Love the Sinner and Hate the Sin?

I was reading this morning from the book, Death by Love, and came across an interesting point. The phrase “love the sinner, hate the sin” actually has its origins in the Hindu Gandhi’s 1929 autobiography, yet Christians toss about the phrase as if it comes directly from the Bible. (Before you jump to a conclusion about what I’m saying, please read on.) However, in contrast we can find several places in Scripture where God clearly says that he hates certain individuals or people groups.

“The boastful shall not stand before your eyes; you hate all evildoers.” Psalm 5:5

“The Lord is in his holy temple; the Lord’s throne is in heaven; his eyes see, his eyelids test the children of man. The Lord tests the righteous, but his soul hates the wicked and the one who loves violence.” Psalm 11:4-5

“Every evil of theirs is in Gilgal; there I began to hate them. Because of the wickedness of their deeds I will drive them out of my house. I will love them no more; all their princes are rebels.” Hosea 9:15

(NOTE: I’ve heard people say that “hate” means “to not prefer”, and that almost always is used in the context of Jacob and Esau. Without outright denying that interpretation, I will say you cannot apply that particular translation of the word “hate” every time the Scripture says God hates something or someone.)

How do we reconcile our use of this phrase “love the sinner and hate the sin” with the Scriptures? If we are going to so freely toss this phrase about, then we must build a case from Scripture that will help it stand. I find it troublesome that Hindu wisdom has crept into the vocabulary of the born again church.

The trouble is that most people, when attempting to build a Scriptural case for “loving the sinner and hating the sin” will turn to places in the Gospels where Jesus fellowships with sinners and tax collectors, and yet ignore the places in the same Gospels where Jesus speaks very harshly to the Pharisees and chief priests. We can’t build an argument for loving sinners without taking into account the fact that for some sinners Jesus reserved some very harsh judgments (woes). Even in Jesus’ ministry, there seems to be some sinners upon whom he poured out love, and some sinners upon whom he poured out anger.

The importance of this question is actually huge. It’s not that we become hateful in our demeanor toward the person sinning, but if we see someone sinning, we do become angry about the sin and toward the person who is committing the sin. What’s the difference between rape and the rapist; murder and the murderer? Can the person sinning be completely extracted and separated from the sin they are committing and be treated as two separate entities? So in the church, when a person is living in open sin, do we say to the person in sin that we don’t agree with what they’re doing, but continue to treat them as if they were doing nothing at all? That’s called a passive condoning of the behavior and actually makes us accomplices to the sin because we enable it to continue. That’s what happened in Corinth in 1 Corinthians 5 when they continued to fellowship with the guy who was sleeping with his step-mom. And in their passivity they too were sinning.

I may sound like a warmonger, but I assure you I am not. I’m just kind of tired of hearing Christians say that born again people should never become angry over sin. And in part, I attribute it to the acceptance of worldly or pagan philosophy, like “love the sinner, hate the sin.” I readily admit that ultimately our anger should always be a motivator to see that justice and righteousness prevails, which is the most loving thing that could happen to the person in sin, thereby in a sense, making Gandhi’s statement applicable. But due to bad teaching in the church at large, we have redefined love to mean the absence of hate. Any parent should know, if I don’t hate the things that would harm my children, then I will eventually allow those things to bring harm to them simply through my passivity. So even though I have hate in my heart toward certain things, I am still a loving father, and I am more of a loving father because I allow myself to hate certain things.

“What about my own sin?” Some people, when confronted with the sin of another person, may begin dwelling upon their own sin and thereby feel condemned because they have exhibited self-righteous anger toward another person for sins that are just as damning as their own sin. I understand why someone may think this way. We must remove the plank from our eye before removing the speck from someone else’ eye. I firmly believe this needs to happen. But let me be clear about this. Satan will attempt to diffuse your righteous anger over sin and injustice by sort of “blanket condemning” you over your own sins. If he can successfully diffuse your anger, then the motivation to hold anyone accountable will be quenched. This type of general conviction over your own sin is not from God, but rather is condemnation from Satan. Conviction from the Holy Spirit is specific and tells you exactly what needs to be repented from. The counterfeit conviction from Satan is often vague and non-specific as if there’s a mystery sin issue you need to deal with, but you just can’t finger it, or it maybe just a general sick feeling about your sinful condition as a whole. This is what will entangle you and could even cast you into a kind of spiritual depression. And it is this sort of non-specific spiritual malaise about our sins which Satan will cast upon us to attempt to derail the healthy, righteous anger which we should have about sin.

I admit that what I am proposing here walks a knife’s edge. If we allow anger to rule over us, we fall into sin. But if we do not exhibit anger and stifle it when it is the appropriate respone, we also sin. Jesus never said that trying to live like him would be without difficulty. So after all of that, let me refocus and ask you all this question: Can a solid Biblical argument for “love the sinner, hate the sin” be built which takes into consideration healthy, righteous anger against sin and those who commit it willfully?

Chew On This . . .

I want to offer these few thoughts to you for your consumption. Chew on them, then let me know if you think I’m off my rocker or if I’m on to something. The following items are matters of public fact:

• N.A.F.T.A., signed into law by President Clinton in December of 1993. By creating a free trade block between the U.S., Mexico, and Canada, U.S. companies have favored sending their factories into Mexico for two reasons:
  1. Cheaper work force/lower wages
  2. Since there is free trade, there are no tariffs involved in having their manufactured goods shipped back over the border for sale in the U.S.

  Therfore, Mexico’s economic base has been strengthened and the U.S. has been weakened, effectively redistributing the wealth.

• The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America was founded in 2005 between President Bush, President Fox (Mexico), and Prime Minister, Paul Martin (Canada) with the stated purpose of providing greater cooperation on security and economic issues.
• President Bush, despite being the Governor of Texas, has displayed a dismal willingness to deal with issues of illegal immigration from Mexico. Neither has he paid any attention to the border with Canada, which remains the longest unguarded border between two countries in the world. One would think that after 9/11 securing these borders would be a top priority.
• The economic collapse which we are seeing in progress is partly the result of a gradual weakening of federal oversight over the markets. Our presidents and lawmakers over the past 20 years have slowly removed most oversight of the market through deregulation. While in theory this sounds like a good idea – to let the market handle the market – that strategy does not take into account corporate greed. So we’ve all been spending money we don’t have, and guess what the fix is….. infusing money into the economy that is . . . get this . . . borrowed!

I’m not normally a big conspiracy person. But the convergence of these things in my mind leads only to one destination: the formation of a North American Union of sorts – like the European Union. I know this idea has been around for a while, so I’m not saying anything new. My analysis of the national landscape has just brought me to the same conclusion. What does it mean? It means a lot of things, but most immediately for you and I it means that our currency will be replaced by a common currency, which in all likelihood will be called the amero. The effects of that replacement will be painful. Overnight your dollars will lose all of their value. And no one will be offering to give you ameros to replace them. You’ll be starting from zero, unless you have invested a good portion of your money in precious metals and/or foreign currencies like the British pound. Eventually we would emerge from the crisis, but we would be a completely changed people.

There are other repercussions from such a transition. For instance, all three of our countries would immediately lose much of their sovereignty since we would be liable to a common government. The redistribution of wealth would be massive, with Mexico having the most to gain from this transition.

Now does this bother me? Yes and no. It makes me angry, but it does not cause me to worry. My faith is not shaken by the whims of men and their governments so I don’t worry. I do get angry though because our elected officials have betrayed our trust and there really isn’t a quick and easy way to fix it. Changing a government without a revolution would take years. But maybe that’s what we’re in for and honestly, maybe it’s what we deserve. A New Revolution.

Am I off base?