Deeper shade of grey | ordination

Where has the debate gone?

I

t seems interesting to me that within TSA we are keen to maintain a certain line that causes frequent periodic debate when it comes to our non-sacramental stand with regards to baptism and communion. Battle lines drawn between those that both argue that ‘to’ or ‘not to’ is essential to our essence of church.

I’m not sure if I have come across the same rigour of debate with similar issues. While the more contemporary sacramental debate seems more black and white - it is interesting that the whole emphasis of ordination of officers doesn’t receive the same intensity of attention.

Recently as I watched the Commissioning of the latest session I was struck by how far our language has moved. It seems to me that the euphemistic use of ordination to explain commissioning has made quite some journey where now a given Territorial Commander declares to each cadet “I commission and ordain you…” (or words to that effect). It seems interesting to me that a choice of language to protect the kudos of officership with our ecclesiastical cousins has become so mainstream as to now even infer a supposed ‘higher calling’ of officership.

But no debate, no walk outs, no resignations, no battle lines, no edicts from International Headquarters, no articles, no letters looking at such an impact on SA views on the ‘priesthood of all believers’ . Nothing to question the language of ordination as it, like a cuckoo, surreptitiously kicks out the centrality of dedication. I might be missing something, but essentially any discussion here would share something of the same root as that within the well-worn conversation around that of our sacramental position.

So why the lack of debate in one area and intensity in another?

Deeper shade of grey appears every Wednesday on theRubicon. Find past posts and a bio of Capt. Gordon Cotterill here.

11 Comments to Deeper shade of grey | ordination

1. You know my view already Gordon but I’ll put it here! My concern with the move to ordination language is that it is far more to do with presenting our officers as equals within ministerial circles than any real theological reflection on the significance of the word. Maybe this is why there has been very little obvious discussion over it?!

   Interestingly, a whole other debate could be brought in by one of the definitions of the word itself which implies that ordination is the process by which someone is consecrated. Given this view it would be impossible for a TC or any other human to ordain anyone, because surely only God can truly consecrate anyone. Then we have to ask whether ordination in The Salvation Army should stop just at officers!
Graeme Smith on July 30th, 2008

2. Gordon and Graeme:

   As with many of TSA “internal” debates, I find myself standing here puzzled.

   Perception is almost everything. And to the Christian world, beyond this denomination, the perception is that officers are pretty well the equivalent of ministers and priests elsewhere in Christendom. So while I applaud the effort to contrast concepts of commissioning and ordination, the distinction has already been washed over “out there” where it ends up mattering for all sorts of social and economic reasons. Like individual Christians the Army can’t do what it needs to do on its own so it needs to partner with other groups church and non-church.

   For me a more salient misapprehension “out there” is the complete lack of understanding of the relationship of soldiership to TSA ministry. It’s just not the equivalent of membership. I’m not in any way slighting the devoted efforts of many adherents, but soldiership is a distinct for of devotion.

   Thanks for listening,

   Andrea
Andrea614Regent on July 30th, 2008

3. Andrea, I understand where you are coming from and that’s why I think the language of ordination is actually an issue that needs to be discussed. If we are moving down the route of ordination and everything that means in the church as a whole, then we are defining officership as part of the priesthood. I believe this has had a knock on effect with the growing disengagement of our soldiers from mission-focused to pew-fillers! My point is that in actual fact we are all ordained by God to fulfill His mission on earth rather than simply those called to lead through officership.
Graeme Smith on July 31st, 2008

4. I find this conversation fascinating! A friend recommended this site, and I am just finding my way around.

   I was raised in a tradition which observes/practices sacramental ministry and essentially sees the call to such ministry as the primary purpose for ordination. I also understand that there is some debate about this practice in certain TSA circles.

   Further to arguments about ordination and the practice of sacramental ministry, what about marriage? Aside from the issue of Eucharist and Baptism (oft referred to as primary sacraments) if the TSA does not practice that which is commonly called ‘ordination’ (”a rose by any other name”), per se, then how will this impact other ’sacramental’ ministries such as marriage?

   I agree with Andrea (above) that internal distinctions between commissioning and ordination are little more than semantics. If the latter is rejected than it will inevitably have consequences for the TSA Officers to perform civil functions such as marriage, in certain jurisdictions, whether or not those rites are recognised as sacraments.
Greg on July 31st, 2008

5. I’m appalled by the suggestion that the army decided to introduce ordination because of appearances and the advantage it brings officers in carrying out their duties. If that was the case, what a cynical attitude toward the importance of theological integrity.

   My sense is that people don’t get lathered up about ordination in the army, at least here in the UK, because it doesn’t affect people on the ground. Whereas people we know and love around us (myself at least, as I’ve seen it as a live issue in every corps I’ve been in here) are impacted in an immediate way by the rulings on communion and baptism - and we see people getting hurt and alienated and leaving the army over it - the same is not true over the wording of commissioning. More fundamentally, we are coming to the end of Christendom and it’s debilitating clergy-laity divide, and so whether the relatively lately-born Salvation Army introduces it as the denominations fade away here is really academic. Out in the places where officers work, amongst those who are not believers ordination is likely to mean nothing or be seen negatively. Within the church it means less and less as you go down the generations, as trust and respect have to be earned, they are not conferred by virtue of title. It isn’t an issue because it has no impact, it is in itself a demonstration of how irrelevant words are in comparison to lived holiness and action as people look critically at the church, both within and without.

   I agree with Graeme that the problem is what it does to soldiers rather than what it does to officers. The actual problem is far deeper, far more pervasive, and multi-layered. It is practical in terms of the widesweeping neglect to effectively disciple, develop, and deploy soldiers in active service. It is causing all sorts of problems of mistrust and resentment as tensions run high between soldiers and officers in the army just as between clergy and laity in the other churches. Beneath the surface it creates a church culture of assumptions and disempowerment around soldiership that absolutely cripples mission.
Eleanor Burne-Jones on August 1st, 2008

6. I’m trying to remember how this was explained to us—actually, I get a feeling I read it in Shaw Clifton’s ‘Who are these Salvationists?’ (which I don’t appear to possess at the moment.) My understanding is that the introduction of the word ‘ordination’ was made by a general some decades ago, and the reason was pragmatic—the mere presence of the word in the service would aid the acceptance of officers as ‘ministers’ by other denominations and thus open more avenues of service to us. There weren’t any theological problems with the change because the explicit ‘ordination’ of officers didn’t necessarily imply that non-officers weren’t ordained. In other words, it meant one thing to ‘the church’ and another thing to Salvationists.

   I was struck by the words my TC used at the occasion of my commissioning in 2000. He said something to the effect of ‘Recognising the call of God on your life and his ordination within you I commission you and ordain you as an officer of the Salvation Army…’

   This seemed to be a good way around the problem, and almost took the Quaker’s way out—the ceremony was more a recognition of God’s calling rather than an authoritative and unilateral act by the Commissioner. In the ‘dress rehearsal’ he hadn’t said anything of the sort, and I’m glad he changed the wording the way he did.
Cameron Horsburgh on August 1st, 2008

7. To Eleanor Burne-Jones’ point, re “amongst those who are not believers ordination is likely to mean nothing or be seen negatively” I have seen (as I think many may have) that the opposite is also true for people of faith. Whether the title be ‘Major’, ‘Rev’, (or dare I even say ‘Father’), the title that comes along w/ accreditation (whether called commissioning or ordination) carries the implication of having a skill set and/or education formally recognised by one’s governing body. The importance of either argument (pro/con) depends on the focus of one’s ministry.

   I would concur w/ Cameron Horsburgh, that ordination does not imply that the laity does not have a vocational calling. While I might disagree on other points, I think our brothers and sisters of the Roman use have a very valid point in identifying four orders of vocational ministry - the largest being the laity.

   For many, whether the rite is named ‘commissioning’, ‘ordaining’, or ‘priesting’ is functionally irrelevant. They result is the same. A person is licensed by their ecclesiastical and/or civil authorities to function in a way they could not before.

   In peace, and w/ love,
   Greg

   PS I wonder if referring to the end of Christendom, in the past tense rather than the present might not only be more accurate, but lend clarity to this issue.
Greg on August 1st, 2008

8. I think it is extremely naive to think that the use of ordination hasn’t affected us “on the ground”. It influences most everything we do in the Army whether we realize it or not. It may not be as obvious as the sacraments, but it is more treacherous. In fact, the problems some Salvationists have with baptism and communion can be traced back (to a large extent) to ordination. I also disagree wholeheartedly with the proclamation that ordination only hurts soldiers and not officers. The division between clergy/officers and laity/soldiers (which is abhorrent) would already exist even without ordination. Undoubtedly, ordination made the perceived gap wider. But the real victim is The Salvation Army as a whole.

   The last 30 years, since ordination was added, has produced (in our territory anyway) many officers who think they are simply no different from a pastor or reverend. Many call themselves as such. Many officers want to be pastors only - no time for the social work of their movement. A steady diet of church growth seminars, John Maxwell and Rick Warren have made an Army that often looks no different than the Baptists or Pentecostals. No disrespect to our brothers and sisters, but our mission is not the same as their mission - at least our target shouldn’t be.

   I was at a gathering of officers a number of years ago and we were doing some brainstorming about our mission and identity. The facilitator asked the group to name our target audience. In other words, “Who are we in business for?” I foolishly replied, “The poor and disadvantaged”. Several others retorted that we are to reach out to all people. Some even put forward that we need to focus on winning some of the more influential and affluent members of our community first to stabilize the corps finances. I continued to press my answer, but was looked at almost like I was from another world. The divisional commander was even sitting beside me and remained silent. I began to wonder if I was in the right place anymore.

   No wonder we have the proliferation of community churches in the ‘burbs, while only a few throwback officers and soldiers remain with those who need us most. We think an officer is a pastor who should be leading us in worship and passing the communion cup in a nice clean building in a middle-class neighbourhood. Why? Because that’s what the other churches with ordained ministers do. I know there may have been some good reasons for introducing the term “ordination” to the Army vocabulary. But let us not fool ourselves into thinking it makes no difference. In my opinion, this insidious little word stands for missional infidelity.
Juan Burry on August 1st, 2008

9. Juan said: ‘Some even put forward that we need to focus on winning some of the more influential and affluent members of our community first to stabilize the corps finances.’

   Unfortunately, Juan, our territory has engaged a consultant who is a strong advocate of this view. A huge percentage of our officers have been appointed to his seminars and many corps are signing up to his ‘method’. In this scheme social service is seen purely in terms of evangelistic utility.

   Thankfully, most officers I have talked to privately disagree. We don’t serve poor people because they’re easy (if high maintenance) targets. We serve them because they’re the ones God has called us to serve.
Cameron Horsburgh on August 1st, 2008

10. Harold Hill’s book - Leadership in the Salvation Army: a case study in clericalisation. Paternoster, Bletchley, Milton Keynes, 2006 - has a couple of insightful chapters on the emergence of ‘ordination’. Seemingly the strength of lobbying from the US won the day!
gordon on August 4th, 2008

11. A great book was written by Major Harold Hill called “Clericalisation.” He was given time as an officer and much access to Army documents to study and write on the above subject. His findings are in said book. It is worth a read.
Cory Harrison on August 8th, 2008

Leave a comment