For me, Rabbi Friedman was like the Apostle Paul.  There were things he wrote that I came to love and appreciate, there were things he wrote that I struggled to understand and things he wrote I think differently about.  How true this is of every relationship!

It took time to read through all of Ed's publications looking for an excerpt to share.  Each of the books is filled with my handwritten scribbles and notes.  The books and my notations represent my early adventures (Ed liked that word) into systems thinking.  

Generation to Generation was his most famous publication.  There were others.  Published in 1985, it became for many clergy their first introduction into systems thinking, family systems and Bowen Family Systems Thinking.  

I've chosen his essay, The Myth of the Shiksa, which is published in a book by the same name.  The essay was written around 1981, before there were personal computers, which is evident in Ed's use of the phrase "word processor."  The essay was important to me at a time when I was examining this cultural phenomena in my family.  I found Ed's thinking useful in seeing how the emotional process can hijack cultural identity.  Ed used the word "camouflage" to explain how a family's use of cultural identity made the emotional process difficult to see. 

I recommend to you the forward of the book written by Ed's daughter Shira Friedman Bogart.  I never met Ed in person (although I'd seen him on video).  Shira's reflection on her relationship with her father is insightful.

This excerpt below is taken from page 88:

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?

 
Why do people join your congregation?  Is it because of the relationships they’ve developed?  Or is it because of the shared beliefs of the congregation?  You may have an easy answer to these questions, but the answer is anything but easy to understand. 
 
The shared beliefs of a congregation are a significant reason why people become members.  I’ve had people tell me the reasons they like or dislike a congregation is because of the shared beliefs of the congregation.  Shared beliefs can be about anything: creation, how God works in the world, the authority of scripture, human sexuality, or positions on social justice.  I was asked to pastor a congregation where there were significant differences between their shared beliefs and my own beliefs.  I questioned whether I would be a good fit.  Beliefs matter and play a role in the decision to join a congregation.  But here is where it gets complicated.
 
The relationships we form in a congregation determine our level of participation.  Consider the committed leaders in your congregation.  Without having knowledge of them, I can predict they are deeply connected to the people in your congregation.  In other words, the congregation IS their primary friendship network.  A commitment to membership is determined by one’s ability to create meaningful friendships.  Members become friends with members.  And here is where we move beyond complicated to confusing. 
 
When I ask someone the question, “Think about the last time you consider leaving a congregation.  Was it because of the way people were behaving or because of a belief the congregation adopted or failed to adopt?”  Typically, the answer is both!  Or, if I ask the question, “If your closest friends decide to leave the congregation, do you stay or go?”, it’s difficult for people to answer.  Most of the time the answer is, “It depends.”  That’s because beliefs and relationships influence our decisions.  So, while we’d like to think the reason people join a congregation is because of shared beliefs, the reality is much more complicated.  In my tradition, the United Methodist Church, belonging precedes believing.  You don’t have to agree to a specific set of doctrines or creeds to participate.
 
When I consider my life journey from a conservative theological position to one that is progressive, I remember specific people who shaped my thinking.  I'd like to believe that it was their thinking and ideas that influenced me, but I know my relationship with them played an important role.  To be sure, it was their stories and narratives that had the greatest impact on me.  Stories and narratives are relationship builders.  Language is symbolic and registers at an emotional level.  Our beliefs often spring forth from stories and encounters which are first and foremost about relationships.  So, do you still "believe" that membership is mostly about beliefs? 
 
Just one more example of how relationships play a significant role in determining membership.  Critical mass impacts attendance and membership.  Congregational leaders know this.  It is easier to draw people to a sanctuary that is 80% full than to a sanctuary that is 10% full.  The more people you have filling the worship space, the easier it is to attract new people.  Beliefs do matter, but at the end of the day, people make the difference.
 
And now the final point that moves this conversation from confusing to a conundrum.  There is a growing segment of the population that is willing to end a long-term relationship over differences in beliefs.  As the population becomes increasingly polarized, it’s a challenge for people to relate to each other while believing different things.  I would argue that this has less to do with specific belief and more to do with the challenges of relationships.  It’s not the specific beliefs that are polarizing.  People struggle to remain in the relationship despite the differences.  Indeed, if it were truly about beliefs, we would actually be in a much better place as a country.  For myself, when I’m solid in my understanding of a belief I have less of a need to defend the belief when challenged or to require agreement from others when there is disagreement.
 
My hunch is that in today’s climate of polarization, congregations would do better to support their members to develop individual core beliefs and guiding principles.  Individuals are in a better position to relate to others when they are clearer about what they believe and how they think about the world and their relationship with God.  It's less about shared beliefs, and more about clarity of beliefs.  

The conundrum is that while most congregational leaders think people join because of the shared beliefs of the congregation, the truth is that it is more about the relationship system.  The challenge becomes supporting individual efforts to clarify and articulate core beliefs and guiding principles without losing members over disagreement.
 
Dr. Murray Bowen described the relationship process as part of the force for togetherness and the effort to have clear beliefs and guiding principles as part of the force for togetherness. He said it this way:
 
“A critical index of the functioning of an emotional system is the balance of the togetherness-individuality forces. The two forces exactly balance each other.  In a period of calm, the two forces operate as a friendly team, largely out of sight. . . . Any emotional system has an amount of togetherness, and a reciprocal amount of individuality, which constitute a life style or “norm” for that group.  Optimum functioning would be somewhere near a fifty-fifty balance, with neither force overriding the other and the system sufficiently flexible to adapt to change.”  Family Therapy in Clinical Practice, page 277.
 
As you make plans to grow your congregation, consider that membership is a 50/50 balance between a relationship process and beliefs (togetherness and individuality).  How can a congregation welcome new people with a balanced approach to cultivating both relationships and beliefs?  What beliefs are current members using as a resource to their functioning?  For current members, specifically those who articulate a positive congregational experience, how many connections (relationships) do they have in the congregation?  Do member who report a positive experience with the congregation place a larger emphasis on the relationships they have or the work they are doing on clarifying their beliefs?  What opportunities are available for individuals to develop relationships with other members?  What opportunities are available for individuals to clarify their core beliefs and guiding principles?
 
What questions come to mind as you consider membership in your congregation?

Clergy develop and deliver roughly fifty-two sermons (fifteen to thirty minutes in length) year after year.  National surveys typically rank preaching as the number one reason people attend a congregation.  So, the pressure is on, and clergy know it. 
 
Effective preaching is both skillful and artistic.  The context of preaching is the community.  Without an awareness of the underlying relationship system of a community, the skill and artistry are lost in an emotional process.  Therefore, the three keys to effective preaching are:

1. Effective preaching is based on core principles, values and beliefs.
2. Effective preachers stay in good emotional contact with their members especially members who don't agree with their preacher or when the preacher disagrees with their members.
3. Effective preachers work on self-regulation.

 
Most clergy make use of online and printed resources to prepare their sermons.  If clergy approach the process of developing a sermon with a clear set of principles, values and beliefs then a good resource can spur the preacher’s thinking.  Sometimes preachers use a resource to find specific content for their sermon.  But some use a resource as a substitute for thinking and may end up preaching someone else’s sermon.    
 
How a preacher makes use of a resource is connected to their level of clarity about core principles, values and beliefs.  Preachers become clear by sifting through their core principles, values and beliefs to determine which ones represent their best thinking and which ones represent the thinking of other people.  The core principles, values and beliefs that are sifted out from this process become the basis for the preacher's preaching.  I’ve come to a place in my preaching where I know when I’m preaching a sermon based on my thinking and when I’m preaching a sermon based on the thinking of others.  There is a notable difference.  And given the feedback I’ve received from congregants over the years, I know the congregation can tell the difference as well.  There is a difference in the way ideas are communicated when they come from self and when ideas are coming from someone else.
 
As congregations and the larger society become increasingly polarized, preachers are preaching to congregations that are divided over major issues.  In my tradition, the United Methodist Church, on any given Sunday my preaching will resonate with some and conflict with others.  Some will experience a sermon as supportive and encouraging and feel a connection to the preacher.  Some will experience a sermon as challenging and feel at odds with the preacher.  An awareness of this underlying relationship process can be useful to a preacher. 
 
The challenge for today’s preachers is developing the capacity to articulate a solid belief without perpetuating an already present polarization.  Preachers are at their best when they preach a sermon based on core principles, values and beliefs without permanently disrupting the relationships in the congregation.  It requires an effort of staying in good emotional contact with members or key leaders (depending on the size of the congregation) when they disagree with you, or when you disagree with them.  The opposite is also true that a strong, positive togetherness between the preacher and congregation can make it difficult for the preacher to articulate their core principles, values and beliefs. 
 
The best way to manage tension in the relationship system is to do a better job of managing self.  Self-regulation is at the heart of Dr. Murray Bowen’s concept of differentiation of self.  The forces for togetherness and individuality creates tension in the relationship system.  As people move away from or closer to others, anxiety goes up and down.  This process of managing anxiety by moving towards some or away from others at an emotional level can influence what a preacher says, does and feels.
 
During the development of a sermon, preachers are likely to experience their own worry and fears about what might happen if they actually preach what they are thinking.  An internal debate ensues about what to say, how to say it and what the consequences might be.  It’s not the case that preachers should always say whatever they are thinking.  What leads to more effective preaching is an awareness of the emotional process in the relationship system.  
 
The ideal place to become aware of the emotional process is in one’s family of origin.  There, one can begin to “see” the process of individuality and togetherness, and anxiety and tension in the system.  The more I work at this in my family, the more courage I have in my preaching.  The extent to which preaching has improved my ability to define a self in my family of origin is also worth consideration.
 
Here are some ideas to think about as you prepare to preach:

• What ideas are you clear about?  What questions do you have?  
• Present your thinking without the need for others to agree.
• Present your thinking without being defensive.
• Always consider how your congregation will respond.  Who will react to your thinking?  How will they react?  What will you say or do without reacting back? 
• Develop a plan for relating to with those who react negatively and positively to your thinking.
• If you greet people after the service, what does it look like to be emotionally neutral towards those who react negatively or positively? 
• How will you do a better job of self-regulating your reactivity to the reactivity of others?

Remember, the overall goal is to represent one’s best thinking while staying in good emotional contact with the congregation, and to regulate self as anxiety and tension fluctuate in response to the counterbalancing forces of togetherness and individuality in the relationship system.

Humans are social.  We just can’t help ourselves.  We don’t function well when we are isolated.  And yet, congregations (which are typically highly social) are on the decline.  People are finding different places to be social.  This is the challenge congregations have been facing.  It’s an opportunity for congregational leaders to thinking about the kind of community they are developing.
 
During a recent trip to Washington, DC., I visited the National Museum of Natural History at the Smithsonian.  My time there was limited.  I traced my way back to an exhibit on the development of the modern human.  It showcased archaeological discoveries that highlighted the social behaviors of humans.  It categorized these behaviors into four characteristics that make humans unique.   The four characteristics are sharing resources, gathering at the hearth, more time to grow, and building social networks. 
 
 
“Sharing Resources”
 
Humans share their resources with others.  More than just sharing in the moment, humans have historically traveled long distances to share with others.  These shared resources increased the likelihood that a group would adapt to a challenge. 
 
 
“Gathering at the Hearth”
 
Hearths provided several important opportunities for humans.  In addition to providing a common place to cook and eat food, to share resources, and to network hearths became a place for storytelling.  Human language is symbolic and emotional.  Gathering around the hearth provided us a place to connect emotionally with others.
 
 
“More Time to Grow”
 
The size of the human brain means a longer period of gestation and adolescence, leaving a human child at home for a longer period.  Families collaborate in the child-rearing process.  This longer development time for children means more time to prepare for the challenges of being an adult. 
 
 
“Building Social Networks”
 
As the human population increased around the world, humans began to encounter one another more frequently.  These interactions provided opportunities to build broader social networks.  Today, we depend on these social networks for everything from food distribution to advancements in science and research. 
 
 
These four characteristics define our highly social behavior.  Where do you see these four characteristics at work today?  In what ways do you share resources with others?  Where do you gather with members of the community?  How are you participating in the developmental process of children in your family and community?  How many social networks do you belong to?
 
In what ways do congregations provide a place and space for these activities?  There was a time when congregations were the center of community life.  They provided a place for people to gather and discover resources.  In some traditions, congregations provided the primary education of the children in the community.  They were also the center of the community’s social network.  While congregations may never fully return to this paradigm, what are ways congregations can develop themselves around these four characteristics? 
 
In my tradition, the United Methodist Church, there was an effort several years ago to revitalize the church.  It resulted in four areas of focus.  These areas are:

• Engaging in Ministry with the Poor
• Improving Global Health
• Developing Principled Christian Leaders
• Creating New and Renewed Congregations

 
In a way, the four characteristics of human behavior can be found in these four areas of focus.  Perhaps congregations would do a better job of engaging these four areas if they spent more time developing the four characteristics of human social behavior.
 
What would it look like for your congregation to develop ministry around the four characteristics of human behavior?  What structures and programming would need to be in place? 

• How does the congregation share and discover the resources in a community?  What more could be done? 
• How does the congregation gather the community together?  From the ancient practice of gathering around the hearth, what other opportunities are available for the congregation? 
• How does the congregation engage the development of children in the community?
• How does the congregation help build social networks in the community? 
• Does your faith tradition have examples in scripture of the importance of these characteristics?  What are some examples? 
• How might these characteristics provide an opportunity for new ways to address community problems?

 
Historically, these characteristics helped humans survive, sometimes in challenging and difficult climates.  The challenges we face today are different than those of our ancestors.  What are the challenges we face today and how might these four characteristics help us move forward?

It is not personal. Try telling yourself “It’s not personal” the next time your're blamed for something. Make it your mantra the next time you are criticized. “It’s not personal.” This phrase seems counterintuitive, doesn’t it? Why? Because blame and criticism always feel like personal attacks. And when the feeling system is active, it’s difficult to shift into the thinking system.

At an intellectual level, when things are calm, I can see and understand what others are up against in their life. I can also see how my behavior creates challenges for others. In calmer times, I can see and observe what I’m up against by the behavior of others. But, when I perceive tension in the relationship system and my feelings are revved up, my focus will shift.

When one is criticized or blamed, the brain transports this message to a deep, emotional section. And it’s from that deep place the brain mounts a reactive response. It’s as if a deep force is awakened from within that surges up and out to defend the self. It’s an automatic response. And, for a lot of us, it’s strong; strong enough to override our thinking.

When I first started applying systems thinking, it was initially out of faith because I lacked experience. In those earlier years, I borrowed the phrase, “It’s not personal.” I said it to myself whenever I was in conflict with someone (either externally or internally). Over time, I began to recognize that conflict and tension weren’t about them or me. Instead, it was about the family of origin that shaped who we are.

Our twitchiness to the vibrations of anxiety in the relationship system is rooted in how our families as an emotional unit manage anxiety. Our automatic responses to anxiety are shaped by the way the family operates in the face of a challenge. And not just the family today, but generations and generations of families have each left their functional mark on subsequent generations of the family.

Another mantra I picked up along the way is, “the other is doing the best they can with what they have. I am doing the best I can with what I have. We can all do better.” It’s an acknowledgment that what is happening between us is not about the two of us. It is much broader in scope. I cannot possibly understand the other’s reactivity towards me without having an understanding and appreciation of the family. Likewise, I cannot possibly understand my reactivity without awareness and understanding of my family of origin. Ultimately, the thinking behind these phrases converted me to thinking systems. It led me to the believe that, within the context of one’s family, individual behavior makes sense.

Rabbi Ed Friedman, author of the book "Generation to Generation," said that criticism is a form of pursuit. It’s part of the force for togetherness. That’s why some people become critical as their anxiety goes up. An increase in anxiety in the relationship system will initially pull people together, even if the pull has a negative valence. This is why, when we are blamed or criticized, it’s hard to shake it off and not take it personally. We are reacting to the force for togetherness. To make it personal is an acknowledgment that one is caught up in the togetherness. This is why, paradoxically, not to take it personally is an effort for self. It is an effort towards differentiation of self. And differentiation of self is about being a better connected self.

Praise from others can be just as precarious. It can feel good, but when the feeling is caught up in the emotional process of the relationship system, it’s still part of the force for togetherness. The force for togetherness functions to align everyone’s thinking, feelings, and actions in the face of a perceived threat. Praise can just as easily get someone in line as can criticism.

Of course, there is nothing inherently wrong with either criticism or praise. I have been aided by both in my life during times of need. But they are problematic when one’s life course is only guided by the criticism or praise of others. In this way, criticism and praise undercut one’s ability to fulfill their purpose and be all that God wants them to be.

So, as we begin a New Year, perhaps a good resolution would be not to let criticism and praise guide your ship’s sails, but instead let thinking, goals setting, beliefs, core principles and responsible living be your guide!

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

I have a membership at a fitness center.  Every January there is a huge influx of new people.  They all have the best intentions to achieve their New Year’s resolution to be fit.  By the end of February, however, only a small percentage of these people continue to work out regularly.

There’s a difference between setting a goal and achieving a goal.  I've struggled over the years with achieving personal goals.  At one point I became so disillusioned by my consistent failure to achieve annual goals that I gave up.  But then I discovered a better way.
 
Now I focus on two sets of goals.  The first set is professional goals.  I ask myself, “What am I trying to accomplish as the leader of this organization?”  I’m not talking about organizational goals.  While my professional goals may connect to the larger organizational goals, I focus on my functioning as a leader.  There is one caveat.  I must be able to achieve my goals without participation or input from others.  I’ll come back to this idea.
 
The second set is personal goals.  I ask myself, “What am I interested in accomplishing this year?”  I’m not talking about family goals or relationship goals.  I focus on hobbies, projects, or research I want to complete over the next twelve months.  Like the professional goals, they are achieved without participation or input from others.  Why is this?
 
It turns out that activities that promote autonomy make people healthier.  To work more autonomously requires self-regulation.   Working on self-regulation improves emotional, physical, and social well-being.  Thus, goal setting is good for you if the focus is on being more autonomous.
 
But let’s be real.  You know how it goes.  Pretend your goal is to write more poetry.  You plan to set aside time every morning to write, think, and go for long walks.  You communicate your plan to your family.  They all agree not to interrupt you.  But then what happens?  The family starts to interrupt your poetry time.  The interruptions may “seem” reasonable.  Over time, you give up your goal of writing poetry because it doesn’t seem realistic.  You convince yourself that your focus should be on your family.  You put your dream of writing poetry on the shelf for now.  But what if the interruptions are a reaction to your effort to be more autonomous?  What if other people in the family are having a difficult time regulating themselves without you?  What if (are you sitting down) your regulation is also caught up with theirs?
 
Your brain allocates energy in the direction of others and self.  You allocate energy to help regulate the relationship system and to regulate yourself.  There are trade-offs either way.  Our natural inclination is to regulate others and to be regulated by others.  And while we can never escape this paradox, 50/50 is an optimum allocation of energy to others and to self. 
 
To put this in simple terms, achieving a personal goal is not about motivation or organization.  Achieving a goal requires a strategic road map for navigating the relationship system.  And by relationship system I’m talking about family, work, and organizational systems.  I'm working on a program to help people do better at achieving their goals.
 
I’m so excited to announce a goal setting retreat for clergy.  On January 16, 2018, you will be treated to a goal setting day at New Morning Retreat Center in Hampshire, Illinois. The center, with its homey farmhouse and beautiful grounds, provides the perfect setting to work on setting goals for yourself and for your ministry.
 
I’ll be facilitated the morning session. The focus will be on strategies for reaching goals and exploring common obstacles for staying on track. The discussion will be based on Bowen Family Systems Theory, which provides an understanding of human behavior that can guide individuals in using beliefs and guiding principles to achieve life goals.
 
There will be plenty of time and space to work on goals, reflect, and relax during the day. I’ll also set aside time for individual consultation with me in the afternoon. 
 
To learn more about the retreat and to register, click on this link.  Space is limited, so be sure to secure your spot!

There are several organizations I admire and respect.  One of them posted a prayer on Facebook written by a social justice advocate.  The prayer was published mid-June.  To be honest so much has happened nationally in the last eight months, I can’t remember the social context that prompted the post.  I find the prayer to be a good example of how institutions and social movements try to persuade people to be socially aware of the needs of others and less selfish.
 
Here is a sample of the prayer:
 
O God,
teach us what it means to live in grace — not just for ourselves,
but for the collective whole.
We have been individuals for far too long,
and in that individualism, we’ve forgotten how to hold each other.
 
I’ve said prayers like this in worship.  These words have a theological ring to them that many believers resonate with, regardless of their faith.  The individual is sinful.  The community is virtuous.  Selfish behavior is a challenge for covenant communities.  It’s one thing conservatives and progressives agree on.  For conservatives, selfish behavior leads to alcoholism, drug addiction, and a whole host of poor choices which harm the family.  Think seven deadly sins.  For progressives, selfish behavior leads to the pursuit of wealth and power which is always at the expense of the community which provides the labor force to make individuals wealthy and powerful.  Think capitalism.  These are generalizations, of course, but my point is that religious institutions promote the idea that selfish behavior is bad.
 
The challenge of selfish behavior is nothing new.  Think Eve and Adam.  The Hebrew Bible and the New Testament remind believers that they need God to be transformed into social beings.  But this too is problematic.  The notion that humans are inherently selfish and automatically individualistic is simply false.  There is a treasure trove of scientific research to suggest otherwise.  We are not independent creatures struggling to be social.  We are social creatures struggling to be social. 
 
What happens if our starting point is our need to be social, not an individual?  In this context, being critical of other humans for “being individuals for far too long” makes sense.  Why else would someone be sensitive to a perceived lack of caring, compassion, and being “held.”  It’s because we are already aware of what it is like to be held, especially if we are used to being held too closely.  Think the first day of preschool.  The challenge in the infant/parent relationship is not the inability to bound properly.  The challenge is in managing the intensity of the closeness.  People struggle to be in community not because they are selfish but because they don’t know how to manage being together. 
 
In my research on homelessness, I interviewed dozens of people.  I heard one story several times.  It began with mom or dad not doing well.  In most cases, one parent developed significant health problems after the death of their spouse.  One of their adult children (the one closest to the parent) volunteers to move in with the parent to provide full-time care.  Before moving in with the parent, this adult child (who was fully employed and paying for their housing) gives up their job and housing to move in with the parent.  For a time, the new arrangement goes well.  At some point, typically after the death of the parent being cared for, the siblings get into an intense conflict.  They battle over what to do with the house.  With no money and no place to go, the adult child, who was providing care (who also has not handled the conflict well), ends up homeless. 
 
At first glance, what looks like the sin of individualism (individuals behaving badly) is really the byproduct of too much togetherness.  When the relationship system gets too hot, some people take off (or are pushed out) to find relief from the intensity of the togetherness.  It’s not that people are selfish, they simply need an emotional break.  Distancing is a common way to find relief from feeling too close.  If the togetherness is too intense, the result will be a more permanent cutoff.  When people decry individualism, what they are observing is cutoff from an intense togetherness. 
 
What drives this force of togetherness is anxiety.  Families come together when they are afraid.  Think Irma! How many adult children who stuck it out this weekend in Florida have constantly been updating their worried parents?  How many parents have been reassuring their worried adult children?  When we are anxious, even worried, we try to tell each other what to do.  “You need to leave.  You need to find shelter.  You need to listen to what the authorities are telling you.  You need to do what I tell you!”  When we are afraid, anxious, and worried about the future, we automatically tell family members what to think, feel, and do.  It’s what we do. 
 
So, perhaps a better place for us to start is with fear.  Our perception of fear is what drives the process of an anxious togetherness.  Our brains treat the perception of fear as if it is real.  When we are afraid, the brain raises our anxiety, and activate the stress response system.  This automatic response to fear is developed in the context of your family of origin.  You are born into a way of responding to fear (an emotional process) that was developed over several generations.  You can step back and observe the patterns that the family has developed over hundred, if not millions, of years.  These patterns for responding to fear have a threshold which is determined by 1) the level of chronic anxiety in the family of origin, 2) the amount of stress the family is experiencing, and 3) how emotionally connected the family is to each other and the extended family. 
 
Dr. Murray Bowen theorizes that individuality is not a bad thing.  It’s difficult to explain in one paragraph so go to this link to read more about the concept of “differentiation of self”: [click here and then click on Differentiation of Self] Part of what goes into working on differentiation of self is: a) being responsible for one’s reactivity to anxiety in the relationship system (family, congregations, community, government, etc.).  b) seeing how one’s reactivity and functioning contributes to problems in the relationship system (family, congregation, community, government, etc.).  c) articulating and taking action steps towards life goals based on core principles and values, d) staying connected to important others through viable emotional contact. 
 
So, what does all of this have to do with the prayer above?  Perhaps a different way to think about a prayer would be useful.  Something like: 
 
O God,
 Teach me the ways of being a self that is connected.
I have been automatically reacting to anxiety for far too long.
Teach me to become objective about reality and fear not.
Challenge me to see the world as it is.
Help me find the motivation, the courage, and the resiliency to discover new ways of relating to the family, and by extension, everyone else.
Help me to remember that everyone is doing the best they can with what they have, and we can all do better, starting with me.
Teach me the ways of self-regulation so that I might be a better collaborate with my neighbor.
 
It’s not pretty or elegant.  Maybe you can come up with a better prayer.  I’d love to read it in the comment section. 
 
It has been reported that Dr. Bowen, at the end of his life, saw differentiation of self in the Prayer of St. Francis of Assisi.  So, I’ll leave you with the prayer:
 
Lord make me an instrument of your peace
Where there is hatred,
Let me sow love;
Where there is injury, pardon;
Where there is doubt, faith;
Where there is despair, hope;
Where there is darkness, light;
And where there is sadness, Joy.
 
O Divine Master grant that I may not so much seek
 to be consoled as to console;
To be understood, as to understand;
To be loved, as to love.
For it is in giving that we receive,
It is in pardoning that we are pardoned,
And it is in dying that we are born to eternal life.