For the Joy of the Journey

Please Understand Me

George October 6, 2021 Empathy 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 October 2, 2021 Empathy 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

Our Fundamental Spiritual Struggle

George September 22, 2021 Faith Challenges 0 Comments

If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being.
A.I. Solzhenitsyn

The previous post provided a glimpse into my fundamental spiritual conflict as exemplified by schadenfreude — the relentless struggle with my heart. After writing on a subject, often an article or post will appear that illuminates the topic much better than my attempts. That was the case today. My favorite Orthodox blogger, Fr Stephen Freeman posted “Healing the Heart” . Here are a couple of quotes to encourage you read the entire post.

Learning to open our eyes to the source of our actions and the absolute need for the grace of the Holy Spirit in order to change our hearts is the most fundamental understanding in our daily life before God.

...the truth of our problem is to be found in the very character of our existence: Is it being transformed into the image of Christ or is it falling deeper into corruption and death?

I continue to find Freeman’s insights into Orthodox faith and doctrine helpful in my spiritual journey. Here are some questions I am pondering after reading “Healing the Heart”:

To what extent does a view of my relationship with God through a lens of “legal standing” or “debts owed,” shape my understanding of the spiritual life?
What are implications of “Man, as a fallen creature, is better described as diseased or broken ?
…the truth of our problem is to be found in the very character of our existence: Is my character being transformed into the image of Christ or is it falling deeper into corruption and death?
Shouldn’t every Christ follower, like priests hearing confession listen intently for the state of the heart (if possible) rather than simply categorizing and subjecting to legal analysis what they hear? Always mindful, it is considered a sin to judge someone whose confession you are hearing. How that would impact Christ followers’ relationships ?
Are my prayers focused on other’s behavior or on the healing of their hearts?

There are a myriad of other things to think about in our faith, many of them serving as religious distractions from the essential work of repentance. It is easier to argue points of doctrine than to stand honestly before God in prayer or confession. Doctrine is important (what Orthodox priest would deny this?) but only as it makes Christ known to us. But the knowledge of Christ that saves is not the knowledge one gains as mere information – but rather the knowledge one gains inwardly as we repent, pray, forgive, and humble ourselves before God. The promise to us is that the “pure in heart shall see God.”

Still on the Journey