compromise anybody???

[bobhow1037]

6 months ago i was in the process of making a career change. i was faced with the challenge of deciding upon two..one company was overtly Christain. the second not so much. i chose the "CHRISTIAN" company, eventhough the other offered more money...things have changed a bit...PLEASE READ THE FOLLWONG, and offer feed back...("OUR" company's mission statement was chaged recently omitting Christ's Name, and i sent an email to our president which follows)

MR. R (omit)
I took exception to our new mission statement, (maybe I am over-reacting, but I don’t think so)
“In the Spirit of CHRISTian love….” (old mission statement)
“To share God’s love…” (new mission statement)
Why did “WE” as an organization, feel it necessary to change or Mission Statement? One that I feel was perfectly worded to being with. How long Have we declared CHRIST’S name in our mission statement? And when did “WE” decide it was appropriate to change it? Considering “WE” are an overtly CHRISTian organization, I find it disturbing “WE” omitted HIS name.
Did “WE” choose to make this change to appeal to the masses?
Please indulge me for a moment or two, and consider the following statements:
“to share Buddha’s love….” (Buddhism)
“to share Allah’s love….” (Islam) please note I am aware that Allah is a direct Arabic translation of our word God.
“to share Kāmadeva’s love….” (Hindu, one of millions of gods in this region)
“to share Jack’s love…” (Humanism)
Buddha, Allah, Kāmadeva, Jack. Etc..all are considered to be “god” by some.
I am afraid that by omitting Christ from our mission statement , we may have started a slippery slope of compromise.
I realize we did keep CHRIST’S name in our “VALUES.” But why not omit that next, or is that in the works?
Again I may be over-reacting, but then again, no I am not.
Some clarification would be appreciated.
Regards
B Howard
Admitting Department

 

[edie19]

works for me

 

[heymikey80]

I guess the question is, what's the point of reducing the visibility of the King of the Universe in ministry?

Is it to increase breadth, reduce suspicion of evangelism, reduce the PC visibility of a possibly-offensive message to anti-Christian contributors?

What is it, in comparison to overtly declaring the cause of Christ Jesus, King of this universe, in the world today?

 

[green wolverine]

You're dealing with an effort to make the gospel less offensive the same way the megachurches preach about worldly subjects hoping that it will keep them in the good graces of the unconverted.

I don't think you can do much about it other than voice your concern.

 

[bobhow1037]

here is the response i got from our Pres: (any more feedback would be welcomed)


Bob,

Thank you for your comments. The decision to change the Mission
Statement was made by the Governing Board. Back when ****
changed their mission statement they wanted all of the hospitals to
align their mission statements with that of ****. This
discussion was a long one with the board which addressed many of the
issues that you raised. While we make no apologies for our heritage
and faith based mission, this was a decision around alignment. Part of
the problem is that we had materiel that we were using the corporate
mission statement (as in Orientation) and then using ours. This was
confusing to many which led to a devaluation of the use of the mission
statement in our daily work. The board was resistant to taking the
reference to Christ out of our mission statement but in the end felt
that the focus didn't change, our values are very clear and it created
better alignment.

There are many that feel that the new mission statement is more
inclusive for our Jewish employees and physicians and others that may
not identify or even be offended by the reference. We serve a diverse
community and have a diverse workforce which we value. While we are
firmly grounded on our heritage and values, we also want to create
alignment around a mission statement that drives a care that connects to
a persons spiritual passion in caring for our patients and each other.

I appreciate your concern and want you to know that the concerns you
expressed were well represented in the discussions that led up to the
decision. This change in no way dilutes or limits our ability to each
carry out this mission in each interaction. **** remains as
does our hospital a Christian, faith-based organization. I don't expect
every single employee will agree with these decisions but I hope you can
find it in your heart to continue to support and live out our mission.

Thanks again for your concern.

 

[green wolverine]

So how do you feel about the response you got???

It's a shame Christians have to tiptoe around other faiths lest we're accused of offending them. The Jewish people knew it was a Christian hospital when they applied, interviewed and accepted the position. If was a problem, they should have looked for work elsewhere.

We have a Catholic hospital that has a women's health center where I have mammograms. They have cruxifixes on the wall as well as a Catholic mission statement in every room. It doesn't offend me as I know that's what they are. In fact, I rather appreciate the statement of faith.

 

[bobhow1037]

i feel that my original thoughts were confirmed: "...we have begun the slippery slope of compromise..." - i did a bit more research on "My" company and found that the vast majority of the companies associated with ***** used Christ's name in their Mission. in fact the "Father" company mission statement says this:
To participate in Jesus Christ’s ministry "to make man whole" by bringing health, healing, wholeness, and hope to humanity through education, health care, and research.

i am extremely disappointed in our recent decline...I have read that out of the major ***** networks we are only one of five nationaly that did not suffer a loss last year...it makes me wonder why....? and is this fact going to change next...i am at a loss.

 

[epistemaniac]

this statement (the Pres. response to your email) presupposes that any "spiritual alignment" is acceptable... but that is not Christ's own message... His is one of exclusivity, no other spirituality other than His is even recognized as valid. He makes no effort to even please His own people, the Jews, for if they reject Him, He rejects them. I agree, this seems to indicate a slide down the slipepry slpoe into vague "spirituality" in the face of plitically correct pressure to keep up the bottom line.

blessings,
ken

 

[heymikey80]

A couple of things ring in my ears immediately on reading ...

The board was resistant to taking the
reference to Christ out of our mission statement but in the end felt
that the focus didn't change, our values are very clear and it created
better alignment.

If Christ isn't central to a mission, He's not a factor to the mission. Here it's pretty clear Christ isn't even important enough to this mission to mention to others, generally.

There are many that feel that the new mission statement is more
inclusive for our Jewish employees and physicians and others that may
not identify or even be offended by the reference. We serve a diverse
community and have a diverse workforce which we value.

"It seems today the Scandalon offends no one at all // the image we present can be stepped over."

They have stumbled over the stumbling stone, as it is written,
"Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense;
and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame." Rom 9:32-33

I have confidence in the Lord that you will take no other view than mine, and the one who is troubling you will bear the penalty, whoever he is. But if I, brothers, still preach circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been removed. Gal 5:10-11

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6S2odJT8wb8

... While we are
firmly grounded on our heritage and values, we also want to create
alignment around a mission statement that drives a care that connects to
a persons spiritual passion in caring for our patients and each other.

The response of sensitivity and awareness of their heritage is very familiar to this Presbyterian. It's the statement of the liberal church. "We're aware of our heritage and embrace it." They embrace it as a past heritage. Going forward it will be secondary to their expressed mission -- which kinda goes without saying. (Sorry for all the double entendres.)

This change in no way dilutes or limits our ability to each
carry out this mission in each interaction. **** remains as
does our hospital a Christian, faith-based organization. I don't expect
every single employee will agree with these decisions but I hope you can
find it in your heart to continue to support and live out our mission.

As you can live out the Christian mission in some other organization without the name, you can live out the Christian mission here. But I would admit there's no clarity in the boundary. The line in the sand, whether it were a line before or not, has been swept away.

Again, with you personally, I don't see a specific need to rush out & quit. If you really wanted to make a statement, you'd need to have the authority in the workplace to work from & make that statement. This is no reason to rebel against a secular master; the point still applies, you're to treat a secular master as to Christ.

It's certainly no reason to consider this secular master as somehow greater than another secular master.

... our values are very clear and it created better alignment.
* * *
... We serve a diverse community and have a diverse workforce which we value.

The cause of Christ is no longer what they value: rather, diversity is their stated value, and the cause of Christ is silenced because of it.

It's probably not what he intended to say. But we all know actions and in this case the unintended revelation of his intent do speak louder than words.