I was asked yesterday what I had learned about pastoring that would be different if I had to do it all over again.

Lots of stuff.  Among the most critical: Casting Vision.

Essential to moving an organization from one way of doing things to another is the understanding of where they are going and why it must be done in the most proficient way possible.  I’ve learned a few lessons the hard way.

1. Don’t assume that because you understand it anyone else does.
2. Don’t assume that another person understands because they say they do.  They may honestly think they do, but they aren’t the best judge of that.  Ask clarifying questions to make sure they “get it.”
3. Communicate in multiple ways.  Not everybody understands things the same way.  Some are visual and need diagrams.  Others are verbal and need rich descriptions.  Communicate the same message in every conceivable fashion to hit everyone.
4. Cast your vision in smaller, non-pressure settings where questions and dialog are not threatening.  If an impending change is scheduled and you are under the gun to get everyone on board by a certain date, you begin to talk with large groups of people, which cut down on dialog, and you try and move quickly – both to meet your deadline and to make sure everyone’s question gets answered.  Doing it this way rarely gets all the questions asked, fewer answered and very few answered satisfactorily.  Don’t plan a move until you know the vast majority of the group is on board.
5. Study your organization first.  Find out what they expect when it comes to making changes.  Are they willing to follow because they understand and believe or do they need to be a part of the crafting of the vision before they buy in. Give them what they need to make the move.  Asking them to move in the way you are most comfortable only works if everyone is exactly like you.
6. Not everyone will come along.  Don’t take people for granted and don’t be callous about some leaving, but don’t have expectations of perfection.

Change is messy.  Doing it poorly is more messy, so do it really well.

I have not dropped off of the Blogosphere again.  i have actually been working on yet another graphic, affectionately dubbed “Art’s Charts” by Marty Duren.  At least I think that it is affectionate.  Maybe I’m deluding myself again.

If I am, I can only say that life’s more fun that way.

In the meantime, I need to prepare for that post by writing this one regarding culture as it relates to transitioning a church (or any organization, for that matter).

Culture can simply be defined as a system of values commonly held within a community.  These values guide the actions of the individuals and the whole.  Culture is also fluid as each individual within the community influences the others to increase or decrease its specific values.  So, culture is not uniform across a community.

As an example, within the world community, America has its own culture, distinguishable from England, French, Russian, Ugandan, Korean, Japanese, Spanish, Mexican and Kenyan… just to name a few.  Yet even within America, the differences between regions (North/South, Midwest/Northeast/West Coast) and even within regions (Louisiana/Georgia) is obvious to those immersed in those cultures.

All of this is to say that culture is as specific as the community to which it belongs.

For American churches, we deal with a massive host of ingredients: National, regional, state, local, evangelical/liturgical, denominational (or “non-denominational”) and so on.

The sway of these components create expectations among the individuals, and those expectations are as diverse as the individuals within the community.

If culture is a fluid, dynamic system of commonly held values that govern our behaviors, then there will be a fluid, dynamic of commonly held expectations that everyone involved will adhere to those values.  This in itself creates and holds tension within the community.

To attempt transition means that you are saying to the community that certain commonly held values are no longer held as high as they once were while certain other things previously not valued should be.  Some are likely to respond well as you will be championing similar values.

For others, it will seem that you are telling them that they are and have been wrong.

That may not be what you are trying to say (most times it shouldn’t be), but that’s the undertone and it will be noted.  And, it creates resistance.

It is why transitioning a church is one of the most difficult things we can do.  It is why deconstructing everything is important.  You need to understand the current culture to influence it.  You need to know what is going to cause people to throw out the anchor, and what is going to motivate them to make a change.

Questions to ask:

1. What is the history of the church?
2. What do they consider to be the “signature” of the church to the community?  What does that tell you of the values of the church?
3. Who makes up the church?  What are the demographics?
4. How open to change are they?  Have they realized that a shift in values is necessary?  To what extent are they ready?
5. Find the primary influencers within the community. What do they value? How open to change are they?
6. What does the church “do?”  What it does should tell you what it values.

The Great Commission Task Force gave its preliminary report to the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention last night.  To listen to the rearrangements proposed, you would have to consider that they did choose to deconstruct… I wonder if they deconstructed everything.

This is not an endorsement or even a commentary of whether or not I agree with their report.  It’s not a response in any way.  But it is a recognition that in moving the SBC from one thing to another, the group responsible for the initial direction has had to go through some similar processes as Pastors and lay leaders do when transitioning a church.

You do have to deconstruct – that is break down the elements that make the whole, understand how they work and why, comprehend the intended result and the actual result.  Then, knowing where you need to go, you can map out a change.

*Please note that deconstruction is not destruction.  I had one person message me with that misunderstanding and, of course, the two things are quite different.

The question I posed the other day was when transitioning, do you have to deconstruct EVERYTHING… or could you just process through the major systems?

While I asked for opinions, the only ones I received were in email form and twitter direct messages.  On the other hand, it was read at a much higher rate than any of my other posts in the year.

Nevertheless, even if everyone else is shy, I promised my answer and so I’ll give it now:  Yes.  You must deconstruct everything.

Truly, there will be things that you will not think to evaluate, but that you really should.  Simply put, the better you understand it all, the easier it will be.  While solid deconstruction and the understanding it produces does not guarantee success or even ease and failure to accomplish the process of deconstruction does not promise failure in the transition, the fruit of your efforts is greater and sweeter to all when a sweeping inventory is undertaken.

As you may know, I’ve been pastor of Skelly Drive Baptist Church for three and a half years now.  The stated intent when I was called, by both the church and myself, was to transition the church from what it was into a church more effective at reaching today’s society.  You can read more about what I think that church might look like here: IVM.

While the specific form of the church is not the subject of this series of articles, the act of transitioning a church is.

Transitioning anything, especially an organization of people joined around a common perceived purpose, requires some level of deconstruction.  You must look at what the systems are, what they intend to produce, what they actually produce and what you want them to produce.  Only then will you be able know what to change to get them from one inefficient or misapplied system (if they need change) to the more efficient system.

But the process of deconstruction is a dangerous one.  Not everyone, particularly in a church that has it’s own history and exists within the American church culture, is a fan of change or is even capable of it.

And the nature of deconstruction in the collective mind is to explain to everyone why the way they’ve been doing it is WRONG.

That’s the way it is perceived, anyway, and it creates resistance.

All of this begs the question(s):  When transitioning, must you deconstruct everything?  Must all deconstruction be revealed to the full organization?  What is public and what is private?

I’ll leave you to opine on this today (if you will).  My thoughts and experiences later.