{"id":842329,"date":"2025-04-20T16:12:29","date_gmt":"2025-04-20T21:12:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/newsycanuse.com\/index.php\/2025\/04\/20\/how-donald-trump-is-teaching-christians-to-abandon-empathy\/"},"modified":"2025-04-20T16:12:29","modified_gmt":"2025-04-20T21:12:29","slug":"how-donald-trump-is-teaching-christians-to-abandon-empathy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/newsycanuse.com\/index.php\/2025\/04\/20\/how-donald-trump-is-teaching-christians-to-abandon-empathy\/","title":{"rendered":"How Donald Trump Is Teaching Christians to Abandon Empathy"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Albert Mohler, the longtime president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, is one of the best-known evangelicals in the United States, famous for his writings on faith, and now for his podcast, \u201cThe Briefing,\u201d which airs every weekday. Mohler was a harsh critic of Donald Trump in 2016, calling him a \u201csexual predator,\u201d and lamenting his popularity among Christians. (Mohler says that he did not vote that year.) When Mohler and I spoke<\/a> in June of 2020, he called Trump \u201ca huge embarrassment,\u201d but nevertheless offered various reasons why it was necessary to support him in that year\u2019s election. He admitted that his reasoning had a certain \u201cpragmatic, utilitarian dimension to it,\u201d explaining that Democrats and Republicans had diverged so much on social issues.<\/p>\n

Five years later, Mohler interviewed a fellow-theologian about \u201cthe sin of empathy.\u201d The conversation occurred in February, around the same time that Elon Musk told Joe Rogan that \u201ccivilizational suicidal empathy\u201d was destroying the West. I wanted to hear more about Mohler\u2019s perspective on empathy, and whether his views on American politics and the Trump Administration had evolved since we last spoke. Our conversation, which has been edited for length and clarity, is below.<\/p>\n

Do you still think President Trump is an embarrassment?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Now when you say those words, you are going back to 2016?<\/p>\n

2020. You said that to me.<\/strong><\/p>\n

O.K., I need context here. I supported President Trump\u2019s election in 2020.<\/p>\n

I know you did, but when we talked you said, \u201cPresident Trump is a huge embarrassment, and it\u2019s an embarrassment to evangelical Christianity that there appear to be so many people who will celebrate precisely the aspects that I see Biblically as most lamentable and embarrassing.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n

Yeah, I mean, I said that in a context. I mean, frankly, many of the particulars of the story of Donald Trump are embarrassing to evangelicals. But, at the same time, I unapologetically supported him in 2020, and I supported him in 2024. And, by the way, I supported him as President once he was elected to his first term. I don\u2019t think it\u2019s fair to have that statement as an isolated statement. Donald Trump\u2019s not the only politician that has embarrassed me that I have supported.<\/p>\n

So it\u2019s a larger group?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Well, and it\u2019s a complicated context, and I want to be very clear about that. It\u2019s very complicated. It\u2019s not so easy. I just finished teaching a two-hour class on leadership, and one of the things I pointed out is that, you know, in ancient Rome and then Victorian England, you had a separation between public virtue and private vice. Now you have public vice. That\u2019s a game changer. We know stuff about John F. Kennedy that people didn\u2019t know when he was alive.<\/p>\n

In 2020, I thought you were making a real utilitarian case for Trump.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Absolutely. There\u2019s a utilitarian aspect of politics, period. So, you know, on my podcast tomorrow, I talk about incrementalism in politics, and I just say politics is<\/em> incrementalism. The perfect can be the enemy of the good in politics. There are no perfect candidates.<\/p>\n

You just proudly used the word \u201cutilitarian.\u201d You once said, \u201cA utilitarian worldview is widely celebrated by secular \u00e9lites.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. When an objective morality of right and wrong is abandoned, inevitably something like pragmatism and utilitarianism is all that will come into play.\u201d Do you have any concerns about that now?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Yeah. I\u2019m not disagreeing with myself. In that quote you read to me, I\u2019m talking about what\u2019s formally identified as the philosophies of pragmatism and utilitarianism. So when I say somebody\u2019s pragmatic, I\u2019m not necessarily tying it to John Dewey, you know, who didn\u2019t believe that morality was real. I am a moral realist. I\u2019m not a pragmatist. But in decision-making, sometimes we have two options and we have to weigh those and make a choice. I would use the word \u201cpragmatic,\u201d and I\u2019m not trying to be slippery here.<\/p>\n

You recently wrote, \u201cPresident Trump has won the White House, and he has achieved a complete takeover of the Republican Party. The Republicans who disdained him and tried to terminate his leadership have made his point by leaving the party and becoming Democrats (or at least voting for Democrats). President Trump will just argue that they are now where they have always belonged. It\u2019s hard to argue otherwise.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n

Amen.<\/p>\n

Can you say more\u2014<\/strong><\/p>\n

So I think there\u2019s been a great sifting. I\u2019ll be honest, in terms of principle, I see myself in a straight line, and I\u2019m open to anyone correcting me about that. I can tell you why I think I\u2019m a straight line on these issues. I\u2019m trying to achieve, legislatively and culturally, the greatest realization of the moral ends that I believe are right. That\u2019s the strategy, and the tactics change election by election, because you\u2019re presented with a different set of choices. I think, if you want to understand why so many evangelicals are basically so glad to have so many former Republicans gone, it is because in terms of the great issues of the day, they weren\u2019t really all that different from Democrats. They were just liberals on a slower timetable.<\/p>\n

What do you think about the kind of lifelong Republicans who just were so disgusted by Trump\u2019s behavior, by the accounts of women who said that he assaulted them, by, you know, making fun of disabled people, all these things? What about people who just felt like they had had enough and morally couldn\u2019t swallow it anymore?<\/strong><\/p>\n

I have two different responses. No. 1, let\u2019s assume that that was said honestly and with an attempt at moral consistency.<\/p>\n

Well, you said things like that once, so I will assume you said them with honesty.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Right, but let me finish my thought. I\u2019m about to get lost here. Some are making that argument, I think, with a form of their own integrity and responsibility. But what I want to ask them is, well, then where do you draw the line? In other words, who is then acceptable? Just be honest and tell me where you draw the line. I think what has become evident is that there were a lot of Republicans who really were not philosophically, ideologically, or certainly on moral issues absolutely aligned with the Party. And as you know, the Republican Party\u2019s always had at least three major streams: big business and corporate interests, social conservatives, and then libertarians. The libertarians and the corporatists\u2014they\u2019ve never been big on social issues, which are certainly the primary reason why a lot of moral conservatives are in the Republican Party in the first place. And I think it\u2019s become clear that an awful lot of people really weren\u2019t committed to those issues. It didn\u2019t get smoked out in 2016, but it did in 2020 and 2024.<\/p>\n

Smoked out? You mean like they revealed themselves or something?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Look, how many people were against same-sex marriage and are now for it?<\/p>\n

In 2024, there was an open primary. Many people on the stage were pro-life, against gay marriage, and had more sincere conservative social values than Donald Trump. Why did evangelicals broadly not embrace someone else in the 2024 primary?<\/strong><\/p>\n

I supported Ron DeSantis. I think Donald Trump represents something a lot of people just don\u2019t see. And I didn\u2019t see it for a long time, but I think I see it now. I think there is an intuitive connection that Donald Trump has made with a lot of people in the United States who believe that a massive disruption of the norm is necessary in order to save the Republic and preserve the culture. I think they see that in Donald Trump. I have to say that I don\u2019t think a mainstream Republican would, in his Inaugural Address, have said \u2018In my Administration, there will be two and only two genders: male and female.\u2019 I think Donald Trump did that because Donald Trump is a disruptor. There\u2019s a great hunger on the part of many American conservatives, including conservative Christians, for disruption.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

And on your part, too?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Yes, yes. Not without limits, but yes, yes.<\/p>\n

What sort of limits?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Well, I believe in the continuation of the American Republic. I believe in the importance of constitutional order. I believe that disruption needs to take place.<\/p>\n

You were not a January 6th fan?<\/strong><\/p>\n

I was not. Yeah.<\/p>\n

What is your broader concern with empathy right now?<\/strong><\/p>\n

I think the broader concern is that it\u2019s an artificial virtue, and I want to lean into authentic virtues. And I think it is used politically in ways that are very destructive and manipulative.<\/p>\n

So what\u2019s an example?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Well, on the immigration issue, the open embrace of empathy in that platform is on the part of people who basically are using empathy as an argument against having any meaningful citizenship, nationality, national borders, etc. Here\u2019s the thing\u2014I\u2019ve never said it this clearly before, but feel like I need to say it now. Empathy means never having to say no. Because the whole impulse of empathy is feeling with people as they feel. It\u2019s a therapeutic category rather than a moral category. I\u2019m a Christian. I believe in moral categories. I believe in the importance of sympathy and even more in the responsibility of compassion. But that takes action and it\u2019s based in truth. It\u2019s not based on validating anyone\u2019s self-perceived situation, nor identifying with their own read of the situation as valid.<\/p>\n

One of my concerns about this Administration is the joy they seem to take in cruelty toward immigrants. Do you feel that at all? Does that concern you?<\/strong><\/p>\n

It would concern me. That is not what I\u2019m seeing. And I have been in parts of the country where this is of daily concern. I have not seen a lack of concern. What I do see is that there are very clear concerns reflected in public support for the President, sending gang members back to their home country and things like that. In the view of millions of Americans, it\u2019s a lack of compassion for fellow-citizens that has led to relatively insane and irresponsible open borders. The people I hang around with, they would never inflict any deliberate cruelty on anyone.<\/p>\n

I think you ought to have a concern about the mistreatment of anyone. Look, I take a very Augustinian view of state power. You know Augustine, the Church Father?<\/p>\n

I\u2019ve heard of him.<\/strong><\/p>\n

This is the main Western theological tradition in Christianity. Am I making sense?<\/p>\n

Yup.<\/strong><\/p>\n

An Augustinian view of government says that government coercion is never pretty. It is necessary, but it\u2019s never pretty. And, when government acts in a coercive manner, it always leads to some form of pain. That\u2019s what government coercion is. And so I am not justifying it. I\u2019m simply saying that if you are going to return people against their will to their country, where they are seen there as gang members and they\u2019re going to be treated as criminals\u2014<\/p>\n

They were Venezuelan, and they were sent to El Salvador, but go on.<\/strong><\/p>\n

O.K. No, that\u2019s true, but at least in theory, they are to be sent back to their home country. And I think that\u2019s a part of the spat between the Trump Administration and Venezuela at the moment. But, I also think the vast majority of Americans would say, Look, our understanding of refugees who are legitimate refugees does not include gang members who clearly are coming to the United States with an effort to expand their colonization of criminal activity.<\/p>\n

We just don\u2019t know for sure that they were gang members. There\u2019s been some reporting that suggests some of them are not.<\/strong><\/p>\n

I understand that, but want to be honest with you, and I think you\u2019ll be honest with me. Look, you can\u2019t say that everyone with that tattoo is a gang member, but there\u2019s no reason anyone other than a gang member should have that tattoo. [The government has apparently been taking specific tattoos as a sign of gang membership, despite the fact that the F.B.I. and the Department of Homeland Security have previously raised concerns<\/a> about doing so.<\/em>]<\/p>\n

I really enjoyed our first conversation in 2020, and my feeling is, if we\u2019d gone back to 2020, or even 2016, and I read you the passage that I just did about these Venezuelan men, many of whom I assume are Christian, your response would have been different.<\/strong><\/p>\n

I don\u2019t think that\u2019s true. I want to be ruthlessly honest with you and with myself. My view of some of the questions of public and private virtue\u2014I\u2019ve had to rethink some of those things. I think my approach to immigration policy and the potential gang involvement, I don\u2019t think that\u2019s changed at all.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

When I read about the Trump Administration\u2019s cuts to foreign aid, and the reports<\/a> of children suffering around the world because of it, it\u2019s hard to feel that the people in power in the Trump Administration care at all.<\/strong><\/p>\n

I know a lot of people in the government who would care a great deal and who actually think that the greater threat to human flourishing is letting a lot of the spending go on, all the programs go on, that aren\u2019t really helping anyone but populating bureaucracies. I personally know some of the people in the Administration making some of these decisions, and I\u2019ll simply say I believe they are not driven by animus, but, rather, driven by the attempt to try to get Leviathan back under some control.<\/p>\n

When I interviewed you in 2020, I sensed that there\u2019d been somewhat of a change from how you were thinking about things in 2016. And this conversation, at least to me, feels different than our 2020 conversation.<\/strong><\/p>\n

I\u2019m trying to be as honest with you as I can be. And that means self-reflective as well. I\u2019m a Christian theologian; I\u2019m a Christian minister. I am obligated to introspection and self-criticism. And I want to be honest. I\u2019ll tell you what I think\u2019s changed. I think what has changed is the sense that something more significantly disruptive is going to have to take place for any progress to be made toward correction anywhere. And I will tell you, time will tell. I do not know if Donald Trump and his disruption is going to bring about lasting, meaningful, fruitful change. I\u2019m hoping it does. And I see the necessity of disruption. If it isn\u2019t Donald Trump now, I don\u2019t know who it is going to be when.\u00a0\u2666<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Isaac Chotiner
Read More<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Albert Mohler, the longtime president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, is one of the best-known evangelicals in the United States, famous for his writings on faith, and now for his podcast, \u201cThe Briefing,\u201d which airs every weekday. Mohler was a harsh critic of Donald Trump in 2016, calling him a \u201csexual predator,\u201d and lamenting<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":842330,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1146,4],"tags":[5435,5052],"class_list":{"0":"post-842329","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-donald","8":"category-trump","9":"tag-donald","10":"tag-trump"},"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/newsycanuse.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/842329","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/newsycanuse.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/newsycanuse.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/newsycanuse.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/newsycanuse.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=842329"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/newsycanuse.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/842329\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/newsycanuse.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/842330"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/newsycanuse.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=842329"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/newsycanuse.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=842329"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/newsycanuse.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=842329"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}

You\u2019re talking about the Venezuelan immigrants who were deported to El Salvador. The White House claims that they were all gang members, but we actually don\u2019t know that. It seems like some of them were not. Time<\/em> magazine wrote<\/a> about these men: \u201cInside the intake room, a sea of trustees descended on the men with electric shavers, stripping heads of hair with haste. The guy who claimed to be a barber began to whimper, folding his hands in prayer as his hair fell. He was slapped. The man asked for his mother, then buried his face in his chained hands and cried as he was slapped again.\u201d The President and his Administration were revelling in this.<\/strong><\/p>\n