If it's OK in the UKT, why not in the colonies?!

The Salvation Army Marriage Clause

by Motte Brown

The Salvation Army is doing their job to ensure that members of the church are equally yoked. If you decide to marry outside the ministry, you're gone.

Talk about limiting your dating pool.

There's a situation right now in Oshkosh, WI where a Salvation Army officer, who's worked for the organization 14 years, faces dismissal if he marries his fiancee who's outside the ministry.

From Fox News:

"I prayed and told the Lord, I can't stand being single. Can you please give me a woman on the outside and inside," said Harsh. He said it was love at first sight. "One word describes her. Wow."

Harsh said the organization's rules regarding marriage are outdated, unfair and must be changed, but he doesn't want his personal situation to harm the Salvation Army. ...

"[The rules] are not scriptural. They are man-made," Harsh said. "God could care less about the uniform or a position. I am doing this so future officers don't have to go through what I went through."

What makes this situation particularly, well, harsh is that Harsh's first wife was a Salvation Army officer. But she died suddenly of a heart attack back in June. And since Harsh "can't stand being single," he went online and found Cia, his fiancee.

There is some merit to the Salvation Army's antiquated marriage policy. Founders William and Catherine Booth believed that two officers could serve better than one officer who's spouse wasn't committed to the ministry.

The situation is supposed to be resolved next week. And though it'll seem unjust if he's dismissed, it's obvious he was aware of the policy ... and, apparently, he was OK with it until it affected him personally.

 -------------------

SAMPLE COMMENTS

The policy itself is foolish. But the Salvation Army is a private religious group, and we should all be strongly supportive of its right to establish its criteria for membership. From the story, it appears that Harsh understands this and is encouraging people to continue to support the Salvation Army's good work. That's a great example for all of us--especially these days, when so many people immediately try to use the power of government through lawsuits and public pressure when the rules of a good private organization happen to cut against them. Witness the difference between Harsh and the gay scoutmasters who sued the Boy Scouts.

---------------------- 

While I can see the wisdom in partnering with someone within the same ministry, it does seem like the Salvation Army's interpretation of "equally yoked" is somewhat extreme, even while they are within their right to determine who works for them based on their marital situation. Harsh is right that the Salvation Army's application of "equally yoked" certainly isn't scriptural.

Maybe the Salvation Army could start it's own matchmaking/online dating program. Then those officers who can't stand to be single would have a more obvious avenue to meet other available officers.

------------------

Whoa… Does that mean they want both spouses to work? What about young couples with small children? What if the woman is a stay at home mom? Both "in" the ministry to me suggests both on the payroll. Nothing else makes sense except that a woman could still support her husband in the ministry without being on the payroll of the Salvation Army. Being a SA spouse would be no different than being a pastor's wife in my opinion. She would "join" the ministry as soon as she married the man.

 -----------------------

I have friends who are with the Salvation Army, and--yes--they have their harsh rules. I don't agree with them on several matters, this definition of "equal yokes" being one of them.

On the other hand, if I choose to be a part of that ministry--and take on a position in that organization--then I am accepting their rules. No one is putting a gun up to my head and telling me to accept their rules.

--------------------

For half a year of my junior high life, I attended a Christian school that, while the teachers were really excellent and amiable, had some very strict rules.

Among their rules: (a) they confiscated Bibles that were any version other than KJV; (b) they had a haircut rule that was compatible with the military; (c) uttering an expletive was grounds for immediate expulsion.

I didn't like those rules, but (a) I took my KJV to school, (b) kept my hair cut, and (c) for once in my life, went three full months without dropping an expletive. ;)

 -------------

I don't think the policy is unjust. If she is a non-believer she should be gone and he needs to find a wife who is. If she is a believer than I don't see any problem. That's what being equally yoked truly means. Not if she works in the same company I do...

------------------ 

I dated a woman once that I met through a Christian lonely hearts club pen-pal service. She was very pretty, and we got along great.

Then, I tried to pursue her and she promptly broke up with me. The reason she gave was that she was destined for full time service in the Salvation Army, and she told me her future spouse had to be in the SA.

I was not about to make an entire career switch just to date her. At the time, I thought it was her rule and not one of the organization. Now I understand better, and feel less "rejected" (after the fact). At least she could have put that in her profile. That rule really places a heavy burden on single people unless they can meet other compatible singles in the Army.

-----------

The Salvation Army (my employer) would allow her to become an officer, if she graduates from training college. That's two years of schooling, no matter what degrees you may already have. It’s more than just being a member of the Salvation Army, it is making the Salvation Army your vocation. Very similar to the US military, you have little say over where you go or what you will be doing. If she did graduate, then they could become married. However while at training, you have no time for an outside life, so maintaining a dating relationship would be hard. If he were to marry before she graduates, she may be allowed to continue training, but he would lose his job temporarily until she finished. The training college will not allow you to have any debt, and won't allow you to work while going to school. You have to budget two years worth of expenses, including school costs, and prove that you have the financial means to provide for yourself while at school. A daunting task.

Also, would we really want this officer to have to wait two years while being engaged? Seems like I can think of several articles where this is discouraged. If she did the work and became an officer she would have a job at the corps, and potentially not be able to use her nursing skills. What if she wanted to be a stay at home mom, but had to run business at the corps (church)? That would be extremely difficult to do...

Finally, if an organization imposes rules on you, even if you agree, that are unconstitutional, they can't make you follow them. However, in 'right to work' states, they could just let you go without a reason, although it would be clear enough...

--------

I'm Catholic, and it's pretty well known that for the past millenium or so most Catholic priests have not been allowed to marry. Eastern Orthodox priests are not allowed to marry after their ordinations, but married men are allowed to become priests (but not bishops). Married Catholic men can become permanent deacons, but cannot marry or re-marry once they are ordained to the diaconate.

Even if Harsh is no longer allowed to be an officer in SA, is there anything preventing him from continuing to volunteer and help the SA in their work, albeit in an unofficial capacity?

I am a Salvationist in the Canadian Territory and they recently changed that rule so that officers can marry someone on the outside. The Salvation Army is an international organization and with the precedent already set in one territory, I expect the USA Central territory to do likewise in the near future.

-------------------

I agree so much with what many of you have written.

I too have been part of the leadership of a Christian organization with very strict rules, and while I certainly chafed against them, I *did* agree to join. It was, on a certain level, my choice; I signed the agreement; and I had the privilege of serving in a fruitful (but intense) ministry that is networked around the world. Would I sign on again? Probably not; it's very restrictive. But I am certainly glad I participated when I did. I grew a lot.

I will say that it's getting harder and harder to find people willing to serve as leaders in ministries with strict charters, such as the Salvation Army, and the ministry I was involved in. I think sometimes people forget that the "rules" are there for a reason, and help the organization function well, and that living a disciplined life (which is what many of these rules are intended to instill) can be a blessing. An organization can't function as an organization if everyone in that organization follows their own way of doing things.

---------

Oh - there's something I should explain. I worked at a camp counselor at some Salvation Army camps. The "officers" have seminary-type training. I know one guy who already had a M.Div. and he transferred in as a captain I think.

So, really, expecting her to be an officer means at least two things: 1) that she will undergo a certain amount of Bible/ministry training, and 2) that she agrees to be a partner in ministry.

It reminds me of another YWAM example: Darlene Cunningham was a nurse, and soon after they got married, she was impacted by all the people asking her which Bible college she went to. Some seminaries address this exact issue by having training programs for pastor's wives, which helps give them a certain level of Biblical knowledge along with training in other practical aspects of leading womens or children's ministries, for example. It's not at all uncommon for a pastor of a little church to have his wife in charge of the children and the women's ministries when they start out. Some training is helpful.