1929 – The Salvation Army in Crisis – Power and Control (some thoughts on chapters 1 and 2)

In the wake of the announcement of the retirement of General Linda Bond –international leader of The Salvation Army – I have decided to re-read the book 1929: A Crisis that Shaped The Salvation Army’s Future [i]by former General John Larrson.  It deals with one of those ‘dirty linen’ aspects of our history – specifically the deposing by the High Council of General Bramwell Booth.[ii]

This was an awkward moment in our organization’s history – to remove from office its duly appointed international leader, the son of its founder. 

In Chapter One (Laying the Foundation) Larrson outlines the sources  of this conflict – and that may, ultimately be found the apparent struggle of founder and first General, William Booth (and that of his son / successor, Bramwell, to accept anything but his own personal autocratic control over the organization he had founded.

Before it was known as The Salvation Army, it was The Christian Mission, and it’s original constitution, written in 1875 (actually it’s 2^nd constitution, but 1^st to have binding legal authority), stipulated that it would be lead by two authorities – the General Superintendent (William Booth) and an Annual Conference of members who would vote on executive and legislative issue s– but Booth held on to the power to override any resolutions of the Annual Conference.

However this proved too cumbersome and time consuming for the fiery young organization and for William Booth who was impatient with the long hours of discussion and debate, and for the members as well -one of whom came to William Booth and said, “You tell us what to do, and we’ll do it.  I can’t see the good of a lot of talk, with one wanting one thing and another another.”[iii] 

So in 1877 Booth announced that the Annual Conference would function more as a “Council of War” to advise the General Superintendent. However, legally, there were still the two authorities.  This was rectified with another new constitution in 1878 – one that directed that the Christian Mission will “…always be under the oversight, direction, and control of some one person, called the General Superintendent…” who would be the sole legal trustee of the organizations property and funds – that William Booth would be the General Superintendent until he died (or resigned) - and that Booth and his successors would have the power to appoint his own successor.  [iv]

Mr Cozens-Hardy, the solicitor (lawyer) who was tasked to draft this new legal document, said to Booth, “Mr. Booth, you want me to make you a pope, and I do not think it can be done.”  To which Booth replied “Well, M. Cozens-Hardy, I am sure that you will get as near to it as you suitably can.”[v]  General Larrson describes Booth’s retort as humorous, and it may have been so – but it was true too.  William Booth (and his son Bramwell, later) had a reputation for being an autocrat, who micromanaged his organization and who would brook no dissent.

Cozens-Hardy warned Booth that as written, the new constitution could not be changed except by an act of the British Parliament.  This was now the third constitution in eight years, but Booth would not move on this point.  He knew what he wanted and that was all he wanted.  He seems to have felt that it was divinely inspired as it was and didn’t want tinkering with it after he was gone.  [vi]

On August 7, 1878 William Booth became the sole trustee and single authority of The Christian Mission with the sole prerogative to declare his successor.

But he had doubts – what if the General died without having named a successor? What if the successor refused to accept the office?  What if the General and his named successor were to die at the same time (a possibility that nearly became a reality when a bomb exploded near Booth and his son[vii])?

Any of these would leave the organization in chaos without a duly appointed leader.

But Booth was stymied by his own obduracy.  He often liked to say “what I have done, I can undo,” but this time he couldn’t.  The constitution of 1878 could not be changed without an act of Parliament, and Booth was reluctant to entrust his organization to that body – that would be allowing others to meddle and would be admitting a mistake.

So he sought legal council from some of the best lawyers of the time.  Their recommendation came back that the constitution, indeed, could not be changed without an act of parliament, but that a supplement to the constitution could be added, provided that it only amplified or supplemented the original deed and did not make any changes.

Booth had the supplementary deed written by late 1897[viii] but hesitated to sign it.  He hesitated for seven years.

It seems that he was worried 1) that it would prove to be legally invalid.  Indeed, some very fine hair-splitting went into making sure that this supplementary constitution did not make any changes to the 1878 constitution.  And he was worried 2) that the new provisions for removing a General from office (one of the not-quite-changes to the constitution) might be misused.  Was he afraid that someone would try to wrest control of his organization away from him?

Booth wanted to keep absolute control of his organization.  "Give us a King" cried the people, but they didn't really know what they were asking for.  

I’ll write more about this book and my thoughts in the next several days…

---

[i] Larrson, John  1929: A Crisis that Shaped The Salvation Army’s Future Salvation Books, London England, 2009.

[ii] For the Record – I do not know, nor do I claim that General Linda Bond has been deposed.  Her retirement was announced by the Chief of the Staff yesterday without any explanation.  Any speculation or questions that may have risen to the surface is the result of this lack of transparency and forthrightness.

[iii]  William Ridsdel, later a Commissioner of The Salvation Army, quoted on page 12
[iv] Page 17

[v] Page 11

[vi] Page 20

[vii] Page 29

[viii] Page 31