Back in 2017, we offhandedly pointed out that “empathy” had become a central tenet of the atheist’s faith. This was barely blinked at, as our previous president had talked about empathy more than any other politician before him, our intersectional high priests were busy sermonizing the concept, and not a soul questioned the inherent virtue of any and all who claimed to feel it. 

It is important to take notice of these kinds of talking points, interrogate it’s  worldview, presuppositions, and definitions because (like it or not) whatever talking points the world is pounding hard will eventually find their way into the church. Naturally, a few years after empathy became the main way unbelievers could quickly signal their virtue, we now have people in the pew utilizing it in similar ways. 

Of course, by this third paragraph, we now sound like the kind of women who are against kittens, rainbows, and butterflies. But that’s the problem. We are supposed to be the kind of women who can see kittens, rainbows, and butterflies and appreciate them in their proper place. No one should be pro-kittens all the time and everywhere. A kitten on a battlefield or a busy highway is not appropriate or helpful—it’s actually rather sad. A rainbow is a symbol of both God’s wrath and His compassion. Misunderstood, a rainbow stands for perversion. Butterflies are good for looking at, but hopefully you aren’t eating them for dinner. You see? You inherently know that not all things are equal, not all things are profitable, and all things have certain uses. The misuse of things often leads to their ruin. 

And so it is with empathy. Let’s chat!