I remember the first time I tried to preach on human sexuality.  Spoiler alert: it didn’t happen.  During an introductory class to Bowen theory, the instructor encouraged participants to define themselves to their congregation.  I was a couple of years out of seminary and started to make a shift towards a progressive theology which included views on human sexuality.  When I mentioned this to the instructor, they said, “Great!  Let’s go with that.” 
 
I couldn’t do it.  I felt overwhelmed with just the idea of articulating my belief.  The pastor before me was able to do it.  But it didn’t go well with the more conservative members.  Soon after, they were appointed to another church.  Faced with the reality that my effort would stir the same emotional reactivity in the congregation, I chickened out.  I’m more confident now than I was back then.  I serve a congregation that welcomes and affirms the LGBTQ community.  But it took a lot of effort to get where I am today.
 
I talk to colleagues who feel stuck in their congregations.  As the United Methodist Church moves towards schism, clergy feel the pressure to either take sides or say nothing at all.  Some clergy are theologically progressive but serve congregations who are either mixed or mostly conservative.  They’re reluctant to articulate a progressive theology from the pulpit because they are aware of the conflict.  But more than this, they fear that taking a clear position will split their congregation.  And even if they don’t say it, judicatory leaders (bishops and district superintendents) feel it, too.
 
Is it possible to articulate one’s thinking in the face of conflict without escalating reactivity to the point of polarization?  Clergy fear what might happen if they do.  I’ll never forget one colleague who told me, “this congregation would drop dead if they knew exactly what I think.”  The struggle is real.
 
What drives this problem is a deeply rooted biological and psychological process that motivates groups to be of one mind, to think the same, to act the same, to feel the same, to provide a united front . . . In other words, to function as one unit.  “Togetherness is a biologically rooted life force (more basic than being just a function of the brain) that propels an organism to follow the directives of others, to be dependent, connected, and indistinct entity.” (Dr. Michael Kerr) When tensions are high, however, the force for togetherness propels us towards conflict, distance and cutoff.  Sometimes, if the anxiety is high enough, some people shut down and are unable to do anything at all.  The good news is that we do not have to be at the mercy of the togetherness force.  When clergy find the courage to take an “I position” it can lead to more collaboration and cooperation within a congregation.  Just the opposite of what people fear will happen. 
 
There is more than one way to work at this.  One approach is to get clear about what one thinks.  In addition, one needs a good understanding of the process of reactivity that will inevitably follow when one communicates a clearer theological position.  Anticipating the reactivity of others, being aware of one’s own reactivity that can get in the way and then planning how to respond to both are key components.  There will always be missteps along the way as one learns how to define a self and not react but it’s important to stay the course and adjust as needed without giving up or giving in. 
 
I’m not so naive as to think that this type of effort will magically make everything better.  It won’t.  But, it will help leaders get unstuck.  This is important.  We are in this mess of schism because too many leaders in the denomination are stuck in their reactivity.  When done well, having a clear belief is accompanied by the realization that one does not need to convince others nor defend a position.  One is free to respect the beliefs of others and be curious about their thinking.  Conflicts are often fueled by just the opposite: a lack of real clarity about one’s beliefs and the inability to respect the beliefs of others.  My hunch is that, despite our differences, leaders and congregations can shift out of polarized positions if leaders are willing to do the challenging work of thinking for themselves while respecting the thinking of others.

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.

It’s that time of year again.  United Methodist candidates are being interviewed to become credentialed clergy – consecrated and ordained.  For most candidates, it’s a six to eight-year process.  I served on our conference’s Board of Ordained Ministry for a time and as its chairperson.  I witnessed a broad spectrum of candidates who came through the process.  Most candidate did well; the vast majority made it through the process with relative ease.  Some candidates were not ready.  Others lacked self-awareness.    
 
In a previous blog, I discussed the importance of candidates having self-awareness.  Effective clergy have a high level of self-awareness to help them navigate the relationship system of a congregation.  Why seminaries don’t teach students how to develop awareness of oneself in a relationship system is beyond me.  Pastors get themselves into trouble, not because of their theology or their concept of God, but because they don’t know what to do with tension or a high level of anxiety in the congregation.  In addition to candidates working on their level of awareness, interview team members need to work on it, too. 
 
It’s important that an interview team work to create an interview process that is fair.  Sometimes there are problems with the interview.  Most boards have procedures in place that encourage a good process and they have procedures in place in case something goes wrong.  Ideally, everyone on an interview team is working to manage their anxiety.  But, it's not always the case. 
 
My assumption is that process is more important than content.  Yes, candidates need a certain level of content to be ready and effective in ministry.  But it’s the interview process that makes the difference.  Of course, when it comes to process, there are lots of variables to consider.  I’ve created a list of variables that I think go into predicting the quality of the interview process. 
 

1. The level of chronic anxiety in each member of the interview team and the candidate.  Chronic anxiety can actually be measured.
2. The number of life stressors in each member of the interview team and the candidate on the day of the interview.  This number also can be measured with a simply questionnaire. 
3. The number of resources available to each person on the interview team and the candidate.  This would be the number of important people that are available to each person as a resource. 

 
The result (of the three variables) is equivalent to an emotional state that determines the level at which one is functioning.  If 1 and 2 are low and 3 is high, the functional level is higher.  If 1 and 2 are high and 3 is low, the functional level is lower.  Other factors like the amount of time available for the interview, the quality of the space and the overall energy level of the team and the candidate also make a difference. 
 
It would be possible to predict the outcome of the interview if these factors could be measured for each member of the interview team and the candidate.  These variables contribute to one’s ability to manage oneself in the face of tension and anxiety.
 
In general, if an interview team can stay actively engaged while also managing their reactivity, even if a candidate is highly anxious, they will more than likely arrive at decision with a high level of confidence. If the candidate is doing a good job of managing themselves, but their interview team is not, the candidate may find it frustrating as they attempt to navigate the intensity.  If both the interview team and the candidate are not managing themselves, watch out!
 
In reality, there is wide variation within teams and between teams.  Some members of an interview team do a better job than others at managing themselves.  One person doing a better job of managing themselves in the interview can make an overall difference.  But it’s the complexity of variables that make it difficult to know if a candidate is getting a fair process.  But again, who is responsible for a fair process?  When each person plays a part, it’s impossible to assign blame.  Everyone is doing the best they can with what they have. 
 
Even though some candidates will complain about their interview team, there is a good chance that they will encounter a congregation that is just as challenging as an interview team.  Even the most capable pastor can struggle to lead a highly anxious congregation.  Understanding relationship systems through the lenses of Bowen theory can make a difference.  But it requires that individuals do the hard work of researching and understanding their family of origin.  My hunch is that if a motivated board of ordained ministry worked on Bowen’s concept of differentiation of self, they would make better predictions on which candidates are ready and effective in ministry.  If I’m right about this, bishops and supervisors might want to take note.  The upfront effort will save them countless hours of dealing with ineffective clergy.

To Whom It May Concern:
 
I’ve been thinking a lot lately about the future of the United Methodist Church, the only sect of Christianity that I’ve known.  I’ve written this letter at least a hundred times in my head.  I’m motivated to write it now because the closer we get to the special session in St. Louis in February, the more intense each side has become about the future of the church and homosexuality.
 
In 1972, four years after the merger of the Evangelical United Brethren and The Methodist Church, the new denomination (The United Methodist Church) set out to establish its Social Principles as a response to the societal changes in the United States and around the world.  The original document, presented at the ‘72 general conference, stated that homosexuals are people of sacred worth.  A last-minute amendment added the now infamous “incompatible" phrase.  For forty-six years that church has struggled with this public position. 
 
There are those who support the current position of the church.  Over the years, they have tried to enforce this position with consequences because they see the other side as covenant breakers.  Organizations have sprung up to advocate not giving in to the other side.  They send out monthly mailings and hold conferences to defend their position.  Over the years, their position has shifted toward the enforcement of rules.  These are conservatives.  Although, conservatives vary in their thinking, feelings and behavior.
 
Those on the left, progressives, also have organized.  They too mail out their position and organize training for individuals and congregations to advocate for a change in the denomination to fully include the LGBTQ community.  The strategy of the left has been protesting and civil and biblical disobedience.  They have been advocating for a simple plan that removes what they see as discriminatory language in the Book of Discipline.  Like conservatives, not all progressives are the same.
 
The denomination behaves like a family.  All families have major disagreements.  Some manage disagreements better than others.  We are all challenged by a force that moves people to have the same thoughts, feelings and actions.  This force creates agreement, but it can also fuel rebellion.  There is wide variation on how individuals and families respond.  One factor that contributes to this variation is the ability to evaluate objectively one’s fear.  When families, even denominations, are afraid people are compelled to agree.  Disagreement is perceived as a threat to the survival of the group.  Compliance is seen as the only way forward to escape danger.  Families and even denominations can treat a perceived threat as real. 
 
The idea that some disagreements are inherently more threatening than other is a matter of opinion, not facts.  Some ideas are “hotter” than others because of this togetherness force.  As people pile on and take sides, the intensity grows.  The further disconnected each side becomes from each other, the more intense and extreme their positions become.  Mature engagement moves the conversation in a more productive direction.
 
It is possible for people to stay together without agreeing on anything.  Individual beliefs are based on thinking and not relationship pressures.  In my experience, when society labels something as a “hot topic” families find themselves thinking differently, feeling differently and behaving differently without disrupting the relationships in the family.  It requires a mature family leader who can manage themselves and guide their thinking based on core beliefs and principles through the tension and anxiety as it pops up in the family without cutting off or impinging on others.  Good leaders know how to navigate an intense, reactive relationship system without contributing to or causing division. 
 
Such is the state of our nation and perhaps the world.  It has become close to impossible to think differently about a subject matter and still stay connect at the same time.  Respect for the other’s thinking and beliefs is in short supply and is being replaced with “you are wrong,” “you are either with us or against us” and “your ideas are evil.” 
 
It’s helpful to be factual during times of intense anxiety and reactivity.  The fact is, we do not agree.  The denomination has not agreed in several decades.  But when has the church ever agreed?  When has a family ever agreed?  Disagreement and diversity are part of the human experience.  Beliefs are what help us manage disagreements not create them.  It would be better for the special session of general conference to vote on the fact that the delegates do not agree.  This push for an agreement, what we ought to be, should be, or could be, are all fear-based reactions.   Diversity is what is real; a denomination of individuals who think differently about a diverse array of subjects and beliefs while still calling themselves “United Methodist.”
 
I could make a list of the major disagreements I have with family members, close friends, congregants, elected officials, and with God.  Yet, I do not have the luxury to cutoff or distance from any of them.  A mature person understands that they and the family are better off if they lean into the challenge and find a way forward.  There are a number of useful steps one can take, but it would take too long for me to explain them here.
 
I am progressive, so I welcome the full inclusion of the LGBTQ community.  I will be praying for a way forward for the church I have participated in since my baptism.  But whatever decision is made in February, I will move forward and so will everyone else in some shape, form and fashion.  I may be a part of the denomination’s future and I may not.  It will depend on the decision of a select few at the special session.  I’m confident that conservatives, progressives and everyone else will do well whatever the outcome. 
 
I found myself in the midst of this conflict a couple of years ago.  It was just after then President Obama visited Japan to participate in the Hiroshima Peace Memorial.  President Obama spoke about reimagining a way forward that does not lead to war and annihilation.  I can best summarize his speech with words that are familiar to me that are attributed to Dr. Murray Bowen, “We can all do better.”  Not long after President Obama spoke, I started to wonder if 71 years from now our grandchildren will look back and wonder why we battled each other so fiercely.  I’ll be long gone, but perhaps by then we will have learned that “we can all do better.” 

I can do better.
​
John Bell

We live by laws, policies and procedures.  The Torah contains the Mosaic Laws given to help the new community of Israel live in harmony with one another and with God.  Laws are helpful in creating a just and fair society. 
 
Some laws are harmful.  Drug laws and sentencing guidelines have resulted in prisons filling up with nonviolent drug offenders who are serving long sentences.  So, what happens when laws have a real human cost?
 
Institutions are created to care for a specific need within a community.  They are mandated to carry out the law and to follow specific rules.  But sometimes laws are unjust and people suffer.  It is difficult to change an unjust law because institutional needs overshadow human needs. In the New Testament, Jesus said, “You have heard it said an eye for an eye . . .”  He was referring to an institutional need – a law.  He went on to say, “But I say to you . . . love your enemies . . .”  He shifts the focus to the human need.
 
Sometimes institutions are the best option.  Sometimes they do the most good for the most amount of people.  But institutions also have needs.  Institutions need volunteers who are willing to offer services or money.  For example, universities need paying students.  Police need volunteers to report crimes and be witnesses.  Not-for-profits need people power to function.  These are institutional needs.
 
As a particular need arises in a community, initially people (neighbors, volunteers, community leaders, etc.) step up to meet the need.  If the need can be met, then the neighborhood approach continues.  However, if the need increases and people become increasingly uncomfortable, community leaders will be pressured to create a solution.  The solution becomes a new institution.  The institution is an organizational response to a need which is governed by laws and rules.  So, what started out as a neighborhood approach to a need has shifted to an impersonal, institutional response.  If the need continues to rise, tension within the community will increase.  The community will look to the institution to find additional ways to solve the problem.  Institutions are sensitive to the growing tension and discomfort of the community. 
 
In general, human beings are sensitive to the level of comfort and tension in a relationship system.  A relationship system can be a family, a congregation, a neighborhood, a company, a community, a state or nation.  When times are calm, members of the system maintain a comfortable closeness and distance, finding balance between the two.  When anxiety increases in the relationship system (like a community, for example) leaders will move closer to the community to calm people down.   But this closeness can quickly be replaced by distance as anxiety and tension increase in the system.  Those who are prone to distancing, in response to an increase in tension, will eventually cutoff from the system if the anxiety becomes too hot to handle.  As people cutoff, anxiety is contained within a smaller number of people (the relationship system becomes smaller).  Research has shown that people who are isolated (cutoff) have an increased risk of physical, psychological, and behavioral problems.  With fewer resources available, individuals who are cutoff from the system are more likely to rely on institutions to manage their level of comfort and tension.
 
The denomination that ordained me, the United Methodist Church, is facing a possible split in February.  Since 1972, the denomination has debated rules that were put in place to prohibit the full inclusion of the LGBTQ community.  The debate and tension within the denomination mirrored the broader society.  Every four years that the institution gathered to do its work, it became increasingly more difficult for people who think differently about gender identity and sexual orientation to dialogue and respect one another's position.
 
As result of the increased anxiety (anxiety both within individuals and tension between people in the system), individuals and groups have turned to the institution to resolve the tension.  The institutional response to this pressure was to enact more rules.  As the LGBTQ community gained broader acceptance in society, those who were uncomfortable with the shift turned to the institution to enforce the rules.  This is an example of the continued prioritization of institutional needs over human needs.  
 
The prohibition in the denomination’s Book of Discipleship is harming people.  In response, the institution became unable to enforce the rules or address the human need.  The institution is stuck.  Any attempt to bring people together has had minimal success.  In response, quasi-institutions have sprung up to support or challenge the institution’s rules or lack of enforcement. 
 
As the tension escalates, so does the focus on the institution to resolve the problem.  There is pressure on the institution to remove individuals who disobey the rules or to remove the rules altogether.  The human need within the LGBTQ community is being largely ignored.  Again, institutional needs have risen above human needs.  In the Gospels, Jesus shifted the focus from institutional needs to human needs, recognizing that a reliance on the institution only perpetuates a focus on the institutional.  And institutional needs always trump human needs. 
 
Starbucks recently completed storewide training on racism.  Why?  Because two black men entered a Starbucks in Philadelphia.  As they waited for their friends to arrive, a white female manager became uncomfortable.  Instead of her taking responsibility for her discomfort and anxiety (and any tension she experienced in her interaction with the men), she called the institution, the police.  Remember, we look to institutions to resolve the tension we experience in the system.  Institutions always do what society asks them to do.  The police step in to reduce the purported tension.  But here’s the problem.  When institutions step in, they remove opportunities for individuals to be more responsible for their fears and anxiety.  As society loses its capacity for engaging others in meaningful ways around difficult challenges, we’ve become more dependent on institutions to resolve them for us.  And it will never work.  Individuals need to be more responsible for working on the tension they experience in the system.  We need more opportunities to take responsibility for our perceived fears; opportunities to overcome our perceptions. 
 
While I may sound like I’m blaming institutions, I’m not.  I head up an institution and am aware of the challenges.  The point I’m trying to articulate is that, if we are not careful, institutions will continue to get in the way of efforts to build community.  Institutions can be an asset to building community when leaders of an institution understand this problem.  Institutions can be effective at solving problems when they help people within the system lean into the challenge.  It is a matter of putting the human need in front of the institutional need and identifying the limitations of the institution (what they can do but also what they can’t do).  Communities are stronger when individual members take responsibility for engaging the human needs around them.  As individuals come together to work collaboratively, they discover new things, new resources and new opportunities for meeting a challenge. 
 
When someone shows up with a need, how do you respond?  Referring someone to an institution is common.  But is this always necessary? What if building community is predicated on people taking responsibility in addressing the human need?  What if building community is based on the activity of sharing resources?  If someone shows up asking for help, what would happen if you introduce them to your community?  What networks and resources could be made available to them?
 
In what ways have you or your congregation relied on institutions to meet needs?  How might being more responsible for the needs of the community help build community?  If you lead an institution, how might the organization shift its focus to empowering the community to meet needs?  What are the institution’s assets?  What other questions or thoughts come to mind?

​How well do you pay attention?  Remember the grade school report cards?  When I was in elementary school, we were graded on whether or not we made good use of our time, or how well we pay attention in class?  It's not just kids who have problems paying attention.  Adults struggle, too.
 
Our amazing brains process sensory inputs automatically.  Most of these inputs are processed without conscious awareness.  The human depends on the nervous system to react automatically to the environment, especially a threat.  If the human consciously processed all sensory inputs before it acted, our species would be extinct.  This is the human condition.  It’s more than just having awareness. 
 
Some clergy can get themselves into serious trouble.  When clergy behave inappropriately it’s a problem for supervisors, and it can have a lasting impact on a congregation.  I used to believe that clergy (who got into trouble) lacked awareness.  Awareness is what boards of ordained ministry look for in candidates.  Some people are oblivious to the impact they are having on others, and the impact others are having on them.  But, it is not simply an issue of having awareness.
 
It is possible to “watch” (aka: have an awareness of) what is happening around oneself and still do what is automatic.  In a congregational meeting, one can be clear about what one wants to say but struggle to bring themselves to say it.  It can also be the case that one struggles not to say something that will be counterproductive to the meeting.  They say it anyway.  It's as if they cant help themselves.  Paying attention and acting in a way that is consistent with one’s awareness is a challenge.
 
Paying attention includes activities like observing, researching and thinking.  There is a process of observing.  It includes intentionality, motivation and curiosity.  It’s not in our nature to walk around every moment of every day observing the universe around us.  But when one is intentional, motivated and curious it can lead to agency and action.  
 
The greatest obstacle to the process of paying attention is the fear response.  I’m sitting in a coffee shop trying to pay attention as I write this blog.  Around me are sounds of children laughing, music playing, people talking on their cell phones, and bursts of sounds from the espresso machine.  On some days, I can tune all of it out and focus on writing.  On other days, it’s almost impossible to . . . to . . . to . . . focus.  Then there are days when my attention is somewhere in the middle.  What makes the difference?  The activation and chronic level of the fear response, the levels of cortisol and other stress hormones released in the body and the bodies ability to down-regulate this process. 
 
What triggers the fear response, how sensitive the response is, how quickly the response is engaged, how intense the response is, how quickly the response returns to baseline (if at all) and how chronic the response remains are all variables that are influenced by one’s family of origin.  What we pay attention to and don’t pay attention to is a family systems process.  Not from the past but in the present!  It is happening now, in real time.
 
Attention is on a continuum of human functioning.  At one end of the continuum are those who pay little to no attention to the universe around them.  They are wrapped up in their own little world. At the other end are people who can get overly fixated on just about anything.  I lead a drum circle with children and youth in my congregation.  The key to playing in a drum circle is the ability to focus on playing a unique rhythm while at the same time playing in sync with the other drummers who are playing a different rhythm.  If one listens too much to everyone else, they lose track of their rhythm.  If one listens only to oneself, they will be out of sync with the group.  It’s a balance. 
 
Chronic anxiety can shift attention either away from others or towards others.  As anxiety goes up in the relationship system, some people automatically move their attention away from others.  Their level of discomfort moves them to disconnect and to shift their focus away to other things.  For some, an increase in anxiety moves their attention towards others to control the behavior of others.  In the former, we say “I’m out of here.  Get away from me.”  In the latter, we say, “Stop doing that.  Do this.”
 
Differentiation of self makes a difference for those who struggle with paying attention.  Differentiation of self is not about disengaging nor is it about becoming consumed with the behavior (irritating as it may seem) of others.  It is about being aware of the impulse to do either and then to catch oneself.  It’s a disruption of the automatic response in self.  At one level, it is watching one’s behavior knowing that it is the result of synaptic signaling in the brain.  At another level, it is watching the anxious "charge" that is passed between people in a relationship system and observing how it influences behavior.  It is separating feelings from thinking and knowing where one stops and others begin.
 
Learning to pay attention is about slowing down one’s internal reactivity to others and being more thoughtful in the interactions with others.  To this end, it may be useful to create a timeline of a specific interaction with someone important in the family.  The timeline consists of mapping out who says what, when, where and to whom while at the same time tracking behavior.  This exercise can be useful in understanding shifts in attention.  When one says “X,” the spouse does “Y.”  When the spouse does “Y,” one of the kids does “Z.”  And so on.  By slowing down the interactions and mapping them out, it is possible to observe how attention shifts away from and towards others.  It is a system, so X, Y and Z are influencing each other at the same time.  
 
For anyone willing to pay attention to how the family works, there is a treasure trove of understanding and opportunities available to even the most novice of voyagers.  The adventure awaits!

Six years ago, I was invited to lead a workshop on evangelism for a congregation that averages 500 in worship.  The congregation wanted to expand its outreach to the community.  I am not an expert on evangelism but accepted the invitation as an opportunity to be a good thinker and to connect the concept of evangelism with discipleship. 
 
 
THE TYPICAL EVANGELIST
 
I recently walked out of Union Station in Chicago surprised to see a twenty-something hipster preaching with a portable speaker. With his facial hair and tweed cap, he proclaimed God’s love for all of us.  His message was an if/then proposition.  If someone confesses their sins, they will have eternal life.  I’ve attended several church growth seminars.  At no time was street preaching suggested as a method for growing a congregation which is interesting given its historical success.
 
Take my tradition, The United Methodist Church.  Our founder, John Wesley preached in public on top of his father’s gravestone!  There certainly is a time and place for public preaching.  But unless you plan to launch a religious revival, it’s probably not going to be your cup of tea.  This is the image most of us have of evangelism.  Someone preaching in public to the masses (rest in peace, Billy Graham).  For most people, evangelism happens through interpersonal relationships.  The invitation to faith comes early in life and usually from a family member.
 
 
CAN'T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG?
 
One of the fundamental questions the Bible attempts to answer is, “How can we all get along?”  In the book of Genesis, we quickly discover with the first family that it will not be easy for humans to get along.  Adam and Eve are examples of blame and shame while Cain and Able are examples of struggle and violence.  How will God and God’s people solve the human relationship condition?
 
In the Hebrew Bible, we see the development of laws and rules that attempt to answer this question.  The Bible identifies the problem as sin and sin has been historically interpreted through the lens of ethics and morality.  Laws and rules are handed down to motivate the people to do less bad stuff and more good stuff.  Laws and rules were designed to create healthy kin and non-kin relationships.
 
With laws and rules in place, the problem becomes the focus of discipleship.  Is discipleship a focus on how I observe the laws, or is it a focus on how others observe the laws?  Rabbi Ed Friedman addressed this paradox of living in community.  He described it as a paradox between a focus on self and a focus on others.  If one focuses only on others, then one becomes a no-self.  If one focuses only on self, then one becomes narcissistic.  While the narcissist obliterates others, the no-self has no core beliefs, no guiding principles, is mostly reactive to others, and is dangerous and out of control.  For Friedman, the answer to the paradox was in the middle: a self that is connected.  To know thyself is to have a relationship with God.  Knowing thyself shapes the way one behaves towards others.  But it is more than just being better connected and less selfish.   
 

 FROM PROHIBITION TO ISOLATION
  
Historically, the practice of evangelism has been caught up in heated debates over the prohibition of things and behaviors.  Abortion and Halloween are examples that come to mind.  The Deuteronomic code is another example.  For some people, evangelism involves communicating moral rules and laws designed to deter bad behavior within the context of a community or society.  There are problems inherent in this form of evangelism.
 
Some congregations and their leaders try to change the behavior of others.  In this way, they take responsibility for the behavior of others.  It becomes their mission to stop it.  It’s problematic because most people don’t want to be responsible for the behavior of others.  And most people don’t want someone telling them to be more responsible.  Just because you tell someone to be more accountable for their behavior doesn’t mean they will be more accountable.
 
The alternative (which is where most mainline congregations find themselves) is to give up and create distance from those who behave “badly."  Of course, there is the token effort to help the people who have made “bad” choices, but they are not invited to worship.  It gets even more interesting.  Some churches highlight specific laws in the Bible as “membership requirements.”  If you break one of these membership laws, you lose your membership.  Break a rule? You're banished.  In the worst cases, the banishment is announced publicly.  It's really religious isolationism.
 
When people isolate or distance from someone, they may be hoping to change the other person's behavior.  Parents discipline their toddler with a timeout.  In nature, some animals are shunned to elicit “right” behavior.  If you isolate the problematic person (or animal), the pain of isolation will create discomfort which can lead to a change in behavior.  We imprison and isolate individuals who are labeled a “risk” to the community hoping it will lead to a change in their behavior. 
 
The effort to prohibit and isolate bad behavior are at two ends of a continuum.  They are part of an emotional process.  Congregations can become stuck in an emotional process.  Congregational leaders may be aware of how evangelism is used by some people as an effort to tell other people what to do.   They're aware that this version of evangelism is unsuccessful and doesn’t work.  There will always be a few holdouts, though.  Like the man outside Union Station.  Equally problematic are people who justify isolating and distancing from someone while at the same time upholding the commandment by Jesus to love everyone.  Leaders feel stuck in this efforts to advance the evangelistic outreach of their congregation while at the same time avoiding these potholes of application.  They are under pressure to do something!  What can they do?
 
In response to the dramatic national decline in church membership, leaders feel the burden to grow their congregation and increase giving.  When the focus on evangelism is in response to a decline in membership and giving, it reveals the real problem.  Congregations are anxious about their future.  I’m reminded of the hymn: “What troubles have we seen, what mighty conflicts past, fightings without, and fears within, since we assembled last!”   When people are anxious, and there is tension in the relationship system, people typically respond in one of two ways: they either move towards others to control, or they distance themselves from others.  There is a third way, however.  Dr. Murray Bowen called it differentiation of self.
 
 
THE SOLUTION TO EVANGELISM: DIFFERENTIATION OF SELF
 
The modern family is not much different from the first family.  The challenge is the same:  how does one relate to challenging people (in a congregation or in a family) without telling the other what to do and without ignoring the other altogether?  One step is to discover that one cannot change the other, but one can change self.  This brings us back to the concept of the self.  To be a self is to be clear about what one believes without demanding others to agree or defending a belief in the face of dissent.  It is about maturity.  It is about, what is called in the Christian tradition, discipleship: working on one’s salvation (with or without fear and trembling, depending on your tradition).  Here we are on solid ground when it comes to evangelism. 
 
The effort to be the best possible version of self (to be all that God is calling you to be) is evangelistic.  It is attractive.  It is compelling to other people.  The irony for those who place a premium on evangelism is that at the very moment they reach out to make disciples of others, they do so at the expense of their discipleship.  The focus becomes on changing others and not on changing self.  The invitation to baptism in the Christian tradition is an invitation for one to profess their faith; to declare their desire to be a disciple.  When one works at discipleship, evangelism happens.  The greatest evangelists of all time where people who knew that working on being the best version of themselves (being all that God is calling them to be) is the way to reach other people.  It’s counter-intuitive, but it makes the most sense. 
 
So, instead of organizing an evangelism committee, consider starting a class geared towards the individual effort of developing core principles and beliefs; one or two beliefs one can be sure of more than anything else.  Invite participants to make daily decisions and relate to others in ways that are consistent with their core beliefs.  When is it easy to do?  When is it challenging?  What makes the difference?
 
If I’m right about the connection between discipleship and evangelism (that evangelism is the natural outcome of individual discipleship), then there would be a way to measure it.  In theory, as one works at defining a self while maintaining good contact with important others, the number of important contacts would grow.  One would be freer to relate to others out of a more mature self.  The individuals who put their focus on being the best version of themselves they can be are some of the most evangelical people I know.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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