Why Christian Social Enterprise? #4- Compassion Instead of Empathy or Rationalism

Over the last few years there has been a lot of talk about the need for empathy in our world. Empathy is generally defined as an emotional understanding of the suffering of another. It's emotionally connecting with the feelings and thoughts of another person.  If you want a tutorial you can watch Brene Brown's video on empathy here. It went viral last year.

And while empathy is good, I think it also has some huge weaknesses. Empathy is all about feeling the "feels" of somebody else.  If you watch the Brown video you will see that a heavy part of the theme of empathy is actually not taking action.  To attempt to take action, in this way of thinking, is to avoid actually connecting with the emotions of the other. Attempting solutions is just as avoidant and emotionally disconnected in this view, as offering a spiritual platitude like, "Everything happens for a reason."  There is some truth here of course. Many folks in our world rush in with solutions without a clear sense of the plight of our neighbor. Often we bring little help. In many situations the better alternative would be to practice some active and empathetic listening.

But, we might contrast Brown's version of the world with Yale professor and psychologist Paul Bloom. Watch his 2 minute clip here. Bloom argues that all the feelings based emphasis of empathy is actually bad.  Bloom thinks empathy does more harm than good in that it engages our emotions too heavily.  In Bloom's view empathy often causes us to rush into impassioned action that is based on emotion rather than rationality.  Empathy might be good when you are dealing with a friend one on one, but when you attempt to approach real world problem solving (hunger or homelessness) with empathy what you end up with is a whole bunch of feelings that lead to actions that can be really destructive.  Essentially he thinks that empathy actually fuels moralism.  Bloom argues for us to stop it with the whole empathy train and instead focus on the rational side of our brains when it comes to real world problem solving.

So who is right and what the heck does this have to do with social enterprise? The truth is that they are both right and wrong. I tend to side with Brown a good deal more than with Bloom, but I distrust the fact that her model seems to be fine tuned to small scale intimate relationships. There comes a point when action is needed and is often needed on a larger scale. I suspect that Brown would acknowledge this.  What we need in social enterprise is a third way.  

We need a methodology for bring about the good that we hope to see in our world that slows us down enough that we seek first the understanding of our neighbor rather than rushing in with unhelpful actions or emotionless advice. Yet, we also need at times a proper distance emotionally from a series of problems so that we can create rational solutions that are not based solely on our emotions. At some point action will be needed. I think the concept of Christian compassion and the story it is rooted in gets us to this 3rd place. Let's look at what Christian compassion is and then turn to what it might offer social enterprise.

Compassion is the desire to not only feel the suffering of another, but to enter into that suffering in a meaningful way.  Compassion is the willful choice to actually suffer alongside one's neighbor.  It's being with rather than just feeling with.  We find this concept arrive at its fullness in the Christian story of the God who comes in Christ and enters into the muck and mire of our world.  God doesn't just emotionally feel our pain or empathetically understand the injustices of our world. He enters into them in ways that are shocking. He isn't as rationally framed as Dr. Bloom would idealize.  A focal point of this kind of intimate engagement is of course Christ's work on the cross.  It is there that Christ demonstrates the fullness of his love for the world, but also the fullness of his understanding of the suffering that this world has every day.  God doesn't just say, "I feel your suffering in my core." He suffers with us. We call this activity "Christ's Passion".  So, to have com-passion means that we enter into the suffering of others, not just emotionally, but physically. And yet, even in Jesus a kind of rational boundaried distance is maintained.

Jesus, while powerfully engaging the human experience exercises restraint. He doesn't heal everyone and he doesn't seem to get overwhelmed emotionally with the suffering of others. I wouldn't call him rationally "cool" in the way Bloom talks about it. Jesus is clearly a person of both passion and engaged emotion, but he seems boundaried. He reaches out with deep feeling to those who are hurting, but he takes action with those he can. He balances opposing the oppressor with helping the oppressed. He walks, touches, and heals but he also goes off to recharge and rest. It's a kind of emotionally engaged patient urgency.  Consider the rich young ruler. Jesus defines for the man the one thing that is barring him from entering the Jesus Way fully (the man's great wealth), but when the man cannot move forward and walks off, Jesus doesn't pursue him. Jesus understands the man's tension but doesn't get wrapped up in it.  He has boundaries. Empathy in the hands of a person without boundaries can be nearly as unhealthy as the cool rationalist who only wants to act without feeling or first seeking understanding.

Jesus also doesn't fall into the emotional trap of pretending he IS those he helps.  He doesn't seem to overly identify as one of the poor. You never hear him say that he is the blind man or the leper or the tax collector. But, he does listen to them, feast with them, and aid them with healing, pointed conversation, and meals. He identifies with the suffering of those he serves, but he also finds moments to rejoice greatly, attend feasts, and sit with children. His culminating act of compassion is of course his Passion and yet he doesn't get stuck there. He is not stuck on the cross forever.  Jesus refuses to allow us to dwell only in suffering because he is resurrected. There is a trajectory of future hope in his ministry as well. It doesn't just sit with us.  Christians are not permitted to wallow in the suffering of others or only called to empathize. They are called to enter that suffering, lovingly alleviate it where they can, but remain able to experience hope and joy. Jesus does indeed climb down emotionally into the hole of humanity, so to speak, but he is constantly pointing hopefully out of that hole.  He identifies with others in spectacular fashion but also seems to move them along in hope. There is a kind of distance here I think. If Jesus is truly human, then even He must need boundaries as all of us do.  Jesus maintains a sacred balance of emotional understanding and engagement alongside physical action and justice resolution. Social enterprise needs the voices that bear this story of this man who holds the center.

Social enterprise seeks to solve real world problems with solutions that are healthy and equitable both for those attempting to help and those who are recipients. Healthy social enterprise refuses to capitalize too heavily on its audience's emotions (think: videos of children running after aid trucks) but it also refuses to solve problems from places of such emotional distance that it fails to understand those it seeks to help. If Christians are going to engage social enterprise in a way that allows us to do it well we are going to need a way to balance empathy with cool rational action. We need endeavors that begin by actually seeking to patiently understand the experience of the other (empathy). Brown is right, there must be non-solution based resonance first. But, we also need action based experiments that seek to alleviate suffering when possible that are not driven solely by our emotions (rational action). It is in Christ that we see these things brought together in fullness. As is so often the case it is God (or the idea of God if you prefer) that allows us to hold two seemingly opposed strategies in a kind of sustainable tension. It is this sustainable tension that Christianity offers social enterprise.

Why Christian Social Enterprise? #3: Outward Blessings

Lately I have been writing some posts on what I think the church has to offer the world of Social Enterprise/Social Entrepreneurship.  The goal has been to do a little theological work around this topic that extends beyond the world of youth ministry.  My sense is that social enterprise needs both the impossible hope of Christianity and its honest and unflinching assessment of a broken world.  Today I want to look at the outward orientation of Christianity.

Within the Genesis story is of course the story of Abraham.   Abraham is a key figure in our faith and the promise to Abraham frames our entire purpose as human beings. Abraham is promised that he will be the father of a great nation and that through this nation all other nation's will be blessed. (Gen. 12:1-3) While Abraham is receiving a profound gift, he is immediately made to understand that he is merely afforded the privilege of touching a gift that is to remain in transit. Abraham is blessed in order that he and his descendants may serve as a blessing toward others.  He doesn't get to hold the blessing.  There are two virtues here that offer something to the world of social enterprise.

First, Abraham is a recipient. Well practiced Christianity has a central understanding that God blesses people often in spite of what they do or who they are. Sure, there are many times in Scripture that folks seem to be rewarded for doing right, but there are just as many times that God seems to choose the least likely and even the ostensibly undeserving. Even within the Abraham story there is no particularly robust set of reasons that God chooses Abraham. And the stories that follow the blessing demonstrate that Abraham is far from being blemish free.  The point is that throughout the biblical record Christianity is left to understand that blessings happen not because of what we do, but because of who God is. They come from God's inscrutable blessing. Christians are not the creators of their blessings, but the constant recipients.  When we are blessed, we are always left with an awareness of, "Why me?" Here is why this matters.

When one is constantly the recipient of blessings it places them in a position of humility. I am neither FULLY responsible for my successes or my failures. This both humbles our victories and blunts our defeats. If social enterprise is going to sustain itself over the long haul and bless our world it will need some kind of narrative that softens the primacy of our human actions. Social enterprise and its practitioners need to know that they are the beneficiary of turns of events that often operate outside of its efforts or control.

But, the idea of God as give of blessing also softens a second danger: the accidental blessing. God as author of all blessing eliminates the idea that we somehow randomly stumbled on our what we receive. Why is this helpful? If blessings come from random chance rather than the good will of something beyond us then they still belong to no one other than myself. It's as though I found them. I staggered upon them. A gold nugget I trip over produces just as much selfishness as the one I mined.  But, the Christian narrative suggests that while I may have staggered upon my blessings, they do indeed belong to a someone other than me: God. There is nothing that God did not create and therefore all things ultimately belong to God.  This takes all gifts and blessings out of my personal ownership. The result is that the faithfully practicing Christian is left to assume that nothing is truly and fully mine. It is irrelevant whether it appears to have come from the sweat of my brow or random chance. This theological backstory produces a kind of backstop that causes us to hold things loosely and opens up a mindset of sharing. We hold on to what we "have" loosely. We are stewards of our blessings and not full owners. Christianity softens both our authorship and our ownership of what we have. This leads to the second thing that the Christian story of blessing might offer the world of social enterprise.

The result of this theology of God as author and owner of all that is good leads to an outward orientation.  We are not blessed for our own sake. We do not clutch what we have because we didn't create what was given to us. Therefore, we are to bless others with the blessings we have received. The blessings we received were not primarily about us, they were the result of the choice of God. We are suddenly left in the beautiful position of being a vehicle, or a thankful relay station for the good that we receive. This is the story of Abraham. It is the call of God not to own his blessing, but to push it outward to the nations that is so central to Judeo-Christian identity. There is also the call to pass this promise downward to future generations. They too inherit this story that holds things loosely and moves outward in blessed sharing. If the story tells us we don't get to hold what we have been given, then the logical question that follows is, "Well, then what do I do with it?"

Here of course we find the center of the Christian faith itself. It is the Christ who enters our world because God is oriented outward in love at the core of God's very nature. God is propelled outward instinctively, if one can say that about God. This outward mission of God is to be mimicked by God's people. The blessings come, and we bounce outward. It's a kind of reflexive rhythm in our lives like when a doctor hits our patellar tendon with his tiny rubber hammer. The autonomous movement of the church is outward with hands full of what we did not create and we do not own.

If social enterprise is going to have the energy to sustain itself in the years to come it is going to need the strength of story that religious institutions have to offer. I am not here to say that Christianity offers something superior to secular social enterprise. But, it's stories exhort human beings to orient all blessing, accomplishment, and failure beyond themselves. Christianity is not reliant upon the generosity or altruism of the human being. Instead, it roots the call for altruism in the beneficience of God who is the initiator of all good gifts. Something outside of us propels us forward. It is my suspicion that this orientation can provide a useful voice in the overall conversation about social enterprise going on in our world.

Why Christian Social Enterprise #2- We Aren't Masters of Anything

"Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.

In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeoning of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.

Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the Horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds, and shall find me, unafraid.

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul." -William Ernest Henley 1888

     William Ernest Henley wrote this poem, now called "Invictus", in 1888.  At the time it had no title. And while it might be just the sort of thing one would expect a social entrepreneur to hang on their wall, it really is just the sort of thing that I find unhelpful when I think about social entrepreneurship.  The idea that I am the master of my fate and the captain of my soul sounds great until I am faced with forces that are truly beyond me.  Social Enterprise doesn't need more self determination.  It needs more humble reliance on something bigger than the self if it will have the longevity it needs to solve the unbelievably complex problems our world is facing.

     I have been trying to develop an internal list of reasons why I think the Christian church might have something to offer the world of social enterprise.  What I should have started this list with was simple: We trust and rely on God, a power beyond ourselves.

     I have discovered in the last three years that social enterprise can really be exciting and discouraging. It takes an immense amount of work and passion (I cannot overstate this!) to get a social enterprise off of the ground. I have never worked so hard at anything in my life. All the ups and downs can really wear you down, especially if they are combined with a heavy measure of idealism. One of the ways that I think Christianity has something to offer the largely humanistic realm of social enterprise is that it removes the burden of us being unconquerable masters of our own destiny day in and day out, and places outcomes and initiative in the hands of God.

     Christian theology has, depending on the particular theological tradition, always emphasized that our fate is not in fact our own.  It is God who is the master of our collective and individual histories and destinies.  And while our experience of that truth is frustrating when we find God to be remarkably inscrutable, it is a comfort nonetheless.  Knowing that all power to enact change rests beyond one's own efforts and ability helps a social entrepreneur in a number of ways.

1. Adaptability- When new realities present themselves, the Christian social entrepreneur doesn't have to be confounded at their lack of control. They already know they are not in control. This produces a willingness to adapt to the new shape that God is giving to things. The Christian entrepreneur can pivot, assigning any new reality to the manifestation of God's will. We can embrace the disruption that is God. Christian Social Enterprise ought to be strikingly adaptable, despite what our institutions have recently demonstrated in their intractable intransigence.

2. Trust- When the future seems unkind or opaque, which it often does in social enterprise, the Christian Social entrepreneur has the ability to move forward with courage because they are not primarily trusting their sense of ability, instincts, or influence about an unknown future. They are trusting God. As a friend of mine says, "There is no one better to trust an unknown future to, than a known God." Trust (or faith) is not about a singular belief or a belief system. Trust is about taking action when outcomes are not clear or not in our hands.  When I have failed multiple times I begin to doubt my instincts and abilities, but in the world of entrepreneurship there is no time for inaction. Often, the only way I can move forward is by identifying the most logical course of action and trusting that for good or for ill, the Lord will walk with me.

3. Hope- Christian hope is what propels us onward even when the odds are long.  If I had to hope in human nature, my own personal fortitude, or a happy turn of events, I think I would give up. As I said, social enterprise is full of defeats. I try to think of those as learning opportunities, but they are often just plain old defeats.  Christian Hope is the sense that good may yet come and it is allows us to get up and dust ourselves off quickly, even when we are out of resources and our backs are against the wall. Christians sense that even if their personal endeavor is doomed to failure, that they may be contributing to the larger tapestry of Kingdom work. We are the people of the Red Sea and the empty tomb. So, when it gets darkest in our enterprises we move forward in action, not pep talking to our selves about the success that will surely come, but humbly holding our candle in front as we proceed.

4. Revelation and Creativity- One of the hallmarks of entrepreneurs is that they tend to be creative. They are good at finding solutions to complex problems with whatever/whomever is on hand and often connect ideas and things that previously seemed unrelated. But, eventually everyone's creative prowess wears out. Artists and musicians often talk of the curse of their first great success. How did it happen? Where did that creativity come from? Will it ever come again?  The Greeks thought of the muse, Christians identify with a Creator God. The Christian entrepreneur recognizes that God has allowed us to create in ways that imitate God's creative nature. All creativity proceeds from God's revelation to humanity. It is the Spirit who empowers us to give birth to all sorts of innovation. The hidden power of this is that all creative revelations feel random. It feels as though we have staggered into them. We wonder, "How the heck did I think of that?" Or, "Why didn't I make that connection before?" Without the idea of God we might be left to imagine that such a revelatory moment was in fact an accident. It was purely the child of chance and that there is no rational reason to believe that such a moment may ever come again.  But, it is the idea of God that allows the Christian entrepreneur to assume that there is a Providential Author who supplies us. And while that doesn't give us a timetable, it does supply us with a sense of intentionality behind our creative bursts, a sense that they will come again as Christ has promised to do.

4. A Macro View- Christian theology has always acknowledged the complexity of the world in which we live. It has always felt that there will be something that is unknowable and beyond our control because our world extends from a God that is at some level unknowable and beyond our control. This view of ourselves as a kind of an ant on a rolling tire is a particular virtue when one is confronted by macro level shifts. Macro shifts in society and economy can really feel disorienting to entrepreneurs. Human beings feel like gods over their own enterprise. They organize, envision, and execute. But the nakedness of their illusory control comes to the fore when something seismic happens. The Christian is able to navigate such seasons well because they sense that there is in fact something, a someone, bigger than even the macro shift. This of course then moves them back into their other virtues of adaptability, hope, and trust.

5. Humility- One of the side effects of recognizing that we are not in fact in control of our fates or destinies is that it ought (thought sadly doesn't many times) to make us humble. Christians ought to be able to hold onto their conclusions and their successes quite loosely. In the end, they aren't really....ours.  If practiced well, Christian humility should serve as a guard against the hubris that so often ruins good things. It will allow us to see new opportunities more quickly and to spread credit for our achievements much more generously amongst those who have made good things possible. It will also allows us to better listen to those who we would wish to impact with the good that we seek to do. Perhaps they have a better idea of what they need than we do? Perhaps we were wrong in the solutions we created. The faithful Christian always assumes we are wrong at some level, that there is more to be inquired about. We do this because the truth does not rest in our idea or enterprise, so we must constantly redesign and re-examine.  We are sure that we are simultaneously right and wrong in our assessments.  But humility will also lift us as well. Humility is not in fact, thinking of ourselves as nothing, but rather making an honest assessment of who we are and are not. Really, humility is properly understanding ourselves. Once we do that we can then figure out more clearly how we can use the gifts we have to good purpose. In this way, humility keeps us both from an over-inflated view of ourselves and a demeaning view of ourselves. It is the awareness of God that allows us to hold that tension. 

Why Christian Social Enterprise? #1- An Honest Appraisal of Human Nature

Along the way, a number of folks have asked the question as to why I think Social Enterprise in the church would be a good idea.  While many have agreed that they can see some "tent making" reasons for supporting social enterprise, a number of others have wondered if there are any theological reasons for engaging the idea of Christian Social Enterprise. I think there are. I believe the church has several unique attributes that it can offer the world of social enterprise/social entrepreneurship. In the next few posts, I am going to try and lay out what I think the Christian story offers the social enterprise conversation.

The first virtue that the church brings to social enterprise is that Christianity does not generally take a benign view of human nature. We are a damned mess and we know it.

A friend of mine who is significantly on the left side of the political aisle was down in Portland a couple of weeks ago at a post election rally. Having experienced overt racism over the years they wanted to try and take some kind of action to express their frustration over the outcome of the presidential race. They told me that while they enjoyed the rally and its speakers they felt nervous as a practicing Christian at several points. There were a number of parts of the rally that felt like gospel to them, but what they kept hearing under the surface of all the speeches and pleas was this overt faith in human beings and in our positive potential to do good.  The single biggest article of faith that they kept hearing at this secular rally was that human beings were regarded as inherently good, or at the very least benign. Their opinion was that this was folly. They felt that it was this sort of blind idealism that had led, at least in part, to the election's outcome to begin with.  I think my friend was on to something.

Christianity has always taken a low view of human beings. It is true that sometimes we have erred much too far in that lowly direction in terms of how we talk about ourselves or others, but a healthy skepticism about our better angels is a virtue of the Christian life.  We do not all approach the world from good places. Social Enterprise needs this healthy skepticism.

One of the weaknesses of the secular humanism that under-girds much of our secular (and ecclesial!) world is that because it is so optimistic about humanity it can often be too easily fatigued and deflated when human beings fail. I have long argued every time a church scandal pops up that the last people that should be shocked are followers of Christ! Shouldn't Jesus people be the ones in the crowd nodding and saying, "Welp, we saw this coming a mile away."? Humanism can become quickly fatigued when it confronts human recipients that don't really receive our social initiatives the way we expect. "Don't they know we are trying to help!? Why are they biting the hand that feeds them?!" Likewise, humanism can become quickly fatigued when those proffering solutions create initiatives that can seem remarkably self serving. Secular humanism has an optimism about it that puts all the power and control in human hands (more on that in another post) So, when it is discovered that those hands may often simply be a set of greasy palms and fingers rubbing together, it is hard pressed to know what to do. "We are better than this!" Are we really?

This truth has been ever present in third world initiatives. Many people have gone into the thirld world assuming the best (often paternalistically) about their neighbors.  The classic example of this behavior in action has been the mass distribution of mosquito nets to fight malaria across Africa.  Half a billion nets have been distributed across Africa to cover beds at night. While the nets are having an effect, there have been so many distributed that they have become their own economy. They have been grabbed up by enterprising folks to make fishing nets, soccer goals, chicken pens, rope, balls, and dozens of other things. Most of those uses, though unintended, are relatively benign and may point to third world folks asserting their own autonomy. Other problems have popped up to. For instance, the nets have contributed to over fishing. Also, because they are treated with repellents, the chemicals they are coated with enter the food chain. There is some evidence to suggest that theses chemicals are producing their own human health problems. Much of our good work is like a petri dish for the law of unintended consequences.  

Meanwhile on the giving end we have seen the selfishness of social enterprise at work too. While micro-loan investment has been seen as a good way to combat poverty, a number of its practitioners are simply in it to make a buck. Microloans have been used benevolently, but they have also been used abusively. We all have seen the example of celebrity aid projects that have turned out to be more about the SWAG bags at the concert than the actual cause. And of course there are many of us who have engaged processes of "help" to assuage guilt or to convince ourselves that we are benevolent. These  are very destructive tendencies.

The point is that the church begins social enterprise with two critical assumptions that add longevity and health to any initiative seeking to do good. First, as a giver I should not assume that I have the best in mind for my neighbor. I must assume, or at least ask, whether the good that I seek to do is really about me. Second, I must assume that any solution that I build is going to be used in unhelpful and even nefarious ways. Unintended consequences cannot always be avoided, but they ought to be rigorously anticipated.

One of the virtues that the church brings to the table is that because we sense the brokeness of our nature and story, we sense that brokeness that will accompany all the good that we do. Our beliefs, though they might be regarded as dour or outmoded, represent a sober assessment that guides us into social enterprise and keeps us going when humanity dissapoints. Imagine if Christian Social Entrepreneurs could develop a critical thinking and action process of what I will call "skeptical inquiry". Skeptical Inquiry would be a process that would speculate the unexpected responses of recipients of good and it would also provide hard hitting assessments about where the giver is perhaps caught up in self serving patterns of thought and action. This could allow much improved cost-benefit assessments of potential social enterprise projects.

I believe that the church is needed in the social enterprise experiment that is taking place at many of our university B schools. Our healthy skepticism is a good corrective.  We will certainly need to use it within our own social initiatives first, but we are needed in the larger business conversation about social enterprise. I am not convinced we will do the work any better than our secular counterparts, but we do have something to offer the conversation. If that makes me a skeptic or a pessimist, I am okay with that. It's just a part of the story that I follow every day.