I remember the first time I tried to preach on human sexuality.  Spoiler alert: it didn’t happen.  During an introductory class to Bowen theory, the instructor encouraged participants to define themselves to their congregation.  I was a couple of years out of seminary and started to make a shift towards a progressive theology which included views on human sexuality.  When I mentioned this to the instructor, they said, “Great!  Let’s go with that.” 
 
I couldn’t do it.  I felt overwhelmed with just the idea of articulating my belief.  The pastor before me was able to do it.  But it didn’t go well with the more conservative members.  Soon after, they were appointed to another church.  Faced with the reality that my effort would stir the same emotional reactivity in the congregation, I chickened out.  I’m more confident now than I was back then.  I serve a congregation that welcomes and affirms the LGBTQ community.  But it took a lot of effort to get where I am today.
 
I talk to colleagues who feel stuck in their congregations.  As the United Methodist Church moves towards schism, clergy feel the pressure to either take sides or say nothing at all.  Some clergy are theologically progressive but serve congregations who are either mixed or mostly conservative.  They’re reluctant to articulate a progressive theology from the pulpit because they are aware of the conflict.  But more than this, they fear that taking a clear position will split their congregation.  And even if they don’t say it, judicatory leaders (bishops and district superintendents) feel it, too.
 
Is it possible to articulate one’s thinking in the face of conflict without escalating reactivity to the point of polarization?  Clergy fear what might happen if they do.  I’ll never forget one colleague who told me, “this congregation would drop dead if they knew exactly what I think.”  The struggle is real.
 
What drives this problem is a deeply rooted biological and psychological process that motivates groups to be of one mind, to think the same, to act the same, to feel the same, to provide a united front . . . In other words, to function as one unit.  “Togetherness is a biologically rooted life force (more basic than being just a function of the brain) that propels an organism to follow the directives of others, to be dependent, connected, and indistinct entity.” (Dr. Michael Kerr) When tensions are high, however, the force for togetherness propels us towards conflict, distance and cutoff.  Sometimes, if the anxiety is high enough, some people shut down and are unable to do anything at all.  The good news is that we do not have to be at the mercy of the togetherness force.  When clergy find the courage to take an “I position” it can lead to more collaboration and cooperation within a congregation.  Just the opposite of what people fear will happen. 
 
There is more than one way to work at this.  One approach is to get clear about what one thinks.  In addition, one needs a good understanding of the process of reactivity that will inevitably follow when one communicates a clearer theological position.  Anticipating the reactivity of others, being aware of one’s own reactivity that can get in the way and then planning how to respond to both are key components.  There will always be missteps along the way as one learns how to define a self and not react but it’s important to stay the course and adjust as needed without giving up or giving in. 
 
I’m not so naive as to think that this type of effort will magically make everything better.  It won’t.  But, it will help leaders get unstuck.  This is important.  We are in this mess of schism because too many leaders in the denomination are stuck in their reactivity.  When done well, having a clear belief is accompanied by the realization that one does not need to convince others nor defend a position.  One is free to respect the beliefs of others and be curious about their thinking.  Conflicts are often fueled by just the opposite: a lack of real clarity about one’s beliefs and the inability to respect the beliefs of others.  My hunch is that, despite our differences, leaders and congregations can shift out of polarized positions if leaders are willing to do the challenging work of thinking for themselves while respecting the thinking of others.

At a recent gathering of the General Conference of the United Methodist Church a majority of delegates voted to uphold the denominations stance against homosexuality and establish additional penalties for bishops and clergy who violate its Book of Discipline.  In response, congregations on both sides of the issue are having conversations about whether to remain in or exit the denomination.  I invited Richard Blackburn, the Executive Director of the Lombard Mennonite Peace Center, to talk with me about how leaders in the church might navigate this current reality.
 
John Bell: There is a lot of reactivity going on right now in response to the decision of the General Conference.  I wanted to have this conversation with you because I think there are ways of thinking about this challenge that can be useful to congregational leaders.  The first question I have is more of a general question.  What makes it difficult for individuals to maintain a relationship when they disagree about issues that are important to them?
 
Richard Blackburn:  I'm sure there are a number of things that contribute to that.  In general, many people get their identity from the perspective they take on particular issues and they can get into a defensive mode that creates polarization.  It’s that polarization, accompanied by reactive ways of stating one's perspective, that further divides.  The relationship itself seems to be put on the back burner.  That’s more of a general kind of response to the question.
 
But, one has to also look at what people are bringing from their own family of origin that prompts them to move so quickly into that defensive, reactive mode.  That’s going to be different for every individual.  I would also wonder what people are bringing from the chronic anxiety within the congregational system that gets projected onto the way people debate these issues.  Certainly, societal anxiety is having an impact as well.  As we’re living in a time of societal regression–and that's just one of the signs of the regression—it makes it difficult for people to talk about differences in a way that helps them to maintain connection.  We get into a rigid way of defending our perspectives that just further fosters the polarization.
 
JB: What are congregations going through that you think gets projected onto this struggle?
 
RB: I think the broader societal anxiety is impacting congregations.  The people in United Methodist churches have seen membership decline over the last number of decades.  There's an increasing fear for some churches about whether they’re going to survive.  That certainly jacks up anxiety.  So, if you’ve got an issue around which you have polarization, fear can lead toward further defending the differing perspectives.  The fear is that, if we go with your perspective, more people are going to leave the church.  If they leave, it's all your fault.  The blaming gets in there.
 
Along with the blaming are ad hominem attacks to the personhood of others.  Then the anxiety spreads through all the triangles.  This is going to be different in different churches given the level of chronic anxiety within the church and given the different histories they have.  Some churches have high levels of chronic anxiety because they have a backlog of unresolved things from the past that have never been addressed in a healing way.  Other churches may have less chronic anxiety but are still vulnerable to picking up the anxiety from society and projecting it onto the church.
 
JB: How would you define the problem facing United Methodist clergy and congregations who don't support the denomination's position, who find themselves on the outs and are trying to figure out what to do?  How would you define that problem?
 
RB: I think the most immediate problem, if you can put that word with it, would be to not go into an immediate reactive mode but to step back from the anxiety as much as possible.  To really think about, how can we approach this in an objective kind of way that is not being fueled by the anxiety?  What is our collective self-definition?  How do we pursue this in a non-reactive way?  It is recognizing that there are others who have differing perspectives.  How do we work at this in a way that is trying to stay emotionally connected with those who have differing perspectives?   No doubt, in many of these churches, there are going to be people who are on all sides of the issue.  It’s got to be approached in a way that doesn't further divide the congregation.  So, I guess the basic question is, how do we work at this in a way that tries to identify the legitimate interests that all parties have and then work at coming to some kind of understanding whereby we can each believe what we believe without it creating further division?  How do we work at staying connected given the diversity that's within the church?  How do we relate to others who have different perspectives than our own in a way that still values that common ground that we have in Christ?  How do we work at this in a way that approaches others with a different perspective out of a posture of genuine curiosity?  Not to bait.  Not to get into a polarization.  To really try to understand the differing perspectives and see if we can come up with a win-win whereby we are honoring the legitimate interests of all parties to the point that we can still stay in ministry together.
 
JB:  Two years ago, the bishops set up a process where various people from around the denomination worked to come up with a plan.  It was clear, though, when they had concluded, they were not in agreement.  So, the bishops put forward one of the plans and then tried to persuade everyone to get on board with it.  You mentioned how important it is to identify the interests each is bringing to the table.  I’m not asking you to be critical of the process but I'm just wondering if what happened reflects the process that was used or is it a sign of the regression being fueled by the anxiety in the church?  My observation is that evangelicals and progressives don't really know how to talk to each other in constructive ways.  I wonder what you think about that.
 
RB: I really don't know enough about the process to be able to comment intelligently on it. They didn't ask me to come in and mediate [laughter].  If I had been asked to come in and consult with them, I would have begun by getting an agreement on procedures so that the process was very clear from the beginning and that all parties were committed to following the process.  I would start with information gathering to document the full range of interests.  Then there would be education to help people understand what healthy conflict transformation looks like and help them understand how churches function as an emotional system.  It would include steps that work at healing unresolved hurts from the past.  Then we would work at creative win-win problem solving.  I don't know to what degrees any of this was done but this would have been the kind of process I would have recommended.
 
However, given people's proclivity for polarization and reactivity, there is no guarantee that they could have come up with a win-win because people do tend to get rigid, inflexible and locked into their positions.  I would hope that working at some degree of real deep listening to one another, and the hurts that people have experienced, would clear away some of the chronic anxiety from the past—which is part of what's behind some of the reactivity—to the point where they would have been more open to coming to some genuine win-win proposals.
 
JB:  I was thinking about how in the family one doesn't have to go back in history to relive the patterns because they're always present in the system today.  In congregations it can be different because it's not really a family per say.  Experiences can generate chronic anxiety which we bring forward with us into the present.  In terms of conflict resolution, you are saying that there needs to be a redress of those things.  How do you think about that in terms of not getting focused on feelings but using feelings to identify how to move forward with thinking?  How do you separate these things out?
 
RB: Well, I'm not entirely sure.  Obviously, it's pretty complex.  When I'm working with a congregation, the hurts from the past that have never been addressed in a healing way have a way of leaving residue so that, when there is some moment of acute anxiety in the current situation, the reactivity is blown out of proportion because it's being fueled by that chronic anxiety from the past.  When I'm working with a congregation, I'm trying to surface those unresolved things from the past in a neutralizing history context that helps people who have experienced these hurts to express them in non-blaming ways.  It's preceded by the education phase.  They've learned about how hurts from the past can be expressed in ways that are not coming out of the reptilian brain, how to put things in terms of "I" statements and how we are impacted by situation.  Instead of reacting in a blaming way, we’re taking the raw emotions of hurt, whatever that might be, and putting it into words that are describing rather than acting out the feelings.  It’s putting those emotions through the neocortex and putting them out there in a non-reactive way to help the other person really listen.  It’s about understanding the impact that that past situation has had on the person sharing the hurt.  I think it is a way of putting the feelings out so that people really connect with each other, listen to one another, and ultimately let go of those hurts from the past.  Then they can focus on the question of how we're going to address the current concerns in a more genuine problem-solving way that is respecting and honoring of the diversity of perspectives that are there.
 
JB:  There are a lot of clergy and congregations on both sides of the issue who are discerning whether to stay in the denomination or exit.  It’s more than just a question of do you stay or do you go.  It’s a complex discernment process.  Are there ways of thinking about it from a systems perspective that's helpful?
 
RB:  Again, I would say step back from the immediate reactivity so that one is doing this out of principles, values and beliefs.  Think about what it would look like—if the decision is to go towards separating—and how that can be done in a differentiated manner.  How can it be done in a way that is grounded in principles, values and beliefs and in a way that is not stirring up reactivity?  How can it be done in a way that is still staying connected to those who may have a different perspective?  The last question you asked goes in the same direction.  If the decision is to leave, how can it be done in a thoughtful way?  It would be interesting to think about ways of staying connected even though one decides to leave.  Are there ways of affirming what we still share in common?  Are there ways that we can still cooperate on certain aspects of our broader mission so that it's not just a complete cutoff but still has a commitment to ongoing relationship.
 
For instance, if a church should actually split over the issue, how can that be done in a way that is blessing each other on our separate journeys and not done in a blaming, rancorous way.  Keep in mind that to bless in Latin is benedicere which literally means “to say good things.”  So, how can we say good things about one another even though we've chosen to go our separate paths?  Are there, again, aspects of our common mission that we can still cooperate on?  Maybe there is a community ministry that the church had been involved in.  Can we commit to both continuing to be involved in that particular community ministry?  Or maybe we can work together to have a joint youth program.  Or something like that.  What are ways of staying connected even though we've decided to separate?
 
The Lombard Mennonite Peace Center provides resources on a diverse range of peace and justice concerns, from biblical foundations for peacemaking, to conflict transformation skills for the family, the church, the workplace, and the community.  They also have become a nationally recognized ministry for training church leaders in understandings grounded in family systems thinking via the Clergy Clinic and the Advanced Clergy Clinic in Family Emotional Process.  Additionally, LMPC is called upon to help those caught in difficult conflict to find reconciliation and healing by offering mediation services for individuals, churches, and other organizations.  For more information, go to lmpeacecenter.org.

​In these times of heightened anxiety, one never knows if a disagreement will escalate into conflict.  There is wide variation in how humans react to differences.  Some people can acknowledge the differences they have with others while also being interested in the other’s beliefs, opinions and principles.  Some people react defensively or go on the offensive.  These different ways of responding to differences correlate with Dr. Murray Bowen’s scale of differentiation. 
 
The theoretical scale of differentiation identifies one’s basic level of self and one’s functional level.  Individuals at the lower end of the scale are susceptible to automatic ways of defending beliefs or attacking the beliefs of others.  They struggle to separate their feelings from their thinking and are more threatened when others feel, think or act differently.  Individuals at the higher end of the scale can separate their feelings from thinking.  While they may disagree or feel uncomfortable with the beliefs of another person, they put their energy into responding with “I” positions that articulate their best thinking.  Less energy goes into changing the thinking, feelings or actions of others.  All of us lineup somewhere on this scale of differentiation.
 
One can always improve their level on the scale of differentiation.  As a pastor, I typically encounter people in the congregation who think differently than I do about a wide variety of topics.  I can sometimes “feel” my reactive self wanting to attack or defend.  I can get stuck when I want to attack the other person’s beliefs (which always leaves me regretting my words) or when I say nothing in response and just listen (which always leaves me feeling frustrated and defeated).  Fortunately, there is a third way to respond. 
 
This third way of engaging differences begins with an effort to separate feelings from thinking.  The clearer one can think about a topic, the less likely they are to react automatically from their feelings.  The feeling response is triggered by a perceived fear.  As one works to separate feelings from thinking, one can think differently.  The need to attack or defend dissipates.  This effort of self-regulation makes one freer to learn about the other’s ideas, beliefs and principles.  One can observe, become more curious and ask questions.  It’s even possible to learn something new that may inform the way one thinks.  At the same time, one can be a resource for the thinking of others.  When one is working on this third way, there is no need to defend self or attack others.

It’s that time of year again.  United Methodist candidates are being interviewed to become credentialed clergy – consecrated and ordained.  For most candidates, it’s a six to eight-year process.  I served on our conference’s Board of Ordained Ministry for a time and as its chairperson.  I witnessed a broad spectrum of candidates who came through the process.  Most candidate did well; the vast majority made it through the process with relative ease.  Some candidates were not ready.  Others lacked self-awareness.    
 
In a previous blog, I discussed the importance of candidates having self-awareness.  Effective clergy have a high level of self-awareness to help them navigate the relationship system of a congregation.  Why seminaries don’t teach students how to develop awareness of oneself in a relationship system is beyond me.  Pastors get themselves into trouble, not because of their theology or their concept of God, but because they don’t know what to do with tension or a high level of anxiety in the congregation.  In addition to candidates working on their level of awareness, interview team members need to work on it, too. 
 
It’s important that an interview team work to create an interview process that is fair.  Sometimes there are problems with the interview.  Most boards have procedures in place that encourage a good process and they have procedures in place in case something goes wrong.  Ideally, everyone on an interview team is working to manage their anxiety.  But, it's not always the case. 
 
My assumption is that process is more important than content.  Yes, candidates need a certain level of content to be ready and effective in ministry.  But it’s the interview process that makes the difference.  Of course, when it comes to process, there are lots of variables to consider.  I’ve created a list of variables that I think go into predicting the quality of the interview process. 
 

1. The level of chronic anxiety in each member of the interview team and the candidate.  Chronic anxiety can actually be measured.
2. The number of life stressors in each member of the interview team and the candidate on the day of the interview.  This number also can be measured with a simply questionnaire. 
3. The number of resources available to each person on the interview team and the candidate.  This would be the number of important people that are available to each person as a resource. 

 
The result (of the three variables) is equivalent to an emotional state that determines the level at which one is functioning.  If 1 and 2 are low and 3 is high, the functional level is higher.  If 1 and 2 are high and 3 is low, the functional level is lower.  Other factors like the amount of time available for the interview, the quality of the space and the overall energy level of the team and the candidate also make a difference. 
 
It would be possible to predict the outcome of the interview if these factors could be measured for each member of the interview team and the candidate.  These variables contribute to one’s ability to manage oneself in the face of tension and anxiety.
 
In general, if an interview team can stay actively engaged while also managing their reactivity, even if a candidate is highly anxious, they will more than likely arrive at decision with a high level of confidence. If the candidate is doing a good job of managing themselves, but their interview team is not, the candidate may find it frustrating as they attempt to navigate the intensity.  If both the interview team and the candidate are not managing themselves, watch out!
 
In reality, there is wide variation within teams and between teams.  Some members of an interview team do a better job than others at managing themselves.  One person doing a better job of managing themselves in the interview can make an overall difference.  But it’s the complexity of variables that make it difficult to know if a candidate is getting a fair process.  But again, who is responsible for a fair process?  When each person plays a part, it’s impossible to assign blame.  Everyone is doing the best they can with what they have. 
 
Even though some candidates will complain about their interview team, there is a good chance that they will encounter a congregation that is just as challenging as an interview team.  Even the most capable pastor can struggle to lead a highly anxious congregation.  Understanding relationship systems through the lenses of Bowen theory can make a difference.  But it requires that individuals do the hard work of researching and understanding their family of origin.  My hunch is that if a motivated board of ordained ministry worked on Bowen’s concept of differentiation of self, they would make better predictions on which candidates are ready and effective in ministry.  If I’m right about this, bishops and supervisors might want to take note.  The upfront effort will save them countless hours of dealing with ineffective clergy.

Each week I write a blog to try and make the case that leadership training for congregations is based on the wrong research.  Congregational development is not about training leaders to redevelop the mission, vision and programs of a congregation.  Congregational development must be about training leaders to navigate emotional process within the context of relationship systems.
 
Congregations are facing an enormous number of problems and challenges.  These problems and challenges raise the level of anxiety in the relationship system of a congregation.  As anxiety goes up, leaders who can manage their anxiety and reactivity do better in engaging the hopes, dreams and assets of a congregation.  Likewise, leaders who are less anxious in the face of problems and challenges do a better job of communicating a vision for the future.  Intense conflict emerges when leaders are unaware and unable to manage their reactivity.  As the congregation responds to the vibrations of anxiety in the pastor and as the pastor responds to the vibrations of anxiety in the congregation, tension within the relationship system increase.  So, where does one learn their automatic reactions to anxiety?  We learn it from the family.

What one learns in their family is the extent to which one can be an individual and the extent to which one is part of a family.  Dr. Bowen described it as the force for individuality (differentiation of self) and togetherness.  If individuals and families are tilted towards more togetherness, it will be more difficult for them to manage their anxiety and reactivity.  If anxiety is vibrating too much in the family, the togetherness force will motivated someone to take control.  If it gets to high, someone will walk away.  Congregations, like families, also react predictably to the vibrations of increased anxiety.  This then is the challenge for all congregational leaders: how does one articulate their thinking without trying to control others or walk away and give in?   Researching one’s family system is the key.
 
For anyone motivated to do family research, I recommend the new book by Victoria Harrison, The Family Diagram & Family Research: an illustrative guide to tools for working on differentiation of self in one’s family.  It is “a guide for people motivated to develop and use their own family diagram to observe, abstract, see, and better think about the facts and factors operating in their family.”  You can find the book by clicking here.

One’s family is the best place to do research on being a better leader.  This is not about going back in time or going back to resolve past problems.  It is about learning to relate differently in the present as one works on differentiation of self.  It’s not about correcting wrongs or making things right.  It is about being a self that is connected in important ways to important others.  A good coach can make a difference in one’s effort to relate better to important others.  Bowen Theory can be a useful guide for one’s thinking as one journeys down this road of differentiation.  A good place to begin is with family research.

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. 

To Whom It May Concern:
 
I’ve been thinking a lot lately about the future of the United Methodist Church, the only sect of Christianity that I’ve known.  I’ve written this letter at least a hundred times in my head.  I’m motivated to write it now because the closer we get to the special session in St. Louis in February, the more intense each side has become about the future of the church and homosexuality.
 
In 1972, four years after the merger of the Evangelical United Brethren and The Methodist Church, the new denomination (The United Methodist Church) set out to establish its Social Principles as a response to the societal changes in the United States and around the world.  The original document, presented at the ‘72 general conference, stated that homosexuals are people of sacred worth.  A last-minute amendment added the now infamous “incompatible" phrase.  For forty-six years that church has struggled with this public position. 
 
There are those who support the current position of the church.  Over the years, they have tried to enforce this position with consequences because they see the other side as covenant breakers.  Organizations have sprung up to advocate not giving in to the other side.  They send out monthly mailings and hold conferences to defend their position.  Over the years, their position has shifted toward the enforcement of rules.  These are conservatives.  Although, conservatives vary in their thinking, feelings and behavior.
 
Those on the left, progressives, also have organized.  They too mail out their position and organize training for individuals and congregations to advocate for a change in the denomination to fully include the LGBTQ community.  The strategy of the left has been protesting and civil and biblical disobedience.  They have been advocating for a simple plan that removes what they see as discriminatory language in the Book of Discipline.  Like conservatives, not all progressives are the same.
 
The denomination behaves like a family.  All families have major disagreements.  Some manage disagreements better than others.  We are all challenged by a force that moves people to have the same thoughts, feelings and actions.  This force creates agreement, but it can also fuel rebellion.  There is wide variation on how individuals and families respond.  One factor that contributes to this variation is the ability to evaluate objectively one’s fear.  When families, even denominations, are afraid people are compelled to agree.  Disagreement is perceived as a threat to the survival of the group.  Compliance is seen as the only way forward to escape danger.  Families and even denominations can treat a perceived threat as real. 
 
The idea that some disagreements are inherently more threatening than other is a matter of opinion, not facts.  Some ideas are “hotter” than others because of this togetherness force.  As people pile on and take sides, the intensity grows.  The further disconnected each side becomes from each other, the more intense and extreme their positions become.  Mature engagement moves the conversation in a more productive direction.
 
It is possible for people to stay together without agreeing on anything.  Individual beliefs are based on thinking and not relationship pressures.  In my experience, when society labels something as a “hot topic” families find themselves thinking differently, feeling differently and behaving differently without disrupting the relationships in the family.  It requires a mature family leader who can manage themselves and guide their thinking based on core beliefs and principles through the tension and anxiety as it pops up in the family without cutting off or impinging on others.  Good leaders know how to navigate an intense, reactive relationship system without contributing to or causing division. 
 
Such is the state of our nation and perhaps the world.  It has become close to impossible to think differently about a subject matter and still stay connect at the same time.  Respect for the other’s thinking and beliefs is in short supply and is being replaced with “you are wrong,” “you are either with us or against us” and “your ideas are evil.” 
 
It’s helpful to be factual during times of intense anxiety and reactivity.  The fact is, we do not agree.  The denomination has not agreed in several decades.  But when has the church ever agreed?  When has a family ever agreed?  Disagreement and diversity are part of the human experience.  Beliefs are what help us manage disagreements not create them.  It would be better for the special session of general conference to vote on the fact that the delegates do not agree.  This push for an agreement, what we ought to be, should be, or could be, are all fear-based reactions.   Diversity is what is real; a denomination of individuals who think differently about a diverse array of subjects and beliefs while still calling themselves “United Methodist.”
 
I could make a list of the major disagreements I have with family members, close friends, congregants, elected officials, and with God.  Yet, I do not have the luxury to cutoff or distance from any of them.  A mature person understands that they and the family are better off if they lean into the challenge and find a way forward.  There are a number of useful steps one can take, but it would take too long for me to explain them here.
 
I am progressive, so I welcome the full inclusion of the LGBTQ community.  I will be praying for a way forward for the church I have participated in since my baptism.  But whatever decision is made in February, I will move forward and so will everyone else in some shape, form and fashion.  I may be a part of the denomination’s future and I may not.  It will depend on the decision of a select few at the special session.  I’m confident that conservatives, progressives and everyone else will do well whatever the outcome. 
 
I found myself in the midst of this conflict a couple of years ago.  It was just after then President Obama visited Japan to participate in the Hiroshima Peace Memorial.  President Obama spoke about reimagining a way forward that does not lead to war and annihilation.  I can best summarize his speech with words that are familiar to me that are attributed to Dr. Murray Bowen, “We can all do better.”  Not long after President Obama spoke, I started to wonder if 71 years from now our grandchildren will look back and wonder why we battled each other so fiercely.  I’ll be long gone, but perhaps by then we will have learned that “we can all do better.” 

I can do better.
​
John Bell

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.

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.

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?