Thread: God's Cadets: BBC documentary on the Salvation Army Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=026675
Posted by Wesley S Chappell (# 4186) on
:
I watched this very interesting documentary on the Salvation Army on the BBC last night.
Some things struck me:
- They are much stricter than I thought. I somehow imagined they were more like Quakers who did a lot of social work, but they had some pretty hardcore evangelical doctrines, including something about salvation being reserved only for those who audibly speak a particular prayer
- there seemed to be no non-white people in the training college at all, which strikes me as odd given that non-whites are a major constituent of churchgoers in the UK these days. They did seem to be made up of what I would call the upper or 'respectable' working class (one officer said she had been criticised for being 'middle class'); perhaps that demographic tends to be 'whiter' than others?
- despite having to foreswear drinking and smoking, there was obviously a bit too much eating going on and I wondered if this was compensation in some way - some of them really need to watch their weight.
- on a positive note I think what they do is very good - I particularly liked the 'prayer walks' they did around the neighbourhood, and the woman minister who said 'when people ask me what's a minister doing in a lap dancing club, I ask "what's he doing in a church"'.
- I also liked the idea of them being at a car boot sale. I think a lot of modern people would respond well to this kind of hands-on Christian concern, but the strictness of the actual doctrines might put them off.
Discuss...
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
The SA are pretty open about their beliefs so they shouldn't come as a shock. They grew out of Methodism.
As for commenting on the weight of some of the people in the documentary - how rude. It's none of your business.
Posted by Wesley S Chappell (# 4186) on
:
I didn't mean to be rude and I'm sorry if anyone involved in the documentary is reading this - I didn't mean to be offensive. My point was that an organisation which strictly forbids drinking and smoking among its members should perhaps be more actively promoting a healthy lifestyle rather than handing out cakes during classes...
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
Is smoking forbidden? I don't think it is. Teetotalism however isn't promoted for health reasons but because of the social ills of alcohol (as the SA see them, and indeed do many Nonconformists). It's also part of the Methodist heritage of the SA. You are missing the point.
Tea and cake is certainly part of much British church culture, SA or otherwise. It's a social thing.
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
How odd to miss the point on what the SA does!
Or do you rigorously avoid after-service tea&cake yourself? (I'm sure you don't actually smoke in the church)
Posted by Francophile (# 17838) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
The SA are pretty open about their beliefs so they shouldn't come as a shock. They grew out of Methodism.
As for commenting on the weight of some of the people in the documentary - how rude. It's none of your business.
Sorry Jade, it's not kind to ignore obesity. If you know someone who is drinking to much because they're lonely/depressed/unhappy, you wouldn't ignore it. As a friend, you'd raise the topic, sensitively, and try to help. Same with overeating. Indifference is not consistent with love. The OP'er wasn't being rude.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Francophile:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
The SA are pretty open about their beliefs so they shouldn't come as a shock. They grew out of Methodism.
As for commenting on the weight of some of the people in the documentary - how rude. It's none of your business.
Sorry Jade, it's not kind to ignore obesity. If you know someone who is drinking to much because they're lonely/depressed/unhappy, you wouldn't ignore it. As a friend, you'd raise the topic, sensitively, and try to help. Same with overeating. Indifference is not consistent with love. The OP'er wasn't being rude.
Erm, being alcohol dependent due to depression/unhappiness is quite different to someone being over an arbitrary weight (you surely know that overeating is not the only reason why people are overweight, right?). In any case, the OP doesn't know the people featured personally and cannot speak about their health but is commenting on their appearance as a stranger. That is rude.
Posted by Wesley S Chappell (# 4186) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
How odd to miss the point on what the SA does!
Or do you rigorously avoid after-service tea&cake yourself? (I'm sure you don't actually smoke in the church)
I do know what the SA does, I just didn't realise they were quite so strict doctrinely.
I probably would avoid the cake if I was obese, but I'm not, so I don't.
(I don't smoke in church but I have been known to take the occasional pinch of snuff during a particularly long sermon. If Dean Swift could do it while he preached, I think it's ok for me to do it while I listen...)
Perhaps I shouldn't have commented on anyone's weight. It's just that although I'm British I live abroad in a country where most people are quite slim (due to lack of food and hard physical work) so I find it quite striking when I see the weight of many Britons nowadays. No offence intended.
Let's discuss more important aspects of the prog!
[ 08. January 2014, 12:36: Message edited by: Wesley S Chappell ]
Posted by Bostonman (# 17108) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Francophile:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
The SA are pretty open about their beliefs so they shouldn't come as a shock. They grew out of Methodism.
As for commenting on the weight of some of the people in the documentary - how rude. It's none of your business.
Sorry Jade, it's not kind to ignore obesity. If you know someone who is drinking to much because they're lonely/depressed/unhappy, you wouldn't ignore it. As a friend, you'd raise the topic, sensitively, and try to help. Same with overeating. Indifference is not consistent with love. The OP'er wasn't being rude.
Erm, being alcohol dependent due to depression/unhappiness is quite different to someone being over an arbitrary weight (you surely know that overeating is not the only reason why people are overweight, right?). In any case, the OP doesn't know the people featured personally and cannot speak about their health but is commenting on their appearance as a stranger. That is rude.
It's also distinctly not kind to promote, participate in, or endorse the culture of weight-based shame that leads to the absolute horror of eating disorders.
I'm not surprised by anything in the OP, although my knowledge of the SA is basically limited to Mudfrog's posts here. I'm generally more surprised by people's lack of knowledge when they're giving money to the bell-ringers in the street...
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
I thought the programme was beautifully put together; it was far better as one long piece rather than a series. In particular it nicely moved through several themes.
I was struck by the contrast between rigidity of some of their practices (and that Uniform!) and the generosity of spirit shown to the needy. I also liked the senior lecturer who was so honest about her questions. One wonders how the SA copes with those who are into "Faith Development" theories.
I knew an SA officer who moved to Britain from Greece. Having previously rejected Orthodoxy as "dead" he was beginning to rediscover something of its positive aspects and had an ikon in his office.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Wesley S Chappell:
There seemed to be no non-white people in the training college at all, which strikes me as odd given that non-whites are a major constituent of churchgoers in the UK these days. They did seem to be made up of what I would call the upper or 'respectable' working class
Be aware that outside of London, most Nonconformist congregations are overwhelmingly white. In 2005 93.3% of people worshipping in English Methodist churches were white, which is an overrepresentation when compared with the 2001 civil census. Very mixed or majority non-white congregations are mostly found in large cities. Over 50% of worshippers in London are non-white, but this isn't true for other parts of Britain.
Moreover, although much progress has been made, non-white people are usually underrepresented in ministry in the mainstream denominations. Again, this probably isn't so obvious in London.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
All true. However I would have thought - possibly wrongly - that the SA was more to be found in urban rather than rural areas. I wonder if this is true and, if so, whether it is attracting a proportionate number of non-white worshippers in those places.
One troubling feature of the programme was the number of Cadets who come from died-in-the-wool SA families. Does this mean that these folk "know the jargon" and are thus more likely to be accepted into training? Does it mean that the SA is proving unattractive to outsiders? Does it mean that evangelism is taking a smaller role in the Army than social action? I don't know, but someone might!
Posted by aig (# 429) on
:
I watched it to compare their training (SA) and my own experience at theological college (c of e). The main difference I saw was that they were much more uniform in their beliefs, language and worship practices, than we were. Our tat was definitely better, however.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Wesley S Chappell:
- there seemed to be no non-white people in the training college at all, which strikes me as odd given that non-whites are a major constituent of churchgoers in the UK these days. They did seem to be made up of what I would call the upper or 'respectable' working class (one officer said she had been criticised for being 'middle class'); perhaps that demographic tends to be 'whiter' than others?
Will check it out on iPlayer.
I used to live near the big SA training college in south London, and the people going in and out were noticeably whiter than the demographics of the area it was in.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
One troubling feature of the programme was the number of Cadets who come from died-in-the-wool SA families. Does this mean that these folk "know the jargon" and are thus more likely to be accepted into training? Does it mean that the SA is proving unattractive to outsiders? Does it mean that evangelism is taking a smaller role in the Army than social action? I don't know, but someone might!
Since its early decades of rapid growth, I understand that the British SA has been in constant decline. Consequently, I do sometimes wonder how they manage to pursue their extensive social projects without having to hire non-members to do some of the work. Members must be worked very hard if they have to do it all themselves. (And I've just come across a website that hints at the problems of overwork in the SA....)
Regarding the urban/rural thing, I live in a major city and there are only three SA churches here. There used to be one near me, but it closed quite a while ago and the building was sold.
Attending worship with the SA is one of the things I must do. I look forward to watching this programme.
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on
:
I actually found it rather slow, so ended up half-watching, half doing stuff on the PC, so maybe I didn't get it all.
But I was a bit concerned that some of the people going forward had very poor life experiences and seemed a bit as if they were looking for a structured environment in which to feel safe. I'm not sure that this is a good idea, and as a practical proposition I think it would be a lot better if the costs of training were borne by the SA, so they do not have the incentive to get (revenue earning) bums on seats. I feel the same way about a lot of evo colleges. I've met people being trained at Moorlands who from what I could see, were so unsuited to the ministry, that I can't help wondering if they'd be accepted for training if it wasn't bringing in the money.
i'm not suggesting anyone's getting rich on this, it's more about keeping an institution going.
SFAIK Catholics training for the priesthood don't have to find the money but maybe I'm wrong on that.
[ 08. January 2014, 15:06: Message edited by: anteater ]
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
Inwas very impressed, despite some things making be cringe, e.g. someone beliefved his grandmother was be in Hell for all eternity. And the slogan 'global warming is as nothing to eternal burning' - made me think of Fred Phelps.
That being said, they seemed a nice bunch, committed.
Re alcohol - one of the 2nd years said he had a sherry with his parents over Christmas but doesn't normally drink - on the basis of the 'weaker brethren' argument.
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Wesley S Chappell:
- They are much stricter than I thought.
I saw half the documentary and thought they were actually much less strict than I'd expected, much more human and relaxed, though still earnest. It was quite interesting to get an insight into the movement because the stereotype is, as one of them mentioned, brass bands and uniforms - and refreshing to see several of them saying they didn't like the uniforms, and what I saw was less military than I'd expected.
However, I didn't see the rest of the programme so don't know what the outcome was, but it seemed to provide structure for some in need of it. I expect Mudfrog will be along at some point to answer questions on this thread.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
quote:
originally posted by Wesley S Chappell:
- They are much stricter than I thought. I somehow imagined they were more like Quakers who did a lot of social work, but they had some pretty hardcore evangelical doctrines, including something about salvation being reserved only for those who audibly speak a particular prayer
I've never read Major Mudfrog's posts and thought, "Hmmm...sounds like a progressive Quaker." ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
But I was a bit concerned that some of the people going forward had very poor life experiences and seemed a bit as if they were looking for a structured environment in which to feel safe. I'm not sure that this is a good idea, and as a practical proposition I think it would be a lot better if the costs of training were borne by the SA, so they do not have the incentive to get (revenue earning) bums on seats. I feel the same way about a lot of evo colleges. I've met people being trained at Moorlands who from what I could see, were so unsuited to the ministry, that I can't help wondering if they'd be accepted for training if it wasn't bringing in the money.
i'm not suggesting anyone's getting rich on this, it's more about keeping an institution going.
SFAIK Catholics training for the priesthood don't have to find the money but maybe I'm wrong on that.
Interesting.
There's an article by Kenneth Brown in 'Victorian Studies' which highlights the problems of ministerial recruitment in Victorian Nonconformity. It seems as though there were concerns about declining quality and quantity even back then. Many colleges were facing a drop in student numbers, so the inclination to accept the fees of low-quality candidates was ever present. In a society with fewer practising Christians this must be an even bigger problem now.
It's easy to say that the institution should always bear the cost of training, but this assumes that it has the funds to do so. The RCC is a massive, wealthy institution; the smaller Protestant churches aren't. And for many of them, the institution paying for tuition fees = church members bearing the costs out of their own pockets. Brown says many Victorian congregations got fed up of constant requests to support theological colleges.
He also notes that Nonconformist clergy were increasingly 'sons of the manse'. There were pros and cons to this, but if, as BaptistTrainfan says, these folk are overrepresented in SA training, it means they're less likely to reflect the social and cultural environment of their congregations, or among the outsiders they're trying to reach.
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
One troubling feature of the programme was the number of Cadets who come from died-in-the-wool SA families. Does this mean that these folk "know the jargon" and are thus more likely to be accepted into training? Does it mean that the SA is proving unattractive to outsiders? Does it mean that evangelism is taking a smaller role in the Army than social action? I don't know, but someone might!
Since its early decades of rapid growth, I understand that the British SA has been in constant decline. Consequently, I do sometimes wonder how they manage to pursue their extensive social projects without having to hire non-members to do some of the work. Members must be worked very hard if they have to do it all themselves. (And I've just come across a website that hints at the problems of overwork in the SA....)
Regarding the urban/rural thing, I live in a major city and there are only three SA churches here. There used to be one near me, but it closed quite a while ago and the building was sold.
Attending worship with the SA is one of the things I must do. I look forward to watching this programme.
I live in an urban area (more than one city in it, hence the mealy-mouthed jargon) with an urban population of 800,000-900,000. To the best of my knowledge there are two, perhaps three, SA centres. I'm pretty sure (e.g., looked at a list of who played in one of the bands some years ago and the players were all late middle aged or older, except for a couple of children of band-members) that the membership is largely hereditary (like that of most main-line churches) and that they lose most of those they raise (again, just like most of the rest of us).
I'm pretty sure that the major social service outlet that bears the SA name has for several years been funded and operated by non-SA organizations and people -- to the point that when I asked someone who attends the SA, they told me that the social service outlet was not in any way connected with the SA any more.
WHat they do is great, they're just not able to do as much of it as they used to. (Just like the rest of us.)
JOhn
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on
:
My church has run a Christmas Hamper programme for years; this year the Salvation Army in town joined our effort. We have the space for organizing in our building, a good secretary and volunteers. They brought some volunteers and contributed food.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
Interesting reading some of your comments.
There's been a lot of facebook controversy amongst us regarding this programme. Some salvationists are 'for' it, others are very upset and astounded.
Let me look at some iof your issues, as I remember them:
White - yes, quite true but cadets come from all over the UK and Ireland, bit just Camberwell - there are black officers and you will have noticed that our territorial Commander (archbishop) - seen at the end at the commissioning and Ordination service - was a black South African.
Middle Class? Maybe, but that reflects just that one person who cam into the SA from outside our ranks and carries on her shopping habits.
Doctrinally strict. well, we have 11 doctrines that are conservative evangelical but the programme was edited to make it sound like 'turn or burn. The little postcard was unfortunate! Many people have been upset buy the 'magic words' comment and how the officer's sister was said by her to be in hell because she didn't say them. That really misrepresents our doctrine.
what else?.....
Yes, we are entirely teetotal and tobacco-free. The comment about a sherry at Christmas was misheard by Leo. The cadet poured one for his mother in law or someone and got the measure wrong because he's never drank before.
Yes, we are declining - along with the rest of you - and many people are from Army families. A lot of social work done by TSA is done by employees.
Ask me what you like...
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I do sometimes wonder how they manage to pursue their extensive social projects without having to hire non-members to do some of the work.
They do hire non-members. One of our (Anglican) church members worked for them as some sort of charity administrator. I'm not sure, but I think he did have to sign up to an evangelical statement of belief (he'd not have had a problem with athat anyway) but he certainly didn't have to worship with them or become a uniformed SA officer (or whatever they call the ones who wear uniforms)
[ 10. January 2014, 19:21: Message edited by: ken ]
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I do sometimes wonder how they manage to pursue their extensive social projects without having to hire non-members to do some of the work.
They do hire non-members. One of our (Anglican) church members worked for them as some sort of charity administrator. I'm not sure, but I think he did have to sign up to an evangelical statement of belief (he'd not have had a problem with athat anyway) but he certainly didn't have to worship with them or become a uniformed SA officer (or whatever they call the ones who wear uniforms)
We would never make an employee sign up to our evangelical statement of beliefs. they say that they will be in sympathy with the mission and principles of TSA, that kind of thing.
We have atheists as employees, Christians, gay people, anyone who can do the job.
There is a myth that we discriminate in our employment of people but it's entirely false and untrue.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
I didn't realise the SA was tobacco-free - is/was Methodism, too? Now people smoke less anyway I guess it's less of an issue, although I think teetotalism always gets viewed with much more suspicion in the UK than in the US. Certainly I can't quite get my head around teetotalism (or indeed being tobacco-free) being a requirement for any Christian denomination, although I understand the social angle more than any theological one. But then given that alcohol is such a part of my own church culture, it would seem strange to me. And it does involve missing out on God's own beverage, gin ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
How much independence do regional branches/churches have? I must say that some things I hear from Mudfrog on here don't line up with what I've been told by other SA members from other areas of the country, and wondered if it was down to particular regional emphases. That doesn't really line up with a denomination that grew out of Methodism and not the Baptists though.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
We would never make an employee sign up to our evangelical statement of beliefs. they say that they will be in sympathy with the mission and principles of TSA, that kind of thing.
We have atheists as employees, Christians, gay people, anyone who can do the job.
I thought so.
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable
I didn't realise the SA was tobacco-free - is/was Methodism, too?
Back in the 80s I knew a Methodist minister who smoked a pipe - at church, too. But it is rare for Methodists to smoke. Methodists are apparently healthy people who tend to live longer than average lives:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/7855002/Methodists-live-more-than-seven-years-longer-than-rest-of-population.html
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on
:
The Methodist Church of Canada was and the United Church of Canada still is teetotal. It's rare to find a United Church that will permit alcohol on its premises. My church forbids it.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I didn't realise the SA was tobacco-free - is/was Methodism, too? Now people smoke less anyway I guess it's less of an issue, although I think teetotalism always gets viewed with much more suspicion in the UK than in the US. Certainly I can't quite get my head around teetotalism (or indeed being tobacco-free) being a requirement for any Christian denomination, although I understand the social angle more than any theological one. But then given that alcohol is such a part of my own church culture, it would seem strange to me. And it does involve missing out on God's own beverage, gin
How much independence do regional branches/churches have? I must say that some things I hear from Mudfrog on here don't line up with what I've been told by other SA members from other areas of the country, and wondered if it was down to particular regional emphases. That doesn't really line up with a denomination that grew out of Methodism and not the Baptists though.
The SA was tobacco free for officers (ministers) like me, and for 'local officers' (elders) and bandsmen (I think) from the 1800s. The total ban on tobacco didn't come in until 1976.
As far as doctrines and lifestyle, etc, go there are no regional variations. in fact globally there are hardly any variations at all. Same doctrines, same theology. There is no 'liberal wing' of The Salvation Army.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Yes, that fits with my experiences, too, Mudfrog. One of the things I appreciate about the Salvation Army is its clear willingness to engage with poverty on practical levels.
Conservative theology is often incorrectly linked with prosperity-type gospel views and indifference to what is sneered at as the social gospel. While that is true in some settings, I'd never accuse the SA of being infected with those kinds of connections. They get stuck in, often when other Christian denominations do not. There is genuine, practical, compassion.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
If you're in the UK you might like to have a look at this programme.
It features 2 ministers' wives from other denominations and also features a married woman Salvation Army officer. It's a lovely portrayal.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
I realise there's no liberal wing But I have been told things by SA officers that are incorrect according to you, Mudfrog. That's why I wondered if there were regional variations like sometimes happens with the CoE and RCC.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I realise there's no liberal wing But I have been told things by SA officers that are incorrect according to you, Mudfrog. That's why I wondered if there were regional variations like sometimes happens with the CoE and RCC.
If there are things you've been told, you can send me a pvt message and I'll try to clarify.
Posted by Zoey (# 11152) on
:
Because it wouldn't do for differences of opinion between SA members or incorrect beliefs held by an SA member to be played out on a public board? ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
Posted by Urfshyne (# 17834) on
:
Could it be that it is not so much a difference of opinion as a difference of personal understanding of the doctrines?
I remember discussing relative doctrines with a Mormon friend. When I told him that those of his church were so strict that they were like a tightrope - one false move and you fell - he replied that mine were so wide that you could drive three buses through them side-by-side.
I understood what he meant.
Posted by Zoey (# 11152) on
:
What I was trying to indicate was that I'm not sure it increases outsiders' understanding of, or sympathy towards, any group to enforce a rule that internal differences must be kept hush-hush. People are heterogeneous, even when they group themselves together by their similarities. Personally, I prefer groups which recognise that fact over groups where any deviance from the agreed norm must be brushed under the carpet and/or clamped down upon with an iron fist.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
That's fine - bring the 'differences' out into the open; it's likely however that the inconsistency is by lack of discipline rather than local policy.
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Ask me what you like...
Do you like cake?
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Ask me what you like...
Do you like cake?
Love it. especially the big chocolate ones from Costco. You cannot be a Salvationist if you don't like cake. Or tea.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Back in the day, I knew some evangelicals and charismatics who found the Salvation Army too 'liberal' ...
Mind you, some of these people would have found anyone outside of their own rigid and circumscribed little worlds as too 'liberal' ...
I've not come across any Salvationist officers I'd consider 'liberal' ... but I have come across some people in the pews - or whatever they have instead of pews - who might fit that label to some extent.
Certainly, on certain issues the Army used to appear very liberal. I remember a girl at school who fell pregnant and no other church would marry her and her boyfriend ... and they wanted some kind of church wedding.
The local Salvation Army Citadel was more than pleased to perform the ceremony - even though neither partner was a Salvationist nor had any prior connection with the Army as far as I know. Nor was either of them a regular churchgoer of any kind ... the only overtly religious connection I could see was the bride's mother's residual Catholic faith ...
Hence, I can understand why some people might assume that the Army was quite Quakerish in its approach to some issues.
This was years and years ago now but at that time I was quite impressed by the openness of the Salvation Army in being willing to marry a couple that nobody else seemed prepared to.
Is this part of SA policy?
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
This was years and years ago now but at that time I was quite impressed by the openness of the Salvation Army in being willing to marry a couple that nobody else seemed prepared to.
Is this part of SA policy?
It's certainly not liberal; rather it's called grace.
No officer is obliged to marry anyone and, for example, in the case of a divorcee an officer must send the decree absolute to the Divisional Commander (Bishop) for permission to marry the couple. however an officer is not duty bound to marry a divorced couple / person if his consciene doesn't allow it.
I dedicated a child once when I heard that a woman had been refused a Christening by her own church minister because the child was illegitimate. Again, WWJD? It was mercy, not liberalism.
Actually we are often criticised for our conservative ethics because we are pro-life and we don't believe that homosexual sexual relations are sanctioned by Scripture or blessed by God.
Oh, I can hear the sharpe intakes of breath!
[ 11. January 2014, 19:32: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
As long as no one starts discussing that view here, (rather than in Dead Horses) Mudfrog, this Host's breathing will remain perfectly normal.
Nobody's perfect. Particularly no visible churchbody.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
This was years and years ago now but at that time I was quite impressed by the openness of the Salvation Army in being willing to marry a couple that nobody else seemed prepared to.
Is this part of SA policy?
It's certainly not liberal; rather it's called grace.
No officer is obliged to marry anyone and, for example, in the case of a divorcee an officer must send the decree absolute to the Divisional Commander (Bishop) for permission to marry the couple. however an officer is not duty bound to marry a divorced couple / person if his consciene doesn't allow it.
I dedicated a child once when I heard that a woman had been refused a Christening by her own church minister because the child was illegitimate. Again, WWJD? It was mercy, not liberalism.
Actually we are often criticised for our conservative ethics because we are pro-life and we don't believe that homosexual sexual relations are sanctioned by Scripture or blessed by God.
Oh, I can hear the sharpe intakes of breath!
It seems pretty hypocritical to take one stance on heterosexual pre-marital sex (as happened with the pregnant woman getting married) and another on non-heterosexual pre-marital sex (not all LGBTQ people are homosexual). Why do pregnant women deserve grace but not gay people?
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
X-posted with Barnabas62, sorry Barnabas.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
We didn't condone the fact that she'd had the baby out of wedlock - we don't believe in sexual relationships outside of heterosexual marriage - but the focus was on the child. Why should the child be excluded from the church?
Anyway, I don't want to get into a dead horse's paddock.
I only mention it really because people have commented on the strictness of Salvation Army belief and practice but it is undeniable that TSA is basically in line with traditional, orthodox Christian teaching. We are actually very close to Catholicism on a lot of moral and ethical issues.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
OK, Jade. Only an 8 hour x post after all. As long as folks get the message, that's the main thing. A number of DH topics float around when we discuss conservative theologies. Try to navigate nicely.
B62, Purg Host
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
OK, Jade. Only an 8 hour x post after all. As long as folks get the message, that's the main thing. A number of DH topics float around when we discuss conservative theologies. Try to navigate nicely.
B62, Purg Host
Yep sorry, it was my sleepiness and not reading. Apologies.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
No probs, Jade. I know all about early morning sleepiness! Have a good day.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
THIS is interesting.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Inwas very impressed, despite some things making be cringe, e.g. someone beliefved his grandmother was be in Hell for all eternity.
I saw this documentary and enjoyed it. I have a thought on this particular issue that I will raise in a separate thread in Purg.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
I wanted to comment on this program which I watched yesterday.
I really admired their attitude towards helping the poor and the needy - the painting of people drowing in the world's problems (e.g. alcoholism, poverty) and being saved by SA officers was really a good depiction of their beliefs (from what I understand of them). I have struggled with feeling like I'm not doing enough to help those in need so this was a good inspiration on that regard.
I think the producers of the documentary went out of their way to find people who had "unorthodox" views (e.g. the former salesman who had to give up the expensive watch, the Waitrose lady, the woman who said she and her husband couldn't cope with real jobs and paying rent).
The jargon was mindboggling. When the young cadet (Annemarie I think - the adopted one) was in the gift shop and going through the various ranks and titles I couldn't believe how complicated it all was.
There also seemed to be undue emphasis on appearing "perfect." The comments about not being seen to drink non-alcoholic ginger beer (I wonder if Salvationists may drink ginger ale), or not getting groceries from Waitrose, seemed to have nothing to do with faith but with image. Waitrose being part of John Lewis Group has one of the best employee profit-sharing programs in the UK, I would think spending a bit more to make sure workers are paid fairly is a good thing? Rather than buying from Tesco that sources clothing made in third world sweatshops and drives suppliers out of business.
Question for mudfrog - what of the cadets who aren't married or don't find a partner in college? Who do they end up marrying? Other Salvationists from their congregations? I was unclear as to whether officers are allowed to marry outside of the church.
Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on
:
Do married couples still share a rank in the Salvation Army? I could never get my head around that.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
There also seemed to be undue emphasis on appearing "perfect." The comments about not being seen to drink non-alcoholic ginger beer (I wonder if Salvationists may drink ginger ale), or not getting groceries from Waitrose, seemed to have nothing to do with faith but with image. Waitrose being part of John Lewis Group has one of the best employee profit-sharing programs in the UK, I would think spending a bit more to make sure workers are paid fairly is a good thing? Rather than buying from Tesco that sources clothing made in third world sweatshops and drives suppliers out of business.
I think the "not buying ginger-beer" thing stems from the idea of "not causing the weaker brother to fall" - i.e. that someone from an alcoholic background will se them buying the stuff, think it's "proper" beer and then say, "Oh, it's OK to drink" and get entrapped by it. A bit silly I think. I had the same problem when serving a church in Africa when I was told to make sure that no-one saw me buying lemonade at a street bar!
You make a good point about the Waitrose thing; however I guess the thinking is that Waitrose is seen as "posh" or "pricey" and therefore looks extravagant to the poor people they are working with. Also the Army folk are living on a pittance. But I think it is wrong for fellow SA folk to criticise.
There is something here about the desire not just to refrain from evil but from every "appearance" of it. That's a good thing (especially in today's "do what you want" age) but it appears to lead to the possibility of legalism and pettifogging small-mindedness.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
Duh, the John Lewis Group are evil socialists who pay their employees a proper wage and we can't have SA officers endorsing that, can we?
I find the SA worryingly supportive of poverty - call me cynical, but why are they not shouting more loudly against structures that keep poverty happening? Is it because an end to poverty would mean an end to their job, and an end for them to be able to pat themselves on the back?
Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on
:
Lots of poor people shop in Waitrose. Their reductions on shrinkage food (at the end of the day) are often much greater than those from other leading supermarkets, and their stores are more regularly accessible by walking rather than having to drive to an out-of-town park.
It is entirely possible to live on a diet spending less money in Waitrose than you would in Aldi or Lidl - providing you are prepared to shop every day just before the shop closes and prepared to eat whatever is near the sell-by date.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
I think we are missing the point about Waitrose. I saw the programme too. I don't think it was being suggested anywhere either that nobody in the SA should shop in Waitrose or even that this was forbidden for Officers.
I think what that interviewee was getting at, was that because she came from a slightly more professional background, some of her fellow students who came from different backgrounds, - accentuated by the hothouse atmosphere of any training college - thought she was being a bit pretentious to shop there. I think that she was implicitly criticising them for this.
Mudfrog, am I right?
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
Lots of poor people shop in Waitrose. Their reductions on shrinkage food (at the end of the day) are often much greater than those from other leading supermarkets, and their stores are more regularly accessible by walking rather than having to drive to an out-of-town park.
It is entirely possible to live on a diet spending less money in Waitrose than you would in Aldi or Lidl - providing you are prepared to shop every day just before the shop closes and prepared to eat whatever is near the sell-by date.
I'm a poor person who shops at Waitrose - along with their reductions, their Essentials range costs just the same as the major supermarkets and is better quality. My local Waitrose is also my nearest butcher, meaning I can save money by buying individual pieces of meat. It's also possible for poor people to prefer more ethical supermarkets and to approve of the John Lewis Group's business practices.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Question for mudfrog - what of the cadets who aren't married or don't find a partner in college? Who do they end up marrying? Other Salvationists from their congregations? I was unclear as to whether officers are allowed to marry outside of the church.
In 1999 there was a huge overall of officership (which is, of course, our ordained ministry) and one of the things that we in the UK did was to get rid of the rule that officers must be married to officers.
We now have officers who go into the ministry being already married to people who are not called to that vocation.
We get officers who do meet other officers and get married and who then share a joint ministry.
We have officers who, having been ordained, subsequently marry non-officers.
I'm not sure why it was even mentioned in the programme; it's an irrelevance to today.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
Do married couples still share a rank in the Salvation Army? I could never get my head around that.
A finer detail:
There was a time when the officer-wife would always share her husband's rank. If for example a female Captain married a Major, she would be promoted. If however she, a Major, married a male Captain, she would be demoted.
That rule is long gone and I know of a male Lieutenant who has married to a female Major.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by seekingsister:
[qb]There also seemed to be undue emphasis on appearing "perfect." The comments about not being seen to drink non-alcoholic ginger beer (I wonder if Salvationists may drink ginger ale)...
Nope, it was all nonesense and I have no idea where this cadet got that criticism from, of him drinking ginger beer.
The ONLY rule is that we will abstain from alcoholic drink. Only a FOOL would believe that ginger ale, ginger beer or ginger wine (very popular in SA circles in North East UK) were alcoholic drinks and an even bigger fool would criticise someone for drinking it.
I think there has been a small misunderstanding from some simple soul who didn't know the difference between this and real beer and the cadet in the film, being new to the Armty, thought it was a big issue.
I drink ginger beer, root beer, ginger wine and (though I don't like it much) Becks Blue which is an alcohol free beer. My wife and I will often drink alcohol free wine. It all looks and tastes like real wine but 0%
I have sat in a pub with Salvation Army Majors drinking Becks Blue.
I really don't know what the fuss is about. Sad.
Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on
:
Well there is an alcoholic ginger beer, perhaps that created the confusion.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I think we are missing the point about Waitrose. I saw the programme too. I don't think it was being suggested anywhere either that nobody in the SA should shop in Waitrose or even that this was forbidden for Officers.
I think what that interviewee was getting at, was that because she came from a slightly more professional background, some of her fellow students who came from different backgrounds, - accentuated by the hothouse atmosphere of any training college - thought she was being a bit pretentious to shop there. I think that she was implicitly criticising them for this.
Mudfrog, am I right?
Bit of inside knowledge. She was referring to maybe a pastoral interview with tutors or pastoral staff who had maybe suggested she was spending too much on other things as well. Sometimes people coming from well-paid jobs have trouble 'downsizing' their spending habits and we have had high earners suddenly getting into debt.
It wasn't a question of image and Waitrose not fitting the image - it was more a question of her spending priorities in other ares. I can't say more than that.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
Well there is an alcoholic ginger beer, perhaps that created the confusion.
Yes but it's a very narrow, specialist market and most people - from Enid Blyton onwards - would know that ginger beer is a soft drink.
Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Bit of inside knowledge. She was referring to maybe a pastoral interview with tutors or pastoral staff who had maybe suggested she was spending too much on other things as well. Sometimes people coming from well-paid jobs have trouble 'downsizing' their spending habits and we have had high earners suddenly getting into debt.
It wasn't a question of image and Waitrose not fitting the image - it was more a question of her spending priorities in other ares. I can't say more than that.
First, I'm not sure how appropriate it is to speak of 'inside knowledge' about a person who is not here to defend and/or put their own slant on what happened.
Second, are you seriously telling me that the Salvation Army tells recruits how they should spend their money?
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Bit of inside knowledge. She was referring to maybe a pastoral interview with tutors or pastoral staff who had maybe suggested she was spending too much on other things as well. Sometimes people coming from well-paid jobs have trouble 'downsizing' their spending habits and we have had high earners suddenly getting into debt.
It wasn't a question of image and Waitrose not fitting the image - it was more a question of her spending priorities in other ares. I can't say more than that.
First, I'm not sure how appropriate it is to speak of 'inside knowledge' about a person who is not here to defend and/or put their own slant on what happened.
Second, are you seriously telling me that the Salvation Army tells recruits how they should spend their money?
Firstly I haven't told you any more than she has said.
Secondly, in the college training situation the college is merely advising on personal and pastoral issues that might impact on ability to ministry. It's not intrusive and neither is it prescriptive.
Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Firstly I haven't told you any more than she has said.
Ah right, not inside knowledge at all then.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Firstly I haven't told you any more than she has said.
Ah right, not inside knowledge at all then.
well it's inside knowledge because I'm inside the organisation and I know what the procedures are; I also know that the programme was heavily edited and out of the hundreds of hours filming over an entire year you got far less than 90 minutes of interview actually screened. I'm simply saying that her words about being inappropriately middle-class 'because she shopped at Waitrose' do not reflect all that she said, not the accuracy of, context of, or indeed the pastoral procedures that the 'accusation' were part of. I can honestly say that the extremely rich people in my session of trainees when I was a cadet, were never accused of being like this young woman. I think the film maker has made her out to be something she's not maybe. She certainly has had all her words of explanation aired.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Whenever an institution or group of people agrees to let the film cameras in, it is then at the mercy of whatever slant the Director may put on it - just think of the furore over the current series "Benefits Street". And any programme has to be selective; it will usually choose to focus on the folk who it feels are the most interesting or have the best story.
Personally I (as a non-Salvationist) felt that the programme was pretty good. And some of the narky comments were reminded me of ones I heard in my own Bible College.
Posted by Sleepwalker (# 15343) on
:
I have yet to see the programme but having read this thread I'm going to watch it on iPlayer before it disappears.
Mudfrog, a question for you. Why do the Sally Army not visit pubs anymore? While I was a young adult, giving to the Sally Army in a pub was a venerable tradition and pretty much everyone dug into their beer money.
I've always admired the Sally Army. They routinely get their hands dirty while most of us keep ours firmly tucked in our gloves.
I also used to love hearing the local Sally Army band as Christmas approached. They've gone too, which I find a bit of a shame really.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sleepwalker:
I have yet to see the programme but having read this thread I'm going to watch it on iPlayer before it disappears.
Mudfrog, a question for you. Why do the Sally Army not visit pubs anymore? While I was a young adult, giving to the Sally Army in a pub was a venerable tradition and pretty much everyone dug into their beer money.
I've always admired the Sally Army. They routinely get their hands dirty while most of us keep ours firmly tucked in our gloves.
I also used to love hearing the local Sally Army band as Christmas approached. They've gone too, which I find a bit of a shame really.
There are still places where War Cry is sold in pubs. The problem is that many pubs have changed over the years - too noisy, unwilling landlords, etc. A lot of War Crys are now sold on the streets.
Bands still play on the streets at Christmas though sadly there are fewer of them.
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Sleepwalker:
I have yet to see the programme but having read this thread I'm going to watch it on iPlayer before it disappears.
Mudfrog, a question for you. Why do the Sally Army not visit pubs anymore? While I was a young adult, giving to the Sally Army in a pub was a venerable tradition and pretty much everyone dug into their beer money.
I've always admired the Sally Army. They routinely get their hands dirty while most of us keep ours firmly tucked in our gloves.
I also used to love hearing the local Sally Army band as Christmas approached. They've gone too, which I find a bit of a shame really.
There are still places where War Cry is sold in pubs. The problem is that many pubs have changed over the years - too noisy, unwilling landlords, etc. A lot of War Crys are now sold on the streets.
Bands still play on the streets at Christmas though sadly there are fewer of them.
I've been sold a War Cry in a pub in the last week. Despite being a deeply Anglican Anglican, I was brought up to and continue to buy the War Cry on sight (probably family folk memory of hard times in the east end of London at the turn of the last century).
Posted by fluff (# 12871) on
:
I just watched the program on Iplayer. Though I don't agree with some of the SA's views (on gay issues, amongst others, no doubt) I thought they came across quite well: sincere and committed. It's a shame some people in the SA are upset by it, as I thought it gave a reasonably positive picture, particularly in terms of their social work, and lack of venality. The fact that people were happy to talk about problems - the SA's introversion, feeling a bit jaded - contributed to this positive impression. Maybe it's the sign of a healthy organization if people are able to openly discuss its downsides and difficulties?
I used to pass the big training centre featured in the program over and over again on the bus, when my family lived around that area, so it brought back memories. The statues of Catherine and William Booth used to be clearly visible from the top deck. Fascinating to find out what does on in there!
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
This is not about the present-day SA, but I thought you all might be interested in this poem about William Booth.
Moo
Posted by fluff (# 12871) on
:
What a perfect elegy. Love the transformation of the wretched into "sages and sibyls". I get the impression that Vachel Linsay was moved by the death of Booth and his example.
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on
:
Rather late to this party - but just watched the prog on I-player. Mudfrog, I felt the thing came over very very well - struggles openly aired, but/and an inner peace and strength often clearly in evidence. Every now and again I meet people like that - chatting about nothing much, coming across as nothing-much kind of people, but then suddenly moving onto something about which they have real personal conviction, and peace and love shine out of them. I was rather moved.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0