Category: culture

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.

Christian behaviour – why doesn’t it happen?

man at sunset with cross behind him

Christian Behaviour doesn’t always show up

Christian behaviour is meant to be marked by a love of God and one’s neighbour. The benchmarks of Christian behaviour include spiritual disciplines that link a person with God, and a life committed to caring, doing justice and seeking the wellbeing of others above oneself.

If the hallmarks of Christian behaviour are obvious why do they consistently fail to show up? If these great attributes have been affirmed over the centuries what stops Christians from doing these things?

Sadly, we see so many examples of people who claim the name of Christ but they’re not living his way. Sure some of them will be out and out hypocrites. Yet there are way too many examples of Christian behviour that doesn’t align with Gospel imperatives for hypocrisy to explain it all.

Trump and American Evangelical Christians

President Trump has huge support among American Evangelicals. To many people this is an alarming example of Christian behaviour not aligning with Christian norms.

In the US, white “Evangelical Christians” predominantly vote Republican.  Is their slavish willingness to go along with Trump a case of political preferences overriding faith? Or could it be that the kind of mindset that disposes people to be loyal to Donald Trump is also what disposes people to be “Evangelical Christians”? (I have been using quotation marks around “Evangelical Christians.” This is to indicate that it is a title for a group of people and not a complete category. There are many Christians who are evangelical in their concern to encourage faith in Jesus who do not accept the theological framework and assumptions of those who are called “Evangelical Christian”. )

So in this post, I want to share with you a psychological analysis of Trump supporters. As you read it I invite you to consider whether the same analysis might help explain why some people are disposed to identify as “Evangelical Christians.”

A Psychological Analysis of Trump’s Support

The thoughts in this post are taken from a Psychology Today article called “A complete psychological analysis of Trump’s Support”. In the article the author suggests that science can help us make sense of the President’s apparent political invincibility.

It is incontestable that we are seeing extreme and unusual behaviour from this US President. So one is left to wonder: how is it possible to maintain such high levels of unwavering support?

The Psychology Today article notes that it brings together 14 things that have been mentioned elsewhere that may help to understand the minds of his staunch supporters. The list begins with the more benign reasons for the intransigent support for Trump. As the list goes on, the explanations become increasingly worrisome, and toward the end, border on the pathological.

I support the following view expressed by the author: “It should be strongly emphasized that not all Trump supporters are racist, mentally vulnerable, or fundamentally bad people. It can be detrimental to society when those with degrees and platforms try to demonize their political opponents or paint them as mentally ill when they are not. ” I take the same view that Christians should not demonise Christians who hold different views to themselves.

1. Practicality Trumps Morality

For some supporters, it’s simply a financial matter or supporting a President who is cutting their personal taxes, or trying to bring jobs back to America. Some people who genuinely are not racist simply want stronger immigration laws. These people have put their practical concerns above their moral ones. To them, it does not make a difference what his character is or how he gets the results – the results matter.

2. The Brain’s Attention System Is More Strongly Engaged by Trump

Donald Trump is unique in his ability to keep the brain engaged. This pattern of activity was seen even when Trump made remarks that individuals didn’t necessarily agree with. His showmanship and simple language clearly resonate with some at a visceral level.

3. America’s Obsession with Entertainment and Celebrities

To some, it doesn’t matter what Trump actually says because he’s so amusing to watch. He keeps us on the edge of our seat, and for that reason, some Trump supporters will forgive anything he says. They are happy as long as they are kept entertained.

4. Some Men Just Want to Watch the World Burn.

Some people are supporting Trump simply to be rebellious or to introduce chaos into the political system.

5. The Fear Factor: Conservatives Are More Sensitive to Threat

Science has shown that the conservative brain has an exaggerated fear response when faced with stimuli that may be perceived as threatening. A 2008 study in the journal Science found that conservatives have a stronger physiological reaction to startling noises and graphic images compared to liberals.

A brain-imaging study published in Current Biology revealed that those who lean right politically tend to have a larger amygdala — a structure that is electrically active during states of fear and anxiety. And a 2014 fMRI study found that it is possible to predict whether someone is a liberal or conservative simply by looking at their brain activity while they view threatening or disgusting images. These brain responses are automatic and not influenced by logic or reason.

6. The Power of Mortality Reminders and Perceived Existential Threat

A well-supported theory from social psychology, known as Terror Management Theory, explains why Trump’s fear mongering is doubly effective. The theory is based on the fact that humans have a unique awareness of their own mortality. In order to manage this terror, humans adopt cultural worldviews — like religions, political ideologies, and national identities — that act as a buffer by instilling life with meaning and value.

Terror Management Theory predicts that when people are reminded of their own mortality, which happens with fear mongering, they will more strongly defend those who share their worldviews and national or ethnic identity, and act out more aggressively towards those who do not. By constantly emphasizing existential threat, Trump may be creating a psychological condition that makes the brain respond positively rather than negatively to bigoted statements and divisive rhetoric.

7. The Dunning-Kruger Effect: Humans Often Overestimate Their Political Expertise

Some who support Donald Trump are under-informed or misinformed about the issues at hand. When Trump tells them that crime is skyrocketing in the United States, or that the economy is the worst it’s ever been, they simply take his word for it.

The Dunning-Kruger effect explains that the problem isn’t just that they are misinformed; it’s that they are completely unaware that they are misinformed, which creates a double burden.

8. Relative Deprivation — A Misguided Sense of Entitlement

Relative deprivation refers to the experience of being deprived of something to which one believes they are entitled. It is the discontent felt when one compares their position in life to others who they feel are equal or inferior but have unfairly had more success than them.

Common explanations for Trump’s popularity among non-bigoted voters involve economics. These Trump supporters are experiencing relative deprivation. This kind of deprivation is specifically referred to as “relative,” as opposed to “absolute,” because the feeling is often based on a skewed perception of what one is entitled to.

9. Lack of Exposure to Dissimilar Others

Intergroup contact refers to contact with members of groups that are outside one’s own, which has been experimentally shown to reduce prejudice. As such, it’s important to note that there is growing evidence that Trump’s white supporters have experienced significantly less contact with minorities than other Americans. For example, a 2016 study found that “…the racial and ethnic isolation of Whites at the zip-code level is one of the strongest predictors of Trump support.”

10. Trump’s Conspiracy Theories Target the Mentally Vulnerable

While the conspiracy theory crowd — who predominantly support Donald Trump and crackpot allies like Alex Jones and the shadowy QAnon — may appear to just be an odd quirk of modern society, some of them may suffer from psychological illnesses that involve paranoia and delusions.

Researchers found that those who were more likely to believe in outlandish conspiracy theories, such as the idea that the U.S. government created the AIDS epidemic, consistently scored high on measures of “odd beliefs and magical thinking.” One feature of magical thinking is a tendency to make connections between things that are actually unrelated in reality.

11. Trump Taps into the Nation’s Collective Narcissism

Collective narcissism is an unrealistic shared belief in the greatness of one’s national group. It often occurs when a group who believes it represents the ‘true identity’ of a nation — the ‘ingroup,’ in this case White Americans — perceives itself as being disadvantaged compared to outgroups who are getting ahead of them ‘unrightfully.’ This psychological phenomenon is related to relative deprivation (#6).

12. The Desire to Want to Dominate Others

Social dominance orientation (SDO) — which is distinct from but related to authoritarian personality (#13) — refers to people who have a preference for the social hierarchy of groups, specifically with a structure in which the high-status groups have dominance over the low-status ones. Those with SDO are typically dominant, tough-minded, and driven by self-interest.

13. Authoritarian Personality 

Authoritarianism refers to the advocacy or enforcement of strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom and is commonly associated with a lack of concern for the opinions or needs of others. Authoritarian personality is characterized by belief in total and complete obedience to authority. Those with this personality often display aggression toward outgroup members, submissiveness to authority, resistance to new experiences, and a rigid hierarchical view of society. Authoritarianism is often triggered by fear, making it easy for leaders who exaggerate threat or fear monger to gain their allegiance.

14. Racism and Bigotry

It would be grossly unfair and inaccurate to say that every one of Trump’s supporters has a prejudice against ethnic and religious minorities. However, it would be equally inaccurate to say that few do. Perhaps unsurprisingly, a recent study has shown that support for Trump is correlated with a standard scale of modern racism.

Psychology and religious conservatism

To say that there may be a psychological disposition to being religiously conservative (aka “Evangelical”) or liberal does not go to the question of who is right or wrong. However, it is important for us to understand this personal background so that we can have a better understanding of one another.

The reason that it is important to understand the drivers for people’s behaviour is because it will help us not to rush to condemn people for hypocrisy. Also, it may help us to know how to work with people of an “Evangelical” disposition so that their psychological needs can be reduced and they not continue in an expression of Christian behaviour that does not reflect the heart of the gospel message.

However, for now, I am wondering about this. Do these psychological needs and experiences that were mentioned in the article on the psychology of Trump supporters also draw people to the expression of faith that is called “Evangelical Christian”? If they do then this may go some way to explaining the high correlation between “Evangelical Christians” and support for Trump.

From the list above the only psychological trait that I would exclude from the 14 is to one “racism and bigotry”. All the others, in my experience, dispose and support people’s preference for an “Evangelical Christian” expression of faith. Some of these traits are nurtured by parts of the Bible. Most though are nurtured by preachers, church culture and social practices in “Evangelical” churches that reinforce and meet these psychological needs.

1. Practicality Trumps Morality

2. The Brain’s Attention System Is More Strongly Engaged by Trump

3. America’s Obsession with Entertainment and Celebrities

4. Some Men Just Want to Watch the World Burn.

5. The Fear Factor: Conservatives Are More Sensitive to Threat

6. The Power of Mortality Reminders and Perceived Existential Threat

7. The Dunning-Kruger Effect: Humans Often Overestimate Their Political Expertise

8. Relative Deprivation — A Misguided Sense of Entitlement

9. Lack of Exposure to Dissimilar Others

10. Trump’s Conspiracy Theories Target the Mentally Vulnerable

11. Trump Taps into the Nation’s Collective Narcissism

12. The Desire to Want to Dominate Others

13. Authoritarian Personality 

Conclusion

When people are driven by psychological traits then reason, social expectations and the harm done to others don’t change their behaviour. What some people think of as acceptable Christian behaviour clearly is not! Chances are, even allowing that people need to mature and grow as Christians if bad behaviours sticks then it could be that people are living out of personal needs and not the gospel.

In a later post, I will look at how consensus decision-making processes can help overcome intransigence by taking these psychological traits into account.

We need to talk together!

two people sitting in a room not talk together

Why talk together?

We need to talk together because the world is changing! The days of the local church where everyone came from the same background, had similar religious experiences and shared the same cultural views and practices are numbered. Sure they will hang around for a while but they are dying out.

In a very simple, clear and accurate article Wesley Granberg-Michaelson writes about the future of the church. He makes the compelling case that the game is up for would be homogenous cuhrches. Try as they might most of these types of churches cannot grow. This is because demography, culture and changing world views have left them behind. In the US it is expected that 100 of these aging white Protestant mainline churches will close each year for the forseeable future. It has been happening iun Australia and Europe for decades.

Lectures and directives from the pulpit might work when the majority accept the dominant world view. However when groups are diverse and hold different perspectives and experiences they will not be told. Talk together is the key to sustaining diverse communities.

The changing landscape for the church

Granberg-Michaelson says that the changes that make this death spiral inevitable include:

  • Multiracial congregations are expanding to draw 1 in 5 churchgoing Americans. Surveys on American congregations report a higher level of spiritual vitality among them compared with racially homogeneous congregations.
  • For 400 years, the faith has been moulded by the largely European culture that came out of the Enlightenment. But today church vitality is coming from emerging expressions of Christianity in Africa as well as in Asia and Latin America.
  • These new influences are raising new questions about the relationship of the individual to the community, rational versus non-rational pathways to perceiving truth and the interplay of the spiritual and material realms.
  • As the yearning for authentic spiritual experience moves from the head to the heart in this new environment, spirit-filled communities are flourishing.
  • The culture wars in the church are divisions that are not seen as the core of the gospel and many contemprorary people don’t want to fight over them.
  • “Belonging before believing” is reshaping pathways of discipleship. The demand that outsiders first adhere to specific beliefs expressed in creeds or confessions is giving way to inviting them first to explore and share in worship, reflection and service.

Evangelism needs us to talk together

Anyone who has a genuine concern and capacity for evangelism knows how inportant it is to understand context. To understand context  – the life, experience and values of people – requires listening. Talking together starts by the dominant group listening to the ones who are different.

When it is appropriate there will be a place for the evangelical person, or church, to share their perspective. However it can never again be in the arrogant, superior, assumption of knowing what others need to learn. The talking will be more in the form of testimony about what God has meant in their life. Then, once again, it is time to listen to how others have experienced God in their life.

To talk together today about faith (or anything in the church) requires patience and humility. It requires a setting and practices that make it possible for all to share. Many of the processes in the Western church assume that there is one place of knowledge and one way to work it out. We need processes for being in community that are open to learning from the stories and experiences of others. There needs to be space to experience the non-rational ways of gaining insight.

How does your congregation foster open, honest and risk taking conversations? When you meet for Bible study how do you listen to one another? When you meet to make decisions how to you talk together so that all perspectives are heard? Unless churches develop process that help them to talk together they will not navigagte the changing landscape of society and the church.

Civil War in the Church

 

A civil war in the church is offensive to the Gospel and a rejection of the ministry of Jesus Christ. Yet what do we see in many places? We see Christians who hate each other; who belittle and abuse one another, and refuse to see any good thing in the person with whom they disagree.

What are the signs of civil war?

The signs of civil war in the church are the same as those that are apparent in wider American society. It is a civil war of the soul: by virtually every measure, Americans are more alienated from each other than ever before.

Writing in the Huffington Post, Richard North Patterson observed that on issues of race and ethnicity, immigration, feminism and gender, guns and education there is a massive divergence of opinion in the USA. The article is an opinion piece on politics in America. The authors of makingchurchdecisions.com do not endorse or promote his opinion. Nevertheless, it does, in my view, provide a fair analysis of the divisions and behaviors that exist in present-day America and as such is worth sharing. A link is provided as it is proper to provide sources of data and so that readers can judge their reasonableness for themselves. Mr Patterson is a New York Times best-selling author of 22 novels, a former chairman of Common Cause, and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

He says “All these fault lines fuel political trench warfare, stifling compromise and preventing us from resolving our most pressing problems. But equally pernicious is how this mass failure of empathy and imagination poisons our attitudes toward each other …

No longer do partisans view their political opponents as simply wrong or misguided, but as enemies of all they hold dear. … ever more Republicans and Democrats deny each other’s facts, disapprove of each other’s lifestyles, avoid each other’s neighborhoods, impugn each other’s motives, doubt each other’s patriotism, deplore each other’s news sources, detest each other’s party and, indeed, despise and dehumanize who they imagine each other to be.

These opposing groups have become hostile forces living in gated communities of the mind, ripe for exploitation by an unprincipled (person).”

Signs of Civil War in the Church

  • Issues are presented as being of existential and/or eternal significance
  • Inability to accommodate the needs of others
  • Paralysis when resolving pressing problems
  • Failure of empathy and imagination
  • Impugning each other’s motives
  • Detesting each other’s groups
  • Stop listening to alternative points of view
  • Despising and dehumanizing who they imagine each other to be

The signs of a civil war in the church are everywhere! I am in shock at what I have read, seen and heard about the things that are going on in the United Methodist Church (USA). I know that it is often said that people shouldn’t talk about what is going on in other churches. But you see – every church is part of the one family. What the UMC (USA) does affect the attitude of people to all churches – including mine on the far side of the planet.

Every Christian has skin in the game when other Christians behave badly.

What is going on?

Sadly these signs are all too familiar in the life of churches. When I see the signs of civil war in the church I see the following.

  • People want to make issues much bigger and more important than God considers them to be. Decisions are invested with eternal significance when they are not the essentials of the faith. People are playing God.
  • Selfishness and ego mean that people are only concerned for themselves.
  • Christians who get paralysed in finding a way through have closed themselves off to the movement of the Holy Spirit in their community. Christ brings reconciliation to communities and does not divide them.
  • A failure of empathy is a failure to love; and a sign of self-absorption which manifests itself in no capacity to imagine what is going on for the person with another deeply held point of view.
  • Forgetting that we are family in Christ, that we need each other and that God is the judge of us all, means that we can justify not listening and disrespecting others.
  • Hate is never a Christian virtue! People have abandoned the Gospel and Christ is said to have died in vain when we treat anyone as unloveable and an enemy to be hated.
  • Despising and dehumanizing people is to blaspheme against the Holy Spirit. Such an attitude denies the presence of the Holy Spirit in every Christian.

The reason that there can be a civil war in the church is that Christians are not being faithful to Jesus Christ.

Why does it matter if there is a civil war in the church?

Sadly too many people seem to think that if their view can be imposed on others that the witness of the church will be more effective. If only, they think, we can get rid of people who are different to us then everything will be wonderful. Examples of this being true are few and far between. And the few, like the origins of the Methodist Church and Salvation Army, who can point to new connections and growth had two things in common. They were focused on a new mission and evangelism and not on doctrinal purity, and they were thrown out – they didn’t seek rupture.

Faithfulness comes from hearing from the whole theological, cultural, liturgical, and other diversity of the church. No one part of the church has it right. We all need the breadth of the church to inform us so that we can better understand God’s will. We need historical, cultural and ecumenical input. Churches that lose diversity easily lose faithfulness.

Understanding and knowing the will of Christ for his church is a work of the whole community of faith – albeit that authority may be invested in some specific people. Together we discern Christ’s will for an issue at this time and in this place. The capacity to follow Christ is crippled and usually lost when there is civil war.

What can be done?

Everyone needs to get down on their knees and confess to God their part in the brokenness of their church. Use the list under the heading “What is going on?” as a guide for prayer. Be genuinely open to the work of the Holy Spirit and believe that Jesus can save us. Christ is God’s peace – seek God’s peace for the church.

Listen to the views of others – the deep needs, fears and hopes that they express. Ask “What do I need to take from their perspective and apply in my life?

In high conflict situations, external mediators and facilitators are needed. Contact us to discuss how conflict intervention strategies and other resources can assist you to develop practical steps that break the cycles of mistrust and abuse.

Learn about consensus-based discernment. It’s four steps build trust, openness, relationships and shared goals. Use The Church Guide For Making Decisions Together as an introduction.

It’s never too late to introduce people to better ways of being in community. When difficult issues are before us that is exactly the time to try something new!  You have choices – take them and break the cycle of destruction and pain.

Jesus is grieving for his church. Its divisions are damaging his body and undermining his saving work. Draw close to Jesus and bless him by playing your part in ending the civil war in the church.

Accidental Offensiveness?

“Accidental offensiveness” is when someone causes harm to another person without intent. If there is such a thing – what can be done about it?Last year I wrote a post that explored why offensive behaviour is not noticed by the perpetrator. The blog title is Abuse in the Church – are we desensitized? This post has some common ground with the earlier post.

Offensive Behaviour in the Church

Words and actions can often offend people and cause the recipients deep distress. At the same time the perpetrator does not even notice. Or if they notice they can be shocked because “I am not that kind of person”. It is also common to blame the victim for being over sensitive, misunderstanding or being thin skinned. However, what constitutes offensiveness is not the decision of the person who causes the offence.

My observation is that many times in the church people make excuses for themselves when they do relational harm through their bad behaviour. Christians think of themselves as nice people with good motives. So, if the motives are good then they have done nothing wrong. Hurt, offense, broken relations are an accident. It’s accidental offensiveness. And so the idea is that the perpetrator is faultless and doesn’t owe anyone an apology.

Don’t Blame the Victim!

My behaviour – words or actions – can cause harm. If so then it isn’t good enough to say things like “I am sorry that you were hurt by my actions.” That is not an apology! This is a regret – genuine perhaps – but it goes nowhere near close to a genuine Christian act of confession.

By turning the attention to the response of the hurt person the discussion becomes about them. It’s seen as their problem. “They should learn to toughen up.” “If you can’t stand the heat get out of the kitchen.” “Some people are such wimps.” I am sure you have heard these and more.

It is not the responsibility of others to learn to cope with our accidental offensiveness. Mature adults own the consequences of their behaviour and make adjustments to their actions. Offensiveness – behaviour that causes offense to another – is owned by the doer not the receiver of the behaviour!

How do people change?

Last week I read a very powerful personal piece in The Huffington Post by Alexander Johnstone. It’s title was: As A Man Who Respects Women, I Thought I’d Never Crossed A Line. I Was Wrong. In the article he talks of the horrifying discovery that he inadvertently sexually harassed and hurt women. Most importantly he spoke about what it meant to him and what he did about it.

What to do about “accidental offensiveness”

First and foremost it is essential to take responsibility for one’s own actions. Only by holding the blame to oneself is it possible change. Learning comes when we acknowledge the need to grow.

Secondly, find teachers who will help remove the blind spots that we have about our behaviour. The best teachers we can listen to are those whom we have hurt. Rather than blame them ask their help to better understand what has happened and why it was hurtful.

Be open to learning opportunities. So, if you accidentally offend someone and you pick up something in their reply, body language, tone of voice, or a change of subject – then ask them what has happened to cause this. But be ready because it could really hurt you when you hear what they have to say!

Toughen up – spiritually, psychologically and emotionally. If you do this then  when you get negative feedback you are in a better position to receive it without getting defensive. Grow yourself as a disciple and as a person so that you can be involved in hard conversations about your behaviour – even when it does hurt.

There is a scene from the movie Lawrence of Arabia  when Lawrence (played by Peter O’Toole) holds his hand over a candle flame for many seconds. One of his companions does the same and within a second pulls his hand away and shouts “Blimey that hurts!” Lawrence replies “Of course it hurts. The trick is to not mind that it hurts!” Growing as a person and learning how to be sensitive to others can be a painful experience. But learn that the trick is not to mind that it hurts – because there is a more important goal than protecting yourself.

Get a mentor, Supervisor (in the sense of a professional supervisor), coach or somebody with whom you reflect on your behaviour in these sorts of situations. We don’t know what we don’t know. So get help and don’t wait until you cripple someone’s life before you decide to learn.

Finally, if you see someone being “accidentally offensive” call them out on it. Challenge them to see what they have done and to take responsibility. As Christians we have a responsibility to encourage each other in faithfully following Jesus.

Conclusion

People who do not even realize what they are doing  often cause a great deal of the  hurt to people and relationships in the church. Every one of us does it. Are you willing to take responsibility and become sensitive to your offensive behaviour and then apologize, learn and grow?