Who doesn’t like an internet video with kittens?  How about an internet video with kittens and bunnies playing together?  That’s the setup for this fun video from Unleashed.  Watch the behavior of the kittens in this video.

Our behavior is rooted in an emotional process.  The interactions between people drive behavior.  Our internal neurological and chemical processes function in service to the emotions.  Behavior is the result of what happens between people, not inside of them.  Behavior shifts based on the environment.  This is systems thinking.   

All of us have a front row seat to the emotional process.  Congregational leaders can see it at play in committee meetings.  Pretend you are at a meeting of the board of trustees where you are addressing a problem with the building.  One of the board members becomes overwhelmed and anxious.  If anxiety is like a wildfire, it flairs up and spreads around the committee.  Before the meeting is over, the whole committee is on fire!  So, what’s the prevention?  Leaders who think systems.  A good leader is a good thinker who does not automatically pass along the anxiety.  Instead, they engage the thinking of others in the group which can prevent the anxious fire from spreading.  
 
Dr. Bowen’s concept of differentiation of self is about engaging thinking and being less automatic and reactive.  One way to describe it is self-regulation.  The extent to which one is able to self-regulate is rooted in a multigenerational process.  Remember the kittens and bunnies?  The more anxious the family is, the more likely they’ll all do the automatic thing.  There are other factors at play: 1) the influence of outside stressors, 2) the amount of stress a family is under, and 3) access to resources and family contacts.
 
One can improve their level of differentiation.  It’s a slow and steady process of becoming aware of one’s automatic and reactive tendencies, seeing this behavior in the context of the family system (how everybody plays a part in it), thinking about non-reactive ways to interact with the family, and taking action steps based on one’s best thinking.​​​

You walk into a room. It’s filled with people you know. You make your way through. You overhear a friend praising President Trump. You voted for Clinton. What do you do? Well, if you're like a majority of Americans, you leave.

In a recent study by the Pew Research Center, people were asked how they would feel if they found out a friend supported Trump? A majority of liberals said their relationship with a friend who supported trump would be stressful and frustrating. Democrats are more likely to leave the room. You can read the study by clicking here. However, it’s more than just walking away or feeling stressed. Americans are polarized as a nation.

In nature, when groups of animals are afraid, they automatically respond by herding – getting closer together. Humans do the same thing, but it’s called, among other things, tribalism. When there is a perceived threat to the group, the group comes together to address the threat. This type of behavior has its roots in relationship triangles. As anxiety goes up, people realign their relationships in the triangles to address a perceived fear.

There are a few angles to a relationship triangle. One angle consists of two people tipping the scale from having a positive relationship valence to a negative one. It’s as if they become allergic to each other. One of them (and in some cases of both of them) find another person to have a positive relationship valence. The result is two people who have a positive valence while having a negative valence towards a third person. In other words, someone says, “I have decided I don’t like you and this person now agrees with me.”

So, the triangle includes two people who have an emotionally close relationship (it can be positive or negative) and one person who is in the outside position. All relationship systems consist of triangles. Most people are not aware they are in a triangle and how it functions to manage anxiety and tension. It's as if triangles operate below the radar.

It is possible to see relationship triangles with some effort. They are visible when someone tells you about a problem they are having with someone else. Voila! A triangle. If you agree with the person’s perspective of the relationship, you simply perpetuate the triangle. If you disagree, stating an allegiance to the other, they will move on to find someone else who will agree with them. Instead of agreeing or disagreeing, it’s useful to ask questions that engage your thinking and, hopefully, their thinking.

I typically start with the question, “Have you discussed this with the other person?” The answer is always no. (I know this because they are talking to me about the other person. If it were yes, they wouldn’t be talking to me.) Another question I might ask is: “What are the challenges for both of you as you work on this challenge? What will it take to resolve it?” The triangle is not just in congregations and families. It’s in society as well.

Let’s say you’ve been seeing a therapist for a while. Things are going well. You enjoy the sessions. But then one day the therapist makes an observation you feel is inaccurate. As you voice your disagreement, the relationship becomes tense. There will always be wide variation in the degree of tension a disagreement creates and how sensitive people are to the tension. In response to the tension, some clients may decide to quit. They might even find a different therapist. The original therapist may conclude that the departure represents the inability of the client to see the problem. The therapist may not see their part in it. A new therapist is happy to have the business, but may not realize they are part of a relationship triangle between the client, the former therapist, and themselves.

I think this same process happens in just about every area of capitalism and consumerism. People say things like, “I pay good money for this. I’m not going to waste it on this person.” Or, “Someone out there has to know what they are doing.” The market flourishes as consumers move from one service provider to the next. If you don’t like a product or service, you can look around to find someone who does it better and cheaper. If you don’t like the burger joint down the street, you find another one that’s better. If you can’t find one that’s better, you start your own. History is full of stories of people who started their own company because they were convinced they could do it better than a competitor.

Congregations are no different. Denominations were launched by people who left the church of their childhood. If you don’t like what’s happening in your congregation or denomination, move down the street and start your own, or attend a different congregation. Luther, Wesley, Calvin . . . They all started this way. We call them reformers. The American landscape is littered with congregations given birth out of this emotional process.

It should not be a surprise that in the era of Trumpism, Americans find it difficult to engage people on the "other side." If you look at every sector of the American experience (I could probably make a case for the global experience) when people don’t like someone or something, they walk away. It is our long-established history to move on and herd when we don’t like what we see or hear. This is what we do when we are anxious.

In addition to observing triangles, Dr. Murray Bowen observed how people distance from others when they perceive fear. In the short term, distancing serves a valuable purpose: it gives the individual time to step back, calm down, think about what is happening, and strategize a way forward. Without a way forward, people at one end of the spectrum cutoff when anxiety is perceived to be too high to manage. At the other end are people who argue and debate (again, there is variation in the degree to which people distance or argue, and the level of sensitivity to anxiety).

There is a mature, third option for engaging people who feel, think and act differently. It includes both articulating an idea that may not be popular and an effort to keep the relationship warm (other descriptors might be connected, positive, and avoiding being earnest). The best place to practice is in the family. Bowen called this process differentiation of self. And while there are different ways to understand, describe, and apply differentiation of self, here is one way:

• Pick a current event, belief, or idea.
• Spend time getting clear about what you think.
• Identify where your thinking comes from? Did you think of this on your own or have others influenced you? What ideas represent your thinking? What ideas represent the thinking of others?
• Do others in the family share your ideas or do they disagree? Who would agree and who would disagree?
• Do your ideas function to bring people together or keep a distance?
• Consider what idea you can articulate to your family without seeking approval or debate.
• How do you anticipate others will respond to your thinking?
• How will you respond to them? Without agreeing or disagreeing, what might you say in response to their reaction?
• What will you do to stay calmer and not react?
• How will you communicate to others that, as far as you are concerned, the relationship remains open whether they agree or disagree?

In theory and in practice, Bowen described how family members eventually come around and accept this different way of thinking. It is possible if one can avoid reacting back while at the same time staying focused on thinking. Thinking with others is an alternative way of resolving the challenges we face with family, friends, co-workers, therapists, and the local burger joint.

Whenever Congress debates the budget, you always hear them talking about entitlements.  It’s the idea that some people have certain privileges.  Government programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, most Veterans' Administration programs, federal employee and military retirement plans, unemployment compensation, food stamps, and agricultural price support programs are all examples of entitlements. 
 
There are arguments for and against entitlement.  Those who are against specific entitlements programs argue that they create a dependency which is bad for people.  Rich people often say this about poor people.  But those who advocate for the poor are quick to point out that rich people are wealthy because of entitlement programs.  Tax breaks and government policies favor the wealthy. 
 
Some recent studies have shown that the more money you have, the less generous you become towards those who are poor.  It’s not true for everyone, but it does point to an interesting reality about entitlement: to have a poor, entitled class you need a rich, entitled class.  It’s as if they go hand in hand.
 
Among clergy, the word entitlement shows up in conversations about self-care.  I’m United Methodist.  We have rules related to the care of clergy.  There are specific expectations about housing, salary, days off, vacation, pension and healthcare mandates, business expenses, and the list goes on.  For example, all clergy receive four weeks of paid vacation.  For most companies with vacation policies, it may take an employee several years to earn 4 weeks.
 
Over time, congregational leaders have voiced their entitlement of better care for members of the congregation.  I don’t know if these two timelines, entitlement care for clergy and for congregations, happened simultaneously, but I believe they are connected.  Congregations expect more out of their clergy.  Clergy are expected to work more than 40 hours a week, they are expected to be available at a moment’s notice for house calls, hospital visits, and midday interruptions.  They are expected to give meaningful and memorable sermons and handle all administrative problems.  The list goes on.  For United Methodist congregations, when it's time for a pastoral change, they can feel entitled to get the very best pastor available.  Like clergy, congregations want the best for themselves.
 
My point is this: when it comes to entitlement programs, there are always two sides.  Each side demands something from the other.  You can’t have clergy entitlement without congregational entitlement.  It doesn’t really matter how it starts; each side reacts to the other.  The more one side campaigns for an entitlement program, the more the other side demands their own program of entitlement. 
 
None of this happens in a vacuum.  There are real pressures on clergy and congregational leaders to do better, particularly as membership and participation continues to decline.  As clergy and congregational leaders experience the weight of responsibility for these problems, each looks to the other for care.  The demands of each side for more entitlements will increase until both become stuck and frustrated over the behavior (or lack of behavior) of the other.  So, the question becomes, how does a congregation or denomination get unstuck?
 
 
ANXIETY
 
The demands for entitlements are driven by an automatic reactivity to anxiety.  As anxiety goes up and reactivity increases, one’s automatic tendencies are accentuated.  This would suggest that a desire for entitlements is somehow built into our response to stress and tension.  How does one think about this in the framework of a system?  The short answer is found in what Dr. Murray Bowen called the overfunctioning and underfunctioning reciprocal process.  When anxiety goes up, an automatic response is for one person in the system to increase their level of functioning while at the same time another decreases their level of functioning.  It doesn’t matter how it starts.  The point is that it’s a system response.  Therefore, it’s difficult to put the blame on one person or the other for the problem.  You can’t have one without the other.  One person overfunctions, and the other is perfectly content with it.  One person underfunctions and the other finds meaning and purpose in taking care of them.  Both will resist any changes to this reciprocal process. 
 
 
BEING MORE RESPONSIBLE
 
Instead of talking about entitlements, we really need to talk about responsibilities.  What are individuals responsible for when it comes to their own level of functioning?  And what are realistic expectations?  The answers are going to vary depending on the person, the relationship system, and the situation.
 
When person A gets frustrated that person B is asking for an “entitled” the issue is not only B’s functioning but also that A is reactive to the problem by being frustrated.  When A is concerned that B is getting more than they deserve or need, A’s thinking is driven more by fear than a responsible position.  Again, if one side gains an entitlement, the other side feels that they too deserve an entitlement.  The process can escalate as both sides demand more until the expectation of the other becomes unrealistic. 
 
How, then, can we talk about responsibilities?
 
 
EMOTIONAL NEUTRALITY
 
When we are afraid, there is a tendency to blame others or blame ourselves.  There is a way not to blame others, to see both sides of an issue, and to form a belief that helps one navigate the problem.  Emotional neutrality is a third way.  Being emotionally neutral does not mean being neutral on issues.  Instead, emotional neutrality is about staying in good emotional contact.  When one is emotionally neutral, they are able to take a position without it affecting the quality of the relationship with others in the system. 
 
The challenge to being emotional neutrality is not being automatically reactive.  There is always pressure from others to take a side.  When one is able to hold a more neutral position, without reacting back to others, the relationship system will calm down.  When the system is calmer, individuals are able to do a better job of taking responsibility for self. 
 
The degree to which we are reactive or thoughtful is influenced by the relationships system in our family of origin.  The family is the place we work on being more emotionally neutral.  For some, this idea of going back to our family of origin, to work on developing emotional neutrality, seems ridiculous.  It will result in encounters that are challenging, but, in the effort to be more of a “self” in the context of the family, one develops emotional neutrality. 
 
My point here is that one can trace the desire for entitlement back to one’s family of origin.  To understand how we got to this point, you have to go back and understand how the family functions. 
 
If we want to end entitlements (if that's even a good option), we will need to create policies that support and encourage the best possible functional level of the family.  These efforts will need to support and encourage family leaders to step up.  In other words, before we can talk about the problems with entitlements, we need to look at the challenges in the family system.  Any policy that does not take into account the realities of the family system is doomed to fail.  It’s that simple and that complicated. 
 
If leaders want to be more emotionally neutral in their leadership role, then they will need to go back to their family of origin.  It is an effort to carve out one’s beliefs and thoughts about the family.  It is an effort to look at one’s level of functioning in relation to the family system and being responsible for one’s level of reactivity to anxiety in the system.  It is an effort to engage others from a place of thinking (not reacting) and to develop a one to one relationship with each person in the family.  It is an effort that requires one to take a stand when important without arguing or being defensive. 
 
A good coach can make a difference in this effort.  I and others trained in Bowen Family Systems Theory are ready and able to help anyone interested in pursuing this effort.

There are several organizations I admire and respect.  One of them posted a prayer on Facebook written by a social justice advocate.  The prayer was published mid-June.  To be honest so much has happened nationally in the last eight months, I can’t remember the social context that prompted the post.  I find the prayer to be a good example of how institutions and social movements try to persuade people to be socially aware of the needs of others and less selfish.
 
Here is a sample of the prayer:
 
O God,
teach us what it means to live in grace — not just for ourselves,
but for the collective whole.
We have been individuals for far too long,
and in that individualism, we’ve forgotten how to hold each other.
 
I’ve said prayers like this in worship.  These words have a theological ring to them that many believers resonate with, regardless of their faith.  The individual is sinful.  The community is virtuous.  Selfish behavior is a challenge for covenant communities.  It’s one thing conservatives and progressives agree on.  For conservatives, selfish behavior leads to alcoholism, drug addiction, and a whole host of poor choices which harm the family.  Think seven deadly sins.  For progressives, selfish behavior leads to the pursuit of wealth and power which is always at the expense of the community which provides the labor force to make individuals wealthy and powerful.  Think capitalism.  These are generalizations, of course, but my point is that religious institutions promote the idea that selfish behavior is bad.
 
The challenge of selfish behavior is nothing new.  Think Eve and Adam.  The Hebrew Bible and the New Testament remind believers that they need God to be transformed into social beings.  But this too is problematic.  The notion that humans are inherently selfish and automatically individualistic is simply false.  There is a treasure trove of scientific research to suggest otherwise.  We are not independent creatures struggling to be social.  We are social creatures struggling to be social. 
 
What happens if our starting point is our need to be social, not an individual?  In this context, being critical of other humans for “being individuals for far too long” makes sense.  Why else would someone be sensitive to a perceived lack of caring, compassion, and being “held.”  It’s because we are already aware of what it is like to be held, especially if we are used to being held too closely.  Think the first day of preschool.  The challenge in the infant/parent relationship is not the inability to bound properly.  The challenge is in managing the intensity of the closeness.  People struggle to be in community not because they are selfish but because they don’t know how to manage being together. 
 
In my research on homelessness, I interviewed dozens of people.  I heard one story several times.  It began with mom or dad not doing well.  In most cases, one parent developed significant health problems after the death of their spouse.  One of their adult children (the one closest to the parent) volunteers to move in with the parent to provide full-time care.  Before moving in with the parent, this adult child (who was fully employed and paying for their housing) gives up their job and housing to move in with the parent.  For a time, the new arrangement goes well.  At some point, typically after the death of the parent being cared for, the siblings get into an intense conflict.  They battle over what to do with the house.  With no money and no place to go, the adult child, who was providing care (who also has not handled the conflict well), ends up homeless. 
 
At first glance, what looks like the sin of individualism (individuals behaving badly) is really the byproduct of too much togetherness.  When the relationship system gets too hot, some people take off (or are pushed out) to find relief from the intensity of the togetherness.  It’s not that people are selfish, they simply need an emotional break.  Distancing is a common way to find relief from feeling too close.  If the togetherness is too intense, the result will be a more permanent cutoff.  When people decry individualism, what they are observing is cutoff from an intense togetherness. 
 
What drives this force of togetherness is anxiety.  Families come together when they are afraid.  Think Irma! How many adult children who stuck it out this weekend in Florida have constantly been updating their worried parents?  How many parents have been reassuring their worried adult children?  When we are anxious, even worried, we try to tell each other what to do.  “You need to leave.  You need to find shelter.  You need to listen to what the authorities are telling you.  You need to do what I tell you!”  When we are afraid, anxious, and worried about the future, we automatically tell family members what to think, feel, and do.  It’s what we do. 
 
So, perhaps a better place for us to start is with fear.  Our perception of fear is what drives the process of an anxious togetherness.  Our brains treat the perception of fear as if it is real.  When we are afraid, the brain raises our anxiety, and activate the stress response system.  This automatic response to fear is developed in the context of your family of origin.  You are born into a way of responding to fear (an emotional process) that was developed over several generations.  You can step back and observe the patterns that the family has developed over hundred, if not millions, of years.  These patterns for responding to fear have a threshold which is determined by 1) the level of chronic anxiety in the family of origin, 2) the amount of stress the family is experiencing, and 3) how emotionally connected the family is to each other and the extended family. 
 
Dr. Murray Bowen theorizes that individuality is not a bad thing.  It’s difficult to explain in one paragraph so go to this link to read more about the concept of “differentiation of self”: [click here and then click on Differentiation of Self] Part of what goes into working on differentiation of self is: a) being responsible for one’s reactivity to anxiety in the relationship system (family, congregations, community, government, etc.).  b) seeing how one’s reactivity and functioning contributes to problems in the relationship system (family, congregation, community, government, etc.).  c) articulating and taking action steps towards life goals based on core principles and values, d) staying connected to important others through viable emotional contact. 
 
So, what does all of this have to do with the prayer above?  Perhaps a different way to think about a prayer would be useful.  Something like: 
 
O God,
 Teach me the ways of being a self that is connected.
I have been automatically reacting to anxiety for far too long.
Teach me to become objective about reality and fear not.
Challenge me to see the world as it is.
Help me find the motivation, the courage, and the resiliency to discover new ways of relating to the family, and by extension, everyone else.
Help me to remember that everyone is doing the best they can with what they have, and we can all do better, starting with me.
Teach me the ways of self-regulation so that I might be a better collaborate with my neighbor.
 
It’s not pretty or elegant.  Maybe you can come up with a better prayer.  I’d love to read it in the comment section. 
 
It has been reported that Dr. Bowen, at the end of his life, saw differentiation of self in the Prayer of St. Francis of Assisi.  So, I’ll leave you with the prayer:
 
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.

In May of this year, Betty Shelby was acquitted of the death of Terence Crutcher.  Shelby is a white, Tulsa, Oklahoma police officer and Crutcher was an unarmed black man. You may remember the story.  Shelby was responding to another call when she came upon Crutcher whose car was stopped on the road.  Shelby thought Crutcher was reaching for a gun when she shot him.  Another officer who responded to the call (standing by Shelby), used his taser instead of his gun. 
 
In the aftermath of the acquittal, there was some conversation that the verdict favored Shelby’s right to act out of fear over and against Crutcher’s civil rights.  That argument started me thinking about fear and the criminal justice system.
 
 
Fear And The Criminal Justice System
 
Assault is “a threat or attempt to inflict offensive physical contact or bodily harm on a person (as by lifting a fist in a threatening manner) that puts the person in immediate danger of or in apprehension of such harm or contact.”  Assault is not just about the act of harming another person; it is also about the potential for harm.  If someone feels threatened, they can accuse the other of assault. 
 
I’m not a fool when it comes to law.  The criminal justice system was designed to support the Constitution which protects the rights of the minority.  To serve and to protect is to make sure those who are weak are not hurt.  Simply put, the criminal justice system is a place where people can go when they are afraid. 
 
There are unintended consequence of judiciously favoring those who are afraid.  If a prosecutor or defense attorney can establish a basis for their client’s fear, they will have a more than likely chance of the verdict being in their favor.  Law and Order have come to justify fear over thinking.
 
So, when a police officer fears another person, even if that person poses no threat, the police officer is justified in their use of force.  This is the problem we are facing today.  The popular solution has been to focus on how police officers can be trained to deal with bias, profiling, and inaccurate perceptions. 
 
 
Ask Questions First
 
I get it.  When you are in danger, you don’t ask questions.  That makes sense.  Billions of years of evolution have trained cells to avoid pain and seek out pleasure.  Our brains have developed automatic processes that favor our survival.  In fact, our automatic, neuro processing arrived on the scene well in advance of cortical structures.  So, it makes sense that we respond first in fear and then ask questions later.
 
What we are learning about the brain is that the fear response does not operate in a vacuum.  And as much as we’d like to think the fear response is accurate, it is not.  We consistently get it wrong.  Study after study confirms that humans perceive situations incorrectly based on a number of factors.  I won’t address those here, but you can start by searching "confirmation bias."
 
While we might be able to think critically after a stressful experience, our stress response system disrupts our ability to think critically and to perceive accurately at the moment.  At higher levels of chronic stress, it’s difficult to see the world as it is.  This leads to catastrophizing.
 
When I haven’t heard from my spouse or children in a while, I get worried.  My brain creates a narrative to answer the question, “What has happened to them?”  My brain doesn’t present options.  It automatically generates a storyline that I believe is accurate.  As time ticks by, and there is no response to my repeated texts and phone calls, I become convinced the narrative my brain generated is true.  Why else would I not have heard from them?  Sometimes, in the midst of my fear, I might hear a voice that says, “Perhaps I’m wrong, and everything is fine.”  That’s my thinking system at work.  To switch from fear to thinking, however, is a Herculean task.  It’s possible to do, but it requires enormous effort.
 
 
Why Does This Matter?
 
Humans are regressing.  The functional level of our species continues to decline.  We have become more reactive and less thoughtful in our interactions with each other as we try to solve the challenges of our day.  There are some compounding factors, including social media, which accentuates our perception of fear. 
 
The decision not to prosecute (or to acquit) a police officers who take the life of someone who poses no real threat to others, is an indicator of this regression.  Here are some other factors:

• The criminal Justice system is evolving towards fear based decisions.
• Officers continue to shoot people they are afraid of, even though they don’t pose a threat to the officer's life.
• Courtrooms fill up with people who want their fear of another person justified.
• Lawyers promote fear as a defense for their clients.
• Judges feel pressured to rule in favor of fear.

 
It leads to a few questions to consider.  What evidence can attorneys present to challenge a fear based defense?  What will it take for humans to override their bias and flawed, automatic responses?  It what ways can a police department engage their community differently?  How might communities and families be empowered to reduce violent behavior?  What cognitive activities might be engaged to help individuals switch from reacting to thinking?  How does a higher functioning and thinking police officer behave under stress?  Are there clues to be found in their family of origin?  How can they be recruited and what can they teach other officers?
 

One Final Note (or another long list of questions)
 
If we only focus on the exact moment a police officer pulls the trigger and kills an unarmed, young black man, we will miss out on other options for solving this problem.  How might policing strategies change to be more about resourcing neighborhoods and communities?  How might a police department and city hall empower neighborhoods and communities to step up in the face of violence?  Who are the leaders in the neighborhood working on these issues?  How are police departments supporting their efforts?  What economic challenges are neighborhoods facing and who are the people in the neighborhood working to make it better?  How might a police department and city hall support these kinds of efforts?
 
These are some of the ways I think about this problem.  What thoughts come to your mind?