A challenge for us all, why is it easier to fight than to love?

JD Trout says we must be our brother’s keeper.

The Loyola University philosopher is leading charges that “empathetic politics” will narrow the gap between rich and poor. Trout agrees with the current sentiment that the United States government has an “empathy deficit” and he wrote a book called The empathy gap calling us to a new era of empathy. He writes a blog called “The greatest good” this calls for things like putting more supermarkets in poor neighborhoods.

Oh, and he hasn’t spoken to his brother in about six years.

Trout’s view on brothers’ love was explored in a brief but precise interview in New York Times Magazine. In his interview, Trout advocates for a social policy in which Americans move away from the “hedonic vomitorium” of consumerism and toward a new commitment towards others.

What is the role of the church?

When asked why his book says nothing about the role of churches in caring for the poor, Trout responds: “The concerns addressed in the book – improving education, health care, livelihood above the poverty line – are too important to be left to the appellant. thank you for the charity. »But then the interview takes a personal turn.

Journalist Deborah Solomon asks the empathetic philosopher if he is her possess guardian of her brother, and specifies that she understands her real brother well. Trout admits he hasn’t spoken to his brother in years.

This answer is revealing, but not because of the particular details of the story. Trout’s brother looks like a horrible guy. He owns strip clubs and the philosopher (rightly) disapproves of how it treats women. The brother also didn’t want to come when Trout got home from college (too busy at the bars). What is telling is how the philosopher dismisses what appears to be his own lack of fraternity attire close to home, and what he indicates about the fact that we can all so easily do exactly the same thing.

Trout says his estrangement from his brother isn’t a big deal, even though he’s a national spokesman for empathy.

“In the biblical standard, I don’t read ‘brother’ to mean your blood brother,” he explains. “We have an obligation to give as many people as possible the opportunity to succeed, whether they are your own children or children otherwise invisible to you.”

It’s easy to shrug our shoulders and dismiss this “national spokesperson” as a hypocrite. But before that, notice one of the strategies of hypocrisy, because we are all vulnerable. Trout does not reject the idea of ​​love and brotherhood. It is difficult for him to do this because these concepts are ingrained in his consciousness (Romans 2:12-16).

We are all vulnerable: we “struggle” to love the invisible rather than to love the visible.

Instead, he “fights” for love and empathy, but frames that as advocacy for government programs, not personal, local relationships back home. He is able to gain the felt experience of loving his brother by pleading for people who are “invisible” to him.

It certainly helps to love invisible people.

This is the reason why we often struggle in “The Family” by neglecting our children.

This is why another “fight” for “social justice” by “raising awareness” to the “Poor” while judging his friends for the fashion of their clothes.

And that’s why one pontificates “The Church” by rolling their eyes to the people in one’s current congregation.

“Family” never shows up unexpectedly for Thanksgiving, criticizes your spouse, or spills chocolate milk on your carpet; only real families can do it.

“The Poor” don’t show up drunk for the interview you have scheduled, spend the money you gave them on lottery tickets, or tell you they hate you; only the truly poor can do it.

“The Church” never approves of my position in a congregational business meeting, puts together an embarrassing Easter musical, or asks me to help clean toilets during the holidays Bible School next week; only true churches can do this.

What happens when “family”, “poor” and “church” remain abstract?

As long as “The Family,” “The Poor,” or “The Church” are abstract concepts, as long as my interaction is as distant as government policy, they can be whatever I want them to be.

The Spirit warns us of this. Jesus challenged the Pharisees to “fight for” God’s law while ignoring their financial obligations to their parents, all under the guise of their religious defense (Mark 7:10-12). The apostle Paul tells us that a man who “does not provide for his family and especially for the members of his household” has “denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Tim 5:9).

And James, in particular, shows us the difference between “fighting” for a cause and loving people. “If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them what the body needs, what good does that do? does it serve? (James 2:15-16).

“Be warmed and fulfilled” is a plea; “Coming in here” is love.

Do not mistake yourself. I am for government policies aimed at protecting the family and caring for the poor. JD Trout probably has a lot of good ideas on how to do some of these things. I am for mission activity for people I will never see or know But I have to remember that it is much easier to “fight” for such things than to love these people, the ones God has placed around me in my house, my neighborhood and my church.

The truth is that, aside from the transformative power of Christ, we are all something of an expert in empathy. We want to live by our personal motto: “I am my brother’s keeper (some restrictions apply).”

Photo credit: © Unsplash / Timon-Studler