Mike Bonem says ministry plans are paralysed when church leaders ignore the mindset of their congregation

by Jeremy Halcrow

Few people dispute that our churches must change. Regular church attendance in Australia has halved in the past 50 years. At the same time, the National Church Life Survey has found that the vast majority of churchgoers rarely, if ever, invite people to their church. Yet, overall, there has been little urgency to address these trends.

Late last year, about 440 people, representing 93 Sydney and Newcastle parishes, attended the Mike Bonem seminars on ‘transforming your church’, organised by the Georges River Region.

The seminar was designed to build on the momentum generated by Sydney Synod’s endorsement of the ‘ten per cent’ goal. It was hoped the enthusiasm of Synod would be translated into the parish context.

With his Southern Baptist connections and broad Texan drawl, some locals initially dismissed the seminars fearing ‘another church growth guru from America’. But those who attended, including Archbishop Jensen, were surprised by Mike’s radically different approach.

Bonem, after a long career with McKinsey – the world’s largest strategic consultants – is now working with Baptists in Houston mapping a path to church growth that retains ‘spiritual and relational vitality’ as the centre-piece.

He has none of the usual pretence of ‘church growth gurus’ who use spurious biblical proof-texting to justify their models. Bonem’s approach is, ‘this is the current wisdom in the business world ... take it or leave it as appropriate in your church context’. His honesty is refreshing.

Bonem’s main thesis is that transformation in a church cannot occur unless clergy and laity are heading in the same direction. The desire of a church leader to make changes often comes unstuck because a proportion of the laity simply don’t have the same ‘mind-set’ about ministry.

Each of us has a different ‘mental model’ of ministry which we use to judge whether a minister is doing a good job. For example, some think their minister is a ‘teacher’, while others think in terms of a ‘shepherd’, ‘priest’, or ‘manager’. Key to establishing a new vision for a church is working through these different mental models with the entire parish.

It is when these ‘mindset’ issues have not been effectively explored that change is paralysed. And the trap that church leaders fall into when confronted by such lay resistance is to label the recalcitrants as ‘traditionalists’ who are immature in their faith or opposed to the gospel.

Bonem helpfully points out that ‘traditions’ or ‘habits’ not only can be good, but are necessary to the functioning of a church. For example, churches need to have their services at a set time each Sunday so people know when to turn up!

The important issue, says Bonem, is not to dismiss ‘tradition’ but to unpack the reasons why people value those ‘traditional’ ways of doing things. It is then that a church can move forward with a common mind.

Bonem explains that companies that handle change well have learnt how to preserve their ‘DNA’ – those handful of values that are non-negotiable. These companies have a strong sense of who they ‘are’. Bonem says this is a principle that churches find difficult, often ending up with a huge theological core that is non-negotiable.

“Everything can become a theological issue within a church,” Bonem observes. “We can be scared to lose even those things we know hamper our ministry because they have grown to be part of us.”

Bonem’s analysis is drawn from systems thinking. This approach emphasises that a congregation is a social system made up of complex interconnections that are always changing. A church, Bonem says, is ‘an organism not an organisational machine’.

The strength of this approach is that it recognises that every aspect of congregational life is connected. A change in one place will effect everything else. This is why churches often make their situation worse when they ‘solve’ one problem.

But more importantly it reminds us that models from other churches can not be imported. In Bonem’s words, each congregation ‘has its own personality’.
“We need a wholistic view,” Bonem says. “We can not just think about changing programs. Our past heritage is very, very important.”

Bonem’s answer is not to suggest a ‘model’ for mission but to provide a roadmap for transforming a church. Each congregation’s journey will be different.
“The mission – which you get from the Bible - is not negotiable. But it will look different in every congregation,” he says.

Key to this ‘transformation’ process is developing a ‘vision community’ made of up of between 10 to 25 people – not only representing different congregations in a church - but reflecting the ethnic, gender and age diversity in the community the church seeks to reach. The advantage of this approach is that it treats vision-setting as an ongoing process rather than a task. It also means the vision is less likely to be ‘out-dated’ from the moment it is signed off on. And church members will not feel the vision has been imposed on them.

Within this ongoing ‘change process’, the church leaders’ job is to be a ‘team leader’, who does not provide all the answers, but creates a sense of urgency.
“Energy for change is generated by contrasting God’s ideal for the church with an accurate perception of current reality,” he said. “Ministers need to tell people the ‘why’. Why do we need to change?”

At this point, Bonem’s distinctions between ‘teams’/‘working groups’ and ‘dialogue’/‘discussion’ is very helpful. Plans for revamping ministry often fail because parish councils are used as the vision-setting body. In most church’s parish councils have learnt to operate as ‘working groups’ where consensus is reached through debate. Bonem argues that this approach rarely results in a vision that wins the necessary broad-based enthusiasm in the church.

Zac Veron, rector of St James’, Carlton, saw his church enter the process four years ago. He believes Bonem’s approach helped St James’ sustain growth beyond the usual initial spurt.  “People are more likely to be fired up if its part of them,” he said. “They will give more time, give more money, and give more energy.”