Transformed or Tweaked?
Everyone wants transformational change. Congregations, the church at large, companies, public schools, the government, colleges and seminaries… The list could go on.
Two reasons, I think, explain this desire. First, we know that a lot of the ways “we’ve always done it” aren’t working anymore. Whether it’s the way our congregations are run, our seminaries educate leaders, our companies make a profit in a way that serves customers and is environmentally sustainable, our government functions, etc. – we have this deep sense and suspicion that just enough has changed in our world that we also need to change – really change – to be effective.
The second reason is simpler: transformation sounds nice. It’s both fancier (promising more) and nicer (requiring less) than a phrase like complete change. Transformation, that is, sounds wonderful whereas complete change sounds more difficult and painful.
But here’s the thing: if we don’t realize that transformation actually requires substantial (and therefore disruptive) change, than we don’t end up with transformation. Instead, we end up with tweaking the status quo. That is, we make modest (what we call “appropriate”) or realistic (by that we mean not too painful) changes to the larger intact system and then are both surprised and disappointed when not much actually changes.
Still not sure what I mean? Then pay attention to the typical actions of groups that say they want transformational change but in reality only want to tweak the status quo. You’ll notice a few common strategies.
1) Rationalize the problem. We study the issue – the decline in membership, sales, productivity, whatever – and conclude that while the current numbers are depressing, if we cut back a little now and redouble our efforts (that is, do what we’ve always done, just a little better), we should be fine.
2) Commission a study. Rather than do anything different, we channel responsibility for change to a committee that will study the issue and, more likely than not, end up with modest recommendations that tweak (rather than call into question) existing structures and mostly continue what we’ve always done.
3) Seek new leadership and/or fresh faces. While new leaders may indeed effect significant change, and while a fresh perspective can provide new insights, neither guarantees substantial change. Indeed, often we seek the fresh face – whether a new leader brought from the outside or a set of consultants – because we romantically (or tragically?) believe that having a new leader can actually substitute for developing new patterns of being and acting. That is, we overestimate what a new leader can do in an unchanged system and delegate the responsibility for change away from the body and onto the new leader. (Although if the new leader insists on wholesale change, then we complain that because he/she is an outsider, he/she doesn’t really know us!)
Why the resistance to the substantial change that is necessary for transformation. Because substantial change is always disruptive change. It threatens the status quo and because we greatly prefer homeostasis (stability) to change (instability), we’ll do almost anything to avoid disruption. And so we substitute rationalization, study, and a preference for fresh faces – all relatively easy to do but time-consuming enough that we believe we’re actually doing something – for the much harder work of taking our changed and changing context seriously, putting everything on the table, and engaging in change that we hope will be transformative but will most certainly be disruptive.
In theory I agree with you but in practice I struggle a bit. To move a congregation (or other institution) is a bit like a huge ship in the ocean making a course correction. It takes time and patience. Tweaking done only with the hopes of doing more of the same only harder, is not helpful. But perhaps tweaking can be a step in the transformation process. What if tweaking is used to build trust, a willingness to experiment and an opportunity to create a positive outlook to change? I know that this is sloooow change and maybe the transformation will happen too late for the individual congregation but maybe we’ll learn how to face change and build something out of the ashes.
Another God thing. I was wrestling with these very thoughts earlier today. Not to be harsh (but I believe at this moment I need to wrap myself around this): tweaking is like putting flowers on a grave and calling it resurrection. Things like baptism and repentance are not “tweaking”. I need to live into the life that is truly life, which is a 180 from a life that is death. God of grace and “making all things new” power, transform me by your blinding, burning love! Help me to preach the same! Many people know there’s something drastically wrong with this world and only something drastic (like the kingdom of heaven bursting into this world through the Son on the cross), something COMPLETELY different, is going to be enough.
Change always starts with each individual heart. Jesus understood this principle. Yes, he spoke at times to huge crowds, but most of the time, he was one-on-one with people and that is where he effected the most profound changes. This is where the “church” of today has missed the proverbial boat. There is little-to-no personal one-on-one connections in the church life, or at least in the church life I have experienced.
The problem facing the church is how to make each person feel valuable to the whole. Sermons on Sunday do nothing toward this goal. Each person is a face in the crowd and most of the crowd knows nothing about the other faces in the crowd. It’s depersonalizing and demoralizing.
The closest thing that I have come across in my own church that addresses the human longing for connection with God and with fellow believers is our bible study class. We each participate and speak and pour out the realities of our lives. In short, we become known and we become fed, spiritually, mentally and in every other way. Jesus told Peter, “If you love me, feed my sheep.” When you feed people, you get to know them.
My church makes very little effort in connecting people to one another. There is a monthly newsletter, but not much in there about anybody in particular. Some announcements do appear on the monthly breakfast get together.
The church needs to concentrate on getting the flock to know each other in a real way. Towards that end, there ought to be a directory which lists the people attending church and what their interests and lives are all about. We all have talents and abilities that could be shared. Does someone babysit? Does someone have computer skills? Is someone a plumber? Are they willing to share their talents? Is someone a shut-in and need visits? Would someone like mail or e-mails? The people in church ought to have the opportunity to help each other, and things ought to be done to make this easier.
I am currently attending a Methodist Church and one of the heart-rending things going on there is the trials of ministers who have officiated at gay marriages. This is so terrible, I can hardly believe that it is happening. At the very least, the church ought to let ministers follow their own hearts concerning the issue.
Ranted on long enough….thanks for this forum that provides me a way to do some of what I was talking about…a connection and a place to speak about these issues.
Thank you David for your concisely worded insight on “Transformation.” I have two points to further the discussion.
The first is to address the magnitude of the problem that requires more than tweaks. I can easily become overwhelmed and begin to ask, “is transformation even possible,” especially when I am confronted with hostile resistance to change (both from within me and from others). Then I think of another time when the disciples were faced with such a situation and responded to Jesus in the story of the rich young man, “who then can be saved?” Matthew 19:25) In his answer I hear Jesus say that while it is not possible for me to to accomplish it, but “for God, all things are possible”. I have to remember that. Otherwise I find this Transformation business just impossible.
The second point is a word of hope. I have come to experience in every crisis there is danger and there is possibility (wherein lies the hope). The context in which we find ourselves doing ministry has radically changed. As the church, what we have, society at large mainly does not value. The church is no longer on the village green, the center of civil life. The age of Constantine who made Christianity the religion of the state, is gone. The hope is that what emerges from the ashes is a far more meaningful and vital life together as the body of Christ. We participate because it fills us and completes our humanity. The power of God’s love to make all things new has transformed us to be the church, the vessels of that love. For me, that is the hope.