Who’s in Charge Here?
by Commissioner Ken Baillie
Territorial Commander, USA Central Territory
Do you
remember when President Ronald Reagan was shot? To calm
jittery markets and anxious Americans Alexander Haig, White
House chief of staff, stepped to the media microphones to
famously pronounce "I'm in charge here.” He wasn’t, of
course, at least not under the United States Constitution. He
was just a White House staffer who seemed ridiculous for
asserting an authority he did not have.
“Who’s in charge here?” Google that question
and you will get 128,000 hits. It is a common phrase. It is a
subject of considerable interest to many people.
It is a subject of interest to spouses in an
officer marriage. Both must consider who is in charge. So must
the people in a corps regarding their officers. The answer
given has immediate effect for practical issues like who
chairs a corps council meeting or who carries the keys to the
building. It has to do with power and privilege.
Consider a field appointment, a corps where an
officer couple are appointed. “Who’s in charge here?” At
various times in our history we have given different answers,
as evidenced by the titles assigned. In some old Dispos the
husband is listed as the “commanding officer” with no title
other than “Mrs.” Not long ago my wife had occasion to look up
her officer career card and discovered that in one of our
earliest appointments her card showed no title, only the
place. So she asked an employee at an Army archive to look up
the Dispo of the time. There was no title at all for her.
There was no mention of her on the page. One could conclude
she didn’t exist!
But back to corps situations. In our long
history the titles have changed repeatedly: “commanding
officer” and “corps officer”; “corps officer” and “officer
wife”; “corps officer” and “associate officer”; and even
“commanding officer” and “assistant officer.” More recently,
at least in the USA Central territory, we have listed both
identically. He is a “corps officer” and she is also a “corps
officer”, and when listed together they are “corps officers.”
Consider the way couples are named. It used to
be “Captain and Mrs. John Jones.” The husband’s first name
was listed but the woman’s was not. She was just an anonymous
“Mrs.” We tried to solve it with “Captains John and Jane
Jones.” But Jane comes before John in an alphabetical
listing, so some said it should be “Captains Jane and John
Jones.” Placing the wife’s name first because of the alphabet
made it sound as if Jane was in charge, or was more senior
than John. So we separated the names and listed both “Captain
John Jones” and “Captain Jane Jones”. But that too became
awkward in many settings. From the platform we couldn’t just
say “Captain Jones” because no one knew which one of the two
was intended. Some got into the awkwardness of saying “Captain
Jane” without the last name, which is strange at best.
Recently I phoned an Army headquarters and without thinking
asked for “Major _____” to which the receptionist replied:
“Which one, Mr. or Mrs.?”
On reflection, why should the husband be
listed first? Just because it feels right? Here we must
admit that cultural expectations influence many of our Army
practices. If we are to actualize our rhetoric of equality we
will have to examine and change a number of cultural
assumptions.
Back to the question “Who’s in charge here?”
These days we are likely to answer: both are. But what
does that mean? How does that work out in practice?
Every officer couple works it out differently.
Sometimes personality is the deciding influence. If the wife
is an outgoing, extroverted, friendly type she may be the one
who works with the leaders on corps programming. Her husband
may be in his study working on a sermon. It might seem as if
the wife is the one in charge because she is more the ‘people
person.’
The same couple might give a different signal
on another day. The husband has a mind for detail, for
processes, for paperwork. He is much better than she at
finalizing the week’s bookkeeping, completing the report to
headquarters, and signing the cheques. Who is in charge now?
It must be the husband. He signs the cheques! (Hey,
just kidding!)
Some would say that in the illustrations above
we have given freedom for the couple to divide up the work
according to their gifts. She is good at greeting people and
he is good at business details. Some people feel more
comfortable with the man being viewed as ‘in charge’ when he
is signing cheques but less comfortable with the wife being
‘in charge’ when she is greeting people. Down deep we make a
cultural distinction: “She’s being friendly, which is nice,
but her husband should still be in charge.”
Why assume the married man officer is ‘in
charge’? Some evangelical churches answer the “Who’s in
charge?” question with the concept of “senior pastor.” He
(notice: he!) heads a team of other pastors and
employees. He decides the preaching subjects and preachers,
taking the majority of Sundays himself. He may be hired by a
church board but he becomes so influential that in reality he
leads the board rather than the other way around. When pressed
about “Who’s in charge?” he is likely to say that his biblical
role is pastor/teacher and his practical role is servant
leader. But what about his wife? Rarely is she ordained. She
is not expected to do or be anything – other than present and
pleasant. The Army is just about the only place where you will
find both members of a marriage ordained and assigned
to the same pastorate, so what other evangelicals say on this
subject is not very helpful to us.
What is the answer to the question “Who’s in
charge here?” Turn the question into another question: “What
is spiritual leadership?” That is a more significant
question. The ‘in-charge’ question smacks of power but the
spiritual leadership question points to what is more important
in the life of the church.
Does spiritual leadership mean a dynamic,
forceful personality? Some people seem to become the leader
in any group. They’ve been that way since they were
children. Active in school clubs and student government.
Often being chosen not just to be on a committee but to be the
chairperson, too. At the training college elected by fellow
cadets as the session president. “A born leader.” So, is
this what constitutes ‘spiritual leadership’?
Or, do we think an outgoing, charming
personality constitutes spiritual leadership? Easily meeting
and greeting the public. Joining the Rotary Club and soon
asked to be next year’s club president. Able to meet the city
mayor and councilmen without feeling awkward or intimidated.
Totally at ease hobnobbing with the rich and powerful. After
this corps appointment no doubt headed for divisional public
relations officer!
Or, for spiritual leadership do we think
engagement with people is most important? The officer who
remembers everyone’s name and whom everyone loves to be
around. Older people. Children. Local officers. The general
public. It doesn’t seem to matter; everyone feels befriended
by this cheerful, outgoing personality.
Or, for spiritual leadership do we think
availability is most important? While the officer couple have
children at home the husband will be more available for
ministry than the wife, so he is ‘in charge.’ Right? Not at
all. Such a conclusion is another cultural assumption: a wife
gives all the child care and the husband does not. But every
couple should be free to divide the family care
responsibilities as they choose. Some wives/mothers want
to be more involved in child care than their husbands. And
most couples find that family responsibilities change with the
years; it is a whole lot easier to have a high schooler than a
toddler! On balance, most of us men would be better husbands
and fathers if we shared home responsibilities more fully. And
that would make our wives more available for ministry.
You might say the discussion above is more
about personality leadership than spiritual leadership.
Probably so. Then how about servanthood? When an officer
demonstrates this grace people are impressed and blessed. But
people don’t usually equate servanthood with leadership. More
often they see it only as caring concern.
What about the formal moments of corps life?
Is the one who conducts an enrolment, a wedding, a funeral, a
baby dedication the “spiritual leader”? No, that would be
giving only a ceremonial meaning to “spiritual leader”.
Considering our non-observant sacramental stance we should not
confuse ceremonial responsibilities with spiritual leadership.
What about teaching? In some evangelical
traditions the spiritual leader is the one who rightly divides
the word of truth, who discerns the meaning of God’s word, who
teaches how to apply scripture to modern daily life. Yes, but
when in the course of a week? In the Wednesday night bible
study group? In the adult Sunday school class? In the weekly
morning service sermon? Ah, the sermon! Now there must
be the spiritual leadership of the corps! It is weekly. It is
public. It is central to our Protestant (implied) liturgy.
This is the leadership role, some will say.
There are many roles and functions for a corps
officer. Many years ago the USA Army published a book titled
“The Role of the Corps Officer in the USA.” It listed a dozen
roles to be fulfilled by a corps officer. But it did not
prioritize them, so it is no help answering the question posed
here: what is the role which equates with spiritual
leadership?
I don’t think a formal answer is to be found in
our polity or theology. An informal, implied answer is
provided by our culture. Our culture assigns a leader/dominant
role to a husband, a follower/submissive role to a wife. It
goes back centuries, maybe back to the dim mists of
pre-history. That reality has been researched, analyzed and
discussed at great length. Read Catherine Booth on the limited
role available to women in her time due to lack of education.
Consider the limited role in politics due to lack of the vote
until comparatively recent times in history. Enumerate the
constraints on financial and property rights of women until
recent decades. Scan the bookshelves of gender discrimination
studies published in the last three or four decades. Indeed,
it is an inescapable fact. Women have been consigned to a
subservient role in history.
History shapes our culture, and culture shapes
our theology. While we once made a giant leap forward by
asserting equality in ministry we have nevertheless struggled
to make it a daily reality. And nowhere has this struggle been
greater than in the way we assume roles for officer married
couples. Women and men may be equal in rhetoric but they are
still unequal in practice.
Some within our Army have been influenced by a
fundamentalist subculture. Within our ranks some tolerate
equality in ministry while holding to inequality in
marriages. The assumption is that a husband is God-ordained
to be the leader of his wife. This idea has a long history in
Christendom. And truth be told, William and Catherine
espoused this view. Though sometimes they made exceptions
overall they held to conventional Victorian views about their
marriage even while espousing equality in ministry.
In recent decades Bible-believing evangelicals
have called into question longtime notions of headship and
submission. They have reconsidered how to interpret rightly a
few proof-text verses so often cited by patriarchalists. A
faithful-to-Scripture view has emerged that sees Christian
marriage as a partnership of equals who submit to each
other. The literature on this is extensive: hundreds of
books, journal articles, conference tapes, etc. Not enough
Salvationists have read this new material. But some still
assert patriarchal headship/submission notions. If this is
you, dear reader, it is time for you to consider another view,
a biblical view, an evangelical view. (NB: Email me. I’ll send
you a reading list if you’re interested.)
In a Christian marriage the question ‘Who’s in
charge here?” should not even be asked because it is a
question about assertion of power. There is no instance in the
New Testament where Christian husbands are told to assert
control over their wives. To the contrary, husbands are told
to be a servant, to submit, to yield. The passage in
Ephesians which some are keen to quote about “wives, submit to
your husbands” is in fact preceded by “submit to one
another.” In fact, in the original language there is no word
submit in the phrase translated “wives, submit to your
husbands.” It says only “wives, to your husbands.” The
incomplete phrase harks back to the controlling prior verse,
which says “submit to one another.” The New Testament never
answers the question “Who’s in charge here?” because the
question itself is inappropriate. The right question is: How
can I serve, and how can I submit to my spouse, my corps, my
Lord?
This brings us back to the case of a married
officer couple appointed to a corps. Who’s in charge?
Both are. Equally. Fully. And they enjoy a wonderful
freedom in dividing responsibilities not by gender but by
gifts, graces, personalities and situations. What a blessing!
What a privilege! We’ve got a good thing here. We just need
to work harder at fulfilling its potential.
We have made progress. For a long time we were
guilty of assigning married women to roles based solely on
their husband’s appointments. A husband became a divisional
secretary and his wife automatically became the divisional
home league secretary. A husband was appointed financial
secretary and his wife appointed to League of Mercy.
Sometimes the wives were gifted for those roles, or began to
love them in time. But in many other instances that was not
so. We made assumptions by gender rather than suiting gifts to
roles.
But it is changing. Recently I counted every
married couple in the USA Central Territory who are not in a
corps, which basically means all the couples at headquarters,
the training college and the various institutional
ministries. There were a total of 77 such couples. I was
surprised and pleased that the married women in more than half
the cases -- 42, to be exact -- are not in traditional
gender-prescribed appointments. And a high percentage of the
remaining chose to be in the traditional appointments
because they love the opportunities of women's ministries and
community care ministries.
Among the 42 non-gender-based appointments
there are a wide range of roles capitalizing on gifts or
interests: teacher, curriculum developer, auditor, evangelism
facilitator, pastoral care specialist, multi-cultural ministry
developer, older adult ministry coordinator, divisional
secretary, etc. In addition, we've experimented with
assigning couples to work together at a headquarters similar
to the way they worked together in a corps, with exactly the
same titles, dividing responsibilities as suits them best,
e.g. both husband and wife are listed as territorial
youth secretary, territorial community relations secretary,
divisional youth secretary, etc. It seems to work well.
Some appointments are unique and require
appropriate skillsets. Those appointments should be given to
the one suitable spouse but not both. Trust me, you do not
want me to lead the junior soldiers program. You want my
wife. Similarly, you do not want my wife to handle the
bookkeeping.
Things are changing in corps. In our territory
we’ve asked DHQ staff to address emails to both husband
and wife corps officers. They’re both on Lotus Notes so it is
easy to do. Why not be sure they both know what is going on
even if only one of the two will handle a certain issue?
There are many stories from women officers who wrote to DHQ
only to have the DHQ officer respond to her husband
even though the husband didn’t write and won’t be involved.
If the married man is the one gifted for youth
ministries the DYL can look to him first. If the married
woman has a degree in business why not assign her the Power of
Attorney for cheque signing? If the married man is gifted for
pastoral care why not consider him the liaison to the
divisional community care ministries department? If the
married woman is gifted….. Well, you get the idea. Ministry
roles are not a function of gender. They are a function of
giftedness. That is good theology. Most everything to the
contrary is just cultural assumption and unreflected practice.
I believe in my wife’s call to ministry, in her
commissioning/ordination, in her gifts and graces for
ministry. She makes a superb contribution to the Army.
Likewise, I believe in women officers period! All are gifted
for ministry. All deserve equal opportunity.
Where there are men and women in ministry,
particularly married officers, the question “Who’s in charge
here?” is irrelevant. The Kingdom’s business is too urgent for
us to be diverted to issues of power and privilege.
Who’s in charge here? Not men over women, and
not husbands over wives. We are equal partners in the gospel.
|