ORDINATION #1 - Every soldier a Missionary (Geoff Ryan)

“The Founder marched us out of the Church and into the World - and I’m not going to march us back in.”  (General Eva Burrows)

Major religious revivals and cutting edge churches usually exhibit certain commonalities, regardless of the era or context. One of these is a renewed commitment to the ‘priesthood of all believers’, a New Testament imperative that seems constantly in tension with established church structure. From the early house churches of Acts, to the emergence of the Franciscan order, the Waldenses, Quakers, Puritans, Moravians, Primitive Methodists, the Salvationists up to present-gurus such as Peter Wagner and Rick Warren and others  (for a quick survey of reform movements throughout church history, I would suggest ‘First Called Christians: A Study in Names’, by Gustave Isely, SP&S 1952). The idea is the common dignity, calling and privilege of all Christians before God. “Every shoemaker can be a priest of God, and stick to his own last while he does it’, said Luther. Yet, ‘no single Church has been able to express in its worship, work and witness, the full richness of this doctrine.’ (C. Eastwood).

‘In the early Church, decision making was neither highly structured nor done in isolation. It involved the community. As time went on and the priesthood developed, however, diversity of gifts was depreciated. The clergy were seen to be concerned with the spiritual, the laity with the secular. Hence clerical power and privilege expanded. The result was a considerable diminuation of lay participation in the life and decision making of the church. From time to time in the history of the church, movements such as lay monasticism and the Protestant reformation have made attemnpts to restore the laity to their rightful place, but the dilemma is still with us.”     (Community in Mission, Phil Needham, P. 16)

 

The Salvation Army developed a priesthood, in any case, through default more than anything else I believe, although concrete steps were eventually taken to formalize popular perception and practice. In truth, an officer is a Christian who has entered a covenant relationship with God in submission to the spiritual authority of The Salvation Army and its structural constraints as a means to release him or her from the distractions of daily life in order to invest completely in mission. It is a ‘role’ and not a ’status’ thing, more pragmatic in nature than anything else.

The impulse to spiritualize things is strong, however, and often the beginning of many of our problems. In spiritualizing - or overspiritualizing - things it becomes much easier to remove them from the realm of reality and thus, trivialize them into impotence. Call it the ‘Monty Python syndrome’.

… if there is someone standing up front getting paid to do it all, why not let them?

As the role and importance of the officer increased, conversely the involvement and commitment of soldiers - the laity - decreased. This cuts both ways, though some fault may lie with the organization that exalted the ‘office ‘of the officer disproportionate to its function thereby gradually disempowering the soldiery. The other side is that this agreement actually suited many, and maybe eventually the majority, of the soldiery (ever heard of the 80/20 principle?). The urge to  compartmentalize religion along with other facets of our lives is almost irresistable, and besides, if there is someone standing up front getting paid to do it all, why not let them? In todays Army, soldiership is by and large church membership rather than a commitment to being a missionary, with the corps functioning as a mission centre.

Yet the profound beauty of early-day Army operations was that anyone and everyone could and did do everything that eventually came to be regarded as the exclusive domain - if not sacred obligation - of the officer. That’s why we had ’soldiers’ as opposed to ‘members’ - we were enshrining within our membership structure an expectation of mission involvement.

 ’…the description of membership as soldiership means that there is no room for passive membership. In this sense, ’soldier’ is a better word than ‘member’. Members can be passive or active; they may do no more than belong on the rolls. Soldiers cannot only belong; they are either fighting or maintaining readiness for battle - otherwise, they are not really soldiers. To put it differently, the objectives of a society or club are usually primarily internal; the objectives of an army are primarily external. Hence, the Church’s use of the military metaphor is symbolic of its external purpose: mission in the world.’ (Community in Mission, Phil Needham, P. 55)

Most early-day corps were opened by soldiers with the officer being sent in later. This is still often the case in the areas of most intense Salvationist warfare (Africa and Asia). It was my experience in the Russia. Of the corps opened in the Southern Region (Division) during my time as Regional Officer, all five were pioneered by soldiers and four of these are still run by soldiers.

As the ‘Christian Mission’ mindset waned and we grew up and became a church, we took on characteristics of the churches around us. As generational Salvationists were born and grew up in the ranks, as persecution turned into acceptance, respectability and even emulation we adjusted accordingly. The models we had around us were churches and we gradually minimized the distinctives that distanced us from our cousins. As a prophetic movement, we slowly took on board priestly trappings, hiked in from the  hills to the sanctuary of the Temple and found that we rather liked it there. The Army’s hierarchal structure is actually closer to the Roman Catholic church than to most of the Protestant congregational models, but we were already tinkering with various aspects of our missional structure, bit by bit ending up with a our present day incarnation - a hybrid that is neither fish nor fowl, neither Army nor church, order nor denomination.  No less confusing for our cousins than for us.

 … we created static congregations and installed our ‘priests’

The mission emphasis shifted from ’sending them out’ to ‘bringing them in’ - we built Temples, we invested in equipment, we created static congregations and installed our ‘priests’ and our soldiers increasingly assumed the role of spectators who came to church, even as our corps increasingly ceased operating as mission centres and became churches.

A significant step toward this was made during Arnold Brown’s Generalship in the early 1980s when the decision was made to commence ‘ordaining’ officers in addition to the Army’s traditional practice of ‘commissioning’. I, for example, was ‘ordained’ and ‘commissioned’ - to cover all the bases, I suppose. This rather significant event passed, it seems in hindsight, with relatively little notice.

(Ordination) … was a defining moment …

In reality, I think it carried some vast implications in the way we view ourselves and our focus as a ‘missionary church’. I would go as far as to say that this was a defining moment in The Salvation Army’s journey from mission movement to church. ‘Commission’ is a military term and carries with it the implication of  ’sending’ and of being equipped for a concrete task. As such it reflected not only the military metaphor of early Salvationist mindset, but also the emphasis we had on mission. ‘Ordination’ is a church term, it is static and has to do with the offices of a priest and, if truth be told, historically implies access to sacramental authority (its origin is from the Latin ordinaire, which means ‘to put in order’ - does this imply a commitment to the ascendancy of the structure of the organization, rather than the mission?). It owes more to church tradition than Scriptural injunction.

Why it was really instituted is hard to say. I suspect that it had more to do with the Army seeking the validation of the status of our clergy class in the eyes of our fellow churches than anything else. My point though, is the shift in mindset from mission, to maintenance, from the war to the Army that fights the war, from sending to staying put, risk to risk management. In the end this change was official confirmation of the reality that was played out weekly in Salvation Army corps around the world.

All this is by way of background, however. That point is that were every soldier to understand their soldiership as a call to mission and that being a ’soldier’ is synonymus with being a ‘missionary’, and were every corps to understand that their reason for being is to engage in mission in the world and that ‘corps’ is synonymous with ‘mission centre’ then maybe our renamed ‘community churches’ would actually live up to their names and our soldiery would too. 

One other thing, I think a reemphasis on the ‘priesthood of all believers’ would go a long way toward correcting misconceptions of officership from both sides.

Writer: Major Geoff Ryan is co-founder of theRubicon and was publisher for three years. He is co-ordinator of the 614 Network and organizes the bi-annual Urban Forum. His interests include writing, politics, coffee and his children. Geoff and his wife Sandra minister in Regent Park, a social housing project in downtown Toronto, Canada.   

8 Comments to ORDINATION #1 - Every soldier a Missionary (Geoff Ryan)

1. Great post - what would it take to recover from the clergy-laity sickness? What would we look like if it happened? What happens to power in the system then?

   My sense is that it is the charism of TSA that would enable us to remain united while undergoing profound change back into a missional movement where everyone has the dignity of being a missioner, covenanted and with that covenant lived out in a mission team context, in a valued and nurtured vocation, where soldiers are not just relegated to ‘helping’ officers have their ministry.

   While officership and officership training are focussed on ‘my ministry’ rather than the focus being on discipling and sending out others, the church is creating leaders who are boulders on the tracks, stopping the train of mission.

   While TSA thinks in terms of church planting as being about creating Christendom-styled congregations, only a small number of people will ever be developed to lead - because only a small number of people amongst us will ever be gifted to lead groups of over 100. That way of thinking props up the clergy-laity divide.

   The heart of this issue, for me, is that we have to understand how and why power is brokered amongst us in the way it is, and what that is doing to our missional effectiveness. To some extent it ‘works’, but if it cannot adapt to a changing missional context - ie postmodernity, in which ‘ordination’ is completely anachronous, we are truly stuffed. What would it take to address this? What is God saying to us in this? What does following Jesus look like in a changing missional context, through these profound changes and upheavals? My sense is that we have to transition around a point of shared understanding and celebration of the charism of being salvationists. But the steps of the journey understanding together what it would take, need to be explored.

   Eleanor
Eleanor on December 7th, 2009

2. Geoff, interesting points as always and I like the thought, or rather don’t like it at all, that the inclusion of ordination was a ‘defining moment in the Army’s journey from mission movement to church’.

   For me personally, as one setting out on the road of officership, the reality is that I do not see myself as someone who is going to be ordained into ‘the ministry’ but instead see myself as being commissioned. This is where I feel the root of any change needs to take place, in the heart and mind of the individuals. I, for one, will be striving for the idea of all soldiers and adherents being missionaries into the local community, something that is central to my understanding of discipleship.

   Graeme S
Graeme Smith on December 7th, 2009

3. Geoff thanks again for your clear and inspiring writing.

   Graeme I felt the same when I was training for officership (3-5 years ago). An idea I briefly considered was asking not to be ordained. It would have been interesting to see what the Commissioner’s response would have been! I realised that our TC himself was not ordained as he - like most TCs - was commissioned before the Army started ordaining people! Would an unordained TC insist that I must be ordained to be an officer? I doubt it. Maybe I should have asked him…

   Tim
Tim on December 18th, 2009

4. As usual Geoff, interesting insight on a divisive issue that was recently debated in a private forum for former officers. Most opponents to ordination in our fellowship of almost 300 share your view; ‘I suspect that it had more to do with the Army seeking the validation of the status of our clergy class in the eyes of our fellow churches than anything else.’

   I doubt that many fellow church clergy know, or are concerned about whether or not SA officers are indeed ordained. From my experience and perspective the general public see uniformed salvationist as Christian soldiers/servants, pure and simple.

   When serving the homeless a hot meal on Sundays in my corps, it’s typically, “thanks Cap”, and sometimes, perhaps due the greying hair, a promotion and “ta Major !” Yet, my only commission; soldier/bandsman reserve. Last week while on a mission journey on behalf of the former officers’ fellowship to Latvia, soldiers and officers alike were referred to as comrades (under the flag.) This morning I will represent TSA in a Methodist pulpit, sharing same with my CO. Our epaulet colours are the same, minus a SA crest on mine. I wonder how many in the congregation, or indeed among the host clergy, will wonder who, if any of us in uniform, is ordained?

   Sven
Sven Ljungholm on January 24th, 2010

5. Good piece.

   I am a former SA officer and was ordained a minister and commissioned an officer. Apparently I am the rare one who indeed appreciates both and see both as unique titles and duties while being carried out in the same steps of life.

   My question is, when someone leaves officership, why do they relinquish both their ordination and commission? We were commissioned by The Army and ordained by God (in reality a continuation of the priesthood begun with Peter as it has been passed through the Roman Church to the English Church onto Wesley and the Methodist who born out The Army through the ministry of Billy Booth). While it hasn’t been clearly spoken, the priesthood bas been passed for 1967 +/- years through the “bishops” who began with Peter.

   It is easy to understand how the commission of officer is “given back” when you take the red off of your shoulders but confounds me when I try to understand how the ordination into the priesthood is demanded back by an organization while it was granted by God?

   Patti
Patti on July 16th, 2010

6. Patti,

   Interesting comments. I see where you’re coming from, however, I see it almost as the opposite.

   I’m not an officer. I’m a Corps Sergeant Major. I’m an officers’ kid. My grandparents were officers. My in-laws are former officers. My sister is a Soldier in charge of a 614 Corps.

   I consider myself to be “Commissioned” because I believe I am commissioned by God to do his work. It is irrelevant that I am not in “full time ministry” or that I am a local officer and a Salvationist instead of a Methodist or Lutheran or even Roman Catholic. It’s irrelevant that I’ve never stood on stage and saluted as the Commissioner read my name. Christ commissioned all his followers. That’s why they call it “the Great Commission” isn’t it?

   As for ordination, I find it an interesting historical practice.

   Recently I read a book by Will Willimon (a scholar and United Methodist Bishop) called “Pastor: the Theology and Practice of Ordained Ministry”. He went through the historical origin of the practice. It did a good job of convincing me that ordination is not properly something bestowed on a person by a denominational authority or even by God. It’s a calling of a person by a congregation.

   For example, I consider my sister to be ordained. She has never been to Training College or Seminary, but by virtue of the position she is in leading her 614 outpost she has, for all practical purposes, been ordained by her community (being the good missional Christian she is she might hit me for saying that, but oh well). My sister is recognized by her congregation as the leader of the congregation. In the event that she moves on to a different plan God has for her other than church leadership, I would argue that the ordination at that point expires (for lack of a better word) but that she would still be commissioned to live her life for Christ.

   I’m kind of interested how those of you who have been to (or will soon be attending) Training react to these ideas.

   “An army doesn’t carry passengers. In an army soldiers are there to fight, or support those that are on the front lines.”
   -General John Larsson

   Josh
Josh Garrington on July 17th, 2010

7. Josh,

   Soldiers are commissioned as local officers. However, this does not make them ordained. Ordination is historically a passing on of the priesthood and setting apart (keep in mind that setting apart does not infer that this makes one calling “better” than another).

   Patti
Patti on July 20th, 2010

8. Patti,

   I understand the distinction as it has developed historically. My point was that I believe ordination to be controlled by human position (i.e. how can you be a shepherd without a flock) while commissioning is something that God has divinely commanded not only for pastors but for all believers.

   I don’t believe that someone can be a member of the “priesthood” without a congregation (in some form) who recognizes them as such. Therefore, the way I look at it, Soldiers who are in charge of Corps or outposts could be considered “ordained”, while former officers who no longer hold a pastoral position would not be considered “ordained”.

   I’m happy to be convinced otherwise as this is still a very unsettled topic in my mind, I just haven’t heard a convincing argument yet.

   Thanks for the discussion. I enjoy it.

   Josh
Josh Garrington on July 28th, 2010

Leave a comment