Officership: One Size Fits All?

Is it possible: choice & mission integrity?

e spent some time with a man in our community who is retiring from the city school system after thirty years. I’ve got to tell you, I was envious. As he sat with us and articulated his convictions about how he needs to live as he goes forward through the next leg of his journey, I was overwhelmed by his passion and his honesty. He outlined five vital areas where he has the opportunity to make changes and spoke specifically about how he plans to make those happen - including where he lives, how he will spend his time, and the amount and type of work he is going to do.

Envy aside, I’m fully aware that at least some of the changes that I would like to make in my life are in my control. I can decide how much time to spend writing, and how much time to spend talking to Jesus. I can decide to put the work aside and go for a walk, but there are other areas where I cannot decide, because certain options are forbidden to officers, (such as getting a part-time job to help my son with college), or are prescribed in a way to eliminate choice (where I am appointed, the requirement to live in the quarters).

The most difficult part of being an officer for me is what I perceive as a lack of control over choices in my life. I live in a system that chooses for me. Just as my parents did when I was five years old, it chooses where I live, what I wear each day, and the size of my bed. It also determines if I will or will not work directly with my spouse, what my ministry setting will be, and when/if it is time to relocate.

I recognize that at least some of these decisions are in the context of a system that from its inception has been understood to be God-ordained. As Commissioner Lawrence Moretz recently wrote to the officers in our territory: “You can trust His loving care and you can trust that we are seeking and praying for God’s will for all of us as we find our places of service and ministry for the future.” But I wonder, could I also trust God’s loving care to guide my own seeking and praying for God’s will?

My divisional commander, Lt. Col. Bill LaMarr, understands the difficulty of change: “I know that change is never easy. That’s why, for most of us, it’s one of the hardest things we face in this ministry.” Yet I have to wonder if change would be easier to accept if we had more input into what changes there would be, and what they would look like? (Actually, maybe it would be more difficult - with our current system, we can spread the blame around, not having to take responsibility for hearing from God on our own beyond that first sense of calling).

While the easiest response is to say, “It is what it is,” is that enough of a rationale? As officers and as Salvationists, we live within a system that was developed in a very different world. Has it worked well? Depends on who is doing the answering to that question.

While the bigger questions for officers (and their congregations) hinge on the appointment structure, consider the housing one as well. In our current appointment, we are assigned to a quarters out in the country, with horses as our nearest neighbors. The house is large, the property is large, and it’s just too much. I’m concerned about excessive energy usage and would like to live in the neighborhood of our corps, but this is where I’m assigned. Could there ever be an option for officers to arrange for their own housing, as do many clergy? If there was, would I choose to use the available resources in a different way? I can hear the naysayers already (”It would never work”), but that’s what the parishioners in my home church said forty years ago when their minister raised the question, and for them it has worked quite well over the years.

In attempting to expand the opportunities for ministry within Salvation Army circles, I believe that General John Gowans understood the changing world and tried to find ways to provide for more choice at the beginning of ministry with the (now) defunct non-commissioned Lieutenant’s option. Without debating the specifics of that proposal, what it did was give additional options to those who wished to serve, similar to those used within the Methodist church. With its demise, we limit once again the choices available to those who truly want to serve Christ through The Salvation Army, but cannot do so as an officer, for a variety of valid reasons.

It was comedian Buddy Hackett who commented: “My mother’s menu always consisted of two choices: take it or leave it.” That is one way of parenting. But I wonder, was I overly permissive when I told my kids that if they didn’t like what we were having for dinner, they could make themselves ramen noodles or cereal, or was I simply realizing that reasonable choice within the family is a healthy thing?

The question becomes: is it possible to keep the integrity of ministry within The Salvation Army, while providing those who serve with the ability to make choices that impact their life situations? Those considering officership in this generation have been born into a world of choice, and I wonder if continuing with the “one size fits all” model will diminish the future leadership of The Salvation Army.

Writer: Major JoAnn Shade serves along with her husband as a corps officer in Ashland, Ohio, USA. She is a corresponding member of the International Doctrine Council of The Salvation Army.

Plug Officership!

Tuesday, August 5th, 2008 Ecclesia, Power

19 Comments to Officership: One Size Fits All?

Ramen noodles and cereal are not healthy dinner choices — no — but it’s nice you gave them a foretaste of college life.

Catherine W on August 5th, 2008

I get what you’re saying. As an officer, it would be nice to at least be consulted about where I am sent. Yes, I knew what I was getting into when I entered the training college; my parents are officers, so I understood the moving process. And I trust that God will use me where the Army sends me. But it would be nice to be consulted, especially if the Army is considering sending you into a totally different type of ministry (say, from a corps appointment to a DHQ appointment).
Thanks for the article!

Holly Dawn on August 5th, 2008

Joanne, thanks for the article. I’m glad to see someone asking these questions. I hope that people start to seriously consider changes to the way officership is administered.

I’m currently doing some research for Canada and Bermuda on young adults, and I meet young people all the time who are capable, committed, and passionate about mission, but who just don’t trust the current appointment system. They know what their gifts and passions are, and they are afraid that as officers their particular gifts and strengths will not be recognized or taken into account. If they Army wants to engage these young people as leaders, some serious reform is needed. It is the Army’s loss if these young leaders go to another denomination or organization where they have more freedom and autonomy to discern God’s call on their lives. And many of them will not hesitate to go somewhere else when push comes to shove.

I’m also glad to see you ask the question about what it means to “trust God” in the context of the structures of a particular denomination. Many of the young people I’ve met feel that their questions are dismissed by the refrain, “you just have to trust God.” Of course, we all have to trust God, but this kind of answer is basically just an argument-stopper. There are many valid questions that young people are asking about the administration of Army human resources, and it is not because they do not trust God. It is because they do not trust a centralized appointment system.

There is also an important theological issue that needs to be addressed there: the SA believes that every one of us has equal access to the Holy Spirit; there is no priestly hierarchy through which the Spirit is mediated to individual believers(at least not theologically, though practically speaking…). So why, then, do we entrust the discernment of the Spirit’s leading regarding the leadership of our movement to such a small group people? Why do we give the appointments board such an enormous burden - of trying to discern the will of God in so many diverse situations? If it is really God that we are being asked to trust in these situations, why don’t we open up the discernment process to include more of the Spirit-led believers who are doing grassroots ministry? Salvation Army theology is very egalitarian, but S.A. structure preaches a different message. Shouldn’t our structure follow from our theology? I think there is a tension there.

The reality is that the structure was pragmatically devised to meet the needs of the early SA, but now we couch it in vague theological statements about trusting God, and in so doing we cut off the difficult conversations about how we might do things differently.

More flexibility is definitely needed, but I fear that the current officer system has become a bit of a sacred cow. Still, it is good to have people like yourself putting these ideas out there. Hopefully it will get people thinking.

James on August 6th, 2008

Excellent article! I agree with James and think that here in Australia many people my age (30) and younger are very reluctant to sign up to officership given the lack of choice it appears to offer them.

Tim Watson on August 7th, 2008

This article has given me a better understanding of just how constrained officers’ lives are which is useful…

The thing is (this is not the first time I’ve said this here) the rest of us don’t have a huge range of choices either. Most responsible, full-time, permanent jobs have as conditions (written or otherwise) that one not moonlight. Certainly, any impacts side-jobs have on performance are grounds for dismissal from the day job. At any rate, “extra” work can be career limiting.

I’m not someone who cares to live in a house over an apartment, but most North Americans seem to prefer it. And officers I’ve seen get to live in houses and drive cars (something that I don’t care about either).

As for jobs and job content, who gets to choose, really, out here? You can apply and “compete” (under less than transparent rules) but there is no guarantee about what you will end up with.. And yes, I’ve seen people do good jobs in for profit and not for profit workplaces and get displaced due to “restructuring”.

Andrea

Andrea614Regent on August 7th, 2008

Perhaps the only difference Andrea, is that non-officer who aren’t trained to be plumbers will never be taken out by their boss of their current job - where they work in accord with their skills, and made to work as a plumber (or essentially forfeit forever working for the organization again). Which means the worker also will never have to face harsh criticism, etc. for not having “picked up” a completely different profession in a day or two.

Certainly officers in North America get great benefits, but “officer fits all job descriptions” is a lie.

If there is anything worse than an officer knowing they don’t have the skills to do particular tasks, it’s when they don’t know that they lack the skills and plough ahead. For us in Eastern Europe, that turns up in accounting, social service management, property purchases, HR management and occasionally really bad counseling services. I’m not sure where the dangers of that show up in NA.

Maureen Diffley on August 9th, 2008

Maureen:

I’m going to disagree that other employers don’t move employees to unreasonably “challenging” or otherwise inappropriate posts. In wrongful dismissal actions this can be called “constructive dismissal” but it rarely goes that far. In non-profit, community-based organizations in North America outside TSA unless it is absolutely mandatory for an employee to have a specific license or certification it is the norm that a position will likely be filled by a generalist with what is deemed to be a good (enough) ap/attitude because the organization frequently does not have the resources to hire workers with all the credential bells and whistles. Personality becomes a surrogate for performance.

And forget about long or even medium term job security.

I’m not saying that this is a good thing, or a bad thing, but that is the reality for many of us.

Andrea

Andrea614Regent on August 11th, 2008

Joanne -

This is a really great piece and I enjoyed reading it. As a young cadet here in the Western Territory, I have to say that you have pinpointed some of the biggest deterrents to young people entering Salvation Army Officership.

While there are some slight similarities between The Salvation Army and other work places, I would have to agree with Maureen about the fact that there are great differences. As Salvation Army Officers (and cadets), you sacrifice so much control over your own life to where it is becoming incredibly difficult to adopt a child or make other personal decisions without going through the rigors of approval on multiple levels.

The conversations I have between myself and those who I graduated from college with are very interesting. While some envy the long term stability and the fact that I am so secure in my calling, many who have learned more about it observe and accept the fact that Salvationists give up so much when entering Officership.

I think one great difference as well is that as Salvation Army Officers, we are expected to give our whole life until retirement. For some of us that means over 40 years; for others less as this is their second career. Now I am not saying this is a bad thing. In fact it helps one greatly weigh their own calling which is very beneficial. But I have personally seen those who chose to leave the ministry become secluded and alienated and hear nasty rumors about why they left. Yes, perhaps that happens in other places; but in my experience, it is a much more difficult situation in The Salvation Army as you do not simply lose a “job”, but sometimes a church home, a spiritual family and most of the connections that one has in life.

Thanks for this honest look, Joanne. There are definitely pros and cons to Officership as those of us who are cadets or are currently Officers can testify to.

Loreen

Loreen on August 11th, 2008

Interesting article…my wife and I (she is an “officers kid”) - have had similar discussions between ourselves.
I believe that a little input on the part of the officer who has to move would be very beneficial.
Case in point…I recently met an officer newly moved to an appointment near where I live…within 3 minutes of meeting him, he relayed to me that “I don’t even know why I’m here, I don’t want to be”.

Perhaps if this man had been given the opportunity to have input into his new role/appointment - he would be happier? It certainly couldn’t hurt.
Another point that sort of goes along with this is the concept of having the church/corps in on the decision-making as well.

Oh boy! There’s another can of worms!

Ed Maw on August 13th, 2008

This is a good, thoughtful, honest piece.
Another angle to consider here as well is those of us ‘lay-people’ who work for the Army and are accountable to officers. In the 11 years I’ve been in my job with the Army, I’ve had 8 different officer supervisors; some of whom have been great and some well, not so much.
Some of those officers were taken from fields they loved and dropped into positions in social services that they didn’t want nor were they remotely qualified for. In scenarios like this, everyone gets hurt; the staff and the officer and the ‘client’ and the Army.
So, I say good on you for pressing this point and I hope the SA can hear and respond.
Peace,
Dion

Dion Oxford on August 14th, 2008

I agree with many of the points raised here. I can appreciate the concerns of having no choice; as an intermediate teacher I can be told to teach subject areas in which I do not have any experience (and even in subjects which I have but do not care for)…the only choice I was once presented with by my Vice-Principal was to accept the position I was offered or resign from the board. You can assume which I chose…

Anyway, there is a transfer process within the board, that is open every year. These transfers do not always happen, though, depending on staffing and openings. Perhaps TSA should implement some form of this. Maybe they do, but I have heard stories of officers being asked about appointment choices, only to get the exact opposite. In most cases, the officers do a wonderful job, but as Dion notes, this is not always the case.

As for housing, this is a local corps decision, isn’t it? If a house is not appropriate, the Corps Council (property committee?) can sell and purchase a newer, more suitable quarters. At least this is my understanding. However, newer officers with more/less children may make this a too frequent happening.

At the end of the day, more choice is usually never a bad thing. And, by the way, my children have the same meal choices as mentioned above. No one has ever starved in my house because they didn’t like (and miss)one meal…

Deryck Robertson on August 14th, 2008

Nobody has ever starved from missing one meal.

My parents’ option of letting you eat less than a full portion (without wasting) seemed more graceful to them than my father’s parents habit of putting out the untouched dinner plate again for breakfast and again for lunch until it was eaten - and meals were never refused again. But he saw the value in his parents’ practice both because they worked extremely hard to keep 5 kids fed and what they put in front of the children to eat was with their good health in mind; they respected the value of food; they expected kids to know who was the parent/provider and who was the child/cared for. Theoretically, parents make choices for children because they have the skills to do so, whereas children don’t.

It’s an interesting parallel though - because if officers are like children and leadership are like parents… are children being asked to do something only adults should be able to do? Are people being held in a state of child-ness with regards to choices, but expected to act like adults with regard to responsibilities? Are the low expectations of leadership warranted? The officer who says within 3 minutes of meeting you “I don’t know why I’m here, I don’t want to be” reminds me of my HS English teacher who announced on the first day that “British literature is really boring, but I don’t get to choose. We’ll just have to get through this year.” It’s unprofessional at the least. I shan’t get into boundary issues, call, unexpected ministry, etc.

Maureen Diffley on August 15th, 2008

Enjoyed the article. It challenged me to think about the Army’s current structure and how I fit into that structure.

However I agree with Andrea’s comments in that people in the secular sphere don’t have very much freedom when it comes to their careers either. They too are bound by structures, policy, and regulations. When we look at our brothers and sister clergy in other denominations, there’s a tendency to see the grass as greener. I did some studying at a United Church Seminary and got to know many people who were entering the ministry. They have relative freedom to pick their appointments, choose where to live, choose what car they will drive, etc, etc. But based on their conversations, this in no way makes ministry any easier. They are challenged and stretched in many other ways, just as officers are challenged and stretched by The Salvation Army.

I totally agree that officers need to be given adequate training to do their ministry, whether that’s corps or social services. But quite frankly, officers can sometimes use the whole “calling” thing to avoid certain appointments that are deemed undesirable. “I can’t serve in Regent Park because I don’t feel called.” Or, “If you send me to Yellowknife, N.W.T, I’ll resign because I don’t feel called to serve up there.” See what I mean? Our structure, though difficult, requires officers to be able to serve wherever the Army sends them. One thing the structure can’t give officers however is passion. Passion comes from a deep connection to the Holy Spirit and a desire to fulfill the will of God. If an officer or anyone in ministry has a burning passion to serve God, then he or she will commit to any appointment, no matter how challenging. True passion also inspires an officer to become as competent in their jobs as possible. I think inspiring passion in our ministers is the key to overcoming difficult appointments. So while I believe that the Army’s structure is not expressly ordained by God (over any other existing structure), I do believe it is approved by God and is therefore used for His greater glory. And when it comes down to it, remember the memorable line by Jeremy Irons character in the film, “The Mission”, when he said, “This is not a democracy. It is an Order.” Words we must hold in tension with the organic and fluid movement the church is called to be.

Rob Jeffery on August 20th, 2008

I seem to agree with Major Joann on many points. My opinion is that in The United States we have freedom to make many choices and we carry that into officership. Unfortunately we often are under authority and have
different opinions or assessments on
what should or should not be. Territorial or Divisional leaders need
to continue on the path of allowing some input on decisions in officers lives. In recent years we have experienced some “Team Building Efforts “, where input and decisions are made together. I know that this cannot be in every case with the style
and operation of The Salvation Army.
The Bible does not change. God does not change. People change and times and methods change.
Under the Guidance of The Holy Spirit of God we need to pray for change and work together to do God’s will for His sake .
I have a final thought. One that reminds me of what a former officer shared in “The Officer” a few years ago. It deals with officers ministering in the field in Corps.
If having an appointment at a Corps
is front-line ministry and the most important area of our work in The Salvation Army then why is there not more support to the Corps , and why
is the stigma of a headquarters appointment stand out as a promotion or a better appointment ?
People have understanding about The Salvation Army in communities by what they see in Corps and centers located around our country and around the world. Services provided and funds raised come from local communities.
Donors provide trust funds and give from their wills and estates. It all
“happens” at the local level.
Many of these things happen because
someone sees the passion of an officer in their appointment.
When I think of these things I think that maybe some change is in order.
Change that would benefit officers to have more input and choices.
Of course this should be done through prayer and wisdom.

Robert Deidrick on August 23rd, 2008

My understanding is that you enter the Officership covenant with a view to being fully and completely available to do anything, anywhere, for the rest of your ‘active’ service. You could perhaps view this as sacrificing the right to make choices. If one wishes to choose, they would not enter into such a lifestyle.

The other option to being appointed to a corps is for officers to apply for positions. It would be interesting to see how many officers believe they are ‘called’ to big, comfortable, prestigious corps, compared to the number that apply for suburban, ‘boring’, areas that have 3 old ladies and a dog for their attendance..

Also, short-term non-officer service still exists. Except it now has a name, unique to each territory, which does not confuse it with officership. And there is also some evidence of progression after one’s 5 year review. It means there is a purpose to it again.

And some people view headquarters jobs as promotions because they involve responsibility for a wider network of people.

If this is as serious an issue as is proposed, could someone please put forward a solution that would result in a harvest of souls rather than the load of abstractions that have been put forward so far?

ie. more choices needed - what choices?
more input needed - what input?
more flexibility needed - where? how?
more consultation needed - what do you want to be consulted about?

Without addressing these issues and proposing some sort of solution, I find these sort of discussions just become very discouraging and cause increased discontent rather than having any of the intended positive effect.

John Clifton on August 27th, 2008

Thank you JoAnn. As always, relevant and to the point!

Your comment; “The most difficult part of being an officer for me is what I perceive as a lack of control over choices in my life…” is what has led many talented and respected officers to seek ministry opportunities elsewhere. Worldwide they number in the thousands, and some suggest that ‘formers’ outnumber ‘actives’.

Sven Ljungholm on August 28th, 2008

Thank you for your challenging article and the many helpful comments. May I, a former Officer and now Methodist minister in the UK share some thoughts. Some time ago, the British Methodist conference, reviewed what it meant by ordained ministry. This resulted in a report called flexible patterns of ministry and acknowledged there were a number of ministry models emerging as indicated by these examples:
• Two ministers, married to each other, sharing one-and-a-half circuit appointments;
• A minister, working part-time in circuit and part in a sector as a teacher;
• A minister, working two-thirds in circuit and one third in the Connexional Team;
• A sector minister (teacher), also with pastoral charge of a small church;
• A minister, part-time in circuit and part-time a tutor in a theological college;
• A minister, with young children, in a half-time appointment;
• Ministers in local appointment, working with a high degree of flexibility, in terms of their time commitment and the kind of work they do;
• Circuits employing ‘active supernumeraries’; ministers who have technically retired but who work in part-time pastoral charges, often occupying a circuit manse.

The common denominator is that all are equally called and ordained to ministry of word, sacrament and pastoral care.

My ministry is of the tentmaker variety. I am Principal of a Specialist College for young people with learning difficulties whilst also having pastoral charge of two Methodist churches. There is something significant in that the one who breaks bread on the Sunday is also at one with his congregation at desk or bench on a Monday morning.
This is not a part time ministry but one exercised in more than one location. The opportunities for both congregation and presbyter are also refreshing as they share through prayer and support both aspects of their minister’s work. It also empowers the laity to express their ministry as they share the ministry in a revitalised way as a priesthood of all believers.
My congregation has also expanded to include the lives of those with whom I work and teach; many who would not otherwise have any connection with the church. This has resulted in many a sacred encounter and enriching conversation.

Is there not something here in terms of officership; one calling, commission and ordination expressed through the leading of the Holy Spirit to paths he appoints us take? There a great opportunities for ministers of all kinds to go into the world and……., yes, make disciples.

When Booth found the Methodist Church too restrictive to exercise his calling look what he did. The Methodist Church has taken well over a 100 years to acknowledge the error of its ways on restricting the flexibility of ministers. It would appear that all too often the same thing is happening to today’s officers, who now find themselves struggling to make sense of their calling. This is a theological question that needs consideration so that those called to leadership within the SA may do so by serving in the context of the present age.
May we all be faithful to his continuing call, wherever it may lead.

Paul Collings on August 29th, 2008

Hope I’m not too late into this conversation to ask a question:

“…would like to live in the neighborhood of our corps, but this is where I’m assigned.”

JoAnn, did you ever request a change of quarters on the grounds of restoring authentic officer ministry/lifestyle and releasing proceeds of sale for local mission? It’s a pertinent question for us in the UK.

Matt Clifton on September 6th, 2008

I’m hoping it’s an option somewhere down the road. It’s a bit complicated just now . . . In two earlier appointments, we lived next door to the corps, and found that to be a good thing at that time. However, I don’t think our territory is at the place you speak of - there is always the concern for the next set of officers, and I’m afraid that many are not too interested in restoring authentic officer ministry/lifestyle.

JoAnn Shade on September 6th, 2008

Sound and Fury

Does Power Corrupt? 19 Charlee, Errin Hogan, Errin Hogan
With God on our side 19 Hank Harwell, Robert Deidrick, John Stephenson
What The Hell? (Part One: Bell's Hell) 13 Phil, Jim, Jim
Officers - "The shrinking pool" 41 Thimon, David Hutchinson, Rob
Resurrected writers: Catherine Booth 1 Michelle Townsend