Love the Sinner/Hate the Sin

I saw commentary on this phrase just a few days ago.  The commentary argued that Christians should actually stop using this phrase.

The argument was presented thusly:

Great.

See, the problem that I have with this phrase is that it assumes that “sin” is a specific action that is done/can be undone.  If that’s the case, name the specific action that you hate.

“I love you, Tommy, but I don’t like it when you break my glasses.”  “I love you, Sarah, but I don’t like it when you kick my shins.”

But really, I haven’t heard this phrase used in those ways.  I’ve only heard it used when people are talking about identity.

“I love gay people, I just hate that they act on their homosexual orientation…”

There we go.  There’s an honest statement.

And an unhelpful one.

It’s unhelpful because, you can’t love me apart from my sexuality.  I really don’t think you can.  It’s part of what makes me who I am, even if it’s not the whole of my definition.  So, if you were to say to me, “I love you, but I hate that you’re heterosexual…” I would probably stop listening right then and there because, well, I wouldn’t believe you.

You can’t love me and yet hate an essential part of me.  This phrase is disingenuous.

Really?  Therefore, we should measure all statements about identity found in scripture and in our doctrine in such fashion?

As a Lutheran (and the blogger who wrote that statement is a Lutheran pastor), we believe every Christian is simul justus et peccator -- at the same time saint and sinner.  At the same time our very identity is both saintly and sinful.  And we should embrace and love that sinful part? 

Let's talk about it in another couple of ways:

Evolution has bred within each and every one of us the desire for self-preservation.  Our brains developed where we are able to contemplate the future and prepare for it so that we can better survive what may happen to us.  There's a reason people sought out caves for protection from the weather and from other roving tribes of people.  There's a reason we save money for the time we can no longer work.  There's a reason we accumulate stuff--in case we ever might need it.  One could say that at some point and time, the desire for self-preservation turns into greed--that greed is the extreme of self-preservation; however, it also could be that we are born greedy so that we may have a better chance of preserving ourselves.  Any parent knows the selfish nature of a child.  When an infant is born, he/she is extremely self-centered and expects the world to wait on it hand and foot to give it comfort, food, and whatever else it needs.  I don't think we ever fully grow out of that.  At our core, we still work diligently to preserve ourselves.

This is in clear contrast to what the Christian faith teaches us about relying upon God for all we need.  Instead of being greedy and working for our preservation or retirement or safety, we are supposed to rely upon God to provide.  (Matthew 6 for the reference; also Luke 12)  Yet, we don't.  Not at all.  We work like the dickens; we save and sack things away; we are not as generous as we could be.  And unfortunately, it's in our nature--it's part of our identity--as to why we do such things.  Are we to accept that our behavior in this matter is acceptable because it is an essential part of who we are as homo sapiens?

On a related note:  one of those texts that makes me (and I have been told even makes a few women as well) squirm:  Jesus' teaching on adultery in Matthew 5.  Wicked little text and teaching.  If you even look at a woman with lust in your heart you have committed adultery. 

It is the nature of the human male to look at women all the time.  It is the nature of the human male to be attracted to females and desire to further the evolutionary process.  Evolution has led the majority of males on this planet to have the desire to pass on his genes.  Attractive women catch his eye and his brain all the time.  It's in our nature.  It is an essential part of us.  It is ingrained into our identity.  So, is Jesus wrong?  Is it disingenuous to say this natural occurring, evolutionary produced attraction is sinful?  I don't think so--if Jesus is the authority and not myself or science or what have you.

The disingenuous part of this equation is the failure to think all the way through the argument.  If one decides to begin applying such logic to a particular argument, one must be prepared to take that logic to related arguments as well.  And oftentimes, one finds the consequences of doing so are dangerous.

Much of the ethics regarding the Christian faith are about self-control.  Much of the ethics of the Christian faith call a person to go against their natural tendencies that evolution instilled into us.  And, lest we forget, the Christian faith isn't about God affirming our identity--it's about God giving us a NEW identity through, with, and in Jesus Christ.  It is a new identity that seeks to become more Christlike in how we act in the world and toward one another. 

I personally realize the impossibility of attaining that new identity, but that is where grace comes in.  Grace gives us the ability to love the sinner and hate the sin--even when that sin is a part of ourselves.