“I just know that because I never dealt with the same issue myself, I would never be able to counsel this person!”
When I was in my last two years of high school, I seized an opportunity to take some discounted college courses at Lancaster Bible College. Since I already knew the field I wanted to pursue, I took a couple psychology courses. In one such course, one about group therapy, we got into some interesting class discussions that showed how much most of us still had to learn about psychological theory. One day, we were talking about eating disorders, and one girl in the class made the above statement.
Immediately, in my gut, I disagreed with her argument. But my disagreement also challenged some of my own previously held assumptions. I was once likely to believe in the same way–that people who never experienced the same things as someone else really have no idea what they’re talking about. And yet such an assumption carries some concerns. If this sentiment is true, wouldn’t certain people be totally beyond our help? For surely there are people who have experienced or committed such horrific things that we would be extremely hard-pressed to find a competent therapist who had the same experiences and is still functioning well enough now to offer sound counsel and support.
Our professor replied by asking if we had ever heard of Remuda Ranch, one of the most well-respected treatment facilities for eating disorders. He then simply pointed out that (at least at the time) nearly all of the clinicians are middle-aged men who have never suffered from an eating disorder in their lives. He did not need to say much else after that, except that what made these men effective in their work was their ability to show genuine care to hurting people.
That is when it dawned on me. How did Jesus minister to so many people who struggled with issues he never had to? Sure, we know that he was human like us and we know that he was tempted in every way and yet did not sin, but we’re fooling ourselves if we think that Jesus knew firsthand what the life of the woman with the issue of blood was like for all those years before he healed her. Yes, he is God in the flesh and thus omniscient, but that does not negate the fact that he did not experience all the same troubles as everyone else before he began his ministry. Of course, I do expect, however, that as God, because all sin is a personal offense toward God, that he has experienced all of the offenses ever committed in all of history as if they were against him. And yet I suppose that his experience of these offenses is uniquely his own and perhaps our responses to sins against us only echo aspects of his own reactions to sin . . . such as righteous anger, sorrow, and jealousy. I wonder, though, if certain responses we have to events in our lives are unique to humans . . . such as shame, greed, despair, and self-protection.
My point? If Jesus did not experience exactly what the hurting and lost experienced, or at least not in the same way, how did he so effectively minister to hurting people? And was the trait he demonstrated something he could do only because he is God, or did he demonstrate it to us as an example for us to follow?
I am fully convinced that when Jesus came to Earth, he did two things while ministering:
- Performed miracles and made statements that only he could make, to serve as signs that he is the promised Messiah.
- Set an example for us to follow for how best to love God and others.
Jesus showed us not just how he was able to reach others but also why he was motivated to do so. The Gospels tell us clearly that Jesus was moved by compassion (Matt. 14:14, 15:32).
What is compassion? In psychology circles, we don’t hear the word so often, likely because postmodern theorists believe it evokes the idea of an unequal relationship. Instead, we like to use empathy, as popularized by Carl Rogers as the single greatest therapeutic factor in counseling. Empathy certainly is powerful, and though it is very similar to compassion, I must clarify that they are distinct and empathy must never completely replace compassion.
- Empathy – We have added a lot to our understanding and application of empathy, but by definition, it is to identify with and understand someone else’s situation, emotions, and motivations. And this does not just mean painful emotions, but whatever the client emotes–whether sorrow or rejoicing, just as Paul admonishes us to to rejoice with those who rejoice and mourn with those who mourn (Rom. 12:15). And clearly, in order to effectively empathize, it must be accurately communicated somehow.
- Compassion – By the biblical definition, it is a form of love determined by the condition of those it is targeting–usually one of need and suffering as well as unworthiness (Unger, 1974). Literally, it means to feel with someone’s pain. Therefore, compassion requires empathy. But without compassion, empathy is pretty static. For compassion does not just seek to develop a deep understanding of someone’s suffering, but it is followed by a desire to relieve it.
These biblically based definitions further show the difference between the worldly perspective and God’s perspective.
- The humanistic viewpoint assumes that humans are basically good and thus deserve empathy, compassion, and mercy. It teaches that we all have an innate drive and tendency to self-improve, and so all we really need to improve is for someone to feel with us and then our “self-actualizing tendency” will take care of the rest.
- The biblical viewpoint, however, is that we are all basically broken and bad (to put it bluntly). Therefore, compassion is not earned or deserved; it’s a gift. And because we are broken, it assumes that we need more help in order to grow (though there are definitely people who have matured enough that empathy alone will suffice to help them change). Most often this help comes in the form of someone in a position to help–not someone in the same boat as us. Ultimately, this may sound like an unequal relationship, and that may offend you, but it would not be compassion if one party did not have something to offer that the other party lacked.
So, yes, the foundational factor that Jesus used in ministry was compassion–he empathized deeply and acted on a desire to relieve people’s suffering and build in them his character through the suffering. Unfortunately, we tend to have a stoic view of Jesus, leaving us with a poor example to follow. The disadvantage of Jesus’ account on Earth being solely literary and in a foreign language is that our translations might not perfectly capture the essence of what the Gospel authors wrote and the spirit in which Jesus said and did things. Consequently, he can come off as very mechanical if we are not careful to read into the narrative some personality in Jesus.
For example, when Jesus is leaving Jericho, a huge crowd gathers to follow him out of the city (Matt. 20:29-34). Meanwhile, two blind beggars are sitting on the side of the road and cry out to Jesus when they hear the crowd passing. The people in the crowd tell them to shut up, but instead, they just shout louder. Jesus stops and asks them, “What do you want me to do for you?” At this point in the short story, I tend to read Jesus’ voice in an annoyed manner, as if he really did not want to stop and tend to their needs. They tell him boldly that they want their sight. And then the passage reads, “Jesus had compassion on them and touched their eyes. Immediately they received their sight and followed him.” Because my interpretation of Jesus was first that he felt bothered, I finish reading the passage with the impression that the compassion he had was a change in his attitude, probably in response to the blind men’s answer to his question. But what if we understood his compassion to be his attitude before they answered him? What if compassion was the very reason why he stopped and even bothered to speak with these two blind men? That’s a very different Jesus than I first imagined. Now, his compassion is not reactionary, but proactive.
But still, even with this renewed outlook on this passage, I get the sense that Jesus’ compassion for us is most revealed when we examine who he had compassion for. In this story, the blind men were relentless in seeking their healing. Even when the rest of the world was telling them they cannot change or that it was wrong for them to ask for it, they persisted. The compassion that Jesus demonstrates is helping people who earnestly want to change. This description of compassion has particular relevance to me and the work I support with those dealing with sexual conflicts, such as homosexual recovery. The world and a growing section of the “Church” is against their efforts to change, and yet they persist. The world claims that clinicians who offer change efforts are unethical, and yet I see quite the opposite.
And to whom did Jesus not show compassion; to whom did he not effectively minister? To people who did not believe they needed to change or that they could change, like those in his hometown who lacked faith (Matt. 13:54-58, Luke 4:14-30).
And so I see in Jesus an example of being proactive in his compassion, yet wisely reserving his greatest investments for those who sincerely wanted his help. Furthermore, in his distribution of grace, he was careful to treat each person as an individual. To some, he healed and gave miracles without condition. To others, he required a process before they would receive their blessing (such as with the ten lepers who had to show themselves to the priest in Luke 17:11-19) or instructions about what to do afterward (such as when Jesus healed a man with leprosy in Mark 1:40-45, another example of Jesus’ compassion toward someone passionate).
Finally, how did Jesus develop this empathy and compassion, and how can we follow his example? I’m glad you asked. Here’s one of my favorite passages:
Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
“Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death–even death on a cross!”
-Philippians 2:5-8
In order to feel with us, Jesus had to be one of us. Long before the psychological concepts of phenomenology and joining, God the Son entered our world and modeled humility and being a “student of the client!” We need to suspend our point of view–even if it may be more objective–in order to see the world from the client’s subjective perspective. Only then can we appreciate how the client feels, thinks, and acts. In doing so, we remind ourselves that we’re not perfect ourselves, and that if we had the same lot as the client, we might just feel the same way. And then we can intervene compassionately and in a manner appropriate to that particular client–whether more direct or indirect, or firmer or gentler.
For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are–yet was without sin. Let us then approach the throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need. Every high priest is selected from among men and is appointed to represent them in matters related to God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins. He is able to deal gently with those who are ignorant and are going astray, since he himself is subject to weakness.
-Hebrews 4:15-5:2
References
Unger, M.F. (1974). Unger’s Bible dictionary. Chicago, IL: Moody.