my contribution to Denis Metrustery's book, Saved, Sanctified, and Serving
8. ‘…
and the church in her house’[1]
Women
in Ministry in the Salvation Army
JoAnn Shade
In the beginning…
From its inception, the Salvation Army has affirmed that women,
equally with men, should share in the government as well as the work of the Mission.
The initial theological underpinnings for that position were heavily influenced
by Catherine Booth, a formidable force in the fledgling Christian Mission (to
be re-named The Salvation Army in 1878), especially in the area of the role of
women within its organization and pulpits. In practice, single women have held
significant leadership positions, and the Booth’s daughter, Evangeline, was the
National Commander in the United States from 1904 until she was elected the
General of the international Salvation Army in 1934. In 1986, another single
woman, Eva Burrows, became the second woman leader of the worldwide Salvation
Army, and a third (Linda Bond) followed in their footsteps in 2012
How did this come to be? As has often been the case in the history of
the church, the most significant opportunities for women in ministry in the 18th
and 19th centuries came through new movements, perhaps because ‘manpower’
is badly needed in the initial stages of religious movements. Malcolm suggests
that ‘the greatest breakthrough in opportunities for women to proclaim the
gospel came with the Wesleyan revival in England in the eighteenth century’,[2]
as the women of early Methodism were given ecclesiastical opportunities not
known to women in other denominations[3]
So while Catherine Booth was influenced by her own study, she was always
positioned within a Wesleyan heritage, and the experience of women within the
holiness movement, planting the seed of preaching women once again.
One
such woman was Phoebe Palmer, who travelled and preached throughout the East
Coast, Canada, and Great Britain as a part of the burgeoning Holiness movement.
She spoke to the needs of women and the church: The church in many ways is a
sort of potter’s field where the gifts of women, as so many strangers, are
buried. How long, O Lord, how long before man shall roll away the stone that we
may see a resurrection? [4]
In her writings, Catherine Booth was 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.[5]
It was Palmer who led Catherine Booth to a public defence of female
ministry as early as 1859. At that time, Palmer had begun a four-year speaking
tour in England, and was attacked by Reverend Arthur Augustus Rees in a
pamphlet, ‘Reasons for Not Co-Operating in the Alleged Sunderland Revivals’,
where Palmer was scheduled to preach. Catherine Booth’s response to Rees was
titled, ‘Female Teaching: or “The Rev. A. A. Rees versus Mrs. Palmer, Being a
Reply to a Pamphlet by the Above Named Gentleman on the Sunderland Revival’.
Green indicates that while William Booth did the copying of the pamphlet, the
argument was Catherine’s alone.[6]
It was this pamphlet that became the theological basis for the role of women
within the Christian Mission and subsequently the Salvation Army.
William and Catherine lived within an ever-changing climate for women
in
ministry. While Wesley had allowed for
preaching women, by the early 1850’s,
sectarian Methodism had largely closed its doors to women in the pulpit.
However, 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.[7]
Theological Understanding
If the Salvation Army’s
practice has claimed to embrace full opportunity for women in ministry
practice, what then is the theological position of the Salvation Army that
supports that practice in regards to women in ministry? The Salvation Army has
historically outlined its theological positions in its Handbook of Doctrine, which is revised every 15-20 years, and it
outlines its practices in volumes entitled Orders
and Regulations for Officers.
In The Handbook of Doctrine, printed in
2010 and available on-line at www.salvationarmy.org, there is no mention of
gender in the doctrinal component of the portion of the publication, and it is
only in an appendix, on one of the last pages, that we find The
Salvation Army in the Body of Christ, An
Ecclesiological Statement, a statement issued by the International
Headquarters of The Salvation Army in 2008 by authority of the General, in
consultation with the International Doctrine Council and the International
Management Council. The only statement that mentions gender is found on p.315, and reads, ‘its recognition of the equal place
within the Body of Christ of men and women
in all aspects of Christian service, ministry and leadership including
the holding of ecclesiological authority’.[8]
Based upon
this scanty text, we are thus left with Catherine Booth’s Female Ministry, first published in 1859, with its 3rd
(and final) revision in 1870, still Christian Mission days. Based upon its
origin, it is clear that the pages are formed as an apologetic, as described by
Catherine: ‘In this paper we shall endeavour to meet the most common objections
to female ministry, and to present, as far as our space will permit, a thorough
examination of the texts generally produced in support of these objections’.
In the
pamphlet, Booth takes on the major arguments of the day against female
preachers she begins by addressing those who say that public speaking is
unnatural and unfeminine. Booth answered that custom does not equal nature, and
women have the necessary abilities, persuasive speech, graceful form and
attitude, winning manners and finely-toned emotional nature.[9]
A second
argument was that public speaking or preaching
is an indulgence of ambition. Booth answered bluntly: why should that matter more in a woman than a man? A woman’s commitment to the Gospel shields her from coarse and unrefined
influences,
and she gave examples of the successful ministry of Madame Guyon and Susannah Wesley.[10]
A third point
of contention that is of more importance from a twenty-first century
perspective, is that speaking in church by a woman is forbidden in Scripture.
In addressing this, Booth first writes of the public ministry of women as recognized
and described by Paul in I Cor. 11:4,5, and
suggests that the question of women’s
public participation was settled at Pentecost. She then addresses
what we would refer to as the problem texts, first in I Cor. 14:34, 35, ‘Let
women keep silence’. Booth describes that as a different kind of speaking (inconvenient asking of questions, ignorant
talking),
and speaks to the verb usage – lalein,
‘to speak’, used in variety of settings, meanings, and is modified by the
context.
She suggests that the improper speaking is that of chatter, babble, the loquaciousness of a child, or speaking imprudently.[11]
She
also discusses I Tim. 2:12, 13, teaching that the injunction in that passage is regarding personal behaviour at home, as in teaching
that usurps authority, and suggests that an ignorant or unruly woman is not to force her opinions on the man
whether he will or no. She believes it has no reference whatever to women sent out to preach the Gospel by
the call of the Holy Spirit.[12]
Fourth, she
addresses the contention that speaking/preaching is to be confined only to men by recognizing that it is not confined only to men in the Scripture. She points the
reader to Joel as quoted in Acts 2:16-18, as the Spirit
is poured out on all flesh, and the daughters are to prophesy. She also
presents the Biblical examples of Phoebe (Rom. 16), Junia, and the historical witness of Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Eusebius.
An additional
point made against women preachers was that it was unnecessary for women to
preach, because after all, a woman can visit
the sick and poor and work in the church instead. Booth responds by
noting that Jesus did not show horror at public
proclamation by females, and that individual decisions must be
dictated by the teachings of the Holy Spirit and the gifts with which God has
endowed each woman. Again, she notes the scriptural precedent in Deborah (Judges 2), Huldah (II Kings 12), Anna (Luke 2), ’Great was the company of women evangelists’, Psalm 68:11, Miriam classified with Moses and Aaron, and Mary Magdalene who
made the first and public announcement of the
resurrection She noted as well that in
Acts 1:14, 2:1,4, women were present and assembled on the day of Pentecost, filled with the Holy Ghost, given
gift of tongues, and notes as well the four daughters of Phillip the Evangelist (Acts 11:9), Priscilla (Rom. 16:3,4) and Tryphena,
Tryphoa, and Persis (Rom. 16:12).[13]
With a few final points, she concludes her presentation by quoting
Galatians 3:28, that there is ‘neither male nor female, for ye are all one in
Christ Jesus’.[14]
As Booth wrote, ‘This is a subject of vast importance to the interests of
Christ’s kingdom and the glory of God, we would most earnestly commend its
consideration to those who have influence in the Churches. We think it a matter worthy of their consideration
whether God intended woman to bury her talents and influence as she now does?
And whether the circumscribed sphere of woman’s religious labours may not have
something to do with the comparative non-success of the Gospel in these latter
days’.[15]
In Practice
Despite her early championing of women’s involvement in the church,
Catherine Booth may not have been 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’.[16]
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’.
Even after Catherine Booth’s death, William said ‘I insist on
the equality of women with men. Every officer and soldier should insist upon
the truth that woman is as important, as valuable, as capable and as necessary
to the progress and happiness of the world as man. Unfortunately a large number
of people of every tribe, class and nationality think otherwise. They still
believe woman is inferior to man’. (William Booth, 1908). [17] [18]
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 she commonly finds the ‘Lydia phase’, in
which women begin in positions of leadership in the early days of the
institution, but then are relegated to secondary roles in order for the
movement to gain cultural legitimacy and to diminish the feminizing effect of
women’s leadership.[19] 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 its 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’?[20] Eason’s research exposed 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.[21]
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.[22]
In her historical review of the urban religion of the Salvation Army
in the United States, 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’.[23] 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).
Early Army leader Maud Booth (married to the Booths’ son, Ballington)
offered two main roles to women. The first was that of the slum sister, whose ‘dress
indicates extreme poverty; her face denotes perfect peace’.[24]
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’.[25]
Her female successors, sisters-in-law Emma Booth-Tucker (1896) and
Evangeline Booth (1904), proved more conventional in their approach. While
experiencing their own leadership opportunities, more likely to be because of
their lineage than their gender, they accepted both the Army’s stated goal of
equality for women and the limitations imposed on it by contemporary society.[26] Emma, a mother of six, represented the ‘womanly
woman’, one with a ‘mother’s heart, a nurturing image resonant with the cult of
domesticity’, [27] whose
work reflected a form of ‘enlarged moral housekeeping’.[28]
Evangeline Booth, 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’.[29]
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’.
[30] It is interesting to note that Evangeline
Booth was forbidden to marry by her father, because of his fear that her
marital status would severely limit her leadership opportunities.[31]
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’. [32] She did, however, establish a commission to
consider the matter.
In 1994, Paul Rader was elected as general, and, joined by his wife, Commissioner
Kay Fuller Rader, became known for their 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’. [33]
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 modelled . . . she
stepped on toes unafraid . . . irritated some people, but the days of wasting
women are gone’,[34] 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. [35]
Recently
retired international leader General Shaw Clifton added 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’. [36]
However, despite his hopes in this area, few strides were made in this critical
area under his leadership, perhaps because of resistance in the levels of
governance within the Salvation Army.
To
put the situation in a historical perspective, The Salvation Army wasn’t alone
in its struggles on this front. MaryAnn Hawkins, writing from a Church of God
(Anderson, IN) raises a similar question: ‘So what happened that the Holiness
movement, that gave an unprecedented opportunity for women to join equally in
every aspect of ministry, began to marginalize women who were called to
ministry?’[37] She quotes Marie Strong
and Juanita Evans Leonard:
Vision [gave] way to routine.
Organizational maintenance was substituted for evangelization and the healing
of the ills of people and society. More effort was spent on maintaining the
organization and less on ministry to the world. Flexibility gave way to
inflexibility. Those in power whose identities were entwined with position and
status had a vested interest in maintaining the status quo of the institution .
. . a passion for people [gave] way to a focus on programs. Success was
measured in programs and buildings. As the institutional machinery continued to
grow, white women and ethnic minorities were increasingly detached and
alienated from the Church. . . . Impersonalization was rampant and the majority
clergy controlled the institution; the Church was no longer sensitive to
women's needs and goals for service. The egalitarian informality of the
Church's beginnings had hardened to become an entrenched hierarchy. The sense
of camaraderie as "the whole people of God" had all but died. There
remained an intellectual assent to women in ministry, but the realized vision
needed once more to be fanned into flame by the Holy Spirit's power and those
empowered by the Word.[38]
The Current Day Situation
While the Salvation Army does not have any recent statement
internationally that reflects its theology regarding women in its ministry,
Colonel Janet Munn succinctly summarizes her understanding of The Salvation
Army’s theological position:
· We believe that women are created in the image of God as sure as are
men and are of equal value before God and before each other.
· We believe that in Christ there is no male or female (Galatians 3:28).
· We believe that females have the same capacity as males to learn, to
develop, to lead, to teach, to preach and to decide.
· We believe that these assertions are biblically and theologically
sound, and they are Salvationist essentials.
· We believe that the Holy Spirit gives gifts as the Spirit desires, for
the building up of the body of Christ.
· We believe that any person, male or female, could potentially have any
gift, talent, ability given by the Spirit and developed by diligence.
· We believe that the Salvation Army has historically desired to be a
progressive and prophetic example of female leadership and empowerment to the
world and the church, and that there is still a need in the world for Salvationist
witness in this regard.
While Munn does not make mention of marriage in her list, she would be
sure to note that we also believe in the egalitarian marriage model that
expresses mutuality and shared responsibility.[39]
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 fulfilment, perceiving that they are not considered for certain
appointment due to gender or marital status’.[40] In speaking of present realities regarding
women in Salvation Army ministry, 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’.[41]
Gender
and ministry issues in Salvation Army circles continue to be debated on
personal blogs, on-line journals,[42]
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]’.[43]
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’.[44] 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.
While women are theoretically given equal opportunity by policy,
practice proves a contradiction, as Eason points out historically. Women were
considerably less likely to be in leadership, and women often took a lesser
role upon marriage (Eason, 2003). Upon appointment of their husbands to
leadership roles, women officers were called ‘to a less conspicuous part of His
great vineyard’, and urged to ‘not judge as to the relative importance of the
work we do for Him, whether this or that’ (Higgins 1931, pp. 266-267).
As the Army acquired respectability, the role of women declined (Larsson
1974, p. 170). While it appeared to the uncritical observer that the Army was
an ‘egalitarian religious body that gave its female officers unparalleled
opportunities to work in every area of its institutional life’, the reality was
that ‘it largely failed to implement sexual equality beyond the pulpit’ and did
not ‘promote an egalitarian sharing of roles by women and men’.[45]
As Satterlee points out, there remain many challenges to women in leadership in
the Army, in that leadership of the Salvation Army remains dominated by men,
restrictions are placed on a woman’s development because of stereotyping, and
women have not always been given the opportunity to explore their leadership
skills. He also comments that, “this leadership (of women) is actually more
restricted in Western countries than in non-western countries”,[46]
as evidenced in part by the fact that women officers in the United States who
are married receive no financial compensation in their own name either in their
active years of ministry or in retirement, unless widowed.
Currently, while
in local, pastoral leadership the ministry is shared between a married couple,
in the major leadership roles around the world (Territorial Commander, Chief
Secretary, Training Principal and Divisional Commander) only 9.07% of those
position are held by women, with only 1.73% of the total held by married women.[47]
Given this scenario, some women are leaving officership for other
opportunities, but given the spiritual sense of calling, financial
implications, and the marital necessity of both spouses being active officers
in most territories, the attrition rate is not yet high. Other women are ‘defecting
in place’, remaining in the church but identifying patriarchy and its impact,
while taking responsibility for their own spiritual lives.[48]
Looking to the
Future
The Salvation Army is at a critical point in regards to the
issue of women in ministry. There is a cognitive dissonance between its
historical and theological position of full acceptance of women in ministry
roles of all kinds, and the actual practices that create a stained glass
ceiling for married women. While this is not a new phenomenon, cultural
factors, at least in the western Salvation Army, and perhaps throughout the
world, are making this a vital issue to the future of the Salvation Army.
The following was a press statement issued from Washington,
D.C. in 2013:
The
Obama Administration has made it clear that advancing the rights of women and
girls is critical to the foreign policy of the United States. This is a matter
of national security as much as it is an issue of morality or fairness.
President Obama’s National Security Strategy explicitly recognizes that
“countries are more peaceful and prosperous when women are accorded full and
equal rights and opportunity. When those rights and opportunities are denied,
countries lag behind.”[49]
It would be
expected that the Salvation Army, with its emphasis on social justice, would be
in agreement with Clinton’s statement for the women of the world. Many of its
officer women would say that it needs to begin within its own camp (see Joshua
7:1-13). What could make a difference?
1.
A contemporary theology of women, of gender.
2.
Preaching, teaching, ministering, leading female
role models (single and married) at all levels of the organization.
3.
An acknowledgement of the level of frustration
experienced by its women officers due to the inequities that are in place.
4.
A recognition of the role of expectations and
exhaustion, especially in the lives of young officer mothers.
5.
An understanding of the potentially negative
influence of conservative evangelical Christian writings and teachings upon
Salvation Army women.
Having just retired after 34 years of active service as a Salvation
Army officer, I have watched my sisters wrestle with this issue. I’ve watched
as an officer was assigned to be the laundress at camp for the summer. I’ve
watched the corps officer’s wife (as she was then known) wash and iron
twenty junior soldier uniforms each week. I’ve been blessed under the pulpit
ministry of many women officers. I’ve attended celebratory events such as
commissionings and congresses and wondered why women tended to be the pray-ers
instead of the preachers. I have written, I have wept, I have strategized and I
have been called ‘that radical woman’ because of my passion to see myself and
my sisters in full and complete ministry and leadership.
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’. [50]
It would appear 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.
[1] Col 4:15
[2]
Kari Torjensen Malcolm.
Women at the Crossroads: A Path Between Feminism and Traditionalism, (Downer’s Grove,
IL: InterVarsity Press, 1982), p. 111
[3]
Diane
Leclerd, Singleness of Heart:
Gender, Sin and Holiness in Historical Perspective, (Lanham, Md.: The
Scarecrow Press, 2001), p. 69
[4]
Phoebe Palmer. The Promise of the Father, (Boston, Henry V. Degen
Palmer, 1859), p. 341
[5]
John Waldron, Women in the Salvation Army. (Toronto, Canada: The
Salvation Army 1983), p. 40.
[6]
Roger Green, Catherine Booth (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1996), p.
125.
[7]
Andrew Mark Eason, Women in God’s Army: Gender and Equality in the Early
Salvation Army (Waterloo, ON: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 2003), p.
25
[8]
The Salvation Army Handbook of Doctrine
(London: The Salvation Army International Headquarters, 2010), p. 316
[9]
Terms of Empowerment: Salvation
Army Women in Ministry,
(West Nyack, NY: The Salvation Army, 2001), p. 1
[16]
Bramwell Booth, Echoes and Memories
(London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1925), pp. 168-169.
[17]
William Booth. Messages to
Soldiers (London; The Salvation Army, 1908),
referenced on the Salvation Army international website, www.salvationarmy.org
[18]
Allen Satterlee, Turning Points: How the Salvation Army Found a Different
Path. (Alexandria, VA: Crest Books, 2004), p. 5
[19]
Linda McKinnish Bridges "Women in Church Leadership." Review and
Expositor 95, no. 3 (1998), p. 333
[20]
Eason, Women in God’s Army, p. 160
[21]
Eason, Women in God’s Army, p. 151
[22]
Eason, Women in God’s Army, p. 157.
[23]
Diane Winston, Red Hot and Righteous: The Urban Religion of the Salvation
Army. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999). p. 95.
[24]
Winston, Red Hot and Righteous, p. 73
[26]
Winston, Red Hot and Righteous,
p. 95
[27]
Winston, Red Hot and Righteous, p. 111.
[28]
Winston, Red Hot and Righteous, p. 141.
[29]
Winston, Red Hot and Righteous, p. 206
[30]
Winston, Red Hot and Righteous, p. 207
[31]
Margaret Trout. The General was a Lady.
(NY: The Salvation Army, 1980)
[32]
Henry Gariepy, General of God’s Army: The Authorized Biography of General
Eva Burrows (Wheaton, IL: Victor
Books, 1993), p. 240
[33]
Carroll Ferguson Hunt, If Two Shall Agree. (Kansas City, MS.: Beacon
Hill Press, 2001), p.167
[34]
Hunt, If Two Shall Agree, p. 184
[36] Warner, Sue Schumann. “A Passionate Look Towards the Future: A
Conversation with General Shaw Clifton” New Frontier 24, no. 10 (2006)
[37]
MaryAnn Hawkins, Wesleyan Holiness Women Clergy e-mail, 2-26-12
[38]
Marie Strong, Juanita Evans Leonard Called to Minister, Empowered to Serve:, 2nd
edition. (Warner Press 2013).
[39]
Janet Munn, Personal Correspondence, March, 2013.
[40]
The Salvation Army International Headquarters, "Commission on Officership
Report," 2000.
[41]
Satterlee, Turning Points, p. 10
[42]
see www.armybarmy.com’s Journal of
Aggressive Christianity, beginning with the Feb/Mar 2006 edition
[43]
The Salvation Army United Kingdom Territory, Gender Issues Commission, 2005.
[44]
Roger Green. The Life and Ministry of
William Booth, (Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon Press, 2005), p. 201
[46] Satterlee,
Turning Points, pp. 8-10
[47]
Sue Swanson, Jolene Hodder (International Conference of Leaders July 2012,
International Management Council March 2012).
No comments:
Post a Comment