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.

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

Scientists have discovered a new type of brain cell called the rosehip neuron.  The discovery was made by Ed Lein, Ph.D., Investigator at the Allen Institute for Brain Science and Gábor Tam­ás.  The rosehip neuron may be unique to humans.  It has not been found in mice or other animal species. 
 
What’s distinct about the rosehip neuron is its role as a specialized inhibitor.  Inhibitors put the brakes on certain signals traveling through the brain. The result is a halting of certain actions and behaviors.  Neurons send their signals down the axon of the nerve cell where they release neurotransmitters.  Inhibitor neurons send neurotransmitters to other neurons which inhibit their ability to “fire.”  Further research is needed to determine what specific behaviors are affected by the rosehip neuron. 
 
As I meditated on the discovery of the rosehip neuron, I began to speculate about its role in the disruption of automatic patterns of behavior.  Let’s pretend it’s lunch time but you’ve forgotten to pack a lunch.  Your morning meeting went over and it’s now early afternoon.  You are famished.  You set a diet goal to restrict certain foods.  In the drive thru of your favorite fast-food joint, you consider your options.  Burger or salad?  What makes the difference between choosing a salad or a burger?  Or consider this example.  I was sitting on a couch petting the cat that jumped into my lap.  I was performing the “correct” scratching and petting methods that have proven acceptable to Jorge.  There was purring and stretching.  All was well.  And then he bit my hand.  As I checked to see if I was bleeding, I said to Jorge, “You need to make better choices!”  What does it take to make better choices?  Is the disruption of behavior a human phenomenon or can other animals do it?  What makes the difference?
 
Humans have a unique ability to inhibit automatic behaviors through a thinking system.  Moral codes of conduct, beliefs, values and core principles play a role in guiding one’s behavior.  Several examples come to mind.  The Torah contains the Ten Commandments, which are a list of inhibitors.  The second portion of the commandments declare, “you shall not . . .”  These early laws (including the Deuteronomic Code) have the potential to inhibit certain automatic behaviors.  They command individuals to put the brakes on polytheism, murder, adultery, stealing, lying and coveting. 
 
Similarly, criminal law in the United States is designed to deter certain behaviors.  Sentencing guidelines have the potential to inhibit criminal behavior.  Murder, for example, is organized by degrees and within these degrees are sentencing guidelines for punishment.  Robert Sapolsky in his book, Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst discusses how thinking can influence behavior, but admits that processes that favor automatic behavior are powerful and can be difficult to inhibit.
 
Behavior is a product of the nuclear family emotional process.  This process is passed down the generations creating patterns of behavior to manage anxiety, stress and tension in the family.  These patterns focus the anxiety of the family onto one person.  As anxiety goes up one individual carries the load of anxiety resulting in symptoms.  Symptoms can be physical in nature, psychological and behavioral.  For example, when a family experiences a stressful event, a family member may attempt to manage the tension by organizing the family.  The automatic response of telling others what to do is a behavioral response to the rising level of anxiety in the family.  In reaction to the effort to organize the family, others may ignore the commands, become combative or give in and comply.  These responses are automatic and reactive because the thinking system in the brain is largely not involved.  It is for all intents and purposes offline.  Blaming someone for the way they automatically manage stress misses the point that everyone in the family plays a party in how one behaves.  One can make a difference in the way they behave, but only when the effort is to work on self.
 
Differentiation of self is the first step in learning how to put the brakes on automatic, reactive responses to chronic anxiety in the family.  The process begins by observing the "who," "what," "where," "when" and "how" anxiety flows through the family.  What follows are incremental steps towards understanding how one picks up or passes along the anxiety, discovering more responsible ways for responding to anxiety in self and in others and developing a broader capacity to engage one’s thinking in the midst of anxious others and self. 
 
Perhaps one day scientist will discover the neuronal pathways that lead to better functioning for individuals and for families.  It may be that inhibitor neurons play a role in toning down anxious signals by way of higher-level processing.  Until we have all the facts we use theories like Bowen family system theory, beliefs and core principles to guide our thinking and behavior.

I’m always surprised when a parishioner tells me how important I am to them.  I probably shouldn’t be surprised.  After all, I’m there at key moments in their life: baptisms, confirmations, weddings, hospital visits, funerals, etc.  But still, when I hear it from someone who I don't interact with on a daily basis (sometimes not even weekly), it comes as a surprise.    
 
Barbara Brown Taylor was an important person in my life even though we had never met.  She is a famous author and former priest in the Episcopal Church.  Her books on preaching helped me become a better preacher.  I first read her books while attending seminary.  From the school library, I rented videos of her preaching.  Over time, I learned to appreciate her as a preacher, pastor and person.  I guess I became starstruck. 
 
So, when I heard she was speaking at a local university, I immediately purchased two tickets.  My wife and I attended the presentation.  Afterwards, I got in line to have her sign my book.  I was nervous.  She had become this important person in my life.  How was I going to communicate her importance to me?  As I stepped up to the counter, I immediately began telling her that I was a big fan and how important she was to me as a preacher and pastor.  She was kind and gracious.  We talked for a couple of minutes.  And then it was over.  Reality set in.  As important as she had been to me, I realized that we were not close. 
 
There is a word for this: fantasy.  We have fantasies about other people that represent our wishes and expectations of them.  We envision and playout the relationship in our minds.  There is a wide variation on what these relationships look like.  It’s different for each person.  We live out these expectations without talking about them.  Some call this a projection process.  Whatever it is, it’s not real.  It is a fantasy.
 
A pastor and congregation meet for the first time on a Sunday morning.  The sanctuary is full of fantasies.  The pastor and the congregation have in their minds a narrative of how this new relationship will go.  The expectations of each are projected onto the other. 
 
There are two predictable outcomes.  First, if the pastor is not working on differentiation of self, they may give into the unrealistic expectations of the congregation which can result in the pastor (or a member of the pastor’s family) becoming symptomatic.  Second, the pastor may push back against the expectations of the congregation with a rebellious attitude.  This may lead to a rift in the congregation.  Of course, it’s not all about the pastor.  Everyone in the congregation plays their part. 
 
The disciples fantasized about Jesus’ identity as the Messiah.  The Gospels are full of examples of the disciples defining the word “Messiah.”  But, in every case, Jesus tells them that their fantasies are inaccurate.  Jesus defines himself by saying, “I am . . .” or “I will . . .”  This is a helpful process to remember.  As the disciples engage Jesus in an understanding of messiahship, the disciples develop an accurate and clear picture of who Jesus is instead of who they hope he will be. 
 
Cutoff contributes to the flourishing of fantasies.  Dr. Murray Bowen observed how people cutoff from their extended families and then create a narrative in their mind about the family which is inaccurate.  When individuals work to stay connected with the extended family, they develop a realistic view of themselves and the family.  The same is true for congregations and for pastors.  A lack of connection between the pastor and the congregation opens the door of fantasies.  The more engaged a pastor is with the congregation (while working on differentiation of self), the quicker both can grow up and see the world as it is, not the fantasy they wish it to be.