Love the Sinner but Hate the Sin? -Part One-

Friday night, 30th of October, I attended a candlelit vigil at Trafalgar Square, London for the victim of a recent homophobic hate murder. Over 3000 people were in attendance, including television and stage personalities, a number of politicians from the various political parties, and high ranking members of the Police (this in itself was a remarkable feat as the whole thing was organised in just over a week). More than just remembering the victim, Ian Baynham (and all previous murder and other victims of homophobic violence), the vigil was about standing up and being counted, about saying no to any sort of homophobia, about declaring that ALL people have rights, and those rights need to be protected and enforced. To that end, the various politicians from all parties represented, including the Prime Minister Mr Gordon Brown, through his ministers, declared and vowed to introduce legislation that would make homophobic expressions (as well as other prejudiced expressions) illegal and punishable under extended anti-terrorism laws. The Metropolitan Police representative said that such acts of violence start with ignorant comments, a sermon preached which perpetuates falsehoods about other people and their lifestyles, etc. Words progress to attitudes in the workplace and in society. Attitudes progress to discrimination. Discrimination progresses to violence. Violence progresses to murder. It all starts with words.

Throughout the vigil, the observation was made that everyone was there out of an outflowing of love. The message kept being repeated that love will overcome, love will bring an end to such events. The love that was shown at the vigil was contrasted to the hate that is manifested in the church generally, which is seen to incite such actions.

Conservatives within the church constantly retort to such allegations that they are ruled by hate, by saying that they ‘love the sinner but hate the sin’. There are a number of problems and faulty assumptions with this statement – particularly in relation to the current subject of homosexuality.

First, it assumes that homosexuality can be divorced from the actual person, and that it is a choice that can be made and un-made as it were. However, The Salvation Army’s positional statement on the subject says that The Salvation Army ‘....does not regard a homosexual disposition as blameworthy in itself or rectifiable at will.’ There is a great difference between these two statements. One divorces the act from the person, the other says that a person’s orientation is what they are, and this cannot be changed. This poses great difficulties for those who would say ‘love the sinner, but hate the sin’. As we see in the Sermon on the Mount, Christ made no such distinction. “21"You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' 22But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment.” (Mat. 5:21-22). Throughout the Sermon on the Mount, Christ makes this analogy over and over and over again. Thoughts and words are just as damnable as the action itself. The very thought is enough to be judged as having done it. In other words, to suggest that a person is homosexual because that is their identity/inclination etc., is the same as living and practicing the lifestyle – regardless of whether they remain celibate or not. This poses a problem. Either homosexuals are all damned to hell for simply existing (very unbiblical, and Calvinistic to the extreme), or the teaching on homosexuality is wrong.

One can divorce the sin of adultery from the person, because adultery is a choice – it is not who or what you are. One can divorce the sin of stealing from the person, because theft is a choice – it is not who or what you are. One cannot divorce homosexuality from the person – because it is NOT a choice (even by The Salvation Army’s admission in its Positional Statement). IT IS who the person IS. To say that one can love the homosexual and hate the action goes way beyond what Christ taught. They are one and the same thing – at least according to Christ. By going so far, we are putting ourselves above Christ. This brings into question our very salvation. For if we are above Christ, then what is the purpose of his death and resurrection? This is idolatry in the extreme.

The problem lies in the ignorance of what homosexuality is, and in misunderstood/ mistranslated biblical passages. Sexuality is not a choice. Let me ask all heterosexuals reading this: When did you ‘choose’ to become heterosexual? I suspect the answer is ‘I always was, it was never a question’. The same is the case for homosexuals. There is no choice. The choice is to be honest and admit it – not hide it. This is the true meaning of the passage in Romans 1 ‘25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie’ (Romans 1:25). When one denies the nature that God created, when one tries to live a life that is a lie – hiding who they are, that is when they come under the punishment of God. The only choice that homosexuals make is to be honest with themselves and their God and those around them. Forcing people to live a life that is a lie is forcing people to hell. It is just as much a sin for a homosexual person to live a heterosexual life (or even deny their homosexuality), as it is for a heterosexual to live a homosexual life. When we re-translate the traditional passages that are used to condemn homosexuality in the light of cultural understanding at the time, and better understandings of the language, we find there is not a single passage in the entire Bible that even mentions homosexuality in relation to sin, let alone condemns it. The condemnation comes from the church and the church alone. There is no divine authority for it. Homosexuality is not a sin – at least not one as defined by the Bible or God.

-Part One-

Graeme Randall
Former
Australia