This is the final post in the Christian Practice in Church module (Pastoral Studies) and its theme is group processes in church. All of what we might want to say about this subject is premised on one indisputable fact: people when functioning as part of a group behave differently than they would as individuals . Thus the post will offer insight on how groups function and the ways in which this may impact on church life. Drawing on the work of Fraser Watts, Rebecca Nye and Sara Savage in Psychology for Christian Ministry we shall explore three major group processes: conformity (i.e. group conformity); social identity (the group as a badge of belonging and what that does to individuals); and group discourse (how particular religious groups – Roman Catholic, Anglo-Catholic, Liberal, Evangelical, Charismatic and so on – have their own form of religious discourse which influences not only how they view the world but how they understand the things of faith). These will shed substantial light on how group thinking can determine aspects of congregational and denominational life.
Conformity
Conformity takes place when individuals in a congregation or a group change their own viewpoint to agree with the outlook of the majority of the group to which they belong, even though no overt pressure to conform has been exerted. It is a very natural group process. To conform leaves one feeling accepted in a group, to not conform leaves one feeling vulnerable and unsettled.
The power of conformity was well illustrated in a psychological experiment devised by Solomon Asch. Members of a control group were shown a large image on one sheet of paper, and then four smaller images on a second sheet. One of these smaller images was the same as the original large image and participants were asked to match the two images. In the first experiment everyone undertook the exercise individually and only 0.7% of errors were made by this first control group. Thus 99.3% of the answers given were accurate.
The second group of subjects, the experimental group (there were seven of them), were asked to sit in a semi-circle and to give their judgment out loud in the group. In actuality, six of the subjects were undercover 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 question of interest was: ‘what would the ‘real’ subject do when everyone else gave a wrong answer?
37% of the answers given in that environment were erroneous, even though, if the subjects had done the same experiment on an individual basis, the margin of error would have been negligible. Thus Asch’s experiment revealed that conformity is quite widespread. It is not unusual for people to change their opinions, even distorting their own judgment, when they are at variance with others.
Below are some of the main factors which Watts, Nye and Savage suggest influence conformity.
1. How large the group is.
The more people share the 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. Woman are shown to conform more in face-to-face situations.
4. How ambiguous the stimulus is.
The more ambiguous (or mysterious) the stimulus is, 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.
Psychology for Christian Ministry
Given the above set of findings, it is not surprising that churches are viewed as having many of the factors that lead to a high level of conformity. Often they are made up of a large group of people. Usually, the opinions of fellow church members matter quite a lot to those who take their role in church seriously. A sense of belonging is also very important to church members as is an awareness of spiritual need and the desire to find acceptance. Moreover, the stimulus (God) is fairly ambiguous and mysterious, and clergypersons or church leaders are considered to be the experts. Dissenters in church groups are often side-lined or demoted. It is not surprising, therefore, 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 one talks, dresses and acts.
Group membership badges
Most church cultures display what has been termed GMBs or Group Membership Badges. These are ways of demonstrating that one belongs in that type of church or that one shares that type of spirituality.
Exclamations such as ‘Amen’, ‘Hallelujah’, ‘Praise the Lord’, ‘Glory’ are ways of signalling Pentecostal faith. The vocabulary is a badge of belonging. Similarly, in evangelical/fundamentalist churches the use of terminology such as ‘saved’ or ‘born again’ communicates an insider mentality. In Roman Catholic churches manual actions such as crossing oneself or genuflecting can function as a badge of membership. Other churches display their GMB’s simply through a marked absence of ostentatious language or gestures. Not raising one’s hands in the air can be just as much a GMB as raising one’s hands. What other people do or do not do in church can put an invisible pressure on church members to do likewise.
However, conformity does not just relate to types of vocabulary or liturgical actions. Groups of people also tend to develop unwritten, yet pervasive, sets of norms. In some churches, the unwritten norms are (1) Be nice; (2) Always smile; (c) Never say ‘No’; (4) Pretend everything is okay.
Other church norms might include (1) Behave with decorum; (2) Religion is a private affair; (3) Everything should remain as it is.
Challenging conformity
 |
| Jesus on trial. Accessed at myyearofjubilee50.blogspot.com |
Most of these norms are not divinely mandated – they are the product of group interaction. The problem is that they take on a religious significance and become a badge of spirituality for those who adhere to them. Watts, Nye and Savage argue that our Christian heritage provides us with the means to challenge conformity in churches. They cite the Gospel’s description of Jesus standing against the groundswell of enthusiasm that followed his healings and miracles. With stringent requirements (e.g. ‘Unless you are willing to carry your cross’) and bewildering, sometimes offensive statements (‘Unless you hate your father and mother, you cannot be my disciple’) Jesus made it difficult for people to follow him unless it was out of a conscienced moral choice. It is the view of Watts, Nye and Savage that the church needs to follow suit and offer the following suggestions for curbing unhealthy conformity in church settings.
* 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 GMB’s? 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 conformity 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 consent. Admitting limitations reduces an over-reliance on the leader’s opinion.
* Welcoming dissent - Leaders need to reward integrity. One dissenter in the group can be enough to give the others freedom
* Conscienced choice not conformity - Seek to influence the people through conscienced choice (minority influence), rather than conformity (majority influence)
For 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 etc. Majority influence has been pervasive 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. However, we have reached a point where the church is no longer in a position to command majority influence. There is less and less a shared Christian worldview that provides a plausibility structure to support the church’s claims or expectations.
This diminution of the church’s majority influence can very easily be perceived as bad news, but the thing to remember is that it is possible for a minority to exercise influence over a majority. A study by Moscovici and Lage in 1976 found that a minority, although few in number and lacking the kudos of the majority, can turn the tide of majority influence and ‘convert’ inward convictions by their approach and way of being. It is that kind of influence which we would want the church to exert on people. This is achieved, claim the authors, by the church proposing a clear position on the issue at hand; being unified in their position; and, most importantly, holding that position consistently over time, even in the face of a hostile majority.
Questions to consider
* Has someone you know changed their behaviour or thinking radically to conform 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 this way?
* What is valuable in conforming?
* Can conformity be easily distinguished from real ‘conversion’?
* Does our denomination act as an effective minority influence within the two jurisdictions? Why or why not?
Social Identity
 |
| Nazi storm-troopers. Accessed at xtimeline.com |
The pressure to conform is one example of how we can be influenced by our social circumstances. Another way we can be affected is other people’s view of us becoming part of our own sense of identity.This can be illustrated in the early years of life and the relationship between a child and her parents.
‘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’ feelings and responses. We internalise these attitudes and they
become, over time, part of our identity, although its origins are social in nature.’ (Watts, Nye & Savage)
Crucially, the kind of group to whom we belong also plays a part in forming our social identity. This is evidenced in questionnaires where an individual often answers the question ‘who am I?’ with reference to the particular social groups (family, church, class, employment, college, and so on) of which he or she is part. However, there is more to this than simple identification. Our initial perception of the group to which we belong (the in-group) will tend to be positive whilst our perception of an out-group will be negative. Watts et al highlight the tendency to exaggerate both the amount of similarity within certain social groups as well as the dissimilarity between groups. In terms of the former, this is especially the case with how the out-group is perceived. Bad qualities or attitudes are imputed to all members of this group. Likewise, the differences between the two groups are over-emphasised with little attention given to the similarities.
Watts, Nye and Savage offer examples of how these social identity processes (especially the negative perception of outgroups) has damaged church life and church relationships.
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 disputes 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 the areas of dispute, and the areas of commonality is 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 (GMB’s) are considered as a mandatory ‘entrance fee’ before dialogue can even begin.
3. Leaving a church or a 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 distinctives of one’s own group, and to receive the enhanced positive self-esteem of one’s own group membership confers. To pursue the super-ordinate goal of Christian unity means foregoing some immediate self-esteem benefits.
Questions to Consider
* Begin to think about in-group preferences within your own church or group. Without awareness of in-group preferences we cannot take responsibility for their consequences.
* Examine biblical examples when groups overcame the natural desire for negative group bias (e.g. the decision to include Gentiles on an equal basis within the early 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’?
* 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?
* Reflect on whether there are mutually negative perceptions between churches/groups in your area.
* Reflect on the relative importance of the major commonalities versus the major differences between Christian groups/churches.
Discourse
 |
| Martin Luther King. Accessed at xtimeline.com |
 |
| Pope Benedict XVI. Accessed at catholiclane.com |
 |
| Billy Graham. Accessed at refdag.nl |
We have considered conformity and social identity and now we proceed to the final section of our post: religious discourse as a group process.
Without attempting a convoluted description of what that term means, it may suffice to say that it is premised on the belief that the language we use shapes the way we interpret reality (i.e. those things we choose to think about and emphasise determine our world view.)
When we look at spoken (or written) language with that notion in mind, we can start to ask what is happening in this discourse? Why is this aspect of reality being emphasised, and not that one? How is this discourse persuading me to think? Charismatic, liberal, evangelical, fundamentalist, Roman Catholic, and other expressions of Christianity all create their own discourses (using language to depict reality in a certain way.) Moreover, each specific religious discourse has the effect of making thinking some thoughts easy and ‘self-evident’. At the same time, it can make thinking other thoughts more difficult, either because there are not the words or concepts to describe them in the discourse that is being employed, or because those thoughts have been denigrated in that discourse.
Religious discourse and social identity
Discourses also serve to reinforce social identities, underscoring the values and truths which are key to the particular religious community. For example, liberal religious discourse focuses on the theme of justice and the liberty and rights of the individual in the here and now. Roman Catholic discourse might focus on the need for a final and undisputable authority with regard to doctrine and morality.
What follows now are two examples of Christian religious discourse which tell us much about the values and convictions of certain ‘versions’ of evangelical and charismatic Christianity (see attached documents). These are not made up discourses. Take some time to read the material.
Thoughts on evangelical and charismatic discourse
The church historian David Bebbington conducted an historical survey of evangelicalism in Britain and identified four main traits common to evangelicalism. It is interesting to note that the sample discourse displays all four characteristics.
Conversionism (the desire for radical and decisive personal transformations)
Biblicism (the Bible as central and authoritative)
Activism (an emphasis on action in the world)
Crucicentrism (a strong focus on the event and meaning of Christ’s crucifixion)
But there is more involved in the outworking of this particular discourse. The speaker seeks to establish the identity of evangelicalism, draw firm boundaries around it and uncompromisingly assert its values and norms. He does that, as happens in most discourses, by certain rhetorical devices. Most pertinently, he creates black and white contrasts designed to make the listener overwhelmingly convinced of his own position.
Of course, evangelical discourse is not alone in trying to persuade its listeners. This is the goal of any persuasive communication. 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.
Let us now look briefly at the example of charismatic discourse cited.
According to Watts et al, charismatic discourse has four main characteristics: emphasis on the subjective and experiential; concreteness and anthropomorphism; emotionality and warmth; and a focus on the miraculous and the supernatural. We see them below contrasted with evangelical discourse.
Evangelical discourse Charismatic discourse
conversionism subjective/emotional validation
biblicism concreteness/anthropomorphism
activism emotion and warmth
crucicentrism miracles
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 experiential rather than empirical, and sound rather vague (eg. ‘God showed up in power’) Objective criteria or any solid proof, are not required.
There is concreteness and immediacy of expression (eg. ‘We spoke, we prayed and God showed up in power … God’s power flowed through them’; also, God is presented 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 highs and lows. Conversion to the ideas being presented happens not so much through concrete choice as friendliness and emotional osmosis.
Although not as apparently adversarial as evangelical discourse, charismatic discourse 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.
Baptist theologian Nigel Wright observes that there are few categories or terms within charismatic discourse to describe natural human processes. 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 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 not taken into consideration as they don’t fall neatly into the two extremes of ‘God’ versus ‘Not God’’. The summary of the trip was ‘This is not us, it is God.’
Questions to consider
* How would you describe the discourse of your church or theological 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 charismatic discourse were in dialogue, what points might they disagree upon?
* Just because discourses are not neutral does not mean they are wrong and untrustworthy. It does mean that they exert influence, 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 explicit aims of discourse? Is it possible for the way we speak and write to be completely neutral?
Conclusion
The following two citations from Watts, Nye and Savage offer a fitting conclusion to the journey we have taken.
‘It is important to note that 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 in church.
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.’
‘Jesus’ use of parables was a masterful bid against the constraining effects of discourse (e.g. The Good Samaritan). 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 conformity, our sense of social identity and negative expressions of our group discourse.’
