The story of how The Salvation Army became conservative is a complicated one, but one which needs to be understood. It is the story of how one of the world’s biggest social service providers left behind its radical roots.
Setting the Scene
The Salvation Army began with a radical commitment to evangelising the people who had been forgotten by the other churches. This commitment swiftly evolved. It came to understand that salvation involved not only the spiritual circumstances of an individual. It also included their social condition.
The structures of society were themselves sinful. They created circumstances where sin could thrive. Sinful people created these structures, so they were inherently flawed. They prioritized the rich and powerful and oppressed the poor and weak, making them inherently sinful.
Different Understanding of Salvation
Social salvation meant saving society. This involved saving and sanctifying individual members of that society. It also involved transforming the problems that led to sin and emerged from it in the first place. Society must be saved, first with individuals but also as a whole.
The sins of society could not be removed simply by changing the way that society functioned. Nor could they be removed by voting in a new government. The entire edifice of human endeavour had to be radically renewed and built out of sanctified material. Salvation and Social Reform went together.
As the years passed, some of the early reforming zeal of the Army diminished. The Army’s approach shifted towards conservative tendencies. This change eventually led to the Army becoming more grounded in social conservatism rather than in social reform. This is the story of how The Salvation Army became conservative.
The Army focused on picking up the pieces left by the structures and systems within which they function. They became intertwined with those systems. The Army attempted to ‘fix’ society’s problems by raising people up the social ladder. This meant that officers left to take up left-wing politics or other social welfare charities. It also changed how the Army’s social reform efforts aligned with the needs of the British Empire. These efforts became an integral part of its renamed social service departments. Social Reform became Social Service.
Four Reasons How The Salvation Army Became Conservative
There are four main reasons how The Salvation Army became conservative, both socially and structurally.
- The Darkest England Scheme relies on government funding. It also requires government approval for its large-scale social reform projects.
- The tendency to ‘class-up’ its members.
- The desire to remain politically neutral
- The end of postmillennial theology.
I think there is also a fifth, minor, and quite personal reason. This is William Booth’s personality and need for approval.
It should be noted that I am not suggesting that the early Army was in any way socially liberal. Despite a strongly held belief in theological equality, the Army continued to hold to culturally normative gender and racial bias. Women officers, when married, were subordinated to their husbands. Officers from non-English-speaking countries were initially reported as ‘native officers’. This included those from more broadly non-Western countries. The reports carried all the general assumptions of Imperial London.
I suggest that the Army initially had a more radical position. This pertained to its relationship with the state and social structures. However, I suggest that the Army’s early years included a more radical position. This position was concerning its relationship to the state and social structures generally. This position shifted. This is highlighted in its changing approach to social action. I am highlighting this change in this article. The story of how The Salvation Army became conservative is the story of how it abandoned its radical position.
Government Relations
The Salvation Army began as a radical working-class movement. It aimed at the evangelisation of the whole world. The goal was to transform society into the Kingdom of God. Its first leaders came from working-class backgrounds. They had become lower-middle class through their employment as ministers or missionaries.
At Odds with Business, Church, and State
At first, the Army’s mission and methods set it at odds with businesses, the church, and the establishment. They all mistrusted this fledgling missionary movement, which offended so many people simply by existing.
Publicans, brothel owners, bookies, and profit-focused industrialists all mistrusted and resented the Army. The Army campaigned not only to set people free from the oppression and slavery offered by these businesses but actively sought the end of their existence. Those who profited from the misery and oppression of the poor could not allow that and pushed back using legal and illegal means, including violence.
The Churches Push Back
Both the established church and dissenting churches mistrusted and misunderstood the Army. Initially, there were some attempts to unite the Army with the Anglicans. However, cultural and theological differences prevented that from happening.
Several Anglican and Methodist clergy wrote scathing critiques of the Army in national newspapers. The Army drew its members and leaders from the working class. It required no higher education from them. This was very different from the Oxford-educated clergy associated with Anglicanism.
The Army’s worship owed more to the music-hall than to the chapel. Only the great hymns of old maintained a link to other churches. The bones of Methodist practice also kept this connection. The Army allowed women to preach and teach and have authority over men. The Army did not have any sacraments.
At every stage, the Army rejected what was foundational for the other churches. It captured the hearts of the poor. This was something the other churches had struggled to do. The only exception was the Roman Catholic Church. It had a strong connection to particular demographics within the wider Urban working-class communities.
Mistrusted by the government
The Government mistrusted and feared the Army. The revolutions and attempted revolutions across Europe in the 1840s were still fresh in the government’s mind. The campaigns of the Chartists were also on their minds. The French and American revolutions were never far from the British government’s mind. They were concerned that the poor and lower gentry would rise in rebellion.
Most of all, the old memory of the English Civil War still hung in the shadows. It taught politicians to be wary of religious enthusiasts. These enthusiasts also spoke about transforming society.
The Army was initially seen as a potential threat. It was viewed as a body of working-class radicals with loud religion. It had what seemed to be contempt for traditional forms and sensibilities. This perception was especially strong given the links between some of its senior members and socialist groups. These links included William Booth’s brief tarry with the Chartists in his youth.
Did The Army Reinvent Itself?
The Army was initially at odds with Britain’s establishment, but this would change. This is a key moment for how The Salvation Army became conservative. The Army became acceptable and then respectable. It became linked to the government’s work in dealing with the ‘problem’ of the poor. This included those members of society who apparently chose not to work. These individuals were considered the ‘undeserving poor’.
Andrew Eason commented that after 1890, the Army reinvented itself. It moved from being at odds with the establishment to cultivating a relationship with it. This was at least partially to gain publicity and donations to its funds.
I disagree with his suggestion that the Army reinvented itself. I think that is pushing a bit too hard. However, I do believe that from around 1885 to 1910, the Army emphasised and developed its social reform work.
There was a growing theological change in William Booth’s thinking. The key influence of those around him contributed to this shift. Commissioner Frank Smith was one of these influences. He desired the Army to take a more active role in the transformation of society. This, in turn, led to an increased dependence upon funding. This was especially true for state funding. Occasionally, the government asked them to take on responsibility for projects or programmes. This is key for how The Salvation Army became conservative.
Invited to see the King
The Army’s acclimatisation to the establishment culminated with a significant event. William Booth received an invitation to Buckingham Palace. He was invited for a meeting with King Edward VII. The pawnbroker’s apprentice from Nottingham ended up meeting with a man who was both King and Emperor.
Booth had gone from being a figure of mockery, decision, and mistrust to being an elder statesman whose opinions were valued and whose successes were respected. This experience was overwhelming for the man. He had always struggled between the desire for recognition and a trust in his own judgment.
The Need for Government Funding and The Darkest England Scheme
The Army had approached the government for money during the 1870s and had been turned down. The Lord Mayor of London donated funds to the Army. The Corporation of London also contributed during its work feeding striking Dockworkers in the 1880s. However, there had been no official donations made to the Army for its wider work. But the advent of the Darkest England Scheme in 1890 changed things for the Army forever.
Simply put, the scheme was too big and too costly for the Army to successfully undertake using its own resources. This meant they had to build a relationship with the government. The need for financial support was, and is, a big reason how The Salvation Army became conservative.
However, the Darkest England scheme did not need to be a reason for the conservatisation of the army. One of the purposes of The Darkest England Scheme was to bring about structural change. Darkest England was not a simple model for evangelising the poor or for dealing with unemployment. It advocated for wholesale social change. It was to be a proto-welfare state based on Salvationist principles and run on Salvationist methods.
Whilst Booth said that what was being done was to remove the obstacles currently in the way of people becoming saved, for Booth, salvation included social salvation. Society could be redeemed and restored to something suitable for the Kingdom of God. If people could be saved and sanctified, the world would be ready, and Jesus would return.
The Impact of Postmillennialism on the Army
The belief that if the world was saved, individually and as a whole, then Jesus would return, is fundamental to the beliefs and practices of the early Salvation Army. This is particularly true for its social reform work.
You cannot understand the early Army if you do not grasp the importance of postmillennialism. They aimed to win the world for Jesus. Their mission drove them to other countries. This also explained their militaristic forms. It was also why they emphasised that social reform was integral to social salvation. The Army was called to prepare the way for the return of Jesus because the rest of the churches had failed in that duty.
An international vision
There was a vision of an international, integrated project that would transform the British Empire and the world. The British Empire was seen as a force for good in the world, a force that was a civilising influence, and by civilising, they also meant Christianising.
Booth understood that the Empire provided the perfect tool for transforming the world. It allowed for the free passage of people. It also offered a structure in a significant amount of the world. Within this structure, the Army could work to redeem society. But, as we will see in a moment, Booth also understood that the Army had something to offer to the Empire.
The Darkest England scheme was radically transformative for society. Booth understood the scheme within his own cultural and historical context. The Empire was flawed because people were flawed. However, it offered him the best opportunity to win the world for Jesus. Others in the Army did not see it that way, but they did not stay in the Army for long.
For Booth, lifting people out of poverty and getting them saved would change society for the good. This would pave the way for the return of Christ. This was the great cause. Darkest England was designed to hasten the return of Jesus. Booth was willing to co-opt the Empire to achieve this. What began as a desire to positively change the world transformed into a key reason for The Salvation Army’s conservatism.
Booth Makes Friends With The Government
This was quite a sharp about turn for Booth. He had previously criticised and warned against accepting money from the government.
In “The Relation of Social Work to Governments,” Booth wrote:
No social work just be undertaken (except under very extraordinary circumstances, and then only with the consent of International Headquarters) which has to be sustained by any Government grant, the continuience of which is uncertain. It this principle is departed from, you will be likely to find yourselves left with enterprises upon your hands involving large expenditure of money, for which the income which led you to their initiation has been withdrawn. It is not enough to say that the obligation is such that you can abandon the effort should the income be withdrawn. In many cases the probable result will be that a real work of mercy is in progress, in which instance although your arrangement will allow you to withdraw from it, your heart will rebel against it. Therefore you must look carefully ahead when any offers of this description are made to you.
Now, he was willing to accept it. This is part of how The Salvation Army became conservative. Pragmatism drove against beliefs. Contrast this with the Army actively seeking funding for its international project from the State and wealthy donors. Tellingly, the Darkest England Scheme did not reach its full potential. There were insufficient funds. Additionally, the dominions of Australia and Canada were concerned. They did not want the poor of London and the Midlands being sent to their lands.
Despite the wider failings of the Darkest England, its structures and processes had a significant impact. They led to many elements of the modern welfare society.
The Army and the British Empire
As I mentioned earlier, the Army saw the Empire not only as a system to be used to convert the world but saw a symbiotic role between the Army and the Empire. The Booths believed the Army had something significant to offer to this Empire, fallen though it may be.
Catherine Booth argued that the political and financial establishments of the British Empire should support the work of the Army. She believed this because the Army’s work would help save Britain from anarchy and revolution. The work of the Army would preserve the Empire. The Empire relied on the Army to prevent its populous from revolting, especially in its colonies. In return, the Army relied on the Empire to spread the Gospel worldwide. This is a critical moment in how The Salvation Army became conservative.
In her writing “The Salvation Army and its Relation to the State,” Catherine warned of the steady advance of Socialist opinions which at that time in Germany and France threatens all orderly government, and menaces the existence of any government at all. It is significant that she called out socialism as a danger to the Empire.
A revolutionary era
There had been violence in Spain by socialist groups. The Chartists in Britain had links to socialist groups. Trade unions were increasing in power and influence. There was concern in Europe for potential socialist revolutions. People generally accepted that Methodism rose in the 18th and early 19th centuries. This was a key factor in preventing Britain from experiencing its own revolutionary movements. Britain avoided such events in the same way that the USA, France, and parts of what is now Germany did.
The Army was offering itself to fulfil that same role. As I said earlier, the Empire was scared of mass rebellions. This fear was particularly strong in the motherland, but it also extended to its dominions and colonies. Catherine noted that the Army was addressing those fears. She said their work in improving the condition of the poor would discourage people from working against the state’s interests. The Army was very willing to support the British Empire. Because of this, it became more conservative.
The Army Outside of Cultural Norms
Catherine may have simply been deploying rhetoric she knew would convince the government to support the work of the Army. But I don’t think that is entirely the case. I think it is a central part of how The Salvation Army became conservative.
I believe there is an undercurrent of belief in the Army that the assumed norms of society do not hold authority compared to the work of the Holy Spirit. Why should working-class people preach and lead a church? Because God had sanctified them. Why should a woman preach and teach and lead? Because God had sanctified her. Why should the poor be lifted out of their poverty? Because sin and the activities which created sin (such as gambling and drinking alcohol) led people into poverty and kept them there. Society needed to be fixed and perfected rather than being destroyed.
Salvationist Socialism
You can read more about this topic here
William Booth provided a flash of insight in an article in The War Cry. This was during the 1886 Dockers strike. The article was called “Socialism,” where he wrote about the idea of Salvationist Socialism. In it, he provides several reasons. Socialism, as commonly understood, would not work. It should not be taken up by the Army. A warning to some of its most significant figures.
However, he also wrote something quite revolutionary hidden by Booth’s eschatology. He wrote:
There is only one way to mend society, and that is by making it anew! It must be regenerated, converted, radically changed, made over again! Laws, education, music, politics, social economy, and the like, may throw it into a different shape, and may refine it, without making any radical change in its condition. This can only be accomplished by the power of God: only God can make it good. If the bricks of which the Social fabric is built up are bad, changing them to another colour, or throwing them into different forms, will not be sufficient. The bricks must be made over again; they must be made good.
True socialism needs sanctification
For Booth, society could not be fixed and made better through political revolution. The biggest problem was not the wrong form of government. It was sin.
A socialist government would still be corrupted by the sins of its members. What was needed was a still great revolution, the transformation and rebirth of the entire society through the salvation and sanctification of its members.
Booth passionately believed that salvation would lead to a new society and then to the return of Jesus. However, this would not be achieved by overturning the state, but by saving the people who make up the state. Until that point, the state had to be utilised for the kingdom until it could be replaced with something better.
Salvationist Socialism Abandoned for Love of Popularity
The Army abandoning its socialist influences is a key marker in how the Salvation Army became conservative.
A key example of the links between the Army and the State is William Booth’s audience with King Edward VII. This took place in 1904, prominently illustrating the Empire’s connection. William Booth asked the King if he would be happy for Booth to tell Salvationists that the King regards its [the Salvation Army’s] successes as important to the well-being of the Empire.
Booth wanted the endorsement of the ultimate seat of establishment for the Army. Still, he also wanted the King to give tacit approval to the Army’s role in maintaining the Empire.
A War Cry article from January 1911 entitled “Global Civil Society and the Forces of Empire” took this tendency further when it said of the Army that:
In its endeavours to soften and remove the effect of extreme poverty, to raise the fallen, to succor the needy and assist the distressed, the products of a civilisation which turns out an appalling proportion of waste products – paupers, prostitutes, criminals and lunatics in every class of society, and by this means to soften the conflicts between the ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots’ which constitute a fertile soil for the seeds of rebellion that threaten the mother country.
The Salvation Army as the British Empire’s Police
It starts to utilise the language of ‘waste products’ for people who have been mistreated by society and circumstance. The article also centres the work of the Army in the Empire in preventing a rebellion. Not only a rebellion abroad but one that would threaten the mother country itself. This marks the transition for the Army and must be understood to recognise how The Salvation Army became conservative.
The language of ‘mother country’ contrasts with Bramwell Booth’s later statement during the First World War. He said, “All lands are my fatherland because all lands are my Father’s.” The Army’s internationalism would become more important but never fully lose its colonial flavour. The social transformation of the poor was seen not only as a matter of salvation but now was explicitly understood in light of its role in maintaining and conserving the Empire.
The Army as the Empire’s Police
This is put quite harshly but quite clearly by Harald Fiecher-Tiné who wrote that: the Salvation Army’s transformation from a Home Mission Movement, based on traditions of lower middle-class and upper working-class religiosity, and often viewed as disturbing by the authorities, into a world-wide service business for social control…this transformation happened almost simultaneously in India [with custody of ‘criminal tribes’] and Great Britain.
In India, the Army requested permission from the government. They wanted to oversee the prison compounds. These housed members of the so-called criminal tribes. No one wanted to work with them. Only the Army thought they could be redeemed. But the Army became their gaolers in doing so.
In Ceylon, the State asked the Army to run its homes for vagrants. Magistrates would force homeless people and vagrants to go into these homes. They aimed for moral restitution through hard work. In both cases, the Army’s intention to transform people they saw as needing help changed. It ended with the Army working on behalf of the Empire. They became a part of its criminal justice system.
George Bernard Shaw wrote that the Army had become: a sort of auxiliary police…taking off the insurrectionary edge of poverty and thus preserving the country from mob violence and revolution.
Shaw captures the movement in how The Salvation Army became conservative. This is similar to the argument that the growth of Methodism in the 18th century helped prevent a revolution. This occurred at the same time as the American and continental revolutions. Methodism redirected political energy for social reform to religious reform amongst the radical members of society.
How The Salvation Army Became Conservative
The Army’s need for public and private support was essential for its social reform work. Public funds were also needed. This necessity tied it irrevocably and permanently to conservativism. The State was the means by which the Army would bring about the transformation and salvation of the world, so the State needed to be preserved rather than destroyed.
In a more prosaic sense, the state provided the Army with the funds for its social reform mission. Therefore, it should not bite the hand that fed it. The belief in this connection led to the departure of some officers. These officers and Salvationists were more ‘left-wing’. They chose the shorter path to the Kingdom of God that radical politics seemed to promise.
The Army’s work in relation to the State led to its conservatisation at a corporate level. However, individual members also became more socially and politically conservative as time went on.
Classing-Up
Changing demographics is a key element in how The Salvation Army became conservative. You can read more about this here.
The Army initially drew its membership and leadership from the working classes, but that did not remain the case. Increasingly, the officer ranks, especially senior officers, were drawn from the middle classes. The Army increasingly drew its officer corps from the middle class. Additionally, its originally working-class members were rising through the social state of the British Empire.
The tendency for “redemption and lift” has been evident in the Army. This was also seen in other evangelical mission groups. Its members stopped drinking, gambling, going to prostitutes, and racing pigeons. They could hold down jobs for longer and were less likely to break things at home in a drunken rage.
The sobriety, thrift, and diligence of the first generations of converts improved their socio-economic standing. Where once the members had been working-class, they became skilled workers. Their children received a better education and moved into the middle class. They transitioned from being at the bottom end of the British social state. Initially, they did not have a stake in broader society. Eventually, they became stakeholders in that state. This was especially notable through the property requirements for holding the voting franchise.
This contributed to their moving towards the conservative end of the political spectrum. They no longer wanted to change society, they were invested in maintaining it because they had become part of it.
The Army Loses Touch With It’s Working-Class Roots
The levelling up of Salvationists created a distinction between them and the group they had come from. They were different and did not want to return to their old lives. Some lost interest in their previous community. They had escaped, and so others could as well if they just worked for it. If they stayed poor, then that was their own fault for not trying hard enough. The Army at prayer was different from the Army at service. This distinction existed in some parts of the Army world.
Harold Hill wrote: As Salvationists rose in the social scale, they sometimes became less interested in attempting, and less able to attempt, to integrate the clients from social work into their communities of faith. This led to things like the Slum Sisters, the Goodwill Department, ARCs and Harbour Light services, and Bridge Recovery Corps.
Places were set aside for people with complexity in their lives. They could gather for worship without interrupting or upsetting the kinds of people who went to the corps. It was argued that this was to provide better support. It also aimed to offer a more accessible style for people from those backgrounds. However, there was also an element of separation between the corps and the social programme.
Abandoning the Army’s roots
The Citadels and Corps of the Army have changed in some places. They have become like the churches where the first members of the Army were not welcome. William Booth once commented that he wanted to embrace both the rich and the poor. However, he found it difficult to reach far enough. Trying to reach both at the same time is one of the reasons how The Salvation Army became conservative.
Perhaps he should not have tried to reach everyone. He should have concentrated on who God had sent him to serve. Part of the problem is that when people became middle-class, they still associated themselves with the working class. They refused to understand that the working class has changed. The Army adopted the idea of reaching down to people. This happened because it was no longer part of the community it was serving.
Charles Booth, the great sociologist of Britain and poverty, quoted from a Salvation Army officer stationed in Peckham: Conversion has a wonderful effect on a man; he is very soon recently clothed, his home becomes better, and though he remains a working man, outwardly he might pass with the clerks.
Evangelicalism and Conversion Led to Social Transformation
In its early period, the Army provided a vehicle for the working class to express their religiosity. This was distinctive from the expressions favoured by the middle and upper classes. Its style was unashamedly working-class and did not emulate the style of the other reformers or slum-evangelists.
Its officers, employees, and volunteers predominantly came from a working-class background. The Army fundamentally believed that a person’s origin did not matter. What was important was the work of the Holy Spirit. Sanctification was everything. Holiness was the great leveler.
During the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the worker’s politics and the worker’s religion were closely intertwined. Radical religion and radical politics generally went together. Many Chartists, abolitionists, reformers, and suffragists, were Christians, particularly non-conformists.
Growth in working class expressions
You can read more about this here
In the 1880s, the working class desired another mode of expression. This had not been available to them since the Methodists repudiated the Chartists.
Robertson writes: the dissolution of the religious context of socio-political discussion and decision was near and the Labour Church movement and ephemeral working-class allegiance to the Salvation Army were two of the major collective responses to this relatively normless situation…with the rapid development of Trade Unions of unskilled and skilled manual workers, and of the socialist parties…the probability of working class aspiration being expressed through religious media declined considerably.
The Labour Church movement flourished from 1891 to 1910. It was supposed to provide an expression of religion for the labour movement. The movement left specific theological beliefs to its individual members. It aimed to maintain a form of Christianity within the growing labour movements. This was especially true within the socialist elements of that movement. However, it did not last long. It did not gain much traction because it offered no ideological power to contend with what it supported.
The Army stopped representing the working-class in its membership. It increasingly became a subsidiary agent of the State in much of its social work. Consequently, it was no longer a vital vehicle for working-class sensibilities. Instead, the unions and the socialists spoke more to the needs of the working-class. The Army had been birthed out of the working-class but did not remain there. This is another reason how The Salvation Army became conservative.
Remaining Neutral
A fundamental tenant of Salvationist religion is that the Army must always remain politically neutral. It will not take sides or endorse one candidate over another. It will work with whoever is in government to support people in need. Elizabeth Milligan wrote:
For those involved in Salvation Army activity respect for the societal order is an integral part of their nomos. Political involvement is not forbidden, nor is any particular political viewpoint prescribed, but it is assumed that this area of life will, like every other, be ruled by Salvationist principles. The Salvationist may be politically active but he must be a Salvationist first and foremost and as such extra-Salvation Army activity becomes marginal…Empirically this perspective shows itself by a dearth of public figures who are affiliated to the Salvation Army.
The commitment to political neutrality developed along with the need for a good relationship with the government. This situation led to the resignation of more radical Army members. They believed that the Army should take a more direct route to social transformation.
Political Defections in the Early Army
Several Labour party and generally left-wing politicians began in the Army, often as officers.
Commissioner Frank Smith is the classic example. He was in charge of the social reform wing. But he resigned only a few months after Darkest England was published. Smith became a member of the new London County Council, then an MP for the Labour Party.
George Lansbury, a prominent Labour politician, had belonged to the Army in his youth.
Colonel Brindley Boon resigned to join the Independent Labour Party in 1894. He reapplied for officership only a year or so later. The War Cry commented:
We regret to report the resignation of Colonel Boon. He has left the Army with a view to joining the Independent Labour Party, in the hopes of securing by direct political agitation and law reform the results which we believe can best and indeed only be achieved by Salvation. We can only say that we believe our comrade has made a fatal mistake, which he will regret both in time and in eternity…Who can doubt that a drunkard-saving, slum-visiting, people-converting F.O [field officer] ranks far higher in the Heavenly scales than any M.P. in the land.
We can see here the criticism levelled against an officer who resigned to undertake political work. The Army was convinced that the work of salvation would have longer-lasting effects. They believed it had more effective transformative powers than political agitation.
But the mistake here is to think that neutrality is actually neutral. Neutrality favours the status quo and tends towards preservation rather than transformation. The Army maintained political neutrality. Its increased relationship and dependency on the State grew. The levelling up of its members led to its increasingly social and political conservatism.
William Booth’s Personality
The early years of Booth’s life are crucial. They help in understanding his later life decisions. He grew up in poverty, but in a family on the edge of being middle-class but never quite managing it. He was an apprentice to a pawnbroker. It was a business similar to a modern payday loan company. Such businesses often had similar morals when it came to preying on the poor and desperate.
When his apprenticeship finished, he was unemployed for a year. He had been poor and unemployed in one of the poorest cities in the country. The city ranked in the top ten cities for mortality by disease.
William Booth’s Choice Between Politics and Religion
You can read more about this here
As a child, William Booth had followed his father’s Conservative politics. He joined Tory marches through the streets. He also supported campaign elections. However, following his conversion in his youth, William Booth was attracted to radical politics, particularly the Chartist movement.
He attended a mass gathering in Nottingham. Feargus O’Connor’s rhetoric influenced him enough to sign up for the People’s Charter. He understood that the Chartists were for the poor, so he was a Chartist.
The preaching and teaching of American revivalist Methodist James Caughey had a significant impact. He denounced the Chartists as destructive of social order. He argued that the wrongs of the world needed to be righted by individual conversion. His influence won Booth for religion rather than politics.
The influence of Methodism over politics
The influence of Caughey here should not be ignored. Specifically, his argument that radical political action would not change society but would only destroy society. The rejection of political action was not confined to Caughey but was part of New Connexion Methodism more generally. John Rhemick highlights this:
As a religious community, we neither have interfered, nor do profess to interfere, with political concerns; like the kingdom of our Lord and Master, the Methodist New Connexion has no relation to the political affairs of this world.
This was the Methodism that Booth was part of. It differentiated between the work of politics and the work of the Kingdom of God. It is also the kind of neutrality that the Army would adopt themselves. Even in January 1869, Booth still held to this opinion. He wrote in The East London Evangelist:
Legislation may do much to counteract the mischief but the spread of religious feeling will do more. The true Christian is a real self-helper. In bringing the truths of religion before the suffering masses we are also assisting in be great work of social reform…When we have taught people to be religious, half the battle has been won.
Booth worked hard to see society transformed through the salvation of its members. He grew impatient with social campaigns. These campaigns ran into problems and required funding and publicity to achieve.
William Booth’s impatience with social work
William Booth wrote to his son Bramwell: I cannot go in for any more ‘campaigns’ against evils. My hands and heart are full enough. And moreover these reformers or society have no sympathy with The Salvation Army not with Salvation from worldliness and sin. Our campaign is against sin! ... The Christ people who are not for a religion of deliverance from sinning are God’s great enemies.
For Booth, the most important thing was always the salvation of the individual, to bring about the salvation of society. He had expired radical politics as a youth. However, he did not believe it could accomplish the goals he sought to achieve.
Booth spoke about what might have been if he had gone along with Chartism and embraced radical politics: Should I…at this moment have had the open door to the hearts of Conservative as well as Radical people that is mine at this hour? I do not think I should.
Here, we see an inkling of some of the tensions underlying Booth’s ministry. He saw the work of the Army not only for the poor and the working-class. It was also for the transformation of the whole of society, including the establishment.
Fear of Losing Funding Breeds Social and Religious Conservatism
Booth did not want to ostracise those classes. He depended on them for funding and recognition. He also hoped to transform the Empire through them and thus the world.
Booth was, by nature, more conservative than radical when it came to social and political matters. Roger Green discusses a point in Booth’s private correspondence. Booth was offended by charges that the Army used sweated labour. He referred to the lying, jealous, God-hating crowd who have so senselessly attacked us. This included the Labour party—both Socialistic and Trade Union wings—on which he hoped to turn the tables.
I think an element to consider is Booth’s own desire for recognition from the establishment.
Booth grew up poor but became involved in both Chartism and Methodism. He was influenced by great speakers and leaders, wanting them to see him as successful. It cost him to leave the Methodist Connexion. He wanted them to recognise his role as an evangelist and his worth for them. Instead, he was told to remain in circuit ministry. He may well have seen this as a rejection of what he understood as his gifts and worth.
When the Army began, he had the respect of his soldiers and officers but was rejected by the church and society. When the Army started to gain recognition and acceptance by society and the establishment, it had an effect on William Booth.
He had gained the respect and acknowledgement he had desired throughout his life. Naturally conservative, naturally authoritative, naturally autocratic, he wanted to be acclaimed by people who shared those qualities. This influenced the way he led the Army.
How The Salvation Army Became Conservative – A Summary
The Army faced changes in the social class of its members and, more significantly, its officers. Because of this, the Army increasingly found itself ‘doing for’ rather than ‘doing with’ the people it served. In the early parts of the Army, the people saved by the Army undertook both its evangelism and social reform work. They came from those communities in need. As the Army spread and took on a larger role in reform work, that ceased to be the case.
The institutionalisation of service led to the disintegration of the vision of the Army. Its members, and to a lesser extent its officers, became remote from the people the more ‘professional’ parts of the Army were serving.
The dangers of professionalism
Lt. Col. Alida Bosshardt was a hero of the Army in Amsterdam. She ran the Goodwill centre in the Red Light district from 1948-1978. She would have “no social work without the involvement of Soldier Volunteers.” This is because, as bearers of the Army’s identity, they should embody both sides of its mission. You can read more about her here.
She said: If we don’t preach the Gospel anymore we might as well hand over the lot to an undenominational organisation.
The French Territorial Commander said of his soldiers in the 1980s that: They separate their everyday life and their religious life. They do not want to be involved in the social work of the church. When the social work of the Army is distant from the culture that its members have come from, there will be disunity between the experiences of those being served and the organisation doing the serving.
Perhaps the Army’s determination to remain above party politics has come full circle. The Army believed it was maintaining a non-political stance. However, abstaining from political expression has amounted to support for an oppressive status quo.
Examples come from South Africa and what was Rhodesia. The Army avoided confrontation with racist regimes. Nationalists saw this avoidance as giving tacit support for those regimes.
The Army in the UK should consider how often its officers represent the communities they lead. How often do the demographics of a corps congregation match the people who access the corps for its social provision?
Conclusion
This does not mean that every member of the Army is socially and politically conservative. It also does not mean that every element of the Army does not seek to transform society. There is a tendency in the Army towards social and political conservatism. This tendency emerged fairly early on and has remained throughout the Army’s life. It also does not mean that every part of the Army around the world functions the same. Not every part of the Army is equally socially and politically conservative. But as a hierarchical organisation, this remains a tendency within its structures.
We need to understand how The Salvation Army became conservative so we can understand
If you want to keep up to date, sign up to My Theology Corner Newsletter for a weekly lite-bite theology hit. Get short-form reflections from topics on the main blog and or on other interesting topics from that week.
https://chrisbutton.substack.com
Leave a Reply