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.

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

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

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

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

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. 

In May of this year, Betty Shelby was acquitted of the death of Terence Crutcher.  Shelby is a white, Tulsa, Oklahoma police officer and Crutcher was an unarmed black man. You may remember the story.  Shelby was responding to another call when she came upon Crutcher whose car was stopped on the road.  Shelby thought Crutcher was reaching for a gun when she shot him.  Another officer who responded to the call (standing by Shelby), used his taser instead of his gun. 
 
In the aftermath of the acquittal, there was some conversation that the verdict favored Shelby’s right to act out of fear over and against Crutcher’s civil rights.  That argument started me thinking about fear and the criminal justice system.
 
 
Fear And The Criminal Justice System
 
Assault is “a threat or attempt to inflict offensive physical contact or bodily harm on a person (as by lifting a fist in a threatening manner) that puts the person in immediate danger of or in apprehension of such harm or contact.”  Assault is not just about the act of harming another person; it is also about the potential for harm.  If someone feels threatened, they can accuse the other of assault. 
 
I’m not a fool when it comes to law.  The criminal justice system was designed to support the Constitution which protects the rights of the minority.  To serve and to protect is to make sure those who are weak are not hurt.  Simply put, the criminal justice system is a place where people can go when they are afraid. 
 
There are unintended consequence of judiciously favoring those who are afraid.  If a prosecutor or defense attorney can establish a basis for their client’s fear, they will have a more than likely chance of the verdict being in their favor.  Law and Order have come to justify fear over thinking.
 
So, when a police officer fears another person, even if that person poses no threat, the police officer is justified in their use of force.  This is the problem we are facing today.  The popular solution has been to focus on how police officers can be trained to deal with bias, profiling, and inaccurate perceptions. 
 
 
Ask Questions First
 
I get it.  When you are in danger, you don’t ask questions.  That makes sense.  Billions of years of evolution have trained cells to avoid pain and seek out pleasure.  Our brains have developed automatic processes that favor our survival.  In fact, our automatic, neuro processing arrived on the scene well in advance of cortical structures.  So, it makes sense that we respond first in fear and then ask questions later.
 
What we are learning about the brain is that the fear response does not operate in a vacuum.  And as much as we’d like to think the fear response is accurate, it is not.  We consistently get it wrong.  Study after study confirms that humans perceive situations incorrectly based on a number of factors.  I won’t address those here, but you can start by searching "confirmation bias."
 
While we might be able to think critically after a stressful experience, our stress response system disrupts our ability to think critically and to perceive accurately at the moment.  At higher levels of chronic stress, it’s difficult to see the world as it is.  This leads to catastrophizing.
 
When I haven’t heard from my spouse or children in a while, I get worried.  My brain creates a narrative to answer the question, “What has happened to them?”  My brain doesn’t present options.  It automatically generates a storyline that I believe is accurate.  As time ticks by, and there is no response to my repeated texts and phone calls, I become convinced the narrative my brain generated is true.  Why else would I not have heard from them?  Sometimes, in the midst of my fear, I might hear a voice that says, “Perhaps I’m wrong, and everything is fine.”  That’s my thinking system at work.  To switch from fear to thinking, however, is a Herculean task.  It’s possible to do, but it requires enormous effort.
 
 
Why Does This Matter?
 
Humans are regressing.  The functional level of our species continues to decline.  We have become more reactive and less thoughtful in our interactions with each other as we try to solve the challenges of our day.  There are some compounding factors, including social media, which accentuates our perception of fear. 
 
The decision not to prosecute (or to acquit) a police officers who take the life of someone who poses no real threat to others, is an indicator of this regression.  Here are some other factors:

• The criminal Justice system is evolving towards fear based decisions.
• Officers continue to shoot people they are afraid of, even though they don’t pose a threat to the officer's life.
• Courtrooms fill up with people who want their fear of another person justified.
• Lawyers promote fear as a defense for their clients.
• Judges feel pressured to rule in favor of fear.

 
It leads to a few questions to consider.  What evidence can attorneys present to challenge a fear based defense?  What will it take for humans to override their bias and flawed, automatic responses?  It what ways can a police department engage their community differently?  How might communities and families be empowered to reduce violent behavior?  What cognitive activities might be engaged to help individuals switch from reacting to thinking?  How does a higher functioning and thinking police officer behave under stress?  Are there clues to be found in their family of origin?  How can they be recruited and what can they teach other officers?
 

One Final Note (or another long list of questions)
 
If we only focus on the exact moment a police officer pulls the trigger and kills an unarmed, young black man, we will miss out on other options for solving this problem.  How might policing strategies change to be more about resourcing neighborhoods and communities?  How might a police department and city hall empower neighborhoods and communities to step up in the face of violence?  Who are the leaders in the neighborhood working on these issues?  How are police departments supporting their efforts?  What economic challenges are neighborhoods facing and who are the people in the neighborhood working to make it better?  How might a police department and city hall support these kinds of efforts?
 
These are some of the ways I think about this problem.  What thoughts come to your mind?

The ideas presented in this blog are taking from a new training module that is available to congregations and community stakeholders who are interested in addressing polarization in their communities.  If you’d like more information about the training, contact John Bell at john@thinkingcongregations.com.
 
 
Polarization takes a toll on communities and creates additional problems for institutions.  Compromise, collaboration, and cooperation are replaced with confrontation, obstinacy, and resistance.  Each side escalates their rhetoric and behavior towards the opposition.  Police departments, governments, not-for-profits, and religious institutions may become the target of controversy as they provide routine services to their constituents.  Community leaders may feel hopeless and stuck when working with a fearful public.
 
What opportunities are available to community leaders at such a time as this?  How can organizations and institutions develop policies and procedures that better address polarization?  What are ways to address the challenge without perpetuating the problem?
 
 
What is polarization?
 
“Polarization is the alignment of individuals moving in opposition to each other” (Dr. Dan Papero).  It can only be understood correctly as a relationship phenomenon.  It includes behaviors on each side to control the thinking, feeling, and actions of people on the other side.  At the same time, each side avoids opportunities to engage the challenges they face with the other side.  Those who attempt to have a nuanced and complex view of the issue are pressured to pick a side.  Polarization is an automatic, reactive way to address an increase in tension.   
 
 
The importance of understanding the triangle
 
Dr. Murray Bowen observed the natural occurrence of triangles in relationship systems, particularly the family.  A two-person relationship is not steady.  As anxiety rises in the relationship, it is natural for a third person to be drawn in to stabilize the relationship. 
 
Through the triangle, we can observe our natural tendencies to move towards others, what Bowen called the force for togetherness, or avoid others, which can result from too much togetherness.  Two people form a close connection, and a third person is in the uncomfortable outside position.  In a state of calm, the outside person will make an effort to push out one of the two insiders.  However, when tension increases, one of the two insiders will either form a new twosome with the other outside person or move to the outside position leaving the other two together.
 
When someone is forced into the outside position during times of heightened anxiety, that person will seek out someone else to form a new twosome.  This is the foundation of polarization, two pairs now in opposition to each other.  If the intensity between the original twosome is great, these interlocking triangles will spread quickly into larger groups.  Before long, people will herd into polarized groups.
 
 
The importance of Differentiation of Self
 
When two people or two parties have become polarized, it is possible for a third, emotionally neutral person to enter the relationship system and reduce the polarization.  If one person is able to relate to both individuals or groups in a mature, responsible way, there is a good chance the conflict will end.  This is part of what Dr. Bowen called Differentiation of Self.  Here is an example of what can go into this effort:

1. Pay attention and observe your own level of anxiety as you relate to important people in your life.
2. Work at intentionally reducing your anxiety through things like breathing, walking, etc.
3. Pay attention to how important people in your life raise your level of anxiety and how you raise their level of anxiety.
4. Learn the difference between your feelings and your thinking.
5. Develop ways to think about and then communicate important issues without a long-term disruption of the relationship system.
6. Repeat the process.

For many people, this election feels like a regression; a step back in the behavior of the society and individuals.  Does making America great again mean going back to a time of unchecked racism, sexism, xenophobia, misogamy, large scale wars and lack of concern for the environment?
 
Regression is defined as a return to a former or less developed state.  Those who voted for Clinton or a third-party candidate fear we are headed back to a time when we were not at our best as a nation. 
 
Dr. Murray Bowen worked on a paper from 1972-1973 entitled Societal Regression as Viewed Through Family Systems Theory.  He was invited to present a formal paper on a new governmental agency, the Environmental Protection Agency.  While Bowen’s paper dealt with environmental issues, the ideas contained in the paper accurately predict the trends we see today.  He writes:
 
Man is not willing to give up the easy life as long as there is a way to “have his cake and eat it too.”  If my hypothesis about societal anxiety is reasonably accurate, the crises of society will recur and recur, with increasing intensity for decades to come.  Man created the environmental crisis by being the kind of a creature he is.  The environment is part of man, change will require a change in basic nature of man, and man’s track record for that kind of change has not been good.  Man is a versatile animal and perhaps he will be able to change faster when confronted with the alternatives.  I believe man is moving into crises of unparalleled proportions, that the crises will be different than those he has faced before, that they will come with increasing frequency for several decades, that he will go as far as he can in dealing symptomatically with each crisis, and that a final major crisis will come as soon as the middle of the next century.  The type of man who survives that will be one who can live in better harmony with nature.  This prediction is based on knowledge about the nature of man as an instinctual being, and on stretching existing thinking as far as it can go.  There are many questions about what man can do about his environmental crisis.  The thesis here is that he might modify his future course if he can gain some control over his reaction to anxiety and his “instinctual” emotional reactiveness, and begin taking constructive action based on his fund of knowledge and on logical thinking.  (Family Therapy in Clinical Practice, page 281)
 
How do we make sense of the election results?  One possible answer lies in understanding the emotional system.  The emotional system motivates us through automatic, reactive behaviors that keep us alive.  The emotional system is essential to the survival of all life.  It is not feelings, although you can experience the emotional system through feelings.  There is a fantastic video by Dr. Antonio Damasio who describes the emotional system.  Be advised that he is talking about science, not theology.  You can watch the video by clicking here.
 
In addition to the emotional system and the feeling system, we are blessed with an intellectual system in the prefrontal cortex.  The intellectual system allows for the possibility of self-regulated behaviors. 
 
Everyone knows that when we are confronted with a threat, our basic response patterns are fear based in the form of fight, flight or freeze.  Societal influences can accentuate our perceived level of fear.  Rising tides, increasing numbers of hurricanes, the threat of a superbug, the exposed fragility of food distribution, and the increasing density of populations all contribute to a perception of shrinking resources for an ever expanding population.  While we may not think about it consciously, we are deeply aware that our planet is becoming less and less sustainable.  And it makes us anxious.
 
At the level of the individual, that are two fundamental problems.  How do we accurately assess a threat?  And how do we interrupt our automatic responses to a threat?  We are highly sensitive to the reactivity of others.  In some ways, we are wired to react to the perception of threat from others.  If someone else perceives a threat and reacts strongly to it, there is a more than likely chance others who witness their reaction will also have a stronger reaction, even if they have not personally experienced the threat.  So, the behavior of others can influence our behavior.  Whether it’s a congregation, a family, or even the broader society, when tension in the relationship system goes up, automatic responses increase. 
 
What’s fascinating is the amount of variation found across the spectrum of human beings.  All of us vary in how quickly and how intensely we respond. Some people require a high level of tension to slip into an automatic response.  Some people respond automatically at more moderate levels while others react to only a slight increase in perceived threat.
 
Throughout history, and not just religious history, you can see the ongoing struggle of people to address this process.  As tensions have increased, societies have at times blamed others in response to a threat.  At other times, societies have risen above the anxiety of the moment to find solutions to the problems they faced. 
 
In my faith tradition, Jesus talked about being kind to those who are ungrateful and wicked.  Jesus never said, “You’ve heard it before fight, flight, or freeze, but I say to you think!”  Essentially, though, this is what he was after in many of his teachings.  How do you override automatic tendencies?  There was the story of dozens of men standing around a woman with rocks in their hands, ready to killer her for allegedly committing adultery.  Jesus engaged the thinking of the crowd.  They dropped their rocks and walked away.  We have the gift of the thinking brain, the prefrontal cortex that helps us see our options for dealing with a perceived threat.  We do not have to be governed by automatic responses.  We can make choices.
 
Most faith traditions teach the importance of self-awareness – an awareness that engages a more thoughtful approach to the world.  We teach about forgiveness, not blaming others, second chances, etc.  The challenge is to interrupt automatic responses (fight, flight or freeze) when we interact with others and to be more intentional.  Whether we use religious terms like integrity or scientific language like cognitive integration, the efforts are similar.  It’s the struggle to see “what is” and not what one imagines, desires, or perceives as reality.  How do humans see the world as it is?
 
Like a microscope, Bowen’s ideas help us peer into complex societal problems to see a basic structure residing in the family.  If one looks all the way to the level of the individual, it’s not possible to see the emotional system.  The relationship system is needed in order understand emotions.  At the level of the family, we can see how parents relate to each other, to their children, and to the extended family.  There are patterns that emerge and these patterns become predictable.  As one begins to understand the predictable nature of the patterns in the family, it is possible to move from a reactive, automatic state to a more thoughtful, self-regulated state. 
 
Our ability to do this work is influenced by the level of chronic anxiety in the system.  When the family is overtaxed, beyond its capacity to respond to the problem, family members will turn to extended family members and friends.  If there is a limited number of relationships outside of the family, individuals may turn to institutions to decrease their anxiety.  Schools, social agencies, government entities, and churches are filled with the overflow of the emotional process from anxious families.  As these institutions and organizations attempt to address the presenting family problem, the relationships systems found in institutions becomes more anxious.  The level of chronic anxiety has to do with the ability of the members and leaders of the organization to address problems effectively and self-regulate their reactivity. Another way to say this: to the extent leaders are able to engage their thinking about a problem it will override the automatic, reactive responses.  Some people experience it as calm.  Others experience it as problem solving which includes better functioning of the family, institution, and society. 
 
Bowen’s ideas on differentiation of self is relevant for today.  For those who struggle to make sense of and respond to our current reality, theory provides a useful way of making sense of what’s happening. 
 
More than this, it provides a way forward (for those who are motivated) to reverse the trend of regression.  It begins with the self; learning to self-regulate in the presence of anxious others.  From there, the mindset of differentiation of self can guide one’s interactions with others; respecting the other as a separate person while coordinate activities with them and being clear about what one is able to do and not able to do.  From there, leaders in organizations who continue to work on differentiation engage clients and other institutions in a different way; partnering together to do their best thinking about a problem and not giving into short-term, quick-fix reactivity.
 
However, let’s be clear: the emotional system is powerful.  It is difficult to see it in action and even more challenging to override automatic behavior. Most of what we are experiencing through the media and social platforms is automatic reactivity driven by the emotional process. 
 
I don’t know if the worst is yet to come.  I do know we can stay the destruction of our democracy.  The path forward is for motivated individuals to keep thinking systems while at the same time putting one foot in front of the other working day by day, encounter by encounter to increase their basic level of differentiation of self.  There is nothing new about this.  It does not depend on other people to join in the effort.  One person can make a big difference in their family, institutions or any relationship system.
 
Solutions can be found in the ability of each person to become aware of the ways the emotional process works in one’s family of origin and then to function as a more responsible, mature person in the family.  Of course, it’s much easier to blame others and demand more from them instead of looking at one’s own functioning in a family context. 
 
I’m committed to this process because I believe it is important and because I am convinced it works.