10.  Don't insist on unanimity.
In 2 Corinthians 5, Paul mentions that the Corinthian church had punished a man who had been caught in sexual immorality---and that they had done so by a "majority."  Presumably, the fact that Paul had to use the word "majority" means that some of the members of the church voted against that action, and that they were, finally, simply outvoted.

There's nothing unbiblical about outvoting people.

During the reform of Third Avenue, we received advice from at least a couple of people that a church should never move forward on important issues unless everyone is in agreement, unless there is unanimity.  Given the Bible's exhortations to church unity, there's obviously some initial appeal to that advice.  After all, if the Holy Spirit wants a church to move in a certain direction, surely he'll lead all the members of that church to be happy with that direction, right?  And don't love, compassion, and mutual submission mean that a church ought to wait until all of its members can be unified in taking a certain step?

I can understand the appeal of that argument, but at the end of the day I don't think it holds up.  That's for a few reasons, the easiest and best of which is simply Paul's use of the word "majority."  He was quite happy for the Corinthian church to move forward with something less than perfect unity, because moving forward was the right thing to do.  Besides that, there's also the simple fact that we still live in a fallen world, and it is thus a category mistake---a forgetting that we haven't yet been glorified---to think that Christians will always come to agreement, even on very important matters.

In all likelihood, there will come a time in a process of reform when all the arguments have been laid out, all attempts at persuasion have been made, all reasonable compromises have been worked through, and yet still some members of the church are determined to oppose the reform.  What do you do then?  Do you simply press forward and outvote the people who are opposed, or do you put the reform on ice and wait?  Which of those is the more loving thing to do?

Let me make an argument that love means pressing forward.  Waiting may very well seem like a kind and loving thing to do for the opposing person.  But you also have to remember that your responsibility is not simply to that person--it is to the entire church.  And if the reforms you are introducing are biblical and good for the church as a whole, then love for the whole church compels you not to hold up reforms that would be good for them simply for the sake of a few. 

Besides, love ought to take a long view, and if these are good reforms, then they will be good also for those who are opposed to them, even if they don't recognize it right now.  At Third Avenue, there is one particular older couple who endured the reforms we made, pretty staunchly opposed to them the whole time.  But God bless them, they stuck it out, stayed in the church, and now even tearfully thank God for what he has done in their church---and in their lives.  This dear and wonderful brother told me just a few weeks ago in fact that he has grown more as a Christian in the last few years than in the whole rest of his life.  Pressing on with the reform of the church, even over his objections, turned out to be one of the most spiritually beneficial things we could have done for him.

As in so many of these points, being willing to press forward on something less than a unanimous vote is a matter of remembering that you are ultimately working for the good of the whole church.  As a shepherd, your responsibility is for the whole flock, and if one reluctant sheep decides to stay in the desert, loving that  sheep does not mean you keep the whole thirsty flock there with him.  Maybe it does mean that you trek back to the desert to go find that lost sheep.  But any shepherd worth his salt will get the rest of the flock to the pasture first.