HOME | CONTRIBUTE A STORY! | ABOUT MMI | CATEGORIES OF INTEREST | CONTACT ME

image

Congregation X and the Problem with Solutions

Orginally published on Sunday, March 18, 2007 at 8:05 PM
by Earl Creps

There tends to be a lack of clear goal-setting in some of the congregations I visit. Apart from things like building programs, or higher attendance, I wonder what exactly is moving the organization forward? The easy answers (and sometimes the right ones) are things like habit, a modernist worldview, or compliance with the format of a certain ministry model. I want to suggest, however, that congregations often fall into a subtler but sometimes even more controlling pattern that looks something like this...

1. “Houston, we have a problem:” A pastor’s life is a life of problems, so there is no shortage of raw material here. It could be a declining Sunday School, nursery workers not showing up on time, budget woes, or a leaking roof on the youth building. Let’s use the example Sunday morning attendance at Congregation X slowly getting smaller and grayer.

2. Hurray! We have a solution: The problem is dissected, analyzed, and a package of solutions is developed. The politics of this stage can be tricky, because problems are concrete, often being visible to the eye (like that leaking roof), while solutions are hypothetical until they are implemented. Continuing our example, the leaders of Congregation X conclude that a total overhaul of how they “do church” is necessary to attract a younger crowd.

3. Oh no! The solution is the new problem: Every solution causes unintended consequences. So, the indebtedness needed to fund a new facility may result in staff layoffs, and a new cell group system might repulse members who just want to hear the pastor preach. In the case of Congregation X, the new untucked-shirts-on-Sunday-morning format draws some younger people but leaves traditional folk cold and feeling the need to migrate.

4. We’ve got to find a solution for the solution: Attempting to fix the original problem can produce a conflict which motivates the leadership either to hold the fort and fight it out, or rapidly back off in an attempt to placate the offended. I’ve seen it both ways, and in various combinations. Let’s say that Congregation X chooses the latter route, gradually returning to their starting point. The result will likely be the departure of the newer people but very few of the original people returning.

5. Solving the solution has created a bigger problem: The new issue generated by this sequence of events is not so much about attendance as it is about a loss of confidence in the leadership. The next predicament that the pastor tries to work out will require all that much more groundwork. Congregation X now has a drifting vision and a lame duck pastor who will require an ever-longer timeline to build the credibility necessary for any future changes. Overcoming this obstacle becomes what that pastor does for a living. 

Quantifying the prevalence of this cycle is impossible, but I’ve seen it (and heard of it) too many times to think it’s not a significant influence in a lot of places. I wonder how many pastors (and this is a feeling I’ve known myself) are spending years trying to solve the problems with their solutions and then trying to repair the loss of credibility that ensues.

While many of these issues come from sources we cannot control, the temptation remains to treat this cycle as an inescapable de facto definition of “ministry,” one that drains the life out of churches like Congregation X and their leaders.

For Discussion:
1. Have you seen examples of the problem/solution/problem pattern?
2. Are there other patterns that can be substitutes for “ministry”?
3. How can this pattern be reversed or at least moderated?

About the Author:  Earl Creps has spent several years visiting congregations that are attempting to engage emerging culture. He directs doctoral studies for the Assemblies of God Theological Seminary in Springfield, Missouri (http://www.agts.edu).  Earl and his wife Janet have pastored three churches, one Boomer, one Builder, and one GenX. He speaks, trains, and consults with ministries around the country. Earl’s book, Off-Road Disciplines: Spiritual Adventures of Missional Leaders, was published by Jossey-Bass/Leadership Network in 2006. Connect with Earl at http://www.earlcreps.com .

 

 


This post has been viewed 1494 times so far.


  There are 6 Comments:

  • Posted by Stewart
    Sunday, March 18, 2007 at 11:47 PM

    Sometimes I feel like this senario is the story of my ministry. smile Actually - part of the problem is (as you pointed out) the solutions are always hypothetical. So you never know ‘for sure’ if the solution will work. The fear that comes in after an initial solution is implemented is legitimate. What if the ‘new’ thing doesn’t work? What if the only thing it does is make a few more people angry? So we jump ship… probably often too early.

    It’s hard enough to stick to your guns when you are the pastor. You are paid to deal with the criticism and politics which comes with change. The people I’ve seen get burned over and over again are the layleaders. I’ve seen so many laypeople get burned trying to help spearhead change that it makes me want to cry. :( Many of these folks are leaders in their secular jobs and very good at what they do, but it’s different in your church.

    I wish there was a way to protect the layleader in the process. Any ideas?

  • Posted by Leonard
    Monday, March 19, 2007 at 7:53 AM

    Thanks Earl,
    Good thoughts here.  One issue that brings this about is the “fadism” leaders exchange for vision.  We read a book, hear a speaker, visit a growing church and we bandwagon ourselves to a gimmick.  Sometimes instead of our vision spawning ideas we simply let our ideas become vision.  I have a file cabinet full of good ideas that wouldn’t work.  Thank God I didn’t try them or as Stewart has pointed out, my ideas dressed in the royal robes of vision would have harmed many dedicated people in the process.

    My experience is that problems solving without a God sized and God driven vision is nothing more than exchanging problems.  Earl says well that the solution becomes the problem.  Too often we have pastors fixing problems, elders fixing problems, key leaders fixing problems when the people should have the power and heart to fix problems.  Ideas do not empower people, they simply point them.  Vision, carefully communicated, empowers people to solve and create simultaneously.  When people get vision, leaders are then free to lead.  My 2 cents.

  • Posted by
    Monday, March 19, 2007 at 8:03 AM

    The hardest part in dealing with a problem can often be dealing with the people in the congregation who don’t see the problem. Consequently any solution is a problem to those people.

    In the case of Congregation “X” wanting to overhaul how they “do church”:

    1.  Get everyone on board as early in the solution process as possible, which most of you are probably doing anyway.  Make sure that the majority sees that the problem exists in the first place.

    2.  Make sure that the ones implementing the chage, doing the actual work, are the ones qualified to make such “repairs”.  Trying to attract a younger crowd often means a change in musical styles and your current musicians might not have experience playing contemporary music.  The younger crown can tell this and it won’t sound right to them until you get musicians and singers that have a contemporary background.

    3.  Make sure the people understand overhauling how they “do church” takes time and it’s not an overnight solution.  One of the biggest incongruencies is that even though peoplemay want change, they don’t want to go through the process of changing. Like taking a journey when you’re a child, you’re always asking “When are we going to get there?”. You want to just BE THERE, but you don’t want to go through the trip to get there. But even with advance warning about change, there will be those people who complain.  Let them.  You can’t run an effective church being reactionary.

    I agree that the main problem is no clear-cut goal setting.  No amount of problem soving can get done without it.  If it’s not done at the beginning, it will have to be done at some point.

  • Posted by
    Monday, March 19, 2007 at 8:48 AM

    “I agree that the main problem is no clear-cut goal setting. “

    I disgree. I think it all comes back to your mission and vision. Are they clear? Are they communicated? Does everybody make decisions based on this? Goals are great, but they need to be goals to accomplish the mission. (In our church we call it “reaching people, changing lives”.) Not just goals for goals sake. Too often this is what they are.

  • Posted by
    Monday, March 19, 2007 at 9:06 AM

    Sorry. I should have clarified.  Yes, the goals have to be God-given and full of the Lord’s vision and not our own.  Setting a goal for the sake of setting a goal is only a prescription for wheel-spinning and alienating.

  • Posted by kent
    Monday, March 19, 2007 at 12:28 PM

    Perhaps part of the solution/problem merry-go-round is that we do not think through the interrelated nature of life. You do one thing and it impact 4 others. Sometimes you have see all the connections and consequences of the actions you take. You might still take them but you are aware of what is coming.

    • Page 1 of 1 pages

Post Your Comments:

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Live Comment Preview:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Please enter the word you see in the image below: