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

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

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.

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

Is your congregation's nomination process up and running?  It's that time of year again.  While administrative structures vary from church to church, the challenge of nominating people to specific positions remains the same.  Finding the right person is always a dilemma.  Do you find the person who has general qualities of leadership or do you find a specialist?  New research suggests that when it comes to having a high functioning community, our ancient ancestors used a combination of generalists and specialists.
 
A recent paper, by scientists from the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History and the University of Michigan, suggests that modern humans were able to migrant into new territories around the globe and survive because of their ability to mix generalist with specialists across kin groups.  How this worked and to what extent is not completely understood, but the idea is supported by archaeological discoveries.  However, researches don’t need to look back to understand this process.  Congregations provide a laboratory for understanding how individuals are selected to serve.  Here are some examples of how congregations decide.
 
 
The Nomination Committee
 
I used this process for many years.  The committee begins to meet several months in advance of the annual meeting.  One of the challenges to having a nominations committee is finding people who can put in the time.  Because the process is fluid, sometimes the committee needs to meet more often than other committees.  The purpose of a nominating committee is to identify potential leadership openings, to identify the qualities needed for the open positions and to brainstorm a list of potential candidates through a process of consensus building.  Candidates are more likely to say "yes" if they know a group from the congregation supports them as a leader and if the pastor contacts them directly to make the offer.  The upside of this method for clergy is that, depending on term limits, after a couple of years, the structure is filled with people who were chosen by their peers and personally invited to serve by the pastor.  This has a positive impact on the level of collaboration and cooperation within the organization. 
 
 
A Clergy Prepared Slate
 
In some congregations, and sometimes in the interest of time, clergy prepare the slate to be presented for approval.  A nominations committee may or may not be part of this process.  The upside for clergy is that they get to handpick individuals they know they can work with.  The downside is that individuals with leadership potential are overlooked.  There is a risk of creating an insular structure, but this risk is also real in the nomination committee model if the committee simply rubber stamps whoever the pastor recommends.  Even when clergy are preparing the slate, it is important to involve the congregation by asking for suggestions and input.
 
 
The Interview Process
 
This is my favorite way to nominate because it addresses two of the biggest problems in leadership: a lack of motivation and the mismatch of people and positions.  The first step is to create a job description for every position in the church.  The second step is to invite members to apply for each position.  An interview team (which can be a nominations committee) made up of a small group of current leaders and at-large members, will interview the applicants.  The strength of this approach comes from the process.  Those who apply are already motivated.  The interview process gives the applicant and the interview team time to discern if it is a good match.  The interview is also a time to talk about the applicant’s discipleship journey and the leadership opportunity.  If done well, this process creates a culture of discipleship.
 
 
Other Considerations
 
Whatever model you use, make sure the process is open.  Let the congregation know the dates of meetings and deadlines for the nomination process.  Publish the slate of nominations a couple of weeks (the earlier the better) before the annual meeting and make it easily accessible for people to review.  If you are clergy or a congregational leader, make yourself available to answer questions about the slate and be open to hearing people’s responses, ideas and suggestions.  Depending on your polity, consider a process where the slate can be reviewed and recommended at each level of the structure.  For example, if you are nominating for trustees, present the slate to the trustee's committee and ask for feedback.  Ask the congregation's council or board to recommend the slate for the annual meeting.  Have small group leaders remind people in their groups to review the slate. 
 
The best process is one that is clearly defined and open.  Attempts to nominate behind closed doors in secret and resist congregational participation only creates problems. 

What process works best for you and for the congregation? 

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

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

I wrote this blog in the hope that I might clarify for myself what a discipleship program looks like in a higher functioning congregation.  In the Christian church, a discipleship program is a process by which a congregation teaches children and adults the shared beliefs and values of the congregation.  This blog took several twists over the last few weeks as I thought about discipleship.  What I’m publishing here for you is not a conclusion but my reflections on the intersection of beliefs and relationships.  There is more to think about, and I will more than likely keep writing about it.  It’s worth a closer look.
 
All congregations, regardless of their faith expression, provide religious education.  The shared beliefs and values of the congregation are passed on to children and adults.  From within this educational system, leaders emerge who teach and train other children and adults the shared beliefs and values of the congregation.  This process works well until individuals question these shared beliefs and values or promote ones that are contrary.
 
For congregations that promote independent and critical thinking, there is an inherent risk that such an effort may create problems for the congregation.  As leaders grapple with this dilemma of how flexible they will be in the face of different beliefs or values, they may become stuck in an emotional process. 
 
If you have ever tried to hold a belief that is contrary to the congregation you belong to, you have probably experienced this emotional process.  You can “feel” the tension that is created both internally as one grapples with separating thoughts from feelings, and externally as one tries to navigate the relationship system while holding beliefs that are different than the shared beliefs of the congregation.  There is wide variation in the flexibility of congregations to think differently about certain beliefs while staying connected.
 
Dr. Murray Bowen described what he observed as a life force for togetherness that is common among all humans and all of life.  It is a counter-balancing force to individuality which is the effort to think, feel and act for oneself.  The force for togetherness disrupts this effort in favor of fusing together the thinking, feelings and actions of the group (in this case a congregation but also includes the family).
 
The extent to which a congregation can be at ease with variation in beliefs among congregants is dependent on, among other things, the level of chronic anxiety in the congregation.  The higher the level of anxiety, the more likely there will be demands for everyone to agree with what I’m calling shared beliefs.  At this elevated level, there is little room for disagreement.  People’s thinking becomes fused.  When leaders insist that everyone think the same way about God and issues of faith, it’s a good indicator of the level of tension in the congregation and the chronic level of anxiety among leaders.  Families (of which congregations are a conglomerate of) also experience this phenomenon. 
 
It is true that shared beliefs define a congregation.  Even congregations that participate in interfaith opportunities have shared beliefs about interfaith experiences.  So, to some extent, there is no escaping the need for shared beliefs.  They serve a functional purpose for humans. 
 
The assumption, though, that society will collapse into chaos if people believe and value whatever they want is false.  It is a byproduct of anxiety.  It is an incomplete understanding of the process of being a good thinker.  Supporting an individual’s effort to define and clarify their beliefs does not spur debate, conflict and schism.  Societal problems are not caused by “free thinkers.”  Societal problems are the result of an over-insistence (an anxious focus) that everyone think the same way.  The more congregational leaders demand compliance on specific beliefs and issues of faith, the more revved up and anxious the congregation becomes and vice versa.  It can also work the other way.  Take for example political coalition building.  Bringing together people who think differently can be an anxious process. 
 
The history of humanity is littered with examples of the struggle to either insist that everyone believe the same thing or everyone believing whatever they want.  If leaders strongly insist that everyone believe the same way, then people react and demand freedom.  If leaders strongly encourage independent beliefs and values, then people clamor for shared beliefs and values.   
 
So, what does any of this have to do with discipleship?
 
My original intent for this blog was to consider what a robust discipleship program might look like.  For now, I believe a robust discipleship program takes into consideration the following:
 
First, beliefs are inherently caught up in a relationship process.  The work of clarifying core beliefs and principles requires an understanding of emotional process.  As fear increases, there is a greater demand on individuals in a relationship system to feel, think and act the same way. 
 
Second, it is possible to hold a core belief and engage others who think differently without conflict, debate, and schism.  This can happen to the extent an individual works on differentiation of self.  When one is working to develop core beliefs and principles one inevitably bumps up against the reactivity in the relationship system.  This becomes an opportunity to be both separate and connected, a fundamental aspect of Bowen’s concept of differentiation.  Beliefs are not what bring us together.  Beliefs are what enable us to be together. 
 
I hope one day to design a class (sooner than later) that will invite individuals to work on defining their beliefs.  Such a class will encourage thinking about the following questions:

• Where did a specific belief come from?  Self?  Others?
• When was the belief adopted?
• How does the belief serve one well?
• When was one unable to live out the belief?

 
This effort begins with leaders who are good thinkers.  Clergy find opportunities through preaching, teaching and conversations to define and clarify their beliefs.  At the same time, they invite others to define and clarify their beliefs.  How might leaders encourage themselves and others to work on clarifying beliefs? 
 
A marker of progress in this effort is the ability to articulate a belief without feeling compelled to defend or attack others with their belief.  A clearly defined belief helps one navigate the problems of life by providing room for flexibility and adaptability as one responds to new challenges.
 
Dr. Bowen envisioned the theoretical characteristics of a “differentiated” person when he wrote:
 
These are principle-oriented, goal directed people who have many of the qualities that have been called "inner directed." They begin "growing away" from their parents in infancy. They are always sure of their beliefs and convictions but are never dogmatic or fixed in thinking. They can hear and evaluate the viewpoints of others and discard old beliefs in favor of new. They are sufficiently secure with themselves that functioning is not affected by either praise or criticism from others. They can respect the self in the identity of another without becoming critical or becoming emotionally involved in trying to modify the life course of another. They assume total responsibility for self and are sure of their responsibility for family and society. There are realistically aware of their dependency on their fellow man. With the ability to keep emotional functioning contained within the boundaries of self, they are free to move about in any relationship system and engage in a whole spectrum of intense relationships without a "need" for the other that can impair functioning. The "other" in such a relationship does not feel "used."   Family Therapy in Clinical Practice, Page 164
 
What are the benefits and challenges of developing a discipleship program that encourages and models differentiation of self?

Effective leaders are curious.  Curious people ask good questions.  Good questions can lead to good thinking.  And good thinking can lead to helpful solutions.  But this is not how clergy lead.

Clergy enter a congregation with established ideas about what works and what doesn’t work.  They have a preconceived methodology for implementing their ideas.  This approach to leadership no longer works.  I’m not sure there was ever a point in time when it was successful.  The institutional church spent many years hoping it would be.  Clergy are not trained to be curious and to ask good questions.  They are trained to implement models and programs.
 
This blog will explore the importance of being curious at various stages of ministry.
 
 
When Entering A Congregation
 
The first two years of ministry in a new congregation are critical for establishing healthy, long-term relationships.  This time of transition is a perfect opportunity to learn and discover what works in a specific context.
 
I encourage clergy to spend the first two years asking questions.  When someone asks a pastor, “what do you recommend we do about (fill in the blank),” a good response is, “I’m new here.  Tell me about what has worked and what hasn’t worked.”  It is possible to answer this way for two years.  Clergy (and congregational leaders) can learn from being curious and asking good questions.  If I’ve learned anything in my ministry, it’s this.  Spend the first two years being curious. 
 
 
When There Is Conflict
 
No one likes conflict.  When the relationship system is tense, some people advocate for a quick resolution.  Others ignore it or address it indirectly.  Tension and conflict in the congregating are opportunities to be curious.  Again, just as before, good questions are essential.  How do people define the conflict?  How has this issue been addressed before, if ever?  How does the congregation typically deal with conflict?  With the current conflict, who has said what, to whom, and when?  Who are the good thinkers in the congregation?  What do they think about the conflict?
 
 
When You Feel Lost
 
Clergy don’t like to admit that sometimes they fell lost with no good ideas.  In fact, if clergy are honest, they’d admit their not sure how to lead a congregation forward.  This is the state of the church.  With an ever changing societal process, a shift in normative values in the broader culture and a rapidly declining church clergy feel lost with no clear sense of direction.  It’s the perfect time to be curious!
 
Anxious congregations focus on administrative processes and keeping existing programs intact.  A curious pastor shifts their focus to having conversations with the congregation.  These conversations can happen in small groups.  Preferably, though, the pastor sits down with every member of the congregation for no longer than an hour and ask them the following questions:

1. What are the opportunities available for the future of the congregation?
2. What do you think are the next steps for our congregation?
3. What strengths and passions do you bring to the congregation?
4. What are the next steps you plan to take as a part of the congregation?

 
These are the questions I ask myself as a pastor.  I’m always looking for new opportunities.  I am clear about what strengths and passions I bring to leadership.  I’m interested in the strengths and passions of others and how these gifts fill the gaps of opportunities.  I practice the three C’s of leadership:  conversations, conversations, conversations.    
 
When clergy feel lost, with no clear sense of direction for moving forward, it is time to engage the congregation in conversations.  The result of this process is the stimulation of ideas and possibilities both in the leader and in members of the congregation.
 
 
After a Move
 
How one leaves a congregation is more important than how one enters a congregation.  As one leaves, they establish an emotional context for another pastor to enter.  If the leaving is rough, the entering of the next pastor will be rough.  Clergy can learn to do a better job of leaving a congregation by being curious about the process. 
 
I make it a habit, about six months after I leave a congregation, to contact the pastor who followed me.  I ask questions.  How did the transition go?  What struggles did they encounter?  What was unexpected?  What went well?  How would they do the transition differently?  What would they do again?  Who presented the biggest challenge?  Who was the most helpful to them in the transition?
 
These questions provide an opportunity to learn about what works and what doesn’t work during a transition.  It provides the groundwork for improving the way one enters and leaves a congregation in the future. 
 
Clergy are not taught to be curious. Clergy are not taught about process.  Developing healthy habits of curiosity is essential for effective leadership.  A focus on process instead of content sets the context for a hopeful future.    

​How well do you pay attention?  Remember the grade school report cards?  When I was in elementary school, we were graded on whether or not we made good use of our time, or how well we pay attention in class?  It's not just kids who have problems paying attention.  Adults struggle, too.
 
Our amazing brains process sensory inputs automatically.  Most of these inputs are processed without conscious awareness.  The human depends on the nervous system to react automatically to the environment, especially a threat.  If the human consciously processed all sensory inputs before it acted, our species would be extinct.  This is the human condition.  It’s more than just having awareness. 
 
Some clergy can get themselves into serious trouble.  When clergy behave inappropriately it’s a problem for supervisors, and it can have a lasting impact on a congregation.  I used to believe that clergy (who got into trouble) lacked awareness.  Awareness is what boards of ordained ministry look for in candidates.  Some people are oblivious to the impact they are having on others, and the impact others are having on them.  But, it is not simply an issue of having awareness.
 
It is possible to “watch” (aka: have an awareness of) what is happening around oneself and still do what is automatic.  In a congregational meeting, one can be clear about what one wants to say but struggle to bring themselves to say it.  It can also be the case that one struggles not to say something that will be counterproductive to the meeting.  They say it anyway.  It's as if they cant help themselves.  Paying attention and acting in a way that is consistent with one’s awareness is a challenge.
 
Paying attention includes activities like observing, researching and thinking.  There is a process of observing.  It includes intentionality, motivation and curiosity.  It’s not in our nature to walk around every moment of every day observing the universe around us.  But when one is intentional, motivated and curious it can lead to agency and action.  
 
The greatest obstacle to the process of paying attention is the fear response.  I’m sitting in a coffee shop trying to pay attention as I write this blog.  Around me are sounds of children laughing, music playing, people talking on their cell phones, and bursts of sounds from the espresso machine.  On some days, I can tune all of it out and focus on writing.  On other days, it’s almost impossible to . . . to . . . to . . . focus.  Then there are days when my attention is somewhere in the middle.  What makes the difference?  The activation and chronic level of the fear response, the levels of cortisol and other stress hormones released in the body and the bodies ability to down-regulate this process. 
 
What triggers the fear response, how sensitive the response is, how quickly the response is engaged, how intense the response is, how quickly the response returns to baseline (if at all) and how chronic the response remains are all variables that are influenced by one’s family of origin.  What we pay attention to and don’t pay attention to is a family systems process.  Not from the past but in the present!  It is happening now, in real time.
 
Attention is on a continuum of human functioning.  At one end of the continuum are those who pay little to no attention to the universe around them.  They are wrapped up in their own little world. At the other end are people who can get overly fixated on just about anything.  I lead a drum circle with children and youth in my congregation.  The key to playing in a drum circle is the ability to focus on playing a unique rhythm while at the same time playing in sync with the other drummers who are playing a different rhythm.  If one listens too much to everyone else, they lose track of their rhythm.  If one listens only to oneself, they will be out of sync with the group.  It’s a balance. 
 
Chronic anxiety can shift attention either away from others or towards others.  As anxiety goes up in the relationship system, some people automatically move their attention away from others.  Their level of discomfort moves them to disconnect and to shift their focus away to other things.  For some, an increase in anxiety moves their attention towards others to control the behavior of others.  In the former, we say “I’m out of here.  Get away from me.”  In the latter, we say, “Stop doing that.  Do this.”
 
Differentiation of self makes a difference for those who struggle with paying attention.  Differentiation of self is not about disengaging nor is it about becoming consumed with the behavior (irritating as it may seem) of others.  It is about being aware of the impulse to do either and then to catch oneself.  It’s a disruption of the automatic response in self.  At one level, it is watching one’s behavior knowing that it is the result of synaptic signaling in the brain.  At another level, it is watching the anxious "charge" that is passed between people in a relationship system and observing how it influences behavior.  It is separating feelings from thinking and knowing where one stops and others begin.
 
Learning to pay attention is about slowing down one’s internal reactivity to others and being more thoughtful in the interactions with others.  To this end, it may be useful to create a timeline of a specific interaction with someone important in the family.  The timeline consists of mapping out who says what, when, where and to whom while at the same time tracking behavior.  This exercise can be useful in understanding shifts in attention.  When one says “X,” the spouse does “Y.”  When the spouse does “Y,” one of the kids does “Z.”  And so on.  By slowing down the interactions and mapping them out, it is possible to observe how attention shifts away from and towards others.  It is a system, so X, Y and Z are influencing each other at the same time.  
 
For anyone willing to pay attention to how the family works, there is a treasure trove of understanding and opportunities available to even the most novice of voyagers.  The adventure awaits!