Argument or Antagonism?
There has been quite the debate and furor arise since the announcement of the resignation of Chick and Margaret Yuill. I have read many of the statements, looked at the blog entries and also talked with many people who have strong opinions on both sides of the story. I am sorry to see such good servants of the Lord and The Army feel they have come to the point where they cannot stay with the ministry to which they have given their lives.
This post though is not essentially about that situation. It really is about an underlying attitude in the church and it seems in our movement, in particular. That is the way we have degenerated into a people who have lost the fine art of arguing. There is a culture that has arisen and I think that it has really been in the church for 2000 years. One only needs to look at 1 Corinthians 1:10-13. It is the spirit of taking sides. In other words, it is the spirit of antagonism.
We can disagree on matters of doctrine, practice and theology. Actually, debate is good for the body of Christ. It keeps us from being flabby in our mind, thoughts and in our walk of grace. It is good for us to argue. It is good to do so even passionately. It is good, that is, as long as we are kind and remain friends.
Here is what has happened though. I think we have lost the ability to lead gracefully and disagree gracefully. Often, we are find ourselves trying to prove how right we are and thinking that we need to rub it in. We have DHQ/THQ officers who have never been successful in their corps, but do bring some other skill to the ministry who now become "experts" in corps operation. We also have people on the other end, who having no experience other than corps/institution who believe they know best how to run the headquarters operation. In our attempt to prove we are right, we no longer have ability to debate. We have instead adopted the attitude of antagonism. This attitude is so destructive to morale on both sides. It is amazing what happens when roles reverse though.
The attitude of antagonism, is one in which we must always win and never try to understand the other's point of view, or even care to. We then make judgment on people's character based on our evaluation of their opinions in a situation. For subordinates who try to debate or operate this way, it is seen as insubordination. From the other end supervisors who have not developed this skill are seen as bullies. Maybe both labels are earned. In fact, I hate the thought of thinking of the Body in terms of subordinates and supervisors.
This need to always be right, to have our own way, is basically one thing in my opinion; sinful. It also points to our own insecurity in who we are and are to become in Christ. This antagonistic way of living is something the world of politics in the US practices. It is polarizing and frankly, is sickening most and spreading apathy throughout the electorate. In some cases, it is causing people just to hate the very thing we have fought so hard in this country to preserve, because we have seen it as our birthright.
Could it be that our antagonistic way of living is doing the same thing in the church? 2000 years later are we much different from the Corinthian Church? Do we argue for the sake of growing in the Body or just antagonize each other most of the time?
What do you think?
This post though is not essentially about that situation. It really is about an underlying attitude in the church and it seems in our movement, in particular. That is the way we have degenerated into a people who have lost the fine art of arguing. There is a culture that has arisen and I think that it has really been in the church for 2000 years. One only needs to look at 1 Corinthians 1:10-13. It is the spirit of taking sides. In other words, it is the spirit of antagonism.
We can disagree on matters of doctrine, practice and theology. Actually, debate is good for the body of Christ. It keeps us from being flabby in our mind, thoughts and in our walk of grace. It is good for us to argue. It is good to do so even passionately. It is good, that is, as long as we are kind and remain friends.
Here is what has happened though. I think we have lost the ability to lead gracefully and disagree gracefully. Often, we are find ourselves trying to prove how right we are and thinking that we need to rub it in. We have DHQ/THQ officers who have never been successful in their corps, but do bring some other skill to the ministry who now become "experts" in corps operation. We also have people on the other end, who having no experience other than corps/institution who believe they know best how to run the headquarters operation. In our attempt to prove we are right, we no longer have ability to debate. We have instead adopted the attitude of antagonism. This attitude is so destructive to morale on both sides. It is amazing what happens when roles reverse though.
The attitude of antagonism, is one in which we must always win and never try to understand the other's point of view, or even care to. We then make judgment on people's character based on our evaluation of their opinions in a situation. For subordinates who try to debate or operate this way, it is seen as insubordination. From the other end supervisors who have not developed this skill are seen as bullies. Maybe both labels are earned. In fact, I hate the thought of thinking of the Body in terms of subordinates and supervisors.
This need to always be right, to have our own way, is basically one thing in my opinion; sinful. It also points to our own insecurity in who we are and are to become in Christ. This antagonistic way of living is something the world of politics in the US practices. It is polarizing and frankly, is sickening most and spreading apathy throughout the electorate. In some cases, it is causing people just to hate the very thing we have fought so hard in this country to preserve, because we have seen it as our birthright.
Could it be that our antagonistic way of living is doing the same thing in the church? 2000 years later are we much different from the Corinthian Church? Do we argue for the sake of growing in the Body or just antagonize each other most of the time?
What do you think?
posted by Larry at 7:54 PM
13 Comments:
I’d like to think that it’s not so much about wanting to be antagonistic as it is that we simply don’t understand or grasp God’s grace.
The Pharisees were very judgemental concerning certain Old Testament laws, laws that even Jesus recognized weren’t set in stone. I believe that part of the Pharisees actions were based on trying to remain in power, but I also believe that there was also a basic misunderstanding about what was most important to God; loving Him and loving others. I think many in the church argue out of a sincere belief that it is their responsibility to stand against “sin” in the church. But (in my opinion) it’s their definition of sin that is skewed. The practice of sacraments in TSA comes to mind. The song selection in the church at large also comes to mind.
On the other side, at it’s best, is this belief that it is our responsibility to stand up for the lost. If we don’t update our church’s approach, we believe, the lost will not be reached. But, like the other side’s desire to remain in power, our fight isn’t just for the lost, it’s also for ourselves. In our case, we fight tradition out of a desperation to get our needs met through our church. I guess both sides fight that fight.
When I look at the battle that is taking place in the church at large, I see some purity in it. Both sides believe they are fighting the good fight and, for both sides, there is some good in what they’re trying to accomplish. But selfishness is also a huge factor for both sides and, I believe, has a bigger role in our fight than we would like to admit or even believe.
On a side note, your description of the HQ officer who had no success at the local level, yet believes he’s been brought to HQ as an expert, rings so true I’m afraid you’re going to get in trouble for typing it. Servant leadership. Whatever happened to that?
Tim,
I am not sure what the practice of the sacraments and a skewed definition of sin have to do with one another. I guess I am not understanding your point.
Krista, you and I agree that insecurity does pay a big part in our perception of disagreement as being a personal attack.
Nate,
Thanks for the Brennan Manning Quote. I think that often we spend time majoring in minor points. I do think you are right about debate. I often think the best ideas, outcomes and relationships come out of the strongest of debates.
Larry,
Its funny how much a couple years on the field can change a person.
There is a spirit of antagonism in the army and it is a very deep hole that is hard to climb out of.
The field and DHQ become us and them when really in our structure we could become them and they could become us at any time.
The fact is most of the work most of us have to do is so great that if we were truly focused on it we wouldn't have time to be antagonists.
I became an Officer thinking i was going to show those DHQ officers how ministry is done. Now i get home each night by the grace of God thanking him that i have leaders who i can turn to for support and consel and that i don't have to go it alone.
Yea there are issues that make my blood boil but by the time i have the luxury to think about them it is 1:49 AM and they quickly seem to loose importance
Steve,
Good to hear from you. Nice perspective. I think you and I agree for the most part on this issue.
I still think the ocassional debate is good as long as it is not for selfish reasons.
I think a good debate is great and i am still going to fight a few battles.
I have a big one regarding the Territory's position on myspace, internet communities and blogging comming up next thursday. (so if you have any input drop me an email)
Anywho My relationship with my leaders has taken some serious time and practise. Because i am the type of person who enjoys a good fight.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
First of all, the territory has a “position” on myspace??? What?????????????
Larry, when it comes to TSA’s position on the sacraments, I often get the idea that “traditionalists” are standing up “against it”. But am I wrong in saying that the only thing we need to “stand against” is sin? So are “traditionalists”, therefore, suggesting that the sacraments are sin? And if “traditionalists” are simply trying to remind us to “keep the main thing, the main thing”, aren’t they kind of defeating that message by using so much energy “standing up” against the sacraments? After all, if “keeping the main thing, the main thing” is all they’re concerned about, then what does it matter of a local congregation chooses to participate in the sacraments???
Tim,
Interesting comments on the sacraments. Maybe this is something for another post.
I think you may start a.....debate.
Tim I think there should be a lot of debate about the sacraments. I believe the Army's official position on them is liberating however very few people even know the army's 'official' position which was changed just a few years ago under General Rader.
We are going to have Communion this sunday although our people don't know it yet.
If you post this as a topic let me know i am game And i will post a myspace ralted post either late tonight or tomorrow morning at "brokensally.blogspot" but right now i have to get off the computer because our "senior Pastor" has to finish her sermon.
Larry, great post . . .
I think that one of the primary evils lurking about the issue you are raising is that of PRIDE. You asked if we were much different from the Corinthian Church . . .
I think we are very much like the Corinthians . . . many of us, including some/many of our leaders simply need milk, not solid food.
But Paul hits the issue of pride when he says in 1 Cor 6:7-8 “The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated? Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers.”
This verse could be applied to those situations where people feel the need prove themselves right. Why not be wrong? Why can’t we simply say, “you’re right, I’m wrong.” The reason is pride.
Pride will kill us, our organization and suck the life out of every living, breathing organism it comes in contact with.
Also, I would like to now more about the MYSPACE thing. What’s up with that?
Blessings,
Bret
Disagreeing gracefully is an important part of each conversation, one which can only be conducted when both parties are willing to allow room for it. Some conversations really do have a "right" and a "wrong" to them, and both parties need to be willng to continue the conversation with grace. And be willing to be persistant. Without name calling or pigeon-holing, at least able to reach out and know, this isn't complete.
Without grace, disagreements will become stumbling obstacles to any relationship, they will become sin.
Its important to keep talking, to help round out each others edges, to attempt at being persuasive, to continue thoughtful examination and careful expression. Words are powerful things - able to build and break without so much as a sweat.
Good thoughts today - enjoy your day!
Hey Larry!! It's funny to see the post about the sacraments and communion. Michael and I are having a hard time trying to "find" a church here in Italy. We need a Salvation Army close to us. We've attended a contemporary service on our base and Michael's not too thrilled with it, and 2 weeks ago we attended a Luthern service. I don't mind the contemporary service but the teaching just isn't there. I didn't mind the Luthern service, but they do communion every week and it's mostly a "read" service. It's hard since the both of us come from traditional corps and are both Sally's to the core. We so miss the love, compassion, and teaching of the Army. But I've come to learn that I need to experience new types of services. I loved hearing Chick Yuill at Roots Down South last year. I thought he was captivating and I'm so sorry to hear that they've left the work. If anyone wants to do some missionary service and want to start a corps plant, Vicenza, Italy is the place for you and I'd be willing to do anything you'd need at the corps!!!!!
Good to find your blog. It's late at night, so no words come to mind to comment, but I'm blogging on the area of church conflict and prayer etc at http://www.eveningbeaches.blogspot.com
Feel free to come and argue stuff, as the dialogue flowing is good and food for thought. Weariness is winning here, but I'll offer the words of St Bonaventure, 'The hardest thing for a man to give up is the moneybag of his own opinions.' That always makes me smile when I think of the struggles parties have in church conflicts.
Warmest blessings, Eleanor n/TSSF
Post a Comment
<< Home