Why Conservative Christians Hate Compassion

In recent years, conservative Christian voices have been on a tear, decrying compassion as a threat to traditional Christian values. The argument is that compassion—especially when it extends to marginalized groups—gives progressive Christians leverage to dismantle conservative moral teachings. This can be seen in numerous examples. For instance, whole entries on “The Enticing Sin of Empathy: How Satan Corrupts Through Compassion” at the John Piper blog, and more recently, conservative writer Allie Beth Stuckey’s book Toxic Empathy: How Progressives Exploit Christian Compassion argues that compassion has been hijacked by progressives to advance a leftist agenda. At the root of this backlash lies something far simpler than theological analysis: homophobia.

Conservative Christians have long clung to a rigid interpretation of sexuality and gender, and the concept of compassion is seen as a danger to those convictions. If Christians begin showing compassion toward LGBTQ+ individuals or acknowledging their gender identities, they fear it might "soften" their stance on these issues, potentially unraveling their deeply held beliefs about marriage, sexuality, and the "natural order" of creation. These voices, rather than questioning their positions in light of Christ’s teachings, are bent on preserving an old, often exclusionary moral code.

This fear-based argument against compassion often comes cloaked in theological language. Some conservatives might argue that empathy and compassion undermine God’s order of creation—namely, that gender and sexual orientation are divinely designed and immutable. If we extend compassion to those who violate this supposed divine order, it implies that we are validating their choices, which, for these conservative Christians, amounts to the moral collapse of society.

The Weaponization of Compassion: Homophobia in Disguise

The debate about compassion, however, isn’t really about the nature of Christian theology or whether compassion can be reconciled with biblical truth. It’s more about control. The attack on compassion is an effort to bolster bigoted views about same-gender love by stripping away any Christian principles that might encourage understanding or empathy. At its core, this is a defense of a worldview that equates compassion with weakness, a worldview that sees empathy as enabling what they perceive to be moral and spiritual decay. 

The rise of identity politics, especially around LGBTQ+ issues, has made this battle even more pronounced. Conservative Christians feel that their world—and their church—is changing, and their theology has been reshaped not by Scripture, but by secular political forces. As the corporate world has increasingly embraced diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, conservative voices see this as a threat not just to their social order, but to their theological positions as well. There’s a very real concern that compassion for marginalized groups, especially in the context of DEI, may lead to a radical shift in social structures, and, by extension, in the church’s own teachings on moral behavior.

This fear—this crisis of identity—is manifesting itself across multiple sectors of society. Conservative Christians are pushing back, not just against secular forces, but against what they believe to be a weakening of Christian moral foundations. Rather than adapting their theology to engage a changing world, they are doubling down on a static interpretation of Scripture that seeks to preserve an outdated cultural norm. The result? Compassion and empathy are painted as compromises or, worse, as tools of ideological warfare.

The Conservative Christian Argument: A War Against Compassion

The backlash against compassion is, in part, a cultural and theological war. Conservative Christians—particularly those in the public sphere—often present themselves as defending Christian values against what they perceive as the tide of secularism or left-wing ideology. They argue that if Christians embrace diversity, equity, and inclusion, it will inevitably lead to the collapse of traditional gender roles, marriage, and, ultimately, Christian moral teachings. It is a zero-sum view: to embrace compassion is to risk losing what they see as core, non-negotiable truths about creation and human nature.

But this isn’t really about preserving Christianity. It’s about an attempt to preserve a particular reading of Christianity that is bound to specific, cultural values—values that have more to do with preserving power and social dominance than with adhering to the actual teachings of Jesus Christ. Jesus was, after all, the embodiment of a very radical kind of compassion, and his life, death, and resurrection offer a radically different approach to human flourishing than what is often espoused by conservative culture warriors today.

The Radical Compassion of Jesus

One of the most significant aspects of Jesus' ministry was his boundary-crossing compassion. His actions constantly challenged the social, political, and religious boundaries of his time. He healed the sick, spoke to the marginalized, and welcomed sinners and outcasts. When we look at the Gospels, it’s clear that empathy and compassion weren’t just abstract theological concepts for Jesus—they were practices that defined his relationship with the world. This is a compassion that extended not only to individuals but also to entire communities that were oppressed and marginalized by the powerful institutions of the time. It’s rather hard to find anywhere where Jesus saw his primary function (I know this is anachronistically framed, but just so try it out) as “defending Judeo-Christian values.”

A robust Christian understanding of compassion and empathy is not about enabling sin, but about acknowledging the inherent dignity of all people, regardless of their background, identity, or orientation. As feminist biblical scholar Catherine Keller notes, “compassion does not ask whether the other deserves it but whether one can extend love across the boundaries of fear and exclusion.”

Compassion, Empathy, and Diversity: A Biblical View

Compassion and empathy are deeply rooted in the Christian tradition. The Apostle Paul, for instance, writes repeatedly about the importance of empathy within the Christian community. In Romans 12:15, Paul encourages believers to “Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep.” This is empathy in action: the call to share in the emotional and physical lives of others, particularly those who are suffering. In Ephesians 4:32, Paul emphasizes kindness, tenderheartedness, and forgiveness—again, virtues rooted in deep empathy.

Moreover, the early church, as described in Acts 2, was marked by a radical form of communal living where diversity was not just accepted but celebrated. The church was composed of Jews and Gentiles, slaves and free, men and women—creating a mosaic of diversity that challenged the cultural norms of the time. The message of the Gospel was one of radical inclusivity, a vision that stands in stark contrast to the exclusive, fear-driven conservatism that often dominates today's debates around sexuality and identity.

It is important to note that Christian compassion is not passive nor does it mean enabling harmful behavior. Instead, it is about creating space for truth-telling in love. Compassion doesn’t endorse everything a person does or believes, but it does affirm their intrinsic worth as an image-bearer of God. As Nadia Bolz-Weber said once in a sermon (I think), “Compassion doesn’t mean you agree with someone; it means you see them as they are.”

Biblical Scholars and Global Perspectives on Compassion

Looking beyond Western theology, global feminist theologians have offered a profound rethinking of compassion. Scholars like Kwok Pui-lan have emphasized the importance of “compassionate solidarity” in the face of global oppression, calling Christians to identify with the marginalized and oppressed—whether they are women, people of color, or LGBTQ+ individuals. This solidarity is rooted in the biblical command to “love your neighbor as yourself,” which transcends cultural boundaries and calls for a profound, self-giving love that challenges societal norms.

Compassion, in the context of global theology, is not about sentimentality or empty gestures. It is about actively working toward justice and the flourishing of others. This view of compassion requires confronting difficult truths, especially regarding systemic oppression. It challenges conservative Christians to ask whether their theological stances align with the compassion of Christ, or whether they are more aligned with cultural values that uphold injustice and exclusion.

All of this reflection does make me ponder some of the ways the conservative attack on compassion may highlight issues on the left. One book I read last year highlights the issue, although I’ve sometimes struggled to recommend it because I’ve worried about being canceled for even mentioning it…

In The Morning After the Revolution, Nellie Bowles critically examines the contradictions and unintended consequences of progressive movements, especially regarding "woke" culture and identity politics. Bowles argues that while these movements have successfully highlighted issues of race, gender, and power, they often become self-defeating, with ideological purity and groupthink stifling debate and alienating potential allies. She critiques the overemphasis on identity politics, suggesting that focusing too narrowly on group identities can fragment coalitions, create divisions, and breed resentment even among those who share broader goals. Bowles also tackles the dangers of cancel culture, which she believes has shifted from holding powerful figures accountable to punishing individuals for minor infractions, ultimately fostering fear, resentment, and a toxic atmosphere that undermines solidarity and free speech.

Bowles' broader argument calls for a more inclusive and pragmatic form of progressivism, one that prioritizes open dialogue, broad-based solidarity, and a willingness to engage with diverse viewpoints. She warns that the left risks overcomplicating its objectives by policing behavior and speech in ways that alienate rather than empower, ultimately weakening the movement. Instead of prioritizing ideological purity or seeking to silence dissent, Bowles advocates for a more forgiving, flexible approach that can unite people across differences and ensure that progress remains focused on real-world outcomes. Through this critique, Bowles urges the left to reconsider its strategies and avoid alienating those who could be its strongest allies.

I guess in this sense, you could say Bowles is offering a critique of the left that invites the left to show compassion and empathy internally.

—

For a theatrical consideration of the power of empathy and compassion against competing ideologies, see Conclave. A scene mid-movie between the cardinal from Kabul and the arch-conservative cardinal from Italy is a rich theological depiction of the point raised in this post.