INABILITY TO CHANGE

(When I originally wrote this four years or so ago I apparently never even considered the ability that first generation churches have to do things different. Surprisingly, where I am today, I would continue to think that most first generation churches don’t do things all that differently than where they came from. Many of these first generation churches, while having a fresh enthusiasm, are not much different than the church that most came from. When they are different, they quickly return to looking like the church they came from once the first building campaign begins or the next generation of leadership takes over. They may still grow rapidly, but the core doctrine and approach to ministry is the same. That said, I also realize that there are many churches, first generation or not, who really value innovation in programming and are genuinely committed to new revelation. Many so called emerging churches, for example, are seeking out truly innovative means of ministry while avoiding the temptation to simply be trendy. Likewise, many churches are exploring more social activism and relational ministry opportunities. That said, as I contemplate visiting churches again, the one thing I know is that I won’t visit any church that is less than ten years old.)

The fourth major problem with the institutional church is its inability to change. I believe that there are both understandable and practical reasons as well as reasons that might not be so reasonable. Regardless of why so many institutions are unable to change is not as significant as the fact that there seems to be little desire to change.

I understand that it takes a lot of work to change a system. This change can be a huge risk. A church can work for decades at developing a system that at least works to a limited degree. Committees are established, leadership is put in place, gifts and talents are identified, and stability is achieved. Through this stability there is usually a great deal of money involved that is both doing significant and meaningful ministry as well as money that is simply going into maintenance. When a new idea is introduced by either an individual or group there is a lot at stake if it doesn’t work out. The church could be set back decades if the idea didn’t work the way that the leadership hoped it would. The consequences could affect the established and effective ministry as well. I also understand the concern it can take so much work to get things to work in a church as is; to introduce a new idea that radically affects the work load might not be able to bring the support that is needed by the staff and congregation. I put this into the understandable category because I can identify personally with not wanting to ask my leadership to come to more meetings, planning and prayer sessions, and do more “stuff”. I think that to do this would require people to do more volunteering and less ministry.

But there are also many reasons why it is difficult to change that are significantly less understandable. For example, when a new direction or vision is introduced a power struggle can quickly emerge. This is natural regardless of how institutional a church or organization might be. Even if the congregation and staff agree with the new vision, how that vision is to work is going to be argued. This is both a healthy and natural as well as a dysfunctional reality. It is healthy to feel free to openly discuss and even argue how something should be done, but when it leads to manipulation, compromise, exploitation, and hierarchy it becomes very dangerous. For this reason many churches will avoid any controversial move.

So then how can the church get to a place where it is able to change? There are a few obvious answers here such as prayer, practicing the discipline of guidance, encourage open dialog, and practice risk taking. But because these are so obvious I feel that if churches are not doing these things then simply reminding them of the need to is not going to change things for very long. There are also some good strategic techniques such as building relationships with change agents. But again, there needs to be more. Prophets have historically been persecuted in the church, but it is only through the prophetic word that change occurs. So where are the prophets?