In church on Sunday the PA was not turned on as the pastor stood up to welcome us AGAIN. It happens every week: and we kind of laugh it off. After all, church is a voluntary society, and we couldn't possibily criticise; people are not professionals, and are offering their time for no payment, and presumably are doing their best etc. We bumble through. (It's a very English way to be!)
You may be able to tell that I am increasingly frustrated with this. And my immediate response is to say 'we need a more professional (American) attitude!'. But then I caught myself: is this word what we want? Do we want 'professionalism?' The production of our church services would be cleaner and tighter and less distracting...after all.
But I don't think 'professional' is right either, and I think we need to expunge all talk of professionalism from our midst! It sends the wrong message. What we need is: nuture of our gifts, and a determination to give the people of God nothing but the best you can possibily do for the sheer love of them and God. What we need is a taking seriously of the need to nuture and perfect and practice our gifts as a way of honouring them as God-given for the purpose of up-building his church.
34 comments:
MPJ,
I went to two churches yesterday while on vacation in Nashville, TN. One was a mega-church and it was professional. The other struggled to get the microphone working.
If I ever move here, I choose the non-working-microphone-church: They loved each other and spoke without wise and persuasive words, and the cross was not emptied of its power.
(None of this is to contradict you, MPJ. In fact, I like your third way: we need to nurture gifts and encourage them. It’s just that yesterday I was presented with 2 completely different choices, and was led to one and not the other.)
That was my last deleted post. Just cleaning it up.)
JMM.
Maybe what you are reaching for is honesty. In a work environment, particularly if the formal hierarchical relationships expect it, we can say if we are personally disappointed, or if some standard is important to us. But in church there are often so many things that we don't feel we should say. We are apprehensive, because it is hard to say something that is difficult, whether it is apparently self serving, or whether it shows you as a person people might not expect you to be. Without structured relationships, merely under a command to "love one another, and build each other up" it involves real responsibility and commitment to put the pressure on someone of telling them that you have expectations on them, while remaining loving enough to accept continuing inadequacy. Perhaps the US style professional slickness is another way of avoiding this responsibility. But is it that the most significant relationships we have are where people have cared enough to tell the truth?
My half-baked observation is that in Christian circles we sometimes fail to adjust for our context: ie, the level of 'professionalism' that is needed for a meeting of 100-200 would be totally alienating if used in a Bible Study of 10. Conversely, treating 200 people like they are 10 people in a lounge room is normally a pretty ordinary experience for all involved.
At our church (roughly 120 in attendance), we've recently invested some time and effort in lifting our game. It has been great--rather than the fear of losing something in the changes, I think the higher standards have helped everyone to relax and get on with the business of praising God and serving each other.
G'day Micheal.
Do you think that culturally the term professionalism means what you have said here?
What we need is a taking seriously of the need to nuture and perfect and practice our gifts as a way of honouring them as God-given for the purpose of up-building his church.
Blessings craig
If Starbucks can have a shop in every suburb through slick service and understanding of consumer behaviour, then surely the local church can be filled using the same approach.
To continue the underbaked observations...
Would it be fair to say that like churches/apologetics that attempted to latch on to certain strains following the Enlightenment, particularly a scientific theory of knowledge, many contemporary churches are trying to emulate the "success" of marketing strategies and professionalism of the business world?
If staff are being paid, then they're professionals. And if part of their job is to train volunteers, then you'd expect those volunteers to execute their tasks well, otherwise what are we paying the staff for? It just not wise stewardship. Which is what you're talking about Mike, but when salaries are involved, I think you don't need to be afraid of the word "professional".
But if there is too much focus on the salary, being paid to do a job, then there can be some unhealthy consequences.
i.e. "We are paying you, lift your game and stop giving crappy sermons."
"I am not going to do X that is what we have staff workers for, they are paid to do it."
"I think it is time the minister left, he is not getting enough returns for our investment."
I think that when we argue that we should not be "professional" doesn't mean we condone basic mistakes and common sense.
If the organist or pianist sounds awful then don't let them play.
If the mike doesn't get turned on then organise someone to do it every Sunday before church without fail.
That's not being "professional" - it's just common sense.
Being the Regulative-principle loving ex-Sydney Anglican Presbyterian that I am, I see this often when it comes to music.
I've been to churches where the music is awful. It is so awful that it stands out and obscures the reasons for public worship.
I've also been to churches where the music is so slick and talented that there are guitar riffs, harmonies and other muck. The music is so good that it takes away from public worship.
Anything functional (like music or microphones) that is done badly or done boldly is going to inhibit public worship.
If the mike was on, no one would have noticed that the mike was on. No one sits there and says "wow that's a great sound coming from that mike!".
If the organist or pianist sounds awful then don't let them play.
But things are never that simple. At my old church there was a guy who would sing up the front. He was and still awful, but he started when no one else wanted to do it. Now there are some more experienced singers at the church should he be told "see ya later, thanks for filling in for the past ten years, we have some better singers now, we'll give you a call if we need you"?
If the mike doesn't get turned on then organise someone to do it every Sunday before church without fail. Isn't without fail a little much to expect though. "Stuff happens", people will get it wrong, and I don't think there should be an expectation that they won't.
The community however, should be expected to show grace and kindness toward those who are perhaps a little "sloppy" in performing their role.
I read in the recent church bulletin that they are asking for people with a musical ear and technical skills to come forward and help out with the pa. Perhaps you may fit the bill.
I know this is irrelevant to this particular discussion, but I think the guy doing the microphone controls was paid by the church. Not a lot, mind you...
I was near the back left by the way, and yes, it annoys me too. I keep thinking of volunteering to help with the sound, except that last time I did, no-one took me up on it and I might well have to spend many weeks away from church on placement and stuff.
I'd like to think you can sidestep the debate by asking the simple question, "Is this really what Messiah Jesus deserves?" It is hard to see the attitude implicit in the situation you mentioned as being appropriate when we compare the gathering around the throne of grace in, say, Rev.5. How would it be if the multitude gathered to sing the new song in praise of the Lamb who was slain sang off key?
Thanks Kate! By the way, the musicians are excellent!
Some of the comments here fall back into the discourse of professionalism (RORY I mean you!). I don't want professionalism: I want SERVICE.
And others of you seem to lapse back into tolerating sloppiness, too. That's the amateur vice... it HAS to stop!
Maybe the whole thing is a false dichotomy.
If we think of church as family or a body, then we wouldn't use labels like professional or amateur. Can you have an amateur hand? Or a professional sister?
So maybe we should stop thinking of church as either a business or as a sporting club where it is ok for the person on the bbq to burn the sausages.
well that'd be my point exactly...
Well it took me four comments to get there but I got there in the end.
A really stimulating post, Michael. I agree with your reticence about using the word 'professional'. In our 'X-Factor' society it can very easily be identified with the kind of slickness which doesn't show God's 'strength being made perfect in weakness'.
Sound stewardship is the key. As a Pastor I find that the small details (i.e. poor PA etc) do have an effect on the task of teaching God's Word. There are times when the context of the service leads us all naturally into the Word; and other occasions when the service has to be wrestled back to the point where we are ready to hear God.
I'd be interested in your thoughts about how professionalism relates to our use of audio/visual and new media? Does this give the wrong impression, or is it merely an extension of our utilising the best of our abilities and resources to assist in worship?
Another thing which cracks me up are continual typos in church/missions literature...but that's a personal beef of mine!!
Well, I've traipsed across MTC blogs to land here. I hope you don't mind a comment from someone you don't know, Michael.
How about "faithfulness"? That's within the vocab of the family.
While my Mum preached, my Dad considered it his personal responsibility to provide flawless PA. He performed this task diligently for many years. It was an act of service to God and to the body. Dad advised me against picking up too many church responsibilities because increasing quantity often leads to decreased quality. Doing a botchy job despises stewardship and faithfulness.
Surely providing service means striving for excellence and taking seriously the job you've been entrusted. All the more if you're serving the Lord and his people (paid or unpaid).
Sorry for getting preachy about PA!
As Piper might put it,
Brothers, we are not Professionals, but we are not Shabby Amateurs Either
Hey, this must be a record for your comments. We'll see what we can arrange next week at church for you to comment on... Perhaps it could involve mud.
Kate, you should have been around for the smacking discussion!
Oh wow: yes, I will blog next Kate about welcoming children in church!! And how they ought to be allowed to run amok in the church garden.
Michael, I think you raise some important questions. I think we have some hard thinking to do about what it means to be a body and to exercise our gifts together. At one stage I was involved in a church plant that welcomed and included a number of people who were homeless or disadvantaged. As a community, we wanted to serve each other in love, not just put on a good show. That meant encouraging everyone to use their gifts. One brother had a beautiful voice and did the most amazing Bible readings during the service. He also had some mental health problems and would occasionally lose his place or stop entirely during the reading. I'm not sure if his readings were 'professional', but I'm sure they were delightful to God! Our service could sometimes be a bit shambolic, but not because people weren't giving 100% of themselves. I think our evaluation of the 'quality' of our service needs to be in relation to how well we are helping each other to serve with our gifts, rather than against some external standard of 'professionalism'. This is not about encouraging laziness or lack of care in our preparation, it is simply saying that slickness or professionalism is not a relevant standard for evaluating the meetings of the body of Christ!
I agree with honoria's comment above. The right paradigm for our church meetings is 'family', which at its best encapsulates notions of freedom, grace, and care.
So, 'professionalism' in a family mustn't be tolerated. Sloppiness on the other hand can be made allowance for (since love covers over a multitude of sins, and on the grounds that sloppiness is usually not even a sin, love should be able to stretch that far as well).
But in a well-communicating family, sloppiness or incompetence that affects other family members will be dealt with firmly and graciously, over time—both for the sake of the family members, and for the sake of the comfort of the guests that family members invite over from time to time.
Since when does professionalism exclude grace and care?
Since last Tuesday.
It may indeed include care: the kind of care you get when you are told in MacDonalds to 'have a nice day'.
Since when does professionalism exclude grace and care?
Martin, it doesn't exclude grace and care, but it doesn't exude it either. ;-)
If the primary "audience" for worship was always in focus, I wonder if there would be as many av blunders... (Colossians 3:23)
BTW: no improvement this Sunday...
sigh.
I guess there are more important things in the world.
Well, isnt the PA operator reading your blog?!
I'm not the PA operator (for the morning) but I am the person responsible for training the PA operators. And I'm reading the blog now.
Amateur vs Professional? Col 3:23 (and 17), "Whatever you do, work heartily, as for the Lord and not for men". We might be amateurs and do it for love, we might be professionals and do it to a level expected of those who are paid, but most of all we should be working for the glory of God, and work harder than amateurs or professionals.
@custard: None of the PA operators, the person who trains the PA operators, or the musicians are paid in any way. Just thought I'd correct a factual error.
General comment: This is why being a PA operator is a great form of Christian service - it's impossible to do it for your own glory, as things only get noticed when they go wrong. The absolute best you can do is be completely unnoticed. There aren't too many other forms of service where that is true.
@christopher: I agree with Michael 100% - I hate sloppiness and the British amateurism in church life, and I feel a personal embarassment every time something goes wrong with PA. And for those who think it isn't serious, it is. Because every time Michael spends a service annoyed about the PA he isn't thinking about God and his teaching, worshipping God, and all the other things we should be doing when we meet together.
Let me hasten to add I do not blame the operators necessarily. The quality of the system might be the problem; or the fact that it gets dismantled every week for other evnts in a busy church life.
Post a Comment