Here are some thoughts I’ve been kicking around lately, and I want to get them out of my head and on paper, so here goes:

Currently in the diocese at the moment I think there is a false assumption which prevails in just about all preaching and teaching - that communicating certain ideas leads ipso facto to behaviour change. That is, if I teach you certain things about a behaviour eg prayer, or evangelising, or conduct, or whatever, it follows that you, joe pew sitter, will (a) modify your behaviour; (b) and do so in an appropriate, constructive way. I teach, you hear, you change.

What if most people hear, but don’t change? What if we are missing a vital piece in the process of behaviour change? What if, in fact, we were missing not just a piece - but the entire framework that leads to behaviour change? If this is true (and I believe it is) then the reality in our congregations is that significant behaviour change is at best rare, and at worst even negative.

How could this be so? Well, let me illustrate with an recent example from my own life:

Earlier this year I went to a Christian MYC-ish conference where 40-50 Christians spend one rather full-on week away hearing in-depth teaching, doing bible studies, participating in seminars, and having a good time. The topic for the week was “Prayer” - very much a behaviour, a “doing” thing. I knew from previous conferences that I’d probably get totally inspired and fired up by the end of the week, make some lofty person commitment to real changes in my life, but on returning to the Real World I’d inevitably watch as enthusiasm slowly fade, and sooner or later I’d find myself back in the same old habits. The hard truth of the matter was that the net-gain from the week in terms of behaviour change was close to zero. I’m sure others can relate with this kind of “one month slump” phenomenon too.

Now don’t get me wrong, it *was* a great week, the teaching and studies were very very good and thoroughly prepared, I learned a lot and had a great time, and I probably did make some changes, but nevertheless I was still mystified that, in spite of all this my behaviour remained pretty much the same, falling well short of my own expectations during the week, as I suspect most other people’s did as well.

Co-incidentally, around the same time as the week away, I was studying a subject at uni called “Behaviour change for population health”. The focus was particularly on major government health campaigns aimed at improving the health of the population (eg anti-smoking, healthy lifestyle, safe sex, etc). But what struck me was that researchers consistently discovered that despite millions of dollars being spent on sometimes enormous media campaigns, the net gain in terms of behaviour change in the population was sometimes negligible, and sometimes negative!

The government got all its experts together, particularly in health and marketing, and had them nut out what they believed would be the most logical, appropriate, and useful campaign… and the results simply did not match expectations. They thought they had the right message with the right exposure (and big $$$ behind it) but the bottom line was the population simply did not change their behaviour.

A couple of examples I can remember are anti-smoking campaigns which had a small positive effect on those in the highest socio-economic bracket (ie the rich slightly reduced smoking), but at the cost of a larger, negative effect on those in the lowest bracket, the poor, who actually started to smoke more! In another example the Canadian govt put condom vending machines in the toilets of some high schools to prevent teen pregnancies and STD’s - but when they crunched the numbers, teen pregnancies slightly increased (!). The textbook was full of more, and the point is simply that behaviour did not change anything like you would expect, and under the harsh light of scientific scrutiny, you don’t really have anywhere to hide. The numbers don’t lie (unless they are interpreted by a marketing exec ;).

I think these ideas highlight a very big gap in current thinking about preaching and teaching where it is just assumed that teaching -> increased knowledge -> changed behaviour. It�s not always born out in population health and it�s probably not in churches either (eg my MYC experience). You can sense the problem when you hear people complaining about missing out on “practical” teaching - they want to know what to do (ie, how to change their behaviour). They probably have a great understanding of sinful world point A and Christ-like ideal point B, but absolutely no idea just how to get from point A to B, which is sad.

In any case, surely all this is highly relevant to our churches. Are we not in the business of transforming lives, encouraging godliness and brotherly love, and striving to be more “Christ-like”? Are we not, therefore, in the business of behaviour change as prescribed by the bible?

I’ve heard people argue that, once you know and understand something, then surely you will act accordingly - and if you don’t, then you don’t really understand. I can think of two criticism in response:

1. It is possible, and probably likely, that there are stronger, conflicting beliefs that drive our behaviour which are imparted on us by our environment (society, parents, peers etc) that no amount of “understanding” will overcome. (eg finances where beliefs (perhaps unconscious) about financial security overcome knowledge of giving, outcome behaviour therefore = small/no giving. Or smokers, who no matter how well educated, believe “it won�t happen to me”.)
2. We are trying to what is unnatural - our natural behaviour is to act selfishly and sinfully, we just don’t have an innate knowledge of how to act selflessly. We can have an excellent understanding that we should act differently and why, but that does not mean we know how. Really, we could do a lot more to accommodate the work of the Spirit & scripture in our lives by creating the possibility of behaviour change imo, rather than flailing about in our own ignorance.

Has anyone considered what a graph of behaviour change would look like week on week, month on month, year on year for a given church population? It�s a scary thought isn’t it? What if it was, on the whole, close to zero? What if it was negative?

If your first thought is “maybe on the whole, but not in my church” then that’s the very thought you have to abandon. I’m suggesting this is a real possibility in each of our churches. If your reaction is “Surely that’s not true, it can’t be zero, I know I’ve thought out my teaching, how I do it, what I say, how I say it. I know its theologically correct and hey, its a lot better than most!” My answer is: you just don’t know that! Without evidence there’s no way you can be sure, and if the experiences of those in the field of population health are true, and this reflects church populations in some ways, then there’s probably some cause for alarm. This phenomenon defies our assumptions - they must be abandoned.

In my health adventures I’ve come across many groups and communities discussing certain topics of interest - illnesses, treatments, support etc. I think the saying that the group as a whole never improves beyond the knowledge/actions of the leader (or whatever it is) is probably true. There is always a learning curve, sometimes small, sometimes steep, but if you hang around long enough you eventually get up the curve and hit the plateau. I think this is true in most churches - no matter how academic or deep the teaching, once you’ve ascended that learning curve things even out, and you just maintain the status-quo. This is not necessarily a bad thing, in fact its something that good churches probably do well - we’re all given to backsliding, so maintaining a high quality status-quo is a blessing. But nevertheless, I think the week on week emphasis should be on behaviour change, not just imparting knowledge. How will I act differently this week? What will I do? What am I working towards? What results will they have (good and bad)? What will the change look like? A little inspiration week on week would go along way, imo.

Have you noticed on quit smoking ads now the guy or girl actually makes the call to the quit line? (And the guy is always greeted by an attractive, well dressed female on the other end for some reason...) People seem to need to be shown exactly what they have to do, how it will play out and what the results will be. We probably need our hands held through even the smallest changes - otherwise they just don’t happen. Telling a smoker to quit, telling a sloth to exercise, and telling a sinner to act selflessly are all ‘right’, but pretty futile. They might logically understand why they should, but what�s the point if they don’t know how? We need to explore what it is that encourages effective behaviour change, what it is that prevents it. What makes some people passionate about the gospel, while others are apathetic, despite receiving the same information, the same knowledge? Why do we talk so much about creating loving communities, when the reality is we’re hopeless at it? Why do we hear the same message every Sunday to change, yet we absolutely fail to do anything but the most meager of token actions?

So often I have heard sermon’s which go into remarkable depth on the chosen topic or passage, and then conclude with one or two sentences about doing the right thing, loving one another etc etc. Who on earth is going to make changes to their behaviour based on those one or two throw away lines?

It seems like 95% of the effort goes into fascinating but forgettable detail about a passage, while only 5% goes into emphasising the need for acting or behaving differently, let alone how its done. I’m not saying these figures should be reversed, they probably need to more equitable, 50/50, 60/40, I don’t know. We should find out! But how? Again, the question is: what would the results of this be? Would people actually act differently? What would it take to precipitate change in your congregation? Where are they at now, and how do you know? How have they changed over months/year/decades? We can’t just assume it will just be taken in good faith and that’s that - that�s just ignorance. So what do we do? Study? Research? Survey?

Make no mistake, behaviour change is very very hard. (That’s why the govt spends $millions to convince people to change.) I’m trying to get at the bigger picture here, I know there’s theory and framework which contextualises behaviour change, but what does this mean for the church? How do we evaluate change in the population? There’s a whole branch of science dedicated to it, so lets exploit for our benefit. Lets commit to asking the hard questions, dismissing our own assumptions and beliefs which are not justifiably (and dare I say it, evidence based), and start learning, studying and implementing for the benefit of everyone in the diocese, if not beyond. Lets be pioneers!

Here’s an example of a small experiment I tried: In a bible study we looked what the bible said about prayer, which was interesting with good discussions, and we could have left it at that and felt satisfied. However I strongly suspected the net gain of that kind of study in terms of behaviour change would be zero. (Why is this???) So I thought should try establishing a baseline for our own current prayer life - an honest, accurate description of what it is, not what we *think* it is or wish it was, but what it *is* here and now. Pride often distorts our perception of reality. Then we committed to improving our praying life in a small way that was appropriate and achievable for us, accepting the realities of our day to day life, and only committing to changes that we could actually see happening.

By the next week even I had forgotten about my commitment (so much for the group) but it was an interesting exercise in honestly evaluating our own behaviour. :)

As for results - it probably wasn’t that successful - but that�s the point. Real commitment to change requires finding out what doesn’t work before you find out what does. Failure is not a possibility, it�s a requirement. I would speculate that if the group made verbal commitments to each other they would feel much more strongly about making those changes, so they didn’t let the group down or whatever, but that requires a very high level or trust and openness in the group. So you work on that. Try something, see what happens, fail, refine, improve and keep moving. Is this effective? Good question - I don’t know! When need a framework here, not nec for “better bible studies” but for behaviour change on the whole - a deep, relatively unexplored topic that should have big implications for how we teach and learn. I guess there’s no magic formula, its going to take strong commitment and persistence to find answers to these questions, but if that’s what it takes to help people improve their lives, then so be it.

There is an alternative to trial and error - research and study. There are many good, solid, adaptable, well worn theories about behaviour change out there (again I’m talking about academic research here, not “10 kerazy ways to christ-ify your congregation in 10 days or less!” nonsense.) But these also require a serious, long term commitment if they are to be implemented in a meaningful way. Maybe we need an SDS Dept of Behaviour Change… :) Honestly, research into baselines of current church population behaviour would be very interesting, don’t you think?

I could rant on, there are problems of perception and reality in congregations (eg people believe everyone else is studying their bible daily, praying regularly when they are probably not, without research we just don’t know). There’s also problems of reductionism in research we need to beware of; prevailing dogma in just about all churches (no matter how low); resistance to paradigm change (or any change); need for open-mindedness; need for real faith when moving into the unknown vs. relying on what we’ve done before; etc etc.

I’ll leave it at this: what I’m suggesting is not in opposition to what currently happens (which is generally pretty good), but instead we need to move forward with a kind of ‘new pragmatism’ that naturally flows out of the biblical teaching we already have, asks the hard questions about current teaching (are they having a measurable effect on behaviour change?) and adopt a new mantra of:
Behaviour change, behaviour change, behaviour change - because communicating ideas does not ipso facto lead to… behaviour change!

Feedback appreciated :)

Luke… just another pew sitter.

*low whistle*

Lots of fascinating ideas to be explored here Luke, I may make a fuller contribution later.

But I think we ought to make a careful distinction from the outset. As Christians we believe that true transformation comes through the work of the Spirit of God. And the sword of the Spirit, the potent edge through which the Spirit pierces the hearts of men, is the Word of God (Eph 6:17)

2 Corinthians 3:18:

And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.

I suspect changing sermons to be 50% behavioural demands is not going to help any more than a multi-million dollar advertising campaign “Practice being Godly” (starring Col Buchanan?)!

Hammering people with demands cannot change the desires of their hearts that inform all their practice.

But if our worldview, our whole perspective on life, is transformed, then we will see change for the right reasons. That can only happen through the study of the perspective that confronts us from the pages of scripture, with the illumination of the spirit moving that understanding from our heads to our hearts.

I guess what I’m saying is, theology is application. It is the most broadly applicable preaching available. To rattle off applications at the end of a sermon (do this tomorrow; achieve this by Wednesday) appeals to the Arminian in all of us, but can actually have the effect of suffocating a comprehensive perspective on life into a trite activity.

So bearing that in mind, perhaps this thread could pick up some of your ideas to discuss effective ways to ‘spur one another on to love and good deeds’? Or ensuring we are ‘rooted and built up’ in Christ? What do you think? Have I understood you correctly?

Your brother because of Jesus

Matt

ditto Matt, and to say that despite the 99% of the time where you see teaching produce no change, it’s the 1% that do change that keeps you going.  I think you are right, but focus on the 1% (the narrow gate people?) not the 99%.  And for each of us make sure we listen and do change:
[quote author="Hebrews 4:7"] “Today, if you hear his voice,
do not harden your hearts.”

how provoking!!!!!  I just wrote a super long post in response Luke, but when I posted it went to a ‘can’t find this page’ page, and I lost the whole darn lot!!!!!!!!!!

I shall repost at a later time.

What a ripper of a topic by the way.

Mike

Ok…here goes.

I won’t answer Luke’s post dot point by dot point, but I will try and give you a generalist overview on my own journey and life experience over the past 18 months…and how it relates to translating head knowledge into heart knowledge…taking what we hear and know about God, and allowing these things to transform the way we live and think.

I have been undergoing a massive faith reformation of late.  Discovering and understanding new ways (or old ways that were forgotten) of understanding where I fit in the universe.

Most of this ‘Mike Reformation’ revolves around my understanding of the Trinity.  How does the Father, the Son, and the Spirit relate to me (to us).

I grew up on a staple diet of God as ice water steam…or 3 leaf clover…or as the 3 sided triangle.  But you know, something always told me that these images and the teaching I had received on who God is was in some way incomplete and lacking.

Now, I will pick on the ‘triangle’ trinity to explain my point.  I do not fit into a triangle model of God.  In fact, to quote a buzzword at the moment, there is a definite subordinacy in the triangle.  God the Father up the top, and God the Son and God the Spirit on the bottom 2 corners.  Now, if this subordinacy exists (and I believe it doesn’t – but that is a topic for another thread at another time), then I cannot find myself inside that triangle.  I can only see myself below the triangle.

What does that say about the way we live our lives and interact with God.  With this idea of the triune God in our heads, we will always subconsciously believe we are outside of God.  That God exists on a ‘higher plane’…that we are perpetually fallen and sinful creatures unworthy of God to reach down.  Most Christians I know again subconsciously live in total fear of God – unfounded fear.  Fear that God can strike them out at any moment.  Fear that if they step out of line (even once) its off to hellfire and brimstone for eternity.

If you can imagine (or grab a pen and draw) the trinity as a triangle, and draw yourself below it, what does that say about life?  I think it says that no matter how hard we try, we can never be a part of the connectedness of the triune God.  That we exist outside of God.

Now, here’s where I have undergone a theological transformation, that has lead to a life change that has been permanent and lasting.

Imagine 2 circles – one inside the other (much like the red target store symbol).  Lets call the inside circle ‘creation’.  In this smaller circle exists all of life as God has created it.  Me and you and everyone else – believer and non-believer – exists inside this created circle.  Now, lets call the outside circle the trinity.  If it helps, draw 3 arrow heads in the circle line spaced evenly around the circle to represent the Father, Son and Spirit.

Here we see a triune God completely as one entity.  Not 3 separate bits making one entity…but one complete circle.  Father, Son and Spirit circling round and round and round and round in a never ending magical cosmic dance.  Never able to break free of the circle.  Circling all of creation all of the time.

Now draw co-opting lines out of the centre meeting the outer circle…signifying creation joining the circle of the triune God – lines that represent us.  Me and you.  (John 15 – As the Fother loves me, so I love you).  We are connected (through our adoption and acceptance of that gift) into the very lifeblood of the circle of life – the triune God. 

Suddenly, God becomes active in our lives…and we are active in the life of God.  No longer a passive God in the triangle that we are unable to reach, but an active God that draws us into the very connectedness and community of himself.

+George Carey, former Abp Cant… In creating man, God completes his activity.  In man’s obedience to God, God continue’s his creativity.

Suddenly, as we grasp the fact that God is totally and utterly intertwined in our lives, and we are totally and utterly entwined in the ‘dance’ of the triune God, our outlook on life changes.  The block between what we hear, and what takes root in our lives leaves.  No longer is there an eternal seperateness between God and man, but a total connectedness.

Imagine…you are learning to play ‘Ode to Joy’ on the piano, and it sounds like crap.  You are frustrated in not being able to hit the right notes and make the right sounds.  But suddenly, in walks Beethoven himself.  And in the midst of your frustratedness, he puts his arms around you, and as you make your poor attempt at playing Ode to Joy, Beethoven fills in all the missing notes.  Perfection.  Now imagine Beethoven as God, and you trying to worship….baptism, communion, prayers, songs, sermons etc etc – are like trying to play those awful notes.  Nothing really works.  But, when the Spirit of God surrounds you, filling in those extra missing note, which are gathered up by the Son, and presented as a perfect offering to the Father, then your life as a Christian becomes instantly magical.  Resting in the arms of grace totally and utterly liberated from the pressure to ‘get it right’

And when the block is removed, life begins.

This, I believe, is just what Paul meant when he wrote….

GOD’s POWER IS MADE PERFECT IN WEAKNESS.

Gee – hope it made sense.  I could go on typing for hours yet – but I won’t.

Sorry for such a long post… I firmly believe that when people discover just how the Trinitarian God is so much a part of who we are as people, then real life sustaining and permanent change follows.  This understanding affects our understanding of key theological stances we have on ‘adoption’, and ‘what is sacred and secular”

By the way - this post is significantly shorter than the original one that I lost...so count yourself lucky...hehehehehehehe

Grace

[quote author="Matthew Williams"]As Christians we believe that true transformation comes through the work of the Spirit of God. And the sword of the Spirit, the potent edge through which the Spirit pierces the hearts of men, is the Word of God (Eph 6:17)

2 Corinthians 3:18:

And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.

Yes, thanks for pointing this out. I only made passing reference to this, but it is very important. I’m not trying to dismiss or minimise the Spirit’s work - God will get things done regardless of us tiny humans. I’m just thinking about how we can best keep up our end of the bargin, so that more hearts are pierced, so to speak :)

I suspect changing sermons to be 50% behavioural demands is not going to help any more than a multi-million dollar advertising campaign “Practice being Godly” (starring Col Buchanan?)!

Hammering people with demands cannot change the desires of their hearts that inform all their practice.

But how would you know? Where’s your data? ;) Seriously though, I’m not so much interested in what people do in their sermons, but exploring a framework that would give us a why people should or should not make demands in their sermons, in regards to the outcome it would have on the behaviour of a given congregation. In some ways I�d like to work back from results, which sounds glib, but its effective. Suspend assumptions about what does/does not work, then do the research to find out what actually *does* work in the trenches by measuring and quantifying behaviour change, and work backwards from there (of course holding it in tension with current �best practises� and that big book thing we use). Its hard and probably unpopular because it means throwing out old ideas and dealing with hard questions but that�s that. Currently people seem to assume that if my theology is good, application automatically follows�

I guess what I’m saying is, theology is application.

Which is exactly what I am arguing against :) My point in the above post was that the health and marketing experts had “good theology” so to speak, yet when they did the numbers the application was sometimes non existent, sometimes negative! At MYC I heard a lot of great theology, but the net gain of my behaviour change was almost zero! (Which I suspect was very common). It is completely counter intuitive - thats the problem. This is a scary thing - not just that such a disconnect between theology and application could exist - but that we might have completely overlooked it as well. I think there is a big blind spot there, and people’s first reaction would be to deny any such disconnect for that reason (deny what you can’t see), but I would argue that it is there and is very real, my MYC experience being one tiny example. If a group were to study the church ‘population’ they would probably find evidence for such a disconnect by measuring behaviour change in the church population. The perception and the reality are probably two very different things. What to do about it is the big question…

You’re right about worldview though, that�s a good point. Someone with an informed world view will make appropriate choices in terms of behaviour. But there�s still too much mystery, too much left up to an individual who is dealing with conflicting beliefs as I mentioned above, and trying to do unnatural things (act selflessly). We are not neutral, we are constantly facing pressure for all kinds of sources, and until we address behaviour change seriously (not demanding that it takes place, but exploring the hows and whys and why nots) our minds will be stuck in the abstract while our body is stuck in the world.

Obvious example: Who here actually pays attention to advertising? But why is there so much of it? Simple, it works, and it affects you whether you know it or not. Your brain might say it doesn�t notice, but when your hand reaches for a chocolate bar�

I didn�t touch on this much above, but I think we can learn a lot from �the world� in terms of soft sciences (sociology, psychology), as well as marketing, population health etc, from our own Christ-centred world view, with the imperative of behaviour change in the diocese in mind. They are essentially benign, and with the right motives we could put them to good use. Do people realise there is such a thing called �behavioural science�? Behaviour has been studied for a long time and with the biblical knowledge we have here at the moment in Sydney I think we�re mature enough to start investigating this. We�re not about to suddenly hurl the bible out the window, are we? :)

So bearing that in mind, perhaps this thread could pick up some of your ideas to discuss effective ways to ‘spur one another on to love and good deeds’? Or ensuring we are ‘rooted and built up’ in Christ? What do you think? Have I understood you correctly?

Not quite, but thanks for the reply :)

Looking forward to your thoughts Mike� [edit: ooh, you’ve posted]

Luke

Hi Luke

Thanks for the comments & ideas. It’s hard to respond directly, for there seem to be a few issues intertwined. Which means I may go off in a totally irrelevant direction here. Oh well ...

The question that leaps out at me is: where is the theology in this?

A focus on pragmatics in Christian circles terrifies me: it’s another word for law. It is also what most Christian literature is. (Or, perhaps, pragmatics for church & groups, feel-good stuff for the individual.) Please note that ‘focus’ is a key word in the above sentence.

The gospel is all about transformation - of the whole creation, no less. So let’s address it. But it sounds like you say ‘social sciences first in the behaviour issues’. Yes, they’re helpful at times. And seriously flawed at times.

What does God promise is effective? His sent word. Can I see this promise in action? Usually not. Do I trust his promise? Do I trust his promise even when I cannot see the evidence? Or do I yell to God ‘Show me the money’?

Perhaps as we tease things out I will understand better. Can you keep refining the actual question(s) & suggestion(s) that you have for my slow brain?

Luke I can answer that for you, I know for a fact that many will not like the answer -but here is my view - regarding prayer that is.

In the Anglican dioscee we tend to be more head knowledge orientated, that is we are compartmentalised in our approach to life, instead of being Wholelistic orientated people.

As a result we tend to be more work orientated, must read my Bible, must pray, must do this, must do that.

Now the trouble with this approach is that we become suspicious, lookupon with disdain or ignore those who have a more emotional experience with God.

Prayer is not something we do, it is something we are constantly invovled with, it comes out of the relationship we have with our God, and him being Father, Son and Holy Spirit, in another topic on the baptism of the Holy Spirit it was noted that some have more of an infilling with him than others.

WE say in church every sunday “May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Love of God and the Fellowship with the Holy Spirit”

Do we really know God as father? have we had that heart revelation of him as our real father?
Do we really know Jesus as he is, friend, lord, saviour.
Do we truly know the Holy Spirit

How often do we fellowship with The Holy Spirit, do we know the Holy Spirit of God, in every great revivial the Holy Spirit moved and lives were transformed, it is only when the church allows him room to move that lives will be truly transformed.

Has anyone ever been prostrate under the convicting work of Gods Spirit begging for mercy?
Has anyone allowed themselves to cry out to God with tears of angusih asking God to change us?
Has any one ever cried out to God earnestly asking him for Spiritual Gifts, as Pauls says for us to do?
Has anyone ever cried out to the Lord as david did and cried Lord search my Heart?

I have done all these things and more, I have been in church services that many in our anglican dioscee would look upon with disdain where all in that room have come under the power of God and have laid on the floor begging for mercy.

I have studied at a Bible College which again is not looked favorably upon by many in our dioscee, where the lectures have been interupted because the Holy Spirit wanted to do something different and many lives were changed as a result, where prophecy truly flowed, where healings happened, words of knowledge flowed.

It is only when we allow the Holy Spirit to move and change us, instead of doing it in our own strength that we will be changed.

Getting onto the subject of prayer, have you ever said God, I don’t know how to pray in this situation? Give me your wisdom, pray in me and allow me to pray in you, and if God wants you to pray in tongues are you open to that gift? or any other gifts.

We need to stop compartmentalising our walk with God, and just get on and walk with him, being aware that he is with us always.

Wesley, Roberts, Brainard, Whitfield,Finney, Murray, the English puritan whom I can’t remember all allowed the spirit of God his way, they all met him and were empowered by him.

Our challenge is will we allow him to do likewise.

craig

.

Ooh. Lots of activity I see. :-)

I still feel a little uncomfortable about this, Luke.

Can you distinguish between your desire to pursue behavioural change theory since many people’s behaviour isn’t really changing on the one hand, and saying “the spirit isn’t really doing his job as much as we would like, so let’s usurp the process” on the other?

Is social science the answer where God has ‘failed’?

Would you apply this to evangelism also - if people aren’t being converted, we need to turn to the social sciences to manipulate their behaviours towards conversion? What would this mean? I guess I’m especially uncomfortable because we are talking in parallels with the failures of advertising campaigns.

Let me explain a little further what I mean by theology is application.

Last Sunday I preached on 2 Corinthians 4. The end point of that chapter is “So we fix our eyes, not on what is seen, but on what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal”.

That requires a copernican revolution in our perspective on life and existence itself. There is no decision that will not be affected, no choice that will not be altered.

I can list decisions and choices and how they should be changed until I am blue in the face. (And I did happen to give some suggestions in passing, but only to give an indication of the scale of the impact.)

But the theology - the perspective - is the application. If you think like this, everything you do will change. Not just on Monday either!

But unless the spirit of God works through the word to transform the hearts of the congregation with this perspective, no amount of badgering from me is going to make people see things like God, nothing I can say, no strategy I can implement will make people selfless (as you said yourself).

Can behavioural sciences really replace (or even complement) the effect of being exposed to God in Jesus Christ and indwelt by the spirit? Is this our work or God’s work?

‘Our end of the bargain’ is to worry about ensuring we press on towards the goal, and encourage others to do so, but not manipulating others to do it in artificial ways.

I hate to be so old-fashioned, but if our social science can manipulate people into godliness, I would question whether that godliness is real anyway, or is instead a brainwashed ethicalism that creates an artificial likeness of God, without the requisite internal transformation. If behavioural change is not bursting out of God-in-Christ-in-us, is it really godliness at all? Could we make a faux ‘godliness’ that simply makes the problem you highlight (that our behaviour is often not changing in response to God’s word) harder to diagnose and easier to ignore?

The whole point of the new covenant is that it is written on our hearts, no longer an external constraint but an internal wellspring.

I tend to favour joining Paul in his prayer (both the poster above and the apostle!)

I’m not as closed to this idea as this post makes me sound, but I just need more understanding of what you mean by behavioural science, how it would work, and clarity regarding how this is distinguished from usurping the work of the spirit.

I should say I think your diagnosis of the problem in Sydney Diocese is spot on, it’s just the direction of your proposals to solve it that I’m uncomfortable with. Should we get more prayerful rather than more scientific?

Without some more specific examples of how this might work, I must cautiously suspend judgment.

Your brother because of Jesus

Matt

Thanks for the replies, some interesting points! Posting through bleary eyes is fraught with danger, but just to pick up a few points before I face plant the keyboard… :)

[quote author="Chris Little"]The question that leaps out at me is: where is the theology in this?

Good point, there isn’t any. I think the ideas (messy as they are) fit in to the theology I’ve been taught, but really the theology of these issues is beyond me. If anyone knows of any Christian authors who’ve engaged seriously with social sciences I’d be interested to know… ?

Perhaps as we tease things out I will understand better. Can you keep refining the actual question(s) & suggestion(s) that you have for my slow brain?

Absolutely, maybe I’ll understand them better myself! Its hard work though, but I’m sure there’s a nugget of something in there somewhere :)

Matt:

Can you distinguish between your desire to pursue behavioural change theory since many people’s behaviour isn’t really changing on the one hand, and saying “the spirit isn’t really doing his job as much as we would like, so let’s usurp the process” on the other?

Is social science the answer where God has ‘failed’?

No, its the answer where we have failed. The Spirit will work regardless. I’m sure there are churches in Africa where the minister is barely educated and the Spirit does more than we can ever imagine.

Nevertheless, here in Sydney, I see it this way: whenever we teach and preach, we are making implicit decisions that effect those who we teach. Think of my bible study about prayer where I could do it the ‘same old’ way where I know no one would even think about change, or I can do it the ‘improved’ way where behaviour change is a specific final aim. If what I’m saying isn’t that far off the mark, then on the one hand we can opt for our current practises that may be having a neglible net gain in terms of behaviour change (though probably maintains a good status quo) OR we can investigate, and if appropriate adopt practises that would positively increase behaviour change in our congregations. Now if (and its a big if), but if all this is true, then to willfully opt for the former would be almost disobediant, to my mind. If we have the tools at our disposal, but do not use them - then what is that?

Would you apply this to evangelism also - if people aren’t being converted, we need to turn to the social sciences to manipulate their behaviours towards conversion? What would this mean? I guess I’m especially uncomfortable because we are talking in parallels with the failures of advertising campaigns.

Sure, if more people were converted, why would you not? Like I said, to act otherwise is a willful choice, and if we are making the wrong choices when we could or should know better…

Last Sunday I preached on 2 Corinthians 4. The end point of that chapter is “So we fix our eyes, not on what is seen, but on what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal”.

That requires a copernican revolution in our perspective on life and existence itself. There is no decision that will not be affected, no choice that will not be altered.

Yes, that is a profound truth, and to be inspired to live that way each week would be good enough for me.

But what I see is all this talk, talk that we should be a loving community, talk that we should be this kind of person, that we should treat others like that kind of person would. All this talk that is true, and says we should behave in a certain way. But there is absolutely no credence given to how such behaviuour change would occur, or even if it does occur! (And I suggest that it generally does not). And when there is a whole branch of science dedicated to this topic, how can we possibly ignore it?

What I hear is people saying “Gee your stuck in this really bad place, huh, and well I know of this GREAT place you see...” And you think “cool, how do I get there?” and they reply “Hey hey hey I can’t tell you that, that’s the Spirit’s work [read: I don’t know], but I can tell you how good it is! THIS GOOD!!” And they are 100% absolutely theologically correct on how good that place is, and you are left stuck, tormented by the fact that there is a better place out there that you could start a journey towards, if only you had the darn directions!

To hold up the very desireable ideals of the most correct theology but give people no chance of even moving towards them seems… odd, cruel almost. I think people have to accept that they are not experts in these matters, that just because a preacher or teacher can teach profound theological truths to the audience doesn’t mean their comments on sociology, psychology, or french cuisine are worth anything much. Harsh, I know, but if however you (generally speaking) can accept that these are not your areas of expertise, then what do you do? You go to the people who are experts and see what they have to say. That is far more effecient to my mind - I don’t really want Average Joe Preacher’s opinion, I want to know what the expert he’s read who’s spent the last 30 years of his life studying these topics thinks (unless of course he is this expert :). Now I’m sure that’s what most preachers do when it comes to theology, but if they are going to proclaim wisdom about behaviour change, then why not do the same and read, well not just read, but listen to what the expert say?

I hate to be so old-fashioned, but if our social science can manipulate people into godliness, I would question whether that godliness is real anyway, or is instead a brainwashed ethicalism that creates an artificial likeness of God, without the requisite internal transformation.

You seem to have a pretty negative view of social science here Matt. There’s nothing artificial about it, in fact I’d argue that its probably closer to the truth (that’s the point of science, after all ;) and that’s what I like about it. (Yes I realise I’m on dangerous ground here :) Faced with uncovered facts opinion quickly melts away. Thats the point of the exercise, to shed all the dogma and opinion about what people may or may not do, to really open ones mind and study what is actually going on out there, and find out what people actually do and how they do it, because I reckon its nothing like we imagine. Surely this is a real act of faith, to jettison the baggeage of our own so called wisdom and put ourselves in God’s hands with God’s word forefront in our minds, and truely investigate what’s going on. And if we are serious about what the bible says we should be doing with our lives, then I’ll take all the help I can get, thanks.

So many interesting issues raised…

I think Luke, you are onto something, if in nothing other than your diagnosis of the main problem with the Diocese’s (and might I add, wider evangelicalism’s - and for that matter, probably much of Christianity’s) approach.

We could probably do to learn alot from behavioural science, as you suggest. And also from psychology and the other liberal arts.

I am partly with Craig though. We only get to know God through prayer - not just discursive prayer in its various types (petitionary, thanksgiving etc), but through being still in his presence. I think it’s only from living our lives in and through God, with God, that we are enabled by the Spirit to change. It is, as so many evangelicals are adamant, about relationship with God in Christ: but to state that is just the beginning. The whole aim of the CHristian life is that we become one with God, extensions of the life of Christ: and the only way that happens is by deepening our experience of God and living in him. Some writers speak of this as being centred in God. I think you can always tell those people who have this charism: they kind of radiate “God” to all and sundry. You would be hard pressed to show that they did not have a behavioural change.

This is why I think the sort of exegesis that prevails in SYdney is “shallow”, it doesn’t offer the depths of what for me the text is saying.

Matthew said:

Last Sunday I preached on 2 Corinthians 4. The end point of that chapter is “So we fix our eyes, not on what is seen, but on what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal”.

And this is exactly the point. What is unseen and eternal cannot be pinned down, but it can be entered, as St Augustine says, through the chambers of the mind, with the eyes of the heart. The scriptures are a pointer to God, they instruct us to be still before him. What cannot be grapsed with the understanding may be grasped by the heart: and it is at the level of the heart that behavioural patterns can change…

Rather than seeking to understand at the surface level what this greek verb means or what proscriptive directive the passage dictates, lets enter the spirit of the passage, the inner meaning, the inner reality to which the words point - because this is what the “riches of Christ” means.

I think it’s also about forming a habit, and persevering. So much of the Christian life is a joyless determination to keep yearning for God… The ancient axiom stands: if you do something long enough, if you say something long enough, it becomes reality. Eg: if I put a curb on my road rage and instead of swearing at the morons on the road, said a blessing for them, my attitude to them is going to change (eventually).

Matthew, you are right to point out the role of the Holy Spirit in all this, but we are not to be passive, to sit back and let God do the work. (That would be arrogant.) We have to work with God in bringing his kingdom to our lives and to the world at large. It’s something that requires blood sweat and tears to achieve.

So here is my three pronged “plan for the rejuvenation of Christian life”:

1) Meditative prayer
2) Hard work at learning to think or say what we know is right in the situation
3) perseverance in prayer and hard work

in all these things it is the Holy Spirit and the grace of God which enables us to do or be anything. It is a gift. Maybe it’s also partly about learning to accept the gift and put aside our prejudices and expectations of what we think the gift should be… I don’t know.

Brothers & sisters,

I think there is a bit of talking cross-purposes on this thread (and I�m as confused as the next person) so allow me to try to delineate some different issues.

On the one hand, there is the idea that we are supposed to strive for behaviour change in response to God (e.g. Nunc, Craig). I think everyone is in agreement about that (though they may have differences as to how we ought to go about that).

Then there is the issue of the role of the speaker in inducing behaviour change. I may have misunderstood, but I thought Luke�s logic was going like this:

1. I heard a series of talks on prayer
2. My prayer life did not substantially change
3. Therefore, I ask the question: what else could the speaker have done to more effectively induce that change in me?
4. Behavioural science might contain some answers to that question.

Pastorally, my answer to that logic would normally be to confront the question, which implies that the speaker has a responsibility to induce the change in me in a way I can�t through direct relationship with God-in-Christ. I think that can put the onus on the wrong head.

But that is not the issue of the thread (and I think Luke knows that anyway), and that does not mean Luke’s question cannot still be asked quite legitimately of those who speak: whether their methods might be more effective in inspiring people to change behaviour in response to the Christian message. I don�t have a problem with that in theory, but would have to assess each proposal in practice.

Then I think Chris, Rowen & I are coming from a similar angle (with nuances in the general confusion): How will behavioural science (in so far as we adopt it) mesh with our theology?

Which for me has spawned a series of questions, not out of a general negativity regarding social science, but a general cautiousness about embracing scientific solutions to spiritual problems.

The question is: Is what the bible speaks of as the work of the Holy Spirit (and an act of God�s transforming grace) observable, measurable, analysable, repeatable and inducible in other people by human effort, or is it a greater mystery than that?

I don�t have a social science background but I have some background in marketing. The principles in marketing work on tapping into the essential dispositions already in the human heart and redirecting them towards the cause or product involved.

So when insurance was for �the most important person in the world: you� it simply took hold of our self-idolatry and directed that energy towards sending money to National Mutual.

Even the government anti-smoking; anti-speeding and anti-drink-driving campaigns all tap into our desire to avoid pain, our fear of death, our love for our families. But they don�t actually try to change the dispositions of the heart.

Likewise campaigns against racism, for example, work on strengthening people�s desire to be seen as sophisticated, as tolerant, as �with the times�, until they are stronger than their fear of other cultures. But they still just tap into one disposition endemic in the human heart and make it override another.

And I would even say that much of what passes as evangelism is in fact a truncated, two-dimensional gospel that does the same thing: speaking of the benefits to you, of the interest of God in your life, without getting to the cost of discipleship (which was always an integral part of Jesus’ gospel: take up your cross and follow me!)

I guess I still need a specific example to fully understand what you are driving at, Luke. Changing behaviour is not the same as changing hearts.

My caution (not opposition) is a fear (in the absence of clear examples) that we may be looking at using behavioural science to alter people�s outward behaviours into Christian-looking lifestyles without Christ-centred hearts. The origin of the action as important as the action itself. You can still give your life to the service of others for selfish reasons: it makes you feel good, you get adulation from others � even prayer could be selfish in origin.

But transformation � that �comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit�.

I do want to stress that I�m not opposed to this � I�m as frustrated as the next minister with the frequent lack of noticeable difference between Christian and non-Christian lifestyles, and happy to hear proposals! But I�m naturally cautious and want to understand the theological implications of the proposal before I embrace new methods.

Your brother because of Jesus

Matt

Helpful post Matt..  and I’d throw in one more factor, that changed behaviour dosen’t necessarily indicate a correct relationship with God. You can invoke a change in a person’s behaviour (through co-ercion, bribery, guilt, logic, torture, brain-washing, indoctrination, ritual, consequence etc) but the behavioural change God is looking for is first, that our heart be changed and then following on that our behaviour be changed.

Given this, behaviour change becomes a practical outworking of a spiritual state.  Which frees teachers from the necessity of seeing change: it’s not their responsibility but God’s. 

But I think anyone who has taught the bible will have a similar experience of change, that shallow short term change is easy to achieve, but it isn’t lasting.  But occasionally you’ll see something stick in someone’s head and their lives are completely turned around forever.  I know of a couple of people who have completely changed their lives, and I can see growth in their knowledge, obedience, commitment and joy.  I can look back on what they were and I can to delight in them as “my joy and crown” (Php 4:1).

I’d also like to ask Luke if he did actually experience no change.  I often find I am spurred on by something that causes me to lift my game in an area.  And that does tend to fade as we get caught up in the world.  But I would say that despite the fact that I had dropped off the peak I was on, I didn’t return to the original plane.  At the very least I had squirrelled away some knowledge or skills for the next time the spirit prompts me.

I guess the big thing with forming habits is that it’s a function of repetition.  I guess that’s why it’s such a good thing to continually remind people of the gospel.  No matter how often you hear it, it’s still doing you good because it’s habit forming.

Perhaps a good thing to think about is how we promote godly habits in those around us and those in our pastoral care..

<edit> note to self.. check spelling before hitting submit </edit>

Yup. What Rowen said.

Can I give an example of a case where it does work (over the long term)?

My mother has been waiting for 25 years for Dad to renovate our family home. Now the home is full of whiteants and has to be demolished. So the renovation project was ditched and the demolition/replacement project began.

They agreed on a plan that would suit them: a nice new double brick 3 bedroom plus study steel frame home with high ceilings and white-ant-proof materials.

After several years with that plan they discovered they couldn’t afford it without taking out another mortgage.

So they have now settled on a new oversized prefabricated (caravan-park-style) home with normal height ceilings and vinyl cladding. I was appalled that after all these years that was all Mum was going to get for her patience.

But she said to me “It doesn’t matter, Matthew, we’re just passing through this world.”

Years of Mum knowing and hearing that from scripture were finally brought to bear on something major. At that point it is obvious the change has taken place in her heart, even though it may not have been an obvious change until then. She has truly learned to be content in every circumstance, to be unconcerned when her earthly ambitions do not come to pass.

That is behavioural change as wrought by the spirit of God. I just pray that the spirit fills me with the same heart.

behaviour change ...

Being a newbie to this forum, let me just thorw around a couple of quotes (you may call them cliches if you wish).

What the heart desires, the mind choose, and teh will justifies.

I think that was Melancthon…

The problem with behaviour change, as some have alluded to, is not so much to do with the outer man, but the inner man. As Calvin said (I’m not really sure if it was Calvin, but as any reformed theologian does when he wants to add weight to a truth claim, just say Calvin said it somewhere...)

The heart of the human problem is the problem of the human heart.

God changes our inner being by his Spirit and Word. They are inseparable. We should not look to one without the other, as my final quote (out of context and totally misused, but captures what I mean)

What God has joined, let not man put asunder!

Hope this provokes some more thought…