At the age of 26, I was appointed to a small church about an hour south of Boston. It was rural in nature and in significant decline. It didn't take long to discover internal power struggles.
Bob Sweet, my first District Superintendent, gave me my prime directive. “Greg, go forth and turn that church around!” In hindsight, I now realize that seminary didn't provide training regarding church redevelopment or even how to assess if a congregation is ready for "turn around work." Fortunately, I had enough sense to avoid negative labels and pre-mature diagnosis. Pulling out a congregational version of the DSMV IV and labeling folk with a "you are the problem" diagnosis usually isn't motivating and furthers polarization. Many pastors find themselves locked out of the church system by proclaiming that they are here to eradicate the “poison.” (in this church a pastor did just that and lasted three years).
Twenty years of integrating my pastoral and family therapy experiences has led to some ideas about pastoral effectiveness. Early in my ministry, I attended the Kantor Family Institute and learned more about systems work and change. At KFI, we encountered the idea that each one of us has an innate model for how people respond to change and evolve. It is a combination of life experience, education and DNA that form our perceptual frame and bias about how to create influence and transformation.
For your own consideration. Do you believe groups tend to grow incrementally, one step at a time? Are your actions guided by a subtle assumption that folk grow in quantum jumps - leaping multiple steps or floors at a time.
Some leaders just know instinctively how to improvise in order to create transformation. They instinctively answer the question of whether the congregation would best be served by leadership that is direct and results oriented or steady and understanding.
The benefit to checking out your assumption and studying different models of leadership and organizational development is being able to bring instinct and intuition to the surface. Shared models and language help to bring folk on board and strengthen ownership of the change process.
What I hope you will take away from this blog entry is the critical importance of understanding your perceptual bias. Most pastor/congregational “marriages” do not fail because clergy can’t “pay the rent” (basic skills of preaching, pastoral care and administration). Escalating conflict or failure to thrive is not because the laity are all bad. Attempts to lay complete blame on either laity or the clergy fails to understand the complex “joining” dynamics between pastor and parish. A leader who desires to transform or influence a congregation must appreciate the critical nature of first effectively joining and establishing trust.
Look for my next installation on “The Joining Process.”
Bob Sweet, my first District Superintendent, gave me my prime directive. “Greg, go forth and turn that church around!” In hindsight, I now realize that seminary didn't provide training regarding church redevelopment or even how to assess if a congregation is ready for "turn around work." Fortunately, I had enough sense to avoid negative labels and pre-mature diagnosis. Pulling out a congregational version of the DSMV IV and labeling folk with a "you are the problem" diagnosis usually isn't motivating and furthers polarization. Many pastors find themselves locked out of the church system by proclaiming that they are here to eradicate the “poison.” (in this church a pastor did just that and lasted three years).
Twenty years of integrating my pastoral and family therapy experiences has led to some ideas about pastoral effectiveness. Early in my ministry, I attended the Kantor Family Institute and learned more about systems work and change. At KFI, we encountered the idea that each one of us has an innate model for how people respond to change and evolve. It is a combination of life experience, education and DNA that form our perceptual frame and bias about how to create influence and transformation.
For your own consideration. Do you believe groups tend to grow incrementally, one step at a time? Are your actions guided by a subtle assumption that folk grow in quantum jumps - leaping multiple steps or floors at a time.
Some leaders just know instinctively how to improvise in order to create transformation. They instinctively answer the question of whether the congregation would best be served by leadership that is direct and results oriented or steady and understanding.
The benefit to checking out your assumption and studying different models of leadership and organizational development is being able to bring instinct and intuition to the surface. Shared models and language help to bring folk on board and strengthen ownership of the change process.
What I hope you will take away from this blog entry is the critical importance of understanding your perceptual bias. Most pastor/congregational “marriages” do not fail because clergy can’t “pay the rent” (basic skills of preaching, pastoral care and administration). Escalating conflict or failure to thrive is not because the laity are all bad. Attempts to lay complete blame on either laity or the clergy fails to understand the complex “joining” dynamics between pastor and parish. A leader who desires to transform or influence a congregation must appreciate the critical nature of first effectively joining and establishing trust.
Look for my next installation on “The Joining Process.”
No comments:
Post a Comment