w 1:02;; 1:322 rm W1 3P] “aw ,... H" ROC-h E0 «All \I ”has! _YTWW ’ __ ABSTRACT AN ANALYSIS OF EXPECTATIONS FOR THE RESPONSIBILITY CONCERNING TOPIC SELECTION OF PROTESTANT MINISTERS AS PREACHERS by James L. Mayfield The purposes for this study are twofold. The first purpose is to develop instruments whereby a measurement might be made which will show differences between a Speaker and some member of his audience in regard to the member's and the speaker's expectations concerning the topics on which the speaker chooses to speak. The second purpose is to apply these instru- ments to a selected sample of speakers and members of the speaker's audience. For the purposes of this study, thirty-three Protestant ministers and thirty- three lay leaders, representing eleven different denom- inations, were selected. The data from the instruments were then measured for relationship with such things as length of time the minister and lay leader had worked together in their respective offices, size of congregation, and autonomous or hierarchial nature of congregation. James L. Mayfield The instruments were developed in three parts according to topics dealing with theological, social and political issues. Some of the most important results and conclu- sions are as follows: 1. Only about one-third of the ministers in this study consulted with their lay leaders about their preaching ministry. Thirteen of the thirty-three ministers did not feel they had any specific problems in communication. Experienced ministers and lay leaders see the minister as a spokesman for God. The greatest agreement between the ministers and lay leaders is related to this point. The ministers in the study believed they should relate their sermons to specific problems of their congregation, whereas the lay leaders, for the most part, did not agree. A great deal of difference exists between the ministers and lay leaders concerning topic selections on political issues. It is suggested that a semantic problem might exist. It is further suggested that a better understanding is needed of what is "political" and how the political issues relate to the spiritual issues. Ministers appear to be more prone than are lay leaders to feel that the minister ought to speak on controversial matters from the pulpit. Groups of ministers of given denominations tend to agree more on social and political topics than they do on theological topics. The same is true of lay leaders by denomina- tional grouping but to a greater degree on political issues. Little relationship appears to exist between the consensus of ministers by denominational groupings and whether their denomination has a hierarchial or an autonomous basis. James L. Mayfield 9. There is apparently no significant positive relationship between the degree of consensus and the amount of time a minister and lay leader have worked together. This is to suggest that consensus does not necessarily grow with time spent working together. Chapter I of the study presents an introduction which includes the purposes for the investigation, the selection of the sample, the significance of the study, and the plan of the investigation. Chapter II presents a discussion of the develop- ment and application of the instruments used in the in- vestigation. Chapter III presents an analysis of the data of the total group of ministers and lay leaders. Chapter IV presents an analysis of the data by a denominational grouping of ministers and lay leaders. Chapter V presents an analysis of the data by individual congregations. Chapter VI presents a summary of findings and general conclusions. It is hoped that the instruments developed and used in this study might provide new insights into the relationship between a speaker and his audience. As expectations held by a speaker and by members of his audience are examined and an attempt is made by the ‘ speaker to resolve any differences that exist, the com- municative act beginning with the speaker communicating a message to an audience causing them to react will be enhanced. AN ANALYSIS OF EXPECTATIONS FOR THE RESPONSIBILITY CONCERNING TOPIC SELECTION OF PROTESTANT MINISTERS AS PREACHERS By . \ ( V James L. Mayfield A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Speech l96h ACKNOWLEDGMENTS To Dr. Gordon L. Thomas, the chairman of my Guidance Committee, I owe a very special thanks. He has given me encouragement and advice, and has always been readily available whenever I needed either or both. To Dr. Kenneth Hance, for his dedicated scholarship and assistance, I offer another special thanks. To the other members of my committee, Dr. Frederick Alexander, Dr. Harold Dillon, and Dr. Malcolm MacLean, I offer my gratitude for their advice and assistance in helping to see this thesis completed. To the many other people who contributed their time and effort in making this study possible, I am grateful. The ministers and lay leaders used in the study, the communication experts who assisted in the pilot, and the Reverend John Howell all gave freely of their time. To my wife, Alta, for her loving encourage- ment and her assistance in typing this study, I am especially grateful. James L. Mayfield ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii Chapter I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Purpose of Investigation Selection of the Sample to be Studied Significance of the Investigation Plan of Investigation II. DEVELOPMENT OF THE INSTRUMENTS . . . . . . . 17 Questions to be Answered Development of the Questionnaire Development of the Expectation Scale Pilot Test of Expectation Scale Application III. ANALYSIS BY TOTAL GROUP. . . . . . . . . . . 32 Questionnaire Items Not Used for Major Analysis Frequency Distribution of Nominal Responses to Expectation Scales Measure of Central Tendency of Nominal Responses to Expectation Scales Ranking by Ministers and Lay Leaders of Expectation Scale Items According to Perceived Importance for the Minister in Topic Selection Summary of Analysis by Total Group IV. ANALYSIS BY DENOMINATION . . . . . . . . . . 83 Introduction Ministers versus Ministers Lay Leaders versus Lay Leaders Ministers versus Lay Leaders Summary of Analysis by Denomination V. ANALYSIS BY CONGREGATION . . . . . . . . . . 113 Introduction Minister versus Lay Leader Summary of Analysis by Congregation iii TABLE OF CONTENTS -- Continued Chapter Page VI. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND GENERAL CONCLUSIONS 143 Introduction Summary of Findings General Conclusions and Implications Suggestions for Further Research BIBLIOGRAPHY O 0 O O O 0 O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O 176 APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177 iv LIST OF TABLES Table ' ' Page I. Percentage Frequency Distribution of Minister and Lay Leader Responses to the Theological Expectation Scale . . . . . . . 40 II. Percentage Frequency Distribution of Minister and Lay Leader Responses to the Social Expectation Scale. . . . . . . . . . #7 III. Percentage Frequency Distribution of Minister and Lay Leader Responses to the Political Expectation Scale . . . . . . . . 54 IV. Mean Distribution of Minister and Lay Leader Responses to the Theological Expectation scale 0 C O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O 63 V. Mean Distribution of Minister and Lay Leader Responses to the Social Expectation Scale . 64 VI. Mean Distribution of Minister and Lay Leader Responses to the Political Expectation scale 0 O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O 66 VII. Table of Results of Kendall Coefficient of Concordance: (W) With Differences Between Consensus of Ministers by Denominational Grouping and Lay Leaders by Denominational Grouping on Three Expectation Scales i. e., Theological (Page 1), Social (Page 2), and Political (Page 3) . . . . . . . . 87- 89 VIII. Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficient: rS to Test Ranks of Minister and Lay Leader Coefficients of Concordance: (W) by Denomination from Theological Expectation Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 IX. Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficient: rS to Test Ranks of Minister and Lay Leader Coefficients of Concordance: (W) by Denomination from Social Expectation Scale. 100 X. Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficient: rS to Test Ranks of Minister and Lay Leader Coefficients of Concordance: (W) by Denomination from Political Expectation Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . lOl LIST OF TABLES -- Continued Table Page XI. Ranking of Denominations by Coefficient of Concordance to Measure Relationship of Hierarchial or Autonomous Denominational Structure to Degree of Consensus Among Ministers (Page 1) and Among Lay Leaders (Page 2) on the Theological Expectation Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . lOB-lOA XII. Ranking of Denominations by Coefficient of Concordance to Measure Relationship of Hierarchial or Autonomous Denominational Structure to Degree of Consensus Among Ministers (Page 1) and Among Lay Leaders (Page 2) on the Social Expectation Scale. . 105-106 XIII. Ranking of Denominations by Coefficient of Concordance to Measure Relationship of Hierarchial or Autonomous Denominational Structure to Degree of Consensus Among Ministers (Page 1) and Among Lay Leaders (Page 2) on the Political Expectation Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108-109 XIV. Table of Results of Spearman Rank Correla- tion Coefficient with Differences Between a Minister and a Lay Leader of a Given Congregation on Three Expectation Scales, i.e., Theological (Pa e 1), Social (Page 2) and Political (Page 3 . . . . . . . . . . 115-117 XV. Results of the Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficient: rs Listed According to the Degree of Consensus from the Theological Expectation Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 XVI. Results of the Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficient: rS Listed According to the Degree of Consensus from the Social Expectation Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 XVII. Results of the Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficient: rS Listed According to the Degree of Consensus from the Political Expectation Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 XVIII. Spearman Rank Coefficient of Concordance: rS Applied to Expected and Actual Rank Order by Consensus Based on Number of Months Interaction by Minister and Lay Leader: Theological . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12A vi LIST OF TABLES -- Continued Table Page XIX. Spearman Rank Coefficient of Concordance: rS Applied to Expected and Actual Rank Order by Consensus Based on Number of MOnths Interaction by Minister and Lay Leader: Social. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 XX. Spearman Rank Coefficient of Concordance: rS Applied to Expected and Actual Rank Order by Consensus Based on Number of Months Interaction by Minister and Lay Leader: Political . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 XXI. Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficient: r Applied to Expected and Actual Rank Oraer by Consensus Based on Size of Congregation: Theological . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 XXII. Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficient: r Applied to Expected and Actual Rank Orger by Consensus Based on Size of Congregation: Social. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 XXIII. Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficient: r Applied to Expected and Actual Rank Oraer by Consensus Based on Size of Congregation: Political . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 vii Figure I. II. III. IV. VI. VII. VIII. IX. XI. LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Percentage Frequency Distributions of Minister and Lay Leader Responses to the Theological Expectation Scale. . . . . . Percentage Frequency Distributions of Minister and Lay Leader Responses to the Social Expectation Scale . . . . . . . . Percentage Frequency Distributions of Minister and Lay Leader Responses to the Political Expectation Scale. . . . . . . Number of Ministers and Lay Leaders Choos- ing Items on Expectation Scales as First in Importance for the Minister to do in Fulfilling His Responsibility as a Speaker from the Pulpit. . . . . . . . . Number of Ministers and Lay Leaders Choos- ing Items on Expectation Scales as Eighth in Importance for the Minister to do in Fulfilling His Responsibility as a Speaker from the Pulpit. . . . . . . . . Expected and Actual Rank Order by Con- sensus Based on Number of Months Inter- action Between Minister and Lay Leader: Theological Scale. . . . . . . . . . . . Expected and Actual Rank Order by Con- sensus Based on Number of Months Inter- action Between Minister and Lay Leader: Social Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Expected and Actual Rank Order by Con- sensus Based on Number of Months Inter- action Between Minister and Lay Leader: Political Scale. . . . . . . . . . . . . Expected and Actual Rank Order by Con— sensus Based on Size of Congregation: Theological Scale. . . . . . . . . . . . Expected and Actual Rank Order by Con- sensus Based on Size of Congregation: SOCia-l scale 0 O 0 O O O O O O O O O O 0 Expected and Actual Rank Order by Con- sensus Based on Size of Congregation: Political Scale. . . . . . . . . . . . . viii Page hl-hh 48-51 55-58 68-70 73-75 125 129 130 132 136 137 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Purpose of Investigation A person may occupy many roles in society. As the head of a household, he makes decisions af- fecting his family. As a professional man, a lawyer, doctor, educator, minister, he makes decisions affect- ing his organization, its operation and its success. In addition to his many other roles in society, he also takes the role of Speaker. In this role he may be a purveyor of facts, a persuader of minds, and/or a mover to action. In other words, the speaker is the source of the message for an audience. As the source of the message for an audience, the topic on which the speaker chooses to speak is of prime impor- tance. This study was initiated for two primary purposes. One was to analyze a major aSpect of the communicative act, that of tOpic selection. The other was to devise a research instrument that would cor-L rectly and meaningfully measure responses concerning tapic selection. The speaker, in making his selection of topics 1 2 for preparation and presentation, has certain impres- sions concerning tOpics on which he should or should not speak. The Speaker's audience, likewise, has cer- tain impressions concerning topics on which the speaker should or should not speak. These impressions, or feel- ings, may be identified as "expectations concerning topic selections". In other words, the Speaker has a responsibility to Speak, or to refrain from speaking, on certain topics according to these expectations of his audience or himself. The term "reSponsibility", as it is here used, is meant to convey the impression of an obligation which the Speaker owes to himself and/or to his audience to Speak on certain expected topics. It is the expecta- tion which dictates the responsibility, or obligation, of the speaker to speak on certain tOpics. It is suggested that the degree of consensus between the speaker and members of his audience in this expectation of reSponsibility in tOpic selection is an important key to more effective communication, that is, a Specific message being received, and acted upon, by members of an audience. It is further sug- gested that the greater the difference between the Speaker and his audience in their concept of the Speaker's responsibility for speaking on certain topics, the less opportunity there will be for communication to take place. 3 The nature of this investigation is primarily one of exploration in the hope of providing insight into research techniques and methodologies, and in developing research instruments that will provide a basis for the further investigation of Specific com- municative acts for their implications of responsibility. 4 Selection of the Sample to be Studied In order to arrive at valid results in the search for the expectations held by Speaker and audience for the reSponsibilities of the Speaker, it was decided that certain criteria should be established for the population to be used in this study. First, it was decided that the speaker must be a public speaker. The public Speaker is a person who prepares and delivers a message for an audience consisting of more than one person with the general purpose of informing, persuad- ing, or entertaining them. It was also decided that the speaker and his audience Should meet together frequently for the purpose of this communicative act. Also, in order that as much personal bias as possible of the audience toward the speaker and the Speaker toward the audience might be eliminated, it was decided that the audience must not be under a financial obliga- tion to the speaker. Consideration was given to the following groups of speakers and audiences: teacher and pupil, politician and constituent, minister and layman, doctor and patient, and industrial employer and employee. The "teacher and pupil" were rejected for three reasons: (1) the situa- tion is not typically considered as a public speaking occasion; (2) the speaker is quite often responsible for teaching subject matter which is taken directly from some source other than his own thinking, and he may quite often 5 present this subject matter without interpreting it for the students; and (3) the teacher must award grades to his pupils. Hence, the teacher-pupil relationship as a speaker and audience fails to meet the criteria. The "politician and his constituent" were rejected because of their failure to meet together in terms of regulated, frequent contacts. The "doctor and his patient" were rejected because this communicative act is generally considered to be a counseling or interview situation. The "industrial employer and his employee" were rejected because this communicative act is not generally considered as a public Speaking situation, but more of an interview experience. Furthermore, the matter of financial involvement between the employer and employee is also present. However, the "minister and the layman" were selected because they met all the above criteria. The minister and the layman have regular contact in a public speaking situation. While there is probably in many cases a sense of spiritual obligation between the layman and the minister, it was felt, however, that this would not destroy the freedom of thought necessary to cause the layman or the minister to have certain expectations in regard to the selection of topics for Speaking by the minister. . The layman selected to represent the minister's audience was chosen on the basis that he must have either appointed or elected authority. This selection 6 was justified by the need for someone who probably would have given thought to what was expected of the minister in terms of topic selection. It was felt that as nearly as possible this person Should hold the same authority in one denomination as someone hav- ing a different title in another denomination. After considerable discussion with ministers from several denominations in the Lansing area, it was decided to use the term "lay leader" for the pur- poses of this study. The lay leader is actually a lay person falling somewhere within the following definition: The lay leader of a given congregation is the person other than another minister to whom the responsibility of the congregation would most likely fall if the minister were unexpectedly absent. This will be the highest elected lay person in the congrega- tion. It might be the chairman of the board of trustees, the head elder, the director of religious education (if not an employed staff member), the lay leaderl, the senior warden, clerk of church, or some other congregational official. Although the functions of these individuals are somewhat different among the separate denominations, all either are elected or ap- pointed officials of local congregations. While the lay leader might not be completely lOfficial title in Methodist church. 7 representative of the parishioners, he is at least an elected representative of the congregation. The lay leader is someone who has perhaps the most inter- action with the minister of any person in the congrega- tion. He is the layman most likely to work directly with the minister and most likely to discuss tOpics dealing with the minister's reSponsibility or obliga- tion to his own expectations or to his audience's expectations for the minister in his tOpic selection. Since a decision had been reached to devote part of the study to an analysis by denomination, it was further decided to choose the sample by denomina- tional grouping. After several informal discussions were held with faculty members who comprised the writer's doctoral committee, practicing ministers, lay leaders, and the Reverend John Howell, Executive Secretary of the Lansing Council of Churches, it seemed practical and valid to use forty congregations selected from as many denominations in the Lansing area as possible. Since the sample was to be made on the basis of denom- ination, and since such things as (l) the willingness of the minister and the lay leader to assist in the study; (2) the availability of both the minister and, the lay leader to assist in the study; and (3) the fact that there was an equal number of congregations in each denomination for cross-denominational measurements, it was felt that a random sample was not only inadvisable 8 but quite impossible to achieve. A great deal of consideration was given to the matter of using a structured sample as opposed to a random sample. It was felt, however, that with the cross section of denominations being used in the study, and with the differences that would exist among the congregations within the denominations, broad generalizations could be made to the Protestant church community as a whole as a result of the findings of the study. After an extensive discussion with the Reverend John Howell concerning what denominations existed in the Lansing area and what congregations existed within these denominations, it was decided to use thirty-nine congregations representing twelve denominations, and three non-denominational congregations. Three congrega- tions were to be chosen for each of the twelve denomina- tions, and three non-denominational congregations were to be chosen for“the non-denominational group. The denominations to be used in the study, according to their generally accepted name, are as follows: Baptist (American Convention) Baptist (Southern Convention) Christian (Disciples of Christ) Church of God (Anderson, Indiana) United Church of Christ Protestant Episcopal Church Evangelical United Brethren Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Lutheran (American) Methodist Church of the Nazarene United Presbyterian 9 The three non-denominational congregations will be referred to as "Non-denominational". Dr. Howell made recommendations for the selec- tion of the thirty-nine congregations to be used in the study. His familiarity with congregational Size and location made this step of the study a great deal less complicated than it would otherwise have been. After the tentative sample had been chosen, a letter was developed and sent to the thirty-nine ministers in the sample. (A copy of the letter may be seen in Appendix A.) AS the letter suggests, a telephone call was made to each of the ministers to whom a letter had been sent. In reSponse to the letter and phone call, thirty-seven of the ministers agreed to be interviewed personally and to recommend to their lay leader that he also agree to assist in the study. Of the two who did not agree to assist, one was leaving for a vacation and the other gave no reason for his refusal. Appointments were made over a period of two months with the thirty-seven ministers, and separate appointments were made with the lay leaders following the appointments with the ministers. With the exception of three, theseappointments were kept. In one case another congregation was utilized when the minister I became hospitalized and could not participate in the study. After repeated attempts were made to meet with the other two ministers, both from the same denomination, 10 this denomination, having an insufficient number of congregations in the Lansing area to compensate for those not available, was dropped from the study. Another denomination was eventually drOpped from the study as a result of its having an insufficient number of congregations in the Lansing area since between the time Dr. Howell made his recommendations and the ap- pointments for the interviews were made, this denom- ination had consolidated two congregations into one. The final sample encompassed in the study is made up of eleven denominations, represented by thirty- three congregations, thirty-three ministers, and thirty- three lay leaders. The denominations utilized in the study are: Baptist (Southern Convention), Christian (Disciples of Christ), Church of God (Anderson, Indiana), United Church of Christ, Protestant Episcopal Church, Evangelical United Brethren, Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Methodist, Church of the Nazarene, and United Presbyterian. ll Significance of the Investigation One of the primary values inherent in this study is the analysis of differences that exist in the thinking of one group of individuals as opposed to another group of individuals. The study of expecta- tions held by a Speaker concerning the topics he selects for his presentation or the tOpics he fails to select is such an analysis. A further aSpect of this same analysis is the study of the expectations held by a member of the Speaker's audience concerning the topic selection. An insight is provided into the communicative act when the differences between these two groups of individuals are measured and the reasons for these dif- ferences are investigated by measuring them against such items as: (l) the length of time each individual has interacted with the other individual; (2) the size of the organization with which they are both affiliated; and (3) other pertinent information concerning their institutions or their functions in these institutions. Other than the value of measuring differences in this study, the development of instruments may, with slight modifications, be utilized in analyzing any communication situation. With slight changes these instruments may be used to examine expectations of speaker responsibility in topic selection in such diverse fields as medicine, between doctor and patient; education, between teacher and administrator; business 12 and industry, between employer and employee; and politics, between politician and constituent. In each of these fields, the expectations perceived for the communicative obligation in topic selection of a given position may differ between the incumbent of that position and the other interested party. The degree of that difference represents the degree of a communication barrier which exists. The instruments are designed to examine the specific com- munication situation found between the minister and his congregation in Protestant churches. As a result of the analysis made of the dif- ferences in expectations held by the minister and his lay leader, it is suggested that the possible usage of this study is as follows: (1) the individual min- ister will be able to recognize his Specific problem areas of difference in the expectations he has for this position and the expectations which his lay leader has for that position; (2) the individual minister will then be better able to meet his own expectations and his lay leader's expectations concerning the topics on which he should or Should not Speak; (3) the in- dividual minister will be able to discuss with his lay leader these differences in expectations of topic selection and how they might be resolved; (h) the separate denominations will be able to analyze the ways in which their ministers and their lay leaders differ 13 in their concept of the minister's reSponsibility; (5) the separate denominations will be able to analyze the differences that exist among the three ministers of their faith concerning the expectations of topic selection, and be better able to discuss these dif- ferences with them; (6) the separate denominations will be able to compare the problem areas experienced by their own ministers and their own lay leaders with the problem areas experienced among the other ten denominations; (7) the denominational seminaries will be able to utilize in their instructional pattern the information about Specific differences concerning topic selection which most often occur among their ministers and lay leaders; (8) the denominational officers will be better enlightened on the problem areas and will then be able to send newsletters or use other means to explain what is expected of their ministers concerning their topic selections so that both minister and lay leader will have a better understanding and the minister will be better able to communicate with his audience; (9) others interested in the field of religion will be able to realize some specific problem areas encountered by practitioners in the field; and (10) the field of speech will gain new insights into the importance of discovering the degree of consensus in the expectations of topic selection held by the speaker and his audience. 14 Plan of Investigation Chapters II through VI of the study will be developed in the following manner: In Chapter II, the questions are presented which appeared to be most important in giving con- sideration to the basic problem of the expectations of the minister and his lay leader for the minister's reSponsibility to select certain topics for prepara- tion and presentation to his congregation. These questions were develOped theoretically as a result of preliminary research on the topic of the minister's responsibility as a Speaker. Chapter II also presents the sequential development of the instruments used in the study. These include a questionnaire to be answered by the ministers, and the topic expectation scales. Also included are: (l) a rationale for the instruments; (2) the Stages of development of the instruments; (3) a discussion of the results of the pilot study which was used to validate the instruments; and (h) an explana- tion of the application of the final instrument to the sample. Chapter III presents the analysis of the col- lected data by the total group of ministers and lay leaders. This chapter discusses the consensus, or lack of consensus, between ministers and ministers, between lay leaders and lay leaders, and between ministers and lay leaders. The Significant findings are summarized 15 at the conclusion of the chapter. Chapter IV presents an analysis of the data by denomination. This is primarily a group analysis as it considers the differences or lack of differences among ministers of a given denomination. The same is true of the denominational grouping of lay leaders. The results from an analysis of this grouping by denom- ination are then measured against other denominational groupings in order to arrive at some generalizations which may be applied across denominational lines. This chapter, as well as Chapters III and V, will include a summary of the significant findings as Shown by the data. Chapter V includes an analysis of the data by individual congregation, presenting the results of the measurement of the differences in expectation of topic selection between the minister of a given congregation and his lay leader. Chapter VI, the concluding chapter of the body of the study, includes a summary of the findings for the entire study, explains the possible application of these results to the practicing ministry, and sets forth generalizations which seem to be most valid for the Protestant church community. Also included in I Chapter VI are some suggestions for further development of the present study to encompass a larger and randomly selected sample. This chapter also has suggestions for 16 additional studies. The study is then concluded with a selected bibliography and an appendix. The appendix includes a COpy of the letter sent to the ministers to elicit their cOOperation in the study, a copy of the question- naire applied to the ministers, and a c0py of the three parts of the expectation scale that was given to each minister and each lay leader used in the study. CHAPTER II DEVELOPMENT OF THE INSTRUMENTS Questions to be Answered An attempt was made to discover the most important elements present in the analysis of the expectations held by the minister for his own respon- sibility as a pulpit speaker and his lay leader's expectations for that same responsibility. This was done by holding extensive discussions with University faculty members who comprised the writer's doctoral committee, practicing ministers, lay leaders, Protestant church officials from three different denominations, two experts in the area of survey research, the Executive Secretary of the Lansing Council of Churches, a profess or of Homiletics and Applied Theology from a Seventh-Day Adventist seminary and church school, and two faculty members from the Michigan State University Department of Philosophy who Specialize in Value Theory. Out of these discussions certain persistent questions arose pertaining to the expected differences that exist between the choices made by the minister and those by his lay leader. The questions are as follows: 1. What differences exist between ministers l7 18 as a group and lay leaders as a group in their expectations of the reSponsibilities of the minister in his topic selections? Are these differences primarily restricted to one area of the minister's speaking, i.e. theological, social, or political? Are these differences primarily restricted to certain sub-areas within the theological, social, or political areas of the minister's reSponsibility in topic selection as a preacher, i.e. problem-centered as opposed to Bible-centered, family problem-centered as Opposed to personal ethics, and sermoniz- ing on local politics as opposed to sermoniz- ing on the re 1g10us elements in a political campaign? What relationships are there between the differences that exist and such factors as: (l) the amount of time the minister and lay leader have interacted in their respective positions, (2) the Size of the congregation being served, (3) the fact that the minister was assigned by his denomination rather than selected by his congregation, and (h) the fact that the minister considers him- self to be a religious liberal rather than a religious conservative? What is the agreement or lack of agreement among ministers of a given denomination on choices pertaining to the minister's reSponsibility as a preacher on theological, social, and political issues? How does this agreement or lack of agreement among ministers of one denomination compare with other groups of ministers of other denominations? What is the agreement or lack of agreement among lay leaders of a given denomination on choices pertaining to the minister' s respon- sibility as a preacher? How does this agreement or lack of agreement among lay leaders of one denomination compare with other groups of lay leaders of other denominations? What implications for the field of Speech and 19‘ communication can be drawn from arriving at answers to the above questions? 10. What implications for the field of religion can be drawn from receiving the answers to the above questions? Based on the above questions which appeared to include the most pertinent elements in the relationship between the minister and the lay leader, the question- naire to be administered to the subject ministers and the "expectation scales" to be administered to the ministers and the lay leaders were developed. 20 Development of the Questionnaire Several problems dealing with questionnaire development were considered before this part of the project was undertaken. They were: (1) the problem of length; (2) the matter of gathering only what in- formation was needed for the study--neither too much, nor too little; and (3) the problem of the question- naire construction for this study which was to get the most useful information with as few questions as pos- Sible. The response of the ministers to some of the questions is used in this chapter. The response to the remaining questions furnishes data in order that expectations of topic selection held by the minister for his speaking reSponsibility as a preacher may be further analyzed. The questionnaire was constructed and was then given to several practicing ministers who were not otherwise used in the study, their com- ments on the clarity and comprehensiveness of the questions being solicited. Several suggested changes were made, and the final questionnaire was constructed and made a part of the instrument to be given to the ministers for their reaction. 21 Development of the Expectation Scale The first example found of the use of a scale which represented an analysis of some element of a position or a role in our society was in Neal Gross, .gt a1, Exploration in Role Analysis.2 While Gross' study was concerned with an entirely different popula- tion than was this study, and the analysis followed a different approach, the instrument for measuring the expectations held for the performance of School Superintendents by those Superintendents and the members of their school boards provided the basic idea for the expectation scales used in this study. A portion of the measuring device used in this study was also taken from Gross. This was his nominal scale of: absolutely must = 5, preferably should = A, may or may not = 3, preferably Should not = 2, and absolutely must not = 1. Before the items used on the expectation scales were developed, extensive discussions were held with University faculty members in the fields of philosophy, educational research, speech, and communications. Several conferences were also held with the Executive Secretary of the Lansing Council of Churches and with 2Neal Gross, ward S. Mason, and Alexander W. McEachern, Exploration in Role Analysis (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 19537. 22 practicing ministers and laymen not otherwise used in this study. These men were asked such questions as: "What kinds of things do ministers speak about from the pulpit?" "What are some of the controversial tOpics or issues that they might speak on?" "What terminology does the minister use for these issues?" "What areas of life are the most important to the minister and the layman?" As a result of these conferences, expectation scales were constructed relating to three major areas of the minister's sermonizing: theological, social, and political. There seemed to be considerable agreement that these were the areas in which some controversy might, and often does, arise between the minister and his lay leader. In addition, the minister's responsi- bility as a pulpit speaker was defined operationally in terms of a series of statements which refer to the kinds of subject matter the minister often finds him- self speaking on from the pulpit. These statements were then rated on a prepared scale by the sample population. In addition, these items were ranked by the subjects according to their judgment of the impor- tance of each item. The purpose of this rating and . ranking was to provide the data that will have numerical equivalents and may be treated statistically to determine any variances and their consequent significance. 23 To allow for a separate analysis of the main areas of subject matter for the minister, the expecta- tion scale was broken down into three parts: theological, social, and political. Each part was composed of eight items related to the major subject area of that portion of the scale. In summary, so that the expectations held by the minister and his lay leader for the responsibility of the minister as a preacher could be ascertained, certain items relating to the minister's function in the pulpit were offered to the sample of ministers and lay leaders for reSponse on a five category form, as follows: Absolutely must Preferably Should May or may not Preferably should not Absolutely must not The items were broken down into three separate parts of a scale, each part containing eight items assigned according to their relationship to theological, social, or political issues. Copies of the Theological, Social, and Political Expectation scales are included at the end of this section. A tentative list of items was developed, and_ this list was discussed with several Michigan State University faculty members, four practicing ministers, one professor of applied theology, and the acting head of the Michigan State University Communications Research 24 Center. The items were categorized according to area, and some were changed to fulfill certain criteria: (1) the items should not be dependent on one another; (2) the items should be related to theological, social, and political topics; (3) the items Should encompass as large a portion of the major subject area as possible; and (A) the items should be stated as clearly and un- ambiguously as possible. 6.8.508 nsonHHon HanuoeSApcoo :0 05330 Hanonhon 0.? opens 20523.30" 0.? 09 oocdamoHHd 0.2 00.0.3 .m .noHaqvoEoan :30 .305 33a 0» anon—0.20% 0.3 no wage." 5.3 .858 05.8» 5098.200 5». 03.8 05 9099895" .N. 52E 23 no afianoa Heeaanamuaeeflofifl 5a: :05 3830.3 0H3: 0.5% 5H: 350800 0.3a on .w Jon—Snug 05 M0 5.3.3098 as no 0:050» 0H...— 5 36395 ponds 05 oodHn .m .08 no 5E... stage as 333...... 05 3900390." 038 2.3 30: nogdwouwaoo 05 30:0 .4 duos—020% 3:. H0 08.393 Hop—00.90am as» 0.... €03,309. 30.500 0.2 23H?" .m .quuaHn you 553.090 0 00 v0: 000 006 you 5.88.09- .0 0.0 now .N .noHMHHou .05 009560 «0 53.33380 05 :0 3.0090 .H 3» page .5 09c wanton: 8;: 313$»:er 38322 23 3 fl 5(IIJI‘ - , , - ui -, .- - ,9 $050.“ wwvanHa mnv-h0u.-..; I - Enigma.“ «SH 3.. H03 #0» in.“ 23 8000.30." w 0:0 00 0v wounds”... 0.3 you $309...” #00: 3. H00.“ :0» 53” 2.3 9502A?" H mchpmH .w 0» H 69G 2.qu 0:» x53 00.3? .3070 .02» 333980 .3»: .30Hop 0000.38:— uwfifip 05 00.30 05 :H 0.00 #02: p0: 3.90:0 #0: has. 35030 Hana 00 0.... £96 .8903.- .0 ogHHun so» :02: 0a oohmou 23. 0 £95.35 H #3382 #9382.” .8 he: Defiant..." Ethane nausea: £3 52: San. 2.... to 5n 23 ~85 38E safi a3 38 zoflfiog £05383. , mm .000H00H00 H0300... 000 50003.0 .00—03000 30HI0H 300000.“ 00 0000 0.3.000 000 003.000... 00 00005.? H0000000 00 0.0000 .0 III. 000.500 000 H0000»: 00 00300000 H003000 0005.00 0... 00000000000 0.53000 000 .N. . 0020000000.... 3300000000 00 0.83000 00 0030m00w000 00300 .0 .0m0HH000 30000000000 000 0005.003 0.0.5 0H 00390 0030.005 0030000 0» 0000033000 .00 0003.00 0.3 00000.00 .m . 000000 0.3 0.“ 00Ha0m00mo0 H0H000 00000518003350 00 0000... 0.3 00 0.0000 .0 .0000: 0000000009 00.30.05 0.00.003 0.3 000 00.300000... 0000000009 0.3 00 0000 00033305 .00 0000000 0000-8000 .n . _ . 63.000 0000030300 0...... 00 900 0308. 2. .08... .86 .200050 00 083.5 2... .3 0.8... .0 .030H 00.6.3 0000000 «0 0005000000 00.00.0000 000 0000 0.3 00 00000 .H 3... 00.0.0 o... 8.0 05.0.8... :2... 000.000.0800.... 0.00.0.0... 2... a. .0 .00 0» 0000.30... 0.3 000 00.00.0005. .0000H 0... H000 00» .000... 0.3 000000000 0 000 00 0... 0000300 0.3 000 0.0000005. 000.- 00. H000 00.» -3. 0.3 000000000 H w0H.+00H .m 0... H .500 0.83. 0.3 00000 0000H0 .onon .03... 3.303.000 00$ .3033 0000500... 0&5...» 0.3 00000 0.5 0H 000 00.00 .000 0.3000 0.00 .500 0.3000 .000... 00 0..— unmao 00.000000 0 00.0033 000 00.33 00. 000m00 00..— 0 0950.3 H 000.38.: 0300000.... .3 00.. 030000000 0.0000300 8.80.... .02. 000... 20... 2... .8 .80 2.. 002.0 :30. 28.0 0...... gum 2035.803 300m 0N .ooumo you condo I350 H33” amzwowd no no €253 5 £8 “.3vo .m 63:352.!“ 33 do 35:2 132%. 8.8%.. 25.. in? $3»... 323 38o 2. no .6289 333R 18." 88.3 A. .ooofluo H5833 you 9:55.“ condo? pond-ma no no toga 5” go xdono .0 £31.59 .933 I309 a 5" £8»th ooaood 26.3.2”: 23 no 53.:— .m .30? one no...» one: on 83.9836 Icoo Hugo obwm nu.- uoavdmohwgo ad: 5 0.33." 203% 10332— uo .33: a as.» 83.2 .4 .393.“ .700." no mango» 3.852.?!“ a? you ononaovcogooh ox: .m 6333.338 36am? :3. dogma a? 5 :02: toga... H3330.“ no 30 £8580 .N .9833 H3332" a and b3 do ion. .H “3 gadg— 23 8h 32.8% 8:: hpanfiaom-B Baotou? 2: 3 pH .06 o» A335... 23 you anatomy—H .33..” ea doom :0» -3” o5 pgooonnon m .38 oo op uoaoflnlof you £3933 goon o." doom ooh load 23. vsooouqop .n was»: 6 3 H g 203” 25 “in." 33.3 .koaon 33.... mfiaoafiao hog .xoaon cocoapgofl own—33 on» 3!? of a.“ no: and... con 3.32... 92. had 332... #23 co 0.... aawuo young .— o>oflnon 90» no.2: o» 353. on» m £36.53. A 32583 banana .3 .3. 5388.5 gags“: .383: £3 52.. £3» :3 8 NB 2.... 38a... 38.8 23H 3 $48.. |_, =.o__._E_.__<. as}: i 3:5. 8 R 28 Pilot Test of Expectation Scale After the items were reworked, they were cast into the three separate parts of the expectation scale and distributed to a pilot sample of experts for valida- tion. The following directions were given to each of the persons validating the instrument: Would you please analyze the attached instru- ment in the terms of the following criteria, plus any of your own? 1. 2. 3. Clarity. Relationship and representativeness of the items to theological, social, and political issues in the minister's sermonizing. Independence of each item from other items in the same set. Please feel free to write your comments on the instruments themselves. The instruments were distributed to the follow- ing people for validation: 1. Dr. Frederick Alexander - Associate Professor of Speech, Michigan State University. Past First Reader for First Christian Science Church, East Lansing. Philip Amato - Doctoral candidate in Speech, Michigan State University. Fred Bailey - Director, Extension Program for Western Michigan University at Saginaw, Lay worker in Presbyterian church. Doctoral candidate in Adult and Continuing Education. Dr. Harold Dillon - Professor and Head, Department of Adult and Continuing Education, Michigan State University. Doctoral Committee member. Experienced in directing theses dealing with role analysis. 29 5. Dr. Kenneth Hance - Professor of Speech and Director of Graduate Studies, Department of Speech, Michigan State University. Doctoral Committee member. Former Chairman of Council of Elders, PeOples Church, East Lansing. Former lay leader in First Methodist Church, Evanston, Illinois. 6. The Reverend John Howell - Executive Secretary, Lansing Council of Churches. Ordained Baptist minister. Former pastor of Baptist Church. 7. Dr. Malcolm MacLean - Professor and Associate Director of Communication Research Center, Michigan State University. 8. The Reverend Norval Pease - Professor of Applied Theology, Seventh Day Adventist Theological Seminary, Andrews University, Berrien Spring, Michigan. Ordained minister, Doctoral candidate in Speech, Michigan State University. 9. The Reverend Howard Weeks - Ordained minister, Seventh Day Adventist Church. Pastor, Seventh Day Adventist Church, East Lansing. Past Director of Public Relations for Seventh Day Adventist Church, washington, D. C. Doctoral candidate in Speech, Michigan State University. 10. The Reverend Daniel Weiss. Ordained minister, Baptist faith. Doctoral candidate in Speech, Michigan State University. All the instruments, with the exception of two, distributed to the above population for validation were returned. The suggestions made were analyzed and, in all cases, discussed with the person making them. The comments were further discussed with the writer's Doctoral Committee Chairman, Dr. Gordon Thomas, who made certain additional recommendations, which were incorporated into the cor- rected instrument. Several changes were made in the expectation scales to coincide as nearly as possible with 30 the suggestions made by the pilot population. The expectation scales were then recast into their final form. 31 Application The final questionnaire and expectation scale instrument were then applied to the sample population of ministers, and the expectation scale instrument was applied to the sample population of lay leaders. The instruments were filled out by the respond- ents during a personal interview. The personal inter- view technique was chosen primarily for the sake of ensuring as nearly as possible participation by all of the ministers and lay leaders selected to take part in the study. This method of securing information was also used because of the exploratory nature of the research instruments. It was felt that if any specific questions might arise during the filling out of the instrument, these could be more easily answered by the interviewer during the interview. Since part of the purpose for conducting this study is to produce valid instruments for future research, the interview method of applying the instruments to the sample seemed more likely to uncover problems in the development of the expectation scales. After the instruments had been applied to the ministers and lay leaders, the data were sorted accord- ing to total group, denominations, and individual congregations; and computations were made. CHAPTER III ANALYSIS BY TOTAL GROUP Questionnaire Items Not Used for Major Analysis The items on the questionniare that were not used for a major statistical analysis are discussed in this section. Item number six on the questionnaire asked, "When you first acquired your present pastorate, did you seek out the lay leader for consultation?" Of the thirty-three ministers in the Sample, sixteen answered "yes" to this question, and seventeen answered "no". Of the seventeen who answered that they had not sought out the lay leader for consulta- tion upon their first acquiring their present pastorate, four modified their "no" answer by saying they had met with either a pastoral relations committee or an official board of the congregation. The second part of question six asks, "What things did you discuss?" The sixteen ministers who' said they had sought out the lay leader indicated that the following topics were discussed. Minister No. 1. Programming, past problems, 32 33 building fund, finances, and mission- ary endeavor. Minister No. 2. Potential of church, future plans. Minister No. 3. Problems within congrega- tion, expectations. Minister No. A. Future program of church, needs of Specific members. Minister No. 5. Policies, responsibilities, relation between pastor and people. Minister No. 6. General problems, role of church in Lansing. Minister No. 7. Church affairs, outreach. Minister No. 8. Problems of the congrega- tion, church officers, missionary program, programming. Minister No. 9. General congregational problems. Minister No. 10. Responsibilities of officers in congregation. Minister No. 11. Organizational structure, attitudes, procedures, personnel. Minister No. 12. General church policies. Minister No. 13. Departments, visitation program, finances. Minister No. 14. Nature of congregation, staff, personnel, relation of church to com- munity. Minister No. 15. Doctrinal, administrative, missionary outreach, community, and practical matters. Minister No. 16. Administration, personalities. The topics of primary discussion between the minister and his lay leader fall into the following broad categories: (1) the potential or future outreach 3h of the church, (2) responsibilities within the con- gregation, and (3) the personnel of the congregation and their problems. Question number seven on the questionnaire asked, "Do you now meet regularly with your lay leader, either socially or officially?" and "What things do you discuss?" Out of the thirty-three ministers used in this study, nineteen noted that they did meet regularly with their lay leader, and fourteen noted that they did not. Those who meet regularly with their lay leader gave the following points of discussion: Minister No. l. Finances, missionary work, programming, Spiritual problems. Minister No. 2. General congregational problems. Minister No. 3. Spiritual life of congrega- tion, future plans. Minister No. 4. Expectations, problems within congregation. Minister No. 5. Programming, services, general satisfaction of parishioners, morals of parishioners. Minister No. 6. Realistic future program of church and needs of specific members. Nfinister No. 7. Church educational program, outreach, new programming, phiIOSOphy of teaching. Minister No. 8. Problems of church, relation- ships within congregation. Minister No. 9. Progress of the church. 35 Minister No. 10. Educational program, build- ing, programming, personnel problems. Minister No. 11. Finances. Minister No. 12. Personal problems of con- gregation, church programming. Minister No. 13. Attitude of personnel, church procedures, Specific problems as they arise. Mfinister No. 1h. Church policy. Minister No. 15. work of youth, outreach of church. Minister No. 16. Current problems, civic co- operation, social program, spiritual advance. Minister No. 17. Preparing monthly meeting for Board. Minister No. 18. Matters relating to mission- ary program. Total outreach of church. Nfinister No. 19. Church administration. The primary tOpics of discussion in the regular social or official meetings between the minister and his lay leader appear to be: (1) problems within the congregation, (2) programming, (3) the outreach of the congregation, and (h) the Spiritual growth of the parishioners. The next question, number eight, asks the minister if he has ever discussed his preaching ministry with his lay leader and which of them brought up the subject. Twenty of the ministers answering the question- naire stated that they had not discussed their preach- ing with their lay leader. Of the thirteen ministers 36 who answered "yes" to the question, six said they brought up the subject, two said their lay leader had broached the topic, and five stated that both they and their lay leader brought up the subject of the minister's preaching. The next item on the questionnaire that was not specifically related to the major analysis was number ten. This question asked for the names of any speech courses the minister had taken, plus any extra~ curricular Speech activities he participated in while attending school. All thirty-three sample ministers had taken at least one course of speech in some form. Twelve of the ministers had taken either a course in public speak- ing or a course in homiletics as their formal training in speech. Eleven of the subjects had taken both a course in public speaking and a course in homiletics. Beyond this, the remainder of the ministers had taken an additional course of one form or another in speech. Six of the ministers had taken a course in oral reading, three had taken group discussion, three had taken a course in debate, six had taken a course, or courses, in drama, and one had taken a course in persuasion. One of the ministers had completed the Dale Carnegie course in effective speaking. In addition to those ministers who had taken speech courses as a supplement to their theological program, two had completed a minor 37 in speech on the undergraduate level, and one held a Master of Arts degree in speech, was working toward his doctorate in this field, and had taught speech at the college level. The extracurricular Speech activities of the ministers used in the study were as follows: Sixteen of the ministers had not participated in any form of extracurricular speech activities. Of the remaining seventeen, twelve subjects had participated in drama, nine had participated in debate, five had taken part in extemporaneous speech, three had taken part in discus- sion, three had experience in radio, and two had partici- pated in extracurricular activities in television. Question number eleven asks the minister what problems in communication does he feel he has, if any. Of the thirty-three ministers taking part in the study, thirteen of them answered that they felt they had no problems in communication. The problems stated by the remaining twenty subjects are listed below. Minister No. 1. Defining terms, catching and holding attention. Nfinister No. 2. How to gain interest. Minister No. 3. Vocal allergies. Minister No. b. Religious language not understood. Minister No. 5. Correct word choice. Nfinister No. 6. How to motivate people. 38 Minister No. 7. How to reach a meeting of minds. Minister No. 8. Tendency to formalize material. Minister No. 9. How to communicate thoughts with words.7 Minister No. 10. How to express thoughts with clarity, insight, and meaning. Minister No. 11. Timing of speech, lack of understanding by peOple. Minister No. 12. How to achieve proper level of understanding. Minister No. 13. Ambiguous expression. Minister No. 14. Fear of not saying the right thing. Minister No. 15. Architectural construction of church auditorium. Minister No. 16. How to speak to a mixture of fundamentalists and liberals in church. Minister No. 17. Lack of understanding by the people. Minister No. 18. How to use flexible language. The divided background of congregation. Minister No. 19. Time limitation, choice of material. Minister No. 20. Confusion of roles. Language, its usage and its understanding by the people, is the most common area in which the ministers see their problems in communication. Thirteen of the subject ministers found language to be a problem for them. 39 Frequency Distribution of Nominal ReSponses to Expectation Scales Each of the sixty-six subjects-~thirty-three ministers and thirty-three lay leaders-—responded to the Expectation Scale instruments. The results of the nominal scale on the instruments, that which extended from the choice by the subject of the cate- gory "absolutely must" to the choice of the category "absolutely must not" are presented in Tables I, II, and III. Table I Shows a tabular representation of the percentage frequency distribution of minister and lay leader responses to the Theological Expectation Scale. Figure I presents the same data in graphic form. A look at both Table I and Figure I shows item number two, which states that it is the minister's responsibility when speaking from the pulpit to act as a spokesman for God and not as a Spokesman for him- self, as having the greatest amount of agreement between the thirty-three ministers and the thirty-three lay leaders. On this item there was almost no disagreement between the ministers and the lay leaders. Item number three on the Theological Expectation Scale showed the greatest amount of disagreement between the ministers and the lay leaders. On item three, forty-two percent of the ministers felt that when speaking from the pulpit, a minister absolutely must relate his sermons specifically m 002 38am 209800.15 u can 302 ha: .3 ha: n 5! «pH—.65 thaguohm u 09 32 02... #33034 n :5 €§3§a€£ n 5 N.mH Won N.mH N.HN H.m o o.m H.o m.m.~ 3N4 o.n H6 m.mm {an N.mH o.m H6 m.om {on N.HN H6 H6 o.m MJN m.Oo H5 H.NH N.HN m.m4 H.NH o o.m o.m N.mH mfib ca 3 as non 3A Miiim can 55 0A 9280mm Enema Mal: Wan N.mH N.mH N.mH H40 0 o.m N.mH in: lion o.m H0 .13 non N.mH o.m o 4.0m 4.0m. NJN o.m o H.NH N.mH v.06 o.m H6 H.NH «Sm. 4.3 o o o.m Mia 5N5 o o.m mSN 0.5m H.NH :5 H0 :09 can on mflmzommmm Eng 0.83.03 unonHHoA 13905550 :0 0:02.30 100092— 02 969.0 98530.33 03 on 0o§Hw0HH0 03 0003 . 503303.800.“ :30 .305 0x06 00. 0.853059 0H: :0 wagon :05 90.3.0." 050» 5.3.898 0:00 5 0.33 05 0009803 . . 02R 23 no 30220 doflpaudoflopafl 5a.. :05 0.8.30.5 3M0: 0.5.3.8 :33 0050300 0.35 on . 00.33200 05 no 833098 :0 no 000580 02 SH 50.0.35 wanna 05. 000.3 . .80 go £93 303:8 08 32:0? 05 00500.30.“ 0.33 05 to: «8303500 05 30:0 . 638.20% 02 no 0530.5 H0523 05 09 530338090 32:00 02 ouwHoa . .3003”: no.“ awn—00x30 0 00 90: 3.0 005 you 5503030 .0 0.0 0.0.0 .SOHmHHou 3.0 02.8.30 H0 hvanfldmao 05. no 010% .N .H 3... page of son.“ gnu—.0030 :25 5335600903 0:39:53 0.3 0H 3” EH 'H“ Iv‘ I! gm 2055.5 H40H§§ g 09 mflmzommumm mag H3 9: Eng «.8 ZOEBEmHn Bag MESS—Hug H38 04 Ll FIGURE I PERCENTAGE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS OF MINISTER AND LAY LEADER RESPONSES TO THE THELOGICAL EXPETATION SCALE (PAGE 1) ITEM NO. 1 100 80 7O 50 #0 30 PERCENTAGE fiflflfiflfl 10 JD! wanna 388§ 60 50 1.0 30 PERCENTAGE 10 flfififififlfiflflfifi ‘m i i > tn 0 U I?! A = Absolutely Must B = Preferably Should C = May or May Not D = Preferably Should Not E = Absolutely Must Not C] Ministers LayLeadere PERCEUTAGE PERCENTAGE #2 FIGURE I PHOENTAGE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIORS OP MINISTER AND LA! LEADER RESPONSES TO THE THELOGICAL EXPECTATION SCALE (PAGE 2) ITEM N0.3 100 80 7O 50 £0 30 20 10 ii] n , fififlfiflfl a fiflflhfiiflfi g» A = Absolutely Must B = Preferably Should C = May or May Not D = Preferably Should Not E = Absolutely Must Not [I Ministers EX] Lay Leaders PERCENTAGE PERCENTAGE PERCHITAGE We! DISTRIBUTIONS OF MINISTER A3 FIGURE I AND LAY LEADER REPONSB TO THE “LOGICAL EXPECTATION SCALE (PAGE 3) 100 80 7O 60 50 £0 30 20 10 100 80 70 50 A0 30 20 10 ITEM NO. 5 u xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx __ Jail A B C D E REPONSE M NO. 6 xx “—1 xx “x? xx xx ‘ xx xx XX xx n El 1! fl lxxl r—nr A B C D E REPONSE A =- Absolutely Must B = Preferably Should C = May or May Not D = Preferably . Should Not E = Absolutely Must Not D Ministers PERCMAGE FREQ'JENCY DISTRIBUTIONS OF MINISTER M FIGURE I AND LAY LEADER RESPONSES TO THE MIMICAL 100 90 7O 5O ho 30 20 10 PERCENTAGE 100 80 7O 50 he 30 20 10 PERCENTAGE RESPONSE EXPECTATION SCALE (PAGE A) 1TH NO. 7 :0: xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx n n E I'm A B C D E RESPONSE Im NO. 8 3:? xx xx x xx x xx xx xx A , B C D E A = Absolutely Must B = Preferably Should C=Hayorllay Not D =- Preferably Should Not E - Absolutely Must Not C] Ministers En] Lay Leaders 45 to the personal problems of his parishioners. Only twelve percent of the lay leaders felt as strongly about this topic. Twenty-one percent of the lay leaders felt that a minister either preferably should not, or absolutely must not, relate his sermons specif- ically to the personal problems of his parishioners. On the other hand, only nine percent of the ministers selected the "preferably should not" or "absolutely must not" category for this item. Other large differences exist in items number one and number eight. On item number one, fifty-seven percent of the ministers felt that the minister pref- erably should speak on the compatibility of science and religion. Twenty-seven percent felt that the minister may or may not speak on this topic. The lay leaders responded in nearly a reverse order. Thirty percent of the lay leaders felt that the minister preferably should speak on the compatibility of science and religion, and forty-eight percent felt that the minister may or may not speak on this topic. On item number eight, thirty-nine percent of the ministers believed that the minister absolutely must not place his allegiance to his parishioners above his personal opinions on controversial religious matters. Eighteen percent of the ministers felt that the minister preferably should not do this. The selections made by the lay leaders showed an almost exact reversal of the L6 selections of the ministers. Fifteen percent felt that a minister absolutely must not place his allegiance to his parishioners above his personal opinions on contro- versial religious matters, and thirty-nine percent felt that the minister preferably should not do this. Table II and Figure II present tabular and graphic analyses of the percentage frequency distribu- tions of minister and lay leader responses to the Social Expectation Scale. The greatest consensus between the ministers and the lay leaders is to be found in item number five. Over one-half of the ministers and lay leaders feel that the minister absolutely must discuss in his sermonizing the failure of parishioners to practice Christian ethics in their business and profes- sional dealings. None of the ministers and only three percent of the lay leaders feel that the minister preferably should not discuss this topic from the pulpit. Several items on the Social Expectation Scale showed considerable differences between the responses of the ministers and the lay leaders. Item number one, dealing with the minister's speaking on the need for more strict enforcement of current liquor laws, shows twenty-four percent of the lay leaders selecting either the "preferably should not" or "absolutely must not" . category for this item. None of the ministers selected either of the negative categories. Somewhat the same type of responses should be noted on item number two, 3% 38am Sansone...— u fig 302 he: no be: l 5! wagon.» gossamer. u on pox. was: know—Hoax: u use €§3§3§4 u 5 H6 N6H m6m n.mm H6 «.mm mfim mom H6 o.m o H.NH H.m m.m..~ m.mm o o.m H6 66m mém o.m H.NH «.mH {an n.0m H6 NHN 464 H.NH N.mH o.m H.NH N.HN m64 N.mH o.m Nina m4“: NHN H.NH umldlnwlnmllml can a on no gag mama Hdwll II fl! 0 H6 «SN m.N¢ N13 m.Hm méw H.m H.¢ o.m o o N.HN 4.3 46m 0 o H.m m.mm 6.5m o.m o.m «.mH m.m4 m.mm H6 «.mH l16m m6m 06. o 0 66m mlum H.o o 0 «AH 45m Hé Mfllfllfllfll and E on as mmmzommmm gag .enoHaeHon Havana and 3935.6 65.393 331:” .3055“ as none Dun-on and smog Ho 3928? H3022— so soon. . .3053 you H3338. no 333550 H9333 angina 5” 332.505 «.393 on: . . «“2833? iota—883 no 3839:» no :oHoemohmaoo 0323 . .ewcHHusv HduoHeoeuonm one 20523 .323 a.“ sedans Segovia 00309:“ on gonoEodea no Pusan on» 33.2. . . non—Eu 2.3 :H cogent»: H33." canons-Locoflnfia no one: 05 no zooms . £33: 0393?.“ 53356 c.9283 23 one 53¢th 35.8959 05 as none 30353an no 93%?» Bel-cosh . oHAfiew eyesngoHHa 93 Mo has .308. on fines» :25 £5ng we gonna. 2.3 no goons 6er nouUHH 95.33 ho £85235 Sabine you use: 23 no :33» .N .H "3 3.35 2: EH II \I“ ‘I IV mg Boudg 300»... ME. 8 amp—g. g H: and Emu—HHS ho IOEBHEMHD Hop—fig..— “Nagy—HE HH an. S g 3.239.. cogs 3.33.3592 c.9335”: 2.3 3" 0H PERCENTAGE PERCENTAGE PERCENTAGE MENU! DISTRIBUTIONS OF MINISTER 100 90 80 7O 6O 50 ho 30 20 10 100 80 70 50 kc 30 20 10 1.8 FIGURE II AND LA! LEADER RESPONSE TO THE SOCIAL EXPECTATION SCALE ITEM NO. 1 (PAGE 1) 331 xx ‘ xx xx‘ xx ‘xx‘ xx xx xx xx J3 xx [I A B C D E REPOHSE ITEI NO. 2 21 xx XX ‘ xx xx ‘ xx xx xx xx xx xx i A B C D E RESPONSE A = Absolutely Must B = Preferably Should C = May or May Not D = Preferably Should Not E = Abeolntely Must Not. Ministers Will Lay Leadere L9 FIGURE II PERCENTAGE FREQUENCY DISTRIEI'H OHS OF MINISTER AND LAY LEADER RESPONSES TO TIE SOCIAL EXPECTATION SCALE (PAGE 2) ITDI no. 3 100 90 so 70 g 60 E 50 XX E 50 n 30 xx XX 20 I! XI 10 lxxl 'xJ—tl xx xx 0 n I! 11 _XX I Ixx A a c n E RESPONSE I'm! no. a 100 9o 80 70 g 60 5 so E w In 30 _-_xx xx 20 n xx xx xx —-—' 10 xx I! xx xx 0 n n n Inn A B c D E RESPONSE A = Absolutely Must B = Preferably Should C = May or May Not D = Preferably Should Not E = Absolutely Must Not C] Ministers E] LeyLeedere III III! I I'll llvlll All" 50 FIGURE II MCMAGE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS OF MINISTER AND LAY LEADER RBPONSE TO THE SOCIAL EXPECTATION SCALE (PAGE 3) PERCENTAGE PERCENTAGE ITEM NO. 5 100 90 80 70 6O 50 xx xx A0 xx . 30 xx xx xx xx 20 xx xx 10 xx xx 0 xx xx r—I'm run A B c D RESPONSE A -= Absolutely Must 1TH! N0. 6 B - Preferably 100 Should 90 C 8 May or Kay 80 lot 70 D .. Preferably 60 Should Not 50 E Ab l tely .__. =- so u ho 2 Must Not 30 xx xx 20 xx xx 10 xx xx xx A B c D Mini t RESPONSE I ' °" 4— MIL! Lay Leaders 51 FIGURE II PERCENTAGE WC! DISTRIBUTIONS OP MINISTER AND LAY LEADER RESPONSES TO THE SOCIAL EXPECTATION SCALE (PAGE A) IT!!! NO. '7 100 80 7O 6O 50 ho 30 20 10 o r“ A B C RESPONSE 1m: NO. 8 PERCENTAGE yuan ”yuan “nanny 100 90 8O 70 6O 50 Lo 30 20 10 PERCENTAGE yuan “unann RBPONSE A = Absolutely Must B = Preferably Should C - May or May Not D =- Preferably Should Not E = Absolutely Must Not E] Ministers IE?! Lay Leaders 52 which states that it is the minister's responsibility when speaking from the pulpit to speak on the subject of gambling, even though he knows many of his parish- ioners gamble. In both items one and two, a larger percentage of lay leaders than ministers made the choice of "absolutely must". On item number three, the greatest difference between the selections of the ministers and lay leaders was in the "absolutely must", "preferably should", and "may or may not" categories. More lay leaders than ministers selected the "absolutely must" category, more ministers than lay leaders selected the "preferably should" category, and more lay leaders than ministers selected the "may or may not" category. On item number four, dealing with the issue of parish- ioner imposed racial segregation in the church, the primary difference between the ministers and lay leaders is in the "preferably should not" category. The same is true of item number six, which states that it is the minister's responsiblity when speaking from the pulpit to advise the congregation on problems of parent-child relationships. Item number seven's primary difference is in a change between the "may or may not" and the "absolutely must not" categories. Only nine percent of the ministers feel this item may or may not be discussed, while fifty-one percent of the ministers feel that private counseling problems absolutely must not be discussed from the pulpit. 53 Thirty percent of the lay leaders made the choice of may or may not for the use by the minister of problems encountered in private pastoral counsel- ing as material for sermons, and thirty-three percent of the lay leaders placed this item under the'absolutely must not" category. Nearly sixty-seven percent of the ministers feel the minister absolutely must or pref- erably should speak on personal elements of marriage and family, as noted in item number eight. Thirty- nine percent of the lay leaders chose a positive category for this item. Table III and Figure III show the analysis of the choices made by the subject ministers and lay leaders on the Political Expectation Scale. Item number three, which states that "It is the minister's responsibility when speaking from the pulpit to make recommendations for his parishioners' voting on local issues", received the greatest con- sensus between the ministers and the lay leaders. Item number seven, which concerns the discussion by the minister of local political problems, also shows a high consensus between the ministers and the lay leaders. The remainder of the items express considerable dif- ferences in the choices made by the two subject groups. Forty-five percent of the ministers selected the category of "may" or "may not" on the first item. Twenty-four percent of the lay leaders selected this Sea 385 hfinoufim a 8a 302 ho: ho he: a a «3.55 hapoueueum u on no: 3:: 33.3%.: u :5 muoaxvhaopsaoondhloio m.m4 m.mm «.ma o.m o H.@ o.m «.mH 4.m4 m.om 4.m.~ mfim MSN 0 0 HA,» N.m.n «Won «.mm ~.mH 0 41m «.mH 4&4 m.0m ~.m.n 46m m.nm a5 0 o ~.ma m.om m.mm N.mH NAN m.N4 N13 H.© o.m flluwlflllmmmm. dong @283 5% Hal «:3 4.0m n.0n do o.n o o.m Luna oznm m.mm N.H~ m.m4 n.0m o o.m 0 H4. lion m.nn ~18 o.m H.N.n mSN ¢.~4 N.mH «.3 «.3 non do 0 0 dm N33. 0.8 Mb H.@ 4.3 m.m.~ o.n o Imlflllvxldhunwl and a €25 EmHzUm .ooaho how. 0003 3.3130 H.003” void .3 Ho tog—an 5 9.5 3.00% .m 65533.39 93 no 355.35" 33.5% 3.833 .5: .5»? £8ng .383 can: on .3" aid—ohm 10.3.32“ doooa 393.3 .N. .oooCmo H3033 hou mafia—BA gauge seams no no apogee a.“ .30 Jenna .o index—fine H33 1109 e 5 #8939 wean.“ 255:: 23 :0 50.3.3 .m 53$ odo :23 one! o» $3.983» 0:3 Hugo 03% and ooaaemonmaoo ad. ad evade.” «coda—”no H3332“ Ho 9:35".- o non..— eaneon .4 .333” Heooa no M593 .2033»: a? you Sassoon-Boon 31: .m .35an? eaoflufineu :3. 3.36% 32 fi 52: .833 333K 8 33 as!» .m 6.33:. H8335 a an... be no x89. A 3... panda as 5c monsoon fie. span—“3832 3.3.2? 23 3 pH 39H .3 zoEfiug 3.358 a: 2. Egg g E: 92 ESE: .6 Sagas 8585: m9; HHH an. .3 ‘ l. llluull PERCENTAGE PERCENTAGE PERCENTIGE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS OF MINISTER 100 388 60 50 L0 30 20 10 100 90 80 7O 60 50 no 30 20 10 55 FIGURE III AND LAY LEADER RESPONSES TO THE POLITICAL EXPECIATION SCALE (PEGE 1) ITEHCNO. 1 “any 3U! ”unnnna “yuan RESPONSE A ==Kbaolntdly Mutt B‘B Preferably Should 0 ==le or”lay Not D = Preferably Should Nat E = Absolutely Must Not [I Ministers E' Lay Loaders PERCENTAGE 56 FIGURE III PERCENTAGE FREQUENCY DISTRIHITIONS OF MINISTER AND LAY LEADER RESPONSES TO TEE POLITICAL EXPETATION SCALE (PAGE 2) 100 388 60 50 AG 30 2O 10 ITEM NO. 3 xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx A B c D E RESPONSE A - Abeolut ely Must IT]!!! "0‘ l‘ B '3 Preferably Should ~ 0 = May or May Not D - Preferably Should Not E - Abeolute]: 10: Must Not. xx “xx XX xx xx .._..J 10': xx xx xx 10: A B C D E REPONSE [:3 ”“1"” 57 FIGURE III momma: Fame! DISTRIBUTIONS or mus-rm PERCENTAGE PERCMAGE AND LAY LEADER REPONSES TO THE POLITICAL EXPECTATION SCALE (PAGE 3) HR! NO. 5 100 90 80 7O 6O 50 kc 30 ""5 xx xx 20 ,_, xx xx 10 xx xx n fl 0 xx xx xx xx - 35 A B c D E mp0“: -. A = Absolutely Hunt 1m NO. 6 B =- Preferably 100 Should 90 C = May or May 80 Not 70 D = Preferably 60 Should Not 50 E = Absolutely Lo 3 Hunt N01? 30 xx 20 xx xx xx 10 xx xx xx 0 -—:I xx xx xx E A B c D E[ Ministere RESPONSE E Lay Leaders PERCENTAGE PERCENTAGE 58 FIGURE III PERCENTAGE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS OF MINISTER AND LAY LEADER RESPONSES TO THE POLITICAL 100 90 7O 60 50 Lo 30 20 10 100 80 7O 50 Lo 30 20 10 EXPECTATION SCALE ( PAGE 1.) ITEM NO. 7 xx xx xx xx xx n g E, ‘I—rn I d1 A B C D E REME A = Absolutely Must 1TB! NO. 8 B = Preferably J Should C - Hay or May Not D = Preferably Should Not 3' E = Absolutely _ xx Must Not. xx xx xx — xx xx xx . xx xx xx A B C D E RESPONSE |'_'_'_| Ministers Lay Leaders 59 category for item number one. Twenty-one percent of the lay leaders and nine percent of the ministers felt that the minister absolutely must not speak on any and all political matters. The main difference on item number two, deal- ing with religiously significant political matters, is a change between the positive categories of "absolutely must" and "preferably should". A greater percentage of ministers selected the negative categories of "preferably should not" and "absolutely must not" than did lay leaders on item number four, which considers the presence of a mixture of religious opinions. On the other hand, thirty per- cent of the lay leaders selected the "absolutely must" category, whereas fifteen percent of the ministers made this same choice on item number four. On item number five on preaching on religious issues in a political campaign, twenty-one percent of the lay leaders made selections from the two negative categories while only nine percent of the ministers chose the category of "preferably should not". The major dif- ference between the subjects on item number six on speaking out in support of or against candidates for national offices was a change within the two negative categories of "preferably should not" and "absolutely must not". The areas of greatest difference on item number eight concerning speaking out in support of or 60 against local candidates are to be found in twice the number of lay leaders selecting the "absolutely must not" category as ministers making this same choice. The difference is made up largely in the "may or may not" category. 61 Measure of Central Tendency of Nominal Responses to Expectation Scales The responses of the subject ministers and lay leaders on the nominal scale to the items on the three expectation instruments were tabulated, and two measures of central tendency were calculated for each item: one for the ministers and one for the lay leaders. The categories of the nominal scale were previ- ously assigned a numerical equivalent as follows: absolutely must = 5, preferably should = A, may or may not = 3, preferably should not = 2, and absolutely must not = 1. By employing these numerical equivalents, if the mean of reSponses by the ministers or the lay leaders fell within a certain range, they were said to have chosen one of the following categories: (1) a minister should speak on this, (2) it does not matter whether or not a minister speaks on this, or (3) the minister should not speak on this. The range for this choice is as follows: 3.50 to 5.00 = the minister should speak on this, 2.50 to 3.49 = does not matter whether or not the minister speaks on this, and 1.00 to 2.h0 = minister should not speak on this. Table IV is a representation of the means for minister and lay leader responses to the Theological ‘ Expectation Scale instrument. Table V represents the same information for the Social Expectation Scale, and Table VI, for the Political Expectation Scale. 62 An analysis of the data represented in Table IV shows the major differences to be in items number one, three, and eight. 0n item number one the mean of the minister's responses falls within the category of the "minister should speak on this". The mean of the lay leaders shows them selecting the "does not matter" category. The same is true with item number three, which is concerned with relating sermons Specifically to the personal problems of the parishioners. 0n the first five items of the Theological Expectation Scale, the mean of the minister selections is higher than is the mean of the lay leaders choices, -indicating that it is closer to the "should speak" category. 0n the last three items, the Opposite is true. The greatest consensus between the mean of the minister selections and the mean of the lay leader selections is to be found on item number two, that it is the minister's responsibility when speaking from the pulpit to act as a Spokesman for God and not as a spokesman for himself. Table V is a representation of the mean distri- bution of minister and lay leader reSponseS to the Social Expectation Scale. Two of the items on this instrument show category differences; item number one and item number eight. The mean of the minister choices on item number one places this item in the "should speak on this" category. The lay leader choices place it in an.» no “8% Q 38% 033:... a SS o... 84 ads. 8 £80» .832? no: .8 Sets. .833 g 88 u SA on RS «E» 8 :89 38...» Stan u 8.“ on cum x .3 2mm mm...“ .0003:— 03§fluoh 30005380 do 0:03.30 1000009 33 0>on0 0.85.2089 0.3 on 00:39.30 02 000.3 .m 5:: $3 2.4 .Sfiatpfiopfi ES .323 0x03 3 Bouncing 02 :0 g0 53» .8500 0.50..— 500950000 5 0.33 0.3 00.30005 .5 3a: $.m 3a 3.2a 23 no «52.5 infinaudoflofi? .3: 53» 05393 case: £80.30 5“: 00500000 0.3! 00 . o flux $6 2am .oofififlo. 2:. mo 532098 as no 30300 0.3 5" 383.93 ponds 05 000.3 .m flux S3 33 .8... go SE» 3.38» use 33»? 05 099000.30." 0.3.8 0.3 20: 5.330900 0:..— sonu .4 .5 .- mné moi 6.35.90.22— 03 Ho 2830.3 300009 0.3 3 €330? 0:0!»00 0.3 0.330.» .m 5:: $3 05.; dis-.3 you 30x30 0 00 con 00.0 vow you adios—ago .0 00 900 .N d a and 2.6 .8938 in .233 so ranges as no x89 .H llfiull. [dull 3» page 23 «#33 5 attach: 8h 333% is: 333.8%: 38:3? 23 3 an #02 hoaaux 332mm Sufism 902 000: I\ a . EH gm nondhs. SHSHOBF ME. 09 gamma 5 H: a: .EmHZHl no Bop—figmfi— a PH an. no 00.... .8 0.8... Mum. 3.8... 880.00 a 3.0 3 8. .03 .8 3.8.8 .8800: 8.. .8 .852... .833 a 28.. n 3.0 c... on. m .0... .8 0.80. 008... 80.000 a 8.0 8. o 3|: 3|: .5 002 00 30‘ 0.30.00. 0.30.5. .002 0009 .HHIZ 3|: 3!: Quit 2 _ min QWN 00.4 N4... mm.m mo.m 49m 91m «QM main 3... 3... no.4 NH...” Sum 36 Jflqllludmfll. 0.8.03.0 8.. _ 600000.70 H0300.- 000 600030 35.3000 30.0.0... 300000..“ 00 0000 33.000 000 00000000 00 0000'? 4.0000000 00 0.0000 . 600-000 000 H0000»!— 00 00.04.000.000 00000000 0003.00 0.“ 00000000000 0.5.3000 000 . . 000000000300 300(000000 00 0.3.3000 00 00300000000 000000 . 60508.. 00.8.0 4.098 .0. 8.5.3.. .82... 5 80.8 8080...... 00.30000 0... 00000300000 00 000.300 00.0 0000000 . 000000 0.3. 0.“ 00.30000»: 3000 00000500003300.” 00 0000.0 0.5 00 3.0000 . .0000: 00000039 00.300000 0.00.003 00.0 000 003000000 0000000.." 0.3 00 0000 000300.300.“ 00 00009.0 00055000 . 6.3000 00000300000 03 00 900 0:00: 00 00.600 0000 60.03.00» 00 000300 00.0 00 80000 .030." 0000...." 0000000 no 0000-0000000 0000.00.00 000 0000 00.0 00 #0000 EH .N .0 .3 0800 g... .8880. .800 000.8... 8.... 003000.800... 3.8.8.30 2... a.” 00 . 30» 293.0% Soon BE. 09 9mg 3% H5 and Eng ho ZOEEHG a > 39 65 the "does not matter" category. On item number eight, the minister choices are in the "should Speak on this" category, and the lay leader selections are in the "does not matter" category. Item number three shows the greatest consensus between the selection made by the ministers and the lay leaders. On all of the items, with the exception of number seven, the mean of the minister selections shows them to be more inclined toward believing that they should speak on these tOpics than do the lay leaders. Table VI shows the mean distribution of the subject reSponses on the Political Expectation Scale. Items two and five show the greatest differences, and item number three expresses exact consensus of the mean of the choices made by the ministers and the lay leaders. With the exception of item three, where identical means exist, and item number four, where the lay leader choices are more positive toward the minister speaking on the subject area, the mean of the choices made by the ministers is higher than that of the lay leaders, show- ing them to be stronger than the lay leaders in their belief that it is their responsibility to speak on certain topics. .2... no 38% mica 38... Fulani“... 3. N 3 8. a 323 no 3.3% you??? van .8 5230:: .333 Milo: noovl me. n on On. N .2... 8 38% 38.... 59.33.. 8. m 3 on. m quit Aglx AAJx an x AA]! Hal: an x AAA: no: 903d: 330nm 350nm uoz noon ms..." bN.N .86 3.4 mm...” min on.m $.m hofi mmé mm.~ nm.~ a5 .36 on. N g. N a go» non—”.33 Aden—950m an. . 2. .0330 you 336 ago Have." panama no no “Iona—g 5” £5 «30% 6.83.303 ad. :0 cocoa-.35” 3939 0226..» 26: as»? .5on0: .323 5.8 2. 3 3.32.. 1.338 H33 .323 33.3.8 H5833 you NEH—5h 39¢on condoms no no €0.33 5.. .50 zoom. .5830 .785 1.30m o 5" 983.3 2:53.. 26.53”: 2.3 no A393 .30....» 23 no...» 0.3.- 0» 53.9833 130 H360 gum and doaaumouwnoo EH 5" 033: 835% 1.33... no .33.. u as.» 3.38.. Joann.“ #30.” :0 3.353933 92 now Soaps—Boga?” Sin Josefina»? 35.330." 055 5230 0.2 a.“ no.2: 9333 33.32“ no .35 anal!» .3033 333$ find and D3 no 3.3% .m .5 .0 .m .4 .m .N .H .o» 3&8 2.... 2.33 .3.— .fitgx 8h nation. 55. 33.338»... . 8.33.. as... 3 fl 29H ”.3ng 5% H: g Emu—“E ho ZOHHBHEHQ a .03 no “.89. mg. 38% Hung... u $.u 3 84 3:3 no 310% yoga 90.» no .85an .8303 no: 0000 n 36 3 Om.N 0.33 =0 302—0 0.3020 hound—anal oo.m 3. Om.m film 3...: Six AA 3 Hull 4.73 HA I Quit no: 030a: 38% .300me p02 0009 Q..." N.“ .0330 you 00000 1.3000 H.003 as; no no «8&2. 5 0.00 #0000 .m .86 3.4 0.8002030 0.2 no 0000353.. 3039.. 00926.0 obs: “Ema... woodman has... 380 on a.“ .8320 3338 .033 33.3 .N. am...” 34.. 600.38 7:030: you mag 00333.00 923.09. n0 .«0 $3.53 a..." .30 x12? .0 3a $.m .8205. 1.3 Ifinon a a.“ 053nm 00:00.... 050E300 on» no A0095 .m 38 mud .33..» 0:0 :03 0.3—- 3 0030.83"- ..000 H.360 03% 05 003500300 0.3 5. 0380." 3.38 333.0 no 239. u 033 333.. .4 mm.N nmd .0oauud H.000.” :0 mafia? 300003043..— 03 .3.“ «coaudvgogoou 815 . m «NA 3.m Josefina? 36530.“ ohms 90.330 .2 5 €23 Eugene H8338 no 38 ago-Bo .m on. a 3. N .9832. 33.300 a .05. .30 no 83% .H ._ N5“ N: V _ .3 0320 2.... 0003 3 0.30.03: g @5233 5:: 5033000000.“ 0 .3035...- 23 a.“ an a . EH . . gum nob—Hg 50:52 ”are. @289 g H: and Eng .3 30HHBHEHQ a H> as. 00 67 Ranking by Ministers and Lay Leaders of Expectation Scale Items According to Perceived Importance for the Minister in Topic Selection The ministers and lay leaders were asked to rank the items on the three Expectation Scales accord- ing to the importance they perceived each item had for the minister to speak on. They were asked to rank these items from one to eight, letting (1) represent the item they believed was most important for the minister to speak on and (8) represent the item they believed was least important for the minister to speak on. Figures IV and V present graphic illustra- tions of the data from these selections showing the number of ministers and lay leaders choosing the individual items as first in importance for the minister to speak on and least in importance for the minister to speak on. Figure IV shows the choices by the ministers and lay leaders of the items they believed to be most important for the minister to speak on. On the Theological Expectation Scale item number two, which states that it is the minister's responsibility when speaking from the pulpit to act as a spokesman for God and not as a Spokesman for himself, twenty of the thirty-three ministers and sixteen of the lay leaders chose this item as the most important for the minister. Item number one, which states that it is 9833 hag E c.8935: D EH m b o m < m N H A ‘ ufln _ HR Fl MK KN NH 0 TN T” W“ fin NH m «mm: 5" xx xx 0 MN m u xx NH m": 3 m." am an 5 on AdoHuQHmeh ad mud“: HEP— EF :9: game. d m4 pHAHmHmIOAE mHz Egg 2H on On. Emu—EH: HE. me @32ng 2H Ham m< gum onadaoE :0 EH gHmoomo 39% H: a»: gag ho “was: >H Hanan—E we saopmq £91 pus 9.1019131“: 30 .19qu ates.“ b: a anaemia: D EH WC 5 E In .1 n N 1.4 mill. ham 5:10 3 3 o o n 0 “sum :0 Jam mnpnuunnuud A— 300m AN mad“: BEE a? town gm < w< HBHHHmHmzomE mg g 2H 8 OH. Eng an. we 859mg 2H HEHA m< gum 203.49an no EH “EH—”moose manna H: a: gang ho E352 PH flame: me amass 5: mm— nuopudcfix D 5 EH m o m a n N H W fin E don fin fin an". Fl Flo o i l W a a i 2 ti. Nun O o 70 NH an a M NH NHS KN u... xx 3m MN on SW ixlx. .8 am Sm on» 8 Soon AN Host BEA—E BE. tomh gm < m< HthHHmHmzommmm mggfig gémggmohflofihmgfifihghm< gum ZOHBSHUE no EH Ems—.8 Ea H: a: gang .5 Ema—Dz DH BEBE mo 936qu b3 E 833:9 D EH m K. o m 4 m N H 0 SR you xx 5n n 5L an an KN 5n 0 KN Run [II ¢ ixml. an «a 3.. 3 Hm 4N 5N on AdoHsHHom Am H053 ESE BF :9: ”Exam. < m< pamHmzommmm mH= 23% 2H 8 OH. Eng BE. mom ”059% 2H Ham—Hm m4 madam ICES—bang :0 EH oszoozo 959% H: 9: Eng ho fies: >H 359E or 9.10m £91 put Baum :0 Jam 71 the minister's responsibility when speaking from the pulpit to speak on the compatibility of science and religion, and item number eight, which states that it is the minister's responsibility when speaking from the pulpit to place his allegiance to his parishioners above his personal opinions on controversial religious matters, received no selections by the ministers or lay leaders as the most important items for the minister to speak on. Item number five on the Social Expectation Scale received the most selections by both the ministers and the lay leaders as being the most important item for the minister in his topic selection. This item states that it is the minister's responsibility when speaking from the pulpit to discuss the failure of parishioners to practice Christian ethics in their business and professional dealings. Seventeen of the ministers and twenty-two of the lay leaders selected this item as most important. There was more diversification in the selec- tions made on the Political Expectation Scale. Item seven, however, received the majority of choices by the ministers and lay leaders. This item states that. it is the responsibility of the minister when speak- ing from the pulpit to discuss local political prob- lems if he feels their neglect might have adverse spiritual influence on his parishioners. Twelve of 72 the ministers and twelve of the lay leaders selected this item as the most important for the minister to speak on. Figure V is a graphic representation of the items selected by the ministers and lay leaders as least important for the minister to speak on. On the Theological Expectation Scale item number eight was most often chosen by both the ministers and the lay leaders as the least important for the minister in his topic selection. This item states that it is the minister's responsibility when speaking from the pulpit to place his allegiance to his parishioners above his personal opinions on controversial religious matters. Nineteen ministers and fifteen lay leaders selected this item as least important for the minister in his topic selection. 0n the Social Expectation Scale item number seven was selected as least important by twenty of the ministers and by thirteen of the lay leaders. This item states that it is the minister's responsibility when speaking from the pulpit to use problems encountered in private pastoral counseling as material for sermons. There was more diversity of selection on they Political Expectation Scale. Item number one received the most choices by the ministers as being least impor- tant for the minister in his topic selection. This item was selected by eleven ministers. It states that it is unwound 5.3 E who pawn“: D 59H m N. o m 4 m N .H 0 MK MN noon Nun IL :02 l NH. E . MN ”an .I. Son 0 Xx .Il. “on a Son 5" NH NH 3 ma 4N pm on A 55lo Q. 3.1911901 £91 pus “sacrum Jo .toqumn 3.33.»qu 33:3 D EH m x o m 4 m N a om NHL MN NH xx xx E HILL xx E x m m. MK MN . MN me xx 0 xx om NH mm Nam. «Ha 3m am am am emu 3 .308 Am mcfimv 9% an. 5mm gm 4 m4 HBHHHmHmzoma mun: 33% 3H 8 0H. gmHzH: an. mom mozsamonnfi 2H Eben—H m< gum BOHHSHOE 2o EH 308:0 mama—a H3 :24 Eng ho mung: > $5lo .2. 93qu E @ 30:3: D co 1‘ N fifififififi nauu 5.. E hum E unnnmfi An mafia mHz gag 2H 8 OH. EmHzHl ME. mom 834.553 RH ENE m4 €33.58 SHARE BF 20mm aam < m4 HBHHHMHmzommmu .m m... cm. am Nam 1. man gum 2033.855 30 EH gmooma Ema H: a: gang mo g > H50: Q. 76 the minister's reSponsibility when speaking from the pulpit to speak on any and all political matters. Item eight received the most selections by the lay leaders as being the least important item for the minister in his tOpic selection. This item concerns itself with the minister's speaking out in support of or against local candidates for office. Fourteen lay leaders selected this item as least important for the minister in his topic selection. 77 Summary of Analysis by Total Group When the thirty-three ministers used in this study first acquired their present pastorates, sixteen of them sought out their lay leader for consultation; and seventeen of them did not seek out their lay leader for consultation. Those who did seek out the lay leader discussed such topics as: the potential or future outreach of the church, responsibilities with- in the congregation, and problems of the congregational personnel. »Nineteen of the ministers used in this study now meet regularly, either socially or officially, with their lay leader. For the most part, these men discuss problems within the congregation, programming, the out- reach of the congregation, and the spiritual growth of the parishioners. Only thirteen of the thirty-three ministers had discussed their preaching with their lay leader. Of these thirteen, six reported they had brought up the subject, two reported their lay leader had brought up the subject, and five reported that both they and their lay leader had brought up the subject of the minister's preaching. All of the ministers used in this study had taken at least one course in Speech or homiletics. Over one-half of the ministers had taken more than one course in speech. One of the ministers possessed a Master of 78 Arts degree in Speech, and two of the ministers had an undergraduate minor in Speech. Seventeen of the ministers had participated in extracurricular speech activities of one kind or another. Twelve of them had participated in drama, nine in debate, five in extemporaneous Speech, three in discussion, three in radio, and two in extracurricular activities in television. Twenty of the ministers listed problems in com— munication which they felt they had. The other thirteen ministers felt they had no specific communication prob- lems. The twenty who named problems suggested ones as varied as the architectural structure of the church auditorium, vocal allergies, the confusion of roles, and religious language not understood. The problem area most often noted by the twenty ministers was language, its usage and its understanding by the people. Thirteen of the ministers found language to be a prob- lem for them. On each of the three Expectation Scales a nominal scale and an ordinal scale was used. The nominal scale was broken down into five categories rang- ing from the minister "absolutely must" to the minister "absolutely must not" speak on this. On the Theological Expectation Scale, item number two showed the most consensus between the ministers and lay leaders in their selection on the nominal scale 79 categories. Item number two was, "It is the minister's responsibility when Speaking from the pulpit to act as a spokesman for God and not as a Spokesman for himself." With the exception of one lay leader, all responses to this item ranged from the neutral category to the positive categories of “preferably Should" or "absolutely must". On the same instrument, item number three had the most diversity between the ministers and lay leaders. This item is, "It is the minister's responsi- bility when Speaking from the pulpit to relate his sermons specifically to the personal problems of his parishioners." An analysis of the Social Expectation Scale shows the greatest consensus between the ministers and lay leaders on item number five concerning the failure of parishioners to practice Christian ethics in their business and professional dealings. The greatest disparity is found on item number seven, in which the question arises concerning the minister's using material in his sermons that he gathered during private counseling. Over one-half of the lay leaders felt that the minister absolutely must not use this material in his sermons. The findings from the Political Expectation Scale show the greatest consensus between the ministers and lay leaders on item number three, which states, "It 80 is the minister's responsibility when Speaking from the pulpit to make recommendations for his parish- ioners' voting on local issues." Item number eight, dealing with the minister's Speaking out in support of or against local candidates for office, showed the greatest difference in selection by the ministers and lay leaders. The measure of central tendency of selections on the nominal scale shows that on the Theological Expectation Scale the major differences between the ministers and the lay leaders are on items one, three, and eight. These deal with science and religion, personal problems of the parishioners, and the al- legiance of the minister to the parishioners versus his personal opinions on controversial religious matters. On the Social Expectation Scale, items one and eight have the greatest differences between the mean of the selection of the ministers and the mean of the selection of the lay leaders. These items deal respectively with the need for stricter enforcement of current liquor laws, and personal elements of marriage and the family. Items two and five on the Political Expectation Scale Show the greatest divergence between the mean of the minister responses and the mean of the lay leader responses. Item two Showed the greatest difference in 81 the mean of the responses. This item is, "It is the minister's responsibility when speaking from the pulpit to comment only on political matters which in his opinion have religious significance." Item five is, "It is the minister's responsibility when Speak- ing from the pulpit to preach on the religious issues present in a political campaign." Out of the twenty-four items on the three expectation scales, eighteen of these items received a higher nominal response from the ministers. This higher nominal reSponse by the subject ministers sug- gests that the ministers are more prone to feel that a minister should speak on items, which in many instances, and between some ministers and lay leaders, are controversial. This conclusion is what might be expected: that a minister, or ministers, would feel more strongly about the minister's Speaking on contro- versial matters than would a lay leader, or lay leaders. On the ordinal scale, or ranking of the items on the expectation scales, the items receiving the greatest number of selections by the ministers and the lay leaders as most important for the minister to speak on were item number two on the Theological Scale, item number five on the Social Scale, and item number seven on the Political Scale. As least important, the sub- jects used in this study picked item number eight on the Theological Scale, and item number seven on the 82 Social Scale. The Political Scale was divided, with the greatest number of selections by the ministers on item eight and the greatest number of selections by the lay leaders on item number one. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS BY DENOMINATION Introduction Chapter III of this study presented an analysis of the collected data based on the responses of the total population of ministers measured against the responses of the total population of lay leaders. For the purposes of this chapter, which entails an analysis of the data by denominational grouping of ministers and lay leaders, only the ordinal or ranking scale of responses will be utilized. The primary purpose of this chapter is to analyze the responses made on the ordinal scale of the expectation instruments by the three ministers of each denomination. The responses of the ministers are then measured against the responses of the lay leaders to ascertain any statistically Sig- nificant differences that exist in the choices made. In order to determine significance it was decided to develOp hypotheses based on the most pertinent questions contained in Chapter II. For the purpose of statisti- cally measuring the data gathered with the question- naire and Expectation Scales the hypotheses in this chapter and in Chapter V were cast in the null. This 83 81+ method allows for a more readily observed rejection or affirmation of the hypotheses. Since this chapter is concerned with an analysis of the collected data according to denomination, the hypotheses used herein are related to this phase. In Chapter IV and in Chapter V the term "significant" refers to the measurable statistical Significance assigned to certain statistical devices or methodologies utilized herein. The three hypotheses to be tested in this chapter are as follows: 1. There is no Significant relationship among the ministers of a given denomination in the choices they make: a. on the Theological Expectation Scale. b. on the Social Expectation Scale. c. on the Political Expectation Scale. 2. There is no significant relationship among the lay leaders of a given denomination in the choices they make: a. on the Theological Expectation Scale. b. on the Social Expectation Scale. c. on the Political Expectation Scale. 3. There is no Significant relationship between the degree of consensus of ministers by denominational grouping and the degree of consensus of lay leaders by denominational grouping: a. on the Theological Expectation Scale. b. on the Social Expectation Scale. c. on the Political Expectation Scale. This chapter will be constructed on the basis of answering in order each of the above hypotheses. The statistical device used to examine the data and determine whether hypotheses one and two are to be 85 rejected or accepted is the Kendall Coefficient of Concordance: (W) the purpose of which is to measure the relationship among sets of rankings. Hypothesis number one states that there is no Significant relationship among the ministers of a given denomination in the choices they make on the Theological Expectation Scale, on the Social Expecta- tion Scale, and on the Political Expectation Scale. Table number VII presents the results of the Kendall Coefficient of Concordance: (W) test applied to the data by denominational grouping of ministers and lay leaders. 86 Ministers versus Ministers Table VII provides the following information in answer to hypothesis number one: The ministers of the Southern Baptist congregations Show a statistically Significant relationship in the choices they made on the ordinal scale of the Theological Expectation instru- ment. Hypothesis number 1. a., which states that there is no significant relationship among the ministers of a given denomination in the choices they make on the Theological Expectation Scale, is therefore rejected at the .01 level of significance. The ministers of this denomination do make choices which are quite Similar. The ministers of the Christian Church denom- ination and those of the Evangelical United Brethren denomination likewise Show sufficient consensus in their selections on the Theological Expectation Scale to reject this hypothesis at the .01 level. The Church of God, Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and the Presbyterian congregations all show sufficient consensus among their ministers to reject hypothesis 1. a., at the .05 level of significance. The remainder of the denominations used in the study did not Show sufficient consensus to reject hypothesis 1. a. 7 It can be noted from the above analysis that Six out of the eleven denominations used in this study showed sufficient consensus among their ministers on the TABLE‘VII 87 TABLE OF REULTS 0F KENDALL COEFFICIENT OF CONCORDANCE: (W) WITH DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CONSENSUS OF MINISTERS BY DENOMINATIONAL GROUPING AND LA! LEADERS BY DENOMINATIONAL GROUPING ON THE THEOLOGICAL EXPECTATION SCALE (PhGE 1) MINISTERS LA! LEADERS Level of Level of Significance Significance Denmination m Re cit”. H o E Red eigrgg H 0 Southern Baptist .80 .01 .65 .05 Christian Church .7h .01 .LO NS Church of God .60 .05 .27 NS united Church of Christ .56 NS .51 NS Protestant Episcopal Church .51 NS .50 NS Evangelical Suited Brethren .86 .01 .A6 NS Reorganized Latter Day Saints .64 .05 .hl NS Methodist Church .53 NS .7h .01 Church of the Nazarene .52 NS .20 NS Non-Denominational .57 NS .51 NS United Predhyterian .66 .05 .64 .05 NS ==Not Statistically Significant 88 TABLE VII TABLE OF RESULTS OF KENDALL COEFFICIMT OF CONCORDANCE: (W) WITH DIFFERDICEB BETWEEN CONSENSUS OF HMSTERS BI DENOMINATIONAL GROUPING AND LAY LEADEIS BY DENOMINATION GROUPING ON THE SOCIAL EXPECTATION SCALE ‘ (PAGE 2) MINISTERS LAY LEADERS Level of Level of Significance Significance for for Denmination m Rejecting Ho m Re ect [-1 Southern Baptist .63 .05 .55 NS Christian Church .89 . 01 . 1.3 NS Church or God .61. .05 .61 .05 United Church of Christ .79 .01 .56 NS Protestant Episcopal Church .70 .05 .56 NS Evangelical United Brethren .72 .01 .38 NS Reorganized Latter Day Saints .70 .05 .hl - NS Hethodist Church .41. us .65 - .05 Church of the Nazarene .h6 NS .69 .05 Non-Demuinational . 87 . 01 . 58 NS United Presbyterian .63 .05 .88 .01 NS = Not Statistically Significant 89 TABLE VII TABLE OF RESULTS OF KENDALL COEFFICIENT OF CONCORDANCE: (N) WITH DIFWCES BETWEEN CONSENSUS OF MINISTERS BY DENOMINATIONAL GROUPING AND LAT LEADERS BY DEWONINATIONAL GROUPING ON THE POLITICAL EXPECTATION SCALE (PAGE 3) msms ___y_r mums Level of Level of Significance Significance for for Denmination m Re ect H QQ Re ecti H Southern Baptist .68 .05 .91. .01 Christian Church .78 .01 .92 .01 Church of God .66 .05 .81.. .01 United Church of Christ .77 .01 .61; .05 Protestant Episcopal Church .88 .01 .37 .Ol Evangelical United Brethren .75 .01 .81 .01 Reorganized Latter Day Saints .75 .01 .62 .05 Methodist Church .82 .01 .70 .05 Church of the Nazarene .51 NS .75 .01 Non-Denuinational .94 .01 .74 .01 United Presbyterian .58 NS .85 .01 NS = Not Statistically Significant 9O Theological Expectation Scale instrument to reject hypothesis 1. a. Thus, in six church groups, there is a significant relationship among the ministers in the choices they make on the Theological Expectation Scale, and in five groups, there is not a significant relationship among their choices. The highest degree of consensus among the ministers was evident in the Evangelical United Brethren denomination with a Coefficient of Concordance of .86. Of the five denominations having insufficient agreement among their ministers to warrant a rejection of hypothesis 1. a., the one having the least consensus was the Episcopalian, with a Coefficient of Concordance of .51. An analysis of the data from the Social Expecta- tion Scale shows different results from an analysis of the data from the Theological Expectation Scale. Nine of the eleven denominations provided data which warranted rejection of hypothesis 1. b., which states that there is no significant relationship among the ministers of a given denomination in the choices they make on the Social Expectation Scale, at either the .05 level of significance or the .01 level of significance. Of the four denominations whose ministers had sufficient agree- ment to warrant rejection of hypothesis 1. b. at the .01 level of significance, the Christian Church denom- ination, with a Coefficient of Concordance of .89, and 91 the non-denominational congregations, with a Coefficient of Concordance of .87, were the highest in degree of consensus. The two denominations that had insufficient consensus among their three ministers to warrant the rejection of hypothesis 1. b. were the Methodists, with a Coefficient of Concordance of .LA, and the Nazarenes, with a Coefficient of .hé. An analysis of the results of the Political Expectation Scale shows that seven of the denominations had sufficient consensus among their ministers to warrant rejection of hypothesis 1. c. at the .01 level of sig- nificance. This hypothesis states that there is no significant relationship among the ministers of a given denomination in the choices they make on the Political Expectation Scale. In addition, the Southern Baptists and the Church of God had enough agreement among their ministers to warrant rejection of hypothesis 1. c. at the .05 level of significance. The two remaining denom- inations, the Nazarene and the Presbyterian, had insuf- ficient consensus to warrant rejection of the hypothesis. The group having the greatest consensus among its ministers on the Political Expectation Scale was the non-denominational congregations, with a Coefficient Concordance of .9A. The denomination having the least consensus among its ministers was the Nazarene, with a Coefficient of Concordance of .51. On the basis of the above analysis of the results 92 of the test of Concordance applied to the data from the three expectation scales, the following conclu- sions pertaining to hypothesis number one are drawn: Hypothesis 1. a. was rejected as a result of the data gathered from 55% of the denominations used in the study, and affirmed as a result of the data gathered from 45% of the denominations tested. In six of the church groups it was shown that there is a significant relationship among the ministers of a given denomination in the choices they make on the Theological Expectation Scale. Hypothesis 1. b. is rejected as a result of the data gathered from 82% of the denominations, and affirmed by 18% of the denominations tested. In most cases it was shown that there is a significant relationship among the ministers of a given denomination in the choices they make on the Social Expectation Scale. Hypothesis 1. c. was also rejected as a result of the data gathered from 82% of the groups tested, and affirmed as a result of the data gathered from 18% of the denominations in the study. Hypothesis 1. 0., however, was rejected at the .01 level of significance as a result of the data gathered from 64% of the denom- inations as opposed to hypothesis 1. b., which was rejected at the .01 level of significance as a result of the data gathered from 36% of the groups. It can 93 be said on the basis of the evidence presented that hypothesis 1. c. is rejected as a result of the data gathered from a large majority of the denominations tested, and consequently, in most cases, there is a significant relationship among the ministers used in the study, by denominational grouping, on the choices they made on the Political Expectation Scale. 94 Lay Leaders versus Lay Leaders Hypothesis number two states that there is no significant relationship among the lay leaders of a given denomination in the choices they make: a. on the Theological Expectation Scale, b. on the Social Expecta- tion Scale, and c. on the Political Expectation Scale. Table VII shows that hypothesis 2. a. is rejected as a result of the data gathered in the case of the Methodist denomination at the .01 level of sig- nificance and rejected in the cases of the Southern Baptist and Presbyterian denominations at the .05 level of significance. The remainder of eight denominations failed to provide data which would warrant a rejection of hypothesis 2. a. The highest Coefficient of Concordance of the three denominations providing data which warranted rejection of hypothesis 2. a. was .74 by the Methodists. The Nazarenes, with a Coefficient of Concordance of .20 had the least consensus of any of the denominations in the study. The Church of God was also low in the consensus among its lay leaders with a Coefficient of Concordance of .27. Four of the denominations provided data which warranted rejection of hypothesis 2. b. as a result_of their rankings on the Social Expectation Scale. The Presbyterian denomination provided data to warrant rejection of this hypothesis at the .01 level of sig- nificance, and the Church of God, Methodist, and 95 Nazarene denominations provided data with which to reject it at the .05 level. Seven of the denomina- tions used in the study failed to provide data which warranted rejection of hypothesis 2. b. The highest degree of consensus among the lay leaders, by denom- inational grouping, is to be found in the Presbyterian denomination, with a Coefficient of Concordance of .88. The lowest agreement among the lay leaders is to be found in the Evangelical United Brethren denom- ination, with a Coefficient of Concordance of .38. Hypothesis 2. c. states that there is no sig- nificant relationship among the lay leaders of a given denomination in the choices they make on the Political Expectation Scale. This hypothesis was rejected on the basis of the data collected on all eleven groups. Eight of the groups provided data which warranted a rejection of this hypothesis at the .01 level of sig- nificance. The highest degree of consensus was found in the Southern Baptist denomination, with a Coefficient of Concordance of .9A. The least consensus was expressed by the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints denomination, with a Coefficient of Concordance of .62. A summary of the above analysis of data to test hypothesis number two shows that hypothesis 2. a. was rejected in the case of 27% of the denominations tested and affirmed in the case of 73% of the denominations in 96 the study. It can be said, consequently, that in most cases there is little significant relationship among the lay leaders of a given denomination in the choices they make on the Theological Expectation Scale instrument. Hypothesis 2. b. was rejected in the case of 36% of the denominations by the data provided, and affirmed in the case of 6A% of the denominations. As a result of this analysis, it can be said that in a majority of cases there is little significant relation- ship among the lay leaders of a given denomination in the choices they make on the Social Expectation Scale. Rejection of hypothesis 2. c. by data gathered on 100% of the groups tested shows that there is a significant relationship among the lay leaders of a given denomination in the choices they make on the Political Expectation Scale. 97 Ministers versus Lay Leaders Hypothesis number three states that there is no significant relationship between the degree of consensus of ministers by denominational grouping and the degree of consensus of lay leaders by denomina- tional grouping: a. on the Theological Expectation Scale, b. on the Social Expectation Scale, and c. on the Political Expectation Scale. In order to arrive at an answer to the above hypothesis, it was necessary to rank the results of the Kendall Coefficient of Concordance: (W) so that a measure of association between the ministers and the lay leaders might be ascertained. To achieve this measurement of association, the Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficient: r5 was used. The placement of the Kendall Coefficient of Concordance: (W) into measurable ranks was made by ranking the Coefficients of Concordance of each denom- ination for ministers and for lay leaders from highest to lowest under the Theological, Social and Political columns as found on Table VII. These rankings were then transferred to Tables VIII, IX, and X, where a. detailed analysis of the Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficient is made. The total possible association if both ranks were completely identical would be a coefficient of 98 +1.00. The greatest disassociation possible if both ranks were directly opposite would be a coefficient of -l.00. With an N of eleven, a coefficient of .535 must be present for hypothesis three to be rejected. Table VIII presents an analysis of the ranks of the Kendall Coefficient of Concordance: (W) from the Theological Expectation Scale. The Rank Correla- tion Coefficient: rs is .06. This coefficient is not sufficiently significant to reject hypothesis 3. a. It can be said from this analysis that there is no significant relationship between the degree of con- sensus of ministers by denominational grouping and the degree of consensus of lay leaders by denomina- tional grouping on the Theological Expectation Scale. The Rank Correlation Coefficient: rS on the Social Expectation Scale and on the Political Expecta- tion Scale yield a minus coefficient. Table IX shows an rS of -.59 and Table X shows an rs of -.15. Both of these cases show hypothesis three to be affirmed. The denominations used in this study are made up of six having autonomous congregations and five having a hierarchial structure. The autonomous denom- inations were those in which ministers were sought out and selected by the individual congregations themselves. The hierarchial denominations were those in which ministers were assigned to a congregation by some denom- inational official. 99 TABLE‘VIII SPEARMAN RANK CORRELATION COEFFICIENT: r, TO TEST RANKS OF MINISTER AND LAT LEADER COEFFICIENTS OF CONCORDANCE: (N) B! DENOMINATION FROM THEOLOGICAL .EXEECTATION’SCALE Rank Denomination WET—— W .32.. di2 Southern Baptist 2 2 O 0 Christian Church 3 9 6 36 Church of God 6 10 h 16 United Church of Christ 8 6.5 3.5 12.25 Protestant Episcopal Church 11 6 5 25 ENangelical United Brethren 1 7 6 36 Reorganized Latter Day Saints 5 8 3 9 Methodist Church 9 1 8 61; Church of the Nazarene 10 11 l 1 Nen-Denaninational 7 h.5 . 2.5 6.25 United Presbyterian A 3 1 1 206.50 “31-9 '1: =.06=NotSignificant 11 " Significance Level at .05 - .535 100 TABLEIX spams RANK common complain: r, mmrmsormsmmmmnm comelms or concoamncs: (w) B! DMNATION FROM SOCIAL HPECTATION SCALE ‘7 Denminati on Southern Baptist Christian Church Church of God United Church of Christ Protestant Episcopal Church Evangelical United Brethren Reorganized Latter Day Saints Methodist Church Church of the Nazarene Non-Denminational United Presbyterian Rank mantel-“Ta Leader di 8.5 1 7 3 5.5 I. 5.5 11 10 2 8.5 8 9 L. 6.5 6.5 10 I-‘UINW .5 8 .113. .25 66 9 12.25 49 20.25 ,8 a 1 - 611 -00 a -.59 = Not Significant -11 Significance Level at .05 == .535 101 TABLE I SPEARMAN RANK CORRELATION COEFFICIENT: r3 TOTBTRANKSOFNINISTEIANDLATIEADFR COEFFICIENTS OF CONCORDANCE: (N) BI DENMNATION PRO! POLITICAL .7 A EXPECTATION SCALE. . Denomination lunistermlg Leader _g_1__ c112 Southern Baptist 8 1 7 L9 Christian Church A 2 2 a Church of God 9 5 1+ 16 United Church of Christ 5 10 5 25 Protestant Episcopal Church 2 3 1 1 Evangelical United Brethren 6.5 6 .5 .25 Reorganized Latter Day Saints 6.5 11 A.5 20.25 Methodist Church 3 9 6 36 Church of the Nazarene 11 7 I. 16 Non-Denminatienal l 8 7 1.9 United Presbyterian 10 h 6 _3_§__ 252. 50 r =1-_Lg_5_16 22- ° =-.15=Not Significant 8 (11) ~11 Significance Level at .05 = .535 102 A scale of probability was worked out for the eleven church groups in which it was determined that by chance four of the first five ranks would be made up of autonomous groups in 162 of 1,000 draws. Whenever this incident of four autonomous denominations and one hierarchial denomination occurred in the first five ranks it appeared that some factor other than chance was operating. Since an N of eleven presents a small number of choices, it seemed preferable to analyze the follows ing questions descriptively: What relationship exists between the consensus of ministers and the fact that they are from a hierarchial or autonomous denomination? What relationship exists between the consensus of lay leaders and the fact that they are from a hierarchial or autonomous denomination? In order to arrive at answers to the above ques- tions, the separate denominations were ranked according to their degree of consensus among their ministers and among their lay leaders. This ranking may be seen in Tables XI, XII, and XIII. The denominations were then classified according to their hierarchial or autonomous nature. Table XI reveals that of those ministers having the greatest consensus on the theological topic selec- tion three of the first five are from autonomous denom- inations. It should be noted also that six of the first eight denominations, in terms of degree of consensus, 103 TABLEXI mm; or nmmanohs BI cOErrIcm or coucoamncn TO MEASURE RELATIONSHIP OF HIERARCHIAL OR AUTONOIMS DENMNATIONAL STRUCTURE TO DEEREE OF CONSENSUS AMONG MINISTERS ON THE .THEOWICAL manor: 3cm: (PAGE 1) Denomination Evangelical United Brethren Southern Baptist Christian Church United Presbyterian Reorganized Latter Day Saints Church of God Non-Denalinational United Chuch of Christ Nethodist Church Church of the Nazarene Protestant Episcopal Church ES Hierarchial or Autonomous m=m>>>=z>>> 10h TABLE II RANKING OF DENCHINATIONS BI COEFFICIENT OF CONCORDANCE TO MEASURE RELATIONSHIP’OF HIERARCHIAL OR AUTONOMOUS DENOMINATIONAL STRUCTURE TO DEGREE OF CONSENSUS AMONG LA! LEADERS ON THE THEOLOGICAL EZPECTITION SCALE (PIGE 2) Dene-ination ’ Methodist Church Southern Baptist United Presbyterian united Church of Christ NonéDenolinational Protestant Episcopal Church lhangelical United Brethren Reorganized Latter Day Saints Christian Church Church of God Church of the Nazarene ~o en «4 Ch er e- to ho rd [35’ e \1‘! \h Hierarchial or Autonomous H abhmmm>>>> 105 TABLEXII RANKING OP DENMATIONS B! COEFFICIENT OF CONCORDANCE TO, MEASURE RELATIONSHIP OF HIERARCHIAL OR AUTONOMIS DENQIINATIONAL STRUCTURE m DEREE OF CONSENSUS AMONG MINISTERS ON THE SOCIAL EXPECTATION SCALE (PAGE 1) Denmination Christian Church Non-Denminational United Church of Christ Evangelical United Brethren Protestant hiscopal Church Reorganized Latter Day Saints Church of God Southern Baptist United Presbyterian Church of the Nazarene Methodist Church 8.5 8.5 10 Hierarchial or Autonomous mmpw-bmmma-a- 106 TABLE XII RANKING OF DENOMINATIONS BI COEFFICIENT OF CONCORDANCE TO MEASURE RELATIONSHIP OF HIERARCHIAL OR AUTONOMOUS DENOMINATIONAL STRUCTURE TO DEGREE OF CONSENSUS AMONG LIY'LEADERS ON THE’SOCIAL EXPECTIIIOH SCKLE (PAGE 2) Iknundnntion united Presbyterian Church of the Razarene Methodist Church Church of God Ronfinenaninstionsl United Church of Christ Protestant hiscopal Church Southern Baptist Christian Church Reorganized Latter Day Saints Evangelical United Brethren M \OQOO‘WJ-‘WNH 10 U1“ Hierarchial or W A. m=>>=n>>>m=n 107 are from autonomous denominations. Also on Table XI is seen the results of rank- ing the lay leaders according to consensus. Of the first five groups, four are autonomous and only one is a hierarchial denomination. Table XII is a ranking of ministers and lay leaders on their consensus on social topic selection. Both the ministers and lay leaders show three of the first five denominations as being autonomous in nature. On Table XIII, representing the selections made by ministers and lay leaders on the Political Expecta- tion Scale, of the first five groups of ministers, by degree of consensus, three groups are from autonomous denominations. The lay leaders are represented by four of the first five groups from autonomous denom- inations. The greatest amount of agreement within the groups of lay leaders on the Theological and Political Expectation Scales appears to be represented by autonomous denominations. In only these instances does it appear that there is a relationship which exists between the consensus of lay leader and the fact that they are represented by a kind of denomination, namely, autonomous. 108 TAEEE‘IIII RANKING OF DENOMINATIONS BI COEFFICIENT OF CONCORDANCE TO MEASURE'RELATIONSHIP OF HIERARCHIAL OR AUTONOMOUS DENOMINATIONAL STRUCTURE TO DEGREE OF CONSENSUS AMONG-MINISTERS ON THE POLITICAL EXPECTATION SCALE (PNGE 1) Denomination Non-Denominational Protestant Episcopal Church Hhthodist Church Christian Church United Church of Christ Evangelical United Brethren Reorganised‘Latter‘Ddy Saints Southern Baptist Church of God United Presbyt erian Church of the Nazarene m... IE ~ooco~c~ma~wmw I35 Hierarchial or Autonomous A 3P>>m3>Pfl==fl 109 TABLE XIII RANKING OF DENOMINATIONS BY COEFFICIENT OF CONCORDANCE TO HEASURE.RELATIONSHIP’OF RIERARCHIAL OR AUTONOMOUS DENOMINATIONAL STRUCTURE TO DEGREE OF CONSENSUS AMONG LAY LEADERS ON THE POLITICAL EXPECTATION SCALE (PAGE 2) Dene-ination Southern Baptist Christian Church Protestant Episcopal Church United Presbyterian Church of Cod Ehnngelical United Brethren Church of the Nazarene NonADenaninational ZHethodist Church United Church of Christ Reorganized Latter Day Saints \OQQO‘VIPUNI‘" L15 Hierarchial or Autonomous A. m>==>=u=3>>==> 110 Summary of Analysis by Denomination Hypotheses one through three were tested in this chapter. These hypotheses dealt with: (l) the relationship among ministers by denominational group- ing on the choices they made on the Theological, Social, and Political Expectation Scales, (2) the relationship among lay leaders by denominational grouping on the choices they made on the Theological, Social, and Political Expectation Scales, (3) the relationship between the ministers by denominational grouping and the lay leaders by denominational group- ing on their degree of consensus on the Theological, Social, and Political Expectation Scales. In six out of the eleven denominations used in this study, it was shown that there was a statis- tically significant relationship among the ministers of a given denomination in their choices on the Theological Expectation Scale. On the choices made on the Social Expectation Scale, nine of the denom- inations showed a statistically significant relation- ship among their ministers. On the Political Expecta- tion Scale, nine out of eleven denominations showed a statistically significant relationship among their . ministers on the choices they made. On the basis of the above analysis, it can be said that there is a statistically significant relation- ship among ministers of a given denomination in the lll majority of cases in the choices they make on the Theological, Social, and Political Expectation Scale instruments. Hypothesis number one is, consequently, rejected. Three out of the eleven denominations used in this study provide data which warrants a rejection of Hypothesis 2. a., and four of the denominations show a rejection of Hypothesis 2. b. There is, con- sequently, no statistically significant relationship among lay leaders of a given denomination in the choices they make on the Theological or Social Expecta- tion Scale. On the choices made on the Political Expecta— tion Scale instrument, all eleven denominations in the study showed a statistically significant relation- ship among their lay leaders. In measuring the relationship between denomina- tional ministers and denominational lay leaders on the choices they made on the Expectation Scales, it was dis- covered that there was no statistically significant relationship between these two groups on the Theological, Social, or Political Expectation Scales. The most agree- ment between the ministers and the lay leaders was shown to be on the Theological Scale, and the least amount of agreement was shown to be on the Social Expectation Scale. The question of a relationship between the 112 autonomous or hierarchial nature of a denomination and the degree of consensus among its ministers and among its lay leaders seems to be answered by saying there does not appear to be a relationship on the part of the ministers. In the case of the lay leaders there appears to be a relationship that suggests something more than chance on the Theological and Political Expectation Scale results. CHAPTER V ANALYSIS BY CONGREGATION Introduction The purpose of this chapter is to make an analysiscf the collected data as they relate to the individual congregation. In order to measure the relationship between the choices made by the minister and his lay leader, the Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficient: rS was used. The items on the Expectation Scales were ranked by each minister and his lay leader. The measure of Rank Correlation was then applied to these two sets of rankings to determine the degree of consensus and its consequent statistical significance or lack of significance. The correlation between the minister's choices and the lay leader's choices would be absolute if the ranks were completely identical. It is neces- sary, then, to use the various differences (di's) between the ranks as an indication of the disparity. between the two sets of rankings. If the relation between the two sets of ranks were perfect, every "di" would be zero. The larger the "di's", the less perfect must be the association between the two variables. The 113 llh greater the "di's", the less agreement is found between the minister and the lay leader in their expectation of the responsibility of the minister as a preacher. If the "di's" were used directly, the negative ones would offset the positive ones. This problem is over- come by squaring the "di's". The greater the "di's", 2". The larger the the greater will be the value of "di positive "diz", the smaller will be the Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficient: rs. The smaller the rs, the less consensus between the minister and his lay leader is shown. Absolute agreement would give an rS of +1.00. Absolute disagreement would give an rS of -l.OO. On the basis of an "N" of eight, the number of items ranked by the minister and his lay leader on each of the three Expectation Scale instruments, an rs of.6h3 is needed to show a statistically significant relation— ship between the two ranks at the .05 level of sig- nificance. An rS of .833 is needed to show a statis- tically significant relationship between the two ranks at the .01 level of significance. Table XIV presents the total results of the Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficient, and is used as the master table of results for Tables XV, XVI, and XVII to follow. 115 TABLEAXIV TABLE OF RESULTS OF SPEARNAN RANK CORRELATION COEFFICIENT mm DIFFERENCES am A msmmnmmmomxcm comrmmnox on THE THEOIDGICAL EXPECTATION SCALE (PAGE 1) Denomination Southern Baptist Southern Baptist Southern Baptist Christian Church Christian Church Christian Church Church of God Church of God Church of God United Church of Christ United Church of Christ United Church of Christ Protestant Episcopal Church Protestant Episcopal Church Protestant Episcopal Church EVangelical United Brethren Evangelical United Brethren Evangelical United Brethren Reorganized Latter Day Saints Reorganized Latter Day Saints Reorganized Latter Day Saints Methodist Church Methodist Church Methodist Church Church of the Nazarene Church or the Hazarene Church of the Hazarene Nonpbenominational NonPDenaminational Non-Denominational United Presbyterian United Presbyterian united Preshyterian Congregation awbowbnwa-owbowpombowbawhnwc-owr-awa- _£fl_ .62 .69 .62 .57 .26 .76 .02 .83 .17 .55 .69 Level of Significance for Rejecting He NS .05 NS NS NS .05 NS .01 .05 NS NS NS NS NS NS .05 NS NS NS NS NS .05 NS NS NS NS NS NS .01 NS NS. NS .05 NS = Not Statistically Significant 116 TABLE XIV TABLE OF RESULTS OF SPEARNAN RANK CORRELATION COEFFICIENT‘NITH DIFFERENCES BETWEEN A MINISTER AND A LA! LEADER OF A GIVEN CONGREGATION ON THE SOCIAL EXPECTATION SCALE (PAGE 2) Southern Baptist Southern Baptist Southern Baptist Christian Church Christian Church Christian Church Church of God Church of God Church of God United Church of Christ United Church of Christ United Church of Christ Protestant Episcopal Church Protestant Episcopal Church Protestant Episcopal Church EVangelical United Brethren EVangelical United Brethren Evangelical United Brethren Reorganized Latter Day Saints Reorganized Latter Day Saints Reorganized Latter Day Saints Methodist Church Methodist Church Methodist Church Church of the Nazarene Church of the Nazarene Church of the Nazarene Non-Denominational Non-Denominational Non-Denminational United Presbyterian United Presbyterian United Presbyterian Denomination Congregation owbom>ow>om>aw>ow>ow:I-nwrnowr'owbowb .51. .33 .90 .21; 0&3 .26 .76 .93 .69 -.O7 .13 .21. 0‘3 .50 .59 055 .38 .71 .07 .23 .26 .59 .81 .h5 .09 -055 elk .07 .88 .7h .90 .50 Level of Significance for Rejecting H, NS . 01 NS NS NS . 05 . 01 . 05 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS . 05 NS NS NS NS . 05 NS NS NS = Not Statistically Significant 1.17 TABLE.XIV TABLE OF RESULTS OF SPEARNAN RANK CORRELATION COEFFICIENT NITH DIFFERENCES BETWEEN A MINISTER AND A.LAI LEADER OF A GIVEN CONGREGATION ON THE POLITICAL EXPECTATION SCALE (PAGE 3) Level of Significance for Denomination Coggregation r3 Re ect H Southern Baptist A .21 NS Southern Baptist B .81 .05 Southern Baptist C -.51 NS Christian Church A .81 .05 Christian Church B .71 .05 Christian Church C .86 .01 Church of God A . 59 NS ChurCh of God B . 59 NS Church of God C .67 .05 United Church of Christ A .90 .01 United Church of Christ B .90 .01 United Church of Christ C .02 NS Protestant Episcopal Church A .76 .05 Protestant Episcopal Church B .61. .05 Protestant Episcopal Church C .76 .05 Evangelical United Brethren A .115 NS Evangelical United Brethren B .67 .05 Evangelical United Brethren C .69 .05 Reorganized latter Day Saints A . 71. .05 Reorganized Latter Day Saints B .29 NS Reorganized Latter Day Saints C .31 NS Methodist Church A .79 .05 Methodist Church B .17 NS Methodist Church C .69 .05 Church of the Nazarene A .83 .01 Church or the Nazarene B .31 NS Church of the Nazarene C .38 NS Non-Denminational A .67 .05 Non-Denminati onal B .86 . 01 Non-Denminational C . 61. .05 United Presbyterian A .62 NS United Presbyterian B .15 NS United Presbyterian C .le8 NS NS = Not Statistically Significant 118 Minister versus Lay Leader Hypothesis number four states that there is no significant relationship between the ranking of items by a minister and lay leader of a given congrega- tion: h.a. on the Theological Expectation Scale, A. b. on the Social Expectation Scale, and h. c. on the Political Expectation Scale. Table XV shows that of the thirty-three congre- gations tested, eight of them furnish data which are used to reject Hypothesis h. a. Twenty-five, or seventy-six percent, of the congregations used in the study furnish data which are used to affirm Hypothesis h. a., showing that in twenty—five cases out of thirty- three there is no statistically significant relation- ship between the ranking of items by a minister and lay leader of a given congregation on the Theological Expectation Scale. The highest correlation coefficient is expressed by the Church of God congregation B with an r of .833. The lowest correlation coefficient is 5 expressed by the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints congregation A with an rS of -.l8. The listed results of the Spearman Rank Correla- tion Coefficient: rS taken from the Social Expectation Scale are seen in Table XVI. Twenty—seven percent of the congregations tested show an rS high enough to reject Hypothesis h. b. Twenty-four of the thirty—three congregations do not show correlation coefficients high 119 TABLEXV RESULTS OF THE SPEARHAN RANK CORRELATION COEFFICIENT: r3 LISTED ACCORDING TO THE DEEREE OF CONSENSUS FROM THE THEDLCBICAL EXPECTATION SCALE Level of Significance , for “Denomination Coggregation r, Re ect H Church of God B .83 .Ol Non-Denominational B .83 . Ol Evangelical United Brethren A .81 .05 Christian Church C .76 .05 Church of God C .76 .05 Methodist Church A .76 .05 Southern Baptist B .69 .05 United Presbyterian C .69 .05 Southern Baptist A .62 NS Southern Baptist C . 62 NS Christian Church A .57 NS United Church of Christ C .57 NS Reorganized Latter Day Saints B .57 NS United Presbyterian A .55 NS United Presbyterian B . 55 NS Protestant Episcopal Church A .52 NS United Church of Christ B .A5 NS Evangelical United Brethren B .A5 NS Church of the Nazarene 0 .16 NS Evangelical United Brethren C .13 NS hotestant Episcopal Church 0 .33 NS Protestant Episcopal Church B .31 NS Christian Church B .26 NS Non-Denominati onal C .17 NS Methodist Church C .07 NS Non-Denominational A .07 NS Church of God A .02 NS Church of the Nazarene A -.10 NS Church of the Nazarene B -.10 NS Methodist Church B -.12 NS Reorganized Latter Day Saints C -.11. NS United Church of Christ A --.16 NS Reorganized Latter Day Saints A -.18 NS NS = Not Significant 120 TABLE XVI RESULTS OF THE SPEARMAN RANK CORRELATION COEFFICIENT: rs LISTED ACCORDING TO THE‘DEGREE'OF CONSENSUS FROM THE SOCIAL EXPECTATION SCALE Denomination Cogggcggtion r, Church of God A .93 Southern Baptist B .90 United Presbyterian A .90 NOn-Denominational B .88 Methodist Church A .81 Christian Church C .76 Non-Denominational C .71; Evangelical United Brethren B .71 Church of God B .69 Protestant Episcopal Church B . 59 Reorganized latter Day Saints C .59 Protestant Episcopal Church C .55 Protestant Episcopal Church A . 50 united Presbyterian C .50 Methodist Church C .45 Christian Church A .h3 United Church of Christ A .43 United Church of Christ C .LB Evangelical United Brethren A .38 Southern Baptist A .33 United Presbyterian B .33 Christian Church B .26 Reorganized Latter Day Saints B .26 Southern Baptist C .2h United Church of Christ B .ZA Reorganized latter Day Saints A .th Church of the Nazarene C .11. Methodist Church B .12 Church of the Nazarene A .09 Evangelical United Brethren C .07 Non-Denominational A .07 Church of God C --.07 Church of the Nazarene B -.55 NS = Not Significant 121 enough to reject the hypothesis. The greatest con- sensus between a minister and his lay leader is to be seen in the Church of God congregation A with an rS of .93. This correlation coefficient is very close to expressing perfect agreement between these two persons on this scale. The least consensus is found in B congregation of the Nazarene denomination with an rS of -.55. Table XVII presents the results of the Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficient: rs from the Political Expectation Scale. Fifty-eight percent of the congrega- tions used in the study showed sufficient correlation between the minister and the lay leader to reject Hypothesis 4. c. In nineteen of the congregations there was shown to be a significant relationship between the minister and his lay leader in the choices they made on the Political Expectation Scale. The highest correlation was expressed by congregations A and B of the United Church of Christ with an rs of .90. The least consensus was expressed by congregation C of the Southern Baptists with an rs of -.h9. Hypothesis number five states that there is no significant relationship between the degree of con- sensus of the minister and his lay leader, and the amount of time that they have worked together in their respective offices: 5. a. on the Theological Expecta- tion Scale, 5. b. on the Social Expectation Scale, and 122 TABLE XVII RESULTS OF THE SPEARHAN RANK CORRELATION COEFFICIENT: r3 LISTED ACCORDING ‘10 THE DEREE OF CONSENSUS FROM THE POLITICAL mECTATION SCALE W Denomination umudmuwormnn United Church of Christ Christian Church MmmMMMumfl Church of the Nazarene qumbflu mnuunmum Methodist Church HauQMEmuquMNh Protestant Episcopal Church Reorganized Latter Day Saints Christian Church Evangelical United Brethren Bethodist Church Church of God EnmdhdUmud&flMm mwflmumfimd Protestant Episcopal Church Non-Denominational MfldPNWfinhn CMmhMGw Church of God mndinnwhn EnmdudUmud&¢Mm MRdinfiuhn Church of the Nazarene maydadhfiunusums Church of the Nazarene RmmmhdLfihrhyfihh Southern Baptist Methodist Church United Church of Christ Southern Baptist Congregation cowbwwonwbow>>nw>maaow>o>>>w>mnw> .L's. .90 .90 .86 .86 .83 .81 .81 .79 .76 .76 .7A .71 .69 .69 .67 .67 .67 .61. .61. .62 .59 .59 .58 .AS .55 .38 .31 .31 .29 021 .17 .02 “old-9 Level of Significance for Rejecting H. .01 .Ol .01 .01 .Ol .05 .05 .05 .05 .05 .05 .05 .05 .05 .05 .05 .05 .05 .05 NS NS NS IS IS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS IS NS NS = Not Significant 123 5. c. on the Political Expectation Scale. Tables XVIII, XIX, and XX present the analysis of the data by using the Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficient. A look at the bottom of Table XVIII will show that the total relationship between the minister's and lay leader's consensus and their time Spent working together is not significant. On the basis of an "N" of thirty-three congregations used in the study, an rS of .285 would have been necessary to have shown a signifi- cant relationship between the two sets of ranks consist- ing of expected rank based on number of months inter- action between the minister and his lay leader, and the rank based on actual consensus between the minister and his lay leader. Figure VI presents a graphic representa- tion of the data shown on Table XVIII. The broken line shows the ranking of the congregations based on the months of interaction between the minister and the lay leader, and consequently, the expected ranking by con— sensus. The solid line presents the actual ranking by consensus of each of the congregations. Had the solid line representing the actual consensus followed exactly the contour of the broken line, the rs for the results from the Theological Expectation Scale would have been +1.00. In the case of Table XVIII, the rs was .225. Tables XIX and XX, dealing with results from the Social and Political Expectation Scales both show a negative rS of -.05 and -.17 respectively. The 12A TABLE XVIII SPEARNAN RANK COEFFICMT OF CONCORDANCE: 1', NUMBER OF HON'H-IS INTERACTION BI MINISTER AND LA! LEADER: Number of Months WICAL APPLIED TO EXPECTED AND ACTUAL RANK ORDER 8! CONSENSUS BASED ON Expected Actual Denmination and Cmegation Interaction Rank Rank United Church of Christ Protestant Episcopal Church Southern Baptist Southern Baptist Church of God Church of the Nazarene Reorganized Latter Day Saints United Presbyterian Church of God Protestant Episcopal Church Protestant Episcopal Church Methodist Church Southern Baptist Christian Church United Church of Christ Church of the Nazarene Non-Denminational Christian Church Christian Church Church of God Evangelical United Brethren Reorganized Latter Day Saints Reorganized Latter Du Saints Methodist Church Church of the Nazarene Non-Denminational United Presbyterian United Church of Christ Evangelical United E'ethren Evangelical United Brethren Kethodist Church United Presbyterian Non-Denominational bur->6un-wa>on>>ww>woua>wo>>owooowsac: 108 96 81+ 8h 8A 66 omFSISBEPBBPPRP‘SBSRXRRRSEEESS OOOQQON-‘PPNH HHHH 0. e 0 \fl \h “Vi e \h e \J’lm e U‘! o \J'O \h secsesssessscHStseemsssasstes.set di 0 “WWW“ “U1 “U! e W assetspossssssssssssusessosseucet mm mm mG 0‘ e E 12.25 30.25 506.25 20025 262. 25 30.25 1.10. 25 380.25 30. 25 100 110.25 182. 25 16 306.25 81 L9 36 20 e 25 90-25 16 100 625 306.25 £614.00 r =1-J5_§£L_6 6 =.225=Not Significant " (33) - 33 HmwemoqmoSfi’SSF 125 FIGUREVI EXPECTED AND ACTUAL RANK DRIER B! CONSHSUS BASED ON NUHBER 01“ MONTHS INTERACTION BETWEEN MINISTER AND LAT LEADER THEOLOGICAL SCALE V mmmmmm ‘ O O O C C .mmmmmawo RANKING BY MONTHS OF INTERACTION BEGINNING WITH EXPECTED RANKING BY CONSENSUS a g a i -. .. .. .- expected actual 126 TABLE XIX SPEARMAN RANK COEFFICIENT OF CONCORDANCE: ra NUMBER OF MONTHS INTERACTION BY MINISTER AND APPLIED TO EXPECTED AND ACTUAL RANK ORDER BY CONSENSUS BASED ON LA! LEADER: SOCIAL Number of Nonths Expected Actual 2 Denalination and Cogggeggtion Interaction Rank Rank di di United Church of Christ C 108 1 17 16 256 Protestant hiscopal Church B 96 2 10.5 8.5 72.25 Southern Baptist B 8A A 2.5 1.5 2.25 Southern Baptist C 81; A 25 21 “:1 Church of God C 8A A 32 28 78h Church of the Nazarene B 66 6 33 27 729 Reorganized Latter Day Saints B 60 7.5 22.5 15 225 United Presbyterian C 60 7.5 13. 5 6 36 Church of God A_ #8 10.5 1 9.5 90.25 Protestant Episcopal Church A A8 10.5 13.5 3 9 Protestant Episcopal Church c 48 10. 5 12 1.5 2.25 IMethodist Church B #3 10.5 28 17.5 306.25 Southern Baptist A. 36 15 20.5 5.5 30.25 Christian Church C 36 15 6 9 81 United Church of Christ B 36 15 25 10 100 Church of the Nazarene C 36 15 27 12 1M. Non—Denominational B 36 15 A 11 121 Christian Church A 30 19 17 2 A Christian Church B 30 19 22.5 3.5 12.25 Church of God B 30 19 9 10 . 100 Evangelical United Brethren A 2A 2A 19 5 25 Reorganized Latter Day Saints A 2A 2A 25 1 l Reorganized Latter Day Saints C 2A 21; 10.5 13.5 182.25 Mbthodist Church C 2k 2k 15 9 81 Church of the Nazarene A 2A 2A 29 5 25 Non-Denminational 0 2A 2A 7 17 239 United Presbyterian B 2A 2A 20.5 3.5 12.25 United Church of Christ A 18 28 17 11 121 Evangelical United Brethren B 12 30 8 22 ABA Evangelical United Brethren C 12 30 30.5 .5 .25 Methodist Church A 12 30 5 25 625 United Presbyterian A 9 32 2.5 29.5 870. 25 Nen-Denminational A 6 33 30.5 2. 5 6. 22 6268.00 r, =1 -ma -.05 =th Significant (33)3 ~33 127 TABLEXX SPEARMAN RANK COEFFICIENT 0F CONCORDANCE: rs NUMBER OF'MDNTHS INTERACTION BI MINISTER AND APPLIED T0 EXPECTED.AND ACTUAL RANK ORDER BY CONSENSUS BASED ON H LAY LEADER: POLITICAL Number of Months quaected Actual 2 Denomination and Coggregation Interaction Rank Rank di di United Church of Christ C 108 l 32 31 961 Protestant Episcopal Church B 96 2 18.5 16.5 262.25 Southern Baptist B 81. A 6.5 2.5 6.25 Southern Baptist C 84 1+ 33 29 81.1 Church of God C 81; it 16 12 1“; Church of the Nazarene B 66 6 27.5 21.5 A62.25 Reorganized Latter Day Saints B 60 7.5 29 21.5 1.62.25 United Presbyterian C 60 7.5 23 15.5 240.25 Church of God A #8 10.5 21.5 11 121 Protestant Episcopal Church A #8 10.5 9.5 1 1 Pr0testant Episcopal Church C A8 . 10.5 9.5 1 1 Methodist Church B #8 10.5 31 20.5 1.20.25 Southern Baptist A 36 15 30 15 225 Christian Church C 36 15 3.5 11.5 132.25 United Church of Christ B 36 15 1.5 13.5 182.25 Church of the Nazarene C 36 15 26 11 121 Non-Denominational B 36 15 3 . 5 11. 5 132. 25 Christian Church A 30 19 6.5 12.5 156.25 Christian Church B 30 19 12 7 49 Church of God B 30 19 21.5 2.5 6.25 Evangelical United Brethren A 2A 2A 2A.5 .5 .25 Reorganized Latter M Saints A 2A 2A 11 13 169 Reorganized Latter Day Saints C 21.’ 24 27.5 3.5 12.25 Methodist Church C‘ 2A 25 13.5 10.5 110.25 Church of the Nazarene A 21c 214 5 19 361 Non-Denminational 0 2A 2A 18. 5 5. 5 30.25 United Presbyterian B 24 2A 2A.5 .5 .25 United Church of Christ A 18 28 21.5 6.5 42.25 Evangelical United Brethren B 12 30 16 1A 196 Evangelical United Brethren C 12 30 13.5 16.5 262.25 Methodist Church A 12 30 8 22 ABA United Presbyterian A 9 32 20 12 1AA Non-Denominational A 6 33 16 17 as 7027.50 r3— ._ 6110;] 5! .. 1 - ' = -.17 - Not Significant (33) ~33 128 hypothesis is thus affirmed that there is no statis- tically significant relationship between the degree of consensus of the minister and his lay leader and the amount of time they have worked together in their respective offices. This is found on the Theological, Social, and Political Expectation Scales. Figures VII and VIII show the deviation from the expected ranking by consensus on the Social and Political Expectation Scales. The correlation coefficient for the Social is -.05, and for the Political, it is -.l7. Hypothesis six is concerned with the relation- ship between the degree of consensus of the minister and his lay leader and the size of the congregation being served: 6. a. on the Theological Expectation Scale, 6. b. on the Social Expectation Scale, and 6. c. on the Political Expectation Scale. This hypothesis states that there is no significant relation- ship between these two factors, and Tables XXI, XXII, and XXIII and Figures IX, X, and XI show the analysis of the data to test the hypothesis. Table XXI presents the Spearman Rank Correla- tion Coefficient: rs applied to the expected and actual rank order by consensus based on the size of the congre- gation. The rS for this relationship is -.08, which is not sufficiently significant to reject Hypothesis 6. a. Figure IX presents a graphic analysis of the same data revealing that there is no statistically significant ACTUAL RANKIN BI CONSENSUS HNWPUIO‘NIGQ 129 FIGUREVII EXPECTED AND ACTUAL RANK ORDER BY CONSENSUS BASED ON NUMBER OF MONTHS INTERACTION BETWEEN MINISTER AND LAY LEADER SOCIAL SCALE a-n- '—e-——-.—..—v ouc- ¢- ..-.- -g. -- -_ -. -. c.— ”-7 b--.’ I I I I x ‘ mmmmmm ~05 HN4~1~1 b—SS‘SS SSSSSSSSSSNSSNSSSRRW RANKIIBBIMONTHSOFINTERACTION mommmmmunczsrmm: mm mm s! consensus ,. ---- expected actual 130 FIGURE VIII BASED ON NUMBER OF MONTHS INTERACTION BETNEEN MINISTER AND LAY LEADER POLITICAL SCALE III-I "Iall‘.v II HH EXPECTED RANKING BI CONSENSUS actual expected EXPECTED AND ACTUAL RANK ORDER BY CONSENSUS 1098765 a”; 2211111“ 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 A 3 2 l mamzmmzoo a S a a e E < RANKING BI MONTHS OF INTERACTION BEGINNING WITH THE LARGEST NUMBER: HN-fl’éé‘cl‘t‘oo A SPEARMAN RANK CORRELATION COEFFICIENT: rs EXPECTED AND ACTUAL RANK ORDER BY CONSENSUS BASED ON SIZE OF CONGREBATION : 131 TABLEXXI THEOIAXEICAL APPLIEDTO Size of Expected Actual 2 'Denonination and Cogggegation Coggregation Rank Rank di di Evangelical United Brethren Southern Baptist Evangelical United Brethren Methodist Church Church of God Church of the Nazarene Reorganized Latter Day Saints Reorganized Latter Day Saints Christian Church Church of God Church of the Nazarene United Presbyterian Reorganized Latter Day Saints Christian Church Protestant Episcopal Church Methodist Church Christian Church Church of the Nazarene United Church of Christ Non-Denominational United Church of Christ Protestant Episcopal Church Erangelical United Brethren United Presbyterian Southern Baptist United Presbyterian NOn-Denominational Church of God IMethodist Church Southern Baptist United Church of Christ Protestant Episcopal Church Non-Denominational >>wo>>wa>w>wbooo>wom>>>aowowwooww 37 50 55 60 “0 8m 1A00 IAOO .5 .5 e UTUI assesssaaessuscessutssusaaaaasssa “V1 18 7.5 20 18 1.5 28.5 31 12 25.5 17 5.5 17 e “W e e e a V! USU! mm fisqqmchBN-fimcak’hu: FJPJ hard P‘ qamfigwamyoo “WWWWU'I e \fl \h 289 30.25 289 196 12.25 506.25 576 16 16 25 306.25 6.25 A00 81 30.25 210.25 25 56.25 A9 16 121 .25 380.25 90.25 2h0.25 3&2.25 650.25 1 576 hhl 256 6457.00 = -6 g _ = r, 1 zggflrg. .w wasumnam ACTUAL RANKING BI COMPANIES 132 FIGURE IX EXPECTED AND ACTUAL RANK ORDER BY CONSENSUS BASED ON SIZE OF COEREBATION ‘fl-IEOIDGICAL SCALE l-‘NWP'VIO‘stQ .__._'_ \ l mm mm mm 0 O O O O O HNMdMOFQ$OHNM mmbma H N mob ¢ Own HHHHjHHHHHRNamammwaNRMMM RANKING BY SIZE OF CONGREGATION WINNING WITH THE SHALLEST: EXPECTED RANKING BY CONSENSUS --- expected actual 133 relationship between the degree of consensus of the minister and his lay leader on the Theological Expecta- tion Scale and the size of the congregation being served. Tables XXII and XXIII and Figures X and XI reveal data which enables the affirmation of Hypotheses 6. b. and 6. c. to be made. On all three Expectation Scales, there is no statistically significant relation- ship shown to exist between the consensus of the minister and his lay leader and the size of the congregation being served. Of the thirty-three ministers used in this study, fifteen of them were assigned by their denomina- tions to the congregation they are now serving; and eighteen of them were chosen by the congregation which they are now serving. The average Rank Correlation Coefficients for these two groups of assigned and chosen ministers on each of the three Expectation Scales are as follows: Assigned 213.5%}. Theological .27 .49 Social .33 .A9 Political .57 .57 With the exception of the Political items, those ministers and lay leaders from congregations choosing the ministers have a higher rS than do those ministers and lay leaders from congregations where the minister has been assigned by his denomination. 134 TABLE XXII SPEARMAN RANK CORRELATION COEFFICIENT: r3 APPLIED TO {EXPECTED.AND ACTUAL RANK ORDER BY CONSENSUS BASED ON SIZE OF CONGREGATION: SOCIAL Expected Actual 2 Size of Denmination and Congregation Congregati on Rank Rank di di Evangelical United Brethren B 37 1 8 7 A9 Southern Baptist B 50 2 2.5 .5 .25 Evangelical United Brethren c 55 3 30.5 27.5 756.25 Methodist Church C 60 L 15 11 121 Church of God B 75 5 9 A 16 Church of the Nazarene B ‘93 6 33 27 729 Reorganized Latter Day Saints C 150 7 10.5 3.5 12.25 Reorganized Latter Du Saints B 162 8 22.5 14.5 210.25 Christian Church C 175 9 6 3 9 Church of God C 2L7 1O 32 22 Ash Church of the Nazarene A 250 ll 29 18 32h united Freehyterian A 267 12 2.5 9.5 90.25 Reorganized latter Day Saints A 275 13 25 12 1“; Christian Church B 283 M 22.5 8.5 72.25 Protestant Episcopal Church C ' 285 15.5 12 3.5 12.25 Methodist Church B 285 15.5 28 12.5 156.25 Christian Church A. 300 17 17 O 0 Church of the Nazarene C 325 18 27 11 121 United Church of Christ C 330 19 17 2 A Non-Denominati onal C 375 20 7 13 169 United Church of Christ A 380 21 17 A 16 Protestant Episcopal Church B 100 22.5 10.5 12 lhh Evangelical United Brethren A 1400 22.5 19 3.5 12.25 united Presbyterian B 560 2A 20.5 3.5 12.25 Southern Baptist A 565 25 20.5 h.5 20.25 United Presbyterian c 600 26 13.5 12.5 156.25 Non-Denominational B 650 27 l. 23 529 Church of God A_ 850 28 1 27 729 Methodist Church A 1200 29 5 2A 576 Southern Baptist C 11400 30.5 25 - 5.5 30.25 United Church of Christ B IAOO 30.5 25 5.5 30.25 Protestant Episcopal Church A 2000 32 13.5 18.5 3&2.25 Nen-Denaninational A 2200 33 30. 2 . 5 6 . 22 New a . 6 608 = _ = r, 1 2533-3“; .02 Not Significant TABLE XXIII SPEARHAN mm common COEFFICIENT : r EXPECTED m ACTUAL RANK ORDER BY CONSENSUS BASED ON SIZE or CONCREBATION: POLITICAL APPLIED T0 H Size of Ekpected Actual 2 Denomination and Congregation Congaggation Rank Rank _d_;l_ __g_i____ Evangelical United Brethren B 37 l 16 225 Southern Baptist B 50 2 6.5 20.25 Ehangelical United Brethren C 55 3 13.5 110.25 HethOdiBt Church C 60 h 13.5 9.5 90.25 Church of God B 75 5 21.5 16.5 262.25 Church of the Nazarene B 93 6 27.5 21.5 1.62.25 Reorganized Latter Du Saints C 150 7 27.5 20.5 £20.25 Reorganized Latter Day Sainti B 162 8 29 21 Ahl Christian Church C 175 9 3.5 5.5 30.25 Church of God C 2A7 10 16 6 36 Church of the Nazarene A 250 11 5 6 36 United Presbyterian A 267 12 20 s 1.3 Reorganized latter Day Saints A 275 13 11 2 L Christian Church B 283 1A 12 2 h Protestant Episcopal Church C 285 15 5 9.5 6 36 Methodist Church B 285 15 5 31 1h.5 210.25 Christian Church A 300 17 6.5 10.5 110.25 Church of the Nazarene C 325 18 26 8 61 United Church of Christ C 330 19 32 13 169 Non-Denminational C 375 20 18. 5 1 . 5 2 . 25 United Church of Christ A 380 21 1.5 19.5 380.25 Protestant Episcopal Church B LOO 22 5 18. 5 A 16 Evangelical United Brethren A 1.00 22 5 2A.5 2 a United Presbyterian B A60 21; ”“5 .5 .25 Southern Baptist A 565 25 30 5 25 United Presbyterian C 600 26 23 3 9 Non-Denminational B 650 27 3.5 23.5 552.25 Church of God A 850 28 21.5 6.5 42.25 Methodist Church A 1200 29 8 21 441 Southern Baptist C IAOO 30 5 33 2.5 6.25 United Church of Christ B 1500 30 5 1.5 29 8&1 Protestant biscopal Church A 2000 32 9.5 22.5 506.25 Non-Denominational A 2200 33 16 7 & rs = l - £128.21)... = .02 = Not Significant ACTUAL RANKING BY CONSENSUS HMWPWO‘QQO 136 FIGURE X EXPECTED AND ACTUAL RANK ORDER BY CONSENSUS BASED ON SIZE OF CONGRmATION SOCIAL SCALE __... ~a_._._-_ -—-——.§__ . “F W W’ HNccmsswcsnsssnnssssssssassassssa RANKING BY SIZE OF (XJNGREGATION BEBINNING WITH THE SNALLEST: EXPECTED RANKING B! CONSENSUS ---- expected actual ACTUAL RANKIN B! CONSENSUS l-‘NUMI-‘U'IONQQO 137 FIGURE XI EXPECTED AND ACTUAL RANK ORDER BY CONSENSUS BASED ON SIZE OF WHON POLITICAL SCALE ’A I’, a \ ' l 1‘. \ ' 5 | I , ‘ | i/l A ‘ ; .‘ ,A' A ‘ I 1 y i .‘ e,’ f A“? i i ' I] I A ‘. : H I /’ 3 ‘ \ f \ , . \ i . : A l/1 N I} 5" ‘. ’ \f s \ X ‘ I 1 / l 1'“! z’ “i \I V [/1 \‘ \‘l: I, . mm a?“ w—' H“caresscassaanassasssseasessasaa RANKING BY SIZE OF COMRFBATION BEBINNING WITH THE SNALLEST: EXPECTED RANKIN} B! CONSENSUS --- expected actual -n-na 138 Ten of the ministers in the study considered themselves to be religious liberals in theological, social, and political issues associated with church. The remainder of twenty-three ministers considered themselves to be religious conservatives in theological, social, and political issues associated with church. The average rS for these two groups on the Theological, Social, and Political Expectation Scales are as follows: Liberal Conservative Theological .33 .AZ Social .AA .hl Political .68 .52 On the Theological Expectation Scale, the ministers who consider themselves to be religious conservatives rank higher on the average in their con- sensus with their lay leader than do thosaministers who consider themselves to be religious liberals. On both the Social and Political Expectation Scales, however, the "liberal" ministers rank higher in their consensus with their lay leader than do the "conservative". 139 Summary of Analysis by Congregation This chapter of the study made an analysis of the data based on the separate congregations. Its primary concern was to determine wherein lie any dif- ferences between the choices made by the minister and lay leader of a given congregation. Hypotheses four, five, and six were tested by running a Rank Correlation analysis of the data collected from the three Expecta- tion Scales. The findings of this chapter are as follows: Twenty—five of the thirty-three congregations used in the study yielded data which supported Hypothesis A. a., supporting the statement that there is no statistically significant relationship between the ranking of items by a minister and his lay leader on the Theological Expectation Scale. Two of the congregations tested rejected Hypothesis h. a. at the .01 level of significance, and six rejected it at the .05 level. Hypothesis 4. b. was rejected as a result of the data of nine of the congregations tested. or those yielding data for rejecting the Hypothesis, four yielded data with which it was rejected at the .01 level of sig- nificance, and five at the .05 level. In seventy-three percent of the cases tested, no statistically significant relationship exists between the ranking of items by a minister and lay leader of a given denomination on the 140 Social Expectation Scale. In nineteen of the congregations used in the study, there was shown to be a statistically significant relationship between the ranking of items on the Political Expectation Scale by the minister and the lay leader of a given congregation. Forty-two percent of the congrega- tions tested failed to yield data for rejecting Hypothesis h. c. Hypothesis five is concerned with the possible relationship between the consensus of a minister and his lay leader and the amount of time they have worked to- gether in their respective offices. The results as shown on Tables XVIII, XIX, and XX, and supported by the graphic representation as shown on Figures XVI, XVII, and XVIII, show a support of hypothesis five on all three of the Expectation Scales. In other words, there is no statistically significant relationshiptntween the degree of consensus of the minister and his lay leader and the amount of time they have worked together in their respective offices. It should be noted, how- ever, that the consensus needed in order to reject this hypothesis is .285. On the Theological Expectation Scale, the rS is .225. On the Social and Political Expectation Scales a negative correlation coefficient is expressed showing little relationship in the choices made by the minister and the lay leader. Hypothesis six states that there is no significant lhl relationship between the consensus of the minister and his lay leader and the size of the congregation being served. The data as summarized in Tables XXI, XXII, and XXIII, and further supported on Figures IX, X and XI, yield data with which this hypothesis may be affirmed at a high level of affirmation based on low correlation coefficients on the Theological, Social, and Political Expectation Scales. 0n the questionnaire used in the study, the ministers were asked whether they were assigned by their denomination or chosen by their congregation. Fifteen of the ministers reported they were assigned and eighteen said they were chosen. Those chosen showed an average consensus on the Theological and Social Expectation Scales with their lay leader that was considerably higher than their counterparts who were assigned by their denominations. Both groups showed identical average consensus on the Political Expectation Scale. Another questionnaire item asked the minister to report whether he considered himself to be a religious conservative or a religious liberal in terms of theological, social, and political issues associated with the church. Those twenty-three ministers considering themselves to be conservatives in these areas had a somewhat higher consensus with their lay leaders on the Theological Expectation Scale. Those ten ministers considering 1A2 themselves to be religious liberals in theological, social, and political issues had a somewhat higher consensus with their lay leaders on the Social and Political Expectation Scales. CHAPTER VI SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND GENERAL CONCLUSIONS Introduction It is the purpose of this concluding chapter of the study to look backward by way of presenting a summary of the important facts developed, and to select interpretations made. It has a further purpose of look- ing forward by way of presenting general conclusions, implications, recommendations, and suggestions for further research. The underlying problem which presented the motivation for this study was the desire to formulate a methodology for analyzing some aspect of the communica- tion act. The aspect chosen for this study was the responsibility of the message source, called the speaker, to select topics which he, himself, believed he should select, and to select tOpics which his audience believed he should select, as the basis for his messages. It was suggested that the greater the consensus between the speaker and his audience in their "expectation for topic selection" the greater will be the opportunity for effective communication to occur. "Communication" represents a message delivered from a speaker to and 143 141» received by an audience. The choice for this study of the expectations of the speaker's tOpic selection was prompted by the observed importance of this topic selec- tion. The public Speaker chosen for this research was the Protestant minister. For the purposes of represent- ativeness and practicality, one person was chosen from the congregation of the minister to represent the audi- ence. This person was an elected or appointed official of the congregation having some authority. The person selected was the one who might be called the "lay leader"; and for the purpose of this study, he is so called. It was noted in the introductory chapter that the minister and his congregation present a consistent--in terms of frequency of contact—-speaker-audience situation which was readily available for analysis. Further limitation within the total Protestant community was necessary. Thirty-three congregations, representing ten different denominations, and one group of three non-denominational churches were used in this study. Three congregations within each of the ten denom- inations were analyzed to discover differences between the minister and his lay leader in their expectations of the responsibility for topic selection by the minis- ter. Measurement of any differences among the three ministers and among the three lay leaders of a given denomination on their expectations for the responsibility lh5 of the minister concerning topic selection was also made. An additional purpose for this study is to be found in the development of research instruments which will provide quantifiable data relating to the expecta- tions held by a speaker and his audience. The instru- ments known in the study as "Expectation Scales" are not limited to the present sample used in this research. The possibilities beyond the immediate research with ministers and lay leaders, and even beyond the larger realm of Speech to the fields of Business and Industry, Education, Politics, and Medicine, are open for the use of "Expectation Scales" similar to those contained in this study. Controversial topics in each of these areas of study might be utilized in developing these instru- ments. Some of the suggested practical applications for the findings of this study are: (l) the individual minister will be able to recognize his Specific area of difference with his lay leader on their respective expectations concerning topic selection for the minister as a responsible pulpit speaker; (2) the individual minister will then be better able to fulfill his responsi- bility as a pulpit Speaker to himself, his message, and his audience, based on his recognition of the Specific areas of topic selection wherein expectations differ between himself and his lay leader; (3) the individual 146 minister will have a basis for discussion with his lay leader derived from the knowledge of the differences in expectations of topic selection and how these might be resolved; (4) the separate denominations will be able to see the specific differences that exist between their ministers and their lay leaders in their concept of the minister's responsibility to select certain topics for his sermons; (5) the separate denominations will be able to recognize the areas of difference concerning the expectations of topic selection among the three ministers of their faith, and be in a better position to discuss these differences with them; (6) the separate denomina- tions will be able to compare the specific problem areas and specificitems of difference experienced by their own ministers and their own lay leaders with the problem areas experienced among the other ten denominations; (7) the denominational seminaries will be able to utilize in their instructional pattern the information about specific differences which most often occur among their ministers and between their ministers and lay leaders concerning their expectations for the minister's selecting certain topics; (8) the denominational officers will be better enlightened and will be better equipped to work with ministers and lay leaders in attempting to explain the minister's responsibility for topic selec- tion; (9) others interested in the field of religion will be able to realize some specific problem areas 11+? encountered by practitioners in the field; and (10) the field of Speech will gain new insights into the im- portance of discovering the degree of consensus in the expectations for topic selection held by the speaker and his audience. The instruments applied and the procedures used for the selective group of thirty-three ministers and thirty-three lay leaders representing ten Protestant denominations and the non-denominational group were a questionnaire and a set of Expectation Scales divided into three parts, i.e., theological, social, and political. Each of the Expectation Scales dealt with items relating to topics which might be included in a minister's sermonizing. By personal interviews the ministers were asked the questions on the questionnaire and given the opportunity to react to the Expectation Scale. An additional personal interview was held with each lay leader used in the study, and he was likewise given the opportunity to react to the Expectation Scale in its three parts. The differences that existed between the ministers and the lay leaders and among the denom- inational groupings of ministers and lay leaders were tabulated and measured statistically where possible in order to ascertain any statistical significance. ‘Wherever differences occurred, it is suggested that a breakdown in the understanding between or among the tested persons is latent. This further suggests that a breakdown in 1&8 communication is also potential insofar as a mutual understanding and agreement of the responsibility in terms of topic selection of the minister as a speaker is concerned. It is hoped that as a result of this study a better understanding of the relationship between minister and minister, between lay leader and lay leader, and between minister and lay leader will be secured. It is also hoped that the results of this study will add some insight into methodology that may be used to illuminate the entire process of communication and make it better understood by a greater number of persons. Several persistent questions arose during extensive discussions held with Michigan State University faculty members in the Departments of Speech and Philosophy; Protestant church officials in the Lansing area; ministers, lay leaders, specialists in survey research, the Executive Secretary of the Lansing Council of Churches, and a professor of Homiletics. These ques- tions are as follows: 1. What differences exist between ministers as a group and lay leaders as a group in their expectations of the responsibilities of the minister in his topic selections? 2. Are these differences primarily restriCted to one area of the minister's speaking, i.e. theological, social, or political? 3. Are these differences primarily restricted to certain sub-areas within the theological, social, or political areas of the minister's responsibility in topic selection as a 149 preacher, i.e. problem-centered as opposed to Bible-centered, family problem-centered as opposed to personal ethics, and sermoniz- ing on local politics as opposed to sermoniz- ing on the religious elements in a political campaign? A. What relationships are there between the differences that exist and such factors as: (l) the amount of time the minister and lay leader have interacted in their respective positions, (2) the size of the congregation being served, (3) the fact that the minister was assigned by his denomination rather than selected by his congregation, and (A) the fact that the minister considers himself to be a religious liberal rather than a religious conservative? 5. What is the agreement or lack of agreement among ministers of a given denomination on choices pertaining to the minister's responsibility as a preacher on theological, social, and political issues? 6. How does this agreement or lack of agreement among ministers of one denomination compare with other groups of ministers of other denominations? 7. What is the agreement or lack of agreement among lay leaders of a given denomination on choices pertaining to the minister's respon- sibility as a preacher? 8. How does this agreement or lack of agreement among lay leaders of one denomination compare with other groups of lay leaders of other denominations? 9. What implications for the field of speech and communication can be drawn from arriv- ing at answers to the above questions? 10. What implications for the field of religion can be drawn from receiving the answers to the above questions? These questions appeared to include the most pertinent elements in the relationship between the minister and the lay leader. 150 In order to apply more easily quantitative analyses to the data collected, several of the above questions were recast in the form of null hypotheses. The six hypotheses developed for this purpose are as follows: There is no significant relationship among the ministers of a given denomination in the choices they make: a. on the theological expectation scale. b. on the social expectation scale. c. on the political expectation scale. There is no significant relationship among the lay leaders of a given denomination in the choices they make: a. on the theological expectation scale. b. on the social expectation scale. c. on the political expectation scale. There is no significant relationship between the degree of consensus of ministers by denominational grouping and the degree of consensus of lay leaders by denominational grouping: a. on the theological expectation scale. b. on the social expectation scale. c. on the political expectation scale. There is no significant relationship between the ranking of items by a minister and lay leader of a given congregation: a. on the theological expectation scale. b. on the social expectation scale. c. on the political expectation scale. There is no significant relationship between the degree of consensus of the minister and his lay leader and the amount of time they have worked together in their respective offices: a. on the theological expectation scale. b. on the social expectation scale. c. on the political expectation scale. There is no significant relationship between the degree of consensus of the minister and his lay leader and the size of the congrega- tion being served: 151 a. on the theological expectation scale. b. on the social expectation scale. c. on the political expectation scale. Wherever it was not appropriate to apply a statistical test to the data collected from the ministers and lay leaders, the data are treated descriptively. 152 Summary of findings 1. Sixteen out of the thirty-three ministers sought out their lay leaders when they first acquired their present pastorates. The major items of discus- sion between these sixteen ministers and their lay leaders were: the potential or future outreach of the church, responsibilities within the congregation, and problems of the congregational personnel. 2. Nineteen of the ministers now meet regularly, either socially or officially, with their lay leaders. They discuss, primarily, problems within the congrega- tion, programming, the outreach of the congregation, and the spiritual growth of the parishioners. 3. Thirteen of the ministers reported they had discussed their preaching with their lay leader. A. All thirty-three of the ministers used in the study had taken at least one course in speech or homiletics. Over one-half of the ministers had taken more than one course in speech. 5. Seventeen of the ministers had participated in some form of extra-curricular activity in speech. Most of these seventeen had taken part in drama or debate. 6. Twenty of the ministers felt they had. specific problems in communication. Thirteen of these felt that language and its usage and understanding was their major problem area in communication. 153 7. The greatest agreement between the total ministers and total lay leaders on the Theological Expectation Scale was on item two, "It is the minister's reSponsibility when speaking from the pulpit to act as a spokesman for God and not as a spokesman for him- self." With the exception of one lay leader, all of the ministers and lay leaders felt that a minister preferably should or absolutely must act as a spokesman for God and not as a Spokesman for himself. 8. The greatest diversity on the Theological Expectation Scale was evident on item number three, "It is the minister's responsibility when speaking from the pulpit to relate his sermons specifically to the personal problems of his parishioners." The majority of the ministers felt that the minister preferably should or absolutely must do this, whereas, the lay leaders felt considerably less strongly about the minister's doing this. 9. On the Social Expectation Scale, the greatest agreement between the ministers and the lay leaders was on item number five dealing with the minister's speaking on the failure of the parishioners to practice Christian ethics in their business and professional dealings. Ninety-one percent of both the ministers and the lay leaders felt that the minister preferably should or absolutely must speak on this topic. 154 10. The greatest difference in the choices made on the Social Expectation Scale was on item number seven. Seventy-nine percent of the ministers felt that a minister preferably should not or absolutely must not use problems encountered in private pastoral counseling as material for sermons, while sixty percent of the lay leaders selected the two negative categories for this item stating "should not" or "absolutely must not". 11. On the Political Expectation Scale, the greatest amount of agreement between the ministers and lay leaders was on the tOpic of the parishioners' voting on local issues. Fifty-eight percent of the lay leaders and sixty-one percent of the miniters feel that a minister preferably should not or absolutely must not make recommendations for his parishioners' voting on local issues. 12. The greatest disagreement on the Political Expectation Scale was on item number eight dealing with the minister's speaking out in support of or against local candidates for office. Eighty-two percent of the lay leaders selected the negative categories of "preferably Should not" or "absolutely must not" for this item. Only sixty-one percent of the ministersselected these two negative categories for item number eight. 7 13. The measure of central tendency of the nominal responses to the Theological Expectation Scale shows the major differences between the choices of the 155 ministers and lay leaders to be on item one, three, and eight. 0n item one, "It is the minister's reSponsibility when speaking from the pulpit to speak on the compati- bility of science and religion," the ministers felt that the minister should speak on this, and the lay leaders felt that it does not matter whether or not the minister speaks on this. The same results are evident on item number three, "It is the minister's reSponsibility when speaking from the pulpit to relate his sermons specifically to the personal problems of his parishioners." The ministers feel that a minister should do this, and the lay leaders feel that it does not matter whether or not the minister does this. Item number eight states that "It is the minister's responsibility when speaking from the pulpit to place his allegiance to his parishioners above his personal opinions on controversial religious matters." The majority of ministers feel that a minister should not do this, and the majority of lay leaders feel that it does not matter whether or not the minister does this. It. On the Social Expectation Scale, the results Show that the majority of ministers believe that the minister should speak on the need for stricter enforce- ment of current liquor laws, and the majority of lay leaders feel that it does not matter whether or not the minister speaks on this. The results of this scale also show that the majority of lay leaders feel that it does 156 not matter whether or not the minister speaks on personal elements of marriage and family, whereas the majority of ministers feel that the minister should speak on this tOpic. 15. Item number two on the Political Expecta- tion Scale showed the greatest difference between the selections by the ministers and the lay leaders. The majority of ministers believed that a minister should comment only on political matters which, in his opinion, have religious significance. The majority of lay leaders felt that it does not matter whether or not the minister speaks on this topic. The same results are true on item number five, which states, "It is the minister's responsibility when speaking from the pulpit to preach on the religious issues present in a political campaign." 16. On the ordinal scale, or ranking of the items on the Theological Expectation Scale, item number two received the greatest number of selections by the ministers and lay leaders as being most important for the minister to do. This item deals with the minister being a spokesman for God, and not a Spokesman for himself. The item which received the most selec- tions as the least important for the minister to do was number eight. This item states, "It is the minister's responsibility when speaking from the pulpit to place his allegiance to his parishioners above his personal opinions on controversial religious matters." 157 17. The ordinal ranking on the Social Expecta- tion Scale shows item number five, dealing with the minister's discussion of the failure of parishioners to practice Christian ethics in their business and profes- sional dealings, as being selected by ministers and lay leaders as the most important for the minister to speak on. The item selected as the least important for the minister to speak on was number seven, dealing with the minister's using problems encountered in private pastoral counseling as material for sermons. 18. Item number seven on the Political Expecta- tion Scale states: "It is the minister's responsibility when speaking from the pulpit to discuss local political problems if he feels their neglect might have adverse spiritual influence on his parishioners." This item was selected by the ministers and lay leaders as being the most important for the minister to do. The ministers selected item number eight as the least important for the minister to do, and the lay leaders selected item number one as least important. These items, respectively, deal with the minister's speaking out in support of or against local candidates for office, and the minister's speaking on any and all political matters. 19. Hypothesis number one states: "There is no Significant relationship among the ministers of a given denomination in the choices they make: a. on the Theological Expectation Scale; b. on the Social Expecta- 158 tion Scale; and c. on the Political Expectation Scale. A review of the results of applying the Kendall Coefficient of Concordance: (W) to the data shows the following to be true: Six of the eleven denominations show sufficient relationship among their ministers to warrant rejection of hypothesis 1. a. Three of these denominations show sufficient relationship among their ministers to warrant rejection of this hypothesis at the .01 level of significance. Hypothesis 1. b. was rejected as shown by the data on nine of the eleven groups used in the study. Hypothesis 1. c. was rejected on the basis of the data collected from nine of the groups that showed signifi- cant relationship among their three ministers in the choices they made on the Political Expectation Scale. 20. Hypothesis number two is as follows: There is no significant relationship among the lay leaders of a given denomination in the choices they make: a. on the Theological Expectation Scale; b. on the Social Expectation Scale; and c. on the Political Expectation Scale. Eight out of the eleven denominations showed in- sufficient relationship among their lay leaders in the choices they made on the Theological Expectation Scale to warrant a rejection of hypothesis 2. a. The data gathered on seven of the denominations failed to present evidence to warrant rejection of 159 hypothesis 2. b. All eleven of the denominations showed a statistically significant relationship in the choices made by their lay leaders on the Political Expectation Scale to fail to support hypothesis 2. c. 21. Hypothesis number three states that there is no significant relationship between the degree of consensus of ministers by denominational grouping and the degree of consensus of lay leaders by denominational grouping: a. on the Theological Expectation Scale; b. on the Social Expectation Scale; and c. on the Political Expectation Scale. The rank measurement of the association between the ministers and lay leaders was accomplished by ranking the results of the Kendall Coefficient of Concordance: (W). These ranks were then measured by using the Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficient: rs. The results of the measurement of the associa- tion between the choices of ministers and the choices of lay leaders on the three expectation scales shows insufficient relationship to reject hypothesis number three. 22. Hypothesis number four states that there is no significant relationship between the ranking of items by a minister and lay leader of a given congrega- tion: a. on the Theological Expectation Scale; b. on the Social Expectation Scale; and c. on the Political 160 Expectation Scale. Hypothesis A. a. is rejected as a result of the data gathered in eight of the eleven groups used in the study. In twenty-five of the congregations it is shown that there is no statistically significant relationship between the ranking of items on the Theological Expecta- tion Scale by the minister and the lay leader of a given congregation. Hypothesis 4. b. was shown to be rejected as a result of the data collected from nine of the congrega— tions being tested. Twenty-four of the congregations present data which suggests a retention of hypothesis A. b. should be made. Hypothesis A. c. is rejected as a result of the data gathered on nineteen of the congregations tested. In these nineteen congregations there is Shown to be a statistically significant relationship between the minister and his lay leader in their choices on the Political Expectation Scale. 23. Hypothesis number five states that there is no Significant relationship between the degree of consensus of the minister and his lay leader and the amount of time they have worked together in their respective offices: a. on the Theological Expectation Scale; b. on the Social Expectation Scale; and c. on the Political Expectation Scale. The highest correlation between the minister 161 and his lay leader and their time spent working to- gether was noted on the Theological Expectation Scale. This was not, however, high enough to warrant a rejection of hypothesis 5. a. Hypothesis 5. b. and 5. c. were likewise not rejected showing there is no statistically significant relationship between the time the minister and lay leader have worked together and their degree of consensus. 2h. Hypothesis number six states that there is no significant relationship between the degree of consensus of the minister and his lay leader and the size of the congregation being served: a. on the Theological Expectation Scale; b. on the Social Expecta- tion Scale; and c. on the Political Expectation Scale. The results of the Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficient: rS shows that hypothesis 6. a., 6. b., and 6. c. are not rejected. This is to say that there is no statistically significant relationship between the degree of consensus of the minister and his lay leader on any of the three Expectation Scales and the size of the congregation being served. 25. Fifteen of the thirty-three ministers used in this study were assigned by their denomination, and eighteen of the ministers were chosen by their congrega- tions. The average rank correlation coefficients for those two groups of assigned and chosen ministers on each of the three Expectation Scales are as follows: 162 Assigned Chosen Theological .27 .49 Social .33 .49 Political .57 .57 Those ministers who were chosen by their congrega- tions ranked higher in their consensus on the Theological and Social Expectation Scales. 0n the Political Expecta- tion Scale the consensus was identical between the ministers assigned by their denomination to the congrega- tion in which they are serving. 26. Ten of the thirty-three ministers used in the study considered themselves to be religious liberals. The remainder of twenty-three ministers considered them- selves to be religious conservatives. The average Correlation Coefficients for these two groups on the three Expectation Scales are as follows: Liberal Conservative Theological .33 .42 Social .44 .41 Political .68 .52 Those ministers considering themselves to be religious liberals ranked higher in their consensus on the Social and Political Scales, whereas those consider- ing themselves to be religious conservatives ranked higher in their consensus on the Theological Scale. In addition to the above hypotheses and questions the data collected from the Expectation Scales was analyzed to see if any relationship existed between consensus and the fact that ministers and lay leaders 163 were from hierarchial or autonomous denominations. The lay leaders on the Theological and Political Scales showed a greater than chance relationship between the type of denomination and the consensus between the ministers and lay leaders. 164 General Conclusions and Implications Based on the above summary of the results of this study, the following conclusions and implications seem justified. 1. In view of the fact that less than one-half of the ministers used in the study sought out their lay leader for consultation upon assuming their responsi- bility as pastor, it is suggested that the understand- ing of the minister's purposes, goals,or feelings of reSponsibility in his topic selection would be hampered by this failure. Some ministers, when questioned concerning this, indicated that this seeking out and confiding with a lay leader might lessen their meeting their responsibility in their topic selection and show signs of weakness on their part. It seems that a minister would do well to gain all the information possible, from whatever reliable source available, to assist him in better understanding his personnel. 2. Slightly more than one-half of the ministers now meet regularly with their lay leaders. Again, it would appear that a great deal more understanding and knowledge could be gained by the minister if he would Share with and learn from his lay leader some of the problems of the congregation. In none of the general discussions held with the ministers did any of them complain of their lay leaders' attempting to usurp their authority as pastor. 165 3. If a minister is to understand his responsi- bilities in his tOpic selection as a preacher to his congregation, it seems that he would be wise to discover what their expectations of him are. Since twenty of the subject ministers reported that they had never discussed their preaching with their lay leader, it can be readily seen why, as the results of thisstudy Show, that con- siderable differences exist between what the minister believes he should speak on and the tOpics on which the lay leader believes the minister should speak. Two of the ministers interviewed seemed to con- sider the discussion of their preaching ministry and their topic selection with anyone a breach of their professional responsibility. One comment was, "What would he know about my preaching?" The lay leader has his hand on the pulse of the congregation and should have the ability to sense favor and disfavor, agreement and disagreement, and understanding and misunderstanding on the part of the parishioners. It is suggested that a minister who would be more effective in this phase of his service to his congregation would discover anything which would help him have a better understanding of his personnel and their expectations. 4. Thirteen out of thirty-three ministers inter- viewed did not see themselves as having any problems in communication. The results were quite revealing in light of thirteen of the ministers who saw language, its 166 usage, and understanding as their major Specific prob- lem. The awareness and concern expressed by these men suggested that they were interested in overcoming their problem so as to communicate better with their congrega- tions. 5. The novice minister needs to be apprised that both experienced pastors and lay leaders see the minister as a Spokesman for God. The ministers and lay leaders agree on this point for the most part. There was some concern in the inclusion of this item on the Theological Expectation Scale that it might be mis- construed as suggesting only a "prophetic" office for the minister. It appeared, as suggested by the lack of questions or discussion concerning this item, that no such misconception arose. The primary reason for including this item on the Theological Expectation Scale is that of the ever-increasing emphasis in seminaries on the minister's becoming problem-centered in his preaching, psychologically oriented toward his parishioners, and away from the philosophy of the minister "standing in the stead of Christ". 6. For the most part, the ministers believed quite strongly that they should relate their sermons to the specific problems of their parishioners. (The lay leaders did not share this view; and consequently, this item had the greatest diversity between the ministers and the lay leaders of the theological tOpics 167 used in the study. It is unlikely that a new minister would wish to approach his congregation in any way but with a problem-solving approach to his congregation. That is, in his sermonizing he will wish to present problems and then Show how religious principles may be applied in their solving. He does, however, need to realize that his parishioners do not wish to see him as a psychiatrist to the extent that he loses his ministerial role. The time may come when the minister's primary function will be that of psychological counselor, but, at present, it does not appear that his preaching role is seen in this light. 7. One of the major problems encountered in the application of the instruments to the ministers and lay leaders was on item number seven of the Social Expecta- tion Scale. This item was concerned with using problems encountered in private pastoral counseling as material for sermons. The question most often asked by ministers and lay leaders alike, and to which an answer was given whether asked or not, was, "Is positive identification to be made?" The answer was, "No". There is still some concern as to the ambiguity of this item. The majority of the ministers and lay leaders still felt that a minister should not use this material in a sermon. It is suspected that if a minister were to disguise the information in such a way as not to reveal its source, and use it as a moral lesson on which to build a sermon, 168 this material would more likely be accepted as proper for the minister to use. 8. Politics from the pulpit has consistently been one of the most controversial problems which must be faced by the minister. It was no surprise that the results of this study showed some discrepancies between the choices made by the ministers and those made by the lay leaders on political items. The question raised by several ministers during the interview was, "What is not political?" Some ministers believed that to exclude from their sermonizing all discourse of a political nature would be to sacrifice their ministerial reSponsi- bility. One lay leader remarked that if his minister Spoke on any political issue, he would get up and walk out. This is a subject that needs to be discussed at length by the minister and his lay leader. In many cases, the problem is probably one of semantics. The connotation that has attached itself to the term "political" suggests that a better understanding could be achieved between the minister and his lay leader if both had an equivalent understanding of what they meant by political. The results of this study do not Show any significant differences on specific political items. The entire results of the choices made on the Political Expectation Scale do suggest this as a topic where dis- cussion between the minister and lay leader needs to take place. 169 9. Throughout the study it should be noted that the ministers consistently see themselves as hav- ing the responsibility to speak on the somewhat contro- versial matters to a significantly greater degree than do the lay leaders see the minister's responsibility to Speak on these controversial topics. In other words, the ministers are much more inclined than are the lay leaders to select the categories which state that the minister "absolutely must" or "preferably should" speak on this or that topic. The lay leader responses tended to be closer to the "may or may not" category or to sug- gest that it does not matter whether or not a minister speaks on this or that topic. These results are evident on all three of the Expectation Scales, i.e., Theological, Social, and Political. 10. The results of the study show that groups of ministers of given denominations have the tendency to agree more on social and political topics than they do on theological ones. The same is true of lay leaders by denominational grouping, although to a more significant degree on political topics. These results suggest that different theological interpretations are made as to what tOpics ought to be discussed from the pulpit in Spite of denominational ties. Social and political topics, on the other hand, tend to be somewhat more universal in their interpretation and more often are not affected by denominational influences. The agreement 170 among ministers and among lay leaders by denominational grouping on social and political items probably has no relationship to denominational ties but, rather, has the relationship of the entire Protestant community as a unifying force. The lack of significant relation- ship on theological issues among both ministers and lay leaders of specific denominations suggests the 0p- portunity for denominational leaders to prepare materials for purposes of clarifying the minister's role in his topic selection as a preacher on these topics. 11. The lack of statistically significant relation- ship in the choices between groups of ministers and lay leaders of a given denomination on any of the items used in the study present, to the denominational officials, many opportunities for discussion with these congrega— tional leaders. It should be noted that in some of the denominations studied, the congregations are autonomous and are very loosely connected to a larger body. Considering the large number of persons who transfer from one area to the other and who seek out a congrega- tion representing their chosen denomination, it still seems desirable that some sort of better understanding between ministers and lay leaders across congregational lines would be desirable. In those denominations where the basic theology is fairly well defined it seems even more desirable that ministers and lay leaders have a better understanding of what is expected of the 171 minister as a preacher. 12. The fact that denominations are hierarchial by nature or are made up of autonomous congregations seems to have little to do with the results of this study, especially in the case of the ministers. Those denomina- tions with autonomous congregations appear to have a somewhat higher degree of consensus among their ministers and among their lay leaders, and between their ministers and lay leaders than do those denominations having a hierarchial structure. It was thought that those denominations with strong central ties, with nearly identical seminary training for their ministers, and with specific denominational leaders who consulted with or directed the denominational relationship of the congregations would have the greatest degree of consensus. Insofar as this study is concerned, this apparently is not true. The greatest degree of consensus is held by those congregations having autonomous structure. This information should be quite valuable to the denomina- tional officials as they seek for topics of discussion with their pastors and lay leaders. 13. There is apparently no significant positive relationship between the degree of consensus of the minister and his lay leader and the amount of time the two have worked together in their respective offices. This is to suggest that the novice pastor need not expect that consensus will increase with time in office. 172 If he is aware of this fact, he might very well try through discussion with his lay leader to reach an early meeting of the minds in understanding the minister's responsibility as a preacher. 173 Suggestions for Further Research The methodology used in this study, the instru— ments developed, the statistical tests employed, and the consequent conclusions and implications drawn from the analysis of the data, provide an exploratory ap- proach to the problem of topic selection and its relation- ship to speaking responsibility. They are not presented as any attempt at a final word on a complex problem that has endured throughout the centuries. It is hoped that the results of this study, in addition to their applic- ability for the practicing minister and denominational officials, will provide an incentive for further and more probing research into the problem of ethics and speaker responsibility. One of the major problems encountered in conduct- ing research is that of the necessity of limiting the subject of that research. As the researcher delves more deeply into his subject, he finds new, and oftentimes inviting, avenues which he would like to traverse. These avenues are noted below as suggestions for further research: 1. A greater number of church groups might be studied to be more representative of the Protestant com- munity than were the limited number of eleven used in this research. 2. An entire district or other area might be studied, using one denomination only. A study of this 171+ kind would have a great value for getting a cross study of such things as: rural versus urban congregations, highly trained versus less highly trained ministers, and large versus small congregations. This study, which included only three congregations representing each denomination, could hardly be said to be representative of any given denomination. 3. A replication of this study in an area or state other than Lansing, Michigan, might provide dif- ferent or additional data. 4. A larger number of laymen within each congregation might be tested for their expectations for the reSponsibility of the minister in his topic selection. The one person used in this study was used to represent, but was not entirely representative of, his congregation in terms of such things as: education, age, sex, cultural background, and time in congregation. If a speaker is to operate in terms of some known facts pertaining to the expectations of his audience, he needs as much information as he can get. 5. An additional study might be made which would give insight into the entire role of the minister, not only as a preacher, but as a pastor and head of a house- hold as well. These factors undoubtedly exert an in- fluence on his expectations for himself in his topic selections as a preacher. The three parts of the minister's role would then need to be related. 175 6. Additional expectation items need to be developed and tested. Other critical factors may be present in the subject area about which the minister speaks. 7. Studies of this type which attempt to measure a speaker's and an audience's expectations for the Speaker need to be made outside of the theological milieu. A similar study could be made in any speech situation, for example: between teacher and student; between doctor and patient; and between employer or executive and employee. 8. A cross study might be made which would measure the consensus of Protestant ministers, Jewish rabbis, Roman Catholic priests, and Greek Orthodox priests. 9. By changing the items on the instruments to correspond with information sought, the instruments might be used to discover consensus between the minister and his congregation on other aspects of his preaching ministry such as: arrangement, delivery, style, and memory. 10. It would also be possible to discover further what the minister thinks his parishioners_ believe or expect about what he believes or expects. BIBLIOGRAPHY Gross, Neal, ward S. Mason, and Alexander W. McEachern. Explorations 13 Role Analysis. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1958. 176 177 APPENDIX A P. 0. Box 388 East Lansing, Michigan June 12, 1963 Reverend Lansing Michigan Dear Reverend : At the present time I an engaged in a doctoral thesis study concerning the «municative role of the Protestant minister as a preacher. It is n objective to make an analysis of the expectations for this role as held by you, the minister, and by one of the lay leaders of your con- gregation. The instruments to be used in this study are not designed to furnish any intonation which will interpret your abilities or ef- fectiveness as a minister. To further insure this, any information which you give to me will be noted anonymously in the study, with your identity and that of your church known only to me. The results of this study should give valuable insight to you as an individual minister, to saninarians as they help prepare new ministers for their positions, and to the entire field of religion. Although I an conducting this study as a requirunent for w Ph.D. degree in the Department of Speech at Michigan State University, my interests are not entirely academic. I an an ordained minister, and I sincerely believe that this study will make a contribution to the field of religion. I hope you will be able to help in this study by giving the hour or less needed for a personal interview on this latter. To save you the trouble of writing a reply, I will telephone you in a few days for an appointeent at your convenience. Thanking you in advance for your cOOperation, I an Sincerely, James L. Mayfield A. 5. 10. 12. 13. 178 What denanination do you represent? What is the present size of your congregation? How did you acquire your present pastorate? How long have you served in your present pastorate? How long have you served with your present lay leader? When you first acquired your present pastorate, did you seek out the lay leader for consultation? What things did you discuss? Do you now meet regularly with your lay leader, either socially or officially? What things do you discuss? Have you ever discussed your preaching ministry with your lay leader? Did he bring up the subject, or did you? What special training have you had for your career as a minister? What speech courses have you had in your educational experiences? that extra-curricular speech activities did you participate in while attending school; such as, drama, debate, discussion, oratory, extuperaneous speech, radio, television, etc. What, if aw, problans in ccunmnication do you feel you have? Do you consider yourself to be a religious conservative or a’religious liberal? Why do you consider yourself to be this? ‘ that educational background does your lay leader have? 000306 050.330." dad-E06350 no 0.8.230 ESSA 0.2 0690 0.8.3.302 0.2 on. gnawed? 0.2 000.3 .0 III .sofiaeguaueefi SS .205 0x0! 3 0300.20,?!" 0.2 no 9330a :05 00.30." 00:00 gone-5:00 5" 03.8 05 093.005.. .N. .9009 05 no 0.8.30.5 103031338005 and: :05 melanonn canoe. £0050 5.“: 00500.80 0.3.0 on .0 00331200 05 Ho 003.3088 :0 no 0:0C00 03 ca 33059.! henna 0.3 000.3 .m .ooc no 50.5 0003.000 one 00050.? 05 000000.50." 0.33 05 to: 003000.950 05 20:0 .4 0.3002020“ 0.3 no adage 100009 0.3 on 3.003430% 000500 0.2 000.79 .m .3005": no.“ 00300003 0 0.0 00: 0:0 coo SH eel—0:090 0 00 000 .N .0303”: one 000030 no Saracen-.00 0.3 so 300% .H 3a panda an... act 318% non: handset reopens: one an an Isl I l. I." .‘III. . . (Ill! 1:! II it" A It" .oo o» Bananas on» you 0:00.895 0000..” 0.“ H00.“ so» 53” 05 £800.30." 0 0:0 00 on 8003.3 0.3 you 0:00.395" 00o! 0.“ doom ooh 08.: 05 00000.50." H 9330." am on .n g 0.53” 05 soon 0000.3 .3305 .02». 0550.380 .85 .SHon 008.3020 0mg?» 0a.... 00.30 05 5 no: 0030 no: 3320 no: he... 300:0 00:: 00 on paw—so .8902? 0 05.309 :0» nods: on 00%00 05. m smacks» H £3382 220320 .8 Us Denture." Bounced corneas: econ near: 202 one no can one scene 8.30 use“: area gem zofigg Aden—“004.85. 2H I I I I l l I i EII‘ i 600000000 0000008 000 .0000>00 3.53000 30.7000 30000000 00 0000 00.0000 000 00000000 .00 00005.00 0.0000000 00 00000 . .0000000 000 00000000 00 0000000000 00000000 00000000 00 00000000000 053000 000 . 0000000000000 0000010000000 00 0.3000 00 0000000000000 000>00 . 60000000 000000000000 000 00000000 00000 00 000000 000000000 00000000 00 0000000000000 00 0000000 000 0000000 . 300000 000 00 00000000000 000000 00030000000000.0000 00 00000 000 00 00000 .0000: 000000930. 0.0000005 0.0083 000 00.0 0000000000 000000900. 000 00 0000 000000000000 .00 000.500 30000000 . .0350 0000000000000 000 00 5000 0:060 2. .085 85 65.350 00 083.5 20.8 0800 . 0300 00000.0 0000000 00 0005000000 00000000 000 0000 000 00 00000 .N 2n 30 0000.0 23 080.0 00000000 0003 300300000000 0 10000500 000 00 0H 000 0020 000 0.3000 000 b!- 0.3000 00038 3 030.8020 60 3 0300.0... 23 .30 000000900 00000 00 000.0 00» '00 000 000000000 m 000 00 00 00000000 000 00.0 000000900 0000. 00 000.0 005 £000 0.00 000000900 0 0000000 0 00 .0 I000 0500 000 00000 00003 .05 0000.00.80 .8004 .305 0080080 00005 2:. 8..” 3 o... 208 0300000 0 26003 so» 000.... 3 80000 2.0 .3 00: 030.802.. 07032.: 8030000 080 .02.. 00000 05 no «on 20 08% 80000 gum ZOESHOE 050.com 30000 00000 000 00 0 0080;... 0 00-000 000.00 .moflho you gnaw Iguana finned $2...“de no no 98.550 5.. #50 8.3% .m 6.38.2323 0.3 no 83%.“ 132E. 83:3 2.2 23: 83?: has wave.“ on «a .5393 H8330“ H30." «38»? 4.. Joanna 1:033 you win—5..» 393% an ho Mo 0.3.53 5 £6 Mean .0 £36.53 H33 anon a 5 .5393 nos—3.“ 30.5.30." 05 :o 53.3 .m .338 one 55 93.: av :oaaahoku Inca H560 05m 33 83598.50 «.2 5 0338 303.30 H3333 no 0.5% a £33 03.43." .4 .333" good no mayo» .uhogdnagn can you «agent—8'80: 81! .m .oonuofldnmflu madman 253 .3330 33 5 52: 83...... H8332“ no .38 £838 .~ .303: H3332“ a and D:— co aden- .H «8. find... 23 E 923390 can: mafiaguaconuou 3.3.33.- 23 a." pH . .8 3 833a 23 you vfifiofiu .53 3 doom 8» 8.: 23 pfiufinfi m Eu 8 3 93.2.2. on... you anatomy“ £3... 3 H03 8» in“ 23 ....._.;....a_...“ H 9:33 .m 3 a 8h .83 23 an.” 88% £33 £2» wfifiaflo .892 £33 3838.. as... 2.... 89: 23 5 .8 fia— po: 38:. a8 .3. 33% :3 on o» 295 gang .- 2533 so» 52.. 3 3&3 23 o .324. a 2338.: .3993...» .3 .3. hnflouok 33.583 .3835 an... 52.. 23”.. on... no 5.. on... x85 88: 28fi 3 an suffigm H