A High
Council Revolution: The Pope and The General
The Spectator had an interesting article on
two of the largest streams of Christianity:
The new God squad: what Archbishop Welby
and Pope Francis have in common: Evangelicals have taken
charge in the Vatican
and Lambeth Palace.
http://t.co/kNrmfmxB5r
And Macleans Magazine had this piece:
Pope Francis: The Vatican’s rebel:
For those invested in the status quo, he’s
the most dangerously unpredictable pope in centuries
http://t.co/dnRJvwOEYm
Anglicans and Catholics recently chose new leaders who are
being described as rebellious and revolutionary in these
articles. Why not
give them a read with a third international Christian leader
to be chosen this week?
… just as a hypothetical…
Here are some outtakes from The Spectator
(with our comments as ‘sc’):
“The new leader of the faithful is a sharp operator who finds
himself surrounded by ‘a medieval court system of hopeless
characters, each jealously guarding their own silos of
activity. There’s lots of crap people in key positions.’”
sc – this refers to Welby (new Archibishop of Canterbury).
The bureaucracy is harshly criticised, both the
structure and personnel.
A sharp operator would be able to cut through things
and ‘fix’… (try to apply it to the third scenario…)
“Both men were plucked from senior but not prominent positions
in their churches with a mandate to simplify structures of
government that had suffocated their intellectual
predecessors, who also resembled each other in slightly
unfortunate ways.”
sc – the ‘solution’ to the perceived needs of these churches
were ‘senior but not prominent’ people.
That opens the potential list significantly.
They have a ‘mandate to simplify structures of
government.’
That’s a start… (do you see how the game works?)
“Rowan Williams and Benedict XVI seemed overwhelmed by the
weight of office; both took the puzzling decision to retreat
into their studies at a time of crisis in order to write books
— Dr Williams on metaphor and icon-ography in Dostoevsky,
Benedict on the life of Jesus. When they retired, early and of
their own volition, their in-trays were stacked higher than
they had been when they took office. Their fans were
disappointed and the men charged with replacing them thought:
we’re not going to let that happen again.”
sc – those ‘charged with replacing them thought: we’re not
going to let that happen again.’
We wonder how that will push voters – radical or
reactionary?
“For him, Vatican corruption is evidence of Satan’s assault on the
people of God — and so is the worldwide campaign for gay
marriage. When the Pope met the Archbishop of
Canterbury, the first thing he did was
to congratulate him on his stance against same-sex weddings.”
sc – how cool is that?
It is certainly not politically correct to talk about
satan. And we
usually avoid making the applications.
That would be refreshing…
Holy. now.
Here are some outtakes from Macleans:
“The Pope, in the eyes of most Vatican watchers, has so
altered the tone of the papacy—the face it presents to the
faithful and to the world at large—that style has become
substance. “Even if he were to die tomorrow,” remarks Michael
Higgins, a distinguished Canadian Catholic intellectual now
teaching at Sacred Heart
University in Fairfield, Conn.,
“I do not believe his successor could go back to the old
ways.””
sc – ‘so altered the tone of the papacy… his successor could
not go back to the old ways.’
And this is after a few months.
That is revolutionary.
Do we have faith for something like that?
I do.
“For Higgins, “it’s been the best 100 days in papal history,
probably the most consequential since Innocent III.” Higgins
means consequential in a diametrically opposed way: when
Innocent came to the papal throne 815 years ago, his reign
completed the apotheosis of the heir of the fisherman into the
ruler of Christendom, a figure suspended between heaven and
earth. Francis, on the other hand, “has begun a process of
demystifying the office that’s been as far-reaching as turning
the House of Windsor into a Scandinavian monarchy—from
Benedict to him, it’s been like going from the London landau
to riding a bicycle through Copenhagen.””
sc – ‘best 100 days in papal history’… ‘most consequential …
in … 815 years.’
In USA the ‘first 100 days’ in a term
are now considered crucial and abnormally significant (hat tip
Newt). And
Francis seems to have shaken history with his first 100.
August, September, October, and early November will
mark the first 100 days of the next general’s term.
Might they be ‘the best 100 days in general history’?
Do we have faith for that?
I do.
“He preaches about the devil as often as he does about St.
Francis. He may well have performed an exorcism in St. Peter’s
Square. ”
sc – love it.
Preaching it.
Doing it. Amen!
“There are holy people in the Curia, the Vatican bureaucracy,
Francis told a group of visiting Latino nuns and monks, but
also a “current of corruption,” and a network of gay men: “We
will have to see what we can do.””
sc – can you imagine that being said under epaulets?
I can’t.
Revolutionary.
“Priests, the Pope said, again departing from a prepared text
and clearly including himself, must be close to the people,
“shepherds with the smell of sheep.””
sc – ‘the smell of sheep’ – laying down the law.
Nice.
“It has all made Francis the most wildly unpredictable pope in
centuries. Dangerously unpredictable, in fact, for those
heavily invested in the ecclesiastical status quo. They
include lower-level bureaucrats for whom maintaining papal
protocol, liturgical fidelity and court ceremonial is “their
life,” as Higgins put it, and those far higher in the Vatican
food chain, where misconduct has historically been swept under
a rug. Those caught swimming in the “current of corruption”
cannot expect a soft landing this time.”
sc – of the next general? ‘The most wildly unpredictable
general in a century.
Dangerously unpredictable.’
‘Those caught swimming in the ‘current of corrpution’
cannot expect a soft landing this time.’
Wow. What
would the ramifications be?
If the Catholics and Anglicans can
revolutionise, we reckon the salvos can, too.
Now, ideally, we wouldn’t need it since, by
definition, we ARE a revolutionary movement.
For those who missed that in soldiership
class or your salvo readings, here it is:
definition: The Salvation Army is a revolutionary movement of
covenanted warriors exercising holy passion to win the world
for Jesus.
Maybe, though ideally we wouldn’t need it, revolutionising a
revolutionary movement is in our DNA.
We’re crafted for strategic reinvention.
And now is a strategic time…
Last time we had an unexpected end of term for a general was
in the mid-1990s.
The High Council met quickly – only 5 days – and elected Paul
Rader on a unanimous second ballot (after not being chosen
months earlier). Delegates overcame what appears to be
organisational anti-American bias to drink their hard medicine
and pick the leader who would drive us to new victories.
General Rader plunged us into the fastest rate of advance in
terms of soldiery in generations.
He also plunged us into facing up to systemic gender
bias (though we still have a long way to go on that).
For both of these things (and others) he is not universally
loved. Lots of
people don’t like to change.
And yet he left his term with over a million soldiers
marching (the goal).
And the high council was roughly doubled in size as a
bunch of women, who mysteriously lost their rank when their
husbands got promoted, got their rank back.
Rader is a legend.
We should take courses on him.
So, is the 1994 High Council a template for this one?
Certainly there are different dynamics this time around
(several of which we just don’t know because of
confidentialities around the results of the last one).
But the similar conditions are suggestive.
Maybe there will be a short high council in which delegates
line up behind what most might consider hard medicine.
The anti-American bias continues (I’ve heard people say
that there is no way another American would be chosen).
The 1994 delegates took their medicine and we
flourished as a result.
It might be similar this time.
Or it might be different.
6 of the 10 people nominated at the most recent High
Council are now retired.
Another is still active but 67 years old.
Maybe delegates will take their time and hash out the pressing
issues during the ‘committee of the whole’.
It is during this exercise that some people talk
themselves out of consideration.
Maybe a large proportion of the High Council will be
nominated. That
would give everyone opportunity to listen to more than just
the ‘favourites’.
Maybe there will be outside candidates.
That would be a first (yes, we noted that a couple of
sick commissioners and a retired general have been nominated
in the past but all of them declined, thus, there have been no
‘outside’ candidates in history).
And that would freshen things up.
Maybe the speeches and questions will identify someone that
most haven’t considered yet.
Then ideas and character – ideally – would emerge at
the expense of popularity.
Short or long, there are positives to highlight.
Regardless, let’s keep praying that God prepares each
delegate. Here
are some things you might like to pray:
- that God convicts each delegate of every
sin or sinful inclination, prompts repentance, activates
faith, and leads to sanctification;
- that God fills each delegate with a
healthy ‘fear of the Lord’ that keep each from any step
outside of the centre of His will;
- that God identifies for each delegate who
s/he should nominate;
- that God prepares each eventual nominee
with zeal and strategy to propose;
- that God helps the organisers arrange
every thing in a godly manner;
- that God keeps every salvationist from
falling for temptation through this whole process;
- that God uses the situation to jack up
reliance on Him in each soldier (senior and junior)…
|