Home > Emmanuel Research Review > Issue No. 7
 

Emmanuel Research Review
Resources for the urban pastor and community leader
published by Emmanuel Gospel Center, Boston
Issue No. 7 — December 15, 2004

about | contact | subscribe/unsubscribe

The Emmanuel Research Review is a publication of the Emmanuel Gospel Center. The Review features articles, papers, resources and information that we believe are helpful and relevant to urban pastors, leaders, and community members in their efforts to effectively serve their communities.

In this issue:

Is it just me that’s dysfunctional? Or is it my church?

a foreword by Brian Corcoran
Research Associate, Emmanuel Research Institute

It happens to many of us Christians. We step out to serve as pastors, administrators, or perhaps volunteers in churches or Christian organizations. Some of us pursue specialized education and training to do this. As we plug in and serve, we might experience an initial sense of purposefulness and accomplishment. We envision and desire a fruitful and effective ministry in the years ahead.

However, what follows is just the opposite. In time, we find ourselves drawn into the inner workings of the church or organization only to discover that things are quite different than what we thought. That which initially appeared to be simple and straightforward starts becoming fuzzy, complicated, and messy. We persevere while attempting many different ways to correct or compensate within our spheres of influence. Yet instead of things getting better, they seem to get worse. We become fatigued, confused, uncertain, overwhelmed, ineffective, discouraged and sometimes even burned out and depressed in the process. How could something which started as a genuine desire to serve the Lord have brought us to such a place? Why is it so difficult to serve within some churches or Christian organizations?

A few years ago, while attending a class at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary’s Center for Urban Ministerial Education (CUME) in Boston, I encountered the following lead article on Redemptive Intervention for Dysfunctional Christian Organizations as part of the required reading by the professor and author, Dr. Douglas Hall, President of the Emmanuel Gospel Center. Since then, the perspective and approach described by Dr. Hall has become foundational in shaping my understanding and approach to ministry in an urban context. I hope that it will have a similar and practical impact on others desiring to serve in effective and vital ministry in the years ahead.

Also in this issue, we offer another look at church dysfunctionality by Thomas Fischer, entitled, “Fifteen Characteristics of Dysfunctional Churches.” This is followed by a response by Dr. Hall. As is our practice, we also offer both web links and print resources for further study, and some information about the Emmanuel Research Institute. Your feedback is always welcome.

Redemptive Intervention for Dysfunctional Christian Organizations

by Dr. Douglas Hall
President
Emmanuel Gospel Center
Boston

Stating the Problem:

Today’s world is designed to produce dysfunctional churches.

The world of relational culture, where people’s needs are met primarily through a mutual exchange, no longer exists in our day. When extended families lived near each other, most needs (from childcare, to a loan, to help with fixing the roof) were met by and for people one knew. For most of us in the Western world, that highly relational way of meeting needs is gone. In fact, this may be the first time in history that major populations of the world no longer have relational cultures to meet human needs.

In a contemporary society lacking relational culture, churches are becoming dysfunctional at an alarming rate. Our society’s mental models teach us how to get things done without relationships. Earlier cultures enabled us to operate in a more relational manner, but in our day, while churches work hard to help people relate to God, many have forgotten how to help them relate to each other.

Seeing the Problem

In the New Testament Book of Revelation, in chapter 3, John speaks of the need of the Laodicean church to apply “eye salve” to see the dysfunctionality that was going on in his day. The text implies that the problem of dysfunctionality often exists in more affluent settings, and also that the people closest to the problem don’t recognize its significance. “You do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked.” (Rev. 3:17b NIV) It is difficult for leaders to see the dysfunctionality of their organizations, much less deal with their systemic problems. The prophet, the person with the eye salve, can see what is really happening. Through revelation from God, John saw the problem and exhorted the Laodiceans, “I counsel you to buy from me gold refined in the fire, so you can become rich; and white clothes to wear, so you can cover your shameful nakedness; and salve to put on your eyes, so you can see.” (3:18)

Many prophetic biblical authors begin by showing how the social system is operating badly, and then describe disastrous long-term results that will occur if the people continue to operate in that manner. For example, in Isaiah 1, the prophet tells how he can see a terrible future in a nation that from a superficial—even a religious—perspective seems to be operating very well. Hosea is asked to take on an adulterous wife to show the nation in virtual reality the direction in which it is heading. Jeremiah uses analogies early in his book to show how poorly the people of Israel were operating. We might say in modern parlance that Israel was operating dysfunctionally, but the biblical word is sinfully.

Understanding the Problem

Three things happen when an organization starts to become dysfunctional:

  1. Once present, dysfunctionality can easily spread to the entire system of the organization.
  2. Dysfunctional activity becomes seen as a normal way of operating. The problem is concealed because:
    Delays between the causes of the problem and the returns or effects of those causes make it possible to disassociate the cause of the problem from the return, or—in the prophetic scenario—to separate the sinful activities from the impending judgment.
    The problems affect the higher purposes of the organization without necessarily affecting immediate goals.
  3. Because the organization’s original vision or higher purposes now seem unreachable, leaders in the organization will lower the bar, lower the expectations of the organization to achieve only what seems possible by the now dysfunctional organization. Dysfunctional activities are at first used to try to accomplish higher ends, but the more they are relied on, the more distant the organization comes from reaching those ends. Ultimately, standards are lowered to bring the returns of the organization in line with how it operates. The higher purposes of the organization are sacrificed in the dysfunctional organization, whether the people in the organization acknowledge it or not.

Biblical reflection would suggest that such an organization is neither “hot” nor “cold” (Rev. 3:16). It can continue to accomplish its immediate goals, but cannot really make important contributions to its higher-level vision, activities like building God’s Kingdom. There may be illusions that the organization’s activities are designed to build the broader Kingdom of God, but the organization actually does not nurture the kind of multiple productivity in the broader, universal Body of Christ that makes Kingdom growth possible. Rather, activities on many levels, if productive at all, are more precisely geared to growing only the kingdom of the organization itself. Unfortunately, some organizations operate too dysfunctionally for even that to occur!

This means:

  1. The dysfunctional organization can appear very functional.
  2. Piecemeal, and even very functional, approaches to solving the problems of this organization will not affect the overall systemic core of the organization’s real problem.
  3. There will be a tendency in such an organization for a high level of burnout and turnover by those who hold to higher ideals for their work.
  4. In contrast to businesses that work in a “hard reality” where they will lose profits if they do not satisfy their customers, many Western Christian organizations operate in a “soft reality” where there is no significant negative feedback or penalties that can be associated with mistakes or wrong behavior. For example, if a ministry organization says its mission is to help the poor, but its activities do not really help poor people significantly, it can simply raise more money and go on to other poor people and later tell about all the people it is “helping.” Working in a soft reality eventually causes many unattended problems to accumulate and come back to the ministry in forms of ill-defined issues like guilt, burnout, lack of motivation and a sense of being unfulfilled. Being in a soft reality is an illusion, because there are penalties for wrong behavior, and when they impact us later, it is difficult to define what specifically is wrong and then deal with it.
  5. Ultimately the dysfunctional organization tends to have employees who “play games.” A game is played when people are being manipulated to fulfill the agenda of a certain person or group in the organization, rather than having their activities clearly directed toward accomplishing the broader and higher purposes of the organization.

Some of these kinds of games are:

a. Outflanking those that differ with you, or maneuvering to gain a tactical advantage.

b. Not acknowledging mistakes, but covering them up instead. In a dysfunctional organization, there is little forgiveness when confessions are made, thus there are seldom confessions. In healthy organizations, confession and forgiveness flow freely, people learn from errors, and thus don’t need to waste time on cover-ups. Healthy ministries are characterized by grace.

c. Failure to connect unintended negative consequences with personal actions. Here a person easily identifies a positive intended return, but is not able to see the negative unintended returns from his actions. For example, an evangelist may say, “We had ten converts from our crusade,” but not take responsibility for the fact that none of the converts ever ended up in a church, and they became resistant to further attempts to persuade them of the truth of the Gospel.

d. Using rules and procedures as a control device, such as to block those activities you oppose and finding ways of ignoring the same rule when you want to get your agenda done.

e. Using various forms of intimidation to accomplish personal agendas within the organization.

This is a short list of games. Often more than one such game will be played in a dysfunctional organization. As the dysfunctionality persists, increasingly more games are played. Seldom do the people playing these games consciously identify them, as one of the rules of the game is to avoid identifying that a game is even being played. In very dysfunctional situations, those who point out the game-playing become the enemies of the leadership operating in this dysfunctional manner.

Redemptive Intervention Is Needed

In social systems, one does not solve problems, because the problems it appears we are solving are only recreated by the system that originally produced them. Thus, problem solving provides only short-term relief or superficial solutions that affect only the symptoms, not the systemic problems themselves. In fact, by suggesting that the problem is being solved when it is not, such problem-solving efforts actually become part of the problem!

For example, responding to the problem of starvation by feeding starving people with free food puts local farmers—who, naturally, can’t compete with free food—out of business. Thus, in the following years, fewer farmers produce food and the extent of starvation increases. But, because we have “fed the hungry,” we think the job is done. Now we have become part of the problem! Or, we might do a mass evangelistic crusade, thinking, despite the fact that the vast majority of those who make a decision for Christ in such crusades don’t end up in the church, this is the only way to do evangelism and that if we have done this, nothing else needs to be done.

We can seek to make people feel comfortable by making things look better than they are, or by adding a new program to the church. This creates a “comfort zone,” but it is not a “safe zone”—an environment where problems can be shared. This is a basic problem of dysfunctional ministries.

Thus, our inadequate answers at solving problems lull us into thinking we have dealt with the problems, and this keeps us from discovering a more productive way to deal with any challenges, whether helping those who are starving, or evangelizing people, or dealing with church problems appropriately. Thus, the church becomes dysfunctional, unable to do what it should do well. In this situation, we unintentionally provide answers that produce more problems, not real answers, and we don’t confess the dysfunctionality of what really occurred.

A church that seems unable to confess its problems appropriately but just continues doing what it does, despite what is really occurring as a result of its actions, is a church ministry based on “works.” Here is what I mean by “works” in this context. In contrast to redemptive thinking, which sees, because of the eye salve, the many interrelated variables that take place, works thinking is a simple, mechanistic approach, involving just four variables. We could diagram it like this:

A “works” mentality is blind to the unintended negative returns of its actions that lead to more problems. Such thinking cannot see that any systemic problem has two causes: the nature of the problem itself and the counter-productive answers used to solve it, which then actually become part of the broader problem itself! Nor does the works mentality take into account the problem of unintended consequences and the need for repentance from dead works.

We need, instead, to face all the complex ramifications of a problem, and identify and repent of our dysfunctionality. This leads to a redemptive approach to problems. Here is how we might diagram a redemptive approach to addressing needs:


When redemption is working, problems are changed into assets, sinners into saints. The problems are clearly defined, confessed and forgiven, and substitutes are found for the wrong activities. Further, the person who has experienced such redemption can help others into the same deliverance, precisely because he, too, originally also had a similar problem. Works multiplies problems, but redemption multiplies answers!

The devastating nature of a gradually developing illness.

One day when our young family was visiting Sea World, my wife—who had sat on the floor in front of the tank to get a better look at the ocean life—found she could not get up off the floor unaided. Although she was a young woman, she had been gradually accumulating the symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis which hindered many of her movements, but she just kept adapting to the problems that were gradually eating away at her quality of life. All of a sudden we realized something was really wrong, and got help, and she was able eventually to make a slow but complete recovery.

Similarly, churches have a slowly developing illness. People learn to adapt as the church’s ability to accomplish its higher ideals diminishes. During the onset of illness the church keeps adjusting its goals to what in its sick condition it is able to accomplish.

We need to stop nurturing the illness. Treating the symptoms and adjusting the church’s goals to what it is capable of doing in its sick condition will only prolong its malaise of dysfunctionality.

Toward finding a redemptive cure.

First, use the entry point of realizing we most likely will be counter-productive in providing an answer to the problem. This is usually the last thing a dysfunctional church wants to hear, but in this fallen world it is where we must begin. Starting here pushes us away from “works” to truly redemptive approaches. As I said at the beginning, a dysfunctional church may operate horizontally using a works-orientation to ministry, even while it operates redemptively in the vertical dimension of relating to God. It must, therefore, learn to apply redemptive thinking to problems in the horizontal plane.

Second, set a high standard for health. The church with problems can be treated by coming together and asking itself: “What is our church supposed to be about biblically? What are the high standards for our church? What are our higher purposes?” If this exercise is truly done corporately, the higher purposes, the vision, will be owned by the whole church.

Once the higher purposes are understood by church members and leaders, the church must fearlessly ask the question, “Have we accomplished our higher purposes?” The answer most likely will be “no!” This is an opportunity to begin to experience corporate confession and forgiveness. The church must be vulnerable and honest if it is to be pushed from a works orientation to a redemptive one.

Then, seek God to find how the church’s high purpose can be done. This will push the church to operate with redemptive thinking, as we illustrated above. Many common activities of the church must continue, but now it must seek ways of trusting God for entering into its higher purpose as its basic orientation or primary focus.

Finally, do not lower the high purposes, even when you don’t accomplish them at first. This point is critical. Get help or whatever is necessary to not lose sight of those higher purposes. Never lower them. Regularly revisit them, confess when efforts don’t yet achieve them, and find substitutes for those efforts that did not do the job. Of course, confession will not be made in any context where people do not feel safe, where there is no forgiveness, but when both confession and forgiveness exist, the church can move on to higher ground. So, make opportunity for forgiveness in the church. This process of constantly reviewing one’s higher purposes, and having regular confession, forgiveness and finding of substitutes, must be done regularly over time (perhaps a period of about three years) until this redemptive design process becomes “the way we do things in our church.”

When all this occurs properly, the programs of the church can then be run by dynamic people systems. But if programs begin to run the people, the church will become dysfunctional again.

A church may need outside help to initiate this process. A good consultant will nurture the internal dynamics of your own ministry to do the job. A recovering church or ministry organization should not need a consultant for the long term. The consultant may need to be engaged periodically to determine if the church is staying on track, but basically, once learned, the internal dynamics of the redemptively operating church do the job.

Summary/Conclusion:

Healing comes from within.

I would guess that more than half of all Christians either have a problem with their marriage or with their church, or both. Our non-relational culture tends to nurture such problems. As Christians, we must not only be in right relation to God, but we also need to bring redemptive understanding to our relationships to each other. Learning to function redemptively is like overcoming an addiction. We can’t just say, “Don’t drink,” or “Don’t become dysfunctional,” or “Here are 10 characteristics of what you should be.” The addict must get to the root cause of why he or she engages in the addiction by facing the “stinkin’ thinkin’” that drives the process, and dealing with that ruthlessly. So also must Christians deal ruthlessly with the counterproductive thinking that drives our dysfunctionality. Otherwise, our faith will decline, not because redemptive thinking is not operational vertically, but because we are losing the ability to operate horizontally in a redemptive manner. Works doesn’t get us to heaven, and it doesn’t get the job done on earth either.

We need to increase the number of churches (as well as the number of marriages, Christians and Christian ministries) that are operating redemptively on both the vertical and the horizontal dimensions. To me, this is what Christianity is really all about.

Dr. Douglas Hall is the President of Emmanuel Gospel Center in Boston, where he has served with his wife, Judy, since 1964. Since 1973, he has also taught courses in urban ministry for the Center for Urban Ministerial Education (CUME), the urban extension of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. Dr. Hall has been instrumental in pioneering and/or inspiring several organizations and institutions in the Boston area.

Dr. Hall holds a diploma from Moody Bible Institute (1960); a BA Degree in Sociology and Anthropology (1962) and Master of Arts Degree in Counseling and Guidance from Michigan State University (1966). He graduated from Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in 1968 and was granted an honorary Doctor of Divinity Degree from that institution in 1981 for his pioneering work in urban ministry.

up†top

Fifteen Characteristics of Dysfunctional Churches

(article #95, reproduced by permission from http://ministryhealth.net/.)

by Thomas F. Fischer, M.Div., M.S.A.

1) Abusive Relationships

Abusive relationships are found when the organization (or parts of it) seek a Scapegoat (an individual or a group) designated to suffer pain for others or the organization. Anyone who chooses not to share in the Scapegoating will also be scapegoated and or face severe consequences (e.g. rejection, blame, physical and/or emotional abuse, censure, et al.) for rejection of that role. Dysfunctional organizations tenaciously maintain the Scapegoat role, for without it, they would be unable to project their dysfunction on others but would have to bear the pain of the dysfunction themselves.

2) Perfectionism

This goes beyond merely seeking excellence. Instead, it is a controlling tactic by which individuals or groups replace a healthy sense of trust and spontaneity with a legalistic, over-zealous, destructive focus on minute defects of others, their leadership styles, their procedures, the organization, et al.

Mercilessly drawing attention to otherwise irrelevant minutiae, it directs energy from focusing on the big picture to an over-attention to details. Bureaucracy-perpetuating constitutions, detailed bylaws, and detailed policies and are all part of a dysfunctional organization’s ongoing prescription for aggravated conflict as they simply provides more ammunition for those enforcing the perfect way of operation.

3) Rigidity

Rigidity, like Perfectionism, relies on unbending rules and strict adherence to various “objective” standards (Constitutions, Policies, Doctrines, supposed denominational dictates, the “right” way). The main purpose of the bureaucracy (formal or informal) is to enforce and enlarge control over others while squashing spontaneity and risk taking. No surprises are allowed… although those in or seeking control may instantaneously and repeatedly change any dictum or direction without warning. However, those being controlled must do everything the “right” way.

4) Silence

People don’t speak up at appropriate times in appropriate situations with appropriate people. Results: repeated “unanimous” decisions that get undermined, sabotaging supporters.

5) Repression

Unspoken rule that it is not “Christian” to express feelings of disagreement, dissent, or anger. Instead, one must hide how one really feels or suffer censure for expression of emotions. Instead of expressing feelings, feelings must be hidden. Result: repression ultimately must be released in episodes (or series of episodes) of uncontrollable anger and hostility.

6) Rationalization and Denial

Groups or individuals re-work truth and reality to fit their distorted view of situations, individuals, and other groups.

7) Triangulation

Triangulation is using “go-betweens” to communicate indirectly with other parties. Results: unsuspecting, but sympathetic message-bearers become entangled in an unwanted destructive web of blame, anger, and miscommunication. Result: they become uncomfortable with their roles and jump ship.

8) Double Messages

Such duplicity or “two-faced” aspect is exemplified by people whose actions always have an opposite “flip side.” Some examples: “I care/get lost”, “I love you/don’t bother me”, “I need you/You’re in my way”, “Yes, I accept you just as you are/Why don’t you change!”.

9) Lack of Fun/Anti-Spontaneity

Dysfunctional churches can’t loosen up, let go, play and have fun. Being overly serious, humor will be seen an “unrighteous” and “undignified” church activity. When play is attempted, people get hurt… the deep wounds experienced endure for decades as warnings to others to avoid use of fun humor. Any humor that is used, is used to hurt (e.g. “low blow”, humiliation, double messages, etc.)

10) Martyrdom

High tolerance by individuals or groups to bear abuse, pain, and extreme sacrifice for the organization. No real atmosphere or opportunities exist in the organization for expressing pain, loss and providing healing mechanisms. Designated martyrs are made to feel “deserving” of their pain.

11) Entanglement: The “Hooterville Syndrome”

This is the situation where everyone knows everyone else’s business but the information is never accurate, relevant, timely or constructively directed.

12) “We Care” Syndrome

An extension of the double messages mentioned above, dysfunctional individuals and organizations will often claim to care, but, when given opportunity to assist, have other “priorities and needs” which will cause present needs to go unmet on a regular basis.

13) Elevation of Dysfunctional Leaders

When certain attention-seeking individuals can’t find attention in their family, job, or elsewhere, the church becomes a convenient—and easy—place for such “attention addicts” to get their attention by becoming a chairman of a congregational group. By not saying “no” to such incompetents, the church succumbs to an inordinate amount of incompetence, incomplete tasks, and other types of associated narcissistic fallout.

14) Inability to Grasp a Positive Vision

Those entrenched in perfectionism, procedures, victimization and control will be too preoccupied to deal with positive things such as present and future organizational vision. Instead, there’s a self-defeating zealous preoccupation with the past and present which leaves no possibility for deliberating regarding the future.

15) Dysfunctional Expectations of the Pastor

The general disrespect for the pastoral office, testified by an on-going succession of short-tenured pastors often indicates that either one or both of the following dysfunctionalities are present and operative in the given congregation.

a) Clerical Reductionism

Clerical Reductionism is when pastors are stripped of all appropriate authority. Instead of being encouraged and supported to carry out their ministry to the fullest appropriate extent, dysfunctional churches minimize the expectations of the pastor.

Activities are monitored in a legalistic manner with a clear intent to control—and limit—proper pastoral authority. Common monitored items may include the number and types of pastoral visits, whether various congregational policies are precisely followed by the pastor in every respect, limiting the pastor’s “voice” in congregational affairs including those which are specifically pastoral responsibilities, micro-managing church office expenses, etc.

b) Clerical Expansionism

Some passive dysfunctional congregations will compensate for their passivity by placing on the pastor the expectation to carry out all the responsibilities and functions of the ministry single-handedly. In these dysfunctional situations, the preacher is more than just a preacher.

He’s the janitor, Sunday school superintendent, choir director, chairman of boards and fellowship groups, initiator and coordinator of every new ministry activity, and doer of everything in the church as others passive watch and judge. Pastoral spouses often are enmeshed unawares and/or unwillingly into this unhealthy “expansive” view of the pastoral office.

Young upstart pastors and their spouses fresh out the seminary, as well as pastors who start a ministry in a new location, are especially vulnerable to dysfunctional clerical expansionism.

Of Course...

Certainly every church has some of the above dynamics to one degree or another. However, the greater the number and intensity of the dynamics, the greater the degree to which the church can be characterized as “dysfunctional” and characterized by conflict.

Resultantly, the likelihood that the church will resist changes, pastors and their well-intended ministries, and other attempts and programs designed to address the various dysfunctions may also increase.

What Can You Do?

If the congregation you serve shows the above characteristics, the ministry can, at times, be a frustrating experience. However, if the pastor is aware of the congregational dysfunctionality, he may be able to keep his head above water and provide valuable, healthy, proactive leadership to address these marks of dysfunctionality. Here are a few suggestions:

1) Recognize that the dysfunction is the congregation’s dysfunction.

It existed long before you arrived there. It isn’t your fault. But you may be God’s chosen instrument to address the dysfunctionality and bring the congregation to real healing which only God can give.

2) Know and understanding your boundaries.

Dysfunctional churches are extremely effective at projecting blame and shame on pastors and other leaders for maintaining healthy boundaries. Study what appropriate, healthy boundaries are, and consistently observe them.

3) Encourage your family to maintain healthy boundaries, too.

The pastor’s spouse does not necessarily have to be chairman of the women’s group, youth director, music director, organist, and congregational secretary. Neither do children of the parsonage have to be “super saints” and present at every single congregational event.

These kinds of pastoral family involvements are often done either 1) out of an unbridled excitement and love for the Lord and/or 2) to avoid fear, guilt, shame and disapproval. They may, in the long-term, do more harm for the church than good. Indeed, in more cases than one may want to admit, such involvement can be characterized as “rescue” behaviors which perpetuate the dysfunctions.

Instead, consider using your best gifts for ministry in other than congregational settings (e.g. denominational ministries, local social and/or Christian ministries not directly tied to your congregation, etc.). Remember, the ministry of Christ requires people to become “world Christians.” Isn’t that the vision you really want your congregation to capture? Model it—to your congregation’s health!

4) Get a life… for you and your family outside the church.

Learn the joys of self-diversification and do yourself two favors 1) Enjoying—without guilt—the many activities which God offers pastors and their families in this world, many of which are not church-related and 2) Solidifying a healthy base for continued mental health and wholeness in what is sometimes a difficult ministry.

5) Continually clarify biblical teachings on the ministerial office.

Since it may be perceived as a conflict of interest to do so yourself, invite a trusted denominational official preach on what the office of the ministry is, what it does, and its relationship to the church. Clearly discuss the points you would like discussed in the sermon (or sermon series) with the denominational official so that they can be of maximum assistance to set forth a positive, scriptural vision for ministry.

6) Promote the scriptural understanding of lay ministry.

Emphasize the important role of the laity in their auxiliary ministerial capacity to work alongside the pastor under his oversight. Ephesians 5 is especially good for this. Keep it simple and reinforce the key concepts which Paul mentioned which make for a healthy Body of Christ.

7) Intelligently practice intentional ignorance.

Sure you know how to change the light bulb. But does that mean that the pastor should change it? Encourage lay involvement by letting it stay dark until a lay person discovers and fills the need.

8) Put aside your perfectionist tendencies.

They’ll just make you irritable, impatient, and frustrated. Everything doesn’t have to be done right now. There is, as the writer of Ecclesiastes noted, a time for everything. And, one might add, there’s a right person to do everything, too. When the right time and the right person come together, you are on the right track to congregational health. Wait for it. Be patient. Wait. It will come. Be patient. There is no hurry!

9) Expect conflict.

Passive congregational members, like many adolescents, will do anything to resist responsibility, including attack the one urging the responsibility. That’s okay. After all, didn’t St. Paul say that one should not desire to be an overseer unless he could manage his family well? Know you know why! But, without conflict, there is no renewal. Expect conflict… but expect God’s promise of unparalleled renewal to result from the experience.

10) Continually encourage people to make a positive, significant difference for the Lord.

Besides prayer and the other nine suggestions above, this is perhaps the most positive, ministry-impacting strategy one can use to slowly transform a dysfunctional congregation. Share it with visitors, new members, current leaders, and the entire congregation. Encourage them to make a difference then let them do it—and watch the Lord put some real “G” forces into your congregation’s ministry!

With deepest prayers for your congregation’s health!

Thomas F. Fischer

up†top

From My Perspective

Dr. Doug Hall’s response to the article by Thomas Fischer

The strength of Thomas Fischer’s “Fifteen Characteristics of Dysfunctional Churches,” one of numerous approaches to the dysfunctional church, is that it suggests some practical ways of operating in a dysfunctional church without becoming a part of its problem. Spending the time to figure out how to do this is a major right step for people working in this setting. If this can be achieved, then, after the dysfunctional people have “shot themselves in the foot” in their activities, people in the church will eventually look for help from those who have not been a part of the problem. This “ask” for help represents a critical entry point for change. At that point, the helpers may also need assistance to initiate a productive response that is geared to the particular needs and assets of that church.

Fischer’s description of dysfunctionality mirrors my observation of “games” played in the dysfunctional church. He makes good suggestions for setting personal and family boundaries, although in a highly dysfunctional environment even a critical activity like setting boundaries in order to provide the long-term help a troubled church needs can be counterproductive, if it is not properly done. If people sense the pastor really cares about them, mature people in the church will aid him/her in boundary setting, but doing it improperly can appear selfish.

From my perspective, the many materials written on the pervasive problem of the dysfunctional church too often lack several important components:

  1. They lack a clear problem statement that is theologically and biblically based.
  2. They do not provide a systemic approach to this systemic problem. Often various separated answers are proposed, but, as the dysfunctional church may be a product of a dichotomized world, a dichotomized approach to solving its problem may not be what is needed.
  3. Efforts at solving the problem come from outside the church, or don’t properly use the internal dynamics of the church to solve its own problem. Problems of this type must be solved via the internal dynamics of the church.
  4. Repentance is often missing. When there is a problem of this intensity, people are doing something wrong and repentance is needed, followed by redemptive activity.

The Fischer article illustrates to some degree the lack of these four elements, but it also provides some practical suggestions about how to operate in a dysfunctional church without becoming part of the problem while the process of renewal is hopefully occurring or steps are in place to prepare for redemptive renewal.

up†top

Research Resources on the Web

Church Conflict, by David Volz, from The Lutheran, the magazine of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. (http://www.thelutheran.org/9711/page8.html)

Five Types Of Organizational Dysfunction, by Thomas F. Fischer, M.Div., M.S.A., from the Ministry Health website. Also publishes a newsletter. (http://www.ministryhealth.net/mh_articles/025_five_types_dysfunction.html)

Intentionally Building a Healthy Church, by Steven R. Mills, from the Sunday School website of the Assemblies of God. Observations about healthy and dysfunctional churches. Includes chart. (http://sundayschool.ag.org/03Pastors/p_chgrw_0305HealthyCh.cfm)

An integration of Systems theory, Chaos theory and Complexity science as turnaround strategies for the small dysfunctional church, by Edward W. Rogosky, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary. Follow the link to a pdf file of this 44-page thesis. (http://www.ethesis.net/church/church.htm)

Revisit our list of useful links on systems thinking and the church, previously published in the Emmanuel Research Review #5. http://www.egc.org/research/Issue%205/#links

up†top

Print Resources

Cladis, George. Leading the Team-Based Church. 1st ed. San Francisco : Jossey-Bass, 1999.

Cordeiro, Wayne. Doing Church as a Team. Rev. and exp. ed. Ventura, CA: Regal Books, 2005.

Cosgrove, Charles H., and Dennis Hatfield. Church Conflict: The Hidden System Behind the Fights (Effective Church). Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1994.

Galindo, Israel. The Hidden Lives of Congregtions: Discerning Church Dynamics. Bethesda, MD: Alban Institute, 2004.

Halverstadt, Hugh F. (Hugh Fleece). Managing Church Conflict. 1st ed. Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1991.

Hobgood, William Chris. Welcoming Resistance: A Path to Faithful Ministry. Bethesda, MD: Alban Institute, 2001.

Lencioni, Patrick. The Five Dysfunctions of a Team. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2002.

Lott, David B., and Speed B. Leas. Conflict Management in Congregations. Bethesda, MD: Alban Institute, 2001.

Mains, David R. Healing the Dysfunctional Church Family. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1992.

Mallory, Sue. The Equipping Church. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing Co., 2001.

Maxwell, John C. The 17 Indisputable Laws of Teamwork. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2001.

Oates, Wayne E. The Care of Troublesome People. Bethesda, MD: Alban Institute,1994.

Prior, David. Creating Community. Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 1992.

Richardson, Ronald W. Creating a Healthier Church: Family Systems Theory, Leadership, and Congregational Life. Creative Pastoral Care and Counseling Series. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996.

Schwarz, Christian. Natural Church Development. Carol Stream, IL: ChurchSmart Resources, 1996.

Senge, Peter M., Art Kleiner, Charlotte Roberts, George Roth, Rick Ross, and Bryan Smith, eds. The Dance of Change: The Challenges to Sustaining Momentum in Learning Organizations. New York: Currency / Doubleday, 1999.

Shawchuck, Norman, and Roger Heuser. Managing the Congregation: Building Effective Systems To Serve People. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1996.

Stone, Howard. The Caring Church. 1st Fortress ed. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991.

Van Yperen, Jim. Making Peace: A Guide to Overcoming Church Conflict. Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 2002.

Wagner, E. Glenn. Escape from Church, Inc. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1999.

Warren, Rick. The Purpose-Driven Church. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing Co., 2002.

up†top

The Emmanuel Research Institute

Who we are:

The mission of the Emmanuel Research Institute (ERI), an applied research and consulting service of the Emmanuel Gospel Center in Boston, is to make information available that builds the capacity of urban churches and organizations to make decisions for effective action. Through research, training, and consulting, we equip urban churches and the organizations that support their work to better understand their urban community systems and serve them more effectively.

The Emmanuel Research Institute offers:

ERI is working to strengthen and enhance its capacity to provide the following categories of products and services, some of which are already available and some of which are in development:

We look forward to working with your church or organization. Please contact us if you have specific questions, if you wish to discuss a project proposal, or if you need information.

up†top

Emmanuel Research Review, copyright ©2004, Emmanuel Gospel Center. All rights reserved. For permission to reprint any or all of this newsletter, contact Rudy Mitchell by email or write:

Emmanuel Gospel Center
2 San Juan Street
PO Box 180245
Boston MA 02118-0994
Send your ideas and comments to: To subscribe or unsubscribe:
  • To subscribe, go to the Emmanuel Gospel Center website, and enter your email address in the box on the home page and click Sign Up! Then select the Research Review option and any other email newsletter you would like to receive.

  • To unsubscribe, follow the link at the bottom of this page below the line. If the line and link do not appear, send an email to research@egc.org and ask to be removed.