Canceling Empathy

Joe Rigney, Doug Wilson, and now James White are trying to cancel empathy.

A lot has been said about empathy, but one good starting place is recognizing that this virtue, like all virtues, is not independent of an ethical standard. I understand there's some dispute on the exact meaning of empathy, but this basic dictionary definition will do. 

EMPATHY -- "the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present without having the feelings, thoughts, and experience fully communicated in an objectively explicit manner."

Why is empathy being canceled by some in the fringe of Christianity? Some are assuming, and it's a significant assumption, that to share in emotions is to share in all of the reasons for the feelings. 

As James White said in a recent tweet, "Do not surrender your mind to the sinful emotional responses of others." The idea he is presenting is that empathy, by necessity, is a sharing of (I'm assuming only potentially) sinful responses. That is, if sin is connected to my mourning, and if someone empathizes with my mourning, they share in that same sin. 

However, empathy is a neurological and spiritual response that does not exist in an ethical vacuum. Empathy, like all virtues, is not a virtue or response that exists on an island. Virtues are always dependent or at least in part defined based on outside factors. Another way of saying this is that virtue has a virtue-giver or a transcendent law-giver. 

How does this dynamic work with other virtues?

To be faithful is good, but only if that faithfulness is to Christ or to a just standard given by Christ. 

Justice is a virtue, but whose justice? This is a massive issue in today's world. Justice is absolutely a virtue, but only when we assume the transcendent standard of the one and only just God.

Goodness depends on a moral standard to determine what is good, and that standard is, again, God's nature, character, and revealed Law/Word. 

Even truth assumes an objective reality. One does not "stand by truth" righteously without a higher epistemological standard.  

Even though we speak of these virtues as intrinsically virtuous, the Christian presupposition is that all of these ideas are grounded and dependent on Christ and his teachings. They are not divorced from a greater end. They all serve the Kingdom. 

When we divorce virtues from their God-given ethical standards, they all become sin. There is no neutrality in this.

If someone feels what others feel and lets go of, rejects, or neglects the truth of God's Word in the direction of their own emotions or in communicating with those they are emphasizing with, they are practicing false-empathy. I mean by the "direction of their own emotions" that emotions have a cause and a focus and are, much like virtues, not divorced from other factors. Are you empathetically mourning for sinful reasons or because of the pain and suffering of the sinner? We must ask this question, and it seems like some are assuming the answer. 

For example, if Bob is mourning because of the consequences of his unrepentant sin, Sarah could mourn with Bob in such a way that reinforces Bob's sin and effectively enables further sin. This empathy is a sinful sort of empathy. But it is a twisted false empathy. 

Likewise, Sarah could be a very kind person, but in her kindness, she never corrects sin, never rebukes injustice, and never stands up for truth. Is she really being kind? Are we to say that her version of kindness is true kindness? If so, are we to say that kindness is also a sin? Is kindness the next virtue to be canceled? 

Is this sort of false, anchor-less kindness a problem? Is justice divorced from God's standards a tremendous social danger? Is empathy without a standard highly likely to be sinful? Absolutely. However, it is illogical, theologically aberrant, and pastorally reckless to label the corruption of any particular virtue as the virtue itself. 

Here's a quick story from my own life. I once worked with a young woman who was gay, and she had also started to transition into transgenderism. One night after work, she told me how her family had caused her great suffering because of her sin. I sat there and cried with her because her pain was real, and I hate that pain. I also know that her pain is a result of, at least, her sin as well as possibly the sin of her parents. That pain is also the result of sin in this world. And so I suffered in her suffering, and once again, I shared the Gospel with her. I talked about sin and how Christ suffered for our sin, and yes, I told her she was a sinner and how she was a sinner. She didn't lash out at me. I don't know what she's doing today, but what I do know is that it was never unclear to her that I thought she was in sin. What was also very clear to her was that I cared about her. 

We can empathize and honestly share in the suffering, mourning, or rejoicing of those we encounter. We can do this without sharing in their hypothetical sin, and we can do this without justifying their sin. 

I think we can do this faithfully as long as we are not scared to stand firm in the truth while at the same time having soft hearts towards the lost. 

What does God's Word have to say about empathy? If the term is a problem because of some etymological issue, what does God's Word have to say about sharing in others' emotions? 

"Remember them that are in bonds, as bound with them; and them which suffer adversity, as being yourselves also in the body." - ‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭13:3‬

Not only are we to just cognitively acknowledge those in bonds, but we are to remember in a fashion as if we are "bound with them." 

"On the contrary, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, and on those parts of the body that we think less honorable we bestow the greater honor, and our unpresentable parts are treated with greater modesty, which our more presentable parts do not require. But God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that lacked it, that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together." - ‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭12:22-26‬ ‭

Not only are we to merely remember and recognize the suffering of those in the body (who could very well be suffering because of sin), but we are commanded to suffer with them, together, in unity. Likewise, we are to rejoice together as if the rejoicing of one is the rejoicing of all. 

"rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn" - Romans 12:15

We are not told to stoically acknowledge the mourning of those who mourn; we are told to mourn with those who mourn. Likewise, we are to rejoice with those who rejoice. We are not to understand that someone is rejoicing and then offer our doctrinal opinions on that rejoicing; we are told very explicitly to share in the same emotions. There is no asterisk in the text saying "only if their emotions are coming from a completely sinless place." 

Yet, I do not believe we're dealing with a fullcourt press to endorse un-caring, stoic sociopathy. Not yet. However, it deeply concerns me that some public figures feel the need to redefine empathy in a way that conflates empathy with empathy's corruption. In doing so, these teachers risk decreasing genuine empathy in the church in a clumsy and careless attempt to address false empathy. It is inevitable, and we can already see this in hundreds of social media debates, that followers of these men will reject any definition of empathy in a sloppy attempt to follow their thought-leaders. Empathy is not codependence and it is not enmeshment, but that is not and will not be clear to many. 

And when you disagree that empathy is sin, remember that it must be because you, as James White says, "haven't thought it through" or because you "have been deeply compromised by the worldly perspective." James, perhaps the problem is that you're using a special definition unheard of until a few years ago, and you're reckless with your speech? Perhaps empathize with the vast crowd of commenters who were astonished by your sensational tweets instead of disparaging their knowledge and character. When you think few understand, maybe it's because the writer is not clear. Or, more likely, in this case, most understand just fine but strongly disagree. 

With all the attention being focused on the cancellation of racists, perhaps we should be more concerned when a God-given virtue is being canceled? Virtue is being sacrificed on the altar of edgy, click-bait, hot-takes and it’s a dangerous trend. 

Friends, we need fewer shock jocks. 

Friends, we need fewer Twitter Culture Warriors. 

Friends, empathy is not a sin. This pastoral recklessness, however, certainly can be. 

ArticleJohn Reasnorempathy, james white, Doug WilsonComment