That's the army as in military not the army as in Church Army or Salvation Army.
A couple of days ago I was at a training event and one of the participants before he'd been ordained had served in the army. I found it interesting discussing patterns and styles of leadership with him and the insights that he brought from serving in the army. I also found it interesting to contrast his approach with the approach of a colleague I had known some years ago who also before ordination had served in the army, though several years earlier.
That earlier colleague ran his villages (he was vicar of about five different villages) as he would have run a military operation. The vicarage he referred to as HQ. He issued orders to the troops (the laity) and the expected those orders to be carried out. He was quite clear that he was in charge and that what he expected to be done would be done. His was the authority. He gave the orders. If he had too much to do, he delegated to others but it remained his task.
I found that an interesting contrast with the approach of the person who had served in the military more recently. The soldiers he worked with and was in command of were expected to use their initiative and training for whatever task they collectively were dealing with. They knew what had to be achieved and it was up to each of them to get on and do it without having every step was spelled out to them. They were expected to know what others within the platoon were doing and to do whatever was necessary to complement their colleagues work.
I find it interesting to see the change in the way that the army exercises leadership. In the church we pay lipservice to the idea that all called into ministry by virtue of their baptism but all too often we seem to act as though orders have to be given from HQ and nothing can be done by the laity unless and until that told to by someone with a dog collar.
The army has changed its way of exercising leadership. Can the church?