Guest Editorial: Stop Redefining Empathy To Justify Cruelty, Dismiss Victims and Control Women

Victims' advocate Mike Magnotti joins the chorus of Christians pushing back against the new anti-empathy fad in Christian nationalist, far-right circles

This is a guest editorial by Mike Magnotti.

Josh McPherson, Joe Rigney and Elon Musk, three leaders of the anti-empathy movement gaining traction in Christian nationalist and far-right circles.

On March 1, Independent Journalist Dominick Bonny released a new on-line article titled “Grace City Church: Empathy is a Sin and Husbands Should Control Who Wives Have Contact With.”

The article, which you can find here, contained a number of video clips featuring GCC leaders Josh McPherson, Adam James and Kyle McMullen.

McPherson states, “Empathy almost needs to be struck from the Christian vocabulary, empathy is dangerous, empathy is toxic, empathy will align you with hell.”

The concept of empathy being a sin, we are told, is addressed in a book by a fellow named Joe Rigney, “The Sin of Empathy: Compassion and Its Counterfeits.” McMullen defines what I took to be Rigney’s definition of empathy as: “W

hen you allow the distressed emotions of another person to control and change and to manipulate your view of reality.”

The concept of empathy needing to be, “struck from the Christian vocabulary,” is too ludicrous to take seriously. And the Oxford dictionary defines empathy as, “the ability to understand and share the feelings of another.”

Well, Rigney can define empathy any way he likes. He can also say the sun rises in the west.

Although I had a knee-jerk reaction to this, what bothered me more was a statement made by Adam James. In discussing how women are particularly susceptible to these guys’ empathy = sin theology (and how their husbands need to correct them, let’s not forget that). Regarding empathy James said, “Because it’s susceptible to the victim culture, the #metoo movement, the taking up of the defense and undermining godly leadership and godly masculinity.”

Well, my whole body jerked at that one; equating the “#metoo” movement with, “victim culture?” As I wanted to be sure I wasn’t misunderstanding what he meant, on March 6, I sent this e-mail to James:

“Adam, I recently watched the video you, Josh McPherson and Ryan Visconti filmed re: empathy. You made a statement I wanted to ask you about; in regard to a woman’s vulnerability to empathy a husband needs to correct her, ‘Because it’s susceptible to the victim culture, the #metoo movement, the taking up of the defense and undermining godly leadership and godly masculinity.’ I’m planning on writing a column for the Wenatchee World about the #metoo movement, issues with church responses to reports of sexual assault and I wanted to ask you what you specifically meant by your statement. My initial reaction to your comment is that you are equating the #metoo movement with, ‘victim culture,’ and I freely admit I may be misunderstanding you. Would you be gracious enough to clarify for me?”

For those unaware, the #metoo movement is a social media campaign to spread awareness against sexual abuse, sexual harassment and rape culture, in which women publicize their experiences. The movement began to spread virally in October 2017.

And I say it was about time! Reporting sexual assault is fraught with complicated dynamics. An abused person experiences shame, confusion, guilt, etc., which makes disclosure of sexual abuse extremely challenging. While experts agree that many cases of sexual assault are never reported, a recent Center for Disease Control site estimates over 50% of women have experienced sexual violence and 1 in 4 have experienced attempted or completed rape. For our society to properly deal with this epidemic, sexual assault is something that needs to be brought out in the open and discussed.

So I was thrilled with the “#metoo” movement. Anyone involved in advocating for sexual assault survivors knows that those who have been abused need to speak out.

But “victim culture?”

Doing a little research I find these descriptive characteristics of “victim culture:” “blame-shifting,” “self-pity,” “failing to take responsibility for their own actions,” “attributing problems to others,” “a tendency to seek validation or intervention from external authorities or groups rather than resolving issues independently or addressing them directly,” “high sensitivity to perceived slights or injustices,” “seeking external validation for perceived wrongs.”

To attribute any of these descriptors to a sexual assault survivor who discloses abuse is inaccurate, demeaning and exhibits a total lack of empathy (whoops).

As of the date I submitted this article to the Wenatchee World, March 3, James has not responded to my request for clarification. But I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and accept that he, and many others in positions of any church authority, are merely ignorant of the realities of sexual assault. As is with empathy, ignorance is not a sin unless perpetuation in ignorance results in behavior detrimental to others. Whether this is the case or not with James and other “stronger men” at GCC, this ignorance has for years resulted in church authorities failing to properly deal with incidents of sexual abuse in their congregations and in many cases, incidents of abuse by church leaders. If the folks at GCC, or any church for that matter, would like a better understanding of the issues and dynamics of sexual assault, I’m more than willing to help, as are other advocates.

Ignorance is not a sin. Failing to recognize ignorance and correcting it; well, you tell me!

---

A Note on Censorship

By Dominick Bonny

This guest editorial was written for the Wenatchee World and is in its original form. Mr. Magnotti was forbidden from mentioning my coverage of this issue, however, so they ran a censored version in this weekend’s paper.

So I decided to publish the original version.

---

Other Reactions to McPherson, Rigney, Musk and the Anti-Empathy Movement

The concept of empathy being a sin has made waves nationally this month. It’s been discussion fodder on podcasts, news articles, and more than a few social media reaction videos. Here‘s some notable coverage from subject experts and Christian thought leaders for context.

In a segment called “How Empathy Came To Be Seen As A Sin” on NPR’s Weekend Edition Saturday on March 22, host Sarah McCammon quoted McPherson and Musk in her coverage of the topic. You can read or listen to that here.

Pete Enns is a professor, author and host of The Bible for Normal People podcast. He has a Ph.D. in Biblical Studies from Harvard University and created this video in response to McPherson’s claim that empathy is “toxic.”

The hosts of the “Straight, White, American Jesus” podcast, Dan Miller and Bradley Onishi, dedicated a two-part series to the subject. The SWAJ podcast is “the most listened to religion and politics podcast today,” according to their website, and you can listen to part I of that series here.

I also interviewed Onishi about six months ago, and you can listen to that entire conversation here:

Dan McClellan is an author and scholar of the bible and religion and he did a two-part video series about empathy as a foundational building block of not just religion but society itself. In his breakdown of how the concept is being used he said it’s become a coded phrase, a “caricature” so that those who celebrate and advance authoritarian mindsets can signal to one other that they are in the “in-group.”

He also explains how empathy is not only “biblical” but also a trait that our species has developed evolutionarily in order to survive. Empathy is a “prosocial” trait, and there’s ample evidence it has been present and prized even among the neanderthals, he said.

However you can go too far with empathy, McClellan said, which seems congruent with McPherson’s position.

Watch part one here:

Whether or not empathy is helpful or harmful depends on the scope of that empathy, he said. In part two be discusses “parochial empathy,” which is what happens when we have too much empathy for those who are closest to us and reserve none for those who we perceive to be in the out group. When parochial empathy becomes too “acute” it can cause us to harm, dehumanize or get rid of the out group, he said.

The irony is that those with authoritarian mindsets often seek to increase parochial empathy in order to consolidate power within the in group by focusing collective anger at an out group. It’s why

“They are the ones who are most strongly committed to parochial empathy,” he said. “They are leveraging the fact that empathy can be dangerous to try to make it sound like parochial empathy is the right way to go. But parochial empathy is precisely the dangerous type of empathy. So they are undermining their own case.”

Although the argument is made by folks like McPherson, Rigney, Musk and others, empathy is not a sin or “unbiblical” by any stretch, he said.

“They are profoundly misinformed about the science of empathy and when it comes to Christian nationalism – and they try to rope in the Bible to support them – they’re even more wildly misguided because the Bible consistently talks about a need to protect the cosmic order and the social order,” he said. “Because one is the canary in the coal mine of the other.”

You can watch part two here:

---

---