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

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?

Earlier this year, Bill Hybels, the founding pastor of the megachurch Willow Creek in South Barrington, IL, resigned ahead of his planned retirement.  The early departure was in response to allegations of sexual misconduct.  Earlier this month, it was reported that Willow Creek Church settled a separate case of sexual abuse for $3.2 million after a volunteer sexually assaulted two disabled children.  And then last week, a grand jury released its findings that over 1000 children were sexually abused by over 300 priests in six Roman Catholic dioceses in Pennsylvania. 
 
These revelations are difficult to read.  All of it is unacceptable at an individual and institutional level.  I struggled this week reconciling my feelings of outrage and frustration with my beliefs and the facts of human behavior.  This blog represents my effort to “think” about the problem of sexual abuse.
 
It’s difficult to engage one’s thinking about an emotionally “charged” problem when people use words like “shocked,” “ashamed” and “disgusted.”  Even the effort to articulate an emotionally neutral understanding of this behavior is dismissed as dispassionate.  We are right to hold individuals and institutions accountable for abuse.  But is there a better way to respond besides blame and disgust?
 
Dr. Murray Bowen developed a concept of emotional neutrality that focused on seeing the world as it is, not how one might wish for it to be.  Dr. Michael Kerr wrote that emotional neutrality, “is broadened each time a human being can view the world more as it is than as he wishes, fears, or imagines it to be” (Family Evaluation, 111).  So, what can we view about human behavior?
 
The assumption in Bowen Theory is that human behavior is both automatic and reactive.  While we like to think that all behavior is intentional, we can get stuck reacting to others.  How we feel, think and act is in response to the feeling, thinking and action of others.  Even our thoughts can be reactive to our feelings.  Bowen described this as fusion.  The level of fusion in a family is passed down from generation to generation through a multigenerational transmission process.  This is the way a family learns to manage anxiety.
 
Anxiety drives the process.  We carry around a specific level of chronic anxiety that mirrors the level in our family.  The level of anxiety impacts the level of functioning.  The higher the anxiety, the lower the level of functioning and vice versa.  Fluctuations in anxiety are in response to the family’s response to a challenge.  As anxiety rises, human behavior becomes automatic.  One example of this is alcoholism.  As anxiety goes up, one reaches for a drink as the functional level declines.  But few alcoholics drink 24/7/365.  “Functional alcoholics” fluctuate between drinking moderately and drinking excessively.  Variation in functioning occurs in the context of the family in real time.  Bowen describes this variation in his scale of differentiation.
 
Addressing the problem of sexual abuse is complicated.  Each person plays a part in the level of anxiety in the family and therefore the functional level of each person.  Most people can improve their functional level by regulating their anxiety and reactivity.  Leaders work at containing their anxiety and being responsible for their behavior.  Being more responsible requires an ability to see what is.  Bowen outlined these ideas in his concept of differentiation of self.
 
It is time for us to change the way we address sexual abuse based on an understanding of differentiation.  Our training, resources, policies and procedures need to reflect human behavior as it is, not how we wish, fear or imagine it to be.  Congregational leaders can take the lead by having more open communication about the problem and wade into what may be difficult waters.  The best place for a leader to start is in conversation with one’s family.  We have finally arrived at the real challenge and opportunity.
 
It is far easier to point the finger at the inability of others to manage their behavior while at the same time excuse our behavior.  It is easier to be disgusted by the sexual abuse of others and not understand how we are all on the same continuum of human functioning.  It is easier, and frankly feels better, to be outraged at the problems of the institutional church then it is to commit to making changes for self in relationship to important others.  If you want to address bad behavior in the congregation, then it is best to start with oneself, one's relationship with the family and one's relationship with the congregation.  Differentiation of self is the place to begin.

Abuse of any kind destroys efforts to build community.  The abuse of a child, sexual abuse between adults, violent actions or the misuse of money can be devastating to a congregation.  Some congregations do not survive the bad behavior of one or two people. 
 
Bill Hybels, of Willow Creek Church, has been accused of sexual misconduct by several women, which he denies.  The New York Times just published a piece about one of the women, Pat Baranowski.  Time will tell if and how Willow Creek will survive the revelation of Mr. Hybel’s bad behavior. 
 
Many factors contribute to the sustainability of a congregation after they experience abuse and violence.  I’ve written several blogs about understanding bad behavior in the context of congregations and families:
 
Bad Behavior
How Changing Your Behavior is Like Using The Accelerator and Brake
Change Your Life in Less Than A Second
Violence In Society
Angels and Devils
 
Robert Sapolsky, in his latest book Behave, explores the systems that influence behavior.  He traces behavior back to days, weeks, months and even years before it occurred.  What may have happened in an instant has been in the works for multiple generations.
 
Dr. Murray Bowen discovered a connection between chronic levels of anxiety in the family and automatic behavior.  The higher the level of chronic anxiety in a family system, the more likely the behavior of individuals in a family will be automatic and predictable.  The specific nature of the behavior depends on patterns in the family – the way anxiety is managed in the family over several generations.  These patterns fall along a continuum of human functioning.  Bowen described it in his scale of differentiation. 
 
In the Gospel of John, there is a story of a woman caught in adultery.  She is surrounded by a crowd ready to stone her.  Jesus kneels next to the woman and basically says to the crowd, “If you have never broken the law, throw your stone.”  Placing human behavior on a common continuum of functioning disrupts automatic patterns of blame and punishment and provides avenues for the restoration of individuals and relationships.
 
In my series on #koinonia, building community, I make the case that efforts to create safer communities by excluding people based on behavior is antithetical to building community.  Welcoming, accepting and including individuals in responsible ways create safer and healthier communities.  Christians refer to this as the work of the Holy Spirit who heals, transforms and makes people whole through the church (the gathered community).
 
Many congregations are advocating for legislation like The Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act of 2017.  It is a bipartisan bill that advances the need for reforms in reentry provisions and sentencing.  It addresses mandatory minimums, three strike laws with life sentences and looks at laws that target vulnerable communities.  Restorative justice, not retribution, makes communities safer and healthier.  Individuals do better not when they are isolated because of the behavior but when a community responsibly engages the person who is behaving badly.  It is the process of engagement within the context of a relationship system that individuals step up and do better.  What makes the difference?  It is differentiation of self. 
 
Congregations that move forward in the midst of abuse and violence are led by spiritually mature persons.  A spiritually mature person is one who works on being clear about their beliefs, discerns a life direction based on an understanding of call and is responsible for ongoing participation in religious practices.  It is someone working on differentiation of self.  People do better in congregations that, instead of requiring blind obedience or obligatory participation, focus on supporting individuals to self-regulate their personal expression of religious faith. 
 
A focus on being responsible for self, including the self-regulation of behavior, requires the engagement of the prefrontal cortex and other brain systems.  These thinking systems disrupt the automatic patterns of behavior that are shaped by a multigenerational transmission process. 

​Congregations are not hopeless in the face of bad behavior (abuse, violence, theft, etc.) but can move forward based on principles and good thinking.  Clergy and congregational leaders can lead the way as they work on differentiation of self in their families. 

Following the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School where 19-year-old Nikolas Cruz killed seventeen people and wounded seventeen more, I found myself in a conversation (really a debate) with a gun rights advocate.  I’m grateful for the conversation because it helped clarify my thinking about gun violence and violence in general. 
 
In response to the Las Vegas shooting on October 1, 2017, when 64-year-old Stephen Paddock opened fire on a crowd of concertgoers killing 58 people and wounding 851, I started to write a blog post to clarify my thinking about gun violence.  I ended up deleting it.  At the time, I was struggling to articulate my understanding of how humans become violent. 
 
I’ve written other blogs about violence in society: Understanding Violence, Reacting to a Racist Family Member, Can Understanding the Family and Chronic Anxiety Make for Better Policing?, and Fear and the Criminal Justice System.  With this post, I’m a little clearer in my thinking, but I’ll let you be the judge of it (you can comment below).
 
Guns have become a polarizing issue in the United States.  The debate teeters between the rights of individuals and the rights of society.  To what extent can a community negate individual rights?  Or do individual rights superseded (can’t use the word trump anymore) the rights of a population?  Whose rights create better outcomes for society?  One says, “The government does not have the right to take away my guns!  Individual rights protect a democracy.”  Another says,  “Guns are dangerous to society!  Individuals do not have the right to possess them.  Guns are not good for society.”    
 
An interesting development in the debate is the shift to mental health.  Gun rights advocates make the point, “Clearly, anyone who would kill a group of kids is not ‘normal.’”  Whatever normal means.  This focus on pathology and an effort to identify individuals who are potentially dangerous is an effort to sway societal rights advocate away from a focus on guns towards mental illness.  The shift in focus to pathology has gained minimal traction and for a good reason.  The focus on pathology in the mental health field is not working.  People know it, although perhaps not at a conscious level yet.  Bowen Family Systems Theory provides a different way to think about the problem.  It begins with a focus on relationship systems and emotional process.
 
People are becoming increasingly isolated.  Neighbors no longer know their neighbors.  Families no longer work together to solve neighborhood problems.  As a child, I remember an episode where an older teenage boy in our neighborhood intentionally damaged personal property. The families involved got together to address and correct the behavior.  Today, neighborhood problems are passed on to police, the courts, schools, community organizations, health departments, municipalities, and the press.   When neighbors are less isolated and work together, they rely less on institutions for help.  They can solve their problems. 
 
Instead of resourcing families and neighborhoods, institutions have perpetuated problems.  The closer an institution gets to a problem, the more they encounter the intense anxiety in the family.  As institutions absorb the anxiety, it spreads throughout the organization and is handed back to families and neighborhoods at an equal or higher level of reactivity.  For example, police departments, experiencing pressure from community leaders to do better, blame other community stakeholders for not doing their part in solving community problems.  Schools, dealing with an increase in problematic behavior, push back and blame families who are not being held accountable for the behavior of their children.  Families who take a helpless position will demand that their school do better in addressing the problematic behavior.  Back and forth goes the reactivity like a hot potato.  Each is blaming the other for not doing more to address the problem. 
 
When people blame others and are reactive, it indicates a high level of distancing and cutoff.  As anxiety goes up and tension increases in the relationship system, if an effort to change the other does not work (which it rarely does) people will do the opposite which is to distance and cutoff.  This movement exasperates the original problem as leaders are no longer in good emotional contact to problem solve, adapt and work on being flexible.  Isolation is a problem because it reduces access to resources and good thinkers in a community.
 
Not much is known about the family of Nikolas Cruz.  We do know that both of his adoptive parents died.  His father died when he was little, and his mother died three months before the shooting (the blog photo is of mother and Nikolas).  Reports indicate that the mother struggled for years to address Mr. Cruz's behavior.  We do know that after the adoptive mother's death, Mr. Cruz had difficulty deciding on where to live, bouncing between family and friends.  Bowen Theory indicates that behavioral problems, like the ones displayed by Mr. Cruz, would be related to the level of cutoff and isolation in the family (particularly for Mr. Cruz), the level of chronic anxiety in the family and the current challenges being presented to the family (like the death of a family member).  But whether any of this applies to Mr. Cruz specifically is purely speculation at this point. 
 
Researchers like Steve Cole, John Capitanio, John Cacioppo and Stephen Suomi have studied the effects of isolation on humans.  Their research has pioneered a new way of thinking about behavior.  Under chronic levels of stress, the bodies inflammatory response system remains elevated.  Researchers have shown a connection between a heightened level of stress, increased levels of inflammation and physical and psychological challenges present in the human body.  Physical challenges, like colds, diseases, and cardiovascular problems, are connected to elevated levels of inflammation which is a result of experienced isolation.  Psychological challenges, like anxiety disorders, depression, aggressive actions, substance abuse and PTSD, are also related to chronic levels of inflammation and the experience of isolation.
 
What remains to be seen is how committing a violent act is connected to higher levels of inflammation.  If this is the case, then the perception (or reality) of being isolate would play a significant role in making one vulnerable to committing acts of violence.  Killing self or others is the ultimate form of isolation and cutoff. 
 
This makes sense when one considers the fact that higher levels of tension in the family results in distancing and cutoff.  When chronic anxiety in the family remains elevated over time, the relationship between parent and child is difficult to manage as each tries to offload the anxiety to the other by blaming them for problems in the family.  When tension in the relationship system moves beyond the ability of the family to access available resources, someone will get hurt (violence), or someone may leave (cutoff) or both.  This family pattern of distancing and cutoff remains in place and is replicated in subsequent relationships. 
 
There are factors that influence cutoff in the family that come from outside of the family.  Increases in population, a decrease in resources, worry about the planet, national and international tensions and other societal pressures raise the level of anxiety in the family, particularly those facing significant challenges. 
 
How can institutions, like the church, take a more responsible position in resourcing individuals and families who are overwhelmed?  What opportunities are available to strengthen families and encourage them to take a more active leadership role in addressing family problems?  How might institutional leaders function differently to be more responsible for their part of the problem?  How might connecting families in neighborhoods help strengthen individual families and their efforts to do better?

​What questions or solutions come to your mind?

All experiences are technically memories.  Your phone rings.  You hear it but only a millisecond or two after it rings. That’s the amount of time it takes for sound to travel through time and space to your ear and then travel from your ear to your brain.  Don’t forget it takes time for the brain to identify the sound from memory or to label it as a new sound.  Either way, the interaction with my memory lets me know, “My cell phone is ringing.”  Just because this process is quick (the quickest of the senses) doesn’t mean it’s free from error.  In fact, our perceptions (a combination of senses and processed memory) can betray us.  This raises the question, “When you think you're right, how do you know when you’re wrong?”
 
Not a day goes by that I don’t run into this problem with perception.  I remember an event differently than someone else.  I heard something different than what was intended.  I clearly articulate a point that is not understood by someone else.  I interpreted someone’s actions inaccurately.  I know I'm not alone.  All humans struggle with perception.  
 
The challenge of seeing the world as it is, not how we want or wish it would be, is a humbling and confusing process.  Humbling in the sense that I’d like to think my perception of the world is always on point.  Confusing in the sense that if my perceptions are skewed, how then do I engage the world (and those who live in it)?  How do I know when my perceptions are accurate?  How often am I accurate?  Can I ever be confident that the way I perceive the world is accurate?  How do I know when I’m wrong if I think I’m always right?
 
 
Language
 
Language is a good example of how memory and perception alter reality.  Language is symbolic, so words mean different things to different people.  At a recent city hall meeting, a white alderman referred to the renewal date of a city policy as “sundown.”  In the African-American community, “sundown” is a reference to something completely different.  It refers to the discriminative practices of a local government to arrest and mistreat African-Americans who remain in “white” cities after sunset. 
 
Words matter.  So do efforts that clearly define the usage of a word.  Humans are social creatures and language is essential to collaboration.  What does it take to describe the world accurately?  What are the challenges of using language to describe reality accurately? 
 
 
Those Crazy “Flat-Earthers” And Other Scientific Matters
 
Before the time of Socrates, scientists have understood the earth to be round.  And yet, the flat earth theory lives on, even experiencing something of a resurgence.  The earth cannot be flat and round at the same time.  It is, however, possible to perceive it as either flat or round.   So, what is real?  If you are convinced the earth is round, how do you know you are right?  I, too, believe the earth is round.  But my point is this.  When you believe you're right about the natural world, how do you know when you're wrong?  You may think those flat-earthers are crazy but what’s different about them?  To what extent are you free of the perceptive problems inherent to all human experience? 
 
 
Issues of faith
 
While issues of faith are sacred, people of faith categorize beliefs into two categories: crazy beliefs and reasonable beliefs.  It’s easy for people of faith (and even those who have no religious affiliation) to point the finger at the Jonestown Massacre and declare that their faith was misplaced.  Even, perhaps, crazy.  However, we all profess faith in something.  Granted, a “reasonable” faith (whatever that is) may not ask you to follow blindly into death.  But many faiths require the faithful to make a sacrifice.  What makes one faith expression right and another wrong?  How do you know that your faith holds the “truth” and  others do not?  When you know you are right about the way you see the world, how do you know when you are wrong?
 
And it’s not just an issue between faith communities.  Within communities, denominations, etc., people disagree about interpretation and the requirements for faithful participation.  When you believe your interpretation and practice are right, how do you know when you get it wrong?
 
 
The Force For Togetherness
 
Facts can get washed away in the sea of emotional process.  My desire to be connected with other important people and to participate in a meaningful relationship system can skew my ability to experience reality accurately.  Dr. Murray Bowen had an amazing way of articulating how our thinking system can be overridden by our feeling system.  In this way, the need to agree (to be fused together) outweighs the need to be accurate.  It can work the opposite way as well.  People who are too close will disagree about what’s real to create distance between them.  It is less about being accurate and more about managing the anxiety in self and in the relationship system.
 
The emotional process is driven by fear.  One-way the relationship system addresses a perceived fear is through a strongly articulated position that demands compliance by others.  You are either with us or against us.  We are right, and they are wrong.  They are the devil, and we hold the truth from God.  Horrible things have happened in the name of religion and science in response to perceived fears.  War, research and public policy that made sense at the time was based on inaccurate perceptions.  Again, when you know you're right, how do you know when you're wrong?
 
So, how do we align perception with reality?  It’s a process.  One that takes time, often years.  It is what Dr. Bowen called an effort towards differentiation of self.  It's the ability to see what “is” while staying connected to meaningful others.  For me, I’m clear about a couple of things.  You can call them beliefs and core principles.  I base my actions on them.  When I’m afraid or am surrounded by people who are afraid, these beliefs and principles guide me.  It may not be much, but it helps me get through the day. 

​How well do you pay attention?  Remember the grade school report cards?  When I was in elementary school, we were graded on whether or not we made good use of our time, or how well we pay attention in class?  It's not just kids who have problems paying attention.  Adults struggle, too.
 
Our amazing brains process sensory inputs automatically.  Most of these inputs are processed without conscious awareness.  The human depends on the nervous system to react automatically to the environment, especially a threat.  If the human consciously processed all sensory inputs before it acted, our species would be extinct.  This is the human condition.  It’s more than just having awareness. 
 
Some clergy can get themselves into serious trouble.  When clergy behave inappropriately it’s a problem for supervisors, and it can have a lasting impact on a congregation.  I used to believe that clergy (who got into trouble) lacked awareness.  Awareness is what boards of ordained ministry look for in candidates.  Some people are oblivious to the impact they are having on others, and the impact others are having on them.  But, it is not simply an issue of having awareness.
 
It is possible to “watch” (aka: have an awareness of) what is happening around oneself and still do what is automatic.  In a congregational meeting, one can be clear about what one wants to say but struggle to bring themselves to say it.  It can also be the case that one struggles not to say something that will be counterproductive to the meeting.  They say it anyway.  It's as if they cant help themselves.  Paying attention and acting in a way that is consistent with one’s awareness is a challenge.
 
Paying attention includes activities like observing, researching and thinking.  There is a process of observing.  It includes intentionality, motivation and curiosity.  It’s not in our nature to walk around every moment of every day observing the universe around us.  But when one is intentional, motivated and curious it can lead to agency and action.  
 
The greatest obstacle to the process of paying attention is the fear response.  I’m sitting in a coffee shop trying to pay attention as I write this blog.  Around me are sounds of children laughing, music playing, people talking on their cell phones, and bursts of sounds from the espresso machine.  On some days, I can tune all of it out and focus on writing.  On other days, it’s almost impossible to . . . to . . . to . . . focus.  Then there are days when my attention is somewhere in the middle.  What makes the difference?  The activation and chronic level of the fear response, the levels of cortisol and other stress hormones released in the body and the bodies ability to down-regulate this process. 
 
What triggers the fear response, how sensitive the response is, how quickly the response is engaged, how intense the response is, how quickly the response returns to baseline (if at all) and how chronic the response remains are all variables that are influenced by one’s family of origin.  What we pay attention to and don’t pay attention to is a family systems process.  Not from the past but in the present!  It is happening now, in real time.
 
Attention is on a continuum of human functioning.  At one end of the continuum are those who pay little to no attention to the universe around them.  They are wrapped up in their own little world. At the other end are people who can get overly fixated on just about anything.  I lead a drum circle with children and youth in my congregation.  The key to playing in a drum circle is the ability to focus on playing a unique rhythm while at the same time playing in sync with the other drummers who are playing a different rhythm.  If one listens too much to everyone else, they lose track of their rhythm.  If one listens only to oneself, they will be out of sync with the group.  It’s a balance. 
 
Chronic anxiety can shift attention either away from others or towards others.  As anxiety goes up in the relationship system, some people automatically move their attention away from others.  Their level of discomfort moves them to disconnect and to shift their focus away to other things.  For some, an increase in anxiety moves their attention towards others to control the behavior of others.  In the former, we say “I’m out of here.  Get away from me.”  In the latter, we say, “Stop doing that.  Do this.”
 
Differentiation of self makes a difference for those who struggle with paying attention.  Differentiation of self is not about disengaging nor is it about becoming consumed with the behavior (irritating as it may seem) of others.  It is about being aware of the impulse to do either and then to catch oneself.  It’s a disruption of the automatic response in self.  At one level, it is watching one’s behavior knowing that it is the result of synaptic signaling in the brain.  At another level, it is watching the anxious "charge" that is passed between people in a relationship system and observing how it influences behavior.  It is separating feelings from thinking and knowing where one stops and others begin.
 
Learning to pay attention is about slowing down one’s internal reactivity to others and being more thoughtful in the interactions with others.  To this end, it may be useful to create a timeline of a specific interaction with someone important in the family.  The timeline consists of mapping out who says what, when, where and to whom while at the same time tracking behavior.  This exercise can be useful in understanding shifts in attention.  When one says “X,” the spouse does “Y.”  When the spouse does “Y,” one of the kids does “Z.”  And so on.  By slowing down the interactions and mapping them out, it is possible to observe how attention shifts away from and towards others.  It is a system, so X, Y and Z are influencing each other at the same time.  
 
For anyone willing to pay attention to how the family works, there is a treasure trove of understanding and opportunities available to even the most novice of voyagers.  The adventure awaits!

A member of the congregation is upset.  They are concerned about the finances of the congregation.  They go to the chair of the finance committee to request a detailed transaction report for the year.  You are the chair of the finance committee.  What do you do?
 
Transparency is a necessity.  Trust between a congregation and its leadership is essential.  Trust will quickly erode if there is a perception of secrecy or an accusation of mismanagement.  Even when a congregation is without conflict,  leaders can be reluctant to publish financial details.  So, what does transparency look like?
 
The first step in developing transparency is to adopt clear policies and procedures about the disclosure of financial details.  Having agreement on the following list is helpful:

1. What information will be available to the congregation?
2. How often will the information be provided to the congregation?
3. How will the information be distributed?
4. What information is considered confidential?
5. Who will have access to confidential information?
6. How will leadership respond to requests for information or general questions?
7. How will leadership keep the congregation informed of financial details?
8. How regularly will they be informed?

 
Without access to financial information, a congregation will fill in the gaps on their own.
​ 
Chronic anxiety is the perception of fear.  Without access to facts, we tend to worry about the “what ifs.”  Worry can feel real.  When people have access to facts they are in a better position to manage their worry.  To be transparent is to provide facts. 
 
Leaders may decide to withhold specific information to keep the congregation from worrying or because they fear the perceived response of the congregation.  But this assumes that the congregation doesn't have a clue about what's really going on.  In my experience, congregations are astute to perceiving anxiety in their leadership.  Humans have a way of communicating anxiety in subtle but detectable ways.  There is really no way to fool a relationship system.  People know when something is up. 

When members of a congregation sense the anxiety of leadership, it heightens their anxiety about the well-being of the congregation.  This back and forth, reciprocal process, results in an escalation of tension between leaders and members. The best way to address the problem is by communicating facts as they happen.  Prolonging bad news with the hope that people won’t know or find out is wishful thinking and it never ends well.
 
When leaders fear transparency, they often blame it on the congregation.  But it actually reveals the fear of the leaders.  Leaders are afraid to communicate details because they lack the capacity to confidently engage the anxiety of the congregation.  The fear response of the leader makes them more reluctant to be transparent which raises the level of fear of the congregation and increases the tension in the relationship system.  Leaders who are able to lean into the problems of an organization are able to find the solutions they need to move forward.  This is the work of differentiation of self. 
 
When leaders work on differentiation of self:

• Leaders manage their own anxiety.
• Leaders work with facts.
• Leaders declare their intention and commitment to resolve problems.
• Leaders think about the long-term goals of the organization.
• Leaders disrupt reactivity and a short-term focus.
• Leaders articulate a problem with facts, not emotional opinions.
• Leaders articulate what they are up against in solving a problem with facts, not feelings.
• Leaders anticipate the reactivity of others.
• Leaders listen to and respect the various opinions of others.
• Leaders step back to allow others to use their strengths and gifts.
• Leaders do not disengage or give up but continue to engage the congregation in conversations in order to solve a problem.
• Leaders readjust their thinking based on the responsible and fact-based feedback of others. 

Transparency is a relationship process.  It’s important for leaders, particularly clergy, to develop a one to one relationship with key members of the congregation.  A one to one relationship goes a long way in reducing tension in the relationship system.  
 
The best solutions for financial problems come not from leaders but from thinking congregations.  The test of any leader is the ability to share facts about a congregation’s finances without sharing their anxiety.  Problem-solving begins when leaders are willing to tone down their emotional intensity and reactivity to a problem.  When leaders lean into a problem, they discover that their congregation is a wealth of ideas and solutions.  When leaders give the congregation access to facts it goes a long way in helping a congregation solve whatever challenge they face.

 
I recently had a conversation with someone about self-regulation.  Self-regulation is the ability to control or adjust one’s functioning without depending on others.  One way to think about it is the capacity to regulate thoughts, feelings, and actions independent of others.  At infancy, bodily regulation is dependent on others, particularly the mother.  Fathers have some influence.  As we develop into adulthood, we decrease the dependency on others and increase the capacity to self-regulate.  No one ever makes it all the way!  We enter adulthood with a mix of both.  Dr. Murray Bowen developed this idea in his concept of differentiation of self.  You can read about it by clicking here.
 
The extent to which any one of us can self-regulate is connected to a couple of factors.  These factors include the capacity of the parents to self-regulate, the amount of tension in the family during a child’s development, the level of anxiety in the family, and the way previous generations managed tension and anxiety.  Adult children leave the family with more or less the same capacity to self-regulate as parents.  Some do a little bit better, some do a little bit worse.  But it’s roughly the same.
 
When adult children leave the family to start a new one, they hook up with someone who has a similar capacity to self-regulate.  Whatever dependency is leftover from the family of origin will be managed in this new relationship through a process of reciprocity.  For example, one spouse may be vulnerable to health problems while the other spouse is consistently healthy.  I had someone tell me, after the death of their spouse, that they were surprised to discover how their overall health had improved.  In the marriage, they were always sick, and the other was always healthy.  Now that the spouse was gone, their general health was improving. 
 
Individual models dominate most approaches to improving functioning.  People work at doing better as if it’s completely about them.  New Year’s is coming up.  Resolutions are usually about doing a better job of self-regulating.  “I’m going to lose weight.”  “I’m going to learn to play the cello.”  “I’m going to read more novels.”  These resolutions represent efforts to self-regulate behavior.  But without an understanding of the family emotional process, people generally fail in their individually focused efforts.  The challenges we face to regulate ourselves are remnants (the stuff leftover) from our childhood.  It represents our dependency on others to function.  The challenge is to finish the unfinished work of growing up. 
 
There is a natural developmental process of staying focused on what is important to self.  This process of staying focused is disrupted to a greater and lesser degree by the amount of tension and anxiety in the family.  As the level of anxiety in the family increases, the force of togetherness pulls individuals away from self-regulation towards the family which operates as one emotional unit.  It’s not unusually for people to miss this.  It’s automatic.  The phrase that best describes this process is learning to “catch yourself.”  It’s difficult to do, to be sure!  Most people can identify it happens after the fact.  So, how can we learn to catch ourselves earlier in the process?
 
Learning to catch oneself requires what I call the three C’s: clear, calm, and connected.  The first “C” is about being clear about how the family emotional process influences individual functioning.  Sometimes it’s simply an awareness that there is a process and then “seeing” it at work.  The second “C” is about staying calmer than everyone else in the family to observe the family emotional process and how it impacts each person in the family.  The third “C” is about getting connected with everyone in the family.  You can only observe this process if you are connected to everyone else.  
 
Beyond these three steps, there are no specific techniques.  It is a learn-as-you-go process.  A coach who is a good thinker can make a big difference.  Being curious, inquisitive, observational, interested, motivated, and organized can all contribute to this process of catching oneself, and lead one to doing a better job of self-regulating.  The effort to pay attention to one’s functioning while at the same time observing the functioning of others can lead to better self-regulation.  In my experience, as one works on observing the family emotional process, one can catch oneself sooner with practice.

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