Supper Club Series

Suffering for and to Christ in William Booth’s

Eschatological Ecclesiology

by Andrew Miller

n a given Sunday, a visitor might walk into a Salvation Army worship service and hear the congregation confidently singing one of its battle choruses to the accompaniment of brass band:

I’ll go in the strength of the Lord
To conflicts which faith will require,
His grace as my shield and reward,
My courage and zeal shall inspire.
Since he gives the word of command.
To meet and encounter the foe,
With his sword of truth in my hand.
To suffer and triumph I’ll go.

This song reflects the ecclesiological self-understanding of Salvationists who, as members of the universal church, are actively involved in the mission of God. Proclaiming this dangerously boisterous message is the heritage of the Salvation Army. The early Army and its leader, William Booth, embraced an end-times-flavored (eschatological) ecclesiology that specifically called its soldiers to be prepared to suffer in the dire districts of life as soldiers of the cross. William Booth explained that Jesus Christ’s missional mandate to go into all the world meant suffering for and to Christ.

Though it is not likely that Salvationists around the world are explicitly concerned with the study of ecclesiology (church composition and identity), following its founder the Salvation Army is implicitly acting on its mission-rooted doctrine of the church. Consequently, the Army must always consider missional aspects when evaluating its ecclesiology.

Systematic theologian Jürgen Moltmann dramatically suggests, “What we have to learn from them [missional movements] is not that the church ‘has’ a mission, but the very reverse: that the mission of Christ creates its own church. Mission does not come from the church; it is from mission and in the light of mission that the church has to be understood” (The Church in the Power of the Spirit, 1975) .

It is this missional direction which unites Booth’s bold “bass drum” ecclesiology with his eschatology, because “marching to war” for the “salvation of the world” is seen in the context of the holistic and universal mission of God. The influence of eschatology on ecclesiology is pivotal for how we understand the mission of William Booth and for how that mission can be interpreted today. How one views the end dramatically informs the way one theologically understands the church and its missional relationship to that end.

William Booth’s Eschatological Ecclesiology

The particular approach toward ecclesiology that William Booth demonstrated in his theological practice necessarily mingled with his personal and universal eschatology. He fervently desired the eternal salvation of souls and of the world, represented in his millennialism. (“Millennialism” is the belief that there will be a thousand-year period during which Christ will reign on Earth prior to the final judgment, as described in Revelation chapter 20.) To say that William Booth had an eschatological ecclesiology is to state that his ecclesiology is chiefly based on his desire to redeem individual persons and the world for eternity, whatever the cost.

In order to discuss the ecclesiology observed in William Booth’s theology, we must ask whether an ecclesiology can exist implicitly. Can there be a doctrine of the church if the church itself is not explicitly, officially articulated? If an ecclesiology is unmistakably developed theologically, is it more faithful than an implied ecclesiology? Such systems are so active in “being the church” that they take no time to formulate an official ecclesiology. Throughout church history, unspoken ecclesiological systems have often changed the direction of the church more than ones that were explicitly classified, like Pietism, Moravianism and early Methodism, along with Salvationism.

Every ecclesiology is at least partially prompted by its eschatology. This statement assumes that the church is living in response to the way it understands the end. The church is the visible sign of the present and coming kingdom of God. When eschatology is connected to ecclesiology, the church can see the future victory of God as a reality that impacts the here and now.

During the Salvation Army’s formative years, its ecclesiology was (as most areas of its development) extremely practical. Salvation Army theologian R. David Rightmire explains, “Booth had a functional ecclesiology, conceiving the church as ‘act’ rather than ‘substance’” (Sacraments and the Salvation Army, 1990). The importance of personal eschatology, expressed in Booth’s desire to save souls, was lodged within the concept of the Army’s universal mission to save the world. This mission was the “greatest good” of Booth’s utilitarian-like ethic.

“The good time coming” was the way that William Booth often referred to the approaching millennial kingdom, a kingdom for which the Salvation Army was pragmatically and theologically established. William Booth was, in today’s terminology, a “postmillennialist.” His eschatological views of the kingdom of God were never more clearly stated than in the title of his August 1890 article, “The Millennium; or, The Ultimate Triumph of Salvation Army Principles.” In this article, Booth asserts that “a genuine Salvationist is a true reformer of men. He alone is a real socialist, because he is the advocate of the only true principles by which the reformation of society can be effected. His confidence for the future is not based alone on the theories he holds…but in that Millennial heaven…to him, the millennium is already in a measure, an accomplished fact.”

William Booth was working to realize the kingdom of God on earth and was motivated by the possibility of the redemption of the world. This motivation was largely based on his understanding of eschatology, which to him was measured on a global scale with a global mandate. When defining Salvationist self-understanding and its millennial task, he explained, “Salvationism means simply the overcoming and banishing from the earth of wickedness, inward and outward, from the heart and life of man, and the establishment of the principles of purity and goodness instead” (“Fight!” 1885).

William Booth understood the millennium in terms of global harmony; the means of arriving at such a state was through the agency of soldiers in the great salvation war. Booth commanded, “Soldiers! You are to do this! [fulfill the prophecies that will bring universal peace]…there is but one way to reach this millennium of peace and good will…there is but one way to the world’s deliverance, and that is by fighting” (“Universal Peace,” 1881). Fighting for Booth clearly meant human agents escorting the millennium into reality.

As the Salvation Army grew, so did the need for the institutionalization of its mission and practices. Hence, the Army eventually became its own ecclesial body—but one in which the core missional direction still reigned.

Suffering and the Army

The ecclesiology of the early Salvation Army is one that called its soldiers to the world and to a fight against the evil therein. “Suffering” can be defined as undergoing pain, distress, injury, or loss—something that happens beyond the norm of human comfort. It is not a surprise, then, that William Booth called his Army to suffer for the expansion of Christ’s kingdom. This theme of suffering is uniquely tied to the Salvation Army’s Wesleyan understanding of holiness.

When Metaphor Becomes Reality

In 1865, William Booth found his destiny while preaching in London’s East End, when he formed The East London Christian Revival Society. Later known as the Christian Mission, this group was motivated to preach the gospel to the poor of London’s East End, a segment of the population that was generally neglected by the Church in the Victorian era. During these thirteen years, the Christian Mission grew to include 75 preaching stations and 120 evangelists throughout Britain.

In 1878, the Christian Mission changed its name to the Salvation Army. This change of identity is the first clear indication of a shift in William Booth’s personal theology, which adjusted from personal redemptive categories to institutional redemptive categories. This is to say that Booth now viewed the Army as institutionally sanctified to bring redemption to the world, as (according to Roger J. Green) “a renewal…of the Church of the New Testament, the early Church, the Reformation Church, and the Wesleyan revival” (War on Two Fronts, 1989).

This new theology is made clear in a popular (and often quoted) article by William Booth, entitled “Our New Name—The Salvationist” in The Salvationist (written upon the publication’s change in name from The Christian Mission Magazine) from January 1, 1879: We are a salvation people—this is our specialty…Our work is salvation. We believe in salvation and we have salvation…We aim at salvation. We want this and nothing short of this and we want this right off. My brethren, my comrades, soul saving is our avocation, the great purpose and business of our lives. Let us seek first the Kingdom of God, let us be Salvationist indeed.

The alteration is most obviously seen in the transformation of the Christian Mission to assume the military structure of the Salvation Army. Once the military metaphor was adopted, every area of Booth’s movement was affected: preaching stations became “corps,” evangelists became “corps officers,” members became “soldiers,” and its leader became the “General.” An autocratic form of leadership emerged, and like a conquering Army, the fingers of the Salvation Army were stretched around the world.

Green explains that at this time, Booth’s theology began to move from individual categories to institutional categories. It is at this juncture that the universal eschatology of William Booth sharpened into focus. His Salvation Army was, in his mind, the vehicle that would facilitate the coming millennium.

Within eight years of the 1878 name change, the Salvation Army exploded to include 1,749 corps and 4,129 officers. Indicative of this time is Booth’s commissioning of a corporate eschatological task: “Go to them all. The whole fourteen hundred millions [sic]. Don’t despair. It can be done. It SHALL BE DONE. God has sent The Salvation Army on the task. If every saint on earth would do his duty, it could be done effectually in the next ten years. If the Salvation Army will be true to God, it will be done during the next fifty” (“Go!” 1884 [emphasis Booth’s]).

Battle images were rigorously employed as the Salvation Army sought to identify along its new military lines. The Salvation Army was, as one author has said, a group of “soldiers without swords,” whose mission had a singular focus of winning the world for Christ.

Did the military metaphor create its own reality as a result of the way that its adherents adopted its mission? Booth and his Army saw themselves in a fight with a supreme purpose. Within the realm of historical theology, we can easily conclude that the Salvation Army’s militarism developed an eschatological ecclesiology that rearticulated what God’s people were to be about in this world. The metaphor of an Army “marching through the land” created new ways to express the mission of God. William Booth could challenge his troops the same way a military General would. Concepts such as suffering could be explored within the military metaphor in a way that traditional churches could not.

Calling its members to risk their lives for the gospel of Jesus Christ could be swallowed within the metaphoric Army. For Booth, joining the Army as a soldier meant a risk; it meant that in the great salvation war one might sacrifice his or her own self interest for the greatest good of winning the world for Christ. In an article titled “The War Spirit,” Booth challenged his soldiers to consider “the destiny of millions…[that] is hanging in the balance—depending to an awful extent on the enthusiastic, skilful, and self-sacrificing, [sic] conduct, and maintenance of this war…Let us go back to the example of our Great Commander-in-Chief…and follow him…Yours for the thick of the fight, William Booth.”

Around such battle cries of its General, the Army went to war. Suffering in the battle was further understood in light of heavenly rewards. References to suffering are often accompanied by themes of eternal victory. An example of this is the song quoted earlier, which proclaims that the soldier is go “to suffer and triumph” (emphasis mine).

Suffering for Christ

Booth often described the activity and mission of the Army, and implicitly its rich ecclesiological tradition, as “the fight.” What did Booth mean by fighting? He explained, “A good solider is always a fighting man…Fighting means hardship and labour, and hunger, and wounds, and suffering, and life-sorrow and death” (Salvation Soldiery, 1889).

The suffering in the throws of the fight is, for the Salvationist, “for” Christ. The “fight” was a service for the Lord, and for early Salvationists anything done on behalf of Christ’s kingdom was worth earthly pain. William Booth was very clear about the perils involved in the salvation war. In his article titled “The Risks,” he challenges soldiers to “Come out and place yourselves [sic], with every power you possess for doing or suffering at the Master’s feet.”

This statement shows that suffering is done for Christ; suffering is something sacrificed for Jesus Christ himself. Booth, along with other early Army writers, often compared suffering for Christ to the sufferings of Christ on the cross. George Scott Railton, an early Army leader who officially led its expansion to the United States, challenged, “Let cowards seek an easier way/And win the praise of men;/Cross bearing, dying day by day,/Is still the Master’s plan.”

William Booth’s son-in-law, Fredrick Booth-Tucker, wrote a hymn published in the War Cry on August 14, 1897 that is still sung today when new officers are commissioned:

They say the fighting is too hard,
My strength of small avail,
When foes beset and friends are fled,
My faith must surely fail.
But, O how can I quit my post
While millions sin-bound lie?
I cannot leave the dear old flag,
’Twere better far to die.

Suffering for Christ also had an evangelistic aim. The risks of suffering in the fight can help to achieve the goal of others being drawn to the Gospel. Booth explained, “Whenever men suffer for Christ’s sake, not only does God draw near to bless, but men draw near to enquire” (Salvation Soldiery). The eschatological focus of William Booth’s theology was accompanied by his understanding that Christians should give of themselves (i.e. suffer) to bring the world to Jesus Christ.

When comparing the relationship of suffering to the eschatological task, Booth explained, “Suffering and saving are terms of almost the same significance in the Christian’s career. If he suffers for Christ he saves, and if he saves he suffers. These men [the apostles] suffered for Christ, and saved with a vengeance. If they had dodged the suffering they would have never saved at all” (The General’s Letters).

Suffering to Christ

William Booth articulated a theology of suffering in 1884, in an article simply titled “Go!” This article appeared in the Salvation Army’s international publication All the World. In this article, Booth explained that it is the task of all Christians, as expressed in Mark 16:15, to “Go into all the world.” He explains that “Going meant suffering to Christ: it meant this to the Apostles. They went to the world: this meant going to scorn, poverty, stripes, imprisonment, death—cruel deaths. If you go you will have to suffer; there is no other way of going.”

What is implied by the three words “suffering to Christ”? The use of this preposition seems out of place, some critics might see it as a mistake, but William Booth had, it seems, a much deeper meaning in mind when he described Christian suffering as “to Christ.”

In this quote, William Booth explained that intrinsic to Christian life is suffering. One way to understand Booth’s words here is by considering that when Christ called his follower to “go,” he expected that they would suffer because of their going. Hence, Jesus thought going into the world meant suffering for the person who answered the call. Just as going meant suffering to the disciples, going meant suffering to Jesus. Booth demonstrated how the apostles followed this call and how Salvationists should expect to find the same suffering along their way. The metaphor of a Salvation Army enabled the reader to understand the seriousness of Jesus’ call.

Another way to understand William Booth’s challenge in this article is through Booth’s social theology that valued all of humanity as created in the image of God. “Going” then means serving Christ in the form of hurting individuals. If the Spirit of Christ resides in individual Salvationists, then Christ suffers with these individuals. Conversely, if the people the Army serves in the “slums” cause soldiers to suffer, then their suffering is to Christ.

Though “incarnational ministry” has become an evangelical buzzword, William Booth did see his service not only “for” Christ, but “to” Christ as well. When Christian soldiers are serving their neighbors, they are serving Christ. For such a mandate, consider Jesus’ words in Matthew 25:40: “Just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me” (NRSV).

Catherine Booth, who has been called the “co-founder” of the Salvation Army, also recognized the significance of suffering with the poor: “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” (These Fifty Years, 1929).

In the same way, 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 framed 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.”

Such an incarnational perspective shaped a distinct missional ecclesiology. 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 [sic], as He came to Jerusalem and Nazareth and Caesarea, would He not want to do exactly this? I believe He would!” (Papers on Life and Religion, 1920)

“Suffering to Christ” is a theme that encapsulates William Booth’s ecclesiology in a unique and powerful way. Suffering was an intrinsic aspect of the identity of Salvationists. William Booth saw this as a call of Christ, and his incarnational Army saw the need of seeing Christ in those whom they served. If one was merely called to suffer “for” Christ, then obligation might overcast a call that is vital to the Salvationist’s identity. Instead, Salvationists suffered because they were Christians; they suffered because they served others as if they were Christ himself.

Suffering Salvationists

The stark changes in the lives of sinners who joined the ranks of the Salvation Army had social and economic impacts on their respective areas. The business of bars and pubs dropped drastically with the absence of their best customers who were now abstaining soldiers. There are many incidents in the Army’s history of mobs forming to combat the open-air meetings of the Salvation Army. In the 1880s, opposition groups were organized and often called Skeleton Armies. Often the Skeleton constituents were the bar managers and brewers of a given town. In one case, the Skeletons were a full-fledged copy of the Salvation Army soldiers, with their own uniforms, flags, and bass drums. In 1882, at the height of the Army’s expansion, the Army officially noted that 669 soldiers and officers had been “knocked down, kicked, or otherwise brutally assaulted,” forty percent of these people being women and children.

The salvation war produced two persons promoted to glory, or two martyrs: Captain Sarah Broadbent and Captain Susan Beaty. In 1884, while serving in Worthing, Broadbent decided to hold a prayer meeting instead of an open-air meeting, since the open airs had caused pandemonium in her town. That evening, the mobs were surprised not to find the local corps in the streets. Sandall described tragic events that followed: “[The opposition group] marched to Showham [the location of the corps in the town], smashed all the windows of the corps hall there, and in the course of the rioting the officer in charge (Captain Sarah J. Broadbent) received her death-blow from a flying stone.”

Beaty’s promotion was more gradual. In the midst of a mob attack in Hastings, she was repeatedly kicked; her death in 1889 was said to have been caused by internal injuries from the incident.

Since the Army’s inception, Salvationists have sustained multiple injuries in the heat of the battle—from Samuel Logan Brengle, who was sidelined for being hit in the head by a brick, to Major Euguen Nsingaini, who in 1998 was gunned down in the Congo because of his participation in a peace initiative.

If there is any theological way of understanding this commitment to the battle, it is through the Salvation Army’s Wesleyan roots. The passionate way that Salvationists lived and proclaimed the doctrine of holiness sustained them during the fight. The Army took the torch from John Wesley, who understood that holiness was both social and personal. Totally loving God and neighbor was possible only through the sanctifying power of the Holy Spirit.

Brengle appropriately underscored the Salvation Army ecclesiology of suffering when he said the Lord’s “greatest servants have often been the greatest sufferers. They have gathered up in themselves and endured all the pains and woes, sorrows and agonies, fierce and cruel martyrdoms of humanity, and so have been able to minister to all its vast and pitiful needs, and comfort its voiceless sorrow” (quoted by Sally Chesham: Peace Like a River, 1981).

Evaluating the Army’s Ecclesiology

William Booth’s ecclesiology was one that dramatically challenged the Church to consider its call to mission and to expect to suffer while going about that mission. Such an ecclesiological understanding developed as the eschatologically focused Army understood itself to be in a battle to save the world. The kingdom of Christ and the gospel of that kingdom found a new expression in Booth’s Salvation Army.
When looking critically at the life of William Booth, it is easy to see that he was an imperfect man. His autocratic leadership was a weakness that expressed itself in poor relationships with three of his children, who left the ministry of the Salvation Army. Another weakness is that at times his eschatology verged on viewing the Army as the sole agent for bringing in the millennium. Theologically, there are many ways that he was “rough around the edges.”

One area in which William Booth was theologically on target, however, was his ecclesiology. His doctrine of the church incorporated the place of the Church as a restoring agent in the world. That is the restoration of personal and social evil. This eschatologically motivated ecclesiology, which called people to suffer for Christ, is a rich theological heritage that the contemporary Army has inherited.

Evaluating William Booth’s ecclesiology today is a task that is of great significance for the contemporary Salvation Army as it seeks a historically informed mission. Often, scholars of the Salvation Army assume that because Booth’s ecclesiology was conditioned by his eschatology, his ecclesiology was hence insufficient. This study is a call to revise the Salvation Army’s historiography regarding William Booth’s ecclesiology.

Assessing Green’s Evaluation

Contemporary scholars do not always view the impact of William Booth’s eschatology in a positive light. Some assume that Booth’s eschatology, particularly his understanding of the millennium, created a deficient ecclesiology. Such a position is taken by Salvation Army scholar Roger Green, who in his article “Facing History: Our Way Ahead for a Salvationist Theology” concludes that the contemporary Salvation Army has inherited a “weak ecclesiology.”

Green asserts that Booth’s ecclesiology was weak for two reasons: his postmillennialism and the distancing of the Army from the institutional church after the failed merger with the Church of England. The latter claim is not being challenged in this paper; rather, the question is Green’s claim that Booth’s postmillennialism contributed to a weak ecclesiology. Green states, “Postmillennial theology does not comport well with a strong ecclesiology, especially when one’s doctrine of the Church is seen primarily through Army lenses.”

Green’s argument that the contemporary Army has inherited a weak ecclesiology seems to have two points of contention: that postmillennialism does not create a lasting ecclesiology because it supposedly did not plan for the future, and that Booth was ecclesiastically inconsistent in his definitions of the Army’s reason for existence. Green’s second claim demands a distinction between ecclesiastical structures and ecclesiology.

William Booth was inconsistent when speaking ecclesiastically. Ecclesiological and ecclesiastical are, however, different terms. Booth’s unpredictable ecclesiastic language refers more to the organization of the movement, whereas suggesting that Booth possessed a “weak ecclesiology” is proposing that he had an incomplete doctrine of the church.

Green’s final point of argument is that Booth’s ecclesiology is weak because it de-emphasized ecclesiastical structures. On the contrary, Booth was proposing an alternative structure that was far more effective than the ecclesiastical structures of his day.

The pragmatically-minded William Booth saw a great eschatological goal: saving the world. Despite Green’s claim that postmillennialism does not comport very well with a sturdy ecclesiology, the opposite can be seen in the denominations that were birthed as a result of the nineteenth-century holiness revival—for instance, the Wesleyan and Free Methodist churches, which were born out of desire to see ecclesiology matched with mission in the world. These denominations are noted for their stands against slavery.

William Booth was continually defining the early Army, his letters and sermons giving regular emphasis (sometimes overemphasis) to what it meant to be a Salvationist. This provided an ecclesial self-understanding for the young Army. An implicit ecclesiology that was developed unconventionally is not necessarily a “weak” ecclesiology. Booth’s writings are saturated with ecclesiological statements concerning the mission and aims of the Salvation Army. What is implicit is direct theological definition about ecclesiology. His inconsistent ecclesiastical jargon does not negate the content and missional purpose of those statements.

Sociologically, this creates difficulties in identifying the Salvation Army as a “church” or “sect” along the lines of the typology of Ernst Troeltsch and others. Sociological difficulties do not, however, necessitate theological deficiency. At the forefront of Roger Green’s argument about Booth’s “weak” ecclesiology is his desire to see the Army move toward church-like categories. Green notes, “I have long been convinced that the only way to approach a correct historical analysis that leads to a truthful institutional self-understanding is to impose the sect/church distinctions developed in the discipline of sociology upon ourselves.” He then encourages Salvationist to accept the “historical fact” that the Army has moved from being a sect to a church and should hence evaluate what sectarian distinctions should be maintained.

Missionally-directed movements are not governed by sociology; they are motivated by God’s word, which challenges them to be an active body “preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ and meeting human needs in his name without discrimination” (Salvation Army 2004 Year Book). When mission directs the church, it forms an alternative ecclesiology that is often more in tune with Scripture than the sociologically classified “church” or “denomination.”

To criticize William Booth’s ecclesiology as “weak” is to force his missionally-directed movement into a box of intellectual abstractions. William Booth’s ecclesiology was missional. He was unconcerned with theological abstractions and discussions. Philip Needham’s book Community in Mission rightly places Salvationist ecclesiology in the context of mission. The ecclesiological thesis of this work is that “a Salvationist ecclesiology stands as a reminder to the Church that its mission in the world is primary and that the life of the Church ought largely to be shaped by a basic commitment to mission.” A missional ecclesiology is exactly where the Army should be if it is to be at all true to its historical and theological heritage.

Because Green uses the comparative term “weak,” it is difficult to distinguish what ecclesiology he is assuming to be adequate for the contemporary Salvation Army. He maintains that the Salvation Army must embrace a view of history that is different from the Booth’s postmillennialism. His proposes that the Army shed any trace of postmillennialism and proposes that Salvationists embrace the biblical language of the Kingdom of God when looking at history. This proposal is warmly welcomed, for such language is indeed something that the contemporary Army should embrace, but the spirit of William Booth’s millennialism is not juxtaposed to this language.

When moving toward the future, the Army must evaluate its heritage in order to progress with historically directed confidence. It seems that the ecclesiological heritage that William Booth fashioned for his Army is something that should be maintained. Why? Because this ecclesiology keeps the Salvation Army focused on mission, this ecclesiology keeps the interrelated themes of suffering and holiness alive.

Conclusion

William Booth’s functional, biblically based, missional ecclesiology was formed alongside the metaphor of an Army. This metaphor created new ways for the mission of God to be expressed in the world, particularly as it related to suffering. Booth called the Salvation Army to suffer as it lived out its ecclesiology; suffering went hand-in-hand with being a soldier. The pulse of this ecclesiology was William Booth’s eschatology. His impassioned desire to win the world for Jesus produced a missional ecclesiology.

Booth saw the church as necessarily active. He commented on this purpose, “…there can be no question that it is of God that those who are on the Lord’s side should aim at this great and godlike purpose [defeating the devil and delivering souls from hell], and direct and devote all their energies to its accomplishment.”

The question is not whether the Army has a “weak” or “strong” ecclesiology, but whether it is faithful to Jesus and the gospel of his kingdom and whether it is functional today. The contemporary Salvation Army has inherited an ecclesiology from William Booth that is faithful in these things, and this legacy is worthy of the Army’s time and celebration.

Postlude: The ‘elephant-in-the room’ is the question, “is suffering intrinsic to a Salvationist lifestyle today?” I was sitting at dinner last night with a THQ department head who described in glowing terms Officers Councils on a Cruise Boat (never mind perception and suffering), and having people take photos with the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders as a fundraiser at NAOC (never mind the connection to sexual trafficking). It is easy to scream, “No! We are not suffering today,” but how can we implement an ecclesiological understanding today that has room for suffering?

Click here to download a pdf of this article, that contains a bibliography.

Writer: Cadet Andy Miller III is proud to be active in the mission of The Salvation Army (USA South). He and Abby, his wife, are expecting the arrival of their first child, Andy 4, in April. In June he will become a sixth generation Salvation Army Officer. Miller’s detail at training is blowing leaves off the sidewalk each morning before sunrise. He is a disappointed Chicago Bears fan and has an admitted bias for brass bands in the Army. For people who think it matters he holds an MDiv. from Asbury Theological Seminary.

The Supper Club is an eclectic group of thinking individuals who are either active Salvation Army members or with some connection and/or history with the movement. “Contemplative activists”, might be a good description of the group. The Supper Club meets in London, England on a monthly basis to present papers and discuss ideas over dinner. The papers presented at each meeting are subsequently posted on theRubicon. In addition, all longer, more academically focused submissions that we receive and approve for posting at theRubicon - such as this piece - will be published as segments of The Supper Club.

Friday, March 9th, 2007 Ecclesia, Supper Club, Thought

20 Comments to Supper Club Series

There’s a lot to chew on here.
The life of the church needs to be firmly planted in its understanding of the Trinity. The church exists to bear witness, or to point to, Jesus through the gift and the power of the Holy Spirit. So the church either is pointing to Jesus or it is not.
For the church to bear witness to Christ it must be unified as one, holy, catholic and apostolic church. It’s easy to get lost here in an argument as to whether the ‘fighting’ or ‘army’ metaphor is the right one (of which I do have strong opinions on) but I think the crux of this issue is more in the SA understanding of the sacraments. We have chosen not to participate in the two practices (baptism and the Eucharist) that every church, protestant or Catholic, Eastern or Western, have agreed are essential practices of those who follow Jesus. We are therefore demonstrating a lack of unity with the rest of the church and I would argue are not as good a witness to Christ as we could be as a result.
Also, I do agree that whether we are ‘fighter’s or whether we are ‘pacifists’, suffering or cruciformity is a key part of the Christian life. A journey with Christ is a journey to the cross. And I would safely say that it is not an obvious part of the SA, Christian life today (at least in many circles)
Dion

Dion on March 9th, 2007

Great stuff Andrew. Sorry about the Bears…

Dion, you said:

“We have chosen not to participate in the two practices (baptism and the Eucharist) that every church, protestant or Catholic, Eastern or Western, have agreed are essential practices of those who follow Jesus.”

But surely this is not true. I know it may seem like grasping at straws, but the Society of Friends (Quakers) do not practice the sacraments.

And I really don’t think this issue is the crux of what Andrew is talking about. Suffering (as you alluded to) and the urgency and primacy of “mission” is what I think he is suggesting should define us as community / Church / denomination.

And I would suggest that TSA has had, and maybe still can have, a prophetic voice to the Church regarding those 2 things (and I would probably add solidarity with the world’s poor to that). I do honestly think, in that light, that the sacraments are of secondary importance. I don’t know any person or body I am working in concert with for mission and the Kingdom of God that finds disunity in the fact that I am not baptised.

Grace,

Aaron

aaron on March 10th, 2007

Aaron,
You make some good points to be sure. Suffering and mission certainly need to be central to the life of the church and the individuals who attend church. (However, I doubt many of us straight guys would easily muster the strength to turn down the odd luncheon with the Dallas Cowboy cheerleaders)
And yes, I do believe the SA can be a voice to the rest of the church regarding its work amongst the poor. (At least on paper; some would argue, and I think you have said much the same in some of your posts, that most corps don’t really get this anymore)But without doubt the SA’s voice regarding poverty would be taken far more seriously by the rest of the church if we showed some solidarity on the sacraments. Right now our voice often gets lost due to the issue.
Also, some that I have journeyed with, both in the margins and in mainstream community, have questioned me significantly as to why the Army doesn’t participate in the sacraments and these certainly have been distractions at times.
Grace and peace,
Dion

Dion on March 10th, 2007

Fair enough Dion. I’ve just never experienced it. I think it would take a lot to convince me that our prophetic voice is lessened by our sacramentalist stance. Our position was meant to be, I believe, a significant part of our prophetic message, of the primacy of mission / justice / holiness as opposed to the ritual of Church or even the institution of sacraments. (Of course, we have our own rituals and institutions now…)

I personally have no problem with participating in baptism or eucharist celebrations myself, and have attended SA expressions of them. But I still think it is a secondary issue.

My real interest re: this paper is in the suffering aspect. What would that even look like in N. America? I remember asking some officers from India what solidarity with the poor would look like in their context. They responded by saying TSA would have to take on the caste system. When asked about the potential consequences of that, they said:

“The Salvation Army would die. We would die….Yes, The Salvation Army needs to die.”

Grace,

Aaron

aaron on March 10th, 2007

Let’s agree to disagree on the sacraments.

On what suffering in N. America or western cultures means; we journey alongside those in the margins in simplicity. We live subversively to the man. We not allow the state to carve out a piece of pie for the church and tell us what our role is and instruct us not to make new pies. We not pledge allegiance to the flag but only pledge allegiance to the cross. We speak prophetically to the church, the state, corporations, and any other structure that is oppressive. We get away from doing ministry ‘to’ people and start doing ministry ‘with’ people. We stop parachuting in to ‘evangelize’ or ‘care for’ those in the margins and we begin to journey alongside our neighbour where we can ‘be’ and ‘experience’ Jesus.

Whether we view these things as ‘fighting’ as I suspect you do or ‘pacifist peacemaking’ as I do, I’m certain we both agree that these actions are necessary and that significant suffering is in order when we participate in them. We also know that we get to meet Jesus in the midst of it all which brings joy unspeakable and trumps any pain we take on along the way.
BTW, I’ll be in Vancouver for a week starting tomorrow. Maybe we can hook up.
Dion

Dion on March 10th, 2007

Dion,

Agreed. I wonder how far we’re prepared to go (this is a question I ask myself). I have a friend who will only live on the street because he believes that’s what Jesus would do and he identifies with his street friends.

Yeah, let’s try and meet up. Geoff has my email.

BTW, I’m a pacifist too, but I still fight!

Grace,

Aaron

aaron on March 11th, 2007

Dion and Aaron, thankyou, I believe you have this discussion going in the right direction.

For what it’s worth here are my observations (two cents) on your sacraments debate: Yes, Dion, it would be good to have more acceptance with other ecclesial bodies, but Aaron is right in that this does not impact our ecclesiology (which is missionally directed). Your argument is the best rationale for a reinstitution of the two sacraments. I can’t completely go with Aaron though that the SA is a radical sign to the church of not needing the sacraments. This argument seems to move us toward a “supra-ecclesiology,” that somehow our ecclesiology makes us more than the church. Notice I have not inserted my opinion.

My guess is that Salvationists who are in the fight (by the way, I can be a Salvationist pacifist who fights—the two are not mutually exclusive) suffering to and for Christ are not generally worrying about the sacraments questions, nor are they concerned with he classic ‘notae’ of the church. I find these Salvationist in many places, they are concerned with being saved to serve and that involves suffering (though they are not likely to see it as such).

Regarding the ‘notae,’ (e.g. one, holy, catholic, and apostolic) I deleted 7 pages on this discussion. I think the SA lines up pretty well, but who is to say that these signs of the church are biblical? I agree with Howard Synder that a “biblically normative and holistic ecclesiology,” which is a true evangelical ecclesiology, “affirms that the true church is always, at one and the same time, one and many, holy and charismatic, apostolic and prophetic, catholic and contextual—and that the church is called always in every context to visibly embody these qualities, even if it does so imperfectly.”

Joy and Peace,
Andy Miller

Andy Miller on March 11th, 2007

Good stuff again Andrew. (We watched a football game at Roots didn’t we? The Bears won, I believe, on their way to almost winning the Super Bowl.)

Just to clarify, I don’t think that TSA’s sacramentalist position is meant to be a prophetic voice to the Church about the rest of the Church NOT doing the sacraments. I believe it is simply meant to be a reminder of priorities for the Church. I think our voice in this regard is significantly lessened as we sacramentalize aspects of our own tradition and elevate ritual over mission.

Grace,

Aaron

aaron on March 11th, 2007

The word that always pops in my head as I read on the ecclesiology of various expressions of the church is “relevance”. Its an underlying theme through the gospels and after.

I think of Peter walking through the streets of Jerusalem and expressing to the lame man that silver and gold are irrelevant, the healing in the name of Christ made the difference.

The missional underpinnings of our movement are what makes us relevant - but only when they are acted upon. And there lies the danger. The danger for us in our ecclesial expression is to advocate a mission of compassionate help and not participate it.

What’s more relevant to the hungry: a testimony of Christianity by baptism or with food? I think it’s a real danger for our Army when those of us within it enjoy the adulation for our work with the poor but don’t actively participate in its mission. Not a danger because of hypocrisy, but because there is a special communion with Christ as we care for his dear friends - the poor and neglected. It is sad because their are uniform who have not enjoyed this experience.

The testimony of our movement is so powerful because its adherents are able to go to the lost and least and while we may not have testimony of baptism to offer, we have something more tangible to offer them.

I pray that our Army is more relevant to those we serve than those who attend the church down the street.

Good stuff.

patrick lyons on March 11th, 2007

Hi all,
I’ve been offline a few days.
Cool discussion. Lots of threads of thought that are hard to hone in on but here are some reactions;
1. I’m gonna need some help understanding how one can be a fighting pacifist. Can someone unpack that? Sounds oxymoronic (is that a word?) to me.
2. I think our missional ecclesiolgy very much is impacted by our stance on the sacraments for reasons I outlined in one of my earlier comments.
3. I think its awfully western of us to begin questioning the statement of ‘one, holy, catholic and apostolic’ church as to if we can stand on this since it was agreed upon in 325 AD by the major thinkers and reputable Christians at Nicea and has stood the test of time for over a thousand years.
4. I agree that we should pray that all churches be ‘relevant’ to all people because to pray that we are better at this than ‘the church down the street’ is to pray for more divisiveness. All things biblical are relevant; all things relevant are not necessarily biblical. It’s time for us to slow down trying to be relevant and accelerate our work in becoming biblical.
Just a few thoughts from a guy on the sunshine coast on an island on retreat who doesn’t feel right now as thought I am suffering.
Shalom,
Dion
5.

Dion on March 12th, 2007

Thanks Andrew, for an inspiring article that flows with passion for mission. Lesslie Newbigin in ‘The Household of God’ affirms that mission is what he calls the ‘bene esse’ of the church for many denominations that have lost sight of this vital truth. He goes on however to say that as much as we need a ‘missionary church’, we also need a ‘churchly mission’ and it is in this area that I am inclined to agree with Roger Green that Booth’s implicit ecclesiology was weak, and by ‘churchly mission’ I am not talking about ecclesiastics or churchly language, just an appreciation of what builds and bonds community beyond the kind of autocratic leadership style that Booth was so fond of.

Another writer on the church, Tim Bradshaw (The Olive Tree - An Anglican Evangelical Ecclesiology) reminds us that adoption into God’s family unites the doctrines of salvation and the church. I personally think that our taking the military metaphor of an Army to such extremes has meant that we have undermined many of the other pictures of what it means to be church in the Bible, such as the ‘body of Christ’, the ‘family of God, the ‘people of God, ‘the bride of Christ’, etc. etc. to our detriment. And if you want the Army to understand afresh the challenge of costly sacrificial mission in today’s world, why on earth are you not advocating our use of such symbols as the Lord’s Supper at the heart of our life together - what more sacrificial and suffering symbol could we ask for?

David on March 12th, 2007

Dion (quickly)

Pacifistic in renouncing the use of violence for personal, corporate, or nationalistic aims. (this does not include hockey. )

Fighting in terms of the fight against sin in me and injustice around the world. This image is not at al unique to TSA. Most of the Christian and non-Christian social activists I know see their struggle in terms of a fight, call themselves warriors, etc…

Grace,

Aaron

aaron on March 13th, 2007

Wow…good discussion.

Aaron that is me–thanks for the painful reminder. I am following your logic a little more now. The question that first comes to mind is 1) if sacraments were instituted, would we loose this voice?

Alright Dion, 1. Aaron covered it, fighting in the SA is a metaphor that ,for me, is not at odds with pacifism. 2. A missional ecclesiology is more about doing and being than being impacted by the sacraments. 3. Maybe I am a little hard on the “marks,” the point is that the traditional marks are ambiguous and lack biblical grounding to stand alone. Phil Needham just did a paper for the Andrew S. Miller (me, but not me—grandfather) lecture on this topic, it would be interesting to read his take.

David, thanks for the good response. I think you bring up good questions. As to the churchly-mission, I think if we both scowered SA publications for the last hundred years we would see a consistent blend of the themes you mentioned (i.e. the body of Christ, et.al.). Two points that come mainly from experience, 1) one might argue that we have a better understanding of these themes based on our internationalism. 2) In the past I have seen a lessening of the military themes and an increase it what you mentioned (except for Vancouver). Maybe we are loosing the positive aspects of the metaphor, or maybe we are balancing out.As to Booth and Green, it seems like the early Army (despite his leadership issues) built bonds of community. Again, I don’t think this discussion is about weak or strong—but faithfulness to the gospel and the bible.

As to your question that started with, “Why would you not…” Well, to be honest…I did not think of the eucharistic expression of suffering because I have not grown up in a traditional sacramental church. Good point. I believe you and Dion have hit the two “high roads” in a reinstitution of the sacraments discussion (e.g. identification with the Church and remembering the atonement). I don’t know if these are good enough for change, but I am open. The first point, Aaron covered above. David’s point, the corps I have been a Soldier in (8 of them and the training school) have a good amount of emphasis on the atonement and the remembrance of Christ suffering for me. The last post in the Supper Club almost got us there by taking Rightmire’s thesis/analysis seriously (was this you David?), to me we have to pass through the door of doctrine 10 if we are going to proceed with sacramental discussion. Somehow I have avoided giving my own sacramental opinion.

Joy and Peace, ASM3

Andy Miller on March 13th, 2007

Andrew,

I don’t think we would necessarily lose our prophetic voice if we instituted the sacraments. I think we largely have lost it already by neglecting mission. It’s no good protesting that we are not about churchly rituals because we prioritize mission when we don’t actually do that. If we want to be a church like others I don’t see any reason for not instituting the sacraments (but how many?)

But I’m just not sure it’s a settled question, whether we are a Church internationally, rather than a part of the body of Christ and a missional body. (I know our current General says we are, though the previous General, I believe, said we aren’t!)

Grace,

Aaron

aaron on March 14th, 2007

Hi all,
It seems to me we’re at a place where sitting in a room and chatting would be more helpful then trying to follow all these threads in such an impersonal way.
Thanks for the insights on being a fighting pacifist. I agree with Aaron that at the very least hockey can be an exception. And since the fridge and Payton played for the Bears in 1985 I’ve been a fan so I’m in solidarity with you guys on stuff that actually impacts our day to day lives.
And in all sincerity I’m just a wannabe pacifist anyway.
(I also suspect we each agree that the general is not infallable)
Shalom,
Dion

Dion on March 14th, 2007

Sacraments! Sacraments! I keep hearing this dispute within the Army. I’m growing weary of it. We have never administered them within our churches, why start now?
On countless occasions I have seen droves of believers cling to a cup and savour a piece of bread hoping for some spiritual depth and substance. They line up as though waiting for their weekly ration coupons. The power of their religion is packaged perfectly in this routine of unchanging orthodoxy.
“If I have sinned, this is where I must dump my guilt. If I have neglected my Christian disciplines, I will find them here. If I am dry to the bone, I will sip this cup and wet my whistle with the blood of Christ. If I am farther than I should be from the heart of my Lord, I will eat my way back into his body.”
Sadly, this is what the eucharist presents to so many. It’s not at all how the quarrelers portray it. Confusion, deception, and dependence on religious monotony have removed the necessity of heart-wrenching repentence from the theology of too many Christians. What has the word sacrament done for the relationship between man and God? I suggest, at least in the post-modern church, it has only coddled too many in a state of spiritual infancy and left them in a place where the shed blood and battered body of Christ has been forgotten, hardly remembered at all.
No… the Army should avoid such a distraction and let the others deal with problem they all have. We would be much better off calling sinners to the mercy seat. But of course, that’s a ritual far too out-dated to be relevant.

Matt K on March 14th, 2007

Writing purely as a civillian whose formative Christian tradition was outside the TSA, it seems to me that Matt’s inspiring passion and rootedness in Salvationism has had the effect of washing over (no pun intended) the specific roles of each sacrament…and there are seven (at least). He gives to communion the role that that is often played by Reconcilliation (what used to be called Confession). Further, it seems to me that where I come from Confirmation plays the role is accorded to Baptism here.
The challenge within ANY Christian tradition is the ongoing renewal of our relationship with Christ…no matter how sacred in origins, repeat any act often enough without reflecting on its meaning, it will become vapid ritual.

What can be truly distinctive about the SA is the way disciplined, discerning relationship with the community strengthens our relationship with Him. Some Corps may range deeper and wider on this, but that is the Army’s significant contribution, I would suggest, to Christianity.

Andrea 614 Regent on March 15th, 2007

Hey Matt,
Maybe we should throw out all the stuff from the Bible that has been manipulated by humans along the way. Perhaps we should do away with church altogether as we’ve certainly screwed that up. While we’re at it, since so many people have been abused and even butchered over the years due to bad biblical (mis)interpretation, maybe we should throw that out and rewrite a new one that fits our needs and get it over with.
Can’t wait to take this up with you at work.
Dion

Dion on March 17th, 2007

Good article, (including the sics!) but rather makes me feel old as I seem to recall probably your grandfather coming as a special guest to Montreal Citadel in my youthful days. He was quite a dynamic speaker as I recall.

As for the comments of Matt K, whoever he is, please ignore them. Does he really think the sacraments have so little meaning to so many who practice them? If they function only to remind people of what they represent then they have fulfilled their function - “do this in remembrance of me.”

I think your argument is valid re the relationship between WB’s eschatology and his ecclesiology, however, I do not see this as a justification for remaining as we are or taking the Army back to Victorian times as some try to do. I think we have to respond to the present age. If people don’t give the gospel a hearing from us nowdays because of our military metaphor or because of our uniforms, then scrap whatever are the obstacle. I like brass bands and I believe they still attract some folk, but if guitar worship bands attract more then lets go there as well.

I think WB would agree based on what you point out was his eschatological viewpoint. Your point of the relationship between eschatology and ecclesiology is well taken however I think there are other factos to consider as well nowadays

Lorna Rogers Simard on July 9th, 2007

I am an officer of the Salvation Army. I am so glad that God placed me in the Army. The name Salvation Army has deeper meaning and it is true that we are in constant war against evil which binds people and make them sleves.

It is sad though to see that we are loosing ourselves from the origenal calling to practical holiness in the Army world. In India The Army could offer more than what is is doing now because the people here need the Army to help them come to the true life.

Salvationists can contribute a lot than what they are doing now. And having this in mind for many days I am thinking to resign from the Officership and become active salvationist in Mumbai. I have burden to help the Salvationists know the potenials that they have because of Jesus in their lives. I am been thinking to build a group of salvationist who think positively and willing to contribute in the mission of Salvation Army. I am thinking to start Salvationist Club. I was surprised to learn that such a group is in existance in London. I would like to learn more about it.

Thanks

Suresh