The Red Songbook

It never ceases to amaze me the constant debate that continues in our little Salvation Army circles over the use of said "red songbook." As I have served in 3 appointments now, all very different, I have heard a myriad of reasons to use and not to use the "sacred book." Some say the songs are old and tired. Some say the words are beautiful, poetic, full of meaning. Still others comment that it is has it's place but, needs to be used sparingly as it does not reach the modern generation.

I have come to the conclusion that this is a lose/lose debate. The younger generation is advocating for the "praise and worship" songs and the older generation is hanging on to what has brought meaning to their worship through the years. The Salvation Army has tried to build a mini-bridge with the Hallelujah Chorus series, however, if we really are honest about the whole subject, those songs are old now too. Cutting edge music would not include songs such as "Fan the Flame" or "All That I Am." Those are beautiful songs with meaningful words. However, there are 20 just like them in the chorus section of the songbook, just without keyboard and drums behind them. Why is it that we are afraid to move forward with the culture?

It seems that The Salvation Army is always about 10-15 years behind the culture of the day. I believe there are countless officers and soldiers out there who are interested in moving forward, trying new things, being 'emergent.' Once again, we run into the fact that our leadership consists of those who have faithfully served and with all those years of experience come years of traditions and meaningful experiences which they translate into methods (even those methods are often outdated.)

So, why choose to title this "The Red Songbook?" The answer is simple. Our Salvation Army will never be able to 'keep up with the times' and reach the unreachable if we are unwilling to veer away from some things we hold dear. Jesus instructed us to go into the world and make disciples...to leave the familiar for the sake of the lost....the scriptures are full of examples. Yet, we can not even agree on whether to use the "red songbook" or "praise and worship" or "Hallelujah Choruses." This is just a mere example. The red songbook is just an example of how petty we become when it becomes more about the movement that the mission.

I challenge you that next time someone starts arguing about blending the worship with the red songbook and hallelujah choruses to ask them what really matters? And truthfully, if we are going to reach todays generation, neither will do!

Just a Corps Officer

The mere mentioning of that phrase "Just a Corps Officer" often turns heads and sparks debate, heated at times, about the importance of the corps and the officers who have been entrusted with its operation. But, if we really take a good look at our organization, is it really the corps officer who is the center of the decision making, the policy making, the pomp and circumstance??? Hmmm...This topic came up recently while I was attending the International Literary Conference in Washington, DC. Delegates came from around the world but, there were very few corps officers ( where many of the stories actually come from.) In conversation with some of my new "editor" friends I made the comment, in gest, "I am just a corps officer." (In the context of the conversation it was the perfect thing to say.) We all laughed about it and it became the joke of the week.

I have since had time to mull over that statement. In the Army world the Corps Officer is said to be "on the front line," "where the action is," "in the trenches." I have even had Divisional Commanders say to me that they would "rather be in the corps." Funny thing is, I have not seen many Divisional Commanders sent back to the Corps...or for that fact, Territorial Officers. Some officers have been on THQ for years and are the decision makers for what happens in the corps. Can they possibly know what it is like to be a corps officer in 2006 if their last corps appointment was in 1984????

What is the point? I am not a disgruntled CO...in fact, I LOVE my appointment. I just find it interesting that so often, it seems the corps officer is paid a lot of "lip service" ....anyone can say they would like to go back to the corps....or, that "they understand"...however, I wonder if it wouldn’t do our organization some good to have Corps Officers sitting on TEC. Or perhaps to require leaders to return to the corps in between leadership appointments to keep them abreast of what is really happening on the front lines. Another strange thing to me is ...If the corps officer truly is as important as it is stated so often, then why are Colonels and Commissioners entitled to more of a retirement celebration than a corps officer???

We have what we call Territorial Officers Advisory Committee here in the South. And yes, some of the ideas/concerns that are shared are taken into account and some things are changed. But, on many occasions, the comments from the TEC are transparent and one can see that they a) do not have small children any longer b) grew up in a day when the Army was different c) are really not "in touch" with day to day life in the corps as it exists today.

I am wondering what some of you out there think on this subject. I am going to be writing a piece for the Officer magazine and would be interested in your thoughts, both from administration and corps officers. This is not meant to be a complaint...instead, I would like it to be thought provoking and helpful to the future of the Salvation Army.

Look forward to some comments.