In an article on this complex subject, it is impossible to delve into even a fraction of the issues concerning change in the church. So, I am limiting the scope of this paper to some brief comments on how we should view change in the church which, hopefully, will give you a balanced and biblical perspective. This will be followed by some comments on the compatibility of unity and diversity of the church, which affects our view of leading the church through change. Then I will deal a bit more extensively on some key factors involved in leading change successfully. Please understand that this paper by no means covers the entire waterfront of this topic.
I. A Balanced And Biblical Perspective On Change.
A. The Distinction Between Function And Form.
Often the resistance to change that occurs in churches is generated by a lack of understanding about principles and practices - those principles that are timeless and those that are time-bound, and the distinction between form and function. “Because we believe there are things that should never change, we often confuse non-absolutes (those things that should change) with absolutes (things that should not change).” (Gene Getz, “Sharpening the Focus of the Church,” 41).
1. Function.
The church was established by Christ to continue his mission in the world as his representative. To this end, the church has certain biblically mandated functions (for additional reading, see https://bible.org/seriespage/2-church-leadership-formulating-biblical-philosophy-church-ministry). Aubrey Malphurs writes, “Functions are the timeless, unchanging, nonnegotiable precepts that are based on Scripture and are mandates for all churches to pursue to accomplish their purpose” (“The Dynamics of Church Leadership,” 101). Notice firstly that…
The functions of the church are timeless. They never become obsolete or unnecessary. Those functions that were mandated for, and practiced by, the early church are valid and necessary for the church today, and required and expected of the church until the end of the church age.
The functions of the church are biblical. That’s what makes them timeless – e.g. Acts 2:42-47; 1 Timothy 4:13; 1 Corinthians 11:23-26; Colossians 4:1. These are God’s mandates for the church. We do not make up our mission or our mandate; they are set out for us in Scripture. They are not negotiable.
Functions are those activities that the church is responsible to carry out in order to fulfill its purpose. The implication, therefore, is that every church is required to fulfill the church’s biblical functions. Granted, some churches (probably, most churches) are stronger in certain areas than others. But the leaders of each church are obligated to ascertain and evaluate the church’s ministries (their strengths and weaknesses), compare them to God’s mandated mission and purpose, and develop a plan to bring the church into line with the Scriptural instructions, the ultimate and overall purpose of which is to glorify God.
What are some examples of functions that the church should practice? Evangelism (Matt. 28:19-20; Rom. 10:14), worship (Luke 4:8; John 4:24), prayer (2 Tim. 2:1-41; 1 Thess. 5:17; Acts 12:5), edification and discipleship through teaching and preaching (2 Tim. 4:2; 1 Tim. 4:11; Rom. 12:7), fellowship (Heb. 10:24-25), caring for others (Acts 6:1-7; Philippians 2:4; James 2:14-17; Heb. 13:16), baptism (Acts 2:38; Rom. 6:3; Col. 2:12), the Lord’s supper (1 Cor. 11:23-26). These functions are supported and led by spiritually gifted leaders (e.g. Rom. 12:8; 1 Cor. 12:28).
2. Form. Functions, as I have said, are timeless and biblical, whereas forms are temporal and changeable. Aubrey Malphurs writes, “Forms are the temporal, changing, negotiable practices that are based on culture and are methods that all churches are free to choose to accomplish their functions” (“The Dynamics of Leadership,” 106-107). Gene Getz points out that most of the resistance to change in the church comes from people’s fixation with forms, not functions (“Sharpening the Focus of the Church,” 40).
Forms are temporal and changeable. You can distinguish between functions and forms in that (1) functions are unchangeable, whereas forms are changeable; (2) functions are the ends which we strive to achieve, whereas forms are the means by which we carry them out; (3) functions are the God-given, required mandates, whereas forms are the methods by which those ministry functions are carried out; and (4) functions have to do with why we do something, whereas forms have to do with how we do it.
Scripture does not always or necessarily prescribe the form that the church is to use to achieve its functions. In fact, the Bible is noticeably silent when it comes to prescribing forms. For example, nowhere does the Bible tell us how we are to conduct the Lord’s Supper, or a baptism, or a worship service. That we are to practice these functions is mandated (no choice), but how we do it is not.
Thus, forms are quite often the product of culture. You become very aware of this when you travel overseas to cultures that are different from ours here in North America. In fact, even our understanding of Scripture is often shaped by our culture more than we would admit. Many churches have kept old or foreign forms in their services. If this is acceptable to their constituency and if it aids in the fulfilling of their mandate, well and good. But that is not the case for all churches at all times.
It seems to me that form should serve function just as administrative systems should serve the organization (and not vice versa). In order to satisfactorily fulfill the church’s functions, we need to adopt forms that are attractive and understandable to the society in the which we live. I’m not promoting so-called “seeker-sensitive” services. In fact, I am of the persuasion that that form does not satisfactorily fulfill our mandate, nor mesh with other biblical principles. I’m talking about methodology that serves God’s people and the spread of the gospel so that non-Christians can understand it and not be repelled by it.
The implication, therefore, is that we should adopt those methods and means for our church ministry that best serve our people and that best communicate our message. This does not mean that methods need to be constantly changing, or that because a method is old it is necessarily not suitable today. Old forms may or may not be better or more spiritual than newer forms. Each form must be evaluated based on the history, culture, and context of the church and its surrounding community.
Indeed, some ministry mandates are also methods. For example, preaching is, on the one hand, a function (a God-given mandate - we don’t have any choice but to “preach the Word”) and, on the other hand, it is a means, a method. Some preachers use preaching styles that have changed somewhat dramatically over the years, but the underlying method (of one person standing before a congregation declaring the truth of Scripture) has not changed, despite the fact that it is an old methodology. The reason for that is that the method of standing before a congregation declaring what the Word says, means, and applies to our lives is the preaching method. Here, then the methodology and the mandate overlap.
One of the great examples of this relationship between function and form is the apostle Paul’s statement: “To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that I might by all means save some” (1 Corinthians 9:22). Here, Paul is saying that his function of proclaiming the gospel in evangelism is non-negotiable and unchangeable, but the means by which he achieves that are very negotiable, flexible, culturally sensitive, and changeable.
Yet, do you not find it somewhat ironic that the very area in which we are given freedom (i.e. in forms and methods) is the very area that causes so much conflict in the church and that meets with so much resistance when changes are introduced? Why is this? Perhaps it is because we are such self-centred creatures that we are not prepared to let anyone else introduce a method that does not comply with our personal preferences. Are personal preferences important? Of course! But I would argue (1) that they need to be tested and qualified to ensure that they do not take on the status of mandates; and (2) that our personal preferences should be mixed with grace that allows the personal preferences of others to be satisfied as well.
Just as we have freedom in ministry methods, so we have freedom in governance (leadership and administration). Hence, forms of church government vary from congregational, to elder-led, to Presbyterian, to Episcopal. About the only mandate we can take from the New Testament regarding church governance structure is the plurality of elders. I think it can be argued that Scripture does give some indications of how things are to be done (as in the early church), but it generally does not prescribe that specific form.
Similarly, we have freedom of form in worship services and the ordinances. It is noteworthy that we can derive from Scripture who are qualified baptismal candidates and some indication as to the mode of baptism, but nowhere is a method prescribed. We have even less guidance with respect to the Lord’s supper. Hence, a great variety of forms are employed (such as full loaves of bread, wafers, unleavened and leavened bread, grape juice and wine, one cup and multiple cups). Although I would argue that the symbolism is lost when you use wafers rather than a full loaf and grape juice rather than wine, we have freedom in this form.
In making this distinction between function and form and emphasizing freedom of form, I am not saying that any form goes. One church practice that some would argue for freedom of form is baptism, and that therefore you are at liberty to choose between baptism by immersion, sprinkling, or pouring. But, as I said earlier, form should serve function. That is very true when it comes to baptism, in which case I believe that immersion is the form of baptism that most clearly reflects the function.
So, that’s the first balanced and biblical perspective on change – the distinction between form and function. Then notice a second perspective on…
B. The Compatibility Of Unity In Diversity.
The tendency in any organization is to want everyone to think alike. This must be either (1) an innate human predisposition; or (2) a power thing where we all want power by having everybody like what we like and do what we do; or (3) a desire to have someone else do the thinking for us. I think this is why cults are so attractive and popular.
But Scripture is very clear that such is not the case in the body of Christ. In fact, that is one of the distinctives of the church, that we all have different spiritual gifts, different ministries, different functions (1 Corinthians 12:1-31), but there is one body, one Spirit, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all (Ephesians 4:4-6). We really should embrace our diversity while at the same time expressing our unity. The notion that everyone should be squeezed into the same mould is not biblical.
This truth has a very real impact on how we view change in the church. It ought to make us much more receptive to it and tolerant of those whose ideas and approaches are different from ours. That’s the body of Christ! In fact, I would argue that a church that does not manifest a significant diversity (in its practices, ministries, gifts, personalities, ideas, dress codes etc.) is unhealthy.
These are just some brief comments on developing a balanced and biblical perspective on change in the church. Now I would like to move on to the main purposes of this article…
II. Some Key Factors In Leading Change Successfully.
A. Build trust before making significant changes.
One of the key ingredients for leading change successfully is that the people must trust you. Don’t take it for granted because it isn’t automatic. In fact, quite the opposite: You have to earn trust as much in church settings as in secular. “The more they believe in you, the more tolerant they will be with changes you propose” (Kenneth O. Gangel, “Feeding and Leading,” 150). You make a mistake if you try to implement significant change early in your pastorate (unless you have been called by the church to do that). This is one of the mistakes that church leaders often make in implementing change - trying to make too many changes too soon and too quickly. Remember, it takes time to build trust.
B. Pick The Timing For Change Carefully.
1. Timing. A good principle to follow is to not change anything significant really early in your ministry (1) until you have learned the history, culture, and the locus of control in the church; and (2) until you have earned respect and credibility in your ministry.
As Gangel suggests, in the first year you are just learning how things work and attempting to adapt to existing structure (Gangel, 150). You don’t know why things are done the way they are, so trying to effect change right away is a recipe for failure. I would go further than Gangel and suggest that you consider the first three years at a new church to be a probationary period during which you are proving yourself to the people and learning about the church – how it functions, why it functions the way it does (i.e. what the history is behind it etc.).
2. Time frame. Because of all the built-in resistance to change, a good plan for change will take into account a time line that reflects the significance of the change – the more radical the change, the longer the time line needed to introduce and implement it. Thus, a plan for change will calculate how long it will take to go from the present situation to the new situation, based on the degree of the change and the depth of the attachment to the present situation.
The more that the people are attached to the present situation, the longer the time frame needs to be for changing that situation. The time frame for effecting change must reflect an initial period during which the people get used to the idea that things are going to change (a period of disengagement from the old); then, once they accept that, a period of time during which they reorient themselves to the future new situation (a period of acclimatization). This transition period obviously can be very emotional and can be fraught with conflict.
A good and wise plan for change will provide for two phases:
1. A transition from the present status quo to acclimatization to the new.
2. A further transition from acclimatization to acceptance and implementation of the new situation.
Timing this transition carefully and sensitively will save a lot of grief later. You need to quench the urge to change quickly and immediately. I have found in my experience that not only is time “for” change very important for effecting a significant change, but also the amount “of” change within a given time period is also very important to the success of the change. People can only adjust and acclimatize to a certain amount of change in a certain amount of time. Any more than that and the emotional overload fuse blows.
Therefore, if people can only absorb so much change in a certain period of time, it isn’t rocket science to figure out that you should introduce change little by little over an extended and known period of time - don’t spring it on them. For example, at a church I was part of some years ago, women were not part of the ushering ministry and, therefore, did not take up the offering in the Sunday service. Don’t ask me why that was a big deal, but it was. Gradually, that idea became reality, so that now you not only have women ushers but also young people as well, and the initial ripples have gone away.
If you start by making small changes, bit by bit, over an extended period of time, not only do you have time to take the emotional temperature of the church to the changes, but you have the option of backing up if you so choose without creating a big scene. Allowing people time to get used to something new is probably the best advice I can give you in effecting change in any organization. They need time to adjust, from the time you broach the idea to the time you publicly talk about the idea and get feedback, to the time you finalize the idea and publish the plan, to the time you start changing by implementing the plan. And when you do start changing, do it slowly! Always remember, the people have not had as much time to adjust to the change as you have, because you were in on the ground floor of the idea – they weren’t.
C. Do Your Research Ahead Of Time.
Keep your ear to the ground and do your investigative work before ever introducing change to try to determine how the people will react if it is introduced. It is far better to get the negative feedback before you enter the official process in case it is sufficiently strong or in case it is sufficiently valid that you must regroup or change directions or cancel it.
Here you can find out unofficially what people’s objections might be and the degree of vehemence with which they object. You can also find out things you had not thought of or changes you can make that will assuage the objections without derailing the change. Or, you might find that people have been wondering why you have not introduced this change before and that they embrace it with open arms.
Depending on the reaction, you may charge right ahead or slow down or even stop. You must be prepared to follow any of these options as necessary or else you may face conflict and perhaps even failure. If you are not prepared to follow these options, then you are a dictator and bound and bent on your course of action no matter what. If that is the case, be prepared for sparks to fly – and you may lose you pastorate.
Your unofficial research could start with people who are around you. Obviously it is going to include your board of elders, since they are part and parcel of introducing and implementing the change. Their reaction should be fairly representative of the congregation as a whole. If they do not represent the cross section of the congregation, then there is probably something wrong with the composition of the board. It isn’t a matter that the board is a mirror image of the congregation, but that the various members of the board are sufficiently in tune with the members that they can represent and reflect how the congregation feels and will react. They should be able to give you wise counsel by their interaction with, and knowledge of, the congregation.
D. Spend The Time And Effort To Get “Buy-In”.
A key component to leading change successfully is to get the “buy-in” of the church members. Leading your church through change involves not only doing your research and developing a plan for change, but also obtaining the “buy-in” of the church by (1) communicating the vision and implementation process to the church, and (2) involving the people in the process, particularly by giving their input. Do not try to impose your change on the people: it must be their change just as it must be their vision. I remember once, without consulting anyone, I changed the church bulletin by deleting the list of ushers for the following Sunday. I didn’t think this was a big deal since a roster was posted on the bulletin board anyway. But it was a big deal to some of the ushers and I had to reverse it.
Another key component to introducing change successfully is to get the endorsement of key individuals in the church before going public with it. To do that, it’s a good idea to propose the change to certain individuals before bringing it to a larger group and ultimately to the church as a whole. “Studies show that only about 15 percent will adopt a new idea without first knowing who else is supporting it, so we’ll normally need to convince enough individuals to give an idea credibility before we attempt to sell it to the entire group” (Larry Osborne, Change Management in “Leadership Handbook of Management and Administration,” ed. James D. Berkeley, 191). Just because your idea for change is deemed necessary by the leadership and presented well to the people does not mean it will be accepted or endorsed. So, I recommend that you get the endorsement of key individuals before going public with the proposal. That way, these key individuals will have had time to consider it before the public presentation, they will have had time to ask questions and have their objections dealt with, and they will be much more likely to support the idea publicly. If they support the idea publicly, your chances of the majority of the congregation supporting it rise significantly. What you want to do is eliminate as many objections as possible from key people before presenting it publicly.
A further key component to getting “buy-in” is to convince the people that the change is necessary. People, generally, are happy with the way things are – that’s why change is so hard to introduce. They don’t want to undergo the pain of change but they will only undergo the pain of change if the new situation is proven to be better than the old. This all ties back to the vision and planning process of evaluating the present situation in the light of the church’s desired situation and purpose.
Also, show them how the proposed change fits into the bigger picture, the “vision.” This isn’t just a haphazard change and next month they can expect something different. This is well thought out, planned, and communicated. Once again, open dialogue in an environment of trust is the key. Just as with visioning, planning, team building, communication etc., implementing change requires open dialogue. When there is open dialogue based on mutual trust and respect, it is easier for everyone to commit to the final decision because they know they have been heard and their opinion is considered.
E. Develop An Environment Of Safe Change.
This is more of a long-term change strategy. This involves creating an environment that is safe and trustworthy. They need to know that you are their shepherd and you would not take them where they should not go. People need to see that when you lead them through change (however large or small, long or short), that you have their best interests at heart and that they can trust you. Trust infers: “We’re safe!”
Safe change means that you will not dump surprises on the people. No one likes surprises (this is another reason for full, open, advance disclosure). Safe change means that you are sensitive to their feelings and input. Safe change means that you would not implement change for the sake of change, nor for your own whim or personal preference.
Safe change means that people are free to express their concerns. This freedom must be genuine, not merely token. If the people are given the freedom to express their concerns, you must be willing to address those concerns genuinely. That might mean making changes to your plans. Or, it might mean that you have not disclosed everything that they want to know.
As I have pointed out in my article on “Improving Communication,” you need to create an environment of open, honest, and free dialogue. If that doesn’t exist in your church already, don’t expect it to take place during periods of change. So, make sure that people don’t feel intimidated when they speak at congregational meetings and that people’s concerns are fully and properly addressed.
F. Communicate The Change Openly.
Open communication means advanced disclosure. Make sure you never make these changes suddenly or clandestinely. Always be open and up-front about what you are doing, why you are doing it, and how you are going to do it. Always give lots of time for the communication to sink in and for the congregation to realize the consequences of the proposed change. If there is one major weakness with leadership (both religious and secular) it is the weakness of not communicating to their people well in advance. Don’t let them find out by the back door. Be open and upfront. Don’t come to your people for their approval if you have already decided you are going to do this and you’re going to do it next week or next month.
When you design your plan for change, include a timeline for communicating it to the congregation and make that timeline as long as you can without losing momentum. One way to do this is to divide your plan into components parts – those parts that can and should be done in the short term and those that should be done over the longer term. Some of the longer term parts can also be subdivided into component parts. The point is to show the congregation that you are not trying to push them into something that they do not fully embrace nor push them into a timeframe that they cannot deal with, either emotionally, financially, or spiritually. A combination of advanced disclosure that includes a time line that gives breathing room and gradual implementation will be much more acceptable to your people.
Open communication means full disclosure. Just as lack of advance disclosure is a common weakness in leading organizations through change, so also is lack of full disclosure. Full disclosure in advance means full disclosure in advance! Don’t hold back details that later may come back to haunt you or which, when known, may cause your people to question your integrity.
Full disclosure means telling them everything about the proposed change. Not only what you think they need to know, but much more than perhaps they need to know. Give them all the reasons why change is necessary (perhaps it is because the neighbourhood has changed, or the church has grown significantly, or you have more young people now than a few years ago, or you are not fulfilling your biblical mandate etc.). Tell them the upside and the down side of this change. Tell them the cost of doing it and the cost of not doing it. Tell them all the change that will be involved – financial, emotional, physical, spiritual etc.
Full disclosure means public disclosure such as: (1) Teaching your people from the pulpit over an extended period of time why the change is necessary and what your biblical and spiritual reasons are. Take lots of time to educate your people on the need and purpose of the proposed change. Obviously, the greater the significance of the change, the longer you need to teach your people about it and the more you need to be able to support the change biblically. In such public disclosure you can reveal your heart to the people. Change is much easier to implement if the people are assured that you are looking out for their best interests and not your own egotistical interests. (2) Congregational meetings where public dialogue is encouraged – i.e. two-way communication, not one way. I can’t stress this enough. In fact, if the change is very significant, I recommend that you schedule meetings for various subgroups in the church. We did this at a church in which I was part of a committee implementing significant change to our organizational and operational structures. As we disclosed the plan, we met with the elders first, then ministry leaders, long-term members and other stakeholders before holding a general congregational meeting.
If you practise this principle of full and advanced disclosure you will save yourself a lot of headaches. Anything done without due notice, full disclosure, and open dialogue is automatically suspect from the people’s point of view. “They’re trying to put one over us again!”
Again, the church I was involved with a number of years ago undertook a $3.5 million expansion. I think one of the reasons that this major project went so smoothly was because of the communication process from start to finish. The people were fully informed and involved in the whole process. Their input was welcomed and incorporated. There were regular progress updates, small group discussions to make sure all ministries were included, and full disclosure from leadership and outside contractors.
Open communication means painting a realistic picture of the result. People need to be able to metaphorically touch and see the intended result of the proposed change. This picture must be accurate, attractive, and reasonable. This picture should convince them that the change you are proposing is necessary and, in fact, better then the present situation. This is a vision of a more desirable state. Also, show them how and where they fit into the new and revised picture. What will their roles be? How will it change their functions?
G. Lay Out A Sensible And Achievable Plan.
Don’t set out a vivid picture of this necessary and compelling change without also telling them how you intend to get there. They need to know…
1. What it will cost? - financially, time commitment, emotionally. Calculate the cost of change accurately. Effecting change and being the agent of change comes with a fairly high price tag. But not effecting change usually has a higher price tag in the long run. It just gets buried because no one can or does calculate what that price actually is.
2. How long will it take to implement? The temptation with implementing change is to do it too quickly. Don’t think that once you have designed the plan, communicated it to the congregation, and received buy-in, that you can then implement the plan immediately. Just as the design must be done slowly and carefully, and just as the communication to the congregation must be done slowly and carefully, and even when you are sure that you have congregational support, don’t rush into implementing the change.
A cardinal rule for implementing significant change is not to do it too quickly. I’ve said this before and say it again. There is only so much change in a certain period of time that people can endure. If you introduce too much change too quickly, you will overload them and a fuse will blow, and if that happens your whole plan is put in jeopardy.
3. What disruptions, inconveniences, pressure should they expect? Significant changes always involve pressures and disruptions. Paint a picture of what they might be, like inconveniences in changes to the building, disruptions to various ministries, increased pressure on weekly givings to the church, temporary changes to service times.
H. Always Put People Ahead Of Programs.
If you want to implement change for the sake of a program and in the process run over people, you will live to regret it (1) because the people will rebel eventually; (2) because ministry is about people, not programs; (3) because you are not the only one with good ideas – the people actually have them too; and (4) because people eventually have to make the programs work, and if you haven’t taken the people into account, they can sabotage your program.
On the other hand, if the people buy into your ideology and proposals, then you can count on them to conduct the program the way you would want it conducted, whether you are there or not. Therefore, as I have said before, include the people in the planning and development stages. Let it be their idea, their change. In any event, people are always more important than things, so don’t ever forget that!
I. Pray About Any Change Fervently.
Along with communication, this has to be the leading factor in effecting change successfully. Prayer will reveal to you whether you are on the right track or not. Through prayer God can and does mould the hearts of the people to respond appropriately. Prayer will preserve unity in the church during hard changes. Prayer will preserve the right spiritual attitude of the leaders and the people during times of transition.
The spirituality of the leaders of change is a significant factor in effecting change successfully. If you are not proposing this change for the right reasons, with the right motivation, and with the right objectives, then it will probably come to nothing or else be disastrous for the church. Change can split a church very quickly. But if you and the leadership team are much before God about this, sure of the Lord’s leading, and the people know that this change is the result of your fervent prayer and your deep love for them, then they will be much more accepting of what you propose.
J. Follow These Prerequisites Faithfully.
I would suggest that the process of change be entered into only if the following prerequisites are met…
Prerequisite #1: Only if the leadership team is united. If you can’t unite the leaders who are your closest allies, why would you expect to be able to successfully communicate, convince, and unite the rest of the people? In fact, if the leaders are not united, you are probably dead in the water because the people (most of whom may not want the change) will rally around those who are not in agreement.
Prerequisite #2: Only through the agency of the complete leadership team. Do not try to effect significant change alone. If you do, expect to be the lone ranger and if things go wrong you will take the full wrap, which might include your demise. People you thought were supportive may quickly jump ship if an avalanche of opposition starts. So, make sure all your leadership team is involved in implementing change.
Prerequisite #3: Only with great sensitivity to people’s feelings. Be prepared for the people to vent their feelings (encourage them to do so, but obviously, exhort them to only do so in a Christian manner). Be genuinely concerned about their feelings and, wherever possible, make adjustments to accommodate those feelings. People will respond much more positively to your change plan if they see that you are willing to compromise and to accommodate their wishes.
Final Remarks
As to how to lead your church through change, most of the suggestions I have outline above are common-sense, practical, and courteous. But so many church leaders do not think the process through and end up, sometimes, with a disaster – either in fighting opposition, pushing the change through and possibly splitting the church, or in reversing course (which can lead to lack of confidence in the leadership), or in the pastor and / or lay leaders resigning. This is not good for the individual leaders nor for the church as a whole.
There is so much more that could be said about this topic of “leading your church through change,” such as analyzing and addressing (a) the church’s culture, (b) the locus of power in the church, (c) dealing with stress during change, and (d) handling resistance to change. But this paper does not permit me now to cover those subjects. Perhaps another time.
I pray that the content of this article may be helpful in giving you some of the key components of leading your church through change. Remember that one of the most effective aspects of introducing and implementing change in the church is to ensure, long before the process begins, that the people know that you love them and have their best interests at heart, and that your overriding desire in this process is to glorify God, not to exalt self.
Remember these exhortations…
“Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves” (Philippians 2:3).
“By the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgement, each according to the measure of faith that Gad has assigned” (Romans 12:3).
English (US) · 