The wrong label?
Well after about ten days of being unable to access a computer I am back on. I know that is probably bad news for many of you out there in the blog universe.
I just saw the Chronicles of Narnia again. I was intrigued by one of the opening scenes, when the children were sent to the country to escape the London bombings. As they were came to the country, they were to be picked up by a friend after the disembarked the train on which they travelled.
As they stood waiting for their protector to come, other children from the train were wisked off by other adults, who recognized them by the tags they were wearing on their jackets. After being bypassed by several rescuers Lucy says, "Perhaps we have the wrong label." Soon after that comment their protector comes to take them to the saftey of a country estate and the adventure begins.
Since moving into my new job (I have been in the office all of three days) I have become more keenly aware of the fact that labels are part of our movement. I have seen more abbreviations and ranks in the last two days than I have I the past 5+ years. Whether it is DYS, GS, DSP or DLDS everyone and everything has a label.
I am sure this can all be maddening for those who are casually involved with our movement, because many of the people in our organization talk in this code of labels.
We served here in this area several years ago. I have known some of these people I work with for more than 20 years. I count them as friends. In the few days I have been here, I have been called by the people who know me "Mr. GS," "Major," "Boss," and even one person said to me, "The DSP just called for you." The DSP (Divisional Program Secretary) is my wife, Janet. Come on. Do we really have to be so labeled? I have someone who works with me who I have known for nearly 30 years who called me Major. I had to tell them to stop. Major is what I do, not who I am. I finally just said, "Would you please just call me Larry?"
I had a discussion with some family members about this last evening. They are new in a community and feel they need to introduce themselves by their ranks. "How will people know who we are?" To which I suggested there might be a strong case for the dismantling of the rank system. I happen to think it might be a very theologically weak system. (That is for another discussion.) I think my family just ought to introduce themselves by their names.
The fact is that these are not the only labels. Do the words, conservative, liberal, evangelical, republican or democrat do anything for you? What about traditional or contemporary or for that matter emergent? We use them in describing Christianity and in staking out our polarized positions in society and even between Christian brothers and sisters.
I am thinking God is not really impressed by these labels. I think they may be a subtle way that Satan uses to intimidate, confuse and drive wedges between us. All those labels and ranks seem to do is keep us from really focusing on the mission of the Church. Well, that is if those labels are important to you.
I am thinking these labels are really the wrong labels. They may be the labels that keep us from going to house of God as He wants us to. They may be something that keeps us from the great adventure that is really living in community as Christians.
I am thinking that the rest of the labels are really menaingless. They are the wrong labels. I think the best label is just "Child of God." I think I want to put that on my business card. In fact, I think the issue may be that we get impressed with titles because we get impressed with what we do instead of being concerned with who we are and the way our spirits are formed. After all, it is easier to hide behind a label than to walk honestly into the community of Christ and simply lay our souls bare where honest, open sharing can strengthen us and encourage us.
I am sort of tired of the labels I have been seeing. They really don't mean much to me. I think the whole label thing may be really just a smokescreen for us to be something other than what God intended.
What do you think?
I just saw the Chronicles of Narnia again. I was intrigued by one of the opening scenes, when the children were sent to the country to escape the London bombings. As they were came to the country, they were to be picked up by a friend after the disembarked the train on which they travelled.
As they stood waiting for their protector to come, other children from the train were wisked off by other adults, who recognized them by the tags they were wearing on their jackets. After being bypassed by several rescuers Lucy says, "Perhaps we have the wrong label." Soon after that comment their protector comes to take them to the saftey of a country estate and the adventure begins.
Since moving into my new job (I have been in the office all of three days) I have become more keenly aware of the fact that labels are part of our movement. I have seen more abbreviations and ranks in the last two days than I have I the past 5+ years. Whether it is DYS, GS, DSP or DLDS everyone and everything has a label.
I am sure this can all be maddening for those who are casually involved with our movement, because many of the people in our organization talk in this code of labels.
We served here in this area several years ago. I have known some of these people I work with for more than 20 years. I count them as friends. In the few days I have been here, I have been called by the people who know me "Mr. GS," "Major," "Boss," and even one person said to me, "The DSP just called for you." The DSP (Divisional Program Secretary) is my wife, Janet. Come on. Do we really have to be so labeled? I have someone who works with me who I have known for nearly 30 years who called me Major. I had to tell them to stop. Major is what I do, not who I am. I finally just said, "Would you please just call me Larry?"
I had a discussion with some family members about this last evening. They are new in a community and feel they need to introduce themselves by their ranks. "How will people know who we are?" To which I suggested there might be a strong case for the dismantling of the rank system. I happen to think it might be a very theologically weak system. (That is for another discussion.) I think my family just ought to introduce themselves by their names.
The fact is that these are not the only labels. Do the words, conservative, liberal, evangelical, republican or democrat do anything for you? What about traditional or contemporary or for that matter emergent? We use them in describing Christianity and in staking out our polarized positions in society and even between Christian brothers and sisters.
I am thinking God is not really impressed by these labels. I think they may be a subtle way that Satan uses to intimidate, confuse and drive wedges between us. All those labels and ranks seem to do is keep us from really focusing on the mission of the Church. Well, that is if those labels are important to you.
I am thinking these labels are really the wrong labels. They may be the labels that keep us from going to house of God as He wants us to. They may be something that keeps us from the great adventure that is really living in community as Christians.
I am thinking that the rest of the labels are really menaingless. They are the wrong labels. I think the best label is just "Child of God." I think I want to put that on my business card. In fact, I think the issue may be that we get impressed with titles because we get impressed with what we do instead of being concerned with who we are and the way our spirits are formed. After all, it is easier to hide behind a label than to walk honestly into the community of Christ and simply lay our souls bare where honest, open sharing can strengthen us and encourage us.
I am sort of tired of the labels I have been seeing. They really don't mean much to me. I think the whole label thing may be really just a smokescreen for us to be something other than what God intended.
What do you think?
posted by Larry at 8:36 PM
33 Comments:
Larry,this is the first time I have posted on your blog, but I have enjoyed reading your previous posts.
I think the labels we use can be detrimental. I have found that in a development/PR setting that I have to stop and think to not use many of the labels you suggest. When referring to my DC, I have to stop and say, the divisional commander in Hartford to name an example rather than DC, FS, DYS, etc. Granted it does keep me on my toes, but perhaps this is not the way to proceed both in internal applications as well as in the public.
I must confess to being very conflicted as far as ranks go. While one side of my thinking says we need to be called by our ranks, the other side of me likes the informality of being called by my first name. Things could get interesting in the years ahead when my generation starts to creep into leadership! One year at Officer's Retreat, aka Advance in Northern New England our speaker stressed that Gen X is very big on being relational and informal rather than formal and "by the book." I felt somewhat validated in my approach to ministry, but still the "Old Army" in me is torn...
Again, things should get interesting in the years to come!
Good post . . . I agree that we need to be less concerned with our rank or title . . .
I like the fact that people in my church (even some of the young people) call me Bret.
Blessings,
Blessings,
First of all, I think you’ve got two entirely different conversations going here. On one hand, we’re discussing the confusion that takes place (absolutely) for outsiders when we talk to them in code. As a former outsider, I can definitely attest to this. I can remember calling parents from camp and asking them to meet their poorly behaved child at DHQ. I would then ask, “do you know what DHQ is?”, because I had no idea.
The second conversation centers around humility. I believe that. And again, as a former outsider, the rank system is something that I have struggled with from the beginning and struggle with very much to this day.
I once served in a church where the senior pastor insisted that the people in the church (including the young people who’s care I headed up) called me “pastor Tim”. It was my position, he insisted, and it was up to us to “teach the people respect”. I felt then and still do to this day that if people are going to respect me, it’s going to be by how I serve them, not what I insist that they call me. And so, upon starting work with the Army, I was immediately turned off by officers who introduced themselves by rank and insisted that you called them by that. In fact, it was nearly a deal breaker for myself and my wife. Neither of us were certain that we could serve in a church where its leaders took themselves so seriously or, as we saw it, lacked an ounce of humility. On more than one occasion, when an officer has introduced themselves as “major so-and-so”, I’ve nearly introduced myself back to them as “Reverend Miller”. A title that I (technically) hold and one that I knew would make them just as uncomfortable as theirs makes me. But I’ve never done it. Maybe one day.
I now serve in a division (and a country, really) where ranks are pretty old school. They still exist, but nobody is called by them. Here my DC’s name is George. In fact, I’ve tried to call him by his rank, but he just won’t have it. And I respect the heck out of him for it. Actually, I respect the heck out of him for that and the way he serves all of the people (including myself and my wife) under his care.
Having served in a place where ranks are insisted, and now in a place where they are not, I sometimes wonder if I could ever stomach going back.
And I will add my usual mantra of, "it's a heart issue". The heart of the officers who use the labels to hide their insecurities and incompetencies and those who use labels as a political game in an arena where it's not about politics and definitely not a game!
As far as the ranks go, I don't have a major beef either way. This is not one of the crosses I want to die upon this week, I've got enough issues!! :-)
I guess what I'm saying is, those who are given the labels...let's not take ourselves so seriously...really, it's just a title!
i call my pastors david and kathy. i have never done this before and it is refreshing to my soul. it definitely makes them seem more approachable, real, and normal to me. and that is what i really need in a pastor or leader.
if you are a pastor or leader in calling and gifting, you will be. using the title will not make it so.
Labels should serve a purpose. We have labels on food tins for examples to help us understand its contents. However, in the army it would seem that our labels have done exactly the opposite and led to more confusion. I don't think they are all bad. but when they cause more confusion than they are worth I say we scrap them.
Peter
www.lublink.ca
Interesting post Larry. I enjoyed reading all the comments as well. I was particulary intrigued by the comments by stonefaith.
He mentioned that in the early days the organization of the Army and the rank system was to help bring structure to people who really hadn't experienced structure. Our church services were a lot less structured as well for the same reason.
I believe stonefaith's analysis to be true. I also believe that the reality today is that we are dealing with the same types of people that Booth and the early Salvationists dealt with in their day. The people we serve today (July 2006) have little to no structure. This reality hit home for me this week.
We have been newly appointed to a very urban command. I got locked out of our building the other day and had to go through the main social service entrance. The amount of people there was astounding. We had homeless people, drunk people, pregnant teens, you name it! A lobby full of people living "unstructured" lives . People who had no clue how to get their lives on the right track.
We then went to church on Sunday and found more people with "unstructured" lives.
The reality is that if the Army is doing what God called the Army to do, we will find those with the "unstructured" lives and help them find Jesus and give structure to their lives.
So, labels such as "Cappy" or "Captain" I feel are fine. A homeless man on the street knows that when he is in trouble he can find "Captain". I walked into our day care center the other day and all the kids knew that "Mrs. Captain" was there. It gave them security.
I keep wondering when we talk so much about outsiders not "getting us," which outsiders are we talking about. If those homeless people, drunks, pregnant teens, and day care kids find comfort in calling us by ranks, then who are the uncomfortable? Advisory Board Members? Business men in town? Young Adults? Middle Class folks? Just wondering.
It is interesting to read these comments. I get the feeling that most people thought that the labels are a bad thing. I think the code is. I am not sure the position is a bad thing. I think when that becomes the person's identity and they are afraid of being themselves because of the label the real issue starts.
Sue, it was interesting that people knew who I was because of the program on Sunday. I think some of them were somewhat taken aback when I introduced myself to them personally as Larry. I think that what has happened is that we have become so formal in some respects that we have lost our roots of informality as Heather suggested.
I think in many ways the issue of informality and relationship is what is lost in the labeling process. Christian's concern about the Old Army is a relatively new Army paradigm. It is the formality issue. In Vicotrian England, the fact that the Booths used ranks was a pretty informal way to do things. They kept titles and formality in the constructs of their day. Everyone, even your close freinds were Mr. and Mrs. Today, the construct of society is so much more informal accept in the academic and maybe political realms. Hmmm. Isn't that interesting?
: ) Now that's an idea that's sure to ruffle some feathers. And I'd like to suggest that those who would have the most problem with it are those who have created the very need for it.
natr,
interesting thought. so if we are about servant leadership, then maybe we should start with new titles.
sincerely,
last
Let me throw a bone. We had a corps 45 minutes away come for a visit. (Now bear in mind, I introduce myself as Patrick from The Salvation Army everywhere I go.)
So, they come in and are a corps grown directly from a soup kitchen ministry. It was amazing to see their fervant - and newly found - salvationism. there were 20-something strong to our 7-9 locals who braved the Sunday evening service.
And as the introduced themselves...
I am Soldier so-and-so.
I am Soldier so-and-so.
Of course, those are not the names, but wow. These were people who only a year before were on the down and out and unreached by any church. Now they belong and feel great joy at being a part. They had no uniforms, but they wanted everyone to know who they identify with.
Powerful moment.
I coach a Babe Ruth Baseball team here in what some would call a God-forsaken land. That would be Ohio. The team knows who I am and what I do. I have on occasions, had to go to the ballfield in uniform. Of course, there were questions of what in the world is coach wearing. After the explantions, one of which was my title in The Salvation Army is Major, I hung my tunic up in the dugout and practice commenced. They at times call me Major instead of coach, they also call the Corps van "The Unit" or the "The Gray Ghost". One of the things that the title does for me, as well as riding in "The Unit", is it helps remind me of who I am in the Lord. It is a constant reminder that not only is God watching but so are the ones I coach. It has been a witness to the players on the team as well as their parents, including the other managers and coaches on the other teams. One thing it hasn't done though is calmed me down when the umps make a bad call. And yes I have been almost kicked out of a few games. I will work on that,, I think.
The rank is a part of who I am as a Christian and as an Officer in The Salvation Army. I don't consider the rank as a badge of immediate respect but a priviledge to be called Major. I also beleive that in the case of the Uniform.
What I find refreshing is, now when I have to wear my uniform to the ballfield the players and other coaches don't give it a second thought. That to me is a compliment, not of me but who I serve. And they do know who I serve.
By the way Lt.s should still be Lt.s. when they come out of Training.
By the way. I don't let the players on the team call me by my first name nor any of the coaches under me. They call us Coach.
Does anyone have a problem with that?
blue,
My rank has nothing to do with who I am. It is rather a term to what I am called to do. It is what I am as a Salvationist. The point is I don't mind Major (although it does remind me that I am getting older than dirt) I think the problem lies in the fact that people think that being major automatically earns you respect. They also use the term to define who they are and further use it to prove they are in charge. Those who have to prove they are in charge usually aren't and don't have much of a following. As far as needing to be called coach, we all have some shortcomings for which we must compensate. You know what they say, "Those who can't play the game, coach."
blue,
by the way, i like ohio. it is time who keeps bashing the place. it his compensation for the inferiority complex which came as a result of growing up in oklahoma.
blue,
i meant tim has the inferiority complex
For whatever it's worth Larry, the only reason I coach now is I'm to old to play. Back in the day, I could play with the best of them and I did. I coach because baseball is also a part of who I am, was and will be. Just like the Major part of me. Beleive me when I tell you when you deal with 13 - 15 year old ballplayers just because one is the coach you still have to earn their respect. Simply because I would like the Corps people to call me Major doesn't mean I automatically have their respect. I do have to earn that.
Don't get me wrong I love Ohio. The only thing that Tim can be proud of in Oklahoma is Johnny Bench, who by the way still lives in Cincinnati. That is a town in Ohio for those of you in Oklahoma. The other thing is tornadoes.
Kidding aside, many things comprise me of who I am. Coaching, Majorship, Officership, fatherhoodship, coffeeship and so on. These are all part of what makes me, me and me in the Lord Jesus Christ. When I consider taking anyone of these ships away there would be a void.
blue,
I remember when we both played. We were pretty good.
First of all, don’t forget Oklahoma’s 7 National Championships in football. That’s more National Championships than every division I Ohio team put together. And that’s only in football!
And, not to pick a fight here, but the statement, “By the way Lt.s should still be Lt.s. when they come out of Training.”, speaks for itself.
Ego, not humility, drives that statement.
Tim, you are wrong about ego driving that statement. Humility! Have you ever been spit on at an Open Air? Have you ever been cussed out in the place God has given you to be in charge of? Have you ever had to clean crap off the ceiling of the bathroom stall and everywhere else in the bathroom after the feeding program is over? You ever lock the bathrooms because they trash it only to get lambasted over the phone by the "homeless advocate". Biting your tongue the whole time.
There is something to be said for a probationary period. The five years of Lieutenantship where good for me and I needed them. It's much deeper than "ego". When we had the chance I voted against eliminating the rank of Lt. One of the reasons is because it gave me an excuse for the stupid things I did when I was first an Officer. There are other minor issues but take it for what it's worth one of them was not so I could deem myself superior and look down my fat broken nose at the Lieutenants.
I can’t imagine what their title has to do with a probationary period. ???
It's has been a part of the system of our ranks, or was, for many years. Part of it is tradition. The rank of Lieutenant also helped me recognize those who were relatively new to the Officers ranks. Over the years I have had to chance to be of some help to younger Officers. The last thing I want to do is open a can of worms here, but the day after Commissioning is over the reality of Officership hits. That hit can be pretty hard. I have been called upon by many new officers for many different things. For example; petty cash, vouchers, how to deal with certain soldiers and even how to deal with superiors. Finding time for devotions, making that the priority. On and on.
That to me is why the rank of Lieutenant is important. I could go up to those who had one star and know that they may need a listening ear without even knowing them personally. Now, it's harder to tell.
It has nothing to do with ego but everything to do with finding those who may need some help and maybe a little leaway when it comes to Officership.
I don't expect you to understand my reasons why that rank is important. But it certainly isn't what you stated in an earlier post.
It is good to see that Blue's temper has not mellowed over time.
OSU was National Champion in the follwing years:
1942
1944
1954
1957
1961
1968
2002
Tim if you count those years they add up to 7.
So blue, you had to make sure someone was a LT. to make sure that you could offer a hand? It may well be that you have just proved Tim's point. To you Lt. meant that people did not know much. That is a default position that can be as ego-driven as reasons that many at Headquarters often have for looking down on those on the field. They think they know better.
Knowing more does not make one a better leader. Experience does help, but what about spiritual gifts. I have seen Lt.'s who can outpreach, pastor and administrate many of their more senior counterparts.
In short, they have not been jaded by the experience. Frankly, I think we should all be Captains. The fact is the need to be acknowledged by a title has its roots in pride. Pride goes before a fall into sin. Humility is the mark of a Christian. When Jesus was called teacher by his disciples, he said they were no longer disciples but friends.
By the way, just before coming here I cleaned up the bathrooms, and washed the dishes after the feeding program. I know Tim has done that and does that still.
I am not against the rank if it means people know that I am part of the Army, but it cannot define me. My definition is child of God who happens to be an officer, by God's grace.
Larry,
Lt's of course aren't the only ones that I would look for. I would drive to Bangor Maine over night if I knew they needed the help. I'm glad that you guys still clean the bathrooms. I would never presume that neither you nor Tim would make someone else do it. I on the other hand, simply because I liked the idea of Lieutenantship was egotistical in my thinking.
Since I have been on the field I have tried my hardest to be of help to those who are in leadership position.
You are right that many a Lt. could outpreach outadminister and so on, older Officers. All I'm saying is I grew up in the Salvation Army when I came to my first appointment in Western Penn. I can't tell you how glad I was for the years my parents spent at the Corps and for those "Majors", "Colonels" that gave me support. I hope I have been that to those who are younger.
I just don't see that there was a problem with the ranks in the first place. If there was then I would like to find out what the issue was.
The rank issue never stopped me from calling the TC when to find out what his position was when the gay issue hit in the west. Frankly, I was surprised he answered the phone.
Any way good discussion. The only reason I am writing this now is because I just played 2 hours of basketball after Salvation Meeting. I can't seem to walk to the van.
Wthom,
If you're going to count all of those National Championships, then Oklahoma has 9...just in football.
What I would like to see is Texas, Oklahoma, Ohio State, Notre Dame, Florida State, Miami play each other during one season. 9's not bad.
BLUE:
by what authority do you use the phrase "God forsaken?"
Simply by the descrition I have heard people speak of Ohio. I don't think Ohio is "God Forsaken". I think it is "Gods'Country", or don't I have authority to say that?
mhairi
Notice I said some would call Ohio "God Forsaken".
There is alot of humanity which is induced into a situation when a person is referred to by their name. A rank does include the position you have fulfilled, or been granted, but a person's name carries the deepest definition of who they are. Not a stat, or a blip, not a round peg in a square hole for the time. Using rank does differentiate respect, but it also instills distance. I feel it is crucial to know someone by their name and rank, Dr. Karl Oberer (not just dr.) Officer Dennis McKay( not just the cop). There are generalities that can take the place of specific knowledge, not just rank and its use.
Good post today...good thoughts.
Post a Comment
<< Home