All churches and ministry organizations require periodic self-evaluation and change in order to keep up with the challenges of culture. The fact that constant change goes with ministry can be seen as a positive thing because it requires that we exercise faith in the God who has not only foreseen the changes, but has already provided solutions to the new problems and situations which arise. During those times in which ministry must be evaluated, certain fundamental questions must be addressed, including:
Is change necessary?
What types of changes should be made?
When should changes be implemented?
Who is responsible for implementing changes?
How will the need for change be communicated to the congregation or constituency?
These and other issues are among the considerations involved in positive change for more effective ministry. The following are diagnostic questions to discover what types of changes are required or desired and how these changes should take place:
What strengths do we have as a church (organization) which we can affirm and celebrate?
What major weaknesses do we have as a church (organization) which we should avoid or at least minimize?
Are there sins we must confess as a church (organization)?
What are the key church (organizational) health issues we must address?
Is the leadership unified and committed to addressing the core issues necessary for positive change or are they content to do business “as usual”?
Do the majority of our congregation (constituency) desire to address the core issues necessary for positive change or are they content to do business “as usual”?
If the people have the desire for change, do they have the will to implement needed changes?
What will be the financial, personal and morale costs for changes to be made?
What tangible benefits can the congregation (constituency) anticipate if changes are made?
What are some reasonable goals we must begin to achieve in the next six months (twelve months, eighteen months, etc)?
How should these goals be prioritized?
Under what circumstances should the timetable for goal achievement be altered?
Which existing leaders will see these goals through to completion?
What new leadership positions must be created and staffed to bring these goals to completion?
How will leadership know when goals are completed (are goals sufficiently clear and measurable)?
When should a new stage of evaluation begin to adjust to or anticipate further change for more effective ministry?
Are we proactive or reactive in dealing with change? Should that mindset change?
Michael Bogart
