ORDINATION #2 - Level Ground (Craig Campbell)

 It’s all level ground before the cross.

 

In the southern hemisphere it is the ‘Commissioning’ season in The Salvation Army, when Cadets are ‘Commissioned and Ordained’.  Now there are two related errors that can be made as blue epaulettes are made red.

 

The first error is to believe that this makes no difference in the minds and hearts of those we serve. Geoff Ryan (Ordination #1) is correct when he says: ” It is a ‘role’ and not a ’status’ thing …”. However, it seems that people actually want a priest, a bridge between themselves and God.  God, the “mysterium tremendum”, is simply too scary for people to come too close, and from the time of Moses (and before) we have wanted a go-between.  Thus we elevate others to be the priest. We ordain, whether formally or not.  The body of people effectively ordains whether we agree or not.  And it is a mistake to not recognise this.  People do expect more.

 

The second error is the larger error. This is when those ordained (formally or informally) actually come to believe that they are elevated, substantially different, of a higher essence, indelibly marked.  And the more senior in rank, the ‘more’ ordained! And over time, it seems, this error asserts itself more deeply and widely.

The ordaining of officers was announced by General Arnold Brown as a pragmatic response to the recognition of officers as clergy in parts of the world such as South America, and no doubt this was an important consideration. It is noteworthy that at the same time the person eligible for election as General of The Salvation Army was confined to those who came from officer ranks.  Soldiers were no longer eligible to be General.  The assumptions of higher status for those ordained began to be written into Regulations. 

… a desire to protect the privileges of ordination.

A new style of Lieutenancy in recent years brought a large influx of high quality people into ministry and mission within the Australia Southern Territory as ‘non commissioned’ officers.  I suspect that the rapid retreat from this accessible apprenticeship scheme by IHQ was largely driven by a desire to protect the privileges of ordination.

Believing in the ordination of officers as elevation in status leads to many problems. Firstly the original shape and dynamic of the Movement is based in the priesthood of all believers. Ordination as elevation inexorably robs soldiers of their ministry and mission.

… The Army becomes what officers can manage.

In a related way ‘ownership’ of The Salvation Army transfers to officers, and increasingly soldiers ‘leave them to it’.  The Army becomes what officers can manage.

A third problem is the difficult interface between officers and employees. Officers sometimes object to being managed by employees. Some views of ordination imply non-officer service as less worthy, refusing to value the skills and capacities of the non-ordained.

 …  unaccountable power

However the most profound problem arising from elevation through ordination, and exclusive ownership of the Movement by officers, emerges in the exercise of unaccountable power. The Army’s structure concentrates enormous power in the hands of very few officers at the various levels of organisation.  Checks and balances are not robust, often non-existent. Healthy exercise of power then relies on the goodness of those in power. This leaves room for a ‘dark side’ within the Army that is rarely named and far less reflected upon.  This though is a topic in its own right, for another time.

How do we manage the errors that arise around the problematic issues of ordination? Name the issues, think and talk about them, and look to the one who best reveals God to us, who took the bowl and towel of functional service, who laid aside the privileges of Divinity. 

Remember, it’s all level ground before the cross.

 Writer: Married to Laurel and with two adult daughters, Dr Craig Campbell was for 27 years a Salvation Army officer. During this time he completed Doctoral studies, with a research project Emerging Images of Mission in The Salvation Army.  Prior to officership Craig practised as a civil engineer, and over the last four years has managed a youth service that offers an individualised and educational response with disengaged youth.

5 Comments to ORDINATION #2 - Level Ground (Craig Campbell)

1. It’s surely the case that those who experience the dark side spend a whole lot of time reflecting on it, but can do nothing about it. Those who wield power in the absence of safety nets can continue with business as usual! (Thanks to the net, of course, reflection is now a lot more energetic.)

   Lack of safety nets is a life or death issue for the army in post-Christendom and postmodern contexts, because of the collapse of trust levels in institutional religion. It’s a do or die issue for all the institutional churches. Trustbuilding needs to be paid meticulous attention, and not just about money and child safety, but about how power is exercised, how conflict is transformed and how relationships are healed and restored in groups as well as between individuals. No safety nets turns the church into a revolving door that creates believers who then join the growing numbers of the (increasingly aggressively) dechurched.

   Dealing with the need to restore ownership and ministry to soldiers is the other, not unrelated, live-or-die challenge facing the army in the UK. The only way to make disciplemaking disciples is to understand that soldiers are the front line. The only way to be a church planting movement is to understand that soldiers are the front line. The only way to survive in postmodern context is to understand soldiers are the front line.

   I think all of us living in these missional contexts need to reflect on whether or not these are first order issues, because while it is seen as being of secondary importance, thought of as not particularly impacting the ‘real’ work of leading people to Jesus, we will continue to be helpless to adapt to our changing cultural context.

   Eleanor
Eleanor Burne-Jones on December 8th, 2009

2. Well said Dr Craig! The hierachy have got this so so wrong and it all seems like a sneaky con job in many ways to elevate officers who in fact should be examples of servant leadership not egotisical glory-seekers.

   The Lieutenancy program was the most inspired step forward in 50 years (come to think of it, probably much longer than that) and it’s demise is just plain dumb. It’s almost like there is a self destruct button somewhere over in London that someone keeps tripping over.

   I am an optimist when I say that the future of the Army is NOT with the officers but with the laiety. If the opposite is true then we are in BIG BIG trouble.

   Ordination is just another step away from what the movement is really all about. Do I hear William rolling in his grave?

   Peter B
Peter B on December 8th, 2009

3. Hi Eleanor,
   You really get the power question - I find that encouraging. ‘Trustbuilding’ and ‘transforming conflict’ are great ways of positive re-framing. Throw in restorative justice as well. Sounds like you should write something!

   Peter, sorry about the Dr thing - another form of ordination? The editor was kind in adding detail!

   Craig Campbell
Craig Campbell on December 8th, 2009

4. I suppose this is the natural way in any system where power is held by a privileged few, whether political, corporate or ecclesiastic. Officership is a closed club that can only be entered on the recommendation of other officers. Advancement and reward (whatever those mean) are decided by officers.

   We officers even have our own mythology to justify all this—we speak of ‘the call’ and how a simple ‘Yes, God!’ changed our lives from fruitlessness to powerful and sanctified triumph. We tell stories about the old days, when officers were really officers and soldiers did as they were told.

   And when we get the cabal together, we even have our own little rituals. I don’t know how it works everywhere else, but whenever we have an Officers’ Councils in my territory we have a spot where we all stand as we listen to the names of the officers in our territory who have died since the last time we met. It’s poignant, in a sad-yet-joyful way. But the lack of any mention of worthy soldiers who have been promoted to Glory makes the divide between us and them even more obvious.

   Still, I am noticing things in the Army today that suggest that this mightn’t last so long. We seem to be having trouble attracting candidates for officership, yet soldiers still seem to be happy to put their hands up for ministry roles. Non-soldiers seem to be happy to accept such roles as well.

   I suspect (and I think this touches on things Eleanor has said here and in comments elsewhere in this series) that officership is simply going to become less and less relevant to the Army in the future. There will always be a place for officers (for legal reasons if nothing else) but I think a lot of the power held by upon will simply be appropriated by those outside of ‘our’ ranks.

   I, for one welcome our non-ordained overlords.

   Cameron
Cameron on December 10th, 2009

5. I clearly see the need for soldiers to become more active and take on more leadership in the Army. However, I don’t see that the reason for the decline can be easily laid at the feet of officers who want all the control. We’ve evolved and yes, we have to admit our whole culture has changed. In Canada, the decline in church membership is not exclusive to us and the Chuch is trying to figure out just why that is. Many have made suggestions as to what they think it’s all about, but I suspect it’s a bit of everything.

   However, I did want to comment on the statement,

   “Officers sometimes object to being managed by employees.”

   A few years ago there was a soldier/employee who had the position of Divisional Secretary for Business Administration in our division. I remember having a conversation with him where he was sharing his view of which officer should move here and which one should move there. He was quite free on letting me know how he felt about it. It struck me at that moment that he had no idea the anxiety that he was creating - until I reminded him of the chaos that his ideas would cause in the lives of the officers and their families. For me, and perhaps I’m sticking my neck out a bit here, I’d like the person making the decisions about where and when I should go to know personally how it feels to have that done to them. I’m going to go a bit further in stirring the pot here and suggest that a soldier isn’t bound by the Army in a covenant that allows the SA to move them around the country to suit the organization needs. If a person wants to have the authority to run the organization, they need to be willing to make sacrifices - perhaps the kind that officers make.

   I should further add that that DSBA who was an employee earned an awful lot of money, got to make executive decisions for the division and didn’t have to move when he was told. There are also several soldier employees in the Canadian Territory at THQ who have similar positions of responsibility and influence - and make large salaries and who have the choice to stay in the same place, in the same job for as long as they choose. There are several who make six figures and who “manage” us officers well. We respect them. They want the best for the Army. They do their jobs well.

   No one in Canada could ever say that non officers have no place in running the SA! It’s quite the opposite.

   Oh well, I’ve really stuck myself out this time, haven’t I?

   ;o)
Kathie Chiu on January 29th, 2010

Leave a comment