Hate the sin, love the sinner--why the disdain for the saying?

[Stormin' Mormon]

In just about any discussion on traditional Christian sexual ethics, the Christian believer will frame their argument, in one way or another, around the common phrase: hate the sin, love the sinner.  And then the statement will often be lambasted, mocked, or disdained.  For example, in a recently closed thread, one poster replied to a paraphrase of the concept by saying:

Quote

Love the believer hate the bigoted belief as the saying goes…

Every day of my life, I apply the "hate the sin/love the sinner" framework to myself and my actions.  I hate my sins.  They hold me back and keep me from experiencing the fullness of the Spirit.  I hate my temper. I hate my indifference. I hate my pride.  I try to do better, and even though I hate my sins, I still love myself.  I allow myself mercy and grace.  I allow myself the room to grow and develop and to make mistakes (sometimes over and over and over again) in my learning process.

If the Master has called me to love my neighbor as myself, why would I not allow others the same latitude that I allow myself?  Why would I not want my neighbor to also fulfill the fullness of his potential?  Why would I not want my neighbor to experience the fullness of the love and mercy and grace of the savior?  In my mind, hating the sin and loving the sinner is a desire for others to experience the same blessings of the Atonement of Christ that I have, the same joy, the same supernal blessings.  I don't get why a believer should be shamed for such a desire.   

So, for discussion, I have the following questions:

1a. Why does the "hate the sin/love the sinner" framework elicit such disdain?

1b. Is the disdain for the concept itself, or for how it has been operationalized by certain over-zealous and under-wise practitioners?

2a. Is there an alternative for the "hate the sin/love the sinner" framework for a Christian who is genuinely trying to both proclaim repentance and love his neighbor?

2b. Would the recommended alternative apply to all sins, or just to sexual sins that are no longer stigmatized by society at large?

 

[CV75]

42 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

In just about any discussion on traditional Christian sexual ethics, the Christian believer will frame their argument, in one way or another, around the common phrase: hate the sin, love the sinner.  And then the statement will often be lambasted, mocked, or disdained.  For example, in a recently closed thread, one poster replied to a paraphrase of the concept by saying:

Every day of my life, I apply the "hate the sin/love the sinner" framework to myself and my actions.  I hate my sins.  They hold me back and keep me from experiencing the fullness of the Spirit.  I hate my temper. I hate my indifference. I hate my pride.  I try to do better, and even though I hate my sins, I still love myself.  I allow myself mercy and grace.  I allow myself the room to grow and develop and to make mistakes (sometimes over and over and over again) in my learning process.

If the Master has called me to love my neighbor as myself, why would I not allow others the same latitude that I allow myself?  Why would I not want my neighbor to also fulfill the fullness of his potential?  Why would I not want my neighbor to experience the fullness of the love and mercy and grace of the savior?  In my mind, hating the sin and loving the sinner is a desire for others to experience the same blessings of the Atonement of Christ that I have, the same joy, the same supernal blessings.  I don't get why a believer should be shamed for such a desire.   

So, for discussion, I have the following questions:

1a. Why does the "hate the sin/love the sinner" framework elicit such disdain?

1b. Is the disdain for the concept itself, or for how it has been operationalized by certain over-zealous and under-wise practitioners?

2a. Is there an alternative for the "hate the sin/love the sinner" framework for a Christian who is genuinely trying to both proclaim repentance and love his neighbor?

2b. Would the recommended alternative apply to all sins, or just to sexual sins that are no longer stigmatized by society at large?

 

I think it may be because it is taken as condescending, and maybe even a call to punish the sin when there are disagreements on what constitutes the sin in the first place. I think the better argument is to refer to the first and second great commandments, prioritizing them in that order.

[The Nehor]

I dislike it because it is unscriptural yet it is recited as it were a scriptural truth.

St. Augustine espoused a similar sentiment. Gandhi an even closer one.

[JLHPROF]

Because nobody likes to be judged the sinner, while at the same time most believers will gladly call ourselves sinners and in need of a Savior.

Nobody else gets to point out our sins though...

[Olmec Donald]

4 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

1a. Why does the "hate the sin/love the sinner" framework elicit such disdain?

I don't use the phrase.  To me it seems to thinly veil judgment and condemnation behind a mask of "love".   It's arguably better than overtly hating, but it labels the other person a "sinner" while simultaneously staking claim to the moral high ground for oneself.

How would you feel if a well-meaning ex-Mormon "loved you but hated your sin" of Mormonism?  Would that feel like love, or like judgment and  condemnation?

4 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

1b. Is the disdain for the concept itself, or for how it has been operationalized by certain over-zealous and under-wise practitioners?

I haven't paid attention to who uses it and how.

4 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

2a. Is there an alternative for the "hate the sin/love the sinner" framework for a Christian who is genuinely trying to both proclaim repentance and love his neighbor?

"Love your neighbor as yourself."

We are to cast the bim out of our own eye before we call others to repentance.  We are told not to judge, and that how we judge others is how we will be judged.  Christ did not give us a new commandment to "judge one another"; he gave us a new commandment to "love one another."  This is new wine which old wineskins are not ready for even after all these years.  

4 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

2b. Would the recommended alternative apply to all sins, or just to sexual sins that are no longer stigmatized by society at large?

It would apply to everything. 

Edited January 23, 2022 by Olmec Donald

[JLHPROF]

15 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I dislike it because it is unscriptural yet it is recited as it were a scriptural truth.

I think the scriptural premise comes from Christ's instructions that God will forgive whom he will forgive but we are required to forgive each other, even 70x7 times.

Which then is twisted to mean this man-made phrase.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

In just about any discussion on traditional Christian sexual ethics, the Christian believer will frame their argument, in one way or another, around the common phrase: hate the sin, love the sinner.  And then the statement will often be lambasted, mocked, or disdained.  For example, in a recently closed thread, one poster replied to a paraphrase of the concept by saying:

Every day of my life, I apply the "hate the sin/love the sinner" framework to myself and my actions.  I hate my sins.  They hold me back and keep me from experiencing the fullness of the Spirit.  I hate my temper. I hate my indifference. I hate my pride.  I try to do better, and even though I hate my sins, I still love myself.  I allow myself mercy and grace.  I allow myself the room to grow and develop and to make mistakes (sometimes over and over and over again) in my learning process.

If the Master has called me to love my neighbor as myself, why would I not allow others the same latitude that I allow myself?  Why would I not want my neighbor to also fulfill the fullness of his potential?  Why would I not want my neighbor to experience the fullness of the love and mercy and grace of the savior?  In my mind, hating the sin and loving the sinner is a desire for others to experience the same blessings of the Atonement of Christ that I have, the same joy, the same supernal blessings.  I don't get why a believer should be shamed for such a desire.   ......................

That is the human condition, about which all of us are both embarrassed and exultant -- if we have a conscience.  And it is only the saving grace of the Atonement which gets us through to our dying day.  We would never make it on our own.  And, as Don Henley says, it's all about forgiveness.

 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

2 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

Love the believer hate the bigoted belief as the saying goes…

I’m the one that posted this. Are you saying this felt like disdain to you? Why was that do you think?

[Stormin' Mormon]

Thanks for the replies. My goal is to keep my own replies to a minimum on this thread, because I want this to be a learning thread for me. Rather than argue my viewpoint, I want to listen and consider other viewpoints.

I can understand how the phrase can be received as maladroit, tone deaf, or condescending. Thanks for the perspective.

Is it possible to restate the concept in a less offensive or more humble manner? Make it less glib? Is living the concept offensive, or is it only bad to state it in such a flip and unscriptural way?

24 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I’m the one that posted this. Are you saying this felt like disdain to you? Why was that do you think?

I felt that way because of the word "bigoted." I don't feel that word is very well suited to productive two-way dialogue. If I misread your tone or intent, I apologize. Such is the danger if internet communication.

[Olmec Donald]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 And, as Don Henley says, it's all about forgiveness.  

Amen.  

True forgiveness (of others, of religion, of government, of random chance, of whatever group, of God, of the one we love who doesn't love us anymore [or never did], even of ourselves) is a truth that sets us free.  

"...AS we forgive those who trespass against us" implies that if we want 100% forgiveness, we need to be 100% forgiving.  And imo part of that is, not judging and condemning in the first place.  

Carrying around judgments is not a yoke that is easy, and carrying around condemnations is not a burden that is light.  The truth will make us free.

Edited January 23, 2022 by Olmec Donald

[SeekingUnderstanding]

5 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

I felt that way because of the word "bigoted." I don't feel that word is very well suited to productive two-way dialogue. If I misread your tone or intent, I apologize. Such is the danger if internet communication.

So when you say “sinner” that is conducive to a two way dialogue, but bigoted is not? To me they seem equally offensive /productive / honest. 

[The Nehor]

8 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

So when you say “sinner” that is conducive to a two way dialogue, but bigoted is not? To me they seem equally offensive /productive / honest. 

You will confess you are a bigot with the same ease you will that you are a sinner?

[Stormin' Mormon]

26 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

So when you say “sinner” that is conducive to a two way dialogue, but bigoted is not? To me they seem equally offensive /productive / honest. 

Except, in the thread-that-must-not-be-named, I didn't call anyone a sinner.  I didn't refer to people, but to behaviors, and even then, I didn't call those behaviors "sins."

Quote

I can believe that certain behaviors will keep one from achieving their full potential as a child of God and at the same time love the people who engage in those behaviors. I do it all the time, every day, constantly

Which is why I have asked in this thread: Is it possible to rephrase the concept in a way that is not offensive or condescending?  Or is the very attempt to love people while disapproving of their behavior doomed to failure?

[The Nehor]

6 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

Which is why I have asked in this thread: Is it possible to rephrase the concept in a way that is not offensive or condescending?  Or is the very attempt to love people while disapproving of their behavior doomed to failure?

No, that part is doable. The part where you need to tell them how much you disapprove but still love them is probably less feasible. 

[CV75]

Love the dramatist, hate the play.

[Olmec Donald]

37 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

Except, in the thread-that-must-not-be-named, I didn't call anyone a sinner.  I didn't refer to people, but to behaviors, and even then, I didn't call those behaviors "sins."

Which is why I have asked in this thread: Is it possible to rephrase the concept in a way that is not offensive or condescending?  Or is the very attempt to love people while disapproving of their behavior doomed to failure?

We can muck about in the darkness looking for things which are worthy of our hatred.

Or we can muck about in the light looking for things which are worthy of our love.

But we do not have enough time to fully do both.

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

In just about any discussion on traditional Christian sexual ethics, the Christian believer will frame their argument, in one way or another, around the common phrase: hate the sin, love the sinner.  And then the statement will often be lambasted, mocked, or disdained.  For example, in a recently closed thread, one poster replied to a paraphrase of the concept by saying:

Every day of my life, I apply the "hate the sin/love the sinner" framework to myself and my actions.  I hate my sins.  They hold me back and keep me from experiencing the fullness of the Spirit.  I hate my temper. I hate my indifference. I hate my pride.  I try to do better, and even though I hate my sins, I still love myself.  I allow myself mercy and grace.  I allow myself the room to grow and develop and to make mistakes (sometimes over and over and over again) in my learning process.

If the Master has called me to love my neighbor as myself, why would I not allow others the same latitude that I allow myself?  Why would I not want my neighbor to also fulfill the fullness of his potential?  Why would I not want my neighbor to experience the fullness of the love and mercy and grace of the savior?  In my mind, hating the sin and loving the sinner is a desire for others to experience the same blessings of the Atonement of Christ that I have, the same joy, the same supernal blessings.  I don't get why a believer should be shamed for such a desire.   

So, for discussion, I have the following questions:

1a. Why does the "hate the sin/love the sinner" framework elicit such disdain?

1b. Is the disdain for the concept itself, or for how it has been operationalized by certain over-zealous and under-wise practitioners?

2a. Is there an alternative for the "hate the sin/love the sinner" framework for a Christian who is genuinely trying to both proclaim repentance and love his neighbor?

2b. Would the recommended alternative apply to all sins, or just to sexual sins that are no longer stigmatized by society at large?

 

I suppose every truism or wholesome aphorism has been mocked, ridiculed or held in contempt at one time or another. When it happens, I don’t take it to heart. I just chalk it up to rampant hatred for the truth.

“Hate the sin but love the sinner” is a blessed concept. I will continue to hold to it regardless of it being disparaged. 
 

Another truism that I’ve seen denigrated is  “Bring with you all you have that is true and good, and let us see if we can add to it.” But to me it makes eminent sense. 

[bluebell]

I think it's a hard saying to make work because it puts us in the position of judging who is a sinner and what are their sins.  So it can be (or at the very least seem to be) self-righteous.  A bit of a mote and beam problem.

Since we are all sinners, it's also kind of useless.

[Peacefully]

I think in recent years members have become fond of using this phrase when speaking about gay people. They seem to really love those gay “sinners” but hate that gay “sin.” 

[The Nehor]

47 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Love the dramatist, hate the play.

That sometimes sums up how I feel about God.

[Scott Lloyd]

33 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think it's a hard saying to make work because it puts us in the position of judging who is a sinner and what are their sins.  So it can be (or at the very least seem to be) self-righteous.  A bit of a mote and beam problem.

Since we are all sinners, it's also kind of useless.

“We would not have much motivation to righteousness if all speakers and writers postponed discussing and warning until they themselves were perfected.” — Spencer W. Kimball

[kimpearson]

To use the words hate and love in the same phrase is impossible to achieve.   In my experience I have never seen someone who hated the sin not allow that hate  to spill over to the individual.  It is impossible for any of us to truly understand another's life well enough to start tossing around words like hate.  Unrighteous judgment in my mind is any time we determine someone is committing a sin when we don't know the full story.  Only a member of the Godhead understands the full story.  Our church believes that in certain situations, God will guide a priesthood authority in judgement but other than that none of us have the right to determine when another is committing a sin.  We only have that right to judge ourselves and even then I think we often fail to understand why we did something and we hate that action when such actions are actually an indication of a deeper problem we need to deal with.

Hate is one of those words and feelings I feel the Savior in the Sermon on the Mount counseled us to avoid.  Do you see God hating anything?  I see Him being angry or disappointed but even then He is quick to forgive.  When someone hates, that feeling is so deeply embedded that it is very hard to remove from your soul.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

You will confess you are a bigot with the same ease you will that you are a sinner?

Absolutely. But that’s the thing right? It’s asymmetric. I have my own biases that I am aware of, am working on, and don’t like. Just like the token “everyone is a sinner”. When “love the sinner” is trotted out however, it’s exclusively (almost - I have never seen otherwise but I guess it’s possible) always applied to to someone who doesn’t even believe they are sinning. Perhaps they are even “proud” to be gay and view it as a large part of their identity. In this case, calling that a “sin” is every much as offensive as calling a believers heartfelt belief (that they are not sorry for) bigoted. 

[The Nehor]

4 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Absolutely. But that’s the thing right? It’s asymmetric. I have my own biases that I am aware of, am working on, and don’t like. Just like the token “everyone is a sinner”. When “love the sinner” is trotted out however, it’s exclusively (almost - I have never seen otherwise but I guess it’s possible) always applied to to someone who doesn’t even believe they are sinning. Perhaps they are even “proud” to be gay and view it as a large part of their identity. In this case, calling that a “sin” is every much as offensive as calling a believers heartfelt belief (that they are not sorry for) bigoted. 

I think that the difference is that some people are okay with being called a sinner in certain contexts. I don’t know many people who nod along when someone says they are a bigot or that all people are bigots.

[teddyaware]

5 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

In just about any discussion on traditional Christian sexual ethics, the Christian believer will frame their argument, in one way or another, around the common phrase: hate the sin, love the sinner.  And then the statement will often be lambasted, mocked, or disdained.  For example, in a recently closed thread, one poster replied to a paraphrase of the concept by saying:

Every day of my life, I apply the "hate the sin/love the sinner" framework to myself and my actions.  I hate my sins.  They hold me back and keep me from experiencing the fullness of the Spirit.  I hate my temper. I hate my indifference. I hate my pride.  I try to do better, and even though I hate my sins, I still love myself.  I allow myself mercy and grace.  I allow myself the room to grow and develop and to make mistakes (sometimes over and over and over again) in my learning process.

If the Master has called me to love my neighbor as myself, why would I not allow others the same latitude that I allow myself?  Why would I not want my neighbor to also fulfill the fullness of his potential?  Why would I not want my neighbor to experience the fullness of the love and mercy and grace of the savior?  In my mind, hating the sin and loving the sinner is a desire for others to experience the same blessings of the Atonement of Christ that I have, the same joy, the same supernal blessings.  I don't get why a believer should be shamed for such a desire.   

So, for discussion, I have the following questions:

1a. Why does the "hate the sin/love the sinner" framework elicit such disdain?

1b. Is the disdain for the concept itself, or for how it has been operationalized by certain over-zealous and under-wise practitioners?

2a. Is there an alternative for the "hate the sin/love the sinner" framework for a Christian who is genuinely trying to both proclaim repentance and love his neighbor?

2b. Would the recommended alternative apply to all sins, or just to sexual sins that are no longer stigmatized by society at large?

 

I just looked up this expression on the Church website and found it’s been used many times by many General Authorities throughout the years. Why is there any controversy over such perfectly sound and compassionate spiritual counsel?