Calvary Road Baptist Church
“NOT SYMPATHY, BUT EMPATHY”
Romans 12.15
I recollected an occasion when a guest preacher and I were both invited to the home of another pastor where we met an evangelist. As we four preachers sat in the pastor’s living room remembering interesting things that had happened to us, the evangelist told of a recent observation.
At a Church he was preaching at his hotel accommodations were such that he had a perfect view from his hotel room of a freeway off-ramp that joined a surface street right at a traffic light. Early one morning, he saw a man and two little children take up a position at the intersection, and hold up a sign reading, “Will work to feed children.” Being curious and having nothing scheduled during the day, the evangelist worked in his room, frequently looking out to check up on the man and the two pitiful looking kids.
All day long, they stood there. Occasionally a car window would go down, and a driver would hand money to the man and then drive on. Then, about 3:00 that afternoon, something very interesting happened. When the traffic flow was very light, another man came and took up the position of the original man holding the sign, and the original man left. The two little children stayed.
Later on, during the 5:00 rush home, more cars stopped on the red light, and occasionally a hand would stick out, the second man graciously receiving the gift. As the evangelist’s time to go to the Church to preach drew closer the drama on the street corner continued to unfold. Finally, just before the evangelist had to leave the final scene of this human drama climaxed. A woman came, took the two children with her in one direction, while the man walked off in another direction.
Draw your own conclusions, but it doesn’t appear that the sign that was held up all that day, “Will work to feed children” told the real story. The real story is our country’s tolerance of that kind of fraudulent behavior.
This brings to mind something I saw on Facebook Thursday. A woman posted a short video of a guy soliciting money from drivers somewhere in Monrovia on Huntington Drive. The guy had a whiteboard with a photo of a young man who supposedly had died, with the man trying to get contributions for the young man’s funeral expenses. This went on until one of the friends of the guy in the picture approached the guy and asked him what he was doing trying to raise money for the funeral of his friend, who was still alive. The guy got on a bus and rode away.
This led to another video of the same guy with the same picture on the same street, only it was the week before, in Duarte instead of Monrovia. Only that time it was the mother of the young man in the photograph who approached the guy trying to get money. Naturally, the mother was very upset; this stranger was using a photo of her son, who is very much alive.
There used to be a time when beggars could be found in every country in the world, except the United States. You could find beggars asking for handouts just across the border in Tijuana and Mexicali, but not in the United States! Even during the days of the Great Depression, homeless and unemployed people did not beg; they asked for jobs to work for food. And they worked hard to earn their food.
A missionary told me, I think it was, when I was in Mexico several years ago, that a significant number of the wretched looking women with the babies who are trying to sell gum or asking for a handout just across the border are plying two trades at the same time. They are making money from sympathetic passers-by, and they are being paid by a working mother to babysit her child. The child, then, is a convenient prop used to gain the sympathy of tourists.
In Romans 12.15, the Apostle Paul writes, “Rejoice with them that do rejoice, and weep with them that weep.” The verses that immediately precede this verse characteristically employ what is known as the imperative form of verbs, commanding certain actions of believers. But in this verse, Paul uses what’s called the infinitive form of the verb, not commanding believers to look for an opportunity to rejoice with them that rejoice or weep with them that weep. Not searching out rejoicing or weeping people to bring into your home, as he commands regarding hospitality in verse 13, but being ready to rejoice when those rejoicing cross your path, or being ready to weep with those who are weeping.
What is Paul telling us? Is he urging believers to manifest the same sympathetic symptoms that young medical interns exhibit when they first start making rounds, developing the same symptoms of those patients they are trying to diagnose? No. The child of God should empathize, not sympathize, with others.
Let me give you four details to consider which will convince you that what Paul is urging of his readers is empathy, not sympathy:
First, AS TO DISTINCTION
Allow me to give you the definitions of the words “sympathy” and “empathy” from Webster’s huge, unabridged dictionary, and then state the differences in the concept that I want to make for this message:
First, the definitions. I begin with the definition that most closely identifies what I am referring to as “sympathy.” Sympathy - “the entering into or ability to enter into another person’s mental state, feelings, emotions, etc., especially, pity or compassion for another’s trouble, suffering, etc.”[1] May I venture to illustrate what I mean by “sympathy” in another way? In the context of this message, I see “sympathy” as a single word that can be replaced by the phrase “feeling sorry for.” The man on the corner with the sign, “Will work for food,” gets whatever money he gets as the result of people “feeling sorry” for him. The woman in Tijuana selling Wrigley’s gum, and seeking handouts besides, gets whatever money she gets as the result of passers-by “feeling sorry” for her. The guy on Huntington Drive who was caught by the photographed man’s mother and friend was trying to obtain money from people who “felt sorry,” if not for him, then for the person or the family of the person they imagined to be suffering. Does not World Vision get the majority of their financing from people in the United States “feeling sorry” for poor and underprivileged children in Third World countries? Is this not also true of other relief agencies? And how about those pictures of the sad and mistreated dogs in the Humane Society ads? Of course, they manipulate people’s sympathies. People who give money, or who respond in any other way for sympathy, are paying conscience hush money. The affluent do it to the poor. The whole do it to the lame. The well do it to the sick. And even parents do it to their children.
But what about the other word? “Empathy” is described in that same dictionary in this way: “The projection of one’s personality into the personality of another to understand him better; intellectual identification of oneself with another.”[2] There is a great difference between projecting your personality into the personality of another, mentally walking a mile in his shoes, which is “empathy,” and “feeling sorry” for him, which is “sympathy.” “Empathy” is more thinking, while “sympathy” is more feeling.
Next, AS TO DOCTRINE
Let’s look to the Word of God. Let’s seek to understand which of these reactions to the situations others find themselves in is a Scriptural and Biblical response. It is frequently in matters such as these that the truth comes out about your reliance upon the Word of God as your only rule of faith and practice. Consider two situations. All other factors are secondary to these two considerations when addressing the issue of whether ‘tis better to be a sympathizer or an empathizer.
The first consideration; is the person lost? If a person is lost, if he is dead in trespasses and sins, there are certain Scriptural statements which bear directly on his condition, whether it be spiritual or material:
First, we know that the lost person lives in rebellion toward God. Romans 5.10 shows every lost person to be God’s enemy:
“For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.”
Romans 3.11 declares that lost people do not seek after God:
“There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.”
Romans 3.23 echoes the Old Testament declaration that
“all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.”
So, we know that sinners are by nature and by practice, rebellious toward God. Some to a greater degree, some to a lesser degree, but everyone to some degree.
Second, we know that sinners are condemned by their sin. Romans 6.23 declares that the wages of sin is death. And even John 3.16 indicates that anyone who does not believe in Jesus Christ, which is every unsaved sinner, will perish. But notice something else. Though unsaved people are sinners and rebels against God by nature, and though they deserve everlasting damnation and the eternal torment of the damned, Second Peter 2.9 concludes with these words about the Lord: He is
“not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.”
When something horrible strikes, another person sympathy demands that you “feel sorry” for him. But “feeling sorry” is the way you feel when you don’t think he deserves that, when you think he got a raw deal when you think his suffering is unfair (whatever unfair means).
May I submit to you that whatever that lost man gets, in the way of pain and suffering, either this side of eternity or on the other side of eternity, he deserves? We all deserve it. God is not unjust. And I have already shown you that God’s desire is not for a person to suffer eternal torment in Hell. So, either the lost man’s predicament is the result of his sinful condition, or God is bringing him low to prepare him for a presentation and consideration of the Gospel. It is simply inconsistent with what we know about God and sinful man for Christians to “feel sorry” for, to “sympathize” with the plight of the unsaved. But to “empathize,” to seek to understand them and their situations is completely consistent with Scriptural teaching.
Now for the second consideration; is the person saved? Some of you might be thinking, “Oh, surely, it must be okay to feel sorry for suffering Christians.” But let’s consider some Biblical declarations concerning Christians to see if this is true. Philippians 1.6 and Romans 8.28:
1.6 Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ.
8.28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
These two verses reflect the whole counsel of God’s Word concerning His watch care over His child, the born-again Christian. Everything that happens to a Christian, who is, by definition, one who loves God, is good and is part of God’s plan for conforming that Christian to the very image of Christ. Doesn’t the Bible teach that? Sure, it does. That means nothing bad can happen to a Christian. Only good. Painful things, perhaps, and tragic things. But never that which is not ultimately good. Now, I ask you, “Why should I ever feel sorry for someone who never has anything bad happen to him?”
Oh, the heart of the empathetic person can break, just as the heart of the sympathizer can break. But the empathetic person knows enough of God’s Word to realize that somehow, and in some way, every painful and tragic and seemingly horrible thing that can happen to the child of God, cannot happen without God either planning it or permitting it. And Romans 8.28 tells us in a straightforward manner that the child of God never experiences anything but that which is ultimately good for him. So, just as it reflects a wrong understanding of the sinner and God’s attitude toward the sinner to “feel sorry” for or to “sympathize” with a sinner, it is doubly wrong to “feel sorry” for a Christian. When you “sympathize” with a suffering saint, when you “feel sorry” the child of God, be careful. Don’t you dare allow yourself to think that you either have more wisdom or more love for that dear suffering saint than God does. And do not, by your attitude, bring confusion to that suffering individual whose situation is never improved by him thinking he is justified by “feeling sorry” for himself.
Nobody is ever helped by feeling sorry for themselves. If you feel sorry for them, and they pick up on the fact that you are feeling sorry for them, they may think that the attitude you have toward them is the attitude they ought to have toward themselves. And that’s harmful. Does my heart break over a dear saint of God being in a painful place and a suffering condition? Do I wonder why God leaves that precious believer here instead of taking her swiftly, quietly, to heaven? Of course, I do. But that’s “empathy.” I do not “feel sorry” for her. God loves her more and has greater compassion for her suffering than I do. I must leave that part of it up to Him. Amen?
Understand, then, that there are valid and Biblical reasons for challenging the humanistic notion of “feeling sorry” for anyone. “Sympathy” actually springs from the heart of one who, knowingly or unknowingly, questions the wisdom and love of God. “Sympathy” too frequently results in people making unwise decisions that are not really in the best long term interests of that person for whom “sympathy” is felt. “Empathy,” on the other hand, places the child of God into a position to be able to effectively encourage or comfort, exhort or edify, or even evangelize, the person who is rejoicing or the person who is weeping.
WHICH BRINGS ME TO MY THIRD POINT, DEMONSTRATION
Allow me to illustrate, by the way, people typically behave, the difference between “sympathy” and “empathy.” Understand that I paint with broad strokes.
First, “sympathy.” The person who gives money to a guy with the sign that reads “Will work for food” or “Vet. Need anything you can spare. God bless” is showing “sympathy.” He “feels sorry” for the guy and gives him conscience hush money, either because what he has is ill-gotten gain, or because he has no intention of providing real help to a person in need.
The man with the sign, it has been my experience, is after “sympathy,” not “empathy.” Drive up to the guy and say, “Hop in. I’ve got four hours work for $15.00 per hour.” He usually won’t come with you. The sign is used just so “sympathetic” people can convince themselves that they’re not giving to undeserving beggars, but worthies down on their luck.
Or the single mom who “feels sorry” for her kid. Her “sympathy” for her child, being without one parent in the home and having limited time to spend with the child, can manifest itself by predictably siding with the child whenever there is a problem with submission to authority at school. A mom attempts to make up for her child’s loss of the other parent in the home by blindly siding with her youngster over every issue. Understandable, but unwise.
And how about television appeals to give money for this cause or that, especially the Humane Society or starving children on another continent? Americans have always been some of the most generous people on earth. But the reasons for American generosity are dramatically changing. More and more appeals are being made, even from Christians to Christian audiences, based on “sympathy.” Why? We have a nation of people with a burden of guilt, troubled consciences. And reacting to “sympathy” appeals is a temporary salve to the troubled conscience.
“Empathy,” on the other hand, is quite different. While a person wanting “sympathy” will stand on a street corner with a sign, a person wanting “empathy” will more frequently stand in front of Home Depot. Those guys don’t ask for a handout. They don’t suggest that you “feel sorry” for them. May God bless them; they want to work. The person who wants to exercise benevolence will pass right by the con artist with the sign and will go to Home Depot and hire a guy to work for his money so that he can hold his head up and maintain his dignity. And while he is working for you-you might be able to tell him about your Savior.
The single mom’s heart is broken for her child. Of course, her heart is broken. To be sure, she cries herself to sleep each night, praying for that precious child’s difficult road ahead, coming to adulthood without a father in the house. But she doesn’t try to compensate for unresolved feelings of guilt when there’s a problem at school. She knows and claims God’s promise to be a Father to the fatherless and His kindly disposition toward those without a dad.[3] Since her child is under God’s special protection, as He promised, she realizes the misguided folly of “feeling sorry” for her child. She fights the temptation to “feel sorry” for that kid, knowing that “sympathy” is contagious and that his life can be ruined if ever he starts “feeling sorry” for himself. Instead, she digs in, knowing life will be hard for her youngster. It’s just tough for a kid to grow up with only one parent around. But she practices and preaches reliance on God, the wonderful grace of God, and instills character into that child that will enable him to be great for God as an adult who has overcome more obstacles than most to get where he has come.
What about the plight of third world people, their starvation, and their poverty? “Empathy” is the result of considering all pertinent factors, not just those which can be seen. “Sympathy” will try to send money to feed a hungry child. And even if the food gets there, which it most likely will not, the child will then grow up and live and die and go to Hell without Christ. “Empathy” will support a missionary outreach to that child, who will preach the unsearchable riches of Christ, who will disciple him after he trusts the Savior, and will rest in the knowledge that that little boy’s eternal soul has been saved by faith in Jesus Christ.
“Sympathy” is almost purely emotional. It is also uninformed. It is typically open to manipulation. And it’s so often impersonal, a handing over of money instead of involvement in another’s life. “Sympathy” generally subsidizes sin and weakens character, rather than strengthening it. “Empathy,” on the other hand, is informed. “Empathy” avoids the condescending and patronizing “feeling sorry” for others. “Empathy” does not engage in virtue signaling like “sympathy” so often does.
“Sympathy” typically responds to benefit oneself by benefiting another. “I feel bad in the presence of poor people. I’ll give money to a poor person so that I will feel better about myself.” See? “Sympathy” responds for selfish reasons. “Empathy” does not. One who is “empathetic” doesn’t seek to make himself feel better. Rather, he seeks to minister to the real needs of another person, not salve his conscience.
I have made a distinction between “sympathy” and “empathy.” I have also made a beginning at showing the doctrinal reasons for preferring the one over the other. And thirdly, I have demonstrated, by some illustrations, the differences between “sympathy” and “empathy,” both as to underlying motive and results.
Finally, OUR DUTY AS IT RELATES TO BOTH SYMPATHY AND EMPATHY
It is quite easy to see, because there is no proper doctrinal basis for “sympathy,” that the child of God has no duty to “sympathize” with the plight or the suffering of his fellow human being. For two reasons: Things that appear to us to be bad, whether in the life of the unsaved person or the believer, are not coincidental or accidental. The lost person’s plight is either fully deserved for his being a sinner or is the consequence of God’s great and wise love for him to humble him and prepare him to receive the Gospel message of his need for Christ. God is at work here, people! Providentially and invisibly. Don’t “feel sorry” for the person who’s getting what’s coming to him. And don’t “feel sorry” for the person who’s being prepared by the Holy Spirit for consideration of the claims of Christ and his future salvation. How can you tell the two apart? You can’t. That’s the point.
In the case of the Christian, the argument against “sympathy” is more compelling. How can I have a duty to “feel sorry” for anyone who is under the capable watch care of his heavenly Father? How can any of my actions be correct which proceed from so distorted an understanding of reality? No, Christian. Not only do you have no Biblical, no Scriptural, no spiritual, obligation or duty to “sympathize” or “feel sorry” for anyone, but you also have a duty not to thus believe or behave toward another, whether that person is lost or saved.
But what about your duty to empathize? If “empathize” refers to seeking to understand and then appreciate the situation another person is in, without “feeling sorry” for him, then it is quite easy to establish that Christians must have “empathy” for others. First Corinthians 9.19-23:
19 For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more.
20 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;
21 To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.
22 To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.
23 And this I do for the gospel’s sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you.
Paul identified himself as closely as he could with those he tried to reach with the Gospel. By minimizing the obvious and outward differences in behavior and attire, he could more effectively present the Gospel to people from different cultures. But would not “empathy” play a vital role in Paul’s efforts? Sure it would. While he did not “feel sorry” for those referred to in this passage, he did seek to walk in their shoes so he could better position himself to win them to Christ. He did have compassion for others, as the Savior did. Jude writes, in verse 22,
“And of some have compassion, making a difference.”
What about the Lord Jesus Christ? If “empathy” refers to seeking to project yourself in your mind and heart so that you might understand another, to walk in his shoes as much as you can without living his life for him, what can be said about Christ becoming a man? Human beings can only “empathize.” We can only seek to understand by mentally walking in someone’s shoes. The Lord Jesus became a man, though without sin, and walked in real shoes.
We have “empathy” because we are not God and cannot do what God can do. But we can seek to be sensitive, to exercise discernment, to try and understand both the what and why in a person’s life from a Biblical perspective. Why do we do this? Why do we empathize? Ah, that’s an important question. We empathize so we can show appropriate compassion and thereby more effectively minister to others. That’s why.
One hundred fifty years ago, a trend began in our country that has come to produce a marked change in the way Americans think. We began to “feel sorry” for those who were less fortunate than ourselves. Fortunate? Less fortunate has to do with having less luck than someone else. There’s no such thing as luck. Therefore the concept of being less fortunate makes no Biblical sense.
In days gone by the great majority of Americans, even those not truly saved had the characteristic of “empathy.” Being powerfully influenced by the strong Christians around them, most Americans formerly did not believe in luck, or chance, or fortune. And because so many of the earliest Americans had endured such deprivation, such persecution, such opposition, such hardship, and had made a go of it, they never thought of “feeling sorry” for themselves. They simply realized what so many people nowadays try to pretend is not the case; that life is hard.
When someone’s crop failed back in the day, and they were without food, folks didn’t “feel sorry” for them. They gave them a meal and an opportunity to work it off. Or if a man was a drunk, no one “felt sorry” for him. He would be allowed to work for food, or he would starve.
Then there was the case of Helen Keller, that famous woman blinded and deafened by measles at a young age. Her parents almost destroyed her life by pampering her and coddling her because they “felt sorry” for her, they “sympathized” with her. It was only when her parents hired an “empathetic” teacher, a tough, shrewd woman, who refused to coddle Helen, and who refused to feel guilty because she could see and hear and that poor little girl couldn’t, that Helen Keller’s life was salvaged.
I am reminded of Vada’s account of her father-in-law dying at a relatively young age, and her husband’s mom being saddled with a dozen kids to raise. But did she “feel sorry” for herself? No. That would have crippled her and infected her children. Instead, she “empathized” for her children’s plight and settled in for a long, hard, struggle to survive and get those kids raised. And God blessed her efforts, giving Vada, a wonderful Christian husband.
“Sympathy” is destructive, and it is selfish. It’s harmful to the giver and harmful for the recipient. “Empathy” is beneficial for both. “Empathy” is beneficial for the giver because his concern is for the other, the one in need, the one to be helped (or perhaps wisely not helped). It’s also beneficial because the one who receives help, not handout, receives real help, not pity.
Thus, it is “empathy” that Paul is illustrating in Romans 12.15 when he writes, “Rejoice with them that do rejoice and weep with them that weep.” I can “empathize” with the person who is rejoicing and rejoice myself with him in his delight. But when he weeps, I can appreciate, if not fully understand, his weeping and minister to his soul. For, you see, “empathy” is compassionate. But it’s constructive and informed compassion.
Christian, if you are here and you have it rough, understand that I seek not to “sympathize” for you, but to “empathize” with you. I want to understand and appreciate so that I might be of some good to you so that I might minister to you. I will not look upon you like some poor and pitiful creature who can’t make it without me. For that is not only not true, but it would also be arrogant pride on my part to entertain such thoughts.
But that’s so much of what “sympathy” is that I’ve not touched on in this message; pride. To “feel sorry” for another person is something that superiors do from their lofty heights toward their inferiors. But we know that we are superior to no one, and don’t need to “feel sorry” for anyone. So we “empathize.”
However, many Christians are cured of “sympathy” without properly replacing it with “empathy.” You don’t “feel sorry” for the guy carrying the sign like you used to before you knew better. But neither do you want to “empathize” with him that you might meet a spiritual need in his life. Christian, we’re supposed to “Rejoice with them that rejoice, and weep with them that weep.” So, let’s learn to open our lives up enough and get involved with other people enough to “empathize” with them, that we might understand them, that we might minister to them.
And, my unsaved friend, I don’t “feel sorry” for you, either. Oh, it’s true that you’re dead in trespasses and sins. It’s true that you’re condemned by your sin to go to a devil’s Hell. But, you see, you deserve Hell for your sins against God. As do I. So, why should I “feel sorry” for you? I do, however, “empathize.” I know what it’s like to be an unsaved person. I know what it’s like to be without hope. I know what it’s like to wonder about eternity. And I know what it’s like being around all these Christians and being different from them and not knowing exactly what the difference is or why. The difference is Jesus Christ.
Consider the claims of Jesus Christ. Trust Him as the only Savior of your sinful soul.
__________
[1] Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary, (New York: Barnes & Noble Books, 1996), page 1848.
[2] Ibid., page 594.
[3] Psalm 10.14; 68.5; 146.9; Isaiah 1.17; Hosea 14.3; Zechariah 7.10; Malachi 3.5; James 1.27
Question? Comment?
Would you like to contact Dr. Waldrip about this sermon? Fill out the form below to send him an email. Thank you.