Episode 62 - Love To Hate

Why do we hate? Is it nature or nurture? Is hate a choice? The doctrine or Total Depravity has taken us away from the Biblical response to hate and give a false sense of our responsibility in how we respond to hate.

Transcript

Love To Hate

Near where I live we have a rather fancy building which houses the Canadian Museum for Human Rights. It is very clear to any one who visits this place that every problem in society, past, present, and future, is related to how we view the rights of human beings. Ironically, in their attempt to teach the abolition of discrimination they have chosen to blame every ill in society on straight white Christian men. What is missing in this monument to healing is the recognition of individual sin and what has become known as the doctrine of total depravity.

Why do we hate, and what brings us to a place where our hate defines us? When our children tell us they hate something, we correct them and explain why it's wrong to hate. Where does hate come from? Is it nature or nurture, is it response or protection, and is hate necessary?

The issue of hate, its origins, and its impact on human behavior is deeply ingrained in every one of us. As such, we see the topic of hate in both theological and philosophical discussions. Central to these discussions is the doctrine of total depravity, which suggests that humans are inherently sinful and inclined toward wrongdoing. 

In Jeremiah 17:9 we read, “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked:” Within traditional Christian thought, this concept has often painted human nature as fundamentally flawed, raising questions about the possibility of overcoming inherent tendencies like hate. 

However, the Anabaptist tradition offers an alternative framework. Anabaptist theologians such as Menno Simons and John Howard Yoder emphasized the possibility of transforming human nature through God’s grace, rejecting the idea that hate is an inevitable or inescapable part of the human condition. Instead, they proposed that love, peace, and reconciliation are not just ideals, but choices.

Similarly, Jewish thought also provides valuable insights into human morality. The Talmud suggests that the human heart is inclined toward both good and evil, implying that hate, while present in the world, is not a necessary or absolute response. So, where does hate come from, and is it a permanent aspect of human nature, or can it be resisted? These questions warrant further exploration from various perspectives on morality and choice.

Natural Law and Hate

The question of whether moral values are common — specifically, the presence of hate — reflects a complex intersection of natural law and societal influence. While certain moral principles such as the rejection of hate may be inherent within humanity due to natural law, the manifestation of hate itself is shaped both by biological instincts and learned behavior. This interplay between nature and nurture contributes to the social phenomenon of "othering," where fear and dehumanization fuel hostility toward perceived outsiders. Within the Christian faith, these dynamics are met with a transformative call for love and reconciliation, offering an alternative to hate through the perfect love of Christ.

The idea that moral values are universal or culturally relative is central to understanding hate. Christianity posits that certain moral values are written on the hearts of all humans, as seen in Romans 2:14-15: “For when Gentiles who do not have the Law instinctively perform the requirements of the Law, these, though not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience testifying and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,”

This verse suggests that human beings innately understand right and wrong, suggesting that hate, along with its antithesis, love, is universally recognized as destructive. However, cultural relativism posits that values, including those about hate, are not universal but shaped by social and cultural environments. The contrast of these viewpoints challenges us to consider whether our natural tendencies to hate are part of a universal human experience or merely a cultural construct.

The nature versus nurture debate plays a critical role in understanding how and why hate develops. From a biological perspective, hate could be considered an evolved response to perceived threats. Anthropologists suggest that early human beings might have developed a form of hostility toward outsiders as a survival mechanism. The instinct to protect one’s group against perceived external dangers may have played a role in the natural development of negative feelings toward "the other."

Conversely, the nurture perspective asserts that hate is a learned behavior. According to social psychologist John Dollard, “prejudice and hate are learned from societal interactions, particularly when individuals experience frustration or social conditioning that promotes fear and aggression towards others” [Dollard, "Frustration and Aggression," 1939]. 

The Bible acknowledges the natural presence of negative emotions like anger, but teaches that the true sin is how these emotions are acted upon. Matthew 5:21-22 states, “You have heard that the ancients were told, ‘You shall not murder,’ and ‘Whoever commits murder shall be answerable to the court.’ But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be answerable to the court; and whoever says to his brother, ‘You good-for-nothing,’ shall be answerable to the supreme court; and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.

This highlights that while emotions like anger (and by extension, hate) are inherent, they are not in themselves sinful — how they are acted upon is what truly matters. The transformative power of Christianity offers a higher calling: to confront hate with love, as modeled by Jesus Christ.

If you aren't familiar with the term,"Othering" is the process by which one group distinguishes itself from another, often leading to dehumanization. Edward Said's theory of "Orientalism" outlines how Western societies have historically constructed the East as “other,” which justified colonial domination and exploitation. This phenomenon is not just historical but remains prevalent today in various forms of social division based on race, religion, or nationality. 

The Bible, however, calls for unity rather than division. Galatians 3:28 clearly states: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” This verse calls Christians to break down the social divisions that often lead to hatred.

Hate often functions as a protective mechanism in response to fear. Psychologist M. Scott Peck argued that “Hate is not the opposite of love; it is an expression of fear.” Fear, whether it is of the unknown, the unfamiliar, or the perceived threat, can fuel hatred as a defense mechanism. 

The Bible speaks to the power of love to overcome fear in 1 John 4:18: “There is no fear in love, but perfect love drives out fear, because fear involves punishment, and the one who fears is not perfected in love..” This verse directly challenges the natural response of fear and hate, offering the Christian ideal that love is a stronger force that can dispel fear and its consequences. In the face of hate, the Christian call is not to reciprocate but to overcome hatred with love, which can bring healing to broken relationships and societies.

The question of whether moral values like hate are common brings to light a dynamic relationship between natural law and social constructs. The human inclination toward hate can be both innate and learned, with social and cultural factors heavily influencing its development. The Christian faith, through natural law and the teachings of Jesus, calls followers to a higher standard — confronting hate with love and offering reconciliation rather than division. 

---

Sources:

Dollard, John. Frustration and Aggression. Yale University Press, 1939.

Said, Edward. Orientalism. Pantheon Books, 1978.

The Holy Bible, New Amerocan Standard Bible, Romans 2:14-15, Matthew 5:21-22, Galatians 3:28, 1 John 4:18.

Total depravity, Hate, and Sin

The doctrine of total depravity holds that humanity’s moral capacity is thoroughly corrupted by sin, making individuals incapable of choosing good without divine intervention. This notion influences views on human hatred, which is often seen as a result of the fallen human condition. While some theologians of the Reformation, such as Luther and Calvin, emphasized human inability to overcome sin, including hatred, the Anabaptist perspective provides a counterpoint by focusing on the possibility of transformation through divine grace and the active pursuit of peace.

Before the Reformation, early Christian theologians like Augustine of Hippo articulated the idea of original sin, which Augustine described as corrupting the entire human nature. This corruption rendered humanity incapable of choosing good on its own. Augustine’s view deeply influenced both Luther and Calvin, who adopted and expanded on these ideas during the Protestant Reformation.

In his Bondage of the Will (1525), Martin Luther argued that human will was enslaved by sin, leaving individuals completely dependent on God’s grace for any possibility of salvation. He stated, “A person is completely in the power of sin and death… without any freedom to choose to do what is good.” [Luther, Bondage of the Will, 1525]. 

Luther’s understanding of total depravity tied human hatred directly to this fallen condition, suggesting that the capacity for hate was part of the human nature shaped by sin.

John Calvin in his Institutes of the Christian Religion also affirmed the concept of total depravity, though with a stronger emphasis on predestination. He believed that sin, including hate, was part of God's eternal plan, and that humans could do nothing to escape this fate apart from God's sovereign grace. Calvin argued that human nature was so thoroughly depraved that people were incapable of responding to God unless God first chose them for salvation. [Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 2, Chapter 1.]

While both Luther and Calvin shared a belief in total depravity, their views on human cooperation with grace differed. Luther believed that while the will was bound by sin, humans still had a role to play in responding to God’s grace. In contrast, Calvin’s theology emphasized the irresistibility of God’s grace, asserting that humans had no capacity to reject God’s call to salvation. For Calvin, hate, like all sin, was part of a divine plan that only God could alter.

I struggle with these views because I believe that Scripture emphasizes human agency more strongly. In this belief I reject the notion of irresistible grace and predestination.Instead, I believe that humans possess a free will, and we are free to respond to God. The reality of sin, including hate, is obvious; however, it is only through the Holy Spirit renewing our hearts and the accountability of community discipleship, that believers can actively resist sin and choose peace. As Menno Simons wrote, “Let us not think it sufficient to be just in words; let us show our hearts are renewed, and our minds transformed by our love, by our peaceable lives.” [Simons, The Complete Writings of Menno Simons, p. 111].

The Bible presents hate as a serious moral failure, deeply rooted in sin. Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 5:43-44 is clear: “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.” [Matthew 5:43-44, NASB]. Jesus calls believers to love and even pray for those who hate them, directly challenging any justification for hate.

In 1 John 3:15, hate is equated with murder: “Everyone who hates his brother or sister is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life remaining in him.” This link underscores the spiritual danger of hate and its potential to sever a person from eternal life with God.

Hate is not just a negative emotion but an active force that divides humanity and contradicts the love of Christ. This teaching serves to inform a Christian's commitment to non-violence and peacemaking. Through the work of the Holy Spirit, believers can overcome hatred, choosing instead to engage in radical forgiveness and reconciliation.

The Bible presents hate as not only a sin but as a spiritual barrier to salvation. For Anabaptists, overcoming hate is essential to discipleship. While total depravity is a reality, change is possible through the work of the Holy Spirit and the nurturing of a peace-oriented community. This stands in contrast to Calvinism, where human ability to overcome sin is often seen as entirely dependent on God’s sovereign choice.

Hate is something to be actively resisted, nurturing forgiveness and peace are central tenets of the Christian life. Matthew 18:21-22 encourages forgiveness as a continuous process, a practice central to the Anabaptist peace tradition. “Then Peter came up and said to Him, “Lord, how many times shall my brother sin against me and I still forgive him? Up to seven times?” Jesus said to him, “I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy-seven times. [Matthew 18:21-22, NASB]

The doctrine of total depravity has long shaped theological views on human nature, especially concerning hate and sin. While Luther and Calvin viewed hate as a direct result of humanity's fallen state, the Anabaptist tradition focuses on the work of the Holy Spirit and the active pursuit of peace, Anabaptists hold that hate does not define the believer’s life, and through grace, transformation is always possible.

---

Sources:

Luther, Martin. Bondage of the Will. 1525.

Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Book 2, Chapter 1.

Simons, Menno. The Complete Writings of Menno Simons. p. 111.

The Holy Bible, New American Standard Bible (NASB). Matthew 5:43-44, 1 John 3:15, Matthew 5:22, Matthew 18:21-22

Hate as a Choice 

Hate, while deeply ingrained in human nature and often associated with sin, remains a choice. Human beings are not enslaved to hate but can, through moral and spiritual growth, choose peace. Acknowledging hate as a choice brings about accountability and invites the possibility for Christian maturity. This perspective encourages individuals to rise above destructive emotions and choose love, which is central to the Christian faith.

Hate is often viewed as an inevitable emotional response to perceived harm or injustice, yet it need not be a necessary aspect of the human experience. While hate may seem instinctive or reactive in the face of betrayal, anger, or fear, the question arises whether it is truly necessary in the Christian life. Jesus Christ presented an alternative approach, teaching that hate is not a necessary response, even to real or perceived wrongs. In Matthew 5:44, He instructed, “But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,” [Matthew 5:44, NASB]

In light of this teaching, Anabaptists emphasize that hate is never a necessary choice for Christians. Even when faced with suffering or persecution, the call to non-violence and forgiveness provides a pathway that transcends hate. Menno Simons remarked, “It is not enough to confess the faith in words; it must also be seen in the deeds of love, kindness, and peace.” [Simons, The Complete Writings of Menno Simons] Hate, therefore, is not a moral inevitability but a sinful choice that can be overcome through the empowerment of God's grace.

Morality often dictates how people respond to conflict, and in many philosophical and religious traditions, hate is viewed as a moral failing or ethical weakness. In the Christian worldview, the Bible consistently encourages followers to resist hatred and instead foster attitudes of love and forgiveness. Romans 12:9-10 instructs, “Love must be free of hypocrisy. Detest what is evil; cling to what is good. Be devoted to one another in brotherly love; give preference to one another in honor,” [Romans 12:9-10, NASB] Here, the moral imperative is not to allow hate to define actions, but to pursue love in all circumstances.

Philosophically, hate is often seen as a destructive force that harms both the individual who harbors it and the community at large. According to pagan though, people such as Mahatma Gandhi, have said, “Hate the sin, love the sinner.” This echoes the Christian teaching of responding to evil with good rather than perpetuating cycles of hatred. Non-violence is both a moral choice and an ethical stance against hatred. While human nature is inclined toward sin, individuals have the power to choose love over hate, modeling the peaceable kingdom of God.

Philosophers have long debated whether hate is a natural instinct or a socially constructed response. Some, such as Friedrich Nietzsche, viewed hate as a force arising from human will, a response to feeling oppressed or weak. Nietzsche’s philosophy contends that hate can be channeled toward overcoming weakness and achieving strength. However, from a Christian standpoint, hate is not a virtue or a means of empowerment but rather a corruption of the soul. 

Augustine of Hippo wrote, “The one who hates has his own will, not the will of God.” [Augustine, City of God] This aligns with Christian teachings that promote Christ-like love as the true form of strength and the antidote to hate.

Hate is something that should be consciously rejected in favor of peacemaking. While philosophers and psychologists might view hate as an emotional or instinctual reaction, as Christians, we emphasize the moral responsibility to transcend such feelings, relying on God's grace to actively choose peace and reconciliation. Violence and hate are seen as counterproductive to Christian discipleship, and thus individuals are called to choose paths of love and reconciliation.

In Christian spirituality, maturity involves moving beyond the natural tendencies of the flesh, such as hatred, and toward the character of Christ. The Apostle Paul writes in Ephesians 4:31-32, “All bitterness, wrath, anger, clamor, and slander must be removed from you, along with all malice. Be kind to one another, compassionate, forgiving each other.” [Ephesians 4:31-32, NASB]. This verse outlines the process of spiritual growth that involves repenting from hatred and actively seeking to emulate the forgiving, loving nature of Jesus.

Christian maturity is closely tied to the practice of peacemaking and forgiveness, which are seen as essential marks of Christian character. Conrad Grebel, in a letter to Thomas Müntzer, said this,"Do your utmost in preaching the Word of God without fear. Set up and defend only the institutions that are of God. Count as precious only that which is good and right, only that which can be found in the pure, clear Scriptures. Then reject hate, and curse all proposals, all words, all opinion, and all institutions of all men, including your own." [Grebel, Conrad. Letter to Thomas Müntzer, September 5, 1524. In The Origins of Sectarian Protestantism: A Study of the Anabaptist View of the Church, by Franklin H. Littell. New York: Macmillan, 1964.]

In light of what we've read, hate becomes a choice — one that can be resisted through the active pursuit of peace and forgiveness, both of which are essential for spiritual growth and maturity. The doctrine of hate is central to Christian ethics, where it is viewed not as a necessary emotional response but as a sinful choice. While hate may arise from human nature, it is not inevitable, and it is the Christian’s calling to rise above such impulses through spiritual maturity. Whether in Romans, Matthew, or the writings of Anabaptist theologians, the Biblical mandate is clear: Christians must choose love over hate, pursuing peace and reconciliation as a reflection of the love Christ showed to us.

---

Sources:

Simons, Menno. The Complete Writings of Menno Simons.

The Holy Bible, New American Standard Bible (NASB). Matthew 5:44, Romans 12:9-10, Ephesians 4:31-32

Outro

In examining the doctrine of total depravity and its relationship with hate, it becomes clear that hate is not simply an inevitable product of human sinfulness.While the traditional doctrine suggests that hate may be inherent to human nature, the Anabaptist tradition calls for a more hopeful view, emphasizing the moral agency individuals have to choose love and peace. The teachings of Menno Simons and Conrad Grebel assert that, with God’s grace, humans can resist hate and live out the radical call to non-violence and reconciliation.

Felix Manz said, "Christ also never hated any one; neither did His true servants, but they continued to follow Christ in the true way, as He went before them."[Manz, Felix. Quoted in van Braght, Thieleman J. The Bloody Theater or Martyrs Mirror of the Defenseless Christians. Translated by Joseph F. Sohm. Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1950.]

Moreover, insights from Jewish thought, particularly the Talmud, confirm the idea that humans have the ability to choose between good and evil, highlighting that hate is a moral decision rather than an automatic response. Ultimately, the Christian journey toward maturity involves actively choosing love over hate, reflecting the message of Christ’s love, forgiveness, and peace in the world.