I have recently been asking: “Who is a Salvationist?” The answer used to be either a soldier or an officer. In recent years, with the elevation of adherents to “adherent members,” the lines have been blurred. Is an adherent a Salvationist? If so, what are the expectations? Can they represent the Salvation Army to the community? What form of discipline, if any, does the Army have over adherents? Can they smoke, drink, live common law, be practicing homosexuals or go bankrupt? If so, can they help out in Sunday school or visit nursing homes as part of our community care ministries?

While the increased emphasis on adherents may have increased “membership,” it has also resulted in a decreased emphasis on soldiership. By lowering the standards for membership within the Army we have, inadvertently, made it less meaningful. One of the consequences is the lack of faithful, committed and loyal volunteer leaders.

We have inherited a 19th century military structure, with its highly centralized control and authority. That style of management works best in a real Army, where people die if orders are not obeyed. In that type of Army, soldiers are coerced to obey under threat of punishment. In today's Salvation Army, however, we rely on soldiers' dedication, commitment and loyalty.

Lay Volunteers: Who is Listening?
The only real authority The Salvation Army has over its volunteer soldiers is rooted in their loyalty to the organization. To remain a member one must function within the system. The organization must, however, earn that loyalty by providing a credible, responsive system that demonstrates real integrity. When it fails to do so, I am compelled to ask questions and demand change, where it is needed. It is possible to remain fiercely loyal, and yet demand change. If I, as a volunteer, am convinced that change is needed, and it is not forthcoming, I have the option to leave the organization, without losing my spiritual experience as a Christian or placing my livelihood at risk. I also have the option of remaining within the organization and continuing to work for that change. In order to do so effectively, I need a credible way to present the issue. Wise leadership includes meaningful consultation. Volunteers respond best when they have a sense of ownership, achieved through active participation in the development of ideas.

In many Army congregations, corps councils and senior census boards have been replaced by a new leadership model. Some view this as a further erosion of standards. The requirements for becoming a member of the leadership team are now much less demanding. Corps councils generally involved more people in the decision-making process at the corps level than the new model permits. Even if committees are in place, there is a limited opportunity for a cross-section of the congregation to discuss matters of relevance to the corps.

One consequence is that The Salvation Army is at risk of becoming an organization largely run by officers and paid employees. The voice of the volunteer is quickly disappearing. The lay volunteer may bring a more independent and objective voice to the table. The volunteer has no concerns about job security or benefits. No one around the table decides the volunteer's next promotion or appointment.

For over three decades that voice was heard through the Advisory Council of Salvation Army Laity (ACSAL), a grassroots movement led by Salvationist volunteers. The council played a major role in many significant areas of Salvation Army ministry such as the establishment of the William and Catherine Booth College, officer retreats, pastoral care for officers and changes in uniforms. We need a similar system to encourage the lay volunteer voice to be heard again.

The Territorial Symposiums for both Salvation Army lay people and officers held in 2005 and 2008 is a positive step. In my view, however, a system of ongoing, regular consultation is even more valuable. With ACSAL there was a systemic link between corps, divisional and territorial councils.

Two Extremes
In his book Evangelical Landscapes, John Stackhouse points out that the division between congregational (soldiers) and pastoral (officers) leadership limits many North American Evangelical churches. In many corps, members place the officers on a pedestal, expecting them to do all the work and make all the decisions. Officers get burned out trying to accomplish a whole congregation's worth of ministry, and it even encourages some officers to think more highly of themselves than they ought. Congregations enjoy the self-centered, self-indulgent passivity of the consumer, rather than serving as participants.

By lowering the standards for membership we have, inadvertently, made it less meaningful

Our failure to embrace the New Testament concept of a priesthood of all believers, diminishes the role of both volunteer soldiers and officers, and thereby diminishes the ministry of the Army as a whole. It also flies in the face of one of The Salvation Army's distinctives that its members are “saved to serve.” The Army has long emphasized the ministry of the whole people of God. One of the positive features about the idea of “soldiership” has been that all are involved in ministry.

The other extreme is where congregations view themselves as the centre of the church. The officer serves them and they have no respect for clerical expertise and gifting. In an excess of democratic levelling, they consider everyone's opinion equally valid on all matters, even matters requiring theological, financial, administrative or other expertise. Senior local officers or lay volunteer leaders can be particularly guilty of this attitude. Since they exercise leadership and perform pastoral functions, they can begin to think that there is no need for someone with particular clerical training and gifts.

This syndrome of “we're all the same here,” poses its own dangers. The congregation fails to benefit from the gifts God has given to individuals for the good of the whole. Some people just know more than others about some things, and they should be listened to with appropriate respect―not uncritically, but with a genuine desire to profit from their advice. Competent resource people will eventually become discouraged if they see that their gifts are not valued. In addition, officers can end up with a “martyr” complex where they feel overworked and underappreciated, yet compelled to carry on out of a sense of spiritual commitment to the Lord.

One Body, Diverse Gifts
Christ's Body has many different parts. Diversity is from God and, as a result, we are to exercise our gifts according to our maturity, our measure of faith and the grace given to us and we are to do so in the best interests of one another. In the Christian Church, there are to be no self-congratulating martyrs or self-centred slackers, no super-Christians or sub-Christians. There are just Christians―and yet Christians suited for particular service within the Body. An old joke says: “There are two kinds of people in the world: those who divide the world up into two kinds of people, and those who don't.” The Christian Church, however, is not “two kinds of people,” clergy and laity, but one people with different constituents: different members playing roles according to their gifts and maturity.

The New Testament, by our standards today, seems curiously uninterested in church political structures―much to the consternation of polemicists through the ages who have championed one or another ecclesiastical polity. Instead, the New Testament teaches that all members are important, all members should be expected to serve and all members should be honoured as they do. It also stresses that the point of the various gifts and roles is to edify the body, to extend Christ's mission of service to the world and to bring him honour.

In a congregation of many mature persons, local volunteer leadership should be expected to shepherd the congregation along with the officers. They should not be allowed to sit back while the officer carries out the ministry. We should encourage all Christians to use their gifts. Such encouragement will have to be programmatic, not merely the theme of one or two sermons. Worship services should be structured to make use of all the appropriate gifts in the corps. Ministries should be as diverse as the congregation and the communities they serve. Decision-making should draw on the wide-ranging resources of the congregation. Those who lead―officers, employees and volunteers―should be people of real ability and godliness. We follow them as “workers together,” walking side by side. As they provide leadership, we provide resources and contribute to the leading, whether by advice, encouragement or labour.

There's too much to accomplish for us to sit back and expect God to do it all. We must take full advantage of the gifts Christ has given to each local congregation. If every Army corps determined to share the responsibility of ministry with its members, honoured all those who serve in all the ways they serve, and if every Christian were full of the Spirit and active in ministry, the Salvation Army would advance. The Gates of Hell itself would not prevail against it.

Thoughts for Further Reflection
1. We need to understand what it means to be a Salvationist. We now have “adherent members” who are not required to commit to the doctrines or lifestyle of the Army. What are the implications? Does it lower our standards? Will soldiership survive? Why become a soldier?

2. A responsive, transparent, accountable system of management, with some process of appeal, is needed. Why does the Army, unlike most other major charitable organizations, not have a Board of Directors made up of people who are not senior management or employees? Why are there no regular “shareholders” meetings? Where is the outlet for broad-based input?

3. A more fully developed understanding of spiritual authority within the Army's organizational structure would be helpful. What exactly do we believe about spiritual authority in Army governance? How does our current system of appointments, with its limited input, meet the needs of all concerned? Is the current system the best way for the Army to faithfully administer our human resources?

4. The lay volunteer voice is needed, and yet is only faintly heard within the current Salvation Army structure. How can that voice best be heard again? Is it time to devise a replacement body to perform a role similar to that provided by ACSAL? How can the Army more effectively include the lay volunteer voice in all aspects and levels of its ministry?

5. The biblical concept of “the Body,” with Christ as head, should shape our understanding of lay/clergy power relations. How do we translate the concept of a “priesthood of all believers” into a Salvation Army context? What aspects of Army culture contribute to the lack of spiritual maturity among our members? Have we developed a cult of officership? Who is the head of this Army and how do we become “workers together”?