Joe Rigney

A Masculine Lie?

/ MurrayCampbell

“Greet Tryphena and Tryphosa, those women who work hard in the Lord. Greet my dear friend Persis, another woman who has worked very hard in the Lord. (Romans 16:12)

Why spend another few minutes writing about this ‘sin of empathy’’? Because like its partner in crime, Christian Nationalism, the sin of empathy mood is making way into different corners of Australian Christianity. Opening the doors and letting it inside is only going to make an unnecessary mess, so I’m hoping we leave it outside for the wind to blow away.

Are many men feeling emasculated and shamed for being men? Sure. Are many women threatened by the genderless thinking that is today impacting safe women’s spaces and sports? Absolutely. 

The notion that macho-masculinity is somehow the answer to the Church’s woes and that feminine characteristics are the primary sin of the church is theologically shallow and pastorally dangerous. Indeed, the ‘sin of empathy’ crowd is as theologically and pastorally flawed as those who see church as a gender free zone.  The danger with the latter is that it’s easy to spot. The world’s values aren’t the church’s, and good old-fashioned evangelicals realise that we don’t get our tune from the culture at large. The danger with the former, patriarchy, is that to the reactionary evangelical type, this can come across as a solution. But why exchange one set of faulty thinking for another? Jumping from one house on fire to setting another light is no way forward.

Men blaming women doesn’t sound particularly masculine to me. It’s Adam 2.0 rather than the Second Adam. 

For example…

In the latest online defence of his book, Joe Rigney made this claim,

“in my book The Sin of Empathy, I call Feminism “Queen of the Woke,” because of the way that feminism takes a female strength and pathologizes it by deploying feminine compassion where it doesn’t belong.”

Dani Treweek responded with this,

“Let me translate for y’all.

“Deploying female compassion where it doesn’t belong” = women making any meaningful contribution to the life and ministry of the church.”

I have now read enough of Rigney’s position to know that Dani Treweek is representing him fairly. In fact,  the more he doubles down online,  the less his views resemble complementarianism and instead suggest a neo-patriarchy. 

Rigney then replied,

Once again Dr. Treweek misrepresents the argument of the book, but in the process reveals how deeply influenced she is by feminism.

And yet Joe Rigney says things like this, 

“There is a reason that the empathetic sex that women are barred from the pastoral office, they were barred from the priestly office in the Old Testament for the same reason. Because priests and pastors, priests in the Old Testament, pastors and ministers and elders in the New Testament, are charged fundamentally with guarding the doctrine and worship of the church, of setting the perimeter for what is in and out. That’s the calling. And therefore the sex that is bent and wired towards care, nurture, compassion and empathy is ill-suited to that role. So it’s no surprise that in a culture that has become dominated by feminism, it’s deep in the American system at this point, that in that same timeframe, you would have an outbreak of empathy that would become the steering wheel by which every institution is hijacked.”

Back on X (Twitter), Rigney then proceeded to outline how he values the contributions of women in the church…which he then outlines as having babies and cooking meals. 

I’m not joking.

‘I’m forced to conclude that, for Dr. Treweek, raising children, managing households, and caring for hurting people are not “meaningful” ministry in the life of the church. 

Which is the fundamental feminist lie.’

Ours is an age that often downplays the role of mothers and ignores the tireless love exercised in the home. Our society isn’t the most friendly and affirming for women who make the decision to sit out of the workforce to help raise a family. Is this, however, the sum of women’s contribution to the body of Christ?

It seems that poor Phoebe and Priscilla and a host of women in Romans 16 didn’t get Rigney’s memo. 

Again, yes, we ought to esteem and value marriage and children. Ephesians 5 is a wonderful godly model that remains so today.  If the totality of women contributing to the church is sex, children, and meals, may I contend that you have wandered a long way from the Scriptures. If Rigney appreciates that it is more, why not include it?

More urgent, how pastorally insensitive and even dangerous, is Rigney’s assumption here? What do Rigney’s words say to single women in our churches? What does his sweeping generalisation communicate to women who are unable to have children? 

I  know The Handmaid’s Tale’ is a lefty dystopian myth, but sometimes one can imagine where they got the idea from.

To the young men who might be tempted to buy into the Moscow method, it’s only a matter of time before you trip over your beard. If you think that the answer to gender slippery slides is to stand at the top cleaning your rifle and asking when dinner is ready, I humbly suggest that someone ought to push you off the slide.

If men want to know how to lead and serve and love, look to Jesus. Follow his example.  We don’t encourage faithfulness in our churches by making gender redundant or by making men sound and smell just a little bit like Andrew Tate. 

April 10 Update: Read Dani Treweek’s excellent and detailed review of Joe Rigney’s ‘Sin of empathy’ over at Mereorthodoxy https://mereorthodoxy.com/sin-of-empathy-joe-rigney-book-review

I’ve witnessed the  ‘Sin of Empathy’ in action

/ MurrayCampbell

I’ve witnessed the  ‘Sin of Empathy’ in action.

To begin with, our Western societies are obviously deeply confused about gender. Are there 2 or 74 genders? Is there any difference between men and women?  Masculinity is largely defined in negative terms and one can barely say the word without someone assuming toxicity. And what is a woman? One can lose their job if they dare suggest a definition. 

The thing is, we don’t resolve one set of problems by introducing another set of problematic ideas. Reactionary theology becomes, or least can become, as destructive as the concerns originally identified. And so we end up with a vicious game of ping-pong, except the ping-pong ball is a live grenade.

The Bible’s vision for both men and women is beautiful and attractive and good. The complementary nature of Genesis chs 1 and 2 is affirmed by the Lord Jesus,  and He and the Apostles present in Scripture the full eschatological picture of the glory of being men and women. Every generation finds ways to undermine or twist Christ’s vision and replace it with an alternative. This has been going on since the earliest of days.

Instead of adorning male and female with the Gospel and the fruit of the Spirit, there are men (and a few women) who somewhere think that demeaning women is righteous and noble. 

Photo by Sora Shimazaki on Pexels.com

Anger and verbal abuse is their modus operandi. There is zero positive Gospel vision, simply one denouncement after another, as though they’re playing the role of Athanasius or Spurgeon and everyone else is either Arius or a British Baptist! But like the little boy who called wolf, no one is paying attention should they ever get it right for once. 

The background to this latest stream of vitriol is Joe Rigney’s appearance on Al Mohler’s show last week to talk about his book, ‘The Sin of Empathy’. I discussed the interview in my previous blog post. Just in case, Rigney’s basic thesis is that empathy is a feminine trait and is largely responsible for the theological drift we are witnessing in our churches. Empathy is this feminist Trojan horse corrupting Christian life and witness. Yes, I know, Jesus is a man and he’s our empathetic High Priest, so go figure!

As I wrote my own reflections on the interview, I suggested, 

‘I am sure the ‘theo-bros’ on X will dismiss me as another weak ‘effeminate’ ‘woke’ pastor’. 

No one needs to be a prophet to realise how inevitable that was! However, I  have a different reason for writing this follow-up piece, and it is to highlight the kind of fruit patriarchy is growing.

A friend of mine and respected Australian theologian, Dani Treweek, is reading Rigney’s book and has begun posting her reflections on X (Twitter). She soon became subject to a targeted troll attack by the ‘theo-bros’. Dani is a complementarian and used to receiving pushback from one direction, but being complementarian isn’t enough forsome conservative circles.

This is how the theobros treat women. It is vile and anti-Christian in every way.

And no, the trolling wasn’t only by anonymous accounts. Megan Basham jumped on and William Wolfe got into the action with a couple of revealing cheap shots. In fact, a week earlier, Wolfe nailed his colours with this preemptive strike,

‘Watching all these church ladies of both sexes getting worked up about @joe_rigney’s book “The Sin of Empathy” only makes me more excited to read it!’

It reminds me of the shelo asani isha, the old Jewish prayer that thanks God for not making me a woman.

I’m unsure where the man himself was, Joe Rigney.  He was certainly present online, and he happily responded to Dani Treweek and as well as some others, but not once (to my knowledge) did he rebuke and call out any of misogyny and disgusting pile on. Why? I do not know.

We could simply ignore this latest online abuse, and for the most part, we ought to ignore the ‘theo-bros’.  They are widely regarded as being unreachable, and they love nothing more than an argument. And after all, it’s social media, and much of it is an American echo chamber. Except public words, even those online, either represent or misrepresent the God whom we claim to worship. That’s a problem for public Christianity. Also, the echo chamber has bored a hole under the ocean and is appearing in different segments of Aussie churches. 

Take one Presy minister from Australia today who excused the bile by suggesting Dani was asking for it because she made a comment about having a PhD. How often has a man used that defence, ‘she was asking for it’.  In fact, it’s his comments that have caused me to stop for a few minutes this morning and write this blog.

This is part of the problem. Slander, insult and assault are often excused or explained away, or we remain silent. Where these men are identified and if they are members of a church somewhere, the Elders ought to be dragging them into a meeting and calling them to repentance or removing them from the church. 

What did Paul tell Titus, 

“Similarly, encourage the young men to be self-controlled. In everything set them an example by doing what is good. In your teaching show integrity, seriousness and soundness of speech that cannot be condemned, so that those who oppose you may be ashamed because they have nothing bad to say about us.”

And Paul had a word of warning for Timothy about men who demean women,

“People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with such people.”

I’m not writing any of this to give the ‘theobros’ oxygen, but rather encourage brothers and sisters: don’t let your church be a place that accepts or excuses the kind of garbage my friend has experienced far too often, and indeed, what many women have experienced (and yes, men too). Churches, teach the Bible well, display the goodness of God’s creative and redemptive purposes, and guard against the patriarchy. 

April 10 Update: Read Dani Treweek’s excellent and detailed review of Joe Rigney’s ‘Sin of empathy’ over at Mereorthodoxy https://mereorthodoxy.com/sin-of-empathy-joe-rigney-book-review

We need more empathy not less

/ MurrayCampbell

‘Before you criticize a man, walk a mile in his shoes. That way, when you do criticize him, you’ll be a mile away and have his shoes.’ (Steve Martin)

An easterly wind is blowing across the Pacific and blowing dust into some Aussie churches. From Moscow to Queensland, there is a mood swirling about that believes what we need today is a strong Christianity that will defeat the hoards of hell. Weakness is to be blamed for the status quo and to save the day we need a particular masculine-styled Christianity. Out with gentle Jesus, bring in Excalibur Jesus!

Of course, we don’t want to be reductionist and suggest that the Christ who is gentle and kind is not also awesome in power and the judge of the world. He is both the God of mercy and the God of justice. 

There is an emerging vigilante approach to Gospel ministry and mission which is, I contend, as big a problem as the spiritual and moral hopelessness it claims to be redeeming. 

And before the bros throw around their customary innuendos, I learnt to shoot when I was 10, I know from experience how to chase down a thief and stand up to a violent man, I have a son who made grown men cower when he bowled,  and I am proud of my eldest who is serving in the military; so you can stick your manly verbiage in your salad!

Some of the masculine talking and taunting that’s coming out of the United States and sprouting in certain ecclesial Aussie backyards, isn’t  complementarianism and therefore not biblical. It’s two versions of a gender culture war playing ping pong against each other, and unfortunately using the church as the table.

If you don’t believe me, Neil Shenvi yesterday sent a test balloon on X, 

 “If a man were described as kind, gentle, patient, loving, peaceful, joyful, good, and faithful, large segments of Twitter would call him effeminate.”

With the surprise of learning that sea water contains salt, Shenvi is right.

This supposed muscular Christianity found recent expression on the Al Mohler show when Al Mohler interviewed Joe Rigney for his book, ‘the Sin of Empathy’.

Over the years, I have appreciated some of what Al Mohler has said and stood for. This, not so much.

No, I haven’t read Rigney’s book, and I have little desire to do so. Rigney has however, expressed his ideas in this interview, and so presumably he agrees with his own words to Al Mohler. In short, Rigney’s thesis is that empathy is sinful and responsible for churches losing their way today.

Rigney’s complaint is that churches are guilty of the sin of empathy,

“There is a reason that the empathetic sex that women are barred from the pastoral office, they were barred from the priestly office in the Old Testament for the same reason. Because priests and pastors, priests in the Old Testament, pastors and ministers and elders in the New Testament, are charged fundamentally with guarding the doctrine and worship of the church, of setting the perimeter for what is in and out. That’s the calling. And therefore the sex that is bent and wired towards care, nurture, compassion and empathy is ill-suited to that role. So it’s no surprise that in a culture that has become dominated by feminism, it’s deep in the American system at this point, that in that same timeframe, you would have an outbreak of empathy that would become the steering wheel by which every institution is hijacked.”

In other words,  empathy is a problem because it’s a trait found in women, and permitting that leads to the slippery slope of feminism and last stop, hell. 

No doubt, many readers will find this as problematic as do I, not least because it smacks of misogyny.

Rigney is convinced that the slippery slope of liberalism clambers back to a weak Christianity that is too sympathetic (by which he means, to feminine)

“Every church faces some version of this kind of pressure to have women in the room where it happens to let them make, let’s have them in the room, let’s have them making decisions. We won’t call them pastors, at least initially, but once you started down that road, you’ve effectively seeded the ground that men and women are interchangeable. We don’t know why the Bible says that only men can be pastors. And until we can twist that verse, we’ll hold the line on that one little thing, but it’s a complimentarian thread that’s trying to hold up an egalitarian boulder, and it will not hold in the long run.”

Mohler has also bought into this line of thinking, 

“No, and the argument about hermeneutics is I think amply, tragically demonstrable. I don’t know of a single body that has genuinely affirmed women in the pulpit that has not eventually affirmed the LGBTQ revolution. Because if you can take the plain teachings of Scripture, and by the way, reflected all the way through creation order, and you can deny that when it comes to a woman as a pastor of a church, and it’s not that women don’t have many of the gifts, it’s that women, it’s ontologically forbidden by scripture.”

The problem with those statements is that it’s not necessarily true. The slippery slope argument is sometimes real and other times not. Now, before you suggest that I’m some wet slippery progressive who’s drinking the cool-aid, I’m writing as a convinced complementarian and someone who has expressed concerns about current gender ideologies, such that it’s made front page news on major newspapers. The reality is, there are different hermeneutical grids among egalitarians. Not all egalitarians are identical. There are some who hold to a theological framework that does slide into gender fluidity and adopting the latest cultural norms of sex and gender, and there are others whose theological convictions do not permit the slide. 

Take Mike Bird for example. Rigney said of Bird this week,

“This comment is particularly funny coming out of a decade or more in which feminism, wokeness, and soft-pedaling sodomy infiltrated the SBC, the PCA, and other conservative evangelical contexts. That’s who I wrote it for.”

yeah, nah. Mike Bird is egalitarian. He’s wrong on this one (and I still love him) but I also know he has a robust anthropology that will not let him fall down into gender relativity or matters like same sex marriage. 

The thing is, we don’t advocate for what is and has been the norm among Christian churches throughout its history by adorning men with a 6 pack and rifle slung over the shoulder and making them sound more gruff. Be more Christlike. Be more Biblical, not less.

How does this sin of empathy square with Christ who is our empathetic High Priest? At the very least, Rigney’s interview causes us to cast doubts over or to explain away Bible statements like Hebrews 4:15,

 “For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin.” (Hebrews 4:15)

In his commentary on Hebrews, Paul Ellingworth paraphrases, “Our high priest can feel with us in our weaknesses, because he has been tempted in all respects as we are…”

The verb συμπαθῆσαι and its cognates, as Ellingworth notes, “are used most often of family affection”.  Peter O’Brien explains, “the verb rendered empathize was used of a bond similar to a mother’s feeling for her children or one brother’s feeling for another.”

Peter O’ Brien notes, “Believers have in heaven a high priest with an unequalled capacity for empathising with them in all their weaknesses, especially the weakness that result in sin”. 

If that’s too much empathy for you, let’s bring in a Puritan, Thomas Goodwin,

“The word is a deep one. He suffers with you, he is as tender in his bowels to you as ever he was; that he might be moved to pity you. 

He is willing to suffer, as it were, that one place to be left naked, and to be flesh still, on which he may be wounded with your miseries, that so he might be your merciful high priest.”

Al Mohler suggested in the interview that empathy is a 20th Century concept. Goodwin and Hebrews suggests that’s not the case. What’s more likely is that the division between sympathy and empathy is a 20th Century construct.

Can empathy be problematic? Sure, of course it can. When we sever any human emotion or disposition from the work of the Spirit, we are in danger of misuse and misapplication. That doesn’t mean empathy is the sin of our age; the church doesn’t need less empathy, but more.

Some Christian men have the impression that being ferocious like is Jesus is good, whereas showing the gentleness of Jesus somehow inhibits our masculinity and church steadfastness. Everyone wants to be Jesus overthrowing tables and using a whip in the Temple. They love to argue online and are quick to jump on others. Strength and power and angry tone is just as dangerous a foe to Christian vitality as those more gentle of virtues when separated from the Spirit.. Besides, real masculinity does not deny strength or power, but uses it in the service of others. It is therefore humble, sacrificial, gentle and kind. It doesn’t demean women, it honours them. If your version of strong Christianity produces mysogony, think again.

Let’s remember the Apostle Paul who rebuked the Corinthians for their liking of strength and power,

‘Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles,  but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.’

This is part of the problem with this neo-masculine movement. It doesn’t want weakness and it derides anything that appears ‘effeminate’. If you think empathy is a sign of weakness, I suggest you take that up with our High Priest. 

April 10 Update: Read Dani Treweek’s excellent and detailed review of Joe Rigney’s ‘Sin of empathy’ over at Mereorthodoxy https://mereorthodoxy.com/sin-of-empathy-joe-rigney-book-review