Intellectualizing Indifference

Critiquing Al Mohler's Critique of Empathy

As I am currently giving away a portion of my library, I came across a book by Albert Mohler entitled “He Is Not Silent: Preaching in a Postmodern Age.” For those unfamiliar, Mohler is the president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and wields considerable influence through his daily commentary on various social and political topics. If you want to understand the mindset of conservative evangelicals, Mohler is a good starting point—though he can be somewhat of a weathervane, shifting his opinion with the prevailing winds. Most notably, he tweeted about Trump in 2016, stating, “Never. Ever. Period,” only to make it a moral imperative to support him in 2020 and 2024. Despite the bold title of his book, he is now silent regarding any criticism of Trump. To his credit, Mohler understood where his bread was buttered, as there would be no future for a public figure in the SBC without bending the knee. Finding this book made me wonder how Mohler was processing the new regime he endorsed. Although his biggest concern as I write today seems to be Meryl Streep voicing Aslan in the new Narnia movie, something on his website still piqued my interest.

Back in February, Mohler interviewed Joe Rigney about his recent book, “The Sin of Empathy” (Found Here). Rigney is a Fellow of Theology at New Saint Andrews College in Moscow, Idaho, an institution connected to the ever-controversial Doug Wilson, known for his more favorable views on slavery. Who better, then, to help Christians think through the concept of empathy, am I right? Along with philosophical jargon, literary and historical references, and a pseudo-erotic obsession with David French, Mohler and Rigney spent an hour exploring how something as seemingly innocuous as ‘empathy’ could be problematic. Rigney’s argument - of which Mohler agrees - is that empathy differs from sympathy in that the subject embraces the feelings of the object rather than approaching from a detached perspective. To illustrate this, the analogy is used of sympathy being like someone in a boat pulling another out of the water, while empathy is like the concerned person jumping into the water, thus rendering them ineffective. Fair enough, though I would argue that standing above someone else isn’t always the most applicable or effective posture. In their view, what is potentially wrong with empathy is that by putting yourself in someone else’s shoes, one can lose their sense of what is true embracing ideas that they otherwise wouldn’t—and shouldn’t, according to their reading of scripture. Lest there be any doubt, the primary target of their criticism is LGBTQ+ acceptance among Christians who they believe have been manipulated into compromise. However, their criticism of empathy has broader implications in the political and economic realms as well.

If the impetus behind the conversation was, “How can Christians better fulfill their calling to love their neighbors?” that would be admirable. However, that is decidedly not Mohler and Rigney’s emphasis. Similar to the question “And who is my neighbor?” asked of Jesus in Luke 10, their objective is to define boundaries around various topics, policies, and people for whom Christians should feel no responsibility to be concerned. In all fairness, there are legitimate questions to grapple with regarding what the nature and scope of our concern should be, especially given our global awareness and media consumption. For instance, as an individual with a wife, kids, a job, and a mortgage, while being appalled, what is my personal responsibility to care about Russia slaughtering Ukrainians? Do I have one? As one person incapable of making any impact alone, am I required to support my nation’s involvement in a conflict that seems disconnected from my life? Or, to bring it closer to home, to what extent should I care about my neighbor’s unemployment, cost of living, health insurance, retirement, children’s education, constitutional rights, benefits, etc.? For both Mohler and Rigney, empathy has the potential to result in empty virtue signaling and/or poor policy decisions, an unsustainable expansion of government, and an irresponsible amount of national debt (as if Republicans still cared about debt). I won’t dismiss those fears, though there’s much more to say about this. My fear, however, is that a lack of empathy can turn Christians into sociopaths indifferent to others outside of a selective range of individual interactions—and this is made even worse by the fact that Christians are encouraged to support policies and/or politicians contributing to their neighbor’s plight.

Back when I was attending Union University, one of our annual fundraising events featured the former Soviet Union leader, Mikhail Gorbachev. Having someone of such significance speak at a small school was an impressive feat, although I must add that the “Communist Party” I threw afterward as my fraternity’s social chair was pretty impressive as well. As long as I live, I will never forget the deafening silence when Gorbachev stated to a group of Southern Baptists that “Jesus was the first socialist.” The awkwardness of the moment still makes me smile. After all, most everyone in the room was convinced that capitalism was the biblical economic system. Of course, it only made sense that if the godless vision of Karl Marx was evil, as evidenced in the 20th century, then the alternative vision of Adam Smith must be correct. Damage control ensued, making it abundantly clear Acts 2:44-45 was entirely voluntary among believers, and therefore, the Bible doesn’t advocate for socialism. True enough… though the biblical mandate for capitalism requires just as much proof-texting. What scripture does promote are principles of personal responsibility and stewardship, as well as a concern for one’s neighbor with an emphasis on the vulnerable. These values are applicable regardless of the context in which Christians find themselves through their individual actions. However, Christians have an opportunity to bring both of these emphases to broader society as well—especially where there are democratic norms (something I hope will continue here in the US).

This nuanced approach would be anathema to Mohler. Throughout this interview (and everything else he does), he consistently uses an either/or logic, reducing every idea down to the “biblical” worldview—which incidentally aligns perfectly with his own—versus the evil leftist alternative espoused by the Democrats. The Democrats are the bad guys, and therefore, it would only follow that Republicans must be the good guys… or at least, the “good enough” guys. And so, if a seemingly new word/concept such as ‘empathy’ comes along, then it must be Marxist in nature, and therefore, it must be bad. Sadly, the absurdity of this simplistic interaction with the world is only exceeded by its effectiveness in inflaming right-wing and/or religious passions. The result of framing things this way is conservatives can incoherently label anything and everything they don’t like as ‘socialism,’ ignoring what the word/concept even means. This playbook isn’t new, as evidenced by Harry Truman in 1952:

Socialism is a scare word they have hurled at every advance the people have made in the last 20 years. Socialism is what they called public power. Socialism is what they called social security. Socialism is what they called farm price supports. Socialism is what they called bank deposit insurance. Socialism is what they called the growth of free and independent labor organizations. Socialism is their name for almost anything that helps all the people. When the Republican candidate inscribes the slogan "Down with Socialism" on the banner of his "great crusade," that is really not what he means at all. What he really means is "Down with Progress--down with Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal," and "down with Harry Truman's fair Deal." That's all he means.

Undoubtedly, Al Mohler is an extremely intelligent man, which is why it never ceases to amaze me that he can’t see what he’s doing. Apart from there being a spectrum of various economic models, what’s missing with Mohler and others who baptize capitalism is the realization that they themselves have been influenced by a philosophical perspective outside of scripture. Of course, there’s nothing wrong with that, though it too should be taken captive to Christ. Whether you call it empathy, sympathy, compassion, or any other term, if concern for one’s neighbor has to be narrowly defined in order to fit with one’s ideological views on government or economics, perhaps the latter should be under scrutiny as much—if not more—than the former. Mohler is not ready yet to go there, as evidenced in a different interview on the same topic (Found Here). In this discussion, Mohler is forced to reconcile previous statements and his current stances, along with addressing the realities of Trump’s first two months. The responses given were a combination of rationalizations, whataboutisms, and a ‘head-in-the-sand’ questioning/denial of what’s verifiably true, specifically on the subject of deporting immigrants without due process. When presented with facts, Mohler’s chilling reply was essentially “to make a right-wing paradise omelet, you have to break some eggs.” The notion of using his influence to push back against anything the administration might do and advocate for the vulnerable doesn’t even register. Doing so wouldn’t line up with his political commitments and would be too empathetic, especially since the guy lumped in with gang members probably doesn’t fit a narrow definition of a ‘neighbor.’

We have seen this narrow definition of ‘neighbor’ and a minimalist approach to compassion at various times in the United States. Any serious moral thinker has to grapple with the fact that the most antagonistic towards ensuring the rights of African Americans during the civil rights era were conservative Christians. That’s not to say there weren’t white followers of Jesus who marched to Selma. However, it was the Unitarians and other mainline folks who did so; people who conservatives labeled as Marxists and heretics. Meanwhile, the conservatives who knew of Jesus’ teachings of love, compassion, and mercy, pulled the levers of power to resist—even spiting and throwing rocks at their neighbors. Ultimately, the federal government had to force these folks to treat their neighbors with dignity and respect their constitutional rights. Now, if you want a clear parallel of how this dynamic would play out today, look no further to Episcopal Bishop Budde asking the president to show mercy and conservatives labeling her a Marxist and a heretic. To be clear, I do not believe I am a Marxist… and frankly, I don’t care if I’m a heretic. But if the Marxists and the heretics are the ones desiring to show mercy to their neighbors and the conservative Christians are the ones claiming empathy to be sinful, perhaps some self-evaluation may be in order. While I am aware many deem Matthew 25 off-limits on these matters, I still have a hard time squaring the “Lord, Lord, at least we weren’t Marxists” rationale with the true religion espoused by James.

Like any philosophy, concept, or term, ‘empathy’ should be assessed in light of scripture… not simply to label and dismiss it, but so that the good could be celebrated and the negatives rejected. Without baptizing the term entirely, one can certainly make the case that the incarnate Christ jumped out of the boat and into the water to identify with his people. Whatever term is used, believers are called to be neighbors in showing mercy to neighbors. To be sure, 99% of that should play itself out in our individual lives and not be outsourced to the government. However, that does not mean that the government can’t have a positive role in caring for our neighbors - albeit with a host of issues. It certainly has the potential to do much more for our neighbor’s good than we can individually, and saying so does not make a person a socialist. It would be wonderful if we, as a nation, could get back to discussing the pros/cons of various policy measures as compared to free market solutions all for the common good. Unfortunately, that’s been lost in the age of Trump. In his narcissistic dream, the focus of our national discourse has devolved into either defending his insanity or calling it out. Frankly, I’d argue that is what this critique of empathy is about as well. It is no accident that we are having this conversation right now. If it’s Trump vs. concern for neighbors, then conservative Christians must find a way to still claim Jesus and support a man whose agenda will inevitably inflict pain on millions of people. What better way than to desensitize them to empathy?