{"id":18506,"date":"2018-06-27T21:16:28","date_gmt":"2018-06-28T04:16:28","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dminlgp\/?p=18506"},"modified":"2018-06-27T21:18:51","modified_gmt":"2018-06-28T04:18:51","slug":"the-problems-with-deep-change","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/the-problems-with-deep-change\/","title":{"rendered":"The Problems with Deep Change"},"content":{"rendered":"

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\u2019s frequently painful. Cleaning a wound deeply \u2013 ouch! Digging a deep ditch \u2013 sweat. Being deep in thought \u2013 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.<\/p>\n

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. \u201cIt is hard to believe that responsibility for the problem lies anywhere but with the other people.\u201d[1]<\/a> 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.<\/p>\n

I recently listened to a podcast called Revisionist History by Malcolm Gladwell.[2]<\/a>(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 \u2018The Big Man Can\u2019t Shoot\u2019. It was all about his incredible career but his unwillingness to change his free throw \"\"technique to the much more successful underhanded shot or \u2018granny shot\u2019. In the greatest game ever played where he scored 100 points he shot 28 out of 30 free throws using the \u2018granny shot\u2019. 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]<\/a><\/p>\n

The sociological term for this is the \u2018Threshold Model of Collective Behavior\u2019.[4]<\/a> 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).<\/p>\n

Perhaps then the \u2018Threshold Model of Collective Behavior\u2019 applies to the church as well. Are there certain \u2018sacred cows\u2019 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. \u00a0We 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.<\/p>\n