At my church, the group that is supposed to see to it that new people become a functioning part of the church organization is called the Assimilation Committee. Assimilating new people into the mission of the church would be quite a daunting project, so we have chosen--either "instead" or "as a first step"--to integrate them into the structure of the church. You know, ushers, deacons, members of various committees and so on.
This is a much more manageable project, certainly, but even this modest project has its own difficulties. My church is a downtown church in an area that was once affluent. To simplify this description, I will say that we are next door to a large public housing project and that the residents of this project have begun not only attending our church, but actually joining and participating.
This is a wonderful achievement in the abstract, but this is a Presbyterian church, which means that we have a lot of committees. The committees have chairs who are supposed to manage the work of the committee and pass the results of their work up the food chain. That means that there must be results and the increasingly mixed membership of the committees--some mature Christians who have been in the church for a long time and some of the rookies from the nearby project--is a dilemma every chair must solve or there will be no product at all.
All these people are fine people I am sure, but their styles of interaction are not only different, but conflicting. In the contrasts below, I will refer to the long time members as MC = mature Christian and to the new members as PR = project rookies. It would be easy to find less offensive names, but since none of this is true, I won't bother.
1. In the committees' discussions, the MCs take the trouble to express agreement with the other speakers; they model a kind of committee solidarity; they maintain the sort of warm upbeat tone of voice that makes staying on task easier. The PRs, on the other hand, talk more, give more opinions, make more specific suggestions, and express a more direct disagreement with other speakers.
2. MCs do not make strategic use power when they have it; PRs are much more likely to use strategically any power they have and are, in addition, much more likely to be influenced by other PRs than they are by MCs.
3. MCs are a good deal more gentle (see Fruits of the Spirit, below). For example, they do not maintain direct eye contact with listeners when they themselves are speaking, but they do establish and maintain direct eye contact with speakers when they are in the listener role. PRs might be called more "visually dominant." They maintain direct eye contact when speaking and disengage from the speakers when they are listening. The effect of this difference is that the CRs sound tentative, as if unsure of what they are saying. Their speech overall has a polite and deferential quality. PRs tend to give their views in a more aggressive, chin-thrusting sort of way. If there is a way to be chin-thrusting and deferential at the same time, I have not seen it practiced in our committees.
3. Committees being what they are, negative things will be said from time to time. There will be disagreement, occasionally sarcasm; there will be interrupting and talking over others. The PRs are more likely to do any or all of these and are also more likely to respond to a negative action with another negative action. MCs are less likely to do any of these things: the interrupting the sarcasm, etc. They are more likely to ignore negative actions--simply not to respond to them at all--and to act positively in response to any positive action. Put yourself in the place of the committee chair and consider that for a moment.
4. MCs are more likely to highlight similarities and agreements. PRs are more likely to highlight differences and disagreements.
5. MCs are likely to refer to the committee's work, when describing it to a third party, as "our report." PRs are more likely to say "my report," especially when they are talking to someone of high status or more power in the church.
I could go on, but the problem as it appears to the Assimilation Committee is probably clear now. I would like to put this is a broader context, if I may, before sharing it. This list of the outcomes of life in the Spirit is one of the best-known passages in Galatians: "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control." If you look without prejudice at the two populations of Christians in the work of the committees, you will see a lot of the outcomes of the Spirit in the participation of the MCs, just as you would expect, and a great deal less in the participation of the PRs, who are, after all, new.
I would like to remind you, using a different formulation than the one I used at the beginning, that the information contained in this post is true. It just isn't true in the way it seems to be true.
This is a much more manageable project, certainly, but even this modest project has its own difficulties. My church is a downtown church in an area that was once affluent. To simplify this description, I will say that we are next door to a large public housing project and that the residents of this project have begun not only attending our church, but actually joining and participating.
This is a wonderful achievement in the abstract, but this is a Presbyterian church, which means that we have a lot of committees. The committees have chairs who are supposed to manage the work of the committee and pass the results of their work up the food chain. That means that there must be results and the increasingly mixed membership of the committees--some mature Christians who have been in the church for a long time and some of the rookies from the nearby project--is a dilemma every chair must solve or there will be no product at all.
All these people are fine people I am sure, but their styles of interaction are not only different, but conflicting. In the contrasts below, I will refer to the long time members as MC = mature Christian and to the new members as PR = project rookies. It would be easy to find less offensive names, but since none of this is true, I won't bother.
1. In the committees' discussions, the MCs take the trouble to express agreement with the other speakers; they model a kind of committee solidarity; they maintain the sort of warm upbeat tone of voice that makes staying on task easier. The PRs, on the other hand, talk more, give more opinions, make more specific suggestions, and express a more direct disagreement with other speakers.
2. MCs do not make strategic use power when they have it; PRs are much more likely to use strategically any power they have and are, in addition, much more likely to be influenced by other PRs than they are by MCs.
3. MCs are a good deal more gentle (see Fruits of the Spirit, below). For example, they do not maintain direct eye contact with listeners when they themselves are speaking, but they do establish and maintain direct eye contact with speakers when they are in the listener role. PRs might be called more "visually dominant." They maintain direct eye contact when speaking and disengage from the speakers when they are listening. The effect of this difference is that the CRs sound tentative, as if unsure of what they are saying. Their speech overall has a polite and deferential quality. PRs tend to give their views in a more aggressive, chin-thrusting sort of way. If there is a way to be chin-thrusting and deferential at the same time, I have not seen it practiced in our committees.
3. Committees being what they are, negative things will be said from time to time. There will be disagreement, occasionally sarcasm; there will be interrupting and talking over others. The PRs are more likely to do any or all of these and are also more likely to respond to a negative action with another negative action. MCs are less likely to do any of these things: the interrupting the sarcasm, etc. They are more likely to ignore negative actions--simply not to respond to them at all--and to act positively in response to any positive action. Put yourself in the place of the committee chair and consider that for a moment.
4. MCs are more likely to highlight similarities and agreements. PRs are more likely to highlight differences and disagreements.
5. MCs are likely to refer to the committee's work, when describing it to a third party, as "our report." PRs are more likely to say "my report," especially when they are talking to someone of high status or more power in the church.
I could go on, but the problem as it appears to the Assimilation Committee is probably clear now. I would like to put this is a broader context, if I may, before sharing it. This list of the outcomes of life in the Spirit is one of the best-known passages in Galatians: "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control." If you look without prejudice at the two populations of Christians in the work of the committees, you will see a lot of the outcomes of the Spirit in the participation of the MCs, just as you would expect, and a great deal less in the participation of the PRs, who are, after all, new.
I would like to remind you, using a different formulation than the one I used at the beginning, that the information contained in this post is true. It just isn't true in the way it seems to be true.
No comments:
Post a Comment