“Serviceman”—for convenience, I’m using only masculine nouns and pronouns—usually means a person who is a member of the armed forces or someone whose work is to repair or service something. (Also, sometimes domestic workers—e.g., butlers or maids—are said to be “in service”.)
The military aspect of the definition of serviceman is an interesting metaphor for the service of a clergyman.
First, in both military and ecclesiastical service, there’s a distinct difference between the serviceman (clergyman) and the civilian (layman). The serviceman’s role is to protect and defend the entire civilian population, and, of course, the serviceman leaves civilian life when he enters military service.
Also both the military and the clergy have a hierarchical organization of authority. The military distinguishes enlisted personnel and non-commissioned and commissioned officers. Shifting the metaphor a little, this has some similarities to the ecclesiastical distinctions of laity, non-ordained ministers, and ordained clergy.
However, the analogies break down in one significant aspect, the permanency implied by ordination. “Thou art a priest forever” has implications that have some similarities with the military but which are conceptually fundamentally different.
A serviceman can have a commitment of temporary service or life service; he can be discharged, honorably or dishonorably, or retired. Some categories of retired servicemen may be reactivated in cases of national emergency.
An ordained clergyman cannot make a commitment of temporary service, only life. He never is “discharged” but dispensed from his commitment to celibacy, “reduced” to the status of layman, and forbidden, except in cases of dire emergency, from exercising the sacramental power and authority of his status as an ordained clergyman.
Interestingly, members of religious orders, unlike clergy, freely can make temporary or permanent commitments of service (vows). It is possible, even for religious personnel with solemn or permanent vows, to be entirely dispensed or freed from them.
Mercifully, the practice of dispensation, of authorization of an exception to a general rule, exists. However, it sort of begs the question if it used increasingly; it can reach the point where the very appropriateness of the general rule is called into question.
This isn’t necessarily bad. Although it could be interpreted as a growing laxity, it also could reflect development in the understanding of the matter in question.
What would ecclesiastical service be like if it had some of the practices of the military regarding its commissioned officers? For instance,
– allowing fixed, and renewable, terms of service;
– making regular formal performance evaluations (using some of performance factors of the military—e.g., job knowledge, fitness, communication skills, leadership, bearing, judgment, dedication, responsibility, loyalty, discipline, integrity, moral courage, selflessness);
– adopting a clear, stated promotion policy and procedure;
– having a separation policy providing for honorable and dishonorable discharges in addition to retirement;
– utilizing, in appropriate circumstances, a quasi-public judicial procedure like the military court-martial.
Older ecclesiology spoke of two perfect societies, church and state. There are things the state could teach the church!
5 May 2019