Suffering In Contemporary Wesleyan Theological Perspective ...€¦ · Suffering In Contemporary...

Suffering In Contemporary Wesleyan Theological

Perspective: Shaping a Salvationist Response

by

Kalie Maree Webb B.Theol., Grad.Dip.Sys.Theol.

A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the

requirements for the degree of

Master of Theology

University of Divinity

2015

ii

© Kalie Maree Webb.

All rights reserved.

iii

ABSTRACT

The Salvation Army’s historical approach to theological reflection has been minimal –

described by one General as a “theological knapsack”. The current project used

qualitative methods to explore the understanding of suffering in the experience of

Salvationists (officers and soldiers) across metropolitan Melbourne. An on-line survey

yielded results that were analysed using “grounded theory” methodology. Results

indicate that Salvationists sometimes found inconsistencies in their understanding (their

“expressed theology”) and were sometimes not fully aware of the “received theology”

of their denomination. The results were compared with articulation of The Salvation

Army's "received theology" in its Handbook of Doctrine from 1881-2010, as well as

with 120 years of articles from The Officer (monthly magazine) which reflect the

“expressed theology” of Salvationist officers. In this way, the validity of the survey

results could be verified against the experience of Salvationists across the world and

throughout the denomination’s history. Six themes emerged from the results that, when

informed by contemporary Wesleyan theology (including open theism), consider the

multi-dimensional nature of God’s sovereignty; explore perceptions of doubt; reflect

how the influences of scripture and experience have been privileged significantly above

reason and tradition as the shaping influences on faith; and note how tradition is

perceived within the denomination. Some recommendations emerged, including

proposed amendments to the explanatory notes connected with The Salvation Army’s

doctrine of God; and the creation of a resource for an action/reflection model for the

encouragement of Salvationists to consider their expressed theology and how it

connects with the received theology of The Salvation Army. The theory generated from

this study is an original contribution to The Salvation Army's theological knowledge-

base in relation to its doctrine of God.

iv

CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS vii

GLOSSARY viii

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1

Theodicy in Christian thought – a brief overview 2

Contemporary Theology of a Suffering God 5

The Salvation Army’s Theological “Gap” 13

A Theological Knapsack 15

A Contemporary Wesleyan Theology of Suffering 18

CHAPTER 2 EXPLAINING THE THEOLOGICAL KNAPSACK:

HISTORICAL ARTICULATION OF THE THEOLOGY OF

SUFFERING WITHIN THE SALVATION ARMY 28

Influences on William and Catherine Booth’s developing

theology 31

The development of received theology evident from the

Handbook of Doctrine 39

Expressions of theology from The Officer magazine 48

CHAPTER 3 EXPLORING THE THEOLOGICAL KNAPSACK:

SURVEY OF MELBOURNE SALVATIONISTS 55

Theme: Influences that shape theology 61

Theme: Sovereignty of God 70

Theme: Nature and understanding of suffering 87

Theme: Understanding Doubt 94

v

CHAPTER 4 EXPOUNDING THE THEOLOGICAL KNAPSACK:

SUMMARY STATEMENTS FROM SURVEY, VIEWED

THROUGH CONTEMPORARY WESLEYAN LENSES 107

Scripture and experience are the two main influences

that shape Salvationists’ faith 108

There are distinct differences in how Salvationists

define “tradition” 112

Salvationists offer various positive and negative

definitions for doubt 116

God is perceived as being more immanent than

transcendent in Salvationists’ understanding 122

The origin of suffering, and who may be to blame for it,

is difficult for Salvationists to contemplate 126

Salvationists need to hold in creative tension the

understanding of God’s sovereignty amid suffering: that

God is perfectly loving and powerful even when God does

not prevent tragedies 139

CONCLUSION EXPANDING THE THEOLOGICAL KNAPSACK:

SHAPING SALVATIONIST RESPONSES TO SUFFERING 151

Proposal for revision of explanatory notes 154

Proposal for an action/reflection resource 156

Implications 158

BIBLIOGRAPHY 162

APPENDICES 181

Appendix 1 – Publishing history of handbooks of doctrine 181

Appendix 2 – Statements of doctrine from the earliest days to the present 182

Appendix 3 – Five zones across the International Salvation Army 184

Appendix 4 – Quotations, and listing of articles accessed from

The Officer magazine by date 186

Appendix 5 – Pattern of responses within the results of the online survey 200

Appendix 6 – Survey responses 201

vi

DECLARATION OF ORIGINALITY

This thesis, submitted for assessment, is the result of my own work, and no

unacknowledged assistance has been received in its planning, drafting, execution or

writing. All sources on which it is based have been acknowledged in writing, as has

the supervision I have received in the process of its preparation.

Name: Kalie Webb

Signature:

Date: October 2015

vii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am grateful to my family for their continuing support and encouragement as this

thesis has taken shape and come to completion. Thank you Geoff, Andrew, Courtney

and Khelsi: you have given me time, space and inspiration.

Thanks are expressed to all the Salvationists who anonymously participated in the

survey component of this research, and for their candid responses as they explored the

questions for themselves.

Over the course of my enrolment in the Master of Theology program I have gratefully

received guidance and encouragement from my supervisor Reverend Dr. Glen A

O’Brien. He has challenged me to assess my work more critically, and deepened my

theological understanding of the Wesleyan tradition.

viii

GLOSSARY

Adherent member An adherent member need only confess a belief in Jesus Christ

and not necessarily hold to the doctrinal positions or lifestyle

practices of the Salvation Army.

Australia Southern Australia is divided into two administrative zones (territories).

Territory The Southern Territory is comprised of Victoria, Tasmania,

South Australia, Western Australia and the Northern Territory.

Corps A corps is a local church congregation of The Salvation Army.

Disposition of Forces The Disposition of Forces is a document that provides details

of where every officer is appointed and the places where The

Salvation Army is operating around the Australia Southern

Territory.

Mission Statement The Salvation Army’s mission statement reads as follows:

“The Salvation Army, an international movement, is an

evangelical part of the universal Christian Church. Its message

is based on the Bible. Its ministry is motivated by love for God.

Its mission is to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ and meet

human needs in his name without discrimination.”1

Officer A Salvation Army Officer is an ordained minister of religion

and is firstly a soldier.

Soldier A soldier is “A converted person at least 14 years of age who

has…been enrolled as a member of The Salvation Army after

signing the Soldier’s Covenant”.2

Soldier’s Covenant A special undertaking concerning what soldiers believe and

how they will live their lives.

The Officer The Officer magazine is a non-academic periodical. Salvation

Army Officers across the world are invited to contribute

articles reflecting on ministry issues. It has, at different times,

been produced monthly, quarterly and more recently bi-

monthly.

1 The General, The Salvation Army Year Book 2012 (London: The Salvation Army, 2011) pre-contents

page. 2 The General, The Salvation Army Year Book 2011 (London: Salvation Books, 2010), 15.

ix

Thought Matters In the last few years a tri-territorial theological forum including

Conference Australia Southern Territory, Australia Eastern Territory and

New Zealand/Fiji Territory has held annual conferences for

officers and Salvationists to present theological papers for

discussion.

Word and Deed In more recent decades, The Salvation Army has developed a

theological journal Word & Deed which invites discussion on

Salvation Army doctrine and theology.

Introduction

1

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

Nothing challenges a person’s understanding of God more than the struggles that are

faced through suffering. People become susceptible to the doubts that surface as they

are confronted with their circumstances. The dilemma becomes acute: Where is God in

my suffering? Finding an adequate picture of God in light of human suffering appears

elusive. Suffering challenges what people believe; how they understand God’s role in

human suffering; how faith is affected by it; and how they respond when confronted

with human tragedy. Suffering has the potential to produce a distorted view of God: not

necessarily because people have dismissed God’s relevance in their lives but because of

the confusion and uncertainty that suffering produces.

Suffering and evil have been a perennial and universal problem reminding people they

are frail and live in a broken world. The word “evil” evokes fear that only appears to

subside when a threat has ended. John Lawson provides a broad definition of evil:

Evil is a comprehensive term…which appears to be inconsistent with the good

and wise plan of a God of holy love. It comprises the suffering which exists

in…all human suffering in body and mind, due to natural calamity, disease and

death, human stupidity, weakness and mismanagement, and to deliberate

wrongdoing and cruelty. The concept of evil also includes the notion of sin

…rebellion against the moral and spiritual order of God. Clearly, the presence of

evil is the great and final mystery of life. It is to be noted, however, that this

mystery, which darkens the minds and spirits of so many with frustration,

Introduction

2

bewilderment, rebellion, and unbelief, is a mystery which is created by the

doctrine of the goodness and wisdom of the one sovereign God.1

How evil endures despite the existence of a good and loving God continues to challenge

human thought as people struggle to comprehend the complex theological premise

which “involves acceptance of the following logically inconsistent statement:…God is

omnipotent, and God is perfectly good, and evil exists.”2 This apparently contradictory

statement may prove to be a stumbling block for many Christians today.

Theodicy in Christian thought – a brief overview

An important precursor to this discussion is the need to outline a general understanding

of theodicy and how Christian thought has more recently been developed. Defining the

problem of evil has historically fallen into two major categories: philosophical and

theological, with both contributing extensively to the discussion. G. W. Leibniz

illustrates how the philosophical emphasis has contributed to the overall understanding

of evil:

Even though there were no co-operation by God in evil actions, one could not

help finding difficulty in the fact that he foresees them and that, being able to

prevent them through his omnipotence, he yet permits them. This is why some

philosophers and even some theologians have rather chosen to deny to God

any knowledge of the detail of things and, above all, of future events, than to

admit what they believed repellent to his goodness.3

1 John Lawson, Introduction to Christian Doctrine (Grand Rapids: Francis Asbury Press, 1986), 66f.

2Stephen T. Davis, Encountering Evil: Live Options in Theodicy (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1981), 3.

3 G. W. Leibniz, Theodicy: Essays on the Goodness of God the Freedom of Man and the Origin of Evil

(London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1951), 60. Other philosophical or theological approaches have

included those of C. S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain (London: Centenary Press, 1940); Frederick

Sontag, What Can God Do? (Nashville: Abingdon, 1979); Douglas John Hall, God and Human

Suffering (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1987); Wendy Farley, Tragic Vision and Divine Compassion: A

Contemporary Theodicy (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1990); Emilie M. Townes, A

Troubling in My Soul: Womanist Perspectives on Evil and Suffering (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1993); Richard

Swinburne, Providence and the Problem of Evil (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998); William L.

Craig, The Only Wise God; the Compatibility of Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom (Eugene:

Wipf and Stock, 1999); Marilyn McCord Adams, Horrendous Evils and the Goodness of God (New

Introduction

3

While the philosophical problem remains, it is the pain in suffering, its effects on

people’s faith and how God is viewed in light of it that is essential for the ensuing

discussion.

In its most basic definition theodicy “attempts to show that God is righteous or just

despite the presence of evil in the world….[I]t tries to show that God can be omnipotent

and perfectly good despite evil.”4 There have been many scholars who have considered

the implications of various theodicies, some of which will be discussed below. John

Wesley appears to have attributed all suffering to sin, whether “personal” (that is, by an

individual) or “imputed” (that is, by virtue of the fallen state of humanity).5 This view

therefore exonerates God’s action (or inaction) in suffering. While evil exists and

suffering occurs, God’s love and power appear not to be adversely affected.

More recently, Paul Fiddes outlined four categories in which theodicy can be

considered especially from a pastoral perspective: “a theodicy of consolation, a

theodicy of story, a theodicy of protest and a theodicy of free-will.”6 Fiddes’

description for the first two theodicies acknowledges that people and God suffer, as he

York: Cornell University, 1999); Alvin C. Plantinga, God, Freedom and Evil (Grand Rapids:

Eerdmans, 2001); David Ray Griffin, God, Power and Evil: A Process Theodicy (Louisville:

Westminster/John Knox Press, 2004); Daniel Howard-Snyder, The Evidential Argument from Evil

(Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2008); John Hick, Evil and the God of Love (Basingstoke:

Palgrave Macmillan, 2010); Mark S. M. Scott, Pathways in Theodicy: An Introduction to the Problem

of Evil (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2015). 4 Davis, Encountering Evil, 4.

5 Wesley comments, in “The doctrine of original sin, according to scripture, reason and experience”

(Part Third): “Suffering may happen where there is no sin …that is, where there is no personal sin, but

only sin imputed… But where there is no sin, either personal or imputed, there can be no suffering.”

John Wesley, The Works of the Rev. John Wesley, vol. IX (London: John Mason, 1830), 326. See also

John Wesley, Randy L. Maddox, The Works of John Wesley: Doctrinal and Controversial Treatises,

ed. Albert Outler, Bicentennial Edition of the Works of John Wesley, vol. 12 (Nashville: Abingdon

Press, 2012), 319. 6 Paul S. Fiddes, Participating in God: A Pastoral Doctrine of the Trinity (London: Darton, Longman

and Todd, 2000), 155-170.

Introduction

4

focuses on the important pastoral connections of support and the benefits of story. A

theodicy of consolation highlights the importance that people are not alone in their

experience for “it is consoling to those who suffer to know that God is with them, that

suffering has not cut them off from God.”7 The second pastoral response – a theodicy

of story – connects for people on an experiential level. This theodicy provides

no attempt to produce a rational argument about the problem of evil and

suffering, but instead an appeal is simply made to the power of stories of

others who have suffered, which can help us to find some meaning in the

story of our own lives and our own suffering.8

The last two theodicies that Fiddes describes acknowledge some important factors: the

natural human reaction to protest against suffering; and the reaction and impact of

humanity’s response to God’s free will. An initial response to suffering is likely to be

one of protest as people struggle to comprehend what is happening to them. A theodicy

of protest emphasises that “[r]ather than finding an intellectual explanation for

suffering, we engage in protest against it and against those who inflict it….Sufferers

rightly protest against their suffering.”9 The final theodicy Fiddes defines relates to free-

will: “…if created persons are to be given a genuine freedom to make real choices, then

God must limit God’s own self…God must give them room to be themselves. God must

take a risk on them.”10

While this only provides a brief description of Fiddes’

argument, it outlines the possibility of considering alternative pastoral approaches to

theodicy.

7 Fiddes, Participating, 155.




Introduction

5

By contrast, Keith Roberts identifies two theodicies which relate to a more sociological

perspective – making a distinction between theodicies of upper and lower classes.

The theodicies of the lower classes are essentially “theodicies of despair” or

“theodicies of escape,” whereas theodicies of the upper classes tend to be

those of “good fortune.” People who are socially oppressed and who are

experiencing a great deal of suffering need some explanation of a deeper

justice or a deeper meaning that will ultimately prevail.11

It is questionable whether the separation of various theodicies by social categories is

entirely valid. Any person – regardless of their social status – desires to discover some

deeper meaning in their life. This is especially true as people negotiate through personal

pain and suffering. Suffering will look different from one person to the next but whether

that has more to do with a person’s social standing is perhaps more difficult to assess.

Perhaps a viable alternative would be to consider different responses to suffering

between western and eastern cultures rather than social classes. Such a project may

yield interesting results, especially in light of the influence of Eastern religions;

however, it would be a very large undertaking.

Contemporary Theology of a Suffering God

Throughout the centuries theologians have wrestled with the immanent and

transcendent nature of God.12

God’s transcendence is seen in connection with God’s

omnipotence, authority and sovereignty. If God is viewed as the instigator of suffering,

11

Keith A. Roberts, Religion in Sociological Perspective, 4th Edition ed. (Belmont: Thomson

Wadsworth, 2004), 220. 12

Immanuel Kant, G.W.F. Hegel, Friedrich Schleiermacher, Karl Barth, Emil Brunner, Rudolf

Bultmann, Reinhold Niebuhr, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Jürgen Moltmann, Karl Rahner and Hans Kung to

mention just a few.

Introduction

6

this could lead to the view that God is distant and uncaring, one who sometimes

unleashes power (even fury) on unsuspecting people.

Alternatively God’s immanence, viewed as the ultimate connectedness between God

and humanity, could potentially be viewed as powerlessness to protect against evil

when suffering occurs. God might then be dismissed as absent or silent, perhaps

rendering God as having limited effectiveness. An emphasis on God’s immanence may

also suggest a loving and aggrieved God who suffers with God’s creation. The

assurance of God’s love and presence becomes the connection between a defenceless

humanity and God’s willingness to be vulnerable.

A problem may emerge if one of these aspects of God’s nature is viewed in isolation.

“[A]n overemphasis on transcendence can lead to a theology that is irrelevant to the

cultural context in which it seeks to speak, whereas an overemphasis on immanence can

produce a theology held captive to a specific culture.”13

How God is viewed in the

context of human suffering is then a critical issue to be explored. Associating the image

of an all-powerful God with that of a vulnerable, relational God may present a problem.

The image of a vulnerable God is more likely to resonate with people, but how this

equates with an all-powerful God remains perplexing. Individuals may need to consider

their understanding of God’s immanent and transcendent natures at a time when it is not

quite so critical. For when the critical moment occurs, pain and suffering may not be

alleviated, but a much stronger relationship and a deeper knowledge of God may prove

13

Stanley J. Grenz, & Roger E. Olson, 20th Century Theology: God & the World in a Transitional Age

(Downers Grove: Inter Varsity Press, 1992), 12.

Introduction

7

the difference between a faith that can be sustained through suffering and one that may

not.

While new theodicies emerge, the writings of theologians such as Jürgen Moltmann and

Dietrich Bonhoeffer provide a thought provoking place to begin. Theology cannot be

considered without a context. It is therefore understandable that in each century the

culture of the time and the tragic circumstances which define the era, often shape the

historical development of theological discussion.

This was most evident in the transition from the nineteenth into the twentieth century. A

significant shift in the theological landscape occurred after the Great War of 1914-18

which “shattered the optimistic world view developed during the previous centuries and

gave birth to…intellectual and cultural gloom”.14

Over the ensuing decades the effects

of the Depression and the Second World War (1930-1940s) wreaked havoc across

Europe and brought further gloom. Three important ‘voices’ emerged between the

decades of the 1930s-1970s: Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s writings (1930-1940s); the ‘Death

of God’ phenomenon (1960s); and Jürgen Moltmann’s major works (1960-1970s)

which connected strongly with a God who suffers.

As Europe was emerging through the cloud of death and destruction, people were trying

to recover their faith and identity. However, the cultural response of the 1960s involved

a philosophical view that had been considered in the nineteenth century by Friedrich

Nietzsche and now in this era gained a new audience. “Nietzsche’s declaration…that

‘God is dead! God remains dead! And we have killed him!’ thus expresses the general

14

Grenz, 20th Century Theology, 12.

Introduction

8

cultural atmosphere which finds no place for God.”15

By contrast, Bonhoeffer’s and

Moltmann’s writings emphasised the theological view that God suffers.16

What

emerged from these theologians was the possibility that God (in light of the suffering of

Christ on the cross) could identify with those who had suffered the terrible atrocities of

war. Bonhoeffer’s writings particularly emphasised the self-limiting nature of God in

suffering.

God lets himself be pushed out of the world on to the cross. He is weak and

powerless in the world, and that is precisely the way, the only way, in which

he is with us and helps us…The Bible directs [us] to God’s powerlessness

and suffering; only the suffering God can help.17

At such a time in history, Bonhoeffer’s writings would no doubt have provided a sense

of hopefulness. He paints a picture of a God who stoops to minister out of the pain of

God’s own suffering, reinforcing the message that people are not alone in their

afflictions. This picture of a suffering, immanent God reflects the preparedness of the

Transcendent One to reach into humanity’s frailty and emerge victorious through it.

What appears to be a sign of weakness is actually a sign of strength enveloped in love.

Additionally, a sense of optimism and hope emerged through Jürgen Moltmann’s

theology. Like Bonhoeffer, Moltmann’s experiences contributed to his strong sense of

connection between God’s suffering on the cross and humanity’s suffering.

Understood in trinitarian terms, God both transcends the world and is

immanent in history... [God] is, if one is prepared to put it in inadequate

imagery, transcendent as Father, immanent as Son and opens up the future of

history as the Spirit. If we understand God in this way, we can understand

our own history, the history of suffering and the history of hope, in the

history of God.18

15

Alister E. McGrath, Christian Theology: An Introduction (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1994), 221. 16

Several scholars helpfully explore Moltmann’s themes at this point, including Richard Bauckham,

"Theodicy from Ivan Karamazov to Moltmann", Modern Theology, 4:1 (1987), 83-97; A. Roy

Eckhardt, "Jürgen Moltmann, the Jewish People, and the Holocaust", Journal of the American

Academy of Religion, 44/4 (1976), 675-691. 17

Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison (London: SCM, 1999), 360-61. 18

Jürgen Moltmann, The Crucified God (London: SCM Press, 1974), 255f.

Introduction

9

The suffering that unites both God and humanity is the hope that leads out of that

anguish and into the eschatological hope for the future. What Moltmann seeks to

convey in his writings is that hope is not just for the immediacy of the moment but

continues into eternity.19

While such eschatological hope may bring a sense of ultimate

comfort, the desire for hope to relieve a person of their anguish in the present is even

more appealing. In light of war, that hope becomes particularly important to discover or

else faith in God is challenged and may even be lost. These scholars experienced a time

in the twentieth century marked by oppression, death and the struggles of war but their

message of hope continues to resonate in a new century.

No sooner had the twenty-first century commenced than the world witnessed anguish

and pain on a global scale with events such as 9/11 and the Boxing Day tsunami. These

defining events have shaped current theological and cultural views on suffering and

evil. It is not surprising therefore that Christians struggle to align what is currently

happening in the world with what their faith should affirm.

As people are confronted with their suffering their perception of God may become a

strong factor in their response. Is God viewed as the instigator of suffering or as a God

of love who has also been aggrieved? A person’s faith may be placed under a

theological microscope: will faith be strengthened, diminished or even lost? The

possibility that God’s sovereignty and goodness can co-exist in the face of evil remains

a perplexing paradox to negotiate. When suffering becomes personal and intellectual

reasoning is obscured, any responses are perhaps more likely to arise from a heart that

19

Jürgen Moltmann, Theology of Hope (London: SCM, 1977), xiii-xv.

Introduction

10

is broken and less likely to draw logical or rational conclusions. A Christian may draw

upon the teachings of their denomination to help their understanding of their suffering.

There is a need for critical engagement in such discussion in the context of The

Salvation Army.20

This research will seek to establish what The Salvation Army’s

doctrines assert concerning how God’s sovereignty is viewed in human suffering and

how Salvationists (soldiers and officers) view their own theology.

Throughout my years of ministry experience I have observed a difference between

Salvationists’ expressed theology and the received theology of The Salvation Army.21

Salvationists appear to rely on their experiences as the major influence on their faith but

these experiences alone cannot shape a person’s understanding of God. Therefore, a

Salvationist’s expressed theology may be inadequate and may not always match the

teaching of the denomination. It is important that there is alignment between a

Salvationist’s expressed theology and the received theology of The Salvation Army,

thus creating a stronger theological foundation when faced with suffering.

This thesis will consider the development of the received theology of The Salvation

Army as evidenced through successive editions of the Handbook of Doctrine – The

Salvation Army’s official articulation of its theology. My research also considers

Salvationists’ expressed theology evidenced through results from an online survey of

20

The 1880 deed poll articulated the formal name change from The Christian Mission to: “The

Salvation Army”. The capitalisation of “The” will remain throughout this research recognising the

legal entity of the denomination. 21

“Received” theology here refers to the acceptance by individuals (officers and adult soldiers) of

official statements of doctrine/theology; whereas “Expressed” theology is how those same people

actually function in life. Reference to Salvationists includes both officers (ministers) and adult soldiers

except when a clear distinction is made within the survey and its discussion. Where it is used as a term

for adult Salvationists but not officers, ‘soldiers’ will be used.

Introduction

11

Salvationists in the Melbourne area. An extensive literary survey of The Officer

magazine over the history of the Army was undertaken to verify whether the expressed

theology of Melbourne Salvationists was representative of Salvationists internationally

over time. The thesis will then consider how the work of contemporary Wesleyan

scholars may shape a Salvationist response to suffering. The aim of this work is not to

find an answer to suffering, but rather to consider a shaping of a Salvationist response

for suffering within a Wesleyan context.

To understand the received theology of The Salvation Army, a critique of its doctrine –

which relates to God’s sovereignty (Doctrine Two) – is an important first step.22

The

Salvation Army Handbook of Doctrine outlines all eleven doctrines and provides an

explanatory section for each. Yet doctrine two has no reference to any specific

Wesleyan teaching. This is despite the fact that The Salvation Army’s historical roots

are within this tradition.23

The most recent edition of the Handbook of Doctrine (2010)

has included some comment on the issue of suffering and God’s divine sovereignty

within the explanation of the second doctrine.24

However, the explanation still does not

include Wesleyan theology.

The broad principles of “grounded theory” are employed in this research.25

Using a

qualitative research approach, responses have been received from Salvation Army

22

For a full listing of current Salvation Army Doctrines, see Appendix 2, 186. 23

In earlier formulations of the Handbook of Doctrine, there has been a similar lack of teaching. 24

The General, The Salvation Army Handbook of Doctrine (London: Salvation Books, 2010; reprint,

13), 43-48. For historical detail of development of different editions of the Handbook of Doctrine, see

Appendix 1. 25

Grounded theory refers to theory that has been derived inductively from a body of data – often using

qualitative research. In this case the use of grounded theory involved preconceptions being kept to a

minimum at the outset of the project, and a set of research questions being developed for the

anticipated cohort of participants. Data collection was undertaken and analysed, with ideas and

Introduction

12

officers and adult soldiers located in Melbourne through an online survey to understand

how God is perceived in human suffering. The survey was used to determine whether

Salvationists may tend towards an expressed theology based primarily on the influence

of experience rather than aligning themselves with the received theology of The

Salvation Army.

Once this hypothesis was tested through the survey results and considered through the

writings from The Officer magazine, my aim was twofold. Firstly, I outline a response

to suffering from contemporary Wesleyan theology. Exploring contemporary Wesleyan

scholarship in light of the existing received theology of The Salvation Army has the

potential to broaden and strengthen the current explanation of Doctrine Two.

This exploration will range from a contemporary understanding of the classical

Wesleyan theistic position, through an open theistic response and to a lesser degree, a

process theological perspective.26

If this research is to make a possible contribution to

The Salvation Army’s received theology, it would be too great a theological leap to

consider the problem through the lens of process theology. Therefore the focus will

predominantly rest on “classical” Wesleyan theism as interpreted by contemporary

scholars, and other contemporary Wesleyan scholars who have drawn upon open

theism. In addressing the current gap between the received and expressed theology of

conclusions emerging from the data itself. These ideas were sorted into an outline of emergent theory,

demonstrating the relationships among various concepts. Relevant existing literature was integrated

into the theory, including a quantity of material from past Salvation Army publications as well as

contemporary Wesleyan theology. 26

The emphasis will remain on contemporary Wesleyan scholarship rather than returning to the

primary source of John Wesley’s theology.

Introduction

13

Salvationists, individuals may receive greater clarity on their understanding of the

existence of suffering in a universe ruled by a loving God.

Initially, it is important to understand some of The Salvation Army’s background, in

order to observe the theological gap which exists, and move towards a response.

The Salvation Army’s Theological “Gap”

The Salvation Army in Australia is an organization with a high profile. One of the

strengths of the global organization is the ability to mobilise an ‘Army’ at a moment’s

notice when tragedies occur anywhere in the world. What is perhaps less obvious to

external observers is that The Salvation Army is also a Christian denomination whose

mission statement affirms not only its beliefs but how it responds to a hurting world.

The Salvation Army has always been seen as an organization with a very practical “can

do” philosophy that stems from its historical roots.

Historically, The Salvation Army – and in particular its founders, William and Catherine

Booth – held to a pragmatic approach to mission and ministry which was also firmly

grounded within a Wesleyan theological work.

Although William Booth may have been a pragmatist rather than a

systematic theologian, his actions did not amount to a thoughtless

evangelism. As he had learned early in life, the business of saving souls

required theological motivation and effective methods.27

27

Andrew M. Eason, and Roger J. Green (Editors), Boundless Salvation: The Shorter Writings of

William Booth (New York: Peter Lang, 2012), 21.

Introduction

14

Physical, social and spiritual poverty confronted William and Catherine Booth upon

their arrival in the East End of London. The Booths’ intense passion to meet the holistic

needs of the people and bring the message of salvation to that part of London resulted

ultimately in the founding of The Salvation Army.28

The Wesleyan influences on the Booths guaranteed a firm theological framework for

the Army in the areas of salvation and holiness. “Booth preached redemption, and the

biblical doctrine of holiness was part of God’s redemptive purpose for every believer.

That doctrine was not an amendment to his theology, but the core of his theology”.29

The emphasis on redemption will be a critical discussion point in chapter four.

During the Army’s formative years, William Booth’s passion for the salvation of the

world contributed to the development and expansion of The Salvation Army.

Additionally, Catherine’s passion for preaching, for women’s equality and her definite

theological positions, became embedded within the fabric of the movement that she and

William created.

The Salvation Army was established to minister to people in the streets who were not

welcomed in more formal church settings. Booth’s passion and calling was to “go for

souls and go for the worst.”30

Therefore, The Salvation Army was formed among the

socio-economically deprived, often the illiterate and rejected of society.

28

For further reference: Roger J. Green, The Life & Ministry of William Booth: Founder of the

Salvation Army (Nashville: Abingdon, 2005); Norman Murdoch, Origins of the Salvation Army

(Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1994); Roy Hattersley, Blood & Fire: William and

Catherine Booth and Their Salvation Army (London: Abacus, 2000). 29

Green, Life & Ministry, 34. 30

There are many “slogans” or epithets which have common currency within The Salvation Army

despite their origins which are either unknown or have dubious attributions.

Introduction

15

In subsequent years the emphasis on the practical nature of the Army’s ministry became

paramount and – to its detriment – the willingness to reflect theologically has generally

not been given the priority it deserves. The emphasis on pragmatic approaches to

ministry would seem to have overshadowed the theological framework which

undergirded much of what the Booths had accomplished.

A Theological Knapsack

At the beginning of the twentieth century a minimally articulated approach to theology,

combined with established doctrinal positions, was considered sufficient to achieve the

mission of The Salvation Army. There was a belief within the Army that “the smallest

of knapsacks” was adequate for this task. General Frederick Coutts reflected on this

tendency in The Officer magazine:

[F]or the militant mission on which it [the Army] set out…its doctrinal

impedimenta had to go into the smallest of knapsacks…Common sense and

immediate emotional power were the criteria of truth…essential for the

campaign against sin.31

The Salvation Army’s establishment as a para-military organisation meant that the

image of a portable, theological knapsack would not have seemed out of place. Despite

The Salvation Army’s rich theological heritage, derived principally from its Wesleyan

roots, its military language has conveyed and re-iterated this approach of minimal

articulation, in order to keep only that which was sufficient to equip Salvationists

heading out into the mission (battle) fields. While that may have been the historical

approach of the Army, it would be detrimental to both the Army and its mission if a

31

Frederick Coutts, "Another Occasional Footnote: 'The Smallest of Knapsacks'", The Officer

Magazine, November (1981), 504.

Introduction

16

“knapsack theology” were to be considered sufficient today. It is time to discard the

idea of a theological knapsack and replace it with a more clearly articulated,

contemporary Wesleyan framework so that the many issues (including human suffering)

that confront Salvationists and the denomination as a whole can be addressed and the

missional heartbeat of the movement remain strong.

The need for such a broadening of the Army’s theological framework is evident from

the level of engagement with the issue of suffering by officers throughout the Army’s

history. Since the inception of The Officer magazine in 1893 the contributions written

on the topic of suffering by officers, have predominantly been from an “experiential”

rather than a “theological” position. This response is perhaps indicative of how

theological reflection has been somewhat negatively viewed in the past. There has been

some apprehension and even scepticism towards officers who have commenced

theological studies. The move towards a tertiary level qualification for the Army’s

ministerial candidates has brought some verbal criticism. Questions have been raised as

to the “rightness” of newly-commissioned officers qualified so “highly” when the

mission and very practical nature of ministry is of paramount importance. This general

perception perhaps highlighted ignorance of the importance and validity of theology.

However, the tide of opinion is beginning to turn, moving people from a level of

scepticism towards acceptance and endorsement of a more theological approach that

grounds Salvation Army mission and ministry activities.

It is hard to determine whether a theological gap exists because Salvationists may

believe that the Army’s existing theological/doctrinal statement is somewhat antiquated

Introduction

17

and irrelevant, or because there has not been enough teaching of the Army’s doctrinal

position. As a result Salvationists may feel confused or have limited knowledge to

sustain them in their faith. Salvationists could either be unaware of what has driven

their faith, or they may appear sometimes to regress to simplistic thinking influenced by

a deterministic theology or philosophy. Until or unless Salvationists are faced with

human suffering, they may tend to live without much regard for their theological

position on the matter.32

Like the founders of The Salvation Army, Salvationists are pragmatic by nature, with a

focus on “doing” rather than “being”. So when suffering occurs, finding a possible way

through that experience could be daunting, as it could challenge the very nature of a

person’s identity, faith and response. Yet despite the pain that comes “[s]uffering does

not prevent us from affirming our faith and trust in God; indeed, it may open up new

ways of doing so.”33

Suffering may either bring people to the brink of a faith crisis or

to a deeper awareness of God. One’s faith may become stronger in the most unexpected

places or situations.

While The Salvation Army should never lose its pragmatic approach to mission, it is

equally important to maintain a strong theological framework that underpins all of the

Army’s mission and ministry. Both elements are essential for a strong and vibrant

expression of Salvation Army faith and practice.

32

This is not a uniquely Salvationist problem for the gap between a person’s received theology and

their expressed theology may also exist for people in other traditions. 33

Alister E. McGrath, Suffering (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1992), 89.

Introduction

18

A Contemporary Wesleyan Theology of Suffering

Shaping Salvationists’ response to suffering and reconnecting with the Army’s

Wesleyan roots is a logical response to the issues described. However, it is not a matter

of applying eighteenth-century Wesleyan responses to a twenty-first century context.

Therefore, consideration will be given to a number of contemporary Wesleyan scholars

on these presenting issues, rather than a close examination of John Wesley’s theological

writings.

Contemporary scholars such as Ken Collins, Randy Maddox and H. Ray Dunning

provide a current interpretation of Wesley’s theology for a present context. This is

important because previously held views may appear unable to offer satisfactory

answers to some of the questions which are raised by suffering and evil.34

This will

provide a starting point to establish how other contemporary Wesleyan approaches

(open theism and process theology) have been developed, how scholars have drawn

their conclusions and what responses may be considered within a Salvation Army

context.

Contemporary Wesleyan theologians such as Thomas Jay Oord, Michael Lodahl,

William Hasker, and John B. Cobb Jr, have explored more open theistic and process

theological positions.35

It is important to clarify the points of similarity and difference

34

In response to the enigma: “God is omnipotent, and God is perfectly good, and evil exists” (see

Davis, Encountering Evil, 3.) and this will be considered further in a later chapter, together with an

understanding of contemporary Wesleyan approaches to suffering. 35

Clark Pinnock will also be considered in this research. Although not a Wesleyan scholar, his

Arminian focus provides an important contribution. Process theology originated from Alfred North

Whitehead. See especially Alfred North Whitehead, Process and Reality: An Essay in Cosmology

(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1929)) and Charles Hartshorne, The Divine Relativity: A

Social Conception of God (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1948); also Charles Hartshorne, The

Logic of Perfection (Lasalle: Open Court Publishing, 1962). Their work has been further expanded,

Introduction

19

in how process theologians and open theists within the Wesleyan tradition view God’s

involvement in the world.36

The open theistic position places God within time which

conveys a more closely relational (immanent) God instead of one who observes

activities from some distant vantage point.37

Clark Pinnock (not a Wesleyan but one

whose thought is closely aligned to Wesleyan teaching) reflects upon the importance of

a relational God to humanity.

Too often in the past we have thought of God as unchangeable substance or

an all-controlling power: too seldom as a triune communion of love,

internally relational and involved with creatures….We need to view God as

participating in human affairs and vulnerable for the sake of love; he is not

an invulnerable onlooker.38

While this image may resonate for people on an emotional level, this change in

perception raises the dilemma of how a vulnerable God can also remain omnipotent and

transcendent. Open theists see the world as being far less controlled by God, than a

more deterministic approach.

with two scholars being particularly prominent: John B Cobb Jr and David Ray Griffin. See for

example John B. Cobb Jnr, God and the World (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1965); John B. Cobb Jnr, A

Christian Natural Theology: Based on the Thought of Alfred North Whitehead, (Philadelphia:

Westminster, 1965); John B. Cobb Jnr, Theology and Pastoral Care (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977);

John B. Cobb Jnr, Process Theology as Political Theology (Manchester: Manchester University Press,

1982); John B. Cobb Jnr, The Process Perspective Ii (St. Louis: Chalice Press, 2011); David Ray

Griffin, God, Power, and Evil: A Process Theodicy (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976); David Ray

Griffin, Evil Revisited: Responses and Reconsiderations (Albany: State University of New York Press,

1991). Open theism was an attempt to appropriate certain ideas in process thought while remaining

within a more orthodox and evangelical framework. See, for example, Richard Rice, The Openness of

God: The Relationship of Divine Foreknowledge and Human Free Will (Portland: Horizon, 1980);

William Hasker, God, Time, and Knowledge (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1989);

Clark H. Pinnock, The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of

God (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1994); David Basinger, The Case for Freewill Theism: A

Philosophical Assessment (Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 1996); John Sanders, The God Who

Risks: A Theology of Providence (Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 1998); William Hasker,

Providence, Evil and the Openness of God (London: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, 2004); Clark

H. Pinnock, Most Moved Mover: A Theology of God's Openness (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic,

2001); Michael Lodahl, God of Nature and of Grace: Reading the World in a Wesleyan Way

(Nashville: Kingswood Books, 2003); Thomas Jay Oord, (Editor), Creation Made Free: Open

Theology Engaging Science (Eugene: Pickwick Publications, 2009). 36

Some scholars may not consider them Wesleyan at all. 37

Stephen J. Wright, "Theological Method and the Doctrine of God," (Lecture in Sydney College of

Divinity Unit TH287 Wesleyan Theology, taught at Booth College, 2012), 1. 38

Pinnock, Most Moved Mover, x.

Introduction

20

While process theologians and open theists share these points of commonality, there are

also differences in their approaches to the free will argument and where it ultimately

rests; and the omnipotence of God. “[O]penness theists affirm that God voluntarily

gives freedom to the creature, process theists see freedom as an essential characteristic

of the creature.”39

William Hasker highlights the differences between the two views as

it relates to the omnipotence of God.

[A]ccording to free will theism, but not according to process theism, God

has the power to intervene in particular cases, so as to prevent

disasters…Since God has the power to do this, one may ask why…he has

not done it. It seems, then, that there is still a question the free will theist

must face, whereas for the process theist no such question exists.40

Pinnock summarises, “[i]n the openness model, God still reserves the power to control

everything, whereas in process thought God cannot override the freedom of creatures.

This is a fundamental and crucial difference.”41

The issue of God’s power is an

important element to consider for where and how effective God’s power is shown

marks the difference in perspectives between process theology and open theism.

While the doctrine of God’s omnipotence suggests a more transcendent and distant

image of God emphasizing God’s power, sovereignty and Lordship, John Cobb

believes a redefining of the term is important.

[T]here can be no satisfactory explanation of the evil in the world that does

not reject the power of God. To avoid both seeing God as the author of evil

and denying God any significant power, we need a basic reconception of

what is meant by power.42

39

John B. Cobb Jnr, and Clark H Pinnock (Editors), Searching for an Adequate God: A Dialogue

between Process and Free Will Theists (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), xi. 40

William Hasker in Cobb Jnr, Searching, 45. 41

Pinnock in Cobb Jnr, Searching, xi. 42

Cobb Jnr, God and the World, 88.

Introduction

21

The objection centres on the following logic: if God is all-powerful then God must be

able to prevent the evil and suffering of this world. If God is good then God must want

to prevent the evil and suffering of this world. Therefore either God is not all-powerful

or God is not good. Cobb provides an alternative view, however, in perceiving God’s

omnipotence “as persuasive power”.43

Cobb articulates the differences between these

alternative views.

It no longer means that God exercises a monopoly of power and compels

everything to be just as it is. It means instead that he exercises the optimum

persuasive power in relation to whatever is. Such an optimum is a balance

between urging toward the good and maximizing the power – therefore the

freedom – of the one whom God seeks to persuade.44

God’s persuasive power therefore, is relational. This does not mean that God’s

omnipotence is somehow reduced in its effectiveness but it provides an alternative way

of interpreting God’s power. Cobb prompts us to move beyond the concept that God’s

omnipotence comes from a distant, perhaps uncaring deity, to the idea of a relational

Creator exercising a power which “depends rather on relations of respect, concern, and

love”.45

Cobb’s redefinition of God’s omnipotence as “persuasive power” has

significant implications for how humanity may view God’s response to the evil and

suffering that exist in the world. This redefinition invites us to consider God’s

omnipotence not as something that manipulates and controls but instead redefines

God’s power to persuade and intervene in the world. Cobb’s argument ultimately

reaches towards the concept of hope and belief in God:

[i]f there is no hope…we cannot affirm life and humanity…there can be no

theodicy…we cannot believe in God. But if we do believe in God, then we

can hope…we can affirm life and humanity…if we can affirm life and

43

Cobb Jnr, God and the World, 90. 44


Cobb Jnr, God and the World, 90.

Introduction

22

humanity, then the problem of theodicy is existentially solvable, even if we

must confess our perplexity about many questions.46

Here Cobb seems to draw the emphasis away from the questions that arise and instead

encourages those who believe in God to focus on the hope that belief in God brings.

He acknowledges the reality that the questions will still arise, but they do not remain

the central focus. If the focus remains disproportionately towards the questions that

suffering raises, there is a greater chance people will be drawn further away from God

and hope may diminish.

Cobbs’ redefinition of “persuasive power” may seem a fairly balanced view and not

such a radical idea. However, Cobb further articulates how process theology views

God’s action in the world. This may be more difficult for Salvationists to accept.

God can only work in the concrete situations of the world. Those situations,

which are often shaped extensively by our sinful decisions “tie God’s

hands.” God can bring some novelty, some healing, some transformation to

any situation if we allow that to happen. But the novelty, healing, and

transformation God can bring are always closely tied to the specificity of the

situation.47

This may seem to make sense because of the free-will God provides to humanity in

offering personal choices.48

It appears disturbing, however, if Cobb is suggesting that

God relinquishes power or is restricted in God’s creation, unless humanity grants such

decisions of healing and transformation to be made. This argument seems to push the

issue of God’s power to an extreme that appears inconsistent with a sovereign God.

46


Cobb Jnr, Process Perspective, 129. 48

The concept of personal choice is explored by various contemporary Wesleyan scholars. See, for

example, James R Cissell, "Chronic Suffering, Charles Wesley, Personal Choice", Wesleyan

Theological Journal, 43/1 (2008)

Introduction

23

Thomas Jay Oord, in contrast to Cobb, considers God’s action and involvement in the

world alongside the provision of free-will. While both scholars emphasize the

importance of a loving and relational God, the ability for God to intervene is more

pronounced in Oord’s explanation.

[C]reatures cannot exist unless God acts preveniently – initiating each

moment – in order to make existence possible. God is a necessary, creative

agent who acts first to establish the existence of, and divine relationship

with, creatures. In this sense, divine action makes freedom possible for

others as God continually graces creation with the divine creative presence.

Without prior divine action, our free decisions are impossible. It is crucial to

note, however, that claiming that God makes creaturely freedom possible

does not contradict the essential free-will hypothesis that God can neither

withdraw nor override creaturely freedom.49

Oord emphasizes here a greater connection between God’s action and God’s creation.

But as questions arise relating to evil and suffering, Oord’s major work on kenosis

theodicy considers, among other things, the self-limiting nature of God and God’s love

despite evil.50

John Polkinghorne’s “kenosis theory” contrasts with Oord’s work.51

Polkinghorne’s theory predominantly considers God’s self-emptying nature described

in Philippians 2. While there might not be a consensus about what this passage means,

“many speculate that it best be interpreted as divine self-limitation for the sake of

others.”52

Oord identifies other scholars who have contributed their understanding of

kenosis described in this text, but Oord provides his definition of what he calls

49

Bryan P Stone, and Thomas Jay Oord (Editors), Thy Nature & Thy Name Is Love: Wesleyan and

Process Theologies in Dialogue (Nashville: Kingswood Books, 2001), 201f. 50

Thomas Jay Oord, "A Kenosis Theodicy - a Paper Delivered at the Wesleyan Theological Society

Meeting," (2007).

http://wesley.nnu.edu/fileadmin/imported_site/wts/42_annual_meeting/papers/Thomas_Jay_Oord_WT

S_Paper_2007.pdf (accessed 12 April 2014). 51

See John Polkinghorne, The Work of Love: Creation as Kenosis (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001) 52

Oord, "A Kenosis Theodicy - a Paper Delivered at the Wesleyan Theological Society Meeting". 3, in

http://wesley.nnu.edu/fileadmin/imported_site/wts/

42_annual_meeting/papers/Thomas_Jay_Oord_WTS_Paper_2007.pdf accessed 14 February 2012.

http://wesley.nnu.edu/fileadmin/imported_site/wts/%2042_annual_meeting/papers/Thomas_Jay_Oord_WTS_Paper_2007.pdf%20accessed%2014

http://wesley.nnu.edu/fileadmin/imported_site/wts/%2042_annual_meeting/papers/Thomas_Jay_Oord_WTS_Paper_2007.pdf%20accessed%2014

Introduction

24

‘Essential Kenosis’ especially as it relates to self-limitation.53

God’s self-limitation in Essential Kenosis theology entails that any

limitations in God exist by virtue of God’s own nature – what it means to be

God. External forces and enforced obligations do not limit God. God is

limited only by what it means to be God.54

In his conclusion, Oord states: “The loving God of this kenosis theory is not culpable

for failing to prevent genuine evil. The necessarily kenotic God lovingly provides the

power and freedom necessary for creatures to respond.”55

Michael Lodahl also emphasises the nature of God’s love – often relating his position

to the order of creation. This is especially emphasised in his book The Story of God

where he speaks of God’s immutability.

The doctrine of divine immutability…should not suggest…that God is flat

and static…but that God is immutably and eternally love. But this, in turn,

implies that God…is eternally ready and willing to love and to be loved, to

be engaged and involved and at risk in the creation and for the creatures.

God’s decision to share freedom with human beings…to create beings who

can and quite often do act against His purposes, is actually a decision to limit

himself.56

The extent to which God risks and is prepared to limit Godself indicates the way God

leaves the future open: not everything is determined, nothing is restricted and there is

room for randomness to occur in suffering. Lodahl challenges perceptions of how God

operates in the world. He reminds his readers that “[t]he God who is free creates an

open future in which, because of the freedom He has shared with us, His own heart can

53

See a brief description from Moltmann and Polkinghorne’s views in Thomas Jay Oord, The Nature

of Love: A Theology (St. Louis: Chalice Press, 2010), 123-124. See Oord’s extensive argument of

Essential Kenosis in chapter 5. 54

Oord, Nature of Love, 125. 55

Oord, "A Kenosis Theodicy - a Paper Delivered at the Wesleyan Theological Society Meeting".8.

Steven Wright’s book review of Oord, Nature of Love, provides a negative assessment of Oord’s work

of “essential” kenosis, critiquing Oord’s definition of a theology of love in Aldersgate Papers 9

(September 2011), 134-138. 56

Michael Lodahl, The Story of God: Wesleyan Theology & Biblical Narrative (Kansas City: Beacon

Hill, 1994), 88.

Introduction

25

be broken.”57

This is the risk God takes so people can experience freedom. God as risk-

taker is perhaps a confronting concept for people who may view God as being more

deterministic and controlling.58

The more open view of God’s involvement highlights

that not everything is determined and restricted; there can be some randomness about

suffering.

While these descriptions may appear to be an over-simplification of contemporary

Wesleyan scholarship, they provide a starting point for further exploration in the

possible development of the received theology of The Salvation Army. By no means is

this an exhaustive discussion either of contemporary Wesleyan scholars, or their

thinking about suffering.

As Salvationists begin the process of identifying those influences that have shaped

their understanding of faith and suffering, the Wesleyan Quadrilateral can be important

for such considerations. Wesley believed that the four theological sources of scripture,

reason, experience and tradition – with scripture as the central focus – greatly informed

people’s faith. In more recent decades these sources have been referred to as the

Wesleyan Quadrilateral.59

There was a shift in the 1980s from the previous decades in

the understanding of the Quadrilateral. There was no longer a consensus surrounding

its essence, continued effectiveness and relevance.

In terms of his theological method, there, is widespread agreement that

Wesley did make reference to the four sources identified by [Albert] Outler

that form the quadrilateral (Scripture, reason, tradition and experience),

57

Lodahl, Story of God, 89. 58

See God as risk-taker in Sanders, God Who Risks, . 59

Originally coined by Albert Outler in the 1960s. See Albert Outler, John Wesley (New York: Oxford

University Press, 1964)

Introduction

26

though there is much less agreement about their nature and

interrelationship60

While there is consensus among scholars on the importance of scripture for Wesley,

there are many scholars who debate how many other sources are of significance and

what should be included. David McEwan shows the diversity among scholars: some

believe there should be extra sources included with the original four; others believe

there should be less than four; and still others believe the concept of the Quadrilateral

should be abandoned.61

While the issue may continue to be debated in scholarly circles, the main four sources

comprising the Wesleyan Quadrilateral can prove helpful for Salvationists to determine

how their faith has been shaped and influenced in the past and useful for assessing

faith in the future. These four sources can form the basis of a series of questions which

Salvationists can ask themselves in relation to their faith development: What scripture

passages are significant in shaping my faith? How do my experiences inform my faith?

How do tradition and reason continue to influence those experiences?

The opportunity to reflect on each of these sources can prove to be a cause of

encouragement. Alternatively, they may also help Salvationists to identify how their

thinking may need to be adjusted. How influential are each of the four sources of the

60

David B. McEwan, Wesley as a Pastoral Theologian: Theological Methodology in John Wesley's

Doctrine of Christian Perfection (Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2009), 36. 61

McEwan, Wesley, 22-25. Scholars who argue for extra sources include Thomas Langford, Scott

Jones, Howard Synder, and Kenneth Howcroft. Scholars who argue for less than four sources include

Barry Bryant, John Newton and Robert Cushman. Scholars who believe the quadrilateral should be

abandoned include William Abraham, Ted Campbell and Leroy T Howe. Several Wesleyan scholars

consider its continuing relevance in Stephen W Gunter, Scott J Jones, Ted A Campbell, Rebekah L

Miles, Randy Maddox, Wesley and the Quadrilateral: Renewing the Conversation (Nashville:

Abingdon, 1997).

Introduction

27

Wesleyan Quadrilateral in a Salvationist’s life is considered by those who participated

in the survey.

Now that the foundation of my research has been established there are several

questions that arise which require consideration. Historically, how has The Salvation

Army’s received theology articulated issues relating to suffering and divine

sovereignty? To what extent does experience appear to be the primary influence on

Salvationists’ expressed theology? To what extent do Salvationists’ responses to

suffering appear to be inadequate and indicate a comparative lack of awareness of The

Salvation Army’s teaching? How might contemporary Wesleyan approaches as well as

classical Wesleyan theism inform Salvationists’ expressed theology? What

implications might a contemporary Wesleyan approach have for the received theology

of The Salvation Army as part of the Wesleyan-Holiness movement? What might be

the implications for The Salvation Army – on an international level – if it were to

engage in discussion relating to open theism as a source for Salvation Army doctrine?

Such a process of reflection is not an attempt to find an answer to human suffering but

a search for a way through it. There is potential to bring a greater awareness of God’s

sovereignty in human suffering within The Salvation Army; the bearing it has on what

Salvationists believe; how faith can be strengthened; and how Salvationists can

respond when confronted with human tragedy. Engaging with contemporary Wesleyan

scholarship will not only enrich the received theology of The Salvation Army but will

also enhance Salvationists’ expressed theology. This may provide greater congruence

and alignment between them and assist in moving beyond a ‘theological knapsack’.

Explaining the theological knapsack

28

CHAPTER 2

EXPLAINING THE THEOLOGICAL KNAPSACK:

Historical articulation of the theology of suffering

within The Salvation Army

A knapsack is never meant to hold more than the wearer can carry, and should contain

only the essential requirements for sudden deployment. While the military metaphor is

strongly evident within The Salvation Army it would be to the Army’s detriment if a

“knapsack theology” were to be considered adequate. In today’s context, Salvationists

need to be well equipped theologically and well prepared for engaging in the Army’s

mission.

One can only speculate why the analogy of “the smallest of knapsacks” was considered

appropriate. While this analogy might not be widely known among Salvationists, it is

nonetheless implicitly evident within the psyche of the movement. The emphasis on

pragmatic missional engagement has often detracted from ensuring Salvationists are

fully equipped theologically. It is time to discard the concept of a theological knapsack

and replace it with a more fully articulated Wesleyan framework in which to

theologically reflect and missionally operate.


29

The Articles of Faith need to be more than a set of doctrinal statements on the soldiers’

covenant or declared at the time of the commissioning and ordination of officers.1 These

statements need to connect with Salvationists’ deepening life of faith and the tradition to

which they belong, as well as urging them into mission. The challenge therefore remains

how The Salvation Army’s theological position – especially in relation to suffering – can

shape a Salvationist’s response.

It is one thing for a Salvationist to know the received theology of The Salvation Army,

but how that aligns with a Salvationist’s expressed theology may vary. A major

contributing factor to a person’s expressed theology is personal life experiences. When

life does not make sense, what do Salvationists believe about God’s sovereignty within

that suffering? When suffering occurs on a global scale – even when it is at a distance–

the issue of God’s sovereignty is only marginally less pressing and confrontational.

Questions raised by those experiences become the potential driving force for people to

consider where God’s influence or action intersects with the suffering.

For this reason it is important to outline the historical influences on the founders of The

Salvation Army; the development of the Army’s understanding of the sovereignty of

God (Doctrine 2); and the articles which have been written in The Officer magazine

through the Army’s 150 year history. The first two components consider The Salvation

Army’s received theology and how this has historically been articulated. The third

component provides something of expressed theology, as revealed through The Officer

magazine articles.

1 “Articles of Faith” is another term used to describe the eleven doctrines of The Salvation Army.


30

This consideration of historical materials provides a helpful reference against which the

survey data (chapter 3) can be interpreted. The survey derived from the Melbourne

sample, is thereby validated as representative of Salvationists’ views internationally

(although it could be argued that the comparison here is between historical materials and

the Melbourne sample; more research could be undertaken of Salvationists’ views

internationally).

It is important to see the influences that shaped William and Catherine Booth in

establishing the Army’s doctrinal statements and how these statements (and explanations

of them) were then developed over subsequent editions of the Handbook of Doctrine.

The explanations of these doctrinal statements are important theologically in assisting

Salvationists in their wrestling with the received theology of their denomination.

The Salvation Army’s magazine – The Officer –provides opportunities for officers

across the world to submit articles on various topics. Articles written on the issue of

suffering have seemed predominantly to focus on the “experiential” nature of the crisis.

It is therefore important to consider to what extent experience is the primary influence

on Salvationists’ expressed theology; to gauge where or whether expressed theology and

received theology may be aligned; and to identify where there is less congruence

between them.


31

Influences on William and Catherine Booth’s developing theology

According to Trevor Yaxley, “Booth grew up in poverty and understood the struggle and

suffering of being poor. He knew what poverty could do to someone. The poor were his

kind of people, and he knew them and loved them deeply.”2 It was therefore not

surprising that his life work would be to minister to those suffering in poverty.

In the establishment of the Christian Mission (which was ultimately to be known as The

Salvation Army) William Booth’s theology was profoundly influenced by John Wesley

and the Methodist movement.

Booth shared Wesley’s convictions about salvation and holiness. Like the

founder of Methodism, Booth subscribed to an unlimited atonement,

preached assurance of one’s salvation, and advocated holy living reflected in

love of God and one’s neighbor.3

Like John Wesley before him, William Booth’s theology could never be described as

systematic, nor static. There is evidence of growth and development in Booth’s

theological position throughout his life and ministry. What was particularly influential

for both Wesley and Booth was the emphasis they placed on the primacy of scripture

and religious experiences.

In War on Two Fronts: The Redemptive Theology of William Booth, Roger Green

identifies three stages evident in the transition of Booth’s theology and the development

of The Salvation Army’s theological position as a denomination.

[T]he early stage in the theology of Booth [was] formulated during the time

of his revivalistic work and his leadership of The Christian Mission up to

1878….[T]he change evident in the second stage in much of the theology of

2 Trevor Yaxley, Through Blood and Fire: The Life of General William Booth (Auckland: Castle

Publishing, 1999),13. 3 Eason, Boundless Salvation, 17.


32

William Booth [was] after the emergence of The Salvation Army in

1878….[T]he third stage in Booth’s theology and his most significant

change…began to formulate in 1889 as his understanding of redemption

moved beyond personal salvation alone to embrace more fully both personal

and social salvation.4

In the era described as the early stage of his developing theology, Booth’s original plan

for the East End of London was to preach salvation: to get the people saved and move

these recently saved converts into existing denominations. The doctrines Booth

established during this early period were intentionally minimal in expression; which also

provided an opportunity for Christians from across existing denominations to work with

Booth in this mission.

The statement of doctrine provided common ground on which members of

different sections of the Church could unite. The seven articles were

designed as a statement of evangelical truths to be held by those wishing to

preach the gospel of salvation, and nothing more.5

Booth’s desire to see recently saved converts move into existing denominations did not

eventuate. “First, they would not go [to church] when sent. Second, they were not

wanted. And third, we wanted some of them at least to help us in the business of saving

others. We were drawn to providing for the converts ourselves.”6 Accommodating the

growing number of converts meant additional doctrinal statements were required as

Booth’s denomination was formed. Consequently, “the original statement was revised

and extended to ten statements.”7

4 Roger J. Green, War on Two Fronts: The Redemptive Theology of William Booth (Atlanta: The

Salvation Army Supplies, 1989), 15. 5 Earl Robinson, "The History of Salvation Army Doctrine", Word & Deed: A Journal of Salvation Army

Theology and Ministry, Spring (2000): 33. 6 Robinson, "History," 33.

7 Robinson, "History," 33.


33

The intention of moving recent converts into areas of ministry as quickly as possible

became a regular pattern that continued long after the name change to The Salvation

Army and the creation of the denomination in its own right. No one was to be idle in

Booth’s Army.

Two issues are highlighted in this process: first there was the practical emphasis on “go

and do”. It was not uncommon for soldiers to be “field commissioned” to commence the

work in another area, having little if any training. Second, this lack of theological

training was perpetuated over subsequent decades, giving rise to the notion of a

theological knapsack. Edward McKinley articulates some of the problems which

occurred as a result:

[i]t is small wonder, then, that people already disposed to be critical of the

Army would regard its theological resources as thin. Pioneer officers

sometimes added credibility to the charges. Most early officers were recent

converts who knew little of theological matters. Men and women were

pressed into duty as officers with no preparation, commissioned on the spot

by enthusiastic divisional officers, and sent off to command a station.8

The enthusiasm which engendered passion and a sense of urgency among officers and

soldiers only heightened the need to go out and do, while perhaps minimising the need

to reflect theologically. This growing divide was perhaps inevitable as the cry for more

active soldiers to engage in the mission was seen as the greater focus.

Green identifies the shift to the second phase of the development of Booth’s theology,

which occurred in 1878, as the emphasis changed in order to create an emerging

denomination with its own doctrinal statements. The denomination was no longer only

8Edward H. McKinley, Marching to Glory: The History of the Salvation Army in the United States,

1880-1992 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1995), 43.


34

occupied with soul-saving endeavours, but also required evangelical doctrinal

statements to guide them. Here was a chance for Booth to emphasise the connection

between The Salvation Army and a Wesleyan-focussed doctrine, especially with the

inclusion of the tenth doctrine relating to sanctification.9 The emphasis on Wesleyan

thought was not a later addition in Booth’s thinking. Earl Robinson notes:

[They] were not new in the sense that they were being brought into the

movement’s teaching for the first time. They had been held and taught by

William Booth from the beginning. In fact, the eleven statements of belief

bear a striking similarity in words and content to the doctrines of the

Methodist New Connexion of which William Booth was an ordained

minister…It was the changed status and purposes of the mission that

required their inclusion into the statements of faith of 1878.10

Booth’s pragmatic approach to ministry called all Salvationists to engage in the Army’s

fight to relieve human suffering from the evils that existed in the world. “William Booth

called his Army to suffer for the expansion of Christ’s kingdom. This theme of suffering

is uniquely tied to the Salvation Army’s Wesleyan understanding of holiness.”11

Andrew

Miller III outlines the theology of Booth’s eschatological ecclesiology where he stresses

that Salvationists must suffer for the sake of the Gospel.

“Suffering to Christ” is a theme that encapsulates William Booth’s

ecclesiology in a unique and powerful way. Suffering was an intrinsic aspect

of the identity of Salvationists. William Booth saw this as a call of Christ,

and his incarnational Army saw the need of seeing Christ in those whom

they served. If one was merely called to suffer “for” Christ, then obligation

might overcast a call that is vital to the Salvationist’s identity. Instead

Salvationists suffered because they were Christians; they suffered because

they served others as if they were Christ himself.12

Suffering became prominent in the minds of Salvationists as it reminded them of their

identity in Christ, their desire to live a holy life, and their ongoing involvement in

9 See Appendix 2.

10 Robinson, "History," 36f.

11 Andrew Miller III, "Suffering for and to Christ in William Booth's Eschatological Ecclesiology",

Wesleyan Theological Journal, 43/1 Spring (2008), 107. 12

Miller, “Suffering”, 113.


35

mission. The belief that suffering was a natural expectation in this spiritual war was

inevitable among these pioneer officers and soldiers. This suffering was perhaps even

enthusiastically embraced by them. Ultimately, Salvationists were called into mission to

engage in suffering for the relief of others’ suffering. Stories of officers and soldiers

dying for the sake of the gospel became the hallmark of those who had given their lives

ultimately for the cause of Christ.13

Not only was the idea of suffering for the sake of Christ prominent among Salvationists

but suffering was a real and tangible experience of the people to whom they ministered.

Many people living in Victorian England could attest to the absolute poverty and

suffering they experienced daily. Their most basic physical needs only emphasised to a

greater extent their need to emerge out of their spiritual poverty and be exposed to the

message of salvation. This began the third stage in the development of Booth’s theology.

Prior to 1898 the Army continued the expansion of its mission into several other

countries, especially Europe; however, in 1890 three significant events marked a change

on The Salvation Army landscape. Among the most significant was William Booth’s - In

Darkest England and the Way Out,14

It was the culmination of the Darkest England

project that would solidify for Booth the importance of his social and redemptive

theology. Thus, the Darkest England project was the last piece of the theological puzzle

in establishing the theological framework of The Salvation Army’s evangelistic work

13

See Alan Bateman, They Gave Their Lives (London: Salvation Books, 2008). This book provides a

snapshot of officers who have given their lives ultimately in the course of their service. 14

William Booth, In Darkest England and the Way Out (London: McCorquodale & Co, 1890). While

there have been many who have argued that Darkest England was not entirely Booth’s own work, this

discussion will not be considered here. See Roger J. Green, "Theological Roots of in Darkest England

and the Way Out", Wesleyan Theological Journal, 25/1 (1990), 83-106.


36

and its mission to the marginalised.

Ultimately, it was more than an evangelistic necessity that drew Booth’s attention to the

East End of London (and beyond) but as part of that process there was a desire also to

see social reform. These dimensions together contributed to Booth’s strong belief that

The Salvation Army would be the denomination that would usher in the reign of Christ.

However, Booth has been criticised for his focus on social-redemptive theology.

Norman Murdoch has been a strong advocate for the view that Booth only commenced

his social ministry out of a response to the failure of his evangelistic ministry.15

But

Murdoch’s analysis ignores the significant (and growing) social ministries that were

operating in the decade before 1890.16

Moreover, it appears to view Booth as primarily a

social reformer after 1890 - whereas Booth never lost his eschatological focus on

personal salvation; and fails to recognise that Booth had always been committed to

social reform as an essential part of Wesleyan theology - as, for example, his contacts in

the 1850s with the “stockingers” of Nottingham.17

Nor does Murdoch appear to

recognise the significant growth in the Army during the period that Murdoch claims the

evangelistic ministry was failing; although Murdoch’s critique appears to focus on

London. Instead Murdoch (perhaps somewhat fancifully) imagines how Booth might

15

See Murdoch, Origins, 47 “Darkest England was a new departure for Booth and for the Army. As its

evangelistic program stagnates in the 1880s, social salvation replaced evangelism as the Army’s

mission.” See also Norman H Murdoch, "William Booth's in Darkest and the Way Out: A Reappraisal",

Wesleyan Theological Journal, 25 Spring (1990). 16

See Jenty Fairbank, Booth’s Boots: Social Service Beginnings in the Salvation Army (London: The

Salvation Army, 1983), 131. 17

Booth himself commented " the degradation and helpless misery of the poor stockingers of my native

town, wandering gaunt and hunger-stricken through the streets, droning out their melancholy ditties,

crowding the union or toiling like galley slaves on relief works for a bare subsistence, kindled in my

heart yearnings to help the poor which have continued to this day, and which have had a powerful

influence on my whole life."(Booth, Darkest England, , preface). See also Harold Begbie, The Life of

General William Booth (New York: MacMillan, 1920), 4; Ann M. Woodall, What Price the Poor?:

William Booth, Karl Marx and the London Residuum (Burlington: Ashgate Publishing, 2005).


37

have felt without offering any empirical proof of such feelings.18

While most historians have placed much of their emphasis on analysing William Booth’s

theology and the influences that shaped his ministry, there is a significant person who

has remained relatively unnoticed among scholars, until more recently. Not only was

Catherine Booth a significant influence on William but her powerful contribution to the

formation of The Salvation Army’s theological framework cannot be understated.

Catherine was a wise counselor who guided William Booth and his inner

circle of leaders in their decision making; she was an apologist for the

movement to society’s opinion formers and decision makers; but most of all

she was the visionary thinker, the principal architect of the Army’s theology,

the one through whom Salvationism was first formed, and the one who gave

it coherent and eloquent expression.19

Fortunately in more recent decades, Catherine’s influence and her work has been

acknowledged to a greater degree and has provided inspiration to Salvationists. While

Catherine Booth had died before In Darkest England, was published, her influence –

and those who influenced her (especially John Wesley, Charles Finney, and Phoebe

Palmer) – contributed enormously to this publication.

Catherine Booths’ impact on history was not a consequence of theological

innovation, but of her faithfulness to the tradition she received, accompanied

by a determination to carry through the emerging implications of that

theology fearlessly, and above all practically. Catherine was influenced by

Charles Finney, not in her core theology, but in its practical expression,

towards a Salvationism worked out in evangelism, revivalism, and social

reform. Catherine was influenced by John Wesley…towards a Salvationism

that proclaimed the grace-created potential in human beings, of being

restored in the image and likeness of their Creator, to live a holy life in the

power of the Holy Spirit.20

18

See, for example, Murdoch, Origins, 113. 19

John Read, Catherine Booth: Laying the Theological Foundations of a Radical Movement (Eugene:

Pickwick Publications, 2013), 2. 20

Read, Catherine Booth, 58f.


38

Her passion and theological astuteness, along with the influences that shaped both

Catherine and William Booth, provided the opportunity for them to create a

denomination and a mission to the poor and suffering.

While these influences indicate some of the development of the Booths’ theological

framework, it was the passion behind the structure that proved the motivation for the

Army’s mission. It was the extreme plight and suffering among the urban poor, their

chronic social and economic poverty and their spiritual impoverishment, that fuelled the

motivation and the passion in the Booths to respond. Booth’s social and spiritual

conscience could not allow people living in the East End of London to perish, either

physically or spiritually; therefore an holistic approach to mission was imperative.

The Christian Mission was created in the midst of the working-class

communities it aimed to transform. It fashioned an evangelical practice from

the geography and culture of the working-class communities it strived to

convert. It was a neighborhood religion.21

This highlights a very important aspect which remains deeply embedded within

Salvation Army sub-culture and its mission: to be transforming communities. The

mission of The Salvation Army has not changed over one hundred and fifty years of

ministry, as the Army’s focus remains on those within communities who are at risk or

are vulnerable to social injustices.

Having reflected upon the influences that shaped the founders of The Salvation Army in

its early days, it is important now to consider the development of the official doctrines

that were established as the Army became a denomination. These doctrinal statements

21

Pamela J. Walker, Pulling the Devil's Kingdom Down (Oakland: University of California Press, 2001),

42.


39

hinted at the influences that shaped the Booths’ theological framework but they also

helped to set the boundaries of belief for this new denomination. What originally started

as a very simple approach to describing the doctrines moved towards a more systematic

approach in defining these beliefs. Particularly pertinent for this research will be the

historical development of the doctrine of God within The Salvation Army.

The development of received theology evident from the Handbook of

Doctrine

In 1881 a precursory document to the Handbook of Doctrine entitled: “The Doctrines

and Discipline of The Salvation Army” was developed for the instruction of cadets in

the Training College.22

As this document was initially provided for those who were training to become

Salvation Army officers and not for wider distribution “there was some criticism that

cadets were being taught from a ‘secret book.’”23

This initial decision perhaps marked a

time when it was of greater benefit for officers to know the doctrines and then impart

this knowledge to others rather than making it accessible to all. Widespread availability

to Salvationists may have proved problematic as many were functionally illiterate and

less able to engage in theological discussion. Booth rectified the situation and made the

doctrines accessible to the wider Salvation Army audience when “a public edition was

put on sale in 1883.”24

22

Robinson, "History," 37. 23

Robinson, "History," 37. 24

Robinson, "History," 37.


40

This concise handbook was for many years reprinted by The Salvation Army. It was

basic in its approach with minimal explanation provided alongside the doctrinal

statements. These early editions of the handbook, especially the chapter that focuses on

the doctrine of God, were very basic question/answer responses reflecting a personal,

experiential approach to the existence of and belief in God.25

I believe that there is a God because I have felt Him at work in my own soul,

pardoning my sins, changing my heart, comforting me in sorrow, and

making me joyful in Him.26

Because the Bible, which I know to be a good and true book, declares that

there is a God, and describes His wonderful works among the children of

men.27

While the explanation of the doctrine of God began at the experiential level, the next

question/response is related to a brief theological statement of the sovereignty of God.

“How do you describe God? As an almighty, eternal, independent, and self-existent

Being, who sees and knows everything, and is perfectly wise, good, holy, just, and

true.”28

Unfortunately, this explanation was not expanded to provide greater clarity.

Moreover, what was implied more than explicitly stated was the theological terminology

of the omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent attributes of God.29

While the emphasis is

well and truly placed on an experiential approach, the problem of not articulating the

theological terms (with even a basic definition) perhaps highlights the lack of

25

The General, The Doctrines and Disciplines of the Salvation Army (London: Salvation Army

Supplies, 1881), 1. The question is posed at the commencement of the chapter: “You profess to believe

in God. Why do you believe so?” Included within the third and fourth responses are insights provided

from experience but which appear to be attributed in part to a biblical perspective. Curiously, no

Scriptural references are included. 26

General, Doctrines (1881), 2. 27



This was ultimately spelled out more clearly in the 1923 edition. However, for the earlier editions they

perhaps left technical terms out of the explanation to avoid confusion and uncertainty.


41

engagement of theological teaching that one would expect in a Training College

preparing officers for ministry.

While criticism could be levelled at the simplistic nature of this early handbook, it was

perhaps reflecting an intention to commence a person’s theological understanding from

a basic experiential platform. It is unlikely that there was a felt need within the Army

hierarchy to broaden Salvationists’ theological awareness.

A significant shift occurred in 1923 with the second edition of the handbook.30

The

format changed from a brief, simple conversational approach to an appropriately

regulated and more systematised one, reflecting the nature of a doctrinal handbook. The

chapter on the Doctrine of God had reduced its emphasis to include only Articles Two

and Three.31

This edition was a more polished version of previous publications as it retained the

reasons for the existence of God but without the question/response format.32

A notable

difference in this chapter from previous editions was the inclusion of a more defined

approach to the three sections contained within the chapter: “The Existence of God”;

“The Being and Attributes of God”; and “The Unity and Trinity of God”33

30

This was printed under the new title - The Salvation Army Handbook of Doctrine and the content had

substantially been rewritten. 31

In the new edition of the handbook Article 1, the doctrine of scripture, was moved to a separate

chapter. 32

For example: “Reasons for believing in the One Living God are to be found in: (1) Nature, (2) Man’s

inward feelings, (3) The Bible, (4) The experience of God’s people.” The General, Handbook of

Salvation Army Doctrine (London: Salvation Army Supplies, 1922), 23. 33

General, Handbook of Doctrine (1922), 23-33.


42

More advanced theological terminology was now being introduced into this edition. The

Salvation Army was no longer in its infancy and therefore reflected perhaps a maturing

approach to the theological explanation of its doctrines. What is important for this

discussion is the inclusion of the second section: “The Being and Attributes of God”.34

The doctrine of God’s sovereignty was extended in this edition to include the following

theological attributes: God’s divine immutability, the omnipotence, omnipresence and

omniscience of God.35

While these terms were introduced into the explanation of the

doctrine, there still remained an inadequately brief description of these theological

terms, so brief that it only conveyed what the theological words meant in lay terms with

a couple of scriptural references included. It appears that there was a desire to keep the

explanation of these terms accessible to all Salvationists by not delving deeply into the

subject.

This 1923 edition began the discussion of suffering. While it was acknowledged that

there was no simple explanation for suffering, two responses were provided: one

outlines the negative contributing factors responsible for suffering while the other

outlines the permissive nature of and positive outcome from such suffering.

“Sorrow and pain are usually the outcome of sin.”36

The negative contributing factors

relate to the effects of sin – either from the individual person who has experienced the

suffering or from someone who has sinned and caused others to suffer. God is not

34

General, Handbook of Doctrine (1922), 26-30. 35

General, Handbook of Doctrine (1922), 26-27. “Immutability – unchangeableness” (with a scripture

reference); “Omnipresence – He is present everywhere all the time” (with a scripture reference);

“Omniscience – He sees and knows everything, past, present, and future.” (with a scripture reference);

and “Omnipotence – He is all-powerful” (with a scripture reference). 36

General, Handbook of Doctrine, 29. (Italics original).


43

implicated as being responsible for this suffering. Secondly, “Sorrow and pain are

doubtless permitted for Man’s highest good – for spiritual discipline, instruction,

warning, training”.37

The conclusions that could be drawn from these two explanations

are that suffering is the result of sin; and that if a person experiences suffering it is for

their own good. This emphasises the opportunity for a person to learn and grow from

those experiences. God is also exonerated from culpability in suffering. Unfortunately

there is no acknowledgement of possible alternative factors responsible for suffering.

Limiting the explanation allowed for a narrowly defined theological viewpoint to

predominate in Salvationists’ understanding of the Army’s theology.38

The third major rewrite of The Salvation Army Handbook of Doctrine was completed in

1969 at the close of Frederick Coutts’ tenure as General; nearly a decade after the

Handbook had been commissioned to be updated. This edition included a greater

expansion of the section on the doctrine of God. Two notable changes included the

movement towards a greater explanation of the theological terms in the previous edition

and the increased use of Scriptural passages throughout. The discussion relating to the

existence of God had been omitted and it was replaced with a greater emphasis on the

attributes of God. The emphasis remains most notably on God’s sovereignty, linking

God’s omnipotence and omniscience with the transcendent nature of God.39

37

General, Handbook of Doctrine, 29. Samuel Logan Brengle had noted that suffering contributed to

union with Christ, as Rightmire perceptively notes. R. David Rightmire, "Samuel Brengle and the

Development of the Pneumatology of the Salvation Army", Wesleyan Theological Journal, 27/1 (1992),

114). ‘Italics original’. 38

This view appears to have remained the predominant position through a number of decades. 39

The General, Handbook of Doctrine (London: Salvation Army Supplies, 1969), 30-32.


44

An entirely different focus on suffering was mentioned in a minor section of this

chapter. It dealt with the paradox that despite God’s omnipotence and sovereignty, evil

exists. The section outlined the difficulties:

The presence of evil in its many and varied forms provokes two great

challenges to the declarations of this Article:

i) If God is the Creator of all, do evil things also owe their origin to

this ‘infinitely perfect’ Being?

ii) If He is Governor of all, and is credited with almighty power and a

declared purpose to reign in righteousness, do not existing

conditions deny such a claim?40

While these questions could provide some scope for open theological reflection, it is

disappointing again to see only a short comment on such a complex issue. While

acknowledgement was made that the Bible has much to say about suffering, evil and

God’s sovereignty, instead of pursuing a deeper explanation the discussion was deflected

by suggesting that suffering is the cause of the divine will and the human will at odds

with each other.41

A further shift occurred in 1998 when the Handbook of Doctrine had a name change to

Salvation Story and exhibited a more narrative treatment of the material. While

theological terminology was evident, the material was not overly academic. The

narrative approach softened the explanatory requirements but did not make it a

simplistic description like earlier editions. It was the first edition in which suffering was

not discussed purely in terms of free will being the sole cause of the problem. This

edition raised the possibility that other forces can also contribute to suffering. An

important inclusion within this explanation was the acknowledgement that “Scripture

40

General, Handbook of Doctrine (1969), 35. 41

“As a responsible moral being man possesses a free will which he can assert against the will of God,

whose government allows for disobedience and its consequences.” General, Handbook of Doctrine

(1969), 36.


45

offers no explanation of the problem of irrational evil but teaches that God is in

control.”42

While in previous editions the discussion appeared to provide just two

rational explanations for the cause of suffering, this doctrine book expressed a greater

sense of ambiguity concerning why and how suffering occurs. The description gave a

greater sense of perspective along with a more balanced view.

‘Why does he allow suffering?’ Much suffering appears cruel and pointless

and no attempts at rational explanation are satisfactory. Sometimes the only

real comfort comes from the assurance of the presence of a loving God who

in Jesus fully entered into our present suffering.43

While the remaining discussion related to the ultimate suffering of Christ on the cross

the final comments in this section accepted that suffering “does not remove the

bitterness of experience but addresses the apparent meaninglessness which makes

suffering more acute.”44

An exciting development occurred with the release of Salvation Story – Study Guide. It

was the first extended explanation of the doctrines. For doctrine two, and especially the

discussion of suffering, the explanation was divided into two main areas: scripture (both

Old and New Testament understandings of suffering); and a more systematic approach

in the second half. These extended explanations (especially in the systematic approach)

provided insights from world events such as the Holocaust (and other wars the world has

faced); and writings from Moltmann, Kazoh Kitamori and C. S. Lewis were also

considered.45

It is surprising that no reference was made to any contemporary Wesleyan

42

The General, Salvation Story: Salvationist Handbook of Doctrine (London: Salvation Army

International Headquarters, 1998), 28. 43

General, Salvation Story, 33. 44

General, Salvation Story, 34. 45

The General, Salvation Story - Study Guide (London: Salvation Army Supplies, 1999), 25-29.


46

teaching in this expanded explanation which would have provided Salvationists with an

opportunity to learn more from their own theological tradition.

The current Salvation Army Handbook of Doctrine (2010) maintains the narrative format

of Salvation Story; however much of the material from the study guide has been

included in the main text. This marks a partial return to the format of the previous

editions. The description of “The character of God” was re-introduced into this edition,

and also included were the discussion points from Salvation Story: “Perfect in

holiness…Perfect in wisdom…Perfect in power…Perfect in Love.”46

This edition of

the handbook repeated the same information relating to suffering as given in Salvation

Story.

It has taken many editions of the Handbook of Doctrine to move beyond the very basic

understanding of who God is and how suffering is viewed. The opportunity still exists

within The Salvation Army for its International Theological Council to continue the

work of developing and addressing the theological requirements of a diverse worldwide

denomination.

While the Handbook of Doctrine has been the official publication of Salvation Army

doctrine, there have been people within the denomination who have published their own

books as they have studied and interpreted these doctrines.47

In one of the most recent

46


Books such as: Harry Dean, The Faith We Declare (London: Salvationist Publishing and Supplies Ltd,

1960); John Coutts, This We Believe (London: Campfield Press, 1980); Shaw Clifton, Who Are These

Salvationists? An Analysis for the 21st Century (Alexandra: Crest Books, 1999); John R. Rhemick, A

New People of God: A Study in Salvationism (Des Plaines: The Salvation Army, 1984).


47

published works evaluating The Salvation Army doctrines, Ray Harris provides insights

into the sovereignty of God in suffering as he reflects on doctrine two:

In the person of Jesus Christ we understand God to be one who has

embraced suffering in all its dimensions. There are times when a Christian

can only weep at the depth of suffering encountered. But a Christian weeps

in hope. We trust that God’s sovereign grace will one day resolve the

dissonances of history into his harmonic peace and justice. We worship the

one God who works his purposes in a wounded world, bears the marks of

that wounded world and invites us to engage that world with our own

wounds.48

Harris’ explanation invites Salvationists to consider the sovereignty of God in the face of

terrible suffering and highlights the reality of God’s own suffering and woundedness in

the process. This critical engagement by Salvationists is similar to but also different

from the “suffering for Christ’s sake” ideology which was emphasised in the early days

of the Army. The earlier concept seemed to invite Salvationists to wear suffering as a

badge of honour, whereas Harris adjusts the concept for Salvationists to express their

vulnerability in suffering as they minister to others. This brings an authentic expression

of their faith to the conversation.

The discussion so far has produced an understanding of the historical dimensions of the

received theology of The Salvation Army. However, that is only part of the picture

which needs to be explored. The other part relates to expressed theology. This can be

shown to some degree in how officers have expressed their thoughts through the decades

within The Officer Magazine. The final section of this chapter will reflect upon articles

from this magazine expressing officers’ thoughts on suffering and God’s sovereignty.

48

Ray Harris, Convictions Matter: The Function of Salvation Army Doctrines (Toronto: The Salvation

Army, Canada and Bermuda Territory, 2014), 26.


48

Expressions of theology from The Officer magazine

In 1893 the first edition of The Officer magazine was published, inviting Salvation Army

officers from across the world to contribute articles on a range of topics pertinent to their

ministry experiences. An examination has been conducted from the first edition of The

Officer magazine to the present to find articles which have been written on the issues of

suffering and God’s sovereignty. This helped to provide insight into how officers

understood suffering from their experiences. Despite the significant volume of articles

published over such a span of time, there has been comparatively little written on the

topic. Of those articles that have been written, most have emphasised an experiential

perspective, although in more recent decades some reflect a more theological

approach.49

In the earliest editions of The Officer magazine, suffering was perceived as instructive –

highlighting the distinction between God’s power and human weakness. Suffering was

seen as a mechanism through which Salvationists would learn from those experiences. A

variation to this understanding of suffering came in the early 1900s when Bramwell

Booth described the beneficial and instructive nature of suffering: “God means it for

good.”50

In the decade commencing 1910 a number of articles were written, especially from

1914-1919, however, there was nothing significant which could contribute to the

existing discussion. During the following decade of the 1920s, several contributions in

The Officer magazine reflected on suffering in a variety of ways. They included such

49

A full listing of articles is in Appendix 4, 186-199. 50

See Appendix 4 - The 1900s, 186. (italics original).


49

concepts as: suffering deepens spirituality resulting in empathy for others; the life of

holiness prepares us for suffering; suffering provides the opportunity for testing and

strengthening; and the relationship between assurance/doubt and suffering.51

These

reflections on suffering were perhaps reminiscent of the early years of the Army when

suffering was viewed more positively and was worn as a badge of attainment.

In the decade of the 1930s there was nothing significant which could contribute to the

existing discussion on suffering. This may seem surprising, since the Great Depression

cast a long shadow over most of the decade and the commencement of World War II in

1939 brought more suffering. Perhaps the lack of articles was indicative of the fact that

officers may not have been so comfortable in reflecting on a time of great suffering

when they were living through it.

In the decade of the 1940s a small number of articles appeared. In 1948 an officer wrote

an article perceiving God to be silent in suffering: “The silent God is still an all-seeing

God. The tests which He allows to come our way can be the means of tempering our

resolution and strengthening our will to endure.”52

Endurance despite suffering remains

the important focus here. The theme of instructive suffering also continued from

previous decades.

The 1950s saw a number of articles written on suffering. Madeleine Roche reached the

conclusion that God was responsible for her suffering, and again the theme returned of

51

See Appendix 4 - The 1920s, 187-189. 52

See Appendix 4 – The 1940s, 189.


50

humanity’s weakness.53

In that same decade Walter Merry reflected on the possible

reason why he was suffering and concluded that “[p]erhaps the Lord wants me to slow

down and hear His voice”.54

Both implied that God was the instigator of their suffering

so that in times of need a greater awareness of God’s sovereignty could be

acknowledged.

In the 1960s several articles were written about suffering from an experiential

perspective. Some, however, reflected increasing theological sophistication. Of

significant interest was a three-part article at the end of the decade by Bramwell Cook,

who emphasised the importance of healing in suffering from a medico-theological

perspective. In the first article suffering was seen as a natural part of human existence

but “Christ comes with the promise of healing”55

In the second article Cook considered

suffering that occurs in natural disasters and diseases. While inexplicable suffering

occurs, Cook indicated that “Disease may be due to wilful folly”56

in some

circumstances. The final article strongly emphasized the importance of prayer and

whether “is it possible to speak of the ‘meaning’ of suffering?” 57

Cook’s significant

conclusion throughout the articles was that “[Humanity’s] imperfection of ignorance,

folly and sin constitutes the arena in which suffering occurs, but God’s wish and struggle

is always redemption, healing, salvation”.58

Cook’s emphasis upon healing in suffering

is a theme that will be further considered in chapter four.

53

See Appendix 4 – The 1950s, 189-190. 54

See Appendix 4 – The 1950s , 189-190. 55




See Appendix 4 – The 1960s, 190-191.


51

The decade of the 1970s saw the focus remain primarily on the experiential nature of

suffering. Some articles emphasised biblical and theological perspectives, especially the

work of Harry Dean. He provided analysis of both Testaments, showing how Jesus

challenged the thoughts of the day (for example, John 9). Even so, at the conclusion of

this article, Dean saw suffering as a badge of honour: “The ability to suffer is the mark

of distinction.”59

His other article helpfully provided a reflection on how God’s

providence is perceived, and cautioned Salvationists to “be on our guard lest we

trivialize the idea of providence. To see providence in simply protective terms is to do

just this.”60

A theme which emerged in the decade of the 1980s was the concept of God’s will. Geoff

Anderton concluded that “we must be prepared to accept whatever happens as the

Lord’s will”.61

Interestingly, in 1989 Flora Larsson reflected on why she was personally

suffering. She could not entertain the thought that what she was experiencing was God’s

will. Larsson reached the conclusion: “Life’s wounds heal in time, but the scars remain

and sometimes ache.”62

These two examples show the differing views among officers at

that time. Anderton’s response articulated a deterministic view of God’s role in

suffering, whereas Larsson’s response reached the opposite conclusion.

The decade of the 1990s saw an increase in the number of officers who wrote about

suffering. The themes which emerged included: a simple understanding of suffering – if

we pray things will be made right; the source of suffering comes from God or Satan;

59






52

God is a source of comfort during suffering. Other themes also emerged: the need not to

question God; the problem of simplistic responses such as lack of faith; assurance of

God’s presence in suffering; suffering from God as a test; and suffering as

transformative.63

Two responses to suffering need to be highlighted from this decade. Karin Andersson

Tourn raises the why question and tempers it with some sound advice: “Don’t imprison

yourself in the question ‘Why?’ without at the same time finding security in God in the

midst of your illness and suffering.”64

Often the why question can be all-consuming, but

Tourn gives permission for others to find rest in God’s presence despite the suffering

that is occurring.

The second response indicates that suffering comes from God as a test and that this is

something to be accepted with a sense of joy. Howard Webber concludes: “One of the

greatest evidences of God’s love to those who love him is to send them afflictions, with

grace to bear them. Even in the greatest afflictions we ought to testify to God that, in

receiving them from his hand, we feel pleasure in the midst of pain”.65

The decade of the 2000s saw an interesting shift in the approach to suffering. The

officers seemed more vulnerable in describing their experiences as they wrestled with

the question of where God was in their suffering. Several themes emerged in this

decade. Some officers believed their faith was redefined through suffering, while others

believed there to be randomness in suffering. Some officers perceived that God

63





53

remained silent in suffering, while others questioned God in their suffering or believed

that greater trust was required through times of suffering. One final theme emerged from

among officers - that suffering was viewed as costly discipleship.66

This last response merits special consideration here as Donald Schultz reflects upon his

diagnosis of Parkinson’s disease. Here Shultz admits “that sometimes I still get so very

discouraged that (dare I admit it?) I rail against God. Sometimes I actually shout at God.

But…I’ll trust him to look after my future.”67

Here we see that blame or protest against

suffering – especially toward God – can occur. While Schultz’s remarks come with

honesty in wanting to blame God for his predicament, he still trusts God for what is yet

to come.

In this current decade several officers have continued to wrestle with the role of God in

suffering. These have included a consideration of such concepts as: God’s omnipotence;

the difference between evil and suffering; God’s silence in suffering not being seen as

God’s abandonment; and living in hope.68

One important observation of God’s

omnipotence, written by Kathleen Pearce, is worthy of note:

perhaps we need to be thinking about omnipotence someway other

than ‘God can do anything’. Is it that ‘God can do anything that God

wants to do’? Or is it that ‘just because God can, doesn’t mean God

has to’? Maybe God is making choices about what, when and how to

use the all-mighty power.69

In these last few decades there has been evidence of officers wrestling more deeply with

these issues of suffering: what God’s role is within it, and how God’s omnipotence is to

66



See Appendix 4 – Current decade, 197-199. 69

See Appendix 4 – Current decade, 197-199.


54

be viewed. It is important that officers and soldiers continue to actively engage and

explore how these concepts might shape their faith.

This chapter has considered the theological influences that have shaped the received

theology of The Salvation Army from its beginnings and the development of Doctrine

Two in the ensuing decades. The chapter has also provided insights into the expressed

theology of officers and how suffering has been viewed as evidenced in articles

published in The Officer magazine. It is clear that there is a gap that needs to be bridged

between the received theology of The Salvation Army on the one hand and the

expressed theology of Salvationists on the other. To explore how big that gap may have

become in the Australia Southern Territory can to a great extent be measured by the

results of the survey described in chapter 3.

Exploring the theological knapsack

55

CHAPTER 3

EXPLORING THE THEOLOGICAL KNAPSACK:

Survey of Melbourne Salvationists

An anonymous survey was conducted in July and August 2013 among Salvation Army

officers and soldiers (18 years and over) within the Melbourne metropolitan area. While

the Australia Southern Territory incorporates a large geographical area the reason

Melbourne was chosen as the target audience for the research was twofold: it contained

the data to one specific city, keeping the focus of the survey narrowly defined; and

because Melbourne represents a significant proportion of soldiers and officers within

the Territory.

As suffering is a fairly emotive subject, it was felt that the data collection could be

jeopardised by group activities. This was especially important since a participant may

feel vulnerable answering questions that might prove painful for them. It would also

have been inappropriate to have a workshop or focus groups where people may have

considered their responses together. Each participant needed an opportunity to express

personal opinions without being persuaded by other peoples’ responses. An online

survey was chosen so that participants could feel more comfortable answering questions

privately. This may have limited the participation of some soldiers and officers


56

especially those in the older age bracket if they did not have access to a computer, but

this was considered the most effective way the data could be collected across

Melbourne within the timeframe.

The aim of the survey was to discover participants’ understanding of suffering; where

they believe God is within that suffering; and how they view the role of an all-powerful,

sovereign God in the face of evil. This not only provides statistical data concerning the

extent to which Salvationists understand the received theology of their denomination,

but also reveals how much of their understanding of suffering has been shaped by other

factors, including their own personal experiences.

This chapter will explore the “theological knapsack” by outlining the results of the

survey and provide a snapshot of the views expressed. At times it appeared that some of

the results highlighted a minimally articulated theology among participants, stressing

the need for further expansion of the received theology of The Salvation Army.

At the commencement of the survey, participants were invited to answer two key

questions to assist in analysing the remaining data. The first question placed participants

in one of two categories: 1) a Salvation Army officer or 2) an adult soldier. This would

prove a useful distinction between the two groups, since commissioned and ordained

officers have gone through a process of theological training. It could be expected,

therefore, that an officer would have a greater awareness of The Salvation Army’s

theological position and the skills to reflect theologically. Additionally, officers would


57

be more likely to continue with theological study after their initial training had

concluded, giving them perhaps a greater depth of theological insight.

Only adult soldiers (as opposed to adherent members) were invited to participate in the

survey because soldiers complete at least a 4-6 week course of preparatory classes

(which includes some basic theology) in order to be enrolled.1 Adherent members were

not invited to participate as they are not required to fulfil the same prerequisite. Prior to

the survey results being collected and analysed, I believed that there would be a

statistical difference between the responses made by officers, compared to soldiers;

however, the results did not bear this out.

Each participant was categorised according to their age bracket in terms of broad

generational groupings: born before 1947 (“pre boomers”); born between 1947 and

1964 (“boomers”); born between 1965 and 1982 (“Generation X”); and born between

1982 and 1994 (“Generation Y”).2 By assessing the results within this generational

framework there would be provision to determine whether patterns emerged from one

generation to another. While these two questions formed the basis of categorisation, the

ranges in age also allowed for greater anonymity.

1Salvationists in this sense are soldiers rather than adherents. See Glossary, viii.

2 The generational groupings used are somewhat arbitrary and open to speculation concerning the start

and end dates – especially the so-called “Generation X”. A common dating for the commencement of

the Baby-Boomer generation is 1947. Here, the dating for Generation X (1965-1982) is based on the

dates used by the Population Reference Bureau (a Washington-based demographic research

organization). Generation Y (often referred to as Millennials) continues beyond 1994, but this end date

was chosen to ensure that the youngest participants were at least 18 years old. This research will not

consider other aspects of generational theory (such as the possible cyclical pattern of generations

suggested by Strauss and Howe. See especially, Neil Howe, and William Strauss, Generations: The

History of America's Future, 1584 to 2069 (New York: William Morrow and Co, 1991).


58

The survey contained twenty-seven questions which ranged from specific Salvation

Army doctrinal questions through to secular song lyrics. Once the two key questions

were asked, the remaining questions usually provided a multiple choice option: strongly

agree; agree; neutral; disagree; strongly disagree; I don’t know; and none of the above.

A small number of other questions were designed to elicit a narrative response.

By the end of August 2013, 176 participants had completed the survey. Out of a

possible 200 officers living in Melbourne, 63 had completed the survey. This is

approximately 40% of the officer strength in Melbourne.3 The remaining 113

participants were adult soldiers. There are approximately 2,000 soldiers and officers

across Melbourne and therefore between 5-10% of the available cohort completed the

survey.4 While the actual number of participants may seem low, the percentage response

rate of the available cohort was actually comparatively high. Accordingly, there would

appear to have been sufficient statistical data to discern certain patterns in how soldiers

and officers view suffering.5

What became immediately apparent was that more soldiers completed the survey than

officers and they predominantly came from within the Baby Boomers, Generation X

and Generation Y age brackets. The greatest level of participation across the survey

3 Based on The Salvation Army, Disposition of Forces (Melbourne: Salvation Army Australia Southern

Territory, 2013). 4 This cohort represents 27% of the 7,404 Salvationists (including officers) across the territory. See The

General, The Salvation Army Year Book 2014 (London: Salvation Army, 2013) – which records

statistics for the year 2013. The number of Salvationists excluding officers and cadets (officers-in-

training) is 6477, making the Melbourne-based cohort to be 30% of all Salvationists across Australia

Southern Territory. 5 For the purposes of this study, the statistical analysis will involve the presentation of the data collated

from the survey. These tables have been cross-referenced to the officer/soldier criterion, and also to the

generational groupings. The survey instrument itself provided these tables descriptively without the

need for other statistical analysis.


59

from both the officer and soldier categories came from Generation X with a combined

total of 63 participants. They were followed by Baby Boomers with 59 participants and

Generation Y with 26 participants.

Officer-participants born in the Generation Y age bracket may seem a small sample

with only nine people, however, this reflects the normal practice that most newly

ordained and commissioned Salvation Army officers do not usually remain in the

Melbourne metropolitan area.6 Consequently, nine officer-participants is a reasonably

high response from this age bracket. It could be argued that restricting the study to

Melbourne does not provide for a truly representative sample of Generation Y officers.

While that may be so, the determination had already been made that the survey needed

to be concentrated in the Melbourne metropolitan area. Additionally there would not be

any Generation Y officer participant born in the lower end of that generational age

group – especially not born in 1994.

Research was conducted based on the 2013 Disposition of Forces for the Australia

Southern Territory.7 Manual examination of all Melbourne-based appointments, and

noting the individuals who fall within that age bracket, gave a “raw score” of officers

within each generational band who may have responded to the survey. Since the survey

indicates the actual number of participants within the age bracket, it is possible to

6 As The Salvation Army Australia Southern Territory incorporates every state and territory in the

country (excluding New South Wales and Queensland), officers can be appointed anywhere in the

territory once they are commissioned. These younger officers (if married) usually either do not have

children or they have younger children and do not necessarily need to stay in Melbourne for personal

reasons such as schooling; and so they are mostly sent out of the state. 7 Salvation Army, Disposition of Forces, 1-239.


60

calculate the percentage participation rate of each age group of officers in Melbourne-

based appointments.

The results also include participants in the Pre-Boomers age bracket who have retired

either from secular employment (as soldiers) or who are retired officers. The number of

participants might be lower in this category given the number of people less likely to

access an online survey.

When analysing each of the twenty-seven questions, a fluctuating non-sequential

pattern emerged of the number of participants answering any given question. This

therefore tends to confirm the hypothesis that while some questions were skipped by

some participants most people returned to answer subsequent questions. Even so, by the

end of the survey some participants appear to have chosen not to finish.8

Most of the questions that were answered by a smaller number of participants tended to

be those that required a written response. While there is a variation in the number of

participants who responded to each question, it was considered important to include all

data captured from the survey results, thereby validating all responses provided.

The analysis of the data will not proceed in the order the questions were originally

asked.9 Instead, the results have been grouped together under several thematic headings.

The first major theme explores the influences and factors that shape participants’

theology. This will also involve discussion of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral and how it

may provide a framework for theological reflection.

8 See appendix 5, 203.

9For a comprehensive list of results in each of the figures see pages 197--263.


61

The second theme focuses on the awareness of God’s sovereignty in the midst of

suffering. The correlation between God’s sovereign control and how it is perceived, and

the way God’s transcendence and immanence are understood, needs to be examined.

For instance when natural disasters occur how does God’s control over the world – or

God’s relative “silence”– connect with participants’ perception of God?

Another theme explores how the nature and understanding of suffering affects and

connects with participants’ views of life and faith. The final theme then focusses on the

understanding of doubt in suffering. Doubt could either be seen as a stumbling block or

a chance for personal growth in faith: as a movement nearer or further away from God.

The results will show that sometimes the questions have produced contradictory

responses from the participants, especially those concerning the sovereignty of God.

These themes establish a strong base from which soldiers and officers can assess,

explore, and discover how their expressed theology connects with the received theology

of The Salvation Army.

Theme: Influences that shape theology

It would be naïve to assume that the influences that help to shape the theology of

individual participants would always be closely aligned with the received theology of

The Salvation Army. This assumption would fail to take into consideration other

contributing factors – such as personal experience – which may have a greater degree of

influence on someone’s developing faith. The survey results provide an indicative


62

understanding of how Salvationists prioritise the influences of the Wesleyan

Quadrilateral of scripture, experience, reason and tradition. Sometimes those

influencing factors included both negative and positive experiences.10

Overall, the

sources were ranked in order of priority as follows: scripture, experience, reason, and

tradition. The clearest rankings were for scripture first and tradition fourth.11

Analysing the same data from the generational age brackets revealed a relatively even

spread of results. Interestingly, the highest percentage of those ranking scripture first

was among Generation X participants (60%). They were also the most likely to rank

tradition fourth in importance (61%).12

It is not surprising that scripture was ranked the most influential of the four sources.

Upon further reflection, it perhaps would have been useful to pose a question as to how

regularly participants engaged in reading scripture. From the existing data it was not

easy to determine whether participants chose scripture because they assumed that was

the “correct” answer, or whether scripture is in fact the most important influence

shaping Salvationists’ faith development. This extra question may have either

confirmed the original question or indicated a contradictory result based on participants’

actual practice.

10

See Figure 3, 198. 11


See Figure 4, 199.


63

More than three quarters of all officers ranked scripture in either first or second place. A

similar comparison occurred with the results for “experience” which showed that

officers (63.9%) and soldiers (56.5%) chose experience as the first or second major

influence.

For those who ranked experience first – that is, as the most influential source in shaping

their faith an interesting but perhaps unsurprising picture emerges across the

generational age brackets. The results showed that experience is a very important

influence on the lives of those represented in the younger generational age bracket with

Generation Y ranking the highest (40.6%). It is also perhaps not surprising that the

second highest result (ranking experience first) came from Generation X (25%), while

the two remaining generations were lower: Boomers (20%) and Pre-Boomers (11%).

While most of the generations rank experience as the second major influence, the spike

in the results is quite considerable for Generation Y.

A smaller number of participants chose reason as the most influential source and these

results varied across the generational age brackets: Pre Boomers (27.8%) and Boomers

(13.6%) had the highest number of respondents, compared to Generation X (8.3%) and

Generation Y (6.3%). As reason was mostly ranked third, the greatest level of responses

emerged from the Boomers (42.4%) and the Generation X groups (45%). For those

within the Pre-Boomer generation who chose reason as one of the most important

influences, it is perhaps indicative of the strong influence of modernity upon this group.

By contrast, Generation Y ranked reason third or fourth, perhaps indicating the

influence of post-modernity’s suspicion of rationalism.


64

The most unusual statistic which emerged ranked tradition in fourth place, showing a

relatively even spread of results across the generations: Pre-Boomers (55.6%), Boomers

(57.6%), Generation X (61.7%) and Generation Y (50%). The reason perhaps for this

anomaly may rest with the ambiguity of the word. There appears to have been

uncertainty among participants concerning how tradition should be defined. This could

indicate a weakness in how the question was originally phrased which may have

contributed to the lower ranking. If tradition had been clearly defined as theological

tradition (the creeds, doctrines or even Wesleyan teaching) the results may have

changed the order of ranking for these influences. Some participants may have chosen

tradition above experience but this can now only be a speculation.

The uncertainty surrounding the definition of tradition may have also affected the next

question as participants were required to provide their first written response to the

question: How has your tradition shaped your faith?13

For the first time in the survey a

substantial drop occurred, with fifty participants choosing not to answer the question.

From among the responses, three generalised categories emerged: positive, negative,

and neutral. The neutral category relates to what appeared to be emotionally detached

responses from participants.

Positive responses

The highest number of responses saw tradition as a positive influence on their faith.14

However there were subtle differences among these positive responses, especially as it

related to how respondents interpreted the word tradition. Therefore these responses

13

See Figure 5, 200-206. 14

Given the number of positive responses received, only a selection of them will be noted here.


65

will be divided into two sub-sections looking at a) tradition viewed as belief and b)

tradition as elements that aid belief.

Tradition viewed as belief

Several responses indicated that tradition is viewed as the theological underpinnings of

the denomination.15

One response from a Generation X participant identified that

tradition has played an important part in their faith: “Helped me understand where TSA

theology sits amongst the tradition of the church. TSA theology has helped me

understand specific ideas such as Holiness and Salvation for the whosoever.”16

A Pre-

Boomer participant also recognised the importance of scripture within the tradition:

“Brought up in The Salvation Army with its emphasis on the scriptures as the divine

rule of Christian faith and practice (Doctrine 1).”17

The majority of responses strongly emphasised that tradition has not only shaped their

theological framework but they have also drawn the connection between the necessity

for that theological framework and the missional focus of the denomination. One

Generation X participant believed “It has kept our bias for the poor and disenfranchised

at the forefront of my mission.”18

A slight shift in responses occurred when some participants reflected on their

upbringing within The Salvation Army and their family heritage within the

denomination. For example, one Boomer participant responded: “Tradition to me is

15

Remarks from participants will be stated here as they have typed them. They remain uncorrected. 16

Participant 113. 17

Participant 60. 18

Participant 72.


66

about attending church because that is what your parents and grandparents did. It is

from this exposure that one grows in and realises their own faith.”19

One Generation Y

participant reflected: “It has shaped my faith a lot. I have grown up in the Salvation

Army and learned a lot about God through teaching from the army and salvationist

parents and grandparents. The traditions of the army has [sic] shaped my faith to be a

faith with action.”20

It is also encouraging to see that some Salvationists have engaged in theological study.

As a result they have gained the necessary action/reflection tools which are pertinent to

a person’s faith and ministry praxis within The Salvation Army.21

A Generation X

participant defined their understanding of tradition in the following manner: “My

tradition has given a context for my own theological formation. As I have done study in

theology, I have found myself embracing the ideas of my tradition while forms [sic] the

tools to question its practice.”22

One Generation Y participant highlighted that theology is not based on feeling or an

emotional response but based more importantly on scripture: “It has given me a

foundation from which I’ve been able to explore the idea of God and my experiences of

Him. It has kept me from accepting theology based on how good it makes me feel, and

instead to keep my faith based in scripture.”23

19

Participant 69. 20

Participant 25. 21

An action/reflection model will be discussed in chapter 5. 22

Participant 116. 23

Participant 56.


67

Tradition viewed as elements that aid belief

The next set of responses could be defined as “traditions that aid belief”. Some

respondents interpret ‘tradition’ in this way, identifying the unique, Salvation Army

distinctive markers which have proven useful in shaping Salvationists’ faith. For

example one Generation X participant made the following observation from within their

own life.

The uniqueness of The Salvation Army has kept me interested. The

songsters’ messages, hymns, and musicals have especially touched my life

and the words are often in my mind strengthening my faith. The idea of

fighting for God, and the intentions of the founder are inspiring….The

boldness of standing up against sin in a loving way is special within The

Salvation Army. I…pray that these things are not lost, and we do not become

unrecognisable, I pray that we will be confident that we have a good thing

going, and that our traditions be pleasing to God.24

Other respondents, however, indicated that tradition(s) associated with The Salvation

Army have proven positive for them but as they have grown older, their views have

changed. For example one Generation X participant made the observation that “My

TSA tradition shaped my early beliefs and established a strong faith in God but has little

impact on what I believe as a middle aged adult.”25

While this participant did not

provide any further detail to clarify why tradition is not significant for them as they are

older, this does demonstrate that tradition can sometimes be viewed as not quite so

positive.

Negative responses

There are a number of examples given by participants where tradition either does not

connect for them as it once did or it restricts them in their faith. For example one Pre-

24

Participant 117. 25

Participant 59.


68

Boomer believed tradition was “Significant in earlier years, not so much now”.26

One

Boomer participant viewed tradition as “somewhat systematically, and narrowly.”27

The perspective of one Generation X participant was that tradition had been, “more

hindrance than help.”28

One Generation Y participant also believed that tradition had

“hindered [my faith] a great deal of the time”.29

It would be interesting to determine

whether these critiques relate to how The Salvation Army has imparted its received

theology and encouraged (or perhaps stifled) theological debate in the open arena, or

whether the participants are referring to some of the Army “traditions that aid belief.”

One Generation Y Salvationist made an interesting observation “I believe in the

Doctrines and What the Army used to stand for.”30

On superficial reading of this

response, it could perhaps be assumed that it was written by an older Salvationist

grieving over an era that has now been lost but the fact that this response came from a

Generation Y participant shows that was not the case. This participant’s desire was for

The Salvation Army to return to what the participant believed it was first created to be.

Tradition was also viewed negatively as a set of rules that potentially places restriction

on a person. A Boomer participant indicated: “I tend to go against tradition. I want to

understand and apply scripture rather than follow man-made rules.”31

It is difficult to

assess what rules this participant was referring to here. While some assumptions could

26

Participant 21. 27

Participant 5. 28

Participant 115. 29

Participant 53. 30

Participant 85. 31

Participant 15.


69

be made it would be inappropriate to speculate when no further information was

provided.

Neutral responses

Some participants’ responses have not readily fallen into either a positive or negative

answer. There were many respondents whose answers appeared to be emotionally

disconnected: while tradition was very important to them growing up, when each of

them became an adult those earlier ideas changed. While a Salvationist’s individual

assessment may point towards gratitude for the faith that was evidenced at a younger

age there is perhaps a greater awareness by them that this has not sustained them as they

have matured. Or they have discovered a very different, deeper connection with God

that works for them.32

It was difficult to assess and interpret some participants’ answers as they appeared to be

more statements of fact rather than reflections on a personal connection with the

tradition. This was evidenced especially in comments of family involvement or

association.33

It is therefore difficult to determine whether these responses were

negative or positive, or whether the respondents were simply making statements about

the reality of their childhood.

An interesting point for discussion arises from a Boomer participant who believed

“Tradition requires logical reason to understand whether it is applicable to

32

Participants 21, 107, 23, 58, 89. 33

Participants 120, 57, 105.


70

contemporary circumstances.”34

Whichever way this person may define ‘tradition’ there

is a need to consider how the beliefs – or aids that inform the beliefs – of The Salvation

Army are considered for a contemporary context. There is a need for each Salvationist

to know and live out what they believe but it is also important to consider what forms of

the tradition are still relevant today.

Theme: Sovereignty of God

The next group of questions arising out of the survey considers the theme of the

sovereignty of God. At times some of these questions may not appear to connect

directly with this theme, while other questions seem to have prompted contradictory

responses. What these results suggest is that the theme of God’s sovereignty becomes

more complex as the various questions are raised. Some earlier questions may have

been answered by participants with a full conviction that God is in close control over

every situation but there are other questions which may have caused these same

participants to feel uncomfortable taking that same argument to its logical conclusion.

These questions perhaps challenged the participants’ preconceived ideas of God’s

control over the world in often tragic circumstances.

The first question: “Does God closely control events in the world?” prompted a very

high percentage of people to choose a strongly agree or agree option.35

If the “strongly

agree” and “agree” results are combined, a large percentage of participants (officers

34

Participant 41. 35

See Figure 6, 207.


71

45.9% and soldiers 53.7%) have a strong leaning towards a fairly deterministic

understanding of God’s control in the world. If these same results are shown from the

generational age brackets the results are evenly spread: Pre Boomers (55.5%), Boomers

(47.4%), Generation X (51.7%) and Generation Y (53.1%)36

. It is important to

emphasise here that just below half of all the participants responded with strongly agree

or agree. These statistics could be interpreted to mean that if God closely controls the

world then, taken to its logical conclusion, a large proportion of participants believe

God is the source of natural disasters, suffering and all the evil that exists in the world.

This has significant implications as the remaining questions in this theme are analysed.

By contrast a level of uncertainty also existed in some other participants’ minds over

this question. There was a reasonably large number of participants from the Boomers

and Generation X age brackets who chose the Neutral response. It should also be noted

however, that there was a reasonable proportion of participants who Disagreed (22.5%)

with the thought that God closely controls events in the world. Most of these

participants were from the Boomer and Generation X age brackets.

Question 4 may have seemed an unusual one to include within the survey but the

responses could indicate belief in a deterministic God: Have you ever prayed for God to

supply you with a parking space, or other similar need?37

The very high “yes” response

rate (75.1%) across officers and soldiers could indicate two different possibilities. For

some participants they may have chosen a “yes” response, believing that if God controls

everything in this world then God controls the smallest details. Alternatively,

participants may have chosen “yes” purely because they believed God is so interested in

36


See Figures 8 and 9, 208.


72

them that whatever they pray for, their prayer may be answered. It is difficult to state

categorically which reason is more accurate. Some participants may have based their

response on the belief that God may have divinely controlled obtaining a parking space

for them. If faced with the dilemma that God does not relieve poverty and starvation yet

does provide parking spaces some participants may have experienced some incongruity.

The question: “Do you believe everything happens for a reason?” was included to

assess the presence of a deterministic understanding of events among participants.38

Some Salvationists may believe that when good or bad events occur everything happens

for a reason. Some people may believe that what happens in life has already been pre-

determined and nothing can change the outcome. These survey results support the view

that most of the participants strongly believe in a deterministic understanding of God’s

sovereignty. What becomes apparent from the statistics is that the number of

participants who have chosen the Strongly Agree/Agree option within each of the

generational age brackets has gradually increased with younger generations: Pre-

Boomers (42.8%), Boomers (53.2%), Generation X (63.8%) and Generation Y (72%).39

While these three previous questions have related to the sovereignty of God in a more

generalised way, the next series of questions relate to God’s sovereignty specifically as

it connects to the suffering that occurs in the world.

When natural disasters occur on a global scale there may be a tendency for people to

raise the question of whether such tragedies are acts of God? Based on the statistics

38


See Figure 11, 209.


73

from the earlier survey question: “Does God closely control events of this world?”, it is

likely that a large majority of Salvationists would also agree that natural disasters are

acts of God. Surprisingly, the results of question 18: “To what extent do you believe that

natural disasters are “acts of God”?, indicate that most soldiers and officers do not. The

results of question 18 provide the first contradictory response under this theme.

Both officers (66.7%) and soldiers (57.7%) disagreed or strongly disagreed that natural

disasters are “acts of God”. Assessing the responses from the generational age brackets,

the rejection of this concept declines with the younger generations: Pre-Boomers

(78.6%), Boomers (68.1%), Generation X (42.6%) and Generation Y (36%).40

The

apparent contradiction between the answers to these two survey questions may indicate

that a high proportion of participants moved away from their original view in question 3

to question 18. Otherwise participants may not have perceived the logical

inconsistency: claiming God closely controls events, yet absolving God from

involvement in natural disasters.

The “officer” response from question 3 to question 18 is nearly a 100% change in

perspective. While more participants skipped question 18 there was still a high

percentage of participants who appear to have responded in a manner entirely opposing

their previous answer. One conclusion that could be drawn from this change is that

Salvationists may believe God is in control over the world when things are going well;

but when tragedy strikes God allows for chaos and destruction to reign. This is perhaps

a better conclusion to come to, rather than an alternative one that God has somehow lost

40

See Figure 13, 210


74

control. In light of these contradictory results it would be interesting to explore where

participants believed God’s control begins or ends.

Question 22 posed a similar question to the previous one: Is God responsible for

suffering? There was a high percentage of responses from both officers and soldiers

which indicated that God is not responsible for suffering (49.2%).41

However, the

remaining results provided an interesting spread of responses ranging from

“occasionally” (17.7%); and “rarely” (12.3%). There were also a number of participants

who were uncertain as they selected the response: “I don’t know” (10.8%). An even

smaller number chose: “none of the above” (5.4%). The variation in these responses

may suggest that a number of participants have struggled with this question. In terms of

the generational groupings, the highest level of uncertainty is among Pre-Boomers and

Generation Y.42

What became apparent was the diversity of results that have ranged from question 3

with a very high percentage agreeing that God is in control; through to question 18

which has a very high percentage of participants not agreeing; and finally question 22

which has a very mixed set of responses relating to the sovereignty of God. There

appears to be no sense of alignment between these results.

The emphasis changed in question 13 as participants were given the opportunity to

“briefly describe in your own words your understanding of the second Article of Faith

of The Salvation Army. ‘We believe that there is only one God who is infinitely perfect,

41


See Figure 15, 211.


75

the Creator, Preserver and Governor of all things, and who is the only proper object of

religious worship.’”43

As all participants would have – at least at some stage – studied

or reflected upon the doctrines of The Salvation Army, it was important to discover how

the sovereignty of God was understood. As this was the fourth written response (in the

sequential order of the survey) it was interesting to see another reduction in the number

of overall participants (54) choosing not to answer it. The reduction in responses may

have been because participants found it difficult to articulate what this doctrine meant to

them.

There were several responses specifically emphasising the wording of the doctrine

while other responses used it as a starting point to broaden the discussion. Those people

who remained focussed on the doctrine provided some helpful insights. For example

one Boomer participant stated: “I understand that this article comes from the bible,

believing that God created everything (solar system etc) and ultimately governs the way

it all works. That only God is forever perfect and because of this, only he should be

worshipped.”44

One Generation X participant believed: “God is the only one who

deserves our worship – to put anything else above God is to dishonour Him. He is holy,

our creator and He is sovereign over all things and all powers.”45

Pre-Boomer participants reflected on the doctrine of God’s sovereignty by providing the

following insights: “God is God! I need to let him be God!”46

; “Our understanding of

43

See Figure 16, 212-218. 44

Participant 22. 45

Participant 31. 46

Participant 21.


76

who God is from the scripture is the basis of our worship”47

; “When I recognise God in

all His infinite greatness, how can I do less than worship Him and Him alone”;48

“God

is supreme above and beyond our understanding, who created us, guides and protects

us. Everything is under His control”.49

All these responses describe the importance of

God’s transcendent nature, God’s creative activity and the reason for our worship.

Some other responses from participants moved into other doctrines of The Salvation

Army. Two responses moved towards the discussion of the Trinity (doctrine 3) and

there appeared to be some confusion about this doctrine among some participants.

While one participant wrote, “The Trinity is foundational and is the goal of the

Christian faith”50

; another expressed: “I find this confusing – because of the ‘clash’ with

the concept of the Trinity. Do we worship one God, or three!”51

Another response

incorporated themes of different doctrines. “God made and controls the universe.

However, so we humans who have been made in his image as spiritual beings, he has

given us free will to make choices – especially the choice to love him. He grieves over

our choices to disobey him but sent Jesus to reconcile us to himself if we choose”52

A response worthy of note opposes the traditional doctrine of God and creation. This

participant’s view negatively reflects on the creative activity of God. “Deism. Why

must we worship, praise this great creator when [what] he has created is a cruel world

47

Participant 29. 48

Participant 93. 49

Participant 119. 50

Participant 39. 51

Participant 104. 52

Participant 60.


77

and one which non-believers are punished. That’s not love”.53

It is surprising to read

that this person believes God is capable of creating the cruel world they describe, a

belief which opposes the Genesis account of a good creation.

The largest number of responses (forty-five) came from the Boomer generation. For

some participants the reference to God as object caused some concern: “God is not an

object but a person”.54

Interestingly another person explored the idea of different paths

to God: “There is One object of authentic worship only, although perhaps, there is more

than one path to Him?”55

Seven responses emphasised the concept of worship, while another seven stated every

element of the doctrine. The emphasis on God as Creator had six responses including

one that stated: “My God is not god but is the awesome power of Creation”.56

A smaller

number of people agreed with the wording of the doctrine and its literal meaning. One

person’s response linked their answer to Jesus: “Agree as a statement of fact BUT the

work and death of Jesus on mankind’s behalf needs to be fully understood before the

above Article can be put into practice”.57

Among the Generation X participants there were a number who focussed particularly

on God. As one participant observed: “There is one God who made everything and as

such, He only is worthy of our worship. I don’t believe it means he controls everything

53

Participant 35. 54

Participant 76. 55

Participant 38. 56

Participant 99. 57

Participant 41.


78

in the way that we understand control.”58

Another Generation X participant identified

the immanent and transcendent natures of God in their response: “God is above and

beyond anything we could ever imagine or describe. God is intimately connected with

humanity (immanent) yet also beyond us (transcendent).”59

Generation Y had a smaller number of participants, many of whom emphasized the God

we should worship60

and God as Creator.61

A smaller number of participants reflected

upon the doctrine as a whole, emphasising all of the metaphors for God.62

Two

responses are worthy of special mention. The first indicates a difficulty with the

doctrine: “It is an exclusive statement I’m not terribly comfortable with it.”63

While

there was no further clarity given, it is perhaps indicative of the kind of response that

may come from a person who has grown up with a pluralistic understanding.

The last response is a helpful reminder that God’s activity in the world is not always

known to us: “God made all things and He is in control. He does not make mistakes. He

is all powerful but I believe that He does not always act in ways we want Him to for

reasons that we will not understand.”64

The follow up question asked participants: “How does this doctrine affect your life on a

day-to-day basis?” The majority of participants (56%) chose the response: “to a great

extent”.65

Analysing this result from the generational age brackets provided an

58

Participant 116. 59

Participant 52. 60

Participants 56, 64, 70, 91, 103, 107, 110, 115, 120, 121. 61

Participants 25, 50, 56, 70, 82, 83, 115, 117, 121. 62

Participants 111, 50, 83. 63

Participant 68. 64

Participant 25. 65

See Figure 17, 219.


79

interesting insight: Pre Boomers (79%); Boomers (57%); Generation X (62%) and

Generation Y (32%).66

What is apparent from each end of the generational spectrum is

that the oldest officers and soldiers have a strong connection with the doctrine in their

personal life, whereas the youngest generation do not appear to see it as important.

These responses may have something to do with how much participants have been

exposed to any teaching on the doctrines but it is difficult to be definitive.

Sometimes people’s perceptions of God can come from various places and not always

from a religious connection. The next few questions related to two secular songs which

provide a perceived understanding of God as being either immanent or transcendent.

Question 8 asked: “What do you think of the lyric in the Bette Midler song that claims

‘God is watching us from a distance’? 67

The results firmly indicated that the majority of

the participants – especially highest among Boomers and Generation X participants –

either disagreed or strongly disagreed with this statement.68

This provides a strong

indication that Salvationists do not view God in this way. It may be the case that the

results were affected by the fact that participants from the two middle generation age

brackets were more aware of the song than the oldest and youngest age brackets.

As a follow up to the previous question, a written response was required for question 9:

“What does that tell you about your own understanding of God?”69

While this phrase

connects with the transcendent nature of God, most participants across all the

generational age brackets turned this comment around to express that they experienced

66


From a Distance was written by Julie Gold in 1985. It was popularised in the movie Beaches. 68

See Figures 19 and 20, 220. 69

See Figure 21, 221-225.


80

more the immanent nature of God. An example from each age bracket will illustrate.

One Pre Boomer indicated: “From a distance” does not convey to me that God is

distant. I believe we are surrounded by his Spirit.”70

A Boomer participant indicated:

“God is not at a distance – this world is not God-forsaken but God inhabited!”71

One

Generation X participant explained their response as partly their need to connect with

God: “God is as close to me as my own breath. My feelings of distance is [sic] not

about who God is, but my own selfishness is separating myself from Him. I believe that

God wants to be intimately involved in every aspect of my life.”72

Similar to the

response made by the Generation X participant, a Generation Y participant shows the

intimacy of God connecting with their life: “I believe that God is involved in every

moment of my life – if I let Him. God is not disconnected from us”.73

The second and more recent secular song provided an immanent view of God. The

song: One of Us includes perhaps a more controversial phrase for consideration.74

This

became question 10: “What do you think of the lyrics in the Alanis Morrisette song:

“What if God was one of us? Just a slob like one of us, just a stranger on the bus, trying

to make his way home”? These lyrics connect God so closely with humanity that God

could be just a normal person, doing every-day things in the world like everyone else.

Officers (51%) and soldiers (38%) either “Strongly Agreed” or “Agreed” with this view

of God presented in the song.75

70

Participant 29. 71

Participant 4. 72

Participant 20. 73

Participant 125. 74

Originally written under the title of What if God was one of us was originally written by Eric Bazillian

and first recorded by Joan Osborne. Later it was covered by Alanis Morissette. 75

See Figure 22, 226.


81

While these results are quite high, it is within the generational groupings that the data

provides a more interesting comparison.76

The results indicate that the younger

generations have either strongly agreed or agreed with the view of God suggested by

the lyrics: Generation Y (53.8%), Generation X (53%). The Boomer generation was

lower than the younger generations (33.4%). It is not surprising, however, that the Pre-

Boomer generation scored the lowest (20%). This may be indicative of the fact that the

older generation did not agree with the song’s sentiment or it may mean they simply did

not know the song.

Question 11 provided opportunity for a written response to the previous question

considering God’s immanence in the world: “What does that tell you about your own

understanding of God?”77

There was a strong emphasis among the Generation Y

participants that God is one of us. A smaller number of those participants also reflected

on the incarnational ministry of Jesus. There were mixed responses to the reference to

God being a “slob”. Many participants connected positively with this image, with one

indicating strongly: “He would be a ‘slob’ and not a powerful rich person”.78

Another

Generation Y response emphasised: “Great way to engage with culture, but do I get my

theology from pop songs; No”.79

Another participant highlighted the important distinction that God is within each person

no matter how a person might be typecast by others. Reference to Matthew 25:40 was

also emphasised within a number of responses: the need to minister to those who are

76


See Figure 24, 227-233. 78

Participant 25. 79

Participant 44.


82

suffering just as if ministering to Jesus himself. However, there were several responses

from Generation Y participants who did not like the reference to God as a slob. One

participant believed God connects with people but made a qualifying statement: “God

is with us in our troubles, but that’s different trying to drag God down into a

manageable idea that we can use to make ourselves better…We must always remember

the supremacy of God, not dumb Him down to try and understand His motives.”80

Another response worth noting here indicated that “God is not one of us, he is bigger

than we could imagine”.81

Generation X participants reflected similarly to those of Generation Y as they

particularly connected with the incarnational view of Jesus. For example, one

participant stated: “This is a much better attempt at trying to grasp the nature and

presence of God. It captures both the ongoing incarnation and revelation of God in the

stranger, which are important biblical themes.”82

There were also strong similarities with some Generational Y responses identifying that

God lives in us. A number of people believed that the word “slob” was more of a

derogatory term for God especially when considering God’s divinity.83

One person

indicated: “I don’t like irreverence towards God”.84

80

Participant 56. 81

Participant 124. 82

Participant 13. 83

Participants 2, 54, 116, 84

Participant 71.


83

One interesting response from a participant in this age bracket stated: “I don’t believe

God has ever or can ever display human attributes”.85

There seems to be a

disconnection between this person’s “received” and “expressed” theology and their

personal understanding of the Trinitarian nature of God and how Jesus’ divine and

human natures are united.

While there were a number of Boomers who chose to provide a written statement to this

question, some of the responses were more doctrinal or scriptural in nature expressing

both the divine and human natures of Jesus, for example: “Jesus was God incarnate”,86

“Jesus - truly and properly God and truly and properly man”;87

“God with us. Not so

much the ‘trying to find his way home’ but the incarnate God in Jesus, identifying with

our weakness, woundedness, and sinfulness.”88

It has been difficult for some participants to move past the literal understanding of the

song. It appears they have missed the essence of what the song is trying to convey.

Boomer participants appeared to be more strongly averse to and offended by the

reference to God as “slob”. For example: “If God was like that He would not be God”;89

Another participant concluded: “This statement is made by a person who is not a born

again believer and has no idea of the sovereign God that he/she has denigrated [sic].”90

There was one surprising response that expressed an unorthodox view of Jesus’

divinity: “Jesus wasn’t God, but close enough.”91

85

Participant 59. 86

Participant 19. 87

Participant 80. 88

Participant 98. 89

Participant 4. 90

Participant 77. 91

Participant 66.


84

One participant seems to have enjoyed the opportunity to reflect on a song that other

participants have criticised. “I love the way it breaks down most of the churches

preconceived ideas and rules about God. Many would delight in spelling out exactly

why this is theologically and doctrinally incorrect. But, I like the way it opens

accessibility to God for a whole range of people who would not necessarily [see]

themselves as religious. The song does appeal to me on a [n]umber of levels.”92

Some Pre-Boomer participants also provided responses similar to those in other

generations as they reflected not only on the divinity of God but the immanent nature of

God reflected in Jesus. Again there were a number of participants who did not like the

term “Slob” – but they were not as expressive as the Boomers in taking offence at this

term. “While God accommodates himself to us he is still the Holy One and needs to be

treated with respect and dignity”;93

and “I like the idea of God being one of us, but find

it hard to accept the idea of God as ‘just a slob’”.94

While a general consistency appears across the age brackets in understanding the song,

responses were expressed slightly differently from one generation to the next.

Participants connected God’s divine and human natures but the image of God as a

“slob” certainly caused concern for some participants. Most people also identified

God’s immanence to be important for them.

92

Participant 65. 93

Participant 39. 94

Participant 105.


85

Question 12 raises the question of God’s immutability – “Does God have the ability to

change God’s mind?” This is a significant question for Salvationists to wrestle with as

it relates to the suffering and evil experienced in the world. If God is all-loving and all-

powerful then God must have the ability and the desire to change God’s mind and stop

the suffering from occurring, and yet the circumstances remain.

The results strongly indicate that the majority of officers (59.2%) and soldiers (46.1%)

believe God does have the ability to change God’s mind.95

Interestingly the second

highest response across both groups was: “I don’t know”, (officers – 22.4% and soldiers

– 27%). If the total number of responses of “I don’t know” and “None of the above” are

combined, there is a greater level of uncertainty to this question (officers – 36.7% and

soldiers 37.1%). Interestingly, there does not appear to be any significant variation

across the generational groupings as the results are evenly spread.96

Question 15 returns to the issue of whether God’s immanence or transcendence is more

important: “In most circumstances in your life where would you consider God to be:

Near, Far, I don’t know, None of the Above.”97

The overwhelming response from

participants indicated belief that in most circumstances God is near: officers (93.8%)

and soldiers (85.9%). This proves particularly encouraging if God’s nearness is felt

during the more difficult periods of people’s lives. If God’s presence is felt by those

struggling with problems, their idea of God in suffering is not of a God who is distant

and uncaring but a God who suffers with them.

95

See Figure 25, 234 96


See Figure 27 and 28, 235.


86

Question 26 raised the question: Do you think God has feelings? Depending on how

God is viewed by an individual, the concept that God has feelings could either be quite

irrelevant or particularly significant. What is significant is the combined results of

strongly agree and agree. Most officers (93.3%) and soldiers (85%) believe God does

have feelings.98

The responses for this question across the age brackets are quite high: Pre-Boomers

(69.3%), Boomers (85%), Generation X (93%) and Generation Y (91.6%).99

While the

results for Generation X and Y are not surprising, the other two generational age

brackets still remain quite high, which is perhaps more unexpected. What might have

been more expected from the Pre-Boomer participants is the view of a transcendent

God focussing on God’s power rather than an immanent God who expresses feelings.

This assumption is based upon the thought that if participants have grown up with a

more classical Wesleyan theistic position, their view of God would perhaps focus more

readily on God’s transcendence than an immanent view of God. However, only two

participants strongly disagreed with this concept.

A related question was raised in 27: “Do you think it is possible for God to suffer?”

Comparing both questions and their respective responses, there were strong similarities

between them as a large percentage of participants either Strongly Agreed or Agreed

(officers – 91% and soldiers 78%) with this question. The results from the different

generational age groupings also showed a consistently high level of responses when

Strongly Agree and Agree were combined: Pre-Boomers (77%); Boomers (88.6%);

98


See Figure 30, 236.


87

Generation X (86.4%); and Generation Y (70.8%).100

However, it was interesting to

observe that the next highest score (8 participants) among soldiers answered: “I don’t

know” with the majority coming from the Boomer (three participants), and Generation

Y (three participants) age brackets.

Questions have been raised in this section on the issue of God’s sovereignty, providing

opportunities for Salvationists to consider God’s immanence and transcendence and

how this connects with humanity’s suffering. As there has not been any comprehensive

discussion of God’s immanence and transcendence in Doctrine Two, these questions

have been useful in determining Salvationists’ understanding of these terms. Taken

together, these results suggest that the majority of Salvationists believe that there is a

strong connection between God’s immanence and the ability for God to suffer.

Theme: Nature and understanding of suffering

People often try to rationalise why suffering occurs. Well-intentioned people want to

express their support but the words they say do not always bring a measure of solace.

Some of these comments may appear dismissive in an effort to cheer someone up. The

following set of questions have been categorised under the next major theme which

focuses on the nature and understanding of suffering.

Question 17 posed the following question: “What do you think about comments

sometimes made when a loved one dies, that ‘God must have needed them in Heaven’

100

See Figure 32, 237.


88

or ‘God needed another angel’? While society generally may instinctively make these

comments, there was a strong move towards the opposing view within the survey. By

combining the results of “Disagree and Strongly Disagree”, it is apparent that the

majority of officers (79.2%) and a large component of soldiers (56.5%) selected one of

these answers.101

The next highest response – especially from soldiers (21%) was

“neutral”, indicating perhaps either a sense of uncertainty or a level of ambivalence

towards these phrases. When analysing the responses from the generational age

brackets it is interesting to note that participants within the Pre-Boomers (50%) and the

Boomers (36.2%) align themselves with the “strongly disagree”, whereas the highest

statistic for the Generation X (34%) and Generation Y (36%) are strongest in the

“disagree” category.102

A smaller number of respondents across all generations either

strongly agreed or agreed with this statement. The next highest response fell in the

category of “neutral”, indicating possible uncertainty by 16% of the participants.

A similar question for trying to understand the nature of suffering came in question 19:

“When a person suffers (for whatever reason) to what extent do you think God is trying

to ‘teach them’ something?” Often these questions are more likely to occur when people

see suffering as having some form of disciplinary function. Sometimes well-intentioned

people may conclude – like Job’s friend, Bildad (Job 8) – that suffering was the result of

sin in a person’s life. The overwhelming response chosen by Salvationists was the

choice of either “Disagree” or “Strongly Disagree”: officers (70%) and soldiers

(56%).103

Looking at these results from the generational age brackets, the highest

number of people responding with this answer came from the Boomer (36 people) and

101

See Figure 33, 238. 102

See Figure 34, 238. 103

See Figure 35, 239.


89

Generation X (24 people) participants.104

These results indicate a very strong opposing

view to that found in secular society: Salvationists do not believe God is trying to teach

them something through suffering.

Question 20 was a follow up question: “Do you believe suffering is a result of sin in

someone’s life?” Again, the majority of participants chose either to “Disagree” or

“Strongly Disagree”: officers (67%) and soldiers (71%). An interesting statistic

emerged from the “Strongly Agree”/”Agree” option: a small number of participants

chose “Strongly Agree” or “Agree” and all were from Generation X. By contrast, the

highest proportion of participants who chose “Strongly Disagree” was in the Boomer

age bracket (21 people). The remaining responses were spread evenly among the other

generations.105

Another question raised gave each participant the chance to articulate: “What one word

encapsulates most accurately for you God’s action in cases of suffering?”106

For some

participants, it was not easy to provide only one word, while a number of words were

repeatedly used: compassion (nine respondents); present (nine respondents); love (eight

respondents); comfort (four respondents); and healer (two respondents). Alternatively,

some answers elicited a negative response which viewed God as being responsible for

suffering: testing; His will; trialling; purpose; harsh.107

104

See Figure 36, 239. 105

See Figure 38, 240. 106

See Figure 39, 241-244. 107

Participants 106, 1, 48, 120, 15,


90

While there have been a number of similar questions asked about the participants’ views

on suffering, question 23 provided the opportunity for written responses to indicate:

“Where do you think suffering comes from?”108

The majority of the responses received

by the “Pre-Boomer” generation saw suffering generally as a result of humanity’s

choices and because of the brokenness of our world. One Pre-Boomer stated: “From

situations of life. From our carelessness.”109

Another Pre Boomer stated: “If God is the

creator then the answer must logically be obvious.”110

This person implies that if God

is God then no other conclusion can be drawn: God is fully responsible for the suffering

that exists.

The largest number of respondents came from the Boomer generation. The strongest

theme which emerged showed that suffering is a result of human decisions and/or the

nature of our fallen world.111

Some responses emphasised that sometimes suffering was

as a result of acts of nature or a response from the Evil One.112

Several Boomers

expressed uncertainty as to where suffering comes from, while some considered

suffering to be random.113

One Boomer-response worth noting considers the idea that while suffering may be

caused by humanity or the Evil One, God’s involvement may still be the over-riding

factor for producing a greater good in a situation. “The devil rules this world for the

time being. God allows the suffering for a greater purpose that we may not see at the

108

See Figure 40, 245-249. 109

Participant 12. 110

Participant 35. 111

See participants 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 15, 18, 22, 27, 28, 38, 48, 49, 57, 58, 72, 76, 79, 86, 90, 112

See participants 10, 11, 45, 46, 93, 113

See participants 33, 40, 42, 47, 65,


91

time.”114

Another participant indicated: “[the] origins often emanate from our own

choices, yet at times may be to specifically refine us.”115

The concept of a greater plan

or the need to “refine us” in some way, seems to suggest that God may force or control

these situations for God’s own ends.

Almost half of all Generation X participants believed the source of suffering to be the

consequences of human decisions.116

Some provided additional comments which

included the thought that humanity has been disobedient or not willing to listen to

God.117

Other participants believed suffering to be a result of Satan or sin or the nature

of our fractured world; or sometimes suffering was seen as random.118

Several

comments went beyond these concepts with one providing a personal insight into their

struggle with suffering. “I think God allows us to go through suffering, just like Job had

to suffer, to allow for new things to open up in one’s life. I have blamed God for

suffering in my life as I feel that He allowed traumatic events to happen. Just like Job

where God allowed Satan to cause suffering in Job’s life but Satan wasn’t allowed to

harm Job. God still allowed it to happen.”119

There is a sense of pain and loss which

has been experienced first-hand in this person’s response. While acknowledging that

God allowed for the trauma to occur the respondent does not explicitly suggest that God

is responsible for this traumatic experience.

114

Participant 10. 115

Participant 79. 116

See participants 9, 13, 19, 21, 54, 55, 59, 61, 74, 77, 84, 85, 87, 100, 107, 109, 110, 113. 117

Participants 14, 75, 78, 118

Participants 2, 21, 34, 51, 54, 69, 71, 81, 88, 94, 107, 111, 119

Participant 88.


92

An alternative view was expressed by one participant who believed that the choices

made by humanity have consequences and therefore the need for God’s discipline.

“Consequences of human faults & harms; fragility or weakness of human; discipline by

God”.120

This may suggest that this participant views God either as a “divine parent”;

God is dictatorial by nature, ready to inflict harsh discipline; or that God somehow

abuses power.

One Generation X participant concluded that the problem of suffering occurs because of

the abuse of power and its effects on others. “Unfortunately sin entered the world and

now Satan has a measure of power over the world. Suffering is a result of the inequity

in our world – people not living as God intended and not sharing the world’s resources

fairly, from people’s abuse of power and selfish use of others for their own needs, or

because of natural disasters which I also believe are a result of the fall.”121

The blame is focussed on the choices humanity makes to secure selfish gain with no

consideration for the rest of humanity. This person has obviously responded to the

question of how the abuse of power prompts suffering on a global scale.

A pattern emerged from the responses by many Generation Y participants indicating

that suffering ultimately comes as a result of the brokenness of this world; and the fall

and subsequent disobedience of humanity.122

Many people made the observation that

responsibility for this suffering was in the hands of humanity, with a smaller number of

120

Participant 55. 121

Participant 31. 122

Participants 25, 44, 53, 56, 82, 106, 108, 112, 118.


93

participants including the influence of Satan.123

One participant also included a possible

connection to God’s involvement: “Our own sin and or our neglect for His will in our

lives, the work of the devil, human free-will, and sometimes as part of, or a side-effect

of God’s plan.”124

This person seems to suggest that while there are many contributing

factors responsible for suffering, God must take some responsibility for it especially if it

links to God’s overall plan.

One Generation Y participant seems to have wrestled deeply with the question as they

have tried to understand the cause and effect of suffering: “We live in a broken world

and we are at time[s] hopeless to stop it. And the pain given to us by nature or other

people is made worse by the fact that we do not understand why either a good God

would stand by and watch or why we seem always unable to prevent it”.125

Another Generation Y participant provided an insightful response: “Suffering is what

happens when someone’s need is not being met. Most suffering, I believe, comes from

our own inadequacies as humans. From our failure to be kind, or responsible or

respectful. I believe God does have the power to relieve someone’s suffering, but not at

the expense of human free will.”126

This person has placed the onus of responsibility on

humanity’s shoulders. It has been because of humanity’s failure and selfishness that

suffering remains. The concept that “someone’s need is not being met” seems to suggest

a lack of compassion for others and helping them in a time of suffering, as opposed to

an individual suffering because of selfish, personal desires.

123

Participants 44, 50, 83, 101, 105, 124

Participant 101. 125

Participant 56. 126

Participant 115.


94

When suffering occurs, the most basic human instinct is to want to place the blame on

something or someone else as a coping mechanism to work through grief and pain.

Question 24 posed the following question: “When suffering has occurred in your life

have you tended to blame: God, Satan, Someone Else or Something Else”. Despite the

number of alternative responses available, the highest response proved to be: “none of

the above”: officers (25) and soldiers (40).127

Fifty percent of all participants who

answered this question chose that answer, thereby suggesting that Salvationists do not

tend to place blame on anything for suffering or perhaps not on anything they could

articulate.

An interesting pattern emerged as Salvationists tried to understand the nature of

suffering. The results indicated that on the whole most Salvationists did not agree with

ideas about suffering found in popular culture, nor was suffering seen as the result of

individual sin in someone’s life. A variety of written responses were offered as to where

Salvationists thought suffering came from but most participants predominantly believed

God’s actions in suffering were positive. The overall results for this question indicate

what Salvationists do not agree with, more than asserting what they do believe about

suffering.

Theme: Understanding Doubt

The final set of questions in the survey connected with the issue of doubt. Doubt can

move a person in several possible directions. It could lead to a path of discovering more

127

See Figure 41 and 42, 250.


95

about faith and a deeper awareness of God. Alternatively, some could define doubt as a

time when faith becomes stalled and precarious at best. A negative response to doubt

can cause a person to become spiritually stagnant. The question “How would you

describe doubt?” elicited the highest number of written responses (130) throughout the

survey.128

From the responses it became evident that not only did both negative and

positive images of doubt surface, but there were many answers that did not fit easily

into either category. Consequently, the responses were collated into the categories of

doubt seen as: positive; negative; a combination of both positive and negative; and

uncertain.

Doubt as a positive

A large number of participants defined doubt positively. Some participants indicated

that doubt was not the opposite of faith but that doubt was required in order for faith to

develop.129

Other participants defined doubt as healthy questioning.130

One participant

slightly varied their response to indicate that doubt is not a lack of faith.131

While

another participant’s response is worth noting: “Doubt is a natural part of faith, and that

the questions raised by doubt lead to a deeper understanding of God. I would say that

fear, not doubt, is the opposite of faith.”132

This person makes a clear distinction

between doubt and fear and indicates which one is opposite to faith. There are times

when doubt is viewed negatively by others and this becomes problematic for those who

might be questioning their faith in a positive way. There can be a general perception

that if a person does have doubts they are somehow seen as lacking spiritual faith and

128

See Figure 43, 251-256 129

Participants 39, 14, 18, 58, 90, 101, 8, 12, 34, 64, 100, 122, 125 130

Participants 6, 15, 23, 26, 42, 67, 13, 37, 51, 116, 131

Participants 5 132

Participant 122.


96

maturity. Viewing doubt in a positive way helps people explore their faith at a deeper

level.

Doubt as a negative

It is not an uncommon assumption that doubt is also viewed negatively. So it was not

surprising to discover that the majority of participants indicated a negative response in

defining doubt as something that negatively hinders faith.133

One Generation X

participant who saw doubt negatively indicated that doubt is “not trusting God, or

questioning Him, when really He knows best.”134

It was interesting to see that this

person defined doubt negatively as being a combination of lack of trust and questioning

God. This participant appears to hold the view that questioning God is somehow

inappropriate, that God’s word is final. This view of God may limit a person’s ability to

express an alternative opinion of God that may prove more helpful.

Another Generation X participant saw doubt as fear which had a negative impact on

faith: “Doubt is based in fear, fear of the unknown, fear of being unable to accomplish

something, fear of failure. Doubt is combative to faith, and where it is present it needs

to be addressed so a greater strengthening of faith and hope can occur.”135

There

appears to be a sense of urgency within this response that somehow doubt was an

unhealthy intruder in a person’s lived faith. There seems to be no room for faith and

doubt to co-exist – faith is more likely to be diminished or even abandoned if doubt is

133

Participants 20, 109, 1, 10, 28, 33, 45, 46, 48, 93, 113, 19, 31, 62, 71, 76, 84, 94, 104, 123, 25, 44,

50, 53, 87, 99, 108. 134

Participant 121 135

Participant 87.


97

evident. Doubt becomes the enemy that must be eradicated and destroyed in order for

hope to reign and faith to be restored.

Another set of responses from four participants defined doubt in relation to God’s

existence; God’s work in the world or in a person’s life.136

Each of these responses

reflected one person from each of the generational age brackets except for Generation

Y. The Pre-Boomer participant stated that doubt could be “Wondering if God really

exists,”137

whereas the Boomer participant believed “doubt = fearing the unknown,

including God”.138

The Boomer participant seems to imply that there may be times

when they doubt God: it is unclear whether this person doubts God’s existence or

whether the doubt relates to God’s ability to do something specific in the person’s life.

Other responses seemed to connect with either a general statement of doubt or an

indecisive doubt that negatively impacts a person’s life.139

These responses really did

not seem to connect with either faith or God but gave a broad understanding of doubt.

For example: “A serious questioning of the way things are.”140

Or as another participant

indicated, doubt is seen “as double-mindedness.”141

Two other participants reflected on negative doubt as being attributed to the devil.

While one of those participants believed “doubt is a tool of the devil”, the other

believed that doubt was “Satan taking your mind off the final result and what God can

136

Participants 105, 42, 16, 121. 137


Participant 42. 139

Participants 36, 38, 70, 80, 106, 110, 30, 52, 54, 55, 68, 73, 76, 91, 126, 63, 65, 72, 95, 114, 7, 74, 2,

21. 140

Participant 68. 141

Participant 73.


98

do.” 142

These responses show doubt as a negative influence that can be used by the

devil to disarm a person’s ability to actively live out their faith.

Doubt as a combination of positive and negative

Two participants were unable to determine whether doubt had a positive or negative

affect on faith so the response appears to be a combination of both.143

A Generation X

participant aptly describes doubt: “Doubt is when you arrive at a place when you can no

longer blindly believe everything you have learned/experienced previously. You can

move on from doubt to discarding your faith, or you can move on from doubt to

research/learning and a new experience of faith.”144

This participant realises that there is

a choice involved and that doubt can take a person in two different directions. It can

either cause a person to lose their faith, or engage them in a process of discovering a

stronger faith by asking questions. How a person views the issue of doubt is what

makes all the difference.

Doubt - uncertain responses

Other responses described doubt with some measure of uncertainty. It was unclear from

their responses how they interpreted doubt in relation to faith.145

For example one

Generation X participant seems to provide a response to doubt based on a person’s

feelings: “Doubt is something that comes and goes depending on how you feel, how

much sleep I’ve had and what’s happening around me. I’ve been told that faith is not

142

Participants 102, 130. 143

Participants 51, 59, 88, 120. 144

Participant 59. 145

Participants 24, 35, 60, 124, 127, 22, 27, 40, 49, 57, 98, 78, 89, 118, 61, 75, 86, 115, 128.


99

the absence of doubt.”146

This response sees doubt as very dependent on a person’s

circumstances as they either move in or out of a state of doubt. Does faith become

unsustainable and elusive because doubt can creep in at regular intervals? The final part

of this response: “I’ve been told that faith is not the absence of doubt” seems to indicate

that this person has not taken the time personally to validate whether they believe this

statement to be correct.

One Generation X participant raised doubt within a Salvation Army context: “I feel

Salvo doubt is that you don’t agree with their teaching. Instead of question [sic] poor

and ambiguous beliefs trying to be passed off as ligament [sic].”147

It is difficult to

determine from this person’s response whether they consider The Salvation Army’s

beliefs are somehow not articulated well and trying to be “passed off as legitimate”, or

whether the statement relates to people within the denomination who have not been

questioning (or fully grasping) the doctrinal teaching of the movement. Either way it

perhaps indicates that the doctrinal teaching of The Salvation Army needs to be taught

more often for Salvationists to affirm and align their faith within a theological

framework.

A final narrative question in the survey focusses on one of the most perplexing

theological anomalies: “If God is perfectly loving and powerful, why does God not

prevent tragedies?”148

From all of the questions that required a narrative response in the

survey, this question had the lowest number of participants answering it.

146

Participant 2. 147

Participant 43. 148

See Figure 44, 257-263.


100

The most consistent view across the generational age brackets related to the issue of

“free will”. Only a small number of Pre-Boomers considered this as a response: “We are

free to choose and there are consequences”149

Similarly: “Because we have free will

and often tragedies can be because of choices we have made.”150

These responses

indicate that actions have consequences which can result in suffering.

Some Boomer participants also included responses relating to free-will. One respondent

affirmed the reality of free will and suffering that occurs. However, this person did not

place the blame for suffering with anyone or anything but acknowledged that God

suffers alongside humanity: “We will never really understand the heart and mind of God

but he has given us free will and in that there are times that tragedies will occur. God is

loving and he is powerful. He never promised that life with him would be without

suffering, in fact in scripture it says that suffering will be a part of our walk with

him….I believe that God suffers with us”151

Another respondent briefly described how life would be different if free will did not

exist. “We have free will and to have our lives planned to every detail makes life

pointless and hope redundant.”152

It is perhaps harder to predict what life would be

like if free will did not exist. Hope may not be redundant but it conceivably could look

different. It was interesting that this participant did not reflect on what free will looked

like in the face of suffering.

149

Participant 37. 150

Participant 89. 151

Participant 17. 152

Participant 25.


101

One Generation X participant made some assumptions: “If we claim to be Christians,

followers of Christ, why do some of us commit act[s] of atrocities? We have free will,

and even though God [is] loving and powerful, we have to choose to be in partnership

with Him to prevent tragedies.”153

This person seems to suggest that tragedies are

preventable when people work in co-operation with God. If that were the case, when

tragedies occurred there would be an automatic assumption that there had been a

breakdown in that co-operation. A question might arise concerning who would be at

fault.

The prevention of tragedies and the issue of free will continued in responses that were

made by Generation Y participants. “To prevent tragedies He would have to take away

our free will.”154

The latter part of another person’s response indicates: “I often think

God has the power to stop tragedies but he is giving us the [onus] or responsibility to

take care [of] or clean up our own messes and hopefully learn from them”155

Both

responses seem to suggest that tragedies can be prevented by simply taking free will

away. The alternative view seems to indicate that God uses this as a learning

experience.

At least one participant from each generation indicated that God’s sovereignty was

linked to such tragedies and believed they occurred for a greater purpose or as an aid for

growth in faith. The following examples are a selection of the responses made from

153

Participant 61. 154

Participant 24. 155

Participant 47.


102

each generation: “God has his purpose in doing everything”156

; “Sometimes things

happen that are part of a greater plan that we can’t see. Tragedy must fit into that plan

somewhere”157

; “He still allows us to make bad choices, if that results in suffering or

tragedy then that is then character building”158

; and “Sometimes things need to happen

for Gods [sic] wider plan”159

The concept that tragedy must form part of God's plan

may indicate a strong connection to a deterministic view of God.

A smaller number of participants explicitly identified that humanity lives in a fallen

world where tragedies will occur. For example: a Generation Y participant broadened

the concept to include the flaws that are evident within humanity: “God loves us but I

believe he allows things to happen because we are flawed and technically it’s humans

fault that we are flawed and the world is now flawed, so he lets things happen as they

happen.”160

A Boomer participant linked their response to the death and resurrection of

Jesus Christ: “We live in a fallen world with cause and effect issues. If he did prevent

tragedies then Jesus would not have died on the cross for our sins. We must remember

the biggest tragedy in the world was this event but the greatest victory was 3 days later.

If God prevented tragedies then he would be a liar….We cannot blame God for our

sin.”161

The following are a sample of responses from across the generational age brackets,

providing an observation of how participants viewed God’s non-intervention in

156


Participant 40. 158

Participant 88. 159


Participant 62. 161

Participant 73.


103

suffering and tragedies. Some participants raised questions, others made challenging

comments, while some responses were perhaps more surprising and confronting. One

Pre-Boomer commented: “Tragedies are not all completely negative.”162

It is possible

that the participant was alluding to the fact that sometimes good can come from

tragedies.

One Generation X participant offered a pragmatic observation of God’s involvement in

tragedies and humanity’s response to them. “God is either primarily love or primarily

sovereign. This question is in the context of the latter. God is love – God suspends

sovereignty in defence to freewill – humans make bad decisions – people suffer.

Obviously there are exceptions to this rational[e] but in regards to intervention? We are

at war – we win some we lose some”163

While this person affirms that there are some

exceptions to be made, this matter-of-fact approach seems to place all suffering in the

category of human error and that any loss sustained is to be expected as part of some

greater good in the war on evil.

Two other Generation X participants raised the question of God’s sovereignty: “Perhaps

God is not perfectly loving and powerful?”164

The use of the word “perfectly” may be

significant here. Perhaps this person is implying that while God may be loving and

powerful (and still God) this is not an “absolute” perfection; that in the event of a

tragedy God’s power and loving attributes are somehow diminished. The second

162

Participant 23. 163


Participant 12.


104

participant suggested: “Either he [is] not real, or has no authority.”165

It is hard to

assess from this brief comment what the participant was seeking to convey; perhaps

merely voicing a problem which confronts humanity in times of tragedy. Otherwise, it

could be potentially problematic that such an opinion apparently either dismisses God’s

reality or God’s sovereignty.

Another Generation X participant assumed that humanity is capable of not only being

independent of God but able also to resolve issues autonomously when they occur: “He

has shown…us to love and serve each other and we have everything we need to prevent

these things from happening – we are just bad stewards of His gifts.”166

This person

seems to suggest that the only reason why tragedies continue to occur is because

humanity neglects the responsibilities of looking after what has been entrusted to them.

It is unclear whether this person is alluding to advances in curing illnesses or alleviating

natural disasters.

God’s immanence during tragic circumstances formed part of another response from a

Generation X participant: “God enters tragedy to engage tragedy.”167

This participant

appears to connect with the idea of God entering into human struggle, and fully

engaging with the complexity that suffering brings. God does not merely sympathise

with the sufferer; rather, God is completely exposed to the harsh reality of tragic events

and their consequences. This participant has articulated a powerful image of God’s

desire to enter into the costly divine/human relationship.

165

Participant 41. 166

Participant 13. 167

Participant 65.


105

One Generation Y participant ably articulates the assumptions that people often make in

declaring that God does not intervene. This participant raises the possibility that

humanity cannot possibly see all God’s working in the world: “The question itself is

unfair - to ask it implies God does not prevent all tragedies, but we have no knowledge

of the ones that He does. It’s the hardest lesson in faith - trusting through the doubt that

God still cares, and that while he may permit suffering, his lack of prevention doesn’t

imply a lack of love”168

This person draws the useful distinction between the view that

a non-interventionist God equates to an unloving God as opposed to God showing love

by always intervening. This person rightly concludes that we are not aware of the

tragedies God prevents, nor can we assume that just because God does not always

intervene somehow God’s love is diminished.

While this participant’s views on God’s intervention are complex, another Generation Y

participant reaches a different conclusion. “I don’t believe in an interventionist [G]od.

And it would have to involve a fair degree of unpalettable [sic] favouritism”169

This

person raises an interesting point concerning the so-called “deserving” and the

“undeserving”. If favouritism was the over-riding concern for this person it may be that

they find it is easier to believe that God does not intervene rather than face the problem

of those who may not reap the benefit of that intervention.

This now concludes the exploration of the theological knapsack and the results that

have come from the survey. This chapter has also provided data on Salvationists’

expressed theology and how it connects with the received theology of The Salvation

168

Participant 54. 169

Participant 66.


106

Army. While some interesting data became evident in the multiple choice questions, the

narrative responses appeared to provide greater insight into how Salvationists

understand their received theology. Some of these responses have at times been

thought-provoking and powerful. What has become apparent is that some participants

have reflected conflicting opinions within their responses. The (sometimes adamant)

views that participants may have affirmed about their faith earlier in the survey, appear

to change by the end of it. This became especially apparent when early responses

indicated a deterministic view of God, but were revised in light of what they believed

concerning God in times of suffering and tragedy. It would not be surprising if some

participants had their faith challenged by these questions. In the next chapter, the

objective will be to expound the theological knapsack by considering a number of key

statements arising from the survey, through contemporary Wesleyan lenses.

Expounding the theological knapsack

107

CHAPTER 4

EXPOUNDING THE THEOLOGICAL KNAPSACK:

Summary statements from survey,

viewed through contemporary Wesleyan lenses

In previous chapters the ‘theological knapsack’ was explained and explored, and

now there will be a chance to expound upon it. From the survey, six summary

statements describe and respond to the expressed theology of officers and soldiers.

These six statements consider how Scripture and experience are the two main

influences that shape Salvationist’s faith; that there are distinct differences in how

Salvationists define “tradition”; that Salvationists offer various positive and

negative definitions for doubt; how God is perceived as being more immanent

than transcendent in Salvationists’ understanding; the origin of suffering, and who

may be to blame for it, is difficult for Salvationists to contemplate; and the need

for Salvationists to hold in creative tension the understanding of God’s

sovereignty amid suffering – that God is perfectly loving and powerful even when

God does not prevent tragedies.

These statements will be considered in light of contemporary Wesleyan

scholarship, including classical Wesleyan theism, open theism and to a lesser

extent, process theology. Some soldiers and officers may find it challenging to


108

consider these contemporary theological positions as they can contradict

Salvationist views frequently associated with God’s sovereignty.

The survey data revealed that people’s perceptions of God’s sovereignty are not

uniformly clear and often appear contradictory; consequently it is opportune to

explore how open theism and process theology can contribute to the theological

discussion of sovereignty. Some Salvationists may find that aspects of open

theism resonate for them, although it is likely to be a challenge in some parts of

the world. Since process theology is even further away from a classical Wesleyan

position, however, it would prove too radical, and therefore unlikely to be

considered by The Salvation Army.

Examining these six statements through the lens of current Wesleyan scholarship also

provides an opportunity to consider how the received theology of The Salvation Army

may be shaped further by such discussion. Hopefully, this work may aid in future

discussion and lead to an expansion of the Army’s explanation of the doctrine of God.

1. Scripture and experience are the two main influences that

shape Salvationists’ faith

The survey results revealed there was a bias towards scripture and experience as the two

major influences (of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral) that shape Salvationists’ faith. Taking

the results at face value, the majority of Salvationists ranked scripture as the major

influence on their faith and their defined theological position – whether or not that


109

theological position was clearly expressed by them. This result does not come as any

great surprise when one considers the importance of scripture as the major influence on

Wesley’s life and subsequently on the lives of the Booths. While other things

contributed to the shaping and influencing of their lives, these other influences only

reinforced what scripture points toward: the salvific work of God.

Scripture:

In Scott Jones’ appraisal of scripture as the major influence in the Wesleyan

Quadrilateral, he highlights two important functions of scripture within the Christian

life.

Scripture functions authoritatively in at least two ways, as source and as norm.

Scripture as source means the place from which the basic teachings of

Christian doctrine are obtained. Scripture as norm means it serves as the court

of appeal in disputes about what teaching or behavior is specifically Christian

or not. For Wesley, Scripture serves in both capacities. As the source, it is the

Bible from which we learn what God’s message really is.1

These functions of scripture as “source” and “norm” provide the foundation for

Christian living in all its complexity. Ultimately, our faith begins within the exploration

of scripture. While the other influences within the Quadrilateral may serve as an

additional aid, scripture is the primary source for discovering who God is. From that

starting point, scripture continues to enlighten – or as Jones declares – becomes the

“norm” through which a person’s life is aligned more fully in holy action and character.

While scripture is the most important source, Jones also recognises that the remaining

influences also connect with scripture in an important way. “Scripture is never

completely alone. Including experience, tradition, and reason as vital interpretative

1 Scott Jones in Gunter, Quadrilateral, 47.


110

components does not negate, but rather enriches Scripture’s foundational truths.”2

Jones’ remark serves as a caution that none of the other sources could replace scripture

as the major influence on faith. Other influences serve as an interpretative function for

scripture rather than being foundations upon which faith firmly rests. However, the

danger arises when – even unintentionally – we elevate one of them into that primary

position. There is a likely danger in a Salvation Army context that some Salvationists

may subconsciously elevate experience over scripture, as the greatest emphasis within

the denomination is placed on doing rather than being, as noted in chapter two.

Experience as an interpretative tool, however, has much to inform and shape

Salvationists’ faith and its value should not be diminished. Experience is quite properly

one of the major contributing factors that influence a Salvationist’s expressed theology.

Experience

The survey results indicate that experience is the second major influence on

Salvationists’ faith development. Randy Maddox places the concept of experience into

perspective by reminding us of its subjectivity.

Few any longer assume that experience provides knowledge that is objective

and categorical. Instead, experience is assumed to provide simply my

perspective…on what I take to be reality! The obvious questions about (1)

whether my perspective corresponds in any way to how things truly are, and

(2) what claim it has against other varying perspectives, are at the heart of

the vigorous debates going on in late twentieth-century Western culture.3

For any experience to make sense from a faith perspective the deeper question remains

of where God is working in that experience. This then helps with the shaping of their

2 Jones in Gunter, Quadrilateral, 60.

3 Maddox in Gunter, Quadrilateral, 113f.


111

theology. A Salvationist’s faith may be validated by experiences, but not too much

weight should be placed on experience (alone) as a theological authority.

While Maddox broadly outlines how experience can be defined, Timothy Crutcher

identifies the function that it can provide in shaping and defining faith. He shows the

complementary nature of experience learning from scripture.

Experience gives us sufficient knowledge of this world to point to a world

beyond, but it does not serve as a source for knowledge of that world. All

that experience can do, and indeed must do…is point to the gap, to the

inadequacy of purely human thought and endeavour, and thus to the

necessity of God’s work. In terms of our knowledge, experience here

functions to point out ignorance, not to provide content. It clears the way for

an appreciation and apprehension of the truth of Scripture.4

Experience points towards the source on which we base our faith but cannot replace it.

Scripture alone fulfils that function and reveals the truth of God. Experiences may also

help to confirm or affirm one’s expressed theological position. As the word implies,

“experience is something that is acquired through engagement with reality, not merely

the passive reception of data from it.”5 For Salvationists, active engagement is not

something foreign. However, Crutcher speaks of the danger of passivity and this relates

more for Salvationists in the area of reflecting theologically on an experience.

Questions need to be considered such as: “Where is God in this experience?” “What is

God teaching me about myself or about God in this experience?” “What answers does

Scripture provide on this experience?” Reflecting on these questions can help make

sense of what a life of faith means in a contemporary context. The personal testimony

of a Salvationist within the context of worship has traditionally been an opportunity for

4 Timothy J. Crutcher, The Crucible of Life: The Role of Experience in John Wesley's Theological

Method (Wilmore: Emeth Press, 2010),146. 5 Crutcher, Crucible, 83.


112

reflection on how God is working in a Salvationist’s life. Unfortunately, the

opportunities for such testimonies are diminishing or non-existent in many Salvation

Army corps. A recapturing of such a vital component within worship needs to be

prioritised.

The four sources of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral can assist Salvationists in articulating

and informing their expressed theological position. It combines what has been learnt

from scripture, what tradition affirms – The Salvation Army’s doctrinal beliefs, the

capacity for reason, along with how experiences have shaped Salvationists in their

theological awareness and formation. While most of the discussion has centred on the

two major influences of scripture and experience, it is important also to consider how

tradition has been viewed and what contributions it makes to Salvationists’

understanding of their expressed theology.

2. There are distinct differences in how Salvationists define

“tradition”

The survey provided interesting insights into how officers and soldiers define tradition

as the word was expressed in at least two distinct ways. The first could be described as

“tradition viewed as belief” which focusses strongly on the doctrines and theological

foundation of the denomination. Tradition in this context expresses the essence of what

Salvationists believe and why.


113

The second understanding that emerged was tradition understood as “elements which

aid belief.” These traditions are the identifying markers that aid in the practical

outworking of the denomination. For example these identifying markers include such

things as uniform, flag, brass bands, and the like. These “forms” often identify what is

valued most within the denomination.6 As the question in the survey was relatively

ambiguous, it is not surprising that both understandings emerged.

While this second understanding has an important function within The Salvation Army,

the important point for discussion remains how tradition viewed as belief arises from

the received theology of The Salvation Army, and as a consequence how it should also

contribute to the shaping of Salvationists’ expressed theology.

What becomes evident from chapter two is the need for a clearer articulation of the

denomination’s theological teaching, which needs to be viewed more clearly through a

contemporary Wesleyan lens. If Salvationists are not fully aware of their Wesleyan

heritage, there is a potential danger that they may develop an eclectic mix of theological

viewpoints that bears limited resemblance to the tradition of The Salvation Army.

Consequently, there is a need to explore and invite robust discussion of The Salvation

Army’s doctrines across the denomination so that received theology is clearly

articulated and can connect with Salvationists’ expressed theology.

It is apparent from Salvationists’ comments within the survey that there was a mixed

reaction of both positive and negative responses to tradition viewed as belief. While

6 This often generates passionate debate among Salvationists.


114

many participants had been able to see connections between the received theology of

The Salvation Army and their own expressed theology, there were other participants

who either found tradition to be restrictive or a hindrance to their faith development –

even believing it bears no relevance at all. Some participants suggested that experience

had become the most important connection for their faith. While this may not come as a

complete surprise, it perhaps sounds a warning that some Salvationists’ expressed

theology may potentially be moving away from the received theology of The Salvation

Army. Tradition viewed as belief needs to become an important influence that

contributes significantly to how Salvationists’ expressed theology is shaped.

Ted Campbell cautions not to dismiss the relevance of tradition and the contribution that

it makes to understanding scripture, for the role of tradition underpins the received

theology of a denomination.

[W]e conclude that it is inadequate if not intellectually dishonest…to look

askance at tradition, view it pejoratively, and reject its consideration out of

hand. Our calling then, in recognizing the authority of tradition in a

Wesleyan sense, is not to favour an antiquated vision of the past; it is, rather,

the calling to value God’s own work throughout the story of God’s people,

and to take courage and confidence in the faithfulness of God speaking to us

in traditions beyond the witness of the biblical age. 7

What Wesleyan theology contributes to wider theological discussions are its particular

views on the concepts of original sin, salvation, grace and the emphasis on holiness, all

of which are heavily influenced by its understanding of scripture. This teaching makes a

contribution to the church universal and therefore should not be lost among other

theological voices. What Salvationists may not realise is that minimising the

significance of ‘tradition viewed as belief’ as an essential part of the formation of their

7 Ted Campbell in Gunter, Quadrilateral, 75.


115

expressed theology, can potentially reduce faith formation to feelings and perceptions.

The danger is that experiences can change as quickly as circumstances vary.

If people know what they believe about God then when crises occur and faith is tested,

they may be better able to negotiate pain and suffering. Fowler identifies that at Stage 3

(“synthetic-conventional”), a person’s faith is significantly shaped by the church or

other “authority figures”; whereas when a person moves to Stage 4 (“individuative-

reflective”), there is critical evaluation and exploration of faith.8

At these stages people move from having a fairly simple to a more mature faith. Faith is

consolidated and personal ownership is taken of what belief looks like for them. When

suffering brings pain and confusion, such crisis moments may determine whether faith

remains an anchor or is abandoned. When suffering challenges the core of a person’s

faith the natural tendency is to renegotiate what life looks like. Some people may come

through the renegotiating phase with a stronger faith – but looking decidedly different.

For other people this renegotiation may not be quite so successful and faith may be

abandoned because it does not make sense in the confusion.

Establishing a strong faith foundation becomes critical before tragedy strikes. This

foundational knowledge will not answer the ‘why’ question but it will provide a firm

faith base that is stronger despite the risk of turmoil and suffering. Tradition helps to

8 James W. Fowler, Stages of Faith: The Psychology of Human Development and the Quest for

Meaning (New York: HarperCollins, 1995). See Part IV – Stages of Faith 117-211. “It is significant

when persons at Stage 3 encounter and respond to situations or contexts that lead to critical reflection

on their tacit value systems. Under such circumstances they begin the transition to Stage 4’s explicit

system.” 162.


116

ground Salvationists’ faith in a vibrant theology that speaks not only to the heart but

optimises the holiness tradition as being valuable and distinctive.

The first two statements discussed in this chapter have identified what has influenced

and shaped Salvationists’ expressed theology, and how tradition can contribute to that

theology. For these statements include how scripture and experience are the two main

influences that shape Salvationists’ faith; and how there are distinct differences in how

Salvationists define “tradition”. The remaining four statements expand – through a

Wesleyan lens – how God is perceived in suffering. The next statement under

consideration concerns how doubt is perceived and what it looks like through a

Wesleyan lens.

3. Salvationists offer various positive and negative

definitions for doubt

The survey results show a mixture of responses in defining doubt, ranging from

defining doubt as positive to defining it as negative and also to some degree show a

measure of uncertainty. It was important that doubt not be too narrowly defined in the

survey so that various responses might emerge. Knowing the difference between

positive and negative doubt will minimise the potential to see all doubt negatively.

Wesley’s own view of doubt appears somewhat negative: doubt seems to be for him

something that did not align with an assurance of faith.9 This negative doubt would be

9John Wesley, "The Sermons of John Wesley - 1872 Edition", Wesley Center for Applied Theology

http://wesley.nnu.edu/john-wesley/the-sermons-of-john-wesley-1872-edition/ (accessed 25 August

2015). “[W]hatever weakens our faith, must, in the same degree obstruct our holiness.” (Sermon 42

Satan’s Devices, point 7-8); “[W]hen his faith is strengthened, when he receives faith’s abiding


117

with the experience of a person who remains trapped in their sin, without a sense of

ever experiencing freedom, and actually moving away from it.

When doubt is expressed people may either be criticised for a lack of faith, or be

reminded that their faith is not as strong as they would have liked it to be. If this view of

doubt is left unchecked it can become destructive to a person’s faith. From a theological

perspective it is imperative that we are clear about what constitutes negative doubt, and

what positive, healthy, faith-based doubt looks like; for doubt is not the absence or lack

of faith but can be the link that keeps faith robust and alive.

As already indicated under the previous statement, when a person’s faith transitions

from (Fowler’s) stage 3 to stage 4, this may come as a result of a crisis moment. Dean

Smith – an Australian Salvation Army officer – believes an epistemological crisis rather

than a faith crisis occurs in this transitional process.

[A]n epistemological crisis is most likely to occur in the transition from

stage 3, the synthetic-conventional faith stage, to stage 4, the individuative-

reflective faith stage. On this reading an epistemological crisis can be seen

not as a crisis or failure of faith but on the contrary signals a movement

toward mature faith.10

Instead of viewing doubt as something that can stunt or diminish faith, we can conclude

from Smith’s discussion that this transitional stage may become a pivotal point in the

Christian life. When suffering occurs, faith that may have been originally held as a child

impression, realizing things to come; when he has received the abiding witness of the Spirit, doubts and

fears vanish away. He then enjoys the…full assurance, of faith; excluding all doubt” (Sermon 110, On

discoveries of faith, point 15); “It is peace that banishes all doubt, all painful uncertainty; the Spirit of

God bearing witness with the spirit of a Christian, that he is ‘a child of God.’” (Sermon 7, The Way to

the Kingdom point 10). 10

Dean Smith, "Growing Pains?: A Reflection on the Experience of Suffering Accompanying an

Epistemological Crisis," in The Salvation Army "Thought Matters" Conference (Sydney: 4-7 Sept

2015), 5.


118

or a person in the early stages of faith can no longer adequately provide a response that

makes sense. Here is where that epistemological crisis arises: in order for faith to make

sense, a different picture may need to emerge. When this occurs a deeper awareness of

God becomes possible.

Frank Rees – although not a Wesleyan scholar – articulates the importance of seeing

doubt in a more positive light. His concept of the “divine conversation” invites us to see

doubt in a different way and to consider the advantages of participating in this divine

conversation.

The “resolution” of doubt is not through finding a form of belief without

questions or struggle. Rather, as we journey with the questions we discover

that doubt and belief, perplexity and praise, struggle and rest are all gifts of

the same Spirit who bears witness with our spirit, gathering us into the

eternal, divine conversation.11

Rees illuminates the potential for discovery of what doubt can mean in the life of the

believer and of the community of faith. He invites investigation that can challenge

preconceived notions of doubt. Doubt should not hold a person captive to what is

unknown, but healthy doubt allows for fresh insights and greater exposure to the

mystery of God. If questioning moves a person into a deeper knowledge of God, then

doubt should not be dismissed as failure. If doubt is viewed positively, Salvationists

will be more likely to engage with theological issues rather than remain silent, avoiding

the risk of possible criticism.

Healthy doubt enables people to discover more about God and their relationship with

God. As one survey participant described it “doubt is the instigator for the examining of

11

Frank D. Rees, Wrestling with Doubt: Theological Reflections on the Journey of Faith (Collegeville:

The Liturgical Press, 2001), 228.


119

faith”.12

Doubt therefore begins the process of discovery but is not an end in itself.

Positive doubt drives us towards, rather than away from, God. Doubt should ignite a

passion to explore how theology informs and shapes faith. As another participant

indicated, “doubt is a vital part of faith”.13

Surprisingly, two participants perceived

doubt in an absolute sense – something had to be one hundred percent true before they

believed its authenticity.14

If the tendency is not to believe something unless it is

absolute, then faith becomes severely restricted. Faith is not based on a scientific

equation. It needs to be seen as fluid and evolving rather than rigid and prescriptive

leading to an ultimate or inevitable conclusion. When faith is tested and needs to be

renegotiated, the difficulty arises that absolute faith can be shaken. Authentic doubt, on

the other hand, allows faith to become more pliable and resilient under stress.

The doctrine of “assurance” is of considerable importance within the Wesleyan

tradition. Wesley made a distinction between “the faith of a servant, and those who had

the faith of a child of God.”15

This distinction was between those who had assurance

(faith of a child) and those who continue to remain in a state of uncertainty and doubt

(faith of a servant). The difference between Romans 7 and Romans 8 became an

important one for Wesley in making the claim for assurance. Those who remain “stuck”

in the cyclical process of Romans 7 “do not enjoy any sense of the freedom, grace and

power…they clearly lack justifying faith.”16

Alternatively, for those who experience

assurance (faith of a child of God), no such uncertainty exists. Assurance in this

12

Participant 64 in Figure 43. 13

Participant 12 in Figure 43. 14

Participants 109 and 111 in Figure 43. 15

Geoff and Kalie Webb, Authentic "Fair Dinkum" Holiness for Ordinary Christians (Melbourne:

Salvo Publishing, 2007), 171. 16

Webb, Authentic Holiness, 171.


120

instance is “characterized by the inner witness of the Spirit, and the external testimony

of spiritual fruit within the Christian’s life.”17

These become the defining features of

faith. Wesley, in his 1767 Sermon “The Witness of the Spirit – Discourse II”, declares

the importance of the witness of the Spirit in a person’s life:

This is the privilege of all the children of God; and without this we can never

be assured that we are his children. Without this we cannot retain a steady

peace, nor avoid perplexing doubts and fears.18

There is a distinction to be made between the doubt about which Wesley wrote – which

was perceived negatively - and positive doubt which has the potential to ignite faith.

Doubt can be viewed as positive critical engagement. This is not about whether a

person has assurance of salvation, but assurance of salvation is the catalyst for doubt to

be explored positively. Consequently the notion of negative doubt should be removed

for this context.19

As Salvationists continue to wrestle with the mystery that is God, it is

important that they are encouraged to engage with faith questions that produce healthy

doubt.

Throughout Wesley’s lifetime there were stages where his understanding of assurance

changed. Here Collins cites Richard Heitzenrater’s work to suggest “there are both

degrees of faith and degrees of assurance and that a child of God may exercise

justifying faith, which is mixed with both doubt and fear.”20

By implication, assurance

17

Webb, Authentic Holiness, 171. 18

John Wesley, "The Witness of the Spirit - Discourse Ii," in The Works of John Wesley (London: John

Mason, 1830). 19

Whether Wesley would have verbalised it this way or not, his struggle prior to his Aldersgate

experience in finding his own assurance of faith would suggest that his searching (positive doubt)

contributed to finally drawing to the conclusion that assurance was indeed possible. This may only be

an issue of semantics but what Wesley was searching for could – in today’s language – be referred to as

positive doubt. 20

Kenneth J. Collins, The Theology of John Wesley: Holy Love and the Shape of Grace (Nashville:

Abingdon, 2007), 131.


121

could be affirmed through a healthy positive approach to doubt.

If Salvationists are seeking to align their understanding of an assurance of faith with

Wesley’s concept of “the faith of a child of God”, then living out a Romans 8:17-18

existence provides the assurance that even through suffering, positive doubt gives way

to life in the Spirit.21

Salvationists are still reminded of their adopted status as children

of God and are no longer trapped in any fear and uncertainty. Instead, fear is replaced

with an assurance of salvation in the present and hope for the future (vv24-25).22

If

positive doubt is not encouraged, faith becomes stagnant, Salvationists cease growing in

their knowledge of God, and then the assurance Wesley spoke about is jeopardised.

Positive doubt exists in the gap between what Salvationists know to be true and what

they can discover about God. Doubt should never limit exposure to the mysteries of

God but inspire a much deeper search to see God more fully.

When we see God more fully God’s immanence and transcendence inherently reveal

God’s connection and role in the world. The next statement not only underlines an

imbalance that arose out of the survey but identifies how a re-balancing needs to occur

in order for a more accurate and holistic picture of God to emerge.

21

Webb, Authentic Holiness, 171. 22

For further reading on the witness of the spirit see: Michael Lodahl, "'The Witness of the Spirit':

Questions of Clarification for Wesley's Doctrine of Assurance", Wesleyan Theological Journal,

23/1&2 (1988), 188-197.


122

4. God is perceived as being more immanent than

transcendent in Salvationists’ understanding

The divine roles are defined in Doctrine Two: for the doctrine not only briefly states

God’s omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence but it also expresses the functional

roles of God as Creator, Preserver and Governor.23

What is not clearly articulated

within the doctrine is the description of the immanent and transcendent attributes of

God.24

Consequently, a theological gap appears to exist within The Salvation Army’s

teaching on the doctrine. It would therefore be appropriate to explore the possible

inclusion of the terms/definitions of immanence and transcendence for future editions

of the Handbook of Doctrine.

Collins helpfully distinguishes between divine transcendence and immanence in John

Wesley’s theology, and notes how both contribute to the explanation of God’s

sovereignty. God’s transcendence is echoed in those divine attributes that place God’s

sovereign rule over creation, and God’s immanence emphasises God’s relational

activity within creation.

[I]t is nothing less than holy love that informs Wesley’s understanding of the

Godhead in terms of the distinction between transcendence (separation) and

immanence (communion). And it is this same tension that illuminates the

roles of God/Father as both Governor (in accordance with justice and the

holy moral law) and Creator (in terms of goodness, wisdom, and grace).25

The sense of separation attributed to the term ‘transcendence’ denotes the importance of

God’s deity and sovereignty. God is Other; above all things and beyond humanity’s full

23


Neither term is used in the Handbook of Doctrine in the 1923, 1969, 1999 or 2010 editions. There is

a loose connection at best with the transcendence of God in the glossary of terms in the 2010 edition of

the Handbook. 25

Collins, Theology of John Wesley, 42.


123

comprehension. Similarly, immanence remains an important theological concept that

provides a picture of the sovereign God who shares close communion with creation.

Thus, God is shown to be less mysterious and more relational, while also remaining

sovereign.

The nature of God’s transcendence and immanence arises from God’s unique ability to

be “Other” (holy divine) while also being “holy active” – that is (W)hol(l)y Other, and

actively present in the world in creation. Immanence and transcendence are conjunctive

terms; they do not operate independently from each other. Oord states: “God is

transcendent and immanent, has changing and unchanging aspects, gives to and

receives from others, is present to all things, and has supreme power.”26

Cobb provides an alternative view to show how experience plays an important role in

understanding immanence and transcendence.

What it means to be immanent or transcendent changes when one thinks,

with process thought, of the world as made up of events or occasions of

experience. These are largely constituted by their relations to past events or

occasions of experience. These relations are internal rather than external, in

the sense that the relations participate in constituting the occasions of

experience.27

Cobb poses an existential question as a follow up to his definition of these terms: “Do

we then seek God within or without?”28

He provides both a yes and no response but

quickly clarifies how God is involved with human experience:

God is a truly constitutive part of our experience, moment by moment, but

the God who is constitutive of our experience is present in this way

throughout the universe, drastically transcending us.29

26

Oord, Nature of Love, 87. 27



Cobb Jnr, Process Perspective, 33.


124

Cobb’s definition seems to suggest a greater level of discussion of God’s immanence as

it relates to human experience. The discussion of God’s transcendence appears to be

somewhat diminished, only briefly described as something which is “external”. Cobb,

however, does raise the important point in the question he poses concerning seeking

God. Salvationists need to consider where they seek God and this becomes especially

important in times of suffering.

Salvationists need to maintain the dialectic between immanence and transcendence. The

danger arises if one attribute is privileged over the other. “[T]o stress immanence to the

neglect of transcendence would result in pantheism; to stress transcendence to the

neglect of immanence would result in separation in which God would…remain

unknown.”30

It is important for Salvationists to be able to articulate both these divine attributes

especially when discerning where God may be in times of personal suffering and how

connected they feel towards God. When God is viewed primarily as transcendent, God

could be considered to be uncaring, distant and remote from human activity. When God

is viewed primarily as immanent, God could be considered more connected, caring and

passionate. Both can appear to limit God’s effectiveness in a person’s life at times of

crisis. God’s transcendence could appear to remove God’s involvement in the situation,

rendering either God’s power or love to be ineffective. By contrast God’s immanence

could appear to reduce God’s power to change the circumstances of the crisis.

30

Collins, Theology of John Wesley, 24.


125

Whichever way Salvationists perceive God’s role in suffering, the issue of God’s power

is potentially problematic.

The secular song “From a distance” (Bette Midler) mentioned in the survey suggests

that God has no connection with the world that God created. God has wound up the

creation clock and let it continue without any real intervention. By contrast the song

“One of Us” (Joan Osborne): “What if God was one of us” is a reminder of the close

proximity and relationship God desires with humanity. God is so close that people may

sometimes not even recognise God in the exchange. The songwriter has obviously

wrestled with the whole concept of who God is and poses the question of God’s

relevance in people’s lives. Responses in the survey indicated that some Salvationists

were offended with the term “slob” to describe God. Their focus on this one point

essentially deterred them from fully engaging with the concept the song was trying to

convey about God’s immanence. Others strongly affirmed that the concept of God’s

immanence connected for them.

Clark Pinnock suggests that there is a tendency among theologians, generally to elevate

God’s transcendence over God’s immanence as “[t]hey prefer to speak more of God’s

power than of weakness, more of God’s eternity than of temporality, and more of God’s

immutability”.31

For some Salvationists the alternative view of God which Pinnock

provides can be confronting, as it appears to place God in a more precarious and

vulnerable position. In Pinnock’s assessment of how transcendence and immanence

complement each other, he provides a caution about how either may be misconstrued.

31

Clark H. Pinnock, The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of

God (Downers Grove: InterVarsity 1994), 105.


126

Combining the two [immanence and transcendence], we say that God is so

transcendent that he creates room for others to exist and maintains a relationship

with them, that God is so powerful as to be able to stoop down and humble

himself, that God is so stable and secure as to be able to risk suffering and

change. Theology must strive to do greater justice to the two truths and hold

them in proper balance. God must not be situated in our thinking so far away that

he becomes irrelevant to human life or so near that he becomes dependent on the

world, not by volition but necessarily.32

Pinnock does not privilege transcendence above immanence but connects them to

emphasise that God’s nature is multi-dimensional. Immanence requires transcendence

to authenticate that God is “holy active”. God is close enough (immanent) for holy

activity to be recognised within and through Salvationists’ lives; and God is not so

distant in the cosmos that God is completely unknowable or unreachable.

Acknowledging God’s transcendence and immanence is vital, especially in considering

God’s role in suffering. The next statement considers a number of issues that relate to

how Salvationists view the origin of suffering.

5. The origin of suffering, and who may be to blame for it, is

difficult for Salvationists to contemplate.

Salvationists are not alone in trying to deal with the inner conflict that arises over the

origin of suffering and who may be to blame for it. Sometimes suffering may be seen as

a consequence of human sin: either personally or from another person. Alternatively

when none of these options seem valid and an explanation cannot be found, people’s

32

Pinnock, Openness, 105f.


127

attention may turn to God as the instigator of such suffering.33

Four points emerge from this discussion: the need to place blame or protest against

suffering; viewing God as a risk-taker; the possibility that God changes or changes

God’s mind; and God’s foreknowledge of future events.

Placing Blame or Protesting against Suffering

Identifying the source of pain and trying to deal with it can often result in people trying

to attribute blame or protest against whatever may be the perceived cause of suffering.

For a while the source of pain may become the initial focus. Sometimes identifying the

source of the pain may be easy to assess but more often it can become a frustrating and

fruitless exercise. The free will argument has often become the default, claiming human

sin to be the cause of suffering. The problem with this view will be discussed in the

consideration of the final statement.

Beginning with the classical Wesleyan view that sin and suffering are a result of human

free will, Philip Meadows states:

[T]he presence and power of God is able to redeem even the worst of human

suffering,…although God may have to continually readjust the work of

providence to meet the…needs of a life which is free to fail. God’s purpose for

human flourishing may be frustrated, but it is never finally defeated.34

Meadows articulates the distinction between God’s role and humanity’s role. With God’s

provision of free will, people have the opportunity to make choices, which on occasion

may result in failure and suffering. The one responsible for suffering points directly

33

Interestingly the results within the survey showed participants strongly reject this suggestion. 34

Philip R. Meadows, "Providence, Chance, and the Problem of Suffering", Wesleyan Theological

Journal, 34/2 Fall (1999), 77.


128

towards the person being the offender, and suffering is a direct by-product of the choices

made by the freedom that person enjoys.

While Meadows’ focus remains on the consequences of the free will enjoyed by

humanity in this life, he also hints at the eschatological dimension that is yet to be fully

realised. It must be noted that while God can and does bring good out of suffering, there

is no guarantee that suffering will necessarily be eradicated or miraculously cease. The

belief in the eventual victory, that “God’s purpose…is never finally defeated” becomes a

source of hope.35

Thomas Oden’s explanation similarly includes God’s “promise of

redemption to all who are fallen.”36

It is this promise of redemption that changes our

status from guilt to pardon. While Meadows emphasises the redemption of human

suffering (focussing on the effects of suffering), Oden’s emphasis is particularly

focussed on the actual person. The question perhaps needs to be asked whether the focus

of the suffering should remain on the person (who has “fallen”) or on the effects of

suffering. From a Salvationist perspective it is perhaps more likely that the greater

emphasis would be on the effects of suffering and not on the individual state of a

person’s fallenness. Redemption becomes the pivotal word for it changes the perception

of how people view themselves and their suffering. A measure of healing becomes

possible either on a physical, emotional or spiritual level.

It is one thing to consider the source of pain but to deal with the actual suffering can be

quite difficult. As a coping mechanism, some people may express their pain in seeking

35

Meadows, "Providence," 77. 36

Thomas C. Oden, John Wesley's Teachings: Volume 1 God and Providence (Grand Rapids:

Zondervan, 2012),137. A similar argument to Meadows is provided by Oden.


129

to place blame, or to protest against the incomprehensibility of their suffering.

However, to remain in this place is never healthy.

Many of us…have at some time in our lives a strong need to lodge a protest

with God. Too many important things go badly, there is too much apparently

pointless suffering for it to be otherwise. If we suppress the protest and

assure ourselves that everything that happens is God’s will and is for the

best, the protest is likely to fester and cause spiritual damage in the form of

repressed anger against God.37

As a significant number of survey participants appear to believe in a deterministic

worldview with God fully in control, there is perhaps a greater likelihood that when

suffering occurs a person’s thoughts could lead them to respond with a protest against

God and God’s will. This could be spiritually detrimental to a person’s well-being as

William Hasker concludes above. Salvationists may draw the conclusion that God is

“trying to teach them something” – that this suffering is somehow a way to learn a

lesson and to rectify behaviour.

As chapter 2 indicated, suffering was often viewed as a badge of honour to be worn

with pride by early Salvationists. However, Sanders provides a counter-balance to this

earlier view.

[P]roponents of openness have concentrated on the problem of evil and

many people find it liberating to not have to blame God for our evil and

suffering. We do not have to think that God specifically ordained some

horror for our supposed well being. We do not have to pretend to be thankful

for the evil that comes our way.38

Sanders’ comments may provide a sense of freedom perhaps relatively unconsidered

within a Salvation Army context. God does not orchestrate suffering so that we can

37

William Hasker, The Triumph of God over Evil (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2008), 39. 38

John Sanders, ""Open Theism": A Radical Revision or Miniscule Modification of Arminianism?",

Wesleyan Theological Journal, 38/2 Fall (2003), 98.


130

somehow be better people for having experienced it. Nor do we have to appear grateful

for the experience. This could bring greater freedom for Salvationists to express their

feelings about their suffering. Consequently, only in hindsight can potential positives

be drawn from such experiences. Instead of blaming God or protesting against God,

finding the redemptive element in the situation can help Salvationists more readily

identify what has brought them closer to God. These are not necessarily lessons to be

learnt but may provide for a richer, deeper connection with God. Having a more

“open” and less deterministic view of the world reduces to some extent the need to

protest against an understanding of a God who may appear to be vindictive and

unloving.

An alternative view is to see God as a risk-taker. This may seem at odds with the view

of a sovereign, omnipotent God, however it may be helpful to consider how

contemporary Wesleyan scholars view this concept.

God as Risk-taker

The concept of God as risk-taker may be difficult for some Salvationists to align with

their understanding of God’s sovereignty. The word “risk-taker” is often associated with

vulnerability or having no control over a situation and is more likely viewed as a human

response rather than a divine attribute. Consequently, Salvationists may find difficulty

in aligning the idea of God as risk-taker with an omnipotent or deterministic view of

God. Hasker provides some insight into God as a potential risk taker based on what a

classical Wesleyan theist might espouse:

From a certain standpoint it may seem evident that a risk-free world is

preferable to one in which God takes risks. [A risk free world is one] in


131

which nothing can ever turn out in the slightest respect differently than God

intended.39

While a risk-free world sounds appealing in theory, the reality of what occurs in life is

far from this ideal. It would be fanciful to suggest that everything turns out as God

perfectly intends. John Sanders believes there “are two basic models of providence: the

‘no risk’ view and the ‘risk’ view. Either God does take risks or does not take risks in

providentially creating and governing the world.”40

Those who align themselves more

closely with a deterministic rule of God (the “no risk” view) would assert that whatever

happens, God has either ordained it or was in complete control of it. However, the

opposing view asserts

God … [in God’s] sovereignty decided not to control everything that

happens. Rather God is sensitive to us and has decided to be

responsive to us. In some things, God has decided to be conditioned

by us. Divine conditionality is the watershed issue between the risk

and the no-risk views of providence... There is no eternal blueprint

by which all things happen exactly as God desires.41

The possibility that God “risks” may be difficult for some Salvationists, especially those

who hold a deterministic view of God’s providence. However, it may be even more

challenging, when faced with personal suffering, to consider that God’s action may

have been directly responsible.

Hasker concurs that “God is a risk-taker; in expressing his love toward us, [and] he

opens himself up to the real possibility of failure and disappointment.”42

The emphasis

39

Hasker, God, Time and Knowledge, 198. 40

Sanders, God Who Risks, 10. 41

John Sanders, in Ardel B Caneday, "Putting God at Risk: A Critique of John Sanders's View of

Providence," Trinity Journal 20/2, Fall (1999). http://www.bible-researcher.com/caneday.html

(accessed 11/10/2015) 42

Hasker, in Pinnock, Openness, 151.


132

on God as risk-taker provides a view that may be easier to affirm as it connects more

closely with the concept of free will. If humanity truly has free will, God runs the risk

of vulnerability every time a choice is made contrary to the perfect will of God. This

definition is a reminder that God is willing to risk and allow for possible exposure to

vulnerability, for the sake of divine/human relationship.

Pinnock takes the argument of God as risk-taker one step further. He not only links it

with the evidence from the biblical account, but explains the nature of the one who is

the author of history.

The picture of God…from the Bible is of One who takes risks and

jeopardizes his own sovereignty in order to engage in historical interactions

with created reality. The triune God pursues this path out of the love that is

fundamental to his very being. This does not make history the author of God.

It portrays God as the author of history who delights in meaningful

interaction with creatures as his purposes for the world are realized.43

This is not a picture of a pre-determined history set out from the beginning of time

which is slowly and inexorably going through the motions of existence. Instead it is a

picture of a world that continues to evolve through participation. History becomes more

organic, and allows for contingencies to happen outside of God’s complete control.

What makes history alive and vibrant is the engagement and interaction between God

and humanity. God’s sovereignty then is viewed in terms of God’s open-ness to

variations and possible disappointments with what occurs throughout history. The idea

of God as risk-taker is not so much focused on how God acts in the world, but how God

reacts to humanity. God’s power is not under question here; it is God’s love which is

brought into sharper focus as God is willing to risk for the sake of love. It would be

43

Pinnock, Openness of God, 125.


133

interesting to consider whether the concept of God as risk-taker – briefly described here

– would have validity for Salvationists.

Whether Salvationists remain with a deterministic picture of God or believe it is

possible that a contingent, more open history is plausible based on this assumption, the

next question that arises logically is whether God changes, or changes God’s mind.

Whether God changes, or changes God’s mind

The survey conveyed some interesting results on the question of whether God could

change God’s mind. While the majority of participants (70) concluded that it was

possible, a further 35 participants did not know and could not answer the question.

These results diverge from the classical Wesleyan view concerning God’s immutability

– the belief that God does not change. A distinction needs to be drawn here as to how

God’s immutability is defined, for it could be expressed in two ways: God’s nature –

those divine characteristics that essentially declare who God is; or God’s action in the

world.

God’s immutability affirms that God does not change; God is not swayed by human

appeal and everything that occurs is part of God’s ultimate plan. Sanders provides a

brief overview of how God’s sovereignty has been perceived and the changes that have

occurred. He declares that in “classical theism” God is: “Immutable: God does not

change in any respect including thoughts, will, or emotions. The divine plan is

unchanging.”44

God is also:

44

Sanders, "Open Theism," 71.


134

Impassible: God cannot be affected by creatures. God never responds or

reacts to what we do. Our prayers never affect God, rather God uses our

prayers to effect what he desires to bring about through our prayers…God is

closed to us.45

However, Sanders articulates the contrasting view found among free-will theists that

God’s immutability is defined differently: “the character of God does not change, but

God can have changing plans, thoughts and emotions… God can be affected by

creatures. God responds or reacts to what we do… Moreover, our prayers may affect

God.” 46

While God’s immutability and impassibility are defined differently here, God’s

nature remains unchangeable. What is decidedly different is that not everything is

preordained.

As the majority of survey respondents strongly believe that God can change God’s

mind, the role of intercessory prayer becomes important. The argument could be made

that unless God’s activity is expressly deserved, God may not have done anything in

response to intercessory prayer. Alternatively, God may choose to self-limit by not

intervening in a situation, or God’s intervention may not be the outcome that is being

requested or expected. Cobb describes the role and importance of intercessory prayer:

Intercessory prayer should never be an effort to get God to do what God does

not want. We should not be pleading with God to act in a way that God

resists. It is, instead, to put our thoughts and feelings into the mix in such a

way that God’s purposes can be better realised…To hold up a loved one

before God, making our thoughts and feelings available to God to help

overcome obstacles to God’s healing work in that person – that is authentic

intercessory prayer.47

While it is important to affirm that intercessory prayer does not become a place for

people to force God’s hand, Cobb’s comments here seem to suggest that our prayers

45

Sanders, "Open Theism," 71. 46


Cobb Jnr, Process Perspective, 159.


135

form the basis of a “consultative” discussion before God actively decides how to

proceed.

If Salvationists believe God has the ability to change God’s mind but chooses not to in

the face of suffering – how does this affect faith? It could be concluded that if God

responds and changes God’s mind – or chooses not to change – such arbitrary responses

are indicative of God’s sovereignty. God decides what will or will not happen, and God

is not persuaded by human requests. Are prayers used by God or do they affect God?

This question becomes an important one for Salvationists to consider, for it might relate

to how an individual views God’s immutability and impassibility.

The ability for God to change God’s mind forms only part of the equation as God’s

omniscience needs to be considered. This raises the question: if God knows every

possible eventuality why does God not prevent atrocities before they actually occur? It

is this foreknowledge – God’s omniscience – that will be considered in the final section

of statement five.

God’s foreknowledge of future events

God’s omniscience is yet another theological idea that has been only briefly described

within different editions of the Handbook of Doctrine. There is a need to discover how

God’s omniscience has been historically understood and how contemporary Wesleyan

scholars may have broadened the concept.


136

Salvationists can affirm that God’s omniscience, omnipresence and omnipotence are

hallmarks of the sovereign God in whom they believe. Taken together, these attributes

establish God’s rule and influence in the world and relate to the essence of God’s

sovereignty. “Wesley’s doctrine of the omniscience of God…is not only sustained by a

consideration of space (omnipresence) but also supported by a consideration of time

(eternity).”48

God’s presence is not restricted by time or space but exists in the past,

present and future that is yet written. Consequently, God’s omniscience provides God

with the ability to know and to see what lies beyond human sight. This idea of God’s

omniscience would be challenged by both open theists and process theologians as they

reject the idea that God is outside of time and space.

Oord raises the problems associated with what he calls the “conventional model” of

understanding God’s omniscience (and the inconsistencies which emerge), by

referencing Clark Pinnock’s statement

that God is timeless yet acts in time; that God’s knowledge is exhaustive

yet freedom is real; that God’s power is all-controlling yet things happen

contrary to his will; that God is unchangeable and yet knows and relates to

a changing world.49

These paradoxical statements can either be dismissed as being part of the mystery and

complexity of God’s omniscience, or prompt further investigation as to where Pinnock

and other open theists take this discussion.

48

Collins, Theology of John Wesley, 25. 49

Pinnock quoted in Oord, Nature of Love, 89.


137

Recent discussion of God’s omniscience – especially in relation to God and time –

considers whether God is atemporal or temporal.50

Sanders provides the definition for

these contrasting views.

Atemporality or divine timelessness holds that God does not experience

duration or sequence (all God’s thoughts and will are one thought and one

will that works out in history). God timelessly sees all that will happen

though God does not determine all things to happen. Nevertheless, the future

is completely definite.51

This sense of God’s timelessness connects strongly with the earlier assertions made by

those who hold to a more classical Wesleyan view. God operates in time and space but

is not bound by them. By contrast the temporal view indicates that:

God is everlasting in duration (always was, is, and will be). Time is to be

understood to be an aspect of God’s eternal experience between Father, Son,

and Holy Spirit. God is not captive to time as though time were an entity

over God. Rather, it is simply a name for eternal consciousness.52

Oord also acknowledges the importance of God’s omniscience within an open theistic

perspective. “We most accurately describe God as temporally everlasting rather than

timelessly eternal… God is the everlasting One active and dynamic through the flow of

time.”53

Whether God’s omniscience is viewed within or external to time, God’s

effectiveness and work in the world is not questioned. The issue of “time” and how it is

defined within the divine context is of critical importance, for both the atemporal and

temporal views of God affirm the relationships between the persons of the Trinity and

how God operates in the world. One speaks of the relational aspect, and one speaks of

the functional role of God.

50

See discussion in Sanders, "Open Theism," 78-79. 51



Oord, Nature of Love, 88-89.


138

Contemporary Wesleyan scholars have considered God’s omniscience – especially

God’s foreknowledge – in various ways. Sanders articulates five different possible

forms of God’s divine fore-knowledge54

Briefly these include: “EDF – exhaustive

definitive foreknowledge[;] PK – present knowledge[;] SF – simple foreknowledge[;]

CSF – complete simple foreknowledge[;] ISF – incremental simple foreknowledge”.55

A brief definition of these various concepts of foreknowledge provides some

explanation: For “exhaustive definitive foreknowledge” – God knew the course of

events of history before the creation of the world.56

For “present knowledge” – God

knows what has been in the past and what is present, however as far as future

knowledge is concerned, it cannot be had because the future does not yet exist.57

By

contrast, “simple foreknowledge” – attests that God is able to see what is to come in the

future. It appears that this understanding is based only on what can be seen rather than

what God may actually be able to do.58

For “complete simple foreknowledge” – God

appears to know events that will happen from the beginning of time but will not

necessarily see them occur in a sequential manner.59

By contrast, with “incremental

simple foreknowledge” – God sees events in the sequential manner that “complete

simple foreknowledge” does not.60

These very brief descriptions dissect the concept of God’s foreknowledge into

unnecessary multiple categories which appear to be based on speculation. The divine

54

For an extensive discussion of these five different forms of divine knowledge see: Sanders, "Open

Theism," 82-102. Such scholars include Gregory Boyd, William Hasker, David Hunt, John Hick and

L.D. McCabe. 55






Sanders, "Open Theism," 85f.


139

foreknowledge described in these various views pushes beyond where The Salvation

Army’s received theology would venture and therefore should be left for scholarly

theological debate.

The Salvation Army’s doctrine affirms that God is omniscient and God’s knowledge of

the future remains mysteriously veiled. What is important for Salvationists is the

complex question that arises in the sixth (and final) statement which explores how

God’s sovereignty is viewed in the face of suffering and tragedy. An attempt will be

made to understand how God’s power and love are defined and what can be understood

about the evil that exists in the world.

6. Salvationists need to hold in creative tension the understanding of

God’s sovereignty amid suffering: that God is perfectly loving and

powerful even when God does not prevent tragedies.

Initially the majority of the survey participants indicated their belief that God closely

controls the world. However, several inconsistencies emerged when other questions

were considered concerning God’s sovereignty in the midst of human suffering.

Participants found it difficult to hold confidently to that earlier assertion. Salvationists

could not avoid the theological paradox that evil exists and tragedies occur without any

apparent intervention by a powerful and loving God.


140

Omnipotence and Divine Love

The greatest tension arising from this dilemma is related to how God’s omnipotence is

perceived. If God’s power is viewed in an absolute sense – that God closely controls the

world – then events are already pre-determined. However, if God controls everything in

people’s lives but then does nothing to relieve poverty, starvation and natural disasters,

God appears selective: choosing between the “deserving” or “undeserving”, or showing

distinction between people. These inconsistencies then become problematic.61

Many participants may have reached the conclusion that a deterministic picture of

God’s sovereignty is a difficult one to maintain in every circumstance, and the

complexity and mystery of God remains. God’s sovereignty in suffering is brought into

question. One way to resolve the problems of a deterministic God is to engage the free-

will argument. By shifting the focus to one of choice, God’s power becomes self-

limited.

In upholding the freedom of God to providentially care for creation, the

problem for theodicy lies in explaining the apparent inactivity of God to

alleviate so much evil and suffering in the world. Wesley began to answer this

question by appealing to a self-limitation of God’s power which respects the

freedom of human beings to both flourish or fail.62

The free-will argument provides another layer of complexity in understanding God’s

omnipotence. For classical Wesleyan theism, the limiting of God’s power and the

offering of human freedom is the point at which God’s power asserts itself. However,

when suffering unexpectedly occurs, God’s self-limitation may appear to Salvationists

61

The question of God answering a prayer for a person who needs a carpark became part of that

inconsistent response. 62

Meadows, "Providence," 76. Interestingly, Meadows does not indicate in his article any reference to

specific writings of Wesley in which the latter does this. By contrast, Young seems to consider it to be

a modern concept that suffering is anything that limits human flourishing; instead, he suggests that

Wesley would see suffering as having the capacity to generate spiritual fruit. Frances Young,

"Suffering and the Holy Life", Wesleyan Theological Journal, 43/1 (2008), 21.


141

as powerlessness – God has relinquished control. Ultimately, this emphasises that

choice determines whether a person fails or flourishes, as Meadows indicates above.

This therefore exonerates God’s direct involvement, and points towards human error.

While this may be accurate in many instances, it cannot account for all experiences.

Suffering still seems to occur randomly and without explanation.

What appear to be incompatible are the concepts that God closely controls the world,

and also provides freedom of choice to people. If both are true, then it is difficult to

determine when God retains or relinquishes control. Moreover asserting that God’s

power controls everything in creation, effectively accuses God of orchestrating evil or

at the very least of not preventing it. The image of a loving God is significantly

diminished.

[For those] who have found it untenable to maintain strong views both of

divine power and of God’s absolute goodness have, with very few

exceptions, elected to curtail the power rather than compromise the

goodness. That is not to say that limiting divine power is

unproblematic…But…a partially evil God is simply not an option.63

No-one would want to assume that God is partially evil and responsible for the evil of

suffering – that is unpalatable and unacceptable. An open theistic position allows for a

more fluid and less structured view of God’s sovereignty, however, which allows for the

future to be more open and less determined. This position does not assert that God’s

sovereignty is somehow diminished but instead provides an alternative way of

understanding divine sovereignty.

God rules in such a way as to uphold the created structures and, because he

gives liberty to his creatures, is happy to accept the future as open, not

closed, and a relationship with the world that is dynamic, not static. We

believe that the Bible presents an open view of God as living and active,

63

Hasker, Triumph, 39.


142

involved in history, relating to us and changing in relation to us…God’s

openness means that God is open to the changing realities of history, that

God cares about us and lets what we do impact him.64

Open theism allows for a less planned future, where circumstances can be more

contingent and true human freedom is present. People can participate in and create

history rather than being passive by-standers. This dynamic approach lends itself to the

idea that suffering may not necessarily be limited to human responsibility but engages

with the variability life brings.

For process theologians, a similar but slightly different view of God’s sovereignty is

expressed, emphasising God’s intervention in the world. David Griffin defines God’s

sovereignty through a process theology lens:

God “intervenes” in every event, so that the divine influence is a natural part

of the world’s normal causal sequences, and denies that God ever interrupts

these normal sequences. In other words, divine influence never cancels out a

creature’s power of self-determination or its power to exert causal influence

on other creatures. No event in the world, accordingly, is ever brought about

unilaterally by God; divine-creaturely cooperation is always involved.65

Griffin’s concept of God using persuasive power or divine influence suggests that while

God intervenes this is not a reaction to circumstances but a working alongside in mutual

co-operation with a person’s decision making process.

While God’s omnipotence remains a focal point of God’s sovereignty, an emphasis on

God’s love should not be diminished. Scripture asserts that God is love; the very

essence of God is love but in the face of suffering, God’s love may seem diminished.

The conclusion could be drawn that God is a powerful deity inflicting pain and

64

Pinnock, Openness, 104. 65

David Griffin quoted in Cobb Jnr, Searching, 13.


143

suffering on an unsuspecting world and thereby not responding out of the essence of

who God is. Ray Dunning emphases the overarching nature of God’s love:

“Love…becomes the unifying focus that brings together in creative tension the

paradoxical elements in our experience of God.”66

What we know of divine love is

evidenced through the greatest act of sacrifice, which appears momentarily to be

defeated. John Macquarie likewise states: “The fundamental paradox finds expression

in the Christian symbol of the cross, where power and suffering, exaltation and

humiliation, are presented together.”67

Divine love is a love powerful in weakness as it envelops the human condition. Love

exemplified unconditionally at the cross reveals the lengths to which God identifies

with humanity’s suffering by potentially exposing God’s vulnerability.

While God’s omnipotence and divine love have briefly been described here, it is God’s

omnipotence that appears to be the more problematic and perhaps needs to be redefined.

God’s omnipotence may not be so much a power that closely controls, but a power that

emphasises God’s vulnerability and willingness to invite human interaction and co-

operation. As these divine attributes will continue to challenge what Salvationists know

of God, evil also remains a concern.

66

H. Ray Dunning, Grace, Faith, and Holiness: A Wesleyan Systematic Theology (Kansas City: Beacon

Hill, 1988), 191. 67

John Macquarie quoted in Dunning, Grace, Faith, and Holiness, 207. See also Darren Cushman

Wood, "Suffering with Christ: The Function of the Cross in the Works of John Wesley and Dorothee

Soelle", Wesleyan Theological Journal, 43/1 (2008).


144

The existence of Evil and inexplicable suffering

The existence of evil remains an acute problem. Evil appears to have dominance in the

world and yet it does so while a powerful and loving God exists. Hasker differentiates

between the “philosophical” and the “pastoral” problems of evil.

The philosophical problem of evil asks whether the evil in the world

provides rationally compelling reasons to disbelieve in the God of theism.

The existential or pastoral problem, on the other hand, deals with the impact

of evil on a personal and emotional level…to those who are personally

suffering from terrible evil of some kind.68

A philosophical response to the problem of evil is appropriate for critical theological

engagement as it informs and shapes doctrinal belief. This philosophical approach can

inform but cannot adequately resolve the problem of evil as a pastoral response. For

most Salvationists a pastoral response to evil and suffering is generally of greater

importance than a philosophical one (although the two are not mutually exclusive).

What becomes important in a pastoral response relates more directly to how a personal

experience of suffering can affirm belief in God. What does faith look like now? How

does a Salvationist’s view of God change in great personal trial? To describe other

forms of personal suffering as evil is pastorally incongruous and unhealthy, especially

when suffering may be random.

The word “evil” is often associated with some of the greatest atrocities throughout

history: for example the Holocaust; Stalin’s purges; and the actions of Pol Pot in

Cambodia. More recent tragedies resulting from extremist activities in the name of

religion remind us of the evil intent of some people either to exact revenge or provoke

fear. Salvationists are unlikely to consider themselves as “evil,” nor see the suffering

68

Hasker, Triumph, 21.


145

they face as being a by-product of any evil intention. Language is critical here.

However, we cannot dismiss entirely the suffering that results from actions either

personal or by other people as it is the impact of the evil upon an individual that

requires a sensitive pastoral response.

The Salvation Army’s second doctrine affirms that there are three roles which God

fulfils as Sovereign: “Creator, Preserver and Governor of all things”. It is to the word

“Governor” that our attention turns. While it may be easy to accept God in the role of

governor for the majority of the time, it is when suffering occurs that it is harder to

reconcile the idea of a God of love with that role.

Randy Maddox reflects on Wesley’s belief that suffering was a direct result of human

sin: “while [Wesley] favoured a penal explanation of suffering, he was aware of some

of its limitations…The major problem is that it is solely punitive, lacking a redemptive

dimension.”69

It is important to find the redemptive element in suffering. People cannot

languish without the hope of some redemptive element in their predicament. Maddox

helpfully states: “what Christianity offers is not so much an explanation of evil

(showing why it has to exist) as a promise of victory over evil.”70

The victory God

declares includes both the broader concept of victory even despite sin (evil) and the

victory individuals can experience in their life in and through suffering.

Maddox’s response is a reminder that the focus needs to shift from the “why” questions

and concentrate on the “how” and the “what” questions. How is faith affirmed despite

69

Randy L. Maddox, Responsible Grace: John Wesley's Practical Theology (Nashville: Kingswood

Books, 1994), 61. 70

Maddox, Responsible Grace, 62.


146

suffering? What does victory in and through suffering look like? This becomes the hope

– the redemptive element in which a pastoral response can be made to Salvationists’

suffering.

However, suffering can no longer be viewed purely as an anomaly of human free will or

simply a sin-induced action for this does not always address the occurrence of

inexplicable suffering. Understandings of suffering need to be broadened since some

suffering – especially natural disasters – may not quite so readily fit within these

categories. Oord provides a helpful insight into explaining “natural evil”.

Open theology offers resources for identifying the causes of what

theologians often call “natural evil.” While some pain and suffering is

necessary for life, some genuinely evil events occur due to the randomness

underlying creative existence. If freedom extends to nonhuman creatures, we

might rightly blame them for causing some genuine evil.71

Open theism allows for the possibility that not all suffering is as a result of human

frailty and sin but that inexplicable suffering is also likely. For example, illnesses may

arise from some predisposition or chance mutation in a person’s makeup. It would be

deplorable to suggest that some cancers or other illnesses were somehow a result of a

person’s sin. The thought that an illness may have inexplicably occurred, may change a

Salvationist’s idea from blaming God to acquitting God in orchestrating the suffering.

Thus God’s role may be perceived to be one of love and compassion, and God as one

who seeks to bring physical, emotional or spiritual healing.

The uncertainty of random events lead to questions about how God can minister to and

bring healing from suffering. The importance of healing leads into the final sub-theme

71

Oord, Nature of Love, 95.


147

for discussion. The metaphor of God as Physician was an important one for Wesley as

he connected it to the sovereignty of God.

God as Physician

The metaphor of God as physician does not feature in The Salvation Army’s official

explanation of its second doctrine but is worthy of consideration in this discussion.

Maddox outlines Wesley’s understanding of God’s role as Physician:

[T]he most distinctive aspect of Wesley’s confidence in God’s healing

work…is that he believed it would go beyond merely restoring things to

their pre-Fall condition. While God did not intend the Fall, divine grace is

such that God will bring about an even more wonderful glory for creation

than if sin had not entered the scene….Wesley’s major reason for asserting

this was that it helped explain why God would chance allowing humans to

sin.72

While the eschatological dimension of God’s role as physician is an important one in

providing ultimate and perfect healing, it would also be advantageous to consider God

as physician bringing a measure of healing now. This does not imply that God cannot

heal fully in this life but it does mean that sometimes only a partial healing may occur.

“[W]hile Wesley allowed that healing will be complete only in our resurrected state, he

resisted the tendency to minimize the physical dimension of God’s healing work in the

present world.”73

Most of the discussion from Maddox’s article shows a very practical

response to achieving a physically healthy lifestyle with the need for human co-

operation. Philip Ott notes that for John Wesley, the matter of healing was an important

focus, as he believed in a holistic understanding of the Christian life:

It remains to Wesley’s lasting credit that he stressed the interrelationship of

physical and psychic or emotional well-being. It was not that Wesley equated

72

Maddox, Responsible Grace, 62. 73

Randy L. Maddox, "John Wesley on Holistic Health and Healing", Methodist History, 46:1 October

(2007), 9.


148

health of body and health of soul. Rather, healing and health must be viewed

comprehensively. Healing and health touch the individual at every level of

human existence.74

When suffering occurs, that sense of holistic well-being is not evident and the balance

needs to be restored. Whether suffering is identified as being the result of human

responsibility or as inexplicable suffering, God as physician begins a process of

restoration and healing. God’s restorative and healing process is just as significant for a

person who has survived a natural disaster as it is for someone who requires redemptive

intervention for the bad choices they make in life.

The concept of God as physician, and the redemptive dimension of suffering, provide

further insights into God’s role that not only seek to address suffering but finds a way to

redeem it. These two images bring together God’s healing activity and “the promise of

victory over evil” (as Maddox previously asserts). Evil and suffering may contaminate

the world, but hope in God’s sovereignty helps Salvationists live within the tension that

suffering brings. As Webb states, “God the Physician would restore all things, but not

merely to the pre-Fall state. The redeemed creation would be even better than the

original, with greater abilities and blessings. Through Christ, God provides healing for

our woundedness.”75

The redemptive nature of suffering is viewed most significantly in Romans 8, as Paul

describes the suffering experienced by humanity (vv22-23); the Spirit’s work despite

74

Philip W. Ott, "John Wesley on Mind and Body: Toward an Understanding of Health as Wholeness",

Methodist History, January 27/2 (1989), 72. 75

Webb, Authentic Holiness, 154. See, for example, the sermon by John Wesley, "God's Love to Fallen

Man" http://wesley.nnu.edu/john-wesley/the-sermons-of-john-wesley-1872-edition/sermon-59-gods-

love-to-fallen-man/ (accessed 25 August 2015).


149

our weakness (v26); and also the redemptive nature of God’s purpose that brings

everything together (v28). Earlier in this passage Paul identifies the things that comprise

human existence and humanity’s relationship as “children of God” (v14-17) for when

the witness of the Spirit is revealed within us we are considered heirs (v17). Suffering

may exist but hope remains alive in the future glory that is to come (v18).76

The

pinnacle of this passage comes in verse 28 (NIV): “We know that in all things God

works for the good for those who love him, who have been called according to his

purpose.” The emphasis on “all things” becomes the pivotal phrase as the previous

verses imply that even the suffering that is experienced can be brought within God’s

redemptive embrace. The idea of suffering does not appear to be unsolvable. How God

as physician heals and redeems an individual’s suffering is a concept the contours of

which cannot be fully explored here.

God as physician therefore becomes an important focus within God’s sovereignty, and

should be further explored and potentially incorporated into the explanatory section of

the Salvation Army’s doctrine of God. God as physician adds an essential dimension in

addressing the complexity of God’s sovereignty in suffering. Without this dimension

there would remain a theological “gap” in the Army’s received theology as it relates to

suffering.

Salvationists are left with a decision as to how they will now view God’s sovereignty

despite evil and suffering in this world. If a deterministic view of God is espoused,

where God closely controls everything, the tension may still remain. For others who

76

For further discussion on healing and Romans 8, see Catherine Philpot, "Healing Suffering: The

Hope That Christians and (Not) Psychologists Profess," in The Salvation Army "Thought Matters"

Conference (Sydney: 4-7 Sept 2015)


150

may choose to see a more open future, the tension may not be quite so acute, since

engaging with a less certain future suggests a greater measure of fluidity.

Whatever choice is made, a redefining of God’s power is necessary. While evil and

suffering remain a factor in this world, it is vital to find redemptive hope in God’s

sovereignty. It is this redemptive hope that helps people ultimately to live within and

move beyond the tension that suffering brings. If the knowledge of God’s healing can

penetrate a person’s life despite the suffering experienced, faith can become stronger.

Throughout this chapter we have been able to consider the six statements that emerged

from the survey results in chapter three. In seeking to respond to these statements we

have considered contemporary Wesleyan scholarship. These views have provided

insights into how they may contribute to the received theology of The Salvation Army

and to Salvationists’ expressed theology in the future. This provides the basis upon

which the final chapter can now be shaped.

Expanding the theological knapsack

151

CONCLUSION

EXPANDING THE THEOLOGICAL KNAPSACK:

What approaches might be taken to shape understanding

of suffering from a Wesleyan perspective?

This research project has considered definitions of evil and the nature of theodicy, as

well as an outline of the contemporary theology of a suffering God. The idea of a

theological knapsack being (historically) considered sufficient for Salvation Army

doctrine has also been explored. The analogy of a theological knapsack has been

applied as a theme through each chapter. Some consideration was given to

contemporary Wesleyan scholarship expressed in classical Wesleyan theism, open

theism and process theology. Contemporary Wesleyan scholarship was considered

further in later chapters to address issues relating to received and expressed theology

within The Salvation Army.

In chapter two, discussion focussed on the historical development and articulation of

the received theology of The Salvation Army’s doctrine (especially in relation to

Doctrine 2). Almost 130 years of monthly/bi-monthly articles from The Officer

magazine were reviewed, together with some contributions from the Staff Review, to

discern the development of thinking on the issue of God’s sovereignty and suffering.

This provided an understanding of officers’ expressed theology across the world and

throughout an extended period of time.


152

In chapter three the expressed theology of Salvationists was canvassed through

qualitative research. These insights came from the results of an online survey which

was conducted in the Melbourne metropolitan area, which asked a series of questions

relating to participants’ understanding of God and suffering. The data obtained

concerning Salvationists’ expressed theology could be compared with the range of

writings from chapter two, to verify the validity of the data.

Chapter four outlined six summary statements from the survey, and these were

addressed through contemporary Wesleyan lenses. These summary statements have

enabled us to consider: the influences that shape Salvationists’ faith; the differences in

how Salvationists have defined tradition; Salvationists’ views on doubt; Salvationists’

understanding of God’s immanence and transcendence; the origins of suffering and who

may be to blame for it; and how Salvationists hold in creative tension the understanding

of God’s sovereignty amid suffering when tragedies are not prevented.

While each chapter has outlined a broad scope of material, it is recognised that in

chapters two and three there was a comparatively small sample of research undertaken.

In chapter two, only sampling The Officer articles (and not considering other Salvation

Army periodicals) was necessary given the size of the project. Further research could be

undertaken to include even more detailed analysis of articles from The Officer, and from

other periodicals that include contributions from soldiers (including inter alia, articles

from The War Cry, The Local Officer, and The Vanguard ). Given that The War Cry has,

for much of the history of The Salvation Army, been a weekly publication in most


153

countries in which the Army operates, this research project would be a considerable

undertaking.

In chapter three there was a deliberate focus in the survey on those living within the

Melbourne metropolitan area; a geographically circumscribed sample was considered

necessary, and the invitation to participate still resulted in almost 10% of all

Melbourne-based Salvationists volunteering to participate anonymously. While it

cannot be assumed that the Melbourne cohort was fully representative of Australian

Salvationists generally, the proportion of Salvationists in Melbourne (as a percentage of

all of Australia) is approximately 13%. Extrapolating conclusions from a small sample

has its limitations, with too much potential for skewing based on only a few responses;

yet the sample size as a proportion of the whole was greater than 1% - statistically

significant enough to draw some tentative conclusions.

Further research needs to be done to verify the validity of the data (and the conclusions)

– perhaps with the same or similar questions – with opportunity for responses from a

larger sample of Salvationists from other parts of Australia and around the world. This

would also prove a large undertaking, given the influence of different cultural contexts,

and the analysis of data would be extensive.

While this research had a smaller sample, however, it did seem to provide sufficient

scope to derive the six summary statements which emerged from the survey. Additional

research with greater sample sizes would provide for further validation of these


154

conclusions, and potentially elicit other ideas, especially in relation to different cultural

contexts.

There is now an opportunity in this final chapter to propose a way forward, and to see

how insights gained concerning God’s sovereignty and suffering (as provided through

contemporary Wesleyan theological perspectives), may shape a Salvationist response.

This research has not only been an exercise in examining individual Salvationists’

responses to suffering, but has provided a chance to consider a greater articulation of

how The Salvation Army’s received theology may more readily reflect contemporary

Wesleyan approaches. Having reviewed the findings of the research, this chapter will

focus on proposals for The Salvation Army.

The first recommendation is to develop possible amendments to the explanatory notes

connected with Doctrine 2 and discuss the implications of such changes for the

international Salvation Army. The second recommendation is to create a resource for an

action/reflection model for the encouragement of Salvationists to reflect on their

expressed theology and how it connects with the received theology of The Salvation

Army.

Proposal to The Salvation Army

This research has shown that The Salvation Army needs to develop a greater

articulation of its received theology through an expanded examination of the doctrine of


155

God in the Handbook of Doctrine. This would include discussion of God’s sovereignty

and the place of human suffering as viewed through a Wesleyan lens.

The Salvation Army may choose to consider expanding the current definition of God’s

omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient nature. Additionally it would be helpful to

include an explanation of God’s immanence and transcendence and how these are vital

theological terms for an understanding of God’s sovereignty for a contemporary

context.

The Salvation Army may choose to consider including within the discussion of doctrine

two, the metaphor of God as physician discussed in chapter four. It is a metaphor

worthy of consideration, which has a strong connection with Wesley’s theological

position. God as physician provides redemptive hope in suffering.

The Salvation Army may also choose to consider what aspects of “Open” (or

“Relational”) theology could be incorporated within the explanatory notes of the

Handbook of Doctrine without compromising the existing material.

As part of the introduction to this research I raised a question concerning the

implications on an international level if The Salvation Army were to consider a more

open theistic response for exploring Army doctrine. Chapter four gave a broad outline

of some of the differences between a classical Wesleyan theistic position and how some

contemporary Wesleyan scholars have moved toward a more “open” theology. It may

be an opportune time for The Salvation Army to explore such ideas. Obviously there


156

would be implications for The Salvation Army on an international level if this proposal

were to proceed and these will be discussed later in the chapter.

It is proposed:

that The Salvation Army consider amending the explanatory notes of Doctrine Two in

the Handbook of Doctrine relating to God’s sovereignty and suffering, to include a

greater emphasis on the teaching of contemporary Wesleyan theologians including

insights of open theists.

Proposal for an action/reflection resource

Creating an action/reflection resource would raise theological awareness across the

international Army and become an educative process for Salvationists in developing an

expressed theology more grounded in the received theology of The Salvation Army. The

Salvation Army may choose to develop an action/reflection model resource to equip

Salvationists in articulating their expressed theology in matters of suffering. According

to Robert Street, “Spiritual growth frequently comes through suffering or coping with

injustice, but those whose faith has not been thought through can find themselves

spiritually lost.”1

Street’s observations seem to suggest that if Salvationists do not have a strong, clearly

articulated theological foundation, they are in danger of becoming weakened at a time

1 Robert Street, Called to Be God’s People: The International Spiritual Life Commission - Its Report,

Implications and Challenges (London: Salvation Books, 2008), 75.


157

of vulnerability. In preparing Salvationists for the eventuality that suffering will occur,

an action/reflection resource may help to prevent the possibility of suffering becoming

destructive for Salvationists’ faith.

The survey results have shown that Salvationists tend to gravitate towards “experience”

in forming their faith response. Experience is perhaps a useful starting point for The

Salvation Army to find ways to encourage Salvationists to engage with the other three

sources within the Wesleyan Quadrilateral.

The action/reflection model resource could centre around three key questions connected

with the Wesleyan Quadrilateral. These questions invite Salvationists to evaluate their

experience in light of the other sources of the Quadrilateral: Where is God in this

experience? How does scripture inform this situation? How does my tradition (for

example the doctrines of The Salvation Army) inform this situation? Such an

action/reflection model would help Salvationists to validate their experiences and learn

to process them more theologically.

The Salvationists who participated in the survey have been candid in their responses

and some mentioned privately that it has given them – perhaps for the first time – the

opportunity to express their thoughts on suffering and where God is within that

suffering. The responses received from the participants appear to suggest that

Salvationists want to explore in greater depth the problem of suffering and how it

affects their faith. The Salvation Army needs to be able to provide the opportunity for a


158

safe environment in which to engage such exploration with resources outlining the

received theology of The Salvation Army.

It is proposed:

that The Salvation Army consider developing an action/reflection model similar to the

One Army resources already developed in The Salvation Army on other themes. It is

critical that a greater emphasis be placed on how to reflect theologically, and that

greater awareness of the received theology of The Salvation Army be raised.

Implications

A significant implication concerns how these potential changes may affect territories

around the world. The issue of cultural diversity places an enormous strain on The

Salvation Army when considering changes to the doctrines or the supporting

explanatory materials.2 Territories in South Asia and Africa Zones will have different

responses in their theological understanding of the doctrines from those in the Europe

Zone, the Americas, or those within the South Pacific East Asia Zone.3 Healthy debate

is required at an international level to determine whether an “open” theistic position

could viably be introduced into the discussion of the Army’s doctrine of God.

One challenge that The Salvation Army would face relates to how parts of the global

south would respond to a more open or relational theology, when many of these

2 Including such things as other denominational teaching or other faiths that may encroach upon

Salvationists’ thinking; and how other cultures may infiltrate – unwittingly, into the culture of The

Salvation Army. 3 For a full list of countries and territories in each zone, see Appendix 3, 188.


159

territories appear to follow a more deterministic approach to God’s sovereignty, doubt

and suffering. Having served in Pakistan I observed a notable difference between how

Salvationists view their theology from those within my home territory of Australia

Southern. People within the Pakistani context would not ask the “why” question but

would often consider how they should live in face of human suffering. I perceived that a

more deterministic view of God was evident among Salvationists in Pakistan. The

influences that have shaped Salvationists in Pakistan include: living predominantly

within a Muslim majority country; and to a significant extent, how rote learning as a

dominant educational pattern has played an important part in faith development and

expressed theology. Other denominational teachings, such as the strong Catholic and

Pentecostal influences, have also shaped Salvationists’ thinking in this country. It has

only been in more recent years that an action/reflection model of ministry has been

incorporated into the training of younger officers in Pakistan.

By contrast, within the Australian Southern Territory context, Salvationists do not

always express the same strongly deterministic views of God. While there is evidence

to suggest that such a view is accepted, there is also a tendency among Salvationists not

to remain so closely aligned with this view. In addition, there is a greater likelihood that

Salvationists in Australia have a chance to engage more critically with, and be open to,

more contemporary theological positions. Therefore, the question needs to be raised:

Does the received theology of the denomination influence the expressed theology of

Salvationists, or can The Salvation Army be influenced by the expressed theology of its

people in determining doctrinal explanations? Perhaps it may be a combination of both.


160

Other challenges likely to be encountered across the majority of territories include the

importance of raising the level of biblical literacy among Salvationists; raising the

theological awareness of Salvationists especially in relation to their theological

tradition; and the importance of rebalancing sources of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral in

Salvationists’ expressed theology.

This research project has been the culmination of a long-held desire to address the issue

of suffering within a Salvation Army perspective: for Salvationists to grow in their

understanding of God’s sovereignty, and to gain a greater awareness of their faith

tradition. If this research can contribute to further dialogue within The Salvation Army

with a more detailed theological articulation of Wesleyan theology, then that desire will

have been fulfilled.

Further research could be undertaken to explore the concept of God as physician who is

working redemptively through suffering, as there was insufficient scope within this

thesis to provide a more extensive exploration. Further research could also be

undertaken to explore how people in wider Australian society perceive suffering.

Questions worth considering could include: how non-churched people perceive how the

church addresses the problem of suffering; and whether there are barriers for

Australians to be involved in the church if they see Christians providing inadequate,

simplistic, naïve, or antiquated responses to suffering.

The Salvation Army has the opportunity to strengthen its doctrinal position concerning

suffering and God’s sovereignty, and provide Salvationists with a firmer theological


161

framework within which to operate. As suffering continues to raise questions for

everyone (both inside and outside the church), The Salvation Army has the opportunity

to develop a response to suffering that makes sense and is relevant. It is time to expand

the theological knapsack and provide sufficient theological understanding to equip

Salvationists in their faith journey as they negotiate pain and suffering in a hurting

world.4

4 4 Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Act and Being (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2009); Alex Colman, After Forty Years Silence (Melbourne: Jewish Holocaust Centre, 1990); Thomas J. J. Altizer, and William Hamilton, Radical Theology and the Death of God (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1968);

Deland S. Anderson, Hegel's Speculative Good Friday: The Death of God in Philosophical Perspective (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995); David Bassinger, & Randall Basinger (Editors), Predestination & Free Will: Four Views of Divine Sovereignty & Human Freedom (Downers Grove,

Illinois: IVP Academic, 1986); G. C. Berkouwer, Studies in Dogmatics: The Providence of God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1952); Fred Jr. Berthold, God, Evil, and Human Learning: A Critique and Revision of the Free Will Defense in Theodicy (New York: State University of New York Press, 2004); Henri Blocher, "The Theology of the Fall and the Origins of Evil," in Darwin, Creation and the Fall: Theological Challenges, ed. R.J. Berry, and T.A. Noble (Nottingham: Apollos, 2009); Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Creation and Fall (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004); John B. Cobb Jnr, "The Problem of Evil and the Task of Ministry," in Encountering Evil: Live Options in Theodicy, ed. Stephen T. Davis (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1973);Frederick Depoortere, The Death of God: An Investigation into the History of the Western Concept of God (London: T & T Clark, 2008);John M. Frame, No Other God: A Response to Open Theism (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2001); T.J. Gorringe, God's Theatre: Theology of Providence (London: SCM, 1991); Jurgen Moltman, God for a Secular Society: The Public Relevance of Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress

Press, 1999); Jurgen Moltmann, Experiences in Theology: Ways and Forms of Christian Theology (Minneapolis Fortress, 2000); Brint Montgomery, Relational Theology: A Contemporary Introduction (Eugene, Oregon: Wipf & Stock, 2012); T.A. Noble, "Original Sin and the Fall: Definitions and a Proposal," in Darwin, Creation and the Fall: Theological Challenges, Darwin, Creation and the Fall: Theological Challenges (Nottingham: Apollos, 2009); Thomas Jay Oord, "A Process Wesleyan Theodicy: Freedom, Embodiment, and the Almighty God," in Thy Nature & Thy Name Is Love: Wesleyan and Process Theologies in Dialogue (Nashville: Kingswood Books, 2001); Thomas Jay Oord, "Open Theology Doctrine of Creation and Solution to the Problem of Evil," in Creation Made Free: Open Theology Engaging Science, ed. Thomas Jay Oord (Eugene: Pickwick Publications 2009); Don Thorsen, The Wesleyan Quadrilateral: A Model of Evangelical Theology (Lexington: Emeth Press, 2005); Bruce A. Ware, God's Lesser Glory: The Diminished God of Open Theism (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2000); Trevor Yaxley, with

Carolyn Vanderwal, William & Catherine: The Life and Legacy of the Booths - Founders of the Salvation Army (Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 2003); Burton Z Cooper, "Why, God? A Tale of Two Sufferers", Theology Today, 42/4 January (1986); Jonathan Groover, "Sketches toward a Wesleyan Theodicy: An Examination of Wesley's Thoughts," (2011). https://jonathangroover.wordpress.com/2011/04/07/sketches-toward-a-wesleyan-theodicy-an-examination-of-wesley%E2%80%99s-thoughts-part-iii/ (accessed 6/11/2014); Eckhardt, "Jürgen Moltmann, the Jewish People, and the Holocaust," ; John Wesley, Albert Outler, The Works of John Wesley: Sermons I. 1-33, ed. Albert Outler, Bicentennial Edition of the Works of John Wesley, vol. 1 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988); John Wesley, Frank Baker, Gerald Robertson Cragg, Oliver A. Beckerlegge, Franz Hildebrandt, The Works of John Wesley: Sermons Ii, 34-70, ed. Albert Outler, Bicentennial Edition of the Works of John Wesley, vol. 2 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975); John Wesley, Albert Cook Outler, The Works of John Wesley: Sermons Iii : 71-114, ed. Albert

Outler, Bicentennial Edition of the Works of John Wesley, vol. 3 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986); Wesley, The Works of John Wesley Volume 12,

Bibliography

162

BIBLIOGRAPHY

The Salvation Army primary sources

"Open Letters to Discouraged Officers: A Combination of Circumstances." The

Officer Magazine: a monthly magazine for the officers of The Salvation Army,

VI (1898): 181.

"The War, the Reality of Evil and Certainty of Judgment." The Officer Magazine: a

monthly magazine for the Officers of The Salvation Army, (December 1916):

803-805.

"The Healing Hand of God." The Officer Magazine: a monthly magazine for the

Officers of The Salvation Army, (April/May 1917): 267-271.

"A World in Travail." The Officer Magazine: a monthly magazine for the Officers of

The Salvation Army, (March 1918): 250.

"The Healing Hand of God." The Officer Magazine: a monthly magazine for the

Officers of The Salvation Army, (August 1919): 117-122.

"Deathbed Scenes." The Officer Magazine: a monthly magazine for the Officers of

The Salvation Army, (October 1921): 274.

"The School of Suffering." The Officer Magazine: a monthly magazine for the

Officers of The Salvation Army, (October 1921): 328.

"Wrestling with God." The Officer Magazine: a monthly magazine for the Officers of

The Salvation Army, (December 1921): 478.

"Look on the Bright Side." The Officer Magazine: a monthly magazine for the

Officers of The Salvation Army, (September 1922): 239.

"The Storms of Life: To Whom It May Concern." The Officer Magazine: a monthly

magazine for the officers of The Salvation Army, (September 1922): 207.

"The Heart Sorrows of the Sanctified: God 'Setteth in Pain the Jewel of His Joy'." The

Staff Review, (July 1923): 221-224.

"In the School of Struggle." The Officer Magazine: a monthly magazine for the

officers of The Salvation Army, (June 1927): 510.

Bibliography

163

"When God Is Silent." The Officer Magazine: a monthly magazine for the officers of

The Salvation Army, (July 1927): 40.

"The Ministry of Sorrow." The Officer Magazine: a monthly magazine for the officers

of The Salvation Army, (January 1928): 33.

"Suffering for Gain." The Officer Magazine: a monthly magazine for the officers of

The Salvation Army, (January 1928): 39.

"The Long Suffering of Grace." The Officer Magazine: a monthly magazine for the

officers of The Salvation Army, (September 1929): 203.

"The Silences of God." The Officers' Review, (July/August 1948): 1.

"Light on an Old Problem." The Officer Magazine, (November/December 1959): 379.

"Light on the Word." The Officer Magazine, (September/October 1959): 306-308.

"Prayer, Sickness and Suffering." The Officer Magazine, (March/April 1960): 121.

"Songs in the Night." The Officer Magazine, (January 1961): 40-42.

"Factors of the Faith." The Officer Magazine, (January 1963): 11-14.

"On the Experimental Level." The Officer Magazine, 6 (May/June 1966): 413-417.

Agnew, Milton, "God: Omni-Present or Arbitrary." The Officer Magazine,

(September 1981): 410-415.

Anderton, Geoff, "Meditative Musing: Why Me?" The Officer Magazine, (June

1988): 272.

Anderton, Geoff, "There but for the Grace of God Go I." The Officer Magazine, (June

1988): 311-313.

Aristion, "Clause Five of Article Eleven." The Officer Magazine, (April 1970): 239-

241.

Banks, Edith, "From the Nettle of Suffering." The Officer Magazine, (May 1972):

222-226.

Begbie, Harold, The Life of General William Booth. New York: MacMillan, 1920.

Bembhy, Guillermo, "Theology in Community." The Officer Magazine,

(January/February 2007): 44.

Bennett, Betty, "A Few Bricks." The Officer Magazine, (May 1981): 202-204.

Blackwell, Elisabeth, "Bereavement." The Officer Magazine, (June 2000): 9.

Bibliography

164

Booth-Hellberg, Lucy, "The Evil of Criticism." The Officer Magazine: a monthly

magazine for the Officers of The Salvation Army, (June 1914): 389-391.

Booth, Bramwell, "Bible Battle Axes - by the Chief of the Staff No. Xx -

Misunderstood." The Officer Magazine: a monthly magazine for the officers of

The Salvation Army, X (1902): 8-12.

Booth, Bramwell, "God’s Providential over-Ruling of Mistakes." The Officer

Magazine: a monthly magazine for the Officers of The Salvation Army (March

1923): 211.

Booth, Bramwell, "Passing Reflections - Ill Health of Officers." The Officer

Magazine: a monthly magazine for the officers of The Salvation Army, (April

1926): 181-189.

Booth, Fleur, "The Eleven Points Today." The Officer Magazine, (February 1978):

68-70.

Booth, William, "The Power of Direct Personal Attack Upon Sinners." The Officer

Magazine: a monthly magazine for the Officers of The Salvation Army,

(October 1915): 649-657.

Booth, William, "On Avoiding Even the Appearance of Evil." The Officer Magazine:

a monthly magazine for the Officers of The Salvation Army, (August 1916):

501-511.

Braye, David, "From Earth’s Confusion." The Officer Magazine, (January/February

2009): 34.

Brengle, Samuel, "The Trial of Faith Wrought into Experience." The Staff Review,

(May 1929): 199-204.

Burlison, Joe, "My Calvary – Who Cares?" The Officer Magazine, (April 1980): 147-

150, 179.

Caddy, Raymond, "Another Look at Original Sin." The Officer Magazine,

(July/August 1973): 304-307.

Carpenter, George, "Why I Am Burdened." The Officers' Review, (October-December

1945): 193-197.

Carpenter, Minnie, "Rachel Weeping for Her Children." The Officer's Review, (April

1942): 65-68.

Carter, Richard, "Innocent Suffering." The Officer Magazine, (July/August 1953):

281.

Clark, Alexander, "Jesus and Human Suffering." The Officer Magazine, (March/April

1957): 92.

Bibliography

165

Cole, Orville, "Positive Prayer Power." The Officer Magazine, (December 1985): 565-

567.

Cook, Bramwell, "The Medico-Theological Issues in Suffering." The Officer

Magazine, (November 1969): 769-774.


Magazine, (December 1969): 842-847.


Magazine, (January 1970): 60-62.

Coutts, Frederick, "Another Occasional Footnote: 'The Smallest of Knapsacks'." The

Officer Magazine, (November 1981): 503-504.

Dalziel, David, "Another Look … at the Man from Uz." The Officer Magazine, (July

1983): 298-300.

Dalziel, David, "Why Me?" The Officer Magazine, (May/June 1995): 241-242.

Davies, Ashley, "And the Child Died." The Officer Magazine, (January 1981): 37-39.

Dean, Harry, "The Wrath of God." The Officer Magazine, (April 1963): 169-174.

Dean, Harry, "Perspective on Providence." The Officer Magazine, (December 1976):

549-553.

Dean, Harry, "Perspective on Suffering." The Officer Magazine, (November 1976):

488-492.

Delcourt, Raymond, "Forgive Us Our Trespasses." The Officer Magazine,

(November/December 1956): 377-380.

Du Plessis, Paul, "In the Kingdom of the Sick: Facing a Difficult Diagnosis." The

Officer Magazine, (January/February 2015): 26-27.

Ebbs, M., "Decisive Battles of My Personal Life – Fighting a Way Through." The

Officer Magazine: a monthly magazine for the Officers of The Salvation Army,

(April 1925): 315-317.

Edwards, W.M., "Dwell Deep." The Officer Magazine, (November/December 1962):

404-406.

Fagerstrom, Jennifer, "All Things Passed Away." The Officer Magazine, (September

1994): 393-396.

Farthing, Peter, "A Kind of Evil." The Officer Magazine, (March 1992): 126-129.

Farthing, Peter, "When Goodness Doesn't Pay." The Officer Magazine, (November

1995): 506-510.

Bibliography

166

Gauntlett, Sydney, "Holy Violence and Tenacity." The Officer Magazine: a monthly

magazine for the Officers of The Salvation Army, (September 1918): 241-244.

Gauntlett, Sydney, "Holiness and Health." The Officer Magazine, (July 1981): 291-

296.

General, The, The Doctrines and Disciplines of the Salvation Army. London:

Salvation Army Supplies, 1881.

General, The, The Doctrines of the Salvation Army. London: Salvation Army

Supplies, 1885.

General, The, Handbook of Salvation Army Doctrine. London: Salvation Army

Supplies, 1922.

General, The, The Salvation Army Handbook of Doctrine. London: Salvation Army

Supplies, 1927.

General, The, Handbook of Doctrine. London: Salvation Army Supplies, 1969.

General, The, Salvation Story: Salvationist Handbook of Doctrine. London: Salvation

Army International Headquarters, 1998.

General, The, Salvation Story - Study Guide. London: Salvation Army Supplies, 1999.

General, The, The Salvation Army Handbook of Doctrine. London: Salvation Books,

2010, Reprint, 13.

General, The, The Salvation Army Year Book 2011. London: Salvation Books, 2010.

General, The, The Salvation Army Year Book 2012. London: The Salvation Army,

2011.

General, The, The Salvation Army Year Book 2014. London: Salvation Army, 2013.

Girling, Roy, "Redemptive Suffering." The Officer Magazine, (April 1991): 153-156.

Gossauer-Peroz, Corinne, "When No Child Arrives." The Officer Magazine,

(September 1996): 399-402.

Grant, Gary, "Life after Port Arthur." The Officer Magazine, (August 1997): 8.

Gray, Herbert, "What Is God Like." The Officer Magazine: a monthly magazine for

the Officers of The Salvation Army, (September 1919): 223-229.

Harley, Alan, "Wars, Natural Disasters and Faith in God – Are They Compatible?"

The Officer Magazine, (July/August 2011): 28.

Bibliography

167

Harris, Graham R., "The Fear of Death Has Gone." The Officer Magazine, (February

1984): 71-72.

Harris, Jocelyn, "Why?" The Officer Magazine, (September/October 2005): 14-15.

Hay, James, "After the War – What?" The Officer Magazine: a monthly magazine for

the Officers of The Salvation Army, (March 1918): 207-210.

Hobbs, C., "The Providence of God." The Officer Magazine: a monthly magazine for

the officers of The Salvation Army, (42/5 1926): 419.

Hoyle, Fred, "The Devil – Myth or Menace." The Officer Magazine, (July/August

2003): 46.

Huggins, Robert, "Rest through Pain." The Officer Magazine, (August 1991): 369-

370.

Hunter, Keith, "Tragedy - and God's Providence." The Officer Magazine, (March

1994): 165-167.

Ivany, Beverly, "Give Thanks Amid Tragedy." The Officer Magazine, (June 2000): 2-

5.

Jamieson, Patricia, "Trauma." The Officer Magazine, (September/October 1996): 447-

449.

Kalai, Andrew, "Biblical Reflections on Social Justice Advocacy." The Officer

Magazine, (July/August 2012): 17-19.

Kendrick, Kathleen, "Crucified Brother." The Officer Magazine, (September 1977):

396-417.

Kew, Clifford, "A Theology of Suffering: What Can We Say to These Things?" The

Officer Magazine, (March 1994): 159-164.

Klammer, Rachel, "Scooping Green Beans." The Officer Magazine, (March/April

2012): 20-23.

Kothe, Willi, "Cast Down but Not Destroyed: Part 1." The Officer Magazine, (June

1987): 265-267.

Kothe, Willi, "Cast Down but Not Destroyed: Part 2." The Officer Magazine, (August

1987): 293-294.

Kothe, Willi, "Cast Down but Not Destroyed: Part 3." The Officer Magazine, (August

1987): 373-375.

Kothe, Willi, "Cast Down but Not Destroyed: Part 4 Poor Ourselves, We Bring

Wealth...." The Officer Magazine, (August 1987): 373-375.

Bibliography

168

Lane, Colin, "In God We Trust." The Officer Magazine, (July/August 2008): 18-19.

Larsen, Harry, "God Answers." The Officers' Review, (April 1944): 82-83.

Larsson, Flora, "Avenues of Healing." The Officer Magazine, (May 1985): 215-219.

Larsson, Flora, "My Lowest Hour." The Officer Magazine, (March 1989): 106-108.

Lawson, Kenneth, "Pelagianism." The Officer Magazine, (August 1984): 343-344,

348.

Lim, Ah Ang, "Health and Healing." The Officer Magazine, (January 1993): 13-17.

Lo, Eric, "The Day Is Done: See You in the Morning." The Officer Magazine,

(May/June 2015): 6-7.

Lord, Herbert A., "A New Awareness of God." The Officer Magazine, (January

1963): 19-23.

Makoumbou, Antoine, "African Custom and Christian Faith." The Officer Magazine,

(April 1996): 151-154.

Markiewicz, Linda, "9/11 - I Can Never Forget!" The Officer Magazine,

(November/December 2011): 26.

Marsh, Gladys, "Our Ministry to Suffering People." The Officer Magazine, (June

1969): 401-402, 405.

Martin, John, "The Mystery of Human Suffering." The Officer Magazine, (December

1973): 560-562.

McDougall, John, "Prayer of Healing." The Officer Magazine, (April 1965): 274-275.

Merry, Walter, "I Was Sick." The Officer Magazine, (September/October 1957): 303-

305.

Middleton, Alice P., "First Person Singular." The Officer Magazine, (June 1984): 268-

269.

Mitchell, Gordon, "Salvationist Doctrine (2)." The Officer Magazine, (April 1973):

171-174.

Mitchell, Gordon, "Salvationist Doctrine (5)." The Officer Magazine, (July 1973):

295-297.

Mobbs, Bernard, "The Price of Sin." The Officer Magazine, (May 1965): 303-306.

Mobbs, Bernard, "Neither Ghetto nor Boulevard." The Officer Magazine, (March

1969): 206-209, 216.

Bibliography

169

Monkwearmouth, Canadine, "How Officers Triumph in Sickness and Death." The


(April 1919): 387-391.

Mueller, Lisa, "Walk with Me." The Officer Magazine, (September/October 2002):

23.

Munn, Richard, "God – Creator, Preserver, Governor." The Officer Magazine,

(May/June 2014): 16-17.

Myers, Charlene, "Ministering at Ground Zero." The Officer Magazine,

(January/February 2002): 19-25.

Needham, Philip, "The Eleven Points Today." The Officer Magazine, (May 1978):

210-213.

Nurani, "Died on the Field - Lieut-Colonel Emma Bown." The Officer Magazine: a

monthly magazine for the officers of The Salvation Army, (March 1925).

Orsborn, Albert, "The Silences of Christ." The Officer Magazine: a monthly magazine

for the Officers of The Salvation Army, (August 1915): 691-694.

Pearce, F.W., "The Fact of Divine Control." The Staff Review, (October 1925): 222-

224.

Pearce, Kathleen, "Can God Make Something Too Heavy for Him to Lift?" The

Officer Magazine, (March/April 2010): 41-43.

Pennick, W.D., "Pages of Personal Experience." The Officer Magazine: a monthly

magazine for the officers of The Salvation Army, (July 1925): 58-60.

Perry, Geoffrey, "Pastoral Care for Bereaved Marriage Partners." The Officer

Magazine, (October 1979): 460-462.

Poxon, Stephen, "Forgiving God." The Officer Magazine, (July/August 2004): 34.

Redhead, Gwenyth, "Pain: A Positive Perspective." The Officer Magazine, (December

1991): 561-564.

Robinson, Earl, "Blessed Assurance! God's Gift Even for the Storms of Life." The

Officer Magazine, (August 1995): 351-354.

Roche, Madeleine, "Suffering - the Hammer of God." The Officer Magazine,

(September/October 1954): 3.

Rowe, Lindsay, "Death of a Teenager." The Officer Magazine, (March/April 2002):

49.

Ryan, Geoff, "Ours Not to Question Why." The Officer Magazine, (August 2000): 39-

42.

Bibliography

170

Salvation Army, The, Disposition of Forces. Melbourne: Salvation Army Australia

Southern Territory, 2013.

Samuel, Ruby, "The Sick and Suffering." The Officer Magazine, (January 1985): 40-

43.

Sandercock-Brown, Grant, "A Theology of Roosters." The Officer Magazine,

(July/August 2007): 48.

Sandercock-Brown, Grant, "Life and Death." The Officer Magazine, (July/August

2011): 42.

Schollmeier, Christine, "Childless, but Not by Choice." The Officer Magazine,

(September/October 1996): 403-407.

Schultz, Donald, "The Fellowship of His Suffering." The Officer Magazine,

(March/April 2005): 44.

Scott, George, "When I Am Weak, Then I Am Strong." The Officer Magazine,

(January 1992): 18-20.

Shepherd, Eleanor, "The Unwanted Gift of Unanswered Prayer." The Officer

Magazine, (September/October 2007): 42.

Speed, Georgina, "Don't Protect Me from My Memories." The Officer Magazine,

(July/August 1997): 33-35.

Steele, Daniel, "Sin or Infirmity." The Officer Magazine: a monthly magazine for the

officers of The Salvation Army, (May 1923).

Stobart, John, "God's Tests." The Officer Magazine: a monthly magazine for the

officers of The Salvation Army, 51 (September 1930): 223.

Swansbury, Gordon, "Sharing the Suffering of Christ." The Officer Magazine,

(October 1983): 453-457.

Swanson, Sue, "Life – Suffering, What's It All About?" The Officer Magazine,

(July/August 2011): 32.

Tait, Mary, "Questions We Have No Right to Ask." The Officer Magazine: a monthly

magazine for the Officers of The Salvation Army, (May 1915): 338-340.

Tillsley, Mark, "Empress Remembered: Centenary of Tragic Events Recalled." The

Officer Magazine, (September/October 2014): 14-15.

Tourn, Karin Andersson, "Those Who Are Not Healed (Part One)." The Officer

Magazine, (April 1993): 185-188.

Bibliography

171

Tourn, Karin Andersson, "Those Who Are Not Healed (Part Two)." The Officer

Magazine, (May 1993): 205-207.

Tripp, Bramwell, "Predestination and Freewill." The Officer Magazine, (August

1964): 527-531.

Unicomb, John, "Good Grief." The Officer Magazine, (January/February 2008): 32.

Viola, Joseph, "Dimensions." The Officer Magazine, (June 1988): 284-286.

Volet-Sterckz, Christine "When God Keeps Silent." The Officer Magazine,

(January/February 2011): 18.

Watson, Marilyn & Heather Yates, "Lost for Words: Helping Families Cope When

Children Die." The Officer Magazine, (July/August 2011): 52.

Webber, Howard, "A Study of Two Sons." The Officer Magazine, (March 1994): 24-

128.

Webber, Howard P, "Suffering Servants: Dangers." The Officer Magazine, (October

1991): 445-447.

Webber, Howard P, "Suffering Servants: Our Own Load." The Officer Magazine,

(August 1991): 341-344.

Webber, Howard P "Suffering Servants: Possibilities." The Officer Magazine,

(November 1991): 495-498.

Webber, Howard P., "Suffering Servants." The Officer Magazine, (June 1991): 248-

251.

Webber, Howard P., "Suffering Servants: The Agony That Is God's." The Officer

Magazine, (January 1992): 11-14.

Webber, Howard P., "Suffering Servants: The Agony That Is God’s." The Officer

Magazine, January (1992): 11-14.

Westergaard, Mona, "God Has His Reasons." The Officer Magazine, (August 1976):

372.

Wilson, Kenneth, "An Act of God – Right on Time." The Officer Magazine,


Windybank, W.H., "The Toughest Battle I Have Fought, and How It Finished." The


(November 1918): 403-406.

Windybank, W.H., "Does Everything Seem to Be Going Wrong?" The Officer

Magazine: a monthly magazine for the Officers of The Salvation Army,

(December 1923): 507-510.

Bibliography

172

Windybank, W.H., "Where Is God Now?" The Officer Magazine: a monthly magazine

for the Officers of The Salvation Army, (February 1925): 142-145.

Yoder, Morag, "Christians and Grief." The Officer Magazine, (September/October

2004): 9.

Yoder, Morag, "Christians and Grief Contd." The Officer Magazine,


Youden, Marvin, "Awesome God." The Officer Magazine, (September/October

1995): 415-418.

Yuill, Chick, "Gnosticism." The Officer Magazine, (March 1984): 113-117.

Yuill, Chick, "The Eternal Wound." The Officer Magazine, (March/April 2005): 48.

Books and Monographs

Adams, Marilyn McCord, Horrendous Evils and the Goodness of God. New York:

Cornell University, 1999.

Altizer, Thomas J. J., and William Hamilton, Radical Theology and the Death of God.

Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1968.

Anderson, Deland S., Hegel's Speculative Good Friday: The Death of God in

Philosophical Perspective. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995.

Basinger, David, The Case for Freewill Theism: A Philosophical Assessment.

Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 1996.

Bassinger, David, & Randall Basinger (Editors), Predestination & Free Will: Four

Views of Divine Sovereignty & Human Freedom. Downers Grove, Illinois:

IVP Academic, 1986.

Bateman, Alan, They Gave Their Lives. London: Salvation Books, 2008.

Berkouwer, G. C., Studies in Dogmatics: The Providence of God. Grand Rapids:

Eerdmans 1952.

Berthold, Fred Jr., God, Evil, and Human Learning: A Critique and Revision of the

Free Will Defense in Theodicy. New York: State University of New York

Press, 2004.

Bonhoeffer, Dietrich, Letters and Papers from Prison. London: SCM, 1999.

Bonhoeffer, Dietrich, Creation and Fall. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004.

Bonhoeffer, Dietrich, Act and Being. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2009.

Bibliography

173

Booth, William, In Darkest England and the Way Out. London: McCorquodale & Co,

1890.

Clifton, Shaw, Who Are These Salvationists? An Analysis for the 21st Century.

Alexandra: Crest Books, 1999.

Cobb Jnr, John B., A Christian Natural Theology: Based on the Thought of Alfred

North Whitehead, . Philadelphia: Westminster, 1965.

Cobb Jnr, John B., God and the World. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1965.

Cobb Jnr, John B., "The Problem of Evil and the Task of Ministry," in Encountering

Evil: Live Options in Theodicy. edited by Stephen T. Davis, 167-176. Atlanta:

John Knox Press, 1973.

Cobb Jnr, John B., Theology and Pastoral Care. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977.

Cobb Jnr, John B., Process Theology as Political Theology. Manchester: Manchester

University Press, 1982.

Cobb Jnr, John B., The Process Perspective Ii. St. Louis: Chalice Press, 2011.

Cobb Jnr, John B., and Clark H Pinnock (Editors), Searching for an Adequate God: A

Dialogue between Process and Free Will Theists. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,

2000.

Collins, Kenneth J., The Theology of John Wesley: Holy Love and the Shape of Grace.

Nashville: Abingdon, 2007.

Colman, Alex, After Forty Years Silence. Melbourne: Jewish Holocaust Centre, 1990.

Coutts, John, This We Believe. London: Campfield Press, 1980.

Craig, William L., The Only Wise God; the Compatibility of Divine Foreknowledge

and Human Freedom. Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 1999.

Crutcher, Timothy J., The Crucible of Life: The Role of Experience in John Wesley's

Theological Method. Wilmore: Emeth Press, 2010.

Davis, Stephen T., Encountering Evil: Live Options in Theodicy. Atlanta: John Knox

Press, 1981.

Dean, Harry, The Faith We Declare. London: Salvationist Publishing and Supplies

Ltd, 1960.

Depoortere, Frederick, The Death of God: An Investigation into the History of the

Western Concept of God. London: T & T Clark, 2008.

Dunning, H. Ray, Grace, Faith, and Holiness: A Wesleyan Systematic Theology.

Kansas City: Beacon Hill, 1988.

Bibliography

174

Eason, Andrew M., and Roger J. Green (Editors), Boundless Salvation: The Shorter

Writings of William Booth. New York: Peter Lang, 2012.

Fairbank, Jenty, Booth’s Boots: Social Service Beginnings in the Salvation Army.

London: The Salvation Army, 1983.

Farley, Wendy, Tragic Vision and Divine Compassion: A Contemporary Theodicy.

Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1990.

Fiddes, Paul S., Participating in God: A Pastoral Doctrine of the Trinity. London:

Darton, Longman and Todd, 2000.

Fowler, James W., Stages of Faith: The Psychology of Human Development and the

Quest for Meaning. New York: HarperCollins, 1995.

Frame, John M., No Other God: A Response to Open Theism. Phillipsburg: P&R

Publishing, 2001.

Gorringe, T.J., God's Theatre: Theology of Providence. London: SCM, 1991.

Green, Roger J., War on Two Fronts: The Redemptive Theology of William Booth

Atlanta: The Salvation Army Supplies, 1989.

Green, Roger J., The Life & Ministry of William Booth: Founder of the Salvation

Army. Nashville: Abingdon, 2005.

Grenz, Stanley J., & Roger E. Olson, 20th Century Theology: God & the World in a

Transitional Age. Downers Grove: Inter Varsity Press, 1992.

Griffin, David Ray, God, Power, and Evil: A Process Theodicy. Philadelphia:

Westminster, 1976.

Griffin, David Ray, Evil Revisited: Responses and Reconsiderations. Albany: State

University of New York Press, 1991.

Griffin, David Ray, God, Power and Evil: A Process Theodicy. Louisville:

Westminster/John Knox Press, 2004.

Gunter, Stephen W, Scott J Jones, Ted A Campbell, Rebekah L Miles, Randy

Maddox, Wesley and the Quadrilateral: Renewing the Conversation.

Nashville: Abingdon, 1997.

Hall, Douglas John, God and Human Suffering. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1987.

Harris, Ray, Convictions Matter: The Function of Salvation Army Doctrines. Toronto:

The Salvation Army, Canada and Bermuda Territory, 2014.

Hartshorne, Charles, The Divine Relativity: A Social Conception of God. New Haven:

Yale University Press, 1948.

Bibliography

175

Hartshorne, Charles, The Logic of Perfection. Lasalle: Open Court Publishing, 1962.

Hasker, William, God, Time, and Knowledge. Ithaca and London: Cornell University

Press, 1989.

Hasker, William, Providence, Evil and the Openness of God. London: Routledge

Taylor & Francis Group, 2004.

Hasker, William, The Triumph of God over Evil. Downers Grove: IVP Academic,

2008.

Hattersley, Roy, Blood & Fire: William and Catherine Booth and Their Salvation

Army. London: Abacus, 2000.

Hick, John, Evil and the God of Love. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010.

Howard-Snyder, Daniel, The Evidential Argument from Evil. Bloomington: Indiana

University Press, 2008.

Howe, Neil, and William Strauss, Generations: The History of America's Future,

1584 to 2069. New York: William Morrow and Co, 1991.

Lawson, John, Introduction to Christian Doctrine. Grand Rapids: Francis Asbury

Press, 1986.

Leibniz, G. W., Theodicy: Essays on the Goodness of God the Freedom of Man and

the Origin of Evil. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1951.

Lewis, C. S., The Problem of Pain. London: Centenary Press, 1940.

Lodahl, Michael, The Story of God: Wesleyan Theology & Biblical Narrative. Kansas

City: Beacon Hill, 1994.

Lodahl, Michael, God of Nature and of Grace: Reading the World in a Wesleyan

Way. Nashville: Kingswood Books, 2003.

Maddox, Randy L., Responsible Grace: John Wesley's Practical Theology. Nashville:

Kingswood Books, 1994.

McEwan, David B., Wesley as a Pastoral Theologian: Theological Methodology in

John Wesley's Doctrine of Christian Perfection. Milton Keynes: Paternoster,

2009.

McGrath, Alister E., Suffering. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1992.

McGrath, Alister E., Christian Theology: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell

Publishers, 1994.

Bibliography

176

McKinley, Edward H., Marching to Glory: The History of the Salvation Army in the

United States, 1880-1992. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1995.

Moltman, Jurgen, God for a Secular Society: The Public Relevance of Theology.

Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1999.

Moltmann, Jurgen, Experiences in Theology: Ways and Forms of Christian Theology.

Minneapolis Fortress, 2000.

Moltmann, Jürgen, The Crucified God. London: SCM Press, 1974.

Moltmann, Jürgen, Theology of Hope. London: SCM, 1977.

Montgomery, Brint, Relational Theology: A Contemporary Introduction. Eugene,

Oregon: Wipf & Stock, 2012.

Murdoch, Norman, Origins of the Salvation Army. Knoxville: University of

Tennessee Press, 1994.

Oden, Thomas C., John Wesley's Teachings: Volume 1 God and Providence. Grand

Rapids: Zondervan, 2012.

Oord, Thomas Jay, The Nature of Love: A Theology. St. Louis: Chalice Press, 2010.

Oord, Thomas Jay, (Editor), Creation Made Free: Open Theology Engaging Science.

Eugene: Pickwick Publications, 2009.

Outler, Albert, John Wesley. New York: Oxford University Press, 1964.

Pinnock, Clark H., The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional

Understanding of God. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1994.

Pinnock, Clark H., Most Moved Mover: A Theology of God's Openness. Grand

Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001.

Plantinga, Alvin C., God, Freedom and Evil. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001.

Polkinghorne, John, The Work of Love: Creation as Kenosis. Grand Rapids:

Eerdmans, 2001.

Read, John, Catherine Booth: Laying the Theological Foundations of a Radical

Movement. Eugene: Pickwick Publications, 2013.

Rees, Frank D., Wrestling with Doubt: Theological Reflections on the Journey of

Faith. Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 2001.

Rhemick, John R., A New People of God: A Study in Salvationism. Des Plaines: The

Salvation Army, 1984.

Bibliography

177

Rice, Richard, The Openness of God: The Relationship of Divine Foreknowledge and

Human Free Will. Portland: Horizon, 1980.

Roberts, Keith A., Religion in Sociological Perspective. 4th Edition ed. Belmont:

Thomson Wadsworth, 2004.

Sanders, John, The God Who Risks: A Theology of Providence. Downers Grove:

Intervarsity Press, 1998.

Scott, Mark S. M., Pathways in Theodicy: An Introduction to the Problem of Evil.

Minneapolis: Fortress, 2015.

Sontag, Frederick, What Can God Do? Nashville: Abingdon, 1979.

Stone, Bryan P, and Thomas Jay Oord (Editors), Thy Nature & Thy Name Is Love:

Wesleyan and Process Theologies in Dialogue. Nashville: Kingswood Books,

2001.

Street, Robert, Called to Be God’s People: The International Spiritual Life

Commission - Its Report, Implications and Challenges. London: Salvation

Books, 2008.

Swinburne, Richard, Providence and the Problem of Evil. Oxford: Oxford University

Press, 1998.

Thorsen, Don, The Wesleyan Quadrilateral: A Model of Evangelical Theology.

Lexington: Emeth Press, 2005.

Townes, Emilie M., A Troubling in My Soul: Womanist Perspectives on Evil and

Suffering. Maryknoll: Orbis, 1993.

Walker, Pamela J., Pulling the Devil's Kingdom Down. Oakland: University of

California Press, 2001.

Ware, Bruce A., God's Lesser Glory: The Diminished God of Open Theism. Wheaton:

Crossway Books, 2000.

Webb, Geoff and Kalie, Authentic "Fair Dinkum" Holiness for Ordinary Christians.

Melbourne: Salvo Publishing, 2007.

Wesley, John, The Works of the Rev. John Wesley. Vol. IX. London: John Mason,

1830.

Wesley, John, Albert Cook Outler, The Works of John Wesley: Sermons Iii : 71-114.

Vol. 3 Bicentennial Edition of the Works of John Wesley, Edited by Albert

Outler. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986.

Wesley, John, Albert Outler, The Works of John Wesley: Sermons I. 1-33. Vol. 1

Bicentennial Edition of the Works of John Wesley, Edited by Albert Outler.

Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988.

Bibliography

178

Wesley, John, Frank Baker, Gerald Robertson Cragg, Oliver A. Beckerlegge, Franz

Hildebrandt, The Works of John Wesley: Sermons Ii, 34-70. Vol. 2

Bicentennial Edition of the Works of John Wesley, Edited by Albert Outler.

Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975.

Wesley, John, Randy L. Maddox, The Works of John Wesley: Doctrinal and

Controversial Treatises. Vol. 12 Bicentennial Edition of the Works of John

Wesley, Edited by Albert Outler. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2012.

Whitehead, Alfred North, Process and Reality: An Essay in Cosmology. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 1929.

Woodall, Ann M., What Price the Poor?: William Booth, Karl Marx and the London

Residuum. Burlington: Ashgate Publishing, 2005.

Yaxley, Trevor, Through Blood and Fire: The Life of General William Booth.

Auckland: Castle Publishing, 1999.

Yaxley, Trevor, with Carolyn Vanderwal, William & Catherine: The Life and Legacy

of the Booths - Founders of the Salvation Army. Minneapolis: Bethany House

Publishers, 2003.

Journal articles and book chapters

Bauckham, Richard, "Theodicy from Ivan Karamazov to Moltmann." Modern

Theology, 4:1 (1987): 83-97.

Blocher, Henri, "The Theology of the Fall and the Origins of Evil," in Darwin,

Creation and the Fall: Theological Challenges. edited by R.J. Berry, and T.A.

Noble, 149-172. Nottingham: Apollos, 2009.

Caneday, Ardel B, "Putting God at Risk: A Critique of John Sanders's View of

Providence." Trinity Journal 20/2, Fall (1999). http://www.bible-

researcher.com/caneday.html [accessed 11/10/2015].

Cissell, James R, "Chronic Suffering, Charles Wesley, Personal Choice." Wesleyan

Theological Journal, 43/1 (2008): 68-85.

Cooper, Burton Z, "Why, God? A Tale of Two Sufferers." Theology Today, 42/4

(January 1986): 423-433.

Eckhardt, A. Roy, "Jürgen Moltmann, the Jewish People, and the Holocaust." Journal

of the American Academy of Religion, 44/4 (1976): 675-691.

Green, Roger J., "Theological Roots of in Darkest England and the Way Out."

Wesleyan Theological Journal, 25/1 (1990): 83-105.

Groover, Jonathan, "Sketches toward a Wesleyan Theodicy: An Examination of

Wesley's Thoughts." (2011).

http://www.bible-researcher.com/caneday.html

http://www.bible-researcher.com/caneday.html

Bibliography

179

https://jonathangroover.wordpress.com/2011/04/07/sketches-toward-a-

wesleyan-theodicy-an-examination-of-wesley%E2%80%99s-thoughts-part-iii/

[accessed 6/11/2014].

Lodahl, Michael, "'The Witness of the Spirit': Questions of Clarification for Wesley's

Doctrine of Assurance." Wesleyan Theological Journal, 23/1&2 (1988): 188-

197.

Maddox, Randy L., "John Wesley on Holistic Health and Healing." Methodist

History, 46:1 (October 2007): 4-33.

Meadows, Philip R., "Providence, Chance, and the Problem of Suffering." Wesleyan

Theological Journal, 34/2 (Fall 1999): 52-78.

Miller III, Andrew, "Suffering for and to Christ in William Booth's Eschatological

Ecclesiology." Wesleyan Theological Journal, 43/1 (Spring 2008): 104-119.

Murdoch, Norman H, "William Booth's in Darkest and the Way Out: A Reappraisal."

Wesleyan Theological Journal, 25 (Spring 1990): 106-116.

Noble, T.A. , "Original Sin and the Fall: Definitions and a Proposal," in Darwin,

Creation and the Fall: Theological Challenges, 99-129. Nottingham: Apollos,

2009.

Oord, Thomas Jay, "A Process Wesleyan Theodicy: Freedom, Embodiment, and the

Almighty God," in Thy Nature & Thy Name Is Love: Wesleyan and Process

Theologies in Dialogue, 193-216. Nashville: Kingswood Books, 2001.

Oord, Thomas Jay, "A Kenosis Theodicy - a Paper Delivered at the Wesleyan

Theological Society Meeting." (2007).

http://wesley.nnu.edu/fileadmin/imported_site/wts/42_annual_meeting/papers/

Thomas_Jay_Oord_WTS_Paper_2007.pdf [accessed 12 April 2014].

Oord, Thomas Jay, "Open Theology Doctrine of Creation and Solution to the Problem

of Evil," in Creation Made Free: Open Theology Engaging Science. edited by

Thomas Jay Oord, 28-52. Eugene: Pickwick Publications 2009.

Ott, Philip W., "John Wesley on Mind and Body: Toward an Understanding of Health

as Wholeness." Methodist History, January (27/2 1989): 61-72.

Philpot, Catherine. "Healing Suffering: The Hope That Christians and (Not)

Psychologists Profess." paper presented at The Salvation Army "Thought

Matters" Conference, Sydney: 4-7 Sept 2015.

Rightmire, R. David, "Samuel Brengle and the Development of the Pneumatology of

the Salvation Army." Wesleyan Theological Journal, 27/1 (1992): 104-131.

Robinson, Earl, "The History of Salvation Army Doctrine." Word & Deed: A Journal

of Salvation Army Theology and Ministry, (Spring 2000): 31-45.

https://jonathangroover.wordpress.com/2011/04/07/sketches-toward-a-wesleyan-theodicy-an-examination-of-wesley%E2%80%99s-thoughts-part-iii/

https://jonathangroover.wordpress.com/2011/04/07/sketches-toward-a-wesleyan-theodicy-an-examination-of-wesley%E2%80%99s-thoughts-part-iii/

http://wesley.nnu.edu/fileadmin/imported_site/wts/42_annual_meeting/papers/Thomas_Jay_Oord_WTS_Paper_2007.pdf

http://wesley.nnu.edu/fileadmin/imported_site/wts/42_annual_meeting/papers/Thomas_Jay_Oord_WTS_Paper_2007.pdf

Bibliography

180

Sanders, John, ""Open Theism": A Radical Revision or Miniscule Modification of

Arminianism?" Wesleyan Theological Journal, 38/2 (Fall 2003): 69-102.

Smith, Dean. "Growing Pains?: A Reflection on the Experience of Suffering

Accompanying an Epistemological Crisis." paper presented at The Salvation

Army "Thought Matters" Conference, Sydney: 4-7 Sept 2015.

Wesley, John, "The Sermons of John Wesley - 1872 Edition", Wesley Center for

Applied Theology http://wesley.nnu.edu/john-wesley/the-sermons-of-john-

wesley-1872-edition/ (accessed 25 August 2015).

Wesley, John, "The Witness of the Spirit - Discourse Ii," in The Works of John

Wesley. London: John Mason, 1830.

Wesley, John, "God's Love to Fallen Man" http://wesley.nnu.edu/john-wesley/the-

sermons-of-john-wesley-1872-edition/sermon-59-gods-love-to-fallen-man/

(accessed 25 August 2015).

Wood, Darren Cushman, "Suffering with Christ: The Function of the Cross in the

Works of John Wesley and Dorothee Soelle." Wesleyan Theological Journal,

43/1 (2008): 184-202.

Wright, Stephen J. "Theological Method and the Doctrine of God." Lecture in Sydney

College of Divinity Unit TH287 Wesleyan Theology, taught at Booth College,

2012.

Young, Frances, "Suffering and the Holy Life." Wesleyan Theological Journal, 43/1

(2008): 7-21.

http://wesley.nnu.edu/john-wesley/the-sermons-of-john-wesley-1872-edition/

http://wesley.nnu.edu/john-wesley/the-sermons-of-john-wesley-1872-edition/

http://wesley.nnu.edu/john-wesley/the-sermons-of-john-wesley-1872-edition/sermon-59-gods-love-to-fallen-man/

http://wesley.nnu.edu/john-wesley/the-sermons-of-john-wesley-1872-edition/sermon-59-gods-love-to-fallen-man/

Appendices

181

APPENDICES

Appendix 1:

Publishing history of handbooks of doctrine

The Salvation Army’s handbooks of doctrine have an extensive publishing history. In

its early days, they were published as a training aid for cadets (trainee ministers):

The Doctrines and Disciplines of The Salvation Army (1881)

Second edition (1883)

The Doctrines of The Salvation Army (1885)

Ten subsequent editions, eleventh edition (1913).

For the first time in 1922, it was published as a public document, and has remained so

to the present.

Handbook of Salvation Army Doctrine (1922)

Second edition (1925)

Third edition, retitled The Salvation Army Handbook of Doctrine (1927)

Fourth edition (1935)

Reprints or new impressions in 1940, 1955, 1960, 1961 and 1964.

A major revision occurred in 1969, which became fondly known as “the red book”.

New Handbook of Doctrine (1969)

Reprinted several times.

Another major revision occurred in 1998, published under a different name, and in a

more narrative format.

Salvation Story: Salvationist Handbook of Doctrine (1998)

accompanying Study Guide (1999)

For easier accessibility and usage, Salvation Story and its study guide were then

combined to create the 2010 edition (with minor revisions) and renamed as:

The Salvation Army Handbook of Doctrine (2010).

Appendices

182

Appendix 2:

Statements of doctrine from the earliest days to the present

Doctrines of East London Christian Revival Society (7 articles):

1. We believe that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament were given by

inspiration of God, and are the only rule of Christian faith and practice.

2. We believe that there is one only living and true God; the Father, the Son, and the

Holy Ghost—three persons in one God—equal in power and glory; and the only

proper object of religious worship.

3. We believe that in the person of Jesus Christ the Divine and human natures are

united, so that He is truly and properly God, and truly and properly man.

4. We believe that all mankind, in consequence of the disobedience of Adam are sinners,

destitute of holiness, and justly exposed to the penalty of the divine law.

5. We believe that the Lord Jesus Christ has, by His suffering and death made an

atonement for the whole world, so that whosoever will may be saved.

6. We believe that repentance towards God, faith in our Lord Jesus Christ and

regeneration by the Holy Spirit are necessary to salvation.

7. We believe in the immortality of the soul—in the resurrection of the body—in the

general judgment at the end of the world—in the eternal happiness of the righteous—

and in the endless punishment of the wicked.

By 1870, the Christian Mission had expanded the doctrines to ten, with the ninth

doctrine added in 1875. With minor changes, they were enshrined in law in 1878.

Since that time, they have been listed in the schedule to The Salvation Army Act

1980.

By the time of the Mission’s Deed Poll of 1875 there were eleven

doctrines….No changes in the doctrinal statements of The Salvation Army were

actually allowed from the 1878 Deed Poll and other succeeding documents until

the Salvation Army Act 1980 when the following preamble of 1878 was

omitted: ‘That the religious doctrines professed and believed and taught…are

and shall for ever be [italics added] as follows…’ With reference to the

Religious Doctrines schedule, the 1980 Act indicated that the schedule ‘may

from time to time be extended or varied by deed executed by the General, such

deed having the prior written approval of more than two-thirds of the

Commissioners’”. 1

1 Robinson, "History," 34.

Appendices

183

Current doctrines of The Salvation Army (11 articles):

1. We believe that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments were given by

inspiration of God, and that they only constitute the Divine rule of Christian faith and

practice.

2. 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.

3. We believe that there are three persons in the Godhead – the Father, the Son and the

Holy Ghost, undivided in essence and co-equal in power and glory.

4. We believe that in the person of Jesus Christ the Divine and human natures are

united, so that He is truly and properly God and truly and properly man.

5. We believe that our first parents were created in a state of innocency, but by their

disobedience they lost their purity and happiness, and that in consequence of their

fall, all men have become sinners, totally depraved, and as such are justly exposed to

the wrath of God.

6. We believe that the Lord Jesus Christ has by His suffering and death made an

atonement for the whole world, so that whosoever will may be saved.

7. We believe that repentance towards God, faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, and

regeneration by the Holy Spirit, are necessary to salvation.

8. We believe that we are justified by grace through faith in our Lord Jesus Christ and

that he that believeth hath the witness in himself.

9. We believe that continuance in a state of salvation depends upon continued obedient

faith in Christ.

10. We believe that it is the privilege of all believers to be wholly sanctified, and that

their whole spirit and soul and body may be preserved blameless unto the coming of

our Lord Jesus Christ.

11. We believe in the immortality of the soul; in the resurrection of the body; in the

general judgment at the end of the world; in the eternal happiness of the righteous;

and in the endless punishment of the wicked.

Appendices

184

Appendix 3:

Five zones across the International Salvation Army (as recorded in The Salvation Army Year Book 2015)

AFRICA

Angola

Congo (Brazzaville)

Democratic Republic of Congo

Ghana

Kenya East

Kenya West

Liberia

Malawi

Mali

Mozambique

Nigeria

Rwanda and Burundi

Southern Africa

Tanzania

Uganda

Zambia

Zimbabwe

AMERICAS AND CARIBBEAN

Brazil

Canada and Bermuda

Caribbean

Latin America North

Mexico

South America East

South America West

USA Central

USA Eastern

USA Southern

USA Western

EUROPE

Denmark

Eastern Europe

Finland and Estonia

France and Belgium

Germany and Lithuania

Italy and Greece

The Netherlands and Czech Republic

Norway, Iceland and The Færoes

Spain and Portugal

Sweden and Latvia

Switzerland, Austria and Hungary

United Kingdom with the Republic of Ireland

Appendices

185

SOUTH ASIA Bangladesh

India Central

India Eastern

India Northern

India South Eastern

India South Western

India Western

Middle East

Pakistan

Sri Lanka

SOUTH PACIFIC AND EAST ASIA

Australia Eastern

Australia Southern

Hong Kong and Macau

Indonesia

Japan

Korea

New Zealand, Fiji and Tonga

Papua New Guinea

The Philippines

Singapore, Malaysia and Myanmar

Taiwan

Appendices

186

Appendix 4:

Quotations, and listing of articles accessed from The Officer magazine

by date1

Pre 20th

Century reflections on suffering

Personally, I think one of the great reasons why God does not come to our help sooner

in these seasons is because; first, He wishes us to prove our helplessness without His

Divine power; second, He wants us to appreciate the efficiency of His power when He

delivers us in His own good time; and, third, He desires to stimulate us in using our own

resources and effort in helping others.2

"Open letters to discouraged officers: a combination of circumstances," The Officer

Magazine: a monthly magazine for the Officers of The Salvation Army, June

(1898): 181.

The 1900s

Now the secret is out! There is the grand doctrine that every good man’s life teaches –

The Lord reigneth! He is in every sorrow, in every mystery. He often carries out His

will by the instrumentality of men who know nothing of His purposes. They, with their

light, and even when ruled by the best of motives, sometimes mean one thing, when He

means something far, far otherwise. In every trial, in every sorrow in every

misunderstanding – whether it seems to come by the blundering and blindness of

friends or foes – remember God means it for good.3

"Bible Battle Axes - by the Chief of the Staff No. XX – Misunderstood," The Officer

Magazine, vol X (1902): 12.

The 1910s

"The evil of criticism," The Officer Magazine, June (1914): 389-391.

"Questions we have no right to ask," The Officer Magazine, May (1915): 338-340.

"The power of direct personal attack upon sinners," The Officer Magazine, October

(1915): 649-657.

"The silences of Christ," The Officer Magazine, August (1915) : 691-694.

1 Includes some articles from The Staff Review – a separate periodical published between 1922 and 1931.

2 "Open Letters to Discouraged Officers: A Combination of Circumstances", The Officer Magazine: a

monthly magazine for the officers of The Salvation Army, VI (1898):181. 3 Bramwell Booth, "Bible Battle Axes - by the Chief of the Staff No. Xx - Misunderstood", The Officer

Magazine: a monthly magazine for the officers of The Salvation Army, X (1902): 12.

Appendices

187

"On avoiding even the appearance of evil," The Officer Magazine, August (1916): 501-

511.

"The war, the reality of evil and certainty of judgment," The Officer Magazine,

December (1916): 803-805.

"The healing hand of God,” The Officer Magazine, April/May (1917): 267-271.

"After the war – what?” The Officer Magazine, March (1918): 207-210.

"A world in travail,” The Officer Magazine, March (1918): 250.

"Holy violence and tenacity,” The Officer Magazine, September (1918): 241-244.

"The toughest battle I have fought, and how it finished,” The Officer Magazine,

November (1918): 403-406.

"How officers triumph in sickness and death,” The Officer Magazine, April (1919): 387-

391.

"The healing hand of God,” The Officer Magazine, August (1919): 117-122.

"What is God like” The Officer Magazine, September (1919): 223-229.

The 1920s

Pain came to me but in it I have always found some secret pleasure and compensation.

Sorrow and bereavement threw me back upon God and deepened and purified my joy in

Him. Agony, physical and mental, led to some unexpected triumph of grace and faith,

and some enlargement of sympathy, and of power to understand and bless others.4

Holiness of heart does not insure us against those untoward and painful things which try

our faith, but it does prepare us for the trial; while the patient endurance of trial reveals

to ourselves, to angels, to devils, to men, the reality of our faith and the purity and

integrity of our hearts.5

[S]o our Heavenly Father, if He wishes to test and to strengthen our faith, must He not

sometimes take us out of the region of openness and clearness of sight, and place us in

the midst of entanglements, uncertainties, and shadows?6

The inevitable shocks of life must test our faith, but if our confidence in God holds firm,

the trembling will pass, peaceful assurance return[s].7

“The trial of faith wrought into experience,” The Staff Review, May (1929): 200-201.

4 Samuel Brengle, "The Trial of Faith Wrought into Experience", The Staff Review, May (1929) 200f.

5 Brengle, "The Trial of Faith," 203.

6 "The Heart Sorrows of the Sanctified: God 'Setteth in Pain the Jewel of His Joy'", The Staff Review,

July (1923) 223. 7 F.W. Pearce, "The Fact of Divine Control", The Staff Review, October (1925) 224.

Appendices

188

"Deathbed scenes,” The Officer Magazine, October (1921): 274.

"The school of suffering,” The Officer Magazine, October (1921): 328.

"Wrestling with God,” The Officer Magazine, December (1921): 478.

"The storms of life: to whom it may concern,” The Officer Magazine, September (1922):

207.

"Look on the bright side,” The Officer Magazine, September (1922): 239.

“The heart sorrows of the sanctified: God ‘setteth in pain the jewel of His joy,’” The

Officer Magazine, July (1923), 221-224.

"God’s providential over-ruling of mistakes,” The Officer Magazine, March (1923): 211.

“Sin or infirmity,” The Officer Magazine, May (1923): 403.

"The Heart Sorrows of the Sanctified: God 'Setteth in Pain the Jewel of His Joy'," The

Officer Magazine, July (1923): 221-224.

"Does everything seem to be going wrong?" The Officer Magazine, December (1923):

507-510 .

"Where is God now?" The Officer Magazine, February (1925): 142-145.

“Died on the field – Lieut-Colonel Emma Bown,” The Officer Magazine, March (1925):

215.

"Decisive battles of my personal life – fighting a way through," The Officer Magazine,

April (1925): 315-317.

“Pages of personal experience,” The Officer Magazine, July (1925): 58.

"The Fact of Divine Control," The Staff Review, October (1925): 222-224.

“Passing reflections: ill health of officers,” The Staff Review, April (1926): 181-189.

"The providence of God," The Officer Magazine, May (1926): 419-420.

"In the school of struggle," The Officer Magazine, June (1927): 510.

"When God is silent," The Officer Magazine, July (1927): 40.

"The ministry of sorrow," The Officer Magazine, January (1928): 34.

"Suffering for gain,” The Officer Magazine, January (1928): 42.

"The Trial of Faith Wrought into Experience," The Staff Review, May (1929): 199-204.

Appendices

189

"The long suffering of grace," The Officer Magazine, September (1929): 203.

The 1930s

"God’s tests," The Officer Magazine, September (1930): 223.

The 1940s

The silent God is still an all-seeing God. The tests which He allows to come our way

can be the means of tempering our resolution and strengthening our will to endure.8

"Rachel weeping for her children," The Officers' Review, April (1942): 65-68.

"God answers," The Officers' Review, April (1944): 81-82.

"Why I am burdened," The Officers' Review, December (1945): 193-197.

"The silences of God," The Officers' Review, July/August (1948): 250.

The 1950s

Not many articles on suffering emerged in the decade of the 1950s. Through these ten

years only seven articles were written on the subject.

[D]iscovering the hand which struck the blow to be the hand of my God, of Him who

has been love and faithfulness ever since I knew Him, I bowed beneath it, and it was

given me by the Spirit to be able to say: ‘Father, Thy will be done.’….[S]ometimes it

pleases God to refuse His consolation to His children, to leave them alone with

themselves, so that they feel He has left them. In fact, suffering reveals to us our real

condition before God; shows us that we are weak and dependent and that we can do

nothing without Him.9

What can I say about it all?...I am in London – just waiting. Perhaps the Lord wants me

to slow down and hear His voice, or put me on my back to make me look up.10

"Innocent Suffering," The Officer Magazine, July/August (1953): 281.

8 "The Silences of God", The Officers' Review, July/August (1948): 250.

9 Madeleine Roche, "Suffering - the Hammer of God", The Officer Magazine, September/October

(1954): 290. 10

Walter Merry, "I Was Sick", The Officer Magazine, September/October (1957): 304.

Appendices

190

"Suffering - the Hammer of God," The Officer Magazine, September/October (1954):

289-291.

"Forgive us our trespasses," The Officer Magazine, November/December (1956): 377-

380.

"Jesus and human suffering," The Officer Magazine, March/April (1957): 92.

"I Was Sick," The Officer Magazine, September/October (1957): 303-305.

"Light on the word," The Officer Magazine, September/October (1959): 306-308.

"Light on an old problem," The Officer Magazine, November/December (1959): 379.

The 1960s

To man in his state of imperfection and suffering, comes Christ with the

promise of healing11

Man’s imperfection of ignorance, folly and sin constitutes the arena in which

suffering occurs, but God’s wish and struggle is always redemption, healing,

salvation, ‘the glorious liberty of the children of God.’12

Suffering is a mortal characteristic either because I am part of mankind and

involved with others – or because of my own freewill I embark on a path of

ignorance, folly or sin and so actively do that which leads to my suffering or

the suffering of others.13

We must admit that things do happen which God did not intend and which

man could not foresee.14

Disease may be due to wilful folly...15

"Prayer, sickness and suffering," The Officer Magazine, March/April (1960): 121.

"Songs in the night," The Officer Magazine, January/February (1961): 40-42.

"Dwell deep," The Officer Magazine, November/December (1962): 404-406.

"Factors of the faith," The Officer Magazine, January/February (1963): 11-14.

"A new awareness of God," The Officer Magazine, January/February (1963): 19-23.

11

Bramwell Cook, "The Medico-Theological Issues in Suffering." The Officer Magazine, (November

1969): 770. 12

Cook, "Medico-Theological Issues." The Officer Magazine, (November 1969): 772. 13

Cook, "Medico-Theological Issues." The Officer Magazine, (November 1969): 774. 14

Cook, "Medico-Theological Issues." The Officer Magazine, (December 1969): 843. 15

Cook, "Medico-Theological Issues." The Officer Magazine, (December 1969): 844.

Appendices

191

"The wrath of God," The Officer Magazine, March/April (1963): 169-174.

"Predestination and freewill," The Officer Magazine, July/August (1964): 527-531.

"Prayer of healing," The Officer Magazine, March/April (1965): 274-275.

"The price of sin," The Officer Magazine, May/June (1965): 303-306.

"On the experimental level," The Officer Magazine, May/June (1966): 413-417.

"Neither ghetto nor boulevard," The Officer Magazine, March (1969): 206-209, 216.

"Our ministry to suffering people," The Officer Magazine, June (1969): 401-402, 405.

"The medico-theological issues in suffering," The Officer Magazine, November (1969):

769-774.

"The medico-theological issues in suffering," The Officer Magazine, December (1969):

842-847.

The 1970s

Is it possible to speak of the ‘meaning’ of suffering? … suffering is and is a

concomitant of our nature of humanity. 16

Suffering is an essential part of sentient living …The ability to suffer is the

mark of distinction. To abolish suffergin it would be necessary to destroy

sensitivity17

…perhaps there has to be an element of pain in every worthy attitude of the

human spirit.18

We must be on our guard lest we trivialize the idea of providence. To see

providence in simply protective terms is to do just this.19

"The medico -theological issues in suffering," The Officer Magazine, January (1970):

60-62.

"Clause five of article eleven," The Officer Magazine, March/April (1970): 239-241.

"From the nettle of suffering," The Officer Magazine, May/June (1972): 222-226.

"Salvationist doctrine (2)," The Officer Magazine, March/April (1973): 171-174.

16

Cook, "Medico-Theological Issues." The Officer Magazine, (January 1970): 62. 17

Harry Dean, "Perspective on Suffering." The Officer Magazine, (November 1976): 492. 18

Dean, "Providence." The Officer Magazine, (December 1976): 550. 19

Dean, "Providence." The Officer Magazine, (December 1976): 551.

Appendices

192

"Salvationist doctrine (5)," The Officer Magazine, July/August (1973): 295-297.

"Another look at original sin," The Officer Magazine, July/August (1973): 304-307.

"The mystery of human suffering," The Officer Magazine, November/December,

(1973): 560-562.

"God has his reasons," The Officer Magazine, July/August (1976): 372.

"Perspective on suffering," The Officer Magazine, November (1976): 488-492.

"Perspective on providence," The Officer Magazine, December (1976): 549-553.

"Crucified brother," The Officer Magazine, September/October (1977): 396-417.

"The eleven points today," The Officer Magazine, January/February (1978): 68-70.

"The eleven points today," The Officer Magazine, May/June (1978): 210-213.

"Pastoral care for bereaved marriage partners," The Officer Magazine,

September/October (1979): 460-462.

The 1980s

[Reflecting on Germany during WWII] Being surrounded by death and destruction

might have led Salvationists into a spirit of fatalism. Instead, they gave thought to the

future.20

At this point we must commit and submit ourselves to the sovereign will of God. That is

we must be prepared to accept whatever happens as the Lord’s will.21

The congress over I was left with a big why? burning in my heart, night and day. I

believed in God. I trusted his love. But why did it have to happen? Was it God’s will, as

some suggested? My whole being repulsed that thought. No, never!...Life’s wounds

heal in time, but the scars remain and sometimes ache.22

"My Calvary – who cares?" The Officer Magazine, April (1980): 147-150, 179.

"And the child died," The Officer Magazine, January/February (1981): 37-39.

"A few bricks," The Officer Magazine, May/June (1981): 202-204.

"Holiness and health," The Officer Magazine, May/July/August (1981): 291-296.

20

Willi Kothe, "Cast Down but Not Destroyed: Part 4 Poor Ourselves, We Bring Wealth....", The Officer

Magazine, August (1987) 374f. 21

Geoff Anderton, "There but for the Grace of God Go I", The Officer Magazine, June (1988) 312. 22

Flora Larsson, "My Lowest Hour", The Officer Magazine, March (1989) 108

Appendices

193

"God: omni-present or arbitrary," The Officer Magazine, September/October (1981):

410-415.

"Another look … at the man from Uz," The Officer Magazine, July/August (1983): 298-

300.

"Sharing the suffering of Christ," The Officer Magazine, September/October (1983):

453-457.

"The fear of death has gone," The Officer Magazine, January/February (1984): 71-72.

"Gnosticism," The Officer Magazine, April/May (1984): 113-117.

"First person singular," The Officer Magazine, May/June (1984): 268-269.

"Pelagianism," The Officer Magazine, July/August (1984): 343-344, 348.

"The sick and suffering," The Officer Magazine, January/February (1985): 40-43.

"Avenues of healing," The Officer Magazine, May/June (1985): 215-219.

"Positive prayer power," The Officer Magazine, November/December (1985): 565-567.

"Cast Down but Not Destroyed: Part 1," The Officer Magazine, June (1987): 265-267.

"Cast Down but Not Destroyed: Part 2," The Officer Magazine, August (1987): 293-294.

“Cast Down but Not Destroyed: Part 3," The Officer Magazine, August (1987): 373-

375.

"Cast Down but Not Destroyed: Part 4," The Officer Magazine, September (1987): 396-

398.

"Meditative musing: why me?" The Officer Magazine, June (1988): 272.

"Dimensions," The Officer Magazine, June (1988): 284-286.

"There but for the grace of God go I," The Officer Magazine, July (1988): 311-313.

"My lowest hour," The Officer Magazine, March (1989): 106-108.

Appendices

194

The 1990s

We sometimes fall into the error of thinking that if we love and trust God, everything

will be all right, or if things do go wrong, they will inevitably be put right again by a

little prayer and faith.23

There may be times when God’s children suffer because he is forced to chastise

them…but frequently it will be by virtue of our proximity to God. God is the ultimate

target of Satan’s attacks and anyone close to a target is liable to receive shot too. The

closer we are, the more liable we are.24

Nevertheless, with all that love surrounding me, in my thoughts I was terribly alone.

Suffering is a personal experience. I was, however, conscious of the divine presence of

God, comforting, strengthening and enabling me to face the fact that my loved one, a

loving, precious husband and father, was gone.25

During conversation one can begin to bring a person to see that he or she is in God’s

hand, in spite of everything. Don’t imprison yourself in the question ‘Why?’ without at

the same time finding security in God in the midst of your illness and suffering. It takes

a long time, though, and it requires patience. We must teach ourselves that instead of

praying for a complete recovery, we should pray for a complete trust. I believe that

therein lies the key to healing. A complete confidence in God and his care for us.26

The victory of Christian faith is the power to find God when he comes in the disguises

of life’s conflicts and tragedies, the power to penetrate throughout the seen to the

unseen.27

One dear Salvationist, caught up in the charismatic movement, and a firm believer in

instant healing, said to me, ‘Major, it’s your faith or rather lack of it that is preventing

the child from being healed.’28

[I]n all of the disruptive moments of life, in all of the storms, even to the very end of

life on earth, we can have the assurance of our God: ‘I will be with you.’29

One of the greatest evidences of God’s love to those who love him is to send them

afflictions, with grace to bear them. Even in the greatest afflictions we ought to testify

to God that, in receiving them from his hand, we feel pleasure in the midst of pain, from

being afflicted by him who loves us, and whom we love.30

To live with a heart that suffers gives us a different perspective, for our scale of

personal values is transformed. It is to know that, in spite of everything, God knows

23

Clifford Kew, "A Theology of Suffering: What Can We Say to These Things?", The Officer Magazine,

March (1994) 163. 24

Howard P. Webber, "Suffering Servants", The Officer Magazine, June (1991) 248. 25

Georgina Speed, "Don't Protect Me from My Memories", The Officer Magazine, July/August (1997)

34. 26

Karin Andersson Tourn, "Those Who Are Not Healed (Part Two)", The Officer Magazine, May (1993)

206. 27

Keith Hunter, "Tragedy - and God's Providence", The Officer Magazine, March (1994) 167. 28

Ah Ang Lim, "Health and Healing", The Officer Magazine, January (1993) 16. 29

Earl Robinson, "Blessed Assurance! God's Gift Even for the Storms of Life", The Officer Magazine,

August (1995) 354. 30

Howard P. Webber, "Suffering Servants: The Agony That Is God's", The Officer Magazine, January

(1992) 14.

Appendices

195

what is needful for us – and that the mercy which flows from the heart of the Father is

renewed every morning.31

"Redemptive suffering," The Officer Magazine, April (1991): 153-156.

"Suffering Servants," The Officer Magazine, June (1991): 248-251.

"Suffering Servants: our own load," The Officer Magazine, August (1991): 341-344.

"Rest through pain," The Officer Magazine, August (1991): 369-370.

"Suffering servants: dangers," The Officer Magazine, October (1991): 445-447.

"Suffering servants: possibilities," The Officer Magazine, November (1991): 495-498.

"Pain: a positive perspective," The Officer Magazine, December (1991): 561-564.

"Suffering servants: The agony that is God’s," The Officer Magazine, Jan (1992): 11-14.

"When I am weak, then I am strong," The Officer Magazine, Jan (1992): 18-20.

"A kind of evil," The Officer Magazine, March (1992): 126-129.

"Health and Healing," The Officer Magazine, January (1993): 13-17.

"Those Who Are Not Healed (Part One)," The Officer Magazine, April (1993): 185-

188.

"Those Who Are Not Healed (Part Two)," The Officer Magazine, May (1993): 205-207.

"A study of two sons," The Officer Magazine, March (1994): 124-128.

"A Theology of Suffering: What Can We Say to These Things?" The Officer Magazine,

March (1994): 159-164.

"Tragedy - and God's Providence," The Officer Magazine, March (1994): 165-167.

"A Theology of Suffering: What Can We Say to These Things? contd" The Officer

Magazine, May/June (1994): 203-208.

"All things passed away," The Officer Magazine, September (1994): 393-396.

“Why me?” The Officer Magazine, May/June (1995): 241-242.

“Blessed assurance,” The Officer Magazine, July/August (1995): 351-354.

“Awesome God,” The Officer Magazine, September/October (1995): 415-418.

31

Christine Schollmeier, "Childless, but Not by Choice", The Officer Magazine, September/October

(1996), 402.

Appendices

196

“When goodness doesn’t pay,” The Officer Magazine, November/December (1995):

506-510.

“African custom and Christian faith,” The Officer Magazine, April (1996): 151-154.

“When no child arrives,” The Officer Magazine, September/October (1996): 399-402.

“Childless, but not by choice,” The Officer Magazine, September/October (1996): 403-

407.

“Trauma, ” The Officer Magazine, September/October (1996): 447-449.

“Life after Port Arthur,” The Officer Magazine, July/August (1997): 8.

"Don't Protect Me from My Memories," The Officer Magazine, July/August (1997): 33-

35.

The 2000s

I cling to my faith in you, but the questions for which there are no answers force me to

redefine my faith.32

I can’t help but think there is, simply, a randomness to life. God is still on the throne,

but I’m not sure that he pulls every single string in each of our lives on a daily basis.33

Over the months that followed I experienced a kaleidoscope of emotions as I tried to

understand why God did not answer my prayer. Would my surrender to his sovereignty

have made any difference?34

In the midst of my own losses over the years – years of infertility, miscarriage, and most

recently the death of my husband and partner in ministry – there has been inexplicable

pain. Despair, grief and questions have been my companion for years. But this one thing

I know: God is God and he does not need my permission to act as such.35

To be true to Jesus Christ, we must never give way to easy sentimentality or glib

triumphalism. We live with the problem of pain and the sickness of sin and there is no

magic bandage, no escape from the cost of following a suffering Saviour.36

So I’ve got the disease [Parkinson’s]. I have no choice. But I can, and I will live

gloriously with it. I will do what I can. And the good Lord will come to me on a daily

basis….I don’t yet know how it all works….I have to confess that sometimes I still get

so very discouraged that (dare I admit it?) I rail against God. Sometimes I actually shout

at God. But...I’ll trust him to look after my future. I will walk with him. And I will

praise his name.37

32

Lindsay Rowe, "Death of a Teenager", The Officer Magazine, March/April (2002), 49. 33

Colin Lane, "In God We Trust", The Officer Magazine, July/August (2008) 19. 34

Eleanor Shepherd, "The Unwanted Gift of Unanswered Prayer", The Officer Magazine,

September/October (2007), 42. 35

Jocelyn Harris, "Why?", The Officer Magazine, September/October (2005) 15. 36

Chick Yuill, "The Eternal Wound", The Officer Magazine, March/April (2005) 48. 37

Donald Schultz, "The Fellowship of His Suffering", The Officer Magazine, March/April (2005) 44.

Appendices

197

“Give thanks amid tragedy,” The Officer Magazine, May/June (2000): 2-5.

“Bereavement, ” The Officer Magazine, May/June (2000): 9.

“Ours not to reason why,” The Officer Magazine, July/August (2000): 39-42.

“Ministering at Ground Zero,” The Officer Magazine, January/February (2002): 19-25.

"Death of a Teenager," The Officer Magazine, March/April (2002).

"Walk with me," The Officer Magazine, September/October (2002): 23.

"The Devil – myth or menace," The Officer Magazine, July/August (2003): 46.

"Forgiving God," The Officer Magazine, July/August (2004): 34.

"Christians and grief," The Officer Magazine, September/October (2004): 9.

"Christians and grief contd," The Officer Magazine, November/December (2004): 36.

"The Fellowship of His Suffering," The Officer Magazine, March/April (2005).

"The Eternal Wound," The Officer Magazine, March/April (2005).

"Why?" The Officer Magazine, September/October (2005): 14-15.

"Theology in Community," The Officer Magazine, January/February (2007): 44.

"A Theology of Roosters," The Officer Magazine, July/August (2007): 48.

"The Unwanted Gift of Unanswered Prayer," The Officer Magazine, September/October

(2007), 42.

"Good Grief, " The Officer Magazine, January/February (2008): 32.

"In God We Trust," The Officer Magazine, July/August (2008): 18-19.

“From earth’s confusion,” The Officer Magazine, January/February (2009): 34.

Current Decade

[A]n all powerful God must be able to have power over power, the discretionary ability

to decide how and when to…use the power at hand. The paradox tells us that on the

face of it God has turned out to not be omnipotent, or at least to not be able to ‘do

everything’. The statements of logic are also trying to push this agenda. However,

perhaps we need to be thinking about omnipotence someway other than ‘God can do

anything’. Is it that ‘God can do anything that God wants to do’? Or is it that ‘just

Appendices

198

because God can, doesn’t mean God has to’? Maybe God is making choices about what,

when and how to use the all-mighty power.38

We know evil and suffering are not necessarily synonymous by their outcomes. Evil

destroys and suffering usually does not. Evil stops human flourishing. Suffering does

not….Christian tradition is filled with people who have been refined and grown in

holiness as a consequence of suffering. In some sense they flourish despite incredible

suffering. We Christians have never, traditionally equated suffering and evil. Sure,

humankind’s evil actions and intentions may cause the suffering. And suffering hurts

us. But it cannot ultimately harm us.39

The silence of God never means abandonment, to the contrary, it is full of his presence;

his love, his holiness and his grace. When God keeps silent it allows us to be aware of

the cacophony in our own heart. Then, if we still put our faith in him, if we accept the

silence as the word of the One who knows what we need at this time, peace can grow to

maturity as we give God what is dissonant in our life. Even when he chooses the

silence, God speaks and touches us deep within our heart for our ultimate good.40

[W]e live with our eyes wide open. Yes, we accept the reality of suffering and death.

We do not hide from it or camouflage it. But we know it for what it is and we know that

suffering and death are not ultimate. We live as people of joy! We are not superhuman,

it’s not that we are impervious to pain, but we are never diminished by it. We live in

absolute sustaining, confident hope. We do not, and will not, despair!41

For all gathered who continue to mourn, God is in the business of taking things that

could break us, and redemptively turning them around for his glory and our own good.42

The unchanging God is here too, though I’ve discovered afresh the seeming

contradiction that he’s here also as a changing God, one who suffers with us. It … is his

own broken body that is centre-point of the kingdom of the sick. Here he is Lord. But

he’s also Lord of the kingdom of the healthy.43

"Can God Make Something Too Heavy for Him to Lift?" The Officer Magazine,

March/April (2010): 41-43.

"When God Keeps Silent," The Officer Magazine, January/February (2011): 18.

“Wars, natural disasters and faith in God – are they compatible?” The Officer Magazine,

July/August (2011): 28.

“Lost for Words: Helping Families Cope when Children Die,” The Officer Magazine,

July/August (2011): 52.

38

Kathleen Pearce, "Can God Make Something Too Heavy for Him to Lift?", The Officer Magazine,

March/April (2010) 42. 39

Grant Sandercock-Brown, "Life and Death", The Officer Magazine, July/August (2011) 42. 40

Christine Volet-Sterckz, "When God Keeps Silent", The Officer Magazine, January/February (2011)

18. 41

Sandercock-Brown, "Life and Death," 42. 42

Mark Tillsley, "Empress Remembered: Centenary of Tragic Events Recalled", The Officer Magazine,

September/October (2014), 15. 43

Paul Du Plessis, "In the Kingdom of the Sick: Facing a Difficult Diagnosis", The Officer Magazine,

January/February (2015), 27.

Appendices

199

“Life – suffering, what’s it all about? ” The Officer Magazine, July/August (2011): 32.

"Life and Death," The Officer Magazine, July/August (2011): 42.

“9/11,” The Officer Magazine, November/December (2011): 26.

“An act of God – right on time,” The Officer Magazine, November/December (2011):

26.

“Scooping green beans,” The Officer Magazine, March/April (2012): 20-23.

“Biblical reflections on social justice advocacy,” The Officer Magazine, July/August

(2012): 17-19.

“God – Creator, Preserver, Governor,” The Officer Magazine, May/June (2014): 16-17.

“Empress Remembered: Centenary of Tragic Events Recalled,” The Officer Magazine,

September/October (2014): 14-15.

“In the Kingdom of the Sick: Facing a Difficult Diagnosis,” The Officer Magazine,

January/February (2015): 26-27.

“The Day is Done: See You in the Morning,” The Officer Magazine, May/June (2015):

6-7.

Appendices

200

Appendix 5:

Pattern of responses within the results of the online survey

The following statistics highlight the fluctuating pattern which occurred in the results:

Question 1 – 176 responses






Question 7 – (required a written response) 130 responses





















Appendices

201

Appendix 6:

Survey responses

Figure 1. Officers and adult Salvationists

Figure 2. Age of participants

Appendices

202

Figure 3. Influences on faith and theology - officers and adult Salvationists

Appendices

203

Figure 4. Influences on faith and theology – generational groupings

Appendices

204

Nu

mb

er

Bo

rn

be

fore

19

47

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

47

an

d

19

64

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

65

an

d

19

82

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

82

an

d

19

94

Re

sp

on

se

Te

xt

21

XS

ign

ific

an

t in

ea

rlie

r y

ea

rs,

no

t s

o m

uc

h n

ow

,

39

XIt

ha

s o

nly

pa

rtly

sh

ap

ed

my

fa

ith

- o

the

r tr

ad

itio

ns

ha

ve

als

o h

ad

an

in

flu

en

ce

10

7X

As

a c

hil

d t

rad

itio

n w

as

ve

ry i

mp

ort

an

t -

ho

we

ve

r, i

n l

ate

r y

ea

rs r

ea

so

n b

ec

am

e p

ara

mo

un

t.

10

9X

Th

rou

gh

my

pe

rso

na

l e

xp

eri

en

ce

an

d m

y k

no

wle

dg

e f

rom

re

ad

ing

th

e B

ible

.

11

0X

I'll

fo

llo

w m

y t

rad

itio

n o

nly

to

a c

ert

ain

lim

it.

12

0X

My

pa

ren

ts w

ere

Arm

y o

ffic

ers

12

3X

Re

gu

lar

att

en

da

nc

e a

t w

ors

hip

. H

oli

ne

ss

te

ac

hin

g.

Arm

y m

us

ic.

Th

e S

on

gb

oo

k.

35

XS

tro

ng

ly b

ut

gro

win

g s

ke

pti

cis

m a

ris

ing

fro

m u

na

ns

we

red

qu

es

tio

ns

. In

oth

er

wo

rds

we

wil

l

ne

ve

r k

no

w.

12

XIt

ha

s b

ee

n t

he

ori

gin

of

my

fa

ith

. It

ha

s c

ha

lle

ng

ed

me

to

co

ns

ide

r w

he

re i

am

at.

T

he

re w

as

a

ne

ed

to

mo

ve

on

fro

m m

y t

rad

itio

ns

to

im

pro

ve

my

fa

ith

24

XS

up

po

rt.

tea

ch

ing

29

XP

rog

ram

fo

r c

hil

dre

n t

o m

ak

e a

co

mm

itm

en

t,

foll

ow

ed

by

a c

om

mit

me

nt

in t

ee

na

ge

ye

ars

, a

nd

the

n d

ev

elo

pin

g a

ma

turi

ty o

f fa

ith

in

ad

ult

ho

od

.

32

XT

rad

itio

n w

as

th

e i

nit

ial

infl

ue

nc

e,

rea

din

g a

nd

oth

er

ch

urc

h e

xp

eri

en

ce

ha

s i

nfl

ue

nc

ed

my

fa

ith

in l

att

er

tim

es

.

60

XB

rou

gh

t u

p i

n T

he

Sa

lva

tio

n A

rmy

wit

h i

ts e

mp

ha

sis

on

th

e S

cri

ptu

res

as

th

e d

ivin

e r

ule

of

Ch

ris

tia

n f

ait

h a

nd

pra

cti

ce

(D

oc

trin

e 1

).

94

XI

wa

s b

rou

gh

t u

p t

o a

ck

no

wle

dg

e G

od

as

su

pre

me

. T

ha

t H

e i

s a

pe

rso

na

l G

od

. M

y f

ait

h m

us

t b

e

pra

cti

ca

l a

s w

ell

as

pe

rso

na

l

10

3X

Ga

ve

me

a g

oo

d f

ou

nd

ati

on

to

sta

rt a

nd

gro

w i

n

4X

Of

co

urs

e,

nu

rtu

re h

as

a s

tro

ng

in

flu

en

ce

. U

nti

l a

ble

to

mo

ve

on

to

a b

roa

de

r u

nd

ers

tan

din

g

5X

So

me

wh

at

sy

ste

ma

tic

all

y,

an

d n

arr

ow

ly.

7X

It's

no

t S

/A t

rad

itio

n,

bu

t I

wa

s b

rou

gh

t u

p i

n a

Ch

ris

tia

n h

om

e,

bu

t it

wa

sn

't e

no

ug

h,

the

n I

me

t

Je

su

s,

an

d w

as

en

co

ura

ge

d i

n m

y w

alk

, b

y m

um

an

d d

ad

. I

go

fir

st

to t

he

Bib

le b

efo

re w

orr

yin

g

ab

ou

t tr

ad

itio

n.

16

XIn

my

ea

rlie

r y

ea

rs i

t w

as

ve

ry s

tro

ng

bu

t a

s I

ha

ve

ma

ture

d I

te

nd

to

la

y m

ore

im

po

rta

nc

e u

po

n

ex

pe

rie

nti

al

fait

h.

18

X5

0 y

ea

rs

19

XT

rad

itio

n h

as

be

en

a p

art

of

sh

ap

ing

my

fa

ith

bu

t o

ve

r th

e l

as

t fe

w y

ea

rs a

s m

y w

orl

d v

iew

ha

s

bro

ad

en

ed

, I

ha

ve

ha

d t

o q

ue

sti

on

an

d r

efl

ec

t o

n t

he

sig

nif

ica

nc

e o

f tr

ad

itio

n a

nd

th

e i

mp

ac

t it

ha

s h

ad

on

wh

at

I b

eli

ev

e.

I b

eli

ev

e t

rad

itio

n a

ctu

all

y r

es

tric

ted

my

fa

ith

an

d I

am

in

a m

uc

h

be

tte

r p

lac

e a

s I

ha

ve

wre

stl

ed

wit

h d

ou

bts

an

d q

ue

sti

on

. I

be

lie

ve

I h

av

e a

mu

ch

mo

re h

oli

sti

c

vie

w o

f fa

ith

no

w.

Ho

w h

as

yo

ur

tra

dit

ion

sh

ap

ed

yo

ur

fait

h?

My

ag

e b

rac

ke

t is

Figu

re 5

. Tra

dit

ion

sh

apin

g fa

ith

Appendices

205

22

XI

ha

d a

str

on

g b

eli

ef

in S

alv

ati

on

Arm

y t

ea

ch

ing

a

nd

th

e b

ible

fo

r m

an

y y

ea

rs,

un

til

I s

tart

ed

to

qu

es

tio

n c

ert

ain

as

pe

cts

of

it.

23

Xe

arl

y d

ay

s i

t w

as

sh

ap

ed

str

on

gly

bu

t a

s I

ha

ve

stu

die

d,

my

th

ou

gh

ts h

av

e c

ha

ng

ed

ac

co

rdin

g

to r

ea

so

nin

g a

nd

in

terp

reta

tio

n

26

XT

rad

itio

n o

nly

pro

vid

ed

a s

up

po

rt a

nd

co

mm

on

gro

un

d w

hic

h h

elp

s b

ind

pe

op

le t

og

eth

er.

28

XIw

as

ra

ise

d a

Ba

pti

st

an

d h

av

e r

ec

en

tly

co

me

ov

er

to t

he

Sa

lva

tio

na

Arm

y.

Go

d h

as

alw

ay

s

be

en

th

ere

in

my

lif

e

40

XO

nly

th

rou

gh

en

co

ura

ge

me

nt

of

oth

ers

.

41

XT

rad

itio

n r

eq

uir

es

lo

gic

al

rea

so

n t

o u

nd

ers

tan

d w

he

the

r it

is

ap

pli

ca

ble

to

co

nte

mp

ora

ry

cir

cu

ms

tan

ce

s

58

XIt

sh

ap

ed

it

ve

ry s

tro

ng

ly a

s a

yo

un

ge

r p

ers

on

& t

he

in

terp

reta

tin

of

Sc

rip

ture

ta

ug

ht

to m

e,

bu

t

as

I h

av

e m

atu

red

in

ye

ars

an

d f

ait

h I

ha

ve

mo

ve

d f

rom

tra

dti

on

sh

ap

ing

my

fa

ith

to

ex

pe

rie

nc

e

an

d n

ew

wa

ys

of

inte

rpre

tati

ng

Sc

rip

ture

.

65

XIt

wa

s i

nfl

ue

nc

ial

ea

rly

in

my

fa

ith

ex

pe

rie

nc

e b

ut

ha

s b

ee

n d

iffi

cu

lt t

o e

sc

ap

e f

rom

as

my

fa

ith

jou

rne

y h

as

gro

wn

. N

ow

it

is s

om

eth

ing

th

at

at

tim

es

giv

es

co

mfo

rt b

ut

tha

t is

mo

stl

y i

rre

lev

an

t to

my

fa

ith

an

d s

pir

itu

al

jou

rne

y.

81

XT

he

im

pli

ca

tio

ns

of

my

off

ice

r's

co

ve

na

nt

ha

s f

orc

ed

me

to

gra

pp

le w

ith

ma

ny

is

su

es

, in

clu

din

g

ma

tte

rs o

f c

ha

rac

ter

in t

he

mid

st

of

sig

nif

ica

nt

ch

all

en

ge

.

10

0X

A n

ee

d t

o s

av

e a

nd

se

rve

10

8X

I h

eld

tra

dit

ion

str

on

g,

an

d t

his

ke

pt

me

"s

afe

' u

nti

l s

uc

h a

tim

e a

s m

y f

ait

h w

as

de

ve

lop

ed

to

qu

es

tio

n t

rad

itio

n a

nd

to

re

all

y l

ive

" b

y f

ait

h"

I lo

ve

th

e a

rmy

tra

dit

ion

s.

1X

I w

as

n't

bro

ug

ht

up

in

TS

A,

so

do

n't

th

ink

it

ha

s.

15

XI

ten

d t

o w

an

t to

go

ag

ain

st

tra

dit

ion

. I

wa

nt

to u

nd

ers

tan

d a

nd

ap

ply

Sc

rip

ture

ra

the

r th

an

fo

llo

w

ma

n-m

ad

e r

ule

s.

33

XN

ot

a l

ot,

on

ly i

n t

ha

t m

y '

tea

ch

inh

g'

ha

s b

ee

n r

ec

eiv

ed

wit

hin

TS

A

42

XO

nly

be

ing

Sa

lvo

an

d a

Ch

ris

tia

n l

es

s t

ha

n 4

ye

ars

, m

y f

ait

h i

s l

arg

ely

sh

ap

ed

by

my

pre

vio

us

ex

pe

rie

nc

es

.

78

XN

ot

ve

ry m

uc

h.

My

fa

ith

is

sh

ap

ed

on

my

re

lati

on

sh

ip w

ith

Go

d a

nd

his

wo

rd

3X

My

tra

dit

ion

ha

s s

ha

pe

d m

y f

ait

h i

n t

ha

t I

str

on

gly

be

lie

ve

th

at

the

go

sp

el

is w

ho

so

ev

er,

I

be

lie

ve

in

th

e p

os

sib

ilit

y o

f m

ov

ing

to

wa

rds

ho

lin

es

s,

ev

en

th

ou

gh

my

pe

rso

na

l e

xp

eri

en

ce

is

on

e o

f fa

ilu

re i

n t

ha

t re

ga

rd.

I b

eli

ev

e t

ha

t fa

ith

an

d w

ork

s g

o h

an

d i

n h

an

d,

reg

ard

les

s o

f

wh

eth

er

the

re i

s a

fa

ith

re

sp

on

se

to

ou

r s

oc

ial

wo

rk.

6X

It h

as

ma

de

me

qu

es

tio

n m

ore

10

XB

y t

he

te

ac

hin

g a

nd

th

e e

xa

mp

les

of

ea

rly

ch

ris

tia

ns

11

XIn

th

e e

xp

res

sio

n o

f m

y f

ait

h t

hro

ug

h w

ork

ing

wit

h t

he

dis

ad

va

nta

ge

d.

stu

dy

ing

th

e b

ible

th

rou

gh

iss

ue

s o

f s

oc

ial

jus

tic

e

27

Xit

ha

s c

all

ed

me

ba

ck

wh

en

i h

ad

le

ft i

t

Nu

mb

er

Bo

rn

be

fore

19

47

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

47

an

d

19

64

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

65

an

d

19

82

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

82

an

d

19

94

Re

sp

on

se

Te

xt

Ho

w h

as

yo

ur

tra

dit

ion

sh

ap

ed

yo

ur

fait

h?

My

ag

e b

rac

ke

t is

Appendices

206

36

XV

ery

str

on

gly

th

rou

gh

my

ex

pe

rie

nc

es

in

th

at

tra

dit

ion

38

XIt

ha

s a

ss

iste

d i

n p

rom

oti

ng

a r

ou

tin

e o

r s

tru

ctu

re u

nd

erp

inn

ing

my

da

ily

wa

lk w

ith

Go

d.

45

Xb

uil

din

g o

n t

he

de

ed

s o

fl p

ion

ee

rs

46

XC

ere

mo

nie

s t

ha

t m

ark

im

po

rta

nt

ev

en

ts,

ma

rria

ge

, b

ap

tis

m,

co

mm

un

ion

47

XM

y u

pb

rin

gin

g a

s a

Sa

lva

tio

nis

t a

nd

in

a S

alv

ati

on

ist

fam

ily

be

ga

n m

y f

ait

h a

nd

th

is s

ha

pin

g o

f

fait

h h

as

be

en

an

on

go

ing

jo

urn

ey

48

Xit

ha

s g

ive

n m

e g

uid

eli

ne

s b

y w

hic

h t

o s

ha

pe

my

fa

ith

, i

t h

as

se

t in

me

pri

ori

tie

s f

rom

wh

ich

I

liv

e b

y.

49

XIm

pa

cts

pre

ac

hin

g,

wri

tin

g,

an

d t

he

in

flu

en

ce

of

co

lle

ag

ue

s,

wh

ich

in

tu

rn i

mp

ac

ts o

n m

y

de

ve

lop

ing

un

de

rsta

nd

ing

57

XT

rain

ing

fro

m c

hil

dh

oo

d.

66

XF

am

ily

tra

dit

ion

s -

ex

tre

me

ly i

mp

ort

an

t.

Sa

lva

tio

n A

rmy

tra

dit

ion

s -

hig

hly

re

lev

an

t.

69

XT

rad

itio

n t

o m

e i

s a

bo

ut

att

en

din

g c

hu

rch

be

ca

us

e t

ha

t is

wh

at

yo

ur

pa

ren

ts a

nd

gra

nd

pa

ren

ts

did

. I

t is

fro

m t

his

ex

po

su

re t

ha

t o

ne

gro

ws

in

an

d r

ea

lis

es

th

eir

ow

n f

ait

h.

73

XIn

th

e w

ay

I w

ors

hip

, in

be

ing

ab

le t

o e

xp

res

s m

ys

elf

in

wo

rsh

ip,

in b

ein

g a

ble

to

ta

ke

pa

rt i

n

wo

rsh

ip,

in b

ein

g a

cc

ep

ted

as

I a

m a

nd

th

at

I a

s a

wo

ma

n i

n t

he

ch

urc

h c

an

pla

y a

n i

mp

ort

an

t

pa

rt.

80

XIt

sh

ap

es

wh

o i

am

88

XT

he

Sa

lva

tio

n A

rmy

's t

ea

ch

ing

on

ho

lin

es

s

91

XM

y t

rad

itio

n h

as

ha

d a

big

in

flu

en

ce

on

my

jo

urn

ey

of

fait

h a

nd

th

e s

ha

pin

g o

f it

. M

y h

ea

rt f

elt

ex

pe

rie

nc

es

sti

ll a

re o

fte

n i

nv

olv

ing

ly

ric

s a

nd

mu

sic

of

mo

re t

rad

itio

na

l h

ym

ns

.

99

XG

row

ing

up

in

a f

ait

h h

ou

se

ho

ld,

str

on

gly

Sa

lva

tio

nis

t. A

nd

mo

re r

ec

en

tly

stu

dy

ing

We

sle

ya

n,

Bre

ng

le,

Bo

oth

th

eo

log

y a

nd

pra

cti

ce

.

10

1X

SA

tra

dit

ion

s f

oc

us

ed

my

min

d o

n m

ak

ing

go

od

ch

oic

es

wh

ich

he

lpe

d m

e d

ev

elo

p a

pe

rso

na

l

fait

h.

10

4X

Ha

s a

ss

iste

d i

n m

y f

ait

h j

ou

rne

y -

giv

ing

gu

ida

nc

e.

11

1X

By

un

de

rsta

nd

ing

th

e v

alu

es

of

Th

e S

alv

ati

on

Arm

y a

nd

its

re

as

os

n f

or

be

ing

.

12

6X

Bo

rn i

nto

a o

ffic

er

ho

us

eh

old

. D

ail

y f

am

ily

de

vo

tio

ns

at

the

me

al

tab

le 3

tim

es

a d

ay

Us

ing

a

bo

ok

ca

lle

d "

Th

e S

old

iers

Gu

ide

" a

lon

g w

ith

fa

mil

y P

ray

ers

.

17

XG

od

's c

all

is

n't

ju

st

for

pe

rso

na

l s

pir

itu

al

rela

tio

ns

hip

wit

h H

im b

ut

for

the

tra

ns

form

ati

on

of

the

wo

rld

in

all

it'

s f

ac

ets

.

59

XM

y T

SA

tra

dit

ion

sh

ap

ed

my

ea

rly

be

lie

fs a

nd

es

tab

lis

he

d a

str

on

g f

ait

h i

n G

od

bu

t h

as

lit

tle

imp

ac

t o

n w

ha

t I

be

lie

ve

as

a m

idd

le a

ge

d a

du

lt

63

XI

ha

ve

a m

ixtu

re o

f tr

ad

itio

n w

hic

h h

as

lim

ite

d a

ffe

ct

on

fa

ith

Nu

mb

er

Bo

rn

be

fore

19

47

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

47

an

d

19

64

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

65

an

d

19

82

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

82

an

d

19

94

Re

sp

on

se

Te

xt

Ho

w h

as

yo

ur

tra

dit

ion

sh

ap

ed

yo

ur

fait

h?

My

ag

e b

rac

ke

t is

Appendices

207

70

XB

ein

g r

ais

ed

in

Th

e S

alv

ati

on

Arm

y i

t's

te

ac

hin

gs

ha

ve

be

en

fu

nd

am

en

tal

in m

y d

isc

ipli

ng

jou

rne

y,

to t

he

po

int

tha

t I

fou

nd

it

co

nfr

on

tin

g t

o r

ea

lis

e t

ha

t n

ot

all

ch

urc

he

s h

old

to

th

e s

am

e

be

lie

fs i

n m

y e

arl

y 2

0s

89

XG

row

ing

up

in

th

e A

rmy

ha

s g

ive

n m

y f

ait

h i

ts i

nit

ial

sh

ap

e,

bu

t m

y e

xp

eri

en

ce

s a

s a

n a

du

lt h

av

e

he

lpe

d m

y f

ait

h g

row

be

yo

nd

fa

irly

na

rro

w c

on

str

ain

ts

8X

it h

as

nt

82

XN

ot

at

all

.

11

5X

Mo

re h

ind

ran

ce

th

an

he

lp.

2X

It h

as

be

en

ve

ry i

nfl

ue

nti

al.

I

thin

k t

ha

t s

om

eti

me

s I

str

ug

gle

wit

h a

wo

rks

me

nta

lity

be

ca

us

e o

f

the

ve

ry "

do

ing

" n

atu

re o

f o

ur

mo

ve

me

nt"

.

9X

Giv

en

me

a f

ram

ew

ork

to

un

de

rsta

nd

wh

o I

am

in

th

e g

rea

ter

sc

he

me

of

Go

d's

wo

rld

.

13

XE

xp

lori

ng

tra

dit

ion

is

a p

art

of

the

wa

y I

en

ga

ge

in

th

eo

log

ica

l re

fle

cti

on

. T

his

in

clu

de

s T

he

Sa

lva

tio

n A

rmy

's t

rad

itio

n a

s w

ell

as

th

e w

ide

r c

hu

rch

. H

ow

ev

er,

I b

eli

ev

e w

e n

ee

d t

o

co

nti

nu

all

y a

da

pt

ou

r tr

ad

itio

n t

o r

efl

ec

t c

urr

en

t c

on

tex

t ra

the

r th

an

ju

st

rep

lay

th

e b

eli

efs

of

a

pre

vio

us

ge

ne

rati

on

.

14

XV

ery

mu

ch

- I

did

n't

gro

w u

p i

n t

he

Arm

y a

nd

I p

refe

r W

.Bo

oth

's v

isio

n t

o t

he

tra

dit

ion

al

ritu

als

of

tod

ay

20

XM

y t

rad

itio

n h

as

giv

en

me

a f

ram

ew

ork

to

le

arn

ab

ou

t G

od

, a

nd

ex

pe

rie

nc

e H

im t

hro

ug

h w

ors

hip

an

d m

inis

try

30

Xit

ha

s i

nfl

ue

nc

ed

me

, a

nd

he

lpe

d m

ain

tain

my

fa

ith

31

XG

row

ing

up

in

a S

alv

ati

on

Arm

y f

am

ily

ha

s s

tro

ng

ly i

nfl

ue

nc

ed

my

fa

ith

- I

le

arn

ed

th

e

imp

ort

an

ce

of

sp

irit

ua

l d

isc

ipli

ne

s f

rom

my

pa

ren

ts e

xa

mp

le a

nd

fro

m t

he

bib

le t

ea

ch

ing

I

rec

eiv

ed

fro

m a

tte

nd

ing

wo

rsh

ip.

Ho

we

ve

r m

y f

ait

h h

as

be

en

sh

ap

ed

mo

re b

y s

tud

yin

g G

od

's

wo

rd f

or

my

se

lf a

nd

my

fa

ith

ha

s g

row

n b

y b

rin

gin

g t

o G

od

my

pro

ble

ms

an

d s

ee

ing

Him

wo

rk

ab

ou

t H

is w

ill

in m

y l

ife

. O

ve

r th

e y

ea

rs,

this

ha

s h

elp

ed

me

to

ma

ture

in

my

pra

ye

r li

fe a

nd

be

les

s s

elf

fo

cu

ss

ed

an

d s

ee

k H

is w

ill

in a

ll t

hin

gs

.

34

XH

ow

I p

ray

an

d w

ha

t I

pra

y f

or.

37

Xlo

ng

he

rita

ge

of

lik

e b

eli

ev

ers

43

XT

rad

itio

n h

as

ke

pt

me

in

th

e "

ch

urc

h"

lon

g e

no

ug

h t

o m

ak

e a

de

cis

ion

. It

als

o h

as

sh

ap

ed

co

re

vie

ws

th

at

too

k t

ime

to

ch

ale

ng

ed

51

XI

ha

ve

ha

d o

ffic

ers

an

d s

old

iers

wh

o h

av

e m

od

ele

d w

ha

t it

is

to

be

in

re

lati

on

sh

ip w

ith

Go

d a

nd

this

ha

s i

mp

ac

ted

my

fa

ith

re

lati

on

sh

ip w

ith

Go

d a

nd

fa

ith

in

Go

d i

n p

rofo

un

d w

ay

s.

52

XT

he

Sa

lva

tio

n A

rmy

dis

tin

cti

ve

s s

uc

h a

s s

erv

ice

to

th

e p

oo

r a

nd

dis

en

fra

nc

his

ed

an

d t

he

ro

le o

f

wo

me

n e

tc h

as

sh

ap

ed

my

pri

ori

tie

s i

n u

nd

ers

tan

din

g w

ha

t fa

ith

is

ab

ou

t. T

he

la

ck

of

tra

dit

ion

al

sa

cra

me

nta

l o

bs

erv

ati

on

he

lpe

d m

e f

rom

th

e s

tart

to

ac

ce

pt

an

d u

nd

ers

tan

d t

ha

t fa

ith

is

no

t ti

ed

to a

lit

era

l u

nd

ers

tan

din

g o

f S

cri

ptu

re.

Nu

mb

er

Bo

rn

be

fore

19

47

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

47

an

d

19

64

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

65

an

d

19

82

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

82

an

d

19

94

Re

sp

on

se

Te

xt

Ho

w h

as

yo

ur

tra

dit

ion

sh

ap

ed

yo

ur

fait

h?

My

ag

e b

rac

ke

t is

Appendices

208

54

XB

y g

ivin

g a

fra

me

wo

rk t

o e

na

ble

me

to

ma

ke

se

ns

e o

f, a

nd

ac

ce

pt

my

fa

ith

an

d t

he

Th

eo

log

y o

f

tha

t.

55

XH

elp

to

ga

in k

no

wle

dg

e &

ex

pe

rie

nc

e i

n d

ee

pe

nin

g r

ela

tio

ns

hip

wit

h G

od

& H

is p

eo

ple

.

61

XB

y h

old

ing

me

to

th

e c

hu

rch

in

tim

es

wh

en

my

fa

ith

ha

s b

ee

n s

ha

ke

y

67

XP

rov

isio

n o

f a

pla

ce

of

wo

rsh

ip,

a c

om

mu

nit

y w

ith

wh

ich

to

id

en

ify

, a

ex

am

ple

by

wh

ich

to

un

de

rsta

nd

Go

d's

wo

rkin

g i

n t

he

wo

rld

72

XIt

ha

s k

ep

t o

ur

bia

s f

or

the

po

or

an

d d

ise

nfr

an

ch

ise

d a

t th

e f

ore

fro

nt

of

my

mis

sio

n.

74

XIt

ha

s h

elp

ed

giv

e s

om

e g

uid

an

ce

to

an

un

de

rsta

nd

ing

of

as

pe

cts

of

fait

h t

ha

t a

re u

nc

lea

r

75

XK

ep

t m

e a

t c

hu

rch

an

d h

elp

ed

me

no

t to

be

te

mp

ted

by

ou

tsid

e i

nfl

ue

nc

es

.

76

XI

be

lie

ve

th

at

Go

d b

rea

the

s l

ife

in

to t

his

wo

rld

. B

ein

g b

rou

gh

t u

p a

Ba

pti

st

an

d r

ec

en

tly

be

co

min

g a

Sa

lva

tio

nis

t a

nd

no

w a

Ca

de

t in

AU

E.

Th

e T

SA

Tra

dit

ion

ha

s s

ha

pe

d m

e w

ith

a

sty

les

of

wo

rsh

ip,

E.G

. M

us

ic,

the

us

e o

f th

e F

lag

, M

erc

y s

ea

t e

tc.

77

XB

ee

n r

ais

ed

in

sa

lvo

ho

me

, b

ut

de

ve

lop

ed

my

ow

n f

ait

h a

s a

te

en

ag

er

79

XIt

ha

s i

mp

ac

ted

on

ma

ny

as

pe

cts

of

my

lif

e (

so

cia

l, s

pir

itu

al

etc

) a

nd

my

vie

w o

f th

e w

orl

d.

Th

is

in t

urn

ha

s i

mp

ac

ted

my

fa

ith

.

83

XH

elp

me

to

se

e t

he

wo

rld

dif

fere

ntl

y

86

XB

orn

& B

red

Sa

lvo

, 4

th g

en

era

tio

n.

So

it

is a

ll I

ha

ve

kn

ow

n.

87

XA

tte

nd

an

ce

, p

art

icip

ati

on

& l

ife

sty

le.

Fo

llo

win

g i

n t

he

fo

ots

tep

s o

f m

y p

are

nts

le

d t

o m

y o

rig

ina

l

co

nv

ers

ion

90

XB

oth

my

hu

sb

an

d &

I a

re b

orn

an

d b

red

Ba

pti

sts

, s

pe

nt

a f

ew

ye

ars

in

pe

nte

co

sta

l c

hu

rch

,

be

fore

be

co

min

g S

alv

ati

on

ists

. H

av

ing

co

me

fro

m f

am

ilie

s w

he

re o

ur

gra

nd

pa

ren

ts a

nd

pa

ren

ts

are

sa

ve

d i

t h

as

he

lpe

d u

s t

o k

ee

p p

us

hin

g i

n t

o G

od

du

rin

g d

iffi

cu

lt t

ime

s.

92

XY

es

as

I a

m a

mo

re o

lde

r tr

ad

itio

n t

ha

n m

os

t o

f m

y a

ge

95

XI

gre

w u

p i

n a

Sa

lvo

fa

mil

y (

I'm

5th

ge

ne

rati

on

) -

so

ou

r fa

mil

y t

rad

itio

ns

ha

ve

ve

ry m

uc

h s

ha

pe

d

my

fa

ith

, b

eli

efs

an

d l

ife

str

uc

ture

96

XIt

s h

elp

s t

o k

ee

p t

rus

tin

g H

im

98

XM

att

ers

su

ch

as

es

ch

ato

log

y,

Ari

an

ism

vs

Ca

lvin

ism

an

d m

iss

ion

ha

ve

be

en

str

on

gly

sh

ap

ed

by

bin

g p

art

of

the

sa

lva

tio

n A

my

tra

dit

ion

.

10

2X

It h

as

giv

en

me

a c

on

tex

t to

pra

cti

ce

it

an

d c

ha

lle

ng

e i

t

10

5X

Tra

dit

ion

al

Sa

lva

tio

n A

rmy

Off

ice

r p

are

nts

.

11

3X

He

lpe

d m

e u

nd

ers

tan

d w

he

re T

SA

th

eo

log

y s

its

am

on

gs

t th

e t

rad

itio

n o

f th

e c

hu

rch

. T

SA

the

olo

gy

ha

s h

elp

ed

me

un

de

rsta

nd

sp

ec

ific

id

ea

s s

uc

h a

s H

oli

ne

ss

an

d S

alv

ati

on

fo

r th

e

wh

os

oe

ve

r.

Nu

mb

er

Bo

rn

be

fore

19

47

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

47

an

d

19

64

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

65

an

d

19

82

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

82

an

d

19

94

Re

sp

on

se

Te

xt

Ho

w h

as

yo

ur

tra

dit

ion

sh

ap

ed

yo

ur

fait

h?

My

ag

e b

rac

ke

t is

Appendices

209

11

6X

My

tra

dit

ion

ha

s g

ive

n a

co

nte

xt

for

my

ow

n t

he

olo

gic

al

form

ati

on

. A

s I

ha

ve

do

ne

stu

dy

in

the

olo

gy

, I

ha

ve

fo

un

d m

ys

elf

em

bra

cin

g t

he

id

ea

s o

f m

y t

rad

itio

n w

hil

e f

orm

s t

he

to

ols

to

qu

es

tio

n i

ts p

rac

tic

e.

11

7X

Th

e u

niq

ue

ne

ss

of

Th

e S

alv

ati

on

Arm

y h

as

ke

pt

me

in

tere

ste

d.

Th

e s

on

gs

ters

' m

es

sa

ge

s,

hy

mn

s,

an

d m

us

ica

ls h

av

e e

sp

ec

iall

y t

ou

ch

ed

my

lif

e a

nd

th

e w

ord

s a

re o

fte

n i

n m

y m

ind

str

en

gth

en

ing

my

fa

ith

. T

he

id

ea

of

fig

hti

ng

fo

r G

od

, a

nd

th

e i

nte

nti

on

s o

f th

e f

ou

nd

er

are

ins

pir

ing

, s

tre

ng

the

nin

g m

y f

ait

h w

ith

it'

s s

inc

eri

ty,

an

d l

ov

e f

or

all

. T

he

bo

ldn

es

s o

f s

tan

din

g u

p

ag

ain

st

sin

in

a l

ov

ing

wa

y i

s s

pe

cia

l w

ith

in T

he

Sa

lva

tio

n A

rmy

. I

th

an

k G

od

fo

r T

he

Sa

lva

tio

n

Arm

y,

an

d p

ray

th

at

the

se

th

ing

s a

re n

ot

los

t, a

nd

we

do

no

t b

ec

om

e u

nre

co

gn

isa

ble

, I

pra

y t

ha

t

we

wil

l b

e c

on

fid

en

t th

at

we

ha

ve

a g

oo

d t

hin

g g

oin

g,

an

d t

ha

t o

ur

tra

dit

ion

s b

e p

lea

sin

g t

o G

od

.

Th

e f

ait

h o

f o

ur

old

er

me

mb

ers

ha

s s

tre

ng

the

ne

d m

y f

ait

h,

an

d I

ho

pe

to

off

er

tha

t s

am

e

ins

pir

ati

on

to

th

os

e y

ou

ng

er

tha

n m

e.

11

9X

A g

rea

ter

em

ph

as

is o

n t

he

in

clu

siv

e n

atu

re o

f th

e G

os

pe

l

12

2X

Gro

wn

up

in

th

e s

ys

tem

93

Xi

wo

uld

su

gg

es

t it

ha

s m

ore

aff

ec

ted

my

be

ha

vio

ur

11

8X

I h

av

e a

str

on

g a

cti

vis

t fa

ith

, a

nd

am

es

pe

cia

lly

co

nc

ern

ed

wit

h s

oc

ial

jus

tic

e.

I h

av

e a

str

on

g

co

nc

en

r w

ith

ho

lin

es

s,

ev

en

if

this

is

no

t a

lwa

ys

ma

tch

ed

by

my

ex

pe

rie

nc

e.

12

1X

Ha

vin

g b

ein

g i

n t

he

Sa

lva

tio

n A

rmy

my

wh

ole

lif

e,

it i

s a

s t

ho

ug

h t

rad

itio

n h

as

be

en

etc

he

d i

nto

my

be

ing

. S

om

e o

f th

is t

rad

itio

n b

ein

g g

oo

d,

an

d s

om

e o

f it

I n

ee

d t

o s

ha

ke

be

fore

mo

vin

g o

n

wit

h m

y f

ait

h.

All

in

all

ho

we

ve

r, I

be

lie

ve

it

ha

s s

tre

ng

the

ne

d m

y f

ait

h.

53

XH

as

hin

de

rd i

t a

gre

at

de

al

of

the

tim

e

64

XN

ot

so

mu

ch

12

5X

It h

as

n't

re

all

y s

ha

pe

d m

e i

n a

ny

wa

y.

25

XIt

ha

s s

ha

pe

d m

y f

ait

h a

lo

t. I

ha

ve

gro

wn

up

in

th

e S

alv

ati

on

Arm

y a

nd

le

arn

ed

a l

ot

ab

ou

t G

od

thro

ug

h t

ea

ch

ing

fro

m t

he

arm

y a

nd

sa

lva

tio

nis

t p

are

nts

an

d g

ran

dp

are

nts

. T

he

tra

dit

ion

of

the

arm

y h

as

sh

ap

ed

my

fa

ith

to

be

a f

ait

h w

ith

ac

tio

n.

44

XT

rad

itio

n h

as

su

ch

a b

roa

d r

an

ge

of

me

an

ing

th

at

it i

s d

iffi

cu

lt f

or

me

to

ac

cu

rate

ly c

om

me

nt

on

.

Wh

ile

ra

ise

d i

n T

he

Sa

lva

tio

n A

rmy

I w

ou

ld d

es

cri

be

my

th

eo

log

y a

s b

ein

g m

ore

're

form

ed

-

ev

an

ge

lic

al'

th

an

sa

y '

we

sle

ya

n'

: if

th

is i

s w

he

re t

his

su

rve

y i

s g

oin

g(?

). I

be

lie

ve

Th

e S

alv

ati

on

Arm

y t

rad

itio

n h

as

dis

tin

ct

we

ak

ne

ss

es

in

un

de

rsta

nd

ing

th

e s

ov

ere

ign

ty o

f G

od

: W

illi

am

Bo

oth

str

ug

gle

d w

ith

it,

an

d p

erh

ap

s t

o a

le

ss

er

ex

ten

t a

lso

did

We

sle

y.

I h

av

e s

at

in a

bib

le s

tud

y o

n

Ep

he

sia

ns

1 w

ith

re

ce

ntl

y c

om

mis

sio

ne

d o

ffic

ers

- a

nd

be

ca

us

e o

f th

e w

ord

'p

red

es

tin

ed

' th

ey

are

im

me

dia

tely

dis

tra

cte

d i

nto

co

mp

ari

ng

'p

rev

en

ien

t g

rac

e'

wit

h '

ca

lvin

ism

' a

nd

th

ere

fore

sa

yin

g t

he

Sa

lva

tio

n A

rmy

do

es

n't

be

lie

ve

in

'p

red

es

tin

ati

on

'. S

uc

h a

n u

nfo

rtu

na

te d

ich

oto

my

in

Th

e S

alv

ati

on

Arm

y h

as

ex

iste

d t

hro

ug

ho

ut

its

his

tory

(y

ou

do

n't

ha

ve

to

do

a M

as

ters

to

re

ali

se

tha

t o

ne

!).

Nu

mb

er

Bo

rn

be

fore

19

47

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

47

an

d

19

64

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

65

an

d

19

82

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

82

an

d

19

94

Re

sp

on

se

Te

xt

Ho

w h

as

yo

ur

tra

dit

ion

sh

ap

ed

yo

ur

fait

h?

My

ag

e b

rac

ke

t is

Appendices

210

50

XT

rad

itio

n h

as

sh

ap

ed

my

fa

ith

in

ce

rta

in p

rac

tis

es

no

t b

ein

g n

es

se

ca

ry

for

Sa

lva

tio

n s

uc

h a

s

Co

mm

un

ion

- I

be

lie

ve

th

is b

oo

sts

fa

ith

le

ve

ls w

ith

in S

alv

ati

on

ists

56

XIt

ha

s g

ive

n m

e a

fo

un

da

tio

n f

rom

wh

ich

I'v

e b

ee

n a

ble

to

ex

plo

re t

he

id

ea

of

Go

d a

nd

my

ex

pe

rie

nc

e o

f H

im.

It h

as

ke

pt

me

fro

m a

cc

ep

tin

g t

he

olo

gy

ba

se

d o

n h

ow

go

od

it

ma

ke

s m

e

fee

l, a

nd

in

ste

ad

to

ke

ep

my

fa

ith

ba

se

d i

n s

cri

ptu

re.

Gro

win

g u

p i

n t

he

Arm

y,

do

ing

a l

ot

of

the

'tr

ad

itio

na

l' S

alv

o t

hin

gs

, g

av

e m

e s

tru

ctu

re a

nd

6

2X

i'v

e l

ea

rnt

wh

at

i b

eli

ev

e a

s a

re

su

lt o

f tr

ad

itio

n.

68

XIt

ha

s b

ee

n a

n e

no

urm

ou

s p

art

of

my

lif

e f

or

all

of

my

lif

e.

It c

ou

ld b

e s

aid

th

at

ev

en

wh

en

I h

av

e

de

fin

ed

my

se

lf a

nd

my

fa

ith

in

op

po

sit

ion

to

th

at

tra

dit

ion

it

ha

s b

ee

n a

sh

ap

ing

in

flu

en

ce

...

Ho

we

ve

r, m

an

y b

oo

ks

an

d e

xp

eri

en

ce

s u

nre

late

d t

o m

y t

rad

itio

n h

av

e a

lso

sig

nif

ica

ntl

y s

ha

pe

d

my

fa

ith

, in

mu

ch

mo

re o

bv

iou

s w

ay

s.

71

XB

y d

oin

g t

he

sa

me

th

ing

s a

s o

the

rs,

bu

t it

ha

s a

lso

he

lpe

d m

e t

o l

ea

rn m

ore

ab

ou

t m

y f

ait

h a

nd

ho

w m

uc

h i

t's

pa

rt o

f m

y l

ife

.

84

XM

y t

rad

itio

na

l h

as

sh

ap

ed

ho

w I

ex

pre

ss

my

fa

ith

, b

ut

no

t n

ec

es

sa

rily

sh

ap

ed

my

co

re b

eli

efs

. I

thin

k t

he

th

eo

log

y o

f T

he

Sa

lva

tio

n A

rmy

ha

s s

ha

pe

d m

y b

eli

efs

an

d t

ha

t is

ex

pre

ss

ed

th

rou

gh

so

ldie

rsh

ip.

pe

rha

ps

, th

e p

hy

sic

al

tra

dit

ion

al

ex

pre

ss

ion

of

Th

e S

alv

ati

on

Arm

y h

as

ac

tua

lly

en

co

ura

ge

d m

e t

o m

ov

e a

wa

y f

rom

tra

dit

ion

.

85

XI

wa

s b

ou

gh

t u

p 6

th G

en

era

tio

n,

Bo

rn w

ith

th

e Y

ell

ow

Re

d a

nd

Blu

e i

n m

y v

ein

s.

I b

eli

ev

e i

n t

he

Do

ctr

ine

s a

nd

Wh

at

the

Arm

y u

se

d t

o s

tan

d f

or.

Ac

ce

pta

nc

e a

nd

En

co

ura

ge

me

nt

of

all

to

be

a

wo

rkin

g p

art

of

Th

e A

rmy

!

97

XIt

ha

s s

ho

wn

me

wh

at

fait

h i

n a

cti

on

lo

ok

s l

ike

10

6X

Be

ing

a p

art

of

an

org

an

isa

tio

n,

fee

lin

g i

nc

lud

ed

in

a b

an

d o

f s

old

ier,

an

d p

art

ak

ing

in

tra

dit

ion

s

tha

t th

es

e g

rou

ps

are

in

vo

lve

d i

n.

11

2X

Th

e S

alv

ati

on

ists

vie

w f

or

he

lpin

g o

the

rs,

jus

t li

ke

Je

su

s d

id.

11

4X

I th

ink

th

at

wh

en

yo

u a

re b

rou

gh

t u

p w

ith

be

lie

fs t

he

y s

ha

pe

ev

ery

as

pe

ct

of

yo

ur

life

. S

o

na

tura

lly

th

e t

rad

itio

ns

of

the

arm

y h

as

sh

ap

ed

my

fa

ith

12

4X

By

ro

uti

nin

g t

ime

wit

h G

od

Nu

mb

er

Bo

rn

be

fore

19

47

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

47

an

d

19

64

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

65

an

d

19

82

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

82

an

d

19

94

Re

sp

on

se

Te

xt

Ho

w h

as

yo

ur

tra

dit

ion

sh

ap

ed

yo

ur

fait

h?

My

ag

e b

rac

ke

t is

Appendices

211

Figure 6. Does God closely control events - officers and adult Salvationists

Figure 7. Does God closely control events – generational groupings

Appendices

212

Figure 9. Prayer for parking space – generational groupings

Figure 8. Prayer for parking space – officers and adult Salvationists

Appendices

213

Figure 10. Deterministic understanding of events – officers and adult Salvationists

Figure 11. Deterministic understanding of events - generational groupings

Appendices

214

Figure 12. Natural disasters and God - officers and adult Salvationists

Figure 13. Natural disasters and God - generational groupings

Appendices

215

Figure 15. God as responsible for suffering - generational groupings

Figure 14. God as responsible for suffering – officers and Salvationists

Appendices

216

Nu

mb

er

Bo

rn

be

fore

19

47

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

47

an

d

19

64

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

65

an

d

19

82

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

82

an

d

19

94

Re

sp

on

se

Te

xt

12

XW

ho

am

I t

o d

isa

gre

e w

ith

th

e p

lan

s o

f G

od

. (a

lth

ou

gh

I h

av

e)

As

He

is

Om

nis

cie

nt,

His

firs

t d

ec

isio

n m

us

t h

av

e b

ee

n t

he

be

st

On

e

21

XG

od

is

Go

d!

I n

ee

d t

o l

et

him

be

Go

d!!

24

XJ

us

t w

ha

t it

sa

ys

29

XO

ur

un

de

rsta

nd

ing

of

wh

o G

od

is

fro

m t

he

sc

rip

ture

is

th

e b

as

is o

f o

r w

ors

hip

.

32

Xa

fu

nd

am

en

tali

st

vie

w i

n w

es

tern

so

cie

ty.

Go

d t

he

refo

re,

is f

as

hio

ne

d d

ep

en

din

g t

he

so

cie

ty o

r c

ult

ure

in

wh

ich

Go

d i

s b

ein

g c

on

sid

ere

d

35

XD

eis

m.

Wh

y m

us

t w

e w

ors

hip

, p

rais

e t

his

gre

at

cre

ato

r w

he

n w

as

he

ha

s c

rea

ted

is

a c

rue

l

wo

rld

an

d o

ne

in

wh

ich

no

n b

eli

ev

ers

are

pu

nis

he

d.

Th

at'

s n

ot

lov

e

39

XT

he

Tri

nit

y i

s f

ou

nd

ati

on

al

an

d i

s t

he

go

al

of

Ch

ris

tia

n f

ait

h.

60

XG

od

ma

de

an

d c

on

tro

ls t

his

un

ive

rse

. H

ow

ev

er,

so

we

hu

ma

ns

wh

o a

ve

be

en

ma

de

in

his

ima

ge

as

sp

irit

ua

l b

ein

gs

, h

e h

as

giv

en

us

fre

e w

ill

to m

ak

e c

ho

ice

s -

- e

sp

ec

iall

y t

he

ch

oic

e t

o l

ov

e h

im.

He

gri

ev

es

ov

er

ou

r c

ho

ice

s t

o d

iso

be

y h

im b

ut

se

nt

Je

su

s t

o

rec

on

cil

e u

s t

o h

ims

elf

if

we

ch

oo

se

.

93

XW

he

n I

re

co

gn

ise

Go

d i

n a

ll H

is i

nfi

nit

e g

rea

tne

ss

, h

ow

ca

n I

do

le

ss

th

an

wo

rsh

ip H

im a

nd

Him

alo

ne

10

4X

I fi

nd

th

is c

on

fus

ing

- b

ec

au

se

of

the

'c

las

h'

wit

h t

he

co

nc

ep

t o

f th

e T

rin

ity

. D

o w

e w

ors

hip

on

e G

od

, o

r th

ree

!

10

6X

Ye

s,

I a

gre

e.

11

9X

Go

d i

s s

up

rem

e a

bo

ve

an

d b

ey

on

d o

ur

un

de

rsta

nd

ing

, w

ho

cre

ate

d u

s,

gu

ide

s a

nd

pro

tec

ts u

s.

Ev

ery

thin

g i

s u

nd

er

His

co

ntr

ol.

1X

Th

ere

is

on

ly o

ne

Go

d.

3X

A p

erf

ec

t G

od

wh

o n

ot

on

ly c

rea

ted

th

e u

niv

ers

e b

ut

in w

ay

s w

e d

on

't u

nd

ers

tan

d,

ma

inta

ins

an

d r

eta

ins

ov

era

ll c

on

tro

l o

f th

e n

atu

ral

law

s.

As

su

ch

, w

e c

an

do

no

thin

g e

lse

bu

t w

ors

hip

him

.

4X

Go

d i

s i

t! B

eg

inn

ing

- E

nd

. H

e c

rea

ted

an

d c

rea

tes

, p

res

erv

es

an

d g

ov

ern

s t

o k

ee

p h

is

wo

rk h

ap

pe

nin

g,

bu

t w

ork

s w

ith

in (

mo

stl

y)

his

cre

ati

ve

bo

un

ds

. T

he

on

ly o

bje

ct

...

we

ll

ha

ve

we

fo

un

d a

ny

thin

g b

ett

er?

5X

Th

at

Go

d i

s s

ov

ere

ign

, a

nd

un

de

r h

is s

ov

ere

ign

la

w,

is t

he

on

ly t

rue

an

d p

rop

er

ob

jec

t o

f

my

wo

rsh

ip.

6X

Th

e o

nly

su

pre

me

be

ing

wh

o i

s w

ort

hy

of

ou

r w

ors

hip

7X

We

sh

ou

ldn

't m

ak

e a

ny

thin

g a

n i

do

l a

nd

ha

ve

th

em

ab

ov

e G

od

.

10

XG

od

cre

ate

d a

nd

ru

les

all

th

ing

an

d s

o i

s t

he

on

ly b

ein

g w

ort

hy

of

ou

r w

ors

hip

11

XT

ha

t w

e s

ho

uld

ha

ve

no

oth

er

'Go

d's

" th

at

Go

d i

s t

he

'I

am

".

Bri

efl

y d

es

cri

be

in

yo

ur

ow

n w

ord

s y

ou

r u

nd

ers

tan

din

g o

f th

e s

ec

on

d A

rtic

le o

f F

ait

h o

f T

he

Sa

lva

tio

n A

rmy

. "

We

be

lie

ve

th

at

the

re i

s o

nly

on

e G

od

wh

o

is i

nfi

nit

ely

pe

rfe

ct,

th

e C

rea

tor,

Pre

se

rve

r a

nd

Go

ve

rno

r o

f a

ll t

hin

gs

, a

nd

wh

o i

s t

he

on

ly p

rop

er

ob

jec

t o

f re

lig

iou

s w

ors

hip

"

Fi

gure

16

Un

de

rsta

nd

ing

of

seco

nd

Art

icle

of

Fait

h

Appendices

217

15

X"T

he

Lo

rd o

ur

go

ds

in

On

e G

od

". H

e c

rea

ted

th

e u

niv

ers

e.

An

y o

the

r o

bje

ct

of

wo

rsh

ip i

s

ma

d-m

ad

e,

fals

e a

nd

ha

s n

o p

ow

er.

16

XG

od

is

ma

ke

r o

f a

ll a

nd

ov

er

all

, a

nd

as

su

ch

is

th

e o

nly

on

e w

ho

de

se

rve

s o

ur

wo

rsh

ip.

18

XI

be

lie

ve

in

th

e G

od

of

the

OT

an

d t

he

Go

d o

f th

e N

T,

an

d h

e i

s t

he

on

e t

o w

ors

hp

an

d

ho

lds

it

all

to

ge

the

r1

9X

I b

eli

ev

e t

he

re i

s o

nly

on

e G

od

, w

ho

cre

ste

d t

he

wo

rld

an

d w

ho

is

ov

er

all

th

ing

s a

nd

it

is

him

wh

om

I w

ors

hip

.

22

XI

un

de

rsta

nd

th

at

the

th

is a

rtic

le c

om

es

fro

m t

he

bib

le,

be

lie

vin

g t

ha

t G

od

cre

ate

d

ev

ery

thin

g (

so

lar

sy

ste

m e

tc)

an

d u

ltim

ate

ly g

ov

ern

s t

he

wa

y i

t a

ll w

ork

s.

Th

at

on

ly G

od

is

fore

ve

r p

erf

ec

t a

nd

be

ca

us

e o

f th

is,

on

ly h

e s

ho

uld

be

wo

rsh

ipp

ed

.

23

Xy

es

be

lie

ve

th

is h

ow

ev

er

my

un

de

rsta

nd

ing

of

oth

ers

be

lie

fs h

av

e c

ha

ng

ed

an

d

so

me

tim

es

I t

hin

k i

t is

ab

ou

t w

ho

th

ey

ca

ll G

od

.

26

XG

od

is

all

we

ne

ed

27

Xe

xa

ctl

y t

he

sa

me

as

it

rea

ds

28

Xth

at

Go

d i

s t

he

be

gin

nin

g a

nd

th

e e

nd

, th

e A

lph

a a

nd

Om

eg

a.

He

is

alw

ay

s t

he

re

33

XT

he

Go

d I

wo

rsh

ip i

s t

he

on

ly t

rue

Go

d.

He

is

all

th

ing

s a

nd

in

all

th

ing

s

36

XT

he

re i

s o

ne

Go

d w

ho

we

wo

rsh

ip t

hro

ug

h o

ur

se

rvic

e.

38

XT

he

un

ive

rse

, e

art

h a

nd

it'

s i

nh

ab

ita

nts

are

fa

r to

co

mp

lex

to

ex

ist

by

ch

an

ce

.Th

ere

is

On

e

ob

jec

t o

f a

uth

en

tic

wo

rsh

ip o

nly

, a

lth

ou

gh

pe

rha

ps

, th

ere

is

mo

re t

ha

n o

ne

pa

th t

o H

im?

40

XE

xa

ctl

y a

s i

t s

ay

s.

41

XA

gre

e a

s a

sta

tem

en

t o

f fa

ct

BU

T t

he

wo

rk a

nd

de

ath

of

Je

su

s o

n m

an

kin

d's

be

ha

lf n

ee

ds

to b

e f

ull

y u

nd

ers

too

d b

efo

re t

he

ab

ov

e A

rtic

le c

an

be

pu

t in

to p

rac

tic

e

42

XG

od

is

all

an

d e

ve

ryth

ing

- t

he

re i

s n

o o

the

r e

nti

ty.

45

XG

od

is

th

e s

up

rem

e b

ein

g a

nd

oth

er

reli

gio

us

be

lie

fs a

re e

ron

ne

ou

s

46

XT

he

re i

s o

nly

on

e G

od

wh

o i

s w

ort

hy

of

wo

rsh

ip.

He

is

a j

ea

lou

s G

od

.

47

XS

imp

ly t

ha

t th

ere

is

on

ly o

ne

Go

d

48

Xth

at

Go

d i

s G

od

an

d h

e d

es

ev

es

ou

r w

ors

hip

an

d a

do

rati

on

- I

dn

't t

hin

k I

dis

tin

gu

ish

be

twe

en

th

on

e G

od

an

d t

he

Go

d i

n t

hre

e p

ers

on

s

49

XT

he

re i

s o

ne

wh

o i

s,

un

de

r, a

bo

ve

an

d b

ey

on

d a

ll t

hin

gs

57

XT

he

re i

s o

ne

tru

e G

od

wh

o c

rea

ted

, k

ee

ps

an

d r

eig

ns

ov

er

his

cre

ati

on

. H

e a

lon

e i

s

wo

rth

y o

f o

ur

pra

ise

an

d w

ors

hip

.

58

XG

od

is

th

e M

ak

er

an

d o

f a

ll t

hin

gs

an

d m

ain

tain

s a

ll H

e h

as

ma

de

, H

e i

s H

oly

an

d

So

ve

rig

n a

nd

as

su

ch

is

wo

rth

y o

f o

ur

wo

rsh

ip

Nu

mb

er

Bo

rn

be

fore

19

47

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

47

an

d

19

64

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

65

an

d

19

82

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

82

an

d

19

94

Re

sp

on

se

Te

xt

Bri

efl

y d

es

cri

be

in

yo

ur

ow

n w

ord

s y

ou

r u

nd

ers

tan

din

g o

f th

e s

ec

on

d A

rtic

le o

f F

ait

h o

f T

he

Sa

lva

tio

n A

rmy

. "

We

be

lie

ve

th

at

the

re i

s o

nly

on

e G

od

wh

o

is i

nfi

nit

ely

pe

rfe

ct,

th

e C

rea

tor,

Pre

se

rve

r a

nd

Go

ve

rno

r o

f a

ll t

hin

gs

, a

nd

wh

o i

s t

he

on

ly p

rop

er

ob

jec

t o

f re

lig

iou

s w

ors

hip

"

Appendices

218

65

XIt

sa

ys

th

at

the

re i

s o

nly

on

e G

od

wh

o s

ho

uld

be

wo

rsh

ipp

ed

an

d w

ors

hip

pin

g a

ny

oth

er

Go

d i

s w

ron

g.

It a

lso

su

gg

es

ts t

ha

t G

od

co

ntr

ols

ev

ery

thin

g t

ha

t h

ap

pe

ns

an

d i

s t

he

ab

so

lou

te a

uth

ori

ty o

ve

r a

ll t

hin

gs

. S

om

e p

eo

ple

ma

y s

ee

th

is a

s a

co

ntr

oll

ing

kin

d o

f

be

ing

bu

t I

pre

fer

the

cre

ati

ve

an

d p

rote

cti

ve

im

ag

ary

th

at

this

pro

jec

ts.

66

XI

thin

k i

t's

se

lf-e

xp

lan

ato

ry.

I t

ak

e i

t fa

irly

lit

era

lly

.

72

XI

kn

ow

th

at

the

re i

s o

nly

on

e G

od

, a

nd

th

e H

e i

s p

erf

ec

t a

nd

th

e c

rea

tor

of

ev

ery

thin

g.

I

kn

ow

th

at

he

is

th

e o

nly

Go

d a

nd

th

at

He

is

on

ly o

bje

ct

of

wo

rsh

ip f

or

all

ma

nk

ind

.

76

XG

od

is

th

e g

rea

t "I

am

" T

he

se

lf e

xis

ten

t o

ne

. T

he

on

ly p

rob

lem

I h

av

e i

s t

he

wo

rd "

ob

jec

t"

Go

d i

s n

ot

an

ob

jec

t b

ut

a p

ers

on

78

XT

he

on

e t

rue

an

d p

erf

ec

t G

od

ha

s a

lwa

ys

be

en

an

d a

lwa

ys

wil

l b

e -

th

is i

s w

ho

de

se

rve

s

ou

r w

ors

hip

an

d o

ur

ve

ry l

ife

.

80

XG

od

is

sp

irit

wh

o i

s t

he

po

we

r o

f th

e u

niv

ers

e.

Liv

es

be

yo

nd

tim

e a

nd

sp

ac

e.

We

ne

ed

to

wo

rsh

ip h

im t

o b

rin

g u

s i

nto

a c

los

er

rela

tio

ns

hip

.

86

XG

od

cre

ate

d,

pre

se

rve

s,

su

sta

ins

all

th

ing

s.

Go

ve

rn -

he

ha

s p

ut

pro

ce

ss

es

in

pla

ce

to

su

sta

in o

ur

wo

rld

an

d l

ife

. (H

um

an

kin

d's

be

ha

vio

ur

ha

s n

eg

ati

ve

ly i

mp

ac

ted

so

me

of

the

se

pro

ce

ss

es

) H

e a

lon

e i

s G

od

an

d w

ort

hy

of

ou

r w

ors

hip

90

XG

od

alo

ne

is

wo

rth

y o

f o

ur

wo

rsh

ip f

or

he

is

pe

rfe

ct

an

d r

ule

s o

ve

r a

nd

pre

se

rvie

s a

ll h

is

cre

ati

on

.9

4X

Go

d i

s t

he

be

gin

nin

g a

nd

en

d.

No

oh

er

go

ds

co

mp

are

to

him

. O

nly

he

is

wo

rth

y o

f o

ur

wo

rsh

ip.

He

cre

ate

s,

ke

ep

s a

nd

co

ntr

ols

all

th

ing

s.

97

XO

ne

Go

d,

wh

o i

s o

ve

r a

ll t

hin

gs

, in

tim

ate

ly e

ng

ag

ed

wit

h a

ll o

f h

is c

rea

tio

n,

no

t ju

st

inte

res

ted

, b

ut

en

ga

ge

d.

Wh

o,

thro

ug

h t

ha

t e

ng

ag

em

en

t a

nd

pre

se

nc

e,

no

t o

nly

is

th

e

ob

jec

t o

f w

ors

hip

, c

an

be

wo

rsh

ipp

ed

. T

he

re i

s o

nly

on

e G

od

, w

ho

be

ca

us

e o

f h

is

en

ga

ge

me

nt

in a

ll o

f c

rea

tio

n i

s a

cc

es

sib

le i

n w

ors

hip

.

98

XI

full

y a

gre

e w

ith

th

is s

tate

me

nt

if I

did

n't

wh

at

wo

uld

be

th

e u

se

in

be

lie

vin

g i

n G

od

if

I

did

n't

99

XM

y G

od

is

no

t g

od

bu

t is

th

e a

we

so

me

po

we

r o

f C

rea

tio

n.

10

1X

Go

d i

s t

he

cre

ato

r a

nd

wit

ho

ut

fau

lt w

ho

is

to

be

re

ve

red

an

d h

on

ou

red

ab

ov

e e

ve

ryth

ing

els

e

10

5X

Go

d c

rea

ted

all

th

ing

s,

he

is

pe

rfe

ct

an

d h

e a

lon

e s

ho

uld

I w

ors

hip

.

12

2X

Th

is i

s a

ba

sic

ele

me

nta

ry t

ruth

an

d w

e e

ith

er

be

lie

ve

it

or

no

t. T

his

art

icle

of

fait

h w

as

no

1 i

n t

he

Do

ctr

ine

s o

f th

e M

eth

od

ist

Ne

w C

on

ne

cti

on

(1

83

8)

If w

e d

o n

ot

be

lie

ve

th

is w

e

sh

ou

ld l

oo

k f

or

an

oth

er

ch

urc

h.

2X

Th

ere

is

on

ly o

ne

Go

d.

He

is

co

mp

lete

ly p

erf

ec

t.

He

ma

de

th

e w

orl

d.

He

ke

ep

s i

t g

oin

g.

He

is

in

ch

arg

e o

f e

ve

ryth

ing

. H

e a

lon

e i

s t

o b

e w

ors

hip

pe

d a

nd

pra

ise

d.

8X

Go

d i

s a

ll

Nu

mb

er

Bo

rn

be

fore

19

47

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

47

an

d

19

64

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

65

an

d

19

82

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

82

an

d

19

94

Re

sp

on

se

Te

xt

Bri

efl

y d

es

cri

be

in

yo

ur

ow

n w

ord

s y

ou

r u

nd

ers

tan

din

g o

f th

e s

ec

on

d A

rtic

le o

f F

ait

h o

f T

he

Sa

lva

tio

n A

rmy

. "

We

be

lie

ve

th

at

the

re i

s o

nly

on

e G

od

wh

o

is i

nfi

nit

ely

pe

rfe

ct,

th

e C

rea

tor,

Pre

se

rve

r a

nd

Go

ve

rno

r o

f a

ll t

hin

gs

, a

nd

wh

o i

s t

he

on

ly p

rop

er

ob

jec

t o

f re

lig

iou

s w

ors

hip

"

Appendices

219

9X

Go

d i

s t

he

on

ly o

ne

to

be

wo

rsh

ipe

d a

nd

he

fo

rme

d a

nd

is

in

co

ntr

ol

of

all

th

ing

s.

13

XT

his

art

icle

re

fle

cts

his

tori

ca

l c

ree

ds

co

nfe

ss

ing

Go

d's

do

min

an

ce

an

d a

uth

ori

ty o

ve

r a

ll

cre

ati

on

.1

4X

Tru

e -

Je

su

s h

as

ta

ug

ht

me

th

is m

an

y t

ime

s t

hro

ug

h l

ife

ex

pe

rie

nc

e

17

XI

be

lie

ve

th

at

Go

d h

as

a r

ed

em

pti

ve

pla

n f

or

this

wo

rld

an

d t

ha

t th

rou

gh

re

lati

on

sh

ip w

ith

Him

th

is c

an

be

ac

hie

ve

d.

All

of

cre

ati

on

ba

res

th

e m

ark

of

ou

r M

ak

er

an

d t

ha

t s

ho

uld

gu

ide

ou

r in

tera

cti

on

s w

ith

ea

ch

oth

er

an

d t

he

wo

rld

aro

un

d u

s.

Th

at

Go

d i

n H

is i

nfi

nit

e

wis

do

m c

ho

os

es

wh

en

an

d h

ow

to

ac

t in

th

e w

orl

d a

nd

th

eir

is

an

in

vit

ati

on

fo

r u

s t

o j

oin

Him

in

His

wo

rk.

20

XG

od

is

so

vre

ign

; H

e h

old

s a

nd

su

sta

ins

th

e w

orl

d a

nd

is

wo

rth

y o

f m

y w

ors

hip

.

30

Xw

e w

ors

hip

on

ly G

od

, n

o o

the

r id

ols

, o

bje

cts

. If

I b

eli

ev

e i

n G

od

, I

do

nt

ne

ed

to

be

lie

ve

in

an

y o

the

r re

lig

ion

s o

r o

bje

cts

31

XT

his

is

pre

tty

sim

ple

to

me

...

Go

d i

s t

he

on

ly o

ne

wh

o d

es

erv

es

ou

r w

ors

hip

- t

o p

ut

an

yth

ing

els

e,

or

an

yo

ne

els

e a

bo

ve

Go

d i

s t

o d

ish

on

ou

r H

im.

He

is

ho

ly,

ou

r c

rea

tor

an

d

He

is

so

ve

reig

n o

ve

r a

ll t

hin

gs

an

d a

ll p

ow

ers

.

34

XG

od

is

pe

rfe

ct

in a

ll h

e d

oe

s.

He

is

th

e o

nly

pe

rso

n o

r th

ing

we

sh

ou

ld w

ors

hip

.

37

XG

od

is

th

e C

rea

tor

of

all

th

ing

s a

nd

th

ere

is

no

oth

er

thin

g w

ort

hy

of

wo

rsh

ip a

nd

aw

e

43

XT

he

re i

s o

n e

nti

ty t

ha

t w

e a

re s

up

po

se

d t

o w

ors

hip

51

XW

e h

av

e o

ne

Go

d w

ho

cre

ate

d e

ve

ryth

ing

, h

e p

res

erv

es

lif

e a

nd

go

ve

rns

ev

ery

thin

g t

ha

t

ha

pp

en

s i

n t

he

wo

rld

. S

o i

s t

he

refo

re t

he

on

ly o

bje

ct

of

ou

r w

ors

hip

. T

his

re

min

ds

us

no

t to

wo

rsh

ip i

do

ls w

hic

h t

ies

in

wit

h t

he

10

co

mm

an

dm

en

ts.

52

XG

od

is

ab

ov

e a

nd

be

yo

nd

an

yth

ing

we

co

uld

ev

er

ima

gin

e o

r d

es

cri

be

. G

od

is

in

tim

ate

ly

co

nn

ec

ted

wit

h h

um

an

ity

(im

ma

ne

nt)

ye

t a

lso

be

yo

nd

us

(tr

an

sc

en

de

nt)

.

54

XG

od

ca

nn

ot

be

im

pe

rfe

ct.

To

be

im

pe

rfe

ct

de

nie

s H

is d

ivin

ity

. H

e c

rea

ted

ev

ery

thin

g a

n

He

lo

ok

s a

fte

r it

an

d a

ll t

ha

t n

atu

re d

oe

s.

Th

e o

nly

cre

atu

res

He

ga

ve

th

e a

bil

ity

to

to

lo

ok

aft

er

the

ms

elv

es

wa

s m

an

kin

d,

He

is

th

ere

for

the

on

ly t

rue

ob

jec

t o

f w

ors

hip

as

He

do

es

no

t c

on

tro

l u

s,

jus

t w

an

ts a

re

lati

on

sh

ip w

ith

us

.

55

XW

e h

av

e o

nly

on

e t

rue

Go

d.

59

XI

be

lie

ve

th

ere

is

on

ly o

ne

Go

d.

I b

eli

ev

e l

es

s a

nd

le

ss

in

a h

an

ds

on

ca

r-p

ark

-fin

din

g

kin

d o

f G

od

. I

be

lie

ve

Go

d i

s t

he

ob

jec

t o

f a

ll r

eli

gio

us

wo

rsh

ip,

inc

lus

ive

of

oth

er

reli

gio

us

sy

ste

ms

.

61

XT

ha

t w

e w

ors

hip

on

e G

od

wh

o c

rea

ted

all

we

se

e,

pre

se

rve

s a

ll w

e h

av

e a

nd

go

ve

rns

ov

er

all

. H

e i

s t

he

Go

d w

e s

ho

uld

wo

rsh

ip a

nd

no

t le

t o

the

r th

ing

s (

mo

ne

y,

sta

tus

etc

)

be

co

me

ou

r "g

od

s"

Nu

mb

er

Bo

rn

be

fore

19

47

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

47

an

d

19

64

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

65

an

d

19

82

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

82

an

d

19

94

Re

sp

on

se

Te

xt

Bri

efl

y d

es

cri

be

in

yo

ur

ow

n w

ord

s y

ou

r u

nd

ers

tan

din

g o

f th

e s

ec

on

d A

rtic

le o

f F

ait

h o

f T

he

Sa

lva

tio

n A

rmy

. "

We

be

lie

ve

th

at

the

re i

s o

nly

on

e G

od

wh

o

is i

nfi

nit

ely

pe

rfe

ct,

th

e C

rea

tor,

Pre

se

rve

r a

nd

Go

ve

rno

r o

f a

ll t

hin

gs

, a

nd

wh

o i

s t

he

on

ly p

rop

er

ob

jec

t o

f re

lig

iou

s w

ors

hip

"

Appendices

220

63

XI

un

de

rsta

nd

th

ere

is

on

ly o

ne

tru

e G

od

th

at

ou

r fa

ith

sh

ou

ld b

e p

lac

ed

wit

h.

Th

ere

is

ac

kn

ow

led

ge

me

nt

of

oth

er

go

ds

in

th

e S

cri

ptu

res

bu

t o

nly

on

e s

ho

uld

on

ly b

e w

ors

hip

pe

d.

67

XG

od

co

nti

nu

es

to

wo

rk i

n t

he

wo

rld

th

at

he

ma

de

in

a s

eri

ou

s a

nd

in

tere

ste

d w

ay

.

69

XG

od

is

it

...

on

e a

nd

on

ly.

Th

e o

ne

wh

o m

ad

e u

s,

wa

tch

es

us

, ju

dg

es

us

.

71

XA

me

n!

73

XO

nly

Go

d t

o b

e w

ors

hip

pe

d a

nd

in

ch

arg

e o

f a

ll t

hin

gs

74

XT

he

re i

s o

nly

on

e t

rue

Go

d w

ho

is

ab

ov

e a

ll a

nd

kn

ow

s e

ve

ryth

ing

th

at

wil

l h

ap

pe

n,

an

d

the

co

ns

eq

ue

nc

es

75

XG

od

is

th

e o

ne

an

d o

nly

liv

ing

Go

d,

the

re i

s n

o o

the

r.

Go

d c

rea

ted

th

e w

orl

d a

nd

us

, m

an

kin

d.

As

Go

d c

rea

ted

all

th

ing

s h

e k

no

ws

wh

at

is b

es

t fo

r a

ll t

hin

gs

an

d i

s t

he

refo

re t

he

ult

ima

te a

uth

ori

ty o

ve

r a

ll t

hin

gs

. A

s i

t is

Go

d w

ho

cre

ate

d t

he

wo

rld

is

th

en

mo

st

wo

rth

y o

f

ou

r p

rais

e a

nd

wo

rsh

ip.

77

XG

od

he

lps

us

ma

ke

se

ns

e o

f th

e w

orl

d.

I a

lso

be

lie

ve

th

at

Go

d i

s s

om

eti

me

s k

no

wn

by

oth

er

na

me

s :

)7

9X

He

is

th

e o

nly

Go

d t

ha

t w

e s

ho

uld

tu

rn t

o a

nd

th

e u

ltim

ate

ma

ste

r .

81

XY

es

he

is

th

e o

ne

cre

ate

r

84

XT

he

re i

s n

o o

the

r g

od

s.

Go

d w

ho

cre

ate

d e

ve

ryth

ing

is

th

e o

nly

on

e w

ho

de

se

rve

s m

y

wo

rsh

ip.

85

XW

e h

av

e o

nly

on

e G

od

, h

e d

es

ign

ed

an

d m

ad

e u

s.

He

lo

ok

s o

ve

r u

s,

ke

ep

s u

s a

nd

ult

ima

tely

co

ntr

ols

us

. H

e i

s o

ur

Go

d a

nd

we

sh

ou

ld w

ors

hip

him

87

XT

he

un

ive

rse

wa

s c

rea

ted

by

Go

d;

it e

xis

ts a

t h

is w

him

; u

ltim

ate

ly,

it u

nfo

lds

to

his

pla

n

88

XT

he

re i

s n

o o

the

r G

od

lik

e o

ur

Go

d.

No

oth

er

Go

d s

ac

rifi

ce

d H

ims

elf

, a

fte

r c

om

ing

to

ea

rth

in h

um

an

fo

rm,

for

tho

se

He

cre

ate

d.

89

XW

e a

ck

no

wle

dg

e w

e s

ee

go

d a

s t

he

he

ad

an

d n

ot

ne

ed

ing

to

se

ek

him

via

sa

ints

, id

ols

or

oth

er

reli

gio

us

ob

jec

ts

92

XB

as

ed

on

th

e f

irs

t a

nd

se

co

nd

co

mm

an

dm

en

ts o

f o

nly

on

e G

od

an

d n

o i

do

ls

95

XT

ha

t G

od

is

th

e s

up

rem

e p

ow

er.

10

0X

I a

m T

he

Lo

rd y

ou

r G

od

. W

ors

hip

no

Go

d b

ut

me

- fu

ll s

top

10

2X

"We

be

lie

ve

th

at

the

re i

s o

nly

on

e G

od

, th

is w

e b

eli

ev

e t

o b

e t

rue

by

th

e s

cri

ptu

res

, b

oth

old

an

d n

ew

an

d b

ec

au

se

of

this

He

ha

s t

o b

e

infi

nit

ely

pe

rfe

ct,

th

e C

rea

tor,

Pre

se

rve

r

an

d G

ov

ern

or

of

all

th

ing

s,

an

d w

ho

is

th

e o

nly

pro

pe

r o

bje

ct

of

reli

gio

us

wo

rsh

ip"

10

9X

Th

at

Go

d i

s t

he

cre

ato

r o

f th

e e

art

h a

nd

its

in

ha

bit

an

ts a

nd

th

at

we

sh

ou

ld w

ors

hip

Go

d

ab

ov

e w

ors

hip

pin

g h

um

an

ity

/se

lf

Nu

mb

er

Bo

rn

be

fore

19

47

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

47

an

d

19

64

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

65

an

d

19

82

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

82

an

d

19

94

Re

sp

on

se

Te

xt

Bri

efl

y d

es

cri

be

in

yo

ur

ow

n w

ord

s y

ou

r u

nd

ers

tan

din

g o

f th

e s

ec

on

d A

rtic

le o

f F

ait

h o

f T

he

Sa

lva

tio

n A

rmy

. "

We

be

lie

ve

th

at

the

re i

s o

nly

on

e G

od

wh

o

is i

nfi

nit

ely

pe

rfe

ct,

th

e C

rea

tor,

Pre

se

rve

r a

nd

Go

ve

rno

r o

f a

ll t

hin

gs

, a

nd

wh

o i

s t

he

on

ly p

rop

er

ob

jec

t o

f re

lig

iou

s w

ors

hip

"

Appendices

221

11

1X

My

Go

d i

s t

he

on

ly G

od

th

at

sh

ou

ld b

e s

erv

ed

, H

e c

rea

ted

th

is E

art

h,

He

ta

ke

s c

are

& h

as

co

ntr

ol

ov

er

all

th

is E

art

h &

th

e o

bje

cts

in

it.

He

is

th

e o

nly

Go

d t

ha

t w

e a

s C

hri

sti

an

s

sh

ou

ld s

erv

e.

So

pu

t G

od

fir

st

& e

ve

ryth

ing

els

e w

ill

fall

in

to p

lac

e.

11

2X

Th

at'

s a

fe

w o

f th

e e

arl

y c

om

ma

nd

me

nts

ta

ke

n c

are

of!

11

3X

Th

at

the

re i

s o

nly

on

e G

od

an

d t

ha

t h

e i

s w

ort

hy

of

ou

r lo

ve

, re

sp

ec

t a

nd

ad

ora

tio

n.

11

4X

Go

d c

an

be

co

mp

lete

ly t

rus

ted

an

d i

s w

ort

hy

of

ho

no

ur

an

d p

rais

e b

ec

au

se

he

pe

rfe

ct,

ou

r

Cre

ato

r, a

nd

is

in

ult

ima

te c

on

tro

l o

ve

r a

ll t

hin

gs

. E

ve

n t

ho

ug

h h

e a

llo

ws

th

ing

s t

o g

o o

n h

e

ca

n a

nd

wil

l p

ut

a s

top

to

it.

H

e i

s a

n a

ma

zin

g G

od

.

11

6X

Th

ere

is

on

e G

od

wh

o m

ad

e e

ve

ryth

ing

an

d a

s s

uc

h,

He

on

ly i

s w

ort

hy

of

ou

r w

ors

hip

- I

do

n't

be

lie

ve

it

me

an

s h

e c

on

tro

ls e

ve

ryth

ing

in

th

e w

ay

th

at

we

un

de

rsta

nd

co

ntr

ol.

11

8X

Go

d i

s p

erf

ec

t.W

e w

ors

hip

Go

d b

ec

au

se

we

lo

ve

him

an

d t

hro

ug

h G

rac

e G

od

lo

ve

s u

s.

25

XG

od

ma

de

all

th

ing

s a

nd

He

is

in

co

ntr

ol.

He

do

es

no

t m

ak

e m

ista

ke

s.

He

is

all

po

we

rfu

l

bu

t I

be

lie

ve

th

at

He

do

es

no

t a

lwa

ys

ac

t in

th

e w

ay

s w

e w

an

t H

im t

o f

or

rea

so

ns

th

at

we

wil

l n

ot

un

de

rsta

nd

.4

4X

He

ar,

O I

sra

el:

Th

e L

OR

D o

ur

Go

d,

the

LO

RD

is

on

e.

Lo

ve

th

e L

OR

D y

ou

r G

od

wit

h a

ll y

ou

r

he

art

an

d w

ith

all

yo

ur

so

ul

an

d w

ith

all

yo

ur

str

en

gth

.

50

XT

he

re i

s a

lwa

ys

a t

op

po

sit

ion

to

an

y c

ha

in a

nd

Go

d i

s a

t th

e t

op

of

ou

r re

lig

ou

s c

ha

in.

He

is a

ll m

igh

ty a

nd

po

we

rfu

l a

nd

as

th

e c

rea

tor,

pre

se

rve

r a

nd

go

ve

rne

r o

f a

ll t

hin

gs

,

de

se

rve

es

to

ma

inta

in t

ha

t to

p p

os

itio

na

l a

lon

e.

53

XV

ery

go

od

th

eo

log

y

56

XT

he

Go

d w

e w

ors

hip

is

ab

ov

e e

ve

ryth

ing

He

cre

ate

d,

an

d t

he

refo

re e

ve

ryth

ing

we

, H

is

cre

ati

on

, h

av

e m

ad

e.

He

sh

ou

ld b

e t

he

pri

ori

ty i

n o

ur

reli

gio

us

fo

cu

s o

ve

r a

ny

thin

g e

lse

in

ou

r li

ve

s.

62

Xth

ere

is

on

ly o

ne

Go

d w

ho

pre

sid

es

ov

er

all

th

ing

s b

oth

go

od

an

d b

ad

, w

ho

lo

ve

s a

nd

ca

res

, a

nd

be

ca

us

e o

f th

is H

e s

ho

uld

be

th

e f

oc

us

of

ou

r lo

ve

, a

do

rati

on

, a

tte

nti

on

an

d

wo

rsh

ip.

64

XW

e,

as

pe

op

le i

n t

he

Sa

lva

tio

n A

rmy

, b

eli

ev

e t

ha

t th

ere

is

on

ly o

ne

Go

d n

ot

dif

fere

nt

go

ds

or

a b

illi

on

go

ds

. T

he

on

e t

rue

Go

d w

ho

is

pe

rfe

ct

an

d w

ith

ou

t fl

aw

s,

the

on

e t

rue

Go

d w

ho

rule

s o

ve

r e

ve

ryth

ing

, th

e o

ne

an

d o

nly

Go

d w

ho

is

wo

rth

y o

f o

ur

pra

ise

an

d t

he

on

ly G

od

to b

e w

ors

hip

ed

, a

s t

he

re i

s n

o o

the

r G

od

.

68

XIt

is

an

ex

clu

siv

e s

tate

me

nt.

I'm

no

t te

rrib

ly c

om

fort

ab

le w

ith

it.

70

XI

un

de

rsta

nd

th

is t

o b

e t

ha

t G

od

is

pe

rfe

ct,

an

d h

e c

rea

ted

th

e w

orl

d a

nd

lif

e,

he

is

th

e o

ne

pe

op

le w

ors

hip

Nu

mb

er

Bo

rn

be

fore

19

47

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

47

an

d

19

64

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

65

an

d

19

82

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

82

an

d

19

94

Re

sp

on

se

Te

xt

Bri

efl

y d

es

cri

be

in

yo

ur

ow

n w

ord

s y

ou

r u

nd

ers

tan

din

g o

f th

e s

ec

on

d A

rtic

le o

f F

ait

h o

f T

he

Sa

lva

tio

n A

rmy

. "

We

be

lie

ve

th

at

the

re i

s o

nly

on

e G

od

wh

o

is i

nfi

nit

ely

pe

rfe

ct,

th

e C

rea

tor,

Pre

se

rve

r a

nd

Go

ve

rno

r o

f a

ll t

hin

gs

, a

nd

wh

o i

s t

he

on

ly p

rop

er

ob

jec

t o

f re

lig

iou

s w

ors

hip

"

Appendices

222

82

X-

Go

d s

ho

uld

th

e b

e p

rio

rity

in

ou

r li

fe

- h

e i

s p

erf

ec

t in

his

be

ing

, d

ec

isio

ns

& c

rea

tio

n.

83

XH

e i

s t

he

be

gin

nin

g t

he

mid

dle

an

d t

he

en

d o

f a

ll t

hin

gs

, n

o m

att

er

ho

w i

mp

erf

ec

t w

e

be

lie

ve

we

are

, h

e h

as

cre

ate

d u

s,

he

pre

se

rve

s u

s a

nd

go

ve

rns

us

th

rou

gh

lif

e,

an

d n

o

ma

tte

r w

ha

t o

the

r s

hin

y t

hin

gs

co

me

alo

ng

he

is

th

e o

nly

GO

D w

e s

ho

uld

se

t o

ur

ey

es

an

d

he

art

s a

nd

min

ds

up

on

.

91

XT

he

Go

d t

ha

t w

e w

ors

hip

do

es

n't

ge

t th

ing

s w

ron

g.

all

th

at

we

ha

ve

is

his

96

XT

he

re i

s o

ne

Go

d w

ho

is

so

ve

reig

n a

nd

He

de

se

rve

s m

y t

ota

l d

ev

oti

on

10

3X

We

on

ly w

ors

hip

Go

d,

no

thin

g e

lse

, a

nd

he

is

th

e m

os

t s

up

rem

e b

ein

g i

n o

ur

ex

iste

nc

e.

10

7X

Go

d i

s a

bo

ve

all

th

ing

s,

the

be

gin

nin

g a

nd

th

e e

nd

, a

nd

th

e o

nly

on

e w

e s

ho

uld

wo

rsh

ip,

he

sh

ou

ld b

e o

ur

fris

t p

rio

rity

in

lif

e.

10

8X

Th

ere

is

on

ly o

ne

Go

d,

he

is

pe

rfe

ct.

He

co

ntr

ols

all

th

ing

s

11

0X

Go

d i

s t

he

ce

ntr

e o

f o

ur

wo

rsh

ip a

nd

is

in

all

th

ing

s.

11

5X

Th

ere

is

a S

up

rem

e B

ein

g a

bo

ve

ev

ery

thin

g e

lse

, w

ho

cre

ate

d e

ve

ryth

ing

els

e,

wh

o i

s

pe

rfe

ct

an

d k

no

ws

be

st,

an

d t

hu

s w

ors

hip

pin

g H

im i

s t

he

mo

st

rea

so

na

ble

re

sp

on

se

.

11

7X

I b

eli

ev

e t

ha

t it

is

hig

hly

im

po

ss

ible

fo

r m

y h

um

an

min

d t

o c

om

pre

he

nd

th

e p

erf

ec

tio

n o

f

Go

d.

I b

eli

ev

e t

ha

t G

od

cre

ate

d t

he

ea

rth

an

d c

on

tin

ue

s t

o c

rea

te t

hin

gs

an

ew

. I

be

lie

ve

tha

t G

od

su

sta

ins

all

his

cre

ati

on

an

d I

be

lie

ve

th

at

Go

d s

ho

uld

be

Kin

g o

ve

r a

ll t

he

ea

rth

.

12

0X

Th

at

as

be

lie

ve

rs w

e b

eli

ev

e i

n o

ne

Go

d w

ho

sh

ou

ld b

e t

he

on

ly t

hin

g w

e w

ors

hip

.

12

1X

Go

d i

s t

he

on

ly t

hin

g t

ha

t is

pe

rfe

ct

wit

hin

th

e w

orl

d h

e i

s t

he

cre

ato

r, t

he

on

ly t

hin

g t

ha

t w

e

sh

ou

ld w

ors

hip

.

Nu

mb

er

Bo

rn

be

fore

19

47

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

47

an

d

19

64

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

65

an

d

19

82

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

82

an

d

19

94

Re

sp

on

se

Te

xt

Bri

efl

y d

es

cri

be

in

yo

ur

ow

n w

ord

s y

ou

r u

nd

ers

tan

din

g o

f th

e s

ec

on

d A

rtic

le o

f F

ait

h o

f T

he

Sa

lva

tio

n A

rmy

. "

We

be

lie

ve

th

at

the

re i

s o

nly

on

e G

od

wh

o

is i

nfi

nit

ely

pe

rfe

ct,

th

e C

rea

tor,

Pre

se

rve

r a

nd

Go

ve

rno

r o

f a

ll t

hin

gs

, a

nd

wh

o i

s t

he

on

ly p

rop

er

ob

jec

t o

f re

lig

iou

s w

ors

hip

"

Appendices

223

Figure 17. Doctrine affecting life – officers and adult Salvationists

Figure 18. Doctrine affecting life – generational groupings

Appendices

224

Figure 19. God at a distance - officers/Salvationists

Figure 20. God at a distance – generational groupings

Appendices

225

Nu

mb

er

Bo

rn

be

fore

19

47

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

47

an

d

19

64

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

65

an

d

19

82

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

82

an

d

19

94

Re

sp

on

se

Te

xt

12

XG

od

is O

mn

ipre

se

nt -

Ye

s H

e is

wa

tch

ing

fro

m a

dis

tan

ce

, bu

t He

is r

igh

t th

ere

clo

se

be

sid

e m

e A

lwa

ys

.

21

XG

od

is c

los

e e

ve

n w

he

n it

do

es

n't

fee

l lik

e it

24

XG

od

is r

igh

t th

ere

with

us

- n

ot a

dis

tan

t go

d

29

X"F

rom

a d

ista

nc

e"

do

es

no

t co

nv

ey

to m

e th

at G

od

is d

ista

nt.

I b

elie

ve

we

are

su

rro

un

de

d b

y H

is s

pir

it.

32

XG

od

is w

ithin

de

riv

ed

fro

m e

du

ca

tion

in w

es

tern

so

cie

ty a

nd

un

de

rsta

nd

ing

35

XH

e h

as

mu

ch

to w

atc

h. A

nd

wh

y w

ou

ld th

e g

rea

t cre

ato

r h

av

e c

rea

ted

so

mu

ch

tha

t is

imp

erf

ec

t?

39

XT

ha

t Go

d is

clo

se

an

d in

vo

lve

d in

his

cre

atio

n

60

XI a

m in

a r

ela

tion

sh

ip w

ith a

lov

ing

Fa

the

r w

ho

ca

res

for

me

de

sp

ite m

y d

ou

bts

an

d fa

ilin

gs

. He

liv

e in

me

an

d I

live

94

XG

od

is p

ers

on

al a

nd

pa

rt o

f my

ev

ery

da

y li

vin

g

10

4X

I fe

el G

od

is w

ithin

me

10

9X

My

un

de

rsta

nd

ing

of G

od

is th

at H

e is

pre

se

nt w

ith u

s -

the

so

ng

se

em

s b

e b

as

ed

on

the

co

nc

ep

t of G

od

be

ing

'up

in h

ea

ve

n'.

11

1X

I kn

ow

Go

d is

gu

idin

g m

e a

ll m

y li

fe w

he

rev

er

I am

.

11

2X

Go

d is

alw

ay

s th

ere

wh

en

I n

ee

d h

elp

if I

as

ke

d.

12

4X

Pa

ss

12

7X

Th

at G

od

is a

lwa

ys

with

me

an

d w

ithin

me

, e

ve

n w

he

n I

ign

ore

Him

, He

is s

till t

he

re.

1X

Go

od

3X

I be

liev

e is

ac

tive

ly in

vo

lve

d in

pe

op

le's

liv

es

, bu

t no

t by

pro

vid

ing

pa

rkin

g s

po

ts a

nd

triv

ial t

hin

gs

.

4X

Go

d is

no

t at a

dis

tan

ce

- th

is w

orl

d is

no

t Go

d-f

ors

ak

en

bu

t Go

d in

ha

bite

d!

5X

Th

at H

e is

co

ns

tan

tly p

res

en

t in

my

life

, le

ad

ing

, en

co

ura

gin

g d

raw

ing

me

to s

urr

en

de

r m

y w

ho

le b

ein

g to

a

dis

cip

le o

f Je

su

s.

6X

tha

t Go

d is

n't

dis

tan

t

7X

Go

d is

wa

tch

ing

clo

se

up

, an

d J

es

us

is 'w

atc

hin

g' i

n m

y h

ea

rt, w

ith m

e a

ll th

e ti

me

- th

ere

's o

nly

dis

tan

ce

wh

en

I s

in

10

XI d

on

't b

elie

ve

tha

t Go

d is

dis

tan

t an

d th

at t

ells

me

tha

t I h

av

e e

xpe

ria

nc

ed

Him

.

11

XT

ha

t I h

av

e tw

o v

iew

of G

od

I b

elie

ve

tha

t he

is w

atc

hin

g o

ve

r u

s (

in g

en

era

l th

e w

orl

d)

bu

t th

at h

e is

als

o is

clo

se

/with

in m

e o

n a

pe

rso

na

l le

ve

l1

5X

Go

d is

clo

se

to u

s, n

ot d

ista

nt a

nd

se

pa

rate

fro

m o

ur

live

s. I

do

n't

be

liev

e H

e c

on

tro

ls e

ve

ryth

ing

. Sc

rip

ture

is c

lea

r

16

XI d

o n

ot b

elie

ve

tha

t Go

d is

dis

tan

t, b

ut v

ery

mu

ch

inv

olv

ed

in m

y li

fe a

nd

tho

se

aro

un

d m

e w

he

the

r th

ey

are

aw

are

18

XI f

ee

l Go

d is

wa

tch

ing

so

me

time

s it

fee

ls fr

om

a d

ista

nc

e, b

ut t

he

re

alit

y is

He

is a

nd

I c

laim

sc

rip

ture

an

d it

co

mfo

rts

19

XI b

elie

ve

Go

d is

mu

ch

mo

re th

an

wa

tch

ing

fro

m a

dis

tan

ce

. Go

d is

with

me

in e

ve

ryth

ing

tha

t I d

o, i

n e

ve

ry

22

XIt

tells

me

tha

t in

his

ow

n ti

me

Go

d w

ill ta

ke

co

ntr

ol,

bu

t in

the

me

an

time

he

allo

ws

the

wo

rld

to c

on

tinu

e b

ec

au

se

we

Wh

at

do

es

th

at

tell

yo

u a

bo

ut

yo

ur

ow

n u

nd

ers

tan

din

g o

f G

od

?

Fi

gure

21

. Un

de

rsta

nd

ing

of

Go

d’s

tra

nsc

en

de

nce

Appendices

226

23

Xw

atc

hin

g, i

nte

res

ted

, no

n in

terv

en

tive

26

XI d

o n

ot k

no

w th

e s

on

g

27

Xth

at g

od

is r

ea

l an

d is

wh

o h

e s

ay

s h

e is

28

XT

ha

t ev

en

wh

en

we

fee

l Go

d is

far

aw

ay

He

is w

atc

hin

g

33

XI'v

e a

lwa

ys

tak

en

the

tho

ug

ht t

ha

t it's

the

ind

ivid

ua

l th

at p

lac

es

the

dis

tan

ce

fro

m G

od

. He

is a

s c

los

e to

us

as

we

wa

nt h

im to

be

. H

op

e th

at m

ak

es

se

ns

e!

36

XG

od

is v

ery

clo

se

38

XM

y b

elie

f is

Go

d is

'wa

tch

ing

' (lo

vin

g)

me

clo

se

ly.

40

XI d

on

't b

elie

ve

Go

d is

dis

tan

t. G

od

is c

los

e.

41

XT

he

Old

Te

sta

me

nt d

es

cri

be

s a

co

mm

un

ity w

ho

wa

s g

ive

n la

ws

by

Go

d. T

he

Ne

w T

es

tam

en

t de

als

with

Go

d in

42

XG

od

is h

ere

no

w. S

tan

din

g b

es

ide

me

an

d w

ith m

e a

t all

time

s

45

XIt

tells

me

my

un

de

rsta

nd

ing

ma

y d

iffe

r fr

om

pe

ers

46

XG

od

is in

my

he

art

no

t at a

dis

tan

ce

.

47

XT

ha

t Go

d is

with

us

ev

ery

wh

ere

an

d w

atc

hin

g o

ve

r u

s

48

Xm

y u

nd

ers

tan

din

g o

f Go

d is

so

me

on

e w

ho

is n

ot d

ista

nt b

ut w

an

ts to

be

inv

olv

ed

- w

e n

ee

d to

allo

w th

is.

Go

d

49

XH

e's

inv

olv

ed

, bu

t I a

m n

ot s

ure

ho

w in

vo

lve

d

57

XG

od

is p

res

en

t in

an

intim

ate

wa

y. I

nte

res

ted

in e

ve

ry a

sp

ec

t of l

ife.

58

XT

ha

t I b

elie

ve

is n

ot d

ista

nc

e b

ut v

ery

mu

ch

inv

olv

ed

in m

y li

fe a

nd

cir

cu

ms

tan

ce

s

65

XI a

m n

ot c

on

ce

rne

d a

s to

wh

eth

er

it is

the

olo

gic

ally

co

rre

ct o

r n

ot -

tha

t is

a m

atte

r o

f op

inio

n -

bu

t it g

ive

s m

e h

op

e

66

XG

od

is a

be

ing

or

en

tity

wh

o c

are

s a

bo

ut u

s.

69

XT

ha

t Go

d is

clo

se

ev

en

tho

ug

h I

ca

n n

ot s

ee

Him

, I s

en

se

His

pre

se

nc

e in

my

ca

llin

g a

nd

pu

rpo

se

in li

fe.

73

XI k

no

w th

at G

od

is c

los

e to

me

. B

ut f

or

tho

se

tha

t do

no

t ha

ve

an

exp

eri

en

ce

of G

od

I a

m s

ure

he

is w

atc

hin

g th

em

79

XA

t th

e p

oin

t of s

alv

atio

n G

od

the

ho

ly s

pir

it d

we

lls w

ithin

yo

u s

o h

e is

intim

ate

ly in

tere

ste

d a

nd

inv

olv

ed

in m

y li

fe.

81

XH

e is

clo

se

to m

e

82

XIt'

s li

ke

Go

d is

the

bre

ath

I b

rea

the

... H

e's

tha

t clo

se

!

89

XG

od

is in

tima

tely

inv

olv

ed

in th

e li

ve

s o

f his

pe

op

le

92

XG

od

is n

ot r

em

ote

, bu

t is

liv

ing

with

in m

e th

rou

gh

the

pre

se

nc

e o

f th

e H

oly

Sp

irit.

96

XG

od

is n

ot d

ista

nt.

He

is r

ea

l an

d a

s c

los

e a

s th

e a

ir I

bre

ath

e.

He

jou

rne

ys

with

me

thro

ug

h H

is H

oly

Sp

irit

10

0X

I do

n't

thin

k o

f Go

d m

ere

ly a

t a d

ista

nc

e, b

ut p

res

en

t, in

tima

te.

10

1X

He

kn

ow

s a

ll a

nd

se

es

all

10

2X

Go

d is

no

t dis

tan

t bu

t ra

the

r is

with

in m

e

10

5X

Go

d is

no

t wa

tch

ing

fro

m a

dis

tan

ce

, He

is n

ext

to m

e.

10

6X

I kn

ow

He

is c

los

e b

y m

e -

in e

ve

ry a

sp

ec

t of m

y li

fe

11

0X

I un

de

rsta

nd

tha

t Go

d is

will

ing

to c

on

tro

l my

life

, bu

t I h

av

e fr

ee

will

. Wh

en

i h

av

e c

ho

se

n n

ot t

o h

av

e G

od

fully

in

11

3X

I kn

ow

Go

d is

alw

ay

s w

ith u

s a

nd

ev

er

clo

se

by

.

Nu

mb

er

Bo

rn

be

fore

19

47

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

47

an

d

19

64

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

65

an

d

19

82

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

82

an

d

19

94

Re

sp

on

se

Te

xt

Wh

at

do

es

th

at

tell

yo

u a

bo

ut

yo

ur

ow

n u

nd

ers

tan

din

g o

f G

od

?

Appendices

227

Nu

mb

er

Bo

rn

be

fore

19

47

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

47

an

d

19

64

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

65

an

d

19

82

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

82

an

d

19

94

Re

sp

on

se

Te

xt

Wh

at

do

es

th

at

tell

yo

u a

bo

ut

yo

ur

ow

n u

nd

ers

tan

din

g o

f G

od

?

13

0X

I am

no

t su

re a

bo

ut t

he

"fr

om

a d

ista

nc

e"

2X

Th

at I

be

liev

e th

at J

es

us

liv

es

with

in m

e a

nd

so

is n

ot a

dis

tan

t Go

d (

no

t a d

ista

nt G

od

, re

mo

te, u

nfe

elin

g)

bu

t Go

d

wh

o lo

we

red

him

se

lf to

be

co

me

on

e o

f us

an

d s

o c

an

ha

ve

co

mp

as

sio

n in

ou

r s

tru

gg

les

.

8X

no

thin

g

9X

Go

d is

inv

olv

ed

an

d in

tere

ste

d in

ou

r liv

es

, no

t re

mo

te o

r u

nfe

elin

g (

to q

uo

te H

ow

ard

Da

vie

s' s

on

g)

13

XI d

on

't th

ink

tha

t Go

d e

ithe

r h

as

ey

es

or

is s

ep

ara

te fr

om

us

.

14

XH

e is

clo

se

- H

e li

ve

s w

ithin

me

17

XI c

an

no

t alw

ay

s s

ee

ho

w, w

he

re a

nd

wh

y G

od

ch

oo

se

s to

ac

t dir

ec

tly(m

ira

cu

lou

sly

) in

the

wo

rld

an

d th

at o

ften

s

20

XG

od

is a

s c

los

e to

me

as

my

ow

n b

rea

th. M

y fe

elin

gs

of d

ista

nc

e is

no

t ab

ou

t wh

o G

od

is, b

ut m

y o

wn

se

lfis

hn

es

s

is s

ep

ara

ting

my

se

lf fr

om

Him

. I b

elie

ve

tha

t Go

d w

an

ts to

be

intim

ate

ly in

vo

lve

d in

ev

ery

as

pe

ct o

f my

life

, ye

t

30

XG

od

is v

ery

clo

se

to m

e, h

e is

nt i

n th

e d

ista

nc

e

31

XG

od

is a

pe

rso

na

l Go

d w

ho

kn

ow

s m

e in

tima

tely

an

d c

are

s d

ee

ply

ab

ou

t me

pe

rso

na

lly.

He

ca

res

ab

ou

t th

e

34

XG

od

is w

atc

hin

g o

ve

r u

s v

ery

clo

se

ly

37

XG

od

is C

los

e b

y, b

y m

y s

ide

43

XIf

Go

d h

as

an

y c

on

tro

l on

ea

rth

as

om

nip

ote

nt t

he

n e

ve

ryth

ing

wo

uld

be

ok

co

s h

e w

ou

ldn

’t a

llow

all

ev

il e

tc.

51

XT

his

tells

me

tha

t my

un

de

rsta

nd

ing

of G

od

ha

s g

row

n a

nd

tha

t it i

s o

ka

y to

do

ub

t as

it is

all

ap

art

of f

aith

.

52

XT

ha

t wh

en

on

e tr

ies

to p

ers

on

ify G

od

, th

e m

eta

ph

or

will

alw

ay

s fa

ll s

ho

rt. G

od

is in

ten

se

ly p

ers

on

al,

the

gro

un

d o

f

all

be

ing

, an

d a

s s

uc

h is

no

t dis

tan

t.

54

XIt

tells

me

tha

t I d

on

't th

ink

Go

d is

wa

tch

ing

us

fro

m a

far.

Th

at h

e is

inte

ns

ely

inte

res

ted

in e

ve

ryth

ing

we

do

.

55

XH

e is

clo

se

ly w

atc

hin

g &

talk

ing

to u

s, i

n th

e p

res

en

ce

!

59

XI d

on

't b

elie

ve

Go

d 'w

atc

he

s' u

s a

t all.

61

XG

od

is a

n e

ve

r p

res

en

t Go

d w

ho

is in

the

mid

st o

f life

with

us

no

t a d

ista

nt G

od

63

XG

od

is a

lwa

ys

with

us

as

He

is a

n in

tima

te G

od

tha

t is

Ch

ris

t wh

ere

as

the

lyri

cs

de

sc

rib

es

a d

ista

nt f

ath

erl

y G

od

.

67

XT

ha

t Go

d is

no

t dis

tan

t.

70

XI b

elie

ve

tha

t Go

d c

are

s a

bo

ut t

he

littl

e th

ing

s in

my

life

as

we

ll a

s th

e b

ig th

ing

s o

f th

e w

orl

d.

I kn

ow

he

is

72

XT

ha

t Go

d is

pre

se

nt a

nd

ac

tive

in m

y li

fe a

nd

the

wo

rld

.

75

XH

e d

es

ire

s a

clo

se

re

latio

ns

hip

with

us

. It m

ea

ns

he

is n

ea

r a

nd

no

t fa

r

76

XH

e is

alw

ay

s w

ith m

e n

ot f

ar

aw

ay

.

77

XT

ha

t Go

d is

the

gre

at t

he

Sh

ep

he

rd,

He

is lo

ok

ing

ou

t fo

r h

is fl

oc

k a

nd

lik

e a

ny

go

od

Sh

ep

he

rd is

alw

ay

s w

atc

hin

g

ov

er

us

ev

en

wh

en

we

turn

ou

r b

ac

ks

on

him

(b

ac

k s

lidin

g),

Go

d is

wa

tch

ing

an

d w

aiti

ng

for

us

to s

ee

Him

.

78

XI b

elie

ve

Go

d is

rig

ht w

he

re w

e a

re...

No

t in

the

dis

tan

ce

!

80

XI d

o n

ot f

ee

l dis

tan

t fro

m G

od

, alth

ou

gh

I d

o n

ot k

no

w to

wh

at e

xte

nt G

od

inte

rve

ne

s.

83

XI b

elie

ve

tha

t alth

ou

gh

He

wa

tch

es

us

, H

e in

terv

en

es

wh

en

we

as

k H

im to

, o

r w

he

n o

ur

he

art

s w

an

t Him

to.

84

XT

ha

t he

is w

atc

hin

g o

ve

r u

s

Appendices

228

Nu

mb

er

Bo

rn

be

fore

19

47

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

47

an

d

19

64

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

65

an

d

19

82

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

82

an

d

19

94

Re

sp

on

se

Te

xt

Wh

at

do

es

th

at

tell

yo

u a

bo

ut

yo

ur

ow

n u

nd

ers

tan

din

g o

f G

od

?

87

XY

es

Go

d is

wa

tch

ing

us

. H

e is

ac

tua

lly r

igh

t with

us

bu

t at t

he

re m

ay

be

tim

es

tha

t it f

ee

ls a

s th

ou

gh

he

is w

atc

hin

g

88

XI b

elie

ve

Go

d is

with

me

at a

ll tim

es

, so

me

time

s I

ch

oo

se

to li

ste

n a

nd

ac

kn

ow

led

ge

him

oth

er

time

s I

be

liev

e I

ca

n

90

XG

od

is a

n in

tima

te &

inte

gra

l pa

rt o

f my

life

, an

d h

e is

all-

pre

se

nt -

ho

w c

an

the

re b

e a

dis

tan

ce

?

91

XA

s w

e li

ve

in a

falle

n w

orl

d I

fee

l th

at G

od

is th

ere

with

us

bu

t He

ne

ed

s to

allo

w th

ing

s to

ha

pp

en

so

tha

t His

will

an

d

93

XH

e is

clo

se

be

sid

e m

e n

ot f

ar

aw

ay

. Lik

e th

e s

on

g "

an

d h

e w

alk

s w

ith m

e a

nd

he

talk

s w

ith m

e "

95

XG

od

isn

't d

ista

nt i

n m

y li

fe -

he

is a

lwa

ys

rig

ht t

he

re

97

XT

ha

t my

life

is in

His

co

ntr

ol h

e is

wa

tch

ing

ov

er

tak

ing

ca

re o

f ev

ery

thin

g.

99

XT

ha

t I n

eith

er

ag

ree

co

mp

lete

ly w

ith th

is c

on

ce

pt o

r d

ism

iss

en

tire

ly. G

od

isn

't ju

st w

atc

hin

g u

s fr

om

a d

ista

nc

e, b

ut

10

3X

I be

liev

e G

od

is w

ork

ing

intim

ate

ly in

the

wo

rld

as

pe

op

le g

ive

him

pe

rmis

sio

n to

10

7X

Ho

w c

an

Go

d b

e w

atc

hin

g fr

om

a d

ista

nc

e w

he

n h

e li

ve

s w

ith in

me

an

d o

n m

os

t da

ys

I fe

el v

ery

clo

se

to H

im w

ho

11

6X

Th

at G

od

ca

res

de

ep

ly a

nd

is in

the

mid

st o

f all

of l

ife.

11

8X

So

me

time

s I

fee

l th

at G

od

is d

ista

nc

e, b

ut t

he

n I

rea

lise

d th

at i

t wa

s r

ea

lly m

e th

at I

ha

ve

mo

ve

d a

wa

y fr

om

Go

d.

11

9X

Th

e K

ing

do

m h

as

arr

ive

d.

12

0X

Th

at I

be

live

Go

d is

a p

ers

on

al G

od

wh

o is

inv

es

ted

in c

rea

tion

an

d in

th e

live

s o

f his

pe

op

le.

12

1X

Th

at G

od

is c

los

e to

us

thro

ug

h H

is H

oly

Sp

irit,

an

d w

e s

en

se

His

pre

se

nc

e w

ith u

s.

Go

d is

a v

ery

pe

rso

na

l an

d

lov

ing

Go

d, v

ery

inte

res

ted

in o

ur

live

s.

12

3X

Go

d is

a p

ers

on

al G

od

wh

o is

inte

res

ted

in m

y li

fe

12

6X

Go

d is

alw

ay

s w

ith u

s

25

XI b

elie

ve

tha

t Go

d is

clo

se

an

d in

tima

tely

inte

res

ted

in u

s. I

do

n't

thin

k h

e w

an

ts to

be

dis

tan

ce

d in

an

y w

ay

.

44

XI d

on

't lik

e B

ette

Mid

ler

an

d h

av

en

't h

ea

rd th

e s

on

g (

& c

ou

ldn

't c

are

les

s w

ha

t sh

e h

as

to s

ay

for

a b

yg

on

e

50

XH

e is

ev

er

pre

se

nt i

n o

ur

live

s

53

XD

o n

ot k

no

w th

e s

on

g

56

XIt

sa

ys

tha

t I b

elie

ve

tha

t Go

d is

alw

ay

s c

los

e, a

lwa

ys

inv

olv

ed

in o

ur

live

s. H

e is

n't

a n

eu

tra

l be

ing

tha

t do

es

n't

62

Xi b

elie

ve

tha

t's G

od

's w

ith m

e a

ll th

e ti

me

an

d H

e's

clo

se

r th

an

ev

er,

bu

t th

at d

oe

sn

't m

ea

n i

alw

ay

s fe

el H

im o

r

64

XG

od

is n

ot d

ista

nt,

He

is a

n in

tima

te G

od

wh

o is

an

d w

an

ts to

be

clo

se

with

us

. He

is n

ot a

Go

d in

the

sk

y, H

e is

68

Xth

at I

ob

jec

t to

the

"d

ista

nc

e"

71

XG

od

is a

lwa

ys

with

us

, he

isn

't w

atc

hin

g fr

om

a d

ista

nc

e h

e is

wa

tch

ing

us

fro

m r

igh

t be

sid

e u

s b

ec

au

se

he

wa

lks

alo

ng

sid

e u

s in

ou

r lif

e. S

om

etim

es

it d

oe

s fe

el l

ike

he

is w

atc

hin

g u

s fr

om

a d

ista

nc

e b

ut n

o m

atte

r w

ha

t he

is

74

XH

e is

alw

ay

s w

ith u

s -

85

XG

od

is a

pe

rso

na

l Go

d w

ho

is in

vo

lve

d in

the

ev

ery

da

y. "

Go

d is

wa

tch

ing

us

fro

m a

dis

tan

ce

" im

plie

s th

ere

are

86

XIt

tells

me

tha

t I k

no

w a

nd

ha

ve

faith

tha

t G

od

is a

lwa

ys

with

me

. Alw

ay

s g

uid

ing

, pro

tec

ting

, lo

vin

g, s

tre

ng

the

nin

g,

dir

ec

ting

, ho

ldin

g m

e fa

st.

98

XG

od

do

es

n't

dis

tan

ce

him

se

lf w

e d

ista

nc

e o

urs

elv

es

10

8X

I un

de

rsta

nd

Go

d to

be

rig

ht b

eh

ind

me

, be

sid

e m

e, b

efo

re m

e a

nd

with

in m

e.

11

4X

Go

d is

a c

los

e p

art

in m

y li

fe a

nd

no

t wa

tch

ing

fro

m a

far

ye

t clo

se

by

.

Appendices

229

11

5X

I be

liev

e th

at G

od

is a

lwa

ys

with

me

11

7X

It te

lls m

e th

at I

be

liev

e th

at G

od

is c

los

e a

nd

pre

se

nt i

n m

y li

fe

12

2X

I ha

ve

wre

stle

d w

ith h

ow

'ac

tive

' I th

ink

Go

d is

in th

e w

orl

d. W

hils

t I d

on

't th

ink

tha

t Go

d d

oe

s n

ot i

nte

rve

ne

, I d

on

't

12

5X

I be

liev

e th

at G

od

is in

vo

lve

d in

ev

ery

mo

me

nt o

f my

life

- if

I le

t Him

. Go

d is

no

t dis

co

nn

ec

ted

fro

m u

s b

ut i

ns

tea

d

12

8X

I be

liev

e G

od

is w

an

ting

tota

l in

tima

cy

with

us

an

d to

be

clo

se

with

us

, no

ne

ox

be

ing

at a

dis

tan

ce

.

12

9X

I th

ink

tha

t i h

av

e r

ea

litiv

ely

go

od

un

de

rsta

nd

be

ca

us

e G

od

is a

lwa

ys

wa

tch

ing

us

an

d p

rote

ctin

g u

s

Nu

mb

er

Bo

rn

be

fore

19

47

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

47

an

d

19

64

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

65

an

d

19

82

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

82

an

d

19

94

Re

sp

on

se

Te

xt

Wh

at

do

es

th

at

tell

yo

u a

bo

ut

yo

ur

ow

n u

nd

ers

tan

din

g o

f G

od

?

Appendices

230

Figure 23. God as immanent - generational groupings

Figure 22. God as immanent – officers and adult Salvationists

Appendices

231

Nu

mb

er

Bo

rn

be

fore

19

47

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

47

an

d

19

64

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

65

an

d

19

82

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

82

an

d

19

94

Re

sp

on

se

Te

xt

12

XI

ca

nn

ot

ac

ce

pt

the

wo

rd "

Slo

b".

B

ut

I k

no

w t

ha

t H

e u

nd

ers

tan

ds

ev

ery

thin

g t

ha

t I

go

thro

ug

h.

He

is

th

ere

fo

r m

e

21

XG

od

wa

s l

ike

on

e o

f u

s o

nc

e.

24

XG

od

un

de

rsta

nd

s w

ho

ev

er,

wh

ere

ve

r, i

n w

ha

tev

er

sit

ua

tio

n

29

XH

e e

xp

eri

en

ce

d o

ur

hu

ma

nit

y.

32

XD

o n

ot

co

ns

ide

r G

od

to

be

a t

hir

d p

art

y t

ha

t c

an

be

re

ferr

ed

to

as

in

th

e s

on

g.

Go

d i

s

wh

at

the

in

div

idu

al

be

lie

ve

s,

he

nc

e G

od

in

an

y c

ult

ure

.

35

XIt

le

ad

s m

e t

o q

ue

sti

on

th

e w

ho

le h

iera

rch

ica

l c

on

ce

pt

of

ou

r re

lati

on

sh

ip t

o a

Go

d

wh

o p

un

ish

es

un

be

lie

vin

g s

lob

s -

do

n't

lik

e t

he

slo

b b

it!

39

XT

ha

t w

hil

e G

od

ac

co

mm

od

ate

s h

ims

elf

to

us

he

is

sti

ll t

he

Ho

ly O

ne

an

d n

ee

ds

to

be

tre

ate

d w

ith

re

sp

ec

t a

nd

dig

nit

y

60

XG

od

is

alm

igh

ty,

all

-po

we

rfu

l a

nd

all

-lo

vin

g -

- y

et

he

id

en

tifi

ed

wit

h u

s i

n C

hri

st

Je

su

s.

He

un

de

rsta

nd

s u

s.

Je

su

s w

as

no

t a

slo

b -

- a

nd

ne

ith

er

is G

od

.

92

X"I

f y

ou

ha

ve

do

ne

it

un

to o

ne

of

the

se

my

bro

the

rs,

yo

u h

av

e d

on

e i

t u

nto

me

."

10

5X

I li

ke

th

e i

de

a o

f G

od

be

ing

on

e o

f u

s,

bu

t fi

nd

it

ha

rd t

o a

cc

ep

t th

e i

de

a o

f G

od

as

'ju

st

a s

lob

'!

10

7X

No

co

mm

en

ts.

10

8X

Go

d i

s c

ap

ab

le i

n d

oin

g a

s d

iffe

ren

t c

ha

rac

ters

an

d p

ers

on

ali

tie

s.

11

9X

I n

ev

er

he

ard

th

e s

on

g

12

2X

Go

d i

s t

he

Cre

ato

r, S

ov

ere

ign

Lo

rd,

hig

h a

bo

ve

mo

rta

l m

an

ye

t a

lo

vin

g f

ath

er

giv

ing

pa

rt o

f h

ims

elf

fo

r u

s a

nd

se

nd

ing

His

Sp

irit

to

be

wit

hin

us

.

1X

I a

m s

till

on

a j

ou

rne

y

3X

I u

nd

ers

tan

d t

he

lo

gic

of

the

so

ng

, th

e l

on

gin

g t

o c

on

ne

ct

to s

om

eo

ne

th

at

un

de

rsta

nd

s u

s a

nd

is

n't

re

mo

te.

4X

IF G

od

wa

s l

ike

th

at

He

wo

uld

no

t b

e G

od

! G

od

did

be

co

me

on

e o

f u

s a

nd

go

t

inv

olv

ed

- t

he

str

an

ge

r o

n t

he

bu

s n

ev

er

rela

tes

or

co

uld

ch

an

ge

my

lif

e.

An

d f

or

Q1

2

a s

tory

Je

su

s t

ell

s s

ee

ms

to

sa

y w

e c

an

ch

an

ge

th

e m

ind

of

Go

d,

oft

en

he

ch

an

ge

s

my

min

d t

o a

lig

n w

ith

his

.

5X

Th

at

Je

su

s t

ho

ug

h f

ull

y G

od

, w

as

su

bje

ct

to a

ll t

he

co

nd

itio

ns

of

hu

ma

nit

y,

jus

t li

ke

on

e o

f u

s.

6X

tha

t w

e a

re c

rea

ted

in

his

im

ag

e

7X

He

be

ca

me

on

e o

f u

s w

he

n H

e l

ive

d o

n e

art

h.

Ob

vio

us

ly A

lan

is h

as

n't

re

ad

th

e

Bib

le!!

!!!!

!

10

XB

ible

sa

ys

we

en

tert

ain

an

ge

ls u

na

wa

re,

wh

y n

ot

Go

d?

Wh

at

do

es

th

at

tell

yo

u a

bo

ut

yo

ur

ow

n u

nd

ers

tan

din

g o

f G

od

?

Figu

re 2

4. U

nd

ers

tan

din

g o

f im

man

en

ce

Appendices

232

11

XT

ha

t h

e i

s n

ot

'ab

ov

e'

me

. th

at

he

re

late

s t

o a

nd

ca

res

fo

r a

ll l

ev

els

of

hu

ma

nit

y

15

XG

od

is

in

ea

ch

of

us

, in

all

of

tho

se

pe

op

le,

ev

ery

wh

ere

. H

e c

rea

ted

us

an

d p

aid

th

e

ult

ima

te r

an

so

m f

or

ea

ch

of

us

, e

ve

n t

ho

se

wh

o d

on

't k

no

w H

im y

et.

16

XI

kn

ow

Go

d c

am

e i

n J

es

us

an

d l

ive

d a

mo

ng

st

us

, a

nd

ex

pe

rie

nc

ed

lif

e a

s w

e d

o,

bu

t

I fi

nd

th

e w

ord

s o

f th

is s

on

g s

om

ew

ha

t o

ffe

ns

ive

..

Go

d i

s H

oly

an

d A

lmig

hty

.

18

XI

thin

k i

t is

co

nfr

on

tin

g t

o t

hin

k o

f G

od

as

a s

lob

, b

ut

in J

es

us

He

wa

s h

um

an

an

d

"ho

me

" fo

r a

ll o

f u

s w

ill

be

wh

en

His

kin

gd

om

co

me

s o

n e

art

h a

s i

t is

in

he

av

en

19

XI

do

n't

ha

ve

to

im

ag

ine

. J

es

us

wa

s G

od

in

ca

rna

te.

He

wa

s o

ne

of

us

. I

be

lie

ve

in

my

min

istr

y I

am

th

e h

an

ds

an

d f

ee

t o

f J

es

us

, I

am

a v

es

se

l th

at

Go

d u

se

s t

o r

ea

ch

ou

t to

oth

ers

. T

he

sc

rip

ture

sa

ys

th

at

wh

en

we

do

th

ing

s t

o t

he

le

as

t o

f o

ur

ne

igh

bo

rs,

we

are

do

ing

it

to J

es

us

.

22

XIt

te

lls

me

th

at

as

fa

r a

s I

th

ink

; G

od

ma

y a

s w

ell

be

a s

tra

ng

er

on

th

e b

us

fo

r a

ll t

he

inte

res

t th

e w

orl

d t

ak

es

in

him

.

23

XJ

es

us

ma

yb

e n

ot

Go

d a

lth

ou

gh

as

Go

d i

n t

he

fle

sh

Je

su

s w

ou

ld f

it i

n t

his

ly

ric

.

26

XI

do

no

t k

no

w t

he

so

ng

27

Xth

at

go

d i

s p

erf

ec

t a

nd

sh

ou

ld n

ot

be

th

ou

gh

t o

f in

su

ch

a w

ay

28

Xth

at

Go

d i

s i

n e

ve

ryb

od

y

33

XI

thin

k G

od

ha

s a

mo

re '

po

we

rfu

l' e

xis

ten

ce

. T

he

ly

ric

s s

ee

m a

bit

co

mm

on

36

XIn

se

rvin

g '

the

le

as

t o

f th

es

e'

yo

u a

re i

n d

ire

ct

co

nta

ct

wit

h G

od

.

38

XG

od

lo

ve

s a

ll p

eo

ple

, C

hri

sti

an

an

d n

on

-Ch

ris

tia

n e

qu

all

y.

40

XI

be

lie

ve

Go

d i

s h

ere

in

ea

ch

of

tho

se

wh

o b

eli

ev

e.

41

XG

od

- i

n t

he

ma

nif

es

tati

on

of

the

Ho

ly S

pir

it i

s o

ne

wit

h h

um

an

ity

- i

n a

ll i

ts f

orm

s

42

XG

od

is

wit

hin

us

all

. H

e i

s a

slo

b,

He

is

th

e s

tra

ng

er

on

th

e b

us

an

d H

e i

s t

ryin

g t

o

ma

ke

his

wa

y i

nto

ou

r li

ve

s a

t le

as

t.

45

Xd

on

't k

no

w t

he

so

ng

46

XA

lan

is M

orr

ise

tte

did

no

t s

ing

it,

Jo

an

Os

bo

urn

e d

id.

Go

d i

s o

ne

of

us

as

Je

su

s.

47

XN

o c

om

me

nt

48

Xth

e s

on

g h

igh

lig

hts

to

me

th

at

we

ca

n a

ll r

ad

iate

Go

d l

ike

qu

ali

tie

s.

49

XT

he

re i

s a

se

ns

e i

n w

hic

h G

od

is

in

ten

se

ly e

ng

ag

ed

wit

h e

ac

h o

ne

of

us

57

XN

ee

d t

o s

ee

Go

d i

n o

the

rs.

58

XI

kn

ow

th

e t

ruth

th

at

Go

d c

am

e i

n C

hri

st

to l

ive

am

on

gs

t u

s a

nd

ex

pe

rie

nc

e l

ife

as

we

do

, b

ut

i fi

nd

th

e w

ord

ing

of

this

so

ng

so

me

wh

at

off

en

siv

e,

I s

ee

Go

d i

n C

hri

st

as

on

e

of

us

ye

t H

e i

s s

till

Go

d a

nd

de

se

rvin

g o

f re

ve

ren

ce

an

d w

ors

hip

Nu

mb

er

Bo

rn

be

fore

19

47

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

47

an

d

19

64

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

65

an

d

19

82

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

82

an

d

19

94

Re

sp

on

se

Te

xt

Wh

at

do

es

th

at

tell

yo

u a

bo

ut

yo

ur

ow

n u

nd

ers

tan

din

g o

f G

od

?

Appendices

233

65

XI

lov

e t

he

wa

y i

t b

rea

ks

do

wn

mo

st

of

the

ch

urc

he

s p

rec

on

ce

ive

d i

de

as

an

d r

ule

s

ab

ou

t G

od

. M

an

y w

ou

ld d

eli

gh

t in

sp

ell

ing

ou

t e

xa

ctl

y w

hy

th

is i

s t

he

olo

gic

all

y a

nd

do

ctr

ina

lly

in

co

rre

ct.

Bu

t, I

lik

e t

he

wa

y i

t o

pe

ns

ac

ce

ss

ibil

ity

to

Go

d f

or

a w

ho

le

ran

ge

of

pe

op

le w

ho

wo

uld

no

t n

ec

es

sa

rily

se

em

th

em

se

lve

s a

s r

eli

gio

us

. T

he

so

ng

do

es

ap

pe

al

to m

e o

n a

mu

mb

er

of

lev

els

.

66

XJ

es

us

wa

sn

't G

od

bu

t c

los

e e

no

ug

h.

72

XI

lik

e t

o t

hin

k t

ha

t G

od

is

on

e o

f u

s -

I a

m n

ot

su

re t

he

re i

s t

he

ne

ed

to

us

e t

he

wo

rd

'slo

b'

- b

ut

I k

no

w t

ha

t G

od

is

pa

rt o

f m

e a

nd

th

at

he

is

wit

h m

e a

lwa

ys

.

77

XT

his

sta

tem

en

t is

ma

de

by

a p

ers

on

wh

o i

s n

ot

a b

orn

ag

ain

be

lie

ve

r a

nd

ha

s n

o

ide

a o

f th

e s

ov

ere

ign

Go

d t

ha

t h

e/s

he

ha

s d

en

eg

rate

d

79

XG

od

is

in

us

an

d w

ith

us

bu

t n

o l

on

ge

r a

hu

ma

n o

n e

art

h u

nti

l h

e c

om

es

ag

ain

.

80

XJ

es

us

- t

ruly

an

d p

rop

erl

y G

od

an

d t

ruly

an

d p

rop

erl

y m

an

.

87

XG

od

be

ca

me

on

e o

f u

s i

n J

es

us

-

no

t s

ure

he

wa

s a

slo

b?

Bu

t h

e d

efi

nit

ely

un

de

rsta

nd

s h

ow

we

ex

pe

rie

nc

e l

ife

an

d i

ts i

mp

ac

t o

n u

s

91

XG

od

ca

me

to

th

e e

art

h a

s a

ba

by

, a

nd

liv

ed

as

we

liv

e f

or

33

ye

ars

.

94

XG

od

re

ve

als

him

se

lf t

hro

ug

h p

eo

ple

. G

od

is

tru

ely

an

d p

rop

erl

y m

an

(a

s w

ell

as

Go

d)

98

XG

od

wit

h u

s.

No

t s

o m

uc

h t

he

"tr

yin

g t

o f

ind

his

wa

y h

om

e"

bu

t th

e i

nc

arn

ate

Go

d i

n

Je

su

s,

ide

nti

fyin

g w

ith

ou

r w

ea

kn

es

s,

wo

un

de

dn

es

s,

an

d s

infu

lne

ss

.

99

XH

e i

s i

n a

ll a

nd

we

are

un

aw

are

of

his

pre

se

nc

e a

t ti

me

s

10

0X

My

Go

d i

s a

we

so

me

, th

os

e l

yri

cs

de

gra

de

Him

.

10

2X

Go

d i

s s

up

rem

e

10

6X

no

thin

g -

i a

m n

ot

su

re o

f th

e w

ord

s i

n t

he

so

ng

.

10

9X

Th

is l

ine

co

uld

be

in

terp

rete

d i

n a

nu

nb

er

of

wa

ys

.

12

5X

Ac

co

rdin

g t

o t

he

Sc

rip

ture

s I

am

cre

ate

d i

n t

he

lik

en

es

s o

f G

od

.

2X

I th

ink

th

ere

is

an

ele

me

nt

tha

t G

od

- J

es

us

- d

id c

om

e d

ow

n a

nd

be

co

me

on

e o

f u

s.

So

th

ere

is

a p

art

of

the

so

ng

th

at

res

on

ate

s.

I c

an

't q

uit

e c

om

e a

t d

es

cri

bin

g J

es

us

as

a s

lob

an

d d

on

't t

hin

k H

e w

ou

ld b

e a

str

an

ge

r.

8X

do

yo

u u

nd

ers

tan

d t

his

qu

es

tio

n?

i d

o n

ot,

pre

ha

ps

th

e o

pti

on

s s

ho

uld

be

ch

an

ge

d

9X

Je

su

s w

as

on

e o

f u

s,

bu

t n

ot

'try

ing

to

ma

ke

his

wa

y h

om

e',

as

he

kn

ew

his

pa

th,

to

foll

ow

th

e F

ath

er'

s w

ill.

13

XI

thin

k t

his

is

a m

uc

h b

ett

er

att

em

pt

at

try

ing

to

gra

sp

th

e n

atu

re a

nd

pre

se

nc

e o

f

Go

d.

It c

ap

ture

s b

oth

th

e o

ng

oin

g i

nc

arn

ati

on

an

d r

ev

ela

tio

n o

f G

od

in

th

e s

tra

ng

er,

wh

ich

are

im

po

rta

nt

bib

lic

al

the

me

s.

Appendices

234

14

XH

e w

as

on

e o

f u

s i

n C

hri

st,

fu

lly

ma

n

- a

nd

Jo

an

Os

bo

rne

sa

ng

th

at

so

ng

no

t A

lan

is :

)

(Hu

ge

fa

n)

17

XI

do

be

lie

ve

th

at

Go

d w

as

on

e o

f u

s,

tha

t h

e w

res

tle

d w

ith

th

e v

ery

th

ing

s I

am

an

d

tha

t o

the

r p

eo

ple

are

.

20

XG

od

un

de

rsta

nd

s o

ur

hu

ma

ne

ss

, fi

rstl

y c

os

He

cre

ate

d u

s a

nd

se

co

nd

ly c

os

He

se

nt

Him

se

lf i

n h

um

an

fo

rm -

JE

SU

S!!

!

30

Xth

at

he

is

th

ere

fo

r a

ll,

no

t ju

st

the

ric

h,

bu

t th

e p

oo

r th

e b

rok

en

he

art

ed

31

XI

kn

ow

Go

d a

s m

y s

av

iou

r a

nd

fri

en

d,

an

d y

et

Go

d's

wo

rd r

ev

ea

ls t

o m

e t

ha

t H

e i

s a

Go

d o

f m

aje

sty

an

d w

ort

h a

nd

ho

no

ur.

34

XH

e w

as

on

e u

s.

Bu

t h

e k

ne

w h

is p

ath

an

d t

he

wa

y h

om

e

37

XG

od

un

de

rsta

nd

s u

s B

UT

He

is

ab

ov

e u

s i

n r

eg

ard

s t

o g

uid

ing

ha

nd

wh

o k

no

ws

us

be

tte

r th

an

we

kn

ow

ou

rse

lve

s

43

XT

his

is

a q

ue

sti

on

? l

ike

wh

at

if G

od

is

lik

e a

la

mp

sh

ap

e.

51

XI

do

n't

th

ink

Go

d w

ou

ld e

ve

r b

e l

ike

. I

ca

n't

im

ag

ine

Go

d b

ein

g a

sn

ob

on

a b

us

. M

y

un

de

rsta

nd

ing

is

th

at

Go

d l

ov

es

us

an

d s

ho

ws

us

gra

ce

no

t s

no

bs

us

. G

od

is

no

t li

ke

hu

ma

ns

at

all

.

52

XT

ha

t th

e S

pir

it o

f G

od

ex

ists

wit

hin

all

liv

ing

, b

rea

thin

g b

ein

gs

.

54

XIt

te

lls

me

th

at

Go

d i

s n

ot

a s

lob

, H

e i

s a

ca

rin

g p

ers

on

wh

o d

oe

s n

ot

wa

nt

to b

e a

str

an

ge

r. I

t h

as

sim

ila

r o

ve

rto

ne

s t

o t

he

Be

tte

Mid

ler

so

ng

in

sa

yin

g t

ha

t H

e s

imp

ly

ob

se

rve

s a

nd

ha

s n

o e

nd

uri

ng

in

tere

st

or

inv

es

tme

nt

in o

ur

liv

es

.

55

XW

e m

ay

re

sp

on

d t

o t

he

pe

op

le a

rou

nd

lik

e h

ow

Go

d l

ov

es

th

em

.

59

XI

do

n't

be

lie

ve

Go

d h

as

ev

er

or

ca

n e

ve

r d

isp

lay

hu

ma

n a

ttri

bu

tes

61

XG

od

is

th

an

kfu

lly

no

t a

slo

b,

no

t a

str

an

ge

r a

nd

no

t li

ke

us

ho

we

ve

r I

do

be

lie

ve

He

is o

n t

he

bu

s,

tra

in,

tra

m w

ith

us

as

we

go

ab

ou

t o

ur

da

ily

liv

es

63

XIt

re

late

s b

ac

k h

ow

we

tre

at

ou

r n

eig

hb

ou

rs a

nd

wh

at

if G

od

wa

s t

he

pe

rso

n t

ha

t d

id

or

did

n't

fe

ed

or

clo

the

? O

ur

Go

d w

an

ts u

s t

o b

e r

ela

tio

na

l w

ith

Go

d a

nd

his

cre

ati

on

.

67

XG

od

is

pre

se

nt

in t

he

mid

st

of

ou

r e

xis

tan

ce

in

so

me

wa

y

69

XI

thin

k i

t's

go

od

to

se

e G

od

in

oth

er

pe

op

le.

I d

on

't s

ee

th

e l

yri

cs

as

sa

yin

g G

od

is

an

ord

ina

ry p

ers

on

, b

ut

tha

t th

os

e a

rou

nd

us

are

ma

de

in

His

im

ag

e,

jus

t a

s w

e a

re.

71

XT

ha

t I

do

n't

lik

e i

rre

ve

ren

ce

to

wa

rds

Go

d.

74

XIt

sh

ow

s t

ha

t G

od

un

de

rsta

nd

s u

s

75

XH

e w

ou

ldn

't a

ct

lik

e t

ha

t

76

XF

irs

tly

, W

e a

re m

ad

e i

n G

od

's i

ma

ge

th

ere

fore

we

an

d u

s c

an

no

t b

e a

"s

lob

" G

od

is

ho

we

ve

r a

lwa

ys

wit

h u

s t

he

refo

re H

e i

s o

n t

he

bu

s w

ith

us

.

Nu

mb

er

Bo

rn

be

fore

19

47

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

47

an

d

19

64

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

65

an

d

19

82

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

82

an

d

19

94

Re

sp

on

se

Te

xt

Wh

at

do

es

th

at

tell

yo

u a

bo

ut

yo

ur

ow

n u

nd

ers

tan

din

g o

f G

od

?

Appendices

235

78

XT

he

in

ca

rna

tio

n i

s i

nte

gra

l to

my

un

de

rsta

nd

ing

.

81

XH

e c

am

e T

o E

art

h i

n h

um

an

fo

rm,

an

d H

e w

as

te

mp

ted

in

all

wa

ys

lik

e w

e a

re.

Ev

en

an

ge

ls m

an

ife

st

as

hu

ma

ns

, a

nd

WW

E m

ay

no

t e

ve

n k

no

w t

ha

t w

e a

re i

nte

rac

tin

g

wit

h t

he

m d

uri

ng

ou

r d

ay

to

da

y l

ive

s.

82

XT

ha

t h

e's

ju

st

lik

e u

an

d m

e n

ot

hig

he

r o

n o

ur

lev

el

85

XW

ell

Go

d s

en

t H

is s

on

Je

su

s t

o e

art

h a

nd

be

co

me

ju

st

lik

e u

s.

Do

es

Go

d

so

me

tim

es

se

em

to

be

str

an

ge

rs t

o u

s?

?

86

XG

od

wa

nts

all

of

us

, n

o m

att

er

wh

o o

r w

ha

t w

e a

re

88

XH

e w

as

on

e o

f u

s -

he

ex

pe

rie

nc

ed

th

e u

ps

, d

ow

ns

, p

ain

s a

nd

tri

um

ph

s o

f h

um

an

ex

iste

nc

e,

e.g

. J

oh

n 1

1:3

5,

sh

ow

ing

his

ob

vio

us

pa

in &

so

rro

w a

t L

az

aru

s'

de

ath

.

(BT

W i

t w

as

Jo

an

Os

bo

rne

, n

ot

Ala

nis

Mo

rris

ett

e)

89

XE

ve

n t

ho

ug

h G

od

ca

me

to

ea

rth

in

hu

ma

n f

orm

He

is

sti

ll o

ur

Cre

ato

r G

od

an

d o

ur

He

av

en

ly F

ath

er.

90

XH

e c

ou

ld p

res

en

t ju

st

lik

e u

s a

nd

ho

w w

ou

ld w

e t

rea

t h

im t

he

n

93

XG

od

wa

s o

ne

of

us

, h

e s

en

t J

es

us

to

ex

pe

rie

nc

e l

ife

on

ea

rth

. B

ut

wh

at

if G

od

wa

s

on

e o

f u

s?

Wo

uld

th

at

ma

ke

pe

op

le a

ct

dif

fere

ntl

y -

we

sh

ou

ld b

e a

cti

ng

as

th

ou

gh

Go

d i

s o

ne

of

us

an

d r

igh

t th

ere

ne

xt

to u

s

95

XH

e i

s a

lwa

ys

wit

h u

s w

he

re e

ve

r w

e g

o,

wh

at

ev

er

we

do

in

ou

r n

orm

al

rott

en

lif

e H

e

is w

ith

us

.

97

XT

he

in

ca

rna

tio

n i

s c

en

tra

l to

my

un

de

rsta

nd

ing

of

wh

o G

od

is

.

10

1X

He

wa

s.

He

wa

s c

all

ed

Je

su

s

10

3X

I s

tro

ng

ly a

gre

e t

o a

po

int.

IF

th

at

slo

b (

wh

o w

e s

ho

uld

no

t ju

dg

e)

ha

s a

cc

ep

ted

Go

d

as

his

/he

rs p

ers

on

al

Sa

vio

r th

en

Go

d i

s i

n h

im/h

er,

be

ca

us

e o

f th

is G

od

ha

s a

lwa

ys

be

en

on

e o

f u

s l

ivin

g i

n H

is p

eo

ple

.

11

2X

Th

at

he

is

am

on

gs

t/b

es

ide

/in

th

e s

tuff

of

life

.

11

3X

Je

su

s c

am

e t

o t

his

Ea

rth

as

a b

ab

y,

if H

e c

am

e b

ac

k t

o b

e w

ith

us

ag

ain

He

mig

ht

ha

ve

dre

ss

ed

lik

e a

str

ee

t p

ers

on

, m

ay

be

slo

b m

igh

t n

ot

be

th

e r

igh

t w

ord

to

us

e,

bu

t

I d

on

't t

hin

k H

e w

ou

ld c

om

e i

n a

su

it &

tie

.

11

4X

Ac

tua

lly

th

is s

on

g w

as

ma

de

po

pu

lar

by

Jo

an

Os

bo

urn

bu

t I

thin

k i

t w

as

co

mp

os

ed

by

th

e g

uy

fro

m t

he

ba

nd

th

e H

oo

ters

wh

o h

ad

a b

ig h

it w

ith

th

e s

on

g "

an

d w

e

da

nc

ed

." A

lan

is c

ov

ere

d i

t re

ce

ntl

y I

th

ink

. T

ha

t G

od

's p

refe

ren

ce

is

fo

r in

ca

rna

tio

n.

11

5X

Th

e G

od

re

late

s t

o u

s a

nd

un

de

rsta

nd

s u

s.

11

6X

I a

pp

rec

iate

th

at

Go

d d

id b

ec

om

e o

ne

of

us

, b

ut

I s

tru

gg

le w

ith

th

e w

ord

's

lob

',

be

ca

us

e H

e i

s a

Ho

ly G

od

an

d d

es

erv

ing

of

ou

r u

tmo

st

res

pe

ct.

Appendices

236

11

8X

I b

eli

ev

e t

ha

t J

es

us

is

on

e o

f u

s

tota

lly

ma

n d

ea

lin

g w

ith

th

e i

ss

ue

s a

nd

so

me

on

e

wh

o w

e c

an

re

late

to

as

a r

es

ult

12

1X

Go

d w

as

on

e o

f u

s t

hro

ug

h J

es

us

.

25

XG

od

wa

s o

ne

of

us

! H

e m

ad

e h

ims

elf

th

at

wa

y a

nd

I b

eli

ev

e h

e w

ou

ld c

om

e b

ac

k i

n

su

ch

a w

ay

. H

e w

ou

ld b

e a

's

lob

' a

nd

no

t a

po

we

rfu

l ri

ch

pe

rso

n.

44

XA

t le

as

t th

is o

ne

is

90

's.

Go

d h

as

be

co

me

on

e o

f u

s i

n t

he

pe

rso

n o

f J

es

us

Ch

ris

t.

Gre

at

wa

y t

o e

ng

ag

e w

ith

cu

ltu

re,

bu

t d

o I

ge

t m

y t

he

olo

gy

fro

m p

op

so

ng

s;

No

!

50

XG

od

is

wit

hin

ea

ch

of

us

, a

nd

ho

w w

e t

rea

t o

ur

fell

ow

nie

gh

bo

urs

/fa

mil

ies

etc

is

a

sig

n o

f h

ow

we

are

tre

ati

ng

/re

sp

ec

tin

g G

od

.

53

XW

e n

ee

d G

od

(Als

o s

on

g b

y J

oa

n O

sb

ou

rne

, n

ot

Ala

nis

)

56

XT

ha

t fo

r m

e i

t's

im

po

rta

nt

to r

em

em

be

r th

at

Go

d i

s w

ith

us

in

ou

r tr

ou

ble

s,

bu

t th

at'

s

dif

fere

nt

to t

ryin

g t

o d

rag

Go

d d

ow

n i

nto

a m

an

ag

ab

le i

de

a t

ha

t w

e c

an

us

e t

o m

ak

e

ou

rse

lve

s b

ett

er.

It

sa

ys

th

at

I b

eli

ev

e w

e m

us

t a

lwa

ys

re

me

mb

er

the

su

pre

me

cy

of

Go

d,

no

t d

um

b H

im d

ow

n t

o t

ry a

nd

un

de

rsta

nd

His

mo

tiv

es

.

62

XG

od

wa

s o

ne

of

us

an

d e

xp

eri

en

ce

d t

he

wo

rld

as

we

do

to

da

y.

64

XW

ell

Go

d d

id s

en

d H

ims

elf

do

wn

to

ea

rth

in

hu

ma

n f

orm

as

Je

su

s,

he

wa

s '

on

e o

f u

s'

in p

hy

sic

al

form

, b

ut

se

pe

rate

d f

rom

hu

ma

ns

be

ca

us

e w

e a

re f

ull

of

sin

, a

s i

n h

e w

as

pe

rfe

ct.

I d

on

't t

hin

k h

e w

as

a s

lob

, ju

st

fro

m m

y o

bs

erv

ati

on

s f

rom

sc

rip

ture

. I

ca

n

sa

y t

ha

t G

od

is

a s

tra

ng

er

to p

eo

ple

, a

s i

n p

eo

ple

do

n't

kn

ow

Go

d b

ec

au

se

th

ey

ch

oo

se

no

t to

or

the

y d

on

't k

no

w a

bo

ut

Go

d,

bu

t I

wo

uld

n't

sa

y t

ha

t w

e a

re s

tra

ng

ers

to h

im,

as

in

he

kn

ow

s e

ve

ryth

ing

ab

ou

t u

s.

I'd

sa

y w

he

rev

er

Go

d i

s,

is h

om

e,

be

ca

us

e h

e i

s o

mn

ipre

se

nt,

wh

ere

ve

r h

e i

s,

is h

om

e,

Go

d i

s a

ll w

e n

ee

d a

nd

He

is

ev

ery

wh

ere

....

an

d t

ha

t's

my

un

pa

ck

ing

of

tho

se

ly

ric

s!!

68

XI

go

alo

ng

wit

h i

nc

arn

ati

on

al

the

olo

gy

?

Th

at

pe

op

le c

arr

y i

n t

he

m a

sp

ark

of

the

div

ine

?

70

XG

od

is

lik

e u

s,

he

is

wil

lin

g t

o b

e l

ike

us

, G

od

lo

ve

s u

s a

ll n

ot

ma

tte

wh

at

we

are

. S

o

wh

y w

ou

ld i

t b

e a

ny

dif

fere

nt

ab

ou

t h

im.

73

XH

E I

S S

O M

UC

H B

ET

TE

R T

HA

N U

S

83

XG

od

wa

s i

nc

arn

ati

on

al

(th

rou

gh

Je

su

s).

He

lo

ve

s h

is p

eo

ple

th

rou

gh

re

lati

on

sh

ip a

nd

ex

pe

rie

nc

ing

hu

ma

nit

y.

Go

d i

s a

wa

re o

f o

ur

ex

pe

rie

nc

es

an

d e

mp

ath

ise

s,

an

d

jou

rne

ys

wit

h u

s.

84

XG

od

is

ho

me

, G

od

is

ev

er

Pre

se

nt,

His

Sp

irit

in

ea

ch

an

d e

ve

ry o

ne

of

us

.

He

is

in

th

e s

lob

, in

th

e s

tra

ng

er

on

th

e b

us

try

ing

to

he

lp u

s a

ll h

om

e.

Nu

mb

er

Bo

rn

be

fore

19

47

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

47

an

d

19

64

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

65

an

d

19

82

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

82

an

d

19

94

Re

sp

on

se

Te

xt

Wh

at

do

es

th

at

tell

yo

u a

bo

ut

yo

ur

ow

n u

nd

ers

tan

din

g o

f G

od

?

Appendices

237

96

XG

od

is

to

o h

oly

to

be

de

sc

rib

ed

as

ju

st

an

oth

er

slo

b,

bu

t th

e t

ruth

is

he

be

ca

me

on

e

of

us

10

4X

Go

d w

as

on

e o

f u

s!

Je

su

s!

An

d w

hil

e h

e d

idn

't r

ide

a b

us

an

d I

do

ub

t h

e w

as

a s

lob

,

he

wa

s v

ery

, v

ery

hu

ma

n.

11

0X

Go

d c

an

be

se

en

in

ev

ery

thin

g,

an

d o

fte

n w

ha

t w

e e

xp

ec

t G

od

to

be

, is

fa

r w

ron

g,

an

d w

e s

ee

him

in

th

e u

ne

xp

ec

ted

.

11

1X

Je

su

s t

old

us

th

at

wh

oe

ve

r g

ive

s c

loth

es

to

th

e n

ak

ed

is

clo

thin

g h

im,

fee

ds

th

e

hu

ng

ry i

s f

ee

din

g h

im e

tc.

we

ne

ed

to

be

ab

le t

o s

ee

Je

su

s i

n o

the

rs

11

7X

I b

eli

ev

e t

he

In

ca

rna

tio

n i

s c

en

tra

l to

th

e C

hri

sti

an

fa

ith

.

12

0X

Th

e p

rev

iou

s q

ue

sti

on

wa

s p

hra

se

d s

tra

ng

ely

. I

be

lie

ve

Go

d w

as

on

e o

f u

s-

Je

su

s!!

!

An

d c

on

tin

ue

s t

o b

e o

ne

of

us

- M

att

he

w 2

5:4

0.

On

th

e o

the

r h

an

d h

ow

ev

er,

ho

w c

an

Go

d b

e a

slo

b?

Ho

w c

an

Go

d p

os

se

ss

hu

ma

n f

au

lts

?

12

3X

I b

eli

ev

e i

t s

ho

ws

a c

ert

ain

am

ou

nt

of

pe

op

le's

cu

rio

sit

y o

f w

ho

Go

d i

s.

It t

ell

s m

e

pe

op

le j

us

t w

an

na

kn

ow

Go

d i

s h

ere

wit

h u

s.

12

4X

I d

on

t k

no

w b

ec

au

se

Go

d i

sn

t o

ne

of

us

, h

e i

s b

igg

er

tha

n w

e c

ou

ld i

ma

gin

e.

Nu

mb

er

Bo

rn

be

fore

19

47

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

47

an

d

19

64

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

65

an

d

19

82

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

82

an

d

19

94

Re

sp

on

se

Te

xt

Wh

at

do

es

th

at

tell

yo

u a

bo

ut

yo

ur

ow

n u

nd

ers

tan

din

g o

f G

od

?

Appendices

238

Figure 25. God and immutability – officers and adult Salvationists

Figure 26. God and immutability – generational groupings

Appendices

239

Figure 1 Perce Figure 28. Perceptions of God’s nearness or otherwise – generational groupings

Figure 27. Perceptions of God’s nearness or otherwise – officers and Salvationists

Appendices

240

Figure 29. God and feelings – officers and adult Salvationists

Figure 30. God and feelings – generational groupings

Appendices

241

.

Figure 31. A suffering God – officers and adult Salvationists

Figure 32. A suffering God – generational groupings

Appendices

242

Figure 33. Comments when a loved one dies – officers and adult Salvationists

Figure 34. Comments when a loved one dies – generational groupings

Appendices

243

Figure 35. Suffering as instructional – officers and adult Salvationists

Figure 36. Suffering as instructional – generational groupings

Appendices

244

Figure 38. Suffering and sin – generational groupings

Figure 37. Suffering as a result of sin – officers and adult Salvationists

Appendices

245

Nu

mb

er

Bo

rn

be

fore

19

47

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

47

an

d

19

64

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

65

an

d

19

82

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

82

an

d

19

94

Re

sp

on

se

Te

xt

13

XH

ug

gin

g

22

XIn

ca

nta

tio

n

25

XC

are

30

XP

res

en

ce

33

Xir

rele

va

nt

36

XH

on

es

tly

I c

an

't a

ns

we

r th

is

40

Xc

om

pa

ss

ion

61

XL

ov

ing

93

Xe

mp

ath

y

10

4X

Co

mfo

rt

10

6X

Te

sti

ng

.

11

7X

Co

mp

as

sio

n

1X

ha

rsh

3X

Lo

vin

g

4X

Em

pa

the

tic

5X

Co

mp

as

sio

n

6X

su

pp

ort

ive

8X

Str

en

gth

11

Xa

llo

ws

it

12

Xc

ari

ng

16

Xe

mp

ath

y

17

XP

res

en

t

19

XH

op

e

20

XP

res

en

ce

23

XN

on

e

24

Xh

ow

ev

er

so

me

tim

es

on

es

ac

tio

ns

le

ad

to

su

ffe

rin

g,

I d

on

t s

ee

it

as

Go

d p

un

ish

ing

or

infl

icti

ng

27

Xlo

ve

28

Xc

are

s

29

Xre

lie

f

34

XC

om

fort

er

37

XC

los

e

39

XC

om

fort

.

41

XC

om

pa

ss

ion

ate

42

Xu

nd

ers

tan

din

g

43

XL

ov

e

Wh

at

on

e w

ord

wo

uld

en

ca

ps

ula

te m

os

t a

cc

ura

tely

fo

r y

ou

Go

d's

ac

tio

n i

n c

as

es

of

su

ffe

rin

g?

My

ag

e b

rac

ke

t is

Figu

re 3

9. G

od

's a

ctio

n in

su

ffe

rin

g –

bri

ef

de

scri

pto

r

Appendices

246

46

XO

bs

erv

or

47

XS

uff

eri

ng

48

XP

urp

os

e

49

XI'

m n

ot

su

re o

ne

wo

rd w

ou

ld s

uff

ice

, G

od

su

ffe

rin

g w

ith

us

wo

uld

be

Go

d'

ac

ton

50

Xg

rie

f

58

XC

are

s

59

XP

res

en

t

66

Xa

lon

gs

ide

67

Xa

va

ila

ble

73

XC

om

pa

ss

ion

77

XS

ov

ere

ign

79

XC

on

se

qu

en

tia

l -

this

ca

n o

bv

iou

sly

ha

ve

po

sit

ive

an

d/o

r n

eg

ati

ve

co

nn

ota

tio

ns

81

XP

art

icip

ate

87

XH

is p

res

en

ce

an

d i

de

nti

fic

ati

on

wit

h t

he

su

ffe

rer

91

XS

uff

ers

94

Xc

ari

ng

97

XS

om

eti

me

s i

t is

a d

ire

ct

co

ns

eq

ue

nc

e o

f s

infu

l c

ho

ice

s,

ho

we

ve

r, G

od

s p

lac

e i

n s

uff

eri

ng

is

to

wa

lk b

es

ide

, to

co

mfo

rt,

an

d t

o p

oin

t p

eo

ple

to

a d

ee

pe

r s

pir

itu

al

rea

lity

of

wh

at

we

ca

n h

av

e

in h

im.

No

t H

im a

s c

au

se

of

su

ffe

rin

g,

bu

t G

od

co

min

g a

lon

gs

ide

us

in

ou

r s

uff

eri

ng

in

a w

ay

mo

re c

om

fort

ing

th

an

ev

en

th

e b

es

t c

ou

ns

ell

or

ca

n.

98

XM

an

kin

d c

au

se

su

ffe

rin

g f

rom

ha

vin

g f

ree

wil

l a

nd

be

ing

in

flu

en

ce

d b

y S

ata

n

99

XP

rote

cti

on

10

1X

Co

mp

as

sio

n

10

5X

co

mp

as

sio

n

12

0X

He

do

es

no

t te

st

us

be

yo

nd

wh

at

we

ca

n e

nd

ure

2X

I b

eli

ev

e t

ha

t G

od

all

ow

s s

uff

eri

ng

an

d t

ha

t H

e i

n t

urn

wo

rks

all

th

ing

s t

og

eth

er

for

go

od

fo

r

tho

se

wh

o l

ov

e H

im.

I d

on

't b

eli

ev

e s

uff

eri

ng

ne

ce

ss

ari

ly c

om

es

fro

m H

is h

an

d,

bu

t th

at

He

wil

l b

e g

lori

fie

d t

hro

ug

h i

t.

7X

PR

ES

EN

T

9X

cra

dle

10

XG

row

th

14

XE

mp

ath

y

15

XI

be

lie

ve

Go

d a

llo

ws

su

ffe

rin

g t

o g

ive

us

th

e o

pp

ort

un

ity

to

gro

w c

los

er

to H

im o

r le

arn

so

me

thin

g w

e m

ay

ne

ed

in

th

e f

utu

re t

ha

t H

e c

an

se

e a

nd

we

ca

n't

18

Xp

res

en

t' -

as

in

He

is

wit

h u

s

21

XIn

vo

lve

d

Appendices

247

31

Xh

e i

s w

an

tin

g t

o t

ea

ch

so

me

thin

g t

o s

om

eo

ne

- G

od

he

als

, b

ut

its

is

nt

alw

ay

s a

ph

ys

ica

l

he

ali

ng

32

XC

om

pa

ss

ion

35

Xw

ait

ing

38

XC

ha

lle

ng

e

44

Xs

orr

ow

52

XT

he

wo

rd t

ha

t I

wo

uld

us

e w

ou

ld b

e t

ea

ch

ing

. G

od

is

no

t a

lwa

ys

re

sp

on

sib

le f

or

the

su

ffe

rin

g

tha

t h

ap

pe

ns

bu

t h

e c

an

us

e i

t to

te

ac

h u

s m

ore

ab

ou

t h

im o

r u

se

d i

n m

inis

try

to

re

ac

h o

the

rs.

53

Xp

res

en

t

55

XS

ym

pa

thy

56

XD

isc

ipli

ne

60

XP

res

en

t

62

XP

res

en

t

64

XJ

ob

68

XC

are

70

XS

ov

ere

ign

ty

72

XL

ov

ing

.

75

XE

nd

ura

nc

e

76

XM

erc

y

78

XA

bid

ing

80

X?

82

XF

ath

85

XC

om

fort

86

XT

ria

llin

g

88

XL

ov

e

89

XS

ho

win

g t

he

wa

y b

ac

k t

o h

im i

f th

ey

ch

oo

se

to

do

it

92

XS

tro

ng

95

XH

is w

ill

10

0X

Sin

10

2X

LO

VE

10

9X

Fri

en

d

11

0X

Th

e t

rag

ed

ies

of

the

wo

rld

are

la

rge

ly r

ela

te t

o t

he

ac

tio

n o

f p

eo

ple

. S

om

eti

me

s G

od

is

su

cc

es

sfu

l in

an

in

terv

en

tio

n a

nd

so

me

tim

es

no

t.

Appendices

248

11

1X

Th

ing

s h

ap

pe

n w

hic

h c

an

no

t b

e c

on

tro

led

. I

do

n't

be

lie

ve

th

at

Go

d h

as

a d

ire

ct,

wil

lin

g h

an

d i

n

all

th

ing

s.

So

me

th

ing

s a

re a

re

su

lt o

f th

e n

atu

ral

wo

rld

or

pe

rso

na

l c

ho

ice

or

ba

d l

uc

k.

In

tho

se

tim

es

, G

od

off

ers

us

co

mfo

rt,

eit

he

r th

rou

gh

dir

ec

t a

cti

on

of

the

Ho

ly S

pir

it o

r in

en

ga

ge

me

nt

wit

h o

the

rs.

Su

ffe

rin

g i

s p

art

of

the

hu

ma

n e

xp

eri

en

ce

, li

fe w

ou

ld l

ac

k f

ull

me

an

ing

wit

ho

ut

it.

11

2X

All

ow

ing

11

4X

he

ali

ng

11

6X

Gra

ce

26

Xs

us

tain

ing

45

XC

hri

st

51

XH

um

an

54

XH

ea

ler.

57

XE

mb

rac

ing

63

XC

ari

ng

65

XA

llo

win

g

69

Xs

oli

da

rity

71

XH

urt

74

XC

on

fus

ion

83

Xlo

ve

.

84

XC

ou

rag

e

90

Xw

hy

96

XJ

eh

ov

ah

Sh

am

ma

h (

go

d i

s p

res

en

t)

10

3X

Co

mp

as

sio

n.

10

7X

Str

en

gth

10

8X

Go

d a

llo

ws

th

ing

s t

o h

ap

pe

n i

n o

ur

liv

es

so

th

at

we

ma

y s

ee

Him

in

all

cir

cu

ms

tan

ce

s a

nd

dra

we

r c

los

er

to H

im t

ho

ug

h t

he

m.

11

3X

Sa

dn

es

s

11

5X

I b

eli

ev

e t

ha

t s

uff

eri

ng

oc

cu

rs b

ec

au

se

th

e K

ing

do

m o

f G

od

is

no

t b

ein

g e

mb

od

ied

he

re o

n t

he

ea

rth

by

hu

ma

nk

ind

. I

do

n't

be

lie

ve

th

at

Go

d w

ou

ld w

illi

ng

ly w

an

t s

om

eo

ne

to

su

ffe

r. F

or

ex

am

ple

, c

hil

dre

n a

re s

tarv

ing

in

ce

rta

in p

art

s o

f th

e w

orl

d,

no

t b

ec

au

se

Go

d h

as

ca

us

ed

th

em

to s

uff

er,

bu

t b

ec

au

se

as

a h

um

an

ra

ce

, w

e h

av

e f

ail

ed

to

ac

t. I

be

lie

ve

th

at

su

ffe

rin

g o

cc

urs

as

an

op

po

rtu

nit

y t

o e

mb

od

y G

od

's l

ov

e t

o t

he

wo

rld

.

11

8X

Ju

sti

ce

11

9X

If w

e s

uff

er

Go

d i

s w

ith

us

ev

en

wh

en

we

do

n't

fe

el

lik

e h

e i

s,

he

is

wit

h u

s p

rote

cti

ng

us

Appendices

249

Nu

mb

er

Bo

rn

be

fore

19

47

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

47

an

d

19

64

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

65

an

d

19

82

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

82

an

d

19

94

Re

sp

on

se

Te

xt

12

XF

rom

sit

ua

tio

ns

of

life

. F

rom

ou

r c

are

les

sn

es

s.

20

XL

ife

! C

irc

um

sta

nc

es

. P

eo

ple

.

24

Xw

ea

kn

es

s -

bo

dy

, m

ind

or

sp

irit

29

XO

ur

hu

ma

nit

y-

ch

oic

es

, g

en

eti

cs

32

Xd

ec

isio

ns

, c

irc

um

sta

nc

es

wit

h s

uff

eri

ng

fro

m i

lln

es

s d

ue

to

ge

ne

tic

or

infe

cti

on

35

XIf

Go

d i

s t

he

gre

at

cre

ato

r th

en

th

e a

ns

we

r m

us

t lo

gc

iall

y b

e o

bv

iou

s

39

XW

e l

ive

in

a b

rok

en

wo

rld

60

XM

isu

se

of

so

me

on

e's

fre

e w

ill

-- m

ine

or

so

me

on

e e

lse

's.

92

XB

ec

au

se

we

are

hu

ma

n a

nd

liv

e i

n a

n i

mp

erf

ec

t w

orl

d,

jus

t e

ve

ryd

ay

liv

ing

ca

n b

rin

g u

s a

ll t

yp

es

of

su

ffe

rin

g,

ph

ys

ica

l, m

en

tal,

sp

irit

ua

l.

10

2X

No

id

ea

.

10

4X

Ou

r o

wn

de

ed

s.

11

4X

Ma

inly

fro

m c

irc

um

sta

nc

e

11

7X

Fro

m o

ur

fall

en

sta

te w

he

n m

an

fir

st

ch

os

e t

o r

eb

el

ag

aig

ns

t G

od

's w

ish

es

an

d p

urp

os

e f

or

ma

nk

ind

.

1X

Go

d.

If

He

wa

nte

d t

o H

e c

ou

ld m

ak

e t

hin

gs

rig

ht.

3X

Ye

s.

In t

he

se

ns

e t

ha

t if

Go

d i

s i

n u

ltim

ate

co

ntr

ol

the

n h

e s

tay

ed

his

ha

nd

. If

yo

u b

eli

ev

e t

ha

t

so

me

thin

g a

lte

red

Cre

ati

on

(w

hic

h w

e c

all

sin

), t

he

n t

his

is

n't

a p

refe

ct

wo

rld

, a

nd

th

ere

fore

th

ing

s

ha

pp

en

th

at

we

ca

ll s

uff

eri

ng

, d

ise

as

e,

ha

te e

tc

4X

Imp

erf

ec

tio

n -

wh

eth

er

rog

ue

ce

lls

or

win

ds

! S

uff

eri

ng

is

an

ou

tco

me

of

sit

ua

tio

ns

. T

he

me

rch

an

t

ba

nk

er

'su

ffe

rs'

fro

m a

ma

rke

t d

ow

ntu

rn,

an

Afr

ica

n v

illa

ge

rdo

es

n't

- b

ut

rem

ov

e h

an

dfu

l o

f fo

od

fro

m h

is w

ee

ks

die

t -

no

w t

ha

t is

an

oth

er

ma

tte

r!

Su

ffe

rin

g c

an

be

se

en

fro

m w

he

re w

e s

tan

d.

Th

e

Bo

sto

n b

om

b,

ca

us

es

ou

tra

ge

, th

e c

on

tin

ua

l b

om

bin

g i

n P

ak

ista

n/A

fgh

an

ista

n m

ov

es

us

no

t.

Th

e

na

tura

l d

isa

ste

r h

its

us

if

it i

s t

he

US

bu

t n

ot

so

mu

ch

in

Ch

ad

!

5X

Na

tura

l re

su

lts

fro

m l

ivin

g i

n a

fa

lle

n a

nd

de

pra

ve

d w

orl

d,

tha

t c

ho

os

es

it

is a

bs

en

t fr

om

Go

d.

As

Lie

ute

na

nt

Ge

off

We

bb

on

ce

sa

id,

(pa

rap

hra

se

d),

if

we

co

ns

iste

ntl

y d

en

y i

n t

he

in

terv

en

tio

n o

f a

co

mp

as

sio

na

te G

od

, H

e '

tak

es

th

e b

rak

es

off

', a

nd

all

ow

s u

s t

he

co

ns

eq

ue

nc

es

.

6X

a b

y-p

rod

uc

t o

f a

fa

lle

n w

orl

d

7X

Pa

rt o

f li

fe a

nd

/or

po

or

de

cis

ion

s b

y s

elf

or

oth

ers

.

10

XT

he

de

vil

ru

les

th

is w

orl

d f

or

the

tim

e b

ein

g,

Go

d a

llo

ws

th

e s

uff

eri

ng

fo

r a

gre

ate

r p

urp

os

e t

ha

t w

e

ma

y n

ot

se

e a

t th

e t

ime

.

11

Xd

ec

isio

ns

ma

de

th

rou

gh

ou

r p

os

itio

n o

f fr

ee

wil

l.

cir

cu

ms

tan

ce

s c

au

se

d t

hro

ug

h a

cts

of

na

ture

15

X1

. T

he

en

em

y 2

. th

e c

on

se

qu

en

ce

s o

f s

in i

n a

bro

ke

n w

orl

d t

ha

t is

cry

ing

ou

t fo

r re

ne

wa

l.

Wh

ere

do

yo

u t

hin

k s

uff

eri

ng

co

me

s f

rom

?

My

ag

e b

rac

ke

t is

Figu

re 4

0. O

rigi

ns

of

suff

eri

ng

Appendices

250

17

Xs

om

eth

ing

ac

tio

ns

of

pe

op

le s

om

eti

me

s s

tuff

ha

pp

en

s

18

XI

thin

k s

uff

eri

ng

is

a p

art

of

liv

ing

in

a b

rok

en

wo

rld

. S

uff

eri

ng

is

a p

art

of

life

th

at

wil

l a

ffe

ct

mo

st

pe

op

le a

t d

iffe

ren

t ti

me

s o

f th

eir

lif

e.

We

ha

ve

no

t a

lwa

ys

lo

ok

ed

aft

er

ou

r w

orl

d o

r o

ur

bo

die

s a

nd

this

ca

n a

lso

be

a

pa

rt o

f s

uff

eri

ng

.

22

XS

uff

eri

ng

co

me

s f

rom

th

ing

s t

ha

t h

ap

pe

n a

s p

art

of

ou

r e

art

hly

ex

ista

nc

e a

nd

so

me

tim

es

ch

oic

es

we

ma

ke

.

23

Xli

fe

26

XS

uff

eri

ng

ha

pp

en

s a

s a

ma

ter

of

co

urs

e.

Go

d d

oe

s n

ot

ma

ke

us

su

ffe

r b

ut

wil

l s

up

po

rt u

s t

hro

ug

h

ou

r s

uff

eri

ng

.

27

Xm

an

ma

de

ca

us

es

28

XF

rom

th

e s

ins

of

the

wo

rld

an

d G

od

sp

ea

kin

g t

o t

he

pe

op

le

33

XN

ot

su

re

36

Xm

an

y a

rea

s

38

XP

red

om

ina

tely

ma

n's

se

lfis

hn

es

s a

nd

fo

oli

sh

ne

ss

. S

om

e u

nc

on

tro

lab

le a

cts

of

na

ture

.

40

XI

do

n't

kn

ow

.

41

XA

da

m's

dis

ob

ed

ien

ce

to

Go

d's

la

w

42

XU

ns

ure

45

Xn

aru

ral

dis

as

ters

, a

cc

ide

nts

,ow

n f

oo

lis

hn

es

s,

ac

tos

of

oth

ers

46

XS

ata

n

47

XN

ot

su

re

48

Xm

an

s f

ree

wil

l

49

Xm

ult

iple

so

urc

es

, in

clu

din

g w

ron

gd

oin

g,

an

d t

he

fra

ilty

of

cre

ati

on

57

XL

ife

sty

le a

nd

oth

er

ch

oic

es

pe

op

le m

ak

e.

So

me

tim

es

un

kn

ow

n c

au

se

s.

58

XR

es

ult

of

the

Fa

ll a

nd

sin

in

ou

r w

orl

d a

nd

hu

ma

nit

y's

gre

ed

an

d d

isre

ga

rd f

or

the

ste

wa

rds

hip

en

tru

ste

d t

o u

s f

or

the

ea

rth

65

XS

uff

eri

ng

is

ju

st

a c

on

se

qu

en

ce

of

the

ev

ery

da

y a

cti

on

s t

ha

t im

pa

ct

on

ou

r li

ve

s.

It m

ay

or

ma

y n

ot

be

a c

on

se

qu

en

ce

of

the

de

cis

ion

s w

e m

ak

e.

Th

ing

s l

ike

die

t, e

xe

rcis

e,

str

es

s,

sic

kn

es

s,

na

tura

l

dis

as

ters

, a

ll i

mp

ac

t o

ur

liv

es

. P

eo

ple

s i

nd

iffe

ren

ce

to

oth

ers

an

d e

ve

n p

eo

ple

s m

ali

cio

us

an

d

un

thin

kin

g a

cti

on

s c

an

all

im

pa

ct

on

ou

r li

ve

s a

nd

bri

ng

su

ffe

rin

g.

Su

ffe

rin

g i

s a

na

tura

l

co

ns

eq

ue

nc

e o

f th

e t

hin

gs

th

at

ha

pp

en

aro

un

d u

s.

So

me

tim

es

su

ffe

rin

g c

an

be

a r

es

ult

of

jus

t p

lain

ba

d l

uc

k.

66

XP

ort

Ad

ela

ide

...?

S

elf

ish

ne

ss

72

XM

an

's s

in a

nd

fre

e w

ill

76

XT

he

Ga

rde

n o

f E

de

n.

Th

e p

erf

ec

t w

orl

d l

os

t G

od

s p

rote

cti

on

du

e t

o s

in.

It h

as

be

en

de

ca

yin

g e

ve

r

sin

ce

. M

an

als

o h

as

re

ce

ive

d h

is p

en

alt

y f

or

sin

79

XIt

's o

rig

ins

oft

en

em

an

ate

fro

m o

ur

ow

n c

ho

ice

s,

ye

t a

t ti

me

s m

ay

be

to

sp

ec

ific

all

y r

efi

ne

us

.

80

XS

in

86

XW

e l

ive

in

a b

rok

en

wo

rld

wh

ere

th

e i

mp

ac

t o

f s

in h

as

in

filt

rate

d e

ve

ry s

ph

ere

of

life

90

XS

om

eti

me

s t

hro

ug

h M

an

's s

in.

93

XS

om

eti

me

s a

co

ns

eq

ue

nc

e o

f o

ur

ow

n a

cti

on

s a

nd

de

cis

ion

s.

So

me

tim

es

a t

oo

l o

f S

ata

n

Nu

mb

er

Bo

rn

be

fore

19

47

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

47

an

d

19

64

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

65

an

d

19

82

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

82

an

d

19

94

Re

sp

on

se

Te

xt

Wh

ere

do

yo

u t

hin

k s

uff

erin

g c

om

es

fro

m?

My

ag

e b

ra

ck

et

is

Appendices

251

96

XO

ur

ch

oic

es

, o

the

rs c

ho

ice

s,

a c

om

ple

x s

ys

tem

of

un

ive

rsa

l c

on

ne

cti

on

s w

hic

h h

as

be

en

co

mp

rom

ise

d b

y r

eb

ell

ion

ag

ain

st

Go

d,

se

lfis

hn

es

s,

gre

ed

. E

ve

n n

atu

ral

dis

as

ters

.

97

XM

en

's f

ree

wil

l a

nd

ba

d d

ec

isio

ns

98

XH

um

an

sin

99

XIt

is

a n

atu

ral

pa

rt o

f li

vin

g

10

3X

su

ffe

rin

g c

am

e i

nto

th

e w

orl

d a

fte

r A

da

m a

nd

Ev

e d

iso

be

ye

d G

od

11

9X

Se

lf

2X

I th

ink

He

all

ow

s i

t.

Bu

t I

als

o t

hin

k t

ha

t s

uff

eri

ng

is

a r

es

ult

of

ou

r fr

ac

ture

d w

orl

d.

8X

life

9X

Hu

ma

n d

ec

isio

ns

an

d l

ac

k o

f o

be

die

nc

e t

o l

iste

n t

o H

is g

uid

an

ce

.

13

XO

fte

n c

au

se

d b

y h

um

an

s.

I d

on

't s

ee

na

tura

l d

isa

ste

rs a

s h

av

ing

div

ine

pu

rpo

se

.

14

XO

ur

refu

sa

l to

liv

e a

s G

od

sh

ow

us

to

th

rou

gh

His

wo

rd

16

XS

uff

eri

ng

is

a p

art

of

life

, h

ow

it

is a

ffe

cts

us

is

ab

ou

t p

ers

pe

cti

ve

.

19

XN

ot

su

re,

bu

t a

lo

t o

f s

uff

eri

ng

co

me

s f

rom

hu

ma

n d

ec

isio

ns

an

d a

cc

ide

nts

th

at

are

ou

t o

f o

ur

co

ntr

ol

21

XH

um

an

ity

an

d S

ata

n!!

!

30

Xm

an

cre

ate

s o

pp

ort

un

ity

- G

od

sh

ow

s u

s s

uff

eri

ng

, b

ut

for

rea

so

ns

th

at

ha

ve

be

en

cre

ate

d i

n s

om

e

wa

ys

by

ma

n

31

XG

od

cre

ate

d o

ur

wo

rld

as

pe

rfe

ct

- H

e w

as

ple

as

ed

wit

h H

is c

rea

tio

n -

ho

we

ve

r u

nfo

rtu

na

tely

sin

en

tere

d t

he

wo

rld

an

d n

ow

Sa

tan

ha

s a

me

as

ure

of

po

we

r o

ve

r th

e w

orl

d.

Su

ffe

rin

g i

s a

re

su

lt o

f th

e

ine

qu

ity

in

ou

r w

orl

d -

pe

op

le n

ot

liv

ing

as

Go

d i

nte

nd

ed

an

d n

ot

sh

ari

ng

th

e w

orl

d's

re

so

urc

es

fair

ly,

fro

m p

eo

ple

's a

bu

se

of

po

we

r a

nd

se

lfis

h u

se

of

oth

ers

fo

r th

eir

ow

n n

ee

ds

, o

r b

ec

au

se

of

na

tura

l d

isa

ste

rs w

hic

h I

als

o b

eli

ev

e a

re a

re

su

lt o

f th

e f

all

.

34

Xis

a r

es

ult

of

a f

all

en

wo

rld

.

37

XC

om

es

fro

m h

ow

we

as

th

ink

ing

pe

op

le r

ea

ct

to s

itu

ati

on

s..

..w

ha

t is

be

fore

ou

r e

ye

s.

In s

uff

eri

ng

hu

ma

ns

do

n't

se

e t

he

"b

igg

er

pic

ture

"

43

Xli

fe

51

XI

thin

k o

fte

n t

he

de

vil

is

re

sp

on

sib

le f

or

su

ffe

rin

g a

nd

ge

ne

rall

y j

us

t a

pa

rt o

f li

fe b

ut

I d

o n

ot

be

lie

ve

tha

t G

od

is

re

sp

on

sib

le.

Go

d m

ay

all

ow

th

ing

s t

o o

cc

ur

in o

ur

liv

es

bu

t it

do

es

no

t m

ea

n t

ha

t h

e i

s

res

po

ns

ible

.

52

XS

uff

eri

ng

ca

n b

e t

he

re

su

lt o

f m

an

y t

hin

gs

in

clu

din

g s

in a

nd

stu

pid

ity

, b

ut

it c

an

als

o b

e v

ery

ran

do

m,

an

d o

fte

n t

he

re i

s n

o a

ns

we

r a

s t

o w

he

re i

t c

am

e f

rom

or

wh

y.

54

XO

ur

ow

n H

um

an

Na

ture

th

rou

gh

fre

e w

ill,

an

d t

hro

ug

h t

he

wo

rkin

gs

of

Sa

tan

.

55

XC

on

se

qu

en

ce

s o

f h

um

an

fa

ult

s &

ha

rms

; fr

ag

ilit

y o

r w

ea

kn

es

s o

f h

um

an

; d

isc

ipli

ne

by

Go

d.

59

XH

um

an

s b

eh

av

ing

lik

e h

um

an

s.

Sc

ien

tifi

ca

lly

ba

se

d n

atu

ral

oc

cu

rre

nc

es

no

t a

s a

cts

of

Go

d.

Ac

cid

en

ts o

f b

irth

.

61

XM

os

tly

fro

m h

um

an

s-

in o

ur

stu

bb

orn

ne

ss

, g

ree

d e

tc w

e h

urt

ea

ch

oth

er

to g

et

wh

at

we

wa

nt.

63

XI

thin

k s

uff

eri

ng

co

me

s f

rom

ma

ny

so

urc

es

an

d i

n m

od

ern

so

cie

ty i

t is

pre

do

min

an

tly

hu

ma

nit

y.

Ho

w

we

ha

ve

ad

va

nc

ed

/de

ve

lop

ed

wil

l h

av

e a

co

ns

eq

ue

nc

es

(b

oth

go

od

an

d b

ad

) th

at

it i

s n

ev

er

full

y

un

de

rsto

od

be

fore

ha

nd

.

67

XI

do

n't

kn

ow

69

XF

rom

th

e f

ac

t th

at

we

liv

e i

n a

fa

lle

n w

orl

d

Nu

mb

er

Bo

rn

be

fore

19

47

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

47

an

d

19

64

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

65

an

d

19

82

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

82

an

d

19

94

Re

sp

on

se

Te

xt

Wh

ere

do

yo

u t

hin

k s

uff

eri

ng

co

me

s f

rom

?

My

ag

e b

rac

ke

t is

Appendices

252

71

XA

bo

ve

qu

es

tio

n:

at

tim

es

Go

d a

llo

ws

su

ffe

rin

g.

Sin

.

74

XO

ur

hu

ma

n d

ec

isio

ns

an

d t

he

re

su

lt o

f th

e f

all

of

ma

n

75

XF

rom

hu

ma

n i

nte

rve

nti

on

, n

ot

lis

ten

ing

to

Go

d a

nd

ob

ey

ing

His

de

sir

es

77

XB

rok

en

ne

ss

. W

orl

d/p

eo

ple

/cre

ati

on

78

XM

an

's d

iso

be

die

nc

e i

n T

he

Ga

rde

n O

f E

de

n.

81

XT

he

de

vil

84

XO

ur

ch

oic

es

in

lif

e,

fre

e w

ill.

A

lso

, it

is

pa

rt o

f o

ur

life

as

Ch

ris

tia

ns

as

we

we

re t

old

we

wo

uld

ex

pe

rie

nc

e s

uff

eri

ng

85

XO

urs

elv

es

be

ca

us

e o

f th

e d

ec

isio

ns

we

ma

ke

87

XS

om

eti

me

s t

he

su

ffe

rin

g i

s t

he

re

su

lt o

f p

eo

ple

s a

cti

on

s o

r c

ho

ice

s;

so

me

tim

es

th

ey

ju

st

se

em

th

e

res

ult

of

ran

do

m h

ap

pe

ns

tan

ce

; I

do

n't

kn

ow

en

ou

gh

to

be

ab

le t

o m

ak

e a

n i

nfo

rme

d c

all

88

XI

thin

k G

od

all

ow

s u

s t

o g

o t

hro

ug

h s

uff

eri

ng

, ju

st

lik

e J

ob

ha

d t

o s

uff

er,

to

all

ow

fo

r n

ew

th

ing

s t

o

op

en

up

in

on

e's

lif

e.

I h

av

e b

lam

ed

Go

d f

or

su

ffe

rin

g i

n m

y l

ife

as

I f

ee

l th

at

He

all

ow

ed

tra

um

ati

c

ev

en

ts t

o h

ap

pe

n.

Ju

st

lik

e J

ob

wh

ere

Go

d a

llo

we

d S

ata

n t

o c

au

se

su

ffe

rin

g i

n J

ob

's l

ife

bu

t S

ata

n

wa

sn

't a

llo

we

d t

o h

arm

Jo

b.

Go

d s

till

all

ow

ed

it

to h

ap

pe

n.

89

XO

fte

n f

rom

oth

er

co

ns

eq

ue

nc

es

th

at

a p

ers

on

ma

y h

av

e l

ed

th

em

se

lve

s i

nto

91

XN

ot

su

re

94

XB

ible

sa

ys

so

me

tim

es

du

e t

o s

in a

nd

so

me

tim

e t

em

pta

tio

n f

rom

de

vil

10

0X

Su

ffe

rin

g c

om

e f

rom

th

e c

ho

ice

th

at

we

ma

ke

.

10

7X

Sin

/se

lf/o

the

rs/c

ha

nc

e

10

9X

La

rge

ly f

rom

hu

ma

n b

eh

av

iou

r.

11

0X

So

me

tim

es

it

is t

hro

ug

h t

he

na

tura

l w

orl

d,

so

me

tim

es

or

ow

n c

ho

ice

s o

r th

e c

ho

ice

s o

f o

the

rs.

11

1X

Sin

. "

If y

ou

liv

e i

n t

he

wo

rld

, y

ou

wil

l h

av

e t

rou

ble

."

11

3X

It i

s o

fte

n a

co

ns

eq

ue

nc

e (

bo

th i

nte

nti

on

al

an

d u

nin

ten

tio

na

l) o

f p

eo

ple

's a

cti

on

s a

nd

ch

oic

es

.

11

6X

Hu

ma

nit

ys

fa

ll f

rom

Go

d

25

XS

uff

eri

ng

is

a r

es

ult

of

ou

r b

rok

en

wo

rld

. G

od

ha

s g

ive

n u

s a

fre

e c

ho

ice

to

do

wh

at

we

lik

e,

to l

ov

e

Him

or

no

t lo

ve

Him

. A

s p

art

of

tha

t w

e w

ill

no

t a

lwa

ys

ma

ke

th

e b

es

t d

ec

isio

ns

an

d p

eo

ple

wil

l g

et

hu

rt.

44

XS

uff

eri

ng

be

ga

n f

rom

th

e f

all

wh

en

hu

ma

ns

so

ug

ht

reb

ell

ion

an

d o

bs

tin

an

ce

to

wa

rd G

od

. E

vil

an

d

su

ffe

rin

g h

av

e a

ll s

ort

s o

f c

au

se

s a

nd

ce

rta

inly

co

me

fro

m s

in a

nd

Sa

tan

him

se

lf.

Ult

ima

tely

Go

d i

s

So

ve

reig

n o

f th

e u

niv

ers

e,

wh

ich

is

a g

rea

t c

om

fort

in

su

ffe

rin

g b

ec

au

se

he

ha

s a

nd

wil

l d

ea

l w

ith

su

ffe

rin

g e

nti

rely

in

Ch

ris

t (s

ee

ea

rlie

r a

ns

we

r).

50

XL

ife

ha

pp

en

s.

Th

e t

hin

gs

th

at

yo

u a

nd

I d

o w

ill

so

me

ho

w i

n t

urn

ha

ve

an

eff

ec

t/in

flu

en

ce

on

oth

ers

imm

ed

iatl

y o

r d

ista

ntl

y a

rou

nd

us

- th

is i

s m

ore

so

wh

at

ca

us

es

th

e s

uff

eri

ng

an

d h

um

an

s/s

oc

iety

s

dis

ob

ed

ian

ce

to

ob

ey

53

XE

xis

tin

g i

n a

fa

lle

n w

orl

d,

wh

ere

Go

d i

s o

fte

n t

old

by

his

cre

ati

on

to

go

aw

ay

.

56

XW

e l

ive

in

a b

rok

en

wo

rld

an

d w

e a

re a

t ti

me

ho

pe

les

s t

o s

top

it.

An

d t

he

pa

in g

ive

n t

o u

s b

y n

atu

re

or

oth

er

pe

op

le i

s m

ad

e w

ors

e b

y t

he

fa

ct

tha

t w

e d

o n

ot

un

de

rsta

nd

wh

y e

ith

er

a g

oo

d G

od

wo

uld

sta

nd

by

an

d w

atc

h o

r w

hy

we

se

em

alw

ay

s u

na

ble

to

pre

ve

nt

it.

Nu

mb

er

Bo

rn

be

fore

19

47

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

47

an

d

19

64

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

65

an

d

19

82

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

82

an

d

19

94

Re

sp

on

se

Te

xt

Wh

ere

do

yo

u t

hin

k s

uff

eri

ng

co

me

s f

rom

?

My

ag

e b

rac

ke

t is

Appendices

253

62

Xi

thin

k s

om

eti

me

s i

t c

an

be

se

lf i

nfl

icte

d,

bu

t s

om

eti

me

s m

ay

be

th

e n

atu

ral

pro

gre

ss

ion

of

thin

gs

...i

do

n't

kn

ow

wh

eth

er

Go

d a

ctu

all

y m

ak

es

it

ha

pp

en

, H

e's

a G

od

of

lov

e a

nd

ca

re f

or

His

pe

op

le,

i

do

n't

th

ink

He

ma

ke

s t

he

m s

uff

er

inte

nti

on

all

y.

64

XL

ife

ex

pe

rie

nc

es

/pe

rce

pti

on

68

XI

do

n't

kn

ow

70

XN

ot

su

re

73

XF

ree

wil

l.

82

XT

he

bro

ke

nn

es

s o

f h

um

an

ity

(m

en

tal

he

alt

h,

illn

es

s).

Ho

we

ve

r s

om

eti

me

s w

e e

xp

eri

en

ce

s t

he

co

ns

eq

ue

nc

es

of

ou

r s

in,

this

ca

n r

es

ult

in

su

ffe

rin

g.

83

Xa

nu

mb

er

of

pla

ce

s,

fro

m o

ur

ow

n c

ho

ice

s,

fro

m o

ur

ow

n s

elf

ish

ne

ss

, fr

om

GM

O f

oo

d.

Fro

m a

n o

ve

r

reli

an

ce

on

th

ing

s o

the

r th

an

Go

d.

95

XI

no

rma

lly

av

oid

th

ink

ing

of

the

so

urc

e-

too

ha

rd a

qu

es

tio

n!

10

1X

Ou

r o

wn

sin

or

ou

r n

eg

lec

t fo

r H

is w

ill

in o

ur

liv

es

, th

e w

ork

of

the

de

vil

, h

um

an

fre

e-w

ill,

an

d

so

me

tim

es

as

pa

rt o

f, o

r a

sid

e-a

ffe

ct

of

Go

d's

pla

n.

10

5X

I th

ink

it

co

me

s f

rom

ch

oic

es

we

ma

ke

in

lif

e.

10

6X

Sin

10

8X

Bro

ke

n w

orl

d

11

2X

Th

e b

rok

en

ne

ss

of

the

wo

rld

- t

he

sin

of

oth

ers

an

d o

urs

elv

es

.

11

5X

Su

ffe

rin

g i

s w

ha

t h

ap

pe

ns

wh

en

so

me

on

e's

ne

ed

is

no

t b

ein

g m

et.

Mo

st

su

ffe

rin

g,

I b

eli

ev

e,

co

me

s

fro

m o

ur

ow

n i

na

de

qu

ac

ies

as

hu

ma

ns

. F

rom

ou

r fa

ilu

re t

o b

e k

ind

, o

r re

sp

on

sib

le o

r re

sp

ec

tfu

l. I

be

lie

ve

Go

d d

oe

s h

av

e t

he

po

we

r to

re

lie

ve

so

me

on

e's

su

ffe

rin

g,

bu

t n

ot

at

the

ex

pe

ns

e o

f h

um

an

fre

e w

ill.

11

8X

Th

e f

all

Nu

mb

er

Bo

rn

be

fore

19

47

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

47

an

d

19

64

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

65

an

d

19

82

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

82

an

d

19

94

Re

sp

on

se

Te

xt

Wh

ere

do

yo

u t

hin

k s

uff

eri

ng

co

me

s f

rom

?

My

ag

e b

rac

ke

t is

Appendices

254

Figure 41. Blame for suffering – officers and adult Salvationists

Figure 42. Blame for suffering – generational groupings

Appendices

255

Nu

mb

er

Bo

rn b

efo

re

19

47

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

47

an

d

19

64

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

65

an

d

19

82

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

82

an

d

19

94

Re

sp

on

se

Te

xt

11

XD

ou

bt

me

an

s t

ha

t I

ha

ve

So

me

on

e t

o T

rus

t.

I g

row

fro

m d

ou

bti

ng

as

I t

ak

e H

is

Pro

mis

es

an

d R

es

t b

y F

ait

h i

n t

he

m.

20

XL

os

s o

f:

Co

ntr

ol

Co

nfi

de

nc

e

So

me

tim

es

fa

ith

Co

nfu

sio

n

24

XB

ein

g u

ns

ure

of

fac

ts p

res

en

ted

29

XA

co

mp

on

en

t o

f fa

ith

.

32

XH

es

ita

nc

e t

o b

eli

ev

e

35

XU

nc

ert

ain

ty

39

XD

ou

bt

is n

ot

the

op

po

sit

e o

f fa

ith

ra

the

r it

is

an

as

pe

ct

of

life

th

at

ma

ke

s y

ou

lo

ok

clo

se

ly a

t w

ha

t y

ou

be

lie

ve

60

XA

na

gg

ing

un

ce

rta

inty

ab

ou

t s

om

eth

ing

I b

eli

ev

e t

o b

e t

rue

.

96

Xn

ot

be

ing

fu

lly

co

nv

inc

ed

. "L

ord

I b

eli

ev

e,

he

lp m

y u

nb

eli

ef"

.

10

5X

Wo

nd

eri

ng

if

Go

d r

ea

lly

ex

ists

.

10

9X

Be

ing

un

su

re o

f y

ou

r b

eli

efs

.

11

1X

I th

ink

do

ub

t is

so

me

thin

g I

ca

nn

ot

be

lie

ve

10

0 p

erc

en

t.

11

2X

Do

ub

t is

so

me

thin

g o

ne

ca

nn

ot

be

lie

ve

or

tru

st

10

0 p

erc

en

t.

12

4X

Wh

en

yo

u a

re n

ot

su

re a

bo

ut

so

me

thin

g

12

7X

No

t b

ein

g s

ure

.

1X

Wh

en

yo

u s

tru

gg

le w

ith

be

lie

f.

3X

So

me

thin

g t

ha

t is

lo

gic

al

an

d e

ss

en

tia

l to

th

e f

ull

hu

ma

n c

on

dit

ion

, w

e a

re n

ot

bo

rn t

o

be

pu

pp

ets

bu

t to

ex

erc

ise

ou

r fr

ee

wil

l w

hic

h i

nc

lud

es

ho

ne

st

do

ub

t.

4X

Do

ub

t is

th

e f

og

gy

tim

es

th

at

bri

n h

elp

my

fo

cu

s

5X

A n

atu

ral

res

po

ns

e t

o a

rea

s o

f u

nc

ert

ain

ty,

bu

t d

oe

s n

ot

me

an

la

ck

of

fait

h i

n a

so

ve

reig

n G

od

.

6X

Qu

es

tio

nin

g

7X

A r

ath

er

terr

ible

fe

eli

ng

, s

wa

yin

g b

etw

ee

n t

wo

(m

ay

be

go

od

or

no

t) i

de

as

, n

ot

be

ing

ab

le t

o b

e s

tab

le i

n e

ith

er

of

the

m

9X

a w

ea

po

n o

f th

e d

ev

il t

o m

ak

e u

s l

es

s u

se

ful.

10

Xa

n a

ch

e o

r g

ap

in

my

be

lie

f s

ys

tem

th

at

hin

de

rs a

le

ap

of

fait

h

14

Xa

pa

thw

ay

to

fa

ith

Ho

w w

ou

ld y

ou

de

sc

rib

e d

ou

bt?

Fi

gure

43

De

scri

pti

on

s o

f d

ou

bt

Appendices

256

Nu

mb

er

Bo

rn b

efo

re

19

47

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

47

an

d

19

64

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

65

an

d

19

82

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

82

an

d

19

94

Re

sp

on

se

Te

xt

Ho

w w

ou

ld y

ou

de

sc

rib

e d

ou

bt?

15

XH

ea

lth

y a

s i

t a

ss

ists

me

to

gro

w a

s I

wo

rk t

hro

ug

h t

he

dif

fere

nc

es

be

twe

en

wh

at

I

ex

pe

rie

nc

e a

nd

wh

at

I th

ou

gh

t I

be

lie

ve

d.

Wit

h t

he

kn

ow

led

ge

th

at

I d

o n

ot

ev

er

ha

ve

the

fu

ll p

ictu

re.

17

Xs

om

eth

ing

th

at

is o

k f

or

me

an

d G

od

18

XD

ou

bt

is a

no

rma

l p

roc

es

s o

f li

fe.

It i

s w

res

tlin

g w

ith

do

ub

t th

at

all

ow

s u

s t

o g

row

an

d

to b

e g

rou

nd

ed

in

wh

at

we

be

lie

ve

an

d a

nd

wh

y w

e d

o w

ha

t w

e d

o t

o s

erv

e G

od

.

22

XI

wo

uld

de

sc

rib

e d

ou

bt

as

th

e u

nc

ert

ain

ty i

n m

y m

ind

of

ma

ny

th

ing

s I

ha

ve

be

lie

ve

d

in s

inc

e c

hil

dh

oo

d.

23

Xa

ve

ry h

ea

lth

y t

hin

g t

o h

av

e

26

XD

ou

bt

is q

ue

sti

on

ing

.

27

Xto

be

un

su

re w

he

n y

ou

ha

ve

no

t s

ee

n f

ac

tua

l p

roo

f

28

XL

ac

k o

f fa

ith

an

d a

n u

ne

nd

ing

de

sp

air

33

XW

he

n I

'm n

ot

su

re o

r c

on

fid

en

t o

f m

y o

wn

fa

ith

/kn

ow

led

ge

36

XS

tru

gg

les

du

rin

g p

ain

ful

ex

pe

rie

nc

es

38

XA

ny

thin

g t

ha

t is

no

t o

bv

iou

s i

n a

ph

ys

ica

l s

en

se

pro

mo

tes

do

ub

t. T

he

re i

s a

de

gre

e

of

the

ag

no

sti

c i

n a

ll,

or

ma

ny

of

us

40

XS

elf

do

ub

t? F

ait

h d

ou

bt?

I

wo

uld

de

sc

rib

e i

t a

s u

nc

ert

ain

ty.

41

XQ

ue

ryin

g c

on

tem

po

rary

te

ac

hin

g/p

rac

tic

e

42

XD

ou

bt

= f

ea

rin

g t

he

un

kn

ow

n,

inc

lud

ing

Go

d,

an

d w

an

tin

g s

om

eo

ne

to

te

ll y

ou

th

at

yo

ur

do

ub

t is

ok

an

d n

orm

al

45

Xw

ea

k f

ait

h

46

XA

bs

en

ce

of

fait

h

47

XD

ou

bt

is w

he

n y

ou

qu

es

tio

n y

ou

r b

eli

efs

or

rea

so

nin

g

48

Xh

av

ing

no

or

litt

le f

ait

h a

nd

ha

vin

g n

o o

r li

ttle

fa

th i

n y

ou

rse

lf a

nd

th

e d

ec

isio

ns

yo

u

ma

ke

.

49

XL

ac

k o

f c

ert

ain

ty;

un

res

olv

ed

is

su

es

57

XB

ein

g u

ns

ure

of

a p

os

itio

n o

r s

itu

ati

on

.

58

XT

his

is

he

alt

hy

an

d a

ss

ists

in

de

ve

lop

ing

fa

ith

an

d e

xp

lori

ng

be

lie

f.

I w

ou

ld d

es

cri

be

it a

s t

he

ab

ilit

y t

o q

ue

sti

on

an

d s

ee

k a

ns

we

rs a

nd

de

sir

e t

o k

no

w G

od

be

tte

r th

rou

gh

the

se

pe

rio

ds

of

do

ub

t.

66

XD

ou

bt

is p

art

of

fait

h.

If y

ou

did

no

t h

av

e d

ou

bt

yo

u c

ou

ld n

ot

ha

ve

fa

ith

. T

he

te

ns

ion

be

twe

en

fa

ith

an

d d

ou

bt

is e

ve

r p

res

en

t in

my

fa

ith

jo

urn

ey

. I

ch

oo

se

to

ha

ve

fa

ith

in

sp

ite

of

my

do

ub

ts.

67

XH

ea

lth

y q

ue

sti

on

ing

.

Ca

n b

e a

pa

tho

ge

n i

f n

ot

res

po

nd

ed

to

.

Appendices

257

70

XD

ou

bt

to m

e i

s s

ho

wn

wh

en

re

all

y b

ad

th

ing

s h

ap

pe

n t

o t

ho

se

wh

o a

re t

oo

yo

un

g a

nd

inn

oc

en

t a

nd

yo

u h

av

e n

o e

xp

lan

ati

on

as

to

wh

y,

oth

er

tha

n o

ne

s o

wn

fa

ith

in

Go

d.

74

XD

ou

bt

is n

ot

be

ing

su

re o

f s

om

eth

ing

- b

ein

g u

nc

ert

ain

, n

ot

tota

lly

be

lie

vin

g,

sw

ing

ing

fro

m s

ide

to

sid

e s

om

eti

me

s

80

XQ

ue

sti

on

ing

wh

at

I'v

e b

ee

n t

old

, w

ha

t I'

ve

re

ad

an

d a

t ti

me

s w

ha

t I

am

ab

ou

t to

ex

pe

rie

nc

e

82

XH

um

an

ex

ista

nc

e

83

XN

atu

ral

- I

se

e d

ou

bt

as

a h

um

an

re

sp

on

se

I p

eri

od

ica

lly

ex

plo

re i

n t

he

co

nte

xt

of

my

fait

h.

90

XT

he

gro

win

g p

ain

s o

f fa

ith

ev

en

if

its

un

co

mfo

rta

ble

93

XD

ou

bt

is u

nc

ert

ain

ty,

lac

k o

f fa

ith

, s

om

eti

me

s l

ac

k o

f tr

us

t.

98

Xu

nc

ert

ain

ty a

bo

ut

Go

d's

wis

do

m

10

1X

An

im

po

rta

nt

as

pe

ct

of

fait

h d

ev

elo

pm

en

t. F

ait

h a

nd

do

ub

t c

om

pli

me

nt

ea

ch

oth

er

-

fait

h o

nly

ex

ists

in

an

sw

er

to d

ou

bt.

10

2X

Sa

tan

ta

kin

g y

ou

r m

ind

off

th

e f

ina

l re

su

lt a

nd

wh

at

Go

d c

an

do

10

3X

Qu

es

tio

nin

g m

y f

ait

h i

n G

od

.

10

6X

No

t q

uit

e b

eli

ev

ing

in

so

me

thin

g -

ne

ed

ing

mo

re i

nfo

rma

tio

n o

f a

sp

ec

ific

11

0X

be

ing

un

su

re o

f w

ha

t is

ha

pp

en

ing

or

wh

y

11

3X

A l

ac

k o

f F

ait

h o

r u

nd

ers

tan

din

g.

13

0X

If w

e s

ee

k G

od

s g

uid

en

ce

in

all

th

ing

s D

ou

bt

is a

to

ol

of

the

De

vil

.

2X

Do

ub

t is

so

me

thin

g t

ha

t c

om

es

an

d g

oe

s d

ep

en

din

g o

n h

ow

I f

ee

l, h

ow

mu

ch

sle

ep

I'v

e h

ad

an

d w

ha

t's

ha

pp

en

ing

aro

un

d m

e.

I'v

e b

ee

n t

old

th

at

fait

h i

s n

ot

the

ab

se

nc

e

of

do

ub

t.

8X

Do

ub

t c

an

be

a h

elp

ful

pro

ce

ss

to

fu

rth

er

cla

rify

th

e g

rea

ter

my

ste

rie

s t

ha

t o

nly

fa

ith

in G

od

ca

n h

elp

wit

h.

12

XD

ou

bt

is a

vit

al

pa

rt o

f fa

ith

. F

ait

h w

ith

ou

t d

ou

bt

is n

o r

ea

l fa

ith

at

all

.

13

XA

tim

e o

f q

ue

sti

on

ing

bu

t a

re

as

on

to

se

arc

h f

or

the

an

sw

er

16

XIn

ab

ilit

y t

o s

ee

Go

d a

t w

ork

in

th

e w

orl

d.

19

XT

he

hu

ma

n r

es

po

ns

e t

o t

he

un

ce

rta

inty

of

fait

h

21

XT

he

in

ab

ilit

y t

o d

ec

ide

.

30

Xc

on

fus

ed

ab

ou

t a

n a

ns

we

r

31

XD

ou

bt

ca

n h

ap

pe

n w

he

n w

e f

oc

us

on

ou

r c

irc

um

sta

nc

es

in

ste

ad

of

foc

us

ing

on

Go

d's

ch

ara

cte

r a

nd

po

we

r in

a s

itu

ati

on

- G

od

ca

n u

se

th

es

e t

ime

s t

o r

ev

ea

l H

is p

ow

er

an

d

to p

rov

e H

is f

ait

hfu

lne

ss

to

us

.

34

XIs

th

e m

us

cle

th

at

ma

ke

s f

ait

h g

row

Nu

mb

er

Bo

rn b

efo

re

19

47

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

47

an

d

19

64

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

65

an

d

19

82

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

82

an

d

19

94

Re

sp

on

se

Te

xt

Ho

w w

ou

ld y

ou

de

sc

rib

e d

ou

bt?

Appendices

258

37

XD

ou

bt

is c

ha

lle

ng

e t

o m

y i

ss

ue

s v

iew

s a

nd

a p

os

itiv

e i

nfl

ue

nc

e t

o e

xp

lore

is

su

e

furt

he

r

43

XI

fee

l S

alv

o d

ou

bt

is t

ha

t y

ou

do

n't

ag

ree

wit

h t

he

ir t

ea

ch

ing

. In

ste

ad

of

qu

es

tio

n p

oo

r

an

d a

mb

igu

ou

s b

eli

efs

try

ing

to

be

pa

ss

ed

off

as

lig

am

en

t

51

XD

ou

bt

is w

he

n y

ou

eit

he

r q

ue

sti

on

yo

ur

fait

h o

r h

av

e t

rou

ble

fu

lly

be

lie

vin

g i

n G

od

.

Do

ub

t is

no

t a

lwa

ys

ba

d t

he

re i

s h

ea

lth

y d

ou

bt

tha

t c

an

he

lp i

mp

rov

e y

ou

r

rela

tio

ns

hip

wit

h G

od

it

all

de

pe

nd

s o

n h

ow

yo

u d

ea

l w

ith

it.

52

XD

ou

bt

is t

ha

t w

ob

bly

fe

eli

ng

yo

u g

et

wh

en

yo

ur

intu

itio

n t

ell

s y

ou

th

at

so

me

thin

g y

ou

are

he

ari

ng

, s

ee

ing

or

fee

lin

g i

s n

ot

qu

ite

rig

ht.

54

XA

nig

gli

ng

fe

eli

ng

th

at

so

me

th

ing

s I

ac

ce

pt

are

in

co

rre

ct.

55

XU

nc

ert

ain

ab

ou

t s

om

eth

ing

or

no

t tr

us

t s

om

eo

ne

.

59

XD

ou

bt

is w

he

n y

ou

arr

ive

at

a p

lac

e w

he

n y

ou

ca

n n

o l

on

ge

r b

lin

dly

be

lie

ve

ev

ery

thin

g y

ou

ha

ve

le

arn

ed

/ex

pe

rie

nc

ed

pre

vio

us

ly.

Yo

u c

an

mo

ve

on

fro

m d

ou

bt

to d

isc

ard

ing

yo

ur

fait

h,

or

yo

u c

an

mo

ve

on

fro

m d

ou

bt

to r

es

ea

rch

/le

arn

ing

an

d a

ne

w e

xp

eri

en

ce

of

fait

h.

62

XL

ac

k o

f fa

ith

64

XD

ou

bt

is t

he

in

sti

ga

tor

for

the

ex

am

inin

g o

f F

ait

h w

hic

h h

op

efu

lly

le

ad

s t

o a

str

on

ge

r

rela

tio

ns

hip

be

twe

en

Sc

rip

ture

, re

as

on

ing

, a

nd

ex

pe

rie

nc

e.

Do

ub

t is

un

ce

rta

inty

th

at

dri

ve

s t

he

se

arc

h f

or

the

Tru

th w

he

rea

s F

ait

h i

s t

he

kn

ow

led

ge

of

the

Tru

th i

n

un

ce

rta

inty

.

68

XA

se

rio

us

qu

es

tio

nin

g o

f th

e w

ay

th

ing

s a

re

71

XQ

ue

sti

on

s.

Wo

nd

eri

ng

if

wh

at

I b

eli

ev

e c

an

be

re

al.

73

XA

s d

ou

ble

-min

de

dn

es

s.

76

XA

qu

es

tio

nin

g o

f y

ou

r u

nd

ers

tan

din

g o

f fa

ith

77

XF

ea

r o

f th

e u

nk

no

wn

78

XD

ou

bt

s

a h

um

an

ex

pe

rie

nc

e.

An

ex

pe

rie

nc

e w

he

re o

ur

hu

ma

n l

ike

wa

ys

in

flu

en

ce

ou

r w

ay

of

thin

kin

g a

nd

cre

ate

s u

nc

ert

ain

vie

ws

ab

ou

t G

od

.

79

X?

81

XN

orm

al

:)

84

XT

he

in

ab

ilit

y t

o b

eli

ev

e i

n s

pit

e o

f a

va

ila

ble

ev

ide

nc

e t

o t

he

co

ntr

ary

.

85

XIt

in

th

e f

orm

of

a d

isa

pp

oin

t

88

XT

he

re i

s g

oo

d d

ou

bt

(as

in

se

arc

hin

g f

or

Go

d a

nd

do

ub

tin

g b

ec

au

se

yo

u a

re

se

arc

hin

g f

or

tru

th).

B

ut

the

re i

s b

ad

do

ub

t w

he

re y

ou

ju

st

do

n't

tru

st

or

be

lie

ve

in

an

yth

ing

89

XA

n u

ne

as

y f

ee

lin

g,

lac

k o

f c

ert

ain

ty

91

XD

ou

bt

is w

he

n y

ou

eit

he

r h

av

e n

o e

vid

en

ce

to

be

lie

ve

so

me

thin

g,

or

str

ug

gle

wit

h t

he

ev

ide

nc

e y

ou

do

ha

ve

.

Nu

mb

er

Bo

rn b

efo

re

19

47

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

47

an

d

19

64

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

65

an

d

19

82

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

82

an

d

19

94

Re

sp

on

se

Te

xt

Ho

w w

ou

ld y

ou

de

sc

rib

e d

ou

bt?

Appendices

259

92

XH

av

ing

str

ug

gle

d w

ith

me

nta

l il

lne

ss

fo

r a

nu

mb

er

of

ye

ars

as

we

ll a

s s

om

e t

rau

ma

tic

life

ev

en

ts,

do

ub

t is

oft

en

th

ere

in

th

e b

ac

kg

rou

nd

in

my

lif

e.

I k

ee

p t

rus

tin

g G

od

, g

et

ou

t o

f b

ed

ea

ch

da

y,

an

d k

ee

p g

oin

g.

94

XU

nw

ary

th

ou

gh

ts t

ha

t tr

y t

o s

wa

y y

ou

fro

m t

he

tru

th

97

XA

n e

lem

en

t o

f w

on

de

r w

hic

h c

an

be

go

od

, s

om

eti

me

s i

t h

elp

s t

o c

are

full

y c

on

sid

er

op

tio

ns

10

0X

A h

ea

lth

y p

art

of

ha

vin

g a

liv

ing

bre

ath

ing

fa

ith

.

10

4X

Re

as

on

vs

fa

ith

- th

e i

nte

rna

l s

tru

gg

le o

f th

e f

les

h

10

7X

A d

isc

us

sio

n b

etw

ee

n t

wo

op

inio

n's

of

the

sa

me

su

bje

ct.

11

6X

Qu

es

tio

nin

g/u

np

ac

kin

g o

f fa

ith

id

ea

s t

ha

t a

re c

ha

lle

ng

ed

by

th

e r

ea

lity

of

life

.

11

8X

Un

kn

ow

n o

r u

ns

ure

of

an

ou

tco

me

11

9X

As

th

e c

on

tex

t fo

r fa

ith

.

12

0X

do

ub

t is

an

im

po

rta

nt

too

l to

re

fin

e t

he

olo

gic

al

un

de

rsta

nd

ing

an

d f

ait

h p

rac

tic

al.

Ha

vin

g a

qu

es

tio

nin

g m

ind

th

at

is o

pe

n t

o d

ou

bt

is v

ita

l, h

ow

ev

er

it i

s i

mp

ort

an

t n

ot

to

dw

ell

in

do

ub

t a

nd

le

t it

pa

rali

ze

yo

u.

12

1X

No

t tr

us

tin

g G

od

, o

r q

ue

sti

on

ing

Him

, w

he

n r

ea

lly

He

kn

ow

s b

es

t.

12

3X

Op

po

sit

e o

f fa

ith

- b

ut

fait

h h

as

me

an

ing

in

th

e m

ids

t o

f o

ur

do

ub

t.

12

6X

Th

e i

na

bil

ity

to

re

as

on

25

XD

ou

bt

is f

ee

lin

g u

ns

ure

ab

ou

t th

e t

hin

gs

we

be

lie

ve

or

do

. I

be

lie

ve

do

ub

t is

no

rma

l

an

d t

ha

t G

od

is

wit

h u

s e

ve

n w

he

n w

e d

ou

bt.

44

XL

ac

k o

f fa

ith

. L

ac

k o

f tr

us

t in

Go

d.

Je

su

s s

aid

to

Th

om

as

, 'S

top

yo

ur

do

ub

tin

g,

an

d

be

lie

ve

.' G

od

do

es

n't

ca

ll u

s i

nto

'b

lin

d f

ait

h',

bu

t w

on

de

rfu

lly

ma

ke

s h

ims

elf

kn

ow

n t

o

us

su

ch

th

at

we

ca

n d

isp

el

do

ub

t.

50

XU

nc

ert

ain

ity

or

dis

be

lie

f th

at

so

me

of

gre

at

va

lue

s/o

r s

ign

ifia

nc

e c

an

ha

pp

en

fro

m a

n

inv

isa

ble

/un

se

en

Go

d

53

XS

tru

gg

lein

g w

ith

fa

ith

56

XIn

ca

n b

e t

wo

kin

ds

: a

qu

es

tio

nin

g o

f p

re-c

on

ce

ive

d i

de

as

in

tim

es

of

tro

ub

le,

or

an

un

wil

lin

gn

es

s t

o h

av

e t

ho

se

id

ea

s q

ue

sti

on

ed

in

th

e f

irs

t p

lac

e.

61

Xb

ein

g u

ns

ure

63

Xa

se

co

nd

gu

es

sin

g.

65

XS

om

eth

ing

th

at

yo

u'r

e u

ns

ure

ab

ou

t

69

Xa

ne

cc

es

sa

ry,

dif

fic

ult

an

d p

ote

nti

all

y f

ruit

ful

co

nd

itio

n

72

XW

he

n y

ou

r n

ot

su

re a

bo

ut

so

me

thin

g o

r n

ot

tru

sti

ng

75

XA

fe

eli

ng

of

un

ce

rta

inty

86

XA

n u

nc

ert

ain

ty w

ith

in y

ou

r fa

ith

.

Nu

mb

er

Bo

rn b

efo

re

19

47

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

47

an

d

19

64

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

65

an

d

19

82

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

82

an

d

19

94

Re

sp

on

se

Te

xt

Ho

w w

ou

ld y

ou

de

sc

rib

e d

ou

bt?

Appendices

260

87

Xd

ou

bt

is b

as

ed

in

fe

ar,

fe

ar

of

the

un

kn

ow

n,

fea

r o

f b

ein

g u

na

ble

to

ac

co

mp

lis

h

so

me

thin

g,

fea

r o

f fa

ilu

re.

Do

ub

t is

co

mb

ati

ve

to

fa

ith

, a

nd

wh

ere

it

is p

res

en

t it

ne

ed

s

to b

e a

dd

res

se

d s

o a

gre

ate

r s

tre

ng

the

nin

g o

f fa

ith

an

d h

op

e c

an

oc

cu

r.

95

Xth

e i

na

bil

ity

to

re

co

nc

ile

th

at

so

me

thin

g i

s r

igh

t/tr

ue

99

XB

ein

g u

ns

ure

- le

ad

ing

to

dis

be

lie

f

10

8X

As

qu

es

tio

nin

g,

an

d m

om

en

ts o

f w

ea

kn

es

s i

n f

ait

h.

11

4X

fee

lin

gs

of

be

ing

ov

erw

he

lme

d a

nd

un

su

re o

f th

e a

ns

we

rs

11

5X

Be

ing

un

su

re o

f G

od

's p

lan

s

11

7X

So

me

thin

g o

f th

e w

orl

d.

12

2X

I th

ink

th

at

do

ub

t is

a n

atu

ral

pa

rt o

f fa

ith

, a

nd

th

at

the

qu

es

tio

ns

ra

ise

d b

y d

ou

bt

ea

d

to a

de

ep

er

un

de

rsta

nd

ing

of

Go

d.

I w

ou

ld s

ay

th

at

fea

r, n

ot

do

ub

t, i

s t

he

op

po

sit

e o

f

fait

h.

12

5X

Do

ub

t is

an

im

po

rta

nt

as

pe

ct

of

fait

h,

in f

ac

t, I

wo

uld

sa

y a

de

gre

e o

f d

ou

bt

is

req

uir

ed

to

ha

ve

fa

ith

. D

ou

bt

is n

ot

be

ing

su

re a

bo

ut

so

me

thin

g.

12

8X

Un

ce

rta

inty

of

wh

at

oth

ers

ha

ve

ce

rta

inty

on

.

12

9X

Do

ub

t is

qu

es

tio

nin

g s

om

eth

ing

or

so

me

on

e

Nu

mb

er

Bo

rn b

efo

re

19

47

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

47

an

d

19

64

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

65

an

d

19

82

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

82

an

d

19

94

Re

sp

on

se

Te

xt

Ho

w w

ou

ld y

ou

de

sc

rib

e d

ou

bt?

Appendices

261

Nu

mb

er

Bo

rn

be

fore

19

47

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

47

an

d

19

64

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

65

an

d

19

82

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

82

an

d

19

94

Re

sp

on

se

Te

xt

11

XI

rea

lly

do

no

t k

no

w.

He

all

ow

s u

s t

o l

ea

rn f

rom

ex

pe

rie

nc

es

of

life

. H

e w

an

ts u

s t

o b

e l

ov

ing

an

d p

ow

erf

ul

sp

iro

tua

lly

19

XH

e h

as

ch

os

en

to

op

era

te t

ha

t w

ay

( fr

ee

wil

l e

tc)

23

XT

rag

ed

ies

are

no

t a

ll c

om

ple

tely

ne

ga

tiv

e

28

XG

od

's l

ov

e a

nd

po

we

r is

sp

irit

ua

l.

31

XA

fu

nd

am

en

tali

st

vie

w,

no

t re

lev

an

t

34

XI

do

n't

kn

ow

37

XW

e a

re f

ree

to

ch

oo

se

an

d t

he

re a

re c

on

se

qu

en

ce

s -

57

XH

e a

llo

ws

hu

ma

ns

to

ac

ce

pt

the

co

ns

eq

ue

nc

es

of

the

ir f

ree

wil

l --

bu

t in

Ch

ris

t is

th

ere

to

su

pp

ort

an

d c

om

fort

if

we

wa

nt

him

to

be

.

89

XB

ec

au

se

we

ha

ve

fre

e w

ill

an

d o

fte

n t

rag

ed

ies

ca

n b

e b

ec

au

se

of

ch

oic

es

we

ha

ve

ma

de

.

99

XI

wis

h I

kn

ew

...

10

1X

Go

d h

as

his

pu

rpo

se

in

do

ing

ev

ery

thin

g.

11

2X

We

do

no

t u

nd

ers

tan

d t

hin

gs

th

at

ha

pp

en

bu

t o

fte

n a

fte

r a

tra

ge

dy

we

be

co

me

str

on

ge

r a

nd

ou

r

fait

h t

ho

ug

h t

es

ted

be

co

me

s s

tro

ng

er.

Go

d p

ut

na

tura

l la

ws

in

to p

lac

e a

nd

do

es

no

t o

fte

n

inte

rfe

re.

1X

Go

od

qu

es

tio

n.

Wh

y w

he

n H

e h

as

th

e a

bil

ity

to

cu

re p

eo

ple

, H

e d

oe

sn

't?

He

ju

st

lets

th

em

die

.

Us

ua

lly

th

ey

are

th

e s

we

ete

st,

kin

de

st

pe

op

le -

all

th

e w

ick

ed

on

es

co

nti

nu

e l

ivin

g.

3X

I h

av

e t

o b

eli

ev

e t

ha

t th

is i

s a

na

tura

l w

orl

d w

ith

na

tura

l la

ws

th

at

co

ntr

ol

it,

an

d t

rag

ed

ies

so

me

tim

es

oc

cu

r b

ec

au

se

of

tha

t. I

f th

is i

s a

fa

lle

n w

orl

d s

ee

kin

g r

ed

em

pti

on

th

at

ma

ke

s

se

ns

e.W

e c

an

no

t u

nd

ers

tan

d G

od

, h

ow

ev

er

mu

ch

we

wa

nt,

if

Go

d's

fo

cu

s i

s o

n t

he

sp

irit

ua

l

the

n t

he

ph

ys

ica

l d

oe

sn

't m

att

er

as

mu

ch

, b

ut

the

n w

hy

cre

ate

th

e p

hy

sic

al?

4X

On

e t

hin

g G

od

ca

nn

ot

do

is

ch

an

ge

his

na

ture

an

d h

e i

s b

ou

nd

to

all

ow

hu

ma

nk

ind

an

d h

is

cre

ati

on

to

ac

t li

ke

it

sh

ou

ld o

r c

ou

ld.

5X

In H

is s

ov

ere

ign

ty,

Go

d h

as

giv

en

ma

nk

ind

th

e r

es

po

ns

ibil

ity

as

ca

reta

ke

rs o

f h

is c

rea

tio

n,

an

d

tho

ug

h H

e c

ou

ld p

rev

en

t th

e c

on

se

qu

en

ce

s o

f o

ur

de

cis

ion

s,

He

wil

l n

ot

rule

ov

er

tha

t w

hic

h w

e

(in

div

idu

all

y a

nd

co

rpo

rate

ly)

ha

ve

no

t g

ive

n n

ot

giv

en

ba

ck

to

Him

.

6X

be

ca

us

e h

e i

s p

erf

ec

tly

lo

vin

g a

nd

po

we

rfu

l.

9X

be

ca

us

e t

he

re i

s o

fte

n a

gre

ate

r p

urp

os

e t

ha

t o

nly

He

ca

n s

ee

10

XG

od

is

no

t a

dic

tato

r w

e h

av

e f

ree

wil

l G

od

is

th

ere

to

su

pp

ort

wit

hin

th

e t

rag

ed

y i

f w

e a

sk

fo

r it

14

XH

e h

as

giv

en

us

fre

e w

ill.

He

do

es

no

t c

on

tro

l u

s w

ith

pu

pp

et

str

ing

s.

Go

d's

ro

le i

s t

o s

tan

d w

ith

us

in

tra

ge

dy

.

16

XIt

is

a g

oo

d q

ue

sti

on

, b

ut

I th

ink

we

ca

n l

ea

rn f

rom

th

es

e a

nd

Go

d r

ev

ea

ls H

ims

elf

in

th

em

thro

ug

h c

ou

rag

e a

nd

ca

re

If G

od

is

pe

rfe

ctl

y l

ov

ing

an

d p

ow

erf

ul,

wh

y d

oe

s G

od

no

t p

rev

en

t tr

ag

ed

ies

?

My

ag

e b

rac

ke

t is

Figu

re 4

4. G

od

no

t p

reve

nti

ng

suff

eri

ng

– ge

ner

atio

nal

gro

up

ings

Appendices

262

17

XW

e w

ill

ne

ve

r re

all

y u

nd

ers

tan

d t

he

he

art

an

d m

ind

of

Go

d b

ut

he

ha

s g

ive

n u

s f

ree

wil

l a

nd

in

tha

t th

ere

are

tim

es

th

at

tra

ge

die

s w

ill

oc

cu

r. G

od

is

lo

vin

g a

nd

he

is

po

we

rfu

l. H

e n

ev

er

pro

mis

ed

th

at

life

wit

h h

im w

ou

ld b

e w

ith

ou

t s

uff

eri

ng

, in

fa

ct

in s

cri

ptu

re i

t s

ay

s t

ha

t s

uff

eri

ng

wil

l b

e a

pa

rt o

f o

ur

wa

lk w

ith

him

. G

od

sh

ow

s h

is l

ive

in

be

ing

pre

se

nt

wit

h u

s i

n t

he

fa

ce

of

su

ffe

rin

g.

I b

eli

ev

e t

ha

t G

od

su

ffe

rs w

ith

us

.

21

XT

his

is

wh

ere

I t

hin

k "

Go

d w

atc

he

s f

rom

a d

ista

nc

e".

He

all

ow

s t

rag

ed

ies

to

ha

pp

en

an

d t

he

wo

rld

to

ru

n i

t's

co

urs

e.

22

Xfr

ee

wil

l

25

XW

e h

av

e f

ree

wil

l a

nd

to

ha

ve

ou

r li

ve

s p

lan

ne

d t

o e

ve

ry d

eta

il m

ak

es

lif

e p

oin

tle

ss

an

d h

op

e

red

un

da

nt.

26

Xh

e g

ive

s f

ree

wil

l a

nd

ch

oic

es

27

Xb

ec

au

se

th

ey

are

pa

rt o

f th

e g

row

th o

f H

is p

eo

ple

32

XI'

ll a

sk

him

wh

en

I m

ee

t h

im!

36

XB

ec

au

se

he

ga

ve

us

fre

e w

ill

wit

h m

os

t tr

ag

ed

ies

att

rib

uta

ble

to

ou

rse

lve

s.

Lif

e o

n e

art

h i

s n

ot

de

sig

ne

d t

o b

e l

ike

He

av

en

.

38

XH

e d

oe

sn

't a

lte

r o

ur

fre

e w

ill.

39

XB

ec

au

se

Ad

am

fa

ile

d t

o k

ee

p G

od

's l

aw

s t

o m

ain

tain

a p

erf

ec

t c

rea

tio

n

40

XS

om

eti

me

s t

hin

gs

ha

pp

en

th

at

are

pa

rt o

f a

gre

ate

r p

lan

th

at

we

ca

n't

se

e.

Tra

ge

dy

mu

st

fit

into

tha

t p

lan

so

me

wh

ere

.

43

XS

om

e t

rag

ed

ies

are

by

na

tura

l c

au

se

s,

oth

er

by

hu

ma

n c

au

se

s.

Go

d d

oe

s n

ot

inte

rfe

re i

n h

is

cre

ati

on

44

XB

ec

au

se

th

e r

ain

fa

lls

on

th

e j

us

t a

nd

un

jus

t.

45

XG

od

ha

s a

pu

rpo

se

fo

r e

ve

ryth

ing

46

Xh

e c

ho

se

to

giv

e m

an

fre

e w

ill

an

d t

rad

eg

ies

so

me

tim

es

co

me

fro

m t

his

- d

oe

sn

't m

ea

n t

ha

t h

e

do

es

n't

pu

t in

to p

lac

e p

eo

ple

or

a p

ers

on

t b

es

t h

elp

in

th

at

sit

ua

tio

n.

53

XH

e h

as

giv

en

us

th

e f

ree

do

m t

o e

xp

res

s o

ur

wa

y o

f li

fe a

nd

ch

oo

se

s w

he

n/i

f to

in

terv

en

e.

55

XH

e h

as

giv

en

hu

ma

nit

y f

ree

ch

oic

e a

nd

tra

de

die

s c

om

e a

s a

re

su

lt o

f th

is n

ot

alw

ay

s i

n t

he

imm

ed

iate

bu

t th

e l

on

g t

erm

re

su

lts

of

sin

in

ou

r w

orl

d

63

XP

erh

ap

s h

e d

oe

s s

om

eti

me

s p

rev

en

t tr

ag

ed

ies

bu

t o

fte

n t

rag

ed

ies

are

pa

rt o

f th

e n

atu

ral

ord

er

of

thin

gs

.

64

XG

od

do

es

; b

ut

no

t a

ll t

rag

ed

ies

.

Tra

ge

dy

is

a s

ub

jec

tiv

e t

erm

.

No

t a

ll "

tra

ge

die

s"

ca

n b

e p

rev

en

ted

.

70

XIt

is

no

t G

od

wh

o c

au

se

s t

rag

ed

ies

- i

t is

ma

n's

fre

e w

ill

an

d m

an

's d

ec

isio

ns

an

d a

cti

on

. G

od

all

ow

s m

an

to

ma

ke

de

cis

ion

s a

nd

to

be

re

sp

on

sib

le f

or

the

m.

Nu

mb

er

Bo

rn

be

fore

19

47

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

47

an

d

19

64

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

65

an

d

19

82

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

82

an

d

19

94

Re

sp

on

se

Te

xt

If G

od

is

pe

rfe

ctl

y l

ov

ing

an

d p

ow

erf

ul,

wh

y d

oe

s G

od

no

t p

rev

en

t tr

ag

ed

ies

?

My

ag

e b

rac

ke

t is

Appendices

263

73

XW

e l

ive

in

a f

all

en

wo

rld

wit

h c

au

se

an

d e

ffe

ct

iss

ue

s.

If h

e d

id p

rev

en

t tr

ag

ed

ies

th

en

Je

su

s

wo

uld

no

t h

av

e d

ied

on

th

e c

ros

s f

or

ou

r s

ins

. W

e m

us

t re

me

mb

er

tha

t b

igg

es

t tr

ag

ed

y i

n t

he

wo

rld

wa

s t

his

ev

en

t b

ut

the

gre

ate

st

vic

tory

wa

s 3

da

ys

la

ter.

If

Go

d p

rev

en

ted

tra

ge

die

s t

he

n

he

wo

uld

be

a l

iar.

Ma

ny

tim

es

in

te

lls

us

ab

ou

t tr

ibu

lati

on

th

at

ma

y c

om

e o

ur

wa

y a

nd

th

e

pu

rpo

se

fo

r it

. W

e c

an

no

t b

lam

e G

od

fo

r o

ur

sin

.

76

X:)

h

um

an

ity

ha

s m

ad

e o

ur

ch

oic

e a

nd

we

co

nti

nu

e l

ivin

g w

ith

th

e c

on

se

qu

en

ce

s.

Ev

en

so

, it

is

no

t in

ap

pro

pri

ate

th

at

we

po

nd

er

this

.

77

XIt

's p

art

of

hu

ma

n e

xis

ten

ce

.

82

XI

thin

k i

t's

re

late

d t

o a

lo

vin

g G

od

wh

o l

ov

es

us

so

mu

ch

th

at

he

wil

l n

ot

cro

ss

th

e t

hre

sh

old

of

ou

r w

ill,

so

we

ex

pe

rie

nc

e t

he

co

ns

eq

ue

nc

es

of

ou

r o

wn

sin

/ m

ista

ke

s o

r th

os

e o

f o

the

rs.

We

liv

e i

n a

bro

ke

n w

orl

d w

hic

h i

s w

ait

ing

fo

r th

at

tim

e w

he

n i

t is

re

sto

red

to

its

ori

gin

al

cre

ate

d

ord

er.

Wh

ile

we

an

d t

he

'w

orl

d'

wa

its

, w

e l

ive

a w

orl

d w

he

re b

ad

th

ing

s h

ap

pe

n t

o g

oo

d p

eo

ple

an

d w

he

re n

atu

re c

au

se

s t

rag

ed

ies

87

XW

e s

om

eti

me

s n

ee

d t

o e

xp

eri

en

ce

ho

w o

ur

ac

tio

ns

an

d c

ho

ice

s e

ffe

ct

no

t o

nly

ou

rse

lve

s b

ut

oth

ers

an

d t

he

wo

rld

we

liv

e i

n a

s w

ell

.

90

XN

ot

rea

lly

su

re.

So

me

tim

es

fo

r u

s t

o g

row

in

ou

r fa

ith

an

d t

rus

t.

93

XI

do

n't

kn

ow

fu

lly

. M

ay

be

, h

e h

as

so

me

thin

g e

ve

n b

ett

er

in m

ind

fo

r u

s.

Wh

o i

s t

o s

ay

we

ca

n

ev

en

sta

rt t

o i

ma

gin

e t

he

big

pic

ture

.

94

XS

om

eti

me

s t

he

se

are

th

e r

es

ult

of

ou

r fa

ilu

res

an

d w

e n

ee

d t

o l

ea

rn f

rom

th

es

e

95

XG

od

ga

ve

ma

nk

ind

fre

e w

ill

an

d m

an

kin

d w

ere

dis

ob

ed

ien

t.

96

XM

an

y t

ime

s I

ha

ve

as

ke

d t

his

qu

es

tio

n,

es

pe

cia

lly

wh

en

it

co

me

s t

o c

hil

dre

n -

I c

an

't r

ea

lly

an

sw

er

this

qu

es

tio

n a

s I

am

sti

ll s

ea

rch

ing

on

th

is p

oin

t.

10

0X

Be

ca

us

e w

e a

re n

ot

pu

pp

ets

on

a s

trin

g.

Go

d g

ive

s u

s f

ree

wil

l. T

rag

ed

ies

ca

n b

e a

s t

ime

of

pe

rso

na

l g

row

th,

for

yo

urs

elf

an

d o

the

rs w

ho

ma

y s

tep

in

to s

up

po

rt o

r h

elp

in

so

me

wa

y.

11

4X

Ma

n i

s r

es

po

ns

ible

fo

r H

is/H

er

ow

n a

cti

on

s a

nd

an

d h

as

th

e g

ift

of

a f

ree

wil

l.

2X

Go

od

qu

es

tio

n!

7X

tha

ts n

ot

Go

d's

ro

le

8X

He

is

no

t a

"h

eli

co

pte

r p

are

nt"

, h

ov

eri

ng

ab

ov

e t

o s

top

ev

ery

ba

d t

hin

g t

ha

t c

an

oc

cu

r to

his

ch

ild

ren

.

12

XP

erh

ap

s G

od

is

no

t p

erf

ec

tly

lo

vin

g a

nd

po

we

rfu

l?

13

XH

e h

as

sh

ow

n a

nd

co

mm

an

de

d u

s t

o l

ov

e a

nd

se

rve

ea

ch

oth

er

an

d w

e h

av

e e

ve

ryth

ing

we

ne

ed

to

pre

ve

nt

the

se

th

ing

s h

ap

pe

nin

g -

we

are

ju

st

ba

d s

tew

ard

s o

f H

is g

ifts

15

XI

do

n't

ha

ve

an

an

sw

er

to t

his

qu

es

tio

n t

ha

t is

en

tire

ly h

elp

ful.

18

XI

do

n't

kn

ow

. I

wis

h I

co

uld

se

e t

hin

gs

fro

m G

od

's p

ers

pe

cti

ve

20

XB

ec

au

se

th

ey

ca

n b

e u

se

d t

o t

ea

ch

an

d g

row

pe

op

le.

Nu

mb

er

Bo

rn

be

fore

19

47

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

47

an

d

19

64

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

65

an

d

19

82

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

82

an

d

19

94

Re

sp

on

se

Te

xt

If G

od

is

pe

rfe

ctl

y l

ov

ing

an

d p

ow

erf

ul,

wh

y d

oe

s G

od

no

t p

rev

en

t tr

ag

ed

ies

?

My

ag

e b

rac

ke

t is

Appendices

264

29

Xh

e d

ied

fo

r o

ur

sin

s,

so

we

ha

ve

hu

rt g

od

- h

e t

ea

ch

es

us

wh

en

tra

ge

die

s o

cc

ur,

he

bri

ng

s u

s

clo

se

r to

him

30

XT

his

is

on

e o

f th

os

e a

rea

s w

he

re I

ne

ed

to

tru

st

tha

t G

od

is

so

ve

reig

n a

nd

all

wis

e a

nd

alt

ho

ug

h I

do

n't

un

de

rsta

nd

co

mp

lete

ly t

ha

t H

e d

oe

sn

't p

rev

en

t a

ll t

rag

ed

ies

- I

ha

ve

to

tru

st

in

His

un

ch

an

gin

g c

ha

rac

ter.

T

he

re a

re h

ow

ev

er

ma

ny

, m

an

y t

ime

s w

he

n I

am

su

re G

od

ha

s

pre

ve

nte

d t

rag

ed

ies

fro

m h

ap

pe

nin

g.

So

me

tim

es

ou

r li

ve

s a

re s

o d

isc

on

ne

cte

d f

rom

Go

d t

ha

t

it t

ak

es

tra

ge

die

s f

or

us

to

lo

ok

to

Him

fo

r h

elp

, c

om

fort

, s

tre

ng

th.

33

Xb

ec

au

se

he

ch

oo

se

s n

ot

to,

for

rea

so

ns

we

ca

nn

ot

fath

om

.

35

XM

y t

ho

ug

hts

is

th

es

e n

ee

d t

o h

ap

pe

n f

or

Go

d t

o k

ee

p H

is W

orl

d a

nd

Pe

op

le i

n B

ala

nc

e

41

Xe

ith

er

he

no

t re

al,

or

ha

s n

o a

uth

ori

ty

48

XIf

Go

d p

rev

en

ted

tra

ge

die

s t

he

n w

e w

ou

ld n

ev

er

lea

rn,

gro

w o

r m

ov

e f

orw

ard

pro

pe

rly

. W

e

wo

uld

als

o n

ot

kn

ow

ho

w t

o d

ea

l w

ith

an

yth

ing

an

d w

ou

ld b

e w

ea

k h

um

an

s.

Th

e f

ac

t th

at

tra

ge

die

s o

cc

ur

me

an

s t

ha

t li

fe c

an

be

ha

rd a

t ti

me

s b

ut

we

ha

ve

Go

d h

elp

ing

us

to

ge

t th

rou

gh

all

th

e s

uff

eri

ng

.

49

XB

ec

au

se

Go

d c

an

't.

I d

on

't s

ee

Go

d a

s s

om

e s

ort

of

fig

ure

he

ad

on

a t

hro

ne

wh

o i

s a

ll p

ow

erf

ul

in t

he

se

ns

e o

f h

av

ing

ab

so

lute

co

ntr

ol.

I s

ee

Go

d a

s m

ore

in

tim

ate

ly c

on

ne

cte

d w

ith

cre

ati

on

,

an

d I

th

ink

Go

d g

roa

ns

wh

en

cre

ati

on

gro

an

s a

nd

Go

d c

ele

bra

tes

wit

h c

rea

tio

n w

he

n t

hin

gs

wo

rk t

og

eth

er

we

ll.

I th

ink

Go

d r

eli

es

on

us

to

do

th

e b

es

t w

e c

an

to

liv

e i

n w

ay

s t

ha

t a

ffir

m

cre

ati

on

- b

oth

in

ou

r re

lati

on

sh

ips

wit

h o

the

rs a

nd

wit

h t

he

wo

rld

.

51

XIt

is

be

ca

us

e o

f H

is l

ov

e t

ha

t H

e d

oe

sn

't.

As

pa

ren

ts,

we

do

n't

pre

ve

nt

thin

gs

ha

pp

en

ing

to

ou

r

ch

ild

ren

, a

s e

xp

eri

en

ce

is

im

po

rta

nt

for

the

ir g

row

ing

ma

turi

ty.

It i

s j

us

t a

s i

mp

ort

an

t fo

r o

ur

ow

n

sp

irit

ua

l m

atu

rity

. H

e n

ev

er

sa

id i

t w

ou

ld b

e a

n e

as

y r

oa

d..

.

52

XH

e a

lso

all

ow

fre

e w

ill

& s

elf

ch

oic

e.

56

XI

be

lie

ve

Go

d i

s p

res

en

t b

ut

no

n-i

nte

rve

nti

on

ist.

59

Xb

ec

au

se

we

are

no

t p

up

pe

ts

hu

ma

ns

su

ffe

r b

ec

au

se

of

ou

r o

wn

ca

rele

ss

ac

tio

ns

61

XIf

we

cla

im t

o b

e C

hri

sti

an

s,

foll

ow

ers

of

Ch

ris

t, w

hy

do

so

me

of

us

co

mm

it a

ct

of

atr

oc

itie

s?

We

ha

ve

fre

e w

ill,

an

d e

ve

n t

ho

ug

h G

od

lo

vin

g a

nd

po

we

rfu

l, w

e h

av

e t

o c

ho

os

e t

o b

e i

n

pa

rtn

ers

hip

wit

h H

im t

o p

rev

en

t tr

ag

ed

ies

.

65

XG

od

ch

oo

se

s s

uff

eri

ng

fo

r th

e s

ak

e o

f o

the

rs a

s a

me

an

s t

o o

ve

rco

me

su

ffe

rin

g a

nd

tra

ge

dy

.

Go

d e

nte

rs t

rag

ed

y t

o e

ng

ag

e t

rag

ed

y.

67

XI

be

lie

ve

He

do

es

, w

e d

on

't s

ee

wh

at

he

pre

ve

nts

69

XIt

's t

he

co

st

of

fre

e w

ill.

We

ca

n't

ex

pe

ct

Go

d t

o a

llo

w u

s t

o m

ak

e o

ur

ow

n c

ho

ice

s a

nd

no

t

ac

ce

pt

the

co

ns

eq

ue

nc

es

wh

en

pe

op

le c

ho

os

e t

o w

ork

in

op

po

sit

ion

to

Go

d.

71

XC

on

se

qu

en

ce

s o

f c

ho

ice

s

Nu

mb

er

Bo

rn

be

fore

19

47

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

47

an

d

19

64

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

65

an

d

19

82

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

82

an

d

19

94

Re

sp

on

se

Te

xt

If G

od

is

pe

rfe

ctl

y l

ov

ing

an

d p

ow

erf

ul,

wh

y d

oe

s G

od

no

t p

rev

en

t tr

ag

ed

ies

?

My

ag

e b

rac

ke

t is

Appendices

265

72

XG

od

is

pe

rfe

ct

an

d l

ov

ing

, h

ow

ev

er

tra

ge

die

s h

ap

pe

n b

ec

au

se

of

hu

ma

n s

in a

nd

is

th

ere

fore

a

co

ns

eq

ue

nc

e o

f s

in.

74

XG

oo

d q

ue

sti

on

! O

fte

n l

ea

ds

me

to

co

nte

mp

late

th

e e

xte

nt

to w

hic

h G

od

in

terv

en

es

.

75

XI

do

n't

kn

ow

.

80

Xfr

ee

wil

l

81

XB

ec

au

se

we

ma

ke

ou

r o

wn

ch

oic

es

th

at

ma

y o

r m

ay

no

t fo

llo

w G

od

s p

lan

fr

ou

r li

ve

s

83

XM

y p

ers

on

al

op

inio

n i

s t

ha

t th

e w

orl

d w

as

da

ma

ge

d w

he

n m

an

fe

ll f

rom

Go

d's

gra

ce

, a

nd

th

e

fla

ws

in

th

e w

orl

d's

sy

ste

m i

s a

re

su

lt o

f th

e o

utw

ork

ing

of

tha

t fa

ll

84

XB

ec

au

se

we

liv

e i

n a

fa

lle

n w

orl

d.

85

XA

s p

eo

ple

tu

rn a

wa

y a

nd

le

ad

th

em

se

lve

s t

o w

ron

g w

ay

s

88

XH

e s

till

all

ow

s u

s t

o m

ak

e b

ad

ch

oic

es

, if

th

at

res

ult

s i

n s

uff

eri

ng

or

tra

ge

dy

th

en

th

at

is t

he

n

ch

ara

cte

r b

uil

din

g

91

XS

om

e t

ime

s H

e l

et

it h

ap

pe

ns

to

us

to

te

ac

h u

s s

om

e t

ime

,to

in

cre

as

e o

ur

fait

h.

97

XIt

all

c

om

es

ba

ck

to

th

e c

ho

ice

th

at

we

(G

ov

ern

me

nt,

Fri

en

ds

an

d o

urs

elv

es

) m

ak

e.

10

3X

Be

ca

us

e g

od

wil

l n

ot

ov

err

ide

my

fre

e w

ill,

or

the

fre

e w

ill

of

oth

ers

if

the

y c

ho

os

e t

o s

in a

ga

ins

t

oth

ers

.

10

5X

Go

d i

s e

ith

er

pri

ma

rily

lo

ve

or

pri

ma

rily

so

ve

reig

n.

Th

is q

ue

sti

on

is

in

th

e c

on

tex

t o

f th

e l

att

er.

Go

d i

s l

ov

e -

go

d s

us

pe

nd

s s

ov

ere

ign

ty i

n d

efe

ren

ce

to

fre

ew

ill

- h

um

an

s m

ak

e b

ad

de

cis

ion

s -

pe

op

le s

uff

er.

Ob

vio

us

ly t

he

re a

re e

xc

ep

tio

ns

to

th

is r

ati

on

al

bu

t in

re

ga

rds

to

in

terv

en

tio

n?

We

are

at

wa

r -

we

win

so

me

we

lo

se

so

me

...

10

6X

wh

ile

we

oft

en

do

n't

se

e i

t a

t th

e t

ime

, tr

ag

ed

y i

s a

n i

mp

ort

an

t p

art

of

the

hu

ma

n e

xp

eri

en

ce

.

Th

ere

are

tim

es

in

my

ow

n l

ife

wh

ere

I'v

e b

ee

n t

hro

ug

h g

rea

t tr

ag

ed

y b

ut

ha

ve

be

en

ab

le t

o

loo

k b

ac

k y

ea

rs l

ate

r a

nd

se

en

ho

w i

t s

ha

pe

s t

he

pe

rso

n I

am

. I'

m a

fa

n o

f th

e q

uo

te t

ha

t s

ay

s,

'so

me

tim

es

to

pa

int

be

au

tifu

l p

ictu

res

, y

ou

ha

ve

to

us

e d

ark

co

lou

rs.'

10

7X

Go

d h

as

no

t m

ad

e u

s p

up

pe

ts a

nd

th

ere

is

sin

in

th

e w

orl

d.

We

ha

ve

fre

ew

ill,

so

me

of

wh

ich

me

an

s t

ha

t s

in w

ill

ma

ke

us

su

ffe

r. I

tru

st

Go

d k

no

ws

wh

y u

nfa

ir t

rag

ed

ies

oc

cu

r in

th

is w

orl

d,

an

d k

no

w h

e p

rov

ide

s s

tre

ng

th a

nd

lo

ve

to

co

pe

. I

als

o k

no

w t

ha

t w

e a

re l

ivin

g i

n a

pe

rio

d o

f

gra

ce

, in

wh

ich

He

wa

nts

us

to

ch

os

e H

im,

bu

t th

at

this

wil

l n

ot

go

on

fo

r e

ve

r. I

lo

ok

fo

rwa

rd t

o

no

t s

uff

eri

ng

in

He

av

en

.

10

9X

He

giv

es

pe

op

le f

ree

wil

l a

nd

do

es

n't

im

po

se

him

se

lf o

n p

eo

ple

11

1X

Hu

ma

nit

y's

fre

e w

ill.

24

XT

o p

rev

en

t tr

ag

ed

ies

He

wo

uld

ha

ve

to

ta

ke

aw

ay

ou

r fr

ee

wil

l.

42

XB

ec

au

se

th

e L

OR

D i

s G

od

; G

od

do

es

no

t re

vo

lve

aro

un

d w

ha

t I

wa

nt

at

this

tin

y m

om

en

t.

Oh

, th

e d

ep

th o

f th

e r

ich

es

of

the

wis

do

m a

nd

kn

ow

led

ge

of

Go

d!

Ho

w u

ns

ea

rch

ab

le h

is

jud

gm

en

ts,

an

d h

is p

ath

s b

ey

on

d t

rac

ing

ou

t!

Nu

mb

er

Bo

rn

be

fore

19

47

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

47

an

d

19

64

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

65

an

d

19

82

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

82

an

d

19

94

Re

sp

on

se

Te

xt

If G

od

is

pe

rfe

ctl

y l

ov

ing

an

d p

ow

erf

ul,

wh

y d

oe

s G

od

no

t p

rev

en

t tr

ag

ed

ies

?

My

ag

e b

rac

ke

t is

Appendices

266

47

XIt

th

ink

it

co

me

s b

ac

k t

o G

od

giv

ing

us

th

e f

ree

do

m o

f c

ho

ice

- a

nd

ou

r c

ho

ice

s b

rin

gs

ab

ou

t th

e

tra

dg

ed

ies

. I

oft

en

th

ink

Go

d h

as

th

e p

ow

er

to s

top

tra

de

gie

s b

ut

he

is

giv

ing

us

th

e o

wn

us

or

res

po

sib

lity

to

ta

ke

ca

re o

r c

lea

n u

p o

ur

ow

n m

es

se

s a

nd

ho

pe

full

y l

ea

rn f

rom

th

em

.

50

XB

ec

au

se

we

co

ns

tan

tly

te

ll G

od

we

kn

ow

be

st

an

d h

e i

s a

ge

ntl

em

an

, n

ot

forc

ein

g h

ims

elf

on

us

. If

we

wa

nt

to g

o o

ur

ow

n w

ay

wit

ho

ut

Go

d,

the

n w

e r

ea

p w

ha

t w

e s

ow

.

54

XI

do

n't

re

all

y k

no

w.

Hu

ma

n t

rag

ed

ies

- a

sc

ho

ol

sh

oo

tin

g,

a h

om

ele

ss

ch

ild

fre

ez

ing

to

de

ath

,

se

xu

al

tra

fic

kin

g,

etc

are

oft

en

re

lia

nt

on

th

e i

nd

ivid

ua

l's

fre

ed

om

of

wil

l to

wa

rds

Go

d,

an

d

the

refo

re h

ow

he

tre

ats

his

fe

llo

w m

an

- a

fa

cu

lty

wh

ich

Go

d d

oe

s n

ot

inte

rfe

re w

ith

.

An

d t

he

qu

es

tio

n i

tse

lf i

s u

nfa

ir-

to a

sk

it

imp

lie

s G

od

do

es

no

t p

rev

en

t a

ll t

rag

ed

ies

, b

ut

we

ha

ve

no

kn

ow

led

ge

of

the

on

es

th

at

He

do

es

. It

's t

he

ha

rde

st

les

so

n i

n f

ait

h-

tru

sti

ng

th

rou

gh

the

do

ub

t th

at

Go

d s

till

ca

res

, a

nd

th

at

wh

ile

he

ma

y p

erm

it s

uff

eri

ng

, h

is l

ac

k o

f p

rev

en

tio

n

do

es

n't

im

ply

a l

ac

k o

f lo

ve

.

58

Xb

ec

au

se

we

ha

ve

fre

e w

ill

an

d o

fte

n m

ak

e o

ur

ow

n t

rag

ed

ies

by

us

ing

th

at

fre

e w

ill

60

Xi'

m n

ot

su

re t

he

re's

re

all

y a

n a

ns

we

r to

th

at.

..

62

XI

be

lie

ve

th

at

sin

na

ture

pla

ys

a p

art

in

tra

dg

ed

ies

. T

ha

t b

ec

au

se

hu

ma

ns

are

fla

we

d a

nd

ad

am

an

d e

ve

ate

th

e f

ruit

wh

en

th

ey

we

re t

old

no

t to

o,

the

wo

rld

is

n't

pe

rfe

ct

an

d p

eo

ple

are

n't

pe

rfe

ct.

Go

d l

ov

es

us

bu

t I

be

lie

ve

he

all

ow

s t

hin

gs

to

ha

pp

en

be

ca

us

ed

we

are

fla

we

d a

nd

tec

hin

ica

lly

it'

s h

um

an

s f

au

lt t

ha

t w

e a

re f

law

ed

an

d t

he

wo

rld

is

no

w f

law

ed

, s

o h

e l

ets

th

ing

s

ha

pp

en

as

th

ey

ha

pp

en

....

if

an

y o

f th

is m

ak

es

an

y s

en

se

!

66

Xit

's o

nly

my

ow

n a

ns

we

r, b

ut

I d

on

't b

eli

ev

e i

n a

n i

nte

rve

nti

on

ist

go

d.

An

d i

t w

ou

ld h

av

e t

o

inv

olv

e a

fa

ir d

eg

ree

of

un

pa

lett

ab

le f

av

ou

riti

sm

68

XB

ec

au

se

we

are

all

sin

ne

rs,

an

d w

e a

re n

ot

pe

rfe

ct.

Go

d d

oe

sn

't h

av

e c

on

tro

l o

ve

r e

ve

ryo

ne

78

XB

ec

au

se

Go

d g

av

e u

s f

ree

wil

l to

fo

llo

w h

im,

to b

e g

uid

ed

by

him

an

d e

ve

n w

he

n w

e d

o w

e a

re

no

t in

co

ntr

ol

of

an

oth

er

pe

rso

ns

ac

tio

ns

, o

nly

ou

r o

wn

.

79

X-

Th

ere

wa

s t

he

fa

ll,

we

ha

ve

fre

e w

ill.

- P

eo

ple

ma

ke

de

cis

ion

s t

ha

t h

urt

oth

ers

.

- T

he

cre

ati

on

is

gro

an

ing

fo

r s

alv

ati

on

86

Xg

oo

d q

ue

sti

on

92

XH

e i

s l

ov

ing

in

th

at

he

als

o g

ive

s u

s f

ree

ch

oic

e (

i fe

el

this

an

sw

er

is i

ns

uff

icie

nt!

)

98

XB

ec

au

se

He

ga

ve

us

po

we

r a

nd

we

ga

ve

it

to t

he

de

vil

(th

e o

rig

ina

l s

in),

an

d b

ec

au

se

so

me

tim

es

th

e o

utc

om

e i

s g

rea

ter

tha

n t

he

su

ffe

rin

g.

So

me

tim

es

th

ere

's s

om

eth

ing

to

le

arn

an

d s

om

eti

me

s w

e n

ee

d t

o b

e m

ad

e m

ore

vu

lne

rab

le.

Als

o,

Go

d p

rov

ide

s a

sm

att

eri

ng

or

life

ex

pe

rie

nc

es

so

th

at

ea

ch

ca

n h

elp

th

e o

the

r.

10

2X

So

me

tim

es

th

ing

s n

ee

d t

o h

ap

pe

n f

or

Go

ds

wid

er

pla

n

Nu

mb

er

Bo

rn

be

fore

19

47

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

47

an

d

19

64

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

65

an

d

19

82

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

82

an

d

19

94

Re

sp

on

se

Te

xt

If G

od

is

pe

rfe

ctl

y l

ov

ing

an

d p

ow

erf

ul,

wh

y d

oe

s G

od

no

t p

rev

en

t tr

ag

ed

ies

?

My

ag

e b

rac

ke

t is

Appendices

267

10

4X

Fre

e w

ill

10

8X

Be

ca

us

e G

od

re

sp

ec

ts o

ur

fre

e w

ill

an

d w

on

't i

mp

os

e H

ims

elf

on

us

. If

He

pre

ve

nte

d t

rag

ed

y

ca

us

ed

by

sin

, H

e w

ou

ld p

rev

en

t u

s f

rom

ac

tin

g.

Go

d i

s s

o s

ov

ere

ign

He

ca

n g

ive

up

his

co

ntr

ol.

11

0X

Fre

e w

ill!

Plu

s,

so

me

tim

es

we

be

co

me

so

ha

rde

ne

d t

ha

t tr

ag

ed

ies

off

er

us

an

op

po

rtu

nit

y t

o

dis

pla

y G

od

's l

ov

e a

nd

tru

e K

ing

do

m v

alu

es

11

3X

I b

eli

ev

e i

t's

a d

isp

lay

of

his

po

we

r a

nd

so

ve

reig

nty

.

Nu

mb

er

Bo

rn

be

fore

19

47

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

47

an

d

19

64

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

65

an

d

19

82

Bo

rn

be

twe

en

19

82

an

d

19

94

Re

sp

on

se

Te

xt

If G

od

is

pe

rfe

ctl

y l

ov

ing

an

d p

ow

erf

ul,

wh

y d

oe

s G

od

no

t p

rev

en

t tr

ag

ed

ies

?

My

ag

e b

rac

ke

t is

Suffering In Contemporary Wesleyan Theological Perspective ...€¦ · Suffering In Contemporary...

Documents

Transcript of Suffering In Contemporary Wesleyan Theological Perspective ...€¦ · Suffering In Contemporary...