Bowen Family Systems Theory: A Resource for Pastoral TheologiansLawrence E. MatthewsAbstract
Assuming that theological reflection is an integral dimension of the decision making process involved in shaping acts of pastoral ministry, this article explores Bowen Family Systems Theory (BFST) as a resource for ministers engaged in such reflection. A case study of a ministry situation of a pastor in a heterogeneous inner city congregation serves to illustrate the dual contribution BFST can make to a minister's ability to do this essential work. In the first place, the theory serves as a personal resource for the minister seeking to assume the non-reactive stance necessary for any attempt to understand more clearly the dynamics involved in a ministry situation. Closely related to this is the capacity of the theory's conceptual framework to provide an accurate and in-depth understanding of the often unrecognized but always determinative emotional process present in a situation. Enabling ministers to "see" these systemic dynamics is the unique contribution BFST can make to the first step, description, in John Macquarrie's three dimensional methodology for doing theological reflection and, therefore, to the last two steps, interpretation and application. All three dimensions of Macquarrie's methodology are identified. The article also examines some of the possible causes for the frequent absence of theological reflection from the practice of ministry.
Introduction: Exploring The Interface Between Bowen Family Systems Theory and Theology
With the publication in 1985 of Edwin Friedman's book, Generation to Generation: Family Process in Church and Synagogue, religious leaders were introduced to the concepts of the pioneer family systems psychiatrist, Dr. Murray Bowen. Friedman related Bowen Family Systems Theory (BFST) to ministry and congregational leadership and the positive response from clergy affirmed this as a valuable new resource. I was one of those garden-variety local pastors who read the book in 1986 and signed on for the training Friedman offered in Bethesda, Maryland.
For over fifteen years, I have been involved in learning and teaching how religious leaders can relate BFST to their lives and ministry. The settings for these efforts have been structured in ways that place a priority upon the practical connection between theory and practice. My first experiences were as a member of a small coaching group led by Friedman. It was within that group that I began to explore through case studies and my own family of origin work* the interface between BFST and ministry praxis. *[Editor's Note: Family of origin work involves the ongoing development of a detailed map of multigenerational family relationships and emotional processes. This map is called a genogram.] Later I served for six years as a member of the faculty for his Post Graduate Seminar in Family Emotional Process, teaching what I was learning to religious leaders from various parts of the country representing a diversity of religious traditions and coaching them in relating BFST to their lives and ministries. The seminar model included lectures, case studies, and coaching for individual family of origin work. In 1991, I founded Leadership In Ministry Workshops. The workshops have continued Friedman's emphasis upon the connection between theory and praxis. Eighty percent of each workshop's schedule is dedicated to small groups led by faculty coaches focusing on case studies and family of origin work.
Very early in my experience as a faculty coach I observed, not surprisingly, that the major motivation for participants was the expectation that the seminars and workshops could provide training in techniques that would help them function more successfully in their leadership positions. Some were in the programs because they were experiencing high levels of stress; others entered because they had read Friedman's book and wanted to learn about this new tool for effective ministry. None of this surprised me. However, I was surprised by a second observation. Even when the connections between BFST and practical ministry situations were made, there was little if any connection with theology. In most cases it was as though the process of theological reflection had no contribution to make to the understanding of situations or to the formation of pastoral intervention. Evidently, BFST was considered a valuable resource for the praxis of ministry; evidently, theology was not. This was not a totally new experience for me since the same had been true when, as a pastor, I had mentored groups of lay leaders engaged in ministry. They too had difficulty relating theological themes to their ministry efforts; however, they were not theologically trained. Participants in the training programs were. I believe that doing theological thinking is part and parcel of a minister's vocation.
I am reminded of Paul Pruyser's reflections from his experience as a clinical psychologist teaching in a large psychiatric center known for its dedication to the healing team approach that included clergy in clinical practice and training. These are some of his comments upon the clergy involvement in the program:
I became aware that much of the instruction was one-sided, with the consent of both parties: the theologians sat at the feet of the psychiatric Gamaliels and seemed to like it, with only some occasional theological repartee. . . . pastors were eager to absorb as much psychological knowledge and skill as they could, without even thinking of instructional reciprocity. . . . the theological apperceptions in which they had been trained gave way to a psychological ordering system.1One might question the appropriateness for a member of a psychological profession to make such observations, but the long-time director of a highly regarded Doctor of Ministry program certainly is in a position to evaluate the matter. Randall Nichols writes: "(Doctor of Ministry candidates who are) in some ways the most competent and reflective ministers available, . . . (find) little connection between the theology they may be committed to and the practice of ministry they engage in."2 The fact of the matter is: pastors trained in theology frequently do not utilize that training as a resource for shaping their ministries. Decisions about everything from designing and leading worship to pastoral care are made without reference to theological concepts. Edward Farley locates the source of the problem in clergy education itself: "This is because the three-year course of study . . . is drastically insufficient as an education in theological understanding for those who will later be responsible for facilitating it in others."3 Although I agree with Farley's statement, I do not think that a final solution to the matter rests with a reformation of theological education. It seems to me that the problem is more complex than the theological educational process and that any solution must address its other dimensions, including the emotional processes BFST identifies.
My overall appreciation of BFST as a valuable resource for congregational leaders continues to increase. Through his pioneering writing and teaching, Friedman introduced BFST to a generation of clergy. He connected the theory to the personal life and practical tasks of ministers in his training programs through his use of the case study method and his focus upon the necessity of family of origin work. However, he did not specifically relate BFST to theology. Not only was he fond of saying, "I'm not a systematic theologian," he was also aware that Bowen made a conscious decision not to pursue the possible relationship between the theory and subjective subjects like theology. In responding to a presentation made at a 1987 conference on BFST and theology, Bowen stated:
I made a decision very early that I'm not going to build a theory out of anything except what I would call objectivity, and these would be facts that can be weighed, proven and verified. Some way that would qualify with science and not with subjectivity.4I think I understand and respect Bowen's decision. However, as a pastor who appreciates the contributions of BFST to my own and many other religious leaders' ministry and as one who takes seriously the call to be a pastoral theologian, I am challenged to explore the interface between these two sources. The only published attempt that I am aware Friedman made in this matter is the videotape of a 1990 presentation he made at the request of the Psychiatric Institute of Montgomery County on "Family Process and Process Theology." In the presentation he discussed parallels that he observed between the major ideas of family therapy and process theology and the way both framed the basic questions of existence.5
My exploration of the interface between BFST and theology has taken me in a different direction. I agree with Bowen: BFST deals with objectivity and avoids subjective matters like theology. How then do I understand the interface between these two areas, both of which are important to me and to the ministers whom I teach? I hope it is clearly indicated in the topic I have selected for this paper. The original topic was "Bowen Family Systems Theory and Pastoral Theology." The intentional change in the wording from Pastoral Theology to Pastoral Theologians means I understand that the main contributions of BFST are directly related to the personal functioning of the pastoral theologian him/herself rather than to the creation or adaptation of any theological system. BFST can be a resource for the pastoral theologian's emotional growth and maturity (self-differentiation in BFST language), thereby enabling the pastor to use the theory as a lens for more clearly understanding ministry situations and connecting them to appropriate theological concepts. Interestingly, in his study of the history of theological education in the United States, Farley relates the "present nostalgia for 'formation'" to earlier periods where "the study of divinity (theology) was an exercise of piety, a dimension of the life of faith,"6 in other words, a focus upon the spiritual growth of the theological student himself or herself.
BFST, Theology, and The Practice of Ministry: A Case Study
For the past five years, Pastor Susan has been working at relating BFST to her life and ministry. She is committed to her ongoing process of differentiating a self, engaged in reconnecting and repositioning herself in her nuclear and extended family and working at regulating her reactivity in dealing with anxious persons and situations. She participates in continuing educational experiences that relate BFST to ministry and regularly consults with mentors and peers who are also involved in this effort. As the nation began to prepare for the November 2004 elections, she began planning the general themes and emphases for her fall preaching and teaching ministries. Her congregation is an inner city church that is proud of its diversity. Persons of different racial and ethnic backgrounds, as well as different theological traditions, are active in its organizational leadership and outreach ministries. She had been pastor of the church long enough to be aware that the congregation's response to this election was different from previous elections. An atmosphere in which diverse points of view had always been welcomed and freely expressed was being replaced by one of increasing polarization along political party lines. Conflicting opinions about issues such as terrorism, war, and economic conditions were often used mainly to label others with whom they differed. The congregation was highly anxious.
Susan's work in BFST had convinced her of the importance of her leadership position in such situations. She believed that her functioning could affect the overall functioning of the church and so she tried to stay focused upon her responses. This was not easy. Not only was she aware of the church's increasing anxiety, she was also aware that she was having difficulty regulating her own. In a consultation session with one of her BFST coaches, she was able to identify her emotional triangles that the anxious atmosphere had activated and how they were affecting her functioning. She saw that, true to her experience while growing up in the major triangle of her nuclear family, she was feeling stuck with the job of fixing the discomfort of the people around her. Of course, as had been true in her own family, she did not have the power to do fix this discomfort; therefore, she was left with the feelings of helplessness that had been so much a part of her early life. Through her family of origin work, she had made progress in changing the way she functioned in her family and she was able to see the direct connection between her functioning then and in her present situation. The triangles looked different, but for her, they carried the same emotional assignment. She realized that she was feeling the responsibility for "fixing" issues that only the congregation could resolve. This awareness and her ability to act upon it, i.e. function differently in the emotional triangle with the congregation, enabled her begin to occupy her pastoral leadership position with better self-regulation.
Reminded anew by her personal experience that it is emotional process which determines outcome in human situations, she made a concerted effort to better understand the dominant characteristics of the emotional process that was at that moment shaping the national political process and her congregation's involvement in it. Her conclusion was that fear-driven anxiety was the dominant characteristic. The United States of America was still very focused upon the threat from terrorism that surfaced in the September 11, 2001 attack on the World Trade Center in New York. There were many observable symptoms in the body politic, everything from heightened polarization and breakdown in communication to inordinate focus upon peripheral issues while major problems were ignored. She reasoned, however, that these were only the most visible signs of the heightened anxiety that was being fed by the ongoing threat of acts of terrorism within this country and the failure of leadership from both political parties to honestly address the many difficult issues that confronted the nation. Correct or incorrect, this was her reading of the situation with which she and her congregation were living as the November elections approached.
Having made this effort to identify the emotional reality of the setting within which she would be doing ministry, her next step was to reflect theologically upon the situation. The questions she faced were many. What were the appropriate theological truths she could draw upon as she made decisions about her preaching and teaching? What biblical themes were most relevant? How could she lead the congregation to reframe their shared experience from a posture of faith rather than fear? How could she maintain a connection with congregants with different political positions from her own while at the same time defining herself in less reactive ways that would invite others to do the same?
A number of possible connections came to mind, but none seemed to fit. Although her personal theological positions would be characterized as more liberal than conservative, a newspaper article reporting that the Left Behind series of novels by Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins was ranked high on the 2004 best sellers list attracted her interest. Books in this series were being read by a number of her members and she had recently observed that every book that had been published in the series was already available in the recorded books section of her local library on CD's, the first contemporary series for which this was true. The Revelation of John had always been one of her favorite New Testament books ever since a seminary professor had convinced her that its core message was one of hope in any present crisis rather than predictions about the future. He had called it a "tract for hard times." This certainly was one of those hard times for her and her people, so, after a few weeks of consideration she decided to select the writer of Revelation as her theological consultant. The book conveyed a theology of hope that was based upon complete confidence in the faithfulness of God during times of great stress and uncertainty. She understood that posture of hope to be neither a naive optimism that every problem was fixable nor a pessimism that leads to depression. This was the theme that would shape her teaching and preaching. She also chose to emphasize Revelation's accompanying challenge to the people of God to remain faithful in words and deeds during such times. Having clarified her own thinking, she shared it with key leaders and invited their input and suggestions as she developed her sermons and teaching plans. Even some who had been distancing themselves from her because of perceived political differences were receptive to her ideas. In spite of differences in politics and theology, she and they were able to find common ground in her emphasis upon a theme that addressed their mutual concerns. More relaxed in her preaching, teaching, and pastoral contacts during the next few months, she was able to share her own struggle to live from a posture of faith in a time of anxiety and crisis. And, as BFST would anticipate, the congregation became calmer, polarization among the membership decreased and communication improved.
Reflections on the Case Study
All ministers have to determine the extent to which their ministry will be informed by intentional theological reflection. Theological reflection is a method of considering data that seeks to bring the theological insights of the Christian faith to bear upon every facet of human experience. The interface between pastoral ministry and theological reflection has been a particular interest of mine ever since my mentor at Princeton Seminary, Seward Hiltner, taught me that pastoral care should be shaped not only in response to the needs of those being served but also by the minister's ability to draw upon theological resources appropriate to particular ministry situations. Until that time, I had understood pastoral theology as one of the many branches of practical (or applied) theology, just as practical theology was one of the major divisions of systematic theology. Hiltner maintains that pastoral theology is a "branch of theology in the strict sense of the term" and he distinguishes it from other areas of pastoral studies:
. . . pastoral theology is not just pastoral psychology or pastoral sociology under a new name. The data considered may frequently be the same. What pastoral theology insists on is that the knowledge gained from observation and reflection be placed in a theological context. The principal criteria and methods employed are themselves theological. . . . pastoral theology is not, as it has sometimes been held to be in the past, the theory of all the functions and operations of pastor and church. . . . to present the definition in slightly different language, (it) is an operation-focused branch of theology, which begins with theological questions and concludes with theological answers, in the interim examining all acts and operations of pastor and church to the degree that they involve the perspective of Christian shepherding.7I am aware that theological reflection includes bringing the theological insights of the Christian faith to bear upon much more than acts of pastoral ministry. However, in this paper my focus is upon pastors doing theological reflection in pastoral ministry situations in order to better understand the dynamics at work in the congregation and to minister more effectively based on this understanding. For the past fifteen years, I have been learning to view ministry through the lens of Bowen Family Systems Theory. It continues to be a journey involving basic paradigm shifts that challenge the way I think about every facet of ministry. This includes my thinking about the minister as theologian, because I believe theology is essentially a pastoral subject.
Susan's story illustrates some of the ways I believe BFST can be a valuable resource for pastoral theologians. But before I discuss how the theory was of assistance in the particular method she used for doing theological reflection, I want to focus upon the ways her involvement with BFST contributed to her overall effort to function effectively in her pastoral tasks, one of which was to be a pastoral theologian.
Because ministry is expressed through the "self" of the minister, BFST is first and foremost a resource for the pastor as a person. Ministry is given shape and substance by acts of individuals engaged in ministry. My years of relating BFST to my ministry and mentoring others to do the same have taught me that learning the theory is not simply a matter of reading books and attending seminars, or even workshops. I am convinced that the ability to grasp the theory's different way of thinking is directly related to a person's willingness to learn to think differently about him/herself. In the words of Edwin Friedman, "a . . . characteristic of the Bowen approach that distinguishes it from other family theories is its emphasis on the self-development of the therapist."8 A minister's initial attraction to family systems theory may be the search for techniques for successful ministry, but those who stay with the quest soon discover that it is about themselves and their growth. Friedman understood and taught that, viewed through the lens of BFST, pastoral leadership is about changing self and not about changing others.
Bowen referred to the process of becoming a separate self while remaining connected to others as the differentiation of self. For five years, Susan had been internalizing the concepts of BFST through her efforts to further differentiate her self. This life-long process has both inward and outward expressions. Self-regulation is the inward expression. When confronted with anxiety-producing situations, persons can either react or regulate their response to the anxiety. Learning how to function differently within the emotional triangles of our interlocking families frees us to be less reactive. Anxious ministers caught up in their reactivity to persons or situations seldom appropriate theological resources. On the other hand, the capacity to regulate one's anxiety amid highly anxious situations opens the door to the objectivity and clear thinking necessary for the kind of theological reflection Susan practiced. I have come to the conclusion that reactivity plays a major part in the unwillingness, or perhaps inability, of pastors to think theologically. When anxiety and reactivity are high, regardless of the cause, clarity of thinking is lower. Theological reflection requires the ability to think clearly.
Bowen Family Systems Theory is, as its name implies, a systems theory, but one of its distinctives is its emphasis upon emotional systems. Edwin Friedman writes:
The term emotional system refers to any group of people, or other colonized form of protoplasm (herds, flocks, troops, packs, schools, swarms and aggregates) that have developed emotional interdependencies to the point where the resulting system through which they are connected (administratively, physically or emotionally) has evolved its own principles of organization. The structure, or resulting field, therefore tends to influence the functioning of the various members more than any of the components tends to influence the functioning of the system.9Susan was able to distinguish between the symptoms of anxiety and the more basic underlying emotional process because she was learning to think systems. Even though she was disappointed and angered by the polarized speech making, scape goating, and finger pointing that characterized the electioneering (and many of the conversations within her congregation), she was eventually able to discern the fear driven anxiety that was energizing and shaping the political process. To the extent that we are unable to think process, we mistake symptoms for the real issues. When that happens, churches simply recycle basic problems in the form of new symptoms. On the other hand, the ability to think systems offers the possibility that symptoms will be taken seriously, not as the problem, but as doorways into understanding the problem.
This same capacity to think process enabled Susan to be aware of the influence the chronic anxiety of her larger society had upon her functioning and the functioning of individual congregants. She believes that persons are responsible for their behavior; however, her appreciation of the influence that emotional process in society has upon individual behavior helped her be less reactive and more attentive to the fear behind the words and actions she found offensive. In fact, it was being attentive to those whose positions at first "put her off" that helped her clarify the anxiety they were expressing. Friedman describes the chronic anxiety that characterizes our emotionally regressed society in this way:
Chronic anxiety is more systemic; it is deeper and more embracing than community nervousness. Rather than something that resides within the psyche of each one, it is something that can envelope (sic), if not actually connect, people. It is a regressive emotional process that is quite different from the more familiar acute anxiety we experience over specific concerns. . . . The issues over which chronically anxious systems become concerned, therefore, are more likely to be the focus of their anxiety rather than its cause.10Susan's growing awareness of the underlying emotional process helped her see the true situation of her people, i.e. the descriptive task. Then she was better able to choose an appropriate theological connection, i.e. the interpretive task.
Pastoral Diagnosis and The Tasks of Practical Theology
As Susan's functioning in this situation illustrates, BFST can be a valuable resource in promoting the self-regulation that frees ministers to be less reactive and to think more clearly about their theological beliefs and the self-definition that is expressed in their words and actions. She had been coached to consider John Macquarrie's ideas as a guide for doing theological reflection and found his writing helpful in her search for a practical methodology. He observes, ". . . in any theological method there is (explicitly or implicitly) an overriding rationale which coordinates the various avenues of approach and assigns to each its proper degree of emphasis."11 Since her "overriding rationale" was pastoral theology and theological reflection was its methodology, she found the three major "avenues of approach" that Macquarrie identifies (description, interpretation and application) useful and appropriate and began to use them to guide and clarify her theological reflection.
According to Macquarrie, the descriptive dimension is the attempt to accurately see the person or situation being reflected upon as it actually is in itself. It involves careful analytic description utilizing whatever tools are available. The interpretive dimension refers to the effort to relate relevant theological insights to the situation under consideration in an attempt to arrive at understandings that are both true to the situations and appropriate to the pastoral concerns that prompted the reflective process. In the dimension of application, the understanding of the realities of the situation as interpreted by the reflecting person or persons are translated into appropriate ministry strategy.12
I shall return later to the interpretive and application dimensions of this model. Now I want to focus upon the descriptive dimension of Macquarrie's "avenues of approach" because I think it is at this stage of the reflective process that BFST can be a uniquely helpful resource. To accurately see the person or situation being reflected upon as it actually is in itself is a challenge. But if the task of the pastoral theologian is to relate relevant theological insights to the ministry situation, then the clearer the understanding of the situation, the greater the possibility of choosing a relevant theological insight to guide the formation of appropriate ministry strategy. If Susan's ability to "think theologically" in this situation was directly related to her ability to function less reactively (to self-regulate), and viewed through the lens of BFST it was, can this observation help us better understand pastoral resistance to doing the work of theological reflection as described above by Pruyser and Nichols? I believe it can.
I understand Hiltner's and Pruyser's use of the concept of pastoral diagnosis in the same way I understand Macquarrie's use of the concept of the descriptive dimension in his methodology. Each points to the first step in any effort to utilize theology in determining ministry strategy. Pruyser underscores both the need for professional helpers to take such a step and the difference when the subject is pastoral diagnosis:
I believe that the first duty of any professional is to achieve clarity about the problems brought before him for the sake of guiding the interventions he is to contemplate. . . . Diagnosis in any helping profession is the exploratory process in which the troubled person is given an opportunity to assess and evaluate himself in a defined perspective, in which certain observations are made and specific data come to light, guided by conceptual or operational tools, in a personal relationship with a resource person. . . . And so, whatever psychiatric diagnosis is, it is not and cannot be . . . the same as pastoral diagnosis.13This raises the issue of clergy trust in the authenticity of pastoral diagnostic work, which is one possible source of the anxiety that undergirds pastoral resistance to doing theological reflection. Hiltner addresses this issue by recounting the history of pastoral diagnosis. It first appeared in Christian history in the process of testing new members as to the orthodoxy of their faith and later developed through the penitential handbooks and Roman Catholic moral theology until:
. . . pastoral diagnosis became almost wholly a matter of morality, was treated legalistically and even punitively and, as one area after another of jurisdiction was taken from the church by the states, codification of the remainder became more detailed and voluminous. . . . The (later) refusal of Protestantism to have casebooks, so to speak, like those of Catholicism meant that Protestant dealing with offenders was less uniform, sometimes harsher and sometimes milder. . . . From these and other historical reflections, I draw the general conclusion that pastors and churches, far from having had no experience with diagnosis, have had so many bad experiences with it that, when they move out of a legalistic framework and genuinely want to help people, the last resource they are likely to look for is diagnosis. . . . We cannot move effectively toward a proper use of pastoral diagnosis without helping pastors to distinguish between proper diagnosis and the basic view of pastoral diagnosis they have inherited from the past.14Does Hiltner's analysis add to our understanding of the widespread resistance to taking the first necessary step in using theological reflection as resource in ministry praxis, the descriptive (diagnostic) task that undergirds the search for relevant theological concepts? When considered in the light of the emphasis BFST places upon reactivity's role in determining behavior, I consider the connection quite reasonable.
What about the applicability and usefulness of theological concepts when applied to practical ministry situations? Is theology an answer system for ministry, to be used like biblical proof texts? If it is not understood in this way or if its applicability is not trusted, why turn to theology for guidance when the anxiety of the minister can be lowered by learning to function like a good Bowenian trained therapist? Hiltner rejects the tendency to view theology as an answer system rather than as a description of the way things really are at a level deeper than the obvious. He affirms its value for the descriptive (diagnostic) process in these words:
At the root of virtually every dynamic discovery it is possible to find a theological intuition that has prefigured the insight. At the same time, theology has seldom emerged with the full particularity of the insight. . . .Most theological concepts are generalized intuitions, profoundly true and capable of linkage with concrete situations, but ordinarily not devised to capture nuances of the person or situation. . . . theology (is) a description of the way things really are at a level deeper than the obvious. . . . (it) is a descriptive rather than a hortatory discipline, it begins by showing how things are from its own perspective and not how they ought to be.15BFST is also descriptive rather than prescriptive. When theology is understood in this way, the concern of both is to bring their unique perspectives to bear on a particular person or situation. Therefore, pastoral theologians will understand the insights gained from BFST during the descriptive efforts as valuable but incomplete in themselves. The search for theological insights that are relevant to the situation under consideration can begin once the reality of the person or situation is better understood through insights such as BFST. The goal is to arrive at understandings that are true to the situation and the pastoral concerns that prompted the reflective process. When theological truth is affirmed as trustworthy and relevant, the motivation to undertake this search is much higher and, I believe, stands a much better chance of actually taking place.
The outward expression of the process of self-differentiation is self-definition. In the application dimension of Macquarrie's methodology, the understanding of the realities of the situation (the descriptive dimension) as interpreted by the reflecting person or persons (the interpretive dimension) are translated into appropriate ministry strategy. One of the basic tasks of ministry is articulating in words and deeds the essential principles, values and beliefs that undergird that vocation. Teaching, preaching and pastoral care are avenues of self-definition constantly open to ministers. When attention is given to this external expression of the differentiation process, the results become a valuable resource for pastoral theologians. The minister's task is to clarify her/his own beliefs and values and act upon them, while at the same time encouraging those with whom s/he ministers to do the same. The challenge is for both ministers and congregations to attend to the personal responsibility of defining and acting upon their beliefs in an atmosphere of dialogue and mutual respect. Theological insights are foundational to the community of faith and inform and shape its life and witness; therefore the work of self-definition is an ongoing challenge for pastoral theologians. After clarifying the themes that would shape her teaching, preaching and pastoral relationships, Susan then defined herself through her words and deeds. Interpretive clarification, as important as it is, remains incomplete without appropriate functioning. Both are involved in defining self (using BFST language) and one naturally leads to the other in Macquarrie's theological method.
Final Observations
(1) Susan's continued attention to her own process of self-differentiation was the key to her functioning in this ministry situation in both of her roles as pastor and pastoral theologian. I reaffirm the position I took earlier in this paper: the main contributions of BFST are directly related to the personal functioning of the pastoral theologian himself/herself rather than to the creation or adaptation of any theological system. The outcome of this situation could have been quite different had Susan allowed herself to be controlled by the emotional process of her congregation. Then, instead of functioning as an effective leader, she could easily have found herself caught up in the congregational polarization and assumed the posture of either ethical crusader (politically correct pastor) or persecuted victim (misunderstood and mistreated pastor). By staying focused upon what she could control (her thinking and functioning), she was able to more accurately understand the emotional process and choose relevant theological truths in making decisions about her ministry strategies. Friedman's summary statement is:
Generally speaking, anyone who works to gain more differentiation of self in his or her family of origin will find that the way one thinks and functions within his or her vocation is affected. This is because in the process of becoming better defined, we become more clear about our life's goals. For the clergy, however, the connection is deeper and more direct. There is no other profession on this planet where the ideals, the values, the principles, and the professional commitment are so much part and parcel of one's work. Doctors, lawyers, and politicians are affected by their belief systems, but the work of the clergy is belief systems. Since beliefs are the essence of self, to the extent we work to gain differentiation in our families of origin, we directly affect the context of our professional existence.16(2) I think it is necessary to highlight the importance of Susan's openness with her congregants at every stage of this process. Pruyser makes it quite clear that this is the case in the diagnostic (descriptive) stage when he writes (as quoted above): "Diagnosis in any helping profession is the exploratory process in which the troubled person is given an opportunity to assess and evaluate himself … in a personal relationship with a resource person (italics mine)."17 It was important for Susan to work at maintaining an observer position while attempting to understand the deeper emotional process in her congregation. This repositioning enabled her to better self-regulate and not get caught up in the emotional system she was attempting to understand. However, at every stage of the theological process she needed, in BFST language, to remain connected to the system if she hoped to affect it through the application of her ministry strategies. She did this by inviting them to share their insights, responses and questions regarding her sermons and teaching. She shared her process of theological reflection with them and challenged them to be involved in the search for relevant theological connections to their experiences and situations. She did this by encouraging dialogue with her members, especially those who considered themselves at a different place politically from hers. It is worth noting that her decision to turn to the Book of Revelation in her search for theological connections and material for her sermons and Bible teaching was the direct result of her ability to pay attention to members whose interpretations of the book's message were different from her own. She defined herself in ways that invited others to do the same and honestly shared her struggles with the fear and anxiety that resulted from the terrorist threat. I am reminded of Farley's comment near the end of his book about what he termed the theological problem of theological education: "This approach broadens the meaning of theology and denies that it is clerical."18
(3) This case also serves to illustrate the necessity for pastoral leaders to pay attention to the need to relinquish attempts to control outcomes. By this I mean a person's capacity to shift focus from any hoped-for results of ministry strategies to more self-defined functioning and clarity of thinking on their own part. This does not rule out pastoral planning, theological convictions, or goal setting, but it does address the anxiety-driven willfulness that uses such efforts only to achieve preconceived outcomes. When either theological thinking or pastoral ministry is shaped by such willfulness, the minister's anxiety will increase and the ability to self-regulate will decrease. We cannot control either the thinking or behavior of others. Attempts to do so are motivated by anxiety and therefore will result in reactive responses. When, as in Susan's case, the different positions of congregants are respected and they are honestly invited to share in the process of shaping ministry goals and strategies, the pastoral leader is positioned to facilitate genuine community. She was not attempting to coerce anybody to think differently about the issues they faced. She remained focused on clearly communicating her thoughts and values. Her congregation's response to her leadership could have gone either way and there were some who remained closed to the dialogue. The paradox is that by releasing any attempt to control their response, she positioned herself to most effectively affect that response. Such emotional release cannot be faked.
(4) Continuing the above line of reasoning, the same is true when it comes to the matter of making choices about which theological truths are most relevant in a particular situation. There are a variety of theological themes that Susan could have chosen in her interpretive stage of theological reflection. She could have drawn upon any number of theological traditions and schools of biblical interpretation. Again, the willful need to control outcomes is understood by BFST as driven by reactivity and usually succeeds in evoking a reactive response. This certainly is true regarding any search for the correct theological connection to a particular ministry situation. As the history of religion clearly illustrates, conflict between differing theological viewpoints is usually the result of the effort to claim superiority for one set of beliefs over another. The accompanying results are the diminution of clear thinking and the breakdown of dialogue. Self-differentiation involves knowing where one ends and others begin. Staying in one's own head, thinking one's own thoughts, taking responsibility for one's own theology and allowing others to do the same may not always promote orthodoxy, but it does promote connection between persons and the honest dialogical process that can lead to deepened theological understanding. It is equally true that Susan could have chosen a different methodology to guide her process of theological reflection. Macquarrie's method was recommended by her workshop coach and seemed to fit her way of conceptualizing, but there are numerous other models for doing this work. The important matter is choosing the method that best fits one's own way of thinking and doing the work of relating theology and ministry praxis.
1 Paul Pruyser, The Minister As Diagnostician (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1976), 23-24, 27.
2 J. Randall Nichols, "The Church in the World: The Great D. Min. Experiment," Theology Today 34 (4): 432.
3 Edward Farley, Theologia: The Fragmentation and Unity of Theological Education (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983), xi, xii.
4 Murray Bowen, Systems and Spirituality: Bowen Systems Theory, Faith and Theology (The Papers and Proceedings of a Conference on Theology, edited and published by Joseph C. Carolin, 1990), 23.
5 Edwin Friedman, Family Process and Process Theology: Basic New Concepts, Video and Study Guide (Washington, DC: The Alban Institute, Inc., 1991).
6 Farley, 7, 12.
7 Seward Hiltner, Preface to Pastoral Theology (New York-Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1958), 23-24.
8 Edwin Friedman, "Bowen Theory and Therapy", Gurman, A. S., Kniskern, D. P. (eds) Handbook of Family Therapy. Vol. II (New York: Brunner/Mazel, 1991) 138.
9 Edwin H. Friedman, A Failure of Nerve: Leadership In the Age of the Quick Fix (Bethesda: The Edwin Friedman Estate, 1999), 171.
10 Ibid, 79, 80.
11 John Macquarrie, Principles of Christian Theology (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1966) 30.
12 Ibid., 30-34.
13 Pruyser, 58.
14 Seward Hiltner, "Toward Autonomous Pastoral Diagnosis," Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, vol.40, no. 5 (1976), 574-578, 581.
15 Ibid., 582-584.
16 Edwin Friedman, Generation to Generation: Family Process in Church and Synagogue (New York-London: The Guilford Press, 1985), 296.
17 Pruyser, 58.
18 Farley, 197.