Transforming Church

Wrong People at the Table
A vision will not take root in a congregation until a core leadership buys in and helps others buy into the vision. All too often, visioning in the church is not rooted in Discernment by Spiritual Leaders. It is either brought by the pastor alone, or by a pastor and a team of people who have some experience in strategic planning in business.

Transformation in a church has as its starting point spiritual leadership. Pastors often struggle to bring together a team of leaders who share two essential characteristics: The gift of leadership, and a personal commitment to a deeper spiritual journey, expressed in the marks of discipleship. For help understanding how to build a team of spiritual leaders, take a look at this article.

Jim Collins, in his book, Good to Great, lays out the principle of “first who, then what.” Great leaders, upon joining a new organization, first concentrate on putting together a leadership team, and then, with that team, cast a vision for the future. As he puts it, “You get the right people on the bus, the wrong people off the bus, and the right people in the right seats. Only then, do you decide where to drive the bus.” Many pastors take the Council as a given as the leadership of the church. Sadly, many councils are ill-prepared to discern a vision for the church.

80% of the population is concrete in their thinking, only 20% are conceptual. To see a vision before it is created requires conceptual thinking. So, you need visionaries to discern a vision. One or two concrete thinkers can bog down a visioning process by their inability to see what isn’t there yet. The selection process for church council often uses criteria other than the gift of leadership and the commitment to the marks of discipleship. The result is a leadership team that might be totally inept at discerning the leading of the Spirit for their congregation. So, if you have not gathered a small group of visionary leaders together, get busy, because that is job one.

For the rest of this article, let’s assume that the leadership is true to the process laid out in the last four articles, and has worked to discern and share a vision that is truly the leading of the Holy Spirit. What follows are four pitfalls that might still derail the visioning process, and lead to its failure.

The Vision Describes a Process not an Outcome
Many struggle to differentiate mission and vision, so let me give a couple of illustrations. I believe Jesus has given the mission to the church. It can be described a hundred different ways, but it basically is: Be Disciples, Make Disciples, Feed the Sheep. This describes process.

A mission is like the frame around a painting. It defines and puts boundaries around the area of work for the organization. A vision is like the painting within the frame. It describes the outcome the artist had in mind, and plays out within the frame of mission.

In a sports analogy, the mission is like the playing field. We play the game on the field defined by the mission, within those boundaries. Our bedrock beliefs and values are like the rules by which the game is played. The vision is what the outcome of the game will look like at some future point, if it is played well.

So, a vision statement should describe an outcome of the mission done well over the next couple of years. What will the church look like if it lives out its mission? What will be the outcome of living true to the mission in this particular place and time (context and culture)?

An effective vision paints a clear picture of what the church will look like at some future point. It describes the preferred outcome if the people get busy creating what truly matters (from God’s point of view.) So, the next time you see a church vision statement, ask yourself, does this describe an outcome, or a process? Can I see a picture of what the vision looks like?

Vision is “World Peace”Your vision can describe an outcome and still fail. All too often, our vision statement actually expresses vague hopes and longings. In my business, whenever we were doing strategy, someone would throw out an idea that was so far-fetched, so far beyond our capabilities, that we would write “World Peace” on a sticky note and post it above all the other ideas.

Dan Southerland, in his book, Transitioning cautions against stretching too far in casting a vision to the church. “The difference between a leader and a martyr is two steps,” he says. “A leader stays one step ahead of the people, a martyr gets three steps ahead, and is shot in the back.” As one who has gotten too far in front several times, I can attest to the great pain it causes.

My own ELCA Southeastern Synod is the Great Commission Synod. Here is the vision statement adopted in 1999:

We will love God and neighbor so that all people, transformed by the Holy Spirit and believing in Jesus Christ, will be His disciples.

I cannot find an instance in the bible where everyone turned towards God. Even Jesus himself did not accomplish this vision, how could we?

To be effective, a vision has to be actionable. I did a talk a couple of years ago at a conference on the topic of Visioning. A Bishop came up to me after the session, and told me he had always understood that visions had to be so lofty (as to be unattainable). Don’t get me wrong, I think we should dream big, and visions should cause us to stretch and invent new ways of getting there. However, there comes a point where a vision is so disconnected from the reality that it would be impossible to accomplish. When we cast a vision at 50,000 feet, we cannot see the lay of the land well enough to map our approach. Better to cast a vision at 5000 feet, where we can see the obstacles that lay ahead and map a path forward.

Misdiagnosing Point A (today’s current reality)
Mike Foss, when talking about Visioning, uses a bridge to illustrate the process. Point A is the starting point, and Point B, the achievement of the vision. He said, “The major reason churches don’t achieve their vision is that they misdiagnose Point A, the starting point. They assume Point B is much closer to Point A than it really is.”

I find many churches are in denial of the reality they find themselves facing. When we can articulate a clear picture of our vision, and then take a brutally honest look at our reality today, vis-à-vis the vision, the contrast creates a very strong tension. When I see how Jesus lived, and look honestly at my own life, the contrast creates tension. That tension is relieved when we move ourselves closer to our vision. We call this tension Structural Tension, and it is the most powerful tool you can use towards achieving God’s plan.

Leaders who are not aware of the reality facing them quickly lose credibility with their people. To continue the map analogy, if I say I’m going to take us to Nashville, but I think we are starting from Chattanooga, and you know darn well that we are starting from Atlanta, how much faith will you have that I can get us to Nashville?

Goals Fail the “SMART” test
Part of articulating a sound vision is to be specific enough that you can know when you have accomplished the vision. The vision must describe an outcome clearly enough so you can tell when you have arrived. Once you have a clearly articulated vision, and have taken a brutally honest look at your starting point, you identify what action steps will move you from the reality of today to the successful accomplishment of the vision. To be effective, these action steps, as well as the vision itself must pass the SMART test. Effective goals are:
Specific- they provide a clear picture of the desired outcome.
Measurable- you can measure your progress and know when the goal is accomplished.
Actionable- the goal is clear enough that the actions needed are apparent.
Relevant- the goals are relevant to the accomplishment of the vision.
Timely- dates for completion and primary responsibility for action are assigned.

I find most churches avoid accountability and devalue the possibility of measuring what is important. It’s true that measures never tell the whole story, but the lack of accountability is one of the major challenges facing our church leadership. Leaders need accountability; they thrive on accountability. Those who wish to avoid accountability are not prepared to lead.

So, young visionaries take heart and learn from the struggles of those who have tried and failed and tried again. Learn to practice building structural tension into your lives and churches and you will gain the ability to accomplish those things God lays before you.

Whatever else these articles share with you, the most important guidance is: vision needs to transform my heart of hearts, not come from it. You have just read the final part of “Help In Clarifying Vision - for new visionaries.” The earlier titles include:
Part 1: Is This My Vision, Our Vision, or Something Else?
Part 2: What Is the Stuff Vision Is Made Of?
Part 3: How Do Pastors Live Out Their Role as ‘Keeper of the Vision?’
Part 4: How Does the Congregation See and Take Ownership of the Vision?