Is Compassion Central to All Religion?

At the Washington Post's "On Faith" site, historian Karen Armstrong argues that compassion is "central to every one of the major world religions."

"My religion is kindness," said the Dalai Lama; you can have faith that moves mountains, says St Paul, but it is worthless without charity; Rabbi Hillel said that the Golden Rule was the essence of Torah: everything else was "only commentary." Muslims begin every reading of the Qur'an by invoking the compassion of God. But the religions also insist that you cannot confine your compassion to your own kind; you have to have "concern for everybody," love your enemies, and honour the stranger.

It's a lovely essay. There is also a video in which Dr. Armstrong discusses the violence being perpetrated around the world in the name of religion.

On Faith always assembles an online "panel" of religious leaders to comment. Some of the comments are uplifting and thoughtful. However, some of the comments are about personal agendas. Sometimes I do want to take people aside and explain to them that this isn't about you.

A Christian evangelical, Dr. John Mark Reynolds, argues that "A call to compassion is not actually compassion." He was insulted by what Armstrong said about fundamentalism in the video, and clearly he was angry when he responded. Dr. Reynolds needs to go to a quiet place and chill, I think.

BTW, I highly recommend Armstrong's book The Battle for God, which is about fundamentalism in the Abrahamic religions. Hammer, nail, head, as they say.

Some commenters, notably Susan Jacoby, took offense at Armstrong because non-religious people can be compassionate also. Of course they can. But clearly Armstrong's purpose is reform of religion -- this comes across particularly clearly in the video -- which IMO makes Jacoby's objection way beside the point.

I also would like to advise Jacoby to learn to read. Armstrong is not arguing that religion "is necessary for morality, and that religious believers should be the arbiters of morality." Her purpose is to challenge the world's religions to re-discover and cultivate their teachings of compassion and stop sectarian hate and warfare.

Jacoby's reaction amounts to a knee-jerk recitation of all of her resentments about religion, whether they relate to what Armstrong said or not. Judging by the title of her comment -- "On The Unreliability of Compassion Without Enforceable Law" -- she equates "compassion" with "good behavior," which is not how I understand compassion. Compassion that must be enforced is not compassion.

Buddhists use the word compassion to mean one of two things -- karuna, which means mercy, active sympathy, gentle affection and a willingness to bear the pain of others; and metta, which means loving kindness and a benevolence toward all beings free of selfish attachment. Cultivation of karuna and metta lead to genuinely benevolent behavior, but they are not themselves behavior. And, no, they cannot be "enforced."

One commenter, the Rev. Gabriel Salguero, said,

Compassion comes from the Latin "com" and "passio," to suffer with or suffer alongside. Compassion is solidarity with our fellow human beings and the whole created order in their brokenness and need.

Nice.

Another commenter, a Christian minister named Willis E. Elliott, argues that compassion is not central to all the world's religions. I agree that the word "central" may be overstating the case. But Dr. Elliott's essay reveals a wearily linear and literal mind, IMO, that also misses the meaning of what Dr. Armstrong is talking about.

Along with the Rev. Salguero's comments, I recommend especially the comments by Christian evangelical pastor Brian D. McLaren; Pamela K. Taylor, co-founder of Muslims for Progressive Values; and Christian pastor Susan Smith.