Hating the sin and Loving the sinner (to Karen)

[Adam]

[Stanley Anderson]

[Karen]

(Stanley,

I think Adam just wanted to make sure I would see this thread, since I'm the one who asked him about the topic. I'm sure everyone is welcome to chime in!)

Hi Adam,

1) I have to think about this. I was so indoctrinated by my old church into the 'sin nature' idea (almost as though it were some sort of separate entity that could be excised) that it's difficult for me to wrap my mind around other ways of thinking about sin. Talk to me.

2) Yes, I agree with this. And I would also say that it doesn't let the person off the hook so easily. If sin is something that isn't 'really you', then you can disassociate yourself from it more easily. The devil made me do it, and all that. And of course, Romans 7.

3) Yes. Although I've also seen this attitude far too often toward fellow Christians: "but because he is both deserving of pity and easily transformed by your kindness into a better disciple." The problem is, it doesn't seem to work too well. And after a while frustration sets in on both sides and the love turns to resentment and bitterness.

I've seen this pattern repeatedly, in fact, which is why I'm so leery of the phrase in the first place. I don't know that 'hate the sin, love the sinner' is wrong, but I do know that it's often been dreadfully misapplied.

[Adam]

[mitchellmckain]

[Adam]

Karen,

::1) I have to think about this. I was so indoctrinated by my old church into the 'sin nature' idea (almost as though it were some sort of separate entity that could be excised) that it's difficult for me to wrap my mind around other ways of thinking about sin. Talk to me.

I think it will be useful to examine the two interpretations of sin, as force or as nature, in the context of Christian charity.

I believe that humans are good according to their nature, their nature being made in the image of God, and that the force of Sin, including the weight of suffering, clouds this image.

I believe that humans are worthy according to their goodness, because God has seen fit to see us as worthy of His sacrifice, and in that sacrifice to make us worthy of it; and if God has declared us worthy, what standard or measure can be used against us to determine otherwise?

Therefore, I believe that charity is the obligation of anyone who claims wisdom, because our righteousness is to see the world, to see others, as God sees them. Rather than understanding charity to be a grace to our merit, I believe that we must understand charity as justice for their merit. It is common for Christians to see charity as unconditional love passed on from God's unconditional love for us, from one undeserving recipient to another. However, I see God's righteousness as His wisdom in seeing our deservedness, because our nature is good because He made us, and therefore I see charity as stepping into the same wisdom and understanding what others deserve from us, which is, everything.

::2) Yes, I agree with this. And I would also say that it doesn't let the person off the hook so easily. If sin is something that isn't 'really you', then you can disassociate yourself from it more easily. The devil made me do it, and all that. And of course, Romans 7.

Jesus's interaction with the rich man is the paradigm for all Godly counsel: to learn the person and love them so that you see what they need and have the courage to help them find it.

The question is: why are we to hate sin? Are we to hate sin because it disgusts us and offends our ethical philosophies? Do we hate sin because it is ugly or dirty, or because we ought? Or, do we want to be rid of sin because we see that it obstructs the good life of the one we love.

I suppose that when it comes right down to it, I do not think that we ought to "hate sin." Sin is only relevant because it impedes the purposes of God and man: it is not something in itself that deserves judgment, or merits it. This is to say, there are many people who "hate sin" as an aesthetic, the way one may hate a Thomas Kinkade painting, or as politics, the way one hates a bad tax, or as philosophy, the way one may hate a falsehood. But "hating sin" is not meant to be an exercise demonstrating one's moral strength: sin is not a world of monsters for us to slay by the sword to win the approval of God. Sin is the weight that holds down the ones we love, and so we push it off of them. "Hating sin" is merely posturing.

::Yes. Although I've also seen this attitude far too often toward fellow Christians: "but because he is both deserving of pity and easily transformed by your kindness into a better disciple." The problem is, it doesn't seem to work too well. And after a while frustration sets in on both sides and the love turns to resentment and bitterness.

You are right, this way of thinking is often used in approaching fellow Christians. My objection to the style of pastoring that I believe is embodied in "hate the sin but love the sinner" came from my time as a university chaplain, experience which taught me something about successful and unsuccessful ways to encourage discipline and accountability in a small Christian community. "Hating the sin" is simply unnecessary, and provides grounds for proud distraction: truly loving the sinner includes doing anything to help them, including condemnation and discipline, and this unwavering focus satisfies our duty to be rid of sin: seeking sin itself out and having hatred for it is an exercise of our own holiness, a source of pride, not an exercise in love.

Adam

[Adam]

::Now I don't think you express this clearly, but your objection could be that you see a statement of conditional love in this, "we will love you if you stop doing such and such", which is certainly not love but simply using a promise of love for the purpose of manipulation. But this difference can be seen in the differences between these two reaction. "Oh you do that, then you cannot come to our church because although we love the sinner we must hate the sin." AND "Oh you do that, well you are certainly welcome at our church but you should know that you are going to hear that we do believe that behavior is a sin."

This is not one of my objections, so resolving it does not dissolve one of my objections.

::There is cerainly a great deal of truth in the idea that we are what we choose and therefore what we think and do. But I don't think this is true in the sense that you seem to be using it.

I do not believe that I am using this idea at all, unless I have misunderstood you. I believe that we are inseparable from our nature, and that therefore you cannot claim to love a person yet hate their sin nature, because you have made them unloveable by demeaning their God-given good nature.

::To say you "love the sinner" mean that you love them as they are, and saying that you "hate the sin" is simply saying that you want them to stop that activity because you think it is doing them harm. There is no inconsistency in this.

Stoping the sin because it is doing them harm is part of loving the sinner. That is not the same exercise as "hating sin," which, as I stated to Karen, is an exercise in self-righteousness, in demonstrating our own purity and holiness, our ethical pretensions, like sending back food at a four-star restaurant or being picky about the wine. "Hating sin" often means lacking the courage to get dirty by associating with sinners.

::I think part of the problem here, which I perceive to be embedded in your arguement, is this doctrine by a certain community that what they do is inseperable from what they are and if that is what they want to believe that is their right, but they do not have the right to force that belief on everyone else. Your attempt to justify this belief by suggesting that it is true in general of all the things we do is simply not credible. I think it is the most flawed and destructive psychobabble.

I am not suggesting that what we do is inseperable from what we are; in fact, Paul says that our frail bodies cannot do the good that our spirits desire. However, even if I were to make the claim that our identity is determined by our deeds, this would not be equivalent to the statement that we are presently identified according to our past deeds, and therefore your objection that this somehow denies people the opportunity to repent is irrelevant.

::Sitting back and looking at oneself like a bug under a microscope as if one has nothing to do with what one chooses to do may serve one well if one wants to take no responsiblity for what one does and absolve oneself of all guilt that way. It is certainly a shortcut to feelin good about oneself. But this is a hopeless way to live --- no worse than that --- it is no life at all.

You've lost me here.

Adam

[mitchellmckain]

[rusmeister]

[Adam]

[rusmeister]

[Adam]

[rusmeister]

[Adam]

[rusmeister]