In an age when most people change careers four or five times, can we realistically expect a lifetime commitment to officership? Does God call different people for different periods of time? Is our approach to leadership biblical? Is it practical?

This is the fourth in a series of Point Counterpoint debates in which a variety of Salvationists will explore two sides of an issue that is critical to Army mission.

---

Officership is not a career, but a covenant relationship designed for the long haul. Of course if we want people to sign up, we need to change our approach.

BY MAJOR WENDY SWAN

It may seem a no-brainer for someone in her 27th year of officer service to answer this question. Like others, I enjoyed a successful career in business prior to choosing officership. Since commissioning, have I ever been offered another career? Several times. Recently? Yes. Why then continue to commit to a lifetime of service as an officer?

Let me quickly affirm that much has been gained by the Church from using a business model in terms of management and stewardship of resources. I wonder, however, if we have inadvertently made a mistake in using business language to describe officership—specifically the use of the word “career.” Career speaks of experience and expertise that provide opportunity for power, independence, financial gain and “self.” Officership is not a career. More accurately, officership might be described as a “service path,” originating out of a covenant relationship with God and a vehicle within which to serve The Salvation Army.

The Army's military terminology and imagery aside, ordination is not a new idea within the Church. It finds its roots in the Mendicant orders of the 13th century where groups of people offered themselves as a model of God active within a community. They took vows of obedience, poverty and chastity so that all of their time and energy could be expended on the religious work of preaching the gospel and serving the poor. Sound familiar?

Seven hundred years later, all Salvationists commit to evangelism, discipleship and service. Officers voluntarily choose additional covenant vows of obedience and simplicity of lifestyle. After more than 20 years in leadership development and training, I have yet to meet anyone who begins officership thinking, “Well, I'll see how it goes.…” But statistics don't lie—for an increasing number of people, the years of service as an officer are short.

Based on this reality, I'd like to ask another question: Under what conditions might the Army expect an individual to commit to a lifetime of service? Aside from the theological issue of covenant, I'd like to suggest some pragmatic components that facilitate productive “long-termers.”

Consultative Leadership: While we are making progress in consulting officers on a variety of issues, consultative leadership is more than asking officer personnel for thoughts or opinions regarding issues. These days, people not only want a voice, they want a vote. If people do not believe that their voice is truly heard and valued, they will vote with their feet. The best form of consultative leadership involves what I call “mature conversations,” discussions where deepest need and deepest passion intersect, where both parties recognize capacity and contribution as well as challenges and limitations. People choose to commit to the long term when what they experience in the short term tells them there is a future and they can envision their place in it.

Professional Development: Our Army provides a myriad of opportunities to fulfil one's calling to serve community. While I've served in corps and social services, most of my officership has been in international education and training. We live in a world where accreditation and credentialing increasingly demand a high level of professionalism. While a growing number of people enter officership with extensive skills and education, it is critical that we adopt lifelong learning and equipping of officer personnel for present and future service. While limited financial resources will always be a factor, our strategic-planning lens must be one of “investment” and not “cost” at strategic points in an individual's service.

Sabbatical Refreshment: I'm not talking about a year lounging on the beaches of Bali (as beautiful as they are!). Studies show that within the ministerial professions, frontline workers experience burnout regardless of how well they have attempted self-care. This is a particular danger for our movement as we expect 24/7 availability as well as multiple appointments from individuals. Are we guilty of abusing God's grace when we ask people to commit to a lifetime and then fail to provide for the biblical precept of intentional re-creation? Several territories have in recent years implemented a variety of sabbatical forms. This is resulting in longer years of productive and energized service of officers. I'd love to see this become a reality here in Canada and Bermuda.

Consultative leadership, professional development, sabbatical refreshment—that sounds like an Army I'd want to sign up for—long term of course.

Major Wendy Swan is the extended learning program director at William and Catherine Booth College in Winnipeg.

---

Leadership in the Army is no longer one-size-fits-all. If we truly accept the “priesthood of all believers,” then we need opportunities for lay leaders to take a greater role.

BY MAJOR IAN SWAN

It is entirely reasonable to expect that officership will be a lifelong commitment. After all, it's not a calling to a particular service path or vocation, but rather a covenanted life—or, to use the language of the Church, a joining of holy orders. The question we should ask ourselves is whether or not officership is a prerequisite for spiritual leadership.

Given our belief in the “priesthood of all believers,” the response seems obvious to me. However, our tradition of reserving certain roles and functions for officers seems to call our belief into question.

Throughout Africa, the ever increasing number of converts and soldiers necessitates the appointing of lay leaders. Constraints faced by territories in the training of officers make it impossible to produce an officer for every ministry unit. These lay leaders are selected on the basis of their spiritual maturity, competency and potential for future development. While considered a local officer, these individuals do not fill the traditional local officer positions but rather take on the role and function of the officer appointed to lead a particular ministry unit. These lay leaders serve on officer terms, but only for a specific time of service.

This practice replicates the early methodology of John Wesley. Having formed a small group of believers who studied and prayed together, he would then appoint a leader to encourage and monitor the group. The leader would be provided with organizational instructions and a small library of books to encourage their development and capacity. Wesley never intended these leaders to be ordained or take on the vestments of clergy.

For the first time, the Canada and Bermuda Territory is faced with the reality of fewer active officers than there are retired officers. This means we may soon have more ministry units than officer personnel to serve them. Unless there is an increase in cadets entering the training college, the gap between the number of available officers and the number of ministry units requiring leadership will only grow.

It would seem that for many potential candidates, a lifelong commitment is not something they are prepared to make.

One solution might be to prioritize mission opportunities and then close ministry units that are only marginally productive but are high consumers of mission resources. Alternatively, a proactive recruitment of lay leaders for a contracted service period may attract willing hands to the task of discipleship and mission expansion. This approach has worked in Australia and Hong Kong. New corps and ministries have been built and, in time, handed over to officer personnel. Similarly, Africa heavily relies on its envoys (lay leaders) to minister to its many congregations. The contracts for these envoys are reviewed annually and are subject to divisional and territorial approval. This process provides great flexibility and control while encouraging performance reviews and evaluations to be based on mission achievement.

When it comes time to release these lay leaders from service many have asked: What is the advantage of appointing a commissioned officer rather than a lay leader?

The advantage of officer leadership over lay leadership lies not in the “priestly function and role” but rather in trained leadership ability. Let me give an example from the field of project development. When building a school, a leader oversees the overall project and its component parts. However, that leader will gladly welcome assistants who complete the various components, be it the foundation or roof. Similarly, in mission, where there is not long-term consistent leadership, the broader vision and individual objectives may be lost.

Lay leaders on contracted service would need to demonstrate capacity for their particular ministry appointment or take training which would equip them for the task. They should also be under the care and supervision of qualified, informed leaders who understand the mission objectives and can ensure that short-term mission leaders contribute to the whole.

Lay service contracts have existed for overseas appointments where need is recognized and local resources are lacking. Perhaps it is time we recognized the need in our own backyard and provided a means whereby willing hands may be encouraged to serve without requiring them to commit to a lifetime.

Major Ian Swan is the associate dean for extended learning at William and Catherine Booth College.