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

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

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.

 
It was the first time I called in sick on a Sunday morning.  There was no way I could stand up in front of the congregation.  My body was being unusually unpredictable.  I had to call someone.  I gave them a two-hour notice.  As I hung up the phone, my anxious brain (the title of my next book) concocted at least four narratives of how my absence would result in a train wreck.  None of them are worth mentioning, although the fear of a mutiny is always in the mix of perceived possibilities. 
 
While I rested in uncertainty, my phone chimed with words of encouragement.  The worship services had gone well without me.  The person I called on at the last minute did a wonderful job.  My anxious brain was wrong.
 
I felt relieved.  Not the kind of relief you get after a long illness or a battle with a disease where you finally start to feel better.  It was the relief you feel when your fears are not realized.  Those fears, unyoked to any sort of reality, had felt real.  Feelings are useful when they provide feedback on how the body is processing anxiety.  But I’ve learned through trial and error not to respond to situations solely based on my feelings.  That morning, lying in bed and worried sick, my feelings got the best of me.
 
Train wrecks don’t happen because of one person.  Likewise, things don’t go well just because of one person.  It takes a relationship system to get results, good or bad.  Everyone plays a role in how the systems functions.  Each person is responsible to the system and it was clear that anxiety led me to think that I was solely responsible. 
 
I realized, as I recovered on the couch, that I am prone to take responsibility for the functioning of a congregational system; a system that is largely out of my control. I cannot be responsible for how a congregation meets a challenge or if it meets a challenge.  Congregations do the best they can do.  That morning, they did well. 
 
Running into one’s level of worry can feel embarrassing.  But if one can observe how one’s level of worry impacts oneself and others in the system, it becomes an opportunity to shift one’s functioning in a more responsible direction.  I am grateful for the morning I had to lie still and contemplate this observation.
 
You might be wondering how I got sick in the first place.  Symptoms, like the one I was experiencing, are generated from the family emotional process.  To truly understand how symptoms develop, I encourage you to read Dr. Murray Bowen’s book, Family Therapy in Clinical Practice. 

​Subscribe to receive the newest blog in your inbox every Monday morning.

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.

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 influences human behavior?  And why is there so much variation?  Is it biology or culture?  We are born with biological systems (circulatory, digestive, endocrine, exocrine, immune, lymphatic, muscular, nervous, reproduction, respiration, skeletal, and excretory) that are authored by DNA and were set in motion a long time ago.  Culture includes things like psychological framework, perceptions, beliefs, language, biases, and rituals.  DNA is transcribed through a biological process.  Culture is transmitted through a relationship system.  The interplay of biology and culture materializes in the epigenome where DNA is regulated in response to an ever-changing culture.  These epigenetic changes are passed on from one generation to the next.  What exactly is being passed along in this mix of biology and culture?  It is the collective ability of the human to adapt and be flexible in the face of challenges.
 
Dr. Murray Bowen’s concept of the family emotional process includes the basic life forces of togetherness and separateness (individuality).  The togetherness force in the family, and in larger relationship systems, shapes the culture.  The force for togetherness moves people to participate in the family and larger group experiences (culture) through common feelings, thinking, and behavior.  Bowen observed that as anxiety increases in the family unit, the force for togetherness also increases.  In response to this increase, there are two predictable reactions.  One reaction is the rebellious response which pushes back against the family.  It can include the refusal to participate in the cultural ethos.  Others respond by doubling down to demand, from within the family and the broader culture, more adherence to cultural expression.  These reactions to increases in anxiety are automatic which means there is a biological component.  
 
Congregations of different faiths have been struggling with the cultural push back against organized religion. It is possible that the cultural shifts that have led to a decline in religious expression and an increase in cases of isolation may have something to do with the interplay of biology and culture.  As humans adapt to a changing environment, current cultural expressions of beliefs and practices are no longer serving the purpose of adaption.  In other words, the current demands on human biology are leading to new adaptive ways of thinking and believing which are leading to a change in cultural expression.  So, a new way of thinking (a shift in beliefs and culture) is needed if humans are to move forward.  This is the current struggle facing religion.
 
Must we give up all religious beliefs and practices?  That’s hardly the case when you consider how useful some beliefs and practices have been to billions of people over thousands of generations.  However, belief and practices need to continue to adapt and shift just as they have for thousands of generations.  People are hungry for a redefining of culture and cultural expression.  Congregations are looking for ways to redefine beliefs and religious expressions.  They are looking for a system of beliefs and practices that are useful to the challenges people are facing.  This is an adaptive process this is both biological and cultural.  Congregations who are examining the challenges they face are engaging new, creative practices that will eventually rewrite our cultural narrative, and impact our biology all the way down to our DNA for generations to come.  No one has figure it out, although it is certainly not from a lack of effort.  The answer will one day explode onto the cultural scene.  How is your faith community adapting and developing beliefs and practices that help individuals and families adapt to change?

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.

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.