He’s not commanding hate of others, but preference for His message to them. We have the word “prefer”, which allows for less stark differences: . . .
hatred of homosexuality does not imply preference for anything else: one could, in theory, perfectly well hate homosexuality, & prefer adultery or bestiality.
Dear Gottle:
It seems to me that there were ways of expressing “preference” in Greek and Latin. Is it your claim that the Apostolic and Latin translators were mistaken when they translated – or, in the case of St. John, wrote in Greek – and that they over-stated the intended idea?
If so, this approach to understanding the Scripture would have two negative effects. First, it risks re-writing the Scripture to fit a current conception, thereby losing touch with the original language and message. Second, it would leave us at the mercy of an “un-redeemed” emotion, “hate in the modern sense,” which we feel easily, but which this revised Scripture would not integrate into our characters, as we work to put on Christ.
You say, “hatred of homosexuality does not imply preference for anything else.” Your point that a particular person could mean any number of things by “hating homosexuality” is well taken. However, when considered in the context of the Faith, this is not true. The context of the Faith is love.
If one prefers love in the deep and perfect sense intended by the Gospel, then one must “hate” homosexuality. This is one of the most difficult issues to discuss in public discourse on this matter. “Homosexual advocacy groups” make their case by comparing the behaviors of people who identify themselves as “gay” with the common behavior of secularly trained “heterosexual” persons. In this comparison, the advocacy groups have a point: the “quality” of “love” shown by persons who believe in divorce, do not recognize calling someone “fool” as tantamount to murder, and who serve other things than the God of Israel is probably no better than the “quality” of “love” between “homosexual lovers.” Both are selfish. Both are exploitive. Both are detrimental to the Kingdom and to living the Gospel.
Hence, the “homosexual advocacy groups” argue, since the average “gay couple” is about as “good” (or bad) at “love” as the average “heterosexual couple” they should have equal rights and equal respect.
This argument has some merit, but it cannot be the basis for interpreting the Gospel or setting public policy.
When one considers love as taught and called for by the Gospel the argument changes radically. True love must respond to the full capacities of the human person. Love must appreciate man in all dimensions – one of which is sex.
There are differences between male and female. They compliment each other in many ways, stretching from the smells that they can detect to the method they tend to use to organize thoughts, emotions, and insights.
When one is drawn to those of the same sex, he is in a sense self-focused. Such a person is impoverished,; he suffers a disability to appreciate the complimenting and always exotic difference of the other sex. Any attempt to love as the Gospel calls us to do will be crippled by this homosexual focus. It will omit the full scope of humanity, because it will be centered in two iterations of the same sex. Since erotic love, to be holy, must include in the unity with the one, special beloved the love of all of humanity[1], “homosexual love,” even when realized in the most competent way, must fail.
This capacity to love the full range of humanity as a requirement of the Faith is tied to the primary commandment to love God. The image of God toward which man was created is clearly tied to this full range of male and female capacities: “And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.” Genesis 1:27 (DRA AD1899).
It is true that “heterosexual love” fails in this regard often, and in today’s society it might fail in the majority of marriages. However, when done well, it can realize the perfect love to which we are called. This is the difference.
In social policy two points are crucial: one, this possibility of perfect love is necessary for the healthy and holy development of children; and, two, children are necessary to society – and therefore procreation is a service uniquely rendered by “heterosexual couples” and deserving of deference and preference in many areas. These social interests demand vigorous defense.
So, “hate” of homosexuality is a form of “preference.” It is the preference for love of God over a sort of self-fascination; this fascination should be actively opposed, because it opposes the Redeemer’s efforts to save us from the confusion and limitations of fallen human nature.
Pax Christi nobiscum.
John Hiner
[1] See, Erich Fromm, “The Art of Loving,” for a discussion of the nature of “erotic love.”
