I received an e-mail from a doctoral student who is doing his work on Bowen Family Systems theory and churches. He asked, “…I wonder if you might provide a comment on Societal Emotional Process’s effects in the church. I am of the opinion that the effects of Societal Emotional Process will probably be seen in / trickle down to the congregation, since its members are also members of society at large. Am I correct in assuming that periods of societal regression will probably result in regression in a congregation, too? My guess is that practicing self differentiation in a challenging way would be more difficult at these times. Would you agree?”
My response: Societal regression is one of Bowen’s original concepts, as you know. But it’s not unique to him, or to systems theories–William Strauss and Neil Howe have revived it in their book, The Fourth Turning, but as far back as Giambattista Vico, at least, the concept has been around.
As far as I can tell, Bowen did not fully develop or pursue the concept as he did the other basic components of his theory. Societal regression seems to say that the same relationship/systemic principles that are at work in micro-systems, like a family, are also at work in macro-systems like a society. The same universal emotional forces work at that large level as work at smaller, localized levels (family, church, etc.): anxiety, multigenerational transmission, triangles, cutoffs, etc.
The concept suggest that all civilizations go through peaks and low times in terms of levels of anxiety, the capacity to self-regulate, and the level of functioning of their leaders, etc. So, you can anticipate that generationally, or cyclically, there will be anxiety symptoms and “issues” that surface: war, drugs, divorce, health issue, ecology, cults, “the family”, homosexuality, what have you. These are just flavor-of-the-day symptoms that have more to do with being the focus of anxiety than anything else.
Societal regression has the same structure as a family system in chronic anxiety: lack of vision, lack of self-regulation, myopia, stuckness, paranoia, lack of self-differentiated principled leadership, inability to hold terrorists and willful elements and opportunistic bodies at bay, etc.
You raise and interesting question related to the church and its functioning related to the social and cultural context in which it exists. This is an important issue, I find that most people who talk about the church fail to appreciate that the culture may have more influence on the churches than the churches have on the culture in which they reside. I suspect, though, that the issue is not quite as simple as you frame it. Rather, I think there’s are more “interesting question” here. You raise one: Will periods of societal regression result in regression in the congregation also? Your assumption here seems to be that since the congregation MEMBERS are part of the society at large that will de facto define the functioning of the congregational system of which they are a part. It’s an interesting proposition.
But here are some thoughts to consider. We’re talking about interlocking systems, society and a congregation, not necessarily symbiotic ones. Individuals seem to have great capacity to function differently in one system than the other due to the systemic dynamics of each (homeostasis, etc.). Congregational systems are examples of a “bounded” system, a faith community. That may yield more capacity for self-regulation in the midst of regression than we give credit. Friedman talked about the interrelationship between the health of the organism and the hostility of the environment. I think he hints that in this case the determinative factor is not the regression that is going on in society, but the health in the organism (the congregation) to respond to the toxicity.
I think you are correct to say that in times of society regression it is more difficult for churches to function highly. But that’s just true by definition: in times of societal regression ALL of the institutions in a society are in crisis. So, a better question may be, despite the “hostility of the environment” which institutions have the capacity to function best? And are congregations one of those? Who is stepping up to leadership? Who is the non-anxious presence? Who is able to keep their cool and look at the big picture? Who gets stuck on “issues”? Who wants the “quick fix”? Who are engaging in blaming and scapegoating rather than finding solutions?
I think there’s a risk in lumping “all churches” together in framing the question. I think it’s more helpful to use the term “congregations” to help us think systemically about these issues, since “church” tends to be a “theological” concept. Here’s one example, when Lebanon went through its period of turmoil some decades back (a time of systemic and comprehensive societal regression), one of the few institutions that became a shining light by stepping up to action were Christian congregations. They got clear about their mission and purpose and stepped up to social action (even those congregations who historically had resisted social action in the past), they fed the hungry, cared for the poor, educated children, kept communities together, and even became involved in political action to address the failure of civic leaders. I think you can find similar prophetic (self-differentiated?) functioning throughout history related to the churches and how they responded to societal regression (underground churches, reformations, movements, the response of religious bodies to political and societal issues and conditions). This is not monolithic or automatic, of course. Some congregations do cave in, as you hint.
I think it’s an interesting topic to explore. I may play at framing the discovery question of your study differently. This is not too much of a big concern, since any thesis you propose need only be “supported” or “not supported” by your research study, not “proven.”
<%image(20070217-IGmatrix200.jpg|200|151|From the Matrix)%>
