It was the first time I called in sick on a Sunday morning.  There was no way I could stand up in front of the congregation.  My body was being unusually unpredictable.  I had to call someone.  I gave them a two-hour notice.  As I hung up the phone, my anxious brain (the title of my next book) concocted at least four narratives of how my absence would result in a train wreck.  None of them are worth mentioning, although the fear of a mutiny is always in the mix of perceived possibilities. 
 
While I rested in uncertainty, my phone chimed with words of encouragement.  The worship services had gone well without me.  The person I called on at the last minute did a wonderful job.  My anxious brain was wrong.
 
I felt relieved.  Not the kind of relief you get after a long illness or a battle with a disease where you finally start to feel better.  It was the relief you feel when your fears are not realized.  Those fears, unyoked to any sort of reality, had felt real.  Feelings are useful when they provide feedback on how the body is processing anxiety.  But I’ve learned through trial and error not to respond to situations solely based on my feelings.  That morning, lying in bed and worried sick, my feelings got the best of me.
 
Train wrecks don’t happen because of one person.  Likewise, things don’t go well just because of one person.  It takes a relationship system to get results, good or bad.  Everyone plays a role in how the systems functions.  Each person is responsible to the system and it was clear that anxiety led me to think that I was solely responsible. 
 
I realized, as I recovered on the couch, that I am prone to take responsibility for the functioning of a congregational system; a system that is largely out of my control. I cannot be responsible for how a congregation meets a challenge or if it meets a challenge.  Congregations do the best they can do.  That morning, they did well. 
 
Running into one’s level of worry can feel embarrassing.  But if one can observe how one’s level of worry impacts oneself and others in the system, it becomes an opportunity to shift one’s functioning in a more responsible direction.  I am grateful for the morning I had to lie still and contemplate this observation.
 
You might be wondering how I got sick in the first place.  Symptoms, like the one I was experiencing, are generated from the family emotional process.  To truly understand how symptoms develop, I encourage you to read Dr. Murray Bowen’s book, Family Therapy in Clinical Practice. 

​Subscribe to receive the newest blog in your inbox every Monday morning.

Each week I write a blog to try and make the case that leadership training for congregations is based on the wrong research.  Congregational development is not about training leaders to redevelop the mission, vision and programs of a congregation.  Congregational development must be about training leaders to navigate emotional process within the context of relationship systems.
 
Congregations are facing an enormous number of problems and challenges.  These problems and challenges raise the level of anxiety in the relationship system of a congregation.  As anxiety goes up, leaders who can manage their anxiety and reactivity do better in engaging the hopes, dreams and assets of a congregation.  Likewise, leaders who are less anxious in the face of problems and challenges do a better job of communicating a vision for the future.  Intense conflict emerges when leaders are unaware and unable to manage their reactivity.  As the congregation responds to the vibrations of anxiety in the pastor and as the pastor responds to the vibrations of anxiety in the congregation, tension within the relationship system increase.  So, where does one learn their automatic reactions to anxiety?  We learn it from the family.

What one learns in their family is the extent to which one can be an individual and the extent to which one is part of a family.  Dr. Bowen described it as the force for individuality (differentiation of self) and togetherness.  If individuals and families are tilted towards more togetherness, it will be more difficult for them to manage their anxiety and reactivity.  If anxiety is vibrating too much in the family, the togetherness force will motivated someone to take control.  If it gets to high, someone will walk away.  Congregations, like families, also react predictably to the vibrations of increased anxiety.  This then is the challenge for all congregational leaders: how does one articulate their thinking without trying to control others or walk away and give in?   Researching one’s family system is the key.
 
For anyone motivated to do family research, I recommend the new book by Victoria Harrison, The Family Diagram & Family Research: an illustrative guide to tools for working on differentiation of self in one’s family.  It is “a guide for people motivated to develop and use their own family diagram to observe, abstract, see, and better think about the facts and factors operating in their family.”  You can find the book by clicking here.

One’s family is the best place to do research on being a better leader.  This is not about going back in time or going back to resolve past problems.  It is about learning to relate differently in the present as one works on differentiation of self.  It’s not about correcting wrongs or making things right.  It is about being a self that is connected in important ways to important others.  A good coach can make a difference in one’s effort to relate better to important others.  Bowen Theory can be a useful guide for one’s thinking as one journeys down this road of differentiation.  A good place to begin is with family research.

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

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

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

When people are anxious, they become overly focused.  Sometimes people overly focus on themselves.  But more often people project their anxiety onto others.  Spouses do this with each other.  Parents become overly focused on the well being of a child.  Congregations become overly focused on a problem.  One problem for congregations is declining membership.    
 
If you aren’t aware of this problem then let me tell you that membership decline is a really big problem for most congregations.  No one really seems to know what to do about it.  Back in the day, when it was becoming clear that denominations were in decline, a popular strategy was to redevelop and retool congregations to be more intentionally welcoming of visitors.  This strategy worked for a small percentage of congregations.  But it turned out not to work for most congregations.  As decline continued, congregations became more anxious. 
 
A recently read an article about the new strategy which has become very popular.  It goes something like this: if you want to grow your congregation, get out of your building and go into the community.  So instead of having a Bible study in the church, have it at a bar.  Instead of having worship in the sanctuary, have it at a local restaurant.  Don’t do “church” stuff in your building.  Go out and find public spaces to use.  While it's true that some congregations have had success with this approach, the assumption that it is applicable to all congregations comes from a deep anxiety about the future.  Congregations would do better to engage this problem at a local level.
 
As attendance began to decline in mainline churches, denominational bodies at every level became anxious.  There were concerns first at the local church level.  In some cases, local congregations worked on the problem and developed appropriate and successful solutions.  These congregations either maintained or grew their membership.  Other congregations didn’t do so well.  They took a more hopeless position and turned to others for help.  Some congregations hired consultants while others sought solutions from their denomination.  And help did come.  But when is helping not really helping?
 
At higher levels of the denomination, the focus was on solving the problem of membership decline.  As decline continued, so too, did their anxiety.  Before long, anxiety was being passed back and forth from one level to another.  Congregations and clergy passed their anxiety onto supervisors and judicatory officials who in turn passed the anxiety back to clergy and local congregations.  This became the context for visitors who responded to those well-crafted invitations.  How much of the anxiety of this process was visible to the people who visited these anxious congregations?  Is it possible that visitors picked up on the anxiety of a congregation that was in decline?  Could they “sense” the anxiety of a congregation who wanted to welcome them but wasn’t confident in how to do it?  Did the fear of decline become a self-fulling prophecy in which congregations became the very thing they were worried about?
 
To be fair, it didn’t happen just to congregations.  Most volunteer organizations went through a similar process as they struggled to win over volunteers and raise capital.  It is really a societal emotional process that is fueled by anxiety and reactivity.  So, what can organizations like congregations do to address the problem of decline without letting anxiety get the best of them?  That’s an excellent question!
 
Congregations that are growing have leaders who are doing a couple of things right.  First, leaders work at toning down the anxiety whenever they communicate with others in the congregation.  Second, leaders help the congregation articulate principles, values, beliefs and goals.  Third, leaders get overly curious and inquisitive about what it takes for a congregation to act in ways that are consistent with their principles, values, beliefs and goals.  When a congregation says one thing but does another, leaders want to understand what’s going on.  Fourth, leaders ask a lot of questions.  You can never ask too many questions.  Finally, leaders work on defining a self both in their families and in their congregations.  That last one may not seem like it fits with the others, but it's essential.  
 
The result of these activities is vision.  If you want to close the doors of a church, then fill the congregation with people who worry about everything.  If you want a congregation to thrive, engage a congregation to create a vision.  As leaders walk through this process, a vision appears that is big enough to propel a congregation forward.

In a recent article, “Cognitive Mechanisms for Human Flocking Dynamics,” Seth Frey, assistant professor of communication at UC Davis, observers that, despite our ability to reason through a problem, humans make decisions based on their perception of how others are thinking about a problem.  Because humans are conscious, we assume that our decisions are driven by an internal moral code and rational thinking.  It turns out that we think and act in response to how others are thinking and acting.  Which begs the question, “How different are we from other animals?” 
 
Consider a flock of geese.  When a flock of geese is resting on the ground, one goose is on sentry duty looking for danger.  When the sentry spots danger, it begins to honk and flap.  Like wildfire, the fear response of the one goose automatically spreads to the gaggle.  Within seconds, the entire gaggle is honking and flapping.  Fear is contagious because it protects the group from a real threat.  This “system” activity keeps the flock safe. 
 
Humans behave similarly but without the honking and flapping.  It is observable in congregational committee meetings.  Every church committee has a sentry on duty, looking for danger.  Someone inevitably picks up the roll when it is vacant.  Because of the complexity of the human brain, it is difficult to evaluate when a threat is real or imagined.  When an individual perceives a threat, they give voice to their concern.  Like the example of the geese, others in the meeting will start to feel, think and act the same, even though they did not perceive the threat.  The result is a committee in agreement about a threat to the congregation that is not real. 
 
Over the years, I’ve developed strategies for addressing the problem of perceived threats and the contagious nature of anxiety: 
 

1. I begin by engaging my best thinking about the fear or problem as it is presented.  What does it take to move my thinking out of a reactive response based in fear to a thoughtful observation about the threat as it is presented?
2. What are good questions that might engage my thinking and the thinking of others about the problem.
3. I may invite the committee to go around the table so that each person can articulate their best thinking about the threat and problem as it is presented.  I may also indicate who in the committee thinks the same and who thinks differently about the problem.

 
Differentiation of self is one away to address the challenge of thinking for self without being emotionally influenced by the anxiety in the relationship system.  Dr. Murray Bowen observed that to communicate one’s thinking with important others in the family, one must develop the capacity to think for self.  This process of differentiation results in a lowering of chronic anxiety in the family and contributes to a higher functional level of the family.  This effort in the family does carry over into congregational leadership.
 
Clergy and congregational leaders can do a better job of communicating their best thinking about the current challenges facing the congregation.  One must be prepared for the automatic reactivity that is generated as one communicates to others their best thinking.  Differentiation of self is about developing the capacity to communicate ones best thinking without reacting to the reactivity of others.  The best place to practice and learn this process is in the family and it does carry over into other systems like a congregation.

A couple of week ago, I preached on Jesus’ famous question to the disciples, “Who do you say that I am?” (Mark 8:29). It’s a belief question.  Jesus is asking the question, “What do you believe about me?”  Peter seems to answer correctly but not completely.  He says, “You are the Christ (the Messiah).”
 
In Bowen Theory, there is this idea that beliefs can serve a relationship function.  That is, the force for togetherness (to be emotionally close during stressful times) motivates people to think the same way.  So, one way to read this text is that Peter’s thinking lines up with Jesus’ thinking.  Peter thinks that Jesus thinks what Peter thinks!  But that’s where the similarities in thinking end.
 
Jesus goes on to define his “messiahship” in a way that is different than what Peter thinks.  Jesus discusses his impending death which gets an anxious response from Peter.  Dr. Bowen observed in families a change back process.  When one person expresses feelings, thinking or actions that are contrary to what another important person feels, thinks or acts they push back to get the other person to agree with them.  This change back process is visible during periods of heightened anxiety in the relationship system.  In the example above, Peter engages in the change back process.  “Peter took hold of Jesus and, scolding him, began to correct him.” (Mark 8:32b).  Jesus’ response is worth a read if you are interested.
 
Following the arrest of Jesus, Peter and the others abandon him, even denying that they ever knew him.  Fear is a driver of the emotional process.  Jesus is ultimately put to death.  In the story of the resurrection, Jesus appears to the disciples and to Peter.  Putting the theological implications aside for the moment, let’s look at the response of Jesus in the resurrection appearance.
 
In the resurrection accounts, Jesus appears to the disciples.  He is not angry for being abandoned, nor seeking retribution for the betrayal.  He reestablishes the relationship with the disciples.  Christians historically talk about this with words like “love,” “forgiveness,” “reconciliation,” etc.  These are beliefs and core principles that Jesus taught and that the early church embodied.  Whatever word you want to use, the point is that Jesus does not escalate what is already an anxious and tense situation because he acts out of his beliefs and core principles. 
 
In many ways what is needed in any relationship process is a leader who understands that when anxiety is high, humans act at their worst.  But if one can hang with those who are reactive, not react back and relate to others based on a belief or core principle it is possible for the relationship system to adjust at a new, higher level.

Scientists have discovered a new type of brain cell called the rosehip neuron.  The discovery was made by Ed Lein, Ph.D., Investigator at the Allen Institute for Brain Science and Gábor Tam­ás.  The rosehip neuron may be unique to humans.  It has not been found in mice or other animal species. 
 
What’s distinct about the rosehip neuron is its role as a specialized inhibitor.  Inhibitors put the brakes on certain signals traveling through the brain. The result is a halting of certain actions and behaviors.  Neurons send their signals down the axon of the nerve cell where they release neurotransmitters.  Inhibitor neurons send neurotransmitters to other neurons which inhibit their ability to “fire.”  Further research is needed to determine what specific behaviors are affected by the rosehip neuron. 
 
As I meditated on the discovery of the rosehip neuron, I began to speculate about its role in the disruption of automatic patterns of behavior.  Let’s pretend it’s lunch time but you’ve forgotten to pack a lunch.  Your morning meeting went over and it’s now early afternoon.  You are famished.  You set a diet goal to restrict certain foods.  In the drive thru of your favorite fast-food joint, you consider your options.  Burger or salad?  What makes the difference between choosing a salad or a burger?  Or consider this example.  I was sitting on a couch petting the cat that jumped into my lap.  I was performing the “correct” scratching and petting methods that have proven acceptable to Jorge.  There was purring and stretching.  All was well.  And then he bit my hand.  As I checked to see if I was bleeding, I said to Jorge, “You need to make better choices!”  What does it take to make better choices?  Is the disruption of behavior a human phenomenon or can other animals do it?  What makes the difference?
 
Humans have a unique ability to inhibit automatic behaviors through a thinking system.  Moral codes of conduct, beliefs, values and core principles play a role in guiding one’s behavior.  Several examples come to mind.  The Torah contains the Ten Commandments, which are a list of inhibitors.  The second portion of the commandments declare, “you shall not . . .”  These early laws (including the Deuteronomic Code) have the potential to inhibit certain automatic behaviors.  They command individuals to put the brakes on polytheism, murder, adultery, stealing, lying and coveting. 
 
Similarly, criminal law in the United States is designed to deter certain behaviors.  Sentencing guidelines have the potential to inhibit criminal behavior.  Murder, for example, is organized by degrees and within these degrees are sentencing guidelines for punishment.  Robert Sapolsky in his book, Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst discusses how thinking can influence behavior, but admits that processes that favor automatic behavior are powerful and can be difficult to inhibit.
 
Behavior is a product of the nuclear family emotional process.  This process is passed down the generations creating patterns of behavior to manage anxiety, stress and tension in the family.  These patterns focus the anxiety of the family onto one person.  As anxiety goes up one individual carries the load of anxiety resulting in symptoms.  Symptoms can be physical in nature, psychological and behavioral.  For example, when a family experiences a stressful event, a family member may attempt to manage the tension by organizing the family.  The automatic response of telling others what to do is a behavioral response to the rising level of anxiety in the family.  In reaction to the effort to organize the family, others may ignore the commands, become combative or give in and comply.  These responses are automatic and reactive because the thinking system in the brain is largely not involved.  It is for all intents and purposes offline.  Blaming someone for the way they automatically manage stress misses the point that everyone in the family plays a party in how one behaves.  One can make a difference in the way they behave, but only when the effort is to work on self.
 
Differentiation of self is the first step in learning how to put the brakes on automatic, reactive responses to chronic anxiety in the family.  The process begins by observing the "who," "what," "where," "when" and "how" anxiety flows through the family.  What follows are incremental steps towards understanding how one picks up or passes along the anxiety, discovering more responsible ways for responding to anxiety in self and in others and developing a broader capacity to engage one’s thinking in the midst of anxious others and self. 
 
Perhaps one day scientist will discover the neuronal pathways that lead to better functioning for individuals and for families.  It may be that inhibitor neurons play a role in toning down anxious signals by way of higher-level processing.  Until we have all the facts we use theories like Bowen family system theory, beliefs and core principles to guide our thinking and behavior.

I’m not a political expert.  But I’ve spent the last couple of days trying to make sense of the senate confirmation hearing for Judge Brett Kavanaugh, a hearing focused on accusations of sexual misconduct and excessive drinking.  Opinions vary dramatically on the “reasons” for the partisan fight and who is to blame.  I’ve learned over the years that “blame” misses the mark when it comes to understanding what’s actually going on.  It’s about process.
 
I could be wrong about this, but it seems as if both parties are operating under the assumption that when they are in power it is only temporary, and they must push, push, push their agenda as much as possible.  The result is that they to go, go, go while they can because the two-party system is like a pendulum that swings back and forth.  They have to get to gettin’ while the gettin’s good.  This might explain why senate republicans pushed through a nomination that had little public support and it passed by one of the smallest majorities ever.  And if I’m right, then the midterm and the presidential election will result in democrats regaining control of the legislative process and perhaps the executive branch.
 
Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona made several interesting statements during the last week of the process.  One that stood out was his comment that there is no currency in politics for bipartisanism.  There is a cost.  Dr. Murray Bowen wrote a decade ago that society was trending towards regression.  Polarization was one of the indicators.  As polarization increases, cooperation and collaboration decrease.  What would it take for legislators to value and work towards bipartisan compromise?
 
This swing back and forth seems to be motivated by ideological fears that are fueled by anxiety.  Fear is powerful.  The perception that ideological correctness will solve our fears is not based on facts (an idea I highlighted in last week’s blog).  Calmness is equated with control.  It’s the false belief that, “If our side is in control, then we can rest easy.”  The other side holds the same belief.  The focus is no longer on solving problems but to be in control.  It’s personal.  So long as the focus is on winning, the back and forth effort distracts us from addressing systemic problems.  In other words, the push for electing politicians who represent a specific ideology is exasperating the problem. 
 
Families get into similar jams.  As tension mounts in the family, individuals slide into factions.  People say things like, “You are wrong.”  “I’m right.”  “I’m not speaking to so and so.”  “They are so wrong that I I can’t be in the same room with them.”  When families are reactive and anxious there is no currency for working together to address challenging problems in the family.  It becomes personal.  What makes the difference are family leaders who understand conflict from a systems perspective and who can shift their functioning into a more thoughtful response to the problem.  Dr. Bowen described this as a shift in the emotional process that results from one person’s effort towards differentiation of self. 
 
These larger societal problems and processes are reflective of the current state of the family.  It’s difficult to conceive of a society that does better without seeing an improvement in families.  Political institutions tend to mirror the state of the family.  Families who are working to do better do contribute to the health and well-being of their neighborhoods, institutions, communities and society.  I believe that’s a fact, but I’m not a political expert. 

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

Is your congregation's nomination process up and running?  It's that time of year again.  While administrative structures vary from church to church, the challenge of nominating people to specific positions remains the same.  Finding the right person is always a dilemma.  Do you find the person who has general qualities of leadership or do you find a specialist?  New research suggests that when it comes to having a high functioning community, our ancient ancestors used a combination of generalists and specialists.
 
A recent paper, by scientists from the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History and the University of Michigan, suggests that modern humans were able to migrant into new territories around the globe and survive because of their ability to mix generalist with specialists across kin groups.  How this worked and to what extent is not completely understood, but the idea is supported by archaeological discoveries.  However, researches don’t need to look back to understand this process.  Congregations provide a laboratory for understanding how individuals are selected to serve.  Here are some examples of how congregations decide.
 
 
The Nomination Committee
 
I used this process for many years.  The committee begins to meet several months in advance of the annual meeting.  One of the challenges to having a nominations committee is finding people who can put in the time.  Because the process is fluid, sometimes the committee needs to meet more often than other committees.  The purpose of a nominating committee is to identify potential leadership openings, to identify the qualities needed for the open positions and to brainstorm a list of potential candidates through a process of consensus building.  Candidates are more likely to say "yes" if they know a group from the congregation supports them as a leader and if the pastor contacts them directly to make the offer.  The upside of this method for clergy is that, depending on term limits, after a couple of years, the structure is filled with people who were chosen by their peers and personally invited to serve by the pastor.  This has a positive impact on the level of collaboration and cooperation within the organization. 
 
 
A Clergy Prepared Slate
 
In some congregations, and sometimes in the interest of time, clergy prepare the slate to be presented for approval.  A nominations committee may or may not be part of this process.  The upside for clergy is that they get to handpick individuals they know they can work with.  The downside is that individuals with leadership potential are overlooked.  There is a risk of creating an insular structure, but this risk is also real in the nomination committee model if the committee simply rubber stamps whoever the pastor recommends.  Even when clergy are preparing the slate, it is important to involve the congregation by asking for suggestions and input.
 
 
The Interview Process
 
This is my favorite way to nominate because it addresses two of the biggest problems in leadership: a lack of motivation and the mismatch of people and positions.  The first step is to create a job description for every position in the church.  The second step is to invite members to apply for each position.  An interview team (which can be a nominations committee) made up of a small group of current leaders and at-large members, will interview the applicants.  The strength of this approach comes from the process.  Those who apply are already motivated.  The interview process gives the applicant and the interview team time to discern if it is a good match.  The interview is also a time to talk about the applicant’s discipleship journey and the leadership opportunity.  If done well, this process creates a culture of discipleship.
 
 
Other Considerations
 
Whatever model you use, make sure the process is open.  Let the congregation know the dates of meetings and deadlines for the nomination process.  Publish the slate of nominations a couple of weeks (the earlier the better) before the annual meeting and make it easily accessible for people to review.  If you are clergy or a congregational leader, make yourself available to answer questions about the slate and be open to hearing people’s responses, ideas and suggestions.  Depending on your polity, consider a process where the slate can be reviewed and recommended at each level of the structure.  For example, if you are nominating for trustees, present the slate to the trustee's committee and ask for feedback.  Ask the congregation's council or board to recommend the slate for the annual meeting.  Have small group leaders remind people in their groups to review the slate. 
 
The best process is one that is clearly defined and open.  Attempts to nominate behind closed doors in secret and resist congregational participation only creates problems. 

What process works best for you and for the congregation?