At a recent conference I got a chance to ask Lyle Schaller, my favorite church-studies guru, a question that has long been bugging me: “Why is it that people accept change with such hesitation?”
“Let me suggest something that I think will answer your question,” he said. “When you return home from this conference, sit at a different seat at the supper table.”
“How do you know I sit in a specific seat?”
“Just try a different chair.” He winked.
A few evenings later, I got to supper early enough to switch seats. My daughter Elise came into the kitchen, stopped, and stared at me. “What’s wrong, Dad?”
Daughter Alison was right behind her. She took one look and protested, “Dad, that’s my chair!”
I stayed put, and we have remained in the new arrangement. But this little experiment refreshed my memory: Change is hard. Hard for the church. Hard for me. If I am going to lead a congregation through the natural difficulty of change, it will take patience and a clear strategy that will make the process of “switching seats” a bit easier.
Over the years I’ve picked up a plan that I think has saved my life. It starts with me and gradually includes more and more people until the entire church is involved. I picture the process as moving outward through four concentric circles.
Circle one: The co-manager
The first thing I do is talk with the “main man,” the person responsible for the area to be changed. Let’s say it’s a change in the bookkeeping system or the way the offering envelopes are marked. The co-manager is probably the head of the stewardship committee. For a building program it’s going to be the chairpersons of the board and the building committee, and perhaps somebody else who’s strong in the area of vision. Changes are no time to stand alone.
I first consciously used these circles when we wanted to switch from a large board of twenty-six to a twelve-person board of elders. I knew that would be difficult for some. But I also felt the large board was unwieldy and did not get to policy decisions. Besides, at that point in life, I was feeling pretty strongly about lay elders.
I began by meeting with the moderator of the existing board and helping him see the direction-mostly by asking questions. It took a while before he understood why I wanted to do it, let alone exactly what it would entail. Helping the main person or two become co-managers of the change involves time for discussion and prayer. It means letting them take a strong part in shaping the change, because if they can’t buy into it, I’d better not proceed.
Circle two: The 10 percent
The second circle involves usually 5 to 10 percent of the people who will be affected. These people did not dream up the original plan, but they get to study it, give their input, and ultimately claim it as their plan, too. They help present it when you go to the next-wider circle by standing in front with you and fielding questions.
When we changed our board structure, this circle included the entire board. These key leaders met in workshops and small groups to study the issues. At board meetings, we took time to discuss church leadership.
Until this time, pastoral decisions rested mostly in my office. The large board then handled the scheduling, coordination, and some administration. Now I was inviting them to share the pastoral decisions. After eighteen months of Bible study and careful analysis, these leaders supported the change.
Circle three: People in the know
Not everyone can be included in planning a change. Only a few can conceive it, and only a slightly wider circle can help shape it and make it successful. But many others need to know about the pending change beforehand and have the opportunity to ask questions. This group involves another 10 or 20 percent-more if possible.
When the plan is presented, these are people who will nod their heads. They already know about it. They’ve thought about it, and they help ease the shock for the rest.
To involve this circle as we came closer to the decision about lay elders, we held open forums. I usually call them news conferences now. The Circle-two people carefully explained where we were going and why, and then asked for questions and input. Not everyone attended these meetings, but those who did left feeling they had been consulted. They would not be surprised when the change was announced.
Circle four: The masses
The remaining people still need to know about the change in plenty of time. They need warnings that it’s coming, and that it’s getting closer, and that it’s here, and that it’s been here, and that it’s still here.
For our elder decision, we published the exact wording of the constitutional changes so people were ready for a congregational vote. We also repeatedly announced the proposed changes and the congregational meeting. By the time the people voted, they were ready to endorse the ideas.
Fairy tales don’t apply to churches, so everyone was not happy ever after just because we followed these circles. But the circles made the change much smoother. While not everyone conceived the project or helped shape the idea, everyone got the news accurately, carefully, and at the appropriate time.
I should have used the process when I changed seats at the table.
-Knute Larson
The Chapel
Akron, Ohio
Copyright © 1987 by the author or Christianity Today/Leadership Journal. Click here for reprint information on Leadership Journal.
