Arlington High School & Salvation Army

Gen. 12:1-4 - Not Our Own Way

Preaching on this passage tomorrow and was glad to pull back this paper from my days in Dr. Bill Arnold's class on Genesis. Since then he has published a commentary on Genesis. This was one of my first papers for him, his grading was different, he would simply write descriptive words-"Good, Very Good, Excellent." Those words translated into grades; Good=B range, Very Good=A- or B+ range, Excellent=A+. This paper received a "very good." The last few papers I figured out what he was looking for a little more and received more "excellent" markings. I don't have time to figure out how to get the right font to work for the Hebrew on the blog. If you are interested, let me know. Forward to the Fight,
ASM3


Genesis 12:1-4 is a pivotal passage within in the book of Genesis but also within the holistic narrative of the Bible, for it clearly shows the simple obedient faith of Abram.
The first word of this passage indicates to the reader the literary, socio-historical, and theological importance of this pericope. The verb “to speak” is followed by the subject “the LORD” and then by the object “Abram”, hence the word order is common. This relationship is significant later in the text as Abram understands himself as the object in an I-thou relationship with YHWH. He makes a distinction is the subject-object relationship with his positive response to God’s call. The stem rma, meaning "to speak", has a vital prefix, with a waw consecutive rm,aYOÝw: , which simultaneously displays the imperfect aspect. It is specifically nuanced as a narratival usage of the imperfect waw consecutive. In this case, as with most narritival usages, the word is independent of a verbal clause, “in order to begin a narrative sequence or a new section of narrative.” Because the proceeding narrative alternates to a new theme, that is the calling of Abram, this chapter presents the reader with the major structural relationship of cruiciality with particularization. Hence, the selection of the narratival use of the imperfect waw consecutive is substantiated over and against sequential, consequential, epexegetical, and dependant usages. Not all translations make a distinction in how this should be translated, some render it just in the imperfect aspect without an awareness of it structural significance. The New Revised Standard Version captures this narratival quality as it translates, “Now the Lord said to Abram...[emphasis mine]” The importance of the “Now…” in this narrative cannot be fully understood without looking to what happens in the prior narrative.
The beginning creation accounts depict an ideal image of God’s relationship to his creation. This idealistic moment slowly deteriorates as humanity progressively chooses through defy God time and again. This defiance reaches a climax in chapter Genesis 11:1-9 when humankind attempts to build a tower with the self explained purpose that its top would reach, “to the heavens” so as to “make name for ourselves.” God severely punishes humanity for this selfish decision. Between chapters one and eleven there are two major genealogical lists. The first list begins with Adam and ends ten generations later with Noah, similarly the second list begins with Shem and concludes ten generations later with the birth of Abram. The parallel roles of these specific persons cannot be overlooked, for they are both God’s specific answer to humanities defiance. Because the proceeding narrative (chapter 12-50) focuses on the life and family of Abram(i.e. the patriarchal history) the significance of Abram and his birth is assumed a shift from primeval to patriarchal history. The important structural formula for the book of Genesis is the tdoål.AT hL,ae (elleh toledot) , which is present in the account Terah, Abram’s father (11:27). Abram is one of three sons the others being Nahor and Haran, the latter prematurely died. Haran’s death accounts from the presence of his son Lot in the patriarchal narrative of Abram. This passage, which account family history of Abram, is indeed the transitional point between the primeval and patriarchal histories. What immediately precedes the pericope being studied is Terah’s family, with the exception of Nahor and his family, and their journey from Ur of the Chaldeans towards Canaan. Terah’s family unexplainably does not complete the journey rather they settle in Haran, which is coincidentally or not is the name of Terah’s deceased son.
The first clause of this pericope leaves the reader in a state of anticipation. The reader knows after the first two words that YHWH is going to speak. This important speech utilizes the 2nd person volitional which is the imperative modal. Under the various classifications of the imperative this instance is a command, since the object/speaker is insisting on “immediate action.” Other imperative forms, like that of permission and promise can not express the immediacy evident in the co-text. The authority and insistence that YHWH is describing is difficult to emphasize in English most translations say “Go….” However old English gets close to emphasis of syntax when the King James Version renders, “Get thee out…” Abram’s understanding of YHWH seriousness is evident in 12:4, which simply says, “So Abram went, as the LORD had told him.” Abram was commanded to leave, chapter eleven shows us he was in Haran at this time. What follows are three objects with 2nd person masculine singular suffixes in construct states. YHWH is asking him to leave his land (^ïc.r>a;me), his relatives (td,l,Am), and his father’s house (^ybi_a' tyBeämiW). Nahum Sarna explains that these terms are “arranged in ascending order according to the severity of the sacrifice involved: country, extended family, and nuclear family.”

The canonical function of this pericope is hard to understand because of its relationship to the two accounts that precede it: the tower of Babel and the genealogy of Shem. However it appears that the common element shared between the three narratives is the migration of people, this recurrence also aids the reader in understand the canonical shape of the text. Humanity moves east toward the valley of Shinar (11:2), Terah takes his family and moves them to Haran (11:31-32), and finally Abram is commanded by God to leave his land and go to the land which God will show him (12:1). It seems that this recurrence represents a canonical climax, showing the appropriate reasons for one to move into and toward a new land. The evil intentions of those in Shinar, and the unknown intentions of Terah and his family, are contrasted with Abram’s obedient leaving his known world because of God’s volitional command in 12:1-3.. The appearance of the Shemite genealogy and specifically the elleh toledot of Terah connects two very important events: the primeval history of the world (Chapters 1-11) and the patriarchal history (11-50). Further specification connects the history of Israel to the creation world. The pivot in chapter 12:1 represents a specific, intentional, and canonical connection between chapter 1-11 and 12-50.

God’s call in 12:1 is complemented by a group of promises in 12:2-3. The first three promises tell how God is to do something for Abram. The subject and the object are simultaneously present in the first two verbs mentioned they are: ^f.[,a,(w> (“I will make you”) and ^êk.rg:a]w: (“make…great”). When the object ^m<+v. is added the translation follows, “I will make your name great.” This promise is unique and might further serve to attach this narrative with the penultimate narrative at Babel (11:1-9). Their purpose for building the tower is stated in 11:4, they want to want to “make a name” for themselves. This human desire is turned around as Abram is told that YHWH will be the source of making his name great. These three promises are connected to a purpose statement that displays the structural relationship of causation. The cause is the first three statements while the effect is the volitional statement, “so that you will be a blessing.” Such a statement of responsibility is the purpose of YHWH’s selection of Abram. YHWH’ s vision is that Abram be a instrument of blessing. The realm of blessing grows significantly between 12:2 and 12:3, as the structural relationship of generalization is utilized. Generalization in this pericope involves a move from a particular statement of blessing Abram to general statements blessing or cursing those who bless or curse him and eventually generally pronouncing a blessing on “all the families of the earth.” The final promise presents specific hermeneutical ambiguity. The preposition ^êb., which is suffixed with the 2 person masculine singular, can be translated “by you” or “in you.” The word %rB( (“to bless”) is in Niphal stem Wkår>b.nIw> , which can be either reflective or passive. Hence, the translation can either be that the families of the of the earth shall “bless themselves by you ” or “by you they will be blessed.” The further usages of this form are found in Gen. 18:18 and 24:14, however, these verses do not aid in selecting a passive or reflexive translation. It seems that the immediate context of 12:2 where God says, “You will be a blessing” is more cogent with a passive translation. It doesn’t seem clear as to how any person can “bless themselves.” When the preposition ^êb. is considered it is seems that a reflexive translation is almost a contradiction in terms “they will bless themselves by you.” If a reflexive reading is desired the writer could have used the Hithpael stem. The passive translation seems the most logical option given the practical context of Abram’s blessing in 12:2.
One of the most distinctive and wonderful pictures of this text is the obedience of Abram in 12:4. Here we have a fine recapitulation of opening YHWH’s statement where he tells Abram to “Go” and the response in perfectively realized as “Abram went” ~r"ªb.a; %l,Yeåw, describe in the imperfect aspect. Abram’s obedience is further particularized by the way in which he follows YHWH’s instruction. The verb of this clause rbD (“word”) is in the Piel stem with a denominative usage. The denominative takes a noun or substantive thought and places it as a verbal idea. Not only does Abram go because YHWH says “Go”, but in his obedience he perfectly follows the directions of YHWH just as he instructs. Such obedience should be seen in all who follow YHWH.

Booth on Children

As we get ready fro Georgia's Dedication this Sunday this two William Booth quotes hit home in a strong way:

“I want you to know that the children are His property. They belong to Him. He has bought and paid for them with His precious blood. They are not given you to be your playthings, or to feed your vanity, or to add to your income, or to render you some personal service merely, regardless of the Kingdom of God. You children are the property of Jesus Christ. They are intended to follow in His footsteps, and to be lovers of souls and saviors of men. I want you to realize that Jesus Christ loves you, children. When he said, “Suffer the little children to come unto me” —and He is saying still—-he meant your children. He loved them.”
William Booth, The Founder’s Messages to Soldiers

“Mothers and fathers, captains and lieutenants, sergeants and soldiers, help the little ones! Spend time and money and strength in teaching and training them...Teach them your music, and hurry them on in every possible way to get ready for the fight!”
William Booth, quoted in Cyril Barnes, God’s Army

Forward to that Fight,
Andy Miller III

The Guest of the Soul

I haven't posted on this blog for three months, the last post was May 3rd, which was five days before our daughter Georgia Kay was born. Life certainly hasn't slowed down after three months, but I am thinking that I will post items that I am writing for other occasions. So what is below was written for last Sunday's bulletin. That Holiness meeting was focused on the work of the Holy Spirit. If you would like to view the whole sermon it is on our Ustream link.

Dear Corps Family (and Internet family),

It was Thanksgiving in 1999, my entire family got together for what was
to be the last time before my Aunt Martha was Promoted to Glory. My
grandfather was steadily reading a book thats pages were fragile and yellow,
and the binding was broken in one place. The book was Commissioner Samuel L. Brengle’s 1934 edition of The Guest of the Soul. I was intrigued by the title and we talked about it at several points those days. It was his tradition to reread all the Brengle books (the Brengle Corpus) between Thanksgiving and Christmas Just about the time he was going to leave, he looked my way put the book in my hand, “Ange I want you to have this.”


I have always treasured the book for that reason, but the message in it is
more important than my memories. Let your soul hear this section where
Brengle talks about what he means by the “Guest of the Soul.”

A friend of mine said recently, “I like the term, ‘Holy Ghost,” for the word ghost in the old Saxon was the same as the word for guest.” Whether that be so or not, it may certainly be said that the Holy Ghost is the Holy Guest. He has come into the world and visits every heart, seeking admittance as a guest. He may come to the soul unbidden, but He will not come in unbidden. He may be unwelcomed. He may be refused admission and turned away. But He comes. He is in the world like Noah’s dove, looking for an abiding-place. He comes as Guest, but as an abiding one, if received. He forces Himself upon no one. He waits for the open door and the invitation.


He comes gently. He comes in love. He comes on a mission of infinite good will, of mercy and peace and helpfulness and joy. He is the Advocate of the Father and of the Son to us men. He represents and executes the redemptive plans and purposes of the Triune God. As my old teacher, Daniel Steele,wrote, “He is the Executive of the Godhead.”

Samuel Logan Brengle, The Guest of the Soul (London: Marshall, Morgan, and Scott, 1934), 58.


Maybe we be able to let the Guest of the Soul into our lives so as to live in God’s mission for the world. 1 John 5:13, “By this we know that we abide in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit.”

Forward to the Fight,
Andy Miller III, Captain

The Marks of the Church and The Salvation Army

This excerpt is from my MDiv. thesis, from a chapter on the Salvation Army's eschatologial ecclesiology. Forward to the Fight, ASM3

The Marks of the Church and The Salvation Army

The evangelical movement has become more earnest in entering discussions about how its denominations can articulate a missional ecclesiology. Howard Snyder illustrates this movement in his article, “The Marks of Evangelical Ecclesiology.” He notes that throughout church history other marks, which define more precisely particular theological emphases, have emerged. During that process, the traditional marks have been particularly questioned when “issues of revival, renewal, and the institutional failings of the church”[1] are being considered. He suggests that the reasons these marks have been challenged are their ambiguous nature and “inadequate biblical grounding.”[2] He asserts that a “biblically normative and holistic ecclesiology,” which is a true evangelical ecclesiology, “affirms that the true church is always, at one and the same time, one and many, holy and charismatic, apostolic and prophetic, catholic and contextual—and that the church is called always in every context to visibly embody these qualities, even if it does so imperfectly [emphasis mine].”[3]

Jürgen Moltmann’s landmark work on ecclesiology, The Church in the Power of the Spirit,[4] insists that ecclesiology must have a basis in the trinitarian history of God’s active work with creation. It is in such reflection that the church finds its raison d’ete. For Moltmann, a pneumatologically-grounded ecclesiology lives and breathes in memory of Christ and in light of eschatological hope. Moltmann also sees the historic church as radically redefining the old “marks” of the church. He explains that this is especially true in four distinctive dimensions of the church today: (1) the Church of Jesus Christ, [5] (2) the missionary church,[6] (3) the ecumenical church, and (4) the political church. Moltmann insists that these groups have expanded on the four traditional marks by displaying: “The church’s unity in freedom. The church’s holiness is its holiness in poverty. The church’s apostolicity [as it] bears the sign of the cross, and [as] its catholicity is linked with its partisan for the oppressed.”[7] Moltmann presents a thorough doctrine of the church that finds its basis in pnueumatology and views itself with an eschatological hope.

The Army and the Marks of the Church

Within the explanations provided throughout church history, as illustrated by Oden[8] and expanded upon by Snyder and Moltmann, the early Salvation Army can confidently stand in each area with a functional, biblically-grounded ecclesiology. The Salvation Army did and does identify with the “one” universal church. Illustrative of the sign of “unity” or “oneness” in the early Army is a comment by Bramwell Booth when the Church of England chastised the young movement’s ecclesiology:

The fact is that the Church of England is no more the church than the church at Jerusalem or the church at Rome or the church of the Lutherans and Puritans or the church of the Calvinists and Presbyterians… Of this, the great church of the Living God, we claim, and have ever claimed that we of The Salvation Army are an integral part and element—a living, fruit-bearing branch of the True Vine.[9]

The Salvation Army did and does identify with the “one” universal church.
The Salvation Army’s current mission statement likewise says, “The Salvation Army, an international movement, is an evangelical part of the universal Christian Church.”[10] These positions situate the Salvation Army effectively and functionally in the “one” unified church, while simultaneously demonstrating the “one and many” as described by Snyder as a biblical expansion of the basic signs of the church (1 Cor. 12:12). The Army is one distinct (very distinct) expression within that body.

The unity of the Church, as Moltmann expresses, is a “unity in freedom.” This means that there is an “evangelical unity, not a legal”[11] unity in the Church. William Booth expressed this unified evangelical freedom:

“Hold on, my comrades!…We fight not for one man, not for one garrison. We fight for the deliverance of the whole world ” [emphasis Booth’s].[12]

Moltmann’s expansion of the sign of the church as “one,” comports well in an early Salvation Army ecclesiology. The early Salvation Army did express itself as a “holy” and indeed “charismatic”[13] part of the body of Christ. This understanding has a foundation in Booth’s pneumatology, which he describes in 1909:

The Salvation Army has known a great deal of this Divine inspiration. It is itself the creation of the Holy Spirit. All it knows of life and vitality, and all the power it possesses to bless the world, come from the Holy Spirit; and to this day waves of Divine influence, in a lesser or greater measure, are sweeping over it which proceed from Him alone.[14]

The charismatic aspect of the church is demonstrated in the Salvation Army’s understanding that it is a movement birthed by the Holy Spirit. The ecclesiological network of the young Salvation Army easily collaborates with Moltmann in that this holiness is expressed in poverty.[15]

In the same way that the “apostolic” nature of the church adheres to the cross of Jesus as its source, so did the early Army. The Salvation Army is apostolic in that it has been sent into the world with a clear and specific mission. Its soldiers are apostolic as they faithfully witness to Jesus Christ. In an article entitled “The Model Salvation Soldier” William Booth explains that Jesus is the “Model Warrior.” Booth illustrates:

“His life and teaching, taken together, constitute the pattern and teach the only true method in which our campaign for the deliverance of man from sin and devils is to be carried on.”[16]

Booth then takes a literary step that was commonly employed by Salvationist writers. He calls the apostles of the New Testament first century “soldiers” in the Salvation Army. This task accomplishes two goals. First, through the power of recognition it shows the apostolic connection/succession of the Salvation Army to the first church. Secondly, it insists that the Salvation war extends far beyond the limits of space and time. Booth illustrates:

“This [message of deliverance] was declared by Peter, a celebrated General, who fought gloriously in this War….If the Holy Ghost commanded the early Salvationists [the apostles] to fight after the pattern of their Master, surely the same obligation is binding on us.”[17]

As it was apostolic, the early Army was simultaneously a prophetic voice in its time because it directed its mission efforts to the poor, extended its ministry to women, and fought for the rights of the oppressed. This prophetic voice demonstrated that going into the world for Booth meant “suffering to Christ: it meant this to the Apostles. They went to the world: this meant going to scorn, poverty, stripes, imprisonment, death—cruel deaths. If you go you will have to suffer there is no way other way of going [sic].”[18] As Moltmann says, the church’s apostolicity is understood as it bears the sign of the cross.

The church is catholic as well as contextual; that is to say it is universal as well as local. As Moltmann explains, the church that lives in the power of the Spirit is a universal church that is linked together on behalf of the poor. In identifying with the catholic/universal aspects of the church William Booth declared at the 1904 International Congress in London,

“The Army is part of the living Church of God—a great instrument of war in the world, engaged in the deadly conflict with sin and fiends.”[19]

In addition to viewing the Army on a universal scale, Booth often spoke of the contextualization of Salvation Army mission though without using that more recent term. One example of this is when he said,

“The Salvationists who are believing for the outpouring of the Spirit upon their neighbourhood, with all its blessed consequences, will use such influence and force as they already possess, or can become possessed of, for the acquisition of such a result (their salvation)” [emphasis mine].[20]

In the discussion of the signs of the church, it seems that The Salvation Army operates seamlessly within these expanded signs of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church.[21]

[1] Howard A. Snyder, “The Marks of Evangelical Ecclesiology” in John G. Stackhouse, Jr. Ed, Evangelical Ecclesiology:Reality or Illusion? (Grand Rapids: Backer Academic, 2003), 83.
[2] Snyder, “The Marks of Evangelical Ecclesiology”, 85.
[3] Snyder, “The Marks of Evangelical Ecclesiology”, 91.
[4] Jürgen Moltmann, The Church in the Power of the Spirit (New York: Harper and Row, 1975).
[5] Moltmann illustrates this through the Barmen Confession of 1934, explaining that they proclaimed that Jesus was and is the sole Lord and author of the Church, 4 -7.
[6] It is this distinction in which the Army seems to be most at home.
[7] Moltmann, The Church in the Power of the Spirit, 341. It is acknowledged that these themes demand further development than is within the scope of this thesis.
[8] See page 2-3.
[9] Bramwell Booth, Echoes and Memories (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1925), 64-65.
[10] The Salvation Army 2004 Year Book (London: The Salvation Army International Headquarters, 2004), iii.
[11] Moltmann, 343.
[12] William Booth, The General’s Letters (London: The Salvation Army International Headquarters, 1890), 73.
[13] That is spirit filled, not functioning as a part of the later “charismatic” movement.
[14] William Booth, To My Officers: A Letter from The General on His Eightieth Birthday (St. Albans: Salvation Army Printing works, 1909), 33. Quoted in Green, War on Two Fronts, 59.
[15] A notable example of this is the ministry of the “Slum Sisters” program established in New York in 1890. A brief explanation of this holy ministry to the impoverished is given in Edward H. McKinley, Marching to Glory: The History of The Salvation Army in the United Sates, 1880-1992 (2nd. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1995), 70.
[16] William Booth, The General’s Letters, 74.
[17] William Booth, The General’s Letters, 74.
[18] William Booth, The General’s Letters, 5
[19] Quoted in Clarence D. Wiseman, “Are We a Church?” in The Salvation Army and the Churches. Comp. John D. Waldron (New York: The Salvation Army Literary Department, 1986), 3.
[20] William Booth, The Founder’s Messages, 163.
[21] The question that has been left unanswered is how the Salvation Army locates itself within the second protestant sign of the church—the sacraments. The Salvation Army has a non-practicing position on the Sacraments of the Lord’s Supper and Baptism. The question inevitably arises: Does this stance eliminate the Salvation Army from being a church? The Salvation Army ceased practicing the sacraments in 1883, based upon its Pneumatological understanding of the holy life. Hence, all of life was sacramental and sacraments were an unnecessary, and at times pragmatic, hindrance to the mission of the Army. Later Salvationists have taken what are almost heretical stands on the sacraments, so as to justify their own belonging to the universal church. These dogmatic defenders have not lodged their own arguments in the original pnueumatology of the early Army. This theme is developed comprehensively in R. David Rightmire’s, Sacraments and the Salvation Army: Pneumatological Foundations. lodged their own arguments in the original pnueumatology of the early Army. This theme is developed comprehensively in R. David Rightmire’s, Sacraments and the Salvation Army: Pneumatological Foundations.

Awareness: A Christian's Take on Moral Responsibility

I had an opportunity to particpate in a panel discussion at Richalnd College on Tuesday. The topic was, "Do humans have and obligation to help others?" The panel included a Jewish representative and a philosophy professor with the Ayn Rand Society. Ayn Rand and objectivism reject moral responsibility. Hence, we had a very interesting dicussion. I'll try to post more later about my expereince. Forward to the Fight, Andy Miller III Awareness: A Christian’s Take on Moral Responsibility

You quickly zip up your coat and walk out of the mall--your shopping list is frustratingly incomplete and the cold wind hits your face as the revolving door swings open. Then you become aware of something. No, you are made aware of something, as a sharp somewhat annoying sound hits your ear. [Ring Bell] Yes, friends you have found The Salvation Army and one of our thousands of volunteers [show of hands for who has given or volunteered?]. At that moment you might become aware that though you have an incomplete Christmas list, others in the world and in your area are frustrated because they have no place to sleep, children are sleeping in cars with their families, and people are hungry. There is something inside humans that calls us to reach into our pockets and place a dollar in the Red Kettle. Maybe you hope that the bell ringer will stop ringing the bell if you give, thus the objectivist might have a way out. Regardless, the scene that most of us experience with the Army’s Red Kettle Campaign reminds us that there is more to life than fulfilling our shopping lists. I am aware of the honor it is to stand here before you and to present with these panelists. My life has been enriched through dialogue, and I appreciate its place in my personal formation. It is important to think about society and our obligation, or lack of obligation, therein. My presentation represents a Christian perspective and moves through an awareness of God and his plans for the world. I also represent The Salvation Army, which is a part of the universal Christian Church. As a Christian theist I acknowledge my belief in an “infinitely perfect God, who is the creator, sustainer and governor of all things and who is the only proper object of religious worship.” I have come to this belief on the shoulders of philosophical evidence that has shaped my epistemology, through a smorgasbord of arguments like Anselm’s ontological argument, the cosmological argument, and most specifically the argument from the moral law. As a Christian I also affirm that God exists as three persons, known as the Trinity, (three persons, one substance-Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). Ultimate reality is a loving relationship that is based in the doctrine of the Trinity rather than an Ultimate reality which comes through impersonal matter or laws of nature. Within the framework of the Trinity we have three persons existing in self-giving, self-sacrificing love for one another. As I apply the moral law in society, it heightens an awareness of others, and this awareness and care for others reflects God’s nature and image as a Triune God, an image in which Christianity says we are created. The awareness of a Triune God accents my own appropriation of the moral law, providing meaning for life beyond myself and my own proclivity to selfishness and my sinful nature. In C.S. Lewis’ great explanation of the moral law he gets at the juxtaposition of these realities,

“First…human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot get rid of it. Secondly, that they do not in fact behave in that way.”

In dealing with this reality we acknowledge what “is” and what “ought” to be. If the world “ought” to be a certain way then it is grounded not simply in human experience (what Lewis calls ‘matter’) but in a divine mind or being. The universe needs direction and the creator of the universe, the source of ultimate reality, has a plan to transform reality from what “is” to what “ought” to be. This plan was initiated by Jesus of Nazareth, the Messiah, who called his followers to “deny themselves take up their cross and follow” him (Mark 8:34). A man who took upon himself “the form of a slave (Philipian 2:7),” died on behalf of humanity and was resurrected to a new kind of life. His resurrection and victory over death create an awareness of a time when God will make the world right again--that he will look at his creation and “make all things new” and “wipe the tears from their [our] eyes” (Revelation 21:4-5). Christians anticipate his return and have the responsibility (respond-ability) to care for others as we anticipate the way he will make the world right again. This awareness of God’s activity in the world is formed by an understanding of Scripture--from the moral and legal commands to show hospitality and observe the year of jubilee in the Old Testament, to Jesus’ commands to care of the least of these (Matthew 25), to the Apostle Paul’s challenge “to consider others as better than yourself” (Philippians 2:3). Just as we become aware of bells during November and December, which remind us of the moral law, the Christian tradition tells us that our awareness and our action on behalf of others necessitates an active responsibility for others. I was trying to add this famous quote but had to finish my remarks early.

While women weep, as they do now, I'll fight; while little children go hungry, as they do now, I'll fight; while men go to prison, in and out, in and out, as they do now, I'll fight; while there is a drunkard left, while there is a poor lost girl upon the streets, while there remains one dark soul without the light of God, I'll fight-I'll fight to the very end!

Immortality of the Soul and The Salvation Army

This paper was written as the final chapter of MDiv. Thesis, The Good Time Coming: The Impact of William Booth's Eschatological Vision (2005). I make a fairly bold suggestion in this chapter that the Army consider updating the way it talks about doctrine 11, or change the wording. Though probably not a result of this Thesis, I am happy to say the most recent Handbook of Doctrine gives a wonderufl treatment of these three words. Please note that this paper was written before the new handbook of doctrine did a such a good job in officially clarifying what is meant by the "immortality of the soul."

In light of Rob Bell's forthcoming book, it is likely that much will be said about the "immortality of the soul" in evangelical theology and salvationist conversation in the next year. Hopefully this piece will help us have more fruitfull conversations.


When commenting on the activities of the Salvationist in heaven, William Booth responded in military-like fashion,

“In heaven he [the Salvationist] is doubtless[ly] employed in some service for the King, for which his military training on earth has specially qualified him.”

Since his view of personal eschatology is crucial to understanding William Booth’s theology, his confidence in the reality of heaven, hell, judgment, and resurrection has already been affirmed in chapter one [coming to this blog soon]. Despite these explicit affirmations, there remains an elusive tension concerning the Salvation Army’s eschatological statement within its “Articles of Faith.” These articles were formulated under its previous name the Christian Revival Society in 1866-6/7 and later affirmed as The Salvation Army in 1878.

The eleventh article states,

“We believe in the immortality of the soul, and the resurrection of the body….”

Some scholars suggest that these two confessions are mutually exclusive and that they represent an either-or situation. Others propose, however, that if immortality of the soul is qualified as merely a belief in personal existence between death and resurrection, that these statements are not antithetical to one another. Christians who assert a qualified immortality of the soul are indeed within the boundaries of biblical teaching and Christian orthodoxy. This study, however, suggests that such a dual formulation is unclear and possibly misleading concerning the nature of one’s eschatological doctrine.

The Army’s adoption of the immortality of the soul is linked to Booth’s background in New Connexion Methodism and its doctrinal statements. The impact of the early Army’s implementation of this language has been a continued support that has failed to explicitly deal with the possible implications of this expression. This theological affirmation was made without an awareness of the implicit consequences. In order for William Booth’s eschatology to be fully understood and appropriately applied to the present milieu, the Army must reaffirm the orthodox doctrine of the resurrection of the body or at least distinguish it from the blurred doctrine of the immortality of the soul. It is no longer sufficient to fall back on the argument of intentions (either Booth’s or the Army’s), which have never truly affirmed the immortality of souls in the Greek philosophical sense.

The Salvation Army and Immortality of the Soul

At best the immortality of the soul has two meanings. The immortality of the soul is a Greek understanding of ultimate reality that exalts the spiritual over the physical world, and it is also a Christian conviction that affirms personal survival beyond death.

Immortality of the Soul

The notion of the soul’s immortality finds its beginning within Socrates’ philosophical system which was later interpreted by Plato. This worldview projects that there is a dichotomy between the physical and spiritual worlds. The body then is the “cage of the soul,” which prohibits the soul from existence in the eternal world. Death for humanity is the great friend and liberator because it enables the soul to move into eternal reality. [See Oscar Cullmann, Immortality of the Soul or Resurrection of the Body: The Witness of the New Testament, 19-27; Jürgen Moltmann, The Coming of God: Christian Eschatology, trans. Margaret Kohl (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996), 60.] Socrates’ death, as narrated by Plato in the Phaedo, is the prime example of this worldview for he welcomes death as it brings him to a greater understanding of reality through the freedom of his soul. Oscar Cullman contrasts Socrates’ death with the death of Jesus. Jesus’ distress about his immanent death and ultimately the pain and abandonment he feels on the cross is reflective of the fact that death is not welcomed as a liberating event. Immortality of the soul was the Greek philosophical perspective of life beyond the physical world. This metaphysical understanding was later embraced by Gnostic spirituality. In this discussion immortality is defined as a fact of existence and hence the ability to exist eternally. When combined with the belief in the soul, does this imply a preexistent state of the soul? If so, within a Christian worldview the only being who is truly immortal is the triune God who has no beginning and no end.

If immortality is meant to refer to the reality of survival between death and resurrection, then the New Testament does indeed affirm such a belief. The Greek word aphthartos is used as an adjective in the New Testament, and it is specifically used in a subjective genitive relationship with God, theos (see Romans 1:23 and 1 Timothy 1:17). Aptharsia is a closely related to the word translated “imperishable” (1 Corinthians 9:25; 15:42, 50, 52-54; Romans 1:23; 1 Timothy 1:17). Its usage as a noun, athanasia, is defined as “the state of not being subject to decay/dissolution/interruption.” Thus it is defined as “incorruptibility or immortality,” and only refers to God once, illustrating that he alone is immortal in 1 Timothy 6:16.

The other occurrences of athanasia (Romans 2:7, 1 Corinthians 15:53-54, and 2 Timothy 1:10) refer to a quality that is in concert with eternal life. It is in no way referring to an intrinsic quality that humanity possesses before and after human life. Immortality is something that mortals eschatologically “put on” (1 Cor. 15:53). Romans 2:7 specifically refers to immortality as something that people value along with “glory and honor.” People who are pursuing these things will be given “eternal life” as an eschatological reward. The New Testament witness does not signify immortality as a quality intrinsic to fallen humanity, nor does it pertain to a preexistent state of the soul. The New Testament presents immortality as a transformation of human existence. New Testament scholar Gorden Fee says that the imagery used in 1 Corinthians 15:53 “stands in sharp contrast to the Greek view [of immortality of the soul], in which one is naturally endowed with immortality, but not so Paul; immortality is the investure of the resurrection” It should be noted, however, that immortality is never attributed as a condition of the soul (psychē) in the New Testament.

In contrast to the Greek approach, which understands one’s soul as a purely spiritual entity existing before and after earthly life and thereby implicitly devaluing the body, the New Testament emphasizes a contrasting view to the immortality of the soul—the human person as a union of soul and body, and the resurrection of the body. Being an essential and defining doctrine of Christianity, the resurrection of Jesus Christ endures as the primary theme of New Testament eschatology. Thomas Oden illustrates: “The Christian’s hope risks distortion if stated as if it were essentially a hope for the soul’s escape from the prison of the body into a purely spiritual realm. Christianity hopes for renewal of the whole person, where I will again be myself, will live again in my glorified body.” This event is the basis for a belief in the resurrection of the body. This alternative belief system is clearly seen in the Apostles’ Creed that mentions nothing of the soul’s immortality, but rather affirms:

“I believe in … the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting.”

The New Testament’s discussion of the soul or self (psychē) is not, however, giving the soul an attribute that belongs in other philosophical categories. Psychē is used in three separate ways in the New Testament. First, as “life on earth in its animating aspect making bodily function possible.” An example of this treatment is in Acts 20:10; after a person falls three stories to his presumed death, Paul explains, “Do not be alarmed, for his life [psychē] is in him.” Secondly it is “the seat of the inner human life in its many and varied aspects.” This usage is illustrated in John 12:27 when Jesus is looking at his imminent death, “My soul [psychē] is troubled…” The third variety of this term refers to personhood; for instance Romans 13:1 explains, “Let every person [psychē] be subject to the governing authorities.”

While biblical anthropology is not the focus of our discussion, there is no doubt that personal eschatology and anthropology converge on issues of the afterlife. The Old Testament equivalent of psychē is held within two words nephesh (“to respire,” “to breath,” “living”) and ruach (“spirit”). Nephesh is generally reflective of humanity’s total nature and concerns the human constitution. The classical text for understanding the role of nephesh is found in Genesis 2:7 where God declares man a “living [nephesh] being.” The Old Testament’s anthropological treatment of these words makes no clear distinction between the entities (i.e. body, soul, and spirit) that constitute humanity. Humans are always seen in their totality; body and soul are not separated but are inseparable concepts of body and life. The biblical witness as a whole understands the constitution of humanity in holistic fashion; body and soul are jointly viewed to establish the basis of personhood.

Within contemporary popular piety it has become fashionable to talk about the eternal state of the soul after death, to the exclusion of the resurrection of the body. This emphasis resurfaced as a popular way of discussing personal eschatology in the 18th century with the teachings of Swedish aristocrat and mystical theologian Emmanuel Swedenborg (1688-1772). His theological emphases drew attention to the correspondence of the physical world with the “true” invisible world. According to Swedenborg, the invisible world finds its basis in the attributes of God. His legacy breathes today through a group known as the “Swedenborg Society,” an assembly that was formed in the early nineteenth century. Johnny “Appleseed” Chapman, the American founder of this group, made his teachings popular in the United States. This Society promoted the immortality of the soul as the transmigration of souls from the physical world to the spiritual world after death. This system finds no room for the orthodox belief of the resurrection of the body. The Swedenborg tradition persists in part today in the way that popular piety portrays eschatology with songs and choruses that restrict heaven to a “place” to which our souls “fly away.”

Blog comment: Though I must admit, I enjoying singing that song around a campfire.

The Formation of Salvation Army Doctrine


The primary search for eschatological clarity is not with William Booth’s theology as a whole. The battleground is more implicit, one that is seeking eschatological clarity and a hermeneutical basis for understanding the Salvation Army’s eleventh article of faith. If this statement presents the possibility of being internally inconsistent, what were the influences upon it?

The “Articles of Faith” were officially adopted by the first conference of the Christian Mission in 1870. The doctrinal statements are closely related to the doctrines of Methodist New Connexion, the group in which William Booth was ordained and served for a short period of his life (1854-1861). The final set of eleven doctrines were adopted by the Salvation Army in the Deed Poll of 1878 and later confirmed in The Salvation Army Act of 1980. These statements find their source within the Methodist New Connexion. What has been overlooked in past scholarship is the development of doctrines within this source.

After John Wesley’s death in 1791, various reform groups were seeking to bring about renewal within Methodism. These efforts prevailed despite Wesley’s intention not to become a schismatic group. Alexander Kilham (1762-1798) was one of the first reformers within Methodism. His desire was for the Wesleyan Methodist movement to adopt a church government that included an adequate representation of the laity. As a result of Killham’s strong views, he was expelled from the Wesleyan Methodist church in 1796 and in 1797 started the Methodist New Connexion with three other leaders. He died soon after founding this splinter of Methodism, leaving the leadership to William Thom and other leaders within this offshoot of Methodism.

During the first three years of its existence the Methodist New Connexion held no doctrinal statements. In a 1862 overview of their doctrinal history, the Connexion claimed that “they were Methodist, and that was supposed to be enough….The writings of Wesley were held by the New Connexion with an unwavering hand….They retained his Hymn Book, [sic] and avowed their unabated attachment to the doctrines he taught.” During its formative years, controversy arose, and the New Connexion was accused of being “Apostate” and “Anti-Methodistic in doctrine.” As a result they initially included five statements that they believed to be “necessary to salvation.”

For those reading this on a blog, this information was taken from documents held in the Asbury Theological Seminary Library. To my knowledge this information has never been published by the Army.

These statements were expanded in 1816 to make the Connexion’s distinction as a religious body clear. Interestingly the eschatological portion of the 1823 statement solely included a qualified statement concerning the immortality of the soul, but this statement did not include an article outlining the resurrection of the body. By 1838 the doctrinal statements of the New Connexion did indeed include a statement on the resurrection of the body (see graph below). Except for an additional statement on the meaning of baptism and the Lord’s Supper these doctrinal statements remained untouched until New Connexion Methodism united with (mainstream) Methodism in 1907.

Changes in the Eschatological Doctrines of Methodist New Connexion

Eschatological Doctrinal Statements of the Methodist New Connexion in 1823
IX. We believe the soul to be immortal, and that after death it immediately enters upon a state of happiness or misery.
X. We believe in general judgment at the last day, in the eternal happiness of the righteous and the endless punishment of the wicked.

Eschatological Doctrinal Statements of the Methodist New Connexion in 1838
11. We believe the soul to be immortal, and that after death it immediately enters upon a state of happiness or misery.
12. We believe in the resurrection of the body—in the general judgment at the last day—in the eternal happiness of the righteous—and in the endless punishment of the wicked.

The Salvation Army’s doctrine concerning eschatology is derived from Methodist New Connexion’s final two doctrinal statements on eschatology. Compared in the graph below is the Army’s first published doctrinal statement on eschatology when it was named the Christian Revival Society. Also included is the current eschatological doctrine of the Salvation Army that is slightly modified from the Christian Mission statement.

Methodist New Connexion
11. We believe the soul to be immortal, and that after death it immediately enters upon a state of happiness or misery.

12. We believe in the resurrection of the body—in the general judgment at the last day—in the eternal happiness of the righteous—and in the endless punishment of the wicked.

Christian Revival Society
7. We believe in the immortality of the soul—the resurrection of the body—in the general judgment at the end of the world—in the eternal happiness of the righteous—and in the endless punishment of the wicked.

The Salvation Army
11. We believe in the immortality of the soul; in the resurrection of the body; in the general judgment at the end of the world; in the eternal happiness of the righteous; and in the endless punishment of the wicked.

The differences between these doctrinal statements are the New Connexion’s explanation of the immortality of the soul as opposed to the Army’s statement of belief in such a doctrine. The second difference is situated in its terminology concerning the end of the world: the New Connexion Methodist statement “general judgment at the last day” and the Army’s “general judgment at the end of the world ” [emphasis mine]. Despite these differences, it is clear to deduce that in a confessional sense, the Army adapted its own eschatological statement from New Connexion Methodism.

The Army’s Self-Understanding of Immortality of the Soul

If the Methodist New Connexion was the source of the Salvation Army’s confessional statements, are these statements representative of the early Army’s theology? Did William Booth ever address “immortality” or “immortality of the soul”? The continued self-understanding of the Army as represented in various handbooks of doctrine reveals the way in which the Army has interpreted these eight words, “We believe in the immortality of the soul.”

William Booth
Nowhere does Booth clearly outline his understanding of what is meant by the immortality of the soul. William’s clearest explanation of Salvation Army doctrine comes in his catechetical instruction booklet, The Doctrines and Disciplines of The Salvation Army: Prepared for the Use of Cadets in Training for Officership. [The General [William Booth], The Doctrines and Disciplines of The Salvation Army: Prepared for the Use of Cadets in Training for Officership, 3rd ed. (London: The Salvation Army Book Department, 1890). The earliest edition was published in 1881, and was reprinted in 1890. It was slightly modified and published in 1911 and. See R.G. Moyles, A Bibliography of Salvation Army Literature in English 1865-1987 (Lewiston, NY: E. Mellon Press, 1988).] The basic resource of Doctrines and Disciplines was Rev. Benjamin Field’s The Student’s Handbook of Christian Theology. Field’s text is interesting to this discussion because he never once posits a belief in the immortality of the soul. Field specifically cautions against the belief of the “Baron of Swedenborg” which he identifies as one of three “principal heresies … propagated with regard to the resurrection of the body.” In a similar fashion to Field, Booth answers dialogical questions so as to give the reader a quick response to theological questions.

In the section of Doctrines and Disciplines entitled, “Death and After,” Booth never developed a concept of the immortal soul. Answering a question about the existence of the soul after death, Booth responds, “His [the Salvation Army soldier who experiences death] glorified spirit enters heaven the moment it leaves the body, and is welcomed by God and the angels and the blood-washed soldiers with whom he fought below.” Booth further emphasizes the importance of the resurrection of the body when answering the question, “But what comes of the body after death? Does that live again?” Booth responds:

Yes; at the morning of the resurrection, the bodies of the saints are raised and made perfect and reunited with the soul, from which they were separated at death, and then perfectly redeemed from all the consequences of sin, the glorious service of God is engaged forever. Even so the bodies of sinners, raised at the same time, and reunited with the spirits that were their companions in sin on earth, will share the punishment from which they would not allow God to save them.

In this small book, Booth does use the word “immortal” to describe human beings. He resists the danger of making immortality ontologically intrinsic to human souls.
In a 1904 address concerning the importance of every human life, Booth does in fact use the word “immortal.” This usage does not, however, align with the classical Greek philosophical system, but with an understanding that something exists for the saint and sinner beyond death. He clarifies his understanding of personal immortality while challenging his audience:

If you don’t think that people are of any great worth you won’t be likely to face either fire or water to save them. But if you believe—1. That they are immortal, that they will live forever. 2. That their souls are of indescribable worth. 3. That God loves them, and wants to get them into Heaven. 4. That Christ thought them of sufficient value to lay down his life for them. 5. That they are every hour in peril of the wrath of God and the damnation of Hell. If you believe all this, or a reasonable part of it, you will work, and weep, and pray, and fight to save them. Believe! Believe!

Within William Booth’s eschatological outlook was a deep burden for the eternal welfare of persons. This burden for humanity lacked any development of the “immortality of the souls.” Even in his volume that was intended to expound the doctrines of his movement, William Booth ignores the concept of “immortality” as it relates to the human soul. Booth’s understanding of immortality of the soul remained a qualified notion. He never recognized the need to differentiate his understanding of immortality from the Greek concept. His intention was pure and consistent with his eschatology, but the eschatological language of his movement was imprecise and ambiguous within the landscape of Christian orthodoxy. Should his movement today continue to follow his lead? It seems that the Salvationist who is aware of the ambiguous nature of this language must reinterpret this language, which has already been defined.

The Heirs of Booth

William Booth’s son and designated successor, William Bramwell Booth (1856-1929) was also an important figure in the shaping of Salvation Army doctrine. William Booth’s leadership circle consisted of Catherine Booth, Bramwell Booth, and George Scott Railtion, who were the most influential leaders in the Army’s early development. Of these three, Bramwell’s influence would remain constant until William Booth’s death, serving as his father’s “chief of staff.” In 1923, eleven years into Bramwell’s Generalship, a Handbook of Salvation Army Doctrine was published under his “guidance and supervision.” The major structural revision that is presented, as compared to William Booth’s Doctrine and Disciplines was its expansion, placement, and discussion concerning the Bible. Doctrine and Disciplines, places its chapter on the Bible at the end of the work and only relegating to it a few pages. Bramwell’s Handbook of Salvation Army Doctrine positioned this chapter at the very beginning providing considerably more information. This organizational concern is indicative of the Handbook itself and Bramwell’s leadership as a whole. His leadership is attested as the organizational genius of the Army.

Concerning eschatology, Bramwell’s Handbook staunchly defends the immortality of the soul with fervor unmatched by the founder. With a simple explanation clause the Handbook states with regards to the soul’s immortality, “It will never cease to exist.” This statement might imply a preexistent soul if were not further explained. This basic definition, however, illustrated the inherent danger of using the term “immortality.”

This Handbook equates the immortality of the soul with life everlasting as an inborn longing that

“men instinctively feel … this feeling it reflected in nearly all heathen religions.”

Bramwell’s Handbook then makes an unparalleled leap in Army literature, explaining that the biblical view of the soul’s immortality is argued from silence. The Handbook illustrates,

“The Bible confirms it by taking for granted the immortality of the soul.”

The Handbook further continues to explain the soul as a necessary part of human anthropology in light of eternity.

The next Handbook of Doctrine coming from the authority of the Salvation Army’s General did not appear until 1969, under the leadership of General Frederick Coutts (1899-1986). This handbook made considerable strides in presenting the doctrinal basis of the Salvationist movement. In 1982 this Handbook appeared in an abridged form under the title The Doctrine We Adorn. Both of these volumes ignore any exposition of the clause “We believe in the immortality of the soul…” even though the purpose of such a handbook is to make finer points of theology clear. These books do contain a one-page summary that present a belief in life after death, but these sections disregard the immortality of the soul.

Between the publishing of the 1969 Handbook and its abridgment in 1982, international headquarters published a “study of the background and meaning of Salvation Army doctrines,” entitled This We Believe, in 1976. General Fredrick Coutts’ theologically educated son, John, acknowledges that immortality of the soul is a Greek concept that was “another tradition concerning the after-life.” In contrast to his knowledge of Greek philosophy, John Coutts never articulates what is meant by the Salvation Army’s doctrine of immortality.

The United States National Headquarters of the Salvation Army published a catechetical instruction book for students seeking to become soldiers (i.e. lay members) in 1968. The study was written by Milton Agnew, and revised in 1978 and 1985 entitled, The Manual of Salvationism. In the chapter entitled “God’s Future Plans” Agnew suggests that immortality of the soul “

means that we believe the soul will never cease to exist. Since man was created in the image and likeness of God (see Genesis 1:26, 27; 9:6), he was created for immortality, that is, for an unending existence.”

Agnew’s intention seems to point toward personal life beyond death, but the phrase “never cease to exist” and “unending existence” comes very close to an understanding of immortality that similarly has no beginning. Agnew’s statement remains a qualified doctrine, and therefore orthodox, because he affirms that humans were “created for immortality.”

The latest exposition based upon the Army’s articles of faith is Salvation Story: Salvationist Handbook of Doctrine. The international doctrine council prepared this handbook. When the group that came into existence in 1992, it was charged with the task of producing a new Handbook with a “fresh approach.” Salvation Story approaches the doctrine of eschatology within the theme of the “Kingdom of the risen Lord.” The discussion of immortality begins by affirming that immortality is the way that “Christians have often expressed belief in life after death.” The authors then underline the difficulties of this language by saying “this phrase needs to be clearly understood.” Salvation Story avoids the trap of referring to the immortal soul as something that has a persistent quality stating, “

apart from God’s action there is no part of us that naturally survives beyond death. Our eternal existence is based on God.”

This handbook then seemingly contrasts this viewpoint with others by distinguishing: “What the Christian doctrine of immortality says…[emphasis theirs].” If there is a non-Christian doctrine of immortality, it is probably based in Greek metaphysics. This is not, however, mentioned in this explanation of the immortality of the soul. The statement further concludes with a basic anthropological outline,

“What the Christian doctrine of immortality says is that we are whole persons, originally brought to life by God, and because of God’s action there is no loss of integrated, embodied personality in the life beyond present existence. God brings us all into eternity to participate in the general resurrection and submit to the final judgment of Christ.”

Each doctrinal area within Salvation Story concludes with a summary that affirms the essentials of each doctrine in contemporary language. The summary of the chapter on eschatology does not mention the immortality of the soul. This statement and the extreme qualification of the phrase immortality of the soul, demonstrate that the international doctrine council responsible for writing Salvation Story was well aware of the possible ambiguities of this language. This handbook, however, never established the fact that this statement can be identified with the Greek metaphysical system. Instead, it continues the tradition set by other official explanations, in that it is forced to defend a statement that is problematic. It would be more helpful for the Army at least to admit such language can have two meanings. It might be time for the Salvation Army to pursue further clarity in doctrinal language. Such language could be consistent with the Army’s heritage, which has never in spirit affirmed the negative side of the immortality of the soul. Considering the fact that the origins of this phrase are with New Connexion Methodism and not with William Booth or the early Army, it might be (or it is) time for the contemporary Army to refine rather than defend this statement.

Luther Lee and the Wesleyan Church

The Wesleyan Church, originally known as the Wesleyan Methodist Church, began at a similar point in history as the Army. Its principal early leaders, Orange Scott and Luther Lee, were deeply moved in 1843, to separate from the Methodist Episcopal Church as a protest to its stance on slavery. Luther Lee wrote a thorough study entitled The Immortality of the Soul. His basic affirmation is very similar to William Booth’s and is a fair representation of how immortality can be qualified with the resurrection to affirm life between death and resurrection.
If Luther Lee was a strong defender of the applicability of this phrase in the mid-to-late-nineteenth century, it is interesting to note how the denomination he led followed suit. Interestingly The Discipline of the Wesleyan Church published in 1968 has no reference to immortality of the soul.

Conclusion

William Booth’s personal eschatology demonstrates that he was thoroughly convinced that there is more to human existence than life and death. This belief was rarely expressed with the phrase “immortality of the soul” in his personal eschatology. His movement shortened the doctrinal statements that it inherited from New Connexion Methodism to include this phrase. The impact of this phrase on the Salvation Army has steadily been a posture of defense rather than explanation or redefinition. Though the intention of the Salvation Army and William Booth was also within the framework of orthodoxy, it is possible that the actual phrase itself can be confused for a concept that is unrelated to the New Testament’s eschatological witness. In light of the possible confusion that can result from a belief in an immortal soul, the contemporary Army would profit theologically by clarifying its eschatological doctrine. Two suggestions are possibilities: 1. Change the phrase “immortality of the soul” to “continued existence of the soul after death.” 2. Take out the phrase altogether, so the Salvation Army doctrinal statement would follow: “We believe in the resurrection of the body; in the general judgment at the end of the world; in the eternal happiness of the righteous; and in the endless punishment of the wicked.” It might be better to drop the word “soul” and use another term like “self ” or “life.” Letting go of the phrase “soul” would not dictate a monistic position for the tenth doctrinal statement explicitly mentions the soul.

The way in which William Booth spoke of the veracity of eternity was never ambiguous. The doctrinal statement that the Salvation Army adopted regarding eschatology is, however, misleading. This study has demonstrated the approach that William Booth took toward the eternal destiny of individuals. The doctrinal statements that Booth adapted from New Connexion Methodism possibly reflect a problematic understanding of the immortality of the soul. This understanding when unqualified leaves the door open to misunderstanding today. The contemporary Army has never “officially” addressed this conceivably misleading concept. The Army should reconsider its word usage in the eleventh doctrinal statement or should present an explicit clarification that distinguishes it from the Greek philosophical concept of the immortality of the soul. An acknowledgement of ambiguity would further a biblical understanding of the resurrection of the body.

Blog Note: See the 2010 Handbook of Doctrine which wonderfully clarifies some confusion they even sue Moltmann as a source.

E. Stanely Jones on Face Lifts and Musty Christianity, Genesis 3 compared to Exodus 4

From E. Stanley Jones in 1950:

I glance from my writing, and across the street on a third-rate hotel is a sign with the letters washed out and made dim with age: “Newly Furnished Rooms.” It isn’t convincing! There is no sign of newness. The average church makes you think, not of good news, but of musty news. Nietzsche said: “The Christians must look more redeemed before we can believe in redemption.” The coming of the Holy Spirit gives a face lifting so we look redeemed, gives an inner assurance so we feel redeemed, empowers us at the place of the will so we act redeemed, and reinforces every portion of us so we are redeemed (The Way to Power and Poise 8:3).

General Coutts said, “Sin lies in the will, not the instincts” (The Call to Holiness.)

As witnesses who are filled by the Holy Spirit, we must let that Spirit change our will and "let the redeemed of the Lord say," look, act, talk, makes business deals, make policy decision like we are redeemed.
---------------
From Exodus 4

It is interesting that the Moses’ staff is transformed into a snake and God gives him to the ability to handle the snake. This scene in Exodus is the beginning of the liberation of Israel and then the world, maybe it is the start of the way that God will continue to work through the Israelites and through Jesus to the world so that we can be freed from the bondage that started with snake in Genesis 3. It is only a first glance comparison but it could have preaching fruit.

Another comparison from Exodus 4 to Genesis 4. In Ex 4:9, God says, “But if they not believe these two signs or listen to you, take some water from the Nile and pour it on the dry ground. The water you take from the river will become blood on the ground.” God sais to Cain in Genesis 4:10, “What have you done? Listen! Your brother’s blood cries out to me from the ground.”

I am not suggesting that these are definite links, but they perked my attention and called me out to compare the Fall with another key moment in Salvation history.

Is your redeemed life reversing the curse today?

Be redeemed.

Forward to the Fight,
Andy Miller III

Hospitality and Social Services: A Salvationist's Perspective

This article was originally a chapter in my MDiv. thesis on William Booth's Theology, which I frame his theology as a whole within his eschatology. Roger Green and Jonathan Raymond then published the chapter in "Word and Deed" in 2008. It was titled there, "Eschatological Ethics: The Army's Hospitable Legacy." If you are interested in the documentation for this paper or the juicy footnotes let me know and I'll send you a copy. Now working on my DMin project I will be moving this theme to a practical conclusion that helps me set up a model for this kind of ministry within the housing ministries of the SA. We have unique opportunity to make some of these things happen in the Arlington Corps' Family Shelter. I have also written a sermon or two on hospitality that I might include on this blog in the future. Obviously I have an academic audience in mind here, but the concepts are intensley practical.

Implementing a historically informed social ethic is possibly the greatest challenge facing the contemporary Army. How does the ethical task set before the Army function distinctively within the kingdom of God? Is there a connecting point between the diverse ministries of The Salvation Army? An example of this diversity is the various ministries of the Lexington, KY, Corps. This corps is not only a place of worship but also an after school program, day care, food and clothing center, a shelter for women and families, emergency relief center, and provides these services and outreach programs to the Spanish speaking population of the community as well. This specific corps is indicative of the Army’s global activity since the development of the “social wing” in 1890. This paper will seek to understand the origins of this holistic approach to urban ministry with the aim of putting forward a proposal for the contemporary Army’s ethical perspective.

The Holistic Evolution of the Army’s Ministry

In July 1865 an opportunity came for William Booth to preach a series of revival meetings in London’s East End. Booth’s heart ached for the people of this area. He illustrated this passion for these people:

In every direction were multitudes totally ignorant of gospel, and given up to all kinds of wickedness….A voice seemed to sound in my ears, ‘Why go…anywhere else, to find souls that need the Gospel? Here they are, tens of thousands at your very door. Preach to them, the unsearchable riches of Christ. I will help you—your need shall be supplied.’

The negative effects of the industrial revolution had disabled this area, much like Booth’s hometown of Nottingham. The industrialized urban areas of England fostered the poverty of the lower classes in what Booth later called the “submerged tenth.” Thus, a great wall gradually appeared between the established Victorian churches and the lower classes of England. Philip Needham notes: “As the lower classes became more and more estranged from the Church, an intense contradiction became apparent—a contradiction between the message of God’s acceptance of all men through Christ and the obvious middle and upper-class self-interest of those who espoused that message.”

With the founding of the East London Christian Revival Society the Booths’ primary motivation was to preach the gospel to the poor of London’s East End, a segment of the population that was generally neglected by the Victorian church. This group would eventually become The Christian Mission, and their purpose was strictly evangelistic. The Army had “Preaching Stations” and not churches, and their converts were supposed to be channeled into the life of the Victorian churches. The initial plan of the Booths did not include starting a separate denomination, but their pragmatism forced them to welcome their converts who were rejected by the established churches. William Booth demonstrates this desire:

“My first idea was simply to get people saved, and send them to the churches. This proved at the outset impracticable. 1st. They [the converts] would not go when sent. 2nd. They were not wanted. And 3rd. We wanted some of them at least ourselves, to help us in the business of saving others. We were thus driven to providing for the converts ourselves.”

It is important to note that William Booth was primarily interested in the spiritual condition of the people to whom he ministered, and he had yet to develop a theology that incorporated the alleviation of social dilemmas.
When within thirteen years The Christian Mission grew to include 75 preaching stations and 120 evangelists and when in 1878 The Christian Mission changed its structure to correspond to the military metaphor, “The Salvation Army,” Booth’s theology began to move from individual categories to institutional categories. Indeed, William Booth saw his Salvation Army as institutionally sanctified to bring about the Kingdom of God on earth. Within eight years of the 1878 name change, The Salvation Army exploded to include 1,749 corps and 4,129 officers.
Though The Salvation Army continued to grow, it was not until 1889 that its social ministry developed an institutional structure. In the early 1870s, William Booth established five food shops that provided cheap food for the poor. These soup kitchens, known by their slogan “Food For the Millions,” were under the supervision of William Booth’s son and eventual successor, William Bramwell Booth. These shops were a financial disaster and were closed in 1877. Robert Sandall notes that as a result The Salvation Army actually turned people to another group called the Charity Organization Society.

Due to the extreme poverty that was ravishing the people of their mission field, particularly London’s East End, the eschatologically-focused Salvationist movement was bound to respond to the greater social problems in the world. All the work of The Salvation Army was done in light of the final end (eschaton). In light of the desired end (i.e. the salvation of souls and the imminence of Christ’s millennial reign) the means to produce it had to more dramatically engage its culture. They could not possibly work in the midst of a people who were struggling within poverty and social oppression for long with a singular focus on “souls” without recognizing the necessity that social and physical problems needed relief. The Salvation Army operated more from a functional or pragmatic basis than a theoretical base. The great goal of Salvationist mission is an eschatological aspiration; Booth and the early Army desired to save every person’s soul in the world with the help of God. This primary desire to “save souls” is an eschatological concern.

Foreshadowing later work, The Salvation Army in Australia, on their own initiative, established and sustained a recovering home for released prisoners in December of 1883. Another precursor of Salvation Army social activism came between 1884 and 1885 when, because of insights gained from a new rescue home for prostitutes, The Salvation Army launched an assault on “the world’s oldest profession.” This crusade further highlighted the existence of a white slave trade in England, and with the help of investigative reporter W.T. Stead, The Salvation Army exposed the underground operation. The Salvation Army forced the hand of Parliament to raise the age of consent from thirteen to sixteen. By establishing a rescue home for prostitutes, in 1884, the Army began a journey toward an institutional embrace of a social mission in 1890. Pamela J. Walker observes that between 1884 and 1890 “the Army had established rescue work, shelters, food depots, and other programs to relieve distress and to exert a religious influence on those believed to be too burdened to seek it on their own. From 1884, The Salvation Army slowly shaped a dual mission of social services.” In her book Booth’s Boots: Social Service Beginnings in The Salvation Army, Major Jenty Fairbank discusses several areas of Salvation Army social work: poor relief, the rescuing of prostitutes, maternity work, anti-suicide ministry, reconciliation ministry, ministries to juvenile delinquents, prison ministry, sheltering ministries, ministries to the unemployed, and work with alcoholics. Seven of these ministries found their beginnings before 1890. The dual mission was a gradual process, and in 1889 this shift was supported by William Booth’s own pragmatic theological articulation in his article titled “Salvation for Both Worlds.”

The famous article published in 1889 is the articulation of a conclusion that Booth had reached as the result of his recognition that holistic ministry was necessary. This proclamation was not an overnight decision. It is rather a statement of mature theological expression that understood social and spiritual aspects of the Christian message. This holistic theological development was articulated in 1890 with the establishment of the “Social Wing,” a division of Salvation Army ministry that sought to implement the “scheme” expressed in In Darkest England and the Way Out. Developing an effectively balanced social wing was no doubt challenging for the pragmatically-minded movement. In Darkest England explicitly supported and institutionally expanded on The Salvation Army’s existing social ministries that had been operating since 1884.

Eschatology and Holistic Ministry in the Army

When William Booth’s universal eschatology came into focus as a result of the transatlantic influences of the American holiness movement between 1870 and 1885 and the American holiness movement experienced a theological shift that placed a new emphasis on pnueumatology, William Booth and his Salvation Army also experienced this shift. This transmitted focus enabled William Booth to view the indwelling power of the Holy Spirit as bringing about change in the whole world. The result was a swing toward a universal eschatology that was motivated to bring about the millennial reign of Christ before the second coming of Christ. If the millennial reign of God is seen as waiting for the Christianization of the world and all its social systems, then Christians have a responsibility to act on behalf of that eschatological perspective. Hence, ethical responsibility naturally flows from such a millennial perspective.

Ethics is defined as an attempt to provide principles and appropriate responses for acting rightly in general and specific situations of life. The ethical system that guided William Booth can be broadly seen as teleological in nature. That is an ethical framework that sees the telos or end as conditioning and guiding the ethical process needed to bring about that telos. If William Booth’s theological framework is centered in his eschatological vision, then an ethical background is naturally teleological because eschatology is the study of the “last things.” Just because an ethical system is looking forward to the last things, does not mean that the present situation diminishes in focus. On the contrary, the end breaks into the present as a guide. Jürgen Moltmann expresses this eschatological hope by stating at the beginning of his treatise on eschatology, “In the end is the beginning…” and that “Christian eschatology is the remembered hope of the raising of the crucified Christ, so it talks about beginning afresh….”

William Booth’s embrace of millennialism coincided with his move toward social activity in the early 1880s. The Army became viably active within the sphere of social ethics in 1884. Thus William Booth’s social ethic is directly related to his universal eschatology. How one views God’s kingdom in society affects how one is active in the world. By 1890 these combined themes (eschatology and social ethics) were fully developed and representative of the holistic mission that The Salvation Army embodied. In the midst of this development, William Booth’s personal eschatology, expressing itself in a concern for souls, was consistently present. In his most explicit eschatological writing, “The Millenium [sic],” Booth illustrates the position of personal eschatology within his universal eschatology: “The most effective methods of advancing the happiness of mankind, and bringing in the Millenial [sic] reign, must be the rule of God in the hearts and lives of men, and the spread of the principles of righteousness and love.”

The particular way that The Salvation Army promoted the “principles of righteousness and love” was the distinctive approach to social ethics. When these principles were blended with millennialism, a dynamic holistic missiology emerged. William Booth’s ethical perspective is, therefore, an expression of his eschatology and is identified in this paper as an eschatological ethic. This eschatological ethic recognizes that the mission of the kingdom is the mission for God’s people now. In William Booth’s famous article “Salvation for Both Worlds,” he elaborates on the incarnational quality of this eschatological ethic:

“Christ is the deliverer for time as truly as for eternity. He is the Joshua who leads men in our own day out of the wilderness into the Promised Land, as His forerunner did the Children of Israel thousands of years ago. He is the messiah who brings glad tidings! He is come to open the prison doors. He is come to set men free from their bonds. He is indeed the Saviour of the world!”

Scholarly Disputes

K.S. Inglis and Norman H. Murdoch have contested that William Booth’s move to include social ministries was purely motivated by his failure of not having reached the poorest of poor with the gospel, particularly in London’s East End. These scholars insist that The Salvation Army’s’s social work beginnings can only be traced to 1890 and the “Darkest England Scheme.” They explain the reason for social expansion was because William Booth was failing as an evangelist in London’s East End. Indicative of this approach is the following statement by Murdoch:

The 1890 scheme differed in kind, and not just in scope, from the temporary handout aid his mission offered, aid he had halted in 1877 when it impeded his revival program. His fixation was on saving souls. Darkest England was a new departure for Booth and for the Army. As its evangelistic program stagnates in the 1880s, social salvation replaced evangelism as the Army’s mission.

One might understand Murdoch’s conclusion if he was responding to the possible divorced nature of social and spiritual ministries in the contemporary Salvation Army. It is admitted by most Salvationists that evangelism needs to find a better-balanced relationship with social work in the contemporary Salvation Army. However, retroactively placing such concerns on William Booth and the early Salvation Army is wrong for at least three major reasons. First, Murdoch ignores the social ministries that existed between 1884 and 1890, which Fairbank has described. Fairbank responds to critics like Murdoch and Inglis by calling their positions “uninitiated” and “still labouring under the popular fallacy that all Salvation Army social work stemmed from the 1890 scheme…” The other ministries mentioned in her book, Booth’s Boots, might be ignored because of the social-political activity of the SA in the mid 1880’s (i.e. the purity crusade). The early ministries, which began in 1884, prompted William Booth to begin thinking of implementation on an international level.

Second, these theories fail by misinterpreting the later William Booth as only a social reformer. This seems to suggest that William Booth took off his “evangelist hat” and put on a “socio/political reformer hat.” William Booth’s theology might have changed, but he never lost his eschatological focus, as social salvation was an addition to his already established theology of personal salvation. If Murdoch’s logic were followed, one would have to re-explain all of the evangelistic material that flowed from the mouth and pen of William Booth after 1890. Finally, there is not much support for the notion that the Booth’s evangelistic work was failing in the 1880s. On the contrary, this was a time of great growth. Between 1878 and 1886 the Army grew to include 233% more corps and 344% more officers.

Murdoch’s point is not directly aimed at the growth of the Army as a whole. However, he points his argument toward the lack of growth in London. Murdoch makes psychological assumptions about the way Booth would have felt about his work in London. Murdoch imagines: “Failure in London pained Booth; he now denied it. He feared the day when his army might be another sect perpetuating itself.” Murdoch provides no empirical proof as to why Booth might ever feel this way. This claim is indicative of this revisionist work that attempts to maintain a conclusion without a sufficient argument. Ann Woodall concedes that the Army in East London numerically diminished, but she shows that the ministry itself had become more effective and incarnational, illustrating this point through the work of the “slum sisters,” a group that lived in the streets with the poorest of the poor in order to reach them with the gospel Woodall points to numerous outside sources that applauded the Army at this time in London as being very respected for its ministry to the “slummers.”

William Booth’s theology accommodated such a shift toward social categories of salvation because of his balanced approach toward universal and personal eschatology. When universal eschatology was expressed through millennial language, it never lacked personal urgency that characterized his early ministry. There is not a “break” in Booth’s thinking with the publication of “Salvation for Both Worlds” and Darkest England. These sources are the mature articulations of a theology that progressed in light of its eschatological task. The result of this discussion is a holistic ministry that embraced the spiritual and the physical world in a radical way.

The Army and the Paradigm of “Social Work”

The contemporary Salvation Army’s self-identity is often blurred by an unnecessary dualism between social and spiritual missions. Since 1890 Salvationists have developed a variety of ways for discussing the approach to social and spiritual ministries. The impact of William Booth’s eschatology is observed in its ethical self-understanding.

William Booth’s first way of distinguishing the social wing was to make it an office unto itself with its own officers and commissioner. William Booth himself was seen as the autocratic, connecting link between the various wings of the Salvation Army. Commenting on the development of his own theology he remarked:

“I had two gospels of deliverance to preach—one for each world [temporal and eternal], or rather, one gospel which applied alike to both. I saw that when the Bible said, ‘He that believeth shall be saved,’ it meant not only saved from the miseries of the future world, but from the miseries of this [world] also.”

This quote demonstrates Booth’s desire to find and maintain equilibrium in ministry. His autocratic structures, which he felt were a sign of the millennial kingdom, demanded the delegation and creation of a social wing. Herein lies the problem that has remained with The Salvation Army: in trying to find a “balance,” The Salvation Army further dichotomizes social and spiritual ministries. Is it possible that this dichotomy is unduly emphasized as a result of The Salvation Army’s insufficient paradigm of “social services?”

The striving to make the paradigm of “social services” fit into a theological system is arduous. This problem is apparent within the title of the important work edited by Commissioner John D. Waldron, Creed and Deed: Toward a Christian Theology of Social Work in The Salvation Army, which compiled a variety of reflections of Salvation Army social ministries. The positive effects of this scholarly reflection are somewhat tainted by the insufficient polarizing paradigm of “social services.”
The important reflections found in Creed and Deed begin with a premise, which is flawed, that “social services” is (or should be) the overarching paradigm of Salvation Army social ministry. The paradigm of “social services” is inadequate in placing The Salvation Army within the meta-narrative of Christian social action. “Social services” automatically creates an impersonal and professional atmosphere. An example of this bifurcation would be soldiers of a corps who faithfully attend Sunday holiness meetings, but when encountering a person in need of “temporal” salvation, they refer the person to the “social worker” of the corps. Such a pattern and paradigm divorces the so called “spiritual work” from “social work” and generally delegates the “social services” to professional “social workers” that may or may not share the Army’s holistic mission.

If not “Social Services,” then What?

The impact and legacy of William Booth’s eschatological ethic is a holistic approach to mission. How can the contemporary Army maintain this legacy? Recent scholarship has rediscovered the paradigm and practice of hospitality as a way of approaching Christian social ethics. Hospitality can serve as a preferable paradigm for social ministries within The Salvation Army’s holistic mission. This paradigm is presented as “preferable” because it does not bifurcate spiritual and social ministries. The early Salvation Army presents the contemporary Army and the Christian church in general with a prophetic social ethic that has at its core an implicit form of hospitality. This legacy of hospitality and holistic ministry should be the model by which the contemporary Army looks to the future.

The Christian Tradition of Hospitality

The practice of hospitality finds its apex in the nature of the Triune God who continually welcomes humanity into the eternal fellowship of the Godhead. Such welcome is clearly exhibited through Jesus’ sacrificial welcome in his passion. Receiving the welcome that Jesus offers necessitates participation in the fellowship of God’s trinitarian nature. The tradition of hospitality is more than desserts and prosaic conversation among friends and family. It is not a spiritual gift for those who like to bake. On the contrary, throughout church history hospitality has been concerned with the interaction between “others” and the practice of welcoming “strangers.”

The macrocosmic picture of the Old Testament is of the Israelites’ call to and from a foreign land where they were aliens. The Israelites were utterly dependant on God and were commanded to express their understanding of his providence in how they treated others who were in need. They were commanded to show welcome to strangers in light of the welcome of God. Specific examples of hospitality that reflect this macro picture in the Old Testament microcosmically are Abraham’s welcome of angels in Genesis 18, Rahab’s welcome of Israelite spies in Joshua 2, and the widow of Zarephath’s hospitality to Elijah in 1 Kings 17.

The teachings of Jesus powerfully encouraged people to show welcome toward others. Ethicist Christine Pohl illustrates that Matthew 25 and Luke 14 are central in the formation and praxis of the tradition of hospitality. Believers are explicitly commanded in various epistles to practice hospitality: Romans 12:13; Hebrews 13:2; 1 Peter 4:9; 1 Timothy 3:2; and Titus 1:8. The concept of loving and welcoming strangers is a pivotal message of the New Testament.

The practice of hospitality was critical to the development of the early church due to the intersection of the house and church. The young church regularly found itself meeting in homes for times of worship. Because of this intersection, the common meal became an important expression of hospitality that flourished in the multiracial society where the early church was submerged. In the fourth and fifth centuries, leaders like Jerome, John Chrysostom, Benedict of Nursia, and Lactantius kept the tradition and language of hospitality vibrant. Through the medieval period hospitality became associated with entertainment and personal advantage from hospitable practices. Hospitality became an expectation, rather than a natural sign of Christian fellowship. Pohl states, “In the diversity of institutions, in the loss of the worshiping community as a significant site for hospitality and the differentiation of care among recipients, the socially transformative potential of hospitality was lost.”

The leaders of the Protestant Reformation reasserted the importance of hospitality. This realization of the importance of welcome was pragmatically significant because the social structures of Europe were stirred during the Reformation. A century later, John Wesley demanded a social understanding of the gospel in 18th century England, and the Methodist movement he led reflected this articulation of social holiness. This social motivation was also prompted an imminent millennial hope. Wesley grasped the theological and moral significance of hospitality without explicitly naming it.

The semantic difficulties of Wesley’s day continue to perplex the contemporary church’s connection to the tradition of hospitality. The significance of naming the tradition is important to William Booth’s connection with the overarching social ethical tradition of Christianity. The language provides the means whereby a Christian can understand his or her social responsibility within the realm of theological, historical, and moral reflection. This understanding is specifically significant for contemporary practitioners of hospitality because hospitality enables their service to move beyond the realm of “duty” or “social services.” Hospitality then becomes a way of life for individuals and communities to express welcome and as an outgrowth of their identity as a Christian body. Pohl shares, “reclaiming hospitality is an attempt to bring back the relational dimension to social service, and to highlight concerns for empowerment and partnership with those who need assistance.” Any Christian movement that takes seriously the exhortation to “welcome one another” can benefit from viewing this welcome through the lenses of hospitality.

A Hospitable Legacy

If hospitality is to be applied to the contemporary Salvation Army, does it line up with the ethical heritage of the life, ministry, and writings of the early Salvation Army? William Booth’s famous book, In Darkest England and The Way Out is one such example of this hospitable heritage. In Darkest England, was his effort to transport the theme of social redemption to the forefront of Victorian society. The unique power involved in recognition is a key theme in the tradition of hospitality. Booth saw within each person the possibility of deliverance from sin and social evil because theologically, he understood that salvation was available for all people. An example of such recognition is Booth’s explanation that the cab-horse in London has three things: “A shelter for the night, food for its stomach, and work allotted to it by which it can eat its corn.” Booth illustrates that these basic rights, given to horses, were being denied to a tenth of the population. He calls this group the “submerged tenth.” Booth’s proposed solution to this problem (“the Way Out”) is outlined as his “social scheme.” He comments on the ultimate goals of this “social scheme,” which implicitly embody themes of dignity and respect:

To attempt to save the lost, we must accept no limitations to human brotherhood. If the scheme which I set forth in the following pages is not applicable to the thief, the harlot, the drunkard and the sluggard it may as well be dismissed without ceremony. As Christ came to call not the saints but the sinners to repentance, so the message of temporal salvation, of salvation from pinching poverty, from rags and misery, must be offered to all.

Possibly drawing upon the language of Matthew 25:31-36, Booth later in the same book stresses the power of dignity and respect:

“But we who call ourselves by the name of Christ are not worthy to profess to be His disciples until we have set an open door before the least and worst of these who are now apparently imprisoned for life in a horrible dungeon of misery and despair.

The Booths and Wesley both recognized God’s prevenient grace at work in the lives of people, and as a result their outlook on social ethics was dramatically transformed. Catherine Booth when speaking on the subject of home visitation explained, “They need to be brought into contact with a living Christ…They want to see and handle the words of life in a living form. Christianity must come to them embodied in men and women, who are not ashamed to ‘eat with publicans and sinners.’” Wesley’s understanding of social holiness influenced Catherine Booth’s understanding of communion with Christ in entire sanctification.
Catherine also recognized the significance of seeing Jesus in every stranger:

“Oh, for grace always to see Him where He is to be seen, for verily, flesh and blood doth not reveal this unto us! Well … I keep seeing Him risen again in the forms of drunkards and ruffians of all descriptions.”

Similarly Bramwell Booth illustrated:

When I see the poor, shivering creatures gathered in the warmth and comfort of our Shelters, and the famished ones in the Food Depots, and the workless hard at work, and the lost and lonely in the bright hopefulness of the Women’s and Children Homes, and the prisoners—set in happy families in our Harbours of Refuge, my heart sings for joy, and I say, ‘Is not this the Christ come again?’ If he came now to London and Boston and New York and Melbourne and Tokio, as He came to Jerusalem and Nazareth and Caesarea, would He not want to do exactly this? I believe He would!

Jesus’ parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:29-37) redefines the way that humanity looks at “neighbors.” William Booth recognized the importance of this passage for early Salvation Army hospitality ministries as he frames this pericope in sacramental terms,(which is somewhat ironic for a non-practicing-sacramental denomination), by urging soldiers “to observe continually the sacrament of the Good Samaritan.”

Bramwell Booth records an interesting conversation with his father in his popular book Echoes and Memories. The conversation took place when the Booths were crossing the Thames River on London Bridge, and William Booth noticed the homeless men sleeping under the arches of the bridge at nightfall. His son Bramwell was obviously aware of their lack of lodging, but William was disgusted by the poverty he saw. Bramwell records their conversation (Bramwell’s responses in Italics):
‘

Go and do something! We must do something.’ ‘What can we do?’ ‘Get them a shelter!’ ‘That will cost money.’ ‘Well that is your affair! Something must be done. Get hold of a warehouse and warm it, and find something to cover them. But mind, Bramwell, no coddling!

This conversation illustrates how the boundaries of hospitality, in general, are often hard to define. Despite the ambiguous parameters, the imperative nature of hospitable practices can be found in William’s comments.
Frank Smith, the first leader of the “Social Wing” commented about working with the dangerous people who are on the borders of society:

the fact is, deny it who can, the churches are wedded to the wealthy world. Let us of The Salvation Army, from this day forth, wed ourselves to the fate and the fortunes of the so-called dangerous classes. Let us go down to our bride in the Boweries of our cities. God approves of this union.

The way in which people understand the proper balance between that which is social and spiritual is continually an issue in The Salvation Army’s hospitality ministries. The personal secretary to William Booth, Brigadier Fred Cox, recalled at a later date how Booth would often respond to questions about this dilemma:
He believed in keeping religion first. People used to say to him in the early days,

‘You know, General, we can do with your social operations, but we can’t do with your religion; we don’t want it.’ The General would say—‘If you want my Social Work, you have got to have my Religion; they are joined together like Siamese twins; to divide them is to slay them!’

The delicate harmonization of the relationship between these two aspects of Salvation Army ministry is a frequent task for any Salvationist. In 1966 Philip Needham described The Salvation Army’s identity problem as “schizophrenic.” On the other hand, General Fredrick Coutts described the idealized mutual existence of social and spiritual ministries by utilizing a marital metaphor. It is key to The Salvation Army’s self-understanding that this relationship be understood in light of the Army’s historical theology while remaining relevant to the people it serves.

Hospitality: A Preferable Paradigm for the Army

The Biblical/theological tradition of hospitality can serve as a preferable paradigm for Salvation Army ministries. The Christian tradition of hospitality has been buried for three centuries, as the 18th century largely considered it “an antiquated practice, out of step with busy commercial society, a relic from an earlier time.” Christine Pohl suggests: “Hospitality is a way of life fundamental to Christian identity.” Hospitality is a paradigm that connects theological reflection with everyday concerns. The Salvation Army has arguably had the most consistent social witness in the past 150 years; however, acknowledging and naming and refocusing this social witness as “hospitality” will connect The Salvation Army’s work in general with the theological history of the church. Theological reflection has often been a secondary concern for the pragmatic Salvation Army; therefore, it has admittedly lacked an explicit theological foundation for its practices. The theological heritage supplied by the tradition of hospitality can provide a foundation for the existing social ministries of the Army.

Hospitality can further connect and unite the progression of William Booth’s theology in a way that does not tend toward Murdochian separatism. First, Booth recognized the importance of offering a neglected group personal redemption, and eventually he saw the need to institutionally welcome the whole person. Indeed, one begins to see William Booth’s ministry and theology as a journey of hospitality. This journey had significant influences: Catherine Booth and George Scott Railton, who both helped refine his early theological understanding of personal and social holiness, influenced his journey. Then the influences of Bramwell Booth, W. T. Stead, and Frank Smith helped him realize the social dimensions of the theology handed to him from Wesley, Finney, Palmer, and Caughey.

John Wesley was a culminating and reviving figure in the tradition of hospitality, but his use of these themes was implicit, much like Booth’s. A major challenge for Salvation Army mission today is for a historically-informed reappraisal of the Salvation Army’s social ministry. Hospitality can act as a linking paradigm because it was implicitly a part of William Booth’s theology, and it can further function as therapy for the bifurcated soldier therein.

In Salvation Army literature, the first explicit challenge to view social ethics through the lens of hospitality came from Miroslav Volf’s keynote lecture to The Salvation Army’s International Theology and Ethics Symposium in 2001. Volf explains that in pursuing the care for others: “The exclusive pursuit of justice will not do. We need more than justice, not less. We need grace.” He explains that hospitality is a form of grace. Volf illustrates:

“Hospitality has at its background some need of the person to whom we are hospitable (food, shelter, human touch, love, etc.)…. If we don’t offer hospitality, we do the person no wrong; if we do offer it, we give something more than the person had a claim upon.”

Volf further connects concepts of welcome that are intrinsically involved in the life of the economic Trinity:

We don’t quite know why the world was created, we just know that this divine love sought a place to ‘spill itself over.’…Part and parcel of the economic Trinity is not only creating the world in an incredible act of generosity and sustaining it in an act of hospitality, but also engaging the world in love to restore it to a communion it once had with God, a communion that has now been ravaged by sin and death.

Looking at the church’s practice of hospitality in line with an understanding of the economic Trinity, Volf states:

“The church’s mission is situated at this particular point. The church’s identity emerges from God’s estrangement from the world. The church’s mission is a continuation of that love that God has shown toward the world and participation in that love toward the world.”

Within the scheme of the Christian message, hospitality begins with its demonstration in the life of the economic Trinity. This divine life overflows into our own personal redemption as the cross invites humanity into that divine life. This activity on our behalf provides the grounding for the hospitality that Christians personally demonstrate. Communities transpose personal acts of hospitality into a corporate expression of hospitality.

Conclusion

William Booth’s goal of working toward the millennial reign of Christ, through the labor of The Salvation Army, was a motivating factor for the Army’s missional addendum of social ministries. Hence, eschatology conditioned the social response of William Booth. His teleological ethic is, therefore, identified as an eschatological ethic. This eschatological ethic produced a prophetic form of holistic ministry that is institutionally present today. The contemporary Army has inherited the fruits of this eschatological ethic, and if the Army today looks at the coming kingdom of God as the template by which the kingdom of God is now a reality, then an eschatological ethic is advantageous for the Army today. Dichotomizing this mission into distinct categories of spiritual and social mission often debilitates the Army from recognizing this holistic heritage. “Social Service” as a paradigm has perpetuated this dichotomy.

A shift in paradigms is an answer to this problem. The historical, Biblical, theological, and moral tradition of hospitality can serve as an antidote to a sometimes-bifurcated Salvation Army. The contemporary Army could explicitly embrace this tradition by refocusing its social ethic toward an eschatological ethic that responds as hospitable support rather than a social service.

This paradigm shift can practically happen by refocusing the social ministry language and self-understanding. A wonderful example of a name that already embodies concepts of hospitality is The Salvation Army’s Harbor Light Centers. Harbor Lights are reclamation centers that are usually located within inner cities. These centers seek to offer hope for men and women suffering from the negative effects of urbanization. Harbor Light centers would be in no need of changing their name, as their mission statement could embrace the paradigm of hospitality so as to renew its focus as a place of welcome and “harbor.” If the Army pursued such a shift, it would need to seek creative ways to describe its ministry. This ministry is not limited to “professionals” but is seen as basic to the identity of every Salvationist who wears on his or her uniform two S’s which represent the eschatological ethical challenge to be “Saved to Serve.”