71,450: the number of words I published over the last twelve months.  71,450 words!  I seriously couldn’t believe it.  Henry David Thoreau’s “Walden” had 114,634.  So close, and yet so far away.
 
Now, I know what you are thinking.  John, when do you think you’ll receive your Pulitzer?  If only it were a quantitative exercise!  I’m not aware of any prizes for blog posts.  I checked.  My Google returns included “how to give prizes away using a blog post.”  I have no interest in giving away prizes.  Sorry.
 
I decided to spend this first blog post of a new blog year (that’s not actually an official thing) writing a reflection on what I’ve learned and perhaps what I still need to learn.
 
 
Lesson #1
 
I’ve learned that I’m ready to write a book.  I’ve dreamed of writing a book since I was young.  The problem has always been me.  I was never a solid writer.  And by solid, I mean disciplined.  I’ve learned the importance of being disciplined through a consistent effort and focus.  I’ve learned that self-discipline pays off.  I talk more about this in Lesson #4. 
 
My discipline includes getting up early every morning to write.  And for the most part, I was faithful.  It helped me gain a level of confidence in my ability to brainstorm, write, and edit.  And while I’m still developing and growing, the dream of writing books is, in my mind, a possibility.  Stay tuned to learn more about the book idea.
 
 
Lesson #2
 
If you really want to force yourself to learn something, spend a year writing about it.  I’m clearer in my understanding of Bowen Theory and its application. I was not able to see a year ago the things I see now. For example, I see now that we cannot solve issues in the broader relationship systems of government, communities, and congregations until leaders are willing to work on differentiation of self in their own family.  The finger pointing, name calling, blaming, and the rest of the subjective thinking that people participate in reflects a level of cutoff in the family.  The inability of leaders to sit down at a table and create a compromise rooted in collaboration mirrors the struggles of their own families.  If you can’t sit down with your family (and the extended family) to work out problems, you sure aren’t going to be able to do it in other relationship systems! (See, this last sentence is a good example of why I need to be more disciplined in my writing.)
 
 
Lesson #3
 
I have no idea what makes a blog popular.  #Truth.  I thought it was the number of words.  That didn’t hold up.  I took a blogging class that recommended using catchy titles.  That didn’t seem to work either.  I propose that my most popular blog posts were just clearer and represented my best thinking.  So, here is a list of the ones that were “off the charts” so to speak.
 
Welcome to Thinking Congregations
This was my first blog post (which I reposted last week).  People were excited and interested to see what I was up to.  For the next four months, my readership tanked.  Not a joke.  It was sort of depressing.  But I kept pushing forward.  I’m not going to lie; the words of encouragement were helpful.  Plus, I decided I’d give it a year.  So, I pressed on.
 
How to Decide to Be a Sanctuary Congregation
Congregations are not only divided about becoming a sanctuary congregation, they don’t know how to engage in a conversation about it that isn’t polarizing.  Several of you shared that this post was helpful.
 
6 Things to Consider Before Taking a Stand
This was an attempt to use a creative title (from that one blog class I took), which appeared to work at first.  It was also the first blog post to include a picture of me from a family trip to the Pacific Coast.  For whatever reasons, it was a popular blog.
 
And the most popular post was:
 
Are We Regressing?
I originally published this on November 13, 2016, and it immediately doubled my readership.  People read it and shared it all over the world.  I wrote it just after the election, about the tenor of the country.  It was very popular.  I reposted it later in the year with the same results.  It seemed to connect with all of you in important ways, particularly those of you who think about Bowen Theory and our society.
 
 
Lesson #4
 
What goes into an effort to write a blog?  Writing, like many any other activities, can be an effort for self.  While others may participate in the editing process, the hard work of writing requires self-discipline.  Inherent in this effort is the ability to depend less on the motivation of others, to identify an internal drive, and to manage one’s reaction to the reactivity of others. 
 
First, becoming less motivated by others.  While encouragement is useful at times, it has its limits.  Anyone with children knows that, while initially, it may be fun to motivate a child to do a new activity, it quickly grows old if the parent continually motivates a child to perform routine behaviors.  We may be unaware of how much we depend on the motivation of others or how others rely on our motivation.  Yesterday at the gym I watched a very large father struggle to motivate his very large son to use the gym equipment.  Motivation is best when it comes from within.
 
Second, identifying an internal drive.  I don’t know where it comes from in the brain, this internal driver that gives us the life energy to push forward.  I think our options in life are to focus our attention on others, focus our attention on ourselves, or find a way to do both without impinging either.
 
Third, managing one’s reaction to the reactivity of others.  Whenever one attempts to do an activity that is more about the self, the relationship system always responds.  It’s designed to do this because it is sensitive to the emotional attention it receives from others.  If you redirect your emotional attention away from the family and towards the self, the family takes notice and will often disapprove in the form of interruptions, being needier, drawing attention, etc.
 
 
One Final Note
 
It took me several years to get to a place of consistently writing every day.  This from a person who was always last minute in writing that college paper, or seminary thesis, or that monthly church newsletter article from the pastor!  I was always motivated by the negative implications of being late.  But this blog is different.  What changed?
 
I changed.  It’s taken time, but I’ve changed.  It was a slow process that went something like this:

• It began with the realization (thanks to Bowen Theory) that all families function as an emotional unit with each person playing a part.
• Anxiety is real, not inside a person’s head, but in between people and the ways they relate to each another.  The summation of the interactions in a given family is the emotional process.
• People, in general, have limited awareness that most of our behavior is driven by reactivity to anxiety, and the way anxiety is played out in the behavior of others.
• I began to see how this was playing out in the family.
• At first, I could only see how others were participating in it.  I was not able to see my part.
• I began to research my family history, with an effort to understand the emotional process that has been passed down from generation to generation.
• Over time I discovered that the way I function is rooted in the automatic behaviors that were passed down from one generation to the next.  I saw patterns.
• I began to see my part in the patterns of the family emotional process.
• I started to take responsibility for my behavior.  Disrupting my automatic tendencies.  Pushing forward with efforts rooted in differentiation.
• I started to think about life principles, core values, beliefs, and goals.
• I worked to stay focused on my life principles, core values, beliefs, and goals while at the same time staying connected to the family.  I worked not to let my effort disrupt my relationship with others and not to let my relationship with others disrupt my life direction.
• I continue to discover as much of this as I can in every aspect of my life. 

 
It has been a seventeen-year journey resulting last year in the creation of Thinking Congregations.  There is still so much to learn and discover about myself, my family, the human as a species, natural systems, and faith.  I now see clearly the challenges that are inherent in this endeavor.  But I also see the enormous possibilities.  There is so much exciting territory that is yet to be explored and discovered!  For those who are willing to pick up this effort, you will not be disappointed!

There is a certain level of risk in buying a used car. You never know what you are getting. I recently purchased a used car, and it didn’t take long to realize I had made a mistake.

I began having problems with the accelerator pedal. I’d step on the gas, and sometimes the car would spurt forward and then stop. Sometimes it would accelerate but only to about 5 miles an hour. Sometimes at higher speeds, the throttle would fail and I’d have to coast to a stop.

As frustrating as it was, it reminded me of my effort to make personal changes in my life. Change at first is awkward. It might look like spurts forward. Other times it is slow going, and nothing I do will speed up the process. Then there are times when I make significant progress, only to revert back to old ways.


So, what is change and how do we change?

When people talk about making a change, they typically refer to a change in behavior. Christians around the world recently observed a season of Lent, which includes an opportunity to change a specific behavior. Some people give up a “bad” behavior like smoking or laundering money, while others try to introduce a “good” behavior like having a daily prayer time or always smiling at a neighbor they despise. Most people view change as something that takes place in their brain. For me, behavioral change takes place in a relationship system.

Substantive change happens when one is able to see how their behavior is intricately connected to a relationship system. We’d like to think that our behavior is autonomous but that way of thinking is simply outdated. Most behavior is automatic and is motivated by the back and forth interactions (verbal and nonverbal) between emotionally significant people in our lives. It’s difficult to “see” this process, but it’s not impossible to observe. In fact, it's our behaviors that help us "see" the emotional process. Our behavior is a reaction to the behavior of others. Dr. Murray Bowen originally saw changes in behavior as outcomes of a shift in the emotional functioning of a family system.

Take smoking, for example. If I were to ask a smoker how many cigarettes they smoke on an average day, they might say five. That’s average. If I were to ask them to keep a daily log, they might observe how on certain days they are able to get by with one cigarette. But on other days, they might have as many as eight or nine. What makes the difference?

Most research today answer this question by pointing to stress. The more stressed you are, the more cigarettes you smoke. People experience a feeling of calmness when they smoke. However, if the daily log were to include family interactions, one would observe how smoking increases when the tension in the family increases. How much it goes up or down depends on the number of family contacts being made. In this way, smoking is an automatic, reactive response to the anxiety present in the family.

This reciprocal nature of behavior is true for anything you want to change. Whether you want to start running, take cooking classes, stop swearing, or be a better parent our inability to make a change in our behavior is connected to our position in our families. Change is a challenge because 1) it is difficult to see this emotional process unfold and 2) it’s difficult to consider that the family we already struggle to relate to is somehow having an impact on my behavior.


Change is not just physiological. It’s biological.

Changing our behavior does have a psychological component. Nothing will change if we aren’t aware and convinced that change is necessary. As I mentioned earlier, when we see how our behavior is a result of or influenced by the emotional process in the family, we are in a better position to make a change. These observations don’t make it easier, but they do give us an advantage. But psychological conviction will only get you so far.

Changing behavior is similar to accelerating and braking a car. You want to get going, but the throttle doesn’t work. At times, it can almost feel like the brakes are fully engaged. You want to make a change, but you can feel yourself being held back. If you could only figure out a way to get your foot off of the brake or fix the throttle, you could make the change. Either way, you feel stuck. If you are like me, it can feel like you have your foot on the brake and accelerator at the same time!

For others, efforts to make a change may require one to step off of the throttle. You are going too fast and moving too quickly. It’s as if the car is stuck at a fast speed and you may physically resist the urge to slow down.

There is a physical sensation to making a change. Whether it’s the experience of having our foot on the brake, afraid to move forward, or having our foot on the throttle, afraid to let up, the “self” experiences the resistance and reactivity. There is a visceral experience of changing your behavior.


Overcoming our fears

At the root of the challenge is our perception of fear. I say perception because in most cases, what we fear is not real. At one time, a specific fear may have served a function. A specific fear may have been useful to a prior generation. But humans are really good at seeing a threat even when the threat is not real.

Our inability to take our foot off of the throttle or the brake is a result of a perceived fear. We are afraid that if we change our behavior, either in the direction of doing more or doing less, something bad will happen to us and/or our family. If I stop doing what I always do, it will not go well. If I start doing something new, it will not go well. These perceptions may be psychological in nature, but they become embodied in our everyday behaviors.


The importance of getting factual

Dr. Murray Bowen said, “That which is created in a relationship can be fixed in a relationship.” Learning to connect our behavior to the larger emotional process of the family relationship system is an essential part of any effort to change behavior.

Here are some things to consider when trying to move forward:

• What behavior do you want to change?
• What are the challenges you face in changing this behavior?
• What contributes to an increase or decrease in this behavior?
• How does this behavior function in the family? How does it calm you or the family down?
• Consider asking parents, siblings, aunts, uncles, and grandparents about a time they tried to change their behavior? Perhaps asking about the one you are attempting to change.
• Make predictions on how others will respond to your attempt to change.

If this way of thinking makes sense to you, let me know. I’m available to coach you through a change process.

Note:  I wrote this blog two months ago, before the transfer of presidential powers, and before the signing of executive orders.  I still think the thinking represented in this article is accurate in understanding the function of enforcement.  But I recognize, given the current state of affairs, some may disagree with the thoughts presented in this blog.
 
When the Israelites left Egypt, they were free of an oppressive regime but lacked the social structures necessary to build a new nation-state.  It wasn’t until the passing of a generation, and the conquest of Canaan that the rule of law, a court system, health codes, and enforcement agencies were fully established.
 
The Ten Commandments, and other laws contained in the Torah (like the Deuteronomic Code), emerged as the basic building blocks of a thriving community.  Laws, in their various themes and variations, are necessary for the continuity of a community.
 
The rule of law requires upfront agreement on how individuals will resolve differences in the future.  When two neighbors have a disagreement over competing interests, there is a more than likely chance both will submit to a court order if they live in a community where the rule of law is viewed as fair.  We know from experience that when two parties are able to come to a mutual agreement, the outcome is better not only for the two parties but also for the community.  In situations where a third party is needed to make a decision (like a judge), while a court decision may resolve the conflict in the short-term, it often does not address the underlying problem that gave rise to the conflict.  Conflict, created by an emotional process in a relationship system, can be resolved when both parties are motivated to take responsibility for their part of the problem.  A judge (or a neutral third party) is often needed in cases where one or more parties are unwilling to do their part to find a resolution or solution.
 
Health codes are also important to the well-being of a community.  Health officials spend much of their time educating citizens on the best health practices available to the community.  When people get sick, for example, because of the improper handling of food, they can usually be treated and cured.  Knowing what is safe and what is dangerous to the body is important for living productive lives.  In the United States, health officials are able to respond quickly to problems in the food distribution, and in containing contagious diseases.  The ability to enforce best practices among citizens continues to be an ongoing issue for health professionals.  For example, we know that vaccinations are not just important for the health of the individual, they also protect the community.  In recent years, parents have questioned the practice of immunization.  We may be on the verge of a measles epidemic in the United States as a result. 
 
This brings us to the problems of enforcement.  In the Hebrew Bible, laws were established to protect the well-being of the community.  When an individual broke the law or became ill, they were labeled as a risk to the broader community.  The priest became the law enforcement officer.  Those who broke the law were brought before a priest.  If for example, a person’s behavior was deemed dangerous, the individual was removed from the community and placed in isolation with others who were also deemed dangerous.  In some cases, groups were isolated on remote islands. 
 
If a person was ill, they were brought before a priest who enforced the health codes.  If the priest deemed the individual dangerous to the community, that individuals would have been isolated for a time.  Once the illness was over, they would return to the priest to be deemed “clean.”  If the illness were incurable, one would be quarantined with others who had the same disease.  Such was the case with leprosy. 
 
Enforcement has historically been the answer to keeping a community safe and mitigating risk.  Today, enforcement is carried out by police departments, the military, an immigration and customs agency,  and a bureau of alcohol, tobacco, and firearms.  Most of these agencies are weaponized to enforce the rule of law.  They are authorized to protect the whole community from individual and group behaviors that put everyone else at greater risk.
 
Over time we have created buildings like hospitals, health departments, prisons, courts, and other public institutions to institutionalize enforcement.  In this way, enforcement agencies temporarily (sometimes permanently) isolating people who are deemed a risk to the community.  And just like the priestly traditions of the Israelites, community leaders appoint and certify individuals who are vested with determining when an individual is a “threat” and when they are “clean.”
 
 
Enter the healing professionals
 
Science continues to advance our understanding of the relationship between humans and disease.  In some cases, science has been useful in developing best practices for quarantining individuals who are a threat to the broader community.  But in more recent years, science has helped agencies and institutions understand better what constitute a “real” threat.  The advancement of the microscope has aided researchers in understanding the function of neurons and microbes which have led to greater insight and knowledge of neurological and biological systems.
 
Advances in science are not easily accepted.  Science by its very nature is slow to changing its understanding of the natural world and inherently skeptical of new discoveries.  It also takes time for the broader society to embrace new understandings of the cosmos.  These changes create institutional anxiety because the change is perceived as a potential threat to the broader community.  When the dam that protects the city from the river begins to leak, you put a finger in the hole, and you hold it there even if the army core of engineers has a better plan.  You go with what works even if the finger in the hole is the least efficient way of dealing with the crisis.
 
Is it possible to conceive of a society where enforcement agencies operate differently?  I think so, but we are a long way off.  I’ll present below some areas where I see enforcement changing.  In the comment section, please consider ways you think congregations can participate in these and other changes.  Congregations have a role to play in encouraging institutional leaders to come together to talk about the values and interests of the whole community, not just the needs of a select few. 
 
 
Interagency cooperation
 
In a recent podcast by Hidden Brain, in 2015 health officials in Liberia needed to work closely with police to contain a possible outbreak of Ebola.  Those who were believed to be infected were also wanted by police.  Because the risk of an Ebola outbreak in the broader community was so high, the police were asked to be flexible in their plan to apprehend the suspects.  It required enforcement officials from two different agencies to work together to prioritize how to address two threats to the community. 
 
Dr. Nneka Jones Tapia was hired in 2013 to be the executive director of the Cook County Jail.  Nneka is a clinical psychologist and not your typical warden.  Her hiring represents a shift in law enforcement and more cooperation between mental health and law enforcement agencies.  These types of interdisciplinary efforts are an important step in moving forward. 
 
 
Feeling and thinking
 
At the heart of these efforts is knowing the difference between thinking and feeling.  Each is a system that interacts with the other.  Dr. Murray Bowen’s concept of differentiation of self describes the ability of an individual to differentiate between the feeling, thinking, and behaviors of others, and the internal effort to distinguish between the thinking and feeling systems in the brain.
 
The feelings system is our connection to emotions.  Our emotions are what motivate our automatic behaviors.  It is what we share with all life forms.  Everywhere we look in nature, we can see automatic and predictable reactivity to threat.  The feeling state helps us become aware of the emotional process. 
 
When feelings are high, thinking is low.  There is wide variation in the degree to which individuals can distinguish between their own feeling state and the feeling state of others.  When the level of threat is perceived to be high, our capacity to tolerate different feelings, beliefs, and actions of others is diminished.  When individuals are stressed, they move towards a fusing of the feeling and thinking systems.  Differentiation is a way to work oneself out of the fusing of feelings, beliefs, and actions with others. 
 
It can also be difficult to know when one is feelings and when one is thinking.  We often say, “I feel” to talk about what we think.  Such statements represent our subjective, emotional reactivity and not well thought out principles.  Research has shown that the activation of the thinking system can downregulate the reactivity of the emotional system.  Changes in thinking lead to changes in behavior.  Because the human is sensitive to the behavior of others, a change in one’s behavior may lead to changes in the behavior of others in the system.  Being able to distinguish between the two systems of feeling and thinking is the beginning of differentiation and can lead to better outcomes in the relationship system.  And because communities are made up of a collection of family systems, it is possible to shift behaviors in the community when one changes the way they think about their family. 
 
The communication of intellectual thoughts and ideas also sets the stage for beginning differentiation of self.  Each spouse begins to know the other and to know self in a way that was not possible before, and to become aware of differences in thinking and acting and being.  A line of demarcation begins developing between the spouses as they clarify the beliefs and principles that differ from one another.  The point at which one beings to take action stands based on principles and beliefs is the point where they encounter the emotional reactions that go with the steps in differentiation of self.  The emotion that accompanies differentiation is contained within the twosome, it is cohesive rather than disruptive, and it is followed by a new level of more mature togetherness.  (Family Therapy in Clinical Practice, 227)
 
When one begins to work on differentiation, they will encounter reactivity from the relationship system.  The system initially perceives the effort to be more of a self as a threat to the system.  There is push back which can at times become intense.  However, Bowen observed and believed that if an individual can stay the course without reacting back, stay focused on thinking systems, and staying calm in the relationship system will shift and do better. 
 
 
Applications of better thinking on enforcement
 
Enforcement, at its worst, is simply an emotional process that seeks to get everyone to feel, think, and behave in a specific way when the perception of threat is high.  Enforcement is at its best when good thinkers become a resource to individuals and groups who are stuck in an emotional process.
 
For example, police officers can de-escalate a stressful situation by engaging the thinking of others.  The media often shows police at their worst when they are highly reactive to a situation.  Their reaction does not match the threat.  Perhaps enforcement agencies would do better to test cadets by examining their ability to engage thinking in stressful situations.  I could make the case that tension at home carries over into the workplace.  In a case where an officer has overreacted to a crisis, one would more than likely find the family system operating at a higher level of tension. 
 
 
The role of leaders
 
By leaders, I often mean congregational leaders because this is my target audience. But if you are still reading this blog then you are probably a leader, even if it is not in a congregation. It’s important for good thinkers to be relating to their community leaders. There are avenues for good thinkers to interject more thoughtful responses to local, community issues. I believe congregational leaders underestimate their abilities to have an impact on the well-being of their community and miss out on opportunities to present good thinking to others leaders.
 
I would consider the following list to be hallmarks of this effort.  It is not an exhaustive list.  You might have other things you would add which I hope you will include in the comment section.
 
It is the ability to:

• see symptoms or problematic behavior as a result of an emotional process, not the cause.
• see process not content
• understand what the other is up against
• tone down fear and resist the urge to blame
• see the other as an equal partner in determining solutions
• find joint resolution for problems
• identify other leaders in various systems (family, community, institutions) who are good thinkers
• find solutions where individuals articulate what they are or are not willing to do
• resist telling other people what to do
• articulate the natural consequences of actions
• engage others in the problem, never avoid.

 
When community leaders actively work on differentiation of self, the community benefits.  It seems there will always be a need for laws and the enforcement of laws but the use of law enforcement will vary from community to community depending on the level of the thinking of the enforcement system.  Understanding the emotional process is an important step if one is to make sense of the use and misuse of enforcement.

What if everything a congregational leader needs to know can be found by understanding the cell?  This blog will explore the concept of the cell and how the word became part of religion and everyday society.
 
The first biblical use of the word cell comes from Jeremiah.  He is placed in an underground dungeon (Jeremiah 37:16).  The Hebrew word “chanuth” does not have a direct connection to the Old English word “celle.”  It’s clear, though, that the meaning is the same.  Latin, French, and Middle English all have a variation on the word celle or cella.  Its original meaning refers to a religious house, a hermit’s room, or simply a small room. 
 
The word cell has ties to the word hell, believe it or not.  That word in Latin “celare” or “helan” means to conceal.  The Irish used the word to explain where they stored potatoes – “hel.”  It also is the root to the word helmet – a dark place to conceal things.  That’s the original meaning, at least. 
 
But, back to the word cell.  Another variation on the word was “kell” which became the root to “caul” (a type of membrane) and “kiln,” something like a stove or a kitchen where you heat things up. 
 
More recently, the word cell has expanded into words like “cellar,” a place to contain things like wine or people when there is a storm.  Whatever its modern-day usage, the original meaning is closely tied up with the idea of containing.  In the 17th century, a scientific discovery transformed how science and religion see the world and how we respond to the world.      
 
 
The Discovery of the Biological Cell
 
Robert Hooke was the first to discover the cell in 1665.  Born in 1635, Hook was the youngest of four children.  His father, John Hooke, was an Anglican priest as were John’s two brothers.  His life was saturated with religion. 
 
In 1665, using a microscope originally constructed by Christopher White in London, Hooke was the first to identify a cell.  He borrowed the word cell from his experience of monastic cells for monks.  No doubt, peering into a cell for the first time must have been a religious experience.  He was seeing the structure of God’s creation.  Here was a living thing, the simplest form of life, contained in this glorious organism he called the cell. 
 
Shortly after Hooke’s discovery, the notion of a religious (Christian) cell was revived in England and Germany.  In less than a hundred years after Hooke’s discovery, John Wesley, the founder of the Methodist Church, modeled his new methodical movement after the concept of the cell.  He called his cells societies and bands.  These highly structured cell groups would give life to the movement called Methodism.
 
For hundreds of years, the biological cell was understood and appreciated for the way it internally functioned.  It performs in predictable and stable ways.  Each part of the cell has a specific job, but it functions as a unit.  In a similar way, Wesley’s cell group had a particular structure and function.  As long as individual members of the group functioned according to Wesley’s design, the cell group would survive and thrive as a whole.  The cell group concept flourished in England and spread to every continent on the planet.  The DNA of Wesley’s cell group can still be seen in a variety of congregations around the world.
 
 
Rediscovering the Cell
 
In more recent years, scientists have gained a better understanding of how a cell interacts with the environment.  All living cells, including bacteria, are capable of adjusting to variable changes in the environment.  So long as the environment does not overwhelm the cell’s capacity to adapted, cells adjust and continue to replicate.  These adjustments, based on changes in the environment, happen both internally (within the cell) and externally as the cell communicates with other cells.  This process of communicating back and forth between cells is necessary for the formation of cell groups, organs, and organisms.    
 
The human body consists of 37 trillion cells.  All of them carry out protein synthesis and interact with the environment.  At the scale of the human body, these trillions of cells are working together to perform complex tasks.  The human body is aware of the environment through sensory organs – what we see, hear, taste, touch, and smell.  For millions of years, the human was limited in its ability to sense its surroundings.  Now, with recent advances in technology, the human experience of their environment has been enhanced. 
 
We have unprecedented access to technology.  The environment is no longer restricted to what is directly around us.  With cellular devices, our environment has become the earth and beyond.   From the weather at the north pole to nuclear testing in North Korea to the threat of asteroids, we have instant access to changing environments.  Cellular phones (which were originally coined for the way analog radio networks mimicked cellular life) are essentially neutral.  But in the hands of humans, technology can communicate how other humans are feeling about our changing environment.  Changes in the environment produce anxious reactivity at all levels of life.  Technology amplifies these anxious responses. 
 
With the recent integration of the cell phone into the world wide web, there has been a rapid increase in the rate and dosage of feedback we receive about other people’s reactivity to our changing environment.  For millions of years, anxious feedback from others consisted of a small group of the family, congregation, or community.  But now, humans have access to the emotional reactivity of the entire planet.  Our ability to process and respond to this level of global reactivity is overwhelming the human capacity to differentiation self from the masses. 
 
 
The Future of the Congregation as a Cell
 
Congregations are groups of humans, and as humans, congregations are vulnerable to increased levels of anxiety and reactivity.  Congregations, like all relationship systems, function as a whole.  Individuals vary in the extent to which they are able to think, feel, and act for self that is different than the whole.  The institutional struggles all congregations are experiencing are related to our inability to understand adequately and respond appropriately to environmental changes.
 
There is no guaranteed way forward for congregations as they deal with this increased level of intensity.  Asking good questions is still the only viable way forward.  How will the church of tomorrow address this new reality?  Will it retreat from the world and cloister inside buildings with little or no contact with the outside environment?  Will it spend its energy working to absorb all that is happening in the world?  Will it continue to morph and adapt to the environment it finds itself in and learn to live in symbiosis with the surroundings?  Or will the congregation of tomorrow do something completely different, redefining the word cell for the next generation?
 
Of course, this connection between the congregation and the cell is just an analogy.  It’s a creative way to describe what is.  It’s an attempt to explain what is currently unexplainable.  John Wesley, like so many other reformers, accurately observed his environment and responded to meet new challenges. 
 
The church of tomorrow will be based squarely on the thinking of the leaders of today.

• Leaders need to become increasingly aware of how the world is changing.  Leaders need to read about it, talk about it, and write about it.  Thereby increasing their understanding and knowledge of the problem and defining themselves in relationship to it.
• Leaders need to become increasingly aware of the congregation’s strengths (assets) that are available to meet the challenge. 
• Leaders need to work harder to articulate what they need to understand better the challenge.
• Leaders need to work cooperatively with other motivated individuals to develop strategies to meet the challenge. 
• Leaders need to work cooperatively with other institutions and organizations to create new symbiotic partnerships to meet new challenges.
• Leaders must avoid at all costs quick fixes, knee jerk reactions, and plans that only meet short-term objectives. 
• Leaders need to have the courage to implement new plans and stick with them, only adjusting to new and credible feedback.
• Leaders need to assess the plan continually and repeat the process.

 
Leaders will need to increase their ability to tolerate the discomfort and pain that accompanies an effort like this.  The best place to start is through a process of studying the multigenerational transmission process in one’s family of origin.  A coach is an essential part of this effort.

The use of protest is an integral part of any democratic society.  It has become instrumental in creating regime change.  In the United States, many congregations are intimately engaged in social issues both at a local and national level.  Faith communities may struggle with the use of the protest and the best ways to engage the broader community about issues of injustice, racism, and oppression.  Protesting is primarily a group process with very little room for individual expression.  In this blog, I’ll be thinking about alternatives to protesting.  I hope you will share your thoughts and reflections in the comment section at the end of the blog.
 
I’ve supported and marched in protests over the years.  My first protest march was as a kid growing up in Downers Grove, IL.  The teacher’s union went on strike.  My mother brought me to the march.  I’m not sure how I ended up marching, but there I was holding a sign, walking with teachers, and asking for better wages.  There have been other protests.  Each of them was an opportunity to stand against injustice.
 
I think Disney’s Bug’s Life does a good job of illustrating the effectiveness of the protest.  At the end of the movie, Flik (the main character who is an ant) realizes that there are more ants than tyrannical grasshoppers.  Flik decides to stand up to Hopper, the head grasshoppers.  Shortly after, the bugs overthrow the grasshoppers. 
 
The New York Times recently ran an article about the Art of the Protest.  The author highlights some of the core elements of protesting.  It’s worth a read, and you can find it here.
 
Protest is a natural reaction to injustice.  A few weeks ago Elizabeth Warren grilled the CEO of Wells Fargo CEO John Stumpf during a Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee hearing.  You can watch the exchange below.

Wells Fargo at the time was being investigated for opening fraudulent accounts without consumer’s knowledge.  Something they have since apologized for and worked to amend.  As the facts of the scam came to light, and as I watched the hearing, I found myself saying, “I need to protest.” 
 
Protesting is an essential part of community organizing.  It addresses systemic injustices by shifting the balance of power from governments and corporations to communities and organizations.  Protesting is one way to solidify coalitions and advance a specific agenda.  It has the potential of forcing governments and corporations to enter into dialogue or to give up altogether.  People, though, have to be motivated to participate in a protest.
 
The Achilles heal of community organizing seems always to be the struggle to build durable coalitions that can exact long-term, solid change in society.  At best, change is often incremental. It may have to do with who becomes responsible for change.  If responsibility for change rests only with community organizers, then we may not see the kind of change we desire.  Real change may only come when individuals take responsibility for their part of the problem. 
 
For too long, everyday citizens have abducted their personal responsibility to political, corporate, or religious leaders.  We often make assumptions that those who are elected and appointed as leaders will take responsibility for things we the people think are important.  Apathy, towards the government, is not the result of failed leadership.  Apathy is the result of a system where candidates make promises they can’t deliver, and the people continue to believe that candidates can make good on their promises.  It’s a hopeless relationship.  We elect persons who represent our collective inability to see what is. 
 
As political leaders take on more responsibility and the general populous takes on less, our system of governance is prone to collapse because it eventually lacks the very thing it needs to survive: the people’s participation and voice.  People are the economy of any society.  When people are actively engaged (participating in the things they are interested in), societies do better.
 
 
Engaging people by engaging thinking.
 
A few weeks ago in Charlotte, North Carolina, there was yet another shooting of an unarmed black man.  Judy Woodruff of the PBS News Hour interviewed Trevor Fuller of the Mecklenburg Board of County Commissioners just days after the shooting.  You can read the entire interview by clicking here.
 
In the interview, Fuller called for a continued process of engagement to make systematic changes in Charlotte.  When asked by Woodruff how to make these systemic changes, Fuller responded: 
 
“Well, the answer is first we have to regain calm.  We have to regain security.  Because my view is when emotions are high, intelligence is low.  And so we’ve gotta get our community in a place of safety so that we can have these conversations that we need to have.  Conversations about who shares in economic prosperity.  Difficult conversations about race.  But it’s very difficult to have those conversations when people do not feel safe.  So we first have to establish safety, and then we not only have to have the dialogue but also have a plan of action and execute on it.”
 
Dr. Murray Bowen also connected the two systems of emotions and intellect.  Bowen described it as the interplay between anxiety and thinking.  When anxiety goes up, thinking goes down.  When thinking goes up, anxiety and reactivity go down.  When individuals engage their thinking, there is both an internal benefit with the downregulating of the fight, flight, or freeze response, and there is an external benefit with a lowering of the level of reactivity in the relationship system.  Problems are solved, not through the intentional or unintentionally raising of anxiety but in thoughtful engagement.  But this is not how most organizations are trying to create social change.  They assume that only through social pressure can there be viable change.  So if the goal is to raise us up to our better natures and best selves, then what makes for good, honest dialogue and negotiations?  Is it social pressure or is it something else?  Social pressure does lead to short-term solutions, but does it lead to long-term problem solving?
 
How does one represent their best thinking about an issue without participating in the reactivity that leads to automatic retaliation? How does one know when their focus is on the reactivity of others and not on the issues?  It is possible to get lost in reacting to the behavior of others to the extent that protest is more about blaming and getting even than about solving problems? Dr. Bowen talked about the importance of process over content.  If you don’t have traction on knowing your own level of reactivity and what gets it going, you are simply spinning your wheels. 
 
I’m not suggesting that all protest is unnecessary or isn’t useful.  There are plenty of examples where protesting leads to change.  I am suggesting that when a protest takes away personal responsibility, only short term goals are achievable.  Long-term, sustained change occurs when people take responsibility for the way they behave in relationship to their families, congregations, communities, institutions, corporations, and governments.  As a society, we do a tremendous job telling people how to think and relate.  But where are the opportunities to engage people’s thinking and provide space for them to develop guiding principles and core beliefs?
 
Congregations are uniquely poised to do this important work if they can move beyond their own automatic ways of functioning.  Congregations are at their best when they encourage participants to present their thinking about an important issue without withdrawing from other people or attempting to debate, motivate, accuse, defend, or attack other’s position.
 
Congregations are well situated in communities to push for issues of mercy and justice:

1. Most congregations provide a set of beliefs that uphold human rights and concern for the welfare of others. 
2. Most congregations consist of networks of members who are also connected with influential people in their communities.  Sometimes the influential members of a community are members of a congregation.
3. Most congregations are still respected as a beacon of morality and have a voice of influence with politicians and community leaders.  People still listen to congregational leaders.
4. Most congregations teach some version of personal responsibility.

 
 
Becoming a more responsible self.
 
Whether we can overcome our current situation, with all of its violence, hatred, injustice, oppression, and greed will depend not on our ability to collectively organize but on the ability of individuals to be responsible for self. What do I mean by being responsible for self? 
 
Time and time again we have seen that politicians care about what their constituents tell them.  Constituents keep them in office.  The collective voice of individuals supersedes the collective voice of organizations and businesses.  When individuals speak up against the lobbying of corporations and interest groups, politicians go with their constituents.  Individual participation in the political process matters.  The problem is not corruption.  The problem is a lack of individual participation.  Corruption results from disengagement of constituents.  In oppressive, governmental systems, the same realities are at work, it’s just that more is at stake on both sides.  Whatever the case, when individuals are engaged, things change.
 
So are you a responsible citizen?

1. Do you contact your representatives (letters, emails, phone calls) regularly to share your voice on specific issues?
2. Do you know what issues are important to your representative? 
3. Do you pay attention to what legislation is coming forward at local, county, state, and federal levels?
4. Do you know the facts about your district?  Who is in your district and what are the issues? How does your community compare to other similar communities?  How are the weakest and most vulnerable in your community fairing?  What challenges do they face?
5. Who are the people in your district who are leading change?  How are you supporting their best efforts?

 
My hunch is that a key indicator to how one answers these questions has to do with how one relates to their family of origin.  I believe this could be easily researched.  Bowen described it as differentiation of self.  It’s about being a more responsible self when it comes to relating to the family.  So, let’s turn the questions above about the government into questions about the family:

1. Do you contact your family members regularly to share your thinking on specific issues?
2. Do you know what issues are important to other family members?
3. Do you pay attention to what other family members are trying to accomplish?
4. Do you know the facts about your family?  Where they live, their ages, how far they have gone in school, what they spend their time doing (working, raising children, retired), how their health is in general?
5. Who are the leaders in the family?  Who do you turn to when you need to connect with a good thinker?

 
Bowen would eventually connect the concepts of differentiation of self and the family emotional process with societal emotional process.  There is a connection between the way one addresses problems in the congregation (and the broader society) and the way one addresses problems in the family.  There is a connection in the level and kind of responsibility one takes in society, and the level and kind of responsibility one takes in the family. 
 
Defeating oppression and injustice may necessitate civil protest.  For there to be a long-term change, it cannot be done without differentiation of self.    Our way forward is on the road of more thinking and a reduction of anxiety as we consider solutions to the larger social problems we face.  Protesting will only get us so far.  Until we learn ways of engagement that are more thoughtful and less reactive, our capacity to function at higher levels will always fall short.  The place to begin is in one’s family, and working on being a more responsible self.

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.

In the previous two blogs, I addressed issues related to a change in clergy leadership.  Part one [click here] was about the tendency of both clergy and congregations to move too quickly into assessing the new situation.  Clergy do better in the transition when they take the necessary time to observe and understand the congregation.  Congregational leaders do better when they are not caught up in the early assessments voiced by other congregants.  It is important for congregations to spend time getting to know their clergy person.
 
Part two [click here] addressed what leaders can do during their first two years to establish good, working relationships.  If done well, this ground work can be a solid foundation from which congregational leaders (clergy and laity) can build an important partnership in ministry.  Being genuinely interested in the relationship system is key to being an effective leader in any organization. 
 
Part three is dedicated to developing core principles and goals for self. 
 
 
What is self?
 
The words “self” is part of a process that Dr. Murray Bowen called differentiation of self.  It has to do with being more of a self in one’s family but what is learned is transferable to leadership skills in the congregation. 
 
"The process includes experiences that promote new learning: becoming a better observer of reactivity in self and in the family system; containing and managing one’s own reactivity; defining operating principles for self in every area of life; acting on principles in the face of automatic reactions; and working to become more objective and thoughtful in relation to others and more responsible in one’s own life.  Steps towards differentiation include making and maintaining contact with every living family member, increasing factual knowledge about one’s family and family history, being present at intense and anxious times in the family, and actively interacting with family to develop relationships in which thinking is engaged.  The live learning in this process allows people to develop the ability to learn what they don’t already know and almost always involves an element of surprise, if not awe.”  Harrison, Bringing Systems Thinking to Life, page 77
 
 
Common ways leaders get stuck.
 
Leaders can get stuck in the flight, fight or freeze response in response to heightened levels of anxiety in the relationship system.  Leaders become stuck when they don’t want to rock the boat.  Their energy goes into keeping the congregation happy and making sure everything runs smoothly. Their focus is on avoiding problems instead of engaging them.  Other leaders become stuck when they rock the boat.  Their energy goes into attacking the perceived problem with little to no regard of the impact on the relationship system.  Then there are leaders who can’t decide whether to rock the boat or not rock the boat.  They don’t want to sacrifice calm or change and wish they could have both at the same time.  Their energy goes into coming up with plenty of good ideas but they can’t seem to put them into action.  These individuals freeze in the face of challenge.  This is as true for congregations as it is for leaders.
 
 
Anxiety is at work in all relationship systems.
 
I’m defining anxiety the way Dr. Bowen did when he developed his Bowen Family Systems Theory.  Bowen defined anxiety as an organism’s response to real or perceived threat which takes place at an emotional level. 
 
Dr. Bowen observed that as anxiety increased so too did what he described as the force for togetherness.  Anxiety is part of nature.  It is in all of us to some degree.  Whenever there is a rise in the anxiety in a relationship system, the emotional reaction for some people is to automatically come together.  There is no shortage today of communities living in fear.  As they face their fears, there is often a strong pull to come together; sometimes in productive ways, sometimes in destructive ways.  This pulling together of people in anxious times is a way to address the fear.  While this automatic process can be helpful, when it becomes too intense, it creates more problems than it solves.
 
 
When congregations become increasingly anxious, there is an effort to get everyone on the same page. 
 
Anxious congregations, like families, move towards thinking, feeling, and acting the same.  However, this pressure to think, feel and act the same creates more problems.  It can have a bifurcating effect.  In place of any thoughtful reflection on the problem, some will simply go along with others.  Likewise, in place of any thoughtful reflection, some will simply react to it and push back.  Lines of division become clearer as people actively take sides for or against.  This reality is so predictable, leaders often can accurately guess who will take what side.
 
At this point, leaders become stuck responding in more automatic ways as I described in part 1 and part 2.  They too can easily take sides on an issue, blame others in the congregation, avoid the conflict, or struggle to find their footing.  Some leaders may try to move forward by distancing from the conflict all together.  This is as much a reactive move as any other.
 

Good leaders pay attention to two competing life forces. 
 
The first life force that competes for our time and energy is what Bowen described as a force for “togetherness”.    It is a force for emotional closeness with others.  It can come from others but it can also be a demand we place on others.  This is what I explained earlier as the pressure to go along with the group.  Again, there are three basic responses.  We can advocate for going along, sometimes in ways we are unaware.  We can push back, resist and try to change others.  This can be overt or it can also be subtle in ways we are not aware.  We can also retreat, walk away, and declare that we are not going to participate in what the group is doing.
 
The second force is what Bowen described as individuality.  It is an inner drive or thinking that guides us in the face of a strong togetherness force.  It is what I described earlier as the self.  It is different than being selfish or independent.  Bowen’s genius is his idea that it is a connected, thinking self.  It is the ability to thoughtfully stay connected to important others while at the same time being more of a self.  Instead of going along with others, being a self means taking time to think and reflect.  Becoming more of a self requires interaction with others, particularly one’s own family.  This is a concept that requires more discussion and understanding.  You can read about it by going to this link.
 
 
It’s important to have a self-motivated project.
 
One of the things I found most helpful when working with a congregation, is to find a personal project to focus on.  The key is finding a project that does not require participation from others. It is something one is interested in, motivated by, and has a desire to work on. For my own effort, I scheduled specific time during the week to work on my project.  As I focus on the project, I made sure others things and other people did not interrupt my progress.
 
This is what Bowen had in mind; the ability of an individual to self regulate their own attention and effort, requiring less and less dependence on the functioning of others.  As one does this effort of defining a self, it’s important to pay attention to how others react.  Can you observe the shifts in the relationship system (both in the congregation and in one’s family) that happen as you work on this project?  Do other people, particularly in your family, get sick or does their functioning decline.  Does it go up?  More importantly, what happens to you?  What are the challenges you face in working on this project?  How does the reaction of others disrupt your ability to focus?  Bowen observed that as one worked on being more of a self, the system would respond in ways that moved towards more togetherness.  At first it was a change back response that he observed which would get more intense.  But if one is able to stay the course while staying connected to others, the relationship system will shift for the better.  Over time someone else will pick up the effort to change self.
 
 
Here are some steps in developing a project:

1. Identify a project that is important to you.  It does not have to be work related.
2. Find a project that would not necessitate having to go through an approval process with your congregational leaders or receive approval from family members.  It also means don’t remodel the church parlor all by yourself.  Find a hobby or activity that you can do by yourself.
3. Do not invite or accept help from others.
4. Monitor the challenges you face in this effort and any changes you observe in the relationship system.

 
We each play a part in the way a relationship system functions, whether it’s a congregational system or a family system.  Learning to regulate our own reactivity and responses in the system is an important step to taking more responsibility for one’s own functioning.  Having a project to focus on that does not lean on others is a step in the right direction to learning how to be a better leader. 
 
This effort is not about creating a separated self.  It’s about creating a connected self.  It is possible to work on your project and still stay in good, emotional contact with your congregation and family.  In fact, in my experience, focusing on something that is important to me improves my ability to relate to my congregation and to my family.
 
 
One final note about this series.
 
Some clergy and congregational leaders have found it helpful to have a coach during their transition.  An ideal coach would be someone who asks good questions and invites conversation about getting accurate about what is happening in the relationship system.  I like to think of a good coach as a thought partner; someone who is a good thinker and resource.  You can find out more information about the kind of coaching I offer in the “About” section of this website.

In my own experience, after four transitions, I place the timeline for establishing effective leadership at roughly 24 months. 
As part of my seminary training, I was blessed to serve two congregations in rural North Carolina.  People were not shy in reminding me that I was a “Yankee”.  The “Yankees” who did transplant into the communities I served shared with me their experience of taking ten years on average to shake the idea that they were an outsider. 
 
I think the same operational principles are involved with pastors moving from outsider to insider.  It doesn’t matter how big or small the congregation is.  And while it may not take 10 years to be accepted into a faith community, it does take time.  I put the timeline at 24 months.  I’ll outline what I think happens during these two years, but first let me define what I mean by establishing effective leadership. 
 
I don’t mean a leader is ineffective for the first 24 months nor do I mean that they can’t accomplish anything during this time.  What I do mean is a leader is at a disadvantage during the first two years in a congregation.
 
This disadvantage comes in two forms.  The first is a lack of appreciation and understanding of how a particular congregation functions.  There is enormous variation in how congregations function.  While I do think they are predictable in terms of their behavior, it takes time to understand these predictable patterns.
                                        
Second, it takes time to be considered a leader for the congregation.  The process of becoming part of the relationship system takes time.  Just like moving into a community or marrying into a family, it takes time for the community to connect at an emotional level.  It can have a positive effect or connection.  I’ve heard clergy refer to this as their second ordination experience.  There is the first ordination one receives by a bishop or denominational representative, but in each congregation there is a sort of second ordination; a confirmation by the congregation at an emotional level, that they have the authority to lead this group of people.  The second ordination is significant and most clergy can point to a moment in their tenure when they experienced it.
 
There is also the negative effect of this experience which is usually the time when a clergy person first hears criticism.  Depending on how the negative criticism is addressed, a supervisor, district superintendent, or regional officer may be contacted by members of the congregation.  They have reached a point at which they don’t like what they are experiencing in the relationship.  The connection has become negative.
                        
Just as congregations vary from place to place, there is wide variation among clergy.  Some navigate this process of transition more quickly than others.  Because of current realities, some congregations may present more challenges than others.  The level of anxiety within the congregation and in the clergy person will influence the amount of time it takes for clergy to become a leader in the relationship system of a congregation.
 
I’ve had good success in the first 24 months of ministry in about half of the congregations I’ve served.  However, even in those places where I was intentional about trying to push the timeline shorter by 12 months, we accomplished big changes in the first year, but it still took two years for me to appreciate and understand how the congregation functioned in predictable ways.
 
 
The most important thing any clergy person can do in their first 24 months is to become a good observer of the emotional process.
Clergy, in general, make the mistake of thinking they are there to “save” the congregation by providing answers to their problems.  If only the congregation would listen to them and do what they say, things would go much better.  The case I’m making is clergy can’t offer real solutions because they don’t understand their context.  This takes time.  What leads to problem solving is being a good observer.
 
The easiest way to develop a more observational approach to leadership during the first year is to ask good questions.  Asking good questions is a natural way to develop a one to one relationship.  It communicates a desire to be engaged in the life of others and a genuine interest in the well-being of the community.  At the same time, good questions encourage a more thoughtful and less reactive approach to leadership; something most people want, but struggle to maintain.
 
There are general questions clergy can ask when entering a congregation in an effort to gather facts of functioning about the congregation.  Think about how scientists observe groups of animals out in the wild.  What things do they observe? 
 
Who does what?
Who interacts with whom?
Who avoids whom?
What’s the history of the group?
Who is related?
Who makes decisions?
How are decisions made?
What scares the group?
Who takes the lead in identifying what’s scary?
How do they typically react?
What does play look like?
What are the shared values and rituals? 
                             
When people share comments with clergy about their likes and dislikes, there are questions to be asked.  Is this person expressing their own comments about likes or dislikes, or are they sharing the comments of others?  How many people are actually making these comments?  Is it “lots of people” or is it really only one or two?  Who are they?  Does the person reporting this information agree or disagree with the comments they are sharing with you?   What gets stirred up in you when you hear these comments?  Is this issue reflective of a historical problem in the congregation or is this something new?   
 
Remember that as a new person, at least for a year or so, you can claim your newness.  “I’m new here.  Help me understand how things work.”  Being new is a wonderful opportunity to ask all kinds of observational questions.  When individuals come forward to criticize or compliment your leadership, asking them to help you understand how this congregation functions can be a wonderful opportunity to learn about the congregation. 
 
If nothing else, it’s always appropriate to let people know you need to think about what they have said and you will get back to them about it.  This gives the leader time to reflect and think about the comment, observe how others are responding, and observe one’s internal responses to the comment before offering up a quick response.  Not responding at all will create more problems, but taking time to respond is always an option.
 
Congregational leaders also will do well to develop similar ways of addressing congregational concerns.  Changes in congregational leadership, especially with clergy, are always good opportunities to learn more about how the congregation functions as a whole.  There are many lessons to learn during a time of heightened anxiety at a time of change.  Taking a more observational position during this time will also help congregational leaders understand better the dynamics of their faith community.
 
Having predetermined responses to comments is one way to prepare oneself and reduce some of the anxiety that is present during times of change.  For example, after firing an employee it may be helpful to say something like, “I’m not able to talk about it because of rules of confidentiality.  Has this congregation ever fired someone before and how did that go?  Have you or a family member ever experienced firing someone or being fired?  What was that experience like?”  The purpose of such comments and questions is to help a leader move into a more observational view of the community and understanding of the person they are talking to.  The goal of being more observational is to help a leader move beyond seeing specific comments as coming from a particular person to seeing these comments as a reflection of the congregational and family systems that are active and present.
 
Depending on the leader and their level of functioning, there may be tendency to categorize comments from others into “friends or foe.”  A systems view of a congregation moves beyond the comments of the individual to seeing the comments as a product of the way the system functions.  A more observational view helps to make this reality clearer.  Moving beyond seeing comments as generated by an individual and seeing them as generated by the system will help one determined a better way forward as a leader.  At the same time, it helps a leader avoid falling into the pit of blame and taking sides which historically is the root of most congregational conflicts.
 
Finally, it’s important to remember what one is working on is defining a self.  In part 3, which will come out next week, I’ll define what I mean by defining a self.  It is a term that was introduced by Dr. Murray Bowen in his theory of human behavior.  I’ll also address one way that leaders can work on being more of a self in their congregations.  This is an effort of being clear about what one thinks.  Through the process of observing, leaders begin to develop thoughts about how the congregational system functions as well as thoughts about one’s own functioning.  It includes an openness to receiving new information and ideas.  Leaders can get stuck in taking a position like, “It’s my way or the highway.”  But this isn’t well defined thinking.  It’s a reaction to anxiety.  Mature and defined leadership is always open to new ideas and new ways of looking at a problem.  It doesn’t mean that a leader is a waffler, going back and forth on issues.  It simply means that, while a leader is clear for themselves, they are open to knowing what others think as well. 
 
It is also the ability to stay focused on what is important to the leader.  This means having well thought out plans on what one is trying to accomplish as a leader and then sticking to the plan.  The ability to define a self is what makes for a successful transition, all of which I’ll discuss next week in part three.

Moving Away from Assessment to Observation
 
A change in clergy leadership is an anxious time for both clergy and congregations.  There are many factors that contribute to the level of anxiety.  As clergy and congregational leaders try to assess one another early on, they may miss out on unique opportunities to build a long-term partnership for ministry.  Observing the levels of anxiety in others and in self, developing good relationship connection with individuals, and supporting a way forward that is based on core principles are all keys to laying the ground work for an effective tenure as pastor and congregational leader. 
 
I’ve served four congregations over a 22 year period.  Each time I entered a congregation, I had the opportunity to observe my own reactivity to anxiety and my own tendencies to move quickly into assessing others.  Having a theoretical understanding of relationship systems makes a difference when navigating the complex behaviors of an active and anxious congregation.  Core principles and beliefs provide a solid footing while one stands in a sea of emotional reactivity.  
 
This blog is for clergy and laity who are in the midst of a change in clergy leadership.  It provides a way of thinking about transition through a systems perspective, specifically Bowen Family Systems Theory.  I had initially planned on dedicating one blog to this topic.  However, given the length of the article, I made the decision to turn it into a series of three posts.  This is the first of three.
 
 
Neuroscientists tell us that when we walk down a sidewalk, jog down a road, or even walk through a store, when we encounter another human being, we quickly calculate whether this person is a friend or foe. 
 
Despite our Sunday School teachers’ best efforts to teach us to “love one another” there is a part of all of us that labels others.  Anyone who has ever participated in a capital campaign project or sat in on a trustees meeting knows we are just hardwired to assess who is cooperating with us and who is competing against us.  How many times have you experienced conflict and wondered, “Can’t we all sit on the same side of the table?”
 
Clergy and congregations begin their time together with a period of assessment.  Depending on how connected clergy are in a denomination, it is not uncommon for clergy to seek out information about the congregation they will be serving.  Clergy from the same region (such as a conference, synod, or diocese) often develop, over time, a narrative for each congregation.  This narrative describes the church’s health and vitality.  Denominational leaders also contribute to this narrative based on their own experiences.  The narrative, which is not free of bias, contributes to the overall assessment a clergy person develops prior to the first weekend in worship.  This assessment is also filtered through each clergy person’s sensitivity to anxiety and results in a perceptual framework of the congregation.  This perceptual framework is formed prior to any firsthand experience and personal observation.
 
It is also true that clergy develop a reputation over time which can center on effectiveness.  In a similar process, colleagues, denominational leadership and congregations all play a role in developing a narrative about clergy.  These narratives, which carry a level of assessment and bias, are also shared without firsthand knowledge which contributes to a perceptual view of a specific pastor that may or may not be accurate.  This narrative can make its way into the congregation prior to the arrival of the pastor.
 
Eventually, clergy and congregations have their first date – worship.  What follows is often described as a honeymoon period.  Any shortcomings, mistakes, or problems are not publicly acknowledged.  Instead, clergy and congregations enter into a period of quiet, ongoing assessment which either confirms or challenges the perceptual framework created by the narrative.  We’d like to think that our perceptions are always accurate, but, as I’ll explain in subsequent blogs, our perceptions are often filtered by our own sensitivities to anxiety.  During this process of assessment we create a list of likes and dislikes about others.  Because this is an emotional process, these likes and dislikes influence our ability to accurately assess.  Without knowing it, what we are actually assessing is how comfortable or uncomfortable we are with the behavior of others.  We are assessing our own level of anxiety based on our likes and dislikes of how others like or dislike us.  Before too long, we are reacting to the dislike we have of others who dislike us, who dislike us because of the way we dislike them, which began when we liked someone else that they disliked.
 
 
We all have natural reactions to anxiety. 
 
These reactions are automatic and often operate under the radar of our awareness.  The key to developing awareness is to become a better observer of human behavior.  Clergy, whether through their calling or training, tend to be excellent observers of human behavior. 
 
It’s helpful for clergy and congregational leaders to move from a mindset of assessment to a mindset of observation, curiosity, and discovery.  Congregational leaders, who have a long term relationship with people in the congregation, develop their own sensitivities to others.  Different people receive different reactions based on these sensitivities.  When a dislike about the pastor is voiced to a congregational leader, their reaction may vary depending on who is voicing the concern.  In addition, certain individuals can ease the minds of congregational leaders by giving a “thumbs up” for the new pastor.  These leaders may be unaware of how the expressed likes and dislikes of certain individuals in the congregation are influencing their level of anxiety and internal discomfort.  Moving out of a mindset of assessment and into a mindset of observation helps one become more aware of these tendencies.
 
Clergy can also get caught up in the emotional processes already at play in a congregation.  As an outsider to the relationship system of a congregation, there is a strong automatic pull to move towards an insider position.  Each person varies in the intensity of the pull to be more connected to the congregation.  Some clergy are more sensitive to the upsetness of a congregation or, more accurately, the upsetness of specific individuals, which then influences the way a clergy person will operate.  As one assesses the expressed likes and dislikes of the congregation, they can feel compelled to resolve whatever feelings of discomfort may surface in others and in self. 
 
 
This is the process known as triangles in a relationship system. 
 
Dr. Murray Bowen developed the concept of the relationship triangle based on his research with families who had a schizophrenic member.  A basic triangle is between three people where two people are in the inside position and a third person is in the outside position.  He observed how tensions could shift between family members in the basic triangle between mother, child, and father.  For Bowen, triangles were the building blocks of the emotional system.  You can read more about his concept of the triangle by clicking here.
 
According to Bowen, when things are calm, the optimal position in the relationship triangle is to be one of the two insiders.  The least desirable position is in the third, outside position.  When anxiety is higher and individuals are more reactive, the outside position is more desirable with the two insiders experiencing the intense anxiety.  In reaction to rising levels of anxiety, there is an active, fluid movement of moving towards or away from others in the triangle; it is an effort to determine who the two insiders are and who the outsider is.  When the anxiety of the triangle becomes more than what the three can manage, interlocking triangles form.  Interlocking triangles exist in all congregations and are active corollary to the level of anxiety in the system.
 
Clergy and congregational leaders are in a better position to lead when they move into the outside position of the congregational triangles.  To do this, one needs to get out of an assessment mindset and into a framework of observation.  Like any researcher, the most effective observers are those who are outside of the processes they are observing while also highly engaged and connected to what is going on around them.  Effective leadership requires the ability to observe accurately what is happening in the relationships system but not be determined by it. 
 
One of the key mistakes clergy and congregational leaders make in trying to solve a problem is to assess it without first understanding the underlying processes.  Automatic responses to anxiety lead to problem solving that perpetuates and sometimes exasperates the underlying relationship problems.  Thoughtful reflection on the problem based on observing how the relationship system functions is a much better guide to determining strategies for addressing congregational problems. 
 
The next step is to learn to be a good observer, which I will address next week in part 2.