There has historically been a tension between
those from whom this tithe is extracted and their superior officers whose
financial existence is predicated on enforcing the policy. Yet there have
always been exceptions made in the paying of this 'tithe', particularly when
extaordinary donations (Kroc) or large government grants became more common for
supporting some SA programs. The supervision of expenditures from specific
grants became a shared task between the government entity providing funds and
TSA overseers seeking to insure funds were expended according to 'regulations'.
Some contracts specifically excluded the payments of such (in their view
'unnecessary') supervisory costs. So the tithing system of TSA
bureaucracy has never been entirely satisfactory or wholly enforceable as TSA
has become more integrated into the societies, mores and cultural norms of
an international entity.
TSA has historically encountered issues of
corruption and graft (an operating norm in many underdeveloped countries) from
its inception as an international organization. Superimposing a Canadian
cultural norm upon Zimbabwe invites tension and conflict. TSA has attempted
to operate with black and white principles where everything is done in shades
of gray and where a 'gift' is expected in return for a favor.
It will take a leader, a General of of
extraordinary courage and ultimate faith in the mission of TSA to invite an
honest evaluation of what has transpired in the 'Thistle affair'. An open
investigation would reveal the concessions, exceptions and contradictions
in Zimbabwe which have allowed TSA to operate in Africa, India, Haiti and every
other developing region of the world. Money, how it's generated, how it's spent
and by whom and with what controls lies at the root of this matter and with
most conflicts of mankind. Is anyone at IHQ prepared to invite absolute
tranparency in the investigation how TSA raises and spends
billions of dollars annually? Can we tolerate the shades of gray that
exist?
Former Officer
USA West
64 comments:
This blogger has good insight into the issues of SA funding. We are a top heavy organization and the bureaucracy is costly but add to that cost, the corruption referred to in this article, which results in the fact that money moving through proper channels just often doesn't get to the front lines of ministry and one realizes the whole funding system has to change.
When faced with saving life and limb a doctor I'm sure is left with no choice but to become an independent fundraiser and very likely many other missionaries as well as doctors find themselves in the same position.
Generally speaking IHQ turns a blind eye to this independent fundraising until someone makes a big deal about it. Without a doubt the Canadian territory and IHQ knew Dr. Paul Thistle was doing independent fundraising - he appeared on television in parts of Canada. He went twice to the nation's capital and on one such occasion the ambassador from Zimbabwe was in attendance as well as officers in the city. So there's no way that the Army didn't know about this independent fundraising.
But it became a problem when Commissioner Chigariro started objecting, and why did she object? She wasn't getting her cut anymore from this independent fund raising. She really had IHQ over a barrel by insisting they enforce their own system of funding.
Rather than change this archaic system that funds a very top heavy organization, IHQ made the decision to maintain and support their policy and procedures for funding, thus supporting Com. Chigariro and sacrificing a brilliant officer surgeon, suggesting all kinds of preposterous reasons for his removal from he's too big for his breeches to his surgery poses a liability for TSA to the Army wants to only do primary care in Africa.
This blog submission is very insightful.
The paragraph beginning 'Rather than.....' is a brilliant assessment of the HH tragedy in a nutshell. It can only - surely - be a matter of time before IHQ have to bow to pressure to actually state this. I do pray that General Cox will have the insight to realise that nothing but an external enquiry will do in this instance, and I pray that he will have the moral courage to instigate it. The ripples of this story are spreading ever wider.
This is like the sword of Damocles hanging over the head of TSA.
Trying to get my head around the fact that the HH is constructing a new hospital building with several operating theaters but will be only a mission primary care facility and without surgeons?
How far can this fiasco be spun?
Or you could look at it from another perspective in that the trustee of the total capital asset (SATCO) allows 90% of it to remain for the operational purposes of its local expression ( corps, social centre or whatever). There is no extraction of funds going on as SATCO manages to total sum.
It is always good to remember that every single aspect of The Salvation Army is operational under the trusteeship of a formal and legally bound Salvation Army Trustee Company.
The local corps is not an autonomous or independent unit, it does not have any capital nor any other assets. It is SATCO that owns, manages, protects and directs these on behalf of The Salvation Army as the relevant legal entity by law.
As a Corps Officer, I have never, ever begrudged such an arrangement as more often than not have been the recipient of far larger amounts of financial mission support in return.
Remember when you next walk into the local SA building......you do not own the seat you are sitting on, the instrument you are blowing, the spoon you stir your coffee with nor even the toilet paper sheet you wipe your bum with...... now, that is a thought!
Until after 1929, it all used to belong to 'the General' - under personal title - as well ;);)
So if a former building is sold the whole fund minus 10% remains with the corps. The whole situation seems very carefully put together for the greater good of SATCO.
I presume that trustees are not working for TSA as under UK charity rules you cannot benefit financially from income raised; exception being out of pocket expenses.
Perhaps TSA needs a complete overhall of its assets and the HH saga is makingthe day of significant external investigation more imminent by the day.
This blog is well placed to bring the light of day into the grey areas now more revealled by the day.
I hope that the leadership jump to action before an even bigger pictures are revealed. You only have to look at the RC actions being taken in the Vatican on the bishop of a German Diocese who spent huge amounts. If Pope Francis can steamroller changes so can our leadership.
Yes the article is insightful and both you and Art Johnstone sum up the situation well in my opinion.
Independent Inquiry need at Howard Hospital into what went on and what is currently happening there and also an Independent Review of SA administration of funds. Time now for this to take place.
Sven Ljungholm, can we expect more insight on ethics and why they're interpreted and applied differently across SA territories?
SA officer, USA
In 1995 donations were coming from IHQ lumped together without adequate information regarding the individual donations, making the sending of thank you notes, photos and newsletters extremely difficult. The donations were often delayed, a very sensitive one raised by children at the SA Children's Village in Calgary, Alberta taking nearly a year to show up, and then only after much correspondence. It seems there was a problem with cash flow at THQ, but they kept telling us the money had not arrived yet, and the children became very discouraged. Soon thereafter money and donations started to disappear altogether.
The same year, 1995, the hospital chaplain was found to be building his retirement house at nearby Glendale with material paid for by the hospital. The curious thing was that, when faced up with it, he seemed to think that everyone was doing it.
Two years later, when Major Vinece Chigariro was Hospital Administrator, some $43,000 was put in an investment account within THQ's account, or so we thought, and disappeared. It happened during a change of appointment of Senior Clerk, and, despite repeated requests for THQ to check if it had mistakenly been put in their general account, was never found.
IHQ realized these demands were unrealistic and tried to send a retired officer couple to help set up systems of financial accountability and reporting. The Commissioner of Zimbabwe refused to accept them saying that a national officer was in place who would do this. The national officer turned out to be incompetent and/or corrupt and the financial requirements of the Army have never been met.
The then Colonel Cox was in Zimbabwe from July 1987 until October 1997: Finance Secretary – 4/94 to 10/97. The person who replaced Cox was a Zimbabwean.
HH employee at the time
As a former leader in overseas work, I can confirm that often work was only possible because some officers received direct financial assistance from previous territories, corps, friends etc, and I never required them to pay any cent age on such, regarding this income as an added blessing. The problem is that if any leader, in our system, wants to exert authority, he or she has the power to do so. Power corrupts, and sadly far too many good people have been lost by what was really weak and not strong leadership, because-any leader who has to depend upon authority, or regulations, or rank, is in fact a weak leader. I always had a few 'mavericks' but if they were dedicated, committed, and loyal to their calling, the need was to get alongside them, understand and support them, and often they later themselves became good leaders. In the early days most of the successful pioneer officers were to a degree non-conformists (as was the SA in its beginnings) but our system has discouraged those, and there is nothing worse than mediocre leadership at the top. How right commentators are in statin that General Cox will need much strength and courage. I doubt whether any General has faced suc major issues as he now faces and he will need all our prayers.
Anonymous, your post and the two that followed it have provided the springboard to tonight's blog article - may run to three articles on ethical schizophrenia, a dilemma that most expat officers serving in third world countries battle.
My wife and I have worked in third world countries since leaving officership. What is being discussed here is not found just in the Army but in most other no for profit organisation. Indiginous leadership seen to have a Entitlement Mentality and and in thier hands multiple thousands of dollars disappear. One expat Bishop of another denomination in an African country spent most of his time in the USA where he built a house worth close to a million dollars and sent all of his children to U S universities. While in the meantime pastors in his denomination were recieving no more than $5.00 a week in salary. We found the best agencies to work with was those who had U S feet on the ground handling the funds.
We can't forget this point either, which I brought up in the HH report in August:
"there is a recently enacted law in Zimbabwe called the “Indigenisation and Empowerment Act”. According to the Indigenisation Act, any foreign-owned businesses with a net asset value of US$500,000 and above should all be in the hands of the locals in the next five years. Zanu PF (Zimbabwe African National Union – Patriotic Front), which is driving the program, said the program is meant to empower the locals and redress colonial imbalances. This act is viewed as aiming at transferring mineral wealth to indigenous Zimbabweans, but could affect all sectors of society.
It is unclear at this time how the Indigenisation Act will affect the work of Howard Hospital or any other mission-based operation. While facilities are owned and equipped by their supporting sponsor organizations and donors, the funding for day-to-day operations of these missions come from outside of Zimbabwe, and are directly earmarked for use at the missions for salaries, medicines, equipment and other necessities. The monetary value of these donations would certainly cross the threshold of US$500,000, but the items of transient value should not be considered assets. Staff salaries, medical consumables such as drugs and one-use supplies (latex gloves, suture silk, bandages, etc), and operating expense for utilities and repairs would not normally be considered as assets in a mission-based hospital facility. The interpretation of categorization of the monies used on these items is unclear."
How risky is it to continue the project unless we have assurances that the Army won't lose ownership of the facility and/or the materials within the building?
"So if a former building is sold the whole fund minus 10% remains with the corps. The whole situation seems very carefully put together for the greater good of SATCO."
No, the whole building, including content belongs to SATCO, the freehold land, the deeds etc. There is no such legal entity as 'XXX Citadel'. SATCO is a separate legal entity that manages the total affairs of the SA in the UK and is THE accountable body in law.
SATCO own the property so they ought to be responsible for repairs themselves instead of Corps who are tennents in landlords property. This is not the case however.
"The whole situation seems very carefully put together for the greater good of SATCO."
Oh, that is not the half of it.
Since this is a former SA officers site, you cannot forget to consider the "agreement" that officers sign prior to their commissioning, which is definitely skewed in favor of the Army...
An officer is accepted as such on condition that he or she makes these promises and declarations:
1) I give myself in response to the call of God of my own free will to the ministry of The Salvation Army, and in doing so I acknowledge that as an officer I regard the fundamental nature of my relationship to the Army as spiritual.
2) I accept and will faithfully teach the doctrines and standards of conduct of The Salvation Army.
3) I will observe the orders and regulations of The Salvation Army as issued from time to time, accepting that the principles and procedures contained therein are based upon the Army's understanding of Christian principles.
4) I will not do or say anything to injure The Salvation Army or to reflect unfavorably upon its integrity and purpose.
5) I will accept the direction of my leaders in regard to my ministry, trusting that God will guide them in appointing me where I can most effectually advance the Kingdom of Christ.
6) I will faithfully fulfill all the requirements of my appointments.
7) I will commit myself to the ministry of The Salvation Army and not engage in any remunerative employment, or allow other interests or time commitments to interfere with my service as an officer.
8) Any creative ability I may have, including writing and song and music composition, shall be dedicated to the furtherance of the aims and principles of The Salvation Army.
9) I understand that there is neither a contract of service or employment nor a legal relationship between me and the Army, and accordingly I shall have no legal claims upon the Army or the Army upon me. I understand and agree that, although I may expect to receive allowances according to an official scale, no allowance is guaranteed to me. I accept that any such allowance is not a wage, salary, reward or payment for services rendered.
10) I will be responsible for my own personal expenses and those of my dependents, unless provided for by The Salvation Army.
11) I will not solicit or encourage any presentation, or any gift or testimonial to myself, or use my position as a Salvation Army officer for personal gain.
12) I undertake to account for all monies entrusted to me and to keep records as may be required, accepting my responsibilities as a steward of the resources placed under my control."
Too quick on the save button...
So, as an officer, you have no legal employee/employer standing with TSA, you don't receive a salary, whatever allowance you may (or not!) is not for "services rendered", any creative work you generate belongs to the Army, you cannot seek any outside employment (even though you do not have any guarantee you'll have an income of any form from TSA)... and the list goes on...
SATCO is ultimately responsible for the repairs needed to keep the property safe, wind and water tight and in serviceable order. Hence the comprehensive structures in place ie Planned Maintenance and Health and Safety.
As a landlord to a local group of people using its property (rent free), it is obliged by law to ensure the safety of the people attending. The same goes for officers quarters of course. And the SA goes to great lengths providing the climate for Safe Mission.
Whether this always done to the full satisfaction of the local users is certainly debatable.
And what is also good to remember is that it provides financial Mission Support to well over half the UK corps to keep it supplied with officer leadership. In other words THQ is meeting the financial needs for a very large number of small and not so small corps to stay in existence.
Remember, the SA is probably the most generous of any denominational structures in regards to supplying full time leadership and financial resources to a local setting where other churches have to close or amalgamate due to lack of both.
So, chose wisely before biting the hand that may well be keeping your set up in existence!
'So, chose wisely before biting the hand that may well be keeping your set up in existence!'
If it weren't for officers, there would be no corps, and whereas I agree with you about meeting the needs of corps on mission support, it has to be said that the 'generous' Army structure does not extend to caring for officers who need spiritual and/or other types of support. You can't get comfort or reassurance from a building and its health and safety certificate. TSA does not have a good record when it comes to HR matters and dealing with their own people. It works both ways.
In the UK at least, to all intents and purposes, the full monthly allowance is guaranteed in that it is credited into your bank account on the set monthly pay day. So is any non-contributory retirement allowance.
Whilst this comes out of the local account, even where there is no money available, it is still being paid in full alongside other corps expenses. The days of little bags of silver and bronze begrudgingly passing hands from CT to CO have long past!
Being a clerical 'Office holder' over being a full employee has got many advantages as well as some disadvantages. To wish for a change of status could well be a financially very costly one for both officer and SA.
I agree with the first comment - TSA is too top-heavy and needs radical overhauling. How many officers - called by God to be shepherds to the flock - are now in admin positions in plush offices far away from the day-to-day needs of the people of today because they couldn't cope with the pressure at the sharp end? I'm not blaming them - I realise that sometimes there are extenuating circumstances - but I'm just asking the question.
I am sure that there are folks who feel they have not been treated fairly or generously enough - this is to be greatly deplored, I am sure that will be the case in certain instances but definitely not all.
On the whole, from long personal experience, the UKTI today is a magnanimous and generous territory in spirit and practice. Long may this stay that way.
HR is a most complicated aspect of any organisational structure - HH is just one classical example how complicated and complex it can be or be made - do you are damned, don't you are also damned.....
You have just answered your own question?!
As for 'plush offices', in the UK at least, from IHQ/ THQ/DHQ downwards there is nothing 'plush' about any of the properties or fixtures beyond them being functional and of good quality. Definitely not 'plush'!
Just reading through this, and this statement intrigued me: 'The then Colonel Cox was in Zimbabwe from July 1987 until October 1997: Finance Secretary – 4/94 to 10/97. The person who replaced Cox was a Zimbabwean'.
Unless I'm mistaken, the dates quoted mean that the General would have known everything that went on regarding fundraising at HH until fairly recently, and would have been the financial secretary at the time when the $43K went missing, and he then moved fairly quickly after that. Does that mean he would have condoned or turned a blind eye to a lot that shouldn't have happened - 10 years is a long time to serve - another anomaly in the claim that SA officers are routinely transferred after five years - or did he move because he challenged it?
And how does that affect our expectations of the man? Does this augur well for an independent enquiry and/or more transparency or not?
'As for 'plush offices', in the UK at least, from IHQ/ THQ/DHQ downwards....'
I WAS referring to IHQ etc. It amazes me how many officers are in admin posts. Always has. Lay people could do the admin, surely.
Another act to the conspiracy plot?
'HR is a most complicated aspect of any organisational structure'
It's complicated for other organisations in the secular world, too, but they seem to make a better job of it than TSA.
'Another act to the conspiracy plot?'
What conspiracy plot? There is none - just a seeking after the elusive truth.
At least engage your brain before you make any wild, unsubstantiated statements.
Do you know how many executive/ non executive officers are actually based at or work from IHQ, and what their roles are? And how many lay clerical, admin employees and what they do too?
tutut
'wild, unsubstantiated statements'??????
What's wild and unsubstantiated about it? It was merely an observation. Is that frowned upon as well? Really!
What 'seems' to be is rarely what is in reality! It is subjective and prejudicial from internal perspective - as seen through a particular narrow or blinkered lens.
Would you recognise and accept 'the' truth if it was presented to you on a plate and it did not conform to your expectation or understanding?
'Would you recognise and accept 'the' truth if it was presented to you on a plate and it did not conform to your expectation or understanding?'
Yes, I would - unequivocally - I have, sadly, had to accept some quite unpalatable truths in my lifetime. And I haven't tried to 'spin' any of it, either. Truth is sometimes stranger than fiction, but to be valued, nevertheless, whatever the consequences, and is part and parcel of my spiritual journey.
Five year appointments max? General Paul Rader was commissioned and sent directly to South Korea and where he spent 19 years. And his officer brothers spent an almost equal time in missionary service, two in India and one in Zambia. And then there's General Eva- how many years in Zim? And Col Nobel and all the rest! 5 years? Rubbish!
They obviously didn't rock any Army boats, so they didn't fall foul of the convenient 'routine' appointment fiasco. You can replicate that a hundred times as well. Army spin and just not true.
I know this is a website for former officers but it is a public website and non SA officers read it with interest.
The 12 point agreement signed by officers reads like a cult agreement, especially #9, which is insane.
I would never have become an officer because I could never have signed such an agreement and I have asked myself, would God ever truly call a person to such a relationship with an organization? I doubt it because I don't believe God would actually require anyone to give up their freedom in Christ to such an extent and hand over so much control of their life to anyone but Him.
Not to offend people who in their idealism and desire to serve the Lord have signed this, but I don't believe God would want any Christian to place him/herself in such a relationship with any organization. It's idolatrous - the Army taking the place of God in the life of an officer. It is wrong, unethical and yes, un-Christian for a church to require their clergy to sign off on such an agreement.
I have read with interest about this HH tragedy. It seems to me the brilliant Dr. Paul Thistle and his competent wife would have been better to remain non-officers. They might still be at the HH today had they not become officers of TSA five years prior to their dismissal and termination.
There's been much discussion here about TSA revising it's funding system, it's hierarchical structures - obviously needed - but I would add to this that TSA should change the requirements for being a SA officer. These 12 requirements reveal officership to be an idolatrous cult.
This website is for everyone, although there is a focus on issues that have faced formers. It's also a place where insights into issues with the Army that cannot get a public discussion on Army-run websites.
Ask the Rader's and any others what appointments they have received within those 19 years and you will find they have been varied and regular. They certainly did not stay in one appointment and role for 19 years! Be more creative and honest in your thinking and expression!
The Raders may not have done so, but you cannot deny that many others did. At least one of them has appeared in 'Salvationist' to speak of how God is using them in their appointment, and in my particular corps we have had officers stay much longer than five years, and although we were happy with them, and there was spiritual growth for the first time in years, TSA moved them because DHQ felt that the 'Holy Spirit' had spoken and 'poof!' they were gone. The corps did not benefit from this 'Holy Spirit' guidance, which was actually just an expedient move to cover other changes in circumstances throughout the territory. Length of service does sometimes far exceed 5 years, and it's useless to argue about it.
I wholeheartedly agree with the comment above .......'The 12 point agreement signed by officers reads like a cult agreement, especially #9, which is insane'.
When I read the officers' 'agreement' above I marvelled that ANYONE would sign up to it. To sacrifice a good livelihood for this rubbish is nothing short of miraculous. I am amazed that anyone would do it. It's one thing to be called by God into full-time ministry, and there has to be a huge degree in faith to do this, especially when one is settled in a rewarding secular lifestyle, but to commit to this nonsense your overwhelming spiritual yearning to do God's work must overtake all sense of reason. Anything or anyone which/who purports to take the place of commitment to God has to be a false god.
Some would argue that an officer's lot is a comfortable one these days, with nice houses and a car provided, but to have it all hung on a false tenet is shocking. No-one should have to promise these things just to fulfil a calling to ministry.
In 9 out of 10 cases there would probably be no issues, until problems surface in one form or another, and you either clash with the ideology of TSA, or personal circumstances dictate events. Either way, you're on a loser then, if the testimonies of many 'formers' are to be believed (and I do). No-one should ever sign this officers 'covenant'. TSA should exercise the same amount of faith in a would-be officer that that would-be officer exercises in signing up for officership - without the 'cult' expectations.
TSA is two-faced as well. Major Chick Yuill fell foul of its leadership and resigned from officership. Now successful in ministry outside TSA, the Army is courting him and inviting him to speak at events and write articles for 'Salvationist'. Unbelievable audacity, and proof of an absence of principles.
It's sad that TSA resorts to this.
Nobody on this blog has said that 5years is the standard appointment length for any officer. 'Regular' was the word used. Since Dr Thistle had done 16 years or so already, he should have expected that one day his time would be up at HH. It is easy to major on minors. And he probably would still have been there if the inter-personal relationships had not turned so bitter. At least a change there has allowed for a through start and different approach as proposed.
Many officers in the UK stay far in excess of 5 years nowadays anyway. Corps officers abound who have served 8-10 years in the same appointment - one corps officer I know of stayed for 18 years in the same appointment - this being an exception rather than the rule.
I agree it wasn't anyone on this blog who quoted 5 years - it was actually IHQ. The extract from their statement is:
'The Salvation Army International Headquarters Statement regarding Howard Hospital, Zimbabwe with an updated Q&A
Press Statement released on 26 October 2012
What were the reasons for Dr Thistle leaving?
Dr Thistle is a Salvation Army officer so his title is Captain (Dr) Paul Thistle. Salvation Army officers are regularly transferred. It is rare to stay more than five years especially in your first appointment. The Thistles have only known Howard Hospital – they have been there for 17 years so the desire is to broaden their experience.....'
Your point that many officer stay longer than 5 years is true - so the statement regarding Dr Thistle was a nonsense from the start - and not believable.
Not at all, the IHQ statement, as read, is factual and true!
It is indeed very rare for an officer in his/her FIRST appointment to stay for over 5 years. The fact the Dr Thistle had been there for 17 years, mainly in the same role as CMO, and still having to serve at least as many years until SA retirement, there would have had to come a time of parting sometime.
This is a very sage and well tested organisational decision so as not to stifle the (professional) development of anyone nor get bogged down, nor allow for fresh thinking to the appointment to be applied.
So the statement is correct and has integrity.
'So the statement is correct and has integrity'. Not in my book - he was only there as an OFFICER for 5 years - TSA statement was ridiculous because there was no-one to replace him, so to my interpretation it was not the truth. And it begs the question if he had been there for so long, why did they want him to be an officer? TSA invited him and his wife to become officers - they didn't ask. It doesn't make sense.
...'sage and well tested organisational decision' - did you read this before publishing it?
Sage it was most definitely was not, and well-tested? What other CMO has had this happen to him? Surely this is a one-off event?
How many years did Dr Thistle serve as an Officer? It was not 17yrs!
No - he was at Howard Hospital for 17 years - but an officer at HH for just 5 years.
I read the article in 'All the World' about Howard Hospital and also the balance to this article by Jolinda Cooper which she wrote in a FSAOF blog. The article in 'All the World' left much to be desired and on the point of there being no mention in it of either Dr Watt or Dr Thistle I asked the question why this was so on 11.10.13 and received this reply dated 15.10.13: "Dear Mr Pogson, Many thanks for your message. The article is about the current situation at Howard Hospital and plans for the future. While Drs Watt and Thistle undoubtebly played significant roles in the hospital's past,so did many other medical and administrative staff. It would be impossible to single out every individual that has played a part in the hospital's 85 years of service to the community. Regards, Kevin Sims (Editor, All the World)"
Unbelievably ungracious of Kevin Sims and the editorial team. These two men were the heartbeat of the hospital for many years. The Joystrings are also part of the Army's past but they don't mind wheeling them out when it suits them, as well as other 'golden oldies'. We're always having Army history thrown at us in one form or another - strange how they omitted these two men who did so much good.
Does this mean that no part of our history will ever be mentioned again? I don't think so.
It's also customary when writing an article to begin with a 'pen picture' of what led up to the present situation. Why leave it out in this case?
Tut tut SA!
Well said.
Dr Watt and Dr Thistle were very useful in the past to the Army as vignettes in the public portrayals of how great the Army is and how much good work they do, so please won't you give us more money. But now the bloom is off the rose and these vignettes only serve to underscore the greed and corruption in high places in the Army.
Now that Watt and Thistle have become bright lights shining on the dark places of the Army's heart and soul, the lights must be extinguished.
I am reminded of the scene in the movie The Wizard of Oz, where the characters in the movie are told to "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain! The Great Oz has spoken!"
Watt, Thistle, Sven, FSOAF members, contributions and readers - the Army does not want you to pay attention to the real mechanics and real people behind the curtain. They only want you to see the Great and Powerful Army, which Does the Most Good and which speaks of One Army, One World and One Message.
We all know that the Great Oz was just an illusionist in the film............!
FSAOF - keep up the good work! The results so far in the search for truth, transparency and accountability have been stupendous.
TSA has published articles about HH - which not many people had actually heard of, and now they are in the Army's periodicals, people are wondering what it's all about, and the story is spreading.
The whole Army 'machine' and its leadership is now being questioned by a wider audience than previously.
Questions are being asked about the motivation of TSAs 'top brass' - do they give pre-eminence to God, or to the 'great and powerful Army'.
I just saw on Twitter that Dean Pallant has chaired the third meeting of a review of Salvation Army accountability systems at IHQ yesterday (tweet of 1st October). He says they are open to insight and advice. Interesting.
IHQ have been to HH again.
The cult-like nature of the Officers' covenant is coming under scrutiny, and not before time.
Unfortunately, it's been comparable to pulling teeth - every scrap of information has been painfully elicitated due to the shameful reluctance of TSA to admit its wrongdoing. But I do pray that the truth will eventually outshine all that has happened.
God bless the people of Chiweshe
God bless the Thistles in their new ministry
And last but not least - God bless TSA.
Since God has no favourites, God is blessing each with equal measure.
Thank God that such gracious blessings do not depend on the whims and notions of fallible mankind in the form of self appointed gatekeepers/ watchmen on a little internet blog!
"God is good all the time - all the time God is good"
'God is good all the time - all the time God is good'
I don’t want to burst your love bubble, but all God’s goodness to us is conditional – see some words from Romans chapter 11:
‘You Gentiles are like branches of a wild olive tree that were made to be part of a cultivated olive tree. You have taken the place of some branches that were cut away from it. And because of this, you enjoy the blessings that come from being part of that cultivated tree. But don’t think you are better than the branches that were cut away. Just remember that you are not supporting the roots of that tree. Its roots are supporting you.
Maybe you think those branches were cut away, so that you could be put in their place. That’s true enough. But they were cut away because they did not have faith, and you are where you are because you do have faith. So don’t be proud, but be afraid. If God cut away those natural branches, couldn’t he do the same to you?
Now you see both how kind and how hard God can be. He was hard on those who fell, but he was kind to you. And he will keep on being kind to you, if you keep on trusting in his kindness. Otherwise, you will be cut away too.
If those other branches will start having faith, they will be made a part of that tree again. God has the power to put them back. After all, it wasn’t natural for branches to be cut from a wild olive tree and to be made part of a cultivated olive tree. So it is much more likely that God will join the natural branches back to the cultivated olive tree. My friends, I don’t want you Gentiles to be too proud of yourselves.’
God shows us in our conscience what is right and what is wrong in His sight, and He trains us, His children, to walk in obedience to Him. If we don’t obey, the fate of the olive tree branch awaits us.
So says the Word of the Lord.
chop, chop, who's there? :0;)
It's very sad that whenever some Bible quotes appear on this blog, there's always someone (I guess who purports to be a Christian) to put the mockers on. Why? The words are God's, not the writer's, and they should be heeded, not mocked.
The chop chop quote meant nothing to me, so I googled it and found it was a sick game that had been banned. Nice reading - not.
Surely, the words are only divine as interpreted and understood as such by any writer who thinks with a fallible mind set. This through a narrow lens that is biased and prejudiced, cultivated from within a particular religious and cultural appreciation?
Quoting specific bible texts in itself has got very little value as it usually leads to other quotes being used to 'proof and correct' the opposite. It is like a merry go round with no dignified exit point.
Well, there we are then - just abandon all biblical guidelines - excellent stuff - what then shall we be guided by? Sick video games as above?
The Bible says that 'All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It corrects us when we are wrong and teaches us to do what is right'.
Indisputable fact for Christians.
....'any writer who thinks with a fallible mind set'.
Is there any other kind? Or is the writer of this comment perfect?
...'a narrow lens that is biased and prejudiced,'
Prejudiced towards the word of God only.
...'particular religious and cultural appreciation?'
Just Christian - remember us? We're the ones too holy to be of any earthly use. I am actually proud to be one of them.
...'it usually leads to other quotes being used to 'proof and correct' the opposite'
Perhaps, oh perfection, you could quote one - just to prove that God is wrong.
Why, o why, does internet blogging becomes so viciously personal and persistently nasty when a equally validly held viewpoint does not agree with another?
The actual Bible verse (King James version) is "Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall." (Proverbs 16:18)
If you are too confident about yourself, usually something will happen to show you that you are not as good as you think you are.
Maybe because the comment beginning 'Surely,.....' appeared to be personal? That's the way I read it, as if the writer had the monopoly on truth and wisdom. But none of this is about personal confidence - it's all about NOT having confidence in TSA to do the right thing. The biblical verse from Proverbs applies equally to institutions and organisations, depending on the context in which it is being examined.
No-one has any monopoly on truth and wisdom - it is only true if you believe it to be true.
After all, it is all in the interpretation and context of the individual.
This has been the case in the past and will remain so in the future. For some Salvationists only a literal, inerrant, directly dictated reading and application will do whilst for other fellow Salvationists there is more room for contextual interpretation, application and allowing for time and circumstances.
In between polarised extremes there is normally a large middle ground where most people find themselves comfortably and secure without a choking rope around some-ones neck. Thank God that there is equal room for all!
Post a Comment