In the penultimate chapter of “The Sin of Empathy”, Joe Rigney writes:
“We can’t adequately address the dangers of empathy without considering feminism and its impact on the church.”[1]
He quotes from a speech that Calvin Robinson made in 2024 where he argued that:
Generally speaking, men tend to be more theologically rigid, whereas women tend to be more theologically flexible. That is because men do not have the emotional intelligence of women. We are more black and white, meaning we tend to be logic-based when it comes to problem solving. Women tend to be more inclusive. They are more empathetic and tend to be more emotion-based when solving problems. You can see how that might be a problem when a group is claiming to be an oppressed minority, and the thing preventing them from attending Church is the cruel doctrines and the regressive scriptures we follow. Which empath wouldn’t want to compromise in order to make a so-called oppressed minority feel included?[2]
Well, it is true that there is a general perception in society that women are more emotionally intelligent than men. However, the results are not as clear cut as Robinson and Rigney presume. First of all because there are questions about the extent to which this is about biological hardwiring and how much it is about social expectations.[3] Secondly, whilst some studies have suggested female empathetic superiority others have been less clear cut.[4] Once again, Rigney makes bold assertions without evidence.
The jury is therefore out as to whether or not women are generally more empathetic than men. However, whether or not we accept that possibility, I note that once again we hear assertions, this time that this empathetic tendency leads to women being more flexible in their theology. No evidence for this confident assertion is provided either from Scripture or General Revelation.
At this juncture, Rigney does acknowledge that there may be positives to empathy, especially when it comes to women.
And, in itself, this is a God-given blessing. Empathy—that is, vicariously experiencing the emotions of another—can be a wonderful thing in its place. It fosters connection and bonding. It’s why women frequently act as the glue that holds communities together.”[5]
However, there are for Rigney, limits to this empathy. It must be kept in its place, in other words, in the home. He goes on@
“Crucially, however, what is a blessing in one place is a curse in another. The same impulse that leads a woman to move toward the hurting with comfort and welcome becomes a major liability when it comes to guarding the doctrine and worship of the church.[6]
In other words, all of those things that he recognises as good in the human household are, according to Rigney, unsuitable for the spiritual household. What we see at work here is broad complementarianism. Narrow complementarians argue that the male female distinction is limited to church leadership and headship/submission in the home. They argue that we should be happy to keep to this because it is what God’s Word requires of us. Wide/broad complementarians however insist that those male/female distinctions apply more broadly, excluding women from leadership in the workplace, participation in the military and even elected political positions. They also argue that this can be demonstrated because of differences in nature between male and female.
I do believe that there are observable distinctions between men and women. However, I take the narrow position in that I see distinctions as restricted to church and home. I also think that we are unwise to go beyond Scripture in attempting to reason why God places those different expectations on us. We do well to stick simply with the point that God uses the relationship between husband and wife to point to the relationship between Christ and the church.
Whilst part of that distinction seems to be about elders having a responsibility to provide and protect by feeding the church on God’s Word and keeping a watch for false shepherds and wolves, this isn’t because women are generally susceptible to faulty doctrine. Indeed, biblically we see Mary, welcomed to sit at the feet of Jesus to learn from him. We see Priscilla involved with her husband in teaching Apollos, we see Junia describes as “outstanding among the apostles.”
What I think we might conclude from that is that churches need what women have to bring as well. If a family needs mothers and fathers, so too does the church. If that is about nurturing and if it does include a greater, though definitely not an exclusive gifting in empathy then sure the need to “move towards the hurting with comfort and welcome” is needed in the church as well as the home. It is therefore quite concerning to hear a suggestion, not merely that men and women complement one another in the church but that a good gift to and through women in the home might be “a major liability” in the church.
[1] Rigney, Joe. The Sin of Empathy: Compassion and Its Counterfeits (p. 110). Canon Press. Kindle Edition.
[2] Rigney, Joe. The Sin of Empathy: Compassion and Its Counterfeits (pp. 111-112). Canon Press. Kindle Edition.
[3] See Empathy: Gender effects in brain and behavior – PMC
[4] See e.g. Are women more empathetic than men? Questionnaire and EEG estimations of sex/gender differences in empathic ability | Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience | Oxford Academic
[5] Rigney, Joe. The Sin of Empathy: Compassion and Its Counterfeits (p. 112). Canon Press. Kindle Edition.
[6] Rigney, Joe. The Sin of Empathy: Compassion and Its Counterfeits (pp. 113-114). Canon Press. Kindle Edition.
Faithroots 