Leading Change in the Church - Lesson 2

Let me just give a little bit of historical perspective on this. I was working on this quite a bit, have done some writing on this. During the zenith of the industrial age, which was prior to World War II, organizations needed managers, primarily, who were competent at maintaining and monitoring systems. The whole industrial age grew up as a result of excellent managers driving assembly lines, if you will, prior to World War II. This emphasis, therefore, was reflected in many, if not most, university programs and research during the early part of the 20th century that focused most of their attention on management solutions to attend the organization's assembly lines. Management concepts such as systems theory, of span of control, of bureaucracy, and those, by the way, were originally very positive terms, and they still are, at least in my mind, but they ruled in organizational life. But after the tanks stopped rolling in 1945, a new era was birthed that would have a ripple effect literally around the globe over the next generations. 

This new era was characterized by an ever-increasing rate of change, and due to escalating competitiveness, to continuous restructuring activities to keep up with it, regular demographic changes in the population with the influx of new groups and new populations, of stakeholder demands that were becoming more and more diverse because of this influx, the rapid technological progress that we're experiencing today, the critical need in organizations more from managers who could maintain and monitor the systems to strategic leaders who could challenge and mobilize and motivate people in a rapidly changing cultural climate, and, by the way, that was going through constant and perpetual change. As someone said, the only thing that that doesn't change is change itself; it's just changing all the time. 

Within a very short time after that explosion after World War II, the church began to be affected because, of course, the church is wanting to keep up with society and minister in society, and so those issues of change began to infiltrate the church as well. I think of the church that I was part of right here in Wake County in North Carolina when I was a boy, and comparing that to the church I'm in now is just night and day, and that didn't happen by one change; there have been a series of continuous changes, some of those fun and some others not so fun, that have taken place. 

So, in a word, leadership, as we define it here, is really about this issue of catalyzing change. So that's why I'm saying that change is primarily a function of leadership because it's fundamentally a changing of the mind, and we're going to get into this in just a few moments, both personally and collectively. I want to stop there and ask are there questions, comments about that, because I want to say three cheers for managers among us, because managers are critical for organizational effectiveness and for the church. I'm simply pointing out here the distinction between the two disciplines. So what do you think? I'm just curious as to what your thoughts are this point. 

STUDENT:  As a manager, I love change. 

Really? 

STUDENT:  Yeah, I really do. Not just to get more efficient, but recognizing that the communities that we serve, whether it’s our family, our neighborhood, our church, our business, things are changing. In our families, our children are growing older, people are coming and going into our families, and…

So, you're saying that managers can love change as well. Okay. 

STUDENT:  I was sort of dealing with this just today, looking at -- we have two products to invest in. One is extremely profitable that we can invest in and grow that area of the business. The other one is this new product, and it's not very profitable right now and we’ve run the forecast, and it's not very profitable for the rest of the year, but the vision is that one day down the road, this thing can take our company from, you know, there could be ten times the growth because of this one product, you know, we could be ten times farther from where we are now, but it's hard to see that, especially as the manager of the really profitable product; he feels like he’s getting the shaft because he doesn't get the investment and the attention, but he's making all the money. But the thing is that in five years, that product might not even exist anymore in the marketplace, and this other thing is where we're going, and so we're going to take a step back to take a step forward, and you have to kind of convince people that that's the right move to take, even though it doesn't even look good on paper for the next few years. 

That’s a great point. 

STUDENT:  You have to kind of get people on board with that vision. 

STUDENT:  So, it's changing, potentially changing the product, what’s offered, and there will be changes to the company or organization, but it's still the organization is not saying let's change our mission statement or let’s change what we're designed to do; it’s changing how we're serving, how we're relating potentially to our customers. So that's the reference -- everything should not change, with the reference to Malachi. 

STUDENT:  The core beliefs are the same, but we might look drastically different, though. 

Yeah, I think you've really underlined that reality that we've talked about, and I've already mentioned this, in most change efforts, these percentages are reversed, and that can become a problem. But it is, as Sam has alluded to, it is an issue that is in the mind. Albert Einstein was quoted. He said, “You cannot solve a problem from the same consciousness that created it” (the problem). I love that statement because we have to be about changing of the mind first, if real change is going to happen, and so leadership at its core is about changing of the mind because real change begins in the mind. Einstein’s own work, by the way, was a case in point. Einstein himself confessed that after creating the bomb, he could not for the life of himself figure out a way to keep mankind from blowing ourselves up. So the same consciousness that created the problem cannot solve the problem, typically, and that's why leadership is so needed. 

George Bernard Shaw, who is certainly not a friend of the church, made a statement: “Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.” So it begins in the mind, and even though he was not a friend of the church, his quote sounds almost biblical, where Paul says, “…be transformed by the renewal of your mind.” Change begins in the mind, and so leadership is about changing minds and hearts. 

God prescribes personal change. We saw that in the verses that we looked at previously. All living systems, all living systems, whether it's people or churches or animals or plants, all living things must change in order to grow. Key concept. There is a theory in organizational leadership that’s called the theory of disequilibrium. Now, that's a big word to simply state that for any living system to change, it must first experience disruption. There's got to be disruption introduced into the system for the living thing to change in a positive way. 

The problem is, all living things, including you and me, resist disruption. We have a bias toward equilibrium, not disequilibrium, and so we're going to get into this when we get into talking about change theory and how it impacts the church. The result, though, if we don't have disequilibrium, if we don't have disruption introduced, people and living things tend to calcify, and that's why in the Old Testament, God provided an antidote to calcification for the people of Israel by keeping them constantly on the move. There was no moss that was growing under their feet. There were seasons of battle, there were seasons of peace, there were seasons of kings, there were seasons of judges, and so on and so on and so on and so on. We saw a nomadic people because they were they were always in a process of change. 

Of course, Psalm chapter 23 says that God leads his people into these fresh green pastures, that concept of something new, constantly and continually new, of still waters and then shadowy valleys. There's a constant change of landscape that happens even in our times of being so close to God. In Ecclesiastes 3, regardless of what you believe about Ecclesiastes, whether it's a positive statement or a negative statement about life, it is without question, a poetic exposition on the different seasons that we can expect through life's journey. They're not all the same. It changes. There are all kinds. So life is about change, and church life is also about change, and what we've said is that change begins in the mind. 

Let me take one more step, and then I'd like to stop just to get some reflections here. Churches are not normal organizations, and thus far we've been talking about change in an organizational context, and there are some real values to that, and we'll get to those. But I want to say in the most certain terms that churches are strange entities. They are not normal organizations. They do not fit neatly into our organizational models, and those of you that work in business and those of you that work in the secular business world know that. The church is a community of believers first and foremost, and more importantly, it is the bride of Jesus, and I believe the church is also the hope of the world. 

The corporate model for change has, I think, some deadly flaws, and here they are; I'll just give them to you. First of all, one secular view of change is that shareholder role/profit is paramount. That's one. I'm just going to go through these real quick. Growth is deified. Thirdly, people are disposable. They are what we refer to as human resources. Does that sound familiar? Fourth, speed is king, and fifth, decapitating opponents is part of the game. There's another one: Ethics is expedient. Let me give those to you again. Number one, shareholder profit is paramount. Secondly, growth is deified. Thirdly, people are disposable. Fourth, speed is king. Number five, decapitating opponents is part of the game, emphasis on game. And six, ethics is expedient. 

So, the corporate model of change is simply it doesn't matter if it's right; it only matters if it works. Most secular models are pragmatism in practice. They may sound moralistic, but in fact, it's what works, it's what serves the bottom line. So, a moral compass is elective at best. In contrast, Christ-centered leaders serve a moral God and are called to make moral choices, even if those moral choices do not seem the most pragmatic. Unfortunately, much of the supposed Christian literature on change management that has influenced the church does not have a well-developed biblical view of change. Often, Christian writers are simply baptizing the secular view with some Bible verses and some God language. I think someone said in one of our first sessions that we have taken these secular models and made them Christian. I believe it was you, Tammy, that said something like that, and it was just a very, very wise statement. 

STUDENT:  I just know that that very point seems to be very in the politics, when you start into the religion of politics in what's going on now, and somehow capitalism has become equated with Christianity from some thinkers, and that bottom line and are we free to produce our stuff is way valued more than where we get our stuff, how are the people treated on the other end, what's going on; I mean, it's all about the economics, and it’s a little scary. 

So, I'm not at all suggesting here that everything that comes from the corporate world is evil and is of the devil; that's not my point. I am simply stating that the default mode of running a secular company is not fundamentally biblical at its core, so it cannot be applied necessarily in a church setting. 

For example, a biblical guidance of the sort that Paul said when he said, “Warn those who are idle, encourage the timid, help the weak, be patient with everyone.” Biblical guidance of this sort that Paul wrote to the Thessalonian church is absolute nonsense to secular change ears. The understood rule [sic] of thumb in corporate life, if you listen to Jack Welch, for example, who was a master of change within GE, is to get rid of the weak, in fact, every year to get rid of a percentage of the weak within the company. While times of change are difficult and challenging, this does not mean that we suspend the rules of how we are to lead as believers. 

The shepherd’s calling is to lay down his life for the sheep, and ladies and gentlemen, the Bible simply does not give us license in times of change or any time to invert God's order and expect the sheep to lay down their lives for the shepherd. We never see that in Scripture, and so as we think about change, these issues are very important. Even in changes well-handled, some sheep may be lost in the transition. We all realize that. However, I believe that these losses ought to be avoided if at all possible and mourned if they do happen. This is totally different from willingly driving out those who don't like the new direction or, worse still, welcoming the loss of the troublesome sheep. It's really about integrating spiritual life and faith into the change process itself. The called-out community that you and I serve belongs to Jesus. It belongs to Jesus. She is betrothed to him. We're preparing the bride, and so she is unique and should be handled with extreme care.

Well, this is a very important principle going forward because, just by way of example, a number of years ago when I was, well, 18 years ago was the last time I was serving in pastoral ministry as a senior pastor of a church, and at that time it was in vogue that if there was a church that seemed to be staid and stale, it was legitimate to basically wipe out the church, run everybody off that were considered the Ishmaels of the group, and then keep only the Isaacs, you know, the legitimate sons, and this became a dominant model of developing the church, and so there were pastors in many places that were reducing the church literally to the foundations, as far as the people were concerned, and rebuilding. Unfortunately, many, if not most, of those ended up rebuilding something that was as stale and staid as the former or worse, and it was a model that in the end was not incredibly effective for many, but there were enough that were successful at that to make it a dominant model during that point in time. My reason for bringing that up is simply that our churches tend to take on some of the cultural models that seem to be successful, and living in the pragmatic culture that we do, it's very easy to slip into some of these things that that sound good and can even use biblical language like Ishmaels and Isaacs, but in reality, they are not Christ-centered leadership models at all.