Today’s post references Alban Institute’s blog and the article Life after Governance Change, Dan Hotchkiss.

“Change” is a powerful word. It is so formidable that the church today sidesteps it by calling it “transformation.” Both words are used in a mystical way. Does change mean finding enough members to support a certain budget? If so, we quickly lose site of ministry. If the people walking through the church door are seen as dollar signs, not as children of God, they WILL sense it . . . and flee!

The word “change” is used as currency. Struggling churches say they want it. Pastors meeting with call committees lay down the gauntlet—”Are you prepared to change?” The problem is “change” is demanded without definition, not surprisingly resulting in resistance. Neither clergy nor laity eagerly embrace the unknown.

Governance is designed for stability and order. It may prove ineffective in a fast-changing and chaotic world. While protocols cannot be abandoned, they must themselves be prepared to change in order to achieve change. Power is likely to shift from the hierarchy to the local governing entities. This is a reality of the today’s world as both business and secular governments have discovered!

Our experience illustrates that local governance, even in small congregations can have enormous potential for growth if change is fostered, not imposed.

Hierarchical governance often presents plans for change to congregations they measure as weak and helpless. They fail to see the power lying latent within small groups. (This goes back to last week’s discussion on ethnography.) The hierarchical vision for change is worlds apart from the local vision. Hierarchies look at numbers and see failure. Local churches feel frustration.

Hierarchies must learn to harness the power of small congregations. That means letting go.

Books on this topic often dwell on numbers, measuring if churches move from small categories to large categories or vice versa. Are you a “mega church” with thousands attending worship, or  a “program church” with several hundred, or a smaller yet “pastoral church,” or a “family church” with a few dozen? Does any one sitting in your pews on Sunday morning care? Do the people who enthusiastically join a family church want their church to become a pastoral church or program church? It is likely that they just want to be who they are and do that the best they can. This may be challenge enough!

If congregations are to embrace and achieve change resulting in vitality (as opposed to numbers), small churches must define their own change.

Little Redeemer faced many challenges. We knew we needed change. The change we were excited to work toward was not the change the hierarchy envisioned or was even able to support. For a few years we danced with church leaders with little result. Then we began working as best we could with limited professional leaders who regularly reported that there was no leadership available for the ministry we had in mind. A decade passed. We came to realize that professional leaders were holding us back.

Suddenly, the pastor resigned. In the leadership void, the people of the church stepped up. In a few months Redeemer detailed their vision for change and set about implementing it . . . with success.

Yes, older members faced a sense of loss, but trusted lay leadership (not an outsider) reassured them.  Love did not abandon the old; it grew to embrace the new.

New people found their way to Redeemer, invited by members excited to welcome them because they were shaping their congregation. The new people were “different” in many ways. One day, an older member lamented, “Why can’t we find more people like us?” A member responded, “It is our job to welcome whoever walks through that door. ”

That was the only discussion on that topic. Many had similar feelings but had stood aside in silence. Now they saw that they were not being replaced but played an important role as welcomers (leaders). From that point, the entire membership embraced “change.” A Lutheran congregation comprised of German/English heritage welcomed young East African immigrant families. The congregation had not had to experience death to be reborn (the hierarchical formula) . . . it just grew and remarkably fast.

Change and transformation had happened from within. Local governance had been effective within months when synodical governance had failed for decades.

We suspect that this will be the shape of ministry as the church moves into a new age. Local governance will play a bigger role. If governance can step aside and empower change, it could be a new day for many congregations.