This Sunday is All Saints Day in the Christian faith.  Since it is a day to remember all who have died in the family and congregation, I thought it fitting to blog about death, particularly death rituals and practices of congregations.
 
I first learned about death rituals from my family.  When I was I child and someone in the congregation died, my mother would take me to the grocery store to buy food for the grieving family.  At the store, she walked straight to the refrigerated section and picked out a pear-shaped tin which containing a cold, slab of ham.  She’d drive me and the ham to the house of the grieving family.  I typically stayed in the car and watched as she walked to the front door, knocked, and handed over the hunk of ham.  At the time, I was confused as to how a lump of meat wrapped in metal could at all be comforting.
 
Fast forward two decades.  A good friend’s mother died.  I was living independently at the time, and it was the first time a close friend of mine grieved a loss.  In these situations, you do what you learn from family.  I stopped at the grocery store, picked out a container of ham, and went to his place. I knocked on the door and said, “I brought you ham.”  He said to me, “Why?”  I said, “I have no idea.  This is what you are supposed to do when someone dies.”
 
All of us develop ways to cope with death.  People of faith have rituals and practices that help us mourn someone’s death.  Over the years, I’ve observed variation in how families approach death in the family.  Some rise to the occasion and can pull together meaningful and memorable funeral services.  However, some struggle with simply setting a date for the service.  And then there is wide variation in between.  Congregational leaders can play an important role in helping families prepare for the funeral. 
 
 
Observing the reaction and role of the congregation to death.
 
How does your congregation respond to death?  Are there specific people who take active roles?  How involved is the congregation in the funeral planning?  How does the congregation support grieving families?  Does the congregation have specific rituals or practices incorporated into the visitation or service?  How might leaders in the congregation take a more active role in supporting grieving families? 
 
Good leaders think about the functioning of a congregation in response to a death and explore ways the congregation can be involved in supporting the family. 
 
 
Murray Bowen on death.
 
Death is an anxious experience.  On the one hand, it is the physical loss of a relationship.  On the other, we come in contact with our mortality. 
 
Death is a natural part of life.  We are creatures with emotions and feelings. Therefore humans have a more elaborate approach to death compared to the rest of the animal kingdom.  When we lean into the reality of death, with the support of family and friends, it’s possible to have better long-term outcomes for individuals and the family.
 
Murray Bowen wrote an entire piece called “Family Reaction to Death.”  Bowen said about funerals:
 
I urge family members to visit dying family members whenever possible and to find some way to include children if the situation permits.  I have never seen a child hurt by exposure to death.  They are “hurt” only by the anxiety of survivors.  I encouraged involvement of the largest possible group of extended family members, an open casket, and the most personal contact that is possible between the dead and the living, prompt obituary notices, and the notification of relatives and friends, a public funeral with the body present, and the most personal funeral service that is possible.  Some funeral services are highly ritualized but it is possible to personalize even the most ritualized services.  The goal is to bring the entire family system into the closest possible contact with death in the presence of the total friendship system and to lend a helping hand to the anxious people who would rather run than face a funeral.  (Family Therapy in Clinical Practice, p. 332)
 
The rest of this blog is dedicated to thinking about the implementation of these ideas.
 
 
How to plan the funeral.
 
As someone who has attended and officiated many funerals, here are my thoughts for planning a funeral.   I hope you’ll share in the comment section your experience and how it might be similar or different from mine.
 
Funeral planning is a family affair. 
Every family has a leader.  In most families, I can count on one person to take the lead in making arrangements.  When I’m in contact with this person for the first time, I encourage them to consider including as many family members as possible in the planning of the service.  Even if it is only one person planning the service, I still encourage the participation of others.  Each family member has unique knowledge of the deceased through their relationship with them.  Expressing the relationship through spoken word, music or other artistic expression is to everyone’s benefit.  For those who struggle with including others in the planning and/or participation in the service, it indicates a higher level of anxiety in the relationship system.
 
As clergy, I avoid giving the eulogy or speaking on behalf of the family.
For many years, I took copious notes when meeting with the family in preparation for a sermon that would weave together the life of the person as it related to their faith journey.  While studying Bowen Theory, I concluded that my effort to speak about the person on behalf of the family was robbing family members of an important opportunity.  My current practice is to leave it up to the family to share stories and reflections.  I do share theological reflections about death in a short sermon.  If I have a relationship with the person, I will share my thinking about them.  This reflection is mine and not based on the reflections of other family members. 
 
Encourage families to spend time with the body.
As I read Bowen’s quote above, I’m struck by how little attention, over the years, I have given his thoughts about having the family spend time with the body.  In fact, when services are held in the church, there is typically a brief visitation before the service, and then the casket is closed for the last time.  As I write this blog piece, I am aware of how unaware I have been about when and how the casket is closed in the presence of family.  I plan to spend more time thinking about when and how this can happen with more intentionality with the family.  It has always been interesting to me that the casket typically remains open during the service at a funeral home, but remains closed when it is at the church.  If you have thoughts about this practice, please include them below in the comment section. 
 
The importance of communicating a death right away. 
In the congregation I currently serve, we send out a notice to the congregation when the family notifies us of a death, with a follow-up email once the obituary is posted.  Bowen encouraged families to write an obituary and contact family members.  While every family may have someone who struggles with accepting the death, the family can play a significant role in helping the person.  All of us do better in accepting death when we have the support of family, friends, and a congregation.  Avoiding private ceremonies and having an open invitation to all family members and friends are important steps in this effort.
 
Have families participate at the graveside.
I had not thought much about this until rereading Bowen’s quote.  When my paternal grandfather died, we each had an opportunity to shovel dirt into the grave.  I recently officiated at a graveside where a member of the family took dirt from their country of origin and sprinkled it on top of the casket.  They then sprinkled water from Israel.  I was struck by the importance of these small acts of participation by family members.  Moving forward, I’ll be inviting families to consider ways to participate at the graveside.
 
Let the children come.
I probably get asked this question more than any other.  Should I bring my child to the visitation and service or leave them at home?  I tell parents that their children, surrounded by the family, are able at any age to face the reality of death.  The children look to the parents and family members to observe how the family reacts to death.  I believe children do better long-term when they have access to what’s happening in the family and can participate in family rituals and activities related to death.
 
It’s important to name death. 
When I first read Bowen’s paper on death several years ago, I began using more direct language about death.  I noticed funeral home directors and others using words like “passed away” or “loss.”  I found that using direct words helped me be less anxious and more grounded in dealing with death.
 
Is there anything you don’t want to do? 
A couple of years ago I started asking families if there was anything they didn’t want to be said or done at the visitation, funeral, or graveside.  The answers I receive tell me about people’s fears.  It helps my thinking as I work with family members. 
 
Facing death is an opportunity to continue doing the important work of differentiation of self.
As a congregational leader, you get to think about death on a regular basis.  Each funeral is an opportunity to take inventory of one’s reactivity to death and dying.  It’s a time to ask, “What aspects of death do I feel confident about in my thinking?  What aspects am I unsure of?” It’s also been an opportunity to think about the impact of death on one’s family.  “How has my family reacted to death?  What deaths have had the greatest impact on the family?”  As a congregational leader, sitting with families as they plan a funeral has stimulated questions and fears about death.  These observations are fodder for conversations with members of my family.
 
For those who have the courage and motivation to lean into the experience of death and dying, a treasure-trove of opportunities to work on differentiation of self is available to the one who is a responsible self and leader in the congregation and family.

“To greet or not to greet – that is the question: Whether ‘tis nobler to stand in the back of the sanctuary at the end of worship and suffer the slings and arrows of sermon critics or to avoid all manner of people and go directly to one’s office.”
 
It may be customary for clergy to stand at the back of the sanctuary to greet the congregation after the service, but for most clergy, it is not their favorite thing to do because you never know what people will say. One benefit of greeting each person from the congregation is the opportunity to learn about the emotional process.
 
Emotional process motivates behavior.  It often occurs below the level of awareness (although people can work to become more aware of it).  The emotional process helps explain how one reacts to anxiety in the relationship system.  The more sensitive one is to anxiety, the more intensely one reacts to stressful situations.  Remember, we are talking about a system.  It’s not just about the sensitivity and reactivity of one person; it’s about the sensitivity and reactivity of the relationship system.  Congregations are relationship systems, and one can learn a lot about oneself when greeting individuals from the congregation.
 
The next time you greet people at the end of a worship service, ask yourself the following:
 

• Who offers me praise?
  
• Who criticizes me?
• Who shares concerns with me about other people?
• Who likes to tell me what you to do?
• Who avoids me?

 
Then ask yourself these questions:
 

• How do I react to praise?
  
• How do I react to criticism?
• How do I react to concerns about others?
• How do I react to being told what to do? 
• How do I react to others avoiding me? 

 
As one becomes aware of these automatic responses, it’s helpful to understand them from a multigenerational perspective.  Dr. Murray Bowen observed that sensitivity to anxiety is transmitted from one generation to the next through an emotional process.  He called it the multigenerational transmission process.  You can learn more about it by clicking here.
 
When you shake hands with someone from your congregation, it’s as if you are shaking hands with three generations of family members, for each person in each generation plays a part in influencing the emotional process and the automatic behaviors of the person whose hand you’re shaking.
 
On the surface, what people say may be positive or negative.  Below the service the emotional process is influencing the comments.  At the emotional level, we respond to anxiety by actively moving closer to someone or further away.  Moving closer to someone has both a positive and negative expression.  One can move closer by praising the other person.  One can also move closer by criticizing the other; criticism can be a form of pursuit. 
 
Criticism can also be a way to avoid others.  When someone doesn’t come through the greeting line, they may be trying to avoid.  It’s more than likely they will activate a triangle by talking to a third person about you.  In either case, distancing is one way to manage the anxious tension present in the relationship system.  If people are avoiding you, it may be the tension in the relationships system is too high and needs to be toned down. 
 
This is why working on Bowen’s concept of differentiation of self is so important.  The focus is on one’s functioning.  When we are caught up in the emotional process, it’s easy to focus on the others by either blaming or judging.  Part of the effort of differentiation of self is stepping back to observe and understand the emotional process and to avoid responding in automatic ways to the reactivity of others.  It involves taking responsibility for one’s part in the emotional process.  Greeting people at the end of the service is one way to learn about the emotional process.   
 
What are your thoughts about the emotional process?  Be sure to share them in the comment section.

Everyone agrees congregations no longer enjoy a prominence in the United States.  However, no one can agree on why this is.  Countless books and blogs like this one have attempted to answer this question.  After forty plus years of research and reflection, we still don’t have an answer.
 
 
The numbers don’t lie.
 
Researchers like the Pew Research Center have documented the continued decline of mainline Protestant congregations.  Over the years, the indicator of congregational health and growth has been the Southern Baptist Convention.  While most denominations were in decline, the SBC was showing growth.  But not anymore.  Even after embracing a more diverse demographic, the SBC is now in decline. 
 
People are still hungry for the things that congregations have historically offered.  Now, outside organizations are offering the same experience once unique to congregations.  I call this phenomenon “outsourcing.”
 
Congregations first felt the pinch of outsourcing when annual giving declined.  The reason?  Not-for-profit organizations began sprouting up everywhere to offer relief for social issues once provided by congregations.  As these organizations matured, they became more effective and efficient at both providing relief and marketing their efforts to a broader donor base.  Congregations would soon be competing for dollars with these more sophisticated agencies.  Today, congregations provide a significant volunteer base to the very organizations that are competing with them for donor dollars. 
 
Opportunities for social gathering have been outsourced.  Those who are lifelong members of a congregation can recall a time when large numbers of people from the community attended services.  Some congregations were a “who’s who” of community life.  While some congregations, particularly those in rural communities and in southern states, are still the social center of everyday life, most people get their fix for social connections in other places.  Travel groups, children’s sports clubs and booster programs, and networking organizations like Kiwanis and Rotary (even though these clubs are also seeing marked declines) are all providing a place for social connections.
 
Worship has been outsourced as well.  I recently read about an organization that invites people to sing classic choral pieces in four part harmonies.  The organization travels around the United States, renting out large auditoriums and charging singers admission.  It used to be that individuals joined church choirs to fulfill their love of singing.  Even preaching has been outsourced.  Shows like The Moth Radio Hour consists of a handful of individuals competing to tell the most hope-filled stories in under six minutes.  These events are typically sold-out.
 
 
The reaction to these trends has been strong and varied.
 
For some, the decline of the congregation reveals how, more than ever, their congregation needs to ramp up the promotion of their ideology into the broader culture.  They continue to push beliefs and programs hoping that whatever internal changes they agree to make will attract the “nones” (those with no religious affiliation).  They continue this approach, often unwilling to make strategic changes until only a handful of people remain.  These congregations continue to see the problem outside of themselves in the values of the broader community.  The people outside of the congregation are the ones who need to change and their congregation is ready and waiting for them to come through the doors.
 
For some, the decline points to an unwillingness of the congregation to let go of the past.  The congregation is then engaged in the process of a major, strategic overhaul to find new ways to communicate their ideology in even more hip and relevant ways.  They are in a constant state of flux as they continually piggyback on whatever trendy thing comes along.  Over time it becomes difficult to sustain this effort without shifting the normative values of the congregation.  As a result, the core base of the church starts to leave.  The problem is viewed as internal.  It is the congregation that needs to change.
 
 
The real issue is fear.
 
Peter Steinke wrote several books for his series Health Congregations.  A major theme in his writings is how relationship systems react to anxiety.  He identifies five outcomes:  Reactivity, herding, blaming, quick-fix mentality, and poorly defined leadership. 
 
Reactivity reflects our tendency to take things personally instead of seeing behavior as part of a broader system.  Herding is the polarization of people that occurs as a result of an increased response to fear.  Blaming is an effort to identify our own internal discomfort and then make someone else responsible for it.  A quick-fix mentality is having short-term solutions to resolve congregational anxiety at the expense of long-term gains.  Poorly defined leadership reflects a tendency to elect or appoint immature leaders who are unable to define a self and are vulnerable to setting agendas that only address anxiety in the relationship system.
 
These are fear-based reactions.  Regardless of what started the initial decline many years ago, the fact that it has continued confirms the idea: congregations are approaching decline out of a fear based response.  The evidence is observable when looking at Steinke’s five behavioral responses. 
 
Take, for example, the quick-fix mentality.  Since the early 1990’s, the denominational conference that ordained me has initiated a new church growth strategy about every four years.  These are programmatic initiatives focused on identifying congregational weaknesses and flaws.  Training is provided by the conference to help congregations overcome their deficiencies.  I’m not aware of any research that has been done to evaluate the success of these programs.  My hunch is the outcomes varied from church to church.  Some responded well and successfully implemented the training ideas.  Others were unable to make the necessary changes, and the ideas from the training became a source of conflict for the congregation.  This would be evidence of a fear-based response.
 
 
Thinking congregations focus on relationships and not programs.
 
Denominations and local congregations continue to pour money and time into trainings that offer quick-fixes and identify problematic behaviors.  That horse is dead, and yet we continue to use this methodology to pull congregations forward.  No program is going to solve the problems congregational leaders are facing today.  A concrete list of ideas to save a congregation from decline does not exist and anyone who tries to sell you one is a charlatan.  Why?  Because programs and initiatives that fail to address problems in the relationship system are doomed to fail. 
 
The reason so many programs that were the bread and butter of congregational life are being outsourced is that they remove the very thing that continues to be problematic for congregations: an anxious relationship system.  One can sing in a giant concert hall for an afternoon filled with hundreds of other singers . . . and then go home.  You don’t have to deal with all the other alto’s week in and week out.  You can plug in and then plug out.  There is no messy relationship system.  If you meet someone you like, you can start a friendship.  If not, you’ve had a lovely afternoon singing. 
 
One can volunteer at a local relief organization and put dehydrated soy products in a sealed bag to be shipped across the world without ever having to attend a monthly meeting listening to people complain about institutional problems.  Parents are willing to sign up to bring drinks, supplies, and even volunteer for a day in their kid’s classroom, but please don’t ask them to serve as an officer for the parent organization.  Our sensitivity to others continues to increase. 
 
As anxiety increases and we become more sensitive to others in the family relationship system, the anxiety spills over into the broader society and into other systems like schools, courts, and governments.  As these systems experience increased anxiety from families, they push back to the family creating more and more anxiety.  Ending this cycle of anxiety requires individual leaders who can take responsibility for their reactivity.  You can read more about the societal emotional process developed by Dr. Murray Bowen by clicking here. 
 
 
Bringing programs back.
 
Congregations are not intentionally outsourcing their programs to external organizations.  The growth of these programs is related to the inability of congregations to address the underlying relationship problems.  Let me be clear; these problems are not unique to congregations.  All organizations that have a large relationship component are facing the same challenge.  If congregations are going to reclaim an important role in society, the first step is to develop a systems perspective on human behavior.
 
From the beginning, congregations have always been about relationships. Congregations don’t flourish because of programs; they flourish because of people.  More specifically, congregations do well when individuals have the opportunity to be their best self.  It requires good leadership.  And good leadership is the result of the ongoing work of defining a self.  If I could run an experiment where two congregations attend the same training, my hypothesis would state that one congregation would come back and successfully implement (and possibly excel from) the learnings from the training.  The other congregation would come back unable to implement the ideas.  The results would show that the leadership of the second congregation operated out of fear and that the leaders of the first congregation operate out of a thinking and less reactive mode.  What I am suggesting is the possibility of seeing how the leaders in the first congregation did a better job of defining themselves as leaders or what Bowen called differentiation of self.  In some ways, I have seen the results of this hypothesis in every congregation I have led. 
 
So, the key to successful engagement of a congregation has to do with paying more attention to the relationship system and how congregational leaders relate to the system.  The hallmark of this kind of effort would include leaders who are:

• Being creative and doing out of the box thinking
• Valuing everyone’s participation and see everyone as equals
• Welcoming and encouraging questions
• Encourage congregations to invest in exploring and discovering new things
• Celebrating people’s efforts in ministry
• Taking risks
• Focusing on facts and what’s actually going on
• Managing their own reactivity to their own and other people’s anxiety
• Thinking systems

 
What things would you add to this list?  You can include them in the comment section. 
 
People intuitively know the difference between these two types of congregations.  The problem comes in knowing how to get unstuck and move forward in a different way.  Being aware of this reality and working on being the best leader one can be is essential.  What is desperately needed is training and opportunities for congregational leaders to be coached to do their best thinking within the context of the relationship system.  We don’t need to learn about one more program.  As the relationship system does better, is less reactive, less anxious and has leaders working on differentiation of self, important programs will always emerge.

I will be the keynote speaker at the winter conference for Clinical Application of Bowen Family Systems Theory on February 24, 2017, hosted by the Center for Family Consultation.  I like to keep my church board aware of my interests that take me outside of the congregation.  While Bowen Family Systems Theory is not theology and doesn’t speak to a particular faith, it has been extremely useful to me and the congregations I have served.  I’ll be telling my board in the coming week about the invitation to be the keynote at the conference.  This blog post is a review of the importance of Bowen Theory to congregational leadership.    
 
Living out of both a theoretical and theological mindset is a challenge.  There is always a risk involved.  But there are also benefits.  Theory together with theology, describing human behavior, help us move towards a unified understanding of the human condition.  The rewards are great for the individual who can expand their appreciation for the cosmos.  In my experience, many people who are theoretically minded appreciate the insights of theology, and those who are theologically minded appreciate the insights of theory.  In either case, the rewards are for the individual who can learn to define a self to important others as they continue to ask questions and expand their view of the universe.
 
 
The application of Bowen Theory to congregational life.
 
Beliefs and Anxiety.  My first real effort at learning Bowen Theory was in 2003 at a clinic for clergy.  The facilitator encouraged each of us to work on defining a self in our congregations.  At the time, I identified a particular belief I perceived to be different from the congregation.  While I was intrigued by the idea of carving out a self in the midst of the congregation, at the time, the perceived cost was overwhelming.  Articulating a belief to those who disagree is an emotional challenge.  I would soon discover that becoming untangled with those who agree with me is also an emotional challenge.  This opportunity introduced me to the interplay between beliefs and anxiety.  Our automatic responses to anxiety determine our behavior (what we say or don’t say, do or don’t do).  For those who are struggling to articulate a theological belief which is different from important others, Bowen Theory offers a way to think about moving forward.
 
It’s not personal.  Bowen Theory has helped me learn not to take it personally when others are upset with me.  It’s also helped me learn not to take it personally when people love me.  The truth is, how we behave towards each other has to do with the relationship system.  There is strong scientific evidence pointing to feelings being the result of a chemical process in the brain and body.  They come and go.  Sacred texts teach believers how to engage in more thoughtful ways to others; a more principle-based and less reactive response.  Core values give us more options to our automatic urges.  Bowen Theory provides a unique way of understanding this process through the concept of triangles.  As people shift in the triangles in response to anxiety, the positive and negative variances we develop for each other are the results of reactivity.  It’s really about individuals who are committed to being the best self they can be in relationship to others.  I think there is space in most religions to help people be their best self by using both a theory like Bowen’s and their own theological values and beliefs. 
 
Keep calm and blame.  I wrote an article a couple of years ago for Family Systems Forum on how blame functions in a relationship system.  When we blame, we single out specific individuals and identifying them as the problem.  When we blame, we sluff off any responsibility we have concerning the problem.  For blame to work, you need a triangle: you need one person who is willing to accept the label of scapegoat and then two additional people who agree to blame the third person.  In the Christian tradition, Jesus commented on how easy it is to see the speck of dust in the other person’s eye and how difficult it is to see the giant redwood in our own eye.  Good leadership works on changing self, not others. 
 
When is helping not really helping?  With his concept of the emotional process, Bowen identified four mechanisms for managing anxiety.  The “dysfunction of a spouse” reveals how two people can get caught stuck in the position of under-functioning and over-functioning.  It’s reciprocal, so the one who is over-functioning will keep it up as long as the one who is under functioning allows it and vice versa.  When it comes to helping others, when is helping not really helping?  In what ways do we undermine others by doing for them what they can do for themselves?  How do we know when we are over or under-functioning?  People of faith are called to serve others.  Bowen Theory provides a way to think about this reality.
 
Thinking Congregations.  In a way, this blog serves as a weekly opportunity to think about the interplay between theology, theory, and application.  In some ways, it assumes a greater knowledge of theology and a lesser knowledge of theory.  This is why I focus on theory more than theology.  It’s my hope that congregational leaders bring to this blog their own theology and work to apply theory to it. 
 
 
What needs to be researched?
 
Theories need to be proven.  Bowen Theory is no exception.  It requires researchers like you and me to run experiments in our families and congregations that are reproducible.  Here are samples of the experiments I’d like to run:
 

1. Dr. Murray Bowen describes in his writings the concept of differentiation of self and then develops a scale of differentiation.  Every human being can be placed somewhere on this continuum of basic human functioning.  Furthermore, he suggests that couples marry at the same basic level on the scale.  Does this also apply to congregations?  Do congregations attract and retain individuals based on a level of differentiation?  Do leaders in a particular congregation have a similar level of differentiation?  Or is it possible to have a congregation and leadership with a range of basic level of differentiation?  How would one measure this?
   
2. If human beings are as predictable in their behavior, is it possible for a leader to accurately predict how individuals in the congregation will respond to change?  If the answer is yes, then a leader would be able to strategize how to respond to the reactivity of the congregation as individuals respond to change.  If this is possible, which I believe it is, seminaries and other training programs can better equip leaders to understand the emotional process of change.
   
3. When we talk about congregational growth and decline, what forces are at work?  In what ways do the forces for togetherness help to increase or decrease congregational size?  When we talk about building a community, is there room for individuality and if so, does the force for individuality help congregations to grow? 
   
4. What role do regional organizations play in the health of a local congregation?  How do they influence the relationship systems in local congregations in positive and negative ways?  In what way does the functional level of a regional officer help or hinder a congregation?  From a systems perspective, how would one measure the effectiveness and the difference?
   
5. I recently heard about a study where neuroscientist looked at the effects of different teaching styles on students.  They placed specially designed wristbands on each of the students to measure their skin/sweat response as well as their pulse.  As the teacher went through their presentation, the researchers used the wristbands to monitor each student to see which methods were useful and which were problematic.  Theoretically, learning decreases as stress increases.  Wouldn’t it be fascinating to do this study for clergy?  Think of the knowledge clergy could gain about what the congregation is up against when listening to them.  Even better, clergy could run this experiment at Thanksgiving when their family gathers around the table!
   
6. Dr. Bowen believed leaders are most effective when they are emotionally neutral.  To what extent do staff do better in a congregation when a congregational leader is emotional neutral?  How would one test this theory?  How can emotional neutrality be measured?  If Bowen is accurate, and I think he is, it offers another way of training clergy to be more effective as they work on increasing their basic level of differentiation.  I believe this is an idea worth exploring.

 
What other experiments are you interested in?  What experiments have you run?  In what other ways is Bowen Theory useful to you as a congregational leader?  Please include your thinking below in the comment section.

I was listening recently to the podcast Invisibilia.  This episode was called “The Personality Myth.”  It focused on the question, “can people change their behavior or is their behavior fixed because of something called personality?” (If you are interested, you can listen to the hour-long podcast by clicking here.)
 
After listening to the episode, I couldn’t help but wonder if congregations can change their behavior or if it’s somehow fixed on a certain type of personality.  Rabbi Ed Friedman described congregations as either pills or plums.  “Plum” congregations have only a handful of clergy over their lifetime.  “Pill” congregations, on the other hand, have one clergy person after another.  Congregations appear to be fixed in their behaviors, unable to change or do better.  Except, occasionally, you do find a couple of congregations that do better.  How do you account for the difference?
 
I would argue that the same is true for clergy.  Some clergy never seem to do well.  They struggle going from one congregation to the next until finally they are forced out into a different career.  Some clergy are just the opposite.  You can place them almost anywhere and they not only survive, they thrive.  And then there are the rest of us who vary from location to location.  In some settings we thrive and in others we struggle.  Is this a reflection of personality traits for congregations and clergy that are fixed?  It turns out the answer is no. 
 
 
What do you call a group of stressed out individuals?  A congregation.
 
You’ve probably taken a life-stress inventory.  It’s a simple questionnaire listing common stressful life events. Even positive experiences like having a baby or getting a new job are on the listed.  The inventory is weighted so some life experiences are acknowledged to create more stress than others.  The death of a loved one is at the top of the list, and taking a vacation is somewhere near the bottom.  I don’t know about you, but I’ve been on vacations that were pretty stressful.  The point is, stress has a way of adding up. 
 
We all have the capacity to tolerate certain levels of stress or tension.  We chug along in life while everything is going fine.  We stick to our core beliefs and make good choices.  But then more stress is added and the tension increases.  Everything becomes more challenging.  We think less about our beliefs which leads to poor choices.  When we reach our threshold for tension, we abandon our principles and become reactive.  Like the game of hot potato, the reactivity serves as a way to alleviate our anxiety by giving it to someone else.
 
If the people in a relationship system, like a congregation, are stressed beyond their tipping point, their reactions to one another are more automatic.  Murray Bowen described this as the force for togetherness.  When anxiety goes up (and not just in the person but in the relationship system) people tend to be more sensitive and reactive to others in the system.
 
Take, for example, Abu Ghraib.  Over ten years ago, during the Iraq War, military personnel committed large numbers of human rights violations against Iraqi detainees held at Abu Ghraib.  Pictures began to surface of the horrific acts of torture and treatment.  In an interview with a general during the crisis, he commented that every morning, military personnel need to ask themselves the question, “At the end of the day, what kind of person do I want to be?” 
 
Why would a general have to say this?  Because he knows that in tense situations people change their behavior as a way to manage the anxiety they are experiencing in the relation system; be it a platoon, congregation or family.      
 
 
Behavioral changes based on our relationship with God and each other.
 
We often associate change with God.  We can claim that God never changes.  Every congregation leader either has a story or knows the story of someone who made a dramatic change based on their relationship with God.  For example, someone gives up drinking.  In families where one person has made a life-change, it’s not uncommon to hear how others in the family have followed suit and changed something in their life, too.  I’ve heard stories of individuals becoming Christian as part of their recovery.  Not long after they start attending a congregation, other members of the family start going with them.  In some cases, entire families start going to church. 
 
In a relationship system, each person behaves not on their own but in reaction to the other parts of the system.  Like magnets, they move closer together or further apart depending on the positive or negative charge they receive from others.  In a sense, there is less autonomy in a system and more interplay.  So, when studying changes in a system, it doesn’t make sense to only study individual parts.  You have to look at the interplay between people in the system to understand why individual parts behave the way they do.
 
 
Consistency is a product of the system.
 
Systems are hard to change because of the amount of force the system places on individuals.  To change a system, it requires energy to counteract the tendency of the system to remain homeostatic.  Because we find homeostasis more desirable, we tend to do what’s automatic to keep the system unchanged.  In other words, our behaviors are often consistent with maintaining the system because it’s what we know. 
 
Each relationship system has at its disposal several options for maintaining the status quo.  Each individual plays their part as the system responds to stress and tension.  When stressful events occur, individuals respond in predictable ways.  The reactivity is designed to return the relationship system back to a consistent way of functioning. 
 
Congregational profiles stay the same from year to year because of the relationship system.  Even if new people are brought in, they too learn how the system functions, adjust their behavior, and play their part.  The reason a congregation never changes is often because the same group of individuals continue to lead year after year.  Those who are new either go along with the current system, react to it negatively, or participate but from a distance.  In all three cases, behavior is influenced by the system.    I’m not advocating that congregations turn over their leadership in order to change.  It’s possible that even if you turn over all of your current leaders, the system may continue to function in the same predictable way.  To change the relationship systems, at least one individual in the system needs to change the way they relate to the system; behaving in a different way that is less reactive and more based on beliefs and principles. 
 
In this way, leaders can be more responsible for their behavior.  It does not need to be influenced by the relationship system but can, in fact, influence the relationship system in ways that lead to positive changes. 
 
 
So, how do you change the congregational profile?
 
Dr. Michael Kerr, former director of The Bowen Center, suggests a series of steps that can change the system.  This is less of a technique and more of a process based on one’s best thinking.
 

1. The first step is to change one’s perception of the system.  This requires stepping back and observing the congregation.  (By the way, you can do this in your own family, as well).  Things look different when you move out of the immediacy of the moment and take in a broader, systems perspective. 
   
2. As one’s perception of the relationship system changes, something happens in our brains.  One does a better job of integrating the emotional system with higher level thinking.  This leads to discovering facts and knowledge about the reciprocity that is active in the relationship system.  Consistency in the system is the result of reciprocal patterns.  Discovering how this happens is the beginning of change. 
   
3. In stepping back, one begins to see how they contribute to the problem.  They begin to see what others are up against and have a better appreciation of what others are going through.  One can move from blaming to understanding by seeing how their behavior is influencing others. 
   
4. Being able to see how the whole system functions as one unit can lead to thinking about the problems in the relationship system in new ways.  One begins to see how they can modify their responses to the problem and to others in the system.  These subtle changes can shift the way the entire system functions for the better.
   
5. There is a realization that one is bigger than the problem they are facing.  They begin to develop the confidence to deal with the problem.  It is no longer so scary or overwhelming.  They are no longer afraid.  It is this change in perception that comes from gathering knowledge and facts, and modifying one’s reactivity in the relationships system that creates the possibility for change.    
   

 
It is amazing to me, when you consider the massive amount of money individuals invest into training to be clergy and congregational leaders, that very few institutions or programs teach this reality of human behavior.  We continue to send clergy, often young clergy, into challenging congregations without providing them a way of thinking about relationship systems.  Congregations continue to be told the only way to do better is to be more welcoming or caring for others without providing them a way to think about the relationship system they live in every week. 
 
When congregational leaders do the important work of becoming more of a self by taking responsibility for the way they interact with others, the system will shift, and the congregational profile will change.  Yet, congregations are still bombarded with consultants and trainers who continue to tell them what they are doing wrong.  The recommendations are diagnostic.  It is a diagnostic view that continues to view people’s behavior as individualistic with very little room for understanding the congregational context.  Congregations change their profile when leaders do the important work of understanding the system and then taking responsibility to change the way they behave in light of the new perspective they gain.  It’s that simple and that challenging. 
 
If you are interested in doing this work in your own congregation, you can go to the contact page of this website and send me a note, or you can email me at john@thinkingcongregations.com.