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.

Each week I write a blog to try and make the case that leadership training for congregations is based on the wrong research.  Congregational development is not about training leaders to redevelop the mission, vision and programs of a congregation.  Congregational development must be about training leaders to navigate emotional process within the context of relationship systems.
 
Congregations are facing an enormous number of problems and challenges.  These problems and challenges raise the level of anxiety in the relationship system of a congregation.  As anxiety goes up, leaders who can manage their anxiety and reactivity do better in engaging the hopes, dreams and assets of a congregation.  Likewise, leaders who are less anxious in the face of problems and challenges do a better job of communicating a vision for the future.  Intense conflict emerges when leaders are unaware and unable to manage their reactivity.  As the congregation responds to the vibrations of anxiety in the pastor and as the pastor responds to the vibrations of anxiety in the congregation, tension within the relationship system increase.  So, where does one learn their automatic reactions to anxiety?  We learn it from the family.

What one learns in their family is the extent to which one can be an individual and the extent to which one is part of a family.  Dr. Bowen described it as the force for individuality (differentiation of self) and togetherness.  If individuals and families are tilted towards more togetherness, it will be more difficult for them to manage their anxiety and reactivity.  If anxiety is vibrating too much in the family, the togetherness force will motivated someone to take control.  If it gets to high, someone will walk away.  Congregations, like families, also react predictably to the vibrations of increased anxiety.  This then is the challenge for all congregational leaders: how does one articulate their thinking without trying to control others or walk away and give in?   Researching one’s family system is the key.
 
For anyone motivated to do family research, I recommend the new book by Victoria Harrison, The Family Diagram & Family Research: an illustrative guide to tools for working on differentiation of self in one’s family.  It is “a guide for people motivated to develop and use their own family diagram to observe, abstract, see, and better think about the facts and factors operating in their family.”  You can find the book by clicking here.

One’s family is the best place to do research on being a better leader.  This is not about going back in time or going back to resolve past problems.  It is about learning to relate differently in the present as one works on differentiation of self.  It’s not about correcting wrongs or making things right.  It is about being a self that is connected in important ways to important others.  A good coach can make a difference in one’s effort to relate better to important others.  Bowen Theory can be a useful guide for one’s thinking as one journeys down this road of differentiation.  A good place to begin is with family research.

What books do people who use Bowen Family Systems Theory as a framework for congregational leadership recommend?  To find out, I reached out to authors, teachers and coaches who work with clergy and congregations.  Below is an interesting list of books that touch on Bowen Theory and systems thinking.  What books would you add to the list?

​
Rev. Richard Blackburn – Executive Director, Lombard Mennonite Peace Center

A key recommended resource for clergy who are committed to managing self in the midst of congregational anxieties would be Differentiation of Self:  Bowen Family Systems Theory Perspectives, edited by Peter Titelman.  The book assembles a stellar array of essays, by some of the top Bowen theory practitioners, illuminating the cornerstone concept of systems thinking.  The book is valuable for clergy and other leaders who have found family systems theory to be a reliable compass for navigating the challenges of family, congregational and organizational life in these increasingly anxious times.   It is essential reading for all who want to deepen their understanding of the concept of differentiation, as a foundation for staying on course in the ongoing effort to be true to self, while honoring others. 


Larry L. Foster, MA, D.Min. – Retired Pastor and Current Curriculum and Development Coordinator for ELCA Systems Academy

Around the time Dr. Murray Bowen was doing his research (1954-1959), Eric Hoffer, an intellectual stevedore, who worked on the docks of San Francisco, wrote his classic book, The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements, which could be considered a kind of precursor (or observational intellectual parallel) to observing societal movements as they occur over time.  

Hoffer offers some psychological analysis behind the phenomena of mass movements (or shifts in society), leadership and the emotional forces at work in shaping social structures and processes.  While not seeking a “science of human behavior,” he provides a larger picture of social phenomena around the same time Bowen and others researched the puzzle of living relationships.  According to Hoffer, in his famous “social psychology” book, persons of words and persons of action can be persuasive as well as coercive in starting a movement for good or ill.  He discusses fanaticism and extremes in societal causes.  With strong argument and observation, he describes the conditions that have led to major oppressive mass movements.  People who are frustrated, angry, self-rejecting and empty are set up to latch onto a group or organization that is “beyond themselves.”  This involves rejecting the current state of affairs, remembering a better past and looking for a better future.  People who are frustrated that society is struck, messy and without purpose follow those who blame the leaders and institutions that are in place.  In his descriptions, he references major historical movements such as Christianity, communism, Judaism, fascism and others that spiked in dominance over the centuries.

“The situation is not unlike that observed in children and undifferentiated adults where the lack of a distinct individuality leaves the mind without the guards against the intrusion of influences from without.”   “The go-getter and the hustler have much in them that is abortive and undifferentiated. One is never really stripped for action unless one is stripped of a distinct and differentiated self.” On the other hand, he writes, “It is strange to think that in the Judaic-Christian movement for the malady of the soul the world received a miraculous instrument for raising societies and nations from the dead—an instrument of resurrection.”

Eric Hoffer became an observer and participant emerging at an interesting juxtaposition in time with other “larger picture people,” researching human functioning following World War Two and the beginning of the atomic age.


The Rev. Carol P. Jeunnette, Ph.D.

The focus of Dr. Jenny Brown’s book, Growing Yourself Up: How to bring your best to all of life's relationships, is clear from beginning to end.  It is about growing one’s self up: what it looks like, what it takes and what makes the slow process so challenging and yet so important.  It isn’t about helping others to grow up, although that might happen as a by-product when one grows one’s self up.   Although Dr. Brown’s thinking is rooted in Bowen Family Systems Theory, it is less about Bowen theory and more about working on one’s own maturity.  

The first part of Growing Yourself Up lays the groundwork for understanding the relationship foundations of adult maturity.  By the end of Part I, readers have been introduced to the central ideas of Bowen theory through client vignettes, personal examples and approachable writing.  Part 2 considers maturity for the first half of adult life: leaving home, the single young adult, marriage, sex, and parenting.  Parts 3 and 4 look beyond family, and addresses maturity in the face of setbacks.  Part 5 focuses on maturity in the second half of life, and Part 6 moves toward questions of helping others and the larger society.  Although the volume is not written for clergy and congregations, Dr. Brown addresses the importance of spirituality and is clear about her own beliefs and principles.  

Each chapter ends with reflection questions, and the end of the book itself has seven appendices.  These include additional material on connection and separateness, guiding principles, the continuum of differentiation of self, family diagrams and Biblical reflections on relationships.  

Growing Yourself Up is a great introduction to the way of understanding human behavior developed by Murray Bowen.  After re-reading it, I have been putting together a list of people to whom I want to send it, and I’m considering purchasing three or four additional copies to have on my bookshelf in the office at church.  However, I’m thinking that if I hand it out to everyone, I will miss the point.  Perhaps others would be better served if I spent time working through those reflection questions, thinking about my own relationship system and most of all about my own maturity, immaturity and work on self.  Hmmm….


Emlyn Ott - Executive Director and CEO, Healthy Congregations, Inc., Associate Professor of Pastoral Theology and Leadership; Director of Doctor of Ministry Programs at Bexley Seabury Seminary, and Affiliated Faculty, Methodist Theological School in Ohio

Margaret Marcuson has put together a thoughtful piece that clearly demonstrates the circumstances that clergy face in Leaders Who Last: Sustaining Yourself and Your Ministry.  She shares situations that are clearly recognizable for clergy leadership.  She both frames questions and encourages the development of curiosity in a way that is firmly centered in differentiation of self.  She provides understanding, thinking and practice that contributes to the evolution of both basic and functional self capacities.  I like to use basic books about theory (Gilbert, Papero, Richardson) in pastoral care classes that I teach in the first or second year of seminary, but I think of Dr. Marcuson's work as a great addition for the last year of seminary where fieldwork has been a part of the experience.  Her work resonates with those who are new to ministry or who desire a fresh perspective on continuing experiences.


Ron Richardson – Author, Retired Pastoral Counselor, and Marriage and Family Therapist

I strongly recommend Dr. Murray Bowen's book Family Therapy in Clinical Practice. It is sort of the Bible of the theory. It is not an easy book to read, and most people do not have the patience to read all of it. If one is a dedicated reader, then it would be interesting to read the chapters in it in the order of their original publication. I did this to get a sense of how Bowen's thinking developed from standard psychoanalytic thinking (which was also my original training) to a full statement of his own theory. However, if one is motivated only to read a few chapters, then I recommend Chapters 16, 20, 21, and 22. There are many interpreters of Bowen theory (like myself), but it is always best to study directly his own words and thinking. This will give insights and nuances that many interpreters may miss. In reading these chapters, the key for church leaders is to replace the word "family" (and its cognates) with the word "congregation." Similar transpositions (like "pastor" in place of "therapist") would also make the theory more relevant. Because Bowen's theory is about human beings in their relationships, and not just the specialized world of psychotherapy, it is relatively easy to see how his work applies to us in the church.  I regularly re-read this book. I always get new insights with each reading.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There’s a lot of talk about shrinking congregations.  The decline in attendance is most noticeable in the mainline Protestant church.  There is considerable debate about what factors contribute to decline.  The lack of clarity about it is concerning.  It’s creating fatigue among congregational leaders because they are in an untenable position.  Leaders cannot effectively lead change if they don’t understand the processes and factors driving the problem. 
 
Over several decades, well-intentioned coaches talked about the importance of contemporary worship, the size of the parking lot, the number of people in the choir, the colors of the interior of the building, removing denominational insignia, greeters in the parking lot, cushions on the pews, gift bags for visitors, a robust social media presence, and a branding plan.  A case can be made for the importance of any of these solutions.  But none of them get us closer to the heart of the matter.  
 
One motivation for writing this weekly blog is to provide an alternative way of thinking about the challenges congregational leaders face.  It is an alternative to the “what works for us” and “do these five things and have success” mentality that feeds much of the leadership training that is offered. 
 
It’s not all doom and gloom, though.  We can claim, with a degree of certainty, that the following list is essential for building congregations:  Critical mass, money, a compelling narrative, and a system for developing relationships.
 
 
Butts in the Pews
 
Critical mass is essential for long-term sustainability.  If you walk into a congregation that has a dozen people in worship, you might wonder, “what’s wrong with this congregation that there aren’t more people here?” As a consumer, you are more likely to purchase from an online company that has hundreds of positive reviews then from a company that has no reviews, even if they offer the best price.  Critical mass matters.  But we can’t stop there.  Even megachurches (with their stellar attendance records) are facing decline.  Clearly, other factors are in play.
 
 
Resources
 
Congregations with long-term sustainability have access to money.  Those who are able to raise capital are able to grow.  Money matters.  Other resources matter too, like having well-trained leaders and volunteers.  But let’s not forget that even if you have access to money, leaders, and volunteers you still need to use them wisely.  A community built along the ocean will have thirsty citizens if they don’t figure out how to purify the water and disburse it to the people.
 
 
Beliefs
 
A compelling narrative is one that resonates and connects with us.  A compelling narrative is relevant to our daily lives.  It speaks to us.  It motivates us to action.  It gives us meaning. 
 
I titled this section “beliefs” because the narrative and our beliefs eventually intersect at a point of understanding.  To believe in a narrative, one must understand it and be able to connect it to one’s life.  
 
I still have questions about narratives and whether the decline in the mainline Protestant church is related to the narrative.  Organizations that are growing do a good job of telling a compelling narrative.  But is the decline in congregations related to the narrative?  If so, how can congregations do a better job of telling a compelling narrative? 

 
Belonging Precedes Believing
 
I’ve written already about belonging vs. believing.  You can read my blog about it by clicking here.  Congregations that thrive have a highly structured and well-maintained relationship system that helps new people become connected, and supports an individual's effort to reach their goals.  Congregations flourish to the extent they connect people together in meaningful ways.  Belonging without believing is more important than requiring people to agree to a fixed set of creeds and doctrines before they can belong.  
 
 
Where Do We Go From Here?
 
I still have questions about these characteristics of vibrant congregations.  How can they be measured quantitatively and qualitatively?  What is the interplay between these characteristics (does one dominate or are they all equal)?  How many of these characteristics do you need to thrive (all of them, a mixture, or just one)?  Are there examples of vibrant congregations that have none of these characteristics or only one of them?  What characteristics are missing?
 
And what about the one thing I have yet to mention: leadership?  How in the world do we develop good leaders?  Dr. Murray Bowen described the importance of having a good family leader when dealing with challenging families.  More than ever, congregations need good leaders.  Bowen observed that good leaders are working on differentiation of self. 
 
Many factors make up the concept of differentiation of self.  One of them is the ability to make good use of new and relevant information.  Leaders working on differentiation of self are open to new ideas and new ways of thinking.  They are open to incorporating these new ideas into their way of thinking when appropriate.  They evaluate the way they think but are unwilling to give up their thinking when faced with the immature or irresponsible thinking of others. 
 
Leaders are flexible.  Instead of buckling down to achieve some sort of short-term gain, they step up and out to embrace a new challenge.  Leaders understand that flexibility is the key to long-term sustainability. 
 
Differentiation of self is about leaning into the complexity of these issues and their connection to a congregation.  It’s about curiosity, discovery, reflective thinking, creativity, and risk-taking.  Without these things, congregations become reactive to their changing circumstances and face an avoidable death.  Leaders who are working on differentiation of self places themselves in a better position to lead their congregation into the future.  Critical mass, money, a compelling narrative, and a system for developing relationships may be essential, but differentiation of self is key.

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!

The credentialing process to become a United Methodist pastor can take up to six years to complete.  I served on the Board of Ordained Ministry that oversees the credentialing process.  I chaired the board during the last four years of a twelve-year term.  Every spring, the board interviews between 20 and 40 candidates for ordained ministry.
 
Like any credentialing process, some candidates sail through the process, some candidates are delayed or held back, and others are eventually discontinued.  My observation after twelve years is that what makes the difference for candidates is “awareness.”  Some people have more awareness than others.
 
So, what exactly is awareness?  It is the ability to observe things factually, and specifically, to accurately observe relationship systems.  Awareness can be developed and improved.
 
Clergy can get themselves into trouble when they lack a level of awareness.  What distinguishes one level from another is the ability to see how one’s behavior impacts others and how the behavior of others impacts oneself.  It’s the capacity to tell the difference between irresponsible and responsible behavior in self and in others. 
 
For many years, the Board of Ordained Ministry recommended counseling to candidates who seemed “unaware.”  By recommending counseling, the hope was it would develop and improve awareness.  Today, programs that target the development and improvement of awareness have replaced individual psychotherapy.  These programs are also run by licensed therapists.  It is possible for candidates to improve their awareness without attending one of these programs.  It requires an understanding of the different types of awareness. 
 
There are three types of awareness essential for effective leadership.  The first type is internal awareness.  Neurological pathways to the brain monitor and detect one’s internal state.  These systems are designed to help the individual “know” how the body is responding to the world around them.  Biofeedback, meditation, and other instruments and techniques help the individual be aware of one’s internal regulation. 
 
For me, the shoulder muscles provide feedback about my level of stress.  As anxiety in the relationship system goes up, so does the tension in my shoulders.  It has become a cue for me to be aware of how I am reacting to the anxious responses of others.  Some questions to consider: When is it more difficult to pay attention to the body and what it needs?  What are the signals that one is anxious?  What are the steps one can take when stress increases?  These questions do not provide solutions but encourage the development of awareness.
 
The second type of awareness is external.  Two key sensors monitor the world outside of the body: the ears and eyes.  Being aware of everything is impossible.  We are oblivious to most of what the brain sifts through.  It’s an issue of energy conservation.  If the prefrontal cortex processed everything we see and hear, we would quickly run out of energy.   And while we are “aware” of our surroundings, we don’t think much about them.    
 
For example, let’s say I’m in my office, talking to a staff person. I am unaware they are upset with me. Their facial expressions and voice intonation communicate frustration, but I’m distracted by an angry phone call I received moments earlier from someone in the congregation.  My brain energies are not focused on paying attention to the frustrated staff person.  The staff person perceives my response to them as cold, distant, and not engaged.  In response to my disengagement, their frustration rises which results in a big eye roll, tension in their muscles (clenched jaw and tight fists), and a stern intonation in their voice.  This has become a reciprocal process.  The staff person and I are each reacting automatically to the reactive, automatic behavior of the other.  Awareness of the other's response can lead to a disruption of this cycle and provide space for a different, and perhaps better, outcome. 
 
The third type of awareness is systems.  Humans are unique in their ability to be aware of systems.  Thanks to the prefrontal cortex, we can think about our internal state, our external state, and how they are connected.  The ability to see systems has led to the advancement of science.  We can predict the pathway of a hurricane.  We know how to land a spaceship on Mars.  We can “see” beyond individual functioning and observe how relationship systems function.  We still have much to learn, but we are developing the capacity to observe all kinds of systems. 
 
These three types of awareness influence each other.  One cannot have an awareness of systems without an awareness of oneself and others.  It is possible to be hypersensitive to how one is feeling but be unaware of the feelings of others.  It is also possible to be hypersensitive to how others are feeling but be unaware of how one is feeling.  Thinking systems requires an integration of both types of awareness.  One can be aware of self and others but not understand the underlying process that influences the relationship system.
 
Clergy need all three types of awareness to be effective.  To gain awareness, here are some steps to consider:
 
1.  Purchase a journal book.
2.  Set an alarm to go off every 15 minutes.
3.  When the alarm goes off, ask the following question:

• What am I feeling?
• What am I thinking?
• Who did I interact with in the last 15 minutes?
• How did I react to the person(s)?  What did I feel, think, and do?
• How did the other person(s) react to me?  What did they feel, think, and do?
• What insights do I have about relationship systems based on this interaction?

 
When at work, reflect on the work system.  When at home, reflect on the family system.  When at the kids or grandkid’s school event, reflect on the school system, and so on . . .
 
This is not a technique.  It is a way of thinking.  The goal of this effort is to learn to think systems; to be aware that other people are interacting with large systems like the family; to see how the challenges we face in our relationships with others are connected to the relationship systems they and we are connected to; and to see how thinking systems is connected to an awareness of self and others. 
 
A good coach can help a motivated thinker “see” systems and be the best person they can be. 

Last week I attended a conference on giving.  Anyone who reads this blog who attended the conference might think I went home and wrote this as a response.  The truth is I write these posts a month or two ahead of time.  That’s all to say that I won’t be commenting on the conference.  I will be offering an alternative way to think about stewardship, generosity, and raising capital.    
 
Not all congregations are the same, and yet, somehow, they are all the same.  I know, that doesn’t make sense.  However, pastors know it’s true!  That’s the funny thing about ministry: all congregations are different and the same.  How do you explain it?
 
Take finances, for example.  Every congregation I’ve served struggled each year to raise enough money.  Like any organization or family, their perceived needs were always greater than their revenue.  At the end of every year, an ad hoc group of leaders would sit down to try and figure out which bills to pay before December 31st and which bills to pay after January 1st.   Oh, and don’t forget the big end of the year push to raise additional revenue to make it easier for the ad hoc group.  Of course, not every congregation is like this, but most are.  So, if the struggle to raise enough capital is a similarity among congregations, what are the differences? 
 
What distinguishes one congregation from another is the way they meet the challenge.  Think about how a congregation with 150 in average worship attendance might deal with a $30K deficit.  Some congregations will have no problem making up the difference.  Some congregations will overcome some of the deficit, but it will include significant conflict.  And then some congregations head down a path of self-destruction.
 
Dr. Daniel Papero is a big help when it comes to thinking about organizations and how they face a challenge.  He’s developed 4 key continuums that influence and predict how well an organization will do when faced with a challenge.  These indicators are about how the relationship system behaves when challenged, what people focus on in the face of a problem, how an organization makes use of resources, and how leaders manage their stress and anxiety. 
 
Let’s look at the first continuum: behavior.  When a finance committee is faced with a deficit, do they engage the problem or put it off?  Does the problem drag on for several months or do leaders actively seek out solutions?  How do you typically behave when you face a challenge?  Do you avoid it?  A key to overcoming a deficit is to engage the challenge not avoid it.  This one is tricky, though, because engagement is not the same as taking control.  I’ve been in plenty of meetings where one person takes responsibility for the totality of the problem, comes up with a solution, and then tries to get everyone on board with their plan.  While this might be a short term solution, long term it undermines the functional level of the committee.
 
Then there is the issue of focus.  Do leaders focus on content or process?  Most problems are solvable.  Not all, but most.  A key factor in whether a problem is solvable is the “way” leaders address the problem.  Being demanding, blaming others or self, framing the conversation as us verse them, or not having a vision or long-term goal are guaranteed ways to make a problem unsolvable.  It doesn’t matter how great the solution, if the process is flawed and intense, the problem will not be resolved.  When leaders steer the conversation towards process (by asking good questions), create a process that is engaging and seeks cooperation, then solutions will always follow. 
 
How about resources?  What resources are available and how do leaders assess the availability of resources?  For most congregations, the problem is not a lack of resources but making better use of the resources that are available.  These are the stories you hear in worship or in a newsletter; how a congregation made good use of their resources.  If on the other hand, resources are not available, then the congregation is facing a different challenge.  Knowing what resources are available and how to make good use of them is key to meeting financial challenges. 
 
Then there is anxiety and the fear response.  How well do leaders manage their stress and anxiety?  If a leader makes a big mistake, you know the kind that gets you fired, it’s going to be in this area.  Self-regulation is a major influence on the other three areas.  Lowering one’s level of chronic anxiety helps improve one’s ability to observe and think.  Knowing what resources are available and how to make good use of them requires less automatic behavior and higher level brain activity.  Focusing less on the content of the challenge and instead focusing more on the process involved to find a solution requires a lower level of anxiety.    As I mentioned earlier, an anxious leader may try to control others and manage a problem.  The opposite is when leaders avoid a problem.  Dr. Murray Bowen recognized that the best way to work on self-regulation was in one’s family of origin through differentiation of self.  Contact me if you would like to learn more about what goes into this effort.
 
My hunch is that any leader who is successful in raising capital to fund a ministry or program is already working well in these four areas.  But what you hear at a training are the techniques that were used to get to the outcomes without any awareness or acknowledgment of the underlying emotional process that takes place in all relationship systems.  Show me a capital campaign that raised more money than expected, and I’ll show you leaders who do a good job of staying on the effective side of these continuums.   Show me a church on the verge of closing, and I’ll show you leaders who avoid problems, focus on content, do a poor job of using resources, and who are intense and reactive towards others.  Did I mention blaming?  They also do a lot of blaming.
 
Leaders do make a difference. Not because of the techniques they use but because they do a good job of staying connected to others.