I am taking a break from writing this blog.  I’m about to begin a four-month renewal leave from my congregation.  During this time, I hope to redirect my energy towards things that are renewing and important to me.  I’m grateful for this platform.  It has provided me space to imagine the applications of Bowen’s concept of differentiation of self.  I’m glad others have found it useful.  There is more than enough material here for ongoing thinking and reflection: thirty-four months’ worth of 117 blogs!
 
It is fitting to conclude this initial stretch of writing with a reflection on the ideal congregation.  I’m not suggesting that there is an ideal utopia of congregational life.  There is not.  Congregations like families are imperfect.  But they can thrive by being adaptive.  A recent visitor to my congregation, who had visited several other churches, stated, “I’ve decided to stay here at this church because I think this is about as good as it is going to get.”  Imagine this as a congregation’s tag line:  NAME OF CONGREGATION: As Good as It’s Going to Get!
 
There is a lot of talk about congregational decline and what to do about it.  Congregational development and redevelopment programs highlight small group ministries as a key to congregational vitality.  Seeing the congregation through the lens of Bowen Family Systems Theory has helped me understand how, far from group activities, it is the individual effort, expressed through differentiation of self, that can lead to a better functioning community. 
 
Here are some examples, although very brief, that reflect my thinking: 
 

• Individuals work to clarify their beliefs. 
• Individuals relate to others based on what is important to self (core principles, values and beliefs).
• Conversations with others are focused on self-discovery and what is important to self while at the same time being curious and interested in what others are discovering and working on. 
• Individuals work to clarify when and how they will volunteer and serve in the congregation and in the community while also being clear about when and how they will not. 

 
Congregational decline is reflective in the waning number of members, worship attendees and the inability of leaders to recruit motivated volunteers.  Regardless of the style of leadership, the challenges tend to be the same.  In declining congregations it is difficult to find motivated individuals who prioritize their effort to clarify core beliefs, values and principles.  Most people are simply not motivated to work on it.  Beliefs are understood as a private matter with little or no interaction with the thinking of others.  If beliefs are discussed with others, each may posture as if they are certain about their beliefs.  However, it is rare to find individuals who talk about their uncertainty or discuss what they are learning about their beliefs.  It is often the “feel-good” nature of the relationship system in the congregation that motivates people to attend even when the congregation is in decline.
 
 
So, what are some key ingredients of a thriving congregation?  These ideas represent some of my thinking about it. 
 

• Faith leaders meet annually with each person in the congregation to discuss the individual’s plan for formation and development.  What are individuals motivated to work on and what steps do they plan to take?

 

• Small groups become places for individuals to work on clarifying beliefs, core principles and values without being pressured to conform to one way of thinking.  It is not a place to debate if someone’s beliefs, core principles or values are right or wrong.  The focus of the small group is on developing individual clarification based on one’s best thinking.

 
The faith community may be the only institution that encourages individuals to be clear about beliefs.  Educational institutions come close with a focus on critical thinking and learning facts.  However, like religious or any other institution, they can become stuck in their institutional challenges.  There is a difference, however, between education and religious institutions.  The ability to articulate a belief includes the inherent challenge of holding a belief while being in relationship to other important people.  Anyone can be a critical thinker and remain cutoff from important others.  Within the norms of many faith communities are beliefs about maintaining relationships with important others even when we disagree.  How does one identify and make good use of beliefs (whatever they may be) when the going gets tough in the family or any relationship system?  Faith communities can do a better job of helping individuals answer this important question.

​In these times of heightened anxiety, one never knows if a disagreement will escalate into conflict.  There is wide variation in how humans react to differences.  Some people can acknowledge the differences they have with others while also being interested in the other’s beliefs, opinions and principles.  Some people react defensively or go on the offensive.  These different ways of responding to differences correlate with Dr. Murray Bowen’s scale of differentiation. 
 
The theoretical scale of differentiation identifies one’s basic level of self and one’s functional level.  Individuals at the lower end of the scale are susceptible to automatic ways of defending beliefs or attacking the beliefs of others.  They struggle to separate their feelings from their thinking and are more threatened when others feel, think or act differently.  Individuals at the higher end of the scale can separate their feelings from thinking.  While they may disagree or feel uncomfortable with the beliefs of another person, they put their energy into responding with “I” positions that articulate their best thinking.  Less energy goes into changing the thinking, feelings or actions of others.  All of us lineup somewhere on this scale of differentiation.
 
One can always improve their level on the scale of differentiation.  As a pastor, I typically encounter people in the congregation who think differently than I do about a wide variety of topics.  I can sometimes “feel” my reactive self wanting to attack or defend.  I can get stuck when I want to attack the other person’s beliefs (which always leaves me regretting my words) or when I say nothing in response and just listen (which always leaves me feeling frustrated and defeated).  Fortunately, there is a third way to respond. 
 
This third way of engaging differences begins with an effort to separate feelings from thinking.  The clearer one can think about a topic, the less likely they are to react automatically from their feelings.  The feeling response is triggered by a perceived fear.  As one works to separate feelings from thinking, one can think differently.  The need to attack or defend dissipates.  This effort of self-regulation makes one freer to learn about the other’s ideas, beliefs and principles.  One can observe, become more curious and ask questions.  It’s even possible to learn something new that may inform the way one thinks.  At the same time, one can be a resource for the thinking of others.  When one is working on this third way, there is no need to defend self or attack others.

I live and work six blocks from the Henry Pratt Company in Aurora, IL.  On February 15th, Gary Martin killed five people and wounded five police officers after being fired from Henry Pratt.  At this time, not much is known about Mr. Martin.  I’ve written before about violence in society.  What I do know is that there is a connection between chronic anxiety in the family, one’s level of stress and violent behavior.  All of us tend to move towards others to take control or to distance when anxiety goes up.  In cases where there is violence, people move aggressively towards others when there is high levels of family intensity, significant cutoff among family members and a trigger of intense stress. 
 
 
The Force for Togetherness
 
After the shooting, and after the police presence had diminished, I walked down to my neighborhood grocery store. I needed a couple of items and I wanted to find out what people were learning.  The employees at the grocery store were eager to talk.  One woman talked about her experience.  She had just arrived to work.  She was home during the shooting.  She recalled that after she heard about the shooting, she had a deep desire to pick up her child from school.  Schools on the west side of Aurora were on a soft lock down which means that students could freely move throughout the building, but no one was allowed in or out of the school.  She lamented how she wanted to pick up her child even though she couldn’t.  Over the years I've observed that this desire, (particularly among mothers) to unite the family in times of danger, seems to be universal. 
 
 
Interlocking Triangles
 
Interlocking relationship triangles lit up for me as news of the shooting spread through my family and the community.  I was able to observe the movement of anxiety in the triangles between:

• myself and members of my family.
• myself, the congregation and the community.
• myself and organizations that care for children in the church building.
• myself and the clergy of all faiths in the community.
• myself, other clergy and officials in city government.
• myself, gun violence prevention groups, gun rights groups and the community.

 
In each of these triangles there was varying degrees of distance and cutoff.  Some triangles were more fused than others.  I observed variation in the way people managed their anxiety in the triangles and how some people depended on others in the triangle to manage their emotions and stress.  Some people were quick to point fingers.  Some people collapsed with feelings of hopeless or uselessness when confronted by others who were upset.  Some were steady. Some developed physical symptoms in the days that followed.  Some started to react more intensely to daily challenges. 
 
 
The Interconnectedness of Life
 
A shooting, like any traumatic event, reveals the interconnectedness of all of life.  Individuals, families, neighborhoods, institutions and the community-at-large are mutually influencing and interdependent on each other.  Each has an impact on the functioning of the other.  The nucleus of this process is the family.  The complexity grows, however, as one adds the natural world to the mix.
 
 
Questions to Consider
 
There is much to consider after a shooting like the one in Aurora, IL.  Asking good questions makes a difference.  What are good questions that help one understand violence in society?  How does one think about violence in the context of the family and the community?  If there is violence in one's family, how does one think about this from a systems perspective?  If one does not have evidence of violence in the family, how does one account for this?  

A good place to start is to develop questions about one's family.  Good questions can help one better understand one's family and help one develop the capacity to define a self in relationship with one's family.  Differentiation of self provides a way to both understand how there is violence in society and what one can do about it.

It’s that time of year again.  United Methodist candidates are being interviewed to become credentialed clergy – consecrated and ordained.  For most candidates, it’s a six to eight-year process.  I served on our conference’s Board of Ordained Ministry for a time and as its chairperson.  I witnessed a broad spectrum of candidates who came through the process.  Most candidate did well; the vast majority made it through the process with relative ease.  Some candidates were not ready.  Others lacked self-awareness.    
 
In a previous blog, I discussed the importance of candidates having self-awareness.  Effective clergy have a high level of self-awareness to help them navigate the relationship system of a congregation.  Why seminaries don’t teach students how to develop awareness of oneself in a relationship system is beyond me.  Pastors get themselves into trouble, not because of their theology or their concept of God, but because they don’t know what to do with tension or a high level of anxiety in the congregation.  In addition to candidates working on their level of awareness, interview team members need to work on it, too. 
 
It’s important that an interview team work to create an interview process that is fair.  Sometimes there are problems with the interview.  Most boards have procedures in place that encourage a good process and they have procedures in place in case something goes wrong.  Ideally, everyone on an interview team is working to manage their anxiety.  But, it's not always the case. 
 
My assumption is that process is more important than content.  Yes, candidates need a certain level of content to be ready and effective in ministry.  But it’s the interview process that makes the difference.  Of course, when it comes to process, there are lots of variables to consider.  I’ve created a list of variables that I think go into predicting the quality of the interview process. 
 

1. The level of chronic anxiety in each member of the interview team and the candidate.  Chronic anxiety can actually be measured.
2. The number of life stressors in each member of the interview team and the candidate on the day of the interview.  This number also can be measured with a simply questionnaire. 
3. The number of resources available to each person on the interview team and the candidate.  This would be the number of important people that are available to each person as a resource. 

 
The result (of the three variables) is equivalent to an emotional state that determines the level at which one is functioning.  If 1 and 2 are low and 3 is high, the functional level is higher.  If 1 and 2 are high and 3 is low, the functional level is lower.  Other factors like the amount of time available for the interview, the quality of the space and the overall energy level of the team and the candidate also make a difference. 
 
It would be possible to predict the outcome of the interview if these factors could be measured for each member of the interview team and the candidate.  These variables contribute to one’s ability to manage oneself in the face of tension and anxiety.
 
In general, if an interview team can stay actively engaged while also managing their reactivity, even if a candidate is highly anxious, they will more than likely arrive at decision with a high level of confidence. If the candidate is doing a good job of managing themselves, but their interview team is not, the candidate may find it frustrating as they attempt to navigate the intensity.  If both the interview team and the candidate are not managing themselves, watch out!
 
In reality, there is wide variation within teams and between teams.  Some members of an interview team do a better job than others at managing themselves.  One person doing a better job of managing themselves in the interview can make an overall difference.  But it’s the complexity of variables that make it difficult to know if a candidate is getting a fair process.  But again, who is responsible for a fair process?  When each person plays a part, it’s impossible to assign blame.  Everyone is doing the best they can with what they have. 
 
Even though some candidates will complain about their interview team, there is a good chance that they will encounter a congregation that is just as challenging as an interview team.  Even the most capable pastor can struggle to lead a highly anxious congregation.  Understanding relationship systems through the lenses of Bowen theory can make a difference.  But it requires that individuals do the hard work of researching and understanding their family of origin.  My hunch is that if a motivated board of ordained ministry worked on Bowen’s concept of differentiation of self, they would make better predictions on which candidates are ready and effective in ministry.  If I’m right about this, bishops and supervisors might want to take note.  The upfront effort will save them countless hours of dealing with ineffective clergy.

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

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

Think for a moment about your prefrontal cortex.  It lies just behind your forehead between your eyebrows and your hairline.  The presence, size, and integration (with the rest of the brain) of the prefrontal cortex is what distinguishes us from all other animals like the pig.  But before you think of yourself as special, pigs have a prefrontal cortex, we both have fat under our skin, a protruding nose, and, don’t forget, pig skin and heart values can be used in humans.  Although, it should be noted that pigs are not capable of preforming transplants. 
 
The prefrontal cortex can differentiate between conflicting thoughts and stimuli, predict the future, sort out potential consequences, define goals and control social behaviors.  The prefrontal cortex is involved in thinking.  Other areas of the brain are reserved for automatic and reactive functions and behaviors.
 
All living things are awash with automatic behaviors that keep an organism alive and functioning.  It’s not clear to what extent (if at all) other animals or plants are “aware” of the world around them or aware of their functioning.  Humans have awareness but it is limited.  For example, we are often unaware of the influences and interplay of internal and external systems, like biological and relationship systems.  At the level of biology, we are unaware of cellular activity involving blood, oxygen, glucose, and the powerhouse mitochondria.  We can “think” about these systems, especially when a physician tells us there is a problem with our body.  This effort to step back, observe and think can also apply to relationships. 
 
In the Book of Genesis, it says that human beings are created to be “responsible” (1:28).  That’s the word Eugene Peterson uses in his translation of the Bible.  In this context, humans are responsible for their interactions with the natural world, including other humans.   If the human is unique because of the prefrontal cortex then the human has the unique capacity to be responsible when they use their “thinking” system.  So, what does it mean to be responsible?
 
Responsibility describes an action.  It is an action between people which can be understood contractually as accountability.  We can talk about the committee that is responsible for overseeing missions.  Or the pastor is responsible for preaching.  Responsibility is not defined by a list of moral, ethical or doctrinal standards that control one’s behavior.  Instead, it is the answer to the question, “what am I responsible for in relationship to family, friends, neighbor, work and the natural world?”  One’s responsibility is defined within the context of a relationship system. 
 

• What is my responsibility as a parent to my children? 
• What is my responsibility as a child to my parents?
• What is my responsibility to my employees/employer?
• What is my responsibility to my neighbors/community?
• What is my responsibility to the natural world?

 
As we attempt to answer these questions, the first thing we can become aware of is the question, “Am I doing enough or am I doing too much?”  We are often aware of this paradox when a relationship system starts to muster resources to meet a challenge.  The congregation is facing a financial crisis.  There is not enough money at the end of the year to cover all the expenses.  Who is responsible for solving this problem?  Is this a leadership problem or a congregational problem?  What role do individual members have and what is the role of the pastor and other leaders?  Who is responsible for deciding what to do?  Or consider this example.  The youngest child of a family with three children has stopped performing well in school.  They are receiving an “F” in every subject because they failed to turn in any homework for the last four weeks.  What is the responsibility of a parent?  What is the responsibility of the child?  Do the other two siblings have a responsibility in this situation?  What role do others in the extended family play?  What is the responsibility of the teacher and the administration? 
 
The genius of Dr. Murray Bowen was his ability to see challenges within the context of a relationship system where the behavior of each person influences the system and the systems influences each person’s behavior.  Shifting one’s level of responsibility in and to the system often creates a shift in the level of responsibility of others.  As one person takes on more responsibility, others take on less and vice versa.  However, when one attempts to shift out of their automatic ways of being responsible (doing too much or too little), Dr. Bowen observed that the relationship system responds with a “change back” process.  At first, others will counter one’s effort to shift their level of responsibility by trying to get the one to go back to their previous level.  However, if one is able to stay relatively on track and not react, a shift in the level of responsibility taking in the system will occur. 
 
So, humans will always have an advantage over the pig thanks to the prefrontal cortex.  We can think about and choose our role and responsibility towards others.  You can actually decide to do less without being a pig.

 
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.

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.