A Future of Officer Training

We need pastors, not revivalists! says David Witthoff

he issue of Officer Training comes around time and again in SA discussion. It’s somewhat of a hot topic since so much development goes on in our SFOTs/CFOTs. I’d just like to share some vision, some hope on Officer Training myself.

What I wonder is what the future of officer training will look like. Already the scene is changing. I know many of the training colleges are now linked with Christian colleges near their locations. Continuing education is now a standard part of most curriculum as well. But where are we going with all of this? What is the goal of our education centers? What is their purpose?

Is the goal to one day have our training colleges on par with Christian colleges? Should we seek to make them on the same level as evangelical seminaries? Why should we be like them? In what ways do we need to be different?

Perhaps there is room to expand the idea of training itself. For one, why is it that our educational facilities are only for those who want to be officers? I know they are called colleges or schools for officer training, but our soldiery could benefit from the same kinds of instruction! Could there be a day when our institutions offered education for all Salvationists, while only commissioning those who wanted it? D.L. Moody’s mission in founding a school was to train “Gap-Men.” These were people who were trained in ministry but who stood between the laity and the clergy. They bridged the unfortunate social gap which sometimes appears. We could be training the same kind of “Gap-People.”

What about specialization as well? Can training expand to accommodate the youth worker, the social service worker, the theologian, the bible scholar, the preacher, the counselor, the worship leader, the children’s minister, etc.?

The old Methodist model of quick training gets people onto the field in a hurry, which is what is needed in a revival. But when there’s no revival you’re training people for what doesn’t exist. We need pastors, not revivalists. We need teachers and counselors and children’s ministers and all the others because we have churches now, not revival halls. Ask the basic question: What are we training cadets for?

loop20eps Are we training them for reality or for the reality of past ages?

Finally, what is the potential of training colleges? What is the limit to “education” as we, The Salvation Army envision it? Perhaps its time to take a look and imagine a bit. Let some new ideas flow as we try and realize our potential in regards to Christian education. It would be a shame to think too small in education. So what is the future you see for our training centers? What is the need on the field that we should prepare officers and soldiers for? What can you do to help us realize that goal?

And to those who staff our training schools:

How do you see our training facilities in the future?

What is your vision?

dave-w

Writer: David Witthoff is a Salvationist from the Oakbrook Terrace Corps. He recently graduated from the Moody Bible Institute of Chicago with a BA in Pastoral Ministry. Currently he lives in Hamilton, Massachusetts, USA where he is working towards a Master of Arts in Old Testament and a Master of Arts in Biblical Languages at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. David enjoys writing music, exegeting, sci-fi tv shows, running, soccer, languages and talking about the Army with his friends. His hope is to be the best soldier, student, and teacher of the scripture that he can be.

Wednesday, March 24th, 2010 Featured, Think

24 Comments to A Future of Officer Training

Dave,

You bring up some really thought provoking points. The thing that caught my attention the most is the topic of doing specialized training. I think if one day there was that option, of choosing a branch of ministry you want to be trained in while there, it would be really interesting. They say that officership is a jack of all trades. But what about people who are specifically called to youth ministry? I think it would be so great if we could offer something for those people.

Thanks for bringing it up!

Melissa H. on March 24th, 2010

I was just having the same thoughts this morning as to the exclusivity of CFOT to candidates for ordination. Not sure how it would work practically, but it’s an interesting thought.

Josh Garrington on March 24th, 2010

Dave

Interesting thoughts. Maybe it could be taken a stage further even…

“because we have churches now, not revival halls”… “Are we training them for reality or for the reality of past ages?”

Maybe We shouldn’t train for the past or even the current… maybe we should train for what we want to look like in the future (which starts a whole new discussion!).

Paul G.

Paul Gardner on March 24th, 2010

Hey David,

you might be interested in taking a look at the New Zealand Training College. Here, the first year a cadet does is all bible college, but at Training College with the training college teachers. The Training College is affiliated with the Bible College of New Zealand (BCNZ) and anyone who wants to can join the cadets and also earn the Diploma of Biblical Studies that the cadets achieve after their first year of training. Right now 3 of my friends are studying with the first year cadets. Some cadets enter training having already completed some of the papers for the Diploma of Biblical studies, they can then pick up extra papers of their own interest (through BCNZ) to further their study in place of those they have already done prior to entering college as a cadet. The second year for cadets specialises in Salvation Army studies.

The Training College in New Zealand also runs stuff every now and then for soldiers and others to gain some biblical learning. They have just started a series of seminars on holiness for those who are interested to attend.

Just thought you might find that interesting!! Could be worth taking a look at to see how some of this stuff could be implemented in the states.

Naomi

Naomi Holt on March 24th, 2010

By the way, I like what Paul said.

Naomi Holt on March 24th, 2010

David, Re your comment:
“Perhaps there is room to expand the idea of training itself. For one, why is it that our educational facilities are only for those who want to be officers? …Could there be a day when our institutions offered education for all Salvationists, while only commissioning those who wanted it?”

We already have that in New Zealand, and in Sydney, Australia; maybe it happens elsewhere as well? In addition, both NZ (though a relationship with a non-denominational provider) and AUE also provide specialist Youth Worker training. We would recommend it!

Harold

Harold Hill on March 24th, 2010

Whilst I would agree with much of what David has written I would have to disagree with the assumption we need Pastors not revivalists. A key issue in our “missional drift” as a movement has been that the more we interpret ourselves as a church and our officers as Pastors, the more we distance ourselves from the heart of mission which should be key to any Christian movement. If, as David suggests, we desire to train for the future and not for the past then a strong mission focus is essential. New Zealand and Australia Eastern Territories are suggested as Officer Colleges now allowing non-cadet enrolments – as someone heavily involved in implementing an “open college” model in Australia Southern some years ago I must add that college to the list of those openly accepting non-cadet students. A step, which as a college officer at the time, I would say enriched our training program.

In the “Education” section of The Rubicon you will find my Masters thesis from a few years ago on Officer Training Models. Whilst the research is getting dated I would have to say the ideas outlined are probably still well in advance of most college models around our Army world. If you are keen you could wade through the whole thing – but I would encourage a quick look at Chapters 5 and 6 to wrestle further with some possible ways forward.

Gregory Morgan on March 24th, 2010

Pastors as spiritual leaders for congregations is Christendom thinking, and we are in post-Christendom. Congregational leaders certainly need some pastoral skills, but if that is their main calling and area of service we are in big trouble. People in postmodernity are also a whole lot less likely to be happy to be identified primarily as being people who ‘need to be given pastoral care’. I know if I had COs who felt that was their main role I’d not be seen for dust! I’m a covenanted soldier and I want a mission team. It also comes across as patronising and infantilising to label the entire congregation by implication as needing ‘pastoring’. I don’t think that is at all appropriate for leaders in The Salvation Army.

Here is Stuart Murray Williams on the transition to post-Christendom church, an excerpt from a list of points: ‘From control to witness: in Christendom churches could exert control over society, but in post-Christendom we exercise influence only through witnessing to our story and its implications.

From maintenance to mission: in Christendom the emphasis was on maintaining a supposedly Christian status quo, but in post-Christendom it is on mission within a contested environment.

From institution to movement: in Christendom churches operated mainly in institutional mode, but in post-Christendom we must become again a Christian movement.’

I’d add that we live covenanted lives as soldiers. Soldiership is not a static state. Living a covenant - in any form - or rule of life, or a missionary calling, as surely soldiership is, requires us to have ongoing life-long vocational discernment and reflective practice on our missional lives, and this requires a leader who is a mission team leader. In a changing context such as ours I’d certainly say it requires us, soldiers or officers equally, to be involved in ongoing training and development all the time.

Eleanor Burne-Jones on March 25th, 2010

Melissa,

I think you’ve got the idea there. You bring up a good point that it may not be just a need to have specialization, but many people feels callings to only one area. I feel that personally in wanting to teach, but don’t feel a calling to some of the other areas of officership. Where does that leave those people? How could specialized officer’s fit into the structure? Those seem to be the follow up questions.

Paul,

Absolutely right! I speak in terms of training for reality with the future in mind, for sure. It is not entirely reactionary. The big question is how much you can use education as a means of affecting culture. We can train people for what we want (far future) but affecting culture is difficult. At the same time we should train people for the present (present being the current and near future culture). In this way our education is a give and take between responding to culture (immediate) and affecting culture (future planning). Make sense?

Naomi (and Harold),

Good to hear from you! Sounds like NZ is ahead of the game a bit. The interesting thing will be to see how is pans out in reality. I hope for the best. It’s important that NZ keeps the rest of the Army world aware of how things go since they seem to be doing things a bit different/more progressive. Keep it up!

Gregory,

Thanks for your input. I wonder about your perceptions of pastoral ministry and ecclesiology though. Perhaps in some way the true essence of pastoral ministry and “being the church” has been lost along the way, but I would disagree with you and say that being pastors and being the church is very missional. The terminology is not a lost cause. You say that the more we interpret ourselves as pastors and churches the farther we get from mission. But pastors and churches are very biblical concepts of the mission. Is it an issue of terminology that you dislike or the actual thing: pastoral ministry/ecclesiology (I don’t wish to commit a word-thing confusion here…)?

Eleanor,

Also thank you for your input. The historical perspective on Christendom is important as well. I would also disagree with you on pastoral ministry though. Again, I wonder if it is actual pastoral ministry you seem to dislike, or simply the form it has taken in our lives. Pastoral ministry is a biblical concept, and it is not meant to be patronizing in any way. A pastoral ministry that sees people “as dust” is not a pastoral ministry at all.

The idea of the pastor as a mission team leader is entirely appropriate as well. Paul tells Timothy at one point “do the work of an evangelist.” Surely “mission” fits into the pastoral work. What we must avoid is incorporating unbiblical, culturally-formed perceptions of pastoral theology into our understanding of pastoral ministry.

And so I lament the dearth of a properly formed Pastoral (Officerial?) Theology in TSA. I think our understanding is skewed because we don’t really know what Pastoral Theology/Ministry is, because no one has taught us. And so culture has misinformed us and we toss the whole thing out the window. Do you think we have an accurate picture of Pastoral Theology/Ministry? Would you still move to a different model? Or is it just the terminology?

Dave

David Witthoff on March 26th, 2010

Many good points made all around. As a new officer in my first appointment, I see so many opportunities for my lay people to avail themselves of education that would equip them in their role as pastors or leaders of the congregation. Booth College in Winnipeg, MB, was set up to be a lay salvationist bible college.

With Canada being the second largest country in the world, it’s difficult for my people to take advantage of this education, which is a shame because I know they’d benefit from it. Hopefully, more distance classes will be offered in the future. One thing I try to do in the meantime, is look for conferences, seminars, and learning weekends that I can send my people on. It’s an active thing, more than just putting a poster on the bulletin board and hoping someone sees it. It’s a lot of work to try to find education opporuntunities for your lay people - but it’s worth it!

Rob Jeffery on March 26th, 2010

Hi Dave,
It wasn’t a personal dislike of ‘pastors’ that was my point, though it certainly makes me cringe, but rather its association with Christendom.

If we see ministry in the five-fold model given in Ephesians, it’s easy to see the contrast between how a corps (or any church) would look like if it was led by people whose primary gifting was in apostolic or prophetic ministry, compared with how a typical Christendom church looks led by the pastors and teachers. Christendom shaped and minded churches are famous for having driven out its apostles and prophets, while the ‘real ‘ church remains in the control of the pastor ’shepherding’ their ‘flock’.

The apostle/prophet led form is dynamic, outward looking, and equipped to be a missional and disciple making movement, the pastor-led model assumes the primary need of disciples is to be ‘pastored’ rather than led as spiritual warriors into disciplemaking that will change the world.

Quite apart from the jarring paternalism of the assumptions made by ‘pastored’ churches, in the ecclesial meltdown happening across the UK and other parts of the world similarly affected, it is a recipe for the end of a viable Christian presence. In post-Christendom we need to move firmly away from the inward looking pastor-led model and into outward looking missional/missionary mindset.

There is nothing wrong with pastoral care - good pastoral care - provided for people who genuinely need it at particular times of their lives. We all go through periods where circumstances leave us vulnerable. It’s appropriate to have this gift and skill developed in the church, but it is a part of the whole picture, not the primary model. That’s my argument.

I’m a Messianic Jew, so I don’t relate at all to the idea of a particular person being in a ‘pastoral’ role. Some clearly have more pastoral gifts than others, but its’ far from the primary role of rabbi, which is first and foremost to teach and model the life for talmidim, his disciples. I guess institutional churches are bound to institutionalise the role into committees and teams, but in postmodernity that will again jar culturally with people who are looking for real, genuine, reciprocal and authentic relationships, not to be put in the role of ’sheep’ by someone who sees themselves to be in the role of ’shepherd’ and who then plays the role in the relationship. My fear is not so much that others in postmodern cultural context will refuse pastoral care even when they need help but that the very model of church itself will alienate people more than draw them in. The five-fold ministry can be lived out in informal ways.
E B-J

Eleanor Burne-Jones on March 26th, 2010

Certainly a subject worthy of consideration and discussion. In my current appointment as a Divisional Social Programme Secretary, the lack of officers suitably trained for social services ministry is deeply concerning. Generally speaking, we don’t show much trust to non-Salvationist professional social workers but at the same time we offer no real alternatives. The concept of offering streams of training to suit people’s skills/interests/vocational callings is particularly attractive to me.

I highly commend Greg Morgan’s aforementioned thesis for anyone seriously considering this subject.

Jason

Jason Davies-Kildea on March 26th, 2010

Dave,
I think Eleanor has already posted a pretty good response on the pastoral/missional debate and the need for new models of ministry in a post-Christendom world. But as to your question for me, “Is it an issue of terminology that you dislike or the actual thing: pastoral ministry/ecclesiology” - I guess I should offer some response. As an officer who has served in various roles but currently serves in “pastoral” ministry I guess it is difficult to say I dislike pastoral ministry, but in essence I probably do!

Not for personal reasons, as the pastoral model done well affirms both the officer/pastor and the parishioner and can be most rewarding. My dislike is because of what we have become, and I know you assert that they are biblical concepts but I would argue that our ecclesiological and pastoral models perhaps owe far more to history and sociology than theology. That does not make them bad or lacking in usefulness, but we do sometimes need to question our biblical assumptions. Our models of ministry have encouraged us to become a shadow of the mission focused movement that God desires of all God followers. The heartbeat of God that re-occurs throughout both the Hebrew Bible and New Testament is one that above all things seeks for grace to be extended to the outsider or the other. Pastoral may be “nice” but it so often misses the “other” that we are called into being to reach.

Jason,
In my years on College staff I was disappointed that we didn’t get further on the streaming thing. One major difficulty is that if a Territory or the Army at large can’t conceive of streaming their officers then how can a College stream their Cadets. In terms of Officer Training I do tend to like the medical analogy though, we train for general practice and then encourage a specialisation beyond that (of course we need to value ongoing educational development for that to work).

Gregory M.

Gregory Morgan on March 26th, 2010

Having now read the thesis, I’d just make a couple of comments on the broken-up approach of EET. A big problem initially was that cadets were put in charge of corps (not an internship) and then were leaving corps for months at a time for studies. And small corps were left fending for themselves. So the practicum wasn’t a real practicum, because there was no supervision. And it was a disaster really at the local level. Fortunately, that part has been changed and cadets are now being sent to different corps for each practical experience as assistants. Not all the places they are doing practicum have experienced officers, and I’m not sure what the criteria are for this mentorship role. However, the practical experience certainly appears to be working much, much better.

Cadets come in to Moscow for a month or three at a time (except for ones from Georgia who can’t get into the country and have to train separately ad hoc). Because this is not a full-time residential program, the learning is not spread out. The teachers are corps officers, HQ officers, sometimes non-Army specialists come in as guest speakers. I would venture to say that the quality of teachers is quite strong, but they can only leave their appointments for a short time. So they teach each subject for a week - or at the most two, at a time. So every subject is taught intensively, and cadets are cramming for nearly every subject. Not surprisingly, despite the fact that the content is all there - the retention of key things is quite poor.

When we talk with officers who were trained in Finland (or even in the early days in Moscow), they simply know more stuff about the basics of administration, programs, and yes, relating to people. I’d also say that while for the officers it was like visiting Mars, I think the majority of officers were not “spoiled” by this experience as we might think they would be. It turned out to be an experience of seeing how things could work (a functioning, open society), it forced them to live in another country for 2 years which is a great way to have your worldview stretched and expanded, they gained the experience of seeing Majors and Lt Colonels washing pots and peeling potatos as part of their ministry, and they made a positive impact on Finland (opened a corps and contributed to a renewal that got Finland to re-start its IFOT, in an original and progressive way)…

The folks trained post-Finland are not less capable, and they were not trained by less-willing staff - the style of study was just not conducive to absorbing and processing information and internalizing things. And we are having to make big adjustments of our expectations of new officers as a result, but we also now are making more of the pre-college time to develop our candidates before they get to college.

The cadets trained in this short cycle enjoyed their communal life - even with 14 people living in one flat sharing one bath/toilet (combined, not separate). But the stress of sharing one computer, rushing through material, meant they were permanently in cramming mode. (And then when they got back to practicum they were behind there with a corps that had been left abandoned for months…)

One of the benefits of the residential model is that you can have staff on hand to provide a learning environment that is conducive to retention, reflection and growth.

The Army is asking us to make a major turning point in our life when we become officers and it’s reasonable to take time. They also want to make sure they have made an imprint on all of us that they can’t do if we all have an excessively individual education plan. They are teaching us the Army culture of officership as they see it. (Parts we accept, parts we reject - but we have to get past the experience we had just in our corps as a soldier - or, I suppose, bouncing all over the place as an officer’s child.)

I would say that some of the issues in western “bubbles” is being overly observed (staff-cadet ratios are gulp disproportionate) and overly programmed within the setting. However, it would be quite possible I’d think, to develop a core curricula of essentials and teach it 4 days a week, with one day a week in a regular internship (corps/social center) for the first year. Summer Internship. In year 2, there could be some limited options of electives, 3-4 days per week with one day a week in a regular internship (if you were in corps the prevous year - than social, and vice versa). It’s natural that families, etc. would find the collective lifestyle hard, and I think that would be true even if it was less bubble and Big Brother-like. But a collective lifestyle is a really good challenge and if the Christian community is sincere and not a constant “meeting standards by those watching you”, then it’s a challenge that can make you more aware of how to relate to the world you exited for a time.

Maureen on April 4th, 2010

Hi

Just one point not touched on, I believe. These days the shortage of corps officers in some territories is a reality to be faced. One just wonders whether the Army “pond” has been “over-fished!” and needs time to restock.

Then the questions, “Are Officer training colleges primarily educational academies, or boot camps?” “Did we produce less able officers when the training took nine-months?!” “Should we be involved with remedial education to get some people up to speed for an academic environment?”

What about recruiting Bible School graduates from other denominations that share the basic tenets of our beliefs who, on graduation, have the theological background yet cannot always find positions within their own denomination.

Now there’s a pool to fish in! Our training colleges/schools could then concentrate on orientation to the Army for such recruits… focusing on its distinctives: spiritual, operational, missional, etc… on what makes us us!

… a BOOT CAMP (maybe the term should be BOOTH CAMP!) as it was originally when Booth’ Army saw such tremendous growth (even with “Bible-School ignorant” people!)

Is that an aspect worth exploring?

Terry

Terry Camsey on April 13th, 2010

I have to agree with Terry, we need Booth Camps which turns out people focused on wanting to see souls saved not what degree they can obtain.

Sorry Naomi, I’m from New Zealand and what we are producing these days leaves much to be desired.

Your humble foot soldier.

Roy Stephens on May 13th, 2010

Ouch!

Paul Gardner on May 14th, 2010

RE Ouch and everyone else who have added their comments, have a view of this http://tcspeak.com/blog/ it will do your heart good to hear what is going on and the results being obtained.

http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/6844873#utm_campaigne=synclickback&source=http://tcspeak.com/blog/2010/05/11/tcspeak-live-no-013-camberwell-and-taiwan-video-33-mins/&medium=6844873

Your humble foot soldier

Roy

Roy Stephens on May 18th, 2010

Just a quick blurb, if I’m not too late to the punch. This is mostly directed at what Eleanor and Dave have had to say. And, a disclaimer, when I make broad, sweeping generalizations, I only mean in the USA Central, where I have the most experience within the Army and have the clearest view of the problems I believe we are facing. Perhaps some of you will be able to relate. Perhaps not.

Firstly, after having nearly completed my “Bible college” ministerial degree (Intercultural)I can say that the desire I have from the Training Schools has done nothing but increase. Perhaps I have begun to wish too much of them, but after 3 years of intensive theological, philosophical, and cultural study in a BA program designed to make Seminary obsolete, I have only begun to grasp at how vast the realm of Christianity is, and only begun to flounder in the ocean of wisdom that exists from Scripture and early Church fathers and theologians.

Saying this, I have begun to have a real understanding of the inadequacy of the preparation we give to our cadets. This is something that has plagued my mind for a long time, and worries me. My thought process goes like this: if we do not train our Cadets, they can not train their Soldiers, who are the next generation of teachers, who then will NOT BE ABLE to teach their Cadets, since they have not been trained themselves.

Now, I realize that, in USAC, we have a two year program in the CFOT which includes summer and Christmas assignments for hands on training and mentoring. However, (and this is going to sound really snobby, but I don’t intend it that way, so I apologize) seeing the products of our Training School from the past few years leaves, in general, much to be desired. This goes beyond theological training, even, to just plain social skills. But that’s another matter that we don’t have to discuss here.

What I’m saying is this: I’m with Dave when he asks the question, “Are we training… for reality or for the reality of past ages?” We are in a post-Christian age, as has already been mentioned. However, I believe the implications of this are different than the assumptions made by Eleanor and others.

I believe that it is necessary to have an extensive knowledge base if you become a teacher/leader BECAUSE we are in a post-Christian society. Because Biblical truth and knowledge, philosophy, and theology are not common knowledge today as they were a few decades ago, it is important to be able to break things down for a generation as far away from God as the one we live in. The answer is not “stick to learning/teaching the basics,” but rather, those who take up the mantel of being teachers of the Word should be exceptionally equipped so that they can make such an extensive subject as Christianity easy for laymen to understand, but also be able to converse inelegantly and convincingly with the educated, should the need arise (a need I see more and more in our culture, say what you will). Furthermore, being of a mind to further the education of a congregation in the Way. When one comes to the conclusion that they need no more knowledge or feeding- that they are grown- is when they need it the most.

When I was a teenager I thought I knew everything. Who knows, maybe I did. However, now that I’m older, I have an unquenchable thirst to learn from those who are older and wiser than myself. This is an important role for ministers (pastoral and otherwise) to fill for their laypersons. Infantile and degrading as it may seem to some, I believe that the shepherding model Christ used to describe us sheep is perfect. I realize my helplessness. I know I need people to feed me (though that doesn’t take priority over feeding myself, now that I am older, of course).

Lastly, the 5-fold model of Ephesians… That was an interesting interpretation of the passage. I think I understand what you’re saying. How about this thought: I believe the 5 roles outline the way a ministry is to be founded- in order of how they are supposed to happen in any community: Apostolic, going before. The visionaries. Prophets, those who see and proclaim God’s plan for the people and/or community. Evangelists, those who win souls for Christ. Pastors, the “shepherds,” taking care of the “flock” as a picture of Christ. Teacher, self explanatory. This is when the community begins not to grow wide, as with the Evangelist, but grows deep. And yeah, I think these are all separate roles filled by separate people with the corresponding spiritual gifts.

So, in short (or is it long?), I believe the Army needs to figure out how that model of Ephesians works, and how we fit into it (maybe I should have just said that and been done, eh?).

Sorry for the length and lateness of the post. Grace and peace to you all.

-Dave Mantel

Dave Mantel on June 9th, 2010

http://www1.salvationarmy.org.uk/uki/www_uki.nsf/vw-issue/BD0A5657308DED138025772E002E73C0?opendocument&id=F3D6BF462BECD2388025772E0028A1F2

This is the last of the series by Lt. Col Ian Barr; I like the last paragraph:-

The salutary lesson we learn is that while we are seeking for God in our churches and chapels, Christ may well be waiting to meet us out on the streets, or in the dysfunctional home, or in the company of those to whom normal and accepting human society is a closed door. ‘So let’s go outside, where Jesus is, where the action is – not trying to be privileged insiders, but taking our share in the abuse of Jesus. This “insider world” is not our home. We have our eyes peeled for the City about to come. Let’s take our place outside with Jesus’ (Hebrews 13:12-14 The Message).

I can’t argue with that can you?

Roy Stephens on June 9th, 2010

Hello Dave, I don’t disagree with your point at all. I think the fact we are in such a post/pre Christian setting, arguably secular setting, means we need far more depth and breadth of theological training. But I think what is needed is not for a few individuals to get a high level of training and then be ordained and teach lay people. We’ve tried that and it doesn’t work - they don’t turn up for class, they turn up for bbqs and the kind of Bible studies that create a touching place between their immediate hurts and fears and God. The ‘laity’ leaves religion to the professionals and happily dons a sheeplike lifestyle. Almost nothing ever ‘trickles down’. Jewish culture is based on a whole culture of learning, a culture which puts ethical reflection at the heart of daily life. This is surely more what we need?
With regard to officer training, I have one worry that really keeps me awake at night (not that that helps anyone but I can pray!). So many of those I’ve met have no understanding of the cultural changes going on around us. They are modernity minded people trained and fitted to lead modernity framed and Christendom-shaped clericalised congregations. They are locked into a come-to-us understanding of what the army is all about. It’ll be the death of the army. The army isn’t even really giving its people permission to try to reach those in postmodernity yet, and some of us were born into it and have never experienced anything else - and I’m now a grandmother. I find the army culturally impenetrable, and it not only failed to reach my generation as we began to think for ourselves, it failed to reach the generations of my children and grandchildren. It now faces a painful ‘jolt’ if it is to start to try to be missional in this field.
Churches don’t handle painful jolts well.
Some of the denominations here are beginning to permit selection of some leader-applicants specifically for church planting and Fresh Expressions (http://www.freshexpressions.org.uk/). They then give them an entirely different training course, suited for their task - which is very different from managing a traditional congregation. The denomination undertakes not to move them out of pioneering work back into leading traditional congregations. Surely the army needs to do this, otherwise what it is doing is like a Victorian missionary organisation insisting on sending only White European missionaries to Africa and Asia to work in cultures to which they are alien, rather than working with those in other cultures to train up and send out those who are indigenous.

Warmest blessings

Eleanor

Eleanor Burne-Jones on June 9th, 2010

Dave Mantel,

I agree with a lot of what you’ve said. I’m a USA Central guy myself, so I’m looking at the same things you are. I couldn’t agree more that CFOT does not provide all the theological training an Officer will need.

A few years ago that really, really, bothered me. In the mean time I’ve come to a couple of conclusions:

1) The roll of Training College is not, and should not, be to teach Cadets everything they need to know. The roll of Training College should be to equip future Officers with the tools they need to continue to learn wherever they are. You said yourself that even after three years you’ve only begun to grasp the whole realm of Christianity.

Even if Training were changed to 4 years, or 6 years, there would always be more to learn. In fact, it would take a lifetime to even approach knowing everything, as such, continued study has to be a lifelong activity, which, in a practicality, means it cannot be limited to a school environment.

2) Our teaching paradigm is wrong. It should be the roll of the local church to teach Bible, doctrine, and theology. Not just the officers either. It’s the roll of the local leadership. That means you and I are responsible for continuing to learn ourselves, and to pass on that learning to the rest of our local Corps.

I really want to elaborate some more, but I’m short on time at the moment. I’d love your feedback on what I’ve said though.

Josh Garrington

Josh Garrington on June 10th, 2010

I wouldn’t argue with anything you just said, to be honest. In fact, I am pretty sure I have been known to spout off most of that in conversations about the Army (excepting the grandmother bit). I know that if the Army does not have something radical happen to it in the next hand full of years, we are done. We have been squandering out inheritance for far too long, and I believe that our time has run out.

What I would add though, take it or leave it, is that the ideas we have been discussing will only work if those who go out in an evangelical manner are prepared. And from what I know of the Army (again, speaking to my sphere) I think we’re in a 90-10 split- the 10 being the people I trust to take the Army where it needs to go.

In post-modernity, it is presupposed that the majority of knowledge comes from experience. The modern viewpoint is that Man can and should know all through study, etc. (very basic understandings of each, but go with me). If either or both of these are true, or even applicable at all (since, together, they have been the schools of thought for hundreds of years), the Army is failing on BOTH fronts. We accept officers in with little to no life experience (i.e. straight out of high school) and after two years of minimal “college” work, we send them out to lead corps.

Of course, the “God has called me” tends to trump any argument I can throw out, because that call is between the person and the Lord, but I don’t believe having kids stand up on stage at Youth Councils, declaring their “call” to the world, is appropriate, nor is it beneficial to the Movement. If anything, we should be discouraging people from becoming officers- for with that call comes so much responsibility (I believe Booth said something similar… Oh, and then there’s scripture).

To end, I don’t have any answers. Just questions. Maybe one day I’ll find an answer or two. Until then, I can only pray the Movement falls back into the grace of our Lord and fulfills her calling, and do the best that I can to move in that direction.

Dave

Dave Mantel on June 11th, 2010

And Josh, I agree 100%. Unfortunately, everyone else must also agree 100% for that paradigm (which I believe is the correct- or at least, more correct way to go about our Walk) to work.

Dave M.

Dave Mantel on June 12th, 2010

Sound and Fury

Slaves 5 Margaret Okubo, David, Johnny Gainey
What The Hell? (Part One: Bell's Hell) 12 Jim, Jim, Robert deidrick
Politics #1 : Political parties - An Erroneous Assumption 4 Rochelle Stockman, Terry Camsey, Phil
Murungu or Mwanangu 5 George, givesak, Andrea614Regent
Heaven without hell 24 Mary Davis, Cadet Nathan Swartz, Andrew Bale