WASHINGTON (AP) — Empathy is usually regarded as a virtue, a key to human decency and kindness. And yet, with increasing momentum, voices on the Christian right are preaching that it has become a vice.
For them, empathy is a cudgel for the left: It can manipulate caring people into accepting all manner of sins according to a conservative Christian perspective, including abortion access, LGBTQ+ rights, illegal immigration and certain views on social and racial justice.
“Empathy becomes toxic when it encourages you to affirm sin, validate lies or support destructive policies,” said Allie Beth Stuckey, author of “Toxic Empathy: How Progressives Exploit Christian Compassion.”
Stuckey, host of the popular podcast “Relatable,” is one of two evangelicals who published books within the past year making Christian arguments against some forms of empathy.
The other is Joe Rigney, a professor and pastor who wrote “The Sin of Empathy: Compassion and its Counterfeits.” It was published by Canon Press, an affiliate of Rigney’s conservative denomination, which counts Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth among its members.
These anti-empathy arguments gained traction in the early months of President Donald Trump’s second term, with his flurry of executive orders that critics denounced as lacking empathy.
As foreign aid stopped and more deportations began, Trump’s then-adviser Elon Musk told podcaster Joe Rogan: “The fundamental weakness of Western civilization is empathy.”
Even Vice President JD Vance, a Catholic convert, framed the idea in his own religious terms, invoking the concept of ordo amoris, or order of love. Within concentric circles of importance, he argued the immediate family comes first and the wider world last — an interpretation that then-Pope Francis rejected.
While their anti-empathy arguments have differences, Stuckey and Rigney have audiences that are firmly among Trump’s Christian base.
“Could someone use my arguments to justify callous indifference to human suffering? Of course,” Rigney said, countering that he still supports measured Christ-like compassion. “I think I’ve put enough qualifications.”
Historian Susan Lanzoni traced a century of empathy’s uses and definitions in her 2018 book “Empathy: A History.” Though it’s had its critics, she has never seen the aspirational term so derided as it is now.
It’s been particularly jarring to watch Christians take down empathy, said Lanzoni, a graduate of Harvard Divinity School.
“That’s the whole message of Jesus, right?”
As a Christian, I'm utterly disgusted by how these people are perverting my religion that's supposed to be all about love for others. For your enemy, even.
Feed the poor, shelter the homeless, heal the sick, visit the imprisoned and welcome the foreigner. That's how we will be judged, according to Matthew 25.
The pervert the words of Jesus. First the Prosperity Gospel, and now this.
What does your religion say should be done with these usurpers and blasphemers?
Love them? But also counter their false teachings. Loving the people they mislead or hurt, and save them from harm.
"Love the sinner, hate the sin" is the boilerplate answer, and fundamentally it's correct, but also never forget that Jesus himself kicked over tables and brandished a whip at these people.
Like, you always think of Jesus as this soft-spoken, kind-hearted individual who always tried to help people. But when he came back to the temple and saw people were using it to try to peddle their wares under the guise and protection of religion, he called that out and threatened violence. And he was right to.
Oit of control capitalism was the one thing that made him lose his temper.
And yes, "love the sinner, hate the sin", but also protect vulnerable people from harm, and a lot of those conservatives are explicitly looking to hurt people.
Is there a meaningful number of traditional Christians left? I haven't seen much effort from churches to counter these false teachings.
In fact I've seen the opposite. A traveling priest came to my mother's church before the elections cycle last year and was spouting off about how leftism is evil and the cause for all modern societies problems.
There are a lot of Christians of many different varieties. None of the Christians I know would agree with conservative Americans.
It's much more enticing to publish news articles about the asshats.
The Bible condones slavery.
That's a problem if you consider the Bible to be univocal. Considering the Bible to be univocal is a bad idea in the first place.
Whatever you have to come up with to feel ok about condoning slavery.
I don't, but the various books in the Bible were written in specific times and contexts, often times when slavery was common. The bible puts limits on slavery, says at various places to release slaves after 7 years, to pay them, to treat them well.
One place in the NT that deals with slavery (and is pretty controversial because of that), is when Paul sends an escaped slave back to his master, with a letter to the master telling him to treat the slave as a brother, because they're brothers in Christ, both children of God.
Paul was trying to spread Christianity in Greece, where slavery was very common, and outright condemning it would probably make a lot of Greeks reject it. There are a lot of places where you can see Paul being very pragmatic about stuff as long as it helps spread the Word. So I guess "here's you're slave, but remember he's your brother" is his compromise with slavery.
I'm pretty certain slavery was the most common form of employment during that period. Slave and master could basically translate to worker and boss now
Looking at antiquity via modern morals is easy. Most of us would not have our current morals if we were raised during the same time period
Note: slavery is obviously bad
And all your Lord and Savior had to do was say, "hey guys, you shouldn't own other people."
Christianity WAS outright rejected at that time because it was extreme. So that's not really an excuse, is it.
He did.
— from Mark 12.
— from Matthew 25
As a previous person mentioned, the whole “The Bible is a singular work of God’s literal word” argument is absurdist in the extreme, even if it’s mainstream today. This dogma began in the US in the 1900s with the Fundamentalist movement. Even the word “Bible” itself means “library.”
Lol ya'll are the champions at grasping at straws.
Whatever you have to tell yourself.
You continue to live up to your tag. 😉
I don't, I'm an atheist. I also recognize that if you throw out univocality, then you can happily throw out the slavery bits.
And you should throw out univocality to make any sense of the Bible at all.
The first mistake in that line of reasoning is assuming that the Bible makes sense.
It makes sense as much as any other text. Of course it has contradictions. The mistake is thinking the fundie approach is the only way to approach it; that's buying into their game. It's not even a singular book, but a collection of writings from across centuries.
good thing all Christians have that as their primary takeaway!
It was in the 1800s when it was used as justification for chattel slavery in the US. Including the printing of "slave Bibles" where all references to "freedom" and "liberty" were removed.
And if you pay attention to what Republicans are saying, you'd recognize that this mindset never actually fully went away.
If you want to try and use that as a cudgel for someone advocating to love thy neighbor, take care of the downtrodden, etc., feel free.
Assholes are going to interpret things how they want. See the main topic of this post for reference.
Doesn't mean you should piss in the cornflakes of folks who are advocating for objectively good things. That makes you look like an asshole.