Courage to make a stance
- deansimpson7
- Jun 27
- 2 min read
BY BARRY GITTINS
It’s nearly 50 years since The Salvation Army took a principled stance, making abstinence from smoking a condition of Salvation Army soldiership and membership.
In a 1976 (7 Feb.) issue of the Australian War Cry, it was announced that General Clarence Wiseman had decreed a new requirement: non-smoking. As part of the General’s call for a general non-use of tobacco, abstinence from cigars, cigarettes, pipes, chewing tobacco, (vapes), etc. would be required if someone wanted to become a Salvation Army soldier “from this time forward”. (The implementation for the new requirement, as set out, “will not affect soldiers enrolled before the date of issue”, so presumably no retrospective stand-downs were made.)
The two Australian territorial commanders at the time, Commissioners William Goodier and Leslie Pindred, thanked God for “the courage displayed by General Wiseman in taking such action at this time. We believe he has been led by the Holy Spirit to make this decision.”
READ MORE: William Booth’s stance on smoking
Two decades before, in the 1950s, the War Cry was clearly describing tobacco as “a killer”, and The Salvation Army’s Junior Soldiers program even rolled out a ‘Certificate of Membership’ to ‘The Young Soldier Non-Smoking Club’ and invited the young people to sign it as a commitment.
The Salvation Army had long railed against tobacco as a dangerous and unhealthy habit (the news release notes “the incidence of cancer, emphysema, and other respiratory diseases”) and long resented the money spent on it (which could better have gone to TSA’s coffers).
The use of tobacco had, for many years, prohibited “a soldier from becoming a local officer or holding any office in the corps”, which had led to “a double standard, [which] has been the cause for concern and the subject of debate”.
To allow for those people who wouldn’t be allowed to be soldiers “because of their use of tobacco”, the Salvos offered the continuing option of adherent membership, with the hope that “they can in time be persuaded to give up the use of tobacco, in order that they may enjoy the privileges of soldiership ...”
The most intriguing aspect of this decision, I’d suggest, is that it may well be the last time an international leader of The Salvation Army showed the courage of their convictions to impose a decision on the whole of the organisation. (At least, that is to say, publicly and clearly; Salvationists and the broader community are not privy to the topics Salvation Army international leaders discuss, nor the forums in which they discuss and decide policy.)
Will we ever again see an executive decision made for and on behalf of the whole of The Salvation Army because of a principled stance? For example, regarding inclusion, membership of TSA and participation in TSA? And if such a decree were made, would an international decision move the entire Salvation Army?
