One of tougher lessons I have had to learn is that pain is a good teacher. The prophets were more comfortable with the pain of others than I am. If I rescue others or myself from the pain we feel, what motivation is there to make the need change? Why repent if the pain will go away? Crisis brings discomfort. Allowing people to live in the discomfort may be the most pastoral thing we can do. I agree with the post. In the church we often “don’t have time for the pain.”

In my opinion, if you are a church that is committed to reaching the world with the Gospel then you should always be changing because the world is always changing.  Two of the most important values a church can have is a) it’s not about me, and b) a culture of change.  The question shouldn’t be “Are we going to change?” but rather “How are we going to change?”

Interestingly enough, if you were to ask the “average person” (Thanks, Randy) sitting in the pew, they would say it was the pastor. The pastor would say opposite. At least this is more than likely the case.

I was truly amazed at our senior pastor this past Sunday afternoon. He called a leadership meeting without giving any details as to what was to be discussed. The room was packed.

Change was the topic. We started in prayer. He talked. Leadership talked. We all discussed. We ended in prayer. Did this meeting help, hurt or to most make no difference? Pray and time will tell. We’re on the verge of breaking free and busting loose. Of course, with God all things are possible for His glory and honor alone!

I suppose if one really wanted to get semantic about it, the most basic motivation for change is a dissatisfaction with the way things are.  But you have to go even deeper than that and look for the cause of that dissatisfaction.  In other words, change requires some catalyst, or a change agent, to create some type of dissatisfaction.

I think a big part of a pastor’s calling is to be a catalyst for change; i.e., he’s supposed to make people dissatisfied with where they are.  That’s not necessarily a bad thing, but it’s not an easy job - nor a popular one.  (Read any of the prophets!) But does a church NEED the pastor to be the change agent?  Asked another way, should the pastor be the only agent of change in the church?  Absolutely not!  In fact, his role may be primarily to lead through change, less than to lead into it.

So, whether you want to say that change is caused by crises, by people, by the Bible, by the Holy Spirit, by pain...these are all true.  But change won’t happen until the dissatisfaction with the way things are reaches a point where it can overcome the inertia of life. 

Bigger, older churches are generally more resistant to change for the same reason that it is harder to turn an aircraft carrier than a motorboat:  there’s just more bulk to move.

This article is amusingly interesting. Our churches have experienced tremendous change, it’s just not as fast as most,here, would like. In our microwave world some want radical change overnight or even quicker.

Most churches I know have given in to the need for contemporary music, projection screens, and allowing women to be involved in leading worship among other changes.

In my 8 years of pastoring my church and 6 years as music leader before that we have instituted considerable change in what we do in the service. We used to be the organ prelude, call to worship, announcements, hymns, special music, sermon, invitation, benediction church. A nice formal traditional service. We are now a full P&W;band opening with live guitars, drums, keyboard, and singers including video projection and a variety of “new” practices. If we do announcements they are at the end of the service. We don’t even pass the plates for an offering. Offering plates are available, along with communion elements, for people to place their offerings in during a moment of quiet communion and worship.

I have led them to change the service dramatically but I introduced the change slowly and in small doses. This way I honored their worship and didn’t have a mass exodus. Some seniors don’t prefer what we do but they know why we are doing it and accept it.

As a side thought I have to say that I’m also amused at the idea that churches that are all contemporary in their style have a dynamic worship where everyone is engaged. Sorry, I’ve seen these churches on TV and experienced them in person. What I see is an engaged and active 2-3 rows of people while those in back go along with what’s happening. When the camera will pan back you’ll see people in a service with a rockin’ band, halfway clapping, if at all, halfway singing, if at all, looking around and basically seeming disinterested. The truth of the matter is there is a small percentage of people who are highly engaged, a majority that are moderately engaged, and a small minority that are completely disengaged. It’s the way people are.

My observation is most pastors, especially pastors today since they are of the boomer and younger generation, would like change. But they don’t run pell mell ahead and yes because of the seniors. I believe for two basic reasons.

1. Compassion for the seniors, and 2. the seniors pay the bills. It is a foolish pastor who alienates all the seniors 1. because they deserve a place of worship and 2. because you will lose your financial base. Studies have shown it takes 5-10 young adults to replace the offerings of a senior.

I know churches locally who have done a great job reaching young adults who can’t pay their bills. So it becomes a matter of survival.

Finally, everything I sense from my denomination, Southern Baptist, is an encouragement to change so in my case it isn’t a denominational problem.

Change.  Funny.  I will visit a parishioner’s home and see a huge TV, the DirecTV Dish, a nice computer, the latest microwave...and this is in a senior’s home...the same senior who will resist a small change like the order in a bulletin or getting rid of the organ because the parts to repair it are no longer made.  I know the seniors can change if they choose too. 

Pain is a motivator.  One of my seniors a couple of years ago lamented about why we do not have many people joining our church.  She heard a local Baptist church in our association was having trouble and people were leaving...to go to another large Baptist church.  Why not us?  It pained her.  My reply:  Big church folk will transfer to another big church.  It pained her to hear that.  I asked her what was she willing to “change” to bring in those people...that is if we are in the business of transfer growth and not reaching out to lost souls.  Then she changed course and asked why the lost weren’t coming.  I asked her how many lost people did she know as friends...that stumped her...they all attend Baptist churches.  She realized she needed to change first…

Is it possible that sometimes churches don’t need to change, sometimes they just need to shut their doors as new churches open theirs? In a healthy forest trees die and fall down all the time! Not that those churches were bad or wrong to begin with or even to end with… but is it possible that they sometimes outlive their usefulness???

Just a thought…