Emerging Information
Usually I have questions to ask that are meaty and tough. Some of you are quite vocal. Some of you have said I hope someone in positions of power reads your blog. What am I, chopped liver? ;)
Well, Janet and I have an opportunity to share a presentation with the Territorial Executive Council next week. For those of you who don't know SA slang, the TEC is all of the Divisional Commanders, and Territorial Leadership, including the Ambassadors, Territorial Commander, Chief Secretary, Program Secretary, Personnel Secretary and Business Secretary. We have the privilege of sharing 30 minutes on the Emerging Church and The Salvation Army.
The presentation is supposed to be "educational." We are to give a brief overview of the conversation and relate how we might interact as the Army. I have a personal agenda as we share on this matter. We will thinking about the theology, missional agenda, relational traits and evangelism style of the emergents. I think, however, that if we don't listen to you we may be guilty of missing something in the presentation that is important for someone to hear.
We want your comments on this matter. We need our very bright, articulate and vocal friends to share with us some positive information regarding the emerging trends and what you think this group of leaders in our territory really should know and experience.
So if you had your chance to share the emerging church with our TEC what would you want them to know? What is the change we need to make? What is emergent about The Salvation Army? What about us is still stuck in modernity? Are the Articles of War Emergent?
What do you think? Let me know quickly, we need to finish up this weekend.
Well, Janet and I have an opportunity to share a presentation with the Territorial Executive Council next week. For those of you who don't know SA slang, the TEC is all of the Divisional Commanders, and Territorial Leadership, including the Ambassadors, Territorial Commander, Chief Secretary, Program Secretary, Personnel Secretary and Business Secretary. We have the privilege of sharing 30 minutes on the Emerging Church and The Salvation Army.
The presentation is supposed to be "educational." We are to give a brief overview of the conversation and relate how we might interact as the Army. I have a personal agenda as we share on this matter. We will thinking about the theology, missional agenda, relational traits and evangelism style of the emergents. I think, however, that if we don't listen to you we may be guilty of missing something in the presentation that is important for someone to hear.
We want your comments on this matter. We need our very bright, articulate and vocal friends to share with us some positive information regarding the emerging trends and what you think this group of leaders in our territory really should know and experience.
So if you had your chance to share the emerging church with our TEC what would you want them to know? What is the change we need to make? What is emergent about The Salvation Army? What about us is still stuck in modernity? Are the Articles of War Emergent?
What do you think? Let me know quickly, we need to finish up this weekend.
posted by Larry at 4:26 PM
47 Comments:
Wow! Here’s all that you need to tell them in a nutshell…I joke.
There’s lots I’d like to say, and I trust that you’ll probably cover most of it. But the following are a few positives.
The Army is looking for leadership. We’re desperately short on it. At least that’s what those in power think. They look at our training schools and see numbers dwindling (18 in this year’s class here in the UK). But the leadership they’re looking for isn’t that far away, it just might not be wearing red stripes on its shoulders. People who are not officers, yet are truly dedicated to mission and social justice, are taking up their swords when given the chance. These are often experienced people, looking to use their gifts more fulltime for God. But, in many cases (holding hand up), they have specific training and feel a specific ministry calling and aren’t keen on being moved to a position that they have no gifts or passion for. The non-officer DYO thing is working here in the UK. Maybe it could work other places too. Likewise, more and more non-officers are beginning to plant and lead local Salvation Army churches. And it’s working. These are people who (often) already have their lives planted in a community and are prepared to live in and serve in that community for the foreseeable future. This is great news!
Second, the Army’s mission statement is very relevant to our time. More and more people are beginning to see that money alone is a pretty hollow ambition. They’re looking for things that matter. They’re looking for ways to give back. They’re beginning to embrace things like free trade and clothing that isn’t made in sweatshops. They’re beginning to embrace recycling and safe and legitimate ways of giving to the needy. This is good news! I was in a town not too long ago where the local Quaker congregation opened their hall on Saturday’s to be used by local artisans and people who believed in an organic peaceful lifestyle. The hall was filled with booths selling everything from clothes to cakes. And it was also filled with information on free trade, etc. I stood there and wondered why the Army in that town hadn’t opened its door for something like that. And, upon visiting with the local CO, I found out why. Without going into too much detail, the Officer had completely missed the message the people had embraced. And he had completely missed that this message was our message. Our Sunday morning services absolutely do not relate to today’s culture, but our mission does. We have a Corps here in London that takes one Sunday a month to go out and do community work. They do it instead of morning worship. In fact, they call it there “act of worship”. And that Corps has more people “attend” that “worship service” than any other worship service during the month. People from the community are just showing up to this thing. And, as they clean up the community, or paint a house, or plant some flowers, the Christians from that Corps are beginning to have conversations with these people who have come along side them. And their Corps (especially its small groups) is beginning to grow as a result of it! This is good news! Our mission and calling is soooooo relevant!
I guess it comes down to this Larry, let’s not miss the point. As Major Chick Yuill once said, “Outside of the gospel, everything else about our church is negotiable.”
Thanks, Larry, for the opportunity to possibly speak into what you'll have to sum up for the TEC. I don't know many of them personally, but I'm just not sure that many of them will actually "get" the emergent thing. It seems to me that many of those who have "risen through the ranks" have done so out of adherence to the Army's current system (and perhaps just as many by qualification and merit.) But I want to be hopeful that the message you bring will not fall on deaf ears, but rather fresh and open hearts. (Ok, feel free to share anything FOLLOWING the current paragraph - :p )
i think to some people, emergent looks like anarchy. They hear people calling for "a complete dismantling" of the way church operates or a reconstruction/deconstruction of its systems and think, "How in the world will we operate if everything is taken apart?" To be fair, there are probably some anarchists who have slipped into the emergent conversation.
I think one of the best things the Army could do is to trust a group of young (wise) Salvationists to interface with the emergent conversation - it is a conversation. This whole emergent thing seems to be asking a lot of questions and not claiming to know a whole lot of the answers - refreshing.
One difficulty I foresee is that in bringing the emergent conversation to the leadership of the Army, it has the potential to come across as attacking the very structures that some may think make us what we are (e.g., uniform, covenant, officership, leadership, soldiership, corps buildings, etc.) - in reality it may just be that what we are needs to be translated rather than completely replaced (translated as in modern to postmodern).
Drew once said about the Church that we're "fiercely self-preserving." Funny enough, Brian McLaren says that the Church needs to be "oriented toward the needs of the world rather than oriented towards its own preservation". That sounds an awful lot like Booth's "Vision of the Lost" to me. The difference with emergents is the language that is being used, which, to me, seems more faithful to Jesus' Spirit than phrases like "winning the world".
I think I may have more - but I need some sleep. (:p}
Larry, I'm glad the leadership seems like they want to know what's going on here on the field.
Tim, great comments. I love the idea of the corps that is doing service worship and the Quaker congregation as well.
I have had conversations with some friends about why the Army, at least here in the US, has seemed to forgotten the more militant calls for social change. I'm right in the middle of the new Roger Green Bio of Wm. Booth. It's pretty good. I just love the fact that the Booth's "took on the world"...well, their Victorian world anyway. They put women in the pulpit before most. They pushed for changes in matchstick factories, etc.
There are many social changes that still need to happen...
I don't know. Just a few ramblings.
Dave
Larry,
Here’s some food for thought. Forgive me if this overkill. This kind of stuff is pretty much all I think about.
We live in a culture where people insist on choices and desire to have customized experiences. George Barna says that in the marketplace, the churches that have suffered the most are those who stuck with a one-size-fits-all approach, typically proving that one-size-fits-nobody. If the Army is going to adapt to the changes of the culture and be relevant to the present and future generations it will need to at least consider some of the following:
1. The Mission: We presently have two missions. One is “to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ” and the second is “to meet human need in His name without discrimination.”
Jesus said, “No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other (Matt 6:24).” Many officers are frustrated with the divided responsibilities of running an organization and pastoring a church.
It was the twelve Apostles that said, “It would not be right for us to neglect the ministry of the word of God in order to wait on tables (Acts 6:2).” The mission to make disciples will need to be clearly stated and practiced if we are going to move forward in mission.
(Note: The Southern Territory’s mission statement is very good. It clarifies how service fits within the mission of making disciples. It may sound like I disagree with Tim, but I don’t. I agree with him whole heartedly. My point is that many officers are divided between growing an organization and advancing God’s Kingdom. The Army needs to not only declare the mission but practice it.)
2. The Uniform: What happens when a generation emerges that does not value the traditions of the Army or respect its system of operation? How will the Army respond? We live in a culture where individuality is very important to many people. What we wear does matter. Maybe the Army could consider a modified uniform consisting of “official” polo shirts with slacks or khakis during times of corporate worship. (I’m not suggesting we impose this on everyone like they have done with the uniform but simply make alternatives an option.) This one is tough because it threatens the perceived identity of the Army. “You can’t have an Army without a uniform?” Ever heard that one? Change this one and all kinds of doors can open. I believe this needs to happen in order for us to not only move away from the institutional model, but to keep the mission the mission. (I can expound on this if I need to. The uniform changes our mission from “making disciples” to “making uniformed wearing Salvationists.”)
3. Longer Appointments: I’m in my third appointment in 8 ½ years (Two 4 year appointments and I just got to my third). Honestly, I have kicked my butt cleaning buildings, building buildings, starting new programs, taking crap from pharisaical legalists, and made some very difficult decisions that my predecessors did not make. By the time four years role around I have the right people in the right seat on the bus and we’re finally beginning to move. Then, that lovely phone rings, I pack up my three kids and dog and start over. I really struggle with this one. Do I really want to spend the rest of my life starting over every few years? (Only if God says so.) I’m convinced that this is one reason the Army continues to be ineffective at building God’s Kingdom. Its authoritarian command structure won’t let anything significant happen because command heads keep moving. (I have some ideas on how longer appointments might happen, but no matter how you slice it, this one’s tough.)
4. Clear Expectations. Officers need to know if they are succeeding or not. Just exactly what is expected of us anyway? It seems that many officers are being “promoted” (for lack of a better word) for not doing very much at all. How do we measure success? What does it look like? For me, it’s the growing of God’s Kingdom and it is measurable.
I could mention the training of Cadets and the commission of local leaders. (Hey! What if the Army became a hopping ground revolutionists— a place where people too radical and independent for the local community church were naturally drawn?) Anyway, I’ll stop there. This probably isn’t what you had in mind. But I have been praying about these very things for last five or six years. Maybe if you guys can find some answers the South will follow your lead. I will pray for you and your presentation.
Blessings,
Bret
If I were given my 30 minutes with the TEC, (which let's face it will never happen - I'm female, under 45, and a non-officer! so I'll live vicariously through you!) I'd show them the clip in the Eddie Murphy movie, "Coming to America." Where he is standing waiting for his bride to come down the aisle and he assumes it is the one his father picked for him; when she unveils herself, he realizes that it isn't the bride his father picked, but the one he picked. The conversation that ensues is that Eddie's character says to his father, the King, that he broke the rules, the protocol, that he wasn’t allowed to marry a commoner, that he had to marry someone of status; to which the King responds with something like, "Well, when you are King you can change the rules!"
I kind of feel like we are so entangled in bureaucracy that we cannot seem to get ourselves out of it. We are always looking for a precedent; aren’t we men and women of faith? People who trust in God? Did the Israelites need a precedent to look for the Promised Land? Can’t Moses be our precedent; his faith in God was challenged, expanded, frustrated… We do not live in faith; we live cynical lives! We live a spirit of control? Do we truly give God authority? We always seem to be making sure that it is done right! I am tired of lip service; I am tired of not seeing things move quickly enough; maybe its God’s timing, but it feels like we give ourselves more work. I am done with committees asking for my opinion, or opinions of others, feeling like we made a breakthrough only to be smacked down, with a “better luck next time!” smack on the back. Honestly, do you care what we think, need, CRAVE? I see a people who want to be a more authentic people of God; they want better teaching, and more empowerment. Stop telling us we are the greatest if the actions are not going to back up your words.
I know that the disorganization of people and things scares us, but we haven’t even tried loosening the reigns. Is it a bigger mess if we ignore the problem, or if we try to attempt to fix it, and mess up? It’s still a mess; the difference is we cared enough to try! Unconventional doesn’t always work – I’m not one to try different just because, but I am tired of doing what doesn’t work, just because that is the way that we have always done it.
I love the Army, and I will not leave, but my passion for it might.
PLEASE take a look at what this guy has to say about the emerging church and the army - or as he calls it, The Emerging Army
I think it (and the comments) will benefit this discussion...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I long for leadership in my corps that doesn't have red stripes on their shoulders so if you're not feeling used where you are come to Ellwood City, PA. I'll put you to work. And while this is a small corps, I've got loads of ideas that can get you moving.
I'm always hearing people talk about what's wrong with the Army, but there are never any answers. So, perhaps when people start coming up with solutions to the problems, perhaps people will start listening to the emerging "leaders", officer or otherwise.
So, then if you were the TC, DC, or CO what would you do differently?
"What can COs do on a corps level to achieve what you are asking?"
"What practical steps can be taken to draw young adults who have a desire for mission and social justice?
What are you looking for in a church?
I think answering these questions and offering solutions will speak volumes to the old Majors and Commissioners.
Thanks Laura for weighing in. I guess I am one of those "OLD" majors...Ouch!!!!
Hope you are doing well.
Hi!
I was lead here by Surrendered - he references my thoughts on emergent Army. I thought I might throw in my hat and see what I came up with.
Emergent to me is about simply listening to and watching what God is up to. It's not putting Him in a particular box and saying that's the only way we can work (some may call this traditionalism...). It's about freedom to explore, about adapting the means but not the message, whilst at the same time figuring out what Jesus was really going on about. It's about saying - hey, let's be incarnational, let's not be commuter church anymore.
I love emergent because it's proud of the past - it looks backwards for inspiration as well as forwards to where God is leading us - the Acts church, the early church fathers, the reformation, the Moravians...I could go on.
I believe the Army will always struggle to deal with emergent whilst it expects emergent to 'follow the rules'. Emergent leaders will either choose not to join the 'upwards' trend (ie to DHQ etc.) or be feared, and thus left alone. One glance at the high council tells you what I mean.
I would want to tell your TEC that emergent army is passionate about being Salvationist to the core. But that this is much more than what we look like or what kind of music we play. We've got ALOVE here in the UK (www.salvationarmy.org.uk/alove) which is helping us rethink our values - worship, discipleship, mission and social action. Make these the core of what we do and we'll be army, even if we wear uniform or play brass bands.
Finally, a testimony - I'm a DYO too - my first appointment. I know the frustration of being part of the system, but also the great chance to influence thought in the system. DHQ/THQ need to say "if this is of God, there's nothing we can do to stop it. If not, it'll disappear" - kinda biblical eh?
Hope this helps!
Believe it or not, I read through Bret’s entire post.
I don’t think it can be expressed enough how important longer appointments are. In fact, I don’t really see why we move officers from one Corps to another at all. What’s the point? If an officer is being affective, let him be affective. If he’s not, move him to DHQ : ) Sorry , had to get that one in.
However, I do have to disagree with one thing Bret said. What’s cheesier than a group of people all wearing the exact same military style uniform? A group of people all wearing the exact same polo shirt with khakis. It’s 2005. Can’t we just accept that that good idea just isn’t really a good idea anymore? Having said that, none of this really matters because younger generations are beginning to faze the uniform out on their own. The question now is, how will we recognize members when nobody is wearing a uniform, and nobody is interested in signing the articles of war? How will we recognize members when people are simply there to worship and to worship by serving the community? Are we prepared to change to meet a changing culture? My guess is, not yet. Not from a territorial level anyway. But it is beginning to happen from the bottom up, and those working divisionally and territorially are being faced with these questions.
Mhairi has shared some amazing thoughts.
Laura, you are faced with a dilemma because, to meet the needs of the emerging church, you might be perceived as setting aside the needs of the former. The emerging church isn’t interested in corporate meetings. They crave intimacy.
What practical steps can be taken to draw young people who are interested in mission and social action? Well, I suppose that depends on what type of mission and social action you’re involved in. But getting out in the community and being seen involved in social action would be a good start. Don’t expect them to come knocking on your door, asking if they can get involved. Another is simply offering opportunities to get involved in authentic social action. Believe it or not, I don’t think the Army is actually good at offering people opportunities to get involved in authentic social action. In fact, during my five years living in Pittsburgh, I was only offered the opportunity to get involved in social action twice: once to serve Christmas dinner at a hotel, and on Friday nights out serving and praying with the homeless. And I probably wouldn’t have been offered the second one if I hadn’t already had a relationship with the local officer in charge of that. We’re surprisingly bad at giving people the opportunity to experience authentic social action.
Finally, what am I looking for in a church? I stand with a multitude and cry, authenticity. I’m not looking for a fill in the blank meeting, but I’m also not looking for a meeting where somebody is attempting to conjure up the Spirit. I’m looking for authenticity. I want to sit with a group, study the Bible, and talk about what this really means for my life. I want to talk about justice, and mission, and social action, and then go out and practice it with my church family. I want authenticity and intimacy.
It comes back to personal relationships. These can't happen when officers are moved so frequently. and yes, i think that it is already happening from the bottom up. unfortunately, it seems that those in 'higher' leadership have been so far from the 'front lines' that they have forgotten what it is like to have the passion to minister and lead on a local level. (I am not suggesting they don't have passion in their own ministries). But it's different and the decisions they make are affecting (or, rather, not affecting) the way the Army works (and sometimes doesn't work). there are many a corps that have no real relationship with the community. it's just a building, some people go there for food, others for soup kitchen, others for counseling, and still others go there on Sunday.
It's too much, i think. Back to the basics of building a personal relationship with God.
What if the Sunday Morning "HOLINESS MEETING" actually became more like a Bible Study. Around a table, or on couches and chairs (I know this is physically impossible for some of the larger congregations). Forget the pulpit, the band, the praise band, the pews. forget junior soldier class and junior church, but bible studies for age groups... thinking of my own church and the relationships that are there, or more accurately, not there, that something like this might actually light a fire. There's no chance of sitting back and letting things just wash over you, but actually sink in and become a part of you.
I get worried that I think too much about how it couldn't work that it never happens.
So here is a question for all of you. Do you mind if I print these comments? I know surrendered will be dying right now. I promise, I will not print that first paragraph.
I will keep names off. If this is something you wish not to have published, please let me know. I will be sure to keep you confidential and will collapse the post before my presentation.
If my rambling comments help you get these points across, by all means.....
Larry,
You can print my comments.
Tim,
Thanks for your comments. I have to agree that a group of people wearing khakis and polo shirts would look pretty cheesy. I was actually referring to the officer’s dress when I suggested that. I wasn’t suggesting everyone wear polo shirts. Soldiers could wear whatever they wanted.
Blessings,
Bret
Not to be the total cynic in the bunch, but I just have to say it...
30 minutes to talk about the emerging church and what it might mean for the Army moving forward?
The impossibility of that proposition is laughable. Larry, maybe you should have Janet do the talking on this one. You'll still be revving up in your preamble and the bell will ring.
Happy for you to share any of this Larry.
Drew, I've been working very hard to hold me tongue about the 30 minutes. Originally it was an hour and even then I thought it was a rediculous notion. It actually speaks volumes as to how important they understand this conversation to be. I think I'm clinging to the idea that something might be said that would peak thier interest enough to carry on the conversation to another date. ??? Here's hoping.
If my comments help at all feel free to use them.
30 mins is a 'door ajar' - use your time to blast it wide open! The non-cynical side of me says 'wow, at least they're starting to listen!'
Martin
Thanks for the permission. By the way, Tim and Drew, I got them to give me more time. I thought I would have an hour. I got the note it would be 20 minutes. So we negotiated a 50% increase in the time allowed.
I think any time given to this subject will not be enough. I am giving out the book, "Making Sense of Church," some articles from theooze.com, next-wave.org and some other sources. I have also put together a list of about 20 books, in hopes that someone will want to follow up on the reading. I have already given Janet and Rick Munn a great deal of reading.
I am hoping that the crew will surf the web, read a bit, have their interest piqued and then we will go from there.
We spend 60 hours in class time on this at 117.
Pray for us on Wednesday. Our presentation begins at 2 (Eastern time) I guess that would be what 7PM for you Brits and your imports.
Unpacking church will be tough to do that day. My fear is that if people get too defensive, they will shut us out. By the way Drew, I have typed out a script. Janet has a great portion of the presentation.
Do I get the idea you all think I ramble?
Curtis,
Statements like “we need to stop accepting government money on all levels” makes me wonder what it is you do for a living and, if its ministry, just what kind of ministry you are involved in?
I used to think that accepting government money was as good as deleting the gospel from our programming, until I began to see that Jesus’ life, and therefore his gospel, involved more than just preaching. It also meant feeding and clothing the poor, healing the sick, and raising the dead.
Listen, if we were a church who’s members actually tithed, an argument could be made that we shouldn’t need the government’s money because we, the church, should be willing to give the needed money ourselves. Unfortunately we’ve raised up generations of Salvationists who have become dependant upon the army and who therefore expect the Army to pay for everything they do, including mission trips. So, even those among us who aren’t needy are sucking the Army’s resources dry. This, in turn, makes it necessary for us to turn to the government for assistance.
In my own community, there are agencies which raise funds for the type of community work that we do. Their job is to raise the money and then find organizations who are doing good work in the community to give it to. I, like you, wish we had the ability to raise the funds ourselves. I think it would make an amazing and important statement to the lost. But, as we have no congregation to draw from, we have no choice but to spend all year applying for grants.
I hope that this didn’t come off sounding harsh. I didn’t mean it to be. It’s just that I never hear people who are actually involved in community ministry make statements like “we should stop accepting government money on all levels”. We know the harsh truth.
nicole,
good to hear from you!!!! hope you and phil are in good form.
i think the conversation is less about shuffling the deck chairs and more about reimagining church. I hope you got to read Martin's blog.
I am happy for your corps and its connection with community. I think it needs to go deeper and hope it will. When the regulars are the caseworkers and when they carry that load, church in the SA will start to emerge. It will not be just a Sunday thing, but then again it might. The beauty of the emerging church is that we do what the Spirit leads us to do. The organization and its tenets do not hold as much sway as does the Spirit. It seems as if that may be taking root with you and Phil, in your corps.
It will be a long hard road. I think though you will find that the people who are these emergents who you will attract, will have a different mindset about practice, although love our ethos...(This is a word I stole from Drew Forster.)
Can I suggest a book for everyone....Making Sense of Church, by Spencer Burke. Dan Kimball's "Emerging Church" will also be helpful in getting everyone's feet wet regarding this conversation.
larry,
That's it exactly. I didn't want to put it in novel form, but that's what we are trying to accomplish here. We do not have to stress about volunteers, our soldiers are the food bank organizers and supporters. We have dinners 3 nights a week, involving other churches in the community here at our building. This frees Phil and I to really do the ministry we were called to do (not slaving behind the stove making no contact with the hurting).
This year we changed our approach to Christmas applications, it was one on one with me...a real ministry we missed last year. No more assembly lines.
Our advisory board and other community leaders have a direct connection and ministry with all the corps guests. I guess you could say we have taken it to the "deeper" place. Our ministry is about how we can make Christ evident to all we come into contact with (not only from the pulpit).
I have a mantra that I use when I talk about ministry and the role of an officer or member of The Salvation Army. We were not called to live our days on the mountaintop of theological theories and ideals. We must come down to the valleys where the real ministry takes place, get our uniforms (yes those things) dirty and love those made in our Creator's image. Then and only then will we "get it".
Mesufo: Welcome to the Wonderful World of Blog! Well Said! Thanks for reminding us that it's not about the Army but about Jesus and getting back to what HE wants for us...
Glad to hear from you! (in the blog world, I mean!)
mesufo,
thanks. actually, your post was already part of my presentation. i think i said it this way, "We need to incarnate the Gospel. We spend too much time trying to reincarnate the Army."
You are very insightful. I do believe though that we have some great practices fromour roots that we need to bring to life again. One is being adaptable and fluid.
Hello, several of you know me. My name is David Maddock. Feel free to use my comments how ever you wish.
Curtis led me to your blog a few days ago and I have enjoyed reading through your posts and comments. This sort of dialog has been going on internally for years in the Army, but I was surprised to actually find it in such a public forum as a blog, and by a THQ officer no less.
I decided to respond to Tim's last comment, but intend on touching on several great points that have been brought up. The tithing/government money issue resonated with me because it relates to what I see as the Army's fundamental obstacle to overcome if it is to become "emergent." There is a dichotomy between the espoused ideology of the Army and reality--between being a church or a business.
We love to talk about "ministry," huh? About how anyone can have one--it is a great sentiment, but takes on another connotation when one is actually getting paid to have one. When I was working for the Army in IT people liked to refer to my job in that way, though their actions showed they didn't believe it themselves. I suppose in the meaning you imply, I have never done ministry for a living. The idea that those who get paid to pastor people know better than those who do not is flawed, and usually part of the problem. In the interest of brevity, I will simply say that I have been witness to Army action that puts getting grant money above Jesus. Looking at the "fellow traveler" paradigm discussed earlier, imagine what the Army would be like if decision makers were actually accountable to the people their decisions effect.
Further, simply because some people expect the Army to pay for stuff doesn't mean we should. We need to stop enabling people to be uncommitted christians.
What happens when a revolution becomes an institution and the revolutionary a bureaucrat? To be an "emergent" church, you have to have something from which to emerge. I believe something great can emerge from the current Army, but it is not something that the Army can "become." Forgive my bluntness, but it will not be decided in a board room. In fact, in all likelihood, it will be something the Army as we now know it will reject because, above everything else, institutions are about self-preservation.
I'm sure this was of no help to you, Major, but thanks for the dialog.
Dave,
Thanks. I hope you comment more often. I am not at THQ anymore. SFOT is now my place of residence.
I could respond. I wonder if someone else would like to.
By the way, you should know I am not big on ranks,especially in this forum.
“We spend too long researching William Booth's vision for the Army and not enough on Jesus Christ’s” Mesufo
Ouch. And you all thought I was harsh! : ) Btw, need a point out that what Mesufo has is another perspective. An outsider, coming in, and wondering what in the world we’re doing! Thanks for the words Mesufo.
“The idea that those who get paid to pastor people know better than those who do not is flawed, and usually part of the problem.” Dave
Dave, I’ve clearly come across wrong. We don’t disagree. Check out my blog and you’ll see it full of similar statements to yours. What I simply meant to say is that, when your ministry is not dependant upon grants, it’s pretty easy to say “let’s get rid of all the grants”. I also hoped to point out that, while lots of bad choices have been made in light of government funding (as you pointed out), many of us are using it to fund the type of ministry that absolutely lines up with the Army’s ethos and, more importantly, Christ’s. We would be the baby that’s getting thrown out with the bathwater. Our ministry here would effectively come to an end.
Curtis & Tim:
I’ve been thinking about the comment “we need to stop accepting government money on all levels.”
Have you read “Origins Of The Salvation Army” by Norman H. Murdoch?
He has some really interesting things to say about our history, especially as it relates to government money. Here is an excerpt (forgive the length, it all makes a point):
“Growth was the preeminent future of the Army in the early 1880s. By 1885, however, Booth was adopting new goals and tactics which drastically altered the army. He had founded an urban mission to preach salvation from sin in East London slums in 1865. By 1874, he had given up the normal mission program of mixing salvation with soup as being beyond his financial resources and counterproductive in that social service programs attracted a following of ‘soupers.’ In fact, by 1876, he was aware of his inability to deal with the slum clientele and turned to the ‘respectable’ working class. Among this population, the Army experienced significant growth in the early 1880s. But as the decade progressed, the soul-saving methods of Booth’s formative years no longer were working as they once had, even with the working class.
By 1885 – 87, the army stagnated, just as the Christian Mission had done in East London by 1877. It was in this climate that Booth would turn toward social salvation. Thus it was the Army’s failure to grow as a revivalist sect, that turned it in the direction of social services. The Army soon became a religious sect with a social service ministry (p. 116-117).”
“As the army lost personnel and money a new approach was in order.” “In late 1888, Booth was for the first time asking government aid for his rescue, slum, and shelter work ( p.155).” “By the 1920s, most of the army’s income in the U.S. came from federated community funds. As the army sought ways to increase its income, it tempered its aggressive Christianity in both verbiage and action. Spiritual programs became irrelevant to its survival (p.171).”
Here’s my point. The army wouldn’t have survived if it weren’t for government money. The army tempered its “aggressive” Christianity and bowed to the almighty dollar. Are we still doing that today? Do we temper our message for community dollars?
What if we quit fundraising? What do you think about officer’s working second jobs?
It appears, from Murdoch’s book, that the Army has always struggled to be affective and bear fruit with the “social services” method of outreach. What do you think? Can the army bridge the mission of evangelism and social services?
To respond to these comments you might want to go to Armytalk.blogspot.com. I have posted it there.
Blessings,
Bret
Curtis,
I've been giving some serious thought to your comments. In our case, we've started programming that the local council has seen and has been willing to fund. With that in mind, we've not had to set aside mission for money. And, as I believe that the gospel was for the here and now, AS WELL as for eternity, I think social work is important as a Christian. As extreme as you think many salvationists are who think that we absolutely could not give up government funding, I think your approach ends up on the other end of the extremity line. For me I think there can be a balance. If somebody wants to fund something that we're already doing and believe in, I thank God for providing. If somebody wants to give us funds, but only if we'll stop doing it in the name of Jesus, I trust that God will provide another way. I hope that makes sense?
Brett, the quotes you posted are truly...disheartening. Are they one man’s opinion, or are they fact? They’ve left me kind of speechless because I truly believe that I do what I do because it's what I'm called to do as a Christian. In fact, it's why I left my former denomination and joined this one.
Bret,
I have met Murdoch. To say that he is biased, might be an understatement. He was a Sallie. I believe he has somewhat of an axe to grind. I will leave it at that.
If you balance your reading with Dianne Winston's "Red Hot and Righteos." and Roger Green's most recent book, you will get a balance.
I quit taking books at face value a while ago. I really test everything and read on several levels.
I think the original post was on the Emerging Church and how we would interact with this movement. I think we need to balance with that movement.
Tim, when are you going to take a picture with your new haircut?
I think that the discussion of funding is germane to the emerging church movement. How will we be salt and light without a presence with the poor? Without funding, we will dry up that presence.
So you know, in 25 years of being and officer, government funding has never prohibited me from talking about Jesus. USDA pays for the food budget at nearly every SA camp in the US. Do we talk about Jesus in camps? I had a completely funded daycare at my last corps. The county was encouraged that we conducted religious education. I can continue if anyone wants.
I think that basically, people look for a good excuse as to why mission isn't being done. They then blame it on the "separation of church and state," when it is often separation of God's mission from our lives.
I think it's awesome that work is being done in Jesus' name and that the gospel is being preached and that we're using every tool at our disposal, including government funds.
However, with the increasing tide of anti-Christian sentiment from groups like the ACLU, which have caused other religious organizations to stop receiving government aid because of their gospel message...
What do we do when the money is not there from the government any longer? Will our programs fall flat on their face? Or will we have built in extra measures that will sustain our work should the government decide it doesn't want to "sponsor" us anymore.
Currently we have a president and Congress that, for the majority, are very friendly to the idea of "faith-based initiatives". What happens when those people are in the minority?
Just some thoughts.
This is the one thing that really depends upon your financial base in the community. We are blessed in our current appointment with an outstanding Advisory Board (this is a group of community leadership and businessmen/businesswomen that assist the local corps raise funds and find out how best to serve the community). We do receive funding from the gov't for our food pantry, but new regulations are not allowing us to ask people for proof of income (no notice came out, I came across it on the FEMA website). We have never turned anyone away for emergency assistance. The proof of income is for the monthly ongoing assistance we provide. If it were not for our responsibility to our private donors, we would have to take people's word for it. Call me a pessimist or a cynic, but the US population is not known for its integrity (regardless of your social status). So, praise God for the "loophole", but how long can we work in loopholes? Yes, we have many opportunities to "talk" about Jesus, but we also need to be Jesus as well. Jesus gave people tools to better their lives as well as salvation. He gave them direction because he knew their situations. Anyway, we are beginning plans for the near future so that we do not have to rely on gov't monies. Again, we have the resources and would not "blame" anyone for taking monies that are needed, but think about standards of service and what is being accomplished. Are we continuing to perpetuate the new slavery of entitlement in this culture. Again, in other countries I don't know how it is..but I do know that the US is spiraling and we need to give people more than just a monthly bag of food staples.
I guess it comes down to this. If not government funding, then what?
Curtis,
#1. Nicole spoke well. We can be Jesus and not necessarily talk about Jesus.
#2. Your view of government funding is short-sighted. We are not stopped. I have just pointed out two programs, but there are hundreds more I could point out. The issue is again, people want to find the negative. This is not a negative. So what if the government changes its rules. Do you not believe that God powers His projects? By the way, every challenge to the Army over the past several years by people claiming we are not qualified to have govenrment funds has been turned down.
Yes, there is some bad stewardship by The Army. Yet at the same time, the SA is rated by various philanthropic watchdogs if not the top, near the top in its stewardship of funds.
Nicole,
If people are coming in for food then there is a problem. Even if they do need the food, and they come in there is a problem. That means they need Jesus, because of integrity problems. So is it worse to turn them away judging them for cheating or engage them creatively and compassionately?
Well, we are so far off the initial post, I am going to move on. Talk amongst yourselves!
LA
I'll be thinking of you & praying for you & Janet on Tuesday. Many may decry the tiny amount of time you've been given, but I'm thankful (and I know you are, too) that it's any time at all. We have hundreds of posts railing at our Army leadership for not getting the emergent church concept. If it's true that they don't get it, they certainly can't be expected to devote an enormous amount of time to it. God stopped the sun in the sky before - maybe he'll do it again on Tuesday, just for us. So have more than a 1/2 hour prepared!
I applaude your commitment, passion, and knowledge in this area. The TEC has chosen wisely in bringing you both in.
bedemike (otherwise known as Brett with 2 t's)
OK, so I skimmed the last million posts, (wow, you stir people up for an old man!) LOL!!!
So, only to continue from what I said earlier - I was sitting in church and listening to Carole Jeanne preach her wee heart out, when I realised that my main frustration with the high up's in the Army is that they empower cynicism.
We, as Salvationists are cynical by birth, a generational sin, that we do not see as sin, that we in fact greatly esteem! What is our deal? Are we lacking in intelligence? No, we have been brainwashed to believe that all questioning is right! I love smart people, nothing impresses me more than people who can teach me and challenge me, and so I suck in this mentallity that smart is always right and questioning is never wrong! Sadly lacking balance - which is the most honest reflection of the Army today that we could have. We are heavy in legalism, heavy in politics, heavy in DUTY, heavy in programme, light in grace, light in teaching, light in discipline, light in fellowship time, light in looking at people with the eyes of Christ; which brings me back to my original point, we empower cynicism, because we are scared! We are always secon guessing God! We have no right!
Larry, be assured of my prayers for you and Janet on Wednesday - I want more for the Army. Lashings of His grace and mercy, and favour!
I'd appreciate not being lumped in with all you "cynical-by-birth" Sallies. I'm sorry. Mhairi, but I don't get your post.
50 comments, again?!?!?!?
I'm glad I no longer evaluate the worth of my blog by how many comments I receive (ummm, yeah, right)
Bedemike:
what don't you get? you aren't cynical? you don't think the army is? please explain.
thanks
Natr,
If Jesus took your arguement of some things are never to be changed then we would not be here. If MLK took that arguement, then we would still have segregation.
When the wind of the Spirit blows, we need to open our sails. The thought that nothing will change is to fold the sails.
I don't want change to be more effective. I want change to be more like Jesus. That would mean that there might not be efficiency. It will be messy.
Phil,
If you are measuring your blog against mine, you must be really embarrassed!!!! :)
:)
Like I said, it's unhealthy for me to qualify my blog by the number of comments....
Which is why I've started evaluating it's monetary worth at this website.
Yikes, I typed in your blog but I think there must be an error... :)
I applaude the TEC for opening the door to the discussion. The idea of an emergent church may be a "grass roots" type of thing by definition. But, if it is going to take hold in the Army as we all think it should, I believe our leadership plays the role of releasing officers & local congregations to put these principles in motion. In that sense, at least when it comes to the Army and where we find ourselves now, I think it may well start at "the top."
BTW, I know a large number of the members of the TEC, and I don't think many of them consider themselves at "the top" of anything. Humility is a common trait among those men & women.
Mhairi -
No, I don't think I am cynical, but that's beside the point.
First, I think cynicism is neither as easily defined nor as rampant as some think it is. What they may call cynicism, many would call realism.
Second, I'd need a little more convinving that cynicism is necessarily a sin, especially a generational sin encompassing a whole slew of Salvationists.
Third, what are you suggesting we are scared of, that's leading to all this overwhelming cynicism?
Lastly, I'm uncomfortable with the sweeping statement about "we are always second-guessing God." Asking questions, discussions ideas, even arguing about touchy subjects - these things should not necessarily be equated with second-guessing God. I haven't seen any second-guessing of God here. Second-guessing of each other...well, maybe a little.
Bedemike:
I am surprised that you took such personal offence to the word "cynicism." However, in what has been my experience of the Salvation Army, I will not be convinced until I see it for myself. (I don't mean to be rude, I hope you don't think I am being patronising - I'm not, but the definition of the word cynicism is distrust.) I do not think that we are trusting people - I see that in the way we carry out business. I kinda think that a distrust in God is a major stumbling block, which can lead to sin. That is my reasoning for the cynicism comment. We have trust God.
My comment on asking questions, if you check my second post, was not that questioning was wrong, but that all questioning isn't right!
Please continue any questions on my blog, this should not continue on Larry's.
Peace
WOW! Hope it all went well.. we were all praying for you today.
Yeah, have been following this without commenting. Saw that it was blogged about on Chiefspeak. How did it go from your perspective?
Post a Comment
<< Home