by Kent Winters-Hazelton, Witherspoon Society president

[5-17-04]

This year, once again, the General Assembly will be discussing the issue of the ordination of lesbian and gay Presbyterians. This topic has been a part of our agenda for more than 25 years. It is an important issue and it is a dividing issue - but it should not be seen as a defining issue. Even as we have wrestled with homosexuality, our churches have continued to fulfill their call to proclamation and mission. We have not resolved this issue - and in all likelihood, we will not resolve it at this Assembly either - but we should acknowledge that despite this ongoing debate, we are still together in worship and mission; our human fellowship may be strained but our ecclesiastical fellowship keeps us bound together.

In this article, I want to make a few observations regarding the ordination discussion from the perspective of family systems theory. This is a paper in process on a topic I have been mulling over for a few months, and not a final product. It seems to me that applying systems thinking to our debate on ordination may help us move forward as a people of God while living with an issue that is significant to all of us.

I am not an expert on family systems theory, but I think there are some general principles within systems thinking that are valuable tools in dealing with divisive issues. At the risk of greatly oversimplifying both the concept of systems theory and the issue of homosexuality, let me offer this thesis: When a church functions as a healthy emotional system, which would include thinking in a non-linear fashion, with objectivity and self-differentiation, we might find a way to move forward toward a vision of the church that acknowledges its unity while honoring its diversity.

Systems theory was developed beginning in the late 1950s by therapist Murray Bowen as a means to help families in therapy. It has become a central element of interim ministry training, and is used as a tool in helping congregations during their difficult time of transition. In a nutshell, systems theory tells us that people (and institutions such as congregations) do not act or react in isolation. To do so would be an example of linear, or cause-and-effect thinking; that is, action A produces result B. Rather, systems thinking understands our action as an interrelated whole, where one part's action has an effect on all the other parts, and when they act, they, in turn, impact the first part. In other words, there is a continuous interaction with ongoing consequences in relationships. You may have heard of the example of the butterfly in Japan moving its wings and ultimately causing a change in the weather in Brazil. This is an example of wholistic, interconnected thinking. In other words, systems theory suggests that people can only be understood within the context of their relationships. No one lives in isolation; we are all affected by each other's behavior.

Perhaps an example that can illustrate systems thinking is a finely balanced mobile. Each object in the mobile is balanced to interact with all the other objects. If one object is moved, the entire mobile moves. In contrast, if one object is removed or knocked askew, the balance of the whole mobile is lost.

One of the primary principles of systems theory is that the health of any emotional system determines how well other interconnected systems work. Systems theorists posit that a poorly functioning system will derail the best and most rational planning efforts. A poorly functioning system is one that experiences anxiety, blaming, or a sense of threat, loss or abandonment. As a result, a system can be thrown off balance and ceases to function properly. What causes this imbalance? Among the many causes is the introduction of news ideas, personalities, or concepts; in short, the introduction of change into the system. Change produces anxiety. How a system deals with change reflects its emotional health or maturity, and its ability to adapt to the change it faces.

Our denomination began to grapple with the issue of homosexuality when members began to ask, what role can lesbian and gay Presbyterians play in our denomination? No one would deny that lesbian and gay members have been a significant part of our church over the years. The first three ministers I knew who were gay were all ordained before the current ban was voted into place in 1978. But the issue took on increased significance in the early 1970s when the growing calls from the lesbian/gay community for recognition and rights emerged within the secular culture. This was followed by the decision by the (then) UPCUSA to declare that practicing homosexuals could not serve as officers. [This decision has been echoed by the overwhelming vote in the United Methodist Church at its recent General Conference, determining that "the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching."] This decision was hurtful to lesbian and gay Presbyterians and their allies and, as a consequence, the movement for rights and standing moved from the street to the pew.

Systems thinking would point out that an issue as highly personal and emotional as homosexuality would pose a threat to the equilibrium of any organization. It becomes important, therefore, to develop a healthy, objective process to allow conversation to move forward, rather than allowing the debate to get sidetracked in splitting hairs or lining up sides. In a denominational context the challenge would be heightened. Some within the organization would perceive a degree of loss in their understanding of Biblical faith and practice, while others would experience a sense of abandonment by the institution of their baptism and Christian nurture. It would be easy to follow into a blaming mentality where one group sees its opponents as responsible for all the problems while those with differing perspectives might argue that we are denying our Biblical mandate to do justice. As voices rise, legislation is debated and judicial edicts handed down, an objective, differentiated process becomes harder to find. The discussion becomes weighted disproportionately toward the extremes and away from the center - all of which increases the anxiety in the system.

Change often produces institutional anxiety. According to systems thinking, anxiety is the result of the perceived threat in the face of change. Anxiety is created by a sense of loss of control, fear of the unknown, uncertainty of standing within a family or community, loss of self-identity, concern for abandonment or the collapse of traditional standards or understandings. In other words, the prospect of change may pose multiple threats to any institution. Systems theory suggests that each individual responds differently to threat and the more threat bodies feel, the more anxiety they will experience.

Further, systems theory suggests that in times of crisis, people and/or organizations that have lower emotional maturity become more anxious. In that context, there is a tendency within the system for people to act out in ways that are detrimental to the community. People who are operating out of a non-balanced perspective insist that everyone in the community should operate out of the same position or set of beliefs; "The Bible says. . . ," ignoring the understanding that "to read is to interpret." In a crisis, people operating out of an anxious system see those on the other side as the problem, "it's that pastor's fault," or, "if you are not supporting our position, you are not our ally," or "those people in Louisville," or "this Assembly is apostate."

Here is my point: Part of the reason we are tied up in knots over the ordination issue is the fact that our discussion has been dominated by those who act out of an unhealthy, anxious framework, which, in turn, derails the more rational or healthy responses. For example, efforts in the past to hold Presbytery-wide conversations, to provide safe space for gay, lesbian, bi-sexual and transgendered people to tell their story, and to have a moratorium on judicial and legislative battle grounds have not been widely supported. We see, instead, the example of an institution under siege, the squeeze on per capita giving, the cut-backs in staffing at the General Assembly level, the discouragement and low morale among denominational staffers, and the valuable resources of the church being spent on ecclesiastical legal action. The broad sweep of who we are as a people of God, as reflected in the Great Ends of the Church (chapter 1 in the Book of Order), becomes diminished and the focus is narrowed on the debate over one issue.

In contrast, systems theory suggests models of a healthy, balanced system. Signs of such a system would be a competency to deal with challenges in a way that promotes objectivity rather than anxiety. This could mean setting up a process with guidelines and expectations that recognizes and honors our differences, replacing the language of blame or threat with that of understanding, seeking not speaking on behalf of everyone, but from one's individual perspective, and ultimately looking for that which is in the best interest of the institution as a whole. When a sense of unity of understanding and action happens, the result will be our ability and freedom to talk openly and honestly about our differences, thinking through issues and their implications based on all the available facts, and to respectfully share understandings and conclusions with one another. Systems thinking tells us that the more sense of self we have and the more we experience ourselves as thoughtful, component, objective persons the less anxious we become. Thus, any movement toward objectivity, systems thinking would argue, will be an asset to a system. From the published reports of the Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity and Purity, it would seem that this important committee has been acting in a very healthy, balanced manner in accord with systems theory. We must not look to that committee to resolve our issues, but to provide us with a model of how to talk with one another.

Finally, in the past few months, I have come to value two paragraphs in the fourth chapter of the Book of Order that seem to reflect a balanced understanding of systems thinking:

Our unity in Christ enables and requires the church to be open to all persons and to the varieties of talents and gifts of God's people . . . [G-4.0402]

The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) shall give full expression to the rich diversity within its membership and shall provide means which will assure a greater inclusiveness leading to wholeness in its emerging life. [G-4.0403] (Emphasis added.)

I believe that at the heart of our faith, God calls us to unity - but not to uniformity - with a healthy balance of people, needs, interests, issues and interpretations, all fit to work as a beautiful mosaic of the whole. In other words, like a finely balanced mobile.

Kent Winters-Hazelton is the soon-to-be-former Interim Head of Staff at the Lakeside Presbyterian Church in San Francisco. Inquiries for the next stop in his journey are always welcomed. The insights regarding family systems theory for this article were drawn primarily from Ronald Richardson, Creating a Healthier Church: Family Systems Theory, Leadership and Congregational Life, (Fortress, 1996).