1929 (in 1,929 words)

1,929 words regarding, reviewing, and reflecting upon 1929 by Mark Braye

One change always leaves the way open for the establishment of others.

Niccolo Machiavelli

There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous  to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things.

Niccolo Machiavelli

Change is the law of life.

                                                                                               John F. Kennedy  

Regarding and Reviewing

General John Larsson (Retired) is the author of the book 1929: A Crisis That Shaped The Salvation Army’s Future. The text was published by Salvation Books in 2009. Larsson was the General, world leader, of The Salvation Army for four years, from 2002 until 2006. Throughout his officership, Larsson served in the United Kingdom, South America, New Zealand and Sweden. He was Chief of the Staff prior to becoming General. General Larsson has written several books besides 1929 and is a widely published composer and the co-writer of ten musicals.

General Shaw Clifton, current world leader of The Salvation Army, contributed the foreword for 1929. He writes that no one “likes having their dirty linen washed in public, still less if it is the ‘linen’ of a Christian organization anxious to retain a reputation for Christlike integrity.” (1929, pg. v). To a large extent General Clifton feels that in the publishing of 1929 “we are re-opening old wounds.” (1929, pg. vi). Maybe. However, it is the re-opening of these wounds and in the full disclosure telling of this story, which is part of our story, our history, that these wounds may be healed.

 For years, 1929 had and has been a four-letter word among Salvationists and in The Salvation Army. In his preface General Larsson writes: “So traumatic was this event that for many years ‘1929′ - for that is how it was known - was only talked of in hushed tones in Army circles. The telling of what happened was left to those from outside the Army family.” (1929, pg. vii).

General Larsson has crafted an amazing report and tale using primary and secondary resources that have been written about the crisis of 1929 or that alluded to the crisis of 1929.

1929 is, essentially, a book about change; change you can believe in. It’s the story of an organization growing up; learning; evolving. It tells of an event in our collective Salvation Army history; warts and all.

1929 tells the story of an episode in the life of General Bramwell Booth and The Salvation Army; General succession; reform to the constitution of The Salvation Army; and The Salvation Army’s style of governance.

I will try to give a “Coles Notes” version of 1929. However, I encourage you to read the book. What follows pales in comparison to General Larsson’s text.

General Bramwell Booth was a great man. Considered by, if not all, the vast majority of Salvationists and SA historians to be the second greatest General The Salvation Army has ever had or may have; second only to his father and first General of The Salvation Army William Booth. Quoting again from General Clifton’s foreword: “Of all those playing a significant role in the saga of 1929 Bramwell Booth is one of the very few who emerged with dignity intact.” (1929, pg. v). (This does raise the question, though, of who did not emerge from the saga of 1929 with their dignity intact?). General Bramwell Booth’s contributions to The Salvation Army’s life and ministry are surpassed only by his father and mother, Catherine Booth.

The Salvation Army, formerly the Christian Mission, went through three constitutions in its infancy: 1870, 1875, and 1878. One of the clauses in the Foundation Deed of 1878 stated: “…every General Superintendent… shall have the power to appoint his Successor to the Office of General Superintendent…” (The Salvation Army, Foundation Deed of 1878).

In 1904, however, after having second thoughts about the power the 1878 Deed vested in the General, William Booth had an amendment attached to the Constitution that provided, essentially, checks and balances for the General of The Salvation Army.

The above two facts combined to create the tipping point for the story of 1929. General Bramwell Booth was ill and could not carry out his roles and responsibilities as General of The Salvation Army. This is in no way a knock or put-down. The man had given his life, his blood, sweat, and tears, to The Salvation Army, he was sick, and he was 73 years of age. Bramwell was a workaholic as well; that he was serving into his seventies is to be commended.

The High Council was called to work through this issue as well as the issue of reform to the Constitution and governance model of The Salvation Army.  After many prayers, debates, hurt feelings, speeches, and tears, General Bramwell Booth was asked to retire and Commissioner Edward Higgins, his Chief of the Staff, became the third General of The Salvation Army. There were secret meetings in “civies,” letters written back and fourth across The Salvation Army world, and court proceedings, that most involved, felt were too bad.

In the end I think everyone wins. Times change; culture changes; people change; organizations made up of people change.

1929 is an easy read. This observation in no way demeans the author’s intelligence or the scholarship of the book. It’s well-written and progresses through the story and history with ease. Larsson cuts through some of the legal documents and correspondence of the day to give us readers a relevant picture of what it all meant.

General Larsson’s book 1929 is a great read for anyone and everyone. It’s a must-read for Salvationists who want to know about this story that still has implications and raises questions and thoughts for us and our organization today, over eighty years later.

reflecting upon

The following reflections, observations, and questions came to mind while reading through 1929. They may spark thought and conversation; or incite internal riots.

 - Larrson quotes Robert Sandall from volume one of The History of The Salvation Army: “Power to alter the constitution [by The Salvation Army] was not retained, consequently the [1878] deed poll can be varied only by an Act of Parliament.” (1929, pg. 20). Does this mean, then, that our official statements of faith, The Doctrines of The Salvation Army, cannot be reworked or rewritten after years of thought and study unless the British Government allows it? It strikes me as odd that our most explicit statements of Salvation Army faith and theological distinctives, although I would imagine most Christians would agree with and appreciate them, would be so tied to the state.

 - There was a War Congress held in 1878. General William Booth addressed the crowd with his first speak entitled “The Past of the War.” General Booth said: “Let us try to look at the flaws of the past. Let us never be ashamed to learn. And let us say to all our critics ‘Be merciful to us.’ We are travelling along a road on which none ever trod before…” (1929, pg. 21). Is our first General speaking to us from the grave? Are there things we can learn and rework today? Doctrines? The S-word? (Sounds like “peppermints”). Systems of leadership and governance? Appointment process? Think of the change that occurred during William Booth’s lifetime. The amount of change since then has gone up exponentially.

 - On page 25 of 1929 Larsson reports that William Booth had second thoughts about the arrangements of succession of Generalship, which eventually led to the 1904 amendment. (Pg. 24). Did our Army father have second thoughts about anything else from the Deed of 1878? Did our Army father have second thoughts about any other elements of faith in the life of the Army?

 - General William Booth’s favourite saying was: “What I have done, I can undo.” (Pg. 30). Can we “undo” any elements of our Army systems today? Are there any elements of our Army systems that need to be undone?

 - There was a “Trumpet Blast” heard round the Army world. The writer of the manifesto in question said the structure of TSA was “thoroughly and unqualifiedly bad” and went on to say that “it must be destroyed.” (Pg. 59). No one would feel as strongly today. However, could our systems and structures be reworked or redone?

 - Following the 1929 High Council, Territorial Commander of the USA Southern Territory at the time, Colonel William McIntyre wrote: “The recent events have not come as the result of sudden action, but they have been the steady growth of perhaps a quarter century or more - a growing feeling that some day, somehow, a revision of our constitution must take place and be adjusted to the purposes, the conditions, and the needs of the present day.” (Pg. 61). This was written in 1929 or 1930. The present day has changed ten-fold in the past eighty years compared to the changes that took place between 1878 and 1929.

- Close to his death, General William Booth, in what appears now to have been an element of foreshadowing concerning the next General of The Salvation Army, spoke to his son-in-law, Commissioner Frederick Booth-Tucker, and said: “Tucker, when I am gone, I want you to stand beside Bramwell. Don’t be his ditto or echo. You have an independent mind and judgement, and I want you to express it freely. While he will have the deciding voice, I want you to express your own views frankly and fearlessly.” (Pg. 65). Have we lost a little of this in TSA? Have we lost this spirit of open, honest, and candid conversation? When we are open and honest and thoughts and opinions differ, why do we see it as insubordination or disrespect? See also pages 74, 79, 114, as well as others throughout 1929.

 - Pg. 118. Once a leader has made a decision the debate is over? Sometimes, and rightly so, a decision being made is only the beginning of true debate. There are some cases, issues, and elements in life and faith where on-going conversation is vital.

 - 1929 in general and page 120 in particular paint Bramwell Booth as a worker; maybe even a workaholic. Admirable. However, not something to be emulated to extreme measures. At one point in his life he never again had a work-free day. How much did this contribute to his poor health? Woman/man needs rest; the mind, the soul, the spirit, the body, needs rest. God rested. Christ rested. We’ve been given a day of Holy rest.

- Lieut.-Commissioner William Haines was the Managing Director of The Salvation Army Assurance Society and Vice-President of the High Council. He stood among his comrades and delivered his thoughts about the Army’s need to free itself from the bondage of “forbidden speech, forbidden thought, forbidden conscience, and forbidden action.” (Pg. 228). Is there such bondage to which we need freedom from today? Could we free ourselves today from such bondage or situations similar to Haines’ thoughts? Are there “forbidden” topics of thought, conversation, debate, and action today?

- There was a Salvation Army Act of 1980. (Pg. 329). It seems to me that one of the provisions allows the General to make changes to the main schedules, or appendices, of our Deeds with written approval of more than two-thirds of Commissioners. If I’m reading and understanding this correctly, we could, for example, reword or rework a doctrine. What are some other implications of this fact, if indeed it is a fact I have understood correctly?

Just some thoughts; for better or worse.

 

 Writer: Mark and Nancy Braye are the pastors/officers of The Salvation Army Tri-Town Community Church in Temiskaming Shores, Ontario, Canada. They have two children, pictured above, Hannah and Micah. The four of them love to play and watch Sesame Street, Dora the Explorer, and The Wiggles.

5 Comments to 1929 (in 1,929 words)

1. Excellent book. I read it and loved it. It’s a must for anyone who wants to understand the mindset of our Army better.

   Josh G.
Josh Garrington on September 3rd, 2010

2. A fantastic book. I highly recommend it to anyone interested the Army’s history and structure. It raises lots of great questions. As you read it, you think some of the things that happened are unbelievable, but then again, the issues still seem applicable to today’s SA. The questions you’ve raised point this out.

   Honestly, I think it would make a good movie. You couldn’t write a better script.

   Thanks for posting the review.

   James P
James on September 4th, 2010

3. Thank you for a well-written summary of a book that illustrates the reality of our history. If other organizations and churches were fully transparent, we would almost certainly learn that they too experienced a similar crisis in the early years - either at the point were a founder left active leadership, or at some time during the term of the founder’s hand-picked successor. Such instances are a difficult reality of organizational growth.

   One of your comments near the end caught my eye:

   ————–

   “He stood among his comrades and delivered his thoughts about the Army’s need to free itself from the bondage of “forbidden speech, forbidden thought, forbidden conscience, and forbidden action.” (Pg. 228). Is there such bondage to which we need freedom from today? Could we free ourselves today from such bondage or situations similar to Haines’ thoughts? Are there “forbidden” topics of thought, conversation, debate, and action today?”

   ————

   As one (to use Paul’s words) “who was abnormally born” to officership, I unavoidably find myself viewing TSA culture and organizational approaches from a combined perspective of prior military service, 20 years of local government public safety service & retirement as a police major and 5 years of cross-cultural missionary service - not unique by any means, but maybe a bit different than some. In my experience with organizations functioning within a military or para-military organizational structure, the most effective are able to function with and value healthy, productive, passionate and respectful discussion, which leads to good decisions. The key to such an environment is that once there is a decision, the organization moves forward, united in support of the decision. Such an environment requires a high degree of multi-lateral trust: the decision-maker/leader must trust that those with the strongest dissenting voices during the discussion phase WILL support the decision in public and private; those taking part in the discussion must trust that the decision-maker/leader (and their allies) will not overtly or covertly penalize those with the dissenting voices.

   This area of trust - the ability to reasonably predict the behavior of another person - is one of the most challenging things for an organization to get right. One stumble by an individual on either side of an issue is often magnified through the retelling through an organization or a leadership staff. The lesson then becomes either “don’t discuss, just decide” - or “don’t contribute to discussion, you will pay for it later”.

   Although I have been told of stories by more experienced officers that have experienced negative consequences as a result of their transparency, with few exceptions, this has not been my experience. The few negatives I have experienced have been the isolated result of personal (rather than organizational) bias or attitude by individuals in leadership. My all-time favorite was a statement that started with: “Real officers don’t . . .”

   One of the most valuable leadership lessons that I learned in my working lifetime, was that which was shared with me back in the ’80’s. As a young First Lieutenant in the Police Department, I as assigned as Aide to a Deputy Chief. This particular individual had a very positive reputation for his intellectual ability, integrity and quiet but forceful leadership style. His first instructions to me as I reported on that first day of the appointment was “If you won’t argue with me here in this office . . . if you are not passionate about communicating your opinions, one of us is redundant.” I was pretty sure that he was not going to be the redundant one.

   Healthy leadership values good strong time-limited discussion and debate. Good organizations value their leadership enough to provide it. Trust is what makes it possible.

   Dana L.
Dana Libby on September 8th, 2010

4. Dana, thank you for your comments.

   Well said. Well written. Very thoughtful.

   You raise a vital point: TRUST.

   Looking at James’ piece on officer morale and the comments, we have a lot to work on. trust being a big one.

   Mark B.
markbraye on September 9th, 2010

5. @ Mark: Thanks for the article mate, I think I might have to read this book!

   @ Dana: Thanks for your comment and insight. “If you won’t argue with me here in this office . . . if you are not passionate about communicating your opinions, one of us is redundant.” is a great lesson to take forward for leaders and followers alike.

   Tim
TIm Girling on September 16th, 2010

Leave a comment