A member of the congregation is upset.  They are concerned about the finances of the congregation.  They go to the chair of the finance committee to request a detailed transaction report for the year.  You are the chair of the finance committee.  What do you do?
 
Transparency is a necessity.  Trust between a congregation and its leadership is essential.  Trust will quickly erode if there is a perception of secrecy or an accusation of mismanagement.  Even when a congregation is without conflict,  leaders can be reluctant to publish financial details.  So, what does transparency look like?
 
The first step in developing transparency is to adopt clear policies and procedures about the disclosure of financial details.  Having agreement on the following list is helpful:

1. What information will be available to the congregation?
2. How often will the information be provided to the congregation?
3. How will the information be distributed?
4. What information is considered confidential?
5. Who will have access to confidential information?
6. How will leadership respond to requests for information or general questions?
7. How will leadership keep the congregation informed of financial details?
8. How regularly will they be informed?

 
Without access to financial information, a congregation will fill in the gaps on their own.
​ 
Chronic anxiety is the perception of fear.  Without access to facts, we tend to worry about the “what ifs.”  Worry can feel real.  When people have access to facts they are in a better position to manage their worry.  To be transparent is to provide facts. 
 
Leaders may decide to withhold specific information to keep the congregation from worrying or because they fear the perceived response of the congregation.  But this assumes that the congregation doesn't have a clue about what's really going on.  In my experience, congregations are astute to perceiving anxiety in their leadership.  Humans have a way of communicating anxiety in subtle but detectable ways.  There is really no way to fool a relationship system.  People know when something is up. 

When members of a congregation sense the anxiety of leadership, it heightens their anxiety about the well-being of the congregation.  This back and forth, reciprocal process, results in an escalation of tension between leaders and members. The best way to address the problem is by communicating facts as they happen.  Prolonging bad news with the hope that people won’t know or find out is wishful thinking and it never ends well.
 
When leaders fear transparency, they often blame it on the congregation.  But it actually reveals the fear of the leaders.  Leaders are afraid to communicate details because they lack the capacity to confidently engage the anxiety of the congregation.  The fear response of the leader makes them more reluctant to be transparent which raises the level of fear of the congregation and increases the tension in the relationship system.  Leaders who are able to lean into the problems of an organization are able to find the solutions they need to move forward.  This is the work of differentiation of self. 
 
When leaders work on differentiation of self:

• Leaders manage their own anxiety.
• Leaders work with facts.
• Leaders declare their intention and commitment to resolve problems.
• Leaders think about the long-term goals of the organization.
• Leaders disrupt reactivity and a short-term focus.
• Leaders articulate a problem with facts, not emotional opinions.
• Leaders articulate what they are up against in solving a problem with facts, not feelings.
• Leaders anticipate the reactivity of others.
• Leaders listen to and respect the various opinions of others.
• Leaders step back to allow others to use their strengths and gifts.
• Leaders do not disengage or give up but continue to engage the congregation in conversations in order to solve a problem.
• Leaders readjust their thinking based on the responsible and fact-based feedback of others. 

Transparency is a relationship process.  It’s important for leaders, particularly clergy, to develop a one to one relationship with key members of the congregation.  A one to one relationship goes a long way in reducing tension in the relationship system.  
 
The best solutions for financial problems come not from leaders but from thinking congregations.  The test of any leader is the ability to share facts about a congregation’s finances without sharing their anxiety.  Problem-solving begins when leaders are willing to tone down their emotional intensity and reactivity to a problem.  When leaders lean into a problem, they discover that their congregation is a wealth of ideas and solutions.  When leaders give the congregation access to facts it goes a long way in helping a congregation solve whatever challenge they face.

Clergy develop and deliver roughly fifty-two sermons (fifteen to thirty minutes in length) year after year.  National surveys typically rank preaching as the number one reason people attend a congregation.  So, the pressure is on, and clergy know it. 
 
Effective preaching is both skillful and artistic.  The context of preaching is the community.  Without an awareness of the underlying relationship system of a community, the skill and artistry are lost in an emotional process.  Therefore, the three keys to effective preaching are:

1. Effective preaching is based on core principles, values and beliefs.
2. Effective preachers stay in good emotional contact with their members especially members who don't agree with their preacher or when the preacher disagrees with their members.
3. Effective preachers work on self-regulation.

 
Most clergy make use of online and printed resources to prepare their sermons.  If clergy approach the process of developing a sermon with a clear set of principles, values and beliefs then a good resource can spur the preacher’s thinking.  Sometimes preachers use a resource to find specific content for their sermon.  But some use a resource as a substitute for thinking and may end up preaching someone else’s sermon.    
 
How a preacher makes use of a resource is connected to their level of clarity about core principles, values and beliefs.  Preachers become clear by sifting through their core principles, values and beliefs to determine which ones represent their best thinking and which ones represent the thinking of other people.  The core principles, values and beliefs that are sifted out from this process become the basis for the preacher's preaching.  I’ve come to a place in my preaching where I know when I’m preaching a sermon based on my thinking and when I’m preaching a sermon based on the thinking of others.  There is a notable difference.  And given the feedback I’ve received from congregants over the years, I know the congregation can tell the difference as well.  There is a difference in the way ideas are communicated when they come from self and when ideas are coming from someone else.
 
As congregations and the larger society become increasingly polarized, preachers are preaching to congregations that are divided over major issues.  In my tradition, the United Methodist Church, on any given Sunday my preaching will resonate with some and conflict with others.  Some will experience a sermon as supportive and encouraging and feel a connection to the preacher.  Some will experience a sermon as challenging and feel at odds with the preacher.  An awareness of this underlying relationship process can be useful to a preacher. 
 
The challenge for today’s preachers is developing the capacity to articulate a solid belief without perpetuating an already present polarization.  Preachers are at their best when they preach a sermon based on core principles, values and beliefs without permanently disrupting the relationships in the congregation.  It requires an effort of staying in good emotional contact with members or key leaders (depending on the size of the congregation) when they disagree with you, or when you disagree with them.  The opposite is also true that a strong, positive togetherness between the preacher and congregation can make it difficult for the preacher to articulate their core principles, values and beliefs. 
 
The best way to manage tension in the relationship system is to do a better job of managing self.  Self-regulation is at the heart of Dr. Murray Bowen’s concept of differentiation of self.  The forces for togetherness and individuality creates tension in the relationship system.  As people move away from or closer to others, anxiety goes up and down.  This process of managing anxiety by moving towards some or away from others at an emotional level can influence what a preacher says, does and feels.
 
During the development of a sermon, preachers are likely to experience their own worry and fears about what might happen if they actually preach what they are thinking.  An internal debate ensues about what to say, how to say it and what the consequences might be.  It’s not the case that preachers should always say whatever they are thinking.  What leads to more effective preaching is an awareness of the emotional process in the relationship system.  
 
The ideal place to become aware of the emotional process is in one’s family of origin.  There, one can begin to “see” the process of individuality and togetherness, and anxiety and tension in the system.  The more I work at this in my family, the more courage I have in my preaching.  The extent to which preaching has improved my ability to define a self in my family of origin is also worth consideration.
 
Here are some ideas to think about as you prepare to preach:

• What ideas are you clear about?  What questions do you have?  
• Present your thinking without the need for others to agree.
• Present your thinking without being defensive.
• Always consider how your congregation will respond.  Who will react to your thinking?  How will they react?  What will you say or do without reacting back? 
• Develop a plan for relating to with those who react negatively and positively to your thinking.
• If you greet people after the service, what does it look like to be emotionally neutral towards those who react negatively or positively? 
• How will you do a better job of self-regulating your reactivity to the reactivity of others?

Remember, the overall goal is to represent one’s best thinking while staying in good emotional contact with the congregation, and to regulate self as anxiety and tension fluctuate in response to the counterbalancing forces of togetherness and individuality in the relationship system.

Humans are social.  We just can’t help ourselves.  We don’t function well when we are isolated.  And yet, congregations (which are typically highly social) are on the decline.  People are finding different places to be social.  This is the challenge congregations have been facing.  It’s an opportunity for congregational leaders to thinking about the kind of community they are developing.
 
During a recent trip to Washington, DC., I visited the National Museum of Natural History at the Smithsonian.  My time there was limited.  I traced my way back to an exhibit on the development of the modern human.  It showcased archaeological discoveries that highlighted the social behaviors of humans.  It categorized these behaviors into four characteristics that make humans unique.   The four characteristics are sharing resources, gathering at the hearth, more time to grow, and building social networks. 
 
 
“Sharing Resources”
 
Humans share their resources with others.  More than just sharing in the moment, humans have historically traveled long distances to share with others.  These shared resources increased the likelihood that a group would adapt to a challenge. 
 
 
“Gathering at the Hearth”
 
Hearths provided several important opportunities for humans.  In addition to providing a common place to cook and eat food, to share resources, and to network hearths became a place for storytelling.  Human language is symbolic and emotional.  Gathering around the hearth provided us a place to connect emotionally with others.
 
 
“More Time to Grow”
 
The size of the human brain means a longer period of gestation and adolescence, leaving a human child at home for a longer period.  Families collaborate in the child-rearing process.  This longer development time for children means more time to prepare for the challenges of being an adult. 
 
 
“Building Social Networks”
 
As the human population increased around the world, humans began to encounter one another more frequently.  These interactions provided opportunities to build broader social networks.  Today, we depend on these social networks for everything from food distribution to advancements in science and research. 
 
 
These four characteristics define our highly social behavior.  Where do you see these four characteristics at work today?  In what ways do you share resources with others?  Where do you gather with members of the community?  How are you participating in the developmental process of children in your family and community?  How many social networks do you belong to?
 
In what ways do congregations provide a place and space for these activities?  There was a time when congregations were the center of community life.  They provided a place for people to gather and discover resources.  In some traditions, congregations provided the primary education of the children in the community.  They were also the center of the community’s social network.  While congregations may never fully return to this paradigm, what are ways congregations can develop themselves around these four characteristics? 
 
In my tradition, the United Methodist Church, there was an effort several years ago to revitalize the church.  It resulted in four areas of focus.  These areas are:

• Engaging in Ministry with the Poor
• Improving Global Health
• Developing Principled Christian Leaders
• Creating New and Renewed Congregations

 
In a way, the four characteristics of human behavior can be found in these four areas of focus.  Perhaps congregations would do a better job of engaging these four areas if they spent more time developing the four characteristics of human social behavior.
 
What would it look like for your congregation to develop ministry around the four characteristics of human behavior?  What structures and programming would need to be in place? 

• How does the congregation share and discover the resources in a community?  What more could be done? 
• How does the congregation gather the community together?  From the ancient practice of gathering around the hearth, what other opportunities are available for the congregation? 
• How does the congregation engage the development of children in the community?
• How does the congregation help build social networks in the community? 
• Does your faith tradition have examples in scripture of the importance of these characteristics?  What are some examples? 
• How might these characteristics provide an opportunity for new ways to address community problems?

 
Historically, these characteristics helped humans survive, sometimes in challenging and difficult climates.  The challenges we face today are different than those of our ancestors.  What are the challenges we face today and how might these four characteristics help us move forward?

​What is an institution?  An institution is a structure that sustains a social movement; a movement that is focused on a cause or solving a problem in society.  Historically, movements light up in society to create change.  They are like bursts of fire.  Sustaining a movement over time is difficult.  Eventually, movements transition into institutions that provide structure to keep the fire burning. 
 
A member of a congregation discovered that teenage women who gave birth while in high school were more than likely to drop-out.  She started offering free childcare to help these women graduate.  The need was greater than one person could manage, so she enlisted the help of her congregation.  Eventually, people from the community volunteered for the program.  As the program grew, policies and procedures were adopted.  A board of directors was established.  Voila!  A movement becomes an institution. 
 
While we can often bemoan the existence of institutions (with their bureaucratic structures and their slow pace of change), their existence is important.  When it comes to addressing social problems, institutions provide a framework for developing best practices and ethical responses to a problem.
 
Institutions use best practices that are proven to be effective in serving a specific clientele.  Public institutions have long championed the use of best practices.  Instead of reinventing the wheel, they focus on what has been successful.  If you attend a training in your field, more than likely you will hear something about best or standard practices.
 
I’ve written extensively about the challenges congregations have in adopting best practices.  While “experts” in congregational development might have some common agreement on what might constitute “standard practices” for congregations, there is no clear standard for all congregations within a particular faith.  It doesn’t exist.  Leaving that aside, the main problem seems to be that best practices are not transferable.  That is, what is successful in one congregation cannot be easily replicated in another.  No one has adequately explained the reason for this.  It is still elusive. 
 
Institutions practice ethical responses to a problem.  Ethics in this context is defined as protecting staff from doing harm to their clients and protecting staff from doing harm to themselves.  Anyone who has worked or volunteered in social services knows that one can quickly become overwhelmed by the demands and needs of helping others.  Institutions find ethical solutions for meeting needs without exhausting their staff while at the same time providing quality care that does not harm their clients.  For example, nursing homes structure themselves to manage the risks inherent in caring for the elderly.  Staff rotates, tasks are divided up, and rules are followed to protect staff from burning out and protects clients from being underserved.  Nursing homes vary in their ability to manage both well. 
 
The question remains, does a focus on best practices that are ethical help institutions improve their quality of care or do they perpetuate a much deeper problem?  Whenever social problems like poverty, food insecurity, economic opportunities (to name a few) continue to be a problem while there is an ever-expanding field of social services, it’s important to ask the question, “what is missing from our understanding of the problem?”  The answer, it turns out, is the role institutions play in perpetuating the problems they are trying to solve.
 
When it comes to helping others, Dr. Murray Bowen observed that people can unintentionally do harm to others by doing too much.  He was aware that underneath our individual behavior is a deeper emotional process embedded in a relationship system.  Here is what he had to say:
 
“. . . A triangular emotional process through which two powerful people in the triangle reduce their own anxiety and insecurity by picking a defect in the third person, diagnosing and confirming the defect as pitiful and in need of benevolent attention, and then ministering to the pitiful helpless one, which results in the week becoming weaker and the strong becoming stronger.  It is present in all people to some degree, and by overcompassion in poorly integrated, overemotional people, powered by benevolent overhelpfulness that benefits the stronger one more than the recipient, and is justified in the name of goodness and self-sacrificing righteousness.  The prevalence of the process in society would suggest that more hurtfulness to others is done in the service of pious helpfulness than in the name of malevolent intent.”  Family Therapy in Clinical Practice, p 434. 
 
When is helping not helping?  Or, what do you do when helping others does not solve the problem?  This is an institutional problem.  The response to this ongoing problem has been the development and management of best practices and ethical procedures.   Yet, despite best practices, institutions become stuck when they are not able to accomplish the very thing the original movement championed.  The reason they become stuck is that they do not address the underlying emotional process.  The emotional process is fundamentally about anxiety.  Anxiety is a part of the family emotional process.  Therefore, all social problems are ultimately family problems. 
 
Institutions have historically tried to take responsibility for problems in the family.  But what if institutions changed their approach?  What if they became resources to the family without attempting to solve family problems?  What if institutions helped families by equipping family members to solve their problems?  What if institutions redirected themselves to support the family’s efforts to come up with a viable plan for the family and the individual members?  What would this look like and how could an institution organize itself to be oriented in this direction?    
 
So, what would a more responsible caregiving position look like for an institution within the context of the family?  Here are some more questions to consider:
 

• What are individuals and families capable of doing for themselves?
• How does one determine what one can do for self?
• What are realistic expectations for functioning?
• As a staff person or leader, what am I willing to do or not do for an individual or family?
• What facts are needed to make a thoughtful decision about this?
• Is the institution putting the client’s needs first or the needs of the institution? 
• How does one tell the difference?
• When tension in the relationship system of an institution goes up, who is more likely to bear the brunt of the tension?  The clients or the staff? 

 
When an institution overfunctions in caregiving, they undercut the motivation and agency of the individual and the family.  The idea of stepping back as an institution, by letting clients take the lead, creates anxiety for the institution which is evidence of the institution’s tendency to overfunction.  It’s worth noting that when I talk about institutions, I’m really talking about a relationship system of leaders and workers.  Each person in the system brings a level of anxiety and functioning to their work that is based in their family of origin.  Some institutions manage their problems better than others, depending on the functional level of the leaders and to some extent the staff.
 
Thinking systems can provide a deeper awareness of the emotional process at play in the family and in the broader society.  Thinking systems is an alternative to being overly focused on best practices and ethical behavior.  Institutional leaders who can think systems do a better job of addressing societal problems because they take responsibility for their part in solving the problem and empower the leaders in a family to lead.  

It is not personal. Try telling yourself “It’s not personal” the next time your're blamed for something. Make it your mantra the next time you are criticized. “It’s not personal.” This phrase seems counterintuitive, doesn’t it? Why? Because blame and criticism always feel like personal attacks. And when the feeling system is active, it’s difficult to shift into the thinking system.

At an intellectual level, when things are calm, I can see and understand what others are up against in their life. I can also see how my behavior creates challenges for others. In calmer times, I can see and observe what I’m up against by the behavior of others. But, when I perceive tension in the relationship system and my feelings are revved up, my focus will shift.

When one is criticized or blamed, the brain transports this message to a deep, emotional section. And it’s from that deep place the brain mounts a reactive response. It’s as if a deep force is awakened from within that surges up and out to defend the self. It’s an automatic response. And, for a lot of us, it’s strong; strong enough to override our thinking.

When I first started applying systems thinking, it was initially out of faith because I lacked experience. In those earlier years, I borrowed the phrase, “It’s not personal.” I said it to myself whenever I was in conflict with someone (either externally or internally). Over time, I began to recognize that conflict and tension weren’t about them or me. Instead, it was about the family of origin that shaped who we are.

Our twitchiness to the vibrations of anxiety in the relationship system is rooted in how our families as an emotional unit manage anxiety. Our automatic responses to anxiety are shaped by the way the family operates in the face of a challenge. And not just the family today, but generations and generations of families have each left their functional mark on subsequent generations of the family.

Another mantra I picked up along the way is, “the other is doing the best they can with what they have. I am doing the best I can with what I have. We can all do better.” It’s an acknowledgment that what is happening between us is not about the two of us. It is much broader in scope. I cannot possibly understand the other’s reactivity towards me without having an understanding and appreciation of the family. Likewise, I cannot possibly understand my reactivity without awareness and understanding of my family of origin. Ultimately, the thinking behind these phrases converted me to thinking systems. It led me to the believe that, within the context of one’s family, individual behavior makes sense.

Rabbi Ed Friedman, author of the book "Generation to Generation," said that criticism is a form of pursuit. It’s part of the force for togetherness. That’s why some people become critical as their anxiety goes up. An increase in anxiety in the relationship system will initially pull people together, even if the pull has a negative valence. This is why, when we are blamed or criticized, it’s hard to shake it off and not take it personally. We are reacting to the force for togetherness. To make it personal is an acknowledgment that one is caught up in the togetherness. This is why, paradoxically, not to take it personally is an effort for self. It is an effort towards differentiation of self. And differentiation of self is about being a better connected self.

Praise from others can be just as precarious. It can feel good, but when the feeling is caught up in the emotional process of the relationship system, it’s still part of the force for togetherness. The force for togetherness functions to align everyone’s thinking, feelings, and actions in the face of a perceived threat. Praise can just as easily get someone in line as can criticism.

Of course, there is nothing inherently wrong with either criticism or praise. I have been aided by both in my life during times of need. But they are problematic when one’s life course is only guided by the criticism or praise of others. In this way, criticism and praise undercut one’s ability to fulfill their purpose and be all that God wants them to be.

So, as we begin a New Year, perhaps a good resolution would be not to let criticism and praise guide your ship’s sails, but instead let thinking, goals setting, beliefs, core principles and responsible living be your guide!