Change can be hard – there is no way around that. But change can seem impossible without a good framework for it. Brad Stulberg, in his book Master of Change (2023), encourages us to trade in a common set of expectations about change for a better, more realistic, and more road-worthy approach.

Most of us are probably familiar with the term homeostasis. That’s the expectation that even though things may fluctuate, dynamics and rhythms will want to return to an earlier version of normalcy. “Homeostasis states that following a disorder event, healthy systems return to stability where they started: X to Y to X. Allostasis states that healthy systems return to stability, but somewhere new: X to Y to Z. Homeostasis is largely a misnomer. Everything is always changing, including us. We are constantly somewhere in the cycle of order, disorder, reorder. Our stability results from our being able to navigate this cycle… the way to stay stable through the process of change is by changing at least to some extent” (p. 9). Whether it is learning a new skill or recovering from a challenging life event, “you achieve stability not by fighting change or getting back to where you were, but rather by skillfully working with change and arriving at someplace new” (p. 9).

Why does this matter? How is changing our view of change going to make a difference?

Well, one way this impacts the church is that as the state of the world has changed, many congregations have kept doing the same things, expecting things to return to “normal” (homeostasis). Many of these churches have seen flux as a reason to freak out or assume that it signifies failure. The world has changed, Christian missions has changed (and is still changing), and that will require us to change (and keep changing) as well. An allostasis model and set of expectations for change can help us do just that.

Many of us likely come from a church background that taught us to aim for how things were in the first century churches. We may have been taught that the only change that is faithful is a return to an earlier state (X to Y to X). Unfortunately, that homeostasis mindset can warp our expectations about change in relation to the church and how she engages the world. If our assumption is that faithfulness = following a lockstep New Testament pattern, then our success is linked to an unreachable homeostasis that is frozen in the past. Actually, though, a close reading of the book of Acts reveals how the early church worked through processes of change and adopted an allostasis posture. They were willing to change to follow the winds of the Holy Spirit, adapting and iterating as the Jesus movement expanded into an increasingly wider world. We see the church changing their approach to change as they adapted to meet the needs of the cultures they met along the way. Our early Christian heroes were willing to change and repent – that was an expression of their faithfulness to Jesus Christ. They had what Stulberg calls “a rugged and flexible identity” (p. 117) and this allowed them to successfully weather change.

Let’s think about one specific powerful example of this. In Acts 6, the leadership of the Jerusalem church realizes there is a problem. When they listened to those who had been marginalized and realized that some had been left out of the distribution of food, they didn’t react defensively, but responded faithfully by coming up with a change that blessed everyone involved. These early church leaders led with their ears – they listened and were not afraid of changing their systems in order to be faithful to God’s call to love those around them well. What a beautiful story of embracing uncomfortable change. Consider how they paid attention to the disenfranchised, in contrast with a franchise type church where everything stays the same and there is not an openness to change. I’m thankful for the book of Acts and how it offers us examples of leaders who, at the individual and institutional level, listen and act on what they hear. Their willingness to change was a sign of their faithfulness.

One resource that we can lean on for embracing that view of change is to regularly tell stories of how we have changed. For example, individual stories of changing your mind and behaviors can feel vulnerable but it is also liberating. And stories of institutions and congregations being willing to repent and change to meet their challenges can stimulate our imaginations for what a range of faithful responses in our own day and time can be.

Change is upon us; what will we do about it? How can we effectively and appropriately make sense of making change? To move into a responding instead of reacting mode, Stulberg’s method and the heuristic he developed is what he calls the “2Ps versus 4Ps: when we react, we panic and pummel ahead; when we respond, we pause, process, plan, and only then proceed” (p. 143). During those times when our anxiety builds because things around us are starting to modulate, fluctuate, or mutate, that is a signal that it is time to slow down and listen. Moving from responding to reacting can help us find joy and possibilities in embracing seemingly simple personal change and even systemic level change. Telling stories about individuals changing their minds is an important resource for developing those muscles and perspectives for moving forward well.

May we be a people who embrace an allostasis instead of a homeostasis mindset about change. And may we see God at work, faithfully leading us and calling us to faithfully follow Christ even in the midst of change!

For more on just how much the world has changed and what that means for participation in mission, check out this interview of Dan Bouchelle on the Radically Christian Podcast (https://radicallychristian.com/developing-a-global-perspective-with-dan-bouchelle/).

Changing Our Approach to Change