At college I was lazy. I've always been quite academic and could get by with at least a B in most subjects without breaking a sweat. When it came time for school reports at the end of term one my concern was never with how high my grades were, it was with how my grades compared to others. I think this was the case for many. At the bottom of the page were five little tick boxes (poor, below average, average, very good, excellent). This was all I really looked at. My biggest concern was that I was 'above average', then at least I knew I was good enough to stand out from the rest.
In recent times there has been a huge growth in 'excellence-driven' ministries in New Zealand. I have been fascinated by this, particularly with the recent 'Pursuit of Excellence' conference held in Auckland a couple of weeks ago. What exactly are we pursuing, why, and for what purpose? Where in the scriptures are we advised to pursue excellence, and furthermore, at what point does a ministry become excellent?
Perhaps one of the greatest models of excellence-driven ministry at the moment is Hillsong Sydney. Everything appears to run seemlessly, they are recognised in their local community, and they have a worldwide following for their worship releases. But what if every other church in Australia began to do the same thing? What if they all had slick production and a worldwide following, would they be excellent too?
I would argue that excellence is a comparative term. When we call something excellent, we infer something else is not. Excellence-driven ministries should perhaps ask this question of themselves.
If they knew no way of doing church, if they had seen no other form of church than their own, how would their approach to excellence differ? With what we know of the character of God in the Bible, what would excellence look outside our ability to compare ourselves with other ministries?
At school I had another friend. He worked hard the whole time, he wanted the best grades he could get. His concern was never with how well others had done, but instead with whether he had achieved as well as he knew he could. It was not about whether he was excellent, but instead about whether he had reached his potential.
I would challenge each faith community to ask themselves what their God-given potential is. We don't need another dozen Hillsongs, we need another thousand vibrant, different, and dynamic faith communities built to reach their own local society. Faith groups must not all strive to 'pursue' replication of the latest big thing in Christian culture, but instead begin to forge their own outworking of faith and intimacy with Jesus.
In his book, 'The Forgotten Ways', Allan Hirsch suggests that 95% of faith communities are reaching only 12% of the world's population. Hence why nearly every youth group in New Zealand looks and feels the same. I would argue that our pursuit should be for nothing more than holiness. For radical, diverse, and different expressions of holiness that infect our local community and begin to change them from the inside out.
Interested to hear the thoughts of others on this...
4 comments:
I believe in excellence. My definition of excellence is giving the best that I can to God. That doesn't mean I'll always be the slickest, the greatest, the most polished... but I'll give the best I can. I struggle with Christians that give "just enough" of themselves when my understanding is we are called to give our all.
My analogy has always been this... If the national TV station called me up and asked me to play my guitar on some big show they were having, I would practice hard so that I would do my best. But why then do I figure it will be ok to turn up to church on Sunday, unrehearsed and tired from the night before to worship my creator? I need to challenge myself to give God the best of me I can... excellence not perfection. My 10c worth.
Scotty,
Be careful, there's a scemantic game at stake here. Exellence is argued by everybody as "giving my best".
However I would contend that giving our best to something that looks antithetical to Jesus' model is excellent, but not good.
The classic quote of "excellence" cultists is atht good is the enemy of excellent. This is misleading. "Good" has moral connotations, while "excellent" has achievement connotations. They operate on different scales.
I think we should be "excellent" and doing "good". Not just "excellent" at whatever it is we are doing. An excellent mass murderer is harldly desirable is it?
So then the real question - Are Hillsonsgs and that ilk just doing "excellence" or are they doing good, excellently? I'm not close enough to know.
Scottie, that was an excellent post... get it??? and EXCELLENT post.
Hehehehe
Scottie I do agree with what your saying but, as you said, you are making the judgement that the term "excellence" is comparative.
For me I don't think of excellence as being comparative but more descriptive and concerning the nature of something.
Personally I conceptualise the term "excellence" as being relative. Mostly relative to myself, because my determination of what is excellent is different to someone elses determination. It is subjective and based upon individual contexts and understandings of purpose, existence, worldview etc.
For example, excellence for me is using my skills in social work and organisation in an effective way and for just purposes. That is not to say that Phil Smith using his skills to advocate for environmental issues, or Sam Harvey using his skills as a comedian are not excellent in thier own right.
I think that point relates to what you're saying towards the end of the post. Meh. Too tired to formulate decent discussion right now.
End
Post a Comment