i

TRANSFORMATIONAL CHURCH LEADERSHIP

LITERATURE REVIEW AND INTERVIEW RESULTS

SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE FACULTY

OF THE CENTER FOR GRADUATE AND CONTINUING STUDIES

BETHEL UNIVERSITY

BY

PHILIP H. THOMPSON

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS

FOR THE DEGREE OF

MASTERS OF ARTS IN ORGANIZATIONAL LEADERSHIP

SEPTEMBER, 2008

ii

TRANSFORMATIONAL CHURCH LEADERSHIP

LITERATURE REVIEW AND INTERVIEW RESULTS

PHILIP H. THOMPSON

SEPTEMBER, 2008

Approved: ____________________________________, Thesis Advisor

_______________________________, Second Reader

ACCEPTED

____________________________ MAOL Program Director

________________________________ Dean of Graduate & Continuing Studies

iii

Acknowledgements

First and foremost, I want to express my heartfelt gratitude to my amazing wife Mary. It was

Mary who took the initiative to make the call to Bethel and arrange for me to attend the

informational dinner that first exposed me to the Organizational Leadership Program. She has

been supportive and extremely patient with me during this entire journey.

Secondly, I want to thank the members of my cohort. Due to their influence, I have walked away

with a broader worldview and deeper level of human understanding and compassion. Our cohort

jelled and truly lived out the biblical admonition to “encourage one another, and all the more as

you see the day approaching” (Hebrews 10:25b, NIV).

I want to give “kudos” to the professors who invested much of themselves into us, during the

eighteen months of classroom interaction. Certainly, they could be making more money

elsewhere but have instead responded to God’s call to teach. Thank you!

Lastly, I want to thank my gracious and loving Heavenly Father for not giving up on me.

Though I was in the “dummy class” in third grade, barely passed Jr. High, and earned less than

stellar grades in my undergraduate work, God didn’t give up on me. God has infused into my

heart a vision for how He wants to use me to significantly expand His Kingdom. Thank you, for

the opportunity to become better equipped for service. I want nothing more than to stand before

the great “I AM” as “one approved” (II Tim. 2:15, NIV).

iv

TRANSFORMATIONAL CHURCH LEADERSHIP

LITERATURE REVIEW AND INTERVIEW RESULTS

© Copyright 2008

Philip H. Thompson

v

Abstract

The purpose of this thesis is to provide meaningful insight to church leaders, as they deal with

the complexities, involved in leading church re-visioning transformation initiatives. This thesis

compares current literature to the findings from interviews with transformational change experts.

The selected interview candidates have either led successful congregational turnaround change

or are authors, professors, consultants, or executives, in the organizational development arena

with extensive experience in change management and leadership.

Both the study and interviews emphasized the following themes:

• The importance of the leader serving as the embodiment of the transformational journey.

• The necessity of consistency between the church’s activity and guiding values.

• The warning against doing “ministry through mimicry” but, rather, the admonition for

leadership to do the hard work of discerning and maximizing the uniqueness of the

church.

• The importance of widely held urgency prior to the launch of the transformational

process.

The insights gleaned from the literature and interviews combine to provide guiding principles

intended to help church leaders succeed in leading their congregations through transformational

change.

vi

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements iii

Abstract v

Table of Contents v-vi

Chapter I: Introduction to the Topic (The complexities of church change) 1-12

Statement of the Problem (Why most churches need to transform) 10-12 Chapter II: Literature Review 13-39

Impetus for Transformation 13-14 Current Complexities 14-32

• Increased Pastoral Demands Lead to Less Prayer 14-16 • Focus on Buildings 16 • Not Gifted to Lead 16-17 • Overcoming Inertia 17-22 • Responding to Cultural Change 22-24 • Inward verses Outward Focus 24-26 • Becoming Missional 26-29 • Responding to the Culture-Gap 29 • Ineffective Response to Change 30-32

Identifying the Key Questions 32-39 • How long does it take to lead through transformation? 32 • What is the end-goal of the transformation journey? 33 • Is there a “one-size-fits-all” solution? 33-34 • What questions should be asked? 34-35 • Why change? 35 • Why is it so difficult to lead church transformation? 35 • Where does the transformation journey begin? 36-37

Summary 37-39 • The Need for Deep Change 37-39

vii

Chapter III: Research Methodology 40-74

Chapter IV: Synthesis of Literature and Interviews 75-82

The Leader Must Embody the Transformation 75 Organizational Activities Must Align with Values 75-76 Urgency Must Precede Transformation 76-77 Avoid Ministry by Mimicry 77 The CEO (Sr. Pastor) Must Drive the Transformation 77-82

Chapter V: Resource Recommendations 83-84 Top 10 Resource Recommendations for the Transformational Leader 83-84 Change Matrix Options 84 References 85-91

Appendix: 92

Misguided Energy 92 Top Ten Reasons Churches Fail to Change 92 Worship Wars 92-93 What is Important to the Unchurched? 93 Resistance to Change 94 Responses to transformational change 94-96 Signs of Decline: 96 A Vision to “Build Bridges” 96-97 Sounding the Warning 97 The Importance of Vision 97-98 Where does the Vision Originate? 98 What is vision? 98-99 The Transformational Change Process 99-101 Authentic Leadership 101-102 Envisioning, Energizing, and Enabling 102 Postmodern’s want authentic leaders 102 Key Implementation Thoughts for the Transformational Leader 102-103 Key Questions to help discern if church is inward or outward focused 103 13 important actions churches can take to implement positive change 103-104 10 Principles for growing a dynamic church 104

Figure Captions 105

1

Chapter I

Introduction to the Topic

“Forget the former things: do not dwell on the past. See I am doing a new thing!” (Isaiah 43:18, NIV).

The American church, in its current state, is similar to an ill and elderly medical patient.

Using this metaphoric example, imagine the following scenario. The attending physician enters

the room to check on the patient. The doctor starts to write some initial observations: elderly

lady, atrophied, emaciated skeletal structure, irregular breathing, weak pulse, and anemic.

Suddenly, the patient notices a look of concern, on the doctor’s face, and asks, “Is there

something wrong?” Alarm soon emanates, as this was a routine checkup, and the patient was

unaware of her current, weakened state.

The American church is this “elderly lady.” She is aging, and unfortunately, not so

gracefully. Her muscles are experiencing atrophy as attendance continues to decline. However,

her vitals show that there is still life, but her condition is cause for concern. There are things she

could do to regain health, but it would require that she change her habits. Can she? Will she?

Unfortunately, before this patient will reach out for help, she has to admit that she needs it.

In Dying for Change, author Leith Anderson (1998) tells the story of a young man,

interviewing to become the pastor of an older established church. During his talk, he said that he

was looking forward to leading the church into the 19th century. One of the church leaders asked

if the pastor had misspoken. The young pastor clarified, “Yes, I said 19th century; let’s take this

one century at a time” (p. 9).

While most churches may not be a centuries behind, the fact is the American church is

losing ground and aging quickly. Leadership Journal estimates that 340,000 out of the 400,000

churches, in the U.S., are either stagnating or declining (Jethani, 2005). What is at the root of the

2

church’s atrophy? Certainly, there are many factors turning people away from the church; lack of

loving relationships, gossip, unresolved conflict, perceived hypocrisy, inept leadership, irrelevant

and ineffective teaching, “worship wars,” poor programming or over-emphasis on programs (at

the expense of relationships), lack of clear purpose, ineffective resource stewardship, lack of a

compelling mission or vision, just to name a few. It is this author’s conviction that one of the

salient causal factors is the lack of responsiveness, by church leaders, to adjust ministry

approaches, in response to seismic cultural shifts.

Churches are slow to adapt, and consequently, most have not adequately adjusted to the

rapidly changing external environment. Olson and Smietana (2008) say that, “The church’s

message must be a cultural fit, connecting the gospel to the people of each society.” They

further explain how this cultural adjustment needs to be made, “The church adapts by using

words, images, music, and art forms to express the essence of the gospel, in words and actions

that make sense to people” (Olson & Smietana, 2008, pp. 55-58).

Unfortunately, most American churches are extremely change resistant, and in their

desire to “not conform to the pattern of this world” (Romans 12:1 NIV), they have become

irrelevant to most of the “real world” around them. Lewis points out the danger of this

disconnect with the external environment, “Without its own bridges to the world, church life, in

time, fades into isolation, self-congratulation, and finally, irrelevance” (Lewis, 2001, p. 31).

Like today’s companies, the church must learn how to respond to these changes, in real

time, as it studies and meets the needs of contemporary culture. Nelson (2008) says that, “All of

our churches need to change. But most churches (probably about 85%) need to change to

experience health and avoid ecclesiastical death” (p. 53). Unfortunately, many are not willing or

able to change and consequently decline and /or eventually die. Olson (2008) estimates that

3

slightly more than 1% (approximately 4,000) of American churches will shut down this year, and

he asserts that churches forty or more years old are declining at the rate of 2%, per year (p. 146).

Many have falsely assumed that with the rise of mega-churches over the past two decades

overall church attendance must be increasing, but this is not the case. The largest 10% of the

churches in our country now have attracted 50% of the church attendees, which means that the

other 50% are divided between the remaining 90%, of which 85% are in decline (Hartford

Institute for Religion Research, 2005).

It has been this author’s experience that one of the key reasons churches are change

resistant is the unfounded conviction that a certain style or form of ministry is tied, inexorably,

with its message. Apparently, these churches believe that their doctrinal orthodoxy is somehow

dependent upon the preservation of long held traditions. Olson (2008) says, “Many churches

mistake culturally-bound ministry styles for core theology. For many churches, their music,

stories, programs, and means of community outreach no longer resonate with those outside their

church” (p. 135). While the church does need to preserve doctrinal purity, it also needs to realize

that the continuance of “status quo” models of ministry is not synonymous with the preservation

of the Gospel. Mellado says that, “Churches fall in love with their methods at the expense of

their purpose” (Nelson & Appel, 2000, p. xxi). In order to stem the tide of decline, churches

need to learn how to relate and reach out to the external environment. Stetzer (2007) describes

this type of outward focused church, “Worship style, evangelistic methods, attire, service times,

locations, and other matters are determined, by their effectiveness in a specific cultural context”

(p. 7).

George Barna (1998) stated boldly that, “The world around us is changing at an

unprecedented pace. What worked ten years ago is already obsolete; cultural analysts estimate

4

that our culture essentially reinvents itself every three to five years” (p. 2). It is interesting to

note the seismic cultural shifts and changes that we have seen in the past ten years, since Barna

made this statement. Consider the following technological breakthroughs over the past decade:

• eBay auctions launched – Initiating a new way of buying and selling.

• Amazon launched – Millions now have their books shipped to their door.

• WiFi was introduced – Ushering in the “wireless world.”

• Google launched – Necessary information is now just a click away.

• iPod, iTunes, iPhone – Shaping the way music is bought and heard.

• YouTube, MySpace, Facebook – New forums for social interaction.

• Broadband increase – Broadband reached 50% of U.S. Internet, in 2004.

• Website additions – More than a million websites are added to the Internet, per day.

• The total amount of information available now doubles every eighteen months.

(Ford, 2007, p. 3).

Looking more broadly at the culture shifts, even the lay anthropologist can observe how

significant world events have shaped the culture. Think of the impact of 9/11, the war in Iraq,

Homeland Security, Enron, school shootings, housing market decline, the presidential election,

and global warming, just to name a few. Amazingly, most church leaders spend very little time

reflecting on how these cultural shifts might shape or affect ministry focus. In 2005, Christianity

Today asked 324 church leaders, “What is the most important factor to consider, when

introducing change to a church?” When asked this question, 37 % cited the internal culture of

the church, 34 % cited the leadership culture of the church, and only 7 % pointed outside the

church, to the external culture. Ford (2007) makes the point that this lack of cultural

consideration is minimizing the church’s ability to influence people, who might otherwise have

5

impacted the culture around them. “By failing to come to grips, with how cultural dysfunctions

deeply impact the health of the church, our leaders will continue to fail to discern an essential

reality, concerning the nature of change; Culture shapes churches, and churches shape people”

(Ford, 2007, p. 15).

According to Olson (2008), church leaders tend to respond to culture shifts in one of thee

ways:

1.) Chicken Little response: “The sky is falling. The future looks bleak, is there any hope

here?”

2.) Ostrich: “We’re not doing that poorly, in fact, we are doing quite well, all things

considered.” Olson says that these church leaders actually expect church attendance to

decline and find modest decline acceptable.

3.) Eagle: “We are the church of Jesus Christ. We soar above the fray and do not pay

attention to mundane matters, such as attendance.” Olson says that these leaders have lost

touch, with what is really happening on the ground.

Olson (2008) advocates for a fourth, more balanced response. He encourages church

leaders to evaluate by asking, “Why is this happening?” and “What do these observations

mean?” He suggests that church leaders consider how the values and habits of the larger culture

affect the church. He also advocates for church leaders to heighten or clarify the awareness of

their church’s habits and values (p. 115).

Nelson and Appel (2000) say that, “In order to communicate the gospel effectively, in our

changing Western culture, churches must begin to think of themselves as strategic missions in

foreign territories” (p. 9). Effective missionaries work hard to understand the culture they are

trying to reach. They learn to speak the language of the culture. They attempt to understand the

6

symbols, icons, and nuances of the culture. They might even learn to sing the songs or dance the

dances of the people. As they do this, they build connections with the people, within the culture,

which often affords them the opportunity to share the truth of the Gospel, in love.

Like Nelson and Appel, Stetzer (2007) encourages the church of today to do what

effective missionaries do, “study and learn language, become part of culture, proclaim the Good

News, be the presence of Christ, and contextualize biblical life and church for that culture” (p.

4).

Church leaders need to be like the sons of Issachar who “understood the times” (I

Chronicles 12:32, NIV). Having an understanding of the times will then, hopefully, shape the

methodologies of ministry needed to effectively reach and teach the people of today.

Padgit (2005) argues for a new approach by stating, “It’s simply not legitimate to

continue with the same practices but expect new outcomes. New outcomes are precisely what

we need, if the church is going to remain prophetic in the lives of God’s people” (p. 35).

Likewise, Allender (2006) implores the church saying, “We can’t go back, and we can’t hold on

to old practices, as if they will protect us from the uncertainty ahead. We can’t keep on doing

the same old thing for another 30 years and expect the results will magically change” (p. 8).

In Church Next, Gibbs (2000) argues that the only way the church will be able to be

viable and effective, in the twenty-first century, is by updating the strategies used to

communicate the timeless truths of the Gospel, stating, “There is an urgent need to engage in

critical contextualization, through ongoing dialogue with popular culture, which will bring

questions, old and new, to the Scriptures” (p. 31).

This writer resonates deeply with Gibbs in advocating that more church leaders need to

do the hard work of “critical contextualization, through ongoing dialogue with popular culture”

7

(p. 31). Leaders then need to bridge the inevitable questions that will arise back to the timeless

truths, found in the scriptures. Unfortunately, most churches are incredibly uncomfortable,

wading in mire of the culture’s malaise. Instead, they, like the Ostrich, mentioned above, prefer

to keep their head buried and ignore the culture’s questions.

It is this writer’s deep desire that this work be used as a catalyst, to encourage more

church leaders to look outwardly, “understand the times,” and adjust ministry methodologies

accordingly. Although authors, like Barna and Wood, have concluded that it is nearly impossible

to turn around declining churches, it is this author’s hope that God might raise up

transformational leaders, who are up for the challenge. What a challenge it is!

Leadership Journal estimates that there are 340,000 American churches, in need of

revitalization (2005). Is there any hope? In his book, Comeback Churches, Stetzer (2007)

outlines a study of 300 churches that turned around from decline and returned to vitality (pp. 7-

9). Stetzer (2007) concludes that churches can realign and become more “missional.” He offers

this description, “A missional church responds to the commands of Jesus, by becoming

incarnational, indigenous, and intentional in its context” (pp. 7-9). Stetzer (2007) cites the

example of one of the churches he was consulting. During the meeting, Harold stood up, paused

for a minute, and began to speak softly. “We don’t want our church to die. We’ll do what it

takes.” Stetzer (2007) recounted, “That was when I first knew the church could make it.”

Harold spoke on behalf of the remnant of 35 members left, in this declining church (average age

65). Stetzer (2007) then builds upon his analysis of the turnaround churches, to share some

common characteristics that will be outlined further in Chapter II.

Leading the stagnating or declining church, through turn-around change, is not for the

faint of heart. The true transformational leader must be willing to “take some hits.”

8

Walter Bagehot once said, “One of the greatest pains to human nature is the pain of a new idea.

It makes you think that, after all, your favorite notions may be wrong, your firmest beliefs ill-

founded. Naturally, therefore, common men hate a new idea, and are disposed more or less to

ill-treat the original man who brings it” (Nelson & Appel, 2000, p. 40).

It is impossible to lead an organizational transformation process, without encountering

significant conflict along the journey. Southerland (1999), in his book, Transitioning, says,

“Anyone who is trying to do something for God will face some opposition” (p. 112). Paul the

Apostle understood one of the main sources of this opposition, when he wrote, “For our struggle

is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of

this dark world, and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms” (Ephesians 4:12,

NIV).

Rainer (2005), in Breakout Churches, studied a group of churches that had transformed

from decline to fruitful ministry, under the leadership of the same pastor. He describes these

pastors as being, “quick to give glory to God” (pp. 32-33). He compared this, with the good-to-

great leaders that Collins (2001) described, in Good-to-Great, “. . . quiet, humble, modest,

reserved, shy, gracious, mild-mannered, self-effacing, understated, did not believe his own

clippings.” Rainer (2005) goes on, to talk about the criticism that these pastors had received,

“They said that most of the struggles they experienced were necessary, but the loss of members

and constant criticisms hurt them deeply. Criticisms did not just roll off them.” Interestingly,

Rainer (2005) says that all of these great leaders had “thin skin.” He said it was actually this

sensitivity that allowed them to be such great leaders.

Stetzer (2007) describes an important function of the transformational leader,

“Turnaround leaders distinguish between obvious symptoms and underlying problems. The first

9

step is helping the congregation admit there is a problem and finding the underlying

(foundational) causes” (p. 35). Often these underlying, foundational causes stem from personal

or organizational dysfunctions that have deep roots. Ferreting out the causal factors is like

playing a game of hopscotch in a land-mine field. Eventually, there will be an explosion and

someone is going to get hurt. It is this fear, of pain and conflict avoidance, that keeps many

churches from attempting deep change. Stetzer (2007) uses the example of babies, pushing

themselves, with their arms across the floor, backwards. They end up running into furniture and

start crying. In frustration, they push harder, only to become even more frustrated, because they

have encountered a barrier that they can’t overcome. He likens this scenario to churches that

find themselves stuck. Rather than change course, they often just keep pushing, doing the same

things with more fervency, only to reap the obvious same results. The transformational leader

holds up the mirror, so the church can accurately assess what it is running into, and what it is

holding it back.

Quinn (1996) says that the transformational leader must believe so much in her/his

transformation vision that they are willing to “walk naked into the land of uncertainty,”

“Trusting in our vision enough to start our journey into the chasm of uncertainty,

believing that the resources will appear, can be very difficult. The fact that we have

enough trust and belief in ourselves to pursue our vision is what signals to others that the

vision is worth investing in” (pp. 3, 85).

How does a transformational church leader know when its time to walk into the “chasm

of uncertainty?” Russell and Russell (2000) say that one critical criterion, for large-scale change,

is a compelling mandate. Another critical criterion is a local leader, or leaders, with insider

status, who will drive the change effort and enlist a critical mass supporting change. Russell and

10

Russell (2000) continue to say that if either of these criterions is missing, large-scale

organizational change should not be attempted. Accordingly, it is imperative that there is an

agreed upon compelling mandate for change, before large-scale organizational change is

attempted.

In his book, Leading Congregational Change, Herrington (2000) says,

“A congregation, with a high level of spiritual and relational vitality, can accept change

and can manage conflict in ways that give life. Conversely, a congregation with a low

level of spiritual and relational vitality will tend to manage conflict in ways that preserve

the status quo.” Later in the book he said, “The resounding message of this book is that

without authentic spiritual and relational vitality, in a local gathering of believers, the

church does not have the resources that are demanded to engage transformation and to

influence the world” (p. 27).

The transformational church leader needs to prepare a church, and ensure that there is a

high level of “spiritual and relational vitality,” before the transformation process is initiated.

According to Herrington, church transformation is a process and not a “quick-fix” initiative, and

it may take years to properly prepare the church for the change journey.

Statement of the Problem

The American church is in trouble. There are almost 400,000 churches, in the U.S., and

85% of these churches are stagnating or declining in attendance (Wood, 2001). Bob Humphry, of

Fresh Start Ministries, said, in 2002, that approximately 60% of all churches are in serious

decline, which would mean that 204,000 churches are in trouble. It is further estimated that as

many as 1%, per year, or just under 4,000 churches, in the U.S., shut down each year

(Leadership Journal, 2005). Some researchers are predicting that if current trends continue, 60%

11

of all Christian congregations, in America, will be extinct before the year 2050 (Gibbs, 2000, p.

16). Which would mean that, over the next 42 years, the U.S. would loose 240,000 churches, an

average of 5,700, per year.

Sadly, it is estimated that more than 50% of churches do not add even one new attendee

to their rolls, as a result of conversion, on any given year. Barna (2005) reported, in his book,

Revolution, that, “The typical churched believer will die, without leading a single person to a

lifesaving knowledge of and relationship with Jesus Christ” (p. 32).

Barna (2005) reported that 47% of Americans went to church, each weekend

(www.barna.org). He also says that Baby Busters (those aged eighteen to thirty-four) are 23%

less likely to attend church than adults age fifty-five and older. Olson (2008) uses actual church

attendance figures, to more accurately estimate that currently only 17.5% of adults, in the U.S.,

attend church each week (p. 31). He explains the dissonance, between Barna’s polling data and

actual attendance, as the “Halo Effect,” meaning that people want to speak of themselves in a

positive way and exaggerate to look good (Olson, 2008, p. 28).

Given these statistical realities, it is obvious that the church, in its present state, is

becoming increasingly irrelevant, in the U.S. Major transformation is urgently needed, in the vast

majority of churches, in the U.S., but unfortunately most of these churches are unwilling or not

equipped for change.

What Barna proclaimed in 1998 is still largely true today, “Most American churches,

however, are holding fast to the programs and goals established by their charter members, years

ago. Many of these ministries have mastered the art of denying the cataclysmic cultural changes

around them, responding with cosmetic changes that make little difference” (p. 2).

12

With this many churches at stake, it is readily apparent that something needs to change.

The only way that these churches will experience the needed transformation is if God raises-up

transformational leaders, who are equipped to meet the myriad of complexities they will face, as

they navigate the rough waters of church transformation.

If there is any hope of stemming the tide of church decline, local churches will need to

discern and accept the deep transformational changes that will be required to connect with

today’s world. The next chapter, of this thesis, will review more deeply a cross-section of

literature related to transformational church leadership that has been written over the past decade.

13

Chapter II

The Literature Review

The Impetus for Transformation

Herrington, Bonem, and Furr (2000) start out their book, Leading Congregational

Change, with an often used, yet profound statement, “If you keep doing what you’ve been doing,

you’ll keep getting what you’ve been getting” (p. xiii). In other words, are we ok with the results

we have been getting? Sadly, a whole lot of churches, in America, must be ok with it, because

they continue to resist transformational change. Ford (2007) states that,

“Every church needs transformation. Those that don’t change die. Don’t get me wrong.

I’m not advocating change for the sake of change. The wrong kind of change can be

toxic. Healthy change, however, is required for growth, maturity, and adaptation. Like

any organization, churches can become stagnant, complacent, irrelevant, or ineffective,

without transformational change to keep them focused on their mission” (p. xv).

The key word, in the above quote from Ford, is not the word “change,” but rather, it is the

word “mission.” Until the church is clear on its mission, it will be difficult to initiate change.

Even when it is clear, it is extremely difficult.

Conder (2006) admonishes the traditional church with this invitation, “It is time to leave

the solace and slavery of Egypt for a brave new world, where faith is far more than adherence to

a set of propositions, yet is no less committed to truth” (p. 9).

As the transformational leader considers the plight of the Israelites, it must be observed

that the key to the mass exodus from Egypt was the compelling leadership of Moses. Moses led

his people away from the tyranny and slavery of Egypt into freedom. Yet, it was not without

trial or pain. Just as Moses encountered difficulties, like 40 years of leading more than a million

14

whining and complaining followers, so will the transformational change leaders of today face

turmoil and resistance. It is helpful to be aware of some of the challenges, before the journey

begins, so that the leader is not surprised, when the people start to complain about the Manna.

Current Complexities

Increased Pastoral Demands Lead to Less Prayer

The local church is an organization full of complexities. Twenty centuries of tradition,

outdated church government models, and secular influences all contribute to make the job of

church leadership increasingly difficult. Church leaders are faced with the challenge of

transforming congregations that are entrenched by their rules, patterns, practices, and resistance

to change. Additionally, the role of the Pastor has changed from earlier generations. In the

1960’s, a congregation was most concerned with the pastor’s preaching and pastoral care.

Today, the senior pastor is expected to be proactive in leadership, vision casting, and clear on

mission. Stetzer and Dodson (2007) describe the Senior Pastor role saying, “You are the primary

shaper of your church’s values, beliefs, strategy, and direction” (p. 14). Stetzer and Dodson are

careful to emphasize that the Senior Pastor is serving under the headship of Jesus, and as such,

they emphasize the importance of prayer in the process of determining direction. He says,

“Church leaders get entirely too busy, and prayer is often what is neglected. We are so busy in

the work of the Lord that we have little time for the Lord of the work” (Stetzer and Dodson,

2007, p. 15).

Pastors are constantly stretched, trying to have adequate time to study, time for counsel,

pastoral care, time for planning, time for leadership development and time for family. Add to

this the inevitable crises, funerals, weddings, and building campaigns, and it’s not hard to see

why so many find themselves unenviable position of being overwhelmed. According to Barna

15

(1998), “Protestant pastors work an average of nearly sixty-five hours per week, juggling sixteen

major dimensions of activities” (p.5). He goes on to make the case that it’s no wonder that

burnout has become commonplace. Ford (2007) affirms this problem, in mainline

denominations, stating, “15 % of pastors, who were ordained in 1988, left the ministry within

thirteen years. Those pastors cited lack of denominational support, burnout, discouragement, and

conflict, among the primary factors” (p. 6). The great irony is that the treadmill of ministry

responsibilities is the very thing that often interferes with the personal prayer life and spiritual

growth, of the pastor. In a study published in 2007, Professor Michael Zigarelli polled over

20,000 Christians worldwide and found that 60 %, of those polled, admitted that their hectic

lifestyle kept them from spending time with God. Interestingly, the percentage of pastors who

struggled with this was even higher; two of every three pastors admitted that their overcrowded

life kept them from growing in the Lord (prayingpastorblog.blogspot.com/2007/08/pastors-too-

busy-to-pray.html).

During the past three decades, pastors, in increasingly complex churches, have been

forced to function more like a CEO, than the shepherd they were called to be. In 2002, Pastor

John Piper wrote a book, for his fellow pastors, admonishing them regarding this trend. The

book’s title reveals his concern, Brothers We Are NOT Professionals.

In an article focused on the dangers of the professionalization of ministry, Piper (1995)

asks, “What opposes the pastor’s life of prayer more than anything? The ministry. It is not

shopping or car repairs or sickness or yard work that squeezes our prayers, into hurried corners,

of the day. It is budget development and staff meetings and visitation and counseling and

answering mail and writing reports and reading magazines and answering the phone.”

(www.desiringgod.com).

16

The potential of ministry interfering with prayer is especially real for the transformational

church leader, because of the added complexities involved in leading dying churches, through

the painful process of rebirth. The transformational change leader will be the recipient of many

critical messages. Stetzer and Dodson (2007) say that in order to not personalize these

criticisms, it is essential to make prayer a priority, “…when we pray, the things that act like

thorns and stings in our personal lives will go away . . . we won’t feel that smart anymore,

because we have God’s point of view about them” (p. 15).

Focus on Buildings

Mancini (2008) addresses this trend, in his book, Church Unique (p. 37). Chapter three

of the book is titled “The Iniquity of Church Growth,” subtitled “Caging the Kingdom.” In the

chapter, he uncovers the idolatrous nature of some church growth movements. In a section titled,

“Show Me the Bigger Box!,” he expresses concern about the way that ministries often become

sidetracked and taken hostage, by large building initiatives. Much of whatever leadership energy

the pastor has ends up being allocated to pushing things forward, so more people can start

attending the church, and the debt can be retired. There are churches all over the country (some

in the Twin Cities) that are strapped with debt loads, exceeding twenty million dollars. Imagine

the weight of that kind of a debt load on a pastor’s shoulders.

Mancini (2008) says, “The problem with applying good methods, to grow, is that they

work” (p. 37). He goes on to state that we risk the danger of becoming slaves to our success, in

ministry, and it can actually morph into what he calls “growth idolatry.” Facilities, while

important, can absorb inordinate energy, from the leader, and might actually keep them from

tending to the more important elements of the transformational change process.

17

Not Gifted to Lead

Unfortunately, Barna (2001) determined that only 11% of pastors identify leadership, as

one of their spiritual gifts (www.barna.org). Consequently, many pastors are frustrated with the

burden of overseeing a church, with so many complexities, and most do not have the God-given

gifts needed to lead. With the emphasis on growth, and the increasingly complex role of the

senior pastor, combined with the lacking spiritual gifts of leadership, is it any wonder that so

many churches have stalled or detoured off their primary mission path?

Herrington, Bonem, and Furr (2000) say that, “In today’s rapidly changing environment,

leaders are increasingly required to be learners. The effective transformational church leader

must be a student of both culture and the church working incessantly to reconcile the two” (p. 5).

This is not an easy task! Anecdotal evidence of the complexity and demands of the pastoral role,

is the burnout rate of pastors and the subsequent difficulty that churches are having trying to find

leaders that are equipped and eager to step up to these challenges.

Overcoming Inertia

According to the Hartford Institute for Religion Research, most churches in America, are

small (65% are under 200 people). Of nearly 400,000 churches in America, Christianity Today

estimates that the three basic styles of churches are nearly evenly divided, 37% are blended, 32%

are contemporary, and 31% are traditional (2004, www.christianitytoday.com). If blended and

traditional are combined, they would equal 272,000 churches, which interestingly correlates with

the number of declining churches. It has been the writer’s experience, having observed hundreds

of churches, around the country, that blended and traditional style churches tend to be more

change resistant and inward focused, concerned more with pleasing their attendees than reaching

out to the unreached in their communities. Warren (1995) said that, “The goal of a tradition

18

driven church is to simply perpetuate the past. Change is almost always seen as negative and

stagnation is interpreted as ‘stability’ ” (p. 77).

It is not unusual for power in small churches to be centralized into the hands of a few

“power brokers” (often the large givers), who function as the gatekeepers for the community.

Pastors and transformational change leaders have to deal with these “power brokers” that stand

in the way of change. Easum (1995) calls these people “controllers” and says that they, “. . . not

only do not want change; they also want to control everything that happens” (p. 13). He calls

this control one of the “Sacred Cows,” of the established church, and says that it needs to be

ground into “gourmet hamburger.” While this may sound crass, the point is that it does require

extremely strong leadership, in order attempt transformation. “Controllers” present one of the

greatest challenges, to the transformational church leader.

Eddie Gibbs (2000) says that, “The longer a person lives, the more he or she tends to

dwell on the past, rather than live in dynamic interaction with the present or be inspired by the

hope of future possibilities” (p. 13). If this is true for individuals, it seems logical that this would

be true also of organizations. Older churches (40 or more years old) are especially difficult to

change, because they tend to “dwell on the past,” rather than live in the present, while preparing

for the future.

As a caution, because the transformational leader tends to be so future focused, it is easy

for them to discount the value of the church’s spiritual heritage. In a recent conversation, with

church consultant Dennis Miller, the writer was encouraged to emphasize the importance of

honoring and celebrating the past as part of the strategic change process. Miller said that often

the long-term attendees just want their sacrifices to be acknowledged and the wise change agent

19

will understand the importance of building bridges, with the past, that can lay a foundation for

future visionary endeavors (personal communication, February 24th, 2008).

Mancini (2008) cites the work of Joel Barker, who introduced the concept of “paradigm

shifts,” in the early 1990’s. Barker said that when there is a paradigm shift the value of thinking,

in the old paradigm, drops to zero. This explains one of the key reasons there is so much

resistance to change in the church. Long-term attendees poured their lifeblood into the thinking

that surrounded the old paradigm. To them, when transformational change is happening, it feels

like someone has reduced their personal value to zero. The transformational leader needs to

again, thoughtfully, build bridges between some of the core tenants of thought, in the old

paradigm, and contextualize those thoughts, in the new paradigm, as a way of helping the long-

term attendees feel validated. The changes needed to spring out of a clarification of mission

focus. If the long-term attendees can see how the changes are not an end in themselves, but

rather a vehicle to carry out the mission, it will be easier for them to accept (Mancini, 2008, p.

44).

Daft (2001) says that, “Organizations that invest most of their time and resources, in

maintaining the status quo, cannot hope to prosper, in today’s world of constant change and

uncertainty” (p. 352). Most churches do, in fact, spend the vast majority of their resources,

“perpetuating the past” and “maintaining the status quo.” This internal focus has bred

ambivalence, to the onslaught of external environmental changes, happening in the culture

surrounding the church. Consequently, most churches have lost touch with their surrounding

world.

Most older churches mentally assent to the need for their church to change, in order to

attract younger or unchurched attendees; yet they have strong preferences and are often unable to

20

set aside personal desires for the greater mission. Rather than make personal sacrifices, in order

to transition the church to vitality, they instead, hold on to their preferred styles and programs

and consequently die a slow organizational death.

Powell (2007) says that there are two significant issues that need to be dealt with, “The

first is. . . a heart problem” (pp. 65-66). He quotes Revelation 2:4, where Jesus is admonishing

the church at Ephesus, “You have forsaken your first love.” Powell (2007) then explains that

when a church loses its love and passion for Christ, “It’s impossible for it to function properly.”

Often this pure love of Christ is replaced by a focus on “buildings, traditions, and

denominations.” The application for the transformational change leader is to be sure their heart,

and the hearts of their followers, are devoted to and focused on Christ, before launching a

transformational change process (Powell, 2007, pp. 65-66).

The second issue that Powell (2007) highlights is a “focus problem.” He references the

disciple’s tendency to argue, amongst themselves, about who was greater. He argues that this

same narcissism is prevalent today, as church attendees (with a consumerism mentality) insist on

“having it their way.” Powell (2007) quotes Philippians 2:3-5, “Do nothing out of selfish

ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves. Each of you

should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interest of others. Your attitude should

be the same as that of Christ Jesus.” Although Powell (2007) admits that this is “tough

medicine,” he states, emphatically, that this “selfish ambition” is one of the greatest problems, in

the church today. He say’s that it “lowers the church to the same reality people experience in

their everyday world.” He cites the following example of selfish ambition, in the church:

• People vying for power and greater influence in the church.

• Church boards contending with their pastors.

21

• Pastors competing with their boards.

• Large contributors trying to leverage their giving for power.

• Members opposing any activities that don’t directly benefit them.

Powell (2007) says that this selfish ambition is preventing churches from being able to

“reflect, reveal, and represent the unselfish love of Christ,” to the watching world.

Too often, transformational change leaders are equally guilty (if not more), of insisting

on their methodologies and ministry approaches. Aggressive change agents sometimes view the

“seasoned saints” as barriers, instead of the allies that they could be, if more effort was invested

to help them better understand the mission behind the methods. One common mistake that

transformation change leaders make is to interpret reluctance as resistance. Nelson and Appel

(2000) say that, “Those of us who receive change well, tend to be the minority; the majority of

people resist change because of the way they are emotionally wired, not because they are

negative, bad or faithless” (p. 72). Since most transformational leaders are naturally attracted to

change, it is incumbent upon them to see the change through the eyes of the reluctant follower.

John Kotter (1996) says that one of the great mistakes that transformational leaders make is to

underestimate the degree of resistance to change.

Gordon MacDonald (2008) recently released an excellent fictional book, titled Who Stole

My Church, as an attempt to help younger transformational change leaders understand just how

difficult the change process can be. It is also intended to help long-term church attendees see the

essential need for transformation. Though it is set in an imaginary New England town, the

reader can quickly recognize the themes that are prevalent in churches all around the nation.

Together this church manages to navigate the turbulent waters of transformation in a way that

22

doesn’t “abandon the dreams or desires of any.” This book provides a role model for leading

followers gracefully into the transformational change journey.

Responding to Cultural Change

Due to the quickening rate, of cultural change, it is especially urgent that churches

become effective at influencing their communities. Ten years ago, Barna (1998) sounded the

warning bell, “At the risk of sounding like an alarmist, I believe the Church, in America, has no

more than five years, perhaps even less, to turn itself around and begin to affect the culture,

rather than be affected by it” (p. 8). It’s interesting to see just how prophetic those words were a

decade later. No one would argue that the church is a stronger influence, on our society today,

than it was in 1998.

Instead of panicking, as we acknowledge the current dismal state of the church, Rick

Warren (1995), pastor of Saddleback Church, offers this practical advice, “In today’s rapidly

changing world, vision includes the ability to accurately assess current changes and take

advantage of them. Vision is being alert to opportunities” (p. 28). The transformational church

leader needs to be able to assess culture and ascertain how the church can most effectively

scratch, where people are spiritually itching, in this ever changing environment. It is exciting to

see the extremely creative and diverse forms of “church” expressions, surfacing worldwide.

More and more, churches are utilizing online blogging communities and other emerging

technologies, to help sojourners process their faith in “real time.” One of the more extreme forms

of “church” is the virtual church movement, in cyberspace, known as Second Life. The

description, of Life Church TV’s virtual worship community, is below:

We purchased an island (16 virtual acres of real estate) and have worked with both in-

house and outside developers, to develop the property. There are still several areas of the

23

island that we have not developed . . . You can download the software and create an

avatar (a virtual representation of self), on Second Life, for free, and using the map you

can search for “Experience Island,” then teleport there (www.lifechurch.tv).

Following the link, from the Life Church web site, one enters the Second Life campus.

Upon entrance, Second Life asks the user to set up an account (free of charge). Then, once in the

3D virtual world, there are almost unlimited options available to customize the look of your

avatar. An avatar is the online personification of an individual, and the user is given the option

to choose clothing, body type, skin, hair color, etc. It is easy to see how it might be a very non-

threatening way for people to explore their faith. There is even an option to have live

conversations, with other avatars, that are encountered, while traveling around in Second Life.

During a recent visit to Second Life, there were more than fifty thousand other people in this

virtual world, and the site counter noted that 1.3 million distinct users had entered this virtual

world, during the past 60 days. In addition, there are virtual stores, where goods and services

can be purchased and many interactive options. As in the “real-world,” in the virtual world there

are sinful temptations, as well as positive spiritually encouraging opportunities. The choice is the

users. While visiting the Lifechurch.tv website, one can read testimonies from people who have

trusted Christ, as a result of this virtual world.

More than one church has purchased real estate in the Second World, and many believe

that this will become a rapidly expanding arena of ministry. Especially since it is widely believed

that by 2010 there will be over 2 billion people, in the world, with online access. Currently, it is

estimated that 1.3 of 6.6 billion people, in the world, have access to the Internet

(www.internetworldstats.com).

24

Increasingly, church leadership is faced with the burden of addressing these broad

sweeping cultural changes and owning the responsibility for the spiritual consequences of their

decisions. In Purpose Driven Church, Pastor Rick Warren (1995) said that, “The task of church

leadership is to discover and remove growth restricting diseases and barriers so that natural,

normal growth can occur” (p. 16).

McLaren (2000) says that, “We live in a time unlike any other time that any living person

has known. It’s not merely that things are changing. Change itself has changed, thereby

changing the rules by which we live” (p. 21). In the midst of this rampant cultural change,

churches most often recoil and resist any response to the external environment. Culture is

sometimes viewed as “the enemy,” and great effort is invested into building walls that protect the

church from the influences of “the world.” This leads to a myopic, internally focused vision that

is void of compassion for the spiritually seeking. McLaren (2000) says that established churches

are becoming “increasingly ineffective because our past has not prepared us for ministry in the

future.” He likens it to the falling of the Berlin Wall, which ushered in a whole new reality that

they were not prepared for. Like it or not, walls have fallen and a new reality is here, and it has

ushered with it changes in focus, leadership structures, and even core understandings, regarding

church ecclesiology (the nature and purpose of the church).

Inward Verses Outward Focus

In his book, The Church of Irresistible Influence, Robert Lewis (2001) says, “The church

does not exist for the sake of the church. It exists, for the sake of the world” (p. 57). This is an

important shift, in perspective, that declining churches need consider.

Anderson (1998) says, “Organizational vision goes in one of two directions, either inward

or outward. An organization’s first priority is either serving itself or serving others.

25

Organizations focused inward are reluctant to change with society. They prefer to be

self-serving. Organizations focused outward desire to change with society, in order to

reach people who are outsiders” (p. 156).

Barna (1993) concurs with Anderson stating that his research confirms, “Declining

churches generally focus inward, rather than outward. The ministry that takes place rarely

reaches beyond those people, who are faithful participants, within the church. Many of the

declining congregations were virtually unknown, within their community” (p. 36). Lewis (2001)

offers a warning, to the inwardly focused church, stating, “The ‘big idea’ driving many churches

is, ‘to create a church that meets the needs of its members, a toxic self-absorption can easily

develop; ‘us’ becomes all that matters’ ” (p. 57).

During the decades of the 70’s, 80’s, and even into the 90’s, most churches focused

primarily on spiritual education but had little community outreach and even less leadership

development. Sonlife Ministries, in Chicago, conducted a survey, in the 80’s, and concluded that

85% of the energy, in the average local church, was invested into its educational training. The

unfortunate byproduct, of this focus, was that evangelism and leadership development did not

emphasize any consequent numerical growth and was most often the result of transfer

membership and physical births, rather than conversion. Since this inward “educational” focus is

so deeply engrained, into the DNA of many churches, it persists today but mostly in declining

churches.

With this intrinsic focus, the feedback from the constituency is what matters most. If the

congregation seems happy with the programming, status quo ministry is perpetuated. In this

cloistered culture, the church has not had an eye on the external environment. By focusing,

almost exclusively on the needs of their own parishioners most churches have become so

26

detached from contemporary culture, and they have either intentionally or unintentionally lost

touch. Mellado observed that, “The Declining Church could go years, without adding even one

new un-churched person to its membership, through conversion. Members rarely desire to come

into meaningful contact with the world” (Nelson & Appel, 2001, p. XXIII). It grieves the writer

of the paper to observe the lack of genuine relational connectedness that most churches (or

church leaders) have with their surrounding community.

Dan Spader, founder of Growing A Healthy Church Ministries, teaches churches to use a

“ten percent rule,” to determine their outreach health. He says that a healthy church will see

10% growth, annually, due to conversion growth; meaning that, if a church had one hundred

attendees, they would see ten new attendees added, due to conversion, during a ministry year.

Nelson and Appel (2000) say that only 1 % of churches are growing “primarily because they are

reaching the lost” (p. 2).

What is needed, in most declining churches, is a foundational redefining, of the mission

of the church. Warren (1995) says that the healthy growing church will understand “what their

business is” and have a clear enough focus to be able to ask “how’s business?” (p. 93). They

know exactly what God has called them to do. They know what their business is, and they know

what is none of their business! Lewis (2001) offers a very appealing definition of this “business.”

He says, “I believe a fitting description for the church would be this, a community of people who

. . . present living proof of a loving God to a watching world” (Lewis, 2001, p. 41).

Becoming Missional

Fortunately, the tide is slowly changing and churches are increasingly realizing the need

to become more outward focused. Guder (1998) says that, “local congregations are beginning to

see their own context as their mission” (p. 7). In fact, Guder is credited with coining the now

27

often used phrase, “missional.” In 2004, at the Lausanne Conference on World Evangelism, the

term was formally defined his way, “those communities of Christ followers, who see the church

as the people of God, who are sent on a mission.” The impact of this type of missional thinking,

over the past decade, has been astounding. Volumes have been written, and now, there are

literally hundreds of books, articles, blogs, and podcasts, focusing on some aspect of the

“emerging” or “missional” church. Mancini (2008) describes the movement this way, “The

ideas of the missional church has single handedly captured the imagination of church leaders of

all backgrounds and denominations” (p. 33). He goes on to explain that missional is describing,

“a way of thinking that challenges the church to reform and re-forge its self-understanding

(theologically, spiritually, and socially) so that it can relearn how to live and proclaim the gospel

in the world.” Mancini (2008) says that the best way to succinctly describe the movement is to

“be the church.” In other words, church is not a place, or just something that you do, but rather,

“what you are.” Guder (1998) clarified that the missional church movement is focused on, “who

we are and what we are for” (p. 6). He further states, “Our challenge today is to move from

church with missions to missional church.” Mancini (2008) outlines the major tenants of this

paradigm shift. They are as follows:

• From doing to being (Shift from methodology to identity. Sending is not something the

church does, being sent is something you are).

• From Attractional to Incarnational (Focus shifts from getting the people to church to

living out faith “where life happens”).

• From viewing non-believers as “Lost” to recognizing them as “The people Jesus misses

most” (Subtle shift of emphasis based on a different interpretation of the parables of the

lost coin and sheep).

28

(pp. 33-35).

Stetzer and Dodson (2007) say that, “Missional leaders bring the gospel into a context by

asking the question, ‘What cultural containers (church, worship style, small group ministry, etc)

will be most effective in this context?’ ” (pp. 4-9). They encourage transformational leaders to

ask the following questions:

1.) What style of worship/music will best help this group worship, in spirit and truth?

2.) What evangelistic methods should I use here, to reach the most people, without

compromising the gospel?

3.) What structure of church will best connect with this community?

4.) How can this church be God’s missionary to this community?

(Stetzer & Dodson, 2007).

Notice that there is not a prescriptive formula being offered. It might well be that the

most effective style of worship, to reach a community, will be very traditional or liturgical. An

example of a church that got it wrong, and paid dearly, is Lake Hills Community Church, in

Laguna Hills, CA. The church is located on a beautiful site, just outside the border of an upscale

retirement community village, with 50,000 residents. In the decades of the 70’s and 80’s, the

church was known for its excellent choral and orchestral music. Someone donated a world-class

pipe organ, and the church would host organ concerts that attracted huge crowds. During the late

90’s (at the height of the seeker movement), the church had a young, inexperienced pastor that

decided to knee-jerk the church, into a contemporary style of worship. In the matter of a few

weeks, the choir was dropped, the organ sat silent, and guitars and drums were introduced.

Needless to say, this change was not well received, and the church lost hundreds of attendees,

over a short period of time. The church has since moved back to a more traditional style, and

29

their new pastor recognizes the tremendous missional opportunity that the church has. Rather

than alienate the very people group that they were best poised to reach, the church is now

focusing on ways to rebuild bridges into this community. This initiative is every bit as missional,

as the church in Santa Cruz that built a huge skate park and has as their mission to share the

gospel with skaters who might otherwise never have any exposure to real life in Christ. Both

churches are innovatively connecting with their surrounding culture.

Responding to the Culture-Gap

In response to these gaps progressive churches advocate the need to become “relevant.”

Lewis (2001) warns that too much focus on relevance can lead to a lessening of substance (p.

24). He comments on how worshippers today seek to “experience God” but that the

worshippers’ lives are often void of personal commitment or response. Warren (1995) also

discouraged excess focus on relevance when he said, “There are those who, fearing irrelevance,

foolishly imitate the latest fad and fashion. In their attempt to relate to today’s culture, they

compromise the message and loose all sense of being set apart. Jesus never lowered his

standards, but he always started where people were. He was contemporary, without

compromising the truth” (p. 55).

Equally dangerous, is the “stay the course” approach of many churches. Lewis (2001)

quotes Charles Chaney (former vice-president of the Southern Baptist Home Mission Board) as

having said, “America will not be won to Christ, by establishing more churches, like the vast

majority we now have” (p. 25). Most of the 272,000 stagnating or declining churches,

apparently, are having little to no influence on their communities. Nelson and Appel (2000) say

that in order for the church to truly impact culture, “We must adjust to them (the people Jesus

misses most) and not expect them to adjust to us, to get our message across” (p. 9).

30

Ineffective Responses to Change

Churches tend to make one of two mistakes, regarding change. First, “They refuse to

change, when change is called for, or if they do not refuse, altogether, they delay making the

necessary changes, until it is too late” (Barna G., 1998, p. 43). Many authors, writing about

church “turn-around” and “re-birth,” believe that by the time that church leadership tries to

attempt transformation it’s too late. Barna (1998) believes that most attempts, to revive declining

churches, are “wasted efforts,” because so few churches are transformed, once they start

declining. While understanding the conclusion that Barna reached, based on the evidence from

his research, the writer is encouraged with the breadth of work that is surfacing, related to

transformation and rebirthing of declining churches. There are more and more examples of

churches that have been able to revitalize, though none without the inevitable pain of a well led

transformation process.

Often, if change is attempted, it is inconsequential, incremental change. On the onset, it

appears that something is happening, but most churches are not willing to endure the deep

change that is really needed. The changes amount to cosmetic adjustments, rather than the re-

visioning or complete realignment that is really needed. Nelson and Appel (2000) quote Robbins

and Finley as having said,

“Organizations that have had the best success with change take major steps in short time

frames, with the end product carefully described up front. With this information under

their belts, people tolerate short-term pain for the longer-term payoff. The “dribble” or

incremental change method only heightens the sense of mistrust of management that

many employees have” (pp. 184-185).

31

Although Robbins and Finley are obviously speaking of leading major change, in a

business setting, the principle still applies to the church. Rather than make the bold moves that

are needed, church leaders opt for incremental change, which ultimately leads to a lack of

underlying, systemic change. As such, the lack of clear, missional leadership results in followers

losing confidence, in the leadership’s ability, to realign “the ship.” So, as a result, they “jump

ship,” to another church that is more mission focused, or worse yet, they walk away from the

church, disillusioned.

“The second type of mistake many churches make is ‘change for the sake of change,’

resulting in ‘indefensible or inappropriate decisions’ ” (Barna, 1998, pp. 43-44). Nelson and

Appel (2000) say that if people don’t perceive the need for change, they will not be looking for a

solution (p. 3). Transformational church change must be driven by a compelling need and must

be consistent with the biblical mandates for the church. Nelson an Appel (2000) says that,

“Stewardship demands that we change only what is not bearing fruit.” In his seminal work on

change management, Leading Change, John Kotter (1996) offers an eight step matrix for change

management (p. 36). The first, and arguably most important, step is “establishing a sense of

urgency.” Here are his thoughts:

Establishing a sense of urgency is crucial to gaining needed cooperation. With

complacency, high transformations usually go nowhere, because few people are even

interested in working on changing the problem. With urgency low, it’s difficult to put

together a group, with enough power and credibility, to guide the effort or to convince

key individuals to spend the time necessary, to create and communicate a change vision.

If many others don’t feel the same sense of urgency, the momentum for change will

probably die far short of the finish line. People will find a thousand ingenious ways, to

32

withhold cooperation, from a process that they sincerely think is unnecessary or

wrongheaded.

It is the rare, transformational leader that has the moxie needed to establish this urgency.

If the urgency isn’t obvious, the leader may need to educate the constituency and help create a

bridge, for them to cross over to the new paradigm. Again, MacDonald’s book, Who Stole My

Church?, offers a tremendous role-play, showing exactly how to lead a group of long-term

attendees, through a process, in order for them to accept the need for change. In the book, it took

Pastor Gordon nine months before the people came to a point of understanding and that was prior

to the initiation of the deep change. Really, the book is all about this first step of “establishing a

sense of urgency” (MacDonald, 2008).

Identifying the Key Questions

How long does it take to lead through transformation?

It must be understood on the outset that any turn-around transformation will be more of a

marathon than a sprint. Herrington, Bonem, and Furr (2000) estimate that, “A realistic figure for

comprehensive transformation might be five to seven years, or sometimes longer” (p. 13). Barna

(1998) believes that it takes seven to nine years, and he uses the metaphor of turning an oil

tanker at sea to the transformational turn around process, saying that it, “takes more than one

mile for them to pull a U-turn” (p. 9). It is essential that the transformational leader understand

that turning a church around is a process that will take years and must be strategically led, by

prepared Godly leaders.

33

What is the end-goal of the transformation journey?

What is the “true north” compass heading for, the transformational church leader?

Galloway (2001) articulates, well, the transformational goal, in his book, Leading in Times of

Change,

“The church must continually reinvent itself, in a manner that is understood by the

current culture. That requires transition. Thoughtful leaders, both inside and outside the

church, believe significant changes take place about every four years, in contemporary

society. Thus, effective leaders try to understand what is happening in the culture, so

they can find effective ways to share the gospel of Christ, in words and actions

contemporary people understand” (p. 135).

To crystallize Galloway’s statement, the goal then, of the transformational church leader,

is to contextualize the gospel, using vocabulary and mediums that are meaningful in

contemporary society. Herrington, Bonem, and Furr (2000) capture the end goal of

transformation, by asking this formational question at the beginning of their book, “How do we

transform declining congregations into Christ-like bodies that display the power of the Gospel in

our communities?” (p. 1).

Is there a “one-size-fits-all” solution?

Even if the church leader understands the urgency and need for deep change, there are

many factors to consider, in planning this kind of wholesale change. There really are a myriad of

complexities to be addressed. Since every church is unique, there are no “one-size-fits-all”

canned solutions. There are, however, best practices, processes, and questions that can help

frame the development of the transformation journey. Much insight can be gleaned from the

34

study of organizational leadership and specifically from the study of other transformational

ventures.

Mancini (2008) provides the transformational change leader this counsel, “The starting

point for vision, for thinking about our church’s future, is not deciding where we want to go but

understanding how we are unique” (p. 6). The “one-size-fits-all” approach to church change

minimizes the church uniqueness, by forcing compliance to a model. Models can be helpful,

where transferable principals can be contextualized in the culture of the church, but there is great

danger in what Mancini refers to as “unoriginal sin.” He describes the wayward pattern of many

churches as, “the common habit of neglecting what makes a congregation unique and gravitating

toward adopting programs and mind-sets that work elsewhere” (Mancini, 2008, p. 9).

Herrington, Bonem, and Furr, (2000) describe the need for a customized approach this

way, “Every congregation is a distinct and complex entity. Each church develops a certain style,

has a particular history, comprises a unique collection of individuals, and serves in a specific

context” (p. 160). The transformational leader needs to be capable of discerning the unique

assets and spiritual DNA of the church. They must also understand the church well enough, to

be able to anticipate the potential landmines that may be encountered, on the change journey.

What questions should be asked?

Well formed questions will open the discovery process, for transformational church

leaders. Ford (2007) offers these questions as a starting point for church leaders, who admit that

their ministries have stalled (p. 3):

1.) Why are we stuck?

2.) Why can’t we change?

3.) Why aren’t lives being changed?

35

4.) Why aren’t we going anywhere?

Ford (2007) goes on to say that, “Church members frequently invoke the need for

transformation when they hire new pastors or ministry leaders. But these same leaders face a

paradox; the churches resist the very change they claim to need.”

Many transformational church leaders will attest to experiencing substantial resistance,

while attempting to move change initiatives over the fulcrum, after thinking that the church had

given the clear mandate to “lead us forward.” A likely parallel would be choosing a new wall

color for your home, hiring a painter, and then cussing them out for changing the color, even

though they did what you asked them to do. Illogically and unfortunately, pastors all around the

country experience this regularly.

Why change?

Parishioners and church leaders alike will need to be reminded frequently, before, during,

and following the transformational journey, why the change is needed, and what is at stake, if the

organization doesn’t change. Lewis speaks to the need for transformed churches by stating,

“Clearly, a new kind of church is needed in the twenty-first century, a church that connects more

authentically with the world, while allowing the world a better and more effective way to come

and connect with it” (Lewis, 2001, p. 88).

Why is it so difficult to lead Church Transformation?

In Barna’s book, Leading Turnaround Churches, he said, “In a dying church, change is

viewed with alarm, because it simultaneously represents an admission of failure and the

recognition that the future will not be identical to the past” (Barna, 1998, p. 38). No one likes to

admit failure, and as people age, the familiar becomes increasingly comforting and difficult to let

go.

36

Where does the transformation journey begin?

Quinn (1996), in his book, Deep Change, says the process of organizational

transformation needs to start within the key transformational leaders lives. He says, “We have to

reinvent ourselves so that we can meaningfully connect with our current world . . . We reinvent

ourselves, by changing our perspective.”

In her paper, “Toward a Theology of Transformation,” Dr. Elizabeth Wourms (2007)

affirms that the organizational transformation begins with the transformation of the leader. She

clarifies that just as organizations are change resistant, so are individual leaders. In fact, often,

the leader misses the opportunity for personal transformation because, “We are afraid to risk the

necessary degree of transparency, even self honesty, that is required. We are afraid to enter the

pain, or the joy, to the point of encountering its polar opposite, at the soul’s deepest point” (p. 4).

She goes on to say that often leaders are only willing to, “go so far or to risk so much” and then

they reach a point of resistance and shrink back.

As such, as the wise church leader approaches the transformational process, it is essential

that they are open to a type of personal metamorphosis, as the Spirit of the Living God shapes

and molds the leaders, who will, in turn, be used to shape and mold the church, it’s people, and

the surrounding culture. Herrington, Bonem, and Furr (2000) say, “Leaders bear a

disproportionate share of the responsibility for leading change. It follows that the spiritual and

relational vitality, of the leader, is foundational for the change journey” (p. 10). Even biblical

scripture encourages sober entry into teaching, within the church, which is a form of

transformational leadership. This is seen when James warns, “Dear brothers and sisters, not

many of you should become teachers in the church, for we who teach will be judged by God with

greater strictness” (James 3:16, NLT).

37

Author Bridges (1991), in his classic work, Managing Transitions, differentiates between

a transition and a change. He says, “Change is situational: the new boss, the new team roles, the

new policy. Transition is the psychological process that people go through, to come to terms

with the new situation. Change is external, transition is internal” (p. 3). Since transition is

internal, the church transformational leader needs to ensure that they are internally prepared,

psychologically and spiritually, to help lead others through a series of transitions that will lead to

transformation.

Summary

Personal and church transformation is not just a good idea; it is absolutely imperative, in

living out the admonition, to be the “salt of the earth.” John Fischer (2002), in his book, Fearless

Faith, says that we are called to be the “good stewards of the secret things of God . . . responsible

for interpreting the meaning of the message for contemporary life.” Similarly, Eugene Peterson

describes the calling of the church in, The Message, “Here’s another way to put it: You’re here to

be light, bringing out the God-colors in the world. God is not a secret to be kept. We’re going

public with this, as public as a city on a hill” (Matthew 5:14, The Message).

The Need for Deep Change

One of the reasons transformations fail is that churches are only willing to make minor

changes, rather than the deep change that is needed. In his insightful book, Deep Change, Quinn

(1996) discusses why so many leaders fold, under the weight of opposition, ultimately limiting

their potential impact (p. 24). He states, “Each of us has the potential to change the world.

Because the price of change is so high, we seldom take on the challenge. Our fears blind us to

the possibilities of excellence.” Quinn (1996) further argues that, while the cost of

transformation is high, it ultimately costs the organization (or individual) even more, if the deep

38

change is resisted, or only incremental change is attempted. He also states that, “Incremental

change is not enough. These companies (organizations) do not need to improve themselves; they

need to reinvent themselves. Quinn (1996) says that, “Reinvention is not changing what is, but

creating what isn’t” (p. 66). This is one of the most compelling arguments that can be useful to

the transformational change leader. The leader should affirm to their church that they must cease

the old way of doing things and be transformed into an entirely new way of doing things, in

order for God to use the church to reach the world of today. ,If this change does not occur, the

church will either die or slowly loose momentum, through attrition, to the point that they may not

have the strength necessary to turnaround. If there is delay, it will be even more painful, and

even more ground will be lost. However, if the appeal is based on the mission of the church, the

likelihood of the transformation succeeding is greatly increased. The mission of the church was

one of the last things Jesus articulated, before he was crucified. He clarified that the mission, or

the church, was to, “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name

of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:18, NIV).

Quinn (1996) asks a penetrating question, to the transformational change leader, “Why

would anyone be willing to accept the pain that accompanies transformational leadership?”

Quinn’s answer is, “I suspect that such people have discovered that the pain of leadership is

exceeded only by the pain of lost potential” (p. 177). Likewise the transformational church

leaders accepts the pain of change knowing that if resisted, souls eternally hang in the balance.

Whatever pain the transformational change leader endures, here, will fade, in comparison

to the glory that will be revealed “there!” Whatever pain is endured “here” is worth it, even if

one has to be a martyr, to lead the transformational change process!

39

This literature review addresses the critical need for transformational change in most

local churches. Without concerted effort to reconnect with culture, the church may eventually

loose its influence in society. The literature asserts that the time has come, for wide sweeping

church transformation. Perspectives need to change, as churches move their focus away from

themselves and onto their communities. The forms and vocabulary will vary, but the redemptive

gospel message will not. With this revolutionary thought in mind, Nelson and Appel (2000) ask

a visionary question, “What would happen, if thousands of churches had a love for lost people,

so great that they would be willing to obey whatever God led them to do, to communicate his

love, in ways that people could grasp, accept, and grow in?” (p. 8).

In this chapter a broad survey of current literature regarding transformational church

leadership was presented and many common concerns, themes and principles were reviewed. In

the next chapter the reader will be exposed to the wisdom of eleven change experts who all

responded to the same six questions regarding transformational church leadership.

40

Chapter III

Research Methodology

The goal of this project is to provide transformational church leaders the principles and

best practices that can be used, to prepare and guide a church, through the complexities of

transformational change. In the process of researching, the writer has reviewed just over one

hundred books or articles published, during the past decade, that were related to some aspect of

transformational change leadership. In addition, a select group of eleven change management

leaders agreed to respond to six core questions, related to transformational change. The

interviewees came from very diverse backgrounds, in order to solicit responses from a corporate

perspective, an educational (theoretical) perspective, a pastor’s perspective (who has successfully

led transformational change), and a consultant’s perspective. The responses, gleaned from the

interviews, will then be compared with the current major themes in transformational change

literature, in an attempt to synthesize important principals and practices that can guide the

transformational change leader, through the church change process. This project is based on

structured interviews with knowledgeable transformational change experts

Eleven, change experts were asked to respond to the same six questions. The experts

were selected based on one or more of the following criteria:

• Experience leading substantial organizational, change initiatives.

• Familiarity with the complexities involved in leading church transformation.

• Author of a book, regarding church transformational change leadership.

• Professor or Consultant, who teaches or consults regarding organizational change

management.

Each of the experts signed release forms granting permission to directly quote them in

print. The following information was gathered, through mail or e-mail correspondence. Each

expert was asked to respond, in writing, to the six questions. Therefore, the responses of the

experts are as written, without editing. The purpose of this thesis is to compare the themes and

principles from the literature review with the results of the interviews. As such, it was decided

41

best to capture these responses in full, as part of the research methodology chapter, rather than

placing the responses into an appendix. The following is a brief introduction to the experts

interviewed:

Gene Appel – He is the former Sr. Pastor of Central Christian Church, in Henderson, NV. With

over 17 years under Gene’s leadership, his church grew from 450 to over 7,000. Over the last 5

years, Gene has served as a Teaching Pastor, of Willow Creek Church, and, in 2006, became the

Lead Pastor, of the Barrington campus (20,000 members). He was slated to be Bill Hybel’s

successor but just resigned this month. Gene is co-author of How to Change Your Church

Without Killing It (2000).

Tim Bates – He is the former Director of Business Process Development, at 3M, where he

focused on corporate marketing, with 3M’s business units. Tim is currently overseeing the

business management process, as an Executive, with MagnetStreet Corporation.

Dave Garda – He is a consultant with Cadre Ministries, International, based in Sycamore, IL

Dave has worked with hundreds of pastors, around the country, through his involvement with

Cadre and, formerly, with SonLife Ministries. Dave has a M.Div. from Trinity Seminary.

Ron Jones – He is the founder and Director of Churches Alive International, from 1973-1989.

Additionally, he has consulted with hundreds of churches, around the country, helping them

organize growth groups. Ron served for a season, as my personal mentor, and his insight and

encouragement are deeply valued.

Gary N. McLean – He is a Professor Emeritus, College of Education and Human Resources.

Additionally, he has attended the University of Minnesota. Ed.D. and Teachers’ College,

Columbia University. Dr. McLean has published 20 Textbooks (including, Organization

42

Development: Principles, Processes, Performance (2006)). He has also authored over 200 journal

articles and was the past Editor of Human Resource Development Quarterly.

Alan Nelson – Alan is the former Sr. Pastor, of Scottsdale Family Church, and is the current

Executive Editor of Rev. Magazine. Alan has a Ph.D. in Leadership, from the University of San

Diego. Alan is co-author of How to Change Your Church (Without Killing It) (2000).

Dr. Stephen Parks – He has a M.A., in Religious Education, M.Div., Ph. D. Southwestern

Seminary. He is a pastor, church consultant, and author of many articles related to leading

change in the church.

Brad Powell – He is Sr. Pastor of NorthRidge Church and author of Change Your Church for

Good: The Art of Sacred Cow Tipping (2007). Brad led NorthRidge, through a transition from a

dying church to a church that now has 13,000 worshippers, per weekend, in Plymouth, MI.

Rick Thoman – Rick is the former Sr. Associate Pastor of Grace Church Roseville and is

currently Associate Professor of Christian Ministries, at Northwestern College, Roseville, MN.

Rick has an Ed.D., in Situational Leadership, from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

Paul Thompson – Paul is my “big brother” and is also the executive Director of A Better World

Tomorrow, a large International Foundation, focused on child development, health, and

economic initiatives. Paul has a M.A. in Management, from Pepperdine University. He was the

founder of Global Community Solutions, a consulting group that focused on world health issues

and economic revitalization.

Harold Wiens – Harold is a former Executive Vice President of 3M. Harold retired, in February

of 2006, after 37 years of distinguished service. Harold oversaw a worldwide workforce, of

15,000, and his divisions produced over 3 billion dollars of revenue.

43

Interview Questions 1.) Author Jim Collins (2001) wrote this about core values, “You cannot ‘set’ organizational

values, you can only discover them. Nor can you ‘install’ new core values into people. Core

values are not something people ‘buy into.’ People must be predisposed to holding them.

Executives often ask me, ‘How do we get people to share our core values?’ You don’t. Instead,

the task is to find people who are already predisposed to sharing your core values. You must

attract and then retain these people and let those who aren’t predisposed to sharing your core

values go elsewhere.”

Question: Do you agree with this, or do you believe that it is possible to set values and then get

people to “buy in” to the core values of an organization, even if they are not predisposed to

holding these values?

2.) In the book, Leading Congregational Change (2002), the authors state that congregational

transformation is essential, but it will only occur when leaders commit to personal

transformation. Personal transformation has a very real cost but so does failure to change.

Author Paul Cohen echo’s the same sentiment in his book, Leader to Leader (1999), “Leaders

who take the same risks they ask of others, changing their own behavior and giving up a measure

of comfort and control, truly inspire and energize other.” (p. 4).

Question: How essential is it that the leader (or key leaders) be willing to personally transform

(take risks), in order for the organization to experience transformation?

3.) John Kotter (1996) describes an 8-stage process of leading change. Step # 1 involves the

need to establish a sense of urgency. He says that when organizations fail to transform, it is often

44

because they were trying to plunge ahead, without establishing a high enough sense of urgency.

In addition, he says that they overestimate how much they can force big changes, on an

organization, and they underestimate how hard it is to drive people out of their comfort zones.

Question: A.) Based on your experience, how important is it to be able to build this sense of

urgency, before a major organizational transformation process is initiated? B.) Do you have any

practical suggestions for building this needed sense of urgency?

4.) Barna, in his book, Turn Around Churches (1993), said that he has observed the tendency of

churches to engage in ministry by mimicry. Because every church is unique, in its context, its

resources, its strengths, and weaknesses, and its opportunities, every church must develop its

own unique solutions, to its circumstances.

Question: To what degree is it possible to import into an organization the values, visions, or

practices of another organization? What benefits or cautions might there be in studying other

organizations, as an organization develops a master plan for transformation?

5.) G. Wood, in Leading Turn Around Churches (2001), says, “The church purpose statement

(the main thing) expresses the core values, the programs are what they actually do. When the

two do not line up, a form of schizophrenia develops, and the congregation becomes

dysfunctional.”

Question: A.) What can a transformational leader do to better ensure that the organizations core

values actually shape the activities (programs) of the organization. B.) How can a

transformational leader realign an organization that is out of alignment?

45

6.) Miles, in his book, Leading Corporate Transformation (1997), quotes Noel Tichy (former

director of GE’s Crotonville executive development operation), “Such leaders first recognize the

need for corporate transformation and can alert the organization in a timely manner, about

growing threats from the competitive environment. Second, they are able to create a new vision,

for the organization, that is exciting and positive and to focus everyone’s attention on it.”

Question: A.) Is it essential that the CEO or key leader, of an organization, be the one that

creates and casts the vision for transformational change? B.) Can this vision be developed, in

partnership with other key leaders? C.) Is it most effective to have the key leader (CEO) be the

spokesperson for the vision (transformation process)?

Responses

1.) Author Jim Collins (2001) wrote this about core values: “You cannot ‘set’ organizational

values, you can only discover them. Nor can you ‘install’ new core values into people. Core

values are not something people ‘buy into.’ ” People must be predisposed to holding them.

Executives often ask me, “How do we get people to share our core values?” You don’t. Instead,

the task is to find people who are already predisposed to sharing your core values. You must

attract and then retain these people and let those who aren’t predisposed to sharing your core

values go elsewhere.”

Question: Do you agree with this, or do you believe that it is possible to set values and then get

people to “buy in” to the core values of an organization, even if they are not, predisposed to

holding these values?

Appel: If we couldn’t believe the core values can change, then the message of transformation in

46

the gospel has no power. Our entire message is that change is possible, down to the very depths

of the soul. However, I believe that certain followers of Christ will be attracted to specific

churches based on their core values. They make statements like, “I’ve always dreamed of being

part of a church that really cared about reaching and discipling lost people.”

Bates: I agree with the statement made by Jim Collins. I have heard Noel Tichy, University of

Michigan, use the example of Jack Welch, and I recall seeing a video clip of what GE did in

growing leaders. They hired the best, but through early assessments, weeded out poor

performers, but also those who did not believe in the GE values. My own experience, in 3M, has

been that we have a very homogenous group of people that believe in very similar values. This

has been exhibited in my travels, outside the U.S. We seem to hire very similar people in Asia,

Latin America, or Europe. Jim McNerney, coming to 3M, was very cautious not to attack the

culture but went through a period of discovery.

Garda: I agree with Jim Collins that we must find people pre-disposed to sharing our core

values; this has been my experience. I believe that it’s possible, over a very long time, with

intensive interaction, to come to a cooperative set of values, but if they aren’t truly owned by all

involved, then at the moment the individual, who embodies the values, steps away from the

group, the core values will no longer be valued by the group. It’s almost scary how quickly this

transition can come.

Jones: Phil, I agree with this precept. In my experience, in churches, the toughest part of the

experience was to find the people who had the "most Christ-like" attributes, and having found

47

them (starting with a married couple), free them up from all the "busy-work," to enable them to

lead a Small Group of others who were, in fact, other "potential" leaders. We frequently would

suggest the church "wait-out" the other activities, in which these folks were engaged, in order to

allow them to finish and have adequate time to be trained to lead, then to lead a group that

would last from 18-24 months. Working with one large church, in the Chicago area, our advice

was to wait a MINIMUM of 18 months, or they would run the risk of starting the Discipling

Ministry with the wrong people involved.

Too often, an enthusiastic Pastor would see the type of results that were occurring, in churches

where we had helped. Then he would rush home, in order to get the new "program" started.

Using the "available" folks, he would start and it would "flop." Frequently, those who are

"available" or are the first to "volunteer" to lead, or participate, are the "last" ones you really

need.

When groups like this jelled, they would become very attractive to others who had similar needs

and strengths. In addition, the "outreach" mentality, built into the study, through the Navigator

materials and the training in the group, to prepare and share their Testimonies, plus the

"Outreach Parties," would begin to cause others to desire the same experience. There will

always be an element, in many churches, where "change" is "desired" that will resist, some

openly, some covertly. Our advice was generally to "move with the movers" and trust that the

others will come along, or drop by the wayside, in the long haul.

48

McLean: I agree with this statement. It is one of the advantages that large denominations have

over small denominations. With large denominations, congregations can identify themselves by

their core values, which may vary from one congregation to another, even within the same

congregation. People within that denomination can select the congregation, in which they feel

the most comfortable. For people, for whom denomination is not important, the reason many

different congregations can co-exist, in a neighborhood, is because they have a set of values that

attracts different people to them. What a congregation needs to do, and often doesn’t, is to make

clear what its core values are and then help people articulate their core values. This may result

in the loss of some members, but it will also result in attracting others. Core values are clearly

set by the time a child is 6-8 years of age. So, a congregation can be effective in helping

children (in partnership with their parents, teachers, and peers) develop their core values. This

is also what many parents expect, which is why many people return to church, after becoming

parents.

Nelson: I’ve talked with Jim, in person, a couple times and am not sure if I agree with this. I

think that it’s a leader’s responsibility to establish/cultivate the values but more so in a new org.

versus an established one, tough to change after the culture’s been set, traditions established,

key is determining what values are stated versus what values are practiced, big disconnect here

within most churches.

Parks: Business must operate, more along the lines of Collin’s idea. The big difference for

churches is that God can make even the “indisposed” to become “disposed.” I think ordinarily

49

God uses leaders, to transfer the new value system. So, the leaders should share the values, and

then “infect” others, through God’s power to change lives.

A new member’s class will help set up a gate, to help ensure the infection takes for incoming

members.

Powell: I disagree with Collin’s (i.e. this concept would defy everything that we believe about

what Christ can do in transforming a person’s life); however, I will say that it is easier to simply

get people, who already agree with our values. It is also very essential, to have a strong team

leading out the transformation of people’s values.

Thoman: I don’t fully agree with Jim Collins. One’s values come from the basis of one’s

philosophy of life. If you do not believe in absolute truth, then you could hold this view. The

postmodernist would say that you need to discover truth, and each person possesses his/her own

truth. If this is your view of epistemology, it would follow that one would also need to discover

from within and from others what is of value (axiology). If there is absolute truth and if God

defines your reality, then there are absolute values as well. The Christian does not discover

values, from within the organization, but from the Bible, God’s Word. Collin is right, when he

says it may be difficult to find people, who will buy into your values (especially a company’s). If

you are a Christian, and you want to run your organization by “Godly” principles, it is easier to

accept the ministries’ values, because they are based on justice and fairness.

If one is dealing with a Christian organization or ministry, there will be common values that are

special to that particular group of people. For example, does one value, such things as

50

punctuality, creativity, organization, team, variety of leadership styles, etc. It is then important

to identify the values that individuals bring to the organization.

Thompson: While I agree that it is essential to attract and retain people who are predisposed to

sharing our core values, I would have to disagree with the presupposition of Mr. Collins that “

core values are not something that people buy into.” Indeed, in my experience, it is very

possible, through a participatory process to get staff to engage with and eventually “own” the

core values of the organization.

Wiens: The best way to have people in the organization “buy into” core values is to select

people who share them, to begin with. However, I believe that you can energize an organization

around core vales, to perform at a level higher than each individual would without that

inspiration.

2.) In the book, Leading Congregational Change (2002), the authors state that congregational

transformation is essential, but it will only occur when leaders commit to personal

transformation. Personal transformation has a very real cost but so does failure to change.

Author Paul Cohen echoes the same sentiment in his book, Leader to Leader (1999), “Leaders

who take the same risks they ask of others, changing their own behavior and giving up a measure

of comfort and control, truly inspire and energize others.”

Question: How essential is it that the leader (or key leaders) be willing to personally transform

(take risks), in order for the organization to experience transformation?

51

Appel: The words of a leader ring pretty hollow, if he is asking a congregation to develop a

heart for the lost and spend time with lost people, if he doesn’t have a heart for the lost and

doesn’t send time with lost people. The words of a leader mean nothing, if he calls his

congregation to sacrifice and he is not willing to personally sacrifice. People must be affected

emotionally to change. Unless they sense their leader has been affected emotionally, and deep

down in their soul, there will be little to no congregational transformation.

Bates: I believe it is essential for the leader to be open to being personally transformed. The

church has a distinct advantage, from secular institutions, in that the Holy Spirit can be at work

to change the mindsets of people. The leader must use his ability to be transparent and to express

how God is changing and has changed his or her life. Change that is dependent on human effort

is very minor, compared to the work God can do in our life.

Garda: This is REQUIRED. In the Bible, you see this in the example of great leaders, like

Nehemiah. Nehemiah led the way, with personal sacrifice and example, and this is the platform

he used to call others to change. Without significant risks, by the leader, NO CHANGE will

happen.

Jones: We would NOT work with a church, UNLESS the leaders approved (the Session, Deacon

Board, Consistory, Elders, or whatever the name of the leadership group happened to be) and

also a goodly number of them would agree to participate.

WE NEVER worked with a church, where the PASTOR was reluctant to participate, or refused to

52

be involved. We DID NOT want him to be the leader but only to be a participant in the Growth

Group (with his Wife, and we INSISTED upon them participating together, or we would not act

in a consulting role), on a weekly basis, doing his homework and looking at the ceiling, when

others looked to him for answers, during the Bible study portion of the meeting.

Interestingly, many of the Pastor's wives stated that the weekly Growth Group meeting was the

best thing that had happened in their ministry and marriage. They spent at least one night a

week in a common activity and benefited from the companionship and the lessons learned from

the study. They also benefited from the reactions and answers of the other members of the

group.

McClean: A definition of transformation has not been provided, which makes answering this

question difficult. If transformation means significant change, then leaders must change for

congregations to change. My experience suggests that most (all?) congregations are

dysfunctional, to a greater or lesser degree. Working at getting churches stable and healthy is

an extremely difficult task, let alone transforming them. While I believe that healthy leadership

(thus transformation of leaders) is an essential perquisite, to having a healthy congregation, it is

not sufficient. A healthy congregation requires healthy members; a transformed congregation

requires transformed membership, as well as transformed leadership. No congregation has the

resources (financial, spiritual, emotional, time, or personnel) to bring about such

transformation. Thus, I see the recent desire for “transformed congregation,” as rhetoric to

which no church with which I have been involved is really committed.

53

Nelson: Believe it is very relevant and very much related, wiring of leader tends to reflect in

what happens in an organization, but proper risks vs. risky ones for risk sake, not sure what else

to say, on this, other than changed organizations usually have changing leaders, at the helm.

Parks: Absolutely essential. “Don’t be afraid to go out on a limb, that’s where the fruit is.”

Only the status quo is perpetuated, by those unwilling to take risks.

Powell: This is absolute! There is no such thing as leading people to a place that you have

never gone and/or are unwilling to go. The task of leadership is all about leading, not pointing

(as my friend John Maxwell says, “He who thinks that he is leading, but has no one following is

only taking a walk”). Therefore, the leader must experience the personal risks and losses of the

journey that he/she is asking others to join.

Thoman: Leaders, lead. If they don’t model the expectations they have of their followers,

people won’t follow. For the Christian, risk is a matter of faith and joining God where he is

active, including in their own lives.

Thompson: I believe that it is virtually impossible to achieve organizational transformation,

without the leadership of the organization, expressly engaging in their own tangible and visible

commitment to personal transformation. No matter what, the staff will always look to the

actions; beyond words of their leadership, to determine if the transformation being asked of

others is readily practiced by their leaders. In many ways, the dynamic leader will follow the

54

counsel of St. Francis of Assisi, who advised his followers to “witness always, but only when

necessary use words!”

Wiens: It couldn’t be more essential. No follower will emulate a leader’s vision, without the

leader showing, through action, that he/she is committed to that vision.

3.) John Kotter (1996) describes an 8-stage process of leading change. Step # 1 involves the

need to establish a sense of urgency. He says that when organizations fail to transform, it is often

because they were trying to plunge ahead without establishing a high enough sense of urgency.

In addition, he says that they overestimate how much they can force big changes, on an

organization, and they underestimate how hard it is to drive people out of their comfort zones.

Question: A.) Based on your experience, how important is it to be able to build this sense of

urgency, before a major organizational transformation process is initiated? B.) Do you have any

practical suggestions for building this needed sense of urgency?

Appel: People are not excited about making changes, until they sense there are problems. Much

energy must be invested in selling the problem, instead of solutions to problems they’re not even

aware exist. I’ve always found it helpful to have measurable data, to raise the sense of urgency,

i.e., If 9 out of 10 baptisms, last year, were children of members, acknowledge it. If your

community is 50% unchurched, talk about it. If the church is growing numerically, but most of

the growth is transfer growth of other Christians, don’t pretend a wave of evangelism is

sweeping through the church. We have also developed surveys to measure the spiritual health of

our believers and shared the less than spectacular data.

55

Bates: Phil, I am very familiar with John Kotter’s work and am going to hear him next week at

EFI, in Florida. He is a frequent speaker at this conference. I like his change model, especially

the inclusion of the guiding coalition, who works with the leader, to shape and communicate the

vision. I also give his books away to leaders I work with. Building a sense of urgency is essential.

I am including a script I wrote, to support a presentation I made at 3M, on “Leading Change.” I

was video taped, and the presentation, along with the presentations of several of my colleagues,

is available world wide, on CD ROM and via the Web.

Garda: I’m uncomfortable with this being Kotter’s number one step to change, if the urgency is

cultivated through guilt or a crisis mentality. But when the urgency is cultivated, through values

being owned but not experienced, that are held deeply within the joint soul of the leader and the

organization, then change will have a genuine urgency.

Jones: This is an easy one.

A.) ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY NECESSARY!

B.) In our experience, the best way to cause a sense of urgency to blossom was to send groups of

leaders to visit and examine, in detail, other churches that were doing something positive.

We encouraged churches with which we worked to hold "Sharing Clinics." These would be

largely a ½ day experience, where the Laity, who were causing things to happen, and to

whom it was happening, would share testimonials, about what was happening in their lives

and why. Visitors were welcome to visit one of the Growth Groups, as a silent observer,

and later visit with the participants, during the "goodie time" following the meetings. The

56

host church invited other churches, of their denomination or persuasion, plus other

churches in their general area geographically, to come and participate with them.

Following the Sharing Clinics, host churches also would offer, to have some of their folks

visit the other churches, to share what they saw happening in the lives of their men and

women as the Scripture, empowered by the Holy Spirit, worked in their lives.

McLean:

A.) This is exactly the point I was trying to make in answer to number 2. Urgency is essential,

and I have personally not encountered any church that has this sense of urgency. Instead,

we just keep seeing churches die off and attendance plummet. We see the graying of the

pews everywhere, and still churches see no urgency. When they do commit to doing

“something,” it is often something that someone else can do, not them. As with alcoholics,

change occurs only when there is an admission of the problem and the source of the

problem. I haven’t seen this admission in churches.

B.) This is the $64,000 question. Death of congregations doesn’t seem to help congregations

see the urgency of the question. I have worked with many churches that have eventually had

to close their doors, because they couldn’t resolve internal conflicts, they couldn’t admit

their need for change, they couldn’t accommodate the needs of neighborhoods, in which

they were located. Yet people simply dug in their heals and resisted any changes that would

have been essential for their survival. Unlike businesses, in which there is a leadership that

can make decisions about who remains in the organization and who leaves, volunteer

organizations, like churches, do not have this freedom. They have to take whoever shows

57

up, no matter how unhealthy or outside of the core values of the congregation they might be.

Under these circumstances, it is extremely difficult for churches to function in a healthy

way. Even the Spirit has a difficult time, because it has to have a receptive vessel, in which

to operate. When churches reach this level of dysfunction, the Spirit has a difficult time

finding a resting place. I don’t really know if there is a way to help congregations achieve a

sense of urgency. Some of the things that can be tried include: a) speaking the prophetic

truth, regardless of the outcomes; b) providing personal and professional counseling (not by

the minister), free, to those who are the most dysfunctional, in the congregation; c) using

small group ministry, to cluster people around core values; d) using focus groups, again,

professionally facilitated, to allow people to speak their truths to one another; e) bringing in

denominational hierarchy, to help congregations speak the truth (though the hierarchies

are, themselves, also usually dysfunctional; and f) invite pastors from other congregations,

in the neighborhood, to speak the truth about the congregation.

Nelson:

Key, important how you do it, though adult learning depends on people feeling discomfort and

needing an answer, not just yelling FIRE, FIRE but establishing left and right brain data and

experiences that move people to see the need, in Leading Your Ministry. I talk about measuring a

vision (urgency, importance, clarity), three things that make or break a vision, bringing in a

consultant, reading a cutting edge book together, taking people to a conference, showing them

statistics, message series, see How to Change Your Church – Without Killing It..

58

Parks: It is not vital. There are a lot of other things more important, such as building trust.

Usually urgency is built by projecting current trends into the future and showing bankruptcy, etc.

Powell:

A.) It is vital! I agree with Kotter, if there is no urgency there is no need to change.

B.) If it isn’t being seen clearly, by organizational decline or the like, I believe that it must

ultimately be attached to values. In other words, the crisis must be seen in the fact that the

values people hold aren’t being achieved (i.e., if a church holds the value of the Great

Commission (Matthew 28), the urgency can be built off of that specific value, when a church

isn’t achieving it).

Thoman: Kotter is correct, without a great sense of urgency, change will not occur. People

need to own the “why” of change. The greater the change, the greater the risk and potential

cost there will be to people. A leader must tap into the personal sense of need behind the

change. The cause must be great, to provide a reason for sacrifice. For example, if Christ were

coming tomorrow, we would be willing to change almost anything. If I see a starving child, I

would be more inclined to sacrifice financially.

Thompson: I do think it is essential for the organization, as a whole entity, to come to a point

where they desire more. To get the entire organization to this point, at the same time, is often a

challenge. There are many different tools and participatory processes that can be used to bring

focus, to the collective desire for a transformational process. One of the best approaches, one

that I have used in four separate organizational transformational experiences, is called

59

“Appreciative Inquiry.” Dr. Davis Cooperider, from the Weatherhead School of Management, at

Case Western Reserve University, in Cleveland, Ohio, is the most well known authority on

appreciative inquiry (AI). He is often referred to as the promulgator of AI. Essentially, the AI

process allows all of the organizational stakeholders to reflect on those moments or periods of

time, when they were most energized, empowered, excited, and committed to the work of the

organization. A series of key questions are asked of a diverse cross-section of these

stakeholders. The result is an opportunity to identify what the organization might look like,

when all the staff is performing at a high level.

Wiens: Yes, it is possible to build the sense of urgency, before a major organizational

transformation process is initiated. I had to do this, in Japan, to energize a billion dollar plus

company, around the belief that financial growth was possible in a recessionary economy. For

six months, I went around the company saying we had an opportunity but not a plan. After I was

convinced each employee (3,000+) had heard from me personally, had the chance to ask

questions and understood the message, I presented the plan. Within 18 months, we were

growing over 10%, in a flat to down economy. The key was to communicate a simple, clear

message and instill the belief that we could implement the change. Doing it at the right time was

also important.

4.) Barna, in his book, Turn Around Churches (1993), said that he has observed the tendency of

churches to engage in ministry by mimicry. Because every church is unique, in its context, its

resources, its strengths, and weaknesses, and its opportunities, every church must develop its

own unique solutions, to its circumstances.

60

Question: To what degree is it possible to import into an organization the values, visions, or

practices of another organization? What benefits or cautions might there be in studying other

organizations, as an organization develops a master plan for transformation?

Appel: There are some values that are universal to Christianity and the church. Often seeing

those values lived out, in an actual context, helps us figure out how to be “flesh and blood” on

those values. The more we put “flesh and blood” on those values, the deeper we will drive those

values, into the culture of our church. Values determine what you do, and what you do

reinforces and determines what your values really are. Additionally, while every church is

unique, we all need models, just as every Christ follower needs spiritual mentors and models.

Paul said, “Follow me as I follow Christ.” There’s this unique balance, churches must find, of

being positively influenced, by the example of others, while maintaining their own identity and

fingerprint.

Bates: I think that there is a limit to how much you can import from others. To push the envelope

too far is to risk impeding progress altogether. To the extent that other churches are similar in

culture, one can see how looking at best practices, from other churches, can help them create

and mobilize their own vision. The essential task is to use every tool, at the leader’s disposal, to

create and mobilize a vision that is unique, for that church, and that the congregation can own.

Garda: This one scares me. I don’t believe values, visions, or practices, and especially

programs, can be imported from another organization. This is most often tried when leadership

does not have shared values or a clear vision of their own. So, they attempt to beg, borrow, or

61

steal these, from somewhere else. The privilege, to observe other organizations, should be

limited to observations of process or the discovery of transferable tools, questions, or

experiences that can be imported into the discovery process of the observing group.

Contextualization is essential, not only for the discerning of what can be imported but should

apply to the discerning of what in the very process of discovery is valid, for each circumstance.

Jones: It is tough to implant another churches "program" into yours. HOWEVER, the problem

with many churches is that they have absolutely NO program or emphasis to help adults grow, in

Christ. There are many ACTIVIES in most churches. However, there are very limited

opportunities, for adults, to admit their ignorance of the Word and allow them to start, basically

at Ground Zero and begin to grow, in Christ.

When I came to Christ, at age 37, there were adult SS classes but no place to get the basics

(assurance of salvation, forgiveness, prayer, the Holy Spirit, witnessing, simply, growing up in

Jesus). I took some classes at a local Bible School that really didn't help me that much. It wasn't

until I went to a retreat, at Campus Crusade for Christ, in Arrowhead, that I got the assurance,

forgiveness, and basics of starting to grow, in Christ, also, the basics of how to tell someone else

about Jesus. Many Pastors feel they have to be original, frankly, I believe they are misled.

What we found was that launching a Discipling Ministry, in different churches, was pretty much

the same, from church to church. There were differences in worship style and subtleties, in their

verbiage, but we did, basically, the same procedure in over 40 different denominations, over

the 16 years that we spent with them.

62

The changes, in the way they expressed their growth in Christ, came, as the leadership and

numbers grew. Many of them made variations that helped them feel more comfortable, over the

years. But, if they had not started somewhere, they would have continued to founder along.

Some of the wise pastors would tell their compatriots that the ministry, as it existed 5 or 10

years later, was very different, but if their friends were to start, then they best start, in the same

way, with the basics and not try to mimic the ministry, as it now existed.

McLean: First, there is an assumption here, with which I would disagree, that a congregation

can have a master plan for transformation. Transformation must come from within; it comes

about, through the health of its individual members and individual leaders. As such, of course

transformation cannot be imported into the organization, but it must be indigenous, and it must

emerge from within. Does that mean that one cannot look at what other organizations are

doing? Of course not. But, what one learns from looking at other organizations helps to provide

a context, a receptacle, in which the transformation can occur. However, the common business

practice of looking for “best practices” is definitely not a concept, to which I adhere. Every

organizations best practices are best for that organization, not universally. So, check out other

organizations. If the practice looks as if it will fit, try it out. If it doesn’t, no matter how well it

works for that organization, avoid it. Let the core values of the organization emerge and, with

the Spirit, direct where the congregation should go.

Nelson: Cloning doesn’t work in church work, gotta catch vision, insights, ideas, and plant them

in your garden, because the dirt and the gardener make the growing impact unique, can’t

63

transplant ideas whole hog, need to modify, crash and burn scenarios abound, as Len Sweet

says, “Up a Willow Creek without a Hybels.”

Parks: Every church needs to adapt to its context, but almost all turnarounds are the result of

importing from an “existing, working model.” There is a great benefit to learning from other

churches. The difficulty is the leader’s ability to adapt the principals and “heart,” rather than

the methodology. Also, the timing must be right.

Powell:

A.) The degree to which a leader is similar in passion, style, and ability, to another leader, and

the church is similar in context, will ultimately determine the degree in which the importing

can be done; however, even in significantly similar circumstances, there has to be great

discernment. The reality is that the purpose, values, and strategy have to be set, the

ministry has to be readied, and the structure must be built. In other words, it is still a lot of

work, and it always requires adjustments, to the DNA of the leader and church.

B.) People tend to do direct importing, out of laziness. They are seeking shortcuts to success.

“Success” only comes with the blood, sweat, and tears! Though you might import the

program or ministry, it will never yield the same results, without the same level of sacrifice,

passion, preparation, etc. The reason the founding church, of a ministry, will tend to

experience success is because it has the passion, makes the sacrifice, adequately prepares,

etc. No church will ever be great, without developing its own DNA.

64

Thoman: It is helpful for an organization to study the values and vision of others. They can

learn how to create a list of values, as well as the process used to create and communicate

vision. While it is normal to be influenced by another church or organization, one’s values and

vision must be very personal. You cannot live another person’s life, you can only lead and

transform your own.

Thompson: I agree that with Barna’s caution about mimicry. Too often organizations, perhaps

especially churches, are looking for shortcuts. True, impacting transformation involves a

legitimate process of organizational discovery and learning.

Wiens: It’s hard to import values and vision. Practices are much easier. I would argue for

identifying vision and values, with the organization of which you’re a part. Select the practices

to be imported, based on the culture of your organization. Again, I’ve had the opportunity to do

this, several times in my business career, and it always worked best when we discovered vision,

values, and practices together.

5.) G. Wood, in Leading Turn Around Churches (2001), says, “The church purpose statement

(the main thing) expresses the core values, the programs are what they actually do. When the

two do not line up, a form of schizophrenia develops, and the congregation becomes

dysfunctional.”

65

Question: A.) What can a transformational leader do to better ensure that the organizations core

values actually shape the activities (programs) of the organization. B.) How can a

transformational leader realign an organization that is out of alignment?

Appel: First, a transformational leader must ensure that the organizations core values are

actually shaping the activities of his/her own life. When the purposes of the church translate,

into the purposes of our lives outside the church; we are taking the first, and most necessary,

step toward organizational alignment.

Bates: The church’s purpose statement must be the lens, through which everything else

(program, ministry, initiative) is viewed. The purpose statement only states, in fact, what the

church desires to do. Leaders must act on this, in a very deliberate way, to make sure the

purpose statement is always being fulfilled. A leader can bring a church back into alignment, by

going back through the change process steps. He needs to recreate the vision, build a guiding

coalition to communicate the vision, etc., if he short-cuts any step, he fails to keep the body from

moving back into alignment.

Garda: The pace of the organization must be limited, by the leader, not by the speed of outside

forces or circumstances or, especially, not by opportunities that seem “once in a lifetime or

especially urgent,” but rather, by the degree of ownership or identification, of shared “values”

that will sustain any direction, initiative, or program. Leaders who are looking to be noticed, or

have lost their way in the clarity of what is owned, by the leadership team, as the true

66

mission/purpose of he organization move the group further out of alignment, by their rushed

attempts at alignment.

Jones: I agree. If you want to see where a church’s priorities lie, follow the money. I believe

that it should follow that churches should spend money on: a) STAFF (effective, proven

winners), who will create effective; b.) PROGRAM, and out of that high priority will come the

need for; c.) BUILDINGS.

Whether the church is large or small, there is a need to develop the understanding that "things

are out of whack." Generally, the Pastor needs to see that this happens.

If a Pastor is coming into a new church situation, this is an area to be discussed and a

determination made to "fix it," by the church leaders, before calling the new Pastor. If this is

not determined, or the church is not willing to look at this area, a prospective Pastor would be

wise to look elsewhere, for his new ministry. This church may be looking for a new Pastor,

because the old one got tired of or didn't know how to fight this battle, with an entrenched lay

leadership.

HOW TO FIX? Review some of the answers in #3 and #4. Obviously PRAYER must envelop this

whole procedure!

67

McLean: The assumption here is that the leader can “shape” and “transform” and “align” a

congregation. Maybe to some extent this can happen in a business. It is very, very difficult to do

in a congregation that consists of volunteers.

I have worked with a number of congregations, in a wide range of denominations, to develop

visions and mission statements. The strange thing is that they almost never reflect their core

values. In fact, they end up being interchangeable; there is no way to differentiate among

congregations and churches, based on their mission/vision statements. Thus, unless they reflect

their core values (and most can’t, because there is absolutely no agreement within the

congregation, about what those core values are), then how can one even determine that there is

a lack of alignment, between the stated values and the values in action (programs)? Basically,

the statements say something about “preaching Jesus” or “Living as Christian.” But, the

abstractness of those statements make it impossible to determine what these actually mean. So,

what can a transformational leader do? a) Lead a strategic planning process that results in a

mission/vision that clearly differentiates this congregation from other congregations, consistent

with its core values; b)help plant churches that will allow for greater homogeneity in core values

(and thus the resulting programs); c) Willingly and publicly, confess their sins and share their

ongoing journey to health; d) Gather leaders around them who are fully committed to the

vision/mission of the congregation; e) Encourage those in the congregation, who do not share

the core values (vision/mission), to go elsewhere.

Nelson: Look at the following:

1. Budgets, money talks, where do we spend the money?

68

2. Look at congregation, people reflect values. How many newcomers/new Christians present

when we say it’s to evangelize, or how many people in prayer ministry and praying if

prayer is set value stated?

3. Put “thorns in your laurels” as Collins says, so that there are negative experiences, when

we don’t do what we say, make it painful to fail or not follow up on what is our mission;

pain creates a readiness to change.

Parks: The number one thing is to develop leaders who:

A.) Do the “right” things.

B.) Identify key “blockages” or misalignments, change the underlying supporting system, re-

evaluate the change.

Powell:

A.) A transformational leader can lead the organization, to live by its core values. They will

need to do the hard work of eliminating the activity that does not line up and focus on the

activity that does line up. This is the function of leadership!

B.) He/she can lead the organization to evaluate, assess, understand, and intentionally and

strategically, make the necessary changes. Once again, a simple function of leadership.

Thoman: First, the church needs to identify those core values. Second, as mentioned earlier,

they need to be owned and used by the organization. Core values are used, if they are

considered, as the strategic plan is put into place. Goals and individual ministry plans will then

reflect the organization’s purpose and values.

69

Thompson: When this misalignment is discovered and acknowledged, by the leadership and the

organization as a whole, it can begin a new effort, to reshape or align the “guiding principles,”

which include mission, vision, and core vales of the organization. Too often, especially in the

midst of a leadership transition, there can be an “under-valuing” of what the organization has

been doing very well in the past. Effective realignment will allow the organization, as a whole,

to value what it has been doing well and collectively recognize where improvement should occur.

The transformational process should motivate the organizational stakeholders, to want to learn

how to improve or adapt the organization. Ultimately, as effective leaders begin to practice the

core values, in their own lives and leadership, others in the organization will begin to follow, as

well.

Wiens: Openly discuss core values and activities relationships. Question if activities follow core

values. I usually start with a list of core values, get agreement on them, and then brainstorm, to

see what activities the group would expect to come out of the core values. Then do a second

session (a day or so later), to list all activities in order of least to most significant. Then

compare the lists, and discuss why the discrepancies have arisen. This, naturally, leads a

transformational leader, to what has to be done to realign an organization in need of

realignment. However, sometimes realignment isn’t right. Maybe it’s a new alignment. Don’t

be afraid to stretch for that.

6.) Miles, in his book, Leading Corporate Transformation (1997), quotes Noel Tichy (former

director of GE’s Crotonville executive development operation), “Such leaders first recognize the

70

need for corporate transformation and can alert the organization in a timely manner, about

growing threats from the competitive environment. Second, they are able to create a new vision,

for the organization, that is exciting and positive and to focus everyone’s attention on it.”

Question: A.) Is it essential that the CEO or key leader, of an organization, be the one that

creates and casts the vision for transformational change? B.) Can this vision be developed, in

partnership with other key leaders? C.) Is it most effective to have the key leader (CEO) be the

spokesperson for the vision (transformation process)?

Appel:

A.) I’m not aware of a church that has implemented major transformational change, apart

from a leader that was able to cast a captivating vision for the change.

B.) This vision certainly can and should be developed, in partnership, with other leaders,

though most of the time it will be primarily driven by the senior leader.

C.) Yes. Most people are looking to the key leader for leadership. You wouldn’t ask the

general of an army to pass this task on to others.

Bates: The leader’s role is key, but he must build that guiding coalition and drive for progress,

through short terms wins. In fact, the role of the guiding coalition is to create the short term

wins. The leader and the guiding coalition share the responsibility, for communicating and

mobilizing commitment behind the vision. The leader fails, if he tries to go it alone.

Garda: I believe the size of the organization will, ultimately, be determined by the quality of the

leader. This individual is, ultimately, responsible for each member of the leadership team, their

71

practices, their length of stay on the team, and their tendency to own common values or to be

seeking a new day, with new values, that works against the direction of the key leader. A great

leader pulls a larger vision, from their team, than they can pull from their imaginations or

dreams alone, but it is the key leader who must “pull” the vision from the team, clarify it, own it,

and with quiet confidence move in this direction, in each and every contact and relationship they

encounter. It is the consistency of the leader, in moving with this quiet confidence verses

bravado that will draw the vision from a dream into a sustainable reality.

Jones:

A. Yes. He is either the "power," or the "power behind the power."

B. Yes. And, frankly, in the context of the Church, this is the best way, in my opinion (see #3 and

#4).

C. Probably, yes, much depends upon the local situation. As time went on, at 1st Lutheran of

White Bear Lake, back in the 70's, a strong layman and his wife led the first Growth Group,

which included the Pastor and his wife and a number of other church officers, along with some

new Christians. The Layman was the head of Quality Control at 3M and became the spokesman,

for the need for change, with the encouragement of the long time Pastor. When this Pastor

resigned, the Layman led the charge to find a Pastor, who would go along with the need for

discipling, leading to a fairly smooth transition. This Layman and his wife led the way, for many

years, until retirement to Florida. In fact, he is the present Chairman of the Board of Churches

Alive International.

72

McLean: Absolutely not! Transformation in a congregation will never come solely from the

articulation of a vision from the leader. The vision MUST emerge from the body; it must be

reflected in the community. Even a group of leaders can’t articulate the vision, unless it fully

and accurately reflects the core values of the congregation. And, everyone must be a

spokesperson for the vision/mission. If I wanted to determine if there was a vision/mission of

transformation, in a congregation, I would look for that vision to be reflected, in everything that

the congregation did (in all of its programs) and hear it expressed, by all of its members in focus

groups, casual conversation, before and after church, lived out in the daily lives of the members;

it would be pervasive. Any congregation, in which the vision emanates only from its leader or

leaders, is certain NOT to be a transforming congregation.

Nelson: Depends on organization, but I don’t know of a single church case where

transformation did not come from the lead pastor or at least was allowed by lead pastor; also,

see importance of teams, but do not see visions created by teams; has to be a champion, for the

cause, who’ll catalyze others; don’t confuse a motivated team with a lack of a leader; nearly

always, one person who champions it, even if he/she is not the leader of it; rare for pastors to

give permission to something, without their connectivity, due to defensiveness/ego/etc.; looks

nice on paper, but through history, God gives visions to individuals vs. groups, and then the

vision/leader catalyzes the group to move forward as a team. Blessings, time requirements limit

my input but if you read my books you’ll get pretty much same as my answers, Alan.

73

Parks:

A.) It’s not essential that the leader create the vision, but it is essential that they cast or

communicate it.

B.) The best vision is developed in partnerships.

C.) As said in A.), the leader must be the major spokesperson. If not, a mixed signal will be

sent, which will undermine the change effort. (See the book, Unfreezing Moves, by Bill

Easum.

Powell:

A.) It is essential that he/she is a driving part of the vision casting! I am not a proponent that

the CEO be “a lone ranger.” This is a negative. However, leading around a CEO is an

impossible task.

B.) Yes, and should be!

C.) Without a doubt; YES, especially in a church setting.

Thoman:

A.) Yes, it is necessary, for the CEO/Transformational leader to create and cast vision. He

does not do it alone or in a vacuum. While vision is part of the planning process, the

leader is the one who sets the tone and pace. He must cast the vision clearly and often.

B.) Yes, key people should be sounding boards and provide counsel, regarding the vision’s

development.

C.) Yes, the key leader must be the spokesperson; otherwise, people will wonder if the leader

really owns the organizations vision. All leaders, within the organization, should be part of

74

the vision casting team. One cannot repeat the vision often enough and with too much

variety.

Thompson: Most often, the “key” leader is identified as the chief spokesperson, for the

transformational process. However, I feel that it is perfectly fine for others to be identified as

“leading the process.” The key leader must be absolutely committed to, and personally engaged

in, the transformational process. I think the team that is leading the process should use the

obvious “giftings,” of the participants, to lead the process. It is more essential that the

transformational process be effectively undertaken than necessarily lead, by the key leader.

Wiens: The CEO, or key leader, is the most effective change agent. If she/he isn’t driving the

change, it can’t happen, as effectively, nor will it be long lasting. Certainly, the new vision can

be developed, in partnership with other key leaders, and, in fact, must be. But the driver, leader

and spokesperson, has to be the CEO.

75

Chapter IV

Synthesis of Literature and Interviews

The Leader Must Embody the Transformation

There is broad agreement, between the findings in the literature review and the responses

from the interviews. Both emphasized the primacy of the transformational journey, beginning in

the heart and life, of the leader. As the leader authentically embodies the transformation, others

will follow. Interviewee, Thompson, summarized well this principal, in his response to question

2, stating, “No matter what, the staff will always look to the actions, beyond words of their

leadership, to determine if the transformation being asked of others is readily practiced by their

leaders.” Herrington, Bonem, and Furr (2000) agree with Thompson by saying, “Leaders bear a

disproportionate share of the responsibility for leading change. It follows that the spiritual and

relational vitality, of the leader, is foundational for the change journey” (p. 10). Both the

literature and the interviews affirm that foundational to the transformation process is the

willingness of the leader to change as the church changes.

Organizational Activities Must Align with Values

Another concern expressed, in both the literature and interviews, is the importance of

aligning values with organizational activities. Some cited this organizational dissonance, as a

leverage point, to provide the needed rational for organizational change. Nelson emphasized this

by saying, “I think that it’s a leader’s responsibility to establish/cultivate the values but more so

in a new org. versus an established one, tough to change after the culture’s been set, traditions

established, key is determining what values are stated versus what values are practiced, big

disconnect here within most churches.” Becoming “missional” is one way to align

organizational activities, with the value of reaching out as missionaries, to the surrounding

76

culture. Mancini (2008) describes it this way, “Our challenge today is to move from church

with missions to missional church” (p. 33). He goes on to further describe missional as, “a way

of thinking that challenges the church to reform and re-forge its self-understanding

(theologically, spiritually, and socially) so that it can relearn how to live and proclaim the gospel

in the world.”

Urgency Must Precede Transformation

Both the literature and the interviews emphasized the importance of creating a sense of

urgency, prior to launching the transformational change. Appel described how he did this in his

church, stating,

“People are not excited about making changes, until they sense there are problems. Much

energy must be invested in selling the problem, instead of solutions to problems they’re

not even aware exist. I’ve always found it helpful to have measurable data, to raise the

sense of urgency, i.e., If 9 out of 10 baptisms, last year, were children of members,

acknowledge it. If your community is 50% unchurched, talk about it. If the church is

growing numerically, but most of the growth is transfer growth of other Christians, don’t

pretend a wave of evangelism is sweeping through the church. We have also developed

surveys to measure the spiritual health of our believers and shared the less than

spectacular data.”

Kotter (1996) describes the importance of creating urgency, “If many others don’t feel

the same sense of urgency, the momentum for change will probably die far short of the finish

line. People will find a thousand ingenious ways, to withhold cooperation, from a process that

they sincerely think is unnecessary or wrongheaded” (p. 39). It is essential that the constituency

be sold on the problem or need that is driving the proposed change. Without a broadly

77

understood problem that creates the needed sense of urgency, the odds of the followers accepting

the proposed change is greatly minimized.

Avoid Ministry by Mimicry

Authors and transformational leadership experts warned against mindless adaptation of

practices, from other churches, without first doing the hard work of determining the uniqueness

of the church. Bates said, “The essential task is to use every tool, at the leader’s disposal, to

create and mobilize a vision that is unique, for that church, and that the congregation can own.”

Mancini (2008) provides the transformational change leader this counsel, “The starting point for

vision, for thinking about our church’s future, is not deciding where we want to go but

understanding how we are unique” (p. 6). It is important that transformational church leaders

help uncover the uniqueness of their organization, instead of superimposing practices from other

churches.

The CEO (Sr. Pastor) Must Drive the Transformation

There was also broad agreement, between authors and change experts, regarding the

importance of the primary leader (CEO or Sr. Pastor). Both agreed that the primary leader

should be the most visible champion of the vision for change, although there were differing

views regarding the origin of the vision. Most thought that the vision originated with the leader

but was shaped by other key stakeholders. However, all believed that it was important for the

primary leader to lead the change process. Nelson describes the origin of vision this way, “God

gives visions to individuals vs. groups, and then the vision/leader catalyzes the group to move

forward as a team.” He goes on to caution that it is important not to, “…confuse a motivated

team with a lack of a leader; nearly always, one person champions it…”

78

Here are some other common themes:

• Transformational leadership is hard.

• Transformational leaders need to be extremely grounded and secure, in their faith.

• Most people, and most organizations, resist change and transformation.

• Most attempts, at transformation, fall short or fail.

• Transformation may not be possible, but if there is any hope of re-birth, it is a by product

of prayer and the power of the Holy Spirit, shaping the hearts of followers and giving

wisdom and boldness to the leaders.

• While churches might express a willingness to change, once the transformation process

starts, most churches resist or rebel against the very thing they wanted. Like individuals,

churches have a threshold of pain and once the transformation reaches this threshold,

resistance flairs.

• Transformation is initiated, by a shared understanding of some urgent problem(s). The

urgency that comes from ownership of this awareness is foundational to change.

• The vision for transformation is birthed, in the heart of the leader, but refined and

realized, through a guiding coalition of influential insiders.

• Transformation does not happen overnight; it’s a long distance race.

• Transformations are focused on guiding principles (vision, values, mission), verses the

overt practices, which have a higher success rate.

• In order for a church to remain vital, it must acknowledge the need for ongoing

transformation. With the current rate of cultural change, the need for transformation is a

constant.

79

Trying to wrap one’s arms around “transformational leadership” is a bit like attempting to

drink a gallon of milk, without it coming back up (can’t be done). In other words, it’s such a

broad topic that it is not possible to digest and contain it, in a single research paper. Then,

attempting to narrow the focus of the topic, to the local church, is even more difficult. Much of

the current literature and discussion, regarding “transformational leadership,” comes out of the

business world.

Obviously, there are a number of key differences, between the business world and the

world of the church. Most obvious is the fact that in the business world there is a clearly, agreed

upon goal, making a profit. Since people understand this profit motive, it’s much easier to align

teams and followers around values and visions, because there is the coveted “pay check” that can

be dangled, as both incentive and threat.

The incentives and/or threats are not quite so clean, in the world of the church. Since the

best metaphor used to describe the church, in scripture, is “the Body of Christ,” we must realize

that it is a complex living organism with many “parts.” I Corinthians 12 is clear to point that

each of the parts are needed, and they are all to be valued. It also points out the interdependent

nature of the body parts. The Apostle Paul uses colorful language to illustrate this:

And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” it

would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. If the whole body were an eye,

where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the

sense of smell be? But in fact God has arranged the parts in the body, every one of them,

just as he wanted them to be. If they were all one part, where would the body be? As it is,

there are many parts, but one body (I Cor. 12:16-20, NIV).

80

The irony is that one of the great challenges, for the transformational leader, is to

convince the various parts that they really do need each other and that none are more important

or valued than the other. Getting the body parts to work together is enough of a challenge, let

alone getting all the parts to agree upon guiding principles, like values and vision, and then

aligning the available resources (time, talents, treasures), in order to best accomplish the vision;

now we’re talking capital “C” Challenge. However, the true transformational leader wants to

spell CHALLENGE, with all capital letters, so they add an organization that has lost its way, or

has its “parts” in the middle of a directional tug-of-war, and consequently suffers from an

identity crisis. The icing on top of this “complexity cake” is the not so sweet combination of

limited financial resources, low moral, power brokers, under paid, tired leaders, leading tired

programs, in tired facilities. It’s not difficult to understand why most people (including most

denominations) don’t even make the attempt to resuscitate these dying organisms.

Rather than attempting to pour new wine into these old wineskins, many church planting

movements have sprung up, over the past decade. Clearly, the protestant push is toward fresh

starts and new works, rather than attempting to revitalize existing churches. Accordingly, every

year, 4,000 churches close-up shop. The writer of this paper is deeply burdened, by the question

that haunts every transformational leader, “Have we given up our hope in Christ’s

transformational power?” The central message of the Gospel is the promise of transformation,

“Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come” (2

Corinthians 5:17, NIV).

As previously mentioned, the church, in its current state, is comparable to an ill and

elderly human body. The diagnosis has been made, and the doctor has determined that the lady

is sick. She is extremely anemic, emaciated, and weak pulsed, struggling for breath. However,

81

there is still hope, because, fortunately, she is still alive. Churches, like all organisms, have a

natural life cycle and some need to die, but 4,000 churches dying, per year, is too many. So,

many of these local churches are barely surviving, as if they are on some type of life-support.

How will today’s churches respond to the tides of change? To be alive is to feel, hear,

taste, and see the tumultuous tides of change, raging like a perfect storm. It’s almost as if the

church is getting sucked into the vortex of this change, swirling around like Dorothy’s house, in

the tornado, gasping for life-giving breath. Yet, even with all the bleak statistics, anti-church

public sentiments, broken, discouraged pastors, and stalled or stagnating local bodies, there is a

promise that has echoed nonstop, for the past couple of thousand years, the promise given to the

sword wielding, publicly denied Apostle. As he stated, “And I tell you that you are Peter, and on

this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it” (Matthew 16:18,

NIV).

It gives hope that Jesus built his church on a less than perfect man and that even after this

man denied him, in the end, after Jesus rose, from the dead, while in his transfigured state, He

sought out Peter first, as if to assure him. Something happened to this erratic fellow, after that.

He boldly proclaimed, and thousands were ushered into the first church, and he kept on

proclaiming, until the very end, when he was crucified upside down, on a cross.

The church was then birthed and, through the centuries, it has weathered the atrocities of

the crusades, persecution, and even petty fights, over which side of the stage to put the organ.

Somehow, the gates of Hades have not prevailed, and they never will. That’s not to say that

church will continue in present form, but as the “Body of Christ” and the “Bride of Christ,” the

church will never be overcome. Yet, there is no promise of inoculation, from suffering or trials.

82

Christ followers know that the trials are allowed, as the refiner’s fire, to produce a vessel more

noble and capable of service.

In sincerity, this prayer is offered for the ailing old lady, the church. “Father, creator,

sustainer, we plead with you on behalf of the Bride of Christ; nothing is hidden from you, so we

know that you see the persecuted church around the world. We know that you see the resistance

to change and seemingly insurmountable challenges that face the church of America. We also

know that you see fewer and fewer in our country that see relevance or any compelling calling,

towards church involvement. We ask that you would transform your church. We ask that you

would transform us. We ask that you would infuse hundreds of thousands of churches, with a

fresh commitment to putting legs to the Great Commandment, as we live out the Great

Commission. Revitalize, renew, re-energize, reinvigorate, re-ignite the fires of faith, so that your

people can realize their full redemptive potential, while living as not so secret agents of hope, in

this hope thirsty world. Birth, in the hearts of transformational leaders, all around our country,

the willingness to offer themselves, as a living sacrifice, willing to do whatever it takes to breath

health and vitality back into anemic, atrophied, ailing local fellowships. Help us to offer the cup

of cold water, the cup that forever quenches, to as many as we can, with whatever time we have

left. All of this, for your glory and done only in your power. Amen.”

83

Chapter V

Resource Recommendations

Top 10 Resource Recommendations for the Transformational Leader

The following resources are recommended for transformational leaders. These

recommendations are opinions, based on the research of the writer of this paper:

1.) The best Biblical treatment of transformational change is Powell’s book, Change Your

Church for Good / The Art of Sacred Cow Tipping (2007, 316 pages).

2.) The best broad overview of leading church change is How to Change Your Church

(without killing it), by Alan Nelson and Gene Appel (2000, 353 pages).

3.) The best new resource, to aid the transformational leader, in clarifying the core DNA of

the church they are leading is Church Unique / How Missional Leaders Cast Vision,

Capture Culture, and Create Movement, by Will Mancini (2008, 257 pages).

4.) The most scholarly approach, to church re-visioning initiatives, is Breakout Churches, by

Thom S. Rainer (2005, 259 pages). Out of a study of 50,000 churches, Rainer’s research

team only identified 13 churches that met the criteria they outlined on pages 20-21. The

key criteria being that the church had to have gone through a period of decline, followed

by renewal, under the leadership of the same pastor.

5.) The best statistical overview, of the current state of the church, is David T. Olson’s book,

The American Church in Crisis (2008, 237 pages).

6.) The best adaptation, of John Kotter’s classic 8-stage change management matrix, is

Herrington, Bonem, and Furr’s book, Leading Congregational Change / A Practical

Guide for the Transformational Journey (2000, 186 pages).

84

7.) The most creative approach to facilitating understanding, of the need for church

transformation, is Gordon MacDonald’s book, Who Stole My Church (2008, 248 page

novel).

8.) The best clarification, of the “Emerging Church” movement, is Tim Condor’s book, The

Church in Transition / The Journey of Existing Churches into the Emerging Culture”

(2006, 222 pages).

9.) The most helpful and applicable secular book is Managing Transitions / Making the Most

of Change, by William Bridges (1991, 130 pages).

10.) The most innovative church website, full of free resources, for church leaders is

www.lifechurch.tv.

Change Matrix Options

There are a number of excellent change management matrixes presented, in the literature

that was reviewed, by the writer of this paper. The most helpful were:

• Thom Rainer’s “Some Steps toward Breaking Out,” on pg. 200, of Breakout Churches

(2005).

• Kotter’s 8-Stage change process, from Leading Change (1996).

• Herrington, Bonem, Furr (2000), in Leading Congregational Change (p. 50).

85

References

Anderson, L. (1998). Dying For Change. (p. 9). Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany House

Publishers.

Anderson, L. (1999). Leadership That Works. Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers.

Bandy, T. G. (2000). Coaching Change. Nashville: Abingdon Press.

Barna, G. (1998). The Second Coming of the Church. Nashville, Tennessee: Word Publishing.

Barna, G. (1999). The Habits of Highly Effective Churches. Ventura, California: Regal Books.

Bethune, G. (1998). From Worst to First: Behind the Scenes of Continental's Remarkable

Comeback - A Flight Plan for Success. John Wiley and Sons.

Boschman, L. (1999). Future Worship / How A Changing World Can Enter God's Presence in

the New Millennium. Ventura, California: Renew Books.

Bridges, W. (1991). Managing Transitions. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Perseus Books.

Callahan, K. L. (1999). A New Beginning for Pastors and Congregations: Building an Excellent

Match Upon Your Shared Strengths. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Carrol, J. W., & Roof, W. C. (2002). Bridging Divided Worlds: Generational Cultures in

Congregations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Cohen, P.M., Hesselbein, F. (1999). Leader to Leader. NetLibrary, Inc.

Collins, J. (2001). Good To Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap and Others Don't. New

York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers Inc.

Collins, J. (1995, May 29). Change is Good - But First, Know What Should Never Change.

Fortune. From www.jimcollins.com/lib/articles.html#.

Collins, J. (1996). Aligning Action and Values. Leader to Leader, Summer 1996 (The Peter F.

Drucker Foundation for Nonprofit Management).

86

Collins, J. C., & Porras, J. I. (1994). Built to Last: Successful Habits of Visionary Companies.

New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers, Inc.

Conder, T. (2006). The Church in Transition: The Journey of Existing Churches into the

Emerging Culture. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan.

Conner, D. R. (1998). Leading at the Edge of Chaos. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Corbin, C. (2000). Great Leaders See The Future First. Chicago: Dearborn Financial Publishing,

Inc.

Daft, R. L. (2001). Organization Theory and Design. Cincinnati, Ohio: South-Western College

Publishing.

Darrell, L. Guder. (1998). Missional Church: A Vision for the Sending of the Church in North

America. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Easum, W. M. (1995). Sacred Cows Make Gourmet Burgers: Ministry Anytime Anywhere by

Anyone. Nashville: Abingdon Press.

Easum, W. M. (2000). Leadership on the OtherSide: No Rules, Just Clues. Nashville: Abingdon

Press.

Easum, W. M., & Bandy, T. G. (1997). Growing Spiritual Redwoods. Nashville: Abingdon

Press.

Faust, G.W., Lyles R.I., & Philips, W. (1998). Responsible Managers Get Results. Amacom.

Finzel, H. (2004). Pioneering Change As Church Leaders. Loveland, Colorado:

Rev. Magazine, July/August, 2004. Published by Group Publishing.

Fischer, J. (2002). Fearless Faith. Harvest House Publishers.

Ford, K. G. (2007). Transforming Church. Carol Streams, Illinois: Salt River Publishing /

Division of Tyndale House Publishing.

87

Frazee, R. (2001). The Connecting Church: Beyond Small Groups to Authentic Community.

Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House.

Galloway, D. (2001). On Purpose Leadership: Multiplying Your Ministry by Becoming a Leader

of Leaders. Beacon Hill Press of Kansas City: Kansas City, Missouri.

Galloway, D. (2001). Leading in Times of Change. Kansas City, Missouri: Beacon Hill Press of

Kansas City.

Gallup, G. Jr., & Jones, T. (2000). The Next American Spirituality: Finding God in the Twenty-

First Century. Colorado Springs, Colorado: Victor.

Gibbs, E. (2000). Church Next. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press.

Goss, T., Pascale, R., & Athos, A. (1998). The Reinvention Roller Coaster. Boston: Harvard

Business School Press.

Hamel, G. (2000). Leading the Revolution. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Harney, K. (2005). Seismic Shifts. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan.

Herrington, J., Bonem, M., & Furr, J. H. (2000). Leading Congregational Change. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Herrington J., Bonem M., & Furr, J. H. (2000). Leading Congregational Change. San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.

Hesselbein, F. (1998, April 20). Making the Turn. The Drucker Foundation, Leader to Leader

Quarterly.

Hesselbein, F., & Cohen, P. M. (1999). Leader to Leader. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hiam, A. (2002). Making Horses Drink: How to Lead and Succeed in Business. Canada:

Entrepreneur Press.

Hock, D. (1999). Birth of the Chaordic Age. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.

88

Hybels, B., & Mittelberg, M. (1996). Becoming a Contagious Christian. Grand Rapids:

Zondervan.

Ireland, M. (2007, August 10). Pastors Too Busy To Pray.

www.prayingpastorblog.blogspot.com/2007/08/pastors-too-busy-to-pray.html.

Jick, T. D. (1993). Managing Change: Cases and Cocepts. San Francisco: Irwin/McGraw Hill.

Jethani, S. (2005, October). Back from the Brink: A Leadership Special Report. Leadership,

Fall, 24.

Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading Change. Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press.

Lewis, R. (2001). The Church of Irresistible Influence. (pp. 31, 88). Grand Rapids, Michigan:

Zondervan Publishing House.

Macchia, S. (1999, April 19). Becoming a Healthy Church. Leadership Network Newsletter, Vol.

4, Number 8.

MacDonald, G. (2008). Who Stole My Church? Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson.

Mahedy, W., & Bernardi, J. (1994). A Generation Alone. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity

Press.

Mallory, S. (2001). The Equipping Church: Serving Together to Transform Lives. Grand Rapids,

Michigan: Zondervan.

Malphurs, A. (2005) Advanced Strategic Planning. Grand Rapids, Michigan:

Baker Books a division of Baker Publishing Group.

Mancini, W. (2008). Church Unique. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Manz, C. C. (1998). The Leadership Wisdom of Jesus. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler

Publishers, Inc.

89

McLaren, B. D. (2000). The Church on the Other Side: Doing Ministry in the Postmodern

Matrix. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan.

Miles, R. H. (1997). Leading Corporate Transformation: A Blueprint for Business Renewal. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Nadler, D.A. (1998). Champions of Change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc.

Nelson, A., & Appel, G. (2000). How to Change Your Church (without killing it). Nashville:

Word Publishing.

Nelson, A. (2008). Ministry in 2018: 12 trends affecting you now!. Rev. Magazine. Loveland,

Colorado: Group Publishing, January/February, pp. 49-54.

Olson, D.T. (2008). The American Church in Crisis. (pp. 36, 115, 146). Grand Rapids,

Michigan: Zondervan.

Olson, D. T., & Smietana, B. (2008). Is The American Church in Crisis? Loveland, Colorado:

Rev. Magazine, March/April. (p. 57). Group Publishing.

O’Toole, J. (1995). Leading Change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Padgitt, D. (2005). Preaching Re-Imagined. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan.

Parks, S. (1998, September 21). Change: Incremental or Large-Scale. Dallas, Texas: Leadership

Network. From http://www.leadnet.org/archives/champsfax/fax60.asp.

Pendlebury, J., Grouard, B., & Meston, F. (1998). The Ten Keys to Successful Change

Management. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Piper, J. (1995, January 1). The Marks of a Spiritual Leader. www.desiringgod.com.

Powell, B. (2007). Change Your Church for Good: The Art of Sacred Cow Tipping. Nashville,

Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, Inc.

Quinn, R. E. (1996). Deep Change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers.

90

Rainer, T. S. (2001). Surprising Insights from the Unchurched and Proven Ways to Reach Them.

Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan.

Rainer, T. S. (2005). Breakout Churches. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan

Rainer, T. S. (2006). Simple Church: Returning to God’s Process for Making Disciples.

Nashville, Tennessee: B & H Publishing Group.

Robbins, H., & Finley, M. (1996). Why Change Doesn’t Work. Princeton: Peterson’s.

Russell, B., & Russell, R. (2000). When God Builds a Church: 10 Principles for Growing a

Dynamic Church: The Remarkable Story of Southeast Christian Church. West Monroe,

Louisiana: Howard Publishing Co.

Southerland, D. (1999). Transitioning: Leading Your Church Through Change. Grand Rapids,

Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House.

Spader, D., & Mayes, G. (1991). Growing A Healthy Church. Chicago: Moody Press.

Reed, E. (2005). Back from the Brink. A leadership Special Report, Carol Stream, Illinois:

Leadership Journal, Fall, pp. 24-28.

Stanley, A., & Young, E. (2002). Can We Do That? 24 innovative practices that will change the

way you do church. West Monroe, Louisiana: Howard Publishing Co., Inc.

Stetzer, E. (2003). Planting New Churches in a Postmodern Age. Nashville, Tennessee:

Broadman & Holman Publishers.

Stetzer, E., & Dodson, M. (2007) Comeback Churches. Nashville, Tennessee B & H Publishing

Group.

Stowell, D.M. (1997). Sales, Marketing and Continuous Improvement. San Francisco: Jossey-

Bass.

91

Sweet, L. (2000). Post-Modern Pilgrims: First Century Passion for the 21st Century World.

Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

Sweet, L. (2001). Carpe Manana. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan.

Taffinder, P. (1998). Big Change. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Warren, R. (1995). The Purpose Driven Church. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing

House: Growth Without Compromising Your Message & Mission.

White, J. E. (1997). Rethinking the Church. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.

Wilson, J. (2004). Future Church: Ministry in a post seeker age. Nashville, Tennessee:

Broadman & Holman Publishers.

Williams, S. (1998, January 12), Levels of Change. Leadership Network. From

http://www.leadnet.org/archives/champsfax/fax42.asp.

Wood, G. (2001). Leading Turnaround Churches. St. Charles, IL: Church Smart Resources

Wourms, E. (2007). Toward a Theology of Transformation. Excerpt from Foundations paper,

written as part of the Doctor of Ministry Degree requirement for United Theological

Seminary, Dayton, OH.

92

Appendix

Misguided Energy

In Barna’s book, Leading Turnaround Churches, he said, “. . . the stalwarts in the

collapsing church argue that things will return to normal, if the church can simply continue to do

what it has always done but in greater quantities or with superior quality” (Barna, 1998).

Top Ten Reasons Churches Fail to Change

1.) Inadequate leadership. The number one reason, by far, for most improvement failures, is

inadequate leadership.

2.) Lack of compelling, defining vision. You can’t expect people to travel where they can’t

see.

3.) Failure to address biblical essentials. Improvements need a solid biblical foundation.

4.) Unwillingness to confront ailing issues. Avoiding conflicts will hamstring significant

change initiatives.

5.) Poor grasp of timing (too fast or too slow). Southerland (1999) quotes Doug Murren

(former pastor of Eastside Foursquare Church in Seattle) as having said, “The reason 99

out of 100 churches that try to make major transitions fail is that they go too fast.”

6.) Lack of team development. Need broad buy-in before implementation.

7.) Lack of unity. Out of touch with needs of different people groups.

8.) Poor handling of conflict.

9.) A spirit of pride or self-centeredness.

10.) Poor understanding of the change process.

(Nelson & Appel 2000).

Worship Wars

93

In this era of “worship wars,” some members frame the current movement, toward

contemporary worship, as the rejection of what they hold dearest. Many churches have split over

these differences of opinion. In Future Worship, LaMar Boschman (1999) says, “Worship is

enduring, but the styles of worship are ever changing. Culture, training, religious restraints, and

even technology have formed, reformed and transformed the way we worship.”

What is Important to the Unchurched?

Thom Rainer (2001) surveyed 353 people, who recently crossed the line of faith and

became involved in a church. When asked what factors they considered in choosing a church

they answered as follows:

Pastor / Preaching 90%

Doctrine 88%

Friendliness 49%

Someone from church

witnessed to / or invited 41%

Family member attends 38%

Sensed God’s Presence 37%

Other relationships 25%

Sunday School Class 25%

Children’s / Youth Ministry 25%

Worship Style 11%

Based on Rainer’s research, it would appear that worship style is not as important, to the

unchurched, as it is to regular church attendees. If churches became more outward focused, there

would be less internal bickering, over differences of opinions.

94

Resistance to Change

Change is difficult for individuals, and it is especially difficult for groups of individuals

(organizations). Barna (1998) believes that the church is the most difficult of all organizations to

change. Anderson (1998) says that, “All institutions have a natural tendency to resist change,

especially religious institutions.”

Since it is normal for people to fight change, the transformational leader will do well to

anticipate this resistance and prepare to appropriately respond to the opposition.

Nelson and Appel (2000) state that, “Everybody resists change, particularly the people who have

to do the most changing.”

Hesselbein (1999) warns that leaders can easily misinterpret reluctance for resistance,

“All sorts of evidence, anecdotal, statistical, even biological, suggests that about 15 % of any

population seek out and embrace change; another 15 % resist it, no matter what. That leaves the

great middle, 70 %, who are simply reluctant. So, don’t make the mistake of confusing

reluctance with resistance.”

Responses to transformational change

Nelson and Addler (2000) have identified the following emotional responses that the

transformational leader can expect to encounter while leading the change process:

1.) Anger

2.) Bargaining (attempts to negotiate a compromise)

3.) Anxiety (low-grade fear of the unknown)

4.) Sadness

5.) Disorientation

6.) Depression

95

Transformational leaders need to fine-tune their emotional I.Q., because all too frequently

they assume that others will recognize the potential benefits of their recommended changes and

respond with enthusiasm. Leaders can wrongly assume that followers are at the same state of

readiness (for change) that they are. Kotter (1996) says that one of the biggest mistakes

transformational leaders make is to underestimate the degree of resistance to change, in the

organization.

Resistance is to be expected, and if handled correctly, can even be healthy. Leaders

sometimes interpret disagreement, as being synonymous with lack of unity. Nelson and Appel

(2000) say that, “Differences of opinion need not be feared. If you seek unanimity before

moving forward, you’ll hardly ever go anywhere. Don't confuse differences of opinion with

disunity.”

Southerland (1999) says that one of the best ways to diffuse the impact of opposition is

to expect it. He enumerates the following types of opposition that the transformational church

leader should expect to encounter:

1.) Expect anger—some folks are going to get very angry.

2.) Expect ridicule—Possibly in the form of name-calling (i.e., “Liberal”, etc.).

3.) Expect criticism—From traditional Christians and even traditional pastors.

4.) Expect a fight—There will be a showdown, somewhere along the way.

Southerland (1999) then goes on to offer some practical suggestions for handling

opposition:

• Don’t take criticism personally. “You will be criticized regardless of what you do; you

might as well be criticized for doing what God wants you to do.”

• You cannot please everyone. “Jesus didn’t, and you and I won’t either.”

96

• You can please God. “He is much easier to please than people.”

Signs of Decline

Wood (2001) provides the following three primary signs of decline, to assist the

transformational leader, in assessing the degree of decline or stagnation, in their church:

1.) Extreme and continued member dissatisfaction. When people’s needs are not being met,

problems lie ahead.

2.) Low morale. When regular participants fail to see evidence of life (fruit bearing), they

lose a heart for sacrifice and investment in the efforts of the church.

3.) Declining or negative bottom-lines. While numbers of worshippers, baptisms, and

dollars are not the sole criteria for gauging health, they are significant indicators.

Secondary indicators:

4.) The church consistently rewards activities, unrelated to the main thing.

5.) Activities do not follow purpose (i.e., continuing ministries that do not contribute to the

vision of the church).

A Vision to “Build Bridges”

Lewis (2001) describes the church with the potential to bridge the culture gap as, “a

community of people, who stand firm in the truth over time, against raging currents of opposition

and who present living proof of a loving God to a watching world.” The key word being

“living!” Unfortunately, many churches have long ago lost their vitality and continue to hold on

to ineffective ways of doing things that are void of life.

Rick Warren’s (1995) vision for the church is that, “Every church needs to grow warmer

through fellowship, deeper through discipleship, stronger through worship, broader through

ministry, and larger through evangelism.”

97

Hybel’s (1996) dream is to see churches grow to the point where, “. . . evangelism is a

basic value held by most not just a few. Relationships with unchurched people are prioritized.

Lost people are prioritized and their seeking process respected. Outreach is a part of the

church’s overall strategy. Seekers’ questions are valued and addressed. Leaders model reaching

lost people. Members are equipped to spread their faith. Various approaches to evangelism are

celebrated. The efforts of individuals are supplemented by multiple church outreach events . .

.The relevancy of the Bible is emphasized and the Gospel never compromised” (Hybels, 1996).

Sounding the Warning

Barna (1998) sent out a loud warning cry to churches when he said, “At the risk of

sounding like an alarmist, I believe the Church in America has no more than five years, perhaps

even less-to turn itself around and begin to affect the culture, rather than be affected by it.” He

said this because of his conviction that the central moral and spiritual trends, in our culture, are

spiraling downward, at an alarming rate. So, the church is declining, at an equally alarming rate.

The rate of cultural change, combined with the stagnation and decline of so many

churches, along with the downward spiraling of the moral climate, in our country, has led many

to conclude that quantum change leaps are desperately needed, in the American Church. Mellado

(2000) summarizes the need well by stating that, “The church must adjust to continue connecting

the unchanging message of God‘s love with changing people.”

The Importance of Vision

Each church is responsible to design and align their ministry with the scriptural mandates

found in the “Great Commandment” (Mt. 22:38) and the “Great Commission” (Mt. 28:18-20).

Sonlife Ministries called this “G2 ministry.” Unfortunately, many churches lack clarity of

purpose or the core values that could otherwise guide them in the vision formation process.

98

Those that have taken the time to put vision to paper have frequently failed to keep the vision

alive. Consequently, these churches tend to default to tradition, or bend to the whims of the

squeakiest voice, or the pet passions of the pastor.

Quinn (1996) says that during times of extreme change “people crave vision.”

Rick Warren (1995) believes that the church’s vision and purpose need to be restated

every twenty-six days, to keep the church moving in the right direction. He bases this on the

story of Nehemiah. Half way through the wall rebuilding project the people started to loose heart

and so, on the twenty sixth day, Nehemiah recast the vision, to renew the willingness of his

people, to keep building. Similarly, Warren believes that the transformational church leader

must with great regularity (every 26 days) recast the vision, before the church, so that everyone

remains aligned with God’s calling, for that church.

Where does the Vision Originate?

Some who desire to be transformational leaders might wonder where this vision comes

from. Southerland (1999) says that, “Vision is usually given to those who pray until they get it.

There is no shortcut to vision. We must pray, if we want to know God's vision, for His church.”

What is vision?

In his book, The Power of Vision, Barna (1992) defines vision as “a clear mental image,

of a preferable future, imparted by God, to His chosen servants. It is based on an accurate

understanding of God, yourself, and your circumstances. It is practical, realistic, and action

oriented. It is the specific steps you must take, to fulfill God’s broader mission for your

ministry.”

Russell and Russell (2000) encourage the transformational church leader to adopt

“Wayne Gretzky’s Principle of Success . . . Skate to where the puck is going to be.”

99

They say that too many churches are playing catch-up, because they are trying to reorganize

themselves around their present reality that becomes past history, by the time the reorganization

takes place. This requires that the transformational leader be willing to endure the painstaking

process of developing a vision and putting it on paper. Russell and Russell (2000) suggest, “The

best long-range plans are one to two pages, five pages, at most. What takes wisdom to discern,

of all the things we could do, which are the few 20 % that will deliver 80 % of the results for our

future.”

The Transformational Change Process

Rainer (2005), in his excellent book, Breakout Churches, did an expansive study of

churches, in America, in their quest to find examples of “Breakout Churches.” Here was the

criterion for their search:

1. The church has had at least 26 conversions, annually, since its breakout year. (He based

this on the belief that a healthy church should be reaching at least one person with the

gospel, every two weeks).

2. The church has averaged a conversion ratio no higher than 20:1, at least one year since its

breakout year. (Based on research that determined that on average it takes 20 members

one year to reach one person).

3. The church had been declining, or had plateaued, for several years, prior to its breakout

year.

4. The church broke out of its slump and has sustained new growth for several years.

5. The slump, reversal, and breakout all took place under the same pastor. (They wanted to

offer examples of leaders, who were able to adjust values and lead their churches through

transformation).

100

6. Since the breakout point, the church has made a clear and positive impact on the

community.

Sadly, after reviewing over 50,000 churches, the research team was only able to identify

13 churches that fit all of the above criteria. As part of the study, Rainer looked closely at the

commonalities around the “breakout point,” with each of these churches. Prior to the breakout,

Rainer’s group concluded that there came an “ABC” moment in the life of the leader(s). He

defines it this way, “an ABC (awareness/belief/crisis) moment is a wake-up call, a realization

that something is not right and that business as usual is no longer an option.” He then clarifies

that the pattern flows in this order:

1. Awareness: Leadership and key persons become aware that the church is not nearly all

God intended it to be. At this stage, it is common for church leaders to seek some type of

outside perspective, such as attending a conference, zealously reading about issues

related to the church, or hiring outside consultants. There is a keen desire to learn and

improve.

2. Belief: The leadership confronts the brutal facts of the church’s reality. This stage is

often a wake-up call to make necessary changes. The leaders do not despair, over the

needed changes, but instead have a strong belief that God can use them to make a less-

than-desirable situation good.

3. Crisis: Once change has begun, a crisis takes place, in the heart of the leader, in the

members of the church, or even in the attitudes of the members toward the leader. This

often painful stage is the time when many pastors leave.

101

Authentic Leadership

Making good judgments and acting wisely, when one has complete data, facts, and

knowledge is not leadership. It's not even management. It's bookkeeping. Leadership is the

ability to make wise decisions and act responsibly upon them, when one has little more than a

clear sense of direction and proper values; that is, a perception of how things ought to be, an

understanding of how they are, and some indication of the prevalent forces driving change

(Hock, 1999).

The process of transformation almost always begins with a pastor. The pastor must be a

role model for the transformation process, and the laity must implement the transformation.

Large church organizations may fall into the trap of institutionalizing. When they do so, they

tend to focus on a Soviet-style of central planning that promotes resource allocation, rather than

resource creation. When this happens, then management is in control rather than leadership

(Hamel, 2000).

The foundation of leading is love. People long for and look for a pastor who puts people first,

who cares more about helping them, with their lives, than about the survival of an institution or

the growth of an organization. People growth is more helpful than church growth (Callahan,

1999).

There is no substitute for an active, personally committed CEO, who is willing to do the

critical things that only a CEO can do, during periods of change. The chief executive simply

cannot delegate the leadership of change (Nadler, 1998).

In episodes of massive change, at the enterprise level, CEO’s assume a role that

transcends their routine chores, as head of the organization. These leaders become the

102

psychological focal poing for many of their employees; in an almost mystical way, they become

the personal embodiment of the institution, its values, its beliefs, and its future (Nadler, 1998).

Envisioning

Mythic leaders share an ability to articulate a compelling vision, one that excites and

captures the imagination of their people. Often, the vision these leaders articulate includes

extremely high expectations, so high, that they often seem unattainable. However, those are the

expectations and goals that truly energize their people.

Energizing

These leaders energize their followers by demonstrating their own personal sense of

excitement. Mythic leaders typically energize their people by constantly expressing personal

confidence, in ultimate success, rarely, if ever, allowing any hint that they harbor doubts.

Enabling

Mythic leaders also help (their people) along the way. They do this in a number of ways,

expressing their personal support, demonstrating confidence in the organization’s ability to reach

its goals, and empathizing with people during the difficult times. Leaders also find ways to give

people the resources they need to do what the leaders have asked (Nadler, 1998).

Postmodern’s want authentic leaders

Our postmodern world is tired of words. It wants real. Real is everything. Real is

convincing (Lewis, 2001).

Key Implementation Thoughts for the Transformational Leader

• Always implement changes, from the top down (Leaders must model).

• Always start with the best first.

• Set your own example.

103

• Remember that you can't motivate people to do something they don't know how to do.

• Recognize and reward desired performance early.

• Pace implementation, so that the timing is consistent with the needs of your plan.

• Provide coaching and follow-up consulting, above all, be persistent.

(Faust, 1998).

This excerpt, from The Rock, published by T.S. Elliot, in 1934, speaks to the need for

cyclical renewal of the church. “And the Church must be forever building and always decaying

and always being restored.”

Key questions to help discern if church is inward or outward focused

• What impact is the church having on the community?

• How does the community around you "know" your church? Do they feel a positive

connection with it?

• What tangible influence is your church having on your community?

(Lewis, 2001).

13 important actions churches can take to implement positive change

1.) Pray for a vision of what your church can be.

2.) Discuss the ten principles, with your leaders.

3.) Realistically evaluate your situation.

4.) Develop a mission statement.

5.) Develop a five-year plan for change.

6.) Work on the one hour of weekly worship.

7.) Find a worship leader.

8.) Get the men involved in leadership.

104

9.) Start a “What We Believe” class.

10.) Love one another.

11.) Give up control.

12.) Visit other churches that are alive and growing.

13.) Celebrate victories, giving God the glory.

(Russell, 2000).

10 Principles for growing a dynamic church

1.) Truth: Proclaim God's Word as truth, and apply it to people's lives.

2.) Worship: Worship God every week, in spirit and truth.

3.) Leadership: Develop Christ-centered leaders, who lead by example.

4.) Excellence: Do your best in every area of service.

5.) Faith: Be willing to step out, with a bold faith, and take risks.

6.) Harmony: Maintain a spirit of harmony.

7.) Participation: Expect the congregation to participate, in every ministry.

8.) Fellowship: Continually practice agape love, for one another.

9.) Stewardship: Give generously, of God's resources, as a church and as individuals.

10.) Evangelism: Commit enthusiastically to evangelism, as your primary mission.

(Russell, 2000).

105

Figure Captions

Figure 1. Graphical picture illustrating the percentage, of the U.S. population, attending a

Christian church, in 2006.

Figure 2. Graphical picture illustrating the percentage, of the U.S. population, attending a

Christian church, in 1990, 2000, and 2006.

Figure 3. Graphical picture illustrating the percentage, of the U.S. population, attending a

Christian church, in 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005, and prospective years 2010, 2015, and 2020.

106

Note. From The American Church Research Project, by David T. Olson, 2008, from

www.theamericanchurch.org. Reprinted, with permission.

107

Note. From The American Church Research Project, by David T. Olson, 2008, from

www.theamericanchurch.org. Reprinted, with permission.

108

Note. From The American Church Research Project, by David T. Olson, 2008, from

www.theamericanchurch.org. Reprinted, with permission.