|
I read an interesting blog lately. Well, actually, it was the comments that were truly interesting.
When I was still in Hamilton, the corps I was going to planted a new church. It was a "Gen-X" church, as we put it then. Very different to what I'm used to - it would be very difficult for me, as a multi-generational Sally Ann, to consider it as a place I'd want to worship.
The point is, it isn't a church for me. It's a "church" for those that don't want the trappings, restraints, and pre-conceived notions of what a "church" should be. That doesn't make it any less a church than the one I attend (in full uniform!) every Sunday. It's still a place of worship, where the gospel is proclaimed.
As far as I'm concerned, it's getting back to the roots of what the Army originally was: something completely different, that met people where they were, on their level. I think William and Catherine would be proud.
The blog I'm referring to is an interesting look into the matter of "branding". I guess a few of the Sally Anners in the Hammer are getting their shorts in a knot over the fact that "The Salvation Army" isn't emblazoned on the frwy's building, t-shirts, etc, etc. I can see where the SA folks are coming from - they sacrificed and invested an awful lot in this new plant, hoping to reap a harvest. It now appears to them as if the frwy is completely turning their backs and going their own way.
What's the problem?
They are the "kids". I know that poor Winterberry had an entire generation leave them for the frwy, and they are now suffering from a severe lack of twenty- and thirty-somethings. Very tragic. Hard to recover from.
But shouldn't they be glad that their kids are involved in a ministry? Shouldn't they be glad that the seed they planted is growing and bearing fruit? Why are they getting upset over the lack of "branding" at frwy?
I suppose part of it has to do with hurt feelings. I can see where they're coming from. They sacrificed their future for the frwy, and now they feel as though they're being abandoned. I suppose it would be similar to the feeling a parent would have if their child turned their back on them and completely disowned them. Ouch. We've had a couple of new corps plants go the "non-branded" route here in the GTA, and we often hear comments along the lines of, "the Army did so much for them, and now they're trying to pretend they have nothing to do with us! How ungrateful is that?!"
But, is the frwy truly doing that? According to Pernell's blog, they are very appreciative, and very thankful, of all the Army has done for them, and are very proud to be part of the Army. So why don't they have the Army proclaimed all over their place?
Well, why should they? Does it really matter? What does it matter, in the grand scheme of things, whether a person comes to a place of worship with an Army crest, or an Army shield? Shouldn't the important thing be that they are coming to a place of worship at all?
There was a great comment on Pernell's blog, where someone stated that the only "brand" that should really count is that of Christ.
I couldn't agree more.
The unfortunate thing with "branding" is that people see a certain name, and they assume certain things. Let's face it: you see "The Salvation Army", and you immediately think of uniform, flags, and brass bands. You see "Brethren Church", and you immediately think of women keeping silent, with their heads covered. You see "United Church", and you immediately think of inclusive language. It's a human trait to affix labels, I guess we think it's going to help organize the world, make it more manageable, more understandable. I can certainly see why the frwy is not wanting to "brand" themselves as Army, they just want people to come and figure it out for themselves, without pre-conceived notions. Can you blame them?
If this is a topic that gets your blood flowing, I'd encourage you to visit Pernell's blog. The comments are very eye-opening. Kinda puts the other perspective on things....
When I was still in Hamilton, the corps I was going to planted a new church. It was a "Gen-X" church, as we put it then. Very different to what I'm used to - it would be very difficult for me, as a multi-generational Sally Ann, to consider it as a place I'd want to worship.
The point is, it isn't a church for me. It's a "church" for those that don't want the trappings, restraints, and pre-conceived notions of what a "church" should be. That doesn't make it any less a church than the one I attend (in full uniform!) every Sunday. It's still a place of worship, where the gospel is proclaimed.
As far as I'm concerned, it's getting back to the roots of what the Army originally was: something completely different, that met people where they were, on their level. I think William and Catherine would be proud.
The blog I'm referring to is an interesting look into the matter of "branding". I guess a few of the Sally Anners in the Hammer are getting their shorts in a knot over the fact that "The Salvation Army" isn't emblazoned on the frwy's building, t-shirts, etc, etc. I can see where the SA folks are coming from - they sacrificed and invested an awful lot in this new plant, hoping to reap a harvest. It now appears to them as if the frwy is completely turning their backs and going their own way.
What's the problem?
They are the "kids". I know that poor Winterberry had an entire generation leave them for the frwy, and they are now suffering from a severe lack of twenty- and thirty-somethings. Very tragic. Hard to recover from.
But shouldn't they be glad that their kids are involved in a ministry? Shouldn't they be glad that the seed they planted is growing and bearing fruit? Why are they getting upset over the lack of "branding" at frwy?
I suppose part of it has to do with hurt feelings. I can see where they're coming from. They sacrificed their future for the frwy, and now they feel as though they're being abandoned. I suppose it would be similar to the feeling a parent would have if their child turned their back on them and completely disowned them. Ouch. We've had a couple of new corps plants go the "non-branded" route here in the GTA, and we often hear comments along the lines of, "the Army did so much for them, and now they're trying to pretend they have nothing to do with us! How ungrateful is that?!"
But, is the frwy truly doing that? According to Pernell's blog, they are very appreciative, and very thankful, of all the Army has done for them, and are very proud to be part of the Army. So why don't they have the Army proclaimed all over their place?
Well, why should they? Does it really matter? What does it matter, in the grand scheme of things, whether a person comes to a place of worship with an Army crest, or an Army shield? Shouldn't the important thing be that they are coming to a place of worship at all?
There was a great comment on Pernell's blog, where someone stated that the only "brand" that should really count is that of Christ.
I couldn't agree more.
The unfortunate thing with "branding" is that people see a certain name, and they assume certain things. Let's face it: you see "The Salvation Army", and you immediately think of uniform, flags, and brass bands. You see "Brethren Church", and you immediately think of women keeping silent, with their heads covered. You see "United Church", and you immediately think of inclusive language. It's a human trait to affix labels, I guess we think it's going to help organize the world, make it more manageable, more understandable. I can certainly see why the frwy is not wanting to "brand" themselves as Army, they just want people to come and figure it out for themselves, without pre-conceived notions. Can you blame them?
If this is a topic that gets your blood flowing, I'd encourage you to visit Pernell's blog. The comments are very eye-opening. Kinda puts the other perspective on things....
Post a Comment