Angie Ward might have kind of killed the metaphor in this article, but her advice to the church about not stuffing the dog is timely and right on. Basically, it's a piece about not holding onto outdated programs and practices that have become beloved "pets" of the church. She asserts that holding on too long might not only prevent people from moving forward, but might actually break trust and drive new people away. It's a message that needs to be heard in the church. Even better, she quotes Alan Alda. You can't go wrong with Hawkeye.
One thing she doesn't cover though is being the member rather than the leader who recognizes the dead dog and can do nothing to remove it because the leader still holds onto his pet. Maybe this touches on Phil's loyal radicals, but how do we operate as the member who sees the program or practice as well past its time, while we are not in the decision making position to remove it or change it?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
You can't affect change inwardly if people don't trust you. They won't trust you unless they see you are committed. If you are committed to them (your local Church body) and have shown continued involvement in local activities for a period of time... then, I think you should have developed enough trustworthiness to be involved in discussion about the direction of the local Church body. This is why, I think, worship planning committees (or some variant) are so important...
Hmm.. I wish it were that simple, Phil. In many cases, it isn't.
I heard Chick Yuill refer to this as "stuffing granny and setting her in the living room". You really have to hear it in a Scottish accent.
Does the phrase "shake the dust off" ever come into play when it's the church that you're talking about? Is there ever a point when it's time to just move on and start something new?
I struggled with "youth congregations" for years, but I've recently begun to wonder just how many lost people we were prepared to lose in our attempt to reconcile the church. Maybe reconciling the church isn't worth that many souls. ???
you're probably right, Pete. i was more saying how it should work (and does in many instances) than how it always does.
as far as programs and relevance are concerned, I remember Russ Rook saying - not a direct quote - at Roots that the Army, for one (and I suspect other denominations as well) has fallen so far behind in the area of relevance that a gradual change in "programming" is futile. The only real solution, though painful, is a jump from the victorian age to the new millenium.
i still say, though, that there has to be some barometer of determining who is qualified to make such decisions and just whose advice we take as we move forward. after all, we're not anti-systematic, we just think there are flaws (major or minor) in the current system, right?
open to being proven wrong or corrected...
:)
Thank you for the article Drew. I plan to somehow share it with the leaders of our corps. I am interested in their reaction to it. My corps is traditional and full of people who are committed to God. They have been faithful through the mundane years. Change needs to come but I am convinced that change in our outward expression of worship is not really the change we need. The change we all need is from the inside..a new breath of the Spirit upon our lives. As Ezekiel spoke the Word of God over the dry bones the Spirit came. God didn't throw out the dry, old bones and start all over again...He breathed new life into them and an Army of God arose. I want to rise up with that Army! Can you see it? No more dead dogs...or stuffed.
Well said! I think there are indeed some old "stuffed dogs" in Army programming that can still be extremely relevant and effective, granted that new life and vision is breathed into them. Perhaps, the key is doing some of these programs with excellence and updating / adjusting any elements that no longer seem to be working.
For example... I absolutely LOVE the fact that my daughter is a Sunbeam. That program has a framework that is truly timeless, if you put some effort into the program. It is being done very well at our corps, and our daughter loves it. She has been telling her close friends at school about it and one of her friends has been begging her mother to let her attend Sunbeams also.
So maybe (in some areas) there can be a happy medium of sorts. Perhaps we can retain some old programming and practices, but mold them into modernity??
Phil, agreed. We do need to be thoughtfully evaluating the effectiveness of what we do. Sometimes the challenge in an older / established corps is finding ways to gently push forward in working with individuals to whom we owe a great deal for making enormous investments in our spiritual foundation.
why does this guy keep calling you phil?
is that an inside joke? just curious.
I've gotten so many questions about who the mysterious Salvationist Too is, I'm blowing the cover off it. Brendan Frazier is in reality: Pete Russell. Jocelyn, he's not calling me Phil. He's answering back to surrendered who is Phil Laeger.
Everybody on the same page?
Who am I again? ;o)
Post a Comment