Biblical, Theological, and Historical Foundations
by Colonel Janet Munn
“Justice is power performing the work of love.”
Paul Tillich
“Speak truth to power.”
The Quakers
Two women officers of The Salvation Army,
one from Pakistan, one from India, spoke to us, two women
officers of The Salvation Army, one from the United States,
one from the United Kingdom: “Don’t forget us. Please, don’t
forget us.” And we never will. Having shared life together
daily for eight weeks, we understood each other—our stories,
idiosyncrasies, joys, and pain. These women from South Asia
had found a place of emotional safety in our short-term
Christian community, allowing them freedom to express for the
first time the oppression and injustices they and many other
women are enduring, specifically because they are female.
My ministry context in recent years has
involved sharing daily living in close community, for eight
weeks at a time, with Christian leaders from a wide variety of
nations. I have found that assumptions devaluing females are
present in Western contexts as well as in developing cultures.
Cultural norms and practices that are antithetical to the
gospel remain widely accepted and unchallenged even among
Christians, including Christian leaders. In fact, I have
become aware of a recurring pattern, throughout the systemic
structures of many Christian organizations and denominations,
of gender inequality.
This project will attempt to discover the
extent to which leaders in The Salvation Army value gender
equality. To inform that exploration, a transformative
hermeneutic must be applied to the Christian Scriptures, to
kingdom theology, and to church history. Specifically,
biblical application must be made regarding an
understanding of the image of God in
humankind, as well as a fuller understanding of Jesus’
inauguration of the kingdom of God and its implications for
male/female relationships. Additionally, clearer theological
insight regarding the gospel of the kingdom and holiness
within that kingdom is essential and particularly needed for
those who wield power within Christian organizations and
denominations. Further, greater cognizance of the history of
Christianity, and particularly of The Salvation Army and its
antecedents, is vital in order to rightly respond to
contemporary contexts and challenges.
This chapter will explore, in section one, a
biblical hermeneutic of power, gender, and the kingdom of God.
This will be followed in section two with an examination of
theological perceptions of power with respect to gender and
the kingdom of God. Finally, section three will study the
antecedent influences upon the formation of The Salvation Army
relative to the participation of women in leadership.
BIBLICAL FOUNDATION
Underlying the biblical foundation section
of this chapter is an assumption that proper engagement with
Scripture can bring about transformation of individuals and
communities. This addresses the need for a transformative
hermeneutic, an approach to biblical interpretation that has
the potential to change the community of believers into one
more authentically redemptive.
Power, Gender, and the Kingdom of God
Three Scripture passages are considered that
address the topics of power, gender and the kingdom of God.
The first is Genesis 1:26-29, with particular emphasis on
verse 27: “So God created human beings in his own image, in
the image of God he created them; male and female he created
them” (NLT). The New Living Translation (NLT) is used here due
to its more inclusive use of “human beings” compared to the
“mankind” of the NIV. Gen. 1:27 is examined within the context
of the creation narratives, with specific focus on the image
of God as reflected in humanity and the potential in Christ
for the fullness of that image realized in Christian
community.
The second text to be considered is
Galatians 3:28: “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither
slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all
one in Christ Jesus” (NIV). This brief passage, with its
description of the new community established in Christ as an
in-breaking of the kingdom of God, is studied in the light of
its relationship to Gen. 1:27.
The third passage is the parable told by
Jesus of the persistent widow in Luke 18:1-8. The themes
developed from this passage reflect the larger context of
Luke’s Gospel and once again illustrate the in-breaking of the
kingdom of God: the struggle by the powerless for justice
(18:2-3); the images of God implied in the parable (18:4-5);
and the necessity of relentless perseverance, fueled by the
imagination of what can be, until justice is meted out—a
manifestation of the kingdom (18:1, 3, 7). This treatment of
Luke 18 demonstrates a hermeneutical approach to the
Scriptures as a means of individual and community
transformation.
Humanity: A Theophany
A great deal of attention has been given to
the study of Gen. 1:27. This brief verse offers a fascinating
and important window into the identity of humankind:
“So
God created human beings in his own image,
in
the image of God he created them;
male
and female he created them.”
Gen. 1:27 (NLT)
The verse has a chiastic structure, which
places “the image of God” at the center, thereby stressing the
importance of the concept, as does the repetition of “image”
(Hartley 2000, 48). The concepts expressed in Gen. 1:27 in
terms of the imaging of God and the dignity of all of humanity
as bearers of that image are unique in the context of the
ancient Near East.
There is one way in which God is imaged in
the world and only one: humanness! . . . God is known
peculiarly through this creature who exists in the realm of
free history, where power is received, decisions are made, and
commitments are honored. God is not imaged in anything fixed
but in the freedom of human persons to be faithful and
gracious. (Brueggemann 1982, 32)
“Humankind is the locus of divine presence
and, as such, it should be highly cherished” (Herring 2008,
494).
Further to the structure of Gen. 1:27, in
the Hebrew language the placement of the phrase “male and
female” before the verb adds emphasis to it, thereby
establishing two things: first, that every male and every
female is made in God’s image; and second, that “in the
essence of being human there is no qualitative difference
between male and female” (Hartley 2000, 48).
Spencer makes the valuable point that the
image of God is a double image. Therefore, males and females
together are needed to reflect God’s image. The contextual
significance for the image of God is displayed in
relationships. The interrelationship between male and female
symbolizes the interrelationship within God. Male and female
are needed to reflect God’s nature (Spencer 1985, 21). Hess’s
study of Gen. 1-3 corroborates Spencer’s conclusions. He
points out that the image of God defined in Gen. 1:27 as male
and female reveals that “the most important distinction
between human beings and all other life on earth is a
distinction that is shared by both male and female” (Hess
2008, 8).
The
Image of God and Power
The language of Gen. 1:27 not only gives
insight into the dignity of humanity as bearers of God’s image
and the necessity of both genders in that image bearing, but
also shows the significance of humankind’s image bearing in
community. In the Hebrew text, the human is first spoken of as
singular (“he created him”) and then as plural (“he created
them”). Human beings are individuals but are also a community
before God, a community including both males and females.
Human beings in community mirror God’s image to the world
(Brueggemann 1982, 34). These image-bearing humans, male and
female, are immediately given authority for the rest of
creation, being assigned by God to “Be fruitful and multiply.
Fill the earth and govern it. Reign over. . .” all creatures
(Gen. 1:28). Interestingly, Keen sees in Genesis 1 an
anticipation of the advent of Jesus as the revelation of the
fullness of the image of God:
Adam and Eve were called into being as a
hope that opens to the coming history of the fullness of God
with us. That is precisely what the history of Jesus is.
Therefore, it is to this that they are essentially related;
when God created Adam and Eve, it was to the coming Christ
that he looked. (Keen 1998, 138)
Thus, Jesus as the image of God (Col. 1:15;
Hebrews 1:3) significantly informs an understanding of the
assignment given to humankind in Gen. 1 as divine image
bearers with delegated divine authority. Jesus’ image-bearing
example teaches that divinely empowered image bearers are not
to grasp at such privilege (Phil. 2:1-8) but, instead,
exercise power as God does by creative self-giving, for the
sake of others (Mark 10:43-44). “There is nothing here of
coercive or tyrannical power, either for God or for the
humankind” but rather a costly demonstration of the Divine
caring for the world (Brueggemann 1982, 32, 34).
As Jesus models a new disclosure of God, so
he embodies a call for a new human community. The idea of the
“image of God” in Gen. 1:26-29 and in Jesus of Nazareth . . .
is an explicit call to form a new kind of human community in
which the members, after the manner of the gracious God, are
attentive in calling each other to full being in fellowship.
(Brueggemann 1982, 34-35)
Whatever Happened to Eden?
Most scholars agree at least on the
’spiritual equality’ of males and females as stated in both
the Old and New Testaments, most specifically in Gen. 1:27 and
Gal. 3:28. Some, however, limit the notion of gender equality
to the spiritual arena, and understand these texts as
irrelevant to temporal equality.
For example, in interpreting the earliest
chapters of Genesis and their instruction as to God’s
intention for gender at creation, Perriman references Gen.
3:9, stating, “We should take note of the fact that the man
retains both precedence and prominence throughout the creation
narrative. It is Adam to whom God calls in the garden”
(Perriman 1998, 177). The conclusions reached by Perriman from
his interpretation of Scripture include language of male
dominance and power and, by implication, subservience and
weakness for females.
Elizabeth Schüssler Fiorenza describes such
a religious view as patriarchy, not just in the sense of an
“androcentric world construction in language but a social,
economic and political system of graded subjugations and
oppressions” (Russell 1985, 127). The practical implications
of such a patriarchal hermeneutic can be seen in an essay by
Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite, based on her work in shelters for
battered women. The essay is entitled “Every Two Minutes:
Battered Women and Feminist Interpretation.”
Frequently women with strong religious
backgrounds have the most difficulty in accepting that the
violence against them is wrong. They believe what they have
been taught, that resistance to this injustice is unbiblical
and unchristian. Christian women are supposed to be meek, and
claiming rights for oneself is committing the sin of pride . .
. I have found that most social workers, therapists and
shelter personnel view religious beliefs as uniformly
reinforcing passivity and tend to view religion, both
traditional Christianity and Judaism, as an obstacle to a
woman’s successful handling of abuse. (Russell 1985, 99)
The hermeneutical conclusions from the early
chapters of Genesis reached by Perriman in support of female
subjugation in the temporal realm can readily fuel the kind of
acceptance of oppression and abuse described by
Thistlethwaite. Perriman’s conclusions are difficult to
reconcile with the sacrificial, self-giving example of the
exercise of power understood in Gen.1:27 and in Jesus’
witness, which the text anticipates. Further, they are
incompatible with the double image of gender mutuality central
to Gen. 1:27.
In contrast to Perriman’s view, Bilezikian
presents a hermeneutic of the creation texts that celebrates
the full humanity of woman. In interpreting Gen. 2:23,
Bilezikian notes that Adam acknowledges the woman’s
participation in the fullness of his own humanity.
She was God’s ultimate achievement, taken
out of man and made in God’s image, the fusing of human beauty
distilled to its graceful essence with mirrored divine
perfection, the sudden present that caused the man to marvel
in a whisper, ‘At last!’ (Bilezikian 1999, 33)
Bilezikian defends the male-female images of
God of Gen. 1:27 by insisting that a proper hermeneutic of the
creation texts demonstrates that ideas of a hierarchy between
man and woman were completely absent in God’s creation design
(1999, 35). In that “[male domination] resulted from the fall,
the rule of Adam over Eve is viewed as satanic in origin, no
less than is death itself” (Bilezikian 1999, 58).
Kingdom of God, Come!
Gal. 3:28 brings into focus the kingdom of
God as a new world order. The Apostle Paul asserts the theme
of the kingdom of God breaking in with his pronouncement in
the form of a threefold affirmation: “There is neither Jew nor
Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female,
for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” This is understood to
have been an early Christian baptismal confession, the locus
of which is “in Christ” (Jervis 1999, 106). Having been raised
a devout Jew, prior to his conversion Paul himself was likely
to have given daily thanks to God, along with other Jewish
males, that he was not a Gentile, not a slave, and not a
woman. It is interesting to note that this prayer was not an
indication of contempt for Gentiles, slaves, or women per se.
Rather, the prayer of gratitude was expressed because
Gentiles, slaves, and women “were disqualified from . . .
religious privileges which were open to free Jewish males”
(Bruce 1982, 187).
But the Christian baptismal confession of
Gal. 3:28 declared that a new world order had begun, that the
kingdom of God had come. In that kingdom Christians gained a
new identity that “transcended all typical social distinctions
and the moral distinctions that resulted from such social
differentiating” (Jervis 1999, 106). In Christ, one’s primary
identity is no longer defined in terms of ethnic, social, or
gender distinctions.
There is a striking detail in the language
of Gal. 3:28 that commands attention. In the Greek text, the
first two phrases of the affirmation are symmetrical: “Jew
nor Gentile” and
“slave nor free.”
However, the third phrase stands out because it reads
literally “male and female.”
The phrase exactly echoes the Septuagint of
Genesis 1:27: God created man “male and female.” Perhaps early
Christians chose this phrase deliberately so as to signify
that in baptism a new creation occurs (cf 2 Cor. 5:17), one
that redefines even the most basic features of the original
creation. (Jervis 1999, 106)
In both the creation account of Gen. 1:27
and the new creation declared in Gal. 3:28, the language of
“male and female” does not emphasize their distinctiveness
from each other, but their union in reflecting God’s image. Of
course certain gender differences remain; these are not
abolished in the new creation. But “in Christ” something new
has happened, the kingdom has come, and the old divisions of
the fallen world order have come to an end (Bruce 1982, 189;
Longenecker 1999, 159).
The
Gospel of the Kingdom
The Gospel of Luke has been called the
“Gospel of the Outcast” (Witherington 1990, 52) and of the
poor and marginalized. Luke clearly displays a special concern
for women, “who were the most marginalized group in the first
century, and for those who existed at the bottom rung of
Jewish society” (Card 2011, 13). Luke’s Gospel contains many
incidents in which the contributions as well as the needs of
women are remembered. Among them are the stories of Mary and
Elizabeth (1:39-56); Anna (2:36-38); Peter’s mother-in-law
(4:38-39); the widow at Nain (7:11-17); a hemorrhaging woman
and a dead girl (8:40–53). Luke also attributes to Jesus a
number of parables that are replete with female perspectives
and experiences, such as the woman using yeast in making bread
(13:20-21), the woman searching for her lost coin (15:8-10),
and the widow before the unjust judge pleading for justice
(18:1-8). The inclusion of these women in the Gospel of Luke,
studied with a hermeneutic of liberation, emphasizes the
contribution of women as “exemplars of poorness and lowliness
before God that finds expression in barrenness, widowhood,
spiritual or actual neediness or service to the poor” (Kopas
1986, 192).
The parables just cited are set in the
context of Jesus’ teaching on the kingdom of God in Luke
11-19. The coming of the kingdom in the Gospel of Luke is
expressed in the attention given to women, and these parables
are seen as exemplary of the nature of the coming age (Wink
1992, 132). In fact, Jesus treated women as he did because
“the restoration of women to their full humanity in
partnership with men is integral to the coming of God’s
egalitarian order” in the kingdom of God (Wink 1992, 134).
The
Struggle of the Powerless for Justice
"In a certain town
there was a judge who neither feared God nor cared what people
thought. And there was a widow in that town who kept coming to
him with the plea, 'Grant me justice against my adversary.'”
Luke 18:2-3
Jesus tells a parable of a widow in need of
justice facing an unjust judge. In Jesus’ day legal cases were
always a matter of a judge deciding to vindicate one party or
the other (Wright 2001, 212). Such judges were usually
appointed by Herod or the Romans and were notorious for their
corrupt practices, particularly the expectation of bribes
(Barclay 1953, 230). The widow in this case is without
resources of any kind and has no hope of ever extracting
justice from such a judge. She is a symbol of all who are poor
and defenseless in the face of injustice (Barclay 1953, 231;
Card 2011, 202).
Kopas asserts that the parable of the
persistent widow succeeds perhaps better than any other in
“uniting the themes of equality and oppression” (Kopas 1986,
200). The widow is virtually powerless in that she has no
status compared to the judge or in relation to others who
would plead with him. Yet, “despite her lowliness in society
she recognizes a deeper claim to recognition” (Kopas 1986,
200). Reid describes this parable as one that “shatters
stereotypes and highlights the power of the seeming powerless”
(Reid 1996, 194). Widows such as Ruth, Tamar, and Anna join
the woman in Luke 18 as women of action and persistence who
are a vital part of the biblical story. These women challenge
assumptions of widows as poor and helpless; they demonstrate
assertiveness in their willingness to take critical action for
justice and salvation (Reid 1996,193).
This paradox of strength and weakness is
intrinsic to the kingdom of God and manifest in the essential
nature of Jesus Christ. The kingdom of heaven, like a woman
with yeast (Luke 13:20-21), comes not in power and glory but
in “hiddenness and insistent, gentle influence on people
whether they know it or not” (Kopas 1983, 199).
The
Image of God—As Judge or Vulnerable Widow?
"Finally [the judge] said to himself, 'Even though I don't
fear God or care what people think, yet because this widow
keeps bothering me, I will see that she gets justice, so that
she won't eventually come and attack me!'”
Luke
18:4-5
The theme of the vindication of the
powerless is a constant one in the Hebrew Scriptures, and the
ministry of Jesus of Nazareth continued this identification of
the chosen of God with the poor (Russell 1985, 100). How
closely Jesus’ teaching allows for his own identification with
the poor is another question.
There is a wide variety of opinion among
scholars as to the most appropriate way to interpret the
position of the widow of this parable. Augustine allegorized
the persistent widow as the church. Some contemporary scholars
identify her in relation to the individual believer. Others
view her as embodying all who are oppressed and need to
continually fight against systems and structures of
subjugation (Snodgrass 2008, 454). Each of these can offer a
helpful perspective and have legitimacy in the context of
particular life circumstances.
There is also more than one way to interpret
the role of the judge in the parable. The traditional
interpretation is that the judge represents God, not in the
sense of one who corrupts justice, but in the sense of one who
holds supreme power and authority (Wright 2001, 212; Barclay
1953, 231). Others would see this portrayal of God as itself
oppressive. Some view the judge as embodying oppressive
structures of injustice that cannot withstand the
relentlessness of the coming kingdom (Scott 1989, 187).
Reid sets her interpretation of this parable
in literary context, noting that in each of the previous two
Lucan parables—the kingdom of God likened to a woman with
yeast in Luke 13:20-21 and to a woman searching for a lost
coin in Luke 15:8-10—the woman represents God. In the context
of Jesus’ kingdom teaching in the Gospel of Luke an entirely
different understanding emerges, namely, that the image of God
is represented by the widow.
Here is an unexpected twist in the parable.
That God would be relentlessly pursuing justice is not a new
image of the divine. But that God is more akin to a victimized
widow than a powerful judge is startling. She embodies godly
power in the midst of apparent powerlessness. Followers of
Jesus are invited to take up the same stance: to draw on the
power of weakness to overcome death-dealing powers. (Reid
1996, 192)
Kopas adds further hermeneutical insight
from the Gospel of Luke: “[the female] image is of the God of
compassion who brings good news to the poor, does not break
the bruised reed or extinguish the smoking wick, and gives
hope to those who wait in darkness” (Kopas 1986, 202). She
also sees in the women portrayed in these parables from Luke
the image of God communicated in simplicity (Kopas 1986, 199).
Such an approach to hermeneutics offers a redemptive message
to the poor and powerless people of the world as well as a
tempering message to the powerful ones.
Relentless Perseverance Fueled by Imagination
“There was a widow in that town who kept coming to him with
the plea, 'Grant me justice against my adversary.' . . . And
will not God bring about justice for his chosen ones, who cry
out to him day and night?” Luke 18:3, 7
The powerlessness of the widow in this
parable is beyond doubt. It seems unlikely that she would have
been able to offer a bribe to the judge, or that she had other
human support or advocacy. Her case looked hopeless. After
all,
Judges have two principal motives to show
justice . . . a healthy fear of God . . . a deep respect and
concern for humanity. This judge had neither of these
qualities—had no reason to “do justice.” But the persistent
widow is about to help him find a new reason. (Card 2011, 202)
The woman’s only asset was her persistence
(Witherington 1990, 53). And in the kingdom of God as
illustrated by Jesus in this parable, her persistence was
enough. In teaching this parable Jesus not only demonstrates a
concern for a widow, but even the implication that this
woman’s conduct—persistent, relentless, importunate, annoying
perhaps—was a model to the disciples of divinely affirmed
behavior, including for women (Witherington 1990, 63). It is
difficult to imagine a stronger endorsement of the widow’s
persistence than that given by Jesus.
From this text and interpretation Reid
challenges contemporary believers, both women and men, “to
courageously face death-dealing powers and persistently demand
justice” (Reid 1996, 194). Similarly, Wright offers a helpful
hermeneutical approach that calls for persistence in
challenging the status quo, practices that need to be
challenged with the new thing that has happened and continues
to happen through the entrance in the flesh of Jesus Christ
into the human story. Such must be challenged and at times
confronted with the redemptive word of Scripture (Wright 2005,
121-123). The widow’s relentless persistence is essential in
this regard.
The promise of the coming kingdom included
vindication of the powerless:
Israel’s god would vindicate his elect, who
cry to him day and night. His vindicated elect (18:8) however,
would be a group one might not have expected: not the official
or self-appointed guardians of Israel’s national life, but
those who cry to their god for vindication. They would be the
forgiven ones. Humble in the present, they would be exalted in
the future on the day when Israel’s god acted. (Wright 1996,
366)
In the Lucan parables, Jesus features women
as exemplary of the nature of this coming age. The widow of
Luke 18 is iconic in her persistent challenge of
injustice—injustice meaning anything out of line with the
perfect will of God. “Injustice is sin, systems, powers and
authorities that damage the world. Injustice is greed, desire
and harmful practices and beliefs that diminish people and
society" (Roberts and Strickland 2008, 14).
An Imaginative
Hermeneutic
Bilezikian addresses persistent
intentionality in recreating a redemptive biblical
hermeneutic, stating that
It will require nothing less than a
systematic effort of deprogramming, designed to purge the
Christian mind of abusive interpretations of portions of
Scripture that should have been left alone when not
understood, and the vulgar popular stereotypes that such
misinterpretations have reinforced. (Bilezikian 1999, 210)
The Lucan pericope considered here expresses
the potential of a refusal to give up on a vision, an
imagination of justice restored. How is it possible to remain
persistent in fighting against injustice, to continue to
believe for something better? Engaging the Scriptures in such
a way that creative use of the imagination is involved makes
it possible to see beyond what is to what could be. In the
context of the Gospel of Luke specifically, Card asserts that
“a parable demands the use of the imagination . . . we too
must learn what it means to read, to perceive, to understand
the Bible with our imaginations” (Card 2011, 11).
Several scholars have used the term
‘imagination’ in addressing issues of hermeneutics and justice
in the post-modern context. For example, Brueggemann describes
within each person a “zone of imagination that stands between
the input of the text and the outcome of attitude, belief and
behavior” (Brueggemann 1993, 61). This, he argues, is an
essential factor in the human capacity to change through
engagement with biblical texts. It is this sort of
hermeneutical imagination that is needed to face and challenge
oppressive and exploitative practices (Brueggemann 1993, 62).
Brueggemann offers an imaginative conception
of the ultimate effectiveness of a biblical understanding of
various kingdom paradoxes. “It is that candid reality of
weakness and gentleness that will in the end permit the
undoing of an abusive, fearful world of the self-sufficient
and the formation of a new counter-world of genuine humanness”
(Brueggemann 1993, 32). Card describes life in this kingdom as
becoming “a slave to the impossible” (Card 2011, 40). Faith
leads to perseverance in the struggle and the imagination
necessary to prevail, the same spirit portrayed by the
persistent widow:
What is unbelief but the despair, dictated
by the dominant powers, that nothing can really change, a
despair that renders revolutionary vision and practice
omnipotent . . . Faith entails political imagination, the
ability to envision a world that is not dominated by the
powers. (Myers 1988, 305)
Jesus’ purpose in Luke 18 is to teach his
disciples to persist in prayer, an endeavor of imaginative
faith. Wink links such persistence with challenging oppressive
forces through prayer:
Intercessory prayer is spiritual defiance of
what is in the way of what God has promised. Intercession
visualizes an alternative future to the one apparently fated
by the momentum of current forces. Prayer infuses the air of a
time yet to be into the suffocating atmosphere of the present.
History belongs to the intercessors who believe the future
into being. (Wink 1998, 173)
Summary
This biblical foundation section has
endeavored to address oppression stemming from an inadequate
or inaccurate biblical hermeneutic. A hermeneutic of the
kingdom of God is needed that is essentially Christian
feminist and deeply imaginative.
The three scripture passages studied
included Gen. 1:26-29 with an examination of the image of God
as reflected in humanity and the potential in Christ for the
fullness of that image in male and female together. The second
text considered was Gal. 3:28 and the new community
established in Christ as an in-breaking of the kingdom of God
explored in relation to Gen. 1:27 and Luke 18:1-18, the third
passage examined. Specifically, Gal. 3:28 was examined as a
threefold early Christian baptismal confession understood as
representing the new creation in the kingdom of God in which
previously held social categories of separation and domination
become irrelevant. Particular focus was given to the
categories of male and female in the new creation.
Luke’s Gospel was studied as an expression
of the gospel of the kingdom. This in-breaking of the kingdom
as witnessed in the Gospel of Luke includes the struggle by
the powerless for justice (18: 2-3), the images of God implied
in this parable (18: 4-5), and the necessity of relentless
perseverance, fueled by the imagination of what can be (18: 1,
3, 7).
These three passages provide key
hermeneutical themes with relevance to matters of the image of
God, power, gender, and the kingdom of God. The kingdom themes
of strength in weakness, power exercised in sacrificial
self-giving, and God’s identity with the vulnerable were
developed throughout. The mutuality and synergy intended for
the genders as understood in the creation texts were explored,
as were some feminist interpretations of the parable from Luke
18.
THEOLOGICAL FOUNDATION
The theological foundations section of this
chapter approaches the themes of power, gender, and the
kingdom of God, from the varying perspectives of Christian
thought and tradition. The use of power by those who
self-identify as Christians has left a varied and
contradictory legacy. To this day, some Christian
denominations and organizations offer theological
justification for male domination within religious
hierarchies, resulting in diminution of the full image of God
as displayed in both genders. This examination will commence
with a theological discussion of power and the image of God as
reflected in the dual male/female image, and the image of God
as revealed in Jesus Christ.
Power, Gender, and the Kingdom of God
Clearly, any Christian theology of power
must be profoundly formed by Christ’s own example as He
inaugurated the kingdom of God. A truly Christ-formed theology
of power must manifest itself in personal holiness and
societal transformation with regard to gender relationships as
a demonstration of the kingdom of God breaking in. This
principle applies most particularly to the use of power within
the church. These issues are taken up by means of a focus on
power and a theology of the kingdom of God.
Interwoven throughout is consideration of
Wesleyan holiness theology as it relates to the kingdom of God
and power as this is the theological tradition of The
Salvation Army—the context for the project reported on in this
paper.
Theology of Power and Divine Image
A classical theological conception of the
omnipotence of God includes the power of creation, governance,
and teleological completion (Case-Winters 1990, 39, 172, 201).
This is in alignment with most orthodox Christian creedal
statements, including Salvation Army doctrine number two,
which states: “We believe that there is only one God, who is
infinitely perfect, the Creator, Preserver, and Governor of
all things, and who is the only proper object of religious
worship (The Salvation Army Handbook of Doctrine 2010, xv).
Biblically, all power comes from God and
belongs to God (Matt. 26:64; John 19:11); God’s power upholds
the world itself (Heb.1:3; Col. 1:17; Marshall 1995, 679).
Calvin asserts that divine omnipotence includes not only the
overall direction of human history but also the determining of
all personal and particular details (Case-Winters 1990, 202).
According to Barth, divine power is “independent,
unconditioned and causative . . . never even partly dependent
upon, or responsive to” any of its objects (Case-Winters 1990,
103; Davaney 1981, 48).
This theological understanding of divine
omnipotence invites critique. Divine omnipotence, as asserted
by Calvin and Barth, is understood as “power in the mode of
domination and control” (Case-Winters 1990, 39). Wink
perceives the danger of such power as representing “the
Domination System” which he describes as “might makes right .
. . the prize goes to the strong. Peace through war, security
through strength: these are the core convictions that arise
from this ancient historical religion” known as “the
Domination System” (Wink 1992, 16-17). The “Domination System”
is best understood as what the Bible describes as “world,”
“aeon,” and “flesh” (Wink 1992, 49). While at times attributed
to God, these ways of exercising power are in contradiction to
the example of Christ himself and God’s intended
“domination-free order,” which Jesus came to establish in the
kingdom of God (Wink 1992, 46).
The theological view of divine omnipotence
propounded by Calvin and Barth is perceived as having a male
bias that has historically resulted in destructive social
consequences of “oppression, exploitation and violence”
enflamed by divine attribution (Case-Winters 1990, 172-173).
Another criticism of the Calvinist position, then, is that it
excludes the female image of God drawn from the creation
narrative of Gen. 1. Primary or exclusive emphasis on
masculine divine imaging of power communicates, at best, a
secondary position for females (Case-Winters 1990, 218).
The image of God portrayed in Gen 1:27
reveals the necessity of both male and female to reflect the
divine image in the world. The intention is neither masculine
nor feminine as normative, but rather a necessary co-existing
of both in an egalitarian order (Wink 1992, 47).
What we need are images that encompass the
positive aspects of both [male and female]. . . . The issue of
sexist language in our God-talk goes far deeper, then, than
matters of simple justice and fairness to women. What is at
stake is a veritable revolution in our God-images. Nothing
could be more crucial, because our images of God create us.
(Wink 1992, 48)
The egalitarian order referenced here was
inaugurated through Jesus Christ as the unique expression of
the divine image and the holy example of a right use of power.
Divine Power in the Image of Christ
Divine power, particularly as revealed in
Jesus, “liberates rather than subjugates,” and thus is an
expression of divine love (Lipp, Huber, and Stobbe 1999, 311).
A theology of power must allow for God to restrict his freedom
to act, for love’s sake. “God shows power, not by asserting
himself against us, but by the act of turning precisely to the
creature that rebels against God” as demonstrated in Jesus’
self-sacrifice (Mott and Tilleman 2012, 312). This is a
distinctly different theological perspective on divine
omnipotence compared to that of domination and control, as
conceived by Calvin (Case-Winters 1990, 39). It also relates
to the biblical concept of justice, which seeks not only to
alleviate suffering but also to deliver from the power that
causes it (Mott and Tilleman 2012, 27).
Lipp and colleagues offer insight regarding
power and freedom demonstrated in Jesus. “In the incarnation
of the Son and his path to impotent suffering on the cross, we
are thus to see an act of divine freedom and divine power”
(Lipp, Huber, and Stobbe 1999, 311). It is evident that in
Christ’s exercise of power, relations of superiority and
subjection have lost their primacy:
God’s power is always rooted in love, not
pride; it is rooted in redemption, not conquest; and it is
rooted in concern for the other, not the self. It is humble,
not proud, and inviting, not rejecting. Its symbol is the
cross, not the sword. This is why [God’s power] is seen as
weakness by the world. (Hiebert 1994, 238)
Jesus Christ reveals the Father, and thereby
radically alters any theological understanding of divine
omnipotence by demonstrating “power operating in divine
relationship and through divine intention” (Van Rheenan 2000,
777). Jesus brings into being a new order, an exercise of
power transformed by faith working by love, that is “free even
in the face of death and hence it can dare all for which it
can be responsible to God. It can defy superior force, because
it still accepts even ruin as victory” (Rahner 1973, 408-409).
This new order is called the kingdom of God. The kingdom of
God offers a radically new picture of divine power (Lk 4:14;
5:17; 11:20-22).
The
Kingdom and Power
The kingdom of God is viewed by some
scholars as the first and most essential dogma of the
Christian faith, in that it is both the gospel Jesus preached
and the new state of things he introduced (Snyder 2001, 61;
Green 2012). The New Testament concept of the kingdom of God
is as the reign of God, the redemptive rule of God (Grudem
1994, 863-864; Green 2012). Such language: “kingdom,” “reign,”
“rule;” is the language of power.
With the coming of this kingdom something
new has happened, particularly in relation to power. This
kingdom comes in the person, the life, death, and resurrection
of Jesus Christ (Rahner 1981, 402; Marshall 1995, 680; Hiebert
1994, 235). In Wright’s language, “Jesus came to launch God’s
new creation, and with it a new way of being human . . . God’s
kingdom was bursting into the present world” (Wright 2010,
116). It is a kingdom, a reign, bringing freedom—the rule of
God that brings liberty (Moltmann 1989, 78), which Wink
describes as “God’s domination-free order” (Wink 1992, 299).
This clarifies why Jesus’ words and actions, which introduced
the kingdom of God, were particularly good news to the poor,
those who were powerless and thus vulnerable to mistreatment
by the powerful (Mott and Tilleman 2012, 12; Rahner 1981,
401). This kingdom, ushered in by Jesus, cannot be established
by force, “but only by its proper means: by suffering,
self-giving love” (Wright 2010, 98). Hence, the use of power,
in its usual sense, has been turned upside down by the coming
of this kingdom.
The
Kingdom—Personal and Social
This upside-down kingdom has significant
implications that are both personal and social in nature.
Grudem contends that Christians can experience in this life
something of what God’s final kingdom reign will be like:
“They will know some measure of victory over sin, over demonic
opposition, and over disease. They will live in the power of
the Holy Spirit who is the dynamic power of the coming
kingdom” (Grudem 1994, 864). Wright goes a step farther,
“Precisely because God is the God of creative, generous,
outflowing love, his way of running things is to share power,
to work through his image-bearers, to invite their glad and
free collaboration in his project” (Wright 2010, 67).
Snyder is concerned that a theology of the
kingdom have application in contemporary society. For example,
he argues that Barth’s theology of the kingdom results in an
overemphasis on individual rather than communal response and
societal impact (Snyder 2001, 72). Similarly, Bultmann’s
theology of the kingdom of God is criticized for “retreat[ing]
into the hearers’ interiority,” (Heltzel 2008, 455), with
significant questions raised as to societal relevance:
Has Bultmann lost the very thing that made
the kingdom of God relevant in the first place: namely, how to
achieve God’s kingdom in the sociopolitical reality of
history? If the social and communal dimension of the kingdom
is localized in an individual’s interior struggles, and if
human responsibility is reduced to an attitude toward the
unknown future, has not the kingdom of God become merely a
solipsistic disposition? (Heltzel 2008, 455)
The implied disconnection of the kingdom of
God from society in the here and now is untenable for Snyder
and Heltzel.
Willard and Simpson place strong emphasis on
the personal, individual effect of the breaking in of the
kingdom. They call this a revolution of character, pointing
out that the power of the kingdom manifests itself first
inside the human heart—but that it then results in
transformation of social structures. “Such transformed people
bring the presence of the Kingdom and the King into every
corner of human life by fully living in the Kingdom with him”
(Willard and Simpson 2006, 13-14). This fullness of the
kingdom Moltmann understands to be the “restoration of all
things” (Muller-Fahrenholz 2000, 186).
Wink points out that Jesus’ own life
demonstrated the possibility of “a total reorientation within
. . . and a total reorientation without” (Wink 1992, 162). He
emphasizes the necessity of change in personal conduct in the
kingdom, anticipating that by itself it will upset the
conventions of social power. This is exemplified in Jesus’
words regarding tax collectors and prostitutes entering the
kingdom of God ahead of some religious leaders (Matt. 21:31).
“Apparently Jesus’ God is interested in one thing only:
whether we behave in a way consistent with the divine order
that is coming” (Wink 1992, 168).
Kingdom Power in Society
John Wesley’s kingdom paradigm is not one of
passively waiting for a future hope but, rather, recognizing
that while “the final eradication of evil and establishment of
righteousness will only take place at [Christ’s] return,” the
church “must prepare for [his] appearing with Kingdom deeds,”
thus the need for activism in social justice and mercy (Cubie
1983, 103).
The kingdom of God is present and future,
personal and corporate, is inaugurated by and present in Jesus
Christ. This kingdom represents a reversal of the power
dynamic, whereby God shares power with the citizens of the
kingdom. This is especially good news to the oppressed, and
therefore has significant relevance for females, who suffer
the most among those who are oppressed.
In Wesleyan kingdom theology there is no
disconnect between conversion, sanctification, and the process
of social transformation (Hynson 1988, 47). The kingdom of God
involves individuals freed from sin by the sanctifying power
of the Spirit and also from the relationships and conditions
in which they live (Moltmann 1989, 293). Wesley recognized
that “the Gospel must simultaneously be individual and social”
(Bundy 1988, 12).
Salvation Army founder William Booth
developed a similar holistic understanding of holiness:
For William Booth, especially in his later
theology, the one true sign of the Church was participation in
the work of redemption, both personal redemption and social
redemption leading ultimately to the establishment of the
kingdom of God. This work was fundamentally connected to
Booth’s doctrine of holiness because he believed that only a
holy people could accomplish a holy work and achieve a holy
goal. (Green 1989, 56)
E. Stanley Jones’ theological development
offers an interesting example of evolution from an
individualistic American view of the kingdom (Bundy 1988, 5)
to one recognizing social responsibility and seeking societal
redemption:
Jesus believed in life and its redemption.
Not only was the soul to be saved—the whole of life was to be
redeemed. The kingdom of God coming on earth is the expression
of that collective redemption. The entrance to the kingdom of
God is by personal conversion, but the nature of that kingdom
is social. The kingdom of God is the most astonishingly
radical proposal ever presented to the human race (Jones
quoted in Bundy 1988, 10).
The outworking of the kingdom of God in
society will include “justice to others on the personal,
social and societal levels” (Cubie 1983, 100). This of course
includes a radically different community of females and males.
The
Gospel of the Kingdom
Not only does Wesley understand that power
is available to the individual believer to respond to the
Gospel and to resist sin, but also that power is at work in
the church corporately, power to radically impact society.
Because Christ is king now,
“The church may resist evil powers in the
sure promise that its work in the world will be crowned with
grace and, finally, glory . . . Wesley's theology makes
conversion the rite of initiation into the kingdom, and
sanctification the pilgrimage through the kingdom on earth
until the glory of heaven is reached” (Hynson 1988, 52, 54).
Believers are thus freed from the
will-to-power of the unregenerate and empowered, rather, to
live for God and for the good of others (Hynson 1988, 54;
Cubie 1983, 102). This is the domination-free order preached
by Jesus in which we see “a single unifying theme: a vision of
the liberation of all humanity” (Wink 1992, 45).
The gospel of the kingdom of God is more
than a future hope, valuable as that is. It is a gospel of
Jesus’ liberating message that offers a “context-specific
remedy for the evils of the Domination System” (Wink 1992,
49). “Context-specific” indicates that the coming of the
kingdom on earth as in heaven is for now. It is meant to
demonstrate the presence of God in his people, male and
female. And that these people, as male and female, would
relate to one another in mutual honor and submission, even as
is demonstrated in the godhead. This is to be a sign of the
kingdom of God breaking in.
Wesley’s theology of the kingdom of God is
one of power, power given by God’s grace, power to respond to
the Gospel, power not to sin. Further, this is divine power in
human communities given in order to oppose injustice and
oppression in society and cultural norms and forms that are in
opposition to the reign of God. This is to include power in
the grace of God to resist sexism and discrimination against
females, and power to transform structures that stand against
God’s kingdom breaking in.
The gospel of the kingdom was never intended
to be kept personal and private; in fact, it cannot. The
reality of the in-breaking of the kingdom of God indeed brings
about personal transformation, and that is intrinsically
linked to transformed conduct in community, thereby
proclaiming the coming of the kingdom in the wider society.
This new order is demonstrated in relationships between males
and females in defiance of the prevailing Domination System of
the world.
Kingdom Power in the Church
Cubie points out that emphasis on societal
transformation has often been either neglected or attempted
through the use of force by the church, thereby negating
kingdom principles and understanding of Christlike use of
power (Cubie 1983, 101). He applies the term “anti-Christ” to
anything that opposes the kingdom of Christ (Cubie 1983, 101).
This includes efforts by those with power in the church to
create unity through force, use of violence or deceit, and
oppression of others (Cubie 1983, 106). All of these
demonstrate a failure in love, which is the ethic of the
kingdom of God.
Jesus sets the example of
the power of the powerless, the judgment of
the one who did not come to judge and the wrath of the Lamb
who did not come to condemn but to save. His power was that of
sacrificial, self-giving love, and must be manifest in those
who are his. (Cubie 1983, 107)
The power and authority of believers
individually and as a community flow from the kingdom of
Christ. In other words, all rule in the church is legitimized
only by Christ’s own kingdom rule and should be modeled after
his example.
True unity in the church is not about
organizational or hierarchical unity, as these invite
temptation “to fulfill one's personal vision of the Kingdom by
coercing others into it” (Cubie 1983, 108). Kingdom unity
transcends loyalties of politics, economics, and culture,
recognizing the manifold ways in which the kingdom comes. What
each is called into is the liberty and unity of love (Cubie
1983, 109). The ideal of kingdom unity challenges the
so-called hierarchical unity that William Booth demanded of
his troops, outshines it in reflecting the unity of the
godhead, and is potentially demonstrated by women and men
portraying the divine image.
Temptations abound within the church to use
coercion and to establish one’s own “kingdom” or vision. There
must be recognition, even suspicion of “all autonomy of power”
(Lipp, Huber, and Stobbe 1999, 312). The power of God in the
kingdom is “irreconcilably opposed to any form of divisive
self-assertion or request for power on the part of any
individual or group” (Rahner 1981, 401-402). These are to be
recognized as “anti-Christ” (Cubie 1983, 106), submitted to
accountability or controls, and rejected as legitimate means
of accomplishment. Wesley’s optimism and confidence in the
power of God over sin did not lead to the absence of
accountability, but to greater accountability, in the form of
class meetings and other similar means (Henderson 1987, 13).
A theology is needed to assist in
distinguishing between a secular model of the use of power and
the right use of power available through the Spirit within the
people. And such a relevant “theology of power must refuse,
then, to demonize power or to glorify impotence. Instead, it
must develop criteria for responsible handling of
ecclesiastical, political and social power” (Lipp, Huber, and
Stobbe 1999, 314).
Summary
Theological views of divine omnipotence must
be profoundly formed by the revelation of Jesus Christ and His
example of the use of power as self-sacrificing for the sake
of others and rooted in love. Further, a theology of the
Divine image that includes both the masculine and feminine
serves to inform an egalitarian understanding of human
community in general and the new community in Christ in
particular.
This new community in Christ is to
demonstrate the coming of the kingdom of God by means of its
unconventional relational power dynamics, in which those whom
society would exclude are welcomed, the weak are empowered,
and the powerful humble themselves, resulting in a
domination-free order. This theological understanding of power
in Christian community assumes the transformation of all
social relationships, most particularly relationships between
males and females.
HISTORICAL FOUNDATION
The history of Christianity reveals a
stunning polarity in the use of power with regard to personal
holiness, social responsibility, and gender equality. On the
one hand, it was Christians who launched the Crusades and the
Inquisition, slaughtering large numbers of Muslims and Jews.
This legacy also includes the New England witch hunts of the
17th century, 90 percent of whose victims were female
(Isherwood and McEwan 2001, 37). On the other hand, throughout
the centuries, it was in no small part Christians who
established hospitals and universities, promoted literacy and
education for the masses, and fought to abolish the African
slave trade. Christians have long defended the rights of
women, children, and the poor (Campbell and Court 2004, 44,
48-49).
From this wide scope and contradictory
witness of Christian history this section of the paper narrows
its focus to the antecedents influential in the formation of
The Salvation Army and its early history relative to the
participation of women in leadership. This examination is
intended to provide a basis for comparison of current
Salvation Army practice with historical practice and offer a
context for review and analysis of contemporary Army leaders’
views with regard to gender equality.
Power, Gender, and the Kingdom of God
Specifically, early practice of The
Salvation Army is considered in light of its spiritual
ancestry in the Wesleyan revival of the 18th century and of
the pervasive influence of the holiness movement that grew out
of that revival. Particular attention is given to Catherine
Booth’s significant role in promoting women in leadership. An
exploration of the effect of the Salvation Army’s military
structure on its use of power and the authoritarian stance of
co-founder William Booth round out the section.
Early Influences
From the days of the early church fathers as
shown in the patristic writings, Green argues, there has been
an emphasis on the correlation between personal holiness and
social responsibility, bringing significant societal benefits.
“One such example of this is found in the success of
Christianity with equalizing women in society” (Green 1977,
28). These three emphases, personal holiness, social
responsibility, and equality of women, were foundational in
the practice of The Salvation Army.
An influence on The Salvation Army in its
earliest years in terms of inclusion of women in ministry
leadership was that of the Quakers.
Booth found himself at the head of a rapidly
growing movement badly in need of local leadership and funds.
Women flocked to The Army, and Booth . . . used women in the
entire range of Army work . . . almost from the very
beginning. Catherine Booth, an extraordinarily intelligent and
capable person, spearheaded this reform. The Quaker example
proved, again, helpful and encouraging in this regard . . . It
is clear that the early Salvationists repeatedly made eager
use of the Quaker example in employing women in the Christian
ministry. (McKinley 1977, 49-50)
McKinley makes explicit the Quaker precedent
and influence upon both Catherine and William Booth with
regard to females in ministry. The unity of conviction on this
point between Catherine and William was sufficient to overflow
into their own practice within their marriage and into their
leadership of the newly established Salvation Army.
“The greatest breakthrough in opportunities
for women to proclaim the gospel came with the Wesleyan
revival in England in the eighteenth century.” So asserts
Malcolm in Women at the Crossroads (Malcolm 1982, 111). Green
states that, resulting from the influence and example of John
Wesley’s mother, Susanna Wesley, women descended from early
Methodism have enjoyed greater opportunities for leadership in
the church than women in other denominations (Green 2012).
These would include all subsequent expression of Methodism,
such as the Wesleyan Church, the Church of the Nazarene, the
Christian and Missionary Alliance, and The Salvation Army.
In terms of John Wesley’s influence upon The
Salvation Army, it would be difficult to imagine a stronger
statement than that of co-founder William Booth:
I worshipped everything that bore the name
Methodist. To me there was one God, and John Wesley was his
prophet. I had devoured the story of his life. No human
compositions seemed to me to be comparable to his writings . .
. and all that was wanted, in my estimation, for the salvation
of the world was the faithful carrying into practice of the
letter and the spirit of his instructions. (Booth-Tucker 1892,
74)
Booth left the Methodist church while still
a young man and established The Salvation Army, infusing his
Wesleyan theological roots with a renewed evangelistic zeal
and a fiery passion for social justice.
Rader argues that the holiness movement
itself championed women’s rights and female equality.
Specifically, “Phoebe Palmer exercised extensive influence in
the struggle for women’s rights . . . it was the evangelicals,
and principally those of holiness persuasion, who championed
the cause of female equality in church and society” (Rader
1977, 86). Palmer had a singular influence on Salvation Army
co-founder Catherine Booth (Green 2012).
Confronting the Culture
Given that the personal holiness espoused by
the various Salvation Army antecedents was consistently
expressed in terms of social responsibility, it was perfectly
congruous for The Salvation Army to involve itself in
politics, even controversially so, on behalf of vulnerable
young girls. The Army played a major, very public role in the
successful campaign to raise the age of consent in Great
Britain in 1885 from 13 to 16 years old (Hollis 2013, 200). By
such action, The Salvation Army established itself early on
not only as a movement where women could preach and lead in
spiritual ministry, but also as a powerful advocate for the
rights of women and girls in the wider political arena,
willing to confront the hypocrisy of the surrounding Victorian
culture.
The values of The Salvation Army stood in
marked contrast to those of that culture. Within the holiness
movement itself and The Salvation Army in particular, there
were strict standards of a puritanical holiness lifestyle
(Murdoch 1985, 99). Further, in Victorian England, women were
generally not empowered to lead; rather, they were
marginalized and restricted to the separate sphere of domestic
life.
Yet Read cites the popular culture of the
day as one formative influence on The Salvation Army: “Freed
from constraints of outdated and irrelevant ecclesiological
and religious practices the founders looked to the world for
models and methods that would assist them in their God-given
mission” (2006, 559-560). Read’s assertion is a surprising
one; however, it is evident that the Booths saw no
contradiction in taking from the popular culture whatever
could be utilized to advance the mission of The Salvation Army
(Maddox 2008, 5). With regard to women’s rights this sometimes
landed the Army in closer alignment to secular feminist
activists than to conventional church practices and
sensibilities.
Nevertheless, Victorian English culture and
the early Salvation Army were at odds with each other in
countless ways. With regard to gender roles, the differences
were extreme. In Walker’s view, The Salvation Army “disrupted
and refashioned gender relations in many facets of its work .
. . as Salvationist women challenged and resisted the
conventions of femininity and enhanced women’s spiritual
authority” (Walker 2001, 2). In claiming the right to preach,
women “disrupted a powerful source of masculine privilege and
authority” (Walker 2001, 2). Walker concludes, “Virtually no
other secular or religious organization in this period offered
working-class women such extensive authority” (Walker 2001,
2). Consequently, The Salvation Army has an unusual and
significant history of advancing women’s rights in relation to
the surrounding culture, be it popular or religious, in many
parts of the world.
Catherine Booth
Murdoch gives much credit to Catherine
Booth, co-founder of The Salvation Army, for the significant
inclusion of women in leadership from the start.
Catherine Booth recognized women's powers of
intellect and innate equality and elevated them to clerical
parity with men. Although Catherine Booth did not break new
hermeneutical ground in her discussion of scriptural support
for the ministry of women, she did, through her public
advocacy, force the introduction of thousands of working-class
women into the ranks of ordained clergy. (Murdoch 1984, 348)
Murdoch used U.S. census statistics for the
decades 1880 to 1900 to discover the percentage of U.S. clergy
who were female. In 1880, the year The Salvation Army arrived
in the United States, the percentage of female clergy was
.225. By 1900 the percentage had grown to 9.2 (Murdoch 1984,
349). The Salvation Army was a major contributor to this
increase. Catherine Booth was the primary formative influence
on The Salvation Army in this regard (Murdoch 1984, 349).
The influence of Catherine Booth on William
Booth can hardly be overestimated, and without the synergy
between them on the matter of women in leadership, The
Salvation Army would not have its place in history as a
significant vehicle of ministry and leadership for tens of
thousands of women (Murdoch 1984, 348). Interestingly, the
female/male mutuality in leadership demonstrated by Catherine
and William Booth is a historic illustration of the dual image
of God explored in the biblical foundations section of this
chapter. Further, their shared vision and example of gender
equality in marriage and mission gave powerful witness to the
kingdom of God and to the holy imagination necessary to
envision this new community, as explored in the theological
foundations section of this chapter.
As The Salvation Army developed and
formalized its own identity, it issued important foundational
historical statements relative to gender equality. First, from
The Constitution of the Christian Mission, which changed its
name to The Salvation Army the following year: “Godly women
possessing the necessary gifts and qualifications shall be
employed as preachers . . . and shall have appointments given
to them . . . and they shall be eligible for any office”
(Christian Mission Magazine, 1877).
Further, from Orders and Regulations for
Salvation Army Staff Officers:
One of the leading principles upon which the
Army is based is the right of women to have the right to an
equal share with men in the work of publishing salvation to
the world ... She may hold any position of authority or power
in the Army from that of a Local Officer to that of the
General. Let it therefore be understood that women are
eligible for the highest commands—indeed, no woman is to be
kept back from any position of power or influence merely on
account of her sex ... Women must be treated as equal with men
in all the intellectual and social relationships in life. (The
Salvation Army 1895)
The
“Lydia Phase”
In her studies of various religious groups,
McKinnish Bridges has identified what she calls the “Lydia
phase” (McKinnish Bridges 1998, 333), which Shade helpfully
describes as a period in the early years of a developing
movement in which women begin in positions of leadership, as
was true of Lydia the key person in the establishment of the
church in Philippi (Acts 16). With time, the very women who
were founding leaders in the church are “relegated to
secondary roles in order for the movement to gain cultural
legitimacy and to diminish the feminizing effect of women’s
leadership” (Shade 2012, 4).
The irony of widespread, significant female
leadership in The Salvation Army being a “Lydia phase” that
came to an end for the sake of cultural legitimacy is obvious
in view of the previous insights of Read (Read 2006, 559-560)
and Walker (Walker 2001, 2) regarding the perceived
unseemliness of the early Army’s actions relative to its
cultural contexts. Those actions ranged from the use of
unconventional (in the view of the established church) secular
methods for the acceleration of Army mission to defiance of
conventions of the wider culture in the interests of that same
mission. Further, the initial “feminizing effect of women’s
leadership” was such that in many towns nearly all the pubs
went out of business because “the whole population had gone to
the ‘Hallelujah Lasses’!” (Hollis 2013, 264). Yet, Eason’s
research reveals that a shift from the “Lydia phase” did
indeed take place in The Salvation Army within the first few
decades of its existence. By the 1930s, it was evident that
the percentage of females in leadership was relatively minimal
(Eason 2003, 151).
The
Military Structure
The Salvation Army was birthed in the
mid-19th century, when many popular British heroes were
generals and soldiers (Read 2006, 357). Without a doubt, this
is one reason why The Salvation Army adopted military forms
and terminology (Read 2006, 357). Nonetheless, females found
themselves welcome and readily deployed in service, in
mission, and in leadership in this army.
In view of the military structure of The
Salvation Army, it is not surprising to learn that it was
“founded upon the principle of implicit obedience . . . the
principle of voluntary subjection to an absolute authority”
(Jewett 1999, 51). William Booth stated emphatically in his
remarkable work, In Darkest England and the Way Out, “The
first condition of that service is implicit unquestioning
obedience. The Salvationist is taught to obey as is the
soldier on the field of battle” (Booth 1890, 250). McKinley
goes further in asserting that William Booth “regarded
dissension . . . as ‘the very poison of hell’” (1977, 51). It
is noteworthy that some of the more rigid and autocratic
sentiments expressed by William Booth came years after the
death of Catherine Booth, who predeceased him by 22 years. One
can only imagine the degree to which the ongoing involvement
of Catherine in leading and forming The Salvation Army might
have contributed to a more balanced use of power.
In contemplating the influence of the
military metaphor and the expectation of unquestioning
obedience, questions naturally arise as to potential dangers
to the less powerful: namely, women. There is increasing
recognition that the church has historically expected women to
be self-sacrificing: some would argue, more so than has been
expected of men (Isherwood and McEwan 2001, 37).
In The Salvation Army in the United States,
married women officers do not receive a paycheck in their own
name. Thus they have no employment record with the U.S.
government, leaving them quite vulnerable should they leave
Salvation Army officership and/or should their marriage fail.
These married women are expected to sacrifice a basic dignity
that is offered without exception to male officers and also to
single women officers. This Salvation Army practice
illustrates the point made by Isherwood and McEwan as to the
church’s expectations of women, as well as the unintended but
real abuse of power in the military structure against the very
women who energize its mission. Further, it contradicts the
historical principle of the organization: personal holiness
and social responsibility resulting in particular concern for
the just treatment of women.
Summary
The Salvation Army historically experienced
explosive growth in no small part as a result of the active
involvement of tens of thousands of (mostly young) women in
its mission. The release of these women into ministry was born
out of the influence of other Christian traditions, both
ancient and relatively recent, and was motivated by both
theological and practical impulses, largely spearheaded by
Catherine Booth. The guiding principle was personal holiness
leading to social responsibility and resulting specifically in
advocacy and action for the equality of females. Further, the
historical interaction between this burgeoning movement and
19th century British culture, while largely antagonistic, was
also synergistic, with each contributing to the development of
the other.
The challenge of consistently acting in
accordance with the proclaimed principle of gender equality
was apparent early on in Salvation Army development and
remains today. The Army’s military structure has historically
proven efficient in numerous contexts, with an army of human
resources willing to be deployed anywhere in the world to
advance its mission. However, with the military assumptions
regarding power come the potential for a misuse of power,
particularly with regard to gender equality.
|