Narcissism, the Prosperity Gospel, Culture War, and the Sin of Empathy.

How narcissism and culture war undergird the psuedo-doctrine of Sinful Empathy.

Note: This article was finished and sitting in my draft folder all week. I stopped myself before posting it last week. Countless people have already offered excellent critiques of Rigney and Wilson’s Sin of Empathy position, and I simply wasn’t sure if what I had written would add anything beneficial. After letting it sit a bit, I’ve decided to post it. In the end, the more voices speaking against a vile ideology/psuedo-theology, the better.

In this short discussion of Rigney’s new book, and his antichrist approach to emulating Christ, it is easy to remember VP Vance’s recent abuse of Ordo Amoris “the order of loves.” I won’t relitigate the flaws in his take, nor his screamingly inept understanding of the concept, but suffice to say that his approach was nothing more than a micron-deep theological excuse to avoid Christian duty. Rigney’s take is equally inept. Last week, Rigney discussed the concept of Empathy as sin with Al Mohler, head of the SBTS, on Mohler’s videocast. Originally, this article was going to be a critique of various points made by each man in their discussion. The list of critiques was rather long. Frankly, every other second of the entire recording, one or both of them said something that could be dissected and consigned to Gehenna, where it belonged. The list was endless. Rigney made comments like “… most of those seeking empathy are really just playacting to steer you” while Mohler criticized black families, and then later tried to shoehorn in empathy as a “sinful” driver for women seeking equality. Instead, however, I’d like for us to examine, briefly, an underlying impetus for everything mentioned above. Whether it’s Vance’s confusion of Ordo ego for Ordo amoris (my late Latin prof would smack me for that, but it works) … Rigney’s insistence that the hurting just want to manipulate you, or Mohler’s use of the Sin of Empathy discussion to further his abuse of women … they all are driven by the same thing. Narcissism.

The real problem with the idea of empathy as a sin ... isn't the asinine bastardization of Friedman, nor is it the silly paranoid fear someone will be "forced" to show empathy. The problem is that the theology/ideology is really just extortive narcissism. It doesn't matter whether it's Rigney, Reed, Basham, Daws, or any of the other countless "theobros" making this it into a thing at the moment. Nor does it matter which paranoid reason they give. Rigney would likely cry "OMG, I might have to show care for a trans person" and Basham would whine "You mean I might have to care about non-white and non-maga people." Daws would mutter "Untethered empathy means Moslems will control the world!" No matter which culture war topic drives them to selfishness, to refuse to treat others as Christ would ... it comes down to their narcissistic insistence that the sufferer must bow to THEIR beliefs on what is true or "real." They're saying "Yes, I'll be loving ... once you say I'm right. I’ll help you and I’ll demonstrate Christ, once you lick my boot and tell me you’re a sinner and wrong.”

In an ersatz manner, they're aping a specific expression of the Prosperity Gospel, without even realizing it. In the PG world (and I use that term broadly) … to be successful and whole means not just that God has blessed you, but that you have no sin in your life. A common way this mindset manifests in the PG world is in issues of healing. A sick person, who has been prayed for and is still sick, in the PG world, is often told by their pastor or whatever leader they've asked for prayer "Well, God CAN heal you, but the fact that he hasn't ... is because you're in sin. Something about YOU is holding God back from giving you His blessing." In that specific doctrinal camp (and frankly in many others within Christianity) ... it is ALWAYS the fault of the sufferer. Unless the sufferer bows to "truth and reality" and comes clean with their "secret sin" … then God cannot move because He won't dirty Himself on sin. The Sin of Empathy doctrine uses the same tactic. "Yes, I WANT to help you but unless you come out of your sin and make your life look like mine, unless you admit you're wrong and I'm right, I can't help you and become untethered." This is unsurprising when you consider the culture war foundations that lie beneath the Sin of Empathy ideology. I'm being reductive, but the point is easily understood. This approach, both in the Prosperity Gospel world and in the Sin of Empathy camp is used for the exact same reasons: Selfishness and narcissism.

First, the one using that approach doesn't want their witness to cost them anything. They want it easy and useful as a pedestal for their own benefit. In the PG world, specific men and women are marked and feted as healers. To carry that designation (broadly speaking) is a boost to reputation. For them, it says "I have the special and rare anointing of healing. God works through MY fingers!" In a similar manner, the Sin of Empathy camps self-idolizes. Rather than see themselves as tools of Christ, fit for the scarred forge and anvil of life, they see themselves as golden chalices fit only for the Temple, to be protected and kept perfectly clean at all times. Heaven forbid they touch the unclean! When they refuse to help the suffering ... they make it the sufferers fault. "If I help you, I will become untethered from truth because you live in a way I disapprove of. Your suffering is YOUR fault because you can't accept MY truth and MY reality, which is God’s truth and reality.” Narcissism pokes its head up, again. Second, they're driven by the desire to be seen not just as a savior for the sufferer, but as the corrective savior who pointed out the sufferer's horrible errors, life, etc. "I am right, you are wrong, and I helped you once you admitted it! Aren’t you glad you bowed so I could help you?”

Here is what both movements miss in that approach: The Cross takes us as we are to renew and remake us in a process that lasts a lifetime. The Sin of Empathy psuedo-doctrine is born of narcissism … but is wielded most often as a weapon of culture war, particularly by Christian Nationalists (like Rigney.) Culture war, like Christian Nationalism, denies the work of the Cross and the process of renewal via the Holy Spirit. Culture war, when waged by Christians, is a clear sign of spiritual immaturity and rank cowardice. It openly says “Living as a sacrificial example of Christ is too difficult and costly … and I am too impatient and weak to let the Holy Spirit work in someone’s life.” Rigney doesn’t avoid helping those whom he disagrees with or looks down upon because they are “untethered from reality and truth” but because he’s too much of a coward to join them in their pain and demonstrate Christ.

We must never forget that the Rigney, Reed, Wilson, Basham, et al who push this diabolical paradigm of sinful empathy are literally saying the Cross is wrong. Their narcissism insists their culture war is more important than the Cross. Any doctrine that excludes or pushes away the suffering or lost based on man's niche views, or any reason outside of Christ's salvic words ... is antichrist by nature. Any psuedo-theology that demands the sufferer crawl, scrape, and bow to a truth the other person holds before being helped or loved is malevolent. Christ did not bid man to crawl to His feet. Christ instead crawled on bloodied limbs, carrying the weight of the world on His back, so that man would be saved.

The Sin of Empathy psuedo-doctrine reverses that fundamental fact to force man to bow and scrape, not even to Christ ... but to other men. Damnable. To profess the Sin of Empathy's doctrine is to openly say "I want people to offer supplications to me, I want to be obeyed like Him ... but I won't do what He did and meet people in their need. Don't bring that peasant to me until he's bathed and will kiss my ring." Those pushing this psuedo-doctrine, quite simply, are people too narcissistic and too weak to live as clear Christic examples. They look for reasons and ways to avoid demonstrating Christ. They fear what unfettered witness will cost them. They serve a savior who gave all, but they hold back all they can.

Always remember to look at the fruit. The fruit of withholding care is often suffering and death for those in need. This is total reversal of the Christic example, which we are to follow, in which Christ suffered, even unto to death, for the hurting. The fruit of Christ-like praxis raises the hurting up, not because we draw them up to our lofty heights as preening holy saviors … but because we joined them in their pain, point them to Christ, and then put them on our shoulders to reach up to Him.

/ENDS