Month: April 2019

Ambiguity: anxiety or opportunity?

Ambiguity – or the space of not knowing – is an uncomfortable place for many people. Even though uncertainty may be unwelcome it is also a place of opportunity.

rawpixel-com-256642

Ambiguity: an unwelcome visitor?

I know a great many people for whom uncertainty is a cause of great internal stress. Ambiguity might mean that they don’t know what is going to happen next, or whether someone is going to behave well, or unresolved issues sit on the table. At such times they get stressed.

Ambiguity – or the space of not knowing – is an uncomfortable place for many people. It arrives unbidden when that which we know or could expect is thrown into uncertainty. There is no doubt that such uncertainty can be disorienting and as such a cause for concern.

Even though uncertainty may be unwelcome it is also a place of opportunity.

The Discomfort of Ambiguity

This is the title of a blog post by Rev Dr John Squires. I am indebted to my colleague and fellow Uniting Church Minister for stimulating the following thoughts.

In his post, John makes reference to a book by William Bridges entitled Managing Transitions (2009). For him, transitions have three stages

  • the letting go
  • the neutral zone of being in-between; and finally
  • the connection into a new place, a new way of being.

Ambiguity and consensus building

Conventional debating styles assume a rigid commitment to staying with our starting convictions. Debating, and the parliamentary style of decision-making that uses it, like certainty. Debaters are supposed to resist every new idea raised against their point of view. Debating hates ambiguity – the idea of uncertainty!

In contrast, consensus-building processes are not premised on people firmly holding on to predetermined positions. Rather, they need people to be open to changing their view. Consensus-building requires that people will be prepared to let go of their first ideas or thoughts. Indeed people in this process are genuinely open to letting go of their current positions. Consensus-building encourages people to enter into the “endings” which Bridges sees as the way to something new.

Staying in the Neutral Zone

When people are disoriented through having to let go of what they know the tendency is to seek equilibrium as quickly as possible. Like a person drowning in a raging sea, they grasp after any flotsam or jetsom floating nearby in a search for security.

There is no doubt that when we realise that we must let go of a deeply held view it can be unnerving. Leaping into the unknown when our deepest convictions and practices are found to be wanting can be very stressful. It’s natural to want to lock in on an alternative as quickly as possible! However, this is a grave mistake and can short change the path to growth and new insights.

If you are a person who gets stressed when there is ambiguity I encourage you to take a deep breath and slow down. Ask yourself, and talk with others, about why you struggle with uncertainty. Address those needs in yourself that make it hard for you to end things and live in a place of not knowing for a time. Find companions in that place but do learn to stay there for a while. This place is not your enemy.

As Bridges encourages, in that neutral, in-between zone, there is a need for us to nurture and develop a capacity to live within the discomfort of ambiguity which arises during the experience of loss, as we move away from the familiar.

Growing Possibilities in the Neutral Zone

In his blog post, John Squires reflects upon the story of the so-called “Prodigal Son”. In the story, the younger son reflected on what it might mean to return shamed and impoverished. The father wondered what the various options were for his relationship with his son as he approached from a distance. The other son wrestled with how his relationship with father and brother might unfold with the brother’s return. These were times of openness, wondering, fear and possibilities.

Without the uncertainty generated by changing the known – ending the familiar – new futures could never begin. Stepping into the neutral zone made new futures possible. Living with ambiguity made amazing things possible.

Only by living with the discomfort of ambiguity is it possible to imagine new beginnings. Ambiguity – the place of not knowing – is the place for creativity and imagination to flourish. Ambiguity can be both anxiety-inducing and a God given opportunity.

Conclusion

Consensus-based discernment processes can be experienced as stressful by some people. Not knowing how the discussion is going to unfold and where the decision will land can cause some people quite a bit of anxiety. Yet, this place of ambiguity is the creative space – the place of opportunity.

As Bridges notes, if we are able to sit within the neutral zone and engage with the discomfort of ambiguity, then we can experience change and transition as a constructive and life-giving experience. The neutral zone can become a pivot away from the past, into the future. That is the best outcome of a process of transition.

Culture and Consensus

Culture – help or a hindrance?

Can culture make it impossible for consensus building discernment to work? Yes, sadly it is the case that some cultures cannot use consensus. Obvious examples of a culture that prevents collaboration, respect for all voices and a willingness to change include:

  • rigid hierarchies with one or two leaders at the top
  • conservative cultures where preservation of the status quo is the highest priority
  • groups where relationships are defined by power or status and this reduces capacity for all to be involved

When the right to participate in decision-making is determined by status/rights or power then it cannot include all the voices. Where a community do not respect all its members then leaders will not listen and learn from others. If a group goal is to preserve what already exists then there is really nothing to talk about at all.

Gillette and lessons about culture

On January 13th this year Gillette released an advertisement with the tag line “We believe: the best that men can be.”  At the time of writing it has received over 30 million views.

The goal of the advertisement was to draw attention to the behaviours of some men.  In particular, the advertisement drew attention to sexism, tolerance of violence as a way of resolving problems, sexual harassment, and bullying. This type of behaviour was criticised because it is not being the best that a man can be.

At face value, it seems like a no brainer to name and shame these types of behaviour! In the advertisement, there were examples of men who did not accept these things as normative for men and did something to prevent it. Who could object to encouraging men to respect women, to reject violence and to stand up for people who are being picked on?

Apparently millions of people can object!! To date, 1.4 million people who have viewed the YouTube post have given it the thumbs down. 422,986 comments have been made on the post and most were hypercritical and threatened to never buy their products again. Cable channels in the US went off the charts in criticising the advertisement. So what does that say?

No doubt some will say that not every person who criticised the advertisement supports the behaviour that is denounced in it. The argument goes that some men just object to being tarred with the same brush as all those bad guys – just because they are a man. Somehow they fear that – as men – they are guilty by association. Why should they be judged as being a bad person just because some men do bad things?

What I find interesting about this line of reasoning, and it is present in the comments and media, is that these men don’t identify with the good guys in the clip. How come they don’t puff up with pride at seeing their constructive and healthy behaviour being affirmed before more than 30 million viewers? Hmm? Maybe because they have more in common with the attitudes of the “villains” in the plot than the heroes.

The hugely negative reaction to the Gillette advertisement tells us that there is a deep and wide culture of toxic masculinity in the USA.

Toxic masculinity and consensus discernment

The culture of toxic masculinity is a threat to the operation of consensus-based discernment. The markers of this kind of masculinity include demeaning and commodifying women, using violence to achieve one’s goals, and intimidating those who are different. What happens if the men in your church or group buy into that culture? How can you run a process that hears and respects every voice, welcomes difference and embraces those who have different opinions as gifts from God?

Using the phrase “toxic masculinity” is meant to show that these behaviours are not inherent to being a man. One can be masculine and respect women, refuse to use violence and accept and appreciate those who are different. However, the culture in many western societies has not defined being a man as living in this way. Sadly to be a man in western culture has traditionally been seen as to be strong, not to give in, take what is yours and protect your group, with a good dose of patriarchy and misogyny as the overlay.

Culture can help or hinder the use of consensus-based discernment processes. Sadly, there are many men in the USA and elsewhere who have taken in the dominant culture of toxic masculinity.

Churches and unhealthy male culture

Don’t you believe me? Do you think that churches are only filled with men who have sidestepped the values of toxic masculinity? If you think so then I suggest that you start by talking to women and minorities in your church. Ask them if they have ever experienced sexism, harassment, belittling disrespect or felt pressured to accept what they did not believe by the men in power.

However, the evidence is there for all who have the eyes to see. In the majority of churches, women are denied a voice in the major decision-making processes. Our mind quickly turns to the Catholic, Orthodox and many Anglican communions. But what about those churches that claim to accept women in leadership? How many women leaders are there in reality? How many mega-churches or larger congregations of any theological type can you name where a woman is the lead pastor? If you can name a few I can be sure that as a percentage of leaders it will be very small.

I have been to many church meetings around the world. It has always been the men who shout at others, talk over the top of women, and act as though they have a right to be heard and have their way. Not all men – but plenty of them.

When I visited a very significant church meeting in the USA it was the only church meeting that I have ever attended where I had to put my bags through a metal detector. Violence takes many forms and not all of them are picked up by a metal detector!

How to respond to harmful cultures

First of all, recognise that it exists. Do not be naive and think that you can easily run an effective discernment process when the culture is against you.

Where a culture works against a consensus discernment methodology recognise that it may be the dominant culture but it isn’t the only perspective. Who are the other voices speaking up for an alternative way of living? What are they saying? How can they be encouraged and how can you help the dominant culture to hear them?

Remind people that Christianity is a counter-cultural religion. We are not citizens of this earth but ambassadors for Christ. Teach people about Christian character and behaviour and how that critiques the dominant culture. Invite and challenge people to live out of a Christ centred culture and not the one into which they were born.

Don’t wait for everyone to agree before you start using consensus processes and values in your discernment!! Jesus came into a culture that had present in it the seeds of faithful obedience to the will of God. The majority of people were not on the right track. But Jesus didn’t wait until everyone had changed their mind before he began living in a counter-cultural way. He just got on with the job!

Recognising the challenges that we face as leaders is the key to implementing change. Do not underestimate the power of culture. But also, do not let it paralyse your leadership and faithfulness.