Leading From the Middle

A Noble Yet Unrealistic Proposal
Their budget request was noble, but it wasn’t reasonable—at least not for the church’s current context. The church was dying. In fact, it fit more into the category described in Revelation 3:3: “You have a name that you are alive, but you are dead.” Despite the church’s declining state, the young pastor was valiantly trying to resurrect an emphasis on missions. While most of the congregation was not on board and tensions were high, the pastor had gathered an enthusiastic pocket of support from a few younger men who were now deacons.
The Budget Conflict
This small group of supporters was preparing to propose significant budget changes in the deacon’s meeting. They wanted to allocate nearly $40,000 for local missions and outreach, in addition to the church’s existing contributions to the cooperative program. Their passion for making an impact on the local community for the Kingdom of God was commendable. However, there was one major problem: the church didn’t have the financial means to accommodate their request. In fact, it was struggling just to meet its current budget.
When the pastor and the two supportive deacons presented their recommendation, the chairman of the deacons—who wielded far more influence than the pastor or his allies—became furious. His face turned red as he looked at the deacon who had made the proposal and asked, “Have you lost your mind?” Immediately, a heated argument broke out, consuming the remainder of the meeting.
The Divisive Aftermath
After months of debate, a compromise was reached. The budget recommendation was reduced to $20,000 and brought before the church for approval. The proposal narrowly passed, but not without intense debate and frustration. Many members struggled to understand the need for such a drastic shift in the budget. Instead of embracing the vision and supporting the work, the congregation became even more divided over the church’s direction and future.
While the pastor and his supporters had good intentions, they represented only a small percentage of the congregation. Some members would never accept any vision that conflicted with their own agendas. However, the majority of the church was not opposed to outreach and missions; they were simply experiencing sticker shock at the financial changes and the pace of transformation. The pastor’s mistake was focusing all his energy on casting vision to the early adopters rather than engaging the majority who adopt change at a slower pace.
Leading from the Middle
Understanding Congregational Groups
In Episode 250 of the Replant Bootcamp podcast, host JimBo Stewart and guest Josh Ellis discuss the concept of “Leading from the Middle,” which Ellis developed from various leadership theories. He credits Everett Rogers’ Diffusion of Innovations for much of his understanding of this approach. According to Ellis, any organization—including a church—consists of three groups:
- Front Group (Scouts): Early adopters who are eager to move forward. They require clear direction and resources but do not need convincing.
- Middle Group: The majority, who adopt change at a steady pace. This group is crucial for long-term success and must be intentionally engaged.
- Back Group: Those who are more resistant or slower to embrace change, often because they need time to heal, learn, or adapt.
Six Essential Elements for Leading Change
Ellis also identifies six essential elements for leading change effectively. First, the leader must build trust. The back group must feel secure and included. There will likely be dissension if they feel the church is leaving them behind.
The leader must also effectively cast vision: It is crucial for all groups, especially the front group, to maintain clear objectives and direction. It will also be essential for the leader to equip the middle group and prepare them for future leadership roles. The leader must also provide the necessary tools, especially important for the front group.
The leader will also need to encourage all groups, particularly the back group and the front group that is dealing with initial pushback. The leader must also serve well by showing genuine care and support, making the back group feel valued and appreciated.
Ellis’ teaching is essential in leading change because there will be early adopters in nearly all groups who are hungry for change. However, they typically don’t represent the majority of the congregation. If a pastor leading change—especially in a revitalization context—bases the congregation’s willingness to accept change on the early adopters, they will lose influence and possibly divide the church.
Why This Matters for Church Revitalization
Ellis’ insights are invaluable for leading change, as early adopters exist in every group but do not represent the majority. A pastor leading change—especially in a revitalization context—must not assume the congregation’s willingness based on early adopters alone. Doing so can lead to loss of influence and even division within the church.
Resources for Leading Major Change
Jeff Iorg’s Approach to Change Management
Another excellent resource for pastors navigating change is Jeff Iorg’s Leading Major Change in Your Ministry. Iorg’s book provides a biblical and strategic approach to implementing change while addressing the challenges that come with it.
The book underscores the necessity of change in ministry, emphasizing that leaders must be proactive rather than reactive. Iorg offers a framework for identifying when change is needed, effectively communicating the vision, and guiding a congregation through the transition process with wisdom and care. He stresses the importance of prayer, vision-casting, and managing resistance while ensuring that the transformation aligns with God’s mission.
For ministry leaders navigating revitalization, these insights provide a roadmap for fostering unity, building trust, and implementing meaningful change while avoiding unnecessary division.
Conclusion: The Roadmap for Lasting Change
For ministry leaders navigating revitalization, these insights provide a roadmap for fostering unity, building trust, and implementing meaningful change while avoiding unnecessary division.