The following is a story I heard a few years ago:
 
I heard about a man who was standing in the middle of the Golden Gate Bridge, admiring the view, when another tourist walked up alongside him to do the same. And he said: ‘I heard him say quietly as he took in the beauty of the view: “What an awesome God!” I turned to him and I said, “Oh, are you a Christian?” He said, “Yes, I am a Christian.” I said, “So am I,” and we shook hands.
 
I said, “Are you a liberal or a fundamental Christian?” He said, “I'm a fundamental Christian.” I said, “So am I,” and we smiled and nodded to each other.
 
I said, “Are you a covenant or dispensational fundamental Christian?” He said, “I'm a dispensational fundamental Christian.” I said, “So am I,” and we slapped one another on the back.
 
I said, “Are you an early Acts, mid Acts, or late Acts dispensational fundamental Christian?” He said, “I'm a mid Acts dispensational fundamental Christian.” I said, “So am I,” and we agreed to exchange Christmas cards each year.
 
I said, “Are you an Acts 9 or 13 mid Acts dispensational fundamental Christian?” He said, “I'm an Acts 9 mid Acts dispensational fundamental Christian.” I said, “So am I,” and we hugged one another right there on the bridge.
 
I said, “Are you a pre-Trib or post-Trib Acts 9 mid Acts dispensational fundamental Christian?” He said, “I'm a pre-Trib Acts 9 mid Acts dispensational fundamental Christian.” I said, “So am I,” and we agreed to exchange our kids for the summer.
 
I said, “Are you a twelve-in or twelve-out pre-Trib Acts 9 mid Acts dispensational fundamental Christian?” He said, “I'm a twelve-in pre-Trib Acts 9 mid Acts dispensational fundamental Christian.” I said, “You heretic!” and I pushed him off the bridge.

I like this story because it highlights how divisive people become over the smallest of differences.  While most people in a congregation may agree on core beliefs, there will always be outliers, rebels, and those who think differently.  Most congregations are sensitive to these differences even though they vary in the degree to which they react to these differences.  Sometimes a congregational leader is the one who takes a position that is different.  When the congregation is rigid in their beliefs, leaders will find it difficult to take a different position on important issues.
 
This recent election is a good example.  I have heard from a number of clergy about how difficult it is to take a specific position in response to a statement made by a political leader.  When they speak up, it creates problems for others in the congregation.  They are accused of stirring the pot. 
 
One of the tragic failures of seminary education is the unwillingness and inability of seminaries to train students in emotional process.  I consider it reckless for seminaries and educators to push students to be more prophetic in their local congregations without first preparing them on how to handle psychological push back and resistance in productive ways.
 
 
What does it look like to take a stand in a congregation?
 
Taking a stand is the result of many weeks, months, or even years of grappling with an issue.  Taking time to reflect and think about a particular issue can generate key questions that lead to a broader awareness of the problem and possible solutions.  Without a disciplined effort, congregational leaders run the risk of being focused on the wrong questions.  Questions like:

• At what point do I take a stand?
• Do I wait and see how this will play out in the congregation before saying something? 
• Do I preempt any conflicts by making a statement? 
• Do I spread information about something to key leaders in the congregation in an attempt to do damage control?

 
These questions reveal a deep fear of the relationship system.  Worry can take over as one’s focus is on how others will react and not on one’s beliefs and core principles.  Being anxious about the reaction of others stifles one’s ability to represent oneself and one’s best thinking about an issue.  I’m not suggesting that we not pay attention to the relationship system.  Indeed, understanding the relationship system is the first step to being a good leader.  Problems arise, though, when the temperature of the relationship system determines how one responds to the system.
 
 
What is an emotional process?
 
Dr. Murray Bowen observed that in the family there is an emotional oneness.  In his research with families where an adult child was diagnosed with schizophrenia, he writes, “The ‘emotional oneness’ between mother and patient (child) was more intense than expected.  The oneness was so close that each could accurately know the other’s feelings, thoughts, and dreams.  In a sense they could ‘feel for each other,’ or even ‘be for each other.’” (Family Therapy in Clinical Practice, 72). 
 
Bowen concluded that the process he saw between the mother and child with schizophrenia was a process that was active in all families at varying levels of intensity.  Wait.  It gets better.  Bowen concluded that it no longer made sense to diagnose individuals with schizophrenia.  Instead, he saw schizophrenia as a symptom of the larger family emotional process.  It was as if the whole family had schizophrenia.  For Bowen, the problem was in the family as a unit, not in individual members of the family.  The individual members were simply the symptom bearers. 
 
As congregational leaders (like everyone else) we are susceptible to the subtle and not so subtle pulls towards emotional oneness.  As anxiety rises in the system, differences are seen as a threat to the well-being of the group and individuals automatically become reactivity as a way to get people back in line.  It includes engaging in conflict, avoiding or distancing from others, taking over responsibilities for others or having someone take over your responsibilities, or identifying a child (or a vulnerable member of the group) and diagnosing them.  You can learn more about this by clicking here. 
 
This effort towards oneness also plays out internally.  When we encounter others who think, feel, or act differently from the way we think, feel, or act our brains move towards an emotional oneness.  That is to say, our feelings, thinking, and acting can fuse together.  It can be difficult to tell the difference between our thoughts and our feelings.  In fact, our thoughts can be hijacked by our feelings.  Our body language, vocal intonation, and eye contact may shift to represent our feelings about the other person.    
 
The point of all of this is that we can get caught up in a life force that moves us towards togetherness in the relationship system.  Our fears can get the best of us.  Being an effective leader requires an awareness and understanding of the emotional process, seeing it at work in our relationships, seeing how one contributes to problems in the relationship system, defining oneself based on these observations, and taking action steps. 
 
 
Defining a self
 
Taking a stand is NOT about:

• debating a point.
• convincing others one is right.
• marshaling people together to outvote or outmaneuver someone else or another group.
• protest.
• viewing others as stupid, uninformed, uneducated, misguided, incapable, or prejudice.
• sharing one’s feelings.
• feeling lonely.

 
Taking a stand IS about defining a self.

1.  Defining a self is recognizing the trajectory of maturation. 
 
From birth to adulthood, all of us are developing towards being a self.  At birth we are completely dependent on others for survival.  Over time, our dependency changes as we develop the capacity to think, feel, and act for self.  As we age, we continue to stay connected to those who raised us, while differentiating from them at the same time. 

 
2.  Defining a self is the ability to separate thinking from feelings.
 
Bowen wrote: “The core of my theory has to do with the degree to which people are able to distinguish between the feeling process and the intellectual process . . . We found that there are differences between the ways feelings and intellect are either fused or differentiated from each other, and this led us to develop the concept of differentiation of self.  People with the greatest fusion between feeling and thinking function the poorest.  They inherit a high percentage of life problems.  Those with the most ability to distinguish between feeling and thinking, or who have the most differentiation of self, have the most flexibility and adaptability in coping with life stresses, and the most freedom from problems of all kinds.  Other people fall between the two extremes, both in the interplay between feeling and thinking and in their life adjustments.”  Family Therapy in Clinical Practice 355.
 

3.  Defining a self is about taking an “I position.”
 
Bowen wrote: “The differentiation force places emphasis on “I” in defining the foregoing characteristics.  The “I position” defines principle and action in terms of, “This is what I think, or believe” and, “This is what I will do or will not do,” without impinging one’s own values or beliefs on others.  It is the “responsible I” which assumes responsibility for one’s own happiness and comfort, and it avoid thinking that tends to blame and hold others responsible for one’s own unhappiness or failures.  The “responsible I” avoids the “irresponsible I” which makes demands on others with, “I want, or I deserve, or this is my right, or my privilege.”  A responsibly differentiated person is capable of genuine concern for others without expecting something in return, but the togetherness forces treat differentiation as selfish and hostile.” Family Therapy in Clinical Practice 495.
 

4.  Defining a self is about anticipating reactivity from others when one takes a stand.
 
When one takes a stand, one will most certainly experience push back from important others.  The push back is an indicator of the level of togetherness in the relationship system.  Togetherness by its very nature impinges on one’s ability to think, feel, and act on one’s beliefs and convictions.  Bowen observed the predictable nature of reactivity when one defines a self.  Reactive others will say: You are wrong . . . You are wrong, change back . . . You are wrong, change back, or these are the consequences.  Anticipating reactivity by strategizing a way to respond to it helps one stick to their effort of differentiation and not give up or give in to the togetherness pressures.

 
5.  Defining a self is about containing one’s reactivity
 
The emotional system is an automatic, reactive system.  It does not require thinking in order to function.  At its core, it is responsible for keeping the human alive, healthy, and safe.  However, when tension in the relationship system goes up or becomes chronic, the emotional system struggles to differentiate real fear from perceived fear.  So, even when we are making an effort to define a self, we can become internally reactive to our efforts.  The thinking system can downregulate this process, but it requires an awareness of how one typically reacts when tensions are high.  Developing a strategy by  using the thinking system will be a counterbalance to this effect.

 
6.  Defining a self is about keeping fear in check
 
One of the most helpful discoveries I made early in ministry was the following: when others object to a position I take, they are not reacting to how I think, but how my thinking impacts the relationship system.  When anxiety is high, when people are afraid, there is a herding phenomenon where any action, belief, or thought that is different from the group's actions, beliefs, or thoughts is perceived as a threat to the group.  Perhaps you’ve heard the phrase, “you are either with us or against.”  There is no factual basis for this phrase.  It’s a lie.  It is possible for people to think, feel, and act differently without putting the group at risk.  In fact, groups function better and are more adaptable when individuals are able to do their best thinking.
 
 
One last thought
 
When an issue that is controversial comes forward, it is an opportunity to define one’s thinking about it.  If one hasn’t thought much about the topic, then sharing this information is also a way to define a self.  It is not the position one takes that is important.  It is the way one defines oneself in the midst of anxious others.  Taking a stand is about knowing when one is reacting to others and when one is representing self to others.

I used to think the most elusive quest in life was understanding the cosmos.  That distinction, it turns out, belongs to the task of evaluating employees.  It is a challenge to understand the rich and complicated nuances of a good evaluation.  Over the years, I’ve oscillated back and forth between doing structured (weekly and monthly) evaluative meetings with staff, to simply using each conversation as an opportunity to supervise; an idea I learned from reading, “The One Minute Manager.” I can’t say that I prefer one method over the other.  And, when it comes to having my behavior evaluated, well, all I can say is, I’m not a big fan.
 
 
Clergy Evaluation
 
I’m United Methodist.  If there is anything United Methodist do well, it is filling out forms.  Over my 20 plus years of service, I’ve watched congregational leaders learn to fill out a new form about every four years.  Since United Methodist clergy are evaluated by a committee, typically there can be between 4 and 9 people taking a shot at evaluating how one “pastors.”  Despite having to learn a new evaluative process every few years, I’m usually able to find some small nugget of feedback that’s useful for my own personal development.  I often spend a good portion of the evaluation meeting reflecting with the committee on pastoral identity and how it connects with the congregation’s mission.  By the way, some of the people who will be evaluating me in the next couple of months will be reading this blog post!
 
Let me give you an example.  Several years ago, I was told during my annual evaluation, by a committee of nine people, that I need to get out of the office and spend more time with people in the community; what we typically call evangelism.  I’m all for it and welcome the feedback.  So, in response, I pose these question: What if I don’t attend finance meetings, or trustees meetings, or what if I stop visiting the home bound, or don’t show up at youth group events?  Would that be a problem?  Well, it turns out the answer is “yes”; it would be a problem.  What followed was a rich conversation on the nature of pastoral leadership in the context of that congregation.  It’s often the case that when a pastor receives feedback about what they should be doing or shouldn’t be doing, it has more to do with the way the congregation operates as a system then it does about the pastor.  It’s true that sometimes pastors need to be more responsible and step up.  However, I would venture to say, this is the exception to the rule.  All of us are doing the best we can with what we have . . . and all of us can do better, including me.
 
From a systems perspective, the annual evaluation with the pastor is an opportunity to talk about congregational priorities and mission.  When there is a pastoral evaluation, it’s important to begin with the following questions:

• What are the priorities of the congregation?
• What are the guiding and core principles of the congregation?
• What is the congregation’s vision?
• How are congregational leaders evaluating the overall direction of the congregation?  What systems are in place to measure the progress?
• In what way is the pastor responsible for leading the congregation in these areas?  What is the pastor not responsible for?
• What are congregational leaders responsible for?  What are they not responsible for?

 
Of course, there are certain areas of evaluation that are unique to clergy across multiple contexts.  For example, "Is the pastor relational?"  Are they able to relate to everyone in the congregation?  But this leads to others questions like: What does it mean to be relational?  The word relational is an elusive term in which the definition could look different in different contexts.  Who gets to decide the criteria and how is the criteria different in different situations?  Or, is the idea of being relational somehow universal?
 
For several years, the denomination I belong to invested money into a research program called KSAP which is an acronym for knowledge, skills, abilities, and personal characteristics.  The result was a multi-level assessment of clergy effectiveness.  The purpose of the research was to list the specific things a clergy person needed to know or do to be effective.  There is a total of 53 items on the KSAP for clergy.  It seems a bit inhumane to assess anyone at 53 levels of effectiveness.  Indeed, the researchers observed that, out of all the vocations they researched, clergy had the highest number of total KASPs.
 
 
An issue of motivation.
 
When supervisors engage in evaluating their employees, most often the goal is to help the employee grow and develop.  Ask any supervisor, and they will tell you that the best context for an evaluation is where the employee is motivated to grow. 
 
When clergy get into trouble, it often comes down to an issue of motivation.  Clergy, who under-perform or create a frenzy in the congregation, lack the motivation to be more responsible.  (We can now add motivation to the list of things that are elusive.)  As Dr. Dan Papero often says, “You can’t make a bean grow faster by pulling on it.”  Motivation is not something that comes from the outside.  You can try to will it for others, but typically nothing will happen until the person finds their internal motivation.
 
We all struggle with motivation.  Some struggle more than others.  When I struggle with motivation, or when I feel stuck, these are some of the questions I consider:

• What is important to me?  What am I trying to accomplish? 
• What efforts have I made to accomplish these things?
• What have I tried?  What has worked?  What hasn’t worked?
• What are my stumbling blocks?  What are the problems I face?
• What am I afraid of?  Is my perception of my fears accurate?
• What is happening in the relationship system that might be creating anxiety in the system? 
• How does the relationship system pull me away from what’s important to me?
• How can I engage my own thinking when the relationship system is anxious?
• What strengths are available through the relationship system?

 
 
The relationship system is a source of strength.
 
A good evaluator focuses first and foremost on being the best self and leader they can be.  This includes being clear about their role as a supervisor and having clarity about the purpose of evaluating others.  It's about being a good thinker.  Supervisors who work on, what Murray Bowen called, differentiation of self create healthier work environments.
 
A good supervisor avoids blaming or labeling employees as problematic.  When a supervisor encounters problematic behavior they sit down with the employee and ask good questions:

• How does the employee think about the problem?  How do they define it and think about it? 
• What is the employee doing to address the problem?  Is it working for them?
• What is factual (objective) about their understanding of the problem?  What is more subjective thinking about the problem?
• How does the supervisor see the problem?  What insights can they bring to the conversation?
• Are there anxious circumstances going on inside or outside of the organization that might be contributing to the problem?  How can one think about the problem from a systems perspective?

 
When there are problems with the behavior of an individual, a good supervisor sees the problem from a systems perspective.  This means taking into account the behavior of everyone, not just the one employee.  It may include things that are happening outside of the organization.  A good supervisor thinks about how they (the supervisor) are contributing to the problem.  The supervisor reflects on ways they can act differently to be more responsible for their part of the problem.  No one wants to work in an environment where individuals are blamed and shamed for their behavior.  Taking responsibility for managing one’s self is the first step towards effective supervision and a better evaluation process.

There has been a lot of talk recently about sanctuary congregations and cities.  The designation is reserved for welcoming spaces for immigrants (particularly those who are undocumented) and vulnerable populations.  The Sanctuary Movement began in the 1980’s.  As violence escalated in Central America during the civil war, and thousands fled, Congress was under pressure to limit the number of people allowed access to the US from Central America.  Congregations became sanctuaries to refugees fleeing the war who were looking for asylum.  Like an underground railroad, refugees were secretly transported through the US to Canada where immigration laws were less restrictive.
 
Some congregations are actively discerning whether to become a sanctuary congregation.  They are in the process of gathering information, attending training, and discussing the opportunity.  I hope this blog, in some small way, sheds some light onto the process of becoming a sanctuary congregation.
 
 
Organized Religion is an important part of a societal system of checks and balances. 
 
Congregations that believe in radical hospitality are congregations who welcome everyone.  It is their belief in action.  Allegiance and obedience to God come before country.  So, when a government’s laws are contrary to the principles and beliefs of a congregation, the church has a reason to resist and protest the government.  I think about this as societal checks and balances.  The government is at its best when it is held accountable by other societal institutions.
 
Over the years, I’ve developed a theory that a thriving society requires well-functioning institutions to maintain stability and order.  Access to a system of governance, education and healthcare, law and order, affordable housing and banking, commerce, a free press and media, and organized religion are all necessary elements if people are to flourish.  There will always be endless debate about how each of these areas relate to the other and what the appropriate balance is to be.  But this debate is what produces a better society.
 
These institutions, in addition to the services they offer, also provide a system of checks and balances.  Not unlike the human body, each system is able to function at an optimal level if others systems are also functioning well.  For example, when the banking system runs wild, the housing institution suffers.  In more recent years, organized religion has been in decline with large numbers of people in the United States claiming no religious affiliation.  The weakening of organized religion is contributing to (and is the result of) the instability of the larger society.  Some call this regression.
 
In general, the purpose of a religious institution is to promote the highest possible level of functioning for the human.  Faith communities differ in their approach to this effort to transform the human.  But collectively they do this work by supporting individuals and families in fulfilling their God-given calling, with a focus on both eternal and temporal realities.  As congregations support individuals and families, they advocate for them as they engage with other institutions.  For example, when a minor commits a crime, it is not unusual for their pastor to stand with them as they engage with police and the criminal justice system.  I’ve met with nursing care administrators to advocate for better care for a church member.  In this way, the congregation is supporting the efforts of individuals and families.
 
 
Leaders need to define and act on their beliefs and core principles.
 
Congregations are at their best when leaders are developing and acting on their beliefs, core principles, values, and operating principles.  A few years ago, prompted by a change in governance by the congregation I serve, I was asked to develop core principles.  Over a two month period, I established six core principles.  At the end of the two months, I spent the next six months distributing them widely to the congregation, I asked for feedback, preached a series on them, and invited the congregation to adopt them.  Over the years, these core principles have been useful to me as a leader because they guide my thinking in evaluating programs and discerning direction. 
 
When it comes to the issue of becoming a sanctuary congregation, having a set of core principles can help guide the thinking of the congregation:

• Is the concept of providing sanctuary consistent with the church’s beliefs and core principles?  In what ways?
• What are leaders willing to do or not do when it comes to providing sanctuary? 
• What is the congregation able to do or not do when it comes to ministering to undocumented immigrants? 
• If a congregation is not able to provide “sanctuary,” but the practice is consistent with the congregation’s core principles and beliefs, what are other ways the congregation can support individuals and families?

 
 
Supporting the efforts of families.
 
Congregations are at their best when they support the efforts of families and individuals.  It's important to pay attention to what families and individuals are trying to accomplish.  What are their goals, aspirations, hopes, and dreams?  How can the congregation support and resource these efforts?  In this way, it is not just about being a sanctuary congregation.  Each family and individual who walks through the doors of a congregation has a unique set of circumstances and problems.  These problems are interrupting their ability to accomplish their goals and purpose in life.  Supporting individuals and families is about helping them achieve their goals and fulfilling their purpose. 
 
Congregations are at their best when they walk alongside families, encourage their progress, and advocate for access to resources and opportunities.  When an undocumented family comes to the church for help, the question is not “should we support them?”  The question is “how can we support them in ways that are consistent with our core principles and beliefs?”  Like any family that comes to a congregation for support, the first step is to discover the specific needs of the family?  From there, congregational leaders determine whether they are able to meet the needs.  When a congregation is able to support a family, plans are made to do just that.  When a congregation is not able to assist for one reason or another, it is time for leaders to do their best thinking with families and individuals.  What are viable next steps for this family or individual?  What are the community resources that are available?  Each step of the process is an opportunity to participate in thinking. 
 
In the process of discovering needs, it may be determined that the family requires more time to evaluate their options and consider their choices.  In the case of an undocumented family, leaders may determine that providing sanctuary is something they can provide so that the family has time to discern what to do.  It may also be a time for congregational leaders to work with other community leaders from various institutions.  Here again, congregational leaders will need to consider what they can and can’t do.  Daily and/or weekly evaluations will be required as this is a process.
 
My effort in this blog post is to show that making a decision about becoming a sanctuary congregation is no different than any other decision.  It requires congregational leaders to think about what a congregation can do or cannot do based on core principles and beliefs.  More risk may be involved with this effort for both families (or individuals) and the congregation, but all ministry has a level of risk that needs to be responsibly managed.  How does a congregational leader assess and evaluate risk?  What structures in the church provide opportunities to think about risk assessment?  Who are the good thinkers in the congregation that can come alongside congregational leaders as they do this important work?  Are you sensing a theme here? Indeed!  How can the decision to offer sanctuary be an extension of the everyday efforts of a congregation?  How can a congregation prepare itself better to meet the needs of everyday people, regardless of the challenges they face?  How can the possibility before us of hosting a family with sanctuary be an opportunity to become more responsible in the ways we engage individuals and families in the community?  How can a congregation become clearer about its core principles and beliefs and be more responsible for acting on them?
 
I think it’s worth noting here that congregations as institutions also have needs.  Serving the institutional needs enables the congregation to continue to support individuals and families.  However, when congregational needs are not met, the focus can shift away from supporting individuals and families.  When this happens, institutions lose their balance as they put more effort into supporting the institution.  Successful leaders know that when an organization sticks to its mission of supporting families and individuals through their core principles, institutional needs will be met.
 
 
Staying connected with the community.
 
It is essential for congregational leaders to be in good, viable contact with key community leaders.  I learned this early in my career.  I was encouraged during my first appointment to spend the first month meeting the police and fire chiefs, the mayor, alderman and other elected officials, and leaders of various community service providers.  Ongoing and consistent contact with these leaders is vital and necessary if families and individuals are to be supported by the congregation.  In my experiences, leaders who actively build relationships with strategic partners in the community are seen as an important resource to the community. 
 
Knowing where political leaders stand on key issues, including immigration and refugees, is vital knowledge when working with immigrants.  Knowing what resources are available in the community is useful in providing support to families and individuals.  Knowing how key leaders in the community think about important issues helps a congregational leader know how to advocate for an individual and family. 
 
By seeking out the strengths and resources of a community, congregational leaders are seen as a source of strength and a resource.  No matter the amount of time a leader resides in a community, it doesn’t take long to build up these networks.  Congregational leaders who put off or avoid building these relationships lack the necessary legs to stand on when the stability of a community begins to shift during challenging times.
 
 
Congregations can be a resource for any family. 
 
Reframing the sanctuary movement into the broader efforts of a congregation provides a methodology for discerning how a congregation will respond to the needs of an immigrant family and helps reduce the level of anxiety that will inevitably accompany such an effort.  Whether the family is struggling with an immigration status, challenges with raising children, unemployment, homelessness, a health crisis, criminal activity, death, or any number of problems, congregational leaders can ask themselves these questions:

1. What is this family or individual trying to accomplish?  How is the problem defined?
2. How do the needs of this family or individual connect to the core principles of the congregation? 
3. As a leader, what am I willing to do and not do for this family or individual?
4. How can I support the best efforts of this family or individual to survive and thrive?
5. What are other resources in the congregation or community that might serve this family in their effort to move forward?
6. Is there evidence based on this interaction that the core principles of the congregation need to be examined and changed?  What is the evidence?  How does one go about thinking about it?
7. Is there evidence based on this encounter that what I’m willing to do or not do needs to be examined and changed?  What is the evidence?  How does one go about thinking about it?

 
As always, please provide your thoughts in the comment section.  Does this way of thinking make sense?  How do you think about this differently?  What has been your experience of operating out of a set of core principles?

This blog highlights a presentation I recently gave at the Center for Family Consultation’s Winter Conference.  It was on the nature of cutoff between parents and children.
 
We are all born into a relationship system and then spend the rest of our lives learning how to navigate it.  Our behavior in the family is largely the outcome of automatic processes which are designed to help us manage the anxiety in the family.  As anxiety increases, the behavior of other family members becomes a challenge.  An automatic response is to distance from important others.
 
Institutions reinforce this behavior by encouraging individuals to keep a distance.  Child protective services may remove children from families that are labeled as dangerous.  Courts may restrain certain individuals from making contact with other people.  Counselors may encourage clients to avoid certain people who engage in inappropriate behaviors.  And clergy, who are leaving a congregation, may be told to refrain from contacting former parishioners. While most of these scenarios are temporary, some may become permanent, creating long-term consequences to one’s well-being. 
 
We are social creatures with a limited capacity for isolation.  A growing body of research confirms that there are negative health outcomes from isolation.  Researchers like Steve Cole, John Capitanio, and John Cacioppo have shown that feelings of loneliness and the experience of isolation affects gene expression.  In their study with rhesus macaques, genes affected by feelings of loneliness are ones associated with suppressing the inflammatory immune response system.  With a compromised immune system, the experience of loneliness can lead to poorer health outcomes.
 
Researcher Stephen Suomi discovered that there is something else regulating the genes that suppress the immune system.  In his research with rhesus macaques, Suomi found that the relationship system influenced the expression of genes and the behavior of the macaques.  This research opens the door to the possibility that in humans (like other mammals) psychological, physical, and behavioral symptoms may be connected to challenges that occur in the family. 
 
Murray Bowen researched families with schizophrenia.  In his famous NIMH (National Institute of Mental Health) study, he invited families with an adult child diagnosed with schizophrenia to live on a ward.  He observed that human behavior was not so much the outcome of internal biological and chemical processes, but was influenced and motivated by a relationship process between parents and child.  A concept he eventually called the nuclear family emotional process. 
 
Bowen described how all behavior is part of a reciprocal, relationship process.  Behavioral, psychological, and physical symptoms in an individual are the result of a disruption in the family. The individual with the problem is simply the symptom bearer of a larger relationship problem.  We are responsible for what we do.  But, Bowen observed how our automatic reactions to increased anxiety in the family make it challenging for individuals to be more responsible.  As the level of anxiety increases, one’s behavior becomes more automatic.  Cutting off from our family is an automatic response to heightened anxiety in the family. 
 
“The life pattern of cutoffs is determined by the way people handle their unresolved emotional attachments to their parents.  All people have some degree of unresolved emotional attachment to their parents.  The lower the level of differentiation, the more intense the unresolved attachment.  The concept deals with the way people separate themselves from the past in order to start their lives in the present generation.  Much thought went into the selection of a term to best describe this process of separation, isolation, withdrawal, running away, or denying the importance of the parental family.  However much cutoff may sound like informal slang, I could find no other term as accurate for describing the process.  The therapeutic effort is to convert the cutoff into an orderly differentiation of a self from the extended family.”  Family Therapy in Clinical Practice, page 382.
 
Phillip Klever recently published the results of a fifteen-year research project on cutoff in the family.  [The article is not currently available for download.  If you would like the link to the website for a future download, leave a comment below].  He studied the most extreme cases in his family of high symptomatology and low symptomatology.  He found five couples on either end of the continuum of symptomatology (high and low), ten total, and studied them over a fifteen-year period.
 
Those in the high symptom category would on average have 2.14 health problems per person, they reported having 1-2 psychiatric problems, and were taking 1-5 medications per person.  In the low symptom category on average there were .5 health problems per person, only 3 out of ten reported any psychiatric problems, and no medications were used to treat problems in the low symptom group.  By year 15, four out of the five couples in the high symptom group were divorced.  None of the couples in the low symptom groups experienced separation or divorce.
 
What’s striking about Klever’s research is the number of contacts individuals made with their extended family.  Those in the low symptom group made more contacts to extended family members on average.  Take for example aunts and uncles.  Those in the high symptom group made, on average, 1.89 contacts per year to aunts or uncles.  Those in the low symptom family made 7.77 contacts per year. 
 
When looking at the number of cutoff relationships, high symptom families were cutoff from 42.7 percent of their extended family compared with 14.7 for low symptom families.  Those with low symptoms were also more likely to attend funerals of family members and have more family members attend their wedding.
 
When parents and children cutoff from each other, it’s a problem.  The emotional intensity that influenced the original cutoff between parent and child is now confined to the child who is isolated.  When children are cutoff from parents, there are fewer places for the anxiety to go.  With limited access to extended family, it is difficult for the child, who forms a new family unit with a spouse, to contain the level of emotional intensity they bring to this new relationship system.  This child will more than likely marry someone with a similar level of intensity who may also be cutoff from their family.  It is predictable that a child from the next generation will also cutoff from these parents, only to go on and repeat the pattern again.
 
“The more a nuclear family maintains some kind of viable emotional contact with the past generations, the more orderly and asymptomatic the life process in both generations” Family Therapy in Clinical Practice, 383.
 
There are many ways to address cutoff.  Here are some ideas:

• Increase contact with more members of the family
• Develop more open, person-to-person relationships with each member of the family
• Become a more accurate observer of self and others
• Increase ability to recognize and control one’s emotional reactions in family triangles
• Learn more facts of functioning from the family history
• Become more objective
• Define principles, life goals, and beliefs and live by them
• Be more of a separate, well-defined self in relationship to other
• Learn to manage self while in close contact
• Work at differentiation of self in the relationship system

 
From some people, the thought of bridging cutoff makes no sense.  The way they were treated can make it difficult to consider reconnecting.  In the short-term, cutoff can make sense.  But, long term, there are negative health outcomes for those who sustain cutoff from their family.  In cases where bridging cutoff is a challenge, having a good coach can make a difference. 
 
Having viable contact is about reducing anxiety by being in better contact with the family.  Viable contact alone is not differentiation.  However, it provides a path for the slow work of developing differentiation of self.  Viable contact is about knowing and being interested in important others.  At the same time, it provides an avenue for working on differentiation of self.  It’s about learning to respect the thinking of others without defending, attacking, or disengaging while at the same time representing self to others.
 
Working on bridging cutoff can lead to open, viable, one to one relationships with important others, an increased ability to have a manageable number of life stresses, awareness of one’s level of anxiety, and the ability to self-manage one’s reaction to stress as one moves forward in pursuing life goals.