Tag: conflict

Values Trump Facts – Is Consensus-Building Possible?!?

Is there hope for consensus-building when the facts don’t overcome existing values / biases? According to some the answer is “NO!!!” I’m not so sure. Here’s why.

Why don’t facts seem to matter any more?

On May 8th, 2019 David Barker and Morgan  Marietta wrote a piece in Niemanlab. In the article they explored  the impact of the Mueller Report on US public opinion about the President of the USA. Mueller’s investigation into the Trump election campaign and the Russians found no collusion but  areas where there may have been an obstruction of justice by the President.
These two eminent political scientists concluded that the Mueller Report did not move the needle for the vast majority of people in the USA with respect to their attitude to the President. If people already thought that the President was engaged in illegal activities they were confirmed in that view. If they thought the President was innocent then Mueller confirmed it for them.

Values count more than the data

Why does this happen? According to Barker and Marietta it comes down to this. “We found that voters see the world in ways that reinforce their values and identities. If they start with a particular set of values then everything they receive by way of information is interpreted as support of those values. In such a context “fact checking” or hearing “the other side’s point of view” has no impact on changing the mind of people.”
An interesting illustration of this phenomenon is the attitude of Americans about whether there is racism in the USA. Quoting from the article: “… according to our data from five years of national surveys from 2013 to 2017, the most important predictor of whether a person views racism as highly prevalent and influential is not her partisan identification. It is not her general ideological outlook. It is not the amount or type of media that she consumes. It isn’t even her own race. It is the degree to which she prioritizes compassion as a public virtue, relative to other things like rugged individualism.”

What does this mean for consensus-building?

The pessimistic view of the authors is that “Perhaps the most disappointing finding from our studies … is that there are no known fixes to this problem.” Well that’s all a bit disheartening!!! I disagree with them.

The first things that it means for a consensus-building approach are not to try and ram “the facts” down a person’s throat; and secondly do not be disparaging of others as bigots and closed minded.

Findings like those is this article are greatly encouraging to the people who understand consensus based discernment or decision-making. Why? Because it affirms how important it is to get behind the presenting words and feelings. It compels us to look past the first things that people say, and instead attempt to understand what is important to them. Consensus-building processes know that people act out of their values – fears, hopes, identity, world view. These processes want to hear about these things from people. Consensus-building processes take values and identity seriously and respect them.

Where values differ these need to be explored. However, it is a much richer and respectful conversation if we invite others to tell us what is important to them. This is a much healthier and more constructive approach than seeking to persuade them about “the facts”.

The great failure of the parliamentary style of debate and decision-making is that it gets into this world of duelling facts. Then when the debate is over and the vote is taken there is a decision. But in the world we live in today the divisions remain because the values have not changed.

What can be done?

Here are some attitudes and strategies that can be used in a consensus-building context to help avoid the stalemate that comes when facts reinforce values.

  • Get the agreed facts out on the table (even the ones that you don’t like!)
  • Ask people what they conclude from / make of this information.
  • Take a step back and find a way to talk about our values or the things that shape what is important for us. In the church this can include significant faith stories.
  • Speak about our understanding of God and God’s hope for the world.
  • Seek out common values and affirm the common ground. Note that people have many values and some will have precedence at different times. Some we may disagree with, yet many we will share.
  • Explore, with respect and humility, how the options / actions that we are discussing support our shared values.

Optimism can be found for the Christian community in that when we go deep enough we do have a common narrative /vision / hope. Many societies can find this common ground too – if they are prepared to work to find it.

However the great advantage that Christians have is that they have at their foundation the community that God has created through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. This common ground is not their choice it is the will of God and our responsibility is to live into that reality. As the Apostle Paul noted there is one faith, one Lord one baptism – one God and Father of us all (Ephesians 4: 5,6).

Conclusion

Of course we have to deal with reality. There are not really ‘alternative facts”.

However we need to understand that it is our values that give meaning to the things that we see. If we are going to get past “duelling facts” and name calling them we have to explore values.  Consensus building processes understand this. They foster this deeper and respectful engagement, and provide the tools for discovering shared hopes and then actions.

Politics and Consensus

politicsPolitics and Consensus

Politics is full of conflict. Observers call out for greater collaboration rather than political point scoring. People understand that as a society we have too many shared problems to enjoy the luxury of opposing the ideas of others for no good reason. Most people long for our leaders to constructively engage together in a search for shared solutions.

I am often asked if consensus decision-making processes can work in a political environment. Well, it depends!! The first observation that I make is that consensus can only be built if there are shared values. That usually get a knowing laugh and the assumption that consensus processes cannot work in politics.

In Australia, it is very difficult to see shared values between our political parties. Maybe it is because we are in a national election campaign that makes the aggressive rejection of each other’s ideas more strident. The “necessity” to create a product differentiation between the policies of the different parties in order to attract votes at elections brings out the worst in our politicians.

If we understand the political process as the pursuit of power then clearly there can be no shared values. In that context, there has to be a winner and a loser. So is consensus building doomed to be relegated to the fringes of society? Or is there a chance that it could take over the central power centres of our society?

Options for Politicians and Consensus

In the United States until the last 15 to 20 years there was often the capacity for bipartisan solutions to issues. The phrase ‘working across the aisle’ was the real experience of US political life. This is in stark contrast to the Westminster system of government that arose in England and is used throughout its former colonies. In that system parties always vote as a bloc and if a member of a party votes with the other side they can be thrown out of their party.

So in the US, and probably other countries too, there have been experiences of parties working together to achieve shared goals. In countries where this is the experience then there is a history and practices to draw upon which support seeking after consensus.

Even though the Westminster system has built into it the requirement to be oppositional to the other side, not everything is so black and white. There are many things on which all the major political parties in Australia agree. Foreign policy is not a seriously disputed space, opposition to the death penalty is unquestioned, none of the major parties opposes access to free health care and to cheap prescription drugs, and the list could go on. So another ground that might encourage consensus seeking is to recognise those areas where there had once been a difference and now there is general agreement. What lessons can be learned from the past that can encourage us into the future?

In addition to these things, there is also a place for pragmatism as a driver for seeking consensus. Sometimes opponents can agree to work of a common project because it matters to them for different reasons. In the United States, an area where there is an increasing willingness to co-operate across the political divide is in reducing the size of the prison population. For one side the cost of incarcerating millions of people is a burden on the budget. For the other side, they don’t want to see people going to jail for extended periods of time for minor offences. So the shared interest is reducing the size of the prison population. By working together on this project it is possible for people to understand the perspective and concerns of the other side. From this understanding arise strategies that will meet their needs and so help to keep the prison population lower over time.

So, three things that can help

  • Remember when co-operation has been possible in the past and learn from this. What made it possible? Perhaps there was a crisis (eg war or natural disaster) that meant other things became less important, or there were genuine goodwill and relationships that enhanced co-operation. Learn from positive experiences.
  • Recall where over time, issues that were once contested are now agreed. How have these positions been appropriated into the values system of the “different sides”? What made it possible to move? Why are they not contested now and can we find other issues where collaboration makes more sense than contesting?
  • Identify the big issues on which collaboration will be required for both sides to get what they want. What are the things that have to get done or both sides will continue to lose what is important to them?

Lessons for Churches

As you have been reading this post have you been thinking “what has this got to do with the church?” I think that in many places we are in the same situation as the political climate of our times. Many churches are split along ideological lines and in many places co-operation with those who think differently has stopped.

Can consensus work in churches where there is a lack of shared values? No! However, I do not believe that such churches exist. There are always some shared values. There are always some things on which even the most divided Christians can agree. There will always be something to work on together for the benefit of all sides. But we have to be prepared to look for it.

For conflicted churches or denominations I have the same advice as I offered above.

  • Remember when co-operation has been possible in the past and learn from this. What made it possible?
  • Recall where over time, issues that were once contested are now agreed. How have these positions been appropriated into the values system of the “different sides”? What made it possible to move?
  • Identify the big issues on which collaboration will be required for both sides to get what they want. What are the things that have to get done or both sides will continue to lose what is important to them?

The reason that ideologically and high conflict churches cannot use consensus-building processes is because they just don’t want to co-operate. For reasons of power and control, fear, or disrespect of their brothers and sisters in Christ too many Christians will not work together.

Yes, sometimes they cannot work together because of previously unresolved hurt that has been done to them. But good consensus processes include building safe places and dealing with those experiences.

Co-operation is not optional for Christians

Christ has called all Christians into one body. We have to learn to deal with it! We are one as Jesus and the Father are one. To refuse to live out of that reality is to refuse to live out of the identity that we have been given in Jesus Christ. Not good!!

There is insufficient space here to outline the many and effective strategies for seeking consensus in conflicted churches. Feel free to browse the blog posts for where some aspects of this have been addressed in the past. For example: Uniting the Church – Is it Possible?

However, for the present, I just want to challenge you to look for the ways that consensus building can be encouraged. Please do this in even the hardest places for the sake of the witness of the church. In these times more than any other it is an evangelical imperative to seek common ground among Christians. For as Jesus observed, it is through our unity that the mission of the church will be advanced (John 17:21).

Psychology and Consensus

Man getting lost in a fog

Psychology / our disposition to certain ways of responding to the world is very powerful. How much does psychology influence the preference of a person to take up an “Evangelical” or socially conservative view of the faith? The same question could be asked of socially progressive and theologically “liberal” Christians.

This post is not so much interested in the reason people are “Evangelical” or otherwise. Rather the concern is how do we navigate our relationships and build consensus when psychology is such an influence on our views of the world.

Psychology and religious conservatism

In a previous post, I shared an article that explored the link between a person’s psychological traits and their willingness to stay with their support of President Trump – no matter what he does. I noted there that Trump’s support among “Evangelical Christians” is incredibly high and stable.

It is incontestable that the actions endorsed by the US President, and his behaviour, are far from Christian norms. These norms are of acting justly, loving mercy, and walking humbly with God. (Micah 6:8) Even so, Evangelical Christians continue to support him in overwhelming numbers. They do so irrespective of how much his decisions demean, damage and destroy the life of people and the planet.

That article offered some psychological explanations for why people support Trump. I wondered if the same psychological drivers that encourage people to be a rusted on Trump supporter might also be an explanation for why people prefer an “Evangelical” expression of the faith.

Building Consensus Across Psychological Barriers

To say that there may be a psychological disposition to preferring an “Evangelical” or “liberal” expression of faith 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.

This is important for many reasons. For one, it will help temper a temptation to rush to condemn people for hypocrisy or for not taking the Bible seriously. In addition, it may help us to relate better to people of an “Evangelical” disposition. This may meet their psychological needs in healthy ways or reduce its power. Finally, it helps us to develop consensus building strategies that might actually work. This is because they respond to the psychology of the other person.

Building consensus can seem impossible in the face of apparently intractable differences between people. However, we should not give in too quickly!! Consensus building processes always begin by seeking to understand the needs of the other person. When the needs of the other are understood it might be possible to find ways of meeting those needs.

However, before such conversations can happen at least one party to the conversation must show respect for the other person, care enough about them to try and understand them,  seek to meet their legitimate needs, and to have a toolkit that can help to build consensus.

Psychology and Being an Evangelical Christian

The Psychology Today article referenced in the earlier post identified 14 psychological traits that dispose people to be a rusted on Trump supporter. Only a disposition to racism seemed to offer no clue to why persons might prefer to express their Christian faith within the theological, cultural and social norms of “Evangelical” faith. These dispositions may also explain why some people are inclined to accept hierarchical church structures and Pentecostal expressions 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” and other churches. This serves to reinforce and meet these psychological needs.

Following are the 12 psychological traits that it might be wise to take into account when seeking to build consensus. Two do not apply. The suggestions for how to build consensus takes as a given that a person with an “Evangelical” and possibly a Pentecostal expression of faith could be operating out of this trait.

Let me state clearly that I am not saying that every “Evangelical” or Pentecostal Christian is living out of these psychological traits or needs.  However, where people are dogmatic and unrelenting in their position it could be that their actions owe more to psychology than Scripture. When this is so we need to be sensitive and creative in the responses that we make. At this point, an understanding of possible psychological traits may be helpful.

1. Practicality Trumps Morality

This is where people want to win at all costs. They consider that their goal is the most important one. In its worst expression, we see Christians who will manipulate others, lie, and seek the harm of others so that they get what they want. This is a very ugly witness for Christians to offer!!!

When this psychology takes over it can seem impossible to develop a consensus. When people want different things – opposites even – then how is consensus possible? The key here is to dig deeper into what it is that a person wants. Perhaps they are desiring an outcome, for example, no change to the worship times, but the need is different. Get behind the ask to what need is really driving them. Maybe then other solutions are possible. It is even possible that you can appeal to a higher goal. For example, a person may really prefer 11.00am for worship for reasons A, B and C. However, they may also care that the church connects with a new demographic and grows. So they will put aside one desire in favour of a goal that they value more highly.

Of course, there will always be people who want to get their way and will do anything to stop others. But by exploring through conversation to find deeper motives, or by appealing higher goals it may be possible to find an agreed solution.

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

Emotional arousal keeps some people engaged. So it is possible that they will be more emotive, perhaps use more extreme language, quite likely they will engage with issues at a visceral level.

We need to respect that not everyone prefers to explore issues from a “head” / mind level. Rather than be disparaging about people who are emotive, think about the ways to engage them at that level. This will keep their interest and “speak their language.” This is not about getting into a shouting match. Rather, people are given the chance to speak their mind in ways that work for them. Then the communication back to them can also share emotions because this is what some people connect to as they think about an issue.

3. Obsession with Entertainment and Celebrities

The way the article put this point is: “To some, it doesn’t matter what Trump actually says because he’s so amusing to watch. With the Donald, you are always left wondering what outrageous thing he is going to say or do next. 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.”

OK, this is a hard one to handle. If people get their highs in a church from being entertained and not encouraged to seriously engage with issues that can make it a challenge to work with them on a shared project!

Hopefully, we can tap into other life experiences where they have had to dig deeper than a surface experience of a topic. People do know how to seek understanding but its amazing how many Christians don’t do that as they listen to worship services and in their decision-making processes. Yes, it comes down to convincing such people that not everything is fun and games.

4. Some Men Just Want to Watch the World Burn

We know that there is a lot of disenchantment in the church about many things. Traditional mainline churches are subject to a lot of criticism from within their membership. When this leads to frustration – because their concerns are not taken seriously – then some people don’t care if the whole thing blows up.

I have seen local churches and even denominations where people are so frustrated and angry they don’t care if the place crashes and burns. Even worse they seem to act in ways that try and make it happen. They become intransigent, aggressive and uncompromising.

The key here is to create genuine spaces of listening where that anger and frustration can get out. It is also essential that people can genuinely influence the outcomes of their group. A consensus building approach knows how to make safe spaces to hear people well. It is committed to vulnerability so that the original proposal is changed in the process. The changes may reflect the concerns of the frustrated, angry people.

People don’t destroy the groups that they value. So give people valuable experiences of the group and remind them of when the group was appreciated by them in the past.

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

There is certainly a lot in the preaching of some churches that promote fear and themselves / their message as the answer to that fear. If people have been discipled in a church that encourages fear then it heightens the habit of seeing things through the prism of fear. People become more anxious by default.

However, harder to handle is when the issues on which we seek to build a shared understanding are the topics around what people have been told to be fearful. Many Christians disagree over what to do in response to mass human migration, gender issues, human sexuality, humanitarian crises, etc. In many societies and churches, the fear factor has been played and people have bought into the answers to those fears delivered by those who peddled the fear.

In Australia at present, we are seeing church leaders creating a climate of fear about the future of the family and religious freedom because same-gender marriage is now legal. Perfect love casts out fear. So when met by fearful people all we can do is to create a safe place where it is possible to talk about our fears, offer comfort and hope, and a context in which to reduce fear through personal sharing, exposure to those who are causing the fear, and some good theological and information sharing.

Consensus discernment is committed to taking the time that is needed to bring everyone along. Overcoming fear can take a lot of time!

6. Mortality Reminders and Perceived Threat

“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.”

When people see the future of themselves, kinship, values group, etc under threat then they turn on the attacker. When Christians engage in these sorts of attacks it can be an appalling departure from acceptable Christian behaviour.

There are two key options in this situation. First, help people find common ground with you. Do not let people position you as the enemy. Affirm shared values and the bonds that come from being Christians together. Avoid demonising and don’t get trapped into accepting the demonising that others do to you. Keep holding out the vision and the practical examples of being together in this challenge.

Secondly, challenge whether the threat / danger is really as big as people want to make out. “What’s the worst thing that can happen?” When people are highly anxious and threatened they want to find an enemy and they want to fight. Don’t be that enemy or target!

7. Humans Often Overestimate Their Expertise

Many issues in life are complex. So it is not surprising that people are often under-informed or misinformed. In such situations, people are often willing to accept the views of their preferred expert. They can be very reluctant to listen to other opinions.

The Dunning- Kruger effect says that not only are people uninformed they do not even know that they are uninformed! Hence they think their insights are adequate.

A critical step in consensus discernment is to take time to provide all the information that is necessary for a person to participate in the decision-making. This step allows people to ask questions, to develop understanding and to be informed. Sure if people are so locked into their bias that they will not be open to new views it can be a problem. However, the operating assumption that information is empowering is a significant tool for encouraging people to learn.

8. Relative Deprivation — A Misguided Sense of Entitlement

To hear many Evangelical, Pentecostal and other preachers you would think that the world as we knew it is ending. Way too many preachers encourage their followers to believe that Christians have lost influence, are under threat from the rights that others are given, and will become a persecuted minority. Then they offer a solution on how to overcome these fears by “righting the wrongs” that Christians have “suffered”.

Pandering to greed and desire for power is never a good look for Christian preachers. If you are involved in a discernment process with someone who has a strong sense of entitlement the answer is not to tell to “stop being so precious”! Although that is a reasonable end game.

Once again sharing feelings can be a doorway to hearing each other better. Taking fears seriously and generating alternative perceptions of reality and how to overcome the “threat” is a pathway to growth.

Sharing some stories from the experience of those who are seen to be privileged is also helpful. This is connected with the next point.

9. Lack of Exposure to Dissimilar Others

A lot of Christians only hang out with people like themselves. This reinforces their prejudices and the narratives around them. In a consensus building process, the planning group should always ask “Who needs to be in the room when we have this discussion?” This may include people who are not decision makers but be people who are affected by decisions.

Consensus processes make space for all the voices that are relevant to decision-making. Also, by using small groups and random table groups for discussion people don’t only talk to like-minded people.

10. Tapping into Collective Narcissism

Collective narcissism is an unrealistic shared belief in the greatness of one’s group. It often occurs when a group believes it represents the ‘true identity’ of a nation or religion. This perspective / psychological trait makes for arrogance and closed-mindedness. 

I am sure that many of us have been in a situation where people consider themselves to be the defenders of the faith and show scant respect for the opinions of others. This attitude is one of the hardest to address in any meeting style. Perhaps the advantage of consensus processes is that it creates the expectation that participants will listen to others, be vulnerable and be open to change.

It is naive to think that anything less than a Damascus Road experience will cause some people to recant of their arrogance. However, it is the case that when the consensus process, rather than combative ones, are used then people do change. The less strident, the more open-minded, the persons who have not solidified too much can be drawn away from such a group arrogance. The result is that the hardcore arrogant and aggressive people become a smaller group and so less influential over time. One thing is certain – picking a fight is only going to harden the aggression coming your way.

12. The Desire to Want to Dominate Others

Some people just love hierarchy and dominating over others. For them, that is the best way to organise the work. Especially if they are in the dominating group! This is far from a healthy pathology and yet it has a long tradition in the church!

Sadly, the church has a history of favouring some groups and putting others down. The privileged in such arrangements (usually men and clergy) don’t like to see the empowerment of others. They resist and this is often one of the reasons they oppose consensus discernment processes – because it empowers the marginalised.

Sometimes all that can be done is to persist in offering a counter view on the nature of the Christian community by persevering with consensus principles. Coupled with the commitment to spending 20% of the time in prayer and devotional activities there is a chance for God’s perspective to reach people. When we pray and fellowship around the Scripture and Holy Communion it is much harder to sustain the hierarchical approach that fosters domination.

13. Authoritarian Personality 

High authoritarians prefer a strong leader. Sometimes one will hear the criticism of consensus processes that nothing gets done. Then it is said that the solution is that we need is a strong leader. Chances are that this is a person who accepts an authoritarian approach to the world. There are plenty of “Evangelical” and other churches that have authoritarian Ministers! So chances are that people who go there actually prefer not to have to make decisions.

While authoritarians prefer an individual to be the boss it is more about having clear directions and being expected to follow them. Consensus discernment seeks to come down to a decision that has very high levels of support – certainty. It also has the theological expectation that people will defer to the wisdom / discernment of the group once a decision is made. Persons with authoritarian personalities can be very loyal to the one to which they pledge allegiance. So encourage them to be loyal to the decisions of the group!

Conclusion

When people are driven by psychological traits this will affect the way that they operate in group decision-making settings. By understanding these drivers it is possible to decide which consensus discernment processes are most helpful in combatting them.

Recognizing the psychological traits that encourage people to operate in a particular way empowers you to make constructive choices about how to behave rather than get sucked into their way of doing things.

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.

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.