I am a worship pastor and there is no greater place that this word gets thrown around than in the music of the church. I use it a lot actually. I think I would prefer the term "relative excellence". Meaning, excellence as defined by the leaders of your church. If I am the leader of the music ministry then I set the bar for what "excellence" means. It really means nothing without a determining context as defined by a person anyway. Another term we use is "undistracting excellence". Again, this qualifier is relative as well, but what is means can be fleshed out through leaders for the local body.

"Excellence" among evangelical-leaning churches sounds to me exactly as Schantz describes it. In fact, he puts a finger on a frustration many of my fellow seminarians have voiced about "the church growth movement." So many ministry magazines, advertisements, and church products imply (if they don't explicitly state) that real churches that reach people with the gospel can afford "excellence." Excellence usually means star-quality musicians, slick advertising, a beautiful church "campus," professional media products, and a second to none preacher.

I attended a church planting training session a few years ago, led by a pastor who'd swallowed all things church growth hook, line, and sinker. He lived among and pastored people of means. I asked this question about ministry to the poor. His response was unimpressive, saying, "Rich people need Jesus, too." His church was fortunate enough to have a contemporary Christian musician performing for worship and writing new songs regularly. Oh, and the musician shared song royalties with the church. If only inner city churches working among the poor had such privileges. I could easily say the same of "dying" rural churches that serve only as stepping stones to bigger churches that can afford "excellence."

I think I've read enough Church Fathers to make me appropriately cynical of "excellence" like this. How in the world can we talk about saints and martyrs - people faithful unto death - in a ministry culture that promotes such class-based consumerism as "excellence?"

Is there another word to replace "excellence?"

Yes.

"Faithfulness."

Casey Taylor
irregularchristian.blogspot.com

I have given up on the word.

But not because the word is wrong. The problem with excellence is that it is a rating word that assume an understood metric. By using this word as a value we are assuming that we all agree on the metrics and have godly metrics. IN most cases, I find that our churches rarely have thought about their metrics and whenever I look seriously at my metrics I am surprised how worldly they are.

The problem with the word excellent isn't that it means too much or that it means the wrong things but that it means nothing and so we use the word and assume we have said something.

An example that clarifies is the phrase "excellent song leading." I grew up in circles where it was assumed that the measure of a good song leader was the level of congregational participation. With no irony one might say, "Her voice is certainly hard to listen to but she sure is an excellent song leader."

I have since then found myself occasionally entering circles where excellence in "worship leading" was more about musical skill and perfect pitch than about anything related to the gathered congregation. And of course I have been in settings where these different values appeared in varying combinations. In every case they talked about excellence. In every case the word meant nothing without a clear articulation of the metric that was valued.

I applaud and appreciate Dan Schantz article because not only does he expose the problems of how this word is commonly used he also offers suggested replacements that have meaning.

Thanks to Out of Ur for calling attention to this excellent article and to this issue. As to a proposed replacement, if what we want to say is, "Let's do our Best" then let's find a word that means that.

-Ethan

Hmmm...our new theme this year is Good to Great in 2008. Maybe we'd better rethink that?

Actually our goal this year is to challenge people to get out of their mediocrity and into a passionate relationship with God and others. And discover whatever God is calling them to do and just do it.

I think what Schantz is saying has some truth in it but just like the visit to KFC, sometimes you need to spit out the bones.

I was on staff at a church where the word excellence was one of its top core values. The word was a harsh taskmaster. Nothing we staffers did was good enough, and I'm sad to say that that this attitude spilled from us onto the congregation. The fear of being less-than-excellent (in other words, human, imperfect) shaped the culture there in ways I'm only beginning to come to terms with several years later.

Words like process, humility, honesty, learning and forgiveness resonate much more strongly with me these days.

I think you've solved this yourself.

'Defenders of the term say it has nothing to do with perfectionism or elitism, but a desire to “do our very best for God.”'

Drop 'Excellence' and replace it with 'Doing our best for God'. If someone has given everything they have to bring God glory we have no right to say that it's not excellent. it also means that those who are particularly gifted in certain areas can't stop striving to do better.

I hope that makes sense.

"excellence" became a buzzword because churches moved little by little to the view that the people on stage are "performers" and the congregation is the "audience".

so where is God in this arrangement? writing reviews for The New Covenant Times?

we need to see God as the audience of all that is done by not only the people on stage but the congregation as well. it's always been hard for me not to think of myself as a "performer" when on stage - but, in the end, we need to abandon "performing" and just keep in mind for Whom all the pieces of the service are done.

happy new year, everyone. let's hope the world survives until 2009...

In this discussion, it seems easy to make the terms "elaborate" and "excellent" interchangeable. Lighting, multimedia, and professional musicians aren't requisite to achieve excellence in the workings of a local church. For churches without a lot of resources, or for churches who are looking for a different way to operate, excellence can be paired with simplicity. Also, it seems as though excellence is perceived as the antithesis of authenticity, but that need not be the case either.

Whether you've got HD screens or not, isn't it still important to communicate the gospel excellently? Whether you've got a massive children's wing or not, isn't it important to care for your little ones excellently? Whatever the resources at your disposal, isn't it incumbent upon us to do everything as unto the Lord?

i think a lot of this boils down to using what the good Lord gave you. you can be excellent in following up with visitors, excellent in preparing for sunday's services... no matter what size budget or church you have. excellence does NOT mean lights, stage, and video. use what God's given you to the best of your ability. maybe that does means lights, video, graphics. or maybe that means NOT being lazy with follow up or planning your lessons. all the hype about being excellent came as a result of church experiences that are sloppy and/or neglected. it happens all to often - in all areas of ministry - from the tacky flyers received in the mail to the worship leader who didn't rehearse this week and wants to be "spirit led." call it what you will (excellence), but if we are serving a great savior... then we should be serving him with our best - whatever that is!

Too long has the church put less than it's best foot forward in many arenas. The thinking is, well it is church and people are supposed to just accept my effort as it is. Excellence may not be the best word but it came as a result of wanting to do better. People that cannot sing should not lead singing. People that cannot teach should not teach. But this happens every week in churches all across the country. Why? Lots of reasons. Being nice. They tithe a lot. No one else would do it. They have always done it. Their a founding family.

This is madness. High standards produce high fruit. No person goes to the dentist and says, I know you don't really know how to do a root canal, but go ahead and give it your best try. Yet week after week we let people do things in church that impact the eternal destiny of others with that same attitude.

We strive for excellence in what we do, which for us has much more to do with narrowing the scope of what we do rather than letting anyone do it. We are committed to the process but the function of a part cannot override the mission of the whole.

I cannot expect my car to run excellent if I never change the oil or if when I do I put in wrong oil or used oil. The parts I use in my car directly impact its performance.

I would rather do no music than bad music. I would rather do no teaching than bad teaching. to offer bad quality as acceptable does a disservice to the person who is serving, to the people being served and to the Lord, who did not scrimp in what he offers us.

I thing we need to help people achieve excellence by raising the standard and then setting a course or process in place.

In my church as a kid we had a guy do "Special Music" every few weeks. He was awful. Out of tune, forgot the words, you name it it was bad. Our leadership kept letting him go up there. He thought to himself, "I must be good because every time I get up here, people say they can feel my heart." He did not need to howl to the piano for us to feel his heart. Someone should have said, hey, that is not your gift, but if you want to pursue it here is a voice coach. Here is a music teacher to help you. Let him determine if he wants to give his best, not just do the best he can at the moment.

I'm with the other commenters here, there's "good enough for government work" and then there's "I've done the best I can do with what I have."
Excellence is a demotivator because if you strive for excellence in the church, anything you achieve that is less than what was expected of you...hmm, how to put this...Ah, yes, I know, it's kinda like despair.com's definition of loser:
"Loser: When your best just isn't good enough."
I say dump the term, and go with "satisfactory."

Phil, wouldn't "Doing our best for God" still allow for the consumerism?

I'm with Casey; "Faithfulness" is probably the most excellent alternative.

Bill Hybels definition of excellence is "doing the best we can with the resources available." Who exactly is excluded from this? Why would we not want to strive for this, even in the most limited situations? In the parable of the talents the one talent guy got in trouble because he buried what he was given- not because he didn't produce like the servant given 5 talents. It seems to me there's nothing wrong with "excellence" when it is rightly understood and not used as a weapon.

This seems to be just an overused word. For one church-it may mean the leadership sets out a godly model of faithfulness, deep love, and care for one another. Excellence is used to put a vision of their lives in front of them-the way God sees them. In another church-excellence may be the whip or the tool used to control people, to create an image. It is all in the heart. But the word really means nothing by itself.

Well, the word has been a little loaded as of yet. But it should still be something the local church strives for.

The only challenge with striving for excellence is the ability to make sure you are not perfecting an ineffective habit or method.

The worst thing that the local church can do is become successful at doing the wrong things.

Mike Rucker-
We have not always been in agreement in past comments, but you are dead-on in your assessment of a major cause of the mis-use of the word "excellence". Only God has the right to set the standard.

Leoskeo,
I understand your point that many people engage in ministries they're not gifted for - non-teachers, teaching for example. I've also heard my fair share of poorly sang "special music," but I don't agree that no singing is better than no singing. 90% of the congregation would be laughed off American Idol. I think God must have an affinity for tone-deaf tunes.

I also disagree where you put the emphasis for excellence. "High standards produce high fruit." Yes and no. High standards call us forward into God with God's power, a point I wager you'd agree with.

But I'd ask what we're applying high standards to? Again, in much of my experience, when churches talk about "excellence" they're talking about looking slick and PROFESSIONAL. Why do we emphasize high standards on PowerPoint slides but fail to emphasize the high standard of holiness? Where is the call to give liberally? To renounce violence? To advocate justice? To visit the prisoner? To pray for our enemies, not just the jerk at work but the ones who strap bombs to their chests?

Thank you for your thoughts.

Casey Taylor
irregularchristian.blogspot.com

I'd agree with the idea of doing the best we can with the resources we have available - with one concern:

When we evaluate what is "best", we always need to keep in mind who the intended audience is. No doubt, we want our childcare to be excellent, the best we can provide. And "best" means best for the kids and the parents. The same goes for teaching, preaching, maintaining the parking lot, and a host of other things.

But worship gets a bit more complicated. You need to first decide who worship is intended to please: is it for God, or is it for the congregation? During your worship service, are you primarily reaching up, or reaching out? I think there is room for both types of "worship" services, and which type you want will affect how you approach "excellence".

Let's remember that our human perspective on excellence may well be different from God's view. Which does God deem as more excellent: a worship leader whose singing voice is peerless, but whose faith is shallow, or a worship leader whose singing leaves much to be desired, but whose faith is deep and growing deeper?

It's a good thing we are not called to excellence. We are called to faithfulness. The biblical narrative is full of messiness and it was the religious aristocracy that continually created an "economy" that slammed the door on the very people God was inviting to be in his Kingdom.

God on a cross is not excellence. It's scandal. It counfounds the powers and principalities and success markers of the world.

Problem is we need to start rooting the Gospel in the teachings of Jesus again, because there is no way we would end up with Crystal Cathedrals and "Mega campuses."

Did we begin using the word “excellence” because “Christian” became too watered down a term? I think there is no better word than Christian to describe what we strive for, that is to be Christ-like, a little Christ – that is what Christian means.

Casey stole a bit of my thunder with his most recent comment...I agree, typically, when I hear "excellence" it has to do with the worship experience, or the facilities, or the programmatic functions of the church. None of this is necessarily bad in itself but its like...its like...its like cleaning the outside of the cup or whitewashing a headstone...

Where is the call to excellence in our personal lives? Where is the call to excellence when it comes to following the way of Jesus? Where is the call to excellence in serving the poor, the least, and the lost? Until we strive for excellence in the areas of justice, mercy, and humility...until we strive for excellence in loving our enemies, turning the other cheek, and offering our bodies as living sacrifices...it will be hard for me to go along with the "call to excellence" in the church.

Doug Resler
christseeker.typepad.com

I'm a worship pastor at my local church, and we use the world "excellence" a lot around here. I'm glad we do. In fact, I don't know where we'd be if we hadn't pushed for excellence. Here's why...

The culture we live in today lives and breathes excellence in everything else in the world. EVERYTHING. Take a look at advertising, or music styles or anything. Everything we see nowadays is done so well that the Church is way behind. For so long, the attitude of the Church (universal - all included) has been, "Let God do His thing..." I couldn't agree more, but it's missing a part. I do believe that life change in people happens ONLY by the sovereign move of God, and His presence affecting people's lives. But we also play a part in that, as leaders and servants in His church. It's kinda like this - people need food (physically and spiritually). So, physically, we have a raw piece of meat, some frozen vegetables and some not so clean, but drinkable water. It's eveything that a person needs to survive. That's like just throwing the Gospel out, and expecting people to take it, just because it's what they need. Excellence comes in with preparing the food. Cooking the steak just right, steaming the veggies, distilling and cleaning the water, etc. Making people WANT what they need is a whole lot more effective than shoving it down they're throat, just because they do.

People expect excellence everywhere else, and they have a right to expect it in the Church as well. I feel we should be doing our best in all our work, not to give us the glory, but to make it easier for people to accept God, and have a relationship with Him.

our excellence should be in being a disciple of jesus christ. sure we should strive to do things well. but let's do those things that honor god and show that we are his disciples.

As others have pointed out in this discussion, the issue really comes down to "slick" versus "substance". If we pursue "excellence" in order to put on a better Sunday service "performance," then we are surrendering to the spirit of the World. If, on the other hand, we pursue "excellence" in pursuing a disciplined life pleasing to God and capable of moving us along the path of Christlikeness, then- “excellent”!. The second is a worthy goal. The first is not.

There are a lot of great comments here. I am reminded of Jesus' friends, Mary and Martha. "... Martha welcomed Him into her home [where they both lived]. And she had a sister called Mary, who moreover was listening to the Lord's word, seated at His feet. But Martha was distracted with all her preparations; and she came up to Him, and said, 'Lord, do You not care that my sister has left me to do all the serving alone? Then tell her to help me.' But the Lord answered and said to her, 'Martha, Martha,[I love the way he says that] you are worried and bothered about so many things; but only a few things are necessary - really only one - for Mary has chosen the good part, which shall not be taken away from her." If we want to be Christ-followers, this little vignette from Luke chapter 10 certainly should give us some insight.

I like the distinction provided just above: "slick" vs. "substance." Slick? Kill me now. So often, when people talk about a service that's excellent, what they really mean is one that adheres most closely to the style of Christian kitsch most popular at the moment. But that style - hyper-choreographed more often than not, perfectly transitioned, with colorful nebulas drifting behind song lyrics on plasma screens - sickens me, and I'm willing to bet it sickens a lot of non-Christians too. Not only does it seem unutterably fake, but I can't help wondering just how many meals for the poor could have been bought with the cost of those beautiful powerpoint graphics.

Now, substance - give me a guy on the stage with a decent voice and decent guitar skills and the willingness to worship honestly and keep himself out of the spotlight - that I call excellence. If he doens't possess those prerequisites, let him sing in the audience, but don't give him a mike. God loves tone-deaf singing; I don't.

I do believe there is a place for true artistic excellence in a Christian service, and I believe we should strive for that. For too long Christianity and the arts have seemed enemies, because art is elitist and the church, not so. The task for Christian artists is to let our search for excellence be tempered by appreciation of those not capable of it. And perhaps when we can't love the singing, we can love the heart of the singers.

In the end, though, excellence means too many things to too many people. The only thing I count excellent is that which is also real. So perhaps a better word would be ...

... authenticity?

Like most good words, "excellence" can be abused.

If God is as glorious as he claims to be, and the obedience he requires of us as intense as Jesus makes it out to be, then excellence is a good word. Especially since the normal drift of normal people is away from what is good and beautiful towards what is convenient. People left to themselves tend to diminish the quality of their work, the intensity of their effort.

So we use the word "excellence" to remind us of the quality of fruit we seek to produce. But excellence devoid of humility, kindness, patience, love, joy, etc is worthless. Excellence in worship, teaching, serving,etc won't produce the Fruit of the Spirit if Excellence is not done with the Fruit of the Spirit.

My final comments on this. Thank you, Shaheen, for your firsthand insights on using "excellence" on the ground. I have to respectfully question some of your assumptions.

I've heard this argument before: "the world is slick and stylish - we should be to." There's no way we'll settle here how far is too far in cultural accommodation. That conversation is and should be ongoing both now and in every generation.

Yet we should note that as a culture in the US, we are slowly dying from our obsession with image. Image is important and can be good. Denying the importance of material beauty - or musical beauty - is foolish and ultimately a denial of creation and incarnation. But we're all well aware that some churches sacrifice substance for style. We know it. Evangelism trumps holiness, which seems so odd because we ask, "What are we inviting people to?" I admit: I agonize over how to evangelize the teenagers I work among but the expectations, locally and culturally, are that I grab the attention of non-Christian students with something flashy. Will students respond to the gospel as is?

That's not to say we shouldn't have appropriate venues into the society beyond our little ecclesia, nor that we shouldn't do those missional engagements well, but we should constantly ask what we're unintentionally communicating when we make worship, for example, like a rock concert.

Casey Taylor
irregularchristian.blogspot.com

Core values? We know them as Faith, Hope, Charity and we are told which is the Greatest.

Excellence? How would we tell a new convert to seek excellence? Surely in the Excellent One Himself that resides within. The very one who shed His own blood for that very privilege. The very One that Lives and is not dead.

Seek ye to make the church excellent and you will find that the Church is excellent because of the Excellent One.

Do you seek to be Fishers of men? Then you will be placed on the hook as bait, crucified yet alive.

The bride of Christ shines brightly and doesn't need make-up to compliment her husband since she is beauty par excellence, the chosen of God.

The harvest is plentiful but there are few workers. Pray that the Lord will send out workers into the field for it is the sick that need a physician.

Don't judge a church by it's cover. Poor Jesus must have not been aware of the talented resources available at the time to enhance the Good News He is; or maybe He just didn't have the money.

My heart goes out to the many pastors of both small and large congregations who find themselves wrestling with views of "profit" or "fruit." We find ourselves in middle management seated with Christ Jesus at the right hand of the Father. One hand on our neighbors, and the other in our Fathers.

"Excellence" usually devolves into "trying to impress."

A more biblical concept is to work "heartily, as unto the Lord." Let's hear it for whole-hearted effort.

I understand that we are called to do our very best. I think my struggle with "excellence" in the church is that it seems to be focused on activities within the walls of the church. If every church in your city lived up to the definition of "excellence" would every person in your city be touched by the gospel?

I can see both sides of the "argument." The article seems to point out hardly any problems with excellence, but more an issue with embracing change, pointing out issues with "the current generation" and how they "do" church.

As a worship pastor in a small church, I don't expect the same level of musicianship in the local church as I do when I'm invited to a conference with skilled musicians. I do, however, expect them to be pursuing their best...pursuing excellence, if you will. This doesn't mean that they'll be cought up in strife and never be good enough. I have some people on my team that have problems with what I consider basic technique. I don't kick them off because they're not excellent. I expect them to take lessons so they can learn to be excellent...not prefect.

If someone has been playing, preaching, or teaching for 10, 20, or 30 years, they should be growing, developing and becoming better at what they do. If we stop growing or realizing our need to become more like Christ, to become more skilled at the gift he's given us, etc..., then we're robbing ourselves of God's best.

Excellence is not a term of exclusion. Not in our church anyway. However, there no doubt must be some sort of standard to minister before God's people. This will vary by capacity. Of course we are all called to be ministers of the gospel and that concept should be fostered in the church. However, we're not all given a platform to do this in front of a congregation.

Ultimately, one should wait on the Lord for direction on this. Everybody has a different opinion about what kind of standards, both in skill and spirituality, we should place on a minister.

We could make the whole thing simpler:

If the word excellence is offensive, then do away with it. Try, at the same time, not to place judgment on those who feel it is an appropriate term.

Sam Andress,

we are called to excellence. God does require excellence all over the bible. He is picky- See story of Cain and Able in Genesis, any of the levitical laws (especially regarding sacrifices), the building of the tabernacle, the building of the temple, or even Jesus life on earth. He didn't live a life of mediocraty (sp?) he lived a life of perfection. Granted he has grace and mercy on us sinners- but that does not excuse us from not doing things excellently. I believe the parable of the talents was mentioned earlier as well. Don't bury your talent or it will be taken from you! I think God does sometimes "slam the door" on people.

You're right, God on a cross is not excellence. It is perfection. While it does confound the "powers and principalities and success markers", it also confounds the lazy.

I really don't see how the teachings of Jesus would prevent mega campuses. Jesus fed 5,000 men (not counting women and children) so you might call him a Mega-church pastor... I do agree with you on the Crystal Cathedral preaching a false gospel of prosperity though!

Semantics.

It's a pretense to say excellence is just a shade of "slick," "exclusive," "elitist" or even "professional."

If you really want a better word, try "effectiveness." We aim to do our tasks heartily to the Lord, and trust we'll be effective in accomplishing the task.

If you spent this much energy efficiently being patient and inclusive of the "excellent", you might find a desire to see things from both sides.

I might say that Excellence can be replaced with Earnestness.

Let's look at the Pharisees who doubtless were EXCELLENT at knowing scripture, following regulations, etc. It wasn't wrong to do these things, however these practices replaced God in a sense.

Too often today, church leaders use "excellence" as a mask for laziness. "Well, we've got the best sound system money can buy" is an excuse to relax on the earnest pursuit of the Lord.

Conversely, look at the widow who gave her mites. She was EARNEST. It wasn't a huge pile of money that she lobbed into the church treasury. But she was earnest and the Lord commended her. She gave all she could.

I believe that the Lord would rather we had an earnest Pastor in front who was difficult to hear because of little-to-no sound reinforcement, than someone who said a lot of nothing but was loud and well-lit.