Keep Moving Forward

In any church we often hear people quote a theologian or scholar on a particular subject of the Bible. This is an acceptable help often in getting the point across. However, when we see people quote these men more often than the Bible or on equal footing, we have to question if the person really knows their Bible. Do they idolize the theologian/scholar too much? Do they even know how to study their Bible? Today we look into the realm of hero worship and how this can harm churches, especially these days.

 

1.      Do they know their Bible?       a.      Hermeneutics       b.      Bible Studies/Small Groups       c.      What Tools do they Have?2.      Cult of Personality       a.       Is the person reputable?        b.      Does this Person Have Proper Education?       c.       Is this person divisive?3.      Fallen Heroes       a.      What is their Reputation within Christendom?       b.      Have they ever been removed from ministry or disqualified?       c.      Have they been fully restored into ministry?

A brief talk about what many are seeing in the lives of the church as many churches close

looking at the recent SBC report and why both sides need to find balance and understand that there is good and bad from both sides of the argument in the debate.

Natalie takes the lead talking about her recent time away and what she was studying and how we must be practicing this in our revitalizations.

As observed by Aldag and Fuller (1993), the groupthink phenomenon seems to rest on a set of unstated and generally restrictive assumptions:

The purpose of group problem solving is mainly to improve decision qualityGroup problem solving is considered a rational process.Benefits of group problem solving:variety of perspectivesmore information about possible alternativesbetter decision reliabilitydampening of biasessocial presence effectsGroupthink prevents these benefits due to structural faults and provocative situational context.Groupthink prevention methods will produce better decisionsAn illusion of well-being is presumed to be inherently dysfunctional.Group pressures towards consensus lead to concurrence-seeking tendencies.

According to Janis, decision-making groups are not necessarily destined to groupthink. He devised ways of preventing groupthink:

Leaders should assign each member the role of "critical evaluator." This allows each member to freely air objections and doubts.Leaders should not express an opinion when assigning a task to a group.Leaders should absent themselves from many group meetings to avoid excessively influencing the outcome.The organization should set up several independent groups working on the same problem.All effective alternatives should be examined.Each member should discuss the group's ideas with trusted people outside of the group.The group should invite outside experts into meetings. Group members should be allowed to discuss with and question the outside experts.At least one group member should be assigned the role of devil's advocate. This should be a different person for each meeting.

Taken from the Wiki

Irving Janis identified three antecedent conditions to groupthink::

High group cohesiveness: Cohesiveness is the main factor that leads to groupthink. Groups that lack cohesiveness can of course make bad decisions, but they do not experience groupthink. In a cohesive group, members avoid speaking out against decisions, avoid arguing with others and work towards maintaining friendly relationships in the group. If cohesiveness gets to such a level that there are no longer disagreements between members, then the group is ripe for groupthink.Deindividuation: Group cohesiveness becomes more important than individual freedom of expression.Illusions of unanimity: Members perceive falsely that everyone agrees with the group's decision; silence is seen as consent. Janis noted that the unity of group members was a mere illusion. Members may disagree with the organization's decision, but go along with the group for many reasons, such as maintaining their group status and avoiding conflict with managers or workmates. Such members think that suggesting opinions contrary to others may lead to isolation from the group.Structural faults: The group is organized in ways that disrupt the communication of information, or the group carelessly makes decisions.Insulation of the group: This can promote the development of unique, inaccurate perspectives on issues the group is dealing with, which can then lead to faulty solutions to the problem.Lack of impartial leadership: Leaders control the group discussion, by planning what will be discussed, allowing only certain questions to be asked, and asking for the opinions of only certain people in the group. Closed-style leadership is when leaders announce their opinions on the issue before the group discusses the issue together. Open-style leadership is when leaders withhold their opinion until a later time in the discussion. Groups with a closed-style leader are more biased in their judgments, especially when members had a high degree of certainty.Lack of norms requiring methodological procedures.Homogeneity of members' social backgrounds and ideology.Situational context:Highly stressful external threats: High-stake decisions can create tension and anxiety; group members may cope with this stress in irrational ways. Group members may rationalize their decision by exaggerating the positive consequences and minimizing the possible negative consequences. In an attempt to minimize the stressful situation, the group decides quickly and allows little to no discussion or disagreement. Groups under high stress are more likely to make errors, lose focus of the ultimate goal, and use procedures that members know have not been effective in the past.Recent failures: These can lead to low self-esteem, resulting in agreement with the group for fear of being seen as wrong.Excessive difficulties in decision-making tasks.Time pressures: Group members are more concerned with efficiency and quick results than with quality and accuracy. Time pressures can also lead group members to overlook important information.Moral dilemmas.

Although it is possible for a situation to contain all three of these factors, all three are not always present even when groupthink is occurring. Janis considered a high degree of cohesiveness to be the most important antecedent to producing groupthink, and always present when groupthink was occurring; however, he believed high cohesiveness would not always produce groupthink. A very cohesive group abides with all group norms, but whether or not groupthink arises is dependent on what the group norms are. If the group encourages individual dissent and alternative strategies to problem-solving, it is likely that groupthink will be avoided even in a highly cohesive group. This means that high cohesion will lead to groupthink only if one or both of the other antecedents is present, the situational context being slightly more likely than structural faults to produce groupthink.

Type I: Overestimations of the group — its power and morality

Illusions of invulnerability create excessive optimism and encourage risk-taking.Unquestioned belief in the morality of the group, causes members to ignore the consequences of their actions.

Type II: Closed-mindedness

Rationalizing warnings that might challenge the group's assumptions.Stereotyping those who are opposed to the group as weak, evil, biased, spiteful, impotent, or stupid.

Type III: Pressures toward uniformity

Self-censorship of ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus.In illusions of unanimity among group members, silence is viewed as agreement.Direct pressure to conform is placed on any member who questions the group, couched in terms of "disloyalty"Mindguards— self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting information.

Do we do discipleship right? maybe and maybe not, but the main thing is are you looking at the makeup of your church and investing time properly with new Christians as well as integrating them into established groups? DO takes a look at this in this week's short take.

Bring Glory to God

                        If We Allow All Churches to Die It Says Our God Is Weak

Because It Was Once a Plant and an Established Church

                        History

We Love to Restore Other Things

                        Cars

                        Furniture 

                        Tools

In this episode, Don talks about lost opportunities churches miss and also rants about how this affects the area he is in as both an Educator and Pastor in the state of Massachusetts.