Menu Close

“You are going to feel like hell if you never write the stuff that is tugging on the sleeves of your heart — your stories, visions, memories, visions and songs. Your truth, your version of things, your own voice. That is really all you have to offer us. And that’s also why you were born.”
Anne Lamott

“You are going to feel like hell if you never write the stuff that is tugging on the sleeves of your heart — your stories, visions, memories, visions and songs. Your truth, your version of things, your own voice. That is really all you have to offer us. And that’s also why you were born.”
Anne Lamott

Category: Empathy

Empathy (4) The Greatest virtue

George 0 Comments

I’m going to argue that there is a Greatest Virtue.  It is the virtue that sits at the foundation of moral practice.  It is the root of goodness and, as such, should be the constant focus of all church communities.
The Greatest Virtue is empathy.

Richard Beck

…empathy creates the moral fabric of our lives.  All our hopes, dreams and desires are communally held together by the fact that we can identify with each other.  We loathe immoral behavior because we can empathize with the victims.  And this empathic connection binds us all together and, thus, begins the collective moral journey.  Wherever our system of ethics begins it must surely begin with this simple question:  
If I were in that person’s shoes how would I feel about that?

Adam Smith

I tell you all that to say that something has happened in our culture that troubles me greatly…a lack of empathy for anyone outside of our new tribal identities.
A lack of empathy dehumanizes others and strips them of personhood.
The sickest aspect of this is that one must first sacrifice your own humanity before you can rob it from others.
Without empathy, people become problems to be solved, or worse, enemies to be defeated.
No society …or country…can survive long without a feeling of commonality and shared humanity among all people despite their differences.
Many in favor of defeating other people who differ, do so believing they act in service for the Lord.

Phoenix Preacher

Asserting empathy as the greatest virtue should create some consternation. When asked, “What is the greatest virtue?” most people, including myself, would answer LOVE. Encountering empathy, caused me to re-examine my position. Quotations above and numerous other references have influenced me to agree that the greatest virtue is empathy. However, agreement does not settle the issue. Preeminence of love as the greatest Christian virtue is not without good reason. After all, scripture says God is love. To address this conflict, it is necessary to begin with love. Love understood and expressed in our disenchanted, secularized culture has lost connection to love attributed to God. Differing views of love between Christian’s and culture are not surprising.What is surprising and troubling is, Christians differ on their views of love.

One of the greatest barriers to civil conversation between people with different worldviews is when they don’t stop to determine whether they have the same objectives in mind.  Oftentimes, they think they’re on the same page— Love is one of the most common subjects where this happens today.
Christians strive to love others given God’s standards. The secular world strives to love others given self-defined standards.

“Love is further complicated by divergent understanding of love … between secular society and Christians. Christians often disagree as well—some holding a view of love that looks much like that of secular culture.
How can there be so much difference between Christians in our view of love?
Ironically, it’s because of the same reason that secular culture and traditional Christians disagree: We have a different view of God.

https://natashacrain.com/why-secular-culture-progressive-christians-and-traditional-christians-disagree-on-what-it-means-to-love-others/

Reflection on empathy has challenged me to reexamine how I view of God. Although I say that empathy is the greatest virtue, when I honestly assess my heart’s response to those in distress or need, it is apparent my intuitive response is not empathy but judgement. Here are some reasons I use to rationalize not empathizing:

* By empathizing with someone, they or others, will believe I agree with them.
* Choices have consequences and people need to learn from the consequences of their choices.
* Some people simply deserve what they get.
* Some times tough love is necessary.
* Expressing unvarnished truth is for their own good.

Those responses reflect my heart’s view of God, defined by anger and wrath. Of course, Intellectually I would argue that is not my view of God, if asked, I would say:

“Yahweh, Yahweh, a God merciful and gracious,SLOW TO ANGER,abounding in HESED [steadfast love] and faithfulnesskeeping steadfast love for the thousandeth generationforgiving wickedness rebellion and sin“

“I have looked upon you in the sanctuary, beholding your power and glory,Because your HESED/steadfast/never ending love is better than life,my lips will glorify you” 

” For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”

“The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.“

In understanding why I have “is” and “ought” views of God , I realize the profound influence my spiritual heritage has had on my view of God. For the most part, the image of God presented and preached was ” God of the ‘Old Testament’, angry and unloving, a God of wrath” —a view of God conveniently reinforcing works salvation theology and unchallenged by “the New Testament God” who came in the flesh. When an “Old Testament”view of God prevails, it is not hard to understand why empathy is absent. When we encounter a resistance to empathy personally or culturally, the first thing to examine is our view of God.

As I think about the wide variety of Christians’ witness in today’s culture, there is no unequivocal answer to, “Who is God?” As I examine the testimony of my life to the world and ask “Who is the God I am presenting? My view of God is a commodity. imagery that accommodates whatever cultural demands I face. An angry, unloving God of wrath is needed to support my judgement of and displeasure with opposing factions. A merciful and gracious view of God is reserved for those of a kindred spirit. (“They will know we are Christians by our love!“)

Stories and texts in the Bible, clearly reflect the unfathomable nature of God. By definition the creator is beyond the grasp of his creatures. Because of his creatures’ humanity, God revealed himself in a way that he can be understood.

“Long ago God spoke many times and in many ways to our ancestors through the prophets. And now in these final days, he has spoken to us through his Son. … The Son radiates God’s own glory and expresses the very character of God, and he sustains everything by the mighty power of his command.
Hebrews1:1,3 NLT “The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. 1:3 NIV

“So the Word became human and made his home among us. He was full of unfailing love and faithfulness. And we have seen his glory, the glory of the Father’s one and only Son.”
John 1:14 NLT

“Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father, and we will be satisfied.””
“Don’t you believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words I speak are not my own, but my Father who lives in me does his work through me.”
John 14:8,10 NLT

“Christ is the visible image of the invisible God. He existed before anything was created and is supreme over all creation,”
“For God in all his fullness was pleased to live in Christ,”
Colossians1:15,19 NLT

Fr Stephen Freeman’s description of how one can come to a view of God removed from Christ is insightful.

It is possible to use the entire Jesus story as a way of proving the existence of God, only to then proceed to think of God in terms that are somehow removed from Christ Himself. I’m not sure whether we imagine this “God” to be the “Father” or something else. These conversations (and thoughts) are often expressed in terms of, “I believe that God…” and on from there. I think of this as the God of the blackboard. Jesus is used in order to prove the blackboard but then we begin to fill in that large, blank wall with our own imaginings (or various passages of Scripture that we might use as a counterweight to the story of Jesus).

Christ is how we “read” God. We cannot get behind Christ to speak about God as though we knew anything of God apart from Christ. We do not know God “prior” to Christ. When Christ declares that He is the “Way, the Truth, and the Life” and that “no one comes to the Father except by Me,” He is not merely describing the path of salvation, He is making it clear that it is through Him alone that we know God. This is also affirmed in St. Matthew’s gospel:

All things have been delivered to Me by My Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father. Nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and the one to whom the Son wills to reveal Him. (Matt. 11:27 NKJ)

The%20Singular%20Goodness%20of%20God%20-%20Glory%20to%20God%20for%20All%20Things

The most compelling argument for empathy as the greatest virtue resides in the truth that through Christ alone we know God. God incarnate, became like us:

“Because God’s children are human beings—made of flesh and blood—the Son also became flesh and blood. For only as a human being could he die, and only by dying could he break the power of the devil, who had the power of death. Only in this way could he set free all who have lived their lives as slaves to the fear of dying. We also know that the Son did not come to help angels; he came to help the descendants of Abraham. Therefore, it was necessary for him to be made in every respect like us, his brothers and sisters, so that he could be our merciful and faithful High Priest before God. Then he could offer a sacrifice that would take away the sins of the people.”
Hebrews? 2:14-17 NLT??

“Since then we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. For we have not a high priest who is unable to sympathizewith our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin. Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.”
Hebrews 4:14-16 RSV??

For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but one who has been tempted in every way just as we are, yet without sin. REV

REV Commentary for: Hebrews 4:15
“empathize.” The Greek word translated “empathize” is sumpathe? (#4834); pronounced soom-pa-th). The translation is sometimes thought to be “sympathize,” following more closely to the spelling of the Greek, and “sympathize” can be a meaning in some contexts, but “empathize” is a more accurate translation in this verse. Empathy is when a person can understand and feel what another person is feeling. In contrast, sympathy is having compassion for the other person, but without necessarily feeling, or being able to feel or identify with, the other person’s feelings. “Sympathy” can be used in a much broader way than “empathy” because sympathy does not necessarily demand that a person be able to identify with the other person’s feelings, but only have a sense of what the person is going through. That is why, for example, we can sympathize with a cause that we support, such as helping the poor, but we cannot empathize with a cause.

Christians should take comfort in the fact that Jesus does more than “sympathize” with us, he can feel what we are feeling—the hurt, pain, discouragement, and also the joy, excitement, and love. No wonder we can pour out our heart to him when we pray; he is listening and understanding us.
https://www.revisedenglishversion.com/export/tmp_HY3NY99d96uI/REV_Commentary_Heb_ch4_v15.docx

To be Christ-like
—to have the mind of Christ
— To love others as Christ has loved us
— to love as God loves
— to be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God.
Is to be empathic.

Still on the Journey






Empathy (3)

George 0 Comments

I have concluded the most troubling and revealing characteristic of society today is the absence of empathy. Empathy is, as I wrote about in my essay on echo chambers, a damper which can prevent ultimate destruction. You can read an excerpt from Echo Chambers about natural frequencies and dampers. HERE.
Alarming as the absence of empathy in society is, resistance to and denigration of empathy in some Christian evangelical contexts, betrays how deeply secular ethos is influencing Christianity.
This post contains citations from several sources which have influenced my conclusion, and hopefully, you will be motivated to think about your perceptions of empathy and how they impact your life and faith.

Empathy and Kindness 
It seems to me, in many quarters, that crisis [division /conflict] can best be seen in what I can only describe as the victory of anger and grievance over empathy and kindness.  Yes, I know there are exceptions and, perhaps, your Church and your life are the very examples of “Matthew 25” Christianity.  If so, please keep doing what you are doing!  There are, however, other voices being heard and they claim to be speaking for Christ as they angrily weigh in on politics, culture and the like wrapping them in to a twisted version of Christianity. What is perhaps worse, however, is that empathy and kindness, once the very hallmarks of Christian character, are berated by some or are considered signs of weakness by others. How did we get to such a state as believers that belligerence is not only accepted but amplified and applauded, even in the church?
Duane Arnold

Psychopathy
Guess what is the defining feature of psychopathy? It’s a lack of empathy. Although there are other related features, a complete lack of empathy is the defining feature. That is, we can ask of the sociopathic: How can a person kill another person in a brutal fashion? The answer: You lack empathy. The cries of the victim make no difference. These people are, in a very real way, cold and reptilian.
To conclude. I’m arguing that empathy is the greatest virtue. I bring up psychopathy to argue from a negative case. Specifically, when we see the essential disintegration of moral behavior we see empathy at the core. More to the point, we see empathy broken. And when empathy breaks our entire moral sense breaks down with it. I called empathy the foundation of goodness in my last post. That was not hyperbole. The case of psychopathy shows I was speaking in earnest. Our entire moral sense begins and rests upon empathy.
Ricard Beck

Understanding 
It’s important to note that understanding is not necessarily agreeing. It’s the mental work of putting yourself in someone else’s shoes. If you cut people off after judging them by your own imperfect standards, you cut off the opportunity to understand them. You cut off empathy to that person, and thus cut off altruism. You eliminate the opportunity for God to do his work through you. You eliminate the opportunity for apology and forgiveness. You eliminate, in that moment, the Love that could have taken place. You’re doing yourself a disservice that will only proliferate its problem within you. You cannot be content if you’re lying to yourself, and you cannot love if you won’t accept Love to thrive. Love does not grow where Love is not shown. We love because Christ first loved us.
Benjamin Perry

Why one might think empathy is a waste of time.
Why attempt to make right with someone when you can just know that their heart is full of great sin towards you and excommunicate them from your life and gossip about them? I mean, who wouldn’t do that? (They’ll end up in Hell anyways am I right? Wouldn’t want them to get any more chances at leading ME there!)
Benjamin Perry

Getting Older doesn’t make one more empathetic
Ageism reduces human beings’ capacity for caring too. Globally, people don’t value elderly lives as much as they do young people’s, research shows. When it comes to deciding who lives or dies, there’s a disregard for the elderly, even among the elderly.
The elderly themselves don’t care much about protecting the elderly because they typically don’t think of themselves as such, says Susan Fiske, a Princeton psychologist who has studied ageism and other prejudices. The “old” are always just a little bit older than ourselves.

Conversation & Empathy
Karoline Lewis from Luther Seminary says, “We are living in a time when conversation needs to be cultivated and valued. Practiced and pursued. Longed for and lived. Without real conversation, we lack intimacy and understanding; connection and empathy. Without real conversation, we risk detachment and distance.” And it is especially important that we learn to have conversations with people that are different.

Answers or Empathy
I strongly disagree with Dr. Piper. I assert that he is dead wrong when he writes, “But sooner or later people want more than empathy and aid—they want answers.” That is just plain incorrect.
People ultimately want love, not answers. Answers are not the capstone; love is. Most can do without specific explanations. No one can do without love. Even when sufferers cry out, “Why?” they are not asking for answers. They are expressing pain and hoping someone is there to hear their cries. Above all, they want to know they are not alone, not abandoned, not rejected. They want love. They want the presence of someone who cares. They want reassurance that someone is there to embrace them, listen to them, hold their hand, be their friend.
To believe that “answers” are the ultimate solution is to take the position of Job’s comforters.
Michael Spencer

A theodicy problem
So we see people doing one of two things to run from theodicy problems. Hedge on the empathy or hedge on the logical consistency.
But what if you’re the sort of person who can’t hedge on either? What if you’re one of those rare individuals who are both very analytical and very empathic?
It seems to me, if you are one of these sorts of people, that you’re basically screwed. All around you people are suffering. And you feel this acutely. More, as you reason it all out God comes out looking more and more like a monster or less and less like the God of orthodox Christianity. You’re getting hit from both sides. You are unable to run from either the empathy or the logic. More, the two fuel each other in a feedback loop. Our analytical minds penetrate the bubble of worship and Sunday School platitudes. And our hearts won’t hide the horror of life.
It’s a theological nightmare.
You can’t turn your mind off. Or your heart.
Theologically speaking, I think some of us are just wired to suffer.
Richard Beck

Winning
…something has happened in our culture that troubles me greatly…a lack of empathy for anyone outside of our new tribal identities.
A lack of empathy dehumanizes others and strips them of personhood.
The sickest aspect of this is that one must first sacrifice your own humanity before you can rob it from others.
Without empathy, people become problems to be solved, or worse, enemies to be defeated.
No society …or country…can survive long without a feeling of commonality and shared humanity among all people despite their differences.
Many in favor of defeating other people who differ, do so believing they act in service for the Lord.
Phoenix Preacher

“Bless their heart”
“Empathy fuels connection. Sympathy drives disconnection.”– Dr. Brené Brown

Empathy and sympathy are often grouped together, but they are very different, as Brené Brown outlines in this video. Empathy is an skill that can bring people together and make people feel included, while sympathy creates an uneven power dynamic and can lead to more isolation and disconnection. 

Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil —
Hebrews 2:14 – NIV

…empathy creates the moral fabric of our lives. All our hopes, dreams and desires are communally held together by the fact that we can identify with each other. We loathe immoral behavior because we can empathize with the victims. And this empathic connection binds us all together and, thus, begins the collective moral journey. Wherever our system of ethics begins it must surely begin with this simple question:  
If I were in that person’s shoes how would I feel about that?
Adam Smith via Richard Beck

What do you think produces…altruistic motives?
When we empathize with a person in need our altruistic motives increase. When we feel empathy we simply want to help. For no other reason than to help. In the language of the studies, we’ll work crazy hard to help when no one is watching, when we’ll get no reward or punishment, and when we’ve been given every reason to think that we’ve done enough.
Altruism. Apparently, it exists. And empathy is what makes it go.

Richard Beck

There much more to be said regarding empathy.
It may be the most important and accurate barometer of the health of a Christ-follower’s faith.

Richard Beck says it well…“when empathy breaks our entire moral sense breaks down with it. I called empathy the foundation of goodness in my last post. That was not hyperbole… Our entire moral sense begins and rests upon empathy.

Still on the Journey

Please Understand Me

George 0 Comments

This post continues to delve into the subject of empathy. Hopefully you have read my previous post and the references cited in it. My encounter with empathy revealed a continuum of perspectives ranging from —Empathy is a Sin to Empathy is the #1 Virtue. —As indicated in my post, my bias is to the latter perspective. However, as I reflected on the course of my spiritual journey I was surprised by scope perspectives on empathy that have prevailed at various stages of my journey and, more concerning, their latent presence in my current thinking.

Although unrecognized at the time, an early and significant encounter with empathy as a negative factor came via my career in management at Ford a motor Company. One of the first principles of managing subordinates was do not develop personal relationships with your employees. Doing so would impede your ability to make hard decisions necessary to manage our employees. Underneath that principle was Ford Motor Company’s fundamental commitment to Scientific Management. Scientific Management is beyond the scope of this post but its impact on Ford Motor Company and American industry and society in general is profound. The way in which it shaped Ford management philosophy is illustrated by a couple of my experiences. One mentor made it clear “you must always keep your foot on their (employees) neck, otherwise they will get up and kill you.” Another manager, in meetings when someone whined or suggested a need for sympathy, would angrily declare: Do you know here sympathy comes in the dictionary?? Met with stunned silence he would remind his minions, “Right between sh*t and syphilis.” Sympathy, not to even mention empathy, had no place in X management . Reading X management assumptions about workers, empathy is unnecessary, in fact, it is detrimental to effective management.

The history of Ford Motor Company and US automotive industry documents the ultimate failure of scientific management. Which brings us to “Please Understand Me”, my introduction to empathy as a Ford management employee. Please Understand Me presented the Myers-Briggs personality index as a tool whereby mangers could better understand (empathize with ) their employees and mange them more effectively. It was an important step towards Y management theory, Ford Motor Company’s adopted management philosophy replacing X management. Empathy became essential to successful management. Because of contrasting X & Y Management assumptions, the organizational upheaval was visceral and traumatic but should not have come as a surprise. Within the confines of our local facility ‘, that conflict, in retrospect, was a microcosm of the ideological divisions in our society today. Resistance was fierce. Ironically, corporate management, responded with classic X management tactics, firing or demoting dissenters.

Another encounter with empathy as a negative factor came in the course of my role as an elder in our congregation. What was not obvious to me at that time but is very clear as I look back, was the embracing of X management assumptions as legitimate for leading as an elder. Of course, as an elder, I was much nicer X manager. I was able to manage in a Christian way. Masking inappropriate decisions and/or actions with “Speaking truth in love.” or “Scripture says…”. Consistent with X management, the means were always justified by the goal— “Doing God’s will— et al ______ (you can fill in the blanks.) . Seeing congregants through X management lens produced similar results to Ford Motor Company. People were dehumanized, made commodities in church business. Distrust and adversarial relationship between the elders and congregants increased. Despite Biblical mandates, empathy was dangerous, carrying a risk of polluting the fellowship by being perceived as embracing evil, or worse, promoting it. Sadly, elders became wary of the risk of getting too close to members, putting their ability to make hard decisions at risk.

I believe the core issue for rejecting empathy lies with assumptions we hold about other people. To the extent we find ourselves resisting empathy, or more likely sympathy, we should be prompted to evaluate our assumptions about our fellow human beings, and once identified, subjected to the Light.
This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all.
1 John 1:5 – NIV

The “snapshots” above are intended to provide a backdrop to engage the idea that “Empathy is a Sin”. Hopefully they can help us understand, those who espouse what, to me, is such a repugnant idea.
If you are thinking, “if it so repugnant, why does it matter that you understand them, it won’t change what you think?” You are getting to the heart of the issue.
Why does it matter that I understand someone who differs with me?

Next, Empathy the #1 virtue?

Still on the Journey

Empathy

George 0 Comments

This post has lots of twists and turns. Be patient with me.

Recently, I asked my closest critic what she thought about my latest post. Her unvarnished reply was: “you think too much. You always seem to be discontent.” Although not a critique of the post’s content, her observation is correct. Some serious introspection is required before I respond. Are my thinking and discontent liabilities or assets? I am still pondering the question, I found some insights by Richard Beck helpful as I ponder.

Thinking
There are a lot of people who struggle with God simply because they are tenacious in following the theological thread to the logical and bitter end. A lot of us think our way into faith problems. It’s not that we think too much, just that we insist that people face up to the logical assumptions and consequences of their beliefs.
The empathic side is easy to see. When we see others suffer our hearts go out to them. We suffer with them. Thus, if you have a soft, compassionate heart you’ll likely struggle more with theodicy issues. Many of us can put images of suffering out of our minds. Others can’t. And that creates a heavy theological burden.
But theodicy has an analytical side as well. There are a lot of people who struggle with God simply because they are tenacious in following the theological thread to the logical and bitter end. A lot of us think our way into faith problems. It’s not that we think too much, just that we insist that people face up to the logical assumptions and consequences of their beliefs.
Generally speaking, because for the most part people specialize in one of these two areas, you can find solace in the area you aren’t so good at. Emotional types, who don’t really want to reason through theological puzzles, often settle for mystery. They don’t mind “not knowing.” Here their disinterest in analysis gives them a place to run when the emotional burden gets too heavy. When the emotional weight starts to crush they can fall back on “God is in control.”
Conversely, analytical types can find shelter on the emotional side. That is, in demanding logical consistency these people might reach a conclusion that demands a certain level of hardheartedness. A lot of Calvinists fit this description in how they handle the problem of evil. As a system Calvinism has a sort of cold, implacable logic to it. But tender-hearted people simply recoil in the face of it. We get the logic of the system but are too softhearted to stomach the conclusions. That’s what I’m trying to point out. You can work the logic but you have to hedge on the empathy. And by reducing empathy you can wiggle out of the theodicy trap your theology is creating.
So we see people doing one of two things to run from theodicy problems. Hedge on the empathy or hedge on the logical consistency.
Richard Beck

http://experimentaltheology.blogspot.com/2012/01/wired-to-suffer-on-theodicy-and.html

So we see people doing one of two things to run from theodicy problems. Hedge on the empathy or hedge on the logical consistency.

At the core of my problem with thinking and discontent is theodicy’s problems.

A theodicy is an attempt to justify or defend God in the face of evil by answering the following problem, which in its most basic form involves these assumptions:
God is all good and all powerful (and, therefore, all knowing).
The universe/creation was made by God and/or exists in a contingent relationship to God.
Evil exists in the world. Why?

https://www3.dbu.edu/mitchell/theodicy_brief_overview.htm

As Beck correctly points out, faced with theodicy problems, we avoid God’s answer to Job and opt for empathy or logical consistency. ( I told you there would be twists and turns.) . Ironically, ideological conflicts we are experiencing directly relate to a choice between empathy and logical consistency ( liberal vs conservative).

The subject of empathy recently caught my attention. As a Christ follower, I have held an unexamined assumption that empathy is a virtue. So I was surprised when I read“Have you heard the one about empathy being a Sin”.

Iis my opinion that “empathy as a sin” is an illustration of what happening when Evangelical Christianity’s historic beliefs are co-opted by the opposition. Rather than an opportunity for agreement, sadly, what is virtuous becomes sin.


Subsequently, I have begun to examine empathy and found it worthy of more thoughtful examination (at the risk of thinking too much and increasing my discontent). For that reason, I am going to write a series of posts on empathy. If you are so inclined, here are some readings to whet your appetite:

Richard Beck has written extensively on empathy. You read his 14 posts HERE . Anyone who reads all 14 is eligible for a special award.

NYT’s David Brooks “The Limits of Empathy”

Against Empathy

Still on the Journey