Salvation Army Embracing CRT??

TonyHutsonComedian said:
Click to expand...
The modern Salvation Army is for the most part owned by the government. They began removing crosses and trying to make their "corps" look less like churches in the 90's because they thought it would help with getting government grants. They've received grants for some of their treatment facilities in the past that required them to remove everything of a religious nature from the facility. They are still an effective witness in some other countries but they sold out in the US decades ago. Embracing CRT probably garners them favor with their owners and keeps the grant money flowing.
 
I wonder how many people realize that the Salvation Army is a religious denomination claiming 1,700,000 members worldwide, and holding to principles that most conservative Christians do not agree with. "The theology of the Salvation Army is derived from the Methodist, although it is distinctive in institution and practice. . . . It does not celebrate the rites of Baptism and Holy Communion. However, the Army's doctrine is otherwise typical of holiness churches in the Wesleyan–Arminian tradition." (From Wikipedia). In keeping with their Arminian background, they do not believe in eternal security. Here in America, their convictions and preaching appear to be considerably watered down from even their very weak original beliefs. If the Salvation Army is leaning toward or pandering to Critical Race Theory, that is a good reason to not donate to them, but I was not donating cash to them anyway, because I do not believe in their doctrinal principles. If I am going to give for the relief of the poor through a denominational agency, I prefer to do so through a denomination that holds to my general doctrinal beliefs, rather than a denomination that denies them such as the Salvation Army. (I do not give them cash but I do give them books and other good stuff that I don't want any more. In light of these latest revelations, maybe I shouldn't even give them that).

I tried to read the Salvation Army booklet "Let's Talk About Racism" to get their side of the story straight from the horse's mouth, but it appears that it has been pulled off the Internet for "review."
 
illinoisguy said:
I wonder how many people realize that the Salvation Army is a religious denomination claiming 1,700,000 members worldwide, and holding to principles that most conservative Christians do not agree with. "The theology of the Salvation Army is derived from the Methodist, although it is distinctive in institution and practice. . . . It does not celebrate the rites of Baptism and Holy Communion. However, the Army's doctrine is otherwise typical of holiness churches in the Wesleyan–Arminian tradition." (From Wikipedia). In keeping with their Arminian background, they do not believe in eternal security. Here in America, their convictions and preaching appear to be considerably watered down from even their very weak original beliefs. If the Salvation Army is leaning toward or pandering to Critical Race Theory, that is a good reason to not donate to them, but I was not donating cash to them anyway, because I do not believe in their doctrinal principles. If I am going to give for the relief of the poor through a denominational agency, I prefer to do so through a denomination that holds to my general doctrinal beliefs, rather than a denomination that denies them such as the Salvation Army. (I do not give them cash but I do give them books and other good stuff that I don't want any more. In light of these latest revelations, maybe I shouldn't even give them that).

I tried to read the Salvation Army booklet "Let's Talk About Racism" to get their side of the story straight from the horse's mouth, but it appears that it has been pulled off the Internet for "review."
Click to expand...
It's funny how many people know little about the doctrines of their church. A few years ago when I was part of a Freewill Baptist Church I attended this small group Bible study. It was a group of Filipino's and few white folks. When the study hit on foot washing and eternal security he was very vocal that he would never be part of a church that practiced foot washing or didn't believe in eternal security. He had the abbreviation for some theological degree he had received from a church that called itself a college on the front of his Bible in front of his name. After the study I asked him what church he was a part of. His response was Beacon Baptist in Raleigh, NC. Prior to this church changing their name to Beacon Baptist they were Raleigh First Freewill Baptist Church. They did not change any of their doctrines just their name. So he was part of a church that did practice foot washing and did not believe in eternal security. Several of the Free Willy's in that area have taken "Freewill" out their name since they identify more with the IFB than they do with a lot of the non IFB leaning Free Willy's.
 
tmjbog said:
It's funny how many people know little about the doctrines of their church....
Click to expand...
I have made this sort of claim very recently within the very adult Sunday School class that I teach. I gave a gentle admonition via anecdotal illustration of a situation that occurred in our church long ago (before my time at the church). A nearby church of Christ that (generally teaches baptismal regeneration) was the newfound home of several of our church families as they made exodus decades ago. It boggles my mind that people could go from a Bible-believing (Baptist) church to one that teaches such gross error/heresy regarding soteriology, but what I realized long ago is that to the average Sunday morning pew-sitter doctrine really is subservient to social relationships and cultural baggage. I also witnessed this sort of softness/ambivalence towards doctrinal indifference (though at the time I was VERY young in the faith and didn't realize the full impact of the squishiness) at the non-denominational church where I was saved. Your illustration also furthers this simple anecdotal observation that doctrine really doesn't matter to many folk that "go to church".
 
ALAYMAN said:
I have made this sort of claim very recently within the very adult Sunday School class that I teach. I gave a gentle admonition via anecdotal illustration of a situation that occurred in our church long ago (before my time at the church). A nearby church of Christ that (generally teaches baptismal regeneration) was the newfound home of several of our church families as they made exodus decades ago. It boggles my mind that people could go from a Bible-believing (Baptist) church to one that teaches such gross error/heresy regarding soteriology, but what I realized long ago is that to the average Sunday morning pew-sitter doctrine really is subservient to social relationships and cultural baggage. I also witnessed this sort of softness/ambivalence towards doctrinal indifference (though at the time I was VERY young in the faith and didn't realize the full impact of the squishiness) at the non-denominational church where I was saved. Your illustration also furthers this simple anecdotal observation that doctrine really doesn't matter to many folk that "go to church".
Click to expand...
This was in an email from Greg Koukl of STR this morning:
According to the most recent American Worldview Inventory by Arizona Christian University, two out of three Americans self-identify as Christian. Good news? Read the fine print.
Only 9% of those who think they are Christians hold even a modest, watered-down biblical worldview.
Now read that fine print:
One quarter of those so-called “integrated disciples” reject absolute moral truth. No sin? 39% deny a real Holy Spirit. No Trinity? 42% believe that having faith matters more than which faith you have. No need for Jesus? Meanwhile the number of “Don’ts” regarding God—don’t believe, don’t know, or don’t care—has skyrocketed.
Click to expand...
 
voicecrying said:
This was in an email from Greg Koukl of STR this morning:
Click to expand...
Yes, secularization and watering-down are having real impact(s) on the American evangelical landscape. Heck, even using the word "evangelical" as I just did holds great degrees of ambiguity in this day and age. My pastor has told the story regularly of his youth (in the south) where he (and often others) believed that to be raised in (20th Century) America meant by default that "you are a Christian". I sort of thought that as an unbelieving youth as well. When "Christian" is so dumbed down it makes it easy to see why the issues of true worldliness (not long-hair on men or KJVonly claims) that are entering our churches find fertile ground to thrive.
 
The Wayback Machine has posted the Salvation Army guide "Let's Talk About Racism," for those who want to review it:

Wayback Machine (archive.org)

I haven't taken the time to read the entire document - I scanned it. The content appears to me mostly objective and inoffensive, and much of it is addresses, and is intended as a corrective against, racism that has been expressed within the Salvation Army over the years. However, some of the recommended resources at the bottom of the document, such as "How To Be An Antiracist" by Ibram Kendi, and the 1619 Project podcast, are questionable in my opinion (although admittedly I have not read the book or viewed the podcast).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top