Can Empathy Be Toxic?

A few years back, the left popularized the term “toxic masculinity” to describe abusive conduct specific to men, and the right cried “foul.”

“Masculinity isn’t toxic!” they retorted. “If you mean to say ‘abusive men,’ say ‘abusive men.’ Real masculinity is good. It’s important. It needs to be preserved and encouraged, not demonized.”

The backlash was swift and severe, prompting multiple conservative influencers to write entire books dedicated to decrying the war on men. They got so busy arguing the semantics of the term that no one really dug into the substance of the arguments that inspired the term in the first place, which is unfortunate. There are very real patterns of behavior among some men that create a lot of suffering, and we do need language to name and confront them.

Of course it didn’t help that a number of the people screaming “toxic masculinity” most loudly were deeply contemptuous women who were actively hostile to any hint of even healthy manliness. The legitimate grievances were mostly eclipsed by histrionic spokespeople screaming “misogyny” every time a member of the male species had the temerity to express a dissenting opinion on anything from abortion to gun rights. As a lifelong defender of women, I myself have lost track of the number of times I’ve been personally called an MRA (men’s rights activist) or a handmaiden on account of my pro-life views. It just induces eye rolls and dismissals.

As a general rule, no one is going to be interested in a word you’re saying if you yourself are less healthy or charitable than the rot you condemn.

Well now we’re seeing this same principle play out in the inverse, but instead of “toxic masculinity,” the broader discussion is centered on what the right has deemed “toxic empathy.”

It might help to pause here and at least define our terms. What is empathy, and how does it differ from sympathy? Whereas sympathy can be defined as feeling compassion FOR someone, empathy is feeling compassion WITH someone. It’s taking on their burdens as your own. Jesus is a prime example of healthy empathy. He didn’t just feel compassion for the suffering of those He loved. He joined in that suffering and wept along with them. So how can this could thing that Jesus modeled be construed as toxic?

I personally think they chose the wrong word to describe their concept, but now that it’s done, and the books have been published, and the proverbial die has been cast, I think it’s important to consider the message, however clumsily it may have been expressed.

And listen, I understand what they’re getting at, and they aren’t wrong. Conservative influencer Allie Beth Stuckey wrote a book called “Toxic Empathy,” and she describes the concept as follows:

“Toxic Empathy kills. It’s not just misleading, it’s not just manipulative. It is deadly. Toxic Empathy compels a person to have disproportionate, blinding compassion for whom the media hoists up as the victim - the trans person, the illegal immigrant, the Islamic extremist - then leverages emotion to advocate for horrific policy: self-ID, open borders, protections for grooming gangs, etc. When we choose feelings over truth, we make very stupid, very dangerous decisions.”

The problems Allie Beth names are real. Evil political masterminds have weaponized human compassion against the greater good. They’ve insisted people will die if we don’t allow men in women’s showers while turning a blind eye to women who say no. They’ve convinced us that it’s cruel to deport illegal immigrants when they commit crimes, and they pay no heed to the rights of the victims to be protected. They’ve convinced us that the only humane way to care for the rape victim is to allow doctors to vacuum her unborn baby from her womb. Any resistance is met with an immediate label of “hater” or “bigot” or “misogynist” or “racist.” And it’s a pretty effective strategy. No rational person wants to be considered any of those things.

“Toxic empathy” is just the name they’ve given to describe weaponized emotional blackmail.

“But that’s not actually empathy,” the left retorts. “Empathy is good. Empathy is important. Empathy is what differentiates healthy people from sociopaths. It should be encouraged, not demonized.”

There are, of course, toxic applications of both masculinity and empathy, and it’s right to name them. But both sides are skillfully avoiding dealing with the actual content of the argument by constructing a semantical war against the terminology.

Conservative Christians keep screaming about “toxic empathy.”

Progressive Christians keep crying “foul” when they do.

Both sides of this are right.

When empathy is weaponized to the degree that we are chemically castrating children in the name of compassion, we’ve got a major major problem. Progressives dismiss the weight of this to their peril.

But it’s also an unfortunate reality that many of the people screaming “toxic empathy” most loudly (not Allie Beth) are working overtime to eliminate empathy entirely. These are loveless, graceless, pharisaical tyrants who want to bring back blasphemy laws and execute post-abortive women, and return the vote to only land owning males. You’ll find them all over the worldwide web, but with extra fervor on X.

There’s a kernel of important truth at the foundation of their message, which is why it’s resonating with people, but behind the curtain, there’s no hint of Christlike compassion in any of their objectives, and the progressives can smell this a mile away.

Pastor, chauvinist, and anti-Semite extraordinaire Joel Webbon would be a prime example of this. He loudly trumpets talking points about how “the sin of empathy is the reason we allowed cities to burn in 2020” etc., but for men like Joel, it’s a very convenient thing indeed to categorize empathy as a sin. As long as it’s sinful, they don’t have to do any work to try to manufacture it in their own lives, and it saves them the trouble of faking it. What’s worse is that they openly salivate over the prospect of seeing people they dislike suffer. It’s as if the parts of the Scripture where Jesus commands us to love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us simply don’t exist in their paradigms

Or take Joe Rigney of the Wilson cult in Moscow, Idaho. His book is called “The Sin of Empathy,” and lest you be tempted to write it off as a fringe effort, you should know that just this past week, he interviewed with Al Mohler, President of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. This is no small thing. The SBC is the largest Protestant denomination on the planet, and the presidents of their seminaries absolutely set the tone for all the (all male) pastors who emerge from their ranks. The interview creates legitimacy where it should expel an immoral brother.

I’ve written extensively about Moscow before, and I don’t have time or space to rehash my myriad concerns here, but suffice to say, it’s a church that traffics in hatred and contempt for the wounded. It’s a church that continually produces sexual predators while shaming and silencing their victims. It’s a church led by a man who defends American slavery and writes diminutively about women and their bodies.

When dozens of concerned Christians reached out to Mohler to express their concerns with his decision to platform Rigney, Wilson apologist Megan Basham chimed in with a gobsmackingly mean-spirited response.

That’s right, Megan. Laugh at the people who care about survivors of sexual assault. Mock the people who care about women who’ve been hurt by men representing God.

Now to be clear, Rigney would argue that he doesn’t actually believe all empathy is sinful. In fact, sometimes he takes the time to differentiate between “tethered and untethered empathy,” and he’ll say that compassion is necessary but that it’s different from empathy. But it’s all lip service because, in truth, there really isn’t a distinction. And when you thoroughly examine the fruit of the Moscow tree, there really isn’t anything resembling godly compassion for the lost to be found anywhere. Wilson refers to lost women as “harpies” and “cunts” and “lumberjack dykes” and “harpies.” The church hosts “No Quarter November” for the express purpose of releasing their unfettered scorn upon an unbelieving world.

You know what may be even worse than toxic empathy? This. It’s a psychopathic absence of empathy, and it’s all done in God’s name. It’s evil. The Bashams and Rigneys of the world are serving the same function as the histrionic man haters denouncing toxic masculinity; they’re making it really hard for outsiders to even want to consider the conversation at all.

And this is unfortunate. Because the solution to toxic masculinity is not NO masculinity. It’s virtuous masculinity. And the solution to toxic empathy is not NO empathy. It’s empathy rightly surrendered to the truth and lordship of Christ.

Ironically, this entire debate seems to mirror the political war between the sexes. While the right likes to demonize leftist women (and specifically feminists) as the bane of the society and the primary source of toxic empathy, the left, in turn, lays all the blame for the world’s ills squarely on the shoulders of white conservative men. And so the battle rages on, with everyone pointing fingers and refusing to contend with the rot in their respective camps.

Contrary to popular opinion, none of these problems will be resolved by raging against masculinity or by eliminating women’s right to vote. Progressives won’t win this by emasculating men, and theobros won’t win this by further subjugating and silencing women. God designed the sexes to bring necessary balance to the world and to each other. We need bold truth AND bold compassion, always exercised in the service of loving truth.

And truth here will only be found by those who are willing to forgo tribalism and wrestle in the grey areas in the middle of the extremes.