Emerging or regressing?
I have been posting for a little over a year. Early on in my experience the response to the blog was strong. One of my earliest blogs was this one on Emerging information. My links are not working on this post. If you wish to read it you can go to February 2006 section on the right.
Janet and I presented to the TEC on the emerging church and its effect on the Army and our need to come to grips with the changes in the wind. It has been almost 14 months later. I am not sure where we stand on the issue of the emerging church.
My friends listened politely. Many nodded in agreement, but a year later, I fear for most, it is business as usual. We are still locked into hiearchical management and feeling the need to order people around.
Fortunately, my leaders are not that way, but alas I feel that they are not the majority. As I reread the post, your comments and your pleas, I think many have been ignored. In the name of leadership, at all levels headquarters and corps, I believe we have forged forward with some older tactics, in an attempt to recapture bygone days. The fact is that the good ole days probably were not that good anyway.
We have once again found ourselves in the mode of telling instead of listening. WE have started ordering instead of walking hand in hand. Instead of being fellow travellers, I think we find leadership trying to be the boss. Now, I know someone needs to be the final word. I accept that as part of submission to the Body. But as Jesus challenged us, I wonder if we continue to lord our authority over people. I even point the finger at myself. It is comfortable to do the old thing instead of the right thing sometimes.
So are we emerging or regressing as a movement? Read the post, your comments and then let me know what you think.
Janet and I presented to the TEC on the emerging church and its effect on the Army and our need to come to grips with the changes in the wind. It has been almost 14 months later. I am not sure where we stand on the issue of the emerging church.
My friends listened politely. Many nodded in agreement, but a year later, I fear for most, it is business as usual. We are still locked into hiearchical management and feeling the need to order people around.
Fortunately, my leaders are not that way, but alas I feel that they are not the majority. As I reread the post, your comments and your pleas, I think many have been ignored. In the name of leadership, at all levels headquarters and corps, I believe we have forged forward with some older tactics, in an attempt to recapture bygone days. The fact is that the good ole days probably were not that good anyway.
We have once again found ourselves in the mode of telling instead of listening. WE have started ordering instead of walking hand in hand. Instead of being fellow travellers, I think we find leadership trying to be the boss. Now, I know someone needs to be the final word. I accept that as part of submission to the Body. But as Jesus challenged us, I wonder if we continue to lord our authority over people. I even point the finger at myself. It is comfortable to do the old thing instead of the right thing sometimes.
So are we emerging or regressing as a movement? Read the post, your comments and then let me know what you think.
posted by Larry at 7:30 PM
14 Comments:
Larry, to be honest with you, this just seems like a ridiculous question that you and everybody else already knows the answer to. The Army is bogged down in that it has created a top down system, yet is completely unable to bring about meaningful changes from the top down. In my own division, change is coming through people who are entering the system with an “emerging” (has this word taken the place of “post modern”?) mindset already established and in place. In fact, they basically have to spend the two years of training college trying not to have that passion and mindset stolen from them. If they are successful, they are usually seen as rebels and usually placed in very challenging situations. In my own role as both a divisional youth officer, and having a local ministry, I find it extremely challenging, if not darn near impossible, to try and bring about change from the “top” down. If anything, I’m trying to bring about change from the bottom up through our local work, hoping that that will impact Corps and CO’s around me. As you know from my private discussions with you, it’s an extremely frustrating place to be and often has me questioning the value of DHQ.
In addition to this, and in no way to devalue the following thought, I’ve also found people quite cynical of new leaders who bring in big ideas. “We’ve heard this before”, they say, or “They’ll be gone soon”. I remember when Joe Nolen first hit the scene as the TC of the Northeast Territory. As somebody new but already frustrated with the Army, I was very excited by his speeches. They gave me hope. Until, that is, I began to discuss them with Salvationists around me who had seen and heard all this before. They were neither impressed nor impassioned, and certainly had no intention of changing a thing. As somebody pointed out on your previous post, many of them took Joe’s requirements for change, and simply changed the name of the programmes they already had in place. And while in some instances that was appropriate, as a general mindset it was not. Listen, I wasn’t a big fan of Fringle either (at least not past age 5 or 6), but that was one bad idea out of a hundred good ones. Forward thinking people like Joe are desperately needed in our church and I, for one, am sorry to see his leadership relegated to a blog.
Having said all of that, I do see glimpses of hope throughout the world. Several Corps here in London give me hope, as does yours and Janet’s appointments. If they’re willing to place you guys in those positions, what does that mean? I’m watching and hoping.
Tim,
Sorry to ask the "ridiculous question." I may be with you with the idea that top down is a style that will not work. Not many people are in lock step.
I have always believed in horizontal leadership not vertical. Maybe that is the key? When we go forward as fellow travellers, I believe the life of the Body is better than when we play follow the leader.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jeff,
I think that what the group who is "whining" is asking for is a return to the roots of the Army. It has to do with the priesthood of all believers and using the all of the Body to help in mission.
I think we found ourselves embarrassed when we thought we knew better than God. We decided to be a respectable group that fell in love with form and denomination more than being the church of the poor and downtrodden. Generational lift will do that.
We took anyone. Now I am afraid, are so concerned with form and holding on to dead traditions that we stifle the creative giftings that was once our birthright. If you remember right, soldiers started corps and then wrote the general. Now we have to have 5 meetings (no kidding) fill out three forms and then look for 100k to start something.
People like Tim wh do start something have been encouraged then let go, when leadership changes. If we had more of a voice, successful ministries would not be ended, old ones that have been sick for years would be closed.
You're right God can still be found in some holiness meetings. He can be found where people feel freedom to be part of a community and not just a person who must march to someone else's tune.
You are correct that Jesus does the most good.
I am so grateful that He has done good in your life. I AM SO GLAD YOU ARE BACK!!!! We have missed you!!!!! Many of us who have prayed for years, are loving the fact that you have heard the voice of Jesus through Jeremy and Jamie.
Larry,
I have to agree with Tim. I think that in some ways we are progressing, mainly through grassroots leaders and officers who are slowly bringing change where they are. But as far as the system and structure goes, you’re right, business as usual. Joe Nolen nailed it when he blogged about the “giant hairball” a few months ago. The system just keeps getting more and more complex.
All the frustration that many of us experience will eventually hit the top at some point. The kind of change that the Army needs will probably not happen for, who knows, 10? 20 years? If ever . . .
I think we need to consider what changes need to occur and look for ways to make it happen. Perhaps we need to, prayerfully and under the guidance of God’s Spirit, consider rejecting certain ideas and even (if I dare say) lay down our officership and force the Army to accept certain ideas or fire us. However you slice it, we’re in a crises.
This comment has been removed by the author.
To add a few more thoughts to the discussion, but to stay very much within the theme, we also face the problem that, in most cases, those with the real power to change things are officers, but officers can quickly be moved (and often are) if they start disrupting things too much. While soldiers cannot be moved, there are very few instances where they have the power to bring about change. It can be done, mind you, but it’s a very hard thing to accomplish. Phil Wall managed to do this, but we would be way off if we assumed that because Phil did it, anybody can do it. Phil is a fiery leader in the mould of Joshua, and those are very few and far between.
My own Corps is also an interesting study. Our own CO’s have been in place for fourteen years and have managed to bring about great change in the Corps, while also handing over leadership, in theory, to the people. However, while I would hate to see David and Cathy go, as a student of the church, it will be very interesting to see a new set of officers come in. Only then will we see where the church’s leadership really lies.
I don’t state all of that to whine or give excuses for failure, not at all, but I do think we have to identify the problems if we’re going to be able to identify a solution.
For me, a few easy solutions are as follows:
Recognize the areas of DHQ, THQ, and IHQ that can be run by non-Officers and leave more of our good leaders out in the field.
Change more about the position of Officership than I can possible imagine. While I do understand the need for sacrifice, you shouldn’t have to sacrifice your family to be a minister. You really ought to have some choice in where you’re appointed. If somebody isn’t passionate about a place, why would I want to move them there? And you guys can probably come up with twenty more things that would need to change for us to start attracting people back to officership. As it is, we’ve got a lot of good leaders in our church who look at officership and think, “Get real.”
If CO’s are successful, then leave them in place for a minimum of ten years. We’re absolutely killing ourselves with all of these moves. “You guys are successful? What’s that you say, attendance has increased by 100%? Wow! Let’s move you!” Seriously. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that that’s a really bad growth plan.
We need to give back the leadership of our Corps to our people. There was a day when there were multiple upon multiple positions in a Corps, from youth and children’s officers, to welcome officers, to worship officers, to offering officers, etc. Somewhere along the way, we turned our noses up to these local officer positions. I’m sure there were multiple reasons why. But what we actually managed to do was to take the opportunity to serve, and the opportunity of ownership away from our people, leaving everything for the Officers to do, and breeding and raising up generations of Salvationists who aren’t used to, and don’t know how to do anything.
Along the same vein, in our attempt to get rid of old programming that wasn’t working, too many of our Corps have ditched discipleship completely. While I agree that much of that programming was pretty lame (I won’t mention any in particular), how did we not recognize that a complete lack of discipleship was not going to be the answer. We’re now looking at generations of Salvationists who, in my opinion, have not been discipled.
Those are just off the top of my head, but I think they’re a good start. Problem is, typing about them on a blog also isn’t going to change anything either. So what do we do?
Incidently Larry, if you decide to barr me from your blog for typing such a long post, I'll understand. : )
I guess I should have clarified, my use of the word "whine" wasn't about anything said here. It was regarding a conversation on another subject in another galaxy far away.
Tim,
I like the idea of giving more ownership to the local people. I also like the idea of having officers stay for 10 years minimum. Incidentally, in my last corps I asked the Personnel Secretary for 10 yeaers. Four years later, I was the TYS.
What steps would you take corporately, to invest more power in the local corps.
I also agree about non-officers taking significant roles at our DHQ/THQs. In our case our Finance Secretary, better known as the Director of Finance and his Assistant are non-officers. Coincidentally, they are highly respected and probably the two best people I have ever worked with in those positions.
For some reason, I think the theology of the Army is that officership is a higher calling. I think it is a different calling. I view the calling of a good CSM and people like you and Jamie as just as holy or even maybe a bit more. You don't have our security.
Larry,
I can only speak from my vantage point but...
I completely agree with you and completely disagree with you. What i maen is that I believe we are an army divided.
I have just addressed two significant issues with two different sets of leaders. One leader a I came at with a ferver that in hindsight may have bordered on disrespectful. His responce to me was to simply listen, then apologize for what he felt was not in line with the Army's mission, then ask me to please come to him if any other issues arrive.
And That leader acted on my concerns. I am greatful for his Emergent approach to leadership.
I have also recently witnessed people trying to lord their authority over others.
My belief is that if i can find extreme examples of servant leadership in GNY a division that is almost completely centralized in its structure than there is hope.
keep going, bro.
I just blogged on this, asking if it isn't possible to do more as a soldier than as an officer, and felt like by even asking the question I'd killed one of the army's sacred cows. But look around you....
I won't rehash what others have said. But I've listened to so much frustration in the army it's unbelievable. Mainly its soldiers frustrated because they've got no involvement in their corps, and don't feel brave enough to go out and pioneer alone, or officers who feel like hamsters in the proverbial wheel going round and round running programmes in a congregation as it quietly ages into the next life.
We don't just need discipleship to offer to new soldiers, we need discipleship/formation that has cutting edge training in mission built in and seamlessly integrated. We need soldiers who are sufficiently trained and encouraged to be confident enough to pioneer when the corps around them is dying.
I'm reasonably optimistic about change, because of the net. I think cultural change happens through conversations like this one and the countless others going on out there, and as discipleship and formation is accessed more easily by soldiers the changes will be impossible to stop. But the message to soldiers needs to be 'grow up', and stop waiting around for the army to give you something to do or provide training - it isn't your parent and it isn't going to nurture you.
We are each faced with choices - will people tithe to a congregation that does not listen to everyone and involve everyone appropriately in decision making? Will people tithe to a congregation that lacks a healthy approach to handling conflict and working for its transformation? Will people tithe (and serve in) a congregation stuck in maintenance/attractional mode while generation after generation goes missing from our faith communities? Where is this all headed if the army cannot handle necessary change?
This comment has been removed by the author.
Something that 'by the bay' just said resonates in my spirit quite strongly: that soldiers need to grow up. That the army is not your parent. Although many of us that grew up with officer parents would understand the paradox of that statement and have all had to realize that to grow up.
One consideration though,is many who have left the army, been broken and return because of the power of the word of God in our lives would like to hold to the truth of the scripture in Hebrews 13:7,8 ESV
~ Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God. Consider the outcome of their way of life, and imitate their faith. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever. ~
When I look back on my life, the most influential people in my life were Officers. Growing up in Chicago and New York in the 60's. There was real love in those people. Dare I name some?
Commissioner Andy Miller, Colonel Doug Lowman, my aunt Catherine Ditmer, Colonel Albert Pepper, and I didn't really know him, it was what came from him as I was walking with him and my father in the camp grounds. There were others I can't remember just now.
What does the army need today? A resurgence of love and caring for each other.
Post a Comment
<< Home