Online course at BTSR for fall 2011

Baptist Theological Seminary at Richmond (www.btsr.edu) will offer four online course during fall of 2011:

M3811 Music and Worship (Loftis)
M3730 Educating in Faith (Galindo)
M3321 Christian Ministry I (supervised ministry practicum) (Hartman)
M3211 Introduction to Spirituality (Ford).

Visit the seminary website (www.btsr.edu) for more information and for course schedules. Contact the Registrar for enrollment information.

On BFST Orthodoxy

A colleague invited some of us on a discussion on the phenomenon of BFST orthodoxy. This is the tendency we've seen among some "Bowenians" to guard the orthodoxy of the theory. At times it manifests itself in:

* A focus on the correct use of terms, concepts, and vocabulary
* The creation of a list of verbotem words, phrases, or references
* A dismissal of certain concepts that are considered "outside" the original theory's schema
* The identification of "camps" (e.g., Bowen vs. Friedman) and the self-identification with the original conceptualizer with an accompanying dismissal of those not deemed disciples of direct succession.
* The manifestation of the affects of hubris and exclusivity.

I think it is acurate to identify these as reactivity. What I most appreciate, and endorse to others, about BFST theory is that it is THEORY. In certain introductory presentations I enumerate the components of what constitutes a "valid theory." I use the list in presentations, and in my introductory systems course to get past latent "resistance" on the part of skeptical and cynical students.

The list includes the following:

Theories describe phenomenon as they are perceived (the are descriptive, not prescriptive)
Theories are grounded in a discipline (in the case of BFST, in clinical psychology)
Theories are universally applicable to the focus of their concern (in the case of BFST all "relationship systems" regardless of their context)
Theories are open to being disproved.

The point being that BFST is a "theory" and not "doctrine" or "ideology."

When I read or hear "Bowenian Purists" go on about parsing terms or being the self-appointed guardians of orthodoxy by listing what is "verboten" then in my view they have ceased to be theorists and have become ideologists--with the accompanying characteristics of willfulness, exclusivity, and cutoffs. Understand that I think using terms accurately is important, and, it is important to "stay grounded" in the theory and its field (I created a presenation titled "Systems Misunderstandings" to address the issue of the missuse and misunderstanding of basic terms of the theory).

However, the search for a "pure" Bowenian theory is, I think misguided, and dismisses the richness of Bowen's genius in positing a theory. Theories are not set in stone, and are not meant to be. Theories by their nature develop, grow in their nuance, are open to scrutiny, incorporate new information and adapt to new truths as they are revealed or discovered. Because theories eventually lead to application they are shaped by the contexts in which they are applied, and, by the contributions of the innovators who who carry the theory forward over time.

Of greater danger is the potential of making a religion out of the theory. This happens when the dynamic of inclusion and exclusion comes into the picture. Religion is about "membership," about determining who is "in" and who is "out"; who belongs and who does not. That tendency creates the necessity of self-appointed or ordained priests to guard belief (orthodoxy) and to make the declarations about who belongs and who does not.

The pattern is all too, shall we say, "systemic"? The biblical example that comes to mind is those who disciples of Jesus who claimed the priviledge of direct succession--calling themselved Apostles. These gave the Johnnie-come-lately Paul fits. Paul, in his own differentiation of self move had little trouble calling himself an Apostle much to others' consternation. Later on we have the situation of those who, lacking substantive capacity of Self, would identify with "camps": those who claimed to be of Paul and those who claimed to be of Apollos. Move ahead a few years and, predictably, we have the Church Councils gathering to define Orthodoxy, determine who is "in" and who is "out" and to exclude those deemed unworthy of belinging.

But, this is par for the course in professions and guilds also--one can trace such a dynamic with Freud and his psychoanalysts, for example. Friedman has that great story and getting called on the carpet by the psychoanalytic guild for dariong to put the term "diagnosis" in his brochure. The claim there was that only those who were "in" psychoanalytic guild were previledged, certified, and capable of doing "diagnosis." Friedman's characteristicaly droll response was that the guild should go after Sears' auto service due to their service of diagnosing engine problems.

Copyright (c) 2011, Israel Galindo

On children's sermons

I received an emal from a pastor asking about children's sermons. He just accepted a call to a church at which he'll need to deliver a children's sermon as part of the worship service pastoral duties. I think that's a great thing. And I appreciate his seeking counsel on how to do it well.

Leaving well

I’ve consulted with several clergy during their transitiong into and out of a congregational call. As I’ve observed clergy working through the issues of leaving their congregations I’ve noticed some common issues. Whether the clergy are leaving under duress or because they feel stirrings of restlessness, certain issues seem common to the nature of leaving regardless of the circumstances. Leaving a congregation involves the murky process of discernment, and clarity rarely comes instantly or easily. In many cases I’ve witnessed clergy who have left their congregations emotionally before they began thinking consciously about leaving.

On the future of the church and seminaries

In a recent conversation with a group of folks in theological education who were pondering the relationship between the academy and the Church I was asked what I thought the future of congregations would look like. My response was that I have no crystal ball and would be suspect of anyone who offered a definitive answer to that question. But apparently there is a robust cottage industry in prophetic proclamations, futurists, tarot card readers, fortune tellers and latter day channelers of Nostrodamus. So, I ventured that if I had a guess about the future of the church I could risk a prediction.

Thoughts on change

At a recent conference on congregational leadership I was again struck by how the level of energy (anxiety?) in the room increased when the topic focused on change. This is natural, of course, since one of the critical functions of the leader in any system is bring about positive change on several levels. In fact, it is likely that the new leader in any system will enter with a mandate to make changes in the system--notwithstanding that any attempts of consequence to do so on the part of the leader will likely meet with resistence if not outright sabotage.

This too is natural in that the nature of emotional process in any system includes the force of homeostasis, and homeostatis resists change at the most fundamental levels: those that upset the balance of dynamics that have established patterns of relationships, structures of power, and those systemic structures and processes that inform identity (like culture and practices).





At the conference I attempted to offer some nuance in our approach to understanding change by depicting types and levels of change. An important question for the leader becomes, "what kind of change am I trying to bring about here?" The graph below depicts different kinds of change according to their level from easy to bring about to harder to achieve. From top to bottom these levels of change take a short time to bring about (e.g., programmatic) to a long time to realize (e.g., evolutionary).

The lower on the pyramid (which may depict a metaphorical iceberg) the type of change the more it is a type of "fundamental change," the kind that affects emotional process.




Change at any level invites anxiety if not reactivity. Depending on the resilience of the system, change at any level may bring a minimal or a great deal of anxiety and reactivity. Systems with a low tolerance for change can experience major crises with attempts at even benign programmatic changes.

Few of us remain in work and ministry systems long enough to bring about change at the more essential levels, those that impact developmental or evolutionary change, which shifts the emotional process in the system, including homeostasis. The typical tenure of most pastors is four to five years. For program staff, in most congregations, even less. The system in which we remain the longest is our biological families, with our family of origin providing perpetual influence through the power of multigenerational transmission of emotional process.

I suppose one implication is that if we desire to make meaningful changes of significant influence, the place to put our energies is in our families.


Copyright (c) 2010, Israel Galindo

What do you want to fix?

Once, a colleague at work stopped by my office to review a communication glitch he was having with a staff person I supervised. The nature of the staff person’s work interfaced with my colleague’s office, but they’d had a history of finding it difficult to work together.