The Unfreezing of the Christian Church

Unfreezing is an aspect of Kurt Lewin’s force field analysis model. This is a model of “systemwide change that helps change agents diagnose the forces that drive and restrain proposed organizational change” (McShane and Von Glinow, 2009, p. 488). Unfreezing refers to the “first part of the change process whereby the change agent produces disequilibrium between the driving and restraining forces” (p. 489).

Systemic organizational change is rarely, if ever, achieved without conflict. This is true in churches and it is true in business. This process of change has been shown to have identifiable agents that participate in organizational movement from the status quo to a desired condition or state of affairs. The preeminent model that describes systemic change is Kurt Lewin’s “force field analysis.” This model assists in diagnosing “the forces that drive and restrain proposed organizational change” (McShane and Von Glinow, 2008, p. 488).

On the one side of this model, there are “driving forces” that are pushing “organizations toward a new state of affairs” (p. 488). On the other side, resisting the change, there are “restraining forces” that are striving gallantly to maintain the status quo. Carol Bartz (2009), the new chief executive officer of Yahoo, Inc. has witnessed this firsthand. She has correctly observed that organizations frequently can “get in the way of innovation” (“Question of Management”). Often the restraining forces are fearful of change, and automatically assume a hostile stance toward anything new or different. This hostility drives behavior that ends up restraining, or attempting to restrain, the winds of change.  

Within organizational settings, change cannot occur without an “unfreezing” of the status quo. A distortion must be introduced into the organization in order for an unfreezing to occur. The unfreezing process begins as (1) the driving forces for change become more prevalent, (2) when restraining forces are diminished, or (3) as a result of a combination of both of these occurrences (McShane and Von Glinow, 2008, p. 489).

For instance, driving forces for change become more pronounced when someone new is inserted into a key point within the structure of the organization. In a church setting, this can occur when a new pastor or elder is called to serve the congregation. This person may, knowingly or not, begin an unfreezing process that moves the organization in a new direction. “Change rarely occurs by increasing driving forces alone, however, because the restraining forces often adjust to counterbalance the driving forces” (p. 492).

Restraining forces can be diminished when key leaders or managers within an organization relocate, retire, or pass away. If a person was influential within the organization, these types of events can easily begin to move the group in a new direction. If restraining forces are declining as driving forces for change are increasing, then movement from the status quo to a new condition is probably inevitable. Thus, the process of unfreezing begins.

The unfreezing process can create great tension and disharmony within the organization. The disequilibrium that results can generate a considerable amount of stress for those who desire no movement from the existing state of affairs. Those in positions of authority must handle this instability with great care and gracious understanding for those who are uncomfortable with the movement to a new condition. Disgruntled and disenchanted people, even if in the minority, can be a great hindrance to the growth of any organization. Effective resistance to change can take many forms that undermine the goals of the leaders who are trying to move the organization to a better position in order to accomplish their mission.

Rather than resenting the reality of resistance, leaders and managers would do well to consider the brute fact that many people oppose change simply because they fear the process of change itself. The following six items are forces that resist organizational change, adapted from McShane and Von Glinow (2008). These forces are manifest to some degree in all organizational settings, even, regrettably, in churches:

(1)  Direct costs. People tend to block actions that they perceive will cost them something. This cost is weighed socially, economically, or psychologically.

(2)  Saving face. Some resist change as a political strategy in order to enhance their personal reputation within the organization.

(3)  Fear of the unknown. People resist change out of worry that they will not be able to properly adjust and acclimate themselves to the new environment.

(4)  Breaking routines. People are creatures of habit. They like to stay within their comfort zones by continuing routine role patterns that make life predictable. Changes within their workplace or place of worship are viewed with as much gravitas as changes that take place within their own living rooms. Also, people simply do not wish to invest the time and energy necessary in order to learn new role patterns.

(5)  Incongruent organizational systems. Social and psychological rewards accompany certain role patterns within any organization. People do not wish to alter such well-known unspoken social structures.

(6)  Incongruent team dynamics. Groups develop and enforce conformity to a set of norms that guide behavior. However, conformity to existing team/group norms may discourage people from accepting organizational change. In the eyes of those who resist change, new norms that conflict with the status quo must be eliminated (p. 490-91).

Progressive-minded leaders within the organization must create a climate that cultivates change. For this to occur, the leaders must lay a foundation of instruction that teaches people about the necessity of change in a world of constant movement. If the people don’t see the need for change, increased resistance will overwhelm any purposeful increase in driving forces and a continuance of the status quo will be the end result.

The visionary leader is one who can anticipate cultural forces and see the need for the organization to adapt to face the new challenges that lie ahead. In churches, such leaders must, through their teaching, counseling, and personal interaction with the people in their congregation, create a sense of crisis and urgency for change. This must be done carefully and over time, but it must be done if the church is to stay properly contextualized and relevant to the culture it is attempting to reach for the cause of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

This does not mean that the church must become “of” the world in order to reach it (cf. John 15:18; 17:16), for the Gospel message possesses universal relevance and, by its very nature as God-given propositional truth, unchanging. However, church leadership must recognize that the church is to be “in” the world (cf. John 17:11, 18) in the sense that we are still here on earth (for we were not instantly translated into the presence of the Lord when we were saved) so that we may carry out our task as ambassadors of the King until He returns to inaugurate His reign in all of its fullness. Being “in” the world as ambassadors necessarily implies that we are to be constantly reaching out to communicate the Gospel in ways that are understandable and meaningful to the culture around us.

For the church to remain static in its outreach and methods of communicating with the culture is to stubbornly stand opposed the effective advancement of the Gospel of our Lord. Paul’s charge to “not be conformed to this world” (Romans 12:2) simply does not apply to the effective, relevant communication of the Gospel by Holy Spirit-empowered and –sensitive saints who are pursuing what is good and eschewing the wicked elements within culture. Paul’s own preaching on Mars Hill in Acts 17 displays a willingness to confront the world with the Gospel on its own turf, utilizing fleeting and changing elements of localized culture (which is itself shaped by those who are created in the image of God) as touchstones for the unchanging truth of the Gospel. Therefore, culturally relevant evangelism cannot be what the Holy Spirit is forbidding in Romans 12:2.

The church never needs to change (its message) but always needs to change (the form that the message takes). Christian leaders must refuse to be defeated by the familiar rhythms of the church’s existence. This merely condemns the church to continue down the same failed path as our most recent predecessors. [1] The solution cannot be to simply shout the message louder. We must change the way we are delivering the message. It is the task of the men whom God has called to pastor our churches to constantly and consistently lay the foundation for effective change within their respective congregations.

McShane and Von Glinow (2008) point out that “effective change occurs by unfreezing the current situation, moving to a desired condition, and then refreezing the system so that it remains in this desired state” (p. 489). In light of what has been said above, any refreezing that occurs should be understood as contingent and temporary.

The church needs to recognize that we are sojourners and pilgrims in this world (1 Peter 2:11). As such, we need to stop building immutable, permanent edifices that testify to the methodologies and religion of past generations. We need to stop sitting around pining about the supposed glory days of Christian yore and whining that the culture has moved on from Churchianity to something else. We need to stop practicing a dead Nostaligianity [2] and embrace a living, vibrant, New Testament Christianity.

Our post-church culture has moved so far beyond these older forms of the expression of the Christian faith that it no longer understands or even values them. My prayer is that church leaders of all ages would recognize the value and necessity of moving their congregations in directions where we can make the Gospel make sense again in our culture. My prayer is for a great “unfreezing” to occur in our churches. It is my conviction that unless such an unfreezing takes place, we will not see Gospel revival again in our lifetimes.

References:

The Holy Bible, English Standard Version. (2006). Version 2.1. Accordance Bible Software, Version 8.2.3, 2009. 

Lindsey, B. (2009). Nostalgianomics: Liberal economists pine for days no liberal should want to revisit. The Wall Street Journal. Available: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124508075585515437.html [24 June 2009].

McShane, S. L. & Von Glinow, M. A. (2008). Organizational Behavior: Emerging Realities for the Workplace Revolution. New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

A Question of Mangement: Carol Bartz on how Yahoo’s organizational structure got in the way of innovation. (2009). The Wall Street Journal. Available: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203431004574196080698220124.html [24 June 2009].

Shalit, W. (2009). Delighting in dust bunnies: The elusive quest for domestic order. The Wall Street Journal. Available: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204482304574217822376214350.html [24 June 2009].

---

[1] I owe the structure and wording of this and the previous sentence to a portion of Wendy Shalit’s “Delighting in Dust Bunnies: The elusive quest for domestic order.”

[2] I came up with the term “Nostalgianity” after reading Brink Lindsey’s “Nostalgianomics: Liberal economists pine for days no liberal should want to revisit.”

Note: Illustrations are from McShane and Von Glinow’s Organizational Behavior.

Sin, Creation, and the Gospel

Sin, Creation, and the Gospel

Dr. John P. Davis

 

            A biblical view of the created world and of the Christian’s relationship to the created world depends upon how one views sin in relation to creation. In Genesis 1-2 the created order is designated as good. Human sin does not exist within God’s handiwork. “Sin, an alien invasion of creation, is completely foreign to God’s purposes for his creation” (Wolters, 48). When sin entered through Satan’s deception, all of creation became ensnared in the throes of abnormality and distortion. However, Scripture does not teach that the goodness of creation was abolished by the fall or that creation is now identified with sin.          

            It is obvious to all that the fall affected the created world, culture, and the institutions of creation such as marriage, bodily functions such as sexuality and eating, etc. Wolter’s distinction between the structure and direction of creation is helpful in understanding the relationship of sin to creation. Structure refers to the order of creation as God intended it to be. Structure reflects the law of creation that the very nature (essence, substance) of something is what God created it to be. So we can think of things, humans, and institutions such as marriage in light of their structure and see their creational goodness. For instance, it is not the human, as a created being that is evil, but evil has distorted the way God intended humans to be. The created world is not evil but sin brings about the distortion of what God created. Sin is an alien invader into God’s creation.

            When we speak of the direction of creation, we refer to how God’s order of creation is either distorted through the fall or it is redeemed and restored in Christ. When the biblical writers use the term “world” in a negative sense (Col. 2:8; Rom. 12:2; James 1:27; 2 Peter 2:20), they mean “the totality of unredeemed life dominated by sin outside of Christ.” Christians who delimit some areas of the created world by calling them “worldly” or “secular” make a grave mistake, as if there is no worldliness in the church or there can be no holiness in the arts or politics. Many Christians have abandoned the “secular” realm and “consequently” the forces of evil often rule. Humans still have responsibility for the created order (structure) but this can be distorted by the fall or it can be redeemed and restored through Christ (direction).

            From the fall of man on, all of future history and revelation is redemptive in nature. The effects of sin are so pervasive and powerful that only a divine solution will suffice. When you move from the fall in Genesis 3 to chapter 4, you immediately realize that sin has passed from parent to child. The story of Cain and Able is not told to “warn us of the dangers of jealousy and

hatred. Rather it shows the solidarity of the human race in Adam’s sin (Romans 5:12-21); sin has been passed on to the next generation. Moreover, it demonstrates the alienation between an individual, his brother, and his God” (Vangemeren 87).

            The pervasive and powerful effects of sin as revealed in the history of Genesis 4-11 prepare us for God’s sovereign intervention in the call of Abraham and the series of covenants that anticipate Jesus Christ, God’s only solution for sin. All the distortion of God’s created order (structure) and all distortion because of the fall (direction) are ultimately restored through God’s Anointed, Jesus Christ. The complete restoration awaits the Consummation when sin and its effects will be removed (2 Peter 3:10-13; Revelation 21:1-5).

            This conviction that only Christ can fully restore a fallen creation and that only Christ can redeem and restore a fallen life keeps us dependent upon God and involved in prayer, evangelism, and loving acts of justice and mercy. While we continue to bring Christ’s redemption and restoration to bear upon the present created order, we do so knowing that the kingdom rule of Jesus Christ and the removal of sin is the ultimate solution.

            If man is basically good, or at least perfectible, apart from spiritual renewal, then the Christian approach to reformation of society will inevitably be primarily through government-sponsored education and civil legislation. If men are dead in trespasses and sins, darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God, because of the ignorance that is in them, then inevitably the Christian approach to society will be primarily through prayer and evangelism. If the sin that is in the world is mere creaturely limitation, ignorance, poor heredity, or bad government, the conclusions are the same. The Christian approach to society will be mainly by education and legislation or perhaps attempted improvement of heredity through biological manipulation of conception.

            But if the sin of the world is a form of bond-slavery to evil, evil in man himself constantly encouraged by demonic evil in the world itself, then the Christian’s hope for cleansing the world’s educational and legislative processes will be realistic as well as real. He will not expect to change the processes of society for the better apart from doing something to make men better.

            This is to say that the Christian is certainly to approve indirect Christian social action through legislative and general educative processes. He also knows hopes for enduring improvement from these quarters are chimerical apart from bringing sizeable numbers of men into spiritual enlightenment. This is to say that prayer and evangelism in the context of vital evangelical Christianity must remain always at the heart of Christian social action. (Culver 1972, 115).