SS0 - What’s expected of me? Am I qualified? What must I do to measure up?

 There is little value and consequently, no virtue in linking up heaps of disconnected Christians or matching Christians with non-believers. Vitality in the church (TSA) finds its impetus and strength in the resource provided by Christ-centred individuals and groups interacting with one another. The first and key step in formulating a successful strategy based on this theory is recognizing if all in the church/corps are inside the Christ-centred unit. Are all in agreement on:

• ·      What our mission is?
•      What is the role of the SSO (non-officer spouse) in supporting the officer?
•     What will be the relationship and respective roles as between the non-officer spouse and others?
•      What structures, policies and necessary screening and training there ought to be?

All these questions and many more fall under the heading: Ecclesiology and the Army (the study of the church). Although the word is rarely used in SA circles and no doubt unknown to most Salvationists, it’s one we must acknowledge as we question if some measure of reform is necessary. One need only take a cursory look at the high percentage of non-Salvationists who seek approval as the non-officer spouse under the SSO provision. With the alarming number of officers resigning from active service each year we recognize both the immediate and long-term needs of those willing to serve under this relatively new provision. However, was sufficient thought and preparation given to the inherent implications?

The army’s genius lies in great part in its fundamental dependence on a victorious history; a tradition built on immense trust in God’s word, the obedient seeking of the Holy Spirit’s leading, and a fierce commitment and loyalty to SA leaders, often perhaps, blindly so. However, in Shaw Clifton’s, Selected Writings, Volume 2, p.19 he writes on what it takes to be a ‘thinking Salvationist’, and there is wisdom here as it relates to the screening and training of the non-officer spouse.

Commissioner Andrew S. Miller officiated at my father’s Promotion to Glory ceremony and used the phrase time and again; ‘In him there was no guile – He was a Salvationist!’ And as the TFS my father was responsible to interview and comment on all applicant seeking employment in the Finance Department. One might expect that the questions asked of the applicants were what are your credentials, what experience do you, where do you see yourself etc. in 5 years? But said Commissioner Miller, Sven’s questions were far deeper than that: “Do you know the history of TSA and the reason for our existence? Are you familiar with the Christian church, our motivation, our values and the life style of most of our 100+ employees?  Sven left no doubt as to his and the army’s central mission; the salvation of the world.”

Clifton writes, ‘I do not think anyone can rightly claim to be a thinking Salvationist without knowledge of Army history.’ Should this not also, at least in part, be a part of every employee’s portfolio of knowledge? And ought we not to require the non-officer spouse to also participate in a briefing session or two? And encouraged to join the SSO non-officer fellowship?

“Part of the Army’s God-given genius is to move with the times. We were born out of a specific time and specific culture in English history, but God has moved Salvationism on and outward through many generation and into countless cultures ever since”. (Shaw Clifton) 

The army’s colourful and victorious history is a wonder to many and one that continues to draw researchers, believers and sceptics alike. Case studies are written and our history disseminated to ascertain how one trial was overcome only to become the genesis for the next. That is until now!

When pressed to share details, fact and figures, the ethics and values ascribed to by the non-officer spouse, there was a tendency of certain SA leaders to become vague and even non-responsive. Most organizations operating in a military fashion will have as a key phrase for insisting on, or refusing commands; It’s policy! Those of us who deem ourselves ‘thinking Salvationists’, those with years of experience find such responses to our questions repugnant, especially when the utterance comes from those at high levels who may ultimately bring opprobrium upon the Army; their responses become less and less believable and their integrity suspect.

Weaknesses and ineptitude in some leaders is a ‘given’. Not all who are promoted will rise to the intellectual demands of ‘the office’. (The Peter Principle; people will often be promoted beyond their capacity to think, to produce, to function) When looking at military ineptitude one generally learns that it requires a longitudinal study. It highlights the influence of earlier events upon later events. In the instance of misconceptions and failings among those accepted into the SSO program, the Army had no case studies within the organization to provide necessary insight. We did have the experience of dozens of churches, including the one hundred history of our own Methodist foundation.

What methods of study were undertaken? It’s clear that the expectations differed sharply from territory to territory. Canada insisted the non-officer spouse be a soldier and pointed to the program’s success in the UKT. By whose measure was it ‘working well’? I suggest we, the Army, did not move with the times! It took us much too long to recognize the value of the SSO provision. We did avail ourselves of resources available to us when designing the paradigm. And many suggest that leadership, on many levels, have not given proper oversight to the development, value and effectiveness of the SSO provision.

Dr. Sven Ljungholm

Birkenhead Corps