The problem here has been identified and analysed masterfully by Major Dr Harold Hill in his book Leadership in the Salvation Army: a Case study in Clericalisation. The problem is whether Officership is seen as a function within our movement or does “Ordination” and “Commissioning” somehow place Officers into a different "class" or even "caste". Historically and theologically we would align ourselves with the first option but more and more, at least in practice I suggest, we have begun to act like the second.
Perhaps nowhere is this more evident than in the way we speak of the "call to Officership". The “call” is treated with deep reverence within The Salvation Army. Indeed the Officer’s Covenant, which all Officers must sign, starts with the words (in capital letters, no less) "CALLED BY GOD". Those who wish to apply for officership need to demonstrate throughout the application process that they have indeed been called and that this calling is evident in their lives. Cadets are also expected that their calling would be affirmed and confirmed throughout their training.
The problem, as I observe it, is that this calling is frequently viewed as an "add on" to Soldiership. In this way Officers become those people who have received “something extra” from God that others have not (in this case a “calling”). An extreme interpretation of this may even suggest that it is a subtle form of Gnosticism.
Some of the symptoms of this problem include the expectation that it is the Officers who are called to be Evangelists, Preachers, Pastors, Administrators, Leaders, Prophets, Worship Leaders and a myriad of other functions since they are the ones that have been "Called by God ". It is entirely unsustainable for them personally or for us as a movement to rely on one small percentage of our movement. As a result of this we have ended up with under-active Soldiers and over-active Officers.
So what's a possible solution?
A colleague of mine, Major Dr Dean Smith, preached recently on the topic "How do I know God's will for my life?” During what was an outstanding sermon he provided what I think is a different way to conceive of the relationship between Soldiership and Officership. He suggested this;
"We should assume that all Soldiers should be Officers unless they are called to something else."
In this way the calling to officership is viewed as a function of Soldiership not as something added on top of it. Officership, in this understanding of it, is not a status acquired over and above Soldiership, but a specialised form of Soldiership. The “call to Officership” is not an "add-on" for some Christians but a function of the one calling that all Christians share in. This is the calling of Isaiah 43:1 "I have called you by name; you are mine." The calling of some Christians will express itself functionally through Soldiership within The Salvation Army. The calling of some of these Soldiers will also express itself functionally through Officership within The Salvation Army. Indeed some Officers will later function in other specialised ways; teachers, drug and alcohol specialists, business administrators, divisional and territorial leaders. Of course, that does not mean that those who are not Officers are not called at all. Rather, the complete opposite is true. We must assume that all Christians are called but that the calling will functions within different, but no less important, frameworks; be that as school teachers, bakers or candlestick makers... or, indeed, Officers within The Salvation Army.
So, again, we return to the original question "What Is a Salvation Army Officer?" I've come to the conclusion that any answer to this question must be expressed in terms that intrinsically link it to Soldiership. Personally, I'm drawn to the phrase "Strategic Soldiership" for this purpose. This, for me, inseparably links Officership to Soldiership. Officers are, first and foremost, Christians, secondly Soldiers, and thirdly Officers.
If we relate this further to the mission of The Salvation Army we have to be honest and admit that entering into Officership actually requires a candidate to take a step backwards from the mission front. This is not to say that Officers are not involved in the mission, but rather that they have taken on a new strategic role. Importantly, they remain Soldiers themselves but take on the responsibility of leading other Soldiers in the mission. The reality is, though, that Officers are not primarily on the "front line"... Soldiers are.
This strategic role is very important. This is a very necessary task. We need people to be Officers within The Salvation Army. What we don't need, however, are Officers who “think of themselves more highly than they ought” (Romans 12:3). Officers must not see themselves as somehow better, or more important than Soldiers because they are called and Soldiers are not. Soldiers are at the front line of Salvation Army mission. Officers are called to “Strategic Soldiership”, which necessarily remains one step back from that front line. The front line of Salvation Army mission will take place where soldiers engage in vocations in the world; as butchers, writers, child-care workers, doctors, businesspeople, cleaners, and a hundred other possibilities. This calling is, though, the same calling that all Christians share, including the calling that Officers have received. The calling is to God's mission field - for everyone; Officers, Soldiers, Adherents, and all Christians alike. Officers have a strategic role to play in encouraging, supporting and equipping Soldiers to carry out the mission of The Salvation Army wherever they are.
http://www.setapartinchrist.com/2011/11/who-is-called.html
6 comments:
One difficulty with this is that there is often no (possible, realistic) connection between the missional/disciplemaking life of the soldier and that of the corps and its officer.
I recall having a discussion with a CO about this about a year ago, and he couldn't grasp why the corps or CO should want to, or need to, have any connection with (or knowledge of) the mission/disciplemaking activities of a soldier. It's 'our business' not 'their business'. It was felt there was only a possible connection if the soldier brought someone from their workplace into the corps on a Sunday or into some other activity of the corps which is on the corps diary. This is the UK, so that's not very practical where we work with people on average decades younger than the soldiers in the corps, and where the culture inside the corps is far, far removed from that of our workplaces.
Necessarily, the officer needs to focus on the round of corps activities and the administration, meeting preparation and on pastoral care of those who are vulnerable. That leaves individual soldiers and even cell groups without training, mentoring, and without a sense of ongoing vocational discernment other than regarding their possible help with an item on the corps diary. With the best will in the world, the gulf is - complete. It's just the way the army has designed itself, and the officers trying their best to serve according to they way they have been trained and are held accountable. There are only so many hours in the week.
I think the other point is that it's easy to think those people at work are 'out in the community' or work with people who are potentially open to the gospel. I met far more people in the local community, and was far more involved in mission, evangelism, and the local community during about five years I was in full-time service than I'm able to now back in an ordinary job - now I can't even get to the corps in the evenings or Saturdays. The gulf is complete, again, on both sides.
Your ideas Captain Couchman are both well thought out and articulated but dream on already. It AIN'T gonna happen. Once clericalisation occurs (and even while it's occuring as in the days of William Booth) the real institutional power is ALWAYS in the hands of the clergy. This is especially true in churches such as the Army that have Episcopal forms of government. And once a group is endowed with power it is very unlikely that they'll ever give it up. Two thousand years of church history has proven that!
Everyone who's ever been on one knows that lay committees and boards, etc. that have been set up in many denominations since the 1950s/60s to supposedly give laypeople a voice in denominational affairs are/were just attempts by the clerical powers that be to give laypeople the impression that they have a say in what's going on. In a nutshell they're almost always a waste of time.
This is also true on a local level. Unless you're on the payroll (or independently wealthy and have large sums of money to give as a donor---think Mrs. Kroc and wealthy people on the Army's Advisory Boards!)no one in power really cares too terribly much about what YOU think.
Even on commitees such as the Ethics Commitees set up in the various territories that have both officers and well educated soldiers on them, ultimately it is the Commissioners who still make the final decisions.
Think of it in terms
of "traditional" (1950s?)patriarchal marriage. The husband was the breadwinner and thus really had all of the power. The wife was placated by being able to set up her kitchen and laundry room however she wanted it. It was her domain to do as she pleased.
Another related issue is that once the layperson (soldier) realises the truth of the situation unless they happen to find real satisfaction in their particular kitchen/laundry room domain the less likely they are to put all of their energy into the concern---and it has nothing to do with post-modernism!
For one thing the post industrial information age workplace of today oftentimes demands much more mentally from an employee than the rote factory jobs of the past did. One doesn't just learn how to put the red hook on the blue hook, the blue hook on the yellow hook and punch in and punch out anymore.
People only have so much time and energy to give to anything and there are only 24 hours in a day. Add to this that it is now both a husband and wife who are working at such jobs and are then both are expected to be involved in childcare when they get home. This has already been alluded to in the posting before mine where the former officer wrote that he/she no longer can make it to the corps in the evenings or on Saturdays.
Am I being a pessimistic crapehanger? Naw, just a realist. What ultimately matters is that whatever profound social changes take place that may alter people's relationships to their religious activities the Holy Spirit will always be at work in the world no matter how everything eventually plays out for the Army.
Daryl Lach
USA Central
"You Must Go Home By the Way of the Cross, To Stand with Jesus in the Morning!"
Samuel Logan Brengle focused on key leaders-local officers early in his officership. The Apostle Paul taught and trained individuals. They in turn disciples and shared leadership so that the Great Commission would be practiced.We need to remember that we are working and serving the Lord and that following a few basic principles and Scripture that we all would be better of than excusing ourselves from the Lord's direct will.
When will we ever learn ? We are not CEO's. That is for the Commissioners around the world among other duties.
USA former
I would agree with the first two respondents, although perhaps a little less pessimistic, or more optimistic (however you look at it).
I don't think it's a matter of seeing Officership as either an elitist group, or purely a function of Soldiership - although that is how the debate has been polarised. I think we need to see it as both. The very nature of Officership mean that Officers are able to do things that no soldier can do - move at a moment notice, work full-time for TSA, be trained in ministry etc. Where we go wrong is putting Officers in every position - whether they are qualified or not - just because they are Officers. We need to see Officers as 'ordained ministers' or 'clergy' otherwise the problems will continue. For eg. Why do we put Officers in social centre? in Aged Care places? in Homeless Hostels? in Rehab Centres? in Administration/property etc etc et.? All of these are posts that Soldiers can and should fill. There is nothing wrong with a Soldier who is qualified in Addiction counselling, or welfare, or aged care, or management etc etc etc filling those positions. In fact, it would probably be preferable. Leave Officership purely for positions of ministering to the church, and leading it. So, Corps officers, yes, and DC's etc - yes. If Officers feel they are better suited in social positions, then they can fill that as a function of soldiership - being employed full time to do that position. There would be no difference whatsoever in their duties or authority - they are fulfilling the call in a way that is best suited.
I think only then will we stop seeing Officership as elitist etc. It will also mean we will have more than enough Officers to fill all the positions that are needed and more. We could concentrate more on growing the church rather than administering it. The church has to stop using the business model to run itself. The church is NOT a business. That's the point! There was an excellent book that came out a number of years ago (forgotten the author) entitled 'descending into greatness'. This completely contradicts everything the business model suggests. If we accept that, then we will grow. It's challenging, but if you are truly called, then you will. If you can't, then you have to question your calling.
I also think we need to be more sensitive to the cultural situation that many of the soldiery find themselves in. Business today is run with almost religious fervour, with penticostal style 'motivational' meetings (using all the darkest side of Psychological studies to push business agendas with no regard for feelings of employees or consumers). They are managed out of jobs if they are not 110% committed, putting work ahead of family and anything else.
Just my thoughts,
Yours in Christ,
Graeme Randall
Former Australian East
I would respectfully challenge the assumption that soldiers cannot move at a moment's notice, train for ministry or exercise it. Many of us can and do. Please don't assume that soldiers who wish to serve missionally are clamoring to be CEOs. That's a startling judgement. The simple fact is that without properly authorised ministry - ie an ordained ministry - we are forced to work basically alone out here, with no mission team, no budget,fragile accountability and mentoring and so on. The system is creaking and groaning at the end of the centuries of Christendom. The solution is to raise the bar for soldiership,make sure soldiers are constantly training and in cpd provide ongoing and broad vocational discernment respecting the strength of our commitment. I believe that's the only way to close the gap and help the church adapt to a rapidly changing world.
Graeme I like your ideas that you have posted. They seem to make sense. All in all there are not enough people with the status as officers or soldiers that are availing themselves to minister in corps or elsewhere. Doing the same thing over and over that does not function is senseless and nearly useless.
Over the last several months I have seen many good ideas and comments as to how to staff appointments ( especially corps). Some are new and some are a visit to the past. I would hope that leadership at various headquarters levels are listening and thinking. Some revision of policy and practice seems to be needed. In some cases desperately needed.
The CEO comment pertains to some officers that I see that want power and control but do not want to shepherd. Some need to reconsider their calling and covenant with God and as officers.
USA former
Post a Comment