A juggled baton

Equality and Salvation Army Evangelical Heritage
by JoAnn Shade

A recent article in the Priscilla Papers asked: Egalitarian Pioneers: Betty Friedan or Catherine Booth? Mimi Haddad suggested that our theological moorings, as egalitarians, are directly linked to the first wave of feminists, including Catherine Booth, co-founder, with husband William, of The Salvation Army. Since a large portion of my evangelical heritage has formed under the shadow of Catherine’s bonnet, I’ve chosen to consider how the baton she passed to the next generations has been carried - or juggled.

Catherine was definitely committed to the principles of equality. Writing to her fiancé William in 1855, Catherine’s words foreshadowed her later determination that men and women should have equal opportunity within the fledgling Army:

May the Lord, even the just and impartial One, over-rule all for the true emancipation of woman from the swaddling bands of prejudice, ignorance and custom which, almost the world over, have so long debased and wronged her…If indeed there is in Christ Jesus ‘neither male nor female,’ but in all touching His Kingdom ‘they are one,’ who shall dare thrust woman out of the church’s operations or presume to put any candle which God has lighted under a bushel?…I have not written so much to thee as for thee. I want thee to feel as I do, if thou canst. (Waldron, Women in the Salvation Army, p. 40)

William and Catherine lived within an ever-changing climate for women in ministry. In the late 1700’s, Wesley had allowed for preaching women, and their involvement appeared to rise in at least some of the expressions of Methodism. But by the early 1850’s, sectarian Methodism had largely closed its doors to women in the pulpit. However, as Andrew Mark Eason notes in Women in God’s Army: Gender and Equality in the Early Salvation Army, a new wave of revivalism beginning in 1859 again opened doors for a few exceptional women to preach - and this number included Catherine Booth, first in the Methodist New Connexion, and then in The Salvation Army.

There is no doubt that Catherine Booth’s example in the pulpit, as well as her influence on her husband, the General, strongly impacted the Salvation Army’s public position on the role of women in the organization. Her monograph, Female Ministry, written in response to attacks on the evangelistic work of Phoebe Palmer, persuasively outlined the reasons a woman should be free to preach.

It appears, however, that Catherine Booth was not fully convinced of the role women should take in leadership of this new mission. Writing of his mother, Bramwell indicated that, “the Army Mother had never quite contemplated placing women in positions which would involve their authority over men.” Yet the Constitution of the Christian Mission (soon to become the Salvation Army) indicated that “Godly women…shall be eligible for any office, and to speak and vote at all official meetings.”

How well did the Salvation Army do in following Catherine’s lead and its public statements of egalitarian opportunity? Linda McKinnish Bridges has studied many religious movements, and in her article Women in Church Leadership she discusses the common occurrence of the “Lydia phase,” in which women begin in positions of leadership in the early days of the institution but are then relegated to secondary roles in order for the movement to gain cultural legitimacy and to diminish the feminizing effect of women’s leadership. Did this pattern hold true within the Army?

This fledgling army was a product of its Victorian England roots, and it appears that The Salvation Army’s public declaration of equality did not always extend to its practices, especially when its young women officers began to marry. Writing on the period between 1865-1930, Andrew Eason undertook a critical, historical examination of female experience and opportunity within the Salvation Army in Britain. While pulpits remained open to women, were the public pronouncements factual when they claimed the Salvation Army “refuses to make any difference between men and women as to rank, authority and duties, but opens the highest positions to women as well as men”? Eason’s research exposes the gap between its declared position and the actual place of women within the organization. As one example, a review of the leadership of the Salvation Army in Great Britain in 1930 found that, with the exception of the Booth women, the percentage of female leaders was negligible.

Eason’s conclusion is revealing:

If the history of the early Salvation Army teaches us anything, it is the fact that recommendations and principles, however well-intentioned, are not enough to ensure equality between the sexes. Although Salvationists made numerous pronouncements on the subject of sexual equality between 1870 and 1930, they failed to address the deep-seated assumptions and the discriminatory practices that worked against the possibility of an egalitarian environment. (Women in God’s Army: Gender and Equality in the Early Salvation Army, p. 157)

In her historical review of the urban religion of the Salvation Army in the United States (Red Hot and Righteous: The Urban Religion of the Salvation Army), Diane Winston suggested that “as the first Christian group in modern times to treat women as men’s equals, the Army offered a compelling, if sometimes contradictory, vision of gender.” It appears that the evolving role of women within the Army was strongly influenced by its American leaders, first Ballington and Maud Booth, followed by Frederick and Emma Booth-Tucker, and then Evangeline Booth (Emma, Ballington and Evangeline were all children of the elder Booths).

Winston describes the two main roles Maud Booth offered to women. The first was that of the slum sister, whose “dress indicates extreme poverty; her face denotes perfect peace.” Self-abnegation was the spirit desired in these women, mostly single women of simplicity and deep faith (and also likely limited ability). Maud also proposed a second image for the Salvationist woman, that of a woman warrior. The woman warrior combined “tender, gentle, loving attributes” with “courage, strength, action, sacrifice, and loyalty.”

Her female successors, sisters-in-law Emma Booth-Tucker (1896) and Evangeline Booth (1904), proved more conventional in their approach. They accepted both the Army’s stated goal of equality for women and the limitations imposed on it by contemporary society. Emma, a mother of six, represented the “womanly woman,” one with a “mother’s heart, a nurturing image resonant with the cult of domesticity,” whose work reflected a form of “enlarged moral housekeeping.”

Evangeline, United States leader from 1904 to 1934, encouraged the image of the doughnut girls who served at the front in World War I. She was less than sympathetic to more flamboyant approaches to womanhood (although she herself was known for her eccentricity and dramatic flair).

History tells of Captain Rheba Crawford, the Angel of Broadway, whose independence, popularity, and sexual charisma disturbed Army leaders to the extent that she was ultimately placed on rest furlough because of her unorthodox theology and dress. Winston suggests that it was Crawford’s “success at transforming the doughboy’s goddess into a real live girl that caused her undoing.” Summing up the changes in the position of women during Evangeline’s reign, Winston concludes, “Confronted by societal changes in women’s roles, Salvationists portrayed their female followers as exemplars of freedom and equality who eschewed the excesses associated with the New Woman or the flapper.”

Evangeline Booth went on to become the first woman international leader of The Salvation Army, serving in that position from 1934-1939. Little appears in the history books of the role of women until the next female General, who shared both her name and marital status (single), was elected in 1986. The selection of Eva Burrows brought a hope that she would address issues in relation to women officers, especially married women, but it was not to be. Writes Henry Gariepy, her biographer: “Many married and single women officers had high hopes that the disproportion (lack of women in top leadership positions) would be corrected when a woman was elected General, but have not seen the results for which they had hopes.” She did, however, establish a commission to consider the matter.

In 1994, Paul Rader was elected as general and, joined by his wife, Kay Fuller Rader (Commissioner), became known for a commitment to broadening the role of women in ministry. Said Kay, “I desired to help women realize their potential for ministry…to be someone to stand in the gap for them in any way I could, to keep Catherine Booth’s dream alive.” Commissioner Doris Noland spoke of Kay’s leadership: “Kay helped raise awareness of the long drift away from Catherine Booth’s ideas on women’s ministry.”

As Kay Rader discovered, her encouragement of expanded roles for women was not always welcomed. One leader, Commissioner Don Odegaard, described her work: “She has done more for married Salvation Army women than anyone…not through feminism, but by producing excitement. She role modeled…she stepped on toes unafraid…irritated some people, but the days of wasting women are gone,” a conclusion not shared by all Army women (or men).

Rader’s biographer, Carroll Hunt, speaks to the status of Army women:

The Salvation Army legacy as told in literature and history reveals a divided heart when it comes to its women officers, trained and commissioned equally with the men, and at times handed what the Christian world considers “a man’s job” but at other times ordered to stand back and stir the soup, preferably quietly. But the world contains an Army of women warriors called by God to service, and they are not about to disappear by drowning or discrimination. (If Two Shall Agree, p. 150)

Current international leader General Shaw Clifton adds his voice to the conversation: “I do not believe the Army has gone far enough in using its women, and I refer here not only to its officers, but also to its women soldiers, and its women local officers” (Warner, A Passionate Look Towards the Future: A Conversation with General Shaw Clifton).

Women make up more than half of the officers in the Army internationally - a statistic that is partly determined by the requirement that both spouses serve as officers in most territories of the world - yet few are in top leadership roles. An International Commission on Officership in 2000 articulated the concerns: “A number of women officers experience frustration and lack of fulfillment, perceiving that they are not considered for certain appointment due to gender or marital status.” In speaking of present realities regarding women in Salvation Army ministry, (Major) Allen Satterlee muses: “The Army proved that women could handle leadership and ministry in all phases of its work. Now it may find itself passed by, viewed as being mired in tradition instead of as a tradition-breaker.”

Gender and ministry issues in Salvation Army circles continue to be debated on personal blogs, on-line journals, and in regional discussions such as the Gender Issues Commission held in the United Kingdom territory, which affirmed that “our policy and practice must reflect our theology [there is no theological conflict in the ministry of women in all spheres of service].” While front-line opportunities continue to be available to women, both single and married, the stained-glass ceiling remains an obstacle for leadership positions, particularly for married women. As William Booth acknowledged in 1888, “the male officers are joined [in marriage] with the female officers, and then, by some strange mistake in our organization, the woman doesn’t count.” It appears that William understood at that early date the tension between the dual clergy requirement and the Army’s commitment to women in ministry.

The week before she died (1890), Catherine Booth called for her husband at 4 a.m. to give him a solemn message: “she feared the women of The Salvation Army were not going to rise up to take the place she wished for them.” This brief glimpse at Salvation Army history suggests that her fears were well-founded, and it is still to be determined as to whether a new wave of women (and men) will rise up to challenge both the systemic and practical barriers to her dream.

Writer: Major JoAnn Shade, D. Min., serves along with her husband as a corps officer in Ashland, Ohio, USA. She is a corresponding member of the International Doctrine Council of The Salvation Army.

1 Comment to A juggled baton

1. That’s a great piece of writing.I think the two points that sing out to me from the problem are firstly that structures have always permitted women to lead, but church culture is what holds that back,and it is notoriously difficult to impact. Secondly that not everyone has the same model of church, and this impacts motivation and ministry style. One person may look at size, programme, authority/hierarchy, another may simply not perceive or evaluate church in this way, or tailor their ministry to fit these assumptions of what is important. Some see church in primarily relational terms, evaluate its success in those terms, not its number of programmes and work accordingly. People don’t ’see’ church in the same ways, and this can be, to generalise, a gender influenced difference, as well as a modernity/postmodernity influenced difference.

   Over on Chick Yuill’s new blog, anvilding, Andrew Hill quotes a TSA source (not identified) in Australia Eastern, “We need to set leaders, church planters, teachers, youth workers and individual Christians free to do what it takes. We need to stop caring what it looks like and start asking whether it works in reaching individuals with the gospel and transforming communities for the better.” Hearing this made me think of Leonardo sketching a helicopter http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Leonardo_da_Vinci_helicopter_and_lifting_wing.jpg. Bright bloke, great idea, wrong century. It’s a terrific goal to set people free to minister and pioneer, and to set women free to do so on an equal basis, but just like setting soldiers free (oh it didn’t mention soldiers!) the army is still in the ‘wrong’ century to do this, not so much structurally as culturally. The whole shape of church, the whole model of church has to change before it can happen.

   So how do we impact church culture to make the needed positive changes possible, and make something so apparently unattainable come about? What impacts church culture?
Eleanor Burne-Jones on February 6th, 2009

Leave a comment