The Salvation Army : Doing the most good.℠

Three Doctrines Considered

Roger J. Green and Jonathan S. Raymond

This issue of Word & Deed is, we think, unique in the history of the publication of the journal. In the past we have generally published articles from various Salvation Army conferences, thus assuring that these papers would have life far beyond the conferences themselves.We regret that in our history there have been many significant papers presented and which deserved further attention, but we did not have the means to capture those papers for posterity. Now, with this journal, we are able to have this ministry.

However, we are pleased that some of our readers are now submitting articles for consideration, and we might not have been aware of those articles were it not for the initiation of those writers to share their work with us. Of course, because of limited space, it is simply not possible to publish all articles that are sent to us, and we have the responsibility of having to turn down some submissions, which we regret.

In this issue of the journal all three articles that we are publishing have been submitted to us for our consideration, and we are delighted to forward the cause of Salvation Army theology and ministry with their publication. And the three articles represent the broader Salvation Army because one article comes from an American Salvation Army officer while two of the articles come from Australian Salvation Army officers. All three articles should be read carefully because they deal with three issues critical to our doctrinal life together.

The first article entitled “The Spirit and the Word,” written by Major Dr. Alan Harley, reminds us of our biblical and Wesleyan understanding of the authority of Scriptures, an understanding embedded in the history of the Church. Such a discussion of the authority of Scriptures is always necessary, as Major Harley has so well demonstrated. But in many churches today any discussions of authority come down simply and tragically to the authority of the individual Christian, and sometimes the individual leader. The recent fractures seen in the Episcopal community here in the United States and elsewhere are essentially over the nature of authority.

And so this article is an important reminder to us of our own doctrinal commitment to the authority of the Scriptures. This is a commitment that does not bring constraint, but brings freedom to interpret the Scriptures because of their trustworthiness.

The second article entitled “Suffering For and To Christ in William Booth’s Eschatological Ecclesiology” was written by Captain Andrew S. Miller III. We are indebted to our friends who publish the Wesleyan Theological Journal for allowing us to republish this article.The article deals with William Booth’s theology of the Church, and confronts the question as to whether or not Booth’s doctrine of the Church was sufficient as the Army moved into the twentieth century. Captain Miller has done admirable research into this topic, and his article will contribute significantly to current discussions about Booth’s view of the Church. While he disagrees with different understandings of Booth’s ecclesiology, he does so with care and provides scholarly grounding for his conclusions. And that is always appreciated.

As we move next year toward the hundredth anniversary of William Booth’s death, Booth being promoted to glory on August 20, 1912, we are cognizant of the need to refocus on Booth’s theology and how that theology has laid the groundwork for our Salvation Army today. And an understanding of Booth’s ecclesiology is critical to that theology.

The third article entitled “A Sacramental Life: Towards An Integrated Salvationist Vision” written by Major Dr. Dean Smith brings us to the heart of Salvation Army theology with a careful understanding of our sacramental life. This article well reminds us that doctrines are not philosophical statements available only to the scholarly elite, but are lived experiences. Nothing better demonstrates that than our commitment to the sacramental life. This article well articulates that commitment against our own theological background as well as that of the broader Christian Church.

Here, then, are three articles that assist us to continue in our understanding of three critically important aspects of our doctrinal heritage. We are indebted to these three writers, and pray that the submission of these three articles will stimulate other readers to share their writing and research with us. come.

JSR & RJG

The Spirit and the Word

Alan Harley

In 1974 Harold Lindsell, formerly of Fuller Theological Seminary, wrote his book, The Battle for the Bible, in which he contended that the future of Christianity depended on an unqualified commitment to the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. Four years later the International Council for Biblical Inerrancy was born, led by such respected evangelicals as J. W. Wenham, J. I. Packer and R. C. Sproul. If the Bible is to be trusted for salvation, it was argued, it must be without error in all it affirms.

If applied to the areas in which Scripture is specifically said to be authoritative—salvation through faith in Jesus Christ, teaching, rebuking, correcting, training in righteousness, equipping for ministry (2 Timothy 3:14-16) the term “inerrant” is appropriate. But if used to cover every geographical, historical and statistical reference it creates difficulties.

For some the inerrancy debate resulted in rather sad attempts to reconcile different statistics for the same events in Kings and Chronicles and a simplistic “solution” to the Synoptic Problem. Obvious difficulties were glossed over. Those who raised them (e.g., was Abiathar really the high priest in office when David ate the sacred bread, Mk. 2:26, or was it Ahimalech, 2 Sam. 21:1-6?) were castigated. Lindsell’s “battle” became a bitter evangelical fight with many casualties.

Most within the Wesleyan tradition chose not to engage in that battle. On the whole they had a nuanced approach to Scripture which affirmed its authority and trustworthiness without having to embrace a position which seemed to them to move in the direction of verbal dictation. Their position does not, however, suggest an impoverished understanding of the nature and authority of Scripture. The heirs of the 18th century Revival are also lineal descendants of the 16th century Reformers. Christians in the tradition of Wesley share with those of the Reformed tradition a high view of Scripture.

The leaders of both movements held that Scripture is the basis for everything that the church is to believe and teach.They worked on the assumption that everything taught in the church and believed by its members must be based on the Scriptures. For Reformed and Wesleyan believers, “they only constitute the divine rule of Christian faith and practice.” In particular, those leaders held that there was no other plan of salvation set forth than that found in the Bible. The Bible was held in the highest regard.

At the same time, however, Scripture was never divorced by the Reformers from the presence and work of the Holy Spirit. The two were so related that it is common to speak of the Reformation doctrine of Scripture in terms of “Word and Spirit.” This, in particular, was the point at which the Reformers, as well as those of Wesleyan stock, differ from contemporary Fundamentalism.

...

To continue reading this article visit shop.salvationarmy.org.

Dr. Alan Harley, a major in The Salvation Army, is Lecturer for the Spiritual Life Development Team, Australia Eastern Territory, Visiting Lecturer, Booth College, Sydney, Australia, and a member of the International Doctrine Council.

More

• Divine Imagination
• Subscribe to Word & Deed by Check
• Word & Deed Index