Most people can care for an ill or disabled loved one for a week on compassion alone. Some can do it for a month. A few can make it a year or two.

But when care stretches into decades, compassion stops carrying the load. Emotion fades. Circumstances grind. What remains isn’t how someone feels about a life. What remains is whether they believe that life still matters.

When a culture treats reality as optional, action becomes dangerous and courage looks reckless. Without shared moral ground, bravery itself becomes suspect.

Caregiving strips life down to essentials. It forces a question our culture prefers to keep abstract: Why does this life still have value when it costs so much to sustain it?

C.S. Lewis warned that a society cannot survive if it mocks virtue while demanding its fruits. In “The Abolition of Man,” he described “men without chests” — people trained to think and desire but not to stand. Without a formed moral center, courage collapses. Duty feels suspect. Endurance looks irrational.

Caregivers learn this in a harsh classroom.

You cannot sustain decades of care if human worth is negotiable. You cannot rise day after day to guard the vulnerable if life’s value depends on productivity, independence, improvement, or the absence of suffering. Long care requires stewardship — the conviction that a life has been entrusted to us, not evaluated by us.

I once met a man who told me he was dating a woman in a wheelchair. He spoke with genuine enthusiasm about how good it made him feel to do everything for her. He sounded animated, even proud. He talked at length about his experience, his emotions, the satisfaction he drew from being needed.

He said very little about her.

I asked how long they’d been dating.

“Two weeks,” he said, beaming.

I smiled wearily and told him, “Get back to me in two decades.”

Care that depends on how it makes us feel rarely survives once feeling fades. What endures over decades isn’t the satisfaction of being needed. It’s settled clarity about the worth of the person being cared for, independent of what the caregiver receives in return.

RELATED: Christian, what do you believe when faith stops being theoretical?

ImagineGolf via iStock/Getty Images

In that man’s excitement, everything centered on his emotions. What was missing was any recognition of her value apart from her condition — or apart from what caring for her did for him.

I didn’t hear, “I’m dating a woman,” or “I’ve met someone extraordinary.” I heard, again and again, “I’m dating a woman in a wheelchair.” The chair became the headline, not the person. He might as well have celebrated the better parking.

She had become useful to him. That’s not the same thing as being valued.

This way of thinking doesn’t stay confined to personal relationships. It scales.

The public reckoning surrounding Daniel Penny exposed it. He acted to protect others he believed were in danger — not because it felt good but because action was required. That kind of clarity now unsettles a society more comfortable with sentiment than obligation.

We claim we want people to intervene, to protect others, to act decisively when danger appears. Then someone does, and we hesitate. We second-guess. We prosecute. We distance ourselves.

We want courage but not conviction.

Lewis wouldn’t be surprised. When a culture treats reality as optional, action becomes dangerous and courage looks reckless. Responsibility suddenly feels threatening. Without shared moral ground, bravery itself becomes suspect.

Francis Schaeffer traced the path forward from that confusion. Once a culture detaches human worth from anything objective, it stops honoring life and starts managing it. Value becomes conditional. And conditions always change.

That logic now shows itself in plain view. When Gov. Kathy Hochul (D-N.Y.) pushes to legalize medical aid in dying in New York, the same fracture appears. We punish those who act as though life must be defended, while elevating leaders who treat life as something to administer and conclude.

Those aren’t separate debates. They’re the same belief, applied differently.

If life holds value only when it functions well, caregiving becomes irrational. If worth depends on autonomy, dependence becomes disposable. If suffering disqualifies, endurance becomes foolish.

And yet caregivers endure.

RELATED: Caregiving decisions begin in the bathroom

MTStock Studio via iStock/Getty Images

That clarity came back to me during a conversation on my radio show. A man described a brief illness his wife had suffered. The house fell apart. Meals became takeout. Work got missed. Romance disappeared. He sounded exhausted just recalling it.

“What carried you through?” I asked.

He paused. “I guess … love.”

“How long did this last?” I said.

“Five days.”

“I guess … love” carried him through five days.

Uncertainty can survive a week. It cannot sustain 14,000 days.

He wasn’t wrong though. Love matters. But love that sustains five days must anchor itself in something deeper to sustain 40 years.

Caregivers may begin with compassion. They endure with conviction.

A life doesn’t become less valuable because it becomes harder to carry.

Caregiving isn’t a special category of moral life. It is a concentrated version of the human condition. What sustains caregivers over time is what sustains courage, faithfulness, and duty anywhere else.

Lewis reminded us that our feelings don’t create value. They respond to it. When we reverse that order, we don’t become more compassionate. We lose our bearings.

Treating human worth as conditional may flatter our emotions. It may even make us feel noble. But it trains us to prize how we feel over the people entrusted to our care.

Over time, that trade leaves us prosecuting men like Daniel Penny while electing leaders like Kathy Hochul.

It might soothe the heart for a moment.

It cannot sustain a society.

​Caregiving, Long term care, Human dignity, Opinion & analysis, C.s. lewis, Faith, Love, Endurance 

Joel Osteen preaches a heretical prosperity gospel; Timothy Keller’s “third way” softens biblical truth for acceptability; and Rick Warren’s seeker-sensitive approach waters the gospel down into a self-help guide.

What do all three of these pastors have in common?

They “were really not preaching so much for the people in the pews but because they wanted a broader cultural acceptance from more mainstream or academic or globalist institutions,” says BlazeTV host Steve Deace. “And so they altered their approach as pastors within their own churches in order to appeal to an audience that was actually not sitting in their churches.”

While Osteen, Keller, and Warren belong to an older generation of preachers, Deace is concerned that that same hunger for approval is cropping up in younger generations of pastors who have been seduced by social media fame.

On this episode of the “Steve Deace Show,” Deace interviews senior pastor of East River Church in Ohio, Michael Foster, about how influencer culture is slowly creeping in and corroding the pulpit.

Some of these young pastors, says Deace, are “not really preaching to Michael in the third row whose marriage is on the rocks, and he’s lost the respect of his kids, and he doesn’t know how to get it back. [They’re] preaching to @dontjewmebro43 on X.”

“I’m not really preaching the gospel to him, but I’m preaching some nascent gospel applications that may or may not be adjudicated properly in order … to feed his fury, to give me the engagement that I want,” he rails, imitating these people-pleasing ministers.

Foster, who’s written several essays on this subject, says that it’s critical that pastors know their individual sheep.

“He’s got particular sheep. You see this in the New Testament when you have Paul preaching the same gospel, the same teaching, but he addresses problems in Colossae that aren’t in Corinth and problems in Corinth that aren’t in Colossae,” he says.

On the other hand, “Influencing speaks to … broad generalizations over a national level.”

“Because the influencer online social media culture is such a huge part of our lives, it is reshaping ministry right now where people are speaking to not maybe the actual issues in their church but the things that they’re hearing other people talk about in their feeds,” says Foster.

“It’s training people to not be pastors anymore, just to be talking heads, to be commentators.”

“Is there a way for you as a pastor to avoid falling into this trap without a really solid elder board and accountability in your life personally?” asks Deace.

That question, says Foster, is the equivalent of asking: “Could you ride a roller coaster without a roller coaster bar and survive it?”

There are three tips he gives to ministers that will help ensure they stay in the lane of pastor and not veer into the influencer lane:

1. Strong elders who are involved in sermons and accountability.

2. Tailor sermons toward specific congregational needs, not broad issues/topics.

3. Reject fame and notoriety if they come.

On the latter, Foster says, “You have to have an abusive relationship with celebrity as a pastor. I think you have to hate it, right? Spit in its face. If it comes back for more, well, that was its choice.”

To hear more of the conversation, watch the video above.

Want more from Steve Deace?

To enjoy more of Steve’s take on national politics, Christian worldview, and principled conservatism with a snarky twist, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Steve deace show, Steve deace, Deace, Michael foster, Christianity, Pastors, Woke pastors, Influencers, Influencer culture, Blazetv, Blaze media