LEADING THROUGH CHANGE

Leaders are not intimidated by change. In fact, leaders are rarely brought in to maintain status quo. This is usually done by managers. A manager is called upon to manage the resources and personnel, to execute the business of the organization. Leaders are asked to do more than that. Leaders are called upon to take the organization to new places, to greater heights, from the moment to the future. Since the future has not happened yet, this requires more than managing what resources are currently on hand, but requires a vision for what can be, what is possible, and where we need to go. Leaders do not run from change but embrace it as a part of their agenda.

Leading a church or organization through change is both a curse and a blessing. It is a wonderful opportunity to pursue the vision, but it is a challenge to get others who have a vested interest in status quo to embrace the vision with you. John’s Gospel tells us that Jesus “came unto his own, and his own received him not” (1:11).

The religious system was broken. It wasn’t working. Not that a faulty system had been instituted, but faulty humanity would not adhere to the covenant stipulations, and then added man-made rules to a covenant that they had not been able to maintain to begin with. The system had to be changed. The future lay not in more rules, but in grace so Jesus came to lead humanity into a new day. But there were those who would not receive Him. They would not embrace the vision and instead violently rejected Him. Not much of an endorsement for leadership, is it?

The next verse, however, tells us that there were some who did see what He saw and who were willing to risk everything to follow the Leader-- “But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name” (Jn. 1:12). Jesus empowered the people who could see the vision and who would trust Him to lead them into the future.

There are several lessons here for leading change:

First, there will be some who reject the change, even when it is for the good of the organization. The chief priests, scribes, Pharisees, and Sadducees were happy with the way things were. In this system they were empowered even though the masses were disenfranchised. These powerbrokers rejected Jesus and led in having Him crucified. However, in doing so they were unwittingly participating in the plan of God. Hopefully, we will not be called upon to be crucified as a leader of an organization, though personal sacrifice is often necessary.

Second, we learn that we have to have a vision that can be seen by those who want to follow. They cannot follow if they sense that we do not know where we are going. Jesus told them that this change would call for new wineskins, new methods and models. John the Baptist declared that “even now the ax is laid to the roots” and a new generation of believers was about to be birthed. (Lk. 3:9-10).

Third, we see that Jesus was willing to empower those who believed, those who were willing to follow Him. They were empowered during His time on earth. He sent them into towns and villages to heal the sick and cast out devils and to declare that change was coming, “the kingdom of God is at hand” (Matt. 10). But Jesus also empowered them to continue to take the vision forward after His departure: “You shall receive power after that the Holy Spirit has come upon you” (Ac. 1:8).

There are various theories and models for the process of change. For example, Hegel saw all of history through a series of three movements: thesis, antithesis, synthesis. This is called the Hegelian Dialectic. According to him the current state of affairs in history is the thesis. In time, however, this thesis will be challenged by a competing perspective (government, culture, religion, worldview, etc.) which will offer a new direction. This is the antithesis of the thesis. Rarely, if ever, does the antithesis supplant the thesis wholesale. Instead, there is a give and take between thesis and antithesis and what emerges is a combination of the two into a synthesis. In time, this new state of affairs becomes the thesis and the process begins all over again.

For example, in Iraq we had a Muslim lead dictatorship. After the war the country was introduced to the concept of democracy. What is emerging is a combination of Muslim control with certain democratic rights within the paradigm of Islam.

In pastoring I have gone into churches that were fixed in an older traditional style of worship with which the senior members of the congregation were comfortable. The younger members were ready for contemporary praise and worship. I was called upon to lead the church forward. The reality was that there was no way we could stay where we were and hope to move forward, but there was going to be resistance to radical wholesale change. I attended a worship seminar by Robert Webber in which he proposed the idea of blended worship. He said that it is possible to maximize the best of both styles of worship and honor both the older and the younger generations. So that is what we did. We developed a blended worship style—thesis, antithesis, synthesis.

One might argue that this is the process of change that Jesus used. He came with a radically new idea but He incorporated just enough of Judaism to make the transition possible for the early Jewish believers. There are some now who are attempting to introduce more of the Jewish religious practices into Christianity because they believe that this was the intent of Jesus and that it was only after Constantine that Judaism was divorced from Christianity.

I’m not sure about that, in that, the idea of an ax to the roots is rather dramatic. The Apostle Paul acknowledges the connection of the new branches to the old vine, but at the same time he reject attempts to infuse Christianity with Jewish religious practices such as diets, circumcision, holy days, etc.

Another paradigm of change also uses a three step model: orientation, disorientation, re-orientation. The difference between this paradigm and that of Hegel is that it doesn’t see synthesis as a necessary outcome. It suggests that radical change may be needed and may result in a new direction that is almost completely divorced from the previous. In orientation we are oriented toward a certain direction, certain cultural patterns and practices, certain rituals and rites with which we are familiar. But at some point this orientation is no longer effective in maintaining the institution, organization, or church. The culture begins to decline, the institution begins to fail, organization loses money, the church attendance falls and leadership recognizes that something has to be done.

As always, there are those who have an interest in maintaining. In time, however, the masses realize that there is a need for change. The masses in the society, the workers on the floor, or the people in the pews begin to see that something needs to be done and they want a leader with a vision.

The next stage, disorientation, is the most dangerous. The leader has a plan, a radical plan for change and in the process of instituting that change people are disoriented, old practices and rituals are no longer applicable and people struggle to understand and apply new ideas, new practices and applications. Some will want to go back to Egypt. Some will revolt against the leader and seek to undermine his or her authority. Some will react violently as they try to unseat the leadership. But if the vision is clear and the majority understands the need for change and the direction of the change proposed, they will follow.

I heard Pastor Marty Baker talk about changes he instituted at the church he pastors. His church seemed to be doing well. With an attendance of over 300 it was above average and considered by many pastors to be a good church. But Marty felt that maintaining was not what he was called to do. He was called to lead so he proposed change. In fact, he did not seek synthesis, but a completely new orientation in the way they did church. He said that as he led the church into that change there was a period of time where it was very painful for him personally and he asked the Lord more than once if he had heard the Him correctly. Many people left and the church attendance declined. This was a painful period of disorientation. In time, though, as the changes were instituted and the church changed from a traditional worship format to a multi-media approach, the church began to grow. They are now re-oriented to this new approach and the attendance is almost double that of what it was before he led the church to change.

Managers may maintain, and may even be rewarded and admired for doing so, but leaders lead. They take the organization into the future and as such must be able to embrace change, provide a vision, empower others, and more forward. It may be a synthesis, or it may be reorientation, but change is inevitable. As one man said, “Lead, follow or get out of the way!”