As a Corps Officer, I just wanted
someone to share my joy when things were going well and my pain when I was struggling. Alas, an inability to achieve this proved to be the undoing of my Officership.
For many Officers the appointment to DHQ or THQ is a blessing, but for others it is a curse. This may sound negative, but the fact is that most Officers want to fulfil their calling to save souls, grow saints and serve suffering humanity. I don’t believe any Officers were called for the purpose of frustrating their colleagues on the front line, nor were they called to upset headquarters staff. Nevertheless, there is a frustration building that I believe often happens because people end up in places they weren’t called to, perhaps without the necessary skills or resources.
In the same way that Corps Officers feel frustrated there will be headquarters staff frustrated by their own lack of support. With the average age of those entering training increasing over the past decades, the Army needs to acknowledge the experience and knowledge of its Officers gained in previous professional positions. Its Officers would become far more valuable assets if this knowledge informed the resourcing of the mission.
In the same way that Corps Officers feel frustrated there will be headquarters staff frustrated by their own lack of support. With the average age of those entering training increasing over the past decades, the Army needs to acknowledge the experience and knowledge of its Officers gained in previous professional positions. Its Officers would become far more valuable assets if this knowledge informed the resourcing of the mission.
Corps Officership is hard work! Anecdotally, it appears that the attitude of Corps members is increasingly shifting towards ‘it’s the Officer’s job.’ With a substantial increase in administration over the past decade the role of the Corps Officer has developed into that of a spiritual civil servant. Smaller and older congregations perpetuate this problem, with many being unable or unwilling to take on committed roles in the Corps. This is manifest through increased pressure on Corps Officers that is not necessarily understood by headquarters staff.
Legislation has, in recent years, changed the priorities of DHQs towards micro-bureaucracies, wrapped up in health & safety, legionella, child protection and finance. Rather than establishing a highly effective systems approach, the Army appears to have pursued a labour intensive strategy, making Officership less vocation and more administration – or less like ministry and more like a normal low paid job. This has to change! And change can only happen if the relationships are strong.
Legislation has, in recent years, changed the priorities of DHQs towards micro-bureaucracies, wrapped up in health & safety, legionella, child protection and finance. Rather than establishing a highly effective systems approach, the Army appears to have pursued a labour intensive strategy, making Officership less vocation and more administration – or less like ministry and more like a normal low paid job. This has to change! And change can only happen if the relationships are strong.
I was shocked to discover, after resigning, that the Corps I had been appointed to had lost over 40 Officers to resignation, long term illness or requests for an early move, in just 120 years of its existence. This is an example of long term relationship breakdown that can only be resolved in a culture of love, grace and reconciliation.
Finally, whilst people do not enter Officership for financial gain, there is a need for valuing Officers in the context of their ministry. I have heard many apologists for the Army say that the overall package is considerable, but typically (still) Officers are paid significantly less that their contemporaries in other denominations.
I believe that this, along with feeling unsupported and unvalued, causes the Army to be built on weak foundations, and is evidenced by the number of Officers resigning and the lack of Cadets in training worldwide.
Stuart Rivers
Former Officer
UKTI
I believe that this, along with feeling unsupported and unvalued, causes the Army to be built on weak foundations, and is evidenced by the number of Officers resigning and the lack of Cadets in training worldwide.
Stuart Rivers
Former Officer
UKTI
15 comments:
What about soldiers? I hear officers described as 'the front line'. What does that then make soldiers - the rats in the trenches feeding off the dead? I mean this is ridiculous. People need to be careful how they use language, what kind of phrases they use and what they convey. You have a strong FSAOF now, but nothing seems to have developed yet for former soldiers, and former soldiers can be both as traumatised and dislocated and have as much to give missionally in a new context - and as much need to remain part of an alumni, a loving wider church 'family'. Soldiers may feel valued even less than officers may - there has been far less investment there in training and development. I don't think this is particularly thought out or intentional on the army's part - and I do strongly believe in giving the benefit of the doubt - but there's a need for revolution from grassroots up as well as top down on how we value, nurture, develop one anothers' vocations and care for each others' souls whether we are soldiers, officers or former in either category. A radical cultural shift is called for.
A 1968 best seller, "The Peter Principle" by Dr. Laurence J. Peter states that; 'a promotion to the higher-ranking job position may not necessarily reveal the employee's incompetence, but rather the new position may require different skills the employee does not possess, and sums up the Peter Principle with the saying: "the cream rises until it sours."
The Peter Principal can be a problem for businesses which can be solved through continued education. Even with proper employee training though, the Peter Principal predicts the employee will eventually get to a position where they are incompetent because of further promotion.
If even sparingly applied to the Army, it can be said that certain officers (employees) will rise or get promoted to his or her level of incompetence. The Peter Principle is based on the notion that employees will get promoted as long as they are competent, but at some point will fail to get promoted beyond a certain appointment because it has become too challenging for them. Employees rise to their level of incompetence and stay there, or sadly, get further promoted.
The logical conclusion: The incompetent middle level officer selects his.her team members. But who determines that the officer is competent in selecting the appropriate and qualified team members? And how far up the HQ ladder can an officer be allowed to progress before becoming a liability to the organization's Kingdom building mission?
Doing the most good, but for how long and in which role?
How can one be certain that introspective observations made by the series of excellent articles and comments found in the FSAOF are addressed in the Army's headquarters?
If we accept that 50% of all officers leave our ranks, what would the SA be if we had retained the officers who resigned and let the present lot take a lengthy leave of absence?!
The Americas
I think the comment about former soldiers is worth consideration. There are many wounded, not only in the Army I might add!
And no, the soldiery are not the "rats" in the trenches! But I do believe that the war is fought in the trenches and mainly by the soldiers.
Soldier now, former officer, Central USA
This comment I believe shows that the Army has become much more of a organisation than a church. Rightly said that there is now more red tape and paperwork than ever, and much less caring for the Officer and those who attend the corps. Other denominations appear to use their pastors/ministers gifting's and if that is preaching they let them preach, if that is administration then they let them support the church in that manner and both are fulfilled and the church grows. The Army over the years has placed the wrong type of person in the wrong roles, be that at a HQ or at a corps and this is why there is an increase in this group. With the increasing reduction of Cadets worldwide I agree that the Army needs to look at the strengths those who do offer for fulltime ministry and use the experiences that they have gained over the years of employment. More communication is needed when appointments are made, why put someone in a position to let them fail! I agree the Army needs to wake up before it is reduced to little more that an organisation that does good works with a good ethos.
Sven, I have to take issue with your comparison of officership with secular business employment.
An officer is called by God, not only because the Army needs officers, but because God sees that officership is the best soil for the person He calls to grow and become what he plans.
He/she is freed from full time work and released to advance the mission of the Army.
He/she is building for eternity.
He/she is promoting and demonstrating Kingdom values.
He/she is motivated by love for the Lord and the people entrusted to his/her ministry.
He/she is a link in a chain of grace towards the lost, the poor, the fallen, and even those who may still be lost but who are no longer considered poor and fallen; multigenerational Salvationist.
Respect and regards. Joseph
I truly wish there was room for disagreement Joseph...
Unfortunately God does not protect the army from unqualified, unprepared and uncommitted from passing into officership. And some of those will rise within the ranks beyond their competence.
Blessings
Today is Covenant Sunday in the Western Territory. Based upon those who have now completed their requirements, we will commission seventy-one officers next Sunday at Commissioning.
Hallelujah!
From TC West blog
A Couple of points:
1) We need to stop comparing TSA with other denominations. The only other denomination similar to TSA in structure and unity is the Roman Catholic church. Yes, other denominations have their administrative hierarchies, but they largely consist of independent congregations. To the point that in the Anglican Communion, a person can be a highly respected Priest - considered for a Bishopric - in one diocese, but in the neighbouring diocese - only considered to be a junior Deacon. Our structure can be our strength.
2) It is important to at least acknowledge the lessons learned in the secular business world - simply because the church is made up of human beings and ministers to human beings. Humans, whether in the secular world or in the church, are prone to the same kinds of desires, drives, jealousy, etc etc etc, no matter where they are. We can argue that those in the church should be more Holy and sanctified than that, but that just sets up the situation for severe cognitive dissonance for the individual. The reality is that we are all human beings, striving towards that life of holiness. This is even more pronounced when we realise that we are all working in this fallen world, and from time to time, are affected by it. Even the Nuns that worked with Mother Theresa considered her a very hard woman when it came to her expectations etc.
3) There are many Officers who come across as very hard and uncaring etc, but from the best of intentions - believing with all their heart that they are doing the will of God in being like that. Just because we see someone who has hurt us, doesn't mean that they are intentionally being like that, or that they don't believe (along with others) that they are doing the right thing. There is often a situation of opposing ideas as to what is the 'right' or 'good' thing to do - both believing for various reasons that they are right, both inflicting immeasurable harm on the other and those others they come in contact with.
4) We do need to train our Soldiery better. But perhaps not just in service, but in what it means to be a Christian. We promise so much to people at the point of conversion. We teach so much about how the Christian should be. Again, this sets up unrealistic expectations as to what Soldiers can expect from their leaders, and what they expect from themselves. As a result, when they go into training, they are unprepared to face the reality that Officers are just as human as they are. Or when as Soldiers, they realise this, they leave the church, disillusioned, realising that the church is just as full of the broken, imperfect humans as the rest of the secular world.
5) There are also those who after experiencing both life as a Soldier, and then as an Officer, and who do a bit more study, begin to realise that the church no more answers the human condition than any other religion or philosophy or teaching etc etc etc. We are just good at putting a band-aid on it for a while. We need to do a deep re-think about everything we believe - and honestly ask how well it answers the human condition. And not just ask ourselves, but ask those around us who are hurting, and be prepared for the shocking answers we might get.
Just a few thoughts.
Yours in Christ,
Graeme Randall
Former Australian East in London.
When husbands and women go away the qualified earth, they use t-shirts.
T-shirt printing is get gone the or even the additional,
nevertheless hardly ever equally.
My webpage: borelioza
Dear Graeme, I agree wholeheartedly with all your points except no2.
The difference is that the active Christian is working towards building the Kingdom, not simply increasing sales and profits. His/her task in building the church is to provide a setting in which we can grow and serve as Christians. We build on Kingdom values of love, acceptance, forgiveness, responsibility, justice, Christlikeness, walking in the Spirit, speaking the truth in love, taking care of each other, second chances, etc. If these expectations create cognitive dissonance for a person it is not because these are not the right values. The dissonance is likely to be that we have failed to provide local churches which are Kingdom communities, thereby we have left individual Christians to try to 'grow and live' in alien soil.
I believe the reason we fail so badly is because we have set up ‘churches’, which are self defeating. The Church is not an Army. The life of a barracks, or a regiment is not one, which we should aim to emulate. The command structure, terminology, task centeredness, and pragmatic approach of the military model is the opposite to the Holy Spirit led, person centred, Christ demonstrated, Scriptural authorised pattern for a church.
In short our problem is that we need new wine skins to hold the new wine. I believe we are bound to fail as a 'church' until we release ourselves from the military model.
You indicate the answer to this in your reference to congregational life. Booth knew this. He was absolutely clear that The Salvation Army was not intended to be a church.
On the other hand, if we can step backwards, accept that our purpose is not to be a church; that we were raised up by God to be a mission to the unconverted, we may have a way forward.
We will need to release our members to join local churches.
We will need to recommend that most of our converts join local churches.
We may have to allow/persuade some, culture - bound corps to leave our movement.
We must select cadets because of their demonstrated passion and commitment to the lost.
These are the actions that Booth took, but which multi generational salvationists may now find impossible.
Is there any chance that what I suggest will happen?
Can we thrive if we continue as at present?
Respect and regards. Joseph
I for one am not so sure that WB was that naive as to not realising that when you get a following you need to make provision for those people to be provided for. When you make structured membership available, especially from 1878 onward then you become quickly a denomination or sect or even a cult. The SA having had strong traits of all three in many aspects.
Contra to popular belief and sanitised history, the SA the backbone of the early movement was never the submerged tenth ..the service users.... who were allegedly denied entrance into the organised chuch setting, something that may well have sadly happened on occasion. Right from very early days WB largely attracted the respectable lower working class and also the more educated and brilliant people who would manage and develop amazing strategies for growth during 1878 to 1890. Such people needed a spiritual home and created such themselves. Many of those early day brains could not and would not have served as a spiritual front line corps officer...they would not have survived a week!
I have just finished re-reading Albert Orsborn's. 'The House Of My Pilgrimage'. In it one can see that most of what we think is only happening today officer resignation wise etc has been there right from the beginning. Huge numbers came and went in the earlier days, I believe on a far more significant scale than today but for largely the same1001 reasons and none. There was dissatisfaction, envy, jealousy, lack of income, poor housing, immorality, lack of care, dishonesty, lack of integrity, lack of faith, not being able to be a free lancer, authority issues, constantly being on the move etc etc.
To Joseph, no we can not turn the clock back nor would we want to as today is God's perfect timing and condition in the society of today. It is great to be be part of his work as an officer today and utilise that what he has made available for the Kingdom sake.
Anonymous, I am glad to hear that you are positive about the future of the SA. I hope that you are right. But on what evidence do you base such hope? And how do you see the SA refocusing it resources, money and time on reaching the lost, the poor, and the fallen in the UKIT? We are travelling in a direction that makes this more difficult as the years go by.
The fact that many of our folk left us in earlier generations could mean that the military model was not helpful in church - building then, as it is not helpful now. It could also mean that people who joined our forces gave what they could give for a while, and then moved (back?) into a local church setting. This was not a cause of shame or controversy, though the broken relationship concerned must have been hurtful.
You will recall from Orsborn's recorded that at a large public meeting General Booth was dismayed. Orsborn continued, "His hands tightened on my shoulders, His voice wavered and almost broke. There was no harshness, no impatience, only a tone of infinite sorrow and yearning. ' ... if you can devise a patent for keeping religious people out of my meetings, and filling them up with the worst of sinners, I'll reward you.' This conversation happened in 1911, the year before Booth died. (See page 85 of House of my Pilgrimage.
Then Orsborn went on to observe 'he did not want a settled respectable congregation... God did not want another church when he created The Salvation Army... God raised this people to be a mobile fighting, marching, singing, shouting, praying host... outside the church's orbit'
Like you I hope I am wrong but the lord did not promise us a future apart from the purposes for which He raised us up.
Respect and regards. Joseph
Joseph, there have been nay sayers predicting the demise of the SA at every stage of its existence. It is still functioning and has continuously adapted to ensure future continuity in one shape or another. Whether it is to you or my liking is another thing but here it is today going about its soul saving business and trying to be a support to the submerged tenth of today, just as it has done for the past 135 years.
Respectability comes with success and when the Founder came to town he attracted respectable people galore who wanted to hear and see this success. When he visited all the noble and good were invited as they could help advance the war in many ways.
It could well be argued that in his dotage years, he yearned back sentimentally to the simple early days of heady advances,viewed through rose coloured lenses. It could also be argued that he was a victim of his own success in that the structure needed to manage and control this evolved monster of an organisation needed huge financial and personnel resources and was no longer under his ultimate personal control.
Even from 1900 onward the nature of officership had changed and the expectations different. In the early days officers were expendable cannon fodder, easily spent, literally worked to death with no furlough whatsoever and often starved due to lack of a basic living allowance. He realised very quickly that he needed to care for his officers better hence the institution of annual rest periods and the establishment of many an officer rest home near the seaside for recovery.
That the SA still exists in the UK is a miracle in itself. The more generational it gets, the greater the miracle as it is ever only one generation away from demise...... isn't God wonderfully blessing the faithfulness of his people like you and I, together with countless others?
I like to state it again, it is great to be an active officer in the SA of today and be the person he intends us to be as we bring Christ to the world and the world to Christ. This is a personal responsibilty and not perse an organisational one....no-one at hq is stopping us doing that.
Nuff said for now
Active UKTI
Anonymous Active UKTI,
It is a real joy to read your posts. You are absolutely right that Gods calls and uses individuals, and it up to us as individuals to recognise the privilege of our calling and to work it out through our ministry. From this point of view officers have never been so blessed.
My concern is fourfold.
1. Our direction of travel.
Especially out attempts to change our status from a Christian movement to a denomination. Our militaristic distinctives, our Articles of War, and our decision making structure were introduced to make us effective as a mission to the lost, the poor and the fallen. This militarism is also contrary to the expectations of people seeking a church. A scripturally defined church needs a very different paradigm. At the same time we are failing to recognise that local and national churches around are moving into community based ministries and seeker friendly meetings, that are experience and action orientated. Other are more liturgy based combined with a strong evangelical/social conscience credo. Can TSA really thrive as a ‘church’ with so much completion for those who want a worshipping community?
2. Our massively increased bureaucratic structure.
We have moved from a streamlined three level command structure (TC, DC, CO.) to a cabinet structure at DHQ and THQ levels, which is subject to unrecognised group dynamics and processes which inevitably prioritise conformity and risk reduction and, before difficult to manage dynamic growth at corps and centre level. (I have studied and practised group therapy for most of my officership, and in appointments on divisional and national level have witnessed how subconscious group processes have sabotaged effective decision making)
3. Our non-seeker friendly culture.
A sea of uniforms, flags, crests, bands, songsters, and militaristic language confronts newcomers. Plus our highly conditional membership demands; uniforms, teetotalism, no lotto's, Articles of War no smoking, non of which is demanded by scripture means that adherency is preferred to full membership as a senior soldier.
4. Our increasing isolation from the communities in which we are placed.
W have lost contact with the public by abandoning pub rounds, open air meetings, street meetings for sick/housebound comrades, hospital visitation, and door to door visitation. We have replaced these with highly focussed mail campaigns and television advertisements. Some corps have increased contact with the public through second hand shops and hall - based programmes but these cannot begin to make up for the loss of our presence where people live, shop, work and recover from medical problems.
The danger is that over time the combined effects of these will increasingly lead to us becoming irrelevant as more and more local churches become increasingly user friendly.
So yes we should rejoice in the blessing and opportunities we have at corps and centre level, but also be aware that we are also caught in a stream of changes and influences, which will determine our future more than we may realise. Respect and Regards. Joseph.
Post a Comment