On the surface, Bowen theory and theology are like oil and water.  They don’t mix.  Dr. Murray Bowen, a research psychiatrist, spent his life developing, teaching and applying his theory of human behavior.  Institutions of faith spend their time preserving systems of beliefs and practices.  At times, however, Bowen theory is miscible with theology like steamed milk and espresso.  I will attempt to connect the observations of reactivity found in Bowen theory with the concept of crucifixion and resurrection found in Christian theology.
 
I was invited by a colleague to be one of seven guest preachers at a Good Friday service.  There is a tradition in some congregations to reflect on the seven last words (really sentences) of Jesus.  I was assigned the words: “Father, forgive them.  They don’t know what they are doing.”  It’s a remarkable phrase if you think about the context.   
 
Jesus, at the time of his arrest, trial and crucifixion, was abandoned by those who knew him, loved him and followed him.  They ran away, denied knowing him and orchestrated his arrest.  The image of Jesus on the cross is a picture of betrayal.  It is from there that Jesus utters the words, “forgive them.”  And then he comes back from the dead to forgive them.
 
In my sermon at that Good Friday service, I predicted how I would respond If I were left for dead.  If it were me, and I could come back from the dead after being abandoned by my family and close friends . . . there would clearly be hell to pay!  Forget about love and forgiveness.  Instead, there would be retribution and retaliation; manifestations of my reactivity.  At the very least, it would be a struggle to come back and forgive. 
 
In Bowen theory, reactivity to anxiety (a response to a perceived fear) is woven throughout Bowen’s eight concepts.  As anxiety increases so too do our automatic responses to it.  In the family, people are continuously adjusting their physical and emotional spaces to one another in response to anxiety.  As anxiety increases, people either move towards others or they create distance.  These shifts towards and away from others are automatic.  However, people do have the capacity (although there is wide variation from family to family) to disrupt this automatic response by being more objective and thoughtful. 
 
Dr. Murray Bowen observed that through a differentiated intellectual system, one could use beliefs and core principles to not react automatically to a rise in anxiety.  He proposed that there is a way for individuals to manage themselves better when anxiety goes up in the family.  It includes engaging one’s best thinking.  In three of the four gospels it states that, when Jesus appeared in the resurrection to those who had abandoned him, he did not react or retaliate.  Instead, he forgave them and offered them peace. 
 
More than just a moral influence, Jesus behaves differently (does not react) and in so doing ends, in his body, a cycle of violence and hatred (automatic reactivity).  By not retaliating, Jesus creates opportunities for others to shift their functioning to be less reactive and more belief driven.
 
Dr. Bowen observed the behavioral outcomes of rising levels of anxiety in families with limited capacity for self-regulation.  The family functions as an emotional unit with each person playing a part in managing the family anxiety.  For example, as anxiety rises, an individual in the family is singled out as the source or cause of the anxiety.  In response to the anxiety, families may blame, distance or cutoff from certain individuals.  In the short term, this reduces the tension in the family.  This is, at its most basic level, reactivity.  All families can do better when it comes to being less reactive and more thoughtful.
 
The alternative to blaming others is to step back and observe how the family as a system produces problematic behaviors in self and in others.  Instead of distancing or cutting off from someone in the family, one can learn to lean into a challenging relationship.  One can learn to manage their reactivity better when they are revved up by the behavior of others.  Efforts to be a more mature version of oneself involve working on what Bowen called differentiation of self.  It is a way for the human to be less reactive and guided by core principles and beliefs.
 
More than a moral effort, Bowen’s concept of differentiation leads to a better functioning family system.  The effort to slow down and tone down reactive, automatic behavior can change a multigenerational transmission process.  Jesus’ words of forgiveness represent an effort to manage self and one’s reactivity to violence and hateful behavior that is rooted in beliefs and core principles.  It represents an effort of differentiation of self.

The word “resilience” has caught the fancy of the scientific community.  Researchers want to unravel the mystery of how two people can face an identical challenge with very different outcomes?  How does one person navigate a challenge successfully while the other does not?  The first person is labeled resilient.  But what makes them resilient?  It’s not entirely clear.  For example, how do some alcoholics stick to sobriety while others slide backwards?  How do some addicts succumb to the death grip of meth while others slip free?  How do some pastors figure out a way forward for a congregation while others give up and leave ministry?    
 
One idea is that resilient people have a thought process that says, “I can do this.”  No matter the quantity or quality of the challenge, a resilient person faces the challenge straight on and say, “This will not be the end of me!”  It is a form of confidence that says to the darkness, “you will not win.”  Like the patient just diagnosed with cancer, they face the doctor and say, “I’m going to lick this thing.”  Or the student who picks up a seven-hundred-page textbook and says, “Let’s go!”  It’s the pastor who reminds the congregation, “Hope is the conviction of things not seen.”  It is the parent who stands at the foot of their child’s grave and says, “Life will somehow go on.”  Or the parent in hospice care who says to their children and grandchildren, “You will be resilient when I’m gone.” 
 
A young man is estranged from his father after years of physical and emotional abuse.  The estrangement allowed the young man to feel safe.  But now, living on his own (and a little bit older and stronger), the young man decides to return home to face his father.  The son is not interested in winning.  He wants an equal relationship with the father he once feared.  With a little bit of work, he finds some confidence and a voice.  His confidence comes from the knowledge he gained doing research on his father’s family.  He discovered a history of physical abuse handed down from one generation to the next as an automatic pattern of behavior.  He learned about the family history of absent mothers who often retreated to the other room when fathers became angry with their sons.  He began to see how accepting this pattern of behavior as “fate” was the part he played in the triangle.  Standing at the door of the house, in front of his father, he speaks, “You and I are better than this.  We can have a relationship without violence; without the escalations of words. I want a relationship with you that is based on respect.  I want a different relationship.”  He is resilient.
 
Working on being resilient doesn’t guarantee a positive outcome.  In the end, we all will die from something.  But resilience does make a difference for oneself and to important others.  It is just one component of what it takes to step up and do better in this life.  We have a limited number of challenges to face over a lifetime.  Each challenge is an opportunity to bring our best self to any situation.  Overcoming adversity is about bringing one’s confidence, thinking, and determination to any challenge and letting nothing get in the way of one’s relationship with important others and God.

A couple of week ago, I preached on Jesus’ famous question to the disciples, “Who do you say that I am?” (Mark 8:29). It’s a belief question.  Jesus is asking the question, “What do you believe about me?”  Peter seems to answer correctly but not completely.  He says, “You are the Christ (the Messiah).”
 
In Bowen Theory, there is this idea that beliefs can serve a relationship function.  That is, the force for togetherness (to be emotionally close during stressful times) motivates people to think the same way.  So, one way to read this text is that Peter’s thinking lines up with Jesus’ thinking.  Peter thinks that Jesus thinks what Peter thinks!  But that’s where the similarities in thinking end.
 
Jesus goes on to define his “messiahship” in a way that is different than what Peter thinks.  Jesus discusses his impending death which gets an anxious response from Peter.  Dr. Bowen observed in families a change back process.  When one person expresses feelings, thinking or actions that are contrary to what another important person feels, thinks or acts they push back to get the other person to agree with them.  This change back process is visible during periods of heightened anxiety in the relationship system.  In the example above, Peter engages in the change back process.  “Peter took hold of Jesus and, scolding him, began to correct him.” (Mark 8:32b).  Jesus’ response is worth a read if you are interested.
 
Following the arrest of Jesus, Peter and the others abandon him, even denying that they ever knew him.  Fear is a driver of the emotional process.  Jesus is ultimately put to death.  In the story of the resurrection, Jesus appears to the disciples and to Peter.  Putting the theological implications aside for the moment, let’s look at the response of Jesus in the resurrection appearance.
 
In the resurrection accounts, Jesus appears to the disciples.  He is not angry for being abandoned, nor seeking retribution for the betrayal.  He reestablishes the relationship with the disciples.  Christians historically talk about this with words like “love,” “forgiveness,” “reconciliation,” etc.  These are beliefs and core principles that Jesus taught and that the early church embodied.  Whatever word you want to use, the point is that Jesus does not escalate what is already an anxious and tense situation because he acts out of his beliefs and core principles. 
 
In many ways what is needed in any relationship process is a leader who understands that when anxiety is high, humans act at their worst.  But if one can hang with those who are reactive, not react back and relate to others based on a belief or core principle it is possible for the relationship system to adjust at a new, higher level.

Clergy and congregational leaders play an important role in supporting families before a funeral.  There is variation in the way families prepare for a funeral service.  Some families need more support than others.  When someone dies, families have an opportunity to step up their level of functioning.  Clergy can learn to do a better job of managing their anxiety and not overfunction for others.
 
I see variation in the ability of families to plan a service.  Some families, because of the leadership of one or two individuals, have a clear idea of what needs to happen and are open to the ideas of others.  On rare occasions, the one who dies leaves behind ideas for the service.  Other families struggle to pick hymns and scripture readings.  When families struggle, it’s tempting for clergy to overfunction.
 
My practice (when meeting with the family to plan a service) was to invite family members to tell stories about the person who died.  This experience, common for most clergy, was therapeutic for families and provided me information for the sermon.  As one family member after another talked, I’d take copious notes of the stories, themes, and images they shared.  By the end of the conversation, I’d gathered enough information to give a sermon and a eulogy.  My notes would include important life principle, beliefs and favorite activities.  Some family members would volunteer to speak.  But most families were fine with me pulling it all together for them.  Back at the office, I’d work my preaching magic to weave together a meaningful and memorable message about the person’s life.  I was really good at it. 
 
A few years ago, I faced the reality that I was sharing stories about people I didn’t know personally.  It’s common for pastors to preside over the funeral of someone they don't know.  People don’t wait for you to get to know them before they die.  Although in one congregation, a member insisted I meet her the week I arrived because she was convinced she was going to die.  She did not want a stranger officiating at her funeral!  She lived for many more years and was still alive when I left.  Sometimes clergy are invited to officiate at the funeral of a spouse of a member who didn’t attend church.  I addressed these realities by being clear about my relationship to the person and acknowledging that there are family and friends who knew them better than I did. 
 
Eventually, I came to the realization that in my sermon/eulogy I was telling stories that belonged to other people.  The stories were their stories to tell, not mine.  So, I quit this practice.  I began to invite family members to speak at the funeral service.  The response was varied.  Then and now, their responses fall into two categories.
 
In the first category, families can identify with ease individuals to speak.  In the other group, families struggle to find one person to give a eulogy.  I encourage families to find at least one person to speak about their relationship with the person who died.  More if possible.  People vary in how they use their time. Some people talk directly about their relationship with the person who died.  They share experiences and insights into the relationship.  Other people become a “spokesperson” for the family, collecting stories and experiences to share.  That was the role I stopped playing.
 
For my part, the focus of my sermon is to articulate what I know and don’t know about death and the mysteries of life.  If I have a relationship with the person who died, I talk about it but avoid making comments from other relationship angles.  The sermon includes observations of the strengths of the family as they come together to support one another.  I speak about the intersection of faith, life and death with an effort to be as clear as I can.  Each funeral is an opportunity to clarify these things and to learn how to sit with questions and the mysteries of life. 
 
My observation after doing this project for several years is that families do better, especially family members who stand up and speak about their relationship with the person who has died.  Speakers have little trouble making it through the service.  There is some variation but, in general, it’s true.  One might want to debate that those who agree to speak already have the capacity to speak.  I’ve observed individuals, who were resistant to speaking, even struggling for a day or two with what to say, come around and speak at the funeral with what I would call ease.  I originally found this observation to be counter-intuitive.
 
Funerals have new meaning for me.  They are an opportunity to define a self.  Inevitably families push back at the invitation to speak.  Some resist and try to pressure me into reading what other people write, asking me to be the spokesperson for the family.  I evaluate these requests on a case by case basis.  There have been times, not very often, when I’ve agreed to it when the circumstances call for it.  Typically, though, families can identify at least one person (sometimes in the extended family) who will speak about their relationship with the person who has died.  My observation is that families get more out of these eulogies. 
 
The shift in my focus has been a worthwhile challenge.  When I don’t know the person who has died (and so I don't speak about them), it’s an opportunity to clarifying my thinking about death and dying which has not been easy.  I can do a good job pretending I know something about death.  Opportunities to think about death, life, faith and relationships have given me a place to stand as I engage my family about these important issues. 
 
At the end of the day, it’s about responsibility.  What is a pastor or congregational leader responsible for at a funeral?  How do clergy overfunction in the face of the anxiety and grief in a family?  How does overfunctioning undercut the functioning of others during the grieving process?  What are the benefits and challenges of being clear about what one is willing to do and not willing to do?  These are questions I’ve considered?  What questions come to your mind?

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?

This Sunday is All Saints Day in the Christian faith.  Since it is a day to remember all who have died in the family and congregation, I thought it fitting to blog about death, particularly death rituals and practices of congregations.
 
I first learned about death rituals from my family.  When I was I child and someone in the congregation died, my mother would take me to the grocery store to buy food for the grieving family.  At the store, she walked straight to the refrigerated section and picked out a pear-shaped tin which containing a cold, slab of ham.  She’d drive me and the ham to the house of the grieving family.  I typically stayed in the car and watched as she walked to the front door, knocked, and handed over the hunk of ham.  At the time, I was confused as to how a lump of meat wrapped in metal could at all be comforting.
 
Fast forward two decades.  A good friend’s mother died.  I was living independently at the time, and it was the first time a close friend of mine grieved a loss.  In these situations, you do what you learn from family.  I stopped at the grocery store, picked out a container of ham, and went to his place. I knocked on the door and said, “I brought you ham.”  He said to me, “Why?”  I said, “I have no idea.  This is what you are supposed to do when someone dies.”
 
All of us develop ways to cope with death.  People of faith have rituals and practices that help us mourn someone’s death.  Over the years, I’ve observed variation in how families approach death in the family.  Some rise to the occasion and can pull together meaningful and memorable funeral services.  However, some struggle with simply setting a date for the service.  And then there is wide variation in between.  Congregational leaders can play an important role in helping families prepare for the funeral. 
 
 
Observing the reaction and role of the congregation to death.
 
How does your congregation respond to death?  Are there specific people who take active roles?  How involved is the congregation in the funeral planning?  How does the congregation support grieving families?  Does the congregation have specific rituals or practices incorporated into the visitation or service?  How might leaders in the congregation take a more active role in supporting grieving families? 
 
Good leaders think about the functioning of a congregation in response to a death and explore ways the congregation can be involved in supporting the family. 
 
 
Murray Bowen on death.
 
Death is an anxious experience.  On the one hand, it is the physical loss of a relationship.  On the other, we come in contact with our mortality. 
 
Death is a natural part of life.  We are creatures with emotions and feelings. Therefore humans have a more elaborate approach to death compared to the rest of the animal kingdom.  When we lean into the reality of death, with the support of family and friends, it’s possible to have better long-term outcomes for individuals and the family.
 
Murray Bowen wrote an entire piece called “Family Reaction to Death.”  Bowen said about funerals:
 
I urge family members to visit dying family members whenever possible and to find some way to include children if the situation permits.  I have never seen a child hurt by exposure to death.  They are “hurt” only by the anxiety of survivors.  I encouraged involvement of the largest possible group of extended family members, an open casket, and the most personal contact that is possible between the dead and the living, prompt obituary notices, and the notification of relatives and friends, a public funeral with the body present, and the most personal funeral service that is possible.  Some funeral services are highly ritualized but it is possible to personalize even the most ritualized services.  The goal is to bring the entire family system into the closest possible contact with death in the presence of the total friendship system and to lend a helping hand to the anxious people who would rather run than face a funeral.  (Family Therapy in Clinical Practice, p. 332)
 
The rest of this blog is dedicated to thinking about the implementation of these ideas.
 
 
How to plan the funeral.
 
As someone who has attended and officiated many funerals, here are my thoughts for planning a funeral.   I hope you’ll share in the comment section your experience and how it might be similar or different from mine.
 
Funeral planning is a family affair. 
Every family has a leader.  In most families, I can count on one person to take the lead in making arrangements.  When I’m in contact with this person for the first time, I encourage them to consider including as many family members as possible in the planning of the service.  Even if it is only one person planning the service, I still encourage the participation of others.  Each family member has unique knowledge of the deceased through their relationship with them.  Expressing the relationship through spoken word, music or other artistic expression is to everyone’s benefit.  For those who struggle with including others in the planning and/or participation in the service, it indicates a higher level of anxiety in the relationship system.
 
As clergy, I avoid giving the eulogy or speaking on behalf of the family.
For many years, I took copious notes when meeting with the family in preparation for a sermon that would weave together the life of the person as it related to their faith journey.  While studying Bowen Theory, I concluded that my effort to speak about the person on behalf of the family was robbing family members of an important opportunity.  My current practice is to leave it up to the family to share stories and reflections.  I do share theological reflections about death in a short sermon.  If I have a relationship with the person, I will share my thinking about them.  This reflection is mine and not based on the reflections of other family members. 
 
Encourage families to spend time with the body.
As I read Bowen’s quote above, I’m struck by how little attention, over the years, I have given his thoughts about having the family spend time with the body.  In fact, when services are held in the church, there is typically a brief visitation before the service, and then the casket is closed for the last time.  As I write this blog piece, I am aware of how unaware I have been about when and how the casket is closed in the presence of family.  I plan to spend more time thinking about when and how this can happen with more intentionality with the family.  It has always been interesting to me that the casket typically remains open during the service at a funeral home, but remains closed when it is at the church.  If you have thoughts about this practice, please include them below in the comment section. 
 
The importance of communicating a death right away. 
In the congregation I currently serve, we send out a notice to the congregation when the family notifies us of a death, with a follow-up email once the obituary is posted.  Bowen encouraged families to write an obituary and contact family members.  While every family may have someone who struggles with accepting the death, the family can play a significant role in helping the person.  All of us do better in accepting death when we have the support of family, friends, and a congregation.  Avoiding private ceremonies and having an open invitation to all family members and friends are important steps in this effort.
 
Have families participate at the graveside.
I had not thought much about this until rereading Bowen’s quote.  When my paternal grandfather died, we each had an opportunity to shovel dirt into the grave.  I recently officiated at a graveside where a member of the family took dirt from their country of origin and sprinkled it on top of the casket.  They then sprinkled water from Israel.  I was struck by the importance of these small acts of participation by family members.  Moving forward, I’ll be inviting families to consider ways to participate at the graveside.
 
Let the children come.
I probably get asked this question more than any other.  Should I bring my child to the visitation and service or leave them at home?  I tell parents that their children, surrounded by the family, are able at any age to face the reality of death.  The children look to the parents and family members to observe how the family reacts to death.  I believe children do better long-term when they have access to what’s happening in the family and can participate in family rituals and activities related to death.
 
It’s important to name death. 
When I first read Bowen’s paper on death several years ago, I began using more direct language about death.  I noticed funeral home directors and others using words like “passed away” or “loss.”  I found that using direct words helped me be less anxious and more grounded in dealing with death.
 
Is there anything you don’t want to do? 
A couple of years ago I started asking families if there was anything they didn’t want to be said or done at the visitation, funeral, or graveside.  The answers I receive tell me about people’s fears.  It helps my thinking as I work with family members. 
 
Facing death is an opportunity to continue doing the important work of differentiation of self.
As a congregational leader, you get to think about death on a regular basis.  Each funeral is an opportunity to take inventory of one’s reactivity to death and dying.  It’s a time to ask, “What aspects of death do I feel confident about in my thinking?  What aspects am I unsure of?” It’s also been an opportunity to think about the impact of death on one’s family.  “How has my family reacted to death?  What deaths have had the greatest impact on the family?”  As a congregational leader, sitting with families as they plan a funeral has stimulated questions and fears about death.  These observations are fodder for conversations with members of my family.
 
For those who have the courage and motivation to lean into the experience of death and dying, a treasure-trove of opportunities to work on differentiation of self is available to the one who is a responsible self and leader in the congregation and family.