The Empathy Trap

Empathizing without thinking is easy, like diving headlong into quicksand. Compassion with conviction requires muscle.

A few days ago my friend and brilliant writer Joe Rigney published a piece at Desiring God titled “The Enticing Sin of Empathy.” Provocative? Yes, and to be honest, my first response when I saw the title was, “Uh, no.” I balked at the suggestion that what we should be talking about in an age of intense polarization, shame storms, and racial and ideological violence is the sin of empathy. Obviously this was a case of someone trying too hard, no?

But as I read the satirical demonic letter  (in the spirit of The Screwtape Letters), the scales began to fall. Here’s how Rigney’s Screwtape describes the difference between empathy and compassion:

Think of it this way: the Enemy’s virtue of compassion attempts to suffer with the hurting while maintaining an allegiance to the Enemy. In fact, it suffers with the hurting precisely because of this allegiance. In doing so, the Christians are to follow the example of their pathetic and repulsive Master. Just as the Enemy joined the humans in their misery in that detestable act of incarnation, so also his followers are to join those who are hurting in their misery.

However, just as the Enemy became like them in every way but sin, so also his followers are not permitted to sin in their attempts to comfort the afflicted. Thus, his compassion always reserves the right not to blaspheme. It seeks the sufferer’s good and subordinates itself to the Enemy’s abominable standard of Truth.

Our alternative, empathy, shifts the focus from the sufferer’s good to the sufferer’s feelings, making them the measure of whether a person is truly “loved.” We teach the humans that unless they subordinate their feelings entirely to the misery, pain, sorrow, and even sin and unbelief of the afflicted, they are not loving them.

In other words, compassion multiplies sufferers, but empathy consumes all fellowship into the feelings of one. In the economy of empathy there is no currency except the sufferer’s own interpretation of their suffering; any other alm offered up is illegitimate. Compassion grabs hold (in one of Rigney’s metaphors) of sinking sufferers while keeping a firm grasp on that which is immovable, so that the sinking sufferer can be pulled up onto something. Empathy dives headlong in the quicksand. The point is not finding life after suffering. There is no point, except the experience of the moment. What we’re talking about is simply the abdication of pursuing the right and true in deference to feelings and experiences.

Now, even typing that previous sentence feels strange. It feels strange because for a while now the idea that feelings and experiences do not dictate what we should believe or do is an idea that has been lumped—lumped in with bombastic right-wing pundits (“Facts don’t care about your feelings”), scowling John Wayne boomers, and careless theologians. This is one of the essential difficulties of thinking in a polarized, culture war age: It’s impossible to believe anything that isn’t somehow trademarked by an obnoxious tribe.

But the difficulty of thinking is not an excuse for failing to try, and if we’re willing to listen, I think Joe is making a crucially important point about the empathy trap and the power it wields over many.

This empathy trap was on display in evangelical social media this week. On Sunday, president Donald Trump appeared onstage at McLean Bible Church, and pastor David Platt prayed with and for him. Joe Carter has a helpful summary of the background of the event, as well as a full transcript of Platt’s prayer. Nearly everyone seems to agree that Platt’s prayer was excellent. It was steadfastly non-partisan and unequivocal about the gospel. But did Platt make a serious error of judgment in allowing Trump to come onstage, in praying for him, and (perhaps most of all) in not forcefully shaming and rebuking him for his politics?  Since the moment resulted in some not-negative PR for Trump, and since Platt did not use the opportunity to challenge the president, a very vocal, very passionate group has reasoned that this obviously caused trauma and offense to many members of Platt’s church (and others).

It is, of course, entirely coherent to hold that a pastor must never allow a politician to be onstage at church. I’m actually sympathetic to that view and imagine that, all variables being equal, such a policy would probably solve a lot of problems at once. But nobody appears to be arguing from absolute principle that Platt was wrong to pray with Trump onstage. Instead, because it was Trump, it was wrong. The argument expressed so far has to do with the felt offense of members of Platt’s church at watching their pastor pray for a president they abhor.

The Platt drama reveals two of the biggest dangers of unchecked empathy. First, empathy is by definition selective (empathize with NeverTrump, or his supporters in the church?); thus it’s uniquely vulnerable to being held captive by passing fads, trends, and mobs. Much of the fiercest criticism of Platt seems to be deeply self-congratulatory, reverberating with Retweets and Likes in echo chambers that consistently take the ungenerous interpretation of a white evangelical pastor’s stage time with Donald Trump. Nary a thought is offered for the complexities of being a pastor of a politically diverse congregation, and the wisdom in refraining from partisan language and simply pointing the church and the president to the gospel.

Second, this kind of empathetic absolutism runs serious risk of becoming a ruthlessly utilitarian way of doing life and theology. Matthew Vines built an entire case for Christian LGBT affirmation on the basis of the hurt and alienation of gay Christians from traditional churches. “Bad trees bear bad fruit,” he wrote, an analogy that fails logically but succeeds emotionally. It’s not hard to see how a one-note emphasis on the feelings of others can become a mechanism for controlling revelation, particularly in the hyper-democratic and hyper-individualistic superstructure of online life.

The alternative, as Joe writes, is compassion. There should be much compassion for those who fall into the empathy trap, since, where compassion is lacking, unchecked empathy often rushes to fill the void. There is a true dearth of compassion in both secular and Christian culture—tribalism when there should be honesty, shaming when there should be help, and politics when there should be prayer. The inability to even mention these dynamics without seeing conservative backs stiffen is why the empathy trap is hard to resist. Yet resist it we should, in the name of wisdom and eternity. Empathizing without thinking is easy, like diving headlong into quicksand. Compassion with conviction requires muscle, to hold a hand on one end and keep a grip on solid ground with the other.

The best I can tell, David Platt was put into a demanding position and asked to make a potentially explosive decision. In the end, he shared the stage with a seriously morally problematic leader and did nothing else but echo the exhortations of the Caesar-submissive Paul. There’s nothing wrong with seeing a political leader and feeling offense at his views or conduct, but there’s everything wrong with imputing that offense to the gospel itself and demanding that churches only obey 1 Timothy 2:2 through gritted teeth and scorn. Bible-trumping partisanship crouches at both GOP and Democratic doors, and it’s not less of a tragedy for it to master one tribe over another.

We must still master it. To that end, I don’t think we could do much better than to pray alongside David Platt: “Please, O God, help us to look to you, help us to trust in your Word, help us to seek your wisdom, and live in ways that reflect your love and your grace, your righteousness and your justice.”

Author: Samuel D. James

Believer, husband, father, acquisitions editor, writer.

6 thoughts on “The Empathy Trap”

  1. Not sure why so many would hate President Trump. So Hillary Clinton would be the better option? Regardless of who is in office, we are called to pray for them. The visible church brings shame to the gospel everyday, quarreling about things such as this. Scripture is clear that we submit to those in authority. This changes when it begins to go in direct contradiction with His Word. What exactly does everyone expect from Donald Trump?

    We have become spoiled brats in America. If only people hated their own sin as much as that of others. A time of persecution will come, and it will be a day of reckoning to see who really loves Jesus Christ. It will be far fewer than those filling the church pews.

    Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

    Let us beat our breasts and tear our clothes in sorrow for our sins and the sins of our nation. Last time I checked, those sins didn’t start with President Trump.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. There is much to commend your piece. Not least of which is the citation of Rigney’s “le tombeau de Lewis”. Four years ago, against my better judgment, I agreed with the rest of our elder board that a candidate for the Texas State Senate should be allowed to say “a few words” from our pulpit on Sunday morning. Without going into the gory details, I stood before our people the following Sunday asking their forgiveness on behalf of the entire elder board for allowing this candidate to speak.
    But Brother Dave did no different than we did at our church on the specific Sunday that has evidently become so controversial. We prayed for President Trump that Sunday. We prayed that he would come to know Jesus Christ as Savior. The difference was that the President was physically present with David Platt, so on that basis I’m sure, he did not ask God to save him right there.
    Your writing is typically excellent and insightful. But there were a few areas where you failed to connect here. 1. I am a baby boomer. Now, I know what you mean by “scowling John Wayne boomers”, but is not such language encouraging generational division in the Bride of Christ? 2. Your third paragraph from the end misses the mark. “The inability to even mention these dynamics without seeing conservative backs stiffen is why the empathy trap is hard to resist.” This may be true from your perspective, but I can tell you about a time on the university campus where I taught for many years when I tried to compassionately interact with a LGBTQ activist. He was telling me that Jesus and some of His followers were gay because there was a “disciple who Jesus loved.” Telling him that he was wrong about Jesus and His disciples, I began trying to explain to him the difference between agape and eros. At this point he got very close to my face and screamed, “why don’t you just admit that you hate me.” So the conversation ended. So, Samuel, it is not just conservative backs that stiffen when we try to compassionately engage the culture. The gospel is paramount. Doctrine is paramount. Discipleship is paramount, but all must be done with the mind of Christ.


    1. 1. That’s a fair point about the boomer comment. I was trying to express the feeling of uneasiness vividly, but you’re right, that’s a canard that doesn’t need promotion. Thanks for the correction.

      2. I think our two points are totally compatible here. My remark about “conservative backs” was intended to reflect my experience inside conservative evangelicalism, rather than imply that only conservatives are bothered by gospel reminders. In my view, the reason that otherwise thoughtful believers fall into the empathy trap is often that their conservative mentors have a tribal instinct to downplay the necessity of grace. When they hear earnest unbelievers give a powerful narrative that merits compassion, and then see some conservative evangelicals withhold that compassion for no better reason than a slippery slope, the damage is done. That’s what I was getting at. But yes, you’re absolutely right that it’s not a one way street.

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s