Dear Compassionate Congregation:

A few weeks ago, I mused over how the Greek word σπλάγχνα [splangkh'-na] is translated in the New Testament as compassion in some places and as gut in others (occasionally, the King James Version translates it as bowels). That occasion led me to a reconsideration of the death of Judas (link here). But today’s consideration of compassion is not a dive into the power of onomatopoeia but compassion’s relationship to other Christianly responses to pain in the world.

In previous musings I have discussed indifference, pity, empathy and sympathy, each an appropriate response within context. Yet compassion is frequently cited as the most Christianly response to the world around us. Over a dozen times, Jesus is moved with compassion when looking over the crowds (e.g., Matthew 9.36) or seeing an individual afflicted with illness (Mark 1.41 and others). Moreover, the paragon of neighbor-love, the Good Samaritan, was “moved with compassion” seeing the man on the road who had been beaten by robbers (Luke 10.33). And while compassion is indeed a spiritual virtue and enjoined by the Apostle Paul as a laudable characteristic of the Christian community (see Colossians 3.12), compassion for the busy Priest or the bureaucratic Levite who pass the man on the road seems inappropriate.

What makes compassion different is its constructive engagement, activity which requires both proximity and capacity. For the Good Samaritan to demonstrate compassion he needed to see the man on the road, he needed bandages and oil for first aid, he needed his donkey to transport the wounded man to safety and he spent money to pay the innkeeper for the man’s convalescence. Without these resources the Samaritan’s gut-wrenching response could have only risen to the level of sympathy, staying with the wounded man until help could arrive. Bereft of resources, the Samaritan’s companionship would still have been good, but not as constructive. What makes compassion hard is not how we see and react to the suffering of others, but how our encounter with suffering moves us to perceive our own resources as tools for constructive response.

I mentioned last week how we sometimes avoid the hard work of sympathy by busying ourselves with activities of “compassion”. The reverse can also be true. We stand by with “sympathy” and avoid the cost of compassion. What makes any response to suffering “Christianly” is the synchronization of our hearts and hands to the circumstance before us.

As the Greek word implies, our gut-response may be a helpful trigger of where our passions should lead; but often our distracted busyness keeps us from being or doing more. Openness to God’s Spirit guides our ability to match how we feel with what we can do, and what those who are hurting require.

In my next musing I’ll offer some concluding thoughts on the relationship between these Christianly responses. In subsequent weeks I hope to provide thoughts that are bit more aMusing.

Praying for openness to what God is saying to my gut, I remain,

With Love,
Jonathan Krogh
Your Pastor