I wrote recently in response to an article in Evangelicals Now about the supposed problem with empathy. The idea that we have a problem with empathy seems to be particularly driven by an American author, Joe Rigney. He has written a book called “The sin of empathy.” Actually, it’s a lot more complicated than that. Rigney moves from attacking empathy itself, to attacking a distortion of it which he refers to as “untethered empathy” and also says that he isn’t attempting to deal with the definition of the word but with how it is enacted.
As well as the confusion about what the exact purpose of the book is and who/what Rigney has in his sights is that Rigney whilst writing in an Evangelical context and indeed as a representative of the Campaign for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (and in the penultimate chapter it becomes clear that this is what is his concern, it is all about what he considers to be godly masculinity and femininity in their right place), the book is rather light on Scripture. There are occasional references scattered in a rather minimalist fashion through the book but I managed to get about 60% of the way through with I think it was about one passing reference to Hebrews. However, what the book lacks is any grounding in a carefully exegeted basis for Rigney’s position. This is why I consider it a bad book. Having read the book, I want to work through some of the arguments Rigney makes to try and show why I consider it badly argued from an Evangelical and Reformed perspective.
Now, by daring to disagree with Rigney, I may well simply confirm his suspicions. Early on, he writes:
In the summer of 2018, I was invited to speak at a student conference in Moscow, Idaho. As an addendum, the organizers asked if I would be willing to be the first guest on a new talk show they were piloting called Man Rampant (in the mold of William F. Buckley’s Firing Line), with Doug Wilson as the host. Since Doug and I shared an appreciation for Friedman, I suggested the topic “The Sin of Empathy.”4 We filmed the episode in July 2018, and it was released in October 2019. It provoked a wide range of reactions. Some people appreciated the distinctions and categories we offered. Others were honestly confused by the definitions and terms in play; they struggled to even grasp the possibility that empathy could be dangerous or sinful. At the same time, the visceral reaction of others seemed to validate the argument. It was as though people had decided [1]
Note, that only three options are offered in terms of reaction. People either appreciate and welcome the argument he offers, are genuinely confused, suggesting a weakness on their part or are in deranged or disingenuous opposition to Rigney. The possibility that people may take legitimate issue with him is excluded. Whether or not Rigney shows a lack of empathy towards others, he happily engages in the kind of emotive play that he says he wants to confront. If he has entered the field of controversy, surely he would do well to seek out his opponents arguments, presented at their best and seek to reason against them.
The starting problem with the book is that Rigney whilst complaining about there being numerous definitions of the word “empathy” seems himself confused about definitions. As noted above, he switches between complaints about empathy itself and references to something he refers to as untethered empathy. We see this early on. In chapter 1, he writes:
Pity, of course, is a good thing. It spurs us to help those who are hurting. But unmoored from what is good and right, pity becomes destructive. Compassion degenerates into untethered empathy, leaving destruction in its wake. And given the prevalence of appeals to empathy in our society, it’s vital that we learn to distinguish good from bad, healthy from toxic, the virtue of compassion from the sin of empathy.[2]
Here, he seems to be setting up a distinction between three things, pity, compassion and empathy. One would assume that compassion is seen as the best thing here with pity slightly worse than pity. We may find that pity can be misemployed, especially if it is seen as the root of this “untethered empathy” but surely if God is compassionate and we are called to be compassionate then this is something we should always strive to do, right? Well not so for Rigney. He takes us to Deuteronomy 13:6-9 which says:
If your brother, the son of your mother, or your son or your daughter or the wife you embrace or your friend who is as your own soul entices you secretly, saying, “Let us go and serve other gods,” which neither you nor your fathers have known, some of the gods of the peoples who are around you, whether near you or far off from you, from the one end of the earth to the other, you shall not yield to him or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him, nor shall you conceal him. But you shall kill him. Your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people.[3]
Rigney says:
“In this passage, we are forbidden to show pity or compassion on those who would entice us to idolatry. Similar commands are given with respect to first-degree murder and lying in court (Deut. 7:16; 19:13; 19:21). In such cases, God is adamant that “your eye shall not pity them.” Notice how God piles up the familial terms. He’s telling us, “I know what I’m asking—sometimes you must overcome natural emotions in order to be faithful to me.”[4]
Now, there’s a tiny little clue here that Rigney may have gone a little askew in his exegesis and application. He is quick to pick up on the negatives, what the recipients of this command are not meant to do in those cases, they are not to show pity or compassion. However, he omits to give time to what the hearers are told to do to those they are not to pity. They are to kill them. Now, unless Rigney is seeking to impose some form of duty on the church to use capital punishment then that should give him pause to consider how we are meant to apply this passage. It is important when teaching Scripture to think about context and that includes when where and to whom it was spoken/written. This is of course part of the Torah and is an instruction to ancient Israel. Sin and idolatry cannot be tolerated within the assembly of God’s people. It must be removed. Is there a straight cross over to the church today? Well, at this point, any preacher amongst us should remember those preaching classes where it was drummed into us that we apply the Old Testament through Christ. To fail to do this leads to dangers including prosperity teaching and legalism.
So, how do we apply those passages to the church through Christ? Well, we are helped because the New Testament at various points does talk about killing or putting to death. A crucial example of such is in Romans 8. First, Paul says:
“Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, 2 because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives life has set you[a] free from the law of sin and death. 3 For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh,[b] God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin offering.[c] And so he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.”[5]
Notice that at this stage, the language of putting to death is not explicitly used. However, condemnation mirrors the treating of people as guilty of idolatry in Deuteronomy and of course the penalty that accompanies such condemnation is death. So, who or what is to be condemned? The answer is that it isn’t us. It’s not God’s people. We are in Christ Jesus and free from condemnation. However, Jesus takes on flesh so that in his flesh, in him, sin itself is condemned. It is sin that is ruthlessly treated without pity or compassion. It is sin that is condemned.
This means that we are under a duty. Paul tells us what it is:
12 Therefore, brothers and sisters, we have an obligation—but it is not to the flesh, to live according to it. 13 For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live.
We are not to show pity or compassion, we are to kill “the misdeeds of the body.” As John Owen famously put it, “be killing sin or it will be killing you.”
We are barely 11 pages into the book at Rigney has already got into a mess with his handling of Scripture. Perhaps it is for the best that he doesn’t attempt to rely on God’s Word to make his argument. However, what this means is that he has already mangled his understanding of how we are to apply emotions like compassion.
[1]Rigney, Joe. The Sin of Empathy: Compassion and Its Counterfeits (p. 8). Canon Press. Kindle Edition.
[2] Rigney, Joe. The Sin of Empathy: Compassion and Its Counterfeits (p. 6). Canon Press. Kindle Edition.
[3] Cited in Rigney, Joe. The Sin of Empathy: Compassion and Its Counterfeits (p. 11). Canon Press. Kindle Edition.
[4] Rigney, Joe. The Sin of Empathy: Compassion and Its Counterfeits (pp. 11-12). Canon Press. Kindle Edition.”
[5] Romans 8:1-4.
Faithroots 