The Problems with Deep Change
The Deep Change Field Guide by Robert Quinn seeks to encourage readers that genuine change is possible and that all are capable of eliciting real and deep change. There are only two main problems with this thought 1. Deep and 2. Change. Few people really enjoy doing things deeply as it’s frequently painful. Cleaning a wound deeply – ouch! Digging a deep ditch – sweat. Being deep in thought – headache. And then there is change. If change is what people really desired they would not eat the same 5 meals all the time or drive to work the same way each day or sit in the same seats at church. You get the idea. Deep change is a nice thought and if well written is likely to sell a few books to people who think they want deep change. Then they read the book and realize nope, not what I wanted at all.
Quinn hints at as much when he suggests that most of us see the need for change in others but are loath to apply the same scrutiny to ourselves. “It is hard to believe that responsibility for the problem lies anywhere but with the other people.”[1] Apart from the uncomfortable work involved there are other principles to bear in mind when suggesting that deep change is worthy of pursuit. There are significant social inhibitions that frequently interfere with making changes.
I recently listened to a podcast called Revisionist History by Malcolm Gladwell.[2](All of them are well worth listening to for anyone interested in learning about significant historical events from a different perspective.) This particular episode was about Wilt Chamberlain entitled ‘The Big Man Can’t Shoot’. It was all about his incredible career but his unwillingness to change his free throw 
technique to the much more successful underhanded shot or ‘granny shot’. In the greatest game ever played where he scored 100 points he shot 28 out of 30 free throws using the ‘granny shot’. He used that technique for about half a season under the tutelage of the master of the underhanded free throw, Rick Barry. Chamberlain eventually gave up on it because he thought it looked silly. He later admits in his own autobiography that had he been willing to change he probably would have had a lifetime scoring average around 50 points per game. The social pressure to conform was greater than his knowledge that change would make him more successful.[3]
The sociological term for this is the ‘Threshold Model of Collective Behavior’.[4] The idea being that most people will be unwilling to change unless a certain threshold is reached where they feel as
though they will not stand out or be taking a greater risk than those around them. Therefore, the lower your threshold the less you are concerned about what others are doing or thinking (ie. Rick Barry) but the higher your threshold the more those things matter to you despite substantial evidence that change will bring great benefit (ie. Wilt Chamberlain).
Perhaps then the ‘Threshold Model of Collective Behavior’ applies to the church as well. Are there certain ‘sacred cows’ that are maintained just because that is what everyone else is doing or that is what we have always done. For example, preaching. We know intellectually that auditory learning is the least effective form of learning for retention. Study after study demonstrates this and even when it does work it is only genuinely effective for those who line up with that learning style, less than 30% of the general population. Yet, we do it week after week in churches and youth meetings because we always have and everyone else is. We try to improve our oral communication through the use of visual aids, illustrations, verbal dynamics etc. We send seminarians through courses to make them better speakers. But, even the best communicators are only marginally effective. We know from vast amounts of research that there are far better ways to communicate a message effectively pedagogically. But few are willing to do the deep change necessary, perhaps because of the social pressure to conform.
There are other areas that could be similarly scrutinized – worship spaces, corporate singing, passive participation etc. All of these are part of the regular happenings of church life but may not be fulfilling the intended purposes, particularly with emerging adults. Perhaps the Church does not really need Deep Change but if any corporation or institution experienced the precipitous decline in adherents that the Western church has, heads would roll and new leaders would be brought in to bring about the necessary changes in order to survive. Are there any leaders in the church currently practicing aspects of deep change that could be emulated? I surmise that the majority of churches and denominations are practicing what Quinn calls ‘Incremental Change’ and thus in the process of the slow death he discusses later.[5] So, as I mentioned at the outset the problem with the ideas found in this text are that they are deep and require change, so we might as well keep preaching and all enjoy the slow death together.
[1]Quinn, Robert E. The Deep Change Field Guide a Personal Course to Discovering the Leader within. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2012. P. 58
[2]http://revisionisthistory.com/episodes/03-the-big-man-cant-shoot
[3]Gladwell, Malcolm. “The Big Man Can’t Shoot.” Revisionist History (audio blog), June 29, 2016. Accessed June 24, 2018. www.revisionisthistory.com.
[4]Ibid.
[5]Quinn, Robert E. The Deep Change Field Guide a Personal Course to Discovering the Leader within. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2012. P. 8
About the Author
Dan Kreiss
Former director of the Youth Ministry program at King University in Bristol, TN and Dean of the School of Missions. I have worked in youth ministry my entire life most of that time in New Zealand before becoming faculty at King. I love helping people recognize themselves as children of God and helping them engage with the world in all its diversity. I am particularly passionate about encouraging the church to reflect the diversity found in their surrounding community in regard to age, gender, ethnicity, education, economic status, etc. I am a husband, father of 4, graduate of Emmanuel Christian Seminary, an avid cyclist and fly-fisherman still trying to figure out what I want to be when I grow up.4 responses to “The Problems with Deep Change”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
M. Webb 8
Dan,
Good post! Thanks for the history review on Chamberlain. Awesome use of ethnographic images and video to communicate your analysis of Quinn. I do not think we should be surprised at the “slow death” findings against our Christian leaders. I think that you, as an LGP Christian leader, have Biblical discernment and acknowledge the current state of global spiritual affairs as you await Christ’s return.
Stand firm,
M. Webb
Hi Dan,
Are you kidding me–Wilt Chamberlain as a blog response? I love it. You had my attention and drove your point home well. Good job.
Unfortunately, I agree in your statement, “I surmise that the majority of churches and denominations are practicing what Quinn calls ‘Incremental Change’ and thus in the process of the slow death he discusses later.”
See you this fall. Not sure if we will be roommates again, but I hope so. Bring that bike to Hong Kong?
Great post, Dan. In our services we always have discussion groups, and the sermons are also “interactive.” But beyond that, we emphasize that the church service is just a blip on the map in the life of the church. We are aboue being the church in community for the community all week long. This is based on Jesus DOING life with his disciples.
What do you envision?
Dan,
Great post, I was thinking when you were talking about preaching that it correlated with teaching as well. The best teachers were always the best when they “tricked” up their teaching styles, that goes along with us as pastors as well.
Great job.
Jason