Synod and the Triangulation Trap

A big part of my work over the last four years has been helping churches that are curious about or unsettled by the work of Synod related to human sexuality and confessional identity.

The churches I’ve worked with are diverse in their responses. Some experience Synod’s decisions as modest corrections or calls to do better. Others see Synod’s decisions as existential threats, asking them to dramatically alter their identity and mission as they understand it. Most experience a range of responses within the same congregation, council, and even family.

Yet, despite this wide range of responses, I have noticed one common trend: churches often cope with internal differences through triangulation. Murray Bowen, the popularizer of Family Systems Theory, describes triangulation as an emotional/relational system that develops when one or two people in conflict involve a third party to help reduce tension.

For example, imagine a husband and wife experiencing conflict with one another. Things are icy at home, and they can hardly look at each other. Then, one afternoon, they receive a call from school reporting that their child has been acting out. Suddenly, the husband and wife unite around a common concern: their troublesome child. The husband and wife experience temporary togetherness, not by resolving their differences, but by focusing on their child: a shared source of frustration, disappointment, or anxiety. 

Meanwhile, the tension in their marriage (which may have even led to the child’s misbehavior) simmers. The couple, distracted momentarily by common concern for their child, is unwilling or unable to address what lies at the root.  

How Does Triangulation Show Up in our Churches?

The most common expressions of triangulation I see right now involve “how Synod handled things,” “those affirming churches,” or “those Americans” as the third point triangulation partners of choice.

For example, consider a congregation with a range of perspectives on the permissibility of same-sex marriage. If forced to resolve the issue definitively, the church would risk splintering. But for the time being, both self-described “moderates” and “progressives” find unity in complaining about a third party (a third point in the triangle): namely, “Synod’s tone, procedures, or vibes:” how Synod handled things.

Similar triangles have existed at Synod, where traditional and moderate voices found common cause in concerns about “those affirming churches.” They also exist in some Canadian communities, where people with a range of perspectives find common cause resenting the real or perceived influence of American culture or priorities on denominational discourse and decision-making.

Practically, such triangles allow people with disagreements to find a sense of togetherness. It feels good to feel united. But while I’ve heard legitimate complaints about “how Synod handled things,” “those affirming churches,” and “those Americans,” the two parties unified in these triangles develop some perverse incentives.  

Perverse Incentives of Triangles

To sustain their togetherness, the two unified parties often make an unspoken pact: we will not talk concretely about our own differences or the potential costs of compromise, submission, and change required to remain together. In other words, they are incentivized to avoid forthright conversation about their differences.

At the same time, they are incentivized to exaggerate the threat of their triangulation partner. To give themselves something to talk about and to ensure a durable bond, they need their triangulation partner to be larger-than-life, even extreme. They are incentivized to be overly critical, inventing or exaggerating causes for concern.

Perhaps worst of all, the two unified points in the triangle are incentivized to keep the third point at a distance. They need the third point to be just visible enough for its “threat” to unite them, but not so close that they might come to see it as complex, sincere, or human. If they got curious about the third point, that point might become harder to use as a foil. 

How Bad are Triangles?

Forming triangles is normal. Engaging a second person to help you deal with a third is normal and often helpful. (Ecclesiastes 4:9-12, Matthew 18:16) In Bowen’s framework, triangles are neither good nor bad. In fact, Bowen argues that they are one of the most stable social systems. God designed us for community, and the bonds we form, even triangles, are a normal part of the way we relate to each other and experience God.

But triangulation does carry significant risks for our communities (and our souls).

Risks of Triangulation

Triangulation can be a form of escape—avoiding the opportunities (even challenges) God may be putting in front of you in favor of maintaining a manipulated peace.

Triangulation can encourage us to misrepresent and even demonize others, warping our own souls and reinforcing our pre-existing biases.

Triangulation may keep at distance the very people God is trying to use to speak into our lives. 

What Can We Do about Triangles?

The main thing leaders can do to mitigate the harmful effects of triangles is to recognize and name triangulation dynamics plainly and clearly. Wise leaders will be curious about how and why certain triangles have formed, and they will wonder aloud how those dynamics may be shaping (or misshaping) themselves and their churches. They will resist the temptation to exaggerate, demonize, and misrepresent one group for the sake of a comfortable but illusory togetherness with another group. (Heidelberg Catechism QA 112)

Practically, as recommended in the Next Steps resource from Thrive, leaders will slow down their decision-making to first seek unbiased, or even positive conversation partners to explain Synod’s decisions. Such voices don’t need to be the only voice you listen to, but they can often detect the kinds of unintended exaggerations or misrepresentations that naturally emerge from triangulation. These voices, human as they are, will have their own biases, but their gift to you is that they may help you see your own. 

Wise leaders will encourage spaces where differences can be discussed forthrightly. The listening circles promoted by Thrive create spaces for people to hold two things to be true at once: I love you, and I disagree with you. 

But ultimately, these solutions are still just addressing symptoms. The deeper challenge is that triangles, even unhealthy ones, do create a strong kind of bonding agent to hold communities together. A person might say, “this “glue” is working for now, why mess with a good thing?”

Wise Leaders Seek Better Glue

While it is natural and human to find unity through common resentments and fears, there is better glue. 

Common practices of faith are better glue. When we worship together, pray together, break bread together, and serve together, our love for God and one another can grow in a way that can make our differences more manageable.  

A common practice of mission is better glue. Communities that follow Christ’s call to go and make disciples find that in giving themselves sacrificially toward a common mission, some otherwise significant-seeming differences can become more easily addressed. 

But most of all, the glue that holds the church together is the unity of the Spirit of Christ. This is part of the gift of the church we struggle to maintain. We struggle, of course, because life in real churches with real people requires submission, compromise, and change in ways that rub against our sinful human nature. But in his wisdom, Christ created his church as a community where disagreement could be seen as normal (read any epistle), and where we would need to rely on him to hold us together. Submitting to one another, bearing with one another, or making every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit requires utter dependence on Christ. In the midst of disagreement, Christ’s Spirit can sanctify and transform us into his likeness. We displace Christ’s Spirit when we rely on common threats to unify us rather than our common Lord and Savior.