Rethinking Connection

“Who is my neighbor?” Is it that same anonymous person who sends me an email from some foreign land with the promise of quick riches. Is it the Bank Teller who manages to smile and say have a nice day when I am the 50th person who has also forgotten to write the account number on my check. Is it your couple of hundred friends listed on your Facebook page (for those who partake)?

In today’s virtual world of connection and instant news, it can feel like everyone is living next door. Joseph R. Myers (my new literary neighbor) has some helpful thoughts about connection and space (The Search to Belong: Rethinking Intimacy, Community and Small Groups 2003). He reminded us that our educational training may have prioritized meaning and believing over belonging and connecting. Today, we live in a time when the way to a person head is through their heart. Folk are seeking an experience before constructing a belief or profession of faith.

Consider the hospital patient requesting a pastoral visit. You discover that this “parishioner” has never attended a service or made a financial pledge, but “watches your televised worship service every Sunday.” In her world and in Myers paradigm, she believes that she fully belongs (until we indicate otherwise).
He states, “They want to participate in our rituals, even though they may not fully understand their meaning. They see a kaleidoscope of possibilities for belonging. But our language struggles to fully express this spectrum of possibilities.” (P.27)

Space and Connection
Consider your own need for personal space or connection. If we place you on a bell curve, some of you will come out on the 15 per cent who are what I describe as having a disengaged or more distant engagement style (you hate to hold hands and form a prayer circle). Others of you will be on that other end of the 15 percent that will have an “in close” engagement style (“let us join hands as we pray”). Most folk fall somewhere in between.
Our perceptions of what others are looking for in connection and community will be determined by our own preference. Myers challenges us to look at the value of connections that can be easy to dismiss as superficial or perfunctory. Here is a quick run through of his model and language for belonging and connections.

Four Spaces of Connection

• Public belonging "occurs when people connect through outside influence or an external event." While visiting my sister in Kansas, we attending a football game between New England Patriot’s and Kansas City Chief’s. Anyone who was brave enough to wear their Patriot gear seemed to experience an automatic connection without sharing any personal information.


• Social belonging "occurs when we share "snapshots" of what it would be like to be in personal space with us." This is where you put your "best foot forward." Yet, you aren’t really sharing any deep or private information. Examples of this space might be at your place of employment or where you get your hair cut. For some folk, this might be the coffee hour after worship.


• Personal belonging is where "we share private experience, feelings and thoughts without making folk feel uncomfortable." These are relationships that we typically name as friends. They know more about us than our acquaintances, but less than our “intimates.”


• Intimate belonging is the space where we “share ‘naked’ experiences, feelings, and thoughts. We have very few relationships that are intimate." These relationships are where we can share the deepest parts of ourselves and not feel ashamed. We can share even those parts of ourselves that feel unacceptable.

Myers helps us to understand the value of connecting in public and social space. Some may have a bias that anything less than personal space is somehow “second class.” Others may undervalue the need for personal and intimate space. His thinking helps us to understand how each space has it’s own significance and place of belonging.

What do you think a healthy congregation looks like? Myers research indicates …

*8 parts public
*4 parts social
*2 parts personal
*1 part intimate.

Myers states,
“In our push to move everyone into personal or intimate relationship with God, we have forgotten the spectrum of ways God chooses to communicate with us and the ways we choose to communicate with [God]. I believe that we are to help individuals with their connections with God in the space that they choose. We can help by providing opportunities for them to learn spiritual disciplines in that specific space."

As we seek to create health and growth, wouldn't it be interesting to sit down in our churches and engage in conversations regarding our understandings of belonging. What would we discover as we looked at the messages we convey about the value of belonging to one group over another.

Discussion Questions

• What are the messages we communicate to folk in located in different spaces?


• How does program planning change when over fifty percent of the congregation may not have grape vine connection or communication outside of Sunday morning?


• How does that change our communication methods?


• How does that change how we run our pledge drives?

Meyers adds several more questions at the end of his book to the list for discussion. His book doesn’t answer the question of “who is my neighbor?” But he does provide some great models and language for understanding community. A must read for those concerned with creating spaces for belonging and connection.

Aligning Congregational Culture, Leadership and Transformation

Church culture is that invisible reality of shared beliefs, behaviors and norms that form the glue of congregational life. It is what makes each organization unique as they live out their custom footprint of being a relational organism. It is important for leaders to understand their congregation's cultural configuration as it relates to motivation, conflict and change.

Why Focus on Culture?

• Clarifies context for change


• Identifies potential potholes in the change process


• Illuminates leadership bias regarding the change process and preferences for responding to resistance


• Predicts type, timing and degree of resistance


• Acknowledges embedded beliefs, norms and customs that can disrupt or enhance change efforts


• Aligns strategy and vision


• Provides a common model and language for managing cultural differences

Congregations that fail to implement their strategic plans do not to take into account how their culture could create a barrier to new initiatives. Once the implementation phase reached a level of changing the "feel" of the congregation, the hidden beliefs and norms in their DNA rise up to bring the change efforts to a grinding halt. It is why churches with a long history of specific attendance levels struggle to break through their own invisible attendance ceiling.

The following is an adapted model of research on families conducted by Kantor and Lehr (later expanded into four types by LL Constatine). Alan and Deborah Slobodnik of Options for Change did further work with organizational culture and systems types. I met the Slobodnik's at the Kantor Family Institute back in the late 80's. They have creating an instrument they use extensively in the business world to discuss aligning organizational culture and strategy.

In many ways, culture is even a more important concept to understand in the world of congregational relationships. The business world is an organization of relationships where people and positive relationships are an ends to a mean (profit). Congregations are relational organisms where relationships both internal and external are both the means and the end in terms of mission and purpose.

The following is just a brief composite of the four different cultural types that are expanded in my workshop of "Congregational Cultural Compass." The workshop offers descriptors for culture that is both enabled and disabled. Leadership strategies for migrating culture to meet the contextual needs of the congregation in it's life cycle are also provided.

Culture Compass Concepts

• Congregations are not just one pure type


• All types have strengths & liabilities


• All cultures are a unique blend


• Most cultures have primary and secondary types


• Leadership style is shaped by their cultural type and preferences

Four Congregational Cultural Types

• Structured/Closed – “Stable, Structured, Accountability, Procedures”


• Random – “Individualistic, Responsive, Creative, Risk Takers”


• Open - “Collaborative, Communication, Teamwork, Problem Solvers”


• Synchronous – “Aligned, Values, Harmony, Direction”

The Structured/Closed strength is provided through strong leadership & accountability. There is a clear sense of leadership, chain of command and a boundary around who is in and outside of the group. This type reacts to change by resisting, countering and overcoming.

Random Culture provides innovation, flexibility and creativity. This highly energized culture enjoys creative chaos and has very permeable boundaries between who is in and out. Highly adaptable and responsive to context and individual differences. “Randoms” react to change by escalating and encouraging it!

Open Culture provides teamwork, communication and negotiated outcomes. Collaboration, empowerment at all levels and inclusion are core values. There is a negotiated boundary between who is in and outside of the group. “Opens” also react to change and conflict by planning, facilitating and "talking things out."

Synchronous culture provides direction, alignment and is guided by a strong sense of purpose. In this culture the shared values organize behavior more than a sense of hierarchy. The values are so deeply embedded that roles are often implicit and just simply understood. “Synchronous” types react to change by ignoring and avoiding it.

In My Experience...

The four types do exist, but not in a quartered pie chart of a twenty five percent balance. I suspect there are very few types that are have a primary type of Random Culture. But some of the smaller family size churches have come pretty close. In Larry Burton's book "When God Enters The System" writers have postulated that some denominations can be defined by a primary cultural orientation. One writer stated that congregationalists were more of an "open culture." Certainly, if any one has read the United Methodist Book of Discipline a clear picture of a "structured/closed" culture emerges (how do you think they got the name Methodist to begin with). I will leave you to determine cultural difference by denomination and local congregations. But let is suffice to say that many in our American culture could be classified as "structured/closed" by bylaws and some as more "open" how they live out their day to day reality.

Culture and Clergy Coaching

In my clergy coaching I have worked with pastors who cultural type was opposite to the congregations they had been appointed. One pastor whose primary orientation was synchronous, likened their experience of direct confrontation, criticism and resistance to that of finger nails on a chalk board. They stated that in their culture feedback was indirect and subtle when tension emerged. Direct confrontation was not only bad manners, but was a sign of a high level conflict and family dysfunction. The members who were clearly more open system experienced their own communications as simply being direct and honest.

Another pastor came from a heritage that was clearly more structured/closed. By virtue of ordination, clergy were granted status of authority, power and considerable influence. In their current church, folk were more random/open system and used to relating to the pastor on a more informal - peer level basis. When challenged, one lay person stated that in terms of authority they were on the same level as the pastor. Imagine this pastor's perception when his/her ideas were treated as just that, another idea. The church's emphasis on spontaneity and "doing your own thing" left the pastor feeling marginalized and disempowered. His/her references to pastoral authority, church bylaws and scripture left lay folk puzzled, angry and confused.

Appreciating congregational culture by recognizing strengths before jumping to judgements is an important first step in creating a culture of trust that can lead to sustained change and transformation. Even in a disabled culture, finding ways to notice the enabled structures of their primary type paves the way for creating influence and change.

In the absence of a longer blog on culture, make your best guess regarding...

Assess Present Culture

• Assessing your organizational culture


• Identify your primary and secondary cultures


• Are they enabled or disabled?


• Do they fit your mission, strategy and goals?


• Where is the “rub” between current cultural preferences and the future fit?

Consider Current Culture and Change

• Is there enough structured culture to manage the chaos of change?


• Is there enough random culture to provide the necessary flexibility, energy and tolerance for the chaos of transformation work.


• Is there enough synchronous elements to provide direction and vision for that "new thing."


• Is there enough open communication to reduce anxiety that is produces by new directions and change.

Problem or Difficulties?

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?

Communication Domains: Applications

Understanding that each congregation has their own unique cultural configuration is critical to assessment and intervention in leadership. Organizations seek and pursue goals through different preferences. Like a biological drive for food, sleep and physical connection, each relational system is driven to fulfill a one of three targets of meaning, action and connection.

The Communication Domains
A faith community that is oriented to “Meaning” (head) will seek to overtly deal with issues of identity, vision and values. They are comfortable with the language of theology, mission and vision.

Congregations with a comfort zone in “Action” (power) will seek an emphasis on movement and “how things get done.” Focused discussions on how, what, when, who, where and how things get done are preferred (along as it also leads to action).

Many of our smaller churches are more comfortable with a focus on “Connection” (heart) that seeks to increase nurture, caring and belonging.

Understanding your congregation’s blend of preferences is both important for assessment and planning a strategy of intervention. As I made this point at a workshop, a participant asked, “So what? How will this help me to turn my church around.” “Good question,” I answered!

Application
I responded by saying, "Let me answer by creating a context for applying these ideas." Assume that you go into a congregation and discover there is an over focus on relationships. The church has become insular and focused on “taking care of their own.” There is little on no meaningful outreach activity. You lead a new initiative that is announced from the pulpit focused on hospitality, becoming more invitational and an increase in community visibility. “What is not to like, right?” But the congregation is more concerned with effective pastoral care to existing members neglected by your predecessor. In response to the new initiatives, folk begin to complain about the lack of visitation to inactive members and shut-ins. You are accused of caring more about numbers and newcomers than the people who have held this church together over the generations. One person describes you as “ambitious,” but somehow it doesn’t feel like an affirmation.

The temptation as leaders is to name these dynamics as resistance to change. “This congregation is behind the times. They are a social club. They are too secular!” I have uttered all of these at one time or anther to my colleagues. While there may be some truth to these assessments, they miss the fact that the congregation is being consistent with their preferred culture. Without “buy in,” shifting interaction targets of a congregation will result in a vigorous “push back.”

Remember the primary target for this imaginary congregation is for all things that seek to increase connection and belonging. A failure to make this assessment and to include it in your intervention strategy will lead to conflict.

The same scenario can be played out with a congregation that has over-focused on meaning and believes the church structure is a sacred end to itself. They are less concerned with effectiveness of church governance than upholding tradition as an anchor to the past. In their experience, the tradition led to vitality and growth at one point in history. Attempts to improving the committee structure (Action) leads to entrenched resistance and being accused of “attempting to change things for the sake of change.”

The problem isn’t in the assessment of “we are here and need to be there!” The problem is in the process of how to join with a church, get “buy in” and implement a strategy of change through the path where folk already experience as sense of empowerment.

Choosing Your "On Ramp"
Think of a congregation’s primary communication preference as an on ramp to a different road. This tool is both an important assessment and intervention GPS. If you want to increase a sense of invitation and outreach (an identity shift), then highlighting the connection benefits to existing members will lessen resistance and make needed changes easier to understand, accept and implement. In essence you increase a new sense of identity by using the older identity as the on ramp to change. In one church I shifted a church growth program called Newcomers to Friendship Sunday. The name change resulted in a team of 12 leading and implementing this initiative. At the end of the day, existing relationships were strengthened and hospitality was extended to newcomers and friends.

Imagine another congregation where the primary focus is on action/power. God talk and appeals to a theologically driven visioning process doesn’t seem to inspire or push needed changes forward. Yet, a clear plan of action outlining expected results motivate folk to try new things with positive outcomes. Appeals to scripture and theology seem to be politely endured. A Pledge Drive using theology and scriptural tithing as the primary motivator and leverage point will be perceived as flying at 30,000 feet. This congregation needs ideas rooted in practicality.

Speaking a language of action that connects needed dollars with initiatives for the coming year will inspire and motivate increased giving. An old system called Budget Share is a good example of an alignment with an Action oriented culture. Of course in this example there are scriptural references, stewardship sermons and individual testimonies. But point of influence is located by connecting the dots between budget needs and ministry. Providing a Pledge Drive that frames giving with the need for action, power and practicality is congruent with the language and motivational drives of folk in the playing field of Action/Power. .

These three communication domains can also be used to assess and intervene with interpersonal dynamics. Subsystems often exist that are different than the primary culture of a congregation. A Ministry Team or Staff often prefers meaning while a congregation’s language is around connection. How to use preferences to create a bridge to new experiences, insights and growth is at the heart of leadership and congregational life.

The Main Points

• Polarizations can be avoided that arise when culture and communication preferences collide, by applying the concepts of communication and interaction domains.
• Potential resistance (folk being themselves) can be anticipated and decreased by meeting on the same playing field of communication.
• Understanding and targeting specific interaction needs that fuel engagement, inspiration and getting things done moves leadership from a draining chore to a fulfilling dance.

Communication & Interaction Domains

A couple of persons are standing in the corner of the fellowship hall during coffee hour. They are discussing the pastor’s sermon. The goal of their interaction can be understood conceptually through the domains of action, connection and meaning. Lois is reviewing the sermon with the goal of establishing her position as a long time church leader. Lifting up the carpet and looking underneath her content, it becomes clear that she is establishing “how things are done around here.” She states, "In my 30 years as a Lay Speaker, I have had the opportunity to preach several sermons on the church's mission. Today's wasn't bad. I wish the pastor wouldn't bury his head in his manuscript."

Stan, a newer member and recent addition to the parish relations committee has been captured by the content of the sermon. He’s seeking to connect the “meaning dots” regarding the nature and purpose of the church. He states, "I found the simplicity of a mission focus "of increasing God's love in the world" attractive. I have heard many sermons that were theologically sophisticated but didn't stick with me throughout the week. When I wake up tomorrow morning and begin to groan about another Monday, this message will remind me what it is all about."

Nancy, a third person enters the conversation with concern that Lois may be doing her “power thing” again. Interrupting what Lois is about to say, "Stan, what do you think of the service today. Isn't wonderful how many our gathered for the coffee hour? I think it is just great how much energy you are bringing to the church. You are a Godsend."

Communication extends beyond the content of their words. Within the content and positioning of their interaction your can see how each individual is targeting a different goal.

For Stan it is about meaning, identity and purpose. For Lois, it may be more covert but she is establishing turf and power. For Nancy, her actions and words communicate the goal of strengthening connection (and blocking Lois from weakening it).

Family Therapist’s and researchers, David Kantor and William Lehr (“Inside The Family) studied healthy families. They concluded that the goal of all interactions could be categorized within three areas of Action, Connection & Meaning.

Three Interaction Targets

Meaning (Head) – seeks to deal with issues of identity and provide a framework for understanding reality. The playing field is thought, beliefs, values, vision and purpose. Jesus statement in his Sermon on the Mount “You are the salt of the earth…” is directed towards increasing a sense of meaning and identity.

Action (Power) – seeks movement and focuses on “how things get done.” In action folk are focused on competence and efficacy. They interactions may be cooperative or competitive, but are always about outcomes and getting things done. In the book of Acts the issue of action and power appears constantly. “…the Hellenist complained against the Hebrews their widows were being neglected in the daily distribution of food.” Acts 6

Connection (Heart) – seeks nurture, caring, belonging and intimacy. Here the playing field is around feelings, senses, providing and receiving caring interactions. In Matthew’s gospels chapter 18:15-22 connection is the primary concern. "If another member of the church sins against you, go and point out the fault when the two of you are alone. If the member listens to you, you have regained that one. But if you are not listened to, take one or two others along with you, so that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses.”

In my experience as a Pastor and Parish Consultant, I have observed that each congregation has their own unique preference. Congregations are people systems who direct their energy toward specific targets. Individual or subsystems may vary with each church. Yet, observing board meetings, worship and gatherings for fellowship can assess the totality of the church’s preference.

Both individuals and groups spend a good deal of time engaging in actions that seek purpose, belonging or some control. Fundamental to the purpose of the church is helping folk to claim a theological frame for discovering identity, understanding reality and the meaning of life. Yet, many congregations are more often comfortable in the domain of action/power (talking about budgets and buildings) or connection (seeking belonging and nurture).

The same holds true for pastors and church leaders. Even though they have an academic training in “meaning” they might prefer targeting interactions focused on connection or getting things done. Understanding interaction language or communication goals is important for leadership, church vitality and cohesiveness.

This tool can be helpful for assessing and mapping points of intervention. It is helpful for managing conflict, resistance to change and creating motivation. It is critical to understand these differences with congregational systems when designing stewardship program. Designers are often biased towards "meaning" when for some congregations motivation for giving is clearly in the domain of "connection."

Creating Change - Part IV

You have spent time checking out your own cognitive road map, assumptions about leadership and being a “change agent.” You understand the significance of multiple realities and perceptions. Masterfully and sometimes with plain dumb luck you have sidestepped several potholes in joining and establishing trust with members of your congregation. You are now ready to place your “fingerprint” on the next phase of the change process.

Former School Psychologist, current Pastor and Church Consultant Betsy Waters has developed a tool for assessing and locating your leaders in three areas regarding change and redevelopment. They are Personal Energy and Commitment, Levels of Urgency and Tolerance for Risk. Often in my consulting work, I will find leadership that has solid scores on every facet except for risk tolerance. When change results in conflict or the loss of church friends, folk can begin to lose courage and seek to pull the plug on change efforts. If your leadership scores are substantially low in all three areas, then your leadership needs to create an awareness of “more pain and dissatisfaction” or co-create a more compelling vision of the future.

My mentors over at Options for Change created the following formula (www.optionsforchange.com).

C = D x V x F x S > R

Lasting change equals dissatisfactions with the present, times leadership future vision, times engaging first steps, times sustaining support systems, and all of the previously stated must be greater than the resistance to change.

This formula frames the issue of motivation and the change process. Human beings are motivated by pleasure and pain. Provided with enough pain, a person will be motivated to change in order to avoid high levels of dissatisfaction. The hope of a compelling future with meaning, connection and pleasure is a motivational source with magnetic pulling power. Pain (how it is) pushes us to a process of envisioning how things can be different. Meaning and pleasure creates a pull forward into the imagined and dreamed of future (how it can be).

In my first church, a family had been received from a Vietnam refugee camp a decade plus before my arrival. They arranged for low income housing through their church owned property. Over the years the house fell into disrepair. A stream ran through the basement and the kitchen sink was emptying directly into it (failing septic system). After inspecting the house, it was clear that we had a problem. As I was walking through the house, it was apparent that these years of property neglect and deferred maintenance had created unacceptable living conditions. Out of gratitude and a rent of $150 per month, the family wasn't about to become a squeaky wheel.

Conversations had to be engaged concerning these conditions. Taking a “one up” posture of influence and creating a crisis with a “take no prisoners” approach could have been attempted. Labels could have been used like “slum landlords” and “benign neglect.” My strategy of influence was more incremental and a side-by-side posture of influence (making observation and engaging in dialogue).

My leadership “spotlight” shined on this issue through sermons, newsletters, individual and board meeting conversations. I intentionally avoided using language of blame and invited folk to view the situation through the lens of assessment and mission (how it is and what it could be). Within a year we had helped facilitate a process where the family was able to move out and purchase their own home in the community. In that time we had to face the hard and unpopular process of letting go of the known connection of landlords/rescuers to a yet to be defined relationship.

This approach avoided a potential escalation of conflict and polarization. However, in different circumstances a crisis induction intervention may have been necessary. In my model of “creating change” there is a belief that every move and strategy has both elements of constraint and strength. The goal is to be aware of both sides of any attempt to create influence.

Coming up next: Change Strategy, Congregational Culture and Alignment.

Multiple Realities - Part III

“Multiple Realities” is a term from my Family Therapy Training at the Kantor Family Institute. Acknowledging this relationship reality is key to leadership. It is about respecting multiple perceptions and truths from different locations within the congregation. In systems thinking, context is everything. Power positions, personalities and interpersonal posture are all in the eyes of the beholder.

I have listened too many times to a new pastor telling their story of entering a congregation with the agenda of enforcing church polity rules and regulation (in my system the "Book of Discipline). How quickly they learned about what it means to be absolutely "right" and simultaneously "dead wrong." The old adage, "choose what crosses you want to die on!" is rooted in an understanding of multiple realities.

During my "rookie years" as a pastor, I attended a workshop with Church Consultant Kennon Callahan. He stated, “Perception >Yields Behavior >Yields Destiny.” My take away from that conference was an increased dedication to observing my biases and prejudices regarding leadership, creating influence and change.

Author and Clinical Psychologist David Feinstein, frames the importance of managing your own mind and perceptions in neuro-biochemical-psychological reasons. He states “For better or worse, your expectations release a flood of chemical in your brain. Every sensation, emotion and passing thought causes millions of neurons to fire together, shaping your next response to whatever life presents.” Your perceptions of possibilities lead to more possibility thinking. Perceptions of defeat and despair lead to more of the same.

Each one of us has our bias and point of view. Multiple realities affirms the value of each persons point of view as a source of the energy the leads to transformation. Learning how to use difference is key to creating enough cohesion and buy in to do transformative work.

During my junior year of High School I latched on to Matthew 7: 1-2. “Do not judge, so that you may not be judged. For with the judgment you make you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get.” This bible passage helped me to discover the importance of paying attention to perceptions. At an early age, I bumped into the healing/hurting power of perceptions.

In one of my workshops on “Transformational Leadership” a pastor who was new to her church, stated that she saw a lot of dysfunctional tops spinning around in her church. She went on to state that she was knocking over these tops left and right! As we were about to discuss church culture and the joining process, I smiled and said, “Choose your tops wisely.”
I am not stating that we should be afraid to take a stand (defining self without negative labels and judgements is key to transformative leadership). However, I am saying that we shouldn't be surprised when we get a push back to our efforts to change a church that didn't ask for change in the first place.

Therapist turned Organizational Consultant, Alan Slobodnik states that judgments result when our emotions are tied up with our preferences. We get into trouble when we start telling or covertly communicating to our target systems (congregations) that their preferences are bad or inferior (old school, etc.). Ironically, if you really want to change a system of people, judging them provides the least leverage. Maybe it comes from our misunderstanding of the location and role of the biblical prophets, but more often than not, the first misstep in leadership is making and proclaiming negative judgments about the congregation.

Slobodnik goes on to state, “….when you enter a system with respect for its right to exist, you have much greater potential for leveraging the possibilities for change. On the other hand, people will smell out judgment early on and will be very turned off by it.”