JustThinking | the ghetto rant

The Married Women’s Ghetto
by Captain Danielle Strickland

So here’s the rub. There were many married women officers at the most recent High Council, and not one of them was nominated to be General. Do we think that out of all the women officers represented at the High Council, only single women have the gift of leadership? Are married women less capable, less inspiring, less able? Most would insist, with some trepidation, that no married women possess the experience necessary for the office of General. The rough part is this: they would be right. This problem is the result of what might be called “the women’s ghetto of The Salvation Army”.

When Martin Luther King, Jr. was trying to stand up for the rights of the urban poor in the northern part of the United States, he ran into a movement of young black ghettoized youth that had assembled themselves into an organization known as the Black Panthers. They were a group of militant young people so jaded and cynical that they scoffed at King’s non-violent protest methods. They wanted something extreme to be done about the injustice they endured - and they wanted it done now.

The injustice they experienced was somehow more humiliating than that of the black man in the south because it occurred in what was supposed to be the “land of freedom” - the north. Yet they found that, while they were technically free, they were still trapped and bound by their circumstances - stuck in a ghetto. Even though they could hear about the freedom and see the freedom and even sometimes taste the freedom, they couldn’t live it. This infuriated them.

Today, the outlook of married female officers bears resemblance to that of the black ghettoized youth in the north. They are told they are free - and indeed they are free in many respects. They are free to learn, to grow, and to lead on a basic level (especially as corps officers). But they cannot have the freedom to truly lead in the full potential or capacity they offer in the current system of The Army because of the “women’s ghetto.”

By women’s ghetto, I mean that part of The Salvation Army’s infrastructure that allows men to exercise leadership within the formal system while deploying their wives into corresponding positions over other women in a weird parallel universe. In this corporate structure, a woman’s end goal is to be married to a Commissioner - and to ultimately be the wife of the General.

It has no bearing on the election of a General whether or not his wife is even good at her job - as the position is not functional, but positional. By this I mean that it is not a merited position and is not considered an appointment providing leadership experience to become General (in fact, the wife of the General is the only Commissioner not allowed to attend High Council!).

High Council 2006

Sure, a married woman might one day aspire to be married to a man that can take her to higher positions on the totem pole of the women’s ghetto. It may be a nice place for her - but it does not matter if she is qualified, able or even gifted for the appointment. Indeed, all the women ghetto positions in the world cannot offer a reasonable opportunity for women to learn, cultivate, or prove leadership qualities enough to get out of the ghetto.

I realize that I’m on dangerous ground. To even speak about these things so plainly will cause some leaders to consider me a whiner; will permit unsympathetic male officers to disdain me as a “femi-nazi”; and might persuade women who have bought into the ghetto and find comfort in it to treat me as a threat. But I think it’s time we, at least, spoke plainly.

Consider life as a married-woman corps officer, celebrated in our system as a front-line leadership position. She is free to teach, preach, lead and learn. She can sort out all her leadership skills alongside her husband and can “share the load” and work it out together. This is likely the most extreme freedom she will ever experience in her officership. This is, in actuality, the promise realized… but it’s all downhill from there. It is true that the organization chants in response to this rant: “See, look at the front line… look at the trenches - corps officers are married women. They are leaders. They are free.”

Here enters the illusion that eventually gives birth to the anger. Every successful corps officer has proved his/her leadership abilities on the ground and is thus considered able to offer leadership to larger areas of command. The problem is that the leadership at a corps level is only credited to the male officer.

“Oh, that can’t be!” you lament. “That’s not true - surely a shared leadership command would be credited to team leadership not just the male.”

But alas, it is true. Women leaders, even after proving themselves in front-line appointments as fully functioning, fully able, fully contributing corps officers - active in leading the corps council, community PR, corps structure and systems, leadership training, preaching and teaching and training - are most often sent to the women’s ghetto when their corresponding husbands are given a job that is directly related to their success as leaders on the corps level.

Then you never hear from married women leaders again - unless you head to a women’s retreat.  It seems we can’t match our walk with our talk.

The cause of this current system of imprisoning effective women leaders for generations is unknown. Booth was known to promote married women according to their giftedness, not their married-ness.  But even Booth ran into problems from the mainstream-informed officers in his ranks. In 1888, addressing a meeting in Exeter Hall, William Booth said, “We have a problem. When two officers marry, by some strange mistake in our organization, the woman doesn’t count.”

From what I can piece together, it has been a subtle yet increasing theological and systemic shift that has managed to render a huge section of the Army’s leaders unusable and at best very limited to the larger war front. The Army has hamstrung itself, fighting a war against a well-armed enemy with an arm and a leg tied behind its back.

Now, there are officers who believe that “headship” is a scriptural principle and as a direct result keep married women in submissive positions as leaders. Married women officers themselves often have been taught and continue to believe this lie. When I have challenged it, I realize that not only does the Army perpetuate it by its current system but has probably even taught it by previous practice.

I don’t have the space to dissect the necessary principles on women in leadership here. Suffice it to say, Catherine Booth did it a hundred and thirty years ago in a book entitled Female Ministry (which no recently commissioned officer, male or female, seems to have read), and recently Loren Cunningham (founder and president of YWAM) along with David Hamilton (Biblical scholar) offers a great overview of the new world-winning strategy called Why Not Women? Good question.

I’ve met many capable married women officers - and an alarming number of them are on anti-depressants. I’ve got a hunch they wouldn’t be if they weren’t so frustrated with their seeming ineffectiveness. The Apostle Paul offers that health in the body is in part due to letting people use their gifts. If someone has the gift of leadership, Paul suggests a good, godly idea - let them lead (Romans 12). I think he’s on to something.

I recently saw a movie that reminds me of the situation. It was called Jarhead. I don’t recommend the movie, but it may offer us some advice.  It was about some soldiers trained, equipped and sent to the front to fight in a war. The problem was that they were never deployed. The government that sent them wouldn’t give them permission to engage the enemy (they were caught up in political talks) and so the soldiers sat on the ground - trained, equipped and stuck.

Not able to engage the enemy - not able to shoot, fight or even die - they started doing other things. Trying to keep in shape, wasting time on the decorations in their bunkers, learning to cook in different ways and getting angry at each other. It was a picture of soldiers stuck. And every married women officer-leader lives the same reality. So we busy ourselves on the ground… taking courses, watching our weight, picking on each other, over-organizing every women’s event and project… all the while simply trying to create some meaningful existence for ourselves, convincing ourselves that it isn’t our fault that we can’t lead, but having no way to prove it.

Now I’ve had this conversation enough times with enough people to tell you the responses:

Why do you need to lead on a positional level… are you hungry for power? This suggests that every leader wanting to stretch her ability to lead is hungry for power. It is an argument already lost by the practice of many godly men who long to lead well and lead bigger to mobilize forces and take more ground for God. Stop insulting us by considering any godly ambition for women leadership to be a Jezebel-inspired desire for control. It’s embarrassing.

The women’s ministry department is a valid leadership area. Good one. If that’s valid, then why can’t even the top dogs in the ghetto qualify to lead the Army?  And considering that any single woman General can simply add the duties of World President of Women’s Organizations to her other responsibilities as international leader of The Salvation Army, this hardly seems like a division that needs to stand on its own.

The Army’s great strength is in “team leadership.” Married couples should work together and the women shouldn’t need a position to be able to lead with her husband. Yeah, this one really works, except when it comes to any administrative position where there is only one head, and except when it comes to an organizational culture that dismisses women from the boardroom and power positions. It’s such a nice offer to let us women “influence” the final decision made by men anyway, but let’s be honest: no signing authority, no positional authority, and no real authority means no authority.

Don’t get me started on headship. Anyone who still holds to this view needs to read the Bible again. Here’s a hint: look deeper. Not only that, but our movement has already established Army theology (even if it remains unimplemented), so if you believe in headship limiting women leaders, join another movement.

It has the potential to wreck marriages. Nice marriage. There is nothing like a union that insists on one of the members stuffing her gifts and abilities down inside of her for fear of her partner looking smaller in light of them. This behaviour insults the purpose of marriage and makes men look bad. Grow up and get a healthy ego. Stop needing your women to be smaller than you to feel good about yourselves. Actually, to take a more pastoral note: get some counselling.

I’ve heard that there were once attempts to make some married women officers department heads, and one couple was called in to see if they would accept. This is insulting. I’ve never heard of a couple being called in to see if it was okay to offer promotions to men. Never. Ever. The marriage is never considered and often is compromised when it comes to promotions. Think about it. The Commissioner calls me up and says, “We’ve been thinking about promoting your husband but were concerned about how that would affect your marriage. Would it be okay with you?” Yeah, that’ll happen. But when it has potential to work the other way, we ask first and then call it off! What happened to equality… what happened to the greater work of the war trumping our personal preference? Come on.

Women don’t want to lead. To that, I would point out that the women’s ministry department in many territories have the most success at getting converts and then building disciples by making soldiers. This means that even from the ghetto, women are leading and leading well. Perhaps the shrinking program departments around the western world should take note. There might just be a married woman who could grow a whole programme department… imagine!

While I’m on this one… does it matter if a male officer doesn’t want to lead? Don’t sign up. Kick women out who don’t pull their weight. Don’t use lame women leaders as an excuse to paint us all with the same brush. It’s pathetic. Honestly, I’ve known some male officers who lack the muster to work hard… it doesn’t seem to make a difference on the ones who do.

Here’s the best one of them all: In many cultures and situations this is not culturally acceptable. I can’t help but chuckle as I imagine Catherine Booth in Victorian England scandalizing the country and even herself as she spoke the scriptures publicly for the first time. It was as counter-England in her century as you could find. Now come with me to America as 16-year-old Eliza Shirley leads the charge, or how about the Marechale opening the Army as a young woman in France. And on and on I could go. We have never been a culturally relevant movement; we’ve been the very opposite. We were a threat to the established church culture, we were a circus to the thinking class, and we were a sign and a wonder for the average person on the scene. When did we start thinking cultural sensitivity was our calling? If there is an evil part of culture, let’s do everything we can to offend it. I suggest that subjecting women to unequal treatment and opportunity is an evil to be challenged, not a relevancy to be followed. Let’s go buy ourselves some courage and return to the war ready to actually fight!

How do we change it? With so many women convinced of bad theology and bad practice, how do we turn the tide now?

Here are a few ideas:

Teach good theology. Make every officer read Why Not Women? by Loren Cunningham to start. Not just the women - all officers. We must teach on this subject. If we don’t give proper theology, our officers will get it somewhere else. Most likely it will be the Baptists and most mainline Evangelicals teaching their own theology on women. This is important. What we think affects what we do. So this is not just a method problem; it’s a thinking one.

Make changes fast. We can’t wait. When male officers think of their potential and future, they grin. When married women think of it, they grimace. It’s killing dreaming potential for their place in the Army and the call God has on their lives. Really. It sucks. Change it fast. Give many married women, whether they want to or not, leadership positions. Give them a chance to succeed and give them a chance to fail. Just give them a chance.

Use separate appointments/or separate tracking early. Follow the gifts and skills of officers. Do something easy to make this happen. Please don’t make another committee to discuss it. Just have married couples give a report of how they divide up the command and what their gifts are. It’s not rocket science. Get to know your leaders.

Dismantle the women’s ghetto. Put the women’s department where it belongs, in Program. Give officers appointments that match their giftedness and/or capabilities.

Dismiss officers who don’t work. Get on it. They are a drag on our system, our culture and our potential. It doesn’t matter their gender. Incompetence should be rewarded with a new job (just not with us).

Make it a must. Imbalance cannot be corrected without a counterweight. Create a reasonable minimum requirement of married women department heads in each territory. Do this for a minimum of five years to correct the initial imbalance. Whole countries do this in the workforce to create an equal setting from which the “best man for the job” becomes more than a literal description of what’s happening. We should be leading the world, transforming the culture, and this will only happen by intention.

Invite good married women officers to actually speak at non-women events. I know a few if you need some suggestions.

Most of all, let’s stop making excuses. Let’s stop pretending. Let’s be honest, real and practical about what to do. I know I sound passionate, but it is our whole future we are talking about here. Do I think God can’t use me outside of structure and system, promotions and process? Of course not!

But these days, it would appear that he simply can’t use me as General of The Salvation Army or any kind of department head, or anything that might insult my husband’s ego.

Let’s start partnering with God in His great design for The Salvation Army. Let’s really allow our workforce to grow in big proportions overnight and engage the enemy in a fight he hasn’t had to bear or to lose for a hundred years now. We did have him scared; now we have him sleeping. But I think if we started marching full strength, we could wake him with a fright. And he just might meet his end at last. Read Psalm 68:11 for details.

Writer: Capt. Danielle Strickland is currently the Social Justice Director of the Southern Australia Territory. She digs traveling, reading, running, speaking, basketball and movies. Her passion is grace, mercy and justice… and all the stuff in between. Her favourite question is ‘how hard can it be?’ and most of her days are spent answering it.

21 Comments to JustThinking | the ghetto rant

1. Fantastic post, Danielle. There are a few things I would add.

   First, you’re completely right about the parallel universe that is Women’s Ministries. In the vast majority of cases Women’s Ministries is run by people who have the job simply because of who their husbands are and assisted by women who have nowhere else to go. I could well be wrong, but how often are people (of any gender) appointed to those roles because they are particularly well suited to it? The result is a ghetto that isn’t run by the best people for the job.

   Second, there is a problem when we get couples that have very capable women married to men who might not be quite so gifted. I can guarantee that if she were put into a DC role, for example, he wouldn’t be appointed to Women’s Ministries. If he’s not the right person for the job, that would be a good thing. Unfortunately, the result would be that she doesn’t get the job either, as seems to be the rule.

   I saw an interesting thing today—a woman (single? I don’t know her) has been appointed as the DC of the South Australia division. Funnily enough, she’s also been appointed as DDWO. I don’t know why I find it amusing, but I’m sure I can come up with reasons.
Cameron Horsburgh on November 29th, 2008

2. Danielle:

   It’s good to have this posted here. This is a strong (if imperfect argument).

   While this particular flaw in no way undermines the case you are making, the problem is what it is. Married women officers are finding their promotional paths to be secondary to those of their husbands. And the afterthought positions they find themselves in (typically women’s ministry as you’ve said) segregate them from the kinds of opportunities prerequisite to top jobs.

   My spin on this is (and I’ve spun it before) that we need to expand our view of what leadership is. No matter they are performed by women in the “ghetto” there are surely tasks that being undertaken right now by senior officer wives which really ought be held in higher esteem (such as leadership on addictions treatment). Otherwise we risk losing whole generations of leadership that has been sequestered in low prestige/high value positions who still have much to contribute.

   Thanks

   Andrea
Andrea614Regent on November 30th, 2008

3. I agree. If ranks are going to exist(which is another debate), they need to make sense.

   Isn’t one of the problems that upper ranks are handed out to married couples, instead of just one person in the couple?

   It diminishes women to promote them to Commissioner because their husband has been appointed a territorial commander. The Army’s response to this in the last decade has been to make the marriage couple the “Leaders” (plural) and to give the woman a seat on the High Council. But that to me diminishes women even more. (So they probably aren’t getting nominated for General because they are not there because of their own ability or perceived ability.)

   So the way forward requires that wives stop getting promoted with their husbands. What is wrong with the wife of the TC holding the rank of major and working in a “real” major’s level appointment, instead of leader of the women’s ministries? Then if she can do the work, she could be promoted on her own merit.

   And here is the catch: then the reverse can be done as well, promoting a woman to Commissioner and leave her husband as a Major. Nothing wrong with that. In order to make that happen and not be a theoretical idea only, some immediate promotions should happen!
John Norton on November 30th, 2008

4. Hi Danielle,
   I have loved this rant since I saw an early version a few years ago. It is angry and persuasive and I hope that it mobilises people.

   I am just reading the amazing book ‘More than eyes can see’ by Rhidian Brooks and he points out the beautiful and radical example of Salvation Army women in developing nations leading in the way that the men are in traditionally patriarchal cultures. It did make me feel a little sad though when I read this and though “Little does he know…” We still fall miles short of gender equality in a structural capacity.

   A great example of a response to this is the Sophia Network in the UK: http://www.sophianetwork.org.uk/ Whilst it is specifically for youth workers the concept is perfect- not only is it networking and support for women in leadership but also has a list of women speakers for event organisers- how many times have I heard male conference leaders use “There aren’t any!” in response to a question about where the female speakers are!

   Sigh.

   Thanks Danielle.
Lucy AitkenRead on November 30th, 2008

5. You make some great points — I didn’t realize the Salvation Army had so thoroughly rejected Catherine Booth’s insights on God’s call to women. My mother, after seminary, chose ordination in the Methodist Church and had a great ministry, finding no room at the S.A. inn for a lady minister with a husband at a non-ministerial job. Believe me, that was the Army’s loss!

   Anyway, for the record, I think your black American history is inaccurate: the Black Panthers didn’t use violence because the prejudice they experienced was “somehow more humiliating than that of the black man in the south because it occurred in what was supposed to be the “land of freedom” - the north.”

   Black Americans, both southern and northern, suffered humiliations and southern blacks could have just as easily turned to violence (and maybe more effectively — the black population in the Southern US is a higher percentage of the population than in the north). The difference was philosophical — Gandhi as an influence vs. Malcolm X/Nation of Islam — and chronological. After years of non-violent protest, and white violent response, Stokely Carmichael et al seemed to think “Up against the wall, m—-f—” was the way to go. The Black Panthers also rose in conjuction with violent, pro-communist groups like my president-elect’s friends at the Weather Underground.

   South vs. North? I doubt that as a cause of violence — as a friend from Mississippi was wont to say: Schools in Jacksonville were integrated before schools in Boston. Nobody was thinking that places like Boston were paradise on earth since the Puritans lost control of the state legislature.

   Anyway, I wish married women officers’ well, but hope you won’t turn to bombs! As the old song says: “Surely love can conquer hate…”
Catherine W on December 1st, 2008

6. OK — “ONLY love can conquer hate…” Can’t I get equal time being inaccurate?
Catherine W on December 1st, 2008

7. Danielle describes the Salvation Army (TSA) as working in such a way that though equality for married male and female officers is being outworked at corps level, on the organisational responsibility levels, up to and including General, married women officers are in effect being sidelined.

   She identifies one of the reasons for this as a subtle yet increasing theological and systemic shift towards a belief in headship as a scriptural principle, a belief which she rejects as contrary to the Bible’s teaching.

   Now I certainly do not consider Danielle a ‘whiner’, a ‘femi-nazi’, or a ‘threat’ for presenting her view as she does. I agree with her that plain speaking is vital. I find her articles stimulating, and have found her blog challenging and encouraging. I’m sure she doesn’t need my recommendation, but I would encourage anyone to add her blog to their regular reads. I would even go so far as to suggest that there is a ‘prophetic’ element in her contributions.

   However, though I perhaps risk Danielle’s wrath by saying so, I am one of those who believe that headship is a Scriptural principle (though I would distance myself from understanding headship in such a way that it involves ‘keeping married women in submissive positions’). In believing this to be so, and in considering again the history and current position of TSA in this regard, I am wondering whether there may be a middle way between what I might call classic egalitarianism (male and female equal in all respects, and no male headship) and complementarianism (though male and female are fully equal in value and importance, there exists a male headship).

   The experience of TSA could be explained by saying that TSA has been inconsistent in outworking the principle of full equality for married men and women officers, and needs to make major changes. I would understand this to be Danielle’s position.

   However, I would suggest that TSA’s experience could also be explained by saying that headship is indeed a Scriptural principle; and because this is so, and because it is written into the fabric of life, this is ‘one’ of the reasons TSA has struggled with the issues as described by Danielle (though in saying that, I am not necessarily justifying the ‘married women’s ghetto’ approach as a solution).

   But then, on the later explanation, in upholding headship as a Scriptural principle, how do I account for the fact that the Lord has used, and uses certain women officers in TSA in the way that He has? I personally have benefited greatly from the ministry of Salvation Army women officers and soldiers. I was saved through the work of TSA. Where I was brought up, the work was originally started under God in 1879 through the work of Kate and Pamela Shepherd, and Charlotte Bateson. During my university days, Evangeline Booth’s, ‘The Star in the East’ was a veritable means of grace to me. The same would be true for Susie Swift’s, ‘Mine to rise when Thou dost call me’. And I could go on. How do these and many other facts relate to a belief in headship?

   What is the proposed middle way? My suggestion is that headship is indeed a Scriptural principle, and so in the case of married officers (which we are particularly considering at present) there will be an inevitable and essential outworking for husbands and wives, particularly as they take on more organisational responsibilities. However, principles are for general guidance, and at times exceptions may be permissible, or necessary. Therefore, it may be that on occasions, the Lord will take married woman officers into positions of responsibility, which ‘stretches’ the general principle of headship. But there would be two things to note; first, the principle is merely stretched, not abrogated, and second, the exceptions should be recognised as such and not made into a rule for all.

   It may well be that in suggesting this (and I certainly do not propose it as the final solution, but at this stage only a suggestion), I will get shot at by both sides of the argument, but I pose it anyway to further the discussion.

   In closing I would state that I have no other motive (at least as far as I am aware) for upholding headship, than a desire to see God’s Church increasingly conform to His will as revealed in the Scriptures. I am sure this is Danielle’s desire also. I have every respect for my sisters in Christ and desire that they each attain to all that the Lord wants for them. To further that end, I will therefore take up Danielle’s recommendation of reading, ‘Why not Women?’, a book which I have not yet read; I will also re-read Catherine Booth’s ‘Female Ministry’, not to see if I can prove them wrong, but to see if I can be persuaded that I need to change my view.

   In the meantime, I would also encourage all married women officers not to get angry (unless it is righteous anger), frustrated or depressed, but to grow in your love for Jesus, live for His glory and allow Him to work out His will for your life. Using the words of Paul, I am confident, absolutely confident, that nothing can separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord, (not even an incorrect understanding of headship, if that is in fact the case).

   Bernard
Bernard on December 1st, 2008

8. I have a mixed reaction to this post. The underlying message definitely resonated with me, as I have seen plenty of gifted female officers stuck with semi-ridiculous tasks.

   Yet I have also seen women find an amazing ministry in the Women’s Department. And I think it’s more than a little insulting to those doing good work and building good relationships in women’s ministry that you would dismiss them as having “bought into the ghetto”–that you would insinuate their talent is wasted in such a position.

   And to be honest, for such an important issue, I don’t think you’ve built a solid argument here. You reference “most women” or “some officers,” but where are the specific examples? Where are the compelling passages from the two books you mention? I’m not trying to sound like a nitpicky professor here–but for an issue that is so legitimately worthy of discussion, it hurts your side of the argument when you lack specific examples to support your case.

   Also, I think your sarcasm basically forces people to not take you seriously. And that hurts everyone that might take up the cause behind you.
Lesley on December 1st, 2008

9. I don’t know of any officer/soldier worth their salt who would not take up this cause because of what they perceive as sarcasm. That is a cop out. I am a male and refuse to judge any woman based on the obvious hurdles they daily face - in the world and in our Army. I bet I would be somewhat frustrated too.

   I also don’t see the real need of naming names either. This matter is rather obvious to those of us involved in the movement and care about what is happening. To ask for specific examples means we are either blind or in denial.

   It is also time for us to move beyond the headship excuse too. It is not a biblical concept as much as it is a cultural/historical context in which the church was showing the way out of. The NT treatment of women is definitely one of equality (read the Gospels, Acts, and epistles) and the church was touting equality long before it was fashionable. The sad thing is that the current culture now is ahead of the church in its overall treatment of women. 2000 years ago it was the church trying to lead the world in this matter of God being no respecter of persons. Now we are the ones who need to learn from the world. Sad.
Juan on December 1st, 2008

10. Juan,

    Don’t know if Lesley will respond to you or not - and I’m really not interested in taking sides, either - but I think it’s a pretty reasonable request for specific examples.

    I was in court today and had to give very specific instances, timeframes and dollar amounts. The judge was not too friendly towards the use of the word “approximate”.

    I agree with most of Danielle’s article. And, while I don’t want to attempt to speak for her, knowing her, I’m confident there’s no malice meant in the sarcasm. As I’ve discovered before here on the Rubicon, that tone may get lost in the medium of the written word.
Phil on December 2nd, 2008

11. Phil,

    We are not in court. If we were, I am sure we could lay out case after case of this sort. Danielle takes great care to, on the one hand show the awful seriousness of what is done to women officers, and on the other hand honor those women who, though stuck in the ghetto, shine brighter than many others who have been given advantages they didn’t deserve. There is an obvious male privilege in our movement.

    To further call out specific examples of women and subject their names and reputation to public scrutiny, when most of them have been nothing but be faithful, is demoralizing. If you want some examples, pull out your local disposition of forces. Then count the number of men in executive leadership (i.e. DC, TC, Secretary for Personnel, Secretary for Program, etc.) and compare the number to their wives who are in that parallel ghetto universe. Rather than dismiss this until someone does the work for you, check into it yourself. I think it is painfully obvious.
Juan on December 2nd, 2008

12. Ouch. Sounds like its getting personal, Juan. That’s usually when I step out. I’m learning to be careful about issues I’m passionate about. Persons and individual situations (as opposed to people and generalities) are more important.

    I really am not oblivious to the discrepancies, Juan. I wasn’t implying we should name names either, or asking you to do the work for me. I promise.
    Regarding your comment about the “obvious male privilege in our movement”: It’s actually not just our movement, it’s in the entire human race. It’s been brought about by sin. But, as we both know, in Christ there is neither male nor female….

    I would also take issue with you statement that the current culture is ahead of the church on its treatment of women. I would say quite the opposite in most places in the world, including the West. A woman’s right to do whatever she wants should not be equated with the true freedom that comes to all of us through submission to Christ.

    In principle, I think we agree, Juan. However, as has already been stated, and as I’m learning myself, sarcasm/biting comments don’t tend to advance your cause…
Phil on December 3rd, 2008

13. Dear Danielle,

    I received your article today during a pretty busy week and I didn’t mean to read it all, but you mention some very important points that I’d never put a name to myself, ie “the women’s ghetto of The Salvation Army”.

    I’m not sure how I would have coped as a married woman officer with my particular God given gifts. My wife is gifted in preaching, teaching and leadership who now works in the corporate sector in HR executive management and using her skills daily, who when as an officer wife, didn’t receive an appointment when I was appointed to a DHQ/THQ leadership role.

    More to follow after a further read.

    Thanks Danielle!

    Keith Hampton - Major
Keith Hampton on December 3rd, 2008

14. Hi Phil,

    Sorry but I didn’t mean it to sound sarcastic at all or personal. All I was suggesting is that if someone needs specific personal examples then they are at our disposal. My thought was: “Why name a specific female married officer, perhaps stating that she should get a more executive appointment, and this denigrate what she is already doing?”

    The male privilege bit is evident in all of humanity and that’s where our problem is. It is a sin and needs to be dealt with as such. I think the West is ahead of the church in this regard. I’m not suggesting it is perfect for women still get paid less to do the same work as a man. But if some of what happens to officers happened in other spheres such as the corporate world, lawyers would come knocking. We should be showing a better way. Thanks.
Juan on December 3rd, 2008

15. Newspapers went through a transformation similar to the one suggested in the “male rant” about 30 years ago — they got rid of the “women’s pages” and replaced them with less-gender-specific “life and arts” pages. This was both to address changing reader interest and destroy the female reporter’s ghetto. Today, while there are some great male features writers, the sections are still largely female (and sportswriters are still mostly male). The difference from the Salvation Army is there’s a huge gender-non-specific work pool (news) where you have to do time if you want to advance in management, and anyone’s free to apply for the positions. A young female reporter who says, “Hey, I want more time for my family — I’m going to stick with features” has a higher degree of satisfaction 25 years down the line, when she’s not up for publisher, because it was clear from the get-go she wasn’t on that track, and she, herself, chose the train.

    In the Army, with appointments given rather than applied for, a married calling which means you can’t leave the work without total economic disruption (or divorce), and this under-the-radar return of “headship” as a doctrine, I can see why prozac sales are strong.

    Anyway, great points. I think you could have done it, though, without glorifying people who are utterly hate-filled and odious, a la this:
    http://www.city-journal.org/2008/eon0430jm.html
Catherine W on December 4th, 2008

16. This repeat blog - which I found less sarcastic this time, but then I skimmed it this time round… got me thinking yet again about the dynamics of married couples working together and an organization trying to negotiate the dynamics of other people’s marriages (including those of people they barely know.) Considering that I think most people in productive marriages find their own marriages a bit of a mystery to themselves - how we expect other people to know what’s going on in them, well it seems a bit much….

    So I decided to google “working with your spouse” and one of the first articles that came up started like this:

    How To Work (If You Must) With Your Spouse
    The challenges of working with a spouse are many. Here’s how to overcome them.
    By: Michael S. Hopkins
    Published October 2004

    First, and please forgive us, but: Must you?

    Consider the challenges of a straightforward business partnership. Then consider the challenges of a marriage. Then consider the multiplied difficulties when combining them.

    This sounds to you like a plan?

    Though there are no accurate statistics about what happens when spouses try to run a business together, expert estimates are grim: “Only 5% of couples can make all-in partnership work,” says Azriela Jaffe, a frequent reporter on the phenomenon of entrepreneurial couples and author of Permission to Prosper: What Working Wives Crave From Their Husbands, and How to Get It. (”All-in” co-ownership is tougher than a partnership in which one spouse is a subordinate who’s helping out.)

    Suggestions for these couples were:
    1. Don’t do it by accident. Go into business with your spouse only if the two of you have mutually planned it, says Jaffe, “not because other options have failed.”
    2. Acknowledge competitiveness. Recognize that in a business you’re always competing, even with your spouse.
    3. Be prepared for business to get personal. “Talking to a business partner who’s also your spouse is different,” says Steve Ferree. “You take stuff more personally — and your spouse is more honest with you.” “Which can be good and bad,” Michele Ferree adds.
    4. Don’t get stuck in typical gender roles. At the office and at home, start with a clean sheet of paper.
    5. Establish a real separation between work and home. Schedule quarterly long weekends with zero business. Take occasional separate vacations. Go on actual dates with no business talk involved. Make rules.
    6. Fight the business’s unfair pull. Every entrepreneurial couple claims the relationship is their first priority — but then the phone rings. Learn not to answer it.
    7. Get a counselor or a coach. And it must be one who can sort through the business and the marriage simultaneously. A bonus: The simple act of deciding to use one is a powerful reminder of the marriage’s priority.

    In general, I think the marriage dynamic could use a LOT more attention pre-training college and in-college. And not just for the married folks. Some of us just aren’t married yet!
Maureen Diffley on December 4th, 2008

17. I would have to agree with Maureen’s research here. As a married officer, I can see why all of the ’suggestions’ were made. Marriage is hard enough without having to throw in the complications of working with your spouse in an area as stressful as Salvation Army officership.

    Something I find as funny - when I was in Training, there were many times when I was split from my spouse and given learning opportunities with other cadets. Very rarely was I placed with my husband to have ministry together. For some couples, I think this is a really bad idea, especially if they had not worked closely together in their previous careers/vocations.

    Perhaps this is something that should be focused on, especially in Training - the idea that couples need good tools and support to make not only their marriage work, but their marriage as SA officers as well. I know here in my territory we sometimes shy away from things especially for ‘marrieds’ because we don’t want to leave the ’singles’ out. Perhaps that shouldn’t be the case.

    For me, I am one of those who thinks it’s not necessarily a mystery on how my marriage continues to go so well, but a huge nod to God in keeping the two of us from tripping one another in this great race.

    Blessings.
M Frye on December 4th, 2008

18. I could think of so many things to say, like how I noticed a sudden “de-valuing” of my gifts as an officer once I put a wedding band on, and don’t get me even started on once I actually had children!!…but, of all the things I could say the one that sums it up is: Amen.

    Thank you.
Valerie on December 4th, 2008

19. The last couple of posts here, especially the one by Maureen, gives support to the idea of splitting up men and women in ministry. This may have some positive aspects on the marriage as is suggested. But there is also the added benefit of filling more appointments.

    As most Salvationists in the Canada & Bermuda Territory know, we are extremely short of active officers. So much so that the rate at which we are bringing officers out of retirement back into active service is alarming. And the trend is continuing. What do we do? How about split up the married officers, especially those at DHQ or THQ? In most DHQ’s across our country, the executive positions are held by males while the wives are given responsibility for some very narrow task that could be performed by a recent high school graduate. Why not leave half of the married men and women at HQ and put the other half back in the field, leading a corps or social services centre? The couple would still live in the same city and it would free up other officers who fill appointments in that HQ city to move elsewhere in the division/territory.

    It just doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense, when we are in desperate need of leaders, to keep a significant number bottled up in an office doing things they really don’t need their training and experience for.
Juan on December 5th, 2008

20. That was a great read. I am glad that people are free to voice their opinions within the Salvation Army, although in my experience the expressing of opinions opens one to repercussions which are never fully explained or justified. But thats my experience anyway. Regards
John Duthie on December 16th, 2008

21. Many years ago I was part of an ad hoc committee that discussed the future of women in the Army, both as officers, and how we “program”. We have seen some advances - married women who are DC’s or in other staff positions that were traditionally male. I was an officer for 13 years, and now work at THQ. The married men officers still come early and leave late, and the married women officers come late and leave early. Some of the “ghetto” is self-chosen, and I am hesitant to declare that their choice, and the choice that many women officers (including singles)to focus on home and hearth, and what that entails is somehow less than the choice to pursue top level administration. How can we have a civil dialogue about broadening the choices without denigrating the existing ones?
Sheila on January 16th, 2009

Leave a comment