This research analysis reveals dissonance and consonance between AG USA’s normative and formal belief system, and its operative and espoused belief system, relevant to leadership succession within the broader spectrum of the movement in relation to Millennials. There are theological, social, intellectual, structural, and emotional implications for AG USA to this
analysis. The psychographic variables of AG USA Millennial Christian leaders, their relationship to contemporary issues emerging from the literature review, point toward an epistemological gap between the practiced belief of AG USA Millennial leaders and the official belief of the broader AG USA. Within the epistemological gap, the concepts of re-enchantment and authenticity which I introduced as being formative concepts shaping my analysis at the start of this thesis, gained momentum throughout the research. These concepts partially shape the discussion surrounding the thematic categories emerging from the analysis, and I will discuss some of their significance further.
The first section of this chapter expands on the themes of authenticity and re-enchantment which surface again in the findings. I expand and
reframe the material to explain how my methodology and findings shaped the framework of my analysis. The topics, codes, and thematic categories
emerging from the qualitative data analyses, via Tesch’s Eight Steps (Tesch, 1990), are discussed. Thematic categories suggest a dialectical pull between dissonance and consonance, as applied to contemporary issues, between AG USA Millennials and their religious community. These dialectical tensions
provide a nuanced picture to understand how issues of leadership and succession within AG are being negotiated. Following the analysis of these thematic categories, the delimitations and limitations of the post-data analysis are explored, followed by a synoptic spectrum of response to assist in
understanding the complexities associated with the generational cohort in discussion.
All focus group respondents are AG USA Millennial Christian leaders. The questions forming the content of my analysis were : 1) When you look at AG USA and the landscape of faith in our nation, what contemporary issues concern you the most and why; 2) When you look at AG USA and the landscape of faith in our nation, what contemporary issues are you most excited about and why; 3) If you could wave a magic wand in the AG USA and make anything happen, what would that be and why?
Authenticity
The social value and understanding of authenticity is approximately 200 years old in Western society (Trilling, 1972). Associated with
individuality, sociologists study authenticity as a phenomenological
experience of one being true to the self. For this reason, it is difficult to define, often contested, and lacks significant empirical study (Ferrara, 2002;
Erickson, 1991). Franzese’s definition of authenticity, “an individual’s subjective sense that their behavior, appearance, self, reflects their sense of core being. One’s sense of core being is composed of their values, beliefs, feelings, identities, self-meanings, etc.” (2007, 87), is foundational to the term’s utilization in this research. External controls such as institutional expectations can impact one’s subjective, emotional impulses (Turner, 1976), thus ascribing meaning and informing expectations (Turner, 1975). This adds
value and serves the analyses in gauging the presence of collectivity,
interdependence, and independence among AG USA Millennial leaders and their religious cohort.
Three dimensions to the discussion of authenticity in the literature relevant to my analysis of the AG USA Millennial leader hybridity which are further discussed in the thesis are religious autonomy, religious reinterpretation, and subjectivity within religion. Individual religious autonomy, within collective and collaborative corporate religious environments, is a sign of authenticity (Schawbel, 2015). Reinterpreting religious beliefs and practices demonstrates a willingness to reimagine religious beliefs (Arnett, 2004). Subjectivity within religion is linked with authenticity as well (Rabey, 2001; Taylor, 1989). It is not evident if these three dimensions are a result of a resurgence or magnification of authenticity within culture or if they indeed point toward authenticity’s resurgence. What is evident from the literature is authenticity, as defined, is perfectly designed to coexist with relativism and pluralism as religious autonomy and reinterpretation are largely subjective.
Re-Enchantment
Max Weber, borrowing from Schiller’s “the disenchantment of the world,” used the term disenchantment to describe modernity’s valuation of scientific understanding more than belief progressing toward rationality as opposed to tradition (Schroeder, 1992). Capturing part of the essence or illusion of change and progress in the modern/post-modern tension, Weber argued “the ultimate and most sublime values have retreated from public life” (1958, 121). Disenchantment is “the key concept within Weber’s account of the distinctiveness and significance of Western culture” (Schroeder, 1995, 228).
Cox (2013)83 distinguishes secularization from secularism. Secularization is, in his words, a “historical process, almost certainly irreversible, in which society and culture are delivered from tutelage to
religious control and closed metaphysical worldviews” (2013, 25). Secularism, he posits, is an ideology or worldview “which functions very much like a new religion” (2013, 25). Secularization emerges when, for example, the biblical account of creation bifurcates nature from divinity and humankind from nature. This is where the process of disenchantment begins according to Cox, citing Weber’s liberation and emancipation of nature from “religious
overtones” (2013, 29).
As will be discussed further in this chapter, AG USA Millennial leaders seem to find middle ground between disenchantment and a constructive imaginary where there is religiously-inspired motivation to re-engage with the “magic” found in culture. Gablik (1991) states re-enchantment “refers to that change in the general social mood toward a more pragmatic idealism and a more integrated value system that brings head and heart together in an ethic of care, as part of the healing of the world.” Re-enchantment is a return to the roots and values of the enchanted past and a recognition of opposing forces within culture and subsequent resistance and/or subversion to bureaucratic rationalities (Ritzer, 1999; Harding & Jenkins, 1989).
The epistemic and moral community of AG USA encompasses beliefs (Gerth & Mills, 1948). These beliefs are interpreted and thus reshaped by the AG USA Millennial psychography (Douglas, 1987; Boon, 1982). In the context
83 In the Secular City, Harvey Cox has a masterful explanation of disenchantment and how secularization is a consequence of biblical faith on history, pp. 21-30. I find his work on disenchantment especially relevant due to both his understanding of Pentecostalism and his re-visiting of his work in the 2013 version on the original work in The
of this research, I use the term re-enchantment to juxtapose AG USA’s social, cultural, epistemological and theological roots as a movement with the
psychographic variables impacting the beliefs of AG USA’s Millennial leaders. There is a turning again toward the sacred or divine reality found in the secular cultural space once considered taboo. Indeed, Cox’s definition of secularization seemed to suggest a separatism and the
Fundamentalist/Modernist controversy in early twentieth century American religion which was motivated by escapism. The two psychographic variables of separatism and escapism, present in AG USA’s roots, are being reconsidered by the movement’s Millennials.
Thematic Overview
Raw data was gathered from the focus groups, in the form of recordings and transcriptions, revealing topics relevant to the research question. The topics reflect how meaning is derived from the experience of being an AG USA Millennial Christian leader. During the focus groups, because of AG USA’s metaphoricity (i.e. propensity to describe concepts using often abstract terms and/or metaphors), when a nuance occurred in a response, I asked for clarity from respondents. This was not reflected in handwritten notes as some research practices suggest (Creswell, 2014); rather, was captured in the transcript, to record any disparities before conducting hermeneutical analysis (Tesch, 1990). This allowed for a more thorough analysis and deeper
understanding of the context (Tesch, 1990; Creswell, 2014; Attride-Stirling, 2001).
A Rationale for the Summary of the Findings
Twelve unique focus groups comprise the source for data analysis. In order of occurrence and described with the
geographic/regional/ethnic/language district affiliation in AG USA, they are: Southern California 2/28/17; Minnesota 3/13/17; Minnesota 4/04/17; Southern Missouri 4/17/17; Oregon 4/25/17; Southern Missouri 5/02/17; South Central Hispanic 6/09/17; New York 6/12/17; Southern Missouri 6/14/17; Southern New England 6/15/17; Arkansas 6/22/17;
Pennsylvania/Delaware 6/28/17. Five organizing codes were identified from the topics and interpreted as: 1) Stewardship of Change; 2) Subjective Feelings; 3) External Factors; 4) Orthodoxy and Orthopraxy; and, 5) Internal/Bureaucratic Realities. From these, I hermeneutically interpreted nine thematic categories (Tesch, 1990), which are points on a dialectical tension. The dialectical tensions are: 1) Monologue vs. Dialogue; 2) Technology vs. Conversation; 3) Tolerance vs. Love; 4) Attractional vs. Missional; 5) Political vs. Moral; 6) Programs vs. Outcomes; 7) Tradition vs. Culture; 8) Orthopraxy vs. Orthodoxy; 9) Community Standard vs. Biblical Mandate. These are the heart of analysis of what is emerging in AG USA Millennial thought and inform the strategic agenda proposed for leadership succession.
Respondents are not named in the analysis to protect anonymity. Feedback appears to be a result of perceived social catalepsy within the movement to the broader and nuanced exigencies Millennials saw in their distinct context.
Organizing Codes and Thematic Categories
A further expansion on the coding and categorization described in Chapter Three provides a better understanding of the findings in the qualitative analysis. The crux of the data, using Tesch’s Eight Steps (Tesch, 1990; Creswell, 2014), is found in the nine thematic categories. The credibility of these categories and relevance of the topics in the transcripts is juxtaposed in the organizing codes. This section will describe the precise process of taking the organizing codes and creating the thematic categories.
Developing a sense of meaning from a careful reading of all transcripts was the first step. Next, annotations were made in the margins of one
transcript (see Appendix 4.1) citing underlying meaning. This process was followed with four transcripts before a list of topics was developed, informing potential organizing codes (Tesch, 1990; Creswell, 2014). Topics were
abbreviated and reduced to create a workable list, consolidated into a chart for convenience, and codes were written next to the text in the transcript (see Appendix 4.2). Interrelationships between topics and codes were identified to inform thematic categories. From the codes, this strategy was employed with the remainder of the transcripts to identify additional thematic categories from the topics (Tesch, 1990; Creswell, 2014). Once this process was completed for all transcripts, the five organizing codes produced nine thematic categories.
Mixed-methods researchers should anticipate questions (Creswell, 2006). Thematic categories were set in binary form as a simple framework to explain the consonance and dissonance the analyses reveal between AG USA Millennial leaders and their religious/secular cohorts. In addition, the dialectical tensions reveal AG USA Millennial leader psychographic variables
impacting their belief toward structural, theological, and cultural realities in their religious system. This method was preferred to discover emerging patterns in the data. (Walsh, Holten et al, 2015). The latent social patterns in the analysis reveals the AG USA Millennial leader psychography informs the proposed strategic agenda for change regarding leadership succession. I sought to capture the tension unearthed in the transcripts, once analysis began, of both the current and preferred state of AG USA from its Millennials. A practice of using the exact language of focus group participants to create the thematic categories (otherwise known as in vivo, (Creswell, 2014)) was used for eight of the nine categories. For example, the transcript from the listening session in Minneapolis, Minnesota (04.04.17) reveals how the topics,
informing and filtered by the codes, created the thematic category entitled “Orthopraxy vs. Orthodoxy” (see Appendix 4.1 and 4.2). The only thematic category not in vivo is “Community Standard vs. Biblical Mandate.” My analysis of this tension motivated me, in an effort to reduce complexity, to introduce this category utilizing my own terms. This tension is intrinsic to the data as it encompasses a tension present at AG USA’s beginning and today.
Discussion of the Thematic Categories and Analysis In critically addressing the data, the nine thematic categories expose my interpretation and encapsulate the aforementioned dissonance and consonance. From the lived experience of focus group participants, there are several points of tension expressed within each dialectic. The translation of their beliefs can inform how AG USA leadership negotiates and thinks about successful leadership transition. The nine thematic categories are variables that clearly emerge from the qualitative data, as well as the literature and my
professional experience within AG USA. These variables address the epistemological gap between generations.
Monologue vs. Dialogue
The focus groups revealed AG USA Millennial leaders sought
connection with AG USA non-Millennial leaders, citing the inherent value that is to be found with inter-generational dialogue. In this section, the concept of dialogue will be contextualized within AG USA and why, stemming from the literature review, it seems synchronous with broader American religious culture.
An exigency surfaced in the data for dialogue. It appears exogenous issues have migrated from American religious culture into the psychography of the AG USA Millennials. This is consistent with broader American religious culture (Ammerman, 1990; Balmer, 2010; Bielo, 2011; Fitzgerald, 2017; Putnam, 2010) and within AG USA’s centennial history (Blumhofer, 1989; Brumback, 1961; Flower, 1949; Poloma, 1989). Dialogue over contemporary issues was a significant aspect of previous leadership transitions in
Pentecostalism (Poloma, 1989; Rodgers, 2014; Yong, 2005).
AG USA Millennial leaders view a lack of dialogue as endogenous noting the demographic homogeneity of AG USA leadership. The movement’s Millennials see this as a liability to leadership succession. The diversity of perspective represented in dialogue is perceived as an asset (Elmore, 2010; Gravett & Throckmorton, 2007). Though analogous to change management, dialogue also appears preferential with the broader Millennial cohort (Howe & Strauss, 2006; Mueller, 2006).
AG USA Millennial leaders and their secular cohort struggle with negotiating evolving systems in structure (Arnett & Jensen, 2002; Barry &
Nelson, 2005; Uecker, Eegnerus, & Vaaler, 2007). A male (Other/Mixed) saw unity and collaboration as a spiritual concept: “Christ wants us to be one.” Another (White male) believed “we are not given a platform,” alluding to the importance of discussing issues from a theological perspective. His
perspective contrasts with an optimistic white male from Minnesota who stated, “we talked about younger leaders being given a spot at the table. It is exciting.”
A White female from Oregon, when looking at executive leadership, said “leadership does not always, or even usually, reflect the rest of the body. I think that is something that’s problematic.” From Texas, a Hispanic male saw effort from AG USA leadership to expand its diversity. He said “we have a vocabulary but not a well thought out process to mobilize young leaders. We don’t have a lot of opportunities.” A White male from California agreed: “there doesn’t seem to be a lot of prioritizing on succession plans in working
alongside with our young leaders to give them opportunities.”
Generally, Millennials, as a generational cohort, seem to be much more interested in collaboration than consensus (Pempek, Yermolayeva, & Calvert, 2009; Shaw, 2015; Twenge, 2006). One of the reasons is the unique value that proposition collaboration seems to provide (Elmore, 2010). If they do not feel valued, they will find another place to belong (Edgell, 2005; Cohen, 1955). Lack of opportunities to dialogue, according to a White male from Minnesota, were “causing them to jump ship.” Some may assume that this sense of not feeling valued is related to narcissism (Strauss & Howe, 2000; Sessions-Stepp, 2007; Arnett, 2007). The AG USA data reveals something deeper. A Hispanic
female believed lack of opportunities for participation at the “table”84 caused Millennials [in AG USA] to “feel devalued.” A White male felt like he has “nowhere to go” though his friends are leaving AG USA because of no dialogue on pressing contemporary issues.
Dialogue can create inertia for collective symbols in religion to shape and transform society (Alexander & Smith, 2003; Spillman, 2002; Eliasoph & Lichterman, 2003). This occurs as worldviews, shaped contextually and emotionally (Rapaille, 2006), intersect. Making sense out of reality, or
“sensemaking,” emphasizes one’s quest to “make things rationally accountable and creates images of a wider reality” (Morgan, Frost, & Pondy, 1983, 24). This expanse of one’s reality can cause beliefs to be reinterpreted (Kegan, 1994) as diversified exposures in culture through conversation are seen as valuable (Schawbel, 2015; Arnett, 2004; Eck, 1993). From the data, dialogue was synthesized to the following juxtapositions: 1) Races and Ethnicities; 2) Generations; 3) Genders; 4) Socio-Economic Classes; 5) Denominations; 6) Human Sexualities; and, 7) Sections, Districts, Regions and Networks.
1)Races/Ethnicities
Ethnic diversity is normative to the Millennial cohort (Tayler & Keeter, 2010; Elmore, 2010) but rare to some of AG USA’s Millennial leaders. From Missouri, a White female (early twenties) stated: “Churches are mostly White people and a lot of ethnic churches that are doing their own thing.” An
Other/Mixed male admittedly experienced interpersonal tension in his
church. He stated, “I don’t work at a predominantly African-American church. People walk on eggshells around me.” A White male from Arkansas said “I
would love to be able to wave a magic wand and make every small church look like the community it’s in.”
A Hispanic male (California) said “I have been around White people all my life, but still I felt like, I’m the only one here.” In Southern New England, a Black male has not always felt welcomed in his church recounting when a white male usher told him “the black Pentecostal church is down the street.” He felt like “Black people go to this church and White people go to that
church.” In the same focus group, a White male responded to the Black male’s comment. “It doesn’t matter if we go to a White church or a Black church. Let’s just be the church.” A Hispanic male in Texas felt AG USA’s executive leadership should reflect ethnic diversity. He said, “looking at who we have at a higher level, you don’t really see any diverse ethnicity higher up.” Unity in diversity in leadership is prominent within AG USA’s roots (Bartleman, 1925; Brumback, 1961; Molenaar, 2014; Clemmons, 1996).
A male (Mixed/Other) in his mid-twenties appreciated the effort AG USA executive leadership makes toward interracial dialogue. “I think that it’s trying but we’re trying without empathy.” In his statement, I notice the “we” language. He saw himself as part of a community and not an outsider. Regarding empathy, he said, “you have to know what they’ve gone through” and if “we want to influence the country we have to learn to come together.”
2) Generations
During the focus groups, a strategic core value of AG USA that was discussed was to strategically invest in the next generation resulting in ministers under the age of forty gathering in districts. “People believe in the next generation. I think the old and the young have to lead together,” a Mixed/Other male from Pennsylvania stated.
A nineteen-year old White female from Minneapolis believed AG USA non-Millennial leaders do not see the desire AG USA Millennial leaders have for intergenerational mentoring. She said, “some of the older generation understand that if they want the next generation to stick around, they have to invest and spend time and show the younger ones how to do it. We need them.”
From the responses, intergenerational dialogue can provide benefits like “accountability” (White male), “reverse mentoring” (Hispanic male), a “picture of the body of Christ” (Black male), “an opportunity for the young generation to have a voice” (Hispanic male), and “what Millennials need in terms of spiritual fathers and mothers” (White female). The Millennial leaders often described older non-Millennial AG USA leaders as spiritual fathers and mothers. “Mentorship is what every younger pastor/leader wants,” a White male stated. Another White male said, “every generation has worth, value, and has something to say.” A White female in Oregon believed “there’s a