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
Another great article. Might I add a few things? Herman Bavinck insisted that the only people who could rightly do Christian dogmatics were those who were actually Christians. I would think the same applies to philosophy. Israel was invited by Pharaoh to live in Egypt. Israel respected the borders of other nations in their wilderness wandering. In Acts 17 we see that God determines the boundaries of our habitation. I think we can rightly conclude there are such things as national boundaries.
Hello,
I am unfamiliar with the Stump issue so I cannot comment upon it. However, I watched Budde’s remarks. You have contorted her remarks to suggest that she called for the suspension of our immigration laws. She did not. She did not call for open borders. She called for the just and reasonable treatment of immigrants – including those who are here in violation of the law. As various essays on this site point out the concept of ordered loves places an obligation on citizens to love their country and allows the government to enforce the laws. Well, our law – our Constitution – gives the right of basic due process to all people in this country – not just citizens and even those who are here in violation of the law. Budde simply implored our president to abide by our Constitutional principles. But let’s face it; this new regime could give a damn about our laws thereby violating the purportedly Christian concept of ordered loves. This regime desires fear. Budde suggested grace instead.
Lets play a little game.
If we wind back the clock to 2021, where Roe v. Wade still upheld the concept of a “right to abortion” being protected under the Constitution, let’s take the logic & rhetoric here and apply it to the Pro-Life cause, and see if these paragraphs still hold true…
“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. [Pro-Life activists] fail to recognize this distinction, instead projecting the church’s call to charity onto the state’s duty to enforce the law.”
“Christians are called to love their neighbors, but this love must be grounded in truth and wisdom. [Pro-life activists] are free to give their own money to support whatever causes they want. But to declare anyone who disagrees with their view of [the immorality of abortion] “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. ”
To push the game further in the opposite direction, lets transplant ourselves back to 1930’s Germany, where Jews and Roma (pejoratively “Gypsies”) alike were stripped of their citizenship by the Nuremburg Laws, and are now facing mass deportations for their “criminality, moral debauchery, and tendency to corrode civil society”, do these paragraphs still hold true?
“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 Jewish and Gypsy presence]. 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.”
“The argument against enforcing [racial purity] 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 [within their God intended races]. The law affirms human dignity by affirming human responsibility [to one’s racial group].”
Yikes… (If you think this second comparison is particularly uncharitable please do some extended research into the German Christian movement and their justifications for their ideology)
So what was Bishop Budde’s plea to Trump really asking that provoked this wonderful article?
In short the Bishop’s plea truly is as simple as asking Trump to show mercy. She makes no real comments on what he should or should not do as a Christian, she at no point insists he should not act with and for justice, she in no way defines certain actions as Christian or unchristian, at best there are vague implications of potential unmerciful acts, but really she’s simply requesting that anything and everything Trump does invokes mercy. I fail to see how anything here is contrary to the Gospel.
But lets discuss this even further, perhaps she is begging the question, assuming he needs to hear this message in fear that he will act without mercy. Is this warranted?
When his second in command defends federal agents invading places of worship and education to hunt down illegal immigrants with the intent of instilling a “chilling effect”, I do not see justice I see vengeance and terror. When his administration resorts to lies about the character of others, even those who break our laws (it’s well documented that the rates of violent and property crimes of illegal immigrants is well below those of either US citizens or documented residents) to produce unfounded fear in the general populace, I see wickedness. Asking for mercy seems more than justified.
So what exactly is the problem with her sermon? How does it go against the reoccurring gospel narrative of Jesus sticking up for the lame, and the weak, and the outcasted, and the afflicted, and the criminals, and the thieves, and the prostitutes, and the adulterers, and lepers, and the unclean ect. ect. against the pious and authoritarian religious authorities who above all else wanted to uphold religious Law and Order as they understood it? When we live in a nation that champions both voices of the populace, and expressions of religious freedom, how can we so deeply vilify one Bishop insistence that the country’s elected leader act with the principles of the religion he continually appealed to in his campaign? Perhaps it’s time for many of us to look in the mirror and question whether we are really living out our lives in Christ like fashion.
This is disingenuous.
Which part? Please do elaborate.
Zed Z,
I very much appreciate your comments here. Thank you. You say a lot of things better than I do.
Fantastic article. Thank you Owen
It is increasingly sad and shocking that writers with American Reformer apparently have nothing to say about the explicit example and direct teaching of Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus – from what we read would not have any worry – about Bishop’s request for powerful government to have mercy of its residents. The tendency is SO GREAT at American Reformer to omit Jesus, a first century Israelite/Jew, and discussion of the Hebrew texts in their authentic meaning, that I wonder if some secret anti-Semitism is at play, just as it had been for centuries in theological thinking. It is not a ‘woke’ thing to observe: it is a FACT from a continual lineage of anti-Semitism in Christian thinking and writings.
While Jesus came to serve rather than to be served in His first coming and James defines true religion in helping the vulnerable, Christian Nationalists seek power and recognition. While Jesus warned us against lording it over others and the Apostles exercised their authority only over the Church and relied on evangelism and signs to speak to unbelievers, Christian Nationalists seek power over and recognition from all believers and unbelievers.
But that alone does not cover what American Reformer seems to be about. The American Reformer website seems to be a political website with a religious message to sway believers from the Reformed Traditions. We can easily see that in the articles that extol Trump as a candidate then and President now. Those articles are highly selective in how they look at Trump and reality. Appealing to Jesus and the Apostles can make no point to the main contributors to the American Reformer. That is seen in both their articles and in the trolls who use one personal accusation after another to attack people whose comments challenge what is written here.
From the beginning, the American Reformers perspective has been governed by authoritarian mindsets, not Scriptural ones. That is why it has mostly preferred to appeal to past Christians who wrote during Christendom to make their points. They have restricted the definition of America to that which existed when our demographics were different ignoring the atrocities that their favorite writers either participated in or were silently complicit with. Their definition is static and thus does not recognize the fact that America can change, the ability to change is implied by freedom, and that their preferred rulership over America is not based on present demographics.
And so while Edward from Virginia makes some excellent points, those points as well as the legitimate objections from others is falling deaf ears when it comes to the main contributors of the American Reformer.
The Biblical record commands that we discern wise and able leaders from greedy, lying, or otherwise wicked abusers of power. Leadership of the Body of Christ were to be this: “If anyone wants to provide leadership in the church, good! But there are preconditions: A leader must be well-thought-of, committed to his wife, cool and collected, accessible, and hospitable. He must know what he’s talking about, not be overfond of wine, not pushy but gentle, not thin-skinned, not money-hungry.” 1 Timothy 3. CLEARLY, by these standards Trump and many of his nominees … Hegseth perhaps, and certainly Gaetz, Patel, RFK Jr, and others are DISALLOWED in leadership of God’s People. Why then would Christian Nationalists support leaders of the ‘nation’ who are not authorized to leaders of ‘Christians’? Quite a puzzle, aye? Christian Nationalists are not the only Christians (sorry, I’m sure they are shocked to hear that, but they are not, and never have been!). Many Christians, for many centuries, have thought that political leaders should reflect explicit examples, and direct teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, and the Apostles who knew him immediately, directly and best. Those Christian Nationalists who idolize power and control can claim any writer or thinker they like but those are not Jesus of Nazareth or the Apostles. Jesus was a first century Israelite Jew who – above all – knew the Hebrew scriptures preeminent commands against idolatry/ries. And enforced them in his explicit example and direct commands. Christian Nationalists, like all sinners, have their preferred, special, even treasured idolatries: for many apparently power and control, for others greed and covetousness, for other other fleshy lusts, for some racism, for some abusive control of women, etc. Why won’t Christian Nationalist confess and repent of their sins? and instead glory in them, in hundreds of Youtube, Instagram, podcast and other Internet megaphones? THEY GLORY IN THEIR SINS! Christian Nationalist act out their manifold fleshy sinful idolatries no less wickedly than heathens act out their manifold fleshy sinful idolatries (e.g. beast shaped dildos – wolf, horse, dog, dragon, alien, etc – for sale to give your partner or yourself excitement and pleasure; burgeoning proliferating pornography; etc). Christian Nationalist GLORY IN THEIR FLESHY SINS no less that these heathens. And promote leaders who glory in them. And teach wee ones in their Christian Nationalist enclaves to glory in them. Jesus said it best didn’t he: for corrupting young ones with idolatries of power and control, greed and covetousness, racism, etc they might as well jump into the sea with a heavy stone tied to their bodies.
Edward,
I have very much appreciated your comments here. You are more than correct to challenge the Christian Nationalists. But when we talk about their specific sins, we need to speak to them as peers in sin, this is the message of the first part of James 2. Yes, we can accurately identify some of their sins as you have done. But we need to do that remembering that we too are law breakers and that we are talking about fellow believers for whom Christ has died. That is something that I forget all too often.
There are multiple reasons why Christians have become Christian Nationalists. For many of them, I think that it is because they have been deceived. And here we should note that there are many out there who are working to deceive us.
The natural explanation for why Trump has picked whom he has picked is that he is searching for loyalists. He is looking to remake our government so that he can be to America what he is to his businesses. And he wants America to be an extension of himself. That is implied by the criteria he uses to measure America’s greatness. There comes a certain identification between Trump and America then which is similar to the identification that dictators have with their nations or movements. That is what we should be on edge about with our current situation.