How to Gauge the Closeness of a Group

I walked into the Santa Fe restaurant at 6:35 Wednesday morning looking forward to breakfast with friends. Gordon, Bob, Ron, and John were already seated around the table by the window. They were laughing about how I’d only order orange juice and then eat the bacon and hash browns off Gordon’s plate. I grinned and slipped comfortably into my chair thinking, This is a close-knit group.

What makes a group close? It’s a crucial question for Christians. Others can afford to see closeness as a luxury-a nice add-on, but secondary to the main task at hand. For the church, however, intimacy isn’t an option. Jesus commanded his followers to love one another. Call it what you will-closeness, fellowship, cohesiveness, koinonia-that’s what the family of God is about. But it’s easier to extol the virtues of fellowship than to clarify what it is.

Justice Potter Stewart once said of pornography, “I don’t know how to define it, but I know it when I see it.” That vague legal standard hasn’t proven particularly helpful in combating obscenity. Likewise, many Christians have only a shadowy understanding of what real fellowship is. It’s more than one fellow’s definition: “Closeness is a feeling you feel you’re feeling when you feel you’re feeling a feeling.”

I’d like to use our Wednesday morning men’s group to illustrate fellowship. What specifics demonstrate that mystical quality of closeness?

For starters, attendance. People vote with their presence. “If you care, you’ll be there” is one standard of commitment. None of the men would think of skipping a meeting unless he was out of town. I’ve even shifted travel schedules so I wouldn’t have to miss. It’s painful to be elsewhere on Wednesday morning when I know the group is together.

I mentioned the group meets at 6:35 A.M. Even the fact that everyone was there on time reflects our special chemistry.

We share lots of common ground. We’re all members of the same Presbyterian church. Each man is successful in his particular field. We include a corporate vice-president, the editor of a daily newspaper, and the owner/manager of a string of restaurants. All of us struggle to integrate fast-track vocations with the need and desire to spend lots of time with our families.

Our waitress says we laugh a lot. It may be that each of us views the world on a twenty degree off-center tilt, but lots of things strike us funny-including us. We think God wants us to take him seriously, but not ourselves.

Our overriding similarity is that we are trying to be open to the truth of Scripture and have become convinced that God has a special concern for the poor. The group first came together a year and a half ago, after I gave a sermon on “The Struggles of a Bruised Camel” based on Jesus’ encounter with the rich young ruler. Each man self-selected himself for the group because he wanted to investigate the responsible use of wealth.

You can see how this focus guarantees a certain oneness of spirit. In our church it is probably easier to talk about sex than to reveal income, net worth, and expenditures. A voluntary decision to openly discuss these private details gives us a powerful internal glue.

But do similar backgrounds, personalities, and values guarantee closeness? No. My work as a communications professor and my experience with Christian small groups convinces me that the crucial determiner of koinonia is not the original make-up of the group but what is said between its members. Jesus said it’s not what goes into a man that defiles him, but what comes out of his mouth (Matt. 15:11). In like manner, it’s not who the people are that makes or breaks closeness, but what comes out of their mouths as they interact.

I’ve discovered a tool for analyzing conversation that is a good barometer for the quality of closeness. It’s called the Hill Interaction Matrix-HIM for short. The system was developed by a secular psychologist for use with therapy groups (William F. Hill, Hill Interaction Matrix Monograph). It’s not only diagnostic-describing the level of interpersonal closeness-but I’ve found that a modified version is also a prescription to help people draw closer.

CHART FROM PAGE 86 GOES HERE

The HIM is a grid that allows you to categorize any statement according to how well it promotes closeness. Since the equation says that communication equals content plus relationship, the grid slices an utterance two ways-into what is said and how it’s said. There are twenty options. Some reflect individuals maintaining their splendid isolation. Others reveal a unified body that is “one-in-the-spirit.”

Most groups will cover the whole range over a period of time. But group closeness increases as the flow of communication moves toward the bottom right corner of the diagram.

Here’s how the matrix interpreted our “Bruised Camel” group’s conversation.

Topic Statements

The first of four content labels is topic: when members talk about people or things that are not part of the group. Our Camel group does lots of this. We talk about the church, the poor, the weather, the family, the Bible, the buck. As long as the focus is on something or someone outside, and not on our reactions, it would fall in the topic column. Of course, the speaker can set up lots of different moods with his listeners when making a topic statement. That’s what the vertical dimension of the matrix is all about. Here are some real examples from our group as we discussed God’s attitude toward the poor.

Topic-Nonresponsive. John had assigned 2 Corinthians 8, and he asked if anyone was surprised at what Paul said there. After thirty seconds of uncomfortable silence, I said, “Uh-uh.” In terms of fostering closeness, my contribution was zilch. It’s the bare minimum.

Topic-Conventional. Another time Ron quoted Jeremiah’s statement about King Josiah-” ‘He defended the cause of the poor and needy, and so all went well. Is that not what it means to know me?’ declares the Lord.” This plain vanilla recitation is still a topic statement, but the manner in which it was given is a cut above the noncommittal and nonresponsive grunt that had to be dragged out of me. Ron’s statement is topic-conventional, but also note that it doesn’t carry a great deal of personal commitment, which is what moves a statement to the assertive category.

Topic-Assertive. “God has a special concern for the poor!” Gordon stated it as a definite, unassailable fact. His proclamation screamed with certainty. Assertive is the “thus saith the Lord” line in the matrix. Unlike nonresponsive and conventional contributions, assertive words leave no doubt where the speaker stands. Because of this transparency, the HIM says assertive pronouncements foster slightly more cohesiveness. The group at least has some real meat to chew on.

But there’s still a problem. None of these first three gives any indication that the speaker is open to change. In that sense they are all nonrisky. Change of any kind is threatening. When it means reordering cherished beliefs or altering our self-image, it can be downright painful.

Nothing is so emotionally risky as being vulnerable in the presence of others. Yet it’s precisely that willingness to risk that leapfrogs us into the possibility of intimacy. That’s why the HIM makes a big jump from the nonresponsive, conventional, and assertive mindsets to the speculative and tentative ways of saying things. In the ascending order of intimacy, the staircase looks like this:

GRAPHIC FROM PAGE 86 GOES HERE

Topic-Speculative. “What do you think Jesus meant when he said it was easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to go to heaven?” Bob asked in a way that showed he really wanted to know. He was ready to hear what others thought and was willing to adjust his worldview based on what he heard. Topic-speculative reflects an attitude that promotes true fellowship. It avoids the “I shall not be moved” intransigence of the assertive style. On the other hand, it loses the positive commitment that assertiveness puts forth.

Topic-Tentative. The tentative way of saying things picks up the best of the assertive and speculative without their drawbacks. “As I read Scripture, I get the impression God has a special identification with those on the margin of society-the hungry, the poor, the prisoners, the oppressed, the widows, the orphans, those who are emotionally strung out.” Hearing John, we were not left in the dark about what he thought, but neither was he dogmatic. The same openness to change that surfaces in the speculative statement is apparent here. John let us know his conclusions, but the slight hesitancy in word and tone of voice also revealed his willingness to adjust that view if confronted with additional wisdom.

You may smile at the seeming paradox of “flexible convictions.” But whatever label we use, the HIM suggests that “riding light in the saddle” is the best way to draw people together rather than drive them apart. This is true not only when talking about topics beyond the group but also speaking about the group itself, personal matters, or relations between members.

Group Statements

Many groups never depart from topic statements. That’s too bad. Holding the conversation to external matters is an excellent way to avoid intimacy. Talking about the group itself is an improvement. The focus comes much closer to home.

Our Camel group has discovered that periodic corporate introspection can strengthen the bonds that hold us together. This is true even when we’re discussing topics.

We originally thought of forming a nonprofit foundation through which to channel funds to alleviate poverty. After much discussion, we decided to keep it an informal fellowship wherein we all anonymously commit funds to a common pot and then jointly decide where to allocate those dollars. We drew closer in the process. The following group type statements may explain why.

Group-Nonresponsive. We were discussing what name we should call our group. “I don’t care,” said John. His brusk reply was understandable. He’d been up most of the night counseling a suicidal teenager. Still, it didn’t do a lot for group unity.

Group-Conventional. “Go ahead and write the article, Em. One of our purposes for existence is to be a possible model for others.” Bob wasn’t just giving me permission to submit this piece to LEADERSHIP. He was making a straightforward statement-about the group, which clarified our reason for being. Helpful.

Group-Assertive. “None of us wants to expose himself to the loss of privacy that 501(c)3 nonprofit status would require!” Ron was adamant. He was also wrong. A few of the men weren’t worried about anonymity. But the strong feelings he attributed to the group carried a lot of weight as we struggled to find the right vehicle to channel the funds.

Group-Speculative. “Do you think we’ll be able to agree on some projects without being at each other’s throat?” This was my question, which probably reflects a desire to avoid conflict. But I was up for hearing their response, and the group quickly laid to rest my fears of a bloodbath. My willingness to accept their assurances is a sign of a true speculative question.

Some folks use questions to nail home a point. Suppose I had said, “None of us is crazy enough to think we’re going to have harmony in selecting projects, are we?” That would be an assertive pronouncement only thinly veiled as a question. No one would be fooled into thinking I’d honestly consider a differing point of view. To be speculative, a group member has to communicate his openness to change.

Group-Tentative. “It seems to me one of the reasons we’re a close-knit group is that we have a common commitment to changing how we spend our bucks.” Gordon’s observation came after a great deal of group soul-searching. We all credited the sincerity of his interpretation, but his “It seems to me” qualification and tone of voice left some “wiggle room” for those who might like to offer an alternative explanation. In this case nobody did. But the fact that we had the option made for a warmer group climate.

If you’ve stayed with me this far, you may be scratching your head in amazement at the idea of me sitting in the Camel group saying, “Gee, I just heard a group-tentative statement.” Do I really do that? No. At least not usually. But there are times when I feel vaguely uneasy with the group atmosphere and try to figure out what’s going wrong. Then I realize we’re talking about topics- important topics, but issues still external to the group. Or else I detect nonresponsive, conventional, or assertive tones coming through.

This knowledge gives me options. I can choose to let the discussion continue in this natural vein, or I can choose to intervene with a statement designed to bridge interpersonal distance. We’ve already seen that group references do this better than topic ones. But just as there was a giant step from the assertive manner to the speculative style, so the personal category accomplishes a great deal more closeness than group-oriented words.

Personal Statements

Personal comments are those a member makes about himself. He could be talking about past history, present feelings, or future dreams. But when self-disclosure begins, we’re no longer referring to absentees or abstractions; we’re dealing with warm bodies having an immediate impact on each other. Fellowship flourishes.

But there are still five ways of presenting personal content.

Personal-Nonresponsive. All of the Camel group are married. Four of us have teenage children. We’ve usually been as transparent concerning our family relations as we have been about money. Once someone in the group asked me how my daughter was.

“Fine,” I answered. That was about as helpful as “No comment” at a press conference. The nonresponsive is the bare minimum of communication without being a social Neanderthal.

Personal-Conventional. “You should have seen me squirm last night when my wife asked me what we were going to talk about this morning,” Ron said. We laughed, because the main item on the agenda was our marital relations vis- … -vis money. The fact that he put a humorous cast on the feeling is typical of a conventional style.

Personal-Assertive. “No way can I go on our weekend retreat. I don’t spend enough time with my family as it is.” Gordon announced his feelings in such a firm way that no one tried to get him to reconsider. Unless other members are feeling combative, personal-assertive words are conversation stoppers. But we did know how he felt.

Personal-Speculative. “I wonder if I’m expecting too much from my kids?” Bob’s question opened a floodgate of doubts that we all have about our effectiveness as fathers. By probing his own adequacy, he created an atmosphere in which we could examine ours. The circle became closer.

Personal-Tentative. “Have you noticed that I’m usually the last one to share what’s happening at home?” Although John’s words had the form of a question, they zeroed in on a truth. He thought he had noticed a trend in his participation and laid it before the group for confirmation or denial. In this John was like a researcher who states a tentative hypothesis and then lets the empirical findings support or refute his hunch. In either case, the statement is benign.

Relationship Statements

Groups don’t have fellowship, people have fellowship. That’s why the HIM regards an exchange between two individuals about their relationship as having the highest potential for generating koinonia.

It means a lot more to me if someone says, “I like your smile, Em,” than if he says, “I’m sure glad everybody’s optimistic.” A relationship statement can draw two people together much more than a generic group reference. But for those listening in, there’s also a vicarious payoff. Everybody benefits. Since group cohesiveness is the sum of the attraction between individuals, feedback is essential to increase the magnetism.

Our Camel group has a structured way of stimulating relational feedback in the area of money. Once a year we take turns presenting our overall financial picture-what we make, what we spend, what we give. Hopefully this is done in a personal-tentative manner. The discloser then opens up for feedback. This is a relational test that can make or break a group. In our case, it’s had the effect of superglue.

Relationship-Nonresponsive. This is almost a contradiction in terms. But it can happen in the closest of groups. After opening my financial books to the group, I asked for specific feedback concerning the purchase of an ultralight airplane. Did they think the expenditure of a few thousand dollars for the sheer fun of flying was selfish on my part? John’s answer, when pressed, was “Maybe.”

John has a sophisticated theological mind and is deep into the question of social justice. He also loves flying. I assume he had all sorts of reactions-pro and con-to my intended purchase. Perhaps he held back because he didn’t want to shoot down my dream. But for some reason I never got the benefit of his reaction. Score it as relationship-nonresponsive. Note that the content designation is relationship because the issue at hand is whether or not John thinks I’m selfish.

Relationship-Conventional. In the same session, I presented a list of charities and the dollar amounts I’ve contributed over the past year. I pointed out that my intent was to support a blend of emergency relief, development, evangelism, and educational efforts. Bob comments, “I like your mix of giving. It’s like a balanced portfolio.” Bob’s affirmation was delivered in a warm, straightforward fashion. I felt good.

It would still be a relationship-conventional response even if he expressed disapproval rather than praise in the same manner. The key is the objective, declarative tone.

Relationship-Assertive. “Your sacrificial giving is pleasing to God!” Note the exclamation point. In written communication punctuation tells us how we are to interpret the words. In face-to-face communication nonverbal signals accomplish the same task. Gordon’s tone of voice, definitive sweep of the arm, and intense gaze seemed to say God himself wouldn’t dare to disagree. Gordon hath spake.

Relationship-Speculative. At the same meeting Ron raised the question of beggars. The previous day he’d been approached by a panhandler. “Do you think I’m foolish for giving him a dollar?” At root, this wasn’t a question of abstract morality or charitable strategy. Ron wanted to know what we thought of him. His openness fostered a time of sharing about our own embarrassment and self-doubts when faced with the same situation. It’s rare to hear someone ask a relationship-speculative question in a sincere quest for feedback. It’s risky. But when someone takes the plunge, the mood becomes deeper, softer, warmer.

In the movie David and Lisa, there comes a point where the schizophrenic girl, Lisa, turns to her equally disturbed friend and pleads, “David, look at me and what do you see?” Wondering out loud is vintage relationship-speculative. It’s also the beginning of togetherness within and without.

Relationship-Tentative. The attempt to state honest perceptions while recognizing that all the polls aren’t in yet is a delicate balancing act in all four content categories, but it’s toughest in the relationship area. Our feelings are so close to the surface.

I attempted to steer this course when one of our members revealed that 75 percent of his generous contributions went to the United Way. See if you think I pulled it off. My response was, “I don’t work in a corporate situation where there’s pressure to contribute a percentage of my salary, so I may not really understand the situation. But my initial reaction is that you might get more bang for the buck if you targeted more of your giving to a few openly Christian organizations that care about the whole person.”

How did I do? When I first heard of the proportion, I was bothered by the thought of all that money going mostly to secular organizations. I tried to temper my reaction while honestly voicing my reservation. I used qualifiers like “might,” “maybe,” and “initially,” which I hoped would keep things open for further input. It worked. He valued my opinion, but I also learned some of the redeeming features in community-chest type giving. I know we drew closer as a result of the interaction.

Drawing a Group Together

So how close is your group? The thrust of the HIM system is simple. You can tell how close a group is by the amount of personal and relationship statements that are voiced in a speculative and tentative way. It’s unrealistic to expect all conversation to be in those four lower right cells. The going would be too heavy. But lots of Christian fellowship gives lie to the name by never getting past topic statements delivered in a nonresponsive, conventional, or assertive style. Many Bible studies get stuck in a sterile topic-assertive mode. That’s sad.

What do you do if your group is trapped in these upper left cells? Understanding where you are and where you want to go is half the battle. The next step is to put the Golden Rule into practice. Model the verbal behavior you’d like to see others use toward you. Personal self-disclosure and relational feedback tend to be returned in kind. Honest speculation and sincere tentativeness are usually reciprocated.

Don’t be afraid to set up artificial means for stimulating this kind of communication. What is normal or “natural” is not necessarily healthy. If it takes playing The Ungame to get people to talk about their feelings, so be it. If it takes prefacing your comments with the phrase “It seems to me . . .” to combat a tendency toward certainty where Scripture is silent, do it.

Above all, see if you can get your group to share the same perceptions you now have. If others see the desirability of relating personal and relationship concerns in a speculative and tentative way, you’re home free.

Enjoy! As you can tell, the Camel group does.