Don McMinn

There are many opinions on what these three terms mean and how they relate to each other. Here are my thoughts. 

All three terms describe a process whereby a person can relate to the emotional state of another person. In this order—sympathy, empathy, compassion—they describe an ever-deepening level of concern and involvement.

Sympathy

Sympathy is a mental understanding of the plight of another person. I sympathize with the plight of starving children in Africa and with the person who has a flat tire alongside the road. I understand they are difficult situations. I can sympathize without getting emotionally engaged or taking any action. I’m simply embracing facts. 

Empathy

Empathy takes me deeper. Not only do I understand another person’s pain, I also feel what they are feeling. My emotions are stirred, not by what is happening in my life, but by what is happening in someone else’s life. I feel what a person is feeling.

I remember the first time I deeply empathized with someone. Years ago, when I was a young pastor, I visited a woman who had recently attempted suicide. As she described the painful circumstances of her life and the despair she was feeling, she began to weep. Suddenly, I began to weep. I asked myself, “Why am I weeping? My life is going quite well.” I then realized that I was weeping because I was feeling someone else’s pain, not my own.  

Compassion

Compassion takes me deeper still. Building on sympathy and empathy, it compels me to become physically involved in relieving another person’s pain; it calls me to action. 

The story of the Good Samaritan illustrates the difference between sympathy, empathy, and compassion.

Jesus said, “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who stripped him and beat him and departed, leaving him half dead. Now by chance a priest was going down that road, and when he saw him he passed by on the other side. So likewise a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, as he journeyed, came to where he was, and when he saw him, he had compassion. He went to him and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he set him on his own animal and brought him to an inn and took care of him. And the next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper, saying, ‘Take care of him, and whatever more you spend, I will repay you when I come back.’ Which of these three, do you think, proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell among the robbers?” He said, “The one who showed him mercy.” And Jesus said to him, “You go, and do likewise” (Luke 10:30-37, ESV).

The priest and Levite noticed the distressed man and may have even empathized with him, but they did nothing to relieve his distress. The Samaritan had compassion on the man and it moved him to act.

In reflecting on the parable of the Good Samaritan, Martin Luther King Jr. said, “I imagine that the first question the priest and Levite asked was: ‘If I stop to help this man, what will happen to me?’ But by the very nature of his concern, the good Samaritan reversed the question: ‘If I do not stop to help this man, what will happen to him?’”

I’m not suggesting that empathy and sympathy are unimportant or lacking; they are thoughtful and kind impressions. Nor am I suggesting that we must always demonstrate compassion; logistically it’s impossible to respond to every need.  

The great value of these three functions is that they divert our focus from ourselves to others. Instead of being ego-centric we focus on others and become altruistic and magnanimous. And that’s a good thing.

Sympathy says “I’m sorry you’re hurting.” Empathy says “I hurt that you are hurting.” Compassion says “I’ll get involved and help in practical ways.” 

“How did you go bankrupt?” Bill asked.

“Two ways,” Mike said. “Gradually and then suddenly.”

[Dialogue from Ernest Hemingway’s 1926 novel, The Sun Also Rises.]

Some things in life happen suddenly. Like car accidents. They’re hard to anticipate and control.

But some things in life develop incrementally. Small actions, repeated over time, gradually accumulate and then suddenly morph into something big. Like the guys putting rubber bands around a watermelon. It happens gradually, then suddenly. Hemingway wrote that bankruptcy can follow this path, and we also see the pattern in other areas of life. This dynamic can be either harmful or beneficial.

Multiple, unwise, small actions can lead to major problems.

• • • Use your credit card indiscriminately on a regular basis and eventually you’ll be in financial trouble. 
    • Consume more calories than you burn day after day, and you’ll gain weight.   
    • Neglect relationships and they’ll suffer..

But multiple positive, small actions can lead to significant and good results.

• • • Doggedly abide by an annual budget, get out of debt, and save for retirement, and you’ll have financial peace and security.
    • Restrict your food intake and exercise regularly and you’ll enjoy a healthy lifestyle. Calories in/calories out; it’s just math.
    • Deliberately prioritize and cultivate important relationships, and you’ll “never walk alone.”

The Bible uses an agricultural analogy to explain a similar phenomenon: the Law of the Harvest: “Whatever a person sows, this he will also reap” (Galatians 6:7). Notice:

• • • You reap what you sow. If a farmer sows corn seed, he’ll reap corn. You can’t plant corn seeds and expect to get broccoli. 
    • You reap later than you sow. After the seed is planted it seems like nothing happens for a long time, but eventually fruit comes.
    • You reap more than you sow. A single seed produces a lot of corn. There’s an exponential return. (In finances, it’s called compound interest.)

Identify some small tasks that you consistently do (both good and bad) that will accumulate into a major result. Stop the ones that are heading in the wrong direction and accelerate the good ones.

I have a friend who thinks clearly and is very organized, competent, and productive. Amazingly so. These are commendable strengths; but sometimes these strengths cause stress in his relationships. His view of the world is so tight that he’s often impatient with people and vague processes. He’ll comment on the tiniest departure from his ideal. Mistakes are unacceptable. At home and work, perfection is the standard. While his strengths are notable, they come with drawbacks.

The principle I want to discuss is: Strengths often have an inherent downside; the advantage they bring is accompanied by a disadvantage. Most strengths have a corresponding weakness.  

A similar challenge exists with virtues. Every virtue must be balanced by another, different virtue or it can get out of balance. The Stoic philosophers had a term for this—anacoluthia—the mutual entailment of the virtues; no virtue is a virtue by itself. For instance, notice how each of these virtues needs to be balanced by another virtue: confidence/humility, caution/boldness, patience/urgency, passion/detachment, openness/discretion, generosity/thriftiness, self-control/spontaneity. 

Perhaps you are:

• • • Confident but lack humility.
    • Generous, to a fault. 
    • Cautious, but stymied by passivity.
    • Logical but emotionally tone-deaf.

Sometimes we have difficulty seeing where we’re out of balance. Ask your spouse or friends to list your strengths and corresponding weaknesses. 

Here are some practical applications.

1. 1. 1. While functioning in your strength, be careful to avoid the corresponding weakness.
      2. Affirm other people’s strengths and extend them grace relative to their weaknesses. 
      3. You don’t need to disavow or limit your strengths until you figure out to achieve balance, but continually work on eliminate the corresponding weaknesses.
      4. Affirm other people’s strengths and, when appropriate, rely on them to compensate for your weaknesses.

Writer Sarah Lyall tells of a man’s outburst in a supermarket when he couldn’t get a certain type of cheese—a blue cheese called Cambozola. The man was obnoxious and belligerent. A store employee observed, “I don’t think this is about the cheese.”

We’re all guilty of this unfair, unproductive, immature, hurtful, and wrong behavior. We’re angry about X, but we express our anger to people that are unrelated to X. We’re frustrated at work and when we get home we yell at our spouse. We’re frustrated at home and take it out on our coworkers. We’re angry about something but we give grief to the deli worker at the grocery store.

In these cases, it’s not about the cheese. It’s about unresolved and misplaced anger.

Sometimes anger resolves itself. If I’m upset at a minor issue—the lawn mower won’t start—in time the anger will dissipate. But if the anger is deep seated, I need to talk it out with a counselor or a friend. 

If we’re angry because we think someone has done us wrong, we should properly express our anger to the person or persons we think offended us. In a controlled manner, share your perspective and be open to hear “the other side of the story.” Approach these conversations carefully because your anger may be unjustified or overblown.   

Or, we can simply choose to drop it. 

If we do take out our frustration on an innocent bystander, we need to apologize. Do that often enough and it will help change your behavior. Don’t ever apologize for your misbehavior and people will begin to avoid you. 

One of the hardest things to do in life—requiring extreme self-awareness and self-control—is to sense when you’re about to take your frustration out on the innocent, and not do so. Better yet, we can even anticipate acting badly and make a decision to preempt bad behavior. For instance, having had a bad day at work, while driving home I should make a note-to-self—“I’ve had a hard day.”—and remind myself to not take it out on my family.

I love that phrase—It’s not about the cheese. I’m going to suggest to my family that we use it with one another as a verbal cue when we think one of us is venting on an innocent bystander.