SINGLE SPOUSE OFFICERSHIP

“The Lord says ‘Do not cling to the past or dwell on what happened long ago. Watch for the new thing I am going to do. It is happening already you can see it now!’…”-Isaiah 43:18-19 GNB

THE SELECTION AND APPLICATION PROCESS

The Salvation Army International Commission on Officership (2000) seeking to remedy the significant reductions in the number of officers in many developed countries opened the door for Christian ministry and spiritual leadership for those called by God, but whose spouse does not share the same calling to ministry. SSO celebrates individual calling to ministry as officers in The Salvation Army and requires that each candidate for SSO be evaluated on their own merit. It broadened access to officership for those who married non-officer spouses. Equally important; it acknowledges and celebrates individual calling to ministry as officers in TSA while also seeking to quell the fundamental problem of the diminishing number of active officers in many ‘western’ country territories.

SSO celebrates individual calling to ministry as officers in The Salvation Army and requires that each candidate for SSO be evaluated on their own merit. It acknowledges individual calling to ministry as officers in TSA while also seeking to quell the fundamental problem of the diminishing number of active officers in many ‘western’ developed countries and territories.

Throughout Salvation Army history the unique position on married officer ministry, i.e. both spouses equally called, trained, ordained and commissioned, has been of great strength, but more and more Salvationists rejected the regulation as outdated and a hindrance in advancing the army’s growth and God assigned mission. Nonetheless, the model of service where an officer is married to an officer will continue to be encouraged and endorsed.

This high attrition problem did not affect all territories as broadly or significantly as others. The reduction in the number of officers serving in non-pastoral roles was less affected in the USA, for instance, as their financial resources were sufficient in hiring lay personnel and professional to fill many roles previously held by officer personnel.

It's been 12 years since SSO policy discussions were begun and the provision introduced. Has SSO served its intended purpose to avoid the potential human rights' legal controversy, the perceived unfairness of an antiquated system and added significantly to the number of active officers? Are there remaining issues surrounding the SSO that require attention?

THE SELECTION AND QUALIFICATION PROCESS

The Salvation Army is recruiting the very best SSO candidates in order that its mission be accomplished more effectively.  And a significant part of the recruitment and application process will be a scrutiny and review of the applicants to gage their suitability in joining in the salvation war, The Salvation Army wants to ensure the very best candidates for SSO are recruited and accepted so that TSA’s mission will be accomplished. Although it was initially proposed that the non-officer be a Salvationist, that proviso was eventually ruled ‘non-enforceable’. The obvious benefits of holding to such a proviso are self-evident.

“All applicants for SSO must allow time for an extensive interview and evaluation process. A change of appointment for the spouse who becomes the remaining SSO officer may be necessary. The non-officer spouse must sign a ‘declaration’ of support for the officer spouse’s ministry and a willingness to relocate with the officer spouse as part of the Army’s appointment process. This person will share the same commitment as his/her officer spouse to The Army’s mission, values, beliefs and lifestyle.”[1]

Must the non-officer’s vocation become secondary to that of the officer? Has the applicant been made fully aware of the significance of God’s call to ministry? Can the non-Salvationist, the non-Christian or non-believer fathom what a Divine call to service represents and demands?

“The focus group, made up of officers and lay people, was presented with different scenarios to stimulate our thinking. Without exception, everyone in the group agreed the time to permit single spouse officership had now arrived and that there is certainly no biblical injunction that should prevent such a calling.

This new system of one spouse officership is already up and running in the U.K. territory and has had no adverse impact. Now that the Canada and Bermuda Territory has accepted this policy for the ranks of lieutenants, I believe we need to go the next step and incorporate this to cover all ranks within the Army.

Although there are great advantages in having both husband and wife in ministry team leadership, this should not impede couples where only one wishes to become an officer. Single spouse officership would allow a former officer to be reaccepted without the spouse being required to follow suit. “

THE APPLICATION PROCESS

“Throughout Salvation Army history our unique position on married officer ministry, i.e. both spouses equally called, trained, ordained and commissioned, has been a great strength. The model of service where an officer is married to an officer will continue to be encouraged and endorsed.

The Salvation Army International Commission on Officership (2000) opened the door for Christian ministry and spiritual leadership for those called by God, but whose spouse does not share the same calling to ministry.

The application process starts with a written request to the Divisional Commander or Department Head asking for consideration as a single spouse officer. An interview with the applicant and the non- applicant spouse (or spouse to be) will subsequently be arranged. Divisional Commanders and Department Heads will provide a copy of the Manual of Guidance for Single Spouse Applicants to interested persons. This manual will address questions and detail the application process.”[2]

(It is doubtful that such a manual exist in all SSO territories – I’ve been an officer’s spouse for almost 4 years and have yet to receive one. Then again, we’ve moved cities 3 times and quarters 4 times… perhaps it’ll soon catch up!)

What will be the expectations and role of the non-officer spouse?

A stated expectation was: “…the non-officer/retired officer spouse will possess a thorough understanding of The Salvation Army, its mission and values and its officer appointment system. The nature of officership as a spiritual covenant rather than a contract with The Salvation Army must be understood and affirmed. He/she must sign a declaration of support for the officer spouse’s ministry and a willingness to relocate with the officer spouse as part of the Army’s appointment process. The non-officer spouse must be a senior soldier* of The Salvation Army “in good standing.” This person will share the same commitment as his/her officer spouse to The Army’s mission, values, beliefs and lifestyle.”

*It is unknown to this author if this regulation was ever upheld or for how long. What is clear, however, is that its well-intentioned purpose was short lived. The abandonment of the regulation can in part be understood:

·      Too narrow and restrictive

·      Unenforceable if TSA wanted to retain the officer

·      Illegal and unethical

·      TSA can not impose conditions on persons not in a covenanted role or those who are not employees of the army (non-officer spouses enjoy free living accommodation in most SSO territories and one could argue that a quid pro quo expectation ought to exist)

EXPECTATIONS

Officership is not a career, but a covenant relationship designed for the long haul. Of course if we want people to sign up, we need to change our approach.

Some concerns were raised in regard to what standard the non-officer spouse should be required to follow:

·      Must they be a soldier or member of the Army, or can they simply be a professing believer of the Christian faith?

·      Would they be prepared to live in an officer’s quarters if their combined income enabled the couple to afford a more expensive place to live?

·      How would our corps/community churches accept this new leadership arrangement?

·      What kind of expectations would be placed upon the non-officer spouse by the congregation at large?

·      Required to move to a new location when the officer spouse receives farewell orders

·      Be prepared to live in an officer’s quarters if they deemed the property was in disrepair, lacking conveniences for a disabled spouse, located in a dangerous neighborhood, or where the furnishings were worn, dirty, etc.

(As a disabled non-officer spouse I can vouch for the fact that TSA has been very supportive in providing somewhat adequate alterations to our present quarters, and with promises of possible updates in the next fiscal year.)

APPLICANT POOL

The SA’s claimed membership includes;

·      16,938 active Officers

·      9,190 retired Officers

·      1,122,326 Soldiers

·      189,176 Adherents[3]

Adherents are persons who do not make the commitment to be a soldier but who formally recognize The Salvation Army as their church.

Commissioner Kay Rader speaks to the commitment expected of all SA soldiers (the clear division in expectations between Soldiers and Adherents):

“Actually, the Soldier’s Covenant (what we used to call, ‘The Articles of War’) signed by every soldier, commits us to a lifetime covenant of service within the Army. It is part of the uniqueness of our movement that we expect that level of commitment from all our members”

William Booth's wife Catherine put it like this:

“While the nature of officership is a spiritual life-long covenant the non-officer’s commitment is rather in the form of a contract with The Salvation Army. These uniquely distinct pledges must be understood, agreed to and affirmed by all entering into the SSO proviso. Although it was initially proposed and expected that the non-officer be a Salvationist, a soldier, that proviso was eventually ruled ‘unenforceable’ and has been the cause of much concern. The obvious benefits of such a proviso are self-evident. The immediate advantage would be that, if every non-officer spouse was a SA soldier it might be assumed that they would understand and accept their soldiership as a call to mission; that being a ’soldier’ is synonymous with being a support person to the officer spouse. “

However, would such a demand severely reduce the pool of qualified and willing applicants? Would SA restrictions, regulations and demands limit the freedom of the non-officer and cause SSO to appear unattractive and too confining??

Today’s, non-officer spouses include Salvationist, former officers, those of other faiths and some professing no faith.  Some non-officer soldiers wear uniform, others don’t. Some take an active role in supporting their spouse and the SA’s mission. Others are less committed and some not all involved.

Without some sort of universal regulations on whom an officer can marry is it not simply a matter of time and the territory before this becomes a PR nightmare and embarrassment for the Army at the local level?

“Shouldn't an officer's spouse at least be a Salvationist who subscribes to the Army's ban on alcohol and tobacco? Would these things be allowed into an officer's quarters and how would that look to the public and/or the soldiership if one's spouse was engaging in those activities?” [4]

SA Adherents for instance, do not subscribe to the SA ban and are already included among the non-officer ranks. Can we, TSA, realistically ask all non-officer spouses to represent Christ at all times and promise: I will not smoke, drink alcoholic beverages, etc. and reject their application and suitability unless they sign ‘on the bottom line’. 
People signing such a pledge will tend to fall into one of several categories:


1.     They sign it with the intention of breaking the rule with discretion when necessary.

2.     They sign it with every intention of honoring their commitment and as a sign of the esteem in which they hold their spouse, TSA (the church)

3.     They sign it believing they can uphold the rules with little or no effort- a practiced life style.

Yet, even with all the precautionary concerns and ‘controls’ there have been many negative experiences. In seeking to rectify these issues it’s clear that the major causes for the negative experiences stem from the lack of preparation and/or ongoing training of the non-officer spouse? Are the non-officer spouses or those intending to be, fully aware of the spiritual commitments made by their spouse, the army’s mission and their expected role in it?

The officer spouse will or has received extensive training on how to be an officer. However, the same cannot be said of the non-officer spouse. Instead, unless they are themselves former officers, or at the very least long term Salvationists they may well feel totally unprepared for the expectations associated with their assumed ministry support role.

In communicating with a number of non-officer spouses the army’s expectations of them and the army’s motivation in enacting the SSO provisions do not appear to have been satisfactorily explained, understood or adopted. Is an indoctrination course and regular review the answer?  

In fact the SSO provision was scrapped in NZ last year due a number of unexpected controversial issues, and only one SSO couple remain serving in that territory. What might be learned from that experience?

In Finland and Australia non-officer spouses are challenging the expectation that they move their household in conjunction with the officer spouse’s new appointment.

Those non-officer spouses (SS0) I’ve spoken with, or have contacted me privately, see their spouses’ calling and vocation as the officer's own, and do not consider themselves a specific part of his/her ministry, although they view themselves generally 'supportive'.

Can it be all that difficult to demonstrate to the non-officer spouse what their assumed role represents? And that their general attitude should be that of  'servant-helpers' - their primary vocation being; to anticipate, meet and support the needs of their officer spouse.

Some, along with me, consider ourselves ‘appointed’ to be in part- time unpaid ministry with the officer spouse, determining how we should be involved in the corps. (this subject has proved to be controversial on many levels and requires further research) The corps often assumes incorrectly what the non-officer’s role ought be… no previous experience with the provision or unfamiliar with the person’s qualifications.

It is unrealistic to define a specific role within the corps based on models where in the past both spouses were SA officers. The SA needs to formulate a strategy to introducing the new support structure. And SA Leaders need to address why non-officer spouses have not received a proper ‘role introduction’. How about a ‘recommended job description’?

The SSO spouse Job Description…

Dr. Sven Ljungholm
Liverpool Birkenhead Corps

---

[1] Major Victor J. Cyr, ‘The Horizons’ September/October 2005.SA CANADA

[2]  Ibid

[3]  The Salvation Army 2010 Year Book

[4] (Salvationist- Former Officer, Chicago, USA)