We have a proud early history concerning female ministry. Catherine Booth placed this issue on the agenda before the Army ever existed and therefore it was a natural part of the early Army and stayed there as it developed. By her writings and example she was influencing society.
Female ministry reflected in the early doctrine books
It is quite remarkable that all the first doctrine books from 1881 and onwards – the little red ones – had woman’s right to preach as an independent section. It is section 27 in the 1881 doctrine book following the section called Baptism. In later editions of the little red ones ‘Woman’s Right to Preach’ became section 26 following the section on the Bible. This gave a signal to the Army itself as well as to others that this issue was essential and indispensable for Army belief, practice and teaching. The right to preach did not stand alone – women were eligible for any office. The constitution of 1870 of the Christian Mission section XII said:
“As is manifest from the Scriptures of the Old and especially the New Testament that God has sanctioned the labours of godly women in His Church, godly women possessing the necessary gifts and qualifications, shall be employed as preachers itinerant or otherwise and class leaders and as such shall have appointments given to them on preacher’s plan, they shall be eligible for any office, and to speak and vote at all official meetings”
The early Army followed these guidelines concerning women together with placing the issue as part of the doctrine book.
The 1923 Doctrine Book changed the whole pattern of Army doctrine books from small catechisms to a propositional account of doctrine with 11 chapters building upon the eleven articles of faith. The centrality of women’s right to preach disappeared.
As it no longer appeared to be essential to Army belief and practice the influence from society more and more decided the agenda of the Army. Women were still preaching and leading corps. Fewer women were seen in leadership positions and in board rooms. As long as the influence from society was conservative and supported the idea of keeping women within home duties and subordinate positions for married women and subordinate positions for most single women it worked fine for the Army. The female side of the officer corps reflected this situation. It was even seen among local officers in many corps. There were exceptions both among officers and local officers, but they were few and far between.
When western societies changed and women’s liberation and equality became a serious issue the Army seemed to be immune against such a radical influence. It seemed to have forgotten the belief that female ministry was according to profound biblical teaching. The situation today is that the Army is trying to catch up with society. It is a slow process because it seems to be built on pressure from the modern world instead of being grounded in a sure conviction of the rightness of equality both theologically and biblically.
It is not unproblematic to find solutions that live up to equality between women and men, but if attitudes are build on a sure conviction there will always be a way of solving practical problems.
This overview of the development is a very broad picture, but the main issue is that development has evolved: from the Army being a radical influence in society on the issue of female ministry and with the issue solid planted in our faith and conviction to a struggling Army trying to live up to equality just on level with western society. The radical influence from the Army on society has gone as well as the profound conviction of this as a matter of faith and obedience to God.
Challenges and problems concerning the issue of equality
- Married women officers
We cannot truthfully talk about lack of officers, as long as we can afford to leave women officers in passivity with positions in name only in which they cannot fulfill their potentials or live out their calling. A situation like this is far more than bad stewardship, it is disobedience to God.
How is the Army meeting this challenge? As a token the language in O&R has changed so the sentence –‘the wife of’ was substituted by ‘the spouse of’ to indicate that supporting positions could be held by both sexes, at least in theory.
In most places, in Europe at least a team ministry of husband and wife can function very well at corps level and often do. If there is more than one corps in the town or other corps close by, husband and wife can lead a corps each if practical equality between the spouses and child care were in place. This happens to day, but could be more widespread.
At divisional level in the position of DC a team ministry between husband and wife can function, but it demands extra effort as the wife most often are given the position of DSWM. This should not exclude a sharing of responsibility, but it might. At TC level a joint leadership is possible if both partners agree. These three positions – CO, DC and TC – are the most independent in the Army with plenty of room for different leadership styles.
The situation of a spouse of a CS is very difficult and has to be looked into. The appointment for a wife is as TSWM which often is more a position than a real job. There might be skepticism towards a sharing or co-operation of the CS job between husband and wife even when it is clear who is the legal person of the position. The ideal is if the full team of the Territorial leaders (husband and wife) plus the CS and spouse would be sharing decisions and planning. This is not always possible due to problems of different cultures, personalities etc. The option in such a case is to give the spouse of the CS an independent job in order for him/her to fulfill their calling. This is gradually happening.
There are many different positions in administration where only one person of a couple has a full job. The expectation of supporting wives is so strong that they very often get less demanding and satisfying appointments. The administration might not be to blame for this, it could as well be some of the women themselves who find the situation convenient. Whatever the reason the consequences are serious. If we believe that each officer has his/her own calling then there must be given opportunity and a structure to live this calling out. It has to do with stewardship of gifts and time. All have been given gifts and talents – sometimes there are hidden talents as well. The only way to release gifts and talents is to challenge and demand the gifts to be used and developed. The main responsibility for challenging and demanding this lays within the Army who has accepted the calling and dedication of its officers. Of course officers themselves also have to take responsibility for their own development, as all persons are expected to be faithful stewards of their talents, but they are dependent upon the appointments given to them. Not all appointments make room for personal development.
- Single women officers
In theory it should be much easier to make room for single women officers for having satisfying, challenging and demanding appointments, room for them to live out their calling and potentials. In practice this does not always happen. As the number of men is much larger than women in leading positions and boards they will automatically look for ‘their own kind’ when filling in positions. The male dominance in all decisions making boards is a hindrance to equality, as long as it is not fully recognized, addressed and structures in place for solving it.
Another challenge for single women officers is that they are often ‘up against’ couples concerning appointments. This relates to all levels of appointments.
The newer situation in some territories especially in Europe with one spouse an officer and the other in a civilian job will hopefully change attitudes and practice for both single women officers and married women officers. This change might happen, because it demands a practice where each individual officer is considered in his/her own right. This situation has been possible for about fifteen years, but we haven’t really seen the profound influence of this yet.
- Further development
One of the recent issues, which seems to be a challenge not yet solved, is how shared ministry shall be interpreted and lived out in practice in situations where the wife is the leader and has the legal responsibility. Previously when the overall tradition was that the man had the position as the legal person or the leader, the wife was given the supporting position on territorial or divisional level as TPWM or DSWM. This facilitating structure secured that the wife was an accepted part of the leadership and shared leadership could be exercised. It opened also the door to an equal share in conferences and leadership gatherings where central issues were discussed and decided. These positions could in many territories be important ones, while in other places they were more token positions without very much work or influence. It was possible on top of this to give a ‘real job’ to thewife. I will illustrated this with a personal example from our time in leadership in Finland, where I was appointed as Program Secretary on top of the position as TPWM. This worked very well and the two positions fitted well into each other.
It seems as if no facilitating structure yet has been found to secure that shared ministry can continued when it is the husband and not the wife who has the supporting position. I think that an appointment as National Consultant (or Divisional Consultant) could be used as a leadership position for the spouse. It could be combined to other appointments according to the need of the territory ( or division), but it would signal that the shared ministry was still an important issue and that the spouse was part of the leadership.
Shared ministry is a unique feature of Army ministry and I hope it will continue to be seen as a treasured part of our heritage. It is not the easiest way of leadership and ministry, but it has great values and potentials as our history can illustrate.
Salvationist viewpoints 