How far is too far?
This may be my last post for a couple of weeks. I am off to Europe for an educational tour. I am not sure what I expect and may blog on this a bit later. I have a good topic though for this time. At least I think it is a good topic.
Recently, I had a conversation with a couple of friends who shared with me a concern voiced by a few people regarding the content of blogs, especially by Salvationists. I know this subject has been simmering for a while with people in leadership.
One of my friends indicated that in a conversation he had with a few people there was great concern that people who raised a critical voice regarding organizational or church change were somehow not being faithful to our Movement. In fact, he indicated that there was a very passionate plea to stop people from writing bad things about the Army.
I am somewhat in a quandary as it pertains to this subject. Followers of this commentary know that I raise many issues about the church and our part of it in particular. I don't believe that I embellish truth or that I am completely one-sided in my commentary or in opening a discussion. Maybe there are those who think I do not completely explore the truth, but that is their opinion and they are entitled to it. They also have opportunity to comment and debate their point through this forum.
I do think that if one of my fellow bloggers or one of those who would comment on my posts, are completely honest, don't falsify statements and are courteous in their discourse that they do have a right to criticize and even call into question the Movement. I don't believe in personal attacks though and have removed them from my blog when they have arisen. I think that is an inappropriate area of discussion.
I do, however, believe there should be an open forum to discuss the issues of our Movement and to hear from all sides. If we were to, as some have advocated, shut down all of the blogs that question (not sure how you would do it anyway) the issues of the Movement, I believe two things would happen.
1. You would force the discussion further underground. This would not, in my opinion, be healthy or really solve the issue of a group who want to be heard, but may feel they have no voice. I believe that this would cause rancor (if it is not already there) among the troops, most of whom, love the mission of our Movement and are sold out to it. I feel most of the critical voices already love our Army and genuinely want it to be better. Open discussion of this type regarding ecclesiastic issues, methodology or leadership, although painful at times for some, I believe is key to creativity and building consensus as we move forward. If it is taken away, I believe there could be a great wave of apathy as we try to build momentum for this millenium.
2. I think also we could border (and I know this is tough to hear) on the edge of being almost cultic. The moment the rank and file cannot comment or are castigated for voicing an opinion, may be the moment we find we are not be much better than those movements we tend to criticize. While I do not believe we are a cult, unquestioning following and unchallenged leadership will lead us down a path that I believe will not be healthy for the church and our part of it. I do believe as the Word says "Iron sharpens iron."
I know that last paragraph will raise of few eyebrows and some blood pressure. Some may consider it over the top. I think for many, the blogging arena is where they feel they can express opinion without retribution. I would hope they would also think twice before being ungraceful in their comments or posts. That does not do us any good either.
I know I may have stirred the pot a great deal on this one. I do so because I think this discussion makes for a hard, yet necessary discourse.
So the questions for my journey are simple. What is proper and Christian as far as it pertains to blogging? How far is too far? Should we not question the leadership, methodology, ecclesiastic issues, stewardship or other issues pertaining to our Movement? What is off limits? Is there anything off limits?
I am leaving in a few days but will try to stay current on the conversation. As with all of my posts I want to know,
What do you think?
Recently, I had a conversation with a couple of friends who shared with me a concern voiced by a few people regarding the content of blogs, especially by Salvationists. I know this subject has been simmering for a while with people in leadership.
One of my friends indicated that in a conversation he had with a few people there was great concern that people who raised a critical voice regarding organizational or church change were somehow not being faithful to our Movement. In fact, he indicated that there was a very passionate plea to stop people from writing bad things about the Army.
I am somewhat in a quandary as it pertains to this subject. Followers of this commentary know that I raise many issues about the church and our part of it in particular. I don't believe that I embellish truth or that I am completely one-sided in my commentary or in opening a discussion. Maybe there are those who think I do not completely explore the truth, but that is their opinion and they are entitled to it. They also have opportunity to comment and debate their point through this forum.
I do think that if one of my fellow bloggers or one of those who would comment on my posts, are completely honest, don't falsify statements and are courteous in their discourse that they do have a right to criticize and even call into question the Movement. I don't believe in personal attacks though and have removed them from my blog when they have arisen. I think that is an inappropriate area of discussion.
I do, however, believe there should be an open forum to discuss the issues of our Movement and to hear from all sides. If we were to, as some have advocated, shut down all of the blogs that question (not sure how you would do it anyway) the issues of the Movement, I believe two things would happen.
1. You would force the discussion further underground. This would not, in my opinion, be healthy or really solve the issue of a group who want to be heard, but may feel they have no voice. I believe that this would cause rancor (if it is not already there) among the troops, most of whom, love the mission of our Movement and are sold out to it. I feel most of the critical voices already love our Army and genuinely want it to be better. Open discussion of this type regarding ecclesiastic issues, methodology or leadership, although painful at times for some, I believe is key to creativity and building consensus as we move forward. If it is taken away, I believe there could be a great wave of apathy as we try to build momentum for this millenium.
2. I think also we could border (and I know this is tough to hear) on the edge of being almost cultic. The moment the rank and file cannot comment or are castigated for voicing an opinion, may be the moment we find we are not be much better than those movements we tend to criticize. While I do not believe we are a cult, unquestioning following and unchallenged leadership will lead us down a path that I believe will not be healthy for the church and our part of it. I do believe as the Word says "Iron sharpens iron."
I know that last paragraph will raise of few eyebrows and some blood pressure. Some may consider it over the top. I think for many, the blogging arena is where they feel they can express opinion without retribution. I would hope they would also think twice before being ungraceful in their comments or posts. That does not do us any good either.
I know I may have stirred the pot a great deal on this one. I do so because I think this discussion makes for a hard, yet necessary discourse.
So the questions for my journey are simple. What is proper and Christian as far as it pertains to blogging? How far is too far? Should we not question the leadership, methodology, ecclesiastic issues, stewardship or other issues pertaining to our Movement? What is off limits? Is there anything off limits?
I am leaving in a few days but will try to stay current on the conversation. As with all of my posts I want to know,
What do you think?
posted by Larry at 3:40 PM
17 Comments:
the discussion must continue. the Army is doing great things in many places. And will continue to do so. But until it learns it is not doing the most good, but still perhaps trying to, we must continue to strive for a better way. I can say there are great and wonderful things being done, I experienced that this summer, but I can also tell you many are still being hurt. As recent as a received email from a friend this evening. As long as that continues, we must not be afraid to seek solutions. To ask questions. And we must never forget Christ is the originator of this movement. He cannot be left out under any circumstances.
but I also believe we have to do something about it where we are. We can't just talk about change. We need to have the courage to listen to what God is saying needs to be done and begin doing it.
It concerns me that there are still people who believe that the Army should not be criticised in anyway as it suggests that they think that the Army is bigger than those who make it up. There are many great things happening and there are many mediocre or even un-Christian things going on as well.
It is possibly this unwillingness to criticise that has led to the increasing demise of the Army in most Western territories. However, the reality is that change is needed in the majority of places to halt the terminal decline. Jeff is right to say though that it is not enough to say things online; we must also find the courage to make change happen at grassroots level.
I feel that God is speaking to a great many people who care passionately about the Army as a part of God's Kingdom. He is trying to guide us along the paths that will bring about change from a 'stereotyped' Army into expressions that meet the needs of those he guides us to. The wonder of the internet is that this has led us to be able to network in a way that has never been possible before.
However, we need to use this widely and in a Christian way. Some of our brothers and sisters have been badly hurt, others are likely to be hurt by some of the personal attacks that have been made online over the last couple of years. This is why wisdom and love should be in all that we do and say, both online and in our face to face interactions with everyone God sends our way.
... oh and Larry, have a great time over here in Europe!
Enjoy Europe and the educational tour - what an exquisite opportunity. I would at least expect to get some fantastic olives and lemons if I were you.
Give yourself better credit than you do...you frequently have good topics for this blogging medium and carry difference of perspective and opinion with dignity and panache. Rarely do you ever utilize the "Comment deleted" opportunity, you don't shout anyone down or resort to name calling or insult slamming.
You can step into the arena of sarcasm with the best of them, though, yet that can't be held against you or others.
You highlight questions. Many times they are your own, or ones you identify with; sometimes they are questions you defend from others.
Questions are never landmines or assault weapons...they are questions. It is not disrespectful to have questions (but I have lost a job over having the "wrong questions")but it is disrespectful to be disrespectful.
There needs to be courage and laser-beam precision applied when tackling negative and critical voices. It is negligent to smooth over all questioning behavior and label it "Rebellion". When addressing intentional disrespect, it is important to respond directly to the source...face to face...screen to screen...phone to phone. Not everyone is a negative or critical voice. Not all criticism is negative. Not every question is intended to bring disgrace, humiliation or upheaval.
The Early Church fathers rarely agreed on anything, constantly questioning/debating/ensuring the line was drawn correctly. It had to have required an immense amount of stamina, resolve and durability to keep those questions and answers straight. Do I have the same tenacity as Athanasius or Eusebius or Clement to keep pushing the questions/searching for the answers? Am I made of the right stuff to question with respect, to seek with purpose and grace?
I insist to seek for and defend the truth without humiliating anyone. To correct without requiring damage control or waste disposal from an encounter.
On a lighter side...
I will admit, you have a more questioning mind than I do. My mind is not turning and yearning with unasked questions...I ask them and rely upon a very persistant tendency within myself to seek and find the answer. If you were a superhero, would you be the Riddler in a full green bodysuit with a giant question mark?!. (hardy har)
Enjoy your journey!
You do present an open forum, a discussion, an opportunity for expression. It is always respectful, frequently lively involved with the comments from others
The problem is much more complicated than i thought at first. i started typing this comment five times already but have ended up in a rabbit hole.
it all goes back to the fundamental issue that arises everytime we talk about the Army's internal problems. The issue is that the Army is BOTH an organization AND a church. It does not cease to be one when it operates as the other. Therefore, you cannot apply a principle to one side without affecting the other.
The Army's attempt to squash anything that besmirches its public image is not necessarily a bad move, business-wise. It is what any good business does: downplay its shortcoming and flaunt its achievements.
Problem is, that's not exactly how the church is called to operate. And, quite frankly, to be fair, it's not just the Army that suffer from this Pharasaical attitude. It's the Church at large.
We are always hiding our faults and think that this will somehow make us more attractive to others. All the time, people are waiting to see us for who we really are... imperfect people who have accepted the free grace of God for our messed up and totally self-centered lives. Apart from Him and on our own we are screwed.
Maybe that's not as eloquent as it could be, but I think you know what I mean.
I find it interesting that you used the word "Movement" as opposed to "Organization". It would seem to me that a movement would behave more fluidly than you are suggesting that some of your superiors are willing to allow. Organization seems to me a better fit.
Phil,
I use the word Movement because I think that is what God intends. Sadly, you may be right. We may indeed just be an organization. I hope not for the sake of The Kingdom
Larry,
AMEN!!!
Phil,
AMEN!!!
I got actively involved in this issues for a season. And walked away discouraged. I was not disheartned because what i sensed amoung my leaders was a desire to follow God and to allow those amoung our rank and file to express themselves.
But i was discouraged because it seemed that while leaders were concerned there seemed to be this tension that Phil describes.
Some of the leaders viewing blogging and web based discussion as having greating ministry potentional and others concerned about their duty to "protect the organization" The result of that i saw seemed to be a stalemate.
I fall easily on the side that sees discussion as good and helpful critical self evaluation of the movement is one my oppinion one of the most loyal acts we can commit.
What I wonder though as a young corps officer with lots of opinnions is whether i will be so enthuastic when i am on the receiving end of someone else's critical self evaluation of the moventent to which i have comitted my life?
This comment has been removed by the author.
On grass roots responses, I've struggled through how to respond positively - how to do something constructive in response to the problems I see in the army as church. It may not sound so positive, but the place I arrived at was the conviction that I am a soldier in the army-as-church and therefore have to relate to it this way, as a church member. The Articles of War is a covenant and that should have two parties, not one.
While my service to God is unconditional and I should hold nothing back, I'm feeling now that soldiers need to say no to either being left passive, or being given only maintenance related tasks in a drifting corps. Obviously we can go out and find lay ministry opportunities in parachurch organisations, and many have done so, including myself, but I agree with others who have written that the army has a fundamental responsibility to help soldiers find a place of active service. This means training, dialogue, thinking and reflecting. It doesn't just mean handing out a task.
So I'm convinced now that if the corps offers me missional engagement as part of a team for the great majority of my available hours of service each week, I should pay in my tithe to that corps, and offer a couple of hours for the maintenance related tasks to which every congregation needs to attend. If the corps doesn't engage me in missional service and I don't speak out, I'm complicit in propping up a dysfunctional leader - one who is failing to engage believers in service. If I end up doing only maintenance tasks while other members sit around doing nothing, then I'm propping up a congregation in its dysfunctional lifestyle, a congregation that needs a firm challenge.
Similarly, if the army as a church/movement is, for example, leaving a trail of wounded behind it, or is failing to offer even the kind of conflict resolution/peer mediation skills in training to all its members in discipleship that the local school provides to my teenagers as a matter of course, then I am failing that church if I don't speak out in protest.
Faithfulness is about not propping up dysfunction, but about serving with commitment regardless of the personal consequences.
So yes, I will continue to pray, write, blog and advocate for church health.
Like Phil, it’s hard to know where to begin on this one.
I’ve been in church all my life and I’ve seen it from the inside-out, both from growing up in a home with parents who were part of the church leadership, to actually being a part of the church leadership myself. In many cases, I’ve served along side people who felt that problems in the church should be glossed over, and in most of those cases, I’ve watched as God humbled church leaders who made that decision. But I’ve never been part of a denomination which does it as much as the Army does.
Part of the problem, as Phil pointed out, is that we’re both a church and an organization. I won’t rehash it all because Phil did a wonderful job of explaining it already. I’ll simply agree and acknowledge the fact that it isn’t always as cut and dry as I’d like to believe (case in point, the situation in Pakistan). But other times, it simply boils down to pride and fear. I personally believe that we have an international group of leaders right now who are being held hostage by both of those things and, it’s not only discouraging to watch, but it can be very disempowering for people. Disempowerment, something that the Army has mastered over the last century. And therein lies maybe the greatest problem with today’s Army.
I’m not pointing out anything new here, I know. But we have reaped what we have sown. Our pride caused us to disempower people and doing so has left us with (and please excuse the vulgarity of this illustration) a castrated church. It may have been nice for a while. No doubt our Officer parents and their Officer parents enjoyed a career where they were king of their local worlds, never questioned, and always honoured. They had loyal soldiers willing to line up and carry out the most menial tasks. But that’s no longer the case. Cynicism crept in and woke people up and people began to crave the doctrine of the royal priesthood. They also began to see greener pastors in their towns. And, sadly, many just left bitter. Either way, people began to drift away and we were left with those who never questioned and also never thought for themselves. I travel around now and see empty Corps, save for a few people who are emotional, spiritual and theological vegetables.
Today we continue this trend because we’re afraid of losing the power we’ve spent a lifetime trying to obtain. As children we watched men with red stripes wield power like a sword and we longed to wield that sword ourselves. And now that we have it, we’re not willing to lay it down for the betterment of a movement that was anointed by God to do good works.
One day we’ll answer for our actions, but it won’t bring back the opportunities we had to save people from the grip of the enemy. What a sad day that will be and what a sad day it is. 1 John 4:1
Fear and pride only leads to destruction.
Tim has said this well. And I've been thinking that we cannot let the way we express our love for a real Salvation Army with the real purpose of fulfilling God's commission deter us from expressing change. Anyone who really loves the reason for the Salvation Army will not ask those that want to make it better and more truthful to be quiet on the subject.
When an officer chimes in on all that is good with the Army, as a way of silencing the conversation, he makes it seem as though we don't acknowledge the good. But, and excuse the possibly poor analogy, some must work in the basement fixing the broken furnace while others are called to carry on the business upstairs. We must all come to some kind of understanding that we all are in this together.
Since my last reply I had a simmiliar discussion with a Salvation Army Leader who i believe is probably the same person you spoke with Larry.
This Leader that i spoke with spends a good amount of time reading what Salvationists write about their 'organization' and she sited examples that made me cringe because i knew she had a point.
There is a culture within our 'movement' who for one reason have been hurt or angered rather than leave their 'organization' and move on they attack and attack and attack. (maybe the army is all they know and change of anykind is threatening) there is no desire to see the movement be the best it can be simply to point out its faults. They often speak out with out the facts and in error.
I still think your right that to try to stop even this group is not possible and only gives them more power.
Not everyone with a Blog is trying to sharpen Iron though some are just grinding axes.
“rather than leave their 'organization' and move on they attack and attack and attack.”
We recently had a new officer show up in our division with whom I work rather closely with. On a number of occasions he has expressed that he doesn’t know why people who have a problem with certain policies of the Army just don’t move on. Apparently he is unaware that he’s talking about me. I never know quite how to respond but in my head I’m thinking, “because this is my church too and one man, or group of men, should not get to decide what I can and cannot do, or what I can and cannot observe as a Salvationist. I should have a say in this. It should not be frowned upon (or worse) and I should not have to have hush hush conversations about things like the sacraments. We’re not the catholic church, we’re a protestant church and, lest we forget, that’s supposed to be one of the things that sets us apart from the Catholic church.
One of the things that people are bitter about is our secretiveness – the way we quietly put people away. No surprise that some of them lash out then by trying to drag our indiscretions out into the light.
Recently, in many sectors of my life, I have been noticing that people often are disgruntled with people in leadership and people in leadership often are disgruntled with people they lead. I have no proof to back up my view, having not tested it, so I'll pose my thoughts as questions. Could it be that there is a gap between the generation in leadership and the generation that feels comfortable asking questions? Was there a time that the generation in leadership asked qustions about the geneartion before them? (in fact I do remember such discussions happening on a certain beach as I grew up.) Could it be that perspective from one's era, shapes how one leads and what one expects of those who follow? I ask these questions in love, b/c I honestly believe that both generations love this movement and the church, and it is painful to watch as they struggle to preserve it and progress it, but keep not being able to unite to do it together.
: ) That was a bit of an understatement! But well said.
Religion itself is rooted in pre-modernity and needs to be able to sustain significant continuity with the past. No wonder, then, that it has struggled with the constant changes and uprootings of modernity and, now, post-modernity. Denominations came about as a result of those struggles from pre-modernity to modernity and now find themselves dealing with the changes and uprootings of a society that is trying to make the move from modernity to post-modernity. Some groups will change beyond recognition to keep up with the times while others will attempt to conserve everything (i.e. the Quakers, the Shakers, Orthodox Jews, Shia Muslims) as it used to be.
The truth is, and as far as I can tell, no Christian denomination has ever remained the same and also remained affective. Even the Catholic church has gone through several major changes starting with Vatican II. The Shakers are a good example of a denomination which is quite literally dying before our very eyes. They are less than twenty years away of being nothing more than a part of American history. We will tour their buildings, look at their photos, and guides will tell us about the way it used to be. Ken Burns even did a documentary on them.
I came to the Army understanding that it, like many denominations, needed a major overhaul if it was going to survive the shift into post-modernity. To tell you the truth, I had given up on the possibility of denominations being able to pull off that transformation. I became open to the Army being able to do it because of our call to social justice. As I look around at other denominations, the things that set them apart are not the sort of things that I think people will continue to embrace into the next societal shift. Consider the things that set other denominations apart; The Baptists fully immerse. Yay. The Charismatics speak in tongues and, often, believe in the theology of naming it and claiming it…seems pretty shallow. The Methodists…who in the world knows what sets Methodists apart? Presbyterians and Nazarenes? As far as I can tell, it’s sheer boredom which set these two apart. But people know (or at least they think they know) what sets the Army apart and they not only respect it, but believe (Christians and non-Christians alike) that its something that should be apart of their own lives. Social justice. In fact, if I had to point to the one thing about the world that seems to really be improving, it’s the fact that more and more people, and more and more governments seem to be embracing the idea of social justice. You can’t pick up a magazine or newspaper these days and not see several stories on social justice. And so I chose the Army, not only because I believed in social justice myself, but also because I wanted to see if it could be done. I wanted to see if a denomination could transform itself and get through this cultural shift.
The problem though, is that as relevant as our message could be (and should be), many in our ranks keep doing their best to make sure that our inner sanctum remains as irrelevant as possible. They are clinging to weeds, disguised as roots, mistakenly believing that these are the things which set us apart and that these are the things that matter. They are critically mistaken.
It will take some courage but unless we promote some leaders who are willing and able to move us forward, we too will become apart of history. There’s no question. In many parts of the world (most of the West) we are already at a point where our church’s are supported by the social work we do. If not for that, the public would not support us and, without the public’s financial support, the majority of our churches would close their doors tomorrow.
If Ken Burns shows up, shut the door and pray for another twenty years to turn this thing around!
(I would like to apologize to Baptists, Methodists, Charismatics of several ilks, Presbyterians, Nazarenes, and everybody who’s sick of the word “modernity”.)
Tim
I don't think anyone should be hush hush if they are trying to bring about change. It's your Army and It's mine.
What I was speaking to is people who are simply bitter and and angry with the Army and no matter what it does they are not happy.
I was speaking to the what i believe is a culture of bitterness. that is not helpful.
We have all met people like this who angry with a policy but if it is changed they hate the new one as well.
it is not about the issues but about something deeper for some people.
Post a Comment
<< Home