Love the Sinner: Hate the Sin

Some people get all tied up in knots over this. They accuse those of us who believe this of using it to justify being unloving and uncaring toward sinners. Probably true about some people.

What is a sinner anyway?

Someone who sins.

Oh. So, everyone.

Right.

Of course.

Here's something to think about: You can't love a sinner without hating sin—all of it.

Comments

  1. This phrase is most often used when referring to homosexual behaviors. Because sexual orientation and gender identity are so irreducibly intertwined with personhood, when we "hate the sin" of how LGBT persons find sexual intimacy in relationships, but claim to "love the sinner," what gets communicated is, "I hate how you are made, but God and I love you even though you make us feel like puking." This is the kind of message that counselors call crazy making (i.e., "come here-go away" "I love you-you're disgusting").

    I wonder if many heterosexual Christians who have genuine and loving friendships with LGBT persons (within or without the church) would use the "love the...hate the..." phrase. It's just so disingenuous. I don't think that most people who say this have really considered the implications of what they are communicating. Nor do they empathize with the plight of LGBT Christians.

    What if the tables were turned? Would heterosexuals be so glib if their sexual personhood were under fire in the same way? Do heterosexuals realize how fundamentally painful it is for LGBT Christians: to choose constantly hiding in shame or risking alienation because of something so integral to one's identity as their desire for a fully intimate and loving relationship? There are very few who do not long for this kind of love.

    No catch-phrase is sufficient to speak to this kind of agony, and I hope the church stops using it altogether.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Amy, thanks for stopping by, and for sharing your convictions so frankly. I appreciate an honest and open discussion about such real issues.

    Like I said, people like me are accused of being disingenuous (ill-meaning) when we say this, but that's judging motives, which is incredibly difficult, if not impossible, for anyone but God to do. All I can say is that I personally believe that God's Word requires us to continue to use this 'mantra'. While it doesn't say it verbatim, it does explicitly affirm both statements individually, with the former being the reason for the latter (Amos 15:5; Romans 12:9, note the context in v.1). If sin is truly sin, and the wages of sin is destruction, then to not hate that sin is to hate the person, who is being destroyed by that sin.

    But that all rests on the fact of whether or not something in particular is a sin. I did not bring up the issue of homosexuality, and I recognize there is a legitimate difference of conviction on that issue among Christians. My personal conviction, backed solidly by Scripture and science, is that homo/bi/lesbian/trans-sexuality is contrary to God's design ("nature", if one wanted to call it that), and I would be happy to share the evidence to support that conviction.

    As to your suspicion that people who affirm this idea of 'love the sinner, hate the sin' are not close to LGBT-oriented people, at least I do not fit that stereotype. An immediate family member of mine (whom I will not specify) considers him or herself homosexual, and a transsexual friend attended our home church for a while. It is an issue I have wrestled through very deeply, with much anguish and many tears (as well as much study). I have not arrived at my conclusions flippantly, much less uncaringly. I deeply love both this friend as well as my family member. And I love all those to whom Christ extends love: everyone.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I know you didn't mean this only about sexual orientation or behavior. It's just that this is such a hot-button issue, and the phrase is so often used in that context.

    We both know that this is a very complex issue. Some would like to say that it's black and white, "just look at these Bible verses." But many careful scholars have come to different exegetical and hermeneutical conclusions on the matter. I've read Helminiak, Dawn, Jones and Yarhouse, Nelson, and others. I've considered many of the key texts. As you know there is no real consensus among theologians, and although I lean toward a certain reading, it would be naive to say that I've got this figured out.

    I'm curious about the scientific research you find supportive of your stance. I have access to EBSCOhost and will take a look at it. I have a particular interest in biblical anthropology and human sexuality.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I definitely don't think it's black and white, i.e. easy to arrive at an answer, when you look hard at it.

    Is there any issue on which all theologians have consensus?

    I've read the "gay hermeneutical positions" (some of the key ones), but have found them wanting. The best biological/genetic studies available, as far as I'm aware, are those by LeVay and Byne. At best, both are inconclusive, due to conflicting data, problems establishing causality vs. effect, statistically insignificant findings, the accuracy of reported sexual orientation (due in large part to the nature of such brain studies, which can only be done on deceased subjects). My ethics professor, John Feinberg, who published a text in the early 90s (Ethics for a Brave New World), is close to having an updated and revised edition on the presses. I would recommend it if it were out. :)

    ReplyDelete
  5. The LeVay work is often cited as proof that the biological theories are unsubstantiated. But these studies are quite old (early 90's), and only represent a moment in the literature. Byne, more recently, conducted follow up studies which did not confirm LeVay's results. Fair enough.

    But LeVay and Byne were looking at structural differences in dissected brains. These studies did not attempt to measure a whole array of other physiological factors that are well established as contributors to differences between people. Many studies have been conducted on the influences of intrauterine exposure to hormones and other chemicals, as well as the interaction of multiple genes, and the metagenome. There very well may be no structural differences in the brains of variantly oriented individuals. That doesn't negate the biological cause theories altogether. Many of the newer studies have significant merit.

    I am not arguing for or against one ethical position over another here. But I do feel very strongly that the church must understand the state of the research. Without well informed arguments, we risk losing any voice in the public arena, whatever the question.

    As to ethics texts, thanks for the recommendation. I'll check it out. I am currently working with Richard Hays' book The Moral Vision of the New Testament. Hays' view is not in support of the church's full acceptance of homosexual genital activity.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Perhaps "biological" is too broad a term. The biological debate really boils down to genetics.

    ReplyDelete
  7. i.e. genetics in particular is that to which LGBT's are looking to establish the "naturalness" or "God-givenness" of their orientation.

    ReplyDelete
  8. LeVay dissected brains, not genes. His research only measured one specific physiological structure. It does not speak to the question of genetics at all. He measured a specific portion of the hypothalamus, and did not claim to know how it came to be larger or smaller in certain individuals.

    Clearly, genetic inheritance and genetic expression are very complex. We don't understand exactly why certain genes are activated or expressed in certain individuals and not others. We also don't know if same-sex attraction can be linked to a specific gene, a group of genes, or an epigenetic factor. Intrauterine exposure research has produced significant results that may indicate a physiological response to the action of hormones on a developing fetus. These are already well known to affect gonadal development to the degree that some infants are born with undifferentiated or discordant genitalia.

    These questions are not even close to being answered. But, you seem to lean toward a non-physio/genetic explanation. What explanations do you personally find compelling?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hi all.
    Im new to this, but i was curious what you thought of Romans 1:21-32. I have read this author for quite some time, and while I dont fathom completely all His writings, I have never known Him to be incorrect. I realize this thinking may seem outdated with all the attempted research, but again I was just curious as to your thinking on this.

    ReplyDelete
  10. In Sanity (do we have the privilege of a name?),

    I assume you're referring to LeVay? Can you explain what you mean by "correct"? Since the results of his research were basically inconclusive (and thus maintained the status quo), are you referring to his methodology, or what?

    As to the Romans passage, one's interpretation rests on the meaning of "natural". The predominant "gay" interpretation is that "natural" refers to the sexual orientation they were born with—some being born hetero- and others homosexual—and that their sin was perverting this natural orientation by engaging in sexual behavior inconsistent with their nature. The argument assumes that some are created homo- (or perhaps bi- or trans-) sexual, but the passage does not teach this.

    The orthodox interpretation is that "natural" refers to that which is normative in creation, namely, heterosexuality. This moral normativity is distinguished from genetic-biological normativity, the latter being amoral. Three arguments suggest that Paul is saying in Romans 1 that homosexuality itself is morally contrary to nature and therefore immoral. (1) There is no scientific proof that homosexuality is caused primarily by genetic composition (i.e. a "gay" gene). (2) Even if there were supposed proof, there is no proof that Paul was aware of it, and so he could not have had it in mind when he wrote this. (3) Verse 27 eliminates the possibility of interpreting "natural" as possibly including homosexuality. Paul's argument is plainly that abandoning heterosexual relations is "shameless" and worthy of death. Then again, all sinners are worthy of death (cf. vv. 29-32), apart from justification through Christ. Back to v. 27... the contrast is clearly between hetero- and homosexual relations, rather than a condemnation of homosexual rape (or pedophilia, peterasty, etc.). The gay interpretation is thus not only improbable, it is impossible.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Let me paste the passage here so we can dialogue in concrete:

    "26 For this reason ​God gave them up to ​dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, ​men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error."

    I realize that argument (3) as it stands is begging the question. However, it is hard to avoid doing so when no explanation is necessary than "just read the verse as it stands". Paul's wording in v. 27 is not ambiguous. Let me paraphrase him: "God gave them over to shameful passions: (1) women committed homosexual acts, which are unnatural; (2) men also committed homosexual acts, which are unnatural. Both of these are morally deviant."

    ReplyDelete
  12. Levay I have never read. I was actually referring to Paul, the apostle whom I believe he was writing under the direction of the Holy Spirit when he wrote this.
    By "correct" it means right to me. As the word "incorrect" would mean wrong.
    I must confess I don't understand the "gay" issue. I hear one argument that its normal, and a gay person is born that way. I hear another that they are victims of flawed genetics. And then I hear they are morally deficient, as far as one person who told me he believed they are taken over by a perverse spirit.
    It was never an issue I took much notice too until it began to be pushed upon myself, and my family, and if we did not condone it we were then deemed to be "intolerant bigots".
    Thus the teaching in school that its "normal" and that our children need to be taught its totally acceptable so they wont carry on all the "hatred and misguided prejudice" to the next generation".
    We are told to love the sinner, and I believe in that. But it has become blurred that this is even a sin? God says it is, I believe He goes as far as to call it an "abomination". Paul does not seem to be accepting of the behavior either. And I am a person who loves Jesus with all my heart, loves people as much as i can for the most part. But I feel like God has made it plain, this is not something He accepts. Amy wrote "I hate how you are made, but God and I love you even though you make us feel like puking" I see Paul saying they were not made that way, this is a choice that has been made and a consequence to poor decisions. As I read further into Romans, Paul seems to say that because they rejected God, they were given up to the lusts of their own heart, because they gave up the truth for a lie.
    Dare I even say it, could this actually be a curse?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Yes and no. Romans 1 (as elsewhere in both the OT and NT) teaches that God "gives people over" to their sins, to be judged (punished) by them. He doesn't initiate the sin, but makes sure people suffer the consequences of their sin, lest He be mocked (Gal 6:7). This brings me back to THE point of my original post: we cannot love others without hating that which leads to their ruin, and deterring them from it. Sin ruins us, both in this life and the next one. God is, in fact, doing kindness (hesed) to sinners when he allows them to suffer the temporal, material consequences of their sin so that they will see the foreshadow of the eternal, spiritual consequences of separation from God, and repent and be saved. This truth is illustrated in the parent-child relationship: a good parent allows his or her children to suffer (and therefore learn from) the consequences of their mistakes when the stakes are relatively small, to dissuade them from erring when the stakes are much more serious. (Of course, many parents foolishly shield their children from the consequences of their missteps, and do so to their detriment.)

    ReplyDelete
  14. So if we truly love them, would we not encourage them to stop their sin. Also does the bible not teach us that if we condone the sin, and we choose not confront the brother and sister whom we claim to love, then we are guilty also of their sin?
    Sometimes I worry that we have come so far in our modern day wisdom and intellectual ideas that it is we who have forsaken the truth for a lie. Maybe thats why the bible speaks about men being lovers of themselves in the last days, because living in the truth we may find too difficult.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Indeed, we would.

    Everyone must answer to God for their own sin, but we as God's people must answer to Him for causing others to stumble or failing to help them avoid it if we have the opportunity to do so (Rom 14:13, 19-21; 1 Cor 8:9, 12-13; Matt 18:6; Mark 9:42; Luke 17:1-3).

    ReplyDelete
  16. I was away from this conversation for a while, working on other things.

    I am still wondering what you, Beloved, think the etiology of homoerotic attraction is.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Sorry to leave you hanging.

    I have to admit that my study and thinking has focused primarily on (a) the biblical data, and (b) defending the biblical view against contrary assertions. IF my understanding of Scripture's teaching on homosexuality is accurate, and if I hold that the Bible is the inerrant and infallible Word of God, then I have to view any alleged scientific, psychological, sociological, etc. evidence to the contrary as flawed. And since I believe my exegesis of the biblical passages dealing with homosexuality is correct, and believe the Bible to be the Word of God, I have not made a very rigorous effort to read the various studies, outside of my brief stint of intercultural communication theory and Christian ethics course reading. I say that to say, I'm afraid I will be putting up a straw man by stating what I believe to be the cause(s) of homosexual orientation.

    With that admission, here's my thesis:

    (I) Homosexual orientation is contrary to God's design.
    (II) H.O. is the result of a combination of genetic, biological and/or sociological factors in interplay.
    (III) Any genetic factors contributing to H.O. are the result of genetic mutation.
    (IV) Such mutation, insofar as it occurs, is the result of sin's corrupting effect on creation, and thus not part of God's design.
    (V) God is not responsible for that which he has not designed.
    (VI) God is not responsible for anyone's H.O.

    Expanding on point (II), I think H.O. happens differently for different people. The key to me is the interaction of biological-psychological tendencies with sociological phenomena. E.g. a boy is born with lesser levels of testosterone, and so is less masculine; he is treated differently by men and so is affected psychologically (fear of men and disdain for masculinity). Or perhaps children are born more or less biologically equal and social environmental factors influence their psychological development, leading to H.O.

    What about studies which seem to contradict these ideas? I have to believe there is more to the story than is known, or at least disclosed. Science is not infallible.

    I realize this is a rather argumentation, but it's all I can muster at the moment. :)

    ReplyDelete
  18. *clumsy argument, I meant to say.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Thanks for hanging in on the conversations. I know that it can seem like we are beating a dead horse on this topic, but I don't think the horse is quite dead yet :)

    I appreciate that you stated your position so succinctly. I'll try to do the same (if I can).

    1) God is our ultimate authority.

    2) The Bible is the word of God which never fails.

    3) Exegetical and hermeneutical efforts, on the other hand, are subject to failure.

    4) Faithful Christians come to very different conclusions regarding the key texts, and there are legitimate challenges to all sides of this question. I respect those who do thoughtful reflection, and solid exploration of the scripture, and still disagree.

    5) Science doesn't trump the Bible, but we must reconsider our assumptions when science offers a preponderance of evidence contrary to our understanding about biblical truth (have we forgotten Galileo?).

    6) Sexual orientation (SO) and gender identity (GI) are not the same thing. Feminine men can be heterosexually oriented, as can masculine women. Homosexually oriented people very often have strong gender identities that are consistent with their genitalia.

    7) Numerous studies show that parenting, trauma, and family structure are clearly not the cause of SO and GI. What is also clear is that both SO and GI are established very early in life and most typically predate sexual experimentation and exposure. Most often, they are evident to the individual (and very often, their families) before puberty.

    8) Theories about male role models or masculine identification are neither biblically nor scientifically supported. They are rooted in Freudian psychology.

    There is a great deal more about human sexuality than most Christians are willing to learn. I don't think a productive conversation can occur with the world, and amongst ourselves, until Christians understand the evidence they claim to refute. We can't stand on "that's the way we've always thought and that makes it so" when faced with contrary evidence.

    If we don't know what the questions are, how can we engage in meaningful dialogue with the world?

    But, I'd say we've gotten pretty far afield. My original comment was regarding the appropriateness of using the phrase "Love the sinner. Hate the sin." Regardless of what "the church" believes about SO, we have to ask ourselves "How will this message be received?"

    If the message is intended for the church, as teaching, it is probably fine in most cases.

    If the message is used publicly, as a statement to the culture at large, it is probably offensive in most cases. I stand by my previous interpretation, as a way that it would be heard by someone outside the church (who is neither bound nor defined by church standards).

    Even if I think that homoerotic behavior is wrong, I don't think this is the best slogan to extend hospitality to the world.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Well said! I'm completely agreed about the public image we (the church) portray. I do wonder if the public pressure and media spin bring the worst out of us. It seems we are on the defensive... and we really are, on a number of fronts, particularly with regard to morality. It's hard to keep faith convictions "in house" when matters of moral public policy making are at stake in a democratic-republican government, and I think that's where the "culture war" friction has occurred. I don't believe Christians can be disciples of Jesus and citizens of Rome while keeping their moral convictions to themselves, particularly when they believe that immorality leads to suffering, not just for the individuals sinning, but those whose lives are affected by their sin (which is many).

    My motivation for blogging on this issue is that I do not believe Christians are united in their stand for holiness, against sin, for the good of humanity. Too many Christians sensitive to the feelings and impressions of unbelievers (and we should be sensitive) have condemned the rest of us who have taken a stand for morality and against immorality. It needs to be clear inside the church which behavior is sinful, and that such behavior must be conformed to God's image and design. Right now, that's not clear, and unfortunately our national (and even global) "in house" dialogues about these issues is front page news. Our dirty laundry is out for everyone to see and smell.

    So if you are convicted that reform needs to happen within the church in order to be the best good to society at large, I'm right on board with that. It's when entire denominations start going morally awry that things start getting scary.

    One last comment re: the "biblicalness" of homosexuality. I don't think comparing non-moral scientific breakthroughs (e.g. Galileo) to moral ones is fair. The Bible does not pretend to be a science textbook... it does present itself as an absolute authority on morality. The question we have to ask concerning each moral issue is, Will there ever be universal consensus on any issue? If all of us have to keep quiet until that happens, we will never speak out on any issue, because it won't ever happen. We can't all be forced to devote our lives to studying the sciences relating to SO and GI, and we have to make moral decisions in the meantime. Should we remain open to having our views reformed? Certainly. But to truly engage the debate in a manner consistent with what you're suggesting simply is not feasible for 99% of Christians. All of us have to exercise discernment with limited information, all the time. We have to make concrete decisions with less than all there is to know about a particular situation. That's why God gives us the Holy Spirit in addition to the Scriptures, tradition, and reason. The burden of proof rests on the unorthodox, i.e. untraditional. Certainly some Christians should devote themselves to the scientifically complex study revolving around the present debate, but until orthodox Christian scholars (scientists, ethicists, and theologians) come to a relative consensus to the contrary, we must continue to affirm and espouse orthodox convictions.

    Thanks again for your kind tone and thoughtful dialogue. It's a breath of fresh air.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular Posts