How Adults Learn - Learning Styles

This is the first of three posts in which we look at the theme of Adult Learning. This is significant because the church itself is a place of learning whether this be Sunday mornings, bible studies or an Alpha course.  If the posts have an over-arching aim it is to explore ways in which faith can be developed through adult learning.  This will involve introducing you to the theory of adult learning and enhancing your skills in the development and delivery of this experience in the church context.  For a moment of light relief I invite you to watch this clip from Mr Bean which highlights what can happen when adults are not helped to engage with the learning process!

What made this a negative learning experience for Mr Bean?

David Kolb

Accessed at https://twitter.com/davkolb

In the 1970’s David Kolb developed the Experiential Learning Cycle. He suggested that there were 4 distinct stages in the learning process and that each individual has a preference for a particular style of learning. The significance of Kolb’s work is that he emphasised that learning and change result from the integration of emotional experiences with cognitive processes.  See the diagram below which illustrates Kolb’s depiction of the learning process.

Kolb named the 4 learning styles:  converger, diverger, assimilator and accommodator.  Peter Honey and Alan Mumford developed a similar description of learning styles. They described the four basic styles as activist, theorist, reflector and pragmatist. These learning theories have significant implications for the design and methodology of teaching. Additional materials used during the seminar in CITI will help you not only identify your own particular learning style but suggest ways in which you may vary your teaching approach so that it engages with as wide a variety of learning styles as possible.

 

The Activist Learning Style

 A person with a preference for the activist learning style will learn best from activities and experiences in which:

• There is a challenge
• There are new experiences / problems / opportunities
• They get closely involved with experiential activities
• There is an element of drama / excitement/ crisis
• There is a wide range of activities to get involved with
• They get a good deal of attention focussed on their role in the learning
• There is freedom to generate ideas without them being shaped by external constraints
• They get thrown in at the deep end with a difficult task and limited or inadequate resources
• The learning involves working with others in a team where ideas can be bounced around.

The activist may have trouble where:

• Learning involves a passive role, listening to lectures, watching without being able to participate
• They are asked to stand back and not be involved
• They are expected to assimilate, analyse or interpret detailed data
• They have to work on their own
• They asked to assess beforehand what they hope to learn and evaluate what they have learnt afterwards
• They are expected to understand theoretical statements
• They are expected to perform the same activity over and over again
• They are expected to give close attention to minor details

The Reflector Learning Style

People who prefer to learn by reflection will be most at ease in situations where:

• They are observing
• They have time to think and prepare before acting
• Painstaking research is possible
• There is an opportunity to review and evaluate what is being learnt
• They are asked to produce a careful, analytical response to an activity
• Exchange of views takes place within a well structured situation which minimises the risk of personal disagreement or confrontation
• There is time to reach a decision without deadlines

Reflectors are less likely to learn well where:

• They are forced into the limelight
• Expected to act without planning
• They are asked for off the cuff ideas
• There is insufficient data on which to base a conclusion
• They are given inflexible instructions about how things should be done
• They are under pressure of time
• It is necessary to take short cuts

The Theorist Learning Style

 

The person with a preference for a theorist learning style will learn best from activities in which:

• The theoretical basis is clear
• There is a methodical exploration of the links between ideas, events and situations
• They are intellectually stretched
• There is a clear structure and purpose
• Ideas and concepts emphasise logic and rationality, are elegantly expressed and supported by water tight arguments
• They can analyse and then generalise the reasons for success or failure
• There are interesting ideas on offer
• Participation in and understanding of complex situations is required

The theorist may experience difficulty where:

• The context or purpose is unclear
• There is an emphasis on emotions or feelings
• Activities are unstructured and open ended
• Decisions are taken without a contextual basis being established
• Doubt exists about the methodological soundness of data
• There is little opportunity for an in depth exploration of the subject
• There is a high proportion of activist participants.

The Pragmatist Learning Style

 

A person who prefers the pragmatist learning style will learn most effectively when:

• There is an obvious link between the subject matter and some practical aspect of the work
• The learning emphasises advantages techniques of performance
• There is someone who can offer coaching as they try out and practice new techniques
• They are presented with a model for emulation
• They are taught techniques which are relevant to their work
• There is an immediate opportunity to practice what is being learnt
• They feel they are grappling with real problems
• They can concentrate on the action plan

Pragmatist learners will learn less well in situations where:

• They cannot see the point in what they are learning
• The teacher seems to be remote from reality
• There is no opportunity to practice anything
• The learning seems to be going round in circles
• There are barriers to implementing what is being learnt
• The learning activity does not have an adequate reward

Do you recognize yourself in any of these depictions of learning styles?  Here is a further pointer which may help you identify your own learning style. Consider the question, ‘How would I learn to ski?’ 

The Activist might do so by going out onto the slopes and just going for it, they  learn through trial and error.

The Pragmatist will take lessons from the Professional but their first question will be ‘Does this work, is this worth it?’

The Reflector would watch the Professional until he/she felt confident about trying themselves.

The Theorist will teach him / herself from a book which begins by examining the effect of the face of the ski on the snow.

Honey and Mumford’s theory is not just important in terms of self-awareness. It is also significant when we come to teach. They pointed out that not only will we have a preferred learning style but that it is also the one we are most comfortable with when teaching others. We tend to think of our own experience as normative and so imagine that we are being most helpful when we draw from it, however, what helped us may not be the best or only way for others.

In her book, Learning for Life, Yvonne Craig gives a helpful table outlining possible activities which suit the different learning styles

Activists tend to like: Role play Simulation games Competitive team games Drama Sculpting Buzz groups Workshops Brainstorming Projects visits	Reflectors tend to like: Good briefing Discussions Debates Panels of experts Group interviews Film Video Libraries One-to-one work with a tutor
Theorists tend to like: Lectures A guided reading list Programmed learning Tutorials Supervision Sermons seminars	Pragmatists tend to like: Case studies Demonstrations On-the-job training Meeting the expert Workshops Instruction Training seminars Problem-solving

How many of these ideas and activities have you employed in your own experience of teaching?

This post ends with the instructions you will be given during the CITI seminar next month.  Think about how the material covered in this post might relate to the task you have been allotted.

Adult Learning Seminar

Identify your main learning style using the Honey and Mumford questionnaire. In groups plan a Bible study session which takes account of different learning styles. Your group will choose the passage and the goal will be to make it as accessible  as possible for every learner.

Liturgy & Pastoral Care

The purpose of this post is to explore the relationship between liturgy and pastoral care. One of the most relevant texts in this regard is Elaine Ramshaw’s publication, Ritual and Pastoral Care.  In this study she makes the claim that “the paradigmatic [or model] act of pastoral care is presiding at the worship of the assembly”. (13)
 

Liturgical theologian, Elaine Ramshaw. Accessed from btfo2009.blogspot.com

An insightful pastoral incident

She gives a clue as to why she takes this view when she cites in the opening page of the book an incident involving a pastor she knows who had the practice of celebrating the eucharist weekly.  The incident to which she refers happened in a church where he had recently begun to minister.  It had come to his attention after a month or so that a particular woman in the congregation never received Communion.  However, about three months after his installation the woman for the very first time came forward and partook of the bread and wine.  When the minister talked to her afterwards she confirmed that this was the first time that she had gone to Communion since he had taken over and moreover, that she had not been to the table for many years.  Long ago she had gone through an acrimonious divorce and felt that her anger at her husband and her inability to forgive him had been an obstacle to her coming to the Lord’s Table.

‘But’, she went on to explain, ‘the way you celebrate is so hospitable, it made it difficult for me not to come.’  ‘Through every tone and gesture’, Ramshaw says, ‘my friend made it irresistibly clear that the whole service led to that table sharing where the community was united, so that finally she just couldn’t stay away.’ 

Her purpose in telling that story is that she saw it as an excellent illustration of the way pastoral care can be accomplished in and through ritual action. Now this is where our discussion has particular relevance to the essay on funerals. Ramshaw acknowledges that discussions about pastoral care in recent times have usually given ritual short shrift. That is, it has been down-played or even dismissed as an expression of pastoral care. In Ramshaw’s words, 

The public liturgical role of the pastor has often been dissociated from the ‘private’, individualized, counseling role that is considered the essence of pastoral care. However, she entirely disagrees with that perception of ritual. In her view it is the paradigmatical act of pastoral care. I am going to cite the full quotation and I am sure you will gain a greater sense of the point that she is trying to make.

'It is my conviction that the paradigmatic act of pastoral care is the act of presiding at the worship of the gathered community, and that this priority in no way contravenes the importance of the one-on-one, ‘private,’ counseling-oriented dimension of pastoral care or the psychological insights that today inform that dimension. Rather the pastoral act of liturgical leadership supports this as well as other dimensions of pastoral caring, giving them the focus and experiential quality that clearly defines them as ‘pastoral’.'

Part of what Ramshaw is saying here – is that when pastoral care in the more ‘one-to-one’ sense is complemented by the meaningful use of ritual,  the pastoral experience can be imbued with a sense of community and even of the transcendent.  Imagine, for instance, a pastoral retreat where the participants share the eucharist together in an informal celebration that allows them to express their care for each other and their common worship of God.

Interestingly, the perspective of this American Lutheran theologian was present in the thought of a German Catholic liturgical expert of a previous generation,  Fr Josef Jungmann, who similarly believed that liturgy, when it was actively engaged in, could have profound pastoral effects.  Addressing the First International Congress of Pastoral Liturgy at Assisi in 1956, and speaking specifically about the historical impact of the liturgy, he underscored his point by reminding his audience that, ‘The living liturgy, actively participated in, was itself for centuries the most important form of pastoral care.’

Activity: Spend a little time reflecting on an experience of liturgy or ritual that was beneficial pastorally in your own life? What made the experience a good one? 

The pastoral function of liturgical worship

Typical mainline worship service. Accessed at gracelutheranlibertyville.org



Given the positive place that some theologians give to liturgy as a means of pastoral care, I want us to think very concretely about ways in which church services can function pastorally and about why this is so.  To do this task more effectively it will helpful to address the question,  ‘What is worship?’ 

1.Worship as Service to God:  Many Christian communities have understood worship to be a service to God, a duty which his people perform as an act of obedience to the One who is the source of their life and salvation. The word worship carries with it the idea of ascribing to God the worth that is His right.

In many of our traditions we pray that God will accept our worship as a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, and this language of sacrifice is another way of talking about worship as service. Just as in the OT sacrifice was a sign of devotion to God, today when we talk about worship as a sacrifice it is operating in a similar way- a sign that we offer all that we have and are to God.

A potential difficulty or anomaly here is that while service or obedience to God is crucial to worship – our efforts in this regard do not earn us God’s favour.  They neither diminish nor increase the love that God has for us.  Ironically, though, our worship or service will do us good.

2.Worship as the mirror of heaven. For many Christians worship is an attempt to capture the worship of God which takes place eternally in heaven. Ceaseless praise is our ultimate human destiny. In giving ourselves over to worship now we are preparing ourselves for our ultimate vocation.  Of course, saying this, it must be acknowledged that we still have no real idea yet of what heaven will be like. We do, however, in a meaningful act of worship receive a glimpse of the Kingdom and are strengthened in our desire to live for that Kingdom and bring it into being.

3. Worship as affirmation: Many Christians believe that the primary focus of worship is to affirm, support and inspire Christians. Living the Christian life is challenging - but in worship we touch again the ground of our belief, and in do doing so are able to renew the struggle against the classic enemies of faith – the world, the flesh and the Devil. However, even this interpretation of worship has hidden difficulties. It is a markedly ‘insider’ affair with little attention being given to those who may as yet be outsiders. It is also a very comfortable understanding of worship which assumes that it is simply about being affirmed and never being shaken or challenged.

4. Worship as communion   In worship we make our relationship with God and with the Christian community visible. In this view worship forms and sustains essential relationships.  There is a recognition that we were created for relationship by God, and to express that relationship in every way possible is both God’s deepest desire and our highest calling. When he writes to Christians in Corinth, Paul is concerned that they understand that worship is meant to strengthen the Body (1 Cor 14: 26). Willimon puts it like this “If the community does not worship, it is not a Christian community. If worship does not upbuild and sustain the community it is not Christian worship” (1979:20)

5. Worship as proclamation:  Seen from another vantage point, the heart of Christian faith is to proclaim the good news of God in Christ. Worship is the public place where Christians gather to make that public proclamation and witness.

1 Peter 2:9 “You are a chosen race a royal priesthood a holy nation Gods people, in order that you might proclaim the mighty acts of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light”

Of course, a potential difficulty with this as the predominant model of worship is that worship must also be about listening as well as speaking. Moreover proclamation can end up sidelining God in favour of the target audience who are the recipients of the proclamation.  It was Tozer decades ago who identified that forms of worship, especially Evangelical worship, were in danger of displacing God as the central focus in favour of the sermon.  

Activity: Which of these definitions of worship are most significant in your understanding of worship?

Let us re-cap what we have been saying about the link between worship or liturgy and pastoral care. When human beings worship, God meets with them and they encounter him. As they offer all that they are to God, certain that nothing is beyond God’s knowledge or interest, he meets them and ministers to them.  In other words, God is at work through services of worship to care for His people, to remind them of His love and to challenge them to commitment or service. There is thus, at least potentially, a dynamic, closely integrated relationship between worship and pastoral care.  Of course, liturgy can also be repetitive and lifeless, but there is the promise of something more when real engagement takes place. 

The experience of worship functioning as pastoral care

Here are just a few examples of worship functioning as pastoral care. McDevitt, Dosen and Ryan (2006) describe a situation in 2005 where 23 schools in the Archdiocese of Chicago had to be closed down. This action affected 500 school teachers and over 4,000 school children and there was huge angst and pain for those affected.  The archdiocese was concerned that resources were made available to help the children cope with their feelings of loss.  A key part of all that was done was an act of worship which included prayer and reflection on the theme of the wounded healer.  There was also an invitation for each participant to offer a prayer of blessing for another person at their table.  This act was no mere sharing of pain but rather it was each one involved allowing his or her own experience of being wounded to soften his or her heart toward the other in his or her woundedness.  The opportunity for participants to minister to one another was a powerful closing to the day and something that helped the children and teachers profoundly.

A second example is a service of naming and thanksgiving for a child who had been stillborn many years before. The elderly lady for whom the service was conducted had never seen her baby (it had been taken to the incinerator by a nurse) nor had there been any acknowledgment that the child had had an identity. Although the vicar who took the service was not deeply engaged – the ritual which involved naming the child brought profound emotional release and healing for both the woman and her husband.

  

A third example which I want us to spend some time reflecting on,  in class involves a service developed by the Methodist Church in Ireland for use with those who had been victims of the Troubles.  The activity outlined below will be undertaken during the weekend session.

Activity: Take a copy and in groups examine how it might function pastorally, suggesting ways in which God might use that service to minister His care to suffering individuals.

Glebsch and Jaekle say that pastoral care has four main functions. These are healing, sustaining, guiding and reconciling. While there are many means through which these functions may be expressed, the point of this post is to affirm and utilize the fact that worship is one channel through which pastoral care may be offered.  Elaine Ramshaw in her book examines the basic human needs which she believes are met by ‘healthy ritual practice.’ 

Prayer for healing. Accessed at wau.org

 

 

1. A need to establish order: We all need stability, order and the reassurance of continuity in our lives.  Anyone who doubts that that need has only to observe a toddler for a week.  

Even though little children show great creativity and spontaneity, it remains true that they have an insatiable need for ritualization. The story must be read with the same words, the same inflection, and the same ritualized question–and-answer exchanges. The passion with which children insist on sameness shows their need for order, stability, and the reassurance of continuity in human interaction. 

And what is true of the toddler, is true of the pensioner and, true indeed, of everyone else. We need to know what is stable, what is reliable,  what is not subject to the pressures that make everything else around us change. Worship, especially services of worship which follow a particular pattern, can provide continuity and order in a rapidly changing world.  

Ramshaw tells us that the mistake of many pastors is to read all resistance to liturgical innovation as rigidity, and to mock the conservative impulse. The reality is that the need for order and continuity is fundamental to the way that liturgy or ritual works. Thus when people say, ‘We have always done it that way,’  it is not simply unwarranted resistance to much needed innovation, it can be the expression of a felt need for continuity in a rapidly changing world. ‘If my life has been turned upside down by redundancy, or divorce, or my children leaving home, it is still the case that in my experience of ritual or liturgy I am secure and there is a sense of order.’ Ramshaw argues that anyone who does not have deep respect for that hunger for continuity should not be meddling with other people’s ritual practice. 

However, Ramshaw is not advocating that nothing should be changed or that the ideal mindset is blind adherence to rigidly fixed liturgical forms. In her view,  absolute rigidity is a perversion of the purpose of ritual.  There is, and needs to be, scope for innovation and development but the introduction of change in ritual practice should be gradual and respectful of the need for continuity of practice. She sums her view up in these words, ‘[Healthy ritualization provides] the stability of a dependable context within which variance can delight.’ 

2. The need to reaffirm meaning: Another function of ritual is that it can communicate meaning.  Ramshaw puts it like this,  ‘…all ritualization communicates some sort of meaning, even if that meaning is as simple a message as ‘I will act as expected of me in this situation.’ What is invariably the case with formal rituals is that they carry the core meanings of the social group performing them, the meanings which determine that group’s world view.

Symbols in ritual make a tremendous impact.  Whether it be the cross on the wall of a church, or the act of giving bread and wine, or the veneration and reading of the Sacred Text,  individuals express the deepest meanings they know, and often meanings that are deeper than they consciously know, in their expression of ritual.  Ramshaw has a wonderful summary statement that tells us much about how ritual functions for us.

The human need to make sense of experience is universal and fundamental. Faced with the biggest questions of life and death, love and evil, the origin and destiny of the universe, we cannot pin down an answer in logical formulas. We turn to symbolic expressions of our trust in that which grounds the goodness in our experience and shapes the tradition in which we make our meanings.

3.The need to bond community: A third function of ritual is to bond community.  Indeed, following Durkheim, many sociologists and anthropologists have seen social bonding as the central purpose of religious and civil ritual.  Shared symbols and shared action focused on those symbols are thought to bond a community together through both the appearance and the experience of acting as one.

However, Ramshaw is aware that there is something problematic about making that claim for the church context and its ritual. She states that many churches seek to build community through community-building activities and programmes, but that they do not recognize that the sacramental or the worship life of the Church as the primary place to build community. As she puts it, ‘A congregation may form geographical ‘clusters’ or plan elaborate social events and never consider how its ritual life contributes to community.’

And that point is illustrated in the way that certain things can be done. She asks, what does it mean that people are initiated into the community in private services with only immediate family present? Or why in certain churches is the eucharist only celebrated four times a year when it is meant to be the sacrament of unity.  Her point is that there should not be a sharp dividing line between the ritual and the ‘social’ life of the church and that our instinct should be to find ways of uniting or combining them. As she puts it,

The point intended here is not an opposition between ritual and nonritual dimensions of community-making, but rather a reminder that whatever else we do together, the core of our communal identity is enacted in worship.

It is Ramshaw’s view that ritual can be enacted in such a way that it genuinely does create or nurture community.  The key is active participation. The more widely and actively people participate in a ritual, the more they experience it as their own, as part of their identity, and the more connected they tend to feel to the other participants.  The worse case scenario is where people go to church to simply hear the preacher and merely to tolerate the rest of the service. That is bound to make any accompanying liturgy or ritual action ineffective for creating community.

What is really needed is a church community which corporately performs this ‘work of the people’, enthusiastically participating in the hymn singing and liturgical songs,  actively engaging with the intercessions, sharing the peace with warmth and openness towards their fellow worshippers, contributing creative skills to the decoration of the church, taking on roles as readers or intercessors, contributing a singing or musical gift, and so on and so on.  When ritual or liturgy has that level of participation, then real community becomes possible.

Activity: reflect on a church setting where worship, liturgy or ritual helped create a sense of community?

4. The need to handle conflicting emotions: Ramshaw notes that one of the greatest threats to order, meaning and community in human life is the disruptive impact of ambivalent or conflicting feelings. Our love can be coloured by jealousy,  our caring by resentment, our respect by envy and our sympathy by disdain. As fallen creatures we are limited in our virtues. The old Reformed theologians deployed the very unappealing phrase ‘total depravity’ to sum up this paradox in our natures. The phrase was never meant to mean that we were as bad as we possibly could be. It meant that every aspect of our being without exception was coloured by sin. No part of us escaped the virus, so to speak. We were in that sense ‘totally’ depraved.

It is Ramshaw’s contention that there are two ways in which the use of ritual helps us to handle this conflict or ambivalence in our feelings.  The first way is by reinforcing the preferred positive emotion and the second by containing the expression of the unwanted, conflicting emotion.  The rituals of our churches, like many formal ceremonies, use the first method of dealing with ambivalence extensively, emphasizing and reaffirming the appropriate emotional attitudes.  Think about the Confession and the Peace as ritual acts which nurture positive attitudes and feelings. 

However, church rituals, according to Ramshaw, are much less successful at providing occasions to express conflicting emotional attitudes. This is sad because the Bible itself, particularly the Psalms and the Book of Job, gives much more freedom of expression than any of our normal liturgies do. Freedom to be angry, even with God. Freedom to question. Freedom to lament that which has been lost. Interestingly, the worship song by Matt Redmond (Blessed be your name) probably allows more freedom to express loss and pain than most of our set prayers. (Play You Tube of Redmond’s performance of this with the London Community Gospel Choir).  Ramshaw’s words are very opportune at this point in summing up ritual’s capacity to help us deal with our feelings of ambivalence,

In theological terms, we need to remember that biblical faith is not defined by suppressing one’s doubt and protest, but by addressing one’s trust and doubt and praise and protest to God as if it mattered supremely to do so.’ (p.33)

5. The need for life cycle rites: It’s at this point in the lecture that I want us to think about how liturgy or ritual aid ‘rites of passage’, particularly funerals, as these are the most painful and tragic of all rites of passage. 

However, before I talk specifically about funerals it may be helpful to say a bit more about what we mean by ‘rites of passage.’ The term was coined by the anthropologist Arnold Van Gennup in his book of the same name, first published in 1909.  For him, rites of passage were rites or ritual actions which accompany the passage of a person from one social status to another in the course of his or her life. The typical rites of passage are those that accompany birth, the attainment of adult status, marriage and death.

Arnold Van Gennep. Accessed at massivnews.com

Accessed at press.uchicago.edu

 

When Van Gennup looked at rituals related to such crises as death he saw three phases in these ‘rites of passage’: separation, transition, and reincorporation.  William Willimon believes that if we analyse the formal and informal rituals that surround death, we can group them around these three parts of a rite of passage. When a loved one dies, the bereaved experience a feeling of separation. The dead person is not there in his familiar chair nor at the dinner table in the evening, and the living begin the painful process of separating themselves from the dead.  The rituals that surround the wake, viewing of the body (should this happen), the graveside service, even the actual lowering of the coffin and sprinkling of soil on the lid, can all be visible, acted means of coming to terms with the separation of death.  To avoid such separation (perhaps by neglect of the rituals) is to postpone a necessary first step in the grief process and to run the risk of prolonging the pain of grief.

The second part of the rite of passage that surrounds death is the process of transition.  The person going through grief often experiences a time of limbo where their whole life is on hold and the world seems to stop. The person is dealing with what anthropologist Victor Turner calls ‘liminality’, the ordeal of moving across one of life’s significant boundaries. One day a man is married, the next day he is a widow. 

In the midst of this transition phase, the funeral service can play an educative function in helping the bereaved come to terms with the loss. Here the church says in effect, ‘When death comes these are things that we believe.’ As Willimon puts it, ‘The scripture readings, prayers, and hymns, all focus upon the values and beliefs that the Christian community uses to interpret the meaning of the crisis of death.’  Thus death is put in some meaningful, ultimate context.

Finally, there is the third stage in the process which is reincorporation. The mourners are separated from their loved ones who have died and are separated out for a time of special attention in which the community works in formal and informal ways to help the mourners make a painful transition. The goal of these actions is to enable the mourner to re-enter the mainstream of life. This is a crucial stage and will determine whether the future is bright or one which echoes the excessively morbid final decades of Queen Victoria’s life. The practice in many English parishes of holding memorial services for all those buried in the previous year often offers an opportunity, through ritual and homily, to encourage the bereaved to move on with their lives. Indeed, the habit of participating in ritual can also help to re-establish other necessary habits and patterns. Ramshaw suggests that we can learn a lesson in pastoral ritual from the Russian Orthodox Church, who have a two-part ritual for the dead: an evening service of mourning and eulogy followed by a vigil, and a morning mass of the resurrection. Thus loss and hope are held together in the church’s ritual embrace.

Activity: reflect on ways have you experienced funerals meeting pastoral needs?

6. Human need and theological integrity:  Finally, having now looked at the various human needs which God may choose to meet through worship, we need to talk explicitly about the theological problems which ritual can provoke. Elaine Ramshaw suggests that the power of ritual to communicate meaning is vitiated when ritual is known to lie or contradict experience.  She highlights three kinds of dishonesty which threaten ritual’s credibility as a carrier of meaning.

The first and most blatant type is for the ritual to make statements about the participants which are at variance with their real-life situations.  She cites the rhetoric of free choice in the Confirmation service when often it is parental or peer pressure that has been brought to bear on the teenagers being confirmed. Another example might be the funeral where, in terms of the ritual, there is a strong presumption of faith on the part of the deceased but the congregation knows that this was not the case. 

A second problem is the untruthfulnes that can happen when the worship leader imputs certain feelings to the congregation. For example,  expressing certain feelings of devotion which sum up part of the congregation’s state of mind, but which alienate the rest of them. Liturgical scholars call this the mistake of subjectivization, and they object to it not only because it risks inaccuracy and alienation, but also for the more theological reason that it focuses prayer on the praying person’s state of mind, rather than on the work of God.

The third common cause of ritual dishonesty is the manipulation of forcing people on the spot into ritual statements which they may not be inclined to make. An on the spot renewal of marriage vows, example!

Activity: reflect on where have you seen dishonest ritual take place?

7. The desire for liturgical markers or liturgy to mark life-cycle changes.

What do you think is happening when a couple with no church links come asking for the baby to be baptized? 

What human needs are being expressed in those requests?

Why do people feel that liturgy or ritual can meet that need?

What might your responses be as a minister to requests for ritual at significant moments in a person’s life? For example, a request that a couple’s stillborn baby be baptized?

Group Processes in Church

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.’

Mission In Ireland Today

Accessed from www.rte.ie

Last week we thought about religion in Ireland from a sociological perspective and explored the claim made by Durkheim, Weber and Wilson that secularization is a uni-directional, irreversible process. We also considered the phenomenon of globalization and noted that secular-leaning sociologists have suggested that with modernization on a worldwide scale comes secularization.  The fact remains that neither of these assumptions are beyond question.  Religion is strong in many parts of the world (including Latin America which has been impacted greatly by globalization) and there is what you might call a conservative reaction to secularization and globalization happening in many contexts. Moreover,  theories about secularization seem to be too mechanistic and too wedded to evolutionary theory. Human beings are reflexive agents who can influence social trends and not merely function as their pawns. 

Faith in Ireland

Having set the context from a sociological perspective,  it is time to explore in some depth mission in contemporary Ireland. Steve Skuce (and some others who have written about the current situation) suggest that Ireland as a whole (North and South) is saying farewell – one at perhaps a swifter rate than the other - to the forms of Christendom that have been so overwhelmingly dominant in Ireland’s past.  By Christendom,  we do not mean the church’s presence in society (that will continue),  but its historic centre place. 

Republic of Ireland

The Republic of Ireland for the majority of its history has functioned overwhelmingly as an expression of Christendom. In 1976 an American scholar, Bruce Francis Biever, published a survey of religious and moral attitudes of Dublin Catholics that was carried out in the 1960s.  The results are stunning in terms of the obviously pivotal role the church played in society at that time.

87% of correspondents disagreed with the statement that if there is a conflict between the church and state, the state should prevail. 

84% agreed that ‘if I had a son, I would surely wish him to be a priest, above and beyond everything else in the world.

82% disagreed that the church’s view on sex was out of date.

73% disagreed that the pleasurable sensations associated with sex are good.
 

How do we know, therefore, that things have changed rapidly and radically in the intervening period? Apart from surveys that we will examine in some detail, I would direct you to books such as The End of Irish Catholicism? by Vincent Twomey and Skuce’s interesting little book Faith Reborn which both trace this relatively sudden reversal of fortunes for the mainstream churches.

  

A simple way in to understanding the change of outlook which has taken place in the Republic of Ireland is this potted summary of recent key events.  

1.     Changes in the laws of the Republic have marked a turning away from Catholic moral influence (e.g. the legalization of divorce, the widespread availability of contraceptives, the legalization of homosexual practices and the recent Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act which itself came fast on the heels of civil partnership legislation that had been initiated in 2010.) There is little question that especially in regard to moral teaching, the Catholic church has lost much of its power to influence. Two random examples from surveys taken in 1981, 1990 and 1999 respectively  illustrate the rapid loss of church authority in these matters.  The percentage of the population saying abortion was never justified fell from 83% in 1981, to 66% in 1990, to 60% in 1999.  On the issue of homosexuality, the percentage saying the practice was never justified fell from 62% in 1981, to 56% in 1990, to 38% in 1999.




Paedophile priest, Fr. Brenden Smyth Accessed from irishcentral.com

2.    Another key factor in recent Irish history is the impact of clerical child-abuse and the widespread loss of confidence in the Catholic Church as a result of that Church’s perceived dealing with the issue. Arguably, the Catholic Church may never recover substantially from the damage done by abuse and the church’s apparent complicity in protecting abusers. 



3.    The recent impact of the Celtic Tiger economy which helped create a more materialistic and less caring Ireland. 

4.    Global culture and global values sweeping away traditional culture and traditional values.  This is evidenced in the dramatic increase in cohabitation and the rate of births outside marriage, the fall in church attendance and, in the case of Roman Catholicism,  an unprecedented decline in the numbers of those training for the priesthood.  Take these figures collated by Dr RD Stephens regarding vocations to the Roman Catholic priesthood. 1965 – the figure was 1,375. By 1994 – 201. 1998 – the figure was 92 and by 2000 – 61. A recent report in The Times of London predicted that in 20 years time Ireland will have two thirds less priests.  The Irish Catholic newspaper put the figure as a drop from 4,752 to 1,500 in 2028. Brian McFadden’s hit of a few years back (Irish Son) perfectly highlights the way old attitudes and old attachments are being left behind. 

5. The fall in church involvement has been accompanied by an increasingly multi-cultural and inter-faith Ireland. According to a survey done on Religion and Nationality in the Republic, there are now over 30,000 Muslims resident in Southern Ireland. 

Northern Ireland

Northern Ireland has also had its own marked religious decline.  A joint study involving Queen’s University and the University of Ulster in 2005, based on a statistical accumulation of surveys conducted between 1989 and 2004,  found that Catholic Church attendance had dropped from 90% to 62%. Presbyterian attendance dropped from just under 50% to 40%.

Church of Ireland attendance from slightly under 40% to 35%. 

The two most worrying statistics from a church vantage point are that by the time of the 2001 census 13.9% of the population described themselves as having no religion or refused to state a religion. Other research bears out that the youngest group studied – those born between 1985 and 1996 – were the age category who were the most likely to claim to have no religion.  (Northern Ireland: Churches face dramatic decline.  Ekklesia 25 Nov 2005  Religioscope www.info.religion)

Ambivalent Statistical Evidence

Before we move on from statistics I wish to mention the results of a 2008 Irish Examiner/RedC opinion poll from the Republic of Ireland which sought to assess the state of faith in Ireland. What is interesting is that the level of core belief in the country is much stronger than one might imagine. Even though church attendance has dropped to 45%, 84% still believe in God, and an incredible 53% accept the reality of hell. So the situation is still one where people are becoming unchurched or de-churched but not necessarily secularized yet. However,  it is still not possible to take too much comfort from these facts since distance from religious practice inevitably leads to an ignorance of the basic convictions of Christianity. Thus this generation may be more unchurched than secularized, but the same could not be said of a subsequent generation begotten by this one.

Conclusions

Ireland as a whole faces a situation where the religious landscape will be dramatically changed and the old monolithic structures of Catholic Ireland and Protestant Ulster replaced by a brand new mission context. One that is not devoid of features of the old, but sufficiently new to warrant new approaches.

I want to paint a very rough picture of what this new Ireland might look like and remind you of some of the opportunities that this might afford the churches.  

We face a situation which may mean co-operation at a scale hitherto unknown in Ireland.  Thus whilst the church may have had its day as an institution wielding political and social power, it has a chance to rediscover itself as a movement which can influence the culture afresh but this time as a diaspora in the terms suggested by Karl Rahner and Joseph Ratzinger.

What are the contours of this new Ireland that may be emerging?  
 

Spock and Kirk accessed from sodahead.com

 

 

I have prefaced some of these descriptions with the word ‘more’ because some of these features are an intensification of what is already happening.  There is also a sense in which being ‘more something’ does not entirely negate what is being replaced.  The change is not a total change and substantial remnants of what was there will remain.  So the new Ireland,  North and South, will be;

 

More Post Christian.  

More and more people will have looser links to their religious past and will forge their own path.  Again this is reflected in the European value survey of 1999 where just under 24% of the group aged between 18-24 went to church every week as against 75% in 1990.

More post denominational

There is a sense in which only a fat and satisfied Christendom can afford the luxury of a very denominational mentality.  The burgeoning strength of secularism will function as a wake-up call to many and there will be a greater impetus to make common cause with those who share a similar faith and values.  Moreover, church involvement will be increasingly less defined by duty and loyalty and more by the consumer mindset. ‘What suits me or what does it do for me?’ may be more important than whether this is my own denomination.

More postmodern 

Arguably the modernist mindset with its emphasis on rational, linear thought; respect for institutions and hierarchies … is being replaced by a postmodern mindset which reacts to truth claims proclaimed as dogma,  rails against the law of non-contradiction and is looking for authentic experience.

A missiologist called Stuart Murray summed up the traits of folks living in the emerging post modern culture as these – and I wonder how many of them apply to people you know in Ireland, north or south:

• Truth is relative – it’s what works for me. It’s fine if you’re a Christian and that’s your thing, but it doesn’t do it for me.
• Not impressed by authoritative institutions. 
• A deep commitment to individual choice. It’s up to me what I do and nobody should be telling me.
• I’ve said this already. A readiness to hold together contradictory beliefs and not to be worried about logical coherence. Don Carson, a very conservative New Testament scholar said that soon there will be devotees of both John Calvin and reincarnation.
• A deep concern for the environment and
• An understanding of humanity as part of this environment, rather than separate from it. Thus some Eco Warriors and Animal Rights activists.

More broken

The collapse of the old social mores as a result of individualism and pluralism may mean there is less to hold the society together and secure models of family and togetherness may become less and less the norm.
 

More spiritual

Sinead O'Connor accessed at fanpop.com

Sinead O’Connor comments,

‘As a race we feel empty. This is because our spirituality has been wiped out and we don’t know how to express ourselves. As a result we’re encouraged to fill that gap with alcohol, drugs, sex or money. People out there are screaming for the truth.’

If the thought of Sinead O’Connor is anything to go by, there is still a spiritual hunger in Ireland but one which does not expect relief from the ministrations of the church. Ironically, there may be a perception that the church is too modern and too rational for those seeking spiritual solace in the likes of the Body/Mind/Spirit section of so many of our bookshops.


 

 

Four Pathways

That is the situation that I suspect we are moving into and I want to suggest four pathways forward for the church and some thoughts about how these ways forward can be practically engaged with by ordinands and any other concerned Christians.

 

1. Move towards a more plural expression of church.

The traditional parish system with its inherited ways of doing things is not to be disparaged but there is an increasing place for new expressions of church to complement the parish system.  This is still in its very infancy in the Church of Ireland and what I say reflects more my English experience, though with Boring Wells and Rathmines there is evidence of greater flexibility and more thinking outside the box here.  The hope might be that a growing place would be found for fresh expressions of church perhaps targeted towards specific groups where interested outsiders can simply ask questions. Churches that do not carry all their eggs in one basket and have more than one point of entry will be crucial for the future health of the denomination.  This goal may be attempted through more or less conventional church planting but perhaps also through daring community initiatives where ‘church’ may initially be a committed group of people living in an area responding to significant social needs. What is needed is creativity.

2.  Mission as dialogue, meal and pilgrimage.

The days of the authoritative institution may be over but the core message of the faith may be presented in a context which allows for dialogue, table fellowship and journey.  Alpha, Emmaus and other by now almost traditional approaches highlight the effectiveness of this approach. New mission strategies can take these approaches to the workplaces and the neighbourhoods and out of church halls.  

3. Mission as partnership

This is a multi-faceted opportunity which has the potential to unite the Anglican church (a) with non-religious people of good will as together they respond to grave social needs;  (b) within itself as wealthier parishes in terms of finance and personnel liaise with and support other parishes in the development of new mission strategies; and with other denominations as they increasingly do Kingdom work together. 

4. Mission as the building of authentic community.

Relational mission in a postmodern Ireland may increasingly be the most effective means of promoting the faith.  Congregations that have a warm and vibrant life to share can minister to people who are affected by issues such as individualism,  family breakdown, racism and sectarianism and in doing that ‘image out’ more the new reconciled community that Christ sought to establish. 

I love this quote from John Drane’s The McDonaldization of the Church.

‘In a world of dysfunctional relationships in which people are hurting and constantly being put down, either by individuals or by the more impersonal operations of the system in general, many are desperately seeking for a place where they can belong and be valued. For the majority the entry point to anything that might be regarded as ‘fulness of life’ will begin and end when they find a safe place where they can be themselves, and be affirmed and lifted up in the human struggle.’

 

CONNECTIONS?

How do we make connections between these aspirations and what is done in ministry?   The short answer is ‘Exposure, exposure, exposure.’ Church planting was an alien concept to me until I worked as a curate in a church that had been planted 20 odd years before. Passion for the unchurched was created through exposure to the RUN network. 

Catching a vision through meeting those engaged in this kind of mission, through visiting parishes that are beginning to develop these strategies, through participating in mission initiatives whilst on placement,  through learning to nurture lay leadership via engagement with where that’s already happening – this kind of exposure all serves to take these themes beyond the classroom and text book into personal experience. Today is the day of small beginnings but exposure to effective mission strategies will inspire the future leader.

 

I want to close by sharing a thought – a positive one about our own religious situation in Ireland. I am quoting here from an Irish sociologist who has a realistic perspective on the situation we’re facing. Tony Fahy says this,

‘The explanation for the varying fortunes of organized religion [he means Britain and the UK where it seems to be flagging and the US where it’s succeeding] is to be found in the ability or otherwise of the churches to respond appropriately to the demand that is there for religion. The organisations will thrive in so far as they are properly responsive to the religious needs of the people.’ 

In other words, there is no inevitability about decline or, sadly, about revival.  Our challenge is to be relevant, wise, passionate and caring.