Eleanore Stump, Bishop Budde, and the Abuse of Christian Empathy
Eleanore Stump, a prominent Roman Catholic philosopher, recently joined Bishop Budde and has posted on social media that a person cannot support President Trump and still be a Christian. Their reasoning is rooted in the claim that Christianity requires care for all immigrants, a state cannot enforce its borders, and that, therefore, Trump’s enforcement of immigration laws is incompatible with Christianity. This from two persons who show us they misunderstand the fundamental Christian concepts of law and grace.
As a Christian philosopher, I find this position not only flawed but symptomatic of the broader confusion surrounding Christian philosophy in our time. It has been largely taken over by leftist ideology that teaches social justice rooted in conflict theory. It attempts to motivate people to its cause by the fallacy of appeal to pity. Their argument is rooted in a fundamental misunderstanding of the distinct roles of church and state, along with a rejection of salvation through Christ’s atonement alone.
Some Context about the Condition of Christian Philosophy
In 2016, the esteemed philosopher Richard Swinburne delivered a lecture at a meeting of the Society of Christian Philosophers (SCP), addressing the topic of sexual morality. During his talk, Swinburne stated that while he did not view homosexuality as intrinsically wrong, like adultery, he considered it a handicap to procreation. He suggested that God’s command against it might be understood as an encouragement to form marriages capable of bearing children. Despite his measured tone and nuanced reasoning, Swinburne was met with swift condemnation from SCP leadership, including prominent philosophers such as Michael Rea (University of Notre Dame) and Eleonore Stump (a Roman Catholic scholar).
What made this denunciation striking was that Swinburne himself is not a conservative by traditional standards. While he holds the Bible in some regard, he does not affirm its infallibility. In fact, during a conversation over coffee at his flat in Oxford later that year, Swinburne explained why he believes Paul was mistaken in Romans 1 when asserting that God’s existence is clearly revealed in creation, leaving unbelief without excuse. He told me about how he and Richard Dawkins give presentations to the equivalent of high school students in the UK about how Genesis is not to be taken as history. Swinburne’s critique of Romans aligns more closely with a liberal theological perspective, yet it was this very lecture, where he cautiously addressed a biblical ethic of marriage, that drew the ire of SCP leadership. Their reaction demonstrates how even mild alignment with biblical teaching on controversial subjects can be perceived as a threat in Christian academic circles.
This incident is emblematic of the condition of Christian philosophy and its professional organizations in our time. Rather than being bastions of wisdom and faith, they often bow to cultural trends, prioritizing worldly acclaim over reverence for God’s Word. Young philosophers must take note: do not look up to such figures who compromise biblical principles to secure seats of prominence in leading universities. True philosophy begins with the fear of the Lord, not with the conformist pursuit of worldly wisdom.
Abusing Christian Empathy
Joe Rigney called attention to this abuse of empathy in his American Reformer article titled “Empathy, Feminism, and the Church.” You might say he “called it.” He diagnosed exactly how feminist “bishops” and philosophers like Stump use empathy to manipulate the emotions of others. There he says, “My basic contention is that running beneath the ideological conflicts surrounding all things “woke” (race, sexuality, abuse, and LGBTQ+) is a common emotional dynamic involving untethered empathy–that is, a concern for the hurting and vulnerable that is unmoored from truth, goodness, and reality.”
Whether it was Stump going after Swinburne for not showing care toward the LGBTQ+ community or Budde asking the President of the United States to set aside the law to be “merciful,” you have emotions used as a standard for motivation rather than truth grounded in reality. One of the first fallacies you learn about in Logic 101 is the appeal to pity, the abuse of a listener’s disposition to be compassionate–you would expect a trained philosopher to know how to avoid it. Instead, they have weaponized it.
The listener is asked to think about how it would make them feel isolated from every other choice. What this means is that you are asked, “How would you feel if you were suddenly deported and separated from your family,” or “How would you feel if a famous philosopher said your sexuality is a handicap?” But we need the rest of the story. “How would you feel after knowingly breaking a series of laws and then having to face the consequences?” Or, “How would you feel after knowingly choosing to live out a sexual philosophy that is contrary to scripture and demanding other Christian philosophers agree with you?” The whole story helps set our feelings in context. The abuse of empathy asks us to set aside all personal responsibility
Christians are a kind and generous people, motivated by their faith to help others both materially and spiritually. This impulse reflects the heart of the Gospel: loving our neighbors and showing grace to those in need. However, Stump and Budde weaponize this empathy by suggesting that the state must mirror the church’s mission of grace and cease enforcing its immigration laws. This is a dangerous conflation of the roles of church and state. Ironically, they have become Christian Nationalists.
While grace is central to the Gospel, it does not negate the role of the state in applying the law to protect its citizens and maintain order. In fact, scripture requires it to do so (Romans 13). Grace is shown in the forgiveness of sins through Christ’s atoning work on the cross. As recipients of this grace, Christians are called to extend kindness and compassion to others. But this theological truth does not translate into a policy of open borders or a suspension of legal enforcement. To demand that the state adopt such policies is not an act of kindness but a profound misunderstanding of both empathy and justice. For the state to enforce its border does not mean the state denies that all humans are made in the image of God. This non-sequitur reveals the quality of thought at the heart of leftist philosophy.
The Difference Between Law and Grace
What Stump and Budde overlook is the crucial distinction between law and grace. The state operates under the rule of law, which exists to protect its citizens and restrict lawbreakers. Law ensures justice, order, and the protection of the vulnerable within the nation’s borders. Grace, on the other hand, belongs to the realm of the church, where the Gospel proclaims forgiveness for sinners and reconciliation with God. Enforcing a law does not deny the image of God in another—God enforces His law.
To ask the state to abandon the rule of law out of misplaced empathy is not an act of grace—it is cruelty to the citizens of the state who abide by the law. It ignores the legitimate concerns of those impacted by unchecked illegal immigration. The fallacy of appeal to pity should never be used against Christians in the name of empathy as a pretext to undermine justice or disregard the state’s responsibilities.
In fact, their misunderstanding of law is also seen in their misunderstanding of grace. After all, Stump wrote a book about how we do not need the vicarious atonement of Christ we must instead look to what she called the “Marion” solution. I reviewed that book here.
Misplaced Priorities and Confusion
Stump and Budde accuse others of “Christian nationalism,” yet they themselves seek to impose their theological vision through the machinery of the state. They conflate the moral imperatives of the church with the distinct responsibilities of the government, effectively turning the state into an enforcer of their version of Christian compassion. This confusion does a disservice to both the church and the state.
The Bible clearly teaches that governments are instituted by God to maintain order, promote justice, and protect their citizens (Romans 13). These roles are not interchangeable with the church’s mission to proclaim the Gospel and extend grace to the sinner. Stump and Budde fail to recognize this distinction, instead projecting the church’s call to charity onto the state’s duty to enforce the law. The state has borders, the church does not.
The Misguided Call for Open Borders
The argument against enforcing immigration laws often hinges on the notion that such laws are inherently unkind or un-Christian because they deny that all humans are made in the image of God. On the contrary, upholding the rule of law upholds the dignity of humans as moral agents. The law affirms human dignity by affirming human responsibility.
Christians are called to love their neighbors, but this love must be grounded in truth and wisdom. Stump and Budde are both free to give their own money to support whatever causes they want. But to declare anyone who disagrees with their view of illegal immigration “not Christian” is the opposite of the empathy and understanding they claim to represent. Misplaced empathy, divorced from justice, leads to chaos and harm. We must resist the temptation to conflate the church’s mission with the state’s responsibilities.
A Call to Reform Christian Philosophy
Stump and Budde’s position reveals a broader problem: the decline of rigorous Christian philosophy in contemporary discourse. Instead of engaging with the principles of natural law, the roles of church and state, the reality of God and our sin against him, and salvation through the atonement of Christ alone, they resort to moralizing rhetoric that prioritizes ideological conformity over intellectual rigor. True Christian philosophy must illuminate rather than obscure, distinguish between law and grace, and affirm the complementary roles of church and state. The fundamental appeal to pity, non-sequitur, and confusion of state and church at the heart of their approach is not the product of rigorous philosophy.
Young Christians interested in philosophy, beware. The current condition of this disciple is in need of substantial change to become Christian again. As it stands now, its leaders deny you can be a conservative and a Christian. In our polarized age, Christians must approach public issues with clarity and conviction. We can uphold the dignity of every individual while respecting the rule of law and the distinct roles of church and state. Stump and Budde’s approach not only undermines this balance but also distorts the Gospel. They try to force action through a basic logical fallacy: appeal to pity. If this represents the state of Christian philosophy (and it likely does) the discipline is in need of deep reform. Let us return to a Christian philosophy that upholds truth, justice, and the transformative power of grace through Christ alone.
Image Credit: Unsplash
