FSAOF Commentary
Tariro – An ongoing story of hope
Conclusion
Bright Hope for Tomorrow (conclusion)
Bright Hope for Tomorrow (conclusion)
The biggest humanitarian issue caused by the
departure of Dr. Thistle was that the people who counted on the Howard for
surgical skills suddenly found themselves without. It cannot be said
that it was only Dr. Thistle’s skills that brought people to Howard Hospital –
rather, it was the on-going availability of advanced surgical skills having
been available to the people of Chiweshe for almost 50 years. Even in times of
great distress and war, people were still able to have their surgical needs
taken care of at an affordable price. Then, in the blink of an eye, this was
ripped away.
For the Tariro article to single out a specific
period of time (2004-2012) and infer that was the only period of time that
advanced surgery was available is misleading. The article states
"Before 2003, the hospital operated at the level of a rural district
hospital...The intention is to return to this sustainable level of
working."
It appears as if the intention is to discredit
Dr. Thistle's excellent care, but remember he started in 1995. Certainly
the level of surgical expertise was available when he started at Howard. The
hospital ceased to be sustainable at this time (2003 and forward) due to blockages
at THQ. Donations stopped coming through or were severely delayed. Concurrently,
Zimbabwe government grants became valueless due to run-away inflation. So
Dr. Thistle appealed for, and received, more direct donations to the hospital,
all of which went through the hospital books but bypassed Zimbabwe THQ and IHQ,
to their displeasure. Had he not done so, aware of THQ’s history of
controlling the hospital’s funding, HH would have closed long ago. As
for sustainability, it appears that the hospital, having lost these donors, is
now running largely on IHQ reserves. How sustainable is this?
But the year 2004 does have a milestone associated with it. That was the year that the Howard moved into the public spotlight, at least in Canada. Dr. Thistle delivered conjoined twins, Tinashe and Tinotenda, in 2004, and arranged with Canadian doctors and The Hospital for Sick Kids in Toronto to take on the case of Tinashe and Tinotenda. The twins, along with a nurse from Howard Hospital, flew to Canada, where they underwent the processes necessary to separate them. The surgery was successful, and today the boys are healthy and well.
But the year 2004 does have a milestone associated with it. That was the year that the Howard moved into the public spotlight, at least in Canada. Dr. Thistle delivered conjoined twins, Tinashe and Tinotenda, in 2004, and arranged with Canadian doctors and The Hospital for Sick Kids in Toronto to take on the case of Tinashe and Tinotenda. The twins, along with a nurse from Howard Hospital, flew to Canada, where they underwent the processes necessary to separate them. The surgery was successful, and today the boys are healthy and well.
If there was any lack of capacity at Howard
Hospital to support the work, which is disputable, one could point to the
difficulties faced with internal Army processes and procedures, most notably
those involving the disbursal of funds for salaries, supplies and equipment.
Also, another point to keep in mind – in 2004,
Dr. Paul and Pedrinah Thistle were not yet Salvation Army officers. The
invitation from the Army to the Thistles to become officers was not extended
until 2005. They were commissioned in 2007. Their time in appointment at Howard
Hospital as Salvation Army officers was 5 years, a considerably much shorter
period of time than that of Major Gibson, and Dr. Thistle’s predecessor.
Another Salvationist, retired Swedish Dr.
Per-Gote Lindgren has been brought onboard at Howard Hospital. From
reading the description of his duties, it seems that quite a load has been
placed on Dr. Lindgren. He will be providing advanced surgical training,
coordinating the move into the new hospital facility when it is completed and
developing management and clinical systems.
One has to wonder, if the Salvation Army is
moving away from advanced medical care and away from hospital facilities with
state-of-the-art surgical provisions, into a primary-care focus, why is Dr.
Lindgren going to be teaching advanced surgical procedures? This presents a
dichotomy in what the Salvation Army’s statements about the future role of
health care provided will be, in SA medical care facilities. And would not
these advanced surgical procedures once again put the Howard Hospital right
back to where it was in the period of 2004-2012? Will the staff, support
services and laboratory be able to keep up with this level of surgical service?
Will it be “sustainable”? It is hard to tell what the real path for Howard
Hospital is – a mostly primary care facility that refers more difficult cases
to the provincial governmental hospitals or a true hospital providing multiple
types of surgery at varying levels of difficulty?
Also, if as the article states, Dr. Lindgren
will not be working as a general medical officer, who will be providing the
follow-up care of the patients who receive the advanced surgical procedures
that are going to be taught? It would seem to be obvious that follow-up care
after advanced surgery will have to be taught as part of the overall procedure.
Or is the intention to show the trainees how to do the surgery and leave it up
to them to do the follow-up care on their own?
The Tariro programs for HIV, tuberculosis and
the ARV program for expectant mothers are said to be operating in the same
manner as before August of 2012. The absence of statistics indicating the
numbers of patients under treatment provides no context to judge the validity
of this statement.
Additionally, the USAID-funded ARV program is
seemingly financially supported independently of any constraints of the
Salvation Army Zimbabwe THQ, although it is unclear who generates the “independent”
reports submitted to USAID for the funding and to which entity the funding is
paid, or if any deductions are made at the Zimbabwe THQ level for “administrative
costs” when the funding does arrive.
Lastly, the article touts the soon-to-be
launched Howard Hospital website, as if this was a new development. There is no
mention of the previous Howard Hospital website that was shut down the
beginning of 2013 without warning or explanation.
The Tariro article closes by saying “as the
Salvation Army works to improve the services at the hospital." The
wording should actually state, "restore" rather than
"improve", as the Howard Hospital history from 1965 until
mid-2012 showed a hospital that was one of, if not the best, mission
hospitals in Zimbabwe, with a reputation for excellence in care and medical
services. The reported restoration process over the last few months, though, is
praiseworthy.
It is the sincere hope and prayer of many people
who have followed the events at Howard Hospital over the years, and
particularly the scores of thousands in the last 12-14 months, that the Howard
Hospital returns to its reputation as a place of hope, healing and restoration
for the people of Chiweshe.
Jolinda Cooper
Former SA Officer
FSAOF USA South
Jolinda Cooper
Former SA Officer
FSAOF USA South
16 comments:
Again, facts are stubborn things. Thank you Jolinda because once again you have successfully in this final blog entry exposed the discrepancies between fact and IHQ trying to re-write the history of the HH.
Truth and righteousness have prevailed in your contributions as opposed to the fiction spun by IHQ
As a retired officer who has served at most levels I commend this series of articles and hope that it has made our new leadership aware of the serious flaw lines in our archaic autocratic system of admin which has for years eroded the Army of some of its most gifted officers. It served us well in our early days but in these days it is completely out of step. The UK territory 'Salvationist' is at present issuing an excellent series about the meaning of Mission, written by 'a fee-lance writer and speaker'. It should really state 'former SA Officer', for the writer, for whom I have the highest respect, was one of our most committed, progressive and dedicated officers, his books so well thought of that they were included in the libraries of our Training Colleges, and the ICO. Tragically he incurred the displeasure of top leadership because he was not a 100 per cent 'conformist' and reluctantly resigned under pressure in the most unpleasant circumstances. Now within the space of a few years he is an internationally known and sought-after evangelist, and not only do we now publish his writings (when he left us instructions were given to remove all of his writings from our College bookshelves) but he is invited to speak at some of our major gatherings. Was his loss not so tragic we would describe this as ludicrous. Recently the same paper has featured the JoyvStrings, but no mention of the fact that shortly following their 'fame' one officer member of that group, then a successful Coros Officer, leading a remarkable revival at his Corps, was 'disciplined' for not conforming completely, so he went to the USA, started a new Church which has planted a number of daughter churches, and is also an international preacher, sought after as a very successful evangelist. In neither of these two cases (two amongst many) was their any recourse - victims of an autocratic system which allows some leaders to exercise power without accountability. It has happened again with the Thistles. I commend Salvationist for publishing this writer. I wish the paper had the freedom to air such subjects as the HH story. So my prayer is for change, and for the good Lord to empower our new leaders to bring it about. I used to have on my desk a brief quotation - 'To change plans and programmes is fairly simple but to change the attitudes of men is the hardest task in the world.'
I agree wholeheartedly with the above retired officer. I, too, have known good officers who have been sacrificed on the altar of TSA's PC brigade - not for any misdemeanours, but for being unable to cope at specific times in their lives, and were not given the compassionate support that they needed. None of them renounced their faith - they each went on to serve God in other denominations. But what a loss to the Army! Tragic. The worst thing is that these are not isolated incidents. Once you show some independent thought, TSA doesn't want to know you.
There is much truth in that song from one of the Army musicals 'You've got to conform to belong, we've all got to sing the same song'. No, we don't. We should allow for differences in opinion on doctrine - God created us each differently, and we all have different gifts which can be offered within the Salvation Army and used for His glory. It's time the leadership woke up - we can't afford to be haemorrhaging members and officers just for the sake of TSA's institutional reputation. God should take precedence over the organisation. If He doesn't, we are in thrall to false doctrine.
That more than one thousand former officer members of the FSAOF alone speaks to the Army's inability to hold some of the dearest and best - six years of thinking outside the box, yet most still faithful to their Covenant to serve God the rest of my life.
I wonder if SA leaders have made any concerted effort to enter into dialogue with this vibrant Christian fellowship? And if not, why the delay?!
Former officer, acting CSM
That more than one thousand former officer members of the FSAOF alone speaks to the Army's inability to hold some of the dearest and best - six years of thinking outside the box, yet most still faithful to their Covenant to serve God the rest of my life.
I wonder if SA leaders have made any concerted effort to enter into dialogue with this vibrant Christian fellowship? And if not, why the delay?!
Former officer, acting CSM
Why the delay? Because they are presently bound hand, foot, mind and spirit to the narrow introspective confines of TSA rule book, created by man, and this has pre-eminence with them over God's rule book, the Bible. They then think they have the monopoly on truth. Sad. There is no room for God's Spirit to thrive in these narrow confines. And there is no room for a free spirit to test the boundaries within these confines. As a result, the boundaries never change, and those of us who stay within the ranks sink into a rut of habit - a mind-stifling acceptance. So much talent has been thrown away so carelessly by people who possess little of God's grace, love and who have no ability to nurture an eaglet who has strayed into the chicken yard.
Looking at the list of formers, there is the recognition of quite a few names of times past and the qualities and graces they represent. The SA is definitely the poorer without them.
And of course, let us also not forget how so many now former officers totally cocked up along the way in their personal, spiritual and SA life, losing all credibility and integrity thus having made it (nigh) impossible for them to serve in any SA officer ministry capacity.
Here but by the grace of God......
I am unconvinced we can have differences of doctrine. There is much leeway to interpret doctrine differently, but no more.
There are people serving in the Army today who have evolved in their doctrinal thinking over the years, but who don't speak up because there is nowhere other than our local situation where these questions can be discussed or challenged. To touch on the sacraments, for example - a fair percentage of Salvationists have come from other churches, and they have actually been baptised - some of them undergoing full water immersion. They join the Army for various reasons - fellowship, marriage, the absence of their own denomination when moving house, many reasons, and they have their acceptance of baptism in their own hearts, but they accept the Army's teaching because of expedience.
Others I have spoken to are ambivalent about communion - when they worship at other churches they take part in receiving the bread and wine, and have said they would not be averse to celebrating it at their corps.
The sacraments are a big subject in the Army, but if you questioned people closely, I don't think there would be many who would be dogmatic about it. Even the leaders state they have no objections if members want to participate in this way, although it would not be instigated by the leaders.
And over the years, we have made our own ceremonies a 'sacrament' of sorts - dedication of children, the swearing-in of soldiers, white ribbon on the flag when people are PTG - all these rituals are regarded almost as 'army' sacraments and are held in the highest esteem by members, and yet are not biblical. The biblical directions on the sacraments - admittedly open to interpretation - are disregarded as unimportant.
Having faith and living a holy life is sometimes more important than doctrine.
The Army system is to care less about individual officers who don't obey - the organization is always primary over individuals.
This comes straight from William Booth. In his book "Darkest England and the Way Out", he callously says about any officer who dares to deviate in anyway from his orders, that they are welcome to leave. The attitude comes across in his words as "Good riddance" - we don't need you. Get out. This attitude has always been there, right from the beginning, the Founder enshrined it in the system.
It is very cultish and make no mistake, the Army shuns people who dare to disobey especially a move.
Their moves and transfer system is sacro-sanct.
Tragic. But today's leaders have the opportunity to right that wrong. Dare I say it - William Booth was just a man - he wasn't a saint, and he didn't have the monopoly on truth. The Salvation Army is just an organisation - and as we are constantly reminded - life moves on. It is no longer the 19th century, and officers are not in abundant supply. The moves and transfer system has never been transparent - it has operated on 'who you know' basis, and as such should be abandoned.
The 'Founder' was just that - a founder. We have to move on, painful though it may be for some. But faith should not be in man, it should be in God first and foremost. Once TSA is viewed as infallible, that's when God will dismantle it. He is, after all, a jealous God who wants our worship more than our obedience to a system.
The cult of SA officership today is nothing short of idolatry - equating the Army's will with God's will, putting obedience to the Army's system before obedience to God. The above anonymous poster is very right - the Army in 2012 in the HH situation acted like the 1800's Army, but this has been the Army's system since it's inception, so there's nothing new under the sun in TSA and in many ways the whole unfolding of events was entirely predictable.
Our new General in October's issue of the Canadian Salvationist magazine, is quoted as saying "I have a great love for Africa", attributing this to Harare, Zimbabwe being the place of his birth and the bush land of Zimbabwe being the land of his child. Adding to his childhood years his officership appointments, he has lived in Southern Africa for 23 years - not quite but almost half of his life.
We need to see his love demonstrated by an apology on behalf of TSA to the Chiweshe people for the tragedy IHQ's decisions caused, and amends made to this region of Africa by financial support to transport the seriously ill to Karanda for affordable medical care, as Major Dr. James Watt (R) has long ago suggested. Further down the line the General could put his love into action by seeing that the HH can function at least as it did for 50 years+ for this desperately poor region of Africa.
Apology is very important in relationships between individuals as well as for organizations and their various relationships. There is a reason why apology comes before amends. It is crucial to the process of reconciliation because it humbly acknowledges that mistakes have been made and leaves no room for misunderstanding about the offer of amends which should follow.
Well said - excellent.
Having commented earlier about the ludicrous position of making it impossible for an officer to continue and then welcoming him as writer and speaker as a non-officer, and as the issue of baptism and the sacraments is now mentioned, is it also an anachronism in this age that although there is no embargo on Salvationists (including officers) being baptised or taking the sacrament in other churches? I am not a sacramentalise, in the sense that I consider the sacraments essential, but whilst I fully appreciate the reasons for non-sacramentalise in the early days, I simply cannot comprehend why it is made suc an issue today. After all, communion is only an attempt t reenact what our Lord did at the last supper. Incredibly we allow other kinds of symbolism, sometimes quite absurd. In a meeting recently the congregation were given small pieces of paper, asked during the opening song to fold and tear them into the shape of little effigies. At the end of the meeting the congregation were invited to lay their effigies on the mercy seat, as a symbol of giving themselves to The Lord. Such permitted - the sacred communion frowned upon. Is it not time to simply allow those who would like to celebrate a simple form of Holy Communion to do so without incurring dileasure or discipline? We do not need regulations about it, maybe a few simple guidelines as to how it might be celebrated simply and with dignity.
Having commented earlier about the ludicrous position of making it impossible for an officer to continue and then welcoming him as writer and speaker as a non-officer, and as the issue of baptism and the sacraments is now mentioned, is it also an anachronism in this age that although there is no embargo on Salvationists (including officers) being baptised or taking the sacrament in other churches? I am not a sacramentalise, in the sense that I consider the sacraments essential, but whilst I fully appreciate the reasons for non-sacramentalise in the early days, I simply cannot comprehend why it is made suc an issue today. After all, communion is only an attempt t reenact what our Lord did at the last supper. Incredibly we allow other kinds of symbolism, sometimes quite absurd. In a meeting recently the congregation were given small pieces of paper, asked during the opening song to fold and tear them into the shape of little effigies. At the end of the meeting the congregation were invited to lay their effigies on the mercy seat, as a symbol of giving themselves to The Lord. Such permitted - the sacred communion frowned upon. Is it not time to simply allow those who would like to celebrate a simple form of Holy Communion to do so without incurring dileasure or discipline? We do not need regulations about it, maybe a few simple guidelines as to how it might be celebrated simply and with dignity.
I wholly agree with the above comment. Some corps do hold 'communion' meetings, especially around Easter time, when the Maundy Thursday service is centred on the Last Supper, and bread and (non-alcoholic) wine will be eaten and drunk. None of this is sanctioned officially, but it's a nonsense to make it an issue of exclusion in a Christian church. Gone are the days (sadly) when large numbers of out-and-out drunkards flocked to the mercy seat to be saved from the demon drink, and it isn't the case today that whole families belong to and worship at the Army. Many attendees are 'single spouse' whose partners/husbands/wives do not attend with them and who are not bound by TSA's rules and prohibitions. Many such people don't take the step into soldiership because they actually want to enjoy their personal relationships and not be hindered by 'taking the pledge'. These people are not drunkards - they don't come to the meetings smelling of alcohol, and in many cases their souls are more Christian than those of us who wear full uniform. They settle quite comfortably into adherency, and as such are denied some avenues of service for which they are eminently suitable, while the 'insiders' scrabble around for uniformed soldiers to put into 'local officer' positions who are definitely not suitable. Wise - or unwise?
Personally I don't have a desire to abandon my teetotal position, but then I have no divisive forces within my family unit. But I do have friends who make these sacrifices for service in order to maintain harmony at home. there may be a chance that in changing its 'absolute' stance on alcohol, TSA could enhance its ranks with some really good people.
Post a Comment