Questions or Disloyalty?
I have been asking questions in this forum for the last couple of years. We have asked questions on morality, leadership, our movement, ethics, the emerging church and even asked if you had a shot to tell the leadership our territory anything, what it would be.
I have asked these questions to stimulate discussion. I have asked these questions to raise other questions. I have asked these questions, to allow some of you to vent. I have asked these questions ultimately with the desire to seek the betterment of the church and to think through some of my own theology.
Recently, I had a conversation with a dear friend who suggested that because of the position I occupy in the movement that I might be disloyal to be asking these questions on my blog. My friend suggested that my disloyalty might come from the fact that I am in leadership.
First, let me hasten to say that I believe that we are all leaders. All of us in this movement, who take on the mantle of soldiership and officership, are called to be leaders. To say that I should be held to a different standard because I happen to have the appointment I do, to me says that there can be levels of loyalty??? My question is, "Is it fine for someone not in an administrative level to have questions about the movement and about the church in general, while those of us who are in those positions are not allowed to even wonder?" I frankly don't see the logic.
Our Army Mother said, "There is no changing the future without disturbing the present." I quoted that to my friend who said that it was fine for her to say this because she was one of the founders. I did not see the logic in that. My reply, "Are you saying that children are to seen and not heard?"
I submit not to ask the questions is to be disloyal. Because you want the movement and those in it to really move forward. If I have a question or give voice to questions others would want to ask, is that being disloyal?
I think it is all in how you ask. If I was denigrating people personally, it would be one thing. If I challenge the status quo or sincerely question with respect, then I think that it actually strengthens us. Debate that is civil and deep in my opinion only serves to inform. To not question, for me, is to settle for second best without wrestling with the ideas and traditions of faith. To not question, is in my opinion to breed passive aggressives. To not allow questions or to say that questioners are somehow disloyal would suggest that people like Luther, Wesley and Booth were somehow disloyal. Where is the difference???
Is there a time when we should salute and go? Sure. I think that even then, we owe it to the movement to if we have questions, to ask and not let unanswered questions turn into confusion or even worse bitterness.
To suggest that I am not human or that I am somehow needing to be above asking the hard questions because I happen to have a certain appointment, to me is illogical.
I have rambled a bit but I am interested in hearing you on this matter. Is my questioning disloyal? Does position make a difference when asking the hard questions? Do you think that this forum is the wrong forum to ask questions? Is this a helpful place to ask and discuss the hard questions?
What do you think?
I have asked these questions to stimulate discussion. I have asked these questions to raise other questions. I have asked these questions, to allow some of you to vent. I have asked these questions ultimately with the desire to seek the betterment of the church and to think through some of my own theology.
Recently, I had a conversation with a dear friend who suggested that because of the position I occupy in the movement that I might be disloyal to be asking these questions on my blog. My friend suggested that my disloyalty might come from the fact that I am in leadership.
First, let me hasten to say that I believe that we are all leaders. All of us in this movement, who take on the mantle of soldiership and officership, are called to be leaders. To say that I should be held to a different standard because I happen to have the appointment I do, to me says that there can be levels of loyalty??? My question is, "Is it fine for someone not in an administrative level to have questions about the movement and about the church in general, while those of us who are in those positions are not allowed to even wonder?" I frankly don't see the logic.
Our Army Mother said, "There is no changing the future without disturbing the present." I quoted that to my friend who said that it was fine for her to say this because she was one of the founders. I did not see the logic in that. My reply, "Are you saying that children are to seen and not heard?"
I submit not to ask the questions is to be disloyal. Because you want the movement and those in it to really move forward. If I have a question or give voice to questions others would want to ask, is that being disloyal?
I think it is all in how you ask. If I was denigrating people personally, it would be one thing. If I challenge the status quo or sincerely question with respect, then I think that it actually strengthens us. Debate that is civil and deep in my opinion only serves to inform. To not question, for me, is to settle for second best without wrestling with the ideas and traditions of faith. To not question, is in my opinion to breed passive aggressives. To not allow questions or to say that questioners are somehow disloyal would suggest that people like Luther, Wesley and Booth were somehow disloyal. Where is the difference???
Is there a time when we should salute and go? Sure. I think that even then, we owe it to the movement to if we have questions, to ask and not let unanswered questions turn into confusion or even worse bitterness.
To suggest that I am not human or that I am somehow needing to be above asking the hard questions because I happen to have a certain appointment, to me is illogical.
I have rambled a bit but I am interested in hearing you on this matter. Is my questioning disloyal? Does position make a difference when asking the hard questions? Do you think that this forum is the wrong forum to ask questions? Is this a helpful place to ask and discuss the hard questions?
What do you think?
posted by Larry at 7:16 PM
8 Comments:
You do have alot of questions, yet that has been the format you have chosen for your creativity. I think its a neat one, one which can identify with many conversations. It is obvious that some of your "Questions for the Journey" have been presented to help allow another voice to be heard more plainly, a volume amplification of questions others have asked and prompted a vein of thought for you.
Questions are not a sign of disloyalty. Yet I have been fired from a job where the only evidence provided of my "disloyalty" was a string of unrelated questions which appeared to undermine the authority of others.
Questions can promote change.
Questions can prompt ethical defense.
Questions can allow others to be an "expert" with their own inclusion and participation.
Your questions have not been humiliating or degrading, have not expressed insulting judgements, have not "asked someone to step outside" or been developed with hidden a secret agenda.
I guarentee you'll come across as pompous if you renamed your site as "Answers for the journey" and sporadically provided unsought advice and answers to questions and circumstances no one brought to light.
Your questions have been posed in relevant circumstances as you have encountered them.
I believe your format for your blogging creativity sponsors as many answers as it does questions.
As long as your uniform isn't a spandex suit with a giant question mark (i.e. the Riddler)you can't be offensive. Now wearing that kinda suit, then you're on your own... keep posing questions!
By asking questions like you're asking in your position is the ultimate sign of leadership. In our movement it is a necessary task to challenge the status quo and seek to improve upon what is currently in place. Our TC in the West said when he first arrived in our territory that he "only wanted to make the Army better." He then proceeded to challenge the status quo and ask questions of the officers and soldiers throughout the territory that made people uncomfortable and suspicious. Had he not done so, we would have never moved beyond where we were. Today there is growth and health where there was once stagnation and life-support.
By asking questions and encouraging dialogue, things happened. If we were to stop questioning any forward momentum would cease. Let's be careful though when asking the questions to give serious thought to considering potential solutions to the queries presented.
I wrote an earlier response, but it didn't show up. Lost in (cyber) space, I guess.
Madeleine L'Engle gets it:
Questions are disturbing, especially those that may threaten our traditions, our institutions, our security. But questions never threaten the living God, who is constantly calling us, and who affirms for us that love is stronger than hate, blessing stronger than cursing.
One concern is the lack of process for questions to be raised - used to be there was TOAC, DOAC, and even some kinds of soldiers' forums. What happened?
Leaders may not be the ones always articulating the questions, but if they cultivate an atmosphere of transparency, then many of the questions won't even have to be asked.
There are times that the church (not just the Army) seems to have adopted an age old answer to the age old question of what God was doing before the creation of the world: “He was building hell for curious people.”
I think the suggestion of loyalty to the movement, within the context of the church (or any other movement, for that matter), is one of the most dangerous suggestions I have ever heard. I can go too far in my statements, from time to time, but I don’t see how “loyalty to the movement” can be explained in any other way than idolatry (or fascism). Luther and Calvin would back me up on that.
I’m not a Calvinist (to say the least), but his thoughts on idolatry are something that have always rung true for me. Christopher Elwood sums them up well:
“The human mind, according to Calvin, is a ‘perpetual factory of idols.’ We prefer, that is, to worship our fabricated and domesticated gods than to respond to the living God. And we are, he says, highly adept at creating these gods; our lives are filled with a profusion of tangible substitutes for the intangible God. The seed of religion takes root in us and grows into a malformed plant that gives bitter fruit.”
I have a “friend” whom I’ve known for about fifteen years. He is a pastor’s son and is my age. I served at his father’s church early on in my ministry. My friend was very involved in the leadership of the church, but was living a life away from church that was less than exemplary, and every college student in town knew about it. One day, in an attempt to handle the situation delicately, sensitively, and scripturally, the worship minister and I sat down and had, what we believed to be, a very loving conversation with him about it. We loved him dearly, considered him a good friend, and only wanted the absolute best for he and his family. In any other instance we would have gone directly to the pastor about it and made him aware that one of our church leaders was living a life that probably required him to step down for a while. But in this case, the church leader was the pastor’s son, so we decided to approach the situation a little differently. However, not only did he respond negatively to us, but by that evening, all of us and our families were sitting in the pastor’s home being given a very stern lecture on loyalty. It was a very heated conversation on the side of the pastor and his family. From our perspective, we were being loyal to God and to the ordination he had placed on the church (as a whole). Furthermore, we had handled the situation (we believed) lovingly and scripturally. But for them, any challenge was a sign of disloyalty. To this day my friend points to “loyalty” as the defining characteristic of a good friend. He even mentions it in his myspace profile.
My friend has a very distorted and twisted sense of loyalty. In fact, I’d suggest that his version of loyalty isn’t loyalty at all, it’s more like an emotional or spiritual lust that overrides morality, legality, and all common sense. To me, only God overrides human reason, morality, and laws. So only God can have my ultimate loyalty. Anybody else, including the church, is subject to the Word of God (first and foremost), human reason, and the laws of the land, in that order. To suggest otherwise is to have a very misguided sense of loyalty and, I believe, puts you in danger of actually adopting a polytheistic form of religion.
Historically, loyalty in the church has been based on fear and power. Unquestioning loyalty has led to movements like the Branch Davidians and Jamestown.
"A certain amount of questioning/opposition is a great help to man. Kites rise against (not with) the wind."
ALB
questions.
sometimes you have to take something apart to 1. see how it works 2. see if some part can be updated to become more efficient in its desired outcome, and find what doesn't work and fix or replace it.
a watchmaker loves and cares for his watches while he fixes or makes them better.
To not allow questions or to say that questioners are somehow disloyal would suggest that people like Luther, Wesley and Booth were somehow disloyal. Where is the difference???
There is no difference.
Now we look back- we benifit and see how they enlightened us....look back at what happened to them because of their questions! Luther...Wesley and Booth all their questions came with a cost.
Was it worth being rejected by the Church and going into the streets for Booth? No longer invited to speak in some places because of his questions?
and how about Luther and Wesley...and so many more.
Where is our loyalty?? To whom am I loyal first?!
I know my answer...
Maybe this topic is long dead but... I just Got back from my four month self imposed Bogging hiatus (finially got my Stats caught up)
Larry while i agree in princible with most of the other response. I also think this is an unfair biased medium for this particular question.
The people who take part in your "healthy discussions" are all active participants and while the may agree or disagree with a particular stance that you may take they will all support the discussion itself as healthy to do otherwise would be to attack themselves
Personally I think you are extremely careful and it is clear that you guard your words and some times your personal feelings as well. you almost always ask questions rather than "state opinions" and when the discussion has started to head in a direction that would seem disloyal you have occasionally stepped in and redirected.
However, I apreaciate dialogue and am not burdened with "Protecting the corporation" so my perspective is certainly going to be slanted in your favor.
Post a Comment
<< Home