
The point of the book was that friendships often happen for a purpose or a season; not necessarily forever. We change, friendships change, and the world around us changes and people are in our lives for a reason, one that we may or may not always know. Sometimes nothing went wrong; nothing happened except that we both met each other’s needs for that moment and time, and now it is time to move onto other things.
I believe our callings are similar. We don’t become ‘uncalled’ but the direction of our call can change; oft times radically. We are not necessarily called to the Army or missions or anything specific. Not most of us anyway. I know there are a few who have specific callings but I think they are farther and fewer than we like to admit. In fact, I can only think of one person I have ever met that truly fit the description of someone called to such a specific place and purpose. She met resistance at every level from childhood through young adulthood. Everything was thrown into her path to deter her but in the end she made it and served in the capacity to which she was called for many, many years; in a very successful manner. The fruit was born to prove the call.
Most of us are called to Him and Him alone. How we serve will fluctuate with time and experience and circumstance. If as officers, it would change with every move. It is an ebb and tide life we live, always.
To those who say…but but but my covenant, I say, pshaw. We (Soldiers, Officers, and others) break covenants all the time. That is not an excuse for leaving. That is not an excuse for breaking a covenant but it is reality. People leave marriages – broken covenant with a spouse. People don’t pay bills – broken covenant with a lender. People call in sick when in reality they are not – broken covenant with a boss. People promise children things they cannot deliver – broken covenant. People return library books late – broken covenant. Doing a little too much work on your child’s science project so they get a better grade? Broken covenant. Add peace agreements. Late mortgage payments. Sneaking in a little snack in the produce department. Broken covenants with someone somewhere.
My covenant with the Army was broken long before I left. My job was not really “to live to win souls and make their salvation the first purpose of my life, to care for the poor, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, love the unlovable, and befriend those who have no friends”. My job was to keep the dog and pony show alive and well; to wear a uniform and look Army. It was to

Few were saved under my witness. How could they be?


The Soldiers were kept busy by the corps, at the corps, in the corps and rarely had time to socialize with those outside as well. How were they to witness to the unsaved? They had no time to visit or befriend anyone outside the group. Busy. Busy, busy, busy.
The Army tradition of ‘being about the business of saving souls’ has become being about the business of being about the business of saving souls though I am inspired by the War Colleges, the 614 Corps, Danielle Strickland and others who are moving toward the ‘old Army’ ways of Booth. Perhaps renewal is at hand.
My covenant with God, however, remains intact. I am still, and always will be, God’s Messenger. In fact, I am more able “to proclaim the Gospel of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ” outside the constraints of the Army and officer-ship. I know in great deal my free-spirited nature and liberal beliefs weren’t a good fit with the Army and I thank God for the release and the revelation that I can be a much better, happier, and productive Sally Ann by being true to myself which allows me to serve Him in ways and places that continue to surprise me.
I will always respect the Army’s true soul and spirit. I will always love the people I met who were purely and unadulteratedly in love with Christ. I will always stand in awe of the chance the Army gave me to learn about matters triune, Army, and self.
Former
USA
18 comments:
A thoughtful reflection, response and resolution to what officership can mean to a dedicated disciple of Christ.
Nice to note that there are so many contributors to this blog who come away truly thankful to the army; even if disappointed by the indifference or disrespectful treatment received from SA political insiders when leaving.
Wonder how many leaders will be sending me cards this holiday season. Pleased to know that the FSAOF is sending one to the General with more than 100 names of 'formers.'
Happy Christmas!
Former Officer
UKT
Anonymous, thank you for your very thought provoking, challenging and even healing words. Your honesty about the many covenants we break without even thinking about them at times, could easily shake us up. As you well say, our commitment first and foremost is to God. Let us thank God for the people He gives us to minister faithfully too from no matter what direction they come to us.
'Called by God to proclaim the Gospel of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.'!
God bless and use you in your faithfulness and willingness to be used by Him!
Thank you for your thought provoking article.I sometimes wonder, if the drive by the UK's 1960's candidates department slogan, "the best job in the army" did not create a atmosphere of ill-informed theology. Without actually saying it, it seemed to create a hierarchy of vocation, with officership placed as the pinnacle of callings. Surely this flies in the face of the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers.
The Wesleyan view states, "Christ's ministers in the church are stewards in the household of God and shepherds of his flock. Some are called and ordained to this sole occupation and have a principal and directing part in these great duties but they hold no priesthood differing in kind from that which is common to all the Lord's people and they have no exclusive title to the preaching of the gospel or the care of souls. These ministries are shared with them by others to whom also the Spirit divides his gifts severally as he wills."
Perhaps the notion of covenant within the Army circles requires rethinking. I have recently begun to reconsider the Old Testament concept of Covenantal Grace.
The word "covenant" means a disposition or an arrangement. This arrangement is made by God alone. In a sense we have no part in its making. We must either accept the arrangement God has made or receive no covenant at all.
The word "grace" means undeserved favour.
The "covenant of grace," then, is that arrangement whereby God planned to save humankind.
Every new year, Methodists hold a covenant service acknowledging this Covenantal Grace.
The bidding traditionally includes phrasing such as:
...Christ has many services to be done. Some are easy, others are difficult. Some bring honour, others bring reproach. Some are suitable to our natural inclinations and temporal interests, others are contrary to both... Yet the power to do all these things is given to us in Christ, who strengthens us.
The Prayer
'I am no longer my own but yours.
Put me to what you will,
rank me with whom you will;
put me to doing,
put me to suffering;
let me be employed for you,
or laid aside for you,
exalted for you,
or brought low for you;
let me be full,
let me be empty,
let me have all things,
let me have nothing:
I freely and wholeheartedly yield all things
to your pleasure and disposal.
And now, glorious and blessed God,
Father, Son and Holy Spirit,
you are mine and I am yours.'
Having grown up with the slogan: 'It's the longest, hardest, most satisfying job in the Army. Could you be a SA Officer'? And just prior to my sessional name being announced being told by my sponsoring officer that we were going to be called 'The Doorkeepers' doesn't speak of hierarchy to me but servanthood.
Reading through the articles and subsequent comments speaks to people hurting, others being restored, a number already reconciled and many serving joyfully. However, it also speaks to the fact that a few have yet to come to terms with the fact that they were unfit for the rigours and demands of the army. It wasn't this leader or that, it was, it seems to me, their unyielding pride.
I wonder if their ministry is more productive now and if so, is it because they have yielded and molded their style to become wholly His ? And truth be told, how many are blaming leaders when in fact they are hiding the fact that they were dismissed from The SA due their being unfit for SA service ?!
Former and active in ministry
UKT
Dear former and active in ministry UKT,
Your comment(s) scare me!
Especially, "However, it also speaks to the fact that a few have yet to come to terms with the fact that they were unfit for the rigors and demands of the army."
Question...were you fit for the rigors and demands of the army, former and active in ministry UKT?
Just imagine if you were still active and placed in that critical decesion making situation of talking someone out of resignation or perhaps you were?
It seems to me that certain officers lose their way/sense of reality once appointed to a HQ (most of whom having had only one or two appointments). Often times it IS and continues to be the "leader?"
FYI - at the risk of being defensive and bitter (although I am not) I belong to that third category you listed...reconciled and serving joyfully!
Merry Christmas!
Thank you Anonymous for your Christmas greeting. I send it back to you in the same spirit.
Yes, I was in fact in a position to speak with and to convince those contemplating resignation, and when deemed appropriate, did all in my power to assist them in reassessing their decision. In all but one instance the officer(s) remained in active service.
It appears though that you missed the point. I was speaking to the point that some were asked to resign, and I had responsibility to work through their issues as well. And there was never an instance where we sought to maintain their officer status. Their transgression(s) made them unfit; intentional misappropriation of funds, unfaithful in their marriage, unable to support SA doctrine(s), and other much lesser problems and concerns such as gross incompetence, laziness, etc. In the latter 2 categories the officers were given many opportunities to correct their actions, including counseling, further training, and change of appointments.
I don't know which territory you served in but would hasten that you probably know some "formers" who left the ranks for a reason similar to the above and who have perhaps written articles for our fellowship. However, in their written contribution they would have us believe the army gave them the option to remain in active service. Pride or self serving deceit?
Happy Christmas to all.
For those who are unaware, there is a Former SA Officer Fellowship on Facebook. It is a 'closed' fellowship i.e., non-formers are not privy to the many personal comments shared and consequently might be where your/my critical comments belong.
Please remember that this blog site is read by a great many persons who are not Former SA Officers and indeed, by some who have no SA affiliation. Visitors find their way to the blog by googling some very strange search word combinations (yes, we are able to determine what search words were used, although, not who the visitors are)
If you have comments that are highly critical of persons within, or about The SA, that you deem necessary to share, kindly do so ONLY in the Facebook site. If we deem them offensive or inappropriate they will be cut from the blog and 'pasted' in the FB site.
Thank you and many blessings this joyous Christmas season, Sven Ljungholm
Anonymous,
Thank you for correcting my misunderstanding.
Mr. Ljungholm,
You and anonymous have my sincere apologies! And thank you for sharing the FB site.
i recently viewed s news reel of William Booth's funeral on youtube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmVqoGzp3-o
it seems the Army i knew, even in my glory days of USA east and central in the 60's didn't resemble the army depicted in the news reel. I have lived in every Army territory of the United States each for a portion of my half century as a Salvationist. Each territory is distinctly different. And the blog I read of a friend who is an army leader in Australia shows a distinctly newer one even still. Perhaps closer to the original. Seems to me, (just thinking out loud, willing to be corrected) it's not so much about people being 'unfit for the rigours and demands of the army,' it is more about the Army being unable to receive the diversification and individualization of one's calling. Perhaps God is calling new types into the organization that represent change and also those whom the Holy Spirit has placed an urgency to lead the Army back to its roots. Once 'roots' can be redefined to fit in this newly diversified culture. Just because a saint can't run like the devil to keep up with the manner in which the Army is currently operating, doesn't mean they are prideful or not up for the demands or even unable to mount up with wings of eagles. It may mean they are actually aware and wise enough to know they were not built to burn out before they know they are on the right track God has called them for. Perhaps what the Army is now, (not necessarily true of every territory, but perhaps the one most represented here), is not yet cognizant enough to be able to recognize the future I believe is coming from the Father and the new breed of officer/layperson it will need to effectively implement that change.
Jeff,
Spot on! I think you're on to something!!!
Active Officer
USA East
So does God change His mind?
Do we misunderstand?
Does God call some for a season?
If so, should TSA be grateful to those who fulfil their calling to SA Officership 'for such a time as this' and not for 'time and eternity'
Former Searching UK
Where do I go from here?
Anon March 2013
I have to echo those questions. Do we get it wrong sometimes or does God call people for a short period only? Maybe just meeting a need in that moment in time? I am not always sure because sometimes I believe that people called are of the time but it is the Army who is stuck in tradition maybe of the Victorian era, I don't know but I believe to continue to prevent decline in some territories change is needed and it may take those now outside its ranks to assist this change.
Song-ology does not always help!
Surely, we are not denied the ‘joy in following Jesus …’ if we ‘follow’ Him on a path that takes us out of the movement.
‘Just where He needs me …’ suggests we are placed conditionally. Christ does not, surely, only see us as part of narrow, organisationally-framed, strategy: His will and plan for us is far broader than that.
I would not call it a ‘change of mind’ but, believing that God is all-seeing, all-knowing and all-powerful He sees where our input best fulfils His broader plan for the salvation of mankind. Surely, if He sees that we are better placed, better utilised, more-effective somewhere else then He leads accordingly.
‘Yesterday, today for ever, Jesus is the same’ bespeaks of the constancy and certainty of Jesus and His grace for us as individuals.
There is both meld and muddle, to my mind, that creates a theology of a calling being once and to one place and I have heard such a couplet used far too many times, erroneously to my mind, to suggest to the individual that God does change His mind and lead people from one part of the ‘vineyard’ to another.
Do we really believe that God sees denominations and respects our man-worked boundaries and differences which, to degree, have come about because we could not all work together, do things in the same way together or even agree what we all believed together!
I believe we are called to serve for a purpose: perhaps, for some God’s intention is that to be for a season. I think, in the expectation that the covenant be in ‘until I die’ framework that we constrain God by imposing an organisational imperative. What happens if God decides otherwise?
We create spiritual experience calamity in the lives of those that then question or seek to respond to the leadings of God in a direction that takes them out of the covenantal framework.
I believe that God sees the covenant with Him: organisationally, I think that relationship gets skewed and the organisation views it as a covenant with them and hence all the experience-diminishing language utilised when people feel led to step out of the movement.
To ‘searching UK’: I firmly believe that you really to have to be open to what God is actually saying to you. The certainty of calling, and its direction, that you must have experienced at the time you initially responded and made yourself available for officership, will be yours in this period of your time. Grace, I passionately believe, will be freely available to deal with both the cost and consequences of following wherever He leads you.
DW
Sorry: Typo alert!
Should read: '.... God does NOT change his mind to lead from one part of the vineyard to another ..'
DW
I was very happy to read the blog that finally put the idea out that God may not necessarily call on to officership for life.
I can't find any scriptural basis for the life time committment to officership. Not in the universal sense.
God may call some to lifelong officership. Others may be just for a time. Who can really know?
It has been my long held view that The Salvation Army's concept of this lifelong committment was a way of insuring a supply of leadership, primarily by using the guilt of breaking a covenant.
While leaving officership may break a covenant with The Salvation Army, it is not necessarily breaking a cevenant with God. Only the individual can know that.
I am a former officer who feels that call of God to push the Army and its officers to take an honest look and what the Army has become and what it should be.
Post a Comment