Vox populi | self-determination

… ‘calling’ isn’t about the best career fit

get thinking these days about Salvation Army Officership, and those places in the territory where people who aren’t officers are running ministry units - corps/church and other, and I wonder why it is we don’t have officers in those positions/places? I could easily get bugged by this too, especially when I hear stories of leaders claiming they’d never go to training college, but not because of training college. They cringe at the thought of a life as an officer that may see them getting appointed to no-man’s land in the territory. It bugs me, and it probably bugs me because I’d like to be the person spending the Army’s cash in the place of my choosing, setting down roots and calling the shots.

So what about that? We can’t blame people for thinking like this. We promote it, and make it possible. Is that a bad thing? Most of the time I say no, but then I read the blogs, and get so ticked off at the criticism aimed at the hand feeding the dog. I get all bent because if you can be so critical of the “system” or the “organization” then don’t take the cash.

It is about building the kingdom, but what is the relationship of accountability to the organization. I used to get criticized for trying to build our corps because it didn’t promote church unity. Why wouldn’t I run programs and funnel people into other churches? With resources lacking, I couldn’t afford it, and when I suggested that the wealthiest churches in the bunch should give me $50,000 to balance our budget, for the sake of the kingdom, I was amazed at how people were less keen on being kingdom builders. I think there has to be an accountability relationship to the organization, and while it’s about building the kingdom, I am quite sure it is not about knocking down those in this part of the kingdom.

What does it say about officership, and about me as an offer? In some sense the idea of self-determination, sexy as that may be, is really about trust and faith. Here’s the rub. I’m called, I can train in some fashion, but can I trust that God can use me anywhere the Army places me? What if they make a mistake? Wouldn’t it be better for me to make an inventory of gifts, skills, and talents and match that to the best fit. Can’t I figure that out better than our Divisional and Territorial leaders? That’s the issue isn’t it? People, at the core, want to determine the course for their future, and I understand that, but calling isn’t about the best career fit. It’s about submission, and a willingness to serve people wherever we find ourselves. I know, that’s easy sitting here at the Training College, but that’s now.

So far, in my officership, I have to be honest… The Salvation Army has never said I couldn’t do mission, and there has never been a time that anyone has told me I couldn’t serve others. She’s not a perfect Army, but it’s the place God called me to serve, and I trust He knows what He’s doing. I also know if you’re called, then determining your own path is not going to be fulfilling.

Vox populi appears every Friday on theRubicon. Find past Vox populi posts and a bio of Capt. Rick Zelinsky here.

Friday, May 9th, 2008 Vox populi, theRubi-Blog

10 Comments to Vox populi | self-determination

Your right. However when the leaders refuse to lead or even talk to you about the mission your supposed to do, refuse to give direction even though on your part you tried every possible venue to initiate this talk because you want to be obedient and submissive to your leadership, follow their direction and suggestions, your left with nothing. ( As you are able to feel, I am emotional involved here). What if you have done all the right stuff and your still called by God to do missison but are stoped from doing so, short of rebellion and, as I have known other officers to do, ask for forgiveness later rather than permission? Is that right?

Siggi Buschhaus on May 9th, 2008

Siggi,
I would suggest leading a coup. Seriously, that is the big issue isn’t it, and it depends on personality a lot of time, as well as culture. In fact, this morning I read an article from a territory which outlines how to tie your uniform tie, and the need to look in a way fitting the standards of officership. To tell you truth, I don’t know if I’d be so giving in my remarks if I was an officer there.

What do you do? hmmm. The cynical side to me says, ‘make your leader look good, and they’ll let you do anything’, but I don’t think that’s very godly. You need to win your leader over to your side, and it won’t happen by butting heads. Trust me. A good mentor of mine would suggest you influence through your relationship with the person, and not for the purpose of getting your way. That is manipulation, and while tempting, will only frustrate in the end. You’ve got to find a way to build that relationship, and invite the leaders into the process, keep them apprised at every turn, bombard them with paperwork (okay, that was from another mentor. It may possibly be a means of attention divesion). I still believe that people called into TSA will get jazzed up when we invite them into mission, and relate in a manner that we don’t manipulate or abuse. At some point in an officer’s life they were called to this, and perhaps they need a reminder of that.

Rick Zelinsky on May 9th, 2008

Hi Rick

Interesting post. Something a lot of people struggle with, I think. I can see how being an officer requires that you trust God to use you wherever the appointment board places you. I also think that if you’re going to go for officership you’ve got to be willing to submit to that process.

But “calling” in general could involve other kinds of trust and submission, in other contexts. The Baptist pastor has the right to self-determination in choosing where he’ll serve; however, he doesn’t have the security that officers have of always knowing that he’ll have a job, a house, a car, etc. So he’s trusting God in other ways, to open doors when the time comes for a transition, because the doors won’t open automatically. He also may have to submit - but to the decisions of his local church board, rather than those a central headquarters.

I guess my point is that calling has to involve trust (and risk), and will also involve submission, both to God and to some form of human authority - but that doesn’t support the appointment system vs. other denominational structures (nor does it support a call system over an appointment system).

But, you’re right, it is a bit strange to have a mix of non-officer ministry unit leaders alongside officers who are subject to the appointment system. It creates a double standard. I think the solution is not to appoint officers to all these units, but to get rid of the appointment system and let officers apply for ministry positions in some form or other. This could involve something like the Anglican or Free Methodist process where the Bishop still technically appoints people, but he/she allows a selection process to take place, which is then rubber-stamped provided that everything is done properly. And in those churches, the bishop can still “appoint” someone to a church when there is a need and no one is stepping up. I think it is a good mix of seeking initiative from the local church/potential pastor, while retaining oversight and accountability through the office of the bishop. Both of these churches also formerly had an appointment system similar to the Army.

Of course it would be a logistical nightmare for the Army to change the current set up, and would take a long time to implement, but I honestly feel we’d be better off.

I’m not holding my breath, though.

James Pedlar on May 9th, 2008

I hear what you’re saying Rick, but the world has changed from when I was training to be an officer and certainly from when my parents signed up.

The “personal autonomy” piece is a big one for the generation coming up after us. They wish to retain this right of choice and there isn’t enough trust left in the Army system for them to gamble their lives on it.
They ask for more guarantees than the system is structurally and functionally able to give.

With the Army’s rapid and continuous shift of mid and upper level leadership, accountability falls apart because leaders at all levels will not be around long enough to live with the decisions they make and the policies they set in place, so ultimately they cannot be held accountable.

Rightly or wrongly, its a fact of the world right now, for the most part. So, its a stalemate and the Army misses out on the chance to embrace some of our most creative and committed young leaders, because they will not go for this sort of deal on these terms. We can rage against it, but it won’t change anytime soon, I reckon.

I will further exercise great self-restraint and refuse to be drawn into a tangential discussion on “calling”…suffice to say that I think you might be hard pressed to find strong evidence (biblical or otherwise) in support of the historical understanding of “calling”, as the term has usually been bandied about in TSA.

Love you!

Geoff Ryan on May 9th, 2008

Rick:
Thanks for giving me some insight into the system that you work within.

A few questions (okay, observations) about this particular blog and associated comments:
-The consensus here seems to be that those of us out here in the broader workforce have a lot of choices as to work and residence; the reality is, except for a very small elite, in a very few fields most of us don’t have a wide array of options in terms of jobs or housing or community
-why is there such a focus in this discussion (and so many others in this blog) on officers and callings; what about soldiers? adherents? Christians of other denominations?

Thanks

Andrea

Andrea614Regent on May 10th, 2008

Hi Andrea,
I’ve written about soldiers, adherants etc., but it seems these types of blogs get the biggest reaction, perhaps dwarfed only by smoking, drinking and wearing a uniform.

Geoff,
What about bearing a cross or becoming weak or a fool for the sake of the gospel. Don’t you think this generation is too focussed on personal rights and desires? It’s funny because they’re also far more missionally minded than my generation and probably at least the one before me. I chuckle at the comment about shifts in policy. I just heard the story of a woman who was an envoy (which followed Aux. Captaincy), followed by a Lieutenant (replaced envoy). Then she became a cadet-Lieut., and in the wake of Lieutenancy being dissolved is becoming an Aux. Captain. I really think we miss out when we remove opportunities for people to serve outside of officership.

I’m guess what bugs me is when people are given opportunity to serve, and then use it as a means to subvert TSA. It may be they’re just subverting the systems rather than the mission. I also guess to this end officers are just as guilty. It may not be all that bad.

much love |:)

Rick Zelinsky on May 11th, 2008

I’m an officer who has just had to go through the process, after nearly a year in an appointment, of saying it wasn’t working. I’ve always had a strong commitment to the Army’s appointment system and struggled to get to the idea of having to say ‘look guys, I don’t think this is a long term thing, us being here.’

I’m aware that this ‘questioning the appointment system’ is looked down upon by some folks, especially seeing that the appointment we have now received had a level of consultation I’d never have thought possible. Some would say ‘you don’t like you’re appointment and so you’ve shouted for another one.’ Even in my most cynical moments, I worry that is what we’ve done until I’m reminded of all the ways God has spoken and led me until now.

The truth seems to be that, in spite of there being a lot of good faith involved, our appointment may have had the element of a ‘gamble.’ That doesn’t fill me with huge confidence but I recognise that our leaders are by no means infallible and certainly our year here has seen some important things happen for some folks through us. All credit to our leaders who’ve identified with us that the year was probably all that was necessary!

Calling…I’ve just been waxing lyrical over on my blog about clericalism. To me, the fundamental distinction between officership and soldiership is simply one of function. Apart from the extra footnotes on the soldiers covenant which the officers covenant adds, the only difference between me and the non-officer leader is…em…not a huge deal in the whole scheme of God’s Kingdom.

As God’s people, we’re called simply to be seekers and savers of the lost, the last, and the least. My privilege is to lead some other soldiers in that work.

I’m a soldier first, an officer second. My calling is about function.

Andrew Clark on May 11th, 2008

It is not just the younger generation who struggles with the appointment system as it is now - some of us old-timers (30 years) wrestle with it as well, knowing enough about the process to recognize the difficulties. Ironic, isn’t it, that the very system Catherine and William could not submit to, became the model for the Army they founded. When their children could not submit, they were ostracized - does not seem like a healthy system to me.

JoAnn Shade on May 11th, 2008

Hi Rick. Thanks for your regular column - I’m a regular reader and
fan. You bring a fair and balanced approach to the issues you address
and I appreciate it. I usually agree with you but just not this time -
I hope that is okay.

With all due respect, I find that “submission” and serving others
“wherever we find ourselves” is a tired cliché for officership.

It is true that the Christian life is about “submission” and a
willingness to serve “wherever and whenever”.

It is also true that too often “submission” and serving “wherever and
whenever” is an excuse in the Church for putting the collective ahead
of the individual. The underlying assumption is that collectivism is
somehow a better (more spiritual? more biblical?) system than one
which incorporates more individualism. Individualism in some
denominations is a dirty word - in a way not too dissimilar from how
it was derided in communist China and Russia where the “will of the
collective” was expressed as the state above the individual. I
wouldn’t take that comparison too far but I am suggesting that the
over-emphasis on “submission” to the “greater good” is problematic and
prone to abuse.

It is an emphasis out of balance. I think individualism can be
defended biblically and in church tradition, when balanced with a
proper understanding of the church collective or community.

The Spirit can speak to the individual just as to the community (or
designated leader). In the Salvation Army context, the Spirit can
speak to a captain or corps congregation just as well as a
commissioner. I believe that not only in theory but in practice!

In any organization there is a balance between what one wants and what
is possible. That is reality. Not everyone can do the same job.
Inevitably some jobs are more sought after than others. All secular
workplaces have a system in place in which individuals can apply for
jobs they prefer and a system to choose those best suited or
qualified.

So why is this so difficult to work out in the Church?

The theoretical problem I think stems from a theology of the Holy
Spirit. Traditionally in the Church the struggle has been this: How do
we reconcile the Spirit speaking to the individual when the Spirit is
saying something else to the collective (or designated leader)? The
individual may say that the Spirit is telling them they should do X
job but the collective needs them to do Y job or the collective thinks
the individual would just not be suited to do X job. What does that
say about the Spirit? Surely the Spirit can’t be telling the
individual one thing and the collective something else?! And it boils
down to a debate about who the Spirit speaks through. Unfortunately it
can degenerate into an issue of power and control.

This is exacerbated in the context of “doing church” in a military
metaphor. We all know that in the midst of battle there is no time for
human resource management. Giving and receiving orders is much more
efficient when on the frontlines. The problem for the Salvation Army,
however, is that it sometimes takes its military metaphor too far and
thinks that its warfare is akin to fighting in the same urgency as a
platoon of soldiers patrolling the dangerous streets of Afghanistan or
Iraq. I would suggest however that the war for the Salvation Army is
less like a furious firefight and more often like the metaphor of a
long distance marathon. Long term plans are needed!

I have heard Salvation Army leaders say that the exigencies of “the
war” are such that plans must be set aside (did they ever exist?) in
order to respond to some perceived urgency. And so the short-term
rotating appointments so famous in the Salvation Army continue.
Perceived urgency topples the first domino and many are toppled down
the line.

A far more effective system (in the long term, not the short term) is
a system where individuals are allowed to apply for jobs and the
collective (or designated leader) affirms or chooses among applicants.
This is a much more messy system and will be much derided by those
used to the perceived efficiency of a military appointment system. But
I suggest it will be much more effective and have many positive side
effects.

Here’s the punch: I believe that by allowing officers to apply for
appointments, the Salvation Army will be more successful and stronger.
Officers will stay in appointments longer and have a greater interest
in seeing success where they choose and want to be. Officers will be
happier, feel more fulfilled, be more effective and produce greater
fruit. Corps congregations will work better with those they have been
able to select.

The human heart has a longing to both live in community (such as the
community of officership) and to contribute by working at something we
can do well. There is nothing worse than feeling miserable doing work
which you know, and everyone else knows, you do not do well and for
which you do not feel equipped, gifted or called.

Being ourselves fully, in the context of community, is the calling of
God on all our lives. The result is a much richer and beautiful and
effective Church. It is so much better than any cookie cutter system
where one size fits all.

There is an old saying that democracy is not the best system but just
better than any alternative. I think that applies equally to running
the church as it does to running a country.

John Norton (Canada) on May 12th, 2008

Andrew Clark…Thanks for your perspective on callings and the distinction as between soldiership and officership being one of “function”. While I think that function is definitely part of it, the larger issue is obedience; that is, which of these two courses (or another)would it most please God for an individual to take. And an even bigger issue than clericalism in the world at large is credentialism and specialization; it’s not just enough to be educated these days; now it’s the quickly-dated micro-certification that has to be in place before one is seen as fit to lead, if an agency is to be accredited and have credibility.
And again, it seems to me that officers who post here would overestimate somewhat just how much choice those of us in the general workforce really have on how we support our families.

And I guess my point to Rick was would it matter whether a soldier was leading a unit, especially if they had the most qualifications?

Andrea

Andrea614Regent on May 12th, 2008

Sound and Fury

Slaves 5 Margaret Okubo, David, Johnny Gainey
What The Hell? (Part One: Bell's Hell) 12 Jim, Jim, Robert deidrick
Politics #1 : Political parties - An Erroneous Assumption 4 Rochelle Stockman, Terry Camsey, Phil
Murungu or Mwanangu 5 George, givesak, Andrea614Regent
Heaven without hell 24 Mary Davis, Cadet Nathan Swartz, Andrew Bale