Core Values?
What are our core values? Are they mission or doctrine? Core values are the things that shape our perspective and who we are. They move us to what we do.
Last week, as I was at a gathering of colleagues, we talked about our core value of holiness. I cannot disagree that at our movement's conception we were a holiness movement. We still share in the belief of the process of sanctification. I believe it is essential. Our theology is not unique to us. In fact, I rather think that our doctrines are more core value statements at their heart than truly theological belief. That does not make them any less important or less true.
The fact is, we have appropriated our theology as a movement, our core values, from other movements. Our one denominational distinctive as I see it is being the church of and for the poor. We do not exclude the middle class, but they must be willing to serve the poor if they are to enjoy full membership in this movement. At the heart of the Booths' great idea was the calling by God to serve the marginalized.
This movement has taken a form over the years. It is quasi-military in nature. It is a movement with great structure. It is very hierarchical in nature. The core values should inform our form. Unfortunately, I think that often our form often takes priority over our core values. We tend to serve form. To quote one of my colleagues, "We spend a whole lot of time and resource serving the machine instead of the mission." It is not that form and structure are not important. It is when serving form becomes all important and procedure is more important than core values that we face danger.
We had a long discussion over this in the gathering I was in last week. Even after the session we discussed the issue and my thought that we are not beholding to just one form, but must be open to all. (That discussion got rather interesting and went to power issues. More on that in another post.)
My feeling is that there must be room in the box for every kind of voice and every form of service. In other words, the only thing not allowed is heresy. If we stay true to doctrine or core values and our denominational distinctive, then everything else is fair game.
Now many would argue with me, especially when it comes to practices such as uniform or worship/congregational models. By the way, I am not anti-uniform. I am a proponent of doing what it takes, no matter what it looks like to serve the mission and in so doing serving the Lord. Some would say that would not be true to the movement.
So I wonder, are we more slaves to form or values? If we are so concerned that everyone of our units look alike and have the same standard of meetings and the same brand, is it possible we are on the slippery slope of serving form and not our values? In fact, have we adopted corporate form and not the form that God necessarily wants. I am struggling with that these days.
So as with everything else I discuss, I want to know:
What do you think?
Last week, as I was at a gathering of colleagues, we talked about our core value of holiness. I cannot disagree that at our movement's conception we were a holiness movement. We still share in the belief of the process of sanctification. I believe it is essential. Our theology is not unique to us. In fact, I rather think that our doctrines are more core value statements at their heart than truly theological belief. That does not make them any less important or less true.
The fact is, we have appropriated our theology as a movement, our core values, from other movements. Our one denominational distinctive as I see it is being the church of and for the poor. We do not exclude the middle class, but they must be willing to serve the poor if they are to enjoy full membership in this movement. At the heart of the Booths' great idea was the calling by God to serve the marginalized.
This movement has taken a form over the years. It is quasi-military in nature. It is a movement with great structure. It is very hierarchical in nature. The core values should inform our form. Unfortunately, I think that often our form often takes priority over our core values. We tend to serve form. To quote one of my colleagues, "We spend a whole lot of time and resource serving the machine instead of the mission." It is not that form and structure are not important. It is when serving form becomes all important and procedure is more important than core values that we face danger.
We had a long discussion over this in the gathering I was in last week. Even after the session we discussed the issue and my thought that we are not beholding to just one form, but must be open to all. (That discussion got rather interesting and went to power issues. More on that in another post.)
My feeling is that there must be room in the box for every kind of voice and every form of service. In other words, the only thing not allowed is heresy. If we stay true to doctrine or core values and our denominational distinctive, then everything else is fair game.
Now many would argue with me, especially when it comes to practices such as uniform or worship/congregational models. By the way, I am not anti-uniform. I am a proponent of doing what it takes, no matter what it looks like to serve the mission and in so doing serving the Lord. Some would say that would not be true to the movement.
So I wonder, are we more slaves to form or values? If we are so concerned that everyone of our units look alike and have the same standard of meetings and the same brand, is it possible we are on the slippery slope of serving form and not our values? In fact, have we adopted corporate form and not the form that God necessarily wants. I am struggling with that these days.
So as with everything else I discuss, I want to know:
What do you think?
posted by Larry at 8:08 PM
4 Comments:
Larry,
I have been arguing for quite some time that our core values are clearly our traditions. How else do you explain the fact that so few of our soldiers know much about our theology, even less about our doctrine, and are not involved in social justice efforts? The one thing they all seem to know about, however, is the uniform, the ranks, and the bands. Can it even be argued that your core values can most easily be identified in the things that you most hold dear, are most aware of, and practice most frequently?
Jerry Seinfeld used to joke about aliens coming down and watching while we walked our dogs and then picked up their poop in a little bag. He always wondered who those aliens would think was in charge. I’d pose the same question concerning our values.
Tim,
I think our core values are at the heart of the movement. I do believe that they are social justice, holiness, etc. I think that our form is the uniform etc. I think the point I was trying to make not too eloquently is that often we serve our form and really do not respond to our core values.
You aren't what you say you are, you are what you do.
I wonder how much pain would be inflicted at various levels if we truly decided to take the plunge to direct the majority of our resources to our core values. Wouldn't that mean fewer dollars spent on the machine (rhetorical question)?
I have asked myself a question for some time now that I have to honestly admit I can't come close to answering: Why do we place such a high priority on our collective property when as a movement in the beginning we avoided property ownership? Admittedly, I love seeing a beautiful, well-appointed Army facility...but really, how many dollars could have been redirected toward mission rather than capital?
I may have strayed off on a rabbit trail here, but I do think the money issue is related to the questions you've posed about core values and form, n'est pas?
Post a Comment
<< Home