In Leading Turnaround Churches (a good, but not great book), Gene Wood puts forth what he calls “The Ninety-Five Percent Theory.” He writes, “Simply stated the 95 percent theory is that 95 percent of all serious problems in the church stem from a power struggle.”
I disagree. I think 99 percent of all serious problems in church stem from a power struggle.
Forget what you’ve heard about instrumental music in acappella Churches of Christ. The single most contentious and important issue in heritage Churches of Christ is “Who is in charge here?” Just about every one of my preacher buddies has had to expend some serious energy on this question. It’s never fun. Believe me, I know.
What’s interesting is that at a time when a lot of churches in the emerging conversation are moving in the direction of non-hierarchal, team-based leadership models, some Churches of Christ are moving away from a team-based elder-led model and moving toward a more traditional preacher-led model.
In my opinion, Churches of Christ have a pretty dysfunctional and ineffective leadership mentality embedded in our DNA. Team-based leadership hasn’t proved to be that effective in most of our congregations. It’ll be interesting to see how team-based emerging churches fare. It’ll also be interesting to see what kind of churches the current leadership upheaval in Churches of Christ ultimately produces.
I’ve got tons of half-baked thoughts, unsolicited opinions, and anecdotal evidence I can add to this, but first lets see if there’s any interest in such a discussion.
What do you think? Do you agree with the 95% percent theory?
Telling Stories, Asking Questions, Learning Lessons
I’m not sure about the 95% theory. I have been in several places where I saw division in the church and I understood both sides of the argument. I think both sides thought they were right and wanted to right by God in their roles. We are human and are faulted. I may be naive but it just seems very cynical to assume that almost all disagreements in the church are power struggles. I would rather hold out for the theory that says that 50% are power struggles, 25% are personality conflicts and the other 25% are simply people standing up for what they hold sacred.
The difficulty is telling the difference. No one will ever say “I want to be in charge, and you can’t be in charge anymore.” Power struggles will always be masked as concerns for other issues. Usually, in our fellowship, they come across as doctrinal, but they can come in other masks as well.
Just thinking out loud – I’d venture to say that most conflicts a result of some form of power struggle. I’m hard-pressed to envision a conflict where some kind of power struggle isn’t at play. Whether we define it as such, or disguise it as something else, power (both good and bad) is a very real component of conflict.
In response to your leadership comments, what about a hybrid approach to management? I think sub-groups within a system, working independently, but still in conjunction with, and under the direction of, an emcompassing body of “upper management” can be a nice melding of both leadership styles. Somewhere between micro management and the chaos that can stem from team-based leadership run amuck.
I’d have to agree with the 99% figure. This is just my perspective as a former elder.
Wade,
my favorite statistic is that 68% of all statistics are made up on the spot. So I don’t know about the 95% rule. But I do think the subject is a fascinating one.
I think I agree with your statement about dysfunctional leadership being in the DNA. Too heavy on tradition and that tradition has carried over into how we “lead” the church.
I say throw some more thoughts on this at us. I would like to know what you think about the collective wisdom of the community and the leading of the Spirit and how this plays into your thinking.
I’m with Tommy, I would love to hear what else you have to say about this. I do think you are right….I think some people don’t even realize they are making a “power play” when they “pitch a fit” about some trivial thing or the other. (I know it is not trivial to them)
Wade,
Good post! I don’t know about the percentages (95 or 99). I do know that you are on to something that is very important. It is often the “big elephant in the middle of the room” in churches. I look forward to hearing more of your thoughts on this.
Why can’t we all just get along!
Don’t think it’s just in the Church of Christ. The Baptist, the Methodist….well, just about everyone is infected I’m afraid. There always seems to be a few families that seem to have more control than the general population of a Church.
I am a hired part time Music Leader and I see it too. My answer to all of them is: “I lead the way I feel God wants me to Lead, if that’s not good enough for you then find someone else”. Maybe this is hard line but even though I have fallen a time or two God has always brought me back and for some reason uses me and my talent for His glory. God can even use the unworthy failures of this world imagine that.
You know I just ignore the people who pitch fits and Gossip. )maybe they don’t realize it’s SIN) I know who my ultimate boss is and I answer only to HIM.
Like I always say:
Hang in there “We WIN in the End”
Clearly in the minority here, but again, a power struggle may be the result of a disagreement in the church. But it’s not always the source. I think it is simply the easy way to characterize it. Do we think Paul and Peter were just having a power struggle with each other. I tend to believe they were men with deep convictions who didn’t sway easily. These convictions resulted in a conflict (a healthy one at that). If I was in Paul’s camp it may have been easy for me to say, “That Peter is just makin a power play here. We gotta stick to our guns.” But in fact that probably wasn’t true. More likely Peter was an influential guy and was trying to take the church in what he thought was a godly direction according to his convictions. He was mistaken in relying on tradition too much(sound like anyone you know?). But nevertheless, he wasn’t simply making a powerplay. If we dumb it down as such, we discredit those involved and only widen the divide.
From what I can tell–Wood’s 95% theory is not a scientific stat, it’s a made up theory meant to make a point. Same with my 99%.
Kyle–I don’t think I buy your distinction between power struggle and convictions. Most power struggles are the result of clashing convictions. I also think there is a difference between a power struggle and a power play. Power play sounds negative. Power struggles are neither positive nor negative. They just are.
I’m going to post some more from Wood to flesh it out a bit more.
The preacher led model has been tried in the COC, it was called the ICOC (I am from that heritage), and it failed miserably.
I think the weakness in both the group leadership and the man leadership models is the men in the positions of leadership. The man leadership model is perhaps more dangerous as one bad leader can really make a mess (see the ICOC again). A good, strong leader in that role, however, can make a huge impact as well. However, a church with a good, strong leader is left hanging if that leader moves on.
I think team leadership can work but the problem in most Churches of Christ is that most of the elders we appoint should not be elders. They do not have the ability to lead effectively in any way. We need to evaluate what elders should be doing and wo we appoint as Elders.
I disagree strongly in the identified “cause” of the majority of problems cited. From my experience consulting in a variety of tribal settings, the issue is a common one. I suggest that “power struggle” is a symptom rather than a cause.
Leadership DNA is a crucial element of the problem, perhaps even the core. Healthy leadership team DNA contains two essential and interdependent strands: Spiritually Anchored Leaders and Team Role/ Operational Clarity. Without both strands being healthy, mutations occur, and different symptoms erupt, including power struggles. Further, there are deeper issues than one?s leadership model; it matters little in the end whether one?s model is a strong singular leader or a team of equals. These matters have more to do with the particular congregation’s ethos and the hardwiring of the leaders God has assembled in a particular place.
The most common thread of mutated leadership DNA in organizations of all types is role confusion among the various leadership elements. (In brief, the “destination-setting” group-in Churches of Christ this role is almost always played by the elders; and the “operational management” group- almost always the staff, especially in larger settings. This mutated DNA shows up as an absence of clarity regarding the specific functions and boundaries of both the “destination setting” and “operational management” pieces of the leadership clusters. Regardless of the type of organization, it is common for the board and the management team to collide with on one another. The mission and vision of the two groups have usually not been prayed about and delineated as they relate to the overall mission and vision of the congregation. When confusion or disagreement is present about the role and the basic DNA of the leaders, both the team and the congregation suffer. The leadership team fails to speak with one voice. Competing agendas frequently surface in meetings. A lack of role clarity is a recipe for mediocrity. The storms of diverse expectations slow down and discourage even the most capable leaders and, sometimes, leadership effectiveness is completely shipwrecked. For a lot of congregations, the single most important step leading toward transformation and renewal is breaking free from the gravitational pull of the deeply ingrained and institutionally serving leadership DNA.
John–great comment! Thanks for jumping into the conversation.
I think we all struggle with Jesus statement in Matthew 20:25-28. The way of the world is to use power to get what you want. If you have money, you leverage that. If you are good looking or persuasive, you use it. It doesn’t matter if it’s money, sex, persuasion, or intellect. You use the power you have to get what you want. So what does Jesus mean when he says, “It will not be that way in my Kingdom.” What does that mean exactly? What are the implications for church leaders? Doesn’t this change the whole way we think of leaders. If it doesn’t, whay not? Does Jesus statement here mean ANYthing? Hmmm.
People issues tend to muddy the waters. Some churches do well with strong leader while others do well with a team approach. The problems happen in business as well clubs, non-profits, etc.
A new leader, president, or pastor needs to evaluate the circumstances. What is good about the organization? What is weak? What can the current leaders do and I can encourage? Where do we need to go?
There are hundreds of books on leadership, management, team building, etc. All of these can help someone sort through their situation.
The one over riding question that needs to be answered is “What is God doing in this community and how can we be a part of it?”
People typically need something to focus on and churches have used a number of “programs over the years” to channel that energy: building program, specific outreach programs, contests, etc.
Fighting is often over doctrine (mine vs anyone else of course), budgets, music, carpet color, or anything else. Sometimes there are bullies who like to push others around. Sometimes there are negative people (who can be good planners). Sometimes things just do not seem to make sense to people.
I guess what I am saying is, there are no one size fits all cookie cutter solutions to say that to which every congregation should be organized. Like business, it takes time and effort to know your people, know your community, and build an organization that is mostly moving in the same direction.
If God could do somethings to minister through us to our community, what would those things be?