Spiritual maturity is the result of a life-long process of growth. It takes intentionality, time, effort, and motivation. It doesn’t just happen, and it is not a natural gift that some have, and others do not. It is evident not in the habits and practices of a person, but in the ways a spiritually mature person relates to others. Someone who prays regularly and continues to blame others for their problems is not a spiritually mature person.

Spiritual maturity is not the result of following rules, advice, or practicing specific techniques. It is the result of an ongoing effort to determine what kind of person one wants to be. Rules, advice, and techniques may be useful, but they are not the answer.

We live at a time when advice givers, rule enforcers, and technique professionals are everywhere. In our quest to be our best selves, we have turned to short-term solutions at the cost of long-term gains. We have traded in personal responsibility at the expense of spiritual maturity.


The first arborist was an advice-giving snake.

When the snake appears in the book of Genesis, we are introduced to the art of advice-giving. Adam and Eve needed advice because they were confronted with the challenge of following the rules. In chapter 2, God gives Adam a rule for eating fruit. The first and only rule is to abstain from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; eat from there, and you die. So the snake says to Eve, “It’s a lie. You won’t die.” For Eve’s part, she doesn’t repeat the rule just right. When she repeats the rule to the snake, she changes it to the tree in the middle of the garden. Adam probably did a terrible job explaining it to her. What is the punishment for following the advice of the snake? More rules (you can’t go back into the garden), and more rules, (honor father and mother), and more rules (if your son is stubborn, rebellious, and refuses to listen then kill him).

Perhaps the snake was the first congregational coach, “Do this. Don’t do this. That’s a lie. You won’t die. Try it, you’ll like it. I know best.” Churches pay top dollar for consultants to come in and tell them whose right and whose wrong, and what to do about it.

Of course, not all coaches slither. Some are good people. My effort here is to make a distinction between the good coaches and the, well, not so good coaches; the ones who engage the thinking of a leader, and the expert who doesn’t really care what you think. I think the distinction will get clearer as I continue.

The history of congregational development is splattered with experts telling congregational leaders how to act and what to avoid. There are probably more rules that have been written by experts than there are laws in the Hebrew Bible. For example, make sure you have enough parking spaces, make sure you have enough butts in the choir, and above all else, make sure you have a cool church name that references nature.

I’m not saying that having rules or giving advice is all bad. I’ve kept a few rules I’ve learned over the years: don’t pee on the electric fence twice and never call them jerks. However, being a spiritually mature person is about so much more.

While we can’t escape the need for things like rules, techniques, standard operating procedures, and advice the basic problem with all of them is what they deny. Rule enforcers, advice givers, technique instructors, and policy managers firmly believe they are helping others. But they often fail to recognize how the work they do is legitimized by highlighting the deficiency in others. Diagnosing a congregation as “problematic” reinforces the need to help others. As anxiety in the relationship system increases, the need to focus on the perceived problems of others also increases. Giving advice also has a way of elevating the tension, even though it’s offered with good intentions.

Dr. Murray Bowen was writing about the family, but this quote also applies to any relationship system, including congregations:

“. . . the family projection process is 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.

What we are fundamentally dealing with here is an emotional process. It is an automatic response to an increase in anxiety in the relationship system. The relationship system can be both a congregation and a family. Those who are the most uncomfortable in a system will do their best to get things back to the way they were often by blaming someone for the problem. If their efforts are not successful, a consultant may be invited to provide an expert opinion and diagnosis of the problem. Consultants may promote a cure which includes having the congregation take a series of prescribed steps.

What is denied by advice-giving is the opportunity for leaders to think. Thinking solves more problems than accepting advice or learning techniques. It is the very thing that lowers anxiety. If heightened anxiety is the problem, then it’s time for congregations to abandon short-term solutions and focus on developing spiritually mature thinkers.


Spiritual maturity results from being a good thinker

In my faith tradition, we talk about the “mind of Christ.” It is rooted in the concepts of wisdom and holiness. To have the mind of Christ is to think higher thoughts. If we concede that our basic problem is a relationship problem, then the solution can be found in the way we relate to one another. Turning only to rules, techniques, and advice is an anxious response to the effort of relating to others. For example, how do I get the trustees to endorse my brilliant idea?

When we abandon technique as a guide for relating to others, we are left with thinking. What do I do with my anxious brain? How do a regulate myself when I’m upset? How do I relate to an overbearing member of the congregation? What do I think about our current financial crisis? How do I motivate someone to be a better leader? The answers to these questions do not contain solutions to the problem, but they do provide a path forward. It is about process, not content.

The act of thinking (not reactive thinking but reflective thinking) changes the dynamic of the relationship system. Thinking is the answer to a problem rooted in an emotional process. Thinking disrupts this process and allows for a greater capacity problem solve.

Having the mind of Christ, or having wisdom, is the result of an ongoing, sustained effort to inject maturity into everyday conversations. To inject maturity is to relate to others through the thinking system of the brain, which is consistent with holiness. It’s what gives us the capacity to manage the emotional process by functioning at a higher, more responsible level.

The prefrontal cortex is what distinguishes us from all other animals. It’s what gives us our unique awareness of ourselves. Reverend Peter Steinke refers to the prefrontal cortex as the heavenly lobes. It’s the difference between dogs who sit and eat out of a bowl and humans who sit, pray, and eat out of a bowl.

This does not mean that feelings are not important. Feelings provide the feedback needed for awareness of the emotional response. Feelings are like the gauges on a steam engine. As we observe our feelings, we can tell if things are moving along smoothly, when we need to increase the pressure, or when the whole thing is about to blow.


Thinkers stay in good, viable contact with important others.

The word mature has its origins in the word ripe. When the fruit is ready for picking, it is ripe. In the Christian faith, we talk about fruits of the spirit. Modern research on trees has revealed a vast underground ecosystem system that sustains tree life. There is constant contact between the trees and the ecosystem. Trees can even communicate with other trees through this system. This is an emotional process that keeps the trees alive. You can learn more about this by listening to a recent Radiolab podcast.

Families are like trees. They are in a constant state of reacting to the environment and to each other. The ability of the tree to reach maturity is related to how well it is connected to the earth, other trees, and the system’s ability to face challenges. Too much challenge and the tree breaks. Too little challenge and the tree never matures.

While you may desire to live like a giant redwood, steady and strong, our ability to be steady and strong has to do with our connectedness to our families, the environment, and our ability to manage ourselves in the face of challenge. This is an effort that requires thinking which can bring about long-lasting results. When faced with a challenge, a spiritually mature person steps back, works at being aware of what’s really going on both internally and externally, thinks about possible responses, and then acts. The process then repeats. This approach, what Dr. Bowen termed differentiation of self, has a proven track record.

Being a good thinker is about discovery and curiosity. Good questions to ask oneself are:

• What are my core beliefs and guiding principles?
• Where did these ideas come from?
• Are they mine or have I simply adopted them from others?
• How do I figure out the difference?
• At the end of the day, what kind of person do I want to be?
• What are the challenges I face in my family as I work on being this person?

I will be updating my website soon. I’ve been using the word “coaching” to describe the service I offer clergy and congregational leaders. I’ll be changing it back to my original idea which is “thought partner.” That’s what I am: someone who is willing to think with you about the problems you are facing whether it might be dealing with a problem in the congregation, a personal problem, or a problem with the family. Using Bowen Theory as my lens, I offer people an opportunity to become curious, discover, and learn all that one can from the challenges they face. If you are interested in having a thought partner, the first session is free.

Note:  I wrote this blog two months ago, before the transfer of presidential powers, and before the signing of executive orders.  I still think the thinking represented in this article is accurate in understanding the function of enforcement.  But I recognize, given the current state of affairs, some may disagree with the thoughts presented in this blog.
 
When the Israelites left Egypt, they were free of an oppressive regime but lacked the social structures necessary to build a new nation-state.  It wasn’t until the passing of a generation, and the conquest of Canaan that the rule of law, a court system, health codes, and enforcement agencies were fully established.
 
The Ten Commandments, and other laws contained in the Torah (like the Deuteronomic Code), emerged as the basic building blocks of a thriving community.  Laws, in their various themes and variations, are necessary for the continuity of a community.
 
The rule of law requires upfront agreement on how individuals will resolve differences in the future.  When two neighbors have a disagreement over competing interests, there is a more than likely chance both will submit to a court order if they live in a community where the rule of law is viewed as fair.  We know from experience that when two parties are able to come to a mutual agreement, the outcome is better not only for the two parties but also for the community.  In situations where a third party is needed to make a decision (like a judge), while a court decision may resolve the conflict in the short-term, it often does not address the underlying problem that gave rise to the conflict.  Conflict, created by an emotional process in a relationship system, can be resolved when both parties are motivated to take responsibility for their part of the problem.  A judge (or a neutral third party) is often needed in cases where one or more parties are unwilling to do their part to find a resolution or solution.
 
Health codes are also important to the well-being of a community.  Health officials spend much of their time educating citizens on the best health practices available to the community.  When people get sick, for example, because of the improper handling of food, they can usually be treated and cured.  Knowing what is safe and what is dangerous to the body is important for living productive lives.  In the United States, health officials are able to respond quickly to problems in the food distribution, and in containing contagious diseases.  The ability to enforce best practices among citizens continues to be an ongoing issue for health professionals.  For example, we know that vaccinations are not just important for the health of the individual, they also protect the community.  In recent years, parents have questioned the practice of immunization.  We may be on the verge of a measles epidemic in the United States as a result. 
 
This brings us to the problems of enforcement.  In the Hebrew Bible, laws were established to protect the well-being of the community.  When an individual broke the law or became ill, they were labeled as a risk to the broader community.  The priest became the law enforcement officer.  Those who broke the law were brought before a priest.  If for example, a person’s behavior was deemed dangerous, the individual was removed from the community and placed in isolation with others who were also deemed dangerous.  In some cases, groups were isolated on remote islands. 
 
If a person was ill, they were brought before a priest who enforced the health codes.  If the priest deemed the individual dangerous to the community, that individuals would have been isolated for a time.  Once the illness was over, they would return to the priest to be deemed “clean.”  If the illness were incurable, one would be quarantined with others who had the same disease.  Such was the case with leprosy. 
 
Enforcement has historically been the answer to keeping a community safe and mitigating risk.  Today, enforcement is carried out by police departments, the military, an immigration and customs agency,  and a bureau of alcohol, tobacco, and firearms.  Most of these agencies are weaponized to enforce the rule of law.  They are authorized to protect the whole community from individual and group behaviors that put everyone else at greater risk.
 
Over time we have created buildings like hospitals, health departments, prisons, courts, and other public institutions to institutionalize enforcement.  In this way, enforcement agencies temporarily (sometimes permanently) isolating people who are deemed a risk to the community.  And just like the priestly traditions of the Israelites, community leaders appoint and certify individuals who are vested with determining when an individual is a “threat” and when they are “clean.”
 
 
Enter the healing professionals
 
Science continues to advance our understanding of the relationship between humans and disease.  In some cases, science has been useful in developing best practices for quarantining individuals who are a threat to the broader community.  But in more recent years, science has helped agencies and institutions understand better what constitute a “real” threat.  The advancement of the microscope has aided researchers in understanding the function of neurons and microbes which have led to greater insight and knowledge of neurological and biological systems.
 
Advances in science are not easily accepted.  Science by its very nature is slow to changing its understanding of the natural world and inherently skeptical of new discoveries.  It also takes time for the broader society to embrace new understandings of the cosmos.  These changes create institutional anxiety because the change is perceived as a potential threat to the broader community.  When the dam that protects the city from the river begins to leak, you put a finger in the hole, and you hold it there even if the army core of engineers has a better plan.  You go with what works even if the finger in the hole is the least efficient way of dealing with the crisis.
 
Is it possible to conceive of a society where enforcement agencies operate differently?  I think so, but we are a long way off.  I’ll present below some areas where I see enforcement changing.  In the comment section, please consider ways you think congregations can participate in these and other changes.  Congregations have a role to play in encouraging institutional leaders to come together to talk about the values and interests of the whole community, not just the needs of a select few. 
 
 
Interagency cooperation
 
In a recent podcast by Hidden Brain, in 2015 health officials in Liberia needed to work closely with police to contain a possible outbreak of Ebola.  Those who were believed to be infected were also wanted by police.  Because the risk of an Ebola outbreak in the broader community was so high, the police were asked to be flexible in their plan to apprehend the suspects.  It required enforcement officials from two different agencies to work together to prioritize how to address two threats to the community. 
 
Dr. Nneka Jones Tapia was hired in 2013 to be the executive director of the Cook County Jail.  Nneka is a clinical psychologist and not your typical warden.  Her hiring represents a shift in law enforcement and more cooperation between mental health and law enforcement agencies.  These types of interdisciplinary efforts are an important step in moving forward. 
 
 
Feeling and thinking
 
At the heart of these efforts is knowing the difference between thinking and feeling.  Each is a system that interacts with the other.  Dr. Murray Bowen’s concept of differentiation of self describes the ability of an individual to differentiate between the feeling, thinking, and behaviors of others, and the internal effort to distinguish between the thinking and feeling systems in the brain.
 
The feelings system is our connection to emotions.  Our emotions are what motivate our automatic behaviors.  It is what we share with all life forms.  Everywhere we look in nature, we can see automatic and predictable reactivity to threat.  The feeling state helps us become aware of the emotional process. 
 
When feelings are high, thinking is low.  There is wide variation in the degree to which individuals can distinguish between their own feeling state and the feeling state of others.  When the level of threat is perceived to be high, our capacity to tolerate different feelings, beliefs, and actions of others is diminished.  When individuals are stressed, they move towards a fusing of the feeling and thinking systems.  Differentiation is a way to work oneself out of the fusing of feelings, beliefs, and actions with others. 
 
It can also be difficult to know when one is feelings and when one is thinking.  We often say, “I feel” to talk about what we think.  Such statements represent our subjective, emotional reactivity and not well thought out principles.  Research has shown that the activation of the thinking system can downregulate the reactivity of the emotional system.  Changes in thinking lead to changes in behavior.  Because the human is sensitive to the behavior of others, a change in one’s behavior may lead to changes in the behavior of others in the system.  Being able to distinguish between the two systems of feeling and thinking is the beginning of differentiation and can lead to better outcomes in the relationship system.  And because communities are made up of a collection of family systems, it is possible to shift behaviors in the community when one changes the way they think about their family. 
 
The communication of intellectual thoughts and ideas also sets the stage for beginning differentiation of self.  Each spouse begins to know the other and to know self in a way that was not possible before, and to become aware of differences in thinking and acting and being.  A line of demarcation begins developing between the spouses as they clarify the beliefs and principles that differ from one another.  The point at which one beings to take action stands based on principles and beliefs is the point where they encounter the emotional reactions that go with the steps in differentiation of self.  The emotion that accompanies differentiation is contained within the twosome, it is cohesive rather than disruptive, and it is followed by a new level of more mature togetherness.  (Family Therapy in Clinical Practice, 227)
 
When one begins to work on differentiation, they will encounter reactivity from the relationship system.  The system initially perceives the effort to be more of a self as a threat to the system.  There is push back which can at times become intense.  However, Bowen observed and believed that if an individual can stay the course without reacting back, stay focused on thinking systems, and staying calm in the relationship system will shift and do better. 
 
 
Applications of better thinking on enforcement
 
Enforcement, at its worst, is simply an emotional process that seeks to get everyone to feel, think, and behave in a specific way when the perception of threat is high.  Enforcement is at its best when good thinkers become a resource to individuals and groups who are stuck in an emotional process.
 
For example, police officers can de-escalate a stressful situation by engaging the thinking of others.  The media often shows police at their worst when they are highly reactive to a situation.  Their reaction does not match the threat.  Perhaps enforcement agencies would do better to test cadets by examining their ability to engage thinking in stressful situations.  I could make the case that tension at home carries over into the workplace.  In a case where an officer has overreacted to a crisis, one would more than likely find the family system operating at a higher level of tension. 
 
 
The role of leaders
 
By leaders, I often mean congregational leaders because this is my target audience. But if you are still reading this blog then you are probably a leader, even if it is not in a congregation. It’s important for good thinkers to be relating to their community leaders. There are avenues for good thinkers to interject more thoughtful responses to local, community issues. I believe congregational leaders underestimate their abilities to have an impact on the well-being of their community and miss out on opportunities to present good thinking to others leaders.
 
I would consider the following list to be hallmarks of this effort.  It is not an exhaustive list.  You might have other things you would add which I hope you will include in the comment section.
 
It is the ability to:

• see symptoms or problematic behavior as a result of an emotional process, not the cause.
• see process not content
• understand what the other is up against
• tone down fear and resist the urge to blame
• see the other as an equal partner in determining solutions
• find joint resolution for problems
• identify other leaders in various systems (family, community, institutions) who are good thinkers
• find solutions where individuals articulate what they are or are not willing to do
• resist telling other people what to do
• articulate the natural consequences of actions
• engage others in the problem, never avoid.

 
When community leaders actively work on differentiation of self, the community benefits.  It seems there will always be a need for laws and the enforcement of laws but the use of law enforcement will vary from community to community depending on the level of the thinking of the enforcement system.  Understanding the emotional process is an important step if one is to make sense of the use and misuse of enforcement.

Just this past week, two United Methodist Churches announced their intentions to secede from the denomination.  Separation seems to be more common today.  California has been in the news about seceding from the union.  We’ve come a long way from the original thirteen colonies who worked together to form a more perfect union.
 
 
Examples of separation
 
Separation is a consistent theme throughout history.  I wrote a blog about it a couple of months ago.  The flow of immigrants and refugees to North America is part of a historical trend of separation and migration that started 100,000 years ago.  You can read more about it by clicking here.
 
Examples of separation can be found in the advancement of technology.  We are becoming less dependent on utilities to provide clean water, gas, and electricity.  More homeowners are embracing green technologies.  It may be only a matter of time until everyone is “off the grid.”  In 2016 solar installation had the biggest gains.
 
Corporations are another good example of separation and diversification.  Growing up, my family had access to six TV stations.  Now there are thousands.  Just look at the candy industry. I recently stood in the candy aisle at Walgreens in some sort of sweet trance, overwhelmed by my options.  The owner and founder of Papa John’s Pizza was once an executive at Domino’s.  He seceded from Domino’s to start his own company.  How many other companies have started because someone seceded from one company to launch a competitor?
 
The benchmark for separation is Christianity.  The history of Christianity is bursting with examples.  Martin Luther has the most famous secession story.  He was excommunicated by the pope for his stances.  He went on to create a separate church.  Today, over 70 million people call themselves Lutheran and nearly 70 denominations are affiliated to Lutheranism.    
 
 
Forces that drive separation
 
It’s difficult to know what exactly is driving secession and separation.  One the one hand, evolutionary theory suggest that diversification of species is a natural process.  As life evolves, it separates into different forms and repeats the process over and over again. 
 
However, the latest tree of life is based on the work by Carol Woese from the University of Illinois whose research led to the formation of the phylogenetic tree of life.  Woese proposed that horizontal gene transfer between organisms was responsible for early evolution.  Jan Sapp, a historian of biology at York University, Canada picked up Woese’s ideas and introduced the word symbiosis to conceptualize the history of evolutionary thinking.  Sapp argues that through an ongoing process of separation and re-coordination, all life forms participate in symbiosis.  It is the biological paradigm we live in.
 
The force behind separation and re-coordination is anxiety.  Dr. Murray Bowen described anxiety as an emotional response to a real or perceived threat.  Anxiety motivates us to move closer to others or to create distance.  It is what he called the force for togetherness.  As anxiety rises, our initial reaction is to move closer to others.  However, as anxiety increases, one may become allergic to others and move further away.  This movement away from another can be characterized as separation.  In the short term, separation is useful in managing a rise in anxiety.  As anxiety decreases, an individual can move towards others in more productive ways. 
 
John Calhoun, an American ethologist (not to be confused with the Representative and Vice President) studied the impact of population growth with rats and mice.  In his most famous experiment with mice, Calhoun observed that as population density increased, social behaviors related to things like mating, rearing of offspring, and cooperative grooming broke down.  Eventually, females no longer reproduced, and males withdrew.  As anxiety rises in the relationship system, cooperative behaviors become more difficult to sustain.
 
This idea of separation and re-coordination may be at work in the broader society. Efforts towards separation can be seen across the globe from the recent executive orders of President Trump to Brexit to the struggle in South Sudan.  These actions seem to be more anxiety driven as countries struggle with rising levels of anxiety, driven by fear.  Population density and a lack of natural resources may also play a role in escalating tension.  I don’t think it’s a coincidence that scientists are researching how to sustain human life on Mars. 
 
 
Overcoming separation
 
At first glance, it would appear that modern protest moments like Black Lives Matter and the recent Women’s March would indicate signs of re-coordination.  Each movement has made efforts to broaden their base as they bring people together.  However, I think there are other examples that represent a different kind of re-coordination.
 
In more recent years, interfaith communities have sprung up around the world.  Some communities have built facilities where Christians, Muslims, and Jews can worship under the same roof.  These efforts, to bring interfaith congregations together, take time and intentionality.  It does not happen overnight.  It represents efforts to overcome automatic reactions towards separation and encourage individuals to participate in higher cognitive efforts of cooperation and coordinate activities. 
 
Universities and hospitals have become more intentional about creating interdisciplinary departments.  While the effort is slow moving, there seems to be a growing acknowledgment that the problems we face as a society and as a species are interdisciplinary in nature and require a broader conversation that transcends specific orientations and practices. 
 
Finally, there is hope that not-for-profits will increase their efforts of collaboration and cooperation across organizations.  This too is slow going and will require an increase in motivation to work collaboratively.  The struggles of most people are complicated.  For example, those who are homeless not only need housing, they also need employment, access to health and mental health care, legal services, microloans, food, and viable family connections.  One organization is not able to offer all of these services.  But, with collaboration with other organizations, it is possible.
 
The answer to our problems can be found in Differentiation of Self.  Dr. Bowen observed that those who made improvements in defining a self did better.  They were in a better position to manage the forces for togetherness in ways that did not lead to distancing or cutoff, and did not lead to intense fusion.  Working on self towards differentiation takes time to think about what one is willing to do and not do.  This effort produces a system of beliefs.  These beliefs help guide a person as they navigate the rising levels of anxiety both in self and with others. 
 
The greatest challenge we face today is coordination.  How do people continue to coordinate and cooperate with others if society continues to move towards increased separation?  In some ways, this is nothing new.  Humans have always struggled with how to coordinate and cooperate.  The challenge today seems greater.  What will it take for us to not give into the forces that separate us and embrace a way of thinking that leads to greater collaboration?  I hope you’ll share your thoughts in the comment section below.

To learn more about coaching or to invite John Bell to speak to your leadership team or group, go to the contact page by clicking here.

Want to receive this weekly blog straight to your inbox every Monday morning?  Subscribe by clicking here!

In theory, congregations have the capacity to be a positive influence on the broader community.  They have a belief system that often looks at the big picture, a narrative that upholds the respect and sanctity of life, and, for some, a relationship system that treats people as equals.
 
In practice, congregations are becoming just the opposite.  They are narrowing their beliefs, touting theological positions that only serve to counter secular ideals, promoting a narrative of taking a life to “save” lives, and treating people who are different, differently.  It’s observable in meetings, and in emails and phone calls between parishioners.  Is it realistic to expect congregations to behave any different than those who do not attend a congregation?
 
For mainline Protestant denominations, there has been a steady decline in worship attendance over the past fifty years.  A benchmark denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention, is addressing decline for the first time in its history.  What contributes to this mass exodus from the mainline church?  It is not a failure to communicate the message.  It is not a lack of effort.  The decline is related to the inability of local congregations to be flexible and adaptable to the rising tide of societal anxiety. 
 
I’ve assembled some ideas on what this looks like in relationship to ministries of outreach, nurture, and administration.
 
 
Outreach and Missions
 
Most congregations participate in some form of outreach.  And when I say outreach, I mean ministries with the poor.  Congregations often send money and volunteers to local agencies.  Many of these agencies are coming to terms with how traditional paradigms for helping the poor are not working.  Good intentions to help individuals who are in need have promoted a type of helplessness.
 
Dr. Murray Bowen describes a projection process that goes on in the family that extends to the helping professionals:
 
“The family projection process is 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. 
 
The time has come for congregations to step up their understanding of emotional process as it relates to outreach ministries.  This includes finding new ways of engaging others in need without contributing to their underfunctioning.  Congregations need to start asking the question, “When is helping not helping?”
 
 
Education and Programming
 
Fear stunts our intellectual growth.  Our motivation to uncover facts, our drive to discover, and our curiosity for exploration are halted by fear.  If not challenged, our fears will keep us from learning and growing.  We will lack the confidence to move forward.
 
What does it mean to be challenged?  A great coach is someone who knows how to challenge an individual to reach beyond their capacity.  They bring out the best in their student.
 
Where in your congregation are people being challenged?  How are these challenges tailored to the individual and not generalized to an entire congregation?  Who are the coaches working to challenge others to reach past their potential?  Where are the leadership development programs that encourage people to step up and do better? 
 
 
Administration
 
Congregations are anxious about administration.  Most congregations first fill their administrative vacancies leaving programs to suffer from a lack of leadership and volunteers.  It says something about the level of anxiety people have about administration, especially finances.
 
All congregations need to be transparent in the ways they handle finance.  Unfortunately, congregational leaders are often transparent in the wrong ways.  Instead of being transparent about the facts of their financials, they are transparent about their anxiety.  They share their worries and fears either by withholding information or fantasizing about the future demise of the congregation.
 
Leaders do a better job with finances when they find ways to share facts and decrease the amount of anxiety they share.  It’s useful to focus less on telling the congregation what to do (like how much people should give) and focus more on encouraging individuals to be responsible givers.  When leaders talk about the impact of giving on the ministries of the congregation and the community, those are facts.  It is not a fact to tell the congregation you will turn off the lights in worship if the giving does not increase.  Efforts to blame or shame have no place in congregations or any relationship system. 
 
Does your congregation help people learn about personal finances?  Does your congregation offer opportunities for people to think about what kind of legacy they want to leave and how they will support ministries and organizations to that end?  Do leaders work to understand the goals of individual members and think with them about how to accomplish their goals?  Do leaders model this effort themselves? 
 
 
What is responsible leadership?
 
It’s important for congregational leaders to define what they believe, what is important to them, and what they are trying to accomplish in their life.
 
Dr. Bowen developed a view of what he called the “family leader.”  Therapy for Bowen involved identifying someone in the family with the capacity to be more of a self; someone who is actively working on differentiation of self.  He writes:
 
“Operationally, ideal family treatment begins when one can find a family leader with the courage to define self, who is as invested in the welfare of the family as in self, who is neither angry nor dogmatic, whose energy goes to changing self rather than telling others what they should do, who can know and respect the multiple opinions of others, who can modify self in response to the strengths of the group, and who is not influenced by the irresponsible opinions of others . . . A family leader is beyond the popular notion of power.  A responsible family leader automatically generates mature leadership qualities in other family members who are to follow.” (Kerr and Bowen 1988, 342-43)
 
A responsible leader is someone who is working on being their best self.  It is what Bowen described as differentiation of self.  It is a thinker – someone who thinks systems.  Someone who is focused on “I” while others are focused on “we.”  It is a connected self.  Someone who has viable contact with both their family relationship system and the congregational relationship system while working on self-regulation.  It is charting one’s own course while respecting the courses others are taking.  It is acting on one’s beliefs and being prepared for the reactivity from others that inevitably accompanies such an effort.  It is understanding that everyone is doing the best they can with what they have.  But we can all do better.