Questioning or Disloyalty?
Someone called me today and told me they missed my blog. I did not know I had such a large following :) I have been in somewhat of a malaise lately. My mentor is moving on and I have had to handle many issues that normally would not be mine. I have also been reflecting often on the passing of the two gentlemen mentioned in my previous post.
I am following up a post from a few months ago with a similar title. Over the past couple of months, I also have really had many questions running through my mind regarding our doctrine and methodology in our movement. I have struggled with some of the stands we take and some of the issues surrounding our metaphor.
I have talked through the issues with some good friends and some people for whom I have high regard. It has been good for my soul. I have also had also found myself really asking the hard questions of faith. I will be sharing some of these soul struggles in future posts.
I shared with a friend that I would be blogging about the issues with which I have been struggling. My friend encouraged me to continue to wrestle with the issues. However, the same friend cautioned me about the forum in which I share my questions, because I might be viewed as "disloyal" to our movement.
To say I was somewhat taken aback by that view is an understatement. Since when are legitimate questions of faith and methodology, framed respectively, disloyal. I believe the days of fall in line and march are gone. I believe not questioning breeds shallow people and in fact will hurt our movement. In this day, while I believe we need people who are faithful to the movement, it is probably unrealistic to believe that people will not question or that their questioning is disloyal. Expecting people to do something because you say so probably never was realistic.
In fact, to discourage questioning may be a sign of insecurity by those who think honest questioning is disloyal. The Midrash, is in fact, an old tradition of faith where honest and often heated debate was encouraged for building depth in the fellowship. People who were and are part of this tradition keep us accountable and hold us to a high standard.
So is questioning doctrine, faith, authority and methodology disloyal or a longing for something better for our movement? Am I just a malcontent in my questioning and challenging what I see as the status quo? Am I just being whiny?
What do you think?
I am following up a post from a few months ago with a similar title. Over the past couple of months, I also have really had many questions running through my mind regarding our doctrine and methodology in our movement. I have struggled with some of the stands we take and some of the issues surrounding our metaphor.
I have talked through the issues with some good friends and some people for whom I have high regard. It has been good for my soul. I have also had also found myself really asking the hard questions of faith. I will be sharing some of these soul struggles in future posts.
I shared with a friend that I would be blogging about the issues with which I have been struggling. My friend encouraged me to continue to wrestle with the issues. However, the same friend cautioned me about the forum in which I share my questions, because I might be viewed as "disloyal" to our movement.
To say I was somewhat taken aback by that view is an understatement. Since when are legitimate questions of faith and methodology, framed respectively, disloyal. I believe the days of fall in line and march are gone. I believe not questioning breeds shallow people and in fact will hurt our movement. In this day, while I believe we need people who are faithful to the movement, it is probably unrealistic to believe that people will not question or that their questioning is disloyal. Expecting people to do something because you say so probably never was realistic.
In fact, to discourage questioning may be a sign of insecurity by those who think honest questioning is disloyal. The Midrash, is in fact, an old tradition of faith where honest and often heated debate was encouraged for building depth in the fellowship. People who were and are part of this tradition keep us accountable and hold us to a high standard.
So is questioning doctrine, faith, authority and methodology disloyal or a longing for something better for our movement? Am I just a malcontent in my questioning and challenging what I see as the status quo? Am I just being whiny?
What do you think?
posted by Larry at 4:58 PM
11 Comments:
Not questioning is idolatry.
This is big problem for Salvationists. We tend to turn our own history and identity into an authority which cannot be questioned. This is very dangerous, because it undermines the one true authority - God; and it undermines the authority of the supremely authoritative witness to his revelation - Scripture. Sounds basic, but we often forget it.
I think there are two ecclesiological principles that Salvationists should keep in mind when these kind of discussions take place:
First, the church is both a divine and a human reality. The human side means that, until the return of Christ, we will continue to be a people 'on the way,' and will always stand in need of repentance and growth in grace.
Second, a Reformation principle: the church is reformed and always reforming. If we're not questioning, we're presuming we've got it all together. It also means we're probably not taking the authority of scripture seriously enough. We've got to be ready at all times to be challenged by the Word; if questioning is viewed as disloyal, we're not really open to the possibility of correction.
Yes, it is true, some people just like to complain. But if we dismiss all questions and questioners because of a few complainers, we're in trouble.
Waiting for answers is what requires patience, not hearing the questions.
I feel I have been waiting for some very specific vocational answers for an extended period of time, an answer is all that has been requested.
No one enjoys a lecture; dignity is established with a two-way conversation not a one way highway of "Do this because I said so."
Being permitted to asks questions has never been removed...but a timely response to important questions, that has required a determined, measured, controlled patience.
And the answers are worth the wait. Asking questions does not always bring immediate response: I wish it was different. Sometimes asking questions is the fine end of the deal...expecting and waiting for a thorough and appropriate response is what requires persistance, strength of character, polite indignation, willingness to return to square one, release of power, etc.
Questions have never hurt anyone.
Answers have exposed agendas, plans, vision, actions.
Keep asking questions.
Questioning is a healthy part of working out your salvation. If your postings were negative in nature or the cause of division that would be a different situation.
Ask and keep on asking, seek and keep on seeking, knock and keep on knocking and the door will be opened.
Larry,
i'm a huge fan of your blog! very thought provoking, which has often challeneged me on my journey. for that i thank you.
James,
Spot on!
James,
"Not questioning is idolatry." That may be fodder for a new blog posting. I am especially intrigued by your comments on the history becoming authority.
Do you think that we tend to ignore the ecclesiological principles you reference because we just have an aversion to being painted as malcontents?
Sadly the response you've received is not new. I squirmed in my seat many times when I've heard...it's just how it is in the Army. Do it because we have to protect the Army. I believe I am to be loyal to the Lord...He will work out where my place in His mission will be revealed.
The march and salute expectations oftentimes are excused by submitting to those in authority. Do I need to show respect in those times of questioning? By all means! But even Jesus was forthright with the religious leaders of the day who thought they had it all together while being more oppressive than the ruling body at the time. So, ask away! So many of the questions you pose are what I have been praying over that week...it's a confirmation to my soul and a word from the Lord that I am not alone!
Respectful questioning is thoroughly biblical (uh, hello? read the psalms lately?). But...but...but. Here's the thing: you're asking the question specifically in the context of the movement and culture known as the Army. That's important, it seems to me.
As a church planter, one of the things we struggle with and are conscious of and try to be responsive to CONSTANTLY is the culture we minister in AND the culture we're creating, consciously or unconsciously. Because, at least where I live and breathe, that culture dictates what is wise or unwise more than the answer to the questions, "Is it right," or "Is it biblical?"
For example, you cite Midrash, unquestionably (pun intended) a culture in which questioning is not only accepted, not only encouraged, but revered.
Not so, it seems to me, in Army culture. A movement's or administration's or organization's culture can change, of course, and often does, but slowly and not without pain.
Heck, my church has existed for only 8 years, and we're always finding out stuff (sometimes disconcerting) about the culture that has arisen accidentally, while we've been all about trying to consciously fashion a culture of a different kind entirely.
All that to say: you can like or not like the "culture" you live and work and minister in, you can try to change it or try to keep it the same, you can strengthen it or subvert it, but it usually is what it is, and the wise person will discern the culture (1 Chron. 12:32) and figure out how to work with it or around it or in spite of it.
To sum up, as Montoya said,
1. respectful questioning is not disloyal,
2. Army culture may well (near future, at least) see respectful questioning as disloyal,
3. So the wise leader will encourage respectful questioning from those he/she leads,
4. While being circumspect in questioning those who lead him/her, as well as the movement itself.
Either that, or I'm dumber than I think I am, which seems always to be the case.
Larry, I applaud your broad intellect and depth of thinking with regard to the questioning of authority. Here is an example I take solace in when I go out on a limb and question authority based on principal...this is a true story...once there was a powerful and arrogant general who order all of his men into a very dangerous battle, a battle that would surely kill all of his soldiers due to the opposing side having triple the men, skill, animation, and horses. It would be a large defeat to these men. Not one of his men questioned the generals decision, they all died and their land was lost. What if they would have attempted to reason with the general instead of blindly following a foolish order? Not to be cornered as a coward but to question the validity of his decision to the scope of the situation. Not to be disrespectful, but not to lose all over the ignorance of one or (the few) and powerful. This is not the same general, but remember Hitler, it was the civil servants who put him into power, who did not question his ideology. Look what happened...and the rest is history.
When I first read this post, I wasn't quite sure how to respond. You asked: Since when are legitimate questions of faith and methodology, framed respectively, disloyal? They are not, in themselves, disloyal, but they may be perceived to be by those who feel as though they must protect what is, and perceptions can, at times, have more power than truth does (yes, I know what Jesus said about truth, but I also know how the world works).
Yet as Wesleyans, we have been formed upon the teachings of the good John. Consider the Wesleyan quadrilateral,Wesley's methodology for making theological conclusions:
Scripture - the Holy Bible (Old and New Testaments)
Tradition - the two millennia history of the Christian Church
Reason - rational thinking and sensible interpretation
Experience - a Christian's personal and communal journey in Christ
Seems like questions are important to that process, but we've married the Wesleyan quadrilateral to a military metaphor, and the two aren't easily compatible.
You also said: "I believe the days of fall in line and march are gone." I'm not so sure about that. Your experience over the last 10-12 years has been with Project 1:17 and with an amazing DC - in the broader SA world, there is still that expectation, at least from administration. Look at the symbolism of commissioning - new Lts. walk across the platform and are told in a very public setting that this is where the rest of your life is going to unfold. Symbolism and metaphor are as important to the life of an institution, of a church, as are orders and regulations, and these all still speak to the "fall in line and march, salute and go" persona of this organization.
It will likely take at least one more generation . . . I dare say that the majority of SA officers in our generation (even if we define that as 45-55)are still of that mindset. The danger is that by the time they are in positions where they can impact policy, we may have lost those who are now 25-45 who have not been able to wait.
Hoss is right - it is what it is, and the wise person will discern the culture (1 Chron. 12:32) and figure out how to work with it or around it or in spite of it - or (my words, not his) will ultimately recognize that he or she is unable to work within the culture, and find a different culture, which may or may not be as constricting as this one can be at times.
One of the paradoxes of TSA is that even in a corporate culture which can feel quite constricting at times, when you're on the local level, day to day, there is an amazing amount of freedom in ministry. Go figure!
the Army has always thought way too much about itself.
Again, that kind of thinking is a very twisted sense of logic and, without a doubt, is idolatry. Once you committ idolatry, you usher God out of the picture. No wonder then that movements that do this begin to die spiritually.
Post a Comment
<< Home