I’ve read Joe Rigney’s essay on the supposed evils of empathy and feminism in American Reformer, Christian academia’s top source of Carl Schmitt apologia, so
I think it is also significant that Rigney's arguments about empathy emerged into public view over his accusations that people were committing the sin of "untethered empathy" by refusing to denounce the sexual sins of people who were abused by church leaders (the sins in question being the abuse).
Indeed. His insistence that a high school student groomed and abused at Logos (by her teacher and, at the time, an elder at his current church) was culpable for the "sin" of succumbing to the grooming was despicable.
If Rigney had no ulterior motive, he might have been more discerning in giving his project a title. He could just as easily have called it “Rightly Ordered Empathy” or “The Biblical Application of Empathy”, rather than front-loading it with negative implications about empathy.
I read Kaeley Triller Harm’s substack article on this topic, and while I may not agree with every word of it, she makes a salient comparison of the phrases “toxic empathy” (not Rigney’s words, but close enough) and “toxic masculinity”, and the consequences of their respective usages. She argues that the widespread use of “toxic masculinity” has eroded our positive associations with masculinity and men. While some have contributed to this phenomenon unintentionally with valid concerns about rampant male abuse, others have used the phrase consciously to influence the culture against men. It is notable that many who are calling attention to this will use “the sin of empathy” without compunction.
Whether careless or intentional, pairing negative terms with benign ones can have vast cultural consequences, and while we may have lost sight of it in the age of clickbait, we are obligated as Christians to use our words wisely and ethically, and in a way that points people to Christ.
I agree with Blake that Rigney is using this phrasing deliberately and manipulatively for a socio-political campaign. He cites Edwin Friedman’s “A Failure of Nerve” as a primary influence. Like Friedman, he pushes a strident and muscular leadership model that casts aspersions on empathy, rather than promoting it as an essential countermeasure to authoritarianism. Everyone in the Canon Press orbit uses language to this effect, building in just enough plausible deniability to gaslight their critics, and mischaracterize them as alarmists or slanderers.
I’m not sure I totally agree here, Blake. You’ve acknowledged that any virtue could run wild if unmoored from Biblical principle. So you’re making the concession that even empathy can be misused. We would agree there.
But your critique of Rigney is in the leap you make from your concession to his application. Rigney’s way of applying the sin of empathy goes much deeper than political power. Have you listened to his preaching? His book on emotional sabotage firstly concerns sobermindedness in the home—then the church, followed by the world. That order of operations is thoroughly Biblical. I think you’re misrepresenting him.
Do a write up against CN, if you will. But the sin of empathy remains extremely relevant because it’s the current sin being most promoted and lauded.
I linked to the article he wrote on this subject and understand it perfectly well. Just because he gives examples of individuals in the home using "empathy" to manipulate people into doing what they want, what the rest of the world calls codependency, it doesn't negate that he has explicitly (and wrongly) tied this to feminism, and that his broader examples are all purposefully anti-left.
If he was being honest about this "sin of empathy," the first place he'd look is his own, male run church environment, which has a massive wake of victims who describe it as a high-control and highly emotionally manipulative environment. Instead, what we get is a politically convenient argument designed to make people question how much compassion they should show their enemies.
Not true, Rigney acknowledges rightly practices empathy and does not reject it as a whole. He also doesn’t consider it a 1:1 with sympathy. He is for empathy as far as caring for those in need to promote godliness, but not the abuse of it to condone wickedness.
Blake, fantastic take on The Sin of Empathy! Your point about συμπαθέω as Christ’s heart in Mark 12:31 resonates deeply. I explored a similar idea in Luke 7—Jesus’ splanchnizomai stepping into a widow’s quicksand, not bowing to religiosity. Jesus willingly became ceremonially unclean by touching the bier, but empathy places people before what’s considered acceptable.
An uncharitable reading of a guy who posts a picture of a cartoon monster in response to women expressing concerns about abuses in the church? I doubt it.
If they can whinge about being manipulated by liberal pansies, it drowns out the roar of Christ body-slamming them. Christ ain't much of a manipulator. More like an MMA fighter.
Agreed. The dictionary definition of empathy is the conscious expression of sympathy, literally συμπαθέω, so it would be quite impossible for him to linguistically separate the two.
He's an associate pastor at a church, and fellow at its school, famous for its tactics of emotional manipulation--just watch the latest New Saint Andrews "we're manly men fighting the culture" video, even though locals tell me the majority of students are women. The whole argument is projection.
Good stuff. This is exactly it. Look for my essay on related matters this weekend at The Dispatch!
I think it is also significant that Rigney's arguments about empathy emerged into public view over his accusations that people were committing the sin of "untethered empathy" by refusing to denounce the sexual sins of people who were abused by church leaders (the sins in question being the abuse).
Indeed. His insistence that a high school student groomed and abused at Logos (by her teacher and, at the time, an elder at his current church) was culpable for the "sin" of succumbing to the grooming was despicable.
If Rigney had no ulterior motive, he might have been more discerning in giving his project a title. He could just as easily have called it “Rightly Ordered Empathy” or “The Biblical Application of Empathy”, rather than front-loading it with negative implications about empathy.
I read Kaeley Triller Harm’s substack article on this topic, and while I may not agree with every word of it, she makes a salient comparison of the phrases “toxic empathy” (not Rigney’s words, but close enough) and “toxic masculinity”, and the consequences of their respective usages. She argues that the widespread use of “toxic masculinity” has eroded our positive associations with masculinity and men. While some have contributed to this phenomenon unintentionally with valid concerns about rampant male abuse, others have used the phrase consciously to influence the culture against men. It is notable that many who are calling attention to this will use “the sin of empathy” without compunction.
Whether careless or intentional, pairing negative terms with benign ones can have vast cultural consequences, and while we may have lost sight of it in the age of clickbait, we are obligated as Christians to use our words wisely and ethically, and in a way that points people to Christ.
I agree with Blake that Rigney is using this phrasing deliberately and manipulatively for a socio-political campaign. He cites Edwin Friedman’s “A Failure of Nerve” as a primary influence. Like Friedman, he pushes a strident and muscular leadership model that casts aspersions on empathy, rather than promoting it as an essential countermeasure to authoritarianism. Everyone in the Canon Press orbit uses language to this effect, building in just enough plausible deniability to gaslight their critics, and mischaracterize them as alarmists or slanderers.
I’m not sure I totally agree here, Blake. You’ve acknowledged that any virtue could run wild if unmoored from Biblical principle. So you’re making the concession that even empathy can be misused. We would agree there.
But your critique of Rigney is in the leap you make from your concession to his application. Rigney’s way of applying the sin of empathy goes much deeper than political power. Have you listened to his preaching? His book on emotional sabotage firstly concerns sobermindedness in the home—then the church, followed by the world. That order of operations is thoroughly Biblical. I think you’re misrepresenting him.
Do a write up against CN, if you will. But the sin of empathy remains extremely relevant because it’s the current sin being most promoted and lauded.
I linked to the article he wrote on this subject and understand it perfectly well. Just because he gives examples of individuals in the home using "empathy" to manipulate people into doing what they want, what the rest of the world calls codependency, it doesn't negate that he has explicitly (and wrongly) tied this to feminism, and that his broader examples are all purposefully anti-left.
If he was being honest about this "sin of empathy," the first place he'd look is his own, male run church environment, which has a massive wake of victims who describe it as a high-control and highly emotionally manipulative environment. Instead, what we get is a politically convenient argument designed to make people question how much compassion they should show their enemies.
The article is a caricature of Rigley’s position so ok.
Not true, Rigney acknowledges rightly practices empathy and does not reject it as a whole. He also doesn’t consider it a 1:1 with sympathy. He is for empathy as far as caring for those in need to promote godliness, but not the abuse of it to condone wickedness.
He's not, though, and Danielle Treweek confirmed my explanation in her extensive review of the book.
https://mereorthodoxy.com/sin-of-empathy-joe-rigney-book-review
Blake, fantastic take on The Sin of Empathy! Your point about συμπαθέω as Christ’s heart in Mark 12:31 resonates deeply. I explored a similar idea in Luke 7—Jesus’ splanchnizomai stepping into a widow’s quicksand, not bowing to religiosity. Jesus willingly became ceremonially unclean by touching the bier, but empathy places people before what’s considered acceptable.
Rigney’s caution feels misplaced to me, and I’d love to hear your thoughts on how Jesus’ empathy guides us today. I tackle the topic and Rigney's dangerous ideas here: https://open.substack.com/pub/kylemorrow/p/empathy-that-touches-when-jesus-steps?r=3ynkt3&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true.
Thank you for using your platform to challenge this idea!
This is a quite uncharitable reading
An uncharitable reading of a guy who posts a picture of a cartoon monster in response to women expressing concerns about abuses in the church? I doubt it.
If they can whinge about being manipulated by liberal pansies, it drowns out the roar of Christ body-slamming them. Christ ain't much of a manipulator. More like an MMA fighter.
Agreed. The dictionary definition of empathy is the conscious expression of sympathy, literally συμπαθέω, so it would be quite impossible for him to linguistically separate the two.
He's an associate pastor at a church, and fellow at its school, famous for its tactics of emotional manipulation--just watch the latest New Saint Andrews "we're manly men fighting the culture" video, even though locals tell me the majority of students are women. The whole argument is projection.