Today I searched for "hate the sin love the sinner" in Google. The first hit was quotationspage.com, which tells me that it belongs to Mahatma Gandhi. I'm a big Gandhi fan, but I think quotationspage might have mentioned that the Bible said it first in ______.
I thought I was so clever and that everyone would have a good laugh at questionspage.com and Google. Fortunately, I wanted to fill in that blank with the chapter and verse, and I took a look at the second and third hits before updating my status. What I discovered, of course, is that this aphorism is found nowhere in Scripture, but was made popular by Gandhi through is public speeches and 1929 autobiography.
I am ashamed that I graduated with a B.A. in Christian Ministry without knowing this, but I also know that I am not alone. Many Christians assume that this is a direct quote from the Bible and an apt summary of Jesus' ministry. GotQuestions.org has an article on the subject that maintains that human beings cannot hold up to the ideal of loving the sinner while hating the sin but that Scripture attests to God's ability to do so. The most curious verse listed as evidence of this point is Malachi 1:3, "but Esau I have hated, and I have turned his hill country into a wasteland and left his inheritance to the desert jackals."
I hear this idea most often when people in the ACU community are explaining their position on homosexuality. They often say something like, "Yeah, I think it's wrong, but we should hate the sin and love the sinner, because all sin is equal."
Of course, "all sin is equal" is not a direct quote from Scripture either. It bothers me that the most common stance toward homosexuality in my community is often based on two aphorisms that do not come from Scripture. I am okay with accepting wisdom from extrabiblical sources, but people should know where their mottos are coming from. And I would wager that many of the Christians who say, "Hate the sin, love the sinner," think this is a quote from one of the epistles and that Christians who say, "all sin is equal," think they have effectively summarized the Sermon on the Mount. People should know that these two aphorisms are not found anywhere in Scripture, and they should also know that this allegedly "middle ground" stance on homosexuality can be even more offensive to practicing homosexuals than an extremely antagonistic stance. Think about it: if you believed that moderate drinking was not even remotely sinful and a Christian friend saw you holding a glass of red wine and said, "Don't worry, I won't judge you because I sometimes struggle with lying," how would you react?
If they are certain that their "middle ground" position on homosexuality is in accordance with God's will, then Christians who say that we should hate the sin but love the sinner because all sin is equal may not care that this position is offensive to practicing homosexuals. But why exactly are they so certain?
[IMG]http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b381/majikalfae/lovethesinner.jpg[/IMG]
ReplyDeleteI think Augustine of Hippo (354-430) actually originated the phrase "hate the sin but love the sinner." This grounds the saying solidly in the Christian tradition.
ReplyDelete“It is clear, then, that the man who does not live according to man but according to God must be a lover of the good and therefore a hater of evil; since no man is wicked by nature but is wicked only by some defect, a man who lives according to God owes it to the wicked men that his hatred be perfect, so that, neither hating the man because of his corruption nor loving the corruption because of the man, he should hate the sin but love the sinner. For, once the corruption has been cured, then all that is left should be loved and nothing remains to be hated.”
-Augustine, City of God
Also, while I too shudder slightly when I hear "All sin is equal," I think it tries to get the rhetorical move Paul makes in the transition from Romans 1 into Romans 2. The problem with the saying is that it takes the pressure off of us. Rather than convicting us of our own sin it tends to foster the relativization of sin. In a culture that has a anemic view of grace, this is a dangerous move.
Also, something else notice in relation to "all sin is equal" is the locus and direction of equalization. In other words, Paul, in Romans 2, is condemning all of us to the same moral status as those mentioned in the vice lists of Romans 1. The movement is of the "holy people" downwards to join the "sinners" as equally evil in the eyes of the Lord. However, when we use the phrase, especially in the context of homosexuality, it seems like the "sinners" are moving upwards to join the "holy people." Instead of reacting "Oh no! What are we going to do, we are as bad as them!" it becomes, "See, they really aren't that bad after all, they are just like us!" Rather than saying, "See, homosexuality is really only as bad as lying or cussing." Paul wants us to say, "Oh my gosh, lying is just as atrocious as sexual immorality"
I realize that it sounds like I am setting up homosexuals as the epitome of sinfulness in my previous paragraph, this is not my intent. I merely want to note that we will never be able to have real dialogue as long as some Christians see homosexuals as human beings that have to "move up" in order to be equal to them. I want us to be aware that even when Christians say "All sin is equal" there is still a sense of hierarchy because homosexuals "moved up" to their level. Rather, we are all brothers and sisters who share a common fate outside of God's grace. We have, every single one of us, plummeted to the very depths of depravity and stand in equal need of God's salvific work.
Also, I am only addressing the logic of the phrase "All sin is equal." This comment is addressed to the popular Christian position that assumes homosexuality is a sin and attempts to be "pastoral" by saying, "All sin is equal." I am not meaning to cast judgment on homosexual monogamy as sin, that is another conversation that I am more than willing to engage in.