I preached on the subject of "Change" this morning. There it was again - that sense of caution, hesitation, withdrawal, vulnerability, self-protection.....I'm not sure which one or which combination of those responses best sums up the feeling that was creeping (like that artificial fog used in stage productions) from the pew towards the pulpit. But it was there. I've encountered it before when themes like the inevitability of change and the pain that is often associated with such change have been brought before the Church family.
One aspect of change that I have noted over the years is the number of times I have heard the stories of Pastors who try to do the right thing with the right motives but they do it the wrong way. The result of such a venture is that the Pastor ends up sabotaging what was probably a desirable and needed change in the life of his/her Church.
For what they are worth, here are a few practical observations that I have made during my 40 years of pastoral ministry so far as implementing change is concerned. I think that what follows is largely common sense. Yet I continue to be amazed at how often common sense is lacking in our churches and among our leaders.
1. TAKE YOUR TIME.
I attended a Church Growth conference some years ago where the main speaker was the Senior Pastor of a large, growing and vital Church. It was a time of exciting ideas and people all around me where taking notes - as was I!! At the end of his teaching session our speaker said something like this:
Please don't go back to your Church and try to implement next weekend any of what you have heard over these few days! I will guarantee that, if you do, you will polarise your Church, create unnecessary tension and possibly split your Church. Take time to reflect on what you have heard. Take 12 months to ponder if our model of Church life and ministry can be adapted to your circumstances. Identify the difference between the principle and the practice. The specific activities that work for us may not work for you. Embrace the Biblical principle but seek God for the specific ways He wants to work among your people. All that will take time.
I suspect that the 12 months "pondering time" was exaggeration for effect but the point is very valid and the overall advice very wise indeed.
I think of one occasion when a Pastor-friend of mine was appointed to a nearby Church. He indicated to me that he was unsure if he should implement changes immediately or wait a while. I urged him to wait awhile. There was no doubt about the fact that this Church surely needed numerous changes. However, my counsel fell on deaf ears and he went to his new task like the proverbial bull in china shop - with the predictable outcome; he alienated a whole segment within the church and he eventually left somewhat confused and embittered. The church he left was polarised and struggling with the residue of an attempt to do the right thing the wrong way.
We need to take time so that we have the opportunity to get to know our people and for them to have a similar opportunity to observe us. This is especially true if the Pastor is new to the situation. The members of the congregation will be wondering what this new leader is like. What kind of leader have we appointed? A dictator? One who leads by consensus? What kind of emphasis will he/she bring? Will there be significant change? Is he/she a "people person" or a CEO type person? Establishing the kind of relational credentials that allow the leader to lead takes time.
If we are talking about a leader who has been involved in leading his/her church for some time and now is the time to make some changes, then the situation is somewhat different. Hopefully, he/she has already established their bona fides and the people are ready to at least consider the changes being proposed.
This brings us to the question, "Can they trust us?"
[2] WORK HARD AT BUILDING STRONG RELATIONSHIPS.
Significant change successfully implemented requires a high level of trust. The development of trust requires quality relationships. Yes, it is important to have the right motives and clear strategies but nothing is more important than a relationship of trust. That is why I believe it is very unwise for a newly appointed Pastor to bring in the changes - no matter how much they may be needed - in the first few months of his/her ministry. Such haste means that there is no time for even a moderate degree of trust to develop.
[I recognise that there may be rare occasions where the situation in a Church is so toxic that "lancing the boil" may be necessary immediately. But they are rare occasions where pre-emptive action may be the only option available.]
This matter of trust came home to me powerfully a number of years ago when I pastored a country church. Each Wednesday afternoon I went on a personal retreat time and on this particular day I was walking on a property out of town when I came upon a flock of sheep. At first my presence went unnoticed but then it was as if they all saw me at once. Some ran immediately. Others moved cautiously away. Still others just stood and looked at me as if they were deciding what to do.
It was one of those, "Ah-ha moments". In that moment I sensed I was in the presence of a living parable. That still small voice which I hear all too infrequently seemed to be saying,
"Pay attention, Mike, this is a special moment. These sheep don't know you. You are a stranger. They don't know whether or not they can trust you. Back in town there is another flock of sheep that I have called you to lead, feed and protect. They don't know if they can trust you at this stage. It will take time to win their trust but when you do, they will follow you anywhere".
My sense was that I was hearing from the Good Shepherd. When I got back to my retreat room I quickly turned to John 10 and read the following:
The man who enters by the gate is the shepherd of his sheep. The watchman opens the gate for him, and the sheep listen to his voice. He calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. When he has brought out all his own, he goes on ahead of them, and his sheep follow him because they know his voice. But they will never follow a stranger; in fact, they will run away from him because they do not recognize a stranger's voice." (John 10/2-5 NIV)
I was still a stranger to my new Church family. How could I expect them to follow me if they didn't trust me? How could I expect them to trust me if they had no opportunity to get to know me?
I would rather take the time necessary to build trust than to attempt any form of change without it. I didn't want to send the message that projects that involve change are more important than the people who will be impacted by the change. But that is the very message I send if I do not give priority to relationships that foster trust.
[3] CLEAR COMMUNICATION IS INDISPENSIBLE
This is one of the key components of trust. Take time to communicate clearly and often so far as the proposed change/s are concerned. The congregation will pull back and trust will be compromised if they get the slightest indication that they are not being told everything.
I have noticed that opposition sometimes comes because some people resist what they thought I said, not what I actually said. I am being more than a little naive if I think I only have to explain the proposed change/s once and, having said it, everyone has heard me clearly and understood me perfectly!
The fact is that I have been inwardly processing the dynamics of some specific change for some time. Now I present it to the Church. For many it is information that they are hearing for the first time. They need time to consider its details. They need time to ask questions. They need the opportunities to express their enthusiasm or share their doubts. They need to hear you explain it again......and again....and again. Say it as much as you can in as many different ways as you can.
The purpose of communication is not just to explain the nature of the changes but to outline the benefits that you believe will accrue as the changes begin to take effect. There is an element of re-assurance that is so important in this process. You can re-assure people that you understand why they may feel hesitant - even resistant. You can honestly acknowledge your own areas of struggle. Such openness is a matter of integrity and goes a long way in developing trust.
[4] INTRODUCE CHANGE AS AN EXPERIMENT
Introducing changes ought not to be presented as a completed task. The members of the congregation (whether they are in a Church that is governed by congregational vote or single point leadership) will be less than cooperative if they feel that the whole change issue is already set in concrete.
I have often suggested that the proposed change be implemented as an experiment for an agreed period of time and then evaluated. If the experience is positive and the church is willing to continue with that change, everyone benefits. If the experience produces a 'negative' evaluation, at least you won't die wondering about the outcome! It may be that the change is right but the timing is wrong. Please don't see such a result as a failure. Every vision has its time.
By the way, if the experiment proves that the change is either not needed or premature, make sure you celebrate the result so that the memories of that period are positive.
Such a celebration will minimize the possibility of the same or similar change being re-introduced further down the track and greeted with "Oh, we tried that before and it didn't work"!
The value of this experiment is that it gives people the opportunity to try it out. We wouldn't advise them to buy a car that they didn't test drive, would we? Well, why not 'test drive' this particular change for 3 months.....6 months.....whatever length of time is appropriate depending on the significance of the change.
However, you need to be serious and honest when you indicate to the congregation that, if the experiment reveals that this change is not for us or not for now, it will be released and you will honour this commitment. The experiment is not a subtle method to get your own way, regardless of how the experiment is evaluated.
In one of the churches that I pastored, we wanted to make some major changes to the format and structure of the morning service. Having followed many of the principles that I am outlining in this article, we secured the church's willingness to at least experiment with the new format for 3 months. There was a lot of misgiving about the whole idea. "It's too different", "People won't stay longer than they do now!", "we will lose people!"
At the end of the experiment many of those who anticipated people staying away because of the extra time commitment were requesting more time because they were enjoying the benefits so much!
Like I said at the beginning, many of these reflections are common sense. I offer them with the hope that they contribute something positive in the excitement and drama of change in your Church.
