​

And Are We Yet Alive is a classic Methodist hymn, written by Charles Wesley. He wrote it as a gathering song for worship. John Wesley, his brother, incorporated the hymn into the conferences of the Methodist movement. Today, it’s often sung when United Methodist come together for special gatherings.

I once illustrated in a sermon the significance of this hymn in my life. Using sticky notes, I wrote down all the crises and challenges I faced in my life. No matter how great or how small, I wrote down each one. I stuck the sticky notes to my body. I was covered from head to toe in sticky notes! Then I repeated the phrase, “And am I yet alive!” At the time, it was a reminder that, after everything I faced, I was still alive.

All of us experience challenges. The question remains: Why are some people more resilient than others? What does it take to overcome a challenge? I think it has something to do with what we say to ourselves, how we think, and what we do.


What to Say

After I preached that sermon, I changed the way I talked to myself. I started saying things like, “You had faced challenges before and made it through. You will survive this new challenge, just like you have survived everything else.” When I’m stressed, and my mind is revved up, I remind myself, “In a year from now, you won’t remember going through this.” In most cases, that’s true. And when I’m really desperate, my mantra becomes, “This too shall pass.”

What do you tell yourself when faced with a challenge? I ask people this question whenever someone tells me they are facing a challenge. I might also ask, “What helped you get through it? What did you tell yourself?” We all have things we tell ourselves. One exercise to consider is to ask six people you are close to what they tell themselves during difficult times. Make sure to ask family members!


How to Think

How does one “think systems?” It’s easy to get fixated on one person and see them as the “problem.” We assume behavior is confined to the individual, but it’s not. A systems view of behavior shifts the focus off of the individual and onto the relationship system. For Bowen, the family is the main system. He saw the family, not as a collection of individuals, but as an emotional unit. Each person’s behavior connects to the functioning of the system. When there is a change in the way one person behaves, and the whole family shifts its functioning.

Dr. Bowen developed the family diagram as a way to observe and think systems. Using the format of a pedigree chart, Bowen diagrammed the emotional process within the family unit, including the multigenerational family. By approaching the family as a system, Bowen presented a new way to think about behavior within the context of a family.

This approach is also useful for other systems like congregations, workplaces, and communities. It’s easy to diagnose others or self. Seeing a challenge through a system lens broadens the focus of the problem, reduces the intensity, and provides a pathway for a more mature response.


What to Do

Just to review: learning to function at a higher level involves three basic steps. The first step is to calm down the internal stress response using words and phrases that reorientate the brain towards a more factual perception of reality. The second step is to widen one’s focus and not get caught in a narrow view of the problem. The third step is to take action.

After one calms down and observes the interplay of the relationship system, one begins to “see” the part one plays in the problem. And while it would be much easier to blame others or blame self, the facts speak for themselves. Triangles, the transfer of anxiety, the multigenerational process, and other concepts that Bowen outlined all play a role in how the system functions.

There are multiple options for responding to a problem. If one can observe the system at work and see how one contributes to the system, then one can choose to act differently. Taking an action step requires careful planning. It’s important to predict how others in the system will respond to an action step. It's essential not to react or blame when others are reactive and blaming. To be sure, one can get worked up on the inside during this process. So, it’s important to work at staying calmer. Even if others respond intensely, it’s important to stay in good contact and maintain one’s new position. Eventually, others will come around and accept it. And the system will do better.

Whether the challenge comes from the family, the congregation, the workplace, or the community having a coach can make a big difference. This is not about technique. This is about good thinking. And while there are thousands of blogs out there that will tell you what to do, this approach is about an effort to be a better self in relationship to others. There are concepts to guide one along the way that Dr. Bowen developed. Learning these concepts is one way to become the best person you can be.

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

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

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

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.

​Let’s be honest.  Nothing is working like it used to.  In the Christian faith, clergy and their supervisors are desperate to get people back into worship.  A little history might be useful.
 
I went to college in the late 80’s, and after discerning a call to ministry, I headed right to seminary.  While I was in school for those seven years, "church" began to look different; reflecting some of the cultural changes that started in the 60’s and 70’s.
 
One example is contemporary worship.  Thanks to the glorious success of places like Willow Creek, baby boomers were flocking to contemporary services.  My training in contemporary worship came, not in seminary, but later while serving a congregation who took up an interest in it.  I have nothing against my formal training.  Most of it was good. 
 
Around the time I graduated seminary, denominational leaders were starting to wake up to the fact that declining membership numbers were not turning around.  The solution was to introduce every four years a new conference-wide program to address the decline.  In fact, I can’t remember at a time in my career that we weren’t trying to address the decline.    
 
As far as I can tell, the response has been rooted in anxiety; a fear based response.  It’s difficult to know what is driving the decline today: shifting cultural dynamics, or an anxious church.  There is a difference.  The former is a problem to be solved.  The latter is a self-fulling prophesy.  Anxiety has a way of making our perceived fears come true. 
 
Our inability to reverse the decline has not been from a lack of trying.  My goodness!  We have tried all kinds of things.  We brought in this consultant, and that consultant, and introduced this program, and that program, and offered this training, and that training.  There was a time when local congregations could make money if they were attracting new members.  If a congregation was having success, they simply organized a conference on site and congregations from all over the world would flock to find out how they did it.  While there are a few places that continue to offer this model of "what works for us", it does not work for everyone else.
 
The problem was implementation.  You can’t take what works in one congregation and transfer it to another.  The ideas and concepts did transfer, but the results did not.  This approach had its roots in the franchise business model.  Not unlike McDonald's where you can set up a franchise anywhere and guaranty customers the same experience and results in every location.  The latest craze is the satellite church model where you try to reproduce what you do in multiple sights.  This works if everyone is being directed by the mother ship.   And, to be fair, while those who lead the training I attended over the years never explicitly said they wanted us to reproduce their success, those who attended did make a go of it.  

The effort to embrace developing business models geared towards consumerism missed the fact that our biggest commodity is relationships.  What every congregation offers is a transformed life rooted in relationships.  In our pursuit of anything that will work, we were blind to the relationship process of human behavior and failed to train our leaders in the developing, scientific research.  We weren't able to see at the time that the content we were trying to implement was being undermined by an emotional process.
 
After completing seminary, I was excited to be ordained and felt ready to lead and develop congregational life.  I began introducing new ideas and worked to foster creativity in the congregation.  It became clear that I was spending more time addressing challenging behavior then I was implementing new ideas.  It was as if there was a connection between my pursuit of implementing change through new ideas and the reactivity I received from certain members of the congregation.  I was clearly missing something, and I needed a framework for thinking about it.
 
I attended a conference back in the mid 90’s that helped me transform my leadership.  The presenter said, “Good leadership rises above the anxiety of the group.”  I’ll never forget it.  I wrote that sentence down and taped it to the dashboard of my car!  That presenter was Rev. Peter Steinke and what he was teaching was a systems model of human behavior.  It had its roots in Bowen Family Systems Theory.
 
Bowen Theory (its shorter title) is a theory of human behavior.  The concepts are based on the family as an emotional unit.  Each person plays their part, but the family operates as a whole.  If you want to understand the behavior of one person, you look at the relationship system.  People like Pete, who studied Dr. Murray Bowen's ideas, began to realize that the same concepts that applied to families applied to other relationship systems, like the church (which is usually made up of families).  Sometimes the problems people are having with family members spill over to their relationships in the church, or the school, or the government, or any other social agency.  Leaders of these institutions become the lightning rod of an anxious, relationship process.
 
I’ve spent almost 20 years researching Bowen Family Systems Theory.  For me, it provides a way to think about congregations.  It just makes sense.  If the church is ever going to be vibrant, it will need to think systems.  Understanding behavior in the context of relationship systems is what leaders will need to do to be successful in their calling.  So, instead of complaining about the state of the church and the decline of mainline congregations, I decided to do something about it.
 
For the past two years, I’ve offered a program called Clergy Consultation Group.    Once a month I teach the basic concepts of Bowen Theory and help participants learn how to apply it to the congregation, and yes, even the family. 
 
This fall I will be offering the program again.  This time, I’m excited to announce that there will be two options: an in-person option and, new this year, an online option.  In both options, the program is offered for 2 ½ hours once a month.  Most of the time is spent with me teaching one of the eight concepts of Bowen Theory.  Each month, one participant will have the opportunity to apply the theory either to their congregation or family. 
 
What can you hope to gain from this program?  The answer comes from Dr. Murray Bowen who developed the theory.  I’ve reworked the word "family" and applied the quote to congregations.  The meaning remains:
 
A congregational leader is someone who has “the courage to define self, who is invested in the welfare of the [congregation] as in self, who is neither angry or dogmatic, whose energy goes to changing self rather than telling others what they should do, who can know and respect the multiple opinions of others, who can modify self in response to the strengths of the group, and who is not influenced by the irresponsible opinions of others. . . [A leader] automatically generates mature leadership qualities in other[s] who are to follow.” Family Evaluation, 342-3
 
To register for the Clergy Consultation Group or to learn more, go to https://www.thecenterforfamilyconsultation.com/programs/clergy-consultation-group/

I used to think the most elusive quest in life was understanding the cosmos.  That distinction, it turns out, belongs to the task of evaluating employees.  It is a challenge to understand the rich and complicated nuances of a good evaluation.  Over the years, I’ve oscillated back and forth between doing structured (weekly and monthly) evaluative meetings with staff, to simply using each conversation as an opportunity to supervise; an idea I learned from reading, “The One Minute Manager.” I can’t say that I prefer one method over the other.  And, when it comes to having my behavior evaluated, well, all I can say is, I’m not a big fan.
 
 
Clergy Evaluation
 
I’m United Methodist.  If there is anything United Methodist do well, it is filling out forms.  Over my 20 plus years of service, I’ve watched congregational leaders learn to fill out a new form about every four years.  Since United Methodist clergy are evaluated by a committee, typically there can be between 4 and 9 people taking a shot at evaluating how one “pastors.”  Despite having to learn a new evaluative process every few years, I’m usually able to find some small nugget of feedback that’s useful for my own personal development.  I often spend a good portion of the evaluation meeting reflecting with the committee on pastoral identity and how it connects with the congregation’s mission.  By the way, some of the people who will be evaluating me in the next couple of months will be reading this blog post!
 
Let me give you an example.  Several years ago, I was told during my annual evaluation, by a committee of nine people, that I need to get out of the office and spend more time with people in the community; what we typically call evangelism.  I’m all for it and welcome the feedback.  So, in response, I pose these question: What if I don’t attend finance meetings, or trustees meetings, or what if I stop visiting the home bound, or don’t show up at youth group events?  Would that be a problem?  Well, it turns out the answer is “yes”; it would be a problem.  What followed was a rich conversation on the nature of pastoral leadership in the context of that congregation.  It’s often the case that when a pastor receives feedback about what they should be doing or shouldn’t be doing, it has more to do with the way the congregation operates as a system then it does about the pastor.  It’s true that sometimes pastors need to be more responsible and step up.  However, I would venture to say, this is the exception to the rule.  All of us are doing the best we can with what we have . . . and all of us can do better, including me.
 
From a systems perspective, the annual evaluation with the pastor is an opportunity to talk about congregational priorities and mission.  When there is a pastoral evaluation, it’s important to begin with the following questions:

• What are the priorities of the congregation?
• What are the guiding and core principles of the congregation?
• What is the congregation’s vision?
• How are congregational leaders evaluating the overall direction of the congregation?  What systems are in place to measure the progress?
• In what way is the pastor responsible for leading the congregation in these areas?  What is the pastor not responsible for?
• What are congregational leaders responsible for?  What are they not responsible for?

 
Of course, there are certain areas of evaluation that are unique to clergy across multiple contexts.  For example, "Is the pastor relational?"  Are they able to relate to everyone in the congregation?  But this leads to others questions like: What does it mean to be relational?  The word relational is an elusive term in which the definition could look different in different contexts.  Who gets to decide the criteria and how is the criteria different in different situations?  Or, is the idea of being relational somehow universal?
 
For several years, the denomination I belong to invested money into a research program called KSAP which is an acronym for knowledge, skills, abilities, and personal characteristics.  The result was a multi-level assessment of clergy effectiveness.  The purpose of the research was to list the specific things a clergy person needed to know or do to be effective.  There is a total of 53 items on the KSAP for clergy.  It seems a bit inhumane to assess anyone at 53 levels of effectiveness.  Indeed, the researchers observed that, out of all the vocations they researched, clergy had the highest number of total KASPs.
 
 
An issue of motivation.
 
When supervisors engage in evaluating their employees, most often the goal is to help the employee grow and develop.  Ask any supervisor, and they will tell you that the best context for an evaluation is where the employee is motivated to grow. 
 
When clergy get into trouble, it often comes down to an issue of motivation.  Clergy, who under-perform or create a frenzy in the congregation, lack the motivation to be more responsible.  (We can now add motivation to the list of things that are elusive.)  As Dr. Dan Papero often says, “You can’t make a bean grow faster by pulling on it.”  Motivation is not something that comes from the outside.  You can try to will it for others, but typically nothing will happen until the person finds their internal motivation.
 
We all struggle with motivation.  Some struggle more than others.  When I struggle with motivation, or when I feel stuck, these are some of the questions I consider:

• What is important to me?  What am I trying to accomplish? 
• What efforts have I made to accomplish these things?
• What have I tried?  What has worked?  What hasn’t worked?
• What are my stumbling blocks?  What are the problems I face?
• What am I afraid of?  Is my perception of my fears accurate?
• What is happening in the relationship system that might be creating anxiety in the system? 
• How does the relationship system pull me away from what’s important to me?
• How can I engage my own thinking when the relationship system is anxious?
• What strengths are available through the relationship system?

 
 
The relationship system is a source of strength.
 
A good evaluator focuses first and foremost on being the best self and leader they can be.  This includes being clear about their role as a supervisor and having clarity about the purpose of evaluating others.  It's about being a good thinker.  Supervisors who work on, what Murray Bowen called, differentiation of self create healthier work environments.
 
A good supervisor avoids blaming or labeling employees as problematic.  When a supervisor encounters problematic behavior they sit down with the employee and ask good questions:

• How does the employee think about the problem?  How do they define it and think about it? 
• What is the employee doing to address the problem?  Is it working for them?
• What is factual (objective) about their understanding of the problem?  What is more subjective thinking about the problem?
• How does the supervisor see the problem?  What insights can they bring to the conversation?
• Are there anxious circumstances going on inside or outside of the organization that might be contributing to the problem?  How can one think about the problem from a systems perspective?

 
When there are problems with the behavior of an individual, a good supervisor sees the problem from a systems perspective.  This means taking into account the behavior of everyone, not just the one employee.  It may include things that are happening outside of the organization.  A good supervisor thinks about how they (the supervisor) are contributing to the problem.  The supervisor reflects on ways they can act differently to be more responsible for their part of the problem.  No one wants to work in an environment where individuals are blamed and shamed for their behavior.  Taking responsibility for managing one’s self is the first step towards effective supervision and a better evaluation process.

Just this past week, two United Methodist Churches announced their intentions to secede from the denomination.  Separation seems to be more common today.  California has been in the news about seceding from the union.  We’ve come a long way from the original thirteen colonies who worked together to form a more perfect union.
 
 
Examples of separation
 
Separation is a consistent theme throughout history.  I wrote a blog about it a couple of months ago.  The flow of immigrants and refugees to North America is part of a historical trend of separation and migration that started 100,000 years ago.  You can read more about it by clicking here.
 
Examples of separation can be found in the advancement of technology.  We are becoming less dependent on utilities to provide clean water, gas, and electricity.  More homeowners are embracing green technologies.  It may be only a matter of time until everyone is “off the grid.”  In 2016 solar installation had the biggest gains.
 
Corporations are another good example of separation and diversification.  Growing up, my family had access to six TV stations.  Now there are thousands.  Just look at the candy industry. I recently stood in the candy aisle at Walgreens in some sort of sweet trance, overwhelmed by my options.  The owner and founder of Papa John’s Pizza was once an executive at Domino’s.  He seceded from Domino’s to start his own company.  How many other companies have started because someone seceded from one company to launch a competitor?
 
The benchmark for separation is Christianity.  The history of Christianity is bursting with examples.  Martin Luther has the most famous secession story.  He was excommunicated by the pope for his stances.  He went on to create a separate church.  Today, over 70 million people call themselves Lutheran and nearly 70 denominations are affiliated to Lutheranism.    
 
 
Forces that drive separation
 
It’s difficult to know what exactly is driving secession and separation.  One the one hand, evolutionary theory suggest that diversification of species is a natural process.  As life evolves, it separates into different forms and repeats the process over and over again. 
 
However, the latest tree of life is based on the work by Carol Woese from the University of Illinois whose research led to the formation of the phylogenetic tree of life.  Woese proposed that horizontal gene transfer between organisms was responsible for early evolution.  Jan Sapp, a historian of biology at York University, Canada picked up Woese’s ideas and introduced the word symbiosis to conceptualize the history of evolutionary thinking.  Sapp argues that through an ongoing process of separation and re-coordination, all life forms participate in symbiosis.  It is the biological paradigm we live in.
 
The force behind separation and re-coordination is anxiety.  Dr. Murray Bowen described anxiety as an emotional response to a real or perceived threat.  Anxiety motivates us to move closer to others or to create distance.  It is what he called the force for togetherness.  As anxiety rises, our initial reaction is to move closer to others.  However, as anxiety increases, one may become allergic to others and move further away.  This movement away from another can be characterized as separation.  In the short term, separation is useful in managing a rise in anxiety.  As anxiety decreases, an individual can move towards others in more productive ways. 
 
John Calhoun, an American ethologist (not to be confused with the Representative and Vice President) studied the impact of population growth with rats and mice.  In his most famous experiment with mice, Calhoun observed that as population density increased, social behaviors related to things like mating, rearing of offspring, and cooperative grooming broke down.  Eventually, females no longer reproduced, and males withdrew.  As anxiety rises in the relationship system, cooperative behaviors become more difficult to sustain.
 
This idea of separation and re-coordination may be at work in the broader society. Efforts towards separation can be seen across the globe from the recent executive orders of President Trump to Brexit to the struggle in South Sudan.  These actions seem to be more anxiety driven as countries struggle with rising levels of anxiety, driven by fear.  Population density and a lack of natural resources may also play a role in escalating tension.  I don’t think it’s a coincidence that scientists are researching how to sustain human life on Mars. 
 
 
Overcoming separation
 
At first glance, it would appear that modern protest moments like Black Lives Matter and the recent Women’s March would indicate signs of re-coordination.  Each movement has made efforts to broaden their base as they bring people together.  However, I think there are other examples that represent a different kind of re-coordination.
 
In more recent years, interfaith communities have sprung up around the world.  Some communities have built facilities where Christians, Muslims, and Jews can worship under the same roof.  These efforts, to bring interfaith congregations together, take time and intentionality.  It does not happen overnight.  It represents efforts to overcome automatic reactions towards separation and encourage individuals to participate in higher cognitive efforts of cooperation and coordinate activities. 
 
Universities and hospitals have become more intentional about creating interdisciplinary departments.  While the effort is slow moving, there seems to be a growing acknowledgment that the problems we face as a society and as a species are interdisciplinary in nature and require a broader conversation that transcends specific orientations and practices. 
 
Finally, there is hope that not-for-profits will increase their efforts of collaboration and cooperation across organizations.  This too is slow going and will require an increase in motivation to work collaboratively.  The struggles of most people are complicated.  For example, those who are homeless not only need housing, they also need employment, access to health and mental health care, legal services, microloans, food, and viable family connections.  One organization is not able to offer all of these services.  But, with collaboration with other organizations, it is possible.
 
The answer to our problems can be found in Differentiation of Self.  Dr. Bowen observed that those who made improvements in defining a self did better.  They were in a better position to manage the forces for togetherness in ways that did not lead to distancing or cutoff, and did not lead to intense fusion.  Working on self towards differentiation takes time to think about what one is willing to do and not do.  This effort produces a system of beliefs.  These beliefs help guide a person as they navigate the rising levels of anxiety both in self and with others. 
 
The greatest challenge we face today is coordination.  How do people continue to coordinate and cooperate with others if society continues to move towards increased separation?  In some ways, this is nothing new.  Humans have always struggled with how to coordinate and cooperate.  The challenge today seems greater.  What will it take for us to not give into the forces that separate us and embrace a way of thinking that leads to greater collaboration?  I hope you’ll share your thoughts in the comment section below.

To learn more about coaching or to invite John Bell to speak to your leadership team or group, go to the contact page by clicking here.

Want to receive this weekly blog straight to your inbox every Monday morning?  Subscribe by clicking here!

What if everything a congregational leader needs to know can be found by understanding the cell?  This blog will explore the concept of the cell and how the word became part of religion and everyday society.
 
The first biblical use of the word cell comes from Jeremiah.  He is placed in an underground dungeon (Jeremiah 37:16).  The Hebrew word “chanuth” does not have a direct connection to the Old English word “celle.”  It’s clear, though, that the meaning is the same.  Latin, French, and Middle English all have a variation on the word celle or cella.  Its original meaning refers to a religious house, a hermit’s room, or simply a small room. 
 
The word cell has ties to the word hell, believe it or not.  That word in Latin “celare” or “helan” means to conceal.  The Irish used the word to explain where they stored potatoes – “hel.”  It also is the root to the word helmet – a dark place to conceal things.  That’s the original meaning, at least. 
 
But, back to the word cell.  Another variation on the word was “kell” which became the root to “caul” (a type of membrane) and “kiln,” something like a stove or a kitchen where you heat things up. 
 
More recently, the word cell has expanded into words like “cellar,” a place to contain things like wine or people when there is a storm.  Whatever its modern-day usage, the original meaning is closely tied up with the idea of containing.  In the 17th century, a scientific discovery transformed how science and religion see the world and how we respond to the world.      
 
 
The Discovery of the Biological Cell
 
Robert Hooke was the first to discover the cell in 1665.  Born in 1635, Hook was the youngest of four children.  His father, John Hooke, was an Anglican priest as were John’s two brothers.  His life was saturated with religion. 
 
In 1665, using a microscope originally constructed by Christopher White in London, Hooke was the first to identify a cell.  He borrowed the word cell from his experience of monastic cells for monks.  No doubt, peering into a cell for the first time must have been a religious experience.  He was seeing the structure of God’s creation.  Here was a living thing, the simplest form of life, contained in this glorious organism he called the cell. 
 
Shortly after Hooke’s discovery, the notion of a religious (Christian) cell was revived in England and Germany.  In less than a hundred years after Hooke’s discovery, John Wesley, the founder of the Methodist Church, modeled his new methodical movement after the concept of the cell.  He called his cells societies and bands.  These highly structured cell groups would give life to the movement called Methodism.
 
For hundreds of years, the biological cell was understood and appreciated for the way it internally functioned.  It performs in predictable and stable ways.  Each part of the cell has a specific job, but it functions as a unit.  In a similar way, Wesley’s cell group had a particular structure and function.  As long as individual members of the group functioned according to Wesley’s design, the cell group would survive and thrive as a whole.  The cell group concept flourished in England and spread to every continent on the planet.  The DNA of Wesley’s cell group can still be seen in a variety of congregations around the world.
 
 
Rediscovering the Cell
 
In more recent years, scientists have gained a better understanding of how a cell interacts with the environment.  All living cells, including bacteria, are capable of adjusting to variable changes in the environment.  So long as the environment does not overwhelm the cell’s capacity to adapted, cells adjust and continue to replicate.  These adjustments, based on changes in the environment, happen both internally (within the cell) and externally as the cell communicates with other cells.  This process of communicating back and forth between cells is necessary for the formation of cell groups, organs, and organisms.    
 
The human body consists of 37 trillion cells.  All of them carry out protein synthesis and interact with the environment.  At the scale of the human body, these trillions of cells are working together to perform complex tasks.  The human body is aware of the environment through sensory organs – what we see, hear, taste, touch, and smell.  For millions of years, the human was limited in its ability to sense its surroundings.  Now, with recent advances in technology, the human experience of their environment has been enhanced. 
 
We have unprecedented access to technology.  The environment is no longer restricted to what is directly around us.  With cellular devices, our environment has become the earth and beyond.   From the weather at the north pole to nuclear testing in North Korea to the threat of asteroids, we have instant access to changing environments.  Cellular phones (which were originally coined for the way analog radio networks mimicked cellular life) are essentially neutral.  But in the hands of humans, technology can communicate how other humans are feeling about our changing environment.  Changes in the environment produce anxious reactivity at all levels of life.  Technology amplifies these anxious responses. 
 
With the recent integration of the cell phone into the world wide web, there has been a rapid increase in the rate and dosage of feedback we receive about other people’s reactivity to our changing environment.  For millions of years, anxious feedback from others consisted of a small group of the family, congregation, or community.  But now, humans have access to the emotional reactivity of the entire planet.  Our ability to process and respond to this level of global reactivity is overwhelming the human capacity to differentiation self from the masses. 
 
 
The Future of the Congregation as a Cell
 
Congregations are groups of humans, and as humans, congregations are vulnerable to increased levels of anxiety and reactivity.  Congregations, like all relationship systems, function as a whole.  Individuals vary in the extent to which they are able to think, feel, and act for self that is different than the whole.  The institutional struggles all congregations are experiencing are related to our inability to understand adequately and respond appropriately to environmental changes.
 
There is no guaranteed way forward for congregations as they deal with this increased level of intensity.  Asking good questions is still the only viable way forward.  How will the church of tomorrow address this new reality?  Will it retreat from the world and cloister inside buildings with little or no contact with the outside environment?  Will it spend its energy working to absorb all that is happening in the world?  Will it continue to morph and adapt to the environment it finds itself in and learn to live in symbiosis with the surroundings?  Or will the congregation of tomorrow do something completely different, redefining the word cell for the next generation?
 
Of course, this connection between the congregation and the cell is just an analogy.  It’s a creative way to describe what is.  It’s an attempt to explain what is currently unexplainable.  John Wesley, like so many other reformers, accurately observed his environment and responded to meet new challenges. 
 
The church of tomorrow will be based squarely on the thinking of the leaders of today.

• Leaders need to become increasingly aware of how the world is changing.  Leaders need to read about it, talk about it, and write about it.  Thereby increasing their understanding and knowledge of the problem and defining themselves in relationship to it.
• Leaders need to become increasingly aware of the congregation’s strengths (assets) that are available to meet the challenge. 
• Leaders need to work harder to articulate what they need to understand better the challenge.
• Leaders need to work cooperatively with other motivated individuals to develop strategies to meet the challenge. 
• Leaders need to work cooperatively with other institutions and organizations to create new symbiotic partnerships to meet new challenges.
• Leaders must avoid at all costs quick fixes, knee jerk reactions, and plans that only meet short-term objectives. 
• Leaders need to have the courage to implement new plans and stick with them, only adjusting to new and credible feedback.
• Leaders need to assess the plan continually and repeat the process.

 
Leaders will need to increase their ability to tolerate the discomfort and pain that accompanies an effort like this.  The best place to start is through a process of studying the multigenerational transmission process in one’s family of origin.  A coach is an essential part of this effort.

Thanksgiving will be celebrated by millions of people in the United States this week.  We were taught that the holiday is a commemoration of the first meal between Europeans and Native Americans.  More recently, some have reshaped the narrative towards a story of immigrants and refugees.  What new ways of thinking might emerge if we place our current reality within a context of historical patterns of migration?
 
Since the time our ancient ancestors left Africa, humans have always been migrating.  Archaic humans, like Homo Erectus and Neanderthals, made slow progress over millions of years out of Africa, ending up in places like Western Europe and Southeast Asia.  Something significant changed 100,000 years ago during the late Pleistocene period.  Humans began to disperse across the globe with unprecedented fervor, making the Mayflower look like an afternoon of sailing on the lake.
 
 
Leaving Africa
 
I presented a paper last year constructing a case that the mass migration that took humans to every corner of the world was driven by reactivity to conflict.  Archeological evidence reveals how it may have happened.  As tribes headed out of Africa, problems between tribal members would inevitably erupt into conflict.  Not unlike today, the complexities of the conflicts would include things like allegiances, spoken and unspoken rules, hierarchical structures, and kin relationships.  If the relationship system became too intense, tribes would face a dilemma.  They could blame one person or group resulting in ritualized punishment.  Or, they could ostracize one group by forcing them out (or letting them flee).  Those who left would have to learn to fend for themselves wherever they ended up.  The archeological evidence suggests that some groups settled in hostile terrain making the idea plausible that it was easier to learn to survive in adverse environments than risk inhospitable conditions back home.  (You can read Penny Spikins article on this subject)
 
Fast forward 99,500 years.  Is it possible that a similar phenomenon played out in the journey of Europeans to the North America continent 500 years ago?  Hundreds of thousands of people would leave Europe to live in rugged terrains and endure harsh winters.  Was it to flee tribal conflict at home?   The conflicts are often categorized as religious.  Faith may have been the context.  But how do you explain the process?  If you want to read more about my thinking on how religious beliefs do not adequately explain family tension, read my blog post “Interfaith and the Family.”
 
Many of the early refugees from Europe did not survive, and in some cases, entire communities perished.  It’s as if the desire to escape the tensions at home disrupts one’s ability to assess risk accurately.  I don’t want to rule out the possibility that some people left Europe in the pursuit of adventure.  But based on my observation of human behavior, it seems much more likely they were fleeing tension in the relationship system.
 
 
The Concept of Cutoff
 
In order to understand the complexities of our current social situation, having a historical view of migration is useful.  A helpful theoretical idea comes from Dr. Murray Bowen who proposed the concept of cutoff.  A good review of the concept is available here. 

When the relationship between a parent and child becomes too intense (what Bowen described as fusion), adult children may distance and run away from the family with little to no contact for years to come.  Parents play their part in the distancing effort, too.  There are short term benefits to distancing.  It reduces tension in the relationship system.  However, the long-term consequences include an increase in the level of intensity in the new family configuration which makes it more than likely that the next generation will also move towards distance and eventually cut-off.  And thus, a pattern is born. 
 
 
Leaving Europe
 
What if some Europeans saw North America as a way to manage the intensity of the relationship system at home by hoping for a fresh start?  As they started new families in a new world, would the patterns they sought to avoid in the old world repeat themselves in the new?  Would the family in the new world exhibit more or less intensity?  Bowen Theory suggests that the problems in the relationship system would get worse in the subsequent generations, not better. 
 
 
Leaving The Church of England
 
Included among the Europeans who fled to Norther America were Methodist coming from England. John Wesley and his brother Charles launched a movement to reform the Church of England in the 18th Century.  While this movement would eventually create a new denomination, John Wesley’s earliest efforts were to transform the Anglican Church.  However, Methodist who settled in North America banded together on Christmas Eve in Baltimore, Maryland, in 1784 to form what would become the Methodist Church.
 
Many of the early pastors of this movement were assigned circuits (some with 12 churches).  They rode horseback, spending only a week at a time with each congregation.  This experience of congregational leaders having limited contact, coupled with the cutoff many experienced from their families in England, became the foundation for the development of this new Methodist movement in North America.
 
 
United Methodist and Cutoff
 
It has long been understood that pastors who are leaving a congregation must, as a professional courtesy, cutoff their professional contacts with the congregation by refusing to perform weddings, baptisms or funerals unless given permission by the incoming pastor.  Such policies were created to curtail the interference of the previous pastor.  Continued contact with the congregation after the appointment is over is thought to limit the ability of the incoming pastor to been “seen” as the pastor. 
 
This rule makes sense in a historical context – individuals running away from families in Europe and elsewhere, circuit riders having limited interaction with congregations, and a world migration pattern of cutoff.  When faced with challenges in the relationship system, we lean towards cutoff.  I know some will be quick to give examples of how former pastors have interfered with the work of the incoming pastor.  I don’t think these instances are numerous and I don’t believe policies that encourage cutoff are the answer.  There are other ways to handle these situations that can lead to better outcomes for everyone.
 
Dr. Bowen’s ideas about emotional cutoff are relevant to the coming and going of clergy from one congregation to the next.  Whether the same emotional process found in a family is active in larger relationship system like a congregation is debatable.  Specifically, the degree to which the emotional process influences behavior.  Bishops and District Superintendents see variation in the functional level of clergy as they enter and leave a congregation.  Some clergy are better than others in managing their anxiety during these times of transitions.  Some have a smooth entry while others seem unable to make vital connections which are essential for a long-term partnership with laity in ministry.  Some clergy can countdown their departure and lift off effortlessly when the appointment ends.  Others struggle to find the door, continuing to provide pastoral care to a “select” group in the church to which they feel a particular kinship.
 
The extent to which congregational leaders manage their anxiety that accompanies welcomes and goodbyes is connected to the level of cutoff in their family of origin.  I have yet to read any research connecting these two ideas, and yet the relationship between the two makes sense.  If one is cutoff from the family (namely parents – one or both), it means more of the anxiety is focused on the current relationship system, which includes clergy and other congregational leaders.  This level of focus makes leaving more challenging and welcoming more intense.  For some, particularly clergy, leaving may not appear to be a problem at all and their ministry could be defined as one of superficiality or distant interactions with the congregation.
 
For those who have difficulty connecting with a congregation or who find leaving difficult, it’s worth exploring the pattern of cutoff in one’s family.  One way to do this is to make a list of all the people in the family.  Who do you know?  Who don’t you know?
 
 
Thanksgiving and Cutoff
 
I originally wrote this blog about a month ago.  As I was preparing to post it, I realized it could also be relevant to those who are celebrating Thanksgiving this week.  The original intent of this blog was to shed light on how the current practice for United Methodist clergy leaving and entering a congregation could be seen from a historical perspective.  But the reactivity from the election is also relevant and could even be worthy of a separate blog post.
 
As families struggle with how to be together this Thanksgiving, it’s worth considering that they are in good company.  Not just from a national perspective, but from a historical one.  The pattern of cutoff has been passed from one generation to the next for thousands of years.  How does one interrupt their automatic tendency to cutoff with family members?  How can one be present with the family and manager their own reactivity?  Is the struggle to be present with certain family members something new or is it being accentuated by post-election rhetoric?  How is this election an opportunity to work on self-regulation and what Bowen called differentiation of self?  It is easy to blame the other and to distance from them than to step back, reflect, work on awareness, take responsibility for one’s part in the problem, and change the way one interacts with the family without controlling others or avoid them. 
 
 
Bridging Cutoff in the Family
 
The following are examples of what differentiation of self looks like and doesn’t look like when working on cutoff:
 
It is working on developing a one to one relationship with each person in the family.
It is not contacting people to learn what’s happening with other people in the family.
 
It is initially about short contacts with a clear purpose.
It is not staying overnight or for long weekends.  This may come later, over time.
 
It is working at understanding what is; looking at facts.
It is not letting false assumptions or perceptions go unchallenged.
 
It is about regulating one’s own reaction.
It is not telling other people what to do or staying away.
 
It is being clear about why each relationship is important and focusing on that importance.
It is not about leaving it up to the other to decide what is important for you. 
 
It’s about making contact.
It is not about leaving it up to the other to make contact.
 
It is about engaging the thinking of the other.
It is not about sharing feelings with each other.
 
It is an opportunity to increase one’s functioning.
It is not cathartic.
 
 
Each person gets to decide what direction they want their life to go.  Especially when it comes to having a relationship with the family.  If one desires to have a more open relationship with the family, the question then becomes, at what point does one find the courage to begin this effort?  If not now, when?  The only way to develop more open relationships in the family system is to slowly begin the work of engaging each member through the process Bowen described as differentiation of self.