At a recent gathering of the General Conference of the United Methodist Church a majority of delegates voted to uphold the denominations stance against homosexuality and establish additional penalties for bishops and clergy who violate its Book of Discipline.  In response, congregations on both sides of the issue are having conversations about whether to remain in or exit the denomination.  I invited Richard Blackburn, the Executive Director of the Lombard Mennonite Peace Center, to talk with me about how leaders in the church might navigate this current reality.
 
John Bell: There is a lot of reactivity going on right now in response to the decision of the General Conference.  I wanted to have this conversation with you because I think there are ways of thinking about this challenge that can be useful to congregational leaders.  The first question I have is more of a general question.  What makes it difficult for individuals to maintain a relationship when they disagree about issues that are important to them?
 
Richard Blackburn:  I'm sure there are a number of things that contribute to that.  In general, many people get their identity from the perspective they take on particular issues and they can get into a defensive mode that creates polarization.  It’s that polarization, accompanied by reactive ways of stating one's perspective, that further divides.  The relationship itself seems to be put on the back burner.  That’s more of a general kind of response to the question.
 
But, one has to also look at what people are bringing from their own family of origin that prompts them to move so quickly into that defensive, reactive mode.  That’s going to be different for every individual.  I would also wonder what people are bringing from the chronic anxiety within the congregational system that gets projected onto the way people debate these issues.  Certainly, societal anxiety is having an impact as well.  As we’re living in a time of societal regression–and that's just one of the signs of the regression—it makes it difficult for people to talk about differences in a way that helps them to maintain connection.  We get into a rigid way of defending our perspectives that just further fosters the polarization.
 
JB: What are congregations going through that you think gets projected onto this struggle?
 
RB: I think the broader societal anxiety is impacting congregations.  The people in United Methodist churches have seen membership decline over the last number of decades.  There's an increasing fear for some churches about whether they’re going to survive.  That certainly jacks up anxiety.  So, if you’ve got an issue around which you have polarization, fear can lead toward further defending the differing perspectives.  The fear is that, if we go with your perspective, more people are going to leave the church.  If they leave, it's all your fault.  The blaming gets in there.
 
Along with the blaming are ad hominem attacks to the personhood of others.  Then the anxiety spreads through all the triangles.  This is going to be different in different churches given the level of chronic anxiety within the church and given the different histories they have.  Some churches have high levels of chronic anxiety because they have a backlog of unresolved things from the past that have never been addressed in a healing way.  Other churches may have less chronic anxiety but are still vulnerable to picking up the anxiety from society and projecting it onto the church.
 
JB: How would you define the problem facing United Methodist clergy and congregations who don't support the denomination's position, who find themselves on the outs and are trying to figure out what to do?  How would you define that problem?
 
RB: I think the most immediate problem, if you can put that word with it, would be to not go into an immediate reactive mode but to step back from the anxiety as much as possible.  To really think about, how can we approach this in an objective kind of way that is not being fueled by the anxiety?  What is our collective self-definition?  How do we pursue this in a non-reactive way?  It is recognizing that there are others who have differing perspectives.  How do we work at this in a way that is trying to stay emotionally connected with those who have differing perspectives?   No doubt, in many of these churches, there are going to be people who are on all sides of the issue.  It’s got to be approached in a way that doesn't further divide the congregation.  So, I guess the basic question is, how do we work at this in a way that tries to identify the legitimate interests that all parties have and then work at coming to some kind of understanding whereby we can each believe what we believe without it creating further division?  How do we work at staying connected given the diversity that's within the church?  How do we relate to others who have different perspectives than our own in a way that still values that common ground that we have in Christ?  How do we work at this in a way that approaches others with a different perspective out of a posture of genuine curiosity?  Not to bait.  Not to get into a polarization.  To really try to understand the differing perspectives and see if we can come up with a win-win whereby we are honoring the legitimate interests of all parties to the point that we can still stay in ministry together.
 
JB:  Two years ago, the bishops set up a process where various people from around the denomination worked to come up with a plan.  It was clear, though, when they had concluded, they were not in agreement.  So, the bishops put forward one of the plans and then tried to persuade everyone to get on board with it.  You mentioned how important it is to identify the interests each is bringing to the table.  I’m not asking you to be critical of the process but I'm just wondering if what happened reflects the process that was used or is it a sign of the regression being fueled by the anxiety in the church?  My observation is that evangelicals and progressives don't really know how to talk to each other in constructive ways.  I wonder what you think about that.
 
RB: I really don't know enough about the process to be able to comment intelligently on it. They didn't ask me to come in and mediate [laughter].  If I had been asked to come in and consult with them, I would have begun by getting an agreement on procedures so that the process was very clear from the beginning and that all parties were committed to following the process.  I would start with information gathering to document the full range of interests.  Then there would be education to help people understand what healthy conflict transformation looks like and help them understand how churches function as an emotional system.  It would include steps that work at healing unresolved hurts from the past.  Then we would work at creative win-win problem solving.  I don't know to what degrees any of this was done but this would have been the kind of process I would have recommended.
 
However, given people's proclivity for polarization and reactivity, there is no guarantee that they could have come up with a win-win because people do tend to get rigid, inflexible and locked into their positions.  I would hope that working at some degree of real deep listening to one another, and the hurts that people have experienced, would clear away some of the chronic anxiety from the past—which is part of what's behind some of the reactivity—to the point where they would have been more open to coming to some genuine win-win proposals.
 
JB:  I was thinking about how in the family one doesn't have to go back in history to relive the patterns because they're always present in the system today.  In congregations it can be different because it's not really a family per say.  Experiences can generate chronic anxiety which we bring forward with us into the present.  In terms of conflict resolution, you are saying that there needs to be a redress of those things.  How do you think about that in terms of not getting focused on feelings but using feelings to identify how to move forward with thinking?  How do you separate these things out?
 
RB: Well, I'm not entirely sure.  Obviously, it's pretty complex.  When I'm working with a congregation, the hurts from the past that have never been addressed in a healing way have a way of leaving residue so that, when there is some moment of acute anxiety in the current situation, the reactivity is blown out of proportion because it's being fueled by that chronic anxiety from the past.  When I'm working with a congregation, I'm trying to surface those unresolved things from the past in a neutralizing history context that helps people who have experienced these hurts to express them in non-blaming ways.  It's preceded by the education phase.  They've learned about how hurts from the past can be expressed in ways that are not coming out of the reptilian brain, how to put things in terms of "I" statements and how we are impacted by situation.  Instead of reacting in a blaming way, we’re taking the raw emotions of hurt, whatever that might be, and putting it into words that are describing rather than acting out the feelings.  It’s putting those emotions through the neocortex and putting them out there in a non-reactive way to help the other person really listen.  It’s about understanding the impact that that past situation has had on the person sharing the hurt.  I think it is a way of putting the feelings out so that people really connect with each other, listen to one another, and ultimately let go of those hurts from the past.  Then they can focus on the question of how we're going to address the current concerns in a more genuine problem-solving way that is respecting and honoring of the diversity of perspectives that are there.
 
JB:  There are a lot of clergy and congregations on both sides of the issue who are discerning whether to stay in the denomination or exit.  It’s more than just a question of do you stay or do you go.  It’s a complex discernment process.  Are there ways of thinking about it from a systems perspective that's helpful?
 
RB:  Again, I would say step back from the immediate reactivity so that one is doing this out of principles, values and beliefs.  Think about what it would look like—if the decision is to go towards separating—and how that can be done in a differentiated manner.  How can it be done in a way that is grounded in principles, values and beliefs and in a way that is not stirring up reactivity?  How can it be done in a way that is still staying connected to those who may have a different perspective?  The last question you asked goes in the same direction.  If the decision is to leave, how can it be done in a thoughtful way?  It would be interesting to think about ways of staying connected even though one decides to leave.  Are there ways of affirming what we still share in common?  Are there ways that we can still cooperate on certain aspects of our broader mission so that it's not just a complete cutoff but still has a commitment to ongoing relationship.
 
For instance, if a church should actually split over the issue, how can that be done in a way that is blessing each other on our separate journeys and not done in a blaming, rancorous way.  Keep in mind that to bless in Latin is benedicere which literally means “to say good things.”  So, how can we say good things about one another even though we've chosen to go our separate paths?  Are there, again, aspects of our common mission that we can still cooperate on?  Maybe there is a community ministry that the church had been involved in.  Can we commit to both continuing to be involved in that particular community ministry?  Or maybe we can work together to have a joint youth program.  Or something like that.  What are ways of staying connected even though we've decided to separate?
 
The Lombard Mennonite Peace Center provides resources on a diverse range of peace and justice concerns, from biblical foundations for peacemaking, to conflict transformation skills for the family, the church, the workplace, and the community.  They also have become a nationally recognized ministry for training church leaders in understandings grounded in family systems thinking via the Clergy Clinic and the Advanced Clergy Clinic in Family Emotional Process.  Additionally, LMPC is called upon to help those caught in difficult conflict to find reconciliation and healing by offering mediation services for individuals, churches, and other organizations.  For more information, go to lmpeacecenter.org.

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

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

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

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

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 [email protected].
 
 
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.