Thursday, May 20, 2010

Wiiliam Booth Left the Work (part three)


Conference

William Booth’s departure from the new Connexion met with conflicting responses among his fellows. One minister, who had been converted in William’s revival services, invited the evangelist to conduct services in Hayle, Cornwall, which later widened into a larger campaign. Before long, however, Methodist chapels were closed against him and he discovered that his resignation had stirred ill-will toward him.

Such mixed responses often greet officers who step out of officership. Some meet with Christian understanding and support from peers and superiors. One divisional commander, upon realising that an officer’s resignation was unavoidable, sincerely offered to help load crates and boxes when moving day arrived.

Too many, however, cannot witness to such experience. Many have echoed the sorrow if one officer-couple who, from the day of their resignation, received no card, call or other contact from any of their comrades for over a year. Another couple remarked, ‘It’s as if we fell off the face of the earth.’

We are frequently so disturbed by the loss of an officer that we find it difficult to comply with Orders and Regulations, which state that, ‘Comrades who withdraw from officership should be treated justly and kindly.’ Earlier editions dealt more specifically with comrades who have resigned honourably, adding that officers should ‘Go out of their way to show [the ex-officer] kindness, obtain for him the sympathy of comrades, and prevent him being, in any sense, regarded with suspicion.’ Even an officer who resigns amid shameful or worrying circumstances should be treated kindly and justly, for ‘you who are spiritual should restore him gently.’

It is difficult to know what to say or how to act toward recently-resigned comrades. When we react unkindly (or not at all) to an ex-officer, however, we not only disobey O&R, but we also increase whatever tension or difficulties may have led to resignation. More importantly, we also oppose the command of Scripture to ‘love one another’, to ‘carry each other’s burdens, and in this way…fulfil the law of Christ’.

The 1862 conference of the New Connexion voted to accept William Booth’s resignation, ‘and thus,’ writes Harold Begbie, ‘any hope he may have nourished of a return to the church of his adoption was effectually knocked on the head.’ It’s impossible to say what action, if any, on the organisation’s part might have led Booth to return, but it appears that little or no effort was made to bring that about.

Similarly, the manner in which we sometimes handle the resignation of our comrade-officers effectually locks the door of re-entry behind them. Due to some circumstances beyond our control (and others within our control), resignation is often so traumatic, seeming to leave the officer ‘without a friend and without a farthing’, that any possibility of return is quashed. Very often, in making it overwhelmingly difficult for an officer to leave, we make it insurmountably difficult for him to return.

Comrade

When all attempts to retain our officers and encourage them to persevere prove fruitless, we can derive no benefit from withholding help or ‘teaching a lesson’ to the resigning officer. We must not only try to make the transition as painless as possible for the Army, but it will be to our benefit in the long run to be a helpful and supportive as possible to our comrade, like the divisional commander who was willing to carry boxes for his officer-friend.

Neither should we (consciously or not) impose exile upon our friends and family who step out of officership. Staying in touch with former officers will not only encourage them and exhibit a Christlike spirit of interest and concern in us, but it may prove a boon to the Army as well. Some who have undertaken to contact former officers have been surprised that many ex-officers might have considered taking an appointment-even after years- if only someone had shown interest.

Too often the back door of officership swings only one way; perhaps, to borrow an American president’s phrase, ‘a kinder, gentler’ approach would keep the door open for those who still have gifts and talents and energy to offer to the Army.

William and Catherine Booth’s departure from the Methodist New Connexion was significant, not only in paving the way for The Salvation Army, but also in the lessons to be gained from their experience. If we heed those lessons, we will more often obey our orders to treat comrades who withdraw from officership ‘kindly and justly’. In this way we will fulfill the law of Christ.

(Part three)

Bob Hostetler; THE OFFICER1991

3 comments:

Randy Savage - Former USA East said...

Bob,

I applaud your work on this article. I find interesting that over 140 years since Booth 'left the work' the Army still generally responds much the same way as the Methodists in Booth's day. While clear guidelines are in place to allow for a graceful transition out of officership, little or no grace is shown to former officers. Sad to say, the clear demonstration of Christianity is noticably missing in an organization that claims the salvation and power of Christ and the leading of the Holy Spirit.

Perhaps this is the 'sin in the camp' the current General spoke of in the early days of his tenure.

Unknown said...

This website mentions salvation, and I want to comment about this.

Le-havdil,
Ribi Yehoshua ha-Mashiakh (the Messiah) from Nazareth’s authentic teachings reads:
[Torah, Oral Law & Hebrew Matityahu: Ribi Yehoshua Commanded Non-Selective Observance
The Netzarim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityahu (NHM) 5:17-20]
[Glossaries found in the website below.]:

"I didn't come to subtract from the Torâh of Moshëh or the Neviim, nor to add onto the Torah of Moshëh did I come. Because, rather, I came to [bring about the] complete [i.e., non-selective] observance of them in truth.
Should the heavens and ha-Aretz exchange places, still, not even one י or one of the Halâkhâh of the Torah of Moshehshall so much as exchange places; toward the time when it becomes that they are all being performed -- i.e., non- selectively -- in full.
For whoever deletes one [point of] the Halâkhâh of these mitzwot from Torah, or shall teach others such, [by those in] the Realm of the heavens he shall be called 'deleted.' And whoever ratifies and teaches them shall be called ' Ribi' in the Realm of the heavens.

For I tell you that unless your tzәdâqâh is over and above that of the [Hellenist-Roman Pseudo- Tzedoqim] Codifiers of halakhah, and of the Rabbinic- Perushim sect of Judaism, no way will you enter into the Realm of the heavens." (see NHM)

Quote from www.netzarim.co.il ; “History Museum”

The reconstruction is made using a scientific and logic methodology. One of the premises is that the historical Ribi Yehoshua was a Torah-observant Pharisee (why that premise is true is found in the above website, in which you also will find more information about why a reconstruction is needed).

The historical Ribi Yehoshua and his followers Netzarim observed Torah non-selectively. The above website proofs that the person who want to follow the historical Ribi Yehoshua must do likewise.

The above quote from NHM 5:17-20 shows what Ribi Yehoshua taught about heaven and whom will get there, and it proofs that the Christian doctrine of salvation is incorrect.

Anders Branderud

FORMER SALVATION ARMY OFFICERS FELLOWSHIP said...

Thank you Anders for your very instructive comment and quotes.

As you will know, when the 'curtain was torn', it meant a new truth given to us by an unchanging God "He cannot deny Himself..." Christ did not sanction the creation of "a new church" but the revelation of His truth. Christ became and remains the only true High Priest at the right hand of the Father. Hebrews 8:1-2.