I remember the first time I tried to preach on human sexuality.  Spoiler alert: it didn’t happen.  During an introductory class to Bowen theory, the instructor encouraged participants to define themselves to their congregation.  I was a couple of years out of seminary and started to make a shift towards a progressive theology which included views on human sexuality.  When I mentioned this to the instructor, they said, “Great!  Let’s go with that.” 
 
I couldn’t do it.  I felt overwhelmed with just the idea of articulating my belief.  The pastor before me was able to do it.  But it didn’t go well with the more conservative members.  Soon after, they were appointed to another church.  Faced with the reality that my effort would stir the same emotional reactivity in the congregation, I chickened out.  I’m more confident now than I was back then.  I serve a congregation that welcomes and affirms the LGBTQ community.  But it took a lot of effort to get where I am today.
 
I talk to colleagues who feel stuck in their congregations.  As the United Methodist Church moves towards schism, clergy feel the pressure to either take sides or say nothing at all.  Some clergy are theologically progressive but serve congregations who are either mixed or mostly conservative.  They’re reluctant to articulate a progressive theology from the pulpit because they are aware of the conflict.  But more than this, they fear that taking a clear position will split their congregation.  And even if they don’t say it, judicatory leaders (bishops and district superintendents) feel it, too.
 
Is it possible to articulate one’s thinking in the face of conflict without escalating reactivity to the point of polarization?  Clergy fear what might happen if they do.  I’ll never forget one colleague who told me, “this congregation would drop dead if they knew exactly what I think.”  The struggle is real.
 
What drives this problem is a deeply rooted biological and psychological process that motivates groups to be of one mind, to think the same, to act the same, to feel the same, to provide a united front . . . In other words, to function as one unit.  “Togetherness is a biologically rooted life force (more basic than being just a function of the brain) that propels an organism to follow the directives of others, to be dependent, connected, and indistinct entity.” (Dr. Michael Kerr) When tensions are high, however, the force for togetherness propels us towards conflict, distance and cutoff.  Sometimes, if the anxiety is high enough, some people shut down and are unable to do anything at all.  The good news is that we do not have to be at the mercy of the togetherness force.  When clergy find the courage to take an “I position” it can lead to more collaboration and cooperation within a congregation.  Just the opposite of what people fear will happen. 
 
There is more than one way to work at this.  One approach is to get clear about what one thinks.  In addition, one needs a good understanding of the process of reactivity that will inevitably follow when one communicates a clearer theological position.  Anticipating the reactivity of others, being aware of one’s own reactivity that can get in the way and then planning how to respond to both are key components.  There will always be missteps along the way as one learns how to define a self and not react but it’s important to stay the course and adjust as needed without giving up or giving in. 
 
I’m not so naive as to think that this type of effort will magically make everything better.  It won’t.  But, it will help leaders get unstuck.  This is important.  We are in this mess of schism because too many leaders in the denomination are stuck in their reactivity.  When done well, having a clear belief is accompanied by the realization that one does not need to convince others nor defend a position.  One is free to respect the beliefs of others and be curious about their thinking.  Conflicts are often fueled by just the opposite: a lack of real clarity about one’s beliefs and the inability to respect the beliefs of others.  My hunch is that, despite our differences, leaders and congregations can shift out of polarized positions if leaders are willing to do the challenging work of thinking for themselves while respecting the thinking of others.

I am taking a break from writing this blog.  I’m about to begin a four-month renewal leave from my congregation.  During this time, I hope to redirect my energy towards things that are renewing and important to me.  I’m grateful for this platform.  It has provided me space to imagine the applications of Bowen’s concept of differentiation of self.  I’m glad others have found it useful.  There is more than enough material here for ongoing thinking and reflection: thirty-four months’ worth of 117 blogs!
 
It is fitting to conclude this initial stretch of writing with a reflection on the ideal congregation.  I’m not suggesting that there is an ideal utopia of congregational life.  There is not.  Congregations like families are imperfect.  But they can thrive by being adaptive.  A recent visitor to my congregation, who had visited several other churches, stated, “I’ve decided to stay here at this church because I think this is about as good as it is going to get.”  Imagine this as a congregation’s tag line:  NAME OF CONGREGATION: As Good as It’s Going to Get!
 
There is a lot of talk about congregational decline and what to do about it.  Congregational development and redevelopment programs highlight small group ministries as a key to congregational vitality.  Seeing the congregation through the lens of Bowen Family Systems Theory has helped me understand how, far from group activities, it is the individual effort, expressed through differentiation of self, that can lead to a better functioning community. 
 
Here are some examples, although very brief, that reflect my thinking: 
 

• Individuals work to clarify their beliefs. 
• Individuals relate to others based on what is important to self (core principles, values and beliefs).
• Conversations with others are focused on self-discovery and what is important to self while at the same time being curious and interested in what others are discovering and working on. 
• Individuals work to clarify when and how they will volunteer and serve in the congregation and in the community while also being clear about when and how they will not. 

 
Congregational decline is reflective in the waning number of members, worship attendees and the inability of leaders to recruit motivated volunteers.  Regardless of the style of leadership, the challenges tend to be the same.  In declining congregations it is difficult to find motivated individuals who prioritize their effort to clarify core beliefs, values and principles.  Most people are simply not motivated to work on it.  Beliefs are understood as a private matter with little or no interaction with the thinking of others.  If beliefs are discussed with others, each may posture as if they are certain about their beliefs.  However, it is rare to find individuals who talk about their uncertainty or discuss what they are learning about their beliefs.  It is often the “feel-good” nature of the relationship system in the congregation that motivates people to attend even when the congregation is in decline.
 
 
So, what are some key ingredients of a thriving congregation?  These ideas represent some of my thinking about it. 
 

• Faith leaders meet annually with each person in the congregation to discuss the individual’s plan for formation and development.  What are individuals motivated to work on and what steps do they plan to take?

 

• Small groups become places for individuals to work on clarifying beliefs, core principles and values without being pressured to conform to one way of thinking.  It is not a place to debate if someone’s beliefs, core principles or values are right or wrong.  The focus of the small group is on developing individual clarification based on one’s best thinking.

 
The faith community may be the only institution that encourages individuals to be clear about beliefs.  Educational institutions come close with a focus on critical thinking and learning facts.  However, like religious or any other institution, they can become stuck in their institutional challenges.  There is a difference, however, between education and religious institutions.  The ability to articulate a belief includes the inherent challenge of holding a belief while being in relationship to other important people.  Anyone can be a critical thinker and remain cutoff from important others.  Within the norms of many faith communities are beliefs about maintaining relationships with important others even when we disagree.  How does one identify and make good use of beliefs (whatever they may be) when the going gets tough in the family or any relationship system?  Faith communities can do a better job of helping individuals answer this important question.

At a recent gathering of the General Conference of the United Methodist Church a majority of delegates voted to uphold the denominations stance against homosexuality and establish additional penalties for bishops and clergy who violate its Book of Discipline.  In response, congregations on both sides of the issue are having conversations about whether to remain in or exit the denomination.  I invited Richard Blackburn, the Executive Director of the Lombard Mennonite Peace Center, to talk with me about how leaders in the church might navigate this current reality.
 
John Bell: There is a lot of reactivity going on right now in response to the decision of the General Conference.  I wanted to have this conversation with you because I think there are ways of thinking about this challenge that can be useful to congregational leaders.  The first question I have is more of a general question.  What makes it difficult for individuals to maintain a relationship when they disagree about issues that are important to them?
 
Richard Blackburn:  I'm sure there are a number of things that contribute to that.  In general, many people get their identity from the perspective they take on particular issues and they can get into a defensive mode that creates polarization.  It’s that polarization, accompanied by reactive ways of stating one's perspective, that further divides.  The relationship itself seems to be put on the back burner.  That’s more of a general kind of response to the question.
 
But, one has to also look at what people are bringing from their own family of origin that prompts them to move so quickly into that defensive, reactive mode.  That’s going to be different for every individual.  I would also wonder what people are bringing from the chronic anxiety within the congregational system that gets projected onto the way people debate these issues.  Certainly, societal anxiety is having an impact as well.  As we’re living in a time of societal regression–and that's just one of the signs of the regression—it makes it difficult for people to talk about differences in a way that helps them to maintain connection.  We get into a rigid way of defending our perspectives that just further fosters the polarization.
 
JB: What are congregations going through that you think gets projected onto this struggle?
 
RB: I think the broader societal anxiety is impacting congregations.  The people in United Methodist churches have seen membership decline over the last number of decades.  There's an increasing fear for some churches about whether they’re going to survive.  That certainly jacks up anxiety.  So, if you’ve got an issue around which you have polarization, fear can lead toward further defending the differing perspectives.  The fear is that, if we go with your perspective, more people are going to leave the church.  If they leave, it's all your fault.  The blaming gets in there.
 
Along with the blaming are ad hominem attacks to the personhood of others.  Then the anxiety spreads through all the triangles.  This is going to be different in different churches given the level of chronic anxiety within the church and given the different histories they have.  Some churches have high levels of chronic anxiety because they have a backlog of unresolved things from the past that have never been addressed in a healing way.  Other churches may have less chronic anxiety but are still vulnerable to picking up the anxiety from society and projecting it onto the church.
 
JB: How would you define the problem facing United Methodist clergy and congregations who don't support the denomination's position, who find themselves on the outs and are trying to figure out what to do?  How would you define that problem?
 
RB: I think the most immediate problem, if you can put that word with it, would be to not go into an immediate reactive mode but to step back from the anxiety as much as possible.  To really think about, how can we approach this in an objective kind of way that is not being fueled by the anxiety?  What is our collective self-definition?  How do we pursue this in a non-reactive way?  It is recognizing that there are others who have differing perspectives.  How do we work at this in a way that is trying to stay emotionally connected with those who have differing perspectives?   No doubt, in many of these churches, there are going to be people who are on all sides of the issue.  It’s got to be approached in a way that doesn't further divide the congregation.  So, I guess the basic question is, how do we work at this in a way that tries to identify the legitimate interests that all parties have and then work at coming to some kind of understanding whereby we can each believe what we believe without it creating further division?  How do we work at staying connected given the diversity that's within the church?  How do we relate to others who have different perspectives than our own in a way that still values that common ground that we have in Christ?  How do we work at this in a way that approaches others with a different perspective out of a posture of genuine curiosity?  Not to bait.  Not to get into a polarization.  To really try to understand the differing perspectives and see if we can come up with a win-win whereby we are honoring the legitimate interests of all parties to the point that we can still stay in ministry together.
 
JB:  Two years ago, the bishops set up a process where various people from around the denomination worked to come up with a plan.  It was clear, though, when they had concluded, they were not in agreement.  So, the bishops put forward one of the plans and then tried to persuade everyone to get on board with it.  You mentioned how important it is to identify the interests each is bringing to the table.  I’m not asking you to be critical of the process but I'm just wondering if what happened reflects the process that was used or is it a sign of the regression being fueled by the anxiety in the church?  My observation is that evangelicals and progressives don't really know how to talk to each other in constructive ways.  I wonder what you think about that.
 
RB: I really don't know enough about the process to be able to comment intelligently on it. They didn't ask me to come in and mediate [laughter].  If I had been asked to come in and consult with them, I would have begun by getting an agreement on procedures so that the process was very clear from the beginning and that all parties were committed to following the process.  I would start with information gathering to document the full range of interests.  Then there would be education to help people understand what healthy conflict transformation looks like and help them understand how churches function as an emotional system.  It would include steps that work at healing unresolved hurts from the past.  Then we would work at creative win-win problem solving.  I don't know to what degrees any of this was done but this would have been the kind of process I would have recommended.
 
However, given people's proclivity for polarization and reactivity, there is no guarantee that they could have come up with a win-win because people do tend to get rigid, inflexible and locked into their positions.  I would hope that working at some degree of real deep listening to one another, and the hurts that people have experienced, would clear away some of the chronic anxiety from the past—which is part of what's behind some of the reactivity—to the point where they would have been more open to coming to some genuine win-win proposals.
 
JB:  I was thinking about how in the family one doesn't have to go back in history to relive the patterns because they're always present in the system today.  In congregations it can be different because it's not really a family per say.  Experiences can generate chronic anxiety which we bring forward with us into the present.  In terms of conflict resolution, you are saying that there needs to be a redress of those things.  How do you think about that in terms of not getting focused on feelings but using feelings to identify how to move forward with thinking?  How do you separate these things out?
 
RB: Well, I'm not entirely sure.  Obviously, it's pretty complex.  When I'm working with a congregation, the hurts from the past that have never been addressed in a healing way have a way of leaving residue so that, when there is some moment of acute anxiety in the current situation, the reactivity is blown out of proportion because it's being fueled by that chronic anxiety from the past.  When I'm working with a congregation, I'm trying to surface those unresolved things from the past in a neutralizing history context that helps people who have experienced these hurts to express them in non-blaming ways.  It's preceded by the education phase.  They've learned about how hurts from the past can be expressed in ways that are not coming out of the reptilian brain, how to put things in terms of "I" statements and how we are impacted by situation.  Instead of reacting in a blaming way, we’re taking the raw emotions of hurt, whatever that might be, and putting it into words that are describing rather than acting out the feelings.  It’s putting those emotions through the neocortex and putting them out there in a non-reactive way to help the other person really listen.  It’s about understanding the impact that that past situation has had on the person sharing the hurt.  I think it is a way of putting the feelings out so that people really connect with each other, listen to one another, and ultimately let go of those hurts from the past.  Then they can focus on the question of how we're going to address the current concerns in a more genuine problem-solving way that is respecting and honoring of the diversity of perspectives that are there.
 
JB:  There are a lot of clergy and congregations on both sides of the issue who are discerning whether to stay in the denomination or exit.  It’s more than just a question of do you stay or do you go.  It’s a complex discernment process.  Are there ways of thinking about it from a systems perspective that's helpful?
 
RB:  Again, I would say step back from the immediate reactivity so that one is doing this out of principles, values and beliefs.  Think about what it would look like—if the decision is to go towards separating—and how that can be done in a differentiated manner.  How can it be done in a way that is grounded in principles, values and beliefs and in a way that is not stirring up reactivity?  How can it be done in a way that is still staying connected to those who may have a different perspective?  The last question you asked goes in the same direction.  If the decision is to leave, how can it be done in a thoughtful way?  It would be interesting to think about ways of staying connected even though one decides to leave.  Are there ways of affirming what we still share in common?  Are there ways that we can still cooperate on certain aspects of our broader mission so that it's not just a complete cutoff but still has a commitment to ongoing relationship.
 
For instance, if a church should actually split over the issue, how can that be done in a way that is blessing each other on our separate journeys and not done in a blaming, rancorous way.  Keep in mind that to bless in Latin is benedicere which literally means “to say good things.”  So, how can we say good things about one another even though we've chosen to go our separate paths?  Are there, again, aspects of our common mission that we can still cooperate on?  Maybe there is a community ministry that the church had been involved in.  Can we commit to both continuing to be involved in that particular community ministry?  Or maybe we can work together to have a joint youth program.  Or something like that.  What are ways of staying connected even though we've decided to separate?
 
The Lombard Mennonite Peace Center provides resources on a diverse range of peace and justice concerns, from biblical foundations for peacemaking, to conflict transformation skills for the family, the church, the workplace, and the community.  They also have become a nationally recognized ministry for training church leaders in understandings grounded in family systems thinking via the Clergy Clinic and the Advanced Clergy Clinic in Family Emotional Process.  Additionally, LMPC is called upon to help those caught in difficult conflict to find reconciliation and healing by offering mediation services for individuals, churches, and other organizations.  For more information, go to lmpeacecenter.org.

​In these times of heightened anxiety, one never knows if a disagreement will escalate into conflict.  There is wide variation in how humans react to differences.  Some people can acknowledge the differences they have with others while also being interested in the other’s beliefs, opinions and principles.  Some people react defensively or go on the offensive.  These different ways of responding to differences correlate with Dr. Murray Bowen’s scale of differentiation. 
 
The theoretical scale of differentiation identifies one’s basic level of self and one’s functional level.  Individuals at the lower end of the scale are susceptible to automatic ways of defending beliefs or attacking the beliefs of others.  They struggle to separate their feelings from their thinking and are more threatened when others feel, think or act differently.  Individuals at the higher end of the scale can separate their feelings from thinking.  While they may disagree or feel uncomfortable with the beliefs of another person, they put their energy into responding with “I” positions that articulate their best thinking.  Less energy goes into changing the thinking, feelings or actions of others.  All of us lineup somewhere on this scale of differentiation.
 
One can always improve their level on the scale of differentiation.  As a pastor, I typically encounter people in the congregation who think differently than I do about a wide variety of topics.  I can sometimes “feel” my reactive self wanting to attack or defend.  I can get stuck when I want to attack the other person’s beliefs (which always leaves me regretting my words) or when I say nothing in response and just listen (which always leaves me feeling frustrated and defeated).  Fortunately, there is a third way to respond. 
 
This third way of engaging differences begins with an effort to separate feelings from thinking.  The clearer one can think about a topic, the less likely they are to react automatically from their feelings.  The feeling response is triggered by a perceived fear.  As one works to separate feelings from thinking, one can think differently.  The need to attack or defend dissipates.  This effort of self-regulation makes one freer to learn about the other’s ideas, beliefs and principles.  One can observe, become more curious and ask questions.  It’s even possible to learn something new that may inform the way one thinks.  At the same time, one can be a resource for the thinking of others.  When one is working on this third way, there is no need to defend self or attack others.

I live and work six blocks from the Henry Pratt Company in Aurora, IL.  On February 15th, Gary Martin killed five people and wounded five police officers after being fired from Henry Pratt.  At this time, not much is known about Mr. Martin.  I’ve written before about violence in society.  What I do know is that there is a connection between chronic anxiety in the family, one’s level of stress and violent behavior.  All of us tend to move towards others to take control or to distance when anxiety goes up.  In cases where there is violence, people move aggressively towards others when there is high levels of family intensity, significant cutoff among family members and a trigger of intense stress. 
 
 
The Force for Togetherness
 
After the shooting, and after the police presence had diminished, I walked down to my neighborhood grocery store. I needed a couple of items and I wanted to find out what people were learning.  The employees at the grocery store were eager to talk.  One woman talked about her experience.  She had just arrived to work.  She was home during the shooting.  She recalled that after she heard about the shooting, she had a deep desire to pick up her child from school.  Schools on the west side of Aurora were on a soft lock down which means that students could freely move throughout the building, but no one was allowed in or out of the school.  She lamented how she wanted to pick up her child even though she couldn’t.  Over the years I've observed that this desire, (particularly among mothers) to unite the family in times of danger, seems to be universal. 
 
 
Interlocking Triangles
 
Interlocking relationship triangles lit up for me as news of the shooting spread through my family and the community.  I was able to observe the movement of anxiety in the triangles between:

• myself and members of my family.
• myself, the congregation and the community.
• myself and organizations that care for children in the church building.
• myself and the clergy of all faiths in the community.
• myself, other clergy and officials in city government.
• myself, gun violence prevention groups, gun rights groups and the community.

 
In each of these triangles there was varying degrees of distance and cutoff.  Some triangles were more fused than others.  I observed variation in the way people managed their anxiety in the triangles and how some people depended on others in the triangle to manage their emotions and stress.  Some people were quick to point fingers.  Some people collapsed with feelings of hopeless or uselessness when confronted by others who were upset.  Some were steady. Some developed physical symptoms in the days that followed.  Some started to react more intensely to daily challenges. 
 
 
The Interconnectedness of Life
 
A shooting, like any traumatic event, reveals the interconnectedness of all of life.  Individuals, families, neighborhoods, institutions and the community-at-large are mutually influencing and interdependent on each other.  Each has an impact on the functioning of the other.  The nucleus of this process is the family.  The complexity grows, however, as one adds the natural world to the mix.
 
 
Questions to Consider
 
There is much to consider after a shooting like the one in Aurora, IL.  Asking good questions makes a difference.  What are good questions that help one understand violence in society?  How does one think about violence in the context of the family and the community?  If there is violence in one's family, how does one think about this from a systems perspective?  If one does not have evidence of violence in the family, how does one account for this?  

A good place to start is to develop questions about one's family.  Good questions can help one better understand one's family and help one develop the capacity to define a self in relationship with one's family.  Differentiation of self provides a way to both understand how there is violence in society and what one can do about it.

It’s that time of year again.  United Methodist candidates are being interviewed to become credentialed clergy – consecrated and ordained.  For most candidates, it’s a six to eight-year process.  I served on our conference’s Board of Ordained Ministry for a time and as its chairperson.  I witnessed a broad spectrum of candidates who came through the process.  Most candidate did well; the vast majority made it through the process with relative ease.  Some candidates were not ready.  Others lacked self-awareness.    
 
In a previous blog, I discussed the importance of candidates having self-awareness.  Effective clergy have a high level of self-awareness to help them navigate the relationship system of a congregation.  Why seminaries don’t teach students how to develop awareness of oneself in a relationship system is beyond me.  Pastors get themselves into trouble, not because of their theology or their concept of God, but because they don’t know what to do with tension or a high level of anxiety in the congregation.  In addition to candidates working on their level of awareness, interview team members need to work on it, too. 
 
It’s important that an interview team work to create an interview process that is fair.  Sometimes there are problems with the interview.  Most boards have procedures in place that encourage a good process and they have procedures in place in case something goes wrong.  Ideally, everyone on an interview team is working to manage their anxiety.  But, it's not always the case. 
 
My assumption is that process is more important than content.  Yes, candidates need a certain level of content to be ready and effective in ministry.  But it’s the interview process that makes the difference.  Of course, when it comes to process, there are lots of variables to consider.  I’ve created a list of variables that I think go into predicting the quality of the interview process. 
 

1. The level of chronic anxiety in each member of the interview team and the candidate.  Chronic anxiety can actually be measured.
2. The number of life stressors in each member of the interview team and the candidate on the day of the interview.  This number also can be measured with a simply questionnaire. 
3. The number of resources available to each person on the interview team and the candidate.  This would be the number of important people that are available to each person as a resource. 

 
The result (of the three variables) is equivalent to an emotional state that determines the level at which one is functioning.  If 1 and 2 are low and 3 is high, the functional level is higher.  If 1 and 2 are high and 3 is low, the functional level is lower.  Other factors like the amount of time available for the interview, the quality of the space and the overall energy level of the team and the candidate also make a difference. 
 
It would be possible to predict the outcome of the interview if these factors could be measured for each member of the interview team and the candidate.  These variables contribute to one’s ability to manage oneself in the face of tension and anxiety.
 
In general, if an interview team can stay actively engaged while also managing their reactivity, even if a candidate is highly anxious, they will more than likely arrive at decision with a high level of confidence. If the candidate is doing a good job of managing themselves, but their interview team is not, the candidate may find it frustrating as they attempt to navigate the intensity.  If both the interview team and the candidate are not managing themselves, watch out!
 
In reality, there is wide variation within teams and between teams.  Some members of an interview team do a better job than others at managing themselves.  One person doing a better job of managing themselves in the interview can make an overall difference.  But it’s the complexity of variables that make it difficult to know if a candidate is getting a fair process.  But again, who is responsible for a fair process?  When each person plays a part, it’s impossible to assign blame.  Everyone is doing the best they can with what they have. 
 
Even though some candidates will complain about their interview team, there is a good chance that they will encounter a congregation that is just as challenging as an interview team.  Even the most capable pastor can struggle to lead a highly anxious congregation.  Understanding relationship systems through the lenses of Bowen theory can make a difference.  But it requires that individuals do the hard work of researching and understanding their family of origin.  My hunch is that if a motivated board of ordained ministry worked on Bowen’s concept of differentiation of self, they would make better predictions on which candidates are ready and effective in ministry.  If I’m right about this, bishops and supervisors might want to take note.  The upfront effort will save them countless hours of dealing with ineffective clergy.

On the surface, Bowen theory and theology are like oil and water.  They don’t mix.  Dr. Murray Bowen, a research psychiatrist, spent his life developing, teaching and applying his theory of human behavior.  Institutions of faith spend their time preserving systems of beliefs and practices.  At times, however, Bowen theory is miscible with theology like steamed milk and espresso.  I will attempt to connect the observations of reactivity found in Bowen theory with the concept of crucifixion and resurrection found in Christian theology.
 
I was invited by a colleague to be one of seven guest preachers at a Good Friday service.  There is a tradition in some congregations to reflect on the seven last words (really sentences) of Jesus.  I was assigned the words: “Father, forgive them.  They don’t know what they are doing.”  It’s a remarkable phrase if you think about the context.   
 
Jesus, at the time of his arrest, trial and crucifixion, was abandoned by those who knew him, loved him and followed him.  They ran away, denied knowing him and orchestrated his arrest.  The image of Jesus on the cross is a picture of betrayal.  It is from there that Jesus utters the words, “forgive them.”  And then he comes back from the dead to forgive them.
 
In my sermon at that Good Friday service, I predicted how I would respond If I were left for dead.  If it were me, and I could come back from the dead after being abandoned by my family and close friends . . . there would clearly be hell to pay!  Forget about love and forgiveness.  Instead, there would be retribution and retaliation; manifestations of my reactivity.  At the very least, it would be a struggle to come back and forgive. 
 
In Bowen theory, reactivity to anxiety (a response to a perceived fear) is woven throughout Bowen’s eight concepts.  As anxiety increases so too do our automatic responses to it.  In the family, people are continuously adjusting their physical and emotional spaces to one another in response to anxiety.  As anxiety increases, people either move towards others or they create distance.  These shifts towards and away from others are automatic.  However, people do have the capacity (although there is wide variation from family to family) to disrupt this automatic response by being more objective and thoughtful. 
 
Dr. Murray Bowen observed that through a differentiated intellectual system, one could use beliefs and core principles to not react automatically to a rise in anxiety.  He proposed that there is a way for individuals to manage themselves better when anxiety goes up in the family.  It includes engaging one’s best thinking.  In three of the four gospels it states that, when Jesus appeared in the resurrection to those who had abandoned him, he did not react or retaliate.  Instead, he forgave them and offered them peace. 
 
More than just a moral influence, Jesus behaves differently (does not react) and in so doing ends, in his body, a cycle of violence and hatred (automatic reactivity).  By not retaliating, Jesus creates opportunities for others to shift their functioning to be less reactive and more belief driven.
 
Dr. Bowen observed the behavioral outcomes of rising levels of anxiety in families with limited capacity for self-regulation.  The family functions as an emotional unit with each person playing a part in managing the family anxiety.  For example, as anxiety rises, an individual in the family is singled out as the source or cause of the anxiety.  In response to the anxiety, families may blame, distance or cutoff from certain individuals.  In the short term, this reduces the tension in the family.  This is, at its most basic level, reactivity.  All families can do better when it comes to being less reactive and more thoughtful.
 
The alternative to blaming others is to step back and observe how the family as a system produces problematic behaviors in self and in others.  Instead of distancing or cutting off from someone in the family, one can learn to lean into a challenging relationship.  One can learn to manage their reactivity better when they are revved up by the behavior of others.  Efforts to be a more mature version of oneself involve working on what Bowen called differentiation of self.  It is a way for the human to be less reactive and guided by core principles and beliefs.
 
More than a moral effort, Bowen’s concept of differentiation leads to a better functioning family system.  The effort to slow down and tone down reactive, automatic behavior can change a multigenerational transmission process.  Jesus’ words of forgiveness represent an effort to manage self and one’s reactivity to violence and hateful behavior that is rooted in beliefs and core principles.  It represents an effort of differentiation of self.

The word “resilience” has caught the fancy of the scientific community.  Researchers want to unravel the mystery of how two people can face an identical challenge with very different outcomes?  How does one person navigate a challenge successfully while the other does not?  The first person is labeled resilient.  But what makes them resilient?  It’s not entirely clear.  For example, how do some alcoholics stick to sobriety while others slide backwards?  How do some addicts succumb to the death grip of meth while others slip free?  How do some pastors figure out a way forward for a congregation while others give up and leave ministry?    
 
One idea is that resilient people have a thought process that says, “I can do this.”  No matter the quantity or quality of the challenge, a resilient person faces the challenge straight on and say, “This will not be the end of me!”  It is a form of confidence that says to the darkness, “you will not win.”  Like the patient just diagnosed with cancer, they face the doctor and say, “I’m going to lick this thing.”  Or the student who picks up a seven-hundred-page textbook and says, “Let’s go!”  It’s the pastor who reminds the congregation, “Hope is the conviction of things not seen.”  It is the parent who stands at the foot of their child’s grave and says, “Life will somehow go on.”  Or the parent in hospice care who says to their children and grandchildren, “You will be resilient when I’m gone.” 
 
A young man is estranged from his father after years of physical and emotional abuse.  The estrangement allowed the young man to feel safe.  But now, living on his own (and a little bit older and stronger), the young man decides to return home to face his father.  The son is not interested in winning.  He wants an equal relationship with the father he once feared.  With a little bit of work, he finds some confidence and a voice.  His confidence comes from the knowledge he gained doing research on his father’s family.  He discovered a history of physical abuse handed down from one generation to the next as an automatic pattern of behavior.  He learned about the family history of absent mothers who often retreated to the other room when fathers became angry with their sons.  He began to see how accepting this pattern of behavior as “fate” was the part he played in the triangle.  Standing at the door of the house, in front of his father, he speaks, “You and I are better than this.  We can have a relationship without violence; without the escalations of words. I want a relationship with you that is based on respect.  I want a different relationship.”  He is resilient.
 
Working on being resilient doesn’t guarantee a positive outcome.  In the end, we all will die from something.  But resilience does make a difference for oneself and to important others.  It is just one component of what it takes to step up and do better in this life.  We have a limited number of challenges to face over a lifetime.  Each challenge is an opportunity to bring our best self to any situation.  Overcoming adversity is about bringing one’s confidence, thinking, and determination to any challenge and letting nothing get in the way of one’s relationship with important others and God.

Think for a moment about your prefrontal cortex.  It lies just behind your forehead between your eyebrows and your hairline.  The presence, size, and integration (with the rest of the brain) of the prefrontal cortex is what distinguishes us from all other animals like the pig.  But before you think of yourself as special, pigs have a prefrontal cortex, we both have fat under our skin, a protruding nose, and, don’t forget, pig skin and heart values can be used in humans.  Although, it should be noted that pigs are not capable of preforming transplants. 
 
The prefrontal cortex can differentiate between conflicting thoughts and stimuli, predict the future, sort out potential consequences, define goals and control social behaviors.  The prefrontal cortex is involved in thinking.  Other areas of the brain are reserved for automatic and reactive functions and behaviors.
 
All living things are awash with automatic behaviors that keep an organism alive and functioning.  It’s not clear to what extent (if at all) other animals or plants are “aware” of the world around them or aware of their functioning.  Humans have awareness but it is limited.  For example, we are often unaware of the influences and interplay of internal and external systems, like biological and relationship systems.  At the level of biology, we are unaware of cellular activity involving blood, oxygen, glucose, and the powerhouse mitochondria.  We can “think” about these systems, especially when a physician tells us there is a problem with our body.  This effort to step back, observe and think can also apply to relationships. 
 
In the Book of Genesis, it says that human beings are created to be “responsible” (1:28).  That’s the word Eugene Peterson uses in his translation of the Bible.  In this context, humans are responsible for their interactions with the natural world, including other humans.   If the human is unique because of the prefrontal cortex then the human has the unique capacity to be responsible when they use their “thinking” system.  So, what does it mean to be responsible?
 
Responsibility describes an action.  It is an action between people which can be understood contractually as accountability.  We can talk about the committee that is responsible for overseeing missions.  Or the pastor is responsible for preaching.  Responsibility is not defined by a list of moral, ethical or doctrinal standards that control one’s behavior.  Instead, it is the answer to the question, “what am I responsible for in relationship to family, friends, neighbor, work and the natural world?”  One’s responsibility is defined within the context of a relationship system. 
 

• What is my responsibility as a parent to my children? 
• What is my responsibility as a child to my parents?
• What is my responsibility to my employees/employer?
• What is my responsibility to my neighbors/community?
• What is my responsibility to the natural world?

 
As we attempt to answer these questions, the first thing we can become aware of is the question, “Am I doing enough or am I doing too much?”  We are often aware of this paradox when a relationship system starts to muster resources to meet a challenge.  The congregation is facing a financial crisis.  There is not enough money at the end of the year to cover all the expenses.  Who is responsible for solving this problem?  Is this a leadership problem or a congregational problem?  What role do individual members have and what is the role of the pastor and other leaders?  Who is responsible for deciding what to do?  Or consider this example.  The youngest child of a family with three children has stopped performing well in school.  They are receiving an “F” in every subject because they failed to turn in any homework for the last four weeks.  What is the responsibility of a parent?  What is the responsibility of the child?  Do the other two siblings have a responsibility in this situation?  What role do others in the extended family play?  What is the responsibility of the teacher and the administration? 
 
The genius of Dr. Murray Bowen was his ability to see challenges within the context of a relationship system where the behavior of each person influences the system and the systems influences each person’s behavior.  Shifting one’s level of responsibility in and to the system often creates a shift in the level of responsibility of others.  As one person takes on more responsibility, others take on less and vice versa.  However, when one attempts to shift out of their automatic ways of being responsible (doing too much or too little), Dr. Bowen observed that the relationship system responds with a “change back” process.  At first, others will counter one’s effort to shift their level of responsibility by trying to get the one to go back to their previous level.  However, if one is able to stay relatively on track and not react, a shift in the level of responsibility taking in the system will occur. 
 
So, humans will always have an advantage over the pig thanks to the prefrontal cortex.  We can think about and choose our role and responsibility towards others.  You can actually decide to do less without being a pig.

I recently attended a conference that featured Dr. Thomas Seely.  He’s the “bee” guy.  His research has shown that bees have a quasi-democratic method for selecting the sight for a new hive.  

Dr. Seely has taken his research with bees and applied it to the human decision making process.  He calls it, “Five Habits of Highly Effective Hives.”  The habits include:
 
1.         Remind individuals of their shared interests, and foster mutual respect.
2.         Minimize the leader’s influence on the outcome.
3.         Seek diverse solutions to a problem.
4.         Avoid the tendency to seek rapid consensus; take time to talk it through.
5.         Balance interdependence and independence (no “groupthink”).
 
These principles for cooperation and collaboration are based on the behavior of bees.  In making a decision, bees do not have a designated leader (despite having a “queen”), diverse options are always considered, the rate of decision making is always the same (it never speeds up or slows down) and they use individual observation to inform the group.
 
This process reminds me of the movie “Of God and Men.”  In the movie, which takes places in the 1990’s, a group of Trappist monks in Algeria must decide if they will stay amid the rising Islamic tensions in the area or leave their predominantly Muslim community for safety in France.  I wrote a blog about it that you can read here.

Differentiation of self, a concept discovered by Dr. Murray Bowen through his observations of human behavior, is useful for making good decisions.  Differentiation of self is the force that motivates individuals to be clear about what one feels, thinks and is willing to do or not do while at the same time helps one stay in good contact with important others.  As one becomes freer from group process and group think (the togetherness force), one is able to contribute facts and objective observations back to the group.  This process of providing facts and observations influences the decision making process.  Thinking begets thinking, which begets thinking.  Individuals who are working on differentiation of self are a good resource to anyone working on a problem.
 
Clergy may “hear” differentiation as a technique for working with committees, teams and boards.  It’s not a technique and it cannot be confined into steps.  It is a way of thinking.  It’s not about being in control of the emotional “atmosphere” for decision making.  It’s about taking responsibility for the way one contributes to the emotional atmosphere of the group.  One learns to pay attention to the automatic reactivity that is generated in self and in others as one works on engaging others at a more thoughtful level.
 
The best place to work on differentiation is in one’s family.  It’s in the family that one’s patterns of reactivity are given birth over multiple generations and it’s there that one can practice (yes practice) working on being a responsible self in relationship to others.  As we grow up in our families, we develop the capacity of differentiation (which is a counter force to togetherness) as we separate (without cutting off) from our families of origin.  Anxiety disrupts this developmental process.  Most of us will spend a lifetime learning how to do a better job of regulating our anxiety as we continue the process of separation.  The bees may be lucky that their decision-making process is automatic and highly effective.  Humans are still learning how to make good use of the prefrontal cortex.  The upside to having a thinking brain is that humans get to not only enjoy the honey but also observe and appreciate what it takes to setup shop and make it!