Handling problem people at your home group

‘My home group would be just fine if it weren’t for the people in it!’ Many of us have felt that level of frustration at times.

Even the most experienced of leaders can find themselves thinking that all the hard work put into preparing the Bible study seems to have been in vain. People in the group just don’t say the things they’re meant to!

What follows is a brief ‘survival guide’ for the beleaguered home group leader, gleaned as much from the experience of others and the wisdom of the ages as from my own experience.

Coping with contributions

The place to begin is how we deal in general with contributions made by members of the group during the study. Somebody has said something — anything — in response to a question we’ve asked. It may have been sensible; it may have been off the wall. What should we bear in mind when responding?

Any contribution

Whatever anybody says, the first thing is to acknowledge it. But we need to do it in such a way that the contributor feels acknowledged. A simple ‘Hmmm’ or grunt may not convince them that you’ve really engaged with what they’ve said. The result may be that they feel undervalued and so become less inclined to speak again.

A couple of simple rules should help. First, catch their eyes. Sustained eye contact can be as affirming as a great gush of words! Second, use their words. If we reflect some of their own phraseology back to them, they’re unlikely to think we haven’t listened.

Poor contributions

Coping with answers that are just plain wrong is one of the toughest challenges facing the small group leader. It is particularly difficult with those who struggle to distinguish between a rejection of their opinion and a rejection of them as a person. So we must tread carefully.

As a basic rule, flatly contradicting any contribution, however hopeless it may be, is best avoided. It may be appropriate in some very specific contexts — for example, with an overconfident young man who needs putting in his place! But to say a member is wrong in front of the group may be so crushing that the contributor never opens his/her mouth again for the rest of the study!

A better strategy is to try to build on what they’ve said as a basis for further exploration. For example, spot something good. It may be possible to latch on to a part of their answer, while challenging the rest: ‘Yes, I think you’re right in that it’s to do with “Jesus”, but is it actually his “humanity” or something else about him?’ Throw it open. Ask for other people’s opinions: ‘What do others think?’ Or if necessary, full-scale retreat. Be non-committal and retreat to a series of simple, closed questions in order to build up to the question more slowly: ‘That’s certainly one possibility. Let’s go back a bit. What’s the first thing Jesus said to them in verse 6?’

Good contributions

Once again, there’s a temptation here that we need to avoid. When somebody gives a right answer, it is not always wise to say so too quickly. If we do, it may close down discussion and shift the focus to the leader again. If we try instead to be slightly more tentative in endorsing the contribution, the door is left open for further reflection among the group.

No contribution

It will happen. So we may as well be prepared for it. We ask our carefully-worded, searching question and … nothing but a dreadful silence! The less experienced we are, the more terrified we tend to be of long pauses.

A couple of points are worth bearing in mind. First, it’s not really that long. That ten-minute silence that we feel is most likely closer to ten seconds.

Second, it’s not really that bad. The silence may simply mean that we’ve asked a question that demands thought. So we need to resist the temptation to jump in with another question too quickly. Far better to defuse the atmosphere by simply acknowledging the complexity of the issue: ‘That’s a tough one, isn’t it? Let me give you a little longer to think about it.’

Third, when all else fails, rephrase. If people (not just you!) are beginning to look uncomfortable, all that’s usually needed is to rephrase the question slightly — it may make all the difference!

Handling hijackers

Now let’s get more specific. There are a few common ‘roles’ that individuals play in any group, which can have a detrimental effect on the discussion. It’s worth having a strategy for coping with each of them.

Simon the spectator

There are always going to be some who are quieter than others. It’s usually more to do with personality than spirituality: they’re simply less confident. However, if for a sustained period a member has said virtually nothing, the chances are that he or she is not getting the most out of the group. More than that, their silent presence may cause uneasiness among other members.

Eye contact is an obvious consideration. Try arranging the seating so they’re directly opposite the study leader and look at them frequently when asking questions. It’s worth watching out carefully for times when they are trying to contribute but struggling to get their bit in.

If that doesn’t help, there’s the ‘ramp-up’ approach: ease them in gently to contributing to the group by asking them (with notice) to read the passage, then by addressing them directly with simple, straightforward questions.

Then there is the ‘write and read’ trick: the leader may ask the group to think through their answer to a question and commit it to paper so that all can then take turns to read their answers. It’s a well-tried, ‘low-cringe’ way to bring spectators out of their shells.

Whatever we do, we need to be appreciative and encouraging when they do say something. If the stony silence persists, a quiet word with them is probably in order in case there’s a particular issue they’re struggling with (e.g. boredom or feeling intimidated).

Charlie the chatterbox

For every spectator, there always seems to be at least one chatterbox. Whether it’s insecurity or simply social insensitivity — they just don’t seem capable of letting anybody else get a word in edgeways!

A gentle but firm approach is required. We might try asking others to speak on occasion: ‘Somebody who hasn’t spoken yet?’. Or even: ‘Anybody else apart from Charlie?’ As a last resort, it may be necessary to interrupt the monologue: when he or she pauses for breath, take the opportunity to thank them and move on to something else. If they remain unresponsive to the hints, we’ll need to point out privately the effect of their garrulousness on the group and encourage them to serve the group better by holding back.

Davina the digressor

There are those who can focus on the text in front of them and then there are those who — well — just can’t! Some people seem to be able to spot a tangent a mile off and cannot stop themselves from hijacking the discussion. Such red herrings can be very interesting, and indeed can serve to bring some of the spectators out of their shells. But they can too easily dominate the whole meeting, so need to be dealt with firmly.

The main, tried-and-tested line of attack on digressions is postponement. The digressor is encouraged to bring up the topic over coffee or at the group’s next social meeting. Otherwise the best strategy is usually to refocus. Simply pointing out that the discussion has gone slightly off-track may be all that’s needed to bring people back to the text.

Eddie the expert

Some people just have all the answers perfectly worked out! They know it all. Of course it can be useful to have somebody like that in the group. But it can also be pretty intimidating for others.

There are two main options for dealing with the expert. One is to use them. We recruit them into a role as a deputy leader. Or perhaps invite them to prepare and give a short presentation on a subject that has come up in discussion. Or again focus on training them to lead a group of their own. The other option is to gag them. If they are just too expansive in sharing their wisdom, they may need to be handled as a ‘Charlie the Chatterbox’ — see above.

Camilla the comedian

Ah yes. Finally, there’s the comedian: one who appears to suffer from ‘terminal humour’. There’s a witty riposte ready for any occasion: he or she can effortlessly cause a ripple of laughter. It is, of course, often very helpful to have a ‘Camilla’ around: it stops the group growing too intense, relieves tension and makes everyone more relaxed.

If the comedian is attracting too much attention, however, then he or she may need calming down a little. Try the straight face approach. Deliberately make a point of not laughing at the gag and carry on the discussion. This can be quite effective. Or it may be that the deep probe is necessary. There may be a spiritual issue which underlies the humour to do with insecurity or a need to deflect attention from serious engagement.

Finally, as with all ministry, character counts! The way we handle tricky customers will be noticed by the group members. They may learn more — for better or for worse — by observing our reaction than from the study itself. So patience, wisdom and perseverance should be manifest in us. It may be time to get on our knees!