The Sean McDowell Show - Is Empathy a Sin? A Clarifying Debate

Episode Date: July 29, 2025

Empathy is often seen as a virtue, but is there a point where it becomes dangerous? Today, I have fellow Biola professor Dr. Tim Muehlhoff, a communications expert, to explore whether modern Christians are becoming so empathetic that they begin to compromise biblical truth. Are Christians afraid to speak truth for fear of offending others? And how can we balance compassion with conviction? We hope this conversation helps you if you've ever wondered how to love well without losing your grounding. Our goal in this conversation is to work through the debate today so you can have clarity on what is at stake. Please let us know what you think!READ: End the Stalemate, by Sean McDowell and Tim Muehlhoff (https://amzn.to/43SAVyp)The Sin of Empathy, Joel Rigney: (https://amzn.to/4e4RRVR)Toxic Empathy, by Allie Beth Stuckey (https://amzn.to/4l09TKR)*Get a MASTERS IN APOLOGETICS or SCIENCE AND RELIGION at BIOLA (https://bit.ly/3LdNqKf)*USE Discount Code [SMDCERTDISC] for 25% off the BIOLA APOLOGETICS CERTIFICATE program (https://bit.ly/3AzfPFM)*See our fully online UNDERGRAD DEGREE in Bible, Theology, and Apologetics: (https://bit.ly/448STKK)FOLLOW ME ON SOCIAL MEDIA: Twitter: https://x.com/Sean_McDowellTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@sean_mcdowell?lang=enInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/seanmcdowell/Website: https://seanmcdowell.org

Is empathy a sin? What's a bigger concern today? A lack of empathy in our culture and a lack of empathy among Christians towards outsiders? Or empathy being weaponized against Christians to adopt progressive views. We welcome back Tim Wheelhoff, Viola Professor. Co-author of mine, we wrote a book together called End the Stailmate. I almost didn't release this video, actually, for two reasons. One being, I've already shifted my views a little bit since this conversation, I'm going to come back at the end and clarify a point that someone sent me through an email that was really, really helpful. But second, this is a little less of a debate, but more two friends, Tim Mulehof and I, another bio colleague, working out an issue live together. In a sense,

I kind of want to know where this position leads to, and if it's defensible or not. I'm not going to say I perfectly straw man the issue. You can be the judge of that, but there's been so much conversation recently about empathy in podcasts, multiple books in the New York Times, whether the Christian community is lacking empathy towards others, or whether we are being manipulated to adopt certain unbiblical positions arguably or left-leaning positions through our natural empathy because we're Christians. So wherever you land, maybe you're somewhere in between, which is where you can tell I land, we just hope that. this conversation will help you make sense of this important debate today. Don't forget to

stay around until the end because I got a quick addition to make. But let's start with, I'm really curious why this topic interested you to have a deep dive conversation about it. Well, first, thanks for having me back. I love our conversations. We've known each other for an insane amount of time. And it's really fine to be able to kick these around in a safe place. And I think we agree on a ton of things. It might be things we see a little bit differently. So empathy, my master's thesis at UNC Chapel Hill, not Duke, let's be very clear, UNC Chapel Hill, a person wrote a letter to the Daily Tar Hill because they had national coming out week. It was observed every week, I mean, every year at UNC Chapel Hill. Christian got hacked off, wrote a letter to the Daily Tar Hill

calling homosexualities and really going after it. It raised a huge ruckus. The chancellor had to get involved. I mean, it got regional, national attention. When was this, by the way? Early 2000s or? Oh my gosh, thank you for saying it that way. It was probably a little bit earlier than that. No, no, early 2000s. You're right. Yep. No, thank you. So my beloved academic mentor came up to me and said, you're a Christian. Let's do something about this. Because the gay community responded. There was a lot of vitriol. So I took three members self-identified from the gay community, three members of a very conservative group on campus Christian group. And I said, give me seven weeks to have the conversation. But if we have it right now, we already know what's

going to happen. It's going to devolve into yelling and name-calling. So we basically took six weeks of preparation. All of it was rooted in empathy. Can we empathize with each other, even though we really do disagree about the nature of homosexuality or whatever the issue is? So I saw firsthand the power empathy has to bring down walls open conversation. Now, obviously, nobody changed their mind per se. The Christians didn't give in and the members of the gay community didn't change their perspective, but it changed the tone of the conversation. So that really, really encouraged me, but now I'm seeing trends that discourage me. Empathy has taken a real hit in the last 20, 30 years. I mean, consider very quickly, the Atlantic, 2023 just did a whole issue on whatever happened to

empathy. The 2025 Compassion Report says that 61% of Americans feel that empathy is lacking. The United Way, 23 studies said that empathy, there's burnout, and that 14% of Americans say I'm less empathetic after the pandemic. Scientific American said in 2020 said U.S. has an empathy deficit. And then a fascinating book called Empathy, a History, a Yale scholar, said this. She studies empathy, how it's originated, defined. This is what she says. I've never seen empathy vilified in the way that it has been in these current years. To me, this disparagement marks a step in the destruction of our multicultural democracy and provides a path for the verbal dehumanization of others. And I think I've seen that. I'm also the co-director of Biola's Winsome Conviction

Project. I've seen Christians. and non-Christians really go after each other in dehumanizing ways on social media. So I think we're seeing a lack of empathy today both inside the church and outside the church. That really concerns me. Okay, so some might say, all right, Tim, go back to your example early 2000s.

No one changed their minds. Right. No one came to Jesus. Nobody saw like, oh, maybe marriage is between a man and a woman. Then what's the point? why engage in these seven weeks of conversation? If no one's going to change their point, no one's going to come to Jesus,

I imagine some voice would say, isn't this simple behavior we should call out? What would be your response to that? Well, one, it got me the master's. Can we just check that? Oh, that was a part of your thesis work. Oh, that was my thesis, Sean. That was the whole thing I analyzed.

So let me just say this on two levels. we are not called to just communicate content. I mean, Paul's very clear. I want you to speak truth, content. I want you to do it in love. That's the relational level of communication. The most famous apologetic verse in the entire New Testament, Peter says,

be ready to give a reason for the hope that is in you with all gentleness and reverence. And I think what we're doing is we're shaping the communication climate. So when week seven came, Sean, we had dinner at our house, Noreen made dinner, and said, protect the China. Because now we're going to talk about our differences,

and they full out did it for four hours. I mean, there was push and pull. The Christians were not backing off with their perspective, but later in analyzing it based on journals, everybody kept, everybody felt like the tone of the conversation had shifted that I was able to more consider your perspective, whereas before I had walls up. I think empathy can bring the walls down,

and so now you're actually listening. to my concerns about your sexuality, your morality. So we're creating a communication environment where people can actually hear our conversations. And so, yeah, we are standing up for truth, but we're doing it in a way that people can receive it. Okay, so it's effective communication you would argue to be in conversation with somebody

and potentially to love a neighbor by understanding their views and engaging them where they're at. And let me be more provocative. Okay. Second Great Commandment, I do not think you can do it without two things, perspective taking in empathy. Okay.

All right. Can I maybe define empathy? So let me ask you this. Yes, but let me ask this question first. I want to know why there's so much discussion about empathy kind of in the modern world today. Now, in the Christian church, there's been a book that was written. Rigney wrote a provocative book called The Sin of Empathy, created a lot of conversation

all over podcast, there's been dialogue about this. Ellie Beth Stuckey, toxic empathy. So Christians have been talking about this. And I think there's some other, there might be some like sociological reasons why this is so pressing today. I think there's a lot of hurting people. We've seen depression.

We've seen anxiety go up. So there's a sense of like, how do we relate to people who are hurting? So this is taken on a certain element of importance. I think we also have arguably like a victim culture today where there's kind of a sense of like in a way it wasn't in the past and maybe this is a part of critical theory where we almost like praise when somebody has experienced a kind of victimhood status.

I mean, there's so much literature that's written on this and there's a kind of empathy that leans into and just says, I just got to meet you where you're at and understand that's the whole goal. And part of the concern of these books is how do we meet people who have experienced? experience trauma and have been victimized, but there's certainly been a shift in our culture that arguably makes the case positively about a kind of certain victimhood status that raises the question of how do you love and care for people when there's attention being paid to victimization. Hence, empathy has increased in discussion about it. I think that's at least a piece

of it. Why do you think there's so much discussion about this in the modern world? Like right now, in the church or outside. Okay, I mean, we talk about this in our book. Tribalism is for real. We have ample evidence that we do, we hang out with our tribes. And affective polarization means when my tribe, when there's no counter perspective given to it, we're all of one political persuasion, we all read the Bible exactly the same, we all have theological beliefs that align.

That's called group think. that's us. But when we talk about the other group, when there's no other group to speak in, like there's no other group to challenge our theological beliefs, our political views. Affect of polarization is, I actually paint a much harsher picture of your group

than what you really are. And so I think Americans today, remember that we mentioned this study, that 98% of Americans feel that instability is a threat to the republic. right so i think today people are saying okay we got to get out of this tribalism we got to start talking to each other in a way that's civil kind compassionate and i think empathy is being seen as a way to open the door uh so you you mentioned meet a person where they're at well you just

describe marital communication 101 you just described parental communication 101 as a communication professor, it's really good to meet a person where they're at and engage in empathy as you understand everything that has led to that person's pain, struggles, hurts, hopes, fears. I think empathy is a way to do that. And so to have Christians not be calling it on the carpet adds to what that Yale scholar, Susan Lozoni says, is empathy's being really denigrated today in the world. ways that I do not, I don't think is helpful. Okay, so we'll come back to that, whether it's empathy or a misuse of empathy as part of where this debate comes in. But maybe let's define it.

Yeah. So tell us how you as communication scholar define empathy. So obviously I'm biased. I'm a communication professor. We have a whole discipline. We borrow heavily from psychology. So what I'm going to represent right now, I think if you had one of our psych professors here, you're going to get some version of this, right? I mean, it's all over the map academically, but here's empathy as I used it in my master's thesis and when I speak at marriage conferences, right? It is the ability to recreate another person's perspective to experience the world from their point of view. Like, I want to see how you see the world before I jump in to argue how you should see the world. I first want to understand that. Now, we say there's three dimensions to it. The first dimension

is perspective taking. I set aside my views long enough to step in and see the world through your perspective. Second, affective means this isn't just a cognitive exercise, right? I can verbatim repeat your narrative back to you. No, I actually want to experience the narrative. I want to know the pain you feel. And maybe even my viewpoint is causing you certain kind of pain.

I want to know what that pain is. And then last, a genuine concern for the welfare of the other person. Now, what I think that welfare is is going to be informed by my worldview, my perspective, right? Now, I think we get this definition in the scriptures, right? The writer of Hebrew says this, fascinating, that the writer would say, I want you to pray for those in prison. Okay, check, done. No, no, no, I want you to do it in a certain way. This is what the writer says.

remember those in prison as if you were in prison. We just checked off the first aspect of empathy. I'm going to pretend and imagine I'm in prison. And then he goes on. Remember also those being mistreated as if you felt their pain in your own body. Right? Now we got the affective part. So I don't just sit and pray for my brothers and sisters being persecuted today.

I imagine that's me and what would be the emotions I would have if I was dragged away from my family. So now we don't just apply that to the church. We apply that to everybody. We sit down with a person thinking about transitioning. And the first step is, okay, tell me what led you to this moment. What are the hopes and the fears that are driving this decision? And I want to feel that. If we don't do it, I think we've immediately made the conversation defensive.

And the third part is what I think they're rightfully pointing out is, I do care for your welfare. And I may have to say some things that is actually going to cause you pain now that I realize what does cause you pain. But I'm doing it because of a genuine concern for your welfare spiritually, socially, politically, politically, theologically. Okay, so that passage in Hebrews is very interesting. those in prison referring to brothers and sisters in Christ, right? Then you jumped and said, so we also apply this to non-Christians in the wider culture. Where's the biblical precedent for that in the same way?

Because if I'm supposed to pray for those in prison in Hebrews 13, these are my brothers, these are my sisters, I show empathy with them because they presumably have the same beliefs and worldview that I have, so I'm entering into their pain, praying for them as if I was there. It's a way of loving them. Their concern is when I start doing that with people outside of the faith, that if people can be, empathy can be weaponized against us, where we can be led astray from our convictions. Now, we'll come back to that concern, but is there biblical precedent for showing empathy

to non-Christians in the same way as you read Christians in this past? passage. Yeah, I would say James, right, he's the first out of the gate saying, okay, we're going to try to like prioritize what Jesus is saying, okay? So he comes out and says, this may shock you, but I think true religion in the side of God is caring for orphans and widows and distress. He didn't say Christian orphans and widows. Agreed. He said orphans and widows and distressed. And now we know that the historical context, we understand that women were greatly abused and there was no welfare system for children. So he's saying, I want you to care for these individuals. And so I think that would absolutely include being empathetic towards them, love your enemies, give them food.

I don't think you're able to give your enemies to your food to your enemies unless you have a certain amount of empathy towards them. Otherwise, that is a ridiculous command in Scripture. Like, I'm not giving food to my enemies. I'm just not doing it. So it's interesting that you kind of put it on me. I would counter and say, why do you think the writer of Hebrews is just restricting that to Christians? Oh, I don't know the answer to that. I'm just saying there was a jump from, here's exactly what it says for brothers and sisters in Christ, feel their pain, as if you were there, therefore we should extend it. Yes, it says feed the poor. Yes, it says love them. Yes, it says care for orphans. But with the same language that spells that out with such clarity,

I'm not saying that means it's wrong not to do so. I just don't know that I see the biblical precedent in the same way. Maybe there's passages we're not thinking of, but that seems somewhat of a jump to me unless we can think of one in the same fashion. Okay, that's fair. But see, this is where I think general revelation and special revelation have to complement each other. I teach persuasion class. Paul says, knowing the fear of the Lord, seek to persuade men. He doesn't necessarily tell you how to do it. Now, we get an example of him on Mars Hill. We get him in action, but it's not that Paul is saying, okay, here are the five steps to persuade people. We're going to have to glean that, right? But we have persuasion theory. Like he says, love your neighbor, but we can borrow from

psychology we can borrow from communication theory to know what entails loving a person that's his general revelation and i think we get a robust example of what love looks like and um from having empathy perspective taking um i i what we did a whole chapter in our book on perspective taking We did. I think it's everywhere. It's everywhere. It's, it's, um, uh, uh, Abraham. I want you to sacrifice your son. And the whole purpose of writing that from a rhetorical perspective is the reader is supposed to say, how can a father sacrifice his son? Like, how is that even possible? Well, Abraham didn't sacrifice his son, but God did. So I think a perspective taking is everywhere throughout the scriptures where Jesus says, okay, you want to know what God?

love like? Imagine you're a woman who lost a coin. Imagine. Do you tear up the whole house trying to find it? A shepherd loses a sheep. I want you to imagine what they would feel like, right? Yeah. Perspective taking is the undercurrent theme and empathy, I think, throughout the New Testament. And I would say even the Old Testament. So it's there. Now, what these guys are talking about is they are saying, if my understanding is correct, They would buy points one and two. Both Rigney and Stuckey would say empathy is perspective taking and empathy is affective. They're saying...

Agreed. They're calling into question number three, saying when I do one and two with toxic empathy, I no longer have a genuine concern for you, I simply adopt your concerns. Like, I don't bring in how I think you should rise above what you're experiencing. I'm so enmeshed in you by doing one and two that I no longer offer, I don't call into question your sexuality because I'm so empathizing with you, connecting with you. I would never want to hurt your feelings by bringing in a perspective I know will hurt your feelings. And that's what Rigney calls untethered empathy, and that's what she calls toxic empathy. So he says he's not so concerned with the definition of empathy, but with its practice.

And as far as I can tell, he pulls out how there's no agreed upon definition, and there's a lot of different ways they're approaching it. Like, fair enough. And so far as it goes, there's the cognitive understanding it's often defined as mentally you talked about. There's the effective feeling what somebody feels. And then finally, empathy may refer not to sharing the same emotion as another person. but instead to the warm feelings we have for those in distress, warm feeling for those in distress. His concern seems to be not just empathy per se, and we'll come back to the title because it says the sin of empathy, but a kind of untethered empathy.

So he draws this distinction between empathy and between sympathy. And it is interesting how he gives some biblical passages, how in Ibrose 415, we have a high priest who sympathizes with us was shifted to empathy, I think, in the NIV. Like, why is there that shift? What does that tell us? That's a really interesting point. What he draws out is he kind of, empathy is to feel with another. Here's what he's right.

He says, empathy, so I will use sympathy and compassion interchangeably. Empathy on the other hand means suffering in. sympathy is suffering with empathy is suffering in so the distinction he seems to draw is i can enter into your pain understand it mentally and emotionally but there's still a distance between us as individuals so it's like somebody in a pit he would say you don't jump in the pit with them you still say with one foot on the ground so you can then pull the person out of it so he's not concerned that we understand how somebody sees the world, how they feel the world, perspective taking.

But when we empathize so much with somebody that we lose that distance, that we're unable to actually help them in their pain. Yeah, number three. Which is number three. Genuine concern for the welfare of the other person. Yeah. And I say to him, amen. Yeah, amen.

If all I do is one and two, I do perspective taking and I feel your pain, which I think is a really noble thing. One of the questions we could ask is, is empathy a virtue? And I would say, absolutely, it's a virtue. To be an empathetic person is a virtuous thing. So yeah, I'm with him. Okay. But he's wanting to say that today, most people are using empathy in a weaponized way where I jump into the pit, and once I'm in the pit, I never discuss how to get out of the pit. Okay, that's untethered empathy. That's his concern. Yeah, and I'm just saying, okay, make your case.

Okay, so let's come back to whether it makes a case. But I don't think he and Stuckey would call empathy of virtue. I think they distinctly say it's not. And this is actually one of the most eye-opening, interesting things to me that they drew out. Right. is that empathy is an emotion that you have with somebody, right? It's an emotion and experience you have, which is not necessarily in itself good or bad. It's how and when we use empathy, right?

Like anger in itself is not good or bad. You should be angry at the right things. They're not angry at the wrong things. And it takes some self-control to apply anger appropriately. so empathy in itself if that's true is not a virtue define virtue right give me a definition of i mean why do i have to define it we know it like virtue of say kindness would be a virtue or justice might be a virtue so you're saying kindness is a virtue but empathy isn't tell me why kindness well kindness is the way we treat somebody right it's a way we treat somebody as an individual

empathy is entering into emotions that depends upon how we do it, whether it's kind or loving or not, I think is the distinction that they make. I think Carl Rogers would disagree with it. I mean, we can't talk empathy. I don't even know who Carl Rogers is. Oh, okay. He's, oh, okay. You said it like, I know who this guy is.

Yeah, Carl Rogers is one of the founding fathers of empathetic listening, right? So he's a psychologist? Yeah, he's a psychologist, and he's the one who came up with an empathetic stance towards a person. Now, by the way, I actually wrote down his definition because it opens the door a little bit for their concern. Okay. His definition of empathy. Yeah, so tell me his definition. So this is what he would say.

Rogers would say, entering the private perceptual world of the other and becoming thoroughly at home in it, okay? To be with another this way means that for the time being, you lay aside your own views and values in order to enter another's world without prejudice. Yeah, I'd sign off on that. I can't enter into your perspective and I'm already so prejudicial that nothing you could say would ever move the needle on my part. I don't think that's a conversation. That's two dialogues going after each other. If I'm saying virtually nothing you can say will ever make a difference in how I view the world. Well, I feel that way about a neo-Nazi. I know we've had this conversation before, but that's why it has to be applied, not just endlessly being empathetic within itself as good.

Yeah, I agree. I'm not going to be empathetic. towards a child molester, there's nothing they could say to convince me that's okay. So I think that's back towards how we use it and apply it. You'd be empathetic towards a child molester if you were trying to lead them to the Lord. So I would be empathetic towards an individual and a human being. And the question is, how are you empathetic towards an individual? But I think the way it was framed is towards the view and the perspective of what somebody holds. I guess I'm interested in knowing why people view the world a certain way and maybe why

they want to justify it. But I'm not going to try to enter into that as an act of love towards that person. You wouldn't enter into, so a child molester, right? Okay. Absolutely is getting prosecuted to the full extent of the law, right? I mean, we both would agree on that. Okay. But then that person is released. They've done their time. There's actually a very famous Kevin Bacon movie where he does his time. rest of his life, there's a certain amount of distance. A registered sex offender has to, he cannot live near an elementary school or high school ever again. He has to register as a sex offender every single, but he's out of prison. He did his debt to society, and now everybody treats him as a pariah. Okay? So I want to love a child molester, right? I think I'm called

to do that. Now, that's going to be hard because every bone of my body is going to be, I'm a father of three sons, right? Sure. But I'm called to love him. So I better understand, this is called bricolage. We actually talked about this in our book. I want to know the pains of your life that led you to this point that you molested a child. Like, help me understand what's happened in your background, the powerful emotions you feel

as you did that molesting, because I do want to help you. I do want to bring you back into society. I want to bring you back into this church. So to approach that person, I want to be empathetic as I understand your hurts and pains is a virtuous thing, which makes it a, it's a virtuous way of approaching a person. I think anything we say of kindness is going to get applied to empathy. I can't in my mind see any distinction between kindness and empathy if we apply all three facets of that definition.

of empathy. So yes, we're called to love child molesters. I think there's difference between somebody out of prison who wants help and to get healed versus somebody goes, yeah, I have no problem with this. This is fine. I want to get away with it. Am I going to empathetically step into that person's worldview and see where they're coming from? That feels like a very different conversation than the person who's treated as a pariah did his time, even though it's an open question if somebody who's sexually abused kids has ever done their time. That's a separate issue but at least publicly it has been done so treating that person as a pria versus somebody goes yeah enter into the mind frame of a neo-Nazi i'm curious from the outside how they got there

and why they think that way but i'm not interested in stepping into the emotions of that person in the way that you describe it with the child molester unless this person's like hey i hold these beliefs I want to change a moment to it help me then I go okay let's explore let's do the backstory here and help you get rid of these it just it feels like a different kind so my point would be empathy has to be in itself is not necessarily good or bad it's how we use it and the way we enter into it out of love for somebody so you framed it like I want to love this person okay yeah what does empathy look like to love that person right love is guiding how we use Empathy in itself still has to be framed in a way that's loving.

I guess that's a distinction I would make, but sounds like you differ. You differ with it? Well, I would say it's all three of those. Right. If I'm talking to a person whose life in my worldview is sin, like, dude, what you're doing is I'm having a really hard time understanding how a person could hate another person that way or take advantage of an innocent child. I'm really struggling to understand this, but I want to.

I want to understand your perspective. I want to feel the emotions behind it. And then I'm going to present the gospel. I'm going to argue against your position because I generally care about you. I think all three of those is what we would say is an empathetic response to a person. And my biggest qualm about these two authors is they get the tone wrong. They have an argument, but they, then how they treat people within their books,

I think is not empathetic. They're arguing for a positive empathy, but then they fail to actually show it in their books. And I have a couple examples from both of the books we can actually get to if you want to. But I think as Christians- Sounds like you wanna get there. Well, but you know,

with the Winston Conviction Project, we can't separate content from tone. I don't think it's done in the scriptures. Okay, all right, so let's come back to that. I if we can that that that's important a couple things ways they frame this are helpful so here's what he says at the beginning of his book he says perhaps the simplest way to introduce the subject the sin of empathy is through two sets of biblical passages gives patches like Isaiah 49 about how God is just empathetic the Lord is a compassionate and gracious God so that's

built into God's character then goes to Geronomy 13 and says when somebody says says, let us go serve other gods. You shall, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him, nor shall you conceal him, but you shall kill him, which is pretty drastic under the covenant, the Old Testament covenant. I get that. He said in this passage, we are forbidden to show pity or compassion to those who would entice us to idolatry.

Now, it's a little different when we say we today outside of that covenant versus the covenant they were under. But I think the point that he's making is that there might, there seems to be a limitation to empathy and compassion when somebody is blatantly pushing towards evil. It might not be the loving thing to show compassion to that kind of behavior. That's how he introduces this. So he says, we're to be characterized by tenor heart of compassion and pity like God, yet there are times when pity and compassion are strictly and absolutely forbidden. Do you disagree with that? in principle? What would you say? Is anybody beyond Christian compassion? Well, I think even he would say no, Christian compassion, but not empathy, the way he defines it. So, yeah, and sometimes the

compassionate thing to do is actually, you know, not just to listen and show kindness and love, but like arguably, like the death penalty, is the compassionate thing to do. It's not one or the other arguably. Yeah, I agree. No, I agree. Truth in love. We're speaking truth in love. And I think there's no enemy that is beyond the love, compassion of the gospel. No enemy. Child molesters, you pick the worst-case scenario, Jesus is going to say the father ran to him, right? I mean, that's what the prodigal son narrative is about is. I'll pick the worst-case scenario in Jewish culture, and what did the father do?

He ran to the son, right? So anybody can come back to God. That door is always, always open. But understand, you have a God who's also a righteous God who's going to judge. And so I think the church, yeah, we call out people. We take a firm stance, even in public. I mean, there's certain political positions. We feel like we're not going to yield on moral positions.

Okay. But what is different about our communication, Sean. That's what I've been asking people today. And I'd love for you to answer that question. What is different about a Christian communicator than the vitriol that we see today? like what what should mark us as being different that's a big question that i think could potentially take us aside i think the bottom line is we have to communicate in content and the means by which we communicate yep that line up with the example of jesus and scripture

and there's this is really where the debate is i think because i hear people saying things like I got tagged on Twitter yesterday. I posted a comment to, or my team posted a quick video when a student asked me, how do I respond to somebody with, who wants you use a preferred pronoun? And I began with saying trying to lean in, try to understand, build common ground.

It was like a one minute clip. And the response was like, this encapsulates all of Sean's position and all we're supposed to do, the time for kindness and bridge building is done. Yes. And I'm like, okay, first off, it's a one-minute clip to a high school kid who's trying to figure out how to talk to his classmate. Like, you're reading way too much into this, which is a part of the poor communication to answer your question that takes place in our culture today.

But there is, there's a prophetic voice in scripture to call out sin within the church and outside. And there's a compassionate way to approach things. There's kindness and truth. We can't separate it. And there's a lot of people right now who just feel like the time for just bridge building and compassion is done. We have been – empathy has been weaponized against Christians because Christians are not necessarily compassionate. We care about loving our neighbors. We're kind-hearted as a whole.

And it's been used by our culture to get us to adopt certain views on a range of issues. And Christians have fallen for this. that's the concern. Okay, but Sean, what concerns me about, and I agree, you know, I agree with almost everything you just said, but to say Christians have fallen for this, I want to say, okay, I'm open to that. Like, I'm not naive to that.

Make your argument. I think neither makes their argument. I mean, Stucky talks about the masses have been duped by this. I can go to a Stanford study right now, 24 where they took common Americans, gave them a blank piece of paper, said define empathy. Go. We're not, we're not giving you any prompts whatsoever. Define empathy. And then they did a thematic analysis. And by and large, Americans did a really good job of having a very centered view of empathy that did not show signs of toxic empathy. And this is a Stanford study. So I'm not, I'm open to their

argument, I don't think they've made it. And I think they argue against themselves. And I would love to point out two parts in both of these books that I think just violate speaking truth and love. I would use that strong of a word. Can I see those real quick? Sure. Okay. So very quickly, we could do a whole podcast on this, but I would identify as a Christian feminist. Without a doubt, I would define myself as a Christian feminist. I've written essays on this. I've written essays on this. because there's three waves of feminism. See, that's just what killed. There's like fourth wave of feminism.

Right. But there's at least three. And so the first wave of feminism was asking a very important question, are women human? Now, we take that for granted today. We're like, well, I hope the answer is yes. But I can take you right now

with a group that I'm on the board. We can go to parts of Congo where that question is being answered right now and that question is up for debate, whether women are fully human as men are. So first-wave feminists were Christians. A lot of them were ardent Christians. Second-way feminism asked questions like,

if a woman does the same work as a man, she should be paid when a man gets paid. And I think now we look at that and go, yeah, I think the answer to that is yes. Can a woman be the president of the United States? Well, it wasn't until 1920. They got the right to vote. Sure.

Right? So I'm at least a first, second wave. Maybe the last end of the second wave I'm having issues with, pro-life, I'm sorry, pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, right, I'm jumping ship. And then third wave is the radical third wave, but understand it's the third wave. It's not all of feminism. So when he writes a chapter, feminism, the queen of woke, there is literally no nuance in the chapter. He has demonized feminism.

And he does that all over the place. He's also very active on social media. I have some examples of him responding to certain things very quickly. And I think when we write our books, we ought to be charitable to say, listen, feminism has done many good things. Feminism has further the kingdom of God in many different ways. And you would have to say Jesus is a first way of feminist. I'd make that argument all day long. I think James is saying true religion in the side of God, caring for orphans and widows.

I think that's the first wave of feminism. When he writes a chapter, feminism, the queen of woke, there's no nuance and there's no empathy towards feminists, right? Okay. And so when... So let's, if we can, let's take one at a time. Yeah, okay. So he writes, this is kind of the heart of my question here. He's got a line in here, and I should have written what page it's on.

So I want to quote him accurately, where he says basically that kind of the progressive gaze, is the biggest concern for Christian faithfulness today. That's as long as chapter, actually. It's his longest chapter, yeah. In American culture in the 21st century, it is the progressive gaze that poses the greatest threat to Christian faithfulness. So the progressive gaze is this imaginary progressive friend that Christians maybe bow to in how they communicate and how they talk

for fear of offending this person and pleasing this person. Maybe this is someone who writes for the New York Times or has some culturally elite position. And so Christians have bowed down to this rather than speaking truth prophetically today. And one of the main weapons, this word is used from the progressive side is kind of manipulating empathy. And Christians have given in to this. So that's, I hope I represented fairly, but that's his argument. It sounds like you're saying, you have, well, I won't put words in your mouth. The bigger question is, is this the greatest threat and the biggest threat we should be concerned about,

or a lack of empathy towards outsiders and other Christians that we are not portraying, biblically speaking? Wow, yeah. Because you seem to be concerned with the rhetoric as you analyze it here as a communication professor. And your concern is more the lack of empathy. And so he picks on the word winsome in there a few times. Like this is a word that's become negative in certain circles. We're trying to be winsome. We're trying to be liked.

We're trying to soften things down as the way it's often characterized. You're the head of the winsome convictions project. So I'm sure you read this at times and are like, wait a minute, is this about me or what I do? So I wonder, like, what's a bigger issue or is it both? Now, I have opinions on this, but what do you think? So the co-director, I'm bringing more people onto my ship because it's not just me. The co-director, Rick Langer wrote a brilliant piece in the Christian Scholars Review is gentleness optional. Like, let's say it's, Sean, let's say it's rhetorically not effective.

like being gentle in today's politics flat out doesn't work so the christians say well then i'm not going to be gentle it's optional i'm only going to use it if it works for me rhetorically no he makes the argument in this beautiful essay gentleness is not optional peter goes as far as to say this in first peter three nine when insulted i do not want you to insult i want you to bless i want you to bless and we're like okay that's not going to work today's climate. Yeah, well, that's, gentleness isn't something we discard because we don't feel like it's working. I don't get a gentleness feeling from either of these authors when they go to the very people we should be in dialogue with. So the progressive gaze, yeah, I went to UNC

Chapel Hill. I can name scholar after scholar that probably would fit in that definition, but I'm called to love them. I'm called to engage them. I'm called to disagree with them, as Peter says, with all gentleness and reverence. And I don't get the gentleness reverence part when I read either of either of these books. I don't get the tone. Even if I might agree with parts of their argument, I don't get the tone. So do you, so fair enough, and they're not here to defend themselves and make their case. But which one do you think is the great, so what would you say? I've actually thought about this a good amount because I think both of them make a very fair point in terms of one of the ways to try to convince Christians to hold certain cultural views and ethical views

and political views is empathy and compassion and it's often one-sided not both oh yeah I think that happens and I think they're putting their finger on this and that's always been an issue I mean they both talk about in varying degrees how, back to Aristotle, ethos, you know, logos, pathos, and pathos, emotion. So it's nothing new, but it's been, it seems to have exploded in recent times, especially since COVID. There's been so many arguments like, you're not compassion, you don't love Jesus, if you don't hold this few, and we're going to shame you, like, it's heightened a lot. So I think they're onto something with that and right to draw Christian attention to say, wait a minute, why do we hold the views that we hold? What's the inconsistent?

here. How is empathy weaponized? And of course, anger can be weaponized, right? We're susceptible to anger. When somebody's angry, it gets our attention. But it seems to be there's something pressing in our cultural moment that they put their finger on. So I pause and I go, how many times have I been, you know, shamed or manipulated into any kind of position? Because I have to be the most compassionate to hold this. They've really made me think about that a lot. And I don't always know the boundary in my life between how am I being appropriately compassion, empathetic, and standing on truth. I don't have that figured out, but they've pushed me in the direction of saying empathy always has to be built in scripture. Bo that said, I do have a lot of friends who are not

Christians who look at the Christian world and they're like the way you guys talk and the way you treat each other and the way you communicate. I'm not talking about these books. I'm saying as a whole is unbecoming of a follower of Jesus. And this is back to your question. Are we – earlier, you asked me about how Christians should communicate today. And of course, it's the content, but it's the means by which we communicate. So online, I look at a ton of people, and it's just as provocative as everybody else to get views. I attack somebody's character to sell books. I misrepresent a position.

Like, I see these things happening all the time. In fact, actually, I think it was on our conversation on pronouns, that there were. was trying to model for people. Here's two Christians. We differ pretty strongly in this and have convictions. On the pronoun issue. But there's love and respect for you and I that goes way deep. There were some comments of people. I believe us on that video, they're like just watching these Christians and the way they treat each other is ridiculous, is ridiculous. And just affirms that I don't want anything to do with their camp. Like comments on YouTube, I think it was there or emails that I got. Watching the, not the way we treat each other.

the other comments of people attacking you. Yes. Yes. Oh, I agree. Not you and I. Nobody critiqued that. There was a ton of comments. I'm thinking, we're not thinking about how we communicate.

So to me, I think it's both. We can't lose the gentleness. I think Dallas Willard, the allure of gentleness. Tim Keller. In fact, while you're right, it doesn't work always politically. I think it gives people pause when we don't buy into the outrage culture. Right. We actually forget.

give instead of cancel, people stop and are like, why are you different? Why don't you play this game? So I don't know how to judge what's more than the other. I mean, when he says this is the greatest threat to Christian faithfulness, that strikes me as way oversold. I mean, more than pornography and how that devastates churches, more than biblical illiteracy. I mean, in some ways, this concern about untethered empathy would not be an issue if we have. If we have, had biblical literacy and authority in the church, then we'd stay tethered. But we don't. So this is almost highlighting what some of the deeper issues are. So I don't know how to judge that, but I think there's some truth in both. Oh, I totally think there's truth in both of these books. I think it's

a good, timely word that empathy, like any virtue, can be weaponized. Pick any virtue, it can be weaponized. So I'm actually, I wanted to tell you this before we started rolling, but I'm actually signing a contract for a new book. Good. Yeah. It's called The Sin of Listening is the book. I'm going to write a book called The Sin of Listening. No, you're not. Yes, I am. Oh, it's going to be called the sin of listening. Are you serious? Are you pulling my chain? Whatever. Okay, look, that's my problem with his tactic. Could I actually write a book for the sin of listening? The answer is yes. Because can listening be misused? The answer is, yes. The answer is, you know, is yes if all I do is listen to you okay okay if all I do is listen to you I never push back

all I do is a firm condone I'd say man you've taken listening and made it something that I don't think it was meant to be so I call it the sin of listening now the minute you read the book you go okay that you're not talking about it that way his a title he has to have an appendix to justify how many of your books Sean, do you have an appendix to justify the overwhelming pushback he's gotten on his title? How many of your books you felt the need to write an appendix to justify your title? Obviously, the answer is zero on that one. That's a fair question.

This gets us off on the wrong foot immediately when I said, because what was your reaction to my book? The sin of listening, you were like, stop it. I would say the same reaction many of us have towards that title is the sin of empathy. when the most established cognitive psychological practices that is held in very much esteemed today is where he's going after the sin of empathy now the book should be called in all fairness and i think he did agree with this the sin of untethered empathy yeah okay but you know why it's not on the cover as much as anybody you know why it's not there so this gets more into like trouble you is oh I didn't say it doesn't trouble me at all that was my point I was trying to

steal man his position but this more gets into the question of like what's an appropriate title and not an appropriate title to provoke and sell books so if you write a book the sin of listening you will sell more books does that justify a certain title I'm not saying it does I'm saying that's that's a piece of it I'll only sell more books in a certain population I'll only sell more books in a certain demographic, I'll lose people in another demographic. Yeah, that's a fair point. And so I think he is playing to the base that is already convinced this is, empathy's been weaponized. To me, he's speaking to his tribe, right?

And he's firing up the tribe that the greatest threat to the history of the church, the progressive gaze, and the misuse. of empathy is the greatest threat. I think this is not a good attempt to lower the temperature in our disagreements among Americans today, and even among church members, I don't think this is a good attempt to do that. I see your point. So he's not writing to convince progressives to not use this as a weapon. He's not writing to non-Christians.

He's firing up his base. There's a time and place to do that. I would agree. But you would say the way it's done should be different. The language and the title is what concerns you to make that point rather than contributing to the divisive culture. And I think, what does Jesus say? Okay. Blessed are the peacemakers.

So I think, I actually, I think I probably agree with you on the title, just for the record. I mean, he's saying we actually understand the phrase if I called a book, The Sin of Anger to mean sinful anger. We need to actually read the article. determine whether we were clear definitions and proper distinctions made. They says, for example, there's a book when helping hurts, but it doesn't say the sin of helping. That would be a different title, right? Read a couple more of these titles.

Toxic charity is like toxic empathy. Charity can be good. So her title is very clear. I give her kudos from putting the word toxic in front of empathy. Yeah, and she makes it clear who she's writing to and who her audience is. this one is the sin of empathy itself now with that similar the critique is there some people have said ah he's saying sin is empathy i'm like actually read his book before you conclude that because titles are meant to be provocative we all know that so i would take some issue with

the title like you i think those are fair concerns you're raising but i think people shouldn't just look at the title and say he's saying sin is an empathy or he's saying empathy is a sin you met what i knew, they need to actually read it and actually engage his ideas. He is willing to take that risk that people will judge a book by its cover. He's willing to take the risk that people are going to look at that cover and some are going to say, get out of here. Your reaction to the sin of listening was perfect. Okay, so I agree with you on people who see it on the shelf or it pops up on Amazon.

I'm talking about people who have reviewed it and done podcasts and misrepresented him. I think that's ridiculous. I agree. That's where it gets crazy. He dispels that pretty quick in his book. Yeah. And she does as well. But can I read you?

We're bumping up on time. Got it. I don't know if there's anything else I wanted to. We talked about empathy can go wrong. I guess the final question is he asked this question. And although you and I might differ in some of the application of it and the issue he raised about feminism at the end, which we didn't go into any depth, he asked a question. What does the compassion of Christ, the love of Christ, look like? That's the right question.

What do you think, Tim? Oh, yeah. I mean, Father, forgive them. They know not what they do. I mean, these are people that have crucified him, right? Go two miles. Don't go one, go two. Person slaps you, turn the cheek, right?

I mean, what made the church grow was neighbor love. Neighbor love to the Roman Empire. When the three plagues hit the Roman Empire, mortality rates of 37%. The church literally gave their lives helping people that Romans wouldn't even help Romans. They went out into the streets and helped people with a plague, and they died in droves doing it. That is the compassion of Christ. I am willing to love you, even if you do not love me. I will seek to pursue your best, even if you try to shut me down.

I'll open lines of communication as you try to shut down. That's the give a blessing for an insult passage from Peter. I think we're asking the wrong question. Can I be bold enough to say that? I think a huge threat to America is not toxic empathy. It's the lack of empathy. It's the decline of empathy that's killing us. Can I read one last quote?

So I came across this quote. I'm a huge World War II buff in the fact that talk about a world that war, a world that war. Literally. And having to deal with each other after the war. I mean, I'm a German background. I mean, there were some hard feelings that lasted for a long time. So one man, Gustav Gilbert, was an American psychologist who actually went to the Nuremberg trials. and he listened to the narratives and the testimonies of these Nazi war criminals.

And here's his very famous comment. I told you once that I was searching for the nature of evil. I think I've come close to defining it, a lack of empathy. It's the one characteristic that connects all the defendants, a genuine incapacity to feel with their fellow man. Evil, I think, is the absence of empathy. I think we need to at least pause and say, not has my empathy been weaponized, not is my empathy become toxic, but do I have any empathy? For the very people I'm called to love in the name of Christ, am I part of the American empathy deficit that the Compassion Research Project identified?

I think that's a better question. Before I feel like my empathy's become toxic, I should ask the hard question, do I even have any empathy for people who vote differently? Do I have any empathy for the trans community, even as I seek to present what I think is the biblical view of sexuality? I'd rather ask the question, do I even have empathy for people I disagree with?

That's a great quote. That is such a good point. We're far more likely to do evil to somebody when we don't empathize and understand. and love that person. Well said, so you answered the question in terms of what you think is more concern, is the lack of empathy. I don't know that for me it has to be one or the other.

I think in one sense, I'm playing a little bit of defense when there's cultural forces that are changing within the church and in my own life. How do I not be changed and arguably manipulated by an appeal to empathy that's toxic or misguided that's not rooted in scripture, that really concerns me, especially with young people in the church who are getting far more persuaded by stories and by experiences and by an appeal to empathy than by truth. That concerns me, you might say defensively, but offensively in terms of our engagement in the world. I think you're right that do we really have empathy and love and care for people who are our neighbors and care for them and enter into their pain.

I mean, a question I ask myself a lot, and I'll end with this, is, you know, what if we got to the point in culture where somebody just says, my life is upside down? It's a wreck financially, emotionally. I need to find a Christian because a Christian would understand and genuinely help me. Are we there, Tim? The answer is no. That's what motivates me. So I only think it's one or the other, it's both.

And I think we need to do hard work in both of those lanes individually and collectively. Good stuff. Hey, I love these conversations. Always enjoy your pushback. Always make me think in a good way. I feel like you sharpened me in a ton of ways. I have more questions now that I'm going to be bothered with, which is good because I'm going to have to go back and look at that passage in Hebrews and rethink these definitions. But love you, brother.

Wonderful conversation. Thanks for all you do, man. yeah this is fun enjoyed writing that book with you and for those you watch and this is a special episode of the think bivocally podcast brought to you by talbot school theology biola university make sure you hit subscribe whether on the audio podcast or here on youtube and we love to have you come study with us at biola and talbot we'll see you next time hope you enjoy that conversation just one quick point we had released us earlier on our audio podcast the think bivocally podcast and got an email from a listener and he made such a

a good point. As you notice, Tim and I were talking about whether or not there is biblical precedent or a command to show empathy to outsiders. Tim gave a great example from Hebrews, but this is for fellow believers. Now, by asking for this, I'm not saying if there's not biblical precedent, we shouldn't do so. I'm just looking to say, is there biblical precedent for this? And this fellow emailed in made such a good point in the Old Testament. Exodus 22, which is right when Israel is getting the law. It says, do not mistreat or oppress a foreigner. For you, the nation of Israel, were foreigners in Egypt. That sure sounds like saying, don't do this as an action. Why? Because you have been treated this way. You, Israel,

should understand and seemingly have some empathy for those who are foreigners or outsiders. Let me know what you think about that point and others. I don't have time to read all the comments in all my videos, but I'm going to go through and read the comments in this one because I really want to know, what do you think? As a whole, is the Christian community lacking empathy towards outsiders? Is that the big issue? And if so, why?

Give examples. Or are we being manipulated because of our natural compassion as Christians to adopt certain progressive views or is it in the middle? please leave constructive comments. I'm not going to comment on all of them, but I'm going to read all the comments because I'm really eager to see what you think as I'm working this through in my own mind.

Thanks for watching.