In a recent article, “Cognitive Mechanisms for Human Flocking Dynamics,” Seth Frey, assistant professor of communication at UC Davis, observers that, despite our ability to reason through a problem, humans make decisions based on their perception of how others are thinking about a problem.  Because humans are conscious, we assume that our decisions are driven by an internal moral code and rational thinking.  It turns out that we think and act in response to how others are thinking and acting.  Which begs the question, “How different are we from other animals?” 
 
Consider a flock of geese.  When a flock of geese is resting on the ground, one goose is on sentry duty looking for danger.  When the sentry spots danger, it begins to honk and flap.  Like wildfire, the fear response of the one goose automatically spreads to the gaggle.  Within seconds, the entire gaggle is honking and flapping.  Fear is contagious because it protects the group from a real threat.  This “system” activity keeps the flock safe. 
 
Humans behave similarly but without the honking and flapping.  It is observable in congregational committee meetings.  Every church committee has a sentry on duty, looking for danger.  Someone inevitably picks up the roll when it is vacant.  Because of the complexity of the human brain, it is difficult to evaluate when a threat is real or imagined.  When an individual perceives a threat, they give voice to their concern.  Like the example of the geese, others in the meeting will start to feel, think and act the same, even though they did not perceive the threat.  The result is a committee in agreement about a threat to the congregation that is not real. 
 
Over the years, I’ve developed strategies for addressing the problem of perceived threats and the contagious nature of anxiety: 
 

1. I begin by engaging my best thinking about the fear or problem as it is presented.  What does it take to move my thinking out of a reactive response based in fear to a thoughtful observation about the threat as it is presented?
2. What are good questions that might engage my thinking and the thinking of others about the problem.
3. I may invite the committee to go around the table so that each person can articulate their best thinking about the threat and problem as it is presented.  I may also indicate who in the committee thinks the same and who thinks differently about the problem.

 
Differentiation of self is one away to address the challenge of thinking for self without being emotionally influenced by the anxiety in the relationship system.  Dr. Murray Bowen observed that to communicate one’s thinking with important others in the family, one must develop the capacity to think for self.  This process of differentiation results in a lowering of chronic anxiety in the family and contributes to a higher functional level of the family.  This effort in the family does carry over into congregational leadership.
 
Clergy and congregational leaders can do a better job of communicating their best thinking about the current challenges facing the congregation.  One must be prepared for the automatic reactivity that is generated as one communicates to others their best thinking.  Differentiation of self is about developing the capacity to communicate ones best thinking without reacting to the reactivity of others.  The best place to practice and learn this process is in the family and it does carry over into other systems like a congregation.

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.

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

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. 

What books do people who use Bowen Family Systems Theory as a framework for congregational leadership recommend?  To find out, I reached out to authors, teachers and coaches who work with clergy and congregations.  Below is an interesting list of books that touch on Bowen Theory and systems thinking.  What books would you add to the list?

​
Rev. Richard Blackburn – Executive Director, Lombard Mennonite Peace Center

A key recommended resource for clergy who are committed to managing self in the midst of congregational anxieties would be Differentiation of Self:  Bowen Family Systems Theory Perspectives, edited by Peter Titelman.  The book assembles a stellar array of essays, by some of the top Bowen theory practitioners, illuminating the cornerstone concept of systems thinking.  The book is valuable for clergy and other leaders who have found family systems theory to be a reliable compass for navigating the challenges of family, congregational and organizational life in these increasingly anxious times.   It is essential reading for all who want to deepen their understanding of the concept of differentiation, as a foundation for staying on course in the ongoing effort to be true to self, while honoring others. 


Larry L. Foster, MA, D.Min. – Retired Pastor and Current Curriculum and Development Coordinator for ELCA Systems Academy

Around the time Dr. Murray Bowen was doing his research (1954-1959), Eric Hoffer, an intellectual stevedore, who worked on the docks of San Francisco, wrote his classic book, The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements, which could be considered a kind of precursor (or observational intellectual parallel) to observing societal movements as they occur over time.  

Hoffer offers some psychological analysis behind the phenomena of mass movements (or shifts in society), leadership and the emotional forces at work in shaping social structures and processes.  While not seeking a “science of human behavior,” he provides a larger picture of social phenomena around the same time Bowen and others researched the puzzle of living relationships.  According to Hoffer, in his famous “social psychology” book, persons of words and persons of action can be persuasive as well as coercive in starting a movement for good or ill.  He discusses fanaticism and extremes in societal causes.  With strong argument and observation, he describes the conditions that have led to major oppressive mass movements.  People who are frustrated, angry, self-rejecting and empty are set up to latch onto a group or organization that is “beyond themselves.”  This involves rejecting the current state of affairs, remembering a better past and looking for a better future.  People who are frustrated that society is struck, messy and without purpose follow those who blame the leaders and institutions that are in place.  In his descriptions, he references major historical movements such as Christianity, communism, Judaism, fascism and others that spiked in dominance over the centuries.

“The situation is not unlike that observed in children and undifferentiated adults where the lack of a distinct individuality leaves the mind without the guards against the intrusion of influences from without.”   “The go-getter and the hustler have much in them that is abortive and undifferentiated. One is never really stripped for action unless one is stripped of a distinct and differentiated self.” On the other hand, he writes, “It is strange to think that in the Judaic-Christian movement for the malady of the soul the world received a miraculous instrument for raising societies and nations from the dead—an instrument of resurrection.”

Eric Hoffer became an observer and participant emerging at an interesting juxtaposition in time with other “larger picture people,” researching human functioning following World War Two and the beginning of the atomic age.


The Rev. Carol P. Jeunnette, Ph.D.

The focus of Dr. Jenny Brown’s book, Growing Yourself Up: How to bring your best to all of life's relationships, is clear from beginning to end.  It is about growing one’s self up: what it looks like, what it takes and what makes the slow process so challenging and yet so important.  It isn’t about helping others to grow up, although that might happen as a by-product when one grows one’s self up.   Although Dr. Brown’s thinking is rooted in Bowen Family Systems Theory, it is less about Bowen theory and more about working on one’s own maturity.  

The first part of Growing Yourself Up lays the groundwork for understanding the relationship foundations of adult maturity.  By the end of Part I, readers have been introduced to the central ideas of Bowen theory through client vignettes, personal examples and approachable writing.  Part 2 considers maturity for the first half of adult life: leaving home, the single young adult, marriage, sex, and parenting.  Parts 3 and 4 look beyond family, and addresses maturity in the face of setbacks.  Part 5 focuses on maturity in the second half of life, and Part 6 moves toward questions of helping others and the larger society.  Although the volume is not written for clergy and congregations, Dr. Brown addresses the importance of spirituality and is clear about her own beliefs and principles.  

Each chapter ends with reflection questions, and the end of the book itself has seven appendices.  These include additional material on connection and separateness, guiding principles, the continuum of differentiation of self, family diagrams and Biblical reflections on relationships.  

Growing Yourself Up is a great introduction to the way of understanding human behavior developed by Murray Bowen.  After re-reading it, I have been putting together a list of people to whom I want to send it, and I’m considering purchasing three or four additional copies to have on my bookshelf in the office at church.  However, I’m thinking that if I hand it out to everyone, I will miss the point.  Perhaps others would be better served if I spent time working through those reflection questions, thinking about my own relationship system and most of all about my own maturity, immaturity and work on self.  Hmmm….


Emlyn Ott - Executive Director and CEO, Healthy Congregations, Inc., Associate Professor of Pastoral Theology and Leadership; Director of Doctor of Ministry Programs at Bexley Seabury Seminary, and Affiliated Faculty, Methodist Theological School in Ohio

Margaret Marcuson has put together a thoughtful piece that clearly demonstrates the circumstances that clergy face in Leaders Who Last: Sustaining Yourself and Your Ministry.  She shares situations that are clearly recognizable for clergy leadership.  She both frames questions and encourages the development of curiosity in a way that is firmly centered in differentiation of self.  She provides understanding, thinking and practice that contributes to the evolution of both basic and functional self capacities.  I like to use basic books about theory (Gilbert, Papero, Richardson) in pastoral care classes that I teach in the first or second year of seminary, but I think of Dr. Marcuson's work as a great addition for the last year of seminary where fieldwork has been a part of the experience.  Her work resonates with those who are new to ministry or who desire a fresh perspective on continuing experiences.


Ron Richardson – Author, Retired Pastoral Counselor, and Marriage and Family Therapist

I strongly recommend Dr. Murray Bowen's book Family Therapy in Clinical Practice. It is sort of the Bible of the theory. It is not an easy book to read, and most people do not have the patience to read all of it. If one is a dedicated reader, then it would be interesting to read the chapters in it in the order of their original publication. I did this to get a sense of how Bowen's thinking developed from standard psychoanalytic thinking (which was also my original training) to a full statement of his own theory. However, if one is motivated only to read a few chapters, then I recommend Chapters 16, 20, 21, and 22. There are many interpreters of Bowen theory (like myself), but it is always best to study directly his own words and thinking. This will give insights and nuances that many interpreters may miss. In reading these chapters, the key for church leaders is to replace the word "family" (and its cognates) with the word "congregation." Similar transpositions (like "pastor" in place of "therapist") would also make the theory more relevant. Because Bowen's theory is about human beings in their relationships, and not just the specialized world of psychotherapy, it is relatively easy to see how his work applies to us in the church.  I regularly re-read this book. I always get new insights with each reading.

I’m always surprised when a parishioner tells me how important I am to them.  I probably shouldn’t be surprised.  After all, I’m there at key moments in their life: baptisms, confirmations, weddings, hospital visits, funerals, etc.  But still, when I hear it from someone who I don't interact with on a daily basis (sometimes not even weekly), it comes as a surprise.    
 
Barbara Brown Taylor was an important person in my life even though we had never met.  She is a famous author and former priest in the Episcopal Church.  Her books on preaching helped me become a better preacher.  I first read her books while attending seminary.  From the school library, I rented videos of her preaching.  Over time, I learned to appreciate her as a preacher, pastor and person.  I guess I became starstruck. 
 
So, when I heard she was speaking at a local university, I immediately purchased two tickets.  My wife and I attended the presentation.  Afterwards, I got in line to have her sign my book.  I was nervous.  She had become this important person in my life.  How was I going to communicate her importance to me?  As I stepped up to the counter, I immediately began telling her that I was a big fan and how important she was to me as a preacher and pastor.  She was kind and gracious.  We talked for a couple of minutes.  And then it was over.  Reality set in.  As important as she had been to me, I realized that we were not close. 
 
There is a word for this: fantasy.  We have fantasies about other people that represent our wishes and expectations of them.  We envision and playout the relationship in our minds.  There is a wide variation on what these relationships look like.  It’s different for each person.  We live out these expectations without talking about them.  Some call this a projection process.  Whatever it is, it’s not real.  It is a fantasy.
 
A pastor and congregation meet for the first time on a Sunday morning.  The sanctuary is full of fantasies.  The pastor and the congregation have in their minds a narrative of how this new relationship will go.  The expectations of each are projected onto the other. 
 
There are two predictable outcomes.  First, if the pastor is not working on differentiation of self, they may give into the unrealistic expectations of the congregation which can result in the pastor (or a member of the pastor’s family) becoming symptomatic.  Second, the pastor may push back against the expectations of the congregation with a rebellious attitude.  This may lead to a rift in the congregation.  Of course, it’s not all about the pastor.  Everyone in the congregation plays their part. 
 
The disciples fantasized about Jesus’ identity as the Messiah.  The Gospels are full of examples of the disciples defining the word “Messiah.”  But, in every case, Jesus tells them that their fantasies are inaccurate.  Jesus defines himself by saying, “I am . . .” or “I will . . .”  This is a helpful process to remember.  As the disciples engage Jesus in an understanding of messiahship, the disciples develop an accurate and clear picture of who Jesus is instead of who they hope he will be. 
 
Cutoff contributes to the flourishing of fantasies.  Dr. Murray Bowen observed how people cutoff from their extended families and then create a narrative in their mind about the family which is inaccurate.  When individuals work to stay connected with the extended family, they develop a realistic view of themselves and the family.  The same is true for congregations and for pastors.  A lack of connection between the pastor and the congregation opens the door of fantasies.  The more engaged a pastor is with the congregation (while working on differentiation of self), the quicker both can grow up and see the world as it is, not the fantasy they wish it to be. 

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

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

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

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

I recently played the disciple Judas in a performance that brought to life da Vinci’s famous painting, The Last Supper.  Spoiler alert: Judas betrays Jesus.  Some people in my congregation experienced cognitive dissonance as they watched their pastor portray Judas.  During the meet and greet after each performance, the audience processed through the cast line, shook hands and took selfies with Jesus (and the other disciples).  People walked past me with no hand shake or selfie.  Or I should say, they walked past Judas.  I can’t blame them, though.  Don’t we all dislike Judas?  He's the one to blame, right?
 
Judas represents the worst of human behavior: betrayal.  For some, betrayal is an unforgivable sin.  Still, there are those who make attempts to forgive in the face of betrayal.  Forgiveness is a messy word.  Some refuse to forgive as a matter of principle and conviction.  To forgive would be to give in or give up.  Others proclaim that forgiveness provides an experience of freedom.  Forgiving others or forgiving one’s self has set them free.  What really drives the decision to forgiven?  It is the emotional process.
 
The emotional process describes how the behavior of others influences one’s behavior and vice versa.  It’s a reciprocal process, and it’s predictable, like a script.  If I say or do “x,” then someone else will predictably do “y.”  Because this is a system view, multiple people play a part in how each person behaves.  For example, the family functions as an emotional unit.  Whether or not one forgives is largely based on a family script of emotional process.  The family script is handed down from generation to generation.  Going back and understanding one’s family from a multigenerational perspective sheds light on how the emotional process works in one’s family of origin.  It can help an individual within the family move out of automatic, predictable reactivity to a more thoughtful, principle orientated response. 
 
Dr. Murray Bowen wrote:
 
More knowledge of one’s distant families of origin can help one become aware that there are no angels or devils in a family; they were human beings, each with his own strengths and weaknesses, each reacting predictably to the emotional issue of the moment, and each doing the best he could with his life course. 
Family Therapy in Clinical Practice 492.
 
 
I like portraying Judas because he challenges my automatic tendencies to see angels and devils in my family.  Judas was human and reacted to the emotional issues of his day.  Jesus even predicts his response.
 
It’s difficult to define what love is both from a scientific perspective and from a religious perspective.  What we do know is that if we receive too much of it or not enough, we become reactive. Perhaps a faith-based definition of love is that we are all children of God and we are enough.  It reminds of what Bowen stated that everyone is doing the best they can with what they have.  Engaging the emotional process is about accepting others and challenging self.    
 
Differentiation of self includes an effort to define one’s relationships.  What kind of relationship do you want to have with your mother, father, siblings, etc.?  How do you think about the relationship?  What’s important to you about the relationship?  We pretend that we are defining our relationships through things like politics, religion, social views, whether someone is adding to one's life.  In reality we end up defining our relationships not by feelings (love), or by thinking (definitions) but instead by an emotional process: are you making my life easier or more challenging?  In this way, our relationships get defined by the moment to moment reactivity that is in the family system.  Differentiation of self consists of acknowledging the feelings associated with a relationship and then taking actions based on one’s beliefs and principles.  It’s about knowing the difference between feelings and thinking.
 
What are the factors that influence a relationship status?  They include the level of chronic anxiety in the relationship system, the current level of challenge or calm in the family, the capacity of individuals and the family to access resources to address a challenge, the number of viable emotional connections that are available at the time, and one’s belief about the nature of relationships.  As one works on differentiation of self, there are no longer angels or devils in the family or the congregation.  Instead, we discover that human beings are doing the best they can with what they have.  And I, for one, can always do better.