FAD | Raise the glorious standard 2

Raising the standard for officers | part II

of⋅fi⋅cer [aw-fuh-ser]
-noun
1.  A Christian minister of The Salvation Army, having been trained and commissioned to service and leadership and given a quasi-military rank.

I‘m glad that many of you added your voices to the discussion about raising the standards for officership. Critical thinking and self-assessment are very clear indicators of a healthy mission. We should not be afraid of this kind of wrestling, thinking and discussion.  We should also not be quick to jump to conclusions or assume that our culture’s stance on the issue of education was canonized by William Booth until the end of time.

I think a few of you have missed the specific point I was trying to make in the last article. My stated issue wasn’t with the concept of “calling” for young, future officers; my issue was with accepting a system of inequality in Army mission as a vocation. What I struggle with is the fact that the Army requires me to have a college degree while at the same time telling a whole other group of my missional peers that they don’t need the same requirements for the same mission (or that they should get an education, at the expense of the mission, only after they are commissioned as officers).  And on top of that, these missional peers are rewarded with some of the best provisions and job security even though they may have less education and life experience.  Doesn’t that seem a bit inconsistent?

I think that we should stand on the side of equality in the church, and this seems to be a glaring inequality in the part of the church known as The Salvation Army. And like I said in my closing paragraph, having an education doesn’t guarantee a better officer, but it does bring equality to the mission.  Just to further clarify my stance, I am not saying a college education is the only requirement for officership, I think it needs to be added to the list of requirements that are crucial to forming healthy officers in our post-Victorian-England-society.  So I’m not suggesting a “changing of the guard;” I’m suggesting adding one more guard to the mix.

And since many of you did not understand the point I was making about requiring a college education to bring equality to the mission (or were unwilling to comment on that specific injustice), I have come up with a list of additional points why it would be a good idea to raise the standards for officership and why it would make The Salvation Army more effective in its mission.

So we can help the mission…
I appreciate institutional attempts to encourage officers to get their education after they are commissioned (SACEP et al).  Though I believe this is very beneficial and important to their development as leaders, I believe that this comes at the expense of the mission.  I’m not sure why it is the Army’s job to pay for their schooling and accommodate their (now) limited role in the mission after they are commissioned.  The mission suffers, their families suffer, their corps suffer - this is not fair.  If we require education before they go into training, they will be less encumbered with homework and classes and more available to teach and love their people.  They will be better trained and more available to make disciples because of this change.

So we can love mercy…
There are many officers who - for whatever reason - leave the work.  There is a small, convenient window for most people to earn a higher education (usually between the ages of 18-29).  If we accept teenagers who do not have their education and immediately put them into active ministry, what happens to them if they leave the work 10-15 years down the line?  They no longer have that convenient window open and may not get the education they need to survive in the western world.  Retention rates for officership are not healthy, and one way we can love these future former officers is by requiring practical training and education before they become officers.  This should be seen as an act of mercy, one made for the benefit of these seasonal leaders.

So we can help the poor and uneducated…
“We have simple, uneducated people [in our corps]; they need leaders who can relate to them.”  I’ve heard this kind of statement a few times now and I think this is a terrible way to address the needs of our congregations.  Let me be clear: we should be an Army that always welcomes and embraces the poor and uneducated but believing that it is detrimental to the mission when we have officers with a college education is madness.  You wouldn’t believe that a sick person can only be helped by another sick person, would you?  So why would you believe that an uneducated person can only be helped by another uneducated person?  Sick people need doctors and uneducated people need teachers.

That’s why I’m greatly encouraged by a testimony from one future officer when she says: “I just feel so strongly about education.  For example, how will I be able to go to an inner-city corps one day, look a child in the eye and claim that education is important if I never finished college myself?”

I hope there are more future officers out there that understand that they have to look more people in the eye than their DYS or Recruitment Officer and understand that their “calling” should propel them to strive to be an example in all areas, including education.

So we can realize that we all are soldiers…
I don’t think the only way to change the standard is for every young educated soldier to become an officer.  And I hope that you don’t think that either.  I don’t think the greatest need in the Army is to have more professional priests, and yet this is one of the most prominent messages I hear from our leaders and at our events.  “We need officers, we need you!”  “The need is the call.”  “You would make a great officer so you should be an officer.” “Booth believed in a “default call” to officership, so you are all called unless specifically called to something else.”

Let me ask you this; are soldiers and officers truly equal in the eyes of the mission?  Do I as a soldier have a relevant voice within the Army structure?  If so, why would I have to become an officer to really have my voice heard or really change the system of our mission?  If we’re equal, we’re equal.  If I need to become an officer to become equal to officers (and then have the capacity to reform the system), I’m not interested in joining their ranks.  Supporting a system of inequality from the inside is still supporting a system of inequality.  So please don’t blame educated soldiers for not joining and therefore forcing the Army’s hand to take “uneducated, energetic 18 year olds” in our place.  If you have the power to change the system and know it needs changing, then shame on you, it’s your obligation to help change it regardless of what color fabric you have on your shoulders.

(Tangent: It’s weird to me, for example, when you have people who are totally disconnected and uncommitted to a corps’ ministry as soldiers but then somehow, in the act of fleeing to training college, are entitled to one day run our corps’ ministry as officers.  I don’t understand this at all.  How can we expect some of our weakest soldiers to miraculously be amazing leaders as officers?)

So we can keep up with developmental trends…
When my grandfather went into training (1949 Peacemakers Session), he was twenty years old.  That sounds young for today’s standards, but consider this: at age 16 he left high school to be a tool and die apprentice for General Motors, and at age 18 he was drafted and served in the Philippines (post-WWII police action).  It was while overseas that he felt God’s leading to be an officer.  He was so humbled by this opportunity that he got his GED (or General Equivalency Diploma) because he felt convicted that as a leader he should have a high school education.  This was a big deal because only half of the U.S. population finished high school at that time.  This poor boy from Flint, Michigan got his education and overcame his humble roots.  As a result, he had the life experience and education he needed before he entered training and became an effective officer in his day.

The world has become more complex and challenging since this time, and this fact is compounded by the developmental trends which have increased along the way.  So, that same high school diploma in the 1940’s doesn’t really translate to the same valuable education in society today.  Maturity has also changed.  Most studies demonstrate that adolescents aren’t mentally or physiologically adults until they reach their late twenties.  So, that same adolescent from 60 years ago - who learned how to ply a trade at 16 and had life experience at 18 - is now developing later.  Salvation Army officers are responsible for much more today than they were in any previous generation, and these new responsibilities necessitate a higher standard.

So they can learn to “go for souls and go for the worst”…
It is possible to live a Christian life without ever consistently engaging those who do not know Christ.  This is not good.  If our faith cannot withstand testing, it is not faith.  If our light cannot withstand darkness, it is not light.

In the comments following the first article, there were a few who testified how they were being disobedient to God because they went to college.  I don’t know about that.  I believe that God is more interested in what we do outside of the walls of Christendom than He is interested in how we serve Him inside our religious comfort zones.  I can personally testify that my faith became real when it was tested at college and I finally realized that Jesus was friends with sinners, visiting them where they lived.  I think candidates should seriously reconsider their vocation if their faith cannot withstand the darkness of the academic world.  Attending a university (secular or Christian) is a fantastic opportunity for Christians to learn how to love others just as they are, regardless of what they can do or if they ever stumble into our buildings.

So we can have a greater influence within the Church…
The standard minimum training for pastors in the evangelical church is a Masters of Divinity (or MDiv).  These brothers and sisters willingly sacrifice time and money to accomplish this training, and after they are done they practically have to beg for a job.  The Army, on the other hand, is incredibly generous to its pastors.  They champion them to enter training, forgive a certain amount of debt, provide all the necessities (and some luxuries) of life and give each person a pulpit and congregation right out of “seminary.”  Take a look around - what other branch of the Church spends as much time, money and energy recruiting its clergy?  And yet, for all these benefits and blessings, why aren’t hordes of Christian ministers flocking to serve in our churches?  Perhaps it’s because they don’t know we’re a church?

I sometimes suspect that the reason no one knows that The Salvation Army is a church is because we are not a church in anyone’s estimation but our own.

Imagine how effective our training colleges would be if we actually taught at the seminary level.  Cadets would have to come to training with an undergraduate degree to make this happen, and upon release into full-time ministry they would be equipped not just to help the poor but to preach the full gospel, one that is simple and complex, a gospel that wants to wrap its arms around poor children and the educated elite.  That is the kind of training the rest of the church has been called to; perhaps it’s time for us to step up and stand with them in solidarity?  I hope so.

So we can understand that it’s not possible to “limit God”…
God is not weak.  His arm is not too short.  I believe that saying something like “Requiring a college education would limit God” is really just a symptom of a weak view of God’s power and sovereignty.  Would the same powerful God that called you to officership not be strong enough to help you get a college education first?

This whole “it would limit God” stance is also inconsistent with the other numerous ways we “limit God” in respect to officership.  Is anyone saying that we are limiting God when we won’t accept a 16 or 60 year old into training?  No, we’ve set practical standards and the mission goes on.  Is it limiting God when we require that both husband and wife are commissioned as a married couple?  Actually it is, but we seemed to have agreed that we can tolerate “limiting God” in that area (essentially we’ve decided to say, “Thanks, but no thanks Gowans!”).

It’s important to also understand that “calling” is not the ultimate trump card.  Calling is important, but it does not circumvent rational decision making and practical development.  And it’s embarrassing when the immediate stance is always “God told me to do it so that settles it.”  Well that’s great that God told you to become an officer, but what are you doing to become the best officer you can be?  I don’t think God wants to be in the business of always picking up the slack when He has created us with the capacity to deal with these things our own.  I think that it’s every believer’s obligation to do the possible things and let God do the impossible.  That way we fully understand our shortcomings and can truly depend on God and be in awe of His work when He does the impossible in our lives.

(Tangent: You might be saying to yourself, “the disciples weren’t educated and Jesus used them to do His work, why won’t He use me?”  Nice try.  Jesus wasn’t just their friend; He was their rabbi, their teacher.  They sat at His feet for three years as His students!  FYI, the word “disciple” literally means “someone who learns.”)

Conclusion…
You may not agree with every one of these reasons.  That’s fine, but I hope that you are willing to put yourself in a place where you can say, “There may be some truth here.  We should dialogue and objectively reexamine this standard.”  Perhaps what saddens me most is that more officers within the system do not have the liberty to voice their support of educational reform on forums like theRubicon.  They may completely agree with what was said here but can only tell me off the record as one great officer did when he said: “Keep saying what you’re saying Eric.  We need to hear it.  This is no time to have simpletons leading this Army.”

Writer: FAD - Future Army Dictionary is written by Eric Himes, the USA Central Territory’s Director of Young Adult Ministries who is passionate about encouraging leaders to use their unique gifts in God’s Kingdom.  He is a member of a worship band called The Singing Company and is enthusiastic about providing resources and training for corps worship bands.  He spends his time obsessing about the Chicago Cubs, Lost, Dodgeball, Baggo, Praise and Worship, creative writing, youth ministry and the future of The Salvation Army.  Eric and his wife Cathleen live in Oak Park, Illinois with their cat Salinger (pictured).  They attend the Oakbrook Terrace Corps, where he leads a Dodgeball youth outreach and community garden.

8 Comments to FAD | Raise the glorious standard 2

1. I hear what you’re saying, and I for one agree strongly that in North America SA Officer’s Colleges should be post-undergraduate institutions. I have had that argument many a times with the folks up this side of the border. That would be a far more responsible approach to training. And raising the standard higher, I am all for it. Again been singing the same song up here for some time.

   What caught my attention as I read however was not the legitimate comments made about the need for increased education requirements for officers. But it was the tone of voice surrounding the discussion of the officers themselves. Perhaps I am misreading it, so correct me if I am, but your comment: “I don’t think the greatest need in the Army is to have more professional priests” seems to misunderstand the point of officership.

   Officers are soldiers who further covenant with God to “to care for the poor, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, love the unlovable, and befriend those who have no friends” among other things. They are soldiers who have given up their choice in vocation so that they can devote every resource they have to the salvation war. In fact according to the officer’s undertakings there is no formal contract with the SA an its officers guaranteeing wages of any kind. (A fact officers in the rest of the world know all too well.) Officers are soldiers who have committed to serve as leaders wherever needed and should be ready to redeploy when needed as well.

   Officership is not about a job but about a lifestyle choice. (see monastic traditions of the last 2000 years, noting in particular first, second and third order monasteries) When I signed my officers covenant I did not sign a contract to do a specific kind of work. I signed a covenant that spoke about how I was to live and who I was to live for. From there I was given the commission to serve the community in which I now find myself. Just as many local officers are given commissions for specific tasks.

   To be clear: The phrase ‘professional priest’ should have no relevance in our movement (or in the church as a whole). It is a contradiction to our theology.

   As an officer I am no more a priest than those I gather with on a Sunday morning and those I meet throughout the week. The only difference is that my wife and I have been appointed as the leaders for The Army’s work in this neighborhood, and so as such we are given the responsibility of insuring our local leaders have the resources and support they need to effectively carry out their mission. Leadership in the army does not imply spiritual superiority but effective management of mission.
Peter on December 4th, 2008

2. A few weeks ago I wrote on the issue that in the SA we theoretically believe in the ministry of all believers, that officers and soldiers are all equally committed to ministry. The soldier of spiritual integrity has as much right to minister the gospel (preach, teach, pray, counsel, lead, evangelise) as an officer who has completed all their training. The youth pastor equals the major in ministry if not in the position they may achieve in the organisation.

   Re eligibility for officership, The Salvation Army model was: is your heart right? Do you love Jesus? Are you a person of integrity? Do you want to sign up to the mission of the army full time, foregoing secular employment? You do? You’re in! We weren’t all that big on ‘the call’ in the early days. And I am constantly bemused by the number of officers who are called, but apparently only temporarily.

   We also need to seriously think through our uncritical hankering after and adoption of the practices of other Christian communions. They are contributing to our, almost complete, morphing from passionate missioners to seminary trained pastors and laity.

   The USA is quite different culturally to Australia. Here, I’m not sure that more qualified ‘clergy’ means a healthier Salvation Army. In Australia a nation wide survey of churches conducted every five years (NCLS) has discovered that the denominations with the most educated clergy (Catholic, Lutheran, Presbyterian) are the ones in the most severe decline.

   If you have been personally frustrated by incompetent and uneducated officers hoarding authority and dismissing the views and ministry of soldiers with superior skills and training as people of no account that is, I suspect, an outcome of officers regarding themselves as ordained clergy and you as a soldier as laity.

   We have a drastic shortage of officers in our Territory. What we need to do is to make far better use of our talented soldiery to further our mission, to find more and more flexible ways to include them in all aspects of our organisation. I know some soldiers who would make great Chief Secretaries.

   And by the way, you say “I sometimes suspect that the reason no one knows that The Salvation Army is a church is because we are not a church in anyone’s estimation but our own”. It’s hard for me to see how, by any biblical definition anyway, the Salvation Army is a church. I’m pretty much with the other ‘ones’.
Grant on December 4th, 2008

3. Eric,

   I’ve been having this type of ongoing conversation with my corps officer since Cassie and I returned to the Army after almost 5 years attending an Assemblies of God congregation.
   I was one of those students who felt a strong calling to ministry at a Salvation Army camp when I was 17. I declared my intent to become an officer since that was what I thought I was supposed to do. Things haven’t worked out the way that I believed they would when I was 17, but if Cassie and I do pursue officership someday I believe we will be better for it.
   I believe that my 4 years at a non-denominational Bible college and working in the secular business world for the past 5 years will make me a much stronger candidate for officership than if I would have pursued admission to CFOT shortly after high school. I think it is in the Army’s best interests if they require a higher educational standard or equivalent work experience.
   I believe the Army would benefit from an operational standpoint if they had more people that had experience in the business world. I know that my company is constantly streamlining and becoming more efficient in its business model. I think the Army would benefit from officers that could bring that kind of experience to help us become more effective in managing our resources.
   Ultimately this will do more for the Kingdom. There may be short term deficits that the current leadership of the Army will have to deal with, but the long term benefits for the health and stability of the Army will be far greater.
   BTW, this kind of clarity of thought and vision would make you a perfect candidate for officership. Do you want to talk to Andy Miller or should I do that for you?
Phil Hull on December 4th, 2008

4. Peter,

   It seems to me that the covenant you are referring to (”to care for the poor, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, love the unlovable, and befriend those who have no friends”), is the same covenant that each believer is truly called to. And how is the lifestyle of an officer supposed to look any different than that of any soldier? Either we believe we are all called to live a life of devotion to the Father and sacrifice for the sake of the kingdom (like Christ modeled), or we are in essence creating a professional priesthood. The monastic tradition you refer to (and I say this with a great amount of respect) has done a disservice to the church in the sense that it lets people “off the hook.” Are not most all of the practices of monastic bodies and officers (when you take in to account variance in details) the same things all Christians are called to do? To live lives of discipline, to seek first the Kingdom even at the expense of your own desires, or “to care for the poor, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, love the unlovable, and befriend those who have no friends.”

   Let’s stop letting soldiers off the hook in their missional calling, and maybe we do need to stop letting officers of the hook educationally.

   And let me also just comment on this: “As an officer I am no more a priest than those I gather with on a Sunday morning and those I meet throughout the week.” It really cheers me to hear you say that, and creates a great deal of respect for you. But I just wonder about the Army as a whole (at least in the west), how many non-officers are sharing the Word on Sunday mornings? How many non-officers views are taken into account concerning SA issues. I think this is a part of the inequality Eric is talking about. It may begin with an education, but I echo the sentiment that it is lived out each day in the way talented, committed, willing soldiers are not used, yet we scramble, scramble, scramble for officers.

   I love the Army (and trust me, I’ve caught enough flack for doing so at my secular college) and I believe in its mission. I don’t mean to have a negative tone, but I want to see Salvos living up to the calling we’ve received; all of us.
Jonathan Taube on December 4th, 2008

5. Peter,

   I agree, officers are not priests, except by the standard of the royal priesthood which covers all believers.

   Problem is, I suspect, most officers and soldiers don’t know that. It has to be admitted that officers are seen as “priests” or a least professional ministers of the gospel, while soldiers are not. Officers are ordained, soldiers are not. Officers can conduct weddings, soldiers cannot. Officers in Canada at least receive the Clergy Residence Tax deduction, whereas soldiers, even if they are engaged in the exact same ministry as an officer, are forbidden from receiving this. The government does not make this decision, TSA does. I have been told by officers that I could not possibly be seen as “clergy” because I am not an officer. I have been asked repeatedly “when am I going to enter the ministry?”

   Where is this coming from? If it does contradict our theology, which I would agree it does (though I’m not sure we’ve worked out our theology sufficiently to really fully know), then who is teaching this heresy? Why do most people by into it?

   I know this is slightly off topic to the main post, but I think it relates. There is an inequality in mission and expectation, and part of it comes from the notion of officers being the professional ministers. I have a lot of respect for officers, and I am not sitting around whining about the situation instead of getting on with the mission, but as long s we’re talking about this stuff, might as well speak honestly. I don’t think we can legitimately say that officers in TSA are NOT seen as professional ministers or “priests”. The difference between soldier and officer, in practice, is NOT perceived as just one of role.

   Grace,

   Aaron
aaron on December 4th, 2008

6. I agree with Aaron when he writes ‘I don’t think we can legitimately say that officers in TSA are NOT seen as professional ministers or “priests”. The difference between soldier and officer, in practice, is NOT perceived as just one of role.’, and I think he’s stating the blindingly obvious.

   Looking around, churches that have ‘priests’ and ‘clergy’ collect ’sheep’. The last thing the Salvation Army needs is (more) sheep. We need soldiers. That’s a whole different thing.

   Those supported in full-time work need to be making disciples who can make disciples. This is surely the bottom line and it follows from that that disciplemaking is the normal vocation of every soldier. Officers need, when loving the needy in the love of Christ in their neighbourhoods to be doing so in a way that is completely and seamlessly integrated in their disciplemaking. What seems to be happening is that clergy/priestly type officers spend a lot of time maintaining their ’sheep’ and/or running worthy projects in the neighbourhood helped by ’sheep’ who have no trajectory. A sense of journey and growth needs to be there for every soldier, for intentional, thought-out, prayed-through development as disciples in active service using reflective practice, theological engagement and interaction with colleagues over their service as it expresses their covenanted lives as soldiers.

   Without some, officers or soldiers, in our community who are trained to the best available standards we will end up in situations such as we are in at the moment, where the crucial components of church life in the army have drifted apart, the congregations then becoming basically a collection of sheep following their ‘priest’. The covenanted life of soldiers is the heart of the army, and officership and officer training needs to be thought-out and designed around this understanding, not sheep-collecting. I honestly believe if we could get that right we could rock the world - maybe even save it. (Grins)
Eleanor Burne-Jones on December 5th, 2008

7. Wow, alot said and to take in. I was accepted after 1 1/2 years of college at the age of 19 over 23 years ago. Both my session and the session after had many cadets under the age of 21. As far as I can remember of the cadets, I am the only “young” one left in Officership. I agree with what you say but also know, like I know you do, there is alot that should be needed for the calling and training of Officership that is not practical to the people we have in the local corps at this time. That is another topic. I wanted to finish college but God called me sooner. I wanted to hold a job in the “real world” but that is not what He wanted for me. But I also hurt for the Army because I see the world requires much more from me then they did 23 years ago. I work with youth and things have changed in that ministry more than I can keep up. I want to go back to college but my service to my people call me to them so I read and study books, the scriptures and do ALOT of praying.

   Should things be equal? In some ways yes but just like with other organizations not all positions require the same set of standards. I am a jack of all trades and a master of none but in your position I would need to be more focused in one area and I better know my stuff because I am a resource. You are my resource because you can and have the time to be more focused in your ministry. I appreciate how you have encouraged others and pushed them outside of the box. I wish I could do that more but I have to be all to all. I am not complaining. I am proud to be an Officer but I depend on people like you to keep me on track, up to date and keep me excited that there is hope for the future of the Army.

   Another topic the Army still struggles with is equality when it comes to women. We are moving forward in some ways but it is hard to move something that is so big with people who have so many different opinions. That is why we need people like you to keep it up front. Thanks I have said too much for people to take time to read but I really wanted just to encourage you to keep keeping on and following the Spirits leading.
Prezza on December 5th, 2008

8. “The intellectual road is not the only road to God, nor the safest, but we find it to be a road, and may be the appointed road for us…every success in the scholar’s life increases [the danger of loving knowledge itself]. If it become’s irresistable, he must give up his scholarly work. The time for plucking out the right eye has arrived.”

   The way I see it, if all the world were Christian, it might not matter if we were educated or uneducated, but there remains the need for our education for the simple fact that we have brothers that are not educated. These brothers will have “no defence but us against the intellectual attacks of the heathen. Good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason, because bad philosophy needs to be answered…A man who has lived many places is not likely to be deceived by the local errors of his native village; the scholar has live in many times and is therefore in some degree immune from the great cataract of nonsense that pours from the press and the microphone of his own age”

   C.S. Lewis, “The Weight of Glory”

   What can rasing the standard of education do to harm the mission? Nothing. The call is the still lifelong service. The answer is the sill immediate and “YES”. The dedication is still required. The heart is the still Christ. The mind, though more learned, is the still transformed daily by the Spirit. The goal is still the souls of men. But the mission is united, the standards are equal, why not raise the standard?
Misha on December 8th, 2008

Leave a comment