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.

Why is goal setting so complicated?  It really boils down to three easy steps:

• Identify what you want to work on.
• Be clear about your starting point.
• Create a map (action plan) to get you from where you are to where you want to go.

 
Simple, right?  Hardly!  We can quickly lose hope in our ability to accomplish a goal.  Every year I think to myself, “This year, I’m really going to accomplish all of my goals!  This year will be different.”  It wasn’t until I learned about the influence of the family on each individual in the family that I began to understand what it really takes to accomplish a goal. 
 
What makes it difficult to stay on track with one’s goals is the pushes and pulls of the force for togetherness that vibrates as anxiety goes up.  People do what’s automatic in response to an increase in anxiety.  As tension increases, some people overfunction by controlling others.  Some people underfunction by distancing.  These automatic, reactive responses are the basic fight, flight and freeze responses of the nervous system. 
 
Here’s one example of how it works.  Let’s say your goal is to spend an hour every day reading.  You make a list of the books you want to read and you set aside in your calendar an hour every day.  You tell your friends, family and coworkers that you do not want to be interrupted during this one hour.  Everything initially goes well until there is a  “Knock, Knock” on the door.  Or a “Ring, Ring” on the cell phone.  Someone needs your help right now!  It can’t wait.  These interruptions occur right before or during your scheduled reading time.  You start to vibrate with anxiety.  You feel compelled to help because you fear that if you don’t there will be consequences.  But you don’t really want to help because this hour you have set aside is important to you.  You feel stuck. 
 
This is just one example of how anxiety and the fusion in a relationship system can disrupt one’s effort to set a goal and work on differentiation of self.  Because it is reactive to anxiety, the relationship system automatically pushes and pulls people off of their individual focus.  Differentiation of self provides a way to think about this problem. 
 
I host an annual goal setting retreat.  During the retreat participants learn how to plan for the predictable ways families and congregations unconsciously try to disrupt one’s efforts to accomplish goals.  If you’d like to learn more about the retreat, click on this link to read about the opportunity and to register.  Space is limited so don’t delay.  

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?

If you lead a volunteer organization, your biggest challenge is not money.  Your biggest challenge is finding motivated volunteers.  And by motivated, I mean motivated to be responsible. 
 
Congregations are structured by committees.  Committees are lead by volunteers who support the mission of the organization.  But not every volunteer is motivated to do the work.  So, congregations are often a mix of committees where some function at a higher level while others struggle to accomplish their objectives.  What makes the difference?  It is the motivation of the volunteers. 
 
There are basically three ways people develop motivation.  The first two are about external motivating factors.  We all find motivation and inspiration from other people.  People who are charismatic can often motivate the unmotivated.  This is why charismatic leaders are so popular.  The second way people are motivated is when they become uncomfortable with the way things are.  If one is uncomfortable with the direction (or lack thereof) of an organization, they become motivated to make things better.  Like the first example, this is an external motivator because the motivation is based on a perceived assessment of the organization. 
 
Dr. Murray Bowen observed this external process of motivation in the family.  He described it as an over/under reciprocity or over/under reciprocal functioning.  The basic idea is that behavior occurs reciprocally in a relationship system or emotional unit (like the family).  Bowen observed that one spouse will overfunction, and the other spouse lets them overfunction.  The more one does for the other, the less the other does for them self.  These same patterns are extended to other relationship systems.  If one’s tendency is to underfunction in the family, they will more than likely bring this same pattern to the congregation.  If a leader underfunctions on a committee, others on the committee may find themselves taking on more responsibility (doing the things that leader can do).  If a leader overfunctions in the family, in the committee they may take on more responsibility than is needed. 
 
It’s helpful to note that anxiety drives this reciprocal process of over/underfunctioning.  As one becomes consumed with worry and fear, other picks up the anxiety and each person shifts into doing either more or less.  The reactivity to anxiety to do more or do less is the product of a multigenerational family emotional process.  In a way, one learns these patterns from one’s family of origin over the generations.  The reactivity is automatic in the sense that very little thinking and awareness go into this response.  It just happens.
 
The third example of motivation is what Dr. Bowen identified in the concept of differentiation of self.  When an individual is clear about core principles and a life direction, they are motivated to do the work.  It is an internal motivation because it comes from within the self.  This type of motivation is not determined by the motivation (or lack of motivation) of others but instead is based on a clear understanding of one’s beliefs and direction.  The focus of this type of motivation is less on others and more on self.  However, it is not selfish.  In fact, this type of motivation enables one to be more available to others. 
 
In congregations, some people use the word motivation and calling interchangeably.  To find motivation is to rediscover one’s calling into ministry.  Again, one's “calling” can be caught up in the reciprocal back and forth process of the relationship system.  One might feel called in response to what others are doing or not doing.  A true calling is something one pursues with or without others.  Leadership can be lonely.
 
When an organization is full of motivated people, the work they do together is less complicated.  When I think back on the many years my kids played soccer, it was easy to tell which kids were motivated to play.  The motivated kids excelled and were able to step up when challenged.  Less motivated kids depended more on the coach.  They did not excel as quickly.  A good coach can tell which players are motivated and then knows how to both motivated and train their players.  In a congregation, a pastor can tell who is motivated and who needs to be motivated.
 
The congregation I serve created a new process to identify motivated leaders.  If someone is interested in serving on the top leadership team, they must go through an application process.  Applicants fill out a form and provide written answers to questions.  The questions are designed to help an applicant reflect on their motivation for serving, consider their gifts and talents, and discern if they are called to be on the leadership team.  Once the application is completed, applicants are then interviewed. 
 
For many years, the process of filling a volunteer leadership position in the church was accomplished by externally motivating people to serve.  It’s sometimes referred to as arm twisting.  The result often left unmotivated individuals sitting in positions of responsibility accomplishing very little.  This new process addresses the problems with motivation.  Is this person applying for a leadership position because the congregation needs someone in that position or because the individual is self-motivated to do the work?  And if they are motivated, is it because the work is important to them or because they are anxious and worried about the organization?  The answers to these questions can have different outcomes.
 
The ideal candidate for a volunteer position in the church is someone whose personal goals, beliefs, and life direction is in line with the congregation's goals, beliefs and direction.  There may be differences over the details.  But in general, what is important to the individual is important to the congregation.  In this way, the calling (and motivation) of the individual supersedes the needs of the organization.  The individual will pursue what motivates them whether the congregation accepts them as a volunteer or not.  One could make the case that a thriving congregation is simply a collection of individuals who are self-motivated to pursue their calling in life.  And to that, I say Alleluia!  Amen!

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

Six years ago, I was invited to lead a workshop on evangelism for a congregation that averages 500 in worship.  The congregation wanted to expand its outreach to the community.  I am not an expert on evangelism but accepted the invitation as an opportunity to be a good thinker and to connect the concept of evangelism with discipleship. 
 
 
THE TYPICAL EVANGELIST
 
I recently walked out of Union Station in Chicago surprised to see a twenty-something hipster preaching with a portable speaker. With his facial hair and tweed cap, he proclaimed God’s love for all of us.  His message was an if/then proposition.  If someone confesses their sins, they will have eternal life.  I’ve attended several church growth seminars.  At no time was street preaching suggested as a method for growing a congregation which is interesting given its historical success.
 
Take my tradition, The United Methodist Church.  Our founder, John Wesley preached in public on top of his father’s gravestone!  There certainly is a time and place for public preaching.  But unless you plan to launch a religious revival, it’s probably not going to be your cup of tea.  This is the image most of us have of evangelism.  Someone preaching in public to the masses (rest in peace, Billy Graham).  For most people, evangelism happens through interpersonal relationships.  The invitation to faith comes early in life and usually from a family member.
 
 
CAN'T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG?
 
One of the fundamental questions the Bible attempts to answer is, “How can we all get along?”  In the book of Genesis, we quickly discover with the first family that it will not be easy for humans to get along.  Adam and Eve are examples of blame and shame while Cain and Able are examples of struggle and violence.  How will God and God’s people solve the human relationship condition?
 
In the Hebrew Bible, we see the development of laws and rules that attempt to answer this question.  The Bible identifies the problem as sin and sin has been historically interpreted through the lens of ethics and morality.  Laws and rules are handed down to motivate the people to do less bad stuff and more good stuff.  Laws and rules were designed to create healthy kin and non-kin relationships.
 
With laws and rules in place, the problem becomes the focus of discipleship.  Is discipleship a focus on how I observe the laws, or is it a focus on how others observe the laws?  Rabbi Ed Friedman addressed this paradox of living in community.  He described it as a paradox between a focus on self and a focus on others.  If one focuses only on others, then one becomes a no-self.  If one focuses only on self, then one becomes narcissistic.  While the narcissist obliterates others, the no-self has no core beliefs, no guiding principles, is mostly reactive to others, and is dangerous and out of control.  For Friedman, the answer to the paradox was in the middle: a self that is connected.  To know thyself is to have a relationship with God.  Knowing thyself shapes the way one behaves towards others.  But it is more than just being better connected and less selfish.   
 

 FROM PROHIBITION TO ISOLATION
  
Historically, the practice of evangelism has been caught up in heated debates over the prohibition of things and behaviors.  Abortion and Halloween are examples that come to mind.  The Deuteronomic code is another example.  For some people, evangelism involves communicating moral rules and laws designed to deter bad behavior within the context of a community or society.  There are problems inherent in this form of evangelism.
 
Some congregations and their leaders try to change the behavior of others.  In this way, they take responsibility for the behavior of others.  It becomes their mission to stop it.  It’s problematic because most people don’t want to be responsible for the behavior of others.  And most people don’t want someone telling them to be more responsible.  Just because you tell someone to be more accountable for their behavior doesn’t mean they will be more accountable.
 
The alternative (which is where most mainline congregations find themselves) is to give up and create distance from those who behave “badly."  Of course, there is the token effort to help the people who have made “bad” choices, but they are not invited to worship.  It gets even more interesting.  Some churches highlight specific laws in the Bible as “membership requirements.”  If you break one of these membership laws, you lose your membership.  Break a rule? You're banished.  In the worst cases, the banishment is announced publicly.  It's really religious isolationism.
 
When people isolate or distance from someone, they may be hoping to change the other person's behavior.  Parents discipline their toddler with a timeout.  In nature, some animals are shunned to elicit “right” behavior.  If you isolate the problematic person (or animal), the pain of isolation will create discomfort which can lead to a change in behavior.  We imprison and isolate individuals who are labeled a “risk” to the community hoping it will lead to a change in their behavior. 
 
The effort to prohibit and isolate bad behavior are at two ends of a continuum.  They are part of an emotional process.  Congregations can become stuck in an emotional process.  Congregational leaders may be aware of how evangelism is used by some people as an effort to tell other people what to do.   They're aware that this version of evangelism is unsuccessful and doesn’t work.  There will always be a few holdouts, though.  Like the man outside Union Station.  Equally problematic are people who justify isolating and distancing from someone while at the same time upholding the commandment by Jesus to love everyone.  Leaders feel stuck in this efforts to advance the evangelistic outreach of their congregation while at the same time avoiding these potholes of application.  They are under pressure to do something!  What can they do?
 
In response to the dramatic national decline in church membership, leaders feel the burden to grow their congregation and increase giving.  When the focus on evangelism is in response to a decline in membership and giving, it reveals the real problem.  Congregations are anxious about their future.  I’m reminded of the hymn: “What troubles have we seen, what mighty conflicts past, fightings without, and fears within, since we assembled last!”   When people are anxious, and there is tension in the relationship system, people typically respond in one of two ways: they either move towards others to control, or they distance themselves from others.  There is a third way, however.  Dr. Murray Bowen called it differentiation of self.
 
 
THE SOLUTION TO EVANGELISM: DIFFERENTIATION OF SELF
 
The modern family is not much different from the first family.  The challenge is the same:  how does one relate to challenging people (in a congregation or in a family) without telling the other what to do and without ignoring the other altogether?  One step is to discover that one cannot change the other, but one can change self.  This brings us back to the concept of the self.  To be a self is to be clear about what one believes without demanding others to agree or defending a belief in the face of dissent.  It is about maturity.  It is about, what is called in the Christian tradition, discipleship: working on one’s salvation (with or without fear and trembling, depending on your tradition).  Here we are on solid ground when it comes to evangelism. 
 
The effort to be the best possible version of self (to be all that God is calling you to be) is evangelistic.  It is attractive.  It is compelling to other people.  The irony for those who place a premium on evangelism is that at the very moment they reach out to make disciples of others, they do so at the expense of their discipleship.  The focus becomes on changing others and not on changing self.  The invitation to baptism in the Christian tradition is an invitation for one to profess their faith; to declare their desire to be a disciple.  When one works at discipleship, evangelism happens.  The greatest evangelists of all time where people who knew that working on being the best version of themselves (being all that God is calling them to be) is the way to reach other people.  It’s counter-intuitive, but it makes the most sense. 
 
So, instead of organizing an evangelism committee, consider starting a class geared towards the individual effort of developing core principles and beliefs; one or two beliefs one can be sure of more than anything else.  Invite participants to make daily decisions and relate to others in ways that are consistent with their core beliefs.  When is it easy to do?  When is it challenging?  What makes the difference?
 
If I’m right about the connection between discipleship and evangelism (that evangelism is the natural outcome of individual discipleship), then there would be a way to measure it.  In theory, as one works at defining a self while maintaining good contact with important others, the number of important contacts would grow.  One would be freer to relate to others out of a more mature self.  The individuals who put their focus on being the best version of themselves they can be are some of the most evangelical people I know.

​What is an institution?  An institution is a structure that sustains a social movement; a movement that is focused on a cause or solving a problem in society.  Historically, movements light up in society to create change.  They are like bursts of fire.  Sustaining a movement over time is difficult.  Eventually, movements transition into institutions that provide structure to keep the fire burning. 
 
A member of a congregation discovered that teenage women who gave birth while in high school were more than likely to drop-out.  She started offering free childcare to help these women graduate.  The need was greater than one person could manage, so she enlisted the help of her congregation.  Eventually, people from the community volunteered for the program.  As the program grew, policies and procedures were adopted.  A board of directors was established.  Voila!  A movement becomes an institution. 
 
While we can often bemoan the existence of institutions (with their bureaucratic structures and their slow pace of change), their existence is important.  When it comes to addressing social problems, institutions provide a framework for developing best practices and ethical responses to a problem.
 
Institutions use best practices that are proven to be effective in serving a specific clientele.  Public institutions have long championed the use of best practices.  Instead of reinventing the wheel, they focus on what has been successful.  If you attend a training in your field, more than likely you will hear something about best or standard practices.
 
I’ve written extensively about the challenges congregations have in adopting best practices.  While “experts” in congregational development might have some common agreement on what might constitute “standard practices” for congregations, there is no clear standard for all congregations within a particular faith.  It doesn’t exist.  Leaving that aside, the main problem seems to be that best practices are not transferable.  That is, what is successful in one congregation cannot be easily replicated in another.  No one has adequately explained the reason for this.  It is still elusive. 
 
Institutions practice ethical responses to a problem.  Ethics in this context is defined as protecting staff from doing harm to their clients and protecting staff from doing harm to themselves.  Anyone who has worked or volunteered in social services knows that one can quickly become overwhelmed by the demands and needs of helping others.  Institutions find ethical solutions for meeting needs without exhausting their staff while at the same time providing quality care that does not harm their clients.  For example, nursing homes structure themselves to manage the risks inherent in caring for the elderly.  Staff rotates, tasks are divided up, and rules are followed to protect staff from burning out and protects clients from being underserved.  Nursing homes vary in their ability to manage both well. 
 
The question remains, does a focus on best practices that are ethical help institutions improve their quality of care or do they perpetuate a much deeper problem?  Whenever social problems like poverty, food insecurity, economic opportunities (to name a few) continue to be a problem while there is an ever-expanding field of social services, it’s important to ask the question, “what is missing from our understanding of the problem?”  The answer, it turns out, is the role institutions play in perpetuating the problems they are trying to solve.
 
When it comes to helping others, Dr. Murray Bowen observed that people can unintentionally do harm to others by doing too much.  He was aware that underneath our individual behavior is a deeper emotional process embedded in a relationship system.  Here is what he had to say:
 
“. . . A triangular emotional process through which two powerful people in the triangle reduce their own anxiety and insecurity by picking a defect in the third person, diagnosing and confirming the defect as pitiful and in need of benevolent attention, and then ministering to the pitiful helpless one, which results in the week becoming weaker and the strong becoming stronger.  It is present in all people to some degree, and by overcompassion in poorly integrated, overemotional people, powered by benevolent overhelpfulness that benefits the stronger one more than the recipient, and is justified in the name of goodness and self-sacrificing righteousness.  The prevalence of the process in society would suggest that more hurtfulness to others is done in the service of pious helpfulness than in the name of malevolent intent.”  Family Therapy in Clinical Practice, p 434. 
 
When is helping not helping?  Or, what do you do when helping others does not solve the problem?  This is an institutional problem.  The response to this ongoing problem has been the development and management of best practices and ethical procedures.   Yet, despite best practices, institutions become stuck when they are not able to accomplish the very thing the original movement championed.  The reason they become stuck is that they do not address the underlying emotional process.  The emotional process is fundamentally about anxiety.  Anxiety is a part of the family emotional process.  Therefore, all social problems are ultimately family problems. 
 
Institutions have historically tried to take responsibility for problems in the family.  But what if institutions changed their approach?  What if they became resources to the family without attempting to solve family problems?  What if institutions helped families by equipping family members to solve their problems?  What if institutions redirected themselves to support the family’s efforts to come up with a viable plan for the family and the individual members?  What would this look like and how could an institution organize itself to be oriented in this direction?    
 
So, what would a more responsible caregiving position look like for an institution within the context of the family?  Here are some more questions to consider:
 

• What are individuals and families capable of doing for themselves?
• How does one determine what one can do for self?
• What are realistic expectations for functioning?
• As a staff person or leader, what am I willing to do or not do for an individual or family?
• What facts are needed to make a thoughtful decision about this?
• Is the institution putting the client’s needs first or the needs of the institution? 
• How does one tell the difference?
• When tension in the relationship system of an institution goes up, who is more likely to bear the brunt of the tension?  The clients or the staff? 

 
When an institution overfunctions in caregiving, they undercut the motivation and agency of the individual and the family.  The idea of stepping back as an institution, by letting clients take the lead, creates anxiety for the institution which is evidence of the institution’s tendency to overfunction.  It’s worth noting that when I talk about institutions, I’m really talking about a relationship system of leaders and workers.  Each person in the system brings a level of anxiety and functioning to their work that is based in their family of origin.  Some institutions manage their problems better than others, depending on the functional level of the leaders and to some extent the staff.
 
Thinking systems can provide a deeper awareness of the emotional process at play in the family and in the broader society.  Thinking systems is an alternative to being overly focused on best practices and ethical behavior.  Institutional leaders who can think systems do a better job of addressing societal problems because they take responsibility for their part in solving the problem and empower the leaders in a family to lead.  

My mood shifted. I had been feeling stressed, worried, and my thinking was cloudy. And then it all shifted. I became relaxed, happy, and clearer. I sat down and retraced my steps, specifically, my interactions. When did my mood shift? It was a compliment. Someone said something positive about my behavior. It was an emotional response to a relationship. I decided to dedicate this blog to another mood shifter: blame.

To blame is human. We all do it. But why? Blame serves a purpose. It calms down a relationship system that is tense and anxious. Pretend your congregation has spent weeks planning an event. The day of the event arrives, and nothing goes according to plan. Attendance is low, and the people who manage to show up are disappointed. In this case, it’s not unusual for someone to be blamed for everyone’s disappointment.

Inevitably, someone will take responsibility, not for the event, but for the feelings of disappointment in others. They will either blame themselves or blame others. When the person taking responsibility for the outward display of feelings of disappointment by others manages to get everyone to agree on whom to blame, the congregation will calm down. The extent to which this happens is an indicator of the level of maturity of the leaders of the congregation. The more blaming there is, the less mature the leaders.

Politicians are certified blamers. The public may dislike politicians who blame others. We may think it’s manipulative or callous. But politicians are humans. They react to the tension and anxiety of their constituents. They are just as tempted as the rest of us to calm down their people (their base) by blaming someone else.

Clergy are prone to blame. If a congregation is uptight, stressed, anxious, and tense clergy may find someone to blame. In congregations with a large staff, it’s not unusual for one staff person to be blamed for the disappointment or upsetness of the congregation. Someone on staff (often the pastor, but not always) will feel responsible for the negative feelings of the congregation and seek out someone to blame. We don’t like to admit it but (and for some people it is difficult to observe) we simply feel better when we blame others. It’s the only reason we do it.

As I mentioned earlier, some leaders blame themselves. Clergy overfunctiong when they blame themselves for problems in the congregation by taking too much credit for the success and failures of the congregation. When clergy overfunction, the relationship system calms down. Judicatory leaders who work closely with clergy are aware that clergy experience burnout and often do a poor job of self-care. Missing from this awareness is an understanding and appreciation of the emotional process in the relationship system. You can see it at work when clergy self-blame. When clergy blame themselves for problems in the system, they put pressure on their body to perform. It may sound counterintuitive, but clergy perform better when they stop overfunctioning.

The desire to blame diminishes as leaders work on developing a systems view of relationships and an awareness of the emotional process. A good coach can help with this. Consider the following questions:

• What does a more responsible leadership position look like?
• How clear are you about your responsibilities? What are you willing to do for others and self? What are you not willing to do for others or self?
• What challenges are others facing in the relationship system?
• How will you redirect future conversations away from blaming someone toward articulating a systems perspective? How can you be more responsible for the way you engage other people?
• How does blame (blaming others or blaming self) work in your family of origin? Where do you see it light up? What insights are useful for thinking about blame in the congregation?

 
I recently had a conversation with someone about self-regulation.  Self-regulation is the ability to control or adjust one’s functioning without depending on others.  One way to think about it is the capacity to regulate thoughts, feelings, and actions independent of others.  At infancy, bodily regulation is dependent on others, particularly the mother.  Fathers have some influence.  As we develop into adulthood, we decrease the dependency on others and increase the capacity to self-regulate.  No one ever makes it all the way!  We enter adulthood with a mix of both.  Dr. Murray Bowen developed this idea in his concept of differentiation of self.  You can read about it by clicking here.
 
The extent to which any one of us can self-regulate is connected to a couple of factors.  These factors include the capacity of the parents to self-regulate, the amount of tension in the family during a child’s development, the level of anxiety in the family, and the way previous generations managed tension and anxiety.  Adult children leave the family with more or less the same capacity to self-regulate as parents.  Some do a little bit better, some do a little bit worse.  But it’s roughly the same.
 
When adult children leave the family to start a new one, they hook up with someone who has a similar capacity to self-regulate.  Whatever dependency is leftover from the family of origin will be managed in this new relationship through a process of reciprocity.  For example, one spouse may be vulnerable to health problems while the other spouse is consistently healthy.  I had someone tell me, after the death of their spouse, that they were surprised to discover how their overall health had improved.  In the marriage, they were always sick, and the other was always healthy.  Now that the spouse was gone, their general health was improving. 
 
Individual models dominate most approaches to improving functioning.  People work at doing better as if it’s completely about them.  New Year’s is coming up.  Resolutions are usually about doing a better job of self-regulating.  “I’m going to lose weight.”  “I’m going to learn to play the cello.”  “I’m going to read more novels.”  These resolutions represent efforts to self-regulate behavior.  But without an understanding of the family emotional process, people generally fail in their individually focused efforts.  The challenges we face to regulate ourselves are remnants (the stuff leftover) from our childhood.  It represents our dependency on others to function.  The challenge is to finish the unfinished work of growing up. 
 
There is a natural developmental process of staying focused on what is important to self.  This process of staying focused is disrupted to a greater and lesser degree by the amount of tension and anxiety in the family.  As the level of anxiety in the family increases, the force of togetherness pulls individuals away from self-regulation towards the family which operates as one emotional unit.  It’s not unusually for people to miss this.  It’s automatic.  The phrase that best describes this process is learning to “catch yourself.”  It’s difficult to do, to be sure!  Most people can identify it happens after the fact.  So, how can we learn to catch ourselves earlier in the process?
 
Learning to catch oneself requires what I call the three C’s: clear, calm, and connected.  The first “C” is about being clear about how the family emotional process influences individual functioning.  Sometimes it’s simply an awareness that there is a process and then “seeing” it at work.  The second “C” is about staying calmer than everyone else in the family to observe the family emotional process and how it impacts each person in the family.  The third “C” is about getting connected with everyone in the family.  You can only observe this process if you are connected to everyone else.  
 
Beyond these three steps, there are no specific techniques.  It is a learn-as-you-go process.  A coach who is a good thinker can make a big difference.  Being curious, inquisitive, observational, interested, motivated, and organized can all contribute to this process of catching oneself, and lead one to doing a better job of self-regulating.  The effort to pay attention to one’s functioning while at the same time observing the functioning of others can lead to better self-regulation.  In my experience, as one works on observing the family emotional process, one can catch oneself sooner with practice.

Let’s talk about the people who get under your skin. You know who I’m talking about. These are the people who can get you all revved up. Maybe it’s your child’s significant other, your boss, your neighbor, a member of the congregation, or a court-appointed therapist. You can barely tolerate being in the same room with them. It’s clear to you that THEY are the problem. End of discussion.

Let’s talk about what you do to people who get under your skin. You blame them! You blame them for getting everyone worked up. You blame them for how they make you feel. It’s clear to you that this person is “not normal” and therefore MUST change. It is the only solution. If you’re human, you’ve probably said this to yourself and, on occasion, out loud.

An alternate reality may enter our conscious mind to suggest that the situation is more complicated. If you listen carefully, you can hear people vacillate between two realities. On the one hand, we get worked up about someone’s behavior. On the other hand, we recognize that we all behave in ways that challenge others. Even though we try not to blame others, we just can’t help ourselves.

Directly or indirectly, my expend energy to try and change the other person. The direct approach is, well simply: “You need to change your behavior!” The indirect method is much subtler. But the desire is still the same. We keep hoping the other person will get the message and change.

Have you ever wondered how someone’s behavior gets under your skin? Have you ever noticed that your level of irritation with them fluctuates? When I coach clergy, I hear stories of how parishioners can get them revved up. The clergy diagnose and blame others for the problems in the church. Some clergy sound very convincing. What’s remarkable is what happens when I ask a simple question.

Where does this bad behavior occur in your family? I first heard this question over a decade ago while participating in a clergy group. It’s a question I’ve started to ask myself and others. What’s remarkable is that I’ve never had someone answer with, “nowhere.” The longest I’ve had to wait for an answer is about five seconds. Almost immediately, clergy can identify someone in their family.

It turns out that it’s not people that get us revved up. It’s the relationship process that takes place in between people. It’s the back and forth process which is automatic, reactive, and reciprocal. It’s back and forth because the other person is reacting to you and other people just as much as you are reacting to them and to other people. It’s automatic because the emotional system hijacks the prefrontal cortex. It’s reactive because the other person’s behavior makes you uncomfortable. It’s reciprocal because individuals in a relationship system are always adjusting to find a sustained level of comfort.

Pretend that Andrew is a member of your congregation. Andrew loves to tell people what to and how to do it. He is more than happy to complete a task for someone who isn’t as organized as he is. If you need something done, Andrew is your guy. The downside is that no one will work with Andrew.

Everyone is unhappy on the committee Andrew chairs. No one talks during the meetings and Andrew continues to take on more and more responsibility. The meetings typically end with everyone being frustrated, including Andrew. You decide to take Andrew out for coffee.

“Tell me what it was like growing up in your family,” you ask. Andrew begins to tell you about being the oldest of six siblings. Andrew grew up on a farm. His father died when he was sixteen, leaving him responsible for the farm and the family. After his father’s death, his mother became depressed and less available to Andrew and his six siblings. This left Andrew with the additional responsibility of parenting his siblings. Under these circumstances, Andrew learned how to keep the family afloat. His siblings graduate high school except for one sister who dropped out. She still lives with their mother and is unable to keep a job. Andrew, who still lives close by, makes daily trips to the house to keep his mother organized and the sister out of trouble. You leave the conversation with a new appreciation of what Andrew is up against.

On the way home, in the car, you think about your family and wonder who exhibits this same challenging behavior. It’s your mother. When she is stressed, she tries to organize your life. When this happens, you find it difficult to maintain your level of functioning. You decide it’s time to take more responsibility for your functioning, so you create a plan to not depend on your mother’s over functioning. A good coach, trained in Bowen Theory, can be a helpful resource in figuring out how to address this reciprocal, relationship challenge.

The key to dealing with difficult behavior is to get on the other side of it:

• What challenge is the other person facing?
• How does their behavior function in a way that makes sense?
• What part does my reactivity play in perpetuating the problem?
• How can I function differently in a way that is more responsible?
• How is a more neutral, mature response different than the way I’m responding now?

Getting on the other side of someone’s behavior can make a difference in developing strategize for working on differentiation of self. One can discover that the other person is doing the best they can with what they have. And while we can all do better, I can do better while working on my part of the problem. Getting factual about what someone is up against in their life is one way to develop a mature response to a problem. What will it take for you to get on the other side of a problem so you can be the best self you can be?