There are two main points to get at in a dialogue like this, which maybe this should turn into another blog posting

1. What is our primary aim? If it is a slick, polished production and our venue is church, then I would say we need to rethink things because we're just creating consumers. But if it's literary, like you mentioned Liz, then I think it's okay to point things out that are not excellent.

2. Speaking truth in love is a Biblical principle that I think applies quite well here. We had a scenario even around here recently in this very case. And I think in these instances that someone needs to be told "Your lyrics are cliche" or "Your writing is just not good."

Feelings are definitely hurt in these instances, but we can't be frozen by that - living in fear of what people will think if we say something. That's a horrible way to live.

The other side of the coin is also a horrible way to live - not caring about people and just saying something to say it.

It's not about being "right" or "truthful" and it's also not about just being "loving." It's about both and finding a balance in the middle. How do you knwo the middle? Probably something along the lines of using a "spirit of discernment."

Post edited by: cheryl_r, at: 2007/11/21 16:46

There are two main points to get at in a dialogue like this, which maybe this should turn into another blog posting

So when are you posting your next blog?

Good thoughts and posts from all. But...

practical aspects also have to be thought about and decided beforehand. Before that call is put out for writings, or dancers or whatever.

What are the guidelines? And I'm not talking about perfection. Not in the least. I am talking about having at least a modicum of talent and/or the willingness to learn. Not everyone is interested in "serving" but are only interested in being "seen".

What do you do about those situations? These are things that can't be handled on the fly.

Speaking the truth is love is a Biblical principle that does apply here. But speaking it doesn't guarantee receiving of the same. Many times the exact opposite will happen. Many people do not care what is Biblical when their egos/emotions are at stake.

I'm not saying you you let the fear of 'what might happen' control your actions. Not in the least. What I am saying is this, doing what you think is best and following Biblical principles doesn't guarantee a positive outcome. I think these are situations that must be thought through, so when they do arise, and they will, one can act on what one thinks is the Biblical thing to to and not respond with an immediate, emotional response.

These are things I need to work through in my own mind. We are going to be taking steps to be more open to the arts and to encourage people with those talents to develop them. But based on twenty years of leadership experience, it will meet resistance. Some of it may be nasty. Or not. But what is critical is that I have how I'm going to respond thought out ahead of time and that there are steps in place to handle these situations in a consistent manner.

In many places, creating an arts program is a paradigm shift. Small shifts cause consternation in many places (why was the offering moved to the end of the service instead of staying in the middle where its always been ) and the big ones are the equivalent of the earth tilting on its axis.

I guess the whole point of this long post is this: be aware. Move forward with the direction you've been given, but understand not everyone will agree with or buy into that vision. Some will fight you with everything they have to stop the progress. How you respond to that antagonism needs to be determined before you begin so you aren't ruled by your emotions during conflict. What always, always, always needs to remain at the forefront is our response to situations is how others see Jesus.

Just my thoughts from a tired, battle-scarred, but still moving (sometimes shuffling forward Christ-follower.

Diplomacy.

After I typed it, I realized that it looks like a funny word to add to this conversation, but I really think it's a good concept to remember. Sometimes, when you're turning someone down as lovingly as you can, you have to be diplomatic.

It might mean focusing on one of their strengths (instead of their more obvious weaknesses) to get them involved in the same project. (Can they help plan a particular event? Recruit other artists? Volunteer to make the event a success? Fulfill a more vital role -- hopefully another visible one -- that puts a different strength to use so that they don't even notice that their other passion isn't being overlooked?)

For this literary journal, there are some people I might not necessarily want to include because I don't think they're quite good enough, but the solution I've found is to include one of their entries and then seek out some stuff that I KNOW is really good. The person gets their work in the journal, but anyone who buys the journal isn't going to be let down by the majority of the content.

I think that diplomacy is often a matter of just not being brutally honest. If there is a completely reasonable reason to turn down someone's work that isn't based on quality, use that reason instead. For example, a guy submitted an article he'd published in some magazine. It was bad, but why tell him that when I can just let him know that we can't accept already-published articles?

I'm not talking about dishonesty -- just realizing that I don't have to inform everyone of how bad they are as writers!

These are just examples, I suppose. I wish I could think of some guidelines or something.

I agree, Matt, about the need to lovingly deal with all people. I also agree that we're not talking about perfection. Sometimes diplomacy means biting the bullet and including the person's work or helpfulness, even though it might grate against my artistic instincts!

This is a great conversation and I can't begin to comment on all the posts but I've got to say that Matt and Liz nailed it on the head regarding an interaction with artists who either lack the talent or a similar vision. Diplomacy and the concept of speaking the truth in love are vital aspects to any sort of editorial position.

I once heard megapastor Andy Stanley speak on this topic and he essentially spoke to the idea of our not "speaking the truth in love" both hindered our organization as well as that person, as they were neglecting their true gifting. Our telling the truth frees them to seek out their true calling where they'll excel. Pretty good advice, I thought. Carrying it out, speaking that truth in love, is another matter.

I can't wait to read parts 2+.

Tom