Wednesday, February 07, 2007

On Ministry, Spirituality, and the Subjective nature of Judging.

In my efforts to gather sources for my Human Video I get the opportunity to gauge public opinion of Human Video more than the average person. In these special opportunities I often come across items or ideas that make me desperate to blog. This is one of those times. This blog post will cover a lot so stick with me. In one of the 150 surveys I handed out during the week of Fine Arts I read this:

"I think we need to focus more on ministry aspects and not so much theatrical movements. After all this is what we are here on earth for- ministry. Everyone should buy the videos from Springfield, put out by Randy Phillips. That is what judges should be required to view before judging. Also, I believe that their (sic) should only be Spirit-filled judges, so they can accually (sic) be aware if the annointing(sic) is present during Human Video Ministry. The anointing is the key to effective ministry what ever form."

Wow. That is full of a lot of interesting concepts, and some challenging words. And what makes it so exciting for me to answer it is that I have heard things exactly like that before. So, to answer this young person's serious list of charges, this post will cover Ministry, Spirituality, and the Subjective nature of the Judging Process.

Let's get this sucker started already!


First, let's talk about Ministry. Human Video is about ministry-- Its very status in Fine Arts is based on that fact. But what exactly does "ministry" mean? Everyone has their own interpretation of the word. Some people place a higher emphasis on things that "move" them emotionally, because to them, an emotional feeling equals "ministry" or the "anointing." Others place more emphasis on a clear, straight forward message, based on the idea that "Pre-Christians" or those who may not know the stories in the Bible need to be "ministered to" by being taught or enlightened. Which way is right? Who can say? I may not be able to come to a conclusive answer, but I can certainly try to clarify the word itself.

Encarta defines ministry as:

"min·is·try n
1. The profession and services of a religious minister
2. A a religious minister's career or period of service
3. Ministers collectively, especially religious ministers (takes a singular or plural verb)"

But that doesn't really seem to apply to the concerns of our young survey taker.

So let's keep looking.

How about wikipediadia, the world's largest and best (at least in my humble opinion) free Encyclopedia?

" Ministry, in Christianity, is the activity carried out by members of the church fulfillment of the church's mission. It can signify this activity as a whole, or specific activities, or organizations within a church dedicated to specific activities. Some ministries are identified formally as such, and some are not; some ministry is directed towards members of the church, and some towards non-members."

But that doesn't seem to apply here either. It doesn't really tell us what these activities are supposed to accomplish.

But don't despair!


The definition that I like best is from an essay called "Excellence in Ministry" written by Stephen A. Whitney:

"Ministry occurs wherever someone meets the physical, emotional, or spiritual needs of God's people or enables others to love their God and their neighbor. To be effective in ministry, one must obey both of these commandments, embodying a living and growing faith."
(To this I would only add that one can minister also by meeting intellectual needs as well. We are encouraged in both the Old Testament as well as the new to study to show ourselves approved, to love God with all of our minds, etc.)

When we look at ministry from this perspective, both whose who prefer to see the congregation touched emotionally, and those that prefer to see people edified intellectually (or spiritually) are right. Neither group is categorically wrong, but they both are a little narrow-minded if they insist their preference is superior to the exclusion of the other. What's that mean? One isn't any more right than the other-- both need the other for balance. So, where is it that our Survey-Taker feels that Human Videos are not "ministering?" Specifically in the area of Fine Arts. Elsewhere in the survey they have written, " [Human Video is] meant or developed for Ministry. Fine Arts has formed it more toward Theatre which I don't Approve. (ministry, ministry, ministry) ."

But, my friend, Ministry and theatre are not enemies on opposite sides. I do not believe that Fine Arts has "formed" Human Video "toward" Theatre, and I do not think that being theatre makes a ministry less effective. Human Video is theatre (more specifically dance) and as such should have rules and standards that govern it, and those rules should serve to challenge it's artisans and practitioners to take it to ever increasing levels of excellence. Does this mean that once we see human video as theatre that it becomes any less a powerful tool for ministry? By no means! The rules that govern human video as a theatrical genre do (and indeed must always for the Christian) include meeting the
"emotional (intellectual) or spiritual needs of God's people" or enable "others to love their God and their neighbor." I think the fundamental misconception is that because theatre involves spectacle, and pretend, that it has some preternatural predilection toward the profane (that it's evil). This is just not true, especially if you look at theatre as a "purgation of pity and fear" or catharsis. (Catharsis is a term that Aristotle used to describe what happens when people watch a theatrical production and they are purged of destructive feelings and unhealthy emotional blockages.)

The rules that, as of right now, govern human video do nothing to hinder this activity. What we do find however is that by deviating from some of the more basic rules, and by being led by emotions, judges can be misled to encourage bad habits in human video practitioners. Having a Human Video that ministers to someone has little to nothing to do with wheather or not the person creating it followed the rules in creating it. The "theatrical movements" that our writer talks about then are not simply theatrical (having to do with theatre) but they are superfluous. Ah-hA! It is not **theatre** that we object to, but baselessly, needlessly, meaninglessly gesticulating. If one does follow the "rules," (of Fine Arts and Theatre in general) if one does listen to the advice and critique of the judges (who are not only academics, but practitioners and ministers in their chosen field), then one is more likely to actually communicate with people, thus making it more likely that a greater number of people will be ministered to by the end result.

Onward and Upward.

To the second charge: It is our friend's position that "there shold only be spirit-filled judges." And to be honest, that kind of hurts. In saying this the writer implies that not all judges are filled with the Spirit. "I believe their(sic) should only be spirit-filled judges. So they can accually be aware if the annointing is present during Human Video Ministry." Ouch.

Let me assure you that I know those many of those who judge for National Fine Arts, and those who lead them, and they are all spirit-filled and love the Lord very much. It is actually a great sacrifice for some of them to go to nationals every year and they don't do it for fame, believe me. They do it to serve the Lord and help develop talent for His glory. Let's just look at this logically, shall we? If you want judges or adjudicators or evaluators or whatever to "judge" the anointing, what happens when two "Spirit-filled" people disagree? What if one person "senses anointing" and another does not? Does this mean that the person who is slightly less intuitive is somehow less Spiritual? And for that matter HOW does one judge spirituality? The fact is, there is no scientific process by which one can measure anointing. What most people think of as "anointing" is actually a feeling or an emotional reaction. Since there is no *possible* way to measure it, there is no way to score it. No way to score it means it should not be part of any "judging" process. If you go into a competition thinking that the level of anointing you are granted is going to be measured by those watching, you will only be disappointed. This kind of thinking leads nowhere, and in the end people will only be hurt by it. Personally I assume, at the outset that those who are performing all have an equal amount of God's blessing or anointing (because they have all prayed and prepared,) and if they fail to work under that annointing (i.e. they do not practice, they do not care about refining their sloppy movements) that they ought to be gently reminded that it is not all about feelings. (If you are, say, trying to minister to someone who does not believe in God, for instance, and they dont have a "tender heart" then your movement and storytelling will impress them more and will perhaps make them think, bringing them closer to the truth. If you rely on feelings and look like a pack of loons prancing around the stage incomprehensibly, then you effecting them for Jesus is slightly less likely)

God's word says that we ought to study to show ourselves approved, and
Studying artistic disciplines is WORK. It is not just about doing what you feel mindlessly. Fine Arts is not about who is more Holy or who loves God more. It is about developing talent and focusing that talent for heavenly purposes. To that end, judges evaluate skills and how well they have been developed. These are two measurable things.

If we were to try to measure anointing or spirituality, no one would end up coming out on top.

Finally, I would like to discuss The subjective nature of judging. "It should be a guideline book of Human Video. That the judges have to follow. And not each individual opinion judging." Now, to me, this appears to be the most ludicrous critique of them all. How is it, exactly, that three individual people each from three entirely different ackgrounds (to make judging fair and not biased toward any particualr geographical area) would ever agree on everything? It is impossible. There are three different judges for a reason: so that the results will be fair, unbiased and comprehensive. As Human Beings we must (in all things) remember chiefly that we are not perfect. The only way that we can find balance by consulting three things: The Bible (God's inspired word) our Prayers (personal Communication) and the counsul of other believers.

This is the real key when trying to interpret judging sheets. Do not look for them to be all alike. Instead, desire them to be as different as possible! If they are as different as possible, then when you get a score of superior from all three, you will know that you have deserved it. Try to understand what it is about judge number 2 might cause them to see things differently from judge number 3. One person can see and understand a movement or concept and another person could completely miss it. This doesn't mean the person that misses it is stupid, it means that you care not communicating effectively enough. This is where the real learning begins. The biggest challenge in ministry (and in theatre) is trying to communicate with people who don't see things in the same way that you do. By focusing on doing your best and not taking criticism personally (as an attack on your Christianity or anointing) you grow as a person, "Rejoice my brothers whenever you face trials of many kinds, because you know that the testing of your faith develops perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope."

So why did I write all this?

Because judges aren't evil, because they aren't out to get you and make you feel stupid. They are trying to minister to you, not by judging your spirituality, but by evaluating your finished product as objectively as possible. They are trying to show you that the way you come off is not necessarily how you think you do. It's not a matter of someone trying to bring you low like Simon from American Idol, but it is someone who loves you very much (who probably prays for you most of the year) trying to guide you in the right direction. Keep that in mind when you read judging sheets, and take heart--do not be discouraged! They see potential in you and if you work hard, you will only get better and better.

4 comments:

~Angel~ said...

WOW! this is really awesome!
I found your page with the expectancy of help and ideas for our upcoming human video for N.F.A! and I read your blog, its absolutely amazing! I really needed to hear the actual meaning of ministry! And I think that this is the Lord's answer to my much needed help! Realizing what Ministry really truly is! And coming back to the fact of "The Lord is developing our talents. through the judges so that we can use our gifts from Christ to bring glory to Him!" PTL! yaya! thank you for posting this!
Praise the Lord!
God is with us~

A student who is working hard, day by day, to bring Glory to our Lord and Savior!

Gloria said...

Thanks angel! Glad to know someone got something out of this. :D

If you have any ideas of what you'd like to read about, let me know!

~g~

ch said...

I thoroughly enjoyed reading your blog. We are not strong in the area of human videos although we love to perform them. I would like to ask if you have any songs that you think would make great videos. I have one young man that wants to do a solo HV and very little time to sit down and find something. I did not have time to read your entire blog and this may be in the subject, but I'm kind of desperate at the moment. This would be for district contest. Thank you for any help you might can give me.

ch

Gloria said...

ch-

Well, I can tell you what I've always wanted to see: a Hymn with a really strong storyline that illustrates the meaning. A lot of kids seem hesitant and even unwilling to try it, but I think it can be a lot more powerful than they can wrap their minds around.

Selah has some really great hymn arrangements, as does a guy names Shaun Barrowes. The ones I'd like to see are Great is Thy Faithfulness or Be Thou My Vision.

The reason I like them is that the words convey a really strong message but are fairly ambiguous so that leaves you free to really tell your story, or a story that moves you. If you can do that, I will be *very* impressed.