do we have an extrovert ideal? (rjs) · pdf filei’m the only evangelical. i’m...

5/30/12 Do We Have an Extrovert Ideal? (RJS)

1/16www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2012/05/24/do‑we‑have‑an‑extrovert‑ideal‑rjs/

« Why is War So Easy for American Christians?Alone Together »

Do We Have an Extrovert Ideal? (RJS)May 24, 2012 By RJS 57 Comments

Tuesday morning Scot linked an article in the Chronicle ofHigher Education Screening Out Introverts by WilliamPannapacker. The article is a comment on a new book bySusan Cain Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a WorldThat Can’t Stop Talking. From the publisher’s description:

Taking the reader on a journey from Dale Carnegie’sbirthplace to Harvard Business School, from a TonyRobbins seminar to an evangelical megachurch, SusanCain charts the rise of the Extrovert Ideal in thetwentieth century and explores its farreaching effects.… She questions the dominant values of Americanbusiness culture, where forced collaboration can standin the way of innovation, and where the leadershippotential of introverts is often overlooked.

The megachurch Cain refers to in her book is Saddleback,founded and led by Rick Warren. Ch. 2 The Myth ofCharismatic Leadership begins with a discussion of TonyRobbins followed by a section on The Harvard Business School and the pros and cons of quick,assertive, charismatic leadership vs quiet methodical decision making. In the last section of thechapter Cain recounts a visit to Saddleback accompanied by Adam McHugh author of Introvertsin the Church: Finding Our Place in an Extroverted Culture.

Since services are just about to start, there is little time to chat. … We head to the mainWorship Center where Pastor Warren is about to preach.

… I can’t help but think of Tony Robbins’s “Unleash the Power Within” seminar. Did Tonybase his program on megachurches like Saddleback, I wonder, or is it the other way around?

“Good morning, everybody!” beams Skip, who then urges us to greet those seated near us.(p.6768)

The megachurch culture, worship form, and values sets up an extroverted atmosphere. Leadersmust be extroverts, there is little place for contemplation, conversation (not small talk – realconversation), and deep thinking. Everything is smiles and pleasantries and generalities with avague avoidance of anything that may get too familiar. It is something like a cross between atrip to Disney World and your local shopping mall.

Is extroversion a virtue or merely a personality trait?

Should extroversion be a trait we value in church leadership?

Susan Cain goes on and relates more of her visit to Saddleback:

Like Tony Robbins, Pastor Warren seems truly wellmeaning: he’s created this vastSaddleback ecosystem out of nothing, and he’s done good works around the world. But at thesame time I can see how hard it must be, inside this world of Luau worship and Jumbotronprayer, for Saddleback’s introverts to feel good about themselves. As the service wears on, Ifeel the same sense of alienation that McHugh has described. Events like this don’t give me thesense of oneness others seem to enjoy. … (p. 68)

Cain describes how McHugh expresses admiration for Saddleback, the many of good things theyhave done – including reaching out and bringing people into the church. But continues on



« Why is War So Easy for American Christians?Alone Together »

quoting him:

“It sets up an extroverted atmosphere that can be difficult for introverts like me,” he explains.“Sometimes I feel like I’m going through the motions. The outward enthusiasm and passionthat seems to be part and parcel of Saddleback’s culture doesn’t feel natural. Not thatintroverts can’t be eager and enthusiastic, but were not as overtly expressive as extroverts.”(p. 69)

The extroverted atmosphere isn’t limited to handshaking and coffee shops, but permeates thevery structure of the service itself – “there was no emphasis on quiet, liturgy, ritual, things thatgive you space for contemplation.” There is also no emphasis on connection, belonging, family,or community within the worship service. The “myth of charismatic leadership” (Cain’s term)and the success (as measured by attendance) of this culture within the evangelicalism has givenrise to a tidal wave of change within the evangelical church. Surely God must be behind thesuccess mustn’t he be? Cain is pretty blunt:

Saddleback also has one more thing in common with Harvard Business School: its debt to –and propagation of – the Culture of Personality. (p. 64)

Cain uses Saddleback as an example of a larger trend as she discusses the influence of theExtrovert Ideal in American society in general. Saddleback is not unique within evangelicalism.She could have chosen any of a number of other churches of a range of sizes. This not the placeto bash Warren or Saddleback. God has worked through Warren and Saddleback and the othermegachurches that have arisen in the last 30 years or so (Willow Creek, North Point, TheVillage Church and many more). The gospel is preached and taught in these churches as it ispreached and taught in smaller churches and other forms of church.

But it does lead to some questions. The fingers of the Extrovert Ideal and the Culture ofPersonality permeate our society deeply … and these are seen in many places in many ways.Pannapacker, in his article in The Chronicle of Higher Education, concludes:

Should academe be concerned that it loses many of its introverted graduate students? Do theynot have something to contribute? Does selecting for extroverts favor a cult of charismaticleadership: a star system? Is Cain correct in her view that a profession that sorts out introvertsselects for unwarranted enthusiasms for, say, the latest theories, technologies, andinstitutional practices without considering the consequences? Does it foster a winnertakeallsystem in which compassion and sensitivity have no place?

The same questions can be asked about the church. The evangelical church has changeddramatically, or so it seems to me, over the last 30 years. The values for leadership havechanged, the meaning of the local church has changed, and the form of worship has changed.The Extrovert Ideal is a good descriptor for many of these changes – even true when the leaderdoes not identify as an extrovert.

Does selecting for extroverts favor a cult of charismatic leadership: a star system?

Should we be concerned that we lose thoughtful introverted leadership?

Is there pressure on pastors to live up to the Extrovert Ideal?

If you wish to contact me directly you may do so at rjs4mail[at]att.net

If interested you can subscribe to a full text feed of my posts at Musings on Science andTheology.



Comments

1phil_style says:May 24, 2012 at 6:05 am

RJS, just to clarify (and not to be a pedant) are we talking about extroversion here?Or are we talking about gregariousness and/or sociability?

2Rick says:May 24, 2012 at 6:19 am

It is interesting that some of these same church leaders are introverts. Andy Stanleycomes to mind.

3RJS says:May 24, 2012 at 6:30 am

phil_style – no not just gregariousness and sociability, it goes beyond this. There is astructure and outlook that shapes the form of the church or business or what haveyou.


Rick,

That may be – and introvert/extrovert is a bit too simplistic a dichotomy. Thestructure of NorthPoint, though, looks like this Extrovert Ideal.


And, of course, it is always appropriate to argue that Cain is wrong in her analysis –that would be an interesting discussion.

6Paul says:May 24, 2012 at 6:43 am

It is probably unfair to chategorize Saddleback (or any megachurch) solely on theexperience of the Sunday worship service. My guess is their “liturgy” for the servicewas created because they are a megachurch and it fits what they are trying to do(greeting is needed to get to know people around you and try to not make everythingsimply a “show” for example). I know that Saddleback does encourage spiritualdisciplines and more contemplative actions for believers in their own lives (especiallyfor members), not to mention small house church groups, etc.

Also, we should be careful to assume that all leaders upfront are extroverts (theoriginal article by Scot mentioned a teacher who was introverted but still taught infront of people). We should also be careful to assume that there are no introvertedleaders leading “behind the scenes.”

7Rick says:



May 24, 2012 at 6:49 am

RJS

“and introvert/extrovert is a bit too simplistic a dichotomy.”

I totally agree. At the very least, there is a scale of introversion/extroversion. But weneed to keep in mind that a person can be great on stage, or in person, but for anintrovert that will mean some alone time to recharge.

I also think there is a difference between an extroversion culture, and a cult ofpersonality. The “Leadership” industry seems to be geared towards a personality type.

Finally, I imagine that introverts can be drawn in by personality as well. A questionmay be whether they are drawn in by the same type of personalities as extroverts.

8Dana says:May 24, 2012 at 7:05 am

Well, my church lost my efforts at the “leader” level. I’m definitely an introvert withan interest in spiritual formation/discipleship/teaching. Every church meeting Iattended for laypeople like me was just another customer service training. “Smile,chat, think of how the room looks, make sure they (attenders) get theannouncements, invite more people, invite their friends, open up your home, etc.”Blarg. I know these things have to get done and I am willing to do my part, but if thatis all I’m going to hear at a meeting, I will not continue to participate and they willhave to find someone else that wants to work the customer service department.

On the other hand, I am now involved in an ecumenical parachurch organization.We’re about half Catholic, a quarter mainline and a quarter something else. I’m theonly evangelical. I’m amazed that when we show up for a meeting we all just take ourseats and smile at one another with barely any chatting. Once the conversation starts,however, no one is shy about expressing their thoughts. What a relief to have almostall conversation and hardly any small talk.

Yes – most (maybe not all) evangelical churches have an extroverted ideal. Of coursethey do.

9Matt Miles says:May 24, 2012 at 7:13 am

I’m spitballing here, but as an introvert who gets frequently frustrated with trying tohave a conversation in the digital age I wonder if the problem is a fusion ofextroversion and the affects of social media on our attention spans. Extroverts tend toprocess out loud, and technology has been proven to make us more impatient. Couldthe two factors combine to make all of us (not just extroverts) more inclined to pushout halfthoughts before we lose everyone’s attention? It surprises me how I’ll sharean article on facebook and get perceptions of it that don’t match what the author said.Impatience seems to be a factor.

10Gary Lyn says:May 24, 2012 at 7:24 am

Personally, it sounds like these two authors are discussing a gregariousness andsocialibility that does not go beyond the surface level.“there was no emphasis on quiet, liturgy, ritual, things that give you space forcontemplation.” I don’t believe this lack of emphasis has anything to do withextraversion or introversion. Every person who has a contemplative practice, enjoysquiet, liturgy, and ritual is not an introvert. In my work as a spiritual director, bothextraverts and introverts seek the contemplative path; they may look a little different,but not that much. I think the authors have identified and are wrestling with animportant issue, but it has nothing to do with introversiona/extraversion; in fact, it



seems to be using a distorted understanding of those concepts.


@ RJS, thanks.

I would pick up on what Rick says at comment #7. Introverts can be just as outgoing/gregarious as extroverts. I’m just trying to understand what definition of “extrovert”the author is using.

Extroversion/ introversion is about what one does when one need to “recover”/ destress.For extroverts this time is more favorably spent in the group environment. Forintroverts this time is more favorably spent in solace.The ability to be outgoing/ gregarious/ sociable has little to do with extroversion/introversion. But it seems the author here is using the “pop” definition of extroversion– which is otherwise known as “outgoing”….


@ Gary, #10.I agree. It seems to me the author has misunderstood the term “extrovert”.

13Kristin says:May 24, 2012 at 7:52 am

It is a farce to suggest that small groups are the introvert solution to big, showySunday mornings. Small groups are usually worsethat’s where the extroverted bentof group dynamics flourish and it’s just one big competition of who can control theconversation. Cain talks extensively about group dynamics in other parts of her bookand how the group naturally follows the most dynamic speaker, regardless if theyhave good ideas or noy. I imagine anyone with any experience in evangelical smallgroups can relate to the scenario of the extrovert group member who talks withoutthinking and leads the group down stray theological paths. This is equally a symptomof extrovert ideal and I fear it has penetrated the church much deeper than we’d liketo think.

14Rebekah says:May 24, 2012 at 8:03 am

When I first started attending my (mega)church, I was surprised to discover howmany introverted people I ran into there. Anytime a people group falls in the minority,there can be challenges to overcome and stereotypes to refute. As an introverted, 31year old, single working woman who likes to teach the Bible and is a thinker far morethan a feeler, I’m defying some of the generic expectations out there. It’s good for meto still feel free to be myself and it’s good for the people around me! Personally, Ihave found that wrestling with ‘being different’ has increased my care, compassion,and appreciation for others who might also be thinking ‘I don’t fit in.’


“there is little place for contemplation, conversation (not small talk – realconversation), and deep thinking. Everything is smiles and pleasantries and



generalities with a vague avoidance of anything that may get too familiar. It issomething like a cross between a trip to Disney World and your local shopping mall”

This is not a description of extroversion. This is a description of shallow socialinteraction. Which is not necessarily bad, it has its place.

I’m happy to adopt a new term “Extrovert Ideal” to describe this environment, but Ithink the term is too easily confused with “extroversion”, which applies more at theindividual level and has specific descriptors which do not align well with the above.Should we not utilise another term? the “high social metabolism”or something similar?

16Kim says:May 24, 2012 at 8:04 am

Cain’s book was one of my spring break beach reads this March. As a mild introvert,her words resonated within me and led to several aha moments. In particular, Cain’sobservation of a cultural shift from an emphasis on character to personality.In my seminary classes I often catch myself thinking the wellspoken extrovert willmake a great pastor and wondering how the person usually seen alone will enjoybeing in ministry. The cultural shift has had an impact on me!My takeaway from the I/E discussion is the recognition that God has created us withdifferences, not liabilities, and one challenge of being in community and leadership islearning how to involve, challenge and equip all personality tendencies.I/E is a topic which I hope has greatet impact than a Twitter trend. I hope it leads togreater empathy and understanding within the body, and to less adoration of theextrovert personality.


phil_style,

I don’t think the author has misunderstood the term extrovert. There are things onecan criticize about her analysis – but this isn’t one of them. She identifies herself asan introvert, but sells her book – even has a TED talk(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0KYU2j0TM4 ) out there with her ideas.

I am also classified as introvert – INTP on the MyersBriggs instrument if anyonecares – but have no problem teaching classes of 400+ or 20; giving lectures andleading discussions. Meet and greet at the beginning of a service has never botheredme … but there is an overall structure to church which has emerged that leads me towondering. Perhaps it has little to do with what Cain identifies as the Extrovert Ideal,but I am not sure – I think she is on to something.


Thanks RJS… from the brief interaction with the material (here) I’m not sure I’m ableto get the full diversity of Cain’s approach. Perhaps I need to get the book and readthe definitions section first

19Adam says:May 24, 2012 at 8:18 am

As I mentioned in the post on Tuesday, I think we’re taking a problem and laying theblame at extroversion’s feet. The real problem is a fear of vulnerability and it exitsacross the whole spectrum of introversion/extroversion.

This article is written in a way that says “I’m an introvert and can’t connect with



people” while implying that the extroverts are connecting with people. I say thatimplication is wrong. Neither introverts or extroverts are connecting. I think it is alsowrong to imply that extroversion = big showy experience. I have found the big showyexperience to be preferred by many introverts because it masks the need to engagewith other people.


Adam,

“I am an introvert and can’t connect with people” is, I think, a misread of the entirepoint. This isn’t about the ability to connect with people, or about vulnerability. Thesemay be real problems in our church (and often are) – individualism and anonymity –and the desire for these exist, as you note, across the entire spectrum ofintroversion/extroversion. There is something more here, both in structure and style.


I think one point Cain is trying make here is correlation between the megachurchservice and the culture of the “mighty likable fellow.” In the megachurch service, allthe attention is drawn to a single person on stage, and that person is friendly andgregarious (or at least gives the persona.) Think superstar pastor and trendy worshipleader. Instead of the church being the body of believers where everyone has equalvalue, and people being admired for their longstanding character, we now tend toview whoever is on stage as “more holy.” Stage persona is always gregarious so atsome point we start to equate gregariousness as holiness. This is overgeneralized buthopefully you get the train of thought.


Would anyone disagree that more and more believers in general value the deliverystyle of the message as equally important if not moreso than the content of themessage itself?

The culture follows whoever sells their message the best, not who has the bestmessage. Personality is what sells, and a certain type of personality at that.

A few years ago a church I was attending let go of a pastor because peoplecomplained about him. I thought he gave the most thoughtful messages, but he wasnot dynamic like the other young guy who told jokes half of his sermon. Shame.

23Jayflm says:May 24, 2012 at 9:00 am

While there is plenty of ammunition for the introvert/extrovert discussion in themegachurch movement, what Rick Warren has developed at Saddleback is based onhis observations and convictions about drawing people from what he calls the “crowd”and toward the “committed”. His Purpose Driven Church material lays this out ingreater detail, but the gist of it is that we can think of people’s relationship to thebody of Christ with 5 concentric circles, starting with the world at large, then thecrowd that can be drawn to a large event, and on inward to those who connect deeplywith community and move into committed service. He clearly states in the PurposeDriven Church seminar and book that what Saddleback does on a Saturday night orSunday morning is aimed at the crowd, who have no vested interest in beingconnected to anyone else gathered at the event. When I attended the seminar over 15



years ago I understood him to be saying that a major reason for doing things the wayhe did them was to give people who wanted to remain anonymous freedom to remainso, and let the Holy Spirit draw them to faith. In that sense, I’ve considered what he isdoing ‘introvertfriendly’, even if those who lead the service are extroverted.


@ Kristin, ” more and more believers in general value the delivery style of themessage as equally important if not moreso than the content of the message itself”

I would tend to agree. Sunday needs to be “dynamic” so that people will bring theirfriends and “experience” the church that is “relevant” and “exciting”. The churchgrowth model relies on this entertainment arena concept.Of course, those who are embedded in that culture would say that the message is notchanged, just the delivery, so there is no harm. And that making church fun/ exciting/entertaining is a good thing, a departure from the stereotype of boring church.

But some things in our tradition are not entertaining, fun or exciting. They are slow,meticulous, tedious, restful, contemplative, disciplined, self effacing even. I fear thesethings are lost – no matter how much justification the entertainers come up with.


Kristin #22

“Would anyone disagree that more and more believers in general value the deliverystyle of the message as equally important if not moreso than the content of themessage itself? ”

That is nothing new though, since we see Paul having to deal with that as well (ex. 1Corinthians).

What does seem to be new is the emphasis on personality.

26Tim Marsh says:May 24, 2012 at 9:14 am

As an introvert, I agree that the church culture is geared toward an atmosphere,worship and programming to reach extroverts. However, I think that this is a reactionto the fact that church culture had been dominated by introverts. Liturgical worshipanyone? That is an introverts paradise and an extrovert’s nightmare.

How can we be all things to all people at the same time?


@Tim, I don;t see how liturgical worship is an introverts paradise. It might suit themwhen they need to recharge and seek solace but how does it suit the introvert whowants to go out and sing loudly, and express their own individual creativity in thegroup environment?


Phil, I am not sure what you mean. You described an introvert as one who wants to



sing loudly and express individual creativity in a group environment. That soundsmore like an extrovert.

Liturgical worship is designed to be contemplative. Reflection on precisely craftedwords, prayers, hymns, and sermons, with little or no emotion seems to fit anintrovert perfectly – especially me!

That was not meant to be a knock against introverts (since I am one), nor a knockagainst liturgical worship. It was merely an observation.

29Elizabeth says:May 24, 2012 at 9:44 am

Just a little aside: Remember that many introverts are perfectly happy to get up infront of a large group of people and talk. Sometimes the bestspeakers/lecturers/preachers are introverts. What they may not find as easy is longsessions of interacting with a bunch of people. Public speaking (oneway) in front of alarge group has very little to do with extroversion or introversion.

I’m aware this isn’t the main point of the article but thought I’d throw it out there.


Tim #28

Introverts can sing loud and work in a group. The difference is that an extrovert isrecharged in those situations, where an introvert is recharged during time alone.

What setting energizes you? What setting drains you? Those are the definingquestions, not which ones can one participate in.


@Tim, “You described an introvert as one who wants to sing loudly and expressindividual creativity in a group environment. That sounds more like an extrovert”

An extrovert is a person who recharges in the group environment, where an introvertrecharges in solace.

Both types are equally capable of social interaction, emotion, creativity, expression.It’s just that extroverts use the group environment to gain energy, whilst introvertsuse solitude to regain energy.

This has been my question about the definition of these terms throughout thediscussion. I’m still not sure we’re all talking about the same thing!


Here’s another way of thinking about it;

I use my alone time in order to recharge my batteries, so that I can go out an meetpeople, and be sociable and contribute in group environments for an extended periodof time. I am introvert.

My brother goes out to meet his friends in order to recharge his batteries, so that hecan then focus and concentrate for longer when he has to work alone. He is extrovert.

33



RJS says:May 24, 2012 at 9:56 am

Rick Warren planted and built Saddleback – they do some great things.The same for Bill Hybels and Andy Stanley and their respective churches. I have noreal complaints with any of these churches. Anyone who comes to these churchesdoes so because they appreciate them.

I am less comfortable with the way this “Extrovert Ideal” – or what ever it really is(perhaps Cain is wrong in some of her analysis) – plays out in the rest of the church.Success is measured in this flavor and there is a great deal of pressure (or so itseems to me) for pastors over a broad range to immitate both the form and successof these churches and therefore to change and restructure their existing institutions inthe same mold.

Is this a problem? Is it merely the wave of the future?


@phil

I know those people mean well, trying to be relevant and all, but I think this is anunfair burden to place on pastors, and as #25 rightly pointed out the same as whatPaul dealt with. The power of the gospel comes from the Holy Spirit, not charismaticpreaching. We supposedly rely on our pastors and teachers to spend hours studyingand preparing to preach the Word of God, but then don’t give them the time of dayunless they also keep us entertained. This is where reflective, introverted types getpushed to the side to the church’s loss. Yes, many introverts have found ways topreach effectively, but it often takes energy away from something else. All in all, whyshould they have to put so much effort into being charismatic in the first place?

On the flip side, I’ve often come out of services disillusioned how the pastor talkedvery enthusiastically for 45 minutes and basically said nothing. What’s the point ofbeing a great public speaker if you don’t actually preach anything? Weird.


RJS

“Anyone who comes to these churches does so because they appreciate them….”

But are they to be appreciated? Are they being appreciated for the right reasons?

As Ed Stetzer recently wrote:

“In recent years, churches in the West have gone through various transformations intheir focus and goals. Much has been said both positively and negatively about theChurch Growth Movement, and I will publish some further thoughts on that in thecoming weeks. While I do not totally jump on either bandwagon (love or hate), I thinktwo important aspects to keep in mind are the goals of gospel fidelity andpropagation. More importantly: Growth cannot be the final goal. While in many casesgrowth can be the byproduct of health and right focus, it is not always the best litmustest. I can think of very prominent, selfidentified churches with tens of thousands ofpeople coming each week who preach a loose gospel message of happiness, meetingpersonal needs, and positivethinking. Some of those are growing quickly, yet I don’tthink their growth is exclusively a sign of the favor of God.”

The “happiness” and “positive thinking” aspect is interesting, and perhaps it is seen inextrovert leaning personalities. They are recharged in groups, so more people see thisenergy.

36



phil_style says:May 24, 2012 at 10:10 am

@ RJS “there is a great deal of pressure (or so it seems to me) for pastors over abroad range to immitate both the form and success of these churches”

My experiences concur with your thoughts. This, contributed in the end, to driving meaway from the evangelical church. I was in a worship team that was constantly fedgrowth strategy, relevance, marketing…it was intense. But it produced numbers.These numbers were read out each week at leadership conferences. When leaderswent to conferences they compared numbers with each other. We all wanted to bepart of the biggest/ fastest growing church. Growth was validation. Validation of ourmethods, validation of our belief, and perhaps fundamentally, validation of our faith.We could point to a “real” god if only we could point to church growth.


Rick #35 “But are they to be appreciated? Are they being appreciated for the rightreasons?”

This is the right question to ask. The whole premise of Cain’s book is that culturallywe value leadership styles and a personality type that pits extroversion overintroversion. So eventually we begin to subconsciously appreciate certain leadersbecause they are dynamic, not because they actually lead well or in the rightdirection. The same could be said for churches and preachers, etc.

In today’s world, if you can’t egregiously engage your audience and communicate iteffectively, then your ideas aren’t worth listening to. We might have to just deal withthat in the corporate world, but that has NO place in the body of Christ.


Rick,

“Introverts can sing loud and work in a group. The difference is that an extrovert isrecharged in those situations, where an introvert is recharged during time alone.

What setting energizes you? What setting drains you? Those are the definingquestions, not which ones can one participate in.”

Point taken, yet I would also say that what drains and what energizes in some wayaffects regular participation in activities and the mood of the environment. Too,Introverts and Extroverts are not necessarily polar opposites, but part of a spectrum.(There is another personality profile that scores its results on a continuum, ratherthan declaring one to be either an introvert or extrovert). I think, too, the questionshould be for you, how much of an introvert are you? For example, I don’t spend timealone so that I can go to parties and have a good time “connecting”. I avoid parties alltogether – unless they are requirements for my job or family life.

Which brings me back to the megachurch atmosphere. Is the atmosphere and activityof the megachurch specifically designed so that it attracts those who are energizedby such an environment? I believe that this is the question that the author is gettingat.

Yes, Introverts can enjoy a crowd, if the reason for the gathering has something to dowith an introvert’s passion. And, it may also be due to one’s placement on anintrovert/extrovert spectrum.

Great discussion and great article!

39Paul says:



May 24, 2012 at 10:52 am

I can say that as a teacher in a Christian school, loud and obnxious students areregularly called potential leaders (just currently misguided). Introverts are rarelyrefered to as potential leaders (and instead are given other titles like servants). Thismay be a symptom of what Cain is discussing above.

40DRT says:May 24, 2012 at 11:08 am

I also believe there is an interaction here with Jonathan’s Haidt’s foundations ofmorality and conservatism in the church. A conservative group of folks are going toplace a high value on being part of the group, and being part of the group is going tolook like extraverts in many/most cases. So, the introvert is automatically an outcastand part of the out group because that person is not like the group that is visible.


@ Paul, #39.

To my mind, gregarious people make better situation leaders. More inward focusedpeople (analytics, if you like) tend to be better functional leaders.

Pop culture leadership focuses on the “situational” leader. The hero who steps into thebreech and inspires the crowd.

The greatest leaders in history, to my mind, have been “functional” leaders. Able tosee the importance of logistics, to allocate resources, to manage personalities andobjectives. This is not glamorous leadership, but is is sustainable leadership.

42DRT says:May 24, 2012 at 11:11 am

The other tie in to Haidt’s research here is also interesting. In his research he saysthat it is much easier for the conservative to understand the morality of the liberalsince the con is a superset. I believe the extroverts, in this case, are unable tounderstand what it is actually like to be an introvert, since they are primarilyoperating in a subset of the introvert lifestyle.

This has strong implications because it sets up the dynamic of “once you go extrovertyou don’t go back”


Of course I don’t think Jesus was a leader (in the functional/ situation sense). He wasa servant, a fisher, a teacher… something else…

44theophilus.dr says:May 24, 2012 at 12:50 pm

Jonathan Haidt’s published work on moral foundations described human behavior, andhe uses it to describe divisions among people in the arenas of politics and religion.They are divided because they have sacralized their opinions so that they can’t bewrong. I agree that his definitions and explanations also apply very well to thefoundations of words we use to describe attitudes and personalities in the church. But



the fact that it is applicable indicates that the difference between approaches andpersonalities in Christian ministries and congregations are human differences — whichmeans, out of the flesh. Is that bad? Not in itself, because God created it. But it is badwhen that is the controlling factor instead of the Holy Spirit in the church. The fleshlycontrol leads to competition and flag waving and look how good we are because ofattendance or webinars or ….. The control of the Spirit leads to the celebration ofdiversity in the unity of Jesus whom we all serve. Defining differences has a purpose,the the real question is how do we put our multiple gifts and human differencestogether for the glory of Christ? When extroverts look at introverts and introverts lookat extroverts, neither looks to Jesus. The body of Christ does not have strabismus.

45Kristin says:May 24, 2012 at 12:51 pm

DRT #42 –On a semi related note, I’ve had the opportunity to explain introversion/extroversionto many friends who were unfamiliar with the terms – without fail the introverts lightup at the discussion and have AHA! moments as they learn a term to describe whatthey’ve intrinsically always known to be true. Extraverts, on the other hand, tend tobe a mixture of surprised and confused, sometimes even defiant at the notion that it’s“normal, just different” to be introverted. Unless they have a close friend or spousewho is introverted, they have a hard time understanding it at all. That is just mypersonal experience.

46Ann FR says:May 24, 2012 at 12:55 pm

This is a good question, imho: Does selecting for extroverts favor a cult of charismaticleadership: a star system?

Might there be a correspondence between the continual networkingnecessity amongacademics & professionals, the everescalating demands for higher and higheracademic & professional credentialing, and this culture of extroversion? To surmountthe hurdles which present to us, one after another, is exhausting for those who’drather simply “do”, than be “on” to perform.

47RJS says:May 24, 2012 at 1:08 pm

Ann FR,

I am not sure if the credentialing push is part of this or not. I am inclined to think not.In fact in some spheres (like the church) the “Extrovert Ideal” seems to be opposed tothis. Matt Chandler is on record for example noting that “there is a recent trend ofreally sharp, entrepreneurial, driven men skipping seminary all together and plantingchurches.” Most of these men have attended seminary – but it really isn’t seen asessential. The more important characteristics are sharp, entrepreneurial, driven. Itend to think this is part of the Extrovert Ideal … those who are talented simply do.

In academia some level of credential is more important – but it is pretty standard,and beyond this we have some of the same characteristics of the Extrovert Idealmoving forward.

48Rick says:May 24, 2012 at 1:54 pm

RJS

“I tend to think this is part of the Extrovert Ideal … those who are talented simply do.”



It is a sign of their “calling”, so some people may tell them.


Rick,

Yes – and I believe in calling. But I also think it is possible to misinterpret otherfactors as “calling.”

Part of my interest in this topic has to do with the state of our church, but anotherpart of it has to do with the science/faith discussion. Scot talked about pastors andtheologians thinking with scientists in his post yesterday. Some aspects of this“Extrovert Ideal” tend to inhibit or work against this interaction. The blame is not allon pastors – the “star system” in academe and science also works against scientists,including Christian scientists, with the necessary sensitivity (thoughtfulness and tact)for the discussion.

50DRT says:May 24, 2012 at 2:57 pm

RJS, the tie in with the science debate is an excellent topic. It is quite clear that therewould be a severe culture class between an introverted group and an extrovertedgroup that actually believes it is bad to introverted. Bad probably is not strongenough. The extroverts, I believe, tend to generalize their extroverted approach tobeing a sign of caring for other people. If you do not share with other people tovalidate yourself, then you are, of course, self centered. What the heck is wrong withyou??

[aside, I want to shoot this mockingbird that sits in my tree off of my deck. Talk aboutan extrovert! Why can't you shut up! Now back to my meek introverted Christian self]

I would be interested in seeing a representative extrovert and introvert (not tooversed in the nuance of the debate so they don’t game the system) debate themeaning of the beatitudes. It could reveal a lot.


DRT,

My concern here is rather confident scientists (many with “extrovert” leadershiptendencies) and rather confident pastors (again many with “extrovert” leadershiptendencies) … Cain’s section on leadership and the Harvard Business School is on mymind.


Thanks RJS, I have reading to do.


[my daughter told me that it is a sin to kill a mockingbird.....]

54



Richard Heyduck says:May 24, 2012 at 6:17 pm

As an introvert I’ve run into this phenomenon. Even more, however, I’ve felt the oddperson out as a P in Jdominant institutions.


Richard brings up a good point. Many do feel ill at ease about the introvert extrovertthing, but the SJ personality is, perhaps, a bigger problem.


Here is the wiki write up on the sjhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guardian_temperament

57Ted M. Gossard says:May 24, 2012 at 10:09 pm

I do tend to think that we need to think more in terms of a 1 Corinthians 14 model inwhich the entire body of Christ can be active. There are the basic categories ofspeaking and serving, even Peter divides them up that way.

I do think this model does tend to play out in other settings of the church in anunhealthy manner. I would think that many home groups end up being dominated by aleader, or a very few, who would do much better to lead a discussion, ask questionsand encourage participation. Instead it is almost like a home version of what happensin the big service. And unfortunately this model often impacts the smaller churches aswell. After all, what churches in the evangelical sphere have been “successful” andtherefore the churches other churches and pastors may emulate?

Leave a Comment

Robin Dugall Name *

[email protected] Email *

http://yliapu.typepad.com/spiritualregurgitations/Website

Post Comment

Spam Protection by WPSpamFree

do we have an extrovert ideal? (rjs) · pdf filei’m the only evangelical. i’m...

Documents