The harms that "Heritage America" will do to the Church, our Gospel witness, and our republic.

American Progress (1872) by John Gast

Heritage America: Wise Men Have Left Us an Inheritance Ben R. Crenshaw, August 23, 2024 at Americanreformer.org

Ben R. Crenshaw is a Visiting Assistant Professor at the Declaration of Independence Center at the University of Mississippi. He is a Ph.D. candidate in Politics at the Van Andel Graduate School of Statesmanship at Hillsdale College.

I came across this article by Ben Crenshaw posted at Americanreformer.org while reading an article about the effort (unserious as it may be) of some complementarian pastors to revoke the 19th Amendment because they believe that women are too empathetic to be trusted with the right to vote.  Needless to say, I reject that sexist view as utter nonsense {The folly of the "Sin of Empathy" - A self-inflicted wound to Christian Fundamentalism or The deplorable shame of using Potiphar's Wife to discount sex abuse victims: A refutation of Pastor Doug Wilson}as have other Christian thinkers {The American Crisis of Selective Empathy And how it reaches into the church. David French}.  While thinking about how foolish some pastors willing to rail against women voters have become in mixing their politics and adherence to the Culture War with their responsibility before God to preach the Gospel, I decided to click on the link in the article about a term that I've seen thrown around of late: Heritage Americans.

I would imagine that some who use the term "Heritage Americans" are full-on "blood and soil" racists no different than yesterday's Klan members, and some others may use it out of a love for American culture and history without any racial overtones or designs on wielding power over others, Crenshaw's article leans toward the former, even though he denies that it is so.  In the end, this entire concept of "real Americans" is dangerous to the Church, our Gospel witness, and ultimately our Republic.  Let's look at some quotes of particular concern:

"Not all people merely by virtue of being human are capable of self-government. In fact, self-government is rare in human history, as most people are too poor, slavish, stupid, or vicious to establish good government and run it well. They are instead better fit to be ruled without, and even against, their consent." 

This line of thinking is the same sort of racism that was rampant during the era of Colonialism.  Crenshaw seems to think that Englishmen (and those like them) are the only ones capable of good government and self-rule {He says as much in the article), the world's other "inferior" people are best ruled against their consent.  His views are ugly, immoral, and entirely ahistorical.  In other words, this should be condemned plainly and as often as necessary to get the point across.

This racial viewpoint offered by Crenshaw is also poison to the Gospel.  God didn't create tiers of people, some inherently different than others, to suggest otherwise is to malign the goodness of God or to call into question his ability as Creator.  If that were not bad enough, this view would also taint evangelism because how could one expect a people who are too "slavish" and "stupid" to govern themselves to be able to understand / accept the Gospel, and even if they do, how could such lesser people make good disciples?  This whole pit of racism is revolting, it has nothing to do with a theology actually derived from scripture.

"Heritage America is unique in that it is not merely a Christian people seeking to govern themselves well, but to order themselves under intentional Christian government and civil law. To be a Heritage American, then, is to accept this form of religious polity and be willing to submit to laws and institutions that are explicitly Christian in their origin, nature, and purposes."

The problem with this is, as it is with all 'Christian' Nationalism, a question of who gets to decide which civil laws are "Christian" and which are not.  What Crenshaw wants to do is blur the line between theology and politics so thoroughly that all civil lawmaking becomes a theological exercise.  As we will see later, he also wants to limit that exercise to Protestant Christians with little regard for our Catholic and Orthodox brothers and sisters in Christ, let alone any regard to those who are not followers of Jesus.

In addition to the problem one can see with a legal code that is supposedly endorsed by Christianity with respect to who makes that definition and who it leaves out in the cold, we also have the little problem of Church History.  We have tried this game before, and it did not end well, at all, for the Church.  From the time of Constantine until the rise of modern nation-states, the Church was intertwined with the power of various kingdoms and empires.  This embrace of power over others rather than Jesus' power under others via a servanthood model {See my 6 hour seminar for a very deep dive: The Church and Politics} redefines Christian discipleship as a matter not of serving others and showing them the value of the Gospel, but instead one of compelling by force and punishing those who do not accept the Gospel.  In the past this resulted in the horrors of the Spanish Inquisition and the burning of heretics at the stake.  Needless to say, as a Baptist who believes in the freedom of religion, freedom of conscience, and who considers Rogers Williams to be a hero worth emulating, this lust for power on the part of those who think they are helping the Church is terrifying.

"As already mentioned, the Americans were overwhelmingly Christian, and so religious liberty and tolerance was more specifically Christian liberty and Christian tolerance. That tolerance was intolerant toward many world religions and religious practices judged to be harmful to soul and body; instead, toleration was primarily extended toward overcoming denominational differences among Protestants."

Tellingly, Crenshaw admits that the Heritage Americans he so much admires and wants to give power to failed to give liberty or freedom to anyone that didn't fit within their own definition of being "one of us."  Honestly, he's giving them too much credit.  There was a reason why Roger Williams was forced to flee Massachusetts Bay Colony and found Rhode Island, the Puritans with power in the colony abused it just as any student of human nature could have predicted. 

"Heritage Americans must love liberty in its fullest sense—freedom from external tyranny and internal despotism—and seek spiritual freedom in community with family, friends, and neighbors. Heritage America embraces religious liberty and tolerance toward Christian differences, and might even tolerate Christian-adjacent religions if its adherents agree to live according to Christian civil laws, norms, and cultural expectations."

We have seen this fail miserably in John Calvin's Geneva, in the slaughter of the Thirty Years War, and in the rise of antisemitism that ran parallel to the launch of the Crusades.  It doesn't work.  Freedom for us, but not for you if you disagree, is a recipe for disaster.  It will result in oppression, violence, and evil done in the name of defending Christ and the Church.  The thing is, never once did Jesus Christ ask his disciples to force anyone to follow him.  Never once did Jesus tell his disciples to seize civil power and enforce "laws, norms, and cultural expectations."  This quest for power is popular among today's 'Christian' Nationalists, like Crenshaw, but it is foreign to the work and words of Jesus in the Gospels, and it has harmed the Church each and every time it has been tried.

"These traits are what constitute Heritage America. You might formally be an American citizen by birth or naturalization, but unless you understand these deeply-rooted and traditional aspects of American identity, you cannot be a Heritage American—a true American. Nor is it the case that one can merely pay lip service to these ideals. Instead, what is outlined above is a description of a tangible way of life. Because Heritage America is a habit of living, those outside the tradition can be grafted in. The concept of engrafting—of adopting and integrating into the trunk of a tree branches that are foreign to it such that what was once separate becomes one—is the best way to think about becoming a Heritage American if you are not one currently. It is a particular way of life that is proud and exclusive, but it is welcoming to those who want to live in this manner"

And here is where Crenshaw's racism moves beyond harming the Church and our Gospel witness to threatening the future of the Republic.  The moment we allow there to be an ideological test for "true Americans" we've lost.  If one must pass a test of beliefs in order to be considered a "real" American, the 1st Amendment is a joke.  This trend toward those in the Blue and Red partisan camps viewing each other as un-American (or even, as "enemies of the state") has already caused violence and a dramatic erosion of kindness and decency in our politics.  Rather than seeking to heal this partisan divide, Crenshaw and the concept of "Heritage Americans" would purposefully rupture it further.

"Can you be a Heritage American if you’re not a Christian? What if you are a Jew, a Muslim, or an atheist? Ideally, of course, all Americans would be Christians, whether sincerely or nominally. However, a polity of pure saints is not practical or likely, and so toleration of those who dissent is necessary. There is a balance that must be struck on this point. Non-Christians can be tolerated, as long as they acquiesce to living in an unashamedly Christian America (i.e., submitting to Christian civil law, government support for Christianity, Christian moral, civil, and religious norms and customs, etc.). At the same time, both public and private citizens should be concerned to help the Christian Church flourish in our nation, since a collapse of Christian conversions, church plants, and influence will mark the end of America. Toleration of non-conformists thus presupposes cultural and religious dominance of some sort. This dominant culture ought to be Christian culture."

The end of the second sentence tells you everything you need to know about why this is absolute madness for Christianity and the Church: "whether sincerely or nominally." That is exactly what doomed the expressions of Christianity in Europe prior to WWII.  Everyone was "nominally" a Christian, but many were just paying lip service to that faith, or were counted as being a part of the Church with zero evidence that they even wanted to be.  This Cheap Grace horrified Dietrich Bonhoeffer, to have faith in Jesus Christ reduced to something that one could simply claim with zero discipleship simply because a person was meeting "cultural expectations" is a slap in the face of the Gospel.  The truth is, I don't want nominal Christians in my Church, and nor should any pastor worth his/her salt.  We need committed Christians, we need men and women willing to embrace self-sacrifice and service for the sake of others, we need people willing to pray for their enemies, and willing to turn the other cheek.  'Christian' Nationalists will eventually say the quite part out loud if you give them a chance.  Here Crenshaw has admitted that "nominal" Christians (i.e. ones without real saving faith) are good enough to be Heritage Americans, the Gospel of Jesus Christ has a much higher bar for inclusion: real genuine life-altering, Fruit of the Spirit producing, faith.

By the way, I don't want government support for Christianity.  That support is a Faustian Bargain, the costs are in the fine print.  Far better to have a government that is neutral, that protects the rights of all, and allows the Gospel to compete in the marketplace of ideas.  On a level playing field, the Gospel has nothing to worry about.

In the end, an article such as this one will garner enthusiastic cheers from those whose primary concern is earthly power for people who look, act, and think just like "us."  It should also make the hairs on the back of your neck stand up if you happen to look, act, or think outside of the mythical Heritage American mold.  The concept of Heritage Americans could be rejected solely on the basis of how it dismisses the slaughter of Native Americans, enslavement of Blacks, and contributions to American history of those who weren't White or didn't speak English.  On that basis alone this idea ought to be soundly rejected as an ugly relic of the racism of the past.  However, the way in which Crenshaw, and many others like him, present this as a boon to Christianity and the Church only enhances the danger that these ideas pose.  Make no mistake about it, there is no room at the Cross of Jesus Christ for racists, and no need for the Gospel to wield power over others.

For further reading, see also:

The Kingdom, The Power, and The Glory, by Tim Alberta: A book review

Why plans to build a "Christian" Nationalist Retreat Center in Franklin, PA is not a good idea for the local churches or our town.

Jesus and John Wayne: A few responses to a thought provoking book

The Watchman Decree: 'Christian' Nationalism's 'name it and claim it' dangerous prayer

The posts in my ongoing "Scripture refutes Christian Nationalism" series

Sermon Video: Living like Jesus in the everyday things - Romans 12:13-16

As disciples of Jesus, imitating him is a key aspect of our faith.  Here in Romans 12, the Apostle Paul offers 4 examples of behavior that help illustrate our obligation: (1) sharing/hospitality, (2) blessing those who persecute us, (3) having empathy, and (4) limiting pride to foster harmony.

The folly of the "Sin of Empathy" - A self-inflicted wound to Christian Fundamentalism

Sin is a big word for Jews and Christians, it is an especially toxic word among Evangelicals and Fundamentalists.  When some attitude, thought, or behavior is put under the label of sin, people take notice.  When I was much younger than I am now, it was not uncommon for people in my sphere to talk about going to the movies or social dances as a sin.  In fact, both of those things were banned by the Christian College, Cornerstone, that I attended.  In both cases, blanket bans and talk of sin was unproductive, and unnecessarily legalistic.  What should have happened was a much more nuanced discussion about temptation and stewardship of time and resources that led to much more accurate conclusions like, "Some movies should not be viewed by Christians, and would thus because of their immoral content be sinful to attend." Or, "Some social dancing, because of its connection to both alcohol and potential to inflame lust in young people who may not be capable of saying no to that temptation, should be avoided by Christians."  Statements of that nature don't fit on a bumper sticker, don't feel tough enough by those rooting on the Culture Wars, but actually conform much more closely to both the teaching of the Apostle Paul about the confluence of Christian freedom and responsibility {1 Corinthians 10:23 New International Version “I have the right to do anything,” you say—but not everything is beneficial. “I have the right to do anything”—but not everything is constructive.} and the actual reality of how Christians deal with and overcome temptation.

That being said, the choice of Pastor Joe Rigney {with the support and agreement of Pastor John Piper, Pastor Doug Wilson, and apologist James White} to label Empathy a SIN cannot be set aside as hyperbole or click-bait {if that was the goal, to gain notoriety and ultimately sales, this discussion takes on a whole different tone; let us not assume the worst}.  Rigney, and those like minded leaders in the Church, want Empathy to be reevaluated, judged, and jettisoned from Christian discipleship, ministry, and counseling. 

The following quotes are from Pastor Joe Rigney's, The Enticing Sin of Empathy HOW SATAN CORRUPTS THROUGH COMPASSION   Unfortunately, Rigney considers himself to be somehow C.S. Lewis' literary successor and has written his indictment of Empathy in the style of the The Screwtape Letters.  It worked well for Lewis' genius, less well here.

When humans are suffering, they tend to make two demands that are impossible to fulfill simultaneously. On the one hand, they want people to notice the depth of their pain and sorrow — how deep they are in the pit, how unique and tragic their circumstances. At the same time, they don’t want to be made to feel that they really need the assistance of others. In one breath, they say, “Help me! Can’t you see I’m suffering?” and in the next they say, “How dare you act as though I needed you and your help?” The sufferer doesn’t want to be alone, and demands not to be pitied.

Rigney sets forth an example of the complex emotions of traumatized people.  He evidently considers it a tool useful to Satan that those who have are experiencing deep pain may at the same time struggle to accept help for that pain.  Traumatized people don't have straightforward emotional responses; that's not news.  He really shouldn't be surprised, is not the Bible full of examples of people who didn't feel worthy of God's redemption, Peter saying to Jesus, “Go away from me, Lord; I am a sinful man!” (Luke 5:8) being but one example.  Moreover, in ministry I've experienced this, as have countless other pastors and lay Christians.  When we reach out to someone in desperate need of help, that person either struggles with pride (not being willing to admit they need it) or with despair (not seeing that help is possible for someone like them).  The human condition, especially apart from the involvement of the Spirit, is a mess.

Now, sufferers have been placing such impossible demands on others from time immemorial. In response, our armies have fought for decades to twist the Enemy’s virtue of compassion into its counterfeit, empathy. Since we introduced the term a century ago, we’ve steadily taught the humans to regard empathy as an improvement upon compassion or sympathy.

Here is Rigney's premise: Empathy is a twisted mirror to Compassion, a counterfeit modern opposite.  For this to be true, one would need to search the Bible in vain for empathy on display and only find compassion.  Let's take a look, does God show compassion ONLY, or empathy too under its umbrella?

Matthew 9:36 New International Version

When he saw the crowds, he had compassion on them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd.

1 Peter 3:8  New International Version

Finally, all of you, be like-minded, be sympathetic, love one another, be compassionate and humble.

Romans 12:15  New International Version

Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn.

John 11:34-36New International Version

34 “Where have you laid him?” he asked.

“Come and see, Lord,” they replied.

35 Jesus wept.

36 Then the Jews said, “See how he loved him!”

Hebrews 4:15  New International Version

For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin.

Beyond these examples from Scripture, passages where Compassion is not devoid of emotional connection, there is one simple act of Jesus that puts aside any thought that Jesus only felt Compassion and not Empathy: He touched the lepers.

Matthew 8:3  New International Version

Jesus reached out his hand and touched the man. “I am willing,” he said. “Be clean!” Immediately he was cleansed of his leprosy.

To touch a leper was forbidden, it made one unclean according to the Law of Moses, and risked infection.  Why would Jesus touch this man before he healed him?  He could just have easily healed him first, and then (after presenting himself to the priests to be declared 'clean') this man could have had all the hugs he needed.  Why?  Because Jesus felt his pain, his isolation, his loneliness.  Was Jesus thus unable to see what the man really needed?  Did he lose sight of Truth?  Of course not, his Empathy was one of the reasons why Jesus was able to transcend conventional wisdom and accepted limits, to show the mercy and love of God to someone in desperate need of both.  In all honesty, this one passage is a deal-breaker for the notion that Empathy is Sin.  Jesus felt the pain of others, it didn't hinder him from remaining true to his calling and purpose one bit.

In addition, this entire pronouncement of SIN against those who feel empathy is a semantic exercise with two words that have significant overlap in their semantic ranges, and are often used interchangeably by authors, pastors, and the public.   

According to Merriam-Webster, which actually contains a page comparing the two terms:

What is the difference between empathy and compassion?

Some of our users are interested in the difference between empathy and compassion. Compassion is the broader word: it refers to both an understanding of another’s pain and the desire to somehow mitigate that pain:

Our rationalizations for lying (or withholding the truth)—"to protect her," "he could never handle it”—come more out of cowardice than compassion.
— Eric Utne, Utne Reader, November/December 1992

Sometimes compassion is used to refer broadly to sympathetic understanding:

Nevertheless, when Robert Paxton's "Vichy France" appeared in a French translation in 1973, his stark and devastating description ... was rather badly received in France, where many critics accused this scrupulous and thoughtful young historian either of misinterpreting the Vichy leaders' motives or of lacking compassion.
— Stanley Hoffmann, The New York Times Book Review, 1 Nov. 1981

Empathy refers to the ability to relate to another person’s pain vicariously, as if one has experienced that pain themselves:

For instance, people who are highly egoistic and presumably lacking in empathy keep their own welfare paramount in making moral decisions like how or whether to help the poor.
— Daniel Goleman, The New York Times, 28 Mar. 1989

"The man thought all this talk was fine, but he was more concerned with just getting water. And, if I was going to be successful on this mission, I had to remember what his priorities were. The quality you need most in United Nations peacekeeping is empathy."
— Geordie Elms, quoted in MHQ: The Quarterly Journal of Military History, Autumn 1992

In some cases, compassion refers to both a feeling and the action that stems from that feeling:

Compassion, tenderness, patience, responsibility, kindness, and honesty are actions that elicit similar responses from others.
— Jane Smiley, Harper’s, June 2000

while empathy tends to be used just for a feeling:

She is also autistic, a disability that she argues allows her a special empathy with nonhuman creatures.
— Tim Flannery, The New York Review of Books, 29 April 2009

Thus if Rigney is correct, and compassion is a virtue, but empathy is a sin, the only thing that a Christian can do to have compassion, which is required, is to understand the pain of others, want to help them alleviate it, but NEVER feel that pain.  The primary distinction between the two terms is the emotional connection that empathy makes beyond that of some forms of compassion.  I've known this many times in ministry.  There are some people I have helped in their distress whose emotional state, for whatever reason, does not powerfully connect with me at that time.  I help them just the same.  And yet, there have been others, perhaps in the same circumstances, whose emotional pain hits me powerfully, even causing me to loose control over my emotions and shed tears.  In both cases I offer such help as I can give, am I to believe that the emotion-less response, Spock like, is a virtue, and the one that causes me emotional pain too, the more empathetic response, is SIN??  This conclusion I reject both categorically, and whole-heartedly.  I have my mother's heart, I always have.  When she cries, I can't hold back tears, the things that tug at her heart have always tugged at mine.  It is a gift of God born of both my nature and my nurture, and something that I am profoundly grateful to my mother for the role she played in giving it to me.  Why?  Because it has produced some of the most powerful and transformative moments in my ministry.  In addition, it has shaped my heart and mind, bringing me closer to the suffering of others, shutting down excuses and rationalizations against helping others in need, because at times I can feel what they feel (at least in part).  That Christian Fundamentalism (or Evangelicalism, the two terms, ironically, have much overlap) has degenerated to the point where a seminary president lays this down as the Rubicon that cannot be crossed, is an indicator of just how ill this patient has become.

Of note: In his discussion Rigney is defining Empathy in a way foreign to both the dictionary definition and common usage.  He is putting on empathy all manner elements that are not required, not part of what this emotion actually is.  Those who just read the headlines won't notice this, they'll assume that a minister of the Gospel has warned them not to feel the pain of others because it is sinful, and walk away even more misguided than if he/she had tried to maintain the hair-splitting definitions Rigney is favoring.

Think of it this way: the Enemy’s virtue of compassion attempts to suffer with the hurting while maintaining an allegiance to the Enemy. In fact, it suffers with the hurting precisely because of this allegiance. In doing so, the Christians are to follow the example of their pathetic and repulsive Master. Just as the Enemy joined the humans in their misery in that detestable act of incarnation, so also his followers are to join those who are hurting in their misery.

However, just as the Enemy became like them in every way but sin, so also his followers are not permitted to sin in their attempts to comfort the afflicted. Thus, his compassion always reserves the right not to blaspheme. It seeks the sufferer’s good and subordinates itself to the Enemy’s abominable standard of Truth.

Our alternative, empathy, shifts the focus from the sufferer’s good to the sufferer’s feelings, making them the measure of whether a person is truly “loved.” We teach the humans that unless they subordinate their feelings entirely to the misery, pain, sorrow, and even sin and unbelief of the afflicted, they are not loving them.

Here Rigney builds his Straw Man to dismantle.  His false dichotomy states that one can ONLY have empathy if one abandons the desire to seek the good of the other person, that while Christ did indeed suffer 'with' those who were hurting, in other words he felt their pain, this was somehow not Empathy, but only Compassion.   The last sentence above is instructive: Rigney has now redefined empathy to be feeling the pain of others WITHOUT any recognition that pain might be, at least in part, caused by sin or unbelief on the part of the person one is feeling empathy towards.  But why??  Even if there is an attempt to demand such unquestioning, truth-less, empathy on the part of a person in pain or from segments of society, why must a Christian accept it?  This is a classic example of 'throwing the baby out with the bath water'.  Joe Rigney, as a Culture Warrior, fears that 'they' are trying to use blind empathy to advance their political causes, and thus 'we' must reject empathy, in its entirety, to deny them that tool.  In other words, let us surrender this field of battle and retreat.  The answer is no.  No, I will not allow the Culture War to dictate my theology, I will not adjust my ministry focus and methods to avoid any taint of looking/acting/sounding like 'them' to satisfy the knee-jerk reaction of political partisanship.  

By elevating empathy over compassion as the superior virtue, there is now an entire culture devoted to the total immersion of empathy. Books, articles, and social media all trumpet the importance of checking one’s own beliefs, values, judgments, and reason at the door of empathy.

This is the what Rigney believes the Left is doing.  If taken at face value, why would the Church change in response?  One can first listen to those hurting and in pain without making judgments either way until you know what is going on.  One can simply say instead, "I do feel your pain, but my devotion to Christ shows me what the ultimate answer to that pain is."  Why must we abandon Empathy to protect Truth??  This is the dangerous false dichotomy of this position.  We are being asked to make a sacrifice by abandoning empathy, 'for the greater good', that is unnecessary.  I, as a minister of the Gospel, am fully capable of understanding the pain of someone I'm trying to help, even feeling some of it myself, without abandoning my own connection to Truth and Righteousness.  

Is it possible for a minister or a counselor to lose objectivity, to get too close to someone they are trying to help?  Of course it is,  but Rigney didn't say, "Be careful because sometimes people take empathy too far."  The "Sin of Empathy" is a much catchier title, but also foolish.  

Rightly used, empathy is a power tool in the hands of the weak and suffering. By it, we can so weaponize victims that they (and those who hide behind them) are indulged at every turn, without regard for whether such indulgence is wise or prudent or good for them.

Here is where it seems the 'quiet part' is said out loud.  The reason for this diatribe against Empathy is that victims have been 'weaponized' in the last few years.  The primary examples of this are the MeToo Movement and BLM.  Women are starting to believed when they report sexual abuse, and questions of ongoing systematic racism are starting to be taken seriously.  Rigney, and those echoing his fears, view such victims as a Trojan Horse, threatening both Complementarianism, what John Piper is best known for, and the longstanding dominance of Whites in America.  If we feel the pain of women and minorities, if we take the harm done to them by individuals and institutions who have not traditionally been held accountable seriously, will we not be seeking what is True and Righteous?  Is this not the call of the Church, to defend the powerless against those who harm them?

This reminds me of the attempt to smear Rachel Denhollander, a sexual abuse victim and advocate for those being abused, by some within the SBC. {"By What Standard?" - A shameful trailer made by Founders Ministries utilizing the worst political ad tactics}  This Christian woman was connected to 'godless ideologies' by Founders Ministries, despite the fact that her efforts were both God honoring and biblically correct.  Her crime?  Working on a 'Blue' issue that was shining the light of Truth on the sins committed in churches on the 'Red' team.

How do we know that this push against Empathy is connected to blowback against MeToo and BLM?  In other words, that it is a Culture War response of the Team Red against Team Blue, and not simply the seeking of theological Truth?  The ouster of three pastors at John Piper's church, known for their empathy and willingness to work on behalf of the oppressed, makes the connection clear.  Read the article from Christianity Today, it provides important context for this discussion. {Bethlehem Baptist Leaders Clash Over ‘Coddling’ and ‘Cancel Culture’ A debate over “untethered empathy” underscores how departing leaders, including John Piper’s successor, approached hot-button issues like race and abuse. by KATE SHELLNUTT}  

 Empathy demands, “Feel what I feel. In fact, lose yourself in my feelings.”

Why must it be thus?  Even if some demand that Empathy be this, it isn't, nor does it have to be.

When faith is abused by some, do we declare faith a sin?  When love is abused by some do we declare love a sin?  Of course not, don't be ridiculous, so why would we cast empathy out into the darkness simply because some may want to use it for unhealthy purposes?

The Culture Wars make for BAD theology.  When we look at what is happening in the Culture, and then design a theological response to bolster 'our side' against 'them', the results are not pretty.  The Church is supposed to be above such swaying to and fro, supposed to be firmly planted on the Solid Rock.  This is yet another example of how we endanger the Church, its purity and its mission, when we marry the Church to politics.  Empathy is not a sin, it never was.

For further discussion:

Holy Post Episode 472 The “Sin of Empathy” & Spotting Toxic Leaders with Jamin Goggin & Kyle Strobel  This topic is discussed from the 33:20-59:00 mark.

Empathy is Not a Sin by Warren Throckmorton

“Your Empathy Is a Sin”: A Response to Desiring God by Rebecca Davis

Empathy is a Virtue, by SCOT MCKNIGHT

The American Crisis of Selective Empathy And how it reaches into the church. By David French

The troubling whitewashing of Jonathan Edwards' ownership of slaves by John Piper

Coming to terms with the flaws of your heroes can be rough.  We all need heroes, mentors, those who will inspire us and open our hearts and minds as we grow toward intellectual and spiritual maturity, but those to whom we look are not flawless.  In some cases, the flaw if well known.  Martin Luther, for example, wrote and spoke in favor of kind treatment of the Jews of Europe earlier in his Post-Reformation career, only to change course around 1536, ultimately writing a disgusting tract entitled, On the Jews and Their Lies.  This change in his thinking taints the last ten years of Luther's life, increases the scrutiny of anything he wrote in that period, and of course complicates his legacy because his antisemitism was influential in the road that eventually led to the Holocaust.  When considering Martin Luther, the bravery of "Here I stand, I can do no other" is weighed with the darkness that made a home in his thinking later in life.  People are complicated, they all have flaws, heroes are no exception.  Not every hero has a glaring flaw, let us not be that jaded, but some do, and pretending otherwise is a bad idea.

Which brings us to one of Christianity's great preachers, Jonathan Edwards, a leader of the Great Awakening along with George Whitefield, who was used by God to bring about tremendous reform in the American Church.  And a slave owner. {Jonathan Edwards' disturbing support for slavery: some reflections, by David Baker }  In 2019, Pastor Jason Meyer wrestled with Edwards' legacy in light of his owning of slaves, Jonathan Edwards and His Support of Slavery: A Lament, without attempting to sugarcoat or excuse Edwards' choices:

Jonathan Edwards had more intellectual firepower than any person reading this article, and he was a systematic thinker. He could connect theological dots like no one else. If he could succumb to such obvious, woeful oppression and injustice and theological hypocrisy, then we should be spurred on to greater levels of self-examination. Where are our blind spots? Or where do we willfully turn a blind eye to things we’re simply afraid to address?

And then this month, Meyer's mentor, who picked Meyer to succeed him as the lead pastor at Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis, decided to revisit Jonathan Edward's legacy by speculating that Edwards owned slaves with good intentions: How Could Jonathan Edwards Own Slaves? Wrestling with the History of a Hero:

I do not know whether Edwards purchased the 14-year-old Venus to rescue her from abuse. I do not know whether she was given care in the Edwards home far above what she could have hoped for under many other circumstances at age 14. I do not know if the boy Titus was similarly bought to rescue him from distress and was then given hope. I do not know if the Edwardses used their upper-class privileges (including the power to purchase slaves) for beneficent purposes toward at-risk black children. The scope of what we do not know is very great.

If someone says, “Piper, this is just wishful thinking,” my answer is that indeed it is wishful thinking. I do not wish for one of my heroes to be more tarnished than he already is. But perhaps it is not just wishful thinking. My wishes are not baseless, however unlikely they may seem against the backdrop of mid-eighteenth-century attitudes. All I know of the godliness that Edwards taught, and in so many ways modeled, inclines me to wish in just this way. It is the sort of dream that, if it came true, would not surprise me.

Rather than wrestling with the contradiction in Edward's life and testimony that the owning of slaves makes clear, Piper has decided (at this particular moment) to attempt to excuse/explain this flaw, leading to predictable blowback: Christian Leaders React to John Piper’s Thoughts on His ‘Hero’ Who Owned Slaves By Jessica Lea and John Piper's 'Wishful Thinking' about Jonathan Edwards and Slavery, by Chris Gehrz.

This change of tone is particularly disturbing, in part, because John Piper himself had a much more balanced and God honoring answer to the fact that Edwards owned slaves in 2013: Slavery and Jonathan Edwards.  Had he left it at that, we wouldn't be questioning his thought processes and conclusions now.  My past self doesn't always agree with my current self, but hopefully that's because I've grown in wisdom and knowledge, maybe even humility, it is hard for me to see how this could be the case regarding this particular issue and John Piper.

There is much to admire about the life and ministry of John Piper, even if one rejects his strict Complementarianism, as I do, but this late in life attempt to polish the image of Edwards is certainly troubling.  When taken together with the choice of the seminary that Piper founded to make its new president Pastor Joe Rigney, whose current crusade (along with other like minded fellows) is to declare Empathy a Sin: Have you heard the one about empathy being a sin? by Mark Wingfield at the same time that Pastor Jason Meyer resigned from Bethlehem Baptist Church, along with two other pastors.  The three pastors in question were, as noted by Christianity Today the staff's most empathetic pastors.  {This article is insightful: Bethlehem Baptist Leaders Clash Over ‘Coddling’ and ‘Cancel Culture’ A debate over “untethered empathy” underscores how departing leaders, including John Piper’s successor, approached hot-button issues like race and abuse. KATE SHELLNUTT}.  #1 Rigney vs. Empathy, #2 Meyer and other pastors resign, #3 Piper speculates that Edwards owned slaves for good reasons.  

In the end, I don't know John Piper personally, and he certainly has no idea who I am.  I've never been to Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis.  And yet, at the same time that John Piper and Joe Rigney are badmouthing empathy and disparaging the idea of feeling the pain of others {declaring it to be a SIN of all things},  John Piper also decides to look on the sunny side of Edwards' ownership of slaves.  Taken together, these two purposeful stances are an ominous sign that doesn't belong in any church of any denomination: The pain felt by the oppressed is not their problem.

For more discussion of the "Empathy is Sin" debacle:

Empathy is Not a Sin, by Warren Throckmorton

“Your Empathy Is a Sin”: A Response to Desiring God, by Rebecca Davis

Empathy is a Virtue SCOT MCKNIGHT

Seeing the world through a father's eyes

For those of you who don't know, I came to fatherhood later in life than most of my peers.  My wife Nicole and I had already been married for nearly 15 years, I had been a teacher at Portland Adult and Community Education for ten years, concurrently a pastor at 1st Baptist of Palo for five years, and moved here to Franklin PA to be the pastor at First Baptist of Franklin just over three years prior to the birth of our beautiful Clara Marie.  As much life experience as I had: marriage, teaching, being a pastor, all of which had their own unique challenges and lessons to be learned, nothing changed my point-of-view as much as becoming a father.  Books that I had once read, and am now re-reading (I do that a lot), with a father-daughter relationship, or TV/Movies that hadn't struck me that way before, now touch at something in my heart and mind that is both real and powerful.  {For example: The girl in the red dress in Schindler's List, while always being a gut punch, would shake me much harder now}  I consider myself to be a person of empathy and compassion, by the grace of God, it is a characteristic one must have to be an effective pastor, but nothing reinforces these Christian virtues in our hearts quite like having had a similar experience; its just the way we work as human beings.

Clara on the day of her birth, holding dad's finger.

Clara on her way to her first day of pre-school this past August

Hebrews 4:15-16 (NIV)
15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin. 16 Let us then approach God’s throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need.

You don't need me to tell you that our experiences powerfully affect us, both for the better and for the worse, but the words of Hebrews offer an insight into our relationship with God that is truly profound.  Jesus knows what it is like to struggle, to feel tired, to be in pain.  Jesus knows what it is like to wait patiently, to have to trust in your friends, and to be let down by them.  Jesus knows the sorrow of being at the graveside of a parent, the frustration of being rejected by people you're only trying to help, and the joy of helping a 'lost cause' find purpose in life again.  Jesus has been there, and his empathy for your life situations is real.  That alone would be a Truth to "cling to when the rain set in".  But Hebrews tells us something far more important: Jesus knows what is like to be you without the failure of sin.  One of the reasons why we have empathy for other people is that many of us recognize the wisdom of the phrase, "there but for the grace of God, go I".  In other shoes we might equally fail, or we might even do worse, than the person whom we now empathize with in their struggles.  That compassion compels us to act, but that weakness limits how much we can do to help.  Not so with Jesus.  Not only does Jesus know what it is like to be you, but he knows what is necessary to overcome and be victorious in your situation as well.  I, and others like me, can comfort you, maybe even assist you, Jesus can save you.  As followers of Jesus Christ, we can point out the way to hope, Jesus is the way.
What do we do with this knowledge?  Hebrews offers the answer there as well, approach the 'throne of grace with confidence', knowing that in our time of need, our compassionate AND victorious savior, who empathizes with our plight, is both willing and capable of giving us the mercy and grace we need to live righteously, no matter what.