Here is another bit from Wood in Leading Turnaround Churches. What do you think about this?
Power struggles are fundamentally irresolvable. The question in a power struggle is, who will lead and who will leave? American culture has contributed to the unwillingness of many church leaders to deal with power struggles. Our government functions with a two party system. There is always one party in power, and a rival party seeking to strip them of this power and place themselves in leadership.
American politics has taught people checks and balances are necessary. We are frequently reminded that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Due to the fallen nature of man, the two-party system has been implemented to keep leaders honest and prevent abuse of authority. . .
The church, however, was never intended to be a two-party system. The New Testament sets forth the standards for leadership and instructs the congregation to submit to those over them. The pastor, working alongside the governing board, is given the responsibility of establishing direction for the body. As long as the direction is within biblical perimeters, the body is to submit to its duly selected leaders.
Or what about this ditty from Bill Easum:
Throughout my consulting ministry, I have seen a disturbing pattern: Most established churches are held hostage by bullies. Some individual or small group opposes the church’s making a radical change, even if it means the change would give the church a chance to thrive again. Courageous pastors often ask, “What do I do when one or two persons intimidate the church so much that it is not willing to try something new?” My response is always, “Either convert them, neutralize them, kick them out, or kill them. The Body cannot live with cancer . . .
Telling Stories, Asking Questions, Learning Lessons
First of all, Wood needs to go back and take a Civics class. The two-party system has nothing to do with checks and balances. That’s what the three branches of government (legislative, executive and judicial) are for.
Aside from that, I do agree that the church was never intended to be a two-party system, but I do think there is precedent for having a system of checks and balances. It seems that the Old Testament offices of Prophet, Priest and King functioned something like that.
I’m not exactly sure how that would work out in today’s congregations, though.
As for Easum’s quote, that’s been my experience in my consulting ministry as well. He’s right on.
Going back to yesterday’s post for a moment, it seems to me that a team-based approach to leadership will probably cap a church at a particular size (probably small to medium). My understanding is that that’s exactly what Emergent folks want. But Churches of Christ are also somewhat obsessed with numbers and size (in a slightly schizophrenic “We want to be big but not THAT big; we want to grow but not THAT fast” sort of way). It’s probably difficult or impossible to be big and grow quickly while maintaining that kind of leadership structure.
I think I understand.
Thanks for sharing.
Wade, I am glad you are bringing up this particular subject. It has been a pattern I have been a part of time and time again. I don’t think there is a definite solution, but I think it may something to be recognized and managed. I see problems with the “man” lead and the “team” based model. You probably need some kind of combination and biblical teaching that teaches patience, encouragement, teamwork, etc. That being “right” is not the goal. Being unified for God’s purpose is the goal.
Love the Easum quote.
It takes wisdom, of course. We must be patient and long-suffering. We must honor those who disagree. But having said that, we must not default to every dissident voice. It takes a combination of love and courage. Without love, we’ll stomp on people; without courage, we’ll become the church anxiously awaiting the return of a long-gone era.
I’m with Mike on the loving and stomping language – but I’m tired of seeing churches take 25 stinkin’ years to do something that can be done in 2-3. Processes – long drawn out studies – and preparatory dialogues over a long period of time breeds nothing more than intellectual agreement or disagreement – and lacks any power that actually models the purpose of change in the first place.
I don’t think this is a cookie cutter deal at all – but at someone point, the church must be led graciously without fear and NO knee jerk reactions to people who fight change.
I believe the 99% rule but throw this into the mix:
3-5% of any organization are the visionaries
10-15% are the early adaptors
40-60% are middle adaptors
10-15% are late adaptors
3-5% are never adaptors
If there is not a vision and clear understanding from God among the 3-5% of visionaries – then the leadership on the “never adaptor” end will lead the congregation – every time.
If there is no vision shared among the 3-5% of visionaries and modeled in such a way that early adaptors catch on quickly – then the middle adaptors will not move because they are controlled by the lates and nevers.
BUT – and I’ve seen this and am now experiencing this in great evidence – IF there is a group of people who walk with the Lord and are sold out to accomplishing his mission in this world as they see it and are not afraid to loose 30% of a body to another fellowship (not the world – b/c most leave for another church – the kingdom isn’t loosing them) – then things will look differently.
There has to be vision and spiritual giftedness in the leadership to go forward in such a way that the middle and lates evenutally say goodbye to the nevers and cautiously embrace the new and early’s.
The awesome news is that you’ll attract what you are.
People you don’t even know yet will replace everyone you were afraid to say “goodbye” to.
3 years ago – I feared loosing staff – and we lost staff.
I feared loosing members – and we lost members.
I feared loosing money – and we lost money.
I feared loosing teachers, lifegroup leaders, and ministry leaders and we lost some from all areas.
Today – only 200 people are still at Shannon Oaks that were here 3 years ago and there are about 700 more people that I didn’t know existed. The average contribution went from $7,500/week to over $15,000/week. Conversions went from 30 in 5 years (98-2003) to over 250 in 3 years.
Why? I’m not sure – but I know there hasn’t been a power struggle in over 2 years. There may be some coming – but the culture doesn’t breathe that anymore here.
The Shepherds here and leadership/staff team here is not afraid to say “this is who we are – this is not who we are – this is what we’re about – and this is not what we’re about.”
When this exists – then the leadership discerns how the mission is carried out. When this courage and love do not exist – then the late and never adaptors lead the church. And for the most part – these are all good people – but are blind in regards to the value of anything outside of familiarity and predictability. They’ll never lead – so they control through withdrawal and threats.
The question – in my opinion – is who’s leading? The visionaries and early adaptors – or the late and never adaptors? And this does not have to be a power struggle.
Ok – last thought:
There’s a quote in Primal Leadership that I think is fitting:
“Keki Dadiseth took this challenge head on: He moved toward the ideal by becoming an exemplar himself. he modled the changes he wanted to see, involving people in the process of creating a new vision and a new reality. His concept was centerfuged leadership – that the center of gravity was not the chairman, everyone was central to success. Within a year, the culture changed, such that people acknowledged the openness, trust, and empowerment within the company.”
Regardless of what you’re trying to create – if there’s vision – then begin finding the early adaptors and co-visionaries – and make the changes and let the culture experience the new center of gravity.
Some will leave – money will fluctuate – new support will come – and the power struggles are lessened. there’s a new core established and there’s only permission to advance forward and no more permission to fight for power…
wow – what a rant…
good stuff
Jeff,
I agree with you…to a point. People do not gravitate to whoever is right necessarily. They tend to gravitate towards whoever presents the clearest picture. So, vision is absolutely essential.
But vision, mission, passion and (sometimes even) courage exist in a lot of places that still end up failing.
The missing ingredient is usually strategy. Lots of churches know what they’re supposed to be. Very few churches (and church leaders) know how to get there.
I’ll agree to some extent…The only time you can do it without strategy and clarity is if you have a very gifted charismatic leader whom people are atracted to even without a strategy… and it happens … alot. But then you’re at the helm of one of the churches greatest liabilities; Jim Collin’s dreaded “charismatic leader”.
It depends on what your goal is. If you’re strapped financially – you’re almost dead – because until you’re out from under that umbrella of financial fear or “support” fear – there’s not a strategy in the world that will compensate for the fear associated with “losing” support and everything.
So – there – a strategy is needed to escape the greatest source of fear and limitation. And a strategy is needed to round the corner.
Strategy is where the power struggles come – and without vision and ownership by the other visionaries and early adaptors – you’ll never have enough influence to lead the majority of the middle adaptors to buy into the strategy.
1st: strategy to expose, overcome, and move beyond the greatest source of fear
2nd: strategy to remove the barriers that prevent movement toward the telos
3rd: strategy to establish the culture that owns the vision
4th: strategy to implement the vision
But, if you have people around you who love you and share your vision and passion – it doesn’t matter what the strategy is – they’re not going anywhere and they won’t fight. They’re trying to accomplish the same things and it’s FUNNNNNN!
Can’t remember the last time I was in a power struggle situation – and there hasn’t been much of a strategy here. There’s one on paper and there’s one that’s somewhat communicated …
Like Donald Trump says in the Apprentice: winning is fun and losing stinks. When you win – everyone is happy. When you lose, no one is happy and people say and do ugly things.
Lead people to Christ – and change lives.
When this happens – people literally stop arguing and fighting over issues. When people’s lives are changed – you can literally look someone in the eye who doesn’t agree with whatever method is being implemented and communicate the focus and keep moving regardless.
Changed lives change churches. Churches without changed lives can only be led by the people with the most money and loudest squeaking wheel.
another rant
Many ministers are really nice guys who are so nice that they get steamrolled by controlling factions, and in the effort to be nice or liked or “christian” are held hostage – sometimes not realizing it for years.
Fear governs more churches than we can count.
When the minister and other leadership can factor out fight, flight, or fright in the face of fear, then they have a shot at hearing the voice of God as to how to proceed. But, factoring out such natural human responses isn’t easy.
Natural responses to fear (fight, flight, fright) cannot coexist with vision and clarity. They can only lead to destrcutive leadership.
My, my, my, doesn’t Wood have a negative perspective?
By saying that power struggles are fundamentally unresolvable he is completely negating the power of the Spirit working to change us, or the novel idea that perhaps deep down some of us love our churches and just want what’s best, even if it isn’t our idea. Worst of all he is saying this about 95% of us, which makes being a church-going Christian sound horribly hypocritical and depressing. And to add insult to injury, he is blaming church politics on well, politics, not a very flattering comparison.
I do like Easum’s quote but with a bit of caution. Following a leader with a vision who is willing to do what is unpopular with the squeaky wheels can be exciting, invigorating even. But we must be careful when in a position of leadership to closely evaluate where such changes will lead us and why they are getting opposition in the first place. Granted, you will NEVER satisfy everyone, but we are called to be discerning and no good shepherd would willingly lead his flock anywhere unsafe.
I attended a church for several years where there was a wolf among the shepherds quite literally. He was very dynamic, well-spoken, and often seemed to make a lot of sense. Unfortunately, the decisions he made and those he influenced the other shepherds to make ravaged the church and I still see the results of it years later. He never argued over such things as carpet color, he went straight to the heart of the church’s future, won over parents and implemented youth programs that left the youth and families unstable and rotting. He was very clever and the blame was placed mostly on the youth minister, I think. Very few people realized that the wolf was the one who hired and controlled the minister.
My warning would be this:
Watch out who we alienate with changes. Change is good, necessary even in the church, and if the people who will leave are, as Jeff put it, “Never adapters” the people who want a comfort zone church, then we may need to make that difficult change. If, however, the people we are loosing are the pillars, the silent, but faithful people who pull their weight and follow good leaders, the teachers, the helpers, the wise men and women we respect who put their church family above their comfort and have ridden out storms with you for years, even decades. My question is this, what could make even Noah jump ship? There are churches that make the change for the worst, there are divisive leaders dedicated to tearing us down. I guess, I would say, don’t let yourself fall victim to your own power struggle. Evaluate your priorities, because you may be surprised to find yourself on the wrong side.
Jenni – I really like what you said.
One of the most difficult aspects of all the change that has taken place here at Shannon Oaks has been sitting and crying with people who have been here for over 30 years and are simply sad that their long term friends have chosen to worship elsewhere.
There were many sleepless nights where I had just sheer restlessness wanting to make things more comfortable for those who were just struggling. Many struggled with the direction we were going – and others struggled with the way we were going about the changes.
We made ALOT of mistakes – often very bully like changes – and did the best we could within the realm of trying to be loving and gentle. It was hard. There was about 9 months in 2004 that I didn’t think we were going to make it through the year in tact – and I traveled frequently to Baton Rouge, La to see one of my mentors in life, Eddie Parish for counsel and therapy dealing with all of the chaos in my spirit while trying to not destroy a church with toxic leadership.
Gratefully – our Shepherds grew fearless and we added 5 more shepherds to the 4 that had been here for 30 years.
Thankfully – God sent more people to Shannon Oaks than were leaving and we rounded the curve.
But still to this day – we have about 125 – 150 people who are still here – are still wrestling through the aftermath of the changes and the loss of relationships with people who used to worship here – and it’s tough sometimes.
I can honestly say – if there weren’t so many lives being changed and so much of the vision coming to fruition – none of the changes would have been worth it.
I just want to AMEN what you said about genuinely caring about the people who aren’t necessarily on board with the changes. That is the most difficult part of change… walking humbly with people who don’t embrace it – for whatever reason. Some will stay for 30 years and never embrace the change – simply because they’re not going anywhere. Some will leave – some will adapt – and some will just do their own thing.
There’s nothing easy about ministry except preaching a sermon.
The demand for a church to remain the same is tantamount to a death wish. No collection of people remains the same without death creeping in to carry pieces of it away. Change is not a choice.
A church can either let change come in and kill it, or they can manage change, envision change, lead change.
It is quite evident that Jesus’ model for leadership is one that turns the worldview upside down. Just as in every other aspect of Jesus’ life and the happiness He gave His Father, it was opposite the worldview. Religious and political leaders could not be persuaded of a majority of these Truths that Jesus’ life showed every day.
I like what was said about subverting yourself, and how that may be the mark of a true leader in Christ’s church. I will agree, often I’ve been witness to leadership/power struggles that offered many opportunities for one person or the other to take Christ’s approach and establish his place in the Church, only to have them fight for position over a mute point, with both sides and many others being even more lost than before.
I would like to just add that a possible approach may be held in what Jesus did in Mark 3:12: “He ordered the spirits not to tell who He was.”.
To me this says that there is a timing factor involved also. Picking and choosing battles, preparing allies by encouraging, educating, and building support for a given cause. This allowed the Spirit to guide the mission, not an overly enthusiastic leader with good intentions.
No matter how good a leaders intentions are, if it is the leaders plans that are at the forefront, failure is certain.
Today’s leader in Jesus’ shoes would have let the trembling, unclean spirit spread the word and they would have thought what amazing power God has that He can use unclean spirits to help spread the word. But Jesus chose a time out. A gathering of the troops, and support. His mission has grown out of those twelve, into what it is today. Maybe a Christ-like leader should take a time-out or punt every so often. Jesus did!