After the 2016 election, I observed a heightened level of conflict in the nation, my congregation and my family.  The week following the election, journalists reported on divided families preparing to gather for the holidays.  In January I  observed increased polarization in the congregation I serve.  It was difficult to talk with people whose politics were different.
 
In the early months of 2017, I started a project: a presentation on polarization using Bowen Theory as a theoretical approach.  The goal of the presentation was to present an emotionally neutral position that explored the underlying emotional processes for polarization.  I presented my thinking to community organizations.  The first version of the presentation was cutesy.  I thought cuteness would make talking about polarization less intense.  Over time, and as the presentation evolved, I moved away from cuteness and started to included scientific research and observations.
 
In each progression of the presentation, I concluded with differentiation of self.  People heard my explanation of differentiation as a technique.  What they heard was, “This is what you should do about polarization.  This is what you shouldn’t do about polarization.”  So, the improvements in the presentation were designed to move away from technique towards a focus on thinking.
 
In May of this year, I presented an updated version of the presentation at the 2nd International Conference of Bowen Theory in Hong Kong.  It represented the best version of my thinking after eighteen months of applying Bowen Theory to the process of polarization in the family, the congregation and society.  I liked the presentation.  But it was that night, after my presentation, that I finally got it!
 
That night, I had an “aha” moment.  It turned out to be an observation I knew better than anything I had presented in the afternoon.  It was the result of years of work on differentiation in my family of origin.  It’s a curious thing, the way the mind works.  I never considered including this observation in the presentation. 
 
Bowen Theory teaches that when anxiety goes up and reaches a certain threshold (which varies from person to person and family to family) anxiety generates reactivity.  Humans have two primary ways of reacting to anxiety.  One way is to move towards another in an effort to calm down oneself and others.  If your spouse is upset about the behavior of a child, you move towards the spouse or the child to calm down the relationship system.  Another way we react is to distance.  If your sister is yelling at you about what you said to her child, instead of engaging her about the problem, you walk away.  In some cases, people walk away for good.
 
Bowen referred to anxiety as an electrical jolt.  As one receives the anxious “jolt” one reacts automatically by either moving towards the other or by distancing.  Part of the process of differentiation of self is learning to self-regulate and manage one’s automatic responses to the “jolt.” 
 
That night in Hong Kong, I started thinking about the jolt.   I've always thought about it as an issue of time.  Seconds, really.  When I receive a jolt of anxiety, I absorb it.  I don’t react.  I don’t pass it along.  I let the energy diminish.  It takes a few seconds.  Then I work to engage thinking.  I’ve observed that if I can experience the jolt without reacting, and then if I can "hang" with the other person for a moment (a matter of seconds, sometimes a few minutes as they do their jolting thing) on the other side of the experience are opportunities for thinking, differentiation and moving forward in the relationship system.
 
What I realized that night in Hong Kong is that this idea has implications for understanding polarization.  The connection I made was how my reactivity to anxiety (either by reactively moving towards others or reactively distancing) contributes to the process of polarization in the family, the congregation and the nation.  To the extent I can manage myself in the face of the jolt, I do not contribute to the polarization.  Instead, differentiation provides an alternative way of responding.
 
This revelation came to me, not by thinking about a polarized nation or society and not by thinking about polarization in the church.  It came to me as I was thinking about the family.  And it is in the family that one can practice and work on differentiation. 
 
Dr. Bowen identified differentiation in the Prayer of St. Frances of Assisi.  I also think the prayer offers an alternative way of responding to the process of polarization.  I’ve included it here for your consideration:
 
Lord make me an instrument of your peace
Where there is hatred,
Let me sow love;
Where there is injury, pardon;
Where there is doubt, faith;
Where there is despair, hope;
Where there is darkness, light;
And where there is sadness, Joy.
 
O Divine Master grant that I may not so much seek
To be consoled as to console;
To be understood, as to understand;
To be loved, as to love.
For it is in giving that we receive,
It is in pardoning that we are pardoned,
And it is in dying that we are born to eternal life.

I titled this series "Koinonia" in an effort to connect with the forces that have built thriving communities of faith for generations.  Because I’m also preaching this series, I hope it motivates my little (but powerful) band of Methodist who partner with me in ministry to also be in touch with the forces of koinonia.  By writing these blog posts I have one last opportunity to think about koinonia.  But my aspirations end here.  So, imagine my surprise to learn that Karthik Nemmani, an eighth-grader from Mckinney, Texas, won the Scripps National Spelling Bee last month with the word “koinonia.”  The whole country has been talking about koinonia.  How marvelous!
 
What happened to the forces of koinonia?  Where have they gone?  I was driving through a modern section of my community and noticed the church buildings.  By modern, I mean developed after the 1960’s.  I drive this stretch all the time, but this time I noticed something different.  I counted four church buildings within a one mile stretch of a busy road.  The churches consisted of a single building on four to five acres of land.  The land was purchased, and the building was completed.  Phase one.  Given the size of the property, these congregations had hopes and dreams of completing a phase two and a phase three.  As I drove by these congregations, it occurred to me, congregations in the US have been in decline for at least 50 years. 
 
I served a church like this.  It was located on a nice piece of property on a major road in a growing and thriving community.  The congregation completed phase one.  But they were unable to complete phase two and three.  The community still worships in phase one. 
 
I’m not advocating for a large church model or congregations with a large campus.  There are pluses and minuses to any church size.  I’m interested in understanding the factors that contribute to thriving congregations and developing a working definition of “community” that empowers local congregations to be all that God wants them to be!  What has happened to koinonia?  Let’s start with a definition.
 
We are talking about humans forming community, so let’s start with a definition of what it means to be human.  In a recent blog post, 4 Human Characteristics That May Help Your Congregation Grow, I highlight a definition I discovered at a Smithsonian exhibit on modern humans.  The exhibit defined modern humans in four ways:  Modern humans share resources, gather at the hearth, take more time to grow, and build social networks.  Based on these four distinct qualities of modern humans, what is a viable definition of community?
 
Today, community is defined by family, church, friends, geographical boundaries, race, religion and culture.  When the writer of the Book of Acts described the koinonia of the first church, they didn’t describe it with boundaries or ideologies.  Instead, they used a different concept: generosity.   They wrote it this way, “Every day, they met together in the temple and ate in their homes. They shared food with gladness and simplicity” (Acts 2:46).  Is this similar to the Smithsonian’s definition which states that modern humans share resources?
 
What then is meant by resources?  For thousands of years, it meant that humans shared tools and food.  We no longer share these things.  We sell and buy them.  What do we share today that contributes to the building of community?  How does the activity of sharing function to build community?
 
If you were to write down a definition of community, what would it say?  How do you define community?  Who is included in your definition?  Is anyone excluded?  What role do resources play in shaping community?  What practices help to form community?  What is your definition?
 
I’m interested in your working definition of community.  Please include your working definition in the comment section below or on social media.  Be sure to use #koinonia on social media platforms.  I look forward to reading how you define koinonia and community.

We live by laws, policies and procedures.  The Torah contains the Mosaic Laws given to help the new community of Israel live in harmony with one another and with God.  Laws are helpful in creating a just and fair society. 
 
Some laws are harmful.  Drug laws and sentencing guidelines have resulted in prisons filling up with nonviolent drug offenders who are serving long sentences.  So, what happens when laws have a real human cost?
 
Institutions are created to care for a specific need within a community.  They are mandated to carry out the law and to follow specific rules.  But sometimes laws are unjust and people suffer.  It is difficult to change an unjust law because institutional needs overshadow human needs. In the New Testament, Jesus said, “You have heard it said an eye for an eye . . .”  He was referring to an institutional need – a law.  He went on to say, “But I say to you . . . love your enemies . . .”  He shifts the focus to the human need.
 
Sometimes institutions are the best option.  Sometimes they do the most good for the most amount of people.  But institutions also have needs.  Institutions need volunteers who are willing to offer services or money.  For example, universities need paying students.  Police need volunteers to report crimes and be witnesses.  Not-for-profits need people power to function.  These are institutional needs.
 
As a particular need arises in a community, initially people (neighbors, volunteers, community leaders, etc.) step up to meet the need.  If the need can be met, then the neighborhood approach continues.  However, if the need increases and people become increasingly uncomfortable, community leaders will be pressured to create a solution.  The solution becomes a new institution.  The institution is an organizational response to a need which is governed by laws and rules.  So, what started out as a neighborhood approach to a need has shifted to an impersonal, institutional response.  If the need continues to rise, tension within the community will increase.  The community will look to the institution to find additional ways to solve the problem.  Institutions are sensitive to the growing tension and discomfort of the community. 
 
In general, human beings are sensitive to the level of comfort and tension in a relationship system.  A relationship system can be a family, a congregation, a neighborhood, a company, a community, a state or nation.  When times are calm, members of the system maintain a comfortable closeness and distance, finding balance between the two.  When anxiety increases in the relationship system (like a community, for example) leaders will move closer to the community to calm people down.   But this closeness can quickly be replaced by distance as anxiety and tension increase in the system.  Those who are prone to distancing, in response to an increase in tension, will eventually cutoff from the system if the anxiety becomes too hot to handle.  As people cutoff, anxiety is contained within a smaller number of people (the relationship system becomes smaller).  Research has shown that people who are isolated (cutoff) have an increased risk of physical, psychological, and behavioral problems.  With fewer resources available, individuals who are cutoff from the system are more likely to rely on institutions to manage their level of comfort and tension.
 
The denomination that ordained me, the United Methodist Church, is facing a possible split in February.  Since 1972, the denomination has debated rules that were put in place to prohibit the full inclusion of the LGBTQ community.  The debate and tension within the denomination mirrored the broader society.  Every four years that the institution gathered to do its work, it became increasingly more difficult for people who think differently about gender identity and sexual orientation to dialogue and respect one another's position.
 
As result of the increased anxiety (anxiety both within individuals and tension between people in the system), individuals and groups have turned to the institution to resolve the tension.  The institutional response to this pressure was to enact more rules.  As the LGBTQ community gained broader acceptance in society, those who were uncomfortable with the shift turned to the institution to enforce the rules.  This is an example of the continued prioritization of institutional needs over human needs.  
 
The prohibition in the denomination’s Book of Discipleship is harming people.  In response, the institution became unable to enforce the rules or address the human need.  The institution is stuck.  Any attempt to bring people together has had minimal success.  In response, quasi-institutions have sprung up to support or challenge the institution’s rules or lack of enforcement. 
 
As the tension escalates, so does the focus on the institution to resolve the problem.  There is pressure on the institution to remove individuals who disobey the rules or to remove the rules altogether.  The human need within the LGBTQ community is being largely ignored.  Again, institutional needs have risen above human needs.  In the Gospels, Jesus shifted the focus from institutional needs to human needs, recognizing that a reliance on the institution only perpetuates a focus on the institutional.  And institutional needs always trump human needs. 
 
Starbucks recently completed storewide training on racism.  Why?  Because two black men entered a Starbucks in Philadelphia.  As they waited for their friends to arrive, a white female manager became uncomfortable.  Instead of her taking responsibility for her discomfort and anxiety (and any tension she experienced in her interaction with the men), she called the institution, the police.  Remember, we look to institutions to resolve the tension we experience in the system.  Institutions always do what society asks them to do.  The police step in to reduce the purported tension.  But here’s the problem.  When institutions step in, they remove opportunities for individuals to be more responsible for their fears and anxiety.  As society loses its capacity for engaging others in meaningful ways around difficult challenges, we’ve become more dependent on institutions to resolve them for us.  And it will never work.  Individuals need to be more responsible for working on the tension they experience in the system.  We need more opportunities to take responsibility for our perceived fears; opportunities to overcome our perceptions. 
 
While I may sound like I’m blaming institutions, I’m not.  I head up an institution and am aware of the challenges.  The point I’m trying to articulate is that, if we are not careful, institutions will continue to get in the way of efforts to build community.  Institutions can be an asset to building community when leaders of an institution understand this problem.  Institutions can be effective at solving problems when they help people within the system lean into the challenge.  It is a matter of putting the human need in front of the institutional need and identifying the limitations of the institution (what they can do but also what they can’t do).  Communities are stronger when individual members take responsibility for engaging the human needs around them.  As individuals come together to work collaboratively, they discover new things, new resources and new opportunities for meeting a challenge. 
 
When someone shows up with a need, how do you respond?  Referring someone to an institution is common.  But is this always necessary? What if building community is predicated on people taking responsibility in addressing the human need?  What if building community is based on the activity of sharing resources?  If someone shows up asking for help, what would happen if you introduce them to your community?  What networks and resources could be made available to them?
 
In what ways have you or your congregation relied on institutions to meet needs?  How might being more responsible for the needs of the community help build community?  If you lead an institution, how might the organization shift its focus to empowering the community to meet needs?  What are the institution’s assets?  What other questions or thoughts come to mind?