The word “resilience” has caught the fancy of the scientific community.  Researchers want to unravel the mystery of how two people can face an identical challenge with very different outcomes?  How does one person navigate a challenge successfully while the other does not?  The first person is labeled resilient.  But what makes them resilient?  It’s not entirely clear.  For example, how do some alcoholics stick to sobriety while others slide backwards?  How do some addicts succumb to the death grip of meth while others slip free?  How do some pastors figure out a way forward for a congregation while others give up and leave ministry?    
 
One idea is that resilient people have a thought process that says, “I can do this.”  No matter the quantity or quality of the challenge, a resilient person faces the challenge straight on and say, “This will not be the end of me!”  It is a form of confidence that says to the darkness, “you will not win.”  Like the patient just diagnosed with cancer, they face the doctor and say, “I’m going to lick this thing.”  Or the student who picks up a seven-hundred-page textbook and says, “Let’s go!”  It’s the pastor who reminds the congregation, “Hope is the conviction of things not seen.”  It is the parent who stands at the foot of their child’s grave and says, “Life will somehow go on.”  Or the parent in hospice care who says to their children and grandchildren, “You will be resilient when I’m gone.” 
 
A young man is estranged from his father after years of physical and emotional abuse.  The estrangement allowed the young man to feel safe.  But now, living on his own (and a little bit older and stronger), the young man decides to return home to face his father.  The son is not interested in winning.  He wants an equal relationship with the father he once feared.  With a little bit of work, he finds some confidence and a voice.  His confidence comes from the knowledge he gained doing research on his father’s family.  He discovered a history of physical abuse handed down from one generation to the next as an automatic pattern of behavior.  He learned about the family history of absent mothers who often retreated to the other room when fathers became angry with their sons.  He began to see how accepting this pattern of behavior as “fate” was the part he played in the triangle.  Standing at the door of the house, in front of his father, he speaks, “You and I are better than this.  We can have a relationship without violence; without the escalations of words. I want a relationship with you that is based on respect.  I want a different relationship.”  He is resilient.
 
Working on being resilient doesn’t guarantee a positive outcome.  In the end, we all will die from something.  But resilience does make a difference for oneself and to important others.  It is just one component of what it takes to step up and do better in this life.  We have a limited number of challenges to face over a lifetime.  Each challenge is an opportunity to bring our best self to any situation.  Overcoming adversity is about bringing one’s confidence, thinking, and determination to any challenge and letting nothing get in the way of one’s relationship with important others and God.

The purpose of Thinking Congregations is to explore the connections between Bowen Family Systems Theory and congregational life.  My effort to be curious, objective, and engaging can result in an adventurous journey that takes me to new places.  This week is no exception. 
 
I dedicate this blog to a new idea.  I’m interested to see if this idea resonates with your experience.  I’ll be asking for your input at the end.  I hope you’ll respond either in the comment section or on social media.  #thinkingcongregations
 
How long does it take on average for clergy to be effective in a new congregation?  What does effectiveness mean?  Good question.  I’ll save that for another blog.  But, for now, I’ll define it as the ability to lead change through the relationship system of a congregation.  I’m not the first person to think about the dynamics of relationship systems on one’s effort to create change.
 
Rabbi Ed Friedman, in his book Generation to Generation, stated clergy were effective after their first six months.  It takes half a year for clergy to be engrafted into the emotional system of the congregation.  I disagree with Ed on this point and will explain why in a moment.  Some have compared the first year to a game of poker.  During the first year, you build up relationship chips which can be cashed in to create changes.  You are limited to one or two things, depending on how big the change is.  So, choose wisely!  This idea of social capital, which I also disagree with, is what Robert Putnam talked about in his book Bowling Alone.
 
Effective change can begin after four years.  Changes can be made in the first four years.  However, long-lasting, systemic change can only come when a leader has participated in the emotional process of a congregation for four years.  I base this idea solely on observation.  What I have observed are changes in the ways I relate to the congregation, and the ways the congregation relates to me.  Each time I begin my fourth year in a new congregation, I notice that I am more confident in my ability to relate to each person in the congregation.  Why is this?  I’m not certain, but it’s possible that by year four I know something about each person in the congregation which is enough to have a working knowledge of the triangles in the congregation and the family triangles of each person in the congregation. 
 
It’s also my observation that individuals in the congregation relate to me differently going into year four.  I’m aware of more cooperation, more openness in communication, and more common goals and directions.  Notably, I find that those who (when I first arrived) were eager to talk to me each week are less eager by the fourth year, and those who were less likely to initiate a conversation with me during the first four years are now willing to chat at a moment’s notice. 
 
One explanation I’ve come up with relates to nominations and the process of inviting individuals to serve in leadership positions.  Perhaps it takes four years for the people who were nominated under the previous pastor to rotate out and for a majority of leaders to begin serving at the invitation of the current pastor.  In other words, by year four, those who are in leadership positions have said, “yes” to the current pastor.
 
There is room here for research.  The hypothesis I’m present is that there are changes that occur in the relationship system of a congregation after three to four years that create the context for more effective change going into year four or five.  How can this idea be observed, measured, and verified?  I don’t have an answer.   However, the word I use to describe my experience is bumpy.  The first four years are bumpy.  Some congregations are bumpier than others.  However, it’s always there to some degree.  And while the bumpiness does not vanish after four years, my observation is that it significantly decreases by year three or four (sometimes year five).  I’ve run my own experiment on this idea, but I can only offer stories and anecdotal evidence based on what I’ve observed.
 
I’m interested in your observations.  Have you experienced changes in bumpiness in the congregation that can lead to more effective change after year four?  I had considered setting up an online survey but decided to leave it to you to leave your comments.  So, I invite you to share your observations in the comment section below or on social media.  I look forward to reading your thinking.

You walk into a room. It’s filled with people you know. You make your way through. You overhear a friend praising President Trump. You voted for Clinton. What do you do? Well, if you're like a majority of Americans, you leave.

In a recent study by the Pew Research Center, people were asked how they would feel if they found out a friend supported Trump? A majority of liberals said their relationship with a friend who supported trump would be stressful and frustrating. Democrats are more likely to leave the room. You can read the study by clicking here. However, it’s more than just walking away or feeling stressed. Americans are polarized as a nation.

In nature, when groups of animals are afraid, they automatically respond by herding – getting closer together. Humans do the same thing, but it’s called, among other things, tribalism. When there is a perceived threat to the group, the group comes together to address the threat. This type of behavior has its roots in relationship triangles. As anxiety goes up, people realign their relationships in the triangles to address a perceived fear.

There are a few angles to a relationship triangle. One angle consists of two people tipping the scale from having a positive relationship valence to a negative one. It’s as if they become allergic to each other. One of them (and in some cases of both of them) find another person to have a positive relationship valence. The result is two people who have a positive valence while having a negative valence towards a third person. In other words, someone says, “I have decided I don’t like you and this person now agrees with me.”

So, the triangle includes two people who have an emotionally close relationship (it can be positive or negative) and one person who is in the outside position. All relationship systems consist of triangles. Most people are not aware they are in a triangle and how it functions to manage anxiety and tension. It's as if triangles operate below the radar.

It is possible to see relationship triangles with some effort. They are visible when someone tells you about a problem they are having with someone else. Voila! A triangle. If you agree with the person’s perspective of the relationship, you simply perpetuate the triangle. If you disagree, stating an allegiance to the other, they will move on to find someone else who will agree with them. Instead of agreeing or disagreeing, it’s useful to ask questions that engage your thinking and, hopefully, their thinking.

I typically start with the question, “Have you discussed this with the other person?” The answer is always no. (I know this because they are talking to me about the other person. If it were yes, they wouldn’t be talking to me.) Another question I might ask is: “What are the challenges for both of you as you work on this challenge? What will it take to resolve it?” The triangle is not just in congregations and families. It’s in society as well.

Let’s say you’ve been seeing a therapist for a while. Things are going well. You enjoy the sessions. But then one day the therapist makes an observation you feel is inaccurate. As you voice your disagreement, the relationship becomes tense. There will always be wide variation in the degree of tension a disagreement creates and how sensitive people are to the tension. In response to the tension, some clients may decide to quit. They might even find a different therapist. The original therapist may conclude that the departure represents the inability of the client to see the problem. The therapist may not see their part in it. A new therapist is happy to have the business, but may not realize they are part of a relationship triangle between the client, the former therapist, and themselves.

I think this same process happens in just about every area of capitalism and consumerism. People say things like, “I pay good money for this. I’m not going to waste it on this person.” Or, “Someone out there has to know what they are doing.” The market flourishes as consumers move from one service provider to the next. If you don’t like a product or service, you can look around to find someone who does it better and cheaper. If you don’t like the burger joint down the street, you find another one that’s better. If you can’t find one that’s better, you start your own. History is full of stories of people who started their own company because they were convinced they could do it better than a competitor.

Congregations are no different. Denominations were launched by people who left the church of their childhood. If you don’t like what’s happening in your congregation or denomination, move down the street and start your own, or attend a different congregation. Luther, Wesley, Calvin . . . They all started this way. We call them reformers. The American landscape is littered with congregations given birth out of this emotional process.

It should not be a surprise that in the era of Trumpism, Americans find it difficult to engage people on the "other side." If you look at every sector of the American experience (I could probably make a case for the global experience) when people don’t like someone or something, they walk away. It is our long-established history to move on and herd when we don’t like what we see or hear. This is what we do when we are anxious.

In addition to observing triangles, Dr. Murray Bowen observed how people distance from others when they perceive fear. In the short term, distancing serves a valuable purpose: it gives the individual time to step back, calm down, think about what is happening, and strategize a way forward. Without a way forward, people at one end of the spectrum cutoff when anxiety is perceived to be too high to manage. At the other end are people who argue and debate (again, there is variation in the degree to which people distance or argue, and the level of sensitivity to anxiety).

There is a mature, third option for engaging people who feel, think and act differently. It includes both articulating an idea that may not be popular and an effort to keep the relationship warm (other descriptors might be connected, positive, and avoiding being earnest). The best place to practice is in the family. Bowen called this process differentiation of self. And while there are different ways to understand, describe, and apply differentiation of self, here is one way:

• Pick a current event, belief, or idea.
• Spend time getting clear about what you think.
• Identify where your thinking comes from? Did you think of this on your own or have others influenced you? What ideas represent your thinking? What ideas represent the thinking of others?
• Do others in the family share your ideas or do they disagree? Who would agree and who would disagree?
• Do your ideas function to bring people together or keep a distance?
• Consider what idea you can articulate to your family without seeking approval or debate.
• How do you anticipate others will respond to your thinking?
• How will you respond to them? Without agreeing or disagreeing, what might you say in response to their reaction?
• What will you do to stay calmer and not react?
• How will you communicate to others that, as far as you are concerned, the relationship remains open whether they agree or disagree?

In theory and in practice, Bowen described how family members eventually come around and accept this different way of thinking. It is possible if one can avoid reacting back while at the same time staying focused on thinking. Thinking with others is an alternative way of resolving the challenges we face with family, friends, co-workers, therapists, and the local burger joint.

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

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

In the animal kingdom, what makes the human unique is our brains.  There are many species that use collaborative behavior.  But the human has developed the capacity to collaborate through shared attention.  It is the ability of two or more people to not only pay attention to the same object but also be aware that they are paying attention to the same object.  For this blog I'll be referring to shared attention as focus.
 
In general, there are two processes that direct our collective focus.  The first, an anxious focus, is an automatic reaction to a perceived threat or worry.  For example, we might become concerned about the health of another person and focus more of our attention on them.  On the other end of the spectrum, we might draw the attention of others to our self and be concerned about our own well-being.  Murray Bowen’s concept of the triangle is relevant here.  As anxiety increases in a relationship system, person A becomes concerned about person C.  Person A draws in person B to focus on person C.  In this way person A and B have a shared attention on person C who has been identified as a problem.  It turns out that this type of focus (on a third person as a problem to be solved) has a way of calming down the relationship system.  Especially when everyone can agree on the problem, including the person being identified.  
 
A second, more productive focus is curiosity.  When a person can be curious about their situation, without judging or blaming others, there is a genuine effort to discover new possibilities.  The result is a more thoughtful process of observing what is true instead of what one wishes to be true.  While this type of focus does not immediately address the anxious worry of a congregation, over time, as solutions emerge, anxiety will decrease overall.  It is the sacrifice of short term gain for long term stability.  This is true of any effort to learn, problem-solve, or vision. 

When it comes to creating a vision for the congregation, it’s important to know the difference between these two ways of focusing.  If the effort to discern the future of the congregation is like the first type of shared attention (anxious and worried), then the vision process will be a disaster.  If, however, the process is consistent with the second type of focus (curiosity and discovery) then the chances are good that the vision process will bear fruit.

When a congregation participates in a vision process, it should include opportunities to learn and think.  When done well, a large circle of participant are engaged in a process of thinking about the current reality of the congregation, where the congregation needs to go, and the best way to get there.  In this way, multiple brains are receiving new information to determine the best course of action.  Each person may see things differently but collectively, congregations (when given a chance) are usually able to determine how to move forward.
 
 
Shared attention and the vision process
 
A good leader is one who pays attention to how the congregation is focused and navigates the process to provide opportunities for thoughtful, shared attention.  Here are some ways of thinking about a thoughtful process:
 
INFORMATION - A good leader encourages the congregation to discover facts about the congregation and the community.  This can include historical information, current information about the community, an assessment of strengths of the congregation, and other facts that become available.
 
TIMELINE – A good leader develops a process that allows for a sequence of opportunities for 1) learning, 2) integrating, 3) articulating, and 4) communicating.  This process is repeated several times.  It is essential that that congregation be given opportunities to give feedback to the visioning team which becomes part of the learning process (see step 1).
 
DISRUPT– Worry, fear, stress, and anxiety are detrimental to the visioning process if left unchecked.  While anxiety can be a useful motivator for change, if a congregation’s attention is focused on worry, individuals will have limited capacity to think.  If worry becomes the central focus of the process, it will be impossible to develop a vision for the future.
 
THINKING – A good process includes opportunities for good thinking.  Sharing feelings, emotions, heartfelt views of the congregation may make for a good newsletter article but they are not helpful in developing a vision.  We, humans, know God because of our prefrontal cortex, the heavenly lobes that make us unique in the animal kingdom.  This section of the brain that allows us to relate to God is also what gives us the capacity for shared attention and other executive functions.  Why would we turn it off and operate out of a feeling state when it comes to leading God’s church? 
  
Bringing together a congregation to participated in an activity of shared attention to develop a robust vision is hard work.  It's vital work, but it is challenging.  If you want to create a vision for the future of the congregation, always error on the side of thinking.  One way to engage thinking is to ask good questions, be curious about the process, observe patterns of behavior, look at historical frameworks, and draw a wide circle of participation to make the most out of the resources that are available.  We can learn a lot when we take advantage of a process like this.  Discerning a congregation's direction is possible when leaders engage their own thinking and the thinking of others.

It is difficult being in the outside position in any relationship.  Children who move to a new school can feel like an outsider.  People who visit a congregation for the first time can feel like an outsider.  A spouse can feel like an outsider between a parent and child.  In groups of people, if someone feels like an outsider they may seek revenge on others in the group. 
 
Last month, a group of scientist reported on how revenge is linked to mood.  A study of 154 people found that when individuals have an opportunity to exact revenge, their mood gets better.  On the surface, this would seem to indicate that people seek revenge to increase their emotional state.  If true, it begins to explain some of the behaviors of individuals who have experienced being an outsider.  You can read more about the study here.
 
 
It’s a Triangle
 
In the 1950’s Dr. Murray Bowen began to develop a concept he called the triangle.  The triangle is the basic structure of all relationship systems.  A two-person relationship is unsteady when anxiety increases.  A third party is always brought in during times of tension to balance out the relationship system.  You can read more about the triangle in a recent blog post.
 
Bowen observed how difficult it was to be in the outside position of a triangle while the other two had a cozy twosome.  The only exception to this rule is when there is a high degree of tension between the two inside positions.  Otherwise, anyone in the outside position may take steps to break up the twosome and push one of them into the outside position. 
 
In a way, revenge is a classic example of someone in the outside position making an effort to force their way into an inside position.  The research suggests that there may be psychological benefits that stem from an emotional state of being in the inside position of a triangle.  There may be a sense of security and well-being in the inside position that is associated with an increase in one’s mood.
 
 
The congregation’s role in welcoming outsiders
 
Congregations are home to millions of people who have experienced rejection in one form or another.  Sometimes, congregations are the ones doing the rejecting.  Some congregations practice a sort of bait and switch to newcomers.  Visitors are initially welcomed but then required to adopt specific beliefs or dogmas if they want to continue to participate.  In other words, you are welcomed for now, but you may not be later.  Congregations try to balance their desire to welcome with an integrity of beliefs.  To what extent can people participate in the life of the congregation if they do not adhere to the tenants and practices of a specific congregation?  How much is a congregation able to tolerate when people do not adhere to the tenants and practices?  What can people do when they experience rejection and find themselves in the outside position?
 
Millions, if not billions, of people around the earth are experiencing rejections in one form or another.  Congregations can help people process their rejection.  Instead of teaching congregations how to be welcoming, perhaps congregations could teach their participants how to handle rejection.  What are the alternatives to revenge, gossip, shame?  These automatic responses are part of the emotional process driven by fear and isolation.
 
Rejection is a normal part of life.  A child’s first rejection comes from their mother who weans them off breast milk.  Birds are rejected as they are forced out of the nest.  The animal kingdom is full of examples of animals who experience rejection as a first step to being independent and moving on in life. 
 
I’m certainly not suggesting that people who exclude, shun, or banish individuals are doing something natural.  Those who violate the rights of others or who do not respect the life of another need to be held accountable.  But what about those who overly rely on the help of others, or require the help of others to find emotional balance, or whose very existence is wrapped up in the existence of another?  What about those who fuse to others to avoid the experience of rejection?
 
There is nothing unnatural about feelings associated with being left out.  They are part of the experience of life.  What matters is the way one reacts to these feelings.  We can acknowledge the reality of feeling left out or rejected.  Or we can get angry and seek revenge against another.  We can think about the way anxiety travels through the family and creates the outside position of a triangle.  Or we can take it personally and blame others.
 
There are choices we can make when we are feeling pushed out, or when we retreat from the group.  Congregational leaders can provide leadership to those who feel like outsiders.  The first step is to understand how triangles work in one’s families of origin.  Part of this effort is to understand the functional aspects of the other two positions in the triangle.   What is the other up against in dealing with me?  How is anxiety functioning in this situation?  How am I adding to the problem?  What does it look like to be more responsible for my behavior?
 
Bowen believed that being in the outside position was ideal for understanding emotional process and for defining a self to the relationship system.  He encouraged people to actively take the outside position while staying connected to others in the triangle.  To the extent one is able to be comfortable in the outside position of the triangle, they stand a better chance of doing better overall in life.  Others in the triangle will benefit as well.  A coach can make a difference in this endeavor.

The concept of the triangle was one of the first concepts added to Bowen Family Systems Theory in 1955.  Dr. Murray Bowen wrote that the triangle, “a three-person emotional configuration, is the molecule or the basic building block of any emotional system, whether it is in the family or any other group.” (Family Therapy in Clinical Practice, 373)
 
 
Three examples of triangles
 
Let’s say you are the chair of the trustees for your congregation.  You’re about to walk into a worship service and the chair of finance corners you.  They start to tell you how upset they are with the chair of the personnel team.  A triangle has been activated.
 
You are upset about something the pastor said last week in a meeting.  You get together with the chair of the personnel committee to tell them how much you dislike the pastor and how you wish the pastor was removed.  A triangle has been activated.
 
If you have ever been in a meeting where a few vocal members are complaining about someone else in the church and you remain silent, even though you disagree with their views, a triangle has been activated.
 
 
The patterns in triangles
 
One person is always uncomfortable in a triangle.  In relatively calm scenarios, there are two comfortable insiders and one uncomfortable outsider.  Being in the outside position creates anxiety because it can feel like rejection.
 
Patterns in the triangle shift as tension in the triangle increase.  When one of the two insiders become uncomfortable, there is a move by one insider to be closer to the outsider.  This leaves the other insider in the uncomfortable position of being the new outsider.  The new outsider will work to restore the original inside position.
 
With high levels of tension, the desired position is the outside.  An insider makes the move to be the new outsider by attempting to create a conflict between the other two.  As the other two fight it out, the outside position becomes the comfortable position.  At some point, the outsider will make a move to be back in the insider position.
 
In congregations, triangles are the mechanism for conflict.  When two people are in conflict, it is more than likely a third person is involved.  So, an understanding of triangles is the first step in conflict mediation for congregational leaders.
 
They key to Bowen’s concept of the triangle is remembering that triangles are not created in moments of tension.  Triangles exist due to the emotional connections made when we enter a relationship system.  As anxiety rises, it activates reactivity in the triangle.  When one find’s oneself in a triangle, it’s important to think about one’s own need for emotional attachment.  When one is drawn into other people’s problems, think back on the family.  How is this similar to the way people live out triangles in one’s family of origin?
 
Interlocking triangles occur when the original triangle can no longer contain the level of anxiety and reactivity – a reality for people in any relationship system.

The Big Bang Theory's character Sheldon Cooper, played by Jim Parsons, is a rule follower. Sheldon, like most of us, dislikes keeping secrets and, before he is told a secret, wants the option to decide if he is willing to keep it. This interplay between Penny and Sheldon, from the episode The Bad Fish Paradigm, which aired September 22, 2008, highlights the problem:

Penny: This is between you and me. You can't tell Leonard any of this.
Sheldon: You're asking me to keep a secret?
Penny: Yeah.
Sheldon: Well, I am sorry, but you would have had to have expressed that desire before revealing the secret, so that I could choose whether I wanted to accept the covenant of secret-keeping. You can't impose a secret on an ex-post-facto basis.
Penny: What?
Sheldon: Secret-keeping is a complicated endeavor. One has to be concerned not only about what one says, but about facial expressions, autonomic reflexes. When I try to deceive, I myself have more nervous tics than a Lyme disease research facility.
[pause]
Sheldon: It's a joke. It relies on the homonymic relationship between "tick", the blood-sucking arachnid, and "tic", the involuntary muscular contraction. I made it up myself.

Indeed, confidentiality is a complicated endeavor. And while we may not display outward ticks like Sheldon, we all know the feeling of being stuck between two people over confidentiality. His comments are funny because they are true.


The problem of being stuck

There had been a significant amount of conflict in the congregation prior to my arrival as their new pastor. In the months leading up to start date, I started receiving emails and phone calls from one of the leaders. They would share with me all of the problems as they saw it and tell me who was responsible for the problems. Others began to follow suit and before long I realized I was being told how to view the problem and the people before I had set foot in the building. I had no interest in taking sides. So, I would need to find a way to ground myself. It turns out that having a theoretical understanding of relationship systems was useful.


The concept of the triangle

Dr. Murray Bowen’s concept of the triangle describes the moment to moment interactions that take place in a relationship system. It is based on the assumption that a two-person relationship is not stable enough to address rising levels of tension. So, for example, in a congregation when tension develops between two people, it is not uncommon for one of them to reach out to a third person, like a clergy person. As they reach out to the third person, they try to convince the clergy person to see things from their perspective. Instead of the tension being resolved between the original twosome, it has now spread to a third person. If the clergy person is unable to contain the tension they are faced with, they, in turn, may reach out to another person and share their own tension about what has been shared with them about the original twosome. This pattern continues as interlocking triangles are created. You can read more about triangles and Dr. Murray Bowen’s concept by clicking here.

Most clergy are unaware of the interlocking triangles that surround them on a day to day, moment to moment basis. When people come to a congregational leader to voice a concern, the conversation can quickly shift away from the concern to talking about other people. This is a triangle. If one focuses on the content of the conversation, they will miss the movement of the triangle, and miss out on opportunities to address the underlying emotional process. If one can look past the content of the conversation and pay attention to the movement of the triangle, then it is possible to gain greater knowledge on how the relationship system works.


My confidentiality policy

My confidentiality policy is different than the one Dr. Copper proposed. Using the concept of triangles, and with the help of a coach, I developed my own policy on confidentiality. The confidentiality policy I adopted went something like this:


"If the information you are sharing is about someone else and their behavior, then I am free to share with that person anything you say to me about them. If, on the other hand, the information you are sharing is about your effort to try and do a better job relating to that someone else, then I'm willing to keep the conversation confidential. "


My effort in developing this policy was to be more of a self and not simply go along with the emotional process. It was my attempt to be more responsible for my part in the triangle and to keep the problem where it belonged – where it started with the original two people. It wasn’t so much a technique as a way to engage my thinking.

I implemented the policy in three steps. The first step was to share it with the entire congregation during the announcement time in worship each week for the first month. The second step was to write it up for the newsletter. Finally, and this was the most important step, whenever someone started a conversation with, "I need to talk to you about something or someone," I shared the policy with them: “I just want you to know that if you are going to talk about someone else, I’m free to choose whether to talk with them about whatever you tell me. If you want to talk about you and your efforts, then I’m willing to keep it confidential.”

I found the policy to be effective in calming down the overall anxiety of the congregation. More importantly it was useful in calming down my own anxiety by engaging a clearly articulated belief. In most cases, I watched individuals who might have been inclined to blame others shift towards a more thoughtful reflection about their own reactivity to people they found challenging. Overall, I saw a significant decline in blaming behavior.

One of the dilemmas clergy face is what to do with leaders who behave in ways that are counterproductive. As a result of sticking to the policy of shifting the conversation away from talking about other people, eventually some leaders decided not to renew their term at the end of the year. In fact, I never had a confrontational conversation where someone would just stop talking to me. Most people welcomed the opportunity to think about the problem from a broader perspective. Some individuals even made significant strides. They took responsibility for their part of the problem and, as a result, had better relationships with others in the church.

For my own part, I was not prepared for how anxious the policy would initially make me feel. Placing myself on the outside of every triangle in the congregation was very difficult. I was worried people would stopped “letting me in” on the problems going on in the church. I worried about being in the dark about problems in the congregation. My greatest fear, a mutiny in the congregation, could get the best of me from time to time. On my better days I would think about how my own anxious tendencies to over function could perpetuated the problem. I discovered that I too had a part to play in the problem.

An unexpected outcome was the freedom I experienced to relate well to everyone in the church. The effort to stay connected to the problems, while at the same time working to be less caught up in the reactivity of others who were anxious, gave me space to have a good relationship with everyone, including those I found the most challenging to work with. It was a form of grace. It gave me the freedom to lead.


Changes to the policy over time

Over time I did modify the policy. As I gained more confidence in my ability to articulate the policy, I no longer felt the need to reference it. It eventually become a part of my everyday conversations. If someone talked to me about someone else, I focused less on the other person and got curious about how the person talking to me was thinking about the problem. I had no interest in blaming others or talking about bad behavior.

I was also surprised to discover how well this policy worked in my own family. When family members attempt to get me on board with their way of seeing a problem (which could involve talking badly about someone else) I could talk about how I saw the problem differently. I stopped blaming others and tried to work on my own position in the triangles. It has been interesting to watch others embrace the effort and take it up for themselves. Working on this in my own family has given me the greatest level of confidence in working on it in the congregation.

Initially, the policy was extremely useful in helping me create enough distance in the relationship system to see the emotional process. What I discovered over time, which I attribute to the original policy, was something more usefully. When I was confronted with someone who was blaming or gossiping about someone else, I begin to think about the person I was talking to. Specifically, what about my relationship with them was important to me? I tried to move my thinking away from the person being blamed and back to the person who was talking to me. The conversation might turn to things we have in common. Or to others projects we are working on together. Or I might share something that was important to me that I’d been thinking about and ask for their thoughts. It has been a long term effort to move my own thinking out of an emotional and reactive response to one that is more thoughtful and principle based.

The more a leader and congregation can develop thoughtful policies about confidentiality, the better prepared they are to address relationship problems that are always operational. However, having a policy is not enough. Leaders need a better understanding of the emotional process that is the foundation of all relationships systems and then be willing to act take action steps based on this understanding and their beliefs.

Moving Away from Assessment to Observation
 
A change in clergy leadership is an anxious time for both clergy and congregations.  There are many factors that contribute to the level of anxiety.  As clergy and congregational leaders try to assess one another early on, they may miss out on unique opportunities to build a long-term partnership for ministry.  Observing the levels of anxiety in others and in self, developing good relationship connection with individuals, and supporting a way forward that is based on core principles are all keys to laying the ground work for an effective tenure as pastor and congregational leader. 
 
I’ve served four congregations over a 22 year period.  Each time I entered a congregation, I had the opportunity to observe my own reactivity to anxiety and my own tendencies to move quickly into assessing others.  Having a theoretical understanding of relationship systems makes a difference when navigating the complex behaviors of an active and anxious congregation.  Core principles and beliefs provide a solid footing while one stands in a sea of emotional reactivity.  
 
This blog is for clergy and laity who are in the midst of a change in clergy leadership.  It provides a way of thinking about transition through a systems perspective, specifically Bowen Family Systems Theory.  I had initially planned on dedicating one blog to this topic.  However, given the length of the article, I made the decision to turn it into a series of three posts.  This is the first of three.
 
 
Neuroscientists tell us that when we walk down a sidewalk, jog down a road, or even walk through a store, when we encounter another human being, we quickly calculate whether this person is a friend or foe. 
 
Despite our Sunday School teachers’ best efforts to teach us to “love one another” there is a part of all of us that labels others.  Anyone who has ever participated in a capital campaign project or sat in on a trustees meeting knows we are just hardwired to assess who is cooperating with us and who is competing against us.  How many times have you experienced conflict and wondered, “Can’t we all sit on the same side of the table?”
 
Clergy and congregations begin their time together with a period of assessment.  Depending on how connected clergy are in a denomination, it is not uncommon for clergy to seek out information about the congregation they will be serving.  Clergy from the same region (such as a conference, synod, or diocese) often develop, over time, a narrative for each congregation.  This narrative describes the church’s health and vitality.  Denominational leaders also contribute to this narrative based on their own experiences.  The narrative, which is not free of bias, contributes to the overall assessment a clergy person develops prior to the first weekend in worship.  This assessment is also filtered through each clergy person’s sensitivity to anxiety and results in a perceptual framework of the congregation.  This perceptual framework is formed prior to any firsthand experience and personal observation.
 
It is also true that clergy develop a reputation over time which can center on effectiveness.  In a similar process, colleagues, denominational leadership and congregations all play a role in developing a narrative about clergy.  These narratives, which carry a level of assessment and bias, are also shared without firsthand knowledge which contributes to a perceptual view of a specific pastor that may or may not be accurate.  This narrative can make its way into the congregation prior to the arrival of the pastor.
 
Eventually, clergy and congregations have their first date – worship.  What follows is often described as a honeymoon period.  Any shortcomings, mistakes, or problems are not publicly acknowledged.  Instead, clergy and congregations enter into a period of quiet, ongoing assessment which either confirms or challenges the perceptual framework created by the narrative.  We’d like to think that our perceptions are always accurate, but, as I’ll explain in subsequent blogs, our perceptions are often filtered by our own sensitivities to anxiety.  During this process of assessment we create a list of likes and dislikes about others.  Because this is an emotional process, these likes and dislikes influence our ability to accurately assess.  Without knowing it, what we are actually assessing is how comfortable or uncomfortable we are with the behavior of others.  We are assessing our own level of anxiety based on our likes and dislikes of how others like or dislike us.  Before too long, we are reacting to the dislike we have of others who dislike us, who dislike us because of the way we dislike them, which began when we liked someone else that they disliked.
 
 
We all have natural reactions to anxiety. 
 
These reactions are automatic and often operate under the radar of our awareness.  The key to developing awareness is to become a better observer of human behavior.  Clergy, whether through their calling or training, tend to be excellent observers of human behavior. 
 
It’s helpful for clergy and congregational leaders to move from a mindset of assessment to a mindset of observation, curiosity, and discovery.  Congregational leaders, who have a long term relationship with people in the congregation, develop their own sensitivities to others.  Different people receive different reactions based on these sensitivities.  When a dislike about the pastor is voiced to a congregational leader, their reaction may vary depending on who is voicing the concern.  In addition, certain individuals can ease the minds of congregational leaders by giving a “thumbs up” for the new pastor.  These leaders may be unaware of how the expressed likes and dislikes of certain individuals in the congregation are influencing their level of anxiety and internal discomfort.  Moving out of a mindset of assessment and into a mindset of observation helps one become more aware of these tendencies.
 
Clergy can also get caught up in the emotional processes already at play in a congregation.  As an outsider to the relationship system of a congregation, there is a strong automatic pull to move towards an insider position.  Each person varies in the intensity of the pull to be more connected to the congregation.  Some clergy are more sensitive to the upsetness of a congregation or, more accurately, the upsetness of specific individuals, which then influences the way a clergy person will operate.  As one assesses the expressed likes and dislikes of the congregation, they can feel compelled to resolve whatever feelings of discomfort may surface in others and in self. 
 
 
This is the process known as triangles in a relationship system. 
 
Dr. Murray Bowen developed the concept of the relationship triangle based on his research with families who had a schizophrenic member.  A basic triangle is between three people where two people are in the inside position and a third person is in the outside position.  He observed how tensions could shift between family members in the basic triangle between mother, child, and father.  For Bowen, triangles were the building blocks of the emotional system.  You can read more about his concept of the triangle by clicking here.
 
According to Bowen, when things are calm, the optimal position in the relationship triangle is to be one of the two insiders.  The least desirable position is in the third, outside position.  When anxiety is higher and individuals are more reactive, the outside position is more desirable with the two insiders experiencing the intense anxiety.  In reaction to rising levels of anxiety, there is an active, fluid movement of moving towards or away from others in the triangle; it is an effort to determine who the two insiders are and who the outsider is.  When the anxiety of the triangle becomes more than what the three can manage, interlocking triangles form.  Interlocking triangles exist in all congregations and are active corollary to the level of anxiety in the system.
 
Clergy and congregational leaders are in a better position to lead when they move into the outside position of the congregational triangles.  To do this, one needs to get out of an assessment mindset and into a framework of observation.  Like any researcher, the most effective observers are those who are outside of the processes they are observing while also highly engaged and connected to what is going on around them.  Effective leadership requires the ability to observe accurately what is happening in the relationships system but not be determined by it. 
 
One of the key mistakes clergy and congregational leaders make in trying to solve a problem is to assess it without first understanding the underlying processes.  Automatic responses to anxiety lead to problem solving that perpetuates and sometimes exasperates the underlying relationship problems.  Thoughtful reflection on the problem based on observing how the relationship system functions is a much better guide to determining strategies for addressing congregational problems. 
 
The next step is to learn to be a good observer, which I will address next week in part 2.