Christian nationalist pastor McPherson: "Empathy is aligned with hell."

[Fantine]

How empathy came to be seen as a weakness in conservative circles

There's a growing movement, among some conservatives, pushing back against traditional notions of empathy. What's behind it, and what might it mean, especially for Christian conservatives?

www.kdnk.org

And what I believe is the "real" Christian response in alignment with the teachings of Jesus.

https://judithvalente.medium.com/a-priest-holds-a-mirror-to-the-u-s-6dc18ef8ec7b

A Priest Holds A Mirror To The U.S.​

“We are called to pray in Lent. And that may be the greatest motivator to bring to God’s ears what we need to change in our own lives and the lives of those less fortunate. Prayer can lead us, as it led Dorothy Day to oppose nuclear arms and violence, Martin Luther King Jr. the evils of racism, and Emma Lazarus, whose Statue of Liberty message welcomes ‘The tired, the poor, those yearning to breathe free.’
“[This is] not like Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem’s now ubiquitous `advertisements on the airwaves giving homage to Trump for the demeaning and dehumanizing expulsion of migrants — except those who can afford a $5 million green card.
“We all need to repent for complicity in licensing Trump to unleash an agenda of retribution and meanness throughout the world. Symbolically, the period of Lent leads to new life. We can only hope it comes to the United States soon — very, very soon.”

Whoever would have thought that we would have to defend empathy to supposedly Christian pastors?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

How empathy came to be seen as a weakness in conservative circles

There's a growing movement, among some conservatives, pushing back against traditional notions of empathy. What's behind it, and what might it mean, especially for Christian conservatives?

www.kdnk.org

And what I believe is the "real" Christian response in alignment with the teachings of Jesus.

https://judithvalente.medium.com/a-priest-holds-a-mirror-to-the-u-s-6dc18ef8ec7b

Whoever would have thought that we would have to defend empathy to supposedly Christian pastors?

Yes, whoever would have thought that we would have to ... but in a modern world where political power on the Left and the Right is often equated with "who" gets to define terms, almost anything can happen: love becomes a form of hate, and hate becomes a form of love.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I almost posted this in the 'love your neighbor less than yourself thread' and then decided against it. But what the hey, it fits this thread perfectly.

 

[ozso]

How empathy came to be seen as a weakness in conservative circles

There's a growing movement, among some conservatives, pushing back against traditional notions of empathy. What's behind it, and what might it mean, especially for Christian conservatives?

www.kdnk.org

And what I believe is the "real" Christian response in alignment with the teachings of Jesus.

https://judithvalente.medium.com/a-priest-holds-a-mirror-to-the-u-s-6dc18ef8ec7b

Whoever would have thought that we would have to defend empathy to supposedly Christian pastors?

Empathy can mean: affinity with, identification with, and like-mindedness.

Which is not something a Christian should feel when it comes to the practice of iniquity, disobedience, hedonism, and the like. We can empathize ourselves into unifying with that which Christianity is supposed to overcome, and embrace that which should be rebuked.

 

[ozso]

I almost posted this in the 'love your neighbor less than yourself thread' and then decided against it. But what the hey, it fits this thread perfectly.

View attachment 362575

Empathy is not the same thing as caring. Empathy means to identify with. Christians showing empathy seems to be mostly brought up regarding LGBTQ+. Meaning Christians are being pushed into and or tricked into identifying with LGBTQ+.

 

[partinobodycular]

Empathy is not the same thing as caring. Empathy means to identify with. Christians showing empathy seems to be mostly brought up regarding LGBTQ+. Meaning Christians are being pushed into and or tricked into identifying with LGBTQ+.

Don't be silly. I can empathize with someone's suffering... I can empathize with their struggles... I can empathize with their insecurity, without blindly approving of everything that they do. But failing to recognize and minister to the former isn't justified by your hatred of the latter. Christians aren't being tricked into anything... they're being called to love thy neighbor. Perhaps the bible could've done a better job of explaining what that looks like.

 

[ozso]

Don't be silly. I can empathize with someone's suffering... I can empathize with their struggles... I can empathize with their insecurity, without blindly approving of everything that they do. But failing to recognize and minister to the former isn't justified by your hatred of the latter. Christians aren't being tricked into anything... they're being called to love thy neighbor. Perhaps the bible could've done a better job of explaining what that looks like.

Yes, but the type of empathy being stressed is identifying with. That's why some churches are blending Christianity with LGBTQ+ and iniquity, disobedience, hedonism, and the like, in their pursuit of empathy. The opposite of empathy is to distance from. Christianity is about distancing from iniquity rather than empathizing with it. Another way of putting it is, Christians are letting the ungodly tell them how to be Christians. The Bible does a very good job of explaining what I'm talking about.

 

[MehGuy]

Yeah, I have been suspicious about empathy for years now. It's nice seeing the discourse becoming mainstream. Although I do not come from it from a socially conservative angle myself. Ironically my fears of empathy stem from when I became an atheist and looked back at my past Christian faith and analyzed the psychology of it. The over emphasis on people's pain leading to glorification of suffering and the cyclical nature of wanting to keep people in a constant state of victimhood.

I did eventually realize it also has a secular side. That a lot of the psychological issues I saw from my Christian faith I also see in many liberal circles.

Although I initially viewed it as some sort of emotional theory of mind problem, not using the term empathy until later. I have spoken about the problems of empathy on this website before, although I did receive some criticism with how I use the term. Which has given me food for thought.

So I am a little hesitant with how to properly frame the issue .. but regardless I think the public questioning the uses of empathy is at least a productive first step. Although I'd like to see the discourse branch beyond socially conservative circles.

 

[Fantine]

I can understand the struggles of others without identifying with them.
I have felt rejection--as we all have--so I could empathize when a trans woman said she stood on the walkway on the bridge to Oklahoma and a policeman stopped and said, "Why don't you jump off, freak?"
I am not transgender but my far more limited experience with rejection made my heart ache for her.
We are all humans, brothers and sisters. Common emotions--loneliness, helplessness, abandonment, fear--don't need a common cause.
The opposite, of course, is if one looks at undocumented immigrants as less than human.
I have seen people here write for example: if their children are separated in cages it's "their" fault for bringing them.
The writer might have had the common experience of parenthood, and even relative poverty, but cannot empathize and believes the desperate immigrant is negligent and his children deserve to be separated in cages.
This is the sinful fallacy being preached by people whose ministry should be revoked, allowing them to get more suitable jobs where they cannot lead people to evil.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Empathy can mean: affinity with, identification with, and like-mindedness.

Empathy can also mean understanding, but while remaining separate, rather than identification. The word's meaning has fluttered about confusingly since it was coined.

The act or capacity of entering into or sharing the feelings of another is known as sympathy. Empathy, on the other hand, not only is an identification of sorts but also connotes an awareness of one's separateness from the observed. One of the most difficult tasks put upon man is reflective commitment to another's problem while maintaining his own identity.
—Journal of the American Medical Association, 24 May 1958

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yes, but the type of empathy being stressed is identifying with. That's why some churches are blending Christianity with LGBTQ+ and iniquity, disobedience, hedonism, and the like, in their pursuit of empathy. The opposite of empathy is to distance from. Christianity is about distancing from iniquity rather than empathizing with it. Another way of putting it is, Christians are letting the ungodly tell them how to be Christians. The Bible does a very good job of explaining what I'm talking about.

Ozso, on this particularly little topic, I'm going to have to disagree with you, which is unusual because I often get a kick out of your quips.

But as it stands, I don't think empathizing with a person's pain in life, whether that pain is physical, psychological or relational, means that I have to completely and utterly affirm various shades of moral outcome. I can empathize, for instance, with most fellow straight men in that we all have to decide to what extent we'll struggle with holding our libidos in check at the sight of attractive women; but my empathizing doesn't imply that I must affirm any anti-Christian moral decisions that may be at play in that struggle. For me, empathy is combined with sympathy to form the ability to have compassion for others who struggle, and that's all it has to be.

Of course, there will be those on both sides of the political spectrum who will take this issue and run to extremes in order to attempt to secure some political shaping of our society that pushes toward 'self-fulfillment.' I don't feel that as a Christian, I have to fall in line with either side and thereby truncate what should be a typical Christian reaction to other people's sins, or my own sins---which is to have compassion on people like Jesus did.

In fact, I see no in-congruence between having empathy for fellow straight men who struggle severely with their libidos and also verbally pummeling the presence of something like Hugh Hefner's or Andrew Tate's philosophy wherever I might encounter it.

And where this issue is pertinent, I personally like some of the things said on the Holy Post podcast over the past week or so....

 

[JEBofChristTheLord]

I'll make it simpler. Empathy is a good, Godly, motivation to pity and mercy. Empathy is evil if it is a self-justification to affirmation and/or encouragement of self-deception and other sin.

The form of the lie of empathy being altogether evil, is not very dissimilar to the evildoers' "love is love", but neopuritan negative, instead of perversionist positive. There is love of sin, which is evil. There is love of Christ the Lord and that which He has Personally said, done, and discussed, which is good.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I'll make it simpler. Empathy is a good, Godly, motivation to pity and mercy. Empathy is evil if it is a self-justification to affirmation and/or encouragement of self-deception and other sin.

So it's good when it's good, but bad when it's bad? Simplicity itself!

 

[Fantine]

Yes, but the type of empathy being stressed is identifying with. That's why some churches are blending Christianity with LGBTQ+ and iniquity, disobedience, hedonism, and the like, in their pursuit of empathy. The opposite of empathy is to distance from. Christianity is about distancing from iniquity rather than empathizing with it. Another way of putting it is, Christians are letting the ungodly tell them how to be Christians. The Bible does a very good job of explaining what I'm talking about.

Matthew 7:3

Jesus says, “Why do you notice the splinter in your brother’s eye, but do not perceive the wooden beam in your own eye?

Empathizing without judgment is not justifying the sin. It's not judging the "sinner," and, in our common humanity, understanding some of the wounds he carries that are in need of healing.

Judging is God's job. Our job, commissioned by Jesus when he washed the feet of the disciples, is to "love." To "serve."

When we are involved in a personal relationship with someone who is a "sinner," (in other ways, with anyone in the human race) the best way to help them is to show them God's love through your own behavior. Love is transformational. Criticism not so much (or not at all.)

And in no way is it helpful for absolute strangers to support ostracism, punishments, etc. as part of government policy in order to change them. That's not loving. That's not criticism. It's not empathy.

It's sadism.

 

[ozso]

Matthew 7:3

Jesus says, “Why do you notice the splinter in your brother’s eye, but do not perceive the wooden beam in your own eye?

That's about a Christian getting on another Christian's case about something without bothering to assess his own stumbling block.

Empathizing without judgment is not justifying the sin. It's not judging the "sinner," and, in our common humanity, understanding some of the wounds he carries that are in need of healing.

That's not the level of empathy that's in question.

Judging is God's job. Our job, commissioned by Jesus when he washed the feet of the disciples, is to "love." To "serve."

Judging right vs wrong, good vs bad, truth vs falsehood etc is not the same as passing judgement.

When we are involved in a personal relationship with someone who is a "sinner," (in other ways, with anyone in the human race) the best way to help them is to show them God's love through your own behavior. Love is transformational. Criticism not so much (or not at all.)

But identifying with them and becoming like-minded with them should be avoided. David Wilkerson reaching out to gang members while staying separate from them, is the right approach. It lead the the chief gang member Niki Cruz becoming a Christian evangelist like Wilkerson, rather than Wilkerson blending in with the gang and becoming Cruz's homie.

And in no way is it helpful for absolute strangers to support ostracism, punishments, etc. as part of government policy in order to change them. That's not loving. That's not criticism. It's not empathy.

It's sadism.

What you're saying is the government not going along with the preposterous claim that there are a plethora of genders, Not allowing schools to teach that to children, not allowing children to have their physiology altered, not allowing a man to go into women's private spaces or compete in women's sports, and not throwing women's rights under the bus in the process etc, is sadistic.

 

[ozso]

Ozso, on this particularly little topic, I'm going to have to disagree with you, which is unusual because I often get a kick out of your quips.

But as it stands, I don't think empathizing with a person's pain in life, whether that pain is physical, psychological or relational, means that I have to completely and utterly affirm various shades of moral outcome. I can empathize, for instance, with most fellow straight men in that we all have to decide to what extent we'll struggle with holding our libidos in check at the sight of attractive women; but my empathizing doesn't imply that I must affirm any anti-Christian moral decisions that may be at play in that struggle. For me, empathy is combined with sympathy to form the ability to have compassion for others who struggle, and that's all it has to be.

Of course, there will be those on both sides of the political spectrum who will take this issue and run to extremes in order to attempt to secure some political shaping of our society that pushes toward 'self-fulfillment.' I don't feel that as a Christian, I have to fall in line with either side and thereby truncate what should be a typical Christian reaction to other people's sins, or my own sins---which is to have compassion on people like Jesus did.

In fact, I see no in-congruence between having empathy for fellow straight men who struggle severely with their libidos and also verbally pummeling the presence of something like Hugh Hefner's or Andrew Tate's philosophy wherever I might encounter it.

And where this issue is pertinent, I personally like some of the things said on the Holy Post podcast over the past week or so....

Okay I finally set aside the time to listen to that video. And I liked it. The issue here, as was touched upon in the video, is manipulation. What's thown at Chstians is judge ye not, where's your love, where's your compassion, where's your empathy, we're all made in God's image, Jesus hung out with sinners, and rebuked the Pharisees, and you're acting like a Pharisee. But it's being done to manipulate Christians. It's the world, the humanists, the ultra liberals, the ungodly trying to shape Christianity into what they want it to be.

It's only pretty recently that this was doable for the most part. Up until recently there wasn't this wide schism between mainline liberalism and evangelical fundamentalism. A hundred years ago most churches were on the fundamental side. Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran, Episcopal, Methodist et al were a lot closer to what's called fundamental these days.

But now, perhaps in an attempt to save their denomination from extinction, they're appealing to the extreme end of liberal progressivism. And of course there are those taking advantage of that through manipulation.

 

[Jerry N.]

Modern empathy has little to do with the traditional meaning. It is often a mix of virtue signaling and projection. Sympathy is often mixed up with empathy, which is understandable but not good. My wife cares for sick and injured little wild animals, and a vet was teaching her how to give injections. My wife was afraid the injection would hurt the little animal, and the vet pointed out that the injection will hurt the animal a lot, but not giving the injection will probably mean the animal will die. Empathy is not a virtue if it stops someone from doing what is best. Additionally, one can only empathize concerning something they have personally experienced, not something they have only imagined.

 

[Fantine]

I was a choir accompanist in a fundamentalist church for a few years. It was an eye-opener for me. I liked the people and the pastor. It was pre-Trump so there was not the virulent extremism that exists today.
One thing I always noticed was that the messages were almost never about the Gospels. Or even Acts. Mostly the letters and the OT.
Now the letters, especially Paul, institutionalized the Church.
Jesus wasn't about rules. He was about relationship and heart.
I knew little about the letters before this experience. And then I learned half the letters attributed to Paul weren't even written by him.
I think that institutions need to respond to the times. Everything we have learned about science and cosmology makes solo-scriptura seem in need of serious reinterpretation. What does the Bible say to mankind today? Truths are eternal...but details?
I look at Pope Francis as a leader who applies timeless truths to the world today, using the knowledge of today. He was a scientist, a chemist, before entering the Jesuits.
The biggest sin today is not transgender or LGBT individuals. It's exploitative materialism, with the haves practicing genocide in Gaza, invading Ukraine, completely barring immigration, raping the environment--which hurts the poor the most.
As far as sin goes, LGBT is a distraction compared to the more serious sins.
The oligarchs of today, not content with exploiting the earth, have commercialized the space program.
Liberal empathy is not manipulative nor misplaced. It is a clear-eyed vision of mankind unfiltered by selfishness and greed.

 

[Jerry N.]

I was a choir accompanist in a fundamentalist church for a few years. It was an eye-opener for me. I liked the people and the pastor. It was pre-Trump so there was not the virulent extremism that exists today.
One thing I always noticed was that the messages were almost never about the Gospels. Or even Acts. Mostly the letters and the OT.
Now the letters, especially Paul, institutionalized the Church.
Jesus wasn't about rules. He was about relationship and heart.
I knew little about the letters before this experience. And then I learned half the letters attributed to Paul weren't even written by him.
I think that institutions need to respond to the times. Everything we have learned about science and cosmology makes solo-scriptura seem in need of serious reinterpretation. What does the Bible say to mankind today? Truths are eternal...but details?
I look at Pope Francis as a leader who applies timeless truths to the world today, using the knowledge of today. He was a scientist, a chemist, before entering the Jesuits.
The biggest sin today is not transgender or LGBT individuals. It's exploitative materialism, with the haves practicing genocide in Gaza, invading Ukraine, completely barring immigration, raping the environment--which hurts the poor the most.
As far as sin goes, LGBT is a distraction compared to the more serious sins.
The oligarchs of today, not content with exploiting the earth, have commercialized the space program.
Liberal empathy is not manipulative nor misplaced. It is a clear-eyed vision of mankind unfiltered by selfishness and greed.

I don’t know where you got the idea that “half the letters attributed to Paul weren't even written by him.” Hebrews is the only letter sometimes attributed to Paul that was probably written by somebody else. Paul also dictated letters because his eyesight was poor, but they are still his.

Times do change. We don’t stone people anymore, at least not physically. However, the things in the Bible listed as sins are still sins. People have become more tolerant about some of them, but they remain sins. Among Fundamental Christians, the sins of adultery and fornication are still treated very seriously, except a blind eye is often turned toward young unmarried people. Part of the problem is fear. Murder, stealing, and many other sins are not typical temptations, but sexual sins tempt almost everybody, Therefore, condemnation of them is often more vigorous.

 

[Fantine]

I don’t know where you got the idea that “half the letters attributed to Paul weren't even written by him.” Hebrews is the only letter sometimes attributed to Paul that was probably written by somebody else. Paul also dictated letters because his eyesight was poor, but they are still his.

Times do change. We don’t stone people anymore, at least not physically. However, the things in the Bible listed as sins are still sins. People have become more tolerant about some of them, but they remain sins. Among Fundamental Christians, the sins of adultery and fornication are still treated very seriously, except a blind eye is often turned toward young unmarried people. Part of the problem is fear. Murder, stealing, and many other sins are not typical temptations, but sexual sins tempt almost everybody, Therefore, condemnation of them is often more vigorous.

I read the list in Bible footnotes. A Presbyterian pastor said the later letters tried to reshape the message to make it more palatable in the Roman empire.
As far as adultery goes, it's sinful, but the consequential sins aren't even considered.