Bullseye: Change for Change's Sake

“The creation of new structures will never produce renewal in an organization. Renewal is instigated with a new mission, a compelling vision, and the adoption of new values. However, the change process is never ultimately achieved or solidified without the adoption of a new structure. In fact I would go further and suggest that the adoption of a new structure that is consistent with new mission, vision, and values accelerates the change process. Also failure to adopt a new structure will eventually stifle the implementation of a new mission and vision” (pp.125, 126).

In other words, Paul Borden advocates change simply for change’s sake. He views structure as a merely human institution that is fair game for alteration on the grounds that it won’t do any harm and might do some good. This gratuitous change comes with the added benefit that along the way you’ll be able to identify who’s willing to jump on your bandwagon and who isn’t.

“Therefore a change in structure is a tangible way of determining whether or not people are either embracing or denying new missions, visions, and values. A new structure is both a lightning rod and a thermometer of how well people are accepting or rejecting change. In other words, changes in structures create stress in people and that stress reveals where they stand in relation to the new changes. This phenomenon is why changes in structure that are aligned with new missions, visions, and values are so crucial” (p.126).

The problem with this theory is that being opposed to changes in structure doesn’t automatically mean that one is also opposed to “new missions, visions, and values,” or vice versa. Unfortunately, Borden doesn’t make any distinction between those who desire church growth but also have intellectual and spiritual concerns about the process and those who simply like things the way they are and don’t want to change. Anyone who raises an objection of any kind is classified as “rejecting change.”

As we will discuss later in this series, knowing who is or is not in favor of the changes being made is significant to Borden’s strategy because he advocates actively excluding objectors from having any say at all in the congregation, if possible. This leaves the pastor surrounded by “yes men,” or “cheerleaders,” as Borden puts it. In order to create this dictator’s utopia of unquestioned authority Borden is happy to let leaders bend the rules of their denominations.

“None of the changes I see as fundamental will occur without changes in structure. In some denominations this is harder to do than in others… However, in such cases there may be the need to create shadow structures that are usable and effective, even if they are not recognized officially” (p.18).

Borden assumes that all congregations and denominations, though perhaps possessed of some cosmetic or traditional differences, are essentially the same in terms of attitudes and functionality. He also assumes that all congregations and denominations are facing exactly the same problem in their attempts to grow.

“All current polity systems perpetuate models of governance that lead to organizational hierarchies (some through position and others through tenure) and create bureaucracies. These models of organization are rejected in almost all organizations today except for the church. Almost every congregation I have ever consulted with has told me that their one problem, unique to congregations with their polity, is that they have too many committees. Congregations think that this issue, which is usually described in a polity context, is unique to them. They do not realize that their congregation is simply reflecting what their denomination and judicatories are already doing. Each congregation sees itself imprisoned by their structure and wish they had the structure of another polity when it comes to organization” (p.140).

The practice of ascribing all of a congregation’s problems to a faulty structure has a certain allure. Structures don’t have any feelings to be hurt; no pride to be wounded by being told that they are not performing well. Changes in structure are easy to make and easy to point to as a measure of accomplishment. The difficulty with this approach is that, within the Adventist context at least, structure isn’t the problem. The entire denomination uses the same structure throughout the world. In some places the work is booming and in others it is not. What this tells us is that the problem is not with the effectiveness of the structure, but rather the commitment and effectiveness of the people leading the congregation.

“The fifth issue that is crucial to producing fundamental change in dysfunctional congregations is to create a new structure that is aligned with the new outward focused mission and vision. To do this, you need to do something with the current structure that has contributed to and supports the current state of plateau and decline” (94, 95).

There are two questions Borden fails to ask in making this assertion. The first is whether the congregation in question is strictly adhering to the structure that it claims to follow. (If it is not, the dysfunction could very well be with the implementation of the structure, not its basic makeup.) The second is whether the problem truly lies with the structure or the people. (Changing the structure won’t improve anything if the change that is needed is with the hearts of the people.) As Borden himself states, the creation of new structures will never produce renewal in an organization. If a congregation or pastor is not successful in soul-winning efforts the remedy is not structural change, but personal introspection:

“Here, ministers of Christ, is your Pattern. You are to copy the life and character of the Master. Humility, meekness, and love are to be revealed in your character as they were in his. Your labors need not be without marked results. If they are fruitless you should investigate your own case,--examine yourselves whether you be in the faith. If Christ abide in your hearts, you will go forth, weeping, bearing precious seed, and will doubtless come again with rejoicing, bringing your sheaves with you. You who have labored year after year, and have seen no souls brought to the knowledge of the truth, no churches raised up and organized, should change your manner of labor. You should fast and pray. You should lay the matter before your brethren, and solicit their counsel and prayers, lest you be self-deceived, and, what is more, deceive others also” (Review and Herald, October 21, 1884 par. 18).