On the surface, Bowen theory and theology are like oil and water.  They don’t mix.  Dr. Murray Bowen, a research psychiatrist, spent his life developing, teaching and applying his theory of human behavior.  Institutions of faith spend their time preserving systems of beliefs and practices.  At times, however, Bowen theory is miscible with theology like steamed milk and espresso.  I will attempt to connect the observations of reactivity found in Bowen theory with the concept of crucifixion and resurrection found in Christian theology.
 
I was invited by a colleague to be one of seven guest preachers at a Good Friday service.  There is a tradition in some congregations to reflect on the seven last words (really sentences) of Jesus.  I was assigned the words: “Father, forgive them.  They don’t know what they are doing.”  It’s a remarkable phrase if you think about the context.   
 
Jesus, at the time of his arrest, trial and crucifixion, was abandoned by those who knew him, loved him and followed him.  They ran away, denied knowing him and orchestrated his arrest.  The image of Jesus on the cross is a picture of betrayal.  It is from there that Jesus utters the words, “forgive them.”  And then he comes back from the dead to forgive them.
 
In my sermon at that Good Friday service, I predicted how I would respond If I were left for dead.  If it were me, and I could come back from the dead after being abandoned by my family and close friends . . . there would clearly be hell to pay!  Forget about love and forgiveness.  Instead, there would be retribution and retaliation; manifestations of my reactivity.  At the very least, it would be a struggle to come back and forgive. 
 
In Bowen theory, reactivity to anxiety (a response to a perceived fear) is woven throughout Bowen’s eight concepts.  As anxiety increases so too do our automatic responses to it.  In the family, people are continuously adjusting their physical and emotional spaces to one another in response to anxiety.  As anxiety increases, people either move towards others or they create distance.  These shifts towards and away from others are automatic.  However, people do have the capacity (although there is wide variation from family to family) to disrupt this automatic response by being more objective and thoughtful. 
 
Dr. Murray Bowen observed that through a differentiated intellectual system, one could use beliefs and core principles to not react automatically to a rise in anxiety.  He proposed that there is a way for individuals to manage themselves better when anxiety goes up in the family.  It includes engaging one’s best thinking.  In three of the four gospels it states that, when Jesus appeared in the resurrection to those who had abandoned him, he did not react or retaliate.  Instead, he forgave them and offered them peace. 
 
More than just a moral influence, Jesus behaves differently (does not react) and in so doing ends, in his body, a cycle of violence and hatred (automatic reactivity).  By not retaliating, Jesus creates opportunities for others to shift their functioning to be less reactive and more belief driven.
 
Dr. Bowen observed the behavioral outcomes of rising levels of anxiety in families with limited capacity for self-regulation.  The family functions as an emotional unit with each person playing a part in managing the family anxiety.  For example, as anxiety rises, an individual in the family is singled out as the source or cause of the anxiety.  In response to the anxiety, families may blame, distance or cutoff from certain individuals.  In the short term, this reduces the tension in the family.  This is, at its most basic level, reactivity.  All families can do better when it comes to being less reactive and more thoughtful.
 
The alternative to blaming others is to step back and observe how the family as a system produces problematic behaviors in self and in others.  Instead of distancing or cutting off from someone in the family, one can learn to lean into a challenging relationship.  One can learn to manage their reactivity better when they are revved up by the behavior of others.  Efforts to be a more mature version of oneself involve working on what Bowen called differentiation of self.  It is a way for the human to be less reactive and guided by core principles and beliefs.
 
More than a moral effort, Bowen’s concept of differentiation leads to a better functioning family system.  The effort to slow down and tone down reactive, automatic behavior can change a multigenerational transmission process.  Jesus’ words of forgiveness represent an effort to manage self and one’s reactivity to violence and hateful behavior that is rooted in beliefs and core principles.  It represents an effort of differentiation of self.

Think for a moment about your prefrontal cortex.  It lies just behind your forehead between your eyebrows and your hairline.  The presence, size, and integration (with the rest of the brain) of the prefrontal cortex is what distinguishes us from all other animals like the pig.  But before you think of yourself as special, pigs have a prefrontal cortex, we both have fat under our skin, a protruding nose, and, don’t forget, pig skin and heart values can be used in humans.  Although, it should be noted that pigs are not capable of preforming transplants. 
 
The prefrontal cortex can differentiate between conflicting thoughts and stimuli, predict the future, sort out potential consequences, define goals and control social behaviors.  The prefrontal cortex is involved in thinking.  Other areas of the brain are reserved for automatic and reactive functions and behaviors.
 
All living things are awash with automatic behaviors that keep an organism alive and functioning.  It’s not clear to what extent (if at all) other animals or plants are “aware” of the world around them or aware of their functioning.  Humans have awareness but it is limited.  For example, we are often unaware of the influences and interplay of internal and external systems, like biological and relationship systems.  At the level of biology, we are unaware of cellular activity involving blood, oxygen, glucose, and the powerhouse mitochondria.  We can “think” about these systems, especially when a physician tells us there is a problem with our body.  This effort to step back, observe and think can also apply to relationships. 
 
In the Book of Genesis, it says that human beings are created to be “responsible” (1:28).  That’s the word Eugene Peterson uses in his translation of the Bible.  In this context, humans are responsible for their interactions with the natural world, including other humans.   If the human is unique because of the prefrontal cortex then the human has the unique capacity to be responsible when they use their “thinking” system.  So, what does it mean to be responsible?
 
Responsibility describes an action.  It is an action between people which can be understood contractually as accountability.  We can talk about the committee that is responsible for overseeing missions.  Or the pastor is responsible for preaching.  Responsibility is not defined by a list of moral, ethical or doctrinal standards that control one’s behavior.  Instead, it is the answer to the question, “what am I responsible for in relationship to family, friends, neighbor, work and the natural world?”  One’s responsibility is defined within the context of a relationship system. 
 

• What is my responsibility as a parent to my children? 
• What is my responsibility as a child to my parents?
• What is my responsibility to my employees/employer?
• What is my responsibility to my neighbors/community?
• What is my responsibility to the natural world?

 
As we attempt to answer these questions, the first thing we can become aware of is the question, “Am I doing enough or am I doing too much?”  We are often aware of this paradox when a relationship system starts to muster resources to meet a challenge.  The congregation is facing a financial crisis.  There is not enough money at the end of the year to cover all the expenses.  Who is responsible for solving this problem?  Is this a leadership problem or a congregational problem?  What role do individual members have and what is the role of the pastor and other leaders?  Who is responsible for deciding what to do?  Or consider this example.  The youngest child of a family with three children has stopped performing well in school.  They are receiving an “F” in every subject because they failed to turn in any homework for the last four weeks.  What is the responsibility of a parent?  What is the responsibility of the child?  Do the other two siblings have a responsibility in this situation?  What role do others in the extended family play?  What is the responsibility of the teacher and the administration? 
 
The genius of Dr. Murray Bowen was his ability to see challenges within the context of a relationship system where the behavior of each person influences the system and the systems influences each person’s behavior.  Shifting one’s level of responsibility in and to the system often creates a shift in the level of responsibility of others.  As one person takes on more responsibility, others take on less and vice versa.  However, when one attempts to shift out of their automatic ways of being responsible (doing too much or too little), Dr. Bowen observed that the relationship system responds with a “change back” process.  At first, others will counter one’s effort to shift their level of responsibility by trying to get the one to go back to their previous level.  However, if one is able to stay relatively on track and not react, a shift in the level of responsibility taking in the system will occur. 
 
So, humans will always have an advantage over the pig thanks to the prefrontal cortex.  We can think about and choose our role and responsibility towards others.  You can actually decide to do less without being a pig.

What influences human behavior?  And why is there so much variation?  Is it biology or culture?  We are born with biological systems (circulatory, digestive, endocrine, exocrine, immune, lymphatic, muscular, nervous, reproduction, respiration, skeletal, and excretory) that are authored by DNA and were set in motion a long time ago.  Culture includes things like psychological framework, perceptions, beliefs, language, biases, and rituals.  DNA is transcribed through a biological process.  Culture is transmitted through a relationship system.  The interplay of biology and culture materializes in the epigenome where DNA is regulated in response to an ever-changing culture.  These epigenetic changes are passed on from one generation to the next.  What exactly is being passed along in this mix of biology and culture?  It is the collective ability of the human to adapt and be flexible in the face of challenges.
 
Dr. Murray Bowen’s concept of the family emotional process includes the basic life forces of togetherness and separateness (individuality).  The togetherness force in the family, and in larger relationship systems, shapes the culture.  The force for togetherness moves people to participate in the family and larger group experiences (culture) through common feelings, thinking, and behavior.  Bowen observed that as anxiety increases in the family unit, the force for togetherness also increases.  In response to this increase, there are two predictable reactions.  One reaction is the rebellious response which pushes back against the family.  It can include the refusal to participate in the cultural ethos.  Others respond by doubling down to demand, from within the family and the broader culture, more adherence to cultural expression.  These reactions to increases in anxiety are automatic which means there is a biological component.  
 
Congregations of different faiths have been struggling with the cultural push back against organized religion. It is possible that the cultural shifts that have led to a decline in religious expression and an increase in cases of isolation may have something to do with the interplay of biology and culture.  As humans adapt to a changing environment, current cultural expressions of beliefs and practices are no longer serving the purpose of adaption.  In other words, the current demands on human biology are leading to new adaptive ways of thinking and believing which are leading to a change in cultural expression.  So, a new way of thinking (a shift in beliefs and culture) is needed if humans are to move forward.  This is the current struggle facing religion.
 
Must we give up all religious beliefs and practices?  That’s hardly the case when you consider how useful some beliefs and practices have been to billions of people over thousands of generations.  However, belief and practices need to continue to adapt and shift just as they have for thousands of generations.  People are hungry for a redefining of culture and cultural expression.  Congregations are looking for ways to redefine beliefs and religious expressions.  They are looking for a system of beliefs and practices that are useful to the challenges people are facing.  This is an adaptive process this is both biological and cultural.  Congregations who are examining the challenges they face are engaging new, creative practices that will eventually rewrite our cultural narrative, and impact our biology all the way down to our DNA for generations to come.  No one has figure it out, although it is certainly not from a lack of effort.  The answer will one day explode onto the cultural scene.  How is your faith community adapting and developing beliefs and practices that help individuals and families adapt to change?

This is the final blog in the series #koinonia.  I hope it’s been useful.  I’m concluding the series with a focus on leadership.  Bowen’s definition of the family leader was made in the context of family therapy.  The quote below applies to leadership of any kind.
 
“Operationally, ideal family treatment begins when one can find a family leader with the courage to define self, who is as invested in the welfare of the family as in self, who is neither angry nor dogmatic, whose energy goes to changing self rather than telling others what they should do, who can know and respect the multiple opinions of others, who can modify self in response to the strengths of the group, and who is not influenced by the irresponsible opinions of others . . . A family leader is beyond the popular notion of power.  A responsible family leader automatically generates mature leadership qualities in other family members who are to follow.” (Kerr and Bowen 1988, 342-43)
 
 
Leaders have a vision.
 
The apostles Paul and Peter were visionary leaders at the beginning of the Jesus movement.  The decision to include gentiles is attributed to Paul based on Paul’s confrontation with Peter.  But Peter, for his part, has a vision recorded in Acts 11:1-8.  Peter’s vision is a departure from the purity laws of Leviticus that were used to define the community.  Like Paul’s assertion of inclusivity, Peter’s vision includes all people in the Jesus movement. 
 
As Peter takes steps to welcome the Gentiles, he receives a swift pushback from the community.  Peter is accused of breaking the law.  In response, he articulates his thinking.  The community eventually accepts his new belief.  This predictable response is described in Dr. Bowen’s family research as the “change back” process.
 
 
Leaders are clear, calm and connected.
 
If one takes an action step based on a new belief, rooted in observable facts and good thinking, then the relationship system (family, work, congregational, etc.) will react predictably to the change.  Bowen described it as a fear-based response to a perceived threat.  Leaders can navigate this process in three steps.  First, a leader does their best to articulate a new belief, being as clear as they can.  Second, as other’s react negatively to the new belief, the leader does not react back.  Third, the leader stays in good emotional connect with important others without telling them what to do and without walking away.  Bowen’s research showed how others in the system eventually come around to accept and respect a new position.  It is recommended that leaders practice this process with their family and with the guidance of a coach. 
 
 
Leaders pay attention.
 
As one observes the emotional process in the relationship system, it’s possible to “see” how anxiety is transmitted, picked up and managed in self and in others.  The ability to watch the flow of anxiety and how it impacts one’s behavior, and the behavior of others, is a first step in defining a self.  Good questions can help one pay attention.  How does the system influence what one thinks, feels and does?  In what way does the system hamper one’s freedom to think, feel and act?  How does one influence the behavior of others?  More than being self-aware, paying attention is the ability to identify the emotional process and the role each person plays.
 
 
I continue to resonate with Bowen’s view that everyone is doing the best they can with what they have but that we can all do better.  Leaders work to be the best version of themselves they can be.  Leaders lead the way.

When it comes to behavior, do we have a choice or is it automatic?  It turns out that our behavior is more automatic than we’d like to admit.  Way more.  But we are not always at the mercy of automatic behavior.  We can do something about it.
 
New research out of Johns Hopkins University suggests we have about a half a second to stop our automatic behavior.  It takes approximately a half a second for signals from a sensory organ (like the eyes) to be sent and processed by the brain and for a subsequent signal to be sent to a muscle.  So, yes, there is potential for choice when it comes to behavior, but the window is small.  It is a half a second small.  With the challenge set before us, there are steps one can take to disrupt automatic responses.
 
If we think of the brain as made up of multiple systems, there are at least two important systems that influence behavior.  There is an emotional system which includes all of our automatic behaviors.  For example, the regulation of the body and the natural ability to be social.  When someone smiles at you, it’s likely you will automatically smile back.  Try it today.  Smile at people and see if they smile back.   That's the emotional system at work.
 
Another system is the thinking system.  This includes the prefrontal cortex and other structures that influence the expression of a self.  For example, having one’s own thoughts, feelings and actions is an expression of self. 

Anxiety affects how these two systems operate.  When anxiety is high, it can undermine the thinking system in favor of the automatic, emotional system.  That’s not always a bad thing, especially if one is in imminent danger.  It also works the other way.  The thinking system can override reactive, automatic behavior which results in a decrease in anxiety.
 
Why does this matter?  Well, let’s say you are the leader of a committee.  You dread having to lead this particular committee.  A couple of people are creating problems for the group.  You have an automatic way of addressing the behavior.  While your automatic response may have initially made a difference, it no longer works.  In fact, the problem is getting worse.  The meetings are tense, and you can feel the tension in your body before the meeting starts.

One can disrupt one's automatic response by engaging the thinking system.  While we may only have a half a second to change course, in the heat of the moment, you really can’t do much of anything.  So, to make good use of that half a second, one needs to step back and strategies how one wants to behave. 

So, let's take the previous example and start from the beginning.  Someone says something in a particular tone and in a particular manner, and you are off to the races.  How can one prepare to not react automatically and behave differently?  The preparation includes the following:

1. Identify the trigger.  Is it the words, the tone of voice, the level of intensity or a particular body movement?
2. What happens to me internally?  What do I feel, think, and want to do?
3. What do I do automatically in response to the trigger?  Do I say something, do something, walk away or shut down?
4. What does a mature response look like?  How many alternative options can I come up with?  (Hint, there is always more than one option.)
5. What will it take to disrupt my automatic response and respond with thinking?
6. How do I predict others will respond to my thinking?
7. What will my response be to the automatic reactivity of others?

 
We can also use this approach with the family.  Again, we don’t like to admit it but our behavior towards the family is mostly automatic and at times reactive.  It is not a bad thing to react automatically to one’s family.  When a baby is hurt and starts to cry, mom and dad move towards the baby and pick it up.  It’s what we do.  The problem comes when an automatic response creates additional problems.  For example, when the baby learns to cry to be picked up. 
 
Where do our automatic responses come from?  They have their origins in past generations.  A specific behavior may have started in your great-grandparent's generation or in a previous generation.   The dance of automatic patterns between spouses, parent and child, and siblings have been passed down from generation to generation, a process Dr. Murray Bowen called the multigenerational transmission process.  Recent discoveries in epigenetics have confirmed that how one responds to a particular life challenge is passed on to the next generation.  These responses become automatic behaviors in subsequent generations.  The good news is that it is possible to redirect one's behavior away from these automatic, generational patterns of reacting and shift one's behavior towards differentiation of self. 
 
So, as you prepare to take advantage of that half a second you have between doing what comes automatically and deciding to do something different, consider the following questions:

• What am I trying to accomplish with my life?  What are my life goals?  What is my purpose and mission in life?
• What is a core belief I can use to guide my thinking?
• What can I do to calm down when I’m anxious? What can I do when I feel all revved up inside? What can I do when everyone else around me is revved up?
• What does a more responsible version of myself look like?

 
What questions or opportunities for thinking can you add to this list?

Six years ago, I was invited to lead a workshop on evangelism for a congregation that averages 500 in worship.  The congregation wanted to expand its outreach to the community.  I am not an expert on evangelism but accepted the invitation as an opportunity to be a good thinker and to connect the concept of evangelism with discipleship. 
 
 
THE TYPICAL EVANGELIST
 
I recently walked out of Union Station in Chicago surprised to see a twenty-something hipster preaching with a portable speaker. With his facial hair and tweed cap, he proclaimed God’s love for all of us.  His message was an if/then proposition.  If someone confesses their sins, they will have eternal life.  I’ve attended several church growth seminars.  At no time was street preaching suggested as a method for growing a congregation which is interesting given its historical success.
 
Take my tradition, The United Methodist Church.  Our founder, John Wesley preached in public on top of his father’s gravestone!  There certainly is a time and place for public preaching.  But unless you plan to launch a religious revival, it’s probably not going to be your cup of tea.  This is the image most of us have of evangelism.  Someone preaching in public to the masses (rest in peace, Billy Graham).  For most people, evangelism happens through interpersonal relationships.  The invitation to faith comes early in life and usually from a family member.
 
 
CAN'T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG?
 
One of the fundamental questions the Bible attempts to answer is, “How can we all get along?”  In the book of Genesis, we quickly discover with the first family that it will not be easy for humans to get along.  Adam and Eve are examples of blame and shame while Cain and Able are examples of struggle and violence.  How will God and God’s people solve the human relationship condition?
 
In the Hebrew Bible, we see the development of laws and rules that attempt to answer this question.  The Bible identifies the problem as sin and sin has been historically interpreted through the lens of ethics and morality.  Laws and rules are handed down to motivate the people to do less bad stuff and more good stuff.  Laws and rules were designed to create healthy kin and non-kin relationships.
 
With laws and rules in place, the problem becomes the focus of discipleship.  Is discipleship a focus on how I observe the laws, or is it a focus on how others observe the laws?  Rabbi Ed Friedman addressed this paradox of living in community.  He described it as a paradox between a focus on self and a focus on others.  If one focuses only on others, then one becomes a no-self.  If one focuses only on self, then one becomes narcissistic.  While the narcissist obliterates others, the no-self has no core beliefs, no guiding principles, is mostly reactive to others, and is dangerous and out of control.  For Friedman, the answer to the paradox was in the middle: a self that is connected.  To know thyself is to have a relationship with God.  Knowing thyself shapes the way one behaves towards others.  But it is more than just being better connected and less selfish.   
 

 FROM PROHIBITION TO ISOLATION
  
Historically, the practice of evangelism has been caught up in heated debates over the prohibition of things and behaviors.  Abortion and Halloween are examples that come to mind.  The Deuteronomic code is another example.  For some people, evangelism involves communicating moral rules and laws designed to deter bad behavior within the context of a community or society.  There are problems inherent in this form of evangelism.
 
Some congregations and their leaders try to change the behavior of others.  In this way, they take responsibility for the behavior of others.  It becomes their mission to stop it.  It’s problematic because most people don’t want to be responsible for the behavior of others.  And most people don’t want someone telling them to be more responsible.  Just because you tell someone to be more accountable for their behavior doesn’t mean they will be more accountable.
 
The alternative (which is where most mainline congregations find themselves) is to give up and create distance from those who behave “badly."  Of course, there is the token effort to help the people who have made “bad” choices, but they are not invited to worship.  It gets even more interesting.  Some churches highlight specific laws in the Bible as “membership requirements.”  If you break one of these membership laws, you lose your membership.  Break a rule? You're banished.  In the worst cases, the banishment is announced publicly.  It's really religious isolationism.
 
When people isolate or distance from someone, they may be hoping to change the other person's behavior.  Parents discipline their toddler with a timeout.  In nature, some animals are shunned to elicit “right” behavior.  If you isolate the problematic person (or animal), the pain of isolation will create discomfort which can lead to a change in behavior.  We imprison and isolate individuals who are labeled a “risk” to the community hoping it will lead to a change in their behavior. 
 
The effort to prohibit and isolate bad behavior are at two ends of a continuum.  They are part of an emotional process.  Congregations can become stuck in an emotional process.  Congregational leaders may be aware of how evangelism is used by some people as an effort to tell other people what to do.   They're aware that this version of evangelism is unsuccessful and doesn’t work.  There will always be a few holdouts, though.  Like the man outside Union Station.  Equally problematic are people who justify isolating and distancing from someone while at the same time upholding the commandment by Jesus to love everyone.  Leaders feel stuck in this efforts to advance the evangelistic outreach of their congregation while at the same time avoiding these potholes of application.  They are under pressure to do something!  What can they do?
 
In response to the dramatic national decline in church membership, leaders feel the burden to grow their congregation and increase giving.  When the focus on evangelism is in response to a decline in membership and giving, it reveals the real problem.  Congregations are anxious about their future.  I’m reminded of the hymn: “What troubles have we seen, what mighty conflicts past, fightings without, and fears within, since we assembled last!”   When people are anxious, and there is tension in the relationship system, people typically respond in one of two ways: they either move towards others to control, or they distance themselves from others.  There is a third way, however.  Dr. Murray Bowen called it differentiation of self.
 
 
THE SOLUTION TO EVANGELISM: DIFFERENTIATION OF SELF
 
The modern family is not much different from the first family.  The challenge is the same:  how does one relate to challenging people (in a congregation or in a family) without telling the other what to do and without ignoring the other altogether?  One step is to discover that one cannot change the other, but one can change self.  This brings us back to the concept of the self.  To be a self is to be clear about what one believes without demanding others to agree or defending a belief in the face of dissent.  It is about maturity.  It is about, what is called in the Christian tradition, discipleship: working on one’s salvation (with or without fear and trembling, depending on your tradition).  Here we are on solid ground when it comes to evangelism. 
 
The effort to be the best possible version of self (to be all that God is calling you to be) is evangelistic.  It is attractive.  It is compelling to other people.  The irony for those who place a premium on evangelism is that at the very moment they reach out to make disciples of others, they do so at the expense of their discipleship.  The focus becomes on changing others and not on changing self.  The invitation to baptism in the Christian tradition is an invitation for one to profess their faith; to declare their desire to be a disciple.  When one works at discipleship, evangelism happens.  The greatest evangelists of all time where people who knew that working on being the best version of themselves (being all that God is calling them to be) is the way to reach other people.  It’s counter-intuitive, but it makes the most sense. 
 
So, instead of organizing an evangelism committee, consider starting a class geared towards the individual effort of developing core principles and beliefs; one or two beliefs one can be sure of more than anything else.  Invite participants to make daily decisions and relate to others in ways that are consistent with their core beliefs.  When is it easy to do?  When is it challenging?  What makes the difference?
 
If I’m right about the connection between discipleship and evangelism (that evangelism is the natural outcome of individual discipleship), then there would be a way to measure it.  In theory, as one works at defining a self while maintaining good contact with important others, the number of important contacts would grow.  One would be freer to relate to others out of a more mature self.  The individuals who put their focus on being the best version of themselves they can be are some of the most evangelical people I know.

There’s a lot of talk about shrinking congregations.  The decline in attendance is most noticeable in the mainline Protestant church.  There is considerable debate about what factors contribute to decline.  The lack of clarity about it is concerning.  It’s creating fatigue among congregational leaders because they are in an untenable position.  Leaders cannot effectively lead change if they don’t understand the processes and factors driving the problem. 
 
Over several decades, well-intentioned coaches talked about the importance of contemporary worship, the size of the parking lot, the number of people in the choir, the colors of the interior of the building, removing denominational insignia, greeters in the parking lot, cushions on the pews, gift bags for visitors, a robust social media presence, and a branding plan.  A case can be made for the importance of any of these solutions.  But none of them get us closer to the heart of the matter.  
 
One motivation for writing this weekly blog is to provide an alternative way of thinking about the challenges congregational leaders face.  It is an alternative to the “what works for us” and “do these five things and have success” mentality that feeds much of the leadership training that is offered. 
 
It’s not all doom and gloom, though.  We can claim, with a degree of certainty, that the following list is essential for building congregations:  Critical mass, money, a compelling narrative, and a system for developing relationships.
 
 
Butts in the Pews
 
Critical mass is essential for long-term sustainability.  If you walk into a congregation that has a dozen people in worship, you might wonder, “what’s wrong with this congregation that there aren’t more people here?” As a consumer, you are more likely to purchase from an online company that has hundreds of positive reviews then from a company that has no reviews, even if they offer the best price.  Critical mass matters.  But we can’t stop there.  Even megachurches (with their stellar attendance records) are facing decline.  Clearly, other factors are in play.
 
 
Resources
 
Congregations with long-term sustainability have access to money.  Those who are able to raise capital are able to grow.  Money matters.  Other resources matter too, like having well-trained leaders and volunteers.  But let’s not forget that even if you have access to money, leaders, and volunteers you still need to use them wisely.  A community built along the ocean will have thirsty citizens if they don’t figure out how to purify the water and disburse it to the people.
 
 
Beliefs
 
A compelling narrative is one that resonates and connects with us.  A compelling narrative is relevant to our daily lives.  It speaks to us.  It motivates us to action.  It gives us meaning. 
 
I titled this section “beliefs” because the narrative and our beliefs eventually intersect at a point of understanding.  To believe in a narrative, one must understand it and be able to connect it to one’s life.  
 
I still have questions about narratives and whether the decline in the mainline Protestant church is related to the narrative.  Organizations that are growing do a good job of telling a compelling narrative.  But is the decline in congregations related to the narrative?  If so, how can congregations do a better job of telling a compelling narrative? 

 
Belonging Precedes Believing
 
I’ve written already about belonging vs. believing.  You can read my blog about it by clicking here.  Congregations that thrive have a highly structured and well-maintained relationship system that helps new people become connected, and supports an individual's effort to reach their goals.  Congregations flourish to the extent they connect people together in meaningful ways.  Belonging without believing is more important than requiring people to agree to a fixed set of creeds and doctrines before they can belong.  
 
 
Where Do We Go From Here?
 
I still have questions about these characteristics of vibrant congregations.  How can they be measured quantitatively and qualitatively?  What is the interplay between these characteristics (does one dominate or are they all equal)?  How many of these characteristics do you need to thrive (all of them, a mixture, or just one)?  Are there examples of vibrant congregations that have none of these characteristics or only one of them?  What characteristics are missing?
 
And what about the one thing I have yet to mention: leadership?  How in the world do we develop good leaders?  Dr. Murray Bowen described the importance of having a good family leader when dealing with challenging families.  More than ever, congregations need good leaders.  Bowen observed that good leaders are working on differentiation of self. 
 
Many factors make up the concept of differentiation of self.  One of them is the ability to make good use of new and relevant information.  Leaders working on differentiation of self are open to new ideas and new ways of thinking.  They are open to incorporating these new ideas into their way of thinking when appropriate.  They evaluate the way they think but are unwilling to give up their thinking when faced with the immature or irresponsible thinking of others. 
 
Leaders are flexible.  Instead of buckling down to achieve some sort of short-term gain, they step up and out to embrace a new challenge.  Leaders understand that flexibility is the key to long-term sustainability. 
 
Differentiation of self is about leaning into the complexity of these issues and their connection to a congregation.  It’s about curiosity, discovery, reflective thinking, creativity, and risk-taking.  Without these things, congregations become reactive to their changing circumstances and face an avoidable death.  Leaders who are working on differentiation of self places themselves in a better position to lead their congregation into the future.  Critical mass, money, a compelling narrative, and a system for developing relationships may be essential, but differentiation of self is key.

Let’s talk about the people who get under your skin. You know who I’m talking about. These are the people who can get you all revved up. Maybe it’s your child’s significant other, your boss, your neighbor, a member of the congregation, or a court-appointed therapist. You can barely tolerate being in the same room with them. It’s clear to you that THEY are the problem. End of discussion.

Let’s talk about what you do to people who get under your skin. You blame them! You blame them for getting everyone worked up. You blame them for how they make you feel. It’s clear to you that this person is “not normal” and therefore MUST change. It is the only solution. If you’re human, you’ve probably said this to yourself and, on occasion, out loud.

An alternate reality may enter our conscious mind to suggest that the situation is more complicated. If you listen carefully, you can hear people vacillate between two realities. On the one hand, we get worked up about someone’s behavior. On the other hand, we recognize that we all behave in ways that challenge others. Even though we try not to blame others, we just can’t help ourselves.

Directly or indirectly, my expend energy to try and change the other person. The direct approach is, well simply: “You need to change your behavior!” The indirect method is much subtler. But the desire is still the same. We keep hoping the other person will get the message and change.

Have you ever wondered how someone’s behavior gets under your skin? Have you ever noticed that your level of irritation with them fluctuates? When I coach clergy, I hear stories of how parishioners can get them revved up. The clergy diagnose and blame others for the problems in the church. Some clergy sound very convincing. What’s remarkable is what happens when I ask a simple question.

Where does this bad behavior occur in your family? I first heard this question over a decade ago while participating in a clergy group. It’s a question I’ve started to ask myself and others. What’s remarkable is that I’ve never had someone answer with, “nowhere.” The longest I’ve had to wait for an answer is about five seconds. Almost immediately, clergy can identify someone in their family.

It turns out that it’s not people that get us revved up. It’s the relationship process that takes place in between people. It’s the back and forth process which is automatic, reactive, and reciprocal. It’s back and forth because the other person is reacting to you and other people just as much as you are reacting to them and to other people. It’s automatic because the emotional system hijacks the prefrontal cortex. It’s reactive because the other person’s behavior makes you uncomfortable. It’s reciprocal because individuals in a relationship system are always adjusting to find a sustained level of comfort.

Pretend that Andrew is a member of your congregation. Andrew loves to tell people what to and how to do it. He is more than happy to complete a task for someone who isn’t as organized as he is. If you need something done, Andrew is your guy. The downside is that no one will work with Andrew.

Everyone is unhappy on the committee Andrew chairs. No one talks during the meetings and Andrew continues to take on more and more responsibility. The meetings typically end with everyone being frustrated, including Andrew. You decide to take Andrew out for coffee.

“Tell me what it was like growing up in your family,” you ask. Andrew begins to tell you about being the oldest of six siblings. Andrew grew up on a farm. His father died when he was sixteen, leaving him responsible for the farm and the family. After his father’s death, his mother became depressed and less available to Andrew and his six siblings. This left Andrew with the additional responsibility of parenting his siblings. Under these circumstances, Andrew learned how to keep the family afloat. His siblings graduate high school except for one sister who dropped out. She still lives with their mother and is unable to keep a job. Andrew, who still lives close by, makes daily trips to the house to keep his mother organized and the sister out of trouble. You leave the conversation with a new appreciation of what Andrew is up against.

On the way home, in the car, you think about your family and wonder who exhibits this same challenging behavior. It’s your mother. When she is stressed, she tries to organize your life. When this happens, you find it difficult to maintain your level of functioning. You decide it’s time to take more responsibility for your functioning, so you create a plan to not depend on your mother’s over functioning. A good coach, trained in Bowen Theory, can be a helpful resource in figuring out how to address this reciprocal, relationship challenge.

The key to dealing with difficult behavior is to get on the other side of it:

• What challenge is the other person facing?
• How does their behavior function in a way that makes sense?
• What part does my reactivity play in perpetuating the problem?
• How can I function differently in a way that is more responsible?
• How is a more neutral, mature response different than the way I’m responding now?

Getting on the other side of someone’s behavior can make a difference in developing strategize for working on differentiation of self. One can discover that the other person is doing the best they can with what they have. And while we can all do better, I can do better while working on my part of the problem. Getting factual about what someone is up against in their life is one way to develop a mature response to a problem. What will it take for you to get on the other side of a problem so you can be the best self you can be?

The purpose of Thinking Congregations is to explore the connections between Bowen Family Systems Theory and congregational life.  My effort to be curious, objective, and engaging can result in an adventurous journey that takes me to new places.  This week is no exception. 
 
I dedicate this blog to a new idea.  I’m interested to see if this idea resonates with your experience.  I’ll be asking for your input at the end.  I hope you’ll respond either in the comment section or on social media.  #thinkingcongregations
 
How long does it take on average for clergy to be effective in a new congregation?  What does effectiveness mean?  Good question.  I’ll save that for another blog.  But, for now, I’ll define it as the ability to lead change through the relationship system of a congregation.  I’m not the first person to think about the dynamics of relationship systems on one’s effort to create change.
 
Rabbi Ed Friedman, in his book Generation to Generation, stated clergy were effective after their first six months.  It takes half a year for clergy to be engrafted into the emotional system of the congregation.  I disagree with Ed on this point and will explain why in a moment.  Some have compared the first year to a game of poker.  During the first year, you build up relationship chips which can be cashed in to create changes.  You are limited to one or two things, depending on how big the change is.  So, choose wisely!  This idea of social capital, which I also disagree with, is what Robert Putnam talked about in his book Bowling Alone.
 
Effective change can begin after four years.  Changes can be made in the first four years.  However, long-lasting, systemic change can only come when a leader has participated in the emotional process of a congregation for four years.  I base this idea solely on observation.  What I have observed are changes in the ways I relate to the congregation, and the ways the congregation relates to me.  Each time I begin my fourth year in a new congregation, I notice that I am more confident in my ability to relate to each person in the congregation.  Why is this?  I’m not certain, but it’s possible that by year four I know something about each person in the congregation which is enough to have a working knowledge of the triangles in the congregation and the family triangles of each person in the congregation. 
 
It’s also my observation that individuals in the congregation relate to me differently going into year four.  I’m aware of more cooperation, more openness in communication, and more common goals and directions.  Notably, I find that those who (when I first arrived) were eager to talk to me each week are less eager by the fourth year, and those who were less likely to initiate a conversation with me during the first four years are now willing to chat at a moment’s notice. 
 
One explanation I’ve come up with relates to nominations and the process of inviting individuals to serve in leadership positions.  Perhaps it takes four years for the people who were nominated under the previous pastor to rotate out and for a majority of leaders to begin serving at the invitation of the current pastor.  In other words, by year four, those who are in leadership positions have said, “yes” to the current pastor.
 
There is room here for research.  The hypothesis I’m present is that there are changes that occur in the relationship system of a congregation after three to four years that create the context for more effective change going into year four or five.  How can this idea be observed, measured, and verified?  I don’t have an answer.   However, the word I use to describe my experience is bumpy.  The first four years are bumpy.  Some congregations are bumpier than others.  However, it’s always there to some degree.  And while the bumpiness does not vanish after four years, my observation is that it significantly decreases by year three or four (sometimes year five).  I’ve run my own experiment on this idea, but I can only offer stories and anecdotal evidence based on what I’ve observed.
 
I’m interested in your observations.  Have you experienced changes in bumpiness in the congregation that can lead to more effective change after year four?  I had considered setting up an online survey but decided to leave it to you to leave your comments.  So, I invite you to share your observations in the comment section below or on social media.  I look forward to reading your thinking.

​Let’s be honest.  Nothing is working like it used to.  In the Christian faith, clergy and their supervisors are desperate to get people back into worship.  A little history might be useful.
 
I went to college in the late 80’s, and after discerning a call to ministry, I headed right to seminary.  While I was in school for those seven years, "church" began to look different; reflecting some of the cultural changes that started in the 60’s and 70’s.
 
One example is contemporary worship.  Thanks to the glorious success of places like Willow Creek, baby boomers were flocking to contemporary services.  My training in contemporary worship came, not in seminary, but later while serving a congregation who took up an interest in it.  I have nothing against my formal training.  Most of it was good. 
 
Around the time I graduated seminary, denominational leaders were starting to wake up to the fact that declining membership numbers were not turning around.  The solution was to introduce every four years a new conference-wide program to address the decline.  In fact, I can’t remember at a time in my career that we weren’t trying to address the decline.    
 
As far as I can tell, the response has been rooted in anxiety; a fear based response.  It’s difficult to know what is driving the decline today: shifting cultural dynamics, or an anxious church.  There is a difference.  The former is a problem to be solved.  The latter is a self-fulling prophesy.  Anxiety has a way of making our perceived fears come true. 
 
Our inability to reverse the decline has not been from a lack of trying.  My goodness!  We have tried all kinds of things.  We brought in this consultant, and that consultant, and introduced this program, and that program, and offered this training, and that training.  There was a time when local congregations could make money if they were attracting new members.  If a congregation was having success, they simply organized a conference on site and congregations from all over the world would flock to find out how they did it.  While there are a few places that continue to offer this model of "what works for us", it does not work for everyone else.
 
The problem was implementation.  You can’t take what works in one congregation and transfer it to another.  The ideas and concepts did transfer, but the results did not.  This approach had its roots in the franchise business model.  Not unlike McDonald's where you can set up a franchise anywhere and guaranty customers the same experience and results in every location.  The latest craze is the satellite church model where you try to reproduce what you do in multiple sights.  This works if everyone is being directed by the mother ship.   And, to be fair, while those who lead the training I attended over the years never explicitly said they wanted us to reproduce their success, those who attended did make a go of it.  

The effort to embrace developing business models geared towards consumerism missed the fact that our biggest commodity is relationships.  What every congregation offers is a transformed life rooted in relationships.  In our pursuit of anything that will work, we were blind to the relationship process of human behavior and failed to train our leaders in the developing, scientific research.  We weren't able to see at the time that the content we were trying to implement was being undermined by an emotional process.
 
After completing seminary, I was excited to be ordained and felt ready to lead and develop congregational life.  I began introducing new ideas and worked to foster creativity in the congregation.  It became clear that I was spending more time addressing challenging behavior then I was implementing new ideas.  It was as if there was a connection between my pursuit of implementing change through new ideas and the reactivity I received from certain members of the congregation.  I was clearly missing something, and I needed a framework for thinking about it.
 
I attended a conference back in the mid 90’s that helped me transform my leadership.  The presenter said, “Good leadership rises above the anxiety of the group.”  I’ll never forget it.  I wrote that sentence down and taped it to the dashboard of my car!  That presenter was Rev. Peter Steinke and what he was teaching was a systems model of human behavior.  It had its roots in Bowen Family Systems Theory.
 
Bowen Theory (its shorter title) is a theory of human behavior.  The concepts are based on the family as an emotional unit.  Each person plays their part, but the family operates as a whole.  If you want to understand the behavior of one person, you look at the relationship system.  People like Pete, who studied Dr. Murray Bowen's ideas, began to realize that the same concepts that applied to families applied to other relationship systems, like the church (which is usually made up of families).  Sometimes the problems people are having with family members spill over to their relationships in the church, or the school, or the government, or any other social agency.  Leaders of these institutions become the lightning rod of an anxious, relationship process.
 
I’ve spent almost 20 years researching Bowen Family Systems Theory.  For me, it provides a way to think about congregations.  It just makes sense.  If the church is ever going to be vibrant, it will need to think systems.  Understanding behavior in the context of relationship systems is what leaders will need to do to be successful in their calling.  So, instead of complaining about the state of the church and the decline of mainline congregations, I decided to do something about it.
 
For the past two years, I’ve offered a program called Clergy Consultation Group.    Once a month I teach the basic concepts of Bowen Theory and help participants learn how to apply it to the congregation, and yes, even the family. 
 
This fall I will be offering the program again.  This time, I’m excited to announce that there will be two options: an in-person option and, new this year, an online option.  In both options, the program is offered for 2 ½ hours once a month.  Most of the time is spent with me teaching one of the eight concepts of Bowen Theory.  Each month, one participant will have the opportunity to apply the theory either to their congregation or family. 
 
What can you hope to gain from this program?  The answer comes from Dr. Murray Bowen who developed the theory.  I’ve reworked the word "family" and applied the quote to congregations.  The meaning remains:
 
A congregational leader is someone who has “the courage to define self, who is invested in the welfare of the [congregation] as in self, who is neither angry or dogmatic, whose energy goes to changing self rather than telling others what they should do, who can know and respect the multiple opinions of others, who can modify self in response to the strengths of the group, and who is not influenced by the irresponsible opinions of others. . . [A leader] automatically generates mature leadership qualities in other[s] who are to follow.” Family Evaluation, 342-3
 
To register for the Clergy Consultation Group or to learn more, go to https://www.thecenterforfamilyconsultation.com/programs/clergy-consultation-group/