The Tender Mercies of the Wicked: The Rise of the Cult of “Niceness”

A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast: but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel.
– Proverbs 12:10

The decline of traditional Christian morality has steadily accelerated over the past several decades, and with its decline the cult of niceness has emerged triumphant. As a veteran of many cyber battles on Facebook and elsewhere, I can attest to the extent to which the concept of niceness has become entrenched. A major objection often raised against Kinism is that our beliefs don’t flow from the fruit of Christian compassion or charity. Our hearts are said to be full of hatred against others who are not like us. To put it simply, we aren’t nice like Jesus. This contemporary Christian dedication to niceness has taken some interesting twists along the way, as the concept has taken us down paths no one would have imagined even just decades ago. Recently, purportedly conservative Christians have via niceness endorsed Hillary Clinton and the mass importation of Muslim “refugees” from the Middle East.

Blogger Shannon Dingle provides us an example of “pro-life” Christian support for Hillary. Dingle is an evangelicuck self-described addict of Netflix who boasts that she is a “mama to 6 kids from 3 continents.” This is her way of saying that her family is far more “vibrant” than our boring, all-white families. Her Twitter account betrays her leftist inclinations as she shills for the terrorist organization Black Lives Matter and brags about being a race traitor to whites. Recently Dingle published a post on her blog asserting that she is unequivocally pro-life but intends on voting for über pro-abortion advocate Hillary.¹ She correctly notes that Republicans have accomplished very little on the abortion front since the infamous Roe v. Wade decision in 1973, and that Donald Trump’s particular pro-life bona fides have been relatively weak until recently.

Dingle argues that Republicans have “opposed or even stalled measures that could prevent abortions by targeting the underlying causes, like poverty, education, lack of access to healthcare, and supports for single parent and low-income families.” Dingle’s logic and grasp of abortion are questionable to this point, but the question naturally arises: why won’t she just vote for a third-party candidate or abstain from voting altogether? These are certainly viable options, so why support an obviously pro-abortion candidate? Dingle lists ten reasons why voting for Clinton is actually itself “pro-life,” the basic arguments all being fundamentally at odds with Christian justice and morality.

Dingle argues that while Hillary is unfortunately deficient on the issue of abortion, she is better for the lives of virtually every other demographic, as she has “solid and clear stances on women’s issues,” and her official positions align well with Dingle’s. Of course, Hillary’s platform is entirely at odds with the Christian worldview, and prominently includes her support for abortion as well as the mythical gender wage gap. Dingle uses the same egalitarian reasoning to support Clinton on issues for racial and ethnic minorities. The underlying assumption is that every country must extend the same rights and privileges to everyone regardless of race, whereas the Bible teaches that while justice ought to be extended to everyone, certain civil privileges are indeed restricted to the ethnic natives of the nation.

Dingle defends Hillary for protecting “religious minorities,” which translates into non-Christian religions. Her reasoning is painfully anti-Christian without any reference to biblical teaching whatsoever. Dingle calls “religious liberty” a “foundational principle” for America, which ignores the actual history behind the intent of the First Amendment. Dingle also argues, “We can’t pick and choose which religions we want to protect” without marshaling any biblical support for her position at all – because none exists. Dingle simply accepts our modern secularist notions of society without ever questioning her own presuppositions. The same applies to Dingle’s comments on sodomy. She asserts that lack of support or acceptance of sodomy leads sodomites to commit suicide at high rates, supports Obergefell v. Hodges which enshrined sodomite “marriage” as a constitutional right, and also opposes state laws like North Carolina’s House Bill 2 that would restrict bathroom usage to one’s biological sex. Completely absent is any thoughtful reflection on the biblical teaching of sodomy, because the Bible and Christian doctrine don’t factor into Dingle’s morality. Not to mention she ignores research evidencing that sodomy is incredibly unhealthy, not demonstrably heritable, and associated with perverse behaviors such as pedophilia.

Dingle thinks liberal social programs reducing poverty will reduce abortions, holding that women “don’t have abortions for fun,” with abortion-seekers doing so because “they feel like they don’t have other options.” Again, this is all without any attempt to justify her position by appealing to what God has revealed regarding Christian justice. Very few abortions are performed for cases of rape or incest, so the overwhelming majority of abortions are performed as babies conceived through consensual sex. The Bible clearly condemns fornication, and it should be no surprise that fornication comes with unpleasant consequences. Yet Dingle provides no hint that these women did something wrong and must own the consequences of their actions. This would be unloving, according to the modern cult of niceness. Instead she treats abortion as though it is a legitimate, albeit undesirable, option for women who find themselves pregnant as the result of their actions. This is a popular opinion, as indicated by the public outcry against Donald Trump for suggesting that women who procure abortions would be punished in some capacity if and when they become illegal.

The suggestion for welfare and other aid programs is tantamount to rewarding sinful behavior. There is no biblical basis for the government supporting people who make themselves dependent due to their own irresponsibility. This places an unjust burden on productive members of society. This is not to say that women in these circumstances cannot be helped through private acts of charity. Indeed, situations such as unplanned pregnancies afford an opportunity for Christians to render aid, especially when this occurs to those of their own household (1 Tim. 5:8) and preach the Gospel message of repentance and forgiveness (Lk. 24:47). But it isn’t acceptable to hold women accountable for their irresponsible choices. We are told that women with unplanned pregnancies are simply the victims of evil men who seduced them. To be sure, men who seduce women are indeed evil, but both men and women who fornicate are to be held responsible for the consequences of their actions. Dingle insists that women who choose to kill their unborn children feel as though they are out of options.

This may be true in some cases, but the idea that they truly have zero other options is obviously false. In fact many women who have abortions express no regrets about the wicked decision that they made, and have publicly boasted about their sin as a means of drawing attention to themselves. The diminished stigma of abortion has led some women, such as Josie Cunningham, to have an abortion simply to pursue fame and personal gratification. While this is certainly not true of all or even most abortions, many women choose to have an abortion for reasons falling far short of sheer desperation. Many women make this decision in order to advance their career, which further removes women from their calling as homemaker (Titus 2:5) and nurturer of children (1 Tim. 5:10). Dingle states that she “believes the best anti-abortion policies prevent abortions rather than ban them,” which confirms how lowly Dingle esteems the Bible’s teaching on murder. The Bible clearly teaches that no one has a right to resort to murdering an innocent person under any circumstances, and the civil government has the responsibility to prohibit and punish the act of murder. This means that Dingle either does not consider abortion to be murder (which is simply untenable) or outright disregards biblical teaching on this foundational moral issue altogether.

Her reasoning that the liberal welfare state is compassionate also demonstrates her ignorance of both biblical teaching and the actual results that the welfare state achieves.² I am no anarcho-capitalist or libertarian, as charity to the poor is important for the maintenance of any healthy society. Charity should be extended by churches, guilds, philanthropic organizations, and private individuals rather than the government. The reason for this is the virtual inevitability that the government will use taxpayer funding for social engineering and fostering dependency. Our country’s welfare and entitlements programs contradict the clear biblical teaching that those who do not work also should not eat (2 Thes. 3:10). Contrary to this, Dingle suggests that welfare helps to prevent abortion by providing aid to women who have conceived out of wedlock and cannot provide for additional children. This amounts to the redistribution of wealth from responsible, productive families to reward irresponsible people without any requirements for repentance. Studies indicate that welfare increases crime and illegitimacy, and thus that the circumstances which bring about abortions are increased rather than decreased by the welfare state. Instead of helping the problems caused by out-of-wedlock pregnancies, the welfare state has exacerbated these problems by masking the consequences of fornication without addressing the underlying moral problem.

Dingle predictably advocates for the “lives of refugees” and the “lives of racial and ethnic minorities.” Dingle insists that opposition to immigrants and refugees is from “some filtered negative videos on a biased website” that are simply based on the worst representatives from these various demographics. We are to believe, as we are so often told, that not all Muslims condone violence against non-Muslims, not all Muslims treat women like dirt, etc. The suggestion that Christians ought to support the relocation of non-white and Muslim “refugees” into our countries is being championed by many mainstream Christian outposts.

Craig Greenfield has argued that Christians are obligated to welcome Muslims to their countries, stating that Jesus commands us to take in strangers or foreigners, and never qualifies this requirement by limiting it to Christians (Matt. 25:35). Later on Greenfield also cites Deut. 10:17-18, which speaks of God extending justice to the sojourner. Greenfield states, “Jesus calls us to set aside our tribalism” and cites Jesus’s examples of Naaman the Syrian and the widow of Zarephath in Sidon as evidence that God blesses members of every tribe, not just our own. Greenfield draws an analogy between the “refugees” flooding the West today and the family of Jesus, Joseph, and Mary who sought refuge from Herod in Egypt. He insists that only a tiny percentage of Muslims are involved with the terrorist group ISIS, and cites Jesus’s call to love our enemies (Matt. 5:43-45). Finally, Greenfield reassures his readers that following Jesus is costly and that bringing hordes of Muslims into the West is leading many Muslims and Christians to Jesus.³

Greenfield engages in appallingly bad exegesis. Biblical injunctions to love strangers and treat them justly must be understood in their proper context, and the difference between strangers or sojourners in the biblical sense and the hordes of Muslims pouring into the West cannot be understated. A biblical sojourner is essentially a guest, someone who is residing in a country by permission and who agrees to live peacefully and in accordance with the laws of the host country. Sojourners were required to at least outwardly conform to the Law (Lev. 18:26), and including the prohibition of worshiping false gods (Ex. 22:20). There is no basis to insist that Christian nations are required to accept scores of non-Christians who insist on their “right” to worship the false god of Islam. This consideration by itself demonstrates that biblical injunctions to love strangers or foreigners have nothing to do with accepting hostile non-Christians into a nation’s body politic. Joseph, Mary, and Jesus were precisely the kind of sojourners that the Bible speaks of in passages enjoining compassion and justice for strangers. The holy family fled the murderous designs of wicked King Herod and stayed in Egypt temporarily until it was safe to return home. The difference between the holy family and the modern torrent of Muslims entering the West could not be starker.

Greenfield’s citation of Jesus’s teaching to love our enemies in Matt. 5:43-45 is also problematic. H.A. Scott Trask provides helpful commentary: “Christ’s commandment that Christians should ‘love their enemies’ sounds in English like a radical, all-embracing injunction that would do away with ethnic or national differences. Greek, however, distinguishes between personal enemies and foreign enemies. It has three words for enemy: polemios (a foreign enemy), agonistes (a competitor or rival), and echthros (a private enemy; literally, one whom you hate). When Christ commands Christians to ‘love their enemies’ (Matthew 5:44; Luke 6:27, 35), he uses the word for one’s private enemy, that is to say someone with whom a Christian has quarreled. Never is this injunction applied to foreign enemies, the enemies of one’s people.” The enemies that Christ is discussing cannot be applied to the practitioners of a religion that pose an existential threat to God’s people.

Greenfield’s assertion that “Jesus calls us to set aside our tribalism” is unsupportable by Scripture. The fact that Jesus and the prophets showed compassion and mercy to non-Israelites is in no way analogous to a country importing hundreds of thousands or millions of ostensibly hostile foreigners. Greenfield likens the hardships suffered by the importation of Muslims into the West to the difficulties of living the Christian life. This comparison is perhaps the most asinine of the reasons Greenfield gives for accepting Muslims into the West. The recent resettlement of Muslims in the West has resulted in unspeakable atrocities, such as the attacks on major cities throughout Europe. The influx of Muslims into Europe has also brought about a massive surge in rape, with European politicians doing nothing to protect their people. Social media has attempted to censor any criticism of Muslim migrants as they spread their terror across Europe. Many sane critics of Europe’s resettlement policies have warned that this crisis will soon come to the United States in full force, as politicians in both major political parties support Muslim and non-white immigration to the West. In fact the United States has already experienced the “vibrancy” of Muslim immigration in Twin Falls, Idaho, where a five-year-old disabled girl was gang-raped by Muslim “refugees.” Instead of receiving the swift justice that they deserve, the parents of this girl have been betrayed by the police and media, who have protected the Muslim perpetrators and blamed the victim’s family. This is especially heinous considering that the girl’s father witnessed a video recording made by his daughter’s attackers.

There is no question that such attacks will continue as Muslim immigration continues untrammeled. It is unconscionable that Christians such as Greenfield could suggest that we ought to accept this as part of the trials of being a Christian. This takes us to the heart of Proverbs 12:10 when it informs us that the mercy of the wicked is cruel. Christians who advocate for the toleration of abortion out of “compassion” for women are promoting, or at the very least tolerating, cruelty towards unborn children. Similarly, when Christians advocate the mass migration of Muslims and other non-Christians into the West, they are being cruelly indifferent to the suffering of the victims of rape and murder. The same applies to a host of other cases involving leftist “compassion.” A central trait of liberal compassion is that results don’t matter. The growth of the welfare state over the past several decades has not decreased poverty, but augmented it. The leftist ideologue never pauses to question the underlying premises of his – or in many cases her – political beliefs; instead this is interpreted as evidence that the welfare state requires even more funding and expansion. In many cases liberals simply do not care; the fact that they feel like they are helping people is enough to satisfy them.⁴

When Kinists oppose the anti-Christian zeitgeist of our time, we are often condemned by Christians for our purportedly hateful or prideful attitudes. Christians like Shannon Dingle, Rachel Held Evans, and Eric Sapp have bought into a worldly understanding of compassion, mercy, and kindness that has rendered misery, suffering, and ruination to the masses. Support for the socialistic welfare state has fostered a system of dependency that rewards slothfulness, fornication, and illegitimacy. Toleration for abortion has resulted in the brutal murder of millions of unborn children. The campaign against “racism” has resulted in violence and hostility towards whites. All of this is defended by secularists, humanists, and (all too often) Christians in the name of being nice. The solution is for Christians to rediscover God’s eternal law as essential for understanding the true nature of love and compassion. The Apostle Paul himself tells us that love is the fulfilling of the law (Rom. 13:8-10; Gal. 5:14; cf. Jas. 2:8). Christians who reject these unchanging principles of justice, or who pretend that mercy is opposed to justice, have embraced what King Solomon called the mercy of the wicked. This “mercy” is cruel because of what it does to the innocent. Unjust compassion extended to the wicked devalues the injustice suffered by the innocent and encourages further wickedness when sinners and criminals are shielded from the consequences of their actions (Eccl. 8:11). Next time someone accuses you of being hateful or just plain not nice for your views, remind them of the consequences of the views and policies they espouse and the meaning of true compassion.

Tweet