Empathy is a word that gets used a lot in our culture. It is a character trait most people greatly value. It symbolizes the ability to sit with someone in the midst of their suffering or trial. Empathy is such a common concept in our culture that we fail to recognize it only became a consistent word in the English language in the twentieth century, as opposed to sympathy and compassion.
Empathy originated in 1922 from the German word einfuhling in the field of aesthetics. It meant “to feel in.” The original intent of the word empathy was to display how artists projected themselves into works of art, either painting or sculpture or in the theatrical arts, allowing the viewer to more deeply appreciate the artist’s perspective (Edwin Friedman, Failure of Nerve, pp. 144, 145).
Post World War II, empathy transitioned from an artistic word to a word used to define human relationships. Historians and psychologists alike have asked the question about what shifted in the global consciousness in the middle of the twentieth century. Why weren’t the words “compassion” and “sympathy” enough to define what was needed in human relationships, as it had been for centuries previously? Did society finally start to care more deeply for one another?
Family systems theorist Edwin Friedman believed something else was occurring in society. He wrote in Failure of Nerve, “I believe that the increasing popularity of empathy over the past few decades is symptomatic of the herding/togetherness force characteristic of an anxious society (Edwin Friedman, Failure of Nerve, pp. 145).”
For what it is worth, I agree.
Over my 17 years of ministry, I have seen an increase in the inability to make well-differentiated statements for self. Our culture is characterized by passive speech, fearful and anxious more of what other people think about us than what we believe is true.
Friedman continues, “As understood today, empathy may be a luxury afforded only to those who do not have to make tough decisions.” These tough decisions are defined as potentially causing pain, but not harm, to others. Everyone may not like us. Some may talk poorly of us. Some may try to sabotage what we have said and done to the detriment of what is good and true in the present and the future for the ministry, organization, or church body.
This is one of the “crosses” of leadership. Leaders must remain self-differentiated, peaceful, and able to think in order to give those who follow what they need, rather than what they want in the moment. Leaders must be the most peaceful people in the room, rejecting getting sucked into the vortex of chronic anxiety.
I believe the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod is functioning within a chronically anxious system. We have for some time. I believe some are succumbing to the dysfunctional herding/togetherness forces that are prohibiting leaders from making differentiated statements that may be painful for some to hear. Our increasingly small, tribal subgroups who will not speak to but only about one another are proof.
Leadership must look at the church in the world for what it is (not in the majority, declining), rather than what they wish it were (in the majority, growing). This is painful. This requires risky difficult conversations. This reality will require leaders who don’t have to be liked by everyone in the room. They can think and speak for themselves, rather than constantly monitoring how their speech will be received by others.
I believe the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod has succumbed to a dysfunctional form of empathy. We must love and care for one another. This love and care will lead us to speak the truth for self, connected to God’s Word, and deeply listen to our brothers and sisters in Christ.
This is the way of Jesus. Jesus didn’t tell others what they wanted to hear (Get behind me, Satan!). Jesus was confident in His identity as the Father’s son. This allowed Jesus to know what kind of word to say to fit the occasion. This allowed Jesus to tell His disciples exactly what was going to happen to Him, even though they didn’t want to hear it—the cross and the empty tomb.
Jesus modeled differentiated speech with the end result that it connected us to Himself. Praise God! I pray leaders in the LCMS can do the same.
I’d love to hear your thoughts.
Comentários