The photo of a car perched in a church roof creates an opportunity for assessment. The newspaper article states that a German motorist missed a bend in the road, broke through a barrier and hurtled up a bank, crash-landing on a church roof in eastern Germany.Just about everyone would see this as a problem that needs to be solved. One of my favorite books on systems approaches to congregations is written by Lutheran pastor and family therapist Kenneth A. Halstead, “From Stuck To Unstuck: Overcoming Congregational Impasse.” He writes about the important assessment of determining whether something is a problem to be solved or a difficulty to be lived with or managed.
He states that when congregations get stuck they often fail to distinguish between a “difficulty” and a “problem.”
- A "difficulty" is something we must accept and learn to live with or manage.
- A "problem" is something that is solvable (like a hole in the roof).
For example, one church I worked with had problem with organizational structure. They had a problem filling all of the 100 positions on their Nominations Roster. Some of the causes could be related to difficulties that must be lived with and accepted.
In this case, there were concrete solutions. They had 52 folk filling 100 positions. During the program year they had a low of 57 adults and a high of approximately 105 at worship. They were living with this problem as if it were a difficulty. Each year the process of nominations created a weakened morale and pining for the "good old days." A different assessment led to a different perception and options for taking action. The "hole in their roof" was a governing structure that did not fit the size of their congregation. Choosing to create a new organizational structure became a way "to repair the leaky roof."
Churches often react to changing cultural realities around attendance as if it were a problem to be solved or they intervene at the incorrect level. Folk from an age when people went to church out of a sense of duty perceive that a lack of commitment is the problem. They often communicate judgment and look down at folk who miss church because of soccer or other activities as lack of duty and Christian values. But in an age where folk are motivated to attend church out of a sense of fulfillment and meeting individual or family needs, they miss the point of influence in human motivation. They intervene our of a peceptual set that worked in a prior age.
Imagine a missionary's approach coming into America for the first time to begin a new congregation. As "outsiders" they would find a way to live with cultural differences and join with our secular culture and create an inviting spirit. The effective approach wouldn't perceive the culture as a problem to be solved. They would look for ways to use it toward building a new church. The solution would be built around the gospel message of grace - not judgment, meeting needs (both to give and receive) - not leveraging a sense of duty or obedience.
Assessing whether an issue is a "difficulty to live" with or a "problem to be solved" is critical in the life of a church. Also, understanding whether the problem is "out there" or as is more often true "in here" is an important choice. Often, the problem is internal in the form of out dated perceptions and cognitive maps. The Church as an institution has shifted to an "outsider" or in some cases "out of it" status in our society since the 1950's. Getting this perception incorrect points leaders in the wrong diretion.
Halstead has identified three ways leaders get pointed in the wrong direction when dealing with issues. Notice the difference at the point of action taken or avoided.
- 1. Terrible Simplification – denying that a problem is a problem (turning a mountain into a molehill). Action is needed but not taken.
- 2. The Utopia Syndrome – trying to change a difficulty, which, for all practical purposes, is either unchangeable or nonexistent (turning molehills into mountains). Action is taken when it should not be.
- 3. Paradox – taking action at the wrong level in the system – by failing to distinguish whether a problem should be addressed at the molehill, mountain, or mountain-range level, groups often fail to take intervention at the appropriate level. For example, a church council may attempt to fix an ailing program by starting a new program, when all that was needed was to encourage and support the present program leaders.
In your past or present group experiences reflect on the following questions:
- What are some examples of creating problems by trying to ignore or deny them?
- What are some examples of trying to solve an insolvable difficulty instead of learning to cope with it creatively and graciously?
- What is an example of trying to solve a problem with a strategy at the wrong level of intervention?
