Yuill tidings, old chestnuts and holiness!

The arguments set forward by TSA for remaining non-sacramental have, over the years, been well presented and are well known.
Those arguments have been summarised and dismissed in an article by Chick Yuill in the Rubicon (for more detail and context go here)

Yuill dismisses the surpassing importance of personal holiness over and above ceremony and rite as follows:

“That line of argument—beautifully, movingly and poetically expressed by Albert Orsborne—has been that the sacramental principle is too big and too important to be limited to a ceremony and that, properly understood, the true sacrament is the fully surrendered life of the Christian… This, to me, is the Army’s position at its best. But alas, it now seems that the noble and worthy position of Orsborne and his like has been hijacked and even perverted into a rather unpleasant statement of superiority—one which not only denigrates the convictions of many sincere, seeking and troubled Salvationists, but also effectively dismisses almost the entire Christian church who do not share our position.”

I find this paragraph highly offensive to those sincere proponents of personal holiness who do not see themselves as superior to the rest of the church but sincerely and humbly believe in the “noble and worthy position of Orsborne” The Osborne position is still valid – the only reason it seems weak isn’t because it has been hijacked or perverted by those who see themselves as superior but because the demands of holiness appear unrealistic (or perhaps unpalatable) to the majority of contemporary Christians. Even if this argument was ‘perverted’ surely our responsibility toward what was once ‘a noble and worthy position’should be to reclaim it and restore it not discard it.

Chick goes on to say

“I would contend, however, that the real issue—and here I come to the heart of my argument—is not that red juice fascinates less spiritual comrades who are not sufficiently tutored in the blessing of a clean heart, but that faith in Jesus Christ as a perfectly adequate, all-sufficient Saviour does not nullify our humanity.”

I agree that holiness does not ‘nullify our humanity’; holy people remain quite capable of making mistakes and still require the grace of God to motivate and maintain their holiness. Humanity also makes us susceptible to the power of symbols and ritual. However, whilst holiness does not ‘nullify our humanity’ it does supplant our human nature by creating the image of Jesus in us.

Charles Finney used to argue that if a believer surrenders 99% of their life to God and knowingly withholds 1% their sacrifice is worthless, as the 1% withheld represents deliberate disobedience and deliberate disobedience amounts to sin. Holiness is about grace inspired and fuelled surrender – complete surrender. A completely surrendered life might well remember Christ at mealtimes (indeed at all times throughout the day!) but would have no need of a ceremony in order to remind themselves of the one to whom they have consecrated themselves and who, in return has sanctified them.

This issue is hugely important because without meeting the demands of holiness the church – let alone TSA has no future! This is why our denominational witness is so important.
As a mission we need to travel light – our job is to make converts, enrol soldiers, train evangelists, fight for social justice and help people to lead holy lives.

I have read and re-read Yuill’s article with great care, and whilst the reintroduction of the sacraments might expand or broaden our corporate and personal worship I cannot see how it could possibly make us a more effective mission.

If our mandate is still to save the maximum number of people in the minimum amount of time how would such a change help?

Surely what we ought to do is just get back to preaching the gospel, pressing for decisions, supporting converts, helping people live holy lives.

The restoration of communion (in whatever form) might make Sunday more fun for believers but do very little for the lost.

One final thing – if Salvationists feel so strongly about this issue there area plethora of evangelical churches they can join which will adequately meet their needs. For those of us committed to a non-sacramental stance there is only TSA.

Dare I say that the main reason many (not all but many) Salvationists want to see the sacraments return is because defending the Army's position becomes increasingly tiresome when they are constantly rubbing shoulders with sacramental Christians on the 'preaching circuit'. It's bad enough always having to say 'sorry I don't drink I'm a Salvationist' but at least that only usually happens in a secular environment but constantly being asked 'why don't you have communion' for some is obviously a bit wearing.

Love and prayers

A