Reviving a Plateaued Church Without Ticking People Off (Part II)
- Posted by: Todd
- Posted on: Tue, June 27, 2006
- Viewed 179
- (23) comments so far
The reason I wanted your input on the quote itself, along with your position (paid or lay) in the church is because of the following: I think the average paid church staff member, and the average unpaid lay church leader have really different ideas of what needs to be done when it comes to pulling a church out of a declined or plateaued situation.
The quote is by none other than Rick Warren (sorry to those of you who agreed with it but don’t like RW!) You can read his entire article on plateaued churches here for more of his persepective. The reason I picked the quote was this: this quote is being tossed around a couple of internet sites as being the latest example of PD philosphy gone wrong. In reality, I don’t think it has anything to do with Purpose Driven philosphy; but more as they way a pastor of church leader many times will see things that need to change in a church as compared to how a lay person would see it.
OK… take out the part about God killing people in the desert. Let’s talk about the part about people not willing to change. Warren essentially says, “hey look… something’s gotta give.” There are people here who are holding us back. Maybe they are the people who have caused this church to plateau in the first place. They are unwilling to change. They are unwilling to give. They are fighters. They will fight tooth and nail against any changes leadership proposes. They have three choices: Change, Leave, or Die. The fourth choice is that they stay and keep the church from moving forward.
How many pastors understand this truth? My bet is that nearly all do. If you’re in a turnaround church situation and you’re a staff member, you have a list of these people, who you wish, quite frankly, would ‘get outta Dodge’ (and quick!)
These people fight you tooth and nail. They implode the work you feel God has called you to do (and that you’ve been hired to do) in order to ‘safegard’ the church.
These lay people, on the other hand, see things quite differently. Many times they see change as ‘power hungry pastors’ who are trying to ‘steal their church’.
Now don’t get me wrong. These people love the Lord. They really do. They just don’t want you touching their church.
And they definitely don’t want to see anyone leave or any conflict or change.
And don’t mess with anything they’ve been in charge of for 20 years.
I’ve been a part of turnarounds; and they can get ugly.
And these days, angry lay people like to blog! They love to tell how their church was ripped out from under them by some preacher who downloads his sermons at Pastors.com. Rick Warren is a dirty word to many lay people who’ve been ‘pushed out’ of their church because of change. In reality, Rick Warren and PD has nothing to do with it.
One website criticizes Warren’s statement by saying “Apparently Rick Warren wants to take no prisoners in implementing change… Is he (Warren) offering paramilitary classes at Saddleback along with the hula praise lessons? Can we expect Purpose Driven snipers to pick off elderly folks with Bibles who want their sermons and hymns back? Good grief.” (a bit sarcastic, I think).
Another website says of this quote, “Is it just me or is there a fascist undertone to Mr. Warren and company?”
Yet another website talks about this quote: “According to Rick Warren, these people are resisters and are standing in the way of Purpose Driven progress. In a June 14th article written by Rick Warren on his website (What Do You Do When Your Church Hits a Plateau? ), Warren told pastors and church leaders not to be discouraged about slow change in their churches. He told them it would take time ... and in many cases it would take these resisters either leaving the church or simply dying.”
The last quote, to be honest, I think is pretty true (when you take the Purpose Driven comment out of it). I think most pastors do think that eventually the resisters have to go. Death is extreme; but go, none the less).
Usually, the truth be known, either the resisters have to go, or the pastors do. Many times, it’s the pastors. And the church continues to decline.
That doesn’t mean that we as paid church leaders implement change wrecklessly. Not at all. And many times it’s a win/win to provide a compromise for people who are losing something they’re used to (for instance, musical style).
But for growth to begin, and for things to start happening, I agree with Warren… somehow, someway, somehow the dissenters must eventually either change or go.
The biggest problem in transitioning a declining church is dealing with the dissenters (or the ‘old guard’ as we called them). They’re the ones who if you give them the choice of changing or dying, they would probably pick death. 
Obviously, most lay people won’t get it. And they’ll think most pastors won’t as well.
OK… that’s a LOT of rambling. But do you get my point? Both sides look at church change from a completely different perspective many times; and precious time and kingdom work is lost in the process.
FOR DISCUSSION: Do you agree that there is a huge difference in the way that paid staff and most lay people view church change? Do the dissenters really have to go? How do you deal with dissenters?
Yesterday I started this conversation based on an anonymous quote: "If your church has been plateaued for six months, it might take six months to get it going again. If it’s been plateaued a year, it might take a year. If it’s been plateaued for 20 years, you’ve got to set in for the duration! I’m saying some people are going to have to die or leave. Moses had to wander around the desert for 40 years while God killed off a million people before he let them go into the Promised Land. That may be brutally blunt, but it’s true. There may be people in your church who love God sincerely, but who will never, ever change." Today, some more perspective...
Comments
if you want a Globally Recognized Avatar (the images next to your profile) get them here. Once you sign up, they will displayed on any website that supports them.
Peter Hamm on Tue, June 27, 2006
Yes.
There is a HUGE difference between staff (and even unpaid leaders sometimes) and “most lay people.” HUGE difference in the way they see things like this, HUGE difference in the places they assign blame or credit.
I think that in many cases the dissenters do indeed need to go. But not always. And you can’t guess who those people are going to be with regularity either. I’ve been surprised by this over the years.
Give people the benefit of the doubt as long as you possibly can. And if they absolutely can NOT abide an electric guitar and drums in church… There is NO doubt a church in their town that they’d be VERY comfortable serving and will make a difference for the Kingdom…
bishopdave on Tue, June 27, 2006
Re: the view of Lay Leaders vs. Paid Staff
A familiar quote comes to mind in thinking about the different perspectives laity and paity (for paid staff?? whatcha think, Todd?): “Are you using a people to build a work, or a work to build a people?”
As part of the paity, I have been guilty of using people to build a work. In order to bring change in an established, plateaued enviornment, we must build the trust of the people. The newbie comes in, senses the plateau/decline, and says, “Let’s save this ship now!” The longtimer hears, “You know nothing about sailing!” It takes time to build the trust, but in many situations we quite frankly don’t have that kind of time.
Certain leadership styles are going to have less patience for building the relationships because they are so task oriented. I’m guilty of this. We see everything as a challenge or a task to accomplish, not a person to build. RW, judging by the size of his ministry and influence, is not ever going to wait around for the people to grow. He would move on and start another work (I say this by virtue of the fact he started Saddleback from “scratch”).
People don’t change until they see how it benefits them, not just because they are supposed to. This is why vision casting can be so arduous, the followers don’t always catch it the first 5 times you go over it. They won’t follow the vision, but they will follow you. IF you’ve got the time to invest. If not, yes go start something else.
kent on Wed, June 28, 2006
Of course there is a difference in view points. The lay person has a history and emotional connection that pastors often cannot come close to because we come late in the game, often because they invitre us to “make things better” and then unknowingly or knowingly sabotage the efforts.
This has little if anything to do with RW or Willow Creek or North Point or any other mega church leader. Check and see that this stuff happens in every tradition, This behavior is the most ecumemnical experience there is. There was a Rabbi by the name of Edwin Friedman who ironically did a lot of consulting with a multitude of churches and denominationsas well as the Armed forces and other enitities. He said that tare two types of churches, pills and plums. Pills spit their ministers out every few years and plums have their pastors for decade or more. if you make changes in a pill than you had better have a good idea of who you are and what you stand for because when you take a stand and let the fur fly you cannot become emotionally reactive. Check his book “Generation to Generation”.
I heard H.B. London once say that there are “joy suckers” in some church who come and take a hose asuck all joy out your heasrt. he wnet to say that the funeral of a joy sucker was a win-win situation. They go to Jesus and you don’t have to deal with them anymore. Everyone in the room cheered.
Bottom line is you are going to get resistence and sabotage, it is how we respond that makes all the difference.
Mike on Wed, June 28, 2006
“Now don’t get me wrong. These people love the Lord. They really do. They just don’t want you touching their church.”
I know what you mean Todd, and used to think this myself. However, I’m coming to a point where I’m not sure I agree any longer.
The sin issue is that they love something more than the Lord—“their church”. Which then calls into question whether they really love Yaweh of scripture or a god of their own making. It seems that the LORD equates obedience with love. Part of that obedience is a call to change (discpleship) and to deploy (evangelism).
My compassion for them is now based on the fact that they were discipled into a religious faith that is more culture than Christianity.
Guest on Wed, June 28, 2006
Huge difference? It depends on the specific point of change. I’ve seen some change-issues where there was no huge dissension and other issues where you’d think WW3 had errupted. I think some of the dissension is personality driven and others are process oriented (i.e., change that is just not communicated and managed well.)
There may be some truth to the axiom, “A few harmless flakes working together can unleash an avalanche of destruction,” but as long as the dissension is truly thoughtful discourse and not an attack of the pastor’s character or spiritual authority, I say use times of dissension as teachable moments and opportunities to minister >>> to build up the Body of Christ.
Dean on Wed, June 28, 2006
Actually, Todd, I’m not much of a fighter anymore. I did post on the original without going to look to see who made the comment but I looked who made the quote after I posted my opinion. I was a bit surprised by who made the comment, but on further reflection is seems typical of Rick’s way of communicating. There was a time I would not have hesitated to make the same kind of remarks but that was when I was in full-time pastoral work myself. My heart has changed about “lay people” since I’ve taken an aside from professional church work. These days, I feel sorry for both professional church leaders and for lay persons so caught up in the system that they have forgotten what it’s like to journey outside of that system. If all persons in the church were concerned more about kingdom building that fiefdom building, I don’t believe that Rick’s perspective or the “change resisters’” perspective would fit particularly well. Congregational in-fighting is really mostly about control no matter what “side” you happen to be on and none of these battles do anything to advance the Kingdom. While I believe that all the evidence supports the case that Rick has a good heart, I still don’t think the comment or the perspective is as much about Kingdom building as it is about congregational control. And after all, there is only one Lord, one faith, one baptism and one Savior of us all.
drbob on Wed, June 28, 2006
Our church has been in a slow decline for going on 8 years, The glory days of our church were during the 11 year reign of a popular Pastor with a very personable personality. It peaked at about 450 in worship and now we are down to 250 in worship. We have had 2 interim periods and one 2 year stint of a Pastor before the present one came on a year ago. He brought to light the decline after 2 months of being here, and what was crazy was that the “long-timers” hadn’t even noticed. They had their friends who started the church 25 years ago, and the ones who came and went, practically unnoticed - which is probably one of the main problems. They called this new Pastor hoping that he would take them back to the good old days “Egypt” instead of making the changes necessary to reach a new culture - putting new wine in old wineskins. The result is friction. But as we share the vision with a few key leaders at a time, they are then able to get others to see what is necessary for reaching our community for Christ. That’s the difference we want to see - not just have a great church with “programs” that attract other people from other churches to choose ours, but invading the community with the proof of the gospel through changed lives.
Chris on Wed, June 28, 2006
I think it comes down to an issue of vision.
Kent had his finger right on the problem when he said: “The lay person has a history and emotional connection that pastors often cannot come close to because we come late in the game, often because they invitre us to “make things better” and then unknowingly or knowingly sabotage the efforts.”
The problem is, laypeople typically have a vision for “better.” Pastors have a vision for “better.”
“Change” is kind of a scapegoat. People don’t mind change - they’re inviting change when they want you gone. It isn’t that people don’t like change… it’s that they don’t like the change you’re proposing. The paity’s view of “better” doesn’t square with what the laity thought they were headed towards.
This is the fault of the leadership within the church - paid and unpaid. When a vacancy comes about, churches are usually in such a panic (because they haven’t been developing leaders all along) that they rush to hire the next guy. If there was conflict with the old guy, churches rush out to hire the “anti-old guy,” and end up simply trading baggage back and forth.
If churches would do a better job of preparing their people for inevitable changes, and pastors would do a better job of developing and reproducing themselves, the conflict would almost disappear.
The other problem is that prospective pastors are typically unclear about the vision and direction they have for their ministry. As a result, when they candidate at a prospective church they’re likely to make big campaign promises instead of gauging how good a fit they’ll be at a church. He spends his time trying to get a job rather than laying the actual groundwork for future ministry. That’s huge, because when it comes time to put legs on his promises the people don’t buy into his vision. They bought into _him_ during the candidating process, but didn’t find out enough about his vision.
That’s what causes conflict - not whether someone is paid or unpaid.
I normally like a lot of the things RW says, but maintain that he was way off base on this one. Change happens when people believe in a vision and make it their own. That can happen immediately if it’s communicated well.
Raymond Bodie on Wed, June 28, 2006
Retired five years ago as a UMC pastor, and I am now attending a local UMC. Today I feel more like a layman than a clergyman.
What is the role of a clergyman in a local church which has certainly become “static”, i.e., no outreach, no evangelist’s concerns and little or no awareness of the growing community all around the church doors.
Does the “retired clergyman just attend as a retirned person, taking little or no active leadership roles within the congregation, or does he attempt to provide leadership? I am no longer the pastor, so what is my role? In my past history, I served three different mega-churches, each from 1600 to 2800 member UMC. Very used to providing leadership in a changing congregation as well as enjoying the joy and the thrill.of being apart of the change and the growth. But what do I do now? Sit and watch, say nothing? Come out of retirement? Or ask the Bishop for a new appointment? I certainly do not want to be in a situation in which my leadership skills would be misunderstood or be in conflict with the real and the existing pastor of this local church? Who, incidentally, is very well qualified, one of the best that I have known.
Peter Hamm on Wed, June 28, 2006
Raymond,
I suspect that that pastor, if he’s half the leader you seem to be, will WELCOME your leadership and involvement! If it were me, and you were in my church, I would be THRILLED to have you on the team helping to lead the church.
So… Congratulations on your years of ministry, I bet you can’t wait to hear those words “well done”… but stay in the game! We need you!
Camey on Wed, June 28, 2006
Raymond,
I challenge you to not take on the “retired” mentality. From your own words I do not believe that you have been released to just sit and soak in a pew. Frankly, no Christian in truth and love really has been. While I do indeed thank you for your years of ministry, I could not agree more with Peter. Stay in the game! We need you! I would go even a step further and say that your mission field has already presented itself. You just have to keep seeking God’s will and not your own as to how to be active and involved in it. Then, you have to engage it as if for the Lord alone.
Think back to the days when you were “the pastor.” How would you have wanted another such as yourself to come along side? Would you have even welcomed such? Ask God to speak to your heart directly about being on mission for Him and to seek only His authority in doing so. Having said that, I do not mean you attempt to usurp the authority of the current pastor. You merely have the authority that God grants in the ways in which He does so to be about His kingdom purposes.
Thank you again for your years of ministry and for those of which are yet to come but are on their way.
God bless you pastor,
Camey
todd erskine on Thu, June 29, 2006
Do you need to cut the dead weight? Hmmm! My opinion on this may be different than most. I myself at one time inherited a ministry where even the most seasoned of Pastors left frustrated and beat up. Whereas, by God grace we managed to grow a church that was full of VERY different people. In fact I pastored a rural 1st Church where we had “tongue talking Charismatics” and “Hard-shell old school traditionalists.” I inherited a church that had been beaten down and beaten up, but when I left it was a growing vibrant, loving fellowship.
The Lord showed me something as I was reading through II Timothy one time, that servant of the Lord is to be patient and to gently instruct those that oppose the truth in hopes that God will grant them repentance. (II Tim 2:24-26) When the truth of that scripture sunk in it totally relieved me of trying to be the “diplomat”, trying to appease and stroke the “squeaky wheels” and worrying about whether people liked me or not. . It was not my responsibility to keep harmony, rather it was my responsibility to be patient and to gently instruct my people concerning what the scriptures taught. It was God’s responsibility to grant them repentance! Wow!! Some will respond to the Lord’s prompting and grow and some won’t, but my job was to love and teach. I didn’t have to take on the role of the Holy Spirit and try to speed along conviction and repentance by confronting those who didn’t want to follow. What I had to do was be faithful to love and teach! To me this was liberating, and those who didn’t want to follow either quieted down or changed. I didn’t have to go through a church split. I didn’t have a knock down drag out with the deacons to get the negative dissenters to leave or behave, rather, I turned the people and the ministry over to the Lord and it worked! The church was in unity and it grew.!
Now lest you think that I am naive, the next church I took I was there only 6 months and was crucified! But, I have learned that the Church belongs to Jesus, they are His people, good or bad, obedient or rebellious we as Pastors are just what the Bible says we are stewards or shepherds, but Christ is the Chief Shepherd and He is responsible for the growth, He said I will build my church and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it. The Pastor is merely there to tend the flock of God. To love it, protect it, feed it, to nurture it, but God brings the increase.
Dan Moore on Fri, June 30, 2006
Rick Warren nails it. I know a pastor who came to a church in Virginia. It was plateaued and beginning to decline. Then it started growing. Why? The pastor told me in one year he buried one third of the membership. Once they died, the younger folk said to the pastor, “What do we do now?”
I came to my present work with eyes wide open. It was not on a plateau but on a decline and living in the past. I figured this, being my second church, would also be my last church as it would take a minimum of 20 years. The number one thing I did was just to get to know and love the people. One relationships are built then one can begin the process of sharing the vision in daily communications and be willing to let others take credit for my ideas. The key is making change is getting the maximum number of people taking ownership of the vision .
Peter Hamm on Fri, June 30, 2006
Dan Moore,
You SO nailed it! Everybody read that last post of his one more time!
Jeff on Fri, June 30, 2006
“The number one thing I did was just to get to know and love the people. One relationships are built then one can begin the process of sharing the vision in daily communications and be willing to let others take credit for my ideas.”
ISn’t that a little like a guy who lived .... oh, about….2000 years ago?
Page 1 of 2 pages 1 2 >
Post a Comment