Gardening by Dynamite or Cultivation

As a student of change theory and practitioner of leading change in pastoral ministry, I’m often curious about the methods leaders use when it comes to leading a group, be that a congregation, school, community or nation, through change. I debate my own success in that effort over many years and with several institutions. Some might say, those who can’t – teach or write! But I’ll leave it to others to evaluate my record of success as a change agent. What I want to reflect on in this article is how and why a very different approach to leading change, than I ever tried to utilize, seems to be in vogue today, and why it may just be the most dangerous leadership process of all.

First let me share the image of a change leader that I am most comfortable with and have tried to employ over my vocational career. It’s the image of a gardener, one who works in the midst of the garden (congregation, people, community or group) as part of them, faithfully doing the things gardeners do: cultivating, trimming and pruning, weeding, feeding, fertilizing, watering, training and harvesting. If a gardener came into his or her garden one day, mid growing season, and went scorched earth, ripping out plants alongside of weeds (I think Jesus cautioned about that), or taking a weed eater to all the vegetation, or applying weed killer to everything; the gardener wouldn’t have anything left to work with. That may well have been the gardeners intent, but the entire garden would become in the matter of a short timeframe, a do-over. Years and seasons of growth, cultivation, produce and discovery would be wiped out all at once. The biosphere of the garden would be in shock. The clear-cut approach would be as if a bomb (sticks of dynamite) had been set off, rendering what had once been, no more.

Some people lead change in this way. They fancy themselves “disrupters” and set about using the only tool they carry in their toolbelt – the tool of disruption – overturning, uprooting, clear-cutting whatever lies in the way. The rationale is often that things have become corrupt or broken beyond tweaking. Maybe, they say, the organization is too far down the lifecycle of decline and it’s better to start fresh, do away with, and go scorched earth. Never mind that this is a garden, and the earth (soil) matters. Never mind that some plants have been very productive, some growth extremely lush, and others at least faithful in their rootage if not always the most abundant.

In my time in ministry I’ve watched as pastoral leaders, feeling they had a mandate to effect change, came into churches and used the “disrupter” blueprint. Often this resulted in tremendous initial protest and conflict, but as the disrupter stubbornly plied his (and they are almost always men) craft, the protests and objections, or those who voiced them, often receded or just left, feeling cut-off from the very garden they’d once flourished in.

Sometimes the result of the above-described scenes did result in terrific change, and one could argue success or production. But it almost always came at the cost of congregational refugees who limped elsewhere (if anywhere) to find shelter. It seems to me that this style of change leadership has again become all the rage. Not just in congregations, though it may still be applied there by some, but in our common national life. It has become popular for leaders to call themselves disruptors or empower others to disrupt in their name. It’s the age-old cleaning house, rooting out the corruption, draining the swamp approach. In the name of this kind of change, budgets get slashed, organizations shuddered, funding frozen, pink slips handed out. All of it is in the name of change, reform, etc. with little or no regard for those plants, inhabitants and species who’ve long called the garden home, thinking they were making meaningful contributions to something bigger and better than just their little patch of earth.

In response to this “blow it up” style of change people begin to protest. Opponents of the approach shine light on the dynamite and the rubble. But will it matter? You see, those who truly aspire to the clear-cut method of change leadership really give very little heed to those who protest. This is particularly true if they feel emboldened by some (real or not) sense of mandate to act. Collateral damage is to be expected, they think, in this work. But outcomes outweigh methods so it’s justified to cast aside any who may be obstacles to the change agenda.

What remains to be seen in this scenario, however, is what the outcome may be. And will that outcome have any place in it for empathy, compassion, or understanding? My guess is very little, if any. This is usually because those who feel they’ve been empowered to wreck havoc (i.e. lead change), whether by an electorate, or church council or search committee, or major donor are generally well shielded from the pain, suffering and disconcerting aftermath such change leaves behind. The ends justifies the means – never mind the barren blight stricken garden patches that dot the landscape. Maybe we can turn them into luxury condominiums!

Why, then, in my humble opinion, is this type of change leadership so dangerous? Aside from the fact that it is reckless and not concerned for all those it bulldozes before it, this type of change too often results in something very un-garden like. It freezes out variety of opinion. It refuses to water the dissenters or apply fertilizer to the lesser voices. This type of change often has only likeness in mind, and that likeness is often in ideology as well as appearance and socioeconomic status.

There’s no “blessed are the poor in spirit” here. It’s more like “blessed are those who agree, say ‘yes’, or just don’t say anything at all”. America has long been described as a melting pot. I’m not sure that’s the best description as it supposes we will all melt into a common result. I think it’s better to think of us as a great tossed salad. And I’ve come to think of the church in this same way – a diversity of ingredients that come together to provide a zest and taste all in one bowl yet built of varied ingredients and the flavor that comes from them.

Let’s come back to the garden – not a garden of astroturf or the artificial new turf made of little pellets of rubber – but an organic, ever growing and changing biosphere that is not static, stagnant or exclusive. Paul said it this way: Jew and Gentile, Male and Female, Slave and Free.

I come from a faith tradition (American Baptist) that has always had a place for voices of dissent. It’s messy being Baptist, I’ve often said. In many ways the Baptist faith tradition was simpatico with the ideal of the American experiment. One vote per one voice. Different viewpoints and opinions welcome. Respect shown to the other, even if they differ from you. If you don’t like celery in your salad, it’s ok to pick it out and leave a pile behind while you enjoy the rest of the salad. Because, you know, someone else does (for whatever reason) like celery.

It takes longer in a diverse and respectful system like that to work through change. It’s quicker to blow it up. But remember this nugget of advice from shopping with your parents in a store filled with fragile things – if you break it, you buy it.

Are those who are cheering on the disruptive changes of today (or silently watching) prepared to own the outcomes? Time will tell.

© Daniel M. Cash 2025