FEELINGS OF INADEQUACY

CONCLUSION

FEELINGS OF INADEQUACY AND TRAINING

 A poll was conducted among SSO spouses living in six territories. The respondents included former officers, SA soldiers, those committed to another denomination, new Christians and a very few professing ‘no faith’.

The purpose of the survey was simply to determine if the non-officers were familiar with SA history, mission, policy, the ‘call’ to ministry, etc.

I believe I have received sufficient training in the following areas and have a good knowledge of:

SA MISSION	27%
SA THEOLOGY	24%
SA HISTORY	28%
SA OFFICERSHIP	28%
SUPPORTING my OFFICER SPOUSE	0%
LITTLE TO NONE OF THE ABOVE	71%

‘My knowledge of the above subjects has come exclusively from what my officer-spouse has shared, not from any SA directed training: 28%.’

Can it be all that difficult to demonstrate to the non-officer spouse to be what their assumed role represents and to initiate a training program to achieve that goal? And, to convince them that their general attitude should be seeing themselves as 'servant-helpers' - their primary assistance being; to anticipate, meet and support the needs of their officer-spouse.

A voluntary introduction course (distance learning) including a clearly defined and expected role of the non-officer spouse would have circumvented and eliminated many of the difficulties and controversies experienced. This should be offered to all interested SSO couples. In addition the elusive brochure should be examined and, if needed, updated.

Further a ‘continuing education’ program that would meet the specific needs of a non-officer spouse ranked high among the recommendations, with 89 percent affirming this.

On my visit to the Training College, London, several spouses of Cadets in training, those who will soon be my colleagues, sought me out to share various concerns; I sensed they simply needed to vent. I learned, to my great surprise, that they aren’t allowed to worship with their cadet spouse and the student body in the Sunday Morning services at the College. Nor are they included in the Spiritual Day programs. These ‘policies’ differ from those in some other territories where the SSO provision is in place.

Officers and their marriages (and families) will be under constant scrutiny once in the field, and the health of their marriages is an important part of their credibility in spiritual leadership. Worshiping as a couple, or as a family, with other likeminded called and committed Salvationists (Christians) is absolutely essential.

As in any training program, couples learn and benefit from sharing their own knowledge and spiritual experiences as much as they do from the material taught by the trainers/facilitators. The non-officer is often isolated from SA procedures and programming and the training becomes a vital forum for sharing experiences, learning from each other, and reinforcing each other. The spiritual side of the non-officer is absolutely critical if the officer-spouse is to become effective. It is an essential part of everything that the officer-spouse hopes to accomplish. 

The nurturing of pastoral family relationships is not a diversion from the work of ministry, a sort of necessary evil; it is fundamental. Unless the SSO couple are in harmony, the officer-spouse will soon become discouraged, and the effectiveness of the ministry will decline or cease.

There will never be a better opportunity to bring these non-officer spouses to be, into an understanding of their Cadet spouse’s ‘calling’ and life-long commitment to serve, than while living in community at the Training College.

                 

And, how difficult would it be to establish a ‘discussion group’, geared to the non-officer to be, to include SA history, theology and SA mission in the mix, perhaps led by a select group of cadets, officers and staff from the Heritage Center?

The policy on where the SSO couple will reside needs immediate action. One can only imagine if 5-10% of the UKT officer pool became entrenched in mortgage obligations and refused their ‘marching orders’.

The expectation was when signing the non-officer contract that: “the non-officer spouse will possess a thorough understanding of The Salvation Army, its mission and values and its officer appointment system.”  Has this requirement been adhered to?

A comment heard from a non-officer spouse recently was: “I really have trouble relating to a concept until I can tie it to something I fully comprehend”.

Other non-officer spouses (SS0) I’ve spoken with 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’d like to, at the very least, ‘appear supportive'.

In communicating with SSO non-officer spouses the expectations and provisions do not appear to have been satisfactorily explained or reviewed regularly. 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.

There has never been nor is there is currently an educational training curricula for becoming a non-officer spouse. Incongruous as it may seem, one simply completes and signs a short contract and seeks the approval of the Divisional Commander. However, because of the nature of the officer’s role, the non-officer spouse is involved in the ‘work’—trained or not, wishing to or not. There is no standard measure of expectation, success or failure.

ORDINATION

With the introduction of the word ordination to its commissioning of new officers in 1978 came the contention that officers are the equivalent of clergy in every respect, possessing and elevating them to a status that sets them apart from their soldiers and also their non-officer spouse.

  

The nature of officership as a spiritual covenant rather than a contract with The Salvation Army must be understood and affirmed by the non-officer spouse. However, does the connotation ‘ordained’ cause even greater confusion and possible enmity between the non-officer and SA persons? Will the non-officer be seen as irrelevant to the officer-spouses’ role, particularly if they are not sufficiently trained for their own unique contribution?

Traditionally the commanding Officers are the primary leadership team of SA corps; churches.  They are both the spiritual leaders and the backbone of the leadership and other teams within the corps. They are responsible for the effectiveness of every form of ministry. They have the difficult task of leading and motivating a wide variety of local officers and other volunteer leaders. They set the vision and direction and are charged directly or indirectly to energize the staff, soldiers and adherents and recruits and to impact their communities through their spiritual gifts and leadership skills.

SA Officers are well trained in theology, administration, social work and other necessary skills, but yet feel inadequate in certain areas. And it’s in those areas where the spouse, once sufficiently trained, will apply their unique gifts.

Officers attend a variety of management and leadership seminars or do extensive independent reading and self-study. Most non-officer spouses are ill equipped in the areas management and leadership. And without training it cannot be assumed that all non-officers can move forward with the same sense of confidence and effectiveness. They may be called and empowered by God, but are constantly challenged by the lack of necessary training and educational support.

Isn’t it a ‘given’, using today’s contemporary business vernacular, to include the non-officer in such training whenever possible? Or at the very least, if mixing the two servant roles is problematic, might separate training sessions or retreats not be conducted to dramatically increase the non-officers’ contributions and effectiveness as the CO’s assistant?

Surely they can lend assistance in order to balance issues and deal with the very problems married SA officer couples face on a daily basis. This will also develop stronger marriages through greater emotional intelligence and understanding of their own marriage partners’ spiritual strengths and commitment. Both the officer and their spouse, who now recognizes that they have a role in the ministry, dramatically change their approach and learn to feed and motivate the other; it can grow in a way that transforms the relationships and consequently, their combined ministry impact.

And is it not likely that for some that such a dual serving relationship might move the non-officer to contemplate officership?

FACTORS GENERALLY AFFECTING A PASTOR’S SPOUSE

In sharing their spouse’s work, developing friendships, meeting people, and finding fellowship ranked as the number one joy among 24 percent of those surveyed. Following in close second, with 23 percent of the respondents was, "seeing persons come to Christ/soul winning."

Level of educational attainment (across denominations)

Spouses generally, have shown a feeling of inadequacy including intellectual inadequacy as the rule; 89 percent of the spouses affirmed this need.

Perhaps by offering continuing education opportunities for non-officer-spouse, the level of their self-confidence will be raised as it also strengthens morale and the spouse’s level of effective support.

More than 60 percent experience feelings of loneliness and isolation in their non-officer (ministry/support) role.

Having the needs of others take priority over the needs of the family frustrates 58 percent of Pastor’s spouses.

68 percent are worried about finances and resent having no opportunity to share actual needs with SA Administration. (Our quarters are in very a  run-down condition. I would never consider my retired SA officer mother or children to visit. My quarters, when a part of the pioneer team in ‘opening fire’ in Russia, was only marginally worse- no furniture!

My officer spouse is the Divisional Candidate Officer. We would love to invite prospective candidates and others to our quarters but believe that condition of our quarters would turn some away from eventual SA officership and instead socialize with them elsewhere)

72 percent are concerned about having sufficient family time.

21 percent sometimes wish their officer-spouse would leave the ministry.

The majority of non-officer spouses do not know where to turn for counsel when confronted with a serious personal or family problem. 74 percent of the spouses agreed that it is important for TSA to provide a professional counselor who has no administrative ties to whom they can turn. Why is such a support system provided only to the officer-spouse?

What then will be the role of the non-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 appointment. (This subject has proved to be controversial on many levels and requires further research)

The corps often assumes incorrectly what the non-officers role ought to be. It would therefore be unrealistic to determine a specific role within the appointment based on models where in the past both spouses were SA officers. There is no one size fits all or any magic SA formula.

(This is an issue that requires research and consideration separate from the recruitment, selection and training) 

 _____________________

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 what 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 we need not go blindly forward.

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.

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 skeptics alike. Case studies are written and our history disseminated to witness to 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.

One possible solution is to create a team ministry option for qualified SSO couples. Our history is replete with examples in which it’s demonstrated that a couple can be more effective than a single person in accomplishing the mission of the SA. Spouses who feel themselves an integral part of the team are not as likely to be isolated, lonely, and frustrated. Territories should seek ways to encourage and train for team ministry.

Even more, the SSO couple present a model to the SA community of what God intends; —a caring environment in which each member loves, supports, and encourages the others on their journey to the kingdom of heaven.

Dr.  
Sven Ljungholm

Former SA Officer

USA, Sweden, Russia, Moldova, Ukraine