Bibby’s argument is interesting. It is certainly true that people in the US are no less spiritual than they have ever been, but the good folks of most mainline churches are not much interested in welcoming those ‘spiritual’ people into their community life unless the latter are willing to develop the style and habits of the the former. As Judith states above, the structures of the church do their own good job of keeping the hungry hearts at bay. The people of the postmodern world we now live in will simply not sustain most of the structures that were birthed at the dawn of the Enlightenment. Will mainliners get that in time to save their traditions?

It’s the structure that has to change. The newer generations have not experienced the structures of the past and feel no need for them. The dire economy reinforces in the lay mind that they cannot afford the old structure, regardless of their loyalty. Congregations are being asked to give up entirely so that the structure can continue — with far fewer Christians or congregations supporting it.

From the online Christian chatrooms that I follow, there seems to be a strong spiritual thread among the young. The Church needs to energize that spirituality — not control it for their own benefit.

Meanwhile, structures measure their success by their ability to keep going with the same staff and same budgets, regardless of the statistics staring them in the face.

ATBedford

But the situation in my Church is different. Maybe Alban has taught, in effect, that Thinking types are right and Feeling types are wrong. Maybe there are some Churches where they accept type T people ‘as is,’ but require type F people to change their inherent behaviors? But my UU Church has firmly established that Feeling types are ‘Right’ and Thinking types are ‘Wrong’ (or at least seriously defective). The aim of my Church is to be as deeply spiritual as possible, and we declare that ‘Leadership is all about Heart’ (not logic, analysis, process, objectivity, synthesis, or results).

In our Church, the highest priority in any Leadership consideration is usually “Who might be hurt, and how can we protect them?” We would rather be a loving spiritual community (and accomplish little) than be effective or transformational (and hurt someone’s feelings). The natural conflict avoidance of Type F can cause us to shut down conflict with no forward progress and/or no real resolution. Some congregations will sacrifice clarity and purpose in order to avoid conflict.

I like the perspective presented by Susan Nienaber. I think her comments about conflict and her focus on behavior, rather than type, could help reshape conflict resolution in a better way. I also think that acknowledging the ‘polarity management’ aspects of many conflicts, and attending to them, would help resolve many Church conflicts. Whenever there is an ‘anti-truth, an equal but opposite idea that is also true’ there is probably a polarity that needs to be managed, rather than a problem that needs to be solved.
Many times we fail to bring people into a both/and process rather than a one-sided focus. As an organization, I think we have a hard time balancing the Spiritual (feeling) pole with the Rational (thinking) pole. I like your conclusion that leaders need both courage and compassion.

Your article caused me to consider the MBTI Typology as a possible factor in Church conflicts, and as I was considering this, I realized that MBTI typology might also be a factor in another Church issue.

The MBTI polarity of T and F is the only MBTI typology that has a gender biased distribution. Males are roughly 60% type T, and females are 60% type F. Consequently, an organization that develops a T or F biased culture would most likely be most welcoming toward one type (and corresponding gender) and indifferent or less welcoming toward the other type (and corresponding gender). Since Unitarian Universalist Churches are experiencing much higher percentages of female participation, attendance, and leadership; one might speculate that these Churches might be more welcoming or accessible to MBTI type F persons.

Is it possible that what we now most value in our UU Churches is ‘being spiritual’ (which seems to correspond with MBTI Type F attributes and being female)? For some time, I assessed our current UU culture as ‘Honoring female attributes of leadership and discounting male attributes of leadership.” It may be that the correct assessment is that our UU culture honors MBTI type F attributes of behavior and leadership and discounts MBTI type T attributes of behavior and leadership. I believe that this is reflected in our Congregational attendance, participation, and leadership; and it seems to be evident at the UUA and district levels as well. This may be the result of 35 years of poor polarity management regarding Feminism/Masculinism. I believe that this may help explain why there are now relatively few active engaged liberal men in our UU Churches?

Unitarian Universalists do not discriminate on the basis of race, sex, gender identity, age, national origin, and many other factors. But do we discriminate on the basis of MBTI type of personality? As I review the personality descriptions of MBTI types, I can clearly see that some types will fit effortlessly into our current UU culture, and others may be quite challenged. Do we accept type F people ‘as is,’ but require type T people to change their inherent personality driven behaviors? Are we welcoming to all personality types in the same intentional way that we are welcoming to GLBT people?

But of course, the larger question regarding our UU ministry to men is, ‘Have we noticed that relatively few men are participating in our UU Churches, and do we care?’

As a fellow ‘thinking type’ I appreciate efforts to better understand our UU organizations and their dynamics. I think this article brings up some issues worthy of further consideration.