Cowardice in The Salvation Army

I am often dumfounded by my denomination, confounded by my co-religionists. I am surprised that in this organization, this movement, this church–which was born in a moment of defiance–seems now to be unable to handle anything but unquestioning obedience and seeks to stifle any voice of dissent within its ranks.

By 1861 William Booth, then an evangelist for the Methodist New Connexion Church, was becoming something of a nuisance to the leadership. William (and his wife, Catherine) felt especially drawn to the work of an evangelist–to preaching the gospel, especially in the poorer quarters. Both of them.  Catherine’s preaching was a source of contention; women were not widely accepted as appropriate ministers of the gospel. But William (and Catherine) insisted that they could best serve the church as evangelists, rather than as circuit-ministers.

 “The question now presented itself forcibly to their consciences, as to whether they were justified in submitting any longer to the jurisdiction of a handful of persons, who were obviously influenced by unworthy motives in denying them a position of greater usefulness” (Booth-Tucker 391).

In May of 1861 the Methodist annual conference met in Liverpool, England. Booth’s case was addressed, and his request to be assigned as an evangelist was met with much opposition–much of which seemed motivated by personal animus and by a dislike for Catherine’s aggressive preaching. When Booth’s request was denied, one of their friends proposed a sort of weak compromise, but…

“This was more than Mrs. Booth could endure. She had been sitting at a point in the gallery from which she and her husband could interchange glances. It had been with difficulty that she had restrained her feelings hitherto while listening to the debate. But at this stage she was overcome with indignation. She felt that Dr. Cooke had sacrificed their cause in the interests of peace rather than righteousness. But for his suggested compromise she believed that they would have carried the day with a triumphant majority.

“Rising from her seat and bending over the gallery, Mrs. Booth's clear voice rang through the Conference, as she said to her husband, “Never!"

“There was a pause of bewilderment and dismay. Every eye was turned towards the speaker in the gallery. The idea of a woman daring to utter her protest or to make her voice heard in the Conference produced little short of consternation. It was a sublime scene, as, with flushed face and flashing eye, she stood before that audience. Decision, irrevocable and eternal, was written upon every feature of that powerful and animated countenance. Her "Never!" seemed to penetrate like an electric flash through every heart” (Booth-Tucker 412).

In that act of defiance the Salvation Army was born. How much did the Methodist New Connexion lose in failing to hear and to accept the voices of William and Catherine?

Years later, Catherine Booth describing this event wrote: “I believe that cowardice is one of the most prevailing and subtle sins of the day. People are so pusillanimous that they dare not say 'No,' and are afraid to go contrary to the opinions of others, or to find themselves in a minority” (Booth-Tucker 409).  Today, the sin of The Salvation Army is still that–cowardice- an unwillingness to face contrary opinions, an unwillingness to hear dissenting opinions without knee-jerk condemnation.

And this is not really a new problem for us. It has been with us all along. In a letter to the second General (and son of the founders) Bramwell Booth, George Carpenter (who would later himself become the leader of the international Salvation Army) wrote:

“The Army is perhaps the last great public body to remain under autocratic government. In most civilized lands a man may speak openly as he feels concerning public affairs and rulers-from King, President, Prime Minister down. And so long as he avoids libel no one may penalize him for so doing. Within the Army there is a settled belief that one may be a Salvationist of unimpeachable devotion, of ability and godliness. But should he or she express views out of accord with the General…he or she is accounted disloyal and is in consequence discredited. This has a most unwholesome influence and produces an evil of secret disaffection much more to be feared in its present and ultimate effects than outward disloyalty” (Carpenter 160).

And how did General Bramwell Booth respond to (then) Colonel Carpenter’s letter? 

“My Dear Carpenter,

Your letter, which is a bomb! needs consideration before I see you. But let me say at once that your difficulties (if that is the right word) are really moonshine” (Carpenter 161).

Colonel Carpenter was then transferred from his appointment at International headquarters to Australia. Even though a memo went out instructing officers that no one was to attend Carpenter’s departure several Commissioners, senior officers, and employees gathered to bid him farewell. (163)

How many valuable voices are we losing when differences of interpretation are treated as expressions of heresy and when those officers and soldiers who have differing interpretations of scripture are told that they should leave the Salvation Army?  Are we unable or unwilling to learn from our own history?

Booth-Tucker, Frederick, The Life of Catherine Booth. Fleming H. Revell Company, New York. 1892.
 

Carpenter, Stella.  A Man of Peace in a World at War. Australia. Privately published. 1993.

See Also: Dealing with Disloyalty within The Salvation Army