In a recent article, “Cognitive Mechanisms for Human Flocking Dynamics,” Seth Frey, assistant professor of communication at UC Davis, observers that, despite our ability to reason through a problem, humans make decisions based on their perception of how others are thinking about a problem.  Because humans are conscious, we assume that our decisions are driven by an internal moral code and rational thinking.  It turns out that we think and act in response to how others are thinking and acting.  Which begs the question, “How different are we from other animals?” 
 
Consider a flock of geese.  When a flock of geese is resting on the ground, one goose is on sentry duty looking for danger.  When the sentry spots danger, it begins to honk and flap.  Like wildfire, the fear response of the one goose automatically spreads to the gaggle.  Within seconds, the entire gaggle is honking and flapping.  Fear is contagious because it protects the group from a real threat.  This “system” activity keeps the flock safe. 
 
Humans behave similarly but without the honking and flapping.  It is observable in congregational committee meetings.  Every church committee has a sentry on duty, looking for danger.  Someone inevitably picks up the roll when it is vacant.  Because of the complexity of the human brain, it is difficult to evaluate when a threat is real or imagined.  When an individual perceives a threat, they give voice to their concern.  Like the example of the geese, others in the meeting will start to feel, think and act the same, even though they did not perceive the threat.  The result is a committee in agreement about a threat to the congregation that is not real. 
 
Over the years, I’ve developed strategies for addressing the problem of perceived threats and the contagious nature of anxiety: 
 

1. I begin by engaging my best thinking about the fear or problem as it is presented.  What does it take to move my thinking out of a reactive response based in fear to a thoughtful observation about the threat as it is presented?
2. What are good questions that might engage my thinking and the thinking of others about the problem.
3. I may invite the committee to go around the table so that each person can articulate their best thinking about the threat and problem as it is presented.  I may also indicate who in the committee thinks the same and who thinks differently about the problem.

 
Differentiation of self is one away to address the challenge of thinking for self without being emotionally influenced by the anxiety in the relationship system.  Dr. Murray Bowen observed that to communicate one’s thinking with important others in the family, one must develop the capacity to think for self.  This process of differentiation results in a lowering of chronic anxiety in the family and contributes to a higher functional level of the family.  This effort in the family does carry over into congregational leadership.
 
Clergy and congregational leaders can do a better job of communicating their best thinking about the current challenges facing the congregation.  One must be prepared for the automatic reactivity that is generated as one communicates to others their best thinking.  Differentiation of self is about developing the capacity to communicate ones best thinking without reacting to the reactivity of others.  The best place to practice and learn this process is in the family and it does carry over into other systems like a congregation.

A couple of week ago, I preached on Jesus’ famous question to the disciples, “Who do you say that I am?” (Mark 8:29). It’s a belief question.  Jesus is asking the question, “What do you believe about me?”  Peter seems to answer correctly but not completely.  He says, “You are the Christ (the Messiah).”
 
In Bowen Theory, there is this idea that beliefs can serve a relationship function.  That is, the force for togetherness (to be emotionally close during stressful times) motivates people to think the same way.  So, one way to read this text is that Peter’s thinking lines up with Jesus’ thinking.  Peter thinks that Jesus thinks what Peter thinks!  But that’s where the similarities in thinking end.
 
Jesus goes on to define his “messiahship” in a way that is different than what Peter thinks.  Jesus discusses his impending death which gets an anxious response from Peter.  Dr. Bowen observed in families a change back process.  When one person expresses feelings, thinking or actions that are contrary to what another important person feels, thinks or acts they push back to get the other person to agree with them.  This change back process is visible during periods of heightened anxiety in the relationship system.  In the example above, Peter engages in the change back process.  “Peter took hold of Jesus and, scolding him, began to correct him.” (Mark 8:32b).  Jesus’ response is worth a read if you are interested.
 
Following the arrest of Jesus, Peter and the others abandon him, even denying that they ever knew him.  Fear is a driver of the emotional process.  Jesus is ultimately put to death.  In the story of the resurrection, Jesus appears to the disciples and to Peter.  Putting the theological implications aside for the moment, let’s look at the response of Jesus in the resurrection appearance.
 
In the resurrection accounts, Jesus appears to the disciples.  He is not angry for being abandoned, nor seeking retribution for the betrayal.  He reestablishes the relationship with the disciples.  Christians historically talk about this with words like “love,” “forgiveness,” “reconciliation,” etc.  These are beliefs and core principles that Jesus taught and that the early church embodied.  Whatever word you want to use, the point is that Jesus does not escalate what is already an anxious and tense situation because he acts out of his beliefs and core principles. 
 
In many ways what is needed in any relationship process is a leader who understands that when anxiety is high, humans act at their worst.  But if one can hang with those who are reactive, not react back and relate to others based on a belief or core principle it is possible for the relationship system to adjust at a new, higher level.

Scientists have discovered a new type of brain cell called the rosehip neuron.  The discovery was made by Ed Lein, Ph.D., Investigator at the Allen Institute for Brain Science and Gábor Tam­ás.  The rosehip neuron may be unique to humans.  It has not been found in mice or other animal species. 
 
What’s distinct about the rosehip neuron is its role as a specialized inhibitor.  Inhibitors put the brakes on certain signals traveling through the brain. The result is a halting of certain actions and behaviors.  Neurons send their signals down the axon of the nerve cell where they release neurotransmitters.  Inhibitor neurons send neurotransmitters to other neurons which inhibit their ability to “fire.”  Further research is needed to determine what specific behaviors are affected by the rosehip neuron. 
 
As I meditated on the discovery of the rosehip neuron, I began to speculate about its role in the disruption of automatic patterns of behavior.  Let’s pretend it’s lunch time but you’ve forgotten to pack a lunch.  Your morning meeting went over and it’s now early afternoon.  You are famished.  You set a diet goal to restrict certain foods.  In the drive thru of your favorite fast-food joint, you consider your options.  Burger or salad?  What makes the difference between choosing a salad or a burger?  Or consider this example.  I was sitting on a couch petting the cat that jumped into my lap.  I was performing the “correct” scratching and petting methods that have proven acceptable to Jorge.  There was purring and stretching.  All was well.  And then he bit my hand.  As I checked to see if I was bleeding, I said to Jorge, “You need to make better choices!”  What does it take to make better choices?  Is the disruption of behavior a human phenomenon or can other animals do it?  What makes the difference?
 
Humans have a unique ability to inhibit automatic behaviors through a thinking system.  Moral codes of conduct, beliefs, values and core principles play a role in guiding one’s behavior.  Several examples come to mind.  The Torah contains the Ten Commandments, which are a list of inhibitors.  The second portion of the commandments declare, “you shall not . . .”  These early laws (including the Deuteronomic Code) have the potential to inhibit certain automatic behaviors.  They command individuals to put the brakes on polytheism, murder, adultery, stealing, lying and coveting. 
 
Similarly, criminal law in the United States is designed to deter certain behaviors.  Sentencing guidelines have the potential to inhibit criminal behavior.  Murder, for example, is organized by degrees and within these degrees are sentencing guidelines for punishment.  Robert Sapolsky in his book, Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst discusses how thinking can influence behavior, but admits that processes that favor automatic behavior are powerful and can be difficult to inhibit.
 
Behavior is a product of the nuclear family emotional process.  This process is passed down the generations creating patterns of behavior to manage anxiety, stress and tension in the family.  These patterns focus the anxiety of the family onto one person.  As anxiety goes up one individual carries the load of anxiety resulting in symptoms.  Symptoms can be physical in nature, psychological and behavioral.  For example, when a family experiences a stressful event, a family member may attempt to manage the tension by organizing the family.  The automatic response of telling others what to do is a behavioral response to the rising level of anxiety in the family.  In reaction to the effort to organize the family, others may ignore the commands, become combative or give in and comply.  These responses are automatic and reactive because the thinking system in the brain is largely not involved.  It is for all intents and purposes offline.  Blaming someone for the way they automatically manage stress misses the point that everyone in the family plays a party in how one behaves.  One can make a difference in the way they behave, but only when the effort is to work on self.
 
Differentiation of self is the first step in learning how to put the brakes on automatic, reactive responses to chronic anxiety in the family.  The process begins by observing the "who," "what," "where," "when" and "how" anxiety flows through the family.  What follows are incremental steps towards understanding how one picks up or passes along the anxiety, discovering more responsible ways for responding to anxiety in self and in others and developing a broader capacity to engage one’s thinking in the midst of anxious others and self. 
 
Perhaps one day scientist will discover the neuronal pathways that lead to better functioning for individuals and for families.  It may be that inhibitor neurons play a role in toning down anxious signals by way of higher-level processing.  Until we have all the facts we use theories like Bowen family system theory, beliefs and core principles to guide our thinking and behavior.

I’m not a political expert.  But I’ve spent the last couple of days trying to make sense of the senate confirmation hearing for Judge Brett Kavanaugh, a hearing focused on accusations of sexual misconduct and excessive drinking.  Opinions vary dramatically on the “reasons” for the partisan fight and who is to blame.  I’ve learned over the years that “blame” misses the mark when it comes to understanding what’s actually going on.  It’s about process.
 
I could be wrong about this, but it seems as if both parties are operating under the assumption that when they are in power it is only temporary, and they must push, push, push their agenda as much as possible.  The result is that they to go, go, go while they can because the two-party system is like a pendulum that swings back and forth.  They have to get to gettin’ while the gettin’s good.  This might explain why senate republicans pushed through a nomination that had little public support and it passed by one of the smallest majorities ever.  And if I’m right, then the midterm and the presidential election will result in democrats regaining control of the legislative process and perhaps the executive branch.
 
Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona made several interesting statements during the last week of the process.  One that stood out was his comment that there is no currency in politics for bipartisanism.  There is a cost.  Dr. Murray Bowen wrote a decade ago that society was trending towards regression.  Polarization was one of the indicators.  As polarization increases, cooperation and collaboration decrease.  What would it take for legislators to value and work towards bipartisan compromise?
 
This swing back and forth seems to be motivated by ideological fears that are fueled by anxiety.  Fear is powerful.  The perception that ideological correctness will solve our fears is not based on facts (an idea I highlighted in last week’s blog).  Calmness is equated with control.  It’s the false belief that, “If our side is in control, then we can rest easy.”  The other side holds the same belief.  The focus is no longer on solving problems but to be in control.  It’s personal.  So long as the focus is on winning, the back and forth effort distracts us from addressing systemic problems.  In other words, the push for electing politicians who represent a specific ideology is exasperating the problem. 
 
Families get into similar jams.  As tension mounts in the family, individuals slide into factions.  People say things like, “You are wrong.”  “I’m right.”  “I’m not speaking to so and so.”  “They are so wrong that I I can’t be in the same room with them.”  When families are reactive and anxious there is no currency for working together to address challenging problems in the family.  It becomes personal.  What makes the difference are family leaders who understand conflict from a systems perspective and who can shift their functioning into a more thoughtful response to the problem.  Dr. Bowen described this as a shift in the emotional process that results from one person’s effort towards differentiation of self. 
 
These larger societal problems and processes are reflective of the current state of the family.  It’s difficult to conceive of a society that does better without seeing an improvement in families.  Political institutions tend to mirror the state of the family.  Families who are working to do better do contribute to the health and well-being of their neighborhoods, institutions, communities and society.  I believe that’s a fact, but I’m not a political expert.