Part of what I identified in my previous post was our need to discover common ground, or perhaps to put it in a better way, to simply understand, or, as it were ‘put on’ the other. In this post I’m going to run with this idea and see where it takes me.

It feels like compassion closely relates to this. The desire to not just reach across the divide into the lonely lives of the other, but also to bring healing. I think this is a strong motivator for me in writing these posts, the hope that in wrestling through my own thoughts, that I can in turn impart something of benefit to the other, something healing or helpful. After all, I can see from the analytics that there are hundreds of you reading.

Compassion as opposed to empathy. It has to start with empathy, as it says in Romans 12:15, “Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep” but it can’t remain there. Empathy is simply feeling what someone else is feeling, which is of course critical, but it must go beyond this. Take for instance the person who is thirsty, physically or metaphorically; it is important to suffer in their suffering, to understand, but it’s also important to be able to offer direction to this person, to direct them to the well.

Anger and grief often have a kind of narrowing quality to them. We become locked into a limited frame of reference, viewing everything as disproportionately bad because of x, or in the case of anger, a desire often to defend some narrow aspect of ourselves that we feel is under threat. And again, this gets at the distinction between compassion and empathy. Empathy is feeling the other’s anger and grief by viewing it as they do, through their narrow lens, whereas empathy goes beyond this, it offers at the same time a broadening perspective.

This is not unrelated, it seems to me, to the current cultural epidemic of individual identity being viewed narrowly through particular signifiers (or labels). If these labels are real, and we see them as being under threat, then anger ensues. This has to do with our understanding of the self - are we the sum of these externally projected labels, or is the self something far deeper, or (in the Buddhist sense) entirely illusory? I addressed this in a previous post in which I explained why I don’t ascribe to the Buddhist understanding of no-self, but that is irrelevant to the point I’m making here. Regardless of whether it is appropriate to speak of the true self or not, whatever the self is, it is evidently not this character whom others in the world interface with. It is not the character of Lewis. This is just a, at times frustrating, avatar, through which I experience reality. And over-identifying with the attributes of this avatar (insert pertinent cultural signifiers here: sexuality, gender, race, etc), is to make a grave error. These signifiers are illusory.

The move then from empathy to compassion is to guide others in recognizing the illusory nature of these signifiers that they feel compelled to cling onto (which is obviously audacious but in as far as we are called to become Christ, we are called to become physicians of the soul).

If the positive turn after empathy is towards compassion, the ugly turn is towards pity. Pity is a de-humanizing move, it lies far closer to empathy in character, but with a nihilistic component added. If one pities themselves, one wallows in their own pain, and does not recognize even the possibility of redemption. And if one pities the other, they likewise see the other’s predicament as ultimately unresolvable.

Once again, I think illusory signifiers can take on this pitying quality, especially when held collectively by a group who all hold to a particular cultural signifier. This is to make an even graver error. One is asked by the group to buy into a self-belief, that their group is by nature lesser/or oppressed, and as such in need of defense and privilege. And perhaps even worse is when an individual who perceives themselves to be within a non-oppressed culturally signified group (i.e. white men), come to the defense of a particular (oppressed) signified group, while also affirming them in their own self-pity.

Compassion begins with empathy, but seeks for a broader perspective, one that dares to imagine a space beyond (or through) the pain and suffering.

End of rant. Hopefully you were able to follow my convoluted logic. Ultimately, I feel that our current thinking surrounding this cultural epidemic to which I speak is misguided, especially in the way it manifests in churches. Liberal Christianity, in an attempt to remain in step with the broader liberal zeitgeist, seems to be moving away from a spiritually centered Christianity (in which the focus is on ministering to the souls of the individual/congregation) towards broad social action in which one is seeking to socially engineer, or broad social reorganization.

If you’ve got to this end of this article… your own reflections are very much welcomed below…