* A lot of what I say on this post makes more sense if you have read "Milking" Triage and "Milking" Triage even further first.
On the mission field, it makes all the difference in the world whether or not you get to choose the team you will be on, and whether or not everyone "signs on" to the team "core values" from the beginning. I imagine this principle transfers to most any walk of life. But as a missionary, missions is the one with which I am most familiar.
Aubrey Malphurs, in the book Values-Driven Leadership, talks about the need for Pastoral Candidates and Pastor Search Committees to each identify their own "core values" beforehand, and to openly talk about them in the interviewing process, in order to avoid unnecessary friction and misunderstandings in the future.
On a missionary team, when it becomes apparent that things aren’t working out, things can get messy, and feelings can get hurt. From what I understand, situations like this are actually one of the leading causes of missionaries leaving the mission field.
For this reason, I believe it is much better to define expectations from the ground up. But sometimes circumstances just play out differently. In the midst of all of this, the different parties concerned can choose to react in different ways. We can go our own way. We can agree to disagree. We can hold grudges forever. And we can get "stuck"…
A "serendipity" on the mission field has been seeing how people, who for one reason or another we decided it would be best not to work with on the same team, have since come to be counted among our best friends. Then, there are others with whom, although you try your best to treat them courteously, there is no real basis for a true friendship.
My question is: how does all of this I have described on a "micro" (individual team) level play out on a "macro" (entire denomination) level? In the SBC, some have felt the rules have been changed on them in the middle of the game. At times, though, for the overall good, it is necessary to make difficult decisions. And, unfortunately, there is sometimes "fallout."
Some of you church history students out there will have to let me know if I am off-base here or not…
It seems to me the original church "creeds" had to do with "level one" triage concerns. If you could not agree to everything in the "creed," you were considered "anathema." (I know, I know, the word "creed" or "credo" just means "I believe"). The Baptist Faith and Message (whatever year you please) consists of both "level one" and "level two" triage concerns. I wonder if it would help us to heal as a denomination to clearly communicate to those with whom we have gone our separate ways due to "level two" triage issues that we do not consider them to be "anathema."