Mark’s clip reminds me of a recent blog post by a friend of mine, Kathy Escobar. In the post Kathy discusses how churches having high standards for “excellence” often exclude those who live in the margins of society. She says “My litmus test for “church” (not business or nonprofit organizations) is ‘does everyone and I do mean everyone have a chance to participate in the way that they might want to?’ or is that limited by people who feel called by God to make sure that a standard of “excellence” is maintained?”
While I agree with a lot of what Kathy had to say, something still bothered me about her post. Is valuing excellence always bad in church? This clip from Mark got me thinking…what if excellence is a valuable component in “museum” expressions of church while detrimental to “studio” expressions?
Updating…
Mark Scandrette is the founding director of ReIMAGINE! in San Francisco, CA. He’s written the book Soul Graffiti and blogs at MarkScandrette.com.
i think the difference might be that museums are exclusive, they cull the best to hang. in fact, i would say the modern church follows that model- display the best to inspire the rest. but that seems to be a faulty model for church (great for museums) because the “silly has confounded the wise” and the beatitudes seem to scream below average. the church should never exclude the super talented, but maybe just not make them the center piece?
Really profound analogy, I think. Need to ponder this more. Love the contrast between the studio and the gallery…and that the church needs to somehow foster, encourage, acknowledge both spaces. Also an interesting argument for tradition/liturgy/ritual in how we remember the “Story” together. Wow.
Great Analogy
I liked his analogy of studio vs. museum and have experienced it fully. What I don’t “like” (there’s a better word to use there, but just stay with me if you will) is what your friend said about that collaborative environment versus the excellence environment. I think the comparisons of “X vs. Y” are actually quite foreign to the Kingdom of God–in fact often if not always when Jesus was presented with X or Y, he chose Z.
I think Kathy & Mark make excellent points about drawing those dichotomies. I just don’t think we need to get too hung up about them. I think we need to spend more time examining what Z is.
Hi Tim – I’m with you on not getting hung up on “X & Y”. I just wonder if there’s a point where we need to do more than just move on to “Z”. I think that’s the predicament Kathy finds herself in. She has helped create a “Z” space (check out this clip about the faith community she co-pastors), but has noticed along the way that many of the people she pastors have been wounded by churches in the name of excellence. Is there a point where she (or you or I for that matter) shouldn’t just move on, but speak up?
Great, great point, Craig.
Craig,
Excellent point (oops…!)! I think this cuts both ways. I think the person who has a gift who is excellent at what they do has an equal voice in saying “I wasn’t appreciated…” if suddenly we’re now seeking to ensure that all have a place at the table. I think this might be where “Z” comes in and re-orients the conversation away from asking ‘who’s the best person for this’ to ‘what’s the most important thing here…’. It reminds me of the scriptures where the disciples are arguing about who’s going to be the greatest in the kingdom. I think Jesus’ response to those conversations is really the teaching moment we need here. The greatest is the least. The more we create the environment where the greatest is the least then we’re really building the Kingdom of God and not some really cool place to hang on Sunday. Therefore the place we start is creating that environment first. Let me also say that I think the place for this has to be in smaller communities. When you get mega, suddenly showmanship becomes paramount to keep people’s attention. And thus the competition begins.
Tim
nice piece, craig. i know that excellence post bugged you a little, ha ha, and i am glad. it is good for us to wrestle with these weird tensions & responses. i agree with mark that the church should be a place to be inspired (in this metaphor, like going to a museum) so that people can take those longings & desires for what could be and begin to act on them. i know many a person who was inspired in “church” and began to dream about what was possible. the problem was that their source was a museum, not a studio, so the place that they wanted to be able to try & learn & create from wasn’t supportive of their work because it wasn’t good enough and probably never will be. i think there are places for set apart & excellence in worship & creating beautiful and powerful experiences for people that will inspire. but i do not think that it should be exclusive to that and that maybe we’d be surprised at what an amazingly inspiring museum it might be if we opened it up to more than just the master artists or the ones who hit the bar according to an arbitrary curator.
i personally see the church more as a studio, a place to practice, learn, create, try maybe with a museum experience here and there.
yeah, i suppose in some ways, we’ve just moved on to “z” like craig said & but i do think sometimes it’s good to have conversations about x and to help give voice to what it might look like, feel like, be, for the average person who are part of churches but because they are “average” their contribution is sometimes not properly valued & encouraged & probably never will be unless they raise their game.
Just saw this quote on my facebook page this morning and thought it might be relevant to the conversation here:
Duty makes us do things well, but love makes us do them beautifully. (Phillip Brooks)