Jesus = God?

Jesus being God has always been a topic of discussion in the world after Jesus. It’s interesting to note that, as a Jewish rabbi, Jesus was accepted as an exceptional teacher by his fellow-Jews. But even those closest to him, including his closest disciples did not fully understand him. This helps us to understand how this subject could be one of serious debate three hundred years after his death and resurrection.

In the fourth century A.D., after Constantine gained power and allowed for Christians to assemble and work out their beliefs, they began to debate the nature of Jesus, his identity, and his connection to God the Father.

There were apposing views and beliefs about the deity of Jesus that actually brought Christians to the point of verbal and physical fights among one another.

To the Jew, the Messiah would not have to be God, but only a person anointed and chosen to lead God’s people. For Jews, King Saul and King David were two messiahs, for they were anointed and chosen to lead God’s people. This should help us to understand why this issue was not a topic of debate until Christianity was firmly in the depths of Western thought (modern scholars are discovering that the deity of Christ was actually accepted even in th first century A.D.).

As differing opinions of who Jesus was as the son of God began to surface, the universal church knew that there was a need to bring a systemized understanding among believers; this task was accomplished through councils. The first council was the Council of Nicaea in A.D. 325, the second was the Council of Constantinople in A.D. 381, the third was the Council of Ephesus in A.D. 431, and finally the Council of Chalcedon was held in A.D. 451.

The major subjects of discussion among these councils included their understandings of the Trinity and Christology.

Christ’s deity was a matter of many discussions as some thought Jesus to be subordinate to the Father, while others thought of him as only appearing to be a man. Still others believed that the Christ came upon Jesus at his birth and left him before his death.

In the end, it was decided that God is One in those distinct and separate persons as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

God revealing himself to the world in the form of His son gave the world an opportunity to experience His word clarified through Jesus; God’s ways and will were exemplified as God himself called the world to follow him here on earth.

Jesus says to us,”Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them” (Matthew 5:17). In this passage Jesus uses the terms “abolish” and “fulfill”, which are used idiomatically in Hebrew as words meaning to “misinterpret” and “clearly interpret”. Jesus came to “clearly interpret” the Word of God, according to the Kingdom of Heaven. There is no clearer interpretation of God’s word lived out than for God himself to live it out before us in the form of his son Jesus.

The four councils from A.D. 325-451 allowed for the leaders of God’s people to articulate the truth of Jesus’ divinity for all of the ecclesia, which was justified by Jesus himself when he gave Peter the “Keys to the Kingdom” and the ability to “bind” and “lose”, more rabbinic idioms, which mean the leaders of the Church have Christ’s support in how they define the rights and wrongs of the Church (see Matthew 16:19). To “bind” and “lose” is literally translated, “to forbid and permit”. The leaders of the Church were given the authority to choose what would be forbidden and permitted as practices of believers; this would include the decision to form a canon (the books that would be included in the Bible).

Understanding that Jesus is God, just as the Father and the Holy Spirit are persons of God, gives us an understanding that the Messiah was more than just a Jewish man anointed and chosen to lead God’s people, as many had been before. But Jesus is God personified, calling himself to the task of leading His people into His Kingdom.

During the councils there were those who relegated Jesus to being less than God or a part of God, as Dr. Garth Rosell says, somewhat like an egg with three distinct parts, which are all part of an egg, but under close scrutiny the different parts of an egg are very different. Jesus is exactly God; He is the perfect image and form of God, not simply a part or portion of God.

He is God incarnate.

In His dust,
Johnny

Writer: Capt. Jonathan Gainey was born in Jacksonville, FL in June, 1969. He has been married to Staci, the daughter of retired Salvation Army officers, for twenty years and they have four children ages 18, 16, 12, and 4. Jonathan was commissioned as an officer in June of 2002, and is currently serving in his third appointment in New Bern, NC, USA. He is working on a Masters of Divinity from Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary and is the creator and manager of the Flocks Diner website, where his passion for learning and teaching is expressed and shared through writing and a weekly podcast.

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.

Officer Morale - What’s wrong?

… asks James Pedlar

For two years I studied the issue of young adult attrition in the Canada and Bermuda Territory. Officership was a frequent topic of conversation as I engaged with current and former young adult Salvationists about challenges that the Army faces in keeping younger people involved.

The young adults I interviewed were issuing a clear call for changes to officership, and it centred around three issues:

First, many were less-than-enthusiastic about going to Training College, based on their impressions of the training experience. The general impression they had was that Cadets were treated like children.

Second, there was a lot of scepticism regarding the effectiveness of the appointment system. People who were potential officers were usually somewhat nervous about entrusting their gifts to the discretion of headquarters.

The third area of concern was the example of officers themselves. These young adults often heard officers complaining about their lives as officers, and it had the effect of giving officership a bad reputation. I don’t think this is unique to young adults. The fact that officers often seem unhappy and frustrated is having a “trickle-down” effect upon the general Army population. If officers are mostly unhappy, who would want to join them? One person I interviewed put the issue in a nutshell: “You don’t hear a lot of officers talk about how wonderful the Army is.”

My study focused only on Canada and Bermuda, but I’d suspect that the situation is quite similar in other Western Territories. Although it is clear that officer morale is a problem, I’ve struggled to put my finger on the real root of the problem. What is it about officership that seems to leave people so frustrated?

Is it the same issues that young adults identified - training and appointments?

I have met a few officers who were, in all seriousness, scarred by their training experience. I met one young officer who compared training college to a concentration camp, where they try to break you down and re-mold you from scratch! I know that this is an extreme description, but on the other hand, it is consistent with what other people say in less sensational ways about officer training.

As for the appointment structure, everyone knows of stories of appointments that were a less-than-ideal fit for both officer and local ministry. Becoming an officer means saying that you’re willing to serve wherever “the Army” sees fit (for “the Army,” read “the appointments board”). This is becoming a tough sell in cultures like Canada, where anything “institutional” is viewed with extreme scepticism. And one can see how resentment and frustration could build in those who feel that they’ve been given the short end of the stick, appointment-wise.

Maybe it’s the compensation system? I know officers in Canada are well cared for, but they don’t have the same kind of freedom as the rest of us do to spend our money as we see fit. Their lifestyle is fixed at a decent level, but they don’t have much disposable income. Does this make people bitter?

Some have suggested that many officers feel trapped - that they get to a certain point in their life and they’d really like to do something else, but the financial and personal costs of leaving are too great, so they just stick it out. Because they’ve got no equity, changing careers in mid life can be difficult, especially if your training is not recognized outside of the Army and/or church world. If it is true that there are officers out there who are just “sticking it out” because they feel trapped, then it’s not surprising that they’d be generally unhappy.

Is it the paperwork? I’ve heard lots of officers complain about the number of forms they are made to fill out by DHQ and THQ. And sometimes these administrative processes can be a bit insulting, as, for example, when an officer who runs a million-dollar a year operation has to get approval for a new stove or couch for the quarters.

Perhaps it’s got nothing to do with the Army at all. Maybe it is the general stresses of ministry that people face in any denomination - unrealistic expectations from their congregations, working long hours, putting up with abuse from people who complain about insignificant issues, and so on. Maybe we would find the same kind of dissatisfaction and frustration among the Methodists or Pentecostals.

Whatever the cause may be, poor officer morale is a serious concern in this Territory, to the point that I’d suggest that any attempts to help improve officer recruitment need to start with improving morale among current officers.

What do you think? Why don’t we hear more officers talking about how wonderful the Army is?

James Pedlar is a doctoral student at Wycliffe College, in the Toronto School of Theology.  He specializes in the study of the Church - especially questions involving reform movements, Christian unity, authority structures, and ecumenical dialogue.  He is also interested in Wesleyan theology, Salvation Army theology, and the theology and practice of worship. James works part-time as Assistant Coordinator of Faith & Witness at the Canadian Council of Churches.   He recently completed a two year research project on young adult attrition for The Salvation Army in Canada and Bermuda, which you can read about here.   Before that he was Community Ministries Director for The Salvation Army in the Quinte Region of Ontario, Canada.  James is married to Samantha and they live in East York.  You can read his blog here