Machine or Mission?
In a recent on-line article, Alan Nelson writes this "So what are you doing, inadvertently, that promotes rules over people? What do you do to make ministry difficult in your church? Have you empowered your team to do what is needed to get the job done, as needed? Accountability means you deal with a misuse of freedom, but not by creating a list of rules and restrictions. "
It is interesting that other movements and churches find that they turn to rules when they do not know how to handle the people who are part of their ministry. We have rule upon rule. I don't advocate throwing all rules out, but I think that we often try to control and value process when we get scared about what the Lord is doing in our midst.
Let me explain. I have been in many a corps council and other meetings where people want to turn to rules to reign in what they see as the uncontrollable. We had an event at one corps where we hundreds of people attended, the corps folk were aghast that someone who was unchurched sat on the altar furniture. We had people wanting to set up signs all over the corps facility about the proper place to sit. This was to "protect our equipment."
We are replete with rules. We have a huge stack of them that we follow. They were made for a reason. We spend a great deal of money on adminstrators to make sure they are followed. In fact, often, the largest number of staff in our operations and best paid are administrative, not program or mission oriented. We have big investments in property and equipment. We spend a great deal of money keeping them in shape. Often, the first thing we cut are program staff positions. It is the same in the church.
Is it that we keep the machine and process going in the community of Christ instead of the mission? Is the pursuit of the machine key to keeping mission going? Even though process is necessary, does it become all encompassing?
This is a shorter blog post. I think it is because I am still sorting this out. So it is important to me to ask one question.
What do you think?
It is interesting that other movements and churches find that they turn to rules when they do not know how to handle the people who are part of their ministry. We have rule upon rule. I don't advocate throwing all rules out, but I think that we often try to control and value process when we get scared about what the Lord is doing in our midst.
Let me explain. I have been in many a corps council and other meetings where people want to turn to rules to reign in what they see as the uncontrollable. We had an event at one corps where we hundreds of people attended, the corps folk were aghast that someone who was unchurched sat on the altar furniture. We had people wanting to set up signs all over the corps facility about the proper place to sit. This was to "protect our equipment."
We are replete with rules. We have a huge stack of them that we follow. They were made for a reason. We spend a great deal of money on adminstrators to make sure they are followed. In fact, often, the largest number of staff in our operations and best paid are administrative, not program or mission oriented. We have big investments in property and equipment. We spend a great deal of money keeping them in shape. Often, the first thing we cut are program staff positions. It is the same in the church.
Is it that we keep the machine and process going in the community of Christ instead of the mission? Is the pursuit of the machine key to keeping mission going? Even though process is necessary, does it become all encompassing?
This is a shorter blog post. I think it is because I am still sorting this out. So it is important to me to ask one question.
What do you think?
posted by Larry at 6:09 PM
3 Comments:
This comment has been removed by the author.
Good post . . .
I agree with your “machine” concept . . .
We think that adding admin will help us become more efficient and effective, and in some cases it may, but the funding for admin has to come from somewhere. Ultimately it comes from program. In many cases, the only funds used for direct services are restricted funds. If the funds are “unrestricted” then it (in many cases) generally goes to “program." In some cases, that means admin.
If we were to cut admin then we couldn’t keep up with all the, well . . . admin! It’s a vicious cycle. DHQ tries hard to limit their administrative demands but, as Joe Noland mentioned in a blog some time ago, the demands turn into a “giant hair ball.”
I wish I had an answer to this dilemma.
Blessings,
Bret
At the risk of distracting and interrupting the flow of comments to this post, I am wondering (what do you think, Larry) why TSA is viewed (in some circles within the ranks) to be so A-political about being A-political? Could it be the machine or the mission preventing salvationists from doing so?
Post a Comment
<< Home