Questions for the Journey

Uncertainty?

2009-11-28T08:29:00.002-05:00

Recently, my mainline supervisor received word that he and his wife were being transferred to South America. Their positions will carry serious and demanding responsibilities. They are good people who will do well. Their giftings suit them well for what God is asking them to do.

I usually refrain from commenting on this particular part of our movement's tradition. Moving and doing it often comes with the calling. I believe the whole process to be a sacred one. It is bathed in prayer. Its affect on people is often dramatic.

The different reactions to the announcement of our friends move, were varied, but mainly it was one of shock and uncertainty since our friends have been with us such a short time. We were certain that this relationship was going to be in place this way for a very long time to come.

It has thrown many of my colleagues into the realm of uncertainty. There have been many questions asked as to how this could happen so fast or who will replace our friends.

I admit that I have had some of these private thoughts myself. You know that these decisions are considered deeply and the face of God is sought, but still when we involve a human element, a nagging question still hangs out there. "What happens next?"

God's promises never change. They are sure. Our abiding peace is in the fact that "He who began a good work in you, will continue to do it." Still out there hangs uncertainties.

I am conflicted often as to whether my uncertainty and the uncertainty of others is a sin of doubting or just part of who we are as people. Maybe it is just a lack of faith.

So are we unfaithful when we are uncertain? Are we actually doubting the power of God? Are we just being human?

I would be interested to know your thoughts on uncertainty. What do you think?

Spiritual Gifts Fair?

2009-11-15T17:31:00.004-05:00

It has been several months since I last posted to this blog. I have had some writer's block. I have needed some time to rethink some positions. I have also really wanted to examine my own reasons for writing. I have decided to not only ask my own questions, but entertain some from others. I have also decided to blog about the oddities of faith.

Today, the community of faith which I belong to hosted a "spiritual gifts fair." My friend, Matt, who is staying with Janet and me for a couple of days and I got goofy as we discussed what this might be. Perhaps we thought that one would get the gift of prophecy if you guessed the amount of candy in the jar. Maybe you would get the gift of healing if you won the "whack a mole" contest. Possibly, you would get the gift of tongues if you putted a golf ball into the clowns mouth. An immature mind is a terrible thing to waste.

Seriously, this event was held for people who have identified and are developing their spiritual gifts. It was an opportunity for those in the community and those just entering into it to see opportunities for service and put their gifts to use in the various ministries in the community. It is quite a unique idea.

This community has had its ups and downs. It has begun to grow quickly over the last few months. The community has done the right thing. It has reached out to the poor and sacrificed in order to make them part of the community. As a result, people from all walks of life have turned up and wanted to become part of this family of faith. Some of the leadership is very comfortable with their spots in the community. The newer members are not being squeezed out, they are just trying to figure out where it is they fit in all of this.

It was years ago when people showed up to our movement (which I believe is the church of and for the poor) and they were given a "job" as soon as they joined. That strategy implemented by William Booth, was sheer brilliance. It was also a spiritually sound principle at work. All people have gifts to add to the family of faith, uniquely given to them by the Holy Spirit.

Sadly, over the years, it has appeared to me that many long timers in our movement, think that prior to getting a job, that you need to "know" what our army is all about. We have also seemingly become more officer-centric, as our operations have become more complex. Pastoral authority and responsibility is often not shared and as a result, we have a ton of gifted people who find another place to use their gifts.

You know my thoughts on sharing authority and allowing people to carry out their responsibilities with little interference unless there is something completely unscriptural going on with them. Allowing people to be free is something that will cause the community of faith to grow.

I continue to wonder how we can flatten authority structures and allow for input on all levels. I admit, it can be challenging and sometimes intimidating, even for people like me who are proponents of this way of working. It may just be a matter of us trusting that the Spirit has the right idea and that we need to know how to work in concert with what He is already doing in the world.

So my questions are simple. Do you think we will ever really let people put their gifts to use? Is there a need for us to "pay our dues" in order to have a certain position? Why is it that it is intimidating for some leaders to let people do their thing?

So after months of being off this medium, I want to know, what do you think?

Formality or Fear?

2009-08-01T07:21:00.002-05:00

Recently, I have had a few conversations which have given me pause to think. I have had several people introduce themselves by there rank. I have known or been friendly with these people for some time. This was followed up by a conversation where a respected friend talked to me about how the fiber of the movement was being eroded because his officer (who by the way he calls by his first name) allowed the kids in his congregation use his first name when conversing with him.

I have also had people tell me that this formality issue is a matter of respect. I used to think that way. The more I see it, I believe it is a matter of pride. More than anything, it is not just a cultural thing, it is a, I believe a matter of deriving worth from position instead of personal relationship. I have people who have really no idea of my title or rank. They respect me and love me, because I love them! We talk about deep things.

I have other had people tell me that you have to have a title. You could not just use your name? I would imagine that would make you vulnerable.

I thought at first this was generational. I have found this idea of ultra formality has gone into generations younger than me.

I know that I am a major. It just does not shape who I am or make me a better person.

This is a shorter post. I think it is an important one though.

Is being formal important? Is it a matter of respect? Is it a matter of pride? Am I just missing the point?

What do you think?

How Was Your Trip?

2009-07-13T20:16:00.002-05:00

I recently returned from 10 weeks in Europe. 8 weeks were spent at The Salvation Army International College for Officers. I met some great people who will be with me in spirit for the rest of my life. The memories will be indelibly etched on my mind and heart for years.

As I have returned, people have asked me, "How was your trip?" I find that a difficult question to answer. I missed family and friends. I have thought about how much things changed at home and in my ministry while I was gone. Relationships changed. Procedures changed. Some of these changed for the better. Janet and I got much closer. Some of the other relationships and procedures are difficult to adjust to again. They are different.

I have begun to realize that my trip was bigger than a vacation or just a time away. It was a journey in a way. Trips have a beginning and ending point. They are for a set amount of time. Journeys tend to be longer, they are more about enjoying the scenery, the company and the time for reflection.

I took a journey. The company was great. The scenery was the learning experiences and the reflection time was plentiful. I have felt more as if I am on a trip with deadlines and restoring relationships since I have been back. It is not that they have been broken; they have just changed.

The fact is that journeys change people. They take people through depths of despair and also bring them to the peaks of delight.

The one thing I am learning on my journey is the real need for companions. We need each other desperately. As Americans, we value self-motivation, self-gratification and rugged individualism. I am not sure that those are necessary Christian values. As Paul wrote to the Corinthians, "We are one body."

I think the problem with our movement and the Church in general, is that we are in a hurry to get from Point A to Point B. We rarely stop to enjoy companionship or friendship. I think maybe it may be a trust issue. Maybe we are trying to get "results" from the latest Christian fad or mission slogan.

Whatever it is, I think that far too many people are taking the quick trip and not enjoying the journey.

So, what is that will enhance our journeys? How can we be the body that Christ wants us to be?

I think it is simple. It is about being vulnerable. It is about being accountable. In short it is about sharing the journey with friends and companions, not just having acquaintances.

Well those are my thoughts. Do you think too many of us are taking trips and not journeys? Do you think it is a trust issue that prohibits us from sharing the journey? Are we scared to be vulnerable because we are more about rugged individualism than community?

What do you think?

Independence Day?

2009-07-05T16:59:00.003-05:00

This weekend, we celebrated the birthday of our country here in the States. There were cookouts, parades and fireworks. There were people who travelled to be with family. Folks sang patriotic songs.

We value independence here in the States. We honor people who fulfil the America dream, by hard work, pulling themselves up from bad situations and make their mark in the world.

It seems to be a value of people to be that way in the Church. In evangelical circles, people seem to love to hear the testimony of those who are "trophies of grace." We love to honor them for their hard work and marvel at the work of God in the individual.

I just heard a good sermon this morning. The sermon was on the "body of Christ." It was based on the passage in 1 Corinthians 12. It was clear that there is a deep abiding necessity for community. Those who would take this independent view of Christianity, over-emphasizing personal salvation as the be all and end all seem to missing the boat. In other words, my salvation depends solely on me.

We have used the word "community" over and over again as a Christian buzz word for the past several years. Yet, there continues to be a fraying of community. We have few family members in the Church it seems and more acquaintances. The lack of deep relationships in the Church I believe leads to shallow Christianity, since there is little in the way of challenge or discipleship in the vacuum of independent living.

This idea of independence, I believe is overrated. We live in such an interconnected world. With the advent of facebook, twitter, blogger and youtube, we are living in world where it is virtually impossible to be independent of relationship. The world economic situation makes it virtually impossible for a country to stand alone economically. Even politically, we have learned in recent years that an isolationist policy is incredibly bad for a country.

If in the secular world, independence is evaporating, I wonder why I see us only paying lip service to community in the Church. There does seem though to be a movement toward ecumenism

I wonder if it is true that salvation cannot take place outside of the Church? Is the idea of denominationalism dead? Is independence an idea that may be extra-biblical?

So as with all my other posts, I ask...What do you think?

Perception is reality?

2009-06-08T05:05:00.005-05:00

Perception is reality. I have often heard this phrase used as a part of a conversation in assessing a person's veracity or personality.

In conversation with a friend recently, I heard what I felt was a really disturbing comment on the way perception is given so much power in the way people are viewed. For sure, we want to be around people who are charming, well-spoken and in general "present well." Yet, I wonder if that really shares the depth of a person.

I have made many acquaintances, who dress the right way, can say all the right things and even have some talent, but their depth is questionable. The only way to get to the depth of a person is to have conversation and spend time with them.

I was recently reminded of quote that I have used often over the past few years, "God is not necessarily looking for more talented people, or more intelligent people, but deep people." These past weeks I have been in community with some deep people.

Honestly, when I first met many of these people, an unholy sense of superiority came over me. I had to repent of some pride, because I made some judgements on perception. Over the past weeks, I have had opportunity to explore the depths of the souls of these people. Some have surprised me with their depth.

How does this impact our church and our movement? I think that we need deep people, deep leaders who will not be satisfied with the status quo. I submit that we have to look deeper to the heart and to the mind of a person. I would also submit that we can learn much from the dissenters in our midst.

I think that one of the reasons we work so much on perception is that relationships take work. It may mean making our hard positions vulnerable and up for scrutiny. It would may also mean that we as leaders would need to make ourselves vulnerable. That is something that may be the hardest thing of all.

So, is it perception or reality that counts? How can we know the difference? Are we in a perception dominated culture or are we to the point where we make decisions based on strong, deep relationships?

What do you think?

By Narrow Minds or Prison Walls Restrained?

2009-05-27T13:33:00.008-05:00

Today, I had the privilege of sitting under the ministry of General John Larsson and his wife Commissioner Freda Larsson. The afternoon was well worth it.

My colleagues and I spent an afternoon singing some of the great songs that the famous duo of Gowans and Larsson composed. We heard the stories behind the compositions and were inspired by narrative of the musical genius of these two men.

Now many of you will understand that my style of musical taste really does not fall in line with what I heard today. I am more a Linkin Park type of guy. I do enjoy the music of Tim Hughes, Matt Redman, my boy Phil Laeger (I know Phil don't get a big head) and other writers of the new hymnody of our day.

Today, was a different day though. We sang some of the songs I sang as a teen and a guy in my early twenties as an officer. One of the songs we sang was "I'll Not Turn Back." The chorus is famous, but there are incredible lines in the verses which stick out to me.

You will know that I pride myself on the fact that I tend to be somewhat unconventional. My viewpoints are less than traditional and sometimes, I think people see me as bordering on the heretical.

As we sang today, a line struck me with incredible force from the song..."If doors should close then other doors will open. The Word of God can never be contained. His love cannot be finally frustrated, by narrow minds or prison walls restrained." I am not sure of the whole story behind these words. Yet, my eyes met with a friend of mine in the room as we sang this. We both had a similar emotional reaction. We wept. I cannot speak for my friend, but I think I know that I have struggled in recent years with implementation of grand visions for the expansion of gospel, because there seems to be a refusal to see beyond common sense and protocol. I admit, I have fallen into that trap as well.

I was given assurance that God's word is powerful and creative. It is even unconventional. I have no right to try to tell God how to operate. Protocols cannot get in His way either.

I was given a vision for what can and must be done in my life and in my ministry. I had my conscience pricked today about how narrow our minds have gotten when it comes to mission and the economic crisis we now face. We see dry bones but God sees an Army. We see doom and gloom and no resources, but God sees that He has storehouses of resources.

Our narrow minds and polity often act as impediments to what the Word of the Lord wants to accomplish. Yet, scripture reminds us that the Spirit moves as and when He wants. Finally, if we don't do it, He will find someone who will agree to His plan.

I heard an illustration recently. I think it might even have been one that General Larsson used. The speaker talked about how neat and orderly his office was. He talked about how papers were just so on his desk and in his file. It was easy to do business that way. Life was precise, predictable and contained. In other words, the focus was very narrow.

The speaker went onto say that on very hot day he opened a window. As is often the case, a pretty brisk wind picked up and began to gust in his office. He returned after a meeting to see that the papers had blown all over the place. Life was not orderly, but the wind had refreshed the space and made it cool and bearable, in a very unbearable and orderly place.

In Scripture, the Holy Spirit is likened to wind. He blows in where he wants. I see it this way. As stewards of the Word, we can either keep everything neat and manageable or we can trust the Spirit to refresh, while maybe messing up our protocols and pushing the Word forward. "His love cannot be finally frustrated, by narrow minds or prison walls restrained."

So friends, do you think as I do that we have tended to let common sense and protocol rule us too much? Has our polity become an impediment or a practical help to the Gospel? Is it time that we escape our narrow focus (I speak to myself here) and allow Spirit to really show us how to operate? Have we just hemmed God in? Will His word really not be frustrated?

What do you think?

Very Rank?

2009-05-18T01:26:00.002-05:00

Well, this one has been simmering for a bit. Several years back then General John Gowans asked whether or not we should flatten the rank system. He did somewhat, by changing the Lt. designation.

I have struggled to see a theological defence for the system. I have come to the conclusion that it is part of our polity. In other words, it is part of our organizational structure. There are ranks.

I have also struggled though with rank being a very prideful thing for many people. Some would argue that rank affirms people and there ought to be more ranks. I am thinking there might be a bit of insecurity and misplaced values if you need a title to affirm you as a person.

Some would say that rank is not important. I agree. So if they are not important, why do we place such an emphasis on them? I also wonder why we use them to refer to each other in meetings especially in those business meetings where we have known each other as friends for years.

Some say that it is a matter of respect. I am not sure that is accurate. People are respected not positions. I have had people wonder why I don't require people to use my rank (even kids) when referring to me. I am not really fussed about my rank. I know what I do, who I am and know my designation. It matters little to me if people know or care about that as long as we can connect on a personal level and converse about the Kingdom.

Then there is in the Western world a somewhat negative reaction to the militaristic metaphor. I think the scriptural metaphor of war is accurate, but the militaristic metaphor is something different. It worked really well in our founding days. I think, especially in the States it worked well to attract people because of the culture of the day. Civil War vets would march behind a flag and band and they could relive old glory days. As the years have gone on, I believe people on the outside now see it as an oddity. I might be wrong. I am just reacting on this anectodally.

As you can tell, titles are not a big deal to me. What I do is. I am still not sure where I stand on this whole rank system. There are some days I do see its use, other days I am not sure it is a good thing.

Is it a prideful thing? Is a piece of our polity whose day has past? Is it something that I should not even worry about? I am interested to know....

What do you think?

Liberal or Loving?

2009-05-09T15:34:00.003-05:00

This may be one of my most controversial posts. I have long tried to understand the life style of people of homosexual orientation. Frankly, ten years ago, I was very much of the point of view that homosexuality was sin.

Recently, some of us have been discussing this issue. We really are trying to discern whether this is an orientation that comes naturally or that comes through nurture. Many of the group who discussed this really believe this is built into the nature of some people. This is a difficult thing for those of us who have a rather conservative theology to swallow. Yet, anecdotally, I believe it to be true.

That leads me to my dilemma. I believe that the Bible teaches that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. I think it is quite clear. I don't think the hermeneutic has changed with the change of culture. I also don't believe that as some would assert that the early writers of scripture were biased toward homosexuals. Therefore, I cannot endorse gay marriage.

It is difficult for me to say this because, I want people to know intimate, loving relationships. It appears to me that scripture then indicates that the only way for people to have total intimacy, especially sexually, is through marriage. That means a man and a woman. It would appear that is what God ordained.

This also poses a second dilemma for many people. I know many celibate hetro-sexual and homosexual people who choose this life style for many reasons, not the least of which is to devote their total intimacy to God. These people also want to serve in ministry. There is rarely an eye batted when a hetro-sexual single wants to minister. There are usually large objections raised when a homosexually oriented person wants to serve.

I believe the key is celibacy here. It appears that we as evangelical Christians seem to single out homosexuality as a pet sin. We seem to wink at other sins. I had one associate say that there is such a backlash because "they" are so militant. As with any other group there is a minority of people who take a militant point of view. However, even if people are militant, it does not make it right for us to take a hateful stance. We should not lower standards either.

My view is simple. If people are celibate, even if openly homosexual, they should be able to serve. It should not bar them from service. I know several who do with distinction and grace.

For my view, I have been called "liberal." I see it as being loving. Actually, the person who called me liberal thought it was a good stance as well.

We all struggle. We all have dark places in our lives. Maybe we ought to love liberally.

Well, I think the reaction will vary here. As with all my posts, I ask

What do you think?

Leadership or Lordship?

2009-04-29T14:48:00.003-05:00

I am away for a time of study in England. Over the last few days, we have spoken much about leadership. I am intrigued as we have discussed the various aspects of leadership as to the differing definitions. Certainly, culture does play into the definition, but not necessarily the way you would think it would.

I am here with people from several countries. There is some cultural shading in the way people think leaders should act. I found it interesting that as we spoke of Christian leadership and our movement's leadership structure, that it was very corporate in its nature. I know the movement is large and needs structure and some protocols built in. It is a given. The layers of structure are amazing and complex.

Yesterday, we had a very challenging lecture and discussion on servant leadership. This model is based on Phil 2:5-11. It is based on Jesus and his willingness to lead, but serve and sacrifice for the good of the mission and the people who followed him. It does not mean weakness. It does mean firmness with grace.

We also looked today at leadership styles and building good functioning teams. We examined the structural leadership of the movement. The lecturer rightly pointed out that there could only be one true leader, Jesus. He also pointed out that the lowest man in the corporate structure could go right to the "Boss."

It has been interesting to me to see how corporately we think as a movement. There are great differences between corporate and kingdom leadership. The leader who recognizes these differences and can balance the two for the good of the Kingdom, is a great one. I did sense in our discussion a real tendency toward judgement instead of grace. That attitude definitely, when unfettered, is not of the Kingdom.

Kingdom leadership, uses influence and grace to get people on board with mission. It communicates directly and effectively. Kingdom leaders also are emboldened and empowered by the Lord himself. Theirs' is a sacrificial style.

Leaders on all levels though can have an identity problem. They often think for whatever reason, their word is law and that respect is given by their position and not their person. In today's culture that is not the case. Actually, it probably never has been. They can be a boss. But leaders get people to follow because they want to follow. They don't have to remind people that they are the leader.

The worst leaders act as lords in a feudal sense. Their style is incredibly autocratic. They exclusively own the mission and use people to fulfill their purposes without consultation and grace.

I began to wonder, "Do I practice leadership or lordship?" I could point to examples of lordship in leaders with whom I have been associated. Or should I say bosses? I have more often, thankfully, seen leadership which is caring, graceful and kind.

I wonder though, if our structure and culture leads more to lordship or leadership? Are we born with a tendency for one or the other? Or are we nurtured into "hammering people?" Is it better to influence or direct?

What do you think?

Who is Right?

2009-04-16T14:05:00.002-05:00

Well, as usual my thought practice has stepped across the bounds of traditional thinking. Today, I was in a discussion about the "content or lack thereof" in sermons. I was in a group of preachers.

I had the temerity to indicate that I thought preaching, although important, is overrated. That sparked a bit of a debate. My point is, that we have a ton of people filling the pews who have never really "processed" their faith. They tend to regurgitate some long standing word they have heard. Rarely, have I met many people who have really struggled through debate and process to come to an embodied faith. Their faith may be embedded, but not really embodied.

They may take good notes. They may be able to quote scripture, but rarely find themselves in any kind of question with what they have heard from the pulpit. I am not talking about the disagreement out of a spirit of antagonism, but really wrestling with what the Spirit is teaching them as a result of what they have heard and studied for themselves. It is part of what I like to call our "McFaith Church Culture." For example, have you ever heard just the simple description of the wine which Jesus produced at the wedding feast being "grape juice?" Sadly, I know a ton of long-time Christians who believe that, because of a missional stance they take.

I do believe the Word is paramount to the building of community. I also believe that long held views can sometimes be an impediment to what God is trying to reveal. Scripture does not change but maybe the hermeneutic does.

Well, the problem is, that often the Christian has not been allowed to wrestle with faith openly, especially in our evangelical circles, for fear of being branded a heretic. Aren't we glad when people really search after God and are put in caring communities where they are encouraged to do so and to really think about their faith?

Is it time to teach people how to think as well as what to think? Are the people right who believe preaching is most important? Am I wrong? Who is right?

What do you think?

Is Your Jesus Too Small?

2009-04-04T19:07:00.003-05:00

Last Monday night I was in a virtual heaven of sorts. I found out that Brian McLaren and Brian Hollen, a professor of Theology at Malone University, were going to debate the validity of the emerging church "movement." McLaren is a terrific writer and has been asking many of the same theological questions I have been asking over the last several years. He articulates these questions much better than I could ever think of doing.

I found it interesting that Brian Hollen stood at the beginning of his opening statement and said, "I don't disagree with you very much Brian." The three critiques that Hollen offered were in my opinion pretty weak. He called emergents weak on dogma and kerygma. He then went on to say that he found very little to disagree with. "After all, I think that your desire to have people really seek after Jesus is admirable."

There was some time for conversation between the two proponents and then there was time for open questions. There were protesters out before the debate calling McLaren a heretic. One of the protesters strolled to the microphone to ask McLaren a question. This man was loaded for bear. He asked "Do you believe in the substitutionary death of Jesus to save people from a literal hell as outlined in the Bible?" McLaren's stance on hell is well documented. He questions the validity of hell as evangelicals would normally describe it.

McLaren's answer to the man struck me in its kindness and challenging nature. His reply was simply, "You make some assumptions about scripture with which I don't necessarily agree. I think though if you ascribe only that to the mission of Jesus, then I suggest you have made Jesus too small. I think what Jesus said about Himself in Luke 4 is so much more than what you assert if you limit Him to that."

It got me thinking. How much have I hemmed in Jesus? Have I domesticated Him? Do I want people to follow Jesus? Absolutely! Do I want people to be real disciples of Jesus? Of course. I am not a universalist, but I do believe that we may have ascribed as dogma and doctrine, things which Jesus never intended. Maybe we assigned doctrine through the lens of modernity. It is not that Jesus changed. Maybe we made Him too small. Maybe Jesus came for more than just our salvation on a personal level.

Well, in this upcoming Holy Week, we will focus on the death and resurrection of our Lord. Will we make Him too small? Will we assign doctrine to Him with which He would not agree?

Am I drinking the emergent Kool-Aid? Is there more to Jesus than just the evangelical tradition of making Him our personal saviour? Is hell real?

What do you think?

Age of Empires?

2009-03-22T06:40:00.002-05:00

I had a brief discussion the other day with a kid about a video game he was playing, "Age of Empires." The game's objective is basically what the title describes. You are tasked with building an empire. You amass wealth, develop armies and build cities all while trying to fend off enemies who are trying to take your stuff.

It got me thinking. I know that can be dangerous. Although, it did free me from some of the writer's block I have had recently. I am more and more convinced that we as a nation, over our history, have become exactly what we did not want to become; an empire. We are the world's lone remaining super power. Depending on your political view, you may have seen the invasion of Iraq as one of the most blatant examples of our use of force to force our way of living in a place where it will probably never work the way it does here. Our $450 billion defence budget is larger than the next 19 countries combined. Think about that.

No doubt, there needs to be some type of deterrent to people who would willy nilly use weapons of mass destruction to destroy innocent people in neighboring countries for the sake of "empire building" of their own. At the same time, we continue to try to dominate the world with force and be the world's policeman. This is an impossible task.

Don't get me wrong. I love living here. I have recently been in the Middle East and have found the way of life there to be brutal at times. The rights of women are often non-existent and the remnants of old empires are clashing with relatively new ideologies, neither of which are productive. I enjoy the liberties here and realize the responsibilities they carry.

Here is my worry. It is not only for our country. It is for the Church and our movement in these very difficult economic and turbulent political times. We are spending too much time protecting the empire, when in the case of the church we should be ushering in the Kingdom.

Maybe I have just become too much of a rebel or too out of touch with reality. There has been an incredible resurgence in the importance of titles in the Church and our movement. I sit in meetings with people I have known for years, as friends, and they use my rank or my position title when referring to me. This comes from lay people and from officer friends alike. In fact, there have been many times when I have just said, "You have known me 30 years. It's Larry." I wonder if it is part of the old empire mentality. Titles bring prestige and demand respect in that culture. In the world in which we live now, I believe your person brings respect. I recently have had conversations with people who believe that we demand respect by having people use our titles and were taken aback by the fact that my title was really not important to me.

I also wonder as empires shrink if the idea of protecting the empire manifests itself in the way we spend resources and market our product as the church. Is it just me or has anyone else noticed that the first thing to go when budgets get tight in the church are necessary programs or the staff that run them? Often the last thing to go are our possessions or those who account for them. After all, the church is big business.

So where does this leave us? I believe the need is not to protect the empire, that which we have built. I really believe it is time for us usher in the Kingdom. The values of the Kingdom of God are not about title, prestige, uniformity of thought and earthly possessions. They are about peace, grace, sharing in the common good, love and lifting the oppressed instead of oppressing people. The Kingdom seeks to expand not by forcing ideology, but by showing kindness without agenda, other than it is the right thing to do. It is about creatively bringing peace. It is about sharing resources not trying to get and protect what is ours. It means operating on a whole different level.

I fear we have become more about building an empire, instead of building the Kingdom. We have become more about titles and position and protecting our possessions.

So are we protecting an empire through our practices? What will it look like when we start to expand the Kingdom? Are titles really important?

What do you think?

Be Unconventional?

2009-02-28T17:31:00.003-05:00

You are not going to believe this. A couple of posts back, I told you about a fortune cookie I got just a week or so before Valentine's Day. With my affinity for Chinese food, I get a few.

Last week, after a grueling few days, I had dinner with some friends. We went to a Chinese buffet. It was paradise.

At the end, the traditional, check and fortune cookies came out on the weird plastic thing restaurants use for those sorts of things. Again, I had a pretty interesting fortune cookie. It read, "Be unconventional, even visionary." For one who has lived an unconventional organizational life, this fit me to a tea. In fact, the next day, at a conference on visioning which I was helping to facilitate, I shared the quote. Chuckles went up all over the room from those who have known me.

In recent months, I have really struggled with the unconventional nature I have and where I fit in the Kingdom. Many of my good friends are pretty conservative people. I tend to lean a bit left of center. Lots of my colleagues are very cut and dry when it comes to matters of Church. I tend to analyze, theologize and do just about every other kind of "ize" which you can name.

I wonder sometimes, if being unconventional is a matter of pride or a calling. I had this discussion with someone a few months ago who said, "All you guys want (speaking of those of us who are in the more liberal, unconventional stream) want is to have it your way." My reply was, "No I think that all we want is an acknowledgement that we exist and that we might have a good idea." I have to admit, maybe we do want to be in control sometimes. It has become a matter of prayer for me.

The matter at hand really is simple. The church in its purest form to me, is unconventional when it is at its best. Think about it. People who believe that grace and mercy are better than war are the Church. People who sacrifice comfort and prestige, who do not seek title, are the Church. People who see a garbage heap in Cairo, Egypt, where kids pick through trash to find food for their existence, as chapel for ministry, are the Church. People who simply serve, even the people considered by society as the worst, not expecting anything in return, are the Church. The people who find pleasure in giving away wealth and keeping only the bare essentials for themselves, are the Church. People who pray that God will bless the WHOLE WORLD, not just the USA are the Church. People who see management by objective, as worldly, not just a goal to be shot for so that we can put a notch in our Evangelical belts, are the Church.

I could go on longer. I think you get the picture. The question is, "Is the Church, my church, your church unconventional, even visionary?" Or are we just ordinary and slipping further into irrelevance in the West as people don't see us as any different than anyone else?

I am frightened that the Church has become conventional. I am concerned that even worse than that, the unconventional places of ministry are not recognized for what they are, the Church.

So are we going to be conformists or unconventional, not just for the sake of being unconventional, but because Jesus modeled it for us?

What do you think?

Contrarian or Confident?

2009-02-21T08:47:00.003-05:00

I have been labeled many things. I carry a title in our movement. I am an officer. I am a father and a husband. I am a pastor and a friend. I have also been known to be called a malcontent and whiner. I have also been labeled as a contrarian. In other words I question everything.

I must admit that I kept my contrarian nature under the surface for years. I had questions about faith swirling around in my head. I had questions about our movement simmering that I thought were disrespectful to ask. I probably, in my younger years, would have been disrespectful in my asking.

I now ask hard questions. I have a feeling and have heard that my asking sometimes puts people on edge. They begin to wonder if I am just disgruntled, middle-aged man. I do confess there has become, at times, a deep frustration with practices and people. I need to assure the readers here that I LOVE CHRIST, I LOVE CHRISTIANITY (in its purest form), I LOVE THE BODY OF CHRIST and I LOVE THE MISSION OF OUR MOVEMENT.

As one who has been in the family of Christ from birth, I have seen the best and worst. I have seen how we can, in the name of dividing "business from personal life" (how ridiculous is that statement, because all business comes from personal relationships) make decisions and implement them in a ways that are less than scriptural. I have also seen tough decisions that needed to be made handed down in the harshest ways. There have been times when I have seen the crazy uncle in the family of Christ act out by alienating a young child in a worship service by screaming at him, to behave. These are often the only words that the kid hears from the adult. Then there are the pet sins of my evangelical branch of the family, which have become the objects of our war cry.

Reading all this, you would think I am just a person who just contrary in my spirit. In some ways, I am. It is because I hope for better. I want a pure loving, peace-making, caring church that does not work by management by objective. I want to see an inclusive, gracious, questioning church that wrestles with our slavery to systematic theology (I do believe that theological systems are good, but need to be examined and reviewed as the hermeneutic and context changes.) I want us to hold Christians accountable and become less judgemental of those who are not part of our family.

I think there is a movement afoot. I think there is hope. I am confident. I believe there is a better day coming. I believe, with Doug Pagitt in his book, "A Christianity Worth Believing" that contrarians are people who are hopeful. They just are people who run contrary to what we have swallowed over the years and believe there is something better. The Church can do better and I believe will, as we continue to question why and how. I say this as long as we do not allow the questions to freeze us in place.

Armies require us to be in step. I agree with Paul when he writes in Galatians 5 "If we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit." That does not necessarily mean we need to be in lock step with each other, in practice or theology. The Spirit calls us in different ways to accomplish the same mission. What cannot be accepted is the status quo and a thought that returning to the past, by adding more rules will get us where we need to be. There need to be standards in the Church, but they need to be flexible and progressive.

I am hopeful. I am hopeful that the Church can once again become nimble. I believe we can become significant in the West. I am not sure that we are. I believe the Spirit can bring this about, if freedom is given to the members of the family to question and move forward as they believe the Spirit leads.

OK, I know I have rambled a bit. I know I might have sounded contrarian. My questions for today are pretty practical. Is being contrarian beneficial or unproductive for the Church? Is a confident person also contrarian? Can we be the change we need to have? Can we be confident that the church will continue to grow into what God wants us to be?

What do you think?

To Love and Be Loved?

2009-02-15T08:33:00.002-05:00

I read this bit of wisdom in a fortune cookie this past week. "To love and be loved are the greatest blessings" I thought that it was very appropriate for Valentine's Day. Moreover, it was important for all of life.

I have been desiring more and more deep friendships (see the previous blog). I believe God made us for deep relationship with Him and others. What I see though, more and more, is that we really have very little comprehension of what love really is.

I love pizza. I love the Cleveland Cavs. I love my friends. I love my wife. The problem is with all of these examples, love is not really perfect. (Even as much as I love Janet) I have come to realize in the church and in friendships in general, we practice cordiality and we practice friendliness, we rarely practice love.

If we really loved, we would sacrifice for each other. If we really loved, we would be intimately concerned about each other's lives, likes, families and inner souls. Instead, we often just have warm feelings for each other. Real love is very unselfish and self-sacrificing (read Phil. 2).

I tell people, especially my kids (biological and those by proxy) that I love them. I have many people say they love me too. I wonder how many I have blessed by REALLY loving them. Love really means laying down your agenda and wants for the ones you really love.

I wonder if we will really ever get to the point where we will really bless each other with our love.

Do you see real love in the church? Do you see the church spreading love? Do you really feel blessed and are you sharing blessing? Do you have deep relationships with others?

Is this really possible?

What do you think?

Facebooked?

2009-02-10T19:41:00.005-05:00

I admit it. I am an addict. I am addicted to Facebook. I have been a member of the social networking site for quite some time, but in recent days, I have really become active on the site.

Over the last several months I have had opportunity to reconnect with people I have not had much contact with for years. I have had many of my friends tell me that they have reconnected with people long lost from their past as well.

My wife claims that I would spend all day long every day on this network. I do this because I am amazed at the number of people who have an interest in each others' lives. Many people are an open book, well sort of, through their status update. You can tell they are sick, happy, sad or angry. Yet, you are always wondering if what you read is true.

In recent days, I have been trying to read my friends. I must be honest. I have allowed many of my good friendships over the years to evaporate. I really have struggled with a couple of friendships in particular over the last couple of months, that I really have missed.

It is tough to stay connected for many reasons. Whether it is disagreement or just a hiding of our true feelings, most of us tend to not be very open. Maybe it is a lack of trust. I think that vulnerability is the key to all of this.

I find that in the church. For whatever reason, we tend to be individualists with acquaintances and not real friends. This is sad. For it seems that when there is rich community, there is real revival that takes place in the church.

I am not sure why we tend to be so guarded. Maybe it is pride. Maybe it is insecurity. All I know that for a myriad of reasons we just don't seem to build community or stay connected in the soul of each other.

I believe that is what the church needs and we as individuals need to do. We need to make deep friendships and deep community work.

Why is that we don't? Why is it that we just don't connect? Why don't we let ourselves be vulnerable with people who are supposed to love us?

I am wanting to make deep friendships work. As always I want to know, what do you think?

Going to Hell?

2009-01-31T11:36:00.003-05:00

Yesterday, I finished up with the Urban Forum in Cleveland. It was a terrific experience. People from Europe and North America, who are concerned for and work with the poor attended. It was a great time of networking, fellowship, worship (thanks to my man Matt Frye, my dear friend Sandra Ryan and that kickin' group Progeny) and thought-provoking discussion. God was there.

I made new friends and renewed old friendships. One of those with whom I renewed friendship was the speaker for the last two sessions of the forum. He shared his spiritual journey and some of the questions he is walking through with the concept of grace and Hell. He is very much in the universalist camp. Although, he does contend that Hell is real. (I believe Hell is real.) He believes God created that place so that He could fulfill the justice part of His character. My friend contends that people will go there if the consciously continue to reject God. I tend, in my thinking, to lean that way.

I do not believe that Jesus led anyone in the "Sinners' Prayer." Even though James and John speak of confession, they were essentially writing to people who had already made a commitment to follow Jesus as their pattern for life. No doubt, these were people who carried their flaws, just as you and I do. They probably never said the "Sinners' Prayer." They probably were baptized as their initiation into the church.

My friend was very open that he believes that people whose lives are not miraculously changed, who suffer due to no fault of their own, or find themselves in addictions they can't lick, even good Hindus (Gandhi) and Muslims will go to heaven. I tend to agree.

This is not to say that miracles can't happen. They do. they just don't happen that often. That is why they are called miracles.

It is also not to say that we should stop telling people of Jesus and His way. I want people to know Jesus so that they can at least find some escape from hell here on earth.

A novel thought came out of the second session of his talks. That there may be a chance for people to be saved out of hell. The idea was put forward that the God of justice would send those who reject Him consciously to Hell. Yet, at the same time, we who believe in the "immortality of the soul" would still have opportunity to cry out for forgiveness. I am not sure where that leaves us in the story of Lazarus the beggar found in the gospels.

As we were discussing these things, a man who was going through one of our programs, who had accepted Jesus, was seriously trying to change his life, relapsed. That night he died. I wonder, did he go to Hell? I am not so sure that this man did.

He could be like Mephibosheth, the cripple who ate at David's table. He deserved to die. He would never be healed. He found the King's favor and mercy even though, he should have died and did nothing to ask forgiveness.

I think all too often our modern, utilitarian mind-set that one size fits all, causes us to become judgemental and hold people to standards, God does not set at all. We set our interpretation of Scripture up as the only valid one. Our statement of faith is often less theological, than it is core value in nature.

So as I journey through this latest thought process I need some help. Is Hell real? Will mercy overcome at the end? Revelation and other scripture seems to indicate that it is so. Should we lose hope since we don't always see miracles?

I have a ton of other questions to ask. I would be happy to hear from you with well-thought out questions and comments. Don't be defensive but engage cordially.

What do you think?

In God we trust?

2009-01-21T20:36:00.002-05:00

Yesterday was a day of incredible historical proportion in the history of the United States. As one of my Canadian friends put it "you Americans were busy with your coronation." I am glad that our country came to the point where we could elect a president who is African-American. I am hopeful that our new president can bring about some positive change. He is proving to be quite the uniter.

However, I am worried about the strange language that we speak in political realms. I have been reading "Jesus for President" by Shane Claiborne. Shane rightly points out that we as Americans tend to put our trust in our state more than we do our God.

President George W. Bush spoke in his 2003 State of the Union address that "There is power, wonder-working power" in the American Ideal. Our current president stated on a late night talk show that "America is the last best hope of the world."

We have on our money, "In God We Trust." It is interesting that the Romans had that on their money as well. Although the God they talked about was their emperor.

If you listen to the rhetoric of the political types the best hope of the world, is this ideal of democracy or the American dream. Don't get me wrong. I love living in America. It is a land of comfort for most of us. I do see that dream dying on a regular basis for many in my community though. Maybe they trusted what our politicians have told us to trust. They have asked us to trust a system, a dream or an ideal.

One of my favorite verses in scripture is Psalm 20:7, "Some trust in chariots and horses, but we trust in the LORD our God." In other words, we can trust in our 450 billion dollar defense budget (which by the way is more than the next 19 countries in the world combined). We can trust in a system, or as Christians we can put our trust where it belongs.

Often I believe we have set our god up and it is our country. Patriotic fervor is often greater than our evangelical fervor. We too often have wrapped our faith in a flag and see our system of life as a religion.

Maybe I am over-reacting. But I wonder what we really trust.

As with all my posts I wonder;

What do you think?

Peace?

2009-01-11T15:34:00.002-05:00

Those of you who follow my blog will know that Janet and I just returned from the Middle East. The tensions are high there. You would have to be living in a cave not to realize that there has been a major incursion into Gaza by the Israelis, in response to rocket attacks.

I need to be honest here. I am not sure what I would do to keep my friends and family safe if someone was lobing rockets into my back yard. I would want to keep them safe. That is for sure.

No one is condoning the actions taken by Hamas. I have had discussion with several of my friends regarding the depth of response by Israel to the attacks. It does seem to be extreme. Of course, I am not there and I am not sure how I would respond.

When I got to Egypt, my son presented me with a scarf, which is representative of the Palestinian people. Many people recognized my scarf as I would walk through the market place or where it around in Egypt. As I wore it one day, the manager at one of the hotels we stayed in asked me if I was making a political statement. He wanted to know if I supported the Palestinians. My response, "Mohamed, I support peace."

I believe much of the resistance in Gaza is not only driven by extreme religious and political positions, but also by poverty. The conditions in Gaza are terrible by any standard. Very few jobs are available. Supplies and services are in short supply.

Many of the Egyptians to whom I spoke regarding this situation, are skeptical of both the Palestinians and Israelis. Although they stand in solidarity with the Palestinian cause, Egypt will not open their border with Gaza, because of atrocities committed by extremists toward Egyptians who crossed over from Gaza.

The Israelis will not talk with the elected government of Gaza because of the extreme position taken by Hamas. Although it could be said that the total lock down by Israel has also contributed to the confrontation.

The situation is complicated. The analysis is difficult even for the so-called experts.

All I know is that there are many souls in Gaza who are paying the price as civilians for a fight they did not start or want. They are caught between two extreme political positions. Many of these people are Christians. No matter what their religious affiliation, they are people.

There have been so many conflicts started in the name of religion. The Crusades, 9/11 attacks and many wars in Europe between Christian factions have all started over religious disagreement. It is interesting how all of these religions advocate peace.

So, this begs to question, "Why are we still fighting?" Many will say that we have the "just war" option. I am not sure any war or taking of life is just. As much as we as Christians say we advocate for peace, we also say that life is sacred. I wonder how sacred life really is.

War, abortion and the death penalty just add to the violence brought about by our fallen nature. It is interesting how we have Christians who advocate war and the death penalty, but oppose abortion. If life is sacred, is it not sacred all of the time?

Even if we are "saved" however you define it, I am not sure we are really people of peace. Peace outside of community and submission to God is an illusion. I wonder if our lack of peace and bent toward violence is a result of our having ruptured relationships, even though we think we are really saved.

Is peace an illusion? Why are we such violent people not following the lead of our Saviour? Is there ever a just war? Where do we draw the line between be pacifists who are pushed around and people of war?

I wonder, what do you think?

Merry Christmas 2008?

2008-12-24T16:47:00.003-05:00

As I write this, I am in Cairo, Egypt, celebrating Christmas in a Muslim country. Our son is teaching here. He is working for a Jesuit prep school.

There are nearly 2 million Christians in the Cairo area is what my son tells me. Tonight we met for a Christmas Eve carol service at the Maadi Community Church, which is made up of mostly American, European ex-patriots, and African refugees and immigrants. It was a candlelight service. We were surrounded by police protection in this country to guard against any kind of sectarian attack that could happen, even though the chances of that are slim.

What has struck me here so far is the extremes of poverty and wealth. Social status difference is unbelievable. Wealthy Egyptians are very wealthy. As we walked through part of Coptic Cairo today, we watched as children scavenged from a garbage heap for their existence.

Tonight, I am overwhelmed that the Christmas message still needs to reach millions, who have no clue. They are bound by poverty, religious restriction and despair.

Yet, as I commented tonight to Janet and Chris, this is the weirdest Christmas Eve ever. There were no presents, no lights, only a couple of trees and yes, the wobbly singing of a few carols. Yet, without the commercialism, Christmas means more this year. I have been blessed today to know how much Christ loves all through the words of carols and scripture.

Many of you will exchange lots of presents, eat big meals and think very little of the non-Christian world. Yet there is so much more.

As you celebrate the nativity today I want you to ask yourself a couple of questions. Would I celebrate Christmas even if it was not commercialized, really? What is the greatest Christmas memory you have? Finally, do we really as the church celebrate Christmas and the advent or are we just along for the secular ride?

I hope to blog some more on this two week journey. So Merry Christmas. As with all my posts, I wonder if you have a comment.

What do you think about Merry Christmas 2008?

Commodity or Cared For?

2008-12-18T20:21:00.002-05:00

The statistics are staggering. The job loss rate in the US is the highest it has been in three decades. People who once had security in their jobs now find themselves shoved to the side as a useless commodity. All the while a lame duck president suggests he he has not made a decision on whether or not to loan money to the auto industry. Certainly, mismanagement caused this mess, but to let millions of jobs evaporate while you "decide" what to do is irresponsible, especially when you are still "deciding" with an inept team of advisers what to do with the banking bailout money.

Yesterday, I witnessed, first-hand, what poverty causes. I stood at the Christmas distribution for a large metropolitan city and watched hundreds walk through a line for toys, coats and some assistance with food. Many of them were the working poor. They are proud people, with what used to be decent incomes who just can't make ends meet. They find themselves losing homes, cars, and other things they have worked very hard to have. Corporate greed continues to be the bully. Lay-offs and short call backs are a frustration to them. They have lost health benefits. They have seemingly no hope of climbing out of poverty. They are the commodity of the wealthy. Their corporations care for them only if they can make money for them.

I have reflected over the past several weeks on the plight of people and the relationships with them. Often, I feel as if we treat them as a commodity when it comes to our Christian witness. We want to witness, enroll and indoctrinate. These goals in themselves are not bad things. In fact, they can be good. Unfortunately, I tend to think that we often see people as another notch in our evangelism belt or in the terms of some of my mega church buddies see how many we are "runnin'" at worship on Sunday. Often the term mission is applied to sometimes make it holy.

As Christmas comes around, I wonder how much we really value relationship in our movement and in the church in general. While there needs to be a sense of urgency about advancing the Kingdom, I wonder just whose Kingdom we advance. As I reflect on the Advent season, I am convinced that God is not about a commodities game, but the caring ministry of healing and value. If we were really honest, I wonder if we would value people enough to go without or to sacrifice as Jesus did. Unfortunately, in this world of commodity driven economics and relationship, I see the church in the West sacrificing very little. I point the finger at myself in this regard too.

Commodities and their trading mean one thing; consumerism. I wonder if God really recognizes his bride or if we too have become the management by objective, commodity driven people who really don't value people, but our success.

I know I may have been a bit harsh in this post. But I wonder, if we care for people enough to die for them.

I think at Christmas that is the type of message God sent in Jesus. I am not convinced always that it is the type of lives we lead.

Are we too much about the commodity and not enough about caring? Am I just wrong in thinking that we have driven down the wrong road when it comes to this way of being the church? Can our motives ever be truly pure as flawed human beings?

I will have one more post around Christmas. Yet as with all my posts, I wonder...

What do you think?

Legacy?

2008-11-27T21:08:00.004-05:00

Janet and I received an email today from a vendor from whom we ordered some supplies. This person who we have never met, talked about how she was always busy building her business, but in this past year had developed a different perspective about what was important. She was trying to find balance in her life. Her investment would be more in people than in the process of building a business.

This all took us back a bit. We sat for several moments and thought about what we would be leaving here on this earth if we left today. For what would we be known?

Recently, I have been through some trying times. I am sorting some things out theologically, relationally and missionally in my life. I am also thinking deeply about what I have left behind me over the past 50 years.

In the past, I have thought often about my track in life and where we will be going next. I must admit there has been some ambition that has not been good. Pride is a terrible thing. I have also seen my role, in recent years, as a change agent and one who wants to encourage others to be agents of change.

I am wondering a bit about my legacy these days. I have heard from some of "my kids" today. They have given me some nice words, but I wonder what impression and lasting effect I have had on them and others. I am not always sure that the ministry which Janet and I have had has been fruitful in bring about change agents. We have seen good people come out of our ministry, through the Holy Spirit's work in us. I am wondering if this has just been a pipe dream, a selfish ambition or a mandate for change.

I am convinced there needs to continue to be a prophetic voice in the Church and in our movement that will call us to emerge into what God continually calls us to be. I am not sure we are. I often wonder, if this is a lost cause, whether I am just cynical or whether we are going to turn the world upside down.

I have two great children, a wonderful daughter-in-law and loving, patient wife! They have long suffered through my desire to see people of the Church in contact with the culture and the people to be in touch with the times and not act as if it is sinful to understand them. The family is so patient! I pray for a church that will contextualize the Gospel. I am sorting through a great deal recently.

I am dealing with this idea of legacy. Today, I am thinking I need to focus more on legacy instead of processes.

If you have a comment, fine. Please share it. Today, I am with my thoughts and thinking how thankful I am for the many people with whom I have had the privilege to share in changing the world.

Have a great Thanksgiving.

Retreat or retake?

2008-11-21T20:11:00.002-05:00

There is no doubt we live in incredibly difficult times. Especially where I live, there are huge job losses, foreclosures and desperation. It is no less tough for our movement. Like other non-profits and faith-based organizations, we find ourselves in a bind.

It has been interesting to see the reaction to all of this financial malaise in the country and with our movement. Surely, we can live more simply. We do not need all of the things that we believe we need. We can become overly concerned about things.

I am concerned though, that we find ourselves in the spot of cutting out outreach ministries and the people who run them. There is a sense that if something is not effective it ought to go. God does not want things done just because they have always been done. I think what may rankle Him a bit is the idea of retreat. Cutting programs and ministries away, because we can't afford them.

I believe in a way that cutting programs away for purely financial reasons, may be anti-biblical. I wonder why it is we go into retreat mode in tough times.

What if David or Gideon or Samson had retreated in the face of overwhelming odds? What if the prophets had run when the faced hardness, pressure or death? I believe the biblical principle here is clear. When times get tough, we must advance and challenge God to be God. One of my mentors said to me all the time, "God powers His projects." The balancing acts is simply knowing what is God's will and our stubbornness or our utter lack of faith.

Sure, we can all live a bit leaner in this land of plenty. In many respects, we have become building and equipment rich and people poor.

I believe this is the time to retake what has been taken from us. More than at any time, we need to be aggressively, praying, ministering and raising money from the sources God sends our way.

Maybe you are facing the same thing in your ministry. Should we retreat or retake? Am I just too much of a dreamer? Where is the line between good stewardship and running scared?

What do you think?

Correct Party?

2008-11-04T12:09:00.002-05:00

I am typing after a full day already. I raked leaves, had a tooth pulled, voted and got my free Starbucks coffee. Not bad and it's only noon.

There seems to be quite a buzz around this election. The country is dissatisfied with business as usual, it seems. It also appears that there is a sense of urgency at polling places. We noticed a heighten sense of excitement today at our place to vote.

I have had a discussion with several friends over the last months as we seemed to be suffering through what seemed to be a never-ending election season. We talked about the issue of what really is the Christian perspective on the election. Some of my friends sent me a link to a web site, where a well-meaning brother, indicated that if Christians voted for Obama, they were not listening to God. Other Christian sites showered praise on the stance Obama took on the poor and the economy.

So what is the correct party? What is the correct stance? It would not be right for me to divulge my stance on the election. I will tell you I struggled as I voted today praying just before for divine guidance. I hope my heart listened.

While there are stark differences between the two parties on the scourge of abortion and the death penalty. There is just as wide a gap on service to the poor. So what is one to do? While I believe life is sacred at conception and am against the death penalty, I am very concerned about the poor.

I will tell you that I am I see good on both sides.

I think there is some good debate points here. Is there a correct party for Christians? How do we pick a leader? How should we determine how to vote as Christians. Are we liberal or conservative? Should we just abandon those labels?

What do you think? Whatever it is I hope you voted or will before the polls close.

Core Values?

2008-10-27T20:08:00.003-05:00

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?

Amazing Grace?

2008-10-06T19:48:00.002-05:00

I had a discussion with Janet today regarding the way I have changed over the years. I am finding myself incredibly empathetic to the plight of many of our friends, work colleagues and many others who find themselves squeezed by the economy and by lives of incredible sadness. In years past I was in very thick skinned. I would say that people made their beds and they need to lie in them.

Now I find myself hurting for so many who work so hard and are not able to make ends meet. Even fairly well-employed people are really struggling. I found myself also extending grace in unique ways to people. Some of my colleagues have said I have gone soft in my old age. Others have said that they can't ever remember getting a break, so why should anyone else. These comments come from officers and non-officer friends.

Others have warned that I am too lenient. After all people need to be treated with adults. The statement has also been made that, "In the business world, people would never tolerate this behavior or would not care so much about the plight of people." The problem is, as I see it, we are more than a business. I am all for accountability. I am also one who really desires to hold to a high level of work ethic and service for lay people and for professional Christians.

I have met so many people who are like the man, in the New Testament story, who was forgiven his debt by a judge and then goes out and chokes the man who owes him little. Where is the fairness there? I believe Jesus was trying to teach us how to show grace, even as He has shown it to us. In fact, we are asked to show grace, even if others have not shown it to us. There can be no mistaking

Even with those who are accused of "taking advantage of our service" I tend to extend grace. There are so many "double dippers" according to my friends. They should be made to wait their turn or we need weed them out according to my friends. I am often accused of being a push over.
I have become so much more aware of the neediness of people.

I also tend to internalize the hurt of the hurting recently. Hospital visits and nursing homes have always been tough for me, but now they are even more so.

Even in disputes I have always wanted to win. Now I see so many of life's disputes I find myself thinking they are so silly. Recently, in a disagreement, I found myself saying, "Ok, you win" just to get the matter over with and behind me.

So where is the balance between grace and accountability? Where is it that we draw the line and say, "Enough." Where is that we extend grace? How do we begin to change unfair business structures or laws that have hemmed us in as a "Christian business?" Do I just need to grow a thick skin again? Where does the Kingdom figure in trying to show amazing grace in every part of our functioning? I am not against discipline. I just wonder how we administer it fairly. When should we surrender and when should we fight for rights?

I am struggling with this and have been for the last few months. Possibly it is as a result of a series of things that I have experienced and been led to as I have prayed through these issues. Maybe I think too much with the heart and not the head.

What do you think?

Emerging Fad?

2008-09-26T19:22:00.003-05:00

In recent correspondence between friends of mine regarding the emerging church conversation, a great friend of mine suggested that this movement is a fad. Those who read this blog often, will know that one of the things that I have explored is the topic of the emerging church.

My friend argues that the movement is weak theologically. I would suggest just the opposite. This is a movement that is struggling to embrace and live out Christ in the context of post-modern culture. It includes conservative, liberal, Wesleyans, Catholics, Orthodox, Calvinists and the whole spectrum of theological positions. These people are seeking common ground between each other and staying away from much of the denominational sniping that often takes place.

Far from being weak, these people are seeking truth and not just accepting what has been told them. They are often careful students of scripture. There is great debate among the emergents. They firmly want to test and approve what is the will and Word of the Lord. I think the issue is that they ask a ton of questions and make people nervous, because pat answers just don't work any more. They do deconstruct things to find the base of truth at the bottom of argument. They are agents of grace and not just universalists as some would suggest.

In my opinion, the emergents are looking to make the church contextual in a post modern culture, which is not a fad, but a cultural shift. They are concerned not only about what the church believes, but also how it behaves, not in legalistic terms, but in terms of connecting with the soul of society to influence for Christ.

Most of my friends who consider themselves emergents, are really wanting the best for the church. They are excited about how the tradition of caring and grace can counter act many of the traditional practices that tend to marginalize many who are outside of the Kingdom's grasp.

I see this time as one of great awakening for the church. Yes, people will cast aspersions. There will be those who believe this is a fad. I think this is what the church needs to be or we will fade into irrelevance.

I think the Booths would have been called emergents. Standing against the status quo and creating a church that fits within the context of society sounds a great deal like what the emergents want to be.

So is this emergent movement just a fad? Is it theologically weak? Am I wrong to believe this might be an opportunity for a great revival in the church and its outreach? Maybe I have swallowed some of the Dan Kimball, Brian McLaren, Doug Pagitt and Rob Bell Kool-aid.

What do you think?

Control or comfort?

2008-09-18T18:32:00.006-05:00

I have been reflecting over the past couple of days about Psalm 46. It is full of symbolism of earthquakes, floods and the earth falling apart. It is a psalm that reminds us of our lack of being able to control what is around us. The only thing we know for sure is that we can stand! The Psalmist reminds us that The Almighty is our refuge.

This last couple of weeks have been filled with earth-shattering events. Financial markets are under the greatest stress since 9/11. Many of my friends are having family struggles and struggles in ministry. We have lost a couple of good men who left this world too soon in Raymond and Steve. The country and surprisingly, Ohio has felt the effects of Hurricane Ike.

I have a tendency to fret and worry and stay awake at night. Do you? I was reminded this week just how little control I have over things around me. It is difficult to admit for a recovering control freak.

Here is the issue in my mind. Much of what we mistake for being conscientious in leadership is really about wanting to be in control. Control is illusory. Micro-management will never work.

I am not advocating being lazy or not planning, but we all know people who see leadership in congregations and movements as controlling the people and projects around them. Leading is not about being in control, but realizing the comfort of the Holy Spirit as the Psalmist did and following His leading. It is about being able to take feedback and not feeling threatened. It is about realizing that even if things don't go according to our plan that the one thing we can control is our love for God and our desire to press into Him.

So are you like me needing to be in control? Is control illusory? As the world falls apart do you try to hold onto the reigns or do you trust the Almighty? It is very easy to fall into old habits or into the culture we have learned in a movement.

Today is not my usual type of post. I guess the question from me today is why are we so incredibly tied to control as a movement and as individuals? Can we take comfort in the fact we cannot control everything?

What do you think?

Information or Incarnation?

2008-09-09T19:27:00.002-05:00

Yesterday, I was at a gathering of leaders from our movement. We had a time of discussion with our facilitator (someone from outside our movement...HS are we a movement?). In that discussion, we explored some of the shifts in the church today. We had a brief discussion on the shift from informational church (i.e. preaching and pastoral authority) to incarnational church (missional based ministry where a free flow of discussion, cell based). There was a very strong reaction by a couple of people to that thought. There was some push back at the thought that their preaching may not be as important and their authority was not a great as they thought.

This is a great stretch for many of us in our movement. This is not to say that preaching and teaching are not necessary, but their importance may not be as great as we make them. In fact, most people at this gathering could not remember the top three sermons that impacted their lives.

This discussion followed a weekend experience that really caused me to think deeply about my ministry. Janet and I were teachers (Bible studies and preaching) at a retreat for our rehabilitation centers. I will tell you that the testimonies of changed lives and community helping in that process was touching to say the least.

The way these men shared in prayer, support of each other and in encouraging the Body, was unbelievably touching. Their leaders were there. You could tell that these leaders were incarnational. They live, eat and work in the midst of these men looking for changed lives and model Christ while doing it.

I think we are very comfortable in our movement with informational leadership. Informational leadership is tough to challenge. Informational leadership leaves very little room for debate. It is also very easy to not be vulnerable or transparent.

Incarnational ministry calls for us to be open. It shows us as we are. It is open to sharing flaws and its short-comings. It longs to journey with its members. It admits freely, it does not have all the answers. It lives among and not away from the people. It encourages mission and experience and is less concerned with head knowledge then with hearts that embrace their theology and Christ.

I believe our early roots were incarnational. Now, I believe that we are more informational.

This short post seeks to ask a question or two. So are we more an informational movement or incarnational? Is it better to be informational or incarnational? Is it better to have a mixture of both?

So with all my posts I ask you, what do you think?

Machine or Mission?

2008-08-27T18:09:00.003-05:00

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?

Unity or Uniformity?

2008-08-17T20:27:00.002-05:00

A little over a week ago, I was at a gathering of people from our movement, where I was blessed by a time of study from the Word. One study was on loving each other as the Body of Christ.

An esteemed leader of our movement shared that we should be in unity as the Body. Amen. He then was quick to say that unity does not mean uniformity. There were a few muffled amens in the room. I think I said something like, "Go ahead, preach." Others sat in an almost stunned silence. There were a few wrinkled noses that seemed to disagree. Others I think missed the comment altogether.

I have been persuaded more and more over the years that my style of Christianity is not necessarily for all the other people in the world. I am also convinced that my idea of salvation is not the same as others. I am not a universalist, but often believe that we who claim to be evangelicals are a bit legalistic in our view of how our relationship with God ought to be. I think that often our Wesleyan roots that are about holiness confuse it with piety and legalism. Instead of being perfect in our love for God, we often think that we are to be completely perfect (and sometimes judgemental) in our behavior. To quote my grandmother "One is not superior, just because they claim to be sanctified."

I am also convinced that there is room for different methodology and style within an organization like ours. Not all of our places need to look alike. Not all of our people need to look alike.

In this movement, I think that often we do value uniformity. I believe in accountability. That does not mean that we all need to be in lock step with what is most valued in the organization.

Unity in purpose and in mission is a far different thing. Uniformity is often confused for unity. Unity in mission and purpose is essential for the life of the Church. We need to be about the purpose of bringing the Kingdom and its values to earth. How that happens, depends on the culture and context of the place where the mission is being pursued.

In other words, one size does not fit all. The question is then, "How do we hold each other accountable? How do we set some type of standard?" To me, I think this is an easy answer. Is it in line with two things.

First, the methodology and the look, must be God-honoring. It must be something which seeks to bring the best of the Kingdom to earth. It cannot be shoddy. It must be thoroughly prayed through and it must seek to bring all to the place where they can be touched by the grace of Christ and the healing of Christian community. It must serve and not seek to be served. It must be an exercise of faith, humility and grace.

Secondly, it cannot be personality driven alone. I understand that all leaders have a vision. Hopefully, it is a vision that comes from The Heart of God Himself. It cannot depend upon just the leader. It must be something that the community of believers find to be the way. In other words, there must be a confirmation in the Body as well as to the leader. Autocratic leadership is not godly leadership. It is about power and ego. Those things are not of God. We are reminded in scripture that "Jesus humbled himself....even to death on a cross."

It is tricky to get consensus all the time. That calls for us to be more prayerful and diligent in our visioning of what God is doing and what He asks us to do in concert with His will for a particular situation.

That means that not all of our centers, our corps, our soldiers or our officers will look alike. Where does that leave uniformity? For that matter, where does that leave our uniform?

I am not saying that commonality in method is always bad. I am saying that it is much easier not to think and go with what is spoon-fed to us denominationally, instead of really seeking the Spirit in our context.

A Sunday School promotion may work extremely well in one context, in another it may be just spinning our wheels. A brass band may work well in one context. In another, it may just be viewed as an oddity. A uniform in service to the community may open doors to further ministry, but on a Sunday may make many who are new to the fellowship feel completely out of place.

I know that I am treading on some dangerous ground here. I am not trying to cause a rift. Rather, I am trying to say that we really need to be incredibly creative and contextual in this day of ever-changing culture and spirituality. We can stand for Christ and be unified. We can do it in different ways as long as He is honored.

So what are the marks of unity in the Body that you think need to be displayed even more in our movement? What are the issues of uniformity that need to be re-examined and maybe counted as inconsequential? Does unity need uniformity? Am I just fooling myself in thinking maybe it doesn't? Where does denominational pride creep in?

What do you think?

Did I sign up for this?

2008-08-12T16:45:00.003-05:00

My blogs are always personal. They are an attempt to let you into my soul. No doubt, they provoke a wide range of emotions. Some side with me. Some take issue with my thoughts. Others question along with me. This particular post is one that is causing me to bare my soul and some of the empathy I am feeling for my friends.

First, these are tough economic times. Many of my friends are struggling financially. They are hard-working and incredibly frugal. Still they find themselves just keeping their heads above water. Some are not even doing that. They are putting kids through school. They are trying to pay mortgages. They are enduring high fuel prices. They are trying to clip coupons. They find themselves living at best pay check to pay check, if that. I do not feel the pinch quite as much, but still, find myself hurting for them.

They are trying to find more income. They are in decent jobs, but still just can't find enough. This plunges them into worry and depression. It seems that life is not fair. The gap between the haves and have nots continues to grow, due to unchecked greed in businesses and predatory practices which accompanies it. I have more than one of my friends say to me "I did not sign up for this."

I wish I could do something, but often feel powerless to help. I have given myself to helping people, but at times just feel terrible that I can't do much. I ask myself "Did I sign up for this?" I feel the helplessness when I should be helping. I even feel the helplessness of changing the systems that are systematically destroying the middle class.

On the other hand, I have had conversations with colleagues in the ministry of this movement. The conversation often turns to the idealistic expectations of their ministry calling. They reflect on the process of their education and training. They were called to preach, visit and serve the poor. They often find themselves trying to find money for operations in a very competitive environment. They are pressed with more internal regulation and pressure for funders who ask for more and more documentation and demands, while receiving less in the way of funding. There is also some truth to some people feeling they are dealing with those who are difficult managers.

They also find themselves dealing with ever-increasing administrative burdens. Our electronic communication systems, which we were told were to make us more productive, often burden us with more last-minute "urgent" requests, which are followed by more and more emails, if we don't answer right away. I often wonder whatever happened to personal touch, like phone calls or face to face conversations. These often are a thing of the past. We have cocooned when we need community.

With all these burdens, societal and organizational pressures, many of my colleagues ask "Did I sign up for this?" I must confess as I deal with these and other issues, I ask, "Did I sign up for this?"

So what are people to do? Is it fine to ask, "Why?" Is it complaining to ask if "I signed up for this?"

Phil Graham, a former John McCain adviser recently called us "a nation of whiners." I don't think that we are. I do believe that many, even with strong faith are finding themselves almost at the breaking point. Often, what we believe to be true about God seems empty in our times of despair. We are often like Jeremiah, finding ourselves lamenting our plight. Instead of encouragement, we often get a "It'll be ok." or as one of my leaders said to me in some of my darkest days, "Suck it up, Larry." Sorry, for the hurting it is just not good enough.

While we need encouragement, I believe we need honest answers, people to come alongside with us in our despair with a desire to help us find elusive answers and give us honest comments in supporting us. We don't often get this.

I think what I signed up for is to be a helper and encourager. I am called to be one who helps people find answers to their financial, spiritual and even their incredibly difficult relational dilemmas. I am called to engage in mission. I am called to concentrate on that. While knowing there is minutia and difficulty to deal with, I am called to free others for mission, not restrict them or dictate the way they need to do it. I am called to create caring community. That's what I signed up for.

The question, "How do I do that?" The answer is more than just "trust God." At least, that is what I believe. God can do miracles. I am not losing hope. I am afraid for many of friends. they are fragile.

So I am asking for suggestions. What can we do in our movement to help in those issues mentioned above? How can we create caring communities? How can we loosen some procedures and create a more mission-friendly environment? How can we just help people make it day to day, without just the pat answer? Can we help?

What do you think?

Pastor, abbot, co?

2008-07-30T15:38:00.000-05:00

Let me begin by saying noone should try to make pithy posts on blogger while thumbing from a handheld unit. Yet, I do feel it is time to cross into a subject that is near to my heart and probably a bit risky to discuss while being part of a quasi-military movement.

I have been on vacation (ah!)and have been reading a great deal. My ideal vacation burning up on a beach and devouring books. I have read two so far that have gotten the blog juices flowing.

"Generation Me" by Jean Twenge is a must read for those working with young adults. It is a candid look at generational differences and, in particular, a view of the generation my two sons belong to. I have also read "Listening to the Beliefs of Emerging Churches" which is edited by Robert Webber.
Twenge confirms with hard data much of what I have experienced with the 20 something generation. This is a generation that really tends to be a generation that is stressed, paradoxical and dreamers who love to question EVERYTHING. I think I may have been born several years too early.

It is in this questioning and the turning away from the traditional church which is problematic for our movement which is big on salute and go. It is also problematic for traditional churches that are really big on pastoral authority. That is why so many emerging chuches are embracing what is called "the new monasticism." This is the formation of communities of faith that midrash and struggle with scripture and dogma in an open forum even in worship gatherings.
This is a far contrast to the current trend in our movement where we see the label "pastor/commanding officer" used so frequently. It is sometimes amusing to see those enamored with the idea of being commanders when they have a congregation of 10-15 and not much influence outside of the walls of their building. In fact, the notion of commanding much of anything with this generation is almost laughable.

While I do not want suggest preaching is not important, I would suggest that what may be needed for this generation may be the development of abbots. In the monastic days the abbot was the tour guide for those on the journey of spiritual formation in monasteries. Lest you think these monateris were cloistered, think again. Many served the poor and reached out to those who needed relationship with Christ.

Pastors/commanders tend to preach and moralize while an abbot mentors and encourages those who are searching to find their savior in an almost communal theology.

This is risky for us. It means we can be challenged and must welcome it. After all it really could mean healthier and deeper believers. The problem; this type of leadership and community means time and investment. It means that results will not be instant, unless the Spirit makes it so. In our statistic-driven, managment by goals and objective church culture (when did we adopt a very worldly way of doing church?) in which we find ourselves in the church this may prove maddening for some our more modern-leaning leadership.

So is it time for more abbots and less pastor/commanders? Is this a fad? Or is it the new wave of ou culture? Am I just fooling myself?

What do you think?

Liberal Christians?

2008-07-20T16:05:00.001-05:00

I have been thinking a great deal about something I heard the other day. A respected friend referred to a place in our country as "A hotbed of liberalism." This person equated it with the idea of not being Christian. I sort of wondered when being a liberal became a bad thing.

During the 1980's a group of very legalistic believers began to say they spoke for all Evangelicals. The began to link social progressive thought with liberal/secular thought. These people began to define the Christian agenda as opposing gay rights and being anti-abortion. There was very little talk from them about fighting poverty, women's rights, or strong educational values. Instead, there was talk of cloistering ourselves as Christians in our own schools and not engaging culture. The tone of the conversation with those who disagreed with them became angry.

After over 20 years of the agenda, we have not found a good answer to the scourge of abortion. We have not faced the education crisis and in fact, the gap between the "haves" and "have nots" has grown. Poverty rates have soared. No real progress has happened in changing corrupt societal structures, through the efforts of this arm of the evangelical movement.

I have always seen the roots of our movement as being socially progressive. Instead of angry rhetoric, the Booths and the group of followers (most of whom came from the depths of poverty) dared to stare the Victorian conservatism of their day in the face and bring about a culture-engaging, poverty fighting, innovative and controversial style of Christianity to the world. They fought child slavery, took money from people of questionable standing and used it to do good, moved into poverty-stricken, crime infested neighborhoods to change the culture. They were frowned on as being less than Christian. They were not respectable. They challenged respectable Christianity. They loved unconditionally. They did not have pet sins which they chose to highlight. They loved in spite of the behavior. I believe they would have been called "liberals" today.

I think you know where I am going. Even though there is a small, vocal minority who espouse a legalistic type of Christianity, I believe more and more are seeing the value and scriptural mandate of being social progressives.

Recent conversations have given me concern within our movement, that we may have veered off course from our early days as social progressives; "liberals" if you will. In fact, someone sometime back used that term almost derisively as they called me a "liberal." I hope that we have not become legalists. It is easy in our Holiness tradition to lean that way, calling it purity of heart and life.

So have we bought into the legalism of some and denied our roots? Are we social progressives? Is that really scriptural? Is it a good thing to be a "Liberal Christian?" Is that what the Booths were?

What do you think?

Is Change Inevitable?

2008-07-04T09:58:00.003-05:00

Many of my friends changed addresses this week. They moved to new towns. They moved into homes that were furnished and cared for. It was the week when our movement had new assignments take place. It has been more difficult for me than I thought it would. I did not move. I am not sure I do change well. You think it would be easier as I got older; not so.

Of course the old adage is "Change is inevitable." Others also come to mind like, "Time marches on." The latter is a fact that has not been lost on me in recent months as I notice signs of my age beginning to take hold on me.

However, there is another old adage that comes to mind as well, "The more things change, the more they stay the same." Over the years there have been moments when I thought our movement had changed. We lost our bonnets and high collars (still viewed by many as the one of the most scandalous moments in our history). We have lost many of our practices that as we look back are bemoaned by many. Are we better off or worse for losing them? Who knows?

I think for the most part though, that we have basically stayed the same. We still operate except for our very security-conscious information technology with the same protocols and conservative ways as we did in the 1960's and 1970's. Permission for everything has to be asked and granted. Procedures and methodology although somewhat updated are basically the same.
Is that good or bad? You can be the judge.

Then the personal question comes, "Have I really changed?" Certainly, my political views have changed. My physical body has changed. My patience has grown. My temper has dulled. My energy has waned a bit as well. Is that really change?

I guess the question for today in our ever-changing society for me is "Have I changed personally in deep ways?" To be honest, I still struggle with many of the same spiritual issues. Even when I think I have them licked through the Spirit, they raise their heads and many times bite me.

I have had several friends talk about how they need to make changes in their lives recently. The changes have varied. They have been changes in exercise routines, jobs, education and even spiritual ways. I have even declared to myself that I need to change in many ways. I need to do better on several levels. I need many questions answered about me.

The question is though, for our movement and us personally, is change inevitable? What is good change? How do we keep what is the familiar thing and not always the right thing from dominating us corporately or personally?

Today we celebrate the 232nd birthday of our country. Think about the change during that time. Yet have we really changed? There will be cookouts, family get togethers and fireworks (my 4th will somewhat more subdued.)

I am a bit more introspective today on this festive day. What needs to change in our movement? What needs to change in me? What needs to change in you? What needs to change in our country? How do we make this happen? I am not sure anyone knows. I am sure I will get a few pat answers on this one. I think I am looking for a bit more depth today.

What do you think?

Questioning or Disloyalty?

2008-06-18T16:58:00.003-05:00

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?

Pathway or Process?

2008-05-31T16:20:00.004-05:00

My last post was about my friend Bernie and the idea of "in or out" theology. I went to his funeral on Wednesday. The assembled crowd was well over 500 people of every type of background and faith walk. It was obvious he had a grand and profoundly positive impact on those who knew him. For the short time I knew him, that was the case. His brothers gave funny, loving and emotional tributes to him. The priest gave a wonderful message on the use of the gifts of The Holy Spirit (interesting for Roman Catholicism) to build the Kingdom and bring Jesus to the world.

Today, I attended the funeral of another well-loved man. A couple of hundred of us gathered in a beautiful chapel to honor Willis. Unlike Bernie, he lived a long life. He was an icon to many young pastors and officers twenty years ago as he moved toward his retirement. His family was and is a group of people who stand strong in their faith. His impact on my life was meaningful in the early days of ministry. He was a people person. He was not known as a process person. He was well-loved and got things done. The mark he made on a wide range of people was unmistakable.

As I heard the tributes to Willis today, I looked at Janet and said, "They don't make 'em like that anymore." He was a man with few peers in his day.

The tributes were stirring and fell in line with the message of the day. Things are black and white in faith. You are in or out. There was also a strong message of service given. Serving people, God and country were stressed. I was touched today on several levels.

Both of the funerals were dripping in symbolism. There were incredible symbols of faith and Church tradition. Interestingly, both funerals featured the singing of the old hymn "How Great Thou Art." The presence of God was evident at both funerals. There were tears and laughter. Both funerals mentioned these men in legendary ways. Both officiants indicated that people were probably going to tell a few stories and make a few up. That is the way it goes.

Here is what I was left with after the two events; legacy is important. Both were caring men. Both were men who loved. Both were men who gave much for others.

Neither intended to build legacy. They did by living what they believed and by influencing so many people in different ways for good and for the Kingdom.

I believe I will see both in heaven. They may take different routes there. They both went by way of grace and faith. One claimed to have a crisis of faith that brought him to his belief. Another, quietly, but intentionally walked his faith and seemed to grow into it; much as a child grows into a new pair of pants that are too big when mom buys them.

I know our theology. I know our practice and honor it. I believe my experience was one of crisis. Yet, I have known others who have grown into their faith and are more Christian than those of us who think we might have a theological lock on faith.

One man took a path, another a process. I believe both will receive their eternal reward.

Do we necessarily need the crisis and sinner's prayer? Can we grow into faith and experience redemption without some of the parameters we put on it theologically?

I am processing this today.

What do you think?

In or Out??

2008-05-24T07:57:00.003-05:00

I lost a friend on Thursday. At 53, Bernie died tragically, suddenly and way to soon for those of us with whom he associated. He was a giving and creative. Everything was "no problem."

Bernie and I met at a tense business meeting. I was impressed by his cool demeanor and unflappable nature. The pressure was on him, by a vocal, but hostile minority. He was unfazed, strong, but kind in this public setting. Later he admitted that he was really angered by the treatment, but "What does striking back do?" was his response to the matter.

He was a fitness freak as well. He played racquetball regularly. He watched what he ate. He took care of himself. Maybe that it was why it was so shocking to have him pass so quickly.

Bernie was not a "religious" man. He was more giving and caring than many of the people who I know who fancy themselves Christian.

He met my son and daughter-in-law once and took us to dinner. He always asked about them and commented how much he liked them. He never failed to do so when we saw each other.

On one of the last days when he was strong enough to speak, I had a an opportunity to pray with him. We had shared that privilege a few times in our brief friendship. At the end of our prayer, Bernie, in his own way expressed a hope in faith and our Lord.

To my knowledge, he never prayed a "Sinner's Prayer." (don't all of us who pray...pray a sinner's prayer every time we pray?) Bernie, to my knowledge, never expressed to me an "experience of salvation."

Some of those with whom I have shared our friendship and discussions, have expressed their disappointment that we will not see Bernie in heaven. One of those with whom I discussed Bernie intimated that one is either "in or out" when it comes to these things. It was almost as if the family of faith is an exclusive club with no wiggle room within the laws of the club. It also seems you need to know the language and speak it often. You know, "washed in the blood, saved," and other terms for which I have high respect and I believe I have experienced.

I have been reflecting on this over the last 24 hours since I heard of Bernie's passing. He was basic in his faith. He probably did not know the language or had he said the proper prayer. Yet, he was so much more like Christ than many of the people who I know who get paid for being Christian and who "profess a saving knowledge of Jesus."

So I wonder, is Bernie in or out? I know we serve a God of justice, but also of mercy. Is it as simple as being in or out? Is it that black and white? Is our interpretation of scripture accurate?

I hope I will see Bernie again. He was a good man.

So on this subject, I wonder, what do you think?

Installation?

2008-05-19T18:40:00.002-05:00

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?

Fare Well?

2008-05-08T20:30:00.002-05:00

Last year about this time, I wrote about the yearly transition time in our movement. This year it has hit close to home. My mentor and friend received word that he is on the move. He is doing what our movement calls participating in the "farewell process." This one is hard. It has nothing to do with who is coming to take their place. The successors are smart, gifted and godly. We are glad they are coming!

There has been a relationship, a deep-rooted relationship with he and his wife and our faith community. It has been their vulnerability, and pastoral nature that has encouraged, healed and inspired so many of us. We always are encouraged to finish well. He and his wife never give up on us. In many ways, it seems as if a part of us has been ripped away.

I have lived through this process all of my life. I am not so sure that we fare well all the time in the process. I will love and support the people who come after my mentor. I will encourage others to do the same.

I have been thinking though that this is the way you ought to feel when leaders leave. You ought to rejoice that they are in God's will. You ought celebrate their accomplishments. But you must also grieve. Love does that to you.

Unfortunately, I think all to often, we have hardened ourselves to this process. We have not let people in to influence us or we are cordial, but never really develop love for those with whom we are called to partner in ministry. These guys have made it easy to heal and love.

One of the shortcomings of this system is that people do not attach themselves, because they are afraid of being hurt. They are unwilling to give of themselves or even be themselves. It stings in times like this. Yet, if we are going to really be the community of Christ, we must be vulnerable and trust. That is not easy, but it must be.

I have committed to follow in the path of my mentor. I will be an open book. I will be a people person. I will not mistake authoritarian and autocratic ways for leadership. Leadership comes when you inspire people to love and in so doing follow you as God leads. God needs people like our mentors.

I am praying that those who will be called in the coming days will transition well. I pray that there will be deep bonds of love built because of the transition. I believe that there will be some hurt. I hope that we will not be oblivious to the pain. I hope we will be vulnerable and let people in.

Do we really farewell well? I need to trust that we will. Is this the best system? It is probably not the perfect system, but it is what we have. I am looking for your opinion. What do you think about the system? What has been your experience? What is your feeling about this type of transition?

What do you think?

Revival Meetings????

2008-04-30T14:07:00.002-05:00

It has been a while since the last post. I have been busy. I have also had a great deal on my mind. It will manifest itself on the posts that will be coming over the next several days.

This one started when I reconnected with a friend after several months. I said that we should stay in touch and that it had been way too long since we had seen each other. She and her husband, like me are professional Christians. They get remuneration for their ministry.

She suggested that I invite she and her husband to preach "revival meetings." She even suggested they might do the same for Janet and me. I think you know where this is going.

I have often wondered what that term "revival meetings" is all about. I have been in revival times. I have been in meetings where revival and great repentance started. I have never seen a revival really take place in meetings specifically called "revival meetings."

I believe that revival is not event-centered. It is personality and person-centered. That Person is the Holy Spirit. While we can pray for and cry out for revival, it is the Spirit who brings it.

Scripture says that the Spirit is like the wind and moves the way He wants and when He wants. This is by no means capricious. The Spirit is intentional and moves in the most necessary and intelligent ways.

So why would someone want to try to force something with "revival meetings." While I enjoy the ocassional event or special meeting, I cannot grasp the idea of "revival meetings." Are we trying to tell God where and how to work?

I have seen revival take place at a camp fire and at a lakeside Bible Study. I have had a sense of revival during a work project among the poor. I have seen revival breakout in a living room chat. Then again, I wonder if it was revival or God manifesting Himself as He wanted.

Here is what I think. The idea of revival may not always be a correct one, if one ascribes to the theological position that a faithful God will honor with grace His faithful people. In other words, He will convict of sin and convince of the need of repentance and renewal when we really seek Him. If we are doing that regularly as a community of believers, then we will know His reviving constantly.

Does that make sense? In other words, I think that we are so faithless, if we are constantly looking for the next manifestation of the Spirit. Shouldn't we continue in our faithfulness and count it as a bonus when the real manifestations come? Isn't that what real faith and following is about? For that matter, do we really need to see manifestations if we are faithful.

So, what do you think?

Thinking Too Much?

2008-04-12T19:53:00.002-05:00

I have not blogged in a couple of weeks. This has been a fairly busy time. This past week, I was at a conference with some good friends and I was even able to make connection with an old friend I had not seen in several years. It was a good week, but one that was not really deep in conversation. Because of our surroundings, it was difficult to get into deep conversation.

I do enjoy a good debate. Most of you know that. In fact, I was in a session where a presenter made an assertion, about the millennials, that from my experience and from my research in my former appointment I found completely wrong. It is interesting when you challenge a presenter. She later said that she would talk to me about my thoughts later in the conference. We did not get that opportunity.

There were several points in the conference where I found myself disagreeing with the presenters. I did find myself in agreement with many of the presenters. I also found myself thinking that many of the thoughts presented in some of the sessions I attended were not well-thought out. I found myself playing out different scenarios in my mind where they could be right. Even though I found myself at a Christian conference, I saw what I thought were infiltrations of a world view that really was not a Kingdom view. Much of our discussion was about law suits (a reality of life) and how to discipline.

I know the subjects were important. I wondered if our response was more relationship-building than legalism if our results would be different.

I started sharing my doubts with some colleagues. One of them looked at me and said, "Larry, the problem with you is you think too much. You should just do what you are told and accept the facts as they are." There may have been some truth in there.

I have lived my life in recent years asking questions. I ask lots of them. I don't often take things at face value. It does not always sit well with people.

For much of my life, I was a person who just accepted the company line or the latest pop theology. There was always this nagging in my gut that there was much more than what I had been told and taught. In recent times, I have found that more people have expressed many of the same feelings I have had about faith and theology. They have told me that thought they were the only ones who thought that way. I am now finding that there is a silent group of people who have taken to questioning the status quo. These people are not cynics, they just want the best for the church and their lives.

There is this dynamic tension though. There are times when we need to accept by faith and follow. Yet, I believe that we have become a culture where the questioning of the government, our bosses, and other leaders is often viewed as somehow a sign of just being an unhappy person. Thinking outside the box is rarely encouraged, even though we live in a culture that is customized and ever-changing. I believe we need thinkers in this world.

Where do we strike the balance? Can we think too much? Can we over-analyze? Do we somehow stifle faith when we think too much? Are we just malcontents? I know this is somewhat of a continuation of the last post. I want to know where the balance lies.

So with all my posts I want to know, what do you think?

Questions or Disloyalty?

2008-03-31T19:16:00.002-05:00

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?

It's Not Army?

2008-03-24T13:51:00.002-05:00

I know I may tread dangerously as I write today. (What's new?) I recently have had a discussion that many of you have had. I was talking with some of our more veteran members about some of our newer ministries.

They explained how they had visited the newer plant. These godly people were aghast that there was very little uniform wearing that Sunday (if any). They were also somewhat dismayed that the worship leader was in a T-shirt (with a shield on it) blue jeans and flip-flops. They were also very unsure about the casual nature of the Gospel presentation that day and that instead of an "altar call" the preacher called people forward to wash their hands as a sign of some type of purity.

Their assessment was, that it was not Army. This prompted me to ask, so what exactly is? The conversation centered very much around worship forms, the NYSB and other venerable institutions of our movement. Little was said about the doctrine of holiness, service to the poor, or the fact that this particular expression of ministry conducted an outreach (in uniform) to the homeless on a regular basis.

I don't get really too much into the mix about uniform. I think there are some important times to wear it, especially for community service. I like a good brass band piece, on occasion, especially if I know the words and it isn't 12 minutes long. Rarely, can I sit through a concert anymore. I even like the song book, especially if we can use singable tunes.

I guess over the last 10 years as I have reflected on my service to the Lord through our movement, I have begun to think more and more about what is Army. I wonder if what we consider to be Army is more what we like and dislike rather than a real desire to serve the Lord as He leads us into this brave new world.

It comes down to whether it is about methodology or mission. Are we really meant to be a "church" in the denominational sense of the word? Or are we strictly to be a movement of the church especially for those who have no other church? Are we strictly for the poor and downtrodden? Is the answer somewhere in the middle?

What are the essentials of this movement ordained by God? Is the militaristic metaphor one that now causes more division, because of the divisive connotation behind military action or does it unite us behind a leader because of its clear structural delineation of responsibility? Is the answer somewhere in the middle? Is it none of the above?

Is wearing our uniform on Sunday really what we should do when we meet in the community of believers? Should we wear it some other time as a witness? Do we need uniform at all? Does the uniform cause more issues of division than we think or do we make more of this issue than we ought to?

These are all questions that have arisen over the years as we have wrestled with this issue of what Army is.

I fear that often we have treated many of our traditions as sacred cows and not really treated others with the respect which they deserve. We may also be a little guilty of not changing our ways for fear of the unknown.

So what is Army? Is it a matter of perspective, a matter of opinion, a matter of mission or a matter of holy leading? Have we labeled as important things that are more methodology than missional? Is a militaristic metaphor really the right one for these days?

I am asking myself many of these questions, while knowing that I am called to this movement because of what I see as Army.

So I ask again, what is Army?

I am anxious to hear.... What do you think?

Authenticity?

2008-03-14T13:46:00.004-05:00

I have heard the word authenticity thrown about a great deal over the past couple of years. As emerging Christians we often talk about authentic Christianity. We talk about authentic community. We talk about authentic leadership.

I must tell you that the whole idea of authenticity appeals to me. It should. It has to do with integrity and being who you are being made by God. It has to do with vulnerability and trust. Authenticity breeds trust.

For years, I think that we have talked in broad strokes about integrity. We have talked about it in terms of not spending money without proper receipts. We have also talked about it in terms of giving a full day's work. We have been called to be people of our word.

I think authenticity and integrity has to go deeper than that. I wonder how many of us do things in community and in the world with no motive other than to do them for sake of being loving people.

I know I live in an organization where we are called to "saving the lost." I am wondering if we did more things with authentic love, expecting nothing in return if more people would be transformed by the love of Christ. Instead, we seem to scheme, plan and gravitate toward the latest model in order to satisfy some idea of what we have called success.

Recently, we have invoked old language as a means of recapturing authenticity in our movement. We seem to want to resurrect some by gone era. We invoke the names of our past and we use much of their metaphor thinking that we can some how make ourselves more missional.

I see it this way, authenticity is not coaxed, a catch phrase or a something I do because I want to win the world for Jesus. I become vulnerable, I become caring and I become loving, because that is what Jesus did. If people get "saved" that is a bonus. Don't get me wrong, I want to see disciples made. I just wonder if more would be transformed by grace if we did not do things just to get them there, but rather built authentic relationship that would expect nothing in return.

I am not sure that I have made much sense today. I have been thinking about the whole idea of authenticity recently. Actually, I am trying to get my head around it. I am wondering if we are really as authentic in our faith as we need to be?

What are your thoughts on this idea of authenticity? How do you think the church would look if we really were authentic with each other and in the world?

Am I just dreaming that real vulnerability and authenticity will happen in the church? What is your definition of authenticity?

What do you think?

Losing Our Religion?

2008-03-02T19:13:00.005-05:00

With all due respect to the R.E.M. song from the early 90's, it would appear that the Western World is leaving its religious roots. Recently, the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life published a study which indicated that up to 44% of the US population has left the faith tradition of the family in which they were raised. Further, it was noted that 51% of the population claim to be Protestant in the country as compared with over 70%, 20 years ago.

It is not that people are necessarily leaving Christianity. It is that they are leaving the tradition of their family. In fact, the fastest growing churches in the US seem to be non-denominational churches. Time was that if you were born Methodist, Lutheran, Nazarene or Salvo, you stayed that way. Not so now.

In fact, it appears that the days of denominational loyalty are long gone. George Barna in his book "Revolution" predicted this a couple of years back. He indicated that he saw a day of boutique churches and the occasional mega-church, where people will pick and choose their place of worship.

To answer this, several denominations have started aggressive recruitment campaigns and media blitzes. These recruitment campaigns focus on joining a denomination. I am not sure those I have seen actually concentrate on joining the church. They seem more focused on denomination building. This is not to accuse those who want to build their denominations of being ungodly. I trust their motivation. I think that their methods are not effective and will probably not produce strong disciples. I hope I am wrong on the latter statement.

Syndicated columnist Ellen Goodman quotes Professor Donald Miller, of the Religious Studies Department at USC, in a recent column "You are the artist of your own life when it comes to religion," says Miller. "This enables people to be more thoughtful about what they perceive to be true and right rather than inheriting what passes down to them."

For years, I have thought that one of the things that has hampered us from making true disciples is that we have not allowed for strong questioning or opposing opinion in the Body of Christ. If someone questions doctrine or ecclesiastical practice, they are somehow branded as a malcontent, or worse, a heretic. Unfortunately, unquestioning loyalty is often rewarded, I believe, at the expense of a thoughtful, active faith.

Even family members of mine have had people tell them to get over their questions. They need to get past their hurts or anxieties. I have seen this questioning and denomination hopping not as unfaithfulness as much as I see it as a deep desire to discover deep meaningful faith.

Goodman writes, "I don't think Americans are just shopping for their beliefs in a trivial sense, trying on creeds like this year's vestment, searching for the latest spiritual fashion. But we are a people on the move. About 40 million of us move to another home every year. So too, we drop in and out of church, U-Hauling our beliefs off in search of a better fit. Today, we may shop in a spiritual mall. But what good fortune to find the mall paved over the old religious battlefields"

So I have been thinking very deeply these days about this subject. I am wondering if there will be a day when most of our denominations will close up shop? I see a day coming when we will need to change our idea of church. I continue to wonder if we are more concerned about building denominations and not the Kingdom. I know that each denomination sees itself as having certain distinctives theologically and in practice. I would submit, however, that most people really could not tell you the difference.

Where does this leave us who are faithful to denominations? Are we at the point where we are losing our religion? Is denominational loyalty important? Is it more important that we ask people join a cause for Christ or a church?

I have been rolling these thoughts through my mind. Is my questioning somehow being unfaithful? As with all of my posts, I want to know.....

What do you think?

Business or Personal?

2008-02-20T20:16:00.006-05:00

I watched the movie "American Gangster" last evening. It is not suitable for all audiences. It is a violent (and at times graphic) portrayal of the life of 1970's Harlem drug-lord, Frank Lucas and his rise to power and eventual fall. Frank Lucas, according to the amazing portrayal, by Denzel Washington, was a man who cherished his family but was ruthless in business. He abused his own brothers and cousins, murdered a rival in the street in front of hundreds, and treated his employees with little mercy. For him the bottom line was selling drugs and providing a life for his mother that would keep her comfortable in her old age.

Frank Lucas had a way of separating business and personal life that was uncanny. He took his mother to church every Sunday, tithed, and gave away large sums of money and food to the poor of Harlem. He did all of this while hurting the people of Harlem with pure heroin that addicted and enslaved them. While having no mercy in business, Frank Lucas said grace at the family dinner and hosted huge family gatherings.

His life was juxtaposed against the life of Rich Roberts, the police officer who eventually brought his drug empire down. Roberts, in a great performance by Russell Crowe, was well known for daliance with women, heavy drinking, having a friend with mob ties, ignoring his child, missing child support payments and generally having a personal life that was out of control. Roberts was also well known for finding a million dollars of unmarked currency and turning it in while other cops who were corrupt wanted him to keep it and split it with them. His burning fight for justice was central to his pursuit of Lucas and made him a good cop. No family values were evident as they were in the life of Frank Lucas, but justice and seeking the truth was evident.

I have often encountered colleagues who have used the phrase when dealing with people in a harsh manner, "This is business, not personal." As a follower of Jesus, I am not sure how we separate the two. Abuse in the name of correction is often evident, as those of us who are employers or leaders treat those under our influence with little mercy. We also have times in our lives when our business dealings in the church no way mirror what we claim to be in our personal lives.

We may pray. We may know scripture. We may hold our family in high esteem. We can even be very firm. I think the line gets crossed sometimes, because we work in a culture where there seems little accountability, by those of us who call ourselves leaders to those who we shepherd or attempt to lead.

I believe when the Kingdom comes in our lives, our business and personal decisions are informed by a theology of grace and compassion, which does not mean we let everything slide. When the Kingdom is evident in our lives, we cannot separate our business and personal lives. That is because we will live like Jesus, who saw His mission and life as one and the same.

Not only will we make decisions that will be compassionate, but when the Kingdom comes, we will also treat our world with grace. We will be conscious of our carbon footprint and our stewardship of the resources He gives us. In short, we will treat everything we do as sacred and sacremental.

Lucas could not do that. Roberts could not either. They found their way by keeping business and personal dealings as far away from each other as they could. I wonder if we can make our business and personal lives the same, because they are based on Kingdom values, not just the bottom line or our own agenda.

What do you think?

Better Far To Die?

2008-02-18T07:06:00.003-05:00

I was at a retirement service for two very good friends this past weekend. These two people were and are outstanding people who have given themselves to their work and to people for over 40 years. They are tremendous servants and have influenced for good the lives of thousands over the years. I have great admiration and respect for these two.

At one point during the retirement, flags entered from the back to the strains of the song "I cannot leave the dear old flag 'twere better far to die." The song speaks to calling and dedication. After putting in nearly 28 years in this vocation, I know something of holding on during hard times in ministry. Yet, I would think that I might be better alive than dead. Maybe I just don't understand the song.

I have been working through the theology of calling. I am not sure that God calls all of us as officers to life-long commitment to this vocation. Is it possible that people are called for a season? I have had many friends painted as sinners for leaving "the work." I am not saying that there is no life-long calling to our vocation. I believe for many, there is. I am not sure it is better to die than live in the world for Christ. The idea of the song is commendable, I am not sure it is theologically correct.

While this post could be just about the theology of calling, I think it has more to do with the idea that fuels our theology. I think that often our shallow living is fueled by pop theology that is shallow. Much of our stance that we have claimed as theological, had their roots in missional stances. Have we become so wrapped in practice that we have watered down theology? Is it that our theology can evolve as well?

The positions we stake out as hard and fast, often are not as hard and fast as we would make them to be. Often, I believe, they are more a matter of denominational loyalty than real theology. I think that many of our people have not really wrestled with their theology, because they feel this denominational pull.

Don't get me wrong, I love our movement. I believe though, it may be time for us to do some more wrestling with many of our ideas of calling and other theological stances, as we look this culture in the face. I am not sure the hermenuetics we have applied for years are the same today. In fact, I am not sure that there is a hermenuetic for all of the culture of today.

I have rambled a bit. I think, however, we may need to wrestle a bit more with what we believe. I am not sure that we need to wrestle so much with doctrinal statements, but our theology in practice associated with that doctrine.

What do you think?

Who Is In Charge?

2008-02-11T19:46:00.000-05:00

I have had that conversation dozens of times. You know the conversation. This is one where people need to assert their authority and claim to be in charge.

In our movement we are replete with commanders. We have them on every level. It is because we are in a quasi-military organization. This adds, I believe, to our human need to be in control.

Now I do believe in levels of responsibility and also in checks and balances for all of us. Someone has to make the final call in a disagreement and eventually take the responsibility for the decisions made. I have no problem with that.

I think what is possibly a bankrupt notion is that someone has to be "in charge." Firstly, control is illusory. Anyone who thinks they can completely control another person, short of slavery is fooling themselves. With distance, comes autonomy, to a degree.

We cannot force people to show up for work at hours we think they should, unless we are right there. We cannot enforce much of anything, with the possible exception of some expenditures, over which we have some control.

I think the better question is not "Who is in charge?" I think the better question is "Who is the leader?"

I think there is a difference between being in charge and being a leader. First, if you have to remind everyone that you are the boss, you aren't. Secondly, if you have to ask the question, "Who is in charge?" your idea of leadership may be very shallow.

I believe the best leaders are encouragers, supporters, enablers of mission and people of great inspiration. The greatest leaders, point the way but also help people develop a sense of responsibility for their actions. They also don't have time to tell people what to think, but how to think.

I think the idea of being "in charge" may be against biblical patterns and run opposite what Jesus intended for the Kingdom. I am not sure, but I think that being a leader, may be far superior to being in charge. I will walk through fire for a leader. If you want to be in charge, you will probably have few if any followers.

In fact, being in charge may be close to being theologically indefensible. Maybe I am wrong.

So do you know people who need to be in charge? Do you know real leaders? Are they one in the same or opposites?

What do you think?

Getting Saved?

2008-02-04T20:01:00.000-05:00

I posted a week or so ago about the meth lab across the street. As I have talked to some of my friends, they have said, "Too bad you couldn't have gotten him saved." I have also heard comments like, "You can bet if he had been saved, he would not have done that." The next question, "Are you trying to get the family saved?"

I have grown up as an evangelical. I have had some of the greatest spiritual moments in my life come out of this tradition. I have also had some of the greatest guilt trips of my life laid on me by my friends, who wanted to get me "saved." I do believe that people need to be transformed by the grace of our Lord. As noted, a few posts back, I am wondering if our definition of getting saved is really what it needs to be.

So, where does that leave me? I am struggling these days with living a life that is authentic as a Christian. While wanting people to love our Lord and be His disciple, I am thinking that my relationships ought to be about more than getting them saved. I don't need a notch in my evangelism belt. This overwhelming desire to "get people saved" seems to be more a conquest than an actual concern for a soul. The Kingdom, to me as Jesus explained it and lived it, was not about conquest.

I want to build relationships with no expectation. I want to love people just because they are loveable in the eyes of God. Am I concerned about their souls? Yes.

There is so much more to our lives than being saved. Salvation is not necessarily the answer for poverty. There are many saved people living in poverty. Salvation is not necessarily the answer for our environment. There are plenty of people who claim to be saved who pollute and have a huge carbon footprint.

Does that make salvation unimportant? No. What I am thinking these days is that we ought to think less about building relationships for the purpose of people getting saved and more about loving people as God did and sacrificing for them like He did. If they get saved, then it is really up to God working through us.

So am I wrong? Should I be about getting people saved? Should I be about working on the relationships that God has intended so that somehow, there might be transformation?

I have been somewhat vague so as to stir some dialogue. So with all my posts, I want to know,

What do you think?

Saving the world, but not our neighorhood?

2008-01-25T19:16:00.000-05:00

I live in a quiet middle-class neighborhood. There are lots of kids. Most people mind their business. I have connected with a few of the neighbors. Dave and Kathy are evangelical Christians. Jenn is a single mom. Her son, Sal, is so cute. Dave and Beth and their crew live across the street. Tom is Jenn's dad and lives behind us. We live in the community with the number one rated school district in our state.

I have exchanged pleasantries with all those in my neighborhood at least two to three houses down on either side of my home. They seem like really nice people. In fact, they are. We rarely see each other this time of year. It is freezing here. Janet and I find ourselves on the road often and we work long hours in the downtown some 25 miles away. Our contact is often less than we like with those in our neighborhood.

We work in downtown Cleveland. It is one of the poorest and most violent cities in our nation. Those things go hand-in-hand, most times. We have found homeless addicts sleeping on our office stairs. They have often refused my help. We have had cars broken into in our parking lot. People have been assaulted on our block in the apartment complex in our back yard. It can be a place of fear if you let it become so.

I have often wondered why we would live in cushy suburbs when the city needs transformation so badly. The poverty is numbing in Cleveland. There are 16,000 abandoned homes in the city. There is a shooting almost every night. The schools although improving, are still in disarray.

When I have thought aloud about why we live where we do, it is often shared that we have to think of the children in people's families. What kind of schools would they go to? It is unsafe for them to live in the city. There are so many bad neighborhoods. Often that last phrase is used by us fairer skinned people when referring to minority neighborhoods. I have been a crusader for the city. I think, for the most part, we live too well.

When someone has suggested that we move our office out of downtown to the suburbs to save the cost of commuting, I have insisted we need to be in the city.

I have also committed to supporting overseas mission and developing countries with my own resources. We need to transform the world. I am a busy crusader for transforming the world.

Janet and I were away last weekend. Tim, who is staying with us while attending college, said there was "some" police activity around while we were gone. As we heard more in the media, we discovered that "the police activity" was in response to some domestic violence at a home located diagonally across the street from us. That is sad. We had heard that this was the case. We had some "hi and how ya doin'" conversation with the people who live in that house. I understood the dad was a pharmacist. We had no idea that he was making crystal meth in his basement.

I have been out crusading to save the world, but had missed a connection and opportunity to transform my own neighborhood, because of my busy schedule and my own crusade.

The issue of our cities is still incredibly important. I want to see systematic discrimination against the poor and minorities eliminated. I want us to create a sense of safety and peace for our children. I want us to create educational opportunities. Our cities are so important because they are the hubs for the world. In my opinion, our movement needs a stronger presence in our cities.

Personally, I need to be more cognizant of my own neighborhood. I am going to try to reach out to the family across the street. I want to help them in their hurt and shame. I want to do that for others in our neighborhood, I barely know, but now need to invest in. I don't want another notch in my evangelism belt. That is such a disingenuous way to live. I need to help make community and transformation happen right where I live. I don't want to be guilty of saving the world, but not our neighborhood.

If you are like me, you see the need for a big vision. We need to think globally, because the world is shrinking. We need to get outside our world. We can be so self-absorbed. Our pet projects can take our vision off the immediate world around us.

So can we often be so vision-driven that we can be mission-challenged in our neighborhood? Who is called to be Jesus to suburbia? By the way, did you know that crime rates are growing in the suburbs at an alarming rate? Do you really know the people where you live? Do we live too well in our middle-class neighborhoods?

I wonder what would Jesus do in this case.

What do you think?

Theocapitalism?

2008-01-10T17:31:00.000-05:00

Today I had a discussion with a few colleagues regarding the "bottom line." We are worried about the financial situation of our ministries. We talked regarding how we are often more concerned with the bottom line than we are people. Theocapitalism is worshiping the god of the bottom line.

I learned this term while reading Brian McLaren's new book "Everything Must Change." I understand the need for us to be concerned with good stewardship. Yet, at the same time we as the church in the West, I believe, have bought into the idea that what is good for the bottom line is what must drive our decisions. This means even personnel decisions. Those at the top, don't begin to take into account their own heavy cost for salary etc. Often, what happens is that those on the lower level of management are cut in hours or let go, when none of the leaders offer to give up some of their benefits.

It happens in business all of the time in the business world. It is estimated by some studies that the salary ratio for most Fortune 500 executives is 312:1 compared to the average worker. Wow. While this is not the case in the Church as far as salaries go, by and large, many of us live very comfortably, sometimes at very high standards. It is obvious that we often don't treat some of our employees with benefits that we would have as leaders. The money we pay is often not quite a living wage. In many ways, we do have a catch 22 situation. We want to fund the ministry, but sometimes I am afraid at the expense of people. We just don't have the funding to pay people.

I know that it could be argued that those who are not in leadership positions are not as important to the mission or do not carry as much responsibility as those who are leaders. I tend to disagree. I think that in the Kingdom's values even the most menial tasks are important. Like Brother Andrew, I believe, whatever is done by the disciple of Jesus is done unto Jesus. Paul even echoed that. He exhorts us to do whatever we do "unto the glory of God."

I am not sure the bottom line affects us when it comes to giving more benefits days. I am not sure why people who work so hard for us only get two weeks vacation. Again, some would argue that is the way the world does it. So, why does that matter? I also look at the application of FMLA laws in our land and the distribution of health benefits in many church organization, which often favor the corporation (church) more than the worker.

In many respects, it goes back to our idea of salvation. Maybe we don't only need personal salvation, but also salvation from the worship of the bottom line. In my position, I am trying to make a difference. But the culture into which I believe the Church in general has bought is this idea of expanding our budget and our mission often at the cost of those who help build our mission. It is incredibly hard to change culture in the short term.

I am not for abandoning rules or accountability. I am for a more worker friendly, team approach, which flattens the organizational chart.

Do you believe we are driven in the Church, much the way the world is when it comes not only these decisions, but to many others like service to people and building ministries?

Maybe I am wrong. I wonder though if the Church in the West is driven by theocapitalism.

What do you think?

A New Year a New View?

2007-12-30T10:19:00.000-05:00

I am home not feeling well today. Maybe it is not good to work on deep thoughts in this state. Difficult posts like this one may not be wise. After this post, I may be branded as a heretic. Much of my thoughts have come to the surface as I have been doing some reading of several authors these days.

I have grown up an evangelical. I believe in the need for a transforming relationship with Jesus for all of us. I want that for all people. I want them to be disciples of Jesus. I see our evangelical teaching of salvation (what it has become) as very selfish. I will try to explain, but it may not be very eloquent.

We see Jesus as saviour. I have had some conversations with Christian brothers and sisters who have left one church or another because of the doctrinal view on salvation. I had a very briedf but poignant conversation with one brother who said that he left one church because of their view. He thought they did not believe in salvation through grace. I asked him what his definition of "salvation" was. He gave me a very rehearsed and rote version of a doctrinal statement. It became the very much the "Four Spiritual Laws." It was very legalistic. It was a legal transaction. It had very little to do with faith or grace. It was more intellectual ascent framed in a faith argument.

I believe that many of us would agree with his definition. It involved God's wrath being meted on us if we did not agree to the contract. I believe that God is unbelievably disappointed with the human condition. I believe He looks heartbroken at what we have made ourselves. His perfection has been spoiled by our selfishness and greed.

Here is where I am now working through my salvation definition. I think we have the wrong metaphor going in the historical context of Jesus. We remind ourselves that He was in a place in time where a pagan empire which was a dominating culture. Jesus in His reading of the prophet Isaiah, says He has come to be the liberator from an imperialistic lifestyle. In other words, could it have been that He was saying that He was not here to liberate us to a legalistic relationship, but to turn upside down a culture of sin and punishment?

I have been thinking about this for years. If we just look at personal salvation, we reduce grace to what I can get out of it. It is about my freedom, my prosperity and my security. Maybe the definition of salvation is better thought about in terms healing a sick creation not a legal contract. Maybe Jesus in the cross was injecting a much needed cure of grace for legalism. Maybe He was not only about healing the human condition but all of the creation. It is interesting to me that much of His teaching was also about the land and nature and its condition as well.

I have seen some of my best Christian brothers be less than healthy in their treatment of the earth. They have bought into the domination theory. Man is meant to dominate the earth. We consume more than we need. We are overweight and proud. We are stingy in our giving to the poor. But hey, "We're going to heaven." We are part of the special few who have the "right relationship. If people want our life, they should give into Jesus?"

Maybe the transformation that Jesus was speaking about in His life and teaching was more than a personal relationship, where we are safe, secure, prosperous, and staying out of hell. Could it be that Jesus came to save all creation? That means the earth too? Instead of our popular apocalyptic view of heaven and hell, Jesus came as liberator not of domination, but of suffering and grace? Could it be that we have domesticated Jesus to fit our needs, instead of us following His way? Maybe salvation is completely different than what we have thought it to be. Does that make it any less necessary? No. It probably makes it more necessary than ever. What it means is that possibly, we need a new view in this new year? Maybe we have the salvation definition wrong. It is not about me. It is not about the idea of personal salvation. It is about the world. It is about the whole of creation.

Maybe some of you will need to read this post a few times. I might need to as well. I am not sure I have really explained what I mean adequately. I just think that we have not fully gone where Jesus wants us to go. This will have huge impact on the way we live as Christians and the message we proclaim. Transformation in thinking, living and in all of creation is what we need.

So I know I have thrown a great deal out there. It may be confusing. Maybe as we go into the new year maybe it is time for a new view. I would like to start a discussion on this different view. We may be doing some very un-Christ-like things, thinking we were "right." This is an emerging view. I am not sure if I am right.

What do you think?

Making love or making sense?

2007-12-24T16:17:00.000-05:00

I knew that the title on the post may stir some conversation. I recently read this quote by L. Robert Keck, "It is better to have a heart that makes love than a mind that makes sense." I have looked at this recently as I have come to analyze budgets and personnel moves in my part of the vineyard.

It is no secret that for the most part charitable giving is down this Christmas season. We are seeing a flattening or even a dip in giving to our organization. Many are blaming this on the economy. I am thinking that this may be the case to a point. I wonder.

We have become pros at doing good. It is our mission and mandate. Especially at Christmas, we pride ourselves on doing good. Christmas is an emotional time. It is commercialized and because of that we reach out to help people celebrate the season, the way we have been conditioned to celebrate. We share lots of gifts and lots of food. There is nothing wrong with that sentiment. We can sanctify the secular. It is the hallmark of our movement. We have become pros though.

Therein lies the rub. Maybe for many in the charity business, Christmas has become a matter of duty and not a matter of sacrificial giving. We have become good at large dinners for the homeless, mass distributions for hundreds of gifts for needy families or even giving good gifts to the shut-in. We have logistics down to a science. We have the movement of people down to a perfectly timed procedure. We have good minds and make a great deal of sense. I wonder though if we are still motivated by love or if we are just answering the call of duty, because we know it is good marketing and the time of year we are supposed to do something like this.

This Christmas, as I review my own motivation, I pray that it will be out of heart that makes love and not a mind that makes sense. So if you have opportunity this evening and tomorrow, take time to love people as God would and not just make sense.

So this Christmas, as you sit and make merry with loved ones and give a nod to the less fortunate, maybe it is time to consider is my heart making love or my mind making sense? Do you think we need a combination of the two? Maybe making sense is the reason we have flattened out in our resources, when we need a renewal of love.

Well, enjoy your Christmas and let me know....What do you think?

Clash of Cultures?

2007-12-14T15:56:00.000-05:00

Let me start by saying I love Christmas. I love the True Meaning of Christmas, Christ our Lord, more than life itself. It is for me a great season of hope and blessing. I just returned from our office Christmas celebration where there was frivolity but also a sense of the Holy. Jesus was lifted up, but in a gentle loving way.

Recently, I had a deep conversation about saying Merry Christmas. The conversation took place as a result of some recent bad press regarding people not saying Merry Christmas. The discussion with my friend went to the thought of us protecting our rights as Christians. He went on to say that we should fight to keep the holiday from being secularized for the sake of profits. Well, as a Christian I thought about that. I am not sure that I need to protect anything. I am not sure Christ has called me to fight in that way. He has called me to lift Him up as the Prince of Peace during this season. I am not sure that calls upon me to join a pitched battle for the right to say Merry Christmas.

What He does call me to do is to be compassionate, loving and kind. He calls me to do things to better humanity without expecting anything in return. He calls me to love those who disagree with me. He calls me to say "Merry Christmas" with my actions and then share the Gospel as the opportunity arises. I am not sure Jesus will need me to fight His battles. If I read scripture right, He has already won.

That brings me to another point. Much has been made about the fact that the Church has fought against the right of those living in alternative relationships when it comes to giving health benefits to those who are dependent on them. Recently, an employer fired a grandmother whose ill grandchild was her responsibility because she asked for Family Medical Leave and was not granted it because it was not her "child." Legal? Yes according to the law of the land. Moral? You decide. Personally, I am not sure Jesus would have denied health benefits to that grandmother or anyone for that matter. Shouldn't that be a right not tied to employment in the richest country in the world?

I say all this because in recent years, I have witness and sadly, been part of a vitriolic voice within the Church that has castigated "the far left" because of their secularist views. Rarely has the dialogue been kind or productive, because Christians have rolled in the mud to "protect" our culture instead of really offering grace and mercy.

Now I know some of you reading this will be thinking that I think anything goes. I don't. I don't think, however, we can hold unbelievers to our standard, without them really knowing why we believe and Who we believe. We also can not be the mean-spirited people who always need to be right. We need to be a people of grace and mercy.

William Booth taught my particular part of the Church to practice, soup, soap and salvation. He called upon his army of compassion to feed, clean and care. Then he would suggest we can talk about the moral conditions that put a person there.

Believe me, I do get deeply hurt when Christmas is attacked. I have decided not to attack back, but to pray and engage kindly, ushering in the Prince of Peace.

I know that many of my more conservative brothers and sisters will take offense at what has been written here. I want you to know that you are loved and respected. I just think there may be a better way than coming out swinging.

Is this a clash of cultures or the Church becoming so institutionalized that we ignore our mission to protect our rights? Am I less of a Christian or cheapen Christmas, because I occasionally say "Happy Holidays" to some people?

For all of you who believe Merry Christmas. To those who are unsure, Happy Holidays.

Will this clash really matter in eternity?

What do you think?

Public Persona Part 2 or Pervasive Spirit?

2007-11-28T18:25:00.000-05:00

It has been about two weeks since I blogged on this subject of a public persona. It is interesting what happened.

I noticed that it was several days before my blog got a comment from anyone on my blog. It was, however,interesting that I had several phone calls and emails in response to my blog within hours of the post. I was not surprised.

I asserted in my last blog that what exists in the Church is a culture of distrust. I really believe this to be true. The issues of trust and insecurity in the Church I believe are huge. It was only reinforced by the fact that many of my very close friends and colleagues felt that it was not safe for them to respond in public to my post.

Scripture reminds us to "speak the truth in love." That requires us to trust that the person sharing her response to our disclosure of weakness has our best interest at heart and to trust that they will not intentionally harm us.

Some of the responses I received pointed out that many of the readers of this blog do not feel that they can trust their brothers and sisters in Christ enough to be vulnerable, because their responses could be used against them in some way. There may be times when we are shy against about sharing, because it opens past hurt. I know what it feels like to have a wound opened. It is not fun.

Many of those who commented in private were concerned that some who would pass themselves off as loving or pastoral, would use the comments to advance an agenda that would cause more pain against the ones who were unwilling to share. This is a difficult thing to hear and see happening in the Church. Unfortunately, I think it happens all to often. I confess that in the past, I have been one of the mean spirited ones who would have used this technique.

I think this whole issue of distrust comes from the fact that there are those who would use another's vulnerability to prove they are right, or superior. As I have often said, "Just because we claim to be sanctified does not mean we are superior." It should be just the opposite, if we are to be more like Jesus, we should be less concerned about proving our righteousness than we are with helping others work out their own relationship of love and grace with Jesus. I submit that can only be done if we take off masks, surrender power, realize our own need and begin to build a culture of trust.

For that to happen, our public persona must be dismantled and a God-like character taken on. If we are more like Jesus, don't you think we would be more trusting amd people would be more willing to trust us because we would show genuine empathy and concern?

I sit here tonight saddened. I must believe that trust and safety may have become the two most elusive characteristics of the Church. That will always make for unhealthy relationships.

So how do we restore trust? How do we make for safe community? When can we shed a public persona for a Christ-like loving image in our community of believers? Am I just a negative person or is there a pervasive spirit of distrust in the Church?

What do you think?

Public Persona?

2007-11-14T18:04:00.000-05:00

I have a carefully crafted image. Most of us do. We try not to let people in to the most secret part of us. It is true in the church in general. For some reason in the very community where there should be openness and healing, we go about concealing our true selves.

I confess that I am among that number. I fear making people uncomfortable or fear offending. I fear hurting the image of the wise-cracking, confident, visionary. For sure, all those are part of me. If you are like me, you carry insecurity. You carry distrust. You carry fear of rejection. This can lead to really unhealthy relationships.

They are relationships that are unholy. They are not unholy because of blatantly rebelling against the will of God. They are unholy relationships because of our nature of falleness and brokeness.

A boss who because of her insecurity has to control every decision in the office environment, but calls it "holding people accountable" is an unholy relationship. Bosses should nurture and correct in love. A husband who is so private he holds back his real hurt, fear and shame from his wife, because "he is the head of a Christian household" is unholy. The parent who never allows their children to openly share their disappointment with a them and takes it as rebellion when it is a cry for help is unholy. A church that will not forgive when even the most grievous offense is committed, is unholy. A church where people feel too intimidated to share their hearts in accountability and testimony of failure is unhealthy.

The reason behind our public persona and the unholy relationships, is simply the sin of distrust that is bred by an unholy culture. Confession, forgiveness and vulnerability are the only ways to open up the grace of God which needs to flow in order to make this church and our culture holy.

Over the past few days, I have experienced that. A series of events has led me to open up in a new way to my community and family. They have caused me to have to repent for my own distrust. They have caused me to make an attempt at building healthy and holy relationships of trust and grace. The problem, quite frankly, is that these types of relationships are not easy. They often hurt before they heal. They make our public persona crumble and realize that our crafted image is not always the best thing since sliced bread, even though we might think it is.

I have realized some very tough things over these days. They are probably things that people have seen in me for years. I wish I had acknowledged and confessed them before. I fear that because I have not, I have hurt people to cover my own insecurity.

I wonder if there will ever come a day in this authoritarian movement and in the Church in general, where people will feel free to confess, be vulnerable, and be trusting, because they know they will find forgiveness, support and grace. Maybe it's because The Church for too long has not restored, forgiven or cared the way it should. Maybe the cause is that those of us who call ourselves leaders have forgotten how to trust someone, because our public persona might crumble or we might feel some relationship pain or not be sent where we feel we should be. That is a bankrupt and unholy way to live. Maybe we just fear getting hurt.

Are we a culture of trust? Am I expecting too much? Is it all just a matter of confession, grace and trust? How can we make it happen in the Church and in our Movement?

As with all my posts, I want to know....What do you think?

In Control?

2007-11-11T08:40:00.000-05:00

"Because I said so." I swore I would never use that statement as a parent. It was a promise that, sadly, I did not keep. The default position of flexing muscle comes out of frustration when you feel the ones you have been given charge of by The Holy Spirit or by your appointment, make what you believe to be bad choices or go against your wishes, refusing to change. Of course, I have to ask if we really have a lock on truth.

I have tried during the last 15 years of my officership, not result to muscle flexing with employees, soldiers or volunteers. Here is the reason. Power can be corrupt if not kept in check.

Leadership that comes from flexing one's muscle, turns into bullying and does little to develop those under your influence. Instead, it usually breeds passive aggressives.

Now, to be fair, there are times when leaders, parents, teachers and pastors, need to speak a hard word of correction. If someone has strayed biblically or has just been a bad influence in the community of Christ, they need to be made aware that they are outside of where they need to be.

Leaders who think that by speaking a word or making a policy that they can control people are sadly mistaken. The notion that we can control people and their actions is an illusion.

So what is a leader to do? I have learned so much from my mentor in this last year. He is such a good pastor. He LOVES people and he is firm, but gentle. He also does not major in minor issues. He wants people to be mission productive. He asks hard questions about their work ethic, but he asks about their heart as well. He encourages them at all costs. Even in the most negative of circumstances he looks for the positives to share in the situation. Because of that, he leads effectively. People want to follow him.

There is one more thing about him. He is sacrificial. He has no sense of entitlement. In other words, position and possessions don't matter to him. He is comfortable with the least of things. He is cheap too!

Sadly, I am not so sure that all leaders have that mindset. Something happens and sadly, at times, has happened to me at times when we find ourselves "in charge." We try to control people. We begin to bark orders. We resort to a "because I said so" mentality. No doubt, someone needs to lead, set the pace, and yes, at times make the incredibly difficult call to discipline and occasionally, end employment or even the "professional" ministry of people. It is a hard decision. Yet, even if we think we can control people; we can't. People just don't salute and go anymore.

Trying to control is a bankrupt notion to me. I am not sure it is biblical. Maybe we who find ourselves as leaders need to take a good look. I think that we really need to think about who is really in control. I would think that if we really want to be in control, we are not really a leader, but insecure. After all isn't the Holy Spirit the one who is our leader?

I would like to hear from leaders of families, churches, ministries and those who are followers. Is control illusory? Is control biblical? Is control necessary?

As with all my posts, I would like to know, "What do you think?"

CEOs or Shepherds?

2007-10-29T17:22:00.000-05:00

Today I write with a sense of trepidation and thoughts of self-examination. I have been thinking about this for a while. I have come to realize that Church is big business. The more I become familiar with the issues of budgets and buildings, the more I realize that Church is big business.

A church planter friend of mine who has been pastoring his church plant(well over 500 people attending his worship services in a plant that is only 7 years old) told me that his church will be building their first building in the next few months. The cost $3 million. His is a small church project. I am excited about the vision of his church and he volunteered the first 4 years, prior to being paid for being pastor. His wife works and he supplements his income by writing and speaking outside the church.

We also are in the middle of a couple of large projects in my realm of influence. Each of them will be $3 million or more. I deal with well over 600 employees in my position. I am also responsible to monitor and work with budgets that total multiple millions of dollars. Church is big business.

I thank God for the opportunity of ministry. I thank Him that He has blessed the church and particularly our movement with resources, beyond what we could ever imagine. Yet, with all of this, it is increasingly difficult for us to avoid the "corporate" mentality in our movement and in the Church. In other words, we find ourselves often managing with worldly methods instead of heavenly weapons. I am not so foolish as to believe there should not be procedures or accountability. I am also realize that corporation protects me from legal issues and in a way provides me with a comfortable life. I am grateful for that.

I think what scares me is that corporate mentality has crept into the Church at large. There are pastors and officers who see themselves more as administrators and CEOs than shepherds.

Let me illustrate. One of the people I work with attended a very large church in our area. 20 years into her time as a member, she introduced (yes that is right) introduced herself to her Sr. Pastor at the church. They had never even shaken hands. While he is a great preacher and writer, and I assume a great delegator and manager, he missed out on the pastor part, because of needing to be a corporate manager. His church is very much managed as a corporation.

Fortunately, I work with a leader who is very pastoral. If he errs he does so on the side of relationship. He visits his flock. He gets to know people. He does think through the corporate side of things, but sees the corporate side of things as a way to empower his flock instead of a way to control or just manage the business of over 40 congregations. In many cases, the corporate mentality would tell him to wash his hands of an issue and move forward. He instead sees his opportunity to defend and work with the situation in a pastoral way. He has not been infected with a corporate mentality.

He leaves the day to day business of things to others (that would include me). He is a leader not a manager.

We do have a big business going on here. Yet, I think we can avoid corporate mentality which will cause us I believe to function solely as CEOs. I want to be numbered among the leaders too, not just the CEOs.

I think corporate mentality has a way of watering down mission. I also think that when we become corporate in our thinking that we become more concerned with measurable results than being patient and prayerful about what the Spirit will do. As I said, I believe in accountability. I believe in good stewardship of the resources God has given. I just hope we have more shepherds than we do CEOS.

So with all my blogs, I have a couple of questions. Do you see corporate mentality in the Church? Do you think it has a place? How can people, especially in our Movement balance the issues of management and shepherding? Is being corporate really in line with the will of God for the Church and our movement? How can we hold ourselves accountable without developing a corporate mentality?

I learned something at Women's retreat?

2007-10-19T18:49:00.000-05:00

This past Sunday, I went to a Women's retreat for our division. That's what happens when you are married to the Program Secretary and the Divisional Commander, who lives around the corner from you needs a ride when his car breaks down.

Let me say that the worship gathering was sincere and people were searching after God. It was what it should have been. People wanted to know Jesus more deeply. I was encouraged and moved by that. Many in the room made fresh commitment to God. It was a joy to see.

There were some funny moments. The first hymn from was "I am a Woman." My mentor, Bill, told me he would hit me with his cain and report me to the Personnel Secretary if I actually sang it. There was also the moment during the sermon when one of my pals came out with a crown and robe. Of course, I knew she was a bit shy about it. It gave me a great opportunity to kid around. I ordered a whopper with fries after the meeting. We had a great laugh. Well, at least I did.

I have often blogged about my reaction to different presentations of the Gospel. I love to tussle and struggle with the deep theology of the church. There wasn't much of that there. I am not saying for a moment that the Gospel was dumbed down or presented in a way that came as a result of a lack of preparation. It was simple.

Because of my ADHD, both physical (and sometimes spiritual), my attention wandered. My focus was lost. I was not challenged much.

At this point in my blogs I would probably launch into some thesis on the need for us to get beyond the basics and go to the deep. I do believe we have bred in our Movement inch-deep Christians over the years. This was different.

For one of the first times in a very long time, even though I was not challenged by what was going on, I was challenged by a Voice deep within. I heard almost as clear as day, "Stop being selfish. It is not about you."

I count myself among those who believe the Church needs to change and deepen. I am one who believes that we do so many things out of rote actions that our worship is shallow. I believe that we can do so much more. I am somewhat of a cynic when it comes to Evangelicalism as it has evolved over the years. I believe a watered-down theology has led us to be ultra-conservatives, who barely resemble what our forerunners like John Wesley who were progressive in their views. We also need to value the opinions and views of other traditions. It sharpens us.

Yet for that moment, I believe that simple and traditional worked. Maybe it was the crowd. Maybe it was the loss of my pre-conceived emergent ideas. It worked.

The fact is, it was not the style. It was not the content. God worked because or in spite of all that went on.

I learned something at Women's retreat about God's moving. I do have questions though. Of course, I have. Is simple always best? How much does depend on us when it comes to the presentation of the Gospel? Are we too self-important? Has the church become too concerned about style of worship? Is a church meeting all that important?

As with all my blogs I want to know, what do you think?

Movement or Organization?

2007-10-08T14:50:00.000-05:00

I have just returned from Greece. While there, Janet and I were on an educational tour. We went with many friends, who, with us retraced the steps of Paul on his missionary journey to Greece and Turkey. We also visited some ancient Greek Temples to Poseidon, Apollo and the Parthenon. I actually ran around a track at Delfi, where games honoring the god Apollo were held. I took it easy on Rick Munn, who ran with me, so as not to embarrass him. After a moving and adventuresome experience in Thessloniki, I will never sing, "Knowing You Jesus" by Graham Kendrick the same way again.

Janet and I were privileged to stand in Ephesus, Corinth, on Mars Hill, Berea and Phillipi, among other places. We were given a great opportunity to conduct a devotional period at the place where it is believed, with some certainty, that Lydia the first convert to Christianity in Europe was baptized. I will blog more on this life-changing experience soon. The depth of emotion in me was incredible.

It was clear on my journey that the church in Paul's day was vibrant, even in the face of persecution. It was a movement. It was alive and fluid. It changed daily and it changed the world daily as the Holy Spirit led a revival that changed history.

Recently, on my blog, Phil commented. He wondered if the Army and the church for that matter were still a Movement or and organization. I recently heard a leader indicate that he believed that The Army was not an organization. His take was that we are a dynamic and unafraid. He asserted that we are a Movement. I would like to think of us that way.

It is interesting that both comments both came within a few days of each other. Frankly, this is something that has been on my mind for a while. Movements are dynamic, life altering and change the landscape of the sphere of influence where they are. They are unafraid of change and undetered in their fulfillment of mission.

Organizations on the other hand, can be slaves to tradition. They honor conformity to process and rarely have tolerance for those that step outside the predeterminded steps aimed at there preservation. Organizations are safe. Movements take chances. Organizations go into protection mode when things get hard. Movements move forward with abandon and challenge the status quo, in order to fulfill missional priorities.

There is no doubt that in many parts of the world, the church and our part of it is a Movement. There is a courage and confidence in the Spirit that has sparked incredible change in the face of persecution. The underground church in China is growing at an amazing rate. Africa and South America are realizing revival.

The West seems to not be seeing this type of movement, even though there are some signs of the rust being shaken off, where there is freedom to move ahead. I am wondering about us though. We have procedures in place for a reason. They are there to help protect our integrity and ensure accountability. They are there to make sure there are not any people who feel that they have freedom to do anything they want without any confirmation from the community of Christ. Procedures are not there for us to be slaves to them. My fear is that in many places the honor of procedure has limited the fulfillment of mission and made us an organization.

In those places where people feel freedom the movement goes on. In those places where people on all levels feel part of the process of decision making and feel empowered by the community and the Spirit, the idea of Movement is something that makes sense. Organizations have very little in the way of power-sharing.

I long for the church and our part of it to be a Movement. So the question is very simple for us to consider. Are we an organization or a movement? From your experience and your observations do you think we are the vibrant life-changing organism we ought to be? Or are we the slaves to procedure and tradition?

What do you think?

How far is too far?

2007-09-17T15:40:00.000-05:00

This may be my last post for a couple of weeks. I am off to Europe for an educational tour. I am not sure what I expect and may blog on this a bit later. I have a good topic though for this time. At least I think it is a good topic.

Recently, I had a conversation with a couple of friends who shared with me a concern voiced by a few people regarding the content of blogs, especially by Salvationists. I know this subject has been simmering for a while with people in leadership.

One of my friends indicated that in a conversation he had with a few people there was great concern that people who raised a critical voice regarding organizational or church change were somehow not being faithful to our Movement. In fact, he indicated that there was a very passionate plea to stop people from writing bad things about the Army.

I am somewhat in a quandary as it pertains to this subject. Followers of this commentary know that I raise many issues about the church and our part of it in particular. I don't believe that I embellish truth or that I am completely one-sided in my commentary or in opening a discussion. Maybe there are those who think I do not completely explore the truth, but that is their opinion and they are entitled to it. They also have opportunity to comment and debate their point through this forum.

I do think that if one of my fellow bloggers or one of those who would comment on my posts, are completely honest, don't falsify statements and are courteous in their discourse that they do have a right to criticize and even call into question the Movement. I don't believe in personal attacks though and have removed them from my blog when they have arisen. I think that is an inappropriate area of discussion.

I do, however, believe there should be an open forum to discuss the issues of our Movement and to hear from all sides. If we were to, as some have advocated, shut down all of the blogs that question (not sure how you would do it anyway) the issues of the Movement, I believe two things would happen.

1. You would force the discussion further underground. This would not, in my opinion, be healthy or really solve the issue of a group who want to be heard, but may feel they have no voice. I believe that this would cause rancor (if it is not already there) among the troops, most of whom, love the mission of our Movement and are sold out to it. I feel most of the critical voices already love our Army and genuinely want it to be better. Open discussion of this type regarding ecclesiastic issues, methodology or leadership, although painful at times for some, I believe is key to creativity and building consensus as we move forward. If it is taken away, I believe there could be a great wave of apathy as we try to build momentum for this millenium.

2. I think also we could border (and I know this is tough to hear) on the edge of being almost cultic. The moment the rank and file cannot comment or are castigated for voicing an opinion, may be the moment we find we are not be much better than those movements we tend to criticize. While I do not believe we are a cult, unquestioning following and unchallenged leadership will lead us down a path that I believe will not be healthy for the church and our part of it. I do believe as the Word says "Iron sharpens iron."

I know that last paragraph will raise of few eyebrows and some blood pressure. Some may consider it over the top. I think for many, the blogging arena is where they feel they can express opinion without retribution. I would hope they would also think twice before being ungraceful in their comments or posts. That does not do us any good either.

I know I may have stirred the pot a great deal on this one. I do so because I think this discussion makes for a hard, yet necessary discourse.

So the questions for my journey are simple. What is proper and Christian as far as it pertains to blogging? How far is too far? Should we not question the leadership, methodology, ecclesiastic issues, stewardship or other issues pertaining to our Movement? What is off limits? Is there anything off limits?

I am leaving in a few days but will try to stay current on the conversation. As with all of my posts I want to know,

What do you think?

Breathe Normally?

2007-09-09T17:10:00.000-05:00

Over recent days and in the next few weeks, I have and will be in airplanes for hours on end. I used to love flying. I don't relish the thought of flying now. After being on the scene of the World Trade Center within hours of the attacks and the hassle flying has become, I view it, especially long flights with trepidation to put it mildly. Also, the thought of having my molecules rocketing through the sky at 500mph at 30,000 feet that is somewhat unsettling as well.

On my recent flights I have noticed that the pre-flight safety speech most of us seasoned travellers now ignore is not given by flight attendants much anymore. It is on video. You know the one I am speaking about. This boring speech where they show you how to fasten and unfasten your seat belts and show you the exits, restrooms etc. is now dramatized by actors. Everyone is neatly groomed, what a joke. Have you been on some red-eyes? Everyone is calm. Obviously, the director has not sat next to the lady I sat with on the way home from San Francisco a few months ago. I still have claw marks in my arm from her death grip when some moderate turbulence hit us over the Rockies.

The real laugher is the emergency scene when air pressure drops in the cabin and oxygen masks fall from the ceiling. Everyone is so calm and the guy sitting next to the little kid in the video just reaches over and gently fits the mask on the kid after his own is fixed. I have never met a little kid who would be sitting there like this one was, unless he was pumped full of sedatives.

The fact is if that happens people are screaming and we are all praying and making the sign of the cross on ourselves (even if we are not Roman Catholic). This happened on a flight I was on once right as we were landing. A laughing pilot joked when we hit the tarmac "Sorry, hit the wrong switch as we were landing." My reaction to his joke was, "Don't quit your day job." Then I thought, "Maybe he should quit his day job."

Well back to the video. The oxygen mask scene plays out and a calming voice tells you that in the middle of this chaos, with your life flashing before your eyes, that when you put your mask on, you are to "Breathe normally." OK....SURE...RIGHT!!!

I have thought much about that instruction lately. Breathing normally; what exactly is it? I have been thinking recently as I have moved through significant changes in my life and relationships with family, friends and God, "Breathe normally."

It is easy for us to go into panic mode when there are pressure changes. It is easy for us to scramble to hold our breath, shake our fists at God and the world and pass out from our desperation when the lifeline of grace hangs right in front of our face.

I have to admit, in recent days with some turmoil being experienced, I have almost held my breath in a temper tantrum style and dared the mask to fall. If we are all honest, we have many of those days in our lives. We hold our breath, follow our own safety instructions or even just ignore the prompting of the Spirit as the mask of grace is firmly in our reach.

It does not mean that we can't question, push for organizational change or even occasionally wrestle with God. Lord knows I won't stop with any of those things. I think to do so makes you soft and almost robot like in your response to spiritual things. God wants so much more in our relationship with Him than a robot.

There is a point, however, when you simply need to breathe. When you are hurt; breathe. When you are frightened and frustrated; breathe. When you are confused by the actions of others or an organization; breathe. When you feel as if the last bit of your resource is gone; breathe. The mask hangs in front of you.

The original question though is what does it mean to breathe normally? If you are like me, your theology tells you that there are natural rhythms to life that are placed there by the Creator. He designs a pattern of prayer and meditation, physical exercise and food (natural and spiritual) which is specifically designed for us. The Evil One tends to want to disrupt our designed pattern through broken relationships, stressful, almost impossible situations, disappointment with circumstances or people, disagreement with leaders who you believe to be less than aware of your circumstances or policies or procedures you just think are down right silly.

In times like those, we need to breathe normally. Retreating in the midst of our busy, stressful and hurtful situations is almost impossible. Going back to or taking time to discover the patterns the Creator has made specifically for us, having them become as natural as breathing, that is the key. Admittedly, it is not easy, and sometimes the mask falls. We don't want to grab it because in our stubborn, self-righteousness we place ourselves as the all-knowing ones. Just breathe. It sure does beat the alternative.

So here you go. Are you ready to share and strengthen the community of Christ? What are the things that help you breathe normally? Have you experienced times when you just can't breathe ? How do we discover what it means to breathe normally and allow the Creator to set a pattern for us? Am I crazy saying all of this? Does it sound like self-help? How can our breathing patterns be found in community?

As with all of these questions and all of my posts, I want to hear from you.

What do you think?

Spiritual Warfare or Misguided Saints?

2007-09-04T13:46:00.000-05:00

Last week, I wrote about my raw emotions from the weekend prior. God has begun doing a new thing in my life. I noticed that God had begun to transform and refine a few of my friends too. It is not unusual then that when emotions are raw and God has surgically prepared the way for new growth that the Evil One tries his best to infect what has been prepared.

I had a very difficult week as did a few of my close friends. Much of the hurt that was felt came at the hands of those in the church. I am sure that for the most part, there were pure motivations in what was said or done. The issues that arose, were probably not handled in the most delicate of ways, by me or others. I also wonder, if there was not a good bit of legalism exercised by some, even me.

Add to that for me that I crossed a significant threshold in my life. Our youngest struck out on his own this weekend and we helped him move into his first apartment. This was not without controversy either. The Evil One once again struck me. While I had a great time moving my youngest into his modest living accommodations, nagging questions came to mind. "Is he really a man of God? Did you do the right things in raising him?" These questions along with others streamed through my mind and have caused me some anxiety.

Many of you know my views on this whole idea of spiritual warfare. I do believe that there is a struggle in heavenly realms which manifests in various ways here on earth. I don't, however, chalk everything up to attack on me or to some spiritual demonic force out to get me at every turn. I am not sure that my theology or a very careful reading of scripture supports that sort of extreme view.

What I do believe is that as people have a heightened awareness and hunger for the holy, that there is a sense in which we are left bare to emotions that are quite raw and questions that seem to haunt us. Hurt does seem to befall us in these times as we expose more and more of ourselves to the King and to the rest of the Kingdom known as the church. Often, instead of being a soothing balm, the church becomes more judgemental. People with pure motives in their own frailty and brokenness try to speak truth to us or guide us without having thought through the process well either. Unfortunately, even I was one of those people.

There is a fine line here. How is truth shared in kindness and love? How are we sure that we have the right message for the moment. Do we as a church just rub salt in the wound often instead applying salve on the wound? Is the church sometimes its own worst enemy? Or is this all just some type of spiritual attack that we are supposed to gut out? I admit I take a very dim view of the last assertion. Then again, maybe I am wrong.

So is the church under attack or just a collection of misguided saints who tend to mess it up sometimes? As you know, I am finding more and more that I like outside the institutional church, so maybe I am just a bit biased on this. I need your opinion.

What do you think?

Lost and Found?

2007-08-27T20:56:00.001-05:00

You know from reading this blog that I am pretty critical of the church. I must confess that I really don't like attending church very much. This is a really bad trait for a guy who is a preacher.

I have had some incredible worship experiences in church. I have had much growth from hanging with sinners. God has really worked in me when I have had to struggle with my faith. Mostly I have grown more from one-on-one time with friends over coffee than anything else.

I was challenged this weekend by a few friends. Geoff and Sandra Ryan were guests at our annual gathering for our division known as Family Camp. Geoff spoke Saturday on the lost. He used the Luke 15 text. My heart was pierced when Geoff spoke about the lost not only being like the prodigal son, lost sheep and lost coin, but when he said that the church could be lost like the Pharisees. Good people, doing the best with what they had, but so confused on what was really important.

I have a position where it is easy to be corporate. I realized Saturday that I was sliding down a slope toward the corporate mode instead of being what God wants from me. I know that He has made me a free spirit. He has asked me to be zealous in finding the lost. By that I mean, not only the sinful, but the lonely.

I had that hit home through another friend today. As I read what my friend had written about the weekend, I realized that I was not as good a friend or Christian as I could have been. I have become so conscious of appearance and so busy in my job that I have lost the ability to listen. I have become a bit unfeeling. I had become lost. I may not have been sinful. I had become neglectful of the important.

I also rubbed shoulders with my good friend Phil Laeger this weekend. He is a treasure to the church. I sat yesterday morning as he led worship in a church service. He had no idea that the songs he picked for worship were some of my favorite old hymns. In short, I was trashed at the end of worship. I realized again how lost I was. I wondered how God could love me. I wondered what God saw in me.

Then Geoff spoke again on Hebrews 11. He reminded those of us assembled that we are just like the people of Hebrews 11. We are screwed up, but God sees the potential in us. We may never be completely healed, but we can still be the child of the King.

I made a commitment this weekend to be found. I want to be found reaching the lost. I want to be found being what God wants me to be. I want to be found not conforming, not for the sake of rebelling against authority, but for being faithful to my calling which seems at times to be at odds with the Army. I want to be found being a better friend and more loving person. I want to be found thinking through my faith.

I found myself kneeling at the mercy seat this weekend. In a private act of commitment I committed to being found.

We are all lost. We often feel a sense of not belonging or that our potential is sorely lacking. Yet God finds us and appreciates our potential.

I still don't like going to church very much. I do love being part of the church.
I love it in its purest and most accepting form. I think that we have lost much of this.

This has been a very emotional couple of days. The church is a fellowship of the lost who are being found. I wonder where we lost that perspective. Have we become so lost that we have forgotten where we came from? Have we become so lost that we have chosen to take appearance over genuine love? Has form taken over function in the church? Have we come to the point where we are so corporate that we have lost our sense of being?

I have rambled a bit here. But hey, I am lost and being found! So with all of my blogs I want to know your opinion on the lost and found. What do you think?

Management or Mercy Part II

2007-08-20T20:35:00.000-05:00

I don't think I have ever gone to the same subject twice in a row. I think that this one needs to be revisited. Last post, I shared that many of our management team, in the name of fiscal sanity, have suggested that we cut back on the amount we spend on the poor.

There is no doubt we are facing a significant financial dilemma. There is also no doubt that we are facing the a crisis with the poor in this community like never before. We do need to be conservative in our approach to spending. We are, however, entrusted by the public with thousands of dollars, because they see us as serving the poor.

We face the fact that many of our facilities are aging and that we are struggling to pay many of our bills for operating.

Many of us chuckled a week or so ago when our maintenance supervisor, who is a good man with simple faith, challenged us to pray for someone to give us hundreds of thousands of dollars to fix our heating and cooling system. It is antiquated and is always breaking down. His faith was so simple. He simply stated that since our Father controls the resources of the universe, He can help us in this situation.

I was in a meeting today with two very remarkable people. One of the people is an octogenarian. She has more energy than three of me and is heading up an endowment campaign in one of our smaller communities, which to date, has been incredibly successful!

She simply stated a profound truth. When people of faith do things without a sense of entitlement and getting something in return for their work, but simply do what they believe God has called them to do, He miraculously powers His projects. He gives back more than we could ever ask or imagine. She was not talking necessarily of money, but of blessing. She talked of spiritual enrichment and life fulfillment. She also shared that she always experienced a greater blessing for the project for which she was working when she sacrificed herself and her comfort for the cause.

The second remarkable person was my mentor. He is a confessed fiscal conservative. Let's face it, this man could care less about his own comfort and his own entitlement. His favorite place to eat out is a greasy spoon that has the $1.99 breakfast special, which you taste for three days after you have had it.

He spoke of a morning worship meeting he had attended yesterday. His mind wandered to the fact that we are facing a significant fiscal crunch. While acknowledging the need to be prudent and not wasteful, he shared that he felt somewhat embarrassed as he watched a response after the message yesterday. He thought to himself that he was worried about the wrong thing. If he was faithful to his calling and denied himself, God would take care of the finances, just as He was taking care of the spiritual needs of the people yesterday.

These three people got me to thinking. That is a very dangerous thing I know. Is our lack of resource due to the fact that we have become a people of entitlement and not faith? Are we looking for return on our investment in the wrong kind of riches? Could it be that somewhere along the way we have lost our adventurous spirit of caring poor in spirit and in finance and decided that we would be CEOs of a corporation instead of shepherds seeking the lost? Have we spent on our own comfort and in some way forgotten that our first desire should be to rescue the perishing? Have we domesticated God to the point that we need to manage Him too and not trust that when we are pure before Him that He will provide what we need, not what makes us comfortable?

I wonder have we become a people who have become so sophisticated in our methods of management that we have failed to be simple in our delivering of mercy? Do we just lack trust and faith?

I know that there is need for careful stewardship. I wonder if we have micro-managed to the point that we have left The Almighty out of the equation?

As always I ask, What do you think?

Management or Mercy?

2007-08-12T15:27:00.000-05:00

There is no mistaking that I live in the poorest city in the US. Cleveland earned that distinction last year. This summer has been dubbed by one columnist in the Cleveland Plain Dealer, "The Summer of Death." It has been an incredibly violent summer in Cleveland. It has been a summer marred by senseless violence and murder at an almost record rate.

While all this goes on, I am also acutely aware that in the United States that there are now more poor people in the suburbs than in the cities. Granted the concentration of poverty is greater in the cities, but the majority of poor people now live in the suburbs. Gentrification has served as a contributor in making this happen. In our county the inner ring suburbs are experiencing many of the same issues that were once the domain of our large city. In fact, once quiet streets are now rampant with crime.

Non-profits find themselves at a crossroads. Many are fighting for financial survival while at the same time the need, especially here in the poorest city in the US is as great or greater than ever.

I have had conversation with people here in the city who believe that in order for us to survive that we need to curtail our social service assistance. While I understand that we need to fiscally responsible, I also believe that the first goal of the Kingdom and the organization to which I am called is service to the poor. We have used the motto, "Soup, Soap and Salvation" for years. The argument is that if we do not manage our assistance, we will not have funds available to help anyone.

My contention is that the moment we slow down spending on the poor, especially here, we are unfaithful to our calling and in fact sinful and immoral. We also violate a public trust. Millions of dollars are given to us yearly because people believe we serve the poor. I believe we do a good job of that. Yet there is so much more that needs to be done.

I also contend that we are wealthy in buildings and in administrative personnel. I wonder what those bring us. I know we need people to administer the large programs we have. I also know that we cannot just close corps. I believe, however, that many of our buildings are under-utilized and have become well-managed facilities instead of mercy centers, where physical and spiritual needs are addressed.

I have been there. I have shamefully worried more about the management of a program than administering mercy. I believe that much of our administrative burden rests with people like me. I am very well-cared for in the salvation war. I live in a decent home and drive a decent car. (Although, because of my guilt regarding the environment and operating costs I now drive a hybrid. In fact, Janet and I almost always drive together unless it is a necessity.) I also, have no worries about how I am going to make the next utility payment or where my next meal will come from. I rarely feel the pain of economic hardship. I am glad that in recent years as I have taken stock of the important in my life and that I have realized how well I have it and how little it means in eternity. I have come to the point where I see the need for less in holdings and a greater need to be divested of stuff for the good of the Kingdom.

I see the need around me in the city, and yes, in suburb in which I live, which is dotted with welfare motels. There are also times when I see those working poor, looking for the perks of suburban life, crammed into a substandard house in this suburb and ridiculed by their neighbors, because of their lack of standing. The need is all around. Mercy is needed and the coffers are drying up. The management wing of our ministry has its points. I just wonder where the balance is between management and mercy.

In a couple of weeks, I will be with some friends who are in the midst of a great Kingdom experiment. They find themselves serving in a very poor neighborhood. Their neighborhood is surrounded by gentrification. They struggle to make ends meet, yet somehow by keeping the poor at forefront of their service and not worrying about the perks of a nice building and good car, they are being blessed. Isn't that a model that we could use?

Here are my questions. I am speaking about the church in the Western Hemisphere here. Have we come to the point where we are living as an entitled organization? Do we want the comforts and not the sacrifice? Are our ministries becoming more about management than mercy? How would you think that we can balance be angels of mercy while still being good stewards of the resources God has given us?

I want to see mercy prevail in our society and in our city, which this summer seems so merciless to the young, poor and defenseless.

As with all my blogs, I wonder, what do you think?

Shaking Hands or Shaping Faith?

2007-08-02T15:48:00.000-05:00

It has been a while since I have blogged. I really have had a difficult time thinking of material to stimulate conversation. Some would call this "writer's block." After all, not all of us can be Jim Knaggs :) I have come to realize that there is a bit of dryness here.

I am not sure if it is lack of stimulation, lack of good topics (probably not the case)or just the fact that there has been some significant self-examination which is probably too personal at this point for me to share with the whole world via the web. Whatever the case, I am walking through this period really trying to find again the edgy nature and the controversial themes that have been my desire to discuss in this blog.

I guess it brings me to this. I have taken a yearly pilgrimage, with Janet, to Old Orchard Beach, ME every year for our territory's camp meeting series for the last 13 years or so. This is the first time in all those years we have missed. My mentor/divisional leader and his wife went. They deserved the break. They work incredibly hard and have had an unbelievably stressful year. I was glad they could go. That meant I had to stay home and "mind the store."

I admit, I was not really anxious to go this year. I do miss the beach. I do miss my yearly visits to the places like Two Lights, the Good Table and Camp Sebago. I do miss my yearly visit with a couple of very dear friends who live nearby Old Orchard. When people asked me if I was going this year, I simply quipped, "Too many generals for me this year." This was the year the retired generals who are still alive and our current general were the guests for Old Orchard. I have great respect for all of them. In fact, I have personal ties to a couple of them and cherish the way they have spoken into my life. My desire not to go came from something else.

Last year about this time, I blogged on whether this series of camp meetings was about reunion or renewal. It is hard to separate the two. I know there are many who enjoy the meetings. I know others who go simply to catch up on friendships. I would hasten to say the latter is just as important as the meetings. What is the church without deep relationship?

I guess what I was feeling this year was a tug at my heart about who I hang out with. I run with mostly Christians. They are of all stripes ranging from conservative, to progressive, evangelicals to more reformed thinkers.

I have, though, stumbled upon a new circle of friends. Like me, they are asking hard questions about life, faith, ethics, the church and relationship. Unlike me, they are not necessarily claiming to be "saved." No matter what your definition is of that term, they don't claim it. (I can see the comments now regarding the idea of being saved.) They are people of "faith." They are "spiritual." They are not necessarily "religious." They are GOOD people. They ask me some really tough questions about faith. They have no pretense about where they are.

Recently, I have come to understand how much fun they are. I have come to the point that I really love to hang out with them. I have come to the point where, what I receive from them in honesty and unconditional acceptance, is not always what I find among my more religious friends. I laugh a great deal. I have begun to learn a great deal as well.

As a professional Christian (I get paid for this. Thanks, Phil Wall for that term.)I have often thought that I had a lock on truth. My mission was to conquer the world for Jesus (like He needs my help? I know that is a whole other debate.). My evangelistic push came from a desire to get as many people "saved" as I could. I still want people to have intimate relationship with Jesus. I want my new friends to know Jesus deeply. What my new friends have given me, is an outlook on my motivation and on my methodology and let's face it, on my faith walk.

The seminal moment came a few weeks ago. One of my new friends came to ask me a question about "theology." They had heard a very well-meaning person say, "You got to give it all over to God," when speaking about the issue of trials. As we sat together and pondered those things, my friend asked, "How exactly is one supposed to do that? Don't we need to think? Don't we need to struggle a bit? Don't we need to try to seek for some truth?" I found myself answering "yes" to those questions.

My friend said, "I am not religious. I am spiritual. I would rather talk to you than Jesus." I was somewhat taken aback. I began to realize that I did not have a lock on truth. I did have knowledge of Scripture and hold it as inspired. I pray often, in fact daily. I realized that my definition of being saved was pretty weak. I needed to be sharpened more by these questions and by the shock of a statement about Jesus and me being on equal terms, than I did another meeting or the sharing of a few hugs with old friends, who I still love as much as life.

I missed my pilgrimage. I missed the beach, saying "hello" to friends and yes, hanging around the Pavilion during the meetings. I can't, however, at this point in my journey miss out on the sharpening of my faith the way my new friends bring the challenge to me. I can't get that in a church meeting right now. I have been getting it from some people who don't claim to know Jesus. They are showing me things about myself and about my walk with Jesus in a new and fresh way. They make me think about and wrestle with faith, instead of having it fed to me.

Please don't take this as an affront against the meeting together of saints. Old Orchard Beach is important in the faith journey of many, so is attending the Holiness Meeting. Don't stop doing that! Maybe I will need to experience my pilgrimage again next year. I would like to see my old friends again.

For me right now, I just need this way of building relationships to really shape me. I hope that makes sense.

So my questions are simple. They will reveal something about the current state of our depth of community. Is it really possible to have your faith shaped this way outside of church as we know? What do you prefer, hanging with those of no faith or those with faith? Why? Can I really be experiencing "church" with those outside of the faith? Should I be shaking hands with more saints?

What do you think?

Being Defined or Defining Your Being?

2007-07-19T19:07:00.000-05:00

I have been called many things in my life. Some of those things are not repeatable except for maybe on Joe Noland's new blog "slightly irreverent." If you have not read it click on the link to Joe on the right and follow the link to his new blog. I am sure though that Joe would not want to be numbered with those who called me some of the worst names of my life. He is a good and godly man!

I have been called many things. The list is endless. Dad, Captain, Cappy (S-E-B-A-G-O), Major, CO, TYS, innovator, malcontent, liberal, conservative, rebel, Christian, disturbed, goofy, funny, buddy, friend, boss and son are some of the many things that I have been called. I am sure there are other names of which I am not aware. I have often let names and titles define me. I have been in my current role just over a year. It is rather administrative in nature. Many people have chided me over the past year, because they contend that I often do not act as I should in this role. I have been told by many that I have to be a rule enforcer and strictly business type guy.

For those who know me well, you will know that being an enforcer is at best difficult for me and being strictly business....oops wrong guy! I understand that we have rules and standards for a reason. I know policies often are thought out in their inception and have good reasoning behind them (at least at their beginning). Those who know me well will also know that my motto is often "Rules are meant to be bent or changed if they don't make sense." I admit that stance often gets me into trouble.

So this past year has been a year where I have struggled against being defined. Just before coming here I was told not to be a "pirate" which was a reference to the story of Peter Pan. The pirates had no fun and were stuck in their routine. The Lost Boys were filled with wonder and excitement.

It brings me to this point. I think many times we find ourselves in the mode of being defined by an organization, the expectation of others or even by what culturally we think is the norm. I have spent this year trying not to be defined, but trying to redefine the role I am in to maintain who I believe God has made me to be in personality and in ministry. It has not been easy.

I am trying to develop relationships of trust and depth with people who would be considered my subordinates (I detest that term for people). I want them to be my friends and co-laborers. I am also trying to lay down some roots with people. I have found some new, meangful relationships and re-kindled old ones (I lived in this neck of the woods almost 20 years ago). There have been a couple very close friendships develop. Some I have not seen coming. I have tried not to see myself in the traditional role of General Secretary. I have tried to see myself more as team leader or facilitator. For the most part I think I have been successful. I have also encouraged a less-formal approach to my function, which has served me well. I do have a Brief of appointment (job description for officers) to which I try to stay faithful, but with the idea of doing so with some individuality.

This is not in any way meant to denigrate any of my predecessors. I just feel the need to be true to who I am and who God is making me. I do need accountability and a couple of friends in particular are helping me with that, by defining guidelines and checking my motivation.

I often think what it would have been like if Jesus had been defined by those looking for a Messiah or the Roman culture or what his disciples wanted or the Pharisees thought He should have been. Where would we be now? What would have been the outcome of history?

Here is my point. We can assimilate to the organization or expectations of others or we can define our role with God leading us. I hope I am defining my role. I don't want to be defined by a job, but molded by the hand of God.

This is a bit of a departure from my normal posts. It is a bit more personal in nature. I do need to ask though a couple of questions for my own journey. Do you think that people are more apt to be defined by their role in an organization than by their own sense of being? What do you think would happen if we stopped assimilating to organizational demands or the expectation of others? Is trying to define your role or me trying to define my role, just being selfish?

As always I would be interested to know.....What do you think?

Hymn singing or Cheer leading?

2007-07-09T20:03:00.000-05:00

Yesterday I attended a multi-faceted worship event. It was a Finale for our divisional music camp and the farewell of candidates for Salvation Army Officer training. The usually marathon event was tied up in a bow in one hour and fifteen minutes. Not bad at all for a hot 90 degree day in July. with high humidity and no air conditioning. I thought it was very good time of praising God with music, drama and witness.

We did some flag waving, some cheering for participants and our Divisional Commander gave a good word. He was scripturally strong and really meaty in his words. He is a godly man.

Not everything was peachy about the day. There were some gaffs (what event does not have few of them) and some miscommunication about the content of the day. Although, I am not sure how much clearer the advertising of the event could have been. Then there was that incredibly long walk up the hill to the tent where the meeting was held. We had rented some trams for the day. The company delivered them and when we went to drive them up the hill, they just did not work. Great... Three golf carts had to do the trick of transporting those who could not make the walk.

We did some singing too. We sang a good hymn and then sang a song that I question. I know that this is going to kill some people and I will take my lumps. We sang "Joy in The Salvation Army." Now I love the Army. I love its mission. I am called to it. We do very good things for the Kingdom. Warts and all, I believe the Army is ordained by God for its mission. But for years, I have thought that our "cheer leading song" as one esteemed leader called it, borders on worship of an organization, instead of God.

I know it encourages us to be joyful in our walk and witness. It has a bit of a snappy tune. You can clap your hands. A great tuba line exists for the low brass players. But I can't get over the words that really don't say much directly about God being considered a hymn.

I continue to think about the words of Paul. "We preach not ourselves but Christ." I also think about the great Lt Colonel Lyell Rader O.F. who often would say, "It doesn't matter who gets the credit, as long as Jesus gets the glory."

I know some of you are saying, "Larry can bring anything down. He is such a cynic."
Maybe I have been making too much out of this for the past 25 years or so. Am I wrong to think our hymnody ought to center on God instead of an organization? Maybe I just have too much time on my hands. We have so many beautiful, deep theologically stirring songs in our song book. Did we just miss it on this one?

I choose to be joyful about The Salvation Army, but I am not so sure that I should sing about it in worship. Isn't true worship about our intimacy with God and the community around us? Is our cheer leading song a matter of pride or just a great rallying song from by-gone days that we hold on to? Should we be blowing our own horn? Is this akin to "Doing the most good?"

You tell me. What do you think?

Next 50 years?

2007-07-02T21:05:00.000-05:00

This past weekend, I went to my parents' 50th anniversary celebration. It was fairly low key. It was an intimate affair with about 50 people, mostly family and close friends. There was not much speech making. There was good food, laughs and some nostalgia as we viewed a video presentation put together by one of my sons, with pictures from the past 55 years. We had to throw in pictures from the courtship.

My parents are retired officers. All of the kids are officers. (We often joke it is the family business.) The talked turned to the changes in society and in the culture of The Salvation Army. As we talked, we really settled on a few changes that have happened over the past 50 years that we felt have impacted our movement either positively or negatively.

1. Except for a few pockets, the tradition of brass banding in the Army is dieing. Years ago, nearly every corps had a band of some size or another. There were many very good bands. Now, you can count on one hand the number of corps bands that one would consider good in our territory. I am not sure how I feel about this. I just know that this seems to be a generation where the appeal of banding is not great. Even what used to be known as the youth band in our division is dominated by 30 and 40 somethings. While there is a small pocket younger musicians, I am not sure where the future is. In spite of the proliferation of Divisional Music Directors, this is not a worship medium with the strength it used to have. It may be all summed up in a quote from a distinguished bandmaster a few years ago at a territorial gathering who said, "Many people don't know this, but brass banding is very popular." Huh?

I wonder why the decline? Could it be that brass banding does not reach the masses as it used to? Is it worth our investment? Or should we invest in other mediums of music for worship? The brass band is valid. I believe when done right, it is great. I am not sure we get the same bang for the buck these days, as we did 50 years ago.

2. The demise of Sunday School is evident. At least the traditional Sunday School continues to decline at alarming rates. Although there is an occasional rise in yearly attendances, the overall trend for the Christian Education hour on Sunday is sharply on the decline over 50 years. It is interesting that the mid-week Bible teaching activities, continue to expand. Does this tell us something about what Sunday has become or does it tell us something about the relevance of our Sunday Schools? Does it say something about both? Does it also say something about a shift in emphasis in ministry? I am not sure that this decline is something we will turn around.

Sunday Night meetings are virtually non-existent as well. Even though our territory has mandated it, just because you say something does not make it so. I continue to wonder if we might better spend our energies on a different type of ministry in evangelism. I am not sure Sunday at 6 in our society is going to win the day.

3. The death of open air meetings was lamented. I am not sure that I have been to many that really worked. I speak for the most part of the traditional open-air ring with a band and a preacher. My experience as a kid was that mostly people drove by and honked their horns interrupting what we were trying to do.

I believe in outdoor evangelism. I think though that it should be something dramatically different. I am not sure we should ALL be rugged up in our Sunday-go-to-meting wear when we hold it. Some of the most effective outdoor evangelism I have seen has taken place in clown costumes or in shorts and t-shirts while washing cars for free. I have also been blessed by those who would just give out bottled water on a very hot day, with a scripture verse on the bottle. I have seen people won to the Lord more readily by that than by what we call an open-air. I have also seen a mobile canteen used to serve ice cream and the Word on hot days.

I am not sure the open-air was always as dramatic as we claim it was.

4. The professionalism of social service ministry has also dramatically increased. I understand the need for this. We need well-trained individuals who can counsel and serve people. I have no doubt that we need MSW types desperately. The problem is we may be way out of balance. We have lost the day in most of our corps when service to the poor was a very important part of the life of the corps and a mandate for the soldier. We need to do a better job of balancing the witness of the local congregation and the professional service. Has this hurt us? I think so.

I think the last generation of soldiers, of which I am one, is more concerned about sitting in the pew than serving their fellow man and fulfilling an important scriptural mandate. I am afraid this is the change, that while it has increased our visibility and brought us great wealth, has cost us dearly in the need to build relationship in our community.

5. The local corps officer has been stretched too thin. My parents shared how simple their reports, bookkeeping and correspondence life was. Now the CO has unfortunately had to become a CEO. The ones who don't are often hassled by their supervisors and told to get on top of things. While there needs to be a balance, shouldn't we lean toward being people people and not just good PR and paper people?

There were more changes that came up in conversation. I am not sure that the good ole days were as good as we sometimes paint them. I am also not so sure that the changes have been for the good.

I would like to hear what you think we have lost, what we have gained and what you think we need to do in the next 50 years if we are to survive. You may want to refer to my list. You may want to suggest other changes and visit history that way. This is a tough one.

As with all my posts I am anxious to hear....

What do you think?

Empty Nest?

2007-06-25T14:24:00.003-05:00

As I write this, I am sort of misty-eyed. Janet and I officially became empty-nesters this weekend. Our oldest son has been married for almost two years to a lovely lady, who we love dearly. Our youngest just graduated university a month ago.

This past weekend, we moved Chris back to Boston, where he will start his first real job. He started today actually. He is working for the Veterans' Administration for at least the next couple of years while he sorts out Grad School and the rest of his life. On the way home we visited Joel and Kathleen. It was a great time.

We did not push Chris or Joel out of the nest, they went on their own. We would have been just as happy to have them stay with us. We have been nostalgic the last couple of weeks. As I have looked at both of the boys, I have had a flood of memories. So much of their boyhood has replayed. I have remembered laughing and crying with them. Thoughts of running around camp, playing football in the snow graduations from Kindergarten, high school and college have just been running amok in my head. I have both laughed and cried at the same time.

As Chris was leaving and as we visited Joel, I talked to each about their faith and the church. We talked about the Army and its appeal to the 20 something crowd. Both agreed that the mission of the Army is very attractive to them. The formality and protocol has pushed them at arm's length. One attends a corps, mainly from a sense of duty and the fact that he has found a group of kids he can minister to. The other has not attended the Army except when visiting us for the past couple of years. Both feel that our church is great, but is in desperate need of change.

This is not a new thing for the 20 something crew to say this. I think there have been generations when this has happened. I have not seen the exodus of younger adults to this extent though as I have in the past 5 years. The nest is emptying out except for in a select few places where mission is being placed at the forefront and the formality is being dropped.

For what it is worth, my guys struggle with uniform, uniformity, rank and they perceive the autocratic nature of leadership as a real impediment to our movement going forward. (They do sound like my kids) They shared these expressions with me without my prompting or guiding. They just opened up.

I do want to be clear that the issue with the uniform is not that they are anti-uniform. They see it as often a prideful thing instead of the servant garb it was intended to be.

I also spent time last week at a discipleship camp for teens in our division. I needed my teen retreat fix. (Once a youth worker, always a youth worker.) The teens were refreshing, but in small group, many expressed the same views my kids do. Interesting, again, this happened without prompting from some of our really outstanding young teens.

I am concerned about the exodus from the nest of the Army. I am not sure that going forward into the next generation we will reverse the trend without taking a very hard look at a few things. First, we need to trust these guys. They are educated. They are wanting to serve. They will not do something because we tell them to. They will do it because it makes sense spiritually. They deserve our trust.

Secondly, not all of them are whiny, lazy and self-absorbed as they are often painted. There is a sense of wanting change and to do it for the good. They need to be allowed to speak change to us. WE NEED TO LISTEN FOR REAL.

Thirdly, they will not practice our brand of salvationism and they will want to dive headlong into what they do. Officership may not be where they will serve. It is because for many, they feel that being an officer will limit their evangelical outreach and mission. (If you don't believe this last statement, come sit with me sometime as I have coffee with these guys.) This is not an isolated feeling. Maybe this is why the average age of our candidates for officership is rising so steadily and why it is now a 2nd career option for many. Many are not enthralled with what officership looks like. In fact, they see it as being disconnected from the covenental relationship it is meant to be. I point the finger at myself in this, because I am an officer. God forgive me if I have modeled the wrong message.

Lastly, as an employee many feel abused and almost second class as compared to officers. Most will be relegated to second place in jobs where they have more capability and experience than their officer counterparts. They will not have a voice in ecclesiastical issues, because our movement is so officer-centric. They see this as being slighted and patronized.

I believe the Army is poised for great things with this emerging generation and the next. I am afraid unless we make some drastic change the nest may get empty really fast. I hope not.

What do you think?

Good Extravagance?

2007-06-11T17:05:00.000-05:00

Yesterday, I was in a meeting of nearly 9,000 (at least that was the official count) people when an announcement was made that a collection had been taken by a couple of thousand women at a breakfast that would go toward ending sexual trafficking. The amount was over $2000. The person making the announcement said that there would be an extra offering taken to make sure that the gift would be at least $3000.

After the announcement was made, several people at the gathering who were seated around me commented on the paltry amount. Many commented that at our gathering in Hershey that the platform which was being used was probably worth more than the $3000 that the offering would tally. Many commented that if just a few modifications would have been made in the schedule of the weekend, that the impact of the offering would have been at least 100 fold the $3000.

I sat in silence and thought about these comments that came from twenty somethings and retired officers. We were in an extravagant setting. The auditorium was incredible. The technical arrangements were second to none. Money had been spent on rooms, special meals, travel and all of the creature comforts. There was also a sense of expectancy in some people. Others were concerned at the shear size and expense. I was silent. That surprised many around me and those who know me. I am usually quick with an opinion and comment.

I was silent, because I hearkened back to the story of Mary breaking her alabaster jar of costly perfume on Jesus feet. Judas complained about the expense and about the good that could have been done with the money. Jesus reminded him that Mary had done the right thing by extravagantly giving of herself to worship him. It was an example of extravagance being a good thing.

Jesus saw this extravagance as valuable when it came to worship and seeking for intimacy with the Father. I thought about that as others lamented that all we could come up with was $3000 for people being trafficked. Someone quipped that it would at least "save a couple of girls." I was saddened by the thought of a cavalier comment such as that, but understood the depth of feeling.

I then had another thought. Paul, in his writings, talks about putting off our "carnal nature." "Carnal" is a word used in the KJV It is translated in more modern versions as "sinful." It is interesting that the word "carnal," has the same root from which we get the word carnival. I think that Paul was probably saying that our lives must not be a spectacle of themselves. Our nature is almost side-show like, looking for our own cheap pleasure. He equates that with a carnival.

I then looked around at the surroundings. They were a spectacle in themselves. A custom stage and carpeting on it that would rival anything any high-priced designer would show. There were incredible graphics and live video feed. There was a large cross and there had been entertainment for all on Saturday. There was a great tent full of amazing things for kids, during the meetings.

I began to wonder, "Was this good extravagance or a carnival that made a spectacle of ourselves?" Could we be sinful in thinking that we were doing the right thing. Were we having this event for the right reason? Was this a monument to The Army or an act of worship to The Lord?

Sure there was a response on Sunday Morning at the altar. There was an appeal and people gave themselves to be officers. I thought, "Maybe that was good extravagance."

I was gladdened by some of the things General Clifton had to say. He encouraged many through his oratory. Maybe it was good extravagance.

Then I thought again of money spent and people being trafficked. Was there a carnival? We sure dressed up nicely in our uniforms for each other to see. We looked nice and had quite the holy entertainment.

The jury is still out. We may not know this side of heaven what really happened this weekend. There will be spin on both sides. There always are the company people who would make a disastrous event sound good. (By the way, this one was anything but a logistical disaster. It was well-done as far as that went. The meetings were also well-planned.) There will also be the nay sayers, who will find fault no matter what.

I guess what counts, is what the Father thought. I wonder what He thought. Since you are the ones commenting here, I wonder if you thought it was good extravagance or spectacle. Was there, is there a middle ground?

As always, I wonder....

What do you think?

I went to church on Friday?

2007-06-03T17:51:00.000-05:00

I guess this will be less of my asking you, but more of me telling you about my church experience this past Friday. There was no hymn singing. In fact, there was an I-pod with surround sound speakers playing U2, the Beatles, Beach Boys, Maroon 5,
Tracy Chapman and others.

There was no scripture reading. There was much in the way of open dialogue on spiritual matters.

There were young families, retirees, and people in need of healing there. There were long-time believers, an agnostic, and a couple of non-believers in attendance. There was a searching college-aged group. There were people I would consider saints in attendance. My mentor was there.

There was prayer. Although there was not audible, corporate prayer, there was intercession as people shared about families, joyful experiences, illness and relationships in crisis.

There was talk of movies, pop culture and good food. There was a sense of family there. There was a bit of dysfunction to be sure in our midst. There was also lots of laughter.

There was volleyball, lawn bowling and you would never be in the Midwest without playing Corn Hole (don't ask.) There was a ton of food and the event lasted well into the evening. No none knew how late it was or how long we had been there until it got really dark outside. We then realized we had been there for hours. It was one of the most blessed experiences I could have had.

What was it? It was the annual picnic for our staff and co-workers who work on our floor which was held at our house. I felt the presence of God there in a way I have not felt His presence in a while. I got a glimpse of what I think heaven might look like. There was no pretense. There was no keeping up appearances. There was no rank or status acknowledgement. There was no platform. There were lots of genuine deep hugs and outstanding relationship building.

All this took place in a quiet neighborhood with about 20 people in my back yard. This weekend coming up nearly 9000 people will gather in Hershey for a great gathering. We will know who holds status. We will sing songs. There will be someone who will speak, then another and another. I am praying that I will find the same sense of the Father there that I felt two nights ago.

I have been to gatherings like both of these. As I grow older, I have become less and less enamored with big events and long for intimate relationships. I hope I get that this weekend. Sorry to say, I am probably not as optimistic as I should be, even though I am praying for a visitation of the Spirit in big ways.

I may not have been in a meeting on Friday, but I think I experienced church. I wonder if I will this weekend.

I am thinking more these days that we are in need of church and not more meetings. I am not sure that church happens in meetings. I know I have been blessed occasionally in big events. I am wondering more these days if church will look less like what we know as church and more like what I experienced as church in my back yard.

Did I go church on Friday? Will I go to church this weekend? What do you think about this topic? I do not mean to belittle the hard work that has gone into the events of this weekend. I am not bashing the sincerity of the people who had the vision and put it together. I am just thinking that in the emerging age in which we live, we need more. We seem to measure success in the fact that numbers and big ones tell the success story. I will be with a great many people this weekend. I am hoping the experience with 9000 might somehow come close to being like the one I had with 20.

What is church to you? How will we need to have church in the emerging age?

What do you think?

Farewell?

2007-05-25T15:38:00.000-05:00

Today, our corner of the Kingdom went through the yearly ritual of the announcement of farewells. For those of you unfamiliar with Army nomenclature, that means that over the past few days, people have been given the news of new appointments in our movement. Those of us who signed up as officers don't have a choice really. When you supervising officer indicates you are moving, you move.

This year is an unusually short amount of time for people to uproot their families and get their affairs in order. In four weeks, people will be settling into new homes, communities and assignments.

I grew up in this system. My parents are retired officers. I thank God for their faithfulness, but wonder how they did it with the four of us. The longest I ever lived anywhere prior to one of my own appointments was four years. In fact, I attended four different high schools in four years. I must admit, it was brutal.

I had the duty of informing people of their moves. Some received the news with great exuberance, others with a sense of duty, still others struggled. I know of that struggle as an officer. I have thought a couple of times, "Why me? Why there? Why now?" To be honest, I did not always have an answer. I was not always happy. In fact, in one move, I struggled mightily.

I say all this, because like many of my colleagues, I struggle with the appointment system. I believe that the movement of officers is prayed over and not taken lightly. I know moves at times are even agonizing for our leaders to make. In fact, one leader I worked with would not even kid about moves. He saw our duty as a sacred trust and that it was about the lives of people. I carry that mantra with me today.

Unlike some of my colleagues, I choose to believe that moves are made with the best intentions of the Army and the individuals involved. Many, I believe, are convinced there is a more political agenda in moves. I don't think that to be true all of the time. I don't believe in the "dart board" theory either.

No, my struggle lies in someone else controlling my movements as a person. I have always struggled with this, but then submitted to what I believed to be part of my calling. My mentor, Bill, calls it "intentional obedience." There are many days I lean this way.

I am not convinced that I have always chosen to obey. I think at times, I have not really had an option of what to do. I admit I have not had time to process my options. If I had, I wonder in those times of doubt if I would have maintained my officership. There were trying days. I am enough of a rebel at heart, that the idea that people in a room, no matter how prayed up, would put me in a place with little consultation from me frightens me. Maybe it is my controlling nature. Maybe it is the fact that our culture as an organization needs to become less authoritarian and more collaborative, especially as it pertains to honoring the commitment of officers and the pain of leaving places we love, while protecting our families.

I know I tread on dangerous ground here. I am probably not going to be viewed favorably by many who see our system as totally God-ordained. I think even the best intentions of people involves our humanity and is not a perfect science. Sometimes, I do think we get it wrong. Most times, I think it comes out at least acceptably. Many times it comes out just right. Often times though, I am not sure those of us in this system, fare well.

I love the missional thrust of the Army. I know that it is a God-ordained movement. I believe, however, it may be time to look at the move system. Should we give officers a bit longer time to get ready? Should the process be more collaborative? If so, what would that look like? Even when we pray over the moves do we get them right?

I am not about Army bashing here. As I said, I do struggle with some of this. It is a spiritual struggle for me, I know. I would like some constructive dialogue. I don't want venomous talk. I do think that we need to be truthful. For many of us this will take courage in this open forum. I hope we are not viewed as rebellious or in some way insubordinate. By jumping in you may well be viewed that way. Rather, I want us to really be constructive. As always, I would like to know....

What do you think?

Prayer and fasting or Physicians and Robots?

2007-05-16T14:45:00.000-05:00

Today, one of my spiritual mentors had surgery. Everything went well. The doctors are pleased with the surgery itself. The recovery time will still take a while.

People have been praying for months for this day. People fasted and prayed today for my friend. I also know that a very skillful surgeon performed magnificently in this case. He did the surgery with a robotic device. I am told that the recovery time will be cut dramatically by this procedure.

I believe that all healing comes from God. I believe whether through supernatural means or through the hands of a physician, God does what is necessary when He heals.

I struggle though with those who have what I call hyper-faith. It is the type of faith which discounts any type of natural intervention being used by God and always looks to the supernatural.

This type of faith goes way beyond healing and goes to finances and other issues. In fact, these are the same people who not only have hyper-faith, but also tend to wrap it in the flag. I did have someone once tell me that my faith and my wealth went together. I guess we should tell that to the very faithful Christians in China, Darfur and Pakistan, to name a few places.

I do have faith. I have even seen miraculous answers to prayer. I have a couple of great stories I can stick in here but you would get bored (especially if you have Adult ADHD like me). I do get a little worried by the "Name it. Claim it." crowd who think that by our shear faith that we can have anything we want.

I do believe, however, as we become more obedient to God, our requests become more in line with His will and therefore, are more likely to be answered. We become in-tune with Him and our desires are more like His and we become less selfish and more selfless.

I have also had someone recently tell me that they had someone lay hands on them and an unhealthy attitude was removed. My question really is, "So was this their prayer or your desire?" I think it has to do more with my friend's desire than the specific prayer prayed over him.

I know some of you will come back with that great OT verse "Some trust in chariots and horses, but we trust in the Lord." This is true. Yet, don't you think if God could use a donkey to deliver a prophecy, He could use a robot to deliver us from illness? Don't you think that our obedience in holiness is what really triggers answers to prayers and not just faith?

Well, I am rejoicing that my friend, leader and mentor is on the road to his healing. I do hope that you will not see my blog as a lack of faith, but a realistic look at what it means to be faithful.

So what about prayer and fasting (which I believe in, by the way) and physicians and robots. Where do you stand on this issue of faith and obedience? Do you believe in a "Name it. Claim it." theology? Do you believe that it is our obedience that leads us to pray in concert with the will of God. Or do you believe there is another way? As always I would be interested in knowing....

What do you think?

Social Cocooning or Salt and Light?

2007-05-09T16:39:00.000-05:00

This is going to be a hard one for me. It will mean that I may tread hard on the toes of some of my friends. Also, there is a part of me that says that what I am about to say will be viewed as an attack on people. It is not. Just like the rest of my posts, it is meant to spark questions and reflects some of the questions that I constantly ask myself.

I have had a couple of conversations recently which have pointed the fact, that there is a great deal of what I would call social cocooning by Christians, especially evangelicals. Today, I was in a meeting that I was chairing. It was our employees recognition. It is traditional to give our employees the rest of the afternoon off after the luncheon, which ends around 2pm.

To send the employees home, I quoted the great philosopher and comic Martin Lawrence (OK, maybe he is not such the great philosopher) to dismiss them I said, "Look, you ain't got to go home, but you definitely got to get up outta here." Immediately some of my more conservative and older employees looked and said "Huh?" Those under 35 and who have some contact with things that are not necessarily considered Christian, laughed and cheered. Someone said, "That is so confusing. Are you shutting down the office?" I knew I was not in NYC anymore but firmly on the buckle of the Bible belt.

When I politely tried to explain why I said what I said and then made a reference to Martin Lawrence, it was lost on some people. One person even asked, "Why would I want to even watch anyone like that? I am a Christian!"

Earlier this Spring, a corps in our division held and American Idol contest. It was well-attended by Christians and non-Christians. It was a great outreach. Many were ministered to through the outreach. When reading that the corps was having "an idol competition" one of my colleagues (Who I absolutely love) said, "I find it incredibly offensive and anti-biblical that we would have a corps having an American Idol contest." He made a reference to an Old Testament Scripture talking about idols. This is the same person who when we were playing a game was shocked that Janet actually knew some of Madonna's songs. Aghast that Christians would even know about this, we were given to listen to a lecture on the evils of popular music. We could go into the fact that most "Christian" groups are recorded on labels owned by the same conglomerates that own labels on which hard core rappers and punkers record, but that would be too much for this post. That does not even go into the commercialization of Christianity. But alas, I digress.

I am also amazed at the amount of officers who either home school or do private school. If it was based on the issue of poor performing academic schools or insecure schools I would be more sympathetic. I know the argument from most of my friends is that they want to "protect" their kids from evil and humanistic influences. I argue that in order to really have a faith that is not embedded, but practical our kids must be put into places and situations where they stand up for their faith and work it out through temptation. By the way, Christian schools and other schools have many of the same problems that public schools do. I see this and the other issues as an attempt at social cocooning and living a monastic life instead of being salt and light in the world. I know I make broad statements here and each case must be weighed on its own merit.

Were there times, I challenged my kids and myself on the type of movies and music we listened to? Yes. I still do. Were there times I thought about my kids going to private school for the educational benefit? Yes. Never did I think about protecting them from worldly influence. I think that might give the devil too much credit.

Was I ever worried about going to hell for watching American Idol? Uh, no. In fact, I thought and still think it very important to be conversant on popular culture and to engage it for the sake of being salt and light in the world. By the way, I don't think popular culture is always as evil as many evangelicals make it out to be.

I see it as important for us to be in the middle of the whole thing. I see us needing to be in the midst, making a difference through engagement, not retreat or being cocooned. Should there be boundaries? Yes. Do I live on the edge of those boundaries and make some people uncomfortable? Definitely.

That is what makes faith so intriguing to me. As we work out our salvation with "fear and trembling," I think there is a whole movement of Christians who are trying to take back and redeem culture and knock down the Ned Flanders (By the way for those who are not in the loop, that is a reference to the Simpsons, one of the most popular TV shows of all time.) image evangelicals now sometime have.

I do struggle with how far is too far. I do struggle with a brand of Christianity that tends to shy away from conflict and engagement. You may think I am wrong. I admit I might be. I am working this out for myself. I am anxious to hear from you on these matters.

What do you think?

Faithfulness?

2007-04-28T06:53:00.000-05:00

Yesterday, a friend challenged me on several levels. The question went to faithfulness to my Lord and calling.

Most of it centered on the way I present myself. I tend not to be a "buttoned-up" kind of guy. I know how to be polished and professional. I can be when it is called for. Mostly, I try to be faithful to who I believe God has made me in personality and in my approach to things. I am not so sure that I am called to what many would be considered the proper image of an officer.

I am also a person who is built to reach out to others. That means I put my heart on my sleeve and often, go to places others wouldn't for the sake of relationship. I think often it is misinterpreted as not keeping a professional distance from people I mentor or even supervise. Frankly, I am not sure what "professional distance" really is. I think often it is a way of insulating ourselves from those who need our caring touch and love. I am not so sure I am called to be faithful to a profession.

I have also taken a different path in the way I try to live out my officership. Over the past 10-12 years in particular, I have found myself really asking if all the Army tells me to do is what God is telling me to do. Therein lies the struggle. My friend and boss Bill LaMarr calls this choice intentional obedience to the Army because of covenant relationship. But, I wrestle with obedience to the movement and obedience to God.

If the prophets (I am not claiming to be one) had been satisfied with the status quo and been obedient to the religious movement of their day alone, revival would not have taken place. If Jesus had not been obedient to the call of the Father on His life and gone with the flow and tried to change a dying world from within, where would we be? What if William and Catherine had stayed faithful to the denomination in which they were serving? Where would we be? If friends like Geoff and Sandra Ryan had continued with the status quo, where would The Army be? The dynamic movement in the Army they along with others, like my friend Phil Wall helped birth would not be in existence and we may not have the faint flickers of missional revival burning as they are now.

On the other side of this is that there are many who claim a prophetic rite and really have a selfish agenda. Even though they may be convinced they are apostolic or prophetic in their authority, in time, it becomes apparent that they are clearly not within obedience to God but in rebellion to any authority. I think there needs to be some confirmation in the Body to what we feel is our calling. This has to be more than a cult following. Even Jesus convinced some of the religious leaders of His time that what He was doing was of for the Kingdom of Heaven.

So what happens when you believe your vision and style of life you are called to live seems so dramatically different from what you see the movement you believe you are called to seems to advocate or to be heading? Where does faithfulness fit in? Must I be faithful to God or the Army? I am not sure that the two are mutually exclusive. Am I just being rebellious or am I actually being faithful to a call to work within this movement in a non-traditional way? Where does this all lead? I have invested my life in the Army, now my faithfulness is being questioned in some respects. Maybe my friend was a voice from the Lord to talk to me about heading down the road to rebellion. I am not sure.

Are we unfaithful if we take a stand by lifestyle or by even disobedience to an organization, if we feel that God is calling you to a different way? This is some of my struggle today.

I think some of you are struggling with this in the same way. I would love to hear from you.

What do you think?

The heart of Worship?

2007-04-15T18:33:00.000-05:00

Today, I had the wonderful opportunity to represent The Salvation Army at a church other than an Army corps. I was asked to give a presentation in three different worship gatherings. One was a "contemporary" service where about 200 or so people gathered and sang some of the praise songs we have come to love in the church. A good word was preached and an opportunity was given to meet Jesus.

The second gathering was the "traditional" service. About 100 people were there. It was held at the traditional 11am hour. The people were sincere and very warm in their greeting to me. The singing of hymns of the church was featured and a good word was spoken. There was not the same feeling of transcendence as in the first gathering. Still, I am convinced that the people there were sincere in their desire to know Christ.

The first group was dotted with 30 and 40 somethings with some college aged worshipers. There were some older people there. The second group was decidedly older. About 30 of the worshipers there were part of the choir. In both gatherings the pastor prayed for me and the Army.

The third gathering was the "alternative" service called The Crossing. The music was decidedly more rock in style. The lighting was darker. The mood was much more casual. At the same time, it was incredibly reverent. I had on my tunic for my participation and I lost it. I even loosened the tie a bit. At first blush, I thought the congregation was younger. Yet, as I looked it was the most diverse group age and culture wise. While the two other gatherings were more formal and people were friendly, these people were engaged.

I also looked around and saw people who were advisory board members of the corps. They are regular attenders of this gathering. The shocking thing was that these people are very conservative in their careers and in their manner outside of worship gatherings. In this gathering, they let loose.

After my presentation, a group of about 50 of the 250 gathered there, surrounded me, laid hands on me and prayed for me. There was a freedom here. All three groups were seeking God. This group seemed to be seeking God with abandon. A good word was spoken here. The response was deep to the word.

Rarely have I experienced this type of worship in Army corps. In gatherings such as Roots and On The Edge, people have tried to model this type of worship. People respond strongly. I think, however, that many see this form of worship as being "for the kids." The octogenarians attending The Crossing this morning would probably disagree with that sentiment.

It is interesting for me that a movement that started the whole "alternative" worship experience in 1865, has strayed so far from its roots. We had a heart for worship. We reached out to God with abandon. We were people who let loose in worship, because this is what met people where they were. Does anyone get the impression that we now become way more formal in worship than we once were? Are we in fact, more conservative in our seeking after God in our gathering than we would be in our daily lives? We have very few characters as we did in the days of our founding. Instead, conformity and formality is valued these days. Standard of meetings anyone?

I sat in a meeting with friends this week and they called each other by their ranks. We have known each other for YEARS. My fear is that we have replaced the heart of worship which was the hallmark of our early days, with the heart of formality. While the world is looking for authentic, we seem as a movement to be more concerned with process and function, while mouthing words about holiness and pentecostal fire falling on us. At least that is what we model in our big gatherings.

This is not a blog about music styles. It is not a blog about uniform. Although, I still think we have placed too much value on the outward appearance and not on the heart of worship. In fact, recently, I was at a corps council meeting where I heard "This was not Army, they did not even where uniforms on Sunday." Aargh!

Do you find like me that very few people in our movement have a sense of seeking God with abandon? Do we value form over fullness of worship? Why don't we have gatherings like the Crossing at many of our corps? Am I just making too much of this? Or have we missed the heart of worship?

What do you think?

New Life?

2007-04-08T18:44:00.000-05:00

As I write this it is early Easter Evening in snowy (yes, snowy) Cleveland, OH. We have over a foot of snow in the past few days and we are digging out. This morning I went to my corps and had the opportunity to swear-in Jr. Soldiers. It was a sign of new life to me. I am going to blog in a few days on alternative paths to joining the Army. I am, however, encouraged today as I saw new life at our corps.

Also as I write this, my wife's brother (whom many of you have been praying for) is undergoing a heart transplant in New York. Someone died today. Their heart was a perfect tissue match for Clark. He has been suffering for more than 20 years with chronic heart disease. For the past year he has been surviving on a heart pump. He is one of only a few hundred people to use this technology.

I come back to Easter. I find it more than coincidental today on Easter, someone died and now my brother-in-law lives. I feel sorry for the family who lost their loved one. We will never know who it was who gave my wife's brother his life back (if the surgery is successful). We will rejoice though, that Clark has new life!

It is Easter. I have no deep questions today. I guess I could ask why someone died so that Clark might live. Then again, it is all so metaphorically correct today. Christ's life was given for us. We now live.

As I face this Easter Evening, I rejoice for new life. I rejoice that Clark will live. I also am reminded that life comes at great sacrifice. In our culture there is this death march of poverty, sin, crime and moral decay. I am reminded today that I need to sacrifice and stop the death march. I need to engage the world, know where the culture is instead of living a sanitized unrealistic Christianity. It is time the Church stops being so pious and engages death and if needs be, sacrifices our lives comforts and our sacred cows, for the sake of new life.

Please pray for Clark, Janet and the family. These next few weeks will be crucial. Clark will have new life if all goes right, because someone died. On this Easter I believe the Church needs to join in the sacrifice of Jesus in order to bring new life.

What do you think?

Emerging or regressing?

2007-03-29T19:30:00.000-05:00

I have been posting for a little over a year. Early on in my experience the response to the blog was strong. One of my earliest blogs was this one on Emerging information. My links are not working on this post. If you wish to read it you can go to February 2006 section on the right.

Janet and I presented to the TEC on the emerging church and its effect on the Army and our need to come to grips with the changes in the wind. It has been almost 14 months later. I am not sure where we stand on the issue of the emerging church.

My friends listened politely. Many nodded in agreement, but a year later, I fear for most, it is business as usual. We are still locked into hiearchical management and feeling the need to order people around.

Fortunately, my leaders are not that way, but alas I feel that they are not the majority. As I reread the post, your comments and your pleas, I think many have been ignored. In the name of leadership, at all levels headquarters and corps, I believe we have forged forward with some older tactics, in an attempt to recapture bygone days. The fact is that the good ole days probably were not that good anyway.

We have once again found ourselves in the mode of telling instead of listening. WE have started ordering instead of walking hand in hand. Instead of being fellow travellers, I think we find leadership trying to be the boss. Now, I know someone needs to be the final word. I accept that as part of submission to the Body. But as Jesus challenged us, I wonder if we continue to lord our authority over people. I even point the finger at myself. It is comfortable to do the old thing instead of the right thing sometimes.

So are we emerging or regressing as a movement? Read the post, your comments and then let me know what you think.

Misplaced Priorities?

2007-03-22T14:42:00.000-05:00

If you have been reading Joe Noland's blog (look to the right of this post) you will know that he has been discussing the issue of the Army losing its first love and the misplaced passion for souls. While agreeing with my former boss to a degree I thought much of what he was saying was "part of the job." Administration and the such was part and parcel of being an officer.

In my current position, I am an administrator. OK, now many of you can wipe the silly grins off of your faces and quit shaking you heads. You probably would never have thought that I would have admitted that I am administrating. Many of you who are working with me are probably thinking, "He's not an administrator." Lest you think that I have lost my questioning mind or passion for mission; think again. Part of the reason I try to be on the road and take engagements out of the office as I do is to share in mission.

It just so happens that I spend most of my office time in the "process" of ministry. I see it as a ministry to others in a way. My hope is that in the process, I have not become overbearing in requesting information and the necessary reports that I must collate for our various funding streams and other agencies with whom we work.
My hope is that I am lightening the burden of my brothers and sisters, in order that they may minister more effectively.

Over the last few weeks, I have been disheartened to hear how many of my colleagues are overwhelmed by the business of ministry. Many are struggling to keep their heads above the tide of emails, reports, budgets and papers. These are good people, who are competent and have good work ethics. Often I have heard them say to me, "This is not what I was called to do." I don't have much to say. The job of a corps officer in the West is difficult, especially when it comes to administrating shelters, soup kitchens, day care centers and other social programs which I see as part of our ministry. These are ministries in my opinion that should attach themselves to corps. They are rich opportunities for reaching people with the Gospel.

Unfortunately, even with the opportunity, I see the administration eating up some of my colleagues. So much is expected of them that I am not sure that they can get it all done. Yet, many of my DHQ/THQ colleagues, who work long hours too, have one focus (which is important) and often don't see the rest of the picture and pressures our CO friends face.

It is difficult in our dual roles of pastor/administrator to strike a correct balance. If I lean to one side, I want to be a person of mission. I am not sure that is incompatible with the need to be a good administrator. I am wondering with all of the great outreach and ministries we have, if we have asked our officers to take on misplaced priorities? We should require a great deal of our called people, but do we require too much? I also wonder about the role of our soldiery in our social programs and other ministries. Many are content to let the professional Christians do it and slow to be involved. I wonder if that is because we have become a movement that has not encouraged their participation enough, because of the need for us to professionalize our social services to maintain funding. Or have we reached people who are too limited to join in these types of ministries?

Is it a matter of misplaced priorities? Or is it more comfortable for us to administrate and not really be involved with the lives of people? Is it a crutch to say that, "I was not called to be an administrator?" Do my colleagues have a point?
I am struggling with this today, because I have so many friends who struggle at this moment with this part of their ministry.

I would like to hear from you all on this matter. I hope that laity and officers will weigh in. I think we may be nearing a crossroads in the Army on this matter.

What do you think?

Self Denial?

2007-03-12T10:13:00.002-05:00

I have been reading the book "What Jesus Meant" by Garry Wills. Admittedly, Wills writes from a Roman perspective and from a more progressive view than most of us who consider ourselves "evangelical." Wills does make a great statement early on in the book when he says, "God's chosen people are commonly chosen to suffer." I am realizing more and more how easy my life is in the scheme of things.

These thoughts led me back to some conversations I had recently with family members, co-workers and friends on the issue of The Salvation Army World Services effort. While I know it will call for us to make some hard choices, I do applaud the General for his desire for the first world nations to give more generously and yes, sacrificially to the effort. In our territory, world services has become an assessment. It is a cost built into our budgets, we know we will have to pay. It became so early on in my time as an officer.

When I was growing up, I remember the effort being called "Self Denial." The concept of the program was that our soldiers and other members took away from their comfort to give to the necessities of others. I am not so sure that the concept of World Services quite works that way in most of our situations. Most of us in the West lose very little in the way of comfort for the sake of the rest of the world.

As I had this conversation recently with two people Janet and I love deeply, it got quite heated. They talked about how their corps could not sustain a 15% or so rise in their assessment. Then I made the statement that we really don't sacrifice enough for the sake of the Kingdom in the West. You could have cut the tension at this family gathering with a knife. "Easy for you to say," was the retort, "You are at DHQ." Of course, neither of them have served at our headquarters or really have a grasp on all of the measures we have undertaken to cut our costs and to stretch our resources, so that we could fund various missional projects instead of adding to our administrative load. They also live in lovely homes and have a couple of cars, nice corps facilities and a wonderful middle-class lifestyle.

These people are Godly. They work very hard. They give of their time and I am sure their money to others. I love them and respect them. We just disagreed.

When I replied that after having been in Africa and seen the conditions there and heard of the conditions my good friends serving in Papua New Guinea are enduring I said we should be ashamed to complain about our need to sacrifice. The fact is that around 3 billion people on the planet try to exist on less than $2 a day. Many of them are Salvationist brothers and sisters, trying to do the Kingdom's business. This to me is a great moral dilemma for the Army and the church. I think in many respects the gap between "the haves" and "have nots" in our Salvation Army world continues to widen. Even the poorest of us can be numbered among the "haves" of the world.

I realize there are some fixed costs that every corps must fund. I wonder though if we really taught on the issue of missions, if there would be a different response. I feel that it is often just a passing pity party for the poor of our world. Our pulpits and our teaching rarely educates about the depth of poverty in the world.

This has really hit home for me this weekend. I am in Charlotte, NC for a couple of days of retreat and relaxation. I am overwhelmed by the huge and ornate churches which dot the landscape here. I wonder if we quit building monuments to ourselves and went with a more functional facility what impact that would have. I often think that about some of the building projects we are undertaking here in our territory. I wonder how missionally minded they really are. What if we took a few moments and reflected on the issue of need instead of want or what we could afford, if we would have a better view of things.

I fear that our vision has been clouded by our consumerism. This is a lesson I am learning way too late in life and am trying to teach my children now that they are in their early twenties. For what ever reason, we have not been chosen to suffer. That does not excuse us from sacrifice though.

In our conversation, we also discussed gay marriage, abortion and other "moral" issues. I am not saying these are issues to be ignored or that we should turn our attention away from them, but I believe there is a broader moral agenda that we must address. It may begin with our own self-denial, which will help alleviate disease, poverty and despair. Possibly, it may also help the world to see a different, holy way of living.

I don't suffer very much. It is not a pretty thought. No one really wants to choose to suffer, well save One, who did for us. Instead of world services, I think, I really think, I need to go down the path of self denial.

I wonder if we really returned to teaching about self denial if our world services would not be a matter of complaint, but a real joy would be found in sharing.

What is it that causes us to want to be so stingy in our giving? Do you think that we ought to return to self denial teaching? Do you think we can raise up a missionally minded Army that would not look at the perks but would look at the need realistically? Are we sinful because we are comfortable and middle class? Am I less holy because I don't suffer?

There are many other questions I could ask. I am really struggling with the attitude of entitlement and monument building that seems to prevail not only in the first world Army, but in the church in general. How can we change this?

What do you think?

Denomination Building?

2007-02-27T19:53:00.000-05:00

My last post about the Primitive Salvo movement caused a a great conversation. Thanks to all who commented. Aaron raised some great issues about what I would consider denominational distinctives. This generated some further thinking on my part, especially when Bret noted that we did most things for the sake of the Army.

Let me say that I first joined the Army because it was in my blood as a church. My parents are retired officers and I could not imagine worshipping anywhere else. I gave at least some intellectual ascent to the tenets of our faith as I understood them. I also, to some extent, internalized them early on without wrestling with them. I believed them because that was what I was supposed to believe. I was a soldier.

I also bought the whole denominational philosophy of membership, not necessarily real soldiership. Even though I was a soldier in my early teens, missional thinking really was not at the forefront of my thinking. Sadly, while I wrestled with this somewhat in my later teens and in my twenties, I was well into my officership before I really committed myself to the missional component of my "church." I was a son of the regiment. I was in lock step with the denomination and the form of The Army.

I was also right in there when it came to the old "Stepping Up" poster and philoshophy. Cradle roll through Sr. Soldier and every program in between was important. I believed to be part of the movement and to fulfill my role I had to have a programatic mindset. Membership was most important to the program. Jr. Soldiers and Sr. Soldiers were most important in the process.

Recently, the challenge has been re-issued across the US to make more soldiers. We are encouraged to build the Army. In so doing, I believe those challenging us really believe we are building the Kingdom. I believe these Godly people have righteous intentions. While my view of what it means to be a Salvationist is much different than early in my life, I think to many we are seeing our movement as a church and not necessarily what our birthright is. That, in my opinion, is to be a group of Christians dedicated to changing the world through grace, justice and the practical living of holiness.

I love The Salvation Army as a movement! I think that in its various incarnations around the world, it can be vessel used by God for the salvation of individuals and a redemptive force in the pursuit of social justice and the fight against poverty.

I am not sure though that I am convinced about the issue of The Salvation Army as a denomination. I am probably treading dangerously here. I wonder if the Army has gone from a Kingdom movement to a church more concerned with denomination building. I am not sure the two need be mutually exclusive. Although in ever-increasing numbers people are not joining but attending churches because of some of the hard and fast rules that don't allow for the individual to express their faith in unique ways. The more I reflect on this issue, the more I am realizing we are regulated to the point that we have lost the opportunity for the real characters of our movement to come to the forefront as leaders. Instead, I think we often make leaders out of conformists. In other words, those who are in lock step with the denomination.

I am really beginning to wonder about this idea of denomination building. Is it really where we should be going still? Have we forsaken our roots by looking to make soldiers instead of finding new innovative ways to have people fall in love with Jesus? Maybe I am just in a dream state, but I believe that if we are faithful to the mission and I mean really faithful, that God will take care of the movement we call the Army. I am not sure we need a push to build denomination.

I am thankful for the Army and love it. These are just my thoughts. Yet for years, I have struggled with some issues in this movement where God has called me to serve. Here are some question with which I am struggling. Is denomination building a holy pursuit? Is it better to be a movement or a denomination? Would we be better to recruit missioners instead of soldiers? What do you think would happen if we really recruited people to join our movement instead of our denomination?

What do you think?

Primitive Salvationism?

2007-02-19T11:52:00.000-05:00

I begin by saying that I know this is probably going to put some people off and anger some of my good friends. For about ten years now, there has been a movement afoot called, "Primitive Salvationism."

This term recently raised again in my thinking, as I read Jim Knaggs's blog. Although Jim did not use the term, a person commenting on his blog did. The idea of this brand of Salvationism hearkens back to by-gone days and invokes the names of Railton, the Booths and other pioneers of the Army. In many of the writings of those who espouse it, the idea of primitive salvo thinking urges us to capture the spirit of early heroes of the faith, especially salvationist heroes.

Those who claim to practice this type of salvationism, see this as the "real" Salvation Army. In fact, there is almost an elevation of Railton and others to saint level with a sense they were infallible. Now mind you, I believe we ought to have a sense of our real history. I would hasten to say that it should not be sanitized or embellished. I also think there might be a sense that we do need to recapture the entrepreneurial spirit and sense of urgency for souls our fore bearers are said to have.

So why do I think that my friends who practice this type of Salvationism and who hold these folks in such high regard in such high esteem might take issue with me? I am not sure that the "good ole' days" of our founding were as good as we would suggest. Were they heroic? In a sense, yes. Were they godly? I think so. So why do I call this into question? Simply, these people no matter how heroic were human and flawed. Did God use them? Yes. Can we learn from them? I believe so.

I think that my issue is the same as one raised by the person commenting on Jim's blog. I am afraid that often we raise people to sainthood and the good ole' days can be painted nostalgically so that they are skewed.

I am of the belief that as heroic and flawed as the Booths were, I think it is not their persona that should be captured, it is their creative ways of ministry that could be adopted. It is also their risky nature in social justice matters that should be mimicked.

Do I think we should return to their practices and their lifestyle? I don't think we need to. What the Booths did worked in Victorian England during the industrial revolution. Uniforms worked ostensibly, in my opinion, because people especially in the US were coming out of civil war and veterans were used to marching behind a band. It gave them a sense of belonging. The military was a way of life. It is not necessarily so now.

Now let me say we should not give up our fight against social injustice. We should not give up sharing the gospel. It is the power to life. What I suggest is that "primitive salvationism" may be the latest fad. It may not necessarily be salvationist, because it may not contain the innovative spirit that God wants for this movement.

I don't doubt the fervor of my friends who practice this type of salvationism. I believe they love God and if it works for them; great. If it builds the Kingdom; I'm for it. I think the issue I might have is that those who practice this type of salvationism, tend to be judgemental of those who don't necessarily practice their brand of salvationism.

Am I a fan of the status quo? I think that practicing what we are now may lead to a watering down of our salvationist DNA. I also think that a new style of salvationism is needed, that does hearken back to our roots, but does not count on hero worship to make it happen.

Here's what I think. Maybe its time to realize that the autocratic style of leadership and the CEO mentality which Commissioner Joe Noland has warned us about is not going to work now. I think it is now time to think that a more democratic and inclusive leadership is needed. I also believe it is time to be risky. It is time to take a stand on issues that may not just be the safe stand and begin to work progressively toward saving the world from social ills while modeling the Gospel of Jesus. I am not sure that primitive salvationism does that.

Is this brand of primitive salvationism the best for us? Can we be happy with what we have? What is the best brand of salvationism to practice? Does our current style work? What do you suggest?

What do you think?

New Department or DNA?

2007-02-12T20:45:00.000-05:00

Recently, the General shared that a new IHQ Department of Social Justice would be opening at THQ in New York. This is exciting news. I applaud the General for the appointment of Commissioner McMillan and the opening of this office. There are incredible issues facing the Kingdom. The Army must be a key player in the Kingdom's response. Sexual trafficking, women's' rights, sweatshop conditions for workers, and yes, health care (including AIDS) are among the most pressing issues of our time (at least in my opinion). These are only a few of them.

I am grateful to see the General take this new initiative, but saddened to see that he had to do it. Here is why I am so saddened. I believe that the fight for social justice should be part of our DNA as a movement. The Booths made it their mission to alleviate suffering. Think about the initiatives. The work farms for poor workers and the purchase of a match factory to bring positive change for oppressed workers come to mind. These are but a couple of the initiatives that our founders initiated.

Unfortunately, institutional creep has, I feel hampered the development of the of new initiatives, especially in the Western World as we became more and more concerned with our image and our need to raise dollars. I know that we can argue the Kroc gift is evidence that we need to protect our assets and be conservative in our approach to controversial issues. The problem, we may not be fulfilling the mandate of the Kingdom on our movement if we continue to work this way. Our THQ's and DHQ's are all equipped with Social Service Departments. I fear, however, that we really are not addressing many of the social ills, rather just treating symptoms.

The Social Service programs for the most part do not address the underlying concerns. Our Adult Rehabilitation Centers may be as close as we get to really treating the cause of social issues instead of just treating the symptoms.

When did we get away from taking on the issues of justice? When did we lose our DNA? When did putting a band-aid on a bullet hole replace our social work? Am I just too critical? I am happy for this new initiative. Maybe it brings us back to our DNA. Isn't it sad that it had to take another department to bring us back to where we belong? I would like to hear your thoughts.

What do you think?

Prophetic or professional?

2007-02-05T18:17:00.000-05:00

I spent a rather intriguing week in meetings regarding the Kroc Centers for the Eastern Territory. Let me hasten to say that I applaud our leaders for wanting to make sure these centers are built with quality and done with the highest degree of stewardship and integrity. Certainly, The Salvation Army in the United States is both blessed and challenged with the bequest which Joan Kroc left to it.

As I sat in the meetings, I was overcome by the intensity of highly trained professionals who were in the group. Every phase was covered from web design to aquatics to construction to marketing. I have no doubt that everyone in that room wants the best use of the gift to take place.

The subject of the Kroc gift has been debated, dissected and discussed in many forums. The opinions on the Kroc Centers are as varied and diverse as they can possibly be. I believe if we are not careful that The Army could be taken away from its mission of serving the under served. I think the Y is a great organization and has its place. I am not sure The Army should be the Y. This could happen if we are not careful. Although, even a fitness room can be a place of ministry, even if the Gospel is not overtly preached.

As we discussed the business of the Kroc Centers there was mention of quality in construction and programming. I heard very little, although some, about the quality of congregation. I am not lobbying for us to be the next "Crystal Cathedral." I was concerned we heard very little about transformational community. I was very quiet about the fact during the meetings, because I really thought it would surface. It was not ignored. It just did not surface the way and as much as I thought it would.

Here is what I see as the danger and opportunity for the Kroc Centers. They can be prophetic or they can become professional. I know the size of the operations will require highly skilled professionals to run the business. We need to be good stewards and have the best people in these places to ensure our good stewardship. I pray it does not happen at the cost of the prophetic. The best mix will be a combination of the two.

I see the balance here as very tenuous. I cannot help but think that large, glamorous buildings in poor neighborhoods may at first be misconstrued. A beautiful facility amongst devastated homes may be hard for the residents to handle. I also believe it will be very difficult for people of ministry to connect on a very basic level with those entering our centers. The numbers will be staggering. In many ways, we may fall prey to the mega-church syndrome.

The professional will want every "i" dotted and every "t" crossed. The prophetic will want to jump in with both feet and engage in the battle for souls. The professional will want to cover our assets. The prophetic will want to assault the ills of society without regard for protocol. Both at times will be right and wrong.

In many ways, we have become pros at this enterprise of ministry. For many of our number, I fear the prophetic is a fading memory. I don't think it has to be. We can recapture it before it becomes a hazy recollection of by-gone days. It may look different but it can still happen.

How can we strike a balance organizationally? How can we free the prophetic for ministry and still maintain a professional mandate? Are the two incompatible? Can we have the best of both worlds? What will that look like?

What do you think?

Confidentiality or Community?

2007-01-28T15:54:00.000-05:00

Just this past week our DC's wife needed to have emergency surgery. I am responsible for sending out bulletins on health issues for officers in our division. We need to adhere to guidelines that only allow us to say the person had surgery or they had to be hospitalized. I typed out the bulletin so people could pray. Our DC came in the office later and shared the nature of the operation (an appendectomy)via email with the division. He editorialized with the notation "HIPPA is a pain!"

This got me thinking about the whole issue of confidentiality. How much is too much to share? I wrestle with this. Here's why I wrestle.

We use confidentiality as a cop out. Sure we need to respect the privacy of people, but often we don't know how to pray in the Body. It goes past just medical reports though. People use the confidentiality and privacy issue to cover up their weakness.

We all have weakness. For too long, we have refrained (especially in this organization)from sharing our weakness, because we are afraid of the repercussions. If we tell people the wrong thing, how can we trust them not to tell others. How will affect my next appointment? My question is, how can we not ask people to pray?

Some people believe it will hurt their careers. (Check the etymology of that word. It has to do with horses running around a track.) Maybe it will hurt their ministries. I believe that we can and should share if we are truly going to be the body of Christ that He wants us to be.

Maybe we don't need to know all of the details, but we surely would cut down on rumor and innuendo if we prayerfully shared concerns with each other. It is called being vulnerable. I believe that vulnerability is key to community. Vulnerability is not only about admitting weakness or problems, it is about allowing people to help and to share our journey. Possibly, this is the only way for us to really be the support group that we all need. The idea of spiritual growth and healing happening outside of community is something that is not biblical and is really a pride issue for the most part. Vulnerability also goes to submission. If we really want for there to be a healthy Body the Word encourages in Ephesians 5 to submit to each other. I think this idea of "going it alone" is misguided and needs to be corrected.

Now I know there is opportunity with those with a tendency toward gossip to use information shared in community as fodder for discussion, but then again, it may be an opportunity for the Body to correct gossip when it comes. You see, I think if community is really going to be healthy, we need to begin to be honest and willing to show our weakness, the weakness of our family and find ourselves accountable, if only to a strong community of mature believers.

Like I said, I think we should protect a person's right to privacy. When does that right become just another mask for our pride? I am not sure where the balance is here. I know what the professionals would say. I also know what I have practiced in the past. I am just wondering if God is calling us in transformational and healing community to go deeper. Where do we draw the line?

What do you think?

Lion Tamers?

2007-01-24T20:43:00.000-05:00

I was reading one of my favorite magazines yesterday. "Relevant" always keeps me entertained, informed and challenged. The last article I read reminded me of an obscure story in Scripture. 2 Samuel 23:20 narrates the story of Benaiah whose whole life was highlighted by an incident where he met a lion, chased it down into a snowy pit and killed it. Huh? Are you for real? A man who not only does not run away, but chases a lion down and kills it at the bottom of a pit; what is that? Benaiah's courage to risk and take action caused him to become the head of David's body guard unit.

The amazing thing in this story is the courage of a man to face down the impossible and tame it. In other words, he tamed the scariest of all situations. He not only tamed but vanquished the situation.

This got me thinking about apathy and the church. Are we unwilling to face down and slay lions in our way? What a great metaphor. It is often not what we do but what we don't do that defines us. Imagine if Benaiah had not chased down that lion? What would have defined him?

What areas of inactivity are killing us as the church? I believe we are being defined more by our inaction than by our actions. Often our actions are misguided and selfish, not always, but often. Instead of risking and winning, we sit on the sidelines and everyone loses.

I could start a long list of issues on which we are inactive. I am more interested on the lions you think we need to slay. This blog is not about what I think. It is more about what you think. So are there lions we need to tame in the church, in order to make us what God wants?

I would be anxious to see what is on your list. What do you think?

Social Holiness?

2007-01-15T10:11:00.000-05:00

John Wesley, the father of the "Holiness Movement," is credited with saying "There is no holiness, apart from social holiness." I have thought about this saying for years. Some have said that Wesley was talking about holiness in the community of believers. Others have said Wesley was indicating that to truly be holy, our focus has to be on the poor and oppressed of the world. To be holy would then be played out in our actions of encouraging the poor and being involved in causes that would make their plight better.

Wesley's own life would seem to make the latter the correct interpretation of the quote. Wesley lived on 28 pounds his first year in ministry. He continued to do so for the rest of his life, giving the rest of his wages for work among the poor and in the fight against slavery.

This week I was in the company of believers. Our division held its annual leadership retreat. We had as our guests, two sets of the Tillsleys. General and Mrs. Tillsley and Mark and Sharon Tillsley spoke eloquently of the moving of the Holy Spirit. There was no doubt in my mind and among those gathered that the Holy Spirit moved mightily among us. In other words, we experience a great moment of "social holiness."

General Tillsley spoke on the issue of the most crucial need for a corps being the "personal holiness" of its leadership. His point was that as leaders, officers, youth workers, and key employees need to be people who are wholly sanctified and sold out to God. He then went on to say that there would be a moving of the Spirit among the congregation of saints producing, "social holiness."

I think there is a correlation here. For too long, I believe that the "Holiness Movement" has viewed its mission as be purity in the midst of a filthy world. Just recently, a good friend of mine was appalled that I actually would know some of the songs recorded by Madonna. "How can you actually listen to that and still be holy?" I believe the call of the "Holiness Movement" is to touch the unclean and sinful systems, in order to bring them under the lordship of Jesus.

It is not that we are to brow-beat people into submission or to act as Pharisees. We are not superior, even though we may claim to be sanctified. "Social Holiness" in my view has to be a community of transformation. Holiness is also known as Brengle would put it, "perfect love." That means we are perfected in our love toward God and others by the Spirit controlling us and teaching us how to love. My feeling is, we can't really love someone without knowing them and their circumstances. For too long, I feel we have been puritanical and not practical in our holiness. That means, we will need to touch the unclean. In this holiness movement, it may be time for us to practice real social holiness.

I believe we are called to be holy. We are called to high standards. I don't believe we are called to impose our standards on the world. Holiness calls us to love people into the right relationship with Christ. Social holiness is a call for us to live in transformational community.

How do we make that happen in our movement known as The Salvation Army? How do we live in holiness and still touch the unclean without being tainted ourselves? What is the unclean after all? Is holiness as we explain it in the holiness movement really possible?

What do you think?

A New Beginning?

2006-12-30T10:04:00.000-05:00

The news splashed across the screen last evening that Saddam Hussein had been executed. In fact, the timing of the execution was timed so that it would not interfere with the Muslim Holy Day of Eid. Surprisingly, this is a festival of peace and forgiveness for those who practice Islam.

Here we are facing a new year. This is always a time of promise and joy. According to the press last evening and early this morning, with the execution of Hussein, this may well be a new beginning, of more violence and reprisals. Others hailed it as a new era because closure had happened for the country. Along with the announcement of Hussein's execution, was a side comment that this month 108 Americans died in Iraq, bringing the total at the time of this writing to 2997.

I know that Hussein was a murderous, barbarian. He was a tyrant of the worst kind. He even killed his own family to further his cause. He lived a life of opulence at the expense of the people of his country, suffering poor schools, poverty, lack of necessary infrastructure and health care. He allowed his sons to brutally rape and murder as well. This man definitely caused more suffering than anyone could imagine. We know about this stuff. I wonder what has not been documented? I am glad Hussein was deposed.

I am confused. How does his death make for a new beginning? I understand that this man needed to pay for his crimes. How does more killing make for a new beginning? Doesn't more killing just beget more killing? That seems to be the result. We exact our eye for an eye. At the end of the day what does it bring? Doesn't it just satisfy our need for revenge and blood lust? I would have loved to see Hussein live out his days in solitary confinement, without all of the opulent pleasures to which he had grown accustom. For this man to live his days out in a dank cell, living in servitude with no light, little contact with humanity and the bare essentials would probably have been a fate worse than death for him.

I guess this all comes down to your theology of the death penalty. I know I cannot force my opinion on the Iraqi court system (which was bankrolled and trained by the US). As Christians though, I think we believe in the sanctity of life, no matter how dastardly that life is. I know that comment will probably draw the wrath of some of you. That is fine. I am convicted in my heart that being created in God's image means that all humanity deserves to live and live in dignity without the constraints of poverty, disease and with the opportunity to thrive.

If we are to have a new beginning, I think it means that we value each person and spread the message of the Gospel, by living out a life of mission and peace in the world. I want that for the world. I want a world where we begin to choose life over killing and death. Do you think I am dreaming? Do you think that we as Christians can make it happen?

What do you think?

Merry Christmas?

2006-12-24T16:27:00.000-05:00

I recently read an article on-line at "theooze.com" The author suggested that we ought to join the atheists and have Christmas moved out of our lexicon. At first, I must admit I was aghast at the suggestion that there would not be a Christmas.

As I read on in the article, I saw the angle the author was taking. In our country, many of the right wing religious have chosen the battle over Christmas as they see it as a rallying cry of the "culture wars." They claim that political correctness and wishing people "Happy Holidays" is somehow an affront to Christianity. While I can see the way the right would view this as a threat, I concur with the author who blames Christians for the whole mess.

Let me explain. I believe that Christians may be just as guilty as the secularists of buying into the commercialization and the watering down of the season. I am guilty of going overboard in the gift buying and forgetting the poor and broken of society. Often I try to assuage my guilt by ringing a bell or working in a toy shop at Christmas thinking that the material blessing of Christmas will somehow work the miracle of healing hurt at this time of year.

The fact is that most of us will forget the poor after today and we won't hear a Christmas song after tomorrow. We will simply allow the season to move out as we argue about whether we can have a Christmas tree at an airport or whether we can have a nativity at the town square. Whether we can or not, I think the real issue has become our inability as Christians to live out the Christmas story with open-handed living and unconditional gracefulness. I would imagine that if we lived that way we would have a less difficult time with those who want to eliminate Christmas.

I admit this year, I have gone overboard this Christmas with the lights and the gifts and done precious little to really spread the Good News that there is a saviour born who is Christ the Lord. For that reason, maybe I should align myself with those who want to eliminate that kind of Christmas. Maybe, just maybe, we should get rid of that Christmas. It is probably time we get over with the Christmas we celebrate and really celebrate the Christmas God wants us to. It is a Christmas where we share and extend the Spirit of the season throughout the year.

So I am thinking I should wish you all a Merry Christmas. If it means wishing you the type of Christmas where we run to stores at 5 am on Christmas Eve for a special or where we can't wait to go to the latest blockbuster, I am not sure that I want to do that. If it is somehow a celebration of the nativity and grace, then I think I will. I want to share the hope of Christ. So should I wish you a Merry Christmas?

I am in quandary. I want to celebrate, but I am somewhat torn. I am not sure what to do. I don't want to be a downer. I really want to celebrate. What should we do? Merry Christmas?

What do you think?

Co-belligerents?

2006-12-19T13:00:00.000-05:00

Recently "The Purpose Driven Pastor," Rick Warren, convened an AIDS conference with people of different political, social and religious persuasions. His goal was to see if these leaders could come to the point where they could reach consensus on how best to encourage the religious, political and business communities to come together and fight the scourge of AIDS, especially in Africa.

Pastor Warren has taken considerable heat from the evangelical community for inviting Senator Barak Obama to speak at the conference, because of Obama's stands on gay rights and abortion. The religious right felt that many could be led astray because of the appearance of Obama. I am continually amazed by the heat that Warren has taken. He also invited very conservative politicians such as Senator Sam Brownback to speak at the conference.

When asked by Wolf Blitzer on CNN how Warren would respond to the criticism leveled at him by the religious right, in particular the Southern Baptist leadership, Warren responded that he and Obama were not necessarily allies. Allies agree on basic principles of life. He and Obama differed vastly on the issue of abortion. They were in complete agreement on the issue of AIDS and its need to be eradicated. They were "co-belligerents." They had one issue on which the had joined forces in order to advance their cause.

Co-belligerent was not a term I had heard. It is very interesting concept. Can we align ourselves with non-believers on issues of morality? Should we do that? For example, can we come together with them around the issues of the causes of poverty? Can we accept money won from the lottery to fund our ministries? There is always the debate around the issue of government contracts and the privilege of "preaching" being taken from us. But isn't our presence as Christians more important than getting people immediately persuaded to believe like us?

Can we be co-belligerents? I think our roots as Christians and Salvationists would say, "YES." Has our sometimes pharisaical attitude as evangelicals caused us to think otherwise?

What do you think?

What Matters?

2006-12-12T21:45:00.000-05:00

The talk around the office lately has been about the incredible amount of people who we will be serving this Christmas. In fact, tomorrow I will be helping with the distribution of toys, food and clothing to a few thousand people here in Cleveland. We have also been talking lately much about the whole Britney Spears incident and the photos associated with it. "How disgusting." has been the most common editorial comment.

Serving and working against the disgusting events caused by sin, those seem to be the evangelical mindset these days. It is a good thing to take on the issues of poverty caused by sin. But I wonder how much we should worry about the ex- Mrs. K-Fed. Really, how important is she? In fact, how important is that the Boston Red Sox have paid millions of dollars to get the rights to negotiate with a pitcher from Japan and then have him ask for a 100 million to pitch for them? People have been devoting all kinds of talk about these issues.

Yet, I have heard precious little from my friends about the atrocities in Darfur. I do believe we need a distraction on occasion from the pain of the realities of life. Darfur, however, is being ignored. Already the genocide there is the worst since Rwanda. While our government and the church talk often about the outrage Brit, Nicole and Paris (the anti-trinity) we hear very little about the pain and suffering of a whole generation of people who are being systematically exterminated by their government.

What really matters? Does Britney really matter? Does our obsession (I'm in on this with OSU football) with sports figures really matter? The church rails against these matters. We say little and do little about Darfur, the civil war in Iraq and our failed policy, and poverty in our own country.

What matters? What are the issues you think the church should address? There are more than Darfur. What do you think?

Glad Handing?

2006-11-29T14:06:00.000-05:00

Tonight I am going to an event where I will need to practice the old ritual of people in my position called "glad handing." I am going to a meet and greet with prospective donors and people who have recently helped the Army in one of our communities with a very large project. "Glad handing" is basically the practice of saying thank you in a public way. It is almost politician-like. I will be "pressing the flesh" and smiling and extolling the virtues of our organization.

I don't mind talking about The Army. I love it, warts and all. I think the mission is vital and valuable to the Kingdom. In fact, I think it lines up with verses such as Isaiah 61:4 and Isaiah 1:17. It also fits some of what Jeremiah talks about in his writings. I pray that our work continues to merit the favor of those with whom I will be talking.

I am not always comfortable though in these settings. Those of you who know me might be surprised at this statement. I think the reason behind my feeling is that At times, I have seen people who are not genuine in their practice of "glad handing." They almost put on a different persona. It gets to be almost like the used car salesman you see portrayed in movies - you know sort of slimy. You know the type. They are full of fake laughs and stupid jokes, not a great deal of substance.

Then I think to myself, "Why do I need to 'glad hand'?" Is it necessary to put on a persona? I really think that we don't need that.

In fact, I really think that instead of glad handing, I should be doing more than that. Is really right for us to glad hand? Is it right for us to "brand"? Shouldn't it be enough for us to witness, tell our story and say, "Here we are and this is who we are?"

I struggle with this at times. We need support from others. Where is our balance? How do we make this happen and still be genuine? Some actually think that kettles and fundraising are sinful acts. I would not go that far. I do think that these types of issues can become all-consuming at the expense of mission, when they should support mission.

What do you think?

Thanksgiving?

2006-11-23T09:43:00.000-05:00

Today is one of my favorite days. Thanksgiving conjurs up so many memories from my sub-concious that it is hard to describe all of the emotions I feel. Most of those memories center around the "kids' table" at my grandmother's home, where my cousins and I would laugh and cause mayhem during the meal with our pranks.

Today, I will be sitting down to a meal with my sons, daughter-in-law, and our adopted British son, Matt (everyone needs a pet ;0 ) Janet and I have been longing for this day since our move to the midwest. We miss our family. Thanksgiving brings us together today to really give thanks for the grace of God and the blessing of family.

As with all holidays, I continue to be amazed by the return to spiritual principles that a day like this brings. Our nation does, at least for a moment, seems to think about giving and sharing and being thankful. Tomorrow will be a different story. People will be pushing, shoving and grabbing as the stores open for the busy shopping season. That part of the season bothers me, especially as we deal with the poor and cast-offs of society. With the giving of gifts often comes the throwing away of the homeless, except for the occassional soup kitchen meal or toyshop.

My thoughts also turn to Iraq and Afghanistan today. We have lost over 3000 soldiers and Marines in the war. Unfortunately, there have been by some estimations nearly 100,000 civilians killed in this "campaign for freedom" as our President calls it. No matter your political persuasion, war is bloody, senseless and painful. Elections are not enough for the Iraqis and the people of Afghanistan, eventually, there must be infrastructure and services from a government free from corruption for them to have something for which they can be thankful.

So as you sit around a table today and eat leftovers tomorrow, what will you be thankful for? I would love to hear. We should be a grateful people today. What are you thanking God for today?

Is this really a day of thanksgiving?

What do you think?

Poverty and Points?

2006-11-17T08:23:00.000-05:00

This comes under the heading of "You cannot make this stuff up." Janet and I received a credit card offer yesterday. In the US that is not an uncommon experience. We get several of those in the mail every week. Our sons started getting credit card offers when they were as young as 10.

This offer was different. It was offered by a corporation that supports the nation of Israel. The Mastercard offer used the Abrahamic covenant from Genesis 12:3 "I will bless those who bless you." as their pitch line. The deal was that if you used this credit card, not only would a portion of the proceeds go to help "poverty in Israel," but you could also earn points toward vacations, airfare, hotels and a myriad of other things, while you felt good about helping the poor. I wonder what poor people in Israel they are helping? I wondered if this included Palestinian Christians, who are oppressed both by the Israeli government and the Palestinian Authority.

No matter what your political take on the situation in Israel, there is a larger issue here. This offer was specifically aimed at Christians. It was an offer to help us all feel less pain, while alleviating our guilt for not being generous and championing the cause of the oppressed. Hey, charge $200 and you can give 20 cents to some poor starving kid or old person. By the way, enjoy your new boots from Aldo that you just charged.

Materialism once again lifts its ugly head and infiltrates what should be a case of almsgiving for the poor, which is above our tithing. It is also a manipulation of scripture. When did "blessing" come to mean just monetary or material gain? Isn't being a child of God the greatest blessing of all? I guess the Palestinian or Iraqi Christians just aren't as good as us. They would be blessed with the stuff we in the West have. Oh by the way, what about those poor Christians in Darfur who are being starved, raped and murdered by thugs backed by the government? They must have had some real disobedience somewhere.

I am not saying that having stuff is bad, but as we head toward Thanksgiving how much stuff is enough? Is it really a sign of blessing? Al Capone and John Gotti must have been really good Christians. They had a lot of stuff. I fear the evangelical movement in particular has latched onto this theology of materialism being the sign of the true blessing of God. It may have turned us into a people who live well beyond our means to show how blessed we are. Have we come to the point where we need to get something, for taking care of the poor, which is a mandate in scripture?

As we head to this season of giving, I am not about being Scrooge and saying we should not give gifts to each other. I think what I am saying is are we really scripturally balanced in our giving. Tomorrow and Tuesday I will have a great blessing, my boys and my daughter-in-law are coming home on those days for Thanksgiving. We will eat a great deal (which as I write this post, I am beginning to struggle with), but we will also take time to remember the poor and oppressed.

I guess I have a few questions. When did our theology go wrong and our need to be rewarded by material things replace the spirit of altruism? What is the real blessing of God? What is the most effective way to share our blessing with the world? Will God judge those of us who are affluent Western Christians more harshly because of our stingy spirits? Do we just live too well, with no regard for the oppressed?

What do you think?

Am I a pastor?

2006-11-07T15:43:00.000-05:00

This is an argument that has gone on as long as our movement has associated itself with the main-line of Christianity. As a Salvation Army officer, I know I have a pastoral role. According to scripture, there are some who have the gift of being pastors. I am not sure that ordination makes one a pastor.

I think therein lies the rub. I have the sinking feeling that the church has become so efficient in setting up its systems that the role of pastor has not only become a spiritual gifting and calling, but a career move. Pastors are often appointed in the church. For historical reasons probably having to do with the adoption of Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire, the church began to set up the hierarchy of pastor/parishioner. This is now our standard system. This may not be completely biblical.

Many will point to apostolic appointments by Jesus and then the apostles appointing leaders (elders)in the church to alleviate some of the day to day operation of the church as the reason for this set up. In the scheme of things there may be some validity to this. I would submit, however, this was done to facilitate service and not set up a hierarchy.

Today, the connotation of pastor is often one who knows more than those under their care. There could be some truth to that fact given some advanced degree or certificate work, but let's face it, it is not always true. In fact, how many times have those of us in the clergy been taught some great scriptural truths by some little grandma, who has no degree, but has read and prayed her way through the scripture? For that matter, how many times have we been taught by a teenager, with a fresh commitment to Christ, who is ravenous in their appetite for that things of God?

In fact, to think that the ordination of one makes them better is theologically weak. I have recently had this discussion with some officer friends of mine, who feel they cannot "be vulnerable or honest" in settings where lay people who are in ministry are in attendance. It may well be that our whole rank system is theologically indefensible.

I love my calling to be an officer and serve the poor. I wonder, though, what makes a pastor? Is it an ordination or a relationship? Is it a gift or a certificate that makes one a pastor? Are we really better or just different than those who are also in ministry? What really makes a leader or pastor? Am I a pastor? I am struggling with that.

What do you think?

New Strategy?

2006-10-30T16:32:00.000-05:00

I have been away for a couple of weeks. I have been in New York for business, Florida for some R&R and now I am in a hotel in San Francisco. I am here to be part of an ad hoc committee (Doesn't that sound as if someone got something stuck in their throat?)

The committee I am on has the purpose of evaluating a long standing conference/seminar on evangelism The Salvation Army holds in Colorado every year. My wife,Janet, attended the seminar a few years back and found the experience exciting. Others I know have really touted the effectiveness of the seminar. I do love the fact that it is giving lay people the opportunity to share the
Gospel. It also gets them excited as a result. Many, for the first time share their faith, often to perfect strangers. Of course, I wonder if the people receiving the Gospel on the other end think we might be the strange ones. We walk up to them in a uniform and ask them if they want to know Jesus. I am sure that is an experience you don't have every day. It is probably one most people would not WANT to have either.

There are many positives about the experience. That is why I am somewhat conflicted as I write. What I fear is that we have packaged evangelism into a nice neat three point (or more) technique and then the next thing you know, we have a convert. I don't want to trivialize the importance of the Gospel. It is LIFE. I guess I am more concerned with the notion that there is a school of thought that has reduced evangelism to a science. In fact, for years, I practiced that kind of evangelism.

Sadly, in my practice of technique evangelism, I think there were tons of spiritual still births. I would pray with someone after sharing the Four Spiritual Laws, Steps to Peace with God, or stick the name of your method here ____________, only to never know what happened to the person or to have them ignore my follow up attempts. So I wonder, is that really sharing the Gospel?

I believe the Gospel has the power to change lives. The Gospel has the power to change systems of corruption. It has the power to change neighborhoods. It is, however, becoming more abundantly clear to me that the Gospel that really will change lives, is not in a package, but in a process. In other words, I need to look at people for relationship purposes and be willing to walk the road with them for the long run. Otherwise, my presentation I fear, especially in these days of postmodern thought, will bring about spiritual stillbirths at best and at worst, a negative, hostile reaction to the Lord I love.

So I come to these meetings the next couple of days looking for what the Spirit would say. I am not sure what He will tell us. I know many here will be look for a new strategy. I am wondering if an old one might do better. I am talking about a first century strategy where community was built and pentecostal rain fell. Maybe that is what the Spirit is calling us to do. I am afraid I will not be much for endorsing curriculum or a package. I am thinking we may need to have the bold new strategy, maybe there will need to be some discipleship of the non-believer before they accept Christ. We invite and accept them into community and allow that community to be a witness to what the Gospel can do.

It is not a neatly prepared package of talking points. It is probably a bit messy. It won't be efficient. It might just be what we need in this day in which we live.

What do you think?