Several years ago a congregation in a small community was filling its sanctuary in its two worship services each Sunday. Leaders were discussing adding a third service. Before that could be done, some changes needed to happen to prepare the church for that additional service. The pastor and staff were confidant that the church would accept those changes. However, when they were presented to those attending the business meeting they were soundly rejected. The few people who attended the meeting not only voted down the changes but also offered sharp criticism at the pastor and others who were promoting them. The pastor was stunned by the anger exhibited in that meeting. A short time later this pastor, who had served in this church for over two decades, left for another church.
That meeting not only broke his spirit, it began a downward spiral in the church. Today, this church is less than half the size it was at the time of the meeting. One wonders if it will ever return to the vibrant church it once was.
As a regional minister for 14 years I saw a number of similar situations when needed change in a church was rejected. Like the previous church, not only was the change rejected, the rejection came with a lot of angry accusations, name-calling and division. Much of this was usually directed at the pastor and/or staff. When I would be called in to mediate the issues I would usually tell the pastor privately that his or her time there was probably up. In most cases, the pastor was not going to survive this rejection of his leadership.
Why do such violent attacks occur when change is suggested? Sometimes it is due to some deep pain within the congregation. In my first church I announced some plans I had made only to have those plans immediately rejected. Later that evening, in a private phone call, I learned why the people responded as they did. I had, not knowingly, opened up some old wounds that had not healed. I had not been there long enough to know the history, especially that part that had brought pain, of the church.
At other times changes are rejected because the people have grown weary of pastors who introduce changes and then leave before they are fully implemented. Such congregations often feel they are left holding the bag. I don't believe we fully understand how much pain there is in congregations who have seen continuous rapid pastor turnover. Why would such churches embrace change when they've been taught that the pastor will only be there a short while?
Of course, change is often opposed by people who fear that it will challenge their authority or position in the church. I've written extensively about church controllers in this blog and in some of my books. These people will oppose anything that might threaten them or their position in the church. They will often be the most outspoken about their opposition, and they can be quite ugly as well.
The first two situations can be addressed by a long-term pastor. Just because a change is needed doesn't mean it's needed today. In my experience, most worth-while changes in a church took much longer to occur than I had thought. A long-term pastor builds trust in a congregation, and that trust can lead to them becoming willing to accept changes.
I had mentioned that the pastor above had been at his church for over 20 years so being long-term didn't help his situation. That's because those who most strongly opposed the changes he was proposing were church controllers. As more people were coming into the church they were fearful that they would lose their control over the church. They were determined to do anything to stop future growth, and this is what those changes would have brought. Only a handful of people showed up for that business meeting, and it was mostly the controllers. The ones who wanted change, who wanted to see the church grow, weren't there. Maybe that's what hurt the pastor the most.
No comments:
Post a Comment