The HoD 2010 - An initial response…

Adam Couchman shares his thoughts

“Did you know the new Handbook of Doctrine is available online?” a cadet asked me casually over a cup of coffee. He knew I was very interested in its publication, and that it was expected to arrive at Salvationist Supplies (Trade) at Easter 2010. For someone like me, when it was late I started looking at my watch wondering when it would come (I am a self confessed nerd after all). And so I quickly finished my coffee and “Googled” the text. Within a few mouse clicks I had the document on my computer screen and, still being a fan of hardcopies, I had begun to print it off as well.

As I usually do with every new book I looked over the contents to see what lay ahead. The chapters are renumbered… there’s a significant increase in page count… some new Appendices including a lectionary… all of this heightens my enthusiasm, and so I start to read.

I read in the Foreword that the “principal aim has been to maximise user-friendliness” (pg xiv). OK… interesting aim for a theological text. Then in the Before you begin reading… section some explanation is given as to the new layout.

Each chapter is presented in two sections. The first part of each chapter contains the formal and officially approved Salvation Army exegesis of the relevant article of faith. These together constitute the official Handbook of Doctrine.

It continues to suggest that the second part of each chapter, entitled “for further exploration” are intended to be a “useful resource but do not form part of the official statement of Salvation Army doctrine” (pg xx). Already at this point I’m struggling to go on. Let me attempt to explain why.

I’m a “big picture” kind of person. I like to know the grand vision before I start to wrestle with the details. It just helps me put those details into perspective. So for this particular document I want to know “What is this for?” “Who is meant to read this?” “Who has written it?” “What is an appropriate response to it?” “How does this help the Church and The Salvation Army?” “How does this bring glory to God?”, and so on.

I may just be nitpicking here but what does it mean to say that this document (or at least the first sections of each chapter) is “the formal and officially approved Salvation Army exegesis of the relevant article of faith”? How does “The Salvation Army” exegete something? Isn’t that an intellectual exercise of an identifiable person, not a nondescript entity? I have difficulty with answering these questions. Here’s why.

I often say to Salvationists in various locations (the classroom, at the corps, etc) that “I try not to speak of ‘the Army’ as if I’m not a part of it”. You’ve all heard the comments before - “Why does the Army do this or that?” “Why did the Army appoint them there?” “What was the Army thinking?” I do my best to avoid using such language. Because more often than not it’s a smoke screen designed to divert attention away from the speakers own inadequacies or alternatively an attempt to strengthen their opinion on any given topic (”If it was me I wouldn’t do that”). It’s very rare that these comments are complimentary, and even less so that they’re coming from an informed position. Plus, more importantly for me, it goes a long way to show what we believe about ourselves - our ecclesiology. If I speak of the Army as some institution “out there” making decisions, or doing things I don’t like, or in this instance providing me with a theology which I can simply pick up and read and somehow acquire as my own, then I’m not a part of it. I don’t like that. I am the Army. Said more correctly, I and my Salvationist sisters and brothers in Christ are the Army. I hold to this position very strongly, because I see significant dangers in any other stance.

detach your theology from your ecclesiology …

But immediately I’m forced to reconsider that position as I read the HOD. This document is written and approved by “The Salvation Army”, which means two things. If you are The Salvation Army (as I have suggested above) then you are its author, and subsequently if you want to critique it in any way then it requires some serious mental, and theological, gymnastics in order to do so.  You’re forced to “detach” yourself from “The Salvation Army” momentarily in order to try and read this document objectively. You’re forced to detach your theology from your ecclesiology. Good luck with that.

A further comment about the language employed here. Note above the use of the term “exegesis” (pg xx, see also pg 323). I may be somewhat conservative at this point, but I would like to suggest that some terms should be reserved for use when referring to the Scriptures. This term does describe what is being done with this text (exegeting the doctrines), but by using this term which is most often used in reference to the Scriptures it surreptitiously begins to elevate the doctrines to a level where they should not be - on par with Scriptures.

If that point is too subtle, then turn to the newfound “lectionary” in Appendix 8 (pg 327-333). Initially when seeing this in the contents I was pleasantly surprised. My surprise quickly turned to horror though when I actually looked more closely at the “lectionary” itself. Every other (RCL, Byzantine, Roman etc) provides a set of readings throughout the course of the year (or three years) for Scripture. This one provides a set of readings throughout the course of the year for the Handbook of Doctrine. This, in my opinion, is an absolute travesty. If the subtlety of the use of the word “exegesis” elevated the HOD close to being on par, well this new “lectionary” may even suggest that the HOD is more important than Scripture. “Come on, Adam, it’s just a reading plan”. Yea, I know but words are important, and as I suggested above, some terms should be reserved for use when referring to the Scriptures. Said another way, this is the first time in Church History that a lectionary has been created for anything other than the Scriptures. At least as far as I know (please correct me if I’m wrong).

What does that say?

Finally, in this initial response to the Handbook of Doctrine, it’s necessary to note that this text is effectively a revised edition of Salvation Story. So, for a thorough comparison the two should be read together. That’s a time consuming task, but I think it provides some insight into the theological emphasis that is being put forward here.

a very different shift in emphasis …

For example, the very well written Appendix 9 of Salvation Story (pg 113-114) says the following at one point with regard to being a sacramental community; “Our life together is sacramental because we live by faith in him and our everyday lives keep stumbling onto unexpected grace, his undeserved gift, again and again.” Here the emphasis is upon finding grace in the ordinary and unexpected. This emphasises the giftedness of grace, that it is provided by God and made available through faith.

The newly edited version of this particular line in the HOD states the following; “Our life together is sacramental because we live by faith in him and our everyday lives reveal and offer unexpected grace, his undeserved gift, again and again.” (pg 270). This is a very different shift in emphasis. Here the emphasis is upon us, as the bringers of God’s grace. Note, the subtle shift from faith quickly onto “our everyday lives” as the means by which grace is conveyed.

The above is given simply as an example of the need to read the HOD and Salvation Story in conjunction with one another, although you can probably tell that I have some serious issues with this particular revision that has taken place.

So, I will continue to read and review the new HOD, albeit in a fashion that requires me to disjoin my theology from my ecclesiology, that calls me to read two books at once, and that could, given the recent suggestions of retribution for mild reviews, put me in danger of the “freezer”… Better get my thermals out.

Writer: Captain Adam Couchman is currently the Director for the School for Christian Studies at Booth College, Australia Eastern Territory. He loves reading, talking, discussing, thinking, and re-thinking all things theological. Most of all, he just wants to “be Holy as God is holy”. Adam is married to Megan and together they have two girls - Brielle and Annabelle.

10 Comments to The HoD 2010 - An initial response…

1. Thanks for your helpful review Adam.

   Regarding your statement and question below, … :-

   ‘Said another way, this is the first time in Church History that a lectionary has been created for anything other than the Scriptures. At least as far as I know (please correct me if I’m wrong).’

   … I think the Heidelberg Catechism - or a Method of Instruction in the Christian Religion - (first published in 1563 - in the third edition the 129 questions and answers were divided into 52 Lord’s Days with a view to the Catechism being explained in one of the services on the Lord’s Day) - may be one example of such a lectionary.

   Thanks again.

   Bernard
Bernard Martin on May 18th, 2010

2. ‘…if you want to critique it in any way then it requires some serious mental, and theological, gymnastics in order to do so. You’re forced to “detach” yourself from “The Salvation Army” momentarily in order to try and read this document objectively. You’re forced to detach your theology from your ecclesiology. Good luck with that.’ Thanks Adam, and thanks for the perceptive approach with the cross-reading of the two books.

   The dislocation Adam refers to (above) relates to the thought processes involved. There is another inherent and relevant point to this discussion, and that is the linguistic knots we wrap around our necks in the process. Those familiar with George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four will be aware of the author’s convictions against totalitarian regimes and oppressive bureaucracy (based on many life experiences, including living the lifestyle of a homeless person and fighting and being wounded in the Spanish Civil War). If we negate or limit expression or allow the same to occur, as a conscious strategy, then we blunt our God-given capacity for life. If the language we use to try to describe God (and, consequently, our relationships with God and each other) becomes strained, becomes limiting, then that language may need to be discarded as unhelpful. Words are the tools we use to try to express ideas; that can’t happen if we are led into a doublethink, ‘NewSpeak’ (i.e. ‘double talk’) duality between how we act (living out our faith) and how we articulate it (wrestling with theology and doctrine; hopefully in an atmosphere of grace).

   Barry G
Barry G on May 19th, 2010

3. Hi Bernard.

   Thanks for your response. My comment would be that a “catechism” and “lectionary” are designed for two different purposes. Catechism has to do with discipling people in[to] the faith. If they had used that word, so that Soldiership preparation, or Bible study groups could use it to discuss the content then I’d have no qualms.

   However, a lectionary is used as readings for public worship. Can you imagine someone standing up in a Salvation Army meeting and saying:

   “A reading from the Handbook of Doctrine, pg 247″

   Then at the conclusion pronouncing “This is the word of the Army/General”???

   And the congregation replies “Thanks be to God”.

   I’m being somewhat (and deliberately) facetious here.

   That’s the way a lectionary guides congregations through Scripture throughout the course of the Christian calendar. I cannot see how you would use the lectionary provided in the HOD in a way that maintains the absolutely importance of Scripture in the life of the church.

   That really concerns me.

   Adam
Adam Couchman on May 19th, 2010

4. Hi Adam,

   I take your point re the differences between a lectionary and catechism, and perhaps I didn’t pay sufficient attention to your concern about the use of the word ‘lectionary’ - referring specifically to readings of Scripture - in the HOD Appendix (a concern with which I might agree), and for this I apologise

   However, I was trying to highlight the fact that in some churches, and in this case certain Reformed churches, the Heidelberg Catechism and not the Scriptures is the basis of the sermon in one of their services each Sunday (though of course such churches believe that the Catechism is basically Scriptural teaching).

   I certainly agree with you that whatever we do, we must maintain the absolute importance of Scripture in the life of the church.

   Regards.

   Bernard
Bernard Martin on May 20th, 2010

5. Hi Bernard…

   No need to apologise. I was not familiar with that practice and so you’ve taught me something new. Thanks!

   The point you make is very interesting, though, given that the Reformation was so strongly built upon the premise of a “return” to the Word of God. Particularly given that the two marks of the church were considered “Where the Word of God is truly preached and the sacraments properly administered.” I wonder how Luther and Calvin would view the situation whereby a “church” document, rather than the Scriptures, became the topic of a sermon?

   Thanks again for your helpful comments.

   Adam
Adam Couchman on May 20th, 2010

6. Thanks for the review Adam - it’s a helpful reflection on some key shifts that I’m sure we’ll discover more about in the near future. Hopefully some rigorous and genuine discussion about the changes in the HoD will continue prompt deeper and even more pressing questions about the nature of Christian belief. I look forward to further installments on this subject.

   JD-K
Jason Davies-Kildea on May 22nd, 2010

7. I’m reminded of an, um, denominational leader who started the practice of writing open ‘pastoral letters’ to all in his denominational body. The letters weren’t that bad, but many were struck by the similarity of style between him and the Apostle Paul.

   I’m glad such a thing could never happen in the Army.

   Cam
Cameron on May 23rd, 2010

8. Hi Adam,

   I found your article thought-provoking, but not terribly helpful I’m afraid.

   Your complaint about an ‘official’ account of the meaning of the doctrines seems quite bewildering, as surely any institution should express its formal point of view on its own basis of faith!?! To not do this this would only leave us with an anarchic and endless debate precisely where clarity and authority are needed. You seem aware that this may be ‘nitpicking’, I think on this point you are quite right.

   The other main issue centred around your concern that this HOD was, through language and newly included lectionary, usurping or imitating the status of scripture. This could not be further from the truth, I think the term ‘exegising’ or ‘exegesis’ was included because whilst doctrines are not scripture, we derive them from scripture directly and often include scripture in them (Doctrine 10) and certainly in explaining them. Our doctrines express in shorthand what would be a much larger document were all the scriptural evidence to be properly included. As regards the lectionary, it is only to be used alongside scriptural study as an aid to it, never instead of like any other devotional tool.

   Most persuasive for me positively on this issue is the change from Salvation Story to placing scripture back at the heart of explaining our doctrines. In SS the biblical references were at the end of each section whereas here they accompany every relevant line, this surely gives evidence of how this HOD regards the importance and uniqueness of scripture in understanding and expressing our faith.

   Regards,

   Matt
Matt Reid on May 25th, 2010

9. Hi Matt…

   Thanks for your thoughtful response. However, I must disagree with you at a number of points.

   The HoD clearly states that it is an exegesis of the “Articles of Faith” not the Scriptures. This is where I have difficulty. My purpose here was simply to call for another term. Explanation, clarification, teaching, development… any of these words would achieve the same purpose. I’m simply suggesting at this point that some terms need to be reserved for Scripture so as to eliminate even the slightest possibility that it is “usurping or imitating the status of Scripture”, as you have quite elegantly said.

   As for the lectionary… Let me quote from the HoD itself. “Use the Salvation Army Lectionary (Appendix as the basis of a planned preaching programme.” (pg 325) Clearly this is not meant “only” as a “devotional tool” as you have suggested, but a source for sermons. In fact, I think it would have been better to have used your phrase than the one that has been used for centuries (i.e. lectionary) to refer to a ‘Scriptural’ reading plan for corporate worship and public prayer.

   Words have power and meaning and we need to be very careful in the way that we use them. I just don’t think that the implications of the use of these particular terms has been well thought through.

   As for the suggestion that putting the Scriptures back into the text is somehow placing scripture back into the heart of explaining our doctrines… that may be somewhat true. But really, can we truly call what is an actually just an editorial keystroke good biblical theology?

   I have on my bookshelf a copy of “The New Testament Commentary - Salvation Army Edition”. It’s old and has no publication date (which is not uncommon for the time), but the forward is by William Booth, so it must be around 100 years old. Where’s the updated version of that? We’ve had several updates of the HoD in that timeframe, but no update of our commentary. Why not? Possibly because it wasn’t actually done by a Salvationist, but just reprinted by us… Maybe.

   Similarly, where are our Biblical theologians? Where’s our N.T. Wright, or Richard Hayes, or F.F. Bruce, or Gordon Fee, or Leon Morris, or Joel Green, or Ben Witherington III…? Where is the “Professor (Major) __________”?

   We’re (and I include myself in this we) simply not as serious about the scriptures as we purport ourselves to be. Yes, we are clearly more practically minded and adverse to academia (they are still the “dangerous classes” as William Booth once said), but at the same time we should (in seeing ourselves as a whole Army) be engaging at the heart of scholarship and weighing in seriously with a strong and thoughtful voice.

   Take, for example, the common argument regarding the sacraments that Luke 22:19b-20 shouldn’t be included in the Scriptures because of the Westcott and Hort edition of the Greek NT didn’t include it. I hear that all the time… from Salvationists. But most scholars (see Joel Green, Luke - NICNT; Walter Liefold, Luke - Expositor’s Bible Commentary; or I Howard Marshall, New Testament Theology - “the evidence for retention is indubitably stronger”, pg 139 n18) suggest that the retention of the longer version of this passage is more likely. The problem for us is that these verses contain the words of institution “Do this in remembrance of me”. But to support our decision not to practice this sacrament we quote old scholarship that is, by and large, now refuted. We should be world experts at this particular point… Sadly, we’re lagging way behind.

   I’m beginning to rant, for which I apologise. I’m sorry that this appears to be directed at you, Matt. It’s not. I mean no disrespect to you personally. I have valued your response and hope that you have found that I have engaged with it seriously.

   This is just something I’m really passionate about and would love to see at least some parts of the Army world engaging at the deepest level on behalf of us all.

   I hope I may somehow be contributing to that…

   With deepest respect.
   Adam
Adam Couchman on May 25th, 2010

10. Hi. I have enjoyed the debate/discussion here. Thanks. I have been increasingly sensing for some years now that what we say we believe may not actually be what we do believe so that - the result is - our statents doctrine are “disempowered” by our application of them.

    Thus we have.

    We believe the scriptures of the old and new testament were given by inspiration of God and that they ONLY (my emphasis) constitute the divine rule of Christian faith and practises.

    The nuance you identify is only part of a (recent?) trend to make emphatic statements to explain the bible is Salvationists practice eg statements from doctrine council in book and DVD form that are to be used as authoritive purveyors of truth.

    As for where are the theologians? They are leaving/being marginalised. I don’t expect agreement but it’s my observation here on the UK.

    And, finally for clarification and integrity I have recently resigned my 21 years of officership but continue in ministry.

    Keep scripture as THE source of doctrine.

    Blessings.

    David R.
David R on June 5th, 2010

Leave a comment