Needless to say, once I started Friedman’s A Failure of Nerve, I couldn’t stop. The information that I’m processing with you now comes from Chapter 4 – “Survival in a Hostile Environment”, which discusses the reality of empathy versus responsibility. A huge light bulb went on over my head as I read this chapter in light of the previous one about highly anxious systems, and my 30+ years of experience in local United Methodist churches. I am a preacher’s wife, Christian educator, leadership coach, and life-long church member. None of what I write here reflects on any one congregation, but all of them through my experience with them have impacted my reaction to Friedman’s writing.
I have said in consultations, trainings and classes over the years that the church is experiencing “terminal niceness”. The way Friedman writes, it is empathy – the ability “to feel in” that is often doing the damage. The word empathy is a relative new one, born in the early 1900’s to describe how one could experience works of art by putting oneself in the painting, sculpture, etc. It wasn’t until after WWII that empathy started to be used regularly, but by then it had started to take on meaning in human relationships – projecting my self into the skin of someone else would help me to understand the other person fully. Friedman says that the increasing popularity of empathetic responses to others has become symptomatic of the herding/togetherness of a highly anxious society, because reacting in such a sensitive way to others will not enable them to mature or take responsibility for their own stuff. He goes on to state on page 137 that “Empathy is a luxury for those who don’t have to make tough decisions.”
Now before you start yelling at me, let me say that there is a place for empathy, sympathy, and compassion in the church, and every Christian can quote scripture to support this. The problem comes when we are so empathetic that we overlook the difficult behavior that keeps each congregation solidly stuck in a rut because of the emotional ties to that behavior. Take for example the person who typically rules the church because “if you don’t do what I want you to do, I will take my money elsewhere”. Or the woman who rules the kitchen with an iron fist and doesn’t allow anything to happen that she doesn’t approve. We give allowance to this behavior because they are lonely, or they had a difficult childhood, or because we are afraid of them, or because God wants us to love them. When the reality is their behavior has ruined the congregation’s reputation in the neighborhood and no one will darken the doors of the church because these bullies are in charge.
So, what do we do about this? How can we overcome the difficult behavior issues within the life of each system (family, church, community, etc.)? Friedman says that “promoting in others the initiative to be accountable is far more critical to the health of an institution than trying to be understanding or insightful.” (p. 147)
Now this is a real switch-er-roo, isn’t it! We all love to be empathetic, but we hate accountability! I had a friend tell me that accountability has a sense of not wasting anything – skills, talents, experiences, our ability to love one another. It is not a judgmental word as much as an encouraging one. I think this is a healthy view of accountability – it leads us to open, honest conversations about expected behavior within our community of faith. Accountability leads us to healthy ways of being together that encourages and values the work God has called us to do together. When we have a sense of God’s purpose for the congregation, then we truly have something important for which to be held accountable.
If you want to have coaching support as you work through the empathy and responsibility issues within your congregation, contact me at kshockleycoach@comcast.net.
Peace,
Kim