Joe Rigney ends the first chapter of his book “The Sin of Empathy” by writing:
“What then can we conclude from this initial survey? To begin, as Christians, we ought to resist any move to disparage biblical virtues. Sympathy, pity, compassion—these are biblical words with a long and well-developed history in the Christian tradition. The contemporary push to elevate empathy is frequently tied to the demotion and denigration of these other terms. Empathy, we’re told, is Sympathy 2.0, Upgraded Compassion, and we are free to dispense with the beta version.”[1]
But has he proved any such thing? Well, first of all, an English translation of a word is not in and of itself a “Biblical word”. This is particularly important when word meaning changes over time. It is not to elevate “empathy” or to disparage “compassion” if we observe that a different word serves a translation purpose better in modern English. The real question should be whether or not empathy, as understood today is a legitimate expression of how the Bible tells us to relate to one another.
However, I want to focus in on what Rigney has to say about virtue here. You see, Rigney goes on to say that he will himself use the word “empathy” in two ways in the book.
“The first is simply as “emotion-sharing.” Emotion-sharing in itself is neither virtuous nor vicious. It’s simply a common feature of human relationships. In this sense, it is a natural emotion, and not necessarily a virtue.. The second and more negative use is the sin of (untethered) empathy,
He then goes on to argue that virtue is about how we regulate or steward our passions which he defines as “the impulsive and powerful snap reactions that we have to reality.”[2] Now look at how Rigney understands virtue. Talking about courage as a virtue, he writes
“Virtues go wrong through either deficiency or excess. A deficiency of courage is cowardice. Cowardice shrinks back from danger. It succumbs to the passion of fear and therefore refuses to take risks, or it retreats in the face of pain, difficulty, and death. On the other hand, recklessness or rashness is an excess of courage. It refuses to be governed by wisdom and therefore takes foolish and unnecessary risks. Courage maintains the proper balance.”[3]
Is this an accurate or Biblical understanding of virtue though? It is important to recognise where he is getting his understanding from. The idea of the virtuous person being someone who is in balance arises out of Greek and particularly Aristotelian philosophy. This doesn’t of course make it wrong in itself but it would be helpful if Rigney were to highlight the source of his thinking and recognise how that affects his own worldview.
In fact, there are substantial difficulties with his approach here. A lack of courage is certainly expressed in cowardice. However, is it really possible to have an excess of it and does that amount to recklessness? Well, the clue is that a person may well be reckless without any evidence of courage. It is possible to be reckless purely out of self interest or obsession. The reckless driver shows no concern for the safety of others or his own because he prioritises his pleasure. The Terrorist is not courageous but is reckless in their indiscriminate lack of concern for the lives of others. A coward may well, and often is, reckless in their actions as they prioritise their own safety at the expense of others. Recklessness is not an excess of courage, it belongs in a different category.
Rigney then moves on to talk about compassion.
“Turning to the subject of this book, the virtue of compassion (or sympathy) is the habitual inclination to share the suffering and pain of the hurting that moves us to relieve their suffering and pursue their ultimate good. Like courage, it has a double vision. It sees the objective affliction and the subjective misery of a sufferer, and it resolves to join them in their pain. At the same time, it remains anchored to what is good and thus desires to relieve their suffering by pursuing their true well-being. The biblical imperative is to weep with those who weep, to clothe ourselves with “bowels of mercy,” to relieve suffering because, like Christ, we are “moved with compassion.” So also compassion goes wrong through deficiency or excess. A deficiency of compassion is apathy, that callous refusal to identify with and share the pain and suffering of others. On the other hand, empathy is an excess of compassion, when our identification with and sharing of the emotions of others overwhelms our minds and sweeps us off our feet. Empathy loses sight of the ultimate good, both for ourselves and for the hurting.”[4]
Again Rigney rightly identifies apathy as a deficiency, a lack of compassion. However, is he right to see empathy as “excess”? He offers an analogy.
“If a person is drowning in a river with a strong current, apathy is unmoved and therefore refuses to help at all. Empathy is overwhelmed by the danger and dives in and is swept away by the current. True compassion tethers itself to the shore with a rope and swims to the drowning man with a life preserver.”[5]
It is interesting that he assumes here that empathy is “overwhelmed by the danger” whereas apathy is “unmoved.” It is of course possible that the person who lacks compassion is unmoved but it is also possible that they are very much “moved” by the danger but their concern is turned in on itself, they are more concerned about themselves than the person in danger. Indeed, this perhaps helps us to properly identify the danger to compassion and where something that looks like empathy becomes sinful. Where my concern to connect with the emotions of others is driven not by their need to be loved and cared for but by my own need to be wanted and affirmed or even to vicariously experience their pain to fill a void then that will become a serious problem. It is that ancient problem of “love turned in on itself.”[6]
In terms of Rigney’s perceived excess of compassion, he describes the person who dives into the torrent, untethered to anything on the shore. To be sure, that may seem reckless, indeed, if there is time and the resources are available, then we are wise to seek to tether ourselves to something. However, that is not always possible. Sometimes the gut instinct kicks in and you put the life of the person needing help ahead of your own. I remember as a child getting too close to the edge of a cliff and my dad swooping in, untethered to pull me back from danger. I am here today because he did not stop to look around for rope and a post to secure himself to. The analogy falls at the first hurdle.
Now, here is the thing. Later, Rigney will talk in terms of our tethering being to God. Surely then the tether is permanent and secure. The believer always has the Holy Spirit present and knows that Christ has them secure in his hand. This tethering then must either refer to something else, or he has a low confidence in the work of the Spirit.
[1] Rigney, Joe. The Sin of Empathy: Compassion and Its Counterfeits (p. 30). Canon Press. Kindle Edition.
[2] Rigney, Joe. The Sin of Empathy: Compassion and Its Counterfeits (p. 31). Canon Press. Kindle Edition.”
[3] Rigney, Joe. The Sin of Empathy: Compassion and Its Counterfeits (p. 32). Canon Press. Kindle Edition.
[4] Rigney, Joe. The Sin of Empathy: Compassion and Its Counterfeits (pp. 32-33). Canon Press. Kindle Edition.
[5] Rigney, Joe. The Sin of Empathy: Compassion and Its Counterfeits (p. 33). Canon Press. Kindle Edition
[6] A concept that Augustine described.
Faithroots 