One of the things Interim Ministers are referred to is that we are “agents of change.” And a common question that we often ask our colleagues – and they of us – after a certain amount of time during their tenure has passed, is… “How are people reacting to change?”

“Positively,” is often the response – because the people who generally speak up tend to be the ones who were wanting those changes. They are typically of a crowd that has been waiting, perhaps even praying, for certain elements of change and growth to take place in their surroundings, their experience, and their ministries. And in their perception (perhaps even in reality), those changes are beginning to happen.

But what about those “dissident” voices, quiet or otherwise? What are we to make of those who do not support change (or hesitate to embrace it) and hold on to tradition as they understand it? What about those congregation members who feel they must resist the trends toward deconstructing their experience of worship and faith, fearing that it will only be reconstructed with what some would describe as post-modern or ‘alternative’ expressions? What do we say to these supposed nay-sayers and protectionists?

I say, thank God for them.

The very nature of change is often controversial, sometimes even adversarial, and can promote a dichotomy of both support and disagreement, of both enthusiasm and antagonism. We should not be afraid of these seemingly conflicting elements of change or transition, as they are not only normal – they are healthy.

Times of change are often referred to as “the days when the devil plays;” and this concept is in truth a two-faced paradigm. On one hand, those who engage the anticipated change, with excitement and a sense of renewed purpose, view those who don’t as stagnating the church and holding back the hand of God. But those who don’t welcome such change often fear that the integrity of our faith, our systems of belief, and our valued traditions may wane – as relativism scours our nation and our churches in this country and in our generation. Both perspectives are neither fully right nor fully wrong – but both, definitely, are needed. Neither is able to fully capture the truth of what, finally, the church will look like once a period of transition is completed. But neither, I would propose, is able to see that truth without giving consideration to the other’s perspective. Very often it is the balance – and collaboration – between the two, that brings about the best of results.

It is inevitable that, ultimately, change and transition will happen wherever it is wanted – though sometimes on a much different timetable than those who are eager for it may wish. We know this even when studying secular history. But the most healthy – and indeed, the most godly – of changes in the church setting are those in which the old and the new are somehow both given honor, in which the traditional is shown respect for what it has offered up until now, and in which new ideas are being considered and eventually embraced with energy and a sense of expectation. In the best of situations, both somehow merge to take on a whole new life and expression.

And to that end, may we forge on, at this junction of our Interim discovery time.…for if we are sure of nothing else regarding the will of God, we can be sure of this: that showing one another love and respect is His will. As it is our mandate.