A local Christian talk show host has a blog. Recently he wrote about a topic which he also discussed on the air a few days later. The repetition got me thinking.
His point was that Jesus died for everyone, so we shouldn't hate anyone. His point is well taken. I cannot imagine how a Christian can be overheard saying, "I hate ___" where the blank is filled in with anything from atheists to Muslims to homosexuals to whatever pet heretics you might care to mention. How that correlates to "love your neighbor as yourself" doesn't work in my mind at all. I agreed with Andrew 100% on that thought.
But he expanded on the idea and I had difficulties with it. He used terms like "exclude" and "judge" as synonyms for "hate" -- you know, like so many others do. The truth is that these are not synonyms. The truth, in fact, is that if you use them as synonyms, you run into biblical problems.
We are commanded to love our neighbors. That is a command to love the people with whom we come in contact. Shorten that. That is a command to love ... people. There is a fundamental difference between loving people and loving what they do or what they think. There is a distinction between people themselves and their actions and thoughts. In our basic lives, we really don't have a problem with that concept. Parents, for instance, understand that they love their children, but don't love everything their children do. Parents correct what their children do and think, but love them without condition. That's how it's supposed to be. We all understand that. Husbands and wives are supposed to love each other even if there is some activity or idea that they don't like. They can address the activity or idea, but they love the spouse. We get it.
Somehow, though, when it comes to these other things, it doesn't "work." If I claim to love the guy who has a sexual preference for males but believe that his choice of sex with males is immoral, I'm contradictory, hateful, and judgmental. If I claim to love a fellow human being who happens to be a follower of Islam, but believe that his belief in Islam is misguided and wrong and, ultimately damning, I'm intolerant and judgmental. I can do it with my kids. I can do it with my wife. I just can't do it with ... people. What's up with that?
Here's the thing. I am commanded to do just that. I have already said that I am commanded by God to love my neighbor. I get that. Good. I am also commanded to hate sin. I am commanded to call sinners to repentance. I am commanded to exhort and correct Christians who are in error. I am commanded to make a defense for the truth. I am even commanded to avoid Christians who refuse to repent. In other words, I am commanded to "judge" and "exclude" ... but not "hate."
It's easy to get tied up with that. It is, in fact, easy to get confused. "Hate the sin, hate the sinner ... no, that's not quite right." We often get personal instead of separating the person from their actions and ideas. Too often we turn to attacks on people rather than examining sins and error. We are commanded to address sin and error. We are also commanded to love people who, oh, by the way, are sinners just like us. It's a difficult row to hoe, but it is commanded. We should get to work on that, shouldn't we?
18 comments:
You said:
His point was that Jesus died for everyone, so we shouldn't hate anyone. His point is well taken. I cannot imagine how a Christian can be overheard saying, "I hate ___" where the blank is filled in with anything from atheists to Muslims to homosexuals to whatever pet heretics you might care to mention. How that correlates to "love your neighbor as yourself" doesn't work in my mind at all. I agreed with Andrew 100% on that thought.
One small problem. Psalm 139:21
Psa 139:21 Do not I hate them, O LORD, that hate thee? and am not I grieved with those that rise up against thee?
and 22
Psa 139:22 I hate them with perfect hatred: I count them mine enemies.
Oh, and Luke 14:26
Luk 14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
Our theology needs to understand 'love your enemies' in such a way that we do not reject the idea of 'hating' those who are the Lords enemies.
Perhaps if we examine the pronouns? I am to love 'my' enemies... those who work evil against me. But I am to show no mercy for 'Gods' enemies.
Interesting understanding of this concept. So ... you would argue that it is good, nay, mandatory that believers actually hate those who, for instance, commit sodomy? You would say that the Fred Phelps type is right?
You ask
So ... you would argue that it is good, nay, mandatory that believers actually hate those who, for instance, commit sodomy?
I would argue that it is good, nay mandatory that we follow Scripture. That we not invent statements (Such as 'love the sinner, hate the sin') that Scripture nowhere mentions.
This is a complex subject, and not susceptible to a quick comment. I would argue:
1) Examine (as I say) the pronouns, and don't get confused between 'your' enemy (the guy that did you down at work) and 'Gods' enemy... the person who is teaching children to committ Sodomy, for example.
2) That we look at the various uses of the word 'love' and 'hate. Notice, for example that Jesus tells us to love our enemies... and thus heap coals on their head. Not love our enemies and make them feel better.
3) That some times what the world calls 'love' is actualy 'hate' Remember the author of the Hebrews statement about fathers and sons?
Heb 12:6 For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.
Heb 12:7 If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?
Heb 12:8 But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.
So I would ask back, is it 'loving' to treat someone committing a perverse sin as if they were engaging in a natural act. Is it 'loving' to permit individuals to continue to blaspheme God and pervert society?
Or is the more 'loving' course reproving the first and resisting the second?
We need to hate the enemies of God with a *perfect* hatred, ie the hatred that God has for them. But this hatred forms part of the love that God has for them. If he did not love them, he would not hate them. Their sin and opposition would mean less than nothing. He would merely crush them.
Instead he chastizes them, rebukes them, destroys them... and, for those he has chosen, redeems them.
"We need to hate the enemies of God with a *perfect* hatred, ie the hatred that God has for them. But this hatred forms part of the love that God has for them. If he did not love them, he would not hate them."
Okay ... perfect hatred is loving. At some point in time you'll have to explain that, since it isn't possible for most people (me included) to think of square circles, obedient disobedience, or loving hatred. I suppose these terms work fine if you're post-modern. :)
Briefly, though ... you would somehow hate the sinner without agreeing with Fred Phelps?
Okay ... perfect hatred is loving. At some point in time you'll have to explain that, since it isn't possible for most people (me included) to think of square circles, obedient disobedience, or loving hatred. I suppose these terms work fine if you're post-modern. :)
Seriously tho, why would I need to explain that? Are you denying the authority of Psalm 139? Or calling it contradictory to Christs commands and teachings?
If 'God so loved the world' and yet God is mentioned myriads of times as 'hating' people... then somehow we have to reconcile Gods hatred with Gods love.
I am not your father confessor to have to explain these things to you. I am not even claiming I understand them. But it is clear that Scripture speaks of God acting in ways that he calls 'hating' toward those that (we are told elsewhere) that he loves.
'Love the sin, hate the sinner' is not Scripture. Psalm 139 is.
Fred Phelps is not the apostle Paul. Indeed, I don't even know who he is.
Fred Phelps is the Baptist pastor who has his church members go to funerals of service men and declare that they died as judgment of America's sins. They show up often with signs declaring "God hates fags" and other "Gospel messages". When Heath Ledger (heterosexual) died of an accidental drug overdose, Phelps declared it was God's judgment for having played a sodomite in Brokeback Mountain. End of educational paragraph.
I am not questioning God's Word. I am questioning your understanding of it. There is a large difference.
I understand that you are not questioning Gods Word. However sometimes it seems you are a little hesitant to exigete Gods Word. Thus my question:
so I would ask back, is it 'loving' to treat someone committing a perverse sin as if they were engaging in a natural act. Is it 'loving' to permit individuals to continue to blaspheme God and pervert society?
... and my response to your statement:
Okay ... perfect hatred is loving. At some point in time you'll have to explain that,
Why would I need to explain that? Did I write Psalm 139? Does your understanding of Psalm 139 somehow manage to turn Davids inspired praise of hatred into something else?
It is all very well to say that I have an interesting interpretation which you question. But what other interpretations are there?
I did exegete that ... here.
Well, I hadn't seen that post, but at the same time, I don't see Psalm 139 mentioned there either.
Your exegesis of Luke there makes perfect sense... and indeed makes a hash of your complaint about needing 'perfect hatred' to be 'loving' explained to you. But unfortunately you didn't finish.
How you do use your definition of 'love less' in your interepretation of Psalm 139?
Do not I hate [love them less] them, O LORD, that hate [love thee less] thee? and am not I grieved with those that rise up against thee? Psa 139:22 I hate [love them less] them with perfect [love them less ness]hatred: I count them mine enemies...
Ooops. It was precisely this sense of 'enemy' that you seem to be trying to avoid in your exegisis.
You write
Keep in mind that our version of "hate" is an intense hostility toward someone or something along with a desire for bad things to happen to them.
But that is exactly what David does want here. We read the rest of the Psalms and he expresses quite a bit of 'intense hostility' with 'a desire for bad things to happen'.
My point is twofold:
1) That we should deal with Biblical hate *of people*, and not brush it aside and
2) That the 'love the sinner, hate the sin' quote is... not Biblical.
We are to love God, and love our neighbor... as ourself. And at times that may involve 'hating' them as part of that love. You have shown one sense (where 'hate' is used as a version of 'love less'... which the world would reject, of course) and Psalm 139 seems to show another sense.
Sorry, I didn't realize that you thought that the purpose of my posting was to exegete each piece of Scripture involved. Okay ... a couple of thoughts here.
1) I know that some people think, "If it's in the Bible, we need to do it." I would urge caution. They stoned Steven; we shouldn't duplicate that. David (the author of Psa 139) committed adultery and murder; we shouldn't emulate that. So even though the psalmist says "I hate them," I would not, without consideration, suggest immediately doing the same.
2) We are to love our neighbors as ourselves. We are to pray for people and share the Gospel with them and minister to them. Correlating all that with our version of "hate" as an intense hostility toward someone or something along with a desire for bad things to happen to them becomes nearly impossible. (I say "nearly" as a generosity. To me, I can't see it at all.)
You've repeated this: "the 'love the sinner, hate the sin' quote is not Biblical." You seem to imply, "Therefore it is not valid." "Stop at stop signs" is not biblical; I still do it. The term "the Trinity" can't be found in the Bible; I still believe in it. Drop that argument unless you are insisting that we only do those things that are written in Scripture (or don't do those things that are forbidden in Scripture). If that is your argument, we have big problems.
As for biblical hate, the principle I outlined still applies. "Love less" is shorthand. Jesus told His disciples that others would know we are His disciples by our love for one another. That is, believers should value believers above unbelievers. Christians must love Christ above other people or things in their world. And, while unbelievers -- God's enemies -- will necessarily have less value than the value of God's purchased children (and that is the intent of "love less" or "hate"), that doesn't require "intend them harm" or "loath them." To me, when David says he hates God's enemies, he is saying "I do not value them."
Now, of course, you're free to disagree. You're even free to hate in the sense that we commonly mean it. But sharing the Gospel with and praying for the welfare of those whom you abhor will be really, really difficult, even crazy in my view. You don't seek the best possible outcome for the ones you despise.
(By the way, you complain that I didn't exegete Psa 139. It seems that you don't either. You take it at face value and simply assume that it's perfectly acceptable to live with genuine, unavoidable, logical contradictions. "It's certainly possibly to love and hate someone in the same sense at the same time." You don't try to make sense of it. You just take it as it lays. I assume you think that's better than what I do -- try to make sense of what I read.)
Much here, less time, more later. You say:
To me, when David says he hates God's enemies, he is saying "I do not value them.
Try putting that meaning in the Psalm:
Do I not not value them, O Lord, that do not value thee?... I do not value them with a perfect do not valueness.... I count them my enemies
You say:
(By the way, you complain that I didn't exegete Psa 139. It seems that you don't either. You take it at face value and simply assume that it's perfectly acceptable to live with genuine, unavoidable, logical contradictions. "It's certainly possibly to love and hate someone in the same sense at the same time." You don't try to make sense of it. You just take it as it lays. I assume you think that's better than what I do -- try to make sense of what I read.)
To 'exegete' does not mean you try to get out of the 'face value'. And besides you miss my original post! In which I said:
Perhaps if we examine the pronouns? I am to love 'my' enemies... those who work evil against me. But I am to show no mercy for 'Gods' enemies.
We are to love our enemies. But be 'actively hostile' to Gods enemies.
You state:
Now compare that, for instance, with Jesus's propensity to hang out with sinners.
But, what kind of sinners? Was there, perhaps, another kind of sinners that he was actively hostile to? Calling them 'vipers' for example?
No matter our sin, if we turn to Christ, ie repent, he accepts us. However however small the sin, if we don't repent, he is 'actively hostile' against us.
If you believe that my goal in understanding Scripture is to "try to get out of the 'face value'," why are you even commenting here? (I don't mean to suggest your comments aren't welcome. I mean that anyone whose goal is to nullify Scripture at any turn ought to fall under your ... hate.)
Thus far in this conversation we've touched on different things. I gave my view. You countered. I explained what I thought of those passages. You disagreed. More than once I've asked for an explanation of the concept of "loving hatred." That has gone unanswered. Your only answer: "Why would I need to explain that? Did I write Psalm 139?"
My aim has been to make sense of (not "avoid" or "deny" or "eliminate") Scripture. Your aim has been "shut up and take it as it lays." I have yet to have anyone explain to me the concept of "hate lovingly" or "hope for their best ("love") while you hope for their worst ("hate")" or anything like it. "I didn't write it. I just believe it." That's the answer. Fine. But if Scripture told me "aofowm'a aojmworuls" and you suggested, "So go do it!", I'd be in the same position. "Do what??!!" I still don't know how to correlate loving hate or all the commands of Scripture that say "love" while this says "hate" or how a person can rightly "hate his brother" when John demands that such a person is "in darkness still." You're happy with a biblical contradiction. I'm trying to make sense of it. I'm the bad guy?
I don't actually see any contradictions in how I have interpreted these verses:
1) God is love. Therefore when he 'hates' something (ie intensly dislikes and acts against) it is because that is the loving thing to do. We all do this. When we see those we love engaged in self-destructive behavior, we act with intense dislike and act against it.
2) We have various categories of people in our life (and some people that manage to hold more than one category):
a) Our family
b) Our friends
c) Our neighbors
d) Our enemies
e) Gods enemies
Toward each of these we are to:
a) Love them as 'our neighbor'
b) Hate them, in comparison to our love for God (ie our love for them should so pale before our love for God that it could even be called 'hatred'.)
c) Hate them when they are enemies of God, when they are actively promoting sinful behavior: IE actively work against them and despise them.
I am to love *my* enemies and hate *Gods* enemies. This really is not contradictory. Look at the way Christ treated Peter; at one moment congratulating him, at the next saying 'get thee behind me Satan'.
Most today would not call that reaction 'loving'. Nor would they call Pauls admonition not even to eat with someone who calls themselves a brother yet remains in active sin.
But it is what God calls loving.
It has been noted in the past that you and I sometimes speak a different language. You call it "post-modernism" and I call it "a different definition than you have." (See? A different language.)
Here we are again. You refer to "God's enemies" and that apparently means something different to you than it does to me. It appears that you think there is a particular set of people -- not all, but some -- who are specially classified in some way (that's not clear to me) as "God's enemies" and, therefore, worthy of English-speaking "hate." In my mind, "God's enemies" would be anyone who is unregenerate (Rom 8:5-8). Therefore, it would be impossible for me to both hate them (despise them and wish the worst for them) AND share the Gospel with them and call them to repentance (love them and wish the best for them).
Clearly there is a breakdown in communication between the two of us. That isn't to imply that one or the other is wrong or stupid or willful. I'm just saying that we must be talking past each other someplace because my definitions of "love," "hate," "enemy," and so on just don't allow for what you appear to think is no big deal.
Stan,
Of course all unregenerate are enemies of God. And we are all unrighteous. However that does not prevent much of the OT from making differences between the righteous and the unrighteous. The verses in question say:
Psa 139:21 Do not I hate them, O LORD, that hate thee? and am not I grieved with those that rise up against thee?
Psa 139:22 I hate them with perfect hatred: I count them mine enemies.
Thus David, in inspired Scripture, calls us to 'hate' those who 'hate' God. He goes further and speaks of those who 'rise against [Him]'.
Surely I am not walking that far out from a normal definition to make a distinction between someone who is actively and opening 'hating' God and 'rising up against Him' and the masses.
When someone deliberately insists that the schools, for example, must treat evil as if it was good, and good as if it was evil, they rise up against those 'little ones' we are sworn to protect.
I am called to 'love my neighbor'. But if he comes over to my house and threatens to rape my women and kill my children, he will find that (in obedience to the responsibilities God has called me to) I will engage in active hostilities against him, up to and including taking his life.
Most would call this not 'loving my neighbor'. But I think it is well in accord with how our loving God calls me to act.
von: Surely I am not walking that far out from a normal definition to make a distinction between someone who is actively and opening 'hating' God and 'rising up against Him' and the masses.
I don't know what that distinction looks like. I don't know the definition. I especially don't know the biblical distinction between "enemies of God" and "enemies of God who deserve my hatred." You seem to have, in your head, a pretty clear definition for your use. That's fine. I don't.
(Perhaps, if we set this in temporal terms, there is hope to avoid what appears to me to be an unavoidable contradiction. If, for instance, this "hate" of which you speak does not occur at the same time as the "love" of which you speak, then it is not a contradiction. Perhaps if you can mitigate this "hate" to a specific time or event that would not require a general "hate," you can avoid the contradiction. But, then, you're standing exactly where I started, where the event is the problem and not the person. So I'm still not getting it.)
Going back to the beginning, the quote was " cannot imagine how a Christian can be overheard saying, "I hate ___" "
Where blank involved people and not 'the sin'.
I agree with your logical point that the hatred with which we (correctly) hate cannot be at the same time, and with the same definition, directed at the same people. Granted.
I have yet but made (or tried to make) the much more minor point that it is appropriate to say 'I hate ___' and fill the blank in with a person and not merely a sin.
Yes, that has been the point you've tried to make from the beginning. I am no closer now to understanding it as I was then. I suspect it lies in the language barrier, but it could be elsewhere as well.
Post a Comment