Return to Main Page:

History and Ethics

1. John Wesley's Means of Grace.

2. Zwingli: The Third Reformer.

3. The Salvation Army in Winnipeg

4. War has been Declared: the Invasion of Winnipeg (Sheepspeak)

5.The Invasion of Winnipeg (JAC - External Link)

6. Ethics of Salvation: Should we proclaim the Gospel?

7. Good News to the Poor: Comparing a Christian Worldview as expressed in Luke’s Gospel to Marx

8. Darwin, Charles, "Recapitulation and Conclusion" [The Origin of the Species, Akron, Ohio: Werner, 1872), ch. 15, pp. 267-306]. A Review by Captain Michael Ramsay.

John Wesley’s Means of Grace compared with Ulrich Zwingli as seen through a Salvationist Lens

Presented to William and Catherine Booth College October 2008

by Captain Michael Ramsay

The Salvation Army has a distinctive theology of the sacraments. While similar to the Quakers, we are distinct from most of Christendom in that we do not practice the rituals of baptism and communion. The Salvation Army grew out of the Anglican and Methodist/Wesleyan branches of the Reformation. John Wesley practiced communion frequently as part of his understanding of the means of grace.

Ulrich Zwingli has been called the ‘third man of the Reformation’.[1] He is the forerunner of Calvin in the Reformed tradition. What is interesting about Zwingli from a Salvationist perspective is that of all the Reformers, he was the only one to argue that baptism and communion are purely symbolic expressions of the inward reality.[2] As such I decided to compare Wesley’s theological understanding of the ‘means of grace’ with Zwingli’s theology. Seeing as The Salvation Army has drawn so much from our Wesleyan roots I thought it would be quite interesting to explore one area in which we have apparently deviated from our Wesleyan foundation – exploring means of grace through a Salvationist lens. Ultimately in this paper, we are asking the question, do these divergent streams of thought end in separate theological pools or is it possible that they meet together in the ocean of Salvationism?

The structure of this paper, which explores John Wesley’s understanding of the means of grace and compares it to Ulrich Zwingli’s, is based on Wesley’s sermon of 1746, The Means of Grace. In this sermon, which was published in each of his collections of sermons as well as being reprinted at least five other times in his lifetime,[3] Wesley defines means of grace as “…outward signs, words, or actions ordained of God, and appointed for this end – to be the ordinary channels whereby He might convey to men preventing, justifying, or sanctifying grace.”[4]  Reflecting on Wesley Dean G. Blevins comments, “The means, like grace, are available to all, even to those who do not yet experience what Wesley would call ‘salvation’ (or the witness of the Spirit). As grace is a dynamic, so are the means of grace. The result is that there are many different forms which Wesley categorized as either ‘Instituted’ or ‘Prudential’ means of grace.”[5] Though he would expand this list later, in the sermon The Means of Grace by which we have framed this discussion, Wesley claimed three primary means of grace. It is these that we will examine in detail in these pages comparing them with the understanding of Ulrich Zwingli and others. Wesley claims that “the chief of these means are prayer, whether in secret or with the great congregation; searching the Scriptures (which implies reading, hearing, and meditating thereon); and receiving the Lord's Supper, eating bread and drinking wine in remembrance of Him.”[6]

Prayer:

“The central theme of Wesley was always heartfelt prayer. He said that prayer is the lifting up of the heart to God. All words of prayer, without this, are mere hypocrisy. Whenever therefore thou attemptest to pray, see that it be thy one design to commune with God, to lift up thy heart to him, to pour out thy soul before him… In advocating extemporary prayer in the morning, Wesley said: ‘consider both your outward and inward state and vary your prayer accordingly.’”[7]

Wesley claimed “all who desire the grace of God are to wait for it in the way of prayer. This is the express direction of our Lord himself.”[8] As evidence for this he reasoned as follows citing relevant scriptures: citing Matthew 7, he reasoned that as we ask we will receive (vv.7-8) and that the Lord will give good things to those who ask him (vv.9-11). Drawing on Luke 11 and 18 he developed this further to claim that the Lord will specifically give us the good things for which as we ask (11:13), especially if we are persistent (11:5-9, 18:1-5); and Wesley referenced Matthew 6:6, James 1:5 and James 4:2 to point out that praying and waiting on the Lord in faith is a command expressly mentioned in the scriptures.[9]

As well as applying reason to the scriptures he expanded his argument to include the tradition of the early Christians arguing in favour of prayer as a chief means of grace citing Acts 2:42: “they continued steadfastly in the teaching of the Apostles, and in the breaking of bread, and in prayers” and claiming that as such this was taken for granted in the early ‘apostolical church.’[10] He also claimed the experiences of any who have called upon the name of the Lord in prayer and returned the argument to James 1:5 to confirm that when we ask in faith we do receive, he states that “from this scripture, therefore, as well as those cited above, we must infer, that all who desire the grace of God are to wait for it in the way of prayer”[11]

Prayer was one area at first that Zwingli and Wesley can appear to differ. It is not that one believed in prayer as a means of communion with God and the other did not. It is not that one emphasised the corporate and the other a purely private relationship with the Lord. The difference is simply one of emphasis. Though prayer was a key area of emphasis for Wesley, it was not one of the key areas of emphasis for Ulrich Zwingli in his letters, sermons, or political speeches. Zwingli was more concerned with the other means of grace with which we are framing our discussion. He was more outspoken about the Bible and, of course, about the sacraments of the Lord’s Supper (as well as that of baptism). Zwingli did have ideas about prayer, most of which were implicitly conveyed. Some of Zwingli’s understanding of prayer is reflected in his understanding of the church, which was openly opposed to the prevalent catholic thinking of his day. He argued that the church itself was a communion rather than a building and that this communion included believers only. He believed that each member of the communion could come before God. It was not merely the role of the Bishops to represent God. This was an important notion for Zwingli. We can all equally come before God in prayer, as in other areas.[12]

Zwingli’s ideas of the church in this matter seem to echo down through the generations to The Salvation Army and its recent ecclesiological statement where it is stated that “we do not believe that the church universal depends on its existence or validity upon any ecclesiastical structure, any particular form of worship, or any particular observance of ritual.”[13] The Church universal includes all believers. All believers can come before the Lord in the various aspects of worship. The Salvation Army certainly agreed with Wesley as Wesley agreed with Zwingli on this point as it pertains to prayer and engaging the scriptures. The Salvation Army to this day continues to use some of Charles and John Wesley’s sung prayers (hymns) in our worship services today. (Music is another area of great importance to the Wesleys, Zwingli, and The Salvation Army that we do not have time to explore in this paper). For Zwingli, Wesley, and The Salvation Army prayer is an important means of grace.

Scriptures

Wesley put a strong emphasis on the scriptures: “I want to know one thing - the way to heaven, how to land safe on that happy shore. God Himself has condescended to teach me the way, for this very end He came from heaven; He hath written it down in a book. O give me that Book! At any price, give me the Book of God. I have it; here is knowledge enough for me. Let me be homo unius libri!”[14] A very significant means of grace that Wesley claims is hearing, reading and meditating upon the ‘Book of God’, the scriptures. He opens this part of the discussion in his sermon, The Means of Grace, by reasoning through scripture that “Our Lord’s direction, with regard to the use of this means, is likewise plain and clear. ‘Search the scriptures,’ saith he to the unbelieving Jews, ‘for they testify of me.’ (John 5:39) And for this very end did he direct them to search the Scriptures, that they might believe in him.”[15] He further reasons from the scriptures and tradition that the Bereans received accolades from the Apostle Paul for searching the scriptures (Acts 17:11-12) and Timothy for meditating on them since he was young (2 Tim. 3:15). Noting that all scripture is given by God (2 Tim 3:16-17), he reasoned that the scriptures are infallible and thus profitable for each of us to engage[16] and indeed as “a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the Day-star arise in your hearts.’ (2 Peter 1:19)”, if we want to share in this experience Wesley argues that we should search the scriptures as a means of grace.[17]

The scriptures were of the utmost importance to all of the Reformers. Zwingli was no different. He, like Wesley, certainly understood them as inerrant. Ulrich Zwingli produced the first German Bible, the Zurich Bible, which he made with Leo Juda (1524-29) and this Bible was one of five major sources for the Coverdale Bible (1535).[18] This is significant. Zwingli held a strong belief in the central role of the Bible in Christian belief and practice and as such he made it available to the German-reading public. In his work, On True and False Religion, Zwingli states that the true source of all religion is the Word of God. “The Reformation as a whole was based on this principle, at least in the Reformer’s intentions and any study of Zwingli’s theology ought therefore to begin with his understanding of the Word.”[19]

Wesley, as we have shown, assigned a very important role for the Bible in his understanding of the means of grace. Even so, Zwingli held a more prominent role for the scriptures than did Wesley. Zwingli insisted that the scriptures – not reason, not experience and certainly not the traditions of the Church fathers – was the only master, teacher and guide. He held the extreme flank of the Sola Scriptura line. He proclaimed in his sermon, Of the Clarity and Certainty of the Word of God, “there is no law or word that will give greater light to the inward man than the Word of God.”[20] He insisted that the word of man must always be subject to the Word of God rather than the other way around[21] as he perceived was happening in his day and could certainly be argued is happening still in ours. He dismissed non-Biblical writers with scorn but when he quoted them, as he was apt to do, he acknowledged that the wisdom of God could even be shown through the ungodly.[22] Humankind can only come to know God and oneself through the Word of God; it is the Word of God, Zwingli claimed, which sets us apart from the plants and the animals.[23] More than any other churchman of his day, Ulrich Zwingli, truly did believe in Sola Scriptura.

Like Wesley and Zwingli, The Salvation Army holds a very important role for the scriptures in our theological tradition. The first of our eleven doctrines reads, “We believe that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments were given by inspiration of God, and that they only constitute the Divine rule of Christian faith and practice.” We hold that they are the primary authority, the ‘final court of appeal’ for the Christian that supersedes all other claims and that “as we search the scriptures, we enter into dialogue with them and experience the transforming power of the message.”[24]

The Salvation Army, like Wesley and like Zwingli, reserves a central place in our understanding of how we engage the Lord through the Word of God. While John Wesley did not ascribe to the same extent as Zwingli to the most radical version of the Reformation’s rallying call of Sola Scriptura, as was shown, Wesley clearly held that reading, hearing, and meditating on the scriptures was a very significant, and indeed one of the primary means of grace.

The Lord’s Supper, along with prayer, was another method of experiencing a means of grace that John Wesley held as very important and which we will examine shortly. First, however, I think it is important for the non/fully-sacramentalist Salvationist to look closely at Zwingli’s perspective of that particular sacrament.

The Lord’s Supper.

Ulrich Zwingli had an important stance on the Lord’s Supper in specific and on the sacraments in general. His position on the Lord’s Supper was one of the primary things that drove the wedge between himself, the established church, and his fellow reformers. Zwingli disliked the term ‘sacraments’ stating, “I wish the Germans never let this word get into their theological vocabulary”[25] for it caused a great source of division between the Roman Catholics, Lutherans, Anabaptists and others (this is not unlike some early Salvationist arguments). Zwinglian historian, Jacques Courvoisier points out that, in contrast to the aforementioned three groups, “to Zwingli, a sacrament is thus a kind of induction or pledge. To receive it is to enlist in Christ’s forces, and to receive in return a token, a reminder, that one must not yield but remain faithful.”[26]

Zwingli in Baptism, Rebaptism and Infant Baptism argued that baptism and also communion are merely outward signs that were given to us ‘as a concession to our frailty.’ It cannot take away one’s sins as no outward sign can possibly do this anymore than an outward sign can confirm faith because faith does not come from outward signs; faith comes from God. It is rather like a pledge of allegiance of sorts.[27] Zwingli remarks in a statement on baptism that he could equally apply to the Lord’s Supper, “The man who receives the mark of baptism is the one who is resolved to hear what God says to him, to learn the divine precepts and to live his life in accordance with them.”[28]

Ulrich Zwingli’s theology of baptism and communion continued to develop the more he studied and after 1525 it became linked with his understanding of covenant. Whereas he had previously argued that the observance of baptism was a covenant between the Christian and his (her) fellow Christians, he now argued that God had one covenant with humankind and the sacraments were symbolic of that covenant. As circumcision was nothing more than a symbol of this covenant that ‘God would be the God of his chosen people and they would be his people’ in the Old Testament so is baptism and communion, as circumcision’s contemporary cultural-religious equivalents (cf. The Apostle Paul’s writing on circumcision) in the New Testament era and beyond.[29]

Zwingli being the first of the Reformed Theologians had a great influence through Bullinger (1504-1575), his successor, over John Calvin (1509-1564). Though Calvin’s shadow often hides Zwingli from popular recognition, parts of Calvin’s theology certainly sprung from Zwinglian roots with some notable exceptions: one of these exceptions being the Lord’s Supper. Calvin and Bullinger reached a compromise on the Lord’s Supper: they decided (against Zwingli’s position) that it was not purely symbolic. The Salvation Army’s official stance however is closer to Zwingli’s than Calvin’s or Luther’s or Wesley’s. In the most recent ecclesiological statement (2008) was included the claim, “we maintain that no external observance can rightly be said to be essential to salvation or to the receiving of divine grace”[30]

Calvin did not see communion as purely symbolic but he did not go as far as transubstantiation or even consubstantiation; Calvin “in the 17^th chapter of the fourth book of the institutes, disputes the catholic and Lutheran formulae of a divine presence enclosed in the Eucharistic species, insists on the communicant’s participation in the Risen Body which is in heaven.”[31] This is a step closer to Wesley’s later understanding than Ulrich Zwingli’s previous one of a purely symbolic nature.

Zwingli, however, argued the purely symbolic stance with passion. This was the key contribution to his split with Martin Luther: they broke over an understanding of Christ's role in the bread and the wine of communion.  Their break was irreconcilable. Intermediaries could not bring them together. Both men rejected transubstantiation. Luther preferred consubstantiation (“a word that Luther never used [meaning] no change in substance, but an addition of the elements of the body of Christ.”)[32]  Zwingli, as has been stated, moved towards the idea of the Lord’s Supper as purely a symbolic act, rejecting the ‘real presence’ all together.[33] In 1526 Zwingli wrote the German treatise, A Clear Briefing About Christ's Supper, in which openly attacked any idea of the real presence of Lord in the supper before going on to defend his purely symbolic understanding.[34] The rift between them continued unmended. “Not even Zwingli’s death at Kappel appeased his opponent: it was merely the removal of another fanatic. Zwingli resorted to the sword and received his just reward. Worst of all, Luther proclaimed, Zwingli was no fellow Christian.”[35] This was a serious issue for both men.

Specifically addressing the Lord’s Supper, Zwingli had argued that when Jesus is recorded as saying, ‘this is my body’ as it relates to the sacrament, the word ‘is’ can and should be translated ‘signifies’. Zwingli, who generally rejected the authority of the church fathers, draws on Augustine, Tertullian, and Origin’s arguments to make this point.[36] He further cites John 6:63, “It is the Spirit who gives life, the flesh is of no avail” claiming that this text renders impossible all views of eating the flesh (including but not limited to ideas such as transubstantiation and consubstantiation). He cited from 1 Corinthians 10:14-22, the phrase, “we many are one bread and one body”, to argue that by eating the bread we are merely binding ourselves to an oath rather than consuming Christ in any practical way.[37] Communion like Baptism is a sign, a symbol, and therefore is neither necessary nor necessarily useful. Near the end of his life, he only administered the Lord’s Supper a maximum of four times each year.

Wesley, on the other hand, took communion as often as possible. He stated in his sermon, The Means of Grace, “All who desire an increase of the grace of God are to wait for it in partaking of the Lord's Supper: For this also is a direction himself hath given.”[38] Stephen T. Hoskins writes that “John [Wesley’s] words in his sermon On The Duty of Constant Communion are not those of someone attached only to a commonplace status for the sacrament: ‘He that when he may obey the commandment if he will, does not, will have no place in the kingdom of heaven.’”[39] Wesley draws on scripture in his sermon The Means of Grace to make his argument quoting from what tradition understands as the institution of the ceremony in the Gospels (Matthew 26, Mark 14): “This do ye in remembrance of me” and 1 Cor. 11:23, “For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show forth the Lord's death till he come”, which he cites directly. Continuing in the scriptures Wesley advises us, 1 Cor. 11:28, to examine ourselves before we partake in the ceremony.

Wesley reasons from his understanding of the Greek that the Lord not only offered his followers permission to eat and drink the Lord’s Supper but that He indeed commanded it.[40] He continues by, in reference to 1 Cor. 10:16, rhetorically asking, “Is not the eating of that bread, and the drinking of that cup, the outward, visible means, whereby God conveys into our souls all that spiritual grace, that righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost, which were purchased by the body of Christ once broken and the blood of Christ once shed for us? Let all, therefore, who truly desire the grace of God, eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.”[41]

Wesley saw the Lord’s Supper as extremely important and partook of it frequently. Wesley saw the Lord’s Supper as “primarily a communal act, [which] connects individuals to each other and to the grace available through the work of the Holy Spirit in our taking the bread and cup. What makes the Lord's Supper such a powerful introduction to the means of grace is it's ability to operate at different levels of meaning: as a memorial; as an immediate divine presence; and as an eschatological promise.”[42]

 The following reasoned arguments that Wesley used to defend the Lord’s Supper as a means of grace, he also applied to the scriptures and to prayer. Wesley noted that some will say that these acts are useless if one does not trust in them therefore some decline these means of grace. This argument he equates to wilfully transgressing the explicit will of God: “Do you deliberately teach to ‘do evil, that good may come?’ O tremble at the sentence of God against such teachers! Their ‘damnation is just.’”[43]

Wesley notes that some would refer to his understanding of the means of grace as seeking salvation by works. His defence to this accusation by an imaginary interloper is to define the concept of ‘salvation by works’ based on the scriptures and tradition of Moses and Paul’s interpretation thereof. Wesley asserts that ‘salvation by works’ refers to seeking our own salvation through the Mosaic Law; Wesley however was not suggesting that we can do anything to secure our salvation through these rites. He was merely claiming that it is “waiting in the way God has ordained, and expecting that he will meet me there, because he has promised so to do.”[44]

Some would argue that Christ is the only means of grace. Wesley argues that this argument is simply based upon a confusion of terms. He acknowledges that “Yet not for the sake of any works which I have done, nor for the merit of my righteousness; but merely through the merits, and sufferings, and love of his Son, in whom he is always well pleased.”[45] Our salvation comes from Christ alone and as such that is not what is referred to by ‘means of grace’ but rather a “a channel through which the grace of God is conveyed.”[46] He still held that an ordained minister of the Church, however, should only administer the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. As J. Duane Beals states, “Wesley linked the Lord's Supper with the ministration of grace and forgiveness, and that most of his life he would not allow the cup and bread to be administered outside the Established Church by other than an episcopally ordained clergyman.”[47]

The prescribed means of grace by Wesley are a way to wait on the Lord as David did and as we are instructed to do by the prophet Isaiah (Isaiah 26:8)[48] and also Wesley argues – like when the Israelites followed God and Moses out of Egypt through the Red Sea (Exodus 14) - a way of moving forward into a full experience of the salvation of God. Some would argue, like the Moravians, that we should not partake in any of the means of grace until we feel we are worthy to do so. William Law, a former mentor, and Phillip Mothler certainly advocated for ceasing all ‘self-activity’ in the waiting process.[49] Wesley disagreed. On the contrary he argued, “those who feel that they need the grace of God should be encouraged to seek that grace in the Supper, not excluded for being unworthy.”[50] We should move forward in practicing the means of grace while all the while waiting on the Lord. “This was the salvation of God, which they stood still to see, by marching forward with all their might!”[51] He further expands this argument through a look at Jehoshaphat (2 Chr 20:2 ff.).

Wesley raised one final possible objection to his argument for the means of grace he has articulated. He asks, “Does not St. Paul say, ‘If ye be dead with Christ, why are ye subject to ordinances?’ (Col. 2:20) Therefore a Christian, one that is dead with Christ, need not use the ordinances any more.”[52] Calling this objection ‘absurd’ and ‘the weakest of all’, he notes that the ordinances questioned by the apostle are the traditional Jewish ordinances not the Christian ones that are being established and will be experienced by the church fathers and beyond.[53]

Wesley then argues “all who desire the grace of God are to wait for it in the means he hath ordained; it may still be inquired, how those means should be used, both as to the order and the manner of using them.”[54] As far as the order is concerned, though, we find “no command in holy writ for any particular order to be observed,”[55] not limiting God and accepting variations there is an order generally followed. First the sinner comes to salvation; then as he hears the word of God, he reads the scriptures; next, he prays; finally he experiences the means of grace embodied in the ceremony of the Lord’s Supper.[56]

In the eighteen century it was not uncommon in Anglicanism for people to take the sacraments for granted. They had gathered statistics on this matter and those statistics show that less and less people were receiving communion. It was not important to many people. Wesley disagreed. For him communion and the other acts of the means of grace were important and so was the manner in which those means were conveyed.[57]

As far as the manner of conveying the means of grace, Wesley cautioned us to ‘always to retain a lively sense, that God is above all means. Have a care, therefore, of limiting the Almighty’, be ‘deeply impressed upon your soul’ and ‘In using all means, seek God alone.’[58]

The discussion in the Salvation Army about communion, baptism, and other rites as a means of grace and has never abated since our fully / non-sacramental stance was formalised. Even as recently as 2008, the International Headquarters of The Salvation Army, in consultation with the International Doctrine Council and the International Management Council, by the authority of the General has released The Salvation Army In The Body of Christ: An Ecclesiological Statement that echoes some of the cries of the Great Minister of Zurich himself. In The Salvation Army, we affirm that the “receiving of inward spiritual grace, in not dependant upon any particular outward observance.”[59]

Summary and Conclusions:

John Wesley was the founder of Methodism, the movement from which The Salvation Army grew. The means of grace was a topic that was near and dear to John Wesley’s heart. It was central enough to his theology to even cause division between himself and some of friends and mentors. In this paper we have compared John Wesley’s position as our forerunner to the great reformer Ulrich Zwingli.

Zwingli is known as the grandfather of Reformed Theology. He paved the road for John Calvin, his theological heir, who is often contrasted to John Wesley even though John and Charles Wesley co-existed with Calvinists for many years within Methodism. As the Wesley’s relationship with the Calvinist George Whitefield and others over the years developed (George Whitefield, after an eventual split, seemed to seek reconciliation and John Wesley even performed his funeral[60]), he had constant interaction with the proponents of Reformed Theology. Wesley’s theological training (like Whitefield’s ironically) however did develop in a different tradition, that of Anglicanism.

The one difference that stands out immediately between Ulrich Zwingli and John Wesley was their understanding of the practice of the Lord’s Supper. As the traditional Salvationist perspective on the rite of communion as a means of grace is more closely aligned with Ulrich Zwingli’s Reformed position, we opened this discussion for the purpose of comparing Zwingli’s perspective on the other means of grace that John Wesley acknowledged in his sermon of that same name in the hopes that it may cast some light on understanding our own traditions.

We searched out three means of grace proposed by John Wesley and compared them to Ulrich Zwingli’s earlier stance through a Salvationist lens. Ultimately we were asking the question, do these divergent streams of thought end in separate theological pools or is it possible that they meet together in the ocean of Salvationism?

John Wesley had much to say about various means of grace: the Lord’s Supper, the scriptures, and prayer. The Lord’s Supper is the means of grace that provided the impetus for this paper. Pertaining to the Lord’s Supper, the Salvation Army is certainly much closer to Ulrich Zwingli than we are to our own spiritual grandfather, John Wesley. Wesley partook of the Lord’s Supper as often as possible. The Salvation Army has argued repeatedly throughout our history that, as Zwingli claimed, the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper is purely symbolic and as Zwingli in his last days offered the rite infrequently; The Salvation Army does not officially perform it at all.[61] Salvationism in the understanding of the role of the Lord’s Supper is much closer to the theological stream flowing from the Reformed Theology of Ulrich Zwingli than to that of the Wesleyan position.

Prayer as a means of grace was extremely important to John Wesley so much so that it has been said, “The central theme of Wesley was always heartfelt prayer.”[62] Ulrich Zwingli in contrast did not have much to say about the topic of prayer specifically but the Great Minister of Zurich religiously upheld the practice. The Salvation Army, like Zwingli, though we have not written about it as much as we have about the other means of grace considered in this paper, sees it as an important part of our relationship with God. In this aspect we do indeed theologically flow alongside both Zwingli and Wesley.

The scriptures are where these two great minds meet in recognising their importance in communing with God. The scriptures, as we have shown, are of a central importance to both Wesley and Zwingli before him. The scriptures are the subject of the first doctrine of The Salvation Army. The scriptures are that unifying theme towards which we can surely rally. The scriptures are the main way in which we join the two traditions in one great ocean of Salvationism and this is indeed good news. For the gospel itself has the power to transform us all. The scriptures then are indeed where the streams of Wesleyan-Methodism and Zwinglian Theology meet together in our beautiful lake of Salvationism and as such I pray that our first doctrine will always be upheld.

Ulrich Zwingli: ‘The Third Reformer’

Presented to William and Catherine Booth College October 2008

by Captain Michael Ramsay

Introduction:

Ulrich (Huldreich) Zwingli has been called the ‘third man of the Reformation’. He is the grandfather of Reformed Theology. Zwingli’s thoughts and practices, through his successor Bullinger greatly influenced John Calvin, and by extension all of Reformed Theology. What is interesting from a Salvationist perspective; however, is that of all the Reformers (including Bullinger and Calvin) as well as the counter-reformers, Ulrich Zwingli was the only one to argue that baptism and communion are purely symbolic expressions of the inward reality. His arguments, should they be valid, would add a strong historical rationale to our own and as such it is my hope that this paper, as its scope is necessarily large, can lay an introductory framework from which to develop this thought more fully at a later date.

Concise Biography

Ulrich Zwingli was born, as contradictory as it sounds, to a relatively well to do peasant family. Their status was due to significant church connections.[1] Ulrich was born in Wilhaus in the high Toggenburg Valley in what is now Switzerland on 01 January 1484, the very same day as Martin Luther of Germany.[2] Wilhaus wasn’t part of the Swiss Confederation at the time of Zwingli’s birth so Switzerland’s famous first reformer only actually became a naturalised citizen when he became a full citizen of Zurich in 1521.[3]

Zwingli was sent to High School in Basel in 1494 where he studied Latin, Dialectic and Music under his teacher Gregor Bunzli.[4] Here he began to develop his great love of music. This grew as he moved to Berne to further pursue his studies in 1496/97 and became greatly influenced by famous Heinrich Wolfin. What is really interesting about his time in Berne, however, is that it appears that Zwingli was about to become Dominican. He went so far as to be accepted and actually enter a Dominican house - apparently to pursue his study of music - but his family intervened when they discovered it and moved him to the University of Vienna.[5] He graduated with a BA in 1504 and an MA by 1506.[6]

In 1506 Zwingli received his first parish, Glarus in the diocese of Constance, where he was to remain for the next ten years. Here he was able to continue his studies and begin to formulate his thoughts on grace, faith, the Word of God, and Swiss mercenaries; all of which impacted his future thought and practice. [7]

This first religious position in Glarus led to his first political stand and was related to the Swiss mercenaries. The French, the Hapsburgs (the Holy Roman Empire) and the Pope were vying for control over (or at the very least access to) the mercenary troops in the area. Zwingli decided in favour of the Roman See and was rewarded with an annual pension of fifty gulden for his successful efforts on the Pope’s behalf. When the political sentiment in this area shifted towards France, Zwingli took up a pastorate in Einsiedein briefly (1516-1518) before moving onto Zurich.[8] Politics, religion, and even soldiery became forever mixed for the Great Minister of Zurich. He, after a life of fighting in all three realms variously against and alongside the likes of Erasmus, Luther, the Pope, and the other Swiss Cantons, [9] died in battle against his countrymen in October of 1531 at the age of 47.[10]

The Contemporary Social and Church Context

The world at the time of Zwingli’s birth was seeing the early stages of the long decline of the power of Ottoman Empire and the early stages of exploration and conquest by the Europeans: particularly the Iberians (Spain and Portugal). France and the Netherlands were beginning to set their sights on expansion and England was not far behind. Central Europe was also looking to consolidate its power and expand and the Swiss mercenaries (‘contractors’ in contemporary US military terms) played a key role in the regional power dynamics.

Most of Switzerland at the time of Zwingli’s birth was under the official control of the Holy Roman Empire (Fredrick III, later Maximillian I). The Empire’s practical control of the country, however, was in reality quite weak and Switzerland for the most part acted as it if was an autonomous state and indeed it was moving steadily towards official self-governance.[11] The Diet of Stans (1481) prevented a civil war as the Swiss populace came to terms with growing this independence and prosperity, after which the Confederation steadily grew canton by canton: Fribourg and Solothurn (1481), Basel and Schaffhausen (1501), Appenzell (1513).[12] It was able to do this for a few reasons: most of the early member cantons had a common language of German (with the exceptions of Fribourg and Bern, which were French).[13] It was a mountainous region, which made it easy to defend and it had poor soil, which made it unattractive to invade. Switzerland also had its mercenaries. These earned a great reputation as fighting forces and after the Burgundian War of the 1470’s, it proved a great source of income for the country as well.[14] There is a sad irony in the fact that Zwingli, who argued against the Swiss sending their troops off to fight in foreign wars, would die in battle at the hands of his countrymen.

It was already mentioned that Ulrich Zwingli was born on the same day as the famous German Reformer Martin Luther.[15] The following is a brief list of some of what was happening in Germany with Luther in Zwingli’s lifetime: Luther was ordained a priest in 1507; on Oct. 31 1517, he posted his 95 theses on the church door. Jan. 3 1521, Luther was excommunicated after he had a number of Papal bulls burned and was investigated by the Inquisition; 1521 also saw the Diet of Worms and Luther’s kidnapping by Fredrick; by 1524 the religious wars were well underway with the now famous peasants revolt. Though not a soldier, Luther was at least as active in inciting military engagements as Zwingli was in fighting them.[16]

Zwingli and Luther work ran parallel in many ways: they both rejected the authority of the Pope, agreed to the principles of Sola Scriptura and justification by faith; rejected the seven sacraments, church tradition, the prohibition to marry for clergy; and they each emphasized the power of the Word of God (Ro 1:16-17).[17]

Their break, however, was indisputable as it was irreconcilable. Intermediaries could not bring them together which is interesting since the issue that they broke over has been considered by many to be a theological adiaphoron (a matter of indifference): they broke over an understanding of Christ's role in the bread and the wine of communion. Both men rejected transubstantiation. Luther preferred consubstantiation (“a word that Luther never used [meaning] no change in substance, but an addition of the elements of the body of Christ.”)[18]  Zwingli moved towards the idea of the Lord’s Supper as purely a symbolic act, rejecting the 'real presence' all together.[19] In 1526 Zwingli wrote the German treatise, A Clear Briefing About Christ's Supper, in which openly attacked any idea of the real presence of Lord in the supper before going on to defend his purely symbolic understanding.[20] The rift between them continued unmended. “Not even Zwingli's death at Kappel appeased his opponent: it was merely the removal of another fanatic. Zwingli resorted to the sword and received his just reward. Worst of all, Luther proclaimed, Zwingli was no fellow Christian.”[21]

Erasmus was another contemporary of Ulrich Zwingli. Erasmus (1469-1536) is probably best known for the publication of his edition of Greek-Latin New Testament, Novum Instrumentum, in 1516/17. He engaged in the discussions of his day and made a myriad of contributions to the Church of his time without (unlike Luther and Zwingli) inciting or participating in armed rebellion. His well-known prayer about the growing divisions in Christian Europe sums up well his acute understanding of the times in which he lived. He prayed, “Bring order out of chaos, Lord Jesus, send Your Spirit to move over these evilly turbulent waves of Dogma.”[22]

Zwingli looked up to Erasmus as the ‘greatest philosopher and theologian’ and he would read his works every night before he went to sleep.[23] Erasmus influenced Zwingli to search the sources of Christianity, restore the Bible to its proper authority, recognise the sufficiency of Christ for salvation; acknowledge that unbaptised infants are nonetheless saved, the concept of faith as trust; to criticise superstitions, Papal absolutism, and even transubstantiation.[24] Zwingli never disavowed Erasmus. Erasmus however distanced himself from Zwingli, as he had earlier done with Luther whom he held to be a heretic trying to rent Christendom.[25] Erasmus, upon Zwingli's death was only marginally more charitable than was Luther. “'It is good', wrote Erasmus, 'that these two leaders [Zwingli and Oeclampadius] have succumbed. Had Mars been propitious to them, we ourselves should have been undone.”[26] Zwingli was not missed by his non-Swiss counterparts.

The position of the Church at Rome around the time of Zwingli was interesting. Religiously, of course, they were dialoguing with Churchmen such as Erasmus and breaking with Reformers such as Luther. Earlier they had their difficulties with Wycliff (1330-1384) and would soon face resistance from Henry VIII (1491-1547). Politically, Luther and Henry VIII (as Zwingli) would weaken the power of the Roman Church through the so-called ‘Reformation’.

Setting the stage for this Reformation, the Church’s power was waxing and waning for quite some time. The power waned with the challenge from France in the fifteenth century in the form of the Great Schism and then waxed as the Turks threatened Constantinople. Due to this threat, the East submitted to the authority of Rome. On July 6, 1439 the Pope was declared the Pontiff of all of Christendom.[27] This didn’t last long as Greek clergy and people quickly repudiated the decision and Constantinople eventually fell to the Ottomans anyway. The European monarchs were expanding their influence and power at the expense of the Roman Church who, it was alleged – for one example – owned half the wealth of Germany and one fifth of that in France.[28]

This is not to say that there were not ecclesiastical weaknesses within the Roman Church as well. Guy Jouenneax, the papal commissary sent to reform the Benedictine monasteries in France, proclaimed in 1503: “Many monks gamble, curse, haunt inns, carry swords, gather riches, fornicate, ‘live the life of Bacchanals,’ and ‘are more worldly than the mere worldling…Were I minded to relate all those things that have come under my own eyes, I should make too long a tale of it.’”[29] There were many other faults of the churchmen at this time too. The chief sin of the simple parish priest, however, as G.G. Coulton indicates, was simple ignorance: he was too poorly paid and worked too hard to be able to set aside time and resources for study.[30] This is the context into which the educated Zwingli was placed.

Ulrich Zwingli’s contributions.

Ulrich Zwingli made a number of contributions to Christianity, the Church and the world. Ulrich Zwingli produced the first German Bible, the Zurich Bible, which he made with Leo Juda (1524-29) more than two years prior to Martin Luther’s German translation (1532), and this Bible was one of five major sources for the Coverdale Bible (1535).[31] This is significant. Zwingli held a strong belief in the central role of the Bible in Christian belief and practice as such he made it available to the German-reading public. In his work, On True and False Religion, Zwingli states that the true source of all religion is the Word of God. “The Reformation as a whole was based on this principle, at least in the Reformer’s intentions and any study of Zwingli’s theology ought therefore to begin with his understanding of the Word”[32]

Zwingli insisted that Scripture – not the traditions of the Church fathers – was the only master, teacher and guide. He proclaimed in his sermon, Of the Clarity and Certainty of the Word of God, “there is no law or word that will give greater light to the inward man than the Word of God.”[33] He insisted that the word of man must always be subject to the Word of God rather than the other way around[34] as he perceived was happening in his day and could certainly be argued is happening still in ours. He dismissed non-Biblical writers with scorn but when he quoted them, as he was apt to do, he acknowledged that the wisdom of God could even be shown through the ungodly.[35] Humankind can only come to know God and oneself through the Word of God; it is the Word of God, Zwingli claimed, which sets us apart from the plants and the animals.[36] More than any other churchman of his day, Ulrich Zwingli, truly did believe in Sola Scriptura.

Ulrich Zwingli took an original and significant stance on the sacraments. This important position was one of the primary things that drove the wedge between himself, the established Church, and his fellow reformers. Zwingli disliked the term ‘sacraments’ in general, stating, “I wish the Germans never let this word get into their theological vocabulary”[37] for it caused a great source of division between the Roman Catholics, Lutherans, Anabaptists and others (this is not unlike some early Salvationist arguments). Zwinglian historian, Jacques Courvoisier points out that, in contrast to the aforementioned three groups, “to Zwingli, a sacrament is thus a kind of induction or pledge. To receive it is to enlist in Christ’s forces, and to receive in return a token, a reminder, that one must not yield but remain faithful.”[38] Zwingli’s teaching and understanding of three of the so-called sacraments is quite interesting: two (baptism and communion) because they are a constant source of debate in my own tradition (Salvationism), the third (marriage) because it reveals much of the character of Ulrich Zwingli.

Zwingli in Baptism, Rebaptism and Infant Baptism argues that baptism (as communion) is merely an outward sign that was given to us ‘as a concession to our frailty.’ Baptism cannot take away one’s sins as no outward sign can possibly do this anymore than an outward sign can confirm faith because faith does not come from outward signs; faith comes from God. Baptism is rather like a pledge of allegiance of sorts.[39] Zwingli states, “The man who receives the mark of baptism is the one who is resolved to hear what God says to him, to learn the divine precepts and to live his life in accordance with them.”[40]

His theology of Baptism continued to develop, the more he studied, and after 1525 it became linked with his understanding of covenant. Whereas he had previously argued that the observance of Baptism was a covenant between the Christian and his (her) fellow Christians, he now argued that God had one covenant with humankind and the sacraments were symbolic of that covenant. As circumcision was nothing more than a symbol of this covenant that ‘God would be the God of his chosen people and they would be his people’ in the Old Testament so is Baptism, as it is circumcision’s contemporary cultural-religious equivalent (cf. The Apostle Paul’s writing on circumcision) in the New Testament era and beyond.[41]

This idea that baptism is a sign, a symbol, of the covenant that God has with his chosen people, which in and of itself possesses no salvific power also applied to Ulrich Zwingli’s understanding of communion (The Lord’s Supper, Eucharist). Zwingli argued that when Jesus is recorded as saying, ‘this is my body’ as it relates to the sacrament, the word ‘is’ can and should be translated ‘signifies’. Zwingli, who generally rejected the authority of the church fathers, draws on Augustine, Tertullian, and Origin’s arguments to make this point.[42] He further cites John 6:63, “It is the Spirit who gives life, the flesh is of no avail” claiming that this text renders impossible all views of eating the flesh (including but not limited to ideas such as transubstantiation and consubstantiation). He cites from 1 Corinthians 10:14-22, “we many are one bread and one body”, to argue that by eating the bread we are merely binding ourselves to an oath (much like he argued for baptism) rather than consuming Christ in any practical way.[43] Communion like Baptism is a sign, a symbol.

What then of marriage? Marriage was a third one of the traditional sacraments in which he parted with Rome. He argued that marriage was not a sacrament in his estimation, but that it was still an holy institution; and as such, there should no law to prohibiting a pastor from taking a wife as Ulrich Zwingli did and as Martin Luther did. Zwingli broke with Rome by allowing clerics to marry their mistresses (This is not to say that Rome approved of clerics having mistresses in the first place). He further disagreed with Rome about marriage in that he permitted a legal separation in cases of impotency, sterility, threats to harm, or in the event of instigation to prostitution.  He also allowed separated partners (even convicted adulterers) to remarry after a time.[44] I have found no scriptural argument for Zwingli’s position here in either his sermons or his letters other than brief references to Matthew 19. His stance seems to develop more from his desire to show his political independence, further attack the notion of a sacrament as other than a pledge, and his desire to indulge himself.

Zwingli also took a stand on Church and State. This is actually something through which he has gained some notoriety for himself. His actual stance is somewhat confusing, of course, reading this in the post-Enlightenment Era. After the atheistic /deistic revolutions of the 18^th, 19^th, and 20^th Centuries in the US, France, Russia,[45] and a similar ‘putch’ in Germany that was upheld in the general elections of 1933,[46] the separation of Church and State has come to mean something quite different. In the sixteenth century there was still one unified Christian society, a corpus christianum as it was referred. Ministers and magistrates were equal and sometimes had distinct responsibilities.[47] Ulrich Zwingli, however, was a temporal political ruler and Ulrich Zwingli was an ordained priest. The separation of the Church and the State for which he argued was not a divorce of Christianity from political rule. It was a divorce of rule by the Roman Catholic Church. This is quite different and this divorce does not seem to be entire by any means either. Zwingli still acknowledged that the State must submit to God and the Scriptures and that it has a responsibility to look after the poor. The difference (and separation) between the Church and the State seems to be more in the realm of making war. Zwingli, a churchman who would ironically die in a battle in which he chose to fight, argued that while magistrates have a right to declare war, ministers do not. They must turn the other cheek.[48]

All of the aforementioned – the division of Church and State, marriage, baptism, communion – and much more led to the final break with Rome. This break was not inevitable. Zwingli did support Rome against France in his first decade as a priest and Rome was much more patient with the Swiss than with Luther’s German princes (probably due to the importance of the Swiss mercenaries) but things changed. Zwingli became very much embroiled in the politics of his time. In 1521, the Pope requested 6000 troops from Zurich and only received 1500. As Zurich did not send the full amount of troops, the Pope took his time paying the bill (2 years).[49] Zurich then continued on its independent path which included among other things the limiting of observing mass to four times each year and, on August 29, 1524 an ultimatum was sent to Zurich and her supporting towns demanding that they return to their ancient customs or else quit Confederation. Zurich’s allies sought reconciliation through compromise.[50] Zurich held out. By July 16^th, with the exception of Schaffhausen and Appenzell, all the cantons had agreed to exclude Zwingli from future federal diets.[51] Zwingli sent missionaries into the hostile territory and his supporters began to riot. Clement IV, on February 14^th, via a letter, begged the people of Zurich to repent of their sins: “Flee, my sons, flee away from such disseminators of heresy, of impiety, and of sedition,” he wrote.[52]

The schism was apparent to all. Mass was abolished in Zurich. In May of 1529, a missionary sent by Zurich to win over the ambivalent and incite his adversaries was burned at the stake.[53] Outright war was getting closer. On June 9, 1529, Zurich, bowing to pressing from Zwingli, who threatened to resign if they did not declare war, declared war on the Catholic cantons. It was the first Kappel War. The peace was signed shortly afterwards (June 26^th) did not resolve the issue.[54] “Zwingli never doubted that war must be renewed and that fundamental differences could be settled only on the battlefield.”[55] The Catholics agreed and Zurich, under Zwingli, was at war again on October 9^th. In a battle that lasted less than an hour, on October 11, the war ended with the death of 100 Catholic soldiers and 500 Zurich soldiers including twenty-five clerics and the Great Minister himself, Ulrich Zwingli.[56]

Legacy.

Ulrich Zwingli has left a significant legacy. He was the first of the Reformed Theologians having a great influence through Bullinger (1504-1575), his successor, over John Calvin (1509-1564). Though Calvin’s shadow often hides Zwingli from popular recognition, parts of Calvin’s theology certainly sprung from Zwinglian roots with two notable exceptions: Calvin, aligning himself closer to Luther’s position, disagreed with Zwingli and Bullinger on predestination and Bullinger and Calvin reached a compromise on the Lord’s Supper: they decided (against Zwingli’s position) that it was not purely symbolic. After much discussion, in March of 1566 the Confession Helvetique Posterieure was signed officially uniting the Zwinglians and the Calvinists. This was recognised by the French Reformed churches (1571), countersigned by the Church of Scotland (1566), the Hungarians (1567), and by the Polish Protestants (1570) albeit in a modified form under the name of Confession Polica.[57]

One aspect that stands out in Zwingli’s theology that is particularly relevant to The Salvation Army today is his position on the Lord’s Supper and baptism. Zwingli led the way. He was the first to truly argue that they were entirely symbolic acts.[58] The discussion in the Salvation Army about communion, baptism and has never abated since our fully / non-sacramental stance was formalised. Even as recently as 2008, the International Headquarters of The Salvation Army, in consultation with the International Doctrine Council and the International Management Council, by the authority of the General has released The Salvation Army In The Body of Christ: An Ecclesiological Statement that echoes some of the cries of the Great Minister himself. We affirm that the “receiving of inward spiritual grace, in not dependant upon any particular outward observance.”[59]

Zwingli also restored the Bible to a central position as the fontal source of piety, encouraged believers to preaching-centred worship, sobriety, and movement away from liturgy.[60] Zwingli fought very much against the idea of salvation by works as well as the so-called ‘double-predestination’.  In many ways Zwingli would have made a good Salvationist. At the very least, I submit, his arguments on many of these stances would be good for any Salvationists to study as they add, from a different tradition, a strong historical rationale for our own beliefs.[61]

Staff-Captain Young, Lieutenant Archer, Captain Hackett, Captain Harrison, and cadets Teirney and Graham answered the call to ‘bombard Manitoba’ and, in 1886, “on the 10^th day of December, at –43⁰ below zero The Salvation Army opened fire in Winnipeg.” [4] By the 116^th issue (15 January 1887) of Volume III of the Canadian War Cry, they were already reporting “the capture of 45 rebels.”[5] This is what the Army reported about its initial success:

“ ar has been declared, and not only declared but the battle has commenced in desperate earnestness, and already, many are slain of the Lord. 

Glory to God! We bombarded the streets with War Crys on Saturday, the hotel-keepers freely patronizing us; and a hearty invitation to come again was given by nearly everyone (but I am inclined to think that these invitations will not be given so often when they find we are ruining their soul-damning business).

Although there was no public announcement on Saturday that there would be meetings on Sunday (in fact a notice to the contrary) as we did not know that we could have the hall until late on Saturday…there was a very fair attendance. Our faith ran high, and in the afternoon we had a big crowd, very deep in interest and intense curiosity. The night meeting fairly eclipsed the others. It seemed as if we could never close the meeting. The people poured in on every hand, and had the hall been large enough to hold hundreds more, it would have been packed.” [6]

The Army was not the only one acknowledging this amazing beginning in Winnipeg. The Salvation Army’s claims of success were supported by articles in the Manitoba Daily Free Press. Pertaining to the Salvation Army’s arrival in town, it had this to say:

“the same afternoon the largest hall in the city (Victoria Hall) had been rented; and the agents were seen scattered along Main Street and industriously engaged in selling the War Cry.  Yesterday the campaign was begun in earnest, services being held in the hall morning, afternoon and evening, besides open-air meetings and street parade. Thus it will be seen that the soldiers cannot be denied credit for enterprise and activity, whatever may be thought of some other features of their work. By the time of the evening meeting the news had spread so widely that the hall was packed before the time announced for the service, hundreds having been waiting for fully half an hour….Announcement was made that services would be held every night during the week at 8 o’clock, and four times on Sunday next.”[7]

Further, it was not only the adults that the Salvation Army had significantly impacted. Children, as well, were clamouring for an opportunity to attend the Salvation Army meetings in this town. “A ‘little soldiers’’ meeting is to be held regularly in the future on Saturday afternoons from 2 to 3 o’clock. This is a meeting for children and will no doubt meet the wants of those who have been excluded in the past for want of room. It is a common thing to see a group of boys standing at the outside door beseeching adults who are unaccompanied by children to take them into the service.”[8]

            This quickly established and ever-increasing popularity extended rapidly throughout the Winnipeg community. By March The Salvation Army reported that, though Victoria Hall could comfortably fit 800 people, somehow it fit 1200 people into the meetings and still was forced to turn many more people away.[9] The Salvation Army, in doing so, one might suppose would make adversaries of some of the more established places of worship in the city. While naturally enough, on the part of some, there were voiced reservations or hesitations; overall though, this was not the case. The Army’s popularity and its ability to work with the already existing churches in town is attested by the Free Press as early as 14 February 1887, when it reported that since Victoria Hall was unavailable for a Friday evening’s meeting, the Reverend JB Silcox and the Congregationalists were willing to lend the Army their church building for the evening.[10] The Salvation Army, highlighting the generosity of the Reverend and the church, reported the success of the event this way in an article entitled ‘The Winnipeg Warfare: The Army Goes to Church:’

“Some people thought that a dreadful thing, the crowd would ruin the Church, spoil the carpet with tobacco juice, etc. ‘Well,’ said the pastor, ‘what if they do? It will be assigned a second consecration.’

     To say the Church was filled does not convey the faintest idea of what the writer is trying to describe. The seating capacity is 1800, but it is not exaggerating to say that fully 2000 people, by some means or other, found their way inside…Toward the close, Captain Hackett invited the Pastor to say a few words. He said it was impossible for any Christian to sit by and hear the converts one after another tell of what God had done for them without feeling that the Army was an institution of God, without feeling that they were doing God’s work, and as his brothers and sisters in Christ’s work, he wished them God’s blessing and closed with a very caring exhortation to all present to accept Jesus.”[11]

As is highlighted by the above newspaper articles and War Cry excerpts, immediately upon its arrival in the city, the Salvation Army was embraced by the people of Winnipeg. Its first meeting filled the city’s largest hall and people were lined up, waiting to get in. The Officers had such faith that this popular appeal would continue that, as reported in the Free Press,[12] it was announced right away that the Army meetings would be held every night and four times on Sunday. These are significant reports in that they are not solely from Salvation Army periodicals. The testimonies to the Army’s ready acceptance and rapid growth is from outside sources as well and this then says a lot about the way the Army was received from without, as well as from within. The enthusiasm by Winnipeg for the Army continued through 1887. Even as early as December 27, 1886, however, not even three weeks after the Salvation Army’s arrival in Winnipeg, the Manitoba Daily Free Press had this to report:

“The Salvation Army has had considerable success during the two weeks of its campaign here, the number of members and recent converts being more than double that of the forces at the first muster...The hall continues to be crowded night after night, and the large majority of those present listen very attentively. The ‘War Cry’ appears to meet with an extensive patronage, and is industriously circulated.”[13]

Indeed the popularity of the War Cry itself can attest to the success of the Army in Winnipeg. It was so much in demand that the Free Press ran an article entitled ‘The War Cry: How Salvation Army Literature is Circular.’ The following is an excerpt from that article:

“The sale of the Salvation Army weekly paper, the ‘War Cry,’ should stimulate those interested in the circulation of denominational religious papers to be up and doing. On Saturday evening, Capt. Hacket, who was leading the meeting began to say ‘I am very sorry to say that the War Crys have not come,’ when a soldier near the side door called out ‘they are here, Captain.’ ‘Praise the Lord,’ exclaimed the captain, ‘Everybody fire a volley’…Meanwhile a soldier started down each aisle with a big armful of ‘War Crys.’ Hands were stretched out from every side; and before the agents had passed two or three rows of chairs, their supplies were exhausted and they had to return for fresh loads.”[14]

The War Crys, though not expensive, were not free. The sale of War Crys, at $0.05 per week or $1.75 mailed to any address per annum, was one of the ways in which the Army supported itself and its mission so this was not only an indicator of but also a contributor to its success. It enabled the mission to continue. As was proclaimed in the periodical itself, “every true Salvation Army Officer and soldier is willing and anxious to sell the War Cry.”[15] And in Winnipeg the successes commented upon (above) by the Free Press were noteworthy even by the Army’s standards. By the 19 March 1887 issue of the War Cry, six of the top 21 sellers of the War Cry reported were from Winnipeg: Cadet Tierney (#5), Private A. Jones (#6), Cadet Graham (#10), Captain Hacket (#11), Lieutenant Archer (#16), and Cadet Wagner (#21).[16]

            After only one month of operations, the Northwest Brigade (which had ‘opened fire’ on the city) wired Toronto from Winnipeg saying, “Send more Officers over to help us. Thermometer 30 degrees below. Salvation boiling over. The whole North-West a blaze with Salvation.”[17] The Salvation Army’s successes in Winnipeg overflowed the city’s borders as they sent soldiers to start the work elsewhere in the province: on 23 January 1887, the work was opened in Brandon (and shortly afterwards was reinforced by officers sent from Toronto).[18] In the March 19^th issue of the War Cry it was reported that 21 souls were counted as saved in Brandon and many more in Emerson. As well as reporting these successes in the War Cry, commented upon was the continued success in Winnipeg in an article entitled, “Manitoba: Spreading like a Prairie Fire:”

“The whole North-West is in a blaze of salvation – the jersey red and scarlet band are as fashionable as the latest styles – and from all points the joyful tidings; sinners are coming to Jesus by the hundred, ‘Not by might nor by power, but by my Spirit saith the Lord.’ The meetings in Victoria hall are still attended by large crowds – deeply interested in the simple story of Jesus and His Salvation…”[19]

The Salvation Army had obtained such a level of success in this city that it was now able to send people out from Winnipeg. Staff Captain Young began to look further a field in order to fulfil his commission to ‘Capture the Northwest for Jesus.’[20] And Captain Hackett, along with Lieutenants Tierney and Graham, following these truly amazing results in Winnipeg, received orders to head further west, to BC, and the Salvation Army reached the Pacific on 25 June 1887.[21]

Why was the Salvation Army such a success? This is a natural question to ask. Of course there can be no conclusive answer other than that the LORD raised it up to accomplish His purposes here and He cannot be overcome. That being said, there were some methods and circumstances He used to accomplish this end. One was that the Salvation Army reaped the benefits of a reputation it earned for surviving and thriving under persecution, while avoiding the adversities of direct persecution here in Winnipeg. Another is that the temperance movement was alive and fighting in Winnipeg at the time the Army arrived.[22] The Army’s voice was certainly not alone in this debate. There were provincial referenda on prohibition in 1893 and 1898, both of which were passed but never enforced.[23] It was the major election issue in 1899, became law in 1916 and continued until 1921.[24]

There was always ample prayer and the Salvation Army certainly had its own style and that appealed to Winnipeggers. The Free Press reported on December 27^th, 1886, a number of reasons why the typical Manitoban might want to attend their meetings:

“The Salvation Army has had considerable success during the two weeks of its campaign here, the number of members and recent converts being more than double that of the forces at the first muster. The attractions of the street parades have been increased by the beating of drums which are also used in the hall, together with the playing of a cornet and other instruments…The ‘War Cry ‘ appears to meet with an extensive patronage, and it is very industriously circulated. The spirited signing, with the music of the various instruments accompanying it, is a feature which many people confess to enjoying. A feature of the speaking and praying, which is favourably commented on, is that no one person takes up very much time. When testimonies are called for, every one of thirty or more people on the stage speaks; and the exercise, with a number of hymns interspersed, occupies probably less than half an hour.”

The services were quick, lively, and appealed to the common person. They were entertaining. People wanted to come and see the Salvation Army. The plethora of testimonies was extremely important, as the Reverend Silcox remarked, “it was impossible for any Christian to sit by and hear the converts one after another tell of what God had done for them without feeling that the Army was an institution of God, without feeling that they were doing God’s work.” [25] The Army was being blessed in its earnest endeavours to do the Lord’s work and these early successes - as shown by reports in both the Winnipeg newspaper and the Salvation Army’s own periodical - were impressive indeed.

Over the next one hundred and twenty-five years, the Salvation Army has built upon the foundation it laid in these early days. William Booth, himself, wanting to see the impressive inroads the Army had made to win Winnipeg for Christ, visited the city in 1898[26] and again in 1923.[27] The Army’s involvement in the city continued to grow. In 1904 the Grace Hospital was built;[28] its incorporation on Feb 08, 1904, made it the first of nine Grace Hospitals in Canada.[29] In 1913 General Bramwell Booth visited[30] and in 1915 the Canada-West Territory was established with its headquarters located here. Headquarters remained in Winnipeg until the territories cessation of operations in 1932.[31] If there was any doubt as to the reputation and support the Army had gained in this province, it was most certainly dispelled when the Lieutenant-Governor of Manitoba, TA Burrows laid the cornerstone of the training garrison in Winnipeg in 1927.[32] By 1986, in the Winnipeg Citadel alone, there were 241 soldiers on the roles plus 180 adherents and friends.

Today, as was previously stated, there are many corps and ministry units in Winnipeg, not the least of which is the College for Officer Training which officially reopened in the city as recently as 2006. The Salvation Army has a strong presence here. It is well appreciated now just as the Salvation Army was well accepted when it first arrived in Winnipeg 125 years ago. It has continued to build upon the good reputation it established in those early days and let us pray that the Lord uses the Salvation Army in the next 125 years in as powerful a way as he has in the previous125 years.

The Ethics of Salvation: Should We Proclaim the Gospel?

Presented to William and Catherine Booth College 19 April 2007

by Captain Michael Ramsay

From the initial on-line discussion question to which I chose to respond, through the case study that I was assigned and others presentations, recent questions have resurfaced in my mind about the ethics of evangelism in educational settings as I have always had an inclination towards evangelism.

Relevant Background Information

In the early 1990’s I finished my training as an elementary school teacher in British Columbia. I remember being told specifically on more than one occasion that I was not to mention Jesus in the classroom. I was instructed to avoid any Christian references especially during my training by the faculty of education. I was instructing a Kindergarten class when all of the Christmas books that made reference to Jesus were removed and I was part of more than one Christmas concert where even the word ‘Christmas’ was not permitted. It was now a ‘Winter Celebration’ and instead of Carols we sang ‘seasonal songs.’ I was in my early twenties at this point. It was too difficult for me to abide by these rules and resolve the internal tension caused by the ethical dilemma of ‘am I denying Christ?’ I went to work in the private sector.

I had a fulfilling career in the business of private education, achieved many of my personal goals, and established a reputation in international education through my work with various schools, educational associations, periodicals, etc. I would be happy in that world today had the Lord not called me into this one.

Case Description

In my most recent ministry experience on the lower mainland of British Columbia, I directed the Renew Network: 3 R Tutoring programme. We ran tutoring programmes at public elementary and high schools, churches, Salvation Army corps, and Family Services Vancouver; private tutorials, ESL programmes, and summer school classes (cf. http://www.havelock-viha.com/3rprogrammes.htm for a detailed list of the programme locations).

        My ethical dilemma relates to our work in the public schools. Everyday we were working inside the schools. We were there at lunchtime and after school. The students were recommended through the principal’s office and their parents paid the Salvation Army to have either private or small group tutoring sessions. We supplied them with quality instructors, some of whom were paid (up to $30/hr) and some were volunteers who had education and/or expertise in the field they were instructing. The schools knew that this was a Christian programme; the principals of a couple of the schools informed me that they had seen me on TV (Now TV in Vancouver) promoting this initiative as a Christian outreach. We stated that the goals were to ‘help students catch up, keep up, and get ahead’ as part of our mission to ‘win the world for Jesus starting with where you are’ (614 Vancouver motto).

The majority of our students came from Muslim families. Some of our students came from Hindu or Buddhist homes and a couple were from Christian homes. We were required by the administration and the law not to mention Christ in the public schools. A Salvation Army evangelism school, the War College (thewarcollege.com), asked to supply volunteers for our programme: they wanted to tell people about Jesus. Should we proclaim the Gospel?

Ethical Questions

The primary question that I will attempt to answer in this paper is should we demand that our tutors be allowed to proclaim the Gospel in the public schools?  There are many ethical questions that arise directly concerning this. Some of the ones that I will endeavour to answer in this context are: 1) is refraining from proclaiming Christ the same as denying him? 2) Should one disobey the authorities? 3) Must we present the Gospel in every ministry? a) What bearing does our professed and b) historic position have on our actions? c) Is the Gospel actually proclaimed in all or most Salvation Army ministries? 4) Must the Gospel be presented at each event that the Salvation Army organises?

Stakeholders

The stakeholders in this issue were obviously myself, as the coordinator of the programme, 614 Vancouver and its Officers, the Salvation Army, the tutors, the volunteers, the schools, the school districts, the parents, the students, Christians in general, other faith-based organisations and politicians (if we decide to argue for an equal right to express our faith in a public setting).

Operating Definition of the Gospel

            The following is a basic operating definition of the Gospel from Romans 1:16-17 (NRSV): For I am not ashamed of the Gospel; it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed through faith for faith; as it is written, ‘the one who is righteous will live by faith.’

1. Is refraining from mentioning the Gospel in a ministry the same as denying Christ?

            Is not mentioning the Gospel the same as denying Christ? I looked into this facet of the discussion a pertaining to the Swissair case study analysis (The Ethics Centre 2000, 156-158). In that case, the United Church News stated that “for Canadian clergy to deny the name of Christ in their public roles [would be] tantamount to a betrayal of all those who have been martyred over the centuries” (United News 1999, rockies.net/~united/united/articles/ 9810news.html). Neither my staff nor I was ordained clergy, but I submit that does not negate the question raised. I am a strong believer in the priesthood of all believers (Isaiah 61:6; 1 Peter 2:5-9; Revelation 1:6) and I certainly had the responsibility to live up to people’s expectations in my role as the leader in this venture. As Karen Lebacqz claims, “being in a professional role is a morally relevant difference that changes our assessment of what to do in a situation…roles bring with them notions of what is expected (Lebacqz 1992, 44).” I submit that the term ‘professional,’ or at the very least the sentiment behind it, would apply in this case.

Is the lack of explicit proclamation from the leader then more serious than that of an employee as our actions, as well as words, intentionally or not, provide an interpretation of the world for people (Lebacqz 1992, 115)? One minister to whom Labacqz referred, advocates “the necessity of presenting images of faith that allow the hearers to reframe their experience of the world in the light of God’s saving activity” (Lebacqz 1992, 120). As those in ministry leadership assist others to ‘name realty’ for themselves, is refraining from mentioning Christ in ministry this case equivalent to denying Him (cf. Luke 22:34, 2 Peter 2:1, 1 John 2:22, Jude 1:4)? If so, this is serious. Most of the apostles and many others over the years have been martyred for their faith (cf. Acts 6-7); if refraining from presenting the Gospel in a ministry is tantamount denying Christ and refusing your martyr’s crown, then it is not worth it at any cost. What profits a man to gain the whole world and yet lose his soul (Matthew 16:26, Mark 8:36)?

2. Should one disobey the authorities?

Assuming that by doing do, one would not be denying Christ and risking one’s soul (Matthew 16:26, Mark 8:36), should one disobey the authorities? Disobeying the authorities (in this case the school, and the law) would contradict various teaching in scripture (cf. Ecclesiastes 8:1-3; but see also 1 Chronicles 21:6 where Joab does not heed David’s disobedience of God’s command; this is not a matter of denying God, but it is an ethical dilemma that Joab faced concerning obedience to God’s commands versus a godly man’s commands: David after all was a man after God’s own heart, 1 Kings 11:4). The Apostle Paul, however, teaches unequivocally that “it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience” (Romans 13:5) and further that “everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established” (Romans 13:1; see also Titus 3:1). Are there other principles in Scripture that supersede these commands in this particular instance?

3. Ethical Question: Must we present the Gospel in this (and every) ministry?

Must we present the Gospel in every ministry? Should we mention Christ in the public schools? General Gowens articulated that the reason that the Salvation Army exists is to save souls, grow saints, and serve suffering humanity. Should each ministry accomplish every one of these goals? The first reason he listed for our existence is to save souls. Can individual ministry units/ministries grow saints or serve suffering humanity instead of ‘saving souls’?

Historical TSA Position

William Booth argued that the goal of social ministry itself was to save souls and that serving the suffering people was only a means to that end. Pertaining to the position of primacy of sharing the Gospel, here are a series of quotes by the founder, which were displayed on the Armybarmy blog (Armybarmy blog and the Renew Network are/were both ministries of 614 Vancouver):

For those who think William was all about a social salvation: “I must assert in the most unqualified way that it is primarily and mainly for the sake of saving the soul that I seek the salvation of the body”

“To get a man soundly saved it is not enough to put on him a pair of new breeches, to give him regular work, or even to give him a University education. These things are all outside a man, and if the inside remains unchanged you have wasted your labour. You must in some way or other graft upon the man's nature a new nature, which has in it the element of the Divine”

“We must wake ourselves up! Or somebody else will take our place, and bear our cross, and thereby rob us of our crown.” (posted by Stephen Court, Armybarmy.com/blog.htm, March 28, 2007)

Also from the William Booth:

I have no intention to depart in the smallest degree from the main principles on which I have acted in the past.  My only hope for the permanent deliverance of mankind from misery, either in this world or the next, is the regeneration or remaking of the individual by the power of the Holy Ghost through Jesus Christ.  But in providing for the relief of temporal misery I reckon that I am only making it easy where it is now difficult, and possible where it is now all but impossible, for men and women to find their way to the Cross of our Lord Jesus Christ (William Booth, In Darkest England and the Way Out, 1890, preface).

Catherine Booth was characteristically quite direct in this matter herself, “Friends, are you more concerned about relieving temporal distress than you are about feeding famished souls?  If you are, you may know where you Charity comes from – hell” (Catherine Booth, Papers on Godliness, 1882, 27-28). “All other objects and aims of life [are] subservient to the one grand purpose of preaching the Gospel to every creature and striving to win every soul with whom they come in contact to its salvation” (Catherine Booth, The Salvation Army in Relation to the Churches, 31-32).

Official Canadian Position

The Mission Statement of the Salvation Army in Canada is as follows: “The Salvation Army exists to share the love of Jesus Christ, meet human needs and be a transforming influence in the communities of our world.” Its identity statement reads, “The Salvation Army is an international Christian church. Its message is based on the Bible; its ministry is motivated by love for God and the needs of humanity.” Pertaining to Salvation, our value statement (The Salvation Army, salvationarmy.ca/missionandvalues, March 31, 2007) reads:

 We proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ in all our ministries. God’s mission is a mission of love and restoration. Through the birth, life, death and resurrection of Jesus, God provided the way of salvation, culminating in the gift of eternal life for all who respond in faith. We value this gift of grace, believing that it has the power to liberate, heal and transform individuals and communities. We seek to embody this same grace and mission in our thoughts, words and deeds.

These statements certainly do speak to the importance of sharing the Gospel. Our value statement on Salvation claims that, ‘we proclaim the Gospel in all of our ministries.’ It is listed first of the statements in our Mission Statement. Our identity is based on the ‘Christian church,’ ‘the Bible,’ and ‘transforming communities.’ Ethically, we must do what our organisation reports to do, especially since we represent God (Exod 20:7,16; Deut 5:11,20; Matt 5:37; 2 Cor 1:17; Jas 5:12; cf. 1 Tim 3:2; 2 Tim 2:15). Historically, according to the quote from the Founder, the social services are a means to support the mission. I would suggest then that one could argue - given the assumption that integrity and honesty of important to a Christian organisation (Exod 20:16; 23:1; Lev 6:2-7; 19:11,12,16; cf. Job 13:4) - that each ministry of the Salvation Army must proclaim the Gospel. But is this argument sustainable?

Praxis: Is the Gospel actually professed in each Ministry?

This is important to address, for if the Gospel is not presented in Salvation Army ministries generally any longer than it probably does not need to be mentioned in this particular ministry for our traditional positions would then be dated and - barring a surge in ‘Primitive Salvationism’ - in need of revision to reflect the current reality. Are there units/segments of the Army’s ministry in which proclaiming the Gospel is neither necessary nor beneficial?

Is the Gospel proclaimed in the Ethics Centre? I asked Cadet Bram Pearce for his perspective as he is currently working at the Ethics Centre. He initially replied that it was not (at least to non-Christians) but then clarified his position. He made reference to the fact that the Position Statements are available for anyone to see and that people often contact the Army about the statements. When someone contacts the Ethics Centre he said that he then has the opportunity to present the Gospel. So while the Gospel may not be overtly presented everyday, the opportunity to present the Gospel does exist and is taken.

           Is the Gospel proclaimed in the finance department? Is the Gospel declared at DHQ? Should it be declared in the hospitals and the hospices? I would say that, as with the Ethics Centre, the opportunity to proclaim the Gospel presents itself in each of these ministries - with the possible exception of Finance, since Financial Officers are not necessarily in contact with the public – and thus, should be taken.

That being said, pertaining to the Finance Department, there are many commands about the role of money in the Bible (Exod 22:25; Lev 25:37; Deut 23:19; Neh 5:10; Ps 15:5; Prov 13:11; Matt 6:24, 27:6; Mark 6:8; Luke 3:14, 9:3, 16:13; 1 Cor 16:2; 1 Tim 3:3, 6:3, 6:10; 2 Tim 3:2; Heb 13:5; 1 Pet 5:2). Stewardship is very important and how we spend our money is a chief indicator of what really are our priorities. Is this in itself proclaiming the Gospel? Probably not; however, the person in charge of the finances certainly may be involved in other activities that do give her the opportunity to share Christ. I can think of ‘money people’ who, through their jobs, have regular contact with outside clients and frequently share the Gospel with others.  Willimon argues in Calling and Character that there should be no separation between public and private, professional and social behaviour, at least as far as clergy are concerned (Willimon, 2000, 19). Another question is then raised…is the financial department really a separate department or is it just each department’s expression of good stewardship? This question is one that I am not going to address here for the sake of space but I think it is worth raising for future consideration.

            The important question pertaining to the Finance Department for our purposes is, if one does accept 1) that a financial position is a separate ministry of TSA and 2) that presenting the Gospel is not a part of its role or function and 3) that that is acceptable; is this then also acceptable for the tutoring ministry? While each ministry unit and ministry expression share some similarities. These two ministry expressions are very different. I would think that a key difference between the financial ministry and the tutoring ministry, pertaining to presentation of the Gospel, is access to the public. If a ministry does not come in contact with the general public (or is in a position of influence with others who do, such as with CFOT) then it cannot be expected to be a vehicle to present the Gospel. However, each ministry unit that has access to the public has the opportunity to evangelise.

            I would say then that each ministry unit should present the Gospel. As the Canadian value statement on salvation says, “We proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ in all our ministries.” Also this is the reason for which the Salvation Army was raised up  – Salvation. As quoted earlier by William Booth, “To get a man soundly saved it is not enough to put on him a pair of new breeches, to give him regular work, or even to give him a University education. These things are all outside a man, and if the inside remains unchanged you have wasted your labour.”

4. Must the Gospel be presented at each event where we are present?

Must we mention Christ in every venue at every moment though? Is it acceptable to refrain from presenting the Gospel? Is the presentation of the gospel part of my role responsibility (Lebacqz 1992, 55)? This is the crux of the dilemma that I was facing in my role as Coordinator of the Salvation Army’s Renew Network: 3 R Tutoring. This is where I become a little less clear in my understanding and this is what motivated me to further research this topic.

My 2003 Position

            In my tutor training classes, I would emphasise (to the evangelism students particularly) that one should not proclaim the Gospel in the classrooms, at the schools. I cited the many Biblical references to obeying the authorities (cf. Ecclesiastes 8:1-3, Romans 13:1, 5; Titus 3:1). I would not deny Christ (cf. Matthew 16:26, Mark 8:38, 2 Peter 2:1, 1 John 2:22, Jude 1:4) if I was specifically asked about Christianity but I would not bring it up. If the topic was raised, as it was inevitably and immediately if I wore my uniform on a particular occasion, I would acknowledge that I am a Christian and quickly change the subject and I encouraged my employees and volunteers to do the same.

            I was not always comfortable with this position. I wondered whether refraining from proclaiming the Gospel at a particular venue on a given occasion was indeed tantamount to denying our Lord. I wondered if this was evidence of being ashamed of the Gospel (Romans 1:16; Mark 8:34-38; Luke 9:26; cf. also Psalms 31:1-3; 71:1-2; 143:1). I also wondered if it was an indication that I was putting man’s law (cf. Matthew 16:24-28; Romans 2; Galatians 5) or, as we were paid for our services, money (cf. Mark 6:24, Luke 16:13), before God (for further discussion of this idea, see William Willimon, 2000, 101-103).

            For some of our students this was the only exposure, of which I was aware, that they had to Christianity. They certainly had a lot of questions. We declined to answer many in the schools. As the programme grew and we were able to offer more and more services in our corps, social services, community churches, and in the students’ homes, we did not shrink from sharing the Gospel. Indeed, we led many people in ‘the sinner’s prayer’ and I was blessed with the opportunity to train some of the evangelism students in ‘leading people to Christ.’ Does this end justify refraining from proclaiming the Gospel in the schools? When we started the programme, there was no guarantee that there would even be very many of these other opportunities for the students. There was no guarantee that the students we met at the schools would come to our other venues – some did not. Were we denying Christ to them? Were we failing in our duty to fulfil the great commission (Matthew 28:19)? I am not sure.

Conclusion

Within the same ministry unit, can some roles be non-evangelistic? Pertaining to the tutors who were serving in the public schools, could we argue that they were still facilitating the proclamation of the Gospel by the ministry unit, even if they were not doing it in the schools? I believe so. I think that this was an opportunity to be as wise as serpents and as gentle as doves (Matthew 10:16) as well as an example of being all things to all people in order to save some (1 Corinthians 9:21-23) and while I do not ascribe to the view that ‘the ends justify the means,’ (Willimon has a good discussion relating to an aspect of this and its possible consequences on pages 122-124 of Calling and Character.) I must acknowledge that our ministry certainly did bear fruit (Matthew 7:15-23, 12:33; John 15) for the Kingdom of God. People not only confessed that Jesus Christ was Lord through ‘the sinners’ prayer’ but we did endeavour to make disciples of Christ of them (Matthew 28:19) through integration into other Christian events. There is no doubt that our ministry was evangelistic. There is no doubt that it was blessed by the Lord. Would I do it exactly the same next time? Accepting, as Karen Lebacqs asserts, that, “moral decision making is always an interplay between the act of discernment, the actual situation, and certain moral duties” (Lebacqs, 1992, 30), I would have to answer that I may or I may not. I would need to seek the Lord in prayer for as the fear (or deference) of the Lord is the beginning of Wisdom (Psalm 111:10: Proverbs 1:7, 9:10), prayer, I submit, is the beginning of ethics.

Works Cited:

3.344 Professional Ethics for Ministry: Readings and Case Studies.

Booth, Catherine. Papers on Godliness. London: The Salvation Army, 1882.

_____________. The Salvation Army in Relation to the Churches.

Booth, William. In Darkest England and the Way Out. NY: Funk & Wagnalls, 1890.

Court, Stephen. Armybarmy Blog: “March 28, 2007.” 28 March 2007. Available from http://www.armybarmy.com/blog.html. Accessed 28 March 2007.

Havelock Enterprises. “Tutoring Programmes.” Available from http://www.havelock-viha.com/3rprogrammes.htm. Accessed 28 March 2007.

Lebacqz, Karen. Professional Ethics: Power and Paradox (Nashville: Abingdon, 1985)

Pearce, Cadet Bramwell. Interview. 05 April 2007.

The Salvation Army in Canada. “Mission and Values.” Available from http://www.salvationarmy.ca/missionandvalues. Accessed 31 March 2007.

United Church of Canada. United News On-line: “The Swissair Memorial Service Revisited.” 27 December 1999. Available from http://rockies.net/~united/united/articles/9810news.html. Accessed 07 February 2007.

Willimon, William. Calling and Character (Nashville, Abingdon, 2000).

Good News to the Poor: Comparing a Christian Worldview as expressed in Luke’s Gospel to Marx.

Presented to William and Catherine Booth College March 2009

By Captain Michael Ramsay

Introduction:

Marx and Luke’s gospel both predicted an inevitable course of events in the world. They each had a significant view of what this life should and eventually would look like. Luke records:

On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

 “What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”

 He answered: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'; and, 'Love your neighbour as yourself.’”

“You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live” (Luke 10:25-28; cf. Deut 5, Lev 19:18).

The preceding quote sums up the Law and the Prophets (Cf. Matt 22:36-40). Luke’s gospel has been called the gospel for the poor; it is interested in the oppressed and a significant theme contained within is that “Salvation embraces the totality of embodied life, including its social, economic, and political concerns:”[1]

 “Luke includes Jesus' woes as well as blessings (6:24-26), which speak strongly against the wealthy…Recent attention to the social and political teachings of Jesus has focused on their implications for possible political revolution. Cassidy, dealing particularly with the Gospel of Luke in Jesus, Politics and Society, concludes that Luke gives an accurate description of Jesus' social and political stance, and that, though he rejected the use of violence, Jesus challenged the social status quo under the Roman Empire. Cassidy holds that the teachings of Jesus as found in the Gospel of Luke would, if carried out widely, have seriously challenged the principles of the Roman government.” [2]

Luke’s gospel – socially, economically, and politically – like Marx’s Communist Manifesto, is a revolutionary text that represents its version of the future as inevitable.[3]  Given the significance that Luke (and all of Christianity) places on loving God and our neighbour (Luke 10:25-28) in the present, impending, and proleptic society, I will compare briefly the importance of loving God and one’s neighbour for the Christian, to Karl Marx’s revolutionary ideas about one’s relationship to others and God in what he saw as a coming communist society.

Love the Lord your God: Theistic values in the impending societies declared by Luke and Marx

Luke, a first century physician, acknowledged the sovereignty of God and he opened his gospel by showing that God is an active being who not only sends angles but also his own son into the world (Luke 1-2). He is a God for whom nothing is impossible (Luke 1:37) and He has chosen to be our saviour (Luke 1:47) and redeem his people (Luke 1:68). Jesus teaches us through parables and extols the principle of egalitarianism in the impending Kingdom of God. God is a God of miracles and He is a God who cares about the poor.

Marx was born in Trier in 1818 to a Jewish-German family, which had converted to Christianity. He rejected this upbringing and lived his life as an atheist who denied God.[4] Marx says of religion, “Man… looked for a superman in the fantastic reality of heaven and found nothing but the reflection of himself”[5] He says religion is the ‘opium of the people’ and “the abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness.”[6]

Marx says of Christianity: “The social principles of Christianity preach cowardice, self-contempt, abasement, submission, dejection, in the words all the qualities of the canaille; and the proletariat, not wishing to be canaille, needs its courage, its self feeling, its pride and its sense of independence more than its bread…the social principals of Christianity are sneakish and the proletariat is revolutionary.”[7] He also says, “And for a society based upon the production of commodities, in which the producers enter into social relations with one another by treating their products as commodities and values…for such a society, Christianity…is the most fitting form of religion.”[8]

A.J.P. Taylor wrote about Marxism that it actually “has become the accepted creed or religion for millions of mankind, and The Communist Manifesto must be counted as a holy book, in the same class as the Bible or the Koran.”[9] Marx himself did not believe in God and he saw religion as a means of oppression rather than as part of Luke’s totality of Salvation. Marx did not love God but did he love his neighbour? In other words, with respect to social values how does Marx compare to Luke?

Love your neighbour as yourself: Inevitable social values in the coming societies declared by Luke and Marx

Irenaeus wrote, in Against Heresies, that Luke was inseparable from the Apostle Paul.[10] Miranda wrote, in Marx and the Bible, that “Marx and Paul coincide in their intuition of the totality of evil: Sin and injustice form an all-comprehensive and all-pervasive organic structure. Paul calls this totality ‘kosmos’ Marx calls it ‘capitalism.’”[11]

Just as Luke speaks about the impending Kingdom of God and the defeat of sin and death, Marx speaks about the impending communist society, which will defeat capitalism. What will the impending society look like? Marx believes that “the bourgeoisie forged the weapons that bring death to itself” and as a result he sees a society where different classes of people will become only one class.[12] “Other classes decay and finally disappear in the face of Modern Industry; the proletariat is its special and essential product.”[13] Evil will inevitably be replaced by good.[14]

There are similarities between Luke’s good news and Marx and according to Miranda, “the reason behind the western anti-Marxist rejections is in reality all that in which Marx coincides with the Bible, not his systematic inconsistencies.”[15] An example of this would be the greater equality of opportunity due to a greater equality of circumstance and negligible unemployment in communist countries.[16] In China men and women credited Marx as well as Mau for the egalitarianism and enjoyment in their work: in 1960 future Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau observed that before the revolution unemployment was a “universal and enduring menace [but] today the revolutionary state has been able to give work to all the Chinese.”[17] Now China has one of the strongest economies in the world.

Luke records Jesus as teaching us that one’s neighbour is one who risks one’s life and spends her time and resources on another (Luke 10:25-27). He tells one man that if he wants to obtain his treasure in heaven he must sell his possessions and give to the poor (Luke 18:22; cf. Matt 19:21, Mark 10:21). He also teaches that it is harder for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven than for a camel in enter the eye of a needle (Luke 18:25; cf. Matt 19:24, Mark 10:25).

Marx, related to this, says that “the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.”[18] This and the other nine presumed characteristics of Communist societies that he predicts are as follows:

1.       Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2.       A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3.       Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

4.       Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5.       Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6.       Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.

7.       Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of wastelands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8.       Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9.       Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.

10.  Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.[19] 

There are many of these ten principles that do fit comfortably with the concept of loving one’s neighbour in the Christian ideal as espoused in Luke’s gospel. It makes one wonder why Marx – assuming he read the gospels given his upbringing in a Christian home - opposed Christianity as he did. Marx’s economic values as reflected in principles 1-3 and 5-9 display a strong belief that in the world to come people will no longer gain wealth at the expense of others. This relates very well to the Christian idea about the impending kingdom espoused by Luke where we should store up our treasures in heaven and help out others rather than looking out for our own interests (Luke 18:22; cf. Matt 19:21, Mark 10:21).[20] I am particularly struck by the parallels to Jesus’ teaching in the parable of the man who built storehouses in preparation for his own retirement. Luke records that Jesus says of the man, “‘…you fool! This very night your life will be demanded from you. Then who will get what you have prepared for yourself?’ ‘This is how it will be with anyone who stores up things for himself but is not rich toward God” (Luke 10:20-21; cf. Matt 6:25-33). He then continues by explaining that no one should worry about possessions or even food (Luke 10:22-23; Cf. Mark 10). Instead we should sell all our possessions and give to the poor (Luke 10:33-34). Marxian redistribution of wealth seems to fit well with Luke’s (and the entire Christian canon’s) egalitarian principles as a reflection of loving one’s neighbour.

            Marx’s 4^th principle – the confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels - at first glance does not seem to hold to the Christian ideal of loving one’s enemies (Luke 6:27-26; cf. Matt 5:35-42). It is not entirely different however than God’s relationship with the apostate. Neither God nor Marx reserves a place for those who reject the impending society (Luke 9:61-61; cf. Luke 9:5, 12:10, Acts 13:50-52; Matt 10:14, 12:31-32, 18:9-22, Mark 3:29-30, 6:11, John15: 1-17, 1 John 2, 5:13-20, 2 John 1:7-11, 2 Pet 2:17-22).

Marx’s 10^th principle is that of education. This also seems very important to Luke’s Christ. It is not only a way to level the economic playing field it is also a way to encourage people to continue the good fight. Jesus says of educating the young,  “And if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a large millstone tied around his neck.” (Mark 9:42; cf. also Luke 18:15-17; Matt 19:13-14; 10:13-16; Mark 9:42-50; John 8:31; Dt. 4:9-10; Dt. 11; Ps 34:11; 78:5; Eph 6:4; Tit 1:6; 2 John 1:4, 3 John 1:4). The children represent the future of the society. On this Marx seems to agree with Jesus and Luke.

In Conclusion.

There are a lot of commonalities between the teaching of Marxian communism and Christianity in general and Luke’s Gospel in particular. Marx had a lot of faith in the inevitability of an impending communist society just as Luke had faith that Jesus’ Kingdom will be fully realised here on earth at Christ’s return, if not before. They both argued against a love of money and in favour of an egalitarian society. Marx seemingly had the same hope that Luke did that there can be a future where there is no more suffering. Marx however, seemed to believe that people will naturally do this eventually, without the help of God whom he denounced publically. Luke, on the other hand, argued that Jesus has already defeated sin and death and those that come to realise this we will inevitably respond appropriately.

From this cursory overview, I find it somewhat saddening that Marx really does appear to be almost half-right. It appears that, as was shown, he did ‘love his neighbour’ in many ways similar to Luke but he was quite vocal in that he did not love God. Given the similarities, I wonder if indeed Marx, though rejecting God, didn’t still hold onto many of the teachings he would have received as a child. From the perspective of a Christian worldview then I am left to reflect upon the old adage that ‘the road to hell is paved with good intentions’ and hope for his sake that indeed some unknown deathbed repentance occurred so that indeed he can see the actualization of the impending perfect society when Christ returns.

Darwin, Charles, "Recapitulation and Conclusion" [The Origin of the Species, Akron, Ohio: Werner, 1872), ch. 15, pp. 267-306]

Reading Report by Captain Michael Ramsay

Presented to William and Catherine Booth College (February, 2009)

Charles Darwin has had a significant impact on our society. His name is generally recognised by people in the western world. He has places and animals named after him. It is very interesting also that though there are a number of people in the world who have made their marks in a number of different fields, Darwin seemed to only seek publicity in the field of biology but has achieved notoriety as well in religious circles. While he had theological training, I am unaware of any significant theological papers he wrote; he did not seek notoriety in this area. It found him: his ideas about biology, natural selection, and evolution have drawn the attention of scientists (regardless of religious worldview) and Christians (regardless of profession) alike.

The above cited section of the text is obviously a scientific text. It is a biology paper. This is not my area of expertise and has necessitated some serious reflection. My wife has a biology degree. I have never really understood some of the church-going Christians’ objections to Darwin.  This is a topic that inevitably came up in my church as I was growing up. My church was adjacent to the University of Victoria (Emmanuel Baptist). Some would argue that Darwin was a heretic. Others would argue that he was right. Others would argue that he was irrelevant to most of the theological conversations in which his name is raised. I think that Darwin would take the latter position. He wrote in "Recapitulation and Conclusion":

I see no good reasons why the views in this volume should shock the religious feelings of anyone. It is satisfactory, as showing how transient such impressions are, to remember that the greatest discovery ever made by man… ‘as subversive of natural, and inferentially of revealed religion.’ A celebrated author and divine has written to me that ‘he has gradually learned to see that it is just as noble a conception of the Deity to believe that He created a few original forms capable of self-development into other and needful forms, as to believe that He required a fresh act of creation to supply the voids caused by the action of His laws.

Social Darwinism is the troubling thing. I don’t believe that Darwin would have advocated anything such as this but his name has certainly been cited when arguing in favour of programmes that have alienated the poor, sterilized the mentally challenged, and executed others.

As far as the basic concepts he put forth in The Origen of Species I do not believe that they should challenge our faith. I do not believe that the Bible was written in order to answer the questions, “How long has the earth been around?” or “Was the earth created in six 24-hour periods?”  It can be argued that Genesis includes two separate creation accounts (Gen 1-2). It is interesting as well that God is recorded as creating the environments on the first 3 days, and then things to occupy the environments on the next three: Day one, light and Day 4, the Sun and Moon; Day 2, water and sky and Day 5, fish and birds; Day 3, land and Day 6 people to fill that land (Gen 1). This seems to be a literary device rather than a scientific observation and therefore should be treated as such.

     All of the above being said, I realise that speciation has been observed in ground squirrels for example. I am not convinced of macroevolution (Whales that were fish, then grew legs and walked on the land, and then decided to return to the sea seems like a stretch to me) but I think whether Darwin is right or wrong in his thesis, it doesn't really affect my faith. God, who can make the earth and all that inhabits it in 6 days can also create animals (or cells) that will change over time, just like He made individuals and societies that change over time. I think that we do a great disservice to the ‘great commission’ (Matt 26:16-20) by debating ad nauseam a 6-day creation period (cf. 2 Tim 2:23-24).