Introduction
The question of what enables Anglican clergy to flourish in ministry has occupied a significant place within the developing field of empirical theology. Over several decades, the work of Francis and colleagues (Francis Reference Francis2002; Francis and Hills Reference Francis and Hills2005; Francis et al. Reference Francis, Hills and Rutledge2008; Francis and Village Reference Francis and Village2025b) has consistently demonstrated the importance of psychological type, personality and emotional dispositions within ministerial experience, vocational identity and pastoral effectiveness. Similarly, Emslie (Reference Emslie2025a) has explored the lived tensions of clergy formation and practice, emphasizing the need for attending to the emotional, relational, cultural and reflective dimensions of ministry. Within this scholarly trajectory, emotional intelligence, and particularly the capacity for empathy, has emerged as a theme warranting deeper theological and empirical attention. In this article, empathy is explored as understood by Archdeacons within the Church of England (CofE). Archdeacons occupy a unique space within the ecclesial ecology: they serve simultaneously as pastoral overseers, disciplinarians, encouragers, conflict managers and, crucially, interpreters of clergy well-being and ministerial functioning from a system-level vantage point. Their observations, forged in the crucible of daily oversight, offer insight into the relational dynamics that support or undermine healthy ministry. The data for this article derive from qualitative interviews with twenty-five Archdeacons, alongside one suffragan bishop and the National Executive Officer for Archdeacons. These interviews represent 21% of serving English parochial Archdeacons and offer a substantial empirical window into the emotional landscape of Anglican ministry today. Across these interviews, one theme surfaced with striking regularity: empathy is both a critical marker of ministerial flourishing and a conspicuous deficit among struggling clergy. One Archdeacon estimated that while a quarter of clergy under his care were highly capable, another quarter ‘really struggled’, often because they lacked the ability ‘to respond well and exercise an emotionally intelligent approach’ to those they served. Others described empathy as indispensable to trust-building, conflict navigation and pastoral credibility. Ministers who demonstrated empathic attentiveness, self-awareness and relational flexibility were consistently described as those who helped congregations grow in emotional and spiritual maturity. This emphasis on empathy finds resonance in the psychological literature. Emotional intelligence theory, developed by Salovey and Mayer (Reference Salovey and Mayer1990), and popularized by Goleman (Reference Goleman1995), identifies the recognition of others’ emotions, what Goleman calls ‘the fundamental people skill’, as central to effective interpersonal functioning. Baron-Cohen’s (Reference Baron-Cohen2011, Reference Baron-Cohen2012) research on empathic capacity situates empathy within a spectrum of cognitive and affective abilities, while Zaki’s (Reference Zaki2014) threefold account – experience sharing, mentalizing and mind perception – provides a nuanced framework for understanding the complexity of empathic engagement. When these insights are read alongside clergy studies on personality and psychological type (Francis et al. Reference Francis, Jones, Jackson and Robbins2001; Francis et al. Reference Francis, Village and Voas2021), which demonstrate that Anglican clergy often display atypically ‘feminine’ personality profiles on measures associated with empathy and interpersonal sensitivity, the prominence of empathy in ministerial practice becomes even more significant. Yet empathy, in practice, is neither universal nor uniformly expressed. Archdeacons report clergy who appear relationally blunt, rigid, overly analytical or emotionally disconnected. Some invoke language of autism or the ‘spectrum’, sometimes imprecisely, to describe ministerial difficulty; others point to narcissistic tendencies or entrenched defensiveness as barriers to empathic attunement. Still others observe that empathic capacity can be diminished by context, stress, institutional culture or inadequate formation. This study does not treat archidiaconal perspectives as exhaustive or normatively definitive, but as theologically significant interpretive accounts arising from sustained ecclesial oversight across multiple ministerial contexts. The article seeks to bring these empirical observations into conversation with the wider literature on empathy, emotional intelligence, clergy psychology and Anglican pastoral theology. By doing so, it aims to deepen the Church’s understanding of why empathy matters, how it is recognized, how it may be formed and what its absence means for the health of ministers and congregations alike.
Methodological Foundations
This study adopts a qualitative, interview-based design consistent with the long-established empirical–theological tradition in which descriptive data from lived ministerial experience are brought into disciplined dialogue with psychological theory and theological reflection (e.g., Spilka and Bridges Reference Spilka and Bridges1989; Kinast Reference Kinast1996; Brewster et al. Reference Brewster, Francis, Robbins, Francis and Ziebertz2011; Hendron et al. Reference Hendron, Irving and Taylor2014; Paver Reference Paver2016). Following this approach, the research prioritizes listening to the voices of practitioners: in this case, Archdeacons whose oversight positions provide a distinctive, system-level vantage point on the emotional capacities and relational functioning of clergy.
Sampling and Participants
The study draws on semi-structured interviews with 25 Archdeacons, one suffragan bishop, and the National Executive Officer for Archdeacons. These interviews represent approximately 21% of all serving parochial Archdeacons in the CofE at the time of data collection, excluding those working in sector ministries or the Diocese in Europe. The gender profile of the sample – 18 men (72%) and seven women (28%) – closely matches national proportions within the archidiaconal cohort (69.5% male, 30.5% female). The numerical and gender representativeness of the sample strengthens the credibility of the themes identified and aligns with methodological principles employed in prior Anglican clergy studies (e.g., Lawson Reference Lawson2018, Reference Lawson2019; Francis and Whinney Reference Francis and Whinney2019; Norrington and Douglas-Smith Reference Norrington and Douglas-Smith2025). Participants were recruited through direct invitation and were interviewed individually, with one exception where two Archdeacons requested a joint interview. The high positive response rate, approximately two-thirds of those approached, indicates a widespread willingness among Archdeacons to reflect openly on the emotional and relational aspects of clergy oversight.
Data Collection and Interview Protocol
Interviews followed a semi-structured format designed to elicit narrative accounts of ministerial functioning, pastoral encounters, oversight challenges and perceptions of emotional intelligence (including empathy, self-awareness, self-management and relational attunement). The interviews also probed Archdeacons’ reflections on patterns observed among both high-functioning and struggling clergy, alongside their interpretations of terms such as ‘empathy’, ‘emotional intelligence’, ‘being on the spectrum’ or ‘narcissism’. The qualitative approach is deliberately exploratory, consistent with the commitment of empirical theology to give primacy to lived experience before imposing theoretical abstraction.
Analytic Strategy
The analytic process employed a thematic approach, attending closely to recurrent constructs that emerged across the interviews. These included:
-
• Empathy as a distinguishing marker of flourishing ministry and a frequent deficit in struggling clergy.
-
• Self-awareness, including the capacity for reflective practice and emotional regulation.
-
• Breakdown in pastoral relationships, especially patterns of defensiveness, rigid communication, blame projection or failure to perceive emotional cues.
-
• Perceived cognitive or empathic deficits, frequently articulated through colloquial references to autism, systematizing tendencies or relational bluntness.
-
• Oversight strategies used by Archdeacons when supporting or managing clergy with limited empathic capacity.
Themes were identified inductively, then examined in dialogue with existing psychological constructs (e.g., Goleman’s emotional intelligence domains; Baron-Cohen’s empathy spectrum; Zaki’s tripartite model), to develop the practice of integrating empirical observation with theoretical frameworks.
Epistemological Stance
Consistent with the empirical–theological model pioneered and described by van der Ven (Reference van der Ven1988) and van der Ven and Scherer-Rath (Reference van der Ven and Scherer-Rath2004), the study operates within a critical realist epistemology. It acknowledges both the subjective nature of archidiaconal perspectives and their value as privileged interpretive accounts of clerical behaviour embedded within ministerial contexts. Rather than treating psychological theory as determinative, the approach uses empirical data to illuminate theological concerns around pastoral identity, relational ministry and the cure of souls. In this sense, the research seeks both to describe and to contribute to a theological anthropology attentive to the emotional and relational demands of the Anglican priesthood.
Archidiaconal Perceptions of Ministerial Functioning
Archdeacons, by virtue of their oversight responsibilities, inhabit a privileged observational position within the CofE. They encounter clergy across a full spectrum of ministerial functioning: from those who thrive in their contexts and energize their congregations, to those who struggle to relate, communicate and sustain healthy pastoral relationships. A consistent message emerging from the interviews is that ministerial effectiveness is inseparable from emotional intelligence and especially from empathy. The Archdeacons interviewed repeatedly emphasized that relational competence is not simply an optional pastoral virtue but a fundamental determinant of clerical flourishing or failure. This section explores three interconnected dimensions of archidiaconal perception: the 25/50/25 heuristic for clergy functioning, the conviction that pastoral competence is essentially relational competence, and the significant costs of low emotional intelligence – costs borne not only by clergy themselves but also by congregations and diocesan systems.
The 25/50/25 Heuristic of Clergy Functioning
One Archdeacon, responsible for one of the largest archdeaconries in the CofE, offered a ‘rule of thumb’ that captured the attention of many of his peers: 25% of clergy are highly capable, 50% ‘poddle along’ and 25% ‘really struggle’ to function effectively in ministry. He acknowledged the imprecision of the heuristic but remained convinced that its broad contours reflected the reality of the ministerial landscape. The ‘capable’ cohort comprised those whose pastoral, organizational and liturgical competence sustained flourishing ministry. The middle group ‘poddled along’, not incompetent, but inconsistent, often lacking the initiative, adaptability or self-awareness to respond fully to the demands of their parish context. The bottom quarter consisted of clergy whose ministries were marked by persistent relational breakdowns, emotional misattunement or a striking lack of insight into their own behaviour. When pressed on what distinguished the effective from the ineffective, the same Archdeacon was unequivocal: emotional intelligence. He maintained that the struggling clergy ‘simply didn’t know how to respond well and (how to) exercise an emotionally intelligent approach to everyone they came in touch with’. For him, deficits in emotional intelligence accounted for more pastoral difficulties than any lack of theological acuity, liturgical competence or strategic imagination. Flourishing clergy were not merely skilled performers of tasks; they were relationally attuned, capable of perceiving emotional dynamics within individuals and congregations and able to adapt their pastoral responses accordingly. This aligns with the longstanding empirical–theological findings that ministry is inherently relational and that psychological dispositions, especially those associated with warmth, empathy and emotional regulation, significantly shape clerical experience (Hall Reference Hall1997; Young and Firmin, Reference Young and Firmin2014; Vicente-Galindo et al. Reference Vicente-Galindo, López-Herrera, Pedrosa, Suárez-Álvarez, Galindo-Villardón and García-Cueto2017; Frederick et al. Reference Frederick, Thai, Dunbar, Ardito, Eichler, Kidd, Carrera and Almero2023; Tjernæs et al. Reference Tjernæs, Ringnes and Stålsett2024). Francis et al.’s (Reference Francis, Village and Voas2021) research on Anglican clergy has shown that priests often profile as more ‘feminine’ on various personality traits, meaning more relationally sensitive and emotionally attuned than male population norms. The Archdeacons’ observations corroborate such findings: clergy who thrive tend to be those who can meaningfully inhabit the emotional landscape of their congregations. Interestingly, several Archdeacons also noted that context interacts with emotional intelligence, with even capable clergy being vulnerable to diminished relational capacity when placed under significant stress or in situations misaligned with their temperament. As one observed, emotional intelligence ‘is diminished if they are put in certain situations they can’t cope with’. This sensitivity to context mirrors psychological research suggesting that empathic ability fluctuates in response to stress, role demands and cognitive overload (Gamble et al. Reference Gamble, Henry and Vanman2023; Nitschke and Bartz Reference Nitschke and Bartz2023; Shalev et al. Reference Shalev, Eran and Uzefovsky2023), a reminder that emotional intelligence is not a static trait, but a dynamic capacity influenced by internal and external pressures.
Pastoral Competence as Relational Competence
Across the interviews, Archdeacons repeatedly affirmed that pastoral competence is, at its core, relational competence. Empathy surfaced as the central thread running through their accounts. Ministers who demonstrated empathic presence, those who listened deeply, responded sensitively and entered imaginatively into the experience of others, were consistently described as effective, trusted and spiritually fruitful. One Archdeacon offered a concise summary: the ‘top aspects’ of effective ministry are ‘self-esteem, self-awareness (including social awareness), and empathy’. For him, ministry without empathy was inconceivable: ‘You are in for trouble if you can’t empathise with your people… can you do ministry without sympathy or empathy? No!’ Another described high-functioning vicars as those who pay ‘attention to other people’ and possess ‘the ability to bring the best out of people… the ability to see when someone’s struggling… to know what kind of place people are in’. Such clergy excel not because they possess superior theological sophistication but because they can discern the emotional states of others and adjust their pastoral approach, knowing when someone needs a listening ear, a gentle challenge or a compassionate silence. Yet another Archdeacon framed empathy in explicitly theological and philosophical terms. Drawing on Martin Buber’s ‘I–Thou’ relationship, he described emotionally intelligent clergy as those who avoid objectifying others, who attend to their parishioners as subjects of their own experience. Their listening is more than functional; it is a presence. They ‘enter into somebody’s world’, so that the other person ‘is really the subject of their own world rather than the object of yours’. This deep attentiveness is the soil in which pastoral trust is cultivated. One Archdeacon argued that the most effective priests are those who convey to their congregations that they are loved, valued and accompanied. Empathy, in this sense, is the psychological correlate of pastoral charity. Relational adaptability also emerged as a hallmark of pastoral competence. Effective clergy navigate complex emotional terrains, negotiating conflict, holding uncertainty and managing their own emotional responses. Empathy equips them to differentiate between their own feelings and those of others, a skill central to pastoral poise. Another Archdeacon described it as the ability ‘to avoid being judgemental’ and to maintain ‘self-control’ and a ‘non-anxious’ presence. Such observations resonate strongly with research that highlights the importance of reflective practice, emotional integration and psychological maturity in ministerial leadership (Vicente-Galindo et al. Reference Vicente-Galindo, López-Herrera, Pedrosa, Suárez-Álvarez, Galindo-Villardón and García-Cueto2017; Terry and Cunningham Reference Terry and Cunningham2020) and empirical work linking clergy well-being with self-awareness, interpersonal sensitivity and emotional stability (Francis et al. Reference Francis, Emslie and Payne2019; Case et al. Reference Case, Keyes, Huffman, Sittser, Wallace, Khatiwoda, Parnell and Proeschold-Bell2020).
The Cost of Low Emotional Intelligence on Congregational Health
If emotionally intelligent clergy promote congregational flourishing, the opposite is also true: low emotional intelligence is a major contributor to congregational dysfunction. Many Archdeacons described significant pastoral damage arising from relational incompetence, defensiveness, inability to reflect or low empathic attunement.
Relational Breakdown
Several Archdeacons noted that struggling clergy often demonstrated little insight into their own role in conflict. One described clergy who ‘blame other people exclusively’ and are ‘not willing to address the question as to what their role might have been in this’. Such defensiveness can quickly corrode trust and compound tensions within congregations. Another Archdeacon observed that some priests ‘cannot see how things are’, exhibiting a ‘lack of awareness of others’ and a ‘narrow focus’ that undermines relationships and renders informal pastoral interactions nearly impossible. When difficulties emerge, ‘they go wrong in a big way’, because the priest lacks the emotional agility to adjust or repair relational ruptures. These accounts highlight that emotional clumsiness is not a minor inconvenience but a source of significant pastoral risk.
Defensive Behaviour and Lack of Self-Examination
A common theme was the absence of self-examination among clergy with low emotional intelligence. This lack of reflective capacity leaves clergy unable to identify maladaptive patterns or recognize the impact of their behaviour on others. One Archdeacon lamented clergy who ‘behave badly… not being Christian’, yet remain ‘completely unwilling to address their own contribution in the conflict’. Another spoke of clergy whose emails were ‘categorical’, whose interpersonal responses were blunt, and for whom every pastoral conversation felt like crossing wires. The difficulty was not theological incompetence but emotional rigidity.
Emotional Wreckage
Several Archdeacons vividly described the ‘emotional wreckage’ left behind by clergy unable to regulate their own emotional states or respond pastorally to the emotions of others. One noted that such clergy might ‘get stuff done’, but in doing so, ‘leave a trail of emotional wreckage behind you’. Others observed that congregations sometimes regress emotionally under low-EI clergy, with parishes acting out ‘toddler tantrums’ or ‘teenage strops’ when communication breaks down. These metaphors, drawn from an Archdeacon with a background in speech and language therapy, vividly portray the developmental regression that poor pastoral leadership can produce, for without empathic guidance, congregations lack a container for their emotional life and revert to primitive patterns of expression.
Emotional Intelligence and Diocesan Burden
It was notable that several Archdeacons reported the disproportionate amount of time required to manage low-EI clergy. One estimated that 15–20% of his weekly diary was consumed by supporting or intervening in situations involving emotionally unintelligent priests, and the emotional burden extended into his sleep and mealtimes. Prior organizational research demonstrates that emotionally underdeveloped leaders generate significant managerial and relational burden, often requiring extensive oversight, mediation and corrective support (Einarsen et al. Reference Einarsen, Aasland and Skogstad2007; Padilla et al. Reference Padilla, Hogan and Kaiser2007), a pattern also evident in clergy research linking emotional regulation capacities to burnout, role conflict, lack of self-differentiation and ministerial dysfunction (Beebe Reference Beebe2007; Vicente-Galindo et al. Reference Vicente-Galindo, López-Herrera, Pedrosa, Suárez-Álvarez, Galindo-Villardón and García-Cueto2017; Frederick Reference Frederick2023).
The Wider Ecclesial Impact
Low emotional intelligence also appears to erode clergy morale, diocesan trust and congregational confidence. One Archdeacon described clergy in his diocese as ‘demoralised’ due to abuse scandals and the arrival of a large church plant, which had destabilized ecclesial identity. In such delicate contexts, clergy with low empathy, high judgmentalism or low self-awareness inadvertently exacerbate communal instability. Conversely, a growing body of empirical research demonstrates that emotionally and relationally competent religious leaders contribute to stable, hopeful and trusting congregational cultures, thereby fostering conditions conducive to spiritual growth and mission (Boyatzis et al. Reference Boyatzis, Brizz and Godwin2011; Adams and Bloom Reference Adams and Bloom2017; Wollschleger Reference Wollschleger2018; Momeny and Gourgues Reference Momeny and Gourgues2020; Pali and Baron Reference Pali, Baron, Hermans and van den Berg2020; Obi et al. Reference Obi, Aaldering, Bollen and Euwema2021; Demeter and Vaida Reference Demeter and Vaida2025; Williams Reference Williams2025).
Reflection
Archdeacons consistently identify emotional intelligence, particularly empathy, as a defining characteristic of ministerial effectiveness. The 25/50/25 heuristic underscores a persistent distribution of capability, yet across the spectrum, it is relational competence that distinguishes those who flourish from those who flounder. Pastoral ministry, in the view of those charged with overseeing it, succeeds or falters not primarily on theological sophistication or intellectual brilliance, but on the capacity to listen, attend, perceive and respond with emotional attunement. Low emotional intelligence carries profound costs: relational breakdown, congregational regression, defensive behaviour and significant emotional labour for diocesan leaders. Conversely, empathic clergy foster trust, build resilience, and model the compassionate presence at the heart of Anglican ministry. The archidiaconal perspective thus affirms a growing consensus within empirical theology: the emotional life of the minister is central to the spiritual health of the church.
Conceptualizing Empathy: Insights from Psychology and Neuroscience
Given the prominence of empathy in archidiaconal accounts of ministerial effectiveness, it is necessary to examine the concept with some precision. Empathy is not a simple or singular psychological construct; rather, it encompasses a range of cognitive, affective, motivational and behavioural processes. Contemporary research across psychology, neuroscience and social cognition offers several complementary perspectives that together illuminate why empathy is so foundational to pastoral ministry, and why its absence is so keenly felt in congregational life.
Definitions of Empathy
One of the earliest and most enduring definitions comes from Wispé (Reference Wispé1986), who describes empathy as ‘the attempt by one self-aware self to comprehend unjudgmentally the positive and negative experiences of another self’ (318). In contrast to sympathy, a ‘process whereby the pain of the sufferer is brought home to the observer, leading to an unselfish concern for the other person’, empathy is the process whereby ‘one person tries to understand accurately the subjectivity of another person, without prejudice’ and because it ‘depends upon the use of imaginal and mimetic capacities (it’s) most often an effortful process’ (320). Both sympathy and empathy are psychological processes, but empathy seeks understanding for one or both parties. Baron-Cohen (Reference Baron-Cohen2011) adds further nuance by defining empathy as ‘our ability to identify what someone else is thinking or feeling and to respond with an appropriate emotion’ (18). This two-component structure, cognitive understanding and affective responsiveness, helps explain why empathy is essential for pastoral ministry. Clergy must be able to evaluate not only the factual circumstances of parishioners’ lives but also their emotional meaning, responding in ways that express attunement, compassion or shared hope. Baron-Cohen’s contention that human beings lie along an ‘empathy spectrum’ (152) also helps illuminate the wide variation Archdeacons observe among clergy: some priests are richly attuned and relationally agile, while others struggle significantly to read emotional cues, modulate their responses or perceive internal states in others. Zaki’s (Reference Zaki2014) influential tripartite model distinguishes three interrelated components: experience sharing, mentalizing and mind perception. ‘Experience sharing’ refers to the automatic, often pre-reflective tendency to mirror the affective states of others; ‘mentalizing’ concerns the interpretive processes by which individuals infer others’ beliefs, intentions or emotions; and ‘mind perception’ refers to the ability to detect internal states based on behavioural clues such as gesture, tone or facial expression. Zaki’s framework is particularly helpful for interpreting archidiaconal accounts. When clergy are described as ‘not getting people’, ‘emotionally clumsy’ or unable to pick up ‘the subtleties of body language’, it is often deficits in mentalizing or mind perception that are at issue. Conversely, clergy praised for listening well, ‘being with somebody’ or intuitively sensing pastoral needs exhibit robust performance across all three domains.
Empathy as Core to Emotional Intelligence
Within the broader construct of emotional intelligence, empathy occupies a central and indispensable position. In Goleman’s (Reference Goleman1995) classic model, the recognition of emotions in others constitutes one of the five core domains, alongside self-awareness, self-regulation, motivation and relationship management. Empathy is, for Goleman, ‘recognising emotions in others’ and thus is the fundamental ‘people skill’ (43) that enables individuals to interpret social cues, respond appropriately to the emotional climate, and build relationships of trust and reciprocity. The Archdeacons’ testimonies mirror this framework closely. Clergy who flourish are those who exhibit high levels of self-awareness (knowing their own emotional reactions), self-management (modulating those reactions in pastoral settings), empathic insight (recognizing what others are feeling) and relational skill (responding in ways that foster trust and movement). When one Archdeacon identifies ‘self-esteem, self-awareness, and empathy’ as the top aspects of ministerial effectiveness, he is articulating, in pastoral terms, the same dynamic structure that underlies Goleman’s model. Moreover, the emphasis Archdeacons place on ‘dual listening’ – to God and to the people – suggests that empathy functions within ministry not simply as a psychological skill but as a spiritual discipline of attentiveness. Emotional intelligence, in this sense, becomes intertwined with vocational identity: clergy are called to be stewards of human emotion, mediators of compassion, and bearers of Christ-like presence. Empathy is thus not merely instrumental but vocationally constitutive.
Motivated Empathy and Contextual Modulation
While empathy is often discussed as though it were an intrinsic and stable trait, research increasingly emphasizes its motivated and context-dependent nature. Empathy does not operate at a constant level; rather, it is modulated by factors such as group identity, social threat, cognitive load, role constraints and institutional culture.
Group Identity and In-Group Bias
Neuroscience and behavioural studies show stronger empathic resonance for in-group than out-group members (Xu et al. Reference Xu, Zuo, Wang and Han2009; Cikara et al. Reference Cikara, Bruneau and Saxe2011), a pattern also observed in clergy samples (Zondag Reference Zondag2007). Huang and Han’s (Reference Huang and Han2014) neurophysiological study found that participants show stronger empathic neural responses to the suffering (pain) of others when those others share their religious/irreligious identity (in-group) compared to when they do not (out-group). These studies have clear pastoral relevance. Clergy who favour those who share their theological orientation, personality disposition or ecclesial style may struggle to empathize with parishioners outside that group. One Archdeacon’s experience of clergy reacting judgmentally to ‘Johnny-come-latelies’ from a church plant reflects this dynamic: the emotional distance between groups limits pastoral sensitivity and fuels resentment. In contrast, a cross-cultural empirical study (Pasek et al. Reference Pasek, Kelly, Shackleford, White, Vishkin, Smith, Norenzayan, Shariff and Ginges2023) showed that while individuals often favour their own religious in-group when asked about helping strangers, prompting them to think about God increased generosity to both religious in-group and out-group members. This result complicates a simple ‘ingroup bias’ model but illustrates that religious cognition (e.g., thinking about God) can modulate baseline in-group favouritism, indicating that default empathic biases exist, but religious framing can sometimes mitigate them.
Role-Protection and Emotional Shielding
Professional roles can also dampen empathic responsiveness. Medical professionals, for example, often develop emotional buffering mechanisms to avoid being overwhelmed by continual exposure to suffering (Weng et al. Reference Weng, Steed, Yu, Liu, Hsu, Yu and Chen2011). A similar phenomenon may occur in ministry: clergy who feel besieged, scrutinized or unsafe may ‘turn down’ their empathic sensitivity as a means of self-protection, particularly in the face of secondary trauma (Juczyński et al. Reference Juczyński, Ogińska-Bulik and Binnebesel2022) and compassion fatigue (Flannelly et al. Reference Flannelly, Roberts and Weaver2005; Mascaro et al. Reference Mascaro, Palmer, Willson, Ash, Florian, Srivastava, Sharma, Jarrell, Walker, Kaplan, Palitsky, Cole, Grant and Raison2023). Archdeacons report instances where clergy under stress or threat become rigid, withdrawn, or emotionally inaccessible, not necessarily out of malice but out of defensive contraction.
Cognitive Overload and Emotional Misattunement
Elevated levels of cognitive load due to administrative complexity, multiple parish responsibilities or the demands of safeguarding compliance, can crowd out the mental bandwidth required for empathic attunement (Terry and Cunningham Reference Terry and Cunningham2020; Proeschold-Bell et al. Reference Proeschold-Bell, Eisenberg, Adams, Smith, LeGrand and Wilk2015). Clergy who are overwhelmed may inadvertently neglect emotional cues or default to habitual patterns of interaction. Several Archdeacons noted that clergy in unsustainable roles or high-stress parishes exhibited diminished self-awareness and relational missteps, consistent with psychological findings that empathy is impaired when cognitive resources are stretched (Frederick et al. Reference Frederick, Thai, Dunbar, Ardito, Eichler, Kidd, Carrera and Almero2023).
Institutional Culture and Empathic Decline
Most significantly, institutional cultures can either foster or erode empathy. Medical education research demonstrates that empathy declines during training when students encounter cynicism, emotional exhaustion, elitism or role models who devalue emotional labour (Hojat et al., Reference Hojat, Mangione, Nasca, Rattner, Erdmann, Gonnella and Magee2004). Archdeacons in this study raised closely related concerns about ministerial formation, observing that clergy shaped within cultures of ecclesiastical ambition, institutional defensiveness or unresolved systemic shame appeared particularly vulnerable to empathic depletion. Qualitative and quantitative research indicates that prolonged exposure to organizational trauma and emotionally charged ecclesial environments is associated with secondary traumatic stress, emotional numbing and erosion of empathic capacity among clergy (Juczyński et al. Reference Juczyński, Ogińska-Bulik and Binnebesel2022). Studies of dioceses and parishes affected by abuse scandals demonstrate that such contexts often generate pervasive climates of distrust, shame, and relational rupture, altering the emotional ecology within which clergy are required to minister (Kline et al. Reference Kline, McMackin and Lezotte2008). The psychological dynamics of clericalism and religious duress further illuminate how systems characterized by silence, defensiveness and hierarchical pressure can undermine reflective capacity and relational openness, with implications not only for victims but also for the relational functioning of clergy within such systems (Benkert and Doyle Reference Benkert and Doyle2009). Large-scale empirical work on clergy well-being likewise shows that organizational climate, role strain and inadequate institutional support significantly predict diminished psychological health and impaired ministerial functioning, suggesting that the ‘emotional climate’ of a diocese exerts a real and measurable influence on clergy relational capacity, and underscores the vulnerability of empathic functioning to environmental conditions (Proeschold-Bell et al. Reference Proeschold-Bell, Eisenberg, Adams, Smith, LeGrand and Wilk2015).
Theological Resonance
Beyond psychology, empathy has deep theological resonance within Anglican pastoral theology. Ministry is inherently relational: the priest is called to embody the compassion of Christ, to listen with the ear of the heart, and to mediate the presence of God through attentive presence (e.g., Zylla Reference Zylla2017; Percy Reference Percy2021).
Empathy as Participation in the Missio Dei
At its best, pastoral empathy reflects participation in the missio Dei, the mission of God to reconcile, heal and draw humanity into communion. When clergy attend carefully to the emotional lives of their congregants, they enact in microcosm the divine pattern of incarnation and accompaniment. Discussing the dynamics of shared mission within the context of the vocation and mission of men and women in consecrated life, Veliyannoor (Reference Veliyannoor2012) avers that ‘respectful and receptive communication begins with empathic listening with a view to understanding the other and becomes an offering of one’s own story as a gift for the other’ (54). Empathy becomes a mode of kenosis, a self-emptying openness to the reality of the other and thus part of the mission of the church for ‘the missionary church glorifies God in self-emptying love’ (World Council of Churches Reference Keum2013: 62).
The ‘I–Thou’ Encounter
One Archdeacon explicitly drew on Martin Buber’s distinction between ‘I–Thou’ and ‘I–It’ (Buber Reference Buber1957). Empathy enables the shift from treating parishioners as objects of pastoral management to receiving them as subjects whose lives bear the image of God. An emotionally intelligent minister, he suggested, ‘allows someone to be the subject of their own world rather than the object of yours’. This reflects a deeply theological understanding of human dignity and relational holiness.
Prayer, Contemplation and Emotional Presence
Several Archdeacons identified contemplative prayer as a means of developing emotional intelligence. In listening to God, clergy learn to listen more deeply to others; in confronting their own inner compulsions and ‘false self’, they develop the emotional spaciousness required for empathic ministry. One Archdeacon said, ‘I find contemplative prayer key for me … if you know you’re going into a difficult situation, you hold that in prayer at some point early that morning or the day before and (then) in the hurly-burly of a meeting you’ve got a kind of inner space to step back into’. Contemplative practice thus becomes a psychological and spiritual discipline that forms the heart for pastoral care (Bingaman Reference Bingaman2011, Reference Bingaman2016).
Summary
Empathy emerges as a multi-dimensional construct, grounded in cognitive neuroscience, shaped by motivational and contextual factors and deeply rooted in Christian theological anthropology (De Waal Reference de Waal2008). For the Archdeacons interviewed, empathy is not only a psychological skill but also a spiritual disposition integral to the pastoral vocation. This may be compared to a multi-dimensional exploration of spirituality to empathy among social work students and practitioners (Stewart and Lawrence Reference Stewart and Lawrence2021) that found that the ability to empathetically connect with clients or patients had positive outcomes for both clients and practitioners (313–314). Archdeacons’ experiences confirm this; in ministry contexts, empathy is better understood as a relational capacity embedded in ministerial practice and ecclesial accountability, rather than as a discrete psychological trait. When clergy embody this empathic presence, they reflect something of the relational nature of God and contribute to the healing, flourishing and mission of the Church.
Gender, Personality and Empathy in Anglican Clergy
The question of whether gender shapes empathic capacity, and thus ministerial functioning, emerged in subtle but revealing ways throughout the interviews with Archdeacons. Their reflections, when placed alongside the empirical work of researchers on clergy personality (Village and Francis Reference Village and Francis2023), offer a rich but complex picture. While Archdeacons generally resisted simplistic gender essentialism, their accounts suggest that gendered patterns of emotional expression, personality orientation and socialization do play some part in shaping empathic style. A careful reading, however, reveals that gender alone is an insufficient explanatory category. Clergy psychology, as the broader empirical literature attests, is more strongly influenced by vocational identity, personality configuration, theological orientation and contextual stressors than by biological sex alone (Robbins et al. Reference Robbins, Francis and Rutledge1997; Francis et al. Reference Francis, Craig, Whinney, Tilley and Slater2007; Francis et al. Reference Francis, Robbins, Kaldor and Castle2009; Village and Francis Reference Village and Francis2025). This section explores three interlocking strands: (1) Archdeacons’ perceptions of gender and empathy, (2) the ‘feminine personality profile’ of Anglican clergy identified by Francis and colleagues (Francis et al. Reference Francis, Jones, Jackson and Robbins2001; Francis et al. Reference Francis, Jones, Robbins and Jackson2003) and its implications for empathy and (3) the invocation by some Archdeacons of Baron-Cohen’s ‘extreme male brain’ theory and its critical assessment within an Anglican empirical-theological framework.
Archdeacon Perceptions: Reluctance to Essentialize Gender, Yet Recognition of Differential Expression
Archdeacons were notably cautious when asked whether they perceived gender differences in emotional intelligence or empathic capacity among clergy. One female Archdeacon responded that the question was ‘pretty loaded’, insisting she had ‘never thought about it in terms of gender’, and that she could not detect any decisive pattern across her archdeaconry. Yet even within this reluctant dismissal, she acknowledged that ‘women clergy… have got perhaps a greater facility in getting along beside people quickly’, though she was careful to limit this observation and avoid normative conclusions. A male Archdeacon expressed a similar ambivalence, suggesting that emotional intelligence is ‘much the same for both sexes’, but then conceding that women are ‘more capable and able at expressing emotion’, which he admitted is ‘probably part of emotional intelligence’. This pattern, initial resistance to gender stereotyping coupled with hesitant recognition of gendered tendencies in emotional expression, was characteristic across interviews. Several Archdeacons drew attention to behavioural or relational tendencies that correlated with gendered expectations without attributing them to biological determinism. Some described male clergy who struggled with emotional articulation or who tended towards bluntness, rigidity or over-systematizing, while some female clergy were perceived as possessing strong emotional awareness and relational dexterity. Yet both men and women were represented in both categories. As one Archdeacon observed, the most narcissistic clergy he had encountered, those least capable of empathy, were often ‘the very bright ones’, irrespective of gender and another noted that some female clergy scored higher on traits associated with psychoticism than their male counterparts. These testimonies resonate with empirical findings that while male and female clergy may display modest differences in expression, there is substantial overlap, and personality type, vocational identity and ministry context are stronger predictors of empathic functioning than sex alone (Craig et al. Reference Craig, Francis and Robbins2004). Taken together, the archidiaconal evidence reflects an Anglican form of gender realism: an awareness that gender shapes expression without determining capacity, that men and women may differ on average, but overlap substantially and that individual psychological configuration remains the more salient marker of empathic competence.
The ‘Feminine Personality Profile’
The empirical work of Francis and colleagues provides an important backdrop for interpreting Archdeacons’ observations and may be located within a more recent and refined body of research on clergy personality. Successive studies using Eysenckian instruments (Eysenck Personality Questionnaire – Revised [EPQ/R]; Eysenck Personality Profiler [EPP]; Eysenck Personality Inventory – Form A [EPP-A]) report that Anglican and other Christian clergy, male and female, tend to display elevated scores on interpersonal-sensitive, relationally oriented and emotionally attuned traits relative to general population norms (Robbins et al. Reference Robbins, Francis and Rutledge1997; Francis et al. Reference Francis, Jones, Jackson and Robbins2001; Francis et al. Reference Francis, Jones, Robbins and Jackson2003; Francis et al. Reference Francis, Jackson and Jones2004). Recent empirical work using the revised Francis Psychological Type and Emotional Temperament Scales (FPTETS-R) and comparable instruments finds the same relationally oriented type among clergy across national and cohort samples, indicating stability rather than historical contingency (Watt and Voas Reference Watt and Voas2020; Village and Francis Reference Village and Francis2023; Francis and Village Reference Francis and Village2025a; Cook et al. Reference Cook, Francis and McKenna2024). Contemporary empirical theology has refined earlier claims about a distinctively ‘feminine’ clerical personality by shifting attention towards role-congruent personality development. Increasingly, research suggests that ministry does not simply attract a pre-existing psychological type but actively shapes the emotional and relational architecture of those who inhabit it (Emslie Reference Emslie2025a). Studies of ordinands and early-career clergy demonstrate that pastoral training environments – through supervised practice, reflective disciplines and formational oversight – amplify empathic and relational capacities, nurturing the dispositions required for the cure of souls (O’Brien Reference O’Brien2016; Gubi Reference Gubi2019). This insight is reinforced by empirical evidence showing that clergy differ from population norms on empathy-related traits (Francis et al. Reference Francis, Jones, Jackson and Robbins2001) and that participation in structured reflective ministry and supervision is linked to improved emotional functioning and resilience (Francis and Turton Reference Francis, Turton, Hermans and Moore2004; Gubi et al. Reference Gubi, Bubbers, Gardner, Mullally and Mwenisongole2023). Further research in theological education and pastoral supervision confirms that empathic competence is teachable: formative practices such as reflective theological engagement, guided pastoral reflection and contemplative disciplines can strengthen empathic skill and emotional intelligence across the ministerial lifespan (Doehring Reference Doehring2018; Magezi and Madimutsa Reference Magezi and Madimutsa2023; Whittaker Reference Whittaker2025). Recent gender–personality scholarship has also nuanced Thompson’s (Reference Thompson1991) earlier claim that being religious is a function of gender orientation. Large-scale psychological meta-analyses demonstrate that gender differences in empathy and interpersonal sensitivity are highly context-dependent and reduced in professional cultures that prioritize care, relational presence and emotional labour (Hyde Reference Hyde2014; Zell et al. Reference Zell, Krizan and Teeter2015). In clergy populations (Francis et al. Reference Francis, Whinney, Burton and Robbins2011; Watt and Voas Reference Watt and Voas2020), studies show that differences between male and female clergy in emotional expressiveness and interpersonal sensitivity are significantly attenuated when compared with matched community samples. These findings help to explain why the Archdeacons in the present study resisted simple gender explanations for empathic capacity. In their experience, many male clergy display high relational intelligence and emotional availability, while some female clergy embody more analytical, systematizing leadership styles. What emerges is not a biologically driven distinction, but a vocationally cultivated psychological profile. The implications for empathy in Anglican clergy remain consistent, but the evidence base is now more robust. Firstly, empathy appears to be formation-enhanced: it is strengthened through training, supervision, pastoral exposure and reflective practice. Secondly, gender effects are blurred within clerical populations because ministerial socialization reshapes personality–role alignment. Thirdly, the primary source of difficulty lies not in masculinity or femininity per se, but in mismatches between an individual’s preferred psychological style and the relational demands of pastoral ministry. The Archdeacons’ descriptions of clergy who struggle – emotionally blunt, cue-insensitive, rigid in communication or excessively systematizing – map closely onto contemporary measures of low agreeableness, low emotional intelligence and restricted empathic concern, rather than to sex-based traits. Taken together, newer empirical work strengthens the hypothesis that gender may influence ministerial style, but personality – particularly the development of relationally attuned traits – shapes ministerial capacity.
Baron-Cohen’s ‘Extreme Male Brain’ Theory in Archidiaconal Discourse
A small number of Archdeacons explicitly referenced Baron-Cohen’s work, particularly The Essential Difference (Reference Baron-Cohen2012), which proposes that the ‘male brain’ is more inclined to systematize, while the ‘female brain’ is more inclined to empathize. One Archdeacon cited Baron-Cohen directly, noting the theory’s claim that autism represents an ‘extreme male brain’ (highly systematizing, low in empathy) and then wryly reflected on clergy testosterone levels being reported as unusually low. This Archdeacon recognized the potential problems of gender stereotyping inherent in the theory but found it suggestive when thinking about clergy who gravitate towards analytic, procedural or highly structured modes of ministry. Others invoked autism or ‘the spectrum’ more loosely, often to describe clergy who lacked flexibility, nuance or sensitivity in interpersonal encounters. A critical evaluation of this theory in an Anglican empirical-theological context requires several considerations. Firstly, the strength of the theory lies in describing cognitive style, not gender. Baron-Cohen’s framework is most useful when interpreted as a dimensional model of cognitive processing. That is: some individuals, male or female, prefer systematizing approaches; others prefer empathic ones. Archdeacons’ descriptions of clergy with strong procedural focus, narrow relational bandwidth, or difficulty interpreting emotional cues may reflect high systematizing tendencies rather than gender identity. Secondly, clergy populations defy ‘male’ and ‘female brain’ stereotypes. Francis et al.’s (Reference Francis, Jones, Jackson and Robbins2001) data show clearly that male clergy are not temperamentally representative of the wider male population. Many male clergy score closer to feminine personality norms on empathy-linked traits. This means that Baron-Cohen’s sex-linked predictions do not reliably map onto clergy behaviour. Thirdly, theological and vocational identity shape emotional presence. The theology of priesthood in Anglicanism emphasizes relational ministry, pastoral care and incarnational presence (Emslie Reference Emslie2025b). Such a vocation may naturally foster empathic development regardless of gender or cognitive predisposition. Anglican empirical theology thus suggests that empathy is as much a spiritual formation issue as a neurocognitive one. Fourthly, pastoral risk arises not from systematizing itself but from imbalance. Archdeacon reflections reveal that clergy with strong systematizing tendencies can serve effectively when self-aware and relationally grounded; difficulties arise when systematizing becomes a compensatory defence against emotional vulnerability or pastoral exposure. Finally, the greatest pastoral concern is narcissism, not systematizing. Several Archdeacons identified narcissistic tendencies, not autistic ones, as more significantly corrosive to empathy: entitlement, self-centredness and inflated self-regard. These traits correlate with low empathy and pastoral harm but are not reducible to cognitive style. Taken together, the archidiaconal use of Baron-Cohen’s theory is best interpreted metaphorically rather than biologically. It signals concern about clergy who exhibit low relational attunement, inflexibility, and weak mentalizing capacities, traits which may, but do not necessarily, correspond to autism spectrum characteristics or ‘systematising’ profiles.
Reflection
The intersection of gender, personality and empathy in Anglican clergy is significantly more complex than any clean binary can sustain. Archdeacons interviewed for this study embody this nuance: they resist gender essentialism yet acknowledge that gender may shape the style, though not the capacity, of empathic engagement. Their observations align closely with the empirical literature on clergy psychology, which consistently demonstrates that male and female clergy share personality profiles marked by interpersonal sensitivity and relational orientation. Studies of CofE clergy, for example, reveal only modest gender effects and a substantial overlap in psychological type, with both men and women exhibiting preferences associated with empathy, such as feeling and judging orientations (Watt and Voas Reference Watt and Voas2020; Francis et al. Reference Francis, Village and Voas2021). These findings reinforce earlier work showing that clergy of both sexes depart from general population norms in the direction of relational expressiveness and emotional responsiveness (Francis et al. Reference Francis, Jones, Jackson and Robbins2001). This pattern has sometimes been described as a ‘feminine personality profile’, not in essentialist terms but as a vocational configuration amplified by the relational demands of ministry. Francis and colleagues have repeatedly documented this profile across multiple Anglican settings, arguing that clergy display a temperament more aligned with interpersonal sensitivity than with stereotypically masculine systematizing traits (Francis et al. Reference Francis, Jones, Jackson and Robbins2001; Francis et al. Reference Francis, Village and Voas2021). Such findings help explain why empathy features so prominently in archidiaconal evaluations of ministerial effectiveness: clergy thrive not simply because they can think clearly or lead efficiently, but because they can inhabit the emotional and relational worlds of their congregations. Occasionally, Archdeacons drew on broader psychological theories, such as Baron-Cohen’s empathizing–systemizing model and his ‘extreme male brain’ hypothesis, to interpret clergy who struggled with relational nuance. While these frameworks can illuminate cognitive diversity and help describe differences in processing style, they demand careful theological and empirical qualification. Contemporary evaluations of the theory reveal complexities and limitations in its explanatory power, particularly when applied to nuanced vocational contexts (Baron-Cohen Reference Baron-Cohen and Savic2010; Greenberg et al. Reference Greenberg, Warrier, Allison and Baron-Cohen2018). Moreover, clergy personality research strongly suggests that ministerial identity and formation disrupt simple sex-linked predictions by producing personality profiles that cut across gendered expectations. The empathic capacities observed in clergy appear better explained by the formative dynamics of ministry than by biological sex differences (Francis et al. Reference Francis, Jones, Jackson and Robbins2001; Watt and Voas Reference Watt and Voas2020). Taken together, the evidence suggests that empathy is neither inherently male nor female, but fundamentally vocational, shaped by personality, cultivated through formation and enacted within the relational centre of the Church’s pastoral life. Gender may influence the expression of empathy, colouring the tone or way care is offered, but the underlying capacity appears to be formed through the theological, relational and spiritual practices that constitute Anglican ministry. In this sense, empathy emerges as a ministry-shaped form of relational wisdom: critical to ecclesial health, integral to the cure of souls and best understood not through the lens of sex difference but through the lived vocation of the priesthood.
Conclusion
This first part of The Gospel of Empathy According to Archdeacons has sought to illuminate the centrality of empathy within Anglican ministry through the eyes of those charged with its pastoral oversight. The testimonies of Archdeacons, interpreted through the lenses of empirical theology, psychology and Anglican pastoral tradition, converge upon a single, striking insight: empathy is not an optional pastoral refinement but a core determinant of clerical flourishing. It is the relational capacity through which priests discern the emotional texture of their communities, negotiate conflict, build trust and inhabit the cure of souls with integrity. Conversely, its absence contributes to relational fracture, pastoral misattunement and significant emotional burden for congregations and diocesan systems alike. By engaging these archidiaconal perspectives alongside contemporary research in personality psychology, neuroscience and theological anthropology, this paper has argued that empathy functions as a vocationally cultivated form of relational wisdom. It is shaped by personality, certainly, but also by formation, context and spiritual practice. The gendered patterns noted in some accounts are best interpreted not as biologically determined differences in empathic capacity but as variations in style within a ministerial environment that powerfully reshapes emotional life. The empirical evidence suggests that clergy – male and female – share a relationally oriented psychological profile that reflects the demands of the Anglican priesthood rather than pre-existing sex-linked traits. Yet the picture remains incomplete. If empathy is as central to ministerial identity as Archdeacons claim, then further work is needed to explore how it may be nurtured, sustained and protected within the complex emotional landscape of contemporary ministry.
Part Two, to follow in a subsequent article, will therefore examine whether and how empathy can be developed through formation, prayer, supervision and reflective practice; how Archdeacons themselves exercise empathic oversight; how theological reflection deepens our understanding of empathy within the cure of souls and what practical implications follow for selection, training and support within the Church of England.
Competing interests
No conflicts of interest were reported by the author.
