What do we believe?

Grant Sandercock-Brown on belief, the role of officers and…

I’ve attended many a Bible study in my time. You know the ones, filled with open ended (and possibly unanswerable) questions like “How do you think Sisera felt about women with tent pegs?” or “How should Achan have responded just before his stoning to death?” I’ve been a critic of these studies on many occasions. Mainly because they often consist of people coming together to air their ignorance and leaving with it still intact.

Of course, I’ve learned that the process is more important than any learning outcome — that praying together and sharing in each other lives matters a great deal. That’s the only reason I still attend. But I must confess an element of intellectual snobbery in such groups. For instance, when a fellow Bible studier realises that Arminianism has nothing to do with ethnic heritage and asks “What’s that?” I think, “My fellow Rubiconers would have known.”

You see, as a faux intellectual, the rigorous and challenging ideas launched into cyberspace from sites such as this one are much more my cup of tea. Here is real debate, steel sharpening steel! Or so I thought. Because it recently dawned on me that in reality, new “post and comment” is just old Bible study writ large (my fellow faux intellectuals will recognise my paraphrase of Milton). Apart from how distant our homes are, we are essentially in the same business. We all share our opinions, often heartily disagreeing, and leave the website vented but unchanged. In fact, we are worse off because we do not share life’s journey together or pray with each other.

And what’s more, no one at a Bible study ever told me I was ignorant or ill-informed or just plain wrong, something which has happened on this site on numerous occasions!

Not that I haven’t come to know my fellow Rubiconers a little, even if I wouldn’t recognise them in the street. I know where Gordon’s heart is; when reading an article I can pretty much guess when Aaron will disagree, speculate on Andrea’s response, suspect that Geoff’s comments come from left field because he has lived there all his life.

But it still leaves me despondent — not so much because of our reluctance to learn from one another but rather that we, many of us Salvationists, can hold such divergent opinions on crucial subjects. It saddens me because is this not our Army in microcosm? Throughout our movement, there are widely different views on nearly all aspects of Salvation Army life and practice, and the cyber pages of theRubicon are evidence of that. Whether it is mission, sacraments, uniform, preaching or the primacy of Scripture, nary a consensus is to be had.

In a centrally controlled movement like ours, how have we reached our current theological and missiological pluralism? How is it that we can have liberals, six-day creationists, evangelicals, high-church Salvationists and Pentecostals all sitting side-by-side in our halls, seemingly happy with their parallel views? What happened? How can we as one movement fail to speak with one voice on any issue? It may be our mirroring the rampant individualism in Western society, but that is pretty cold comfort.

Which brings me to my question for fellow Rubiconers: How can it be that people I know and respect as Salvation Army officers see themselves as ordained clergy, somehow different to lay soldiers, when I do not? The view that an officer’s commissioning produces some ontological change in them is not one I share. And to me, this is not merely an academic question. Speaking with one voice on this issue is vital to our effective mission, maybe even our future. There is something rotten in the state of ministry (a Shakespearian paraphrase, but you knew that) — ordained and lay ministry is the symptom, and we need to fix it.

Harold Hill has literally written the book on leadership in the Salvation Army. It is called, unsurprisingly, Leadership in the Salvation Army. The sting, however, is in the subtitle: A case study in clericalisation. Essentially, it is the story of how a movement full of signed-up, full-on missioners became a church, and its officers, originally the ministers to the ministers, became clergy.

Near the end of his book, Harold has posited three possible views on clergy and laity:

1) There are priests/clerics/people in orders in the church, with a status distinct from that of the laity, but we do not have them in the Salvation Army.

2) There are priests/clerics/people in orders in the church and we do have them as officers in the Salvation Army.

3) There are no priests/clerics/orders in the church, and the Salvation Army does not aspire to any.

I suspect that many of my officer friends hold to the second position. I hold to the third.

We need to remember that the Church, throughout its history, has built extraordinary structures on a very small amount of biblical material. The two New Testament examples of people being prayed for and having hands laid on them in some sort of ordination for a particular job are found in Acts 6:6 and Acts 13:3. It’s a pretty simple event, and one would think that it would be impossible to build elaborate ideas of ordained ministry and apostolic succession on it, but build them the church has.

As to the word ordained, it appears rarely in Scripture and is a translation for a number of Greek words, none of which carry the meaning of initiation into a new caste or ontological change (“I am different now that I am an officer”). And of course, the very term “lay Salvationist” has no basis in Scripture. “Laos,” the word from which laity is derived, simply means “the people.” I reject any notion that there are “lay” Salvationists and “clergy” Salvationists.

Based on the New Testament record, it would appear that the Salvation Army commissioning ceremony in vogue until 1978 was a pretty biblical concept. In the very first commissioning ceremony in the church, recorded in Acts 6, the brothers choose seven men and appoint them to a particular ministry, and the apostles put their hands on them and prayed. That is all. There is no promise of a new status in the church, no hint that they are now priests and different to the people they are appointed to serve.

I am not trying to bring officership down. I am not saying that officers are not the equal of ministers in the other churches. In fact, quite the opposite. Remember, I hold to Hill’s third position. All believers are equal in status; all are called to mission and ministry. The whole concept of clergy and laity as it exists in many churches today owes far more to church tradition than to the New Testament record. I can, with biblical warrant, defend our view of the ministry of all believers. The ground is level at the foot of the cross.

My Milton quote is on this very subject: “New presbyter is just old priest writ large,” he said. The Reformation had supposedly done away with the power of the priests, had recovered the practice of the “priesthood of all believers.” But before long, even though shorn of popish practices, the new pastor was often indistinguishable from the old priest. My fear is that our longing to see ourselves as ordained ministers of the Church of the Salvation Army has a great deal to do with settling back down to security, status, power and prestige and very little to do with mission and practice as we find it in the New Testament. Perhaps I am wrong.

But even if I am wrong, the disastrous effect on mission is a burning issue for me. I honestly think that unless we can recover in some significant way our founding practice of the ministry of all believers; if our officers go on desiring to be ordained clergy (and acting like ordained clergy), the current rapid decline in our congregational life, at least in the West, will only pick up speed.  Without an underpinning concept of all Salvationists engaged in mission and engaging the world, our missional structures become mere bureaucracy; uniform becomes dress-up clothes for worship, and — the killer — all ministry is done by officers.

Many soldiers already see corps officers as Captain-Priests. Pastoral care only counts if it is done by the officers; officers must officiate at all ceremonies; if (God forbid) a drunk wanders into the hall, you need to summon the officer; soldiers no longer pray in worship — they leave it to the professional; evangelism is the Captain’s job. We were a movement that was once egalitarian in mission and service, hierarchical in organisation. We are now elitist in mission and service and bureaucratic in organisation. That is not a change for the better.

Phil Needham wrote on the theology of officership some time ago and concluded that officership was best understood as a function, that any difference between a soldier and an officer was one of role and responsibility, not status. I believe he is correct. And while that might sound a little mundane, the truth is that while officership may mean a great deal to an individual personally and spiritually, its great virtue is its convenience to the Army’s mission. That is, it is necessary and useful to have a pool of Salvationists who have given up secular employment to commit themselves to ministry in the movement full-time, Salvationists who are able to go wherever they are sent. It is a glorious, sacrificial and a God-honouring convenience, but a convenience nonetheless.

I am not against ordination. I think it’s nice. And in fact, the way we can reclaim the concept is to ordain more. By which I mean ordaining everybody who is involved in ministry. Ordain your singers; ordain your local officers, youth workers, guitarists, Junior Soldier sergeants, receptionists. Define their roles, get them up in front of their community, commission them and pray for them.  If we ordained everybody possible for their ministry, we would get the point.

I love being an officer. It is not my intention to in any way belittle officership. Signing my covenant was a sacred moment for me. The officer’s covenant is a sacrificial and meaningful one. But I have honestly never thought it conferred any special spiritual status on me, brought about ontological change, made me one of a priestly caste. We must reject such a view and we must reclaim the practice of the ministry of all believers. Our cause is too urgent to do otherwise.

I say “we,” but of course all of this is merely my story. I believe we need to get this right, to rediscover mission as the responsibility of all Salvationists. But, as I have discovered, I cannot presume to speak with any certainty on what “we believe.” The tragedy is, at least in seeking resolution on vital issues such as these, that I’m pretty sure no one else does either.

Writer: Captain Grant Sandercock-Brown is a corps officer at Chatswood Corps in Sydney, Australia. He was a secondary school music teacher for 10 years and loves theology, rugby and golf. His first book From a Middle Aged Dad to a Teen Aged daughter has just been published. His claim to fame is that as a singing telegram man he once sang to Elton John. He and his wife, Sharon, have three children.

17 Comments to What do we believe?

1. Hi Grant, For what it’s worth, I’m in complete agreement with you on the subject of ordination! I was ordained last year after 5 years in ministry as a Lieutenant and I can’t honestly pretend that I’m any more holy, or in any other way different, now than before. However, I don’t mind the diversity of opinion that exists within our movement but possibly only because without some flexibility there might not be room for me.

   Regards, JDK
Jason Davies-Kildea on November 7th, 2008

2. Dear Grant, I am going to comment on your section about why there is so much diversity in beliefs, as this is the area that I am particularly exposed to in my academic studies.

   I have vowed to make it my life’s work to free people from the idea that they need to have a settled, flat, monotone understanding of faith and particularly of the Biblical texts. The texts themselves are not settled and safe and they in no way present a completely harmonized God who is himself settled, safe and flat. They are written by diverse people who lived in hugely diverse economical, political and spiritual situations, each bringing their own ideology to the text, each brining their own imagination to the text. I am not claiming that the Bible is not God-breathed, rather that it somehow contains all of this other ‘mess’ as well.

   Now when a person or even a faith community comes to a text, what will they need to do? Something dangerous… They need to INTERPRET it. There is no ‘right’ interpretation and there is no interpretation that does not carry along with it vested-interests and ideologies brought to it by the interpreters (for example even though I write this post with a certain message in mind, you or others may end up interpreting it differently/ draw out certain things I said, or think that I implied something when I didn’t etc etc. We all do it!!)

   That’s just the way it is. We can’t make people conform to ‘one’ reading of scripture, because there is no ‘one’ reading! Any attempt at this brings with it an imperialist reading, such as that of the colonialists who used scripture as a means of invasion. Would we say they got it right? Is their understanding of scripture the ‘true’ one?

   Please do not read this and think that I am advocating a free-for-all-interpretation zone. I am in a particular faith community partly because of the many ways it interprets scripture (women having rights to lead, a God who determines to save everybody etc.) I guess I would say that I agree with the basic ‘flow’ of how my community interprets, but that does not mean that I will agree on everything and I don’t believe TSA should be able to dictate what we ’should’ believe.

   I hope this give at least a small morsel for thought.

   Craig
Craig Gaudion on November 7th, 2008

3. Grant,

   The plurality in the Army is most probably the result of democratization affecting our church culture. Back when the Army was founded, there was a large reaction against high church formalism, and so making doctrinal distinctions within the Army was not high on the priority list. Other doctrinal distinctions have only recently come about. That’s why we could now have a pre-millennial disspensationalist sacramentalist sitting next to a Covenantal non-sacramentalist Open Theist. Or whatever other combo you could come up with.

   And both could be in uniform…

   For a good look at the cultural exchange of democratization in the church, check out The Democratization of American Christianity by Nathan O. Hatch (I realize you’re in Australia, but the trends in the book speak to our larger Army network).

   Craig,

   I understand your frustration with interpretation, but if there is no “right” interpretation, and if you do not advocate a free-for-all method, then what is the middle ground? Is not an interpretation right on the basis that it corresponds to the author’s intent? Thus the right interpretation is the one which, by good reason, shows itself to correspond the best.

   If we tell each other “That’s just your interpretation,” we’re not dealing the the issues, only dismissing them outright.

   David Witthoff
David Witthoff on November 7th, 2008

4. Grant:

   You’ve said so much here…so if the other commentators will forgive me, I’ll jump on to another/other point(s).

   The thing about Bible Study is that half the time I end up disagreeing with myself (later). I was pitching a bunch of old notebooks and found myself thinking the polar opposite to something I wrote down and underlined (having thought I was sooo smart)…less than a year ago! As much as we (I) project all my stuff on to the Bible, it centres and enriches all our church discussions in a way that is irreplaceable. It allows us to experience feelings before we are capable of owning them.

   what you’ve left out of the discussion about ministry/ordination is the reality that not everyone who is part of TSA ministry is a soldier. Yes there are adherents, but many who are essential parts of what goes on aren’t even what I would call members…more like friends. I don’t have a fully-formed notion of how this all comes together, but I will say we need all the help that we can get!

   And we need to appreciate/recognize that help.

   Andrea
Andrea614Regent on November 7th, 2008

5. Hello Grant.

   Thanks for the publicity for my “Clericalisation” in yesterday’s Rubicon… I’m happy to be reciprocal grist to your mill.

   I am in a dilemma, however, in that I heartily long for unanimity of opinion about clericalisation, about which we happen to agree, while desiring a wide discretionary latitude about almost everything else! I suspect for example that you and I are poles apart on Biblical Criticism – though I am not an adherent of the Jesus Seminar mythology, despite my scepticism about having sections of the New Testament printed in red! I fear I’m that endangered species, an old-fashioned liberal. But I think it is inevitable that there will be divergences of opinion, even about fundamental matters, in an ecclesial body of our age and size. “In essentials unity; in inessentials diversity; in all things charity” is not a bad rule of thumb as an alternative to mutual anathematising. One of the amazing things about the SA is how well we have coped with such diversity hitherto, though that may have been largely the result of ignorance rather than forbearance. It is so sad to see the Anglican communion, long the flag-bearer for toleration, tearing itself apart. I have no wish to see the Army follow suit.

   Having said all that, I totally endorse your Rubicon article and your conclusions, and hope your message prospers!

   Harold
Harold Hill on November 7th, 2008

6. thoughtful, Grant. There was room for many different people at the feet of Jesus, and that is an amazing gift given to TSA. As Gowans so poignantly taught us, we all seeking the same Saviour. I’m not sure that I am in agreement with the description that we’re elitist in mission - perhaps it depends on where you are, but in our small community of believers, the mission really is shared in a grace-filled way. Yes, I’m blessed by that, I know.
JoAnn Shade on November 7th, 2008

7. Grant, great stuff. (Am I really that disagreeable?)

   I am in agreement with your view on ordination, both in the negative sense of not seeing a special category (or even a “higher call”) for officership, and also in the positive in wanting to see everyone ordained, or commissioned, for their part in the Body of Christ.

   It is one of the reasons my wife and I have never become officers, though we fulfill the traditional role of officers (or at least what that role has come to mean in recent years). Yet I am still asked on a regular basis when I am going to “enter the ministry”. I don’t know how I could enter it any more, apart from martyrdom!

   I am also in agreement (see, no disagreement!) with your take on pluralism. I think it stems far more from theological apathy than from intentional liberty, to be honest, but the upshot is an incredibly broad tent under which amazingly divergent views are held. This is not always bad, but it certainly can suggest a lack of clear thought on most things. It can also lead to a significant lack of unity of thought and purpose, and a lack of effectiveness in mission and discipleship.

   I also might suggest that divergence in thought has stemmed from significant divergence in mission and action. If one major role of theology is critical reflection on praxis and ecclesia, and if our praxis and ecclesia look as different as they do in some places, then our theology will also look radically different. A lot of us don’t view the world in the same way, let alone viewing God in the same way.

   Grace,

   Aaron
aaron on November 8th, 2008

8. A lot of food for thought there brother Grant, but I’m just going to comment on the priesthood of all believers bit.

   I am with you all the way on that one! As a mere soldier attempting to make mission happen (in this case inner-city), I have to say that it has been a long, hard road. I’m pleased to report that our story has a happy and fulfilling ending but it’s only because we had a very committed and life experienced core group who had the time and the individual fiscal resources to make it happen.

   As soldiers we had NO status as church planters, evangelists, social workers, preachers (and in no way were we “priests”) but just got on with it. Having a team member who was savvy with the Army internals (which is tantamount to a secret society) and he could deal with all of that while we got our hands dirty, loving marginalised people and bringing them to Jesus.

   In the course of our efforts we were outwardly despised by some of our fellow soldiers (guilt perhaps?) and others though supportive called us crazy for even attempting such a thing. We had some wonderful support from some officers (and especially retired officer prayer warriors) but others were indifferent at best.

   I make no excuse for my own passion for mission and repent of my impatience with those salvos who don’t share that passion, but I think I have identified an impediment to mission. It’s a lack of empowerment. Firstly for the laity who without support for their vision will just die on the vine with their vision unfulfilled. Secondly for the officers who being tethered to appointments and their huge responsibility therein are often unable to follow their individual passion.

   As I general rule I love and respect officers for their setting aside of their lives for fulltime service but I refuse to see my service and God-given visions to be somehow second rate and “not as holy” because I haven’t knelt on the crimson cushion and been ordained. It was never supposed to be like that. Booth certainly was against the idea and wanted everyone empowered for mission everywhere.

   Perhaps our drift away from our core values as a movement is why we have developed an insidious class system within our Army (if it’s not that then what is it?). Dare I say that there is even a class system between officers with respect to social and field appointments, but let’s leave that elephant cowering in the corner?

   It’s not hard to fix it. We need to take big risks with people with vision, passion, committment and guts to be supported (officers and laity alike). Once we see them being successful and winning people for Christ we will just have to get ready for the rush.
Bruce Redman on November 8th, 2008

9. G’day,
   Aaron, I didn’t mean to imply that you were always disagreeable. I am very often agreeing with your disagreements anyway. I always enjoy your comments.

   Nor did I mean this to be a discussion of epistomology either.

   Nor am I arguing for all salvationista agreeing on absolutely everything. We’d have nothing to discuss on this site if that was the case.

   I am not in the least interested in another fruitless discussion on ‘distinctives’ either. But I guess I do think that there are some core convictions about ministry and mission that should define us as a tribe.

   I am quite happy to live in a ‘generous orthodoxy’ (to pinch Maclaren’s phrase) that means Harold Hill and I can both minister together even if we disagree about the number of red words in the gospels. It’s just that to me, ‘ministry of all believers’, is one of those core convictions. Ordained clergy and laity is incomatible with such a conviction.
grant on November 9th, 2008

10. I am all for having an honest church. I’m completely unconvinced it is possible to have empowered ‘laity’ or any serious recognition, development and release into acknowledged ministry of soldiers while officers are ‘ordained’. Ordination truly is the work of the enemy in the way it creates a default culture of disablement in the rest of the church.

    It’s basically meaningless to talk about empowering soldiers or lay people. The way the Salvation Army is structured ensures it can’t happen, and even if it started pouring training into developing soldiers I doubt it has the capacity to properly deliver the goods and support and help them in developing (what should be) their vocation as soldiers. Church structure makes it impossible and church culture will effectively prevent any change. The only places that have the capacity for change are the fringes where new forms of church are able to develop, and they need to form as new plants, away from the parent church culture that will keep the majority of ‘lay’ people by default forever in spiritual childhood.
    That’s my tentative opinion!
Eleanor Burne-Jones on November 10th, 2008

11. Dear David,

    Thanks for your comments! I am not actually ‘frustrated’ with interpretation, I was merely pointing out that interpretation happens (whether we agree with the interpreters or not) and that-maybe I should rephrase my statement- there is no ‘innocent’ interpretation of the texts. The authors themselves were not innocent of making their theological and political points either (compare Judges and Samuel for a quick example) so we won’t remove the problem by trying to rely on their intentions.

    I don’t want to detract from the flow of the main discussions here or to repeat much of what I wrote before so I will close with this:

    Let’s just accept that interpretation of scripture happens, that we all come to the scriptures with our imagination (whether stifled or free-flowing) and vested-interests as well as prayerful desires to hear God’s fresh Word within these texts.

    Most importantly I celebrate because we worship a God who is so unhindered and unencumbered by any of our limited interpretations or theological debates about Him!
Craig Gaudion on November 10th, 2008

12. Hi Grant,

    You certainly did cover a lot in your article.

    Concerning your thoughts on the amount of different opinions and lack of unity in our church, I think that the only thing worth argueing about is the Salvation we recieve through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ our Savior. And that should only be to tell people about the good news of Jesus Christ. As for people interpreting the bible different ways and allowing that to cause divisions in the church, I don’t think that the Holy Spirit would interpret oposing ideas that would cause divisions. Plilippians 4.15,16. While there are many people that come from many different backgrounds and see the world in many different ways, our God is constant. He is, was and forever will be.

    God’s word is living and active. Two people can read the same verse and it can speak individually to them about something they really needed God to tell them about. Does this kind of ‘living Word’ encourage different views to the point that titles to different schools of thought can be formed?

    In the same way, there is only one Truth. But our lives and the way we live and the sin in us causes us to see God for what he’s not. That is why we press on to reach the end of the race. To See God.

    But maybe I’m limiting the Holy Spirit. I don’t think so. but I do want to throw it out there that I’m far from perfect and infact still pressing on.

    Moving on.

    I agree that as we empower soldiers and local officers to do more, we are not lowering ‘ordained’ officers, but lifting up and empowering the layworkers around us.

    My DC recently spoke at my corps. He wasn’t preaching but just wanted to say a few words of encouragement. He said that a group of higher-ups at THQ/NHQ or IHQ (I can’t remember, but it doesn’t matter) were discussing the difference between the officers that wear red on their shoulders and the officers that wear blue. And after long deliberation, the only difference they could come up with was those that wear red are told where to serve.

    Doesn’t that paint a nice and idealistic picture of what we would all like to see? Sure! But the truth, unfourtunately, is far from that in a vast majority of corps.

    Unfourtunately Ordination has become a secular title as well that is required to legally to such things as Marriags and other various religous cerimonies. The government is another system that we live in and are forced to a point to abide by. In this light, as we are all called, lay or not, to do the will of God, this seems the only reason for ordination. Is to be leagally recognised as a leader in the church.

    I change possible? Of course! To say otherwise would be limiting The Holy Spirit’s ability to move. We don’t have to rely on the ‘fringe’ to change as they form new groups. Hosh-Posh! Part (small part) of my call to be an officer, is because God wants me to ‘BE’ the change. If I see a lot wrong with the status quo, my calling to help, is to become an officer, abide by the system as much as needed, and lend my life to the Holy Spirit where ever I am led.

    That may mean as a corp officer, commission as many local officers in their ministry areas. And to do as much as I can to empower and desciple those around me.

    Currently I am a ‘Preliminarily Accepted Candidate for Officership’ (another great title created by man), and I don’t see my ministry starting once I ‘kneel on the crimson cusion’. I know my ministry started as soon as I knelt before the cross. And God is using my life right now just as much as he will in training college to prepare me for His will in the future.

    Austin

    Philippians 4.20
Austin Anderson on November 10th, 2008

13. If it is as Eleanor states “..basically meaningless to talk about empowering soldiers or lay people” then we should pack up the whole show and go home. The Holy Spirit is the one that initially empowers us and then we follow our passion into whatever mission he is calling us to and if neccessary equip ourselves with the people, the skills and the knowledge required. If the SA doesn’t have the training or assistance right at hand we have to get it from wherever we can.

    Agreed the SA system is clunky at times and some people are stuck in their ways or are happy to live on sweet Spiritual milk but I’m yet to find a better way to reach the lost.

    Some officers seem suspicious of soldiers and their motives and vice versa. That’s a culture that needs to be changed. I think it started changing with the emergence of things like Lieutenancy and more and more lay salvationist workers.

    Because of our system of moving officers around regularly we need the soldiery to take up the challenge of keeping each corps on an even keel. We need soldiers to own the longterm objectives and allow each officer to inspire them along to completion.

    The Army is what we each of us make it and the amazing thing about it is that one single soldier or officer can do things that effect the entire international movement. That doesn’t happen anywhere else.
Bruce Redman on November 11th, 2008

14. If it is as Eleanor states “..basically meaningless to talk about empowering soldiers or lay people” then we should pack up the whole show and go home. The Holy Spirit is the one that initially empowers us and then we follow our passion into whatever mission he is calling us to and if neccessary equip ourselves with the people, the skills and the knowledge required. If the SA doesn’t have the training or assistance right at hand we have to get it from wherever we can.

    Agreed the SA system is clunky at times and some people are stuck in their ways or are happy to live on sweet Spiritual milk but I’m yet to find a better way to reach the lost.

    Some officers seem suspicious of soldiers and their motives and vice versa. That’s a culture that needs to be changed. I think it started changing with the emergence of things like Lieutenancy and more and more lay salvationist workers.

    Because of our system of moving officers around regularly we need the soldiery to take up the challenge of keeping each corps on an even keel. We need soldiers to own the longterm objectives and allow each officer to inspire them along to completion.

    The Army is what we each of us make it and the amazing thing about it is that one single soldier or officer can do things that effect the entire international movement. That doesn’t happen anywhere else.
Bruce Redman on November 11th, 2008

15. But Bruce, even your terminology is highlighting the problem. I don’t consider myself a “lay salvationist”, at least in contradistinction to an “ordained officer.”

    I agree that soldiers need to own the local vision, but that is difficult when we continue to promote the officer / soldier divide. If officers are some priestly caste, then we will not accomplish what you are suggesting. If they are simply soldiers with another role, who can be moved, then perhaps. But we have a lot of changing to do in our thinking before we get to that place.

    I agree with you as well that in spite of these things, TSA has been an excellent vessel from which we can reach the lost and love the broken. These discussions cannot provide us with excuses for not doing things in our own lives and in our local settings.

    Grace,

    Aaron
aaron on November 11th, 2008

16. But Bruce, even your terminology is highlighting the problem. I don’t consider myself a “lay salvationist”, at least in contradistinction to an “ordained officer.”

    I agree that soldiers need to own the local vision, but that is difficult when we continue to promote the officer / soldier divide. If officers are some priestly caste, then we will not accomplish what you are suggesting. If they are simply soldiers with another role, who can be moved, then perhaps. But we have a lot of changing to do in our thinking before we get to that place.

    I agree with you as well that in spite of these things, TSA has been an excellent vessel from which we can reach the lost and love the broken. These discussions cannot provide us with excuses for not doing things in our own lives and in our local settings.

    Grace,

    Aaron
aaron on November 11th, 2008

17. It’s good to hear stories like this….

    When officers ( the minority I will add ) put themselves up on a pedestal as being something different, or having a different relationship with God as compared to the non-ordained, then this is wrong, and it simply highlights their ego.

    I once had an officer try the “I’m ordained by God so you better get in your place” trick… I just rejected the approach, which did result in more abuse of power when they realised I wasn’t backing down. The sad thing is that it also resulted in some non Christians leaving the church, yet to return. When ego and power and control is more important than relationships and worship then its time to make a stand.

    Thanks for your thoughts Graham and all the best in your calling.
John Duthie on September 6th, 2009

Leave a comment