I am taking a break from writing this blog.  I’m about to begin a four-month renewal leave from my congregation.  During this time, I hope to redirect my energy towards things that are renewing and important to me.  I’m grateful for this platform.  It has provided me space to imagine the applications of Bowen’s concept of differentiation of self.  I’m glad others have found it useful.  There is more than enough material here for ongoing thinking and reflection: thirty-four months’ worth of 117 blogs!
 
It is fitting to conclude this initial stretch of writing with a reflection on the ideal congregation.  I’m not suggesting that there is an ideal utopia of congregational life.  There is not.  Congregations like families are imperfect.  But they can thrive by being adaptive.  A recent visitor to my congregation, who had visited several other churches, stated, “I’ve decided to stay here at this church because I think this is about as good as it is going to get.”  Imagine this as a congregation’s tag line:  NAME OF CONGREGATION: As Good as It’s Going to Get!
 
There is a lot of talk about congregational decline and what to do about it.  Congregational development and redevelopment programs highlight small group ministries as a key to congregational vitality.  Seeing the congregation through the lens of Bowen Family Systems Theory has helped me understand how, far from group activities, it is the individual effort, expressed through differentiation of self, that can lead to a better functioning community. 
 
Here are some examples, although very brief, that reflect my thinking: 
 

• Individuals work to clarify their beliefs. 
• Individuals relate to others based on what is important to self (core principles, values and beliefs).
• Conversations with others are focused on self-discovery and what is important to self while at the same time being curious and interested in what others are discovering and working on. 
• Individuals work to clarify when and how they will volunteer and serve in the congregation and in the community while also being clear about when and how they will not. 

 
Congregational decline is reflective in the waning number of members, worship attendees and the inability of leaders to recruit motivated volunteers.  Regardless of the style of leadership, the challenges tend to be the same.  In declining congregations it is difficult to find motivated individuals who prioritize their effort to clarify core beliefs, values and principles.  Most people are simply not motivated to work on it.  Beliefs are understood as a private matter with little or no interaction with the thinking of others.  If beliefs are discussed with others, each may posture as if they are certain about their beliefs.  However, it is rare to find individuals who talk about their uncertainty or discuss what they are learning about their beliefs.  It is often the “feel-good” nature of the relationship system in the congregation that motivates people to attend even when the congregation is in decline.
 
 
So, what are some key ingredients of a thriving congregation?  These ideas represent some of my thinking about it. 
 

• Faith leaders meet annually with each person in the congregation to discuss the individual’s plan for formation and development.  What are individuals motivated to work on and what steps do they plan to take?

 

• Small groups become places for individuals to work on clarifying beliefs, core principles and values without being pressured to conform to one way of thinking.  It is not a place to debate if someone’s beliefs, core principles or values are right or wrong.  The focus of the small group is on developing individual clarification based on one’s best thinking.

 
The faith community may be the only institution that encourages individuals to be clear about beliefs.  Educational institutions come close with a focus on critical thinking and learning facts.  However, like religious or any other institution, they can become stuck in their institutional challenges.  There is a difference, however, between education and religious institutions.  The ability to articulate a belief includes the inherent challenge of holding a belief while being in relationship to other important people.  Anyone can be a critical thinker and remain cutoff from important others.  Within the norms of many faith communities are beliefs about maintaining relationships with important others even when we disagree.  How does one identify and make good use of beliefs (whatever they may be) when the going gets tough in the family or any relationship system?  Faith communities can do a better job of helping individuals answer this important question.

I live and work six blocks from the Henry Pratt Company in Aurora, IL.  On February 15th, Gary Martin killed five people and wounded five police officers after being fired from Henry Pratt.  At this time, not much is known about Mr. Martin.  I’ve written before about violence in society.  What I do know is that there is a connection between chronic anxiety in the family, one’s level of stress and violent behavior.  All of us tend to move towards others to take control or to distance when anxiety goes up.  In cases where there is violence, people move aggressively towards others when there is high levels of family intensity, significant cutoff among family members and a trigger of intense stress. 
 
 
The Force for Togetherness
 
After the shooting, and after the police presence had diminished, I walked down to my neighborhood grocery store. I needed a couple of items and I wanted to find out what people were learning.  The employees at the grocery store were eager to talk.  One woman talked about her experience.  She had just arrived to work.  She was home during the shooting.  She recalled that after she heard about the shooting, she had a deep desire to pick up her child from school.  Schools on the west side of Aurora were on a soft lock down which means that students could freely move throughout the building, but no one was allowed in or out of the school.  She lamented how she wanted to pick up her child even though she couldn’t.  Over the years I've observed that this desire, (particularly among mothers) to unite the family in times of danger, seems to be universal. 
 
 
Interlocking Triangles
 
Interlocking relationship triangles lit up for me as news of the shooting spread through my family and the community.  I was able to observe the movement of anxiety in the triangles between:

• myself and members of my family.
• myself, the congregation and the community.
• myself and organizations that care for children in the church building.
• myself and the clergy of all faiths in the community.
• myself, other clergy and officials in city government.
• myself, gun violence prevention groups, gun rights groups and the community.

 
In each of these triangles there was varying degrees of distance and cutoff.  Some triangles were more fused than others.  I observed variation in the way people managed their anxiety in the triangles and how some people depended on others in the triangle to manage their emotions and stress.  Some people were quick to point fingers.  Some people collapsed with feelings of hopeless or uselessness when confronted by others who were upset.  Some were steady. Some developed physical symptoms in the days that followed.  Some started to react more intensely to daily challenges. 
 
 
The Interconnectedness of Life
 
A shooting, like any traumatic event, reveals the interconnectedness of all of life.  Individuals, families, neighborhoods, institutions and the community-at-large are mutually influencing and interdependent on each other.  Each has an impact on the functioning of the other.  The nucleus of this process is the family.  The complexity grows, however, as one adds the natural world to the mix.
 
 
Questions to Consider
 
There is much to consider after a shooting like the one in Aurora, IL.  Asking good questions makes a difference.  What are good questions that help one understand violence in society?  How does one think about violence in the context of the family and the community?  If there is violence in one's family, how does one think about this from a systems perspective?  If one does not have evidence of violence in the family, how does one account for this?  

A good place to start is to develop questions about one's family.  Good questions can help one better understand one's family and help one develop the capacity to define a self in relationship with one's family.  Differentiation of self provides a way to both understand how there is violence in society and what one can do about it.

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

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

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. 

After the 2016 election, I observed a heightened level of conflict in the nation, my congregation and my family.  The week following the election, journalists reported on divided families preparing to gather for the holidays.  In January I  observed increased polarization in the congregation I serve.  It was difficult to talk with people whose politics were different.
 
In the early months of 2017, I started a project: a presentation on polarization using Bowen Theory as a theoretical approach.  The goal of the presentation was to present an emotionally neutral position that explored the underlying emotional processes for polarization.  I presented my thinking to community organizations.  The first version of the presentation was cutesy.  I thought cuteness would make talking about polarization less intense.  Over time, and as the presentation evolved, I moved away from cuteness and started to included scientific research and observations.
 
In each progression of the presentation, I concluded with differentiation of self.  People heard my explanation of differentiation as a technique.  What they heard was, “This is what you should do about polarization.  This is what you shouldn’t do about polarization.”  So, the improvements in the presentation were designed to move away from technique towards a focus on thinking.
 
In May of this year, I presented an updated version of the presentation at the 2nd International Conference of Bowen Theory in Hong Kong.  It represented the best version of my thinking after eighteen months of applying Bowen Theory to the process of polarization in the family, the congregation and society.  I liked the presentation.  But it was that night, after my presentation, that I finally got it!
 
That night, I had an “aha” moment.  It turned out to be an observation I knew better than anything I had presented in the afternoon.  It was the result of years of work on differentiation in my family of origin.  It’s a curious thing, the way the mind works.  I never considered including this observation in the presentation. 
 
Bowen Theory teaches that when anxiety goes up and reaches a certain threshold (which varies from person to person and family to family) anxiety generates reactivity.  Humans have two primary ways of reacting to anxiety.  One way is to move towards another in an effort to calm down oneself and others.  If your spouse is upset about the behavior of a child, you move towards the spouse or the child to calm down the relationship system.  Another way we react is to distance.  If your sister is yelling at you about what you said to her child, instead of engaging her about the problem, you walk away.  In some cases, people walk away for good.
 
Bowen referred to anxiety as an electrical jolt.  As one receives the anxious “jolt” one reacts automatically by either moving towards the other or by distancing.  Part of the process of differentiation of self is learning to self-regulate and manage one’s automatic responses to the “jolt.” 
 
That night in Hong Kong, I started thinking about the jolt.   I've always thought about it as an issue of time.  Seconds, really.  When I receive a jolt of anxiety, I absorb it.  I don’t react.  I don’t pass it along.  I let the energy diminish.  It takes a few seconds.  Then I work to engage thinking.  I’ve observed that if I can experience the jolt without reacting, and then if I can "hang" with the other person for a moment (a matter of seconds, sometimes a few minutes as they do their jolting thing) on the other side of the experience are opportunities for thinking, differentiation and moving forward in the relationship system.
 
What I realized that night in Hong Kong is that this idea has implications for understanding polarization.  The connection I made was how my reactivity to anxiety (either by reactively moving towards others or reactively distancing) contributes to the process of polarization in the family, the congregation and the nation.  To the extent I can manage myself in the face of the jolt, I do not contribute to the polarization.  Instead, differentiation provides an alternative way of responding.
 
This revelation came to me, not by thinking about a polarized nation or society and not by thinking about polarization in the church.  It came to me as I was thinking about the family.  And it is in the family that one can practice and work on differentiation. 
 
Dr. Bowen identified differentiation in the Prayer of St. Frances of Assisi.  I also think the prayer offers an alternative way of responding to the process of polarization.  I’ve included it here for your consideration:
 
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.

I titled this series "Koinonia" in an effort to connect with the forces that have built thriving communities of faith for generations.  Because I’m also preaching this series, I hope it motivates my little (but powerful) band of Methodist who partner with me in ministry to also be in touch with the forces of koinonia.  By writing these blog posts I have one last opportunity to think about koinonia.  But my aspirations end here.  So, imagine my surprise to learn that Karthik Nemmani, an eighth-grader from Mckinney, Texas, won the Scripps National Spelling Bee last month with the word “koinonia.”  The whole country has been talking about koinonia.  How marvelous!
 
What happened to the forces of koinonia?  Where have they gone?  I was driving through a modern section of my community and noticed the church buildings.  By modern, I mean developed after the 1960’s.  I drive this stretch all the time, but this time I noticed something different.  I counted four church buildings within a one mile stretch of a busy road.  The churches consisted of a single building on four to five acres of land.  The land was purchased, and the building was completed.  Phase one.  Given the size of the property, these congregations had hopes and dreams of completing a phase two and a phase three.  As I drove by these congregations, it occurred to me, congregations in the US have been in decline for at least 50 years. 
 
I served a church like this.  It was located on a nice piece of property on a major road in a growing and thriving community.  The congregation completed phase one.  But they were unable to complete phase two and three.  The community still worships in phase one. 
 
I’m not advocating for a large church model or congregations with a large campus.  There are pluses and minuses to any church size.  I’m interested in understanding the factors that contribute to thriving congregations and developing a working definition of “community” that empowers local congregations to be all that God wants them to be!  What has happened to koinonia?  Let’s start with a definition.
 
We are talking about humans forming community, so let’s start with a definition of what it means to be human.  In a recent blog post, 4 Human Characteristics That May Help Your Congregation Grow, I highlight a definition I discovered at a Smithsonian exhibit on modern humans.  The exhibit defined modern humans in four ways:  Modern humans share resources, gather at the hearth, take more time to grow, and build social networks.  Based on these four distinct qualities of modern humans, what is a viable definition of community?
 
Today, community is defined by family, church, friends, geographical boundaries, race, religion and culture.  When the writer of the Book of Acts described the koinonia of the first church, they didn’t describe it with boundaries or ideologies.  Instead, they used a different concept: generosity.   They wrote it this way, “Every day, they met together in the temple and ate in their homes. They shared food with gladness and simplicity” (Acts 2:46).  Is this similar to the Smithsonian’s definition which states that modern humans share resources?
 
What then is meant by resources?  For thousands of years, it meant that humans shared tools and food.  We no longer share these things.  We sell and buy them.  What do we share today that contributes to the building of community?  How does the activity of sharing function to build community?
 
If you were to write down a definition of community, what would it say?  How do you define community?  Who is included in your definition?  Is anyone excluded?  What role do resources play in shaping community?  What practices help to form community?  What is your definition?
 
I’m interested in your working definition of community.  Please include your working definition in the comment section below or on social media.  Be sure to use #koinonia on social media platforms.  I look forward to reading how you define koinonia and community.

We live by laws, policies and procedures.  The Torah contains the Mosaic Laws given to help the new community of Israel live in harmony with one another and with God.  Laws are helpful in creating a just and fair society. 
 
Some laws are harmful.  Drug laws and sentencing guidelines have resulted in prisons filling up with nonviolent drug offenders who are serving long sentences.  So, what happens when laws have a real human cost?
 
Institutions are created to care for a specific need within a community.  They are mandated to carry out the law and to follow specific rules.  But sometimes laws are unjust and people suffer.  It is difficult to change an unjust law because institutional needs overshadow human needs. In the New Testament, Jesus said, “You have heard it said an eye for an eye . . .”  He was referring to an institutional need – a law.  He went on to say, “But I say to you . . . love your enemies . . .”  He shifts the focus to the human need.
 
Sometimes institutions are the best option.  Sometimes they do the most good for the most amount of people.  But institutions also have needs.  Institutions need volunteers who are willing to offer services or money.  For example, universities need paying students.  Police need volunteers to report crimes and be witnesses.  Not-for-profits need people power to function.  These are institutional needs.
 
As a particular need arises in a community, initially people (neighbors, volunteers, community leaders, etc.) step up to meet the need.  If the need can be met, then the neighborhood approach continues.  However, if the need increases and people become increasingly uncomfortable, community leaders will be pressured to create a solution.  The solution becomes a new institution.  The institution is an organizational response to a need which is governed by laws and rules.  So, what started out as a neighborhood approach to a need has shifted to an impersonal, institutional response.  If the need continues to rise, tension within the community will increase.  The community will look to the institution to find additional ways to solve the problem.  Institutions are sensitive to the growing tension and discomfort of the community. 
 
In general, human beings are sensitive to the level of comfort and tension in a relationship system.  A relationship system can be a family, a congregation, a neighborhood, a company, a community, a state or nation.  When times are calm, members of the system maintain a comfortable closeness and distance, finding balance between the two.  When anxiety increases in the relationship system (like a community, for example) leaders will move closer to the community to calm people down.   But this closeness can quickly be replaced by distance as anxiety and tension increase in the system.  Those who are prone to distancing, in response to an increase in tension, will eventually cutoff from the system if the anxiety becomes too hot to handle.  As people cutoff, anxiety is contained within a smaller number of people (the relationship system becomes smaller).  Research has shown that people who are isolated (cutoff) have an increased risk of physical, psychological, and behavioral problems.  With fewer resources available, individuals who are cutoff from the system are more likely to rely on institutions to manage their level of comfort and tension.
 
The denomination that ordained me, the United Methodist Church, is facing a possible split in February.  Since 1972, the denomination has debated rules that were put in place to prohibit the full inclusion of the LGBTQ community.  The debate and tension within the denomination mirrored the broader society.  Every four years that the institution gathered to do its work, it became increasingly more difficult for people who think differently about gender identity and sexual orientation to dialogue and respect one another's position.
 
As result of the increased anxiety (anxiety both within individuals and tension between people in the system), individuals and groups have turned to the institution to resolve the tension.  The institutional response to this pressure was to enact more rules.  As the LGBTQ community gained broader acceptance in society, those who were uncomfortable with the shift turned to the institution to enforce the rules.  This is an example of the continued prioritization of institutional needs over human needs.  
 
The prohibition in the denomination’s Book of Discipleship is harming people.  In response, the institution became unable to enforce the rules or address the human need.  The institution is stuck.  Any attempt to bring people together has had minimal success.  In response, quasi-institutions have sprung up to support or challenge the institution’s rules or lack of enforcement. 
 
As the tension escalates, so does the focus on the institution to resolve the problem.  There is pressure on the institution to remove individuals who disobey the rules or to remove the rules altogether.  The human need within the LGBTQ community is being largely ignored.  Again, institutional needs have risen above human needs.  In the Gospels, Jesus shifted the focus from institutional needs to human needs, recognizing that a reliance on the institution only perpetuates a focus on the institutional.  And institutional needs always trump human needs. 
 
Starbucks recently completed storewide training on racism.  Why?  Because two black men entered a Starbucks in Philadelphia.  As they waited for their friends to arrive, a white female manager became uncomfortable.  Instead of her taking responsibility for her discomfort and anxiety (and any tension she experienced in her interaction with the men), she called the institution, the police.  Remember, we look to institutions to resolve the tension we experience in the system.  Institutions always do what society asks them to do.  The police step in to reduce the purported tension.  But here’s the problem.  When institutions step in, they remove opportunities for individuals to be more responsible for their fears and anxiety.  As society loses its capacity for engaging others in meaningful ways around difficult challenges, we’ve become more dependent on institutions to resolve them for us.  And it will never work.  Individuals need to be more responsible for working on the tension they experience in the system.  We need more opportunities to take responsibility for our perceived fears; opportunities to overcome our perceptions. 
 
While I may sound like I’m blaming institutions, I’m not.  I head up an institution and am aware of the challenges.  The point I’m trying to articulate is that, if we are not careful, institutions will continue to get in the way of efforts to build community.  Institutions can be an asset to building community when leaders of an institution understand this problem.  Institutions can be effective at solving problems when they help people within the system lean into the challenge.  It is a matter of putting the human need in front of the institutional need and identifying the limitations of the institution (what they can do but also what they can’t do).  Communities are stronger when individual members take responsibility for engaging the human needs around them.  As individuals come together to work collaboratively, they discover new things, new resources and new opportunities for meeting a challenge. 
 
When someone shows up with a need, how do you respond?  Referring someone to an institution is common.  But is this always necessary? What if building community is predicated on people taking responsibility in addressing the human need?  What if building community is based on the activity of sharing resources?  If someone shows up asking for help, what would happen if you introduce them to your community?  What networks and resources could be made available to them?
 
In what ways have you or your congregation relied on institutions to meet needs?  How might being more responsible for the needs of the community help build community?  If you lead an institution, how might the organization shift its focus to empowering the community to meet needs?  What are the institution’s assets?  What other questions or thoughts come to mind?

This is the first of several blogs dedicated to the idea of koinonia.  Faith communities are in decline.  Many of them are on the verge of closing for good. I’m preaching a series this summer on how to define and build community.  As a companion to the series, I’m publishing a weekly blog post that reflects my thinking from the weekly sermon series.  I’m challenging the congregation to develop a hypothesis for defining and developing community.  I’ve invited them to run experiments this summer to see if their hypothesis and theories about defining and developing community are accurate.  I’m extending the same invitation to you.  Please share your thinking in the comment section below and on social media.  #koinonia.
 
God observed, “It’s not good that the human is alone.” (Genesis 2:18) Science has confirmed what the Almighty has declared.  Humans do not do well when they are alone.  Dr. John Cacioppo, Dr. Steve Cole and others have observed a connection between one’s perception of loneliness and elevated levels of inflammation.  It turns out that the body is not simply marshaling inflammatory agents only to respond to invasive bacteria or virus.  When feeling lonely, the inflammatory agents are on high alert before any invasion takes place.  This means that psychological observations are getting under the skin to regulate inflammation at the level of the genes.  Perceiving oneself as lonely leads to physical, psychological and behavioral problems, all connected to an increase in inflammation.  It is not good to be alone, indeed!
 
Faith communities support individuals and families who feel isolated.  And yet, the very institution that creates a sense of community has become a declining community.  Is it a coincidence or correlation that there is a decline in membership and a rise in loneliness?  Other institutions are trying to do something about it.  In England, the government has labeled loneliness as a health crisis.
 
Sighting numerous health studies, British Prime Minister Theresa May appointed a minister of loneliness in 2018.  In a statement she wrote, “For far too many people, loneliness is the sad reality of modern life.”  It is not good for the human to be alone.  We are social creatures.   But if we are social creatures, wired for relationships, why are so many people feeling lonely?
 
Modern humans are more connected than ever.  Next to my laptop that I’m using to type this blog is my cell phone.  I am accessible literally 24 hours a day, seven days a week.  Unless I turn off my cell phone (which I only do to reboot after a system failure), anyone can theoretically reach me at any time of the day and from any place in the world.  I recently traveled to Hong Kong and my hotel gave me a phone to use during my stay.  I was completely accessible, even in Hong Kong! 
 
With smart technology, I can see and know what is happening at any moment at any point in the world.  In real time, I can watch events anywhere on earth and even in the heavens if a digital camera is pointed there.  It is now possible for someone to listen and watch a conversation anywhere on land, sea or sky if there is a smartphone in that location.  It is a marvel of modern technology. 
 
But if we are more connected, why are we so lonely?  Where is the disconnect?  That answer has to do with the intensity of our connectedness. 
 
When war broke out around the world, one hundred years ago, you read about it in the newspaper and probably saw a couple of pictures in print.  Today, war and natural disasters are experienced by the world’s population in real time.  You experience shocks, screams, crying and injuries as they occur.  And then the sights and sounds are replayed over and over again. 

Technology is intensifying our connectivity.  If you read something on Facebook about immigration, you are then exposed to hundreds of comments, all of which are intense.  This kind of connectivity is exhausting.  So, when it’s time to connect with the people we know, the intensity of all this connectedness spills over into our everyday relationships.      
 
There is wide variation when it comes to individual responses to world events.  This has to do with one’s family and how over the generations the family has responded to fear and anxiety.  I’ll have more to say about this in the weeks to come.
 
So, what's missing from these social media platforms?  What's missing from the discussions about loneliness and our inability to build community?  What’s missing is personal responsibility.
 
Being in community with others is about being responsible for self.  When it comes to building community, no one else will build it for us.  One must see it as their responsibility to build koinonia.  This has been one of the problems with how we train leaders.  Congregational leaders have relied on outside “experts” and coaches to tell them “how” to build community.  Leaders need to do the important work of defining and building a community for themselves. 
 
No one knows how to build community outside of their community.  No template works in every setting.  Sure, there are some congregations, in various parts of the world, who are building vibrant and thriving congregations.  But none of it is transferable.  The reason?  The answer is not in the content of the community.  The answer is in the process of building community.  Congregational leaders need to embrace a process of exploring, experimenting, observing, and designing community.  It is a process of trial and error that never stops. 
 
I invite you to start a research project on koinonia.  What does it take to bring a group of strangers together and build koinonia?  Let’s begin with a hypothesis.  What does it take to build a community?  What are the components that are necessary?  What are the environmental factors?  What will leaders need to do?  Are there beliefs, principles, etc. that are important for building a community? 
 
After you clarify your hypothesis, run your experiment.  Bring people together who don’t know each other.  Observe what happens.  What works?  What doesn’t work?  What goes well?  How will you measure the progress?  What factors will you be looking for and observing?  Is your hypothesis accurate?  How might it need to change?  How can you continue your experiment passed on a new or updated hypothesis?
 
I am interested in the experiments you plan to run this summer.  What is your hypothesis?  What experiments will you be running?  Send me a note or make a comment below.  Use the hashtag #koinonia on social media.