Christ, as the anointed one, was/is also divine, then our salvation comes through his incarnation.

Then what about his death? It was a tragedy, but I don't believe it was a necessity. It was definitely a sign of evil that we would put to death something that was so pure. We humans don't tend to learn, either. We continue to sacrifice pure things with no success. We sacrifice the children of Newtown, Connecticut. We sacrifice the Tutsis of Rwanda. We sacrifice the Jews of Europe.

Blood does not bring atonement. Blood does not bring salvation. I don't need a bath in blood to make me pure. I don't need to have my clothes washed in blood.

God is not a vampire. As the psalmist said, "You don't want sacrifices. If I gave an entirely burned offering, you wouldn't be pleased" (Psalm 51:16 CEB).

So, in rewording this doctrine, I might say:

I believe that Jesus brought healing into this world through his incarnation and life and is available for anyone who follows his teachings.

Deconstructing Doctrine 5: Original Sin

photo credit: Lawrence OP O Clavis David via photopin (license)
A depiction of Christ saving Adam and Eve.

I'm continuing in my series of deconstructing the doctrines of The Salvation Army. Please refer to my previous blogs for context if you are reading this post for the first time.

I love Star Trek. Despite the science fiction aspect of it, the shows tend to have an optimistic portrayal of humanity and the future. I recall a storyline where the Klingon character, Worf, is forced to answer for the supposed crimes of his father. His father had been accused of treason. Since he was dead, Worf had to answer for his father's crimes. This seemed to be a gross injustice. It made absolutely no sense. Why should anyone stand in judgment for the crimes of their parents? The whole storyline dealt with this injustice and how this character needed to prove his own innocence and the innocence of his parents.

Which is why I have so many problems with the Fifth Doctrine of The Salvation Army.

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.

This doctrine attempts to tell why we are all facing bad things in life. The long and short of it:  It's our parents' fault. Because Adam and Eve sinned, we are all doomed and "totally depraved."

The language of this doctrine is also just cumbersome. I will give the author credit:  At least he said "first parents" and not Adam and Eve. However, using the patriarchal inclusive words of "all men have become sinners," leaves out anyone who is not male. At the same time, I can imagine most women and gender non-conforming people are quite happy that they are not included in this declaration.

The concept introduced in this doctrine is "Original Sin." Simply stated: Because of the disobedience of Adam and Eve, we are all sinners by birth. We already have a strike against us because of what our parents did. We are already damned for eternity, not because of what we did, but because of Adam and Eve. Some Christians even go so far as to say that because of their sin, disease, pestilence, etc. entered into this world. These people say that because of the sin of our parents, anything and everything that is evil in this world is their fault.

Hogwash.

That is not justice at all. This also certainly doesn't reflect the loving nature of God. Granted, one could find scriptural support for this concept. (One could find scriptural support for just about anything.) People often turn to Paul's discourse in Romans 5 as support that we are all born evil. However, I would rather turn to Jesus.

Jesus and his disciples once encountered a blind man. His disciples, curious of course, wanted to know why this man had been born blind. It is a common enough question. So many people are born into situations we don't understand and which are patently not fair. It's the question whose answer we are seldom satisfied with:  "Why do bad things happen to good people?" So the disciples asked Jesus:  "Rabbi, who sinned so that he was born blind, this man or his parents?" (John 9:2 CEB)

It's a legitimate question. Why did this bad thing happen to me? Why do I have this disease? Why was my child born with Down's Syndrome? Why did I have a miscarriage? Why did my father beat my mother up? Why was I abused?

Jesus had an answer in this case:  "Neither he nor his parents. This happened so that God's mighty works might be displayed in him. While it's daytime, we must do the works of him who sent me. Night is coming when no one can work. While I am in the world, I am the light of the world," (John 9:3-5 CEB).

This answer, albeit somewhat cryptic, makes something clear:  this wrong done to this person was not his fault, nor was it his parents' fault.

The bad things that happen to us in this world are often not our fault; however, it is our duty to make things right again.

Because of this, I reject this doctrine outright. In fact, I find it somewhat interesting that The Salvation Army has no problem adopting a petal of Calvinism here:  Total Depravity. This is the idea that because of the sin of Adam and Eve, all humans are incapable of doing good and are born in a sinful nature.

I tend to stand more behind the idea of Pelagianism, a doctrine in direct opposition to Augustine of Hippo, which states we are not born in a state of sin, but we can through our own efforts still do good. This caused a bit of controversy back during Pelagius' day. To some people it seemed that if one thought this way, one doesn't need God at all. The teachings of Pelagius were declared a heresy and most of his writings were destroyed.

However, I tend to agree with Pelagius.  We are not born bad. We are born good. If God has declared the universe and us good, who are we to argue?

This whole idea of Original Sin is something I can understand. It's trying to give an answer as to why so many things in this world are messed up. Why is there disease? Why is there war? Why are people born in poverty while some are born in wealth? It is important to wrestle with these questions; however, I don't believe the answer lies with Original Sin.

While attending college, I visited a synagogue as part of a class on Worship I was taking. It was a reformed Jewish synagogue in Lexington. In speaking with the rabbi after the service, I suddenly discovered something:  Jews do not believe in Original Sin, either! They had the same stories that we do. They know the story of Adam and Eve, but they came to a different conclusion. I remember asking the rabbi, "It doesn't seem that you think it was a bad thing that Adam and Eve ate of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil." He replied, "No, because before that there was no sex!"

Well, that certainly has my vote for discounting the concept of Original Sin!

Perhaps it's not quite that simple. Perhaps we are born good. When God created us, God proclaimed that we are good. That is nothing anyone can take away but we ourselves. The deeds of our parents cannot make us evil or sinful.

If I were to rework this doctrine, I might say something like this:

I believe that we humans were created in a state of innocency. We are all born with the capability of doing good or evil. We are responsible for our own actions and it is our duty to right the wrongs of our ancestors.