ORDINATION #7 - Just ordain everyone!

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

Ihave a 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 appointed 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.

Milton said: “New presbyter is just old priest writ large.” 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.

ORDINATION # 6 - I Had A Dream! (Joe Noland)

Last night I dreamt that Jesus changed his plans with another “coming” before the final one, in order to give us second chance at getting it right. The denomination he chose to identify with was a bit obscured in the dream, but it was definitely hierarchical in form with clearly defined ecclesiastically ordained levels of authority, identified by rank and position.

He started at the bottom, following protocol, purposefully working within the system, conforming where necessary and inching up through the layered chain of command, obtaining each coveted title along the way until at long last, in his waning days (3 years before retirement, no extensions), the crowning moment came: “Head Honcho,” be it Pope, General, Archbishop, General Superintendent, Whatever?

Upon reaching that long sought after, hard fought for position, He used this authority to begin leveling the playing field, thereby flattening the hierarchy (Priesthood of believers, et al), thus bringing a semblance of equality and oneness to the Body. His work completed, and while ascending the second time, he said, “You won’t know the time of my next coming, that’s the Father’s business. Be my witnesses in Honolulu, all over America, even to the ends of the world.” In that Spirit the Church began to multiply and prosper, comparably to the period following his first ascension.

Those who followed, several Head Honchos later, began to carefully restructure the hierarchy as it had once been. With ordination, increasing levels, titles and infrastructure there came, also comparably, an ever-decreasing number in followers.

At this point I woke up drenched in sweat, not a dream, a veritable nightmare! In those waking moments of reality, the thought came to me, Were he here, would Jesus even entertain the thought of ordination or taking on a title: General Jesus or Pope Jesus or Archbishop Jesus?

Kind of a scary thought, isn’t it?

Remember the time when James and John, jockeying for position, approached Jesus asking, “Arrange it so that we will be awarded the highest places of honor in your glory-one of us at your right, the other at your left?”

Jesus’ response in effect was, “Better think this through, boys. You have no idea what you’re asking.” When the other disciples heard this they lost their temper and became indignant, maybe even a teensy weensy bit jealous.

Then we hear Jesus’ great discourse about “rulers who lord it over them and high officials who exercise authority over them,” saying, “It’s not going to be that way with you. Whoever wants to be great must become a servant. Whoever wants to be first among you must be your slave” (Mark 35-45).

Easy for you to say, Commissioner! I hear you thinking. Hey, I was just as surprised as the rest of you, perhaps more so. And besides didn’t Jesus also say something about the first being last?

Now that’s really scary!

Writer: Commissioner Joe Noland’s ministry can be summed up in three words: chaos, creativity and controversy - three elements implicit in any successful innovative endeavor. Cecil B. DeMille, renowned producer of Biblical epics, once wrote, “Creativity is a drug I cannot live without.” Joe’s mantra reads, “Creativity is my drug of choice.”  Access Joe Noland’s complete bio, among other things, by clicking into his website.

ORDINATION #5 - Clericalising the SA

Gordon Cotterill, an officer stationed at William Booth College in London, recently posted the following on his blog:

On the language of ordination…

It seems interesting to me that within TSA we are keen to maintain a certain line that causes frequent periodic debate when it comes to our non-sacramental stand …
I’m not sure if I have come across the same rigour of debate with similar issues. … it is interesting that the whole emphasis of ordination of officers doesn’t receive the same intensity of attention.
Recently as I watched the Commissioning of the latest session I was struck by how far our language has moved. It seems to me that the euphemistic use of ordination to explain commissioning has made quite some journey where now a given Territorial Commander declares to each cadet “I commission and ordain you…” (or words to that effect). It seems interesting to me that a choice of language to protect the kudos of officership with our ecclesiastical cousins has become so mainstream as to now even infer a supposed ‘higher calling’ of officership.But no debate, no walk outs, no resignations, no battle lines, no edicts from International Headquarters, no articles, no letters looking at such an impact on SA views on the ‘priesthood of all believers’ . Nothing to question the language of ordination as it, like a cuckoo, surreptitiously kicks out the centrality of dedication…. So why the lack of debate in one area and intensity in another?

› Continue reading

ORDINATION #4 - Does anyone care? (Gordon Cotterill)

Where has the debate gone?

I

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

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

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

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

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

Writer: Capt. Gordon Cotterill lives in London, England, is married to Kate and has two daughters Bethan and Eryn. He has been a Salvation Army officer for ten years and ‘cut his teeth’ in ministry with his wife as the corps officers at Poplar in the East End of London. The lessons he learned there in his day-to-day ministry, amid the chaos of the inner city, continue to shape his understanding and passion for biblical and grace-centred mission. His latest appointment as Spiritual Programme Director at the William Booth College, London now offers him the opportunity for the fusion and exploration of ‘mission’ and ’spiritual formation’ while trying to inspire a new generation of Salvation Army officers as to their role in God’s plan for His creation. Gordon keeps a blog where he mulls over themes of mostly, mission and spiritual formation.

ORDINATION #3 - Ordained to / for what? (John Harrison)

  What much of the wider church believes about ORDINATION by John Harrison

My father, an evangelical Presbyterian, ordained in 1954, brought me up to believe in the priesthood of all believers. Ironically. And while there are some aspects of faith and order I don’t fully understand, the priesthood of all believers is one thing I do get.

My extensive reading of the history of the church across the centuries leads me to the conclusion that things went downhill for the Church every time the priesthood of all believers was betrayed by the establishment of a separate priestly class. That does not mean things went pear-shaped when individuals and groups were set aside or commissioned for special tasks, such as the deacons in Acts 6.1, or the disciples in Mark 6.1, but when a group of people, invariably men, decided the rest of us needed a mediator between ourselves and God, and self select to perform that function while telling us it was “the call of God” and that Ordination was a pre-requisite to heeding that call.

The monopoly position of the priestly caste was one fatal flaws of pre-Messianic Judaism, and since then history has repeated itself. However, many of the great revivals of Christianity were sparked by the unordained and unannointed. Or were they?

The tradition from which I come has only two sacraments: Baptism and Holy Communion. No sacrament of ordination to the ministry, though some traditions do have ordination as a sacrament.

I have also been brought up to believe that it is that authentic celebration of the two sacraments instituted by Jesus himself that define a church - an ecclesia. So where does ordination come in? The view I take is that Baptism - which orthodoxy and the Creeds declare to be a singular event - is also the sacrament of ordination. The place where God through His grace, draws us into a relationship with him, and at the same time commissions, and marks, us for ministry. For infants, the realization of this commission takes place as we mature, “and grow in the love and admonition of the Lord” and is signified in our Confirmation. (Again, not a sacrament in my tradition).

 … where does Ordination fit in? It doesn’t.

Which brings us back to the priesthood of all believers. If Baptism is the Sacrament of Ordination, the calling to ministry empowered by the Holy Spirit, where does Ordination fit in? It doesn’t. Unless, of course, there is a need to create and distinguish a priestly caste, separate from all other believers, who have special functions which are to ….”proclaim the good news, heal the sick and cast out demons”? Hang on, is that not the responsibility of all believers? Because if it is not, what is?  Oh yes, all believers are to ….”proclaim the good news, heal the sick and cast out demons”. Uh huh.

So why are some people who do that “ordained” apart from their Baptism to do that, and some not? Unless ordination is simply an admission ceremony for an exclusive club of those who feel the need for a little extra, a spiritual top up, to get them going in ministry? The rest of us just soldier on with our Baptism certificates in our back pocket repeatedly hearing and answering the call to ministry but never hearing the call to Ordination. Who among us are the truly deaf?

 John Harrison “went forward” as a teenager at the 1968 Billy Graham Crusade in Brisbane, and was involved in the Evangelical Union at university. From 1979 he worked for the Australian Inland Mission - founded by Flynn of the Inland, and subsequently as communication director for the Uniting Church Queensland Synod from 1981 to 1990. He has written a number of books on Christianity in Australia , and today he is a lecturer in the School of Journalism & Communication at the University of Queensland.

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.

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.