Shade of grey | Booth on mission

How did this dualistic sense of mission creep back in?

I

stumbled across an interesting article from 1889 written by William Booth; called Salvation for Both Worlds, William Booth charts an interesting journey. Booth acknowledges an initial, seemingly straight-forward and unsurprising theology that reflects a familiar understanding of salvation, from which there should be no distraction. ‘Temporal modification’ was in his mind ‘trivial, almost contemptible.’

“What were the sorrows of earth when compared with everlasting damnation? Their temporary comfort or discomfort was as to nothing compared with the business of their rescue.”

Booth goes on to outline how he became increasing impacted by the brokenness of society and the ‘earthly miseries’ he saw around him - but seeing no remedy, Booths’ concept of mission remained concise and to the point “if we cannot save them for time, we will save them for eternity”.

Booth’s desire was simple from the outset, ‘to advance [God's] honour and carry out [God's] wishes on the earth’. The year before Darkest England and the Way Out was published Booth’s theology of mission takes an interesting turn. The article reads almost like a testimony of how Booth recognised the shaping and morphing of his theology. It is interesting to hear Booth as he says:

“… as I came to look more closely into things and gathered more experience of the ways of God to man, I discovered that the miseries from which I ought to save man in the next world were substantially the same as those from which I everywhere found him suffering in this…”

Booth’s conclusion reflects an interesting breadth in his understanding of mission:

“I saw that when the bible said “He that believeth shall be saved”, it meant not only saved from the miseries of the future world, but from the miseries of this also. That it came with the promise of salvation here and now; from hell and sin and vice and idleness and extravagance and consequently very largely from poverty and disease, and the majority of kindred woes.”

I wonder what Booth would say to us still struggling with this one 119 years later?

I want to discover how and when this blind spot, false dichotomy, dualistic sense of mission - that William Booth had moved on from - crept back in. I might then be able to understand why such dualism is currently so well maintained and even nourished, and why the breadth of mission that Booth discovered is so vehemently derided.

So here’s Booth on mission’s false dichotomy:

“Christ is the deliverer for time as truly as for eternity…”

Booth, W. (1889) Salvation for Both Worlds, All the World, vol v (1)

Deeper shade of grey appears every Wednesday on theRubicon. Find past posts and a bio of Capt. Gordon Cotterill here.

8 Comments to Shade of grey | Booth on mission

1. Salvation for Both Worlds is a great article indeed and one of the inspirations for my recent thesis on “The Meaning of Salvation in The Salvation Army Today”. If this truly demonstrates a growth in Booth’s understanding of salvation (and I agree that it does), then the subsequent regression currently evident in our movement needs to be seriously questioned. Would love to see this reprinted in The Officer magazine…

   Regards, JDK
Jason Davies-Kildea on April 23rd, 2008

2. Wow this would certainly be useful for my dissertation. Gordon would it be ok if I quote
   your post? Will give you full cred of course!

   Craig
Craig Gaudion on April 23rd, 2008

3. Gordon:

   This might be one of those providential circumstances (for me, personally, at least).

   Yesterday I was telling a friend that I thought Hell was “right here, right now kind of issue”–that we didn’t have to wait for physical death to need salvation from that place. He said that was Boothian of me to say that.

   Felt it as a compliment yesterday, and even more so after reading this article. One of the reasons that it is so easy for leadership to lapse into what Gordon calls “dualistic” thinking is that it feeds into procrastination and institutionalization. If results are to be down the road, it postpones accountability.

   thanks

   Andrea
Andrea614Regent on April 23rd, 2008

4. Gordon, you might be interested to read this which speaks into the question you raise. I would revise it now, but I stand by the basic argument that Booth’s missiology did not simply mature, it also moved from clarity to ambiguity, leading to today’s difficulties. I reference the same 1889 article in the essay.

   Can you say who, in the Army, is vehemently deriding Booth’s broadened understanding of mission? I wouldn’t say it’s something I hear in my small corner of the movement.
Matt Clifton on April 23rd, 2008

5. Dr. Roger Green did some interesting work on this issue. Included in Commissioner John Waldron’s 1986 anthology, “Creed and Deed: Toward A Christian Theology of Social Work in The Salvation Army”, was a three-part essay by Green on Booth’s (progressive) redemptive theology of salvation, suggesting that Booth did shift in his thinking from “pure” evangelist to a more inclusive idea of how encompassing salvation actually is, holding that structures, systems, society as well as souls, are covered in Christ’s redemptive work on the cross. I believe (not sure) that this essay by Green formed the basis for his subsequent book: “War on Two Fronts: The Redemptive Theology of William Booth” (Atlanta, The Salvation Army, 1989).
Geoff Ryan on April 24th, 2008

6. Since Booth’s day,has not the pendulum moved to a point today where eternal issues are regarded as ‘trivial, almost contemptible?’
   Does anyone really believe our 11th doctrine?
   If it were so, what would be the practical implications?
   If it is claimed to be so, why does it seem of so little concern?
   Surely what we truly believe, (rather than that which we give intellectual consent to), determines our behaviour?
   Have we lost a sense of the lostness of the lost, as Francis Schaeffer would suggest?
howard webber on April 24th, 2008

7. I think much of the problem tends to lie in technique. Many who protest loudly against a broadened understanding of mission seem to feel that only the methods used by Booth and his contemporaries are valid and effective tools. This means they have a tendency to deride anything that doesn’t fit into their view. Unfortunately, this means they often attack areas of ministry they have no experience of and no intention of evaluating in a constructive way.

   As for the 11th Doctrine I have no problem with it at all. Immortality of the soul; of course! Resurrection of the body; acceptable to me! Judgement; Yep! Happiness of righteous; sound biblical theology. Punishment; certainly. What I cannot be 100% certain of is how this will work itself out in reality, but I certainly believe it!

   The practical implications is the same today as in Booth’s broadened understanding. Whilst souls are the most important thing we should not ignore our obligation to live out our lives in such as way as we make the world a better place around us thereby pointing people to the Kingdom and hopefully salvation!
Graeme Smith on April 25th, 2008

8. The use of the words ’soul’ and ’salvation’ both definitely need revising. I believe the Army’s theology is too underdeveloped here.

   Regarding the 11th Doctrine I’m not sure whether the SA is even clear on what it teaches about the Resurrection body, New Creation or about God’s Kingdom breaking into the present and what responsibility it gives to those of us who have repented and believe the gospel.

   If Booth’s soteriology developed and broadened then I am happy, as it shows he realised that evangelism or coming to faith does not equate a full realisation of ’salvation’, unlike many circles where I still hear the term divorced from both its fuller context and its Jewish and early Christian roots. Which is a travesty really.

   Salvation is not merely about ‘rescuing people from hell’… I will keep on hammering this point in as long as I live.
Craig Gaudion on April 25th, 2008

Leave a comment