by Mike James
I have been taking a closer look at the subject of "Change" through Joshua Berger's book, The Catalyst. In some recent blogs, we looked at how to overcome "reactance" and the "status quo" to help people change. In this installment, we will discuss the importance of trying to decrease the distance between our views and "the other's" view to try and bring about change.
Helping others change begins with finding common ground and building a bridge to understanding.
Let's begin by discussing some research addressing trying to get opposing groups to modify their beliefs. A study was conducted where news feeds and social media feeds were provided to two opposing groups. Liberals were provided news information from conservative sites and conservatives were provided with the same news from liberal sites. The people involved in the study received the information that did not agree with their perspective for about a month.
Both groups were asked questions about their views on various political issues prior to the study and then after they had received the regular information that opposed their views. At the end of the study, both groups were even more hardline in their conservative and liberal views, despite the fact that they were only viewing opposition news and information for a month. Why is that? Well, part of the reason pertains to my blog on "Reactance" from September 10 and my blog on the "status quo" from October 23, but perhaps the next study will help too.
To get a better handle on this subject I'd like to discuss some research addressed in Berger's book dealing with another similar study. In the 1950s, the state of Oklahoma still prohibited alcohol. A study was conducted to see if those views against alcohol could be altered.
The subjects they were trying to change the minds of were members of the Women's Christian Temperance Union and students preparing to become priests or nuns. These individuals were for prohibition.
The study provided eight written appeals. For example, on one end of the spectrum, a written appeal would be very anti-prohibition, stating that many people like drinking, so the sale and use of alcohol should not be restricted. Another appeal among the eight was more moderate in tone, stating that alcohol should be regulated and only available in limited quantities on special occasions.
The study subjects were then provided with one of the eight written appeals against prohibition. Some of the appeals were extremely anti-prohibition, and the others were just moderately against prohibition. What the study found was that the moderate appeals led about three times as many prohibition supporters to move closer to legalizing alcohol.
So, for the purposes of personal evangelism or corporate evangelism, it's not a good idea to attempt to get people to change all at once or confront people dramatically. We should also think about moderating our level of disagreement with their present practices. I recently did a program on Halloween where I did not rail against giving candy to kids and dressing up, but I focused on how a focus on Halloween hides the reality of God's holy days. I was trying to get people to look for more information rather than reject us immediately because we are so hard-line against their present views.
The apostle Paul used a similar method when he was trying to appeal to the Greeks in Athens found in Acts 17:16-34. Paul was not happy to see all the idols in Athens, just like many of us may have issues with Christian friends or family members who celebrate typical holidays instead of God's holy days. Some of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers heard about Paul's preaching in the city, and they wanted to get a better handle on what he was talking about. He was taken to a place called the Areopagus, where new religions and foreign gods were discussed.
When Paul received this opportunity, he didn't rail against all the idols and false gods and philosophies the Greeks believed and taught. No, he took the moderate approach and tried to deal with the Greeks in an incremental fashion rather than get them to make a dramatic change. Paul began by complimenting them on how religious they were. Then he used an idol they had called "the unknown god" to try to appeal to them about the true God. The Greeks' understanding of "the unknown god" was not YHWH, but it was an idea that Paul saw as a possible bridge to opening more dialogue on the true God he knew.
By appealing to something familiar to them, there was more opportunity of finding some common ground that could help him further the dialogue with people who were far from knowledgeable about the details of the Christian religion. Just like my appeal with my recent Halloween program did not take the frontal approach of telling people how wrong they are to celebrate Halloween. I tried to tell Christians who watch the program that God's holy days are for Christians and Halloween is not at all a Christian holy day.
The more we can learn about human psychology and what motivates and demotivates people from change, the better equipped we can be to help promote the gospel message.
Sources: The Catalyst, by Joshua Berger (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2020).