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?

For me, Rabbi Friedman was like the Apostle Paul.  There were things he wrote that I came to love and appreciate, there were things he wrote that I struggled to understand and things he wrote I think differently about.  How true this is of every relationship!

It took time to read through all of Ed's publications looking for an excerpt to share.  Each of the books is filled with my handwritten scribbles and notes.  The books and my notations represent my early adventures (Ed liked that word) into systems thinking.  

Generation to Generation was his most famous publication.  There were others.  Published in 1985, it became for many clergy their first introduction into systems thinking, family systems and Bowen Family Systems Thinking.  

I've chosen his essay, The Myth of the Shiksa, which is published in a book by the same name.  The essay was written around 1981, before there were personal computers, which is evident in Ed's use of the phrase "word processor."  The essay was important to me at a time when I was examining this cultural phenomena in my family.  I found Ed's thinking useful in seeing how the emotional process can hijack cultural identity.  Ed used the word "camouflage" to explain how a family's use of cultural identity made the emotional process difficult to see. 

I recommend to you the forward of the book written by Ed's daughter Shira Friedman Bogart.  I never met Ed in person (although I'd seen him on video).  Shira's reflection on her relationship with her father is insightful.

This excerpt below is taken from page 88:

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

​What questions or solutions come to your mind?

I wrote this blog in the hope that I might clarify for myself what a discipleship program looks like in a higher functioning congregation.  In the Christian church, a discipleship program is a process by which a congregation teaches children and adults the shared beliefs and values of the congregation.  This blog took several twists over the last few weeks as I thought about discipleship.  What I’m publishing here for you is not a conclusion but my reflections on the intersection of beliefs and relationships.  There is more to think about, and I will more than likely keep writing about it.  It’s worth a closer look.
 
All congregations, regardless of their faith expression, provide religious education.  The shared beliefs and values of the congregation are passed on to children and adults.  From within this educational system, leaders emerge who teach and train other children and adults the shared beliefs and values of the congregation.  This process works well until individuals question these shared beliefs and values or promote ones that are contrary.
 
For congregations that promote independent and critical thinking, there is an inherent risk that such an effort may create problems for the congregation.  As leaders grapple with this dilemma of how flexible they will be in the face of different beliefs or values, they may become stuck in an emotional process. 
 
If you have ever tried to hold a belief that is contrary to the congregation you belong to, you have probably experienced this emotional process.  You can “feel” the tension that is created both internally as one grapples with separating thoughts from feelings, and externally as one tries to navigate the relationship system while holding beliefs that are different than the shared beliefs of the congregation.  There is wide variation in the flexibility of congregations to think differently about certain beliefs while staying connected.
 
Dr. Murray Bowen described what he observed as a life force for togetherness that is common among all humans and all of life.  It is a counter-balancing force to individuality which is the effort to think, feel and act for oneself.  The force for togetherness disrupts this effort in favor of fusing together the thinking, feelings and actions of the group (in this case a congregation but also includes the family).
 
The extent to which a congregation can be at ease with variation in beliefs among congregants is dependent on, among other things, the level of chronic anxiety in the congregation.  The higher the level of anxiety, the more likely there will be demands for everyone to agree with what I’m calling shared beliefs.  At this elevated level, there is little room for disagreement.  People’s thinking becomes fused.  When leaders insist that everyone think the same way about God and issues of faith, it’s a good indicator of the level of tension in the congregation and the chronic level of anxiety among leaders.  Families (of which congregations are a conglomerate of) also experience this phenomenon. 
 
It is true that shared beliefs define a congregation.  Even congregations that participate in interfaith opportunities have shared beliefs about interfaith experiences.  So, to some extent, there is no escaping the need for shared beliefs.  They serve a functional purpose for humans. 
 
The assumption, though, that society will collapse into chaos if people believe and value whatever they want is false.  It is a byproduct of anxiety.  It is an incomplete understanding of the process of being a good thinker.  Supporting an individual’s effort to define and clarify their beliefs does not spur debate, conflict and schism.  Societal problems are not caused by “free thinkers.”  Societal problems are the result of an over-insistence (an anxious focus) that everyone think the same way.  The more congregational leaders demand compliance on specific beliefs and issues of faith, the more revved up and anxious the congregation becomes and vice versa.  It can also work the other way.  Take for example political coalition building.  Bringing together people who think differently can be an anxious process. 
 
The history of humanity is littered with examples of the struggle to either insist that everyone believe the same thing or everyone believing whatever they want.  If leaders strongly insist that everyone believe the same way, then people react and demand freedom.  If leaders strongly encourage independent beliefs and values, then people clamor for shared beliefs and values.   
 
So, what does any of this have to do with discipleship?
 
My original intent for this blog was to consider what a robust discipleship program might look like.  For now, I believe a robust discipleship program takes into consideration the following:
 
First, beliefs are inherently caught up in a relationship process.  The work of clarifying core beliefs and principles requires an understanding of emotional process.  As fear increases, there is a greater demand on individuals in a relationship system to feel, think and act the same way. 
 
Second, it is possible to hold a core belief and engage others who think differently without conflict, debate, and schism.  This can happen to the extent an individual works on differentiation of self.  When one is working to develop core beliefs and principles one inevitably bumps up against the reactivity in the relationship system.  This becomes an opportunity to be both separate and connected, a fundamental aspect of Bowen’s concept of differentiation.  Beliefs are not what bring us together.  Beliefs are what enable us to be together. 
 
I hope one day to design a class (sooner than later) that will invite individuals to work on defining their beliefs.  Such a class will encourage thinking about the following questions:

• Where did a specific belief come from?  Self?  Others?
• When was the belief adopted?
• How does the belief serve one well?
• When was one unable to live out the belief?

 
This effort begins with leaders who are good thinkers.  Clergy find opportunities through preaching, teaching and conversations to define and clarify their beliefs.  At the same time, they invite others to define and clarify their beliefs.  How might leaders encourage themselves and others to work on clarifying beliefs? 
 
A marker of progress in this effort is the ability to articulate a belief without feeling compelled to defend or attack others with their belief.  A clearly defined belief helps one navigate the problems of life by providing room for flexibility and adaptability as one responds to new challenges.
 
Dr. Bowen envisioned the theoretical characteristics of a “differentiated” person when he wrote:
 
These are principle-oriented, goal directed people who have many of the qualities that have been called "inner directed." They begin "growing away" from their parents in infancy. They are always sure of their beliefs and convictions but are never dogmatic or fixed in thinking. They can hear and evaluate the viewpoints of others and discard old beliefs in favor of new. They are sufficiently secure with themselves that functioning is not affected by either praise or criticism from others. They can respect the self in the identity of another without becoming critical or becoming emotionally involved in trying to modify the life course of another. They assume total responsibility for self and are sure of their responsibility for family and society. There are realistically aware of their dependency on their fellow man. With the ability to keep emotional functioning contained within the boundaries of self, they are free to move about in any relationship system and engage in a whole spectrum of intense relationships without a "need" for the other that can impair functioning. The "other" in such a relationship does not feel "used."   Family Therapy in Clinical Practice, Page 164
 
What are the benefits and challenges of developing a discipleship program that encourages and models differentiation of self?