Family systems theory has been variously applied in the church for some time now and generally to good effect. Leaders have learned to be better differentiated in relation to the communities they serve, and are able to provide more effective leadership. The church as a whole needs to learn this lesson. It needs to learn to differentiate itself in relation to the larger society in which it is set.

Family systems theory insists that leadership is ineffective in either "fused" or "cut-off" relationships. Fused and cut-off relationships are flip sides of the same coin: a person in either type of communal relationship has little or no agency in the formation and direction of the community. The community inordinately influences the person who is emotionally fused with it; consequently, that person has no distinguishable effect upon it. The cut-off person is so emotionally isolated from the community that he or she is likewise without significant influence. The fused individual is redundant; the cut-off individual is irrelevant.

The ideal relationship is to be integrally connected to the community while remaining the distinct individual that one is. In this self-differentiated relationship, one has agency in the community and is positioned to offer effective leadership.

One can consider the church’s relation to the wider culture along the same lines. The church in society, like the individual in community, can only exercise effective leadership—and so fulfill its calling—by differentiating from, while remaining in relation with, that society. The church fails in its evangelical calling when it either becomes so identified with the society that it loses its uniqueness, or when it becomes so isolated from society that its uniqueness has no impact.

The church differentiates itself in various ways. The Nicene Creed comes immediately to mind. This confession of faith identifies the church in contrast to the larger society that does not confess this faith. Granted, there were historical issues that this particular creed was written to address; nevertheless, it constitutes a self-definition of Christianity today.

The church cannot afford to surrender the claims of the Nicene Creed, again for example, without seriously jeopardizing its identity as church. But neither can it afford to cut off dialogue with communities in the larger society that are differently constituted.

The church does no one a favor by diluting its creedal distinctiveness. Indeed, Jesus’ charge to the church is to be distinct, particularly but not solely, with regard to its confession of him as "the Christ, the Son of the living God." Certainly, in pluralistic societies such as ours, there is a temptation to ignore this charge. To yield to it even for the presumed sake of social harmony is to fail as church.

While preserving this distinctiveness, however, the church also needs to relate itself to the cultural marketplace of ideas. The church needs to be in conversation and, as far as conscience allows, work with groups and individuals whose faith commitments and philosophies of life differ from its own.

Finally, what is true of its confession of faith is true of the moral implications of this faith. The church does no one a favor by diluting its vision of morality expressed in the love and justice of God manifest in Christ, witnessed to by scripture and tradition. Similarly, it errs from the other side when it condemns without mercy those who fail to regularly live out this vision, and when, from fear of moral contamination, it isolates itself from the challenge their presence constitutes.

Comments? Reflections? Questions? Please E-Mail: tpce@ipa.net