Category: Uncategorized

Dealing With Leaks

Posted on by Rich

At a time when Wikileaks is on people’s mind – I want to talk about MinistryLeaks.

Ministry leaders dread dealing with people who want to separate themselves or defect from a church. I use the word leak, because depending on the volume it can be an annoyance, or a crisis. There is a natural process for people to leave a church – people move, people go to be with the Lord, older people follow their kids/grandkids.

I thought about using a play on the old “huggies” saggy diaper that leaks ad campaign – “Do you belong to a saggy church that leaks?” – but reconsidered as it casts a negative pallor on the church.

I really want to have a discourse on how to contend with an unnatural leakage – people “dissing” the church – people leaving a ministry because of dissatisfaction, dissillusion, discontent, disagreement, disuinty, dischord… I want to define (for myself) what I think call a leak. A leak is a sustained period of declining membership or attendance or turnover in either category that exceeds 2-5% per year and is less than 30% in any 4 year period. A dangerous leak involves core leaders and historic or founding families. A pipe burst usually centers around staff or facility transitions – new pastors or departing pastors or directors or moving the congregation. Sometimes changes in worship service, or ministry programs are a trigger. Please do not conflate in your mind a trigger event and any person’s decision to separate. The reasons for leaving may have been forming over a long time, and the trigger simply struck the powder. Our job as leaders is to assess each situation, and determine whether there is a ministry problem to address, a personal problem to address, or simply an organic, natural separation because of circumstance.

Here are some “Don’t’s” to ponder when participants are dissin’ your ministry:

 

  • Don’t take it personally – The sense of indignation or hostility that often accompanies ministry defections is perhaps the largest barrier to discovering whether there are valid reasons for people to vote with their feet.

 

  • Don’t assume you understand what is really going on with people – Your ability to determine what is causing folks to dribble out the door is dependent on your willingness to hear from them what is really going on. Perhaps there are needs that they have that were not previously known, or that simply misunderstood.

 

  • Don’t resist difficult truths – when you hear from people that say unpleasant things about your leadership, ministry community, ministry programs – start from the position that there is a kernel of truth behind what they are telling you from their perspective. No ministry is perfect. If you don’t have an inventory of your ministries gaps or weaknesses, start one. Behind the defections, there is likely a short list of gaps that you need to pray about.

 

  • Don’t discount the value of a message because of the delivery style – just because the message is delivered in a stream of invective, or because the messenger personalized the message, or because the message feels like a parting shot. Wounded people tend to lash out. Deal with it, if someone was spiritually wounded on your watch – you are partly responsible – if not for the problem, then certainly for the solution.

 

  • Don’t assume you understand the others experience – as a leader, you have likely been immersed and invested in this ministry for years. You probably have very close relationships within the community. Your experience of the ministry is probably very different from that of a newcomer, or even of a long time spectator. Their perspective on your ministry’s effectiveness and attractiveness is going to be vastly different from your experience. When relatively outsiders tell you your ministry stinks, they are smelling something different from you. When long time insiders tell you the same, you have to recognize that you may have become disconnected.

I recognize that each of these don’t’s is contrary to our human nature. As mature believers we need to be prepared to deal with people who are hurting, lashing out, misinformed, discontented, as well as being under spiritual warfare. We cannot afford to dismiss these dear brothers and sisters without at least trying to understand how things feel or appear from their unique perspective.

The “Do’s” are just as important:

 

  • Do attempt to hear each individual who is leaving – having an “exit interview” process that is prepared so that you are able to detect themes and patterns in the reasons that people provide (true or not) that may provide clues to the “smells” that exist in your ministry.

 

  • Do respond positively to each instance of criticism or critique – Since there are probably 10 who won’t for every person who will send a critical e-mail, you must assume that the critic is not alone in her opinion. Responding positively is not the same as a polite refutation of her critique, but an offer of genuine conversation aimed at building understanding. The temptation is to return fire by rationalizing or justifying the status quo. This response however polite, does not help the critic feel heard. It also presumes that you understand all of the context of the criticism, or that you and your critic are actually using the words the same way. You may find in a conversation that you completely misunderstood what they said in a letter or e-mail. Remove the beam from your eye before attempting to remove the spec from your critic’s eye.

 

  • Do admit to challenges and weaknesses – people respond very differently to people who are willing to accept their position and admit that there may be a problem. Every ministry has weaknesses and challenges. They should not be a secret – there should be an active and public process for adressing them. Even if you are temporarily unable to address the criticism, this will let the critic know that they are not unappreciated – it can move them from being part of the problem, to part of the solution.

 

  • Do ask for positive suggestions – to take the last point one step further, many of your critics are smart folks who may have ideas you haven’t considered yet. At a minimum, it turns the tables from being them telling you that you stink, to asking them to wash your feet. Even if “they got nothin'” – your critic is allowed to move from a position of disappointment, conflict, emnity – toward a position of empathy, collaboration, progress – she is allowed to change teams. The choice is hers, but the opportunity is there.

 

  • Do leave the door open – it is easy to see those who ultimately decide to leave our ministry as “the problem”, “the enemy”, “difficult”, “divisive” – whatever adjective or noun you assign to them. Recognize that when they disagree with your prioirities, policies, or choices, perhaps the most mature thing that they can do is to separate – so that they are not a divisive influence. They may continue to serve in your programs or affiliates because they genuinely do not want to damage the valuable parts of the ministry. If the issue is not centered around sin or doctrine, and you have confidence that the defector is still qualified for ministry – there is no reason to disqualify them because of disagreements over matters of less spiritual consequence. Establish and maintain communications in ways that do not make it more difficult for them to change direction or reverse their decisions.

 

  • Do wish them to find a safe and satisfactory place of worship and fellowship – OK differences are irreconcilable. We can’t meet on this. It doesn’t matter why, but you don’t want them to leave feeling like they are persona non grata – like you said “…and don’t let the door hit ya on the way out…” If you are not praying for them and their next church, you should be looking to your own heart in this situation.

Our job as leaders is primarily one of stewardship. While people are leaving, perhaps the most tangible impact is in contributions. Perhaps right behind that is volunteer program staff. As a steward of these resources you should be actively managing the impact and looking to expenses and programming and recruiting volunteers. ‘Cuz you are still accountable for the fruit.

This is tough. I feel it. So maybe the best approach is to maintain the seals. What do I mean? I believe that many swells of dissatisfaction develop over a period of time. Perhaps more frequent candid feedback is a good thing – would it not be better to see the swell forming months before people start defecting? Would that not give you time to respond with more than a “that’s too bad.”

The church I am currently attending has an interesting process, each year every member renews his or her membership in a formal conversation with leadership. It is advertised as a time to re-commit – and a time to provide feedback. It is a form of regular accounting – that is people can drift away, and if they are not regularly attending (because of lifestyle) you may not know that they have defected – or are dissatisfied.

I am aware of a church that gave a congregational survey periodically with what the leadership saw as their top 5 challenges asking the congregation to rank them and also a place for a write in challenge – so they could capture items that they had not thought of. They reported back to the congregation the following week with a report on the congregation’s response, and a committment to build a plan to address the top 1 or 2 items on the list. The next week they had a proposal for a plan to address the first one and so on.

These churches have pro-active mechanisms to “maintain the seals of satisfaction”. I don’t advocate either method – make up your own. Just recognize that if you don’t act – you may be forced to react.

Last point – really! Some times a new church “shows up” on people’s radar in the area. This church is growing rapidly. It has momentum. It is different, has a bit of spectacle, the pastor is a showman, and, and, and… Your congregation have “snuck in” a service at “CoolNewChurch.com”. People don’t leave your congregation to attend because they are lured and seduced by the shiny stuff happening at CNC. They leave because they are dissatisfied with your church. Don’t blame CNC – they are doing the best they can to produce fruit for the kingdom. Don’t blame your folks or think of them as shallow for being attracted by the big show at CNC. CNC 4 years ago used to be HappyNormalChurch.com just like you. Somewhere along the way their leadership had a vision for change that allowed them to overcome 30 years of inertia to transform themselves into something cool and new to attract more people to God’s Kingdom. Good for them. If this has happened or is happening in your area of ministry, your job is simple:
    1) figure out what is happening or not happening in your ministry that allows people to become and REMAIN dissatisfied long enough to consider leaving.
    2) Formulate a plan to do something to prevent them from remaining dissatisfied for very long.

This weeks “spew”…

Posted on by Rich

Here are some things from others that I found provocative, inspriring, informative, or otherwise worth checking out.

1 How To Get Hired When Nobody Is Hiring | Vanderbloemen Search Group

not being a vocational minister, but a staff mananger in the corporate world, I found interesting parallels in this post.  Whether you are contemplating a hiring decision or a job change, this is worth the read.

2 What To Do…When You Wake Up in the Future | MarkHowellLive.com

If you sit on your assumptions very long, the world around you will invalidate them. 

3 Solving a Problem: A Matter of Perspective | Ron Edmondson

Ron is right…  Think this through.  Think of how your customers (in ministry) “appreciate” the solutions you provide when they bring problems to your attention.

4 11 Things I’ve learned in 11 years… | Bob Franquiz

These are insightful, they all could apply equally to any leadership position. 

 

I will try to pass along some of what I read every week.  It is good to be inspired by the thoughts of others.

 

Leaving Las Vegas

Posted on by Rich

Since I have been a believer I have been an active part of 4 churches. That means that I have separated from 3 of them.

The first time I was participating within the leadership community when I realized for one reason or another that unhealthy processes were in place. In all cases, my fellow leaders were diligent, upright, spiritual men. They simply had chosen different patterns of action or inaction that inhibit the production of fruit within that congregation.

The second time was after a long fruitful period of service and leadership, but through a difficult staff transition and the passing of my mentor I became disconnected from the mission of the body, and of differing opinion with others in leadership. Interestingly enough, my wife had become disconnected long before I had, yet she chose to continue to serve in youth ministry there as long as she was allowed to.

A third was a larger faster growing congregation that I found interesting at first, but the control structure of the church placed barriers to service beyond the “hands” type of role, and my family never really plugged in deeply to the community.

Now I find myself in a small (<100) congregation wondering whether or not it is me – that some spiritual problem exists that has caused these separations.

As I pull out my analysis kit, and try to be objective, I ask myself tough questions.

 

  • did I leave because I was dissatisfied?
  • did I leave because of personal differences with other leaders?
  • did I leave because I was not willing to be accountable?
  • did I give the leadership a chance – were they confronted with my critique?

In the first two cases, my answers are different. I was dissatisfied – I had got to a place where I spent more time and energy complaining about the status quo than working to change it. I did not have personal differences with other leaders, but I did have differences about how leaders should act/lead, and about whether the ministry was healthy or whether significant change was indicated. I did not leave because I was not willing to be accountable – in one case, others were not acting in an accountable way. In the other I believed that the leadership clicque had become unwilling to see unhealthy patterns in ministry. In the first, I did not give leadership a chance – I did not confront them – I was very young (late 20’s) and was in my first leadership role, when the leading “family” decided to fire the pastor publicly on a Sunday morning. I stayed on until the new pastor was installed, then left. The church nearly split. In the second, pastor had announced a vision statement for the church which I had agreed with, but 5 years later nothing had been done to move closer to the vision – and as I challenged, the vision was a paper tiger – leadership believed that only superficial change was necessary to acheive. They were ignoring an aging population, and community demographic, as well as a revolving door syndrome. By the time I decided that the situation was irreparable, other core leaders were leaving as well.

In the last case, it really was one of significance. My wife, son and I had tried repeatedly to plug in to various service ministries in ways that we could use our gifts and talents – but either scheduling requirements, distance (45 minutes travel) or circumstance prevented us from plugging in. We ended up as greeters – which strangely enough was an enjoyable ministry. But in the end it really wasn’t sufficient. The church was growing fast, and was enamored of growth, but the growth vector caused them to emphasize certain gifts and it was clear that there was very tight control over the creative ministries suited to my wife and son. I looked at this analytically, and decided that I wanted to be at a church that had greater needs, where we could serve in more significant roles.

So what is my conclusion – in the first to cases I felt lead by God to separate myself (and my family) from a congregation, because we were not in unity of purpose or direction with the leadership. Rather than stay and potentially cause more division (there was already some) we chose to leave. There were no issues of doctrine or sin involved. I choose to look at it as God pruning us from one tree and grafting us in somewhere else. In this most recent case, I am not sure I fully understand what was going on – good things happened for my son while we were there. There was very little growth for my wife and I and very limiting opportunities for all of us for service. With time comes perspective.

One thing I realize is that each time I separate from a body – I find it a little harder to join in a new place – to commit to building new relationships, to earn the trust that allows us to serve, to understand the working systems in place that allow ministry to be effective. I pray that God allows us to plug in effectively and serve here until we are called to move (physically) or until we go home to be with the Lord.

That’s How I Blog

Posted on by Rich

So I want to talk a bit about this blog and how I have been doing it and something that has changed the way I will blog in the future…

Personal Stuff
Most of the posts on this blog have been born out of my own experience – both good and bad. I share because I care about the family of God, and the Body of Christ in general. I started this blog because I was frustrated and needed to express some things and clarify my own thoughts. I shared a couple of posts on Facebook and a friend got excited about something that I wrote. He said he wanted his church board to read it. That one event kept me going, thinking “if one person somewhere gets something out of a post that helps the ministry of the gospel somewhere, then I should keep going”.

This blog is not widely read. I probably get a couple dozen page views on each post. I don’t actively promote it. I have tried to post at a consistent, sustainable pace. I try to write and refine about 4 weeks in advance, so that I don’t feel pressure to get stuff out.

I really wasn’t involved in the larger ministry community (beyond my church). Sometime around the end of July this year, I re-engaged on twitter. Still not sure why, or what actually prompted me to go there, but I did. Wow – I found that there was a whole bunch of people who write the same kinds of things that I write (and much better). It is always amazing when I find others that think like me.

And so where before, I did not have a source for inspiration (except my experience and the scripture) I now read a couple posts every day from folks that I follow on twitter. So I decided that I will publish links and commentary on the stuff that I read and like on this blog. These posts will likely be much shorter than my “regular” posts, just a link to the other post, and a few thoughts.

You can follow me on twitter if you like, I am @regenerateweb.

Technical Stuff
I use posterous.com as a blog host. I like it for several reasons:

1) it has an e-mail interface – so I can send an e-mail from anywhere to post – this became a requirement because I wanted to be able to post from my blackberry which does e-mail really well.
2) it automatically connects with my social networks (facebook, twitter) and lets me autopost to them.
3) it lets me schedule posts in advance so that I can get ahead.
4) it supports some custom theming – which I might do when I get 20 free hours. but has enough basic themes so I can pick one that is not too obnoxious.

Most of my posts are written as I ride the train to and from work. I spend about 35 minutes each way, and try to write about 3 posts per week.
I use a note taking tool called ZIM Desktop Wiki. It is extremely simple, but lets me maintain hyperlinked notes – so that I can make a “page” related to a topic, and make links to those pages there, so I can organize my posts. Also, using the wiki metaphor, to make a new page, I just create a link and click it and a new page is created.

Cynic or Prophet – or just blathering on…

Posted on by Rich

Read an interesting series of articles on Scot McNight’s Jesus Creed blog – about a book by Andrew someone called “Faith Without Illusions: Following Jesus as a Cynic-Saint“. It has prompted me to write about why I blog about ministry.

I am not, nor have I ever been a pastor. That is not my calling. I am just a lay person who was saved at the end of college, who has been a disciple of Christ in an evangelical protestant tradition since 1985. By profession, I am a systems analyst, a programmer, a manager, a software architect. As a lay person, I have been a board member of two churches, a leader of two ministries – one support services (technology support) and one event oriented (marriage assistance). I have lead small groups and taught bible studies.

Over the years I have worshipped and served in several churches, the longest for about 16 years. I wish I could say that I had been content to worship or serve in a single church for my entire life as a christian, but it is not true. Each time I have taken the decision to separate myself from a body of believers very seriously – as I have lost or become distant from friends in the process. In each case, however, it has been my decision, not the result of some unrelated circumstance, and a direct result in my losing confidence in the leadership of the church to execute in a way that leads to rational production of spiritual fruit.

So why do I write this blog? To provide insight from my experience and exposure to both healthy and unhealthy ministry patterns. I don’t know who, if anyone, reads this stuff. Half of my purpose is simply to clarify my own thinking.

Continue reading “Cynic or Prophet – or just blathering on…” →

Collaboration Media

Posted on by Rich

How do leaders in your ministry collaborate with each other? With their teams? With their directors? phone – text – e-mail – face-toface meetings?

I recently did a consulting gig for a church and was very surprised to find that they used Basecamp.com as a collaboration tool. I found that for the team that was working, it was a useful tool – both notifications of change and status, but also maintenance of a plan and schedule for the project. All collaboration was captured and posted in meeting notes, and commentary by participants.

When I ran a tech ministry (office pc’s, networks, servers, and web – not worship tech) a few years ago, we used open source web based tools for collaboration – we hosted them on our domain, and had some simple security around them. As the leader of this ministry team, I loved it. We used a CMS with an articles repository for knowledgebase, forums for different threads of communication, and a calendar to post events and updates. Continue reading “Collaboration Media” →

Uncool Church

Posted on by Rich

What would it be like to go to a church where all the whack jobs go? A church where prostitutes and homeless people feel COMFORTABLE. A church full of salesmen, lawyers and golf professionals. A church where everyone is recovering from something. Me, I am a recovering butthole and pottymouth. You might be a recovering snob, or a recovering heroin addict – but we are all recovering from something.

The suburban church has a problem: suburbanites! Most of us live in the suburbs to get away from exactly those people who wouldn’t feel comfortable at church. For many of us, church tends to be a place where we pretend to be someone that we are not. We mask as many of our sins as we can, and try to appear pious and spiritual. We avoid deep relationships at church, where people can rub up against us and possibly see those things we are masking.

Whether we admit it or not, we are much more like the pharisee than the tax collector from Luke 18:

18:9 Jesus also told this parable to some who were confident that they were righteous and looked down on everyone else. 18:10 “Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 18:11 The Pharisee stood and prayed about himself like this: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other people: extortionists, unrighteous people, adulterers – or even like this tax collector. 18:12 I fast twice a week; I give a tenth of everything I get.’ 18:13 The tax collector, however, stood far off and would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, be merciful to me, sinner that I am!’ 18:14 I tell you that this man went down to his home justified rather than the Pharisee. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted.”

The truth is, people in our suburban communities desparately need Jesus. In this regard, they are not different than the urban people that they avoid. They may be more affluent, but not more righteous. They may be more conformant to societal norms, but they are not less judged.

Suburbanites have tended to buy into the American Dream – self-sufficiency. We are wealthy. We think that because we have much, that we have earned it; that we somehow “deserve” it; that it somehow reflects God’s blessing toward us. We judge people who are less successful. We collectively tend to look down on pathetic people. We forget how pathetic we are.

We sit in small groups and ask prayers for our family, neighbors, and friends; for everyone but ourselves. We fool ourselves into thinking that we are being spiritual because we do not express our needs. We praise others in our small group who appear knowledgable about spiritual matters, or who pray with spiritual words, but even those mask the depth of our depravity.

We all have issues – conflict with family members, issues with lust or greed or coveteousness, idols, hobbies or passions that have displaced God in our lives.

We need the cleansing of the word – but how can we “get clean” if we are not ready to “come clean”. When we take off our mask, we are just as uncool as those we judge and despise. We need to learn to be uncool at church.

Disciples, Apostles and Missionaries

Posted on by Rich

When Jesus was alive, his followers were called disciples. Disciples are followers. Disciples are learning, growing, developing based on their proximity and relationship to whom they are following. In the evangelical church, we talk about discipleship. We talk about following Christ. To be a disciple of Christ, one must therefore have a relationship with Him. Jesus as part of His incarnation, left us His words. The scripture, especially the gospels, are filled with knowledge of Jesus as recorded by those who were physically with Him on this earth. Jesus also left us the Holy Spirit, so that we would have a comforter, and a counselor. We know Jesus through His Word, and we experience Him through the Spirit. We have relationship with Him in this way, because He lives.

After Jesus died, twelve of his disciples were called Apostles. Apostles are “sent out”. Apostles are sent out, emissaries with a message for the world. Apostles are evangelists, spreading good news. Jesus choses as his emissaries, ordinary men who had been disciples. They were not wealthy, particularly well educated, politically powerful. They were fiercely loyal, utterly dependent (on Him), and willing to suffer and die. Jesus gave the apostles tremenous power (through the Holy Spirit) to do good works on his behalf. He gave them a mission – to make disciples – in all the world. A mission that we are still carrying out to this day. Jesus did not tell his apostles – go therefore and kill anyone who doesn’t convert – he did say go therefore and make disciples. Our church leaders today are apostles. This includes pastors, elders, teachers – those who provide a message.

In modern times, the church sends out missionaries. They are, in fact, apostles. They are evangelists. Most of them are, like the first apostles, not wealthy, particularly well educated, or politically powerful. Many of them are bivocational – they travel to a far land, work in some vocation, while spreading the good news in their spare time. They are often persecuted, intimidated, unappreciated, and disregarded by those they come to serve, yet they keep on. The apostle Paul was perhaps the first missionary. The model that he defined, lives on today: He was funded by churches, bivocational (a tent maker), he traveled from place to place starting churches (a church planter). He worked with indigenous people helped them form a congregation, established disciples, established local leadership and then moved on to a new place – continuing to correspond with and assist the churches he founded. When those churches become self-sustaining, they then can send their own missionaries.

So where are you on this continuum? Disciple? Apostle? Missionary? Well?

Status Quo

Posted on by Rich

I wonder how many church “leaders” feel that their role is to maintain the status quo. I wonder how many church “leaders” are really qualified as leaders. I wonder if the qualifications for elder and deacon offices listed in the new testament, are missing the obvious qualifications of leadership. As if, the author expected us to select natural leaders, and merely wrote out the constraints or “passive” criteria for the job.

I have been elected or called to church office twice in my life, both times have been somewhat terrible experiences, but for different reasons. The first time, I was young, and not very mature spiritually. I was seduced by the call, and was asked then to lead the board, when the then chairman stepped aside unexpectedly very shortly after I started on the board. I really had no idea what the board was respnsible for, nor had I experience as a board member before being asked to be the chair. There was nothing that I could do but try to maintain the status quo. My prayers were that the board and I would not fall down on the job, and that we could keep things going.

The second time I was called was 12 years later in a different church. I was called to a board that was largely apathetic, and not well organized. Our two greatest responsibilities were preparing the church budget, and maintaining the facility. I clearly felt that neither of these responsibilities were particularly suited to my talents and gifts. I served my term, but realized during my term of service, that both boards really only served to maintain the status quo, and that whenever they wanted to change something, they formed a more executive structure focused on the change at hand.

I am not suggesting that all churches are like this, but my my conversations with others lead me to believe that my experiences are less common than one might expect.

The new testament church talks about three officers:

Deacon (Diakono) – Literally servant or minister – Do the bidding of others
Elder, Overseers, Bishops () – in a position of oversight –
Missionaries, Apostles (Apostolos) – those specifically called to be sent out –

With the exception of missionaries, I think that most who are called to the offices of deacon or elder are focused on maintaining the status quo, except where there are problems, where the status quo needs to be restored. When the status quo no longer is effective (you know this when everyone in your church is older than 50, or other sign) changes to the status quo may be necessary. Obviously, or perhaps not so obviously, if we want to prevent that state, we can make more frequent, smaller changes – rather than waiting until there is an obvious problem, then making significant and painful changes. As you might expect, the way to figure out what needs change when is by measuring fruit.

There is no clear precedent or directive in the new testament for how change is to be instituted. While the tree huggers (people who don’t like change) reading this will cheer this statement as a directive to keep things the same forever, institutionalizing the literal implementation of the new testament church – the rest of us recognize that even the new testament church continually changed and adapted to every local culture it invaded, with only the dictates of mission and doctrine as constants.

So who identifies opportunities for change, who decides that change is required, and who leads that change? It seems to me that each church or ministry should maintain in it’s leadership one or more “malcontents” or “troublemakers” whose job it is to suggest opportunities for change, but who do not have the right to unilaterally decide to implement that change. Likewise, each church or ministry should maintain in it’s leadership one or more agents of change whose job it is to champion and implement a change once it has been decided.

That leaves only the decision rights. Every ministry has their own form of governance. Some are more executive (less people make decisions) and others are more congregational (more people make decisions).

Regardless of the participation model, when deciding to implement change, there are benefits to correctly communicating and articulating that change so that it does not come as a surprise. Your community may not be 100% in favor of the change, but if you can articulate rationally the reason for the change, especially the desired outcome of the change, you will do a better job of getting people on board. The smaller, more gradual changes are easier for people than the larger more drastic feeling changes.

In summary – your leadership should not only be maintaining the status quo, they should be evaluating the results (fruit) from the status quo and recommending and implementing changes, in order to continue to produce fruit in accordance with the mission and vision of The Church.

Status Quo Vs. Tradition

Posted on by Rich

Status quo is fact. This is the status quo – the state of things – the way things are. There is little emotional attachment to the status quo, other than the natural human inertia – the aversion to change – even change that is potentially positive.

Tradition is different! it is “the way we have always done it”, “the way they did it when I was young”, “the way Dad (or Mom) always did it”. It is imbued with nostalgia and emotion. People have an inherent tendency to view the familiar as correct, and unfamiliar as somehow less right. Perhaps “right” is not the correct word, perhaps it is “normal” vs. “abnormal”. Having watched my share of national geographic specials as a kid, I remember thinking over and over – how can those people be so weird? They simply were raised with different traditions.

During Jesus ministry on Earth, he consistently railed against the traditions of men, especially when those traditions were interfering with people having relationship with God. The Jewish people at that time, especially a party called the Pharisee’s, had established a system of legalism and ritual that portended to make it easier for people to figure out if they were following God’s law, while at the same time it masked the fact that all men are sinners and in need of God’s mercy. In the end, it was a system that created status for the Pharisees thus they were heavily invested in those traditions, because of the status afforded them.

So how do traditions manifest in ministry today?

Some traditions are involved with the worship service, the liturgy, the music, etc. Others have to do with kids programs: AWANA clubs or Pioneers. Some traditions manifest in attitudes towards christian education or home schooling. All of these traditions can be beneficial, but can limit fruitfulness. Perhaps one of the most insidious traditions has to do with legalism and behavior: the No drinking, No dancing, No movies approach. It leads to a judgemental spirit – and it tends to alienate those that we most seek to enter our fellowship – sinners. This tradition, so common in Baptist churches of the last two generations, is the reason that it is hard to find a church with Baptist in the name in any suburban community.

Traditions can become part of the ministry brand or identity – aspects of our ministry that “cannot be changed”. These are difficult to change because without them, “we wouldn’t be us”. If you think about ministry branding, our brand should be Jesus Christ, any distinctive we try to attain for our ministry is really in the end only differentiating ourselves from Him.

A conclusion:
As the church membership dwindles, the remainder of parishoners strongly identify with the traditions, and threaten to leave if change is implemented. What is to be said about this?

Likely the traditions were established as new practices or methods at the time, replacing some older cherished tradition. They were innovative and effective at producing fruit. I think of “The Reformation” as a classic example of replacing traditions that had become unfruitful. Now, the culture around us has changed, the demographics of the community have changed, the demographics of our ministry participants have changed. Time for change – specifically to become more effective at producing fruit.

Ministry participants who care more about the traditions than about fruit need to be educated, indoctrinated, and re-purposed. If they think the purpose of the ministry is to please them – they are mistaken. It is not – it is to please God. It is to Make Disciples. It is to do the good works that God has prepared in advance for us to do. They either are willing to be re-purposed or not. It can either happen at their current church or somewhere else. When they leave the church, they will have much less authority or “say so” than they currently think they do, or are entitled to, especially if they have inhabited leadership positions in church.

A leader who threatens to leave your church is literally holding your ministry hostage. He or she is a terrorist. Do not negotiate with terrorists. If they are a large contributor, give them their last months contribution back.

Worst case scenario:
What about a church split. I think that most church leaders fear this more than anything. Church splits can be painful, dividing even families, and can hurt the ministry’s effectiveness.

Lemonade from lemons:
Maybe you should consider turning the split into a plant. If the difference of opinion is not over doctrine, but something less essential (tradition), rather than parting company in anger, support that leader and maintain a healthy relationship – plant a new church. Especially if the ministry overall is healthy, growing or maintaining and producing fruit. Let God find a way to make a problem into an opportunity to produce even more fruit.