The Salvation Army Says no Flexibility on Officer Marriage Policy BY KEVIN ECKSTROM ©Religion News Service
The top spokesman for the Salvation Army on December 5 signaled that there is no flexibility in a marriage policy that threatens to end the career of a Salvation Army officer who plans to marry a non-officer next June.
Capt. Johnny Harsh of Oshkosh, Wisconsin, was suspended after he told superiors that he plans to marry a woman who is not a Salvation Army officer. His former wife, Capt. Yalanda "Yoley" Harsh, died last June.
Maj. George Hood, the national community relations and development secretary for the Salvation Army, said the marriage policy is "almost as old as the organization itself" and serves the officers' long-term interests. "Married couples, each with the same calling and working together for the same purpose, are more effective in service and better able to support each other," Hood said in a statement to Religion News Service.
"Each officer `cadet' is made aware of this policy before attending one of The Salvation Army's two-year office training schools."
Harsh told The Northwestern newspaper in Oshkosh that he was aware of the policy, but doesn't agree with it. He also knew what the consequences were for disobeying it. "For the Salvation Army to let me go because I will marry outside of the (Salvation) Army, I think is wrong," Harsh told the newspaper. "I pray that people will write letters and call the Salvation Army to change this ruling. It wouldn't be for my benefit, but for future officers."
Hood declined to comment on Harsh's specific case because it is considered a private "personnel" matter. Harsh said his fiancée "saved my life" after the sudden death of his wife. Salvation Army officials also told Harsh the woman could not stay in the guest room of his house, which he also disagreed with.
"I told them ... as long as I live in that house, I can have anyone there that I want," Harsh told The Northwestern. "In my 14 years with the Salvation Army, my wife, Yoley, and I had prostitutes, drug users, homeless people and abused women and their children stay in that house. However, I signed a covenant to obey my Salvation Army leaders and I have failed to obey my leaders."
Harsh said he would be "very very surprised" if he is not dismissed, and if he is, plans to move to Waukesha, Wisconsin, and start a non-denominational church.
16 comments:
I resigned in order to marry a non-officer, although he was a faithful, life-long salvationist. We both wish that there had been an option for me to have remained active.
I find it interesting that in the country of our movement's birth, leaders recognize that people fall in love with non-officers and seek the same relationship other officers enjoy, and receive both God's and the SA's blessing.
Former
USA West
This antiquated policy ought to be examined from a Biblical perspective and also from a purely logical, modern day perspective, these many decades since the Victorian dictate was written. As I recall, although I wasn't present, both William and Catherine married non-officers, and only he was ordained.
Former, left to marry
UKT
That's the Army. Ever marching forward. NOT!
TRANSLATED FROM PORTUGESE - I WISH ! NO, I USED FIREFOX; GOOGLE TRANSLATOR (TRIED SPANISH FIRST) lol
The intention of commenting is to disseminate my work, I came up here. Very good your space, really liked it. I'll certainly come back more often. Opportunity to invite to know This is how I heard ... in http://www.silnunesprof.blogspot.com
If you like stories, I guarantee you will like.
Greetings!
Did you resign to marry ? If given the opportunity, would you return to officership and would you have your non-officer spouse' support?
NO NAMES PLEASE / SHARE TERRITORY ONLY
Friends,
This policy has caused many issues for the The Salvation Army. How many more officers would be available to fullfill their calling if a spouse was able to have another type of vocation while the other was an officer? There would need
to be support by the non-officer spouse. It could be regulation that they be a soldier or at least have support to the ministry and mission of The Salvation Army. American Territorial Commanders are given some discretion in these matters but you do not see many changes. Perhaps a different rank-position can be used. Envoy perhaps? It could be worked out. Why not more experimenting ? I see a great example in the UK. Sven makes a great spouse that supports his spouse-corps officer.
It is time for change. This type of change will not alter the doctrine or the mission of The Salvation Army. Move forward ! Advance ! Officers are needed and administration throws them away. New blood is needed. This change could be a wonderful blessing to grow the Army so that the "Mission" is completed and more souls will be won for Christ.
This former officer would take the challenge to be a sampling of this new endeavor. Just think of the experience and support that the Army is missing because of an outdated unrealistic policy.
Usa East former
Former from USA East,
thank you for your kind comment. With respect though, the reason why I am the model non-officer spouse (greatly exaggerated - lol) is simply due the fact that I've 'been there - done that'. I knew what was expected of my corps officer wife and what was expected of me. We have never had any disagreement relative to her putting all corps' demands and expectations above and beyond any personal wants. And, she graciously asks for, and almost always, smilingly, accepts my input relative to corps programming and vision. She also gives me much to do both at home and at the corps to further the army's mission.
Last week she attended Officers Councils. I accompanied her, however, I was not allowed to attend any of the sessions, a policy I can well understand. However, I would like to see an addition to the councils; non-officer spouse seminars, where I, and others would share what to expect in the role, soldiership training, 'team mission', etc.
I'd also like to see a proposed role for formers; conduct pre-wedding sessions with ALL non-officer spouses-to-be.
For the record, I asked my wife if there were no non-officer spouse provision in the UK, would she have resigned to marry me ? There was a long period of silence... and then she said...
I's be back in a heart beat ! I resigned to marry, and although my spouse is not army, he'd support me 100% no matter what the appointment. He works from home and an appointment in another city presents no problem whatsoever.
Former
USA Central Territory
I feel very fortunate to be a 'Single Spouse Officer' and had not realised that this opportunity is not possible in more of the SA world. In many ways being married to Sven doesn't feel much like 'Single Spouse' as he has 'been there, done it, got the tee-shirt' and really is very very supportive. 100% Army and absolutely mission orientated for both the Kingdom and the SA. Maybe this is a case of 'the grass is always greener on the other side' but I would do anything for us to be able to serve together as Officers. There are times when I wish he was the CO and me supporting him and likewise I am certain there are times when he would love to be the CO and me the supporter.
Prior to being married to Sven I never imagined being a single spouse Officer and in my mind never believed it was an option for me. I thought Officership took 100% commitment from both partners, I still do. If I am honest I would say the ideal is for husband and wife to be Officers, but where this is not possible I thank God and the UKT for this option. I do think it has the very real potential of keeping some Officers and even gaining some.
Glad Ljungholm
Active Single Spouse, lone Corps Officer
UKT
Just had this conversation tonight. Is it (the dual clergy requirement) a policy that is in place because it's tradition and it's generally worked for the Army, or because it's a biblical principle that is being followed? Those who say that single spouse officership can't work don't seem to realize that it works in every other denomination on earth. Yes, there can be problems, but there are problems now. Is this a question of what's best for the Army, the individuals, or the Kingdom? Could marriages be saved if couples didn't have to work together every day? Could people with other vocations fulfill their calling as well as their spouse's calling to ministry? Even if simply being pragmatic, it appears as though the consequences of this policy are costing TSA too many good people in these days. It's time for a change. (Having that option might also help in the whole married women officer ghetto arena as well).
JoAnn
Active, USA East
Apparently a determination has come from the IRS (USA Internal Revenue Services- the tax-man). They have determined that all USA officers should be paid as employees.
I'm wondering how they will now deal with married women officers...whether they will recognize them as fully paid humans ? And, if they are paid on an equal level with male officers (their spouse), will they finally be given commands irrespective of their husband's appointment.
In Sweden it's not unusual for the husband to be a CO with wife serving as the DC, or on THQ.
Former
USA East
Re:the USA IRS - been waiting to see the Army handle this for many years, yet still hasn't happened. For me, that's one of the "I'll believe it when I see it" issues. (While there may end up being separate checks for husbands and wives, I don't think that officers will be considered employees - too many legal iimplications). However, even if it does happen, I don't see it changing the American SA culture that may give lip service to egalitarian principles but is far from it in practice. All it takes is a quick skim through the dispo to see how far we would need to go. This is one of those "don't get me started" issues - hard to believe it's 2009 based on how married women officers are utilized, at least in the US.
JoAnn
USA East, active.
Women should be paid if they are married. They should receive the same as single officers. I am so sad that when female married formers are told that there is no record of them being employed by The Salvation Army and no record of any income.This old practice should never have been legal in The United States and it is an evil controlling practice anywhere else. Other churches have worked these issues out.
Some changes may be in the works. The good old IRS is at work! I hope that furthur investigation takes place and female officers are treated with respect and honor that they are due. Do we think that the Lord is pleased with this mess ?
I believe that it is time that authors and those that care about the injustice that is happening in The Salvation Army in the USA take a bold stand. I assure you that if enough people stand together and write their congressman and the press as well as others of influence, the pressure will be on. Several writings of this injustice should be sent under anonymous protection if possible. Do not wait for change. Do something. You will be surprised at what you can accomplish when you stand up for what is right. Perhaps other active officers are really fed up with this unfair practice and will decide that it is time for change! I wonder if President Obama would like to hear about this ? Officers are actually employees! Not things that can continually be taken advantage of. When the proper change will take place,more people will offer themselves to officership.Soldiers are afraid of being "OWNED" and not treated fairly.
I will be researching this and do my part to intervene and help change this injustice!
Come on USA! I find it hard to believe you are so behind the times when I had always got the impression you were leading lights. UKT worked through these issues some ten or so years ago and although we are far from having worked everything through I thank God and the leaders of UKT for being somewhat progressive and forward thinking. Please be patient, God hasn't finished with us yet ... but at least there is work in progress.
Another Active UKT Wife
I honestly don't know if I would return to officership should that be an option. I'm married to a committed Christian man who would support me in whatever choice I made.
HE does, however, find it hard to belive that I have 13 years with "no earnings" on my Social Security record.
I do love the Army, however, it does need to move into the modern era in some issues.
Former
USA East
Fact is that the UKT changed their policy because they had no choice. Partly because they were running out of officers, but mainly because of the Human Rights Act here in Europe.
The SA simply could not "sack" someone just because they got married. To deprive anyone of their livelihood, home, car etc. on the basis of a change in their marital status would have resulted in a legal challenge which would only have one result.
So it was never about compassion, just expediency!
Post a Comment