Think for a moment about your prefrontal cortex.  It lies just behind your forehead between your eyebrows and your hairline.  The presence, size, and integration (with the rest of the brain) of the prefrontal cortex is what distinguishes us from all other animals like the pig.  But before you think of yourself as special, pigs have a prefrontal cortex, we both have fat under our skin, a protruding nose, and, don’t forget, pig skin and heart values can be used in humans.  Although, it should be noted that pigs are not capable of preforming transplants. 
 
The prefrontal cortex can differentiate between conflicting thoughts and stimuli, predict the future, sort out potential consequences, define goals and control social behaviors.  The prefrontal cortex is involved in thinking.  Other areas of the brain are reserved for automatic and reactive functions and behaviors.
 
All living things are awash with automatic behaviors that keep an organism alive and functioning.  It’s not clear to what extent (if at all) other animals or plants are “aware” of the world around them or aware of their functioning.  Humans have awareness but it is limited.  For example, we are often unaware of the influences and interplay of internal and external systems, like biological and relationship systems.  At the level of biology, we are unaware of cellular activity involving blood, oxygen, glucose, and the powerhouse mitochondria.  We can “think” about these systems, especially when a physician tells us there is a problem with our body.  This effort to step back, observe and think can also apply to relationships. 
 
In the Book of Genesis, it says that human beings are created to be “responsible” (1:28).  That’s the word Eugene Peterson uses in his translation of the Bible.  In this context, humans are responsible for their interactions with the natural world, including other humans.   If the human is unique because of the prefrontal cortex then the human has the unique capacity to be responsible when they use their “thinking” system.  So, what does it mean to be responsible?
 
Responsibility describes an action.  It is an action between people which can be understood contractually as accountability.  We can talk about the committee that is responsible for overseeing missions.  Or the pastor is responsible for preaching.  Responsibility is not defined by a list of moral, ethical or doctrinal standards that control one’s behavior.  Instead, it is the answer to the question, “what am I responsible for in relationship to family, friends, neighbor, work and the natural world?”  One’s responsibility is defined within the context of a relationship system. 
 

• What is my responsibility as a parent to my children? 
• What is my responsibility as a child to my parents?
• What is my responsibility to my employees/employer?
• What is my responsibility to my neighbors/community?
• What is my responsibility to the natural world?

 
As we attempt to answer these questions, the first thing we can become aware of is the question, “Am I doing enough or am I doing too much?”  We are often aware of this paradox when a relationship system starts to muster resources to meet a challenge.  The congregation is facing a financial crisis.  There is not enough money at the end of the year to cover all the expenses.  Who is responsible for solving this problem?  Is this a leadership problem or a congregational problem?  What role do individual members have and what is the role of the pastor and other leaders?  Who is responsible for deciding what to do?  Or consider this example.  The youngest child of a family with three children has stopped performing well in school.  They are receiving an “F” in every subject because they failed to turn in any homework for the last four weeks.  What is the responsibility of a parent?  What is the responsibility of the child?  Do the other two siblings have a responsibility in this situation?  What role do others in the extended family play?  What is the responsibility of the teacher and the administration? 
 
The genius of Dr. Murray Bowen was his ability to see challenges within the context of a relationship system where the behavior of each person influences the system and the systems influences each person’s behavior.  Shifting one’s level of responsibility in and to the system often creates a shift in the level of responsibility of others.  As one person takes on more responsibility, others take on less and vice versa.  However, when one attempts to shift out of their automatic ways of being responsible (doing too much or too little), Dr. Bowen observed that the relationship system responds with a “change back” process.  At first, others will counter one’s effort to shift their level of responsibility by trying to get the one to go back to their previous level.  However, if one is able to stay relatively on track and not react, a shift in the level of responsibility taking in the system will occur. 
 
So, humans will always have an advantage over the pig thanks to the prefrontal cortex.  We can think about and choose our role and responsibility towards others.  You can actually decide to do less without being a pig.

Why is goal setting so complicated?  It really boils down to three easy steps:

• Identify what you want to work on.
• Be clear about your starting point.
• Create a map (action plan) to get you from where you are to where you want to go.

 
Simple, right?  Hardly!  We can quickly lose hope in our ability to accomplish a goal.  Every year I think to myself, “This year, I’m really going to accomplish all of my goals!  This year will be different.”  It wasn’t until I learned about the influence of the family on each individual in the family that I began to understand what it really takes to accomplish a goal. 
 
What makes it difficult to stay on track with one’s goals is the pushes and pulls of the force for togetherness that vibrates as anxiety goes up.  People do what’s automatic in response to an increase in anxiety.  As tension increases, some people overfunction by controlling others.  Some people underfunction by distancing.  These automatic, reactive responses are the basic fight, flight and freeze responses of the nervous system. 
 
Here’s one example of how it works.  Let’s say your goal is to spend an hour every day reading.  You make a list of the books you want to read and you set aside in your calendar an hour every day.  You tell your friends, family and coworkers that you do not want to be interrupted during this one hour.  Everything initially goes well until there is a  “Knock, Knock” on the door.  Or a “Ring, Ring” on the cell phone.  Someone needs your help right now!  It can’t wait.  These interruptions occur right before or during your scheduled reading time.  You start to vibrate with anxiety.  You feel compelled to help because you fear that if you don’t there will be consequences.  But you don’t really want to help because this hour you have set aside is important to you.  You feel stuck. 
 
This is just one example of how anxiety and the fusion in a relationship system can disrupt one’s effort to set a goal and work on differentiation of self.  Because it is reactive to anxiety, the relationship system automatically pushes and pulls people off of their individual focus.  Differentiation of self provides a way to think about this problem. 
 
I host an annual goal setting retreat.  During the retreat participants learn how to plan for the predictable ways families and congregations unconsciously try to disrupt one’s efforts to accomplish goals.  If you’d like to learn more about the retreat, click on this link to read about the opportunity and to register.  Space is limited so don’t delay.  

If you lead a volunteer organization, your biggest challenge is not money.  Your biggest challenge is finding motivated volunteers.  And by motivated, I mean motivated to be responsible. 
 
Congregations are structured by committees.  Committees are lead by volunteers who support the mission of the organization.  But not every volunteer is motivated to do the work.  So, congregations are often a mix of committees where some function at a higher level while others struggle to accomplish their objectives.  What makes the difference?  It is the motivation of the volunteers. 
 
There are basically three ways people develop motivation.  The first two are about external motivating factors.  We all find motivation and inspiration from other people.  People who are charismatic can often motivate the unmotivated.  This is why charismatic leaders are so popular.  The second way people are motivated is when they become uncomfortable with the way things are.  If one is uncomfortable with the direction (or lack thereof) of an organization, they become motivated to make things better.  Like the first example, this is an external motivator because the motivation is based on a perceived assessment of the organization. 
 
Dr. Murray Bowen observed this external process of motivation in the family.  He described it as an over/under reciprocity or over/under reciprocal functioning.  The basic idea is that behavior occurs reciprocally in a relationship system or emotional unit (like the family).  Bowen observed that one spouse will overfunction, and the other spouse lets them overfunction.  The more one does for the other, the less the other does for them self.  These same patterns are extended to other relationship systems.  If one’s tendency is to underfunction in the family, they will more than likely bring this same pattern to the congregation.  If a leader underfunctions on a committee, others on the committee may find themselves taking on more responsibility (doing the things that leader can do).  If a leader overfunctions in the family, in the committee they may take on more responsibility than is needed. 
 
It’s helpful to note that anxiety drives this reciprocal process of over/underfunctioning.  As one becomes consumed with worry and fear, other picks up the anxiety and each person shifts into doing either more or less.  The reactivity to anxiety to do more or do less is the product of a multigenerational family emotional process.  In a way, one learns these patterns from one’s family of origin over the generations.  The reactivity is automatic in the sense that very little thinking and awareness go into this response.  It just happens.
 
The third example of motivation is what Dr. Bowen identified in the concept of differentiation of self.  When an individual is clear about core principles and a life direction, they are motivated to do the work.  It is an internal motivation because it comes from within the self.  This type of motivation is not determined by the motivation (or lack of motivation) of others but instead is based on a clear understanding of one’s beliefs and direction.  The focus of this type of motivation is less on others and more on self.  However, it is not selfish.  In fact, this type of motivation enables one to be more available to others. 
 
In congregations, some people use the word motivation and calling interchangeably.  To find motivation is to rediscover one’s calling into ministry.  Again, one's “calling” can be caught up in the reciprocal back and forth process of the relationship system.  One might feel called in response to what others are doing or not doing.  A true calling is something one pursues with or without others.  Leadership can be lonely.
 
When an organization is full of motivated people, the work they do together is less complicated.  When I think back on the many years my kids played soccer, it was easy to tell which kids were motivated to play.  The motivated kids excelled and were able to step up when challenged.  Less motivated kids depended more on the coach.  They did not excel as quickly.  A good coach can tell which players are motivated and then knows how to both motivated and train their players.  In a congregation, a pastor can tell who is motivated and who needs to be motivated.
 
The congregation I serve created a new process to identify motivated leaders.  If someone is interested in serving on the top leadership team, they must go through an application process.  Applicants fill out a form and provide written answers to questions.  The questions are designed to help an applicant reflect on their motivation for serving, consider their gifts and talents, and discern if they are called to be on the leadership team.  Once the application is completed, applicants are then interviewed. 
 
For many years, the process of filling a volunteer leadership position in the church was accomplished by externally motivating people to serve.  It’s sometimes referred to as arm twisting.  The result often left unmotivated individuals sitting in positions of responsibility accomplishing very little.  This new process addresses the problems with motivation.  Is this person applying for a leadership position because the congregation needs someone in that position or because the individual is self-motivated to do the work?  And if they are motivated, is it because the work is important to them or because they are anxious and worried about the organization?  The answers to these questions can have different outcomes.
 
The ideal candidate for a volunteer position in the church is someone whose personal goals, beliefs, and life direction is in line with the congregation's goals, beliefs and direction.  There may be differences over the details.  But in general, what is important to the individual is important to the congregation.  In this way, the calling (and motivation) of the individual supersedes the needs of the organization.  The individual will pursue what motivates them whether the congregation accepts them as a volunteer or not.  One could make the case that a thriving congregation is simply a collection of individuals who are self-motivated to pursue their calling in life.  And to that, I say Alleluia!  Amen!

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

Let’s talk about the people who get under your skin. You know who I’m talking about. These are the people who can get you all revved up. Maybe it’s your child’s significant other, your boss, your neighbor, a member of the congregation, or a court-appointed therapist. You can barely tolerate being in the same room with them. It’s clear to you that THEY are the problem. End of discussion.

Let’s talk about what you do to people who get under your skin. You blame them! You blame them for getting everyone worked up. You blame them for how they make you feel. It’s clear to you that this person is “not normal” and therefore MUST change. It is the only solution. If you’re human, you’ve probably said this to yourself and, on occasion, out loud.

An alternate reality may enter our conscious mind to suggest that the situation is more complicated. If you listen carefully, you can hear people vacillate between two realities. On the one hand, we get worked up about someone’s behavior. On the other hand, we recognize that we all behave in ways that challenge others. Even though we try not to blame others, we just can’t help ourselves.

Directly or indirectly, my expend energy to try and change the other person. The direct approach is, well simply: “You need to change your behavior!” The indirect method is much subtler. But the desire is still the same. We keep hoping the other person will get the message and change.

Have you ever wondered how someone’s behavior gets under your skin? Have you ever noticed that your level of irritation with them fluctuates? When I coach clergy, I hear stories of how parishioners can get them revved up. The clergy diagnose and blame others for the problems in the church. Some clergy sound very convincing. What’s remarkable is what happens when I ask a simple question.

Where does this bad behavior occur in your family? I first heard this question over a decade ago while participating in a clergy group. It’s a question I’ve started to ask myself and others. What’s remarkable is that I’ve never had someone answer with, “nowhere.” The longest I’ve had to wait for an answer is about five seconds. Almost immediately, clergy can identify someone in their family.

It turns out that it’s not people that get us revved up. It’s the relationship process that takes place in between people. It’s the back and forth process which is automatic, reactive, and reciprocal. It’s back and forth because the other person is reacting to you and other people just as much as you are reacting to them and to other people. It’s automatic because the emotional system hijacks the prefrontal cortex. It’s reactive because the other person’s behavior makes you uncomfortable. It’s reciprocal because individuals in a relationship system are always adjusting to find a sustained level of comfort.

Pretend that Andrew is a member of your congregation. Andrew loves to tell people what to and how to do it. He is more than happy to complete a task for someone who isn’t as organized as he is. If you need something done, Andrew is your guy. The downside is that no one will work with Andrew.

Everyone is unhappy on the committee Andrew chairs. No one talks during the meetings and Andrew continues to take on more and more responsibility. The meetings typically end with everyone being frustrated, including Andrew. You decide to take Andrew out for coffee.

“Tell me what it was like growing up in your family,” you ask. Andrew begins to tell you about being the oldest of six siblings. Andrew grew up on a farm. His father died when he was sixteen, leaving him responsible for the farm and the family. After his father’s death, his mother became depressed and less available to Andrew and his six siblings. This left Andrew with the additional responsibility of parenting his siblings. Under these circumstances, Andrew learned how to keep the family afloat. His siblings graduate high school except for one sister who dropped out. She still lives with their mother and is unable to keep a job. Andrew, who still lives close by, makes daily trips to the house to keep his mother organized and the sister out of trouble. You leave the conversation with a new appreciation of what Andrew is up against.

On the way home, in the car, you think about your family and wonder who exhibits this same challenging behavior. It’s your mother. When she is stressed, she tries to organize your life. When this happens, you find it difficult to maintain your level of functioning. You decide it’s time to take more responsibility for your functioning, so you create a plan to not depend on your mother’s over functioning. A good coach, trained in Bowen Theory, can be a helpful resource in figuring out how to address this reciprocal, relationship challenge.

The key to dealing with difficult behavior is to get on the other side of it:

• What challenge is the other person facing?
• How does their behavior function in a way that makes sense?
• What part does my reactivity play in perpetuating the problem?
• How can I function differently in a way that is more responsible?
• How is a more neutral, mature response different than the way I’m responding now?

Getting on the other side of someone’s behavior can make a difference in developing strategize for working on differentiation of self. One can discover that the other person is doing the best they can with what they have. And while we can all do better, I can do better while working on my part of the problem. Getting factual about what someone is up against in their life is one way to develop a mature response to a problem. What will it take for you to get on the other side of a problem so you can be the best self you can be?

Whenever Congress debates the budget, you always hear them talking about entitlements.  It’s the idea that some people have certain privileges.  Government programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, most Veterans' Administration programs, federal employee and military retirement plans, unemployment compensation, food stamps, and agricultural price support programs are all examples of entitlements. 
 
There are arguments for and against entitlement.  Those who are against specific entitlements programs argue that they create a dependency which is bad for people.  Rich people often say this about poor people.  But those who advocate for the poor are quick to point out that rich people are wealthy because of entitlement programs.  Tax breaks and government policies favor the wealthy. 
 
Some recent studies have shown that the more money you have, the less generous you become towards those who are poor.  It’s not true for everyone, but it does point to an interesting reality about entitlement: to have a poor, entitled class you need a rich, entitled class.  It’s as if they go hand in hand.
 
Among clergy, the word entitlement shows up in conversations about self-care.  I’m United Methodist.  We have rules related to the care of clergy.  There are specific expectations about housing, salary, days off, vacation, pension and healthcare mandates, business expenses, and the list goes on.  For example, all clergy receive four weeks of paid vacation.  For most companies with vacation policies, it may take an employee several years to earn 4 weeks.
 
Over time, congregational leaders have voiced their entitlement of better care for members of the congregation.  I don’t know if these two timelines, entitlement care for clergy and for congregations, happened simultaneously, but I believe they are connected.  Congregations expect more out of their clergy.  Clergy are expected to work more than 40 hours a week, they are expected to be available at a moment’s notice for house calls, hospital visits, and midday interruptions.  They are expected to give meaningful and memorable sermons and handle all administrative problems.  The list goes on.  For United Methodist congregations, when it's time for a pastoral change, they can feel entitled to get the very best pastor available.  Like clergy, congregations want the best for themselves.
 
My point is this: when it comes to entitlement programs, there are always two sides.  Each side demands something from the other.  You can’t have clergy entitlement without congregational entitlement.  It doesn’t really matter how it starts; each side reacts to the other.  The more one side campaigns for an entitlement program, the more the other side demands their own program of entitlement. 
 
None of this happens in a vacuum.  There are real pressures on clergy and congregational leaders to do better, particularly as membership and participation continues to decline.  As clergy and congregational leaders experience the weight of responsibility for these problems, each looks to the other for care.  The demands of each side for more entitlements will increase until both become stuck and frustrated over the behavior (or lack of behavior) of the other.  So, the question becomes, how does a congregation or denomination get unstuck?
 
 
ANXIETY
 
The demands for entitlements are driven by an automatic reactivity to anxiety.  As anxiety goes up and reactivity increases, one’s automatic tendencies are accentuated.  This would suggest that a desire for entitlements is somehow built into our response to stress and tension.  How does one think about this in the framework of a system?  The short answer is found in what Dr. Murray Bowen called the overfunctioning and underfunctioning reciprocal process.  When anxiety goes up, an automatic response is for one person in the system to increase their level of functioning while at the same time another decreases their level of functioning.  It doesn’t matter how it starts.  The point is that it’s a system response.  Therefore, it’s difficult to put the blame on one person or the other for the problem.  You can’t have one without the other.  One person overfunctions, and the other is perfectly content with it.  One person underfunctions and the other finds meaning and purpose in taking care of them.  Both will resist any changes to this reciprocal process. 
 
 
BEING MORE RESPONSIBLE
 
Instead of talking about entitlements, we really need to talk about responsibilities.  What are individuals responsible for when it comes to their own level of functioning?  And what are realistic expectations?  The answers are going to vary depending on the person, the relationship system, and the situation.
 
When person A gets frustrated that person B is asking for an “entitled” the issue is not only B’s functioning but also that A is reactive to the problem by being frustrated.  When A is concerned that B is getting more than they deserve or need, A’s thinking is driven more by fear than a responsible position.  Again, if one side gains an entitlement, the other side feels that they too deserve an entitlement.  The process can escalate as both sides demand more until the expectation of the other becomes unrealistic. 
 
How, then, can we talk about responsibilities?
 
 
EMOTIONAL NEUTRALITY
 
When we are afraid, there is a tendency to blame others or blame ourselves.  There is a way not to blame others, to see both sides of an issue, and to form a belief that helps one navigate the problem.  Emotional neutrality is a third way.  Being emotionally neutral does not mean being neutral on issues.  Instead, emotional neutrality is about staying in good emotional contact.  When one is emotionally neutral, they are able to take a position without it affecting the quality of the relationship with others in the system. 
 
The challenge to being emotional neutrality is not being automatically reactive.  There is always pressure from others to take a side.  When one is able to hold a more neutral position, without reacting back to others, the relationship system will calm down.  When the system is calmer, individuals are able to do a better job of taking responsibility for self. 
 
The degree to which we are reactive or thoughtful is influenced by the relationships system in our family of origin.  The family is the place we work on being more emotionally neutral.  For some, this idea of going back to our family of origin, to work on developing emotional neutrality, seems ridiculous.  It will result in encounters that are challenging, but, in the effort to be more of a “self” in the context of the family, one develops emotional neutrality. 
 
My point here is that one can trace the desire for entitlement back to one’s family of origin.  To understand how we got to this point, you have to go back and understand how the family functions. 
 
If we want to end entitlements (if that's even a good option), we will need to create policies that support and encourage the best possible functional level of the family.  These efforts will need to support and encourage family leaders to step up.  In other words, before we can talk about the problems with entitlements, we need to look at the challenges in the family system.  Any policy that does not take into account the realities of the family system is doomed to fail.  It’s that simple and that complicated. 
 
If leaders want to be more emotionally neutral in their leadership role, then they will need to go back to their family of origin.  It is an effort to carve out one’s beliefs and thoughts about the family.  It is an effort to look at one’s level of functioning in relation to the family system and being responsible for one’s level of reactivity to anxiety in the system.  It is an effort to engage others from a place of thinking (not reacting) and to develop a one to one relationship with each person in the family.  It is an effort that requires one to take a stand when important without arguing or being defensive. 
 
A good coach can make a difference in this effort.  I and others trained in Bowen Family Systems Theory are ready and able to help anyone interested in pursuing this effort.

I recently read The Gifts of the Dark Wood by Eric Elnes.  The book looks at the ways we become lost in life and how we can rediscover a path that brings us alive.
 
In the chapter on the “Gift of Temptation,” Elnes writes about what he calls the human flaw of pride and shame, “both of which convince us that we are separate from God, either because we are smarter than God or because we are so unworthy of God’s love and therefore must create our own path through life.” (120) It got me thinking about two relationship mechanisms from Bowen Family System’s Theory: overfunction and underfunction. 
 
When anxiety in the family system increases, there are automatic, behavioral mechanisms humans use to manage a rise in tension.  As one person becomes uncomfortable with the rising level of tension in the relationship system, they begin to take on more responsibility for the challenge.  In other words, they end up doing for others what others can do for themselves. 
 
Most clergy overfunction.  As anxiety rises in a congregation, clergy step in and take on more responsibility.  It’s an automatic response to the rising tension in the congregation.  Why do people do this?  Because it reduces their internal level of anxiety.  They have picked up the anxiety of the group, and now they have to do something with it.  Clergy (or anyone) who overfunction are seen by others in the system as control freaks or too authoritarian.  However, we forget that individuals do not overfunction in a vacuum.  They are responding to what is going on in the relationship system.
 
Overfunctioning is half of a reciprocal relationship process.  For one person to overfunction, someone else needs to underfunctioning.  It’s like a dance.  In a marriage, when anxiety rises, one person steps up to be more responsible.  The other gives up self (or their level of functioning) so that the one can overfunction.  It can also begin when one person’s functioning declines in response to an anxious situation.  The other will then step in to take over more responsibility for the relationship.  Either way, once the dance has begun, it’s difficult for either partner to change their functioning.  They both fear it will create more problems if they change the way they behave. 
 
Most families and congregations have some version of over/under reciprocal functioning in the relationship system.  It’s a fact of life.  Some manage it better than others.  Occasionally, someone will decide to change the way they participate in the dance.  They’ll make a move to function differently.  It puts everyone in the system into a temporary state of crisis as the fear response (which created the relationship problem in the first place) becomes elevated.  But, if one can maintain their new position, without reacting back or going back, the relationship system can adjust for the better. 
 
Those who overfunction in response to anxiety may experience what Elne's calls pride.  A feeling of pride is connected to the emotional drive to make things happen, take responsibility for a person or group, or solve other people’s problems.  Likewise, those who underfunction may experience what Elne's calls feelings of shame.  They may feel like they are not worthy of stepping up and doing better.  They may feel that they are less than human.  Feelings have a way of locking into place behaviors in the relationship system, convincing everyone in the system that the way we automatically behave is the only way. 
 
It is challenging to step back and become aware of how fear drives this process in the relationship system.  When we are afraid, yes, we are tempted to be prideful or feel ashamed.  When we are afraid we may automatically move into a position of overfunction or underfunction; not because there is something wrong with us but because of the way the relationship system automatically responds to fear. 
 
When we are able to disrupt the automatic, emotional responses, even for a moment, we expose our fear.  When we stop automatically solving other people's problems, we provide ourselves an opportunity to "see" our fear.  When we find the motivation to raise our level of functioning, we provide an opportunity to "see" our fear. 
 
From this vantage point, we can think about how our best self can respond to a challenge and not just be reactive.  This idea is similar to what Eric Elnes says is the temptation to act before God acts.  By toning down the automatic, we are able to discern our next steps forward.  It's a time for listening, reflecting, and thinking!
 
The next time you feel yourself automatically stepping up or shutting down, ask yourself these question:

• What do I need to do to step back at this moment?
• What will it take for me to wait before I respond?
• What is my automatic response to this situation?
• What am I afraid of?
• What will happen if I don’t act or don’t act right now?
• Is that fear real or perceived?
• Who in my family responds the way I do?
• How is their reaction a product of the family system?
• What will it take for me to respond differently?
• How will I preserve in my effort to respond differently despite the pressure from others not to change?