Rotating Header Image

is hating the sin and loving the sinner possible?

Dec 16th, 2008
by Drew Tatusko.

The idea of hating the sin and loving the sinner is a common position among Christians who value personal piety as outward confirmation of God's grace. The idea is rooted in the notion that there are two parts of human being that are in conflict: a sinful nature and a Godly nature. Further, it is thus possible to hate one part of that nature (the sinner), and yet love the other part (the Godly nature).

What I want to do over a few posts is explore this notion from a sociological perspective to a) explore how this idea has been worked out and 2) to interrogate its actual plausibility for Christian community. Here are the topics I hope to explore in further detail as I move through what I think is an insurmountably important issue not just for contemporary Christian community, but for all religious communities since it has to do with how a community draws the lines of distinction between acceptable and unacceptable behaviors.

  1. a biblical exploration of two natures: the hebrew scriptures
  2. a biblical exploration of two natures: the christian scriptures
  3. the sin and the sinner: the theological justification

I would hope that parsing this out and metering out the posts will invite conversation. The first will post later today.

Related posts:

  1. who god sends in the world today
  2. when saying "deviation against God's will" is not theological
  3. second life, the law, and technology for jesus
  4. ken ham: religious hack

Posted in: Religion, Society, Theology.

←
→
  • Interesting...

    Some time ago I read an article by Eric Reitan on this topic, "Love the Sinner, Hate the Sin?", about the possibility of doing so. It impressed me, but unfortunately I did not keep it, and I can't find it on line. It was written to specifically address the issue in the context of the Evangelical response to the emerging societal respect for gays and gay rights.

    If I remember correctly, its thesis was that "hating the sin" based on scriptural authority alone, without a dialog with and understanding of those who you purport to "love", precludes the possibility of mutual respect and understanding, and therefore it is not possible to hate the sin and love the sinner.

    I look forward to your future posts on this topic, especially the sociological and the relational aspects.
  • I think you may be overthinking this, or maybe I'm underthinking it, but it seems pretty simple to me: I hate it when people lie, but I don't hate people for lying. My daughter lies occasionally, but I don't love her any less because of it; the fact that I still love her even when she lies doesn't make lying any more acceptable, nor vice versa.

    Frankly, all of us do all manner of hurtful things that are worthy of hate, but that does't mean we deserve to be hated. In fact, the more I love a person, the more I will hate any action that hurts them and others. Who hates drug abuse more than a parent whose kid is trapped by an addiction--the more they love their child, the more they will hate the sin.

    Of course, that doesn't mean it isn't an easy line to cross from hating the sin to hating the sinner, but the line itself seems perfectly intelligible, even necessary. Am I missing something?
  • The issue that I an getting to is not so much that it is impossible. Your examples hold well. the question is where we draw that line of discernment, on what grounds we draw it, and whether or not that line is a mutable variable of social structures. I am not confident that the lines of distinction between the person and the action are that clear.
  • That makes more sense, and I'll be curious to see where you go with it. Though I think ultimately there has to be some distinction, even if (like every other aspect of human knowledge) we can only approximate it. At the least, I do hope God is able to love the sinner while hating the sin--isn't that what redemption is all about?
  • DancingFoolVB
    The notion of "hating the sin and loving the sinner" is ultimately a cop-out. it allows one to maintain the superiority of their theological position while avoiding the necessity of taking heat for putting forward an objectionable position. Ultimately, it still reflects an exclusivist worldview in which other people are "less than" and can be discriminated against.

    David
blog comments powered by Disqus