|
Response to Pillar Three Of General Eva Burrows’ Agenda for
the Future
by Colonel Ian
Barr
“To reaffirm our basic stance on the
authority and validity of the Scriptures, both as the basis of
our faith and as a guide for Christian conduct.”
General Eva Burrows was a gifted public
speaker and preacher who communicated the Good News about
Jesus in plain and easily understood language without
minimising the power of the message contained in the pages of
the Bible. In this respect, as in many others, she was very
much a worthy successor of William Booth. The Founder was also
a gifted and plain-spoken speaker and writer, able to speak to
the very soul without reverting either to obscure theological
language or religious jargon.
General Burrows wrote and presented her
Agenda for the Future in 1987. The material I shall quote from
the Founder was written and published in 1885.
Burrows’ stated aim was agenda was to
‘persuade salvationists to study the Scriptures more deeply
and to apply them more relevantly to daily life.’
In 1885 Booth took the opportunity of a
new translation to encourage study and application of biblical
truth to the everyday life of the believer:
‘… I should very much like to see a
Bible rendered into the English language as now spoken by
English speaking people throughout the world.’
Nevertheless, Booth looked beyond
access to the Bible, he looked beyond the mere reading of the
Bible.
‘It (the Bible) gives us everything in
the way of a written revelation that is necessary for
salvation, holy living and our welfare.’
The two Generals are in complete
agreement: the study of Scripture should result in the moral
and spiritual renewal, and Holy Spirit empowerment of the
individual, and the conversion of individuals and communities
‘Every Salvationist should be a living
walking, fighting Bible, which can be seen and read, and felt
by every soul about him.’ (Booth)
Both Generals were open to new thinking
and new methods, but neither was a great proponent of biblical
criticism or theology or as a field of study for its own sake.
As a relatively young doctrine tutor I
recall having a conversation with General Eva about the
training of officers.
Asked if she thought our training
programmes were too eclectic, she immediately simplified the
terminology – ‘Do you mean too varied? We train officers for
the work they have to do, we don’t run theological colleges.
Then she smiled, looked me in the eye and said “However, we
can call on our theologians when we need them.” It was a
kindly chastening, but a chastening nevertheless.
William Booth’s admonition against what
is sometimes called ‘bibliolatry’ is equally pertinent:
‘Great as is the value of the Bible, it
is possible to exalt it too highly. Some have put it in place
of God. The letter of it rather than its spirit has been held
in chief regard. Others have made the mistake of regarding it
as the only revelation God has made to the world. It contains
the fullest and clearest, but not the only, light He has given
us.’
… It is important to notice also that
it is possible to underestimate the Bible. That is a danger to
which many of our people are exposed.’
The hundred years or so between the two
documents saw a massive expansion of scientific knowledge, and
a distinct change to a more critical approach to the text and
form of Scripture in the field of biblical study. Some
Christians have coined expressions such as ‘infallible’ and
‘inerrant’ to ward of these influences, seeking to strengthen
the foundations of their faith in the Bible as the Word of
God. Other Christians have found their faith strengthened by a
sense that the Bible is no less the Word of God for being
studied in the light of science and scholarship.
As William Booth concluded:
‘There seems to be only one thing left
to be done with it (the Bible) and that is to give a literal
and faithful and understandable translation of it in practice.
Let us live it; live the real things –
live the Christ-life.
|
