Social Processes in Church Life PDF

Part 4 Organisation and the church 11 Social processes in church life Social Organisation processesand...

Part 4 Organisation and the church 11 Social processes in church life Social Organisation processesand in the church church life QUESTIONS FOR MINISTRY Why do people in our church seem to act alike, speak alike, dress alike? Do people outside the church feel they have to conform to ‘our’ style if they join us? Are people inside the church feeling this same pressure to conform? What can be done about the negative attitudes in our church towards Christians of other churches and denominations? And what can be done about their negative attitudes towards us? Why does our ‘religious’ style of speaking tend towards producing pat answers to searching questions? Churches are made up of groups of people, and groups behave in ways that are dis- tinct from how individuals behave on their own. Human beings are inherently social, relational beings. We are not immune to the influence of others. It is normal for groups of people to develop a shared identity, and to influence the thoughts and behaviour of their members. Social processes can influence the church towards virtuous ends; they can also move us towards a collective outworking of sin. Social psychology has been studying the social aspect of human life for a number of decades, and many insights are applicable to the church. Conformity Conformity is evident when individuals change their own opinion to agree with the opinion of the majority of the group to which they belong, even though no direct request to comply has been made. Churches can be very conforming places, beyond the central matters of faith. This happens simply because of our desire for approval from others, and our reliance upon others to confirm our own uncertain thoughts. In a famous series of experiments, the social psychologist Solomon Asch asked seven subjects to take part in an experiment ostensibly about visual perception. Each 208 Organisation and the church S A B C Figure 11.1 Stimulus cards drawn to scale similar to those used in Asch’s experiment. S is the sample card; A,B,C are the comparisons (Asch 1956). participant had to make a series of judgements about which line in a group of three (A, B, C) was identical in size to the initial line they had been shown (Asch 1951, 1956); example stimuli are shown in Figure 11.1. It was an easy task. A control group of subjects, who made their judgements on this and similar series of lines individually, made virtually no errors (thirty-five of thirty-seven control subjects made no errors at all). The second group of subjects, the experimental group, were asked to sit in a semicircle of seven subjects and to give their judgement out loud in the group. In actuality, six of the subjects were under- cover confederates, secretly instructed to give certain answers. Only one subject was a real subject, and that person was placed second to last in the line. The confederate subjects had been instructed to give right answers on six series of lines (the first two series, and four later series). For the rest of the twelve ‘critical’ series, the confeder- ates were instructed to give wrong answers. This set-up was repeated many times with different groups of subjects. The question of interest was: what does the ‘real’ subject do when everyone else gives wrong answers? The results showed that, in the experimental condition, 37 per cent of the judge- ments made by subjects were erroneous. It appears that these subjects conformed to the incorrect judgements of others. This is in stark contrast to the very few errors made by the control group (0.7 per cent) who made their judgements alone. There were differences between individuals, but the experiment showed that conformity is quite widespread. It is quite normal for people to change their opinions, even dis- torting their own judgement, when they are at variance with others. Of the 123 real subjects, 28 per cent conformed to others’ judgements much of the time, 25 per cent never conformed, and the rest (47 per cent) conformed some of the time. There are two sorts of social influences that make people conform, the normative and the informational. The reward of group membership or the fear of being rejected by the group are examples of normative influences. Gaining new reliable information about the world through the other members of the group is an infor- mational influence. Both factors influence conformity in different ways, in varying proportions, according to different situations.  Social processes in church life 209 Box 11.1 Factors influencing conformity 1 How large the group is The more people share an opinion, the more that opinion is likely to seem right. 2 How important the group is to you A group of people who are important to you will have more normative influence; it matters whether they reject or accept you. 3 The person’s own concern with being liked Personality does have an effect; some people are more sensitive to this than others. Women are shown to conform more in face-to-face situations. 4 How ambiguous the stimulus is The more ambiguous the stimulus, the more people will rely on others to tell them what it’s all about. 5 How expert/authoritative others are perceived to be The opinions of people judged inadequate to the task can more easily be ignored. 6 Whether or not there is a dissenter in the camp A dissenter who offers you social support is a powerful ‘shield’ against the pressure of a majority. In the light of the above factors, churches can be described as having many or all of the factors that lead to a high level of conformity. Churches are made up of a medium to large number of diverse individuals. The opinions of fellow-Christians usually matter to church members. A sense of belonging to the church body is often very important to people, and of course many come to church because they are aware of their own spiritual need, and are hoping to find acceptance. Also, the stimulus (God) is fairly ambiguous, and clergymen or church leaders are considered to be the experts. (Elevated pulpits and church ritual often reinforce the idea that the clergy are ‘six feet above contradiction’!) Dissenters in church or Christian groups can be sidelined or demoted; often they eventually leave. It is not surprising that many people feel it is best to conform in churches, not simply in essential matters of faith, but also in non-essential matters such as the way people talk, dress, act and think, at least while in church. Although there are not yet any experimental studies of confor- mity in churches, there are a number of observation studies of churches (where the researcher observes what happens naturally) that attest to this tendency. What does conformity in church look like? Church cultures display ‘group mem- bership badges’ (GMBs). These are ways of demonstrating ‘I belong’, ‘I have this type of spirituality’. It is easy to identify the GMBs of some of the more expressive Christian denominations: the ‘Amen hallelujah’ of the Pentecostals, the ‘Are you 210 Organisation and the church saved?’ of the evangelicals, the genuflectings of Roman Catholics, or the infectious habit of the charismatics of praying using ‘just’ and ‘really’ throughout and a member of the Trinity as punctuation (e.g. ‘Lord I really just pray that you would just pour out your blessing Father just really fill Dave up to overflowing Lord’). Other churches display their GMBs simply through the absence of these expres- sions: ‘We don’t do that sort of thing here’. Not raising one’s hands in the air can be just as much a GMB as raising one’s hands in the air. These actions become very politically charged. What other people do or don’t do in church puts an invisible pressure on church members to do likewise. Groups of people tend to develop unwritten, yet pervasive, sets of norms. The norms of some churches might be: be nice; always smile; never say ‘No’; pretend everything is OK. The norms of other churches may be: behave with decorum; religion is a private affair; everything should remain as it is. While such norms are simply social products, resulting from group behaviour, in church they can take on a religious gloss, and serve as markers of ‘our’ brand of spirituality. Conformity brings with it its own rewards. If a person cannot enculturate into a group, they will remain on the fringe. The ideal is a balance between being able to be part of a group, and having the freedom of personal integrity. The negative effect of conformity in churches is that, over time, expressions of faith that were once genuine begin to feel mandatory; they become stale. But people feel the need to demonstrate these GMBs in order to belong. The ‘way we do things in this church’ takes on a moral imperative: it cannot be challenged because it signifies the existence of the group. In fact, groups, whether they are overtly religious or not, tend to develop their own implicit religion, so powerful is the succour that a group can provide to the individual. The group can function as a deity in its own right (Reed 1978). Our Christian heritage does provide us with the means to deal with conformity in churches. The Gospels describe Jesus standing against the ground swell of enthu- siasm that followed his healings and miracles. With stringent requirements and bewildering, sometimes offensive, statements, Jesus made it difficult for people to follow him except out of a conscienced moral choice. He would ‘not allow them to make him king’. Jesus is described as forgoing potential disciples in favour of pre- serving their integrity. Churches need to find the courage to follow suit.  Social processes in church life 211 Box 11.2 Suggestions for affirmative action to curb conformity Talking about it Conformity is so ‘normal’ it can be invisible. Talking about it blows its cover. Discuss as a church What are our norms of behaviour, our GMBs? Are they the norms we want? Creative changes As habits and traditions ossify, group norms are more fervently adhered to. Making creative changes in church practice can help break up confor- mity to social norms. Theology of grace Unconditional love strengthens people to know their own worth, and to have the courage to disagree when appropriate. Admitting weakness Clergy can be perceived as authoritative, always right, or not brooking dissent. Admitting fallibility reduces an over-reliance on the leader’s opinion. Welcoming dissent Leaders need to reward integrity. One dissenter in a group can be enough to give others the freedom. Caring enough to confront Church leaders can (understandably!) be afraid of defiant or unco-operative behaviour. Being able to confront, in kindness, unhelpful behaviour means that leaders don’t have to rely on the pressures of conformity to bring about co-operation. Conscienced choice not conformity Seek to influence people through conscienced choice (minority influ- ence), rather than conformity (majority influence). See below. Majority vs minority influence For many centuries, the church has been able to rely on widespread conformity to vaguely Christian norms: going to church, being seen as avoiding the grosser sins, giving to charities. Majority influence can indeed be ubiquitous, but its weakness is that it often results in mere outward actions that can be ‘seen by men’. Conformity, the influence of the majority, can change outward behaviour, but not necessarily inward conviction. The church is no longer in a position to command majority influence. In the words of sociologist Peter Berger (1967), there is no longer a shared Christian world view that provides a plausibility structure which makes sense of the church’s claims. 212 Organisation and the church The diminution of the church’s majority influence can be perceived as bad news, but it is possible for a minority to exercise influence over a majority. Serge Moscovici and Elisabeth Lage (1976) found that a minority, although few in numbers and lack- ing the kudos of the majority, can turn the tide of majority influence and ‘convert’ inward convictions by their own behaviour style. In order to achieve this kind of conscienced conversion, several behaviour attributes need to be in evidence. Later studies also showed that minorities need to be able to dialogue with their opponents. If minorities are unable to dialogue, their inflexibility may alienate their hearers (Di Giacomo 1980). There are many Christian examples of minority influence bringing about radical change: the early Christians in the Roman Empire, St. Francis of Assisi, Luther, Wilberforce, Desmond Tutu. Jesus Christ himself is our prime example. The kind of change brought about differs in kind from the conforming influ- ence of the majority. Minority influence can cause the majority to analyse and doubt its own unquestioned opinion, and to bring about change to inner convictions. Box 11.3 Minority influence To achieve minority influence, groups need to: propose a clear position on the issue at hand; be unified in their position; most importantly, hold that position consistently over time, even in the face of a hostile majority. SUMMARY OF KEY THEMES Conforming as a way to be accepted by the group and to reinforce one’s thoughts and perceptions. How churches induce conformity. Conformity in church as a way of signifying belonging and ‘good spiritual standing’. Majority ‘conformity’ and minority ‘conversions’ within the church. QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER Has someone you know changed their behaviour or thinking radically to con- form with his/her Christian group? What are the ways in which you tend to conform in your church or group? What would happen if you stopped conforming in this way? What is valuable in conforming? Can conformity be easily distinguished from real ‘conversion’? Does your church act as an effective minority influence within your town? Why or why not?  Social processes in church life 213 Social identity The phenomenon of conformity is just one of the many examples of how we can be influenced by our social circumstances. In a profound way, what other people reflect back to us becomes an important part of our own personal sense of self. For a child growing up, what her parents reflect back to her is all-important for her developing sense of self. A child’s parents are perceived in god-like proportions; their attitudes and pronouncements towards the child are like powerful statements of fact. As we go through life, we are all reflected back in the mirrors of others’ feel- ings and responses. We internalise these attitudes and they become, over time, part of our own identity, although its origins are social in nature. The kind of group we belong to also makes up a part of our social identity. In fact, in response to questionnaires, people answer the question ‘who am I?’ largely in terms of their affiliations with various social groups (family, church, class, race, employment, college, and so on). We hammer out our social identity within an incredibly complex social world. To simplify the complexities of the social world, we tend to divide it into neat catego- ries: ‘I belong to this group (called the ingroup) and you belong to that group (the outgroup).’ Like most of our perceptions, our perceptions of the social world are coloured by our tendencies to simplify and to categorise. We exaggerate the amount of similarity within social groups, and exaggerate the dissimilarity between groups. However, the amount of similarity perceived within groups is even more exagger- ated with the outgroup: ‘They are all like that (e.g. lazy, stupid, unspiritual).’ The perceived similarity of our ingroup is not so exaggerated, rather ‘we are a similar, but interesting, bunch of individuals’. 214 Organisation and the church Box 11.4 Evidences of social identity processes in churches 1 Overt and covert criticism of other churches and denominational practices. (This is a difficult area as admittedly there are unresolved theological dis- putes between churches, and these cannot simply be dismissed out of a desire for ‘political correctness’. Inter-group discrimination in this sense is evidenced when the focus is only on these areas of dispute, and the areas of commonality are overlooked, or ‘poisoned’ by association. Indeed, the real difficulty is that theological disputes become intertwined with social identity processes, and the two become indistinguishable.) 2 Dialogue between churches or groups becomes impossible because the markers of group membership (GMBs) are considered as a mandatory ‘entrance fee’ before dialogue can even begin. 3 Leaving a church or group becomes an evidence of ‘backsliding’ because of the group’s assumed superiority. 4 Ending groups or initiatives becomes difficult because of the investment people have made and the esteem needs the group fulfils. Ending equals ‘failure’ and loss of self esteem. 5 Dialogue with other Christian groups is handicapped because of the chasm of misunderstanding (partly a result of the oversimplification of the outgroup, and lack of factual information through selective exposure to belief confirming information). 6 The unity of the church seems to be an impossibility, because it is more pleasant to enjoy the distinctiveness of one’s own group, and to receive the enhanced positive self-esteem one’s group membership confers. To pursue the super-ordinate goal of Christian unity means forgoing some immediate self-esteem benefits. This perceptual process interacts with our desire to feel good about ourselves, to have positive self-esteem. We have mentioned how identity is comprised of both personal and social aspects. To maintain a positive identity, what kinds of attitudes do we prefer to have about the group we belong to? Studies show a bias towards in-group preference: our group is clearly better than other groups. These two processes, first, a perceptual process by which we simplify the social world through chopping it up into distinctive groups, and second, the desire for positive self-esteem, lead to a comparative process: one’s ingroup is better than the outgroup. A striking feature of the theory of social identity is that these processes are exhib- ited even in the most minimal of group situations. The minimal group experiment (Tajfel et al. 1971) goes like this. Volunteers (school boys) were arbitrarily allocated to two different groups. The selection criteria for the two groups is meaningless (preference for paintings by Klee vs paintings by Kandinsky). There is virtually  Social processes in church life 215 nothing to distinguish the two groups, and the subjects do not even know which groups the others are allocated to. Hence there is nothing that directly links group membership to self-esteem. The two groups are instructed to play a game, and to choose from a selection of pairs of rewards (pennies) to allocate to one’s own group, and to the other group. For instance, on one round, a subject chose to allocate their own group fourteen pennies, while the other group gets twelve. The next time around, the subject chooses to reward their own group nine pennies, and the other group eight. After many rounds, the overall results showed that (while avoiding gross unfairness) each group favoured their own group by most often allocating the greater of the paired rewards to their own group. This held true even if it meant that their own group received fewer pennies in the end than if different allocations of rewards had been chosen; the differential over the other group’s reward was chosen ahead of sheer quantity of reward. This finding has proved to be robust across cultures and in dif- ferent types of experimental and real life situations. Ingroup preference appears to be endemic in the church. At its worst, it is demon- strated in overt conflict as in Northern Ireland, and religious wars. More often, ingroup preference in the church takes the form of subtle denigration of those who are not ‘like us’. As Christians we believe that our church (Reformed, Roman Catholic, charismatic, Orthodox, evangelical, liberal, or whatever) has a better grasp of the truth, a more authentic experience of God, a more genuine faith. Indeed, if we didn’t think this already, would we be part of it? We may have originally chosen our church or denomination for prosaic reasons: convenience, tradition, familiarity. Over time, our church’s beliefs and practices become to us the marks of its superiority. SUMMARY OF KEY THEMES Personal and social components of individual identity. Identity and self-esteem. Exaggerating similarities within groups and exaggerating differences between groups. Biases towards ingroup and against outgroup. Disliking outgroup for no reason. QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER Suggestions and discussion points for dealing with inter-group discrimination resulting from social identity processes: Begin to talk about ingroup preferences within your own church or group. Without awareness of ingroup preferences we cannot take responsibility for their consequences. Examine biblical examples when groups overcame the natural desire for nega- tive outgroup bias. (e.g. the decision to include Gentiles on an equal basis within the early church). 216 Organisation and the church Change is difficult when we believe that, by it, we have much to lose. What are the benefits to your church/group in maintaining an implicit ‘superiority’ over other churches/groups? Would membership fall off if your church/group was not ‘the best’? Give your group a litmus test: how easy is it to leave your church or group? Why is it difficult to leave? Efforts at ecumenism may backfire if relying on mere contact to bring about unity. Mere contact can simply intensify perceived differences between groups. Can you think of any instances where this has occurred? Discuss the mutually negative perceptions between churches/groups in your area. Discuss the relative importance of the major commonalities versus the major differences between Christian groups/churches. Discourse Over time, groups of people develop their own way of speaking. In fact, how we use language is a prime indicator of our social identity, and a prime arena in which we exhibit conformity. Our daily use of a particular style of language serves to draw group boundaries and to keep the distinctions between groups alive. Further, the way we use language shapes to some degree the way we experience reality and reflects the categories of thought through which we chop up, and make sense of, social reality. Any way of speaking and/or writing can be called a ‘discourse’. In traditional social psychology, as in everyday thinking, it is assumed that language directly reflects the way things are. Discourse analysis turns this assumption on its head and  Social processes in church life 217 investigates the ways that language constructs how we experience the way things are. The new field of discourse analysis asserts that the ways in which people use lan- guage are the building blocks of social reality, and hence should be analysed in their own right. This sort of analysis was inaugurated by Michel Foucault’s cultural analyses of phenomena such as mental illness, sexuality and crime. Foucault convincingly wrote of the way the social world we inhabit provides boundaries or contours to our way of speaking. This in turn, to a large extent, shapes our way of thinking (as once language develops in early childhood, thinking proceeds in largely verbal terms). A discourse uses a limited set of terms in a particular style. Certain grammatical con- structions are preferred; these are often organised around specific figures of speech. Phenomena are explained or accounted for in ways that achieve certain (implicit) aims in the users of the discourse. When we look at spoken or written language in this way, we can ask: what is going on here? Why is this bit of reality being emphasised, and not that bit? How is this discourse persuading me to think? We easily recognise such strategies in the speeches of politicians, but Christian discourse is no exception. Charismatic, liberal, evangelical, fundamentalist, Roman Catholic, and other sorts of Christianity all create their own discourses: ways of using language to depict reality in a certain way. They all have their own particular flavours and emphases. They are each doing something unique. Religious discourse, like any discourse, makes thinking some thoughts easy and ‘self-evident’. At the same time, it makes thinking other thoughts more difficult, either because there are not the words or concepts to describe them, or because those thoughts have been denigrated. When different Christian groups interact with each other, the different styles of discourse serve to reinforce social identities. Discourses create and maintain distinctive social identities; they underscore the valued aspects of group identity. Christian discourses, like all discourses, reinforce the aims of the social group through presenting a certain version of reality as self-evident. For example, Roman Catholic discourse has a way of presenting the church, the social world, and also the natural world, as unquestionably hierarchically arranged. It is difficult to see other possible social arrangements when hierarchies are presented as natural, God-given and ‘self-evident’. Liberal Anglo-Catholic discourse manages to occlude certain internal contradictions. For instance, in some sections of Anglo-Catholicism, while homosexuality is considered acceptable, the ordination of women to the priesthood is not (the latter according to scripture and tradition). This hermeneutic contradic- tion is evened out through the use of an implicit ‘male as norm’ metaphor that underlies some of its more polemic discourse. As long as ‘male’ is considered as the spiritual norm (and the only sex that can represent Christ), these two positions can jostle side by side. Following are analyses of excerpts from two other Christian discourses, evangelical and charismatic. A weakness of discourse analysis is its subjectivity; the preferences, perceptions and assumptions of the analyst will inevitably colour the analysis. My position thus needs to be stated. I (SS) write as a friendly but critical insider to both 218 Organisation and the church Box 11.5 An example of evangelical discourse An excerpt from a taped public address to a recent gathering of clergy in the UK: I was just speaking to someone today who has just finished in one of your evangelical theological colleges and awaiting his great ordination for what purpose I’m not sure. At this theological college he assured me that he had had more classroom lessons in liturgical dance than in preaching. That’s not to say he had many in liturgical dance, I may say. That is one of the evangelical col- leges of your land. That is what you are training! Ballerinas! (loud laughter) Nobody is saved by men who dress up in dresses and flounce around the floor of old buildings. (laughter) Nothing about that in the Word of God. You don’t think the Apostle Paul was jumping around like that do you? The only one who does it in the Bible is David, and he does it naked. (laughter) It’s not that these people are saying that we are not to preach, or that Jesus didn’t die for our sins, they just teach us other things to do. Other things which of course totally sidetrack us, totally replace the true and living word of God that will transform a man’s heart and life and save him out of hell and bring him into eternity with God forever. What an idolatry is liturgical dance! It is an appall- ing idolatry, lost in this land, which is just full of idols. God’s plan is brought about through the preaching of the word of God, exemplified in the life of the preacher, of course. evangelical and charismatic discourses; I am appreciative of the riches of both tradi- tions, as well as being critical of the ‘blindspots’. The examples of discourse analysis cited here provide some illustration concerning how discourses establish and main- tain social identity, distinguish the discourse users from others, and accomplish cer- tain aims. Evangelical discourse What are the main features of evangelical discourse? Bebbington’s (1989) histori- cal survey of evangelicalism in Britain points out four main elements common to evangelicalism: ‘conversionism’ (the desire for radical and decisive personal trans- formations), ‘biblicism’ (the Bible as central and authoritative), ‘activism’ (an emphasis on action in the world), and ‘crucicentrism’ (a strong focus on the event and meaning of Christ’s crucifixion). The excerpt in the box above displays all four of these characteristics: the preacher here refers to the transformation of a man’s heart and life; repeatedly to the Bible; to the importance of preaching; and to the fact that Jesus died for our sins. Those familiar with evangelical discourse, upon hearing these elements of evangelicalism reiterated, will automatically know that ‘this is sound teaching’. For newcomers to the discourse, the identity of  Social processes in church life 219 Box 11.6 Use of stark contrast followed by three-point list in evangelical discourse At this theological college he assured me that he had had more classroom lessons in liturgical dance than in preaching. 1 That’s not to say he had many in liturgical dance, I may say. 2 That is one of the evangelical colleges of your land. 3 That is what you are training! Ballerinas! (loud laughter). evangelicalism is established, its boundaries firmly drawn, and its values and norms uncompromisingly asserted. The rhetorical devices, the grammatical construction, and the narrative flow of any piece of discourse ensure that the discourse is ‘doing something’. In this exam- ple, several structural features are apparent, especially the tendency to create ‘black and white’ contrasts, and the use of a three-point list as a rhetorical device to build to a crescendo. To take an example of the use of stark contrasts, the ‘error’ of liturgical dance, painted with dramatic words suggesting all that is damnable, is contrasted with the self-evident soundness of preaching: ‘What an idolatry is liturgical dance! It is an appalling idolatry, lost in this land, which is just full of idols …. God’s plan is brought about through the preaching of the Word of God, exemplified in the life of the preacher, of course.’ Atkinson (1984) has analysed politicians’ speeches and found that audience applause could be regularly elicited by the judicious use of a contrast structure (‘we are right, they are wrong’) followed by three examples to back up the contrast. This rhetorical device cues the audience to respond (in the affirmative) because ‘truth’ has been upheld and demonstrated. One example is where lessons in liturgical dance are contrasted with a paucity of lessons in preaching, followed by a three-point list. Later, the speaker creates an increasing tension through contrasting the ridiculous image of liturgical dance (associated through word choice with the threat of gender confusion, cross-dressing, nudity, and the irrelevance of old buildings), which is then resolved by the sensible, biblical affirmation of preaching. The structure ensures that the listener follows the same journey of conversion to right opinion: the listener is required to make a decision. The idea of a crisis – a moment of decision – is central to evangelical discourse. This contrast structure is found in many conversion testimo- nies within evangelicalism (‘I once was lost but now I’m found’). Here, the hearers’ participation in the laughter means they have already made those first steps towards the ‘altar call’ of decision. Through their participation, the speaker already has his ‘foot-in-the door’, and is very likely to make ‘converts’. 220 Organisation and the church Box 11.7 Example of charismatic discourse Excerpts from a prayer letter following a recent mission to South America: Well, we’re back. And what an amazing trip it was. It had its low points but it had its mountain top experiences as well. And it shows what an incredible God we serve … When we arrived at Managua Airport after travelling for 18 hours there was no one there to meet us! There was no working phone at the airport, there were no officials around and we did not know the actual address of the Mission … We had expected to be met by Brian … but Roger began by telling us that Brian had gone back to the USA permanently! … We sat there and thought, ‘Lord what is going on? We are here for two weeks and we have no driver, no interpreter, no programme.’ We felt terrible. But we said, ‘Lord you have spoken to us and to others and you have said that this trip is of enormous sig- nificance. So we’re holding on to that and we are looking to you to do it.’ … We were there with no programme – just God’s call … The letter then describes how the team met with the youth group on several occasions. We spoke, we prayed, and God showed up in power. At the end the young people prayed for Ed and God’s power flowed through them. … All this from nothing. We never preached, just prayed … ‘This is not us, it is God.’ Let it continue Lord! Followed by descriptions of other events and meetings. On Wednesday we prayed with each of the congregation of 130 and we believe that the church will not be the same again. … What a trip! How great is our God! … Thank you for praying. This would not be possible without you. You are part of the battle force that is building God’s kingdom in Nicaragua and throughout the world. Evangelical discourse is not alone is trying to persuade its listeners. This is the goal of any persuasive communication. The present analysis does not aim to suggest that the content of evangelical discourse is invalid, nor that the discourse is untrust- worthy. What is clear is that evangelical discourse, like other discourses, achieves the aims of establishing identity, persuading hearers to make a decision, presenting reality in a certain way, and legitimating itself. Charismatic discourse There are four main characteristics of charismatic discourse: emphasis on the sub- jective and experiential; concreteness and anthropomorphism; emotionality and  Social processes in church life 221 Table 11.1 Summary of case-studies Evangelical discourse Charismatic discourse conversionism subjective validation biblicism concreteness/anthropomorphism activism emotion and warmth crucicentrism miracles stark contrasts supernatural dualism (we’re right, they’re wrong) evoking a decision change through emotional osmosis warmth; and a focus on the miraculous and supernatural. In contrast to evangelical discourse, which invites listeners to make a decision based on ‘rational’ criteria, charismatic discourse invites listeners into an experience, an experience of God that is subjectively validated. Statements about the outcome of the mission are experien- tial rather than empirical, and sound rather vague: for example, ‘God showed up in power.’ Objective criteria, or any solid proof, are not required. Charismatic discourse is also characterised by a concreteness and immediacy of expression (not unlike Mark’s gospel). For example: ‘We spoke, we prayed, and God showed up in power … God’s power flowed through them’; also, God is pre- sented in anthropomorphic terms: ‘Lord you have spoken to us and to others and you have said … ’ Emotionality is another feature of charismatic discourse. Things are often described in terms of emotional highs and lows. For example: ‘It had its low points but it had its mountain top experiences as well … we felt terrible … but You have said this trip is of enormous significance …. What a trip! How great is our God!’ The vibrancy and sincerity of the emotional tone should be enough to convince. The warmth of the tone envelops the reader – you are part of it. ‘Thank you for praying. This would not be possible without you. You are part of the battle force ….’ Conversion happens not so much through concrete choice, but through friendliness and emotional osmosis. Although not as apparently adversarial as evangelical discourse, charismatic dis- course legitimates itself and presents itself as unassailable through its identification with God’s activity. Evidences of the miraculous run throughout. What is important is that God is the one seen to be active, not humans. The metaphor of the Genesis creation story is invoked: ‘All this from nothing. We never preached, just prayed … This is not us, it is God.’ The idea of a biblical sense of calling is also invoked: ‘We were there with no programme – just God’s call.’ Nigel Wright (in Smail et al. 1995: 75) observed that there are few categories or terms within charismatic discourse to describe natural human processes. As in this excerpt, the world is presented largely in terms of spiritual forces. Complex realities (such as the political and economic situation in Nicaragua) are presented in terms of 222 Organisation and the church spiritual dualism: God versus the powers of darkness. ‘You are part of the battle force that is building God’s kingdom in Nicaragua and throughout the world.’ With so few basic categories of thought, it is easy to overlook natural or social causes of events. For example, human realities such as poor planning are occluded as they don’t fall neatly into the two extremes of ‘God’ versus ‘not God’: ‘we did not know the actual address of the Mission … We had expected to be met by Brian … but Roger began by telling us that Brian had gone back to the USA permanently! … We are here for two weeks and we have no driver, no interpreter, no programme.’ Instead, the summary of the trip was: ‘This is not us, it is God.’ In summary, as these case studies have illustrated, each major Christian grouping has its own discourse in both spoken and written language; each discourse defines and strengthens group identities and social structures as well as conveying informa- tion. It is important to recognise the constraining features of our religious discourse, otherwise difficulties arising from differences in religious discourse may be misdiagnosed as having spiritual or theological roots. SUMMARY OF KEY THEMES Discourse as a ‘badge’ of belonging. Screening out other ways of thinking (because there aren’t the terms to describe them, or they are denigrated). Evaluating the content of one’s own discourse (usually positively) and thereby legitimating oneself. Evaluating the content of other groups’ discourses (usually negatively). Presenting one’s own version of social reality as ‘self-evident’. How discourses can unite and divide, enable and constrain. QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER How would you describe the discourse of your church or group? What is this discourse trying to achieve? Often the explicit aims are lofty, such as the ‘salvation of souls’. What are the implicit aims? How does your discourse evaluate itself and others? How does it construct ‘we are good and they are bad’? How might your discourse be perceived by those outside? Does it exclude them? Can they understand it, or does it sound bizarre? Hypothetically, if the speakers of the two excerpts of evangelical and charis- matic discourse (above) were in dialogue, what points might they disagree upon? What points might they agree upon? Just because discourses have implicit aims (and therefore are not ‘neutral’) does not mean they are wrong or untrustworthy. It does mean that they exert influ- ence, and we need to be aware of their potentially oppressive nature. What are the ways in which religious discourses can ‘oppress’? Could we ever be free of the implicit aims of discourse? Is it possible for the way we speak and write to be completely neutral?  Social processes in church life 223 Conclusion Although the group dimension is our emphasis in this chapter, we are not reducing church to a mere nexus of social psychological processes. The spiritual intertwines with the human. Nevertheless, it is to be expected that social processes occur at every level of church life. The present chapter is not exhaustive, and only touches on some of the common social processes that occur in church. Other social processes are discussed in Chapters 2, 4, 8 and 12. In this chapter we have seen how conformity, ingroup preference, and discourse both enable and constrain church life. In valuing human freedom, it is important for the church to speak openly about the constraining effects of conformity. The mini- mal group situation shows how easy it is to favour the ingroup, and to bask in its reflected glory. Of course, churches can provide all sorts of religious rationales for such attitudes. It was no different with the first disciples who were incensed at the Samaritans’ cold response to their presence (Luke 9. 51–55). The disciples wanted to call down fire on this outgroup. Jesus rebuked them, yet later entrusted them with the task of bringing the gospel to the Samaritans, and to the ends of the earth. Jesus’ use of parables, with their multiple layers of meaning, was a masterful bid against the constraining effects of discourse. Jesus used language in order to make people think for themselves, rather than to legitimate his own position. In following Christ, churches need to become self-aware and responsible in their use of language, and to encourage creative modes of thinking that challenge the inevitable effects of our socially shared ways of speaking. Further reading Conformity Brown, R. (1988) Group Processes, Oxford: Blackwell. Hewstone, M., Stroebe, W. and Stephenson, G. (1996) Introduction to Social Psychology, 2nd ed., Oxford: Blackwell, especially chapters 15, 16, and 17. Reed, B. (1978) The Dynamics of Religion, London: Darton, Longman & Todd. Social identity Abrams, D. and Hogg, M. (eds) (1999) Social Identity Theory: Constructive and Critical Advances, Oxford: Blackwell. Brown, R. (1988) Group Processes, Oxford: Blackwell. Hewstone, M., Stroebe, W. and Stephenson, G. (1996) Introduction to Social Psychology, 2nd ed., Oxford: Blackwell, especially chapters 15, 16, and 17. Turner, J. (1987) Rediscovering the Social Group: A Self-Categorisation Theory, Oxford: Blackwell. Discourse Potter, J., and Wetherall, M. (1987) Discourse and Social Psychology, London: Sage. 12 The church as an organisation The Organisation church as an andorganisation the church QUESTIONS FOR MINISTRY Why are churches often less effective in organisational matters than their business counterparts? What makes for good Christian leadership? Why does conflict in church often end in disaster? How can church lead- ers and members learn to resolve conflict? How can church members be motivated to become more than just ‘bums on pews’? What kinds of social undercurrents shape group decisions in churches? Business and industry have, for many decades, been taking the advice of manage- ment consultants. Among the tools of such consultants is organisational psychology, which can be used to promote co-operation, effective leadership, team-building, and successful networks of communication. All of these have been shown to contribute to the maximisation of productivity and profitability. Of course the aims of the church – the Body of Christ – are vastly different from those of a business organisa- tion driven mainly by the desire for ever greater profits. However, especially in view of growing anxieties about dwindling church attendance and ministers’ ever increas- ing administrative workload, it may be time for church leaders to apply to church life some of the insights of organisational psychology, which has been so successfully applied in the worlds of business and commerce. Leadership A crucial component of a well-run organisation is an effective leader. In the case of a local church this role is filled by the minister. As yet, there is little specific psychological research on the leadership functions of clergy. There is, however, a substantial body of general leadership theory and research that can be applied to leadership within the church.  The church as an organisation 225 Ordained clergy in the church usually go through a lengthy selection process that tests their call, followed by a period of training to equip them to carry out the roles of preacher, priest, counsellor, evangelist, pastor, and so on. Once in post, many find that the role they must exercise most frequently is the role of administrator and manager, a role for which they have received little explicit training. Many churches have shifted from the traditional one-man-show to more diversified team ministries involving both lay and ordained. These provide increased opportunities for collabora- tion, as well as for conflict. In view of the increasing complexity of Christian ministry, the need for church leaders to draw upon a wide range of leadership skills is evi- dent. (For a further discussion of the multiple roles that clergy need to fill, see Chapter 13.) Churches are in many ways difficult organisations to lead. Most churches do not have any specific strategic plan, and if there were one, it would be unlikely to com- mand general agreement. Different people within a church often have different objectives, but these are rarely openly acknowledged. One common clash is between those committed to ‘maintenance’ of church life and those committed to ‘mission’. Indeed, this is often a source of conflict between clergy and laity, with clergy more often being committed to mission while most of the laity only want church life to be maintained. A further problem is that the number of people who have responsibilities within the church is often quite large; indeed, it is desirable that it should be so. However, the vast majority of them are unpaid volunteers, who, to some extent, are bound to discharge their responsibilities on their own terms. Most of these volunteers put in relatively few hours per week to their church work, compared to what would be the case with a team of paid employees. Moreover, much of the work is geographically dispersed and the number of occasions when key members of the congregation meet one another is relatively few. All this can make for serious problems of co- ordination. These problems are further exacerbated by problems of attitude. Most church people care deeply about what they are doing; otherwise they would not be doing it. This means that they often have strong views about what ought to be done, and how things should be done. They derive emotional satisfaction from things being done in the way they prescribe. Not surprisingly, church issues more readily become mat- ters of high principle than in most organisations. That means that people can be unwilling to modify how they approach things, leading to a degree of inflexibility and conflict. The search for the ‘great leader’ In view of this inherent organisational untidiness, we should not be too surprised that in churches there is a tendency to crave the great man or woman, the ‘charis- matic’ leader who will lead them to the promised land. (‘Charismatic’ is used here in the technical sense of leadership theory rather than churchmanship!) There also seem to be many clergy who desperately want to be that kind of leader, to be the person whose great gifts and personality inspire others. Certainly there can be real 226 Organisation and the church benefits in a charismatic leader who can demonstrate a high level of competence, communicate high expectations of others, inspire confidence that those objectives can be met, and generate agreement to those objectives. Early research into leader- ship, commissioned by the military and by business and industry in the 1950s, focused on the personality characteristics of this kind of leader. Although there is enormous variety among great leaders, a cross-section of successful chief executives rated the following ten personal attributes (chosen from a list of twenty-five) as the most valuable (Adair 1988: 201): 1 Ability to take decisions. 2 Leadership. 3 Moral integrity. 4 Enthusiasm. 5 Imagination. 6 Willingness to work hard. 7 Analytical ability. 8 Understanding others. 9 Ability to spot opportunities. 10 Ability to meet unpleasant situations. However, it also needs to be recognised that there can be pathologies associated with this kind of ‘great person’ leadership. It is tempting for pre-eminent leaders to abuse their position, and a number of stories of grotesque abuse by religious leaders have surfaced in the media (see also Chapter 4). There is also a danger of charismatic leaders of this kind encouraging overdependence, thus disabling those around them. That can be seen in the chaos that ensues when the great leader is not around, and unfortunately some church leaders welcome such evidence of their indispensability. The differences between successful and maladaptive charismatic leadership are quite subtle, and many clergy and congregations would do well to be more alert to the dangers. Collaborative leadership and team-building Research has shown that successful leaders can have all sorts of different personality profiles; you do not have to conform to the ‘great leader’ model to be a successful leader. Indeed, since the 1960s, the focus of psychological work has shifted away from the psychological make-up of the single ‘great leader’ to a broader investigation of leadership ‘functions’, which might be fulfilled by more than one member of a group. Research on the emergence of leaders in small groups has shown that often two or more leaders emerge, each performing different leadership functions. For example, one may be task-oriented while the other is more relationship-oriented. Since it is often the case in churches that work is undertaken by quite a diffuse group of people, this way of looking at leadership may be particularly useful for church life. Some researchers describe good leadership in terms of enabling followers to obtain their own goals, and to become leaders themselves. Leading by example and  The church as an organisation 227 then facilitating growth in subordinates in ways that are sensitive to the level of the subordinates’ maturity is the real work of leadership, according to theorists such as Fred Dansereau et al. (1975). Rather than hugging leadership to ourselves, effective leadership is about raising up other leaders, as Jesus did in preparing and commis- sioning his disciples (although, as is discussed later in this chapter, this kind of sharing out of leadership tasks can lead to conflicts). It is a basic fact about church life that there is too much to do. So the establish- ment of a ministry team, whose members can share out the many jobs and responsi- bilities, is a key task. In sharing out responsibilities, it must be remembered that many tasks in church are relatively menial, and may not give workers the satisfaction that they are seeking. Leaders must remember that church workers are involved because they really want to belong to a team and to fulfil some of the church’s mis- sion directly. The approach recommended by H. Newton Malony and Richard Hunt (1991, Chapter 9) includes ‘responsibility with freedom’ and ‘evaluation with support’. Thus, as far as possible, each member of the staff team (or each volunteer) should be given a discrete area of responsibility, and should be given as much auton- omy as possible in pursuing it. For this to work, there obviously needs to be a good match between the aptitudes of the church worker, their approach to the task, and the requirements of the leadership about how it should be tackled. There needs to be both task-related evaluation and personal support; Malony and Hunt make the help- ful suggestion that praise should generally be public and criticism private. Task-oriented and relationship-oriented styles of leadership A distinction can be made between the ‘task-oriented’ leader (for whom accomplishing the task is the most important activity of leadership) and ‘relationship-oriented’, or person-centred, leader (for whom the people being led are the most important aspect of leadership). Fiedler (1967) discovered that a defining characteristic of relationship- oriented leaders was that they had a positive and supportive attitude towards their ‘least preferred co-worker’ (‘You may irritate me, but you’re OK, really, and I value your con- tribution’), while the task-oriented leader had a more negative response. Fred Fiedler showed in a wide range of studies (e.g. Fiedler, 1967) that the effectiveness of the leader is contingent upon the fit between leadership style (relationship- or task-oriented) and the needs of the situation. In short, when the task is clearly structured and the leader’s position is strong (e.g. through having the relevant backing and authority within their organisation), the leader is expected to get on with the job and to be directive (i.e. to be task-oriented). When the task is very complex and unstructured, and the leader is in a weak position (e.g. with little organisational backing), the best strategy is still to be directive and task-oriented, because where there is debate, you need a more directive style to resolve differences. Only moderately complex task situations will favour non-directive, more people- oriented styles (see Figure 12.1). Moderately ambiguous, unstructured tasks favour a permissive, people-oriented leader who encourages the pooling of ideas by all members of the group. In this type of situation, group involvement and co-operation are vital. 228 Organisation and the church A B C high leader effectiveness low low moderate high situational control task-oriented leaders relationship-oriented leaders A Task-oriented leaders (low LPC) are effective under low situational control B Relationship-oriented leaders (high LPC) are effective under conditions of moderate control C Task-oriented leaders (low LPC) are effective under conditions of high control Figure 12.1 Fiedler’s contingency theory (Baron & Greenberg 1990: 386) This research may have some application for the church. First of all, the different situations that leaders of church life find themselves in are likely to range from the highly structured to the highly unstructured. For example, choosing hymns for a service is quite a structured task; deciding by committee would be a waste of time. In contrast, developing a church outreach programme is a more unstructured task; a leader would need the active involvement of participants in both its design and its implementation. However, if too much conflict emerged during this creative pro- cess, the leader may have to revert to a more directive style. It seems that church leaders, like all good leaders, need to be flexible: sometimes task-oriented and sometimes more relationship-oriented. Indeed, the evidence suggests that the best leaders are high on both task-orientation and relationship-orientation. Not surpris- ingly, subjects in a study worked hardest for a leader who was high on concern for the task but also demonstrated personal warmth (Tjosvold and Tjosvold 1995). The principles here are rather similar to those which obtain in bringing up children, where a combination of firmness and nurture provides the most effective approach. This combination may represent the ideal leader; having both task and relationship attributes in abundance may allow for more flexibility in choosing leadership styles according to the needs of the situation. Adair (1988) also considers it a mistake to see task needs and people needs as opposed poles. All good leadership, Adair suggests, should involve three interlock- ing spheres of activity (shown in Figure 12.2). An effective church leader needs to be skilled in all three areas. Having the techni- cal knowledge for a task is not enough. An awareness of the group dynamics (how  The church as an organisation 229 achieving the task developing building the the team individual Figure 12.2 Adair’s three spheres of leadership activity (adapted from Adair 1988) the group develops over time) and of the needs of individuals are equally important. In assessing any course of action, it is important for leaders to consider the consequences for individuals and the team, as well as for the task. Of course, these consequences may vary in the short term and the long term. The leader needs to decide which of these aspects to prioritise at any one time (e.g. is long-term team coherence more important than the achievement of a particular short-term goal?). Consultation and decision-making Thus, leaders are frequently called upon to make decisions. Traditionally it has often been assumed that the church minister will take most decisions independently. With more lay participation and shared ministry in the church, however, an autocratic model of leadership is no longer always desired. Church leaders, lay and ordained, need to understand the nature and limits of their authority. A leader who is appointed by a superior body can justly claim to have the final word, whereas a leader who is elected may be expected to put decisions to the vote, and a leader who emerges from within a group, without any formal authority, may be expected to go along with the group if its members disagree with the leader’s decision (Adair 1988: 85). Normative theory (Vroom and Yetton 1973) suggests that, as in leadership, no one style of decision-making is always the most fruitful. In fact, the job of the leader is to select which style of decision-making will be the best in a given situation. Important considerations here will include the potential consequences of the deci- sion (to what degree the right decision will affect important procedures) and who is responsible for its implementation (to what degree is the implementation of the decision dependent upon the commitment and co-operation of subordinates?) Vroom and Yetton suggest that leaders have five basic decision-making styles to choose from (see Table 12.1). 230 Organisation and the church Table 12.1 Potential strategies for leaders’ decision-making (Vroom and Yetton 1973) Decision-making style Description A1 Autocratic Leader solves problem entirely unilaterally using available information. A2 Autocratic Leader obtains necessary information from subordinates but then makes decision unilaterally. C1 Consultative Leader shares problem with subordinates individually, then makes decision unilaterally. C2 Consultative Leader shares problem in group meeting but then makes decision unilaterally. G2 Group decision Leader shares problem with subordinates in a group meeting, decision is reached through discussion and consensus. Most of us in leadership tend to develop a decision style we feel comfortable with, and to use this inflexibly. According to this research, however, good leaders take account of the situation, and select the decision strategy that best accords with it. For example, a minister may determine that on one occasion, following a heated argument within the elders or church PCC, the development of the church’s mission statement needs to be a group decision (G2), as it is vital that the church representa- tives are all committed to the new directives. On another occasion, following a heated argument over baptismal policy, the minister may decide that in this instance, his or her appointment by church superiors means an autocratic decision is appropriate, one for which the minister takes full responsibility: ‘the buck stops here’. Choosing decision strategies is a skill that develops with practice, evaluation of previous decisions, and feedback from others. Moral character A new direction in leadership studies emphasises not so much personal giftedness or leadership style, but the moral character of the leader. Cognitive psychologist Howard Gardner studied leading minds of the twentieth century. His study revealed that great leaders in the realms of business, politics, and religion had all had stories or messages that struck chords with their followers. Gardner says that the messages (or stories) of these great leaders tended to answer the existential questions of life: who am I? Why am I here? Where are we going? Gardner also states that the truly great leader demon- strates a correspondence between their story and their embodiment of it (Gardner 1997). When in positions of indirect leadership (such as with a brilliant scientist) all that really matters is the message (e.g. the theory of relativity). If their personal life does not live up to their position, so what? But, as we observed in the Clinton and Lewinsky affair, moral character does matter for a direct leader.  The church as an organisation 231 Box 12.1 A short course in leadership The six most important words: ‘I admit I made a mistake’ The five most important words: ‘I am proud of The four most important words: ‘What is your opinion?’ The three most important words: ‘If you please’ The two most important words: ‘Thank you’ The one most important word: ‘We’ The least most important word: ‘I’ Steven Covey, a current leader in management theory, also emphasises the importance of ethically principled management. Leaders should follow clearly defined moral principles, rather than the exigencies of success. Direct leadership involves being a living example to people. The moral consistency between story and personal life does matter. Leaders such as Jesus, John Wesley, Ghandi, Martin Luther King, Pope John XXIII, and Mother Teresa embodied their story. Who they were was as important as what they did and how well they did it. This emphasis on the message and the moral consistency of the leader finds concurrence with St Paul’s defence of his apostleship: ‘ … my way of life in Christ Jesus, which agrees with what I teach everywhere in every church’ (1 Cor. 4. 17). Paul led not from an exalted position above his followers, but from ‘beneath’. Of the many biblical metaphors that are used to describe Christian leadership (shep- herd, pastor, father in Christ, apostle, and so on), perhaps the most telling, and most distinctively Christian, is that of servant. The Christian ideal of servanthood sub- verts traditional ideas of leadership as a form of dominance or oppression. We all have a natural tendency to ‘lord it over’ those we direct. However, Christ’s life provided a model of how we are to lead for the good of others, for the good of the Kingdom, not just to fulfil our own talents or sense of what is right. As John Adair argues, leadership is as much about meeting individual needs, and the needs of the team, as it is about achieving the task. The key is to develop a way of leading ‘which does not humiliate those we lead’. QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER Have you had any experience of strong, gifted leadership in the church? What were the benefits to the church? Were there any disadvantages, such as too much control, or dependency? Thinking in terms of leadership style, what style of Christian leadership have you experienced ? Task-oriented? Relationship-oriented? Both? What is it like being a follower led by a task-oriented leader? A relationship-oriented leader? If you are a leader, are you more concerned for the task, or for the individuals, or 232 Organisation and the church for the team as a whole? Is it possible to be concerned for all three in every situa- tion, or only for all three over the long run? If you are a leader, would you be able to be flexible if the situation called for a different style of leadership than the one you are accustomed to? What might be difficult for you in adopting a different style? Vulnerability? Loss of control? Unpopularity? What method of decision-making do you prefer (as a leader, as a follower)? Autocratic? Consultative? Why? If you are a leader, what is your message? Does it meet people’s needs? Does it correspond to the way you live your life? What does it mean to you to aim not to oppress those whom you lead? Conflict resolution in churches It has been stressed above that the diverse and intensely demanding nature of church ministry makes teamwork a necessity. Relationships within teams of employed church staff are particularly important and can provide a model for the wider network of rela- tionships between volunteers. Sometimes there will be quite a large staff team, or there may just be the senior minister and junior minister (a notoriously difficult relationship). Whatever the size, the hope is that teams of church workers will experience and exhibit some level of cohesiveness which reflects Christian teaching on unity. However, the obverse of highly cohesive teams is that church colleagues may feel constrained to be ‘nice’ to one another when a more open exploration of conflicts would be helpful. Thus, our first obstacle to resolution of conflict is when conflict itself is consid- ered to be taboo in church circles. It is not uncommon for there to be an expectation that church should always be a perfect, conflict-free environment; everyone should be ‘nice’. In practice, however, conflict is normal, and there are numerous sources of conflict extant in churches and church teams: Disagreements over values and beliefs (and how to resolve them). Clashes of expectations over the pastor’s role and responsibilities (for instance, some want the worship and tradition of the church to be maintained, others want more evangelism and visible signs of growth, others want more visiting of the sick and pastoral care). Groups within the church have different aims and values (for instance, a prefer- ence for different styles of worship). The pastor’s model of the church may not be shared by all members of the church. The church structure may be unclear or may no longer fit the congregation’s needs. Clergy forgetting the over-committed and busy lives of their congregations when asking for volunteers or scheduling events. A new pastor rushing into change, alienating members of the church. Blocked communication lines between laity and clergy (people who feel disempowered to speak on an issue often channel this into gossip, resulting in further communication problems).  The church as an organisation 233 There have been some interesting case studies of the ethos of particular congrega- tions, and the turbulence than can be caused when clergy arrive with objectives that do not sit easily with the background and orientation of the congregation (see Hopewell 1987, for a model research study of this). Sadly, it is often the case that conflict is handled badly. Speed Leas (1985: 48) points out that it is common for voluntary organisations to have strong norms that oppose the existence of conflict. Conflict in the church can provoke dread, fear or anger. Perhaps, as unpaid volunteers, people in church have a lower threshold of tolerance for the discomfort of conflict. Churches can add a theologi- cal gloss to this: those who disrupt the harmony of the church are morally culpable. To this we bring our own personal experience of conflict, perhaps from our family backgrounds where conflict was either suppressed or handled abusively. Either way, we can grow up ill-equipped to handle conflict. We can easily marshal a religious reason for why we must vehemently defend our own position: the Kingdom of God is at stake! Thus we can use religious beliefs to mask our less worthy motivations (the need to control others, or the need to avoid conflict at all costs). Rather than being a conflict-free zone, church life seems to exacerbate people’s hidden nastiness more than other social organisations. Why is this? First of all, church is a deeply personal matter, intertwined with intense feelings and beliefs about life, God, and holiness. Even small alterations, such as the repositioning of a pew or altar rail, can provoke upset and rage as a whole worldview is felt to be threat- ened (and indeed may be). Add to this our lower threshold of annoyance regarding conflict in this voluntary organisation, and our higher expectations of its perfection, and it is no wonder church life can act as a poultice, drawing out problems that need transformation. Factors such as personality, life experience, theological outlook, sex, culture, model of leadership in the church, communication skills, and conflict-resolution style all combine to influence how conflict is handled in churches. Researchers on conflict have noted several styles of conflict resolution. (The following is based on Kilmann and Thomas’ (1977) Thomas-Kilmann (T-K) Conflict Mode Instru- ment.) These styles are fairly regular ways that individuals have of dealing with con- flict, depending on past experience, temperament, and how they perceive the current situation. The descriptions of the actions and views of conflict set out in Box 12.2 are based on research in secular contexts; comments have been added here that pertain to possible additional attitudes found in a church context. These five different conflict-resolution styles can be plotted according to whether they are high on concern for the issue and/or high on concern for the relationship (see Figure 12.3). Collaboration (high on both the importance of the issue and the relationship) can seem to be the best style for most situations; it certainly reflects dominant norms in our culture. More recent thinking on conflict resolution, however, suggests that each of the styles can be an appropriate way of resolving conflict depending on the situation. For example, towards the end of a PCC meeting, a rather trivial point is brought up and endlessly argued about: should the church barbecue use paper plates or crockery? The minister, in view of the late hour and the need for a decision now, 234 Organisation and the church high concern for relationship accommodation collaboration compromise low avoiding competition low high concern for issue(s) Figure 12.3 Relative concern for issue and relationship in different conflict-resolution styles takes a unilateral (competing) approach to the conflict, while everyone breathes a sigh of relief. What matters is the appropriateness of the style to the social situation and the issue at hand, as well as a commitment to being constructive. In the above example, it was evident to those present that the minister competed out of a commit- ment to being constructive. It is possible to use each one of the five conflict resolution styles judiciously with a commitment to being constructive. It may well be right to avoid some conflicts; or accommodate on others, because other battles may be more important. The emotions in a conflict can easily spiral out of control. It is helpful to be aware that our interpersonal skills and cognitive abilities may undergo some change under Box 12.2 Five views of conflict 1 Competition (win/lose) Actions Control the outcome. Discourage disagreement. Insist on own view. View of conflict Conflict is an inevitable issue of right and wrong. The central issue is who is right. Pressure and coercion are necessary. The other person is perceived as a problem. A high concern to achieve personal goal and a low concern for relationship.  The church as an organisation 235 In church context Some theological stances may encourage this conflict-resolution style when dealing with opponents: ‘My viewpoint is God’s viewpoint, and must be defended at all costs.’ 2 Accommodation Actions Accept the other’s view. Give in. Support. Acknowledge error. Decide ‘it’s no big deal’. View of conflict Conflict is usually disastrous. Put relationships first, so sacrifice your own interests. Fearful that conflict may damage the relationship. Keep peace at any price. A high concern for relationships and a willingness to give up personal goals. In church context In some situations, self-sacrifice is a virtue. At other times, although accommodation can appear as a ‘nice’ Christian attribute, it can result from co-dependency, a tendency to attribute all goodness to others, and all badness to oneself, so one must please others in order to be accepted. Others are deemed always right. 3 Avoidance Actions Delay or avoid response. Withdraw. Be inaccessible. Divert attention. View of conflict Conflict is hopeless, avoid it. Overlook differences, accept disagreement or get out. We cannot accomplish personal goals or preserve the relationship in a conflict. In church context Avoidance can appear as peace-loving and virtuous, when it may in fact stem from cowardice. At other times, certain church battles are not worth fighting; they simply drain energy and time, and here avoidance may be the wisest option. continued on next page 236 Organisation and the church 4 Compromise Actions Urge moderation. Bargain. Find a little something for everyone, meet them halfway. View of conflict: Conflict is a mutual difference best resolved by co-operation and com- promise; it assumes we cannot get everything we want in a conflict. If each goes halfway, progress can be made in a democratic way. Push for some of your goals, but not so hard that you sacrifice the relationship. In church context Compromise can work well in church situations that allow ‘democratic’ forms of government where these assumptions are already in place. But in other situ- ations, it may seem to engender a moral compromise. 5 Collaboration (win/win) Actions Assert own views while also inviting other’s views. Welcome differences. Identify main concerns and generate options. Search for a solution that meets as many concerns as possible. View of conflict Conflict is natural, neutral, normal. Differences can be affirmed, individuals’ uniqueness prized. Recognise tensions in relationship and contrasts in viewpoints. Assumes both parties can achieve their goals in the situation and works towards that end. Combines high concern for accomplishment of goals with high concern to enhance relationship. In church context Church norms that equate conflict with sin may militate against the ability to collaborate. Collaboration means experiencing the pain of conflict, before peace can become a reality. (Adapted from Kilmann and Thomas 1977 with additions)  The church as an organisation 237 Table 12.2 Levels of conflict intensity (adapted from Leas 1985) Level 1 At this point, there is a desire to resolve the problem without A problem shows up overly personalising it or attaching blame. A win/win solution is possible. Level 2 Real disagreement is apparent between parties, and the problem Disagreement becomes more personalised. Distrust of others is beginning to emerge, along with face-saving strategies and a desire to come out looking good. There is still a real attempt to solve the problem, with a possibility for consensus. Level 3 The disagreement moves into a win/lose situation. The focus of Contest the argument is on the representative persons, rather than the issues. Over-generalisations, such as ‘you always...’ and ‘you never...’, lead into personal attacks. Parties shift from protecting their own interests to winning against the other. (Seek mediation for decision making/conflict resolution at this point.) Level 4 It is no longer enough to win, it is deemed necessary to get rid of Fight or flight one’s opponents. The lines between parties are now clearly drawn, and open communication becomes an impossibility. The focus is on general principles rather than the concrete issue at hand. Disconfirming or contrary evidence to strongly held opinions is rejected. A split in the church, with significant numbers leaving, is likely at this point. Level 5 There is no longer any clear understanding of the issues. The Intractable – opponents are seen as dangerous to society or the church. Word ‘Vengeance shall choice implies the destruction or elimination of the other. At this be mine!’ highly destructive stage it may be necessary to remove some members of the church. the differing conditions of intensifying conflict. Some conflicts can come to the stage where they can only proceed constructively with outside help and mediation. The sad history of church splits and factions reflects the lack of effective, timely mediation. Table 12.2 can help to identify what stage or level of intensity a particular conflict has reached. Some of us may have experienced the trauma of church conflict escalating out of con- trol. This deeply damaging experience need not occur. If dealt with in the early stages (by Level 3), conflict in church can be an opportunity to achieve great strides forward in the redemption of sin’s imprint in our personality and relationships, and can be an occa- sion for the renewing of church structures. Ideally, church should be a safe place for sin to be exposed and dealt with, and its attendant wounds to be bathed in compassion. If we can allow conflict, in all its ugliness, to be handled responsibly, the church could redis- cover itself as a place of authentic change and transformation. To bring in an outside mediator is not a sign of failure; rather it signifies a realistic acceptance that when trust breaks down, and emotional reactions are high, a third party, who is perceived to be neu- tral by both parties, may be the only way forward to enable two-way communication. 238 Organisation and the church SUMMARY OF KEY THEMES Conflict as a normal feature of church life rather than a taboo. The five styles of conflict resolution (competition, accommodation, avoidance, compromise, collaboration). The balance between concern for the issue and concern for relationships. The conditions under which each different style is appropriate. How conflict resolution skills may be employed in different ways under ‘storm’ or ‘calm’ conditions. Deciding when a neutral mediator needs to be called in. QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER What has been your experience of conflict in church? Which of the following factors played an important part: 1 a taboo against conflict in church? 2 an expectation that church should be conflict-free and perfect? 3 a leadership style that did not allow confrontation, or any discussion of problems? 4 my own responses to conflict (flight or fight)? 5 the chosen conflict resolution style did not match the situation? 6 the conflict spiralled out of control and no mediator was brought in? 7 all of the above?  The church as an organisation 239 transmission through media (telephone, tax, letter, etc.) SENDER RECEIVER idea sent encoding noise decoding idea received feedback to sender Figure 12.4 A basic model of the communication process (Baron & Greenberg 1990: 335) Communication Conflicts within a church are often exacerbated, if not actually caused, by a problem of communication. We all know the power of the ‘grapevine’: informal, clandestine communiqués that can undermine, or even overturn, formal communications from the pulpit, newsletter, or church meeting. Equally, a ‘formal’ mode of communica- tion may sometimes be inappropriate or alienating if mistimed or misjudged. So, when problems begin to occur in church life, it is often a good idea to examine how communication is working, and how better communication could help to solve the problem. The most common problems are simply blocks in communication. People can be somewhat afraid of leaders, or of ‘making waves’, and thus refrain from speaking openly about issues that matter. As Christians, we can believe it is safer to be ‘nice’. Conversely, a leader or group may actively prevent discussion on some topics. Speaking openly becomes an impossibility. In either of these situations, people who feel disempowered to speak on a certain matter will siphon off their opinion and dis- content indirectly. Gossip begets gossip, and the grapevine buzzes. Inevitably this filters back, resulting in a further breakdown of trust and communication. It may be possible to re-establish open communication by gently facing the diffi- culties in conversation together with the person(s) concerned, encouraging open dialogue. For both leaders and followers, training in the art of communication (including the power of non-verbal cues such as body language) may be of help. Recognising that what a person intends to say is not always what is ‘heard’ by the other person is a first step. Sometimes it is necessary to seek feedback on what the other person thinks has been said, before proceeding with the next statement. Com- munication is not a simple process. A basic model consists of the steps illustrated in Figure 12.4. Accepting that there may be different interpretations of a ‘sent idea’ can begin to defuse the tensions. If training in communication and fresh attempts at restoring communication do not succeed, the situation may be helped by bringing a neutral 240 Organisation and the church centralised networks decentralised networks Figure 12.5 Centralised and decentralised communication networks (Baron & Greenberg 1990: 347-348) third person (preferably with some mediation experience) in to help both parties communicate their concerns. Church consultants and mediators are a growing resource for these common problems (see the suggested contacts at end of the chap- ter). It is a well-known phenomenon that teams of clergy or church workers often fail to ‘get on’. Many vicar–curate relationships are unsatisfactory, yet rarely is action taken to help restore communication. When communication breaks down, wise leaders seek a neutral mediator to enable open dialogue in a safe, controlled environment. It may also help to examine the formal networks of communication that exist in the church, and to decide whether they are working effectively or not. If, for example, commu- nication to and from the minister always has to pass through a secretary, a bottleneck may occur, restricting the free flow of information, as in centralised networks (see Figure 12.5). Harold Leavitt (1951) noted the effects of different kinds of communication net- works in laboratory experiments (see diagram above). Subjects were seated around a circular table, separated by vertical partitions. Subjects could pass messages through slots to form different kinds of communication networks. The results showed that for simple tasks, the wheel, with a person at the hub, was more efficient. For com- plex tasks the circle was more efficient at first, later the wheel became more efficient. However, group motivation was always better in decentralised networks, except for the person who before had sat in the centre and had previously enjoyed the power! For example, a minister may wish to be the hub of the wheel, handling the entire flow of information. This may work well for simple, everyday administrative tasks, but may not when the minister wants the group to be motivated to participate. The ‘rules’ of who communicates with whom need to be made explicit so that the deci- sion strategy a leader adopts corresponds to the formal communication network in place. To attempt a consultative decision style in church for a certain project with- out a decentralised network of communication is to invite frustration.  The church as an organisation 241 SUMMARY OF KEY THEMES The importance of effective communication. The complexity of the communication process. Dealing with gossip and the grapevine. Judging when to use formal and when informal modes of communication. Centralised and de-centralised networks of communication. QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER Is communication working in your church? Or are there ‘grapevines’ of gossip compensating? How would you rate the communication in a church meeting you have recently attended? Open? Somewhat closed? Closed and hostile? How do you react when someone misunderstands what you have communi- cated? Do you think they should have understood you? Draw some diagrams of the communication networks in your church (for example, your housegroup, the PCC or elders meetings, the leadership and congregation). Are there any situations in your church where communication may benefit from a neutral mediator? Motivation and group dynamics Studies in motivation were initially concerned with the productivity of organisations. Psychologists studied the productivity of individuals compared with the productivity of groups. A general trend was observed: individuals work less hard when they are in a group; they tend to ‘loaf’. This is a well-known phenomenon in church life: a few people do the most of the work, while the others tend to be ‘bums on pews’. A study by Latané et al. (1979) investigated how much noise people could make in a social setting. The amount of noise made per person dropped dramatically as the size of the group increased, even though the overall noise level grew. A shortcoming of this type of experiment, however, is that the groups weren’t ‘real’ groups; rather they were just random collections of individuals. The lack of a meaningful group with real relationships may contribute to social loafing. Another factor that contrib- utes to social loafing is the expectation that ‘someone else will do it’. If a person’s contribution is not being identified, and the person thinks that others are responsible, social loafing may easily result. When an individual’s contribution and responsibili- ties within a group are clearly identified, some studies show that they are much more likely to pull their weight. There are also times when group effort is in fact better than the sum of the indi- viduals’ efforts. The opposite of social loafing, called group facilitation, occurs when the task is complex, and the social interactions between the members of the group are meaningful. In this desirable situation, people try harder in the group and 242 Organisation and the church Box 12.3 The lifespan of a group 1 Forming Members get to know each other and establish ground rules. People can be a bit confused about how to act in the group and how beneficial it will be to be a member of the group. Once individuals come to think of themselves as a group the forming stage is complete. 2 Storming Members come to resist control of the group leader(s) and show hostility. A high degree of conflict within the group can be experienced. If not resolved, the group may be disbanded. As conflicts are resolved and the leadership is accepted, the storming stage is complete. 3 Norming Members work together, developing close relationships and feelings of camaraderie. This is the stage where the group is the most cohesive, and iden- tification as a member of the group becomes strongest. Shared responsibilities for the group’s activities are heightened. The norming stage is complete when the members of the group come to accept a common set of expectations that constitute an acceptable way of doing things. 4 Performing Questions about group membership and leadership have been resolved. Energy may now be devoted to getting the job done. The group’s good rela- tions and the acceptance of leadership help the task go well. 5 Adjourning Groups may disband after meeting their goals, or because members leave. Groups do not last forever. There needs to be official recognition and accep- tance of the group’s ending; time to grieve and give thanks for what was. (adapted from Tuckman and Jensen 1977) perform better. Studies show this is especially the case with complex problems. However, when the social interactions are meaningful, even in a simple task, people worked even harder and exerted more effort than when they were on their own. This principle underlies the logic of ‘cell’ churches, where small groups replicate in themselves all the functions of church life: teaching, pastoral care, prayer, outreach, and so on, in addition to a regular central church service. People of all ages who are members of a cell group within a church have to pull their weight, as the cell group  The church as an organisation 243 does not afford the luxury of relying on a few people up front to do the work of the church. The simple lesson for the church is to facilitate meaningful relationships between group members by fostering open and accepting communication, as well as encour- aging people to work together on interesting, complex tasks, for which each person has an identified responsibility. The success of Christian initiatives such as the Alpha course may be partly due to the open communication fostered in the groups, the team-building through shared meals, and shared responsibilities that are woven into the task of reaching others with the Christian message. Here we see the spheres of individual needs, team-building needs, and task needs interlocking to produce a high level of motivation. Group dynamics Churches thrive on smaller groups carrying out valued activities: children’s work, prayer groups, bible study groups, homegroups, men’s meetings, women’s meetings, youth groups, mission groups, and so on. Being part of a group meets social needs, and can provide some positive social identity, as well as the opportunity for some valued activity not possible on one’s own. Groups are not static entities; every group will have its own developmental lifespan. An effective leader will be aware of these dynamics. These are sometimes experi- enced in a linear fashion, sometimes cyclically, especially as new members come in and the group has to re-invent itself afresh. Motivation varies during these different stages (see Box 12.3). Groups in church seem to be at most risk in stages 2 and 5, ‘storming’ and ‘ad- journing’. The stage of storming was addressed earlier in this chapter, in the sec- tion on conflict resolution. Stage 5, adjourning, also seems to be particularly troublesome for church groups. On the whole, Christians are not good at ending groups. This may reflect in some way our culture’s dread of death and finality, or it may be that for Christians to terminate a group activity feels like a spiritual failure: surely anything truly Christian should go on forever. New beginnings, new out- reach programs, and burgeoning prayer groups make us feel that we are successful, and that our gospel is successful, but eventually most Christian groups, such as a homegroup, will have served their purpose. Typically, many church groups end in an embarrassed silence. Sometimes people who decide to leave a group or church find they are vilified. Yet, just as we honour the end of a person’s life with a funeral, people need a chance to experience this last group stage (or last stage of a member’s participation), to honour what was good, and learn from what could have been improved. By celebrating the adjourning of a group, and learning from our experience, we make space for a fresh beginning, rather than harbouring a sense of guilt or failure. 244 Organisation and the church SUMMARY OF KEY THEMES The phenomenon of ‘social loafing’. The importance of meaningful relationships and real group identity. How motivation is increased by the complexity of the task and the clear identifi- cation of responsibilities. Stages of group dynamics: forming, storming, norming, performing, adjourning. QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER What motivates you to work hard in a group activity? What de-motivates you? What is enjoyable for you about being part of a group in church? What is dissatisfying? Have you ever experienced the conflict of the ‘storming’ stage? How were things handled? What is your experience of either leaving or ending Christian groups? Decision-making in groups Polarisation We tend to consider that the activity of thinking is an essentially private, individual activity. However, empirical studies show that people think and make decisions in groups differently from how they would on their own. Awareness of this was first raised in an experiment carried out by James Stoner (1961). Stoner presented stu- dents with ‘business decisions’ to which they could choose either a risky or