Inside a High Council text pages_Layout 1 25/10/2013 11:59 Page 91
Chapter Eight
Speeches THE speeches which the candidates give are their only opportunity to lay before the High Council, in a formal way, their thoughts about the generalship and their vision for the future. The speeches are therefore a vital part of the process and it is only natural that the candidates give much thought to what they are going to say – and how they are going to say it. The speech must strike the right note and be the right length. Its delivery can also pose a challenge. Candidates have to speak from a prepared script, which members will have before them during the speech, whereas most of them would normally speak in a freer style from notes. The challenge is therefore how to sound like themselves despite this limitation. The speeches can prove decisive. At the 1929 High Council there were two candidates, Commissioner Edward Higgins, the Chief of the Staff, and Commander Evangeline Booth, the USA National Commander. Because of the special circumstances of that High Council the delegates had already been together for 37 days when it came to speech time and had participated in many discussions. Yet Commissioner Samuel Brengle, who was a member of that High Council, reckoned that it was the speeches that decided the outcome of the election. He recalled that ‘the councillors compared the Commander’s speech with the speech by Commissioner Higgins and many of them, I think, there and then finally decided for Higgins. One most prominent commissioner told me that he was undecided until he heard the two speeches.’1 The Orders of Procedure establish that the order in which the candidates are to speak is determined by ballot, and that after each 91
Inside a High Council text pages_Layout 1 25/10/2013 11:59 Page 92
speech there will be a five-minute period for silent reflection before the next candidate speaks. To speak or not to speak? At the 1929 High Council the two candidates were ‘invited’ to speak, and both accepted. When more formal orders of procedure were established at the next High Council, in 1934, it was stated that ‘nominees may, if they so desire, make speeches on agreeing to nomination’. This voluntary approach to speech-making was institutionalised in the Orders of Procedure of the 1939 High Council – which also laid down guidelines for the listeners: That each nominee may make one speech only, if he or she desires; that the speeches be heard without interruption of any kind; and that at the conclusion there be no expression either of approval or dissent.
This perfectly understandable rule about listeners not reacting overtly brings its own challenge to both speakers and hearers. Army speakers are used to getting some kind of response from the congregation – and total silence can be disconcerting. From the point of view of the hearers, it may be self-evident that it is not appropriate to exclaim ‘hallelujah!’ or even ‘amen’ to express agreement with something said, but not so self-evident whether they can laugh if the speaker says something humorous. Most do. The voluntary basis of speeches remained in the Orders of Procedure for the first six High Councils – but all candidates invariably chose to address the Council and that pattern became accepted as the norm. However, at the 1969 High Council, when the two candidates were Commissioner Erik Wickberg and Commissioner Kaare Westergaard, that norm was challenged. General Erik Wickberg describes in his autobiography what happened: For the first time in High Council history the two candidates did not give a speech, where they are expected to present their views on how
92
Inside a High Council text pages_Layout 1 25/10/2013 11:59 Page 93
they see themselves discharging the duties of General if elected. I had discovered that the Orders of Procedure prescribed that a candidate ‘could’ give such a speech, but that he clearly could choose whether or not to use this opportunity. As I had answered in great detail the more than 30 written questions that had been put to me and to Westergaard, I did not think there was much more to add. The President of the High Council, Commissioner Hubert Scotney, approved my interpretation of that paragraph, and as Westergaard agreed with my viewpoint there were no speeches.2
Commissioner Erik Wickberg was correct in his reading of the rules, and had every right not to speak to the High Council. What is perhaps surprising is that he sought – successfully, as it turned out – to persuade Commissioner Kaare Westergaard to join with him in not giving a speech. In 1969 Commissioner Wickberg had been the Chief of the Staff for nine years, serving under both General Wilfred Kitching and General Frederick Coutts, and was therefore well known to every member of the High Council. Commissioner Westergaard was less well known and the opportunity to address the Council could have been valuable to his candidacy. Commissioner Westergaard later regretted that he had not taken hold of the chance to speak to the Council in order to lay before it his own thinking about the generalship. It appears that his regret was shared by others, for at the next High Council, held in 1974, the rules were changed and the voluntary element in the making of speeches was removed from the Orders of Procedure. In 1974 it became, and remains, a requirement that candidates address the Council. Length of speeches The Orders of Procedure give no guidance regarding content or even length of the speeches. This is left entirely to the discretion of the candidates, and the speeches at successive High Councils reveal great variations in both content and length. The longest speech was given by Commander Evangeline Booth 93
Inside a High Council text pages_Layout 1 25/10/2013 11:59 Page 94
at the 1929 High Council when she spoke for 53 minutes. The 1929 High Council was of course unique and there were many issues that had to be covered, especially as there was no opportunity for questions at that Council. The record for the shortest speech is held jointly by two American officers – Commissioner Norman Marshall in 1954 and Commissioner Kenneth L. Hodder in 1994 – who each spoke for four minutes. The length of speeches given by candidates who subsequently were elected as General have ranged from eight minutes (Commissioner John Gowans) to 31 minutes (Commissioner Albert Orsborn), with the average length being 16 minutes. For those interested in statistical minutiae, the lengths of the speeches by candidates who were elected General are listed in an endnote.3 Content of speeches It is of interest to get the flavour of speeches given by candidates at High Councils. In the earlier Councils no records were kept of the text of the speeches, but there are references in memoirs and biographies. In more recent times a number of Generals have published their nomination speeches in full. What follows is a brief selection from these sources. At the 1939 High Council, the self-effacing Commissioner George Carpenter made no secret of the fact that he felt that someone else should become the General. From correspondence we know that the person he had in mind was Lieut-Commissioner Albert Orsborn. In the biography of her father, Stella Carpenter writes: ‘Commissioner Carpenter spoke for 11 minutes, and the President admonished him – not without a dash of humour – that he was speaking for himself and not on behalf of a younger man. “I did not do well” says his diary.’4 Of the 1954 High Council, General Wilfred Kitching recalls in his autobiography that ‘the morning of May 11th dawned with a heavy sense of responsibility resting upon all, occasioned by awe rather than by fear. I read the notes of what I felt led to say to the Council in my election speech. Some sentences I felt to be unnecessary and 94
Inside a High Council text pages_Layout 1 25/10/2013 11:59 Page 95
I saw the danger of saying more than was needed…It was not for me to say what a General should be or not be, and it was equally unwise to make too many promises as to what I would do if elected. In that early morning hour I wrote at the head of my notes words Paul had written to the Corinthians: “For not he that commendeth himself is approved, but whom the Lord commendeth.” And that I felt was the best and first thing to be said.’5 Commissioner Frederick Coutts began his speech at the 1963 High Council by saying: ‘I would apply to the office of a General a saying of John Quincy Adams concerning the Presidency of the United States – that it is an office neither to be solicited nor to be declined. I have not done the former, and happily the decision on the latter rests with the High Council.’ He then spoke about his three aims if elected. ‘The first would be to confirm the faith of the Army in its divine mission…In the second place, to confirm the faith of the Army in its place and function in the church universal …’ On this subject he said: We must spell this out for our people – particularly our young people – so that they may understand that they have no need to seek elsewhere for the essential grace which can be found within our own walls, nor can any churchly blessing make them more truly members of the heavenly kingdom than they are by faith in Jesus as Saviour and Lord. And spell it out for our officers as well so that nowhere will any of them – woman or man, single or married – be received as any other than a minister of the gospel, ‘as poor, yet making many rich; as having nothing, and yet possessing all things.’
‘In the third place,’ he continued, ‘to confirm the faith of the Army in the integrity of its own government. This calls for informed leadership…especially when, as with our structure, a General is both the source of authority and the final court of appeal. This means that he must be free from the very appearance of partiality, and never allow any domestic conversation to interfere with, much less take the place of, the counsel of his appointed officers…’6 95
Inside a High Council text pages_Layout 1 25/10/2013 11:59 Page 96
General Arnold Brown published in full his speech at the 1977 High Council as an appendix to his autobiography. He outlined what he saw as the General’s task in a series of numbered points which he then expanded upon: 1. The General’s lead must, above all, be spiritual. 2. He must call Salvationists to a renewed emphasis upon our doctrine. 3. He must see to it that wherever and whenever possible administration will be streamlined. 4. He must be a General for youth. 5. He must ensure the enlargement of ‘the female ministry’. 6. He must speed the progress of the Army in the developing countries. 7. He must increase the place of our soldiery. 8. He must arouse Salvationists to the desperate need for officer reinforcements. 9. He must be committed to the principle of one Salvation Army – not a federation of autonomous Salvation Armies.7
General Jarl Wahlström in his memoirs mentions how at the 1981 High Council he took spiritual leadership as the theme for his speech. ‘Leadership in the Army must first and foremost be spiritual leadership…A spiritual leader must have inner balance, and it is important that his leadership is equally balanced...There must be an adequate balance between the desk and the pulpit…A Salvation Army leader must promote the balance between the Army’s evangelical and social work…Further, he must strike a balance between sound conservatism and courageous new thinking...A spiritual leader must be prepared to ask for and listen to advice from experienced and knowledgeable members of his team, and from others…A spiritual leader must be a person with clear principles and at the same time a warm heart…General Bramwell Booth spoke of Army officers as “servants of all”. The one elected to be their leader must be “the servant of the servants”.’8 The way that General Eva Burrows approached the task of giving a speech at the 1986 High Council is described by Henry Gariepy, her biographer: 96
Inside a High Council text pages_Layout 1 25/10/2013 11:59 Page 97
Nominees were also asked to prepare their views on the role of the General, to be given the following day. Working late into the night on the topic of leadership, Eva became uneasy. She prayed about her speech. Even though the hour was late, she felt led to scrap what she had been preparing and start over, this time on the leadership of Jesus. Once she came to this concept her thoughts flowed. The next day she spoke on how she would want to pattern her leadership style after that of Jesus.9
Commissioner Bramwell Tillsley began his speech at the 1993 High Council by saying: ‘Perhaps I can best express what my own priorities would be by describing the Army for which I long’. After affirming his personal commitment to the statement in the Officer’s Covenant ‘I will live to win souls’, he spoke about his longings for the Army under a series of headings: I long for an Army whose motto is ‘holiness unto the Lord’…I long for an Army open and responsive to the leading of the Holy Spirit…I long for an Army that will serve in the spirit of the Master…I long for an Army that will remain true to its principles, no matter what the cost…I long for an Army that has a deep appreciation of its young people and that encourages them to find their full potential in Christ…I long for an Army committed to prayer and the ministry of the Word…I long for an Army that is international in its outlook and recognises its responsibility to the whole world…I long for an Army whose cardinal reason for existence is to bring glory to God.10
At the 1994 High Council Commissioner Paul A. Rader took strategic advance as his theme. ‘These times call for a fighting force – furiously aggressive – a militant Army, disciplined to proclaim Jesus as Lord, amid the meanness and misery of our world. These times call for an advancing Army.’ He continued: We must go forward in finding cost-effective, supportable means for entering new areas of ministry;…forward in compassionate and
97
Inside a High Council text pages_Layout 1 25/10/2013 11:59 Page 98
creative response to the AIDS pandemic;…forward in our efforts to find and enfold the lost and then enlist them in our great cause;…forward in aggressive and innovative approaches to evangelism;…forward in our efforts to sensitise and mobilise our people to confront the moral crises in our communities;…forward in our commitment as an Army – east and west, north and south – to world evangelisation. We must advance in a continuing renewal of faith and spiritual vigour…We must move forward together in all our rich cultural diversity…We must share a common strategic vision as we move aggressively toward the 21st century.11
In 1999 Commissioner John Gowans began his speech in characteristic style: Did you ever find yourself in a particular place and get the feeling that you have been there before? This is the third time I have been called upon to make this kind of speech, and the elder statesmen among us may well be wondering why I am presenting myself as a candidate once again. ‘Can’t the man take no for an answer?’ they may well be justified in asking! I have the temerity to speak to this High Council of my peers simply because, whilst many things have changed since last this Council gathered, two things have not changed: my dedication to God and my availability to his Salvation Army. I have sometimes been tempted to do so, but I have never refused any appointment which my leaders thought good to entrust to me. In this situation you are my leaders. I will do what you tell me. If you decide under the guidance of God that I am the person to lead The Salvation Army into the 21st century I shall be proud to accept that honour. If you decide that I should quietly prepare for retirement I will accept that honour with equal cheerfulness.12
In my own speech to the 2002 High Council I shared with members that one of my chief aims if elected as General would be to encourage the process of renewal which I believed God was 98
Inside a High Council text pages_Layout 1 25/10/2013 11:59 Page 99
inspiring within the Army. ‘It seems to me,’ I said, ‘that in recent years, as the Army has sought to rediscover its roots it is rediscovering its mission.’ My aim, I stated, would be to keep the Army continually focused on its three-fold mission of saving souls, growing saints and serving suffering humanity. I continued: In this process of renewal I believe we are also recovering the vision of what the Army is meant to be. We are rediscovering the genius of the original vision. That is essential, for in some parts of the world we have been through a time of lack of confidence in ourselves. Everyone has thought us to be wonderful – everyone except ourselves! And there have been – and remain – pressures for us to become pale imitations of other churches and movements. I would aim to encourage the renewal of confidence in the unique contribution that the Army was raised up to make. The Army is a force, not a flock...It is a force that is visible…A force with a mission to the whole person…A force with a genius for inclusion and releasing of potential…A force with a special mission to the disadvantaged… I believe that God is powerfully at work in our midst to renew our passion for mission. I believe that he is at work to renew our vision of all that he wants the Army to be in the 21st century. My main focus would be to seek to encourage that process of renewal by every possible means.13
At the 2006 High Council Commissioner Shaw Clifton emphasised that Jesus was the centre of his life, and that the strength he sought was ‘not any strength that flows from human ability or natural talent’ but from reliance ‘on real faith upon a God who says that when we are weak, then he is strong’. In speaking about ‘the picture of the Army I believe God wants to see,’ he said: Already we are an Army loved and used by God. He wants us, however, to be closer yet to his side. It is a wounded side. He wants us to be broken again. He wants to break, melt and fill the Army...
99
Inside a High Council text pages_Layout 1 25/10/2013 11:59 Page 100
He wants us to be a truthful Army, an honest Army, never pretending that all is well, never vaunting ourselves or seeking the plaudits of men…He wants us to be a united, international Army…He wants us to be a spiritual Army…He wants us to be a Christ-centred, Cross-conscious Army… He wants an Army led by a General who is close to him, who is not transfixed or dazzled by the position, but is ready to spend and to be spent for Christ and the people. He wants a General sound in doctrine, with a heart of compassion, a humane General, someone who will affirm and encourage… He wants a General who will have a crucified mind, a broken and contrite heart, a surrendered intellect, a passion for the things of God.14
Commissioner Linda Bond at the 2011 High Council took as her headings: Our World, Our Army, Our Leadership, and Our God. In speaking about her vision for the Army she said: I see a Spirit-filled Army of the 21st century, convinced of its calling, moving forward together into the world of the hurting, broken, lonely, dispossessed and lost, reaching them by all means with the transforming message of Jesus, bringing freedom, hope and life. The lengthy discussions about our identity need to come to an end if they haven’t already. It is vital that we are convinced of why we exist. When we have such a certainty, this one mission will bring us together as one Army, every nation, every generation; every Salvationist totally sold out to our calling by God. We were never meant to hide inside the walls of our buildings. We are God’s gift to the world…We belong on the front lines, in the gutters, in the dark places of our world. Our people are the marginalised…Transformation for us is more than giving a job to the unemployed, a grocery voucher to the hungry, a bed to the homeless. The transformation that the Army has been known for is the transformation only Jesus can give, salvation for the whole person, body, soul and mind... It is time to rally our people for life’s greatest cause. To be the
100
Inside a High Council text pages_Layout 1 25/10/2013 11:59 Page 101
people we were called to be, to do what we were called to do, to be an Army faithful to the gospel, is to be an Army blessed by God.15
At the 2013 High Council Commissioner André Cox addressed the members of the High Council as ‘the international leadership team of The Salvation Army’ and stressed that ‘our people want us to provide leadership that is in accordance with the spiritual values we proclaim’. He then dealt with five specific aspects: Youth Work. We need to listen to and answer the questions of our young people…They will not build the Army of tomorrow in the way we have built. [But] one day they will take over from us. It is important that they build an Army that is relevant to the world in which they live, remaining faithful to the specific call of God for The Salvation Army. Teaching and Preaching. I would love to see an Army that truly lives by what it preaches. We need to see more evidence of power, conviction and passion in all that we do. Perhaps we need to rediscover the blazing power of the Spirit that swept through our ranks in days gone by. Leadership Development. Still today we see people who are parachuted into appointments with little preparation and they often are left to either sink or swim! We need to be far more systematic in the way that we prepare and bring on the next generation of leaders. Financial Security. We face huge and daunting challenges in both the developed and developing worlds…How can we ensure that all officers receive their full allowance? In some places there are far too many officers in field appointments who are disadvantaged financially compared to their colleagues serving on divisional and territorial headquarters. Ethics and Good Governance. The Salvation Army should be above all reproach in the way that we deal with people, in the way that we handle our finances and in transparency and accountability. We owe it to our people, we owe it to our donors and we owe it to God to be above reproach.
101
Inside a High Council text pages_Layout 1 25/10/2013 11:59 Page 102
In conclusion, my dream for this great organisation is that The Salvation Army will be characterised as being a force for good, a force for change and a force that lives by the values it proclaims.16
Time for reflection When the last candidate has spoken, the ‘getting to know you’ process at the High Council has reached its end. Very soon members will have to make a choice, and will each have to decide which of the candidates they consider best fitted to be the next General. The Council adjourns for a time of further reflection, as determined by the President, and then gathers again for the climax of its deliberations – the election of the next General.
102