Installation?
I have long been fascinated with words. The latest fascination is the word "installation." We install air conditioning units. We install software on our computers. We install cruise control on our cars.
Today, I was busy preparing the schedule of installation of people. In our movement, we have long used this term to describe the a ceremony or meeting which begins the ministry of an officer at a particular location.
I have been wondering what this all means. In essence, what we are saying is that by installation we are conferring, the mantle of leadership on an individual for a congregation. In other words, once installed, you are in charge.
I am not sure that installation necessarily makes one a leader. There is usually a honeymoon period for a person once they are installed. There is usually a bit of a "wait and see" attitude among the chosen followers. They assess and then come to conclusion about whether or not they will follow. Leaders are inspirational and get people to follow.
Installation does carry with it some ecclesiastical standing. It also comes with a bit of pomp and circumstance. Yet, it does not make one a leader in my opinion.
Leadership comes from relationship. Leadership comes when people want to follow. Real leaders don't really need an installation (even though I think the ceremony is meaningful and can be significant.) Real leaders have people wanting to follow after them. They cast a vision. They care. They motivate. They engender a spirit of expectation.
So is an installation necessary? Is it a formality? Is it just another way of flexing ecclesiastical muscle? Does being installed make one a leader?
I wonder, what do you think?
Today, I was busy preparing the schedule of installation of people. In our movement, we have long used this term to describe the a ceremony or meeting which begins the ministry of an officer at a particular location.
I have been wondering what this all means. In essence, what we are saying is that by installation we are conferring, the mantle of leadership on an individual for a congregation. In other words, once installed, you are in charge.
I am not sure that installation necessarily makes one a leader. There is usually a honeymoon period for a person once they are installed. There is usually a bit of a "wait and see" attitude among the chosen followers. They assess and then come to conclusion about whether or not they will follow. Leaders are inspirational and get people to follow.
Installation does carry with it some ecclesiastical standing. It also comes with a bit of pomp and circumstance. Yet, it does not make one a leader in my opinion.
Leadership comes from relationship. Leadership comes when people want to follow. Real leaders don't really need an installation (even though I think the ceremony is meaningful and can be significant.) Real leaders have people wanting to follow after them. They cast a vision. They care. They motivate. They engender a spirit of expectation.
So is an installation necessary? Is it a formality? Is it just another way of flexing ecclesiastical muscle? Does being installed make one a leader?
I wonder, what do you think?
posted by Larry at 6:40 PM
10 Comments:
if we're going for symbolic, why not doing so as a passing of the torch, rather than leaving the building keys on the kitchen table?
hmmm....actually, i was involved in such a ceremony last year...with some work, it could have been very moving. it was meaningful, but some creativity issues limited it...passing the torch may also mean that those who are passing it off would need to have some say in their successor, i suppose...
so does the aspect of creativity take away from an officer's installation? or does it depend upon if that officer is the General, DC, TC, TP, ARC Commander or CO? does the lack of creativity invalidate the istallation? or could the officer's popularity/likeability have more to do with it?
like my grammother used to say, "i wonder what Jesus has to say about that?"
Larry,
an officer friend of ours just emailed me to suggest that my comments might come across as cynical, sarcastic, pessimistic and or detracting.
No umbrage intended.
dre....not that the creativity issue made it less important...it was a dry ceremony..i think often there is a lack of emotion as people try to control what they are experiencing so they don't burst. i wished there had been some more creative way of expressing the emotion of the moment.
by the way, no offense taken.
Glad to hear. I'm a fan of your blog posts.
perhaps we need to ask who the installation is for - the officer or the congregation - our people struggle with moves almost as much as we do . . .
whether it's politically correct or not, whether it's proper corporate protocal or not, the expectation and reality is to accept (not reject) the appointment, salute and go!
ultimately, after the installation/honeymoon period is over for both the officer(s) and soldiers, the strength of the Army, i believe, depends more on the strength of the local appointment responding to the needs of the community in which it serves, while remaining true to the mission and the heritage (not necessarily tradition) of the soul of the Army.
the SA's mission today, as it has been from its early days, is to preach the gospel and to meet human need in the name of Christ without discrimination (of ANY kind).
Install (v): a)to place in an office or dignity by seating in a stall or official seat. b) to induct into an office, rank, or order, i.e. to install a president
I don't believe there is anything wrong with having a starting point, and time and place that says, "Ladies and gentlemen, let's begin together." Passing the torch - an exceptional, visual, physical circumstance which is very accurate.
I believe introduction is a more appropriate consideration when starting at the beginning of a congregational relationship. Can it be even more poignant, "These are the leaders we have chosen for you." ? Leadership is not transferred through a ceremony, but it is also not accidental. These people who have arrived at this place and time came through a series of occassions of submission. Told where to go and when, not asked. Told where to live and when, not requested.
It is not out of place to point this out, that submission to authority has brought this leadership to the present place and time. Submission is a sign of leadership; no ceremony conveys it or tranfers it or creates it.
But a beginning introduction of acknowledging that submission, that is not exercising an ecclesiastical muscle of force or power.
It is considerate and kind to all involved.
It is important to help people begin a relationship; when you are "the new one" no one may know anything about you. No one may know your work ethic or daily habits, what your passions are, what your points of anger can be. Or your version of a sense of humor. Its important to help people begin to learn about each other. Some of the painful parts of being new in an appointment can be when others are unwilling to care about who you are, because they don't know you.
The uncertainty with newness frequently seems like "wait and see", but until someone takes the initiative to say, "We start from here" that uncertainty will hang in the air unattended.
i live the sybolism - "of a runner who receives the baton from the previous runner...an apprehensive hush comes over the onlookers/congregation. in this heart-stopping moment, both runners and spectators exerience overwhelming emothins of celebration and anticipation.
A successful passing of the baton celebrates the runner who has finished well, and at the same time anticipates the next sprinter's winning lap."
In the race to fullfill the Great Commission (Matthew 28:18-20), leadership change is essential and affords a divine moment for fervent celebration and confident anticipation.
"work hand in hand wih the newly installed/appointed leaders in the slendid adventure of buildng the Kingdom."
Post a Comment
<< Home