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.

When people are anxious, they become overly focused.  Sometimes people overly focus on themselves.  But more often people project their anxiety onto others.  Spouses do this with each other.  Parents become overly focused on the well being of a child.  Congregations become overly focused on a problem.  One problem for congregations is declining membership.    
 
If you aren’t aware of this problem then let me tell you that membership decline is a really big problem for most congregations.  No one really seems to know what to do about it.  Back in the day, when it was becoming clear that denominations were in decline, a popular strategy was to redevelop and retool congregations to be more intentionally welcoming of visitors.  This strategy worked for a small percentage of congregations.  But it turned out not to work for most congregations.  As decline continued, congregations became more anxious. 
 
A recently read an article about the new strategy which has become very popular.  It goes something like this: if you want to grow your congregation, get out of your building and go into the community.  So instead of having a Bible study in the church, have it at a bar.  Instead of having worship in the sanctuary, have it at a local restaurant.  Don’t do “church” stuff in your building.  Go out and find public spaces to use.  While it's true that some congregations have had success with this approach, the assumption that it is applicable to all congregations comes from a deep anxiety about the future.  Congregations would do better to engage this problem at a local level.
 
As attendance began to decline in mainline churches, denominational bodies at every level became anxious.  There were concerns first at the local church level.  In some cases, local congregations worked on the problem and developed appropriate and successful solutions.  These congregations either maintained or grew their membership.  Other congregations didn’t do so well.  They took a more hopeless position and turned to others for help.  Some congregations hired consultants while others sought solutions from their denomination.  And help did come.  But when is helping not really helping?
 
At higher levels of the denomination, the focus was on solving the problem of membership decline.  As decline continued, so too, did their anxiety.  Before long, anxiety was being passed back and forth from one level to another.  Congregations and clergy passed their anxiety onto supervisors and judicatory officials who in turn passed the anxiety back to clergy and local congregations.  This became the context for visitors who responded to those well-crafted invitations.  How much of the anxiety of this process was visible to the people who visited these anxious congregations?  Is it possible that visitors picked up on the anxiety of a congregation that was in decline?  Could they “sense” the anxiety of a congregation who wanted to welcome them but wasn’t confident in how to do it?  Did the fear of decline become a self-fulling prophecy in which congregations became the very thing they were worried about?
 
To be fair, it didn’t happen just to congregations.  Most volunteer organizations went through a similar process as they struggled to win over volunteers and raise capital.  It is really a societal emotional process that is fueled by anxiety and reactivity.  So, what can organizations like congregations do to address the problem of decline without letting anxiety get the best of them?  That’s an excellent question!
 
Congregations that are growing have leaders who are doing a couple of things right.  First, leaders work at toning down the anxiety whenever they communicate with others in the congregation.  Second, leaders help the congregation articulate principles, values, beliefs and goals.  Third, leaders get overly curious and inquisitive about what it takes for a congregation to act in ways that are consistent with their principles, values, beliefs and goals.  When a congregation says one thing but does another, leaders want to understand what’s going on.  Fourth, leaders ask a lot of questions.  You can never ask too many questions.  Finally, leaders work on defining a self both in their families and in their congregations.  That last one may not seem like it fits with the others, but it's essential.  
 
The result of these activities is vision.  If you want to close the doors of a church, then fill the congregation with people who worry about everything.  If you want a congregation to thrive, engage a congregation to create a vision.  As leaders walk through this process, a vision appears that is big enough to propel a congregation forward.

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.

I’m not a political expert.  But I’ve spent the last couple of days trying to make sense of the senate confirmation hearing for Judge Brett Kavanaugh, a hearing focused on accusations of sexual misconduct and excessive drinking.  Opinions vary dramatically on the “reasons” for the partisan fight and who is to blame.  I’ve learned over the years that “blame” misses the mark when it comes to understanding what’s actually going on.  It’s about process.
 
I could be wrong about this, but it seems as if both parties are operating under the assumption that when they are in power it is only temporary, and they must push, push, push their agenda as much as possible.  The result is that they to go, go, go while they can because the two-party system is like a pendulum that swings back and forth.  They have to get to gettin’ while the gettin’s good.  This might explain why senate republicans pushed through a nomination that had little public support and it passed by one of the smallest majorities ever.  And if I’m right, then the midterm and the presidential election will result in democrats regaining control of the legislative process and perhaps the executive branch.
 
Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona made several interesting statements during the last week of the process.  One that stood out was his comment that there is no currency in politics for bipartisanism.  There is a cost.  Dr. Murray Bowen wrote a decade ago that society was trending towards regression.  Polarization was one of the indicators.  As polarization increases, cooperation and collaboration decrease.  What would it take for legislators to value and work towards bipartisan compromise?
 
This swing back and forth seems to be motivated by ideological fears that are fueled by anxiety.  Fear is powerful.  The perception that ideological correctness will solve our fears is not based on facts (an idea I highlighted in last week’s blog).  Calmness is equated with control.  It’s the false belief that, “If our side is in control, then we can rest easy.”  The other side holds the same belief.  The focus is no longer on solving problems but to be in control.  It’s personal.  So long as the focus is on winning, the back and forth effort distracts us from addressing systemic problems.  In other words, the push for electing politicians who represent a specific ideology is exasperating the problem. 
 
Families get into similar jams.  As tension mounts in the family, individuals slide into factions.  People say things like, “You are wrong.”  “I’m right.”  “I’m not speaking to so and so.”  “They are so wrong that I I can’t be in the same room with them.”  When families are reactive and anxious there is no currency for working together to address challenging problems in the family.  It becomes personal.  What makes the difference are family leaders who understand conflict from a systems perspective and who can shift their functioning into a more thoughtful response to the problem.  Dr. Bowen described this as a shift in the emotional process that results from one person’s effort towards differentiation of self. 
 
These larger societal problems and processes are reflective of the current state of the family.  It’s difficult to conceive of a society that does better without seeing an improvement in families.  Political institutions tend to mirror the state of the family.  Families who are working to do better do contribute to the health and well-being of their neighborhoods, institutions, communities and society.  I believe that’s a fact, but I’m not a political expert. 

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

I can do better.
​
John Bell

This is the final blog in the series #koinonia.  I hope it’s been useful.  I’m concluding the series with a focus on leadership.  Bowen’s definition of the family leader was made in the context of family therapy.  The quote below applies to leadership of any kind.
 
“Operationally, ideal family treatment begins when one can find a family leader with the courage to define self, who is as invested in the welfare of the family as in self, who is neither angry nor dogmatic, whose energy goes to changing self rather than telling others what they should do, who can know and respect the multiple opinions of others, who can modify self in response to the strengths of the group, and who is not influenced by the irresponsible opinions of others . . . A family leader is beyond the popular notion of power.  A responsible family leader automatically generates mature leadership qualities in other family members who are to follow.” (Kerr and Bowen 1988, 342-43)
 
 
Leaders have a vision.
 
The apostles Paul and Peter were visionary leaders at the beginning of the Jesus movement.  The decision to include gentiles is attributed to Paul based on Paul’s confrontation with Peter.  But Peter, for his part, has a vision recorded in Acts 11:1-8.  Peter’s vision is a departure from the purity laws of Leviticus that were used to define the community.  Like Paul’s assertion of inclusivity, Peter’s vision includes all people in the Jesus movement. 
 
As Peter takes steps to welcome the Gentiles, he receives a swift pushback from the community.  Peter is accused of breaking the law.  In response, he articulates his thinking.  The community eventually accepts his new belief.  This predictable response is described in Dr. Bowen’s family research as the “change back” process.
 
 
Leaders are clear, calm and connected.
 
If one takes an action step based on a new belief, rooted in observable facts and good thinking, then the relationship system (family, work, congregational, etc.) will react predictably to the change.  Bowen described it as a fear-based response to a perceived threat.  Leaders can navigate this process in three steps.  First, a leader does their best to articulate a new belief, being as clear as they can.  Second, as other’s react negatively to the new belief, the leader does not react back.  Third, the leader stays in good emotional connect with important others without telling them what to do and without walking away.  Bowen’s research showed how others in the system eventually come around to accept and respect a new position.  It is recommended that leaders practice this process with their family and with the guidance of a coach. 
 
 
Leaders pay attention.
 
As one observes the emotional process in the relationship system, it’s possible to “see” how anxiety is transmitted, picked up and managed in self and in others.  The ability to watch the flow of anxiety and how it impacts one’s behavior, and the behavior of others, is a first step in defining a self.  Good questions can help one pay attention.  How does the system influence what one thinks, feels and does?  In what way does the system hamper one’s freedom to think, feel and act?  How does one influence the behavior of others?  More than being self-aware, paying attention is the ability to identify the emotional process and the role each person plays.
 
 
I continue to resonate with Bowen’s view that everyone is doing the best they can with what they have but that we can all do better.  Leaders work to be the best version of themselves they can be.  Leaders lead the way.

We live by laws, policies and procedures.  The Torah contains the Mosaic Laws given to help the new community of Israel live in harmony with one another and with God.  Laws are helpful in creating a just and fair society. 
 
Some laws are harmful.  Drug laws and sentencing guidelines have resulted in prisons filling up with nonviolent drug offenders who are serving long sentences.  So, what happens when laws have a real human cost?
 
Institutions are created to care for a specific need within a community.  They are mandated to carry out the law and to follow specific rules.  But sometimes laws are unjust and people suffer.  It is difficult to change an unjust law because institutional needs overshadow human needs. In the New Testament, Jesus said, “You have heard it said an eye for an eye . . .”  He was referring to an institutional need – a law.  He went on to say, “But I say to you . . . love your enemies . . .”  He shifts the focus to the human need.
 
Sometimes institutions are the best option.  Sometimes they do the most good for the most amount of people.  But institutions also have needs.  Institutions need volunteers who are willing to offer services or money.  For example, universities need paying students.  Police need volunteers to report crimes and be witnesses.  Not-for-profits need people power to function.  These are institutional needs.
 
As a particular need arises in a community, initially people (neighbors, volunteers, community leaders, etc.) step up to meet the need.  If the need can be met, then the neighborhood approach continues.  However, if the need increases and people become increasingly uncomfortable, community leaders will be pressured to create a solution.  The solution becomes a new institution.  The institution is an organizational response to a need which is governed by laws and rules.  So, what started out as a neighborhood approach to a need has shifted to an impersonal, institutional response.  If the need continues to rise, tension within the community will increase.  The community will look to the institution to find additional ways to solve the problem.  Institutions are sensitive to the growing tension and discomfort of the community. 
 
In general, human beings are sensitive to the level of comfort and tension in a relationship system.  A relationship system can be a family, a congregation, a neighborhood, a company, a community, a state or nation.  When times are calm, members of the system maintain a comfortable closeness and distance, finding balance between the two.  When anxiety increases in the relationship system (like a community, for example) leaders will move closer to the community to calm people down.   But this closeness can quickly be replaced by distance as anxiety and tension increase in the system.  Those who are prone to distancing, in response to an increase in tension, will eventually cutoff from the system if the anxiety becomes too hot to handle.  As people cutoff, anxiety is contained within a smaller number of people (the relationship system becomes smaller).  Research has shown that people who are isolated (cutoff) have an increased risk of physical, psychological, and behavioral problems.  With fewer resources available, individuals who are cutoff from the system are more likely to rely on institutions to manage their level of comfort and tension.
 
The denomination that ordained me, the United Methodist Church, is facing a possible split in February.  Since 1972, the denomination has debated rules that were put in place to prohibit the full inclusion of the LGBTQ community.  The debate and tension within the denomination mirrored the broader society.  Every four years that the institution gathered to do its work, it became increasingly more difficult for people who think differently about gender identity and sexual orientation to dialogue and respect one another's position.
 
As result of the increased anxiety (anxiety both within individuals and tension between people in the system), individuals and groups have turned to the institution to resolve the tension.  The institutional response to this pressure was to enact more rules.  As the LGBTQ community gained broader acceptance in society, those who were uncomfortable with the shift turned to the institution to enforce the rules.  This is an example of the continued prioritization of institutional needs over human needs.  
 
The prohibition in the denomination’s Book of Discipleship is harming people.  In response, the institution became unable to enforce the rules or address the human need.  The institution is stuck.  Any attempt to bring people together has had minimal success.  In response, quasi-institutions have sprung up to support or challenge the institution’s rules or lack of enforcement. 
 
As the tension escalates, so does the focus on the institution to resolve the problem.  There is pressure on the institution to remove individuals who disobey the rules or to remove the rules altogether.  The human need within the LGBTQ community is being largely ignored.  Again, institutional needs have risen above human needs.  In the Gospels, Jesus shifted the focus from institutional needs to human needs, recognizing that a reliance on the institution only perpetuates a focus on the institutional.  And institutional needs always trump human needs. 
 
Starbucks recently completed storewide training on racism.  Why?  Because two black men entered a Starbucks in Philadelphia.  As they waited for their friends to arrive, a white female manager became uncomfortable.  Instead of her taking responsibility for her discomfort and anxiety (and any tension she experienced in her interaction with the men), she called the institution, the police.  Remember, we look to institutions to resolve the tension we experience in the system.  Institutions always do what society asks them to do.  The police step in to reduce the purported tension.  But here’s the problem.  When institutions step in, they remove opportunities for individuals to be more responsible for their fears and anxiety.  As society loses its capacity for engaging others in meaningful ways around difficult challenges, we’ve become more dependent on institutions to resolve them for us.  And it will never work.  Individuals need to be more responsible for working on the tension they experience in the system.  We need more opportunities to take responsibility for our perceived fears; opportunities to overcome our perceptions. 
 
While I may sound like I’m blaming institutions, I’m not.  I head up an institution and am aware of the challenges.  The point I’m trying to articulate is that, if we are not careful, institutions will continue to get in the way of efforts to build community.  Institutions can be an asset to building community when leaders of an institution understand this problem.  Institutions can be effective at solving problems when they help people within the system lean into the challenge.  It is a matter of putting the human need in front of the institutional need and identifying the limitations of the institution (what they can do but also what they can’t do).  Communities are stronger when individual members take responsibility for engaging the human needs around them.  As individuals come together to work collaboratively, they discover new things, new resources and new opportunities for meeting a challenge. 
 
When someone shows up with a need, how do you respond?  Referring someone to an institution is common.  But is this always necessary? What if building community is predicated on people taking responsibility in addressing the human need?  What if building community is based on the activity of sharing resources?  If someone shows up asking for help, what would happen if you introduce them to your community?  What networks and resources could be made available to them?
 
In what ways have you or your congregation relied on institutions to meet needs?  How might being more responsible for the needs of the community help build community?  If you lead an institution, how might the organization shift its focus to empowering the community to meet needs?  What are the institution’s assets?  What other questions or thoughts come to mind?

All experiences are technically memories.  Your phone rings.  You hear it but only a millisecond or two after it rings. That’s the amount of time it takes for sound to travel through time and space to your ear and then travel from your ear to your brain.  Don’t forget it takes time for the brain to identify the sound from memory or to label it as a new sound.  Either way, the interaction with my memory lets me know, “My cell phone is ringing.”  Just because this process is quick (the quickest of the senses) doesn’t mean it’s free from error.  In fact, our perceptions (a combination of senses and processed memory) can betray us.  This raises the question, “When you think you're right, how do you know when you’re wrong?”
 
Not a day goes by that I don’t run into this problem with perception.  I remember an event differently than someone else.  I heard something different than what was intended.  I clearly articulate a point that is not understood by someone else.  I interpreted someone’s actions inaccurately.  I know I'm not alone.  All humans struggle with perception.  
 
The challenge of seeing the world as it is, not how we want or wish it would be, is a humbling and confusing process.  Humbling in the sense that I’d like to think my perception of the world is always on point.  Confusing in the sense that if my perceptions are skewed, how then do I engage the world (and those who live in it)?  How do I know when my perceptions are accurate?  How often am I accurate?  Can I ever be confident that the way I perceive the world is accurate?  How do I know when I’m wrong if I think I’m always right?
 
 
Language
 
Language is a good example of how memory and perception alter reality.  Language is symbolic, so words mean different things to different people.  At a recent city hall meeting, a white alderman referred to the renewal date of a city policy as “sundown.”  In the African-American community, “sundown” is a reference to something completely different.  It refers to the discriminative practices of a local government to arrest and mistreat African-Americans who remain in “white” cities after sunset. 
 
Words matter.  So do efforts that clearly define the usage of a word.  Humans are social creatures and language is essential to collaboration.  What does it take to describe the world accurately?  What are the challenges of using language to describe reality accurately? 
 
 
Those Crazy “Flat-Earthers” And Other Scientific Matters
 
Before the time of Socrates, scientists have understood the earth to be round.  And yet, the flat earth theory lives on, even experiencing something of a resurgence.  The earth cannot be flat and round at the same time.  It is, however, possible to perceive it as either flat or round.   So, what is real?  If you are convinced the earth is round, how do you know you are right?  I, too, believe the earth is round.  But my point is this.  When you believe you're right about the natural world, how do you know when you're wrong?  You may think those flat-earthers are crazy but what’s different about them?  To what extent are you free of the perceptive problems inherent to all human experience? 
 
 
Issues of faith
 
While issues of faith are sacred, people of faith categorize beliefs into two categories: crazy beliefs and reasonable beliefs.  It’s easy for people of faith (and even those who have no religious affiliation) to point the finger at the Jonestown Massacre and declare that their faith was misplaced.  Even, perhaps, crazy.  However, we all profess faith in something.  Granted, a “reasonable” faith (whatever that is) may not ask you to follow blindly into death.  But many faiths require the faithful to make a sacrifice.  What makes one faith expression right and another wrong?  How do you know that your faith holds the “truth” and  others do not?  When you know you are right about the way you see the world, how do you know when you are wrong?
 
And it’s not just an issue between faith communities.  Within communities, denominations, etc., people disagree about interpretation and the requirements for faithful participation.  When you believe your interpretation and practice are right, how do you know when you get it wrong?
 
 
The Force For Togetherness
 
Facts can get washed away in the sea of emotional process.  My desire to be connected with other important people and to participate in a meaningful relationship system can skew my ability to experience reality accurately.  Dr. Murray Bowen had an amazing way of articulating how our thinking system can be overridden by our feeling system.  In this way, the need to agree (to be fused together) outweighs the need to be accurate.  It can work the opposite way as well.  People who are too close will disagree about what’s real to create distance between them.  It is less about being accurate and more about managing the anxiety in self and in the relationship system.
 
The emotional process is driven by fear.  One-way the relationship system addresses a perceived fear is through a strongly articulated position that demands compliance by others.  You are either with us or against us.  We are right, and they are wrong.  They are the devil, and we hold the truth from God.  Horrible things have happened in the name of religion and science in response to perceived fears.  War, research and public policy that made sense at the time was based on inaccurate perceptions.  Again, when you know you're right, how do you know when you're wrong?
 
So, how do we align perception with reality?  It’s a process.  One that takes time, often years.  It is what Dr. Bowen called an effort towards differentiation of self.  It's the ability to see what “is” while staying connected to meaningful others.  For me, I’m clear about a couple of things.  You can call them beliefs and core principles.  I base my actions on them.  When I’m afraid or am surrounded by people who are afraid, these beliefs and principles guide me.  It may not be much, but it helps me get through the day.