We Are Not Perfect

Looking back won’t bring us forward, by Grant Sandercock-Brown

he Salvation Army is not perfect, never has been and never will be. There was no ‘golden age’ when we got it all right, nor will there be again. The dream of copying what we once were to become again what we once were just cannot be realised. The once and future Army is a myth.

The Booths and their colleagues, mightily used by God though they were, sometimes got it wrong. We have done ourselves a great disservice by our romanticised hagiographies of the Booths and others. The writers of such material have unwittingly held their heirs to a standard that they themselves did not attain. William and Catherine had difficult relationships with their children. Their children (Army leaders all) had difficult and even antagonistic relationships with each other. William demanded a lifestyle from his officers that he, in his comfortable home with hired help, did not even try and model. There were mistakes, failures, stubbornness and yes, poor theology. Let us not gloss over this but embrace it as evidence of God’s grace. God’s will is not thwarted by our inadequacies.

There were mistakes, failures, stubbornness and yes, poor theology. Let us not gloss over this but embrace it as evidence of God’s grace. God’s will is not thwarted by our inadequacies.

The Salvation Army is not alone in such thinking. Lots of Christians long for a return to the ‘primitive church’ of Acts 2, hoping that a ‘neo’ version will usher in a new golden age of Christianity. Yet surely this is to ignore the New Testament record. Paul’s letters to the Corinthians are a vivid story of a church racked by mistakes, failures and poor theology. Read Galatians. Read the first three chapters of Revelation. God works through his people but it apparently has very little to do with them getting everything right.

Some long for a return to the ‘primitive Army’ as a means of ushering in our own new golden age. We see it in our yearning to somehow be the Army of the Booth’s day, to reclaim their theology, to reconstitute their praxis. We hold up our founders as an eternal standard. This must not be so. Let’s be clear, the oft asked question “what would William do/think now?” is unanswerable and ultimately irrelevant.

Let’s be clear, the oft asked question “what would William do/think now?” is unanswerable and ultimately irrelevant.

Embracing this truth, the myth of the once and future Army, releases us from a huge burden. It frees us from a theology of recovery (as Chick Yuill calls it) that is often rather pointless and even unhelpful. It also enables us to set our sights firmly on the task in hand, serving the present age.

I admire Catherine and William and indeed thank God for them. I have no doubt that the Army God raised up through them has been an important kingdom force in the world. It will be continue to be so. But we will not remain a vital missional movement simply by being hard core Brenglians, Booth worshippers or trying to reinvent the 19th Century revivalist roots of the Army.

So if the once and future Army is a myth do we then ignore our past? Is our history meaningless? Not at all. We are the heirs of a glorious calling. God’s great gift to the world through the Booths and the Army was an idea. And it is a simple and splendid one; to win the world for God, starting with the most lost and the most broken. Familiarity with our story can make us forget how extraordinary an idea that was. Most of us get out of bed and begin the day with less breathtaking visions. As committed Wesleyans, our forebears believed that God loved the whole world, wanted save the whole world, wanted to heal the whole world and they were in partnership with Him to do so! That is an idea worth the remembering.

As committed Wesleyans, our forebears believed that God loved the whole world, wanted save the whole world, wanted to heal the whole world and they were in partnership with Him to do so! That is an idea worth the remembering.

However let’s not confuse admiration for the vision with a romanticised worship of its authors. Historical surveys of our roots are helpful but they are not the blueprints for our future. What Brengle thought about holiness explains our past but it will not inform our present. The founder’s life reminds us of our task but his methods will not help us engage the post-Christian world of the West. The starting point for our theology and practice, though informed by our past, must always be Jesus himself as revealed in scripture. Like Martin Luther, “our consciences are captive to the word of God …here we stand, we can do no other”.

The founder’s life reminds us of our task but his methods will not help us engage the post-Christian world of the West. The starting point for our theology and practice, though informed by our past, must always be Jesus himself as revealed in scripture.

The once and future church is a myth. The once and future Army is a myth. However our future, although written by us, is in the hands of the God who raised us up and will sustain as he pleases for his purposes. And that is as it should be.

A corps Officer at Chatswood Corps on Sydney’s North Shore, Grant Sandercock-Brown is 45 years old and married with three children. An associate lecturer (in New Testament) at the CoFE and President of the CoFE Association, he is also the editor of the Practical Theologian a twice yearly journal published by the CoFE. Having started writing after a fight with Hodgkin’s disease, he’s since been published in Pipeline, The Officer, The Salvationist (UK), New Frontier (USA West) and Horizons (Canada) and has been asked to be a regular columnist for The Officer. Grant’s claim to fame is that while working as a Singing Telegram Man he sang to Elton John.

Monday, June 19th, 2006 Ecclesia, Ephemera

31 Comments to We Are Not Perfect

And is the absence of the author’s name an attempt for the idea not to be associated with the author? New hero-making?

Despite much behavior to the contrary, this bit seems self-evident to me. Personally, I prefer statements with names attached because they show a willingness to put “oneself” on the line. However, I should be interested in the intention of not showing the name.

Kind regards
Maureen Diffley, Captain

Maureen Diffley on June 20th, 2006

Maureen,

This article wasn’t intentionally anonymous - just a technical hitch when we were posting it. Hopefully that will be sorted today and all will be revealed!

Geoff

Geoff Ryan on June 20th, 2006

I read “William Booth and The Salvation Army” by David Bennett when I was 15. I was sold. I wanted to see today what Booth achieved in the 19th century, so I started to explore the viability of open air meetings in my town and visualising hundreds of people stopping by to see what was going on and walking away changed forever. Now I’m 20 and I’ve realised that what I want to see is not an Army that looks the same in 21st century North NSW as it did in Dickensian London, but an Army that is seeing hundreds saved and making a significant impact in society for Jesus, however that looks. An Army that is deliberately and effectively winning the world for God.

Mel Cotton on June 20th, 2006

Thanks Grant – I appreciate the clarity of this argument.

The compulsion to recover arises when Salvationists are impacted by the vitality and power of the church in Acts and the Army of the early 1880s, and contrast this with their own experience. In this sense, the idea of a ‘golden age’ is not without legitimacy.

Is there anything to recover that might precipitate a similar measure of blessing in our day? I feel unease as answers to this question become increasingly polarised. Some are so entranced by our early history that they seek a recovery not only of vision but of vocabularies, styles and methods that are lamentably anachronistic. Others are up for the vision but, it seems, little else – happy to jettison all things distinctive, even doctrines and covenants. Into the inevitable vacuum goes the latest silver bullet: church growth, NCD, alpha, Willow Creek, purpose-driven, cell church, intimate worship…

We continue to be locked into a debate between ‘we need to get back to…’ and ‘we need to break free from…’ But can this debate really be the catalyst for future blessing? I find the desire to take one side, or even argue for a middle way, collapsing within me.

Underneath the debate is the visceral feeling that something is profoundly wrong with us. This resonates with the cries of the Old Testament people of God. Their prophets did not engage in some ancient equivalent of our debate, but interpreted the problem in terms of God’s relationship with His people, using the language of covenant, sin and repentance. They knew that God’s blessing was not arbitrary or whimsical, but contingent on obedience.

‘God’s will is not thwarted by our inadequacies’, but His blessing is driven out by our disobedience. We are all seeking wisdom to serve the present age, and we are inheritors of Wesley and Booth in longing to see the world won for God. I believe that if we ask the hard questions about our sin, and respond biblically with repentance, prayer and fasting, we will find that wisdom and blessing will surprise us in their abundance, just as they did the apostles and the early Salvationists.

God bless you abundantly in your service, and especially your writing!

Matt Clifton

Matt Clifton on June 21st, 2006

Thank you, Grant, for this article, and thanks to the Rubicon for publishing it.

This is a huge problem for TSA in my opinion. Our high esteem for our founders often borders on idolatry. I think, although no one would actually say it, many salvos give more weight to the founders than they do to scripture.

Thanks as well for highlighting the diversity of the New Testament witness concerning the state of the primitive church. Acts 2 is only one brief moment in salvation history; the epistles give us a candid glimpse into the problems that Christian communities struggled with from the earliest days. Of course, subsequent church history even down to today reveals a never ending list of failures, corruption, division, schism, and so on; the church has never got it “right” (whatever that might mean). So it is kind of arrogant of us in the present generation to think that somehow we will get it right.

The successes of the early Army should be celebrated, but we do ourselves no favours if we ignore the failings. We should be inspired by the zeal and passion of those who have gone before us, but we must draw a clear line between what is inspirational and what is authoritative. As the article says, Christ as he is revealed in Scripture alone is authoritative - not Booth or Wesley or any other frail human being.

Grace,

James Pedlar

James Pedlar on June 21st, 2006

I believe the argument presented by Grant, though erudite and well presented is seriously flawed and exposes some ignorance about the early SA, the Booths and Victorian society in general.

For example Grant says that “William demanded a lifestyle from his officers that he, in his comfortable home with hired help, did not even try and model.” That is simply not true. William didn’t demand anything from any of his officers other than what they were willing to give - all of his officers were volunteers. As for his hired help, anyone who today has a washing machine or dryer would have had domestic servants then. Indeed most Officers in the UK would have had a ‘junior’ Officer appointed to them to assist in the running of the household, until promoted this ‘junior’ officer was really nothing more than a sanctified domestic servant. As for lifestyle Booth’s was one of genuine simplicity – take for example his daily diet of scones, bread, cheese, fried potatoes and tea.

When I was a Cadet at the International Training College we had a lecture by retired General Fred Coutts. At the end of the lecture he encouraged Cadets to ask him questions on any subject related to the Salvation Army. One Cadet jumped up and asked “We treat the Booths like Gods; we give them far too great a place in our thoughts aren’t there only meant to be three members in the Godhead?” Coutts paused before answering and then said with astute wisdom “My dear Cadet the more we find out about the Booths the more inclined we are to believe in their humanity.” The old General then went on to describe in detail just what Booth achieved in 50 years.

Let us never forget that whilst God works through us his achievements are directly proportional to our level of commitment, sacrifice and obedience. I get somewhat concerned when I hear Salvationists denigrate the Booths for being human (a fault we all share) without recognising the sheer weight of their achievements which were a reflection not only of God’s power but also of their self-sacrifice and devotion.

Grant seems to be saying that the Primitive Salvationist believes that if we go back to wearing stand-up collar tunics, call prayer meetings knee-drills and salute more often then all will be well – I know many primitive Salvationists and none of them see a return to old methods as the key to future success.

Grant says “Some long for a return to the ‘primitive Army’ as a means of ushering in our own new golden age. We see it in our yearning to somehow be the Army of the Booth’s day, to reclaim their theology, to reconstitute their praxis. We hold up our founders as an eternal standard. This must not be so. Let’s be clear, the oft asked question “what would William do/think now?” is unanswerable and ultimately irrelevant.”

I find this paragraph really disturbing… The question “what would William do now’ is eminently answerable – “Something!” as opposed to the ‘nothing’ that so many within our ranks seem to be content with today. As for reclaiming their theology – Hallelujah! As for reconstituting their praxis? To preach the gospel to people where they are in a manner they can understand would seem to me to be a custom well worth reclaiming!

Grant says that “Embracing this truth, the myth of the once and future Army, releases us from a huge burden. It frees us from a theology of recovery (as Chick Yuill calls it) that is often rather pointless and even unhelpful. It also enables us to set our sights firmly on the task in hand, serving the present age.”

I disagree, the ‘once Army’ is a historical fact and the future army is a fact of faith, it is quite literally “the evidence of things now not seen”. If we accept that the ‘the once and future Army’ is a myth then I agree that we are set free from a huge burden but it is not the burden that Grant describes. Instead we are set free from the burden of living a sacrificial, consecrated, do-or die life such as those lived by early Salvationists. We are set free from single-mindedness and released into a life of worldly compromise and vague morality. As Salvationists there is always the chance that humanity, the devil or maybe even God will call our bluff and we will have to try and be what we pretend to be – if we are released from any burden then it is that of our corporate hypocrisy.

The following sentence really concerns me (perhaps I am being too pedantic and reading more into Grant’s words than he intended?)

“But we will not remain a vital missional movement simply by being hard core Brenglians, Booth worshippers or trying to reinvent the 19th Century revivalist roots of the Army.”

What I would like to know is what is wrong with being a ‘hard core Brenglian’? Brengle taught Holiness and I believe that the rediscovery of Holiness will prove to be the salvation of The Salvation Army. Is Grant one of those Officers who thinks that Wesleyan holiness is unachievable or even worse irrelevant? The only way we can become a ‘vital missional movement’ is to do three things:

• renounce all that is sinful (and doubtful),
• consecrate all that we have and
• let our victorious and liberated lives be the billboards of our evangelism.

As for Booth worshippers – I can understand someone being tempted to bend the knee to Railton …. Come on Grant we admire our forbears we long to emulate them but I know of no one who worships them!

Finally, rediscovering our ‘19th Century revivalist roots’ is essential to our future success. Do you want to know why? Because the revivals of yesterday were not born out of methodology but were born out of prayer, fasting and repentance! When we study revival we learn that they happened because those involved recognised the sin and compromise within the church, saw how it offended and shut out the power of God and repented of it (See Matt C’s response for a more eloquent view of what I am saying)

Moving on, the following statement is not only an insult to Brengle but it also denigrates the Wesleys, Finney, Palmer, Caughey et al plus the many today who preach, teach and live holiness:

“What Brengle thought about holiness explains our past but it will not inform our present.”

Is Grant saying (as many contemporary Officers do) that Wesleyan holiness as taught and practiced in the first 50 years of the Army was a mistake? Is holiness part of Grant’s ‘poor theology’ which he refers to in his article? Holiness is not going away it is coming back for without it ‘none’ (and that includes The Salvation Army) ‘will see the Lord!’

Grant’s conclusion that “The starting point for our theology and practice, though informed by our past, must always be Jesus himself as revealed in scripture” to me seems to contradict his whole argument. Once we clear away the trappings and language of the early Army what are we left with? A well organised band of poverty-embracing, God believing, spirit-filled disciples who literally embraced and obeyed Christ’s command to ‘God into the world and preach the gospel’.

The ‘once army’ in terms of lifestyle, faith, obedience, courage and commitment is synonymous with ‘Jesus himself as revealed in scripture’ and if there is going to be a ‘future army’ then it must be the model (in sentiment not method) for the ‘present army’ or quite simply we will remain the compromised, limp-wristed, confused, unproductive, politically correct humanitarian charity that we are fast becoming.

Yours under Christ and irrepressibly over the devil

Andrew

Andrew Bale on June 21st, 2006

Just out of interest I saw Catherine Booth had something interesting to say in Aggressive Christianity linked to the debate.

“While the gospel message is laid down with unerring exactness, we are left at perfect freedom to adapt our measures and modes of bringing it to bear upon men to the circumstances, times and conditions in which we live…Adapt your measures to your circumstances and to the necessities of the times in which you live.”

:o)

gordon on June 21st, 2006

I need to point out that my article is prompted by and indebted to Michael G. Cartwright’s Essay “The Once and Future Church Revisited” in Embodied Holiness.

Well! Funnily enough I wrote this because I am an avid reader of Salvation Army history and in fact amongst the first generation Salvationists, George Scott Railton is my ultimate hero. I am a great admirer of William and Catherine also. And one of the reasons I admire them is that, flawed as they were, they were totally committed to the gospel. And God took their passion and zeal and in spite of their human failings did something extraordinary with them and their followers.

I am constantly inspired and challenged by our early years. However, 1865 to 1912 was not a golden age in the sense that they got it all right. William (of the comfortable home, neurotic about his health and one and sometimes two domestic servants as well as an ADC) was unkind and unfair to Railton. Bramwell was worse. Evangeline and Bramwell couldn’t stand each other! It was no golden age when we got everything right. And yet God used us in an amazing way. But merely imitating their methods and uncritically making their theology our dogma is not enough. As I said, the SA is essentially a fantastic idea. We need to commit to it with the same sort of passion and sense of sacrifice as our forbears. But we must never assume that because ‘they did it’ or ‘thought it’ that we must too.

Funnily enough (again) I am an enthusiastic supporter of Wesleyan holiness. It is a tremendously positive and thoroughly scriptural theology of the love of God filling our hearts so that we are able to love Him and others as we ought. Nevertheless, some (not all) of Brengle’s holiness theology is poorly expressed and emphasised, particularly the 19th century revivalist notion of “the roots of bitterness”.
Andrew, re: “Let us never forget that whilst God works through us his achievements are directly proportional to our level of commitment, sacrifice and obedience.” Can you let me know what New Testament scripture this comes from?

Re: “what would William do?” I have heard the myriad different answers to that question used to support every conceivable and often opposing view of any practice you want to name. Hence its uselessness.

Matt, re: “His [God’s] blessing is driven out by our disobedience.” Did Jesus say that? This is sailing dangerously close to ‘prosperity gospel’ theology.

It is true that Jesus says we must remain in him or we can do nothing. However, God is able to do abundantly more than we can ask or even imagine according to His power that is at work within us. God is sovereign. God’s will is not thwarted by our inadequacies or his power hamstrung by our sin. It appears (from our history and the NT record) that the God who sent Jesus because of our sin will empower us, through his Spirit, in spite of our sin.

Grant on June 21st, 2006

Great stuff. Grant’s forward-thinking salvationism has to be the way to go!

Russell Rook on June 22nd, 2006

Grant thanks for the following…

“As I said, the SA is essentially a fantastic idea. We need to commit to it with the same sort of passion and sense of sacrifice as our forbears. But we must never assume that because ‘they did it’ or ‘thought it’ that we must too.”

I do not know any Salvationist (primitive, neo or otherwise) who believes the last sentence (above) to be true. It is not past methodology that the primitive seeks to mirror but past sentiment. It is, to use your own words, their “passion and sense of sacrifice” we look to emulate.

Railton is my hero too but more than that he is (after Christ) my example. I would be quite happy to sing ‘to be like Railton’ as Railton was more like Christ than any other SA pioneer. Of course I wouldn’t sing it as Railton (like us all) was imperfect and those of us who put him on a pedestal tend to ignore the relationship he had with his sons and the way he failed to take his matrimonial responsibilities seriously (indeed there is a view that says he probably should never have got married!)

With regard to your question “Andrew, re: “Let us never forget that whilst God works through us his achievements are directly proportional to our level of commitment, sacrifice and obedience.” Can you let me know what New Testament scripture this comes from?”

I can give you plenty of biblical evidence; let’s start with the verse you quote from Ephesians 3

“Now to him who is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine, according to his power that is at work within us.” (Verse 20)

The ‘immeasurably more’ is the result of Christ’s power within us, Christ’s power abides in us only because we allow it to. It is the surrender of free will, the rejection of the world’s standards and values and obedience to the Spirit that makes God’s will and power known to us, as Paul says in Romans 12:

“Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God—this is your spiritual act of worship. Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.”

In John 14:11-13 Jesus says

“Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves. I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father.”

Faith is essential to Salvation and successful Christian living and faith is proven by fruit (note: not works but fruit). Asking for something in the name of Jesus denotes obedience and obedience will always be reflected in lifestyle. A simple example of what I mean – if, in prayer, I ask God to feed the hungry whilst I am driving down the freeway in my new BMW convertible stuffing my face with a hamburger then I am not asking in the name of Jesus for it is obvious that the name, authority and demands of Christ have no real hold over me.

However, the real killer argument is Christ’s constant use of the word ‘repent’. We all know what repentance means and the proof of repentance is again shown in lifestyle – this is evident from parables like the Good Samaritan, the sheep and the goats and scary bits of scripture like Matthew 7:15-21.

In addition John 14 and 15 make it abundantly clear that effective Christianity – indeed Pentecostal power – are dependant upon obedient faith.

If we look at the lives of ‘successful’ Christians (successful in a kingdom sense) we will see sacrifice, commitment and obedience – can you point to one truly successful evangelist whose life was not marked by superlative commitment and obedience?

Matt C can answer you on the question of

““His [God’s] blessing is driven out by our disobedience.” Did Jesus say that? This is sailing dangerously close to ‘prosperity gospel’ theology.”

However Isaiah 48-52 (and there are a myriad of other examples) makes it abundantly clear that sin debilitates God – where this is sin God chooses not to act. Sin and God do not mix – this is basic Judaic/Christian theology.

It is quite removed from ‘prosperity gospel’ for it doesn’t say that God rewards us materially if we obey him but rather it says that God cannot act when ‘there is sin in the camp’!

Look at what Paul says in Romans 6:11-18

“ In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus. Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires. Do not offer the parts of your body to sin, as instruments of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God, as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer the parts of your body to him as instruments of righteousness. For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace. What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! Don’t you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey—whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness? But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you wholeheartedly obeyed the form of teaching to which you were entrusted. You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness.”

Paul says that sin leads to death and obedience leads to righteousness.

I hope that none of the above leads anyone to think that I am preaching Salvation by works – I am not! What I am saying is that the closer we get to Christ, the deeper our commitment, the greater our faith, the more serious our sacrifice, the more practical our love then the greater the achievement Christ can deliver through our lives.

As Jesus himself said in the parable of the talents - ‘Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master’s happiness!’

Love and prayers

Andrew

Andrew Bale on June 22nd, 2006

Andrew and Matt have put into clear argument what was my my gut reaction to your article Grant. I found myself agreeing with you that we don’t want to put our forebears on a pedestal but I really don’t think that, that is what most of those who find themselves labeled Primitive Salvationists are doing.

As for the idea of a theology of recovery, well why not if we have lost something that was worth having and which we need today. We do not need a lot of the methods and practices of the 19th Century but we definitely need to recover Weslyan holiness teaching in the Salvation Army.

Blocked old wells need re-opening and made accessible to a new generation if they contain life giving water.

God bless

Carol

Carol Young on June 22nd, 2006

Thanks Grant - in answer to your question:

Firstly, in using the admittedly fuzzy word ‘blessing’, I hoped it was clear that I meant missional fruitfulness and not material wealth.

My line wasn’t presented as a quote from Jesus. However, it follows from his teaching, as you noted yourself: ‘Jesus says we must remain in him or we can do nothing.’ Other examples include:

Matthew 4:19
“Come, follow me,” (obedience) Jesus said, “and I will make you fishers of men.” (blessing)

John 13:34-35
“A new command I give you: Love one another… (obedience) By this all men will know that you are my disciples (blessing), if you love one another.”

Acts 1:4-5
…he gave them this command: “Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about. (obedience) For John baptised with water, but in a few days you will be baptised with the Holy Spirit.” (blessing)

There is much else: the miraculous catch of fish, the parable of the wise and foolish builders…

Since you cited them, the letters to the churches in Revelation actually refute the idea of unconditional blessing – they are a plain warning that blessing will be removed if disobedience continues.

As I read it, the conditional link between obedience and blessing is overwhelmingly clear throughout the Bible. Under the Old Covenant, blessing is primarily outworked in material fruitfulness (fishing for fish); under the New, blessing matures into missional fruitfulness (fishing for men), anticipated in the prophets.

This principle underpins my quest for a biblical narrative for interpreting missional growth and decline, in contrast with the prevailing analysis derived largely from cultural studies.

I hope that clarifies things – I appreciate the question.

Matt Clifton on June 22nd, 2006

Good discussion;

I agree with Grant that the idea of a ‘proportional’ blessing in relation to obedience is very dangerous.

I don’t think the scriptural quotes above should be taken as statements of propositional logic that tanslate as “obedience = blessing.” There is obedience, because God demands it, and there is blessing, because God gives it, but that doesn’t imply a causal relationship between the two. And I think this is especially true if we want to talk about “direct proportion.” I don’t think we can quantify the blessing of God like that.

Of course, the Christian life requires obedience. Odedience to God is in no way optional for Christians. But our obedience, willingly given, is still only response to God’s work in us, which is always primary. We don’t obey in order to be blessed. We obey because God is God. God blesses us because he is God, not because we ‘earn’ it through our obedience. He has shown us who he is, and how he acts, in sending Christ for us and for our salvation, and we can’t help but pledge our very lives in obedience when we encounter him in all his goodness.

God routinely blesses us in spite of our disobedience - the cross is the supreme example! And if Christ is the source of all our blessing, surely our understanding of God’s blessing must be centered on the cross, which was God reaching down to bless humanity in spite of our complete rejection of him. He sent his son to live among us, and we killed him! But even this, in God’s mysterious way of working, only served God’ s purpose of saving humanity. The cross must be the focal point for our understanding of who God is and how he works; and if this is so, then we must say that God’s blessing is not tied to our obedience.

Even if we limit ‘blessing’ to ‘fruitfulness’ in mission, the principle holds true. All the heroes of the faith were both obedient and disobedient in various aspects of their life and character; all had issues with various sins, all had failures as well as successes. Yet they were blessed by God in spite of their failings, just as we are blessed with salvation through Christ in spite of our failings. Of course this doesn’t mean we can be completely disobedient and expect to fruitfully partipate in God’s mission; we should be exhorting one another to obedience, but not by tying it directly to a resulting blessing. Rather, we call one another to obedience in response to what God has done for us.

James Pedlar on June 22nd, 2006

Some great thoughts here. I once heard a speak at an army conference called, ‘William Booth is dead’. Good point. The question of what he would do is quite irrelevant now, I agree. We are The Salvation Army… we should take responsibility and do what Jesus tells us for NOW…

However, the things that disturb me about this idea taken to the extreme are:

1. Our culture seems to have an obsession with dismissing ‘heroes’. This has been for some time… this may be, in part, due to the pain of seeing them fail when we had hoped for more. But, I’ve got a hunch that we are obsessed with dismissing our heroes as a direct attack on idealism/romanticism of modernity… the idea of human progress clearly wasn’t enough - even for the heroes… but on the other hand… there is something so valuable in recognizing the heroic measures of ordinary people doing extraordinary things by the power of God. Booth is among the great-hearts of heroic measures on behalf of the poor. Clearly, he was human but what inspires me is what inspired him… the mission of the world for God. Let’s not lose the essence of his character as the inspiration it should be.

2. Our culture almost has an obsession with forgetting. In Scripture, God never seems to think that the Israelites should stop ‘remembering’ what God did through Abraham and Moses, and Isaac and Jacob - in fact quite the opposite is true. God calls us to remember the faith of our forefathers… in order to remember God Himself. He even calls them to remember the details of what God has done in order to build our faith for what God will still do. This is the helpful ‘remembering’ that I think we should be focusing on with Booth and early salvationism… not a romantic, unhelpful assumption that all was perfect and we should be that way again. But an eyes wide-open recognition that God did something extra-ordinary through the lives of surrendered folks called early salvationists - and then we should long for those days again… not the same days but these days made special by the obvious presence of God.

3. Who writes our history is important. This has bothered me for some time. I took a course on Salvation Army history offered by a professor who didn’t believe in the Holy Spirit. Oh how that changes our history! It would be like learning about your national history and heritage by someone who didn’t like your nation or heritage (think German history of the Jews in pre-War World II). It’s off. I think those history lessons are rendered useless (with prejudice distorting perception) and I fear we accept the unbelieving version of history to easily… thinking it’s high-brow learning when really it’s just lack of understanding.

it’s a long response, but there are some thoughts the article raised.
God bless The Salvation Army.
Danielle

Danielle Strickland on June 22nd, 2006

Oswald Chambers says so much about this topic. We’re always looking for a “cause” to be devoted to, a “mission” to advance, or a “hero” to admire within the ranks of Christendom. Jesus says, “Follow me.” William and Catherine followed - and that is why it is tempting to idolize them. I used to find the same struggles with idolizing two of my personal heroes (Keith Green and Rich Mullins). But until I am devoted to the same Lord Jesus that those two were, my heart for the world and impact on it will never be as great. It is like trying to paint a sunrise from another painting of it.

Phil Laeger on June 22nd, 2006

I will gracefully retire from the lists at this point.

Andrew, exegesis such as your is unanswerable. Matt thank you for providing a topic for my next column in The Officer. Danielle, just in case you meant me I do believe in the Holy Spirit (know her personally).

James summed it up best: “We should be inspired by the zeal and passion of those who have gone before us, but we must draw a clear line between what is inspirational and what is authoritative.”

Grant on June 23rd, 2006

Grant - “exegesis such as your is unanswerable” is a little bit of an easy way out. I do hope “exegesis” isn’t a euphemism
You’ve made some harsh points, some of which cut to the quick - by gracefully exiting so early in the debate you do your argument a disservice.

Maybe you would consider emailing me? (abale@ntlworld.com)

However, I am very content with your parting summary as it addresses the main concern I had when confronted by your article. Salvationists who lived in the ‘golden age’ had a passion, zeal and commitment we would do well to emulate. As they only lived 15o years ago (and as I can go and sit on their graves) it is easier for me to be ‘inspired’ by them than by the apostles but I agree completely that their lives and methods are exemplary and inspirational not authoritative!

Love and prayers Andrew

Andrew Bale on June 23rd, 2006

Grant,

Thanks for your thoughts. Although, I do find myself agree with a number of the alternative responses, I appreciate you willingness to put it down in writing.

I would imagine that this kind of dialog is what the Founders (of the rubicon not the army) were looking for.

Cory Harrison on June 23rd, 2006

Thanks James – this is a valuable exchange and I like a lot of your thinking. I agree with your helpful points: we do not obey in order to be blessed, and we cannot earn blessing. No one has suggested otherwise. For Christ’s love compels us. The conditional promises of God are given to encourage us and lift our expectations as we walk the road of obedience.

As an evangelical I also stand for the centrality of the cross – the wellspring of New Covenant blessing. But I do not believe that all people appropriate its blessings irrespective of obedience – that is the universalist position.

I would encourage anyone drawn to believe in unconditional blessing to read Chapter 8 of Salvation Story, which explains how the blessings of salvation are conditional. Our ninth Article of Faith is also explained: continuance in a state of salvation depends upon continued obedient faith. The tragic fact that some people will be in hell demonstrates that blessing is contingent on obedience.

If a devotional study is of interest, I recommend the Dutch pastor Andrew Murray, whom you can read here. My personal experience is that times of disobedience have most certainly violated all kinds of blessings in my life – peace, joy, power in ministry and so on.

We naturally reason from the empirical evidence: blessed, though flawed, heroes of the faith. But do we really know their inner lives? Man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart. Let’s pause before labelling William Booth a sinner – which of us really knows his heart? It is a relevant but precarious base from which to argue a position.

I can understand what motivates the desire to see blessing as unconditional – the vision of God as gracious, lavish, generous. It’s my vision too, but to infer that blessing is given irrespective of obedience is to stand on a beach facing a tidal wave of scripture. Some subjects are ambiguous in God’s word, but this is not one of them – it really is that fundamental. We must allow the Bible to convey its plain, logical meaning. A good starting point is to consider how often the word ‘if’ appears in the Bible’s promises.

To attempt a severance of obedience and blessing is to cheapen blessing, akin to Bonhoeffer’s idea of ‘cheap grace’ in ‘The Cost of Discipleship’: blessing without price; blessing without cost! It is to invite the pastoral catastrophe: ‘God will bless me anyway.’ It is to say that disobedience has no implications and carries no consequences – not for me, not for the sinner, not for The Salvation Army.

Serving now in a territory that has suffered decades of withering decline – a dramatic depletion of missional blessing – compels me to account for it and act upon it. Given that we all subscribe to Article 1, if disobedience has nothing to do with it, how do you give a biblical explanation for it?

The issue is vitally important, which is why I have written at some length, and I hope the above is helpful. Whatever your view, I hope that we can meet on these words from Andrew Murray:

Let us care for the obedience, God will care for the blessing. Let my one thought as a Christian be, how I can obey and please my God perfectly.

Thanks again for the great contributions - God bless you all abundantly!

Matt Clifton on June 23rd, 2006

I was criticized by a soldier because I said Booth was probably a little crazy. All geniuses walk the fine line bordering on insanity. It’s their visionary nature. Didn’t Booth shoot his dog? He was never given a ribbon for being father of the year because he wasn’t always kind to his children, and his stand on nepotism wasn’t very stellar either. This said…I sold my house and possessions, uprooted my kids from their family, and moved 5,000 km away in response to the God’s vision that Booth spoke to the Army.

Your point is a present reality in leadership too. Dare we have leaders who make mistakes, and aren’t afraid to admit them? It’s a problem that comes with a professional priesthood. Good on ya…Good word for the army too…

Rick Zelinsky on June 23rd, 2006

Matt,

Thanks for the exchange of views. I think I agree with you in a some sense; I definitely agree that obedience is necessary. I’m just not comfortable with saying point-blank that ‘obedience leads to blessing’. I guess my main concern is presuming upon God. God is sovereign, and we can’t presume upon his blessing because of our obedience. But maybe this is part of your concern as well, in that you are concerned that we may end up presuming God’s blessing (or forgiveness) without any reference to our obedience.

I will freely admit that I think the wording of doctrine 9 is problematic; I do believe in the doctrine, however, I think it is worded in a way that is open to some bad interpretations. Continued obedient faith – this is necessary, because truly there is no other kind of faith. A faith that doesn’t include an attitude of obedient submission to God is either no faith at all, or it is a faith in a made-up god who doesn’t ask obedience. This is not the God revealed in scripture. But how far does the requirement of obedience go, and in what sense is salvation ‘dependent’ on this obedience? Is salvation best described as a ‘state’? This can be misinterpreted to imply that our salvation is in some way maintained by our own obedience. As if the initial experience of getting saved is by grace alone, but after you’re in the door, you’re damned if you don’t live up to God’s standards!

I prefer the wording of the summary statement at the end of chapter 8 of Salvation Story:

“We believe that we are justified by grace through faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, and are born again by the Holy Spirit, who testifies to salvation in our hearts as we continue in an obedient faith-relationship with Christ.”

We continue in obedient faith-relationship, because that’s what a relationship with God must be; that is what a faith-relationship with God looks like. But obedience itself does not in any way maintain our salvation. Salvation is always from God, fully and completely; it is undeniably associated with obedient faith, but when we say ‘dependent’ we may be in danger of giving ourselves a part in our own salvation.

I think it is true that the Army has corporate sins that need to be repented of, and this is definitely true of us in the west. I think we always have had such sins, and we always will, until Christ returns. Not to say that we shouldn’t repent and do all we can to change our behaviours and attitudes, as you are suggesting. And you may also be right that some of these issues are hampering the work of God in our midst. I think we should always maintain that kind of prophetic critical self-awareness that shows itself in an openness to repentance and change. But I don’t think the early Salvos had that openness, particularly after they became successful. And I think that the ‘obedience-blessing’ kind of thinking is one source of our corporate reluctance to repent and change today; we became arrogant and gloried in the Army’s successes – it was blessed by God, so we thought we had it all together, and didn’t have anything to repent of. In that sense, I think Grant’s article is part of the process of repentence that we need in God’s Army. Recognizing that we are not perfect, and we never were, and we never will be, reminds us that repentence is a constant process, a life-long journey of turning away from the sins that entangle us and turning towards God.

James Pedlar on June 23rd, 2006

Thanks again James – I see where you’re coming from and I’m very much in sympathy.

Good point about Article 9 - depends upon could easily be misconstrued as meaning that obedience justifies us or saves us.

I should add that, for all I’ve written above, I don’t go so far as to believe in a rigid, formulaic correspondence between degree of obedience and degree of blessing. It’s more complex and nuanced than that.

Mary the mother of Jesus, for instance, blessed among women, would have been a pure, obedient woman. But her blessing was also given on the basis of genealogy (Matt. 1:16).

‘But I don’t think the early Salvos had that openness, particularly after they became successful.’ – you make a key insight carrying much resonance with ancient Israel. Two passages come to mind: Deuteronomy 32:7-18 and Ezekiel 16:1-19 – the dynamics of Israel’s history speak deeply into our own. The successful are vulnerable.

Amen to everything you wrote about repentance. Sadly, continual corporate repentance is unlikely to be featured in the spirituality of triumphalist movements. I believe we can change, and we must.

Thanks once again – Proverbs 27:17

Blessings!

Matt

Matt Clifton on June 24th, 2006

William Booth once said – “The greatness of a man’s power is the measure of his surrender.”

More recently Francis Schaeffer said “It is not we who overcome the world in our own strength. We do not have a power plant inside ourselves that can overcome the world. The overcoming is the work of the Lord Jesus Christ, as we have already seen. There can be a victory, a practical victory, if we raise the empty hands of faith moment by moment and accept the gift.”

Booth recognises that “greatness” and “power” are commensurate with “surrender” and Schaeffer recognises that without the raising of “empty hands of faith moment by moment” there can be no victory.

Even the work accomplished in the life of Jesus – his crucifixion and resurrection – even is ascension and his glory – were all dependant upon human obedience. Salvation hung upon six words – “Thy will not mine be done.” Paul recognised this when he wrote to the Philippians (chapter 2:7-11)

“But made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death— even death on a cross! Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”

The words ‘obedient’ and ‘therefore’ are clearly linked and clearly significant.

A repentant and obedient Army can expect God to furnish them with revival whereas as sinful and rebellion Army can expect decay and decline. It is true that God sometimes works in spit of our disobedience but this is never his preferred method – the more we cooperate the more he can do.

James Pedlar says “how far does the requirement of obedience go, and in what sense is salvation ‘dependent’ on this obedience? Is salvation best described as a ‘state’? This can be misinterpreted to imply that our salvation is in some way maintained by our own obedience. As if the initial experience of getting saved is by grace alone, but after you’re in the door, you’re damned if you don’t live up to God’s standards! “

The answer to James’ question is that it’s not about coming up to God’s standards it is about allowing God to deliver within us his life (and therefore his standards) this is something God quite clearly cannot do without our constant cooperation.

If we are to join Paul and exclaim “It is no longer I that live but Christ who lives in me” then we will have to ‘take up our cross and follow” and that will mean saying “not my will but yours be done”. This “living (continuous) sacrifice” is essential to holiness – as long as this continues all is well – if it stops – i.e. if we snatch anything back from the altar it stops.

This is very basic holiness why do we not teach this anymore?

Love and prayers Andrew

Andrew Bale on June 24th, 2006

I’m encouraged by the civility of the exchange here. Good to be able to come at a topic from different angles and not tear each other’s heads off as sometimes happens in this type of forum.

I agree with Andrew that surrender to God is basic to growth in holiness; we are not going to be tranformed by our own efforts, but by allowing God to work to greater degrees in our lives, and this requires surrendering to him.

I think the problem with some versions of holiness teaching is that no limit is put on our ability to surrender. I mean, we don’t reckon with total depravity; if we are depraved in every area of life, this must include devotion and surrender as well. My surrendering to God itself is broken, so that even though I must always say “I surrender all” to God, I must also admit that I don’t really know what I’m saying, and that there may be deep recesses of my soul that are not surrendered (maybe even without my knowledge).

But the flip side is that we shouldn’t fall into the trap of then throwing up our hands and saying we cannot surrender to God, and becoming lax about holiness. It is tough to avoid the extremes of perfectionism (bad version of Wesleyanism) vs. total resignation to our sinfulness (bad version of Calvinism). I’d like to say that we must surrender all to Christ, and even though our surrendering itself is not perfect, God will work through us in spite of our failings to bring about his purposes, as he has done with imperfect followers throughout history.

Grace,

James

James Pedlar on June 24th, 2006

Amen James! I agree completely.

“With man it is impossible but with God all things are possible”

Holiness (like Salvation) must start with conviction - the Spirit (through nature, through preaching, through witness, through example, through scripture… whatever) convicts us

“When he comes, he will convict the world of guilt[a] in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment.” (John 16:8)

When we respond to conviction positively we begin to cooperate with God and it is then that he is able to override our sinful nature …

“I will give them an undivided heart and put a new spirit in them; I will remove from them their heart of stone and give them a heart of flesh. Then they will follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws. They will be my people, and I will be their God.” (Ezekiel 11:19-20)

The more I surrender to Jesus my Lord,
The more of his fullness I know.
The more I give him, the more he gives me
His grace and peace he bestows.

I cannot out-give him, for he gave his all;
Can I do less than answer his call?
The more I surrender to Jesus my Lord,
The more of his fullness I know.

This brings this debate full circle…

My original concern with Grant’s article was his assumption that primitive Salvationists seek a return to old ways which simply isn’t true. It is not about methodology it is about sentiment. When we look back at the Booths, the Brengles and the Railtons we don’t seek to emulate their methods we seek to be inspired by their spirit. It is the sentiment of yesterday we are looking to restore not the practices
Yours under Christ and irrepressibly over the devil

Andrew Bale on June 24th, 2006

As always Grant, you stir the pot of ideas like a master chef.

I like to find the theological underpining of the ‘William Booth is dead’ idea in Joshua chapter one.

No-one can deny that Moses is a stellar (and flawed) hero of the faith, leading the Israelites to ‘freedom’ yada yada yada…but when Moses dies and there is still vital mission to be accomplished God calls Joshua forward as the new leader.

Indeed, in the calling of Joshua God makes a specific point of noting Moses earthly departure (importantly he also calls him a servant of God).

Joshua 1:1-2 After the death of Moses the servant of GOD, GOD spoke to Joshua, Moses’ assistant: “Moses my servant is dead. Get going. Cross this Jordan River, you and all the people. Cross to the country I’m giving to the People of Israel.

Joshua 1:5 …In the same way I was with Moses, I’ll be with you. I won’t give up on you; I won’t leave you. Strength! Courage! You are going to lead this people….

Yes, it was right for the Israelites to mourn Moses death–and remember him as an effective servant of God–but dead men (and women) cannot lead. They can inspire but they cannot lead.

In the same way William, Catherine, Bramwell, Railton et al are all dead. Their legacy is an inspiration as we seek the strength and courage to move forward. We take it further than that at our own peril.

As God was with the founders and early Army pioneers we give thanks that he is with us today as we take the mantle of leadership.

One day they will say ‘(insert your name here) is dead’; I pray we all will have had a positive mission influence during our lives and that we’ve done our part to raise the next generation of leaders so that God might be with them on the continuing journey of The Salvation Army.

John Evans on June 25th, 2006

Andrew Bale says:
Asking for something in the name of Jesus denotes obedience and obedience will always be reflected in lifestyle. A simple example of what I mean – if, in prayer, I ask God to feed the hungry whilst I am driving down the freeway in my new BMW convertible stuffing my face with a hamburger then I am not asking in the name of Jesus for it is obvious that the name, authority and demands of Christ have no real hold over me.

Maureen:
But can we always tell what obedience looks like? Should nobody have a BMW? or eat and pray about world hunger? Or just not do all these things at the same time? If done separately, are they somehow disparate things? Do you have to be starving to offer authentic prayer about starvation?

As much as I should like to be prejudiced against rich people in all my Marxist, socialist leanings, God consistently shows me evidence that He is Lord of people driving cars that seem ridiculously expensive to me. I cannot be certain of what is going on in anyone’s heart, but I see what resembles fruit of the Spirit in people of various socio-economic classes. My life that seems simple here in Moscow, Russia would seem extravagant in most of the world.

Perhaps this is why the crowd’s response to Jesus’ comment to the rich ruler that it is harder for the rich to enter the kingdom of God than for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, was “Who then can be saved?” To me, it seems the right question. Rather than presuming that they were not rich, which seems to be the common response whenever this passage is read publicly wherever I have been, they start to get really curious. There is some degree of relativity that is hard to avoid when thinking about poverty and wealth. It seems quite possible to me that what God requires of each of us could be different in particulars, while the same in core values. So obedience can really look quite different. In concern for our brothers and sisters, I think we are safe to ask questions when we see what might be disobedience. Asking questions will be a bit different than presuming disobedience.

Maureen Diffley on June 27th, 2006

Maureen - thank you for your comment.

My personal view is that the question ‘who then can be saved?’ was asked not because of the man’s wealth or the crowd’s assumed poverty. I think the question was aksed because of the man’s obvious righteousness. He tells Jesus that he has obeyed all the commandements from his youth up - a claim that Jesus doesn’t challenge. The conversation is about consecration and the man goes away disheartened because he has much to give up.

One thought in closing from 1 John 3:16-20

“This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers. If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him? Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth. This then is how we know that we belong to the truth, and howe set our hearts at rest in his presence whenever our hearts condemn us. For God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything. ”

Love and prayers Andrew

Andrew Bale on June 27th, 2006

[...] The obvious place to start is Grant Sandercock-Brown’s “We are not perfect” over at theRubicon.org. I’ve read a couple of articles by Grant and he always asks the probing questions. Judging by the 26 comments that have already been added to the post, he has done the same again. Whilst the article itself makes some big generalisations the debate it has sparked is interesting and well worth a read! [...]

A UK Salvationist in Latvia » Readings in blogland! on June 28th, 2006

i love it

chris on July 19th, 2006

[...] The obvious place to start is Grant Sandercock-Brown’s “We are not perfect” over at theRubicon.org. I’ve read a couple of articles by Grant and he always asks the probing questions. Judging by the 26 comments that have already been added to the post, he has done the same again. Whilst the article itself makes some big generalisations the debate it has sparked is interesting and well worth a read! [...]

Readings in blogland! at A UK Salvationist on October 9th, 2006

Sound and Fury

Does Power Corrupt? 19 Charlee, Errin Hogan, Errin Hogan
With God on our side 19 Hank Harwell, Robert Deidrick, John Stephenson
What The Hell? (Part One: Bell's Hell) 13 Phil, Jim, Jim
Officers - "The shrinking pool" 41 Thimon, David Hutchinson, Rob
Resurrected writers: Catherine Booth 1 Michelle Townsend