An Outline of the Compassion Process Compared With Petitionary Prayer

 

An Outline of the Compassion Process Compared With Petitionary Prayer

Richard K. Stephens - April 12, 2022 - 2581 Words

The central question behind the material discussed here is, “When should I and my community take action and when should I (and we) simply tell God I (we) would like Him to take action?”

This article is a collection of observations for the purpose of drawing attention to the limitations of a particular widespread prayer practice in Christianity and to offer an alternative which, I would argue, offers an alternative that far better suits the true aims of Christ-followers.

In section 1 I offer outlines of two forms of assistive intervention. First is Compassion Cultivation Practice and second Petitionary Prayer (on behalf of another). The purpose is to highlight the great differences, in order to promote Christian interest in Compassion Cultivation Practice, which is still little known in Christian circles. Next is a Christian example of a description of the compassion process that is consistent with standard (neuroscientific, psychological) descriptions. Following this is a collection of secular outline models of compassion.

Section 2 compares two different approaches to charity. One is presented as convenient and ineffective, while the other is presented as effective and permanently reforming. There is a parallel between the topic of Section I -- compassion vs. petitionary prayer --  and section 2, in that arms-length hand-out style charity that reinforces dependency lacks the effective compassion which is characteristic of restorative charity.

PART 1

Difference between Compassion and Petitionary Prayer On Behalf of Another

A) Compassion Practice

Compassion involves motivation and competencies (Paul Gilbert). Petitionary prayer on behalf of another requires neither motivation to alleviate suffering (apart from a disengaged, passive and habitual institutionalized practice of addressing “prayer requests”), nor competencies (ability to actively listen and interpret, ability to care, improvisational problem solving that is effective and apt).

Gilbert and Choden defined compassion as a motivation that orientates to: '… a sensitivity to suffering in self and others with a commitment to try to alleviate and prevent it.' (Paul Gilbert & Choden, Mindful Compassion, 2013, p. 94)

Compassion requires being able to tolerate our personal distress when engaging with suffering, Thus “empathy fatigue” cannot occur (there is no such thing as “compassion fatigue). Equipping for compassion through compassion cultivation training involvers competence for emotional self-care and resilience. The non-compassionate person will avoid exposure to suffering because they fear empathy fatigue as well as costly giving (of time, social capital, or, perhaps money).

A) COMPASSION

1) STAGES (cumulative)

a) Behold (collect facts)

• Notice
• Inquire
• Actively Listen, Closely Observe

b) Engage

• Engage with suffering
• Feel empathy
• Interpret, decide

c) Act

• Intend action
• Decide action - effectiveness
• Take action

[This is the Stephens Compassion model (2022): “Behold, Engage, Act”]

2) CHARACTERISTICS

• Costly. Care. Improvisational, impromptu, involves curiosity, imagination, creative problem solving, critical thinking, based on aesthetics (LOVE,BEAUTY), not on duty and ritual. Not sentimentality, not virtue signaling. Accountability. Interest in outcome.
• Non-judgmental. Unconditional.
• Often involves social capital; solidarity, authentic community.
• Altruistic, not self-involved.
• Humble, egalitarian.
• Golden rule.
• Creative, well-considered.

B) Petitionary Prayer On Behalf Of The Other

1) STAGES (non-cumulative)

a) Data collection

• Solicit prayer request / or, state a problem
• Collect the facts

b) Request action from God

• Out-loud verbal delivery of facts to God and request for action to be taken by God

2) CHARACTERISTICS

• Costless. Don’t care. Standardized, based on duty and ritual. No opportunity for personal accountability or social capital engagement. Planned ahead.
• Magical thinking.  Fatalism: no interest in outcome.
• Can involve judgmentalism, dampening the interest in taking action.
• Involves no social capital, no solidarity, no authentic community.
• Narcissistic, self-protecting (reduce costs).
• Sense of privileged status (perception that one has special access to the ear of God, able to tell God what he ought to do)
• Not Golden Rule, mercy-involving (attitude consistent with an approach centered on doctrine and truth claims.
• Formulaic, perfunctory.

C) Tim Keller on the Structure of Compassion Process

You will notice that the following Christian exegesis of Jesus’s illustration of “Love Your Neighbor as yourself,” is fully consistent with the compassion outline given above and is nothing like the Petitionary prayer outline. In other words, the parable promotes an interpretation of “Love your neighbor as yourself” that is perfectly consistent with the descriptions given by scientists and psychologists who are informed by neuroscience of neuroplasticity of the past two decades or so.

Here is an excerpt from a well-known sermon on the Good Samaritan: Timothy J. Keller, “Neighbors,” February 23, 2003; transcript (edited for publication):

Note that the Levite and the priest really were in the vicinity. You know, they crossed over to the other side of the road. It’s almost ludicrous, as if to say, “He’s not really in my path.” Of course, he was. But notice, the three guys, the Levite, the priest, the Samaritan, all see him – notice the word “saw”? The Levite saw him, the priest saw him, the Samaritan saw him. But here are two things the priest and the Levite didn’t do. They didn’t think about the injured man and they didn’t contact him. In other words, they didn’t look twice; they looked once and looked away. But the Samaritan looked at him, felt his misery, was filled with compassion. So, the first thing is, the Samaritan thought about the needs of the man. The others were too busy. And the Samaritan contacted the man, touched the man, came to be where he was. The other two guys went as far away from that mess they possibly could.

Keller is describing compassion here, much like the neuroscientists do. The story involves impromptu response that involves these stages that make up the process we call “compassion”: noticing, examination, empathy, interpretation, action.

The Samaritan, with regard to the wounded stranger, passed through this cumulative process:

1. Notice - “looked at him” - took deliberate notice.
2. Examine - “contacted the man, touched the man, came to be where he was.” - this is close examination, (there could not be asking and active listening as would ordinarily be the case)
3. Feel - “felt his misery” - this is empathy.
4. Interpret, decide - “thought about the needs of the man” - interpretation, creative problem solving.
5. Act - Treated the wound, put the man on his horse, took him to an inn, paid for his room and board - effective action.

Thus, we can fairly say that compassion -- unconditional, since the wounded man and the Samaritan were political “enemies” -- is in Jesus’s own words the second most important commandment which must be mandatorily observed by his followers. It would, therefore, be the second most important “skill” that would be taught by a disciple maker in the process of making a new disciple in accord with the commission to mask disciples, ”teaching them to obey all [He] has commanded.” Teaching something as difficult as compassion requires disciplined lessons. “Teaching” cannot refer to the mere learning of textual content.

There is no escaping the centrality the top level priority of compassion cultivation training as mandatory within the Christian faith.

D) Secular Descriptions of the Compassion Process

Here are five secular descriptions of compassion given by neuroscientists and psychologists.

1) Goetz - Neuroscience

1. Awareness of an antecedent (i. e. suffering or need in another individual);
2. Feeling “moved”; that is, having a subjective physical experience that often involves involuntary arousal of branches of the autonomic nervous system;
3. Appraisal of one’s bodily feeling, social role, and abilities within the context of the suffering;
4.  Judgments about the person and the situational context; and
5. Engagement of the neural systems that drive social affiliation and caregiving, and motivate helping.

[Jennifer L. Goetz and Emiliana Simon-Thomas, “The Landscape of Compassion: Definitions and Scientific Approaches,” in Elizabeth Seppala, Oxford Handbook of Compassion Science, Oxford UP, 2017, p. 3]

2) Jazaieri - Neuroscience

Compassion is “…a multidimensional process comprised of four key components:

1. an awareness of suffering (cognitive/empathic awareness),
2. sympathetic concern related to being emotionally moved by suffering (affective component),
3. a wish to see the relief of that suffering (intention), and
4. a responsiveness or readiness to help relieve that suffering (motivational)

[(Hooria Jazaieri, et al., 2012) Jazaieri, H., Jinpa, G. T., McGonigal, K., Rosenberg, E. L., Finkelstein, J. Simon-Thomas, E., Cullen, M., Doty, J. R., Gross, J. J., Goldin, P. R. (2012). Enhancing compassion: A randomized controlled trial of a compassion cultivation training program. Journal of Happiness Studies. 2012]

3) Strauss - Psychology

Following consolidation of existing definitions, we propose that compassion consists of five elements:

1. recognizing suffering,
2. understanding the universality of human suffering,
3. feeling for the person suffering,
4. tolerating uncomfortable feelings, and
5.  motivation to act/acting to alleviate suffering.

[Clara Strauss at al, “What is compassion and how can we measure it? A review of definitions and measures,” Clinical Psychology Review, Volume 47, July 2016, Pages 15-27]

4) Cassell - Psychology

3 three requirements for compassion:

1. “That the troubles that evoke our feelings are serious;”
2. “that the sufferers’ troubles not be self-inflicted— that they be the result of an unjust fate;” and
3. “we must be able to picture ourselves in the same predicament”

[Cassell, E. J. (2009). Compassion. In S. J. Lopez & C. R. Snyder (Eds.), Oxford library of psychology. Oxford handbook of positive psychology (p. 393–403)]

5) Worline & Dutton - Organizational

1. Noticing - noticing that suffering is present in an organization, 
2. Interpretation - making meaning of suffering in a way that contributes to a desire to alleviate it,
3. Feeling - feeling empathic concern for the people suffering, and
4. Action - taking action to alleviate suffering in some manner.

[Monica A. Worline & Jane E. Dutton, Awakening Compassion at Work: The Quiet Power That Elevates People and Organizations, Berrett-Koehler Pub., 2017. P. 5]

PART 2

Difference between Compassion and Organized Charitable Handouts

In Part 2, we look at how by properly understanding compassion will cause us to rethink the methods we adapt in our efforts to serve the poor in general.

ASK AND LISTEN

Affluent people misunderstand poverty. Why? Perhaps they make up what suits them. Just as they decide what they prefer to give a sufferer, not bothering to ask what that sufferer needs.

How do you define poverty? This question was posed to a group of women in rural Rwanda who live on less than $2 a day. Their first five answers were . . .  1) Poverty is an empty heart; 2) Not knowing your abilities or strengths; 3) Not being able to make progress; 4) Isolation; 5) No hope or belief in yourself. What is unexpected is that not having enough money isn’t mentioned.  Lack of access to clean water, eating one meal a day, or being uneducated isn’t either.  While the answers from women in rural Rwanda may be surprising, several years ago researchers at the World Bank asked the same question to over 60,000 people living in poverty.  And the answers were strikingly similar. Researchers Brian Fikkert and Steve Corbett at The Chalmers Center for Economic Development summarize the results: They tend to describe their condition in far more psychological and social terms.  Poor people typically talk in terms of shame, inferiority, powerlessness, depression, social isolation, and voicelessness. [Peter K. Greer, “Five Ways the Poor Describe Poverty,” 58: blog; Reposted on Peter K Greer, Mar. 1, 2021]

The standard Christian way to deal with the poor is tokenizing them, treating them as targets of dutiful (“legalistic”) virtue gestures, and instead learn compassion, which allows the poor person to be treated as a whole person, with value, not just need. A gift of food, clothing, cash etc. is generosity, yes, but compassionate treatment would be much different.

THE SAMARITAN AGAIN

The simplest way to understand the difference between Compassionate Action and organized Charitable Handouts is to look at the parable of the Good Samaritan.

In the Samaritan parable, the two professional religious staffers, the Priest and the Levite, would have been involved in collecting religiously required charitable contributions and distributing alms to the poor in an organized manner. The Samaritan was merely a religious heretic and a political enemy whose actions were performed impromptu without an audience (no virtue-signaling) and provisionally in response to an individual’s proximate suffering.

The religious professionals had no compassion (despite being men engaged in legalistic charitable giving). But the enemy heretic did have compassion. Or, to be more precise, the two did not bear the compassion trait; it had certainly not been cultivated by them. The Samaritan bore that trait, through miracle or cultivation, who knows?

THE WOE OF HYPOCRISY

Hypocrisy is a major theme in Jesus’s ministry. Hypocrisy is a nuanced and psychologically layered topic. It deserves to be seriously studied and for robust hypocrisy-prevention measures to be taught with rigor.

Steve Corbett and Brian Fikkert’s famous 2009 book, When Helping Hurts: How to Alleviate Poverty Without Hurting the Poor and Yourself, describes an inexcusable, yet common, form of hypocrisy that is to be found within institutional Christianity:

When 950-strong congregation, Atlanta’s North Avenue Presbyterian Church revamped their benevolence giving, they looked within their own congregation and found dozens of members homeless. [see: Joy Lukachick Smith, “When Helping Heals,” Chattanooga Times Free Press (Tn.), Mar. 2016]

A “neglect audit,” such as is described here, needs to be performed in every church.

Fikkert’s book, which has sold 300,000 copies, has influenced churches around the world. His focus is on solving unemployment, a malady which, despite widespread misunderstanding, is far more than an economic problem.

Unemployment isn't just a lack of income; it's a lack of humanness. You see the person who is unemployed is going to have a broken self-image. He's going to start to feel crummy about himself. His relationship with his wife is about to be strained. All the relationships [to: God, creation, self, others] get warped and the inner being gets warped. There's emotional and psychological trauma from not being able to work. [Dr. Brian Fikkert, "The Opposite of Poverty Isn't The American Dream" - Keynote Address, Jobs for Life "Labor Day for Dignity" conference,  Sep. 6, 2019; (pub. on Youtube: Nov 6, 2019; 38:52);@ 21:55]

IT'S ALL ABOUT HEART

Timothy Keller points out that without a generous heart, giving is inadequate. A giving heart does not deliver handouts and walk away. Instead the whole person is considered and becoming self-sufficient is the sufferer is capable of working  is the goal, not continued dependency.

God requires not only a significant expenditure of our substance on the needy. We are obligated to spend our hearts and minds as well. Psalm 41:1 says, “Blessed is he who considers the poor” (RSV). One commentator notes, “The word considers is striking, in that it usually describes the practical wisdom of the man of affairs, and so implies giving careful thought to this person’s situation, rather than perfunctory help.” We are to ponder the condition of the poor and seek ways to bring them to self-sufficiency. This takes a personal investment of time and of mental and emotional energy. God looks for a willing, generous heart, which freely helps those in need, and what we give with our hands is not acceptable without it. (2 Cor.9:7). [Timothy Keller, Ministries of Mercy: The Call of the Jericho Road. 1989, p. 72]

It’s all about heart, not law and duty, therefore the Christ-following community is, in Jesus’s own words, mandated to develop (to learn and cultivate) the trait of compassion.

CONCLUSION

It all comes down to this:

If I pray that God would address my neighbor’s serious suffering in some practical way, and it turns out that this prayer has no apparent effect, what ought I to do then? What ought my Christian community do then?

My suggestion: Here is a link to a brief article based on the work of secular compassion expert, Dr. Paul Gilbert, British psychologist: Tim Anstiss, Jonathan Passmore and Paul Gilbert, ”Compassion: the essential orientation,” The Psychologist (BPS), May 2020 --

https://thepsychologist.bps.org.uk/volume-33/may-2020/compassion-essential-orientation

***

***