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.”
