Tuesday, October 17, 2006

outside observations

The following comment was left on a blog called Decaf. I realize that many would like this conversation to simply fade away but I’ll continue to say that to not deal with injustice in our church is wrong. The following is an important read from an outside observer named Nibb.

Hi folks,apologies, Im not in the SA, but have shared in many a worship with our local corps in Bolton. Chick preached at our own church this Sunday just gone (1th October 2006). My father in law has known the Yuill's for some time, his wife having worked at the local SA in an auxillary capacity some years ago.

He expressed great surprise and concern that Chich had 'resigned', and I said I would attempt to find out why.

The WWW is my stock and trade, there tends to be little I cannot find and I know how to use search engines better than most people. I found the link to this blog after quite a lot of mysterious 'dead ends'. Pages that were live to search engines mere weeks or days ago, now removed, or dead. Which was puzzling, I began to assume the resignation had occured some time ago and all had been swept under the carpet and laid to rest.

A great surprise to read through your comments on the board then, its all fresh, and bubbling and looks to be fairly representative of the undercurrent of concern, anger, fear, and confusion within your own church.

I said 'apologies', because from a certain point of view you could all turn around and tell others - outside of your faternity - to mind their own business. But, evangelism wears no uniform, it does not, or alas, should not I should say, limit itself to within a certain set four walls every Sunday. Chick (and others) have performed a powerful ministry far outside your own walls, and a concerned international Christian community looks on without explanation and with similar confusion to yourselves about the what and why and where of it all. Silence can only be damaging.

I have read much of the oft heated polemic here, and to be brutally honest, at the moment I see less defendable in what has happened at your upper echelons that others of you who by your very uniform are perhaps more entitles to comment.

Purely by way of illustration, and by no means an intention of comparison of person, consider this.... leaders who take action without recourse to oversight, check, are dangerous, or at least potentially so. I would agree that Christ very well would walk into the office and turn the tables over because much appears to be done 'In His Name' when its really been 'What I Think'.

You could argue the toss for hours. Far simpler, better for all surely, and open and above board - for your General to put the cards on the table and explain. It is not good enough for any leader (save Christ) to act without clarification on such matters. And no, simply again, it is not sufficient to say as followers that a leader is Under Authority of the Church or God and blindly accept and agree to all that the demand or assume. God gifts us with many gifts, and amongst the greatest is Decernment. If what has been done can lead to such an arguement alone as has been seen on just this board (and that surely a pale reflection of what carries on in your ranks and in the quiet behind closed doors) - then surely, surely, you need some accountability before the damage done turns into rot, and your organisation with all its great works and emmense value to the world wide Church and society as a whole starts to fall apart and become factionalised.

Don't let it happen. If you can ask the questions here, be brave, pray, and take your concerns higher. Show your public support or your public concern. The watching world will be far more understanding of a community that honestly questions rather than one that hides away.

And a clarification, LIBEL is not questioning someone under authority, it is the defamation of a living person by any means other than the verbal. There is no such excuse allowed by sneaking the word 'authority' in there.

best wishes, and God guide you all
Nibb

By the way, I have also been concerned (read disgusted) about those dead links.

Comments on "outside observations"

 

Blogger JoJo said ... (10:22 PM) : 

I am so glad that there are places where this conversation continues. It isn't about whinging about the state of the army. It's not the same old discussion about whether or not we should wear hats rah rah rah. This is an issue that fundamentally threatens who we are. If we're not about justice then what are we about?
I know many people are adding their voice by writing to their divisonal/territorial leadership. I just hope there aren't people who don't think this is a matter for them. This is an issue for every single one of us.
This won't go away. People might stop talking about Chick but as long as we have a leadership structure that leaves no room for accountability or dissenting voices, people like Chick (and the many others who have been hurt in a similar way) will continue to be persecuted.
I'll keep looking out for these few and far between conversations. I'll keep looking out for signs of change. I'm still just left asking - what do we do next?

 

Anonymous Anonymous said ... (2:29 AM) : 

Wow, it's good to read an account from someone outside the Army. Unfortunately the subject has just about ended on this side of the pond. I asked my DC's opinion about it at Officer's Councils 2 weeks ago. He basically blew me off with the, "Well, we don't know the whole story, so I can't really say".

Why can't we all just be honest with each other?

 

Blogger Bill said ... (9:59 PM) : 

I am sorry to continue to hear this backlash. This is not the end of the Army-people are constantly saying that this is the demise of the Army from one person resigning. I am not sure what to say and probably shouldn't have responded, but I just wonder, If there is anyone out that has made comments on any site that truly and honestly knows what happen? Because if you are commenting on this subject and only know one end, then you are out of line. Should the General lay his cards on the table? We will never know, the whole story till he does.

 

Anonymous Anonymous said ... (7:36 PM) : 

The whole thing, shrouded in mystery, and yet elicits such a passionate response, must have something deeper at its core. Is the issue just one man resigning? If it is then we should really find out why because, evidently, he is a man of great influence who is loved by many. Is this the downfall of the Army? Maybe the straw that breaks the camel's back? Maybe nothing? But there seems to be something wrong if this many people have such strong feelings. Could it be that the feeling echo of those our founder had when he began the Army? Have we come full circle? I don't presume to know any answers, but I can see a problem when it smacks me in the face.

 

Blogger Sean said ... (4:37 PM) : 

Bill,
much love to you. I agree that it is bad to add fuel to a fire when you don't know all the details. However, it seems that much of the fuel in this fire is in that we don't know all the details. I believe there is a huge problem in not being made aware of a huge issue within the leadership, to the point of possible legal action. There is a distinctive lack of accountability at the tops of the leadershpi chain. ( on every level mind you)

If there was visable accountability, then no-one would have the space to raise question to the integrity of leadership. There is a very dangerous line either soon to be or already has been crossed.

"Not the end of the Army" no -probably not, but should it be?
Or at least in the form we see it now? That is the question.

 

Anonymous Anonymous said ... (3:56 PM) : 

This whole issue seems to raise huge questions over the place of the prophet within todays SA. How can we ask the Spirit to work in and through our movement and mould us to the church we need to be, if we're not willing to listen to how to hold our side of the bargain, or the people carrying this message?
It is ridiculous to expect 100% agreement across all issues within such a vast church community, but surely there is distinction to be made between disagreement and disobedience. Every opinion (however right or wrong) has the right to be discussed, and dismissed if need be --even more crucially if we want God to speak to us!
Let's be honest, to have an opinion quashed outright without discussion is purely oppressive.
To allow such dealings to be swept under the rug would be to say that variations of thought are 'anti-army', or in other terms allow a dictatorship-style control over what is meant to be the Spirit-led church of God.
It is my opinion, that if the Lord wanted a particular person/people/voice to cease to be heard, by His grace and for the honour of His church it would be quietly and far FAR less debateable than this case has become.

 

post a comment