This is the first of several blogs dedicated to the idea of koinonia.  Faith communities are in decline.  Many of them are on the verge of closing for good. I’m preaching a series this summer on how to define and build community.  As a companion to the series, I’m publishing a weekly blog post that reflects my thinking from the weekly sermon series.  I’m challenging the congregation to develop a hypothesis for defining and developing community.  I’ve invited them to run experiments this summer to see if their hypothesis and theories about defining and developing community are accurate.  I’m extending the same invitation to you.  Please share your thinking in the comment section below and on social media.  #koinonia.
 
God observed, “It’s not good that the human is alone.” (Genesis 2:18) Science has confirmed what the Almighty has declared.  Humans do not do well when they are alone.  Dr. John Cacioppo, Dr. Steve Cole and others have observed a connection between one’s perception of loneliness and elevated levels of inflammation.  It turns out that the body is not simply marshaling inflammatory agents only to respond to invasive bacteria or virus.  When feeling lonely, the inflammatory agents are on high alert before any invasion takes place.  This means that psychological observations are getting under the skin to regulate inflammation at the level of the genes.  Perceiving oneself as lonely leads to physical, psychological and behavioral problems, all connected to an increase in inflammation.  It is not good to be alone, indeed!
 
Faith communities support individuals and families who feel isolated.  And yet, the very institution that creates a sense of community has become a declining community.  Is it a coincidence or correlation that there is a decline in membership and a rise in loneliness?  Other institutions are trying to do something about it.  In England, the government has labeled loneliness as a health crisis.
 
Sighting numerous health studies, British Prime Minister Theresa May appointed a minister of loneliness in 2018.  In a statement she wrote, “For far too many people, loneliness is the sad reality of modern life.”  It is not good for the human to be alone.  We are social creatures.   But if we are social creatures, wired for relationships, why are so many people feeling lonely?
 
Modern humans are more connected than ever.  Next to my laptop that I’m using to type this blog is my cell phone.  I am accessible literally 24 hours a day, seven days a week.  Unless I turn off my cell phone (which I only do to reboot after a system failure), anyone can theoretically reach me at any time of the day and from any place in the world.  I recently traveled to Hong Kong and my hotel gave me a phone to use during my stay.  I was completely accessible, even in Hong Kong! 
 
With smart technology, I can see and know what is happening at any moment at any point in the world.  In real time, I can watch events anywhere on earth and even in the heavens if a digital camera is pointed there.  It is now possible for someone to listen and watch a conversation anywhere on land, sea or sky if there is a smartphone in that location.  It is a marvel of modern technology. 
 
But if we are more connected, why are we so lonely?  Where is the disconnect?  That answer has to do with the intensity of our connectedness. 
 
When war broke out around the world, one hundred years ago, you read about it in the newspaper and probably saw a couple of pictures in print.  Today, war and natural disasters are experienced by the world’s population in real time.  You experience shocks, screams, crying and injuries as they occur.  And then the sights and sounds are replayed over and over again. 

Technology is intensifying our connectivity.  If you read something on Facebook about immigration, you are then exposed to hundreds of comments, all of which are intense.  This kind of connectivity is exhausting.  So, when it’s time to connect with the people we know, the intensity of all this connectedness spills over into our everyday relationships.      
 
There is wide variation when it comes to individual responses to world events.  This has to do with one’s family and how over the generations the family has responded to fear and anxiety.  I’ll have more to say about this in the weeks to come.
 
So, what's missing from these social media platforms?  What's missing from the discussions about loneliness and our inability to build community?  What’s missing is personal responsibility.
 
Being in community with others is about being responsible for self.  When it comes to building community, no one else will build it for us.  One must see it as their responsibility to build koinonia.  This has been one of the problems with how we train leaders.  Congregational leaders have relied on outside “experts” and coaches to tell them “how” to build community.  Leaders need to do the important work of defining and building a community for themselves. 
 
No one knows how to build community outside of their community.  No template works in every setting.  Sure, there are some congregations, in various parts of the world, who are building vibrant and thriving congregations.  But none of it is transferable.  The reason?  The answer is not in the content of the community.  The answer is in the process of building community.  Congregational leaders need to embrace a process of exploring, experimenting, observing, and designing community.  It is a process of trial and error that never stops. 
 
I invite you to start a research project on koinonia.  What does it take to bring a group of strangers together and build koinonia?  Let’s begin with a hypothesis.  What does it take to build a community?  What are the components that are necessary?  What are the environmental factors?  What will leaders need to do?  Are there beliefs, principles, etc. that are important for building a community? 
 
After you clarify your hypothesis, run your experiment.  Bring people together who don’t know each other.  Observe what happens.  What works?  What doesn’t work?  What goes well?  How will you measure the progress?  What factors will you be looking for and observing?  Is your hypothesis accurate?  How might it need to change?  How can you continue your experiment passed on a new or updated hypothesis?
 
I am interested in the experiments you plan to run this summer.  What is your hypothesis?  What experiments will you be running?  Send me a note or make a comment below.  Use the hashtag #koinonia on social media.

I recently played the disciple Judas in a performance that brought to life da Vinci’s famous painting, The Last Supper.  Spoiler alert: Judas betrays Jesus.  Some people in my congregation experienced cognitive dissonance as they watched their pastor portray Judas.  During the meet and greet after each performance, the audience processed through the cast line, shook hands and took selfies with Jesus (and the other disciples).  People walked past me with no hand shake or selfie.  Or I should say, they walked past Judas.  I can’t blame them, though.  Don’t we all dislike Judas?  He's the one to blame, right?
 
Judas represents the worst of human behavior: betrayal.  For some, betrayal is an unforgivable sin.  Still, there are those who make attempts to forgive in the face of betrayal.  Forgiveness is a messy word.  Some refuse to forgive as a matter of principle and conviction.  To forgive would be to give in or give up.  Others proclaim that forgiveness provides an experience of freedom.  Forgiving others or forgiving one’s self has set them free.  What really drives the decision to forgiven?  It is the emotional process.
 
The emotional process describes how the behavior of others influences one’s behavior and vice versa.  It’s a reciprocal process, and it’s predictable, like a script.  If I say or do “x,” then someone else will predictably do “y.”  Because this is a system view, multiple people play a part in how each person behaves.  For example, the family functions as an emotional unit.  Whether or not one forgives is largely based on a family script of emotional process.  The family script is handed down from generation to generation.  Going back and understanding one’s family from a multigenerational perspective sheds light on how the emotional process works in one’s family of origin.  It can help an individual within the family move out of automatic, predictable reactivity to a more thoughtful, principle orientated response. 
 
Dr. Murray Bowen wrote:
 
More knowledge of one’s distant families of origin can help one become aware that there are no angels or devils in a family; they were human beings, each with his own strengths and weaknesses, each reacting predictably to the emotional issue of the moment, and each doing the best he could with his life course. 
Family Therapy in Clinical Practice 492.
 
 
I like portraying Judas because he challenges my automatic tendencies to see angels and devils in my family.  Judas was human and reacted to the emotional issues of his day.  Jesus even predicts his response.
 
It’s difficult to define what love is both from a scientific perspective and from a religious perspective.  What we do know is that if we receive too much of it or not enough, we become reactive. Perhaps a faith-based definition of love is that we are all children of God and we are enough.  It reminds of what Bowen stated that everyone is doing the best they can with what they have.  Engaging the emotional process is about accepting others and challenging self.    
 
Differentiation of self includes an effort to define one’s relationships.  What kind of relationship do you want to have with your mother, father, siblings, etc.?  How do you think about the relationship?  What’s important to you about the relationship?  We pretend that we are defining our relationships through things like politics, religion, social views, whether someone is adding to one's life.  In reality we end up defining our relationships not by feelings (love), or by thinking (definitions) but instead by an emotional process: are you making my life easier or more challenging?  In this way, our relationships get defined by the moment to moment reactivity that is in the family system.  Differentiation of self consists of acknowledging the feelings associated with a relationship and then taking actions based on one’s beliefs and principles.  It’s about knowing the difference between feelings and thinking.
 
What are the factors that influence a relationship status?  They include the level of chronic anxiety in the relationship system, the current level of challenge or calm in the family, the capacity of individuals and the family to access resources to address a challenge, the number of viable emotional connections that are available at the time, and one’s belief about the nature of relationships.  As one works on differentiation of self, there are no longer angels or devils in the family or the congregation.  Instead, we discover that human beings are doing the best they can with what they have.  And I, for one, can always do better.

If you lead a volunteer organization, your biggest challenge is not money.  Your biggest challenge is finding motivated volunteers.  And by motivated, I mean motivated to be responsible. 
 
Congregations are structured by committees.  Committees are lead by volunteers who support the mission of the organization.  But not every volunteer is motivated to do the work.  So, congregations are often a mix of committees where some function at a higher level while others struggle to accomplish their objectives.  What makes the difference?  It is the motivation of the volunteers. 
 
There are basically three ways people develop motivation.  The first two are about external motivating factors.  We all find motivation and inspiration from other people.  People who are charismatic can often motivate the unmotivated.  This is why charismatic leaders are so popular.  The second way people are motivated is when they become uncomfortable with the way things are.  If one is uncomfortable with the direction (or lack thereof) of an organization, they become motivated to make things better.  Like the first example, this is an external motivator because the motivation is based on a perceived assessment of the organization. 
 
Dr. Murray Bowen observed this external process of motivation in the family.  He described it as an over/under reciprocity or over/under reciprocal functioning.  The basic idea is that behavior occurs reciprocally in a relationship system or emotional unit (like the family).  Bowen observed that one spouse will overfunction, and the other spouse lets them overfunction.  The more one does for the other, the less the other does for them self.  These same patterns are extended to other relationship systems.  If one’s tendency is to underfunction in the family, they will more than likely bring this same pattern to the congregation.  If a leader underfunctions on a committee, others on the committee may find themselves taking on more responsibility (doing the things that leader can do).  If a leader overfunctions in the family, in the committee they may take on more responsibility than is needed. 
 
It’s helpful to note that anxiety drives this reciprocal process of over/underfunctioning.  As one becomes consumed with worry and fear, other picks up the anxiety and each person shifts into doing either more or less.  The reactivity to anxiety to do more or do less is the product of a multigenerational family emotional process.  In a way, one learns these patterns from one’s family of origin over the generations.  The reactivity is automatic in the sense that very little thinking and awareness go into this response.  It just happens.
 
The third example of motivation is what Dr. Bowen identified in the concept of differentiation of self.  When an individual is clear about core principles and a life direction, they are motivated to do the work.  It is an internal motivation because it comes from within the self.  This type of motivation is not determined by the motivation (or lack of motivation) of others but instead is based on a clear understanding of one’s beliefs and direction.  The focus of this type of motivation is less on others and more on self.  However, it is not selfish.  In fact, this type of motivation enables one to be more available to others. 
 
In congregations, some people use the word motivation and calling interchangeably.  To find motivation is to rediscover one’s calling into ministry.  Again, one's “calling” can be caught up in the reciprocal back and forth process of the relationship system.  One might feel called in response to what others are doing or not doing.  A true calling is something one pursues with or without others.  Leadership can be lonely.
 
When an organization is full of motivated people, the work they do together is less complicated.  When I think back on the many years my kids played soccer, it was easy to tell which kids were motivated to play.  The motivated kids excelled and were able to step up when challenged.  Less motivated kids depended more on the coach.  They did not excel as quickly.  A good coach can tell which players are motivated and then knows how to both motivated and train their players.  In a congregation, a pastor can tell who is motivated and who needs to be motivated.
 
The congregation I serve created a new process to identify motivated leaders.  If someone is interested in serving on the top leadership team, they must go through an application process.  Applicants fill out a form and provide written answers to questions.  The questions are designed to help an applicant reflect on their motivation for serving, consider their gifts and talents, and discern if they are called to be on the leadership team.  Once the application is completed, applicants are then interviewed. 
 
For many years, the process of filling a volunteer leadership position in the church was accomplished by externally motivating people to serve.  It’s sometimes referred to as arm twisting.  The result often left unmotivated individuals sitting in positions of responsibility accomplishing very little.  This new process addresses the problems with motivation.  Is this person applying for a leadership position because the congregation needs someone in that position or because the individual is self-motivated to do the work?  And if they are motivated, is it because the work is important to them or because they are anxious and worried about the organization?  The answers to these questions can have different outcomes.
 
The ideal candidate for a volunteer position in the church is someone whose personal goals, beliefs, and life direction is in line with the congregation's goals, beliefs and direction.  There may be differences over the details.  But in general, what is important to the individual is important to the congregation.  In this way, the calling (and motivation) of the individual supersedes the needs of the organization.  The individual will pursue what motivates them whether the congregation accepts them as a volunteer or not.  One could make the case that a thriving congregation is simply a collection of individuals who are self-motivated to pursue their calling in life.  And to that, I say Alleluia!  Amen!