"You should be careful to do what has passed your lips, for you have voluntarily vowed to the LORD your God what you have promised with your mouth." (Deut. 23:23)
When God gave Moses the laws and precepts by which He wanted the Israelites to live, He was very specific in His instruction. There were laws regarding eating, cleaning, dressing, marrying, hunting, buying, selling, trading, worshipping and so on. In giving the Law to His servant Moses, God was very meticulous and He insisted that the people receive it with the same attention to detail. When it came to the laws regarding honesty and integrity - covenants and vows - the LORD decided that a man's word could stand as his bond. Basically, if a person made a promise and committed themselves to a certain thing by speaking it aloud, then it was decreed in the realm of Heaven as well. When this is considered it is understandable as to why God would declare it a sin (see v. 21) when someone spoke something false... it's as if they had completely cheapened the power of their own word and degraded their character to the point of a liar (likened to the Prince of Lies). This law was different than those having to do with cleansing rites and community conduct. It was a stern reminder that the words of men were meant only to bring forth the truth [word] of God.
Within the Salvation Army there is certainly no decision and commitment that bears more weight than that of soldiership. It is a giving of oneself to every want and whim of the Almighty God. It is a voluntary surrender of the will to the Sovereignty of Christ the King and to the increase of His kingdom. Yet, having said this, there seems to be almost no issue of conscience amongst many who have deserted this very serious covenant with God. Even though Soldiership is a covenant and commitment that vows the whole heart to God to serve within the ranks of The Salvation Army, there are still so many who regard it as nothing when they recant.
Now, it is noteworthy that nearly every single person who has laid down their promise of soldiership has done so for a purpose - a few of these purposes even sound vaguely divine - but the scriptures seem to suggest that a broken promise proves only a heart that cannot be trusted. How much more severe is it if the promise is made literally to the LORD of Hosts?
In this verse from Deuteronomy there is no dispute that God has given great warning to anyone who would take their words lightly. You cannot simply remove yourself from a covenant with God! You cannot simply create new terms within a covenant with God! You cannot suddenly feel called to forfeit a vow that has been made! God does not call people to tell Him lies. The only way to get out of a promise without dying is to lie. Any other reason is nothing more than the pursuit of selfish gain. Guilty of breaking a promise... guilty of sin.
Some details...
- Hey
- My name is Matthew Robert Kean. I'm a Canadian (from Newfoundland specifically) who now lives in Australia. I married a beautiful young lass named Fiona and we serve as officers in The Salvation Army. The Lord has been so very good to us and we are forever indebted to His grace. In comparison to knowing Him, all else pales.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
33 comments:
Religious vows were prominent in ancient Judaism. And to make a vow and keep it was important as well. Keeping the covenant had to do with how Israelites lived as the people of God. Since God required that vows be kept, problems arose when a vow was made that violated the Torah. As we know a vow or covenant is a promise made in a religious context, usually to God. Vows tend to be promises to perform, or to abstain from, specific actions eg Soldiers Articles of War/Covenant. Interestingly the practice of vowing is not common in the NT. Perhaps this is why Jesus gave a new commandment concerning vows. "Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not break your oath, but keep the oaths you have made to the Lord.' But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God's throne; or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No ,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one" (Mat.5:33-37) The principle here is clear for Christians: do not make vows, either to the Lord or to one another. First, we are unable to know for sure whether we will be able to keep vows. The fact that we are prone to the errors in judgment which are part of our fallen nature means that we may make vows foolishly and/or because of immaturity. Further, we don’t know what the future will bring—only God does. We don’t know what will happen tomorrow (James 4:14), so to make a vow that we will do or not do something is foolish. Broken vows, while serious, is not an unforgivable matter if taken to the Lord in true confession. God will not hold us to vows made imprudently, but just maybe He expects us to obey Jesus and refrain from making vows in the future. Johno
Hey Johno,
For clarification, are you implying that by the scriptures saying "let your Yes be Yes, and your No, No", that this means Christians (or people in general) should not enter into vows, promises, or commitments?
I understood this verse as the Lord trying to emphasize the importance of a man's/woman's word, promise, or vow and of having the integrity to follow through with a promise or vow based solely upon our word rather than by pulling into our vows items that we can not deliver which can be found in "I swear by, I swear on, etc.
Do you think that the Lord does not want us to vow or promise certain things to Him and to certain people, or am I interpreting you incorrectly? Seems like you are trying to say that commitments to God and to others should not be attempted, including those such as soldiership, which is the root discussion in Matt's note.
Please clarify,
Thanks
Daniel
We live in a culture in which the truth is often the first casualty of interactions between men and women. Here Jesus presents us with a standard of truthfulness that is infinitely higher than the standards of men. James seems to echo the words of our Lord in his epistle, and he puts special emphasis on this command, introducing it with the words, “above all.” But above all, my brethren, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or with any other oath; but let your yes be yes, and your no, no; so that you may not fall under judgment (James 5:12). Johno is suggesting that Matthew 5:33-37 as saying that we must not, under any circumstances, utter an oath or vow. So they refuse to take an oath in a court of law, in a marriage ceremony, or in any other situation. Is that our Lord’s point here – to create a new prohibition that didn’t exist under the Law of Moses and thereby to overcome our tendency to be untruthful? Part of me would love for it to be that simple, but I do not think it is.
I don’t believe Jesus’ point in Matthew 5 is that oaths are evil or that an oath can never be legitimate. I believe His point is that the swearing of oaths as practiced by the scribes and Pharisees was evil, in its entirety – because they deliberately swore their oaths by everything except God in a foolish effort to sidestep their accountability to God! No matter what you choose to swear by, it is God to whom you and I and every other created thing are accountable, and you’re accountable to Him whether you swear an oath or don’t swear an oath. You’re accountable to Him every time you open your mouth.
It would be better to swear no oath at all than to think you can contrive a way to avoid accountability before God to be a truthful person. Our “Yes” must be yes and our “No” must be no. No oath can make that so. Being believed is nothing. Being a truthful person in the eyes of our heavenly Father is everything. As you contemplate our Lord’s teaching regarding oaths and vows, I ask that you won’t focus exclusively on hashing out examples of how we fall short of God’s standard of truthfulness. I ask that you devote some time and thought to consideration of how we become truthful people – truthful from the heart. I’m not saying our behavior doesn’t count. As children, we all start by learning how we are required to behave, then we hopefully learn to internalize the principles we have been taught. So the behavior can feed the heart, and the heart certainly feeds the behavior. But let’s focus on the goal of godly lives from godly hearts. We will not speak truth in our hearts if we are not in love with the One who is Truth. Paladin
Great comment, Paladin. I agree with the point you make... "But let’s focus on the goal of godly lives from godly hearts. We will not speak truth in our hearts if we are not in love with the One who is Truth." Right on! I'm not too sure about your take on the Matt. 5 passage, that the Pharisees were not swearing by God, because that was just forbidden according to the law! Using the name of the LORD in any way wasn't permitted, especially not in an oath. Personally, I think Daniel has hit the nail on the head regarding his interpretation of this portion of Matt. 5. Anyways, I think the point remains... "Our word is our bond" - and that seems to be how God views it. Perhaps all the soldiers that have been "called" to leave the Army should really consider the severity of their choice.
Matt
The very last sentence is a major problem. Soldiership etc is for life is a TSA invention that has no basis in scripture. To elevate either the soldiers covenants to the level you seem to be boarders on the idolatrous. GBH
So how do you suggest those that have "laid down their promise of soldiership" deal with this 'sin'? Should they ask for forgiveness and return to the Salvation Army? How about if they ask forgiveness for breaking their soldiership vows and continue to serve God in their current non-Army church? If they don't return to the Army, are they continuing to sin? How about you Mat, do you sin day after day without remorse? How's your greed and gluttony going?
Hey Jack,
I think you may be missing the point; it's definitely not to blame and point fingers at Matt because you feel he's pointing his finger at those of us who everyday fall short of the glory of God. That's not what we're discussing. I believe that we are discussing the mere point of how Christians sometimes take promises and covenants made with ourselves, other people, and God very lightly. Broken covenants are no longer an important thing. I believe that Matt used the "soldiership" item as example of how we sometimes subject ourselves to these undelivered promises; one which I believe is becoming very evident in the Army church and with our entire generation in general. Its like we feel that we do not need to carry through on a promise such as the covenant of soldiership because we will not really be held accountable for our undeliverables. This in my mind is inaccurate. For example, if you had to sign a document stating certain codes of conduct or deliverables with it being witnessed by at least one other person, do you think that breaking this "covenant" would be difficult? I can guarantee you that it most definitely would and that there would also be associated consequences to which you would be bound. Why then do we as Christians take our promises to the Lord so "un-seriously"? Once again, the root of this discussion is why do we feel we can break these promises to God so easily, not who to blame and who to accuse. Everyone of us has to deal with broken promises to the Lord and I expect that we would deal with this issues in our own way rather than simply thinking that we can expire our commitments to Christ whenever we feel its not the right thing or time for us. There is no 30-day termination clause with God. Furthermore, how would we feel if the Lord broke his promises to us as often as we did and regarded his relationship with us to be so "un-serious".
Why do we feel that the items in a soldiership covenant is between us and the Salvation Army rather than between us and God. Are you not worshipping the same God in these other churches you speak of? Do the vows taken in Soldiership conflict that greatly with those views of other churches or are we simply having difficulty handling one or two simple items that, when compared with eternal things, are very frivolous? Are they not the characteristics which should be found in any Christian?
Thanks
Daniel
Jack, in answer to your question: "Sould they ask for forgiveness and return to the Army?" Yes. That's exactly what they should do. Those were the conditions of their covenant. Also, greed and gluttony are not things with which I wrestle. But thanks for your concern.
Matt
I take your point about what this discussion is about Daniel, however I am interested in finding out how Matt (and others) views sin and how it should be dealt with. I made the point about greed and gluttony simply to illustrate our selective view of what is and isn't sin. Matt, by saying you don't wrestle with these things, I take it that you don't consider your consumption to be sinful. However I would thing it quite likely that if you presented a poverty stricken family in a third world country with a list of your spending and eating over the past week, it is highly likely that they would consider you to be a greedy glutton (as they would for the vast majority of the western world). You perceive that you do not sin in this area, yet others would perceive that you do sin.
I believe that there is so much grey to consider when proclaiming something as sin and in deciding how to deal with that sin - there is very little (if any) black and white.
Mat has raise the soldiers covenant, an invention of the TSA in place of baptism to a level that is neith called for nor commanded in scripture. Something GBH noted. In the old days if a person left the Army or officership for that matter it was said they were traitors and were treated as lepers. Herbet Booth left and was treated so, evn in death it was refused by the Army that his body be buried in TSA section of the cemetry. This has only just been rectified. By suggest as mat does raise the specter of cultism and cult attitude towards those who at some point in their journey with God leave the denomination but not God. It will be interesting to see just how long Mat survives as an officer and how many survive him. GBH
A typical judmental approach by Matthew. Those who signed up did so with their fingers crossed - which of course gave them an out whenever they felt like it. Why people leave is complex and complicated - something doesn't seem to recognize nor understand. Ultimately we do business with God. As for seeking forgive and returning to the Army, no thanks. Why? Because of people like Matthew and the attitude he displays. James
Hey Nostradamus...I mean GBH, For someone who has the experience he claims to have, I'm very surprised that you keep beating Matt down in his covenant to God. I would think that your criticism would be a little more constructive. Also, if you knew Matt as well as you claim, you would know that beating him down will only make him stronger. I know Matt, the more you attack, the more he seeks solace and strength in Christ. I think you'll be surprised at his longevity as an Officer.
Zoe
Zoe maybe Matt gets stronge in his pigheadness and is unwilling to concede that just may be he is wrong. It would seem GBH may know more than you do.
Zoe, yes GBH noted about how long Mat may last. But GBH also raised other issues which are not an attack on Mat but his ideas around covenant, especially as it relates to soldiership etc. I do believe TSA is the only denomination that expects people to sign their life away and follow O&Rs etc. Would agree that all this is an invention of TSA. New Testament doesn't call us to sign up in this manner - baptism is suficient.
I would vote that James and GBH stop posting their comments as I, and every other reader in the room with me, are finding them very much a non-example of Christ and simply, quite childish.
With respect to Jack's comments about how to view and deal with sin, I suggest that you put as much time in concentrated prayer and consultation with God and his word with respect to this and not so much on other peoples opinions, tearing them apart, and then forming even stronger opinions for yourself.
Also, why be discouraging to others. James, the reason why all of my friends and colleagues have left the Army is because of those people expressing the characteristics of yourself (or so the people in this room with me say) rather than those standing for something thats true and righteous with so much passion as Matt. Why tear Matt down for something he is so excited and passionate about fulfilling? Would you do this to your friends or family? Do you have children and do you raise them in this manner?
If you will not return to a church based upon a persons characteristic which you do not like claims to be very juvenile in my opinion and a matter that you will never resolve while on this earth. Attending a church is based upon your walk with God. If you do find a church that has absolutely everything you have and would ever want, I would be extremely fearful. People are weak and have faults. For example, if I based my attendance upon what has been said in this very blog, along with many other past discussions, I would not attend anything that many of you would.
Again, this reason for bailing on a church points to our want of a customizable God, Sometimes God's truths hurt. You have to mature spiritually and accept them rather than bailing, which brings us full circle on the beginning discussion of people bailing on Soldiership. Perhaps we pull-Chute to soon and too easily,
Thanks
Daniel
Hey everyone, thanks for your interest in my blog. However, can we please try to remember that we ought to deal with each other as brothers and sisters in Christ our Lord. Let's try to make our comments out of a desire to exalt King Jesus... before whom we will all have to give account.
A fellow servant of the Saviour,
Matt
So Paladin, ppl reckon you're Geoff Ryan. Is that true?
officer of the palace?
Seriously, I'm itchy all over. GBH
Phil Laeger: I seem to have struck a chord here, my friend. I hope I have not caused you too much pain with my post, but you know I have to stand with my convictions. I honestly believe that the covenant of soldiership is equivalent to the covenant of marriage, and it is meant to persevere through sickness and health til death us do part... regardless of how or where we might "feel called".
And in regards to the verse from Matt. 7:1 that you quoted, please consider how it finishes: "For the measure you use to judge a brother, you will be judged by that measure." So please feel free to judge me according to the measure I extend... infact I insist.
Your friend,
Matt
The idea that we are to keep our word is a good one. The quote is part of Matthew 5:21-48 and is very interesting in that it is part of five contrasts between ‘what was said to those of old time’ and ‘but I say unto you’. The five deal with murder, adultery, oaths, judicial revenge and the hatred of ones enemies. The section in some ways acts as an exegesis of the beatitudes: poverty of spirit, meekness and peacemaking underlie the first, fourth and fifth contrasts, purity of heart the second, hunger for true justice the fourth and so on. The focus is not between outward and inward lawkeeping. Jesus’ call in all this is to a completely different way of being the people of God in real life. We are called to a radically different way of living in which our accusers must be faced and reconciled; our enemies must be loved and prayed for; while it is great to stand by one's convictions without love and mercy they are worthless, also, personal integrity that is not dependent upon oaths, promises and covenants, are to be the things that characterize us as the true people of God. WJE
I’m not sure what covenant Matthew is talking about but the one I signed didn’t say anything about a marriage contract with TSA. Not sure I would even want to be married to the organization as it tends to all too often be a one sided affair. What I did promise was ‘follow him’, to be faithful to him and his word, love and serve him supremely in whatever he called me to be and do. I have friends who were once officers who have left the Army, but are still “following him’ and are still being faithful to him and his word but in a different context – Seriously now, have they really broken their covenant? The simple answer is no, should they be made to feel guilty – certainly not. As has rightly been pointed out it is all to easy to cross the line between cult and covenant – something Mat needs to think about here with his analogy covenant/marriage. Personally, my commitment is with God, a commitment that doesn’t rest upon a covenant contracted to follow him and to love and serve him. To date this has been through TSA and will remain so until he decides to lead me elsewhere.
And, I agree with much of Laeger, no, I am not Geoff Ryan. Paladin
Daniel and friends - do we assume they are Gen y - can't take criticism and so play the blame game. Get over it guys this is a public forum open to the world and Mat puts this stuff out there for all to see and comment on. Those who comment are simply holding him to account for his not so private opinions - its called peer review. Just because we don't agree with him doesn't make us childish or immature or anything else you might like to throw around. If you stopped bleating for a moment and analysed and thought about what is being said you might find that much of the criticism is justified. It is true to say that learning without love can be sterile and dry, well, enthusiasm with learning can easily become blind arrogance. Johno
Yes, we all agree that this is a public forum and Matt has put his thoughts out into the blogosphere and all that stuff... I think that point has been made to nausia.
Although I don't think that every person who is called to minister for the gospel of Christ within the Army should have to sign up as a soldier, I don't mind at all that he has made such a hard call on the severity of the soldier's covenant. If nothing else, it reminds us that making commitments and vows to God (whether they be 'man-made' cmmitments or not) should never be taken lightly. After all, as Matt has said, "Your word is your bond."
Christian
An interestion comment was made that isn't a requirement to be a follower of God and clearly the SA was founded somewhat after the life of Jesus but I think this is where the comparison to a marriage is suitable: although we are not required to become soldiers if we decide to become a soldier we are judged by that covenent. Same with a marriage, as christians we are not required to marry but if we do marry, we are held accountable to that promise.
Despite that pro-commitment comment I do have to also agree with some commentors that abuse and betrayal can permentally damage and brake up a relationship like a marriage or a soldier's covenent. Too many times I've seen 14 year olds sign Sr. Soldiers papers without the slightest hint of what it truely means.
The saddest part is that people think it's the drinking and smoking part that is broken and we far too often forget the things we promise to DO.
Steve Court amongst others agree that whether your 14 or 40, a covenent is a covenent but I have to disagree. I wouldn't trust a 14 year old to marry so why would I trust him to hold up the extra responcibility of a soldier's covenent?
The heart of the issue is that the idea of covenant as portrayed in Mat's blog is he has turned the idea of the soldiers covenant into a covenant of the letter rather than of the spirit. As we all know the letter kills, as does his approach.
No No NO... the truth of the matter is that I was intentionally high-lighting the covenant's Spirit, certainly not its letter. The reason forfeiting the covenant is so offensive is because it makes a mockery of that Spirit.
Matt
What 'spirit' are we talking about here. I wasn't using a capital 'S' as you seem to want to do. Unfortunately the approach has lifted the idea of covenant into the realm of legalism.
Mat, sorry but the blog doesn't high-light the covenant's 'Spirit'. If that was your intention you have failed to convey it. What comes across is the letter of the law that judges and kills as annon and others have pointed out. The problem with TSA and soldiership/covenats is the idea that TSA and soldiership is on a might higher level than mere discipleship, which by the way simply requires repentance, faith and obedience in following Christ. We don't live in a split level world were some disciles or forms of discipleship are better than others. Ninja
I don't know about that Ninja. I've attended other churches where congregations elevate baptism to the point that without it one's salvation is questioned; also various gifts of the Spirit seem to have different levels of reverence as well. I don't like how TSA is getting a lot of flack for it's call to Soldiership (I hope these people who seem to hate the Army so, are not representing this same Army to the world - I digress...). It would seem though that the "split-level world" is present no matter where you attend church.
As for me personally, I did not get the sense that Matt was portraying a legalistic covenant, only an accountable one - and I'm OK with that :0)
Hate the Army - oh come off it. The Army and its traditons are not sacrasanct, they are not above criticsm by those who want to see better from the tradition they belong to.
Seriously, no 'out' of the marriage covenant? I thought that when it was broken, it was broken.
Post a Comment