While leading any kind of change is challenging, churches are arguably the most difficult of all organisations to change.
What makes this the case? I’m going to suggest four reasons.
Unlike your average company, a congregation cannot count on the benefits of financial remuneration to help oblige their members’ loyalty. But that is not to say that no transactions take place. The folk who show up at your church on a Sunday morning do expect something in exchange for their time. They don’t think about it like this (at least I hope they don’t), but they will expect something back for the money and time they give.
According to Robert Dale, the church deals in “redemptive relationships, connections of person to God and of person to others”, and volunteers of such organisations expect to take their “pay” in forms including “service, recognition, learning, ministry channels, and moral ways to fill time and to structure life”. The challenge, of course, is that the meaning I get from church participation will be different to the meaning you get. And no one ever articulates their particular version of meaning even if they know it.
Can you imagine? “I get 10% of my church-related meaning from singing worship songs, 12% from a good sermon, 2.5% from communion, and 5% from chatting with people after the service – 6.5% if the coffee’s good. I volunteer at the kid’s ministry because service makes my life overall 12% more meaningful.”
So, what does this have to do with change?
Well, in a changing congregation, if part of this subjective transaction is reneged or significantly altered, members can feel quite justified in un-volunteering their time, energy or attendance.
While the staff at your local café or hardware store will have treasured habits and familiar rituals, it is very unlikely that anyone will attach sacred value to these habits. This is, of course, what we do in church. Our liturgical and worshipping habits – sung worship, communion, preaching, et cetera – are, and should be, seen as sacred.
Making changes to long-established worship traditions is a profoundly challenging task. The perceived sacredness of rituals means that members can feel deeply emotionally attached to them even if they are aware that the traditions don’t carry the same meaning for many others.
In large companies and not-for-profits, leadership responsibilities and roles (upper management) tend to be delineated from management responsibilities (middle management and project managers). This makes it very clear who is in charge, and those in charge are expected to exercise leadership and take responsibility for the organisation's vision.
In contrast, congregations typically have fewer levels of organisational structure, and leadership and management are not so clearly apportioned. Clergy are typically responsible for leadership (vision development) and management (daily operations).
The hierarchical nature of churches has two implications. Firstly, a minister wanting to engage in a change process will need to carve out time for this without failing to complete other responsibilities like pastoral care and roster creation (fun, fun, fun). Secondly, while a heroic CEO might push through a change initiative single-handedly – at least they might claim it – ministers must bring others on board if their change initiative has a hope of taking root.
Many of the older folk in our churches have lived through enormous amounts of change.
This feels confusing and sometimes alienating. Older folk have described to me the feeling of being outsiders in their own culture. For some of our brothers and sisters, church is the one thing in their lives that hasn’t changed. For people like this, church change is unlikely to be well received.
That all might sound a bit grim, my change-desiring friends. And while it is true that change is hard, it can be done. In fact, it has been done many, many times during Christianity’s long history.
Check out other articles in the
series below.
More articles in the
series are to come.
We have invited these writers to share their experiences, ideas and opinions in the hope that these will provoke thought, challenge you to go deeper and inspire you to put your faith into action. These articles should not be taken as the official view of the Nelson Diocese on any particular matter.
While leading any kind of change is challenging, churches are arguably the most difficult of all organisations to change.
What makes this the case? I’m going to suggest four reasons.
Unlike your average company, a congregation cannot count on the benefits of financial remuneration to help oblige their members’ loyalty. But that is not to say that no transactions take place. The folk who show up at your church on a Sunday morning do expect something in exchange for their time. They don’t think about it like this (at least I hope they don’t), but they will expect something back for the money and time they give.
According to Robert Dale, the church deals in “redemptive relationships, connections of person to God and of person to others”, and volunteers of such organisations expect to take their “pay” in forms including “service, recognition, learning, ministry channels, and moral ways to fill time and to structure life”. The challenge, of course, is that the meaning I get from church participation will be different to the meaning you get. And no one ever articulates their particular version of meaning even if they know it.
Can you imagine? “I get 10% of my church-related meaning from singing worship songs, 12% from a good sermon, 2.5% from communion, and 5% from chatting with people after the service – 6.5% if the coffee’s good. I volunteer at the kid’s ministry because service makes my life overall 12% more meaningful.”
So, what does this have to do with change?
Well, in a changing congregation, if part of this subjective transaction is reneged or significantly altered, members can feel quite justified in un-volunteering their time, energy or attendance.
While the staff at your local café or hardware store will have treasured habits and familiar rituals, it is very unlikely that anyone will attach sacred value to these habits. This is, of course, what we do in church. Our liturgical and worshipping habits – sung worship, communion, preaching, et cetera – are, and should be, seen as sacred.
Making changes to long-established worship traditions is a profoundly challenging task. The perceived sacredness of rituals means that members can feel deeply emotionally attached to them even if they are aware that the traditions don’t carry the same meaning for many others.
In large companies and not-for-profits, leadership responsibilities and roles (upper management) tend to be delineated from management responsibilities (middle management and project managers). This makes it very clear who is in charge, and those in charge are expected to exercise leadership and take responsibility for the organisation's vision.
In contrast, congregations typically have fewer levels of organisational structure, and leadership and management are not so clearly apportioned. Clergy are typically responsible for leadership (vision development) and management (daily operations).
The hierarchical nature of churches has two implications. Firstly, a minister wanting to engage in a change process will need to carve out time for this without failing to complete other responsibilities like pastoral care and roster creation (fun, fun, fun). Secondly, while a heroic CEO might push through a change initiative single-handedly – at least they might claim it – ministers must bring others on board if their change initiative has a hope of taking root.
Many of the older folk in our churches have lived through enormous amounts of change.
This feels confusing and sometimes alienating. Older folk have described to me the feeling of being outsiders in their own culture. For some of our brothers and sisters, church is the one thing in their lives that hasn’t changed. For people like this, church change is unlikely to be well received.
That all might sound a bit grim, my change-desiring friends. And while it is true that change is hard, it can be done. In fact, it has been done many, many times during Christianity’s long history.
Check out other articles in the
series below.
More articles in the
series are to come.
