AJSAHistoryVol1Iss1 March 2016

representatives and were signatories to the committee’s unanimously-adopted Manifesto.34 Both
officers had had war-time military experience. Knott had worked with British troops in Egypt and
the Middle East during the war, while Gunn had been one of the first four Salvation Army
territorial chaplains appointed in 1913 and had served as a chaplain in training camps in New
Zealand, although not overseas.

The Peace Committee’s Manifesto denounced war as an instrument of policy, and urged
support for the League of Nations and disarmament as a means of ensuring peace. The next step
was to ask each of the churches concerned to approve the document and officially endorse it. For
other churches this would involve referring it to church courts for debate but The Salvation Army
had no such bodies so we do not know how far this initiative was of interest to Salvationists in
general. Presumably it was not even considered necessary that they should be informed, as the War
Cry did not appear to mention either conference or manifesto.

We might wonder about the reasons for the Army’s involvement in Gibb’s committee. It
might have been in order to claim and demonstrate solidarity with the other denominations, or in
order to secure “a place at the table”. The Army had some ground to make up here, having tended
to stand aloof in the past.35 Again, it is possible that the Army’s then leadership had a particular
commitment to the cause of peace. During the war Herbert Booth had launched his non-
denominational “Christian Confederacy”, one of whose tenets was pacifism, a cause the Booth
family espoused even though it was never made a tenet of Salvationist belief.36 The “Christian
Confederacy” received no official Salvation Army encouragement – rather the reverse, since
Herbert was officially viewed as a renegade – but David Gunn had become an officer when
Australasia had been under Herbert Booth’s command (1896-1901) so there may have been some
personal loyalty involved, even though Booth had died in 1926. Herbert Booth did retain the
loyalty of many officers, both former and current, although the territorial commander in 1927,
James Hay, would not have been among them.37 When General Bramwell Booth addressed
meetings in Auckland in 1920, Herbert Booth was also in the city. Some Salvationists asked the
General if his brother could join him on the platform at one of the meetings but this appeal was
rejected. An empty chair was left as a silent protest.38

34 Evening Post, (Wellington, NZ, 6 June, 1927), 4.
35 Hodder, in his farewell brief in 1922 after eight years as Territorial Commander, indicated that he was suspicious of
the other churches, considered them jealous of the Army and to be working against it, so that he had as little as possible
to do with them! This was not an isolated opinion; in reply to a correspondent in 1925, the editor of The Officer stated
that although Regulations did not actually forbid officers to belong to local Free Church Councils in Great Britain,
Headquarters disapproved of such attendance as a distraction from the officer’s real work.
36 From Article X of the Covenant of the Confederacy: “… I will refuse to shed the blood of any fellow-man in defense
of any earthly realm.” Ford C. Ottman, Herbert Booth: A Biography, (New York, USA: Doubleday, Doran & Co,
1928), 340.
37 It was said to have been Hay who had Herbert Booth’s name chiselled off foundation stones laid in Australia during
his term of office – an almost Orwellian manifestation of obloquy or damnatio memoriae. (Impact, 1976, No.3, 10.)
38 Ottman, Booth, 366.

The Australasian Journal of Salvation Army History, Volume 1, Issue 1, 2016. Page 151

Herbert Booth.39

However, no connection between the Christian Confederacy and the 1927 Committee is
known. Both, along with support for local branches of the League of Nations Association, were
evidently reactions to the awfulness of “total war”. Those who had been involved in the war were
sickened by it. Former Salvation Army chaplain Brigadier Charles Walls MC was reported as
saying, in an Anzac Day address in Wellington, that;

[O]ur losses, the wreckage of war; the wastage, misery and suffering consequent upon war, all
urge the utter futility of war as a means to idealism. We have had eloquent testimony that
disease soon finds a host; that weakening of moral fibre is not unusual, and that undue strain
upon mentality cannot be well borne. War victims are all about silently, yet eloquently, calling
upon us who are in full possession of health and faculties to see the abhorrent misery which is
the result, and the calamity of such practices, and to live and move that history will never again
repeat itself in such a diabolical setting.

Once again, on this day, let it be reaffirmed that war is hell, that hostilities cannot be relied
upon to settle national differences. It is known to us now that the greatest sufferers are the
maimed in mind and limb, the widow and the fatherless. The futility of war as a means to the
settlement of differences has been demonstrated, and future years will but strengthen us in our
acceptance of that view.

Already, however, the signs were clear that the lesson had not been learned. Walls went on to
express dismay that;

a spirit of national distrust and insularity had been expressed by so many peoples that the
apparent harmonious relationships of battle days appeared as a cloak to be tossed aside on the
slightest misunderstanding. National self-interest was clamorous. Then while the Motherland
had shown commendable selflessness in forgiving war debts she had recently been spending
£200 a minute on armaments and 2½d in the same time for peace…40

39 Ottman, Booth, frontispience.
40 Evening Post, (Wellington, 26 April, 1932), 5.

The Australasian Journal of Salvation Army History, Volume 1, Issue 1, 2016. Page 152

Delegates to the Christian Pacifist Society's annual conference in 1940.
Note the Salvationist with cap seated in the second row on the left of the photograph.41

While the colonial governments within the Empire resisted involvement in, for example, the
ill-fated British attempts to stem Bolshevism in Russia after the war, this was because they knew
their soldiers were anxious to get home and the voters at home would not support further military
adventures. It did not necessarily represent a national turning to pacifism, despite those countries’
support for the League of Nations. Dr Gibb’s proposals did not lead to any further action and
international events in the following decade gradually eroded churches’ support for the strategies
proposed. Salvationists, like everyone else, were war-weary but most had not become pacifist in
consequence. Exceptions were evidently the uniformed Salvationist who appears in a photograph
of the Annual Conference of the Christian Pacifist Society in 1940, and a man who appeared before
the Wellington Armed Forces Appeal Board in early 1941.42

In sum, then, the war years left a discernible mark on the Salvation Army’s personnel,
structure and facilities, all readily identifiable and quantifiable, but their implications for the less
tangible areas of the Army’s life are less easily established. A second paper will look further at
these aspects of New Zealand Salvationism.

41 Photograph from David Grant, Out in the Cold: Pacifists and Conscientious Objectors in New Zealand during World
War Two (Auckland, NZ: Reed Methuen, 1986), 80.
42 Access to the Appeal Board’s Minutes is restricted until fifty years after the death of those appearing before it and
these men have not yet been identified. Papers of the Christian Pacifist Society, deposited in the National Library in
1983 by the NZ Security Intelligence Service, include questions asked of men appearing before it, and some of these
are clearly addressed to a member of The Salvation Army.

The Australasian Journal of Salvation Army History, Volume 1, Issue 1, 2016. Page 153

Salvation Army Institutes set up in New Zealand Army camps during World War I, The Australasian Journal of Salvation Army History, Volume 1, Issue 1, 2016. Page 154
The Salvation Army Archives, Upper Hut, New Zealand

THE SALVATION ARMY IN NEW ZEALAND
IN THE AFTERMATH OF THE FIRST WORLD WAR

PART TWO

Harold Hill

This is the second of two papers looking at the effects of the war on The Salvation Army in New
Zealand. The first gave an account of some of the more obvious and practical outcomes;1 this
second paper attempts to further explore the effects of the war on how Salvationists thought and
believed.

The first paper concluded with reference to the Rev. Dr James Gibb’s “United Peace
Committee”, which was attended by Salvation Army representatives. Participation in Gibb’s Peace
Committee raises the whole question of how The Salvation Army processed controversial matters
and handled debate on public issues – or even on religious and doctrinal issues. In general, the
policy followed was to avoid discussing such matters almost entirely. This was a long-established
practice, arising from the belief of the movement’s founders that any such debate would serve only
to divide Salvationists and distract them from keeping the main thing – evangelism – the main
thing. This of course apparently goes far beyond the question of the impact of the First World War
on The Salvation Army, but serves as essential background and context for identifying and
assessing that impact when we come to the area of ideas and beliefs, both religious and political.

In earlier years there had been some exceptions to this policy. In the early 1890s, for example,
although the War Cry’s attention was largely given to the battle for the freedom to witness in the
open air, it also supported women’s suffrage, not only on the principle of equality but because
women were more likely to support prohibition and raising the age of consent. Once the vote was
granted in September 1893, the War Cry printed copies of the voter registration form for readers to
use.2 But these were exceptional examples of interest in mundane affairs, and related to the Army’s
special concerns.

This avoidance of controversy related to both religious and political fields. It had been, for
example, one of the less-widely acknowledged causes of the breakdown of the Army’s negotiations
towards possible association with the Church of England in 1882. William Booth feared that
Salvationists were in danger of becoming caught up in the Church’s own internal divisions between
its High Church or Catholic and its Evangelical wings.3 As a result he disengaged from these
discussions and urged Salvationists to avoid controversies as “the poison of hell”.4 In an address to
Staff Officers at the 1904 Congress Booth explained that taking sides in political questions would

Reference citation of this paper
Harold Hill, “The Salvation Army in New Zealand in the aftermath of the First World War – Part Two”, The
Australasian Journal of Salvation Army History, 1, 1, 2016, 154-169.
1 For paper one see Harold Hill, “The Salvation Army in New Zealand in the Aftermath of the First World War – Part
One”, The Australasian Journal of Salvation Army History, 1, 1, 2016, 139-153.
2 The War Cry, (New Zealand, 22 July, 1893), 4.; War Cry, (NZ, 30 September, 1893), 7.; War Cry, (NZ, 7 October,
1893), 8.
3 See Andrew Mark Eason, “The Salvation Army and the Sacraments in Victorian Britain: Retracing the Steps to Non-
Observance”, Fides et Historia 41:2 (Summer/Fall 2009), 51-71.
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+Salvation+Army+and+the+sacraments+in+Victorian+Britain:+retracing...-
a0218882622.
4 Booth in the Contemporary Review, August 1882, quoted in Robert Sandall, History of The Salvation Army – Vol 2,
1878-1886, (London, UK: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1950), 133.

The Australasian Journal of Salvation Army History, Volume 1, Issue 1, 2016. Page 155

alienate some people from hearing what they needed to say about spiritual matters, discourage
donors from contributing to the Army’s funds and lessen the Army’s potential influence for good by
getting offside with the political powers that be.5 In 1907 George Scott Railton wrote that;

The one-mindedness and one-heartedness of The Army is strikingly exemplified in its
newspapers and its prayers. It has 61 publications, issued in 49 countries and colonies. In not
one of these can be found any recognition of the controversies, which disturb the Christian
world. They represent minds always engaged upon one subject – the subjugation of the world to
the Dominion of Jesus Christ.6

Commissioner George Scott Railton
Booth’s instructions for all Salvationist publications included very succinctly, “No politics. No
unfavourable reflections on Christian churches.”7

The policy enunciated by Railton and Booth fits perfectly Ernst Troeltsch’s description of the
sect as;

…a somewhat limited form of fellowship, and the expenditure of so much effort in the
maintenance and exercise of this particular kind of fellowship produces a certain indifference
towards other forms of fellowship which are based upon secular interests. On the other hand all
secular interests are drawn into the narrow framework of the sect and tested by its standards…

5 William Booth, “Politics” in International Staff Council Addresses, (London, UK: Salvation Army, 1904), 148-64.
6 George Scott Railton, The Salvation Army following Christ, (Atlanta, USA: The Salvation Army, [1907] 1986), 195,
quoted in Dean Pallant, Keeping Faith in Faith-Based Organizations, (Eugene, USA: Wipf & Stock, 2012), 109.
7 Robert Sandall, The History of the Salvation Army – Volume 2, (1878-1886), (London, UK: Thomas Nelson and Sons,
1950), 324.

The Australasian Journal of Salvation Army History, Volume 1, Issue 1, 2016. Page 156

What cannot be related to the group of interests controlled by the sect, and by the Scriptural
ideal, is rejected and avoided.8

Although the sect-church typological continuum proposed by Weber and Troeltsch in the
early twentieth century has been greatly modified by subsequent sociological theorists and
discarded as outmoded by some, it still provides an intelligible description of the process by which
The Salvation Army evolved from a sect-like mission movement to something approximating a
“denomination” in modern terms. Early-day Salvationists were likely to be “at the Army” seven
nights a week and exhibit “a certain indifference towards other forms of fellowship”, but by the
interwar years they were combining wider community interests with their corps commitments.

Joan Hutson’s account of the Gisborne Corps in the 1930s describes how:

Almost without exception, faith in their God as expressed through The Salvation Army took
precedence over all other loyalties, and there were many other loyalties. Somehow work and
families and sport had to be fitted in around Army commitments. In addition most soldiers
belonged to some kind of lodge, the Oddfellows Lodge, the Rechabites or the Masonic Lodge.
Some became Grand Masters, giving the Lodge their loyalty second only to their
Salvationism…9

It may not be that the experience of the war contributed to, rather than being simply
concurrent with, such broadening of sympathies. However, while in their personal lives and
community associations, New Zealand Salvationists increasingly left behind sectarian attitudes in
the course of the post-war years, The Salvation Army’s official policies took much longer to
ameliorate. An example would be the experience of a successful youth officer, Jean Bennett who,
when speaking at youth councils and illustrating a point with reference to a popular film, found
herself interrupted by the territorial commander’s vigorous leading of a chorus to prevent the spread

of this contagion of worldliness. Another would be the unsuccessful attempt by a chief secretary (of
English provenance) to forbid a Christchurch Salvation Army rugby team’s participation in the
local grades’ competition in the later 1930s.10

One unintended consequence of this avoidance of worldly and controversial matters, however,
might have been that Salvationists would tend to be less ready to make connections between their
faith and the larger moral and social issues of the day. There were no representative Salvation Army
institutions in which such matters might be raised and discussed, and no articles or correspondence
about such matters in Salvation Army publications. A common pattern for originally radical but

8 Ernst Troeltsch, The Social Teaching of the Christian Churches, translated by Olive Wyon (Chicago, USA: Chicago
University Press, [1931, 1960] 1981), 1: 339. For critical reassessment of the Weberian approach, see June Elizabeth
Milligan, “The Persistence of The Salvation Army: a challenge to the ‘sociology of
sectarianism’”, PhD thesis, University of Glasgow, 1982. http://theses.gla.ac.uk/4038/1/1982MilliganPhD.pdf.
9 Joan Hutson, As for Me and My House: A salute to early Salvation Army families of Gisborne, 1886 to 1952
(Wellington, NZ: Flag Publications, 2004), 227.
10 Cyril R. Bradwell, Touched with Splendour (Wellington, NZ: Flag Publications, 2003), 49. Inter-alia, Joan Hutson’s
reference to lodge membership is another example of the way in which an official prohibition was ignored at a local
level. Masonry was disapproved of because it was a “secret society” and a distraction, until late in the 20th century when
it attracted doctrinal disapprobation largely through charismatic influence. Curiously, 1908 correspondence between
William and Bramwell Booth (in the International Heritage Centre archives) discusses whether Colonel (“Acting
Commissioner” in South Africa) W.J. Richards’ Masonic Lodge membership would make his promotion to the rank of
Commissioner unpopular with his senior officer peers – but they still promoted him soon after and later appointed him
Territorial Commander in New Zealand, and then Canada, which suggests Masonry was not such a shibboleth as some
have suggested.

The Australasian Journal of Salvation Army History, Volume 1, Issue 1, 2016. Page 157

maturing enthusiastic movements is that with a rising social and economic demographic there is a

sociological and cultural shift towards conservative attitudes on political, social, doctrinal and moral

issues. The lack of opportunity for any overt discussion of such matters within the Army would

mean there could be no internal intellectual alternative or countervailing movement to that process.

The result would be that Salvationists would be more likely to become more generally conservative
or reactionary in their views.11 In the area of doctrine and theology, this policy made The Salvation

Army very reluctant to permit the expression of views which might be construed as straying from
strict orthodoxy or outside its own control, an attitude persisting in some quarters even today.12

Consistently with this policy, the New Zealand War Cry during the First World War and the

1920s (in fact, until recent years) carried mainly internal Salvation Army news and reports, along
with general exhortations to be saved or sanctified. The War Cry also carried some “magazine”

material, such as descriptions of new inventions, presumably to entice the general reader in, but

apart from its campaigning on a few selected social issues such as alcohol use and its restriction,

there are not many references to any wider controversies. The Salvation Army was of course

heavily involved in the campaign for Prohibition right up to its rejection in 1919; in fact a
November 1919 War Cry’s leading article headed “Political Notes” began, “The electioneering

campaign which is now in full swing is of particular interest to Salvationists because another
opportunity is therein given the people to banish the liquor traffic…”13 No other election issue was

suggested as being of interest to Salvationists. The War Cry continued to campaign against alcohol

of course, but somewhat more mutedly than when a political victory had appeared in sight in 1919.

Apart from that, there were few exceptions to this non-controversial principle. A 1914 article
asked whether it was time to end war as an instrument of policy (great timing, there!)14. A 1919

article which began by describing unrest in the British coal industry, moved on to denounce as
“generally deplorable” the housing of New Zealand miners at Burnett’s Face and Denniston on the
West Coast and complained that “there has been little thought for the health, convenience or
comfort of the workers.”15 Another 1919 number reproduced from The Sphere, an illustrated British
weekly paper, a somewhat obscure diagram alleged to be “a graph which is a plea for the fairer
distribution of wealth”, but lest anyone fear the Army was advocating Bolshevik revolution this was
followed by the cryptic warning, “But beware of tactics which eliminate justice.”16 A 1920 article
denounced a proposal to introduce indentured Chinese labour to Samoa17.

Apart from such rare examples, the Salvation Army, as viewed through the columns of The

War Cry, appeared to maintain what could be described as a sectarian focus mainly on its own

internal life. This trend makes it difficult to trace the extent to which Salvationists in the post-war

11 Or on political matters, to believe it was neutral when it was not. A case in point, long after this time, would be the
Army leadership’s belief that it was maintaining political neutrality in the Rhodesia-Zimbabwe liberation war of the
1970s, whereas in fact it could be seen as supporting the settler regime. See Norman H. Murdoch, Christian Warfare in
Rhodesia-Zimbabwe: The Salvation Army and African Liberation 1891-1991, (Eugene, USA: Wipf and Stock, 2015),
131-182.
12 For example, again much later, the dismissal of Major Fred Brown after his publication of Secular Evangelism in
1970, and General Linda Bond’s attempted embargo on active officers contributing to an independently published
volume on Salvation Army theology edited by a former Salvationist, even though the other contributors included one of
her predecessors in the office of General. (Denis Metrustery, Saved, Sanctified, Serving, Paternoster, 2016.)
13 The War Cry, (New Zealand, 22 November, 1919), 4.
14 The War Cry, (New Zealand, 19 June, 1915), 4.
15 The War Cry, (New Zealand, 5 July, 1919), 3.
16 The War Cry, (New Zealand, 19 July, 1919), 3.
17 The War Cry, (New Zealand, 8 May, 1920), 8.

The Australasian Journal of Salvation Army History, Volume 1, Issue 1, 2016. Page 158

years were influenced by or even aware of the questions of the day which were being debated

vigorously within other churches or in the wider society.

One theological issue which arose during the war for churches in New Zealand as in Britain,

and on which the War Cry did explicitly comment, concerned the fate of soldiers killed in the war.

Out of the rhetoric frequently employed to honour those who died in the conflict, the notion arose

that their sacrifice on behalf of the nation was in some way salvific, like the sacrifice of Christ, and

that this might assure them of their reward in heaven. In fact this assumption probably corresponded

loosely to popular religious belief even if foreign to actual church doctrine. Some church
spokesmen tried to avoid adding to peoples’ grief by not insisting too strongly on the need for
repentance and faith or by warning of damnation in their absence.18 The War Cry editor was

amongst church representatives demurring from this point of view. For example, a 1915 War Cry
Leader asked, “Do Soldiers dying for their country make atonement for their sins?” and answered in
the negative. Rather, it concluded, “Let us declare against sin and proclaim Jesus – as the only
Saviour, and his blood as the sole atonement.” It is unlikely that many Salvationists disagreed with
this.19

There were other, more esoteric theological issues which were never broached in the War Cry

at all and are therefore more difficult to trace. The evidence is often British or international and how

far it can be extrapolated to include New Zealand Salvationists is sometimes uncertain.
One such issue was the matter of eschatology and “end times” speculation. Eschatology was

of great interest to early Salvationists and the Millennium (the expectation, stitched together from a

variety of Old and New Testament verses, of a figurative 1,000 years of peace and happiness), was

anticipated in the not too distant future. However, The Salvation Army had never adopted an

official position on the vexed question of the timing of Second Coming of Christ, leaving the matter
open for individual preference.20 Booth did not want his soldiers divided by pointless arguments
and speculations though the Booths themselves favoured what is styled the “Post-Millennial”
explanation.21 This view, inherited from Wesley and held by a majority of evangelicals in the

nineteenth century, suggested that through the efforts of the Church so many people would be
converted and the world would therefore be so greatly improved that “the Millennium” would

precede and usher in the return of Christ to earth. Such a position was consistent with The Salvation
Army’s evangelistic ethos and was an inducement to get on with the job of converting the world –
in fact they often appeared to assume responsibility for making this happen.22 It also accorded with
the generally optimistic Victorian view of progress – that everything was steadily getting better in

every way.

18 See Allan Davidson, “New Zealand Churches and Death in the First World War” in John Crawford and Ian
McGibbon (Ed.), New Zealand’s Great War: New Zealand, the Allies and the First World War (Auckland, NZ: Exisle
Pub., 2007).
19 The War Cry, (New Zealand, 19 June, 1915).
20 Doctrines and Disciplines of The Salvation Army (London, UK: The Salvation Army, 1881), Section 23:9.
21 For example, William Booth, “The Millennium, or, The Ultimate Triumph of Salvation Army Principles” in All the
World, (London, August, 1890), 337-43. Reprinted in Roger Green and Andrew Eason (Eds.) Boundless Salvation: The
Shorter Writings of William Booth, (New York, USA: Peter Lang, 2012), 60-71.
22 For example, Catherine Booth saying, “The decree has gone forth that the kingdoms of this world shall become the
kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ, and that He shall reign, whose right it is, from the River to the ends of the
earth. We shall win. It is only a question of time. I believe that this Movement is to inaugurate the great final conquest
of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Catherine Booth, “Invasion of the U.S.” The War Cry, (London, UK: 21 February, 1880), 1,
cited by John Rhemick, A New People of God: a study in Salvationism, (Des Plaines, USA: Salvation Army, 1993),
202-3.

The Australasian Journal of Salvation Army History, Volume 1, Issue 1, 2016. Page 159

Such optimism could hardly survive the disillusionment of the Great War, although the aged
Commissioner Elijah Cadman, interviewed in 1916, and asked whether he thought the world was
growing better or worse, affirmed, “Better! More persons have heard of Christ and accepted him.
Soon the nations will realise they are truly of ‘one blood’ and war is a device to exterminate them
on earth.”23 Increasingly, however, in the wake of the war, many evangelical Christians turned to
the darker doctrine of “Pre-Millennialism”. This teaching first appeared in Britain in the
seventeenth century and John Nelson Darby of the Brethren incorporated it into his ‘dispensational’
system in the 1830s. This system held that everything would actually get worse and worse, until a
time of great tribulation. The faithful would be rescued from this eventuality by being “raptured
up”, and afterwards Christ would return as Judge before inaugurating the Millennium, rather than
after it.

Pre-Millennialism was never adopted as Salvation Army doctrine but the Scofield Reference
Bible, first published in 1909 and advocating Pre-millennialism and Dispensationalism, became
popular with Salvation Army officers in the 1920s and 1930s, partly because it included
commentary with the text. Most officers could not afford to buy commentaries and so Schofield’s
teaching would have found its way into their sermons, despite his theology being Calvinist rather
than Wesleyan. 24 The Army’s “Trade Department” also stocked Clarence Larkin’s Dispensational
Truth which was published in 1920 and sold well for forty years.25 Larkin, an American Baptist,
was an influential pop theologian of the early twentieth century; his works are the source of many
ideas held by fundamentalist Christians even today. By these means this pessimistic doctrine may
have spread amongst Salvationists.

Cover of Clarence Larkin’s Dispensational Truth

23 Quoted in Humphrey Wallis, The Happy Warrior: Elijah Cadman, (London, UK: Salvation Army, 1928), 178.
24 The Scofield Reference Bible (London, UK: Oxford University Press, 1909, revised 1917). This also introduced
Bishop Ussher’s chronology, with its 4004 BC date for creation, more widely to fundamentalist Christians. A Trade
Department advertisement for the “Schofield [sic] Reference Bible” in the 19 July 1919 War Cry (New Zealand), 7,
claimed that it had “Helps at all the hard places on the page where they occur”.
25 Clarence Larkin, Dispensational Truth, or God’s Plan and Purpose in the Ages (Glenside USA: Larkin, 1918, revised
1920). I knew officers who had bought copies in the 1930s and 1940s, and I obtained a copy from the Wellington
“Trade” in 1961.

The Australasian Journal of Salvation Army History, Volume 1, Issue 1, 2016. Page 160

This issue has been explored by Allen Satterlee in his book, Turning Points: How the
Salvation Army found a different path. He points to the war years as the hinge of a marked change
in the Army’s literature, its hymnody and journalism, which had hitherto “involved the core
conviction that the Army would lead the world to Christ en masse.”26 Amongst the evidence
Satterlee offered was that whereas almost 31% of pre-war songs in the (1987) Song Book by
Salvation Army writers were about evangelism, of those written after 1920 only 14% were of this
kind. Indeed, by the publication of the 1987 edition of the Song Book a great many earlier songs
had already fallen out of fashion and their use discontinued; an analysis of all published Salvation
Army songs would probably strengthen Satterlee’s argument. After the Great War the Army’s
hymnody indeed showed increasing preoccupation with the private spiritual life of the Christian.
Satterlee’s review of articles in The Officer concluded that in 1905, 21% of articles were on
evangelism and revival, in 1913 that figure had dropped to 14% and in 1920 only 5% were on these
subjects. The change between 1905 and 1913 could not be related to the war, and so could point to a
change in the Army’s ethos, or to a change in editorial policy. Although Satterlee’s thesis and
evidence of change in The Salvation Army is of value, it therefore has to be asked whether the
continued decline of interest in evangelism after 1913 was related only to the disillusionment
following the war or was also a sign of continuing diminution of evangelical zeal, commonly found
in a maturing sect, along with a greater preoccupation with its own life.

The Officer, for some years known as the The Field Officer (1900-1913) and The Officer’s
Review (1932-39) provided “Outlines of Addresses”, for corps officers to use as a basis for their
sermons, and some of these were collected in volumes published in 1914 and 1940.27 While strict
comparisons are difficult it would appear that 25% sermons in the earlier volume are about
“salvation”, compared with about 29% in the later edition, so that does not provide unequivocal
support for Satterlee’s hypothesis. Of course, there is no indication of how many New Zealand
preachers utilised this resource or of how intently their congregations listened, or of whether they
believed what was said!

To the extent that it may be relevant to the question of evangelism, the general approach and
material printed in the New Zealand War Cry did not seem to change greatly from pre-war to post-
war years. Most of the contents, before and after, were for internal Salvation Army consumption,
with news reports from Corps and articles by and about the activities of the leaders taking much of
the space. As June Milligan says of the British War Cry, “It was a paper about the Salvation Army
and its leaders, and not a general evangelical tract.”28 Where material could be described as
“evangelistic”, it was often biographical – sensibly enough, since testimony and story are often
more compelling than propositional preaching. Particularly in the earlier years it was more common
for the front cover to be a full-page illustration drawing attention to a story inside, and this was
sometimes about someone being converted. Sometimes they were about contemporary events –
front page and inside articles for 22 February 1913 were about Scott’s ill-fated Antarctic

26 Allen Satterlee, Turning Points: How the Salvation Army found a different path, (Alexandria, USA: Crest Books,
2004), 76.
27 Outlines of Addresses for the Use of Salvation Army Officers (London, UK: The Salvation Army, n.d.[c1914]);
Outlines of Addresses for the Use of Salvation Army Officers, Volume II (London, UK: The Salvation Army, 1940).
28 Milligan, “Persistence of the Salvation Army”, 202.

The Australasian Journal of Salvation Army History, Volume 1, Issue 1, 2016. Page 161

expedition.29 Such stories would be run with an eye on the public house customers, in order to draw
them in to reading the rest of paper, but only a minority of stories could be described as
evangelistic.

It is not therefore clear from these pre- and post-war sources that the war itself had such a
profound effect on Salvationists’ thinking about end-times, even though there was definitely a
growing theological fashion for pre-millennial teaching at the time. There was certainly some
discussion going on in the Army at large because in 1930 the Editor of The Staff Review, a journal
published by International Headquarters, thought it necessary to remind his readers:

[T]here are certain aspects of the Second Coming of our Lord – the idea that he will personally
reign on earth in bodily form for a thousand years – which, although held by a minority of
devout and thoughtful men and women in the church from time to time, have consistently been
rejected by the overwhelming majority of equally devout and learned teachers; teaching which,
moreover, has never been given a place in the creed of any of the great denominations of the
Church at any time in its history. In view of this The Army’s Founders wisely forbore to
commit The Army to the one view or the other, and forbade that its platforms should be used for
teaching controversial aspects of the subject. What is clear to all they taught and permitted
Officers to teach: That He is coming again; that of that day and hour no man knows, not even
the angels in Heaven; and that we should all be ready all the time for His coming, so that at no
time shall He find us unprepared. But beyond that they sanctioned no teaching on the subject…
… Any Salvation Army Officer has begun to miss his way and has mistaken the legitimate use
of Army platforms who can give time and thought to trying to show that in the books of Daniel
and Revelation light is to be found in regard to the present and future conditions of the nations
of the world…30

Unfortunately, not even ordinary field officers, let alone the soldiers, would be likely to have
seen this warning, available only to Staff Officers.31 Despite such ideas being in circulation, the
Army’s official publications made little mention of eschatology, and when they did so, upheld the
view set out in the 1881 Handbook:

9. But what is the view of The Army on the subject of the Second Coming of Christ TO
REIGN PERSONALLY ON THE EARTH?
It does not pretend to determine a subject upon which there has been, and is still, so much
difference of opinion. But we incline to the opinion that He will not come till the last day of
judgement, and rejoice to know that, should He come before then, it will be so much better than
our expectation.32

The new 1922 Handbook, having outlined what the Bible actually said on the subject,
concluded that;

Considerable differences of opinion exist among God’s people… and among these differing
views The Army does not undertake to decide which is true… THE ONE CERTAINTY IS

29 The War Cry, (New Zealand, NZ, 22 February, 1913).
30 The Staff Officer, (London, UK: April, 1930), 106-7.
31 At that time, officers marked for advancement to “management” roles were placed on a separate promotion track,
with ranks such as that of “Staff-Captain”, not held by other officers. The system became incredibly complicated with
the frequent introduction of new ranks. See Harold Hill, Leadership in the Salvation Army: a case study in
clericalisation (Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2007), 334, for a descriptive chart.
32 Doctrines and Disciplines of The Salvation Army, (London, UK, The Salvation Army, 1881), Section 23:9.

The Australasian Journal of Salvation Army History, Volume 1, Issue 1, 2016. Page 162

THAT CHRIST WILL RETURN: Hence our duty is (a) to be ready ourselves… (b) to do our
utmost to get others ready also…33
A reviewer of the new Handbook obliquely criticised those too absorbed in the question of the
Parousia: “This chapter also supplied simple and practical teaching about the Second Coming,
concerning which so many Christians occupy almost the whole of their minds and thoughts.”34
Whether that was true of New Zealand Salvationists, we have little to go on. Nevertheless,
Commissioner James Hay’s Farewell Brief in 1929 described Adjutant Hawkes of Hastings as “a
good man, a very good man, but apt to swing on to the Second Advent – the Holy Ghost –
overmuch…”35 Commissioner John Cunningham evidently thought the matter relevant to the New
Zealand situation, as his Report on the New Zealand Territory to International Headquarters in 1934
indicated.

Commissioner James Hay
Before passing away from the Field Officers it may be well to say here that there is an
inclination for just a few to get making far too much of the Second Coming of Christ, and now
and again we have learned of special announcements and special addresses on the subject. It has
been popular among a certain class of Christian people in the Dominion, and whether the few
have been trying to catch the popular idea, or whether they have been truly prompted by any

33 Handbook of Doctrine (London: The Salvation Army, 1922), 152.
34 The Officer, (London, UK: May, 1923), 424. It was not until Bernard Mobbs published Eternity Begins Now
(London, UK: Salvation Army, 1964) that there was made available to Salvationists an accessible but scholarly
respectable exposition of traditional Christian teaching on the subject. By then the horse had long bolted. Probably
many Salvationists now, if aware of the subject at all, assume that pre-millennialism, replete with “rapture”, is the
Army’s official teaching, and might even concur with Satterlee’s assumption that the pre-millennial view “has more
biblical merit”. Satterlee, Turning Points, 80. This might have been thought a peculiarly American view but for the
2009 publication of a book on “The Rapture” by Philip Layton, a British officer.
35 J. Hay, Farewell Brief, 37A. (New Zealand Salvation Army Archives).

The Australasian Journal of Salvation Army History, Volume 1, Issue 1, 2016. Page 163

sincere thoughts of their own, I am at a loss to say. I have not gone so far as to forbid the kind of
thing referred to, but have strongly discouraged it, and have said that the business of the Army
is to preach Salvation and get souls saved, leaving to The Lord that which He has not deemed
wise to reveal to man. A watch on the few is really necessary, or we may have some of our
people becoming cranks on the question.36

Another, related, theological shift during these years concerned the rise of “Fundamentalism”.
This arose in the United States in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries as a reaction
against what was termed “modernism”, a pejorative term encompassing theology which took into
account the findings of contemporary Biblical scholarship, known as “Higher Criticism”, and
against the “Social Gospel”, a demythologised development of post-millennialism. Fundamentalism
was popularised by a multi-volume set of papers by many distinguished conservative scholars, on
The Fundamentals, the first of which were published in 1909, so before the First World War.37
However, over those years and into the 1920s and beyond, fundamentalism greatly extended its
influence. Karen Armstrong has written of the way fundamentalism in any religion is a common
defensive reaction to the instability of times of rapid change – as we see even today in Islam. She
observed that;

Protestant fundamentalism came into being in the United States when evangelical Christians
pondered the unprecedented slaughter of the First World War. Their apocalyptic vision was
simply a religious version of the ‘future war’ genre that had developed in Europe. Religious
fundamentalists and extremists have used the language of faith to express fears that also afflict
secularists.38

Fundamentalism stressed five doctrines: Biblical inspiration and the inerrancy of scripture as
a result of this; the Virgin birth of Jesus; belief that Christ’s death was the atonement for sin; the
bodily resurrection of Jesus; the historical reality of the miracles of Jesus. At first sight such a
schema appears indistinguishable from the substance of conservative evangelical doctrines like
those of The Salvation Army (although the Army’s Eleven Points of Doctrine somehow overlooked
both the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection). William Booth was not, however, a Fundamentalist; he
was firmly in the earlier Wesleyan tradition. For example, for him, Biblical inspiration and
authority did not imply verbal inerrancy – he expressly denied that idea.39 Nor would
Fundamentalism have accommodated Booth’s understanding of the sacraments or his views on
women’s ministry.

Nor might all Salvation Army officers of the early generations have found fundamentalism
entirely palatable. A curious light is shed on this by former Commissioner Alex Nicol, writing in
1911. Expressing concern that the Army’s “Eleven Points” had become a doctrinal straight-jacket,
Nicol commented on the Fifth Doctrine;

36 J. Cunningham, Report on the New Zealand Territory, July, 1934, 44. (New Zealand Salvation Army Archives).
37 R.A. Torrey and A.C. Dixon (Eds), The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth, (Chicago, USA: Testimony
Publishing Coy, 1910).
38 Karen Armstrong, Fields of Blood: Religion and the History of Violence, (London, UK: the Bodley Head, 2014), 365.
Armstrong’s chronology for Fundamentalism is inaccurate but her analysis is compelling.
39 “What is claimed for the Bible? Not that every word is inspired… Not that exactly in its present form it is entirely
free from errors…’” William Booth, “What do we mean by Inspiration?” Reprinted in The Staff Review, (London, UK,
January, 1928), and in Alfred G. Cunningham, The Bible: Its Divine Revelation, Inspiration and Authority, (London,
UK: The Salvation Army, 1961), 12.

The Australasian Journal of Salvation Army History, Volume 1, Issue 1, 2016. Page 164

We believe that our first parents were created in a state of innocence, 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.

Alexander Nicol in 191140
He wrote, “The Army is committed for all time to this doctrine and many others equally
contentious, and some of which Staff officers no more believe in than they do that Bacon wrote
Shakespeare.”41 We might wonder why the élite of the staff should be more prone to such doubts
than lesser mortals but Nicol’s observation hints that at least there may have been some diversity of
views on such matters throughout the Army’s history. Another straw in the wind not much later was
a comment by the editor of The Staff Review, on councils conducted by General Higgins in London
in 1930, commending his recitation of the Army’s doctrines, and his invitation to Commissioners
present to join him and the Chief of the Staff in signing a copy of the Declaration of Faith.

This was a timely and significant gesture on the part of the General. Cabled throughout the
world by the Press within a few hours, this solemn reaffirmation of faith answered in the
clearest manner the hope expressed in certain quarters that “under the new regime” The Army
would “broaden out theologically”, and the assertion already made by others that its Leaders
intended to alter the doctrines of The Army.42

40 A. M. Nicol, General Booth and The Salvation Army, (London, UK: Herbert and Daniel, [1911]), 369.
41 Nicol, General Booth, 93-5.
42 The Staff Review, (London, UK, April, 1930), 103.

The Australasian Journal of Salvation Army History, Volume 1, Issue 1, 2016. Page 165

General Edward Higgins

We are left to wonder who the “others” were and where the “certain quarters”, and for what
did they hope, but it would suggest a preference by a minority of Salvationists for a more liberal
interpretation of Salvation Army doctrine.

That some officers at least were wrestling with the challenges of Biblical scholarship is
suggested by a question posed in The Officer by “Inquirer,’ Scotland:

Does an acceptance of the conclusions arrived at by the majority of ‘Higher Critics’ as to the
composite authorship of some of the books of the Old Testament involve the rejection of The
Salvation Army teaching on the Inspiration of Scriptures?

The answer poured cold water on the “conjecture and supposition” characterising the critics, but did
not actually answer the question. Instead, it warned that “… the ‘conclusions’ of the Higher Critics
are extremely unlikely to be of any service in soul-winning – and that is our business, is it not?”43
Another questioner wondered how the discoveries of archaeologists could be reconciled with the
marginal dates given in the Bible, particularly those in the opening chapters of the Book of Genesis.
The editor’s reply pointed out that Bishop Ussher’s seventeenth century chronology formed no part
of the Biblical text and was clearly not appropriate for the early chapters of Genesis, where
incalculably long periods of time were indicated, but that dates pertaining to more historical periods
were being confirmed by modern archaeology.44 Whether any New Zealand officers shared these
concerns, we do not know.

Despite the possible existence of a continuing more liberal tradition within the Army, the
default position of many officers over the years would have been towards the conservative, if not
the fundamentalist end of the spectrum, and probably many would not have distinguished between
these positions. The Trade Department was able to supply copies of The Fundamentals to them, and
the soldiers would hear sermons based on them. Barely a hint of dissension over such matters ever

43 The Officer, (London, UK, April, 1923), 285-6.
44 The Officer, (London, UK, June, 1923), 473-4.

The Australasian Journal of Salvation Army History, Volume 1, Issue 1, 2016. Page 166

disturbed the readers of the War Cry however. They would have to read between the lines to sense
any incongruity between the Editor’s reporting that scientists believed the sea to be 150 million
years old, and General Bramwell Booth’s criticism of an Anglican divine who had expressed doubts
about the literal interpretation of the creation story.45

A related doctrinal tension of the war in these years was the reaction against liberal theology

in certain Evangelical circles on the ground that the pioneers and leading exponents of modern

biblical criticism were German, and that their views should be discounted on those grounds. Even
the English Church Times, hardly a voice for Fundamentalism, believed that “In the field of

theology no less than in the cities and villages of invaded countries the German method of
“frightfulness” [what the Americans now call “shock and awe”] has spread havoc” and referred to
“the malign influence of German destructive teachers.”46 Not only did The Salvation Army not

endorse any such view but there were no signs that anyone was even aware of it. Most such

academic questions were not of interest and it would be inconsistent with War Cry policy to publish

such a xenophobic suggestion.

One aspect of Fundamentalism from which The Salvation Army did escape, in New Zealand as
elsewhere in the world, was what in Evangelical circles has been called “the Great Reversal”.47

Nineteenth century evangelicals had a lively interest in a contemporary expression of the Kingdom
of God. Converts of Booth’s mentor, Finney, were expected to sign up for either the anti-slavery or
the women’s suffrage campaigns when they gave their lives to Christ.48 However, many post-World

War One evangelicals turned their backs on social activism, partly because of its adoption by those
they saw as theological liberals and “modernists”. Instead, they became more “other-worldly”,

under the influence of fundamentalist pre-millennial and dispensational teaching; what was the
point of “saving” a world about to be destroyed? It took to the end of the twentieth century before
many evangelicals began to take seriously the “already” as well as the “not yet” of the Kingdom.
The Army, however, remained involved in social action throughout, thanks to William Booth’s

strong commitment to saving the body as well as the soul, and the fact that the Movement was
already so deeply invested – institutionally, financially and ideologically, not to mention by
reputation – in social work.

In New Zealand the most marked development in the 1920’s was the expansion in children’s

work, and the initial impetus for this was concern for the children of deceased servicemen. By the end

of the decade nearly 600 needy children were being accommodated at any one time. In 1920 the

Government set up a department of immigration and The Salvation Army was invited to assist,
sponsoring many immigrant families in the 1920’s. With the opening of the Hodderville Home and

Training Farm at Putaruru, it was able to bring out over eight hundred young men over a period of

45 The War Cry, (New Zealand, 6 November, 1920), 7.; The War Cry, (New Zealand, 20 November, 1920), 4. Some
American officers regarded the impeccably orthodox Commissioner A.G. Cunningham (editor of The Officer 1903-
1916, Bramwell Booth’s collaborator in the writing of the 1922 Handbook of Doctrine, editor of The Staff Review,
General Carpenter’s Chief of the Staff 1939-43 and in retirement the Army’s first representative on the Central
Committee of the World Council of Churches) as responsible for instigating “an enduring liberal bias” at IHQ (Private
letter from Commissioner Norman S. Marshall, dated 13 January, 1990, International Heritage Centre collection.). A
helpful discussion of this question is found in John Coutts, The Salvationists (London, UK: Mowbrays, 1977), 7-17.
46 The Church Times, (London, UK, 3 September, 1915), reprinted in The Church Times, (London, UK, 4 September
2015), 10.
47 See David O. Moberg, The Great Reversal: Evangelism Versus Social Concern (Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott, 1972).
48 Stated by Tony Campolo in podcast on 10 February 2009: Adventures in Missing the Point.
http://www.halfwaytoheaven.org.uk/?cat=40.

The Australasian Journal of Salvation Army History, Volume 1, Issue 1, 2016. Page 167

six years, provide them with a basic farm training course of several months, and then assist them to
find work on farms.

The Boys' Home near Putaruru, named "Hodderville" after Commissioner Hodder49
Among other new ventures was the setting up of an Enquiry and Missing Friends Department. In
a typical year, 1926, 202 cases were handled by this department, in 99 of which the missing friends or
relatives were found. The inter-war years also saw the beginnings of the Army’s homes for old people;
Auckland and Wellington in 1925, and Christchurch, Wellington and Upper Hutt in 1935. From the
end of the first post-war decade, the depression years of 1929 - 35 strained the Army’s resources.
Backed up by the corps officers throughout the country, Women Samaritan Officers who had been
appointed to the main cites after World War One, organised mobile soup kitchens, food depots, rest
centres for mothers, and shelters for unemployed men and itinerant workers. In one year, 1932-33,
1,744,632 free meals and 421,579 free beds were supplied to needy people.50 No “Great Reversal” for
the Salvation Army then; its social work became for the public the chief justification for its existence.

49 Salvation Army Archives, New Zealand.
50 Cyril R. Bradwell, Fight the Good Fight: The Story of The Salvation Army in New Zealand 1883-1983 (Wellington,
NZ: Reed, 1982), 96-7.

The Australasian Journal of Salvation Army History, Volume 1, Issue 1, 2016. Page 168

Salvation Army Mobile Soup Kitchen, 193151
In sum, then, as far as the theme of this paper is concerned, although the war affected many
Salvationists on a personal level, it probably did not change their “Salvationism” or their
understanding of their faith significantly. The war doubtless hastened the far-reaching social and
cultural changes, including the rise of secularism, which were going on anyway and which affected
Salvationists as they did other Christians. Although the rise of fundamentalism loosely coincided
with the war years, and fundamentalism is often a response to unsettled times, there is insufficient
evidence to suggest that these factors contributed to any more than a minor shift in the beliefs – or
the activities – of New Zealand Salvationists. The effects of the First World War stopped short of
their doctrines.

51 Salvation Army Archives, New Zealand.
The Australasian Journal of Salvation Army History, Volume 1, Issue 1, 2016. Page 169